Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 08/06/1985
EDEN PRAIRIE • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TU:`ESDAY, AYGUST 6, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOARDROOM COJNCIL M:^13ERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, • George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and Paul Redpath CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie; Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Finance Director • John Frane; Planning Director Chris Enger; Director of Community Services Robert Lambert; Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • ROLL CALL. • I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS • II. MINUTES 41' A. Cily Council meeting held Tuesday, May ... 1965 Page I604 B. Special Joint City Council/Human Rights & Services Commission Page 1616 meeting held Tuesday, June 4 1985 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CITY WEST CONVENTION CENTER by the Kahler Corporation. 2nd Page 1620 Reading of Ordinance No. 39-84, Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service, with variances, for 5.5 acres for • a Hotel-Convention Center, Approval of Developer's Agreement for City West Convention Center, and Adoption of Resolution No. 85-187, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 39-84 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: Northeast quadrant of City West Parkway and County Road 61. (Ordinance No. 39-84 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 85-187 - Authorizing Sumary and Publication). B. AUTUMN WOODS 3RD ADDITION by Trumpy Homes. 2nd Reading of Page 1629 Ordinance No. 14-85, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 2.64 acres, RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 and 2.37 acres, Approval of Developer's Agreement for Autumn woods 3rd Addition, and Adoption of Resolution No. 85-139, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. I4-85 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 5.01 acres into twelve single family lots. Location: East of Highway #101, North 41 of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad. (Ordinance No. 14-85 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 85-139 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,August 6, 1985 C. PARKWAY APARTMENTS by Bar-Ett Construction Company. 2nd Reading Page 1636 of Ordinance No. 21-85, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 35.9 acres, Approval of Developer's Agreement for Parkway Apartments, and Adoption of Resolution No. 85-189, , Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 21-85 and Ordering Publication • of Said Summary. 35.9 acres into five lots for construction of five, 73-unit apartment buildings. Location: East of Mitchell Road and East of Chestnut Drive. (Ordinance No. 21-85 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 85-189 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) D. Request for Approval of Final Payment on Grading Franlo and Page 1645 Eden Valley Parks E. Request for Approval of Final Payment on Staring Lake Park Trail Page 1648 Phase III F. Request to Watershed District for Stream Water Maintenance of Page 1651 Riley Creek G. Clerk's License List Page 1652 H. Set Tuesday, September 3 1985, 6:00 PM, for Joint Meeting with the Historical & Cultural Commission I. Receive Petition for Street Improvements Adjacent to Eames Page 1563 Addition and Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Report, I.C.• . 52-082 (Resolution No. 85-176) Continued from 7/16/85 J. Receive 100% petition for creek crossing at Golden Triangle Page 1653 Drive and authorize preparation of plans and specifications, r-CT 52-081 Resolution No. 85-181) K. Receive 100% petition for street and utility improvements for Page 1656 Chestnut Drive extension into Parkway Apartment complex and authorize preparation of Mans and specifications, I.C.. S2-084 (Resolution No. 85-1821 L. Approve Special Assessment agreement with Mr. & Mrs. Marshall Page 1658 and authorize Mayor and Manager to execute document M. Final Plat approval for Paulsen's 2nd Addition (Resolution No. Page 1661 N. Final Plat approval for Shady Oak Center (Resolution No. 85-184) Page 1664 0. Change Order No. 2 Carmel Addition, 1_C. 52-059 Page 1667 P. Resolution No. 85-186, restricting park) on Preserve Boulevard Page 1668 between Anderson Lakes Parkway and Preserve Center Drive • Q. Request from Earl More Page 1669 City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,August 6, 1985 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HAMPTON INN by Eden Prairie Hotel Investors. Request for Page 1529 Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service T for 2.69 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a hotel. Location: West of Highway #169, South • of Valley View Road, East of Highway #5 (Ordinance N4. 24-85 - Rezoning) • B. HIGHWAY #101-VALLEY VIEW ROAD by the City of Eden Prairie. Page T682 Request for a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on six lots totalling 3.62 acres. Location: The northeast corner of Highway #101 and Valley View Road. (Ordinance No. 29-85 - Rezoning) • V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 21668 _ 22029 Page 1686 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS • A. Round Lake Surface Ordinance (Ordinance No. 28-85) Page 1695 VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from Ed Brion regarding t,ouse construction at Page 1698 • 6485 Grandview Avenue B. Grading revisions for Edenvale 9th Addition Page 1699 • C. Request for hearing date ty Welcome Home to appeal decision Page 1700 4 rendered July 25 ty the Board of Appeals & Adjustments on Variance i Request No. 85-26 4 D. Request from Christopher L. Kittler, City Curb Painting Service, Page 1721 to paint house numbers on steps or curbs in the City of Eden Prairie at the expense of property owners, and inquiring if the . City at a cost of $4.00 per house would contract with him to paint numbers on all houses in the City of Eden Prairie at City expense E. Request for hearing date of August 20, 1985 ty Midwest Asphalt Page 1723 Corporation to ppeal decision rendered July 11 ty the Board of Appeals & Adjustments on Variance Request No. 85-24 VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A. Recycling Advisory Committee Final Report Page 1728 IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & CONDIISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report, of City Manager 1. Bid tabulation for copier Page 1736 City Council Agenda . - 4 - Tues.,August 6, 1985 C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Miller Park Concept Plan Page 1737 • E. Report of Director of Public Works XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT. • • AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL & PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1985 6 P. M, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - BOARD ROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor: Gary Peterson Council Members: Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patriaa Pidcock, Paul Redpath COMMISSION MEMBERS: Marty Jessen, Chairperson; Raiford Baker, Pat Breitenstein, Moe Cook, Gary Gonyea, Jerry Kingrey, Charles Shaw •I. ROLL CALL • II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III...ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. Expectations of Council Regarding Commission Review of Developoment Projects • B. City Needs Study Committee Recommendations C. Philosophy of Council and Commission Regarding Continued Growth of the Park System Compared with Growth of the Community D. City Transportation Trail System . E. Updating the Comprehensive Park Plan F. Special Facility Needs - Purgatory Creek Area, Municipal Golf Course, Etc. G. Selection Process of Commission Members I V. ADJOURNMENT • • MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: July 24, 1985 SUBJECT: Letter of Transmittal - August 6, 1985 Special Meeting The Mayor and City Council have suggested at least annual meetings with each of the 0 Commission's to offer an opportunity for discussion on issues relating to each particular Commission. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission has suggested some dicussion on the items listed on the August 6th agenda. This memorandum will provide a brief introduction to each of these issues. A. Expectations of Council Regarding Commission Review of Development Projects The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission would like to briefly discuss City Council expectations of the Commission when reviewing development projects. This item was discussed with the Commission several years ago, however, the Commission and the Council have added several new members since that discussion. The existing policy of the Commission is to only review development proposals that have issues relating directly to parks, recreation needs, trails, or natural resource concerns. If, for example, a development proposal for an industrial site is being proposed in an area that has already been graded and the only issue may be sidewalks that the developer has already agreed to install, the Commission has not reviewed the proposal. Some Council's in the past have requested that the Commission review all development proposals submitted to the City. Staff would like the Council and Commission to confirm the existing policy. If there are any other questions regarding Commission recommendations on development f. proposals, they should be addressed at this time. B. City Needs Study Committee Recommendations The City Needs Study Committee made the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. Assumming the City can acquire the additional 30 acres at Miller Park without a referendum, and that the acquisition process would begin during the summer of 1985, the first referendum would be in the spring of 1986 for Preserve Firehall and three 1250 gallon pumpers and a new City Hall with acquisition of the • Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. • 2. Spring of 1987 a referendum for the development of Miller Park and a Community Center addition. 3. Sometime beyond 1988 a referendum for an additional Public Safety and Firehall needs. -2- The Committee also briefly addressed several needs that should be considered in the five to ten year period. Some of those needs are as follows: completion of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, acquisition and development of a municipal golf course, completion of the hikeway/bikeway trail system, construction of a Senior Citizen/Community Arts Center, and perhaps a field house and indoor sport arena. The Commission would like to discuss the recommendations of the City Needs Study Committee with the City Council at the August 6th meeting. C. Philosophy of Council and Commission Regarding Continued Growth of the Park System Compared with the Growth of the Community. The Commission and the Council in the past have supported continued acquisition of parkland prior to development. The Commission would like to discuss the City Council's philosophy regarding existing prioritises for developing the park system. D. City Transportation Trail System In 1983, the City Council agreed that cash park fees should not be used for the development of transportation trails i.e. either sidewalks or 8" asphalt trails along City streets and roads. This leaves the general fund or referendums as the only sources for funding these types of projects. The City continues to get requests from residents living mainly in the southeast and southwestern portions of Eden Prairie for completion of the trail along County Road 1. There is also some continued requests for the extension of the trail north along County Road 4 to Birch Island Park. The Commission would like to discuss the Council philosophy regarding funding these trail sections. E. Updating the Comprehensive Park Plan The Commission has been reviewing one to two chapters each month for updating the Comprehensive Park Plan. Upon final review of this document, it will be forwarded to the City Council for review and approval and ultimately to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. This document was last updated in 1979. The Commission requests direction from the Council regarding the approval process of this document. Does the Council consider this document a portion of the City Comprehensive Plan? If so, does this document require a public hearing at the City Council? F. Special Facility Needs t' The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission would like to discuss the status of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area with the City Council, as well as Council philosophy regarding other possible special facilities within the City such as a municipal golf course, etc. G. Selection Process for Commission Members Commission members requested a brief discussion with the City Council regarding the new selection process for Commission members. i. .:md UNAPPROVED MINUTES t EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, J ROOM 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath t CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to ! the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning Oirector Chris'Enger, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: all members were present I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Consent Calendar: II. J. Resolution No. B5-125, supporting approval of the Hennepin County Federal Aid Urban Project Submittal for a project within the City of Eden Prairie for 1987 - 1989 and II. K. Authorization to order an appraisal for the Gonyea Elderly Housing Site. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. BRYANT LAKE BUSINESS CENTER, PHASE II by Welsh Companies, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. B-85, Zoning District change from C-Regional to I-2 Park for 7.96 acres; approval of Developer's Agreement for Bryant 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/ware- house buildings. Location: south of Valley View Road, east of Market Place Drive. (Ordinance No. 8-85 - rezoning from C-Regional to I-2 Park and Resolution No. 85-99 - approving Ordinance Summary and Publica- tion) - continued from May 7, 1985. B. Final Plat approval for Red Rock Heights (Resolution No. 85-103) - continued from May 7, 1985 l..✓ City Council Minutes -2- May 21, 1985 C. Final Plat approval for Hoyt Roberts Addition (Resolution No. 85-12O) D. Eden Prairie Baseball Association Request E. Prairie East Neighborhood Petition for Additional Playground Equipment F. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 15-85, Amendment to Landscape 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 by City Manager in Emergency Situations H. Authorization for services from PACE Laboratories for training I. Final approval for MIDB's in the amount of $1,700,000.00 for H.B.P. Partnership (Resolution No. 85-124) J. Resolution No. 85-125, supporting approval of the Hennepin County Federal Aid Urban Project Submittal for a project within the City of Eden Prairie for 1987 through 1989 K. Authorization to order an appraisal for the Gonyea Elderly Housing Site MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt items A - K on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION - request for reconsideration of previous Council action. Peterson said it appeared the Council would very likely refer this matter to the Planning Commission for its review and, therefore, did not think it would be reasonable for the City Council to conduct a full Public Hearing at this time. He suggested there be a brief presentation by the proponent followed by pertinent comments of the residents after which the Council could decide whether or not to refer it to the Planning Commission based on the information presented. The Council concurred with this plan of procedure. City Manager Jullie indicated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the vicinity had been notified. He noted the Planning Staff had not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the amended PUD plan. Jullie said the requested number of units is within the range previously recommended by the Planning Commission but does exceed the Council's maximum of 208 units as determined on January 8, 1985. • /. t City Council Minutes -3- May 21, 1985 Mark Jones, Chimo Development Corporation President; Kathy Zuba, marketing specialist; Roger Freeberg, architect; and Fred Hoisington, planning con- sultant, addressed various aspects of the development. It was noted that the developers would like to think of this development as "up-scale", appealing to a segment of the market not previously considered. Hoising- ton pointed out that, with this new plan, traffic was encouraged to go north on Stonewood rather than on Cardinal Creek Road; this had posed a problem for Cardinal Creek residents in the past. He also noted that the units are now bigger and would rent for more. Bentley asked what the appropriate action would be on the part of the City Council in light of previous action taken by the Council and the Planning Commission. City Attorney Pauly noted that concept approval does not include any zoning action. It is not binding on any one. 1 In order for action to become binding, zoning approval, PUD development and platting must be considered and acted upon. Pauly said Council mem- bers may adopt some type of resolution regarding modification of the density question which had been previously approved; this would indicate • to the developer support or lack of support for the proposal. He said the developer, if support were to be shown, would have to apply via the Planning Department for zoning, development stage PUD approval, and platting. This would then go before the Planning Commission for "full treatment." 1 Art Roberts, 13543 Woodmere Circle, reviewed the common goals for the site (see attached). s Floyd Siefferman, Jr., discussed the site which the neighbors consider to be a "showcase" site and what is felt should be constructed here. } 4 Gordy Alexander, 6895 Sand Ridge Road, addressed the density issue. He said the Cardinal Creek neighbors would like the Council to affirm # the density resolution which was passed by the Council in January. l They do not feel this proposal should be sent to the Planning Commission 1 for its review. ) Bentely said he did not feel he had heard much regarding the rationale for the request from the proponents. Mark Jones said that further study of the market has determined a need for upscale apartments. He stated the denisty is necessary to pay for the south and west roadways. Jones said the request is for 20% more units than that which the Council had previously approved. Bentley said the Council is not deviating from the Comprehensive Guide Plan; what is shown on the Guide Plan presently is what is being requested. Planning Director Enger noted what changes had been made in this area i to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Bentley said he felt the issue before the Council was whether or not to reconsider previous action taken by the Council regarding the density issue. He said he had originally worked on a density in the range of 225 - 260 but in January he was bothered by the massiveness of the k buildings. He said he felt what had been shown this evening demonstrated 1 1 City Council Minutes -4- May 21, 1985 that the massiveness can be reduced. He said he felt it was a represen- tation of what can be done with that type of density. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and to reconsider the previous action of the City Council relative to the density on this site and to affirm the increase in the density by modifying the previous Council approval to a maximum of 249 units. Peterson said he implied at the beinning of the hearing that this item would go back to the Planning Commission for its review. He said he felt this was a new concept by the developer and as a result he would like to see it go before the Planning Commission. Pidcock concurred. Bentley said he felt the proponent would be unduly punished because these stages would all have to be republished which would be time consuming. Redpath agreed and noted the residents would still have the opportunity to respond to this matter when other requests come before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Roger Swigart, 13184 Cardinal Creek Road, indicated he felt more time should be given to the residents to present their case. He said 249 units was beyond the level of reasonable compromise. Bentley said he had no problem with this being referred to the Planning Commission but noted that the Planning Commission had already indicated that up to 288 units were appropriate for this site. Swigart said j that once 249 units are approved by the Council then that will become the magic number and is far in excess of what was previously approved. Redpath stated the number of units is a moot question because the site is "guided" for 10 units per acre. Jones said that no more than 249 units would be built, a number was necessary in order to get things under way. Siefferman said he would like to see larger units; he said the developer is moving in the right direction but has not moved far enough. Swigart said the density of the project is not diminished by separating the components of a large building by 30' or 40'; there is a visual density to be considered. He said that one of the objectives of the planning process is to put suitable types of housing next to what is already in place and is of comparable quality. O.J. Miller, 6521 Baker Road, said he felt the motion should be to reconsider the previous action taking into consideration the new density. He felt the opportunity for residents to comment should be a part of the process. Bentley said he felt there should be specific action and that a top number should be established which is less than that authorized under that zone and that this concept should be referred to the Planning Commission for its review and comment back to the Council. City Council Minutes -5- May 21, 1985 Pidcock said she would prefer to have the numbers left out of the motion. { Peterson stated that because this is a development concept, he did not feel it was necessary or appropriate to place a number on it. Bentley said he felt the only purpose for this Public Hearing was to reconsider the number of units. Redpath concurred. Anderson said he would like to see a mid-range considered. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY BENTLEY WITH THE CONSENT OF REDPATH. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and reconsider the previous action of the City Council relative to the density on this site and to affirm the increase in the density by modi- fying the previous Council approval to a range of 208 - 249 units with justification; and to send this matter to the Planning Commission for its review and comment. Motion carried unanimously. B. RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT V by Centex Homes, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 88 acres; Planned Unit Development Dis- trict 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, Drdinance 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) City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified. Tom Boice, President of Centex Homes, addressed the proposal. Planning Director Enger said this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 22, 1985, at which time it voted to recommend approval (5-0-1) subject to the recommendations included in the April 19, 1985, Staff Report. Bentley asked if the developer was responsible for putting in Cumberland Road. Enger said the developer had previously agreed to do that. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 85-116,approving the Ridgeweeod West Plat V Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall Ridgewood West- over Planned Unit Development. Motion carried unanimously. MDTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. PUD-2-85-16-85, rezoning. Motion carried unanimously, ieO City Council Minutes -6- May 21, 1985 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 85-117, approving the preliminary plat of Ridgewood West Plat V for Centex Homes, Inc. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to prepare an amendment to the prior Developer's Agreement per Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. C. THE OAKS BUSINESS CENTER by Steiner Development, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 16.86 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) City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified. • Greg Dumonceaux, architect, addressed the proposal. Also present was Tom Portnoy, President of Steiner Development. Dumonceaux stated the proponent would like to have a grading permit prior to 2nd Reading. Planning Director Enger said this proposal had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 22, 1985, meeting at which time the Commission voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the April 19, 1985, Staff Report. Director of Community Services Lambert noted the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed this at its May 6, 1985, meeting at which time it voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the April 19, 1985, Planning Staff Report and the May 2, 1985, Supplementary Report. Director of Public Works Dietz suggested that consideration be given to extending work on Valley View Road now in conjunction with Golden Triange Drive. He indicated the estimated costs could be ready for the next • meeting of the City Council. Anderson expressed concern as to the creek crossing and how it would serve pedestrians via the trail system. Lambert said the trail system parallels the creek but is removed from it because of the flood plain -- it jumps from high point to high point. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 85-118, approving the development of Planned Unit Development of The Oaks Business Center for Steiner Development. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 17-85, rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. C City Council Minutes -7- May 21, 1985 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 85-119, approving the preliminary plat of The Oaks Business Center for Steiner Development, Inc. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement per Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. Peterson asked for comments regarding the issuing of a grading permit prior to 2nd Reading of the Ordinance. Enger stated Staff could have the Developer's Agreement ready for the next meeting of the City Council. He noted there is no request for a grading permit before the City at this time. Portnoy said there is a need to proceed due to time constraints; a tenant must occupy a portion of one of the buildings by October 1st. Portnoy said the developer is prepared to indemnify the City in any way necessary. Dietz indicated consideration should be given regarding the grading plan in light of the Valley View Road issue; he said Valley View Road is scheduled to be lowered about 5' and this will have an impact on the property to the north. Portnoy said the proponent would like to see this project completed. Enger said the proponent would be required to put up snow fences during the construction process and there would be other constraints. The proponent would have to have about a week's worth of work prior to any grading being done on the site. Bentley said he did not look kindly on granting grading permits prior to 2nd Reading. Anderson concurred with Bentley. Anderson asked what recourse the City would have should a permit be granted early. City Attorney Pauly said the project would be secured by a bond or a letter of credit. Peterson said he would suggest the process continue in its normal manner. Enger said Staff would have all the preliminary work ready to go for the next Council meeting. IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 20176 - 20463 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 20176 - 20463. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath, and Peterson voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. V. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS There were none. • } City Council Minutes -8- May 21, 1985 VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Lueck sewer/water connection fee. Request for Hearing as to amount. City Manager Jullie explained the issue before the Council is the payment of connection fees for sanitary sewer and water. Director of Public Works Dietz addressed his memorandum of May 2, 1985. Dietz gave an overview of the problem as well as background as to the reason the Luecks had requested a Hearing. Pat Lueck, 6381 Duck Lake Road, introduced his attorney, George Hoff. Hoff noted the Luecks have 1.4 acres on Duck Lake Road. In December of 1984 Ann Lueck called the City and indicated they would like to l connect to City services and was told it would cost was $1,000.50; she asked if "they" were sure that was the amount and was assured that was correct. Mrs. Lueck went to City Hall on December 20, 1984, and obtained a permit and an invoice for a cost of $1000.50. The Luecks then spent approximately $3,000 to have a plumber make the connection. { In mid-January the Luecks received an invoice from the City for $74D0. i Hoff quoted Sec. 3.07 of the City Code which states: No permit shall be issued until connection fees are made. Hoff said it was his opinion that procedures of the City were not followed. He said his client had i checked and rechecked the cost of the connection before going ahead and making the connection. Hoff questioned the manner in which the $7400 { fee was determined. City Attorney Pauly said Code provision 3.07 was adopted by the City according to State Statutes. Pauly reviewed the 1 Code provisions and City procedure. Pauly said an error had been made by the City in not obtaining payment of the fee. Dietz responded as to how the $7400 assessment was determined. There was discussion as to what Lueck presumed to be the hook-up fee once the sewer and water services were available in this area of the City. i Bentley said he felt the problem was one of confusion. He asked if the Ordinance was valid. City Attorney Pauly said it was. Bentley asked if the fee imposed was a fair one based upon the Ordinance, Dietz said it was. Bentley asked if the imposition of the fee was done according to the Ordinance. Pauly said he believed it was. Bentley asked if any- thing was done on the part of the City to preclude the issuance of this connection. Pauly said no. Bentley said the City must sustain the fee in 1 order to preserve the Ordinance in the future. There was discussion as to what might be done and what might be acceptable to the Luecks to resolve this matter without setting a precedent which would be harmful to the City. Bentley asked if the City had the right to make an adjustment. Pauly said an adjustment can be made only on the assertion of a claim against the City. Pauly said he would like to be -$ more convinced that an error has been made. TI City Council Minutes -9- May 21, 1985 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to continue action on this item to June 4, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consider petition_for pavinj Crestwood Terrace between CSAH 1 and Maplewood Estates TResolution No. 85-121) Director of Public Works Oietz reviewed the reason for this request and called attention to his memorandum of May 10, 1985. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No. 85-121, relating to I.C. 52-079, Crestwood Terrace Paving between CSAH I and Maplewood Park Estates. Motion carried unanimously. VII. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of member to the Citizen Advisory Committee to review Community Oevelopment Block Grant proposals MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to appoint Timothy Whitten to the Citizen Advisory Committee to review Community Oevelop- ment Block Grant proposals. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. REPORTS OF AOVISORY COMMISSIONS There were none. IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOAROS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members There were none. B. Report of City Manager There was none. C. Report of City Attorney City Attorney Pauly stated he had received a letter from Mr. Kitner regarding the Tech III Industrial Revenue Bonds. One of the tenants has declined to furnish certificates as to the amounts of capital expenditures for prior issues which are under tax exempt bonds and, accordingly, a qualified opinion would have to be given. Pauly said the net effect is that it is unknown whether or not the bonds would be tax free. Steve Hoyt, representing Hoyt Oevelopment, addressed the problems they are having in attempting to get their tenant to sign the necessary papers since Loonam is a subsidiary of Abnet, Inc., and Abnet's comptroller wants to carefully review the papers prior to signing them as he has indicated he has never seen anything like this before. City Attorney Pauly said he did not think it appropriate to deviate from past practice. Bond counsel, Kent Ritchie, spoke to the issue and said there would be no risk to the City as that would be assumed by Hoyt and the lender. J^, t\ City Council Minutes -10- May 21, 1985 Finance Director Frane said he agreed with City Attorney Pauly. He said some degree of consistency must be maintained. He said he did agree with Hoyt and Ritchie in that the City has very little liability; if there were a problem Hoyt would be left "holding the bag." Peterson asked if the City could allow the proponent to proceed if the City were assured there was no liability on the part of the City and if it were assured that the lending agency was aware of this. Pauly said this has been pending for a long time; he did not know of any liability off hand. He asked if the City wanted to be associated with procedures that are deficient and/or with a problem which might arise as a result. Pidcock said she could agree to this if the lending agency would go along with this. Anderson said he would follow the advice of the City Attorney. Redpath asked what would happen to the lease if there were no action tonight. Hoyt said there would be a cash problem because the transaction could not be closed. Redpath asked how many buildings Hoyt had .in the City in which tax exempt financing was used. Hoyt said three. Redpath asked if there had been any problems with any of them. Frane said there had not been. Pauly said he was uncomfortable with this particularly since it was an "eleveth hour" plea. Hoyt said he was merely asking the City for accom- modation. MDTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Redpath, to allow Hoyt to close his transaction with the stipulation that the City be indemnified and that the lending institution provide the City with a letter indicating full awareness of the situation. Motion carried with Anderson and Bentley voting "no." D. Report of the Director of Community Services • 1. Anderson Lakes Outlet Director of Community Services Lambert indicated there was a request before the Council regarding an outlet to Anderson Lakes. Lambert k called attention to his memorandum of May 2, 19B5, and to a letter to the City from Brian Borg, City of Bloomington. Lambert said this matter had been discussed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission at its May 6, 1985, meeting at which time it voted to recommend the City participate in this proposal. Lambert stated this probably would be required when work is done on County Road 18. He suggested that this be paid out of the general fund 1 reserves over a three-year period. Lambert also recommended the City participate subject to getting some type of commitment from 1 City Council Minutes -11- May 21, 1985 the City of Bloomington as to a minimum water elevation in Anderson Lakes and that the City of Bloomington contact Hennepin County and request that it participate in the program. Bentley asked what the cost would be to the City. Lambert said it would be $16,320 if five agencies were to participate. Lambert said if the City of Bloomington were not able to commit to a minimum lake level then the matter should come back to the City Council. Anderson said he was glad to see something being done. Redpath questioned why the Watershed District was not more involved; he also suggested that Hennepin County pick up a bigger portion of the cost. Pidcock concurred. The consensus of the Council was to request the City of Bloomington to commit to a minimum water elevation in Anderson Lakes and to request the City of Bloomington contact Hennepin County to request its participation and that the Watershed District be requested to participate to a greater extent in this project. E. Report of Finance Director 1. IDR Guidelines Finance Director Frane addressed his memorandum of May 15, 1985, in which the charges for tax exempt financing were suggested. Bentley said he felt the nature of what is needed in a community was not addressed in the guidelines which were presented. Anderson said he felt the City was reaching its capacity in the area of office/warehouse buildings. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the MIDB Guidelines as presented in Frane's memorandum of May 15, 1985 (I & II.) Wally Hustad, Sr. expressed concern about the fact that specific high-priority needs of the City were not spelled out. Bentley said that prior to coming up with specific uses, the Council would have to go through some type of process to arrive at these uses. Bentley said his prior comment had to do with job creation more than types of land uses. Anderson said he felt the Council must find time to spend talking about the direction it wishes the City to go, VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -12- May 21, 1985 X. NEW BUSINESS • There was none. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the meeting at I2:22 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1985 6:00 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and Paul Redpath HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMMISSION: Doug Beardlsey, Woodrow Bjork, William Jackson, Margaret "Peg" Johnson, Elizabeth Kelley, Leslie Thoreson and James D. Van Horn CITY STAFF: Human Services Coordinator Jan Calhoun, Director of Community Services Bob Lambert, City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael. (Also present was Gerry Beckman, PROP.; I. ROLL CALL All members of the Council and of the Commission were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. III. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. Role of Commission Commission Chair Kelly gave an overview of the role of the Commission over the years. She noted the Commission was formed in May of 1968 about the time the State Civil Rights Act was adopted; issues at that time were more civil oriented. In 1976-77 the Louise Whitbeck Fraser Homes were presenting their plans to the City and the impact of group homes was the issue. A Community-based Services Board was set up with the purpose of assisting all supervised residential programs and social rehabilitiation programs by providing a conduit for resolving problems and integrating the homes into the community. In late 1977 the Human Rights Commission changed its name to the Human Rights and Services Commission and its emphasis from civil rights concerns was changed to more humanistic issues. By I979 needs were growing and agencies were beginning to request funding and wanted to be located in Eden Prairie. The Commission determined guidelines and defined . needs for long range ideas were necessary. South Hennepin Human Services Council was asked to use its resources and develop a study which would inventory the agencies, establish priorities for funding, reduce duplica- tion of services, and document unmet needs. In 1980 the "No-fault Grievance* Joint Meeting Minutes -2- June 4, 1985 ?. process was established to negotiate cases at the local level which i would, in turn, reduce the case load at the State level. From 1981 - 1983 the Commission focused on implementation of the findings of the Comprehensive Study. The Commission is presently dealing with the information derived from the 1980 census as well as with demographic information relating to Eden Prairie's development. Woodrow Bjork reviewed the City Code provisions covering the Commission. He noted that sections A, B and C are clear and the Commission has no questions regarding them, The Commission would like to have Section D clarified. Sections E and F are ok. Sections G - Q deal with group homes. The role of the Commission has expanded over the years and those areas should be included. Doug Beardsley gave an overview of the types of issues the Commission has dealt with during the past year including child care, decentralization of mental health facilities, Meals ala car, low income housing, summer employment, elderly housing projects and the no-fault grievance process. He noted the target areas which had been developed by the Commission (see attached.) Leslie Thoreson spoke to a specific example -- the Prairie Village Apart- ments -- and how the Commission had experienced a great deal of confusion because it was not involved in the review process from the beginning. The Commission wishes to be involved in the process from the beginning and } not as an afterthought. The Commission would like to be the initiator of guidelines and asked the Council if this would be an appropriate role. Jim Van Horn addressed the issue as to how the Commission is working on solutions and ideas as to its scope. The Commission would like some 1 overall direction from the Council; it would like to see the Code updated, with the sections dealing with group homes tempered; it would like to review elderly housing needs in light of the Metropolitan Council's goals and could foresee the need for the expertise of a housing specialist from time to time; and the Commission would like to have a checklist of things the Council would like to see it deal with. i Mayor Peterson complimented the Commission for its very well thought out s presentation. '4 Redpath related his experiences with attempting to help an elderly individual find housing in Eden Prairie. I Bentley said he felt the Commission should, by all means, be the initiator 1 of guidelines; the Commission should always feel it can look at things be- cause its recommendations will come back to the Council. He felt revising p. the City Code was a good idea. Bentley expressed concern about the tletro- politan Council's plans for dispersion of elderly housing, group homes, etc. particularly in light of Federal cutbacks. The validity of this concept 1 must be reviewed -- can the City handle the levels that are expected by the Metropolitan Council based on the services we are able to provide. i Joint Meeting Minutes -3- June 4, 1985 Kelly said the Commission would like to put together guidelines for elderly housing. She wondered if there would be money available to hire a consultant to aid in this process. Bentley stated that sometimes the City can ask a developer to pay for a study when the Council feels it is a part of the process. He also noted there is a reserve in the City budget which is retained for items such as that which was suggested. Anderson said he regards this Commission as the conscience of the City. 1 He said he knows there is a need for housing for those confined to wheelchairs. Anderson expressed a concern about the need for infant day care. He also said there is a need for something for kids to do in the summer. Peterson asked who takes the initiative when it comes to reviewing development proposals in light of human rights/services and at what point does the Commission review housing for the elderly proposals. Calhoun stated the Commission had reviewed the Prairie Village apartment proposal just prior to 2nd Reading. Redpath said that several years ago the Council had talked about how long the City's review process takes and it was determined that only the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission would review proposals unless a real need was demonstrated. Peterson said he would appreciate the Commission's comments on proposals it felt warranted its review. 4 Pidcock said she felt the Commission should be able to act rather than react. A Bentley said he would like to see the Commission provide the Council with a periodic update on trends in the community such as discrimination, sexual harassment, etc. He said he would like to have the City Council apprised as to what is going on and where the problems might lie. Anderson asked what the City's responsibility is regarding harassment and discrimination. Calhoun said the City does not have a sexual harassment policy. Anderson asked if the City needs such a policy. Beardsley said yes. Jackson said this would then bring the City in compliance with State law. City Manager Jullie said the City is governed by the State Department of Humans Rights regarding this. He said it would be a good idea to have a written policy so the City would be fully covered and would not be operating in a vacuum. Anderson suggested the Commission review a sexual harassment policy and forward it to the Council. Bjork noted the community is experiencing great growth as indicated by the census. The Commission feels a little uneasy because Eden Prairie is known for its quality of life and the Commission feels that the services expected by the residents must be provided. He said he feels this Commission is more important than anyone realizes. Pidcock said she would like to see the Commission develop guidelines and that proposals which have human service concerns should go before this Commission. Jullie noted that the City cannot request a developer to do more than what is required by State Statutes and Codes, l�.�r Joint Meeting Minutes -4- June 4, 19B5 Peterson said the City must look at whether or not something is regulatory vs. advisory. Redpath said he would like to see the Commission look into the battering problem. Bentley said he would like to hear more on what the Commission feels should be done regarding drug awareness and communication regarding this within the community. Anderson said he felt there was a definite gap in the community when it comes to what is available for kids in the summer time. Calhoun stated that has been an on-going discussion item. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to work with the Commission to draft new Code provisions. Motion carried unanimously. • MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to work with the Commission in determining study needs, consultant services needs, and possible funding needs. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to direct all City issues relative to the identified target areas to the Human Rights and Services Commission prior to Council review. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to ask the Commission to provide the Council with periodic updates on the human rights and services needs and trends in the community; and to review a sexual harassment policy for the Council's consideration. Motion carried unanimously. Peterson thanked the Commission on behalf of the Council. Kelly thanked • the Council on behalf of the Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. V • City West Convention Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 39-84 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LANO IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY•COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. • Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be ? removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Commercial Regional Service District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Commercial Regional Service District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of s. that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of August 6, 1985, entered into between the Kahler Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, and that certain Owners' Supplement to Developer's Agreement dated as of August 6, 1985, entered into between Anderson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement and Owners' Supplement are hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 5th day of June, I984, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 6th day of August, 1985. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of . 'tic i1n r• ' Exhibit A CITY WEST CONVENTION CENTER That part of Outlot 8, CITY WEST, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southwesterly of the following described . line: Commencing at the most southeasterly corner of said Outlet 8; thence North 35 42'37" East, along the southeasterly line of said Outlot B, a distance of 85.34 feet to the easterly line of said Outlot B; thence North 0 13'23, West, along the easterly line of said Outlot B; a distance of 6Q8.74 feet to the southeasterly line of said Outlot B; thence North 48 44'29" East, along the southeasterly line of said Outlot.B,a distance of 390.00 feet to the point of . beginning of line to be described; thence North 40'25'04" 'lest a distance of 684.83 feet to the westerly line of said Outlot 8 and there said line terminated. and lying northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the most southeasterly corner of said Outlet 8; thence North 35°42'37" East, along the southeasterly line of said . Outlot B, a distance of i5.34 feet to the easterly line of said Outlot B; thence North 0 13'23" West, along the easterly line of said Outlot B, a distance of 98.7i feet to the southeasterly line of said Outlot B(thence North 48 44'29"•East, along the southeasterly . line of said Outlot B, a distance of 86.79 feet to the point of .beginning of line to be described; thence North 69 58'50" West a distance of 305.04 feet to the westerly line of said Outlot 8 and there said line terminates. Together with that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the most southeasterly corner of said Outlot 8; thence North 35 42'37" East, along the southeasterly line of said Outlet B, a distance of 85.34 feet to the easterly line of said Outlot B; thence North 0 13'23" West, along the easterly line of said Outlot B. a distance of 98.74 feet to the southeasterly line of said Outlot B; thence North 48°44'29" East, along the southeasterly line of said Outlot B, a distance of 86.79 feet to the point of beginning of land to be described; thence North 48'44'29" East along the southeasterly line of said Outlot 8, a distance of 303.21 feet; thence South 40 25'04" East a distance of 17.04 feet; thence South 46 56'37" West a distance of 288.80 feet to the intersection • of a line beans() South 69 58'50" East from the point of beginning; thence North 69 58'50" West a distance of 29.76 feet to the point of beginning. • • • City West Convention Center DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by and between the Kahler Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" • WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for zoning from Rural to Commercial Regional Service for approximately 5.5 acres, for construction of a hotel/convention center, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said entire 5.5 acres hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #39-84, developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated May 22, and May 24, 1984, reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 5, 1984, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to issuance of any permit for any grading or construction upon the property, proponent shall: A. Obtain and provide to the City an executed cross-parking easement with the owners of the property to the north. This cross-parking easement shall provide opportunity for shared parking of an additional 100 stalls for evening hour use. B. Access to the property shall be limited to a full access at the center of the property and a full access at the southern boundary of the property, said southern access to be shared 3 with the office building to the south. Developer agrees that no further access will be requested by Developer, nor shall City allow additional access to the property. It shall be the responsibility of Developer and owners of the office building to the south to reconstruct the median cut according to City specifications for the shared access at the south end of the property. Further, a curb cut access agreement shall be executed and given to the City and said access agreement shall prohipit access from the northern end 1 of the property, limiting the property to two access points 1 as stated above and as depicted on Exhibit B. 4. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the property, Developer shall submit to Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of: A. Revised grading plan showing the grades to conform to the property to the north and the- property to the south, and also provide for proper drainage within the parking area, with grades not to exceed six per cent in the parking area. Grades at entrances to City West Parkway shall not exceed two per cent within 50 ft. of the curb cut. B. Revised site plan which provides for sidewalks located along City West Parkway, connecting with the walkway system for the property to the north, and the shared parking area to the north, and connecting with the parking lot to the south. • C. Revised site plan which provides for direct vehicular access to the parcel to the north. Upon approval of said plans by the Director of Planning, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer shall: A. Submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of the following: 1) Plans for the overall signage for the entire development. 2) Plans showing exterior materials and colors for the structure, which shall be compatible with the developments to the north and south of the property within the overall City West Planned Unit Development. 3) Lighting plans, showing the type, color, and height • fig,? • • of parking lot lights to be used, and indicating compatibility with the developments to the north and south of the property within the overall City West Planned Unit Development. Developer shall provide lighting of the street accesses. 4) Plans showing all mechanical equipment for the structure to be screened. Said equipment shall be consolidated for the convention building, as depicted in Exhibit B, and screened with material architecturally compatible with the building. Any mechnical equipment or. top of the hotel tower, is prohibited, unless screened with a parapet wall. 5) A detailed landscaping plan, including sight sections and sight line studies from Highway #169 and City West Parkway, conforming with City Ordinances, which effectively screens the parking and loading areas from the public roadways. The landscaping plan shall include screening of all the parking lot areas and, as a minimum, Vs inch shade trees, with a 2-3/4-inch average diameter, and as a minimum, six-foot evergreen trees, with a 611 foot • average, must be included. The plantings adjacent to the building shall be of a size to provide scale for the building plan. The loading area must be screened from public view with the use of landscaping and a screen wall. The loading dock area, itself, must be completely enclosed. Upon approval of said plan by the Director of Planning, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the Director. B. Submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer for the property as depicted on Exhibit B. A complete catch basin and storm sewer plan shall be prepared to avoid any direct sheet flow of storm water off the parking lot. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. C. Submit to the Fire Marshall, and receive the Fire Marshall's approval of building plans for'any structure to be built upon the property. Upon approval by the Fire Marshall, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed those improvements required by the Fire Marshall in accordance with applicable City Code sections. • 4 • D. Obtain the necessary permits for work within the right—of- way of Shady Oak Road from Hennepin County Highway Department and within the right-of-way of Highway #169 from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 6. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 7. Developer acknowledges that the property will benefit from any future improvements to Shady Oak Road in the vicinity of City West and agrees to pay its fair share of the corresponding special assessments. 8. Developer shall become a member of the City West Owners' Association. OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN KAHLER CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by and between Anderson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owners," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as "City:" For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #39-84 changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner from Rural to Commercial Regional • Service as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1985, by and between the Kahler Corporation, and City, Owners agree with the City as follows: 1. If the Kahler Corporation, fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property. 3. If the Owners transfer such property, owners shall obtain an agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT, INC. • Richard W. Anderson, resident STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) City West Convention Center CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESDTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-187 A RESDLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 39-84 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 39-84 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 6th day of August, 1985; NOW, THfREFDRE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL DF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 39-84, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a • body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in • Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance . shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 39-84 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, • within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 6, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 39-84 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT ANO PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located north of Shady Oak Road and east of City West Parkway, known as City West Convention Center, from the Rural District to the Commercial Regional Service District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Drdinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1985. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) kaO ,F . • Autumn Woods 3rd Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 14-85 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENOING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural and RM-6.5 District and be placed in the R1-9.5 District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural and RM-6.5 District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-9.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 18, 1985, entered into between Trumpy Homes, and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its • passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 7th day of May, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 18th day of June. ' ATTEST: • • John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor • PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News nn the _ __ day of • I • . Exhibit A • Legal Description I a, RN 6.5 TO R1-9.S That part of Outlet J, Autumn Woods 1st Addition according to the plot thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of said Outlot J. thence on , an assumed bearing of North, along the west lino of said Outlet a, a distance of 387.94 feet; thence South 84 degrees 42 • minutes 26 seconds East a distance of A7.00 feet; thence South 04 degrees 15 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 47.00 feet; thence South 84 degrees 28 minutes 26 seconds East a distance of 132.74 feet, thence easterly a distance of 140.27 feet along e a tangential curve concave to the North having a radius of 423.74 feet and a central angle of 18 degrees 57 minutes 53 • seconds; thence South 13 degrees 26 minutes 44 seconds East, nontangont to said curve, a distance of 160.43 feet to.the southeasterly line of said Outlet J; thence South 61 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds West, along said southeasterly line, a . . distance of 458.38 feet to the point of beginning. 1 1. • RURAL TO R1-9.5 .. 1 • That part of Outlet A, Autumn Woods 1st Addition, according to the plat er, Ilennepinilcounty ofMinnesotan lyingffeasterlyh e ofouthe Recorder, • • • following described linen Commencing at the most westerly corner of said Outlet• A, thence 3 on an assumed bearing of North 5C degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, along. the northwesterly thee[pointne ofof said beginningtoftthe lines to be J. of 30bed; fhen tq described; thence South 8 degrees 41 minutes 30 seconds West a distance s t 0celo A aof73.69tfeet,tmore orlloss, to the southerly line of sal Also, • Range22, Hennepin County, Minnesota 11 That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Slying oothwerly ofthy the southerly li ne of nym rly AuAutumnrWoodsGr1st Additioon, all tlaccording dt n the hplats rthereof on file and of record In the office f the felCounty Recorder, Hennepin County, Mluno;;ota and easterly of said Autumn Commencing; at the most westerly corner of Outlet A,Woods 1st Addition; thence on an assumed bearing of North 50 degrees 21 minutes ;: sccen`t" Last a distnee of 1US.80 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence k lo 3.86 frets, Omor.et deees 41 1u d :outherly East linedistance RynarlandlCamp and there terminattng. • RURAL TO R1-9.5 . Outlet C, Airman Wand.. Lit AltItins, according to the plat thereof on file and of record iu the office of the County Resumer, Ranneptn Couni.y, Minnerot.1. . Autumn Woods 3rd Addition DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT l 3 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1985, by and between TRUMPY HOMES, INC., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City;" { WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for approval of a zoning district change from Rural to R1-9.5 for 2.64 acres and from RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 for 2.37 acres, totalling 5.01 acres, and preliminary plat of 5.01 acres into twelve single family lots, located south of Rymarland Camp Additions, North of the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad, and southwest of Paulsen's 2nd Addition, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, said entire 5.01 acres hereinafter referred to as the "property;" and, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. 14-85, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development and maintenance of the property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated June 13, 1985, reviewed and approved by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 7, 1985, and attached hereto as Exhibit 8, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developers shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, the Developer shall enter into a special assessment agreement for the construction of Dell Road adjacent to and through the property. The agreement will I iD ) f • be consistent with the May, 1981 Agreement between the City and Dennis Truempi which limits assessments to the property to $25.00 per front foot along portions of Dell Road to be improved. 4. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of the following: A. Detailed drainage and erosion control plans, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, and street plans. B. Detailed storm water run-off plans, as a temporary solution, to carry storm water run-off to the swale along the railroad tracks. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developers agree to construct or implement, or cause to be constructed or implemented, those improvements listed above, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 5. Developers agree to notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours prior to grading, or tree removal on the site. 6. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property within the construction limits. Developer shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within the wooded areas prior to any grading upon the property. In the event that any trees located outside of the construction limits are removed, damaged, or destroyed, the Developer agrees that, prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a replacement plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area. Developer further agrees that said trees shall be replaced by similar tree species, diameter inch for diameter inch (i.e. a Red Dak 12 inches in diameter may be replaced by three Red Oaks four inches in diameter). The trees used for replacement shall be no less than three inches in diameter. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of 'a housing development plan, keying specific unit types to lots in accordance with City policy. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall implement, or cause to be implemented, those plans listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning. j� ten! v9.3+' i,. 8. Concurrent with building construction, Developer agrees to construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the Paulsen Drive extension through the property as depicted on Exhibit B. 9. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, the Developer shall deliver an Agreement to Enter Into a Temporary Easement for construction purposes over Lots 23 and 24. The area of the temporary construction easement shall not exceed that shown on the attached Exhibit D. Further, the temporary easement shall not exceed a period of six (6) months. As party to the Agreement, the City shall agree to restore all disturbed surfaces promptly at the expiration of the temporary easement or at the conclusion of the construction, whichever occurs first. Restoration shall mean the installation of sod on all slopes and any necessary grading. Further, during the period of construction, the City shall install appropriate erosion control devices to limit any erosion during the construction period to a minimum. The Developer shall have the opportunity to review and approve plans for restoration and temporary erosion control. Autumn Woods 3rd Addition { CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-139 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 14-85 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 14-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 18th day of June, 1985; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 14-85, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available far inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 14-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 18, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 14-85 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located east of Highway #101, North of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad, known as Autumn Woods 3rd Addition, from the Rural and RM-6.5 Districts to the R1-9.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: is/John D. Frane is/Gary D. Peterson • City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the — day of , 1985. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) YII nC Parkway Apartments CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 21-85 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND 1 IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the RM-2.5 District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the RM-2.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph 8, shall be, and are amended accordingly. 1 Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and J .Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety,.by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of August 6, 1985, entered into between Bar-Ett Construction Company, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from'and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 18th day of June, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 6th day of August, 1985. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of . • / 4^ ,)...) �- • %1 • 4 t : Z . \\\\ - o • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION W \\V. C..) ' • That part of the. North ' of the Southeast t of the Southwest .of Section IS, \\ Township 116, ranee 22 and of the South 1 of the Neriheast 1 of the Southwest 3.of sail Sect tau IS, Hennepin County, tlinnes.La dcscrnhv.l as follows; \ Deplaning of the Southwest corner of said North 1.; throat on an assured \ bearing of ':.•rob 0 degrees, 44 minutes, 44 seconds East al,•trg the Nest' 1 line of said North 54 distance of I115 loot; th.•noe South 89 degr,ves, \ IS minutes, 16 seconds Last • distance of 95 feet; thence north 0 degrees. 44 minutes, 44 .....,,nuts Fast 115 'feet; thnare South 89 degrees, 15 minutes, • ee \ • lb seconds East 30 lout; thence North 0 degrs, 44 minutes 44 seconds t • Last 110 rev.; thence North 63 degresv, 44 minutes, 44 seconds fast 194.5. \‘' feet; thence 4ertheesterly 248.15•fact along a uontangeatial curve concave. to the Southeaat having a radius' of 1241.50 feet auJ a ch.rrd bearing of North 24 degrees, lb mnwtea 35 seconds West; thence South 69 J.:gre.•s. 43 minutes. 52 seconds west 141.88 fret; thence SuLhw•sLsriy along a temp gential serve to the right, having • radius of 405 feet to to we►t line t of the East % of the S.,,Llweat t of Section 15; thence North along said ` Vest lice 1O.the Nertiwesf corner of said booth 4; thane.• Past to the Northr•s'l'♦otueEtyh amid &Patin 31.thence South to the Southeast corner of. • \\, .- said North „ thence Weal to cite point of beginning. Except read and except that part of the South 1 of the Northeast 1 of the Southwest t of said Section 15 lying nhrtherly of Chestnut nrive and westerly of Anderson Lakes Parkway. • • � \d 1.. :4:. 4,....,,,:•••00 li:. .•- ( Ii 1� • Parkway Apartments i, DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT E THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1985, by BAR-ETT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City;" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developers have applied to City for zoning district change from • Rural to RM-2.5 for 35.9 acres for 375 apartment units in five structures, and I { preliminary plat of 35.9 acres into five lots and road right-of-way, located at the intersection of Anderson Lakes Drive and Chestnut Drive, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, said entire 35.9 acres hereinafter referred to as the "property;" and, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. 21-85, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development and maintenance of the property as follows: i 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated , 1985, reviewed and approved by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 2, 1985, and • attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Concurrent with and as part of the final plat, Developer agrees to ,( convey to the City that part of the property shown as floodplain on Exhibit B, attached hereto. t; Z- • Developer shall not grade, or construct, or cause there to be grading, or construction, upon that part of the property shown as floodplain on Exhibit B. 4. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, Developer agrees to . submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's . approval of detailed grading, stormwater run-off, and erosion control plans. � Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in 1 accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto, as approved by the City Engineer. 1 • 5. Developer agrees to notify the City and the Watershed District at I least 48 hours in advance of any grading, or tree removal, on the property. - j Prior to issuance of any ! permit for grading upon the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City, and receive the City's ' approval of, erosion control measures and adequate protection of areas to be preserved and areas where grading is not to occur. Said City approval shall include, but not be limited to, on-site inspection of the property. Defects in materials, or workmanship • shall be determined by the City. Acceptance of materials and workmanship may be subject to such conditions as the City may impose j at the time of acceptance. j 6. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property within the construction limits as shown on Exhibit B. Developer shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within the wooded areas toward the south and southwest portions of the property prior to any grading upon the property. S Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning and receive the Director's approval of a tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size, . type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground lev qt,joe, ,f1 c.14..({+,'-J`2 : If any trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside Of the, construction area, Developer agrees/that prior to issuance of any, building permit for the property Developer shall submit to the: Director of Planning, and receiv�the Director's approval of a • replacement plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area) Developer further agrees that said trees shall be replaced by similar tree species and that the • trees used for replacement shall be no less than six inches in diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by the Director of Planning, using a square inch per square inch basis, according to the area of the circle created by a cross sectional cut through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the ground. • • 1_ _ . • If a tree replacement plan is required, Developer agrees to submit a bond, or letter of credit, guaranteeing completion of all tree replacement work as approved by the Director of Planning. The amount of the bond, or letter of credit, shall be 150% of the estimated cost of implementation of all tree replacement work and shall be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the Director of Planning. Developer agrees to • prepare and submit for approval to the Director of Planning a written estimate of the costs of the tree replacement work to be ,j • completed. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, 1 Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of: A. Color samples of the exterior building materials. ' i B. Overall lighting and signage details. C. A modified landscape plan to identify plantings by type, 11 size, quantity, and caliper inches in conformance with the landcape ordinance, and provide addtional berming and mass .. plantings to add visual interest to the site and break up the overall building mass. Said plan shall also include additional mass plantings as a buffer between Building A, as depicted on Exhibit B, and adjacent homes in the Deer Creek ` e1 Addition. t1 D. Modified building elevation plans for the garage end elevation to be consistent with the other building elevations continuing the gable roof line and building projections to add visual interest. E. Modified plans for the intersection geometrics between Anderson Lakes Parkway and the proposed park access road as depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. • Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above as approved by the Director of Planning. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of: A. Plans for storm water drainage which show extension of a 42- inch storm sewer pipe from Anderson Lakes Parkway to the floodplain area. 1LLJ B. Plans indicating a temporary solution for storm water drainage from the east end of the proposed park access road to the nearest outlet. • Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements indicated on the above plans, as approved by the City Engineer. 9. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property. Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Community Services, and receive the Director's approval of plans indicating the exact locations of public and private sidewalks and trails where noted on Exhibit E, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, and shall provide connections from each building to the proposed public sidewalk and trail systems. Upon approval by the Director of Community Services, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements indicated on the above plans, as approved by the Director of Community Services. • • OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN BAR-ETT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND THE • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by and between Galaxy Builders, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owners," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as "City:" For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #21-85 changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner from Rural to RM-2.5 as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1985, by and between Bar-Ett Construction Company, and City, Owners agree with the City as follows: 1. If Bar-ett Construction Company, fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property. 3. If the Owners transfer such property, owners shall obtain an agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. GALAXY BUILDERS • By Its j/ +�` • 711 Parkway Apartments CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-189 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY .., OF OROINANCE 21-85 ANO ORDERING THE $ PUBLICATION OF SAIO SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 21-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 6th day of August, 1985; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 21-85, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in• a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. inspectio printed any persony of the duringOregulareoffice hours made atavailable office i,• ''of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance t,. shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 21-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. AOOPTED by the City Council on August 6, 1985. Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor • ATTEST: John 0. Frane, City Clerk • l.,, 3 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 21-85 AN VING ERTAIN LAND ORDINANCE DISTRICT AND PLACING ITEIN ANOTHER, AMENDING A�THE�LEGAL C FROM DESCRIPTIONS OF ONE ZONING LAND IN EACH DISTRICT., AND AOOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located feaeas thet of Mitchell Road, and east of Chestnut Drive, known as ParkwayApartments, Rural District to the RM-2.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions ofla developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/ —John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City C�1e Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of + 1985. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services FROM: Carol M. Foy, Landscape Architect P DATE: July 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Final Payment on Grading Franlo and Eden Valley Parks Attached are the final Change Order and Payment forms for the grading of Franlo and Eden Valley Parks. The work at Franlo Road Park was satisfactorily completed on June 28th. The Change Order reflects a 397.22 ton decrease in the amount of aglime used on the ballfields. This resulted in a savings of $3,367.37. as d July At nn c arading changebinan theJuly gradingtofand thewsoftballefieldnresultedtin During construction of dirt. In addition, the an additional moving of 2627.12 cubic yards resulted removed addition a section of toethetcontract. Also,halt l. Both of at Eden these actuated in a $3, actual amounts f aglime a1s V rock were less than the original contracted amount, deducting $1854 14 With all of the additions and deductions considered, the final contact amount isValley, ey, grading 2. The workactual cost $26,860.87. The original contract was $105,021 and at {. Over th the g 9 increase entire 7.4%contract, atthe Edenincrease Valley the6increase the wasFr5r.5%.Road Theproject iginal project rading, fors a$total00oo$108,000.RoThisragradingd projecOt0 ifs orfunded Valley grad g, through cash park fees. The 5% retainage on this project will be requested for payment to the Contractor at the August 19th Council meeting. CMF:md f t CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ESTIMATE FOR PAYMENT ON CONTRACT 5 Date June, 19/85 Estimate No. 4 For period from 6/20 to 7/19 Name and Nature of Project: Grading Franlo Road and Eden Valley Parks • ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 105,021.00 CHANGE ORDERS No. Date Approved Additions Deductions 1 4-18-85 $530.00 2 5-28-85 6,429.82 3 5-28-85 2,567.01 $270.00 4 7-2-85 5 7-29-85 3,250.00 5,230.51 TOTAL ADDITIONS $ 12,776.83 • SUB TOTAL $ 117,797.83 • TOTAL DEDUCTIONS $ 5,500.51 CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE $ 112,297.32 TOTAL COMPLETED TO DATE $ 112,297.32 MATERIAL STORED $ 112,297.32- TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED .3 ,2972 LESS RETAINAGE 5% $$ 106,682 214.8 TOTAL EARNEO LESS RETAINAGE 5 LESS PREVIOUS ESTIMATES Est. No. 1 Amt.$16,150.00 Est. No. Amt. Est. No.2 Amt.$47,017.24 Est. No._ Amt. Est. No.3 Amt.$22,757.25 Est. No._ Amt. Est. No. Amt.$ Est. No.-3 Amt. Est. No._ Amt.$ Est. No. Amt. '— Total Estimates T 85,924.49 AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE $ 20,757.96 Payment reqested this 19th day of Approved and recommended for payment July , 1985 this 19th day of July , 1985. Preferred Paving Community Services Department Contractor Project Landscape Architect } 24 South Olive By: Carol M. Foy Address Waconia, Minnesota Zip 55387 APPROVED: By: By: Director of Community Services By: • CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 JULY 19, 1985 PROJECT: Grading at Franlo and Eden Valley Parks TO: Bruce Anderson, Preferred Paving ,i. You are hereby directed to make the following changes to your Contract for the above referenced project. NATURE OF WORK Franlo Road Park 1. Deduct 401.22 tons of aglime Eden Valley Park • 1. Additional grading of 2627.12 yards on softball field 2. Remove 19.5 yards of existing asphalt trail .3. Deduct 31.71 tons of aglime • 4. Deduct 209.85 tons of Class V aggregate • ADJUSTMENTS TO CONTRACT QUANTITIES { Franlo Road Park 1. Deduct 397.22 tons aglime @ $8.50/ton $3,376.37 Eden Valley Park 1. Additional grading of 2627.12 cu yds @ $1.18/cu yd $3,100.00 2. Remove 19.5 sq. yds. of asphalt 150.00 3. Deduct 31.71 tons aglime @ $9.50/ton 301.25 4. Deduct 209.85 tons Class V @ $7.40/ton 1,552.89 SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS Contract total prior to this order $114,277.83 Increases resulting from this order 3,250.00 subtotal $117,527.83 Deductions resulting from this order 5,230.51 TOTAL FINAL CONTRACT $112,297.32 THE ABOVE CHANGE ORDERS ARE APPROVED: THE ABOVE CHANGES ARE ACCEPTED: THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESDTA PREFERRED PAVING, INC. By Date "ist,?11 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services FROM: Carol M. Foy, Landscape Architect CIP DATE: July 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Final Payment on Staring Lake Park Trail Phase III The final phase of the Staring Lake trail was satisfactorily completed on July 12, 1985. Included are the final payment and change order forms reflecting an increase in the actual amount of Class V aggregate and asphalt material required. In addition, staff requested the Contractor to clear an alternate route through the woods for the equestrian trail. This work increased the contract by $744.32. The total contract was increased to $17,501.82, from the original amount of $16,757.50, an increase of 4.4%. Staff estimated the project at $18,000. This project is funded through cash park fees. The 5% retainage on this project will be requested for payment to the Contractor at the August 19th Council meeting. CMF:md • 1647 / • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ' ESTIMATE FOR PAYMENT 0t1 CONTRACT Date Jul_Y,19J95 Estimate No. 1 For period from 7/1 to 7/19 Name and Nature of Project: Staring Lake Trail Phase IIi i • . ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 16,757 50 CHANGE ORDERS No. Date Approved Additions Deductions 1 $744.32 i 1 I $$ 744.32 i TOTAL ADDITIONS 17,501.82 SUB TOTAL $ 0 i TOTAL DEDUCTIONS $ 11.501.82 1 CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE 17,501.82 r i TOTAL COMPLETED TD DATE 50_ { $MATERIAL STORED 17,501.82 TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED $ 801.0 . LESS RETAINAGE 5% $ 16,875.09 TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAiNAGE LESS PREVIOUS ESTIMATES Est. No._ Amt.Est. No._ Wit•$ Est. No._, Amt. Est. No._ fit•$ Est. No._, Amt. t. Est. No.----- fnt•$ Est. No._, Amt. Est. No.---- fit•$ Est. No. Amt. Est. No. Amt•$ -0- Total Estimates 1 -- $ 16,626.73 AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE Payment regested this 19th day of Approved and recommended for payment 1985. ii July , 1985 this 19th day of July Custom Surfacing Inc. Community Services Dopy t men Contractor Project Landscape Architect 1225 East C,crmain By: Carol M Foy Address • St. Cloud, Minnesota Zip 56301 APPPROVED: � �� BY By:----�t_- " �, Gms _. Director of Community Services . By: City Manager t(. • /J't • ' CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 July 17, 1985 I PROJECT: Staring Lake Trail Phase III i TO: Randy Henry, Custom Surfacing, Inc. • • You are hereby directed to make the following changes to your Contract for the s above referenced project. NATURE. OF WORK Additional quantity of rock base Additional quantity of plant mix bituminous Additional length of cleaning and grubbing ADJUSTMENTS TO CONTRACT QUANTITIES: • t 1. Additional quantity of rock base $239.42 35.47 tons @ $6.75/ton • 2. Additional quantity of plant mixed bituminous 257.40 9 tons @ $28.60/ton • 3. Additional clearing and grubbing 247.50 5.5 hours @ $45/hour 24 . 0 SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS TO CONTRACT TOTAL AMOUNT: Contract total prior to this Change Order $16,757.50 4.32 Increase resulting from this Change Order 17 7�744.32 Total • THE ABOVE CHANGE ORDERS ARE APPROVED: THE ABOVE CHANGES ARE ACCEPTED: THE CITY OF EDEN P II MINNESOTA CUSTOM SURFACING. INC. 8Y__ _' __?-± •sL 8Y DATE "4.6,11.2 JTic DATE • • 1 <-0 - . MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council • Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission TNRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager . /u' FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services �w DATE: July 25, 1985 s, SUBJECT: Request to Watershed District for Stream Water Maintenance of Riley Creek Over the last several months, City staff have had several requests from residents on Riley Lake for plainede itthat review outlet high was being blocked onobythat an lake. The residents dome alluviumese residentsdwould the like totseefrom theRiley outfallLake pening Riley cleaned over outthe to years.g These bring the lake level back to its normal elevation. Bob Obermeyer, Engineer for the Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District, indicated t1 the Watershed coDistrict a streampresently water maintenance projesidering its ct items for 1986he requested by the City. Mr. Obermeyer has inspected this site and agrees that sand and clay deposits at the mouth of the stream have restricted flow from 1 Riley Lake. The Community Services Staff believe that this is the type of project that is appropriate for the Watershed District to fund 100%, especially since this only one lake is under the jurisdiction of two counties and two and could probably butbe completednlyon Watershed District. It is not a major project during the winter of 1985-86 at a cost of less than $3,000. The Community Services Staff would recommend that the City Council request the Watershed District to: 1. Confirm the need for this cleanup project. 2. Hold any hearings necessary prior to completing the project. appropriate. 3. Budget for and complete the project in the winter of 1986, if appro P BL:md /:,/') 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST August 6, 1985 i CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) HEATING & VENTILATING Don Anderson Building Contractor All-American Mechanical, Inc. -; Karkela Construction Co. Gary Ford's Plumbing & Heating Ryan Construction Co.of Minn. Frank's Heating & Air Conditioning David A. Williams Realty & Const. G & H Plumbing & Heating Harris Waldinger Corporation CONTRACT_0_R_(_1_&__2_FAMILY) Mayes Contractors Heat N Cool, Inc. ABC Pools, Etc. Judkins Heating & Air Conditioning John M. Aldritt Preferred Sheet Metal Barron Builders, Inc. Thermex Corporation 1 Classic Homes By David Haskins Copperfield Homes, Inc. GAS FITTER Cornerstone Builders of Wayzata Daystar Builders All-American Mechanical, Inc. Developers Construction Gary Ford's Heating & Air Conditioning J. Dresser Construction Frank's Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. 1 Gurtek Construction, Inc. Hayes Contractors i Homeplace Builders, Inc. Spartan Mechanical Homera, Inc. Thermex Corporation Jack of All Trades of Apple Valley Johaneson Construction TEMPORARY BEER Lakeridge Builders Company LaMettry's. Inc. Eden Prairie Lions (Corn Feed) Gene Mace Construction Richard Marple Builders VENDING McDonald Construction, Inc. 'Olympic Homes of Minnesota Wood Bear Stables, Inc. The Pemtom Company Skyway Quality Homes, Inc. SOLICITOR Smuckler Corporation Adam Clay Bradley PLUMBING --_____ RAFFLE Alexandria Plumbing & Heating Clark Plumbing Approval by the City for the State to Dan the Plumber issue a Raffle License to the A.A.G. Gary Ford's Plumbing & Heating (Association of Artistic Gymnastics) G & H Plumbing & Heating Hayes Contractors WELL DRILLING Northridge Plumbing Company Peterson Pinney, Inc. Don Stodolats Well Drilling Co. Pokorny Company Town & Country Plumbing & Heating Western Plumbing & Heating These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the li ensed ;icti(vity. • Pat Solie, Licensing • /662 . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA . RESOLUTION NO. 85-181 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION,• ORDERING IMPRDVEMENTS & PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR I.C. 52-081 Creek Crossing at Golden Triangle Drive yy 9 BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: on a to be 1. The oners of benefitted from the%proposed of ecreek lcrossing tat Golden y ngTriiangle Drive have petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements and to assess the entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered and the City are lans and Engineer gaccordance withpCityp specifications for rbids d improvements thereon, i with n the assisstance of RCM, Inc. 3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 4o �this resolution once he ty inCthek is officialb y directed . publishnewspaper, to a copy of s and further a contract construction t o said i m t shall be approved byh Counclpriorto 30 days followgpublcation of.this Resolution in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on August 6, 1985. ------------ Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frans, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNtSOTA 100% PETITION FOR LGt:AL IMP2OVEMF:NT9 TO THE EVEN PRAIRII: CITY COUNCIL: 1 The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real property described It below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed with making the following described improvements: (General Location) Sanitary Sewer ----------- _Watormain * 8"Creek Crossing _-.___—_----- — Storm Sewer * Creek Crossin8_(estimated to be 72"-78"Dom)) Street Paving * Approx.300'1_37'wide Ind.Street ______ j Other * 5'PCC sidewalk&8'AC path I Pursuant to .A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive any public hearing to be held on said improvements, and further state and agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially as- sessed against the property described below in accordance with the . City's special assessment policies. We further understand that the be determined 1 preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is erm( Street Address or other I.egal Names and addresses of Petitioners 12_e_ssiilltion of Prop_crty to be Serried (Must be owners of record) :1 — Lot 1,Block 31.Golden SEE PAGE 2 _______Strip East_. ..-_ — -- • *Work will consist of all improvements 150'in each direction o— f_ Nine Mile Creek @ -_ common property line. 50%of cost to each owner(Vantage/Hoyt). 5 year assessment. (For City U.e) CI- Date Et•ceived*A(L�11 -7- 1175 — Project No. San-tag 1 Muu,•;1 run Sderatiun IT • FEE OWNERS ADDRESS • .1e lihz0— I l/.Q2, 22 10561 E. Rivenv.iew Dn., Eden Prta.i/ e, MN 55344 Richard F. Condon • t ce---e-.4,* e20,--, .. .,,ti rr n n II n u is Gwendolyn D. don . a PLC` 26640 Edgeivood Road, Excefs.ion, MN 55331 Robert 0. Naegele Jr. K.(i(.:9 (N 1. 4-- n II II n n n Ellis Naegele t f 1 � �� Ruaaic Point, 3301 Shone Urtive, Exce s-Lox,1MN William O. Naegel, II II It rr rr II e hanie ae'ele 2e-La-/--'-4,-/-167-2— • i.(e Richard F. Condon d)-(141.&--i900U19_,K ./ Nancy J. Jorg s JI -4'1)14' . Steven G. Loc • ..<1 d'1,, 47,_,,, - z,e<z:.,e_— Robert A. Kruse As Personal Representatives of the 7151 ['tying Ctottd Vn.ive Estate of Robert 0. Naegele, Eden Pnai/tle, MN 55344 deceased /1 -1 (21 . • CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. 85-182 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR . 1.C. 52-084 Street and Utility Improvements for • Chestnut Drive Extension into Parkway Apartment Complex • BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The owners of 100% of the real property abutting upon and to be • benefitted from the proposed Chestnut Drive Extension into Parkway Apartment Complex have petitioned the City Council to construct said • improvements and to assess the entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered and the City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for said improvements in accordance with City standards and advertise for bids thereon, with the assisstance of BRW, Inc. 3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish a copy of this resolution once in the official newspaper, and further a contract for construction of said improvements shall not be approved by the City Council prior to 30 days following publication of this Resolution in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on August 6, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk CITY OF EDEN FRAIFIE, MINNESOTA 100.2171TIOU FOR LOCAL 3MPHOVE":CNTS • TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: The undersigned arc all the fee owners of the real property P Y do..c:ihed ` below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed with making the following described improvements: (General Location) _ Sanitary Sewer X 1;atermain (Chestnut St. East of Parkway Apts., and on-site 1 • X Storm Sewer —" X Storm Sewer and Watermain _ Street Paving Other Serving this property, the street_and __—---- property on East.) 'Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive •+ny public hearing to be held on said improvements, and further state and 1. agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially as- sessed against the property described below in accordance with the . City's special assessment policies. We further understand that the preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is Names and adds a :=es of ret i tioners • Street Address or other Legal weer:, of f,"dj Description_of P1.nierty to be SY52:12 ,IMu e - _ . .e (Sec Attached) ____ Galaxie I.uilders_C �`_.- Bar-ett Construction, Inc. • 7,i ✓ /1 ` Galaxie Builders, Inc. — —�— 140thWest 98th St. Bloomington, MN 55420- —__—_ Bar-F.tt Construction Co.__,—,•_„ ---------------- ---- ---uuu ay ata Blvd. __ St. Louis Park, MN 55416 ----- =-_ __:: - —7.-- ( City Use) ---- Date )thy Zr198f-------- . . - r:n3rcl No. ..---52-08�- ------• •-- Comic-i l Coo 0..:a:ion.AboV44,08C. AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made this day of June, 1985, between the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation (the "City") and Wade and Joy Marshall (the "Owners"), and William Marshall ("Mortgagee") . A. The Owner holds legal and equitable title to certain real property located at 6591 Duck Lake Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"), legally described as qq Lot 20, Block 2, High Trails Estate Addition. B. The City and Owners desire to correct a drainage/erosion problem in such a manner that will require the construction of a drainage improvement (the "Improvement") on the Property. The construction of the Improvement will benefit the Property. C. The Owners and City have received estimates of the cost of the Improvement and the Owners have requested that the City select Phehal Blacktopping, Inc. to construct the Improvement. Phehal Blacktopping, Inc. has submitted a bid in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty and 00/100 ($1,980.00) Dollars. D. The Mortgagee is the owner of a certain unrecorded mortgage• E. The parties desire to enter into an agreement concerning the financing of the construction of the Improvement all of which will inure to the benefit of the Property. AGREEMENTS IT IS HEREBY agreed as follows: • 1. The Owners consent to the levying of an assessment against the Property for the full cost of construction of the Improvement. -1- • 2. The Owners waive notice of any assessment hearing to be • held at which hearing or hearings the assessment is to be con • sidered by the City Council and thereafter approved and levied. 3. The Owners concur that the benefit to the Property by virtue of the Improvement to be constructed will exceed the amount of the assessment to be levied against the Property. The Owners waive all rights granted by virtue of Minnesota Statute Section 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of the assessment or the procedure used by the City in levying the assessment and hereby release the City, its officers, its agents and employees from any and all liability related to or arising out of the imposition or the levying of the• assessment. 4. The Mortgagee consents to the levying of the assessment pursuant to this Agreement and agrees that the mortgage shall be and is subject and subordinate to said assessment. 5. Joy Marshall, wife of Wade Marshall, consents to the levying of the special assessment referred to herein pursuant to • this Agreement. OWNERS: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE A Municipal Corporation Wade Marshall By Gary D. Peterson, Its Mayor Joy Marshall By Carl J. Jullie, Its City Manager MORTGAGEE: William Marshall -2- i(.;, STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1965, by Gary D. Peterson and Carl J. Jullie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal cor- • poration, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) .,c The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1",o!`;- , 1985, by Wade Marshall and Joy Marshall. /.4tlf 644.. 07?a-7‘.., Notary Public( [4444•44441e444~###4404#4,444 �-1N MARMYN SHELDON STATE OF MINNESOTA) .itT;� NOT AAY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA )ss. a 1e) HENNEPINCOUNTY N!.VMy Con n+ss.on E.Dvts Scol.17.199.qCOUNTY OF HENNEPIN) 0/0.- au;v.ttNANV4.44 +orr MN.; The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1/ day of -i: c , 1985, by William Marshall. {11. ��Ay al h ` i (.,/,-7L� Notary Public ==\ MARILYN SHELDON t THIS DOCUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY t I fA NOTARY PUBLIC"PAIN!1LSOTA L Richard F. Rosow i!: 1 y}:/my coa,m r••,,Stot.o.o9HENNEPIN COUNTY I• ss•tn E. ,z Lang, Pauly i, GI"egersOn, Ltd. .4,+a,ww. eso+4:erao..N vx••.vrrrs.+•,••.# 4108 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 -3- ILIO . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. 85-183 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF PAULSENS SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Paulsens Second Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: • A. Plat approval request for Paulsens Second Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated July 16, 1985. B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 6, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Franc, Clerk /5; • i i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE i ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT i E • j. 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 1 DATE: July 16, 1985 SUBJECT: PAULSENS SECOND ADDITION PROPOSAL: 3 The Developer, Dirlam Development, has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Paulsens Second Addition, a single family residential plat consisting of 18 lots. The plat contains approximately 6.3 acres located in . the South 1/2 of Section 7. The proposal includes Outlot A, Paulsens Addition, which will now become part of Lot 12, Block 2. HISTORY: Zoning to RI-9.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council on May 1, : 1984, per Ordinance 22-84. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on March 27, 1984, per Resolution 84-52. ? Resolution 84-80, approved by the City Council on May 1, 1984, summarizes i specific conditions for approval of the proposal. 9 VARIANCES: 4 A variance from the requirements of City Code 12.20, Subd. 2.A., waiving the 1 six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. i All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. If UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities and streets within this addition will be installed in 1 conformance with City standards. The sanitary sewer through the site, has i been installed under a City Improvement Project, with costs to be assessed to benefited properties. PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication shall conform to City Code Requirements. BONDING: Bonding must conform to City Code requirements. • / . r-N Page 2, Engineering Report on Paulsens Second Addition, 7/16/85 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Paulsens Second Addition, subject to the requirements of this report, Resolution 84-80 and the following: 1. Receipt of fee for street signs in the amount bf $125. 2. Receipt of fee for street lights in the amount of $1,404. 3. Receipt of fee for engineering in the amount of $720. • 4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. DLO:sg cc: Dennis Dirlam RCM, Inc. j.. • /Ccj CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-184 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF SHADY OAK CENTER WHEREAS, the plat of Shady Oak Center has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for Shady Oak Center is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated July 31, 1985. B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified i copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the (r above named plat. D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 6, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL 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 FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Design Engineeri/.Jg DATE: July 31, 1985 • SUBJECT: SHADY OAK CENTER (formerly Landmark West) PROPOSAL: The Developer, Prime/Landmark Partnership, has requested City Council approval of Shady Oak Center. This is a 7.29 acre site located at the southeast corner of the north intersection of Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway in the north 1/2 of Section 1. This is a replat of Lot 10, Block 1, City West into 3 lots with a commercial use proposed. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on September 4, 1984, per Resolution No. 84-231. Ordinance No. 111-84, zoning the property to Neighborhood Commercial was finally read and adopted by the Council on July 2, 1985. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed on July 2, 19B5. VARIANCES: A variance from the requirements of City Code 12.20, Subd. 2.A, waiving the six-month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat was approved on June 14, 1985. All other variance requests not covered through the Developer's Agreement must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: • All utilities and streets to be installed within this plat, with the exception of the storm sewer along the south and west sides of the plat, will be owned and maintained by an owner's association. Copies of documents covering maintenance responsibilities, to be recorded with Hennepin County, must be provided to the Engineering Department prior to release of the final plat. The Developer shall obtain necessary access and utility permits from the • Hennepin County Transportation Department. Copies of these permits shall be provided to the Engineering Department prior to release of the final plat. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. :J Page 2, Final Plat Shady Oak Center, 7/31/85 BONDING: The requirements for bonding are covered in the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend approval of the final plat of Shady Oak Center subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $729.00. 2. Receipt of documents covering utility and street maintenance. • 3. Receipt of County access permit. 4. Receipt of County utility permit. RWR:sg cc: Pat Hagen, Prime/Landmark West Partnership 1 ..-:r..- CROE4 WO. 2 July 6, 1535 • PR3J:C": ano Street Improvements Fcr Carrel First Aoor,. 6 vicinity V '. ----- :.C. 759A 1 6 i E:•okr,1 Cris, irh. i0: You are hereSv iirected to Late the fo1o.in; can:es to your • Contract for the at,cne refe-encec project. • H iitional:isce:lar.eo•us work as stipulate: Seiot. P..D5DSTX: TS TC Ci cTS.ZT O ci\T1TIES: Red the follo.inc ouaatities to the current Contract quantities. {k1 2o:yxrao 6"Water tain --------- 1.6 L.S.@ S246.53=S 497.66 Water tint Carole Casting------- 1.0"ca. @ 1116.95=S 118.93 • {B) Poor soil rerava: ---------630.0 C.Y. @ S2.37= S :449.0a Relocate Etcees raterial 12.0 rir. @ S 9.7 =S 459.00 • Provide 3vcra'a — 1.0 Ea. es1277. = S tQ32.:4 tarhole Cenne:ticr, 1.0 Ea. @ SE7.:?=S 67.:a 4yorar,t :r:e•sior, — '2.0 L.S.@ ScSLC =$ 57a.0? =aoric {er Street StaPi:i:ation 2c842.0 S.Y.• 41.87=S 2042.8.. Curb arc 6ztte- ....ice e G — --1.0 L.S.@ 1699.'7= $ 669.70 • • 7r,k, S 6,649.77 • S::"A4Y OF APJLS wE c'C CC',TRo:r TOTAL AvYN^.: (, Contract Total A•nurt prior to this Chance Drcer {A16) --- $571,775.6! Increase resultir: fro,. this Change Order IA 1 9) ----- $ 6,649.73 Revised Contract Total Arr;uht i•_:udinc this Chance Order -S 578,E `.79 T :::J: [,.',_3 w:_Q:TF:VED: THE ABOVE: .-. V. / EP-ED: ..c\ 7:. :4i:. ` . ;i::\ F IS. G77.0 166(/ • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION 85-186 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTION ON PRESERVE BOULEVARD S.A.P. 181-102-02 from Anderson Lakes Parkway to Prairie Center Drive In the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota • THIS RESOLUTION passed this 6th day of August, 1985, by the City of Eden Prairie in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The municipal corporation shall hereinafter be called the "City": WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the "City" has planned the improvements of MSAS 102 (Preserve Boulevard) from Anderson Lakes Parkway to Prairie Center Drive, and • WHEREAS, the "City", will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the improvement of said street, and WHEREAS, said improvement does not conform to the approved minimum standards as previously adopted for such Municipal State Aid Streets and that approval • of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid Street project must • therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions, and WHEREAS, the extent of these restrictions that would be necessary prerequisite to the approval of this construction as a Municipal State Aid project in the "City", has been determined. ±; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED: . That the "City", shall prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on both sides at all times. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 6, 1985. • Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Franc, Clerk `;` MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Historical and Cultural Commission k. THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager t' FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: July 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Request From Earl More � On August 18, 1981, the City of Eden Prairie entered into a purchase agreement with „F, Earl and Helen More for the acquisition of their property at 81D7 Eden Prairie Road for the purpose of preserving a historical site. The purchase agreement stated a selling price of $140,000 under the following terms: . $15,000 - June 1981 . $40,000 plus interest payable January 1982 • $21,250 plus interest payable January 1983 . $21,250 plus interest payable January 1984 . $21,250 plus interest payable January 1985 . $21,250 plus interest payable January 1986 The City also agreed to pay of all major improvements to the property defined as `1 follows: . New roof, if needed . New Well or septic system, if needed (water and sewer hookup) . New furnace, if needed The seller also retained the right to live on the property free of rent for as long as Mr. and Mrs. More reside at the home. The More's also pay all utilities and repairs to the home not listed as major improvements. • In 1984, Mr. More informed City staff of several leaks in the roof. At that time, the city removed some tree branches that were rubbing against the roof and contracted for some patching on the roof. In 1935, Mr. More again indicated that the roof was leaking in several different areas. Staff requested that he have at least two roofing contractors inspect the roof to determine if a new roof was needed, or if it could be patched. The existing roof is over 20 years old and the only way to correct the problems is to remove the existing shingles, replace any rotten boards, and reshingle the entire roof with exception of the small area over the kitchen. This was reshingled by Mr. More within the last ten years. tt Mr. More has received two quotes for roofing the house. Applied Roofing Systems has quoted $9,900. Les Jones Roofing, Inc. has quoted $10,279, plus an additional charge for replacement of any rotted wood. The Communty Services Staff would recom..iend the City authorize Mr. More to proceed with replacing the roof with Applied Roofing Systems (the same Contractor that replaced the roof on the Grill (,P home). The proposal is to remove all the existing roofing material, replace any • rotten or dry rotted roof boards, rebuild the north chimney with bricks that match the other two existing chimneys. replace the spalled brick around the south bay window and install a lanin stone window sill , check all remaining wall areas and tuck point where necessary, apply new #1 red western cedar machine cut shingles • matching the original construction and install a new 24" wide lead coated coper valley flashing to both valleys areas and front dormers. Mr. More has indicated that if the City does not have funds available for paying for this project, as well as paying the final $21,250 payment, he is willing to delay the $21,250 plus interest payment until January of 1987, if necessary. The Community Services Staff recommend authorizing Mr. More to proceed with the roofing project with Applied Roofing Systems and to reimburse . Mr. More $9,900 upon .completion of the project. 8t:md .rv` • • • • • • • ?J 1 4 as'/fes age , e .1/471-,e,-t i „,..14art 7././. .., . : FDA 4 ,� � 6 . 4_,, , . _ 1 . I .I ( , • Paolo No. of Po09e ; n ._tirn}uIlial=_---_- —� • APPLIED ROOPIidG SYSTEMS �'! ACO Ie.e0,66066.600fm9efame ;D ROOFING SYSTEMS ... .6510L TU virw ON 76010 Lo.ue View06. EDEN DNAINIE.MN 55344 ' (6I2193r,2529 ED.N Pna nN.MN 65364 ed.3i 93,2539 ' OPo9Ai luswntf0 TO MOVE OATS Earl Moore' 7/22/85 JOB Aw Yf 8107 Eden Prairie Road Install a new #1 cedar shingle roof UV.61o'Tee esteso J06 LOCATION Eden Prairie, Minnesota Same address ANC.nf CI OATE Or PIAMO e0e0N0NE ___ _ 1 ) NE flrnpnar hereby to furnish material end labor—complete in eCC0,danCe with specifications below.for the sum of: —�� fe. ' NINE ThOUSAND NINE HUNDRED No/101 9,900.00 Derm.M lobsmedemoo*aw.FINANCE CHARGES ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS ARE 16 PER MONTH OR 18% PER YEAR. , Payment due upon completion Licensed, Bonded, Insured Lien waivers furnished Includes all permits and/taxes ANm.l.nul.a.A.Anu.awe.s..A,ma ANem.Ioh.,o.ox"amee.n.m.e• , , A 4 e:n,IP.uwue.�.,INA Auth.rlud J b.m..„....,o.N.mto•wedae old,unarm not..der.and del ee,em.n 0i96616.e "6.en....*vet end.emeMeA.nmM.AN silomen 1a e014.9.n1uoe11 ell tees.act, X .II/ 6 30 enoe.Ne .Mour,oua.Oen..Ia, ,0...londeAet.w.n...... e,.r withdrawn D f.II o. eDHdNl.aln 41 bare suanaueoereMs „ m0 We Wales Submit edeCIO 0don.end.MAMIl.IOC • I 1. Tearoff all existing roofing material from the entire main roof, two porch roofs and the south bay window area roof 2. Replace any rotten or dry rotted existing roof boards . 3. Pull all old roofing nails, replace any rotten or damaged cove mouldings 4. Completely re-sheet the entire roof surface with a new exterior grade 3/8"plywood sheathing, hand nail in place with 6d galvanized nails -L 5. Tear down the north chimney to the roof line and rebuild with brick that matches • the existing two other chimneys, install new galvanized shingle flashings, also remove and replace all badly spelled brick around the south bay window and install a ' lanin stone window sill , replacing the old sill. Completely check all the remaining • wall areas and tuck point where necessary 6. Apply 3ft. of new "Ice&Water Shield" around all roof perimeters on the main roof and 6ft. over the two porch roofs, adhere directly onto the new roof sheathing 7. Cover the remaining roof areas with a 301b. saturated felt, nail in place 8. Install a new 24"wide lead coated copper valley flashing to both valleys areas and front dormers, nail in place - t ' 9. Apply a new cedar 18" shingle starter course around all edge perimeters JO. Install new#1 red western cedar machine cut shingles to the entire dwelling, matching • the original constuctio-. hand nailing all shingles with galvanized wire nails • 11. Re-use all metal chimney flashings and install new shingle tins to the bay window area and porch areas, cut a new regletinto the brick wall facing and install a new metal wall. countcrflashing 12. Install a new Ixb clear western cedar ridge board to all roof peaks, miter and nail I- 1' . in place 13. Install one new galvanized lead capped plumbing stack cover • 14. Apply 4 new R-61 roof vents into the main roof for proper attic ventilation . 15. Clean up and remove all roofing debris from the premises AS` 5 year written warrantee on all labor 6,material .1,• Arrrptmtrr of?Irnponil._The shore pore.eeidadda ed. .n.t,0nn.a. . ."r inry eoo1110 everbr.,0..iled you A.sole.eced 54nelora le do In..u( ....allied.allied Preadult will OA met)*el doomed.hc.• 6.1.01 Act.I4enc.__ — SNneto19 I. Page 1 of G rip n . , ce,� /' one eR,o 0frw, ti .1.c. 0 941 W.80th Street July 18, 1985 Minneapolis,Mn 55420 • 881.2241 • Earl More 8107 Eden Prairie Rd. „I. Minneapolis, MN 55436 We have inspected the roofs on the main house, 2 porches and bay. ` This bid does not include the back newer roof. We propose to tear off the old roofing. All debris will be cleaned up and hauled away. After the old roofing is torn off, 3/8" plywood will be installed on all of the roof area. Re-roofing will consist of first installing snow and ice shield 6 ft. up and 6 ft. wide on each side of the long valley. Snow and ice shield will be installed 3 ft. up and 3 ft. wide on each side of the dormer valley. A sample of snow and ice shield is enclosed.. A 43# base felt will be fastened down up the first six feet from the eaves in all other areas. 15# felt will be installed over the remaining areas of exposed roof. We will then install 16" #1 Red Cedar Machine Sawed shingles with a 5" exposure. We will install new metal valley. Boston ridge with rubber under will be installed before the wood ridge is installed. Crown molding will be installed on the fascia of the porches to match the fascia on the main house. New galvanized plumbers jacks will be installed. New galvanized. metal flashing will be installed at the chimneys, porches, and bay roof. The flashing will be cut into the mortar joints in the brick. All roof metal will be painted with a gray metal primer if if galvanized metal is used. All of the returns will be strengthened. We will do this by removing the top boards where needed. We will then rescrew to the brick wall. The board will then be put back. Any bad boards will be replaced. • The chimney on the north end of the house will be torn down to the roof line. We will save as many of the bricks as possible. We will then re-build the chinmey. The new chimney will match the • other two in desire and height. Any new brick that is needed will be matched as close as possible. The brick and mortar joints will be repaired abova the bay roof on the south side. • kAIERI:ALS AND LABOR FOR THISt4ORK $9,344.00 Option /11 - If lead coated copper is installed for all of the L.,,! valley, plumbers jacks and. vents and flashings, add $935.00 to the re-roofing price. '_ I i } Page 2 of 2 • +ption #2 - If 16 oz. copper is installed for all of the valley, plumbers jacks, vats and fleshings, add $660.00 to the re-roofing price. *THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR ADDITIONAL REPLACEMENT OF • ROTTED WOOD. If you accept our offer, please sign one copyy of this letter and return it to us. Sincerely, Iie B. Jones es iden t LBJ/gr This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 30 days. Payment for this work is due upon completion of the job. Accounts not paid within the terms of this contract are subject to a 1 interest charge per month. ACCEPTED BY DATE Les Jones Roofing, Inc, is licensed, bonded, and fully insured. � s PINK—Agent-a;Cony PURCHASE AGREEMENT MEN'T • M tin.,....._1V......... �yLA. ......_..19.83 • RECEIVED Or City of Eden Prairie. .. die sum of Pivc Ilundred-------------------------------—($500,..00........) DOLLARS ' as earnest money and in put payment for the purchase of property at (C.A.Cull er Not.—R m.VIVA( 8107 Eden Prairie Road talented in the County of Hennepin _. _... _.............._ ,Stare of Minnesota,and legally described as follows,to.wit: • See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. including all garden bulbs,plants,shrubs and trees,all storm sash.storm dears,detachable vestibules,screens,awnings,window • shades,blinds (including venetian blinds),curtain rods,traverse rods,drapery axis,lighting fixtures and bulbs,plumbing • fiat roes,hot water tanks and heating plant(with any burners,tanks,stokers and other equipment used in eonnernnn there- widh) water softener and liquid gas tank and controls(if the property of seller).sump pump,television antenna,inciner- Ivor,butoin dishwasher,garbage disposal,ovens,cook top stoves and central air conditioning equipment,if any.used and located on said ptemises and including also the following personal property: - ' Exceptions: Antique range, hanging kerosene lamp, kerosene bracket lamp, ceiling utensil hanger, coffee grinder, bell on shed. all of which property the undersigned has this day sold to the buyer for the sum of: One Hundred Forty Thousand 1$140,000.opDOLLARS, -' which the buyer agrees to pay in the following manner: • ',,• . Earnest money herein paid$500.00 and$ 14,500.O(}Lsh,on Sept. 1, 1981 ,the date of closing. ' . and the balance of $125,000 by Contract for Deed (standard Minn. form) in such amount payable as follows: $40,000 on January 5, 1982, and $21,250 on January 5 of each of the years 1983 through 1986, inclusive. In addition to principal payments, Buyer shall pay on the dates said :_.. principal payments are due interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum on the principal balances remaining from time to time. �e. Seller shall pay the first half real estate taxes payable in 1981; Buyer shall pay the last �31' half real estate taxes clue and payable in 1981. Bn•mr shall pay for all special assessments which become a lien against the property from and after Ehe date hereof. Sale of property to Buyer shall be condi Boned upon and in consideration of Seller and Buyer entorine into a lease in,the form of the lease agreement attached hereto and made a part hereof and ent(tled ''Exhibit B.' Purchase of the property by Buyer is subject to the condition that there arc no restrictions • against use of the property for public, park, historical, museum or other public uses. I• Contract for Wertanrs•Deed I (them to performance by re by the buyer the seller agrees a execute and deliver a pries. 'i (w k joined in by m v,r,d+nil conveying marketable tide no said premise,suhrm only in the following can ..a, CO( )Iluil,hne and revolt.law,ord,ranres.xa:e and he,feral rrrula:,ons. ItilMiris'wN si41.111 a1HxHN:/:rVHJ(ecte'Jtxt4c iea(MX X'oot tm.veeexxxxala4%tfilanc ()Rrre vain,n•r any nmrrr+ir or miner.1 rivruts to t+ c (d)I't,hty and draina,e ea,einents alit,S d ,rerr.'ete wire present.mprovrmenr, (e)Aiehn of or.1V111115 di.1 t. - r<_ d.not sidnect r.,rerr.n„enI slndltlta D9T�xllrttt sarransi ,nanonc rs., iPAxd'MAARliK exxx:ncen l'.".C7C7a. f rill fiHeA'If enno I1rAve mrroo civ!ce�Cafott' • ,�. + n u,t ,lull.p -h aJ h,hr I 'a•an S'. Neither the seller nor theseller's ¢ ake any teprerentati•in or WAIrAtill 1thAt...no - -a die amount of real estate rasp whith shall lie assessed s,amrl the promo suhsequent to die d+ f purchase Seller nrsrn+n•,II.,,I utl,h I v hen the h,,,,ndarr I s•rl thr nr..Prrsv I n.1 artre• ,all mrsood property as inrir,Ird hrrr n an i all dchrn ir'nr the premises poor ru pm .s tr.(' ',FLU R u ARK ANTS All.AI I LI ANtI S,111 A I I\er.Ant ' CONnI i icrNisla WIRING AND pLllidNlN(.1,SIID AND LOCAILD ON SAID 1'Rl sllslS ARE IN t'ROFIX WORKING(NDI.A :.a., AT[MTh(11 c:LO.I\e. The seller banker e to deli,et sw,sse,ston not later than proofed that all conditions of this - apemen,have been compiurd anti l'nlrrr otherwise rrrc,erd this tale shall be rl,nrd on tit Rime 60 dies from the date erhetorri mint shall In the t thn plopern i d d or snhsra rnalln damaged by vie or any.other rause he :e the closing date. , become null and void.a,the funk ,},n.n.and ail gnomes paid hereunder Chad k rrn,nded to him case y <The layer and viler also mutually tree that pro roc adlsrsimrnrs nl rent,.interest.immense and city water.and.in the a of nee pmpern.unit a ol<rt:,ne rspen•rashall be let f ''l mr The ell,shah w,rlr n a trai,inal,le time atteri i I oh rho arum .f 1 an alas+rr of 1 R tteml pmperiy, Abr d l a duet n Ia, p ry 1 Ivnkrui•rcrrs.al,,I I ledrra„nil yr m I I It 1 h ll he 'Ifs, l211{ n:n.e.ra there'd 1 1 i :r and nh<innr. I / 1 ark on,to h i I ame or 1 I t,he v+„,I.Itam-,Ic .the sayer shall) ul 11..1 A suchne .1 1 I p ', roe' .1 talc p n,hereunder required rho' he r,r,rl^,ned hos tan,n•Cretan, tit title and nohm III Jays a11rr win.atone to the Miser.the) hI nett, rh„ar'rremcntarc !, nr trrn,r. ll said tin I, k h'r n,k„n m , w,rh,n Ins dos 1i..n•thr.tat nl s fnr rhre ,n therms a alm,nu rlva vr,lus^ this Averment ,ell M mill I 1 n+ rue r, tnhr 1a:* and verities pro vt,n,l•hall he bar•, .r,, err hrrrt nder to hr t 1 pal ti,, All sr r e the e 1•i l y Ow b, r•I,1r 1,c r ur,ird Its till,.i. „1 urns hr in,nil n ral,le or he a made w I I tine and s,Jl r:se r,shall Jen v.1 the a ,, rr and,n,n in.Icr a,dt 1..:a rwr,.s1,.f its.hr nhrn anti r in, t mry terminate Chore nd r,, tire v , all true Ivrn•rmr n a.le or an rI,, a shall her ,red hi,ode•ehri uaiXaafxstOx as `: if,. rl 1 1 1 s e t e live.;l l 1 A halt n,.t Win n -nhrn piety of slo r 1 .... 1 ; 1 air, I I ban I t r 1 and I h I ,inn I ss.h,rue" 1 f rr, 1,,Ali h e, n 1 n h It,.1 r.l arise t f\TX'H:rna 1.•n:'a'c'(s•k}T`_.'1!owt\R'GW1ho xaiaw.4,1:'X•rtnicntioxny \elf eHH21etiti,s tORT2rCXkxa'xX2R•x A• Ti)pkfihtims3 4:0:Ca'.r..1SL1,.Rig,MiR'XarAYK^.P.YRir:ex/:KAa1`:"MRRxTX1I".d Xxtt0.Hfrta R,,,..X IL.lt.t.WNhXIiNILi,NA.11 %I4 tixxx C I OCM AnnnovLO Pr MnN5t*OTA ASSOCIATION Or RLAIYOR*S The dclaery rrf all p+ir:s and moniet shall he mute at the mho nf: I isr 1 ) I I,the undersigned,nerner ill rhr atone land,do henbs approae 1 hereby twee m punhax the uid pmrrrtr for stir price and the;hose agreement -.I the sale thereby made. the .abhK' t timed,and stance:to all prademna upon j Q boon<,Ciro-d• ) . e - A. %JJ (,� ., ( ) ci't a uf,I11uRIp • `1�� I Sauer` STAL By lL�f •iL r l-'(+U/l�(sPAL) • E End Ho re j�, �/y d`(tune A Irllf'I '�/! Jill,. • tr EXUIBIT A • • That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of said Quarter- Quarter; thence South along the West line of said quarter-quarter distant 316 feet to the actual point of • the beginning; thence East parallel with the North line of said quarter-quarter distant 357.0 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said quarter- quarter distant 242 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said quarter-quarter distant 357.0 feet; thence North along the West line of said quarter- quarter distant 242.0 feet to the point of the beginning, according to the Government Survey, except road. bx:ILU1 U • LEASE a THIS AGREEMENT, made this jja day of 44Cuo( , 1981, by and between City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called Lessor, and Earl and Helen More, 8107 Eden Prairie Road, a Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereinafter called Lessees. WITNESSETH, that Lessor in consideration of Lessees having sold this date the premises hereinafter described to Lessor by Contract for Deed, Lessor hereby demises, leases and lets unto Lessees, and each of them, and Lessees hereby hire and take ' from Lessor the following described premises situated in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 116, Range' 22, described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of said Quarter- Quarter; thence South along the West line of said quarter-quarter distant 316 feet to the actual point of the beginning; thence East parallel with the North y' line of said guarter-quarter distant 357.0 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said quarter- • • quarter distant 242 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said quarter-quarter distant 357.0 feet; thence North along the West line of said quarter- quarter distant 242.0 feet to the point of the beginning, according to the Government Survey, except road. to have and to hold the said premises just as they are without any liability or obligation on the part of Lessor, of making any _ alterations, improvements or repairs of any kind on or about the premises, except as hereinafter provided, for the term so long as Lessees or either of them shall occupy the premises as their personal residence upon the conditions and in accordance with the covenants and provisions hereinafter contained. 1. Definition. The terms "occupy the premises as their • personal residence" means the continuous physical • occupancy of the premises by Lessees, or either thereof, except for such physical absence therefrom for vacations S. or other purposes of not more than 60 continuous days duration at any one time. 2. Termination. Upon both Lessees ceasing to'occupy the premises as their personal residence, all rights and j privileges of Lessees and each of them arising out of this ��s lease and all of the obligations of Lessor shall terminate forthwith. 3. Use. The premises shall be used by Lessees for their personal residence and for no other use or purpose. 4. Obligations of Lessor. During the term hereof, Lessor shall be obligated: A. To maintain the roof and furnace, which are • part of the house situated on the premises, in good condition. 8. To maintain the well and septic system on the • premises in good condition provided, however, Lessor may, at its option and at its cost, cause municipal water and sewer service to be connected to the house on the premises. ' 5. Obligations of Lessees. Lessees shall be obligated: • A. To maintain the premises continually in a neat, clean and respectable condition, in good order and to repair the premises and not suffer any waste thereon or thereof subject to reasonable use and wear, as the • • same now are or may be put into by Lessor, except to the extent such repair or maintenance is the obligation ; of Lessor under paragraph 4 hereof. 8. To pay all charges and costs as and for utilities and services furnished to the premises including any i.;'. charges for municipal water or sewer if the same is connected to serve the premises, in Lessors discretion • as provided in paragraph 4B hereof; to heat the house • on the premises and to keep the premises and roofs of buildings thereon free of ice and snow. C. To not make any alteration or change in the structure or other portions of the house situated on the premises within the consent of Lessor. • j 'J 7 D. To permit Lessor, its agent and employees to inspect the premises at all reasonable times. 6. No assignment or sublease. This lease and the tenancy created hereby and all rights herein are personal to Lessees and they may not sell, transfer, or assign the same or any part thereof to any other person, nor may they sublet the premises which are the subject hereof or any part thereof, nor may Lessees rights and privileges under this lease or the premises or any part thereof be sold, conveyed, assigned or sublet to any other person by operation of law. 7. Insurance. Lessees shall insure to the full insurable value all personal property owned by them for loss or destruction due to fire, windstorm or other cause or • causes in a company or companies suitable to Lessor and provide Lessor with a waiver of subrogation with respect thereto. In the event the property or any portion thereof is destroyed by fire, wind or other cause (other than natural deterioration) to such an extent as to require repairs to make the same inhabitable, City may, but shall not be obligated to, make the same. In the event City, in its sole discretion, chooses not to make such repairs, all of the rights and privileges of Lessees and the obligations of Lessor hereunder shall thereupon terminate. In the event City, in its sole discretion, makes such repair or repairs, this lease shall continue in full force and effect. Lessees shall also maintain liability insurance insuring themselves against liability as a lessee, tenant and occupant of the premises in the minimum amount of $ 300,000.00 for a combined single limit household insurance coverage for property and personal injury. ___ 6. Condemnation. In the event the premises or any portion thereof is acquired by any governmental entity, or other person possessing such power, by right of eminent domain and as a result thereof, the premises shall be uninhabitable, i- F Lessor shall be under no duty to repair, rebuilJ or reconstruct 777 the premises to make the same habitable and thereupon, the rights and privileges of Lessees and the obligations of Lessor shall cease and terminate. p 9. Notice of vacation. At least six weeks prior to vacating and ceasing to occupy the premises as their personal residence, Lessees shall notify Lessor in writing of their intention to do so, however, the failure of Lessees to so notify Lessor shall not affect termination of their rights and privileges as provided in paragraph:2 hereof. 10. Repossession. Upon Lessees ceasing to occupy the premises as their personal residence or upon their failure to perform any covenant or to abide by or observe any condition provided by this agreement, Lessor may declare this lease to be terminated and may take possession of the premises. 11. Subject to Law. This lease is made subject to the provisions of all Governmental regulations and municipal laws and ordinances now in force or hereinafter enacted. • CITY OF EDEN RAIRIE ,0 / ) By _ Vf c.,�l6 . Vs Mayor aY P4 • Its Nana Ear More Helen More STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this isth day of ,4,,.-/. , 1981, by Wolfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor, and Carl Jul lie, Manager, of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. ) 1 , "++ TEVL rvNP Ml p;�„Tin'OT Mary Public a1.r: N1t♦htTn PtNcAWlt,4 TY9N T.py OF MINNESOTA) ) 55. ,y)UNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /gak day of L , 1981, by Earl More and Helen More. • /.*:=4"4'1 STEVEN M.OISTAD tar Pu61 is 41*Pr.{r 1 NOTARY VU"LAC-..1�HN( y {4 HENNEPIN COUNTY NMNN•••••••••• STAFF REPORT 4 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Manner T1I0UGil: Chris Enger, Director of Planning i DATE: July 19, 1985 . -t PROJECT: Highway #101-Valley View Road Rezoning l LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of Valley View Road and Highway #101 APPLICANT: City of Eden Prairie ,' FEAR: Robert and Shirlee Olson REQUEST: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 for six lots totaling 3.62 acres. _ I / r =lrN: �._._-� Summar k•O,—-47-, This Staff Report was inititated in • ' ;�, C f � response to a grading permit 11 �. application received July ——r t... .. j,p. � . 78 fl R, t3�} � � g , �from CopRerfield Homes for grading � � _ �of two lots north of Valley View Rill-6 J _ �r� Road along Highway #101 for one £{-07�'- , 1 .� ..7 1Z5' r single family home. 4!hi le process- 79 ?.5' �` "`"�f� ing this request, Staff learned that �1PROPOSED SITE `:. the two lots, and four additional RI-1351 ; , ,r lots just to the south, are 75-�6{ f _�� i, fi! currently zoned Rural. liomes have { 13r,r„� '_d i .�'" '� �t been constructed on the four lots to ,Y J t , L �� the enu These homes were built _ , 1979. ° :Vj / / r between 1963 to _ ,� > ___� divided in -(( \5�"`TJ The sir, lots, which were *t�-.::�{ '�, ti� 1973, range in size from 0.54 to '. - 0.73 acres. Since these lots do not ;-,A 25f�, meet the ten-acre rninimum, or , setback requirements for the Rural 4• District, a Zoning District Change 11 1.,c2,. ., , from Rural to R1-22 should take place in order for all lots to J, ___I :; u_L , /. comply with current City Ordinances. 'I 5 i''1V i �� "/81-15Dackaround -n`��� 1 ,/ '•. ,-I The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts �1 r.7f'..F ?"1 "" .11'1"ni`� �` r P - /-�1, ...r..6'fir. Lrk.I`..c,;-i r ` • f i • - • Highway #101-Valley View Road Rezoning 2 July 19, 1985 a Low Density Residential land use for this site for up to 2.5 units per acre. Surrounding land uses consist of Maple Leaf Acres (R1-13.5) to the north, and Hidden Ponds Second Addition (R1-13.5) to the east and south. Highway #101 fronts the property to the west. #' The proposed house site (two vacant lots) consists of an open field, which slopes . gradually from the southeast to the northwest. No significant vegetation exists on the site. Site Plan One single family house is proposed on two, 0.54-acre lots. The land owners, Robert and Shirlee Olson, are in the process of obtaining an administrative joining of the two lots, which will allow proper setback requirements for the proposed R1-22 zoning. Grading and Drainage Site grading is to consist of house pad modification and driveway construction. Drainage of the property will be overland, via a drainage swale to the northwest. • The City Engineer has reviewed the grading and drainage plans and finds them acceptable. The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the grading and indicates that no permit will be required from them, since the grading is confined to less than one acre. Utilities Sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site from utilities along the east side of Highway #101. Access The Olsons have received an access permit to Highway #101 from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, a copy of which is on file at City Hall. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request of rezoning from Rural to R1-22 for the six lots totaling 3.62 acres subject to the following: 1. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Administratively join the two, 0.54-acre lots to allow for proper setback requirements for the R1-22 District. B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. • • • a t.P;" '' '•'n 5 p (1e tti LEAF )AAPLE( ) l (91 • t 1 (11) .,�z}' ) 2:1' ' _.— -.' 1. (so) !cA). ( !l+ ~�J' . ,aU .4 + BS o ' S • 8111 ADD , /t . ii: A,.-3 ` 01( ) :,C6t 7/ AR • ( can 3• .. ..22. 54 acres ,,) 9j,�?y'to �, ' 1.b>..,`' (yLl ,J1(1) . . / % / • '+ Lots owened by 'Robert and Shirfee Olson .54 acres `"_—s _._••;- �° r2;; z3°.� _(3j j / La\'V .i lg .for °, '' • i 2 a - tti / /./ SE y'' /.30 0,l'., „ ( `�o. .:o••'f. 1 5 y �5 1. O JF(9� •T P© 1. 1 }. • ,,73,acres °l3: �20 -4,;'4 ,e •. c - )' ,, V '6Q acres, `yJ 1�1�°'t1P1�� �•�,�, `P°•C't`�° 'i��° ;.)°,``. •� r. 1 / / ' l'� ' homes 5,ti�= ' '` Lots with existing 60 acres °�. . ,� ° -k 'adz ,t; / / / 'e` . . • �, �\cy1 •-t ;`)`�,'•, ,,,° { s V• I11\ ' .. o, y61 acre 48 w 4 • ç' J ;: * ' -fel • � t•J°i. 4 . VALLEY • :' s~ ..' A3\`v « •s'5`), s • Z f 11° h t.1 o ' ti‘.. 3,84. o, ,, c .4 3``4\. �•'1•,(sl); 'i8} • • 2 ° w 9, s) ,.. 6 ., '' •.•`�i 1.1 l 1, (. ) ,,,\ +5 : ..,.11'. . , ° a .ti. : ( ti /./ +.. . . 2e t,) _ ., ,)t ;` f 1600:' SURVEY FOR: COPPGRPICLD HOMEG iRI 01 4tots •Prepared By: --RI I • .SCHOELL & MADE on� °1 vm".I R , • Engineers• Surveyors• Planner ate. T 8N i P?vd ••• 245.00-m /93z•O ............. 10550 Wayzata Bow °c��. 'l _ 212.00 .,''., Minnetonka, Mn. 55 . - - ..-11-- -•., ... ..-46-.. .:1 a Tel. 546-7601 � 954A 1• l p r `` 929 91 19 �'^1 r I } .. pit f z 6 I Line tulle(fo fhe S. _ 1 '91ef,( ' line offheN.%2of1i1'f4 m 061 .1...,...11.;:.,1,44\ .!of sec.7 .0- z. . Flt,\E d 0 rr O 91 ` a i. . t 0 o a + aZ°_ _ '�, t ___ - _-j-- 0 - —14 a flpp (�,o.e) t(930.0) l . DESCRIPTION: 1 0 d ? L. Lot line to be removed The North 220.0c c } I �l I described tract: 1 cC 1 �I i o U) !I N N That part of tr `&' Northwest nu_ ~ , } N clron� C� y \� ; Township 11c, j_,?} } } ( .BM.s oke 935.4 u Cotnty, Mint, �141.2) . i ���.- b r95°4• 947.' '. i commencing 2 I 4 .._• 7t-.. • --212.00-- S -••./ of said North c0v t �'p-.:..'�.' 245.00-••• :— ' Quarter; then. he —� �� 6 �� / I , 1 West tine of r S.!`ine of f�0 nOt�R Northwest fry. • No. 220 f f 113.50 feet t, L� _ thence cent+r. 1---il said West lit feet; thence the South lir 1 0 N of the North, b (t�v of 245.00 fc•, ' ' I parallel to o } - of 744.20 to point of beg.,. easement rn, - 1— I --L..1 and across tt thereof. 'fin1)S BENCHMARK: • • i AUGUST 6,1985 i 21203 VOID OUT CHECK 383.75s ' 2"46 VOID OUT CHECK 125.08 2 1 VOID OUT CHECK 9.05 ,;E 21528 VOID OUT CHECK 421.82- ,3 21668 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 5259.34 21669 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1032.96 21670 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 855.40 21671 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 3188.0- 21672 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE 3971.11 21673 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 204.01 21674 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 1477.78 21675 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO SERVICE-LIQUOR STORES 9.05 21676 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT MAY 85 BOOKING FEES 421.82 21677 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER RENT TAMPER & DOLLY 125.08 21678 VALLEY FAIR EXPENSES-SUMMER PROGRAMS 404.20 21679 PADGETT-THOMPSON CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 196.00 21680 BEN KRAGH EXPENSES-ROUND LAKE MARINA 66.37 21681 JULIE EAGLE REFUND-GOLF CLASSES 25.00 21682 JILLIAN KIRK REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 13.00 • 21683 ANDREW KEOGH REFUND-VALLEYFAIR TICKETS 9.50 21684 PETER KEOGH REFUND-VALLEYFAIR TICKETS 9.50 21685 STATE OF MINNESOTA BIKE REGISTRATION FEES 70.00 21686 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 3935.06 21687 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 2459.60 21688 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 2056.65 21689 QUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR 3014.32 ' '90 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 94.53 . r i_.91 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 532.30 ; 4 21692 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 56.51 21693 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 207.2o 21694 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 6568.3? . 21695 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 6/14/85 22036.87 21696 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 6/14/85 11459.57 21697 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 6/14/85 15243.06 21698 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 6/14/85 10.00 21699 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 6/14/85 1530.0D > 21700 GREAT WEST LIFE INSURANCE CO PAYROLL 6/14/85 5146.00 21701 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG JUNE DUES 647.85 21702 PERA PAYROLL 6/14/85 18088.n 21703 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1558.47 21704 CENTRAL MN POLICE K-9 CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 105.00 21705 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 21706 HOLIDAY INN 0 HARE KENNEDY -CONFERENCE-CITY MANAGER/FINANCE DIRECTOR/ 301.92 i. COUNCIL MEMBER & CITY ATTORNEY 21707 FLSA BRIEFING SEMINAR -CONFERENCE-CITY MANAGER/FINANCE DIRECTOR/ 360.00 COUNCIL MEMBER & CITY ATTORNEY • 21708 BEAVER MOUNTAIN WATER SLIDE EXPENSES-SUMMER PROGRAMS 401.50 : ; 21709 COMMISSIONER Of REVENUE JUNE 85 SALES TAX 9558.05 21710 MINNESOTA UC FUND 2ND QTR 85 UNEMPLOYMENT 105.8t. 21711 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 334.71 21712 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERIES 96.00 •13 SCOTT STANDRIDGE REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 15.00 u 714 BRYAN STANDRIDGE REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 15.00 21715 HOLLY JOHNSON REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 15.0o ,' 21716 KATIE ASKLAND REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 11.25 12236347 7, -1 21717 KATHY STELBERG REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 11,2G _' 21718 MATTHEW HARTMAN REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 13.00 21719 KRISTY Li0la N REFUND-SWIlIMING CLASSES 12.00 2-'0 CIHRISTOPHER HANNON REFUND-SWIf1MIHG CLASSES 5.66 2. _1 t1IKE VORLICEK REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 23.00 1 21722 ERIN MARIE OSBORN REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 23.00 21723 ALYSSA CHIRLIN REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 13.00 21724 WESLEY HOLMAGREN REFUND-5WIMMING CLASSES 13.00 21725 JOHN ANDERSON REFUND-INDIVIDUAL t1EMBERSHIP 10.00 21726 NIKKI TU,'tDEL REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 12.00 1 21727 SEAN TEMPERLY REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 10.00 1 21728 JAIMIE ARMSTRONG REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 1.75 21729 CELIA HREN REFUND-SWItVlING CLASSES 175 • 21730 JANE THOMAS REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 1.75 21731 NICOLE ROBERTSON REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 12.00 21732 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 738.68 21733 MARK VII SALES WINE 541.69 21734 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 2931.49 21735 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE • 817.17 21736 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 777.43 21737 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 2166.93 21738 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 296.81 21739 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 1909.78 21740 LEEWARDS SUPPLIES-DAY CAMP 29.97 21741 HARRIS INDUSTRIES SUPPLIES-DAY CAMP 10.00 21742 PETTY CASH EXPENSES 61.67 21743 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE JUNE 85 SPECIAL FUEL TAX 14/.73 21744 PREMIER RENT A CAR CAR RENTAL-TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 439.06 ' 15 WAYZATA COMMUNITY CHURCH EXPENSES-KIDS KORNER 75.00 2..46 UNITED STORES SUPPLIES-DAY CAMP 7.98 • 21747 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 8224.95 21748 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 21749 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1021.57 21750 ANGIE SMITH REFUND-BEAVER MOUNTAIN TRIP 8.00 21751 STEFFANIE LOFTHUS REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 6.00 21752 JEFF SMITH REFUND-BEAVER MOUNTAIN TRIP 8.00 21753 STEVEN ELFERING REFUND-DAY CAMP 35.00 21754 KRISTIN KOUNS REFUND-SAILING CLASSES 21.06 21755 INGRID RINGQUIST REFUND-BEAVER MOUNTAIN TRIP 8.00 21756 HERBERT M SCHULTZ REFUND-KAYAKING CLASSES 45.00 21757 CLAREYSE NELSON REFUND-KAYAKING CLASSES 45.00 21758 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE-POLICE. DEPT 745.00 ' • 21759 KELLY ZADACH REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 10.00 21760 PAUL ZADACH REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 12.00 21761 NDRTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 22910.It: 21762 LILLIPUTT MINIATURE GOLF EXPENSES-TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 34.43 21763 CHRISTINE PETERSON REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING CLASSES 12.00 ' 21764 CHRISTINE PETERSON REFUND-DAY CAMP 35.00 21765 MIN;ESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 149.77 21766 DIVERSI IRON ICS POWER CORD-COMMUNITY CENTER 61.00 21767 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 266.9,,, > 21768 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 693.91 • 21769 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 3867.30 7D JOIINSOt; BROIIIERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 2754.62 5208917 21771 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 3399.64 21772 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 275.21 21773 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 636.13 21774 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 345.90 21775 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 240.13 2( ; MARK VII SALES WINE 147.40 21%/7 VIUL0C01;CEPTS #472 VCR-CIVIL DEFENSE 349.90 21778 JASON-NORTHCO PROPERTIES AUGUST 85 RENT 3887.22 21779 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 2144.51 : 21780 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 8413.33 21781 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 3953.15 21782 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 646.07 21783 A COMMERCIAL DOOR COMPANY REPAIR P/W GARAGE DOOR 252.00 21784 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC TABLE-COMMUNITY SERVICES/OFFICE SUPPLIES 150.37 21785 AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 105.70 21786 AMERICAN TEST CENTER STRUCTURAL TEST ON AERIAL TOWER TRUCK 675.00 21787 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC POSTS/PLAYGROUND EQUIP-PRAIRIE EAST PARK 2148.45 21788 ANDERSON GARDEN SHOP FLOWERS-P/W BLDG 17.87 21789 ARA TRANSPORTATION BUS SERVICE-SUMMER PROGRAMS 256.05 21790 ARTCRAFT PRESS INC BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE DEPT 78.00 21791 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET DEPT 1322.35 21792 ASTLEFORD INTNL INC HEATER CORE-FIRE DEPT 60.50 ' ;, 21793 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 18.30 21794 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 2072.53 21795 BACHMANS FLOWERS-CITY HALL 62.95 ,� 21796 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC AIR FILTER/DIL FILTERS/SHOCKS/BATTERY 149.33 21797 B R W INC -SERVICE-TECHNOLOGY DRIVE/EDEN ROAD/ 31597.77 -ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY/VALLEY VIEW ROAD/ PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 21'9B BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER PLANT EXPANSION 28507.78 2. ,9 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON MAY & JUNE IMPOUND SERVICES 975.00 21800 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH CO REPAIR LOCK-P/S BLDG 52.00 21801 LOIS BOETTCHER SERVICE-PARK & REC COMMISSION MEETING 64.50 21802 LEE BRANDT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 312.00 21803 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC -SERVICE-PAULSENS 1ST ADDITION/NORSEMANS 1190.70 6TH ADDITION 21804 BRIDGEMANS CREAMERIES ROUND LAKE CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES 538.20 21805 ED BRION SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 52.00 21806 PAUL BROWN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 221.00 21807 BROWN PHOTO -PHOTOS-POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER/ 359.30 FILM-ASSESSING DEPT $307.50 21808 BRUNSON INSTRUMENT CO EQUIPMENT RENTAL-ENGINEERING DEPT 70.00 ' 21809 MIKE BURGETT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 260.00 21810 J E BURKE CO PLAYERS BENCHES-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK 289.30 21811 ROZ BURNSTEIN MILEAGE-KIDS KORNER 9.75 21812 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC FILE CABINET-ASSESSING DEPT 370.55 21813 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES • 344.00 21814 CARDOX CORP CARBON DIOXIDE-WATER DEPT 1385.79 21815 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC SERVICE 2061.00 21616 CARLSON REFRIGERATION CO INC REPAIR LIQUOR STORE COOLER 110.03 21817 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO LEGAL ADS-TANAGER CREEK 283.56 21818 CIIEMLAWN LAWN APPLICATION-P/S & WATER DEPT 822.00 21819 CIMLINE INC EQUIPMENT RENTAL-STREET OEPT 700.00 21820 COMMISSIONER OF TRvANSPORTATION SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 1900.65 ..,428487 • . 21821 JEFFREY L CONRADI HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 75.00 21.822 CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC HOSE-FIRE DEPT 139.40 2)093 COPY EQUIPMENT INC BLUELINE/VELLUM 215.90 2 4 CPT CORP OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE OEPT 253.20 21825 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 48.19 21826 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC REPAIR FENDER-PARK MAINTENANCE 196.80 21827 CUSTOM SURFACING INC SERVICE-STARING LAKE TRAILS 16626.73 21828 CUTLER MAGNER CO QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 6946.86 21829 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 88.3? . 21830 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE 22.00 21831 DAY TIMERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-PLANNING OEPT 15.43 21832 DEVELOPERS CONST REFUNO BUILOING PERMIT 545.00 21833 DONS APPLIANCE & TELEVISION TV SET-CIVIL DEFENSE 380.00 21834 DDRHOLT INC FORMS-CITY HALL 310.00 . 21835 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES-SUMMER PROGRAMS 60.51 41, 21836 JEFFREY DUNFORD TENNIS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAIO 324.00 21837 JEFFREY DUNFORO TENNIS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 558.00 21838 DUSTCOATING INC OIL FOR ROAOS-STREET DEPT 5632.00 21839 DENNIS P EARLEY MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 31.00 21840 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT CONFERENCE-FIRE OEPT 803.33 21841 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT EXPENSES-FIRE OEPT 163.12 i - 21842 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS JUNE 85 TRASH PICKUP 325.00 21843 CITY OF EDINA JUNE 85 TESTS 99.50 '`, 21844 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC WASHERS/OXYGEN SENSOR/FACEPIECE-WATER OPT 216.44 21845 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEM INC CONVERT VEHICLE FOR POLICE PATROL 3496.40 7. 21846 EMPIRE-CROWN AUTO INC SHOCKS/MUD FLAPS 57.29 21847 DOUG EPSTEIN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAIO 52.00 ?-18 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 142.50 L +9 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHLORINE-WATER OEPT 876.79 21850 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES TENNIS NET TIE STRAPS 90.00 . 2I851 FIRE CHIEF MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE OEPT 18.00 21852 FIRESTONE STORES 5 TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 637.55 21853 FIRST SECURITY TITLE REFUND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1689.92 21854 FLYING SCDTCHMAN EXPENSES-COMMUNITY SERVICES 43.75 21855 FOREST COMMODITIES SPECIALISTS IN LANDSCAPE TIMDERS-PARK OEPT 1527.50 2I856 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY AUOIT SERVICE 4818.10 21857 FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS INC FREIGHT CHARGES-STREET OEPT 105.8? 21858 CAROL FOY MILEAGE 80.00 21859 JOHN FRANE JULY 85 EXPENSES 165.00 21860 MICHAEL D FRANZEN MILEAGE-PLANNING OEPT 8.90 21861 G L CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-BROWN FARM CIRCLE 1I51.5S 21862 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR & PARTS 3683.30217 50 21863 GLIDDEN PAINT PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 21864 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTERS 6 TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 293.12 21865 GOPHER SIGN CO REFLECTORIZED SAFETY VESTS-WATER DEPT 128.52 21866 GREENKEEPER INC REPLACE SPRINKLER HEAD-P/S BLOC 95.41 21867 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC REPAIR UNDERGROUND WIRES ON LIFTSTATION 119.11 21868 HACH CO CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 86.71 21869 PAT HAERTEL CALLIGRAPHY OF CERTIFICATES-SUMMER PROGRAM IO 00 21870 BECKY PLOIO'J\N HAHN TENNIS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 627.O0 21871 BECKY PLOWMAN HAHN TENNIS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 1140.00 21872 JAMES HALE GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAIO 60.00 73 MICHAEL W HAMILTON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 353.00 2,074 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPT OF PROPERTY POSTAGE-VERIFICATION OF VOTER REGISTRATION 20.76 5587119 I . -•1 21875 HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN DUES-FIRE DEPT 10.00 21876 DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY TAXATION PROPERTY TAXES-PARKS DEPT 25.4E 21877 DONALD A HENNESSY CRA APPRAISAL REVIEW-PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENT 85.00 21878 MATHEW J HODHOPP SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 52.00 2 ) HOFFMANS INC REFUNO MECHANICAL PERMIT 29.25 : 21bd0 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -VALVES/SPRINGS/GASKETS/TUBES/FREON- 3214.87 COMMUNITY CENTER 21881 HOPKINS DODGE SALES INC REPAIR FRONT END & WHEEL BEATING-BLDG DEPT 128.50 21882 HOYT DEVELOPMENT OVERPAYMENT ON BUILDING PERMIT 196.05 •21883 KURT HYSTER HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 75.00 21884 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 -BLDG RENTAL-KIDS KORNER/SUPPLIES-ART/ 748.30 DRAMA & COMPUTER CAMP 218B5 INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY CABLE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 58.59 21886 INSTANTWHIP-MINNESOTA INC ICE CREAM-ROUND LAKE CONCESSION 89.78 21887 GARY ISAACS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 148.00 21888 JAK OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 396.14 21889 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 15.00 21890 JUSTUS LUMBER CO LUMBER-POLICE DEPT 135.54 21891 KARULF HARDWARE INC -KEYS/PHONE CORD/STAPLES/TIMER/ADAPTER/ 130.59 t. SCREWS/BOLTS/COOLERS/ELBOWS/PADLOCK 21892 DANIEL J KASID SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 130.00 21893 KELLY SERVICES INC TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT=POLICE OEPT 444.13 21894 KENNETH KERBER REFUND ON WATER & SEWER BILL 30.75 21895 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC -BASEBALLS/HORSESHOES/CROQUET SET- 136.70 COMMUNITY SERVICES 21896 MARK E KOPLITZ MILEAGE-COMMUNITY SERVICES 93.50 21897 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER PAINT/PAINT ROLLERS-WATER DEPT 61.39 21898 REBECCA KRAGH SAILING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 435.00 217'99 PAT LALINE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 105.00 $. A ROBERT LAMBERT JULY 85 EXPENSES 165.00 21901 LANCE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 17.30 21902 LANE INSURANCE INC INSURANCE 2061.00 21903 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD MAY 85 LANDFILL SERVICE 5697.35 ;: 21904 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD MAY 85 LEGAL SERVICES 11846.00 21905 LANO EQUIPMENT INC TRAILER-PARK MAINTENANCE 2350.00 21906 BOB LANZI SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 270.00 21907 AL LARSON SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT 354.42 2190E DOUGLAS LAWVFR SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 51.00 21909 LEAGUE OF MN HUMAN RIGHTS COMM DUES-SENIOR CENTER 104.00 21910 LEEF BROS INC RUG SERVICE 200.20 21911 LIEBERMAN ENTERPRISES INC CASSETTES/LP ALBUMS-COMMUNITY CENTER 99.00 21912 DAVID LINDAHL EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 1.06 21913 LOGIS JUNE 85 SERVICE 3283.53 21914 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR BLADE/LINK-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 134.10 21915 LYMAN LUMBER CO LUMBER-DRAINAGE DEPT 137.29 21916 M-R SIGN COMPANY INC SAFETY LIGHTS-WATER DEPT 1020.6E ; £ 21917 MACDONALI) AND MACK PARTNERSHIP SERVICE-CUMMINS GRILL HOUSE RESTORATION 800.00 21918 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC GAS TANK CAP-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 16.04 21919 MASYS CORPORATION MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 914.00 21920 l'ATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING SERVICE 25.00 21921 MCFARLANES INC CEMENT-PARK MAINTENANCE 13.00 21922 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-CITY HALL 31.63 21923 MCI CELLCOM JUNE 85 MOBILE PHONE SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 1862.49 T4 METRO ALARM INC 3RD QTR 85 ALARM SYSTEM-P/S BLDG 126.00 3855462 21925 METRO PRINTING INC FORMS-FORESTRY DEPT 190.00 21926 FETROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIP CO FIRE EXTINGUISHERS-ALL CITY VEHICLES 338.60 21927 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM JUNE 85 SAC CHARGES 41233.5k ?8 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM AUGST 85 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE 93146.9 2 J29 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO -CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-ROUND LAKE & 886.4E COMMUNITY CENTER 21930 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP 5036.2! 21931 MILSCO ENGINEERING CABLE/SEAL/TRANSFORMERS/PLUGS-P/S BUILDING 468.21 21932 MPLS AREA CHAPTER -BOOKS/MASKS/SNORKES/SAFETY FILM-COMMUNITY 76.Ot. CENTER 21933 MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO SUBSCRIPTION-CITY HALL 29.90 21934 MN DEPT OF P/S CRT CONNECT CHARGE-POLICE DEPT 150.O0 21935 MINNESOTA FRACLAND COMPANY ROCK-STREET DEPT • 75.81 21936 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC SOFTBALL REGISTRATION/FEES PAID 2600.00. 21937 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORE 239.03 2193B MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 36.25 21939 MINUTI-OGLE CO INC TAPE FIRE DOOR & CEILING-P/S BUILDING 65.2C 21940 ROBERT G MODEEN INC PAINT FIRE STATION 2383.14 21941 MODERN TIRE CO WHEEL ALIGNMENT-SQUAD CAR 61.95 21942 TERRI MONROE MILEAGE-KIDS KORNER 8.83 21943 R E MOONEY & ASSOC INC PAINT-WATER DEPT 279.30 21944 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO PARTS FOR TORO RIDING MOWER-WATER DEPT 136.60 21945 GREG MUELLER VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 130.00 21946 MN MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES ASSOC DUES-LIQUOR STORES 200.00 21947 JOHN MURRAY II SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 52.0C 21948 MY CHEESE SHOP EXPENSES 38.04 21949 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC SEMINAR-FIRE DEPT 153.00 2195D NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC MEMBERSHIP DUES-FIRE DEPT 62.&5 51 GREGG NELSON TRAVEL INC AIRFARE FOR CONFERENCE 765.03 21952 JEFF NELSON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 182.00 21953 SUZANNE NIESEN SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 1D1.8D 21954 BILL OROURKE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 104.0 21955 PAT OLSON REFUND ROUND LAKE PARK RESERVATION 70.0C. 21956 HARRY A ORTLOFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 468.06 :1957 P & H WAREHOUSE SALES PIPE-PARK MAINTENANCE 69.13 21958 CHARLES J PAPPAS EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 170.2: 21959 PATRICK PEREZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 453.0: 21960 WILLIE PEREZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 91.0o 21961 T A PERRY ASSOCIATES INC REPAIR COOLING SYSTEM-P/S BLDG 539.4.: 21962 CONNIE PETERS MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 13.0` 21963 PETTY CASH-PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 51.1" 21964 POMMER MFG CO INC SOFTBALL TROPHIES/FEES PAID 45.0 %' 21965 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC ELECTRICAL WORK IN P/S BLDG 2808.2 21966 PREFERRED PAVING SERVICE-FRANLO & EDEN VALLEY PARKS 20757.9., 21967 R & R SPECIALTIES INC SHARPEN ZAMBONI BLADES-COMMUNITY CENTER 66. 21968 RICK RABENORT EXPENSES-CANINE UNIT 90.5i 21969 RADIO SHACK WIRE/PLUGS/CONNECTORS/RELAY-POLICE DEPT 30.7: 21970 JAMES F RHODY SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 130.0 • 21971 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-PAULSENS ADDITION/FLYING CLOUD 10876.6 -DRIVE/NORSEPAN IND PARK/PRESERVE BLVD/ PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 21972 ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS REPAIR CUT CABLE-FOX RUN CIRCLE 40.00 973 MICHAEL JOHN ROGERS EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 100.51 __974 RYANS RUBBER STAMPS STAMP-COMMUNITY CENTER 17.5.3 18611896 • . 21975 CITY OF ST PAUL CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 40.00 21976 WAYNE R SANDERS EXPENSES-BLDG DEPT 147.<.:.' 21977 VOID OUT CHECK O.0i . 2-98 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RESTROOMS-PARK DEPT 2579.8; i .9 KEVIN D SCHMIDT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 286.00 21980 STEVEN R SINELL JULY 85 EXPENSES 243.9/ 21981 DAN SHIMEK SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 148.09 21982 SNAP ON 100LS CORP SOCKET WRENCH-STREET GARAGE 132.5! 21983 SNAP PRINT INC PRINT BOOK COVERS FOR POLICY MANUAL-POLICE 980.00 21984 SNAP PRINT-WEST -PRINTING-POLICE/COMMUNITY CENTER/ 180.47 COMMUNITY SERVICES 21985 SNYDERS DRUG STORES INC NAME TAGS/BALLONS/BATTERIES/TAPE/CHALK 115.59 21986 CITY OF RICHFIELO SERVICE-CABLE TV 9829.47 H. 21987 STANDARD HEATING REFUND-HEATING PERMIT 27.2U 21988 STANDARD SPRING COMPANY REPAIR CAR SEAT 58.2E 21989 STATE OF MINNESOTA FEE-WATER DEPT 35.00 21990 STATE TREASURER 2ND QTR 85 BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGE 17364.71 21991 STATE TREASURER FEE-WATER DEPT 30.O0 21992 DON STREICHER GUNS AMMUNITION-POLICE DEPT 25.00 21993 MONTY STUHLER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 104.00 21994 JAMES STUKEL GUIDE FOR BOUNDARY WATERS TRIP 581.00 21995 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET SPARE WHEEL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 87.50 21996 SUN ELECTRIC CORPORATION BATTERY CHARGER-STREET DEPT 228.48 21997 TARGET 220 -EXTENSION CORDS/MULTIPLE OUTLETS/FILM/ 172.60 CAMERA-ENGINEERING/CITY HALL 21998 KEITH TAYLOR SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAIO 26.00 21999 KEVIN TIMM SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 104.00 22000 TOTAL TOOL LENS FOR SANDBLASTING HOOD-WATER DEPT 23.20 01 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS PAINTS-SUMMER PROGRAMS 34.64 L.42 TURF SUPPLY CO FERTILIZER-FRANLO & EDEN VALLEY PARK 6146.5E 22003 TWIN CITY CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO SILICA SAND-WATER DEPT 239.10 22004 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN-STREET DEPT 12.60 22005 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE/POLICE/ANIMAL WARDEN 3265.7U 22006 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED FLASHLIGHT/DOME LIGHTS 280.06 22007 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES UNIFORMS FDR CITY EMPLOYEES 1263.9U 2200E UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC WASHERS/NUTS-STREET GARAGE 105.8'n 220D9 VAN WATERS & ROGERS SILICOFLUORIDE-WATER DEPT 1150.O6 22010 VANTAGE COMPANIES REFUND FOR VARIANCE FEE 300.C: 22011 VARDA COMPANY REPAIR ALARM SYSTEM-POLICE OEPT 192.23 22012 VIDEOTRONIX INC MAINTENANCE CONTRACT-POLICE DEPT 698.00 22013 VOSS ELEC1RIC CO LIGHT BULBS 489.I2 22014 WATER PRODUCTS CO -252 5/8" METERS-$11312.2B/I62 REGULATORS 22105.36 -$4584.60/250 HORNS $3187.50/6 1 1/2" METER $1776.00/HOSE-WATER DEPT • 22015 WATERITE INC SENSOR-COMMUNITY CENTER 74.50 22016 WEED KING WEED CUTTING-PARKS DEPT 23I.0; + 22017 SANDRA F WERTS MILEAGE-COMMUNITY SERVICES 126.3u 22018 XEROX CORP SERVICE 228.29 22019 ZIEGLER TIRE SERVICE CO 4 TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 666.1t. 22020 FEDERAL RFSERVE BANK PAYROLL 7/26/85 2I777.3 22021 COP1MISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 7/26/85 9787.27 22022 DEPAR1MEUT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 7/26/85 15598.10 29023 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 7/26/85 229.62 24 PERA PAYROLL 7/26/85 63.00 11861570 1., 22025 GREAT WEST LIFE INSURANCE CO PAYROLL 7/26/85 5146.00 22026 MINNESOTA SIATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 7/26/85 10.00 22027 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK PAYROLL 7/26/85 250.00 22028 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 7/26/85 1545.00 2( 9 PERA PAYROLL 7/26/85 17422.30 2,s7330 $702271.28 • • buY&. • gust 6, 1985 Cash Disbursements by Fund Number 10 GENERAL 301976.26 =' 11 CERIIFICATE OF INDEBT 2489.40 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 42439.49 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 26816.71 30 CASH PARK FEES -10164.00 • 31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 45202.80 33 UTILITY BOND FUND 28507.78 36 P/S & P/W BOND FUND 880.30 45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARB -4050.00 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 35427.04 • 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 191.50 73 WATER FUND 57146.33 77 SEWER FUND 132550.17 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 31716.19 87 CDBG FUND 800.00 90 TAX INCREMENT FUND 10341.31 $702271.28 • • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services"At- DATE: July 24, 1985 • SUBJECT: Round Lake Surface Use Ordinance • The City has had a policy of restricting boats on Round Lake to electric motors only; however, the City has never passed an ordinance regulating the use of the surface, thereby making the policy unenforceable. City staff request the City Council to approve a first reading of Ordinance 28-85 restricting the operation of any boat on Round Lake to electric motors only. This ordinance makes it unlawful to launch or operate a boat that even has a gas powered motor attached to the boat, unless the boat is operated by the State or is authorized by the City for resource management, emergency or • enforcement. The other exclusion to the ordinance is the pontoon boat operated by the City, which may use a small gas powered motor when taking out public recreation groups. The purpose of this ordinance is to restrict the large fishing boats that may have an electric trolling motor from using the lake. The surface of Round Lake is only 34 acres. The fishable waters are reduced again when eliminating the swimming beach and 100' from the swimming beach, as well as eliminating the heavy weeded area on the west shore. The lake is also used by sailboards, sailboats, paddle boats and canoes. Staff believes it is reasonable to limit the use of this lake to small boats such as rowboats or canoes that may have electric motors attached to them. A copy of this ordinance has been sent to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources for his review and approval. Upon receipt of the approval of the Commissioner, staff would submit the ordinance for second reading and final approval. BL:md • ' ORDINANCE NO. 28-85 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 BY RENUMBERING PRESENT SECTION 9.63 AS 9.64, ANO BY RENUMBERING PRESENT SECTION 9.64 AS 9.65, AND BY ADDING SECTION 9.63 RELATING TO REGULATION OF THE USE OF ROUND LAKE; AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. 4 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: , Section 1. City Code Chapter 9 shall be and is amended by renumbering present Section 9.63 as 9.64, and by renumbering present Section 9.64 as 9.65. .Section 2. City Code Chapter 9 shall and is amended by adding thereto Section 9.63 which reads as follows: (SEC.9.63. REGULATION OF USE OF ROUND LAKE. • Subd. 1. It is unlawful to launch or operate any boat on Round Lake which has attached to it any motor, other than an electric motor, unless such boat is launched • or operated by state or City authorized resource management, emergency, or enforcement personnel acting in the performance of their assigned duties or unless such boat is owned, launched, and operated by the City of Eden Prairie for use by public recreation groups.) Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definations Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 entitled "Violation A Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and 4' publication. FIRSI READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of • , 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1985. .2_ Ordinance •28-85 ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1985. /w i August 2, 1985 Mr; Carl Jullie City Manager of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie City Hall • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Jullie: I would like to request a meeting with Eden Prairie City Council to address the proposed building requirements of my home. As you are aware, in May construction started but due to an engineering error was halted. The grading plan submitted by Mike Bracale, my builder was approved by Eden Prairie Engineering. However, they never checked the proposed elevations of the house, just the garage. Due to the positioning of the approved house, the backyard hill grade became a 2 to 1 slope which is unacceptable to the Eden Prairie Building Department, a 2.5 to 1 slope must be maintained (code) . Upon discovering the slope grade, construction was halted last May by Wayne Sanders. fq At Wayne's insistence, soil engineer Bill Hoe, was consulted. A $17,500 retaining wall was designed but still only maintained a 2.3 to 1 slope. Now a $6,000 retaining wall has been accepted verbally by the building department. Then at a meeting 2 weeks `' ago, they suggested raising the house by 9 feet, at a cost of $9,500. This would significantly alter the entire plan of my house and yard as well. If engineering had ever inspected the grading plan, my neighbors slope would not be 1 to 1. This implies that engineering has not performed their resposibilities throughout the neighborhood deve- lopements. Engineering has since alerted my neighbors that retaining walls would now be needed, but because they are already built, no time requirements would be imposed. I propose that the City of Eden Prairie should rectify this situation, either by waving taxes against my land or by adding it as a special assessment that reduce the financial burden of a retaining wall or pay for it themselves. The building permit fee of $1,600 could also be used. Please help me resolve this problem, as I have waited 3 years to build this home and have spent thousands of dollars on taxes. I cannot afford financially to assume the burden of a $6,000 retaining wall after already starting construction. My builder has already paid $10,000 for the new construction and my mortgage committment is about to expire. This delay has been expensive and has shattered the dreams of my family. Thanks for your cooperation. Szicerel yours, Ed Brion cc: Eden Prairie City Council • Susan Sandahl, Attorney at Law //oL of Outline of Hill Slope Grade Problem 1 6485 Grandview, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 1. May 10, 1985: Brancale Construction begins new home construction. Lot is excavated and foundation is laid after permit is approved. 2. May 15, 1985: Waynes Sanders inspects property for walkout H elevations on house side. Upon viewing hill slope, halts all construction. When reminded that the neighbors slope is in fact steeper (already constructed home) , says that there must have been a mistake. 3. June 7, 1985: At Wayne's insistence, Bill Boe, Soil Engineer, is hired as a consultant (at a cost of $400) . I meet with Wayne, Bill, and Mike Brancale at the lot. Wayne instructs Bill that a 2.5 hill grade slope must be maintained, and a . retaining wall system must be designed (present slope is a 2 to 1 grade) . 4. June 14, 1985: Bill Boe designs a $17,500 retaining wall system that still only maintains a 2.3 to 1 slope but is 'accepted by the building department. . 5. June 24, 1985: On my request, Bill Boe redesigns the wall to a single 5 foot retaining wall and maintains a 2 to 1 grade slope that will satisfy the City Manager (at a cost of $6000). 6. July 11, 1985: The building department is working with the engineering department to develop a solution. Wayne Sanders suggests; "I walk out of the deal" or sue the builder or the developer. Several days later he suggests the City of Eden Prairie could build the wall all the way down the block and then add it as a special assessment to our taxes for all the effected lots. The next day that idea is rejected because my house is the "only one threatened" by potential erosion. 7. July 19, 1985: I meet with Wayne, Mike Brancale, Craig Dawson, and Gene from engineering to discuss the situation. At that meeting a new grading plan was discovered (dated July 15, 1985 and had not been used for the approved permit. Engineering suggested that we raise the house by 9 feet. This would be at a cost of $9,500 and would significantly change the whole plan of my house and yard. This is unacceptable. If the permit had not been approved, I could have easily modified my garage plans to allow the house to maintain the required hill slope grade in back. Now the entire foundation has been installed at a cost of $10,000 to Mike Brancale, and my 90 day mortgage commitment will expire August 29, 1985. 8. July 23, 1985: Mike and I confer with Susan Sandahl, Attorney at Law. She recommends we alert Eden Prairie City Council to the dilema created by engineering and having paid thousands of tax dollars, the issues should be addressed. • 9. July 30, 1985: I create a letter to the City Manager to request a appearance before City Council to address the issues. t EDEN LAND SALES,INC. l06;514ruia12.4 :47d• Edcn Prairie, Minn. 553if5,• Tc1. 612/9.4AMA 14500 Valley View Road 55344 937-8300 July 15, 1985 • Honorable Mayor and City Council • City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ' Dear Mayor and Councilpersons: We hereby request a hearing on August 6, 1985, before the City Council relating to a modification and amendment of the grading plan for Edenvale 9th Addition. In our opinion such modification is necessary as it relates to final elevations in the east-southeast portion of the site. We will be prepared at the meeting to provide additional information and data concerning our request. We are making this request to be on the City Council agenda at the recommen- dation of staff. Yours very truly, THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES By EDE',LAND SALES, INC. >' g K L. Schumacher • KES/po kA9 • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner DATE: August 1, 1985 • RE: VARIANCE REQUEST #85-26 Welcome Home submitted an application for the July 11, 1985, Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting. The request is for variances from provisions of City Code, Chapter 11, including Section I1.03, entitled Establishment of Districts, Section 11.45 entitled Floodplain Regulations, and Section 11.50 entitled Shoreland Management. The specific variance request include: 1) Permit conversion of a screened porch, 18 feet from the rear lot line, into an office/conference room. 2) Permit a deck addition to the northwest corner of the main structure �. 15.7 feet from the rear lot line. 3) Permit construction of enclosed stairway, to be added to the west y, side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear lot line. 4) Permit an additon of a garage and 1-3 above within 150 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of General Development Waters. 5) Determine whether proposed changes in the building, constituting a • non-conforming use, located on the property, may be made. Two questions were presented to the Board member by City Attorney Roger Pauly, with regards to the variance request. Question #1 asked "Would the modifications proposed by Welcome Home for property, which it proposes to occupy at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, constitute such a change as to violate the provisions of the City Code . relating to non-conforming structures." Question #2 asked "Is Welcome Home entitled to a variance from provisions contained in Chapter 11 of the City Code relating to the proposed modifications." The Board members based their denial of Variance Request #85-26 on these two questions. The specific denial motion is attached to Final Drder #85-26. The City Council at its January 22, 1985 meeting, determined the use of the structure as a duplex-residential non-conforming use. tinder State Statute, 16 persons may occupy the structure. As part of the findings and conclusions, the Council included the following provision. "Because it is not known at this time, the extent of any remodeling which may he required for the purposes of the use of the premises, as proposed by applicant, no conclusion is reached as to whether such remodeling would constitute 1' . JUL 2 1985 Welcome Home PHONE:161 21 4 74 7052 JAMES JUST,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 4250 STONEBRIOGE CIRCLE MINNETRISTA,MN 55364 July 26, 1985 Carl Jullie City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Jullief We wish to appeal to the City Council at the earliest possible date the 7/25 decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments regarding our variance request #85-26. As a point of clarification, we no longer intend to modify the garage, as indicated in item #4 of that request. sin/c�ei`y, Stephen K. chele Program Director/Administrator • • /?wl / Ci. )OF CDB IT.,1PIE VAk:A: .) = 85-26 BOARD OF APPEALS f.ND APJUSTi'.E1,TF FINAL ORDER I RE: Petition of Welcome Home Jt ADDRESS: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive — _ VARIANCE REQUEST: See Attached_ The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular (special) meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and c;:amining all of the evidence presented and the file ' therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (YES x NO___—). 2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration, • and granting such variance does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning and platting Code. 3, Variance Request f85-26_ is herein Granted , Denied x_- 4. Conditions to the granting__ , Denial x , of said variance are as follows: See_Attached__.__ — — 5. This variance shall he revoked within 15 days after notice of failure to meet the required conditions has been given. 6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the . City Clerk. 7. This order shall he effective ._July 25, 1985_; however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alterations permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant ''l ; to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. 8. All Board of Adjustmt'nts and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review. BOARD OF A_P�P_EALS AND f.G)1,STt 1NIS DaTEu:_.._ — ?"z rJ:_$S------ % • v J • • • VARIANCE REQUEST t 35-26 • The request is for a variance from provisions of City Code, Chapter 11, including Sections 11.03, 11.45 and 11.50: 1) To permit conversion of a screened porch, 18 feet from the rear lot line, into an office/conference room. • 2) To permit a deck addition to the northwest corner of the main structure 15.7 feet from the rear lot line. 3) To permit construction of enclosed stairway, to be added to • the west side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear lot line. 4) To permit an addition of a garage and 1-3 above within 150 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of General Development Waters. 5) To determine whether proposed changes in the building, constituting a non-conforming use, located on the property, may be made. • . I,) t) Conditions to the denial of said variance are as follows: • Question #1 • Would the modifications proposed by Welcome Home for property which it proposes to occupy at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, constitute such a change as to violate the provisions of the City Code relating to non-conforming structures. Question #2 Is Welcome Home entitled to a variance from provisions contained in Chapter 11 of the City Code relating to the proposed modifications. The motion and findings for Variance Request k85-26 were based on the • following questions posed by City Attorney Roger Pauly: 1) With regard to question #1 posed by Mr. Pauly, the modifications proposed by Welcome Home for property located at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, do constitute such a change that violates provisions of the City Code relating to non-conforming structure. The proposed changes are significant. 2) With regard to question #2, no undue hardship has been demonstrated. That is not a hardship created by Welcome Home's own attempt to • take a piece of property that is not suited for the use that they intend to use it for. • 3) The conversion of a screened porch, the addition to the deck, and the stairway addition; do constitute an enlargement of a non- conforming use. 4) The proposed changes are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City Code. UNAPPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1985 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION • BLDG., kOOM 5 is 8100 SCHOOL ROAD ( BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary,. Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: Anderson and Dickey were absent. I. VARIANCES A. Request _35-2G._snhmitted t?y Welcome Home for propel_ located at 7170 C�ryant L+ke Drive. The req est is for a variance frompro- visions of Lity Lode, Chapter 11, including Sections 11.03, 11.45, and 11.50: • 1) To permit conversion of a screened porch, 18 feet from the rear lot line, into an office/conference room. o 2) T permit tru deck l5addition from the thenrear,rlot lestineer of the main • 3) To permit construction of enclosed stairway, to be added to the west side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear lot line. 4) To permit an addition of a garage and 1-3 above within 150 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of General Development Waters. 5) To determine whether proposed changes in the building, constituting a non-conforming use, located on the property, may be made. Steve Schele, Program Director/Administrator of Welcome Home, re- viewed the request with the Board. Blueprints of the house were displayed. Schele identified the requested variances: 1) To permit conversion of a screened porch 18 feet from the rear lot line, into an office/conference room. The screened porch is on the south side of the building. It would he used as an office/meeting room. This would enhance the overall effectiveness of delivery of service by providing private meeting space to both supervisory and client issues. It will not change the external appear- ance of the building. 2) To permit a deck addition to the northwest corner of the 1,,; main structure 15.7 feet from the rear lot line. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - July 11, 1985 Welcome Home is requesting to keep the deck which is al- ready in place on the northwest corner. It will offer . clients a comfortable, secure, stress-free environment. • 3) To permit construction of an enclosed stairway, to be added to the west side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear lot line. • Welcome Home is required (UBC Table 33 A) to add a stairway, since the occupancy will exceed 10. It will have a minimal impact on the appearance of the building. Without the stairway, they cannot use the facility as effectively for the proposed program. Lynch inquired about the stairway requirements. Schele said that the Uniform Building Code requires that they have two stairways a specific distance apart. Even though there are two stairways there now, they are not the required distance apart. Schele referred to provisions in the City Code in regard to the variances. Nothing that Welcome Home wants to do is contrary to anything in these sections. They are all within the harmony and intent of the Code. Schele read from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.45, Subd. 4, Flood Plain Uses, B, 2. It states in part: "Consideration of the effects of a proposed obstruction or use • shall be based on the reasonable assumption that there will be an equal degree of encroachment extending for an entire reach on both sides of the stream." Schele felt that the assumption is, as water rises, it is going to extend beyond the banks of the stream. The site that the building sits on is on much higher ground. It is not in danger of flooding. Schele referred to City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.45, Subd. 7, Variance Standards, A. It states in part: • "Variances from the strict language of this Section may be granted by the Council only when 1) such variance is determined to be in the public interest." • Ew` Schele noted that the program will serve primarily western Henn- epin County residents and without the stairway, they cannot use Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3- July 11, 1985 the program described as effectively. or 2) where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. However, no variance shall have the effect of permitting a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the land under consideration. The Council shall grant variances only pursuant • to the provisions of this Section." Schele read from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.45, Subd. 3, Factors and Conditions Upon Which Decisions May be Based. It reads in part: A. Factors. In passing upon a permit or variance application, • the Council shall consider all revelent factors srecified in this Section, and also consider the following factors: • 5. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. 7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing devel- opment and development reasonably anticipated in the future. 11. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site." Schele stated that the service is badly needed. Also, each of the '? modifications proposed is highly compatible with the structure as it now exists in terms of both use and appearance. • Schele referred to City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.45, Subd. 16, Interpretation. It states in part: • "In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Section they shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the pro- motion of the public health, safety, prosperity and general welfare." Schele felt that the City can grant the variances requested and meet fi these requirements. Schele read from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Shoreland • Management, Subd. 3, Regulation of Structures Within the Lake. It reads in part: L. Factors Considered Prior to Granting Permit. In exercising its discretion to grant or deny permits, the Council may consider, among other things, the following: 4. Whether the proposed facility will be compatible with r. adjacent development." Schele felt that the facility is highly compatible. • I 'v / Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - July 11, 1985 • Schele referred to City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Shoreland Management, Subd. 7, Additional Zoning Restrictions. In addition to the requirements set out in Subd. 6 above, the following restrict- ions shall apply to all shoreland areas and protected waters. It reads in part: E. Exceptions to Zoning Restrictions of this Section. 3. "Where development exists on both sides of a proposed building site within the same lot as the proposed building site, structural setbacks may be altered to j take setbacks of existing structures into account if approved by the Building Inspector." •1 Schele said that the garage and the house itself are the existing : ' structure. The stairway would not be significantly close to the stream. Schele noted that Variance Request #4 had been eliminated from the request. • Schele said that Variance Request 45 deals with future expansion of the building. There are 3 points on which expansion could be debated: 1) The City Council on January 22, 1985, decided that the use had been established as multi-residential. The Attorney General's opinion substantiates that vote. 2) The Attorney General cited an example which suggested that • a change in non-conforming use which is not material under applicable ordinances would not constitute an expansion of a non-conforming use. 3) The Court of Appeals rejected an argument that additional residents on "major physical changes" in a building on a non-conforming site would constitute an expansion of a non- confonning use. (Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of • Brooklyn Center.) John Koneck, lawyer from the firm of Fredrikson and Bryon, represented several residents of the Willow Creek neighborhood. Koneck opposes the variance and questioned why Welcome Home was present as they have no interest in the property. Koneck said that there is no purchase agreement. Koneck reviewed background information. Don Hanson, owner of the property, entered into a purchase agreement and sold the property to Francis Condon. Condon intended to lease the pro- perty to Welcome Home. That purchase agreement is no longer in force because certain contingencies in it were not satisfied. Condon has no interest in the property. Koneck felt Welcome Home has no interest in the property and they are here prematurely. The matter should either be continued or denied. Schele stated that Welcome Home has demonstrated interest in the property for one year. • d l Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - July 11, 1985 a • James Just, Executive Director of Welcome Home, said that Koneck is using a smoke screen attempt, which has been demonstrated time and time again. There is some question as to legality of the continuing purchase agreement. Legal counsel informs Welcome Home that they do indeed have interest to the property. Welcome Hone is present here . tonight with a valid application. Koneck stated that the owner hasn't joined in a variance application, •; which concludes that there is no valid purchase agreement. Koneck noted that the setback requirements in the variance are not small. They are for 32 feet, 34 feet, and 16 feet. Koneck referred to City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.45, Subd. 7, A, Variance Stand- ares. (See p. 2.) Koneck stated that he has not heard any discussion that would fall in the category of undue hardship as required by the ordinance for Welcome Home. Koneck noted that there are 3 criteria for a hardship: 1) The property in question can't be put to a reasonable use if the ordinance were enforced. Koneck felt that Welcome Home could be used as a duplex, • 2) The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique to his property; not created by the landowner. Koneck felt that the landowner created the problem himself. The plight of the landowner is caused by the fact that the landowner wants to use the property in ways that the zoning ordinance doesn't allow. 3) The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential • character of the locality. Koneck noted that it is a single family low density area. The variance will change the area into a high density, apartment, quasi-commercial use. If Welcome Home has to comply with the ordinances regarding setbacks, they are going to suffer econ- omic hardships. Economic hardship alone is not enough to grant a variance. Schele stated that they could not put the structure to a reasonable use for Welcome Home's purposes without variances. Schele said that they have a contract with Hennepin County to provide service for 16 people. Regarding altering the essential character of the locality, Schele said that the issue of a higher density was discussed at the City Council level. It does not belong before the Board tonight. ( Krueger stated that he had no problem with the setbacks, He questioned if granting of the variances is the last step in the Welcome Home approval process. Just replied that they hoped so. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - July 11, 1985 -.I • Roger Pauly, City Attorney, stated that this request could go to the City Council if someone appealed the decision. c.. Krueger said that if the Board approved the variances, construction 1 could begin. He inquired if Welcome Home had all necessary licenses, • Just said that they have applied for the licenses and gone through the entire process. The situation is contingent upon Welcome Home being able to occupy, modify and utilize the building. The health, and program licenses, etc, all come together at that time. Pauly noted that the only issue that has been determined by the City Council is that the property is presently proper non-conforming use as a multi-dwelling. It is also determined that it was a proper r non-conforming multi-use dwelling. Under the State Law, use of the property as a state licensing facility for up to 16 persons would Aj be permitted at that property. The issue now involves the modif- ) ications of the remodeling of the property. There are two basic questions that should be addressed and answered: 1) Under the City Code, relating to non-conforming uses, can these physical changes separate the idea that it will be used for a group home facility. That issue is not here; • the question is can the physical change proposed tq the property, be made to a non-conforming structure. (It is permitted because it was there to be used in this fashion . prior to the adoption of the Zoning in the City.) i 2) The request here for the variance should or should not be granted. The same criteria should be used that is used • in determining all variances. Pauly suggested that members of the Board make a judgment on their own determination and on the basis of the Code. (Pertinent sections are quoted in the Staff Report.) It stated the section is intended to limit the number and extent of non-conforming uses by prohibiting their enlargement. Also, you can maintain and repair sections of the Code that deal with the Shoreland and Flood Plain sections J. of the Code. The Board must decide if changes are of such a mag- nitude that they are material, significant and constitute an ex- • pansion. Reviews of similar requests brought before the State are chaotic. (Ex. The Northwest Residence case involved a four-plex that was turned into a group home. It had four kitchens which were converted into bedrooms and office space. This did not bother the higher court.) Koncek agreed with Mr. Pauly's statement. Koneck stated that it must be decided if it is an enlargement or an alteration of a non- conforming use or just routine maintenance and-repairs. Koneck remarked that the interior of the house is being revamped and cost is an important factor. Initially, the cost was set at 520,000- $30,000. The building permit application represented $50,000. The contrctorhood, estimated the cost to be'represen rehired prey sented Willowe$65000, That`is ', orormore than 'a the value of I Iit] Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7- July 11, 1985 . the property. That is a significant enlargement or extension of , F a non-conforming use. Koneck read from City Code, Chapter 11.45 Flood Plain Regulation, Subd. 9. Non-Conforming Structures or Obstructions; Lapse; Des- truction. A, 3. It states in part: "If any non-conforming structure or obstruction is destroyed 4 or damaged by any means, including floods, to the extent that the cost of repairing or restoring such destroyed or damaged non-conforming structure or obstruction would be 50% or more of the Assessor's Market Value for tax purposes at the time of damage, then it shall not be reconstructed except in full compliance, in all respects, with the provisions of this Section including, but not limited to, the obtaining of all required permits." Koneck remarked that Welcomec Home's building hasn't been damaged, but they are spending 50$ or more to fix it up. P sion of a non-conforming use. Koneck suggested that they tear the building down and start over. Schele said that virtually none of the changes will be on the exterior. Regarding the cost, it doesn't make sense for Koneck to present it as an argument here as the cost is unknown to them. Just noted that Welcome Home has a firm contractor bid that is not ) near $65,000. • Just mentioned the case brought before the Supreme Court consisting of a four-plex with modifications along the same lines as Welcome Home and which is a permitted use. A precedent has already been set. • Schele said that the Board of Appeals rejected an argument that additional residents or major physical changes in a building in a non-conforming site constitute expansion of a non-conforming use. Koneck stated that he has a copy of the case; there is no language in it regarding the use. Krueger noted that we are here to discuss the variance requests. $! Koneck said that regarding the Flood Plain Regulation, Section 11.45, and the Shoreland Management, none of the factors have been discussed. It must be considered if it is an undue hardship and also the effect on the community. Koneck apologized to Welcome Home for his arguments. Koneck felt that the essential character of the neighborhood will be changed. Krueger said that the proposed stairway is no catastrophe. There is a turn-around in the front yard and additional parking spaces will be added. • r„ Board of Appeals and Adjustments -8 - July 11, 1985 • Koneck said that one should look at the building on the interior and the way it will look after all the changes are made. Schele noted that the building itself was chosen because it was re- moved from the rest of the neighborhood. It is on a frontage road. Even though it abutts other property, it has a sense of being isolated . with much foliage in the area. Just added that down the road is a salvage company,which is not exactly a residential neighborhood. Dan Grote, 7061 Willow Creek Road, stated neighbors are concerned about a precedent being set along Bryant Lake Drive with Welcome Home in the neighborhood. High density land use is being proposed in an area guided for low density. There will be significant changes in the appearance of the neighborhood. There was also concern re- garding use of the Bren driveway (7150 Bryant Lake Drive), which was not part of the property's access. • Just apologized for his attitude. • Just said that the Attorney General has indicated that the property is a multi-use property. The language says that it must be permitted • as a use for this type of clientele. Welcome Home is trying to accom- plish provisions as put before them by the State and the City. The parking provisions are City requirements. It would be their preference _ not to pave. The determination has been made with regard to the character and the nature of the building, any modifications to be made don't alter the character of the building. The only change that would suggest an enlargement or expansion of the physical property itself, would be the stairway. It is not a significant change to the character of the building. If the building were to be continued to be used as a duplex, the requirements would apply anyway. Elaine Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, felt that the facility would be an expansion of the present site. Sorensen was concerned about the purchase agreement. Krueger felt that the purchase agreement was not an issue. Sorensen said that the Board must decide if the changes are an expan- sion of a non-conforming use. Sorensen asked if the Board would approve those changes if someone other than Welcome Home were proposing changes to the building. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to deny Variance Request #85-26 submitted by Welcome Home with the following findings: 1) The conversion of a screened porch, thi' addition to the deck, and the stairway addition, do constitute an enlargement of a non-conforming use. 2) The proposed changes are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City Code. 17 i, 3oard of Appeals and Adjustments - 9- July 11, 1985 • z • Sandvick indicated that he would have to abstain from the vote. • Pauly suggested the motion be sure to include: 1) Whether or not proposed modifications constitute a change or changes not adherred under the Code for a non-conforming use. 2) Whether or not the variance requested should or should not be granted. Lynch did not understand the difference of including Question .2 in the motion. Pauly explained the difference. If it is concluded that the proposed changes do not constitute an enlargement, are not sig- nificant, not material, and are permitted under Code, his view of the state of the law is that a variance is not technically required. Pauly stated that there was a stalemate situation as to the • motion for the variance. Motion to deny the variance failed for lack of a second. The motion did include the two questions that Pauly stated. • Lynch stated that we must continue the meeting and have more Board representation. Pauly said that the Public Hearing can be continued to another date so that all parties have an opportunity to present additional information and supplement what they have presented. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to continue the meeting until July 25, 1985. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Krueger to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 PM. Motion carried unanimously. • • / �; J 4 UNAPPROVED MINUTES 4 BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1985 7:30 P11, ADMINISTRATION BLDG., SCHOOL BOARD RDOM 8100 SCHOOL ROAD • BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger. Sandvick, James Dickey and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and ' , Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede i ROLL CALL: Sandvick was absent. I. VARIANCE A. Request k,85-26, submitted Ay Welcome Home for property located at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive. The request is for a variance from ero- visions of City Code, Chapter 11, including Sections 11.03, 11.45, and 11.50: 1) To permit conversion of a screened porch, 18 feet from the rear lot line, into an office/conference room. 2) To permit a deck addition to the northwest corner of the main structure 15.7 feet from the rear lot line. 3) To permit construction of enclosed stairway, to be added to the west side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear lot line. 4) To permit an addition of a garage and 1-3 above within 150 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of General Development Waters. 5) To determine whether proposed changes in the building, constituting a non-conforming use, located on the property, may be made. This variance request was continued from the July 11, 1985 meeting to allow all parties to have an opportunity to present additional information and supplement what they have presented. Also, it will allow for more Board representation. • Chairman Krueger suggested that proponent keep within the two issues that the variance is concerned. They are: • 1) Would the modifications proposed by Welcome Home for property which it proposes to occupy at 7170 3ryant Lake Drive, con- stitute such a change as to violate the provisions of the City Code relating to non-conforming structures and; Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - July 25, 1985 I. 2) Is Welcome Home entitled to a variance with provisions maintained in City Code, Chapter 11, with proposed mod- ifications. Steve Schele, Program Director/Administrator of Welcome Home spoke to N . the request. i Schele noted that Roger Pauly, City Attorney, posed two questions `i at the July 11, 1985 meeting: q 1) Do the modifications we propose constitute an expansion of use? 4 .1 Welcome Home feels that it does not constitute an expansion of use. Schele based this on an opinion of the Attorney General, which was submitted by Mr. Pauly. The State Supreme Court decision dealt with the same issue in other cases. Both of these stand as an argument against the expansion of use. Schele quoted from the Attorney General. It reads in part: "Ordinance provisions against...enlargment...prohibit only a change in a substantial particular in the • structure of the builidng, itself...so that there is an effective conversion of the previously existing building into a different structure." Schele said that it accomplishes Code. 2) Are the variances we request permissible? At the July 11, 1985,meeting Schele quoted various provisions within the City Code. They are provisions for providing a variance; not loopholes. The provisions speak clearly to the exception that needs to be taken. Dickey asked what rights Welcome Home had in respect to the home. Schele stated that they have a signed purchase agreement and a signed variance request by the owner. Dickey asked the name of the owner. Schele replied that it was Don Hanson. • Dickey said that he can understand Welcome Home's concept; he is not against it. • Dickey questioned if the property really serves the county when it is on the edge of the county. Dickey has a problem with the place- • ment of the property and the number of people 1n it. The job of the Board is to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of t. Eden Prairie. Adjacent to Welcome Home's property is single family homes. Dickey wondered if there was not a better place for this type of home. • 11r; Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - July 25, 1985 `' James Just, Executive Director of Welcome Home, responded that Hennepin County is satisfied and enthusiastic about the proposed location. There have been a number of county studies indicating f that there is a population to be served specifically in the western suburbs. Just could not say that this was the best location, however. Welcome Home decided not to invite representatives of the Mental . Health Board. Their support was given at a previous meeting. Dickey noted that after looking at all information relating to Welcome Home, it might be best to just build a new building right from scratch. The home could be built in an area that might be more pleasant and more conducive to the other citizens of Eden Prairie. k Just said that Council Member Redpath addressed that issue at one council meeting. There will be objections wherever they go. Just ,R added that Welcome Home has provided service to the community for ; 14 years. They have considered whether it is advantageous to identify a building and make the necessary modifications or build from scratch. It is their determination that the particular char- acter of the building is such that they would like to retain it. Aesthetically speaking,it is an aspect that is appealing to the Mental Health Board. One Board member stated that it was the only facility that she had seen that provides services to clients that she would like to live in. • Dickey asked if Just and Schele live in Eden Prairie. They both replied no. Don Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, asked Steve Durham, Assistant Planner, if the City has been provided with the signed purchase agreement and variance request. Durham replied that no purchase agreement has been submitted. Welcome Home has been asked twice to bring in a completed application. Just stated that he had a valid agreement. He didn't see any point or appropriateness to having the terms of the agreement shared with people who are opposed to the project. Krueger said that the Board is not asking if they have a purchase agreement or not. Krueger noted that Welcome Home is concerned gw with improving their property which is already in violation of the Code. Sorensen stated that only the owner or a representative of the owner can make a request for a variance. He questioned the legality of the purchase agreement submitted. There have been representations made by Mr. Hanson, Mr. Koneck, Mr. Grote, and by Mr. Hanson's attorney that he has no factual obligations to Welcome Home or to the third party purchaser who was formerly listed on the purchase agreement. Krueger asked if the Board had received a signed variance request. Durham replied orginally no, not a full application. . 1i/L., E:,ard of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - July 25, 1985 Durham noted that Francis D. Condon's signature was on the agree- ment just submitted. Just stated that Don Hanson also signed the form. Lynch said that the issues before us are out of order. It is not the Board's decision to decide who owns the property, but to deal with the variance request. Krueger asked if there were any coma,ents from the audience. John Koneck, lawyer with the firm of Fredrikson and Bryon, represent- ed several residents of the Willow Creek neighborhood. Koneck asked if City Attorney Pauly explained the two questions in regard to Welcome Home: 1) Would the modifications proposed by Welcome Home, for property which it proposes to occupy at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, constitute such a change as to violate the pro- • visions of the City Code relating to non-conforming structures. 2) Is Welcome Home entitled to a variance from provisions contained in Chapter 11 of the City Code relating to the proposed modifications. • It was Koneck's understanding from the July 11, 1985 meeting that the second question was addressed not only to the modifications in the form of a variance, but the substantial modifications that Welcome Home was proposing relating both to the exterior and the interior of the building. Durham said that he did not recall the interior being mentioned. Koneck disagreed. Koneck stated that with regard to the first question, it was covered • at great length at the July 11, 1985 meeting. Mr. Pauly highlighted the issue clearly when he said that you have to decide whether the improvements proposed by Welcome Home constitute an expansion or enlargement of a non-conforming use, or merely routine maintenance and repairs relating to a non-conforming use. Koneck noted that the improvements proposed by Welcome Home are substantial. Koneck said that City Building Official 'rayne Sanders told Sorenser that it would probably be cheaper for Uelcome Home to tear the building down and start over again. Koneck noted that the standards that you have to apply when deter- mining whether a variance is appropriate are found in Section 11.76 of the City Code. It reads in part: 1) That strict enforcement of the zoning ordinances would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to Welcr e Home; and 1)1( Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - July 25, 1985 2) That the granting of such variances will be in keeping • with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. Koneck stated that Welcome Home has not satisfied either of the standards with regards to comments on the court case. This is not a Supreme Court case, but a Court of Appeals case. The Attorney Gen- mral rjasn't asked these questions. The City Council specifically did not address the variance issue, only the use. The City Council did 64 not approve the variances, but directed any variance request to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Lynch reviewed his motion of denial that he mode at the July 11, 1985 meeting: 1) The conversion of a screened porch, the addition to the deck, and the stairway addition, do constitute an enlargement of a non-conforming use. 2) The proposed changes are not in keeping with the spirit of the City Code. Lynch felt that no hardship has been demonstrated. It is hard to look at the stairway and feel the configuration of the wall hasn't changed. Alsc, the screen porch changed into an office is a sub- stantial change. Perhaps the deck isn't that great an issue. The Watershed District and Flood Plain areas are also an issue. Sorensen stated that the critical issue was that of expanded use, not a question of type of use that the proponents are attempting to make use of the property. There is an argument that it is simply a situation of bringing things up to Code. Anyone with a non- conforming use may want to make changes and extend the life of the property by bringing it up to Code. If you continue to bring prop- erty up to Code you will continue forever to have non-conforming uses. Sorensen mentioned that there was a letter sent to Roger Pauly from Wayne Sanders dated February 28, 1985, stating 26 items that had to be done to the home and others that needed to be confirmed. Sorensen said that there was representation made at the July 11, 1985 meeting that S20,000 - 830,000 was the cost for making improvements. The improvements may now cost S50,000, but Welcome Home refuses to show the bid. Sorensen noted that conversation with Sanders indicated that Welcome Home has not yet submitted adequate plans. If Welcome Home has not subvitted plans to the Building Department, how can they say if the S50,000 bid is accurate. A 550,000 improvement to a property, simply to bring it up to Code, is an expansion. It is not letting property die its natural death. If S50,000 is spent avery 5 ye1rs on a property to bring it up to Code, then there will he a new property. Sorensen referred to road access needed. Final consent of ttarie and Bill Hren to 'jet access has not been received. Ho evidence has been suhmittoo this evening. 1"j tr . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - July 25, 1985 Marie and Bill Bren are opposed to this request. • Sorensen noted that Welcome dome is requesting a prior illegal act to putting be legal such as: the addition of a deck with no building permit, ne1The extent ofthe use and the changesThe Board is beinp sked to do not showone prior illegal in a a hardship. acts.• . Schele said that the $50,000 figure is not in regard to the variance request. Welcome Home owning the building is not any different than • anyone else owning the building and bringing it up to Code. With regard to the zoning of the building, the Minnesota Statute reads in part: "A licensed residential facility serving from 7-16 persons shall be considered a permitted multi-family residential use for a property for purposes of zoning. Schele stated that this particular statute was written specifically for the kinds of reaction in the neighborhood. Neighbors are fear • - ful of property values, but it doesn't bear up. Zoning is not a question; it has been dealt with before. In regard to not being the spirit of the City Code, Schele stated • that there is a spirit in the City Code that provides for variances. He stated the spirit of the provisions; they are not loopholes, but clear and straight forward. • With regard to hardship, the clients of western Hennepin County are the ones that will suffer hardship. Also, without the stairway, it } would be a hardship as it is required by the State Building Code. Schele received on July 9, 1985, the details on building code re- '. quirements from the City Building Inspector. They had been waiting l!;months for the details. • Sorensen handed a copy of the building permit application for Welcome Home to the Board for the stated value of $50,000. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to deny Variance Request #85-26 with the following findings: 1) With regard to question #1 posed by Mr. Pauly, the modifications proposed by Welcome Home for property located at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, do constitute such a change that violates provisions of the City Code relating to non-conforming structure. The proposed changes are significant. 2) With regard to question 4;2, no undue hardship has been demonstrated. That is not a hardship created by Welcome Home's own attempt to take a piece of property that is not suited for the use that they intend to use it for. 3) The conversion of a screened porch, the addition to the • deck, and the stairway addition, do constitute an enlarg- ment of a non-conforming use. • f J i') Eoard of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - July 25, 1985 4) The proposed changes are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City Code. Dickey seconded the motion. Discussion: Anderson did not see the material expansion of the property at all. The hardship question is there,if you accept that the property is property utilized in a way Welcome Home wants to use it. It is a hardship because they need the variance to make the facility meet State requirements. Anderson noted that r•hen someone wants to build a deck, it usually is allowed and it is not a hardship per se. If we accept that we are not expanding the use we do have a hardship. Anderson was not sure about the conversion of the screened porch. If denied, could Welcome Home come back and ask for the stairway. Durham said that the Board can grant variances accordingly. The Board can modify the request as it deems necessary. Lynch noted that the Council has accepted that we can have multi- residents, but the property is grandfathered in as a multi-residential use. Therefore, they can have 16 people. Dickey felt that the question for the Board is what is for the best interests of Eden Prairie for all involved, Welcome Home as well as the landowners. The Board must look at it as one building and the intended purpose of the building. We must ask if the building goes along with the area around it. The residents that pay the taxes are the people that must be protected. Anderson felt that Welcome Home is situated on its own. Motion carried--3-1-0. Anderson voted nay. II. NEW BUSINESS None III. OLD BUSINESS None • IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Dickey, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 PM. Motion carried unanimously. CITY CURB PAINTING SERVICE 7016 Minnetonka Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 (612)926 4652 «j John D. Frane Finance Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Frane; Following your suggestion in our telephone conversation of last Friday, I am writing to request an appearance before the Eden Prairie City Council on Tuesday, August 6th for purposes of obtaining permission to conduct a house numbering business in Eden Prarie. City Curb is a busineaa operated by myself as a means of providing for my support while I complete my college education. We offer the houaeholder the opportunity to have their house numbers painted on their ateps or on their curb. I am enclosing a sample of our flyer/contract. We paint the numbers with a durable black semi-gloss lacquer against a reflective white durable highway painted background. Unless otherwise instructed by the house holder, the numbers are uniformly located on the aide of the driveway which is front of the house. We solicite business by leaving our flyer taped to the d000rknob or window of the front door, where it will not diatrub the paint on the door. If the flyer is signed and reattached to the door when we return, we paint the numbers as directed and collect a five dollar fee. In our discussion the possibility contracting with the City of Eden Prairie to provide numbering for all of the houses in the city was discussed. We have the resources to complete this contract, and are please to offer a price of four dollars ($4.00) per house. If special contracting proceedurea are involved, I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss these with you before appearing before the council. Sincerely yours, Christopher L. Kittler d/b/a City Curb Painting Service 1 / ')/ ATTENTION: R ES/DENT Home address numbers will be painted on your curbs along your street tomorrow. Your number will be painted only with your permission. We strongly recommend that you take advantage of thin opportunity to have your curb address numbers professionally painted in large black 4-inch easy-to-see numbers on a reflective • white background. • These numbers are used by fire, police and ambulance personnel, as well as delivery people and friends who can find your hone more easily. Uniform addresses along your street not only can save lives, they give a more organized, secure appearance to your neighborhood. The cost of this service is only S5.00. You pay when the work is finished, and you are completely satisfied. If you would like your home included, please fill in the form below and leave it taped to your front door. Please do this before 9:00 AM tomorrow,. All notices will be picked-up, rain or shine, and the addresses will be painted on the curbs. There is no need for you to be at home the day your address is painted. Again, we strongly recommend that you take advantage of this opportunity. Fill in the notice below and leave it taped to your front door. Please don't be left out. CURB l 5 DOORSTEP ( ) OTHER THANK YOU: CITY CURB PAINTING SERVICE 7016 MINNETONKA BLVD. MPLS, MN. 55426 PH:926 4652 Signature: Address: CITY CURB PAINTING SERVICE AUG HEADY MIX ASPHALT ._.. . 1\{ RECYCLED ASPHALT RIVER WARREN PIDWEST I_AGGREGATES CRUSHED LIMLSTONI SPHALT RIP RAP WEST PLANT OUARTZITE CHIPS 6401 rtel orlv4 GRAVEL CASE Eden Prolrls ORPORATION µ/y.w,Y 41 933 5 937 034 Cheeky 6401 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE,EDEN PRAIRIE 445-7032 NORTH PLANT 1403 Hiyhwey C Of VICE 937-9033 New Evin!mon 61,illn0 Addlt. 6363707 P.O.OOX 3.38,HOPKINS,MINNESOTA 65342 1 July 31, 1985 . Mr. Carl Julie City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Variance Request 1185-24 Dear Carl: On July ll, 1985, the Eden Prairie Board of Appeals denied our request to con- struct a new office and shop facility on a piece of property we have optioned from our neighbor to the North of our present property. Three of the four variances we • requested arc not in our control or possible as they relate to minimum lot depths, or parcel areas which are already in place and cannot be changed. The fourth • variance requested was for a ground level truck scale which we must place in the traffic flow pattern from our plant to be practical and useable. The properties in this area wore all in place prior to Eden Prairie even be- , coming a city. Almost all the properties are non-conforming in set backs, lot depths. plot area, or whatever. For eighteen years, l have looked at piles of pipes or junk, and now for the last four years at piles of dead trees. Our interest is to clean up this mess, and build an attractive office and shop facility similar to the new Hopkins Maintenance Build- ing located at Seventh Avenue and County Road 3 in Hopkins. To do this we must have approval on the variances we requested, and he able to add the South 109 feet of 1 Midland Equipm4nt's property to our North property line, thus enlarging our piece by • .' approximately - 0.6 acre, and reducing theirs by the same. • I, therefore, would like to appeal to the Eden Prairie Council to reconsider our request. Please advise us as to the date set for the appeal so that we may appear to again State Our case. Should you nerd any further information please let me know. Waiting for your response, I remain, • Very truly yours, MlNEST ASPHALT CORPORATION i 7 { Richard B. Bury, P.E. RBBJnm President t.)i1;7 UNAPPROVED MINUTES • • ( BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1985 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG., ROOM 5 8100 SCHOOL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, • Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and • Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: Anderson and Dickey were absent. 1. VARIANCES A. Request =35-24, sub....itted 1w Midwest A phalt Corporation for property_ located at 6401 Industrial Drive. The request is fora variance from City. Code. Chapter 11. Sot Lion 11.03. Subdivision 2 B: 1) To permit platting of lot L at 2.3 acres (Code requires 5 acre minirum). 2) To permit a ,ainir+um lot depth for Lot L of 169 feet (Code requires 300 feet). - 3) To permit a ,::iniuuu lot depth for Lot E of 260 feet (Code requires 300 feet). • 4) to permit t ruck scale in front yard setback (Code requi res 75 feet). Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2- July 11, 1985 :i. Dick Bury, President of Midwest Asphalt, reviewed the request with the Board. They would like to construct a new office and shop facility for their company. They have a purchase agreement with E & L Enterprises to buy the 108 feet adjacent to their north . property line. Krueger inquired if they owned the land next door. Bury replied yes. Krueger suggested that they incorporate the 108 feet into one big lot ' and.move the lot line. Bury said that was part of their original plan. • Sandvick asked if Bury had any blueprints. Bury said no, first they wanted to see if the Board would approve the request. There are f $2,000 of fees tied up in the surveys . Bury said that he did not want to spend more money if the request was going to be denied. Sandvick said that the Board would like to see some more detail such -,::: as: lot lines, parking stalls and landscaping. Bury stated that it is a shop building and there is no room for land- scaping. Bury intends to blacktop the entire area. • Sandvick asked how many employees were in the building. Bury said that • there are 5 people in the office. They have 20 parking stalls across the street. There is not a lot of room for landscaping and parking. Durham stated that the City would like to see this area brought up to • City Code standards. Separate from the variance request, all other portions of City Code relating to landscaping, building materials, and parking requirements, would he applicable. Any new construction .• or redevelopment is subject to present City Code. Bury said that if the plant was ever moved, everything would go but the proposed building. Sandvick read from the Staff report for the July 11, 1985 meeting: "Staff would recommend continuance of Variance Request 85-24 to allow the proponent time to prepare in greater detail a site plan which would warrent the variance requested. The proponent • should be directed to: 1. Submit detailed building plans, • 2. Indicate location of parking areas and amount of parking • stalls required, 3. Provide a landscape and screening plan. • 4. Provide en alternative location for truck scale located outside of 75' front yard setback." Sandvick noted that the area needs to be cleaned up and brought up to City Code. • Bury said that without some encourageelent from the Board he is not • ping to hire an architect. • Lvm:h said that the request looks reasonable to him, but that it l,r<<,. detail. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3- July 11, 1985 Bury stated that the truck scale has to be in front of the I lding. Krueger asked if the hutlding could be shifted back. Bury said that • they got a 50 foot setback from the back. They are trying to min- imize the variance request. Durham said that the rear setback is 25 feet. Bury stated that they would rather make a longer building then. Lynch noted that the scale is not a building. It is not a big deal. It is just a platform. • Lynch felt that the property is fundamentally unique. Sandvick suggested that they slide the building back 25 f;:rt, allowing the truck scale to be out of the front yard setback. Bury aid that they could add 25 feet of building to the back. Lynch said that Bury's plan is fundamentally sound, but that it reeds detail. Sandvick suggested that Bury get ideas from Staff and bring them back to the Board. Sandvick asked if Bury wanted to continue the variance. Bury said that he would leave it up to the Board. Sandvick said that they could continue the variance or deny it. Bury said that if the Board wanted to continue the variance they could, however, he did not want to spend a large amount of money going to an architect to yt pl . drawn up. Sandvick said that they weren't asking for that. They were asking for some preliminary drawings showing detail. Durham noted that they needed details such as: landscaping and amount of office space vs. shop space. Bury said all right. • Lynch felt that it was unreasonable for Bury to come in and put a box on a piece of paper and expect the Board to approve tho variance. The placement must depict areas such as: loading docks, r ps, accesses, etc. It leaves too much to the imagination. P,ay said that he understood; it was a misunderstanding on his part. tie apologized. There were no comments from the audience. • MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to deny Variance Peq:.•.I with the fol lowing findings: 1) The proponent has not showed a strong case to detail to the patterns of his drawing. 2) Proponent had a chance to continue the variance a st to the next regularly scheduled Board of Appeals me, Jog .rd did not accept it. • r oTy.(als t,t1: p.t wilts - 4 - July 11, 3) )!, not in cping with the spirit arid intent of tho City Code. 4) No undue hdrd:h)p hs hen demstrated. Lynch secondcd the 'tion. rotion carried unanimously. • I'742‘') • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Recycling Advisory Committee SUBJECT: Recommendations For A Recycling Program in Eden Prairie DATE: July 10, 1985 SUMMARY: The Eden Prairie City Council appointed a Recycling Advisory Committee late in the Fall of 1984. Over the course of seven months -g Committee members have gained knowledge of the field of recycling through +. presentations given by local experts. A community-wide random telephone survey provided insight to residents' preferences toward recycling services. Given the information gathered during these processes, the Recycling Advisory Committee recommends that the City Council implement a recycling program with the following features: 1) A City-wide voluntary recycling program should begin in the Spring of 1986 which initially collects news- print, glass, and metals; 2) This program should offer monthly curbside collection to all residences which now have garbage collected from an individual unit; • 3) Residents should contract for collection of recyclables on an "open" basis, similar to current arrangements for general refuse; • 4) Some uniform recycling containers should be made available to these residences in some fashion on a voluntary basis; 5) Costs for containers and collection services should be borne by the resident less the 75 cents per household grants available from Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council; and 6) The City should bear the costs of promotion and public education. These recommendations represent the opinions of a majority of the six committee members present at the Committee's June 12, 1985 meeting. Rationales for these recommendations begin on page 11 of this memorandum. BACKGROUND: Interest in recycling has been growing in Eden Prairie over the past several years. The existence of the Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill has increased awareness about the need to reduce the amount of '3 waste destined for sanitary landfills as well as to reduce the need for expansions of landfill uses. Emerging regional policies articulated by the Legislature, Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County embody a philosophy • in which a landfill is the solid waste disposal alternative of last resort. Recycling is a key component of the solid waste abatement strategy. In fact, the 1985 Legislature by law made recycling mandatory by July 1, 1988 - z - if Hennepin County does not abate 16 percent of its waste stream through recycling by January 1, 1988. The City of Eden Prairie must address recycling solid waste. In the Fall of 1985 the City Council appointed a Recycling Advisory Committee "to recommend an overall strategy which will provide a cost- effective, environmentally sound recycling service for Eden Prairie." The 11 members of the Committee included representatives from the Planning and Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commissions; general refuse haulers; f persons with interests in waste processing technologies; and residents with a general interest in recycling. Approximately seven of these members regularly attended committee meetings; two other members occasionally attended and the two remaining came once or twice. • Committee members chose Carlton Moore, 10735 Fieldcrest Road, to chair the Committee's proceedings. TYPES OF RECYCLING: The Committee learned the jargon of recycling. The following issues need to be addressed in developing a program. - Voluntary or Mandatory Recycling. Mandatory recycling is accomplished through laws requiring that materials be recycled. Such ordinances have been difficult to • enforce, but do result in higher participation simply because it is the law. Voluntary recycling relies on people to recycle on their own volition. - Source Separation. This technique of sorting recyclables has the materials separated at the source (e.g. home or business) of waste generation. - Curbside and Drop-off Collection. In curbside collection, residents place recyclables at their curb for a hauler to pick up. Drop-off centers are sites where persons travel to leave recyclables. Some drop-off sites are called redemption centers; at these facilities, persons are paid for their recyclables. • - Recyclable Materials. Many materials may be recycled: newsprint, glass, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, waste oil, used tires, car batteries, and textiles. Most municipal programs collect newsprint; glass; and steel, aluminum, and tin cans. • - Markets. Recycled materials must have markets or they will not be used. Rapidly fluctuating prices are typical in markets for recycled materials. Markets are influenced in part by demand and in part by the cost of using virgin supplies. Currently, a strong dollar has often made foreign supplies from virgin stock less expensive than domestic recycled materials. - Waste Diversion. Recycling diverts material from going to a sanitary landfill. Estimates range as high as 33 percent of the solid waste could be recycled. Optimistic estimates place 15 to 18 percent of residential waste - 3 - diverted through recycling if all residents separated and recycled those goods which are easy to save. Most of the existing programs have between 2 and 10 percent waste reduction through recycling. Recycling has come to be viewed as one component of an overall solid waste abatement strategy, one which is small but relatively less expensive than other techniques. - Participation. This is a difficult term to define. Typically, participation refers to the number of residences which place recyclables out for collection over a particular collection period. Most programs have monthly service, and these generally have a 10 to 20 percent set-out or participation rate. However, not all households use enough recyclable goods to put them out for collection each time the service is available. Minneapolis now reports set-out rates of 15 to 20 percent a month, but survey data suggest that 40 to 50 percent of the households make regular use of the service. Similarity, St. Louis Park estimates 65 to 75 percent of its households take advantage of its recycling service per month, although the set-out rate every two-week collection period is 50 to 55 percent. 4 Monthly participation or set-out rates greater than 25 percent are considered very good for most recycling programs. .{. STUDY PROCESS: In its efforts to become familiar with recycling issues, the Committee relied on its staff liaison to provide written materials and to contact resource persons who could give presentations. Several Committee k, . members also shared their knowledge in waste hauling and processing. 1: - Re_gional and County Policy Directions: The Metropolitan Council proposed legislation, subsequently adopted, which would eliminate disposal of unprocessed solid waste in sanitary landfills by 1990. Another 4. legislative proposal would have made municipal recycling programs mandatory by 1988. As mentioned earlier, the Legislature made this a voluntary component of the overall waste abatement strategy unless a 16 percent volume reduction through recycling is achieved in Hennepin County by 1988. (The consensus opinion among State, County, and City staffs is that this goal likely will not be achieved.) Yet another new law will give cities S4 per ton of material recycled. In the metropolitan scheme, counties have the responsibility to implement Metropolitan Council policies. Hennepin County plans to construct one 1,000 ton-per-day waste processing facility. At the time the Committee heard County staff representatives, the County had a consulting firm under g contract to analyze several scenarios of waste reduction through recycling and their impact on the technical requirements of the waste processing plant. The consultants related that 15 to 20 percent of the refuse could be diverted with concerted efforts in voluntary curbside collection and drop-off centers. Annual costs to residents in the six scenarios studied by the consultants ranged from S0.50 to $12.00 per household. The Hennepin County Board of Comnissioners has given financial support to recycling ventures by individual cities for several years. Beginning in 1985, the County will fund annually the greater of one-half of direct 7 - 4 - per ehold. e Council programs r perhhouseholdlfornrecyclin has also g activities. Existing Programs: Four communities with existing recycling programs • were studied: • 1) Minneapolis has monthly curbside collection for all 165,000 residential units in the City, but it is targeted toward 120,000 single- family through fourplex dwellings. It is a voluntary program and relies on an extensive system of block coordinators to remind residents of the correct recycling day. The City has five recycling districts, each of which has one contract awarded for collection services. During a given month, 15 to 20 percent of the residents will put recyclables out for collection. The City is seeing a 5 to 7 percent reduction in solid waste volumes. It expects to "break even" through avoided transfer station costs when 10 percent of waste is recycled. 2) Richfield has a voluntary curbside collection program which relies on volunteer groups. These groups and organizations collect i newsprint throughout the City. A private recycling hauler also collects other materials in that part of Richfield lying west of I-35W. While it was assumed that the City would help the groups get organized and eventually let them assume all responsibility for the program, it is apparent that a least one half-time staff position will be needed to keep the program operating. Participating groups have reported fairly good financial returns, but they do not include the cost of labor and vehicle use which they volunteer. Between 5 and 10 percent of the households put something out for this once-a-month collection. 3) St. Louis Park has twice-per-month recycling collection. Recyclables are picked up at the curb or alley on the same day as general garbage from 12,000 homes covered by the City's refuse collection contract. Recyclables are collected by one separate hauler. A key feature of this program is a set of three recycling containers provided to each residence. The City gave them to each residence to make recycling convenient and to serve as constant reminders to recycle. City staff estimates that 8 to 10 percent of these residents' solid waste is recycled. Some 50 to 55 percent of the residents have recyclables set out for collection on any collection day. 4) Edina has a drop-off center which has been operating for about 15 years. It began as a voluntary effort. After a few years it became backed by the City and part-time staffing became neccesary to ensure proper sorting and preparation of material. Persons who have been associated with Edina Recycling Center since its inception are now advocating a City-wide curbside collection program. All of the cities stressed that the success of a program depends on the reliability of a hauler. The ease of understanding and convenience of a program are also critical elements for success. Minneapolis and St. Louis Park are among the many communities which began recycling on a pilot basis. Mound, Hopkins, Shakopee, St. Paul, and several Ramsey County communities have also used this method to build the success of their recycling programs. Central Processing Committee member Doug Reuter kept the committee up to date on his firm's proposed waste processing/Pelletizing facility which would be located in the southwest suburbs. Reuter, Inc. gained a 400 ,r ' - 5 - ton-per-day allocation of Hennepin County solid waste. Reuter, Inc. plans to separate mechanically certain recyclables and make fuel pellets from the remaining material (of which newsprint would be a primary component). This system would not require separation of materials at the home ("source separation") and would allow residents to throw away trash as they do now. Reuter, Inc. must obtain commitments from a number of the private refuse haulers serving this area to deliver the needed amount of trash to its plant. Conditions of the Metropolitan Council allocation approval require that the plant be operating, and sources of supply and markets for materials be secured by late October 1986. National Perspectives: The Committee was fortunate that Jerry Powell, the editor of the largest recycling industry publication, was able to share his experience and knowledge of recycling in North America. He related that ease, convenience, and reliability of service were significantly related to the amount of material which would be recycled. Curbside collection has proven to be more effective than buy-back centers or drop- off centers. Organized collection of general refuse has not necessarily • been requisite to effective recycling efforts. He mentioned that mechanical separation of materials has worked fairly well for corrugated paper (cardboard) and ferrous metals, but not for other materials. Diversion of newsprint from waste processing facilities does not decrease the amount of heat needed in these plants; the high BTU value of newsprint is needed to offset the amount of heat required to burn glass and metals, materials which would also be recycled. Powell concluded his remarks by stressing the need for multi-faceted and continuous public education effort. Existing Recycling Haulers: Recycling Unlimited and Beermann Services, Inc., firms which specialize in collecting recyclables, were scheduled to make presentations. Both firms failed to appear. RECYCLING SURVEY: At the request of the Recycling Advisory Committee, the City Council authorized a 200-home random telephone survey in order to gauge residents' attitudes and preferences toward recycling programs. This survey, conducted in early May by tk associates, gave a good indication about the receptiveness of the community toward recycling. The major findings of the survey, which had a 10+ percent margin for error, were: *79% of the respondents favored the City's involvement in a recycling program, while only 5% were opposed; *45% currently recycle something; *85% would be likely to participate in a program requiring bundled newspapers, and 65% if washing and rinsing of jars and cans were necessary; *40% were willing to store recyclables up to a month, 20% up to two weeks; • *87.5% would likely participate if curbside collection were available, but only 41.5% if drop-off centers were available; *63% were willing to pay up to $3 per month for collection services; - 6 - *75% were willing to pay a one-time fee between $5 and $20 for recycling containers; and *65% wished to have some separate, identifiable charge for recycling sevices. While one should be cautious about overgeneralizations, these percentages were fairly consistent regardless of the area of the City in which the respondent resided, the type of dwelling, the current recycling behavior, or the belief about whether the City should be involved with a program. In summary, City residents are supportive of a City recycling program, willing to participate, willing to shoulder additional costs, and in need of some public education efforts from the City. • RECOMMENDED PROGRAM: After digesting this large amount of information and survey data, the majority of the Committee offers the following recommendations and conclusions for a recycling program. *A City-wide Program Should Be Implemented in 1986. Most Twin Cities metro area communities have begun programs on a pilot basis to minimize risks, work out problems which may occur, and build a record of success which will build confidence among the community when these services are expanded. Two cities, Excelsior and Fridley, began City-wide programs. The Committee believes that there is an overwhelming desire throughout the City to recycle and several models in other cities from which to institute a program. • The program should begin in 1986 so that the current shakeout of recycling haulers in the Twin Cities may run its course. Recycling haulers are dropping out of the business because market prices are depressed and collection charges are not sufficiently high to cover costs. Service in Minneapolis and Ramsey County is particularly tenuous at this time. With service currently less than reliable, conditions are not good to begin a reliable program. *Service to Most Residential Units. The City should help to provide service to those residential units which have garbage collected from each individual unit. These housing types include single family houses, twin homes, and townhouses. Apartments and condominiums should not be included because they generally would not have central storage areas for recyclables. *Collection Should Be Curbside and Monthly. There is overwhelming preference for curbside collection with source separation. Monthly collection appears to have a reasonable amount of time to store recyclables. *Initially Collect Newsprint, Glass„ and Metal Cans. These materials are the most common and easily recycled. Other items could be added as markets are developed. 1' - 7 - i *Recycling Collections Should Be Open. Residents should contract for recycling services in the same manner that they procure services for regular garbage. Survey data indicated that 40 percent of the respondents preferred separate billings or invoices for recycling service. Most committee members wanted little or no City general fund outlays to support recycling collection. The Committee is aware that no cities in the metro area, and few across the country, • use this "open" approach. *Recycling Containers Should Be Made Available. Experience from recycling programs in St. Louis Park and some West Coast communities demonstrate that persons can more easily get into the recycling habit if recycling containers are available. The Committee l believes that some uniform containers should be made available in some fashion, although it suggests no specific manner in which this could be q' accomplished. Those residents wishing to use containers should pay for I them (generally $5 to $6 per container) less grants available from A. Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council (currently $0.75 per household). *The City Should Promote and Publicize Recycling. The City's role should be to educate the public about the value of recycling and encourage its residents to take advantage of recycling opportunities. Regional policy directions urge municipalities to promote recycling and be responsive to unique community conditions. City expense in this area would not be great and this financial involvement is consistent with regional policies. A FEW THOUGHTS ON FINANCING: The issue of financing was the most divisive among the Committee. The majority of members believed that recycling should be done as a public service on a user-fee basis. This approach would restrict the costs of a recycling program to those persons who wish to have this service. Several committee members believed that a public purpose, i.e., maximizing the amount of recyclables diverted from landfills, was very important. This public goal can be more effectively achieved by spreading costs throughout the City, thereby lowering per household costs and giving . residents an incentive to take advantage of a program for which they are already paying. Most municipal programs under this arrangement cost $0.50 per month for collection and public education. Several laws and programs exist which encourage recycling. State legislation adopted in 1985 exempts recycling activities from municipal levy limits and provides a $4/ton rebate for material recycled within a City. Hennepin County has an annual grant program the greater of 50 percent of direct program costs or $0.50 per household: The Metropolitan Council offers $0.25 per household annually for recycling program planning and implementation; legislation would allow this grant to go as high as $0.50 sometime in the future. The City should procure these grants. The City Council may wish to explore using some of the proceeds from the - 8 - City's landfill surcharge for recycling activities. This source of revenue will exist as long as the Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill operates. * * * * * The Recycling Advisory Committee thanks the City Council for being able to • work on suggesting the design of a relatively new public service for the City of Eden Prairie. It is important that the City start taking steps to provide a program suited to its own unique needs before some generic service is mandated by the State or the County. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie /►f� FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson SUBJECT: Bid Tabulation for Copier VTR DATE: July 31, 1985 On July 2, 1985 the City Council authorized staff to prepare specifications and advertise for bids for a copier/duplicator to replace the Xerox 7000 in City Hall. Bids were opened July 24 at City Hall and subsequently evaluated on the basis of purchase price (including financing terms), supply costs, and maintenance fees. Analysis by staff concluded that a five-year lease purchase arrangement was most favorable for the City's financial position. Based on this arrangement, and assuming 600,000 copies per year, the bids are tabulated below: • Supplies & Total 5-Yr Lease Cost Mtce Cost IBM III-60 $ 25,815 $ 19,500 $ 45,315 XEROX 1075 46,722 35,323 82,045 Canon NP-9030 52,291 34,875 87,166 Kodak 225F 63,624 30,185 93,809 All copies are capable of running 70 copies per minute, and have automatic document feeder, collating, and reduction features. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council authorize staff to • executive an agreement with International Business Machines, Inc. for a five-year lease/purchase of an IBM Series III Model 60 copier per the terms stated in its bid proposal dated July 19, 1985. Purchase of this copier will complete a system of copy equipment begun with the purchase of two Canon copiers authorized July 2, 1985. This system should meet the needs of the City for the next five years. Staff members who will be primary users of this copier found the IBM 1I1-60 to be satisfactory during the evaluation and demonstration process. CWD:jp • • , • v F% • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council A. TNRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager • FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: August 1, 1985 SUBJECT: Miller Park Concept Site Plan One of the recommendations of the City Needs Study Committee was to acquire an additional 30 acres at Miller Park in order to have a sufficient amount of land to accommodate all of the athletic facilities the committee felt was necessary to accommodate City needs through 1995. Prior to making this recommendation to the City Council, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed and reconunended approval of a concept plan for Miller Park to determine the amount of land necessary at that site. • At the June 3rd meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Commission reviewed a concept site plan depicting facilities that will be necessary to accommodate City athletic programs for the next three to five years. The Commission recommended • several minor changes to the program and requested staff to notify neighbors within a half-mile radius, as well presidents of athletic associations that will be using these facilities, to allow their review and comment. • Attached are copies of memos sent to Miller Park area residents and presidents of various athletic associations, as well as a copy of the plan with several changes from the original plan. The concept plan depicts how Miller Park could be developed into a combination community park and athletic field complex with an additional 30 acres as recommended by the City Needs Study Committee. The City Needs Study Committee recommended that Miller Park be developed with four lighted, irrigated softball fields; four irrigated baseball fields with chain link fence, dugouts, concessions, etc. and six lighted and irrigated soccer fields with separate concession stand. In developing the concept plan, staff included approximately 30 acres between the existing park and the proposed alignment of the future highway 212. This park would require one additional soccer field and two youth baseball fields to meet the goals of the City Needs Study Committee. Staff eliminated the soccer field and two baseball fields in order to accommodate parking that would be necessary to serve this site. The Community Services staff believe that the proposed concept could be developed to meet the athletic field needs and yet maintain the character of a community park. There is sufficient area between each of the athletic field complex areas to develop extensive landscaping and screening, so each of these sites could be perceived as a facility onto itself. • Staff anticipates the major concern of the residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of this park would he the traffic generated by this park, as well as the lighted athletic facilities. Moving all of the lighted facilities to the southern portion i . ') -2- 1 of the park abutting the freeway should help to reduce the impact of lighted facilities on the residenital neighborhoods. Timber Lakes Drive is designed as a collector street and will obviously provide some of the access to this park; however, staff would anticipate an additional collector street access between Timber Lakes Drive and the railroad tracks that would provide a more direct access to the y park, as well as a City street crossing of the railroad tracks south of the park in the location of the frontage road along 212. Staff would recommend acquiring access i. road P.O.W. at the same time we acquire additional park property. This road should be constructed prior to opening the park. • The site is served by a frontage road on the east and southern perimeter, as well as a circuitous loop road system through the site that provides good access and sufficient parking for each facility, as well as for community.park activities. The park will contain the following elements: 1. Four irrigated youth baseball fields with 250' outfields with 6' chain link ' fences: each baseball field would have grass infields, dugouts and underground electrical outlets behind each mound for Jugs Machines. This complex would also have its own storage building and concession stand in a central location. Parking lots are placed in relatively close proximity to each ballfield with sufficient room that foul balls should not be a problem for cars. The Park Planner has proposed the ball fields be laid out around a picnic area and concession building that would contain picnic facilities to serve spectators as well as ball players for use before, during and after games. This ball field complex will be designed to serve as a main youth baseball complex for the City of Eden Prairie. 2. The softball field complex would contain four lighted, irrigated ballfields; a • centralized concession and restroom complex; with sufficient area around the ballfields for scattered picnic areas generally serving softball players, spectators, etc. The site would be considered the central control point for any major softball tournament held within Eden Prairie. All fields would be developed with 300' outfields and 8' chain link fences. 3. Five lighted, irrigated soccer fields. These soccer fields have potential to be used not only by the Youth Soccer Association, but also by the adult soccer program, the adult football and youth football program as well. These soccer fields are designed as full scale soccer fields with sufficient room on the sidelines for spectator areas for each field. The soccer field area also has a separate centrally located concession stand that will have euqipment storage, restrooms and a program administration area. All of the athletic facilities including softball, baseball and soccer are considered tournament facilities and parking facilities have been developed to consider overlapping games at these facilities, and some spectators. Staff believes that two of the three areas could have simultaneous tournaments and share parking on the third facility (example: the softball tournament and a soccer tournament could be held in the same weekend with spectators or players using the facilities at the baseball field). -3- 4. Six tennis courts - The Community Services staff have recommended six courts at this site. Staff believes this will be the major activity center in the southwest quadrant of the City, and would expect to offer a tennis lesson program at this site. • 5. Boat launch with trailer parking for 20 cars with trailers. The Community Services staff expect that when this site is developed the City will also . consider reducing the size of the boat motors on Mitchell Lake to 10 horsepower or less. Due to the configuration and depth of Mitchell Lake, this lake is not an appropriate water skiing or speed boat facility and should be limited for fishing, canoeing, sailing, etc. If this occurs, this lake could easily accommodate 20 trailered boats. 6. This concept depicts a marina similar to the facility at Round Lake, where rowboats, sailboats, canoes, and paddleboats will be rented. This lake and site would also be ideal for another pontoon boat which could take out groups and could be available for group rental. The plan depicts a permanent building for • boat storage and a concession building for operating the marina. 7. Group picnic area - This plan depicts a park shelter and picnic area that would be reserved for groups such as family reunions, company picnics, etc. The group reservation area would have a park shelter similar to the Staring Lake facility and a designated picnic grounds. The park shelter should have restrooms and . water. 8. Family picnic areas - The northwest portion of the wooded site and lakeshore in the southwest portion of the wooded ravine are designated family picnic areas . that would be open to the public on first come first serve basis. These areas are also on the north and south side of the playground area and multi-use court that would also be open to the public. 9. Playground area - The playground area should be centrally located between the group reservation picnic area and the open picnic area. This playgorund area should be developed on a scale similar to the Staring Lake playground site. r. 10. Swimming beach - The swimming beach is depicted in the southwest corner of the south bay. The swimming beach is a questionable facility at this time due to the water qaulity in Mitchell Lake. Prior to the final recommendations, the City staff would recommend soil borings and further study of Mitchell Lake water quality. The ONR has suggested that when a public access is developed on this lake, the lake should be aerated to in order to prevent winterkill of fish and p to improve water quality. A study similar to the study being conducted on Round Lake would be requested for Mitchell Lake in the future in order to determine if the water quality can be improved to swimming standards. 11. The hockey rink and skating trail are depicted in the southwest portion of the park. The access from the park shelter to the hockey rink would be via a skating trail which would be 15-20' wide in that location. The trail should be cut about 6" deep, border•ad on both sides by 4x4 timbers with an aglime base. This trail would narrow down to approximately 10' in width as it meanders through the wooded area and can be used as a walking path in the summertime, and a skating path in the winter. -4- P.reliminary cost estimates to completely develop this park as proposed would be between 4 and 5 million dollars. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resourcs Commission reviewed this plan at their July 15th meeting. The following motion was made: MOTION: Kingrey moved to recommend approval of the preliminary concept plan of Miller Park per staff recommendation with the following additions: 1. The City is to obtain a MnDOT commitment on the location of Highway 212 before proceeding with park construction. 2. A limit will be placed on the size of boat motors using Mitchell Lake. 3. The City will increase the buffer area on the north and west park area east • of the bay. 4. A second access to County Road 4 is to be added south of Timer Lake Drive before park is opened. Breitenstein seconded, and the motion passed 4-0. • • Subsequent to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting, Gary Soderberg, President of the Eden Prairie Baseball Association, indicated he was very dissappointed to learn that two of the youth baseball fields were eliminated. He suggested that we consider purchasing additional land, possibly east of the site to accommodate that need validated by the City Needs Study Committee. Attached to this memo is a map indicating a possible R.O.W. access area and road system. This should be studied by the Planning and Engineering Departments prior to Council action on R.O.W. acquisition. This map shows how an additional field could be accommodated on approximately 3 additional acres. Staff request the Council approve the Miller Park Concept Plan and authorize staff to study park access road alternatives and prepare a recommended alignment prior to returning the the Council for authorization to purchase R.D.W. Staff also requests authorization to negotiate acquisition of the approximate 30 acres between the proposed 212 alignment and the southern boundary of Miller Park at this time. BL:md i°i i/r I t =.:,1' -- .. ����1 •fICES/8950 EVEN PRAIRIE ROAR/EOEN PRAIRIE.14N 553442499/TELEPHONE 16121937.2262 "`w...•'• c J I=1 ' / MEMORANDUM . TO: Miller Park Area Residents /�y�/ FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services rv— DATE: June 25, 1985 . SUBJECT: Miller Park Concept Plan Earlier this year, the City Council appointed a City Needs Study Committee to help .the City plan for the future growth of the city. The City Needs Study Committee made up of representatives from the school system, the community at-large, various • athletic associations, the Chamber of Commerce, the Planning Commission, and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission made several recommendations to ` i. the City Council in May of 1985, after several months of study. One of the recommendations that required immediate action was to approve a concept development plan for Miller Park on the south shore of Mitchell Lake to determine how much , € additional land was required to meet the athletic facility needs projected over the . next five years. :11 'The City Needs Study Committee reommended that Miller Park be developed into a community park/athletic field complex similar to Round Lake Park. They suggested i'' that the existing wooded areas be developed as picnic areas and passive use areas T and that the open fields that are presently under agriculture use be developed as • athletic facility sites. The City Needs Study Committee determined that the City will need to build four lighted softball fields, a minimum of five lighted soccer fields, and four youth baseball fields at this site in addition to the neighborhood parks that are also , being planned for additional athletic facilities. The existing City population exceeded 21,000 in early 1935 and is projected to exceed 33,000 by 1990. This _:A. population growth and the growth of our commercial, industrial and office areas wall require the City to keep pace with the growth of the park system and recreation ' I facilities. On June 17, 19115, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Conrnission reviewed 14 the Miller Park concept plan and requested City staff to notify area residents of this proposed development plan and request their input at the July 15th meeting. Please review the concept site plan depicted on the reverse side of this memo and '4 either submit your written comments to Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services, `s 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55341 prior to the July 15th ,:1 meeting, or plan to attend the meeting which will be held at the School Board Room, f ' at the School Administration Building, July 15th, at 7:30 p.m. Upon final review by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, a • concept plan will then be forwarded to the City Council for their approval. Once the concept plan has been approved, staff would then request authorization to acquire the additional property necessary to accommodate this plan. The City Needs Study Ca:nmitire reco,ruendod the City Council consider a referendum in the spring of 1957 fur funds nOCeccary to develop this site. the City Council has taken no action regarding any of the referendums recommended by the City Needs Study Committee. the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission look forward to hearing from all residents either at or before the July 15th rac ting. ' J t ^".. ....." .) Jff ICES/095D EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD/EDEN PRAIRIE.MN 55344 2409/lELEPIIONE 1612)9374262 �'' c_lc71 I c/ 7 MEMORANDUM A TO: Tom Bierman, President Eden Prairie Soccer Association Rollie Carlson, President, Eden Prairie Hockey Association a Gary Soderberg, President Eden Prairie Baseball Association Jim Ostenson, President Eden Prairie Football Association •I John Parrington, President Eden Prairie Soccer Club FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Service DATE: June 20, 1985 SUBJECT: Miller Park Concept Plan On the reverse side of this memorandum is a copy of the Miller Park Concept Plan as proposed by the Community Services Department. As you know, one of the recommendations of the City Needs Study Committee was to acquire an additional 30 acres at Miller Park in order to accommodate the athletic facilities required to serve the needs of this community within the next five •years. Prior to recommending to the City Council the need for an additional 30 acres, the City of Eden Prairie must first approve a concept plan and then a master plan for the park to ensure the need for the additional land. At the June 17, 1985 meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed this concept plan and requested City staff to notify various athletic association representatives, as well as residents in the ,; adjacent neighborhoods that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission would be reviewing this plan for recommendation to the City Council at the July 15th meeting. Please review this concept plan with your board members prior to that meeting. I would also request that you have a representative at that meeting to comment on the plan. If a representative cannot attend that meeting, I would • appreciate a letter stating the feelings of the board regarding the proposed • plan for development of Miller Park. • Once the concept plan is approved, staff will recommend the City Council approve the concept plan and authorize staff to begin negotiations for acquisition of the additional land required to develop this site as proposed. If you have any questions regarding this plan. I can be reached at 937-2262, ext. 37. If you wish to send comments, please forward the comments in care of Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services, 8950 Eden, Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344. This is your opportunity for input into the final design of Miller Park. Please take this opportunity to carefully review this plan, i look forward to hearing from you. BL:md • Iif . . i •:--_!--y.7v:.Tz.,-,-..rz-_-3,f4.(zr.i- ,. N-.(.:-.T7---" .7,'-v-i'•- 77-1.r. )..„'7,7.T.,7)., ,---,... ..., • . ,i r ?.?• i,--'&'"•.:• 1) . ':')--1.•7. :! jr.."‘-;:`1•1...( .:2___•_.1A:..-2=-"--'--1/4-,1.1 '1 1 ' -' 2 ' •1'.',; K..1 • 7.',Ilt-- ".'-. /,5-.)- 1 \ ,1 ---• — (N---•t‘.-.<•1-< ,- ' ,-;' - =•,7).(_-; ''''. • . ...r••-•`'• I \,-.• -.< ,-,:.• .1-".• \ : • c--- ).._,D---.:. 1 0 t. ' •---,----:—r1/4 )1f...,. ,--( . 1 ..' . , (- • - 11 - \ ss^.-iki./. ",\•,' 1 =, -.. LI--—t•--1,'A .'1, ' F I C c):74 • , ... •-_-:1— i . .I $:: !;.;-/.1':\; ., (-1", ,, • 1. --------:, ..----: ,A • ,.7- .. s ts ,,, , .. s .. • 1 ( - • m i •tt It. :.:-.. .7-.1 ---- .''s : , 7-2:'-':''-4,; ;!•\1. r v it -2- •- .' •M , ;‘,4..._-/:,.......7i, .7----‘--s,,;_l : -; ;- i •c-: • ; 1,- '•;__-.- - ; :---_,_' 1- \."-", \ 1,t 11 -_-•- ---• .= 1 - .; \ 1 _ L______I ... - i 11••.--.z ?., , r • . It A :.--- i :-..• _ • .1 „ii ,• '''..,-..--- .c 'C 7 -''-----.-:—.. • ----- ---1-,- - - . ...\ \ •-'F.1 II:-.7,.'‘,,,f7'4,,-,- .. 's-• '‘. ',.. ' 1 't IP.ti -t.-:-- --- -s• .:;' I 1''7''',4)\'N VI::0 - .\,...1-%, 1 -e-.1;<:-. .'.• 1:. a .4 -- ei,---,7f- ...,.- -- ". 1 '•i:_-. x 7. . • ,, , - n:,•sp‘-\,,1,, ; I • \ / I --- = (----1/7' -.., •-1- -:'" 8 - 0 tA 1, k' -_ \--:,(7: '-'''' ' ,•_•„-f-„ii--, • _— -,N '-' -: • •At\It -:1 ;, k .',,, i I .. .•• - r•-.. • \ _ , — __—_ ._ i 14 '0-: • 6.: ••.--''1 . •-• ; sys I k • •t •i) 0. = I—,, ., I 3 .1.' _t•(.0- <`L' 1,-?;- 3----_-:-.,.. .‘1\.,It'll Z , ,.;', ‘•,1.\, F, ,..1.,,„ \ 6 /,',.•..--- il..i';'?-..4 _ 1-:-..":"\--:.:: '10 •':* - :;1\ ''1; \c.3 \\.\\ /..-'- ' r,2, Z'5 ' 1 7 ' • , • t I -- . "N •, ;'.:,‘,-/-, -r\ ‘ ,2:".'-' : l',/' _ =1‘.." '--61-• , 1, 11 i , ''::. ,1\.• --• t.: '....\ _--- " ' -1"--.‘;------'-t---:,:' -, 1., .-. ....-- ', t--'• • -..„ ,./ .--...-N,-_-_--- _V:...--/ \.,..\\_- (\, kn, 1 ' • - - - 09 , ,,‘i -P.-,,t', .. ..,;.---•_i - v„t..1 ; cs.--) t ;,', !. ,ii.).-... __ ..,-. . •.,1., , i ...--•N ----,-- , t • _ \: i 1 i- .......i. i •.—,,, , i, r •.;--_:-.; - /-'7-t; ° '• ‘. s"' \ / CII\r:.._,.-.).' ::-.5\P\ FL ••/-.'?: \-;• •• •::;A- 1 (-2:0-,... . ,....;,"...:-..:e,.,A--,."4:: i..,..V../ J •-' \‘ ‘• '. "V• ••••• “ - -•'1...1 ''''"• `••••-) ) ( •" -,/-;'-' ":-:-:::‘ `‘,k.....!' ,•• s `.., • -- %.\\ '‘' . . . • , • ,l•••-•; 0 ._ .. .. _ - - .lour NI•es• ir rj Iq /. : .• 2/ ', ) 13;" \::. ''', 1 ///8 s\--\,',,I:.1-.-------1 .:- -,,.., . : :. it - f L f,Q Y- i ii 1 i r i ,...: III • \� _ ,,, -�r,— ,:� t .� ,� /, ter_ - �, � �l nq O 1 j ' x � sue\ I 0�, !, ' , \ _ _ ' I \ - •.: y'I'I t` ' i• S s F • A, ''' ' , '. .;\\ i ,, ---•- + , _ - . - r 1: 4/0•. .i , ' • / ...••• ''Y ...........'''''.1"-:.'• '-:\-. '''''.. i . e it . • --‘-•••.-1,,,‘• //•:4 ) • , - I `\ , I 'i. 1 4 I . I I I • i UNAPPROVED MINUTES `4 EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION k •Monday, July 15, 1985 7:30 p.m., School Board Room ,E • COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Marty Jessen, chairperson; Pat Breitenstein, 1 Jerry Kingrey, Charles Shaw it COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Raiford Baker, Moe Cook, Gary Gonyea 3• COMMISSION STAFF: Bob Lambert, Director of t Community Services I. ROLL CALL • The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by chairperson, :'4, Marty Jessen. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kingrcy moved to approve the agenda as published. Breitenstein seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 1985 Kingrey asked that the vord "expense" on Page 3, Paragraph 5, be changed to "result". . MOTION: A motion was made by Breitenstein to approve the minutes as amended. Kingrey seconded the motion and it carried 3-0. Jessen abstained. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Refer to memo dated July 8, 1985 from Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services and letter dated July 15, 1985 from the Timber Lakes Townhomcs Association. • Lambert gave the residents attending the meeting some background information on how land for Miller Park vas acquired in 1979 from the property owners, five members of the Miller family. A purchase agreement vas drawn up on a contract for deed basis over a five year period. Late in 1984 both the baseball and soccer associations approached the Parks and Recreation Commission on acquiring additional land for athletic fields. A City Needs Study Committee was appointed II• UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION July 15, 1985 ,-` . -2- J with a representative from each of the 14 athletic associations serving • on a sub-committee. Four of these representatives also served on the main committee. In addition, there were four members at large, one representative from the Planning Department, one from Public Safety, r one from the Parks and Recreation Commission and two from the schools. At this point, Lambert referred to the master plan for Miller Park. The plan meets with the recommendations of the Needs Study Committee • except for one soccer field which was eliminated by staff in order to •i accommodate more parking. Other changes made on the master plan from the concept plan include two entry and access points for softball fieldA. parking, additional trail connections between soccer and youth baseball fields, the addition of an outdoor hockey rink and skating trail, revised parking and road alignment due to the addition of the hockey rink and because of residential development to the north, all the lighted athletic fields were placed to the south along Highway 212. Lambert also pointed out the location of Timber Lakes Drive and said his understanding is that the major concerns of residents are the lighted fields and the traffic and noise that could be generated from such a facility. He recommends that another collector street be added • between Timber Lakes Drive and the railroad tracks and said that when going to the Council for approval of the park plan, the acquisition of land for an additional street could also be recommended. Lambert then l asked for comments from the residents. Pat Minton of 7994 Island Road asked about the landscaping of the park. Lambert said that only existing trees are shown on the master plan and that there will be others added. Ed Nash of 8072 Timber Lakes Drive asked how much Miller Park will cost to develop and how the money will be acquired. Lambert said he guesses the cost would be approximately $4 million to complete the park. The funds are not available at this time, but could be received through a bond referendum in 1987. • Gay Ludwig of 7998 Island Road asked if the development of Miller Park would be cancelled if the referendum were defeated. Lambert said park development would be done as funds became available. a` Rita Rove of 7988 Island Road commented that she likes the change in • location of the lighted athletic fields and commends the staff for asking the residents for their input. She expressed concern vith boat launching and other uses of the lake. Lambert said that the DNR believes Red Rock Lake and Mitchell Lake could be the best fishing lakes in Eden Prairie with proper maintenance . and aeration. s Mt.!' • • UNAPPROVED MINUTES { EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION July 15, 1985 -3- `, 4 Jessen asked the residents to comment further on motor restriction for a Mitchell Lake. Nash said he feels anything over 2-3 horsepower churns up the water too much. He added that he has dealt with the DNR in the past several years regarding the weed growth on Mitchell Lake and knows that the residents cannot use chemicals to control the weeds. Rita Rove discussed the numerous trees on Mitchell Lake that are dying A and wondered if this could be caused by the pumping of water into the lake from Round Lake. Jessen asked what the elevation rise of Mitchell Lake is. The residents believe it is 2-3 feet higher than normal. Lambert said Mitchell Lake should have had no more than a 4-5 inch rise from the pumping of Round Lake. Gay Ludvig asked what percentage of Eden Prairie's athletic fields are used by Eden Prairie residents. Lambert said that in order for teams . to play on these fields, the people must either live or work in Eden • Prairie. Gerald Luebke of 8059 Timber Lakes Drive asked if there was any guarantee that an additional access road to the park would be built =; prior to 1989. Lambert said he is not in the position to guarantee 4 this, but he could recommend that the park not be opened until an additional road is added to the east of the park. David Ludwig of 7998 Island Road asked how land for the road would be acquired. Jessen said that land could be acquired by condemnation or other means and assessed back to the person from whom it was acquired. Ludwig asked if there was any possibility of having access from the vest. Lambert said this is a possibility, particularly when Dell Road is extended. Ludwig asked if the City is considering lighting other athletic fields • in Eden Prairie. Lambert said some fields at Round Lake Park will be lighted. . Rove asked if fields at Staring Lake will be lighted. Lambert said fields are not lit unless they are irrigated first although the Grill area at Staring Lake is under consideration. ti Maggie Hessian of 8051 Timber Lakes Drive asked if the wooded area ?. shown on the master plan will be preserved. Lambert said that none of the oak trees will be removed. Luebke asked if the northwest ballficld is in a wooded area. Lambert said no, this area is being farmed. 1 - ' '' • : UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION July 15, 1985 -4- Hr. Glenn of 14747 V. 78th St. asked if there would be a snowmobile • trail in this park. Lambert said the City has had a good relationship with the snowmobile club in the past and that snowmobiles are allowed to pass through some parks on their way home. Glenn said he is more concerned with non-resident use. Nash said that natural sites such as Mitchell Lake and Red Rock Lake ,` are at a premium and if the City has a chance to do something special 1 with these sites to preserve them, they should do it. "A soccer field can be built anywhere". Debby Fristed of 17247 V. 78th St. said that she likes the idea of developing a low-key park, but doesn't fully agree with adding athletic fields since the area should be kept as natural as possible. ;! John Parrington of 16333 Edenwood Drive who is the President of the A. Eden Prairie Soccer Club said that the City has only one full size soccer field at Flying Cloud and feels it is critical that more are added to keep up with the rapid growth of youth soccer teams. Glen Muir of 15916 Valley View Road said he likes the layout of Miller Park since it doesn't appear to disturb lakefront property. He agrees with the residents' concern on defacing or misusing the lake and asked • what distance the closest athletic fields are from the lake. Lambert / said the closest field is about 150 feet from the lake. •J Luebke said he feels there is a big difference in having a beanfield located here instead of a park since there are no people, traffic or noise coming from the beanfield. Rosie Luepke of 8059 Timber Lakes Drive said her major concern is the increased traffic on Timber Lakes Drive and the children who use this street. Mark Veber of 7966 Timber Lakes Drive asked if sidewalks or trails will be added on these streets. Lambert said yes. Gay Ludwig asked if there will be running trails around Mitchell Lake. '- 1. Lambert said no. David Knack of 7935 South Bay Curve said he is in favor of the park and that one of the reasons he moved to Eden Prairie vas the City's concern toward parks and natural areas. He also enjoys the quiet of the lake, but feels that this plan is a good balance for the needs of both the children and the residents of Eden Prairie. Muir asked for an explanation of the athletic fields at Flying Cloud. Lambert said they are leased from the Metropolitan Airport Commission and that the lease can be terminated with a 90 day notice. However, it is unlikely the lease would be terminated in the near future. I )//f , , ,: u UNAPPROVED MINUTES (.( 'EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION July 15, 1985 _5_ Kingrey added that he doesn't think is it likely that the lease will be • terminated. Jessen said that the airport owns the land used for athletic fields, but the City has made all the improvements. Jessen asked if staff is confident of the proposed alignment of Highway 212 in order to flip-flop the location of the lighted athletic fields. Lambert said that the map shows the official alignment of the highway, but tn moved. Jessen feels City needs a commitment in • order to finalize plans for park development. Kingrey said he would like to ban motorized boats from the lake, but realizes that some of the residents own boats with motors. Nash asked if any of the Commission members have been on Mitchell Lake since it such a beautiful and tranquil spot. Rove noted that there are a number of egrets and herons that make their 1 home on Mitchell Lake. • s • Shaw asked if there will be a residential area to the south of the park ( site in the future. Lambert said the area will be either residential or industrial. Shaw added that he would like to keep the lake natural and agrees with the residents concern about boating traffic on the lake. He asked if there was a possibility of making access to Miller Park similar to that at Round Lake. Jessen said that when the first softball field was added at Round Lake in 1970, access was from a gravel road only. MOTION: Kingrey moved to recommend approval of the preliminary concept plan of Miller Park per staff recommendation with the following additions. The City is to obtain a MnDOT commitment on the location of Highway 212 before proceeding with park construction, aillil mit will llebehe placed on motor size usage on Mitchell Lake, the City buffer area on the north and west park to be added �e� of ara _� the eibabay rand Ldl:as second access to County Road 4 isDrive before the park is opened. Breitenstein seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. B. Crossroads Retail Corporation Refer to staff report dated June 21, 1985. Lambert said that he did not prepare a supplementary report, as the only issue concerning the Commission is the number of oak trees that will have to be removed prior to construction of the retail center.