The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council - 06/03/1986 AGENOA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1986 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOAROROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Oawson, 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 Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ANO OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS ( II. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 20 1986 Page 1246 III. CONSENT CALENOAR A. Proclamation proclaiming Friday, June 13, 1986 as "Curt Connaughty Page 1264 Day in Eden Prairie" B. Approve Findings of Fact of No Significant Impact on EAW for Page 1265 Valley View Road Tmprovement project between CSAH 4 and Mitchell Road, I.C. 51-272 TRiTolution No. 86-110) C. Receive petition for street and utility improvements for Riverview Page 1267 Road between Concord Orive and Mooer Lane and Riverview Drive/East Riverview Drive adjacent to Bluffs West 5th Addition, I.C. 52-101 (Resolution No. 86-111) D. Proposed change to retention pond at the southwest quadrant of Page 1271 Homeward Hills Road and Chesholm Lane E. Final Plat approval for Apple Groves 2nd Addition (North of Page 1272 Chicago, Milwaukee St. Paul & Pacific Railroad; south of Valley View Road) Resolution No. 86-112 F. Receive 100% petition for street and utility improvements for Page 1276 Hidden Glen 3rd Addition and authorize preparation of plans and specifications, I.C. 52-102 (Resolution No. 86-114) City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,June 3, 1986 G. Final Platapproval for Hoyt-Roberts 2nd Addition (West end of Page 1280 Technology Drive) Resolution No. 86-11-5 H. Final Plat approval for D. Holand Addition (Southwest corner of Page 1283 Creekridge rive b Bennett Drive) Resolution No. 86-106 I. Change Order No. 1 Technology Drive, I.C. 52-101D Page 1286 J. NOLAND ADDITION, by David and Sharon Noland. 2nd Reading of Page 1288 Ordinance #20-86, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Holand Addition; and Adoption of Resolution #86-97, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #20-86 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Five single family residential lots. Location: Southwest corner of Creekridge Drive and Bennett Place. (Ordinance #20-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-97, Authorizing Summary and Publication) K. HOYT ROBERTS ADDITION PHASE III, by Hoyt Construction. 2nd Reading Page 1289 of Ordinance #22-86, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Hoyt-Roberts Addition Phase II; and Adoption of Resolution #86-121, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #22-86, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: West of Mitchell Road on Technology Drive. (Ordinance #22-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-121, Authorizing Summary L. Clerk's License List Page 1290 M. Resolution No. 86-120, authorizing the submission and approval of Page I291 proposed Community Development Block Grant activities for the City of Eden Prairie to Hennepin County as part of the Year XII Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program N. Approve Plans and Specifications and authorize bids to be received Page 1292 for Baker Road Sanitary Sewer and Watermain north of Edenvale Roulevard), I.C.. 52-094 Trfircilution No. 86-1 0. Approve Plans and Specifications and authorize bids to be Page 1293 received for Valley View Road (between Mitchell Road and CSAH 4), I.C. 31:272 (Resolution No. 86-128) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WESTOVER WOODS by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Page 1294 Development Concept Amendment Review on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 11.9 acres with variances and Shoreland Management variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 42 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of- way. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway and New Cumberland Roads intersection. (Resolution #86-122, PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance #PUD-4-86-R1-9.5-28-86, PUD District Review and Zoning District Change; Resolution #86-123, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution #86-124, Preliminary Plat) City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,June 3, 1986 B. ANDERSDN LAKES CENTER by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership. Request Page 1315 for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots for construction of a commercial center Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. (Ordinance #30-86, Rezoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial; Resolution #66-125, Preliminary Plat) C. WILLIAMS MINI-STORAGE by Finn Daniels, Inc. Request for Page 1334 Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park of 4.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 45.28 acres into one lot and one outlot. Location: East of Highway #169, South of Darnell Road. D. VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS ON LOT 1D2 BLOCK L. CITY WEST Page 1335 Resolution No. 86-116) E. VACATION OF A PORTION OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE ADJACENT TO HOYT-ROBERTS Page 1337 ; 2ND ADDITION (Resolution No. 86-117) F. FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS Page 1339 IN BAKER ROAD N RTH OF EDENVALE BOULEVARD, I.C. 52-094 -Resolution No. 86-1n) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. Page 1340 VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. EMMA COVE ADDITION, by Robert R. Gersbach. Request for Page 1341 Preliminary Plat of 5.7 acres into eight single family lots and one outlot. Location: South of Baywood Lane, West of County Road #4, north and east of Duck Lake. (Resolution #86-126, Preliminary Plat) B. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Hoyt Development, Inc. Request for Page 1350 Preliminary Plat of 4.58 acres into two lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: West of Bury Drive, east of Carlson Drive. (Resolution #86-127, Preliminary Plat) VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS VIII. APPOINTMENTS IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Manager 1. Status of MUSA Line Amendment Page 1353 • City Council Agenda - 4 - Tues.,June 3, 1986 C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Metropolitan Council Agreement Page 1361 2. Senior Transportation Program Page 1371 X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT. 1 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW Ii TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1986 6:00 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS: President of the Board Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Assessor Steve Sinell, Hennepin County Represen- tative, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. RECONVENE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING II. APPROVAL OF BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES OF MEETING HELD THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1986 III. REVIEW OF ITEMS CONTINUED FROM MAY 15, 1986 IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 86-119, ACCEPTING THE 1986 ASSESSMENT VI. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW TUESOAY, MAY 15, 1986 7:00 PM, SCHOOL AOMINISTRATION BOARDROOM BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS: President of the Board Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF: Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Assessor Steve Sinell, City Staff Appraisers Tom O'Brien, John Sams and Lorna Thomas, Hennepin County Representative Don Monk, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Board Member Richard Anderson arrived at 7:25 p.m. • I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Board of Review President Peterson called the meeting to order. Assistant to the City Manager Dawson stated notice of this meeting had been piblished in the Eden Prairie News on April 16, 1986, and April 23, 1986; notice of the meeting was also included on each valuation notice which was sent to homeowners. Dawson said the purpose of this meeting was to allow any tax payer to come before the Board of Review to request the Board act to amend the classifiction or property valuation which the City Assessor and his Staff has determined to be appropriate to that property. City Assessor Sinell reviewed the procedure to be used for tonight's meeting; appellants appearing in person would be heard first and then letters from those appellants not able to attend would be read into the record. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Personal Appeals 1. RUTH JOHNSON - 4437 Upton Avenue S.- Vacant Land - Non Homestead 30-116-22 22 0015 30-116-22 22 0020 30-116-22 22 0029 30-116-22 22 0030 30-116-22 22 0032 3D-116-22 23 0002 30-116-22 23 00D3 Mrs. Johnson stated she was also representing her son and daughter this evening. She indicated the value of the lots had been increased 100% - 600%. Mrs. Johnson said she has owned these lots since 1942 and she reviewed the history of the lots with the Board Members. Board of Review Minutes -2- May 15, 1986 City Assessor Sinell said these lots are on the south side of Lake Riley and are zoned R1-22; they have no City sewer and water and they are serviced by a gravel street. Comparables for these lots were found south of Pioneer Trail in a similar area. The area was revalued in 1985. Mrs. Johnson said the lots have been for sale; the asking price has been in the $19,000 - $20,000 range. Hennepin County Representative Monk said sales ratio studies in Hennepin County have shown the assessed value to be 93% of the median sales price. Bentley said he thought the property was undervalued and had been for some time; however, he did expressed concern about the increase. Pidcock concurred. • MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Redpath, to refer the Johnson properties, PIDs 30-116-22 22 0015, 30-116-22 22 0020, 30-116-22 22 0029, 30-22-116 22 0030, 30-22-116 22 0032, 30-116-22 23 0002, and 30-116-22 23 0003, to the Board of Advisors and Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 2. GEDNEY TUTTLE - 7030 Willow Creek Road - 11-116-22 11 0007 Gedney Tuttle noted that two and a half acres of his property is considered to be swamp land. City Assessor Sinell stated the value of the Tuttle property has not changed much in the past four years; in 1982 the Board of Review determined the property's value to be $194,900. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Tuttle property, PID 11-116-22 11 0007, to the Board of Advisors and Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 3. BRUCE BRILL - 6574 Flying Cloud Drive - 01-116-22 13 0005 Bruce Brill distributed a letter (see attached) which reviewed the history of estimated market values on this property. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Brill property, PID 01-116-22 13 0005, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 4. DR. JOHN WRIGHT - 66D8 Flying Cloud Drive - 01-116-22 31 0001 Dr. Wright submitted a memorandum which reviewed the history of his property. He stated he had recently received an unsolicited offer for his property of $100,000. Board of Review Minutes -3- May 15, 1986 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Wright property, PID 01-116-22 3I 0001, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 5. WAYNE MUXLOW - 10054 Nicollet Ave. S. - Commercial - Airport Leases 27-116-22 22 0038 27-I16-22 31 0010 27-116-22 31 0011 27-I16-22 34 0002 Wayne Muxlow said he thought a base value was now being used on the assessments of his properties. City Assessor Sinell stated all airport leases had been revalued and a minimum value of $500 had been adopted. Bentley said he did not think the base was realistic. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjust the valuations for the Muxlow properties as follows: 27-116-22 22 0038 to $400 27-116-22 31 0010 to $200 27-116-22 31 0011 to $300 27-116-22 34 0002 to $300 Motion carried unanimously. 6. VIOLA GAVIN ESTATE - 635 Prairie Center Dr. - 14-116-22 32 0295 14-I16-22 32 0249 Mrs. Gavin's son, representing the estate, stated his mother had purchased the units (#427-429 and G5) $124,800. He noted the building (Castle Ridge) is now under foreclosure. There had been one sale in the building during the past year; that unit, a studio, sold for $55,000. Gavin stated his mother's unit is now being assessed $650 per month in fees by the Association and a special assessment of $1100 to pay for utilities. City Assessor Sinell said the 1986 assessment was based on what was known on January 2nd. He said the City cannot predict what will happen with the foreclosure. Sinell stated the estimated market value on this property in 1985 was $117,800; for 1986 it was $104,000. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Gavin properties, PIOs 14.116-22 32 0295 and 14-116-22 32 0249, to the Board of Advisors and Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. • Board of Review Minutes -4- May 15, 1986 7. S & D PROPERTIES - 7567 Corporate Way - 09-116-22 42 0006 Ralph Deuschle, representing S & D Properties, reviewed the assessed values on this property: 1982 = $321,000; 1983 = $490,000 abated to $420,000; 1984 = $420,000; 1985 = $441,000; and 1986 = $472,200. Deuschle said City Assessor Sinell had viewed the property today and had come up with an assessed value of $490,000. Sinell reviewed the procedure he had used in determining today's assessed value and stated he would affirm the $472,200 figure which was supported by the review. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to refer the S & D property, PID 09-116-22 42 0006, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 8. EDENVALE GOLF COURSE - 04-116-22 44 0001 • 09-116-22 11 0003 09-116-22 41 0002 i 10-116-22 32 0049 George Flay, attorney for Edenvale Golf Course, said there had been a 73% increase in the assessed valuation between 1985 and 1986 - $384,900 to $662,900. He said the tax bill would be approximately $32,900. City Assessor Sinell said golf courses fall under the open space law. He stated all golf courses in Hennepin County had been reviewed by the City Assessors in the County and he explained the methodology used. Sinell offered to meet with May to discuss this. Pidcock stated there is a value to the community in having a golf course and she said this fact should be taken into consideration. Anderson said there is also a benefit to the adjoining properties. He noted that Edenvale not only provides a recreational use to the public in general, but it is used by various high school athletic teams such as the cross-country ski team and the golf teams. Anderson said he thought of this as a semi-public type property. He asked how this was compared with other golf courses. Sinell said all public, not government owned, and private golf courses/clubs were reviewed by the Assessor's Group. Anderson said he found it difficult to look at Edenvale in the same way as other courses. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to refer the Edenvale Golf Course property, PIDs 04-116-22 44 0001, 09-116-22 11 0003, 09- 116-22 41 0002, and 10-116-22 32 0049, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review Minutes -5- May 15, 1986 9. GARY DALE WAGNER - 7296 Gerard Drive - 11-116-22 23 D044 Gary Dale Wagner stated his house faces I-494 and there is a problem with traffic noise (Topview area). He believed the assessed valuation of $128,000 should be reduced as a result. City Assessor Sinell recommended this be reviewed by the Advisory 8oard. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Wagner property, PID 11-116-22 23 0044, to the Board of Advisors and Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 10. GERARD WERSAL - 12645 Sunnybrook Road - 23-116-22 33 0014 Gerard Wersal stated the value of the land had increased greatly. He said that there is a sewer easement on his property and much of the property is in the floodplain and not developable. City Assessor Sinell recommended this property be referred to the Board of Advisors. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Wersal property, PIO 23-116-22 33 0014, to the Board of Advisors and Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. B. Written Communications Written communications were received from the following and are attached to these Minutes. 1. ROSE & HENDRICK MILLER - 9663 Hampshire Lane - 25-1I6-22 14 0126 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Miller property, PID 25-116- 22 14 0126. Motion carried unanimously. 2. DARYL V. COOK - 15516 Village Woods Drive - 16-116-22 34 0031 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer to Staff for further review the Cook property, PID 16-116-22 34 0031. Motion carried unanimously. 3. KAREN 0. OLSEN - 9104 Neill Lake Road - 24-116-22 31 0046 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to refer to Staff for further review the Olsen property, PIO 24-116-22 34 0031. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review Minutes -6- May 15, 1986 { 4. BRUCE H. LIEBERMAN - General Resources - Industrial Property 03-116-22 22 0013 03-116-22 22 0014 03-116-22 22 0029 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Lieberman/General Resources property, PIDs 03-116-22 22 0013, 03-116- 22 22 0014, and 03-116-22 22 0029, to the City Assessor for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 5. LLOYD G. CHERNE - 5701 So. County Road 18 - Green Acres 15-116-22 44 0001 14-116-22 33 0009 14-116-22 33 0010 • MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Cherne properties, PIDs 15-116-22 44 0001, 14-116-22 33 0009, and 14-116-22 33 0010, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 6. UPPER MIDWEST MANAGEMENT CORP. - Commercial/Office 14-116-22 42 0002 14-116-22 13 0005 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Upper Midwest Management Corp. properties, PIDs 14-116-22 42 0002 and 14- 116-22 13 D005, to the City Assessor for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 7. MARVIN F. POER & CO. - Industrial - Office/Warehouse 12-116-22 14 0013 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to refer the Marvin F. Poer & Co. property, PID 12-116-22 14 0013, to the City Assessor for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 8. GILBERT C. WILLIAMS - Commercial - Office 01-116-22 14 0003 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Gilbert C. Williams property, PID 01-116-22 14 0003, to the City Assessor for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review Minutes -6- May 15, 1986 4. BRUCE H. LIEBERMAN - General Resources - Industrial Property 03-116-22 22 0013 03-116-22 22 0014 03-116-22 22 0029 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Lieberman/General Resources property, PIDs 03-116-22 22 0013, 03-116- 22 22 0014, and 03-116-22 22 0029, to the City Assessor for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 5. LLOYD G. CHERNE - 5701 So. County Road 18 - Green Acres 15-116-22 44 0001 14-116-22 33 0009 14-116-22 33 0010 • MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Cherne (' properties, PIDs 15-116-22 44 0001, 14-116-22 33 0009, and 14-116-22 33 0010, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 6. UPPER MIDWEST MANAGEMENT CORP. - Commercial/Office 14-116-22 42 0002 14-116-22 13 0005 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Upper Midwest Management Corp. properties, PIDs 14-116-22 42 0002 and 14- 116-22 13 0005, to the City Assessor for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 7. MARVIN F. POER & CO. - Industrial - Office/Warehouse 12-116-22 14 0013 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to refer the Marvin F. Poer & Co. property, PID 12-116-22 14 0013, to the City Assessor for further review. (lotion carried unanimously. 8. GILBERT C. WILLIAMS - Commercial - Office 01-116-22 14 0003 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Gilbert C. Williams property, PID 01-116-22 14 0003, to the City Assessor for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review Minutes -7- May 15, 1986 9. URBAN ASSOCIATES INC. - 3601 West 77th Street 14-116-22 13 0036 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to affirm the City Assessor's estimated market value on the Urban Associates Inc. property, PID 14-116-22 13 0036. Motion carried unanimously. 10. SAM SCHNEIDER - Condominiums 24-I16-22 21 0065 24-116-22 21 0068 24-116-22 21 0069 24-116-22 21 0074 24-I16-22 21 0081 24-116-22 21 0083 24-116-22 21 0087 24-116-22 21 0089 24-116-22 21 0098 24-116-22 21 0102 24-116-22 21 0103 24-116-22 21 0109 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Schneider properties, 24-116-22 21 0065, 24-116-22 21 0068, 24-116-22 21 0069, { 24-116-22 21 0074, 24-116-22 21 0081, 24-116-22 21 0083, 24-116-22 21 0087, 24-116-22 21 0089, 24-116-22 21 0098, 24-116-22 21 0102, 24- 116-22 21 0103, and 24-116-22 21 0109, to the City Assessor for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 11. MULLIGAN & BJORNWES - Ind. - Manufacturing; Office/Warehouse 12-116-22 11 0006 12-116-22 11 0007 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to sustain the City Assessor's estimated market value on the Mulligan & Bjornnes properties, PIDs 12-116-22 11 0006 and 12-116-22 11 0007. Motion carried unanimously. 12. JOHN TEFIAN - 8010 Eden Road - Agricultural Homestead 14-116-22 23 0002 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to refer the Teman property, PID 14-116-22 23 0002, to the City Assessor for further review. Board of Review Minutes -8- May 15, 1986 13. WAYNE KINION -6401 Shady Oak Road - 02-116-22 14 0005 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Kinion property, PID 01-116- 22 14 0005. Motion carried unanimously. III. CLOSE MEETING Anderson said he believed the Assessing Staff needed some direction regarding the valuation placed on Edenvale Golf Course. Anderson said the Assessing Staff should contact Director of Community Services Lambert regarding the value of Edenvale Golf Course to the community. Peterson said the Council should be concerned as to what this might do to other "special" parcels. City Assessor Sinell said State law recognizes this is of benefit to the community at large. Pidcock said she believes taxation sets social policy. The consensus of the Board was to reconvene at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 1986, prior to the City Council Meeting. City Assessor Sinell recognized the Assessing Staff and said Staff had done an excellent job. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the Meeting of the Board of Review at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Review ^�( FROM City Assessor Steve Sinell SUBJECT: Recommendations of Board of Review Advisors and City Assessor on properties referred to Advisor and Assessor for review. DATE: May 30, 1986 1. Ruth Johnson Vacant Land - NonHomestead 4437 Upton Ave. Mpls. MN 55410 Advisor's Assessor's 1986 EMV Recommendation Recommendation 30-116-22 22 0015 13,0D0 16,500 16,500 30-116-22 22 0020 10,000 18,500 18,500 30-116-22 22 0029 10,000 23,000 23,000 30-116-22 22 0030 10,000 22,000 22,000 30-116-22 22 0032 4,000 4,000 4,000 30-116-22 23 0002 15,000 25,000 25,000 30-116-22 23 0003 15,000 22,000 22,000 2. Gedney Tuttle Residential - Homestead 7030 Willow Creek Rd. Eden Prairie MN 55344 1986 EMV Advisors Assessor 11-116-22 11 0007 200,000 No Change NoNo Change 3. Estate of Viola Gavin Residential - NonHomestead (Exhibit 1A) Rep. Mike Gavin Units 427,429, and G5 Castle Ridge 1986 EMV Advisors Assessor 14-116-22 32 0295 104,000 No Recommendation No Change 14-116-22 32 0249 2,400 No Recommendation No Change 4. Gary Wagner Residential - Homestead 7296 Gerard Dr. Eden Prairie MN 55344 1986 EMV Advisors Assessor 11-116-22 23 0044 128,000 115,000 115,000 5. Gerard Wersal Residential - Homestead 12645 Sunnybrook Rd. Eden Prairie MN 55344 1986 EMV Advisors Assessor 23-116-22 33 0014 88,000 83,000 83,000 FxL h;4- I/ p r c Board of Review Appraisal May 22, 1986 635 Prairie Center Drive Units 427, 429, and G 5 PID 14-116-22 32 0295 & 0249 Mike Gavin representing the estate of Viola Gavin Prepared by Lorna J. Thomas This property is located in Castle Ridge, a retirement condo- minium. PID 14-116-22 32 0295 consist of two 1BR units comb- ined. It has 2BRS, 2 baths, living room, dining area and kitchen. The net sq. ft. is 1224. PID 14-116-22 32 0249 is a detached single car garage and has 252 sq. ft. This condominium was pur- chased 9/83 by Viola Gavin for $119,800 and the garage was pur- chased at that time for $5000, fora total price of $124,800. Market Comparison Approach The latest asking price for this type of unit as of 4/1/85 is $117,900 and for the garage is $5000. There was one sale in Castle Ridge in 1985. It was a one B. R. unit. Suburban Bank sold it to Charles Ball on a foreclosure, for an undisclosed amount. Mr. Ball sold it to Mildred Johnson 7/85 for $53,900. It was sold on a Contract for Deed, with limitations for the buyer. Since there were no other sales, it is my opinion that the market approach should not be used. The unsold units are now in foreclosure, but this transpired after Jan. 2, 1986, so that would be taken into consideration for the 1987 assessment. Income Capitalization Approach As of March 1986, 5 units were rented out. The rents were given to us by P. Mculwee, the rental agent for Castle Ridge. The rent for the 1 8. R. unit is $1,345.00 per month which includes 1 meal per day and weekly housekeeping. • (2) $ 1345 Monthly Rent on Unit - 412 Meals $ Cleaning 933 Effective Gross Rent X 12 $ 11,196 Yearly Gross Rent - 10% Vacancy 10,076 - 35% Operating Expense 6549 Net Operating Expense - .122 Cap and Tax Rate 53,680 - 1435 Personal Property 52,245 X 2 2-1 BR Units Combined $104,490 Rounded to $104,000 $ 30 Monthly Rent on Garage X 12 360 Yearly Rent - 15% Vacancy 306 - 5% Expenses 290 - .122 Cap and Tax Rate $ 2377 Rounded to $2400 Correlation of Approachs Since there were no valid sales in Castle Ridge in 1985, it is my opinion that the income approach most accurately measures the value. My opinion of value as of 1/2/86 on the Condominium is $104,000 and on the Garage is $2400. • Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Review FROM: City Assessor Steve Sinell SUBJECT: City Assessor's Recommendation on Properties Referred to Assessor for Review DATE: May 30, 1986 1. Bruce Brill Exhibit #1 6574 Flying Cloud Dr. Commercial - Dog Kennel Eden Prairie MN 55344 1986 EMV = $171,300 Review Appraisal = $1B3,000 01-116-22 13 00D5 Recommend - No Change 2. Dr. John Wright Exhibit #2 6608 Flying Cloud Dr. Residential Homestead and Eden Prairie MN 55344 Commercial - Vet. Clinic 1986 EMV = $148,400 01-116-22 31 0001 Review Appraisal = $152,000 f Recommend - No Change 3. S & D Properties Exhibit #3 Ralph Dueschle Industrial -Office Warehouse 7565 Corporate Way 1986 EMV = $472,200 Eden Prairie MN 55344 Review Appraisal = $490,00D Recommend - No Change • 09-116-22 42 OD06 4. Edenvale Golf Course Exhibit #4 Attorney: George May Golf Course - Commercial/Open Space Taxable - 1986 Deferred - 1986 04-116-22 44 0001 130,800 349,000 09-116-22 11 0003 244,600 540,000 09-116-22 41 0002 189,200 505,000 10-116-22 32 0049 98,300 263,000 Recommend - No Change 5. Daryl V. Cook Exhibit #5 15516 Village Woods Dr. Residential - Homestead Eden Prairie MN 55344 (Land Only) 1986 EMV = $28,000 16-116-22 34 0031 Review Appraisal = $32,000 Recommend - No Change Page 2 6. Karen 0. Olsen Exhibit #6 9104 Neill Lake Rd. Townhouse - Homestead Eden Prairie MN 55344 1986 EMV = $85,000 Review Appraisal = $86,400 24-116-22 31 0046 . Recommend - No Change 7. Bruce H. Lieberman Exhibit #7 for General Resources Corp. 201 S. 3rd St. Hopkins MN 55344 03-116-22 22 0013 Industrial 1986 EMV = $96,900 Review Appraisal = $121,000 Recommend - $121,000 03-116-22 22 0014 Industrial 1966 EMV = $292,700 Review Appraisal = $390,000 Recommend - $390,000 03-116-22 22 0029 Industrial 1986 EMV = 185,600 Review Appraisal = $187,000 Recommend - No Change 8. Lloyd Cherne Exhibit #8 5701 South County Rd. 18 Green Acres - Non Homestead Mpls. MN 55436 15-116-22 44 0001 1986 Deferred Value = $400,000 Review Appraisal = $400,000 • Recommend - No Change 14-116-22 33 0009 1986 Deferred Value = $48,80D Review Appraisal = $48,00D Recommend - No Change 14-116-22 33 0010 1986 Deferred Value = $2D3,000 Review Appraisal = $203,000 Recommend - No Change • Page 3 9. Upper Midwest Management Corp. Exhibit #9 1106 S. Broadway New Ulm MN 56073 14-116-22 42 0002 Commercial - Office 1986 EMV = $10,000 Review Appraisal = $10,000 Recommend - No Change 14-116-22 13 0005 Commercial - Office 1986 EMV = $418,200 Review Appraisal = $374,000 Recommend - Reduce to $374,000 10. Marvin F. Poer & Co. Exhibit #10 1200 Harger Rd., Suite 410 Industrial - Office Warehouse Oak Brook IL 60521 1986 EMV = $2,634,600 Review Appraisal = $2,470,000 12-116-22 14 0013 Recommend - Reduce to $2,470,000 11. Gilbert C. Williams Exhibit #11 (will be provided June 3) 405 East 78th St. Commercial - Office Bloomington MN 55420-1299 1986 EMV = $258,000 Review Appraisal = Incomplete 01-116-22 14 0003 Waiting for additional information and taxpayer's appraisal reports. 12. Sam Schneider Exhibit #12 5200 Willson Rd., Suite 203 Condominiums Edina MN 55424 1986 EMV Review Recommend 24-116-22 21 0065 99,800 100,400 No Change 24-116-22 21 0068 127,000 141,000 No Change 24-116-22 21 0069 133,000 147,000 No Change 24-116-22 21 0074 130,000 134,000 No Change 24-116-22 21 0081 93,000 89,000 Reduce to 89,000 24-116-22 21 0083 93,000 89,000 Reduce to 89,000 24-116-22 21 0087 10,000 10,000 No Change 24-116-22 21 0089 10,000 10,000 No Change 24-116-22 21 0098 10,000 10,000 No Change 24-116-22 21 0102 10,000 10,000 No Change 24-116-22 21 0103 10,000 10,000 No Change 24-116-22 21 0109 5,000 5,000 No Change 24-116-22 21 0110 1,365,000 1,365,000 No Change 13. John Teman Exhibit #13 1010 Eden Road Green Acres - Homestead Eden Prairie MN 55344 • 1986 EMV $993,900 Deferred Review Appraisal = $993,900 Deferred 14-116-22 24 0011 Recommend - No Change AA I (. i Board of Review Appraisal May 22, 1986 6574 Flying Cloud Drive P.I.D. 01-116-22 13 0005 "Kingdale Kennels"/8ruce Brill Prepared by Steven R. Sinell The subject property is 2.0 acres fronting on Flying Cloud Drive and abutting Hwy. 169-212 in the rear. Zoning is currently I2. Soil conditions and topography appear to be acceptable. City water and sewer are available to the property. The property is improved with a dog & cat commercial boarding kennel which was built in the 1950's, 1967 and 1975. The total gross building area is 5594 s. f. which is 26% office and residential, 26% kennel and 48% storage and garage. The subject property is zoned I2 and surrounded by lands which are zoned I2 and Comm-Hwy. Highest and Best use as if vacant would be to build an industrial building meeting the requirements of the zoning district. Highest and Best use as improved would be to continue to use the property as a boarding kennel as an interim use until the value of the land as if vacant plus the costs of demolishing the existing improvements exceeds the total value of the improved property at its current use. Value of land as if vacant $2.00 sq. ft., based upon analysis and comparison to vacant sold I2 properties, or $174,000. Replacement cost of buildings is $93,352 with accrued depreciation from all causes of 90%. Indicated contributing value of improvements is $9,300 round- ed to $9,000. Value conclusion by cost approach: Land $ 174,000 Building 9,000 Total $ 183,000 Market Comparison approach was not used as there were no recorded sales of commercial kennels available. Income Approach was not used because most commercial kennels available for comparison are not rental properties. Correlation Property is an area of rapidly changing land uses and property values, but is still the highest and best use as the value in use is still higher than that of the vacant land alone. My opinion of value as of January 2, 1986 is $183,000. Comparable Land Sales 1.) 03-116-22 21 0009 Land Area - 4.492 Acres Bury Drive Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 9/85 - $440,300 W.D. or $2.25 sq. ft. 2.) 16-116-22 24 0007 Land Area - 1.86 Acres Wallace Road Zoned 12 Eden Prairie Sold 7/85 - $170,000 W.D. or $2.10 sq. ft. 3.) 04-116-22 11 0003 Land Area - 2.35 Acres Townline Road Zoned 12 Eden Prairie Sold 7/85 - $225,000 W.D. or $2.20 sq. ft. (House to be removed by buyer) 4.) 01-116-22 34 0010 Land Area - 1.15 Acres Flying Cloud Drive Zoned 12 Eden Prairie Sold 6/82 - $100,000 W.D. or $2.D0 sq. ft. (House to be removed by buyer) t ----• X `_----- — -1 -.N �N N ,VE. ...itp° L YS ii W W W W a•a• 0 \•w OC 0 OC 0C • IX 1Y w m IL �� 4 0 Q \ `'^\ W M y~ = I U • 0 M N M ' Z Z I-- D. H. Z ILl da X0 • 813 O W U. J W ~�g yaj H \\\ U • U LL N. 0 IX S 4 U) 1- J Q N H J u.t 0r ••IX IX LO f .41(�4 2 CD - MIX \� Z 4 E LX 1 4 --�01• •.,• 17 lx-amu=i— Q� WQE1Z� C W 2 — --Q 00 — 1 _ i-+WiAr�•-1 M .WN a' >W'w SUU� a' QW M 4 CI 0 444 1+I -+NMQl11 N HN W WW?71 • 1L ...NM W N v` eIQ ` 1 ,�N I. 1 C0) 0 y INO h ''>i J WO Q - Q W a• 1- I• a' J W J J W W WWZW 2 M Z W Y W I CC - ENZ}0- - aIza=H)- 0 W W J 0 J J I- (D Qf- y. f0 LL 0 T_ •• LL m OC N a 1-1 xca W UO U O W M O. N U N IX J 2C U CD O O Z W . OQ1lf • W W 1 J X 0>Q0 W O J W 0 0. OQ O W 0 J W .41 `00 U.(DEED. - U ICI CDQLLa >•2 W >-2 1n CZ 4) Z II.*OC - O ta -- - I -.NM ....WI•0 .•.N S IN.0 .+N an 4. M S U .rN M 5111.0 :P..." D M M lm 1.4 E U XXX =2 3 0• > J pppLL 0 a of iJ 0 U.w J LX q4A )- FW- h 1-- 1-1LN Q QO p W 0 CDCC W 3 W O I--I O - •W 0 = U U W O C Z 5 H WO 00 ~OI- JQaI- - N S W1-Q 4 1 w - 0 + W U a U • 3 0. 1!) 1 U O LL LD E O Li.. 4 0 I-1 X IL ICI 0 t7.0 I U 2 X X � •.NMSIII MS W.I �1l .44..........�7 `ry1 a. M N \ •� w,•yL� Q W ;i 0 1'1 LL Q V) .�O LL\ k x g J a p pJp ' Q /j1 I�� OR `J `�) \I 2 ON Qt' ° < LL1 OO yJ . >. W• W . M Liu WY" y Q `�� (`1'! O W M U F3— X• 1D W M i- J 1D 1D U N E • 1 • a . 1''J (, J XI CC 2 W)•aa'W J W CQ a UZ 1'+/ 0 Q �.b ) ••J C=.-},ll 0H I- 0----' a' X W>Q-• 0 X �. j J• W D'CO) P. 1U 1.a' `, 7 l�l) 67 N O.+NM�1' Q W>QLL 5 Q W am C W u /�; to♦• \ i — C ----.� \'LL }[7 ..._n M th` \.!' 101 -�� .+N .+N M.$ . M S • .r N I-Iti W li 1 \ .J zy 1 ° � 17. \ 4. CC C.:4 �[ 1 1 U CC N 1J d Q 1 M IS.1 = - 0. Fi w r15 I- w 0 h 0 t-0(�� 0 Q 0 W Q N E O > > W r. X Iaa! X Q J -/.. p IQ-x e UI•Z OC N. d a a pp:= W ♦t 1 Z U r 0 zgW >Qa 0 Z O 6 W a 2 Q V) W cc O W.00p I- U••O Z -1 4,1 O CDIL II x OH a 0 H. W J uU.OQMN )- }2 4 >COQCL U) W ID E ' Q UW2 t e r.2.301 IPIP MARKET APPROACH Bldg. Land Price Sales Address Date Size Age Area Price Terms Per Sq. Ft. i 2 3 4 Square Foot x Per Sq.Ft. _ Gross Income x GRM = VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $ Cost Approach: Replacement Cost d s, -id%O QQ $ 933,5"a Less: Depreciation yfr°a —j2Z �- '70Z _ ( Depreciated Value of Building Land Value (Site Value) ��/00a�D�°% Q Ai� 06 + $ VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH $ — Net Income Capitalization Approach: 100% Potential Gross Income (Actual/Economic) $.2 Less: Vacancy & Credit Loss Effective Gross Income n 14 'ice $�� Less: Expenseser Management Utilities, Repairs, Reserves, etc. ore taxes Total Expenses _ Net Income Before Taxes $ Capitalization Rate ( %) + Tax Rate ( %) + % VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS $ Correlated Estimate of Value:Land MOO Bldg. QOdd TOTAL $/41,4ef0 Value Estimate is for January 2, 19f, Date of Appraisal .fir%, By: c .c- _, L e / Board of Review Appraisal May 22, 1986 6608 Flying Cloud Drive P.I.D. 01-116-22 31 0001 "Eden Prairie Animal Clinic & Hospital"/Dr. John Wright Prepared by Steven R. Sinell The subject property is 1.3 acres fronting on Flying Cloud Drive and abutting Hwy. 169-212 in the rear. Zoning is currently C-Hwy. Soil conditions and topography appear to be acceptable. City water and sewer are available to the property. The property is improved with a multi-use structure which was initally built in 1954 with additions in 1959 and 1967. The total gross building area is 4472 sq. ft. which is 31% Vet. Clinic, 26% residential, and 43% storage and garage. The subject property is zoned C-Hwy and surrounded by lands which are zoned I2 and C-Hwy. Highest and Best Use as if vacant would be to build a commercial building meeting the requirements of the zoning district. Highest and 8est Use as improved would be to continue to use the property as a combination residential and vet. clinic as an interim use until the value of the land as vacant plus the costs of demolishing the existing improvements exceeds the total value of the improved property at its current use. Value of land as if vacant $2.20 sq. ft., based upon analysis and comparison of vacant sold I2 and C-Hwy properties, or $125,000. Replacement cost of building is $108,000 with accrued depreciation from all causes of 75%. Indicated contributing value of improvements is $27,000. Value Conlusion by cost approach: Land $ 125,000 Building 27,D00 Total $ 152,000 Market Comparison approach considered 2 sold vet. clinics and the actual cost of construting a new facility in Eden Prairie. Value conclusion by market comparison: $ 152,000. Income approach was not used because most vet. clinics available for comparison are owner occupied as is the subject property. Correlation Property is in an area of rapidly changing land uses and property values, but is still the highest and best use as comparable sales of veterinary clinics indicate a value higher than that of the vacant land alone. My opinion of value as of January 2, 1986 is $ 152,000. • CX• f;;•- Comparable Land Sales 1.) 03-116-22 21 0009 Land Area - 4.492 Acres Bury Drive Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 9/85 - $440,300 W.D. or $2.25 sq. ft. 2.) 16-116-22 24 0007 Land Area - 1.86 Acres Wallace Road Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 7/85 - $170,000 W.D. or $2.10 sq. ft. 3.) 04-116-22 11 0003 Land Area - 2.35 Acres Townline Road Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 7/85 - $225,000 W.D. or $2.20 sq. ft. • (House to be removed by buyer) 4.) 01-116-22 34 0010 Land Area - 1.15 Acres Flying Cloud Drive Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 6/82 - $100,000 W.D. or $2.00 sq. ft. (House to be removed by buyer) 5.) 01-116-22 32 0015 Land Area - 1.723 Acres Corner of City West Pkwy. & Zoned Office Shady Oak Road Sold 2/84 - $369,770 W.D. or Eden Prairie $4.93 sq. ft. (Now West Shady Nine Office Building) • 6.) 08-116-22 44 0037 Land Area - 3.50 Acres Corner of Co. Rd. 4 & State Hwy. 5 Zoned C-Hwy Eden Prairie Sold 10/84 - $525,00D W.D. or $3.44 sq. ft. 7.) I4-116-22 13 0040 & 0041 Land Area - 1.29 acres W. 78th Street Zoned C-Hwy Eden Prairie Sold 1/84 - $263,327 W.D. or $4.67 sq. ft. (Now Super 8) • rn A D 3 GI<m U1 V D 07< D 2•< N r r H 0 17 1-I I 2 1 mn0 O H 0p rn X I-I 0<C)m A 0 m A I 0 AA A D rn D A O I rn i D 7.IN-1 • H0<m m :a A O< ) N n 11Z-I m> Z 0 '\y D '0 m 0 Z 1 0 Z -Ir-I 3 9 D X 1 ZG7 2< r D A rn C 1 3m H I-I T C 0< A G7 0 A r-- m ni O 3 00 - m O m �.'�i m y m A H m, xi?•i- • v o� O 1� sW ray�j CO a n�j1� GI G7 II\ nl A j D 110 n 1-4 �\ r Z++ 1 Qm `j iIs r H N Z.( �l- W N.- • —W N.- .L-N.- N—� _! �_ " __ — q(\ 2 N 10\ C D C I I N U1 nnnmm a 03 m 0) CTD<m D 111AWN.-C NZ T �pp11��. An O-COC 9 r .•• n i A<mX A --..—__N <C C . 7 I. DN I. N I) A D M r In 0 rn m i rn A c0 1- Xi` J.�� l-, r p -1 H O-1 m < r H U1 D I- • -.-y——-.0 H m O CC��\ '.4 > 1``w "V mrnS -42. O 2 { D mQV Z V m NO GZ7 Q\ •9\ kO UyY. N' O I m ). Ci 1 1\ H-n lh Irm Inr W Nr . Y I� DJy r VcSt \T.E0 O00 'n2 'ODEA O30'n 0n3T•0CI 9F_Vn7�N n ODrn D -ID-I 0 O -_700 <D).r -1Om0AC A 00A0R1-7 0 XI rX A Afn3 mr- m •ra)ro 0 GI O A))..m 0 171 37 ArD-o CIX 41 n0 D•Afm- -I D r O 7. -4 -4 A `22 T ON " mi O )-1 DA��rmT G m .O 0 LiZ.� CI o -4 m • a s oaA n n < v 23 \D -1 A D m n 3 H -4 rr it m m r 0rn 0 2 N N A N 1 t� n H W N.- 2 PVIr NI+ 1Pr W N r WNr 0`Nr N.- T ln..L WNr G/ — — _ _ .— ——� _ _ —\— C0Ait 17 Z<0 217m U1 Z< m Z< TT Dom 00 A 3 20T col co Zmm r Omn 0)•C .7 Orn r Om 0T.<0 X rC m in• to AO 0<Z00 GI U1n Ar A 0 m co 0H m0n rn< AN XIQ1'n Q1 30'n07 A�<TA Hr 7 D "0 AAA0m n D02 1'N• • • C -Im > G12 rJN In H D X -4 0 GI I- O AOH mZ D DDr- C4Cm A m -I D 0 -4 r r 0 r m m O m.0 -I es )A 9 0 N 2'H S 0 0 rD-m IC XI < A 'A 2i -11 -4 A rn s k>T m H O4 O In n lil\} '4 N 8 �` , Ll H 'F I� N < . ��11 rDrl Itm E m l i1 < N Y01 A GrIZ I�n n -4 rn N— iI4 N...3 W N. 3 N. N= N r W N� D .-.�-4 3. —� I 1 \ Ooo D 1 ' rns AGI AT0 n<0 A NmOWN IA-4 in YD AI Inn 41:O D mr11H n T AA m OnT< TO -I -1 0 I 11 -I-7 A AX :0 T 20'CO 0 T-I m rn m A !� m H C m - m n n• D LA -4 m• . • . A H 4.1 . D r -1 to T.Z<0-1 A n N r H H A X•I XI• r \\\ m '' ►I m D .0 -4 n m m 1 y n H H CC n w A o r •T noNY.• VIM,' m mm Z ). o D in 0 -I rn m G)111 UI X H 9 m 1-4 Z m D 0 Z N N Z AL•T N H n D my m n .0 U.7 • -1 0 M = -1 H H n 7. • n I m N 7. m rn m 0'1 0 < in H w 2 D m -`n SO'..A7 AA XI AA 0A ). \7CI 0 rn TimmA :'1 U1 0.Z.O n D N N-1-i-7�. D 0 .O -1 rnmoveowv D I., 1. 0 N,. N.. -- — N I. Pc3 MEMORANDUM To: Eden Prairie Board of Review From: Dr. John H. Wright Eden Prairie Animal Clinic & Hospital 6608 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN' 55344: Telephone: 941-3002 Subject: 1986 Valuation Notice Property III# 01-116-22 31 0001 Date: May 15, 1986 The estimated market value of this property was increased from $127,000 in 1985 to $148,400 in 1986, which is almost a 17% increase. Inflation over the last year has been at approximately a 4% level and real estate values have been fairly flat. This increase in the market value of my property was probably impacted by recent land sales to corporations for development of multi- story office and bank buildings in the area. My veterinary practice is a small business which I established here 30 years ago. At that time, the Village of Eden Prairie wanted such practices situated on a relatively large (one acre or more) tract of land in an undeveloped area so as not to be a nuisance to neighboring landowners. I complied with this requirement and located my practice in a non-residential area off of a major highway (Old Highway 169). The City has since changed its requirements over the years as land values increased, and it now allows new veterinary practices to situate on smaller parcels and/or within other multi-purpose buildings. Since my competition ( can operate with lesser overhead, this alone causes a disadvantage for me t0 operate my vet practice, but the problem is further compounded since my real estate tax rates are being influenced by the previously-mentioned corporate purchasers who are utilizing the real estate in a totally dissimilar fashion. I feel this 17% increase in assessed valuation is unjust and I formally appeal the valuation. • • — — ---; ir — • -- :::17.,..:::,_:1-f-i.-7.,\:11- -Z 4,j ,,, -..._, .. .0.1 cr anLL LL 4ti .� ti �Z '\N N UUmm 0 `L(\1 S \...+M Z `,. WYY-b Y l I.-.1 `. F- W W W HI41 EZ1 I ,1 U • O H H \-{E W 0 W ' h `) W I- Of CZ , \_ 4'HZLu Z X4 P0. Z WG.G.. W M 1"""v�))) pd I- G. H W W I-• O H. H Q _++4 H X - 00 NT. 1. 1 '•O C UlU }'�� 9 WW N Z W JW W \\ <Q HoHI- a Q ►- 0 0 • LL U. J U C I- Q 0 I- J Q H H ` J ••C CtD0 rQ Z0QI-I G: N. Z QE C 4 1 I-V. .•.m 2 cc.C Z U LL W H G.E Z C F- IW- 1 F-F-I- ''''- .." � OLL I-LL(D W • 4LL G.W QCW U0 z G. 44.4V 1� I- M -W N C >W O Z U N C 4 H - p p W 3!T 1 '.I'}i l .- N M r 111 .-1 N -•N E M N \ ti W E 1 N W C ap , - Y pp N N FW- rr? ca U M N Y 0 OI- �Q44W C F- i- 1- C N H. y11lI W J Cr 4 pp EHZ0 -cc CI UJ z-I F-UJ H W W J O Z CC J I- U' .4 I- W G: WOWO 444ZU1 H .. J tD 0 F. H .4 0 A'Z(0 .4 u - IN H X Q U W�C C C 0. .0 > H -1 S 4 0 cc.I-4 W 1 CO O Q N •r • W W J 0 0 X C'f>Q0 W.Z w us0 D 0 0 N Z - CG$ - I `(Dm U.(DZEG. .U W(D4U.G. >- ic. IH • V .... — --�-- -- --•-- ---- —� —N-.- X — — )-- - OM-- Z - -I .+N dU1.0 -•N Q0.O -•NMs ..NMQ 111 MS 0 M Z � NUI • 0 ~ y C W W - H ti 1.1 E L) W -I Y a. > (Jo 0 11_ (D C P _ (J I- 4\U EZ 3 Y 0 Z pppp z C H W 11.w J C Q F- I- ~ O U I X CHI HI O - H 4 IU.1 Q Z 0 J C U(G U.(G X - W U. C U. 00 .44 O IX O. U Q < I- -I W Y JCC 0 W QC 0 (D C • W 3 W I-ENC C W UI W 0 U 0 W - U U - 4•U0 W 0 I-J UT 0 0 •W J * W IX,Z W U.. '0-I H0 - 1- z IX 4 ED I= IX .o O G.XN I-C W WN H I-1-W O COO • 1-- W OF J44H 0NF-Z O0J).4H .4W Q. O O o U C U• an. ••0E U O II.CD E 0 0.3 4 0 H II��,, 0 U.W 0 0 U Z\ • ..• _ 4.N el 4.IN Ind I- O •Q `1 W J LL4 •1 LL c a J H J < O K IVI Z O 0 0" < Q O. W 0 W C H. W W • 14•I !-�U Y • . 1-4 .4O. \`- 1 --`I 11 0 111 IX C U-- —^ • -1 0.4 0 F•I J 4> U vH E OJ -iC) `r� -'I HI x WYCCW J W 4Q'Q C OZ N N4 _.. �• :I O 2OF N-- — C U XW>4•O2' 0 X .•>J W O'U 0 N H ` •i --`j ;Jn;V1 (G —N O•+N M Q(l1 4 W>Q LL O Q W +4 fG 0 1.W. U [] N.--\' O -•N -•NMy ti Md • .....NM \ H `-' U. OJ .., , \ `-4..,, r Z HI • `lu Cc gl 1 .Jm �9 a 1C[d'�. ._. o ._. z- • O. H r L I- iu O `� Q \1 0 'M f07 a O W a IO.I 3 £ O > > •.N. Q C 0 0 C LX .4 7 u. H 1Z O Z (L W G. 4 -�� O 2 H.I.4 W Z {.4 4 Y O C C W W p.1-1 • M 4 4 "U 0 X O 0 4 W cR 2 4 0 W C O W O I- U•.O Z -1 0 0.0. W 0 a 3 < W 1 4 CC WIX IX C WO IX W O>O H X. OH 0 WI H. J � J U Y H IL 0 I U.0.4 H N H Y Z Q >OD 4 d 0 W 0 E 4 0_ 1. �' S . 1 Y �"'._ .—_. a 1 --� .� ., ^_ MARKET APPROACH -• . . Price Sales Address Date Size _Age Area Price Terms Per Sq. Ft. ,;/''2.2 !a'-% '3.,;:�iy,.j1; r-- V v0 i !/!i v4' ,V0 . '. 4 .66 .n r ^7.1,n"c- %n j niA ,- 'tf a'a 8 -rOisic a C760.a 4a0 !? �.) c-- ,,,Q' ..,.. .k.�Gr' /ca6o o Square Foot /.:570, x , = Per Sq.Ft. _ o , „/ v . Gross Income x GRM = VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $ 4/94 Cost Approach: Replacement Cost /3,'K(L12-d' $/r43-‘lQ Less: Depreciation te - Depreciated Value of Buildingd ei Land Value (Site Value) %� �dM:-/ , +^A /ILQ i + $_j VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH Net Income Capitalization Approach:, o.(c>6' ' 3,9A3i itgye 100% Potential Gross Income ,;20'�-'-(Actual7Economic) $ 401>e Less: Vacancy & Credit Loss %') % - Effective Gross Income $a . Less: Expenses �,y;f''• i..1-.1, 1rn/FP Management �;+,67 Ap,,,-.f,4dt17)�?/u,�.r Utilities, Repai-rs;-RLsserves, eY.'"66efOre taxes • Total Expenses _ 4* Net Income Before Taxes $ . Capitalization Rate ( /"%) +_T ate t fir-- ti_Z,% VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS $ 1r2 • Correlated Estimate of Value:Land /Jj.d±t0 Bldg.' • TOTAL $0406' Value Estimate is for January 2, 19sn Date of Appraisal /1�r%+ _ By;s ram` Edenvale Golf Course ( Attorney: George May 04-116-22 44 0001 09-116 22 11 0003 09-116-22 41 0002 10-116-22 32 0049 Edenvale Golf Course is a private- for profit golf course open to the public. The property consists of 105.91 acres improved with an 18 hold golf course and club house. For the 1986 assessment all the taxable golf courses in Hennepin County were reviewed and reappraised to ensure equalization among the golf courses in the county. Golf courses fall under the "Minnesota Open Space Property Tax Law" M.S. 273.112(attached) and are given two values. The taxable value is to be determined solely with reference to its private outdoor, recreational open space and park land classification. The market value or deferred value is also determined based on highest and best use, which may be as a golf course or any other use that may be appropriate. The real estate taxes are based upon the taxable or recreational values unless the property no longer qualifies for the reduced assessment at which time the taxpayer pays the difference of the tax on the market value and the taxable value for the current ( year plus the previous two years. For the 1986 revaluation we determined what the best or top golf course would be and determined that it would be rated @ 900 points. We then rated all the golf courses and used a percentage of the top value for the new taxable value. Example: The top course rated 900 points and had a value of $89,000 per green. A course which rated 450 points would have a taxable value of 50% of $89,000 per green or $44,500 per green plus the value of any buildings. Edenvale Golf Course rated 490 points which indicated a taxable land value of 54.444% of $89,000 or $48,455 per green, or $872,000 total land value plus $68,000 building value for a total taxable value of $940,200. The market value or deferred value was determined to be $15,000 per acre plus building value of $68,000 for a total value of $1,657,000. _ Upon analysis of the results of the completed revaluations, it was found that many of the golf courses would be experiencing extremely large increases in their taxable values. Edenvale Golf Course would go from a total 1985 taxable value of $384,900 to $940,200. Although it is not accepted to phase in changes in Market Value, it was determined that for the Taxable or recreational value it is appropriate to phase in the changes. The net results are indicated as a total of all four parcels and for the 1/2/87 assessment assume no changes in building values. 1/2/85 1/2/86 1/2/87 384,900 taxable 662,900 taxable 940,200 taxable 1,495,800 deferred 1,657,000 deferred 1,657,000 deferred Attached: Minnesota Open Space Property Tax Law. Description of top golf course. Calculation of Open Space land value of top course. Edenvale rating sheet. Preliminary 1986 golf course assessment - Hennepin County. l MINNESOTA OPEN SPACE PROPERTY TAX LAW 6X. Q 3 • • Laws 1969, Chapter 1135 (M.S. 271.112) • \ Subdivision I. This section may be cited as the "Minnesota Open Space Property Tax Law." Subd. 2 The present general system of ad valorem property taxation in the State of Minnesota does not • provide an equitable tas:s for the taxation of certain private outdoor retreat icnal, open space and park • lard property and tam resulted in excessive taxes on some of these lands. Therefore, it is hereby declared that the pit;io policy of this state would be best served by equalizing tax burdens upon private outdoor, • recreational, open space and part' lard within this state through appropriate taxing measures to encourage private deselopnent of these lands which would otherwise have to be provided by governmental authority. • Subd. 3. Real estate shall be entitled to valuation and tax deferment under this section only if it is: (a) actiscly and exclusively devoted to golf or skiing recreational use or uses and other recreational ores carried on at such golf or skiing establishment; (b) five acres in sloe ar more; and (c) (l) operated by private individuals and open to the public; or (2) operated by firms er corporations for the benefit of employees or guests; or (3) operated by private clubs having a membership of SO or more. Subd. 3. The value of any real estate described in subdivision 3 shall upon timely application by the o Ter, it the manner provided in subdicirion 6, he determined solely with reference to its appropriate pri:ate cataaar, recreational okra space and part' land classification and value notwithstanding Minnesota itatutes i9t7, Sections :7:.03. Subdivision P. and 273.11. in determining such value for ad valorem tax pnrpcses t.., assasser shall not .ces;,.ep the value such realestatecnld ha:ae if it were converted to com- r..ercial, i cstrial, residential er seasonal residential use. Sabd. 5. Toe assessor stall, however, make a separate determination of the market value of such real estate. The tan cases upon the appropriate tall rate applicable to such property in the taxing district shall be tecerdec or the property assessment records. Subd. 6. upp:icatien for deferment of taxes and assessment under this section shall be made at least 60 days prier to January = cf each year. Such application shall be filed with the assessor of the taxing district it which toe real peas.... is located on such form as may be prescribed by the Cormissior.er of Taxation. The assessor ray require proof by affidavit cr otherwise that the property qualifies under subdivision 3. Solid. - i hich. :s heicg, ar has been, valued and assessed ander this section is sold or no :eager cam lifiesunder subdivision 3, the partior. sold or the portion which no longer qualifies under sutdiv:0cc- i ;t.a;l be sot!ect to addicic.nal taxes, in the amount equal to the difference between the taxes detereane: in as ordancc with sutdivision 4. and the amount determined under subdivision 5, provided, how- ever, that tee araurt deter fined under subdivision S shall not be greater than it would have been had the actual hcra fade sale price of thy real prepertc at an arms length transaction been used in lieu of the • Warier solar determined under subdivision 5. Such additional taxes shall be extended against the property' on the tax :1st for the current year, provided, however, that no interest or penalties shall be levied on such addit:c.ui taxes if threw paid, and presided further, that such additional taxes shall only be levied with respect to the last seven years that the said property has beer valued and assessed under this section. Sued. S. the tax imposed by this section shall be a lien upon the property assessed to the same extent and for the Oars duration as other taxes imposed uper. rroperty within this state. The tax shall be annually ex- tended !,y the county auditor and shall he wok noted and distributed in the canner provided by law for the collect:;r. aad d._trcbutien cf ether property taxi:. 9.td. 9. Thisc section ..,.s .. ,i y to assessments for tax purposes wade beginning in 19-; used to determine taxes paya.ie on .p"i. TOP GOLF COURSE 1. Large Greens - Good Turfs, Undulating and Variety of Shapes 2. Sand Traps - Around Greens and Fairways 3. Dog Legs 4. Good Topography 5. Should Have Some Water Holes 6. Trees 7. Variety of Lengths of Fairways 8. Good Watering Systems 9. Challenging Course 10. Location: a) Easy to Find b) Good Access c) Compatible with Community 11. Size - Sufficient Acreage to Support Quality Golf Facility 12. 18 Hole - 170 Acres • 4, 4p5 OPEN SPACE TOP GOLF COURSE 170 ACRES, 18 Hole Golf Course with the Highest Possible Score of 900 Points Using $950/Acre as the Value of Land Suitable for a Golf Course Land: 170 Acres @ $950/Acre = $ 161,000 Improvements: 18 Greens CO $80,000 = $1,440,000 ($80,000/green represents the estimated cost to construct the top quality golf course) Total $1,601,500 $1,601,500 = 18 Greens = S 88,972 say $ 89,00•0/Green This value per Green is used as the Base to Calculate an Open Space Value for Each Golf Course. PAR 3 AND MINI 9 HOLE GOLF COURSES 30 Acres X 950/Acre = $ 28,500 9 Greens X $50,000/Green = $ 450,000 $ 478,500 $478,500 s 9 = $ 53,166 say S 53,000 4-.a, - d;I/i t C/ Ao-//6 -.2.r 1.2 a ovj Ex tli f P I D /�� MUNIC E ,-) 1rrr.fr;e NAME: Er 1kjE 2 0 U 2 cC 2 W W N J QV' W W Q 1.) W N X >4 2 W 4 I CRITERIA !WEIGHT 9 8 7 61 5. 4 3 21 1 I SCORE Location Weight i x Rate '= Score t I Access 10 ✓ 1 1 I Urban Suitability Ij 20 ! /1 I i /D0 Exposure I 6 j ` 1 ✓ 1 1 I Jo I [ I DESIGN i 1 1 1 Size I 6 ✓' i t0 1 I ) 1 - Shape/Orientation 7 I j V 1 o n 1 Topography 8 1 , �i 1 I. O. ' I Trees 7 1 1 ' �1�G Overall Golf Quality 10 • / O�QOO MAINTENANCE - CONDITION Turf 8 I r ' I O Drainage 7 4 1 1 ✓ got Watering System 7 Ili I Accessibility 4 i I 1 1 / ��- TI OTAL SCORE 100 l I [ I / Score x Value of Excellent Course = Subject's Value Per Hole 1ota1 Possible Points yy l 90 5/. p�4/`$ ?:film �/- $ 7 J /Hole 900 k 1g Via,,?0,;d avi-t) �,{/' n 1 �.x� r, - v�nOG:cF's rr..:cs n rc m om n I u n o o n 0 7,C A c — 77 m o 0 c o o a 4 v^ c j R 0. c, C tYi C B .r-9 S n>> W m-v 6 e D m 6 O S r N 7 n m f+ O O S A N L q d R F 6 Y r2•r r R 1. n O n c z. n.- .W 2 > a A n In.17 N 0 Cr N-W�V P- NON N m l vN • NO^G N Cr ONm 411 tw CON IvPN wan ---`Ov 'f 0 . 3 0 0 9 000.00 mm CO co=m s m 222 02m 2 m 2 mO:mm . -ncr — G. NN m 0 W N+ON V v t- .'O w P wNNNc NN07 1•4•00 _bWOvN+ 00P0O--POv < n 0.0vv0 OvN...v Ccc 0 Ppp CN-.p00NIJNCm Cum ' 88522 O O O O O O O O O O C C G J O O O G O C O IR n O N vNC.O u v NmvvO N 11.n'.N N N.0 N PCN G r i MtN 1 O Nm v- vN -ONm0 vv.0 V NNv Nm N 8t 1 O POmO C O PO CO:-C NC-O C•NCN.O N 00 00 000000000000000000000 m m P .-. -O-- w.0 w C O N N NI x ^ADO v 20,4 Nm W.Nn <.3 G m O W P - 0 P C N O N.0 S N O 0 P MO Om v.0 rp w WPOG- vv JOvC-C PC.O R r '., cc Coo 0800Ooc8OCccoGogc000Poo n oococ .c 0000 ocooa�Coo-oc00000 0 r m m trl G P--C P N v Cr T2 y P v 5^ 2 O U c�N N c m.o ow m�..Nw 2=.-r-.N..;w-o i.,•w m m 2 m W N .w N v v v C J v w. ..- n- .1 . .. . V N�.('i Iv -.O CN..NO O vO m—v o m � G- V Ov-=m. -SN 2 C- .S 0 "0a. P" .oti .o sG v.NNw Tii ro A VN0...,J�� 0.��v w^.,v�S NC O� ti 0.•0,m Nm O It 0 _ o,N uo 0 N — CJw P-,,v.-V+N W.6 CO o c 0 J 2 O C r 0 ^-O O P O C 0 0 0 O J O O p 0 0 0 VV 0 o c o c o c o c c 0 0-_ o c c o 0 0 0 o G O m; ...UU a G ca m 1 w C ,N=C v-OvN2P t 00 A GO=vw .0 /� } G PJCG S 2CswGS Gw...ON000�+ J 8 1 g.8 C= =C G C C O O..O O CC g P G G C C ..=UG J� �- CJ JC.�.0 GOOCO I m ^wr.,W- N4�d'�'P t a Ca Cm N^cmP Wy� L O '�v_; -O l a•NNvaP w.•mac"W G + " • •p 0t o0 o o coo c``c o c o.o o c o l`o 0 rtr C 0 0 0 0 O O O C 0 C 0 0_C..G C O O O O C O J G A 7. F "Z A • Z 1 • ll • Land SALES CCNPARISON APPRO1CtU for Daryl CoOk t, 15516 Village Woods Dr. 15385 Morraine Way 15445 Morraine Way 15441 Village Woods 16-34-31 16-31-27 16-31-29 16-34-23 Dr. SUBJECT . COMPARABLE #1 CCi4PAr.ABLE #2 COMPARABLE #3 I_ z2JN DATA DATA ADJ. DATA ADJ. DATA ADJ_ Sa]ej'rice one 31,UUU 34,000 29,000 Specials Assumed None None • None 1None 7)ate s-i1d _ N/A 6/84 I 6/64 - 7/84 -- I- Location Good . Good I Good Good • - Lot Size Sq. F£-- 17,500 20,85b -2u00- 19,045 -1000 13,500 +2000 Land improvements City S&W Equal Equat Equ—i1 - -c r e=sac Yes NO +1000 No +1000 No +IuuU'-' `- - - - I I - --- = _J__- I •I - - i --j-�----- - -,- --y'-- -. -I • _, To:ai Adjustments J DU -- ----,- (- Indicated Value for SL:bject -� -- _ +300D - I --- _3240II_ --�_ 34,000 -_- ,000 - -—j- 1986 Indicated value is $32,000. ( • RESIDENTIAL Land SALES CO'I1ARtStkl API'ROACH for Daryl Cook 15516 Village Woods Dr. 8593 Revere Ct. 16-34-31 16-43-29 SUI.J;�CT C(;•ll'Al2A13U? r _can lra Aitl i?rig— CU1r:112A}3LtS #3 Z11i::1_--_--_ DATA DATA ADJ. DATA ADJ. DATA ADJ. — T sale. Price _ None —�-- - ciA1:: A.aum<sl Tfbr��—_N05S�--- -- ------ ----_ ra,t,- sotc� - - — .-._..N/A Locat on Good _ Good Lot sii7e Sq. Ft. _ 17,500-__-14,269 +2000 c'Land ltnprovcmnts City S&W City S&W Cul-de-sac Yes Yes --- • Ad�tt:,tn,e,ts — — — --- ------ iutal ir I _ +2000_ Indicated Value for Subject _35,900 f — -- - • • •., II s ! , a . - . ,,-- --, -'• .. - - , , co, -' lot. , ,,f Av. .4. ,--e. „ • .i, g cr , , -,•1! . , R. Imp —. . . - •, • t .R m I PAS.* isrv't a •t . it /-- n' MINNII253 MI; - "I 1' ,; '5- 71.4'44% .- • : 'arl I M•_,4yir -4 a It. • 1 46'14. •g.", ' s."--/1''''.'-• '* .' ; • i silo.Mk, t ---- . .0. .4.• • •• % nt 0. ,-s, t!' /,\i•• f.,.,.,?.. 't , •VI `,.it ' dipil ':\;;: if 0 ,,tt' '-!(.. ''' ,r•I''' , .....''\ 4 f '-2. i l'-' ;I '„ i ''' ..4 4;_iirilk 41 4 _..: 4,,*. ,:`,7'C:.‘ i,/..!-Y:;:. \""I -:% . i• * ,-, ; i. se+, i . , Or, _ , '..,\4 4 :•• •,-" ..-.;."'". 1,.:77 .":•:. 1\-'''`ri: •-7, .„1.;.:i..,' In -: ii . -. ., ,, ,. ,,,,.. v - ••., a. , , i: i - ;• , 1--.'---•-i ,i. •-,4: - '•" 1 4 - -7:•• I ;4 r...,..._% ' tl s• "1* I.--F',4?-,f _, -_ 0,_ \---sb .-.-,. , 4,"_—,,,, :-•/ Z- '` :,/;44011 '..it. 1- S: 4,42_, ..ic, :.,. _. ,..,• ,. , 4F:- ., Ini jog ,..4 1. / ,,•...i ,1,.. -4 -. ,,,--,.., -p . .1. / . •:‘ ,....: U i 4, ' /64 -.4" % .i, 5-*r , 3 ''' i'' C6'' • '*. " -...2 '. ' 1 ,'4-• . 4 ..° R..• ' ll a ,.., - 1: 4 : 1 .: . .'..: P• i i - -4' -...''' •••,4 -,ii" ;. 1 g' .1• s .2 - .42", . .2'4': •'!:'1. ' ' ' t" ,Ii.,-,i - '...,.. . ....-.TT . .1 . i..! f„,.., 4 :''.‘;, ' .., A ';,.,-, ,-;r‘e" '!•16,•••'- *3, , , Cab 114 „. `."-„:4,:t•X`:, .1 " '11 AP -.,,,,r ';x4,--...*N:,-.4&,. ''.••• „„I's;',, DRIVE *T , T . , • ..- , t. . 7••-,...• ..,!, ..) ... . ,. .', t..k-,,./ •: , ,,, ,t• . -- 4.• 4. _--, ,..4- ( s 4 4.6 4.. . • . . SHERIDAN 61) 7 AVf ‘ I ''''.:. V.z. ' , ., ,....C' " 4-.14,_ r•-_, .. -i.lr' zi• 4i" .g. li‘.').,.. 3., r--•--rire4 : y 71\> t- ,, a- t 111M- I , -r4s L,......• ,,,,,-.. •••• le, .„,„ r l' ,-4.::,...-,:°'‘t.,-.: .1', . _. .,.,. . i...'4 ;:' w '1- - '• '7. .''' ,4 i i. • - .AT.-. NIT MILL!- A . ;H',"..i.;4':... °•19F,t; 1, .! , 1 ea .• . '4\A-----...,'"' i,i-../S i' ,,',-''-41 .-:".tt' "i- 1 il •S'oi-t3-# 1..- --,,Nic-:,-a 2 ,._ ; .°;:.'7,-,-.:73- •••%, ....y. ,,14, - , • .._,;;1....;',-, i.I iiatfii,,. sic -, 0-• • „ , it 4, v •- j.".•;-•.‘"el-th" '''el,c3kis. .7",“.."-..-'`0'--1't,it-mgAt• "i' 10 ....V 1 V,"'''''""c .,,"-,5 ( :`;,$. . '',/`-•,- 4.--, - 4 ..-.A.;_it;c„-44 •e• - A .- s• ,..,-... . . .. , ..-..A. •..,,, I 4 ' / .."V..:. e ' ' " -4...14-441,.....0 "'•."',.., /4' ., il!" -MITI .‘ . ' = ...'.;1 7.. 1 ":7 4.-1.; ' ';•-.. l',./2.:1-4!'-, '^',',c-rk.":, '5". 4. ....''...-'. , "' :,... *17,". ;"-0, -----•.' 1.'et .1,;?:!:.7' -:`4.,.' ,Y,..... ' ::.'7.-"'''';_' .,.•.\: ,:i "'X'.......'.;.1 tte‘t.•,ori.'4,4'i' "'',..'\- -".1 .',,.. °,. :., \ • •": : tti.:;"-1" W'''"..-:-7..`-•••••\,--\,tY-- ..A.. ''''''\`-:‘,-,:.%/' ,-'f' 4. ..:, 'i 4,414-. 4 4.•+. '4 •, 4.'R..",... '"." .,' .. l'44,'\"! 4 4i, 4''''''` '{....`; ' lw'4:7; .' ‘;'*0 ®11'.,, %Is.. ,.., ' .,,,....A.'...--.•,,,,,,i -,,, a ., -.. • ,., • • • , '- 7 • i i, '''a'. d.!I-a t*-% ' ''. ' ' '`-1. • '''': `44-• .. -I ea ‘,.!,;:o " t i. 'sirk -tP,, • . . „, Ahlki-‘ r( RESIDENTIAL SALES COMPARISON APPROACH dq-21"14 .1,1-3i-41 .041•31-33 c0 9-3/_p 91a• 7)te A qpip,7it,.:14,ii•k 91.26 116.,...e.A_ 9/4-A A 4.i 4-pelo, SUBJECT CalPARABLE #1 COMPARABLE #2 CCMPARAELE in _ DATA DATA' ADJ. DATA ADJ. DATA ADJ. Sale Price 745dD -isoo Ya.evo 17.cro -ssoo 4.uw.tmdli Specials Assumed 64:0444,. C4.411. )ate Sold °9//65-64" qfS Location -Ala.,. .../44;4, Lot Size Land Improvements Rooms g 7 7 7 - Bedrooms .5 Square Feet (C42 ) /43A /36b/ -I-ino /Afic 4'/V00 /04 74/1:27,0 - Age 71/ /f70 /977 -loco 197r, -/am Condition / ,/, l•-•-11- 'Roo o Ifr Kitchen V 4"/ • - ill Baths /,-W. _L 3413ii -5o41 ii s/y 4-420., 3.asement 7" 4SV_ r‘ gee ate :--VIO, /C4C. -/pc Basement Finish 140 .543 Ego __/.71_ -MOO leating 6A1 am 6Pn. aM kir Conditioning yu.., ° rd wrt Extprior los-oW: tv.o.,7-,O_ fol -L 14 . S or D .0 life 0 ZIG, f••!oe D 3-0A -goo , 514 -4ext -kteA - iso 114 -40 .11,_ .Z.ezPO ..*G -6,11[__ / /..4 ________Z / .0 -012-1-1 A 5,104/ -71e 5.A. . ‘144. - 0 tgell,. .4 .efi_ _lit h":41ie total AdjustMents ,-It-co 1 -aloe --/a 000 Indicated Value for Subject It.o _ oe # iT • . e.-frref,dick_ .4(/ „tu,,,,,yte,...e_A ....Lki.., i 77 •:;:/,' ,E.- h .1 'e:-e.-•'-v0titt Ke'f: ArettA j , ,o'v- 1 tl, 0 ./ 7, -A:.:. /- ,-, -.14,f-i,r ,....41. o,,,,,,4,41 - ?tt'e_kk,/-„E P m . • L ZZ lie m D II m 3 cm Dqm 21mm 2mo 3ImOg omDo < i r 101 ozr -", < I° i / R « U$ '� i < $ ri ` 1 c - '. .--$ <' wo 1 Q ! i 0 X z p m O -�1 43 hq 80 a v v. 43 ' s $ o m `< aS 0 A t7 m m m m D D D D I N 9 _ n, 4 N = O ,a m m (r P W N + (n A W N -• W N -• W + • A (.4 1l1 A W N + 9 S •. '`O O m T O ; n c 2 F ,o '° T. o O E o p r O b1 b1 c N in ;v m D O n g D -:_, �O' U 8 " Y s g A .2 zt - S ; m x= g a i s m S l . a i. g z s - r Q y' Cro \-. -- i a n UI P W N + °I N a W N + W N + ' N + + 0 I0 01 .� 01 P W N + A W N + 1 N R Z y� 1-- 0 2. o — — — — �� i z , ).. i o > a o, n ' G_1 m o D G1 D o D O r g [ D o D < m a D G1 o L1 L° 9 * g ,' L1 n1l O W N -. p (.1�N ++ W N — W NJ ••\ •`4 A W ! !: ! A W N + (I.. c a o I D 6 i c' , c X in m O > G1 r 2 a: 7k N Q i< Y o r ,v D G1 > m n D - z m S 3 m u(g a _ 9, 11 �:, m. ° i�a , o . o- s o o f, °n a £ c R $ O& 3 a. n n S Ii i. m i $. 1 $ Q 'R 3 o s = ! 6 ' i i ' 4 n la i 70 4�i 3 v ^ a ' `'� O. N + A W N I+ W N + W N WN i+ A A W N + l I01 0. A W N + W N +— A W N + W N + 'C c D1G1 m oID O Xi:e o � m L> g O o e m 8 o O 10 ^'^ g _ - m T I$ $ r 8 5,$ 1 _ o ° _ ' n A m $Q d m : x o x 3 d o 9.Q G1 R o ° :wI $ n g a3 n a $ c T3 e `` P W N'+ W N + W N + A W N + A W N + W N •+ 1)1 A W N +, N A W N + G o > O10e 2DOQm oDO SI. m ogg Owg, n goN9�O7C(O[ m2, 1^ C o k a a y o .€ S $ °�i $ p°.5. m °o m' ^ '• em u = g i g / n o p w f. . o _ o ^, _ T Ld a o n n 2 m z' 5', N - ..a b o m r 3 40 3 1 ? •s II"XXej 9 3 '1' a °o '1 R ro $ ' 3 0 z . „ &" i I� N 8 a 3 ,„ tz.1 2 ' I. N + A W N + WIN + W N + A W N + A W N + If a g D T u Ve °2;. T Pi $' 0 7c O rim (o . o o m D O m t z t C niD< a m f g $ .. Iyi _ r13a ,cac in car $ ° $ (+ n m r• a a m m D D x W ° m 7 $ 9 g F4.1" .. .. R s z R y 11 3 3 a ' 3 ! V ...... p IO CO .+ m Uf'A W N + >T \ - G (r A W N + 3 — (4 v F4gIE to!7 D m(m a 6 T n ' 30 -I o o < c t1 N c1 `\ y n t I i s Ig z - - n s i C N =, x k 0 x Ii G D r D k x k C s max -- „ . � ( \` ,rvti sr�a Rt . > u a Z y w h _ ' \L! ttoYrit°` i- kite. 0�q e Il �v{ b� >Via. ,o y c 8 -* FF I > 3 1 J. " 4 , M . Z ' t X > r E ...4-7 Al ._ , �Jc O O? 2 p >X W a 11` f f t, f�f-..k.,, .b6 p c0i %, W cc a a > > 2 c IS i >" d X w g �,... •.� , is' E ,y ¢1FZ•�1 - q c m c o ' .t I— _J1— F .J 1 y tv COp of I g 1 ti ...a Zi P O ryr cs. 0 w y o f i is �0 �. v v C•1:,_t'..I c• 1, = t Q �� W S t� \:. N 3 O J y 0 _ f v o o u° a m"" ¢ c~i o" A U E c m m m m m ~ l—a: i&j<i r ,,I1 .. OF N ¢ m u m m 3 a° H J F J�- o ', s �/ �/��'2p-(%/� 22h 00/3 l c- I=e - ✓rD de Oros 6r.iVX�'�`� /4913.54. ��1 /7'f Wf IS�C./eae ,t 4us- Vd3?/3,/s:7e oc ,Gym j/� A' L a F - B,, - °"" Sioee. a te, trt�t l_ s0 aKs--ou r 0 hh/M5 /-3 P3c 171eds -a f'a- i.ne 41 z { Comparable Land Sales 1.) 03-116-22 21 0009 Land Area - 4.492 Acres Bury Drive Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 9/85 - $440,300 W.D. or $2.25 sq. ft. 2.) 16-116-22 24 0007 Land Area - 1.86 Acres Wallace Road Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 7/85 - $17D,OD0 W.D. or $2.10 sq. ft. 3.) 04-116-22 11 0003 Land Area - 2.35 Acres Townline Road Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 7/85 - $225,DD0 W.D. or $2.20 sq. ft. (House to be removed by buyer) 4.) 01-116-22 34 0010 Land Area - 1.15 Acres Flying Cloud Drive Zoned 12 Eden Prairie Sold 6/82 - $100,000 W.D. or $2.00 sq. ft. (House to be removed by buyer) After adjusting for differences in zoning, location and neighborhood ammenities the indicated value is $1.80 per square foot. ( Am D 3 G) m y yD G7< D Z< -i N I. Dort r r -I 0 v `I = 0� Cn.O; O HO X H 0<Om Orn 9 OA:OmA A m A O 0 �r. 000 t- ZO•• C) -1 OMOA Al y A 227111170 Zz 0 X D D H • H O m m .0 22 0-C a C) �m a-1 Z O .� D '0 '0 Z -i r-i CC3 10 P. 7c 0 T-F-I. r a A m C m < < T - Ho D m O D Gal O•y GI r 0 m -I 0 m N m m 0 : Z H�.1 00 H m >C m (�, N A •< xi 27 Z • 13 AI Z H b r T pH ` yr` Z< co N r r -.W r — N 1 2H \ w CC D _� 01 ---_ _ — ��+— — ` I illy -pn mvl •a OD! m e Cs 71D<m Cal y5-1N_C yC E N i CC.• HCy Is 0 co ZI .Z aA' frn 1 r mmm23-cm Z ,—, m Mco r m <D r 1-1 VI a r n Hm 0 1 a• n GY G) r -4 H GIG)r -.Ir O rTl'A H 1 M • m m < 21 morn D< D Z D OZ V 0 �m -I -4 0 0-1 O 11v§i m ts r \ ImA' V1 1 ps• rW r VIrW N—� I I D XZ n OG)Cairn-12 HOa 13 C23 m 003 CO VS 21y PQpI IS 0 m H scan C<n m.O0O< N T V - a� 70 T AZ 20-! M 0O0 • • TT Z ,( A 20 m D-n..11n 2 rm• - O m0 -i 0 Zr - n m0 Om -4 a D 0 A'y03 ZO> Y �N VI O UA 0 am x m fF- • nr CA �• r 0 7_ n n D m 1.1 O M n 0 -C m •• 27 A - 0 A 0 . O m H� Z 0 0 •< E Z3 \A -1 0 1.1 a G7 m ` m 19n o.rm Qm O 2 a N CZ7 Z H W r Z ITVI r W N r y r w ••• r W — 0.V,r - P VI N•.•• I — — — -- — 1.11 CD Ait91 I CO Z'13m V) Z< in Z 'O DGQ)mX n� y32 "! o CO Fr as Ca74OC 0 O-Ir I-I13 O0 < 0 .OU • �Omr no A T 4N23 -rt • 3 m•Ofl0 Is 14 H 7c -1 G) r O GAl M 7 -1►ZiA Is I CmIC-10m -1A GGI ra' r 0 I- m m 0 A. ya ' yN1 am> y! n fil�-m1MA -- W N••' 3 N r N VI W N- - - --��— -- — — --— — — 3— —-- ■ 000 1 y mD Gf/'72Om< N -w -1 AAA '0 1 yn rn X7 Am V-IA A m N 71O -+-1-I V 1 -1 -1-1 >0 3 a-4m-nn o Z T W.• m-1 mmm 9 1 rn HC fn Z. Z• Ay -4 a yHk\ H D r - ACZ-i _ I r r -O -1 AD - HOoH \A r • m02NmZ m A m A 0 ,-1 m •�yy X0 ►/ A m AI Z N XZ. Zy tm AAAy H 'rt)) D vn U) -! y n1.144 0 • 0 I Zmo m mmm 0 mm T 0 Zm.. 11* yCO .O -I V c\ AIIV••-V N r -- — X X • t �� __•----.-� i.__.-..... e — _ _ . _: .- -. i -4 . • ,. ./-. -.- .i.--'— . .- MARKET APPROACH B1dg. Land Price Sales Address Date Size Age Area Price Terms Per Sq. Ft. l`0o f,-.:+' lo�1,Ta-0 ti-2 65- di DM /420 ��41" /ate er 1349 2 e9J''-/, a -l,.Via,"i/c.. " Jj /oaeo /95 -494.%fI/M oro ee /46 4 7/6..,r,. ,P - Ca rt,,,t;� fei)r /r's' Me' AV 9�9af_t4 t P.�4,voo Ge- //, 33 Square Foot /p9,f3_e,-{), x//V Per Sq.Ft. = OWLS Gross Income x GRM = VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $ J J 0i Cost Approach: Replacement Cost i'd$y99 e-/(9, ef ?- $aes,Yr�9 Less: Depreciation / _ Depreciated Value of Building rny-5' $ O ,, Land Value (Site Value) A3AI wo= /' 9 VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH 1' d,�adOJ + MO$ Net Income Capitalization Approach: 100% Potential Gross Income ik (Actual/Economic) $ Less: Vacancy & Credit Loss % - Effective Gross Income $ Less: Expenses Management Utilities, Repairs, Reserves, etc. before taxes Total Expenses - Net Income Before Taxes $ Capitalization Rate ( %) + Tax Rate ( %) + % VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS $ Correlated Estimate of Value:Land Q?,Qofl Bldg, / TOTAL $/ /1 ory Value Estimate is for Japuary 2, 19' Date of Appraisal '77f„ 8y:efJ od -4-dot as 00i411 _a. /"co ' • y t-/94A0-/ 9 sus:« a I y/S/ 1 —777 it 1 /10.if ( ya /45*.fr'I ao a>' o 4,1,1�- �sioG 4 ,' /G /i(/f. .51) L 1 m�---f AL'S- /D/tk. /y'P/2C,. /g' /o s/7 /S --4.6 -//Siy -// s- ieleA i > It1f O ,14, /s,4 Hem 4-El.t boy s l'. 6194-- j7/ sf - a. 10,4('‘.e L_i0J.,�r DocZ i I, )4,, iNG1JeL c#3 iiir1-t�, /o/� L, f� --/f /f/ p r � i�T — 1 g,,,,, L �JL -of.d f' rt.' �'G'ata._ AIZ to -/Vo Vrti,1,'G� ,: t«,c / aJf8 — 4 K". /.. ...Jill /ii `/d".',,d,Y. .Z Pc /, // ii,[r i " ,/' i. .S /•/ / ,r'h-/ n --/J, 4;1,;)4:/L y / / A;„„_, _J 6_ /,,,, ,,r:I/ /3//. ."1._ 7-kt.i..)P ()Lk Gam_ ! L c -'ri,.tJ 44un/• icy/ • {, Comparable Land Sales 1.) 03-116-22 21 0009 Land Area - 4.492 Acres Bury Drive Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 9/85 - $440,300 W.D. or $2.25 sq. ft. 2.) 16-116-22 24 0007 Land Area - 1.86 Acres Wallace Road Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 7/85 - $170,000 W.D. or $2.10 sq. ft. 3.) 04-116-22 11 0003 Land Area - 2.35 Acres Townline Road Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 7/85 - $225,000 W.D. or $2.20 sq. ft. (House to be removed by buyer) 4.) 01-116-22 34 0010 Land Area - 1.15 Acres Flying Cloud Drive Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 6/82 - $100,000 W.D. or $2.00 sq. ft. (House to be removed by buyer) After adjusting for differences in zoning, location and neighborhood ammenities the indicated value is $1.80 per square foot. ( Zm5 p 3G) m N 99DG)< p ZK K NN8O1 r r m 0 13 M S m ••O 0 HO O Y. M O<pOm A Om A OAArn Z� m p Zg A 0 m >DM • - 0••m m ) < D N CD7 Di In O A 0 V In 9 ZC O h NrH --11 A 4D'fo x> G�S0 >0 r '< A X 2 49 F4 < < O O --I m 8 r-O M m pS p, m N A K mA X7 Z • C v 1� Z fD" 4Z7 1•Z7 m XJ O Q p r m 1 m M O [m1C m lx C CD<<X kfwN_N -N4C CDN n p Hmf) mn —_ m O Z H m r m A A Krn S A CU r1 O-I mr I-I N D r n .4m O• 3 M 0 r -I .•I G)0r \ i.� C mNO M m K A rn0 n p N Z m O> -Di -Zi DmOrA C/1MZr pn rm •- Ill Aw�«- — !1 s Nr•nx -\Z . ON HZO>Etl OS rm On3E CO V naN fpp) yO -I rn p -p�r00 Z=V w SZ > -4Dmi. m O80 O'mnm mNCm)C11 S rm• O 0 rnu) -4 0 iCID- n m0 n0m ND N OeAXi Amr 7 m •n D NN • m 0 Zn nsm 7-4O NM 01 mpO m .•IA 2 O ZX O K E Z f\p 1 A O 0 <r m mrn X CI 2 Om OZ y Z 1-4;w A TVIAIrIN••- vlrwN_ Ow O• nO G•wAwN.- 1= in Do CO Affm Z N Z9m N TK m1K ]<o)c DG)m C)- V 2 z 0 m WW !_ mm r 0 M 0 D C v C3m r Om r mm• NO11a0KmAIK•Ir Z N ) N0 >O7- OL a: m 2ZDpsC • 2WU)CM amp- D Di ip GGI -1 C'• r O rm rn /- .r-m cO pA m K m A Z .•I mrmm> p-rD NA -i m �-1 �msaD 0 N N <N.+ 3 m t1VEt — in I•I N r 3 in r N- w N•.- 1 �j V' Di ID -- — --_pi__c ---5»---- & --,-- - ---fi _ 000 D I 1-I m p • G)C)ZO m< A N m Ow N Di DI-DI a I ZI Uln A mAp mympA m Om-I m0 mmm A m C.0 m_ --I Z•rn s. Z XI'it i. • . . .D•C 33D Z N. AH>0Z D G)G)A A AAA r p Z-IAC) 1i- mm C n \\\ N � �0 C T. .co m 0 Z tOn m m p D Z 9 m 0)NN_ yy m Z UZ) 1 • rnXZ Z N A C N .r ( a p m 0 m -1 14 N N 0 • 1 m n I Z 3 m N nnn D N. l 0rn 14 m m m K El K inW r D O in D 0 CO mmm mA N A Z2 Om 3 G)0114•Z•1 A 2 N .O D T mDDt VVV C } ' 4-4 1 g N S F)h. -- — r X • `..:. ' _Y ..— 144,E :r 't ;• 4 t-t-•-4- r I'' ' t . rr 1 • ICY i _ _.__'�•._._ _i:. ___ ._. r'-`-----ram--••-- ------4--I-r4--r— • 4. rri r a -� i j I =- -- `-t--�- 4--,-.---,--,--,--..-- r "1 ,-err-r - 1- 4 r MARKET APPROACH Bldg. Land Price �rSa es Address Date Size Age Area Price Terms Per Sq. Ft. . . , /2�'r?,,deissoh„r-d�J4„LI/lo1 ///ks' .5-3,ye /I' �y„ZS/-/ rio er Ii A.,;,.r2 &01- _<t,-(�/a Al r, yir day,/ Is'o 4 4I4 r �raoac &- 4'J3..f ,oi/, 3 i i Zwer: 'a. Br`t -A �' �/2�'D 1964 ia�osf '° .r, "4 t> 11% 4 W emu/9. —5�• o.,. � 9/ 4 �, ' /97O �i scos.�` �i O C �'a3.39 10%) 5) /.: lU 42 -rd ..Pr M44 /f o 8 / 5 744/0st. �'YSocd CD, I// ,9Y Square root x Per Sq.Ft. _ Cei .� 37/y5I x /D•SO GRM = ��9O of - VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $.3%b 000 Cost Approach: Replacement Cost to 9S s-c,/b; t,sfr,fi $ 97,. . / Less: Depreciation a2/'//s,4./5oG Fuuc, Depreciated Value of Building „ $ " IF Land Value (Site Value) /,,*? #41,:u-�/,ad6,fr.1/JO.=/4,3/V + �� J VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH tir/yC $("W 'ec .39ooQo Net Income Capitalization Approach: ,{/ 100% Potential Gross Income /Actual/Economic) $ Less: Vacancy & Credit Loss % Effective Gross Income $ Less: Expenses Management Utilities, Repairs, Reserves, etc. before taxes Total Expenses _ Net Income Before Taxes $ Capitalization Rate ( %) + Tax Rate ( %) + % VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS $ Correlated Estimate of Value:Land ;,. ry�n B1dg.�� Oda TOTAL $,j90,ODfl Value Estimate is for January/2, 19,%.' Date of Appraisal 5 "-'/ By: ' T f p ag',4 as 009 • .B'E -t9G9d-MV o-c /.?3 auroLd d4.1d/I 046 ST. Colt.iloSC Ea503,f, GBH l��l s.f gs',f"I 1.1 N:buLt SW. iAt41- - 1� jog /pail of • • { Comparable Land Sales 1.) 03-116-22 21 0009 Land Area - 4.492 Acres Bury Drive Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 9/85 - $440,300 W.D. or $2.25 sq. ft. 2.) 16-116-22 24 0007 Land Area - 1.86 Acres Wallace Road Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 7/85 - $170,000 W.D. or $2.10 sq. ft. 3.) 04-116-22 11 0003 Land Area - 2.35 Acres Townline Road Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 7/85 - $225,000 W.D. or $2.20 sq. ft. (House to be removed by buyer) 4.) 01-116-22 34 0010 Land Area - 1.15 Acres Flying Cloud Drive Zoned I2 Eden Prairie Sold 6/82 - $100,000 W.D. or $2.00 sq. ft. (House to be removed by buyer) After adjusting for differences in zoning, location and neighborhood ammenities the indicated value is $1.80 per square foot. • Z rn'0 D 3 G1<m 0 XI>0< > Z< -I N H> T r- r -I 10 9 H S b rn 0 H O m X I-1 0<O rn Z 0m XI 0XIXI A > m > I F- A 0 m G1 Cl) L Z 0 A C) -I 0m0XI m 0 > ZXIm 0 \ G1 X I Z 0 C)"I_ >DH • HD-(m rn AXI0H > I1 H m> Z 0 1 > XI m XI Z OZ • / -I r-I 3 XI > X Z 0 -i III r D XI rn C 3 m H H XI C GI-I XI 0 G1 A D G1• > 11 -< Z -t 3 XI / < < m 3 QQQ H > In 0 > G1 to G1 �1 0 T -� W m H P 0 O0 N 0 -H m 2 m (N 1, m XI < m XI 1 Y z " "9.. en 4N•> A s PI r G1 Gl (�nl A �1� . m IA /� 17...1., 1 m \ IZ•1 W N•. • r`/V- rW Nr N••• M V� _O 1'�ik y+�(y�) O� N ti f1 • n 0 CO D>m n C•n><T > Inr WN•-C t/lZ co L. U 1XIIN P. C) in r<W X C ><mX XI Cl) -IC C L� p � >IA OZ '11 • m• m > OH rnAfn C) m O C I-1 f..-.-,,A..., r 0 C? 1 A >XIs T r TAXI<rn S AIA r ii\`�s kW DX1 • f) o G)Gl r -4 H G)G)r \ !pp m XI M m C7> --10 -I CO G0)ZI v In m G1 A �� LA�j N 1•� Z r• ; fc' ICU f_m l•`) IV VI 4.W IS).r I-` D Yas 424 1 --�--- /_ • ---.-.--'-.-----'� I - - - -- I X:Eft OO CO m= 0DE-0 O3G m 0CT1:00 XIS vf1 • IA 1n> ' > 00 I_I(/)0 -I>>r •10m0-IZ 0 0O -I .0- SN] 0 r XI m > ym•0 . XI S W> A S -I0CH r 0 rgm= m Z O ff rn A XI V/3 m E TT • XI GI 0 XI n m H O XI 03 r 0OX m T fl Cl rn N 4 > D C) '0 o> D Nto 11 XI m Cl' 0 X OJ mto CO r - r O > -I -I XI S= 0 -I -I A XI-I r m C u m I>IA O,ZZ 0 -4 m • XI> o- XI l4 f7 H XI G'I 'n 9 0 G1 < '0 > m 70C > I-4 I-I �1n T m fr- m Z0 0 iiNN � 1 y 't�1 H • •',•Y N •` 1 .,� IA IV Z P U1 r N P. VI 4./IV l`W N•-• -----s-t-- �- C.O XI se m Z<N Z m•n 0 Z< m 7< r r>0 m C)0 XI Z Z 0 ••W Zmm r Omrn 0b.0 -) Um r drn 0><ox rC mIn • t >O 0-IZ 00 G) N C) XIr 03 V) rn N OHm000 TH XIN • W CO •0'n W m>-i'n tl > C -4 r H < m XI A XI 0 m Cl >IA 2 H N• • C ZC) A A 03 H Z > 0 > r 0_ XI PI RI G mv1> G1 H > r 1 0 GI r OH F Z>> . r .rnCrn 00 >m m -< rn 0 r In m H mZ rnZmm O 2H3 XI --II -I =i ZrnDY - Z -102 G N> i-iGi 1-4-I N K 0 T 1 N \ Z V 2 0 G1 XI IV. .- rn m wt rn •� >=m - N•.. W N r• 3 N•- N.. V1.P W N r I� \ T. -4 I • S 0 00 > n1> XIGl CI XIrn 0m<6-1 m NIn OWN• 0 »> V Inn Z A T.-I nl H't)n1 T•0 I CO•n H O m fn m 03 m 1Hi C m -I3AH m m.nal• in>0 :O i7S W W co• > > 03 L> Z \ 0H A0)•0^0 .H. 0 U)A0XI0 r H • >r -I 0 >Z< -I 0 I') • • • \ \\ m t^\\H m D D •1CCmrn lr CHI C) I/) A r' ' 0 r 'n• mOL 7 0 0 0 Cl X m m N O > .' in 0 -I m m 0 m -I D ._ m Z m > • "m Iy In 13 )XI I/) H I1 D mlfl V 0 m Z XI I al 777.3 -4 -I C.,. -r' rn{1 m 3 -I H HH 0 In I ,k ,� Z= m • m In m •i -< rt1 rn. H W•3 > m C \ 0WU 03 flm�m D XI a V)V)Z-.. 0< D N N H,-i H H O rn > N •O •1 m M Gl e3 V PJ > H 0 > IV. N•-• Z • .� } - . y I 1j. j __ r f i , , t _ ;' ; f i 1 r---- t, , • MARKET APPROACH Bldg. Land Price • Sys Address 1 Date / Size Age d Area ,/, / Price Terms Per Sq. �1 Ft. .c/. -4/44, /ti A34l, Vb.- f ' /%74 das/.6T. I//r7 9 /e3-o' 2 /cX3c �3- f_l o /g7a d { se1 /i a yl4,--f - a. 8 3 / S- 414 ;Joao oao ems' /G Z 4 Q Square Foot /$11114 x fQ� Per Sq.Ft. _ J 4 OlO G.I. x GRM = _ VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $inettO Cost Approach: Replacement Cost 'I)//e:93 $yea a41.3 less: Depreciation / oo,� /� _ S� Depreciated Value of Building 6d,-o Y�/td,�•f«�4 (me• �� Land Value (Site Value) �3G�/�� ,) 9� y! + $ �•� �d' VALUE BY THE COST APPROACHi $ ��ebn Net Income Capitalization Approach: 10G% Potential Gross Income (Actual/Economic) $ Less: Vacancy & Credit Loss % Effective Gross Income $ Less: Expenses -- Management Utilities, Repairs, eserves, etc. before taxes Total Expenses - Net Income Before Taxes Capitalization Rate ( %) + Tax Rate ( %) $ w VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS $ Correlated Estimate of Value: Land 70o Bldg. 70,4000 TOTAL $/8ZOR2 Value Estimate is for January 2, 196 Date of Annraical 4/."„.r —a„• /�i p o Lloyd Cherne 5701 South County Rd. 18 Mpls MN 55436 15-116-22 44 0001 40 acres 14-116-22 33 0009 4.88 acres 14-116-22 33 0010 20.33 acres The subject properties are green acres - non homestead classifications, therefore they are given two values, a taxable value based on their agricultural value and a deferred market value based on the current real estate market considering all uses the property could be used for. The subject properties are currently zoned rural and are guided high density residential and park/open space. The properties received approval for Housing Revenue Bonds for a possible 800 apartment units in the amount of $64 million contingent upon meeting all conditions and requirements of the city in December of 1985. Despite city approvals for Housing Revenue Bonds, it is still not zoned or approved-for any specific project. The subject property is approximately 1/2 useable considering soil conditions and guide plan considerations. Comparison of sold properties indicate a value of $20,D00 per acre of useable land or $10,000 per acre overall. Indicated Values - Defferred Market Value 15-116-22 44 0001 $400,000 14-116-22 33 0009 $48,800 14-116-22 33 0010 $203,000 1 • • • NM 't„,,,,, 4;;i1,:i9 t'f 8t,S ii‘' ff --i "-------- --- COUNTY 01101 NO 13 eve _ r fw ar` -e a. to pe M 0, F c 1 • Grt H \ T...v..3, ' ! \xr. gyp, 't....... rt 'C ,"•• a�' I i Er ..� ^OLD AN.w��,.gr.q �1� c °+ fig+ ':i�E . \ a j'; $r . . .. %A. ., ''' \-:'—''IT—-. :'.-,17,':'-ii.''!..._ .--II!'.:—. *-94f/f.°' : _ I ' • „J• .., jrr. II.O i • \ 4 ; a Y WM iN.tilt .f ii ,.. .t a\ " �� .. '%. N, ',,? •f�_,,:' J. • : . . "C41* r '' ° e. pi ';',a.,. to . h6, • � w � � :A 1•'," ( m 9 D 3 G1<m N V a G1< D Z< N H D m r r l -1 0 V H S 61CU L ZOa10 -4 Omee2, m OU) > ZCm O > G11 > Z 0 O I�r D>H • H 0•<m m 21 a10•< D n FIm a O > I V m m Z 0'}- , <r-1 3 v > X ZG1 -4 r_I�a ZI m C 31*1 I••1 t•1 m C .G1 -1 a1 0 0 m D G1• > CI►cii-•< In 3 2, < < a1 3 O M D m 0 > G1 G1 o m H o m H �•- m m 0 O Z M 0 m m ki,A < n z --_ Z i` F N m$19'�I 1•I< m r C � I-t� �I� W N•.. • r W N_ OWN•-• N. 1 \, (ili /`N ILr\el,1i CD �\ 1 Z -1 r•• `^I u,N mac \ [�{-‘�• I V {{N.��`q� n 10 TT O CO • m I) CTD•Cm >t Nr-C NZ IA ', `mil I I' •'i Mm p OC X r 0 J D<mX — --.N -1C C V, s�j 1 aIn�•Q • b 2 m A n n m o:T H \ �.1� 1�\1 r O -4 N"14 0 D m r m a1m-<m x 1..7 GO r I.� L�1^< I �y a1 -1 H o-I m < r H N > r • - --0 H m 0 N• F„`5 I- 1 I D - Fes` • n 5 1-1 n G1 r < 1•< G1 G1 r \ 0 m a 1 M 0 DH0 H • m < a1 m OIn > O N •G <rnZ > Z > OZ '0 yp,m O 47 1 ___\`+�1"1"... o Ili O mD > M Or O-1 m '�+ U `,y..�— i� 1 M T XI O m > L jp\ i h rn z r rm 0h. A l >as r vlrwN - — 11 -•1 I \7En . OW mx HOLES 03 G1m on3mwm vEmn • N n I oJ•m > -1 D-1 00 -INo -1a ar -40mo-IA Oo30 -4 O 1 D rZ 1-6 x Nm a1-4 rlx V si. m x'/I a 10Cm rOmZ Z m f--1 mm > n x rm• O O m5r-r< 0 SZDOnn moon 0 m N m 2, a1U13 mS_ m • a1 G+ 0 a]>m 0 a1 a1r nX m D• ; r -I D '. 0 V •0a > 00 •n A •+1 m 0 X 0m00p A r 0 > H H p x x 0 -I H D a1-I r m C > n Dm Hi 0 Hi n -I m • as 0-A n N. U m H..11 0 7 C < E Z 3 0 a -I n H a1 6 m 66 < v D rn X 3 H O NN z m N - m Z 'a Z H • � Nr Z G'•Nr N_ NrfaN_ OWN.- G'•N rw.NH PN•rW - C O a1 3*m Z<N Z m•11 N 5-< m Z< 11,1 D Gt m fJ 0 - 3 Z ••4A Z m m r- 0 m m O) C V U r r m 0 D<0 X r C rn In• 1 0 0-1-00 G1 UIn 0r N N m t0 0Hm0n m< ON • O •N m0 m>-1m0 D C -1 1- H < 9 Aa72)Om n DNx HN• C D a1 0 %U a1 a1 H Z a 0 D r _0 a7 H m 3 D H • Z.O N 0Ze.•0 D H D X H 0 G1 r OH mZD r .rnCfn a1 m <D Cl -I r r O r rn m a m G/ -1 a1 O M 3 00 Da1 m < rn a1 Z H x IfZm M -irm _C rm a1 -I H H a1 mD - Z OZ 0a < N O 0 _ Z< N < Z \� \a7 a1 N- NH W N>. 3 S1•• (N r+ N FLAN.N•+ SIC� > ••=D - --- - ]--- C ---"— _ --- -- 000 D H ma 0 a1 m 0m<G1 a1 NmOW N -1 Y)>D V N n m w D m n1 M m m D m m O•11 0 -1-1-1 9 -1 .4 a1 Z V HIA Xmmn0 Z 0n COMM -i rn rn m a1 m M.i m -{ m m a7• D N -1 m. • D a a1 'aD Z N. 71H Xi J•n ZN 1> N Na1a1a1a1 r 1-1 • ar -I N D < -ialn r HH • • N -ID 0 -40 mm1OHH \ NN C ...\\ m MI rn r • m CU))ZNmZZ m 1nm Z > CI N 71 0 m 3 '1 G/0Nn X Hi '0 0 a 0 0 I�,-1 m m 0 0 -I V _. m Z m \ UU)X Z m Z N > rn V yr N H n D O mmn 0) H -{ i�a a o 1 1��0 T�i : . m 10 N non 1.4 � `K Nr*1 I-, to H 00 4 mmm m`� m 'n a01.a TJ a7 a7 N D ;t:4, O !n 0 In' 11p1Vn_\s�1 -� •< I _1 IN-1 1N-1 Z H -I P O N 'CI 1 m m C!PJ!J!) D \ 111� 1-4 01 Y NHN N. '� • ( t 1•Z'i�.aii 1: .w•.i•�:'i'ii�iwi�ewi l+ '}._i. ■ .w..w...•�iaaiwaa•i. ix pIMEN111 ii uc . = -it {}:: 17� .i�ilt%�.�iiwi.HfAM�rill/•fir r 'r4 --f-+- —"----'- � wNif•w.w.'elN N.Nwii.wNi••i •.i� w. a II -' - � iw•Nri•••••••w••iw�••••• ( . .••w..a....1111•iw.aw.MPIN -H-1 + .•• •• u111111•N••a•Nw••w••.•• ■ . ,--_-. i ; 11 1BC IiI�I Nff•• a:fu•r...iaNr•arr=w i O: 1 L..�ww.n.0 w.Mw•nAAR2A .• . TAiMM w .� _ _ _ ii: f __ 1�1111�11 it 1111111111�111 B® . ! ' .ii.••.•.ii..N_NNN••w••_•••sommossammissamornimor __— miiiiissalummeinsospaimuummunnisswis wism•i.:.iwn.wia.••.i....isw ...w••p.•a ■ �t.. s •.•_.mu •Ni • •�•..�•.•�i ommimoosiii i•sail {+ ! tilt_ •i• N N• •• •. _suss •• a[ MARKET APPROACH B1dg. Land Price Sales Address Date Size Age Area Price Terms Per 1 Ft. i i_ WO1,%ele/ tao -gurti5V „Ws- //,• s .-J- .g'aet .e r7t /.�. 60 • ,/ ;,,d - o .�3t' r - - .SLeirh��9SdOtj , - 33. c� 4 z/0$ !hp)[.,er r4,- wxs r. s' r - 4.9.'`,tsta of, ,fi Square Foot fOOO 5.1 Per Sq.Ft. =� O G.I. 4 7-z- x O GRM = 00,7k0 r VALUE BY THE MA KET APPRDACH�1 /p3 3,Iii5/Jd'D ..j'eJ-814a r'.{14�d 1h'N e, - EP — /�lV, t .Sf,-p-- AJ Cost Approach: - Replacement Cost .5 S10 g j/�!B Less: Depreciation , 3A1Lo - r��,rf Depreciated Value of Buil i g , / 7, $ � �tj Land Value (Site Val ue)y`gb,Xe oi/ + Og VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH $101 Net Income Capitalization Approach: "' 100;+, Potential Gross Income ��3�� i b' /Economic) $ /�O ��'�1a e(eiI J Less: Vacancy & Credit Loss j- - O f� hi, � Effective Gross Income g �30 b35-� �,'4 { Less: Expenses � �� - Management Utilities, Repairs, Reserves, etc. before taxes Total Expenses - _/ Net Income Before Taxes SOXIA Capitalization Rate ( °�r) + Tax Rate (,.e %) VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS • S p S Correlated Estimate of Value: Land__InOteBldg•ciatjf0 TOTAL, , saVerio Value Estimate is for January,;?, 19.6 �t/� :u'�lj^ Date of Aooraisal .-,it'✓9 Rv• _...,.i f in Am" lnnnn --m y n I 3 G)<rn VI •O n G1< a Z< -I N I.1> m r r -I 0 V 1-4 X mno O . omx 1-1 O<mm m o m m Omm m n m a F_ A O m G)C to L zo An -i Omr)A rn CO a ZAm O 0X Z 0 nz a s.1 • M O<rn m A A O-C a Cl H m n O n 9 m v Z O Z -ir 3 o n x ZG) -1 r > M m C 3 m 1-1 9 C .0-I 9 G1 G) U > G1• n < A 3 < < A 3 O M a rn 0 a CI N 0 ` 0 rn -i g n M m m 0 0 O -1 CD -i m 1jm /` m " m• O � r O ` Cl1. o M n 1w r T III -21 , a a) i m 11�\ M-1 1 y1N r •C•w N.-• •C•W N.. N•-• O { y 14u,; O� I . ." i z 'mot••• IV N IIA , -- — ----�--�"---- — — ,; i� 23m n • m O 0a m n C m�D<m > 0s•W N••••C NZ 0 ►IN ]C, m r< X C <mX m -- ---. -10 C07 9 • m• n r omma)n n m Zmnam r m -Gm X A rb m <Drr 1-1 N a r n Nm 0 n GI0Gr -i ►1 GG1r N 0 m A 1-1 N • m• rn < X] m O In a 0 N 17 n n Z a OZ • m O G7n -i -1 co o-i a a , ■W., a�I Z '1' rn r ;r' N, an R'l "-.... ",i, 1:71:1\3• le rm r fi nz ... 4.4......3.... VI r I. N.•• a ' I C� 1 \Z=n G)tnmm0 -rOYE� 03GGy 't 0 nm0-1m V Sin •47 n I aO rZ In1 X0mmM� 67—.vOa. x) ZZWD A -"'m1OCH Oro mQ m Z 4. 1 A r-i A m n nn S r m• O 0 mtnr-i 0 m M>onn fn o n n m to rn A AN7-I mT_ rn • a) GI 0 a)n m O a)Ar Clx m n• : r- -1 a > n V XI O a a In rn 1I A m m r O D 3-4 -i -i A S S O -1 0 )x-i n -i or m C Z5 I a Cl CI D m Q 1.1 Cl -i rn 23D. O - Xt n I \ p U ma) 7. C) < E Z3 n n -1 1 Cl m m G) m 61 Gf < m n m Arr m '3 H mm XI r ✓ Z Z f NN N I(�`I� o IC w N•- G. /1 1•w N••• V i• N.• r w N•-• O`1T r w N—•-• O.11• w i - — — — C O A ural Z<0 Z 12rn Cn Z< m \Z< mM>N0m n0 -a3ZL Zrnrn r Ornm ODC 13 Um r- Om OA<OX rC min• • 0-1 Z O O GI Inn A r I V m to O -4 m O n m-i m N A n CA m n -i mO > C -ir I.1 < y AAAOm n noS I- N• a A n A A A Z a O 1-1 > r 0 A 1.1 m G)X V0 n N a x -i O GI r OM mZam00 aA 0 < r r r m m O mGI -4 •i3Z M X m Z m rnO Nn � 1 N -i M 1 \m •a-ZiN Z \ o� a ia m -i .4 �1 It NH 2 mu r m £m — N ^N.••• 3 N•- N.- 0•C'W N••• — --— \• `O O O \ —a \i——m \ m GI n Z m-n O m<GI m N m 0 wN.-- -1—_ n n n 9 Inn n%I D m nl 41 T] rn r 31 In 01 n-1 0 -i-i-i M -/ -1-4 9 •C-i rn x m rn n 0 Z m m x w o 0 -I rn rn rn A m .1C m -/� rn in p• ul D. A Sn Z \ Av XI )• O-to w NNXI XI XI XI r H D r -4 In n < -4 x)f) r 1-I.1 . • N 1 > D -10M m itif).•1- •.. N N C m 1-1 r r • mON Y....:N m-Z m mm X a Cl to 9 O rn I oG)NNn X N V O D 0 "� O -i m m 0 1 V 7 r = rn a n m r. 3 m VI a -i 0 vi X m "� T 1.) N M Cl a m V 0 IZn 1 1)Ua • i mQ \ =i 1M0 O • m I f 7 n m \, to m m m 1 0 el < Wm 4 u1•-• Z n \ D -n w'.W3A AAA • N ,.:.f XI+_-< 7 toN.ZZIZ— a tOm I .0 --I mmrJV V.V D \ `\ 0 -- N— \ �. — !, , j}1l- i } . , , 1-. -..-• 1- _ ------- to ,:— - I, a , , � } i ; 1 --+. I ±- r 1 All 1 , , - --� i F' 1 i 1 i I 1 i t_-��.�.--{--7•i j I 1 1 f I i I I i i } 1 1 ' --: —t 111 i i --r -t ,-�-�--r-tt +-t--- -{ I ' - i i - MARKET APPROACH Bldg. Land Price ,Sa.es Address Date Size Age Area Price Terms Per Sq. Ft. 66 "3 C',-.iarn ,/t 1 td7�.'.' ,, e' • i. 'r , ,r_V o AT. i Y-d . .v , r.-,i .. 'WSW 040O,,. 1, Square, Foot 6,$905 x °s Per Sq.Ft. = ,.,9, ,oil 1. t,lic i,-4`c„N,,1�.— x GRM = ,908 VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $o?, e,019 Cost Approach: Replacement Cost 6d9OS'-0.v°- $o9.2 6 b Less: Depreciation Depreciated Value of Building Land Value (Site Value)a/30gs, moo?s% ,D6le/ 000 + $ 901/00trt) VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH 00 $ Net Income Capitalization Approach:ja,&>'7e ,93 'jr`, 9a�a a s40t0 100% Potential IncomeyctuaJ/Economic) $o2d9.2/61- Less: Vacancy & Credit Coss Q ? - Effective Gross Income $ i4 Less: Expenses /20000 Management /% , `'fir'-"Iii.a'v� Utilities, Repairs, Reserves, etc. before taxes Total Expenses - ? Net Income Before Taxes 01 — Capitalization Rate (ref) + Tax Rate ( '; +) $ ',5 VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS %gi /— Correlated Estimate of Value Land_cZ,M__Bldg, TOTAL $o'Y 0,Od0 Value Estimate is for January 2, lg6g" �, bate of Aooraisal `:, JQ4# RI,• 4,4* :,,.r._. Ironwood Condominiums S. J. Schneider Property I.D. # of Condos. 24-116-22 21 0068 1986 EMV - $ 127,000 Recommend no change 24-116-22 21 0069 1986 EMV - $ 133,000 Recommend no change 24-116-22 21 0083 1986 EMV - $ 93,000 Recommend reduction to $ 89,000 24-116-22 21 0081 1986 EMV - $ 93,000 Recommend reduction to $ 89,000 24-116-22 21 0074 1986 EMV - $ 130,000 Recommend no change 24-116-22 21-0065 1986 EMV - $ 99,800 Recommend no change Property I.D. # of Garages 24-116-22 21 0109 1986 EMV - $ 5,000 (Single) Recommend no change 24-116-22 21 0089 1986 EMV - $ 10,000 (Double) Recommend no change 24-116-22 21 0103 1986 EMV - $ 10,000 (Double) Recommend no change 24-116-22 21 0102 1986 EMV - $ 10,00D (Double) Recommend no change 24-116-22 21 0087 1986 EMV - $ 10,000 (Double) Recommend no change 24-116-22 21 0098 1986 EMV - $ 10,00D (Double) Recommend no change Property I.D. # of Partially Constructd Bldg. 1 24-116-22 21 0110 1986 EMV - $1,365,000 Recommend no change 1. .L; / JOSS I DEN.JtL • • SALES ccripmusoN AJ'J'1:C\CIi 0 <711-.?/- -S a91-a/- 7.3, "J/-oW-O//(p o2'/-a/- ra/ SUBJECT _ CCXdr'ATZ,\TlUi #1J CMI'Ar:fIttL•- 412 CC.11'ARABLE #3 LICE 1— _DATA. __DATA ADJ. DATA_-ADJ. DATA ADJ. Ale Price - $//✓-0 =`/a00 5f/A.IA:; :pcciAl Assumed -- j ?ate surd _. 1fS - 000 4//p _ -:,tee ncation ;'r.,,.r rt. - er u. .i'_?�•/.u•rn-, _ .1 res�-d- - Ind 3nprovaments __ - >om s _ G C - ,,drooms ---- / —s _-2 a ;uare Feet ___/ 3...3 r2a 3_,? /o3,r ___19i9. /9 f d 1 /q8a •Dndition "n,.-A <r+,:.el _ _ Is i t Chen _fl_ v I r ---Iu,'•rf --_ J e� .,ths _ / 44,/ e/d /(I!44_ /. J .•_scment - - - :scment Finish - _:i - , ting __ FAi--F - � -- %j/r - 6FA r Con diti.onin9 L4 QC O -y wad �Lvi e ;terior—.- _- _, f-1= 2A.LC� i LLI - R ty _1. S or D ---= - - r<e.`/./f. -/0(I 6tud,.it- - /o 4-44 %p G3?__ : F1 T.f4^/ /___ _ T /L0 ..L P.Y --'- - L- -.30 0 • 8--_ ".�+ /f t __ _44--' -- t " t(1 _ud'. Gore • otal Adjust emon s-_ - - /2c0o_ -/70o -4'000 Indi.catcd Value i-o. SUUjoct—_ g /ea lia0 9 -.- 1Qd 600 /Oo, goo ,het Z)a_tu,t./ id �/c--0 (/ • _9/ IV4, I-4 U 99, Pbo . - . - k--;</;Z f 3 • SALES CCIIPAIIISON APPRO.\C:11 , . . ' ., . . , ..P,/-2/-G9' — _ -- SUISITECT C(X.1PARAI3L.E.7/1_1 (I6IDA;''OiL.E. ,..'2 --C.G.IPAI:ABLr:. :4/3 -Erf.ti —_DATA ----DACA AIM. 1 DA:A A D J. DATA1 ADJ. S i ale rr ce, .11 a',co 0 r _1,'_ 141 7,_. ____54_CA • s,eci,as Assnmcd _ 0 At etio 1 ci ,- ._ - *1://1 1.. .._. I---LI"l•i e,-4. , - — Location ' Size , nd 7provments -- .7 • ---- _ 7 - ea room s a c; .-,..T.Jar c rcet /tr/.3 '-- ,accle_2_ _ I - -- c on d i t ion — g ,-,r- 'tit ChOrt —__-- ,1±C:.!--'' l ..,,-f4 _li nr-4-4 ',laths / CAC .. //‘• Ili_ __I /y 241_1 Easemen t - _ET • r..ia seri en I: Eir.fi:.ii - - 1 - i lIcat7-ing 1 G-F ___6. _ I S_EA_ 1 i- Air Con- d i t i•ln ing IA:. _ c4‘:; 1---- __ —1 i Exterior _, 7i.4- 1 &'''.../Alt_ __J. ..iiTh' i i ___, ,,, ,•-,.. %Pg_ - cr..D dlt ___1 I c1-41:. 1 i _, • s._ i ._. .-•••• 4,,,, ___„.,,,..., uri t'Vc4... I —3 COO I — (1.1.4.7-.4/.",'-:1-r.ii-• ...1.,G _ ___CiAt I 1 1 -Lc o ol _4/2/, '/#,_, / I j _i_ i • _ -1 --1 - _ _ 7ot tl a 3 Ajust.nonts I. __7_-11_0. 0. .___I --,...7,-.0e, -- ± -Indica t k7-.t1ucTo7-.------...rttb-j----ecH --1 7.0 /iii _7,0 0 1--- /`,/., feo _j_____ •- I __ _.._ _ _ __ . , ,..,• ., v--4..L.L4._ / it, ,c7, .a.e,c) • ,• ,-_, .. 4,..,...e, • li...4-c.r...4. at, a- 4, g„.1.1,./..t.1-_;•... 5/74,/---.." ,t. . ... • • Itli:5,11)11N TiAL EX - SALES calmly say APPROACH 414_,____. — St113.1ECT Ca1l'AIZABLE #1 j CCTLPA','OiLE #2 C.CLIPA DATA ADJ. _ DATA ADJ. DATA ADJ. _ Sale Brice L .. °MY, eqa_ 6.1 .1L,)0_ ___ Y/41,7eD _ -i ripociais Ascumcd -- D 1t7i. Sold W4-7. , -W11. 7-4s -45,e,0 a ift/ -It•e T-ocation -_-&_*/_;...42:Lit.12_-_-_,S! _ '•,..71-h-S-i-z e _''ES`':/.iv..4", __',4`',,,„„;), '6,Lc,t.;,1-_ "b"z,p.i....h _______ d_II:Trays-me:It s _ 700!115 __7 ____ 7 _ 7/ :Ledrooms c••/' 5_91.1.arereet Age _P27:-- _ iF-;.‘I — rq2;\•.i Ero ___, ndition ' : t:','•,-- 0.1-9 1 4 Ill: Kitchon -----1--- , .:ILI_LS.r._- V,,•-. 1... (!.e -,!, -- Baths ___ , V f. .?.../ ____Lt 441 _.1 /,' L'././ li 54, -1— _ - Basom,ont - - Basement Fin 1 S b .-- -" - --.--- -- _--- --1 ( G- :sir Conti i t i on ina :,... • _1, 4L-* (.. ...d T- _i ,..., . - Ext er ilar _ '-- 1 LF-i4C..__ ___ ar__p — ,' 4L4/!.. dkdd, eL... _ LL I 4.,..,.A.6:, • /:.,....... if-e 4-z ra. ___, t,.veoof, I 4,44,- #L.-•:::".r.. , , ,..; ,. ,..,Li ..,,••_s4. _._ .61"11__7=i;CP 0 --_,•.•Z 0 __ ______i ---•,- ----- - ""-- f. r - _ , j _____I • j-- - Total Ad jo stmont s /7-'7, --- I-n3i ca 1c,ci la I lie for S.ubioct 1 i ,,,,.. .. _ _ __. _ _,•_7_,,..Cr'UP:, 'fl 1(...„790 1- 0 is-a;cer, # , i • . . # / j-4.,1..- ...1-1--fr-, (/ • ;:f14 ,...;:f"_A-d-4 17,-X ,e/r.c- I&_14.1...- •alaz-;ez-/./Z- -',/,•,-,-,A l'.!, • ) . -Jc- -*/-1 ./.,f-'- _,--rt-ed.- F/Pet: yll-f-, e ' ) •/---•-, /4/, 7 C 0 />-g-f..4e.-A•-,.:".. F"-"=;'Se-Ett r ----- ir71-- :,..:} ;-,5-1; 7::'L i..-:.,.:.-i- ll'a-g.4-4-/-- /-Z_! r, , - • '14-:'';;`-4•-' • <1-( .' - 1 ' • • . ._ , . . I:,.S I DEN rrAL • • .r..Atl.'S COHPAINSON APPROACH ( . . ....Pl. /-7,71 la-at -pf - SUBJECT CO:WAR/ABLE #.-1 1CO1PA;;ABLE #2 CO-IPAI:Al3L.n. #3 DATA DATA ADJ. DATA I ADJ. DATA ADJ. sale Pr i co __-. 4/o'..1.0 it'/59,7 - ____ Specials A!...sunicd - Date Sold__ '''' - !_r_7•// _---/50.-o -17At - 0 Loca t i on .__C,e,i., t'l.-_.kt, ."4. _____ ___ .,,,„ "g':z-:- .41 r----- '_..an-d li.sre..v..mcilt s _ - _ -7 7 _.___-7 7 'l ooms .2 _ _ „g ? e/ _ f.:; uarc I7cet ig/& iirI3 _/g.('A J7/3.• — __ /ff,A cona iTii on 4 e,0.4-- :,21.L.-0 174 -- Ki t chon _ ___ ____ ti ao-rrk. _4/or-4 __ c,r.-,_:,4. -- f e•-••••-a-rt. T3 a t h s __. _ , V if Ve riasemont _ - .- - —I . - -- ,1,-",soment Fin ish - - - - - c'erill _6,U _ _A' Air Condit i,ining 1..c,;!__. WA.. 1 :,6 • ---•--— X t cs_i_9_;-____ e.,...„.k. E4,:k. r/.. 6. .212.-!- .4. -,0.e:.••:' _.-_,-,q:_t_•,42:6.r.:,-- ,=1.1.. _.,..?..e t _I i —• , 1A2__/ ___,_-14-lik•Ltz_f, _ / -1 1 t . ___ 1—__,—uQe.,1 te,•. j o . ___v. Total Adjustnonts 1- -7000 -of500 0 -ezz..? .:.:7. 0 Ind ica I eci l'a 16-c i';):: St-di jo7Et- ---Tit Az,/0 i— ____., co C----/.3 V, 70 c•.$___._ ---- - --- :-IF--,/,-7:,-.-----, --- _ ____ , . 6..0-:KT, • *I / 44.4., ,Ze'.,.E., ..lf et-f-/-• 4:11 --Afe.,d, . CLi. 4_,. .•?..A__ 1 • ('1 V Ai /S6,000 ( • ' • .._ • . • . • • • • . . • 1.!;IS WENT IAL . ' F.A LES CDIPARISON APPROACH •( . ,.;</-.P/- Si ,,,•ty_:_,2_1_,I;d, , . ,;‘,/• a/ ___ Sq- i:-/ soli nicr co..11,ARARLz #i 1,11' '",ii...E #2 C.O.IPAI,ABLE. #3 _. __._______ _DATA DATA AD.). DATA A D J. . . Df.TA Al3J. if- • . Sale.Fr cc ••/I! %%cf I/:10 e4a. Y J/F/13 — Snec i a I.s-A sskimed ' --- Olt-C.-ST0-1.ct ._77fS". 715- •• •Alec 0- iiipl -.1:000 .. _ ________ 1..ocat ion 7),"1,-(-,-4 - JOLP 1 . ,i 4,.."...,1 - 1_'•_k__. liliti.ey_... ________}'4„,!••._ -r, '--3n0 :11:11rov..ment---s ___. — . - ,7ooms , . 4 _ ',,•:,.:3r oorus e ---a1,------- ; ,p,•• _. oti ar c Feet /S.E.:tr, ___/ 5*'Z _/_,5S-J /F.:Si -- -- ----- / Ile"- . __R ;- / ?' I M i 2.- - (:olid t ion 4,..-4. ., ....1 0 2-.-4 am-of — — ,....____ _ ri-vths .c/si t•-••/,,.• • -__/!'-'41 1 t Sta _- _— _ _ 13asement - .,-- Basement Finish _ _ _ — . -- Heat ing ' .6:-/I. ..1.F4 . . . Air Cenci]t ion ing _i !.../%1_ L•14/.) /.4,4-i _ I twit/ .17V4:;-.4-- r4_ c -le S or D ‘11-441-111t..I :_-/0(.0''., ete...u-A-&-i -/a e e 0 ‘,1r..e.-e...i.,;=, ••••..?,."1 ._ __ tIL44 - '/-- I: _ los.,d I __ 4--11_. ____,.14..,`4 {.=‘011 0 I.,c..f -,41.--;;; t.0.44. -!„.G?•,_ :112._'.1.1.rif_.__ 44-4 ___1/11.. I ___ ___ l' .'0 t..».4 I. -_- ipa __. 1 • --1-—--- -___To a 1 A(15ustt s -,C,4/00 •--c9f /C-C' --Gel /c"--e - fen.ci i ca t eci Va Inc for F..;1-;j on t ------11E-----y/ goo -1i, 9,/,tez, . --- -----• it ... . . / /.4...e_ ,..7,/,./f•s... ...Le_g.,-Y- a-. et"--1-4-pt.."--x_ti ,2-0-jd...,..4_,' ":0 ,((dc.Li c tx, . t..e-r__:,4_4' -,•,_ei..47.a_el tia-14,t_ /._t ....1.14j,ce.e.„41--£& ) • u /(116 /-4 v I,•is 4 71-LI ii - -- . • H?:S3DENIJAL x a p/ • ( • S/UJ S CatrAl2 USON Arl'HCl101 :w•;i-Fa 0'.4-2/_7., may'-'/-4 4 iv- 01/-o/a/ ___ Sllli.lrCT CCT.•IJ'At1AI1tJi ?1 CCTtt'Ai'\ItLE P2 CC7.1PA1.'ABLE !+3 1. E � —DATA DATA ADJ. DATA ADJ. DATA ADJ. sale trice_ 3E9_- _`/ osit/_____ 31//7,/93 71-ccia1s Accumcd • Date tio1d �Ihis �� ---Yoea � -�tso, ',c>ca t ion _,J1d="=='rr-°�YE.FA±Lt4 -- yyc'at- n.ArarA; --a-t- Si;•.c __ _f.'_ — .•A,. 'IA.:4.A 11''k•',:Lf '.14.`_1244L znd 1,:prov.,mcnts - _ -- edrooms 2 A - __ %9e _ /O,cA --119� _13F __ igFj 'o�dit ion_ ?'~'� __!.4.i•/ __ , 4-4 -itchon _ _ __ .Vlrr4--�_•1,,s4 (,'!+ -- Awllaths --.-_ /, 5/( p"t/.► • 1; ?/di___ h`a4z '-ascmcnt - - - - — - - %asemcnt Finish -_ __ - - .ca t i ng - ___ ;y`_k------- -_CO_F-_ - �F/4 it Condit ion in f Y _ 'q` _- qc' Slor D- - 4.4, �._ cLw,_4/i —/Clop. ''L -le02,-r6 _;(44,,t• toaao ,vl l,4 ./�,_r.,* - /rtc-----�" - 6Co0 __ ciao -L"aO ./.r. _ --�"•" ,ice•e f 1.,c. �� v I V -- •- !may„(:lit'C ,mot! i&A,' i'cL� 4�_. I / o ..0 - Fly rhw - ?!Pa rot al Adjusi,uoras -c7//ap _LIt/ Q -.9/00 — 'ndicated Value _or `-uLjecct 1.'F9��gr_20__ --A '476072 -- 4) a Yp�;, / hi, ✓ „ fQ'h QG�' �C s•••.: 1 ei et..t.Qi .-e i�: ,L= / l ai'n 1'V ,1.0:n L.je. '? `,1� 1 .1%i-. tr.LC- le.,) 1 • Ironwood Garages There are 5 double garages and 1 single garage that are not sold yet. We have $10,000 on the doubles and $5,000 on the single. Mr. Schneider agrees that the market values are correct. *2nd Building/Partial Construction On 1/2/86, this building was approximately 75% complete. The Building department and Mr. Schneider both agree that the completed value on this building is $ 1,500,000. $ 1,500,000 X 75% $ 1,125,000 Building Value 1/2/86 240,000 Land Value 1/2/86 $ 1,365,000 Total Market Value 1/2/86 *For land values, we have placed $10,000 on each unit with the exception of 2 double units which we used $20,000. $20,000 X 2 = $ 40,000 $10,000 X 20 = $ 200,000 Total Land Value $ 240,000 *see exhibit . . •• fxrd-e7 • . . .. SALES C.CPA 1:1 SON APPRO'iCii .- ( ' J...tr.,i.. . --.1 ------ SUECT . Call'ARAS LE #1 - CcPA'RA-B BJ LE /,-2 1 C.<1.1'F.A.FABI.21. #3 -1 _ ____ DATA DATA ADJ. DATA ADJ. I DATAI ADJ. -7 I- _ __ __ i:,1 s Assumed - _1,-.-,--,,--c- d-- --- 1-/,.4.:. vn- ! i • - -1 ___ .___ ; _ -_t-i i _ 1 44C._. I _ _ J i -1 —--— - _ ___ ._ __ ..__ _ I , ._. ___1 I _- ---- , T 1 1 ____ __ _'11,,11.9, 600___,-- — ] 1 I - _____ j ____ --1 -- i - _ --1-- _______ i_ _ _ _ 1 J r _I ___ _ _. , _ _ I 1 ! 1 _I_ _ -1_ __ _ __ _ _____ _ 1 1 , i 1 -- 1 ____1_ rdiust,rocnts • 1 i --1___. _________.-----,-- _ iIiIiI___ _, 1_ .__.__ _ 1 —1--- _______ !- -- -- --- -2 - ,i-i)(d ( / . y • . ;,4 '..•'/,:_i,',r., r e, ,/,,' ( , ( . . •• ...L.. • • Exhibit 13 Pg. 1 John Teman 8010 Eden Road Eden Prairie MN 55344 Prepared by Steven R. Sinell 14-116-22 24 0011 20.3 acres The subject property is classified green acres - homestead therefore it has two values assigned, a taxable value based on its agricultural value and a deferred market value based on the current real estate market considering all uses the property could be used for. The value being appealed is the deferred market value and how the value could change from approximately $4,000 per acre on January 2, 1984 to $48,960 per acre on January 2, 1986. Prior to 1984 the subject property was landlocked and could not be accessed via city streets. The access at that time was through a separate parcel containing Mr. Teman's home which fronted on Eden Poad. During 1984 Prairie Center Drive was opened up to traffic and during 1985 additional access was provided by Singletree Lane. The subject property is zoned rural and guided regional commercial. Based upon my analysis and comparison to sold properties, it is my opinion of value that the market value as of January 2, 1986 is $49,000 per acre or $993,900. • Exhibit 13 Pg.,2 Land Sales Comparables 1. 14-116-22 23 0006 12/85 W. D. $1,581,439 Prairie Center Drive 11.54 acres - Zoned Rural - Guided Reg. Comm. Teman to Naegele $137,040 per acre 2. 14-116-22 22 0003 7/84 C.D. $1,468,937 Prairie Center Drive 17.06 acres - Zoned Rural - P.U.D. Concept Feeders Inc. to Opus Corp. $86,104 per acre 3. 14-116-22 23 0005 3/84 W.D. $1,057,405 Bermal-Smaby to Flagship 16.76 acres - 10.11 acres Zoned Reg. Service Athletic 6.65 acres Rural - Guided Public $63,090 per acre 4. 22-226-22 14 0003/0004/0005 4/85 W.D. $2,300,000 Northrup King to Douglas. Corp. 91.0 Acres - Zoned Rural Guide Plan - 40 acres Office - 51 acres Res. Multiple $25,275 per acre 5. 12-116-22 24 0005 7/83 Q.C.D. $2,295,000 12-116-22 31 0006 55.26 acres - Zoned Rural - Guided Office 12-116-22 31 0008 $41,350 per acre 12-116-22 32 0003 Mpls. Retail Meat Cutters Pension Fund to Wilson Ridge • Joint Venture Exhibit 13—Rgt-4*.M3-7. . i , ...• ,'' -,. ••• . — ...r. ., „.• • . f. Oil Pi --1: •tt \‘./; g •\ I / ' • •. g \— \4 •/':.1 \•A ri:‘,N\ *1 \ . , \ 4 4 . ;..• . • / i ... ._ • .------- .‘\; .zr•:: Pl_ 1 . -. (— — - ... • a' {:: a r.._<.....1) . • . I Z ••• ,.., . i t ••••••-• .1,.... I I ..... .......; -....................02 f r or i C---- I LI {. . 1 4 I • 11 9' . , • IV Z 2 41111 ' .ii a - „ CBE,* w•r, fte10—"--- --- -•--. - Mr2- .--,m. s N'..• ' "'4:N'-.1. 0 a., ! .4p i i'.. .i.N'•. .1 4 74 t \ L ft '.../r",./* • 21; 1 -. as* 3 .', ' 4* • i - ' I kt\4 P , e • 4 s ,i I :, l'.. Z:S 0 ;r'" „",...! ; 141.* " '''', ii i--. • li , *.....,-. ' 4.1SN, •:ii t.,r, I* 1 1 a ,„„,%, r- , . . • .t :-•-• :.; ,..:,,, %-.. - .....- . A , A I 14. * .*: \`: '''-•:•;', .trZ, '- ''''' *.t.„:---64. ...:: • ( Z .... I ..0 4'4* . -4.- .",.• A /-, ye sr.. (;') \ .• u ' . ' .• .44:. - 1P. • 11 \'\ ''`---' ,4' , ,. '---/ " :1,.., ':.• '. "' •'At.. mfais, 7. ,.\\\, •. :.,,,i.6,69:7.7., '. \ , _\ #0.....f-1.},a'7.•.•, 1. .. /' ,i A ,.. 44.77_ .;...2,_446.1.4_4 .:.t.r •"*..., ,• 1... 1, ti 3 t; ''''•-• \4.;',',16•', 7` ''t' ,„ , ,.r."1.-3:7::•. -- . - r ZI 11 '' 71 /7.,•r. ;,-,,,, . .,\ i —• , .,,,, e . .. z 4..... ., _ s h 1 . i i ,.., ' , ••,.....';',...: ( ' . 0. . • I j. . 1.... e I Os' . " ' 4.. - • .•91i 16 • i I I ' N -'1 ___ ___ .0 -- ••••.....-.,.---•.4- , . _ ' : 7--- ... • -- • _% • s 71 / 1 , _. 1 . ti, t `• 2.1 r, • 1- r... i " , ... •*,.. , ,-,, t - i a -- 2,..„fi' * - rt I ZIC ' 4 1 • 5 Ll . r- :- '' • 74.'4 - N 49: .$44 UNA PPROVE MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1986 8:00 PM, ROOM 205, SCHOOL ADMINISTRA- TION BUILDING COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, 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: Councilmember Redpath left at 11:55 PM PRESENTATION TO COUNCILMEIBER PAUL REDPATH OF "CERTIFICATE OF COM- MENDATION" FROM THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Mayor Peterson presented Councilmember Redpath with a "Certificate of Commendation"from the League of Minnesota Cities. The Mayor said the certificate was awarded as the result of Redpath's nomination for the C. C. Ludwig Award which has been established as a means of recog- nizing persons who have served for many years in a variety of capac- ities in government and volunteer organizations. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Agenda: IX. A. 1. Pidcock - Discussion of Stop Sins on Duck Lake Road; IX. A. 2. Pidcock - Police Department Policy; IX. A. 3. Pidcock - Post Office; IX. A. 4. Peterson - Letter from Rotary regarding van for senior citizens; IX. A. 5. Anderson - Billboards. The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar: III. P. Resolution 86-109, regarding activities around Flying Cloud Landfill, June 1, 1986 be:ame item IX. A. 6. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. i<t;'j City Council Minutes -2- May 20, 1986 II. MINUTES A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 29, 1986 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 29, 1986, as published. Motion carried unanimously. B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 6, 1986 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 6, 1986, as published. Motion carried unanimously. C. Canvassing Board Meeting held Tuesday, May 6, 1986 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Minutes of the Canvassing Board Meeting held Tuesday, May 6, 1986, as published. Motion carried unanimously. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER by Edenvale Industrial Company and Landscape Products Center, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #16-86, Zoning Amendment within the I-2 Park District; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Landscape Products Center; and Adoption of Resolution #86-93, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #16-86 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: North of Highway #5, south of Martin Drive. (Ordinance #16-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86- 93, Authorizing Summary and Publication) C. CARDARELLE III AMENDMENT by Frank R. Cardarelle. 2nd Read- ing of Ordinance #9-86, Rezoning from Office to Commercial- Regional-Service; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Cardarelle III Building; and Adoption of Resolution #86-95, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #9-86 and Ordering Publica- tion of Said Summary. Location: Northwest quadrant of Regional Center Road and Eden Road. (Ordinance #9-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-95, Authorizing Summary and Publi- cation) D. THE RIDGE by Dirlam Development. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #19-86, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5; Approval of Developer's Agreement for The Ridge; and Adoption of Resolution #86-98, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #19-86 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. City Council Minutes -3- May 20, 1986 10.42 acres into 17 single family lots and one outlot. Location: Northwest of Kilmer Avenue, west of Atherton Way. (Ordinance#19-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-98, Author- izing Summary and Publication) E. Revised Agreement for the I-494 Corridor Study F. 2nd Reading, Ordinance No. 23-86, Repealing Sec. 5.40 of the City Code - regulating and licensing of gambling devices. G. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 26-86 Amending City Code Section 4.02, Subd. 4.G.; Section 4.14; Section 4.30; Section 4.32, Subd. 1; and Section 4.51, Subd.5, and Adopting by Reference City Code Chapter 1 and Section 4.99 - the liquor license ordinance - to conform to the new amend- ments in State law. H. Ordinance No. 27-86, Amending City Code Section 7.01 and Adopting by Reference City Code Chapter 1 and Section 7.99 - incorporating Chapter 169 and Chapter 171 of the Minnesota Statutes (1985) by reference. I. Ordinance No. 28-86, Amending City Code Section 9.06, Subd. 2.B.; Section 9.08; and Section 9. 1, Subd. and Adopting by Reference City Code Chapter 1 and Section 9.99, changing the penalty provisions for possession of drug paraphernalia to conform to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 152. J. Final Plat, Red Rock Heights 4th Addition, east of Village Woods Drive, south of Scenic Heights Road (Resolution No. 86-104) K. Final Plat, The Ridge, south of Donnay's Round Lake Estates (Resolution No. 86-107) L. Receive Feasibility Report and Set Public Hearing for Drainage Improvements in Bluffs West 5th Addition and vicinity, I.C. 652-069, for June 17, 1986 (Resolution No. 86-105) M. Receive Feasibility Report and Set Public Hearing for Valley View Road Improvements, I.C. 52-272, for June 17, 1986 (Resolution No. 86-108) N. Sterling Field's Association Request 0. Confirmation of the appointment of Greg Schmidt as Metro- politan Airports Commission representative to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission City Council Minutes -4- May 20, 1986 P. Resolution 86-109, regarding activities around Flying Cloud Landfill, June 1, 1986 - became item IX. A. • H. EDENVALE MINI-STORAGE by Edenvale Industrial Company. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #17-86, Zoning Amendment within the I-2 Park District; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Edenvale Mini-storage; and Adoption of Resolution #86- 94, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #17-86 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: North of Highway #5, south of Martin Drive. (Ordinance #17-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-94, Authorizing Summary and Publication) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve items A-0 and item Q on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unani- mously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER 3RD ADDITION, by Ryan Construc- tion. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 15.91 acres, Zoning District Change from I-2 Park to Office on 6.3 acres for construction of a 69,500 square foot office building. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, west of City West Parkway. Continued from April 15, 1986. City Manager Jullie noted that proponents, in a letter dated April 23, 1986, have requested that their request for rezoning and PUD Amendment be withdrawn. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to acknowledge the withdrawal of the request for rezoning and PUD Amend- ment from Ryan Construction Company. Motion carried unani- mously. B. BLUFFS EAST 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS, by Hustad Development. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 184 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with variances, on 38.15 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of approxi- mately 184 acres into 72 single family lots and nine outlots. Location: West of County Road #18, northwest of Bluff Road, and west of Franlo Road. (Resolution #86-99, PUD Concept; Ordinance #24-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-100, Comprehen- sive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution #86-101, Preliminary Plat) City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified. /aura City Council Minutes -5- May 20, 1986 Wally Hustad, the proponent, addressed the proposal. Planning Director Enger stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its January 27, February 24, March 10, and April 28, 1986, meetings. Enger said that, at the April 28th meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project on a 6-0 vote, subject to the recom- mendations of the Staff reports of April 11th and April 25th. Enger reviewed the staff recommendations and noted that several items had not yet been completed including design details of the surge basin, detailed grading, a tree inven- tory, a master utility and storm water run-off plan, and the density base for the multiple family outlot. Enger also referred to his memo of May 14 which summarized details of the project and the issues that remain unresolved, includ- ing the question of access to the Wilkie property, utilities and road improvement of Bluff Road, and the wetland status of the pond. Director of Community Services Lambert said that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission reviewed this proposal at its meeting on May 5, 1986, and that the Commis- sion was concerned about the preservation of the creek valley, park dedication or cash park fees, trail easements, and the trails and sidewalks in the project. He noted that his memo of May 6th summarized the recommendations of the Community Services staff. Lambert reviewed the proposed trail system in the project and noted that the proponent had proposed donating the creek valley property to the City as a gift. He said that the Staff recommends the City agree to a res- trictive covenant on the creek corridor for 15 years to restrict trail construction along the creek valley. He further noted that the Parks Commission recommended approval per the recommendations of the Community Services and Planning staff. Bentley asked about the possibilities for the sewer line and how that question could be resolved without knowing what the plans are for County Road #18 and the service road. Hustad said that the sewer line has to come from the eastern point and that development could not begin until the sewer line is available. Director of Public Works Dietz noted that a petition for a Feasibility Report for utilities in the area had been received at the last Council meeting and that the location of the proposed sewer line on the project map is probably the best location regardless of the align- ment of the highways. / `U City Council Minutes -6- May 20, 1986 Pidcock asked what the usual procedure is to get a sewer line connection to property. Dietz responded that the Feasibility Study will determine the costs, the needs of the area and the probable alignment after which the project will proceed, with the possibility of condemnation if agree- ment cannot be reached. Redpath asked if the road connection could be made through Autumn Woods. Hustad noted that it was a possibility. Peterson said that there is a definite need for a road connecting to Hwy #1 . Pidcock expressed concern about fire and police protection in the project. A discussion of the collector road followed. Pidcock asked what the projected population of the project would be. Hustad said there would be 245 dwellings with about 500 residents. Pidcock also asked about the plans for the area between the current Hwy #18 location and the projected new roads. Hustad said it was proposed to be commercial and multi-family residential. Anderson asked about the possibility of running the road adjacent to the creek rather than between houses. Hustad said that would not be economically feasible and that many of the current residents have voiced their desire to keep the area very private. A discussion followed regarding the future value of property in the area. Martin Diestler, 9905 Bluff Road, expressed concern regard- ing problems on Bluff Road, including the dangerous intersec- tion at Hwy #18, the need for lighting along the road and for stop signs to regulate traffic speed, and the temporary lift recommended by staff. He also expressed the needs for sewer and water in the area. John C. Rosholt, an attorney representing the Wilkie family, noted that the project does not provide access to the Wilkie property. He expressed concern that the only option left for them will be a bridge over Purgatory Creek. Bentley asked if the Wilkie's had considered using the par- cel of land as a density transfer for development of their land across the creek or if an easement could be set up to allow for future access to the parcel. Rosholt said that an easement would be better than no access at all. Peterson noted that he felt there was at most one buildable site on the Wilkie property and that the concept of density City Council Minutes -7- May 20, 1986 transfer would seem to make more sense for the property. He asked City Attorney Pauly about the legal rights involved. Pauly responded that there is no legal right apart from the provision in the City Code stating that, if a property owner is developing his property, provision will be made for the extension of a public road into the adjoining property; however, in this case extending the road would result in a cul-de-sac that would probably take up the only buildable portion of the site. Bentley said his opinion was that it would not be in the best interest of the City to put a public road there because of the potential damage to the entire scenic area that would result from possible development once there was access to the property. Peterson noted that the Wilkies could exercise the option of negotiating a private easement with Hustad. Jerry Hegge, 10015 Pioneer Trail, expressed concern about the effect of the project on the protected wetlands area by storm water run-off and the extensive grading required. He also expressed concern regarding increased traffic in the area and said he felt no further development should occur in the area until the damage done by previous devel- opers is corrected. Gerald Haas, 9955 Pioneer Trail, expressed concern regard- ing the pond and the drainage of storm water in the area. Director of Public Works Dietz said that it might be possible to work some plans for drainage of the surrounding area into the master plan for drainage of the Hustad development. Discussion followed regarding the problems created by ero- sion around the park area and drainage from the future up- grading of Hwy #18. Rhoda Haas, 9955 Pioneer Trail, presented a petition from residents expressing concerns about development in the area. (Attachment A). She noted that their entire garden was lost due to flooding problems in the area. Bentley said that he felt this concern, while genuine, was not immediately rele- vant to the project, but suggested that staff could be directed to look into the matter and report back to the Council. Mr. Briggs, 9715 Pioneer Trail, expressed his opposition to the use of his land to extend the sewer line and roadway for the benefit of the developer. He also asked how the costs of the lift station would be allocated. Dietz said that the lift station was part of the original sewer master 15g City Council Minutes -8- May 20, 1986 plan for the area and that trunk sewer and water assess- ments are made to developers as development is approved. Dietz also said that acting on the existing petition for utilities in the Bluff Road area would result in special assessments for adjoining property owners when the utilities are put in. Redpath asked Mr. Hustad if he had talked to the Munsons and the Halversons about bringing the sewer through an ease- ment on their property without the road access. Hustad said it had been considered but that he expected the Feasi- bility Study to determine the appropriate route. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 86-99 for PUD Concept Approval of the Bluffs East 4th and 5th Addition. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 24-86 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Reso- lution No. 86-100 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 86-101 approving the Preliminary Plat of Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions for Hustad Development. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION, Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement per recommendations of staff, the Planning Commission and the Park, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, and with attention to the concerns expressed by area residents regarding grading and storm water run-off. Anderson expressed concern that the Developer's Agreement should include the scenic easement along with a trail ease- ment for the creek valley. The following discussion deter- mined that this issue would be covered by the recommendations from the Community Services Staff and the Parks Commission. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct the City Manager to look into the matter of possible damages mentioned by some of the residents and to see what remedies there might be. Motion carried unanimously. /)5-P City Council Minutes -9- May 20, 1986 C. FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB. Request for Planned Unit Develop- ment Concept Amendment of 20.15 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service on 2.45 acres, and Preliminary Plat of approximately 31 acres into one lot and two outlots and road right-of-way for parking lot expansion. (Resolution #86-102, PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance #25-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-103, Preliminary Plat) City Manager Jullie stated that notices had been published and posted. Don Brauer, representing the proponents, addressed the proposal. Planning Director Enger stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this item at its meeting on April 28, 1986, and recommended approval of the project on a 6-0 vote. He also referred to the Staff report of April 25, 1986 containing the recommendations of the Planning Staff concerning the project. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 86-102 for PUD Concept Amendment approval of the Flagship Athletic Club. Anderson asked what will happen to the floodplain beyond the proposed parking area. Mr. Brauer said that it has been put into an outlot and they are waiting to see what the park plan is, but that they are putting in a trail around the area. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 25-86 for Rezoning from Rural to C-Regional-Service. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Reso- lution No. 86-103 approving the Preliminary Plat of Flagship Athletic Club for Flagship Athletic Club. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement per staff and Com- mission recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 27062 - 27396 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 27062 - 27396. Roll call vote: Anderson, la 6.I City Council Minutes -10- May 20, 1986 Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath and Peterson voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS There were none. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS There were no reports. VIII. APPOINTMENTS There were no appointments. IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. Pidcock - Discussion of Stop Signs on Duck Lake Road Pidcock noted that, because of the unfortunate death of the child on Duck Lake Road recently, she believed a traffic study should be conducted on Duck Lake Road to determine the advisability of putting stop signs at the intersections of Honeysuckle and Duck Lake and at Countryside and Duck Lake. Director of Public Works Dietz noted that those calling City Hall about the incident had been told the matter would be reviewed. He said the review should take about a month. 2. Pidcock - Police Department Policy Pidcock asked what the policy is regarding the reported activity of the Police Department checking on estab- lishments serving controlled substances. City Manager Jullie reviewed the procedure used by the Police Depart- ment. Pidcock noted that she was opposed to having people "set up" in such a manner. Peterson said that there are only two ways to enforce the law, either by this type of procedure or by the less tasteful option of police officers going into the estab- lishment to card people. Redpath expressed his concern about the lapse of time between the Police Department activity and the news- paper r article describing the activity. [. Pidcock said she believed that, as a councilmember, she should have been made aware of this situation before 056 City Council Minutes -11- May 20, 1986 reading about it in the newspaper. Bentley said he felt that, if a problem develops that has potential legal implications, a memo or phone call to council- members would be appreciated so that they are made aware of the situation. 3. Pidcock - Post Office Pidcock noted that when we get a new City Hall we should be sure to get a Post Office to go in with it. Redpath said that he had recently learned the Post Office has scheduled a station in Eden Prairie with space for 50 carriers for 1989 or later. He noted that he planned to write a letter to the Post Office to encourage speeding up the process, possibly by offering to trade property for time. 4. Peterson - Letter from Rotary regarding van for senior citizens City Manager Jullie reviewed the letter received from the Rotary Club regarding their desire to participate in replacing the van used by the senior citizens. He said the Rotary would like to contribute $3,000 per year for the next four years, with the City advancing the $12,000 needed to purchase the van now. Director of Community Services Lambert noted that the previous van had been purchased by the Rotary under a similar arrangement. Pidcock asked where the funds would come from. Jullie said the funds would come from the general fund surplus. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to accept the offer of the Rotary Club and to authorize the pur- chase of the van for $12,000. Lambert noted that, at a Council meeting in June, there will be a recommendation regarding volunteer drivers of the van and training for the drivers in order to put the City in a better situation regarding liability. Pidcock said that she would like to get some information regarding the operation of the van including how often it is used. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath and Peterson voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. AZ 6 City Council Minutes -12- May 20, 1986 5. Anderson - Billboards Anderson said he believed that some of the permits for billboards had expired and he would like to have staff check into the possibility of removing some of them, particularly those located along Hwy #169 from the western boundary of the City to Flying Cloud airport. City Attorney Pauly noted that there is a zoning code provision for billboards limiting them to a strip of 200 feet along 494 and along the north side of Hwy #169 from the western edge of the City to about Flying Cloud. He noted some of the possible means that could be used to remove them, but also said there is no easy solution for getting rid of them. A discussion of the previous experience of the City in billboard negotiation ensued. Anderson reiterated his concern about the existence of billboards along the scenic area of Hwy #169, and that they would be more compatible in an industrial area. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to request staff and the City Attorney to review the options avail- able in regard to removing the billboards. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Resolution 86-109, regarding activities around Flying Cloud Landfill, June 1, 1986 Bentley expressed concern with the wording of the pro- posed resolution and suggested eliminating the five paragraphs beginning "WHEREAS". MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 86-109 relating to public activity at Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill on June 1, 1986, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report of City Manager 1. Discussion on City Hall Options City Manager Jullie noted the options listed in his memo of May 16, 1986, addressing the continuing needs for space at City Hall. He indicated that he is recom- mending option #7, which is to hire a consultant planner to evaluate and make recommendations, and also to look for some temporary space to lease. Councilmember Re dpath Re path left at 11:55 PM. /367 City Council Minutes -13- May 20, 1986 { Peterson asked if option #7 was meant to restrict the consultant to evaluating a building site rather than including an evaluation of leasing or buying an existing building. A discussion followed regarding whether the consultant should be hired to evaluate and recommend a building site or if he should be hired to review all the available options including leasing or buying a building as well. Peterson said that he felt it was important for the consultant to work with the Facilities Needs Committee and the Site Selection Committee in order to include them in the process. He further said that he believed it was necessary to look for someplace to lease space since it would probably take three to six months for the consultant's evaluation process. Bentley said he thought option #2 to move a portion of the staff to leased space would alleviate the space constraint problem that exists now. A discussion ensued regarding the possibilities for temporary leasing of space and what length of time would be considered "temp- orary." Jullie noted that the staff was very concerned about the effects of splitting up the City staff as a result of implementing option #2. Planning Director Enger expressed his strong belief in the need to move the entire staff to one location that would also have a boardroom avail- able. Anderson said that he believed our growth pattern is too great at this time to split up the staff, and noted that leasing would give time to think about the options. Director of Public Works Dietz expressed his concerns about the need for additional personnel in many of the departments to keep pace with the expansion in the City. Peterson said that members of the Referendum Committee are eager to research the vote on the referendum in order to learn as much as possible about the vote. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to look into leasing space immediately for a period of 3-to-5 years for the entire staff of City Hall, in- cluding space for a boardroom, if possible. Bentley expressed his concern about the cost of such a { leasing program and that he was in favor of taking more time to look at the problem and check out the options. / L City Council Minutes -14- May 20, 1986 Anderson noted that he would like to have a special meeting to discuss this one issue. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Peterson, to table the previous motion directing staff to look into leasing space for City Hall. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to hold a Special Meeting of the City Council on Tuesday, May 27, 1986, at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Lunchroom for the purpose of discussing options for City Hall. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Purchase Agreement for Proposed City Hall Site (Continued from April 29th Council meeting) MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to con- tinue this item to the next City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. C. Report of the City Attorney City Attorney Pauly called attention to his memo to the Council on alternatives to consider in reference to the County designating the Greenhouse site as the site for a transfer station rather than the Hopkins site. He reviewed the background of the situation leading up to the County's designation of the Greenhouse site. He suggested four al- ternatives to the action by the County Board, as follows: 1 . Seek a reversal of the action taken by the County Board. 2. Seek further environmental review by the Metropolitan Council; in effect, to reopen consideration of the Environmental Impact Statement. 3. Local control that might be exercised over placing the transfer station in Eden Prairie, possibly by denying a building permit if the facility did not meet the zoning and subdivision provisions of our code. 4. Since the County would have to acquire an interest in the Reuter property in order to use the Greenhouse site, the City might own some property in the area as a buffer because of the park and school area located nearby thus making it more difficult for the County to exercise its right of eminent domain. He said that legal action might be necessary in the future, particularly to compel a more detailed E.I.S. of the Green- house site should the Met Council choose to not reopen the matter. A-Gl City Council Minutes -15- May 20, 1986 Pauly recommended that at this time we pursue with the Metropolitan Council the further consideration of the E.I.S. • and that we let the surrounding property owners know of the potential siting of the transfer station in the area. Peterson asked Pauly if he meant that we should pursue reopening the E.I.S. before the County formalizes the deci- sion. Pauly said he thought the action should be started now. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direot staff to proceed on this issue based on the recommendations of the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. X. NEW BUSINESS There was none. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 12:50 PM. Motion carried unanimously. • ATTACHMENT A MAY 19 1986 MAY 15,1986 The Honorable Gary Peterson Mayor. Eden Prairie. Minnesota For the past two years we have had a severe flooding problem due to the flooding of the water shed area on our property at 9955 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie, Mn. I have contacted officials of the city for the past two years and so far no response. Each time it rains we are getting more and more sand buildup that washes in from the baseball park land area. We have asked that the north end of the ball park be properly graded and sodded to prevent anymore sand from washing. In 1984 we lost our entire garden. I can and freeze our entire years supply of food. We lost all the raspberry bushes, strawberry plants both June and everbearing, currants and the asparagus patch. We grow all our potatoes, tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, beans, peas, beets, onions, watermelons. muskmelons, garlic, shallot, carrots, leek, broccili, cabbage. dill, lettuce. celery, parsnips and sweet corn. We had planted balsam evergreens in 1970 on the south upland area, they are all dead from being in the water. We have two large evergreens on the lawn that are presently standing in water. Two red maples are in the water, the grapevines are under water,the lower part of the garden is under water. When the water clears up days after a rain you can see the buildup of sand. The east end of the pond has full grown beautiful white birch trees in the water. The horse pasture is almost entirely under water. Hay is expensive and we have never had to feed hay in the summer before now. When we built here 25 years ago we had black dirt excavated from that area as top soil for our entire yard. There was no cater there and we could walk across it anyplace. In 1964 and 1965 we had water in the pond but it drained. Due to all the sand washing in it has formed a hard pan. We ask that proper drainage be provided. We would like a written reply on this matter. cc City of Eden Prairie /7/. /� [�V Mr. CharlesCOombs " (i �i✓ y • PETTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA. We the undersigned are expressing concern about the develop- ment of the area. The way it has been done in the past, what is going on now and what is to happen in the future. Following is a list of concerns that we have, but it is not limited entirely to this list. 1. The effects that the extensive grading is having and will have on our environment. 2. The severe burden placed on some properties, because of the changes in the drainage pattern in the developed areas. 3. The lack of maintance being performed on graded sections in new developments. 4. We are concerned about what appears to be a total lack of concern for existing smaller property owners in the area. 5. The alterations of the rolling landscape in the area which has changed from beautiful rolling hills to (after development) a flat desert like landscape which is entirely out of character for Eden Prairie. 6. We are very deeply concerned about the traffic in the area. When the Bloomington Ferry Bridge is open, County Road 18 cannot handle the present traffic safely, much less any additional traffic that would be generated by further development in the area. Developers in the past have said that County Road 18 and County Road 1 would be upgraded next year to handle the traffic. This is OK except that they have been telling us of this upgrade "next year," for each of the last ten years at least. In closing we would like to join in a statement, to you the City Council that you allow no future planning, yes plannig, in the area, until existing problems (some of which have gone on for years) have been corrected. And furthermore we would like to make a sugestion to you. That the developers make equal sacrificies in the development process equal in proportion to that, which in the past, has been expected to be made by existing land owners surrounding the areas to be developed. I. NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE / AA 9`l/ -g xj-7 ( 7'4".‘f A 2/L_Ci5Vel/9/4,0 _ cr3,561C: 44De 9 /9-•. 79 /eteilo Aonfer /Y.o,•/• 717(' g0 1ooao Rcbti asp 1rc.,-.Q. - 941- 41[Cn Oar_ ..._,,, -7..p,--- i 00 7-0 Roleer- TC4-ic__ q4(_ 41 ((o kr bco,04-4? 771r i6"11-A 1'69 7<f>,-/foi 70,, /re 3/4//-7s/c4f- X 7,-, / So P,`vnz�-A- 7"r, °1'4l-1 139 ( 9 /o o6S0 � 'JyT-/SS/ -/14-a/ti , /006S J?,77.--`1 J 7 Aiy - /5 5 A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 1986 TO BE "CURT CONNAUGHTY DAY" IN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA { WHEREAS, CURT CONNAUGHTY HAS SERVED COUNTLESS DEDICATED HOURS OF SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND THE EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS: TEACHER, EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1955-1966 ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL 1966-1986 STARTED FOOTBALL - EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL 1957 STARTED TRACK - EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL 1958 and, WHEREAS, CURT CONNAUGHTY HAS SERVED HIS COMMUNITY ON MANY OTHER FORUMS: STARTED THE COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAM 1961 CHARTER MEMBER OF THE EOEN PRAIRIE LIONS CLUB COACHED EDEN PRAIRIE LITTLE LEAGUE WHEREAS, THE EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY IS SINCERELY APPRECIATIVE OF CURT CDNNAUGHTY'S 31 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE, NOW, THEREFORE, PROCLAIM - FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 1986 AS "CURT CONNAUGHTY DAY" IN EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ADOPTED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 3, 1986. Mayor, Gary D. Peterson ia64 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-110 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR VALLEY VIEW ROAD: CSAH 4 TO MITCHELL ROAD WHEREAS, on the behalf of the City Council of Eden Prairie, the designated Responsible Governmental Unit, Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis- Gardner, Inc., has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the . following new roadway construction, to wit, Valley View Road: CSAH 4 to Mitchell Road and has presented the Environmental Assessment Worksheet to the Council for approval: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: ' 1. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby determined to adequately address the impacts of the project. 2. The 30-day comment period which commenced on February 24, 1986 ended on March 26, 1986. The comments received indicated that no adverse environmental impacts would result from the project. Certain construction practices and procedures were recommended to minimize and mitigate impacts to wetlands and water quality in Purgatory Creek. i`tD J • 3. Given that no significant environmental impacts were attributed to the project, it is hereby determined that no environmental impact statement is required. 4. A copy of this resolution shall be forwarded to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and to all others receiving copies of the EAW. The decision of the City Council will also be published in the EQB Monitor by virtue of notification of the EQB. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3, 1986.— Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Frane, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 86-111 RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make the following improvements: I.C. 52-101, Street and utility improvements for Riverview Road between Concord Drive and Mooer Lane and Riverview Drive (East Riverview Drive adjacent to Bluffs West 5th Addition and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study with the assistance of Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson Inc., and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor • ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk // May 20, 1986 • City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Argus Development 18133 Cedar Ave. So. • Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Dear Gene_ Attached is the petition request form for Riverwood Road and Riverview Drive. Please prorate the cost for our share of Riverview Road to • Lots 10-13 Block/2 and Lots 29-40 Block 4, Bluffs West 2nd Addition. Sincerely,9 140e/Cla..---- //16p in t �j l CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT To The Eden Prairie City Council: The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City Council to consider making the following described improvements(s): / (General ppI�cation)/ ( sanitary Sewer ioety, /(e3c, yTam concr s/A watermain 4> Roo / 1 /v/eh, Storm Sewer Dr: ( u e..17) Street Paving Op Other 6.4/„ , p{ nec eSSa✓7 Street Address or Other Legal Description of Names of Petitioners Property to be Served I, (Must Be Property Owners) Lots /o-/3 ,c?/ocK is d/4 Caee f'24 74e /340% Co, tO/S Vo e/C(k I/ ,()/a{7; Guest .1,4/ 74e 3/47t 7 . Ap/n seAd 9.4 n7(S /n ,/a l'A- We,/ S'` Apeby,,.; 4/' ' bofs /-6 L?/oc K- / �] t ofS /-.12 &'oc. a 4l4(AS 1)1,44 ,,, t irkeL (For City Use) f Date Received MA y ZZ,/986z 1 Project No. Sz-/O// Council Consideration `•'/1 JN(F.T./936 lot(o9 ,• ' 7 1:4— ...-1 . . 43 ( , I / .. . . , . , . , t , , ... . . I 0 0 . . . . . _. - - :ist.- • \ ./::. ,... , ,. ..., . ._ ' -1).. . . , I. . - . It. - ,,,. -: ., c - ; . , i k y' ' a—? ; i,:.p- -< + , i -..-_, ,„ . , --b t -, ...... .1 ki 47, 1 '_-- ,,'' . ;; --- P. -•••4" -44 • I g .':=t-r"''",.... '. 0/ — • 5 -c) 1 .1. , ,*!:.i,s.;. 1 g_ _.__ _ . — ...i . . "14- ' . '2 . :7' - e 3-. ka " t- - --b .;,-,- ?' P-1,...1-I:.I'T'illio" I ' ' \ '-* ' .;.- :----' ':',.•-„,:.,,,,,,,i, , 2,_ i __ / ..,. ....... , , - Elaiguili / 40t, . ..... . .... ...... ..„ ,........_,.... , . 7. i ,....J.(' ,' .,.. . ' - •.-: ' 4,a, - air . • .,. : Ar k 477 Nil . gm TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works DATE: May 28, 1986 SUBJECT: Retention Pond Southwest Corner Homeward Hills Road and Chesholm Lane In the past two or three years we received a number of complaints about the retention pond that was constructed along with the Bluffs West 2nd Addition adjacent to Homeward Hills Road and south of Chesholm Lane. The pond was constructed to provide a sediment trap as well as some flood control. However, some of the grading adjacent to the pond is rather steep and at least two of the lots adjacent to the pond on the south side probably wouldn't have homes constructed on them for some time - - there is a pipe line that creates some construction difficulties. The primary concern as expressed by adjacent residents has been the possibility of children losing control as they play on the hillside and drowning in the pond. As an interim measure, we installed a snow fence around the pond about two summers ago in hopes that as the adjacent lots are graded, the problem could be alleviated. An indicated above, it appears that those i homesites will not be developed for some time. The water quality in the pond is poor and if the pond remains as is, it would be necessary to remove the silt deposits from it. However, I would recommend that we change the ponding area from the present "wet bottom" to a "dry bottom" facility. I am proposing that we drain the pond and fill the low area to what is currently the low water elevation. Upon completion we would seed the area and it could become a play field. All the design characteristics of the pond would remain intact, with the exception that there would no longer be a permanent pool. Unless instructed otherwise, public works crews would proceed with this project as time permits later this summer. EAD:sg �a�t • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-112 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF APPLE GROVES 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Apple Groves 2nd 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 Apple Groves 2nd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated May 28, 1986. 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 June 3, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk /0? 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: Jeff Johnson, Engineering Technician 1 )• DATE: May 28, 1986 SUBJECT: Apple Groves 2nd Addition PROPOSAL: Kerr Companies has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Apple Groves 2nd Addition, a single and multiple family residential subdivision located south of Valley View Road, east of Paulsen Addition and north of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad in the North 1/2 of Section 7. The plat will consist of 40 single family lots, 66 multiple family lots, two outlots and right-of-way dedication for streets. The site contains a total of 26.90 acres of which Outlot A is 1.29 acres and Outlot B is 0.44 acres. Outlots A & B are to be dedicated to the City for storm water storage purposes. Warranty Deeds converting ownership of Outlot A & B to the City must be provided prior to release of the plat. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on October 6, 1983, per Resolution 83-235. The Planned Unit Development concept was approved by the City Council on October 6, 1983, per Resolution 83-234. The plat submitted for approval is intended as Phase II & III of the approved PUD. Zoning to RM 6.5, RI-9.5 and RI-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council October 18, 1983, per Resolution 47-83. • The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed October 13, 1983. VARIANCES: A variance from the requirements of City Code 12.20, Subd. 2.A, waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. All other variance requests not covered by the Developer's Agreement must be processed through the Board of Appeals. 1 lw'M Page 2, Final Plat Apple Groves 2nd Addition 5/28/86 UTILTIES AND STREETS: There are some costs associated with Apple Groves 1st Addition that remain unpaid. These costs are: I. Invoice #5003, dated 2/26/86 for street signs $262.50 2. Invoice #5016, dated 11/29/85 for To prepare manholes, catch basins and valve boxes for snow plowing $266.37 TOTAL $528.87 Payment of these invoices would be required prior to release of final plat. All municipal utilities, roadways, and walkways will be installed throughout the plat in conformance with City standards and the requirements of the Developer's Agreement. Sanitary sewer was extended from Paulsen's Addition, northeast along the alignment of Liv Lane, to Valley View Road under a previous City improvement contract. A 20' utility easement for water main purposes will be required along the common lot line between Lots 5 & 6, Block 2 prior to release of final plat. Due to the number of Valley View Road cul-de-sacs, the two cul-de-sacs off on Valley View Road must be renamed. The cul- de-sac on the south end of Liv Lane must be named (other than Liv Lane). PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. 80NDING: The bonding requirements are covered in the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Apple Groves 2nd Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: t is'7J Page 3, Final Plat Apple Groves 2nd Addition 5/28/86 1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $1,340. 2. Receipt of fee for street lighting in the amount of $9216. 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $4240. 4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. 5. Receipt of warranty deeds for Outlots A & B. 6. Revision of easements for Lots 5 & 6, Block 2. 7. Renaming of the cul-de-sacs. 8. Payment of invoices 5003 & 5016. JJ:sg cc: Mr. Ron Krueger Kerr Companies • I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-114 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR I.C. 52-102 HIDDEN GLEN 3RD ADDITION 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 street and utility improvements 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 RCM, 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 June 3, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk /a76, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA 100% PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real pr4.erty dewciihed below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to Ie nceed with making the following described improvements: (General Location) yes Sanitary Sewer Per letter from Westwood _ n n n n yes Watermain yes Storm Sewer " e yes Street Paving " Other Pursuant to M.S.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 preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is --_ --___ Street Address or other Legal Names and addresses of Petitioners Description of Property to be Served (Must be own re f ter rd) (Per attached) Hidden Glen 3rd Roger D. D r ick, Derrick Land Company • Robert Bjork d, New Con ept Homes, Inc. • (For City Use) Date Received_ AlAy 2-7,j98° -.—_--- f Project No. SZ-foZ _ Council Consideration- CAM(3,f984.. - /a77 WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY May 27, 1986 Mr. Gene Dietz, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Hidden Glen North Dear Mr. Dietz: Based upon the preliminary plans for the above proposed subdivision we have prepared the following engineers estimate: Preliminary Cost Estimate* Sanitary Sewer $123,800 Watermain 118,880 Storm Sewer 179,550 Streets 200,900 { Sidewalk/Pathway 21,400 $644,530* *Excludes any improvements within the Dell Road right-of-way and any off site improvements. The above coats are construction costs only and do not include any city fees, assessments, legal fees, survey and engineering fees, or other soft costa. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerel WE OD,PLANNI & ENGIN ING COMPANY �l/ le/ ft De Mga11a, P. . DM:jms cc: Don Patton Roger Derrick 7515 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55475/511)5480155 iar]1 3 / "\ / I \ N . t . • CMO101A / \—Z I-- -- ., .. , i" , \ r'1 . ..-• ----4-t,L-- .-'1-'7' '-=-Z1'--"=""'"''''"'""'"'- -ilirrilfr--. _. . - - , .. ••••-----z.f; -`7,71.77r. - ----- - '-' ' 4" ' .. .' i :I r7 i -- NI • . -irhIrrifillitlir:711F -1 ?' 'if I 4. -- ). `;„,' ''-....,"/ f \ k 1 -ii ii 1 VI. lo• to I 21 1 212 i'' °-'' . -.' 4/ ' '\''''r;',1,941 1 :::".:‘‘' ' ' - : N.le"-" ''.."\ 48 \ 'Tr no.7.• nmerl fan rill 1 I -I-i 01,, ' , °, .... N'.' 1 cfr . ' \\IK..t••,.1 V.:_10_4_1il_i_tt t 1 t.../.1.wri , •I, ! , . ., ,u.\\- t I 4= ',10 •:, it, 1_i. , ouitor : , 0 : . ).0, ) ,,,\..4.,#) ,r i\.,, 4 f, /../:. •,.,...,4\ss/.\ , ,ItARRIINGTOPI ' ,...., . .., ... .. ." s,.....4 a 7--4pQ r•':1 ; i 'ill*, TT'111./ \<1 rl 11 r'f I 7 Fri 7YI 1" ,..1,. .4. 4. .,4; l'0 LI.2. ....ei I i l' ij 'J'I,, . Ld. ' L / r" ',.\ • ' ' -' i 11 1 4.• -- . . . . i - ..f )si1 1 r i 1 - fiCti Fin 40,119iiiil is trildri 1•7 F---0-1 7 i 71174P\V-7,757,17if- :`,, 17:11-,0 ni,_-_,L.,....../- ,:' kii!‘„,:t_a,,,,.. ,...,,,,k, , ,• ,r- ,-,-)-1 - •Lt--' , - • -1"/ ' / `1•11.1 ft -. .:.1 ...t,,-,n 1_4.4,- .-- ..--- STREET'F' ti, i. 7.. ff,.,,-. ii..'......, ./ , , .1 -7—;i771 4 g! \ - .11 • ; • I „ :\GA: ,ilni r2 Fif n5 fit Lill 1 -1.,1 I-777ra '11. .., Vi.7, r---74.• - . L. • 41.* .— - , ,.... 02 , If //,,, - L54.4,3/21..1 . ,7_1 L_J LI ' -1-1-1.1--.Q ti I- . /' iii-7 nri . • ,-- ,,,tt ct I. 7 t. •'---, %.,- — ----i , i.'" /' \ie OA .g ,,,, , ,,m..2.......1 i ,ii1,17,7.44611.7i ,iz1- 1:,---, ,...:, ,,__,L.-j . • ,... ;( '''i :(17-1 't:1117-J.HI irrJ1117:11t7-711"". / ‘3, is 1` i "5:W:••• 4 ',.a. jin i ,, I , "--•:7: ---/. ' .17/./ 7 irtri' 4. 4 ',,.,2.,-1,1 • 1—7—---1-1 13 , Lit il(3,„ i 8 11/.7 u k_.1 1,11Zr. ti rife ..1. ', .1, . , 1 t.':'''', l''.M31--13 --'-'.‘.--"1.•_L: ,--t ji_i•---j. --‘••-.'sq lu. k 1.--4-r7" " 1-4---7 ,--: . 4.--r- . 1---vs:NI\ _ \... 4 , 1.._T_.. -- -1-:r 1-,-- • ‘,A, . 1•!-,(.44:‘ -\ (. / .. . - L • :' .' tj • ;i !:,t' . ,;, ,. -.. ..\•,,\...1 t,,,N\ tat4., AL„,,._-)i- ' 4... ( _,,,____ „,_ PLEASANTVIEW 80A0.....),. -....;•.i Lt.-1TV: .V. tnt \S\ '... --:\ r i 1 • I .-77-1 iT 1.. .401. I 1 [il A \1 ../ .i__, 1 \ _ i \ ,1 ., , _ri r----ra, 1 - ,,, \.. \,---.. 1 f < 11 1 .,, 1..,/" // \ T. )1 ..,... ,. .., ..,,i,,, ti ! .-- (.' i_____j gLi / \ .1"A 1 ul ....--.' _ C14\,- JOSEPH CURVE ' ---N ---"\7 .0\\,,' , ' ., 1.......„ °.• i ....t---„, )------ \ 0 r't,r. .t.:. , N......-..,>pk, , ! (------T---- it , k 1:,(\ ,-.X... . • ,,...' --.4 .---- --e.• ' • ,L______ • I H----1 __Iti I ---'.< •••C' 1 •(1-*__ ____I 1 t—— 1 1 \ / '\ \ „ ----• , , 1 . 11,,,, )1' " . 1 -'-—4"—----—I m F-----7 \v r\'‘ \ A , .............................. , lifit ............,1::=1“.1••••••*yam WISIWO001.1.ANNUM a 1110111111111110 CON000`,....11 0 100 200 M.& /Del 44 I { CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-115 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAI OF HOYT RO8ERTS SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Hoyt Roberts 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 Hoyt Roberts Second Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated May 27, 1986. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. • ADOPTED by the City Council on June 3, 1986. • Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk / c 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: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician ,?-_;, DATE: May 27, 1986 SUBJECT: HOYT ROBERTS SECOND ADDITION PROPOSAL: Hoyt Development has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Hoyt Roberts Second Addition. This subdivision is a replat of Hoyt Roberts Addition, which consisted of one lot and right-of-way dedication for Technology Drive. This proposal as submitted will divide the parcel into two lots and includes, as part of the platted area, the right-of-way of Technology Drive. A public hearing to consider the vacation of Technology Drive is scheduled for the June 3, I986, City Council meeting. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on May 6, 1986, per Resolution 86-81. Second reading by the City Council of Ordinance 22-86, zoning the property to RI-2 Park, is scheduled for June 3, 1986. The Developer's Agreement for this addition is scheduled for execution on June 3, 1986. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities necessary to serve this site have previously been installed. Sufficient easements covering the existing utilities must be provided within this plan. Roadway access to Lot 1, Block 1 is to be provided by a privately owned and maintained driveway. An easement must be provided by the property owner of Lot 2 prior to release of the final plat. { • Page 2, Final Mat of Hoyt Roberts Second Addition Right-of-way, sufficient to encompass the existing Technology Orive cul-de-sac, must be provided prior to release of the plat. PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication shall conform to the requirements of the City Code. BONDING: Bonding shall conform to City Code requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Hoyt Roberts Second Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $960. 2. Receipt of copy of recordable private access easement. 3. Completion of Technology Drive vacation proceedings. 4. Dedication of right-of-way for Technology Drive cul- de-sac. 5. Revision of easements covering existing utilities. 6. Second reading of Ordinance 22-86. 7. Execution of the Developer's Agreement. cc: Hoyt Development, Brad and Steve Hoyt Mr. Ron Krueger f G of CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-106 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF D. HOLAND ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of D. Noland 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 a-nd 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 0. Holand Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated May 12, 1986. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 20, 1986. • Gary D. Peterson, Mayor li ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk / Z3 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: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician 0jo DATE: May 30, 1986 SUBJECT: D. HOLAND ADDITION PROPOSAL: Mr. David Noland has requested City Council approval of the final plat of D. bland Addition, a single family residential plat located south of Creekridge Drive and west of Bennett Place in the South 1/2 of Section 26. The site contains 1.92 acres to be divided into four single family lots and the dedication of right-of-way for Bennett Mace. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on April 15, 1986, per Resolution 86-70. The second reading of Ordinance 20-86, zoning the property to RI-13.5, is scheduled for the June 3, 1986, City Council meeting. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution on May 20, 1986. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities and streets necessary to serve this site have been installed. Trunk assessments of $5059 will be levied against the parcel with the fall assessments. Additionally, the lots will be subject to $7,400/unit connection fee. This property is responsible for a portion of the cost of the future construction of Bennett Mace. A special assessment agreement covering this cost must be executed by the owner and City prior to release of the final plat. /-2P5` Page 2. Final Plat of D. Holand Addition 5/12/86 PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication shall conform to City Code and Developer's Agreement requirements. BONDING: Bonding will conform to City Code requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of D. Holand Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: _ 1. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $512. 2. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $16D. 3. Execution of Special Assessment Agreement. 4. Second reading of Ordinance 20-86. 5. Execution of the Developer's Agreement. 6. Subject to trunk assessments and utility connection fees. DLO:sg cc: Mr. David Holand Mr. Jim Richardson 4_ CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 May 12, 1986 { PROJECT: Technology Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota I.C. 52-010 D RCM Project No.851016 TO: Enebak Construction You are hereby directed to make the changes noted below in the subject contract. Nature of Change: I. The plans call for the installation of twin 88"x54" reinforced concrete pipe arch section culverts with flared arch end sections at station 82+94. An area of the backslope around the flared arch end sections on the north side of Technology Drive is to be dressed with cut stone. It is desirable to modify the flared end sections from the standard 2:1 slope to 2.5:1 to better fit the backslope with cut stone surfacing. Because of the difficulty of specially modifying the arch end sections it is desirable to change to 7'x4' box culvert materials with modified aprons for the north end. The 7'x4' box culvert sections will have a slightly larger waterway area. Provide 7'x4'concrete box culvert sections in lieu of the 88"x54" concrete arch pipe. Provide two standard end sections and two end sections modified to a 2.5:1 slope. Trash guards are not to be provided for the box culvert end sections. 2. A cut stone treatment is required for the backslope adjacent the drainage conduits at station 82+94 and station 73+31. The cut stone is to be installed as shown on sheet 13 attached to this change order. The required quantity of cut stone fpr both locations is reduced from the bid quantity of 143.2 tons to 90 tons. The type of stone provided shall be changed from a cut stone to a quarried stone of natural cleft, split face with sawed ends. The product to be provided shall be lfalquist Lannon in conformance with the sample provided by Gopher Stone Co., Inc. This product was selected for its texture and color. 3. Modify CB-6 to and the 27'of 12" RCP outletting from CB-6 as shown on revised plan sheet 6 attached hereto. CB-6 is deepened to provide a flatter slope for the 12" RCP outlet reducing outlet velocity and to provide a sump for removal of coarse sediment. These revisions are as requested by the Watershed District. 4. Add a hydrant, gate valve and box to the north end of the 12" watermain extension at Technology Drive and Prairie Center Drive as shown on revised plan sheet 6 attached hereto. A hydrant at this location is desirable for flushing of the watermain system. Adjustments to Contract Quantities and Cost I. Change from arch to box sections at station 82+94. Delete the following arch pipe quantities: 83"x54"R.C.P.Arched CL 2A 188 LF @$130.00 $24,440.00 88"x54"R.C.P.Apron with Trash Guard 4 EA (`d $1,500.00 6,000.00 TOTAL DEDUCT $30,440.00 /A26 Add the following box culvert quantities: 7'x4'Concrete Box Culvert 188 LF @$150.00 $28,200.00 Standard Box End Section 2 EA @ $1,737.00 3,474.00 Modified Box End Section 2 EA @ $2,409.00 4,818.00 TOTAL ADD $36,492.00 Change in Contract Amount ADD $ 6,052.00 2. Change to lialquist Lannon Delete Hand Placed,Cut Limestone 143.2 tons @$350.00 $50,120.00 Add Hand Placed,Quarried Stone 90 tons @$287.50 25,875.00 Change in Contract Amount DEDUCT $24,245.00 3. Modifications to CB-6 Delete Standard CB,E.P. Design S-5 1 EA @$900.00 $ 900.00 Add Sump CB,E.P. Design S-7 1 EA @$2,500.00 2,500.00 Change in Contract Amount ADD $ 1,600.00 4. Hydrant,Gate Valve Box Add Hydrant,Gatevalve and Box 1 EA @ $1,300.00 $ 1,300.00 Change in Contract Amount ADD $ 1,300.00 TOTAL CHANGE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT DEDUCT $15,293.00 lSummary of Contract Adjustments: Contract Amount Prior to this Change Order $621,387.60 Net Decrease Resulting from this Change Order -15,293.00 Current Contract Amount Including This Change Order $606,094.60 The Above Changes are Approved: RCM, INC. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By Date c/� 7// 6 Date The Above Changes are Acccepted: ENEBAK N�STRUCTIOk/ By 6�T�lX,►TZ� Date . )(3 )-1gb • ct � Holand Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 20-86 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 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 R1-13.5 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 R1-13.5 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 3, 1986, entered into between David and Sharon Roland, husband and wife, 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 15th day of April, 19B6, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 3rd day of June, 1986. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of EXHIBIT A ZONING AND PLATTING LEGAL That part of Lots 8 and 9, Eden Prairie Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as beginning at the Southeast corner of the North half of Lot 9, in said Eden Prairie Acres; thence West along the South line of said North half of Lot 9 a distance of 399.64 feet; thence North parallel with the East line of said Lots 9 and 8 a distance of 210 feet; thence East and parallel with the South line of said North half of Lot 9 to the East line of said Lot 8 and 9 to the point of beginning. • • • 1 • Roland Addition DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by David and Sharon Noland, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "Developers," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developers have applied to City for a Zoning District Change from the Rural District to the R1-13.5 District for 1.92 acres and preliminary plat of 1.92 acres into five single family lots, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #20-86, Developers covenant and agree to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developers shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated April 9, 1986, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 15, 1986, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, 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. Developers covenant and agree to the performance and observance by Developers 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 release by the City of the final plat, Developers agree to enter into a special assessment agreement with the City for the upgrading of Bennett Place as it abuts Lots 4 and 5, as depicted in ' Exhibit B. 4. Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property, Developers agree to implement erosion control measures and adequate protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said measures. Prior to approval by the City, the Developers must call for on-site inspection of the property by the City, and defects in materials and workmanship in the implementation of said measures shall then be determined by the City. Defects in materials or workmanship shall then be corrected by the Developers, reinspected and approved by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit by the City. Approval of materials and workmanship may be subject to such conditions as the City may impose at the time of acceptance. 5. Developers agree to confine grading to that area of the property within the construction limits as approved by the City. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developers shall implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning. 6. Developers shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permit for Lot 5, as depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto, Developers agree to submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans for street, sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer improvements for said Lot 5. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developers agree to 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. 8. Developers agree that each lot which has been created, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, shall be subject to the connection fee for sewer and water as provided by City Code. Presently, the • amount of connection fee applicable to the property is $7,400.00 per lot. The amount to be paid by Developers shall be increased or decreased to the extent that the City Code is amended or supplemented to require a greater or lesser amount as of the date of the connection of each lot to sewer and water. is Noland Addition CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-97 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 20-86 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 20-86 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3rd day of June, 1986; 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. 20-86, 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. 20-86 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 3, 1986. Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 1 :x :© { Roland Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 20-86 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 at the southeast corner of Creekridge Drive and Bennett Place from the Rural -District to the R1-13.5 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: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1986. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) r i 0 Hoyt Roberts Phase II CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 22-86 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 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 I-2 Park 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 I-2 Park 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 3, 1986, entered into between • Hoyt Development, a Minnesota general partnership, 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 6th day of May, 1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 3rd day of June, 1986. • ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of /n,.i 1 r--1, Exhibit A Legal Description Lot 1, Block 1, HOYT ROBERTS ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hoyt-Roberts Phase II DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by Hoyt Development, a Minnesota general partnership, 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 District change from the Rural District to the I-2 Park District for construction of a building for office/warehouse purposes, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #22-86, 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 , 1986, reviewed and approved by the City Council on May 6, 1986, 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 release by the City of the final plat, Developer agrees to complete the process for vacation of the dedicated right-of-way for Technology Drive, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and receive approve from the City Engineer for extension of a private drive upon the property. 4. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. /4"n" .'� 5. Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property, Developer agrees to implement erosion control measures and adequate protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said measures. Prior to approval by the City, the Developer must call for on-site inspection of the property by the City, and defects in materials and workmanship in the implementation of said measures shall then be determined by the City. Defects in materials or workmanship shall then be corrected by the Developer, reinspected and approved by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit by the City. Approval of materials and workmanship may be subject to such conditions as the City may impose at the time of acceptance. 6. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property. " 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. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of: A. A revised site plan indicating the amended parking configuration for the property. B. Detailed plans for the retaining wall. C. Detailed lighting and signage plans. D. Samples of building materials, including colors. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to implement and construct, or cause to be implemented and constructed, those plans and improvements listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning. L AP( • Hoyt Roberts Phase II CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-121 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 22-86 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 22-86 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3rd day of June, 1986; 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. 22-B6, 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. 0. That Ordinance No. 22-86 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 3, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk l ;7� Hoyt Roberts Phase II CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 22-86 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, OROAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located west of Mitchell Road, at Technology Drive, from the Rural District to the I-2 Park 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: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary 0. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of , 1986. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) �J Lam.r : CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST June 3, 1986 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) HEATING & VENTILATING Maertens-Brenny Construction Heating Consultants G. M. Northrup Construction Pioneer Sheetmetal, Inc. CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) GAS FITTER Durst & Gans Construction Spartan Mechanical, Inc. Nedegaard Construction Co., Inc. North Valley Homes Patio Village, Inc. PLUMBING Shimota & Pinske Construction Showcase Homes Heating Consultants Springfield Homes Spartan Mechanical, Inc. Sunway Homes, Inc. Swanson Builders, Inc. Greg Tauer SEPTIC SYSTEMS Timberwall Landscaping, Inc. 21st Century Builders Peterson/Braegelmann Company PEDDLAR CIGARETTE Donald Allen Brill (Firewood) Griswold Vending Company These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. 164 Pat Solie, Licensing /ago • (, RESOLUTION NO. 86-120 RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XII URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8LOCK GRANT FUNDS ANO AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL. WHEREAS, the City/Town of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit in the Urban County Community Oevelopment Block Grant Program. WHEREAS, the City/Town of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County COBG funds made available to it; and WHEREAS, the following proposed use of Community Development Block Grant funds was developed consistent with program rules. (List of proposed activities and budgets) Activities Amount Requested 1. Housing Rehabilitation S25,000 2. Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly $ 2,031 3. Child Care Subsidy $ 6,023 Total $33,084 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council/Town Board of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, approves the proposed use of Year XII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County far consideration by the Citizen Advisory Committee and for inclusion in the Year XII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds. • Mayor/Chairman ATTEST: Clerk/Administrator (Seal) V. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 86-118 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-094, Baker Road Sanitary Sewer and Water Main and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval; and WHEREAS, through a coopertive arrangement with Hennepin. County, said plans and specifications will be combined with a County improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby approved. 2. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation is authorized to act as the City's agent in advertising a request for bids in the Construction Bulletin in accordance with their rules and procedures and applicable statutory requirements. Said bids to be publically opened, tabulated and considered by the Eden Prairie City Council for award in conjunction with the City's award procedure. ADOPTED •by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk /2Ia • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION B6-128 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 51-272, Street and Utility Improvements for Valley View Road between Mitchell Road and CSAH 4 and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 3 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, July 9, 1986, at City Hall after which time they will be publically opened by The Deputy City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, July 15, 1986, at the Eden Prairie School Administration Building. 8100 School Road, Eden Prairie. No •bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3, I986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk /€ 9 S t CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #86-124 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WESTOVER WOODS FOR TANDEM CORPORATION BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Westover Woods for Tandem Corporation, dated May 16, 1986, consisting of 15 acres into 42 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right- of-way, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 3rd day of June, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services i - DATE: May 15, 1986 SDUBJECT: Westover Woods The parks, recreation and natural resource issues regarding Westover Woods relate to sidewalks, preservation of significant vegetation, and acquisition of the Purgatory Creek Valley. SIDEWALKS As per the April 25, 1986 Planning Staff Report, a 5' concrete sidewalk should be constructed on both sides of Cumberland Road as a continuation of the sidewalk system further to the west. This sidewalk system connects to the sidewalk and trail system adjacent to Anderson Lakes Parkway. PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION The March 25 and May 9 Planning Staff Reports refer to the concern over grading and removal of vegetation by this development. The May 9 Planning Staff Report recommends a zoning of RI-13.5 on lots 1 thru 17 with variances for street frontage, lot size and frontyard setback, all of the lots being zoned RI-9.5. The March 25 report also recommended moving the lots abutting the creek valley further away from Purgatory Creek to meet the minimum 150' setback from the creek. This has been accomplished by the revised plan dated May 12, 1986. The Community Services Staff recommend approval of the plat as per the revisions depicted on the May 12 preliminary site plan and the Planning Staff Report of May 9, 1986, with the exception of the reference to dedicating Dutlot B to the City. ACQUISITON OF THE PURGATORY CREEK VALLEY During the review process of the preliminary plat of the Northrop King site, the City required that the eastern half of the creek valley be set aside as a scenic easement and agreed to purchase the western half of the creek valley. The City is presently negotiating with Tipton Corporation for acquisition of the creek valley. Staff recommends that the new Outlot B depicted on the revised plans be dedicated for permanent open space purposes prior to final plat approval. BL:md STAFF REPORT i, TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 9, 1986 PROJECT: Westover Woods LOCATION: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Cumberland Road intersection APPLICANT: Tandem Corporation FEE OWNER: Northrup King REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 98.9 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres with variances for lot size and street frontage. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5. r 5. Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 39 single family lots. Background �0 zz r r r ' RM-65 ( C 'xdz,•+ �,9 This is a continued item from the \ ' "»' i, F �� '\ -v "' March 25, 1986, meeting. At that ; ' 17 ' 'E, ' e.•4 ` meeting, the Commission made a i ',RM-25 k1.- Ft b *' y+c1y1 y motion to return the development to _,^ w x #. R the proponent for revisions which ,;_ , \•1 ,. „a would address the following issues: `,;,\ ,v. , ,G„1 ri,mi t� 4+,,,.C..1, 1. Visual impact on Purgatory I „ ..,.' ,� , Creek. .. '< '*'t," 'A ,' PROPOSED SITE;; 2. Compliance with the require- ��.. +,•,` ' ments of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. 'I / 3. Minimize tree loss. � ; iQ.:�� .. V Revised Site Plan ,,"-�Ns ��•��',,` The total number of lots have been �yo.o. , .. _ . 9 P:' !i.i $.y► ;,E*48,. ,fir /� - ter- —-- . f .cue i AREA LOCATION MAP r Westover Woods 2 May 9, 1986 reduced from 42 to 39. All lots adjacent to the creek are setback a minimum of 150 feet to be in compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance. Lots 1-17 would be zoned R1- 13.5 with variances for street frontage, lot size, and front yard setback. All other lots would be zoned R1-9.5 with street frontage and lot size variances. Staff met with the proponent on Friday and have agreed to additional plan changes including: 1. Lots 1-4, Block 1, would be 80 feet at the street frontage and at the building setback. 2. Lot 5, Block 1, would be 62+ feet at street frontage and 80 feet at the building setback. 3. Lot 6, Block 1, would be 62+ feet at street frontage and 85 feet at building setback. 4. Lots 7-14, Block 1, would be 85 feet at street frontage and 85 feet at building setback. 5. Lots 15-17, Block 1, would be 55 feet minimum at street frontage. 6. 25-foot front yard setbacks for all lots except those with frontage on Cumberland Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, Planned Unit Development Amendment Review, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances for lot size and street frontage, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 and the Preliminary Plat into 39 lots and one outlot, based on revised plans dated May 8, 1986, subject to the recommendations contained in the Staff Report dated April 25, 1986, and May 9, 1986, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the site plan in accordance with recommendations 1-6 of the Staff Report. 2. Prior to Final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Dedicate Outlot B to the City free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and mortgages. 1O9"7 • Westover Woods 3 May 9, 1986 C. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. D. Stake the construction limits with a snow fence. Any trees removed outside of the construction area will be replaced on an area inch per area inch basis. E. Submit a housing variety plan in accordance with City policy that no two units be alike side by side, opposite, or directly across from each other. F. Concurrent with building construction, construct five-foot wide concrete sidewalks along both sides of Cumberland Road. jam STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner HR UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: March 25, 1986 PROJECT: Westover Woods LOCATION: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Cumberland Road intersection APPLICANT: Tandem Corporation FEE OWNER: Northrup King REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 98.9 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres with variances for lot size and street frontage. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 11.9 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 42 lots. 6. Variances from Shoreland Management Ordinance for lot size and width to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. `f2M-65 s I »� le, ,,aw i*4. Background 1 N ! ' } 9 This site is currently designated as ,F(M-25 ` ;4x rtt+" i «.*t `� Low Density Residential. Surround- .3 , r,,.' ing land uses are guided Medium -',`. 'i ��` ' Density Residential to the north, `'` rr c,: 1 ++s, west, and south, and Medium to High ,, + #t r,�;, .� " Density Residential across Purgatory � Creek on the Northrup King site. \ 't" * c> "` '�; • PROPOSED SITE This site is impacted by Purgatory it n -1 " Creek. The Purgatory Creek Master �A is- , , Plan depicts a conservancy or "no wig , W build" zone along the rear lot 1 ine ''- ,�;, ��♦p'�+U4,( " of the eastern ti,, of lots. The , %�l�p:.� I study also depicts a transitional y-,�xk 4 area or a "build with care" zone for ►m..t. ' 1 most of the balance of the property. `��,, •��—y 'J !1`� sA ow �- ' l39''(is .r" 1,�44 ' AREA LOCATION MAP I, Westover Woods 2 April 25, 1986 The eastern tier of lots are within the shoreland area of Purgatory Creek and Lots 7 through 15 are abutting lots. Site Plan/Preliminary Plat The site plan involves the construction of 42 (36 new and 6 replotted) single family homes at a gross density of 2.80 units per acre and a net density of 3.53 units per acre. Variances are requested for lot size, street frontage, and setbacks from the R1-9.5 zoning district. Twenty (20) of the R1-9.5 lots are below the minimum 9,500 square foot reguirement. Variances are also requested from the shoreland ordinance for lot width and lot size. The following two charts depict the Code requirements and the variances requested. R1-9.5 Zoning Code Variance Less than 9,500 sq.ft. Lot size 9,500 sq.ft. Lots 1,2,3,8,9,10,13, Block 3 Lots B through 16, Block 1, and Lots 4,5,7,8, Block 2 Frontage 70 feet Less than 70 feet Lots 5,6,10,16,17, Block 1 Setbacks (front) 30 feet All lots to 25 Shore land Code Variance 7,900 to 10,600 sq.ft. Lot size 13,500 feet Lots 7 through 15, Block 1 Lot width 120 feet 65 feet to 90 feet Lots 7 through 15, Block 1 As mentioned in the background section this site is within the transitional zone of Purgatory Creek. Attachment A indicates the extent of tree loss on-site. The tree mass and the adjoining slopes is an intrical part of the Purgatory Creek corridor and is highly visible from Anderson Lakes Parkway. The grading plan indicates that almost all of the tree mass would be removed as part of construction. With the high degree of visibility from Anderson Lakes Parkway and the creek, and the impact of site development on tree loss, the R1-9.5 zoning district may not be the appropriate land use adjacent to the creek for the following reasons: 1. This site is currently guided Low Density Residential. It could be developed to have the same relationship as the R1-13.5 area zoned on the west side of the Centex cluster home project. laoo • Westover Woods 3 April 25, 1986 2. This site is not part of the original Ridgewood Planned Unit Development (PUD) for smaller lots single family and there is not a strong reason for a continuation of the architectural style and density. 3. Larger lots in this area could save more trees and reduce the visual impact on the creek. 4. Approval of the R1-9.5 zoning with variances would set a precedent for the remaining undeveloped shoreland along Purgatory Creek. Since the enactment of the shoreland regulations in 1982 all residential development along Purgatory Creek have met the minimum shoreland requirements. 5. While the overall density is proposed at 2.8 units per acre, and the net density is at 3.53 units per acre, it should be pointed out that approximately one acre of land included in the boundaries of the plat, north of Anderson Lakes Parkway is not shown for development. If this land acreage is excluded, the density in the developable portion of the site goes up to 3.85 units per acre on the south side of Anderson Lakes Parkway. This would explain why the site plan appears tight since the density is concentrated in a smaller area. 6. Side yard setbacks of five and ten feet for R1-9.5 zoning, or a combined setback of 15 feet, coupled with the use of two-story walk-out units along the creekside of the project will contribute to a massive wall like appearance as viewed from Anderson Lakes Parkway. There are three development scenarios which would allow a better transition to Purgatory Creek and maintain continuity with the shoreland ordinance and the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Scenario 1 Meet Shoreland Ordinance Requirements and the Comprehensive Guide Plan Density Zone Lots 1 through 6, Block 3, R1-9.5 - All other lots to be zoned R1-13.5 Under this scenario: 1. The plan would be consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan at an overall density of 2.07 units per gross acre. 2. The plan would be consistent with the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. The eastern tier of lots would be 120 feet wide and 13,500 square feet. 3. The plan would be consistent with the minimum requirements for the R1-13.5 zoning district for the remainder of the lots except Lots 1 through 6, Block 3 which would be zoned R1-9.5. 4. Impacts on the creek and tree loss would be reduced. 5. The total number of lots would be reduced from 42 to 31. 6. The distance between buildings along the creek would be approximately 60 feet as compared with 15 feet. ISO/ Westover Woods 4 April 25, 1986 Scenario 2 Lots 1 through 19, Block 1, to meet Minimum Shoreland Requirements and R1-13.5 Zoning District requirements. All other lots to be Zoned R1-9.5. Under this scenario: 1. The plan would be consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan at a density of 2.4 units per gross acre. 2. The plan would be consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance. Lots 1 through 19 would be 13,500 sq.ft. lot size, and 12D feet wide. 3. The plan would be consistent with the requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district for Lots 1 through 19. The balance of the lots would be zoned R1- 9.5 4. The impact on the creek and tree loss would be reduced. 5. The number of lots would be reduced from 42 to 36. 6. The distance between buildings along the creek would be approximately 60 feet as compared to 15 feet. { Scenario 3 Lots 1 through 19, Block 1, to meet Minimum Requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning_ District with Rear Lot Line no Closer than 150 feet to the Creek. A 1 other lots to he Zoned R1-9.5 Under this scenario: 1. The plan would be consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan with an overall gross density of 2.07 units per gross acre. 2. The plan would be consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance for Lots 1 through 19, Block 1. If the rear lot line of the eastern tier of lots is a minimum of 150 feet from the center line of the creek, they would not be abutting lots. Lot sizes would be 13,500 square feet and lot width would be 85 feet. 3. The plan would be consistent with the minimum requirements of R1-13.5 zoning district for Lots 1 through 19, Block 1. Lot size 13,500 sq.ft., lot width 85 ft. 4. The balance of the lots would be zoned R1-9.5 5. The impact on the creek and tree loss would be reduced by moving house pads higher up on the slopes away from the trees. 6. The number of lots would be reduced from 42 to 31. 7. The distance between buildings along the creek would be 25 feet as compared to 15 feet. 13U, Westover Woods 5 April 25, 1986 Grading Overall site grading could be described as minimal in terms of cut and fill. There are, however, distinct areas on-site where grading involves considerable tree loss. Attachment A shows the extent of grading in the wooded area indicating that only a few large oak trees would be saved but most of the tree mass would be lost due to construction. A reconfiguration of the site plan according to any of the scenarios presented in the preceeding section would be an alternative way to minimize the loss of tree mass on-site. Utilities Sewer, water, and storm sewer, are available to this site by connection to existing facilities in Anderson Lakes Parkway and Cumberland Road. Open Space As a condition of approval of the preliminary plat of the Northrup King site, in June of 1985, upon recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission the western portion of the Northrup King site on the west side of Purgatory Creek was to be dedicated to the City and the land area on the eastern half of the creek would be set aside as scenic easement. The land area on the west side of the creek has not been dedicated to date and should be dedicated as part of development approval for this project. ( Sidewalks Five-foot wide concrete sidewalks should be constructed on both sides of Cumberland Road as a continuation of sidewalks existing in the R1-9.5 homes to the west and connect over to the trails and sidewalks proposed as part of Anderson Laeks Parkway. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The use of a R1-9.5 subdivision in this location is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, and the requirements with the Shoreland Ordinance. Twenty (20) of the 42 lots do not meet the minimum requirement for the R1-9.5 district. House prices are proposed between $100,000 to $150,000 which is contrary to the goal of the R1-9.5 zoning district to provided starter housing. The project will have a definite visual impact upon the creek corridor and will be highly visible from Anderson Lakes Parkway. There will be a loss of a significant portion of tree mass which is part of the character of the creek corridor and the site itself. For these reasons, three different development scenarios are presented for Commission consideration. The first scenario depicts how the site can be developed in the strictest sense of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and Ordinances. The other two scenarios represent compromise positions which focuses primarily on the impacts on the creek corridor. In addition, the City also has a special zoning district designed for areas like this which is the R1-44 district. The purpose of the district is " reserve appropriately located areas for single family living on large lots where vegetation, slopes, water bodies, or other large significant features are best preserved through large lot development". If the Commission feels that any of the scenarios presented would be an appropriate development approach for the site, one option would be to close the public hearing - 1✓ Westover Woods 6 April 25, 1986 ( and have the proponent reapply for Commission considerations with a new plan. If the Commission feels that the project as proposed is not acceptable, the another option would be to deny the request per the recommendations of the Staff Report. Boil • , 1 i /, , • -;---- _. . . — , I 's, -• ''' ,_-----.. \• ,, , „ , .. \'‘ ••••••-. ••••••... 4*a'oa ' , ‘/ ./ ' ,--- • -'-',k\''Ns4:*t\At 6‘; \ 61'. I . 1 _ • . '-'''-' NV.''‘t,,.\\‘''Vk */,'",Z....,‘, :\,<,' tif C i , ‘ . -- •<. :• ( . , . s ,'e -4-. ,4;." ',:'•\Is,, ,ta,. ,,,, k.o...,...,, ,1 ., \g ,3 in \ \ 7, 4\-SAV \Nkt.N — i ----- w i \-...( j,v 0 7, -- N,• " ' L-::‘,-' g ""A --"*".i 1 ' i, (1) *le ---.‘\ --... - I -_ , 'I •••••• '4, I i, 1 1,••• ../110/7- .• -.„.. „ , . N • r ' 1.• wool,, \.--•-• \ _„,,•,:/-•V *09 V1' .1 /•••\ eso •••• • 9 ,\ ' ,r1 a b ' / ---- . _,•••" <1.0 i , ,.,41, ,:,'•-• ,_ ,b IP; I, '', ( ,.... r--<'• ,',-A...;',7 —i )` .. \ •-\ & '7, , \I r' '‘'-'.7.('-s-',\• 's 1,1.;/I...--; .. I ( ". 2/ ; //, ' , ,.-x .4•,.... ..„,..*:, i\- ....,, >K 1 / j , , kii4 .1 ; r, .'- A • ',.., ' // ..\\r:t"•!,,‘, 1 r,,,, , \.,,, --7,,A ,,,, /-- ,,--, • /„, /,, ,/,' / / / , --"," ,-_,' ..- ..".-1.4. , ir,i.,,,),. /.?.;'• // •• •, ,.<,; /, //// ' ' \ 4- '-':". --1:: -r ,' ''-ctr .L / /- VII /'--V,• / / / yecz,,,,is V\ ''' - '-'''''''/ %.,.-- • ''' ' '1=ii'''''' ' / „,,i(,,,,,- ;,,,, ,,,,,,,,„ , • \ •--/-'--•••:.•7•-•'.a•-•4••••t !\'•-•\:' ••• x '7 i 7" ,,/, .., '-''''''..k' "... \.'i\'--.• /' /9. /rii /,I7 ,/ ' ,`\,N i • -r. • ,. • \\,\,"; 4.....,,L,-\ I i• 4,-•,... ..... .,,,,, , , / ..."•, ,/ ••,•4,, ' "4--"" •-•.,, I ',1" :•-•-,... :-.-,/,,,, i'' ,/ i , \ cx .„., ,‹ , • ,..,.). ..., - ./ i, • •. i- 4 . ,( -- 1 i • ••,___...--,, " '.„,a') • L • 1- 22 _ 7 ; '''.1 - \ ' • 1 \\-)" :: /- :el ;::1.• — , /' 1 • /‘,•z*, • \\ (, I _ r", , ••,,,i, • — - 1 i 1 ,:s 71 ,--/ ,/ , 4' • to . ., ,, / !! , , . 1 "!,1 , / ' • !c, , ,,,,, , • • .il i OS c i .'/ i .r ��----- - --' \rc'N *, . , `/// •. • T u O J \ • 1' ` to O �/ f . I \ rr1 . A (� d t l,�w 1 /-, l _t'� /, �/ / /,/ ,.�, v, (\ - �V I � /!/' • , , u .. - + , • / O(o -- - ---. 1/ ., . - ''-i' ....,,;„ `-• ? i...r.....:..__:6 ,...-.-- ....... --4.•riakfr„ ---,..., \!..,,.... •/,' • -, / ,,,.,_s\ /---;,-, - - CV • \ ' ---- 4 4. -,::-.7/ . ' •1 'q ' -----,- --'-' : • ' / • \--• Nli\ .. 0 ----4 --, to, -. • : -:'',„,-'---,. . ,- . . .„„,s - ,- , ' J.), fp( a- - .r fe ty --, Am.._ \ .", \ • if 03 " .1. ,-- ''Sk •\41,• ' It,. L'__.., ///1,0. 1. '«, ^Pr', ,;,. ' .---- --'" - , 4' * '•-•. '...'41/ , •' ' • ,.-=17,77 , 'r-7,- ,1\. 0 6, . Fee . '' f f•-•4 f • rr,.., •'‘'‘.,\, 1.1 :/••• • ./'IP, -;'• •I: 4''''' 1 'iiit,,.;, ''%::' '4 1 '',L!"--1-.1.) '•I''I, '..\1 1 11 \'\ C.) tO r/ ' + • AAP. •4„.„,. .. .,..."2,,, . ‘ 'i it • ff1 cf) \ \' '''., • 1 ' •• IL .. I'' ' .., :k, tail ,t ,-Fy,,,,2 II \••- ,1/ /..•••1 I•-y 7 S'L•g) / '''''',•!,:lelr' '' '. i . I i/ / / ; \ .. , „:(041;44,..1,0, .,, , , .i. 74•16 1 _... •-i j ,, /• . •'4'lb'I'S r.4.‘Y‘',,,'4. ,''''iir ' ' •-t' c' .. ,' /- . / ,/ -,,-,,, • -41;r3'14\V-,17 -5n ••• s, '14''*, ./IY /-'‹ „ /';/-//' //; .,...,.......e,.. , ,•., „..i. ,.-4 ,,, ," -.,\,:, ,,....1: / , 4,,, i .1 ,,,.. /, . ,,,. ;„,,,,, ,.,/, p,-4;,,,n4)- ,,0 / •-'', -- /-/_-_-.1,i/ ' • / ' ' .:7. ' •\( ,,_,.... ..„...:, „\-,70s,,,, ... , , .2,-;.,,,, .4--# ,,/,, ,..- \---,., ...-7" '44:',- .,,, (.., . /i ' )' /// '' :I/ \-- - `,/ ,`': '_ ' ' •• '--- l' %• i;'/ ; l-' /,. ".1*, '---74V/, , I 4 '''''4.•- -‘,....•.• / • "'- I'•-,.-, ',‘ 'y .f. ( if I'1,'4',.....• 'C/ ---'•';'...4:::'L 1/ h. ' .•,, -• , -- II • ,z , _- ,- ,-,..-.: ../ • , \- .. „,i, . ' ,, ,., ., \ tif a -,ur --,- ''',‹ \,,. 1 \ . . '' ' ..' - ,1 r .7 ''' -/ ", ' , /3ff/ • ( --—---- • 1 I . , ._-----,.,.. •‘,.. . ._ -. i I ir-:•;:-,,,-. .._...,. \,' .., 7-,--. ., ,. / - " ,,,,..--.N - 7-"'-'-'- I -;',/''. ',) --- - . ,. .._ ,,,,* ..4‘ .... \,\ • CO .- -- -7 /.. "N' ' -• • '.• '". \ i'•-•,•'tii,,,il'2.',"•(.3'2::.,:,,,,,,,,-- - - - _:::-•-;'...:--,-,'--.-','sr,,,-(,:iii,',1 .2 7,, '. •—•-,,,.':',.:.;e...,'..?...'. ',.,,-.i.,..\0,i, ,--.-,,-- . -.' . : k. .. .''..', ,‘ \\ ' • . , -I, ,, '-' ,. ,.`-',4.:' . . ' CC,' ' I I; '',. '',., l'., \ a) 46. A i '1 ''‘ ic• ,: ' 44;,,„7. is r-1: ii.,' 'ft c1 \ •‘ ,: „z,,, 0 .. - ---' 'l'',„A04,;,W." 47 .V;sti.-:..-.'-• -r:i.,' :',.'.';:,'!iir 1 ; 100 S.. '—.'' ----%/j-%--- -' ' -'; • / ':".:24feiiiif ,c." '' 1 l'i-1-•''-'7!-17i 094 1\`'.- -_-:%:' °°,, '';:, 119% /-- ,s' '24'''.4# .,!,i.,/-'/ - -r,14' 1.;.; 4't, , ,,Alk,7: Vittl:';'1;,,NI'l i'-''Ati, -- fy .7-, /,"76- / • / '11 —• ` --;,--•. ' 5,2*,, ,, /77/ .,, 7,_,,, • , , A.. ' *1r, ' '‘.‘.._,.."-?,,,..7-- '-w,,,,,' tek ,,i'41,.".. ,, , j/2/ I,7 e•-•• ,' ..• -• ••'-^\' ',.\_ --- "(''''' n '.0'.nt,' "11, ......* i*)%-h, /'1 i'•eitr • ,r,,-- , 1, ::,..../ , . ',4 .1 1. ,. ,v:7,4(el - --.., ,f 1,7',,,,,;..- /./,, ;a,• , /,, . ii11/444 • ' :•.',' '•- i' \ '' —... %• \..- •:"- ‘ i>, tmf.,q / . . 1 ,,,.. ,„. , / i • • , -3.. .,, ,,. • ' ° - .. - , / i .".,• i' / , - i, \ •• • ., j. \ / . ;:i 1.' '/ . '.- •i _ . , if. . .,_ . -. I. - . • • 1 ( • , . /..•"21(Ik7 . MINUTES r EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 12, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge (7:40 p.m.), Virginia Gartner (7:35 p.m.), Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Bye, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. (Gartner arrived at 7:35 p.m.) III. MINUTES MOTIDN: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the April 28, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--5-0-1 (Hallett abstained) (Dodge arrived at 7:40 p.m.) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. WESTOVER WOODS, by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Oevelopment Concept Amendment Review on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit ' Development District Review on 15 acres with Zoning Oistrict Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 11.9 acres with variances and Shoreland Management variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres and Preliminary Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 12, 1986 Plat of 15 acres into 42 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway and New Cumberland Road intersection. A continued public hearing. Planner Enger reviewed the revisions made to the plans since the previous meeting of April 28, 1986. He noted that the proponents were requesting that the side yard setbacks for the development, normally set as a minimum of 10 ft. on one side with a total of 25 ft. for both sides, be changed to a minimum of 5 ft. on one side with a total of 25 ft. for both sides. The purpose for this requested variance to the side yard setback requirements was to make the greatest effort at saving trees on the property. Planner Enger stated that Staff felt the requested variance was warranted considering the number of trees on the property. In addition, proponents were requesting a variance to allow for 25 ft. front yard setbacks, instead of 30 ft. front yard setbacks, in order to keep the structures and building areas farther away from the steep slope at the back of the lots. Staff was also recommending in favor of this requested variance. Ruebling asked if the lots along Purgatory Creek still required variances from the Shoreland Management provisions of the City Code. Planner Enger explained that revisions had been made to the plat design whereby the previously requested Shoreland Management variances were no longer necessary. Mr. Bob Millier, 8900 Knoliwood Drive, expressed concern regarding the impact of the development on wildlife and trees in the area. He asked about the proposed price of the homes. Mr. Boyce responded that the homes would cost between $150-200,000. Mr. Millier asked how many of the existing trees would be removed. Mr. Dennis Marhula, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed grading plan with Mr. Millier, pointing out the areas of trees which would be preserved. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres, for Westover Woods, based on revised plans dated May 8, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 25, and May 9, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Corporation for Planned Unit /3/0 • r Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 12, 1986 Development Concept Amendment on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 11.9 acres, for Westover Woods, based on revised plans dated May 8, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of April 25, and May 9, 1986. Motion carried--7-O-0 MOTION 4: - Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 39 single family lots, two outlets, and road right-of-way, based on revised plans dated May 8, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of April 25, and May 9, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 1311 • Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 28, 1986 E. WESTOVER WOODS, by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 98.9 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 11.9 acres with variances and Shoreland Management variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 15 acres and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 42 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway and New Cumberland Road intersection. A public hearing. Mr. Richard Putnam, proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. He discussed the development in terms of its relationship to the surrounding existing land uses. Mr. Putnam stated that, with respect to the Staff concerns regarding the Shoreland Management regulations, the structures proposed in the development were similar to those already constructed in adjacent plats which were subject to Shoreland Management regulations. He added that the trees that were to be removed as part of the Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 28, 1986 L construction process were not quality trees, but more "brush" type vegetation. Mr. Dennis Marhula, engineer for proponent, reviewed utility and street design details with the Commission. He noted that the street had been realigned in order to maintain as many of the mature trees as possible. Mr. Marhula reviewed the proposed grading plan and the location of the mature trees. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of April 25, 1986. He stated that one of Staff's major concerns was the impact of the proposed development upon Purgatory Creek. He added that Staff was also concerned about the preservation of the trees on the property, in particular those along the slopes. Planner Franzen then reviewed the proposed alternative plans for development of the site as suggested in the Staff Report. Gartner stated that she felt a compromise may be in order in terms of the density for the proposed development; however, she stated that she felt the proponents should meet the requirements of the Shoreland Management portion of the Code. Chairman Schuck stated that he concurred with Gartner regarding the Shoreland Management provisions. He added that he was concerned that.the ) entire ridge, which was the location of the secondary growth of trees and brush, not be completely taken out. Anderson and Bye concurred. Mr. Jim McGlennen, 8888 Knollwood Drive, expressed concern about the impact of the development upon Purgatory Creek. He also expressed concern about the impact upon the wild life in the area. He stated that he had no objection to the housing proposed, but that he was concerned about the removal of the vegetation in this area. Planner Enger stated that the alternative plans proposed by the Staff would eliminate approximately the same amount of vegetation as that proposed by the developer. However, trees would remain behind the homes along the slope and the Shoreland Management requirements would be met. Mr. Keith Orner, 8880 Knollwood Drive, stated that he would prefer to see the creek corridor remain in its natural state as much as possible. He stated that he also felt the density could be decreased to 30-35 lots in order to impact the land less. Mr. Marhula stated that the center portion of the development could be adjusted to accommodate RI-9.5 lots. He asked if the five lots located along the north were satisfactory to the Commission as shown. Planner Enger stated that he felt there may be validity to having the interior lots of the development be R1-9.5; however, he noted that the current proposal was for the development of the entire property as R1-9.5, but that the majority of the lots did not meet R1-9.5 minimum dimensional requirements. Mr. Putnam stated that he was uncertain that any further adjustment could be 1313 • ( Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 28, 1986 made to the plan, except to propose multiple family residential development on the property. Mr. McGlennen stated that the run-off due to tree loss on his property was a serious problem. He stated that he felt this would be a problem for the lots of this proposed development which backed up to the creek, too, since the topography was even steeper than for his lot. Gartner, Dodge, and Chairman Schuck stated that they felt the five lots along the north were satisfactory as shown. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to continue the public hearing to the May 12, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, pending revisions to be made by the developer prior to additional Planning Commission review. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Ruebling. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. (41 134 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #86-125 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ANDERSON LAKES CENTER FOR ANDERSON LAKES CENTER PARTNERSHIP BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Anderson Lakes Center for Anderson Lakes Center Partnership, dated May 28, 1986, consisting of 15 acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots for construction of a commercial center, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 3rd day of June, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk II fv �_ ' STAFF REPORT v TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner HR UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Manning DATE: May 9, 1986 PROJECT: Anderson Lakes Center LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and U.S. #169. APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Anderson Lakes Center Partnership REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. 2. Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into three lots and two oultots. rilketit 4,.ti «,•):i c0 i OFC Background : 5�.e,. This is a continued item from the ;w - ; �; a r� ,t. April 2B, 1986, Planning Commission ,►.; 't M :�,a '�`x �j' �� meeting. At that time, Staff ( 'W' `r_ ` �-. - . identified a number of concerns 4•Q' Y•y . ,r a e1;, ing the proposed project. : �^ ;& x ,�. ,•, ,' 77-'''*- surround � The following Staff Report sum- <��,�^ - 'r.ft °'r.� -.' R.Mr-,Se i,: C' , <, marizes the issues left unresolved u ti-'a '2 at the last meeting and describes v - • t/,, the proposed changes made by the ,w1- r r ye` �I' �E proponent. e, .I: s 7 Site Plan . � .'-A Al / Y One of the primary concerns of the +�h •• ` st.'gy;' previous Staff Report regarding site ,` y planning details was a lack of internal green space on the site. .. In designing this project, proposed ,, ��`; lot line variances on all of tee PROPOSED SITE I WI, lots which essential) eliminated the 20-foot green space which ,••••.,.., b.- . jnormally occurs between lot lines. OOQ�.: F,j O�t One of the design concepts that the - ►44....�* �� , aura— proponents used to support the _ , �� rl� ��// - . _ ,,......• 1 -s•ie*. .41, ..p.; 1� ac AREA LOCATION MAP /31G Anderson Lakes Center 2 May 9, 1986 internal lot line variances was the amount of green space which was to be left around the perimeter of the site. This included a 35-foot front yard setback on Columbine Road, Anderson Lakes Parkway, and U.S. #169. In addressing this issue, Staff looked at the Code requirement for a minimum of 5% of planting islands within the parking lot. The proponent has since revised the parking lot plan to show a number of landscape planting islands within the parking lot, equaling approximately 8%. Access and Parking The orientation of the fast-food restaurant with the possibility of queueing occuring into the right-turn from Anderson Lakes Parkway was also a concern of Staff. Proponents response to this site planning detail was to completely eliminate the fast-food drive-in window orientation, thus solving any potential problems. In reviewing the new site plan, Staff directed the proponent to redesign the entrance off Anderson Lakes Parkway for better access to the site. By increasing the throat length of the right-turn in/right-turn out, and redesigning the parking layout, a more efficient traffic circulation pattern has been created. In addition, the drive along the western property line has been redesigned allowing for a 28-foot aisle width with parking occuring within 111 feet of the property line. The purpose for the increase in parking spaces at this location is to meet the parking requirements on this site. Based on the amount of square footage and on the number of parking spaces provided, a variance will be required from the parking Code. The proponent is providing 187 plus 22 proof-of-parking spaces which calculates out to a ratio of 6.00 spaces per 1,000 square feet for retail, and one space per three seats for the fast-food restaurants. What would be required are 252 number of spaces, thus a variance of 43 parking spaces would be required. Prior to the 2nd Reading of the City Council, the variances shall be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. In regards to the access drive along the north property line, the proponent has provided a ten- foot green space which shall be planted at this time to help break up the extension of shared property lines to the north. Although the proposed narrative, submitted by the proponent, states that the temporary access off U.S. #160 is still being pursued, the most recently submitted plans do not depict this. Staff is not in a position to recommend a temporary access off U.S. #169 at this time. Reasons for this include the amount of access available to the site presently including both a free right-turn in off Anderson Lakes Parkway and a full access off Columbine Road and the lack of future plans for the development of the property to the north. Grad inq In response to the concern regarding screening of the "service side" of the building of the large retail building and of the parking areas, the proponent was asked to provide additional berming along the perimeter of the site. This has been accomplished with a maximum berm height at the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Columbine Road of ten feet with the remainder averaging approximately six feet in height. However, nothing has been done along the north property line to screen the views of the parking areas from U.S. #169. Staff recommends that the proponent submit site lines from U.S. #169 along with a revised plan designed to screen views into the site. Landscaping The most recently submitted landscape plan contains 260 caliper inches of plant material. Based on the proposed grading plan, Staff would request that additional /3?,1 Anderson Lakes Center 3 May 9, 1986 coniferous trees be planted around the perimeter of the site to help screen the parking and loading areas. In addition, the size of the plant material must meet the Code requirement for a percentage of plant material ranging in size from 21 caliper inches to 4 caliper inches. Architecture Areas of concern presented in the previous report included the back of the building which was considered the "service side" having no specific architectural treatment and the whole concept of the strip center type architecture. The proponent has responded by a continuation of the building materials and colors including face brick, wood, metal, from the front of the building towards the rear. In addition, within the two recesses along the back of the building, the proponent has added a canopy type element which gives it the appearance of the front of the building. Secondly, there was concern about the strip mall design of this building. In response, the proponent has increased the canopy width in the front of the building to a minimum of eight feet, thus allowing for the possibility of future enclosure of this building. The proponent is in the process of developing a color scheme and selecting building materials which should be available for the Planning Commission meeting. Signage and Lighting The proponent has submitted some conceptual drawings of proposed signage and lighting. Lighting shall be 20-foot downcast cut-off luminars and also signage shall conform to the City Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request for the Rezoning of approximately 4.3 acres from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial and Preliminary Plat of 15.02 acres into three lots and two outlots based on plans dated April 4, 1986, revised and submitted May 6, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated May 9, 1986, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Modify the landscape plan to include additional coniferous plantings around the perimeter of the site thus aiding the screening of the parking and loading areas. The landscape plan must meet the minimum requirements of the landscape ordinance. B. Along with site lines, submit revised plans depicting the screening of parking areas from U.S. #169. C. Submit building material samples and colors for review by Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council. D. Eliminate the temporary access from U.S. #169 onto the site. 2. Prior to Final plat, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility plans for review by the City Engineer. / r(. • Anderson Lakes Center 4 May 9, 19B6 B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. C. Receive approval from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the variances including the number of parking stalls, internal lot lines, setbacks, lot size, and signage variances if any are required. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Provide detailed signage and lighting details. 4. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing. ii C 1819 STAFF REPORT { 10: Planning Commission FROM: Donald Uram, Assistant Planner HR UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 25, 1986 PROJECT: Anderson Lakes Center LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and U.S. #169 APPLICANT EEC OWNER: Anderson Lakes Center Partnership REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. 2. Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots. Background �" '"" .i a•.1f, � 4 kN 7)rA 5I' OFC This site is currently designated on t..t �; P x- rr the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide �Fa� u a y Plan for Neighborhood Commercial 7 +,,r4 ,� '71;i7 \.+ w 'S a f. S apda tY.`St land uses. Surrounding designations " ;Yd� ` ri ~`r`‘ *''= '•: within the immediate vicinity , w. *� -, rr v 3. include Office to the north and :•r �.�',,br a rr rn ,Y�I' ' south, High Density Residential to t ^"r� y.1 JC rAM k ;r+! RM-2: the west, and Neighborhood Com 1. � 4 .fir 1 .�,, mercial to the east. Specific land .A71)1 ;`,3�*`f� ar"- r I�/ t." uses inc lude the Eden Place it Imp ' Apartment complex to the west, �A , 'i � ro '�-TS currently zoned RM-2.5; Parkway 15i- w�n , ` Office/Service Center, zoned Neigh- �?`dii� �, borhood Commercial to the east; and 'k•, • r `� r. vacant ,,`property to the north and ` a� ;� south. This project is bounded by U.S. #169 to the east, Anderson .R Y o . Lakes Parkway to the south, and r PikTOBUI6, • Columbine Road to the west. PROPOSED SITE '6.1> It�1,'*+t Land Use J r.f��,.• Proposed land uses on this site •;� >0.44,0 ��i7.1•L ,01 ev��. or include a retail building containing - ��•"A4.1 �� ri �11 21,240 square feet, an additional ��, 4.411 ROAD .• ' � •ry + ,efrw.41 Is. AREA LOCATION P • ��© MAP Anderson Lakes Center 2 April 25, 1986 retail building containing 5,000 square feet, and a fast-food restaurant containing approximately 3,600 square feet. Designated as neighborhood commercial, these types of land uses would be acceptable in this particular location. The site plan also shows a conceptual drawing of how the remainder of the 15-acre tract of land might be developed. This land is currently guided for Office and the proposed site plan depicts these types of uses. In particular, there are two office structures containing approximately 41,600 square feet and 27,000 square feet respectively. The concept plan for the remainder of the property also shows three small retail buildings averaging approximately 5,000 square feet. In a previous staff report written for the Eden Place Apartment complex dated July 5, 1985, Staff commented on the neighborhood commercial site to the south and stated that this development should not be over four acres in size. What the concept plan shows is an additional two acres also designated for commercial type retail uses. Staff has concerns regarding this and would recommend that the concept plan not be approved with additional retail at this time, but could entertain an actual proposal if adequately substantiated in the future. Site Plan The site plan depicts the construction of three buildings on a 4.3-acre tract of land. Two of the buildings are proposed for use as retail spaces with a fast-food restaurant on the corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and U.S. #169. The larger retail buildings would contain 21,240 square feet while the smaller retail area would contain 5,000 square feet. The fast-food is proposed at a gross square footage of f approximately 3,600. Based on these square footages, an 18.4% Floor Area Ratio ( (FAR), a 16% FAR, and an 8% FAR, are achieved respectively. Overall, a 15.6% FAR has been calculated. A maximum FAR of 20% is allowed in a neighborhood commercial zoning district for a single-story building. Because each building is to be under separate ownership, this 4.3-acre site is to be divided into three lots containing 0.71 acres, 1.01 acres, and 2.65 acres. The Code requires that a minimum lot size in a Neighborhood Commercial zoning district is 2 acres. Based on the proposed plan, there are two lots which do not meet this requirement as well as other minimum requirements including setbacks and parking. The applicant is aware of this and will apply to the Board of Appeals for variances. In reviewing the plan, Staff looked at the overall site plan in concept. Three major concerns which need to be addressed include the lack of open space internal to the site, the location of the north property line in regards to driveway placement, and the circulation pattern for the fast-food restaurant (discussed in Access and Parking). With the lot lines and parking areas designed with no side yard setbacks, a substantial amount of internal green space has not been provided on this plan. If the zoning requirements had been met, a setback of 10 feet to parking along each side of the property lines would be required. This would break up the expanse of parking lot needed to service this development. (See Attachment A) In requesting a variance, Staff points out that while internal green space is less than what is required should each lot develop individually, the plan does provide for a 35-foot setback from the adjacent roadways. While this may help substantiate a variance, staff is not convinced that they should be supported. With this in mind, Staff recommends two options which could be considered. The first option would be to increase the size of the planting islands within the parking lot and Anderson Lakes Center 3 April 25, 1986 adding additional landscaping to help "soften" the views (see Attachment B). Due to the increase in planting island size, a minimum of 14 parking spaces would need to be eliminated, resulting in a building square footage loss of 2,334. In addition, the five-foot sidewalk along the western edge of the 5,000 square foot retail building is inadequate and should be increased to a minimum of eight feet. Also, the aisle along the western edge of the site behind the larger retail building is only 23 feet in width. Because there is parking occuring along this drive, the plans shall be revised to reflect a 25-foot aisle width. The second option, should a variance not be substantiated, is to acquire additonal property to allow each individual site to meet the proper zoning requirements. Another concern of Staff is the use of shared access and parking for the remainder of the site to the north. Although this part of the plan is in concept only, the continuation of this idea is unacceptable. Because of this, Staff recommends that additional property be acquired to allow for the north access off Columbine Road to be included entirely within the current project, thus setting the stage for proper development of the northern site (see Attachment C). Access and Parking Access to this site would be provided by a right-turn in, right-turn out only drive off Anderson Lakes Parkway and a full access off Columbine Road. Staff feels that the proposed access at these locations would adequately serve both the retail site and the proposed office area to the north. The applicant is proposing to construct a temporary drive from U.S. #169 through the office site to the north and connecting to the proposed drive off Columbine Road. Due to the fact that there is adequate access existing off Anderson Lakes Parkway and Columbine Road, Staff recommends that this temporary drive should not be permitted from U.S. #169. Problems associated with the proposed access and parking circulation design include the five parking spaces which back out into the drive access from Columbine Road along the eastern boundary of the 5,000 square foot retail pad and the circulation pattern for the fast-food restaurant. The five parking spaces are part of the parking area and by Code is not allowed. Staff recommends that these five spaces be removed and placed elsewhere on this site. An alternative location for these would be in the proof-of-parking area in the southwest corner of this site. The drive-in window for the fast-food restaurant is oriented so that the driveway is located right off the exit point from Anderson Lakes Parkway. Stacking distance for the drive-in window at this point is approximately 160 feet. Based on past experience with queuing at peak periods, Staff considers 160 feet marginal. Based on this and the desire to never allow queuing at peak periods to interfere with traffic exiting from Anderson Lakes Parkway, Staff recommends a reorientation of the building. Suggestions incorporated within other drive-in designs (McDonald's, Burger King) include primarily the opportunity to allow queuing within their own parking lot rather than interfering with off-site traffic. Parking on this site is provided at six cars per 1,000 square feet for the retail building and one car per three seats for the fast-foot restaurant. Based on a total square footage of 26,240 for retail space and 105 seats for the restaurant, the number of parking spaces calculated and provided is 192. The Code requirement for retail parking is 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This would mean that for the retail portion of this site a total of 170 parking spaces would be required. The i�aa Anderson Lakes Center 4 April 25, 1986 total Code requirement for this site would be 245 spaces, or 53 spaces more than what is provided. In the list of variances the applicant has provided, they have identified a parking variance to allow them to park at six cars per 1,000 square feet for retail space. In the past, retail buildings have been parking at approximately six cars per 1,000 square feet which has been adequate. Grading Elevations on this site range from a high point of 894 in the northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Columbine Road to a low point of 870 in the northeast corner of this site adjacent to U.S. #169. The site slopes gently in an eastward direction across the site with an even slope occuring over this site. The adjacent roadways are approximately level with this site, which makes it difficult for berming along the edges of the property. Grading on this site could be described as a general leveling of this site to allow for building pad and parking lot construction. The mass grading plan also includes grading for the temporary drive access off U.S. #169. Staff is not recommending approval of this temporary drive and because of this, the extent of grading off-site should be limited to that proposed for the extension of the access from Columbine Road. As mentioned, because the grades of the adjacent streets are approximately equal to that of the site, berming is difficult on this site. Some berming has been attempted at the corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Columbine Road. Staff is recommending that berming be maximized adjacent to all roadways. Because the amount of berming possible on this site is minimal and due to the requirement to screen parking and loading areas, any berming must be supplemented with mass plantings. Landscaping Based on total square footage of 29,840, a total of 93 caliper inches of landscape material is required. The landscape plan is providing a total of 209 caliper inches. However, due to the fact that substantial berming on this site to screen parking and loading areas is not possible, additional plant material will be required along the perimeter of the site. The Planning Staff recommends that the number of caliper inches of trees be increased to also help screen the parking and loading areas. Architecture Due to the proposed construction phasing of this neighborhood commercial center, specific architectural plans have been submitted for the two retail buildings while only a design framework manual has been submitted for the fast-food restaurant. Proposed plans state that the construction of the larger building shall begin immediately within an anticipated opening in the Fall of 1986 and construction of the two smaller buildings beginning as soon as tenants are found. The larger retail building measures 16 feet in height, 70 feet in width, and 352 in • length. Total square footage equals 21,240. The small retail building contains 5,000 square feet and measures 50 feet in width and 100 feet in length. Primary building materials include face brick, glass, and colored metal canopies and narrow horizontal bands of wood siding (tongue and groove cedar). The specific architectural elements on the larger building include jogs in the building, continuation of "front side" architecture around the building and other Anderson Lakes Center 5 April 25, 1986 detail work such as canopies and greenhouse windows. While these items add interest to the building, Staff does not feel that it adequately addresses the overall "strip mall" appearance of this project. In particular, the "service" side of the building, which measures 352 feet in length, and is the location of seven service entrances is highly visible from the adjacent roadways and the Eden Place Apartment complex. In order to provide a more esthetically pleasing view from these locations, Staff recommends that the plans be revised to reflect more of a "front side" architecture along the rear of the building. This may include the extension of the canopy around the sides of the building and other detailed work in addition to an increase in the berming and plantings designed to help screen these loading areas. Also, the plan shall be revised to increase the width of the canopy in the front of the building which shall be extended to allow for at some future date the possibility of enclosing this mall. The small retail building is also a very typical design and would benefit from the same recommendations as those made for the larger building. Rooftop mechanical equipment for all buildings will be screened by elements that are integral with building facades such as the proposed parapet wall. Additionally, the rooftop units will be painted to match the buildings. Proponent shall agree to provide additional mechanical equipment screening should on-site inspection reveal that the proposed screening is not adequate. Utilities Water and sanitary sewer services are available to this site. Utilities in this vicinity include an eight-inch water line and an eight-inch sewer line located within Columbine Road right-of-way. Extensions for these services will be made to the proposed buildings. Storm sewer is also available to this site. Drainage will be in an easterly and westerly direction. The storm sewer along the eastern property line is designed to flow across the parking lot into the catch basin system and emptying into the U.S. #169 right-of-way. Drainage along the western property line will be captured in a catch basin system, collected and deposited into a 15-inch storm sewer system located within Columbine Road. Signage and Lighting Lighting and signage details have not been provided for Staff review at this time. Details regarding the signage shall be required prior to City Council review. Lighting shall be 20-foot downcast luminars and all signage shall conform to the City Code. Pedestrian System The proposed trail system in this area includes an 8 foot bituminous trail along the south side of Anderson Lakes Parkway and along the west side of Columbine Road, and a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along the east side of Columbine Road. Due to its nature as a neighborhood commercial center, Staff recommends the plans be revised to include a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along the north side of Anderson Lakes Parkway. 4 In addition, the plans shall be revised to include the appropriate sidewalk connections into the interior of the site as well as an internal pedestrian system between the buildings. • Anderson Lakes Center 6 April 25, 1986 Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat depicts a division of Outlot B, Eden Place Apartments into three lots and two outlots. Total area of this site is 15.2 acres and has been broken down into two phases. Phase-1 (retail) containing 5.06 acres and Phase 2 (office) which would contain 9.96 acres. Phase 1 shall be divided into three lots containing 0.71 acres, 1.01 acres, and 2.65 acres, and one outlot containing 0.69 acres which shall be used for highway right-of-way. The remainder of the site (9.96 acres) will be placed into Outlot B and proposed for future office development. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the Commission feels comfortable with the proposed site plan, Staff would recommend approval of the request for a rezoning of approximately 4.3 acres from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial, and Preliminary Plat of 15.02 acres into three lots and two outlots, based on plans dated April 4, 1986, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 25, 1986, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Modify the site plan to depict the elimination of five parking spaces along the northern edge of the 5,000 square foot retail pad and placing those spaces within the a proof-of-parking area located in the southwest corner of the site. B. Modify the site plan for the fast-food restaurant to provide a new location for the drive-in window and to allow for queuing within the parking lot. C. Based on Commission direction, modify the plans to reflect either an increase in planting island sizes as outlined in Option 1 of the site plan section, or an increase in property size as outlined in Option 2. D. Revise the plans to reflect additional green space along the western edge of the 5,000 square feet retail building and a 25-foot aisle width along the western property line. E. Modify the plans to show the acquisition of additional property along the north boundary to allow for the driveway to be located entirely on the property currently proposed for development. F. Revise plans to include a five-foot concrete sidewalk along the north side of Anderson Lakes Parkway and provide the appropriate interior connections and internal pedestrian circulation system between the buildings. G. Revise the architecture for the larger retail building in terms of ff design and a need for additional articulation and detail. H. Submit building material samples and colors for review. I. Eliminate the temporary access from U.S. #169 onto the site. Anderson Lakes Center 7 April 25, 1986 J. Because substantial berming is not possible, proponent shall modify the landscape plan to provide additional screening for the parking areas and loading areas at the back side of the larger retail building. Proponent shall submit additional site lines from adjacent properties and roadways to show the effect of any proposed screening. K. Proponent shall agree to provide additional mechanical equipment screening should any on-site inspection reveal that the screening currently proposed is not adequate. L. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal. 2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control and utility plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Provide detailed signage and lighting plans. 4. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 4B hours in advance of grading. B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing. If the Commission is uncomfortable with the number of unresolved issues, then one coarse of action would be to return the plans to the proponent for revisions. Ira( _U.S. 169 and 212 • ,rguration shown — —\ t by Highway Department' * 1, i 20 FEET 1'. 1 taw LOuw T 4- f hwN A t'* • LOT 2r- a, - :.71 acres ,! ,—_ mtR l'` 1:01 acted-. ,'�iatrt 4t/ • > fri; ...., . screened `, — ?cl J a -----sr a d•c••' 1 I =�� `� drive-uD 1 - ,Y /r .•. r ` r �_.._. // . -tail-P:- -st Foo• 3r a IVQ v 1 fit}' 000•! 1'- ✓'_. I JJ 1/,i...l .QO •• 0I Ft1lay area _ '' LD ^, 'rr if 1 ---"-----'7c........ $ 1T:, Ir r / ' ... `Fr r 1 t 1r �I r � �.. • .firyrL if .i' a � pppp1 7f r) {mot _ a �tYla �i) , , Ir'�"�rj N Q pia/1 t/ •r-, i 1 I/i t F..L. r , 1 1 i ft , 1 - / to II 1 L . �,I6 12,1I,;;1 r . .._.PROPOS l-E t 4 '_` - c tawo tmmnr to j. - _ t • F E ET< s 1 - 'i 1 yt .i i t 197 care(see chart below) i � 9ap+G .i Ao I1 ! ' r ca, �' ' : 4. 8 cores overall' i�!t�'I '. 1 a/ a YI -GPI f=; \ • l 1 a 1; f Retail Leaseholds; _• 1,�,, 3� -�� j 1, 40 gsf' ("h rllnt'In ``.�-, •r.1• . Illy ` �`.19.►, /'._��• , ..- - _ �,_ wo.p=loe! i or addtttaoal partanq / . �. 1dodn prrin9 total' Parking ( ATTACHMENT A MINIMUM SIDEYARD SETBAC'r: j3a-) . ..... . . . ...- U.S. 169 and 212 •• _._ ---- ,. ._ .... . • .. - .oration shown — \ . umws.t... ... iy Highway Department' I: _ •- -....— UM 111 Ma ... - leer \ ..-- Lot/I.." -1-1ssoo.m'' •Lot 2,-, 7. - • .-,,,,,,,ty>\ > "-.71 aCree - --".—"-- ../' -• '. screened tr h -• — —..1 1- •••• 3 1- i... , ,..., .,, - • _-_,..t -see Jittac.•- • . drivel-ti. — i 1... • 1 "" • -ir• -7 - : -tail 4 .st Foos 3601 g .7 ,...:,:', . - • Li I :. ''' ••itmak).1 far area `••\ , I I • ; 7---------J 4- '-'--. 5000 .s..f.• t ' !--,--i-/-1 I 1 e -/ '1'1 ------- --- n \ • • i 1-Lf,11*j' • ,. Mr . . • - iii ' 1 LI,i r• .-- ..........• - : .- 31 I 1 i ' '`L.Z.-..". 1 ••?.•r_l±:I i:_i.: t I ,1.'777• ....... t . C ."..".........1 1 _LI i i i• - _ tvp . ' i // . , 0 . ; i... # "i ''; / : /• , r ..-1 t. e) - , ' / . ../ r., ;.,,t,„. 1.--.,-' 6,7;, ,, -• _ ,, ( •••• . "i „.,, , , t-i • 1.10 , 1---1--4;.• , , ,§ ....- ,, —.!,—. umniumesumateusuututnete iiiii otuneesol-t.4 - 4447c. ,. ' t 197 Cart(see chart below) , .. ' : ie ' ' . I / I ' • • - ' • i r..1 • •. iS . 438 aer overall' • i / , e, ---.AI?, i ., • ---- t•' 1 o ..... ••.:. ! • 1 , • '\ • •Ei : i il .1__IX 1 ,. -.•••......„,!topy . • : i P • 1 • I . ....... ••.e.,i • ' 1 ! • 4 /.,t4 T. i. I ' : , "" ' . -- '.` Retail Leaseholds; , g, • , - :.-1, -i -/ • .4. ! -I .... .,,.....'-1 ,-,, •,&.• 4U S1'. 4 :fr ''Ir 1 4,,.....--,..............., ........r.............:..fti.............._ 1, .--•-•'''' ' ) , -1 \ • 1 :ti .... -- ••• 'N.., .--, "".....,_ ,1..P. lI• 1.'s.\ , , — ...„, .., , , ' I ' ''. ,-.1 .• 1 '. t • . .. ..---.-_ . V • •".• I '''.• — .-----.. - __.... 1 ••••... .-...... 1 t2...‘,/ I. ' .1 i . - - -.-..... .-4o,i.... s,. ........1 i r.. , , •- ,_ . - .. - Parking • ( ATTACHMENT B . . INCREASED PLANTING ISLAND SIZE /34 . .. _ .. . .. U.S. 169 and 212 �.— ration Shown — 'Highway Department - — • Mil to VW - i' Y Lot�.•. 4wN/,11? .Lot 2r-..i IP?' \ • ,.71 serer; -7-- ,Mc„— ,.. 1.01 acteg.: •.4(hrt a f\ > / / _ t (C ttl lei"' screened tr.11 Z , _ — —sc sea ;ds, drroe-uP t'. 1 �, Y ,J gt.d .1, t _ 1.. 1 © -tail ,_ -st Foo• 36 r 9 —.al •. s. �;'` m n4 b Y area I, 07 5000 .�f- ' ' �— I ;� - .-4`};;,, ,_PROPOS 1 , , , ^ , IIuu1111111tuuun111nnuImsullnlntnnnntuntnut/r-4 it- _ ' i ~`.. ; 197 eare(see chart Celina) `i1Q'� ' • ` .: r 4. 0 acres overall', _ 1_. 1 !� • l Retail Leaseholds; Z 1 �- i s �_ • . '1,�240 OSf' 3.. Y o ...Lt.�� / f' I 41 — ---- . - _ _ '" . y' _ .� --_ \ ` yumf o,sescrc.r1 per4nq , 1ie?.�Min ps'tl_.9 ta tolrf 5 111 y —marking • ATTACHMENT C • NE'N LOT LINE LOCATION lan'' Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 12, 1986 B. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER, by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots for construction of a commercial center. Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing. Planner Uram reviewed the revisions to the plans which had taken place since the meeting of April 28, 1986. Mr. Dan O'Brien, architect for proponents, reviewed the changes to the architecture of the plans, indicating the types of materials to be used on the structures, and explaining the screening features. He also reviewed the proposed signage for the structures in detail. It was noted that one of the materials for use on the exterior of the structure would be epoxy paint. Bye asked if each business would be using similar lettering in their signs. Mr. O'Brien responded that the type of materials and amount of area for signs used by the individual businesses would be similar; however, each business would be allowed to use its own logo according to their current signage plan. Bye stated that she did not feel this was the most appropriate way to handle the signage based on view of this method of signage shown on the elevations by the architects. She suggested that the signage area would be easier to read, less congested, if the businesses were required to use similar lettering, or more uniform lettering styles. Mr. O'Brien stated that this was something that the owners could consider. Gartner asked if traffic to the fast-food restaurant could be controlled in the future in the event that a drive-through window was requested to be added back into the plans in the future. Planner Enger stated that this was a matter of concern to the Staff during initial review of the project. He that the resolution to the problem for this revision to the plan was to eliminate the drive-through. However, if a request for a drive-through was presented in the future, the same traffic problems would be present. Gartner asked if the proponents would be required to return to the Planning Commission and City Council if a request for the addition of a drive-through pJ Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 12, 1986 for the fast-food restaurant was made in the future. Planner Enger responded that this would be the case. Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Anderson Lakes Center Partnership for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of a commercial center, based on revised plans dated May 6, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 25, and May 9, 1986. Motion carried--7-O-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Anderson Lakes Center Partnership for Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into three lots and two outlots for construction of a commercial center, based on revised plans dated May 6, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 25, and May 9, 1985. Motion carried--7-O-0 l ft • Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 28, 1986 4 { D. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER, by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 4.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots for construction of a commercial center Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing. Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponents, reviewed the site characteristics and development proposal with the Commission. He also reviewed the recommended changes to the plans in the Staff Report of April 25, 1986. He noted that the plans had been amended to include redesign of the stacking aisle for the proposed fast food restaurant. Mr. Brauer stated that the shared access shown on the site was intended to aid in providing for better traffic circulation throughout the site. He added that the proponents would prefer to keep the right-in only access from south-bound Highway #169. /332 Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 28, 1986 Regarding the recommendation for additional green space in the plan, Mr. Brauer stated that proponents had amended the plan to meet the City Code requirements as recommended in the Staff Report. Mr. Dan O'Brien, architect for proponent, reviewed the exterior materials and architecture of the structure. He also presented sight lines from the various public roads, in particular from Columbine Road. Planner Uram reviewed the Staff Report of April 25, 1986. He stated that it appeared that the majority of the issues raised in the report could be worked out with the proponents. Planner Uram stated that there were still concerns regarding the architecture, orientation of the fast food restaurant, and internal green space. Gartner asked about the proposed shared driveway. Planner Enger stated that while Staff did not disagree with the idea of shared access and parking for provision of better circulation, the Staff did not feel that shared access should be done to the exclusion of the internal green space on the property. He added that he felt this could be worked out with the proponents before the next Planning Commission meeting. Planner Enger stated that Staff was also concerned that this not serve as a precedence for elimination of all the side lot lines in the remaining 15 acres of this commercial area, nor for the elimination of internal green space in the remainder of this rr commercial area. t. Ruebling stated that he concurred with Staff's comments regarding the stacking patterns of the fast food restaurant portion of the plan. MOTION: Move to continue the to the May 12, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, pending revision of the plans per the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 25, 1986, and as discussed at this meeting. Motion carried--6-0-0 /'336 R.H. WILLIAMS SALES. INC. 5100 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD. SUITE 201 MINNEAPOUS,MINNESOTA 55435 • oa10)a35i713 May 20, 1986 • Chris Enger City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Rd Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Chris: This is to faormally notify you that we are withdrawing our application for re-zoning and guide plan change for a mini-storage location in Eden Prairie. This application was to have been heard before the City Council on June 3, 1986. Very truly yours, �GGw�,'�t i Gl[Ctane� Robert Williams H3 ! 4- CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-116 VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS ON LOT 10, BLOCK 1 CITY WEST WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has a certain drainage and utility easement described as follows: All that part of Lot 10, Block 1, City West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying 10 feet on each side of the following described centerline; commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 10; thence South 88 40' 35" West, assumed bearing, 150.97 feet along the south line of said Lot 10 to the point of beginning of said centerline of the easement to be vacated; thence North 53 10' 00" West 292.38 feet, more or less, to the west line of said Lot 10 and there terminating, less and except that part of the westerly 40 feet of said Lot 10. It is intended that the side lines of said easement are to be extended or shortened to intersect the south line of said Lot 10. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 3, 1986, after due notice was published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said easement is not necessary and has no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: ,1. Said drainage and utility easement as above described is hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. • ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk /33s— get' i .. •-•.- ‘...) . •.-- i.L _ . ...............•• ..,.„...., ... •••••••••••.....•.:•.. '.....) :;:: i. 1 I ; Nt... ..,.... •...... ma..••...r.•• . ,-.—o—-- • .°"9' .Sf •1011 5... . I : . ... ' ,•z: tr--------___, ..1-.....r.„:4,it.,,,,,,.....t.„..,_,.._,.- •••• ...„ .....)•• • ( 1.)_•11, i ‘ ; • ..: la- ' : , •\ 1 .' - -:: • o 0 . . ; . 0.,• i I . ..... I. . . . 0 0 r-7.— ::: !. • 7::ie 0 • • I " 1 • ....,1 lt .• (—) . ii.:11 05 ,.. I..• .. ' I I .:/ • .' • (...) s, I ! .,7-'*- ..• I.,.. • il-1.- :••••• 1;-:.' .._ ...-.. ..iz i • i • 1-• • 1. . I $7:. 1 .`1-.Z -'-'::::- . • L - Y • ....".1,.. (_, . i i'1.• 0 • Z..1 7 "" •••': I. -• a .. 1 :• Z .. . •.• a Z,?,g .. O'. t.,.i . .. ....7. , .. I " . .... . I ... 1 1!..0. ..ft .-; ' :,),.".•,. ••..itt•41.••°••,, • . :---7.:.-11.'; :-., . •••• I-I !•' !'I ::..4 1 I N;• :.• 1:•.•i:______ I i.`:.;t t ___ .-------7-------------_____-:: __i_d ILL..I'it 1 • . •;:::2::::.:--- .-LH.-- .- —----—:——————.4:- i .-if:'- -I I: . -.----------_____., --1-----,I`.'I ,. .._......... .,1,1,,,.,...,t.......,...:.?,t.1.!•....''',.. . Mt. .3:..----.-....—'—:• ,------.--..---.......... i• i ...'..... —..—......_.... " •°' —"....-...............:., ..............--...... .........•.—.... .......•......... : • . I •— . /3 3 6 .. • CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-117 VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ORAINAGE ANO UTILITY EASEMENTS IN HOYT ROBERTS ADOITION WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain right-of-way and drainage and utility easements described as follows: All that part of Technology Drive and all drainage and gtility easements as platted within Hoyt Roberts Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 3, 1986, after due notice was published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said right-of-way and drainage and utility easements are not necessary and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said right-of-way and drainage and utility easements as above described are hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a Notice of Completion of the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTEO.by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3, 1986. Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John O. Frane, Clerk I91"f • 1 I I ( ' . 1 it PRAIRIE‘ NNW aat.Z.41 Moir ris.-- % EDEN PRAIRIE .,.....INwOUSTRIAL CENTER ! 1‘ 1.--—-- 1,7 04 ' ••••• •••••••••.•-• la •• .1,. ** . lit*l' . 0... i 6,31' f 1 I 1 1 i • . NO •; . Z. i 0 !g I I % 0 ; -.4 4 4 1; 1 \ .111C 11 . ..I i i I II I% I q' • . t r ‘! I.; 111 C:102 i 'mow 'z :-; . ('. c .... . 1.,. . i: t t. .. . '.1/ , . OD . 1 . . ..,..., I ll!1 .1 f t i c . II :i 'i reerVe ' . . • - q 1444r5 II :4 lk 1 •4•11~Atm*VW TN MY,, ' g • Lao. ••Me 1.01M MALI••re*, 1.• ' ‘,.. •.,.. ZI 1. ' •.. Itrilit 1. 11.. %I ce ii z :- ,.. ft• IZ",,s ,A,.... ' :4*I 1 • • If.1.L — '".-grurloZ-r2r.........--.2-- L *,,... .:.7.-.,%-‘,„•:':::1;:-..T.0..;".§ ..„,,,,,,,,..... .„ ,::.,..:. ,SI I !.. • K....411 .4.....e.re. 1.:TODOPERA VE •: vie • -• ' ' •-- ' 1 . . .. . ..... f CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 86-I13 RESOLUTION OROERING IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS ANO SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 6th day of May fixed the 3rd day of June as the date for a public hearing on the following proposed improvements: I.C. 52-094, Baker Road Sanitary Sewer and Water Main WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the Council hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the 3rd day of June at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EOEN PRAIRIE CITY CDUNCIL: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered. 2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project and is hereby directed to prepare Plans and Specifications for the making of such improvement. AOOPTEO by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3, 1986. • Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk ta39 JUNE 3,1986 27205 VOID OUT CHECK 199.55- 27338 VOID OUT CHECK 77.63- '42 VOID OUT CHECK 6.75- \:. .,97 RUTH TRAASETH ELECTION JUDGE 6.75 27398 MARY UPTON ELECTION JUDGE 74.25 27399 ANN WILSON ELECTION JUDGE 42.75 27400 MARIE WITTENBERG ELECTIDN JUDGE 76.50 27401 ETHYL L WOKASCH ELECTION JUDGE 73.13 27402 JO ANN WRONSKI ELECTIDN JUDGE 93.50 27403 NIKKI L ANDERSON ELECTIDN JUDGE 77.63 274D4 LMC HOUSING HDTEL EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL MEMBER 150.00 27405 MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURSES FEE-RDUND LAKE PERMIT 10.00 27406 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 420.28 27407 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC SOFTBALL REGISTRATIONS/FEES PD 3072.D0 27408 MINNESOTA GREEN INDUSTRY EXPO '86 CONFERENCE-STREET DEPT 17.00 27409 EAGLE WINE CD LIQUOR 2422.44 27410 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1883.39 27411 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CD LIQUOR 2173.37 27412 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 1083.58 27413 GRIGGS COOPER & CD INC LIQUOR 377.95 27414 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 1054.78 27415 MARK VII SALES WINE 75.00 27416 PRIOR WINE CD WINE 197.05 27417 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 798.29 27418 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHDNE CO SERVICE 605.50 27419 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 21085.24 27420 JDYCE BELLEFEUILLE REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27421 BERNICE E BILLISON REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 22 RUSSELL BILLISON REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 k 423 MEGAN BROWN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 5.00 27424 IDA COBURN REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27425 FERN CONOR REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 34.50 27426 DDNNA DUNN REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27427 CURTIS D ERICKSDN REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27428 JOAN H ERICKSON REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27429 DALE ERRETT REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27430 MARCENE ERRETT REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27431 DEE ERVASTI REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27432 DONNITA R LEWIS REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27433 DANIEL MCLAUGHLIN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 1.50 27434 EARL MDRE REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27435 HELEN MORE REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.5D 27436 JDSHUA PUTKA REFUND-SWIMMING LESSDNS 12.00 27437 PATRICK NEIL SENESCALL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSDNS 5.75 2743E CAROL SHERIDAN REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27439 GENEVIEVE SUBERT REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27440 MARGARET TEWS REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.5D 27441 LEANN K THUN REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27442 WILLIAM WOUDSTRA REFUND-CANTERBURY DOWNS DAY 11.50 27443 TRAVELERS DIRECTORY SERVICE ADS-LIQUDR STORES 234.D0 27444 MINNESDTA GAS CO SERVICE 3283.57 27445 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 5-16-66 21265.81 27446 COMMISSIONER DF REVENUE PAYRDLL 5-16-86 9D99.46 2'447 STATE TREASURER PAYRDLL 5-16-86 17256.86 48 DEPARTMENT DF EMPLDYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 5-16-86 84.44 8707834 3(iC JUNE 3,1986 27449 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 5-16-86 10.00 27450 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 5-16-86 5073.00 • 51 ICMA RETIREMENT GROUP PAYROLL 5-16-86 2150.00 ,. ,52 PERA PAYROLL 5-16-86 63.00 27453 STATE TREASURER PAYROLL 5-16-86 18637.90 27454 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 5-16-86 221.50 27455 WILLIAM BERNHJELM SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 200.00 27456 EARL L JOHNSON SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 100.00 27457 GERALD MC COY SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 100.00 27458 MANCEL MITCHELL SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 100.00 27459 PATRICIA TIDGEWELL SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 200.00 27460 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 5-16-86 2442.13 27461 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK PAYROLL 5-16-86 200.00 27462 DIANE AHO REFUND-PRENATAL CLASS 26.00 27463 CAMILLA CARLSON REFUND-PRENATAL CLASS 26.00 27464 SHARI MOULDER REFUND-PRENATAL CLASS 26.00 27465 JULIE WAKER REFUND-PRENATAL CLASS 26.00 27466 AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE INSURANCE 358.20 27467 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERIES 65.00 27468 JEAN CHRISTENSEN REFUND-PRENATAL CLASS 26.00 27469 CHERYL DIEPHO REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 20.00 27470 SEMINAR REGISTRATION CONFERENCE-WATER DEPT 45.00 27471 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLL 5-16-86 600.00 27472 AIS CONSTRUCTION EQUIP CO BOLTS/NUTS/WASHERS-STREET DEPT 75.00 27473 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 27474 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE APRIL SALES TAX 13607.43 27475 TRACY OIL CO INC UNLEADED GASOLINE-STREET DEPT 7055.28 27476 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE-CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 368.00 ( 77 NORTHERN MESSENGER DELIVERY EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 18.90 2r4.78 LLOYD AUSHAM REFUND 5.00 27479 MINNESOTA GREEN INDUSTRY EXPO B6 CONFERENCE-PARK MAINTENANCE 42.50 274B0 JIM SIMONS REFUND 20.00 27481 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 91.48 27482 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 3357.00 27483 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 315.49 27484 EAGLE WINE CO LIQUOR 3625.39 27485 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 142.26 274B6 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 466.64 27487 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 25.75 27488 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE PP9.44 27489 QUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR 2516.09 27490 TWIN CITY WINE CO LIQUOR 5048.81 27491 DOUGLAS EDWARD ANDREWS FIREMAN CALLS 500.00 27492 LANCE MICHAEL BRACE FIREMAN CALLS 513.00 27493 DUANE J CABLE FIREMAN CALLS 462.00 27494 SPENCER LEE CONRAD FIREMAN CALLS 1569.00 27495 GENE E DAHLKE FIREMAN CALLS 626.00 27496 RICHARD R DEATON FIREMAN CALLS 894.00 27497 FRANKLIN P ELLERING FIREMAN CALLS 700.00 27498 CHARLES A FERN FIREMAN CALLS 981.00 27499 DAVID HANSON GILMORE FIREMAN CALLS 833.00 27500 CHARLES A GOBLE FIREMAN CALLS 869.00 27501 ROBERT R GRANT FIREMAN CALLS 724.00 7""12 RICK HAMMERSCHMIDT FIREMAN CALLS 641.00 g. J3 JOHN T HOBBS FIREMAN CALLS 993.00 78031I9 13440 A JUNE 3,1986 27504 WALTER C JAMES FIREMAN CALLS 505.00 27505 OUANE L JOHNSON FIREMAN CALLS 688.00 ;06 MICHAEL W JOHNSON FIREMAN CALLS 661.00 J07 RONALD 0 JOHNSON FIREMAN CALLS 2506.00 27508 OAVID T KING FIREMAN CALLS 90.00 27509 PENNY ELLEN KING FIREMAN CALLS 888.00 27510 DAVID 0 KRUEGER FIREMAN CALLS 575.00 27511 MARVIN A LAHTI FIREMAN CALLS 646.0D 27512 SANORA ANN LANDUCCI FIREMAN CALLS 554.00 27513 MAILAND EARL LANE FIREMAN CALLS 340.00 27514 BRADLEY E LARSDN FIREMAN CALLS 834.00 27515 JAMES W LINDGREN FIREMAN CALLS 620.00 275I6 ROBERT P LISTIAK FIREMAN CALLS 789.00 27517 LOWELL D LUND FIREMAN CALLS 859.00 27518 BRIAN GILL MCGRAW FIREMAN CALLS 745.00 27519 REGAN L MASSEE FIREMAN CALLS 377.00 27520 PHILIP MATHIOWETZ FIREMAN CALLS 1162.00 2752I JAMES LEE MATSON FIREMAN CALLS 755.00 27522 GARY LEE MEYER FIREMAN CALLS 1185.00 27523 RAYMOND I MITCHELL FIREMAN CALLS 796.00 27524 THOMAS MONTGOMERY FIREMAN CALLS 1316.00 27525 CURTIS OBERLANDER FIREMAN CALLS 882.00 27526 KEITH ANDREW OLSON FIREMAN CALLS 700.00 27527 JOHN PAFKO FIREMAN CALLS 983.00 27528 TIMOTHY JOHN PELTIER FIREMAN CALLS 864.00 27529 DOUGLAS LEE PLEHAL FIREMAN CALLS 1448.00 27530 GARY LEE RADTKE FIREMAN CALLS 427.00 2731 JOHN D RIEGERT FIREMAN CALLS 1141.00 ( 32 STANLEY A RIEGERT FIREMAN CALLS 683.00 2,333 JOHN D ROCHFORD FIREMAN CALLS 944.00 27534 MICHAEL J ROGERS FIREMAN CALLS 1662.00 27535 NORBERT H ROGERS FIREMAN CALLS 1078.00 27536 TIMOTHY A SATHER FIREMAN CALLS 1311.00 27537 CHARLES SCHAITBERGER FIREMAN CALLS 1332.00 2753B HARVEY HERMAN SCHMIDT FIREMAN CALLS 461.00 27539 LEE ALLEN SCHNEIDER FIREMAN CALLS 914.00 27540 GERALO M SCHWANKL FIREMAN CALLS 1059.00 27541 JOHN J SKRANKA FIREMAN CALLS 921.00 27542 GENE R SPANDE FIREMAN CALLS 554.00 27543 VERNON T STEPPE FIREMAN CALLS 512.00 27544 BURTON LEE SUTTON FIREMAN CALLS 1143.00 27545 MARC LEWIS THIELMAN FIREMAN CALLS 1425.00 27546 JAY C WHITING FIREMAN CALLS 460.00 27547 THOMAS D WILSON FIREMAN CALLS 696.00 2754B A COMMERCIAL DDDR CO SERVICE ON DOOR-P/W & PARK BLDG 64.0D 27549 A & H WELDING & MFG CO STRAINERS 228.30 27550 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC -PENDAFLEX FOLDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER & 42.34 FINANCE DEPT 27551 AMI PRODUCTS INC FILTER/FILLER SCREEN-STREET DEPT 175.32 27552 ANCHOR SCIENTIFIC INC MINI-FLOAT-FIRE DEPT 27.74 27553 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC INC -DECALS/DETOUR SIGNS/BUMP/RDAD NARROWS/ 908.30 FLASHER-STREET DEPT 27554 MARK J ANDERSEN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 336.00 5 AQUA ENGINEERING INC -BRASS SADDLE/POLY PIPE/CLAMP/BUSHING- 231.08 PARK MAINTENANCE 4050408 /3go.a JUNE 3,1986 27556 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC 8LACKTOP-STREET DEPT 571.10 27557 AVR INC CONCRETE-STREET DEPT 317.91 58 B R W INC -SERVICE-ANDERSON LAKES PKWY/EDEN ROAD/ 13369.58 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 27559 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC MUFFLER CLAMP/OIL FILTER-STREET DEPT 74.52 27560 BBC TOOL SUPPLY INC TOOLS-STREET DEPT 20.00 27561 LOIS BOETTCHER -SERVICE-PARKS & REC COMMISSION MEETING 100.50 MAY 5TH AND 19TH 27562 RICK BOLINISKI MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 74.75 27563 LEE M BRANDT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 336.00 27564 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE-CITY HALL/ANDERSON LAKES PKWY 3814.20 27565 BRUNSON INSTRUMENT CO -TAPE/FLAGGING/CRAYONS/BATTERY/PAINT/ 553.81 -GAMMON REEL/BAG/VEST-PARK MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING 27566 BSN CORP 6 SOCCER NETS-PARK MAINTENANCE 768.90 27567 MIKE BURGETT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 84.OD 27568 THE JE BURKE COMPANY -GALVANIZED LEGS/CARRIAGE BOLTS & NUTS- 165.60 PARK MAINTENANCE 27569 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC -FILE CABINET/LOCK IN DESK/TABLE/CHAIR- 896.50 PUBLIC SAFETY & HUMAN SERVICE COORDINATOR 27570 BUSINESSLAND CENTER #079 SERVICE-FIRE DEPT 525.00 27571 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 224.95 27572 CARDOX CORP CARBON DIOXIDE-WATER DEPT 1618.96 27573 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC SERVICE-EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1269.00 27574 CITICORP INDUSTRIAL CREDIT JUNE 1986 SERVICE 656.81 27575 CLEAN SWEEP INC STREET SWEEPING-STREET DEPT 3593.20 27576 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC CORE EXCHANGE/BEARING-STREET DEPT 431.71 21c77 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION -SERVICE-MITCHELL & HIGHWAY 169- 1500.26 6 ENGINEERING DEPT 2/ 78 JEFF CONRADI HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 46.50 27579 COPY EQUIPMENT INC PAPER/CLEANER/CORRECTOR-ENGINEERING DEPT 164.11 27580 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO BAND STAMPS/NAME PLATES-CITY HALL 94.90 27581 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 4213.88 27582 WARD F DAHLBERG APRIL 86 EXPENSES 80.00 27583 DALCO -CREVICE TOOL/LUGS/BLADE/LINE PADS- 115.45 PUBLIC SAFETY 27584 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE & EXPENSES 27.75 27585 JAY A DEDEHER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 56.00 27586 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT/CITY HALL/COMM CTR 321.63 27587 DRUMMOND AMERICAN CORPORATION SAMPLER KIT/SPRAYER-WATER DEPT 94.64 27588 DUO-SAFETY LADDER CORP 3 ALUMINUM LADDERS-PUBLIC SAFETY 2030.00 27589 EDEN PRAIRIE LIQUOR #1 SUPPLIES/APPRECIATION DINNER 174.84 27590 EDEN PRAIRIE LIQUOR #2 APPRECIATION DINNER 76.32 27591 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS JOINT SEAL-SEWER DEPT 86.40 27592 CHRIS ENGER MAY 86 EXPENSES 165.00 27593 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES FENCE-ROUND LAKE PARK SOFTBALL FIELDS 21295.20 27594 FITNESS ASSOCIATES INC STRESS TEST-FIRE DEPT 775.00 27595 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY LIQUDR STDRE SUPPLIES 338.55 27596 FUNK-HANCEY DISTRIBUTORS INC CARPETING FOR TARGET RANGE TRAILER 60.47 27597 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC -BATTERY ACCESS/MICROPHONE/CONNECTOR/ 447.83 REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT 27598 GENERAL RESOURCE CORP REPLACEMENT DOOR/STEEL DOOR-WATER DEPT 355.00 27599 ROBERT R GERSBACH REFUND-GRADING PERMIT 174.00 Pr's° GLADWIN AGENCY NOTARY 80ND-POLICE DEPT 60.00 A GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTERS 6 TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 119.34 6234007 /3//oC JUNE 3,1986 27602 GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SYSTEMS -PAPER & MISC BALLOTS/PUNCH MASKS/ 196.57 CRIMP PAGES/SAMPLE BALLOTS-ELECTION ( J3 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC -LIGHTING ON ROUND LAKE SOFTBALL 21960.00 FIELDS-PARK DEPT 27604 MICHAEL W HAMILTON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 154.00 27605 HAROLD'S WOODWORKING SHOP -3 FORMICA COUNTERTOPS/AIR BOTTLE/ 5507.10 CABINETS & DELIVERY-PUBLIC SAFETY 27606 HENNEPIN COUNTY MARCH 86 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE DEPT 4323.87 27607 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER LATHE FOR GARDEN PLOTS-PARK DEPT 105.09 27608 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN MARCH 1986 BOOKING FEE 133.06 27609 D C HEY COMPANY INC SERVICE/COVER/TONER-CITY HALL 524.19 27610 HOFFER'S INC FIELO MARKING-PARK MAINTENANCE 582.00 27611 HYDRAULIC SPECIALTY COMPANY -U-SEAL/ROD SCRAPER/O-RING/BACK-UP RING/ 419.28 BAR STOCK-STREET DEPT 27612 HYDRO ENGINEERING INC -RENTAL OF ALUMINUM PIPE/FITTINGS/ 1330.00 DELIVERY/DRAINAGE 27613 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 COOKIES/LUNCHES-ELECTION 253.20 27614 JASON-NORTHCO PROPERTIES JUNE RENT-LIQUOR STORES 4525.82 27615 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/FORESTRY/ 95.04 PUBLIC SAFETY & STREET DEPT 27616 JUSTUS LUMBER CO -PAINT/PLYWOOD/FLOOR ENAMEL/LUMBER- 525.93 WATER DEPT/PUBLIC SAFETY/STREET DEPT 27617 PENNY KING FILM PROCESSING 31.70 27618 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC SOFTBALL PLATE-PARK MAINTENANCE 308.75 27619 LA HASS MFG & SALES INC PLOW-PARK MAINTENANCE 2314.00 27620 LANCE LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 90.55 27621 LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 2052.00 22 LIEBERMAN ENTERPRISES INC 45 RPM ALBUMS-COMMUNITY CENTER 82.50 .23 LINHOFF COLOR PHOTO LAB PICTURES/PROCESSING-ELECTIONS 47.00 27624 MIKE MARUSHIN -SOCKET/SCREWDRIVER BITS/BRAKE 92.95 BLEEDER-STREET DEPT 27625 MASYS CORPORATION JUNE 86 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 914.00 27626 MCI CELLCOM SERVICE 25.78 27627 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CD OXYGEN-PUBLIC SAFETY 50.40 27628 METRO PRINTING INC FORMS-PUBLIC SAFETY 147.00 27629 MID-CENTRAL FIRE INC ADAPTERS-WATER DEPT 36.00 27630 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO DUMP BODY & HORST-PARK DEPT 3750.00 27631 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET DEPT 1746.82 27632 MIKKELSON CONSTRUCTION CO INC -TENNIS COURT WINDSCREEN-PARKS DEPT & 1240.00 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS 27633 MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSIN 1986 DUES-ASSESSING DEPT/SEE CK #27112 50.00 27634 MINNESOTA DAILY EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER B.40 27635 MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND INC EPDXY SEALER-COMMUNITY CENTER 80.02 27636 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC AOS-LIQUOR STORE 196.56 27637 MINNESOTA TORO INC -WASHER/BEARING/V-BELT/IDLER PULLEY/ 252.61 RESET RELAY/BRAKE CABLE-PARK MAINTENANCE 27638 MINNESDTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP MAY 1986 SERVICE 36.25 27639 MINNESOTA VALLEY WHOLESALE INC TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 63.60 27640 RG MODEEN INC PAINTING-PUBLIC SAFETY 196.62 27641 MOTOROLA INC MINITOR BATTERIES-FIRE DEPT 67.50 27642 W E NEAL SLATE CD -USED SPACE PANEL/BLACK LEG/BRACKETS- 169.00 PARK DEPT I643 NORTHERN CULVERT OPERATIONS STEEL BAND-STREET DEPT 173.94 14 NORTHERN POWER PRODUCTS INC -SERVICE CONTRACT/ENGINE HEATER/ 356.64 HEATER HOSE/ANTIFREEZE-PUBLIC SAFETY 5521574 /3q&D JUNE 3,1986 27645 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC -MICRO OISCS/COMPUTER/DISK DRIVE/ 2907.32 PRINTER-FINANCE DEPT 46 HARRY ORTLOFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 364.00 27647 PENNSYLVANIA OIL CO OIL-STREET OEPT 1016.76 27648 PATRICK PEREZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 252.00 27649 PHOTOS INC PRINTS-PLANNING DEPT 35.00 27650 HARRY E PICHA FLOWERS-PARK MAINTENANCE 52.50 27651 POWER BRAKE EQUIPMENT CO BRAKE PARTS/BEARINGS-EQUIP MAINTENANCE 233.00 27652 R C IDENTIFICATIONS IO CORE CARDS-PUBLIC SAFETY 211.50 27653 MARK REUBISH SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 14.00 27654 CITY OF RICHFIELO 2ND QTR 86 DISPATCH SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 16605.72 27655 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-TECHNOLOGY DRIVE/GOLDEN 1433.77 TRIANGLE DRIVE 27656 ROAD MACHINERY 8 SUPPLIES CO SEAL-STREET DEPT 28.69 27657 ROAD RESCUE INC -REPLACEMENT LUNGS FOR RESUSCI BABY- 13.33 FIRE DEPT 27658 RSI POSTERS-PUBLIC SAFETY 96.50 27659 LEE SCHELLER TAPPING -SERVICE QUAIL RIDGE DURING WATER MAIN 1895.00 RELOCATION 27660 DONALD B SCHWARTZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 140.00 27661 SETTER LEACH 8 LINDSTROM INC MARCH 86 SERVICE REMODEL COMMUNITY CTR 240.00 27662 SNYDER'S DRUG STORES INC SUPPLIES-PUBLIC SAFETY 27.39 27663 SOUTHDALE FORO 3 1986 FORD LTD-PUBLIC SAFETY 33516.00 27664 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC APRIL 1986 LEGAL SERVICE 936.45 27665 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADS-LIQUOR STORE 190.50 27666 SPECIALTY SCREENING EMBLEMS/LETTERS/NUMBERS-PUBLIC SAFETY 264.00 27667 DOUG SPIKE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 14.00 7 58 DON STREICHER GUNS GUNS-PUBLIC SAFETY 236.00 1,,69 STS CONSULTANTS LTD WELL EXPANSIONS-WATER DEPT 2327.50 27670 DAVID STUTELBERG SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD • 196.00 27671 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER 50.00 27672 TENNESSEE CHEMICAL CO FERRIC SULFATE-WATER DEPT 4491.51 27673 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE CO LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 24.18 27674 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO CARBON OIOXIOE MIX-PARKS DEPT 54.32 27675 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 1253.30 27676 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 126.60 27677 VALLEY PLUMBING CO REFUND BLDG PERMIT 45.00 27678 VAN WATERS 8 ROGERS LIQUIO CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 225.30 27679 VAUGHNS INC FLAG REPAIR-PUBLIC SAFETY 13.49 27680 VESSCO INC DIAPHRAGM/SEAT/STEM/O-RINGS-WATER DEPT 354.45 27681 VOSS ELECTRIC CO LIGHT BULBS-PUBLIC SAFETY 27.00 27682 WARNING LITES OF MN INC -FLORESCENT CONES/ARROW BOARD/SIGN 70.00 WITH STANOS-WATER OEPT 27683 WATER PRODUCTS CO -1000 GAL METER/CROSS/GLAND/BOLT 8 NUT/ 2606.78 -GASKET/WASHER/THREADED ROD/VALVE BOX -GENERATOR/RISER SCREW/CHAIN WRENCH- -WATER OEPT/PARKS DEPT/BLDG DEPT 8 STREET OEPT 27684 PAUL M WELIN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 140.00 27685 SANDRA F WERTS MILEAGE 99.28 27686 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS -BUSINESS CARDS/SIGNS-WATER DEPT 8 128.50 COMMUNITY CENTER 2 587 X-ERGON SUPPLIES-PARK DEPT 99.06 8 ZAHL EQUIPMENT COMPANY 4" OC BRASS-WATER DEPT 69.70 2 b89 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO CHEMICALS-STREET OEPT 255.79 73381I9 /3410E • JUNE 3,1986 27690 ZIEGLER TIRE SERVICE CO FRONT END ALIGNMENT-STREET DEPT 79,95 591 THE CONSULTING GROUP PROFESSIONAL FEES-PUBLIC SAFETY 800.00 J92 CRAGUN'S PINE BEACH LODGE EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CTR/COMMUNITY SERVICES 232.84 27693 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 775.00 27694 HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEF'S ASSO DUES-FIRE DEPT 10.00 27695 INTL ASSOC OF CHIEFS OF POLICE SUBSCRIPTION-POLICE DEPT 33.00 27696 BARBARA MATTSON SWIMMING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 142.50 27697 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSN -CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY CENTER & 202.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES 27698 MINNESOTA RESCUE ANO FIRST AID AS DUES-PUBLIC SAFETY 25.00 27699 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSO DUES-COMMUNITY SERVICES 110.00 27700 KEITH WALL EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 23.33 243362 $398984.23 ( 1340 F 11 GGEENNEEDISTRIBUTIONS BY FUND qq77 i? CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 2'3792.47 15 LIQUOR STORE—P V M 25652.04 17 LIQUOR STORE—PRESERVE 17515.20 31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 43255.20 ( IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 18840.44 5s ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 1110.02 73 WATER FUND 25483.06 77 SEWER FUND 429.41 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 858.80 $398984.23 / ��bG CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION p86-126 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MIA COVE ADDITION FOR ROBERT R. GERSBACH BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Emma Cove Addition for Robert R. Gersbach, dated. April 21, 1986, consisting of 5.7 acres into eight single family lots and one outlot, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments. thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 3rd day of June, 1986. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 134I STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner fiHROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 9, 1986 PROJECT: Emma Cove Addition LOCATION: East of County Road #4, south of Baywood Lane APPLICANT: Robert R. Gersbach REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of 5.7 acres into eight lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way. Background �.—� "-H. + RI-9.5 °�_-' R This site, which is adjacent to Duck s'-' spli Lake, is currently 3 guided for � ®� development as Low Density Res- tui; = '��/ ! . �A�Y .e idential as are the surrounding •F, ra �p properties. Adjacent land uses in- o� -. �i �► elude Duck Lake Estates, zoned R1- ] &G•i .�` �• 4t,_ 1 13.5 to the north and west, County "(-1 1'.5 itio Road #4 to the east, and Duck Lake ,2 79-21 'li: and the Chicago-Northwestern Rail- PUB 62-84 road to the south. The property is r currently zoned R1-13.5 which was - ar:. f done in conjunction with the Duck k 4 Lake Estates plat approved in FP1 ;V...! .11 lc la •�..�♦ + ; September of 1972 as part of 9151 d .,t `.♦ 5_8 Ordinance #184. .yt, Preliminary Development Plan * � � F:F 5PROPOSED SiTE ./� 4 \ .`-.#.'1 The preliminary development plan Is"‘") • i _ -- lii01, • =i:xs3 depicts the division of this 5.7- �: •�, er acre tract is into eight lots, one ''�� outlot, and road right-of-way. The lotting configuration is similar to • that which was proposed in concept :n,uc, 4;ZILII as part of the Baywood (Duck Lake 1314 • 'i i`I Estates) preliminary plat. Access P B ED -t:-. to the site will be from County Road "a'~ ( #4 and Baywood Lane by the extension of Bay Drive into a cul-de-sac. The -$(,� Q- extension of Bay Drive roughly ' AREA LOCATION iv1AI'= I E W. Emma Cove Addition 2 May 9, 1986 g follows the old alignment for County Road #4. The half-section maps show that the road has been abandoned. In addition, there is also an easement located between the abandoned right-of-way for County Road #4 and the new alignment of County Road #4. The proponent shall provide documentation that he is the owner of this entire piece of property. If he is not, the proponent shall go through a vacation procedure. Shore land Ordinance Because Duck Lake has been classified as Recreational Development Waters, special shoreland requirements apply. City Code states that lots abutting a Recreational Development Waters, which can be serviced by public sewer and water, shall meet the following minimum requirements: 1. Minimum lot size - 20,000 square feet. 2. Minimum width at the building line - 120 feet. 3. Minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark - 120 feet. 4. Minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark - 100 feet. Lots 3 through 6, Block 1, abut Duck Lake and will be required to meet these Code requirements. The submitted preliminary development plan shows that all the lots meet the minimum lot size requirement averaging in size from 22,000 square feet to 41,800 square feet. Also, all the minimum widths have been calculated at 120 feet and all building pads have been setback a minimum of 100 feet from the shoreland. The pad locations reflect minimum Code requirements for the Shoreland District. Grading The site is gently rolling in nature with elevations ranging from a high of 930 along the western edge of Outlot B to a low of 91D within the drainage basin adjacent to County Road #4. The elevation, which is adjacent to Duck Lake, is at 916. The proposed plan shows minimal grading on the site with a general leveling and filling for building pads. In particular, a small trapped drainage basin, which is adjacent to County Road #4, will be filled to allow for a building pad. The low point elevation of the drainage basin is 910 with grades set for the building pad at 922, thus 12 feet of fill will be required. The grading plan also shows some grading occuring off-site on Outlot A, which is located along the western property line and along Lot 1 of Duck Lake Estates. The proponent will be required to obtain permission from the Duck Lake Homeowners' Association and the property owner of Lot 1 for grading off-site. Utilities Water and sanitary sewer service are available to this site. There is a six-inch water line which is located in Baywood Lane and extended south to Baywood Terrace and stubbed in at the corner of the cul-de-sac. The proposed extension from this would be across Outlot B and Outlot A into this site. Outlot A, proposed at 18 feet in width, shall be increased to 20 feet in order to accommodate the water line extension. This extension shall be looped to Baywood Lane and connected per recommendations of the Fire Marshal. In addition, the proposed plans show one fire hydrant located on the site between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. In reviewing the plans. the Fire Marshal is requiring that three fire hydrants be placed on this site in the i-rr, Emma Cove Addition 3 May 9, 1986 locations which are shown on Attachment A. There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer service which extends through this site, southward from the present location in Baywood Lane. This extension follows the approximate location of old County Road #4. The preliminary plat shows a ten-foot easement which is sufficient for the sanitary sewer location. Storm water shall be collected through a catch basin system which is located in Bay Drive and routed through a pipe system for discharge into Duck Lake. However, in order to increase the quality of the discharge, typically a sump manhole or some sort of storm water detention would be required. These plans will be reviewed and are subject to approval by both the Watershed District and the City Engineering Department. Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat depicts a subdivision of 5.7 acres into eight lots and road right-of-way. The property is currently zoned R1-13.5 and the preliminary plat meets the requirements of this zoning district. Lots range in size from a minimum of 15,520 square feet, to a maximum of 41,8DD square feet. One problem associated with the preliminary development plan is the location of the building pads for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. Staff has determined that the common property line with Duck Lake Estates to the north shall be considered a rear yard, and thus a 20-foot setback to the building will be required at this location. (See Attachment B) STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend an approval of the request for preliminary plat of 5.7 acres into eight lots and one outlot, based on plans dated April 21, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 9, 1986, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Modify the preliminary development plan to include a 20-foot minimum rear yard setback on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. B. Submit documentation stating that the abandoned County Road #4 and the easement to the east, abutting into the current County Road #4, has been vacated and that the proponent has clear title for platting purposes. If this cannot be provided, the proponent shall go through the vacation process concurrent with the final plat. C. Revise the plans to reflect a 20-foot width for Outlot A. D. Provide documentation allowing for off-site grading. 2. Prior to Final plat, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility plans for review by the City Engineer. / B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. Emma Cove Addition 4 May 9, 1986 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 4. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing. t I34S __ _ _____ _________ _ a 1...,sf W D L ANE 2 --T -, r -- ,,..,: .. . , ! \ , • •' . ‘ , :•1' . ,, N....... \.-. ' •.,... •--_ _...... - \ —•••, .." / / A ... =--- .E.,.s. ,,, 4,, . ,,,,,, .... .. 3 ... ...--' •. i' • A - • .‘••••--4••1`,...7,11.7 .'-, .• ,- ".•, ,. \;'•477 . .., • / -, ' •••'-z•ll':: I.;; ! , . .i ... • ss r , / i•-/, . ,,,,----. ......,'"•;.; ' . I f„....1 .:,---F-77,----•• ..--.'f-,:t?H.--- 1_7: I. : /,' _----- : ..:5- • .;:' __--- : 1(4/ , .77,/,:: , • a ,, ifY.j- :E/ii - ----] ,.,. - -;'--.....- S ‘7 7. ''' • — .'" ,f e.\\ .. ' \A . ,I.: ? . : \ N N... .,7,., >r---------- ...s.; or"..v.. i'.! i• .' k ••A, ' •id-:: ,,:,;;' - ..., ..„,si,.:, ---•-•—•-77-------• -•,,,,. "N.. -,,2, •.1 . / ,---;•, -,,'/ .- --/,,,c."'° _•,, *.*\(,,` 1 -' ':. ., 1).._j1" • c i/ / .......,.:,_,....„LL,_ c T, Y . ,•..• .. \ y • .:, _....-, I •' .:c• — . - - . '4 • ,- g * .--4177-` ' A ( —:.13- /., ,,,, ,•-• ,• t \,, ...,. j ii•>.( ., . .i __ . 0 5 k.\.-,-' 1 1 c,-..,:.,,..' , '-.\ •i ; ---,- .N , / , ‹._ fl--'..)\ / — . •,.., ' ' ' .,- • , , 1 '': -------•., \' 01 ' ? _ __, ,...; • ! ,''.,4.,._.„_,,„., (:+:,,.. ,. '... \' •. ' ' . ! '3W .,., , /• F--- - k / I \ • f •• .... DUCK LAKE 1 ,::.• •,. t......,--_, . . ---,---.. • - 1 .--,:,.. • „ .. il. ( ATTACHMENT A .1;t4, uf Fire Hydrant Locations ... — -------- ---• -- ___ ____ I --- (.. LANE-: 2 ----i A ci , .. ' .• J, - ' • ... .-...- - • N._ ---••••:,,, - • •,..•• / . . --, ,• : 3 .7 . :•• ••••. . • '' ..,..,•---."''S- /7/' r1s ---' . ,; ' • A , , , 1 F.-1'...;C:"(. i-i:OHLE. 7.:,..--i-r—,-,:.• . ,....J : ,4-1---::-......-• --' , , . / . , \.--- i sr '--4) 1 .. ./1 1 •ft . .2aiF ' tg ! : • • ,, • ,•<, ...,, - ---- ' / , / - ''-".---•;'.../:•,;* . __---- ,,., -- .„, F 11,/ 2. ;,-,,%. -. • ,"" \ ifp ' ,',4t,-. ' ,,... - , ... -? 3.%,•-.! .;::.5) .' - _-,, .., ',.,,., i I 7 , , \. .''''' • -/--:-cf--,07 ---..:.- ,,,,_. -- \ ,r1k. I .-\2! N..„... ,:„.., , vt;;;‘,... • • ._ r, .,-°' .1 , ,.,..! *- • \A \; ' \_____................. ,......, , --.._-_:-,••.,'"--"-... . '.\\..; • ' 'I 'S!'• .•-.,....„,,,.....i.„..,, \ i . ••.,..-1 4,,,, ,,.. •-; -^•-••.-"'-'--:`"--.:4. - • . ,.- . 'zir''' - - :-:: ,••4• ' ,`q.>,.., ----- _„...,,,,.........„.,,,,:, A-. . ',..i::: et,/r------------'',.,,,\ . P.-7-,,-,1"„, ,.„,,..---..;'0 , •s.-"s '1 ) '....‘n:i r :-/- • ("'' .<'-':':----.4 ,l- 4-CZ'. : -•, ',;?,t I .. - • '.0,, C2:,. .. // !• / ' j_.— .• , ;-•-•.....*-- • • L.: 1 I , " ...' / 6 • .....'.....";',.•-•-....,L___,___... ....: --1------'-'--., oi -3-i- - ,-•-,,,K,7_,:.:-\_.:\ „,./ ... 1 . . . . Lc. '-_ .‘•,/4:1 z• " ,; • .,..' \%. ,,Q.b..,0::_.:Lc•-N ,--•,--r-.' . - "/C \ 1 i'': ',:.... --,,\c,. •-..__.i.,;.. , / :, 0 '5.1:/--" , !,, ‘\. :I ,' - •/ •,,, •- 110,." II --c, • ' ..•; . . \4 :"'\ •,,,,(-7,-----5--I .c. • :.,." , • '1 Id :: \ . "•-'c \\, ':. ,:.':st„ji2_,I,' ' .3'4(',..,-,, ! , \ • t DUCK LAKE '. 0, '. ,I. -.• 1 . 3 t :•::- .,. L_...,-: . ( ATTACHMENT B Minimum Building Setbacks : . .„... . . .-. : Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 12, 1986 E. EMMA CDVE ADDITIDN, by Robert R. Gersbach. Request for Preliminary Plat of 5.7 acres into eight single family lots and one outlot. Location: South of Baywood Lane, West of County Road #4, north and east of Duck Lake. A public hearing. Mr. Bob Smith, engineer for proponent, reviewed the 'site characteristics and design features of the plan. Planner Uram reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 9, 1986. Mr. David Ziegler, 16729 Baywood Terrace, indicated concern about the storm water drainage for the development and how it might impact his property, which currently had standing water on it and was not draining adequately. Mr. Robert Gersbach, proponent, stated that he would be willing to work with Mr. Ziegler to mitigate this situation during the construction process. Mr. Smith noted that one other neighbor was concerned about the setback of one of the homes to an existing home. The building pad had been altered slightly, still meeting City requirements, in order to mitigate that neighbor's concern according to Mr. Smith. Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 12, 1986 MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to. recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Robert R. Gersbach for Preliminary Plat of 5.7 acres into eight single family lots and one outlot, based on plans dated April 21, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 9, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS Memorial Day Meeting It was noted that the regular meeting of the fourth Monday in May fell on Memorial Day, a legal holiday. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to hold a special meeting en Tuesday, May 27, 1986, to handle regular Planning Commission business normally scheduled for the second meeting in May. Motion carried--7-0-0 VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. /349 ( CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #86-127 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR HOYT DEVELOPMENT, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Westwood Industrial Park for Hoyt Development, Inc., dated May 2, 1996, consisting of 4.58 acres into two lots with variances to be reviewed by the Boafr of Appeals, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 3rd day of June, 1986. r Gary D. Peterson, Mayor l ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk ( SO • STAFF REPORT TD: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 23, 1986 PROJECT: Hoyt/Westwood . LDCATION: South of County Road #67, west of Bury Drive APPLICANT: Hoyt Development FEE OWNER: HPB Limited Partnership REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of 4.58 acres into two lots. Background IP 11 i 1 1 This site is located in the Westwood 1 _ t Industrial Park and is currently the 4 , - location of the Plantscapes build-. -...- , 1 1 �/, o PROPOSED SI E ing. The site is guided for �' 1 tt 3-I 1 �. Industrial land uses as are the / 04�i a 145 properties to the north and west, O� ;3 e.r,;; • M \ Public Open Space to the south and I i - . � i '.....i:',- .,..p -,g.C, -CO \,t east, and Medium Density Residential d� i . ,..,' ,e ` :e� a i' to the south. Specific land uses in / Ni„._ it,PRK , 1 this area include the Plantscapes , - MI building zoned I-2 Park on the site, i Richards Manufacturing zoned I-2 �•. fi • Park to the north, vacant parcels �� R 1• PA within the Westwood Industrial Park ."'�;�� zoned I-2 Park to the east, and ç,� , various industrial land uses to the Malti � r11,11 west zoned I-2 Park and I-General. ��, s1. a / =11 t' 111f44PubThe proponent is requesting the „ , i preliminary platting of Lot 2, Block "w _ 1Fa 1, Westwood Industrial Park into two IDUl . . h, 6je° lots. ?; it fg", ' PUB \ ` _ Preliminary Plat ,itd " 11" ,: 't,� • The proponent is requesting the ,,," 4*V-4-2 1-0 . preliminary platting of Lot 2, Block ��4 1 w 1, Westwood Industrial Park which _ '•. N/ Org: contains 4.5 acres into two lots, C AREA LOCATION MA_ -ass-11--L]v l\�L.:,; .4L a.LL ►- _: . /5S/ Hoyt/Westwood 2 May 23, 1986 { containing 2.08 acres and 2.50 acres respectively. The proposed subdivision will include the Plantscapes building on Lot 2, which contains 2.5 acres, and the remaining parcel being Lot 1, containing 2.0 acres. No specific building proposal has been submitted at this time for Lot 1. The Code requirements in the I-2 Park district included a two-acre minimum lot size, 200-foot minimum width, a 300-foot minimum depth, 50-foot front yard, 20-foot side yards, and a 25-foot rear yard. The maximum building footprint within this district is a 30% Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In requesting the subdivision, the proponent has submitted information depicting how the proposed division would effect each of the properties and the respective buildings. Lot 2, which contains the Plantscapes building, contains 2.5 acres and has a building area of 29,196 feet. The FAR of this building is 26.8%. The existing Plantscapes building meets the minimum Code requirements with the exception of the western property line which will require a variance because of the common property line. Lot 1, based on the proposed building, also meets the majority of Code requirements with the exception of a 50-foot front yard setback off Carlson Drive and the common lot line where variances are required and have been applied for. With a common lot line, a total of 8,000 square feet of green space has been eliminated between the buildings. In terms of traffic circulation and parking efficiency, the elimination of the green space allows for a parking and loading area between the buildings which is essentially screened from views on all sides. This design tends to minimize any adverse effects on the adjacent properties. Because the lot could be subdivided where both lots meet the minimum Code requirements, the eliminated green space should be replaced. Due to the fact that additional green space on the Plantscapes site in not possible, the 8,000 square foot of displaced green space shall be located on Lot 1. As a condition of approval for the preliminary plat, the proponent shall agree at time of site plan review to provide an additional 8,000 square feet of green space, (either perimeter or in planting islands) on Lot 1. Based on the lot size of 2.08 acres at a 30% maximum FAR, a building of 27,181 square feet could be built. The proponent shall revise the preliminary plat to reflect accurate building sizes with the appropriate setbacks on Lot 1 or eliminate the building footprint entirely. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request from Hoyt Construction, Inc., for the preliminary platting of 4.58 acres into two lots based on plans dated May 2, 1986, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 23, 1986, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Any proposed building on Lot 1, Block 1, Westwood Industrial Park shall be subject to site plan review prior to any building permit issuances. 2. The proposed building shall meet all City Codes. No additional variances shall be granted. 3. At time of site plan review, proponent shall reflect an additional 8,000 square feet of green space on Lot 1, Block 1. 4. The preliminary plat shall be either revised to reflect appropriate building setbacks and square footaqes on Lot 1, Block 1, or the building footprint shall be eliminated entirely. 5. Receive approval from the Board of Appeals for a lot line variance along the common property line. igSn MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning THR UGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager DATE: May 29, 1986 SUBJECT: Proposed Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line Amendment Under Review by the Metropolitan Council As a part of the MUSA Line public hearing process, the Planning Commission and City Council identified an area between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, wh-lch was to be included as a part of the Year 2000 MUSA request to the Metropolitan Council. Included with this memorandum are three letters from Sandra Gardebring, Chair of the Metropolitan Council, regarding this request. The reason for the request was simply to facilitate 4,000 feet of free sewer easements for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) in its extension of the Lake Ann Interceptor sewer. Although Mr. Breimhurst, Chief Administrator of the MWCC, supported Eden Prairie's request for this small addition, you can see from the correspondence from Ms. Gardebring dated April 8, 1986, that the idea of adding to the MUSA was being rejected early. Our concern after having submitted the 169-acre amendment request with the original MUSA Line request, having it returned to us on February 24, 1986, because the Metropolitan Council Chair had determined that it was not formally submitted, and after resubmitting it and receiving the staff report and letter from the Chair which indicate that they believe it is contrary to the Lake Ann Interceptor agreement, is that we do not wish to pursue the amendment further if we truly contrary to the sewer agreement. Roger Pauly is reviewing the agreement and our submission to determine whether we are contrary from a legal standpoint. I have reviewed the agreement and the current facts and have written an opinion that we are not contrary to the Lake Ann Interceptor agreement. I have also asked the Mayor and City Manager to independently review the facts and give their feelings as to whether, or not, we appear to be in conflict with the content, or spirit, of the agreement. It may also be appropriate for the Mayor to be in contact with Sandra Gardebring, directly, now that she is in possession of our complete rationale to ascertain whether their position has changed with regard to our compliance with the agreement. in addition, as an alternative, we are exploring the option of a land trade involving the BFI property, taking the BFI property out of the MUSA and placing the 169-acre amendment property within the MUSA. My recommendation in going to the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee on June 5, 1986, is to withdraw our request for the amendment prior to that meeting, if it is thought to be contrary to the Lake Ann Interceptor agreement. My rationale in making this determination is that Eden Prairie has very little to gain from pursuing this amendment, as the original reason for it was to help obtain easements for the MWCC. Eden Prairie has other dealings pending with the Metropolitan Council • at this time, and we stand to lose credibility, if we push forward on ground that would leave us looking like we were renigging on an agreement. On the other hand, if the facts are on our side, but we feel the Metropolitan Council "principal of the matter" will prevail, we are better off to graciously withdraw and document the reasons for our withdrawal. I would, therefore, ask the City Council to authorize me to withdraw the amendment to the MUSA Line if conditions warrant as outlined above. • 1 l 40%%tain( O 0 Metropolitan Council 8 300 Metro Square Building 0 Seventh and Robert Streets .tea A St.Paul,Minnesota 55101 April 22, 1986 ' 4' Telephone(612)291-6359 'w,N C,t.e" Mr. Chris Enger Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: 169 Acre MUSA Addition Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan Metropolitan Council District 13 Metropolitan Council Referral No. 13617-1 Dear Mr. Enger: The Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed Eden Prairie's proposed comprehensive plan amendment received by the Council on April 18, 1986. Based on staff input, I have determined that the proposed amendment presents a potential impact on the metropolitan system plans, specifically on sewers. The amendment would add 169 acres to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and appears to be contrary to the agreement between the Council, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the City of Eden Prairie for the Lake 4 Ann-Red Rock Lake interceptor sewer. A proposed amendment that has a potential impact on metropolitan systems may not be put into effeot by the local government until the Council review is complete. The Council has 90 days from receipt of the proposed amendment to complete its review. If the Council requires a modification to the proposed amendment, the amendment may not be put into effect until the Council has made its final decision. • The 90-day period ends on July 17, 1986. Within that 90-day period, Council staff will complete its formal review of the proposed plan amendment and submit a draft copy to the city prior to consideration by the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee on July 3, 1986. If you have any questions during the review period, please feel free to contact Jim Schoettler, principal reviewer, at 291-6411. Sincerely, a br ng Chair SSG:ms • cc: Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Dirk DeVries, Metropolitan Council District 13 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff Jim Schoettler, Metropolitan Council Staff arc- An Eppel Opportunity Employer I,,_l �p�� O� Metropolitan Council APB 419$6 ® 300 Metro Square Building 1 p Seventh and Robert Streets,r4". „ St.Paul,Minnesota 55101 Telephone 1612)291.6359 April 8, 1986 "'""'04q L.J. Breimhurst Chief Administrator Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 350 Metro Square Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Breimhurst: Thank you for your letter of March 10. The Council has considered the issue of development outside the MUSA line in discussions with the City of Eden_ Prairie. These discussions occurred both during negotiations on the Lake Ann/Lake Virginia Interceptor Agreement and in reviewing the Eden Prairie plan amendment submitted in accord with the agreement. As a condition of its cost—sharing agreement with the City of Eden Prairie, the Council stated that no sewer service would be provided beyond the 1990 (now the 2000) MUSA line. The Interceptor Agreement, coupled with established condemnation procedures, allows easements to be obtained without including additional serviced land in the MUSA. 4_ Sincerely, 51AltfdtA Sandra S. Gardebring, Chair Metropolitan Council SSG/dc• cc: City Administrator, Eden Prairie Dirk deVries, Council District 13 Robert Nethercut, Council Staff Pat Pahl, Council Staff • An Eauel Opportunity Employer /2c1 A6i LK- tom ` Metropolitan Council 4 300 Metro Square Building i`'11 y Seventh and Robert Streets St.Paul,Minnesota 55101 Telephone(612)291.6359 March 20, 1986 Chris Enger, Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: City of Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan Amendment Round Lake Land Use Change _ Metropolitan Council District 13 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 11264-8 Dear Mr. Enger: The Metropolitan Council staff and I have reviewed the city's comprehensive plan amendment received by the Council on March 7. We have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans. Therefore, the city may place the amendment into effect immediately. Because the proposed amendment appears unlikely to affect policies and plans in other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council will waive further review and comment on this amendment. The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information submission form will be appended to the city's plan in the Council's files. This concludes the Council's review. Sincerely, SAAktia Sandra S. Gardebring, Chair SSG:ms cc: Dirk de Vries, Metropolitan Council District 13 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff Paul Baltzersen, Metropolitan Council Staff { An Equal Opportunity Employer 130 tmto ,403A QQ Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets a St.Paul,Minnesota 55101 Telephone(612)291-6359 wN February 24, 1986 Chris Enger Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2459 RE: Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan Amendment Metropolitan Council District 13 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 11264-7 Dear Mr. Enger: The Metropolitan Council has received Eden Prairie's proposed plan amendment which: a. Designates the present city 1990 MUSA in the year 2000 Urban Service Area (containing no more than 7.736 acres of developable land). b. Provides for a rural area development density of one unit per 20 acres. c. proposes a maximum sewage flow not in excess of 4.93 million gallons per day by the year 2000. At the same time, Eden Prairie has provided preliminary information about a possible MUSA line addition. We will not consider this at this time because it has not been formally submitted and is also contrary to the Lake Ann agreement. The Metropolitan Council staff and I have reviewed the above items a, b, and c, contained in Eden Prairie's comprehensive plan amendment received by the Council on February 14, 1986. We have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans. Therefore, the city may place the amendment into effect immediately. Enclosed is a copy of the Council's comments as they will appear on the Council's Consent List for noncontroversial items. Formal action by the Council will take place on February 27, 1986, completing review of the amendment. nr.Equal OpponurMty Employer MI • Chris Enger February 24, 1986 Page Two If you have any questions, please contaot Bob Davis, Council staff, at 296- 6317, who is the principal reviewer of this amendment. Sincerely, Sandra S. Ga ebring, Chair 7--\ SSG:ms cc: Dirk Devries, Metropolitan Council District 13 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff Bob Davis, Metropolitan Council Staff Marcel Jouseau, Metropolitan Council Staff • • • t l3S9 CONSENT LIST ITEM For Metropolitan Council Meeting of February 27, 1986 EDEN PRAIRIE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DESIGNATION OF 2000 MUSA LINE, FILE NO. 11264-7 (District 13) Eden Prairie has proposed amending its comprehensive plan in response to requirements of the proposed Lake Ann Interceptor Sewer Facility Agreement. The city proposes to designate the 1990 Urban Service Area as the year 2000 MUSA (containing no more than 7,736 acres of vacant developable land). The city also proposes that land which is zoned rural, or which is outside of the year 2000 MUSA line shall be limited to a density of no more than one unit per ten acres and minimum lot sizes greater than 2 1/2 acres. The density standard is in conformance with city code and the city will pursue adoption of the minimum lot size requirements. In addition the amendment proposes the adoption of 4.93 million gallons of sewage per day as the maximum flow from Eden_Prairie until the year 2000. The Eden Prairie amendment is in conformity with metropolitan system plans, consistent with other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide and compatible with the plans of adjacent communities. PHDEV2 MS4064 • 1%(0V • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council { Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: May 28, 1986 SUBJECT: Metropolitan Council Audit on Bryant Lake and Anderson Lakes Contracts When the City transferred Anderson Lakes Park and Bryant Lake Park to the Hennepin County Park Reserve District staff submitted final reports on the three Bryant Lake contracts, as well as a summary statement on the Anderson Lakes contract. A closeout statement on the Anderson Lakes contract was not appropriate at that time due to the unfinished business with the Janke acquisition and the Kopesky condemnation. In the early part of 1983, the Metropolitan Council hired Fox, McCue and Murphy to complete an audit on all four contacts through December 31. 1982. That audit was completed in the summer of 1983 and indicated that the City had received more funds from the Metropolitan Council than it had spent on all three Bryant Lake contracts. On contract #7766, the City acquisition of Bryant Lake Park, the City had received $1,418,017.39 and had total disbursements of $1,372,017.72. The balance due to the Metropolitan Council from the City of Eden Prairie was $45,999.67. For the Bryant Lake Regional Park Trails Contract #7789, the City had received a total of $57,830.95 and had disbursed $49,980.59 for a balance due the Metropolitan Council from the City of Eden Prairie of $7,805.36. For the contract for stable development at Bryant Lake Park, contract #79166, the City had received a total of $106,665.17 and had disbursed $105,615.50, for a balance due the Metropolitan Council from the City of Eden Prairie of $1,049.67. The interim report completed by Fox, McCue and Murphy on Anderson Lakes Regional Park acquisition indicated that the City had received $3,052,257.91 and disbursed $3,050,312.69. The balance due the Metropolitan Council from the City of Eden Prairie through December 31, 1982 was $1,945.22. Upon receipt of these audit reports, by Fox, McCue and Murphy, the Metropolitan Council internal auditor reviewed these reports and submitted a report to Robert Nethercut, Director of Parks and Open Space for the Metropolitan Council, reporting the actual amount owed the Metropolitan Council by the City of Eden Prairie was $364,000. The majority of the discrepancy in the Fox, McCue and Murphy's and in City records is found in an error the City apparently made in 1974 that related to the purchase of the Preserve parcel in Anderson Lakes Park. After reviewing all of the records, the audit and the audit review, it appears as though the City billed the Metropolitan Council $665,000 (the entire cost of the Preserve Parcel E-10h) and also billed the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation $224,700 for the same parcel. Mr. Ron Scherman, the Senior Internal Auditor for the Metropolitan Council, contends the Metropolitan Council should not have been billed $224,700 and recommended the Metropolitan Council bill the City that amount, plus interest since 1974, which amounted to approximately $120,000 in interest in 1983. Mr. Scherman also made several other recommendations on findings, several of which the City staff agree, several of which the City staff disagree. Since 1983, the Community Services staff and the City attorney have been negotiating for a fair settlement of the amount the City owes the Metropolitan Council. Attached is an agreement resolving the park grant differences between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Eden Prairie. The City staff believe this is a fair and equitable solultion to the problem. In this agreement, the City agrees to pay the Metropolitan Council a sum of $271,534 immediately. The City also agrees to attempt to acquire through donation or dedication approximately 39 acres of land on the north shore of Bryant Lake that has been designated proposed park property for Bryant Lake Regional Park. If, and when, the City is able to acquire that property the City agrees to transfer that property to the Hennepin Park Reserve District and receive reimbursement from the Metropolitan Council of the then appraised value of the property, or $271,534, which ever is less. City staff recommend the City Council approve this agreement. The agreement will then be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for final approval. BL:md • • • LANG,PAULY&GREGERSON,LTD. ATTORNEYS AT!A W 4108 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55403 ROREIIT I.LANG TELEPHONE:(612)3340755 ROGER A.PAULY DAVID H.GREGERSON RICHARD F.WSW MARK I.IDHWON IOSE►H A.NILAN JOHN W.LANG DIANA F.MAMIE May 16, 1986 Mr. Robert Lambert City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Audit of Anderson Lakes Acquisition Grant No. 7419: Bryant Lake Acquisition Grant No. 7766; and Bryant Lake Trail Development Grant No. 7789. Dear Mr. Lambert: Enclosed please find the final draft of the Agreement between the City of Eden Prairie and the Metropolitan Council as well as a letter from Mr. Bachman setting forth a proposed schedule. Would you please see that the matter is put on for the City Council meeting for June 17th? Very truly yours, LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD. ;;7 RFR:flc BY: //X7�(1. el 1/ Enclosures Richard F. Rosow; • AGREEMENT RESOLVING PARK GRANT AUDIT DES BETS EEN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the MEIROPCLITAN COUNCIL, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter the "Council"), and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. ARTICLE I. RECT AIS 1.1) The Council is authorized pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.315 (and its predecessor statute) to make certain grants to municipalities for the acquisition and development of park property in accordance with the Council's Recreation Open Space Policy Plan. Pursuant to such authority, the Council and the City entered into Grant Agreement No. 7419 on October 1, 1974 (Anderson Lakes Regional Park Acquisition Grant); Grant Agreement No. 7766 on November 22, 1977 (Bryant Lake Regional Park Acquisition Grant); Grant Agreement No. 7789 on December 30, 1977 (Bryant Lake Regional Park Trail Development Grant); and Grant Agreement No. 79166 on October 22, 1979 (Bryant Lake Regional Park Development Grant) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Grants"). 1.2) An audit of the Grants by the Council resulted in a claim by the Council that the City owes reimbursement to the Council under the Grants in the amount, as of July 31, 1985, of $408,317.00. The City disputes on various grounds that such funds are owing. 1.3) The Council and the City mutually desire to fully and finally resolve this dispute and hereby agree to the following terms and conditions for settle- ment thereof. ARTICLE II. AGREEMENT TV SETTLE DISPUTE 2.1) Contemporaneous with the execution by both parties of this Agreement, the City shall pay to the Council the sum of $271,534.00. 2.2) The City anticipates that it will acquire, through donation or dedi- cation to the City, a parcel of land consisting of approximately 39 acres situated on the north shore of Bryant lake and abutting the westerly line of Bryant Lake Regional Park (hereinafter "Proposed Park Property") in connection with the proposed development of a larger tract of approximately 55 acres of which the Proposed Park Property is a part. The larger tract is legally described on Ebthibit "A" hereto and is hereinafter referred to as "Tract A". A diagram of Tract A is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. The City covenants to use its best efforts to acquire the Proposed Park Property referred to herein through donation or dedication in connection with development of Tract A. In pursuit of such a result the City will, to the extent allowed by law and ordinance, request that the developer of Tract A donate land in lieu of cash park fees. Etirther, the City as far as practicable, in accordance with good planning practices, applicable law and ordinance, will all as much density transfer as possible from the southern portion of Tract A to the northern portion thereof in consideration of the donation or dedication of the Proposed Park Property or a part thereof. The City further recognizes that there are certain areas of the Proposed Park Property which are particularly important for the development of the park system, including the southern half of the tract and lake frontage. In the event that acquisition of the full 39 acres is not possible in accord herewith, �( the City will use its best efforts to obtain as much of these incortant areas 9 through donation or dedication as is feasible. -2- 2.3) At the time that develorsrent of Tract A is proposed to the City, the City agrees to notify the Council of such fact. In the event that donation or dedication of the full 39 acres is not possible pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.2 above, the City agrees to contact the Council for advice on what portion of the 39 acres is of particular importance for park purposes and use best efforts to acquire such portion. 2.4) Upon canpleting acquisition of as such of the Proposed Park Property as is possible (hereinafter the "Property") the City shall notify the Council of such fact and tender the Property to the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Within 60 days of such notification and terser, the Council shall notify the City whether the Property will be accepted for inclusion in Bryant Lake Regional Park. If the Property is accepted, the City agrees to convey the Property to the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District for the sum of 6271,534.00, or the then appraised value of the Property, whichever is less. The conveyance shall occur as soon as prkggible, however, it is understood that the City's tender of the Property to the Suburban Hennepin Regicnal Park District shall remain open upon the terms stated herein for a reasonable time to allow the Council to approve a grant to the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District for the purchase of the Property. Unless an appraisal is waived by the Council, the Property shall be appraised by an appraiser mrtu lly acceptable to both parties. In the event the parties cannot agree upon an appraiser, each party shall pick are appraiser and the value of the Property shall be determined by averaging the values as determined by the two appraisers. In the event one appraiser is used, the parties shall share equally in the cost of the appraisal. In the event each party chooses its awn appraiser, each shall be responsible for the cost of its own appraiser. • 2.5) In the event of a claim arising out of LAW= Grant, Project �. No. 27-00645 by or on behalf of the National Park Service or any federal or state agency, or their successors or assigns, resulting in a final deter- mination that the City is required to repay grant funds granted to the City for the purchase of Parcel E-10h, commonly referred to as "The Preserve", the Council shall indemnify the City against such final determination, provided however that the obligation of the Council to indemnify the City shall be limited to a total liability of $271,534.00. The City represents that it is currently unaware of any such repayment claim by the National Park Service or any agency. The Council's liability to so indemnify the City shall cease and terminate on the date six years following execution of this Agreement if no claim for repayment fran any agency specified above has been made by that time. If it is determined that the City owes the National Park Service or any agency, their successors or assigns, more than $271,534.00 as a result of a repayment claim as stated above and the transfer of the property referred to in Paragraph 2.4 has not yet taken place, the City shall have no obligation to acquire the Proposed Park Property by donation or dedication and transfer it to the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. 2.6) Upon payment to the Council by the City of the $271,534.00, the City will have no further obligation to the Council under the Grants except as is provided in Paragraphs 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 hereof, irrespective of whether the Proposed Park Property is transferred, and the Council shall have no further (obligation under the Grants to the City. The City's obligation to use best efforts to acquire the Proposed Park Property shall cease upon acquisition of and tender of the Property pursuant to Paragraph 2.4. -4- I F!_ DATED: CITY OF IDIId PRAIRIE BY: Gary D. Peterson Its Mayor BY: Carl J. JuUie Its City Manager DATED: METRCPOLTTAN ccXI II, BY: Its Executive Director PFIDOQI -5- 1t6' EXHIBIT "A" The NW; of Nigh Section 2, Township 116, Range 22 and that part of the Government Lot 4 lying North of Bryants Long Lake and North of Reg. Land Survey No. 1000 and that part of the SEAS of the NE' Section 3, Township 116, Range 22 lying northeasterly of Reg. Land Survey No. 1000 except Reg. Land Survey No. 483 Ex. Hwy. k` • i. 7. . EXHIBIT "B" ; a 4 l • $ a a,50 • -?. ' it 2 `•: L1 At Ut CC NI .: ,, y u j — w • • •• ` • • ` • (2) 07j _ fit'_• - ;- i • /310 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sandra F. Werts, Recreation S e ' DATE: May 29, 1986 SUBJECT: Senior Transportation Program The Senior Transportation Program began in February 1970, since that time the State has adopted a set of regulations that all bodies providing transportation to the elderly, handicapped and economically disadvantaged are required to follow. These are called "Operating Standards for Special Transportation Service". Our program comes under these standards because we use a van. The law requires all providers of special transportation services to have a certificate of compliance. To receive a certificate of compliance the State must be provided with the following information, which I have summarized: a. information on the transportation service b. information on each vehicle c. check list on special safety equipment required d. certificate of insurance e. information on drivers DRIVER REQUIREMENTS Drivers of special transportation service vehicles must meet vision and hearing standards and may not have any medical condition that interferes with his or her ability to drive safely. All drivers must complete a 12 hour course titled "Passenger Assistance and First Aid". The first aid portion is 4 hours in length and must cover treatment of shock, control of bleeding, airway management, prevention and treatment of frostbite, hypothermia, heat exhaustion and heat stroke, identification of sudden illnesses such as stroke and heart attack and appropriate use of emergency medical assistance services. The•passenger assistance component which must be 8 hours includes: discussion on characteristics of aging and disabilities and attitudes toward the elderly and handicapped, discussion of and instruction in use of common assistance devices used by elderly and handicapped persons, guidelines for transporting the handicapped and use of a fire extinguisher. If the van holds more than 9 people the driver is required to have a class B license (our van will only hold 9 passengers). There had been some discussion that because our volunteer drivers are Senior Citizens that they might lose their drivers license if they did not pass one or more of the certification requirements for drivers. In my discussion with staff from VEEP, City of Bloomington and West Metro Coordinated 'Transportation, I found this to be an unfounded fear. If they did not meet the requirements they could not be a volunteer driver, and the class B certification is a step above the class C. 31j VEHICAL OPERATION All vehicles must be maintained and operated in compliance with the standards. Daily and weekly inspections must be made and designated in a log book kept in the vehicle. No smoking is allowed and drivers and passengers must wear their seatbelts at all times. Each vehicle is required to carry the following safety equipment: fire extinguisher, first aid kit, spare tire and jack or radio, operable flashlight, reflective triangles, ice scraper, blanket, electrical fuses, card with name of insurance company and agent's phone number, accident report forms, card with emergency numbers. PASSENGER ASSISTANCE AND FIRST AID These classes are available thru the Minneapolis Technical Institute for $35 per person and Hennepin Vo Tech for $24, or a trainee can come to your facility for approximately $250 for a minimum of 10 people. VEEP is sponsoring a class June 24, 25, 26, from 5-9 p.m. As of May 21st, they still have openings in their class in which we could register our drivers. This would cost approximately $20-$25 per person. The South Hennepin Vo Tech does not currenly have a class scheduled and would need a minimum of 10 to schedule a class. The general consensus from VEEP and Bloomington was that Minneapolis Vo Tech offered the best program. SUMMARY In summary, in order to comply with the law, the City should take the steps necessary to receive a certificate of compliance. These include requiring drivers to complete the Passenger Assistance First Aid Course within 90 days of starting to drive, besides passing health requirements, equip van with necessary equipment and conducting the daily and weekly safety inspections required. SW:md ti /3'21