Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/03/1988 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1988 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, IF 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Sue Anderson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 741 B. PAX CHRISTI CATHOLIC CHURCH. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #11-88, Amending Ordinance #9-B3 within the Public Zoning District; Approval Page 742 of Addendum to Developer's Agreement for Pax Christi Catholic Community; and Adoption of Resolution #88-63, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #11-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 38 acres for construction of church addition. Location: 12100 Pioneer Trail. (Ordinance #11-88, Zoning District Amendment within Public District; Resolution #88-63, Authorizing Summary and Publication) C. WEST 5 BUSINESS CENTER by John T. Smith. 2nd Reading of Ordinance Page 748 #12-88, Zoning District Change from I-General to I-2 Park on 4.68 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for West 5 Business Center; and Adoption of Resolution #88-b4, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #12-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 4.68 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 36,805 square foot office/warehouse building. Location: East of Fuller Road and Northwest of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway. (Ordinance #12-88, Rezoning; Resolution #88-64, Authorizing Summary and Publication) D. THE FARM 2ND ADDITION by Countryside Investments, Inc. 2nd Reading page 754 of Ordinance #16-88, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.95 acres and from Public to R1-13.5 on 4.7 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for The Farm 2nd Addition; and Adoption of Resolution #88-65, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #12-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 30 acres into 17 lots and 1 outlot. Location: North of the intersection of Duck Lake Trail and Loralee Lane. (Ordinance #16-88, Rezoning; Resolution #88-65, Authorizing Summary and Publication) City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,May 3, 1988 E. EDEN PLACE CENTER by Prairie Entertainment Associates. 2nd Reading page 763 of Ordinance #5-88 within the C-Reg-Ser District on 6.42 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Eden Place Center; and Adoption of Resolution #88-66, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #5-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 6.42 acres into 1 lot for IP construction of 52,000 square feet of retail and restaurant use. Location: West of Glen Lane, south and east of Eden Road. (Ordinance #5-88, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District; Resolution #88-66, Authorizing Summary and Publication) F. Final Plat Approval for Shady Oak Ridge 3rd Addition (located west of Uld Shady Oak Road and north of Rowland Road) Resolution No. 88-69 page 773 G. Final Plat Approval for Vikin Drive West (located east of U.S.. 169 and South of Viking Drive Resolution No.88-70 — page 775 H. Final Plat Approval for West 5 Business Center (located east of Page 777 uF ller Road, south of State Highway 51 Resolution No. 8 I. Master Card and Visa Card Proposal for Community Center Page 779 J. Eden Lake Elementary Playground Proposal Page 781 K. Approval of Payment to NSP for Transmission Tower Protection Page 783 L. Resolution No. 88-76, Proclaiming May 2 - May 8 as National Page 784 Drinking Water Week M. Petition for Sidewalk on Boyd Avenue (Resolution No. 88-75) Page 785 N. Agreement regarding Special Assessments for Construction of Page 788 Improvements to Columbine and Fountain Place with Fountain Place Plat —0. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Grading Permit for Lake Level Controls on Page 791 Rice Lake P. City Clean-Up Day Page 792 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR MITCHELL Page 793 ROAD AND RESEARCH ROAD I.C.. 52-051 Resolution No. 88-72) B. STARRING LAKE 2ND ADDITION by Red Rock Heights Partnership. Pa a 798 Request for Preliminary Platting of 8.3 acres into 13 single family g lots within the R1-22 District. Location: North of County Road #1 between Eicholts Addition and Starring Lake 1st Addition. (Resolution #88-67, Preliminary Plat) C. SEARS GARDEN STORE by Sears, Roebuck and Company. Request for Page 812 Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of the Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 87.75 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the C-Regional Zoning District on 87.75 acres with variances for exterior building material, for the construction of a 1,000 square foot seasonal temporary structure for an outside storage garden center. Location: Eden Prairie Center/Sears. (Resolution #88-68, PUD Concept Amendment to the Overall Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development Concept; Ordinance #18-88, Amending Ordinance #213 within the C-Regional District) City Council Agenda - 3 Tues.,May 3, 1988 D. TECHNOLOGY PARK PHASE IV by Technology Park Associates. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 41 Page 816 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 13 acres with shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of approximately 41 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots for construction of 162,86D square feet of industrial use in two buildings. Location: West of Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek, east of Smetana Lane. A public hearing. (Resolution #88-73, PUD Concept; Ordinance #19-8B-PUD-3-88, Zoning District Change to I-2-PUD-3-88; Resolution #88-74, Preliminary Plat) E. VALLEY GATE 200 by The Helle Partnership. Request for a Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 4.9 acres with variances for Page 829 zero lot line to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for the construction of a 63,368 square foot office/warehouse. Location: Northeast corner of Golden Triangle Drive and West 74th Street. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 833 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERSz BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Re orts of Council Members B. Report of Ci y Manager C. Re ort of City Attorney D. EfItE1 of Director of Planning E. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Preserve Homeowners Association Trail Page 834 F. Report of Director of Public Works G. Report of Finance Director • 1. Financial Consultants XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST May 3, 1988 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) UTILITY INSTALLER Gilbertson Construction, Inc. Ron-Son Construction Hines & Sons, Inc. Jorgenson Construction GAS FITTER Bloomington Heating & Ai* Conditioning CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Air Seal Company Gustner Construction HEATING & VENTILATING Henjum and Hayes Kingswood Builders Bloomington Heating & Air Conditioning Luknic Enterprises, Inc. Darley G. March North Valley Homes, Inc. PRIVATE KENNEL SBS Construction, Inc. Southern Metro Construction, Inc. Thomas Redmond (1687D Cedarcrest Drive) Sunrize Industries, Inc. PEDDLER PLUMBING James V. Felix (Filters for drinking Dakota Plumbing & Heating water) Quality Rooter Brett Eric Johnson (Filters for drinking water) These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Pat So e, Licensing Pax Christi Expansion CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 11-88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 09-83, 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 Ordinance #9-83 be amended by adding the following: "Section 2. That the plans dated December 4, 1987, reviewed and approved by the City Council February 2, 1988, for the Pax Christi Catholic Community expansion shall apply." and, "Section 5. The land shall also be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 3, 1988, entered into between Pax Christi Catholic Community and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof." Section 3. 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 4. 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 February 2, 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 3rd day of May, 1988. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 4a Exhibit A Legal Description That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying east of the west 110 feet thereof and that part of the west 110 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying north of the south 324.57 feet thereof except road, all in Section 26, Township 116N, Range 22, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 7y3 Pax Christi Catholic Church Expansion S SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT This Supplement to Developer's Agreement made and entered into as of this day of 1988, by and between Pax Christi Catholic Community, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as "City;" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City previously approved an agreement for development of the land, a portion of said land being that as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and hereinafter referred to as "the property," and said previous agreement being as described below: A June 7, 1983, PUD Developer's Agreement entitled Pax Christi Catholic Community Developer's Agreement--PUD 2-83, said agreement made and entered into between Pax Christi Catholic Community, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, and City; and, WHEREAS, the provisions of said agreement is binding upon and enforceable against ownwers, their successors, and their assigns of the property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend said agreements; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the material revised and dated December 4, 1987, reviewed and approved by the City Council on February 2, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof, 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. Developer shall develop the property in accordance with that certain developer's agreement dated June 7, 1983, entered into between Pax ti Christi Catholic Community and the City, except to the extent that said agreement is inconsistent with this Agreement. Said agreement is incorporated herein by reference. 4. Developer agrees to notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance any grading on the property. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer, and to obtain the City Engineer's approval of detailed plans for storm water run-off, erosion control, and utilities on the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. A Pax Christi Expansion CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-63 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 11-88 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 11-88 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3rd day of May, 1988; 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. 11-68, 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. 11-88 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 May 3, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 'lq(D Pax Christi Expansion CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 11-88 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 12100 Pioneer Trail, within the Public 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 , 198B. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) West 5 Business Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 12-88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANDTHER, 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 I-General District and be placed in the I-2 District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the I-General District and shall be included hereafter in the I-2 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 May 3, 19BB, entered into between John Smith, an individual, 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 1st day of March, 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 3rd day of May, I98B. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of :t EXHIBIT A PLATTING AND REZONING , LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Lot 2, Block 1, EDEN PRAIRIE INDUSTRIAL PARK, lying southwesterly of a line drawn at right angles to the southeasterly line of said Lot 2 frem a point thereon distant 165 feet northeasterly frcm the most southerly corner thereof; Except the North 356 feet of said Lot 2, according to the plat thereof en file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County. and Lot 2, Block 1, except the North 256 feet as measured at right angles to the North line thereof and except that part of said Let 2 lying southwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the most southerly corner of said Let 2; thence northeasterly, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 165 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northwesterly, deflecting to the left, 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds to its intersection with the South line of . the North 356 feet of said Lot 2; thence westerly along the last described line to the westerly line of said Let 2, Block 1 and said line there terminating, according to the plat thereof en file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for Hennepin County. • • '749 West 5 Business,Center DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1988, by John R. Smith, an individual, 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 I- General to I-2 on 4.68 acres, with variance for lot frontage as reviewed and approved by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 4.68 acres into two lots for construction of a 36,805 sq. ft. warehouse building, 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 #12-88, 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 February 23, 1988, reviewed and approved by the City Council on March 1, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain 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. 7a) 4. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours 1 prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 5. For purposes of providing for routing of truck traffic through the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City and to obtain the City's approval of a cross access easement on the property at the southeast portion of the joint property line between both proposed parcels, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer agrees to file said easement with Hennepin County and to provide proof of filing of said easement to the City prior to issuance by the City of the building permit for the property. 6. Prior to issuance of any permit for building on the proposed northeasterly lot of the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of detailed plans for parking lot improvements for the existing building on the proposed southwesterly lot of the property, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to construct those improvements listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. Developer further agrees to construct said parking improvements concurrent with construction of the proposed new building on the proposed northeasterly lot on the property. 7. Prior to issuance by the City of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of: A. Revised plans indicating the screening of rooftop mechanical equipment for the existing building on Lot 2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, including required bonding for said improvements. B. Revised plans indicating the details exterior materials to be used on the property, including materials to be used for the trash enclosures, overhead doors, windows, exterior walls, etc. C. Plans indicating the site lighting details for the property including color(s) of materials, location of lightings standards and/or lighting on the structure(s). Said lighting shall be designed in such a manner as to prevent off-site glare. 8. Developer acknowledges that outside storage is not allowed on the property. • 761 , West 5 Business Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-64 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 12-88 ANO ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 12-88 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3rd day of May, 1988; 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. 12-B8, 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. 12-88 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADDPTED by the City Council on May 3, 1988. Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk West 5 Business Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 12-88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located east of Fuller Road and northwest of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway, from the I-General 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: f /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 19BB. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) The Farm 2nd Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE ND. 16-88 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 and Public Districts 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 and Public Districts 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 May 3, 19BB, entered into between Countryside Investments, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, and those certain Owners' Supplements to Developer's Agreement between King of Glory Church and the City of Eden Prairie, and between Dean K. and Marcia Severson, husband and wife, and Dale W. and Jacquelyn Severson, husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement and Supplements are hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 5th day of April, 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 3rd day of May, 1988. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of / I EXHIBIT A PLATTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying north of the centerline of Duck Lake Trail (formerly Town Road No. 669. EXCEPT the east 600 feet of the above described property. REZONING DESCRIPTION (Public to R 13.5) That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying north of the centerline of Duck Lake Trail (formerly Town Road No. 66) . EXCEPT the east 600 feet of the above described property, ALSO EXCEPT the west 135.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6 lying north of the centerline of Duck Lake Trail which lies west of a line drawn 350.00 feet east of and parallel with the west line of said East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6 and south of a line drawn easterly and at right angles to said west line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter from a point on said west line distant 1020.00 feet north of the centerline of Duck Lake Trail. REZONING DESCRIPTION (Rural to 13.5) The west 135.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying north of the centerline of Duck Lake Trail. . 'l55 The Farm 2nd Addition DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1988, by Countryside Investments, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.95 acres and from Public to R1-13.5 on 4.7 acres and for Preliminary Plat of 30 acres into 17 lots and one outlot for 16 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 # -88, 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 March 30, 1988, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 5, 1988, 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. Concurrent with, and as part of the final plat for the property, Developer agrees to dedicate a 20 ft. wide trail easement to be City, located along the north side of Duck Lake Trail, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 4. Prior to release of the final plat, Developer agrees to provide for a scenic easement across the rear portions of Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, as depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said easement shall be in the format of Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and shall be for purposes of protection of the natural features on the property. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer shall file said scenic easement with Hennepin County and provide proof of filing to the City. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain 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. 6. Prior to any issuance of any permit for grading on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Building Department and obtain the Building Department's approval of plans for demolition and/or removal of existing structures, wells, and septic systems on the property. Prior to demolition or removal, Developers shall provide to the City a certified check in the amount of $1,000.00 to guarantee the restoration of the property to grade. City agrees to return said certified check to Developer after the demolition or removal on the property is completed and after it is verified by City that the structures, wells and septic systems have been properly removed or demolished, and that the property has been restored to grade. 7. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 8. 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, including: A. Developer shall 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. 967 . B. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property within the construction limits as shown on Exhibit B. Developer shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within the wooded areas of the property prior to any grading upon the property. 9. Developer has submitted to the Director of Planning a tree replacement plan for 36 caliper inches of trees in accordance with the Tree Replacement Policy of the City attached hereto as Exhibit E, and made a part hereof, and Developer agrees to comply with said policy. 10. Developer has submitted a tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size, type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level. If any such trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area, Developer agrees that prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Developer shall: A. Submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a reforestation plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area. Developer further agrees that said trees shall be replaced by similar tree species and that the trees used for reforestation shall be no less than three inches in diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by the Director of Planning, using a area inch per area inch basis, according to the area of the circle created by a cross sectional cut through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the ground. B. Submit a bond, or letter of credit, guaranteeing completion of all tree reforestation work as approved by the Director of Planning, prior to issuance of any building permit on the property. The amount of the bond, or letter of credit, shall be 150% of the approved estimated cost of implementation of all tree replacement work and shall be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the Director of Planning. Developer shall also prepare and submit for approval to the Director of Planning a written estimate of the costs of the tree replacement work to be completed. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning. • The Farm 2nd Addition 11 OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTRYSIDE INVESTMENTS, INC. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 19B8, by and between Dean K. and Marcia Severson, husband and wife, and Dale W. and Jacquelyn Severson, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "Owners," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as "City:" For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #16-88 changing the zoning of the property owned by Dwner from the Rural and Public Districts to the R1-13.5 District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1988, by and between Countryside Investments, Inc., and City, Owners agree with the City as follows: 1. If Countryside Investments, Inc., fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owners shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property. 3. If the Owners transfer such property, Owners shall obtain an agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. CITY Gary D. Peterson, Mayor Carl J. Jullie, City Manager ')5a . ;. a OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO The Farm 2nd Addition it DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTRYSIDE INVESTMENTS, INC. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1988, by and King of Glory Lutheran Church, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as "City:" For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #16-88 changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner from the Rural and Public Districts to the R1-13.5 District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of 1988, by and between Countryside Investments, Inc., and City, Owners agree with the City as follows: 1. Concurrent with, and as part of the final plat for the property, Owners agree as follows: A. To dedicate Dutlot A, as depicted in Exhibit B, of the Developers Agreement, to the City. Said Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City free and clear of any mortgages, liens, or other encumbrances. 8. To dedicate to the City a 20 ft. wide trail easement to be located along the north side of Duck Lake Trail at the south boundary of the property. 2. If Countryside Investments, Inc., fails to proceed in accordance with the Oeveloper's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owners shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural. 3. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property. 4. If the Owners transfer such property, Owners shall obtain an agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Oeveloper's Agreement. CITY ary D. eterson, Mayor ar u ie i y onager • . A The Farm 2nd Addition 11 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-65 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 16-88 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 16-88 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3rd day of May, 1988; 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. 16-88, 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. 16-8B 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 May 3, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk ��DI The Farm 2nd Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE ND. 16-88 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 north of the intersection of Duck Lake Trail and Loralee Lane, from the Rural and Public Districts 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 , 1988. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) �10 Eden Place Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 5-88 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 CDDE 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 rezoned within the Commercial-Regional-Service District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is rezoned within the Commercial-Regional-Service District. 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 May 3, 198B, entered into between Prairie Entertainment Associates and the City of Eden Prairie, and that certain Owner's Supplement to Developer's Agreement, between Paul and Shirley Thomas, husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie, dated as of May 3, 1988, which Agreement and Owner's Supplement are hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 5th day of April, 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 3rd day of May, 1988. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of r)(423 Exhibit A Legal Description Planned Unit Development Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2, EDEN GLEN; Lot 1, Block 1, EDEN GLEN 2ND ADDITION; and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, EDEN GLEN 4TH ADDITION; all in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Zoning District Amendment and Preliminary Plat Lot 1, Block 1, EDEN GLEN ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Also, the west 150.00 feet of the north 210.00 feet of Tract "A" REGISTERED LAND SURVEY ND. 1449 on file in the Registrar of Titles Office, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part thereof platted as MONTGOMERY ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • Eden Place Center DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1988, by Prairie Entertainment Associates of Eden Prairie, a , 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 Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of the Eden Glen Center Planned Unit Development on 6.42 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial-Regional-Service Zoning District on 6.42 acres, and preliminary plat of 6.42 acres into one lot for the construction of 52,000 sq. feet of retail and restaurant uses, 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 #6-88, 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 March 10, 1988, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 5, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to issuance of any 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. BUJ J 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. 4. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 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. Said measures shall include, but not be limited to: A. 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. B. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property within the construction limits as shown on Exhibit B. Developer shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within the wooded areas of the property prior to any grading upon the property. 6. Prior to issuance of any grading permit on the property, Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning and receive the Director's approval of a tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size, type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level. If any such trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area, Developer agrees that prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Developer shall: A. Submit to the Director of Planning, and obtain the Director's approval of a reforestation plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area. B. Developer agrees that said trees shall be replaced by similar tree species and that the trees used for reforestation shall be no less than three inches in diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by the Director of Planning, using a area inch per area inch basis, according to the area of the circle created by a cross sectional cut through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the ground. C. If a tree reforestation plan is required, Developer agrees that, prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer will submit a bond, or letter of credit, guaranteeing completion of all tree reforestation work as approved by the Director of Planning. The amount of the bond, or letter of credit, shall be 15D% of the approved estimated cost of implementation of all tree replacement work and shall be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the Director of Planning. Developer agrees to prepare and submit for approval to the Director of Planning a written estimate of the costs of the tree replacement work to be completed. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of: A. Samples of materials to be used on the exterior of the building, including colors and textures to be implemented. B. Detailed plans for the lighting on the property, including materials, locations, and colors of materials to be implemented. Said plans shall depicted that no lighting standard is greater than 20 ft. in height and that all luminars shall be downcast, cut-off luminars in style, in order that there shall be no off-site glare from the lighting on the property. C. Detailed plans for screening of all mechanical equipment on the property, including transformers, trash receptacles, air conditioning and heating units, etc. Said plans shall depict design and materials that are architecturally integral with the materials to be implemented on the exterior of the structure as discussed in item 7.A., above. Landscaping used for screening of such equipment shall be as depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, regarding the Service Area. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to implement said materials and plans, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer agrees to submit detailed plans to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of detailed plans for signage on the property. Developer agrees that said signage plans shall meet the following criteria: A. Wall signs shall be located only within those areas J17 designated for walls signs in Exhibit E, attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. The sign areas designated "small tenants" of the property, as depicted in Exhibit E, attached hereto, shall not exceed 36" in height. A 24" horizontal margin shall be maintained between the sign and the ends of each individual sign area for each of the individual tenants. A 6" vertical margin shall be maintained between the top and bottom of the lettering of the sign(s) and the top and bottom of the sign area. C. The sign areas designated for "large tenants" of the property, as depicted in Exhibit E, attached hereto, shall not exceed 48" in height. A 36" horizontal margin shall be maintained between the sign and the ends of each individual sign area for each of the individual tenants. A 6" vertical margin shall be maintained between the top and bottom of the lettering of the sign(s) and the top and bottom of the sign area. D. Lettering shall be uniform in color, exclusive of tenant logos. Lettering and logo size shall not exceed 24" for "small tenants" of the property and shall not exceed 35" for the "large tenants" of the property, all as depicted on Exhibit E, attached hereto. Lettering and logos shall be individually mounted and internally lit. E. One free-standing pylon sign, not to exceed 20 ft. in height and 80 sq. ft. in size shall be permitted. The base of the sign shall not exceed 50% of the total size of the sign, per City Code requirements. Lettering for said free-standing sign shall be consistent with wall signs and materials and colors of the sign area. The support base for said free- standing sign shall be consistent with the materials and colors of the exterior building materials. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to implement said signage plans, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. g. Developer agrees to construct five-foot wide, five-inch thick concrete sidewalks, in accordance with City standards and specifications, along Eden Road and along Glen Lane, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said construction shall take place concurrent with building construction on the property and shall be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 10. Developer and City acknowledge that the restaurant use depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, is a critical part of the overall Eden Glen Planned Unit Development for the property, which provides a needed service to the community, and that retail uses, alone would RD l not be appropriate for the property and would continue to contribute to an overbalance of retail use within the Eden Glen Planned Unit Development. Therefore, Developer agrees that if the restaurant use is not implemented on the property, Developer shall return to the City Planning Commission and City Council with a request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall Eden Glen Planned Unit Development. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to demonstrate that the design framework of the Eden Glen Planned Unit Development has been successfully accomplished, that the proposed use change would not detract from the overall strong image and mix of uses existing in the Eden Glen Planned Unit Development, and that the use proposed meets the criteria of the 1985 BRW Traffic Study for the Major Center Area. Tog • 1 Eden Place Center OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN PRAIRIE ENTERTAINMENT ASSOCIATES OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 198B, by and between Paul and Shirley Thomas, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "Owners," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as "City:" For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #6-88 amending the zoning of the property owned by Owners within the C-Regional-Service District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1988, by and between Prairie Entertainment Associates of Eden Prairie and City, Owners agree with the City as follows: 1. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property. 2. If the Owners transfer such property, Owners shall obtain an agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. CITY Gary D. Peterson, Mayor Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 7 V Eden Place Center 11 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-66 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 5-88 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION DF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5-88 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3rd day of May, 1988; 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. 5-88, 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. 5-88 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 May 3, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Eden Place Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 5-88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMDVING 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 west of Glen Lane, south and east of Eden Road, within the Commercial-Regional-Service District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This 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 , 1988. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) /:1\ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician ' DATE: APRIL 28, 1988 SUBJECT: SHADY OAK RIDGE 3RD ADDITION PROPOSAL: The Developer, Joe Ruzic, has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Shady Oak Ridge 3rd Addition, a single family residential subdivision located West of Old Shady Dak Road and North of Rowland Road. The plat contains 3.08 acres to be divided into two single family lots and two Outlots. Outlot A contains 1.47 acres and Outlot B contains 0.84 acres. Ownership of Outlot A will be retained by the Developer for future development. Ownership of Outlot B will be transferred to the property owner to the North to serve as a future access point. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council December 1, 1937 per Resolution 87-292. The second reading of Ordinance 59-87, changing zoning from Rural to R1- 13.5, was finally read and approved January 19, 1988. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed January 19, 1988. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, roadways and walkways are currently under construction with an earlier phase of this development and will be completed in accordance with City Standards and the requirements of the Developer's Agreement. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Bonding shall conform to the requirements of City Code and the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Shady Oak Ridge 3rd Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee of $250.00 JJ:ss cc: Joe Ruzic Ron Krueger and Associates 11 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-69 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF SHADY OAK RIDGE 3RD ADDTION WHEREAS, the plat of SHADY OAK RIDGE 3RD 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 SHADY OAK RIDGE 3RD ADDITION is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated APRIL 27, 1988. 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 3, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician q• DATE: APRIL 27, 1988 SUBJECT: VIKING DRIVE WEST PROPOSAL: The property owners, Vantage Properties, Inc. and Marriott Corporation, have requested City Council approval of the final plat of Viking Drive West. Located South of Viking Drive, West of Prairie Center Drive and East of US Highway 169, the plat contains 13.94 acres to be divided into three lots for commercial development. Lot 2 contains 4.2 acres and is the site selected for construction of a 149 room Marriott Courtyard Hotel. This plat consists of a replat of Outlot F Golden Strip and part of Lot 1 Block 1 Golden Strip 2nd Addition. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council November 3, 1987 per Resolution 87-299. The second reading of Ordinance 54-87-PUD-14-87, changing zoning from Regional Commercial to Regional Service Commercial was finally read and approved at the City Council meeting December 10, 1987. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed December 10, 1987. VARIANCES: All variance requests not approved with the Planned Unit Develop- ment District review and zoning district change must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, roadways and walkways necessary to service this site are currently in place and available for extension into the site. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Bonding must conform to the requirements of City Code and the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Viking Drive West subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee of $1,394.00 JJ:ss cc: BRW, Inc. Vantage Properties, Inc. Marriott Corporation 7)5 . 11 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. 88-70 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF VIKING DRIVE WEST WHEREAS, the plat of VIKING DRIVE WEST 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 VIKING DRIVE WEST is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated APRIL 27, 1988. 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 3, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 77(D CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician (\� DATE: APRIL 27, 1988 �J SUBJECT: WEST 5 BUSINESS CENTER PROPOSAL: The Developer, John R. Smith, has requested City Council approval of the final plat of West 5 Business Ceiter, a two lot subdivision in the Eden Prairie Industrial Park located East of Fuller Road and South of State Highway 5. The plat contains 4.68 acres to be divided into two lots for construction of a warehosue building. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March 1, 1988 per Resolution 8B-34. The second reading of Ordinance 12-88, changing zoning from I-General to I-2 is scheduled for Council action May 3, 198B. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution May 3, 1988. VARIANCES: All variance requests not previously granted must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, roadways and walkways necessary to service this site are currently in place and available for connection. PARK DEDICATIDN: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Bonding must conform to the requirements of City Code and the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of West 5 Business Center subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee of $468.00 JJ:ss cc: Smith Architects Ron Krueger and Associates • �r�� CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-71 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF WEST 5 BUSINESS CENTER WHEREAS, the plat of WEST 5 BUSINESS CENTER has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for WEST 5 BUSINESS CENTER is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated APRIL 27, 1988. 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 3, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk MFMORANDUM TO: The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources FROM: Rick Bolinske, Superintendent of Recreation DATE: April 12, 1988 SUBJECT: Making Visa and Mastercard Available to Eden Prairie Community Center Users Staff at the Eden Prairie Community Center propose the establishment of Visa and Mastercard availability for patrons using the Community Center for the following reasons. 1. Staff feels we would increase the number of memberships we sell if credit through Mastercard and Visa were available. Since we have increased the fees it is now more difficult for people to pay an entire membership at one time. With Mastercard or Visa they would be able to pay off their membership over a period of time. Staff feels this would make our membership package more attractive and would increase the amount of memberships that we would sell. 2. Families who sign up for several classes at the Community Center now have a large payment. Many of our classes now cost $22.00 apiece and many times patrons sign up for several classes at one time. Through Mastercard and Visa they now would be able to sign up for these classes and pay for them over time. 3. The average business over 50 per cent of their sales are now through Visa and Mastercard. Staff does not feel our percentage would be that high, but we feel we would have a high percentage of people who would choose to use them if they were available. 4. Persons we have talked to anticipate we would see an increase of one third through the use of Mastercard and Visa. I do not feel our per- centage of increase would be that high but I do believe we would see an increase in business and income because of the establishment of the cards. 5. Now that our prices for memberships are higher and our classes cost more we do get more requests for having Visa and Mastercard available. 6. Our payment through Visa and Mastercard would be very similar to how we handle checks now. We would receive the entire amount of a Visa or Mastercard purchase right away or similar to when we receive the amount from checks. The process for doing Visa and Mastercard is no more complicated than receiving checks. -0 9 The major disavantages that I see in using Visa and Mastercard for the Community Center are as follows. 1. Staff must call to verify the validity of somebodies Mastercard or Visa if amounts are over $50 - $75. This process will take one or two minutes to do. Right now we have purchases over $50 - $75 an average of 4 times per day. This means if everything stays the same we would have to make 4 calls to Visa or Mastercard each day to verify the accounts. Hopefully, the number of times that we would have to call would increase if business increased because we had the cards. 2. Three to four per cent of the amount of the purchase would be deducted from the amount we would receive as handling costs for having Visa and Mastercard. Staff feels we would make up this difference in the amount of extra business that we produce by having the cards. In summary, the staff feels it would be to the benefit of the Community Center to establish credit through Mastercard and Visa. Staff feels it would allow more people to get in our classes and join as members of the Community Center. Should you have any questions concerning the above matters please do not hesitate to call me at 937-8727. The amount of time between approval and setting the process would be one month. We are hopeful that we can get this implemented by the first of June to be prepared for our large summer rush. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources ' _ DATE: April 7, 1988 SUBJECT: Request From Eden Lake Elementary Attached is a letter from Bob Hallett, Principal of Eden Lake Elementary School, representing the Parent Teacher Organization from Eden Lake Elementary requesting the City install $15,000 worth of additional playground equipment at Eden Lake Park. The Parent Teacher Organization will reimburse the City over a three year period at $5,000 per year for this equipment. The City completed a similar project at Forest Hills School Park, in which the City installed playground equipment and was reimbursed by the Parent Teacher Organization. In both cases, the City and School are winners. The School District program needs additional playground equipment for their school and the playground equipment is located on City Park property adjacent to the school. This park playground is used by neighborhood children after school hours, on weekends and throughout the summer. Ar City staff recommends support of the request to install an additional $15,000 worth of playground equipment at Eden Lake Park during the summer of 1988. BL:mdd • ' i ■ r \ EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS District 272 Office of the Principal Eden Lake Elementary School Telephone:(612)944-0988 TO: MAYOR, GARY PETERSON FROM: BOB HALLETT DATE: APRIL 8, 1988 SUBJECT: EDEN LAKE PLAYGROUND Our playground that was jointly planned and developed with the City of Eden Prairie at Eden Lake Elementary School, has been working very well. It was a pleasure working with Bob Lambert and Barb Cross. We were unable to complete the total playground area that we planned with the city because of the cost. The Parent Organization at Eden Lake School has agreed to use $5,000 a year for three years, from our • carnival proceeds, for playground equipment. When I was at Forest Hills School, the City advanced us the • money to do the playground and we paid them back so much each year. I am requesting that we install the $15,00 worth of playground equipment this summer. This would allow students and citizens to use the equipment immediately instead of waiting three years. We would reimburse the city $5,000 by September 1, each year for the next three years, starting September 1, 1988. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Bob Hallett, Principal Eden Lake Elementary School cc Dr. J. McCoy Merle Game Carl Jullie Bob Lambert Eden Lake Elementary School 12000 Anderson Lakes Parkway Eden Prairie,MN.55344 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson SUBJECT: Payment to NSP for Transmission Tower Protection DATE: April 21, 1988 A Northern States Power Company transmission tower sits within an easement on the property on which Fire Station No. 4 is being built. Prior to grading on the property, water drained away from the base of the pole. Due to the placement of fill needed to make the site buildable, the tower now sits some two feet below the surrounding grade. The City's architect designed a retaining wall and collection basin system which staff believes is adequate to protect the tower base. NSP has adamantly disagreed, saying that "adequate protection can be achieved only by the use of a specifically designed corrosion collar and waterproof coating on the tower." It demands that the City pay the full cost of this alternative. NSP estimates its cost to be $7,500 ($6,5D0 for materials and installation, plus $1,00 for overhead). The solution designed by the City costs $4,111. At issue, then, is the $3,379 difference. NSP argues that it is allowing the City to use an easement which NSP has paid for, and that we are negotiating an agreement which allows the City to build within it at no cost other than those necessary to safeguard the transmission lines. The standard language in the "encroachment license agreement", which should be presented for Council consideration within the next two months, states that the licensee (i.e., City) shall bear all costs for relocating or rebuilding any of NSP's facilities caused by the construction of the building. Despite NSP's inflexibility on these points, its arguments have merit. There are several good reasons to have NSP do the work as it wishes. First, NSP will be satisfied with work done to its standards. Second, by having NSP do the work, the responsbility for and potential liability from the transmission tower should fall to NSP rather than the City. In this sense, the $3,400 difference becomes a one-time insurance premium. Finally, this issue would be expedited to be done on a timely schedule with overall construction. Funds for this item would come from the 1986 Fire Bond Fund. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that NSP be authorized to install the transmission tower protection at the Fire Station No. 4 site at a cost not to exceed $7,500. CWD:jdp CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-76 A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NATIONAL DRINKING WATER WEEK WHEREAS, water itself is God-given, and the drinking water that flows dependably through our household taps results from the dedication of the men and women who operate the public water systems of collection, storage, treatment, testing and distribution that insures that drinking water is. available, affordable, and of unquestionable quality; WHEREAS, the advances in health effects research and water analysis and treatment technologies, in conjunction with the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 (Public Law 99-339), could create major changes in the projection and distribution of drinking water; WHEREAS, this substance, which the public uses with confidence in so many productive ways, is without doubt the single most important product in the world and a significant issue of the future; WHEREAS, the public expects high quality drinking water to always be there when needed; and WHEREAS, the public continues to increase its demand for drinking water of unquestionable quality: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie that the week of May 2-8, 1988 be proclaimed NATIONAL DRINKING WATER WEEK Adopted by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 3rd Day of May, 1988. Gary 0. Peterson Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 88-75 RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make the following improvements: I.C. 52-142 - Sidewalk Improvement on Boyd Avenue and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study, and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements. ADOPTEd by the Eden Prairie City Council on MAY 3, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk I The Concerned Citizens of Boyd Avenue c/o Bob Woxland 7081 Boyd Avenue Eden Prairie,MN 55344 April26, 1988 City of Eden Prairie Administrative Offices 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Attn:Gene Dietz Dear Mr. Dietz, Please find the attached petition from the residents of Boyd Avenue. It is for a sidewalk to be installed on the south side of Boyd Avenue from lots whose street address start at 7001, ending at 7125. This sidewalk would connect with the existing bike trail on Boyd Avenue that goes to Prairie View Elementary School and the existing sidewalk on South Shore Lane. The main purpose of the sidewalk would be to give the children living on Boyd Avenue, as well as others living in the area, a safe place to walk, ride bikes and play. This portion of Boyd Avenue has 39 children,most of which are in Elementary School or younger. Please consider this petition at your next meeting. If you have any further questions please feel free to call either Norm Cox (H-937-0317) or me, (Bob Woxland H-937-1996, W-835- 3400). Thank you. ']• lD 6 Dat.iuC.CZ.D TCO 26-Se3 TT// 41' i 177— i _S 7✓ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 11 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 Location) Sanitary Sewer Weterma in Storm Sewer Street Paving !C _ Other South SroF aC $. /D HUE•J✓e- S,DE''R- FQoM 700/ 7 7/ZS Street Address or Other Legal Description of Names of Petitioners Property to be Served (Must Be Property Owners) lab S $.y ��E ••�—_���� « , 7o8/ .Boyo 7e)9.7 Leeyel Ava. 41uc11. alt4A44.1t,7)1. ADo-no-fm.... , t (For City Use) Date Received 4,00/ Z(0195q Project No. $Z`/UZ. Council Consideration F4 y -39 T "r AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS This is an Agreement made this a+ day of December, 1987 betwen the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation (the "City"), Lloyd G. Cherne and Joan A. Cherne, husband and wife, ("Cherne") and CSM Corporation, a Minnesota corporation ("CSM") as owner and as general partner of Fountain Place Apartments, a limited partnership and Fountain Place Apartments II, a limited partnership (the "Owner"). 1. The Owner holds legal and equitable title to the property surveyed and platted as Fountain Place Apartments, Hennepin County, Minnesota and property described in attached Exhibit A hereto. 2. The Owner desires to build the property in such a manner that will require the construction of a road and related items, resulting from the Fountain Place Apartment Project including, but not limited to, concrete curb and gutter, sanitary sewer and storm sewer, water, utilities, catch basins and manholes, sidewalks and trailways (the "Improvements") which shall benefit the property described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 3. The parties hereto desire to enter into an agreement concerning the spreading of the assessments which shall result from the construction of the improvements, all of which will inure to the benefit of the property. 4. Cherne has entered into a purchase agreement with Fountain Place Apartments Limited Partnership for the sale of property platted as Fountain Place Apartments, (Tract "A") which purchase agreement contains an agreement regarding assessments for improvements that may be levied on property owned by Cherne ("Tract B") which is not included in the plat of Fountain Place Apartments. The purchase price for the property has been adjusted to reflect the agreement by CSM to azsume assessments for improvements that may be levied on property to be owned by Cherne after the sale of property to CSM. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS: 1. Assessments with respect to construction of Columbine Road and Fountain Place Road resulting from the Fountain Place Apartment Project (construction of said road being defined for the purpose of this Agreement as costs for earth work, paved or bituminous road surface, curb and gutter), shall be assessed solely against CSM's property described as Tract "A" on Exhibit A attached hereto. 2. Assessments with respect to the construction and installation of sanitary and storm sewer, water, utilities which will be constructed by the City of Eden Prairie resulting from the Fountain Place Apartment Project and which will benefit Cherne's property (Tract "B") shall be assessed solely against CSM's property described as Tract "A" on Exhibit A attached ' hereto. 3. All assessments with respect to the construction of and installation of the bicycle path which shall be located on the West side of Columbine Road as said road is laid out on attached Exhibit A hereto shall be assessed solely against CSM's property described as Tract "A" on Exhibit A attached hereto. 4. All costs in connection with the construction of a concrete path to be adjacent to and East of Columbine Road and which lies solely on CSM's property described as Tract "B" on Exhibit A shall be assessed solely against the property described as Tract "B" on Exhibit A attached hereto. 5. All costs in connection with the construction of a concrete path to be adjacent to and East of Columbine Road which lies solely on the Cherne property described as Tract "A" on Exhibit A shall be assessed solely against the property described as Tract "A" on Exhibit A attached hereto. 6. Any trees required to be placed on the property described as Outlot "B" Fountain Place Apartments resulting the Fountain Place Apartments Development Project shall be assessed solely against the property described as Tract "B" on Exhibit A attached hereto. 7. Both Cherne and CSM agree to cooperate with the City in the spreading of the assessments as described above and request that any assessments assessed against Tract "A" or Tract "B" be made payable over the most extended time permitted by the City of Eden Prairie. This Agreement shall be effective immediately. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, (=1:4C'`(77 a Municipal Corporation rLloyd— -e 'Cherne By: Gary D. Peterson Its: Mayor Joan A. Cherne By: Carl J. Julie Its: City Manager CSM CORPORATION, a Minnesota corpor ion By: Gary Holmes Its: President fri9 1" ..,, .1 4. ____I-----..____________._...-..__ 1/ if iil x I Z: i, al a ti ... ..z........4:;:,...........-\ ,''''. .------Th.." • (. .... ; I''- 1&- J.' ..,\ ''i•' '0? 11 rn `t\,.., \ ,• 47 , i 1.---,:ii,..--- --- ....„ .\ ••., 1,, -,... 1.:;'" i' ;ll'is•--,,i; " , li _,i. ..,? ,:!..,,, ,t1,--.- . 7.7-!....-,. -- -,-, ; 11,\• i z ...1 0 ,''.. r -st,'r,-, ... .., ' , ,.. 4,'.4t,,,I I I - -• t o.1 ,',,,i '9 `III 9 . •-• ill iP . If:' ///1-- /// irl . t l' )11 'kz, ,„)!. . ) * it.•• t4 .. ! •' :t'"P b• C''-------- r--I .-."'"•__ "D 4 tN' -,..\ ---- ,/ ._ ' ' ---- // ni , • V 1 ,y . ,, 1 \ a , IJ,5' iri,:f '•• \A‘ -24 . 4t. PI Li/ 1 : --- & \1 1 ,,, \ l' M,, • \'‘ \-:. p \ --- '4 i ii . \\.!;,1,4 \t.. .",- 4 4 \.1, , , . . 1.. ,.,\\ .,••\ \. i, 7 ;-„7.7.-i•7.,,—i,-;----•-.. . /- \ .,\ \,---- I - - ----r=:: ---i;-:,,cs, .--, \\4 , 4 . • .., ..-- .;‘,•• \ • fi:: a4:1\`'‘.", . ..... X) ..1„ ..1 / \ / ;1 •px\ \ . •2,t'i .1..,:'' , •••1 i5' ,.__} /4/ il•s: ,,.\ ti N i . /,`';.1 -5.t&.....,q,,, ''''%\ ..•' \'\ ii:, ;°,.. z t t... 1.24,-97%,.—' '':,\ $ ...• C :•i ;'.:, ..J Ney,N's,s''''‘ 'VI ' .-_:,,4:4' ::' :\ . '''t• -1 ilt ::' ,„-''''`' ''Z.!,+:" ' sZ.,t-31 %,!,,,,,`'q'. ',, . '..7, '' \ A -•. Icil i g41 ' Vj '‘'.4:\,,,, , '-: •••!,,,,k4';1,..i.- 4/,-.,........;-..,so;,,-,,•°':.. \\\ f; .;,..:•/ \.,.\ • ', . . • •'t'l,1 N \t., < 41A. , „,it, i,---..„\ %,., ll!I ii Igl; fp.i \.:.S•44 '' ' ...,:ib %. ..„... I Vti / , ,,, %;V:1..1ht0:: , ''''''" ''''."...., '21 411 ,I 4fi ' ., jillt.-- - • -4 fa $j. 4.0,8 ;1: 1 1 a ' ' ''' • § 8 -ill -* i -I: •Li \ ‘, (,:,t S I 111 ii ! 1 ilf (1 I A i 1 I i '. d \\•' _____ • \ \ .,, •• . . - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician • + �1 DATE: April 26, 1988 SUBJECT: Grading Permit for Rice Lake Control Structures The property owners, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Sever Peterson, are requesting a land alteration permit to work within the Minnesota River floodplain. The work consists of the installation of two control structures to allow control of water levels on Big and Little Rice Lake. One of the structures would replace an existing beaver dam on the outflow stream, and the other would be in a ditch that would be dug to connect Little Rice Lake to a stream approximately 120' to the east that flows into the Minnesota River. The purpose of this project is to control rough fish population, encourage aquatic plant growth, and to improve the habitat for waterfowl through water level management by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Edward Crozier, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be at your meeting to present the project and answer any questions you may have. In January, Judy Boudreaux, DNR Regional Hydrologist; Ed Crozier, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Sever Peterson, property owner; and myself, met on the site and reviewed the project. Comments were favorable and it was felt that this project would function as intended. The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District approved this project April 13, 19BB. Attached for your review are copies of the permit applications for the MDNR permits for work within protected waters and correspondence received from the Watershed District. This ject was Parks,prRecreation randeWNatural the Resources irCommission. C°rtothsiCo and the recommended approval subject to the issuance of stb s by the LtheisLower Minnesota River Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Staff recommends approval of the Land Alteration permit for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service subject to final approval by the MDNR. JJ:ss Encl. -)q1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Naturalal Resources FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Environmental Services Managert' DATE: April 28, 1988 SUBJECT: Cleanup Eden Prairie Day As per the recommendation of the City Council, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department is organizing an effort to cleanup parks, school grounds, and the major links of the hikeway/bikeway system on May 20 and 21, 1988. At the present time, several schools have been contacted and the tentative plans are to have then cleanup their grounds and adjacent parklands on Friday, May 20th. Service groups such as the Rotary, Jaycees, etc. will be assisting with cleanup on Saturday morning May 21st. This idea has been well received by those that the staff has contacted and people are eager to pitch in and help. Additional information will be forthcoming once an organizational meeting is held. One additional note is that Saturday, May 21st is the date of the "Walk for willMankibe"making an gh Eannouncement at the beginningwith the organizers den Prairie. I have spoken ofthewalkwhich starts hat Eden Prairie Center, that the City is conducting a cleanup day and please assist in helping wherever they see litter. SAF:mdd • Aga 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-72 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 5th day of April, 1988 fixed the 3rd day of May as the date for a public hearing on the following proposed improvements: I.C. 52-051 - Watermain, Sanitary Sewer, Street and Storm Sewer Improvements, Mitchell Road/Research Road 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 May at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered. 2. The City Engineer is hereby designed as the Engineer for this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement, with the assistance of RCM, Inc. consulting engineers. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on MAY 3, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • 193 Ciptit a3, /9pi flar6a.7 / 7000 e7cicatAve2Luu� att4vf, ,,,✓ i22 tr1L ,Paaeoc odmfrtor u4t1 D P2ay t/.ctt p% b�irn. .aiicc., a t i nd2t r,..2 /l4K:feta a,.ofa,e e. o v n2ikAde Alec Alain mz ¢e4 J 'G �°t22¢uafc, e ma v dor,�.,t�,4410e .. t,Ase ,do AeA en/ z L �vYI i4i z�tGL .OG(/Vace. L� r tice. - / ihtfJJ?G/�i D.FinQ u� .L ed-44;cc vzeh t .zen .�/i Raasu�amo�r Ja.. .tat .6 .fife 4 aket.:tQ722,u c4, 1/1- u 1rt�r 1 z Cr, s:UdtziaL >G[�QG[14{1CL , .did✓ kee171(1. ✓LBGGlz- , ee /n -1,;t -fie tr� cou t f¢ CGnO• l .0 /LGY11G 4' i3�lZ 1jG1L Zt ,2 /.ele ` 7 7 -LG:QcC -az OLEL�rt�lr� i,r 1//--2� ,OeoGLC . avau el -Xia� , Aoue .4z Le �. -+ etza.e /acc. 4- -79Li A4/ zAve,e_ '"5i P,oao ____ - s.dn.v 414W . cozaA,t t44,to .cvz/v .et, 30 p.t, 044 //0 a ,o� . 7/ce < ..ez,as1¢a?i»�h.f. 1,24+1 .fzcr u_ fdv n %,r avu: .ia .new ,uu.,,a( ,fie- C ici aeata- <1,aooca ✓ .c ri1`h LCno LLt:CLn 9 M.Lte.AZ .c ,dal/ .a,h GL et#4,,,;w e:46.4 4.0 ,fa Ai-xj.11zc-t y oz . u.)-,za✓ta. rCZ` -Geeu. /na e .Z v „tA i1G�can Zin-� .e 4 0.,44, v 4 44,G ,t, Cone Ae444.cw c -azte-i ,e/ta t ,aa.. Aire tfc/o u k / .a..l4 f o.44-1,cc cu�w tiu�l�:. .w.' 0 / ,ae-/eam . ou jr+y Aidoweg_ 4 / /" att Cern0 " kfizt a pou cane,‘,/et .e-xCcmul -e42-44 Can:444i ,mac t1t4, el s ��n te, /6k Qum_ y�naC` rnow .l.�L. 7/alcu y .iz r',.A' _tiC4C /-et•nt.t- . / J j L v 75 .ect- 4904:4,t. L161/zez,d9 I Itiatdd. 442. ,iv i e C 4 4 ✓/ . ,teat ffe ,xe 4i 4 , �ncc o „tk 41IL ad- o7 Elie In . QG� cold /vvaa, ,,,vwxCz' holve,&e, .mot uivetid dui.> ,a_( A ri n.eve,C. as7 .Oa/id c, a x .!zeta am- odd /Jetuec ,2nl au__ .4 , Le ro�ooy icy , AAc cow ou 'uica(E dine!/ uErtr �., ad,e4;,. / Ga;c � 7/6. /u74/. gin. ing.7"`"-2 .arse. at//tez a,,,.,et-C' 4 o na'S22et�ii, and a/exe ram, CXe. /95 D 12'1 y Aa>u wno . atJ.ad .Qaat yea,, lx a ce. frt a"b` len 190,coo art v' iUe acczae /vat .a/ncl,gc�c, d# U ,e .bte, v `,xtcz .�ft -egb. 6 nd /y1v7.7x-i47 aGeeoa. . cv ., ,a ne( aewrr., fQe ve mit ,ancJ Me zcu•- �a++uF'y .ktc `laa- ,Glatt aaaamr.46 .in fyco A, `./Anti CU.22 ,4) .4t7ze., t f l Jd? ✓ Aivu.W I ate . wr i .Zi p 4,444 41atCon, o f ..1icd At fir ¢ ‘fryzd .bore. / e24ag4.1 laalt.m./ ca4a 4m. ant ,% /2Za y vc 9 6 o /4,ia4.€/ , '19') CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #88-67 RESOLUTIDN APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF STARRING LAKE ?ND ADDITION FOR RED ROCK HEIGHTS PARTNERSHIP BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Staring Lake 2nd Addition for Red Rock Heights Partnership, dated April 29, 1988, consisting of 8.3 acres into 12 single family lots within the R1-22 District, 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 May, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk I Z STAFF REPORT I TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner Tt OUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 8, 1988 PROJECT: Staring Lake 2nd Addition LOCATION: North of County Road #1, between Eickholts Addition and Staring Lake 1st Addition. APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Red Rock Heights Partnership REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of 8.3 into 13 single family lots within the R1-22 Zoning District. Background TP)This site is currently guided for a ,� Low Density Residential land use, 1 with surrounding land uses to the north, east, and west guided Low Density Residential, with Public Open Space to the south. The site — was zoned R1-22 per Ordinance #135, I I in 1969. Surrounding development caisist of Eickholts Addition to the (,,,, , west, Brace's Bit to the na-th, and i Staring Lake 1st Addition to the i III/- east, all zoned R1-22. City sewer �' �`!f and water service is not available to the site at this time but because the property was zoned R1-22 prior to the revision of the City Ordinance an July 1, 1932, it may be T i subdivided into smaller than 10-acre parcels without public sewer and water. PROPOSED SITE The site is characterized by a sloping topography from a high point of 901 feet along the east property " line, to 859 feet on the west side where a ponding area exists. The majority of vegetatim consists of boxelder, cottonwood, and willow _ trees with the exception of some ash and oak varieties. AREA LOCATION MAP -N Staring Lake 2nd Addition 2 April 8, 1988 This project was withdrawn from the March 14, 1988, Planning Commission agenda due to neighborhood ccncenis regarding storm water and future road ccnnection. Since then, the proponent has had a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project in mare detail and wishes to proceed at this tine. Pre l im i nary Plat The 8.3-acre parcel is proposed to be subdivided into 13 single family lots ranging in size from 22,000 to 36,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 25,540 square feet. 0ensity for the project is 1.56 units per acre, with Code allowing up to 2.5 units per acre. Neighboring densities range from 0.4 units per acre to the north, 1.25 units per acre to the east, and 1.5 units per acre to the west. Lots within the R1-22 zoning district require 90 feet of frontage except for lots that abut entirely on the arc of a cul-de-sac, in which 55 feet is required. The proponent should revise the frontage for Lot 5 from 75 feet to the required 90 feet to meet ordinance. The existing farm house on Lot 2 is proposed to remain with setbacks meeting the R1-22 zoning district. The proponent has indicated the dedication of an additional 17 feet of right-of-way for County Road #1. This meets with Hennepin County's right-of-way requirement. Orainage and utility easements have been provided for a storm sewer outlet pipe and a proposed 8-inch sanitary sewer line. An easement will also surround the collector pond along the west side of the property. Grading The existing topography for this site slopes from the east to west ranging from 901 to 859 feet in elevation. The proposed grading will utilize this existing slope characteristic, with the construction of a cul-de-sac in the center of the property with the grading of housepads to accommodate construction. All proposed grading will not exceed a maximum of a 3:1 slope. The majority of the existing vegetation will be preserved, except for approximately 38% of the significant vegetation, or 144 caliper inches. According to the tree preservation policy, the proponent will be required to replace 128 caliper inches of trees on-site. Prior to City Council review, a tree replacement plan will be required to be submitted. As part of the approval for this project, the proponent will be required to grade and restore the entire site as outlined in the approved plan. Drainage The proponent is providing an m-site storm sewer system to collect stone water run- off and direct it to the ponding area along the west side of the property. A culvert is also being provided under the road at the entrance of the property to maintain the flow along the Swale within the County right-of-way. The ponding area on-site has no outlet, and is a collecting area for approximately a 30-acre watershed within this neighborhood (see attachment). The proponent proposes to grade additional storage capacity for the pond to handle the anticipated run-off calculated for this site. In addition, the proponent has indicated two alternatives in order to provide an outlet for this collector area. For a more detailed report regarding the proposed drainage plans, please refer to the attachment from the City Engineer with this report. Staring Lake 2nd Addition 3 April 8, 1988 Utilities As stated earlier, this property dces not have public sewer and water available, rather, the use of private drain fields and wells are proposed. As part of the road coistruction, the proponent indicates the construction of an 8-inch sanitary sewer line within the roadway and running towards the west where it will be capped and available for future connection when sanitary sewer is provided to the site. The plans do not address the accessibility of sanitary sewer for Lot 13 at this time. Future water service will be provided within the boulevard of the right-of-way when available. The proponent proposes to install a 2-inch sleeve for each lot at this tine to be located underneath the road to eliminate having to jack the water service under the road once water becomes available. Private drainfields and wells are proposed for the site at this time. Setback and design criteria for these systems meet Code requirements; however, the propurent is indicating placing the drainfields for Lots 3 through 6 approximately 15 feet above the first-floor elevation of the proposed units. This method would require the use of pumps. The proponent should revise the grading plan to shift the 3:1 slope further to the east and relocate the drainfields at the base of the slope in order to eliminate the additional 15 feet of grade change to reach the drainfield. The existing drainfield on Lot 2 will need to be located prior to City Council review to determine if the required 10-foot setback to the proposed lot lines is met. Access Access to the property will be off County Road #1. Hemepin County has reviewed the access point for sight vision distance and has indicated that the location of the cul-de-sac meets their criteria for a 50 MPH design speed, but that Lot 13 dces not. Stardards for sight vision distance would require a minimum view of 700 feet for a vehicle leaving the site to the right and 740 feet for a vehicle turning to the left. The access from Lot 13 would provide only 600 feet of sight vision distance to the east. Due to the traffic problems that currently exist for the ballfield entrance adjacent to this site, no additional access should be allowed to County Road #1 other than from the cul-de-sac, and Lot 13 should be removed from the plan and incorporated into Lots 11 and 12. Because of the size of the lots that lie to the north of this property, Staff conducted a review of future access to this property should it be subdivided at a later date. In reviewing possible access to the property, two alternatives were explored. One was to eliminate the cul-de-sac for this project, making it a through road, allowing for future connection. The other alternative was to provide access from a road alignment through the future Red Rock Ranch development to the north (see attachment). Staff would recommend that the cul-de-sac remain rather than creating a through road condition in order to limit the amount of future traffic directed to County Road #1. Access from the north will still allow all the properties concerned to subdivide at a future date. Summary Since the property was zoned R1-22 prior to the requirement for City sewer and water, the proposal bases development on the use of private drainfields and wells. The project, as submitted, meets City Code subject to the revisions provided in this report. The issue that needs to be addressed is, should this project be approved at this tine without a solution for a storm water outlet? This pond may be altered 101 Staring Lake 2nd Addition 4 April 8, 1988 enough to accommodate the projects anticipation run-off, but since a controlled paid elevation would not be available in the near future, fluctuations will continue depending an storm event run-off. Neighbors adjacent to the paid have experienced flooding in the past during a spring melt. STAFF RECCTIMENDATIONS I. If the Plaming Commission finds that the project is acceptable without the provisions of a storm water outlet then approval of the project should be based an plans dated February 15, 1988, and Alternative A of the City Engineer's memo, Staff Report, dated April 8, 1988, and subject to the following c cn ditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the frontage for Lot 5 from 75 feet to 90 feet to meet Code. B. Provide a tree replacement plan for 128 caliper inches of trees per the tree preservation policy. C. Revise the grading plan to shift the 3:1 slope further east and relocate the drainfields at the base of the slope. D. Determine if existing drainfield on Lot 2 meets the 10-foot setback requirement from the proposed lot lines. E. Remove Lot 13 from the plan due to unsafe sight vision distance. 2. Prior to release of the Final Plat, proponent shall: A. Submit surety for the replacement of 128 caliper inches of trees based on the tree preservation policy. 3. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Provide protection for the existing trees on-site with a snowfence at the grading limits within the wooded areas. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion ccntrol plans for review by the Watershed District. C. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion ccntrol, and utility plans for review by the City Engineer. D. Notify the City aril Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. 4. Prior to Building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Receive access permit from Hennepin County for road ccn nection to County Road #1. B. Pay the Cash Park Fee. 70a Staring Lake 2nd Addition 5 April 8, 1993 f II. If the Planning Commission finds that the project is not acceptable without a solution to the storm water outlet situation, and that the project is found to be premature for development, then the Commission may choose to recommend denial of the request as submitted. • U( �ja 1 X./7"?::,/.;7)r),:c.,-I.0ii7ii?... 4:it' _-,--=--- UJ ,• �= - Jo �i .. ••�. o ���u __T dJ st•� q a0 �� ' - Z _ _7 �' _._� ,'CI.`n` ria ' . I\ '7 Q v �� M _:--,-_--,_-:.__.: ..•_, ......,.. . .....„ ..... rl.r7; UJ ��.__-:.tom,-,_ _71-_4l J — Z _ d 'ter: ..r '' ' .—""°��i ( n' -r---- ta,......*..r....r..e.a......'y ._ U ter d'= 4 -- ---,. .\',-': _ 0-.\'_,) - -----7.----------,-,-----__ • ."Zrz—r"".....: ,' \ - .? , j .off � - / / Q .,,--,___ __,:.---,\ , a , ).---:'=1: 10H.1,;','___)\)').---:: - 1V---.\\ ----:=----------...\ i ..r .• ., ....., . . ,f' • . '.,., ••• .• ,e ,• '--• . 7:1 ''' ,1 ' ' il' •, •I if;• . • .. ,. .s: ; r . . . 7 i I , '1 I • 2534 .. C.1. 1, ,i i 903 i..ISqt.o I 163... 1 , _ ,\ 0-0 t'' ..'..f,•, - -Lai-----nv•-• -,.., - --- — .,. I -I. -”- c..'" 7‘• ••••• p, • : , 1 /54Gi i t5301 , ,62,•11) •,-"41) - illif IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.4''_ I%DI. — - V ( ! .81 1 ,,, r ,., ,,, s, .., • , 0_, .o• , , c, ; 1 ., ‘..,1 • '' °- ,?'„, .... , — __- .--,-:,----,.. iii ,,, ../ ,, ..... . , • '''' ' 0._ . .,ez_ . .., ; ;.,, •,, !..„;... ---.. .. 15..00. • l .".::..,,,,: ;i, ''' . 4 •-/ ., .....„..,,,.,1 , 1 ..._ :112 115,...,....1':. I1,.. K, ;;:.,41-.' :" $1 41 . •,....• 49i8,„ ".. .I, " - ICOT 50 PROPOSED SITE ,, • iso,_, ,. . V,, ',N. •,-, A .15.1&/.__4'.'*;7 ..„...,...:,....,:•.5_:/3 '91aCe—• 7._/,411,,:,; : _ _ -'''•• .-" -;.1/,',Z. .. // II ffr '595 , • , • - '''• I . .'''•/ 44te 2'iso".,, ••?n,.. :::,C,40 `', TYPICAL ROAD PATTERN — ACCESS FROM THE SOUTH •:. • -1.9. IIIPNIIIk , , •.; .:,, f_ i). .7, =:. vi.'"',':;' - •,,0°.,1, ..,'" , • )534c )5q4,0 , !6:5r) .., __,, !. .; , , '10, 1...;), ...,••-,-P 1 ca,3A' •.--,F..--,i-, 1" ;1.'1,4-'"-at k. ' — s 7... kp i ..*:,t• ,', ' 1 0,(,) -,: . .. .. • ,-; s : ••::%; 154G1 I 15391 , 16; .,,1 , 4111111111, . vi.;) IP • r; 1 1 F ,5' • ,!' 'S.; ;:' '',, ' 1 r , i -.1. j--'-.• - ;.'''. w . / ..: . --,...-, --, 4., . >,.. . . ,,.. • :,.. . i: 4 1 --' ..n • 44 : 12 i •I: : rei, 15-, „. ":,'.'1:.° I '‘• ,i'- ' saa ..-' •..,, •A.....___..1,...,.. . ,.,,2, 11,/ .„ e''••4, ,.., •••-..;;_ , ,,,: '••••• -It'‘. I- 1.81 ;4, .... 1") / r 0 ICK OLTS .. 0., -1 .%,.,•• i 1.91 ; ,. L, uj I , ,1,.• — /5,,, ., 4, ADD..'1 -"- PROPOSED SITE iii ' •304,. tI 0:- i IL', ,, / // . , 41. ',k,....„ ...c.,,. . . / . .., • . " ' "- 'V .*."- i., '''-.2..'":".91`"' '. 1 ' I i TYPICAL ROAD PATTERN — ACCESS FROM THE NORTH OS 1111. - MEMORANDUM - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Alan Gray, P.E. City Engineer DATE: April 8, 1988 RE: Proposed Starring Lake 2nd Addition Storm Water Management Systems Red Rock Heights Partnership has proposed a residential subdivision named Starring Lake 2nd Addition located adjacent to County Road 1 in Section 21. The proposed subdivision would contains 8.26 acres of land and would be subdivided into thirteen (13) residential lots varying in size from 22,00D square feet to 36,000 square feet. The land on which the subdivision is proposed now drains west to a depressed area located in the rear yard areas of proposed Lots 9 and 10. The total watershed draining to this depressed area is approximately 37 acres and it includes the residential subdivision known as Eickholts Addition and the Sunrise Circle neighborhood. There are approximately 14 existing homes within the watershed. The proposed Starring Lake 2nd Addition would add 13 additional single family homes. The Develpers propose to continue to conduct storm water runoff from the subdivision to the natural depression on Lots 9 and 10. This natural depression has a bottom elevation of approximately 860. It has the capacity to store approximately 1.3 acre-feet of water with a ponding elevation of 865. There is no known storm water outlet from this natural depression. The ponding water would reach an elevation of approximately 875 before it would overflow through a natural saddle to the northeast. Approximately four existing residential structures would incur flood damage at pond elevations below 875. The Developers of Starring Lake 2nd Addition have proposed three alternate solutions for the existing holding pond. Alternate A is to estimate the additional cubic feet of water that would enter the holding pond from a 6- inch rainstorm event as the result of the construction of homes, driveways and street surfaces within the proposed 8.26 acre subdivision and to enlarge the capacity of the additional anticipated runoff. Alt amountn by an the Alternate 13 is touprovide anal or e overflow ater answale and Alternate C is to provide an overflow pipe to the north across private property. CI Z c 0 2 W `G((D Page 2 of 2 April 8, 1988 The Engineering Department does not recommend any of the three proposed solutions as adequate solutions to storm drainage for this area. Alternate A expands the holding capacity of the pond but continues to rely on percolation into the soil as the only method to discharge water from the ponding area. Since the percolation rate . from the pond is unknown, the performance of the ponding area cannot be predicted. The current design standards for holding ponds are to provide a sufficient combination of storage capacity and outflow capacity to maintain the peak ponding elevation for the 100-year critical storm event two feet below the low structure elevations adjacent to the holding pond. For a holding pond of this type which depends on percolation for discharge the critical event may well be a snow melt event. The critical snow melt evert can produce six inches of runoff in a ten-day period. This would add approximately 18 acre-feet of water to the holding pond over a ten-day period. This pond only has a capacity to store 1.3 acre-feet of water before reaching a surface elevation that is within two feet of existing structures. The overflow swale shown in Alternate B is not likely to be acceptable to the homeowners on East Sunrise Circle through whose back yards it would run. The ditch would need to be deeper than shown to provide adequate protection for existing structures and would significantly change the characteristics of what now are some nicely maintained back yards. The overflow pipe shown in Alternate C is at too high an elevation to provide an adequate outlet for the holding pond. The conduit shown in Alternate C would discharge onto Lot 4 Block 1 Braces Bit Addition at an elevation of approximately 868. From this point the discharge would surface drain across Lot 4 and would enter another undrained depression which is partially on Lot 4 and partially on the property to the north. This would result in an adverse impact to Lot 4. The preferred alternative is to develop a storm sewer outlet for this holding pond. The storm sewer would most likely extend northerly along an alignment similar to the overflow conduit shown in Alternate C. It should continue as an enclosed conduit across Lot 4 Block 1 Braces Bit Addition and eventually across the property to the north known as the Red Rock Ranch area to Red Rock Lake. It is the recommendation of the Engineering Department that further development within this watershed should be delayed until an adequate storm sewer outlet can be provided. The most feasible route for a storm sewer outlet would appear to be northerly through the Red Rock Ranch area. The development of the Red Rock Ranch area should proceed further development within this watershed so that storm drainage facilities may be constructed in an orderly sequence. AG:ss 7o1 MIIIIMMim �. • JOINAME .JT7_QQJ.X LAVE Z''�4Vi7 .�Nr moo I.. ""` DES1DNEDer S�Etl,1 DATE 4-4-$R EMI Um' imennwermome 118.;Moir ea eNEUEDer Pi K. wTE Y/YI Fg" ,.nrw rr. DESIGN DATA 1-ARR EJ . I . _ iSro A A. S-roc; ,%t: _Ru E..)C a cy . ,Ill;., 1 I i • +__-.- _-1_. i.. ._. ._ ;. ..E,X E JT,yCo T, : fgiopictsc �7 _. __lA To-ra�. „ACE EA'. 8.24. AC- . .... ' V.24. b, I44.9612Vrouy __ -. .!_. . 0..d„AC. ' _ ,1.24r_AC.._ ' - G. _ •G �r 1 , o I j i r I --,-- , -39 ... 1 l I d,-1- Imo'" 1 1 _;44 I o._l , i �, I !�'� -F- i ra__�__)__ I, 8- t.Jl,•. S I i -!—j_22 a.� 1 ( 1 1 r 1 i i i ; , `x 1 1-1.•...Ge J tJ-F L.c...l To. _Po t,)12 I j a3,5�o x 31. K �� K J!_� /z. 5 55, � CF.._._ C-T SZo.v.aeA _.1.4.1F[aw To Pc p __ I I 1 1 l I 1 1 1 ( j 1 1 I H ;f L i T i i IIII - r .-J�DD1Tf:CF-?A I.:__JTCRAG�F.-CZO,". 4t1.R.g17 _ _1 ; ; _I _ ii i czio - i 1 , I : I iL 4•ab 1 I j t- M G ►ADE . 0► •' ' --1 ) , ., . \ •••.. _..,Y..------ ,.............i i__,,....---- )4\s % (7 j. / -,1- \ \ ,o 10400 - ''\ \ \ I' '--., .. ,., 0‘.) jk i'. _ diftiU # 'Tr I 1,4,,, \ \ ,_ , i , • \\,-- ! . Irilli ' A ,, ... ..%0 , \ , , ,. , G..„ , -.0 \ , \\) ‘ , ; y\\ \'‘WZ'h / . - "'• i i �� „-- ),_ , ,,, ._, ‘ . ,\ (v„), \ , ) t,.„ \ , 4 in '\ Fr--. - Iii / _7 ! 4 All 1 \ 4 , 0, ili i / 7 , ii' , \ • , . .. ... , , _ . , f , .....____- , , _ , , ! . ... s / `1 / 00 Q.,' #' 1' # , . gi-4 ,-- ii ' i ,.; il . ( ,Artiv , , 13.0 ° , r I; ' 'A jit , -.. \ , '/0 1 " • L'.?,1--. ..),y . q' ,, - \ , , _ • • ••••...:• J-46.70,..,.....,...:„.„.• - / \ ' . tit. - -- LIE- f' - / - ---- c.- ‘'.* GR D• 0 VE- • r* '' .4 tif ,.,\ tr,\ \ 2'. )01,'N,. ( , ) p 111 \-- -- ' 1%0 \ (I II 1 f ..., 1 , ‘ lilt ).' 4 %.4. te • k El, it Gr \ Waage # f 1 1 __, , //,, -,, -‘ ,, Alk • . /- /// . II: - A t...)( •,- ii:5, \ i I IN 1 . ,,, • „ -. . i •• • i 4 il , / , ,(7 ii, 4„ , \ r \ • \0 4 1 ti 1. ' I '':./7,"!•‘ N I i ---\ i/ ,/ \ ' i U r ��1 J J\ , / 4 / ,/ LTRAE \Aire/ jC1- \ .- ' 4 . _ ° ,,� \ �K� ) , . ,4111 , ! u : .1 1 , 1'-"•"(- \\ i • \WO — • \ i i ‘ 1 // n\% ) 1:.-- .41111%it . 11\ ,a ci1/4 \‘ , 0 g i I IN \ , „...._,.... : •:. i, Iwo5O �, . \\ \\ . , 4,, -- 111111044, ,,s,,,,,,\,:‘ „,- ,. , v , 0 ,, I ., _,,,,,,,_A.4 \-, • r- r. , r . --pa; 1 MI r il , 7 r 1 lip ,e6,s_u __,,, 4.7,.> ,r._ ' 1 '( ii (1 ii / 1,,,2- , 1\ II I 4(5 .00 'Ci 4 . ..•' , :-..-7 r , - , , lit l' 1 pal p f / � , I ' foillli / v✓ i ts .„A R A i \ \ �.T ��� ,/ c 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN CDUNTY, MINNESOTA itRESOLUTION NO. 88-68 A RESDLUTION APPROVING THE SEARS GARDEN STORE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CDNCEPT AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Sears Garden Store development is considered a proper amendment to the overall Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development Concept; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request of Sears, Roebuck, and Company for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development Concept for the Sears Garden Store development and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on May 3, I988; NDW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: I. The Sears Garden Store development PUD Concept Amendment, being in ( Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for Sears Garden Center. 3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated April II, 1988. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of May, 1968. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 4 STAFF REPORT IITO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 7, 1988 PROJECT: Sears Garden Store APPLICANT: Sears Roebuck and Company LOCATION: 8301 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, south of Auto Center REQUEST: 1) Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 87.75 acres. 2) Planned Unit Development District Review within the C- Regional Zoning District on 87.75 acres with variances for exterior building material. 3) Planned Unit Development District Review within the C- Regional Zoning District on 87.75 acres with variances for building exterior material for the construction of a 1,000 square foot seasonal temporary structure for an outside garden center to be known as Sears Garden Store. Background The Eden Prairie Center was zoned GRtG-5tn nv:: • y„.,......--- Commercial-Regional in 1973, based V v p- OFC on specific plans approved by the C-RE G-SER QQQ 'C-HW Y City Council. The plan included L. first phase construction of a OF �' C-HWY . 750,000 square foot mall with the department stores of Sears and RE G-SER-v Powers as major anchors. The plan also included two additional major v0i ' PROPOSED SITE department stores on the east and w �"1- west side of the shopping center. m w .���:�P4�A��. Q. In 1984, Target, Inc. constructed a c� ��.04 0� 100,000 square foot building bring- w 40���j���►�� ing the total square footage of the U ����:t�j.�1� NC'? center to 850,000 square feet. The .. original approved plan did not ^ • --- indicate an area for a garden center 7�REG-SER �� („)� on the Sears parcel. Sears is now • , I I C-RFG•c �� requesting a PUD amendment to allow . �++ a temporary spring/summer garden center on an annual basis. ,_. ; 7 RM-2.5 n RM'6.5 Amendment ;--- j - `RM-6.5 - Sears Roebuck and Company has AREA LOCATION MAP contracted with Minnehaha Falls Nursery to operate a seasonal garden 71' Sears Garden Store 2 April 8, 1988 mart at all the Twin Cities Metropolitan Sears locations. The garden mart will be located in the Sears parking lot just south of the Sears automotive center. The garden mart will operate 4 months out of the year, that is, April through July. Sears proposes to designate 8,000 square feet of area for garden plant material and supplies surrounded by a 6' chain link fence which is designed to be removed after the selling season. Within the designated 8,000 square foot area, a temporary structure with canvas roof and movable sides, consisting of approximately 1,000 square feet, is proposed. The temporary structure is anchored with a water hold- down system that eliminates stakes in the parking lot. There are up to 8,000 lbs. of water holding the unit in place. In the C-Reg District, merchandise which is offered for sale may be displayed beyond the confines of a building, provided such outdoor display does not constitute a greater number of square feet than 10% of the ground floor area of the building housing the principle use. Sears ground floor area is 129,325 square feet which would permit 12,932 square feet of outdoor display area. The Homart Company will only permit Sears up to 8,000 square feet for outdoor selling area as outlined in its covenants. City Code does not permit outside display area to utilize required parking stalls. Because the approved site plan did not indicate outside storage area, an amendment to the PUD is required. Parking The proposed garden mart is located in the Sears parking lot. Under normal circumstances, utilizing the parking lot would not be permitted without a variance from the number of required parking stalls. The Eden Prairie Center was granted a variance to park at 5.5 stalls per 1000 square feet of building in 1973. This would require 5,500 parking stalls based on 1,000,000 square feet of building. Currently, 850,000 square feet of building is constructed on the site and 5,683 stalls are provided. The garden center area will utilize approximately 28 parking stalls. Therefore, a variance for parking at this time is not needed. Exterior Building Material A variance through the PUD is required for exterior building material. The temporary structure is made of canvas, metal pole construction, and plastic siding. In the C-Reg District, building material of glass, brick, stone, or better is required as an exterior material. The variance may have merit considering the structure is temporary and that it houses goods which could otherwise be allowed completely uncovered, based upon 10% allowance of outside display by City Code. Sign Sears has indicated no signs will be utilized for the garden center. Promotion for the garden center will be within the Sears building or through mass media. Conclusions It appears temporary uses of this type may become more prevalent in the future. Already this winter/spring staff has received two requests for temporary garden centers. However, temporary uses may consist of differenct products or different types of structures which may not fit the character of the Commercial Zoning District or spirit and intent of City Code. The Sears Garden Mart request may be appropriate for this site because parking variances are not required and the Sears Garden Store 3 April 8, 1988 II materials for sale could be displayed without a temporary structure. In addition, the structure meets setback requirements. Staff Recommendation If the Planning Commission feels comfortable with the propsed PUD amendment to permit a temporary garden center with a 1,000 square foot seasonal structure, Staff would recommend approval based upon the staff report dated April 7, 1988, and plans submitted March 11, 1988, and subject to the following conditions: 1) The temporary use be for garden uses only. 2) The garden mart operation be in operation for the months of April 1st through July 31st on an annual basis. 3) All mechanical equipment, that is electrical, water, etc.. be contained within the designated 8,000 square foot area. No wires or hoses be permitted to cross a drive isle or be supported overhead. 4) No signs be permitted. 5) The chain link fence be erected for the garden mart use only, not prior to April 1 and removed by July 31 on an annual basis. 6) At the time of construction of the fourth major department store, the number of parking stalls for the site be re-evaluated for compliance with City Code. Should the number of parking stalls supplied not meet code, the garden mart center use discontinue. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESDTA RESOLUTION il88-73 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY PARK PHASE IV FOR TECHNOLOGY PARK ASSOCIATES WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Technology Park Phase IV PUD Development by Technology Park Associates and considered their request for approval for development (and variances) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on May 3, 1988; NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Technology Park Phase IV by Technology Park Associates, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, is legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Development approval as outlined in the plans, as revised, dated April 27, 1988. 3. That the PUD Development has been reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on April 11, 1988. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of May, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 216, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #88-74 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF TECHNOLOGY PARK PHASE IV FOR TECHNOLOGY PARK ASSOCIATES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Technology Park Phase IV for Technology Park Associates, dated April 27, 1988, consisting of approximately 41 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots for construction of 162,860 square feet of industrial use, 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 May, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk �I ) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: April 14, 1988 SUBJECT: Supplementary Staff Report to The April 8, 1988 Planning Staff Report on Technology Park 7 & 8 The Planning Commission voted 6-0 at their April 11, 1988 meeting to recommend denial of the Technology Park 7 & 8 project. The issues that lead to the denial recommendation are: SMETANA LAKE CONNECTION The Public Works Department believes the extension of Smetana Lane to a connection point at Golden Triangle Lane is necessary and the project should not be considered without it. The developer objects to the extension of Smetana Lane and sees no advantage to his property by providing the connection. TRANSITION BETWEEN LAND USES The Commission felt there was not enough buffer zone between the proposed industrial building and the adjoining households on the Smetana property. They would like to see more permanent and effective transition rather than the landscaping proposed. The issues that concern the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission are: 1. Grading - Proposed grading on this site primarily is to provide level building pads. The developer has proposed the reduction of 2:1 slopes to 3:1 slopes by getting permission to grade the adjacent western property thus reducing the total height of the slope. All retaining walls are proposed to be of keystone construction which has proven effective on other Technology Park projects. 2. Shoreline Ordinances - The project abuts a portion of Nine-Mile Creek and the Shoreline Ordinances do apply. Regulations concerning lot size, building height, building width, and setbacks have all been met. Calculations on the amount of impervious surface still need to be calculated. 3. Landscaping - Five hundred Nine caliper inches of plant material is required by the City based on the total building square footage. The developer is proposing 944.5 caliper inches of plant materials, which is above and beyond the City Code requirements. Screening of the parking area for Technology Park is not adequate however. The grading plan shows minimal berming and should be revised to depict a 4' berm. 4. Pedestrian - The proponent is proposing to relocate an 8' bituminous trail through the front yard setback in a meandering way, to make the trail more aesthetically pleasing. The proponent will submit and file a trail easement over this portion of the property. In addition, the proponent is dedicating Outlot B to the City which contains 1.44 acres on the south side of the project adjacent to Nine-Mile Creek. The proponent will be constructing an 8' bituminous trail in this area for public use, thereby extending the trail around Smetana Lake. Big STAFF REPORT 11 'e TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 8, 1988 PROJECT: Tech Park 7 & 8 LOCATION: West of Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek APPLICANT: Hoyt Development FEE OWNER: William and Margaret Pearson REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 41 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with variances and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 13 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 41 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots for construction of 162,860 square feet of industrial use. Background ) t. • ,aF \! This site is guided High Density .. '— •ti. r' /L-,• '.7,21. Residential/Industrial and Open = \f +' v L — Space. Surrounding land uses are , X,C1 '• ' guided High Density Res- - . �� - idential/Industrial to the west, ' i Industrial to the north, Industrial 1 c to the east, and Open Space to the !,','® "� 4 _I. - - , OFC south adjacent to Nine Mile Creek. 1 1( PUD Amendment ! %i i. \ + The 1985 PUD for Tech Park was yl ' ,,. i proposed at 499,500 square feet of / OFC 4,+ 4' office and office/showroom on 7' '44'Y., :r.V.`' _1 approximately 68 acres. The PUD / r♦44� ���� I included 207,000 square feet of % ' A����'l►�•��r����� office and 292,500 square feet of 3 j [..41.`\\- '�> 1 office/showroom. Due to overall PROOSED SITE lii'! . AREA LOCATION MAP `,20 Tech Park 7 & 8 2 April 8, 1988 to Golden Triangle Drive and a reed for additional information on grading and trees, the Council approved the land uses for the eastern half of the project east of Golden Triangle Drive only and deferred action on land uses west of Golden Triangle Drive. The plans were returned to the proponent pending receipt of additional information on traffic, grading, and land uses. The current request is for a PUD Amendment and includes a rezoning to I-2 Park for Office/Showroom land uses west of Golden Triangle Drive. The 1985 PUD and the 1988 PUD compare as follows: 1985 PUD 1988 PUD FUTURE Office 207,000 sq.ft. 27,000 sq.ft. -- Office/Showroom 292,500 sq.ft. 347,412 sq.ft. -- Off/Show/Corp. Hdqtrs. 125,088 Total 499,500 sq.ft. 374,412 sq.ft. 125,088 Approximately 25 acres of the PUD is not proposed for rezoning at this time, but is being requested for Concept approval as an office/showroom or corporate headquarters. Since the approved EAW was for a total of 499,500 square feet of building, and since 374,412 square feet is either built or proposed for rezoning, the remaining parcel could accommodate up to 125,088 square feet without requiring a new EAW. The land uses proposed for this future 25.4-acre piece seem appropriate; however, the developable portion will be restricted by floodplain, slopes, and trees, which will dictate the site plan for the property. Considering the natural features, a smaller footprint multi-story building may be appropriate. Traffic The chart in the PUD section depicts a reduction in the amount of office space from the 1985 PUD. This change in land use will reduce the p.m. peak hour trip generation below the BRW estimate with a 20% reduction. Smetana Lane Connection Previous Staff Reports from the May 24, 1985, and March 22, 1985, Flaming Commission meetings, regarding the overall PUD indicated a need for Smetana Road connection to Golden Triangle Drive. At that time, the proponent did not feel that the connection was necessary. Since the PUD was approved only for land uses east of Golden Triangle Drive, the resolution on the Smetana Lare connection was deferred until such time that a rezoning request was submitted for the western half of the PUD. The attached memorardum from Gem Dietz, Director of Public Works, refers to the need for the Smetana Lam connection to be included as part of this approval. At this time, the developer feels that the road is not necessary and would impact the project if it was proposed in its current location. There are several options with regards to the Smetana Lare connection including: 1. The Smetana Lane connection could proceed along its current alignment and correct with Golden Triangle Drive adjacent to Nine Mile Creek. This would require that the plans be revised to shift both buildings to the north or smaller buildings be constructed. ? Tech Park 7 & 8 3 April 8, 1988 2. Smetare Lane could be planned to connect to Golden Triangle Drive at the intersection with West 76th Street. This would require a shifting of the buildings to the south or smaller buildings. 3. The location of the Smetana Lane road connection could be subject to a feasibility study. Adjacent Land Uses The industrial building will impact the adjoining households on the Smetam property. As in other projects, whenever adjoining land uses are different, the Planning Commission and City Council has required a transition. The landscape plan shows a site line from the Smetana households and that landscaping is proposed to provide the transition. This is not effective. A better way to provide a land use transition would be more open area within which a more permanent and effective screening solution could be constructed. If, for example, the Smetam Lare connection was to continue along its present alignment and connect into Golden Triangle Drive it would shift the buildings to the north and provide more open space separation and room for benning and landscaping. The developer should plan a buffer between his proposed industrial use and the adjacent single family residential which effectively screens his use. Comprehensive Guide Plan This site is guided High Density Residential and Industrial. It is not a foregone conclusion that if a proponent is requesting all Industrial that it would be the most appropriate land use for the property. One of the reasons why the site was also guided High Density Residential was to provide a gradual land use transition into the Industrial areas east of Golden Triangle Drive. Since the Cheme site to the west of this property is also guided High Density Residential and Industrial, approval of an Industrial lard use on the Hoyt property will likely precipitate a similar development on the Cherne property. The net effect being that the Smetana households would be surrounded by an Industrial land use without buffer. Preliminary Plat of Technology Park 5th Addition The preliminary plat depicts one lot and two outlots. Lot 1, containing 561,185 square feet, or 12 .883 acres, is the location of the two office/warehouse buildings while Outlot B, containing 62,728 square feet, or 1.44 acres, adjacent Nine Mile Creek, will be dedicated to the City. Outlot A to the north, containing 1,148,000 square feet, or 26.3 acres, will be retained by the applicant for future development. Site Plan The site plan depicts a total of two buildings being constructed on Lot 1. Tech 7, located adjacent Nine Mile Creek, is designed with a two-story element adjacent the Creek, tapering off to a single-story element. Tech 7 contains a total of 87,565 square feet. Tech 8, located to the north of this building, is a single-story structure, containing 75,295 square feet. Based upon a lot size of 12.88 acres and a total building square footage of 162,860 square feet, a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 29% and a Base Area Ratio (B.A.R.) of 26% has been calculated. The maximum F.A.R. in the I-2 Park zoning district is 50% for a multi-story building, while the maximum B.A.R. is 30%. The proposed buildings meet the minimum requirements of the I-2 Park zoning district, which includes a minimum 50-foot front yard setback, side yard setbacks of 20 feet, and a rear yard setback of 25 feet. lay Tech Park 7 & 8 4 April 8, 19:•: Access and Parking Access to the site will be provided by three driveways off the extension of Golden Triangle Drive. Vehicular access into either Tech 7 or 8 will be provided by landscape driveways with center medians off Golden Triangle Drive. Truck and delivery access will be provided through a center driveway between Tech 7 and 8, whereby trucks will proceed westerly into the site and either go north or south into the interior loading dock areas of the building. The driveway access into Tech 8, in relation to the access drive for the Tech 5 and 6 buildings does not either align or meet a 150-foot offset. Because of the amount and configuration of turning movements expected into these buildings, Staff would recomnend that either the driveways align or that a 15D-foot offset be provided. Based upon a total building square footage of 162,860 square feet and parking calculations based upon a spec building which would include 1/3 office, 1/3 warehouse, and 1/3 marufacturing, a total of 461 parking stalls would be required. The plans depict a total of 357 parking stalls being built in conjunction with the construction of the two buildings while 1D4 parking stalls would be maintained as proof-of-parking. These proof-of-parking areas are located throughout the site and would be able to be constructed if a parking shortage does occur. Grading Present topography on the site ranges from a low elevation of approximately 831 on the southern border adjacent to Nine Mile Creek, to a high elevation of 912 located in the northwestern corner of this project. Slopes on this site have been calculated in a range from almost level in areas where the mining operations have been, to slopes in excess of 2:1 on the hill in the northwest corner. Proposed grading on this site primarily revolves around the leveling of building pads to allow for the construction of Tech 7 and 8. The leveling of building pads would involve a maximum cut of approximately 26 feet located within the center portion of the site to a maximum fill of approximately 8 feet located in the southeast corner adjacent the proposed sedimentation pond. The proposed grading along the northwest property line involves a 2:1 slope of approximately 100 feet. The slope on this site ranges from the 912 contour elevation to the 864 contour elevation. A retaining wall is proposed in this area which would be approximately ten feet in height. The construction of the retaining wall would be of keystone construction which has been used on the previous Hoyt Technology Park projects. The developer has proposed the reduction of these 2:1 slopes to 3:1 by grading on the adjacent western property to reduce the total heigh of the slope. The proposed grading plan depicts the construction of two sedimentation ponds. One located along the northern property line adjacent West 76th Street and one located in the extreme southeast corner. The sedimentation ponds are included as part of the overall design for storm water run-off in this area. The ultimate discharge from these sedimentation ponds would be to an existing 60-inch storm sewer located along the southern property line and into Nine Mile Creek. Utilities Water and sanitary sewer service is available to these buildings by connections made to existing utilities located within Golden Triangle Drive. Overall storm drainage �a� Tech Park 7 b 8 5 April 8, 19:: on this site is proposed to be collected within a catch basin system located on-site with discharge into two sedimentation ponds. Ultimate discharge of storm water from the sedimentation ponds could be to Nine Mile Creek. Prior to final Plat approval the proponent shall submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. Landscaping Basal upon a total building square footage of 162,860 square feet, a total of 509 caliper inches of plant material is required. The proposed landscape plan depicts a total of 544.5 caliper inches of plant material. In addition, the proponent is also providing an additional 400 caliper inches of smaller aspen, pine, and amur chokecherry trees above and beyond City Code requirements. In regards to the screening of parking areas, adjacent Golden Triangle Drive, the proposed berming and plantings for Tech 8 is adequate. The grading plan for Tech 7 depicts minimal berming for the screening of parking areas. Based upon the landscape plan submitted, adequate screening of the parking areas in this area has not been hieved. The proponent will be required to revise the grading and landscape plan to depict a minimum four-foot berm adjacent Golden Triangle Drive and Tech 7 for screening purposes. Architecture Tech 7 and 8 are office/warehouse buildings with exterior finish materials consisting of a combination of pre-finished metal panel, stucco, red-brown glazed masonary units, glass, and cmcrete block. City Code requires 75% of the exterior building finish that the I-2 Zoning District shall consist of facebrick, natural stone, glass, or specially designed pre-cast cmcrete units if the surface has been intricately treated with an applied decorative material or texture and smooth cmcrete block if scored at least twice. The proponent shall revise the plans to include a subsititution of decorative concrete block for concrete block. In addition, the proposed building exterior finish calculations include 73% facebrick or better, and 27% other building materials. The architectural elevations shall be revised to include a minimum of 75% decorative block or better as required by City Code. Rooftop mechanical equipment units are proposed to be screered by a warm gray stucco panel mechanical screen which is designed as a type of parapet wall. The stucco would match that which will be used on the building. Sho rela nd Ord rence Provision of the Shorelard Ordinance are applicable to the site since it abutts portion of Nine Mile Creek. Nine Mile Creek is designated as a General Development Waters and for industrial lard uses the following regulations could apply: 1. Minimum lot size is 5 acres. 2. Minimum width at building line is 150 feet. 3. Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Mark is 15D feet. 4. Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Mark is 150 feet. 5. Maximum building height is 30 feet. 6. Maximum amount of inpervious surface shall not exceed 30% of the total lot area. Tech Park 7 & 8 6 April 8, 19:4 Due to the size of the lot, and the proposed building type, regulations 1 through 5 have been met. Maximum amount of impervious surface has not been calculated. The proponent shall provide information regarding the amount of impervious surface to see if a variance would be required. Since shoreland variances cannot be granted through the PUD process, the proponent may be required to file an application with the Board of Appeals for review and consideration of an impervious surface variance. Ped estr i an Syst ems There is an existing eight-foot bituminous trail coistructed along the west side of Golden Triangle Drive. The proponent is proposing to relocate this eight-foot bituminous trail through the front yard setback in a meandering way to make the trail more esthetically pleasing. The Director of Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources has reviewed the plans. Because the trail will be on private property, the proponent will be required to submit and file a trail easement over this portion of the property. In addition, the proponent is daiicating Outlot B, cortaining 1.44 acres along the south side of the project, adjacent Nine Mile Creek. The proporent will be corstructing an 8-foot bituminous trail in this area for public use. Signage The proponent shall submit an overall signage plan with details for review prior to building pennit issuance. Lighting The proponent shall submit an overall lighting plan with details for review prior to building pennit issuance. The proposed lighting will be the same as used in previous Hoyt Technology Park projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Plaming Staff presents the following alternative courses for Plaming Comnission consideration: 1. If the Plaming Commission feels that the site plan, as proposed, is acceptable, and the land uses are appropriate, then approval of the request for rezoning to I-2 Park, Preliminary Plat, and PUD Concept approval would be subject to the Staff Report dated April 9, 1988, and based on plans, dated April 9, 1988, and subject to the following corditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, proporent shall: A. Revise the development plans to incorporate the correction of Smetana Lane to Golden Triangle Drive. B. Revise the architectural elevations to include 75% decorative block or better. C. Revise the grading plan to depict a minimum 4-foot berm adjacent Tech 7 and Golden Triangle Drive. D. Revise the landscape plan to reflect a minimum two-foot setback of all plant material from the proposed trail. �a� Tech Park 7 & 8 7 April 8, 19E8 E. Revise the grading and landscape plan to reflect a buffer between the Tech 7 building and the residences to the southwest. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit the overall storm water run-off, utility plans, and erosion control plans for the City Engineer. B. Submit the overall storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. B. Submit overall lighting plan with details for review. C. Submit the overall signage program with details for review. D. Submit a rooftop mechanical screening plan with details for review. E. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. F. Stake the proposed construction l in its with a snow fence. G. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. H. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshal. I• Concurrent with building construction, construct the 8-foot wide trail on Golden Triangle Drive and the eight-foot wide bituninous trail along Nine Mile Creek with the site plan. Provide a trail easement to the City for the trail along Golden Triangle Drive. II. If the Plaming Commission feels that the lard use is appropriate, but that the plans should incorporate the Smetana Road connection, ore option would be to return the development plans to the proponent for this revision and other revisions as stipulated in the Staff Report. III. If the Plaming Commission feels that the lard use is not appropriate, and/or that the site plan, as proposed, is unacceptable, then ore option would be to recommend denial. ciaG • - MEMORANDUM - TO: Planning Commission FRDM: Eugene A. Dietz, P.E. Director of Public Works RE: Technology Park Development Smetana Lane Extension The newest Technology Park proposal by Hoyt Development has a road alignment issue which has to be resolved before the project can proceed. Specifically, the Developer objects to the extension of Smetana Lane to a connection point at Golden Triangle Drive. Although the actual location has some flexibility, it is the position of the Public Works Department that the connection of Smetana Lane in the Technology Park Project is necessary and the project should not be considered for approval without it. During the discussion of this issue, a lot of attention will be focused on the traffic volumes in the area and the fact that there has been changes in the program for Technology Park and therefore not exactly comparable to traffic studies that have been completed in the past. Although traffic volumes are certainly important in planning any transportation system, they are not the only reason to make street extensions and connections. It is my opinion that Smetana Lane should be connected irregardless of the outcome of a traffic study for the area. Smetana Lane is currently in excess of 1,500 feet in length. As you are aware, our maximum cul-de-sac length is 500 feet by City Code. At first blush, the few homes that have been built along Smetana Lane might be able to utilize that long cul-de-sac effectively. However, the Cherne property alone represents approximately 11.3 acres and has the potential to be developed for as much as 250,000 square feet of office space or as many as 200 units of apartments. Nowhere in town have we allowed this type of density on a cul-de-sac of this length. It may interest you to know that during the July 1987 rainstorms, the culvert in Smetana Lane washed out and residents on the south side of the creek had to use a row boat to cross Purgatory Creek to go to work. Certainly, when the roadway is upgraded this will not be a likely situation, but it does point out that the unexpected can happen and emergency access from more than one direction is very important. I recognize that the Developer senses no advantage to his property in having the Smetana Lane extension. However, we are an urban area and if we allow the narrow perspective of developers to dictate road alignments, we would have an extremely inefficient road system in Eden Prairie. We have always struggled with the issue of connecting dead end streets. Typically these objections come during residential development projects and have not historically been an issue in the development of industrial projects. Page 2 of 2 April 6, 1988 However, the same logic holds true in industrial areas as residential areas -- an effective integrated street system provides emergency vehicle access, superior access for such maintenance operations as snow plowing, school bus routing, and a much better dispersion of traffic to primary intersections in the community. We are charged with making planning decisions that provide for the health, safety and welfare in our City and roadway interconnection is very much a part of those needs. The City Council has adopted and applied a consistent policy for eliminating unnecessary cul-de-sacs. This location should not be treated differently. State statutes provide that a City may require dedication for public improvements such as streets and we have always required developers to extend utility and street improvements to the perimeter of their property. It seems ironic that this particular developer would object to a street extension through his property and use the same arguments that the developer for Norseman Industrial Park uses when arguing against the final connection of Golden Triangle Drive between Technology Park and Norseman Industrial Park. I don't equate the importance of Golden Triangle Drive to Smetana Lane, but the needs of adjacent properties are very much comparable. I strongly recommend that if the Technology Park project is approved, that it only be upon the condition that Smetana Lane be extended through the property in a location to be approved by the City Engineer. EAD:ss cc: Alan Gray Mike Franzen • 7a? UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Apr. 18, 1988 -3- V. DEVELDPMENT PROPOSALS A. Technology Park Refer to memo dated April 14, 1988 from Barb Cross, Landscape Architect and staff report dated April 8, 1988. Cary Lally of Hoyt Development was present at the meeting to review the proposal. The site is located west of Golden Triangle Drive and north of Nine Mile Creek. Two buildings are proposed with a total of 162,860 sq. ft. on 41 acres. A trail system exists parallel to Golden Triangle Drive which the developer wishes to relocate to the east side of the buildings and to the south connecting with the trail on Smetana Lane. The buildings will be constructed of brick and stucco with metal accents. They will overlook the Nine Mile Creek area. One building will be two stories on one side and one story rising from the bank. The other building will be one story. The site is presently a mined out gravel pit with no existing trees or vegetation. The developer has met with staff previously regarding berming to screen parking areas, etc. Barb Cross said the Planning Commission denied the request because they felt the extension of Smetana Lane to a connection point at Golden Triangle Drive is necessary. Barb said that only 509 caliper inches of plant material is requested by the City, but the developer is proposing to add 944.5 caliper inches. The developer is relocating the trail to make it more of an amenity and is also dedicating Outlot B to the City and constructing an 8' bituminous trail for public use which will eventually extend around Smetana Lake. Baker asked what the issues the Planning Commission had regarding the transition area. Barb said their reason was that there are a couple of homes located in the area and there was not enough of a buffer zone between the industrial and residential areas. Lally added that Golden Triangle Drive was to be extended to the east originally, but because of the heavily wooded area, it was moved further to the west and closer to the homes. The developer does not feel there is an advantage to extending Smetana Lane to the connection point at Golden Triangle Drive. Cook asked if the amount of berming was increased. Lally said there was an oversight by the landscape architect which has been corrected. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Apr. 18, 1988 -4- Baker asked Lally to clarify grading. Lally said the developer is looking for permission to grade; otherwise retaining walls will be used. Shaw asked if the City will hold off on extending Smetana Lane. Lambert said staff feels strongly that Smetana Lane should be extended, but it is up to the City Council to decide. It is not a parks and recreation issue. Breitenstein asked if Golden Triangle Drive will be extended to 74th St. eventually. Lally said it will be extended this summer. MOTION: Baker moved to recommend approval of Technology Park 7 & 8 per staff recommendation. Shaw seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. VI. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS, BOARDS AND STAFF A. Reports of Superintendent of Recreation 1. Summer School Environmental Education Project Bolinske said staff met with the schools to coordinate the project. Two teachers will be in charge of the classes which will be mainly for fifth and sixth graders. The classes will be held at the Outdoor Center at no cost to the City since most of the equipment is already at the Outdoor Center. Lambert asked if the school has canoes. Bolinske said they do not at this time. Joyer asked how this age group was decided upon. Bolinske said that those teaching the classes are fifth and sixth grade teachers and it was felt that this is the best age group to get involved in these types of activities. Cook asked who will be liable for insurance -- the City or the school. Bolinske said both will be responsible. Lambert added that the City will be responsible for facilities and the school will be responsible for the programs themselves. Baker asked if the classes will be for incoming fifth graders. Bolinske said it has not been decided. STAFF REPORT I TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner SOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Valley Gate 200 LOCATION: Northeast corner of Golden Triangle Drive and West 74th Street DATE: April 8, 1988 APPL ICANT/ FEE OWNER: The Helle Partnership REQUEST: 1. Site Plan Review within the I-2 zoning district on 4.9 acres, with variance for zero lot line to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of a 63,368 square foot office/warehouse building. Background - The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts ' - -- I I ` l this site as an Industrial land use. �C J I Surrounding land uses consist of Industrial to the north, west, and east, and Industrial and High !I' '2 Density Residential to the south, ry• "'F with a small area to the northeast guided as Office. \ Ll_i _ _ I 1, This site is part of the Norseman vL` --_^T Industrial Park 6th Addition, , #; - previously approved by the City Council in April, 1984, involving ( '� y the preliminary platting and zoning 2' • v' I _. OFC -1 •-21 of 11.8 acres into two lots, subject r(� I % 1 to the proponent returning to the ���• i _ �. �. .�. •, Planning Commission and City Council 'ROPOSED SITE c`..i���; when specific development plans were ; >/j 7 • i !.!•O*!• available. , In March of 1985, Lot 1 was C / P ( -2~"`' developed with the construction of a 53,900 square foot, facebrick „ •�• _ office/warehouse building known as I Valley Gate. I �` I i f II I -2' The proposed lot contains no ,,,N. (w 1 l OFC N AREA LOCATION MAP ., Valley Gate 200 2 April 8, 1988 vegetation and has been an area of stock piling from the Phase I building. An eight-foot wide trail is located along the west side of Golden Triangle Drive. Site Plan The proposed site plan consists of the construction of a 63,368 square foot office/warehouse building on a 4.9-acre parcel, with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 29.6%. Code would allow up to 30% FAR in the I-2 District. Structure setbacks meet City Code, including setbacks for parking along the public roadways and the east property line. However, the proponent proposes a zero lot line setback for parking and truck manuevering along the north property line of the site since both properties will share a central truck access. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent will be required to receive a variance from the Board of Appeals for zero lot line setback to parking. The proponent has indicated a total of 252 parking spaces on-site. Based on 1/3 office, 1/3 manufacturing, and 1/3 warehouse use, the required number of parking spaces is 178. Due to the limited amount of manuevering room within the loading facility area, and the proposed amount of parking spaces provided, Staff would recommend that the portion of proposed stalls within the center of the loading facility be removed or relocated in order to provide additional manuevering room. Grading and Drainage The existing site varies in elevation from approximately 860 along Golden Triangle Drive to B70 along the east property line. Grading will consist of some filling along the west side of the property with a maximum cut of eight feet along the east side. The proponent has indicated the use of a timber retaining wall along this section of the site. The proposed plans indicate a maximum height for the retaining wall of five to six feet; however, the grading plan dictates that an eight-foot retaining wall will be necessary. Prior to City Council review, the proponent should submit more detailed information regarding the construction and height of the proposed retaining wall. The proponent has provided a storm sewer system for this site which will collect to the existing storm sewer along West 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive, in turn, leading to Nine Mile Creek to the west. Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are available to this site with connection to existing lines within West 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive. Water service will be from Golden Triangle Drive, with sanitary sewer connection to the existing sewer line in West 74th Street. Landscaping Based on the building square footage of 63,368, a total of 198 caliper inches is required, the proponent has provided 178 caliper inches that meet City Code. The proponent should revise the landscape plan in order to meet City Code, including plant material size percentage requirements. Berming has been proposed along both Golden Triangle Drive and West 74th Street frontages. Based on Staff review, the proposed berming does not adequately screen the parking from the public roadways, therefore, the proponent should raise the berms to a maximum 3:1 slope to f?U Valley Gate 200 3 April 8, 1988 effectively screen the parking from the adjacent roadways. Since the setback to parking along West 74th Street is only 25 feet, revision to the berming alone will not provide an adequate screening of the parking along this frontage. Additional landscaping will be necessary in order to meet the screening requirements. City Code requires that 5% of the parking area be provided with landscaping islands. The proponent should revise the plan adding additional planting islands in order to meet City Code. Architecture The proposed 17-foot building will be built similar to that of the existing Valley Gate structure to the north. Building materials will consist of facebrick, glass, metal panel entryways, and rock face block within the loading facility courtyard. The proponent has not provided Staff with a rooftop screening plan that incorporates physical screening of the units. Rather, the proponent indicates a setback of the rooftop units in order to clear specific site lines from Golden Triangle Drive and West 74th Street. When the existing Valley Gate structure was planned, similar design criteria took place; however, after the building was constructed, the site lines did not accurately reflect the on-site conditions. In addition, preliminary design for the location of rooftop units do not adequately address the total number, location, or size of the units that may be necessary based on a tenant's reeds. At this time, a rooftop screening plan should be submitted that is consistent with City Code, providing for physical screening of the units from all public roadways and adjacent differing land uses so that in the event the site lire criteria does not reflect on-site conditions, an additional alternative for screening is available. Access Access will be provided to the site by way of West 74th Street and from an existing curb cut along Golden Triangle Drive which lies wholly on the neighboring lot to the north. Prior to building permit issuance for this site, the proponent will be required to file a cross-access easement for this access point and along the north property line for cross-access for truck manuevering and parking. Pedestrian Systems The plans for Golden Triangle Drive call for the installation of an 8-foot wide hiking trail along the west side, and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the east side. The first Valley Gate project provided for this sidewalk extension along Lot 1. The proponent should revise the site plan to include a 5-foot wide, 5-inch thick concrete sidewalk along Golden Triangle Drive for this lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Site Plan Review on 4.9 acres for construction of a 63,369 square foot office/warehouse building subject to the Staff Report of April 8, 1988, and subject to the following: 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise parking plan to remove or relocate the parking stalls from the center area of the loading facility to provide adequate truck manuevering area. c2)1 Valley Gate 200 4 April 8, 19a: B. Provide detailed retaining wall plans that accurately demonstrate proposed construction design and height specifications. C. Revise landscape plan to reflect City Code requirements which include additional plantings to meet caliper inch minimums; plant material size percentage standards; screening of the parking along West 74th Street; and, 5% of the parking area in planting islands. D. Revise the grading plan to incorporate maximum 3:1 berming along both road frontages. E. Provide a detailed rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan consistent with City Code that provides for physical screening of the units from all public roadways and differing land uses. F. Revise the site plan to include a 5-foot wide, 5-inch thick concrete sidewalk along Golden Triangle Drive. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans to the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and sewer and water plans, for review by the City Engineer. C. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. D. Submit samples of building materials, signage, and lighting plans for review. E. Receive Board of Appeals approval for a zero lot line setback to parking. F. Submit detailed plans to the Building Official for retaining wall construction including construction design and height spec- ifications. G. Bond for the physical screening of the rooftop mechanical units. H. Pay Cash Park Fee. 3. Concurrent with buildirg construction, the proponent shall install a 5-foot wide, 5-inch thick concrete sidewalk along Golden Triangle Drive. `6a MAY 3,1988 42017 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INSURANCE PREMIUM-FEBRUARY 88 42018 UGO RACHELI REFUND-OVERPAYMENT FINE-POLICE DEPT 150.00 As 42019 CITY OF RICHFIELD -MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION-SQUAD CARS- 131..00 50 11 42020 AARP POLICE DEPT 42021 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BOOK-SENIOR CENTER 175.D0 42022 FR CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES 20.00 42023 LREFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.25 42024 AMY AEBBS LORI FREE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 42025 CARMEN HAMILTON REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS 28.00 42026 CARMEN HAIN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 42027 MARYLS H HITCHCOCK REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00 REFUND-ADULT PRDGRAMS 42028 LEAGUE OF MINNESDTA CITIES CONFERENCE-COUNCIMEMBER 2.50 42D29 NATIONAL FIRE INFDRMATIDN COUNCIL SOFTWARE-FIRE DEPT 200.00 42D30 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 354.50 42031 SANDRA O'ROURKE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00434. 0 42032 JOE PEDRIC REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 42033 YANNIE SCHUYT REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 21.00 42034 SELECTFORM INC -EMPLDYEE INFORMATION POSTERS-HUMAN 58. 5 RESOURCES 56.65 42035 CORY SHANNON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 42D36 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 22.00 42037 GRIGGS COOPER & CO LIQUOR 4158.10 42038 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR CO WINE 16785.22 42D39 PAUSTIS & SONS WINE 18898.30 42D40 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 104.58 42041 PRIDA WINE CO WINE 16551.15 42042 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO WINE 3231.79 12D43 THE WINE COMPANY WINE 11843.19 69.00 2044 STS CONSULTANTS LTD SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT ADDITIDN 1394.69 42045 MINNESOTA FORESTRY FAIR EXPENSES-FORESTRY DEPT 42046 HOFF & ALLEN PA LEGAL SERVICE 6.14 42047 AT&T CDNSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 4576.14 42048 AT&T SERVICE 85.85 42049 KATHI FOLLETT REFUND-ADULT TENNIS 1317.00 42050 BONNIE LOMEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 42051 LORI LDPEZ REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS 22.00 42052 DALE MARINENKO REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 42053 MINNEAGASCO SERVICE 22.00 42054 NORTH KILBRIDE OPTICIANS SAFETY GLASSES-FIRE DEPT 1160.00 42055 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 60.0 42056 NSP SERVICE 543.14 42057 MARIE SMITH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSDNS 21111.55 42058 GEORGARA TUDOR REFUND-ADULT GOLF LESSONS 27.0 42059 SARAH VRIEZE REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS 15.37 42060 MICHAEL WILLETT REFUND-ADULT TENNIS LESSONS 17.00 42061 EDEN PRAIRIE OPTIMIST OPTIMIST SOFT8ALL TOURNAMENT/FEES PAID50.00 42D62 CHERYL STREET REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS 1350.00 42063 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 4/15/88 29.59 42D64 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 12252.00 42065 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYRDLL 4/15/88 159. 7 42066 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE PAYROLL 4/15/88 47159.470 42067 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 4/15/88 1325.80 325.80 42068 AAA SPORTS INC -RECREATION EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES-SPORTS/ 1188.90 SPECIAL CAMPS/SUMMER SKILL DEVELDPMENT 17437237 • ?33 MAY 3,1988 42069 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 4/15/88 891.00 42070 IPMA CONFERENCE CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES 90.00 142071 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLLS 4/1/88 & 4/15/88 900.00 4 2072 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - PERA MAY 88 INSURANCE PREMIUM 90.00 42073 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 4/15/88 24065.16 42074 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 4/15/88 211.50 42075 FIVE STAR CONSTRUCTION INC -REMOVE DEADBOLTS/INSTALL PANIC BARS ON 920.00 CITY HALL DOORS 42076 ACCENT ON HEALTH FITNESS TESTING/FEES PAID 37.50 42077 ACRO MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 440.74 42078 AIRLIFT DOORS INC -REBUILD OF OPERATOR ON CAR WASH DOOR- 369.76 POLICE DEPT 42079 ALLANSON BUSINESS PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 322.B0 420B0 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO MICROPHONE & HEADPHONE RENTAL-POLICE DEFT 168.00 42081 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO MOPS/DUSTERS-LIQUOR STORES 8.B8 42082 AMERICAN RED CROSS 1ST AID SUPPLIES-POOL LESSONS 30.00 42083 AMERICAN SPEEDY PRINTING CENTERS PRINTING-AWARDS BANQUET 108.17 42084 AMERICAN SPEEDY PRINTING CENTERS PRINTING-COMMUNITY CENTER 81.85 42085 AMERICAN STEEL & INDUSTRIAL SUPPL STEEL PIPE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 115.50 42086 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS/RING LADDER-STREET DEPT 723.18 42087 JERRY ANDERSON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 84.00 42088 ANOON INC HELIUM TANK & VALVE RENTAL-SDCIAL EVENTS 51.85 42089 ANDY'S PICKUP PALACE INC -2 TOPPERS FOR PICKUP TRUCKS-PARK 458.00 MAINTENANCE/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 42090 ARMOR SECURITY INC -2ND QUARTER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-PARK 200.50 -MAINTENANCE/REPAIR JAIL DOOR/CABINET/ LOCK-POLICE BUILDING 42091 ARTMASTER BOOK CO BOOK-SENIOR CENTER 59.25 '9092 ARTSIGN MATERIALS CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/PARK PLANNING 106.80 DEPT 42093 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 150.20 42094 ASTLEFORD INTL INC STRAP/LINING/SWITCH-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 64.51 42095 B R W INC SERVICE-TRAFFIC STUDY 1012.50 42096 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -BRAKE FLUID/POWER STEERING FLUID/WIND- 483.80 -SHIELD WASHER FLUID/SIGNAL LIGHTS/ -BATTERIES/ANTI-FREEZE/TIRE TUBES/BEARING PROTECTORS/CABLES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 42097 BEACON PRODUCTS COMPANY FIELD LINING COMPOUND-PARK MAINTENANCE 704.00 42098 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE-CITY HALL 488.00 42099 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT/PLANNING 137.85 DEPT 42100 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE-FEBRUARY 88 345.00 42101 BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES -APRIL 88 TRASH DISPOSAL-CITY HALL/WATER 502.00 -DEPT/POLICE & FIRE BLDG/LIQUOR STORE/ COMMUNITY CENTER 421D2 FRANCIE BUTORAC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 20.00 42103 CENTRAIRE INC FURNACE REPAIR-PARK MAINTENANCE 50.00 421D4 CENTURION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS INC SQUAD CAR SETUP-POLICE DEPT 1196.25 42105 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER -RADID-$1086.95-PARK DEPT/RADIO REPAIR- 1150.30 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 42106 CONTRACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS IN RADIO REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 81.50 42107 COPY EQUIPMENT INC DIGITAL PLANIMETER-ASSESSING DEPT 607.50 42108 CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE SERVICE FOR BATTERED WOMEN-1ST QUARTER B8 1500.00 42109 CRYSTAPLEX PLASTICS INC PLEXIGLASS SHIELDS-ICE ARENA 66.00 I10 CULLIGAN SERVICE 52.60 3914645 MAY 3,1988 42111 CUSTOM AUTOBODY PAINT REPAIR-BRUSH TRUCK-FIRE DEPT 42112 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY 142.81 4 42113QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 1642. 2114 DALCO M DAY CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 24.30 a, -SERVICE-EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER/HUMAN 125.00 42115 DECORATIVE DESIGNS SERV 42116 DEM CON LANDFILL INC WASWAS I CE-MAY 88 T48.INTENANCE 00 E DISPOSAL 42117 DENISON MAILING SERVICE -POSTAGE- A PROPERTYEVALUATI RGES-PARK SONS--ASSESSING 245.21 42118 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU DEPT EXPENSES-COTICE DEPT 89.24 42119 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU 42120 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-CITY HALL 89.24 42121 WES DUNSMORE EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 239.D3 LICENSE FEE-PARK MAINTENANCE 7.50 42122 E P PHOTO FILM PROCESSING/PRINTS-POLICE DEPT 169.21 42123 EDINA CAMERA CENTER REPAIR FLASH ATTACHMENT-POLICE DEPT 4.80 42124 CITY OF EDINA GUN RANGE RENTAL-POLICE DEPT 3500.00 42125 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC -SAFETY BOOTS-WATER DEPT/NITROGEN DIOXIDE- 203.26 42126 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEMS INC -REPAAIRTY GUNENTER LOCK & LIGHTBAR & CAGE LIGHT- 87.75 42121 CHRIS ENGER POLICE DEPT APRIL 88 XPENSES 201.75 42128 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES -ALUMINUM EPOSTS/TY WRAPS/TIES/NET POST 338.00 RAN 42129 FITNESS ASSOCIATES INC STRESST-PARK TESTS-IF-IRETENA DEPTCE 42130 FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION 191.0029.40 42131 FLEET MAINTENANCE INC -FILTER/GASKETS/REPLACED INJECTOR CYLINDER 329.73 ADJUSTED VALVES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 42132 FOAM DIMENSIONS POOL SUPPLIES-POOL-COMMUNITY CENTER 28.76 .133 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC -BLADE/SHEAR PRUNER & CASE/SPRING/GLOVES- 170.43 FORESTRY DEPT 42134 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 42135 G & K SERVICES TOWELS-PARK MAINTENANCE 321.70 42136 GAB BUSINESS SERVICES INC LIABILITY INSURANCE 37.94 262 42137 GENERAL MACHINING INC THREADED SHAFT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE .75 42138 GETTING TO KNOW YOU ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 54.00 42139 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVIC TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE75.20 4214D GRANT MERRITT & ASSOCIATES LTD -MARCH 88 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 1075.20 LANDFILL 14964.60 42141 GRAllINI BROTHERS & COMPANY INSTALL CERAMIC TILE-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK 1980.00 42142 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 42143 LEROY GUBA HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 119.00 42144 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC -MOUND HAND DRYER/INSTALL RECEPTACLES & 774.70 -LITES-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK/INSTALLATION OF -QUARTZ LITE & SWITCH ON 2 LIFT STATION 42145 HARMON GLASS CONTROL PANELS-$6B0.00-SEWER DEPT -WINDSHIELD-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/INSTALL 359.94 42146 JEAN L HARRIS LITES-POLICE BUILDING EXPENSES-CITY COUNCILMEMBER 100.00 42147 HAUENSTEIN & BURNMEISTER INC BATHROOM PARTITIIONS-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK 892.00 42148 HEALTH 8 HOME ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 42149 HELLER'S CARBONIC WEST INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 27.24 42150 HENNEPIN CTY SHERIFF'S DEPT MARCH B8 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 327.82 42151 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 560.00 42I52 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FEBRUARY 88 BOARD OF PRISONERS 979.00 153 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-ENGINEERING DEPT 151.50 151.50 3422645 MAY 3,1988 42154 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -ACETYLENE-PARK MAINTENANCE/MARCH 88 WASTE 465.55 DEPT 42155 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -1STOHALFfSTRY 88ETAXES-MORE HOUSE/HENDRICKSON/ 3555.58 MILLER PARK 42156 HOFFERS INC PAINT/BRUSHES-PARK MAINTENANCE 535.00 42157 IBM CORPORATION APRIL 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 424.32 42158 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 160.24 42159 INDUSTRIAL SALES & SERVICE SHELF DIVIDERS-POLICE DEPT 300.00 42160 INTL ASSOC OF CHIEFS OF POLICE TRAINING SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 234.95 42161 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC -APRIL 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL/ 538.71 DPT 42162 ISS INTER SERVICE SYSTEM APRILIES-POLICE BB JANITORIALT/FIRE SERVICE-CITY HALL 1160.00 42163 PENNY JESSEN BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 240.00 42164 JUSTUS LUMBER CO -TABLES-COPY RDOM-CITY HALL/PLYWOOD/ 537.29 42165 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC ABASES/PITCHINGITy RUBBERS-$973.105-PARKTER 10113.10 MAINTENANCE/JERSEYS-ADULT HOCKEY 42166 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER -PAINT/PAINT BRUSHES/VARNISH/THINNER/PAINT 260.47 -ROLLERS/PAINT TRAYS/FILE/DRILL BIT/HANDLE -HARDWARE/GLUE/MITRE BOX/SAW/NAILS/GLOVES/ -CORNER BRACES/TILE/TWINE-WATER DEPT/ 42161 CYNTHIA LANENBERG COMMUNITY CENTER MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 35.75 42168 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD JANUARY BB LEGAL SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER 400.00 42169 LOIS LAYNE CREATIVE DESIGN DESIGN & ARTWORK-SQUAD CARS-POLICE DEPT 100.00 42170 LEEF BROS INC COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 67.00 4217I L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC MARCH 8B LEGAL SERVICE 14356.09 42172 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL INC WASTE DISPOSAL-STREET MAINTENANCE 78.00 '2173 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC BUSHINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 10.07 2174 MARTIN MCALLISTER CONSULTING PSYC STRESS TESTS-POLICE DEPT 650.00 42175 REGAN L MASSEE MILEAGE/EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 258.28 42176 MASYS CORPORATION APRIL BB MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 1295.00 42177 JAMES LEE MATSON EXPENSES/CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 23.03 42178 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC IMPOUND FEE-POLICE DEPT 25.00 42179 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 42.81 421B0 METRO PRINTING INC PRINTING FORMS/CARDS/ENVELOPES-POLICE DEPT 2E171.00 42181 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION MAY B8 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 136607.35 42182 MID AMERICA GOLF SUPPLY GOLFBALLS-SPRING SKILL DEVELDPMENT 95.75 42183 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO STEEL PLATE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 27.00 421B4 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 59B.50 42185 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIDNS CDRP APRIL 8B PAGER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 80.00 42186 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY FIRE EXTINQUISHERS-POLICE BUILDING 45.00 42187 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION SEARCH WARRANTS-POLICE DEPT 46.59 42188 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 44E1.00 42189 MINNESOTA TRANSIT LINES BUS SERVICE/ADULT PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 95.00 42190 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-DP SERVICE 55.25 42191 MINUTEMAN PRESS -PRINTING PLUMBING PERMIT LABELS-BUILDING 601.95 DEPT/SWIMMING CERTIFICATES-POOL LESSONS 42192 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 132.26 42193 MTI DISTRIBUTING CD ELECTRICAL RELAY-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 38.06 42194 MY CHEESE SHOP EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT B.10 42195 N E P CORPORATION STEEL-PARK MAINTENANCE 17.66 42196 NATIONAL SCREENPRINT AWARDS-WALLEYBALL 113.81 42197 BETH NILSSON EXPENSES/SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 623.013 198 NORTH STAR TURF INC WHEELS/CYLINDER/FRAME/PIN EYE/BAR-PARK 2616.48 MAINTENANCE 17189208 42199 NORTHERN CHEMICAL CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 1980.00 42200 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO 1ST QUARTER 88 SERVICE 44.14 42201 NORTHLAND BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS CASSETTES-POLICE DEPT 114.00 42202 NORTHWOOD GAS CO INC GAS CYLINDERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 43.64 2203 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC COMPUTER CONFERENCE-WATER DEPT 69.00 2204 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC PULLEYS-PARK MAINTENANCE 52.96 42205 ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY INC PEST EXTERMINATING SERVICE-APRIL 88 134.OD 42206 PAGENET APRIL 88 PAGER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 29.70 42207 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 66.50 42208 T A PERRY ASSOCIATES INC -FEBRUARY 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE 568.00 & FIRE BUILDINGS 422D9 PERSONNEL POOL TEMPORARY SERVICE-GENERAL SERVICES 127.20 42210 PHOTOS INC PRINTS-PLANNING DEPT 37.00 42211 THE PINK COMPANIES -EQUIPMENT REPAIR-POLICE BUILDING/DESK- 207.00 SENIOR CENTER 42212 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO AXLE REPAIR-PARK MAINTENANCE 365.49 42213 PITNEY BOWES OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 28.50 42214 PLAQUES PLUS INC PLAQUES-COUNCIL 348.84 42215 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC REPAIR CIRCUIT BREAKER-SENIOR CENTER 90.60 42216 PRAIRIE HARDWARE BATTERIES-FIRE DEPT 12.66 42217 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -BATTERIES/PLIERS/SCREWDRIVER/BRUSHES/ 110.53 -STAIN/PUTTY/TAPE/SCREWS/VARNISH/GLUE-CITY HALL 42218 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -SOCKET/OIL/DRILL BIT/VARNISH/WASHERS/ 216.97 -ANCHORS/BOLTS/MOP/BROOM/SANDPAPER/BRUSHES -SCREWS/KNIVES/PAINT PENS/GLUE/SAFETY -GLASSES/PUTTY/TAPE/HANDLES/LEVEL/PLEXI- GLASS-PARK MAINTENANCE 42219 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -PROPANE/HOSE FITTINGS/STAPLES/GAUGE/ 121.50 -MASKING TAPE/BRUSHES/ROLLERS/FUNNEL/HOOKS/ -OILER/ANCHORS/DRILL BIT/SHELF SUPPORT/ SANDPAPER/SCREWS-WATER DEPT 42220 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -COPPER TUBE/HINGES/HOOKS/CLAMPS/PLUGS/ 312.60 -BOLTS/ANCHORS/PAINT/RUSTPROOFING/SCREWS/ -BULBS/LADDER/OVER MIT/BRUSHES/HAMMER/ -WRENCH/PLIER/FLASHLIGHT/SHOVEL/TAPE/ -BATTERIES/BROOM/GREASE/NOZZLE-COMMUNITY CENTER/PARK MAINTENANCE 42221 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -SANDPAPER/CHROME POLISH/KEYS/FUSES/SIGNS/ 60.55 CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 42222 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -GLOVES/SCREWDRIVER SET/WASHERS/SCREWS/ 47.27 NUTS/LETTERS-SEWER DEPT 42223 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -PAINT/KEY BLANKS/WIRING/MAILBOX/BOLTS/ 262.75 -LOCKS/HINGES/CLEANING SUPPLIES/STAIN/ -HANDLE/WOOD BITS/LAUNDRY TUB/TRAP/TOWHOOKS -NUMBERS/SCREWS/PUTTY/FAUCET/PIPE-STREET DEPT 42224 PROTOOL SAFETY GLASSES/FACE SHIELDS-STREET MAINT 57.30 42225 NANCY PUMPHREY SOFTWARE-WATER DEPT 63.55 42226 R C I INDUSTRIES INC RUST REMOVER-FIRE DEPT 162.70 42227 R E S WATER WELL & PUMP WELL PUMP & REPAIR-SENIOR CENTER 1059.00 42223 RADIO SHACK COUPLER/SPICER/CONNECTOR-POLICE DEPT 38.96 42229 REBS MARKETING ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 350.00 42230 RICHARDSON NATURE CENTER SERVICE-SPRING SKILL DEVELOPMENT 205.00 738791 MAY 3,1988 42231 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO KNOBS/BANDS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 25.47 42232 ROBBINSDALE FARM SUPPLY INC CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 433.52 42233 DALE SCHMIDT EXPENSES-STREET DEPT 337.58 2234 MITCHELL SCHNEIDER MILEAGE 12.30 42235 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO -SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 88- 509.25 COMMUNITY CENTER 42236 MICHAEL SKARG LIFEGUARD/BACKBOARD INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 50.00 42237 W E NEAL SLATE CO EQUIPMENT REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 35.00 42238 THE W GORDON SMITH CO -PUMPHOSE/GEAR OIL/MOTOR OIL/BELTS/DIESEL 6351.81 -FUEL-$37BD.66-PARK MAINTENANCE/COMMUNITY -CENTER/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/WINCHES & PARTS-$1890.00-BRUSH RIGS-FIRE DEPT 42239 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP SOCKET SET/WRENCH-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 146.65 42240 SOUTHWEST AUTO SUPPLY INC -FUEL PUMPS/ENGINE/CARBURETORS/SWITCH KIT/ 2648.17 -GLUE/WATER PUMP/BATTERIES/BELTS/SEAT -COVERS/WELDING HELMET/FILTERS/BRUSHES/ -GRATES/SCREWS/POWER BRAKES/BEARINGS/ -TEMPERATURE CONTROL/SHIELDS/HOSE/HITCH -PIN/HITCH/SPLASH GUARDS/FLOOR MATS/BRAKE SHOES-SEWER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 42241 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -LEGAL ADS-PLANNING DEPT/HAPPENINGS- 3890.15 COMMUNITY CENTER/ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 42242 SPECIALTY SCREENING PLAQUE-FIRE DEPT 42.00 42243 SPORTS WORLD USA SHOE LACES/ICE PACKS-COMMUNITY CENTER 66.00 42244 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ -TRAFFIC WANDS./BADGES/AMMUNITION/EMBLEMS/ 10851.67 -MACE CARRIER/BALLISTIC VEST/UNIFORMS/ -FLASHLIGHTS/HELMETS/BELTS/HOLSTERS-POLICE DEPT '245 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET -REPLACE CRANK & BEARINGS/GASKET KIT/SEAL 813.96 -KIT/CABLE/FILTERS/HOSE/ADJUST IGNITION/ LOCK-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 42246 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 4.90 42247 NATALIE J SWAGGERT APRIL 88 EXPENSES 200.00 42248 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC KROY TAPE-CITY HALL/PARK PLANNING 87.60 42249 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO -ACETYLENE/OXYGEN/FILTER PLATE/ANCHOR/ 45.19 CARBON DIOXIDE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 42250 TWIN CITY PRICING & LABEL INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 13.50 42251 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 1357.60 42252 UNITED AUTOMATIC SALES INC FINGER PRINTING SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 72.00 42253 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES UNIFORMS-CITY EMPLOYEES 1254.25 42254 USA TODAY ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 51.00 42255 VESSCO INC -GEARBOX SUPPORT/LINER/CHEMICALS-WATER 19B.22 DEPT 42256 WACONIA FORD-MERCURY INC 3/4 TON PICKUP-FIRE DEPT 13953.00 42257 KEITH WALL EXPENSES-PDLICE DEPT 11.00 42258 WATERITE INC SENSOR/CHLORINATOR-COMMUNITY CENTER 190.25 42259 KEN WORDE HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 102.00 42260 XEROX CORPORATION -SUPPLIES/MARCH B8 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 186.00 CITY HALL 42261 SOUTHDALE YMCA YMCA YOUTH OUTREACH PROGRAM 2625.00 42262 RICHARD WILLIAMSON LICENSE FEE-WATER DEPT 30.00 42263 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 1ST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 40.40 42264 ENGCO GENERAL CONSTRACTOR SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER REMODELED 6074.73 117265 US POSTMASTER POSTAGE-SENIOR CENTER NEWSLETTER 58.18 ''66 MARY KOTTKE -SOFTBALL/VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/ 154.00 FEES PAID 5292235 42267 ABBY'S EXPENSES-COUNCIL 400B3 VOID OUT CHECK 57.24 40378 VOID OUT CHECK 813.13- 40726 VOID OUT CHECK 581.56- t41908 VOID OUT CHECK 5.00- 588870 4546.25 $474058.91• F 4 DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS 3 GENERAL 227676.74 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 17570.47 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 35599.64 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 38944.99 31 PARK ACQUIST 8 DEVELOP 3366.70 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 1012.50 73 WATER FUND 5640.36 77 SEWER FUND 138006.26 81 TRUST 8 ESCROW FUND 150.00 87 CDBG FUND 6091.25 $474058.91 { MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: April 22, 1988 SUBJECT: Preserve Homeowner's Association Trail Connection to Preserve Village Mall At the April 19th meeting, the City Council requested staff to visit with the Preserve Homeowner's Association to negotiate a resolution to the problem associated with the trail connection to Preserve Village Mall from Garrison Forest. Staff had suggested that the Homeowner's Association, Ryan Construction and the City split the cost of 40 ninebark potted plants 3-4 feet in height, for a cost of approximately $4D0 each. Staff further suggested the City split the cost with Ryan Construction and the Preserve Association for installing a fence on both sides of the trail. The estimated cost would be $7B0 each. Staff also suggested the City, Ryan Construction and the Preserve Association split the cost for repairing the trail at a cost of approximately $200 each. Staff met with the Preserve Homeowner's Association on Thursday, April 21st. The Association pointed out that the entire Preserve trail system is located behind homes and between homes in many locations. The Association did not want top set any precedent by paying for either fencing or screening of the trail in location, as they believed they would be inundated with many similar requests. The Preserve Association further believes that it is the property owners responsibility to screen his property from any conflicting neighboring uses. The Association indicated that the trail was platted with the original plat and both owners were aware of the trail prior to acquiring their property. In fact, Larry Paumen moved into his house several years after the trail was constructed. The Association also indicated they were not the agency requiring the trail in that location and were willing to close the trail if the City authorized closing. None of the Association members believe that either property owner would be satisfied with any correction proposed by the City. At this point, the Council has several options: 1. The City could still consider closing the trail. Cost to City $0. 2. The City could simply repair the dangerous condition of the dip at a cost of approximately $600, split three ways, and leave the screening and fencing up to the adjacent property owners. Cost to City $200. 3. The City could split the cost for repairing the trail between the Preserve Association, Ryan Construction and the City; split the cost of acquisition of plant and fence materials with Ryan Construction; and require the property owners to plant the shrubs and install the fence. Cost of 12" plant material is $520, cost of fence is $500; therefore, the total City cost is $710, Ryan Construction cost $710, Preserve Association cost is $200, and the property owner cost is labor for installation of fence and plants. 4. The City could split the cost three ways with the trail repair and request Ryan Construction to pay for the fence and the property owners to pay for their own screening material. Cost to City $200, Preserve Association cost is $200, Ryan Construction cost is $1,220. The existing ninebark hedge on Humphreys property is approximately 2 1/2' in height. Ninebark plotted plants cost approximately $13 each for 12" plants in 8 gallon containers. It is estimated that it would require 40 potted plants to provide adequate screening on both sides of the trail. Two-rail split rail fence costs approximately $1.06 per running foot. There is 470' of split rail fence required. Unfortunately, this seems to be one of those "no win" situations. The two property owners won't be satisfied until the path is closed, the Preserve Association and the City have concerns re: setting precedent with screening private property from trails, some neighbors think the trail should stay open, some think it should be closed, the City recognizes the concerns of the two property owners. At this point staff believe the most reasonable compromise is probably solution number 3. BL:mdd • ?'�S CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 16, 1988 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS: Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Assessor Steve Sinell, Hennepin County Representative Don Monk, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. RECONVENE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING II. APPROVAL OF BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES OF MEETING HELD THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1988 III. REVIEW OF ITEMS CONTINUED FROM APRIL 28, I988 IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 88-87, ACCEPTING THE 1988 ASSESSMENT VI. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1988 7:30 PM, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS: Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF: City Manager Carl Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Assessor Steve Sinell, City Staff Appraisers Lorna Lisell, John Sams, Barb Cook, Rick Petersburg and Earl Zent, Hennepin County Representative Don Monk, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Board Member Jean Harris was absent. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Board of Review President Peterson called the meeting to order. City Manager Jullie stated notice of this meeting had been properly published in the Eden Prairie News; notice of the meeting was also included with each valuation notice which was sent to homeowners. Jullie said the purpose of this meeting was to allow any tax payer to come before the Board of Review to request the Board act to amend the classification or property valuation which the City Assessor and his Staff determined to be appropriate to that property. Jullie said that the Board of Review will reconvene at a later date Lo hear any appeals continued from tonight's meeting. He reviewed the definition of Estimated Market Value. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS A. Personal Appeals 1. STAN VOLP - 13252 Cardinal Creek Road - 03-116-22 42 0005 Mr. Volp said his house was built in late 1986 and was assessed at $228,000. He said the new valuation is $260,800 and he questioned the sharp increase in one year. He said Staff had told him the first valuation was a partial assessment. City Assessor Sinell said Board of Review Minutes 2 April 28, 1988 there were several incomplete items that were reflec- ted in the first assessment. Sinell said the entire Cardinal Creek area was reassessed this year and the new assessment also reflects the value of the completed property. Volp said a house three doors away which is very similar to his property sold at $210,000. Sinell said he would recommend that the Board refer this back for further review and analysis. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Volp property, PID 03-116-22 42 0006, to Staff for further review and research on comparable sales. Motion carried unanimously. 2. KAY AND ARLEN WESTLING - 9332/9334 Overlook Trail - 24-116-22 34 0043 Mrs. Westling said they have sold their duplex twin home for $172,200 and she thought that should be the valua- tion amount rather than the $188,100 on the valuation notice. Sinell said a review of the property has been started. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Westling property, PID 24-116-22 34 0043, to Staff to complete the review of the property. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Mary Jane Swanson - 9440 Eden Prairie Road - 29-116-22 11 0001 (Primary) and 29-116-22 12 0007 (Secondary) Ms. Swanson said she takes issue with the valuations of her two parcels, one nine-acre parcel and an adjoining eight-acre parcel. She said there is no City sewer and water out there and there is a building restriction on land less than 10 acres so none of it can be sub- divided. She said it has been increased every year and the property has been physically inspected every year except one. Sinell said that his department reviews construction or new improvements over $1,000 at the time of assessment. If those improvements are not complete at that time, they will return the following year to see if the im- provements have been completed. Swanson said she failed to see where the property could increase in value that much considering of the lack of amenities in the area. Bentley asked if she felt that the assessed valuation is greater than the value of the property. She replied that she did. Sinell noted that the property was purchased at $156,000 Board of Review Minutes 3 April 28, 1988 and there have been some improvements done since the purchase. Swanson said she didn't think it had gone up 30% because there are many items that have not been im- proved since the purchase. Bentley said he saw nothing that says the valua- tion itself is wrong but he heard an objection to the rate of increase. He said he was concerned why it is suddenly going up 30% when it has been reviewed annually. Pidcock said she would like to see some comparables on this property. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Swanson properties, PID 29-116-22 11 0001 (Primary) and PID 29-116-22 12 0007 (Secondary) , to Staff for further review and research on comparable sales. Motion carried unanimously. 4. RICHARD & KAREN FYOCK - 13188 Cardinal Creek Road - 03-116-22 41 0005 Mrs. Fyock said she had researched several homes in the Cardinal Creek area and there are a lot of discrepancies in the value of the properties. She said her statistics show that property values have not gone up in Cardinal Creek. Sinell said he thought this would be a good one to refer back for review and comparison. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Fyock property, PID 03-116-22 41 0005, to Staff for further review and research on comparables. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Chiwon Sohn - 8735 Darnel Road - 23-116-22 21 0020 Mr. Sohn said the valuation will make his house one of the most expensive in the neighborhood and he couldn't understand why. Sinell said the Lake Eden area was one of the revalua- tion areas. He said with this appraisal the property now has 70% of the basement finished. He also said there had been a market comparison to three others in the neighborhood. Mr. Sohn said one of the three has a lake view and there have been no sales on his side of the street. Peterson asked if $109,600 is more than Mr. Sohn could sell the house for. Sohn said $103,000 is the maximum estimate he would make. Bentley said he would be willing to have Staff review this in order to have another appraiser take another Board of Review Minutes 4 April 28, 1988 look at the comparables. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Sohn property, PID 23-116-22 21 0020, to Staff for further review and research on comparable properties. Motion carried unanimously. 6. THOMAS SWIRTZ - 6584 Mistral Lane - 05-116-22 14 0042 Mr. Swirtz did not respond when his name was called. The Board proceeded on to the next appellant. 7. MERRILL & ELIZABETH WATSON - 8047 Curtis Lane - 17-116-22 13 0179 Mr. Watson said they purchased their townhouse in July of 1987 and now have an estimated market value that is more than their purchase price. Sinell said the appraiser found comparable units that had sold for more than $80,000. Pidcock asked if there was any duress on the seller to sell the property. Watson said it was a new house. Peterson asked if any improvements had been made. Watson replied they had put in air-conditioning. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to amend the Assessor's estimated market value on the Watson property, PID 17-116-22 13 0179, to $78,500. Pidcock said she wanted to reiterate that when you buy property from a builder you may not be able to turn around and resell it at the same or at a higher price. Anderson noted that he thought the criteria was the selling price plus the improvements to the property. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Pidcock opposed. 8. Cancelled 9. PAUL WELIN - 6630 Kara Drive - 04-116-22 42 0045 Mr. Welin said he was contesting his estimated market value because of structural problems with his home. He said he would like to have a review by one of the ap- praisers and the inspector involved with the property construction. Sinell asked if he had an independent engineering report on the property. Welin said he did and that it reported many defects in the structure that would require exten- sive corrective measures. Board of Review Minutes 5 April 28, 1988 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Welin property, PID 04-116-22 42 0045, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 10. RONALD MOELLER - 9511 Bennett Place - 25-116-22 22 0009 Mr. Moeller said he was concerned about parity in valua- tion. He reviewed some properties he considered com- parable to his property and said he thought his valuation should be somewhere between the other two properties. Sinell said the appraiser used the most current sales in determining the value. He said he would like to see a market comparison done on this property. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Moeller property, PID 25-116-22 22 0009, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 11. THOMAS & KRYSTYNA PLOSZAY - 7564 Eileen Street - 07-116-22 41 0012 Mr. Ploszay said he had purchased his house in March of 1987 for $161,000. He said his assessment is 105% of the sale price while the other houses on Eileen Street were assessed at 96% of sale price. Sinell said a review appraisal has been completed on the property. Mr. Ploszay said he thought the first year appraisal should be very close to the purchase price. Bentley said he could see no indication of distressed sale in this case and unless there is such a distressed sale he could not see that high an amount of appreciation since the purchase of the property. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to amend the Assessor's estimated market value on the Ploszay property, PID 07-116-22 41 0012, at $162,500. Motion carried with Pidcock opposed. 12. TIMOTHY DUNPHY - 17300 Peterborg Road - 05-116-22 33 0031 Mr. Dunphy said he was also interested in equalization. He said he experienced a 17% increase this year. He checked on comparables in his neighborhood and found them to be far less than the value placed on his house. Sinell said he would like to have a chance to review this property. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Dunphy property, PID 15-116-22 33 0031, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review Minutes 6 April 28, 1988 13. MATTHEW & DAWN HERKENHOFF - 16000 Baywood Lane- 05-116-22 41 0053 Mrs. Herkenhoff said she felt the condition of their neighborhood reduces the value of their property. She said the comparables used for their property were in Olympic Hills and Hidden Oaks and their neighborhood is not comparable to those two areas. She said they paid $285,000 for the property in May, 1987 and re- ceived a mortgage company valuation of $301,000. Sinell said they do look for a change in value because of negative influences; however, they haven't been able to find such influences on this property. He said he would recommend a decrease to $296,000. Pidcock said she thought location does have a bearing and should be taken into account. Bentley said he agreed with that; however, he assumed that the mortgage company also took that into account in their valuation. MOTION: Pidcock moved to amend the Assessor's estimated market valuation on the Herkenhoff property, PID 05-116 22 41 0053, to $285,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to amend the Assessor's estimated market valuation on the Herkenhoff property, PID 05-116-22 41 0053, to $296,000. Pidcock said she didn't see that there would be that much appreciation in ten months. She said she thought we were trying to arrive at a market value. Peterson said he would like to see another year of his- tory and comparables closer to the area and also to see if the neighborhood improves. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion failed on a split vote with Anderson and Bentley voting "aye" and Pidcock and Peterson voting "nay". Bentley asked what things had been done to the property since they moved in. Mrs. Herkenhoff said they have put in grass and landscaping. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Peterson, to amend the Assessor's estimated market value of the Herkenhoff property, PID 05-116-22 41 0053, to $290,000. Motion carried with Pidcock opposed. 14. RAYMOND RICE - 8010 Island Road - 17-116-22 24 0015 Board of Review Minutes 7 April 28, 1988 Mr. Rice said he had paid more for his lot than others in the area. He said in December 1986, the assessor concluded that it was 62% completed. He said he paid a total of $316,000 for his house and lot. He said he asked the assessor about comparables and was told that the highest sale in Weston Bay was $220,000 and there were no sales over $200,000 in Timber Lakes. Rice said he thought his valuation was more proper for homes in Cardinal Creek, Olympic Hills or on Bryant Lake. Sinell said he would like to see a market comparison on this property. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Rice property, PID 17-116-22 24 0015, to Staff for further review and research on comparable sales. Motion carried unanimously. 15. LARRY OLSON - 7351 Walnut Court - 08-116-22 14 0050 Mr. Olson said he wanted to raise the issue of in- equity of valuation of houses on Walnut Court based on a comparison he did of three homes there, including his own. He said his tax per square foot is much higher than the other two. Sinell said Staff has not had a chance to do a com- plete review and would like to do one. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Olson property, PID 08-116-22 14 0050, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 16. CLARK KUBE & JOANNE KUBE-HARDERWIJK - 15909 Cedar Ridge Road - 21-116-22 23 0013 This appeal was cancelled as it was settled before the meeting. 17. RONALD NEHER - 14860 Ironwood Court - 04-116-22 43 0081 Mr. Neher said he wanted to ask for a look at the com- parables. Sinell said that had not been completed as yet. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Neher property, PID 04-116-22 43 0081, to Staff for further review and research on comparable sales. Motion carried unanimously. 18. DOUGLAS OLSEN - 9030 W. Staring Lane - 21-116-22 42 0008 Mr. Olsen said he disagreed with the amount of the assessment and would like to have it reviewed. Board of Review Minutes 8 April 28, 1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Olsen property, PID 21-116-22 42 0008 to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 19. BRUCE MARZOLF - 7680 Atherton Way - 08-116-22 33 0018 Mr. Marzolf said he had anticipated selling his home and had asked one of the realtors to do a market analysis. He said that analysis was $88,700. He also noted that he did not receive a notice of this meeting. Sinell said he would like to be able to review this and would like a copy of the realtor's market analysis. Mr. Marzolf said he knows of only one time when an assessor came in their house. Sinell said the last complete review of the property was in 1984. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Marzolf property, PID 08-116-22 33 0018, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 20. RUSSELL & SANDRA STEPHENS - 16029 Baywood Lane - 05-116-22 41 0052 Mrs. Stephens said they suffered extreme damage from the big storm last summer. She said they believe the value of the lot is no longer at the current value, particularly in view of the extensive damage to the railroad property behind them. She said they don't know if they could sell their property now with the existing damage. She said they were concerned about the lack of services in their area and the fact that their children have to attend Prairie View school which will be forced to use portable classrooms next year. She said those concerns affect the value of their property. Sinell said Staff has not completed a market review and would like to complete that. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Stephens property, PID 05-116-22 41 0052, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 21. RALPH & JOANN TESCHNER - 6463 Mere Drive - 05-116-22 14 0051 Mr. and Mrs. Teschner did not respond when their name was called. 22. LEE LOBSTEIN - 6900 Rosemary Road - 03-116-22 34 0015 Mr. Lobstein did not respond when his name was called. Board of Review Minutes 9 April 28, 1988 23. BYRON & KRISTINE ANDERSON - 16881 South Manor Road - 05-116-22 24 0034 Mr. and Mrs. Anderson did not respond when their name was called. 24. ALVIN & MILDRED BREN - 7202 Topview Road - 10-116-22 14 0111 Mr. and Mrs. Bren did not respond when their name was called. 25. JAMES MILLER - 8583 Darnel Road - 23-116-22 23 0020 Mr. Miller said his new assessment was an increase of 15.6%. He said he was not satisfied that he had a fair appraisal nor that the comparables were not similar enough to his property. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Miller property, PID 23-116-22 23 0020, to Staff for further review and research on comparable sales. Motion carried unanimously. 26. WILLIAM HARGENS - 9060 W. Staring Lane - 21-116-22 42 0010 Mrs. Hargens said W. Staring Lane is a very old neigh- borhood and they were surprised at a $10,000 increase on their property when no improvements have been done since the early 1980s. She said there has not been a house for sale in their neighborhood since 1982 so she wanted to know what the basis for their valuation was. Mrs. Hargens said she was also concerned about the prob- lem of people being taxed out of their birthright, not only in Eden Prairie but in the entire country. She said you are taxed on the basis of what the current market is even though you don't intend to sell your property. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Hargens property, PID 21-116-22 42 0010, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 27. ANDREW & SUSAN WOLF - 8833 Jasmine Lane - 23-116-22 24 0078 Mrs. Wolf said she believed the property has devalued because of the large number of vacancies in the eight building complex. Sinell said they have not had a chance to look at this property. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer Board of Review Minutes 10 April 28, 1988 the Wolf property, PID 23-116-22 24 0078, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 28. MIKE FLYNN - 16980 Duck Lake Trail - 05-116-22 31 0016 Mr. Flynn said his property had not been on the tax roles prior to their purchase because it had been a parsonage. When they purchased the home, an assessor reviewed the house for the first time and placed a value of $78,000. He said it then went up the following year to $80,400. This year they received a 28% increase to $103,200, and he couldn't understand such a large increase. He said he thought it would be hard to sell because of the lack of some amenities in the house and its location on Duck Lake Trail. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Flynn property, PID 05-116-22 31 0016, to Staff for further review and research on comparable sales. Motion carried unanimously. 29. DEAN & KATHY JOHNSON - 9170 Flyway Circle - 24-116-22 32 0009 Mrs. Johnson said the estimated market value is greater than they could sell the house for. She said the im- provements they made have not added that much to the value of the home. She said the comparables used were not fair since they used two homes in Olympic Hills and their neighborhood is not similar to that area. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Johnson property, PID 24-116-22 32 0009, to Staff for further review and research on comparable sales. Motion carried unanimously. 30. MICHAEL SUTTON - 9754 Purgatory Road - 26-116-22 14 0018 10-116-22 21 0001 10-116-22 21 0002 Mr. Sutton said he put together a small development with 13 lots. He said he built a new home on one lot and lived in an older home which has since been demolished. He said the assessment covers a house that no longer exists. Sinell said the valuation was done as of January 1 when the house was still there and Mr. Sutton had applied for homestead on that property. Bentley said he was concerned that if it couldn't be marketed because of restrictions placed by the City and we are trying to determine market value, then there is Board of Review Minutes 11 April 28, 1988 a problem. He said he would like to have a review of the Developer's Agreement for this property to deter- mine whether the property was marketable. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Sutton property, PID 26-116-22 14 0018, to Staff for further review to determine whether the property was marketable at the time of the valuation. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sutton said the house on Baker Road is being rented, however the property is not in very good condition. He said he hopes to put the properties there together at some time for development. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Sutton property, PID 10-116-22 21 0002, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sutton said the other property is a vacant lot next to the Baker Road property with the house. He said the valuation increased from $13,000 to $28,000 this year. Bentley asked if there was sewer and water near the property. Sutton said there was in a neighboring cul- de-sac. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Sutton property, PID 10-116-22 21 0001 to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 31. JOHN SWANSON - 6626 Boyd Ave. - 06-116-22 41 0024 Mr. Swanson said his valuation is much higher than other property in his neighborhood. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Swanson property, PID 06-116-22 41 0024, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 32. WILLIAM & WANDA CARPENTER - 15517 S. Eden Dr. - 04-116-22 21 0014 Mr. and Mrs. Carpenter did not respond when their name was called. 33. LEE GARBER - 15085 Ironwood Court - 04-116-22 43 0050 Mr. Garber said a house up the street from him has been on the market for over a year and is still not sold. He said he was concerned about the disparity of valua- tions in his neighborhood. He said he bought his house in 1981 and paid more than it was worth in order to get an assumable mortgage. Sinell said the assessors have been unable to get into Board of Review Minutes 12 April 28, 1988 the house to perform an appraisal. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Garber property, PID 04-116-22 43 0050, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 34. FRED PURCELL - 8610 Red Oak Drive - 21-116-22 22 0035 21-116-22 22 0034 Mr. Purcell said he is objecting to the valuations on two of his lots on Meadowvale. He said there is a 70% increase on one lot and an 80% increase on the other. He said one of the lots acts as the neighborhood play- ground, and he had received two offers for it last year for $9,000 to $10,000. He said the other lot backs up to his house. He read a letter that offered him $10,750 for the second lot. Bentley asked what last year's valuations were. Purcell replied that they were $10,000 and $11,000. Sinell said these properties were part of the revaluation done this year. He said there were some sales of lots in the area which were used for comparables. Peterson asked if utilities were available. Jullie said they are not yet available. Pidcock asked if there was a park in the neighborhood. Jullie said he was not sure. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to amend the Assessor's estimated market value on the Purcell property, PID 21-116-22 22 0035, to $12,000 and on the Purcell Property, PID 21-116-22 22 0034, to $13,000. Motion carried unanimously. 35. BIHARI DESAI - 16587 Terrypine Drive - 17-116-22 12 0058 Mr. Desai said he paid $65,000 for a half-duplex for investment purposes. He said the property was then assessed at $72,900, which is $7,900 more than he paid for it. Sinell said the value at January 1987 was $70,000. Mr. Desai said he was not aware of the procedure used to protest the valuations. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Desai property, PID 17-116-22 12 0058, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 36. EUGENE DIX - 18341 Ginavale Lane - 06-116-22 43 17 Board of Review Minutes 13 April 28, 1988 Mr. Dix had to leave the meeting and his appeal will be considered with the written appeals. 37. GARY T. REYNOLDS - 16630 Baywood Terrace - 05-116-22 43 0016 Mr. Reynolds said he was also looking for equalization. He said his home is assessed higher than one next door to his that is bigger than his home. He said he had gone through the court process in order to obtain a reduction before. Peterson noted that Mr. Reynolds' estimated valuation of $118,100 is less than the $122,000 value placed by the court. Reynolds said he thought the court valua- tion was higher than it should have been. Sinell said a neighborhood review had been performed. He said he would like to have another review with comparables. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Reynolds property, PID 05-116-22 43 0016, to Staff for further review and research on comparable sales. Motion carried unanimously. 38. OTTO HALSTENSEN - 8965 and 8967 Preserve Blvd. - 23-116-22 14 0031 23-116-22 14 0032 Mr. Halstensen said his property was severely damaged by the flood in July, 1987. To date only patch-up repair has been done on the building; therefore he felt that the value of the building has decreased rather than increased. Bentley said he had witnessed the water damage in that area and had encouraged Mr. Halstensen to present his appeal. Sinell said their review had not yet been completed. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Halstensen properties, PID 23-116-22 14 0031 and PID 23-116-22 14 0032 to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. The Board then considered appeals of those who did not respond when their name was called during the meeting. 6. THOMAS L. SWIRTZ - 6584 Mistral Ln - 05-116-22 14 0042 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Swirtz property, PID 05-116-22 14 2042, to Staff for Board of Review Minutes 14 April 28, 1988 further review. Motion carried unanimously. 21. RALPH & JOANN TESCHNER - 6463 Mere Drive - 05-116-22 14 0051 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to amend the Assessor's estimated market value on the Teschner property, PID 05-116-22 14 0051, to $159,600. Motion carried unanimously. 22. LEE LOBSTEIN - 6900 Rosemary Rd - 03-116-22 34 0015 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Lobstein property, PID 03-116-22 34 0015, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 23. BYRON & KRISTINE ANDERSON - 16881 South Manor Road - 05-116-22 24 0034 MOTION: Pidcock, moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Anderson property, PID 05-116-22 24 0034, to Staff for further review. Motior carried unanimously. 24. ALVIN & MILDRED BREN - 7202 Topview Road - 10-116-22 14 0111 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Bren property, PID 10-116-22 14 0111, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 32. WILLIAM & WANDA CARPENTER - 15517 S. Eden Dr. - 04-116-22 21 0014 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Carpenter property, PID 04-116-22 21 0014, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 36. EUGENE DIX - 18341 Ginavale Lane - 06-116-22 43 0017 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Dix property, PID 06-116-22 43 0017, to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. B. Written Communications Written communications were received from the following and are attached to these Minutes. 1001. DONALD N. PATON - 102 South Third Street, St. Joseph, MO 64501 - 17-116-22 13 0026 1002. MARK J. PETERKA - 9064 Preserve Blvd. - 23-116-22 42 0063 1003. BRUCE H. ELLIASEN - 9635 Bennett Place - 25-116-22 23 0022 Board of Review Minutes 15 April 28, 1988 1004. LINDA & DAN MACDONALD - 17031 Honeysuckle Lane - 05-116-22 31 0064 1005. DAVID W. LEE - 9330 Overlook Trail - 24-116-22 34 0019 1006. DANIEL J. HELTNESS - 9328 Overlook Trail - 24-116-22 34 0020 1007. DONALD P. SABINSKE - 7740 Heritage Road - 08-116-22 33 0010 MO^ION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the seven properties listed above (Items 1001 - 1007) to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 1008. PROPERTY TAX RESEARCH COMPANY - 14-116-22 22 0004 14-116-22 22 0005 16-116-22 24 0011 15-116-22 13 0001 15-116-22 21 0004 15-116-22 22 0010 15-116-22 23 0004 12-116-22 11 0002 1009. CRANE AND NORCROSS - 10-116-22 34 0004 1010. CRANE AND NORCROSS - 12-116-22 41 0002 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to sustain the valuation on the above listed proper- ties (Items 1008 - 1010) . Motion carried unanimously. 1011. TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL 14-116-22 43 0014 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to sustain the valuation of PID 14-116-22 43 0014 at $7,800,000. Motion carried unanimously. 1012. BRUCE & RUTH ANN HIRMER - 10247 and 10257 Tarn Circle - 24-116-22 43 0057 and 24-116-22 43 0056 1013. ELFERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. - 06-116-22 33 0014 Board of Review Minutes 16 April 28, 1988 06-116-22 33 0077 06-116-22 33 0078 1014. THOMAS & DEBRA WILSON - 10270 Mooer La. - 35-116-22 21 0096 1015. RONALD & LESLIE EZERSKI - 13192 Cardinal Creek Road - 03-116-22 41 0004 1016. JOHN & DIANNE HOCKERT - 16180 Westgate Lane - 08-116-22 41 0013 1017. MICHAEL W. DUNN - 9044 Preserve Blvd. - 23-116-22 42 0062 1018. WILLIAM J. DIERS - 9157 Preserve Blvd. - 23-116-22 31 0003 1019. DAVID N. & JEANNE H. MOOTY - 6871 Sand Ridge Road - 03-116-22 43 0011 1020. NANCY & JEFF LUKENS - 6824 Jeremy Ct. - 04-116-22 44 0007 1021. EDTED PROPERTIES - 6466 City West Parkway - 01-116-22 24 0029 1022. NORTHWOOD GAS INC. 03-116-22 22 0019 03-116-22 22 0021 03-116-22 22 0022 1023. MICHAEL J. MCNAMARA - 10260 & 10270 Tarn Circle 24-116-22 43 0038 1024. CAROL BURNETT - 9940 Bennett Place - 26-116-22 41 0033 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the above listed properties (Items 1012 - 1024) to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 1025. LAURA & JOHN GILSON - 8923 Hidden Oaks Drive - 24-116-22 24 0085 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Gilson property, PID 24-116-22 24 0085. Motion carried unanimously. 1026. GARY ROBERT ERNST - 15851 Summit Dr. - 21-116-22 22 0013 1027. ELTON M. NELSON - 16231 Westgate Dr. - Board of Review Minutes 17 April 28, 1988 08-116-22 41 0033 1028. JEFF MILLER - 15195 Ironwood Court - 04-116-22 43 0047 1029. ROBERT T. CALLAN - 9051 High Point Circle - 24-116-22 31 0017 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the above listed properties (Items 1026 - 1029) to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. III. CLOSE MEETING MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to reconvene the Board of Review at 6:30 PM, Monday, May 16. Motion carried unanimously. Peterson thanked the Appraisal Staff for the fine job in putting together the overall assessed valuation for the year and Don Monk for his help in tonight's meeting. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 PM. Motion carried unanimously. Memorandum To: Eden Prairie Board of Review From: City Assessor, Steve Sinell Subject: May 16, 19B8 reconvene of Board of Review Meeting Date: May 13, 198B The assessing staff has prepared reports on the properties that were referred back to staff for review at the April 28th meeting of the Board of Review. I have listed our recommendations on each property reviewed and attached copies of the appraisals for all items the owners are not in agreement with our recommendations. Appeal 4 Owner/PID Assessor's Recommendation 1. Stan Volp No Change 03-116-22 42 0005 2. Kay & Arlen Westling Reduce to $172,200 24-116-22 34 0043 Owner Agrees. 3. Mary Jane Swanson Increase to $237,100 29-116-22 11 0001 (Primary) Mary Jane Swanson Increase to $70,100 29-116-22 12 0007 (Secondary) 4. Richard & Karen Fyock No Change 03-116-22 41 0005 5. Chi Won Sohn No Change 23-116-22 21 0020 6. Thomas L. Swirtz No Change 05-116-22 14 0042 Owner Agrees. 7. Merrill & Elizabeth Watson Value was reduced to $78,500 17-116-22 13 0179 @ 4/28 Meeting by BOR. 8. Cancelled 9. Paul Welin Reduce to $54,000 04-116-22 42 0045 Owner Agrees. page 2 Appeal # Owner/PID Assessor's Recommendation 1D. Ronald L. Moeller Reduce to $231,200 25-116-22 22 0009 Owner Agrees. 11. Thomas & Krystyna Ploszay Value was reduced to $162,500 D7-116-22 41 0012 @ 4/28 Meeting of BOR. 12. Timothy Dunphy Reduce to $104,700 05-116-22 33 0031 13. Matthew & Dawn Herkenhoff Value was reduced to $290,000 05-116-22 41 0053 @ 4/28 Meeting of BOR. 14. Raymond Rice No Change 17-116-22 24 0015 15. Larry Olson Appraisal Incomplete, will be 08-116-22 14 0050 complete by 5/16. 16. Cancelled 17. Ronald E. Neher No Change 04-116-22 43 0081 18. Douglas Olsen No Change 21-116-22 42 0008 19. Bruce Marzolf No Change 08-116-22 33 001E 20. Russell & Sandra Stephens No Change 05-116-22 41 0052 21. Ralph & Joan Teschner Value was reduced to $159,600 05-116-22 14 0051 @ 4/2B Meeting of BOR. 22. Lee Lobstein Reduce to $112,000 03-116-22 34 0015 Owner Agrees. 23. Byron & Kristine Anderson Reduce to $94,000 05-116-22 24 0034 Owner Agrees. 24. Alvin & Mildred Bren Reduce to $172,000 10-116-22 14 0011 Owner Agrees. 25. James Miller No Change 23-116-22 23 0020 26. William Hargens No Change 21-116-22 42 0010 page 3 Appeal # Owner/RID Assessor's Recommendation 27. Andrew & Susan Wolf No Change 23-116-22 24 0078 28. Mike Flynn Reduce to $95,100 05-116-22 31 0016 29. Dean & Kathryn Johnson No Change 24-116-22 32 0009 30. Michael Sutton 26-116-22 14 0018 Reduce to $45,000 10-116-22 21 0001 Increase to $32,500 10-116-22 21 0002 Reduce to $33,500 31. John Swanson Reduce to $182,000 06-116-22 41 0024 32. William & Wanda Carpenter No Change 04-116-22 21 0014 33. Lee Garber No Change - Unable to review 04-116-22 43 0050 property, 5 attempts to contact owner to set up appt., no response. 34. Fred Purcell Values were reduced to: 21-116-22 22 0035 $12,000 21-116-22 22 0034 $13,000 @ 4/28 Meeting of BOR. 35. Bihari Desai No Change 17-116-22 12 D058 36. Eugene Dix Reduce to $89,200 06-116-22 43 0017 Owner Agrees. 37. Gary Reynolds No Change 05-116-22 43 0016 38. Otto Halstenson (38) 23-116-22 14 0031 Increase to $175,000 (38a) 23-116-22 14 0032 No Change 1001. Donald Paton No Change 17-116-22 13 0026 1002. Mark Peterka Reduce to $262,700 23-116-22 42 OD63 1003. Bruce Elliason 25-116-22 23 OD22 Reduce to $248,900 24-116-22 22 0219 No Change page 4 Areal 4 Owner/PID Assessor's Recommendation 1004. Linda & Dan MacDonald No Change 05-116-22 31 0064 Owner Agrees. 1005. David W. Lee Reduce to $94,000 24-116-22 34 0019 Owner Agrees. 1006. Daniel J. Heltness Reduce to $94,000 24-116-22 34 0020 Owner Agrees. 1007. Donald P. Sabinske No Change 08-116-22 33 0010 IO08. Property Tax Research Co. Values were sustained by 14-116-22 22 0004 Board of Review @ 4/28 14-116-22 22 0005 Meeting. 16-116-22 24 0011 15-116-22 13 0001 15-116-22 21 0004 15-116-22 22 0010 15-116-22 23 0004 12-116-22 11 0002 1009. Crane & Norcross Values were sustained by 10-116-22 34 0004 Board of Review @ 4/28 Meeting. 1010. Crane & Norcross Values were sustained by 12-116-22 41 0002 Board of Review @ 4/28 Meeting. 1011. Trammell Crow Residential Value was sustained by 14-116-22 43 0014 Board of Review @ 4/28 Meeting. 1012. Bruce & Ruth Ann Hirmer 24-116-22 43 0056 No Change - Owner Agrees. 24-116-22 43 0057 No Change - Owner Agrees. 1013. Elfering Construction 06-116-22 33 0014 Reduce to $147,000 - Owner Agrees. 06-116-22 33 0077 Reduce to $71,000 - Owner Agrees. 06-116-22 33 0078 Reduce to $72,000 - Owner Agrees. 1014. Thomas & Debra Wilson Reduce to $122,000 35-116-22 21 0096 Owner Agrees. IO15. Ronald & Leslie Ezerski Reduce to $257,900 03-116-22 41 0004 Owner Agrees. page 5 ppeal H Owner/PID Assessor's Recommendation 1016. John & Diane Hockert No Change 08-116-22 41 0013 Owner Agrees. 1D17. Michael W. Dunn Appraisal Incomplete, will 23-116-22 42 0062 be ready 5/16. 1018. William Diers Reduce to $112,500 23-116-22 31 0003 Owner Agrees. 1019. David & Jeanne Mooty No Change 03-116-22 31 0003 1020. Nancy & Jeff Lukens No Change 04-116-22 44 0007 1021. EdTed Properties Reduce to $193,000 01-116-22 24 0029 1022. Northwood Gas Co. Inc. 03-116-22 22 0019 No Change 03-116-22 22 0021 Increase to $102,000 03-116-22 22 0022 Increase to $81,0D0 1023. Michael J. McNamara Appraisal Incomplete, will 24-116-22 43 0038 be ready 5/16. 1024. Carol Burnett No Change 26-116-22 41 0033 1025. Laura & John Gilson Value was sustained by 24-116-22 24 0085 Board of Review @ 4/28 Meeting. 1026. Gary Ernst Review appraisal incomplete 21-116-22 22 0013 as of 5/13, will be completed by 5/16. 1027. Elton M. Nelson Reduce to $8B,400 08-1I6-22 41 OD33 Owner Agrees. 1028. Jeff Miller No Change 04-I16-22 43 0047 Owner Agrees. 1029. Robert T. Callan No Change 24-116-22 31 0017 988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 1 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach •PID: 03-111e -2.2.-4Z-()cos" Owner: S�wN1_s_ UOt_P . �r2. Address: 1'2)252_ Cwa.otNo+-- CREF - IUD ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.I COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE N0.3 13Z52 b9z-1 133310 IS610 Address Cnneu.A Grmlc. Fe,efazeirck-(Taro (}.vA,nAQ Cam1G"24`, l inoSe,AO Woo flniug, it Proximity to Subject BMW A., IIIIII v z E, Sales Puce s • III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs 210 nevD H IIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs 2 •. fPrice/Gross Liv.Area S 0$ I Zo.+41 m IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII . 0 MIIIII)II IIIIII ll l$ 131 AD m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! .. Data Source CRC/ vkl.S GeV h VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION .1-IS Armament DESCRIPTION b I •1-IS Armament DESCRIPTION 1.1-IS Armament�. Sales or Financing ` Concessions -,_-__1I_�II 1, _� ACE /kY�>E — A`ONE ,, Dale of Sale/Time to/g-1 4—2v h 3/ , UB Location — IZfB7 N UEGy GQ�� EQuto4- EAJAL y Site/View On Cam,Design and appear U CAD u �NG6RIoiL ; IT-4ti0(L_ 4-1400 0 Z Quality of Construction =N � + EQUAL L age FIND �q8 -7t0� 14 oil +1&sto EFRuwt_ h Condition GAO "p',i^ Igl3Z , Above Grade bias •armors, Bans Iota ins Bohr .1F-F.ims•Ba +Zf�Q� VpS" ig Room Count -, - Toler Balms earns tool Sams, Bans G ' t $ :3 "1 d Gross Living Area 2j109 So'FL t S r z35*( sq.Ft. -17mU 19100 +11°°° 5 : 1 :8 �rZ0000 o Basement&Finished I t'�1o5 Sq.Ft. Rooms Below Grade )17,4 ry6 SNgEg Ic 4- 1C,O0 MuFEcorz. +IO000 Og- k tOCIO Functional Util2 �O-_��� ' Healing/Cooling {.��-� — �'L llkVA Garage/Carport EQUAL_ �QutA!'� -� EQUpI� ,- Porches,Patio, t1 91 Deex- t � -lOCO ?N 2l4te +140C) SJJFEQIOR 4 t 15b0 Pools,etc. t L O GP ZNt=F�Clct(L,. •1-13Q7 EQUAL- ���"" Special Energy =N1� 'I'ac.�e�C] _ Efficient Items ILIAMC. EQ*344- — EQUAL- EQ Fireplace(s) 2. Other(e.g.kitchen = m� + 100 geaudl.� EQU6I_ equip,remodeling) UEs2u Caeol) EQUAL- EQUAL EQ 0A,L_ Net Adj.(total) - - _ Indicated Value '-.f + 'S ao ►� + -1 1.ILap I�+ -1$ (.1(p of subject III,,l jlli Il 1 On $Z4,251(3:3 1 I I.1 Is Z9Z p Comments on Sales Comparison. _ _ Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ Z.Lo9crtl) as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed_ Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 5—000 0- _____- Building Value Z 5EcO Total Erav Zlry 8c�0 --�14—�______ 'Zo5 Ckka�c ZA:!► __ ) ZtOO Appraiser: 12gp Appeal No: I Page 2 Photo of Subject P-II"le-f.; ,- •''-';:. ',...t.:..;,, i t ..,_. . Building Sketch . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . Ye, 1.(4 • . • • ,1 • • . • zi laz_ • - . . ... . . .. ... .. . .'5 'I . V.V ti 2i , I . 'ig .s.p. Pi ii • 5 0 Dc‘\::<,' I 1,1 r t," , . . 9 1 • .. . I 1,1 31 i° 14 9.1 • i , ;4 (``-'5. z.tui 4 4 4 I . ' "A ait.:1 . . • : ?P ! " /4 . ... . . . ',t i a ,• . .. It il, , 46 of iltz lq,,. , 14 act . • • . . . • ' ti . • . . „ ' `i I ID • . , • • Appeal No: I Page 3 • • City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map IllWillitral . ® J �� Pam• - it, 'l',- ›i / t �► /'"jiff.. rti . ' g /fir' .�e� * ..�q,_ ,r1Ybit Z iPIPIV iii; Aid,.Ir ,e '1 J • "w. Wi `SES" t'x�t \ S�sllBll'a v��AWL. , ,, I Sw .✓p, 'a EUu -a,: - 'WIT w�. �46 .It m•r=o_ r vans. $ S if t_if il.I.i ......mmi. rild4- ., ----/ IL ,N-,- ,At. rip110 WECIti*:.:-"J../t41 _pi _ , ,,,,..,:,•,-,„\,, --- :•-', : • I I ill (.j`I - e 'r tel i +..�a`33 I o fit k ., ,, ,.,„ �N � .,, ,, ,_ -1;,, I _ , / , . Awes CO►u,,,exrts c SA Cc, : CCO.paroaQ PO. VVXST LAKE. -Ttke. SUB•3F.0 . P0aussv nst5 Aar- 'BEE0 MADE- Faz =[5 SOPE..tO- SM./V tE.LO AI3D F•oK 2T5 SIzE CDatc A -it SOB-ZEC:T. AU.- OrHEIL AD,utSTin�ENC� t,�pv Attl.YA t..EAvtnJG'T 4E At>:T TCrral. gp'auSTIM.ENT -to"rtkE SUB'ZECT Akio at_. 1740 Rascria3CAtP -r t 7 RA Lb Z. 0, fro B Cpx.Ppg Aa.E. ND 2 , EuE13 11-louv4 Tr- tS Q.d SuirwOi• SS s3cER-tc2. xN QuAu- of CoUS-TcOtTo0 BabExkp_i rr" StTF— dap aak_btTuahl • DEFER D w4S E111G�Eisr' Aup TtfE RZcPE� 1.4410. SAT- Sc E—r AkE- RZto2�TD SALE . CA+tPC(JLE_ )30. 3 1S-n . AEu ST cc"rt-lE. C.cwaFS . 04D z-S IcC�TFA 7Cx- A DtFFEtagor AP-SA • a CriOS-t'OAFAJX5 77JDLcAtt THE OP Ee END CF'rNE uw Q 1faE. Lust" ConoLNLI-- eF WE►G6Cr cboc D OL\`1-AS OAF . e MPARa et..E 1`p. 1 tS 'r LIKE_ ztE Sua=cr. Wtosr t vEi(aJ iT- i1hS 13EEI.S R.aCED 4ERE. i 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 2 Page 1 PID: dyl-//G- ®7:2-3f/-oo K7 Owner: 46:„.7. t /9r/ea Laes,V Address: 933a/9339 O„„b Subject property was reinspected on 9--8-8g . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ /72. ov . Owner Agrees with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 38 5/0p 410 o00 JODo Building Value /4157700" aocp i�aaoo Total EMV /A13/oo /7-q aoo i7aaoa Appraiser 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 3 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach "Pa"`"`aO�`j PID: 2q-III,-2.2.- II- 0001 Owner: EuKi>->JE A.• Su,4.,o5otS Address: eiLIqO Enva1 Pe!<L.P-iv 20. ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1goict)COMPARABLE NO.2 qWb COMPARABLE NO.3 Address feei•Stes Qua 9185 FIgeimity tet Sated 11111111111111 111I11M I Z Q`�`^" Q.l �dnn�catav�(ld Sales Price $ISG o0O 1E 1 Lb'1 Z...ab F PreefG`°�L"Area $ g6.c6 s 74.E 011111171I11111111lI1�s 11zq 11111111s�IuO n-rT �I111111110IDI11)Illlll11111s 1 t9 Oct, Data Source CAW �v [Ill�lll[�IlllNlli�l[I(s`IQ. m[llUll�llllllllllfllll![[l VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION •pHs AMmmem DESCRIPTION a t_13 Mi rumen I DESCRIPTION 1 a Hs kewunwni Concessions Financing ��l III II i� AYOA i Date of Sale/Time 7'&p g/¢.T +4aan Z Location (ACM + %)/per - cese yt>� SiteNiew .IS .6Ae/ e&. + - 1-1/N� �.L Design and Appeal UEky bLY�D F�Jr IA•'""'�Y Etx>oL -"'1"i(!U .Siam Rr�a-ig rt Z Quality of Construction &)4, +. 3-3F _ SOCO }Saco r lazictr ;+saac` tic Age erlo -IZS/X3 19t.OS i Ms1 14Ap lgt(o l KJr2 ?K4> -�ZPCb 19'IL)- -Iq4 i Condition �� 4 Above Grade kW,Dana• Barns bur Hams, Baron Tour .Dams$ Bams Z �? t'7J,1G7 ERoom Count ��" bw ea Oaths Gross Living Area 2ZctL Sq.Ft. -Zan, Sq` +1 10S3 Sq.Ft Ft. }L1971b I^ :3 ;SIT 0 Basement S Finished 1(e Sq Ft GO Rooms Below Grade k13t/b ita2 d! Functional Wily6UcO 4- + ISM ace. (LP) �� _-_ - EQLx,L.- 41 0 Poraches Patiort P +gy T-�s'p ce. +11[kX't laf2, ;+tic Peas,etc. eP Z9p,vd ee +1Eco r Special Energy -1Co5tOPIC'P +1j r- Ellicient Items l aEdyJq Esui_. FQL.sr�1� EC AN— Rreplace(s) q- Other(e.g.kitchen �i N'tp +V0D /',7''ti.-. +-lalYl Tam9 F., +�' CYj i equip.,remodeling) eedigAS 501(3r1 act_ 4 StIC0 Or**.- +1 F Net Adj.(total) + --:$ + +10n ti. Indicated Value E a4�n +1 —'s I t7ltr of Subject $ZLIOQY 17 Comments on Sales Comparison:_ c� n 11 $Z3� S Z (e1C� '- u. Y a `t • Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $23-11a, as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value -14 -1(-112Cib Building Value 12.5:to0 1(,23oo ItiZ3C0 3:,e_xc Total ENV 7C) 2.3-11rsn al 106 Appraiser: KIP Appeal No: 3 Page 2 P I w.Aey Photo of Subject Q • •a t'v Building Sketch Pe hei .4e/te. Wag Buy . o y,/KJc esi-o* //aofc'AVt; ?sSt� . . 74/xso: '1700 .. 4///6='.G'f ilOXJA> Nslo!l �!,(/f= Go .... . ..4,6a9: /741 y :.. /1A Sal cod /98//tow I ' /fl r/7; 3/5- IT,. L134"/71_�8 •• * :.: .. :::3� . .. . . .• /G L e/g //I /7 .. :r/,.,/Xr7,i= 9 •• 19g1,4x. /Y8/:IIem�d . /4 : :: :Ssay Appeal No: 3 Page 3 jkt1�.oel, • City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map • it Kf tli, 9 ( \' �,--1 i s, ",Iill 10*,: to a • - , ,7 101,1, IIR:,:_-` . •, t rii NI; .,"..',Jonitz,,,, s P "4 - - ) —,- '‘Iltylaii,m, . g ..:\‘,- ' .,.,<,.S0`..lit'.4''- 1 eira..r'. 01,i7,: 111: ,''''', 1,^t l'i(': WEllilliiii NI:1741k ' .t‘ t,t1.91' „:,:c-3-,,7 - '-i-• '(7s:ON/ .1'''‘r'W,'4 q ., .. .....,-_ at ..1 ,1 . ..* '''' .4°- q°A.-, 4;!' ---1-4--jill;i tj- 7<I I-4 'I! '-liNd'4''.4.' Sam1'' ,ii,I.•J 1. I-,:' 'fir t �,..4iiiii, „. �f redi 111/1 ipn , _ L r �• f• may, o jw, ; fib/s ,� Subject j}j}'� r ' _1 IIIIIII 1—) : • - j - J/1 II 1 .:t: ; i Tj.� j �;.. I:11I AWE Po: 3 y Pommy Cm AJtS ot.1 �s CDv.Pae,sca -rue 'we-sEcr Pecmccy , waitµ u.345 c21atNotb_uE Pog.CU SED R2 .S4,,000 m•-1 W801 4AS BEET) 1v1A20JED WTi TME. CoWeszSiotL cF "WE EXHS-ri x GARAGE (Lo(tr A•) TN'to ADD 1T1ONAi.- 4V1x1G ARE.A. A{.10 -THtE Aov ITtc4 ec A A>EW Art'QG4E£7 GbR,oGz. (S1d40*) `ME. NEW d+x1FL•S �L C 'Z'ucP.F�sF.0 TN£ 640.5.T1NC, Sot.-act)% 36ki ti M10 +PrzoJE0T4kE. Q E2ALL oO4.30iT'O4.) or -r1tE ezofv . IF we wEKE TO APR.ti /GRc6S Uth WIEA p tfzo�ZLtE 192fl slur:.Pace 0,0D at, 4y Pewee., OF TUE-Cue1ECT 7o THE MEu.) S6?.uArze. pool13>E (GcA) AND Nar WCKE i e AD-auSrnIa315 F DIME Ok T+uPgotle EEATr -T1- CzoDrcic.S OG 'TNE Sue;aecr we- t,x.>p AaewZ- Ftr A 'JEu) '2'Noicn.TE.0 uAwe oF, 4 Z2.91O0 . -714"› Sus ' THEE tJGLA)E_9Ear.XtLv Ep . Au. ADzusTEa CouPoRAB AzoPE42:11 $ Wau6, a IN-45 "mat- RAt.Y,F cc z&PtC T D VAIuin -ro -thhE cue-w-e . -n4E. uUE. Sae.- cc sire At.$) Cozass Buu.alAu, AEA uxeeE NEo SSArzyj e>uE• -rp -TEE unuTEo Po. of Blass -riHE...Ou cr cR.FA cP -6W- suT.'UFcr: Ewa- a t6ler WA.S WL05.4 -e> EOM CCtuPOR4613cE._ziJ Atelz P6, Ar THE FINCL DteJX W U_.uE . N CT/ r o t l F -0 O co tv = O N O gj C7 f� (� �� �T1 JQ C (C a Co :H. D n a H. N U 1- a co� .+ coO 0 7 dc C CD N O O �+ N y (� ./I ;+ v < m0 < ato Ni p ° � � Lt Mctnti to 3 D w if W n L i ro f'1 r n M°MN k J G1 L fA V.-' 9r p _ aCA. N yA Lcr .3 T H a ✓ N + fPm aa� fig r w I } 1 {�{ H � 7. �N 1- w y rm rIn 1 k.i < h! f� O ,L Cj I�j r 1( 2 � � � � '" o o T � I gob :� l� _ n I 1 t a y 1„ j�5 C S�• , z d � f t1 o P T 0Ba99 r) -p ` 11 I- t N Lc 8 Dr pQ t7 �7 • m n 1 I l7 a y �O Q t to t, C c 0 J 6- -;1 o PI �r� P1 ^ _ 71 1, 1 b ri F i V 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 4 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach P I D: 03- 11 1p -Z.Z.- 4 t— OOOS Owner: - s s Oc Address: MI BP) CAADINAt _ F.-K_°--- 1) REM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE N0.2 COMPARABLE NO 3 Address 1318f5 /ALIS 13ZGn 13ZZS • �C���n���1�a�� . iXlmk?d F hnaok Num. rrmrtL...D(►TonL Proximity to Subject III , I X. ,(/1 y _('n.,x;_.Q Sales Price $300accd 1001IIU�� i' I $ 2 S t' t• Price/Gross Irv.Area $99,?S G7 S 121.qS G71 I � S �/ � HIM S Zqq t•. Data Source OW CRC �„ 'III 4c .9p C4 r1GIQIIh;;lhi��i s .(� C411 ifi�]g�,��Il�i VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I rQ� i •1-IsaaNsimmi DESCRIPTION .IIS Fmmiment DESCRIPTION .I-Ii aansrmenr Sales or Financing Gag4Concessions _ ti35 ... -►j hIC/.)E �'�PA- Date of Sale/Time It ZOr�,..,. - 7P'io Location RI' Vg-r -� 1/PB y VE9 GOD° EaunL GSU }Z4(app Site/View EQl.�14L.- �� ` GOOD C„ct r o Design and Appeal _Fvr�a c�, Eta _ 3EtWar._ T i• 1_ -(O - -Oualdy of C__ o_nsBuction_ c E@�>,3� E��` 1.tF-A71- Conmtron Ic1f�Z 1_-98�5" .- -loco( SKIS& F` jO'` , _ KlBI Above Grade wiai ,emm:• Bairn total -`k� E�UAL E,^�L • i •13m Baths 'Dial •Brims• Barns '-5+°Room Count R 3_-.` Dui ,Berms, Baths Gross Living Area`s Ft Z8Z9 tS t +19cx0 el :4 'b +31mo 4 :3 :1� 2'108 Sq Ft. -4100p • Basement&Finished _ 35 Sq.Ft. Rooms Below Grade IOW76 SuPeer,.e -Zcccp Functional Ulihly --T--.__ w�-��� - I /� �,is _�_.Fri r w EQUAL Healing/Cooling /tca_rt.�.f1cLa �,,.,1na EQUAL- Garage/Carport ��� EDU4l - EQ�� -u 96 tr Porches.Patio, -imeui Our-. }1 + T�p_� Pools,etc. Our-- Iwo SP � - + • nr Gaocp �ree.1c1L +tS� Special Energy CP — SuPE2102 - SnCla Efficient Items Kbilf$` r1 Fireplace(s) - EQt�r —_-__ 3EKc +11a> Other(e g.kitchen - �" LLZrr i VQL equip,remodeling) EXLELLF.0-r- E'er Ez.U�_Net Ad) (total) N•I 1 + ---_ �Q,U1{t_ IndicatedValue�'� Ir^^�^, -S - + of Sub ecl I � 'I IF 1 I �I' TJ7j;1 i,1 �I,� S 337COQ ��I 5 Comments on Sales Comparison lil�l, $ �t IpCX.� _ ice OF Mt?QSr.> -�--337�• rw,p r�ls ►�h ! l�S.-n� rr.,e_ Q_v9+_u��-(4�. cr,�"�ci_,� �zAllam-k, �T"RYML_ rrr r vc. ____Z`'�1 nL•�t.1 E c�F u _��9aE�7C r.yur o QFcn n arJ I � ��I" G¢tr_r�,pL��y 4f�� �m nrv� vre ���fL Indicated Value by. Sales Comparison �l�n�� �go n*�s <r )l �p�yW- �,n r (ti,r i Approach San al as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Revie_ w Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value (.0000C Building Value ��— ZZ.3 7o0 ZA000p ZZ3 7� Total Et.1V Z-?e 7OU "w= 3UpOC>�1 2.S3 d, Appraiser: -wRe Appeal No: 4 Page 2 Photo of Subject r. �, Al I. Building Sketch I.D. j v"-w..n L....A d.:.IC. n / -- ----I 16z re 22 v 17 163, / 24 v'}Z n ) II k 1 j) 124., V 2.4 la,;:.,- NI, .a 4 v 11 IS Ye., le,2' tt Y„ I vll c LIB i f V 1.9 If-v I2. q I lB 6 II 34 IS y CP Wp 7 _ 3z t.l 9 Yp 8 u 1 ®4 4 n t'I t. oP I) 0. \ II • N. i Appeal No: 4 Page 3 • City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map • 1i � .. \ glimor E� .tea ''''sr --,27,-42„ ,aid > : .-,,,,x-44,' . st'",,7,7 t t �. 1, + PC' }... t -A, +: for. -7 4EdTiI f [il RliPd +T' "# I 1 ) ' IME Li. - ;( a' - i s 5 1 fi j ••• 4 I , fr� a � - A. f ' >s ,. iF� 'i a I f�. — rr,, ; h r� r F� �� K I. ., J �I • 198B•Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: `j- Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: Z3 -ti(o -22. -21 - Oct=' Owner: C-N1 yIrlN 7r'Nr t Address: s\--(" -Drc1 \r-_.-Rc; ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 • Address ^'�`- I L5?� miscue Cr go-l0�;axn�t;--L Y. Z v L?--:,!n 2�.-2: - "?....'1. 2�-21-2 s. Proximity to Subject I II I I I III III II III 'a-�r r r 1 a n„�f I 10 „,I`7-- • Sales Price a IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I INIIII s 11'11)r>n III IIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIII s 114 e r, I NIIN I I I II II Is 116-rzro )3 Price/Gross Liv.Area $ 0$ an. r 0 IIIIIINNIIII INIIIIII's Sa. 0 , I NIA I, II''s 1 o ,z: 0 II IIIIII 11111 1 t Data Source +; VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION •I•Ii eaNamenr DESCRIPTION •r•IS xdxnlmr. DESCRIPTION •Hs Mararrrcm V. Sales or Financing _._T- f Concessions I I I - — DateofSale/Time 4-/0.-1 4.7c-rn "1-/A I +- prvr 1\If'')-1 fN Location p,v,, r c,Val- - a �tA- . OsiAl Site/View {tidmb,fto 1 coo P avt +-zo•-a) id_zoo*,nvs- + .Ch'c II4ro`I' Cep Q Design and Appeal S/L t o.w sit..., r1vr, -Z/L pr, 51� p., Z Quality of Construction qvr "ca)ra) �c s.r�i• l �Qi41 Age Iri'Tfi lr'iZ Z CTs; 9'c N Condition C .n,teat, s)AL_ .(nt.)r 1. - ' Above Grade total •Bamn• Bath total 4 Bmm Berms s. Baths Total • . Bann tout .Bamn• Bath • Room Count t<, I _I I 4 I : t :l r , _ iGross Living Area It 5(tr., Sq.Ft. 17--, Sg.Ft. -4Cnry 12-T2 Sq.Ti. -Q-0T0 O l Sq.Ft. +-„, 3 o Basement 8Finished 107.7.,h I1o4- Il04 Cr) Rooms Below Grade -.en-,-.not tn - „,, r eccx 10eo W Functional Utility (-, C,O r f'� 'fie---Q a Healing/Cooling C o. C/A ^%ha C/A ia Garage/Carport 2Cr t.-,-r ^,_r c r-r -)C., oN-r-r 2C1, A� 1 Porches,Patio, wD.AID wn-PA:M w0 c,It `nro.'GK Pools,etc. , -IOCO ;. Special Energy • )+n* ✓ Efficient Items CFireplace(s) I '$IY I'WTI' \V/\' 1 p • Other(e.g.kitchen -r—r- INS - -r-/Nr - . IN.7 -B,LT INS equip.,remodelin9) Net Ad6(total) r� ' Indicated Value I L!!I1 I. r 1 ".p+I —1—'s c�vl �+ p i+ _;s ' � of Subject I .A I '� � . [ICI �y� 11 � § I ■ ,,,LI� ��..'� i �, ��Is lltarx� _ .Its I190�) I1�-�50 Comments on Sales Compar�■I`''' a L=cr,rram retu-mrr r caa..- r,rlr,.iw,ivt-•,c vain, nos5)5mt.errr- r,,oci -r!1 '''''r c.17m I•Ur,, Inc ,-. ) Y.)1-'M11,w1 TMP N t'I�M,Yrttl liryr , Ttr1,V_ CNO,),,,Crtn t^r.1T 'jRc'_Qur'tnC IV T.Yn SALrr 'r„U'',"Tr7C -Ft Ar.X-f R- VA4 R: �1J LrvL\N.__iF V000 et, LO > ,. FI tCI}k. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ { \Z 0,x) as of 1/2/88 • Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 7-3 con -`, tr•on 3�ey'T1 Building Value -T(nrd-sn qA.-ncy) --U.-Al2_1)) Total EMV In?cnM 117 v ) 1oCiG,0?-) Appraiser: -z-= 7 Appeal No: 5 Page 2 Photo of Subject • �.n., �.i�, I �er i at !.. . ! rOm • Building Sketch IN°.. N° 10 Z9 6---72 (a �$ • • I /13 22 `2 . I 38 39 2 s e 18 10 Appeal No: 5 Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map �� 9 \ : ~ I ,����r �y _ p �`� �. ��#,]rs..'�1 �'4`,r..tom ,, !a. i .'t 1■��:i�!!�; ; aNra� �1 _ 1 FJyly'�� In � 5 :ti • I 1 �� „',, Ali I Y o J, �l �- L 'z.' rile I�' jEki, rEq' 'Iit, 0- '� I 'of I�f- -IC.c '_._ - I .......... tiro(.r.. in r_Q ibilibillill f a � >L r C( I 1-1 n ? lr-'.4�i'S-bj-' . p —1,, te.1,-,.-1 - . ';fiaitiiit.,t_1.-1.L--ke'S ,�,. ,,,.-`' ,,;� i i ,, \I. 1, p - �..,; ';,..,11� i c, i I...,. - I 1 ,;(,;:i.,}1\;_ri Aitt, ir\scil if ' I r-.... ' 'N--- �, 1 4" • 1 _/ 1 a..... -. . Ji V • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: � Page 1 PIO: Ogg - '12_- 14- Ooa Owner: T l-k Oft WS S W tltrt Address: 5 MIST"RAL l-.Atv� Subject property was reinspected on Mass Appraisal indicate value should be to $ _1111.5_00._• Owner A rees with _ value. Value Being A p�ea�ed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value —3 34am N o CI-1r>*vc,V-- Building Value IIQ,-500 Ii4-5oq Total EMV 14-8 Zo0 I4g5� Appraiser 3E-osm_ Z�NT 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: q Page 1 PID: O</-iie CO/S Owner: `4,1_ Address: 66?0 /Q L2 /—Lav> Subject property was reinspected on S/L/FP . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ c . Owner Agrees with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value piz-e /<l -'oo Building Value 4/9ioo 39,Soo 39,Soo Total EMV G3�o° �,oco a oo Appraiser L Ua2„,4 0"� L<Gd-Ica �--a'�LLtU-+L.tc�JCl/ cLn.c L/' -Lc% ( � � U LrGc/c ��"�-,� c�G�Gt.Y,U • Bch .4 //L Q L1'K a'n-d ClttL L !� G,•��� LT�/cE /c E/ GCu I(14,0--Batt, . 2u2.4 iL'�lX�£4J f )r L.t ¢G�i.� �+ .�K�ni ehGP tf. /,7Q<C/" o-'2L[_ d tL E E� C=LL< L G���ef �lt ) 2 J ' rid rJc �'i / ct i b, �.-4� Ciwl��i n t✓. Cn.i rr:� �'"r � , • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /0 Page 1 PID: a S_ j,G_ 2_ a _ 0oo 9 Owner: A;,10/S /Iloe//cr Address: 9s/j Qe „ c". P/42 Subject property was reinspected on . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ a 3/, a oo. Owner Agrees with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 7 S o0 0 7S000 ?5"000 Building Value /74/800 _ /sG.Roo /SG�o0 Total EMV a5/9 Bob a 3/,7ov Appraiser r- SiR.r3 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /,, Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PIO: o. -irG- . .-:.-33-oo�i Owner: Tra,, lad f �j, • Address: ip�o ,464r/„r„ /'ad REM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 S- ;��--;:, 07-„�-�3_,�_ova7 COMPARABLE .,_CAYL COMPARABLE NO.3 f-. Address ' .7- iic-.23- =.-oc.0,Y !. .• F..'-.c.... F..' 7i/c Ti c o..d-e,-�a Ti- -7,4n P 6 v,'..., La r �9/7L- P:ea co,.L G4I' Proximity to Subject 11111 IIII 1111111111 111111111 -, F. '� /-,.;1- _ • Sates Price s IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs -.on --- 01 1 l� Price/Gross LW.area S Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllls - o III I III IIII I I its - �, r0 S 01111111111111111111 IS 9. 01111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS 0 j. Data SourceIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIUIII } F r.• F.,. L.a VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION ••sAwaxwv DESCRIPTION�j.-ISad r DESCRIPTION GI (-IS rasmrem Cer eSSa "%mans"` N I 1111 1111111 11111111111 w9,.. ' ",:i-5 - -,44 - ' Date of Sale/Time ./"S-7 r '.cn a-RR - ,n o G_�'O Location �-n.,1 •bon o .94. + >Tn., 3 Site/View ‹-.,n Av ' oe Design and Appeal /9;,-- ,4. Ave t =cn A.,, -,?no 0 ZZ Duality of Construction ,9.,�- A a v A,c Z /S?e /�7S �c,.o AYE Ave, • p Condition ,4..c_ A,o i974, - ync,o /97L Above Grade k r .Soma Sams law ;Banns B+a sTots /S v c Room Gaunt rw r ,Sams e Beni Tom Game Batas IL O Gross Living Area it no FL 4./i9i S.Ft. • / • 9 '/ Basement&Fmished „ov=° r,_.- i,vG er,.� }^n"� lo/8 SG.FL ♦stAnn /3dC. Sq Ft. ii RofE sade ° �'°" wa ✓o yy : Y3e•' es... "'St.'6 s-f - L c� r-a 3f.6aN i W Functional G....d _.._A4o ..f 'mo 3�+•s ye�6a1C p,-e•.- a-fr V. Porches.Patio. = vs, o.�r R. Special Energy ti. Efficient Items i. F replazNs) -v. ti ;- Other(e.g.kitchenIIIME1 i_,ems equip..remodeling) A,. ,..4 y Net Ad,.floral) III 11111 II III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■II "�/ �9 _ "0.• Indicated Sub'e"Value IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIII a 04 ® + • �s 00 0 ■ ��HII �6 Comments on Safes Comparison: �.: ;.,r E C',,_a tIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs 1 .O, (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII r.•d.a Q1 -• o r -,-2_•_, 90 - Co../G : . Aor S /.!. f �-• i.. no a pt n.y /9R6 • Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ /io o as of 1/2/B8 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value .....F ,.:oo c-.00 n Building Value z—o�,o q7�76 74 nr7 Total ENV 2_z L12 Appraiser: �o y?oo O a. e . r r _ o o^ _ n e �o e m o • O ✓ m a° m o O � D O 9 3 > $ • 3 x • m y to ao N. X \ \ 0 0 D Z O z 3 10 • o a a a m ✓ t° y\ WY : _ m r C — 0� 1 0 � U '3 C V' O J 0 s 0 Z O 0 D 0 0 < 2 < Z p •2 Cf m O 3 v o l o o n D o Q m m a° y a 32 1 ; a a m : : a n < 3 '�' m y p p y = ° = m 3 W o a o tj C o 3 a o Zm y , g.. 1 n r ° % (4 D '• ! D a — , D ti u t a D z N ti \ \ fie, 'kJ4 NO > • XpvmT 1A 56 ,1 is Wt O p p A c,p a -V R t l's.0 • m 0 t D p D -I a u n' d r :NV' CI O „ r - Dr m m d° d p v_ 3 0 0 m co • 3 11, _ , P — m °v L m m (V < _ a • < 3 ^ — 1 O r D v � 3 x t, * A D 4 2 D ti m D r C m Appeal No: /2 Page 3 Photo of Subject eon Building Sketch • Appeal No: / Page 'f • • City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map • M ! / 11, i t ��Ir. .-�� , ,ice , ' , 7, 1..,- . sh 1.'*. L..:i9 .('.:.:2•:::; :t-ji 'Pill. , tilliiiiiitgVt$Pit.V,111 .. L.. , .:,,,,,„_,,.,,,, ,..,,, .,.....„ .......„*„. . ..„,,..,.., .,,,, 4-1174'-.., ,,,,.‘-r. `E , ..„..,.:,.... _...„.i., � i It— ��,Subjects to 1.�.., 4... f. '-'i , A\' i� +!w�l , ', \� -; ' • Comp 1 „p-t, rM" .� �s^ R. 4` tflh1; T_.4, !4:: jI as. gh. i I . ,1.y =�_ `f. ----Lrawir. -.. • . - —0.1..\,,, — mmust AIN ..ram Ili% wr g. Ibi:1414:r ,h 1 .• r1 $}'.- Chi i � ,, "r C • !.,r ,! - , _. ill 11 _ p 1 �' 4 f 1 " d ,Jt o i ., ;, I f , ..„‘v ' •-r, i _r___: . __I --„,..illsifc_efie 64 1 `rat 1; _� / 4 : '''.1 ,. • .!..il. ,. ,.. ;1,e ' 1 _y. MI IIII-''' '-,;.: Cr:1 -pg,:..,.' -, li.. -1- ' nye _ �� tel: ,� = --�� r "2`�,ilir ice! - 1 j f;� ... IJI, 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No; /}/ Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: 17-116-22 24 0015 Owner: Raymond Rice Address: 8010 Island Road • ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE NO.2 A as-,!c-aa .73 00,./ COMPARABLE N0.3 • Address b0/O 44...,6 Pa! ,/o,a -7S- „�-aa as ce../ -79-„a-�� YY co,� Proximity to Subject ��������� �� ��[]��������I 3 C C.dam 95p, ✓f,.w,eYG,QFacf /,S 3a 74u....r du,.[,,e„, Sales Price $ $3 ""`rbZ �� 3 irruley sFa,a^c $ ,g,lo,nao 1L'�����lill $ 399,Sao Price/Gross Liv.Area $ Cd$ /c,.L, Cd $ 95.9l Gel ( MI11101111 s ,e3,ya./ Data Source LUain a,..4., ,Ci[ecf, o VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION •r.Is Mp m DESCRIPTION C.F.✓ PTION .l-Is narvsimem DESCRIPTION ,.r-Is Aausrmem Sates or Financing Concessions I I III I (ec+w. 9.776.1 — Esay 9.8�5°Jo -- Q 4 — Date of Sale/Time -- ,2/27 N Location _ 9!87 •f•'36co '�/p7 t//,,00 uF t..,_q e ncEr (/e.. wMrC ySite/View a„iF.,A',,`,.,•ynL-E__o-k.vat/ ,ice. - u.1 y°'"f• — t l�FdlHsh -i ,occ 2 Design and Appeal yy,� CC GG/ / � -G...0 �+w�.� -__ �'i'-f^^��'� 6�,C C.Qe.w.�` 0� £�CfLkil Z Oualdy of Construction 4;- ,/a_. /• • — — a- C(,c,.h — • Age ,927 !a- 9 A 7~ Fa- �.//. — AA- �..(<, NCondition c o-s _ /987 /98G t 2eeo rL a ita's• e-edtms_ e}Oma'• Above Grade lorai �Balms i Batrrs Total ��Ba,ms� Bois tool •aaims: BmRs Room Count 7 ` ,2 : �''/,Z`-/0') .,/ :a/ - ,:PG // :emms) earns 13. Gross Living Area 335<D Sq Ft 3344 Sq Fl — ,c` 'a 't'Jdao U _y R Ft ,f�feo VBasement&Finished te...�.r. a,7s(� 35"�fa Sq FL -/i, 30e. 3862 Sq FL - 0_ lop Rooms Below Grade ^'^ •Ja.a Ca.,h r �Lo t 36co c""/ ,bvyst r /3eo da< .� ,�,,,3 r 5eo -%,'r.,..,.r.L ,9.:on rio{l.u�� 43d;3ao he-14.. 4-- +-33.30o in.:.,w ,g�nL ._Functional Utility �.;u.(e4 ry./,f e+ Healing/Cooling "" h•e. a, 4.e — W Garage/Carport „Ar ;y,-, s_. -- �a.� N,�. an..r., R.` _ e<.7/ ., sta 7;L _ .'eau o-.3�ac, P4oa 3eaf.. 4-.2BeC' FdA.a 3 ee.d t� i. Porches,Patio, F'^'/` men ..4ti�co ._ �+ �, o aoo Peols,eto dec.� Lr.J� aa,� yet[+ ra./co -3 -P 8eev +be0 'N`^-N�w- o -r Lan �+,a.Lr_.�157U -�lRon 1e.. Y2ea �e,.k. ac7 rf ,./co Special Energy 'l L'ya+<.t,,vvg -SVoo AZ,ea..prc.b/vaa -S.2oo Efficient Items Fireplace(s) eeq) Other(e.g kitchen -- a — equip.,remodeling) Net AM Dotal) 1� + -'S�/l,4-an — r- , Indicated Value I W 1�+ —;$ Sal,,d0 + -.$ tea B� • of Subject , I. If $ 3P/,•Loa Comments on Sales Comparison_ $ 37 ,/op I ; 3L 7„too D son:_ 77L,t,��, C'ol,/J,i1f'at-ir.. feG� ,r'�.<veG'.�r af, '-_____ V146,,4- +1iL-41i.o--f£t.i).r.N� 1n1i4;0 Jei• er,,d tiff .LctGEe<.a di,:etre,cn.rh-,12 1 e C • Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $3 S7,,,a as of 1/2/88 Value 8eing Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation — Land Value r pc 0^� m T 5 5o. coo 44.ka Building Value rA. pip s 30/' Total Eh1V g �0o Ie_/x�.�, 3G.:2,Oc, 3 f8/, '-LcC 710 ,Pk Gr Appraiser: L-T. u a nu. J2QFL .+LitAr:oi -s9,can [aev) ,...`-�l!I — 77CCc (i4e,) �Jt„iit',�, — 77,cep 4.0e7) n ,d 3- GJ,DCC ('a--) Appeal No: /4 Page 2 Photo of Subject S `t+_•y 4. 'F+A F .sir ,` .X ':R4!'. .. Building Sketch I • _i io 39 l6 • 1 F 9 i'),Al I pa 8 .1 �E[� Y )le 31 ,q1 77 d e 3r ay Y 1� Y, ,n 9 ' / p '~ A\ ..,... -, .: / ' i M) Appeal No: 4- Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map • ' 11111111111111 --. Lfel • . in r'(--:--7 I" iliir--- .. -- in t li -4`1 •,'AJ! 2w A4l ;-?. t ► l w-, ii _ „ �j1 per, , , p • Pip~ v' 1'.,. 4..-• --, * J `v' 17. 1 ' ! I'hI.I on f 1 ' ' 1 1-•' 1': '-1 I. GyVirjr7.4."1 -..1 _ L-*4' fkl.t i 7,1 fi' / ' I -1" ca:____1_.:?L'-'.;?-1,-. -r- r;A:rz,0 i ,46.",- ' i' • oil 1_____.1 . -+ 1 : 1 Imo _ t,, :4 Tom/ ; '' '''1 ,.. , • . .jr1, ,_2: '1/"''' 1, __ __11_ 1 En..,,, „, . { 7f....;,.14,11,...tr, I ) ::5'... , . , ,-r------7-------t--: ----H ----.. ,,,,,,.,,..,., a• • w Y l 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /7 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: c•/ -43 _ g/ Owner: n z r._ ,J Address: P/S6r, ,67.;,.,,,,..,,,41. GC f. REM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE NO 2 ay- -/,; - oo7-I COMPARABLE Na 3 Address 4P6O,Ltl/u<r,•cL c/- c/0q /G-1� Ooso /A., , t eku.w•n!.:_e_1- /•/89..7 44.,:- , j d7`- 859,2 ilia va-e xt.,4iJ Proximity to Subject ��am,ep-Law LC4-4 e,7'' 'G-C[-� Sales Prc4o,nen `2n"aef"� e/Grie Liv.Area $ A$ /09..;75 i 1 I . 5 /74,-joo , I MI5 /70,00e 111H11111111111111111s 9q./4 011111111111111111Ui1111111s 93.7/ 0111141IIIIIIIIIIIIIRI Data Source ca✓ VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION IP Q!/ •1-ts nawstmrm DESCRIPTION �' Sates or Financing 11�I I I r ' '1-Is R°"s'^v^' DESCRIPTION .fq s MNsrmem - Concessions - �I� I i 7.75�a — P 37S''.3, — _ u Dale of Sale/Time It i..L ad., 77° 9/r7 t/70/> q ,� P r Location 9,,,;_ qr,,a — — l -/-736c, ///.q" iSite/View •Ne-^1"-4+,-,. ao,-.l _ G,�'r"'0.. 9+`^d Design and Appeal cr¢..4_ _ d�' .� ....... Duality of Construction Ai./ yg As,/ /.4/ /t /A/ _ '— r/q�{.,iai��c '� Iw Age fl.. Fa In EXC —/7 2!,r• A4 • 'n®o✓ --979 /979 — /9 P.2. - 4e0,9 /R 8: --/° Condition cl.t-,.x; _a-a° — — 9c . C0 L Above Grade tow Berms• Bain tour �,mBarnsBas Total •Banns r Baths but ;Mons r eaiM Room Count ^? a� s ' 1 Gross Living Area /R r'>' Sq FI " /.f 6.� 'Sq El. t/9,BOO '3 3 a 754 Sq Ft. -#/77o0 /8r� Sq Ft. t_6aao 'r Basement F.Finished / `/J 7a N . a,.Iri od, t.as o0 6,..,,,�, /3800 -f/700 0..,.,,,n. .7aa a" _./7eo MRoom w73 P/,.,./,s yygv�..,;a f JFOn an..-..,,.�/G.iY. .Jq..rrw,Atr4.- if Functional Utility 2 7v0 f 90a Cr S3sa r, a t/!300 17- Heating/Cooling p,` g°...i- A c I — �y Garage/Carport 7Pi' - e.v, G7.23 „7 ea,, 7-/�on c57.- 4 Q . —e 9 A. /A` — •! Porches,Patio, F.s<c /40 0 7L e+�J Tr-3 a o SG 6`'�a CCU ''''",./Doe Pools,etc. csaa./c 5 e;,[t 4�t K, Pa'4e 0 rrf Specialenl Energy _ 60p See",pnd 7-° -/S00 _ Elbc, H Fireplace(s) _ / _ -',�400 :a Other(e.g.kitchen / / — I equip.remodeling) 3 Net Adl (total) I 11,1i1,f IjJJ'pi!IN ++ 5 ,,26 ,/„e) f—y1 + — — :•1 Indicated Value I 1 t'�1` of Subject 1ri 1 1 11ell, /9U,,/ao ( I 5 /8a1,=OO ..- -/Comments on Sales Comparison._ a_� /L.L. I .e /d Y00 -� -�kf._�e 2.�1. a.� ��ty-��r.rt0,r:¢..[.�. �t-i+.f _�n/RF �A,c; {(,. e-,.{ .1-. 7 /e,,L. .../.,, tie wr,.t./.JA G�441, 1cct ail-i_, Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ /gel, 500 as of 1/2/88 Value Beiny Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value ..h,(,c, _/ 'n ^ Building Value /?m /0 D _ / /c/ ;rr„ Total Et4V �"�F /7;,,' /c" /P Sl �^D .,ra S.lL2a.tc Appraiser: ,L7 D Appeal No: /7 Page 2 Photo of Subject y{Y Building Sketch it Ye- • 6 •• • Appeal No: /7 Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map • y7 I�,I tiL �( 4 '-' / '( --17 il iiiir-7- - A -f ! ,fir III , L, �1. '. g7— JJ I t . Y ".'`,• Sublea 4 •A - I —. \• • ,, )� 1 �rL. l-rT \ R � � 1 S %,' I,:. --r-1 I'a `` • `t. �; _vi_J.S. 1r. 'Sim _ Il i - ' ' ' ri K'. iii t -'•-----4=4.11.-:,-Jr.\1/4._ ,i\ Ihk2/1111.1 ' ;\."'( _.1 6 ' Cj~ 1J1 \,1 -,-,i,_,-,..i., ._... i= .„-:4. r--I r,l 1 4 I i i n r •1 .46, V; ;:',.0 1* pC4,3)- c; T+ r � • 1• l gyp },'�% I. '°11 {,,, �� : . ��,t�.. .� � i ` '+tom I,,,,: • ::.. 'f.,�/d{L--1 4 i'4��'�' I --r /' __j / 4 - i _'..l ` r + I u �,., . ...„,....-...-r...._...„---- __ flsii(,di , . iiiiii.-±,... i..7i----/— •qe::: -_,,,,__A I J'i; \ \... r :. i:iJ 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 18 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PI D: RI -I I to-22_-42.-000£'7 Owner: Vorx4_.. CSIsE4.1 Address: go ri g L.A. W. REM SUBJECT COMPARABLE N0.1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE No 3 Address 9oio W `J 13oxB 173cP1 x I"`r 1530 t Proximity to Subiecl � I 4 Yz ` p`"'� .ltdT^""Q �1 s0.�a.� u 1 n .a�, i• Sales Price $ U Y Y� i Price/Gross uv.Area $ m s 17.�51 Ohl/,lllllf�llllll[I!l$ (1� i $(dig oo n,ll r r lIi1lil 1[ 1 I1i11>I$lcIcle� t Data Source �V (QIL1161(LII�.tItlVts `I8.&� �lillllllllllll[I1I1111!�l VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION V CAV DESCRIPTION •I'IS enoinnm DESCRIPTION •t-I f',annex. Sales or Financing I�I IRE I DESCRIPTION �.I•ts�ausrmem E Concessions lu Illlll 111 111 loll ��•s ,_ Dale of Sale/Time ZAoJ.�`r ' _VIM IQlt,.00 - NCO 25745 — Z8c2� N Location /R7 +lode 2/P7 +a j I/P7 +3µca0 14 Site/View •7004/GCCP .4tvck./Cord- -Tcr� Design and ADDeaI YL . t, 1 aeGtrD Q }+ b' - EG1u .SL'CFRtoe- -ZOOo - Z< Oualdy of Construction Fco ups Age 19io7 _ EQ.U4r_ Su{ KIQIZ -ZIOU p Condition 1457 +1Zt., 1457 +-Iota') I41a3 +t{p n W FAIK S�,c raT. -2-�m Egaa�Above Grade total ,Banns, Baths Twat .Bdrms, eams S-' �1�- -,2..}OO 4 Roan Count 3 ���� war Nuns emits aw Ba ins, earns 111. Gross Living Area 1051c,Sq. 5ViEtin `Sq.Ftt l -- �O� Q S 3 ;Sq F +7, o Basement&FinishedFt 100.} Sq FI. 0 Rooms Below Grade E. SuPeRlalz -2�) FQUloo.- W (1FLwt-Functional Utility . EtQ0x� - j�ip Heating/Cooling EQs - E42vKu� EQUAL E4Quat_ EtZuat.- ot N Garage/Carport I0)04 Air tor-:. +L gocrn 1 Porches.Patio, Z16 +InGY1O =wsra� y��� Pools,etc. tilq 7E Sui't.eticr-- -urn SuAFQar P Special Energy -loco EQUAL Efficient Items woe_cesme> £Quart_. _____ EQuoi... EQUAL_Ftreplace(s) Itx.... EQuct_ EQu4� Dlher(e.g.kitchen E4)u10a- to equip.,remodeling) aOuaep EQUAL_ �� p +l oco r. Net Ad(.(total) �� I I-1_1I I( + ,S E@.uw„_ —"-'� 1 , Indicated Value f —ll-0 r + -3 IIZco +ofSubet ( 1 ll I 1 1 ..� 1 I1_ l � 11,S 818� ,r 1 $ 811oo 1, Cnmments on Sales Comparison ,„ c'p.ypns..o. I l I,.t l $ 813en -BCG1 �[16.9AZLZ_TO Wrra411J �-T�^ rFncH Otsrc i' •.S:.ct . ��. �� ire • � CnYygpCpgt� _,...r '' P_3 Zuc c c ••... C6s.aoe�,na c uo 1 e..xs 1.15 3 _IIAt+��}I£ ts1- A.nausr rc a Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ 8100 as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value _ 30ccxn 3Qtxb Building Value UZgoc, Total EMV -` -MooCtt APpra i ser: --RIZ'? T 19C0 Appeal No: IS Page 2 Photo of Subject 1IISF�. Building Sketch 24 Zc 14 zn �4 Y �t �< zi if z 44 Z 9 Appeal No: IS Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map -11 .4,1 • ` -: I +I IEINI�. e n-' -- .•K'-'-- - 7-3r i *4':i'.:t17-F 1 .1 i ' / �� FIB if >.� a. fi i.:-: 1 l41,471...� •� C ! /' -r Ii C-, i• , _ ,^_ Lam , ! Ms --)-.(,,f,,,t:i- w - , L',c- L Jam, r - ' .: I ... . 1,1;(--&;.--4 --\ i 'c4e.J,/ 1 , „, , , ____. , ., i fb t. 2 -0 III .:y -,4; / .1 vinfiiii,1 . L .z t4..1 j ;lir.- f �1 I 5' k._, • ___4,4:, _I----- IL •...•.,rcl ' zi 1,..z? 1, ..4, .. z, _,, r N _ I rl� it �� I —�-"�i I 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: ICf Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach • PID: O$'- /no- a, -1<3 Oa 1g Owner: -,, --rnoxtolt • yy Address: 7(QgQ tt' QRry S. ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.&& COMPARABLE N0.2 COMPARABLE N0.3 f.: Address b �J `I Proximity to Subject IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIJIIlllll 1i NC'6..«aonS,r- ,#n,,,-., Sales Price s IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIiIII � 1 r^^•''i� I? Sale/Gres L .v.Area S -, <18 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS !�a C 7'0 IIQIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS I t-1 ecc Data Source �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIII ss,c+ mIIIIIlUIN1111UIIpIlU6s (-l. mIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION MI.j I s Moment DESCRIPTION K., ' PA I_.S IConcr Sates or Financing IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII DESCRIPTION Lisa r DESCRIPTION .I-13 Aomstrnem essjons t' Date of Sale/Time 31$ r _y Location W ��0 3 Ave `` ' 4 aocv SiteNiew � CV``J-Il - R Q Design and Appeal A see c is, H`�Aa •..- - �:ead' -�OC?O 2Q Quality of Construction }u�c,c - �� — Age 0 Condition �.Oc0 r , e_ ' - N •, , • * 0- 2 Grade s,m soma Baths roar C.-cod iC r aalllls i Boons , foul - a Room Count S - owns, Barns r d Gross Living Area Oz. , b+ 'ems' B+rn i Sq Ft 1.9 7 cot35 l_3 I j/!J 5 ' , Sq.Fl. ,}lOOOb ! p Basement&Finished 6SuS r rw 9z6k Iyi s.F 3 folf0 Sq.FL, /so a f'15000 1,41 0 Rooms Below Grade v.a a,, q c; 300 a c.'P Sq El. "4 IOle1 3 BR -dSoO �'' 788 S.F.Ci� le Functional Utility I'3.14 Tc+el T s F.¢. t o'ICCC a 4 Sew n -r n ' 'abUC 4 Heating/Cooling 2Garage/Carport +A 4 o.,A -A000 Porches,Patio. a 0 ur<.-1d:is Oac.K 3bwSF.. a et,_ LA Pools,etc. Lk,k qo8 S,F , - Ft - C00 1tic5F. �5^b -�gon Pa1w aaoS.F. WW• Special Energy — xr '• Efficient Items ( ,EFireplace(s) I,4na...k 0,... A-I'oo J 1- Doc) _ _; Other(e.g.kitchen t equip.remodeling), • Nel Ad;.(tota) IIIIIIIII■IIIIIIIZ_'S IO •C.) MEM-'SI eo MEIN 00 0F IndicatedValue I of Subject 11111111111111111111 'S /OR•(OD Iiti1111111111 1 u II 000 Comments on Sales Comparl.•,ors: sa,1 Qcm.Pn.n Qs^MA t �u'I�S // N00 I �UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�S /� .., t3 Clem t, .aa� i --,-� '�k M.Ache n...F.i Ma .. u- �c.. Cm,.� .+. • ( tt S.. t , 1.c s f•nm.tc.,,,{ 'crni.., i,,k criP-5c. I- r • Nlo.,4 4.:r., lac P 1,F Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ ///, 0 O O as of 1/2/88 • Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Land Value Assessor's Recommendation Building Value 70 O C O Total ENV c_5 R 0 Appraiser: bl Appeal No: I 9 Page 2 Photo of Subject f. 'ter ' l•, r, y"',,rnr,Fir �•.h .r: y i !i i 17I °u f b �Ty %, i Ise--.'�"•+.vs;' _ _ � ,t 1 .: Jf r.y ` Building Sketch , ,,,,,z, \ / S tI wo • . 445 - • /\ .24 a..r.1, I9 / \ — J 2. J i 1 '�4 Appeal No: 1 9 Page 3 City of Eden Prairie. Subject and Comparables Location Map • �. 1 4 PA-I 4:',,:T,4—1-13'1'--:Y---`FIpi M ' '-'r''i-3...S.l‘i.;tt, , a ram} n _ is 11 4,4 ii subiecb Id.1,••.' - ,-Ault .r...,....„-;,,, , . < ,,,,,-,_- ----- i ,st,,,,,, :,-...,, ,,,, pr-moir, Dili 1 ... ,:, ,„ ,r, ,,,,.,............L_IJA.,....-----4-.'17 r I. _ Nt»i , r--1 j'J,', 41 I' j 1'': . i ��tiiYr \-lit F� j wy f ''y 1 `�� e Pr • i r Y , �',�ii r 1 e i T j l V�4� -a— / ; 'T.-P,I, '.,1 ,/ 2' '1(''' ' -----7—t- S'...41111 If 11 -.: 1,'C-1-4 ffi -- ^a I'' i 1988' Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 2 cC Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: 05- It14.-2-2_. - A-\ - oC`5Z Owner: Imo' V,,SELL .7_TE-P 1.16N7.• Address: IlaoZ7 Av.,.00O \--A>u HEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 F I% 11 TUJILIC NT -4-- 54- (61.15 TW 1L1 w TRaaa Address -(--.E."..I- 2l _ �` L b23LP Hr�eo�tO.xAN (--,'41 -`SCE 5-12_.25 a Proximity to Subject NIIII O Illll[llll Ill 1.s r.1L><; I.5 Ir,,.-.s 1 /,,, t. Sales Price $2n 102 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII$ 1-- -r. �1II11I11111 Bill llllll h1s t n ov0 11III I[UI111I(1Jfllllllllllls v r .o i 74 Price/Gross Liv.Area $ ,5g 0$ -tfl 05 011' Iblllflila .$ so sa- mlllfll➢lfiuhlfi1IVlllll'S TC.f31 mlllilllllllllllllllllllE Data Source C72y CRV CRv f VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I .I-ISapusmen DESCRIPTION - I-IS wNsrmna DESCRIPTION •t-IS afntmenr Con Soles sscessions 1 Financing jfilll� - 3� Date of Sale/Time 6lE l 8l8-L Lo 113-1 lfl- N Location � SileNiew C1t)m �GtirRiL � -r-n0ra>r -�4�ns- �' � . c c 114y�4 o +1 kcYXl 12'-`C?')m co +121 '' Q Design and AppealI >� ,2 � r�,vq 4-14pc7p Z.=. <7G 2T. C-O ?s Cl<} 2_'.Go Z Oualdy of Construction v yc ,- Cot +-1cxx0 C-O + Qx r C�"D 4 +"L)C ) pwi Age ISn-I l 1R-L IqPrl 19F7 Condition e,a' a, r.om2v./ Nry r . 0) Above Grade to1m.Bann,. Bads tom .Odom. turns bill :eamn; BathsbIn 4 Odes. Baths 4 Room Count 10 ; 4- :2 5 10 ;& ' Gross Living Area 7,'L 1 r : ;2.5 8 '3 ,:as t1r Sg.Ft. '?2 .., Sp.Ft. }1t,cX1 Z3:3 Sg.FL -i locFX1 26.-9Q Sg.FL 0 Basement 3 Finished SWCf4/ Cr(/ 4V 0 Rooms Below Grade nJc0,L vo n WFunctional Utility c,. C,1 r�+nn�F .. ..P. _-� � Cl0 C_'D a Healing/Cooling WC C//- C/A C/A C/A _ W Garage/Carport 3r;, e-r-n- ?c, q-rr -3C-,A-TT ter ATr. Zo(O Porches,Patio, c1P 5.p cso,tr a-5(.""'ei w0.-OK Pools,etc. -DFCi< +3003 214ta 2xb 2x10 2.xto -;--- 1-*-IP tr/9 - Other(e.g.kilchen 'n r- w= .... '[Lr. Ir.5 2"Ern - ICX)O Other remodeling).kitchen ,HN ` "GL-r INS" -C,_T.1N: Net Adj.(total) WH(i:�'Fax. Indicated Value �i+ -�S 30[X]Cl �f�-+ -'3 2fk ) 1-----1 -'$ 1`5OC)fl of Subject $ 2.O44-ix) 11 $21Zoo0 $"Log 07 Comments on Sales Comparison, C-,-y, t i Z Fr r,,_-.`v...'--,.a; -.r„�:,cs Nal r,u.rr -o -rit -m V I Ew'. WE .,Ig YAl+G, COYw'P n'3 ia2 71iF VT. agl..f- NQ_ 4-- l3-:TND1w,. IT 1S LLX.ATE"O ry FAT R,N___, y 1,1 11 A L Ali-1nA.0 T-M $VT'.1Et" --- � KT TCJ"�"?�-�ytFZ. Tr-.rz S+t= rS 'r..n3',- CnMwaKQ9LF 7") 5,_1P 1i".:..-r ' p-"-1 T414r L .4vr At4'40,0..1T ,Sr" A0Q,7S7-/]1rAj-rz Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ 27 7 O 0X) as of 1/2/88 • Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value :�OCY'3 ,Soac — S.Q.UCY) Building Value 1��7(- I-LO 00( t 5'',5 cx) • Total EI'IV `p is CYO -720(Y)c 055Cp Appraiser: -1-sv-c -Z-rw",-_ P .j E 1•I COMPARABLE NO.4 s-at- I I Leo SZ 130,YWc3o La r )Err -0caR IIIIIIilllll Illlllllls •.•_ $ l7JillHhIIhlhhJlhllHfMM -FtEn�-cvey DESCRIPTION I .I•Is saamar Cuaa Z/tT/% C4.ona� 19000tt c,o Zz c�O N•c,o 148Lp cl'q bW Brims: Bann 8 : 3 :2.5 - t2 Sq.R. +-74N-0 C,o c/A 3 .Arr CAA -OK -�GXI ZYLp ?-*-(P —2-- -eLT IPJ W s{r.+L''ML + S I Qnn �I __ I[IL$ ZZioC� Appeal No: "Z,p Page 2 Photo of Subject - r, „,:k .. r . r,'• 4 t , • ,,Ittiii.it,, Building Sketch I>- 4 o; Ao b P• 4 Il 31 a 3a 6 29 » >J 34 n A-rr S, a '/. 'a t2x2Z 21 9 '2_or,2,L / t x 8 _._ Mrns 12/RY Appeal No: 2.0 Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map Nit s,. " taiiibil , .'.*. ,i' '-111r .. " A Inn:' ;(t-A. ' '.i-. <<.► to '. ■r�`�r� •J" .�V1�u�,., x. �j`� s I r /!`Subject►� L� ; tr wait :,,: • c4i+ • PiM • ..s � � ��t ''`��w, �, �' �� � �; , Wiz' R' .i , 1 tip , orsse�' e.tl _i �wp VI! tLi41:41 _1ilb'� I;42:Lir: # read: I bop - ' '401,411,MK ,--r- L ,c, , . ...41. . .........,,,,....„,.... • 1 v 'j I _r 7' �'r,� _ :i t:- Y /r t 1. S //\5 y - / I I ` ti �. —ls- Z .ram f i __,,y) 1 : .____,. /1_y---,. , -f -k- - 4. --i- I Y - j / 4, 'r'Tf f.',4,,,. ;i r i g,._.7,_ ,if.." i • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 2 2_ Page 1 PID: 03 - Illo _-L-L -3d_ O 15 Owner: LET_ Lo13 SZ-�i►J Address: 1pgo "Ro5 rnAzR -R0,2.5) Subject property was reinspected on gg. Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ 11`_ Owner A rees with new value. Value Being A ed Review Aopraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 31$00 318pp 31800 Building Value 8(p 00 8o'Zoc� 8O'Zo� Total EMV 11'( Rn� 12,000 I 1ZOOp Appraiser McSRI_ Z 'Sr • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: '276 Page 1 PID: p5 - 1 k . 22 - ZQ- . 0034- Owner: ISY .or- 4N Address: 1l0 8 j MAwOR 'RoA'O S00-1-w Subject property was reinspected on 4/29/8g . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ S 4-OOO . Owner Agrees with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value ZQUpn -Zap 2.8000) Building Value —(V‘00 (0(Qpnn 1pLD000 Total EMV c+g+lop q 4..Q ) Q 41.000 Appraiser , ZwkyT • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 24. Page 1 PID: 1O- 11(Q - 2Z - 14 - C % Owner: AL.viN BiyEN3 Address: • -701'\i‘IF.W Subject property was reinspected on Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ 117 Owner A rees with new value. Value Beino Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 4-o n o — 4-O o00 Building Value 1395p0 • 13 2 npp 13?_ opp Total EMV 1-j4 q 17- Cbp Appraiser 1988•Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 2-� Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: 'z? -1\to -2Z -%3 - o020 Owner: J tarnf::, (Y\1 u..trIsk Address: e`5,3� "DPwr..)r1- -Ro. ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 .. Address er0 m -0 NrL Ito 12455 CRo.r'T+aar. C-r 81°9 f;aasanies- 'Fo • -2-.. -22-4s 2t.-22•"i2 Z3-?A- 2 . Proximity to Subject 111111111fl111111111 Mil II 1/t r.,,�� ii. r,tof I/10 rwr.. - i sates Price $ I III 1111111111IIIIIIIIs I2aorxt Illllllllllllllllll111Pills tt,sun _ IJIUIIlllllllllllllllllllllljs tz0000 Price/Gross Liv.Area s 0$ -r. to& m1[IIIIIIIIl1111111I0111tis to4i.lnR mllllnlllllllflllltll111141 s 5to•i't cliifiIhlhIIIIIIUiiiini[ 1, Data Source rr-•s. Crkv CRV • •i• VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION .1-Is Aammem DESCRIPTION •r-IS mauimern DESCRIPTION I.(•IS Adaatmem t:1:sales Fnarlcing Nil - \�.�, ions — - Date of Sale/Time Location /� °n a if12 +?(kX\ r4/P'1 +3o>V Cu�C3 -Eckowa.. Eepoe L .'ePaaL SiteNiew tvl4k,n4' ci0 143cY)m e,T-I•s -I ryX) 't Cr m +'fir, 1'2.3r,n03, f-p Design and Appeal zm cis, 2: cro _-,(-Lei 2.1 tE0 • - Quality of Construction ave. ,aLs,*` -MnOP...S— —c PUP.L. Age q n t1--- 14-1 cur Condition C D z�unL -Gl)aaa.. ' • Above Grade taut.Bdmn. Bats twat ,Bdtms: Baths Total '.Wm; Baen Total '.Bdmn, Baths Room Count -f '3 ;2 2S Z ; ;2?-5 7 ;3 ;2 2-, Z ;3 ;22 Gross Living Area (-Cc1t1 Sq.Ft 1-- Sq.Fl 174r) Sq.Ft. glow Sq.Ft -lop•,p . Basement&Finished 72nb' R2ot 72-0* 9C1 Rooms Below Grade - RrEc. ^TM rl-ocy Functional Uldily CIO � A,- �J �Sk�Aa- -ErJ.)riL Heating/Cooling rk/C_ _ ra/L A/C WV,I,T. •-?- Garage/Carport 7 c- ,o 2.F, Ar Porches,Patio, MK iv,,* 1-Mx3 r\YY.ic +-\sop -O\•. Pools.etc. Special Energy • Efficient hems • Freplace(s) I•vr7P 1FlP 1--4--!P N WT.'. 213cK) Other(e.g.kitchen -btu tN5 -KtiT. w> -CL•r u.,s '1t T 1,iZ. equip..remodebng) Net Adj.(total) •_�-- • t + 7,�..-s tgob -^'-+ -:$ ma r "'_:$ l coo • Indicated Value I{ of Subject :s l21 too s 122 ccx) s I 2l oQp .. Comments on Sales Comparison: a,,i -rxx-T- Con.-Nau•oce O r rFxvF<c:,a•r-leiCr,✓r or s.,leeca- C,,t,tRe..,,.p-e,,•u Fyyi-- V44-a Yi' ltV1,,,,�-may, L 1-r, _ ___ qc vi-rg n; qir Oil F4 N'&7R1ic,7c. •• Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ 1-2_1 0z. as of 1/2/8B • • Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value -�2nM 3ZoOQ j--2_aM Building Value 80Rr?C) Rq7/•‹ en ,Th Total E(•IV 11-?_;110:, 12-1'.`. 112801) • Appraiser: �,-p ZTnr- Appeal No: 25 Page 2 Photo of Subject • • oak 'ssr' —10 .W�� � o-ti~� R.L.✓ ... Building Sketch iZ wo.1ZK 4.1 20 3o I j �2 2. I 2h 24 3(0 2 Uo ,� 2 o21.1 P. t3 Appeal No: 'ZS Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map 1���, �� \' ;- __'�- `.. i _.\ e I i ill •I $ Irk (1 ' ``r/`ra ‘Fa 1, ' ►7,.44,:hri„,;...,,.,�- Fi _ . �, nL'N ; Ci \i , & ' .'1 �L'V .< I�i!�.s oxj. ..-,,...(, i . .1,,, ,F,,,.-..-Aii,„ • ‘,. c. ,. -,4 , � 7.Vlf(its 1( 7- '_...--iL 1/170Zetill -per 5 ,mII 1'1111T-i i ,. ,;i L,1� `, al %;7 �; Z I. I ri s, � , ! ;7, it 1 ;` �.4 . , ( .-S►` Sthjectk �L �,,r, 4 t f �. ( ' , n l•n I fl Ar-L6 -�Ya S '' 4-7 ell uo i- 'r `� A41 g ! ,'V\ " ti is 17 -�'.( I ke ..r5 _ - - it llil ' ,------- ..._.-------.<7 ; - • '\ i '','.#-'-'111111P1 1, `T y 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: ZLe Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PIO: ZI- I►l,-aLZ-42_- c o Owner: WILLt c.v.. t-kaa.t,E Address: 40(p0 577nnztuc, W U- fREM SUBJECT COMPARABLE N0.1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE N0.3 1 Addresses 4.1 l�Sto IS181 woo, 4 Proximity to Subject Ilillll lllll�' Y �id�`�'` S"""""dc"�"' llllllll�llll�10 t Y a Sales Price S $ -l9aa> s pll((1j Ull Illl llfDls 11 r�o Price/Gross Liv.Area S ms -r8.�, m s ta3.3s m I: p�[iii,PllhIs r(,,cig mIII IlI�QIIIIIIiILIII C Data Source Cgs./ Cv C J VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION 1 .I-ISAdnsrmem DESCRIPTION •I-IsAroustmmi DESCRIPTION .I-Iswxsuroa L Sales or Financing r,10.„‘ (a ,, Concessions _ zcz8.2... pb - 2g A7 8Z7E- ItriownE- I. Date of Sale/Time yP7 + 340o to/p +4 t t/p,-7 4-SOD 0 Location (},i,s...v.E_ E0_004 _ Site/View 3•f�Ae. G.oco toe Ctoap +7,Z • EQuq� Ee�uc� Design and Appeal T,y5mJ ACcj.. a_z2` •�1�-/Gem +zz4eL^ EQUAL- SLIME-Me- - Zaco OC Z Duality of Construction Air cE ° ioi + Qtc— -21c00 omRScc.... —2...Bcc) SUPERtC2. -4‘2"n = Age 1451 Igte3 -4cc7 14t,S -eetic0 I9t.a9 —Emo e Condition At.7fc(i4. EQOGL E4u4L EyiValA- N Above Grade Total .Banns, Bath, Total k Berms k Bams Total k Bdims k Bates total •Od ins k Bains CC Room Count $ ; 3 ;t,-6 5 '3 'U G.. �-- _ CA Gross Living Area 1 z,.� Sp.Ft b14 Sq.Ft +85� �141cp Sp Ft -a`'n') S 3 : l�t6t s So g.Ft -8o 0 Basement&Finished toZ'rfi tJ Rooms Below Grade E .aot- c.,.1? + s rKg- _3cxp 4 Functional Utility Auve.n Ecs oo.- EpLAI_ EQU "-Heating/Cooling G . ./r O CowStocFev-e.. +hoc° E2v4L. EQ,va,�0 Garage/Carport (o ZyO lye T rz + Rlcg -94eb Sswt<'rziOg- -$CC10 - Porches,Patio, 52o10. - FPools,etc. I.tottE- 44-1co 1,o,,.,r._ -i 4'100 '> (-te¢, + ►Sap Special Energy Efficient Items Pt* Ea xx&. EZuut. IEQuJr5L_ 44 Fireplace(s) YE._ F4 _ S Other(e.g.kitchen �� - � � �'�' - � A. equip,remodeling) VEZ4(,A> VV-e CK +ISiap EQUAL 1✓Qut3.1.- iNet Adj(total) I�IffIl{��l + $ � r '' Indicated Value IIII l J j nil ti I -. 3b2t�0 ` + 3 10300 t` rl+ '$ 1OZoo i; of Subject I -� i $ t11r1CO II L 1$ 103300 11 i LII IHf IN I Js IU3� t1 L _ :.:I:! lit I.I Comments on Sales Comoarison:- ,s„y pew v,,�+g,_,E_Cr 9 K14Icn_or •rAP -scLT (ZUstoe �ruc „s„1 i - •..,uJ4tFL)_per ns rc ci Sl.c p� E r4 c4 t But-r-b e CcwKJ1a4+-�.Ab I ltnn1 _ fie,types �-+T1RE too,a uouvrE.uu..0AL oR Crdz grUSir hearten F5. ocrEgadat cc Afl]JSLR�ca�s5 us(_,uacTE Ci¢.5, .MY� r r t)E tY.,7141: Iiic.T Rta8A4r G S}LICmsp uaL se_ cc.-nie S,-Y+•tEer-. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ 1o34w as of 1/2/B8 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 5Z4(X) 5Z-Lioo 52400 Building Value S1000 5100-0 51c4,0 A-y C444A,F • Total EMV ►Oc-4op 103(}(.m lb3400 Appraiser: -zee Appeal No: Zlc Page 2 Photo of Subject y f L - .' • `st .1 I 4 /14-� . 'AR ' Building Sketch 12 ZJ 2Z Z` YB 24 4 4b •..u.rr --A_ toitan. - ,.n,... Y w.:..!kaw.,.i.Jl. 444...D tiv Appeal No: ?ate Page 3 • City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Ma • • '.�I-,. • . .,per , i ,. 11111111Mir Aq--- 'ife-:-..2 , , ---- II - - � . ., ., . ..,-,,_. or....0:."-1-. -'.• .'-`'.. - . I i ,•-iiit.0:4 ialirS.1, PIL ' - ''• --', '04,.. • 1! t..v.ii..4..'; ,-/e,\...,, jonsig ti.. .r. • EY,0..,.*-7-,4,v.,,:, cir. .'d '.vim y y,,, 1 !�� €11-1 K, 14 '.-.it 1 .".E",,-_,....,,._„,..7t ..'. •t. ' 'I ' 1'1!) 44 • I,,,, .-.-(:),„ '1 ,,,,,,_i, • ... Ir( •• 1 ,11.1 .0:-- ,-., ,..:„... A kill . 1,!". ."-----K-,. , -&---_, , . ----',Lk‘T-,. %It ihor r,,. 4..„4„.__,,g4 1, ,,,,, . ,, ,,„,,,.,:s 0 .2 iii ..„.,, ,. .73, .. , P.7.1 � 1 r.•_ -i (� Comp 3 T 5� a`O�;'�'�i t i �ha «\ I 717 F I I r__: ri '. - - 117 :-trAr'— -,,-e---','--- , L''w--_ . : I �+ • �j; 4E tk �..d Z� 1f, V i . , ; , 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: . 'T Page 1 ; g Sales Comparison Approach PID: 23-116-22 24 0078 Owner: Andrew W and Susan G Wolf Address: 8833 Jasmine Lane (TEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE NO.2 d3-„4.aa av oca6 a3-,"c.:,:L a,/ cc8 COMPARABLE NO.3 Address 9533 C�aa nu KC.. 89 �I 9 a3-ry6-aa. aav OrcG Proximity to SuDlect - '�-�- IIr I I I�U n.a-t..�ti ri.. ,tti.ta.h <—Ctuv� `�a,.,;�/f Eh 20_r♦ Sales Price $ u s t ta Price/Gross Ln.Area E - � <V�I S 65,.SCp 1 � 1 S�3,750 t� Data Source _ �' L.S.'� Oli ll�I1�IlfIDLllfllli$ c,9.so mJl!11111I1I1iIlIf1J�11II1[$ ia.a m11ll�lYIllll1�ID11 VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION Ck✓ C�tO Cet, '.1. DESCRIPTION •HS nnwsrmrnr DESCRIPTION •Hs ndIt„imrm ry, Sales or Financing�l 1� -Nd. Pcurt I • — DESCRIPTION �.t_IS,wn,srn,r, Concessions l I - /300 (rc,vl. it,so�o ae. ry Qa�d ,' Date of Sale/Time 6/8 A4 Qefle,i -'Bea Locational R✓ 7 t,8a0 '127 tIIe0 ,d/?� H✓ G Site/View _ Av — Av — Design and Appeal f — _ c rat Quality of Construction ?v- Fvin F6 c4 Au.r.,,/%� 8 — i Age i9s; rq¢✓ _ L TiA�.?nAg — 6� Fug dd Condition -'n-..d -- �99,3 -- l9QS —,:cc�� -t- Above Grade bias Perms Orion Val od.ms Barns e''i°'7 -- Room Count �- w / �, /Y.: _ ScO bias Pams. Baths total Bawls Baths tli Gross living Area _ 9?GSq Ft — 'z • l r/a -/ccn 5a /'/� — Soo 946 Sq.Ft — — 9r2. Lt Basement 8 Finished vp�.K� Sq ft. t�ea0 q/,7, Sq Ft. +3aop Rooms Below Grade 'r""e- — rive-n,E. _ yr 14 - Functional Utility Heating/Cooling d.y� - a p. J' TJ, Garage/Carport aya� ui -�-i _ o7a.- — 7 — — T Porches,Patio. ,;../s tl le...-,.... Za/7�a /C4f Pools,etc. Eck tic¢ dead Goro1 — PaYco cca e Special Energy — /e._140 boa Efficient Items _� Fireplace(s) Arx.� e' — /Y!Ok!_ i!1#rl.fr Other(e g.kitchen / —.aoop equip.,remodeling( Net Adl (total( -- Indicated Value + -S y5C0 X + 'z e? ao [� + -E 38co of Subject II ••II 1 1 n I i - i I �I�,il I1 �,����i�II,� „�� �S /r�.DOp 1 ''Il' Comments on Sales Comparison._22 I ! 1 II. I $44,300 Z $G.7,160 ' 23^� e / ..la, f .aai i-_^[_"4 1 L 1�:0_.�,:-..,,,,.h? .e cF .lGw h a, L ha,r R. ?A, ' v r A �'�F'7L:ZtC-if U'!1t• P.•tc..r r ,,��EL./f�Fa�/, at�ic.i'r A.t�_Jti ? us11.-./r,C4. .tf4...,4�'_�l. /'/CC0 &i:g_s. �� -c-.u�zc � � f"�,��k� �.,ek. may,. n,. n_Ct»,/_;n ,:r7,�2P4i. 1 .. , t , dtiter m. c -- _.,„1.,. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ 4,/,cco as of I/2/88 • Value Bein A Baled • --- g_pL Review AAuraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value I /_cce Building Value 5 __/ti'o !a '/qr e^. / Total ENV ;"q jn c g 9l r Lit✓ ___ 64/dC._—?__ i/a Chu n� Appraiser: L r Appeal No: .17 Page 2 Photo of Subject j 4dal x,1 Building Sketch .73 5 ()Eck. .2O f a4 7 '2 uJu.t„—.`� 58 Appeal No: o?7 Page 3 • City of Eden Prairie • Subject and Comparables Location Map • it / , 1.. Y,�7 ire' 'w® • ` / • L� I11 I 1 , ..' , 1 9 i • , txi� �it'.u'�::�.4 I�L i a�✓J�ls,». P w+!� " a�. � i ..,.d`.-_ ! -' 1 �.q yh _,-A trr,� •?^`i i ' i \ ^[y^ r' �/ Al�'�� ,, F0 GY WI ly. .. I-• 1 tiv : �` jT ., .? • ?! , >��a 4' , *kl I: re* .: t • 1,11,.. 4_,. la ----.14. brio., . . . :,....._:__ , ...„ . . Eri!....i...-.... -,4:=. IMO ii.11/11 —wir ., . ,illt ,„..,,,t . r, i -i .,'i ..' 41 i Xi:'z� �r41 4f Comp 1 Subject �fR F �t�� - %.-.- i1 1 l4 1. ,k.r I —,., i•I ,ice-- nl tY jo/4 • ..... .L_.).'!gjj'''' i-I -.3!tip- i -,....;1/4,.. e., ; 7 1, ‘1:-';'•°•1, .,. ...''.'.:L.....7.:11 '.,, "' I i•" iIC ii: III•-•''''.."P.0-P ----If '''' .'-:::,#2-nkT7=---!- , .). f-u - I _s , ,-%' =may /// j ti 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: .g Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: .i_ <- ,• . / Owner: 7//,c/,,/ /,,,., • • Address: /• , C,_• ti,-. 'i .- ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.t COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 . Address °_- . - •' :- ..,_ G_N - , ,:_ ...le, Crr /w_.6 1, /,%c' • Proximity to Subject i Sales Price S Eirn< S /=yy--v S /:'_nn Price/Gross Liv.Area S .// ` IDS l n'-'4 CA ��� S V=_" F13 I S - 0 11 Data Source e• �rl: n•C5 F./c C�1/ f /r:a F,� ,FC/ov VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION -1•I-IS eaxnnronr DESCRIPTION •t-IS Adios.... DESCRIPTION •I-IS Mpsimenr Sales or Financing Concessions ': Date of Sale/Time /c• t- 7- 8r_ i , ,,. ro a- 7 flo,. CO Location I ' aSite/View -- •, Y.. Q Design and Appeal ,.- ,, /- , ,-. ` �~ co /2" Z Duality of Construction r'v� CAge /94G , •,-i , - -, r, Condition <.; / �9/-/ 3 ro o N Above Grade bias .Barns. Bann Total ,Bums. Bans bui rms. Bars Tau' .Bdms,. Baths ir Room Court --;. V : /.;':_,_ 0. . v i r-, 7 ,r,4 —7 , � ; /rq ' Gross Living Area .- Sg.Ft - S Ft ° a :�E:.._ a :/oS Ft. :• .„, /6.a Sg ft. e a> O Basement&Finished s` 'e_- a�a r•,.., ce {,1 Rooms Below Grade '-` "'/° Functional Utility /;, _ — L Fe" / E-7„.,.r/ e / Heating/Cooling F Q Fr- i_ •�; -f- G, ✓u.: he -o C- ..,'fk r::a FA ' Na r,•L to Garage/Carport :-car- .,J4 -r-, .. '.-<or.-- - aoso -r•,,-nf< Porches,Patio, ^� %a�=- �/- -y° Pools,etc. T. - ar,4 ,. ,r“4 " n - - ynnn Special Energy ;:;.';-,;;• ''" """ Efficient Items Freplacels) r_ —;- Ems,`"a/ F . / 7. Other(e.g.kitchen equip.,remodeling) /;,,, E _ Net Adj(total) • +yam- /_,S _ +j't1"�I Ems.,., / Indicated VARv-'S ==,:' + -�S 0 of Subject11111111 IIIII iS / _-, $ D I S / 9vo Comments on Sales Comparison: f T L„t ;a, C. „ . r-!', L"<' ) /OV Ra ,ze, Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ as of 1/2/88 • Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation . Land Value `,. m .ram,-7o ,'...:000 Building Value ,,, `v/ao Total Lily l y.,_/00 Appraiser: "r • - Appeal No: Page 2 Photo of Subject Xs. . - S.91 - .,., tav , . . I - — , tr4 44,4 • Building Sketch R4 • Appeal No: _-2 , Page 3 • City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map . r\ 111 4---- itk....,_ e -: ,,' ;'i4-, ,,4( _ i Iii.,. .';-•./!"-; S LII\ la / jIA� I � sue' —f .3$: ,,,SEEM - i e'r �(XI ice'e_ ,t .,M /ll t-?k ."..- . _ , l '�i� t,/ Ii �II�II Comp 2 '�A I0 �f l i ,,,,,; V: ri?,-;*. _A ..411 - : i : <I>)", --: ...,:-Vi if 11611.,i 1 1 ---fi ---..--- Iliallibilligill ,, , ___L, _____‘, --,c L>,, -,,----:,_ -) ""4_, , r.---I f,!' H'', Ll I I ,,flp p,ci _. ,,i . I/ IT Ir77 7 i. s °s-�_ Y , rp, . ,.. , , ---,,,,,,-.„-i„,..-- ---,-„..,:_.:. ,. __....,_-_,_ : 1-117,,N,x --._\,_,,,,,,,L, ....1 , , , .„. , . .,_, i , , s. ,,„ ,0 6,, ..z , ,, , „)4 : , d ) - / 1 Q'C {�� - L . r- r,� / I 1 _- � i ,1.� eta �1 I-` -� � l 1 , 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: a9 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: ad-//G -.2,7 3a oony Owner: AYte,a 4. Aitz4.,._ Ande,l LL Address: 9/70 �.Z,er _`2 aid, - ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE N0.3 .?4-NG-Jw Si Oro:( COMPARABLE �j ea/0 ,6-n‘-a.] 3•71 0034 Address gr70-.JU p.,...,(1._ 9091 7je:ea A..ft_6/.d is963..!.rrw,Eimer i5 A .e-Pl'Proximity to Subject IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111 '/'6 ,,,,�.,� /'/. „a.,o�L, . L?�..�,e Sales Price $ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIOII IIMill II I I III I is.2.26 o09 1413I11I11111111111Is a.35-aoo `te Price/Gross Liv.Area $ 0 s q s,./oa. 0111IIIIIIIIIII0IIIIIII$ r3o. lHMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II s ss.4 l2III I"I I II; Data Source C -✓ e R aVALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION L°/lt/ DESCRIPTION _(-IS neweimem DESCRIPTION •Hs adwetmem DESCRIPTION I.HS Adwumen Sales or Financing le"),ecw`.., qQH Z o Concessions 77.tt wa.1 - 8757 — ACC, 7. 75`7d Date — of Sale/Time /o/frl,J t7Goo ��/ N Location 7r.�r_ A7 — o/�6 "r"(hoc Sile/ViewO1 — Utr< 4-r*Y -33,oep c ,4 > 7lert(%arr.-°Liao E y.L — c7c ut — Design and Appeal t,.,-,... g nn / L���/Frtur �`'e-Qfd&.L .,L°,r'r — Zit Quality of Construction A3 A�1,iw.fxe_ A9- Al'AtG Axm _ )1- mile — • Age /4 9/ fla A�Ado(SG N3 Aedvrc�v� Z Condition _ 98o 1-,noo /97? +-.7000 /9Ari —'ece U$ Above Grade bear.8mmsi Baths Total ;e .Barns ck� lE brat Bdrms BNM Total .Woos BaIM 4 Room Count 7 : /.. : a ; .2 5 ; a ; 2 d Gross Living Area a/oa Sq F( /r7P Sq Ft +aBGoo6165G Sq.Ft pBasement S.Finished 1912`3da...+h r571 a ,6a....•.^ r 96o0 /G 8C ,. Ft. 4 2 700 —a9 ^e` i� Below Grade +""""y�r°ita- a -•+,a-r t.rz, rb*a GI da,..,,y, + 7°o ad..a 6a�.,. —,,,, ilJ RoomsBelownal lity is2sta• ,b;' rvay:t3,,,•,4,I -33on 3is1 a a,•`.w +/6ep �r.2ar.m fu....�e,.l -ty3eo J J 7 J T 43 Healing/Cooling lµ q,C Aa — Y! Garage/Carport a a1- G96cf n U i A C - Sae Ac ! — 3 -1da.rJ Ys'/ t3/fco „Tea-(, S7G9 ,-/go Ana„ vr31 + Porches.Patio, d•c4 ycz + dt.nk 444 f ria aoaD Pools.etc. :::::::"4". ,�+oap...p...A.Tract .�/000a<'e-at Gosai -Goo dz.,E 2/3�0Special Energyu. / 4 �b `9/op EII¢ien(ItemsFoeplace(sl(•o,~4ap +2 Joo Other(eg.kitchen r9Ja ww,r° ..._ •Z fdLOo / !- 00 equip..remodeling)joy, a.4aw Pa-.,..ed.,� 4 h..A/4h.i1 e.4, Net Ad((total) Iry + -'s e/9,9o0 [ ' + --'a .2e o + • Indicated Value II , i�, $ a4,Pea- ol Subject _ 1 .$ ao goo -- -� Comments on Sales Comparison:_ f ,MAs-� OaN, .t e," sago,ace I� s 7o9,ac� —r�4 -�L..�. r�Gr. �- ^r tl_' uu'Y.. i il;iiOC._�� • f Xf24 Crl7x�2r.AdSf QA i°�7, iQ n..h ,atl,� 4. �-ae:,a ,v..e., 1 iti 11 41 200 6Z11tee tEL .(sty ��ei,p /^/QCJi1Y�lcEwti 61 �.#fr;. ��11CfL Zt.�K� u1 �o!//.OCd ✓ Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ , //,tneo as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value •/o.rM ✓�erg y% Cde.1.f Building Value /4.43"n / Total ElIV 7/' .J x" Appraiser: 4..T /./ `� 7l1 �✓ ,. -,u^n,,atttnu" CFti ✓a_ r f='%2r)e:r..�a-.,„F _faCn. � i, 07/ Appeal No: Jq Page 2 Photo of Subject •a • Building Sketch lat 8 hr r s o \I JR 3Y ICEENCI y a' i. Appeal No: ,17 Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map '7 111161. M� a i■ ' ii,, ,_r,, i a joi ,01,1raurr- -,4 i t;:i„:ri4, 4e,\_,*._01111.(41•-7_ITarit\ , Ik i t �: }. �] •'- '-`1 :- - • ii I -='it' l 4 I i Illil PY S (1001111 jIjF'IJA t, � I �J S to (. �� �,�••� a et-.dillillom r Tjelefr._i Ie.:, -- -7 1._L ,,,.,._ El if pr 1,No.ii..41K.,_ 'e..) , ,y , , - ,, . Y[' 1 f I I .-1 1xi tic 'I ' Ii r J NziA rg, 1-- ,,, -I ,,11--;-;-wivry- ef•k.iu _� �`\-., it, _ • >:?i� I - ��t �j f ,c �. I ____1/ = 1,,,---„„ artitiy'A/ ,.1 ,, -- -•-�, �, rah "`,, —, • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 33 Page 1 PID: 04- - I1to - Z2 -4.3 -0050 Owner: kiklawR Address: 15oi35 \RotiWoUtJ Cou'R-r Subject property was reinspected on • 9Ab-{9 Mass Appraisal indicate value should be-Peeneed— e $ t2 (.)O . Owner Agrees with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 3-330o No CbtANCIE Building Value q55Op Total EMV rZa'SOO Appraiser ZEST OW►JE'R WU�tt_Q Nzo-r VR►J \•10n5'E C164_k_S - SET OV 512 Se L -r r`vrssocz sigiBB 5Ilo 6q SPow.v. W\n.\ chits. KC'SvR 51 101$8 l:Ei-t vNESs"C -s v+ A. -I co r rD v 0 H a F•r H ito c� a a o ���ati a C C ro C. r+P. a 5 r* 0 rt ID N a w N R7 J N 0 F+ Q. d rP n o fDD < rCDD m N y 1-iww U1N roH • a N 0 0 h+ N H ro Q. V ro o N ,r. m ar+ o c N < N 0o aa � 3 J N r+ N —CD Cu 0 a F _ 4. c r+ ro 3 -�r+ J 10 V N C < N r r N w 77 3 0 0 0 CDD °= O N N CA Q. a ro CD 0 0 0 c 0 7 V, 7 fD O CPi 7 0 •A r+c r+ n O-I 0 V1 N C 0 rr 400O1 1 V r-N -*CO _, r rn -s t..l. CO,f7 c W CO 1 a.H.o. w' fD �0rcu + bCO zwa o-s 0_ CO rt .0 o Ha c 1 Irt o •o 0 a H0 CO to .3 s 3> \ A V, N CO V1 A C V,Ol A tO o . O 6A Q.O CO O n Z fl-+O1 A u, 0 E N o o A Q z•w A S3 3 a o o , A Y 1 1 O p m -n L, ro N 00 > LP < r+ A 6, CO < 0 a 'LA CO p CA 0- rD 0 7' (A -s H a S r A l'1 V O rD rD 0 z r�+s o 0 0 A. a • L. a o o v H a a rD ro aV, C' 0 Nw C A Vr-N � \ o, o, - 4'� C Co A n j N� Y CO � N A fO a1 Co O q Z•Cr), A A _ n rD _, 0 .0 0 0 V OO A > N N 0 0fa + w T. A r+ 0. r o a d LA 1�7 LA N (Zrr0 I, r In to D h.) n a y C r A C A w 3 O rD A A A rn 0�4, CO o0 /n•� A Cl r t rD A N 0 4 n 0 V( N n 0 0 0 0 0 0 D o < vw A r'a . Y A 7 Ct O. a 'Iacr, N IVO 0" °; CD t7 �- y �+ al0 N p7 0 7 r •" IA . O4 . 0, Appeal No: 20 Page 2 Photo of Subject 1D ,Y f , rOr• _ • • Building Sketch czzs ' Q41 • (t/)\ t °h (L° (tl),•Ilse o�. 11 4 4 I E P - AIRIE " ez 3 4 s a z 7„, 43 r .1114 ':ur1 ROkTORY-- 'H'-iRD. • 101 « 2 2 3_ 4 S 6 4 t \�I ,Z145\ l�A C 1 .— o 2 E SeN .4S`,,el Appeal No: 3o Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Cornparables Location Map - • id7 I `:. 7 lj 1 r h'' 1w_if /Y „wS-' t'- _�i-1'i: I �.t ,, qB. ...,..±. .. ., ,.. .._ d?i'f-c n:y- =r tiii-c1,,ks,sA �,t. #k,rt,t.-,,:,,,::„1.1.•,/ltr_ ! {y .. 4rtfs7 t_,1' I.,‘,',/ a, ., _, k.. RI/ .,__._. . .a . ..:,...,,fc,;:::,:__ .., . ‘tik .,,,.-. /../ I 4v.:1111,i1:1 ,,,,..,1,,,..,,,TK _ 1 ., *G.:. :-,_ ,,,,, ri,Lct O•;' ~ rj - ,-,-,... r --,,,,., .4-1--t is:- - ,.."• ' ctk 1, \,, 1 .'41,‘ ,_'.•.4:* '-, dill&ifi 1 `.r.,l';','-jit...),,p.,. Jr-- . I 1 I...:,:•:::'Z'-',.•.... Ilk Pip 'Al *? Lon 4.,.,,1,,, _(-1,;ipp 7_Arir _ pod ,.:_,_,„ 4,i----C x.,...\*..,L 4 1 „k„..., , ill � L . ,., Y �I,, "; � i-ti +� 1 7 r—I .1 i, I H 1:! n.,.., 1 gl'1 S)f � xl tfli Y:,% F� , Wiz. n� T`1 �� _ � telly; } .�.y / 1 .. - , ,,... t , ....,..„.t. ., — I ! �.1 . 1 , �.f II 7r- ��.1-.1 �'�'_.`i-Sm/;L- I�ry�,��iE:.' . ,, i.,,,,,, .i.J.., 4, ,,97:',' c--, ---1 -Ik'. ''' 1 - ' i ii_ . ,,.,if* ..., ,L.,,,,ki.,-,-, 1 . 1 fir; .I ( ,1,7_ ;I�! 1 • . . >j { Q-::l rtit n'y � .. I � ; —�- — 'UI • c c , C� I I I 0 Yv roC., -I d I z Ns I p E IFoQ ' i 3r ,.'' n v `� a r �� s y� cc -,r N U ,,,1 ': a, r 9 • y CV ° ai :t o°o rn '� Q C v c� q I I I I 7 1 o O Y i kyl Cl I w 0 U ¢ , �-, h-r n� ,a S , RbQ ,. I . WA N a 4 �p N I i o O / 3 ") v 4 h w ¢ cs Z o v` a 9 ;�- h a 1 2 ° d I I I I I I 1 00 c v sl ` g 1..1., t 0 Q `L 7 `6 -• I a. :t 6 °b ' t14H o d = G� .3a ,` a � I U b Q , e hr y oS ° ti :, �.cU c d- • m V. \1 ) CS .. 1 ° q . d c U C W a Po '4 i% as' V fa-- J 1V \ *� J +N I 114 N 7 N •.U) Li) U.10 0. •n'O CI'� v dl C W 4 11 CO •.-1 `U U N N fn - U j 7 w vii `A--� • i r" N �+ C.) �Q+ 2N 'gyp O` ro i p - 0 C. -, CO F- Q Appeal No: 3o /{ Page 2 Photo of Subject yy• Building Sketch • • 4,1 : .zr• . ri (..1 .9 ) • 1 • co ., I <' -. ' *. ki • _J! N 11 1 k %I ,', , le CL 1:1_ .... 1 . l >- R 11 A 1••f • - •!4A4)...% • isa 4,11 .r4 ,y1 ..,'El, i )ips, • , IA- kil 4; ..''.. ii i g l';.' 1) z o • Ci- •-..: i I 11 ..` '.'.• -, - , st • I --qt • ''-'"4 . , .4 -I, .."' r-2 , .P'• ,,i k lk , .wa.•--A.1 t gk.t. 7.-_, F.,g-.! ..-.. - • t" 11" 1 :0 r I • w lil C •-• Cr Y' w x . , . _ i __...______________.____. ________ 09 99°11 1.'92 L___....!.... 2.at•Sa.!.••••••,.._..12,71L- . I --9;1— • i.rz-----:._-=_=. - ---'=•---7:z--- •-- N. •—- -1 I r--------- r. - I I • -r--- ----------, r , \\--Irj 1 ! N i \ - \ ' I q III i \ -.---1- H •I \ ' I I ! I \\ u) /Ilit---". I I 1 i I • "I !Ii I "(f.- • I 1. ‘___ \ 1 I I ,-'hi.A1 1 r---4 • i -Pd: ../ 1;--\. /I 1 L._•• I i i i I ....o./I -‘ \ \ L..• 7T '-'. '', / - .1 1 i' • .. --.--, 0 J . __-----t; \ "••••---..........-;; --..''• '•, \--———--:——- • •--1. 1/41 \.•••••- ,---71 ' 1 i • ------1 •\ \ : N.- i I ,.,-,, ' :__.- ii E /1) • I --V 1 I I \t \ <0 -i..... __,N. .1 4 • /1 , ! I's..., ) / .,... . r (1-•-/r_ t ii•, I i) I I \ \\ i --- L--•-•/1 i . - .' fill '• - ,- / i •, , /...... \ \ -1----‹ -pf--,4 ::: :._ '>-1 'd ,,, \ ` ,'--------. ___Z---___j:, ,./ ,er 1 .-1'''''''-jc"--''-;ji? • 1 'I// - ----N .‘9%,''---.• ' ,---'---..( 7.1..-. '/// -'11-:''• - / . `," i, ,_:,i-_----'\\-, , :-. ...._ ,,r,f •• / /'-'P 'i )1;16%_-:\ \. 7;•'-'-`' '''''''''• -' I pl --• ,)9--",'\•\,,' •' x/‹%2;':----;:t- , . I / / / / 1111/ r ,.,.-"•_,V ii 4„.-<„'//"_,:z.,.-It, . / „ 7/--/--;-- -----.----.47 -."7/4•,,,,P • : I / / / I - . / • . / . \ • 1 1„-.., . .- •.. 1 / // .4. 1 • ,... 1.- . i • I • 1 •1: . --3-- .,4 . • --- -1------ . , , ,, 3. Th S Z W V . j1IIjiJJh 0.4H t o 0 0 v �� c u ), s.. v h o U c a CI an N bUa sal n a ' y CC C n 4' ' Q \ a I c, kO 'U � 4 ` v) Y 0 CV dJ C. b •, R D4 ¢ M V, E-4 o e Ueb Q I _ : 1 ta ti z v : �t \; l.?' ` In C o 0 11 0 ai • Vi'0 C 0,) n i ~ Wn 73 J H N ri O O ro 'O CD '3'� a., j y. • r-• N 4, O 4+ A .� ^ q to in C4 0 3...1 ' f-O rci '° o c J CC) H ¢ Appeal No: -30e Page 2 Photo of Subject Ut le, e• , ' • pl I. _ ., • .'"-` •—• Building Sketch /6 Z —2—— Appeal No: 30 .8 Page 3 • City of Eden Prairie. Subject and Comparables Location Map • - . ,Thiii-fi,feliP4 gl- . ,, 10 fts -t, — , ' 4 ,.....,- • i.;,.., 1 ..,•,,,:j__________tw,T, tivm,„;,..,.:::7•-,7; i ,6,.,.:,, : SubJeck ! -ii h ,� iip 1 pl' _ _ Comp 2 °° — oil ) 1 ', iiiill .„,e;,- ... _ ,c):.4,1, 1„ o ( r• 1- I ii: '1'li • T '1 1 3 r. i 1:4.' ' -.'''''' 1 i&- j .: I l-A:.. .. .... —•• .r--1-5:;‘' lk ii4'-"--1 :..)1'4 ....k,-; _.-1,11 __I W b ��,. r . ;;I r' i 1938 Eden Pra,rie Board of Review Appeal No: 6/ Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach P I D: c,- - 1// -,,,/ Owner: h.,,/ 4•4./,4?-4/ Address: 64.2/. .6a.< ,L at) REM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO.3 44 - - cG- '/ - ra c6- 4/-/S E, Address / f,ee.,A_Ns/ 4433 flu.a ad /76,1-./.7i.477E-11+ 4709 E;4474 . ,of Proximity to Sublert B111111111 II 1111 ne r c aac 0 a�c,.,aw /> kv t II I I III III $ IS/ 8qs II II III 111111 $ /G'/,000 illlilllilllllllllllllllllis 694'co ••$ 5..IL ZIIUIj11111 .f d II u$ 74.s.;, ml]ll;IIIIIiI 'iflllllll S 7 .53 m�ii]]Ipfljlllllllllll er.✓ v elk C2 ' Source•tJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTIONS .Hs Aaystmem DESCRIPTION •I•IS A/ AdSoh srmea OESCRIPTION •tits m cSoanclesesosrionFinsancing I IIII IIIIIIIIIII. �/,w. 9..2s`76 — ,� � " —SGc ��� ,.5a�a — D. a127 /a18� t7Goo a/c7 — //89 — N Location ga.,:_. 2rorL — 7 a-E. - eja o-et 0 Site/View 0•.t.l.,,,,eeL`�t'.' Les,.�ei-eie / n:i — 9,o-.ri. */0 coo 9la+•eQ f/oace s _ z„.s 4r — u 5a — — a 7P..4aO . y/_ F'Nry A'AL A-AJ — /4RAi — 4 � 1II — — , 9°7 /Q27 — 9g7 — /9P7zo yell( q...a nre.J_ ejo-reC H Above Grade Total .Berms i Barns Total ,Barms. Baths Total:Bdrms, Baths Totaledam, Baths aRoom Count 6' 3 '.2'/a R ' 3 '...7'/, g ' 3 % 8 3 a' '/.1 Ln GrOSS Living Area 25ixY Sq.Ft. ;3 q-7 Sq Pt +/0 7o0 .2/43 Sq Ft. +00.60o aa40 Sq.Ft. r/•5,/oo p /•Jcsa- //S6 a -e a.1oo I 1 Cf e-r.?ao //4.-/a- r'.a3oo W Rooms Below Grade 1u, ,!eA.e..,.,, /ta.1..'....F.', — 74,-ln� eul...p — 710 a....4.4 ..s — Functional Utility J VI „B ir J v./..i /-530 o Sag y N✓ea., t 5,/00 55a 3.i,4.4J �l-J.:ed i,-..k-Pasa 3 +35 ro 4P,,,k/3 5 v' 4-zoo 0 op . a✓0 6 -- _...i„. ..I,ton/, —3Non Q.-aJ¢ .7a/c,3' Y 9lee0 Fireplace(s)• Special Energy Efficient Items tq a —45o• I / Other(e.g kitchen equip..remodeling) = ANTI • I�IAIIIII` + _s 04 /ca I Q+ (—-a 32 a c o + -s 34 A o Indicated fl'I I l l s 2oG,COO j $ boa,Poo 1 . 11 • $ /9s<,aoo Comments on Sales Comparison._ CsL rs / yJ _r(f 4.}1 h �;f,p_ Of_ .1444 'F r h WL ,fi, 2�E. ___,„04 l.r G p d/f•'..16.cf.,..t-j 2(O/te a z G°0 AL /CItLnF/J.r,o' 6 G1aa s7�r eT.`.. • 1, // Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ 2oL.,ce o as of 1/2/88 • Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value kr e^cn J�,^C.n '15'0012 • Building Value J'/5on_n yi- /d- ppp s%orn•d _ /�7000 Total EtIV /4c ^oo 17,2_p6n /Sa cop Appraiser: L.T. le fl.L1 3')e 5/0,irre i ueC e✓eLr.eve.ee,:r Appeal No: 91 Page 2 Photo of Subject • • _rr • rt. f i , I Building Sketch • .7 OEck, 5 'S l C4.,unsinAe v7 ib 6 94 • t ./1 • Li:&5J Jo • • Appeal No: Page 3 • City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map • ,?7 :pt( 7 t-j Y, 111411V111 _ sv 11 5,. ^"'� ;�1 Al �',. fir, ; ,• . • ,, . ..... .. • _ i,,,T ,+----r-..,--.4 .s,', • , ,.. . .. 4. • • ` S ✓: I TV 4�` i- mm6p / '' s. I ham _ !i �i / I _ J' � . 'ti I� !� .N ,'[� .err^�- I r—j f ' I.I p.l•q c&Al � i"t � e �. ..ii 7 - '-474 17.;7 ' .,:, , o i. ✓ I !! r11 ! I/ 11���, 1 -- ,.1° v 1 olrTo C �j li r; / ,k...) .�� 'i I -J I_ ,^ III I q , ��AJ 1 -t 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No:_-'-`� Page 1 • Sales Comparison Approach PID: Q/ ki-lid - 4Q - I CON'{ • Owner: (A)kiQ42.,, nL, L. `ctkpcn..t?kJ Address: / .`'i/ 7 rr+ksAti, Lx. S • ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.I COMPARABLE N0.2 4-a1-14 A(-99-5V COMPARABLE NO.a I. Address 1 I7SfG.wIl1. 15fp0y S.FAe,,,. 1�, -�.a"llo 8-yI-41 Proximity to Subject 3 L3 N 4ra-.S.ea Il,�,',o WAAlG�gt, s 1 itIIIIII III 11111I Pc +ria. sit 3.3S'o I< I 'IZ rv.,QA,4.0 a• Saks Price $ 1111 11 11 111111115 G 1000 • • Price/Gross LN.Area s � j(111 Il lis � •Co pill ll l l II IIII Its 9a.eoo I s �a.9� w11I1I(I1llIC9'IDll s R -1 w[jll I II 1ID1111I!I s 7549 ml)11111IM1EEJ Data Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION f.pisAqun..nr Sales or Financing I DESCRIPTION •f-1s Aawsmero DESCRIPTION I.f-Is hutment Concessions II •' L L_J._.IIII I� e Date etoI Sale/Time 2 181 {•.?yCXj �17 - ,TL Loction Awwcs.,, Av<-ti4q- - (�vkwa +: 00 1c1H7 t1000 _ s Design and Appeal qM �.. ao (-�c•� - r.)e,cqt -• Quality of Construction C�,� H�w c� - Rr�e�b.�� �eka it. k,.wn r:} Cl ,e n r ■ Age a ao 17b1 19l 1. A �e..r Condition -r-'xC• I CUPS OA'�"�----- Cd. cMCt C ccd rIC'C'C lgCc la Above Grade - G,cc,k .- tow came: Danis bvl Winn Barns Cyr` — Room Count _-2 _3 1 - kw •earns• earn row •Brims• ELMS a Gross Living Area 4- ;.i ; I Sq.Ft ), 3 Sq.Ft. r I a.ec U (° 3 1 7' Basement 3 Finished 775S.i KnF�a, 'i70Sc1,;. 31y$r. I o L�X Sq.Ft. }�C000 1 a Sp.Ft. +13C00 - lr Rooms Below Grade lc1..aT Mlsr6'F ''Q rib f y.F G dO /q l -1+ Functional Unlit c T I -- + 1.-._ 'COS____l FP. }1CC O IOII S�FF�FR. ♦- CCC� HeatinglCoohngaTolnl I . A 1 Garage/Carport , ix,tt- R I i R C 0 e.t I C N — H i F<C Porches.Patio, "'C` Tl,, I- `'• C 4 Oo _ I O(, C1,ccK 181 S,K PaS.0 NSb S,t c Att _ A�, --, 'a Pools,etc. pt c.j la.S,F }-I�00 Pao°At33 S.K. }1 oU 0.>.kw aoa S,1. K Special Energy + Irj00 Efficient items Fireplace(s) 4 Other(e.g.kitchen O _ OC a - IOOU equip..remodelin9) Net Adl.(total) 111111111111M11�1 + - —,S s Indicated Value I �`)C 00 + ^—'a �•CCO + of Subject —'S 1 G Comments on Sales Compareon; s 11(r 000 $ /1/9 C o nr is n _,S.4 ci wnl t'&t.th 19V-4 , n con, \ $ 1C�/o,C, - nka\ o �lllu.4nu m� ( nc s a r r`�l.L (l a«3.1145 r + . w i n 11a,v`.SD r, ub (Y!p } ,.`err ls� i Ue }p -. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ �" s 1 a /�I,OUd as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Review p Ap raisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value ,:q, C O t Building Value 7�t l( C o��N Total EMV /C.. 3 '7 C'e Appraiser: 4hn1a q 'L) • • Appeal No: .9,A Page 2 Photo of Subject 7' ' 1,', • , • r"1";.' • - ; - • •, !,cofv-1•••, • • 1.'4Y "vs- ---• ,;'kk • " 4143,tt. • r•la — • Building Sketch ,, ,,, • • ... . /4. pa.t IX o o7• c3 ix43 4.3 30 Or t,5 .1 _ . . . • • Appeal No: 3A Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map ill IIII -!Io rid„it I I LLI 47 l i . , •a, P emu;, --'ff tiiii M - A � � 1 --tv;;;;, ,,,'"it-- - ...„, , . ?v, ,Th;v,, :� " _ .tn kap Ptel' 4 ;11.:r ,:ii al ' .11 ' 4,,,-,,,,„ ' •)1 .--' , ,:,-4..'---,1\ ‘1,- ' : 7..r'.'{.i tom. '-i•/ F., , , . . . •71' r;-1 14'. 7 1:j ' S crUk r { ! G.; . �t: I ( • �- ,� -1 .5 - '-�- �� '�ali ibis: i ...i'T . — ;.. ...,. . mtre. __,Iir 1988•Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: \-C- 1110-2'2 -12 -oO5c Owner:-5tµA-Fkt -t`,v_�PO Address: l(05.87 tz--rn=Y -Pie -10"R. 5' ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.I COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 • Ilrr(oI% ,t_r+ral'-F.. -cam IbS�S -rL'RRYFIn3{_ Lk ;., Address I f- IZ. Ibb1� t'e'zrtY p JC Tct IIIII 111111 II1111f 1-(-12-`� I-.-I-Z_Zk- Proximity to Subjectsine s�ytti-r. '- Ame "-rRf[--r' c,eay,.w- -.FEE- Illlllillllllllllls (1 L T131ll1IIID�fs �_1� �a lIDlllll(n�1111�(Is�s __1 > P e/G nss L v.Area $ 0 .4R 0111111 III s ors t, 4IIIII lllllllhITfllllf[s LA-LO 011Illlllllllllllllllll1IIi ir Data Source CT�y L-Fv I'hr..: VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION .I-It ndpsime.x DESCRIPTION .PIS Maa.mem DESCRIPTION .t-IS Manimem Sales or Financing ��Il Concessions JUII J _ -:o0 Date of Sale/Time /R, -- U Location AvS, --€(03,4._ �iTiorLr- . �r)v^-.L J Site/View Z`$ro ° cTD 81m D`b` C-, T�nnf',E.X. ,�`,'-n` /�V(. +-? ) • Design and Appeal -art c vc1 _`-. E 1 r A./ ,. z g t 2 Quality of Construction_ t ve, Tue�` c pV� •"--'0V0�LCa JAl Z Age 198C) 14c)p IgCS 15AI p Condition kW, Sr55,5,r,gy -7±( ) She-o-i-712 -�OOC) 7a13=‘,.:rS;e -.CYXr 11) Above Grade total ,Nana. Baths total .Baths, eaMs brae .broths, Bmm bui .&Iran. Bann i Room Count l-: Z : I °- : 2 : I d- : 2 : 2 -2000 C- ;2 ; 1.T -2 o OGross Living Area 1.07(0 Sq Ft 07(n Sq.Ft 1 OZIo Sq El. I O-to Sq.Ft. o Basement 8 Finished 5724' _72.* 5-C- ' I "-LZm 0 Rooms Below Grade -R-t:a�4 w, - W OAT ./n+ en -�U . N FIIIunctional Utility r+,vR Av6 -'i..ppn Av c .n.o w 6 Heating/Cooling C4H C/\ C/A �A toGarage/Carport ma, gi -2..(/ e r cro F, - . Porches,Patio, -CI S✓e,-. Z�' Ar' CI,rn-r-r� Pools,etc. �O +.03 Special Energy Ellieient Items Fireplace(s) I T-/P I"TIP r,,rnr, +2fv-An \�Il3 • Other(e.g.kitchen '�T.I'A-,--, -ELT. t r.L' oZr_r tIJ3 ._ Ln \Nt equip.,remodeling) Net Adj.(total) + r-<S 3C + ( S I,, ,, fT-* -i$ gc Indicated Value -I� {r�. lI I( of Subject I. _.._ J_ _ L IIII, s Zb loOC) I. I I. 1�_s� $---Too �. $ r. Comments on Sales Comparison: fb-L -bur et (avyys r n.+, snr,o rvE M.JI!")KI-1m4. cc.sr„'FA9iAu' t A n 2 6c7r1( `:t n,,i.AR. r_raic.,_ Ui r.,1 ALL. G4n'Tr, h'flAw.: -cAn, !AW.r= —d-AALCTN.. `t_r,ZE Nn.r.,.- rwi n.,,,Rr o--t- V i.k,l_ur I;r i.,C1c T7. .� Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ Z55OD as of 1/2/88 • Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value I_looe 1`(`^OC) 15Lo00 Building Value `,_,-c--:-.-_c-c' 5q(; 5--t _c-14-) Total EIDIV 72.fiM 7r- Appraiser: �,�,.‘._ -7-F.N; 1iEtVrJrPE.tJ Cou.Jry ASSESS ORi'O Arc tCZ 14Af3 'REV%Flr,)EO )/ALJE =6R 19gt. "lktc. I�-jRalsAl- W fas 44 7`.S Sop Appeal No: 35 Page 2 Photo of Subject y4 1 Building Sketch ,-. . . .ifgRt/ r •; •Dag 9 , . ✓ •°'6t.�`•. • • o/p/-sf4 Appeal No: 35 Page 3 • City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map ','''.7 1' 'I•i !rq� _ter - {. - - •—11 ([ • „$-.7 Air.. 0. "�-��_ h P `L! t w` ± 'II''' i'vr''y �I � j mitI CE ' ,F F. ; -{ � raja. 'f -� a� A i*�; �' Ifito ling- Y ., ,,4- ; � fit. � � 7:, 4 'N— L ., ...., _,, ,.... .ii,,,... . „,, I, 404 . , v-, r. I 1.) MI - 7'),,41: ' v-_-,'-- , i'c....-feo .;=1 — -r- T. ' I pi \ \ \ - Ilf.,/ ),71 —�Ta'll, raj I • . : H: r 1 • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review 2/- Appeal No: � Page 1 PID: O(o- (-‘ I '1 Owner: Address: I R 73 Cam n �C�.kE. Subject property was reinspected on 5 Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ B 9_ aQU . Owner A rees with new value. Value Being Ap�led Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value c7'7DOQ '700 / �70p0 Building Value IPr1'7Qo ('paaOU l�aaoo Total EMV 7 Q 0 gUoo Appraiser A4a(�e 6 1988- Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: ,-7 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: O _, - 1Llo- "2.2-Q3—IQ, Owner: GAY --"RE-YF'i°Lap Address: (lot so ?...E.Ywoclo ,}r-ZFttu-- ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE N0.1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO.3 {. Address _ lto't o Tnv--,--. 't cme- II,QAq s.sHaca� �na.� i. Proximity to Subject I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Hr 'z' Awnr C'&R n_S uiliM, ';,r-,K v.,5_'w'= IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS l`fta2rf' IIIIIHII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS 1 Cry IBM I IIIIII IIIIIIS I _4 Pie/Gf Price Liv.Area S w S -Z t t.o villlllllll)Ilflll�llllll s q.q rn w I J)J'J(J1 I I I s el q 01 IIIIII Illll If!Ili Data Source CF,V t^ V VALUE ADJUSTMENTS f„I DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION •1-IS Aanslmerx DESCRIPTION •I-IS narnimrm DESCRIPTION 1.1-ti Aaatarent olncessionsFinancing II IIIIIIIIIIII I 111111 I-I"OA /0 i - 1 -2200 r, Date of Sale/Time Location Gin 7-0Jry puraL -Errs Uo.L IS Site/View s,*mxn t . u`� "r- I .. t. - -2ccv) ,- • �' tt . `--1 2 .rLy ES Q Design and Appeal t s �(-.- It , '- Z Ouality of Construction E.,,p • gu-77.otni� -�cc-ea -� C� Age Ic+Ttn \4-3 p Condition AVM S Mlle 1 +8000 19(01- -fitKY� SIN'`- - JAL Tis -KrnK ' H Above Grade ;alai ,Bdmn, Bans but ,(imms. Barns total ,Bd•ms, Oaths bra ,OMms, Baths aRoom Count 4_ ' 2 ' I . . ' "" -Zcx) ,g '1 , I on , • f Gross Living Area 1?1L i Sq Ft. 2l R2 Sq.Ft - g? .) 1 t2-1J Sq Ft. --",cCc- \344 Sq.Ft 0 Basement A Finished <(y/ TV 44 V Rooms Below Grade �F -z -rt•�ec-y`t, / roc/ yN Functional Utility C.-IQ GD 131.71q.X.az+a +--ary-ri TcUml"K EiC J Heating/Cooling C-tD .-/ A a C/A C/A �� rx eJr n� C/ V) Garage/Carport 7 E, rrr 7 r, NTT ?E.; n-r-r '2_.-,.rarr Porches.Patio, -O K 5 -vv./FAT 5 pgTrO i-1501) Pools,etc. _ G.F �o<Y., S 7. - IN)Cit . -1- �l ! Special Energy N Efficient Items Fireplace(s) ZT71, '' '/pMill2--c IP Other(e.g.kitchen -t a i'-3 -'.• equip„remodeling) Net Adj.(total) IIIIIIIIIIIlIIhllhIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■ c III a'-- A• Indicated dSubjec Value III 111 II I I IIII I !.IIIIII II III 'S 1-Z4ZO '$ IIII ,IIIII� S 't3�..�, � �IN III IS ,(\n-Or t. Comments on Sales Comparison. awancr,-. -- -> OF +V'esmCr. S�- s�,rr � . �3-r_t•;-r—,:��arer ovr„u,. s....,.me•-,-le:r 3 ts,.N ra ':.vcw:rll 1,.T- ?,r- \-10,: NC. Ct.,, e.r1.,,o-rs `T„'Et< ht;F,.yr-u Tv+w . CLG...3:. -Raawv,,.. ,,.I TO,OKArt "mercer <",•O. SfwC; -> A NU,.--,,<ct_ ",...._sc )-11avt t-W<C:Kelk' I-cor- r.i,,r-. Ww.r.r«Ytr-7:fr4.1 rvsrruT rAt_cr i 2 (Sra-- n..r 7titr. Ss mT L ro,,.: . Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ 135,000 as of 1/2/88 Value Being.Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value ^,M 4-`zn04) 5 0CY) Building Value - iQ)r's 55'(YY 90lm Total ENV I '\)r n (?7(I1) 12r21 c(_) Appra i ser: 77.--nh`7 r-r,T Appeal No: -3 1 Page 2 Photo of Subject I 4. r 1 �+ r�•.j > „'A Y. T ,. ,. lti4.• 4 , ;„ ),I.K..4" Ii.._ ,,,,tt;'7, :',.."..„--,1,1‘,', '''',.. ' 14 :1 A�K 'LYE�. i,I'E 4` c • .' SFr: -, a ,s,, Building Sketch • • Y. i ,71 �(� 4 je 4.. 9 ° 6 9r« i /W. a .2, 7 \'4 za' ra.. \ 11y1 f —' '� 1.{,IL i; y 6 b I3 it, S . 11 Y= Appeal No: 31 Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map Ill , ii ilig.s,.,,114:-- F.:5,-..,---.:-J,. .. 1i' IF^ i y IPS ,iite N..i,� .r �i tx.�}`l��L'' ,_i ce , T: {� ' " �4 1�,tly r ` Eil,.?-..y ., ..,1,r—ci,\s, `,...4. _ '7 __7 ,, ,,..,,,yr--_,z,,,s,-.:,...4,,, pi .. --e,,,,. , ii t, 1,, , t 1 i ...... r.., 4is, < ''?:' t� �GL 1 l` 1 -'`¢ A +.ter. 4jr I �(i mu `e i � f i � , r� 7 •,-ter*Ci � ,,,, 14 ,'tq- i I . A� yr hr, ;� ' I r I }s - i ,ri I 147- L1 i. -5-: 1.: 1 1, -I "Tr ,;v 6 rl--Ti. ....",,i; r\' ';`,- ) 1- ,J., • • \T.-0 _i___ :LI":/.. i :7,...: rill,/,‘'11"3,. r°7'' ! -4 1-- -1. .- --'-•=1 WIP/(li-li clini.. __It ;I. 4-1„, 7 4 4',F,I i.._1. .., ,_ 'vs!' 1 7/) , 1 :di•--), r_.J= s •, 11 .-"o II 94 , 'i • l' i ( % 'Z''', — r _ 'i IF/ , 1 1 _ 1 .If/ . ., - / I 1 �`- •`ffc • ..• p i 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: - Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: a3-//6-.2a /4 cod/ Owner: 6y[2 4o% ./f,,.arr. Address: R94s- )4E.tF4104,_6'/{. + (tcv.L„ -,,,e-' tITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE N0.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 89L5 Rt[[t tut �3 /J -31 a3- ,r—37 .?a-/�F-5 e' { Address S9(,7 4Iu444n.GCvcL dG.0 8gs7 i/2Eu4../U ,.L !' Proximity to Subject 11111111111110111111 /it r'-df.e..,'/a 6(.slat_Aj e,f ..?d tw.e,,49u+t.7 4l.LGI e e u'-t) Sales Price S S'/63looa S 14e. Teo I s /a/o,oe- [ Price/Gross Liv.Area S GI S //a.g. Rl S Ave.89 R] IS gl 1111111 I, Data Source 0ALI CKt/ VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION •1-IS Aausrmem DESCRIPTION •bHS aarnimem DESCRIPTION •t-IS sown.' Sales or Financing ' ' p awL Concessions III I c t c cti -`13 0 0 (�i-rtu ,0 7, — B4a..�, Date of Sale/Time Z/H7 o O4'oO 6/96 0-6.2oo l /96 1-4:;oet Il Location Get,,,.et.Aari uc,,,,r:,�k - — 0-1.u., ..-...C� — frt r u j .od_ le Site/View /lam'?._ka_ 1/t.:d'ie..kc, — a r t/,';'k Ei,G r. — 1It Yr✓Ct — QDesign and Appeal L'C'.r n,,.ot- Clf..t,..,"n.-r: — ,U".t,.,4.4..i — yc, ee — . Quality of Construction'Ay - A A t/ Ar r - X o v — A4 ild Ail — ky �lllS mi ' Age / 9? le?sc — /qP4 -/oelc /W86 —/0e0 Condition edge-,L. '..1,+-.+. oa, _ ; ti Above Grade Total Bans. Barns blur :Bdrms: Oaths blur.'Bdims. Baths Total its. Baits Room Count a/ : / ) /%. ! : / )l'4. , /9.oco 4 ; / : ///.a 4 ; / : l/,t Gross Living Area /6y./ So.Ft. /'/a/+{ Sq.Fl. /7eo0 /,/,S-s/ S4 Ft. t/9r e00 /yl3a/ Sq Ft. Basement&Finished ‘a,..e.J^'Mr,.: '.,,,•.�,,.r,de 1y,,,x, Ile-e_v li ytl•0.;�19asL Rooms BebwGrade ,v64,vxrj t r.Ma's.y. • 'Jl,eyci,a.0 t3500 ,j„ea aA6n.a.h.t f G S o a f .et :wUG -t-/33O0 Functional Utility Heating/Cooling 9e.a - A.c ?J- -A,n — Ad. tza A-e — Garage/Carport ,J,ir e,.,e..,� Y?n N,:e�� �, __:948✓V d n —cu.., — 4r%4 /l c Porches,Patio, tIrdlt,v aaov .t.c. /4, op..... pet.,.Gaon ou.� +,.npr dv B Pools,etc. v a.p. .a,nu' .cp. /790` sw.k pn.L9 a —Ie 6 Zt Pw w-!a t —//O p Special Energy Efficient Items Fireplace(s) a — a — / taoeo • Other(e.g.kitchen equip.,remodeling) • Net Ad).(total) ! II S /6,a�o0 + --!S aa,900 ; + _S 31,6 eo � f._ I- I'I S I.III- • $ 9,46a III 1 11a /-1/,6co Indicated Value / of Subject /79 /�pp /G Comments on Sales Comparison _L! - p '. / / . i.. it Q.,/., ad_.;c ;,r r le{� cam{4, • fl.- ;,e,r/.. [C�}7r�4/ LL F 11 r w.f.', Vie r�c.,k 7jeW,jG. ./.., g /77s,ee0 Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ /7S,000 as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 4,,/urn _='6 c()o 34 000 Building Value //n c',mO l'y,oco L3Y.eo0 • Total ENV L7.✓or) /7_,c'm /7.5,0o0 Appraiser: LT ., ,.La`e_,,, -x,.11 cuai ye.on-xtsd fir, 9/.i",/977. (e., .Lt/eGe Gt?,y)/L`4�)Qe utk .e-,1.d. Asti,a1 /h.4.a(J f 4Ji •. -.- e-u LGl C- ✓/LJ AAal.te.a(�fi. "je1/ q/lL 7 0�6/�"lE• Appeal No: Page 2 Photo of Subject OPPII • Building Sketch �o . . .2 Jr . . . . . •.. .. pw�a . >d . yo !: 7] Appeal No: ,1637T— Page 3 • • City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map • 11.1_ fil .11, --.- t..,-,,,,,A j . le .- r - * TI ii . Illii-----E': `- • f ��� tka ' ,F l.. , l�W M 14i jc ��� �Ip ; " .1t14 YJ S z,...-.4_,-\, ommk Cti ° n1. b► 1 k� 1 fig, i�k ' ITilli:::141k , gni' I_ >.,. ,,,,,. I' w aft:,',I • `L UNPIN 01 -1 W „ k im1A�y r. , ,..,"....,,,,,,,,,14 , ,-(,,,„ ..ir,„ ...rill _ ., .. x ,.1L , _ L.,. . ..-,..„,,I, ,, .,A,,, III .; I i; ..� fir: � , ;fr:r,� i� �`1 F,•C t +, I- �. ''i i i i f r...1� �', L\ \�, '•' Comp 3 .,,,U s IR / , /-; C 1 ...� . . Gram" ` 1�y,��� /+?.•-. -try' ",A gi1',r _L--:_,I. ., ,,,,.., , ( .1 ?. -- i_. :‘,.. :tf-f-' - ' • ; _ ti._ ,i___ . __MI-v.', d ;0- ; • i li . -;� L • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: ..,I t- Page PIO: a3-,I4 -aa /4i Oa& Owner: Address: P96 7 }�✓1c,,l,:{i.1+_, �'/,a, Subject property was reinspected on 5/3/8$' . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be • $ NO,goo , Owner Agrees with value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 333eo :13300 33?cn Building Value /07',00 /07600 /07600 Total EMV 900 /4710, 900 /11o, Sao Appraiser L T 19B8 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: f /co/ Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: /7-//6 •.r,,3 /.5 0e,„71 Owner: /So-r ei. 71. 70a-n-it) • Address: POGA v-1c.,,,�cf,,J,X,,FC.,/le.w.:_. ) ITEM _ SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO I COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE N0.3 rn ,s-js /7- '-0 -3 7 /7- /� -19 Address ‹e6;Jim,;.4e,,k/t goer 10..ev,40, aye. � ,/ '� 1 Proximity to Subject 111111111[I�11lhIIillilll➢lIllll��p me.dA ed tiea -4rt.rar Itlr:.a �POC O3 a ry 8CG 7..inlr i (j� Sales Price $ ltllllii 111111111111�11fl$ 7r,c0O r a�"l js Price/Gross Liv.Area $ m$ Kc.07 vi1lD�1i1111➢(I!L'lli s �i.a•1:s7 0-1Eqi111II)1 fitllllisllf14111Illhllll(llllllS�s.�e o ( 4 Data Source t=k✓ c,�J []]�111�111111111(]i VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION ' N DESCRIPTION ��� (-IS A°;tmx"' DESCRa S. ? --i •ta5 an„stmrm + Sales or Financing � 1-js aalusimem r'; Concessions Ili �� II err.). 9%" — f a w Fa —LSO ee of p° a.,*leu...� —I8GP Date o1 Sale/Time 3/97 4.250 a } d7 d P7 .i. Location 9'a,..i. v SGn lfHF d. +-?80o a> +a�eo Site/View _ — 4- Design Design and Appeal /� '� —' el,.1k;,hi e.0 Akh —sec c.4 o1 Construction ef. Fa_/IR r� - /Ill/.06 — 4,/ NA�N..ra) A✓ — i Age /777 /'1-rc — /97% —�5co0 F.5 Ao-A8 w._Conddmnt_ — /9 7 7 -- _ Above Grade 1001 eem; firms~ toiai B°ims Baths GrrA :. • Total ;B^tms; Baths Total B°tms 11 Balls n Room Count T~3� a ter` a ; / "J0Oa 6, ; — — L 3 q 4 /O,a.{ So FI r/Z,moo /%•9G So Ft. — 96Y Sp Ft r/6,e'en "4 Basement8Finished Ldyc+k„r..r- G4./Leo•......,, G44a —'i' Rooms Below Grade .:2^'` 'dam- "•'^'•,.a-,e.ti the aP44 ts...••e. .t t3ao Ie1 ,.Lca la..,,a..rl Jt35 1;,,..4./ —' SG34 — .2 A.-.-...., te3azL ��/ ..a.a 44 Functional Utility '--'T -- —� y35 le,.iay..,; risen Heating/_Coding q_` —T - / y Garage/Carport a p- �"�-' Ad — 9n... i.C. (cd� .aCn..T.e<. n�V ___r_e..Tu-. — / '3 r Porches,Patio, ,•y.r.p^,,a sov op asa — '.'/ a°aa,S:v� — wa. aa.r yr .. u. — . Pools.etc deck aas6' d.,e ;c°v — ,t L ear _ ° k L03 — c d Special Energy — Gn k ilZ d- • — Ethaent Items •' Other(e g.kitchen -- — 34 oo a -,2 44 equip,remodeling) ,eCa�..vdq.d mat,._ f Avid-,.,,;1 4,l9fa •-AS,OOO :; Net Adl (total) 1[1117TT j;Ij�j; —1=�S .2 -so f+I1 1-'s n, Indicated Value ill 4 o_ + �"--__IS goo of Subject �,. I,i1,l 11`,I $ /a`/.2no Ili I I l .III , i s 97, roe I I I ryl Is 9N,A0O Comments on Sales Comparison (,.- ,//,9 /,o,°,3o Jr a., t _.,j i kei A-1'.� Q.., }� f°-e•'--lc, .,Grr t;ipaiEfJ! -a i-k, , -0 Slti• Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approacn $ q ,/oO as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value /ier^c / f L'2 72, (�vf, 'F Q,r Building Value �;;�� /7 ^ /t Total ENVn�; ! '/�-;E- Appraiser: �.T. ^ qti. //n /4 '"�. F Appeal No: ice,/ Page 2 Photo of Subject it • f tnJJ. . �p ryiillYY!'ir..a...1._..1. +rl..Y✓.._ - hrp� Building Sketch la I`__�->, ' • �F 4+ • i • a. f?.r E Ti� ay Appeal No: /op/ Page 3 City of Eden Prairie • Subject and Comr paables Location Map i+T / • qi n;��r evil- 1 < � • !���limpi i Subject Comp 1 s44 . 5 ,''16mL. _ 9-\- .41t r..____I ))11:;. . ,•'''' [1 1 1 -1:11::4 ‘11 —,.1:,-; ..1 4/1". --- ,;4.7,-...,..„ •••,_, 4.1;1 ••••••'•:----.„',.; _•,,,41. ' ' -'"4'7::. 1 :/:-e'. 1' ''' fl —1: l' '...1 r —- '11 I V ni .i-- ' ltr �i , . r 1/ IIadz: , �,( yl i �1 9 < - �' Sift, 1 T r •%-rf?'‘'' -'' '' '1-4'fL47r- : ' ,go )— �� 1 ' If -/ '1, a ,f' � ` , � pa ,'- • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /a,..? Page 1 PID: (93- i./c- aa- s'Q- oov Owner: n1„,-4 ira Address: Qpd y' fiZesrrv� B/„o' Subject property was reinspected on S_ia.ea Corrections to Mass Ap praisal indicate value should be reduced to $ Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation land Value 4 o p o 0 GO moo Go pop Building Value ,Q,-,y000 :.?o aaLQ Total EMV aGyoop a9000n Appraiser 7,4 Ms • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /ao:r Page.: Sales Comparison Approach PID: /':- v - y. . o3 Owner: m,,r. N,./•.rF,u Address: ,.;/,,;,, , ,,,, t .: ',,, SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 f ITEM COMPARABLE N0.2 • vd-43 9 v✓-,vCOMPARABLE Na 3 t Address P` i -q, y=• t NM MOO III ..99S En'.r cam% P,.a:c. n✓7 /c'%,-`.nr- l•.n s�C3 Fi<--,..,�[�,vc 1 Proximity to Subject Sales Price t Illllllllllllllll�ll�fflllflls "-"" _ ."" , *; _�;-_.-Price/Gross Ln.Area $ $ �� s� IIDI➢Il1IMIII(fff(Illlls II1!IIQlf 111 [Is o �I(Illft(� lllllfs 9 =' glide]hillS CZ]At llilhIIflIIIaili Data Source /- _/` c G 0I` F i VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION �IS r./ f DESCRIPTION .Hs Adustmem DESCRIPTION .Hs Ae•n,me,■ Gv'/I, Sales or Financing ilflll1111 II DESCRIPTION 1 t-ts AOusrmem Concessions Date of Sale/Time — /- /' 4 a 7 MI Location /r'c :,-c;/, r /in,, SiteNiew _ C. /' ,E�. 1 aDesign and Appeal �9�0 / E ./ e'„ Z Duality of Construction a,,, ,- �4�� e^^� d , . ii Age -a,— .F.....' p Condition — /"�3 /Se'',/ N Above Grade -•,,., iqy,•v� F Total .6O,ms. Bams bW amens, [laths P•e a /----...../ CC Room Count but Balm Baths Total Um Salts E Gross Living Area A.PF+7:<7:',:. -, : _ ;S.;Ft. /o ; .. S 4-, 8 , • c.r .R?9uSt t./,,. Sq. Basement 6 Finished '7,7' rn-- ,�,,,.. , ..,/,,,�., 4 Sq.a.Ft. mac, Below Grade _ ':o '�.._ e%- 4.4 �"' _ 'Ea^'' • i✓.:9 a Pa..• p� Functional Utility � _ .W• - aooi _ -• -- Rooms 7 Heating/Cooling •r A- G.,,,...,,,:4 E.Ss.,, o y�c/ Garage/Carport E. / ..-c«a+7,e 7.'�1 - .3ooc ?- a n' tru Porches,Patio, ..✓' l oa c:"- a .F e, ^car + Pools.etc. d A Special Energy ,, n.,n _ yn • a Efficient gems /in..r Freplace(s) - Fj.".: / F9,,a / E'... / .-7. 7, '-F� -,sao P Other(e.g.kitchen �f r „^r„ /-f� equip.,remodeling) // "'-' ' r Net Adj.(total) E. / E M 1 © + --s Indicated 1��11111111' I�II� .— � ' of Subject Comments on Sales Comparison: �, S F' . ,- $ �'yp Comments __K ales .. ' O cy c .r rain . - ,.-i./d >' Ca._� % So/ri r `2;c taco /o-BS. C..to+� ,; T,'.k.- Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ �,9/: OHO as of 1/2/88 • Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 0,nno /a o o • G.0,.....20 . Building Value ..::toy 0.o Ob c-7O a 7 cm,C2 Total EF1V e,G./ c1on _ 9n oar, .7G 74 4 Appraiser: Appeal No: /z„), Page Photo of Subject /41 � x I� s I Building Sketch ------ —ID / /OX/// c i/ r .33 /=3 G x8 � x rc> pet,k c 19 fl/ aL a (i✓r/9J <.:/arL v.]5,=/6/ NNN,Nty SS/ / ars // arc 3 a '9 CZ rc1 .ri t n off r o c — 9 OPGks 3r�ok = �aa2 rF/ Yo 3 r 9 Appeal No: /0o2 Page 5' City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map ; `C/el/ 71`j I ( I — \ ...411,-.P.c..4 mi''-' ail I..r;r7iiisawisr, i��_rpl� 'p�� ��AILIMP i�-! �erygr Isis €r���,rw.'� I ��v �rC.laFw 1M Fig' :i___ 1011,tilif 1)11%dd'; ."''*i. i.- 11-= , i. , I. -- It mi • S ‘ tillipli[11. 4 16.. Ali PI, ,,x „, ,.,,,, r 111/2..i0 ,, ,t �, =�_ t -sue _i�.: � _ r,-01111 p.'3r i ._ f :MIL� 1 k'i i. ,„leasompaaracaza=r ....., Fill rr _ ` ' Lii_ri:,:_,:s.,......,... , I,:::::a- B { �yti.+ Ft�C J,r L 4. ' ' (. *I I ►" \ °,� Subject• Tall/ -.pi i '1::--' 1 •-• - 14/64,v,,. .-:"' 1-'%. 11 We . ' / 1 41,I '• K , , .tli,e-' i illi' -. ���MIIIII\)tt !iii)pii ...—,L—.,• / \/ � I �` j ill f\ '�y�ir„,.. ( jl J. .... unki� .... 1' 1 e„--,,, ,H- \ ' j-r • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: i0n, Page 1 PID: as- //6- -'3 -ooa� Owner: Qr,ce Ei/ as« Address: sr �,.eff P/ace Subject property was reinspected on . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ „7ygo9,00 ()Lute,- 444,47ed 6� maj S-/2-98 14.1,404 , owner c.,rccm Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 7Sooc SooP 7s o00 Building Value /R99oo i7sFan 73 90 Total EMV aGsi yoo ho asaa 900 Appraiser - D vvPpo -r „ r F m m p p ool•, 0 p : a o a D y •^U c r m m m p 3 a m z z s - $ • 4/3 U 4/3g TO � Zz a �4..0. m m m r C `- C y rO \ m \ 1 1 Q • • O < 4 a -I, • m ' 3 a o o mm�\ m p^ n iU: jtf ^ m k ' m5. N. o 3 3, z II3 p�, Dm II w. v191 < \ / 1 m \ / a ".'-'-'-\\ E± / k Q\ 3 ..c I _ o ly \\� 4 u 111111111111 1a0 � 1/:/.t///4: Qli • vri It 4 V 9 < n r 3 ,en • a m m iu • y D D m m w = — l a _ 'a _ _ n n � � n m 1 � (� m < < p a < ° • ff < A___ c nn' 'n n g A m o_ • z ,► 3 - � Z m e o 3 8 , < < de - A v KJ n m 3 G D M 1 I a a U m h h NJ "ID n" P 'tNCk x t K n I,x '' x k k \� t \Ub ,,otg VXP4, I nr. uh a hnu� . yy) m v. t y 03I P CO U 11 1.1 0 19dd Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /Cep' Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: ad-//4-7A J.2 6a/9 Owner: t ue L,LL,,_/o,rj Address: ///6,0 LI.uA,, /, Pket.a. yy//e, ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.I COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE N0.3 Address ZtiuAi/G aY a�-o�x7 u.:{alao aN-2a -Col 4(MJay tr: .y s•�: a OIL/ 060 4,.6•y(k.l'l..i /"/bo(7,,.(,,,rn,n{_ P as ///(o Q...4,.uiy ,X.Y/�G Y4s 7 r Proximity to Subject �IIIIIIIIII(IIIf11111111I1[llU ,,t,, .2e*-d,1;: vx., 2 6,�e.-r'*�1 «,.:C 4 F Sales Price $ 4..E.G00 � Lxu L ' d ✓ .7 d,�i $G,7.900 ! $4a417 $ 58,yeo •.. Price/Gloss Liv.Area $ be 9S 0$ _5 8,77 Data Source CO✓ $ G9" S mR�RR�RO�1ffI _ �`le rf IK� �Qr/ Ilfll VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I .I.IS Aawvment DESCRIPTION ,' j •Hs aaixsimem DESCRIPTION Sales or Financing I I•(-I S Atlwsrmmr Concessions 1 'I �- -- /a _ • Date of Sale/Tune ///A7 L 4 In, % _ AQN Zi1s't — Location q a,-, 8 r-.C. — .J - 1��7 Site/View rh �� _ 6t a�s<d -- Design and Appeal ,tf� µl — 9 c— j..,_e — Quality of Construction d(-/ fld — Age 191 /9 ,1 8 /�_ — Av _— Condition •' $ -A-(Q� y//Oo 'r--`, 'in.°_=1, - Gs-.-rg 9°'°- Abave Grade bias Bd,ms, Oaths Total Odrms gains yy ^ Room Count --- bray BQms Oaths but Btlims, Oaths s; a A - a P — a/ ; / / #' 3co Gross Living Area /050•Sq Ft /e 70 •Sq.Ft. — =� ' 3 q•Ft Basement 8 Finished 7/3 Sq FI. '/'ig SOO ///3 Sq FL -�,!no Rooms Below Grade vya- Qf� t c- %•>�a' :(/, — Functional Utility _ '� Heating/Cooling � Garage/Carport wl — — • Porches.Patin, —�--�e 0 / 175 — Pcols.etc �1a,2eo go e- ,tc.�.te /0 3 eiac% rao 0 — H Special Energy -- _, _ fle.tcb lee _ Efficient Items FuepLvice(s) O -- Other(e g kitchen — O — equip.remodeling) Net Adl (total) 1 III UI + ,(1-:$ 8c o + Indicated Value J 1 I i I I'r ^-a lSfl{+n + -"_,$ Soo of Subject pQ ,I. I I j! II� ,j,ml II$ 4a./00 I Comments on Sales Comparison.. ..i/e_d I, us. s[t .1 a II i I . S�CS,,boo ij $ ,3'e� �0O - J. J .rt_:rkL J{�,1/'h cu'.,ts�-'f.�h a,,.d / u` r�ur,a'a.�u , a • l�u� a + ,cam c`u;,, �`yss_Par�Q2'ltiiv��.i' an Ya�fcr orr, Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach ,., /c --- $ as of 1/2/88 Value Being}ppealed Review Ap_ praisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value /9 Ooo Building Value 44.oc � G n�,, 7na1mK� . So/ram v Total ENV ;G, ^cU 1/o t.{Eaad ,=./Co Appraiser: LT- — Appeal No: /003 Page 2 Photo of Subject 14 T . �, 4 k. Ipd- Building •Sketch 4 deQ. Appeal No: /0o3 Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map • 1 fir I ! .. ., ( a . tSj \' - . _ I ;\r _ —. rr(( • '.y 81 LJl� s -r i r . s , _,., . '9; -)r-r:,,,--ii- g,Z4t.: , ii# s.21'...-1 • ,. '\I : r I°q� -`' � Ems. ' W� � � ��� r gip 0- �� it �: i .fl Iri- '• 1 1 � �— - L ;g / 1 i. r ivy. ;f'_ ,-_' .. 9�•,. iiii ; if 71, .� ' 11� `+ 4 i _ f„,- I:1.I;: + i • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 1004- Page 1 pm: 0=5 - 111.0 -22 -31 -0O t44, Owner: TDAN MOC-pprvAL-p Address: 17 p31 140NEy S L.A.Ni r. Subject property was reinspected on Appraisal indicate value should be R 135-t OD . Owner A reel with value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value -7 7n0A Q')3 NO C,41n.n�E Building Value 108700 (OR ct Total EMV 135Z00 am—(000) Appraiser d�rrL Z�NT • • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: Avts:_ Page 1 PID: o?s/-//C- -3 /9 Owner: � •� Pc Address: 3 d n' • Subject property was reinspected on y± `_gt , Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ __eyDOO Owner A rees with new value. • Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value Building Value s yva D -- 7.300� '73000 Total EMV 91�ooa Appraiser ZK - is • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /044, Page 1 PID: 7V- ///- Doao Owner: Doai:e/ /,Loess Address: 93 ver/a,I Tr Subject property was reinspected on f'-07G-9g . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ 9f'000 . Owner Agrees with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value ,751Soo Building Value 3 iron 734 ce 73000 Total EMV re) 7 900 00o gy16.4:70 Appraiser 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal Na: //fi(7 7 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: -0S- /Ito - a�. 3.3 0010 Owner: 1 )C\0,-QC c)(\Ica,A.12e. Address: 7740 1`1 QTt��"O -g , Pa ITEM SUBJECT i COMPARABLE NO.I COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 t_ 8 ja-� -aa 5, �_as-H3 7- -a ) Address /� 47'710At„441 (oily, kockr..,ts,.,r., kcl 17131 Itvtl2�v l r.AU. 1g175-ihYrrtn,A -C,.;1. .` Proximity to Subject I IIII III II IIIIII 111111 I' rn ,n,... .d Sales Price $ I 1 IIlll ILIl[s /'n c- 11111llf1111(Illillllllllls //o er o IIIIII111111i1IMEf /A,��-.00 f Price/Gross Liv.Areas 0 S RL.,- I oij iIDiiiI�j!IP1111II�s q 3..3o m1IIIIIIlI�IIIIII11ljJIIQ s 86.04 ol��1i11111llfl1111i1!1llI Data Source M1.S CRr lJCc m1`i c VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION CZ V K.l.. C G\v -IS.A, 1 IS I^M'^K^' DESCRIPTION r.r-IS saeuimem DESCRIPTION I.1s pousvrcm Sales or Financing 111111 IIIIII IIII ��s h. 1Concessions Se11er -(OC'C - Date of Sale/Time tt - Ph �y t t l -ai0U s147 -- 1a137 (pit./ ZIOo N Location ts?t I�, `¢ - 2 site/view k V c-r�_ - 0.4 e c. 0 - ' t\1/4� - .9^(iC Cr CY`Ck -4 Design and Appeal 11UCAa hvE,,n . — INIMIMMINEMIM Goc -, - Z Quality of Construction 4t>exL. — Z Age IIIEENIIIIIIIIIIIIEMIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIMIEZThIIIIKIMIMIMIIIIIIMENBIIIIMIINIIEIIIII Ati e i. — , p Condition ' •F.a(.4 , N Airove Grade — A-r c cu(te — Urns - Total °arms Baths Total •eons, earns Room Count km •Urns r Mans a jjj7 3 '13W1 13 Gross Living Area 3' Sq.Fl. I- t< S Ft I +HCCG q.Ft I 5 '3 1 j/y 7 Basement&Finished to idt,.3HtlA q //7' Sq.Ft.I +800� H�, �,Ft //GQ0 0 Rooms Below r.e�b.e 85s?fwaide¢. 3, -- ICllvtrr,,, 314BA. 1333Tclal oL. 11yy ic1n1 p, +BGCU W Functional Utility �- /IYc7bF.l �Q �(<CCp gbrclal Fw�BNI +I00(' a Heating/Cooling p/E IA c A 10 Garage/Carport ).Chl, Ali I FA 4-I- (` FA — e rat Afii — co AN — — Porches,Patio, P&L c.v a S.c 1 H y S F n'C'rt c rJ' fhv.., 1`1.1 St Pools,etc. 6,..eK Z 1]s G w, 1,5 S F +2000 6,,.K ,00s a C:+doC, Au.K�0'1 S.F. r. Special Energy -I-Set x. Efficient Items .. Fireplace(s) I ',J Other(e.g.kitchen + 100 U - / ) t l C O C P' equip.,remodeling) Net Adj.(total) 111 11 III 111001011 . + -'$ / <, Indicated Value I I I I + ug-'a / OD �j + -IS ' 500 • of Subject commems on Sales CompansI III I i.S /a/3C'O ill I III .II s /a5,5OO 11101111111111111111 S /90 00 ILlorkQ°.ta_.-Qn �a 0-'0'Qt,e- r..UA, rlc, ..I.n''4 i a-cZSco.• -.G I.. . Mo`,1- �`c.s_ ..ucw3i a4.-c.,C co. 1CL-vnP„1.. 1 «., ,z 3 s S _lbac, ,_L u1 Aa�,.n.'�a C Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ (6q() coo as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value <4?,Ice c .2k cc__ —fly) C.Q1 a r\c Building Value 9,3 7 C C 4�. on Total ENV //I7 .3CG 118 00 Appraiser: n_(k ss .(_(4tfp ) • Appeal No: i CO 7 Page 2 Photo of Subject t. 4. fll hl Building Sketch lax2E d.t4, °mac -T8 31 ij ti r` 7 9 a 78 SE. as � _ a* ✓o t at) • Appeal No: /CO'/ Page 3 • City of Eden Prairie. Subject and Comparables Location Map ',.k.,..„.„_,po..,.,... ,, ' or —2 si--q. ,, ,,. l ,.....„, . .__ . ., b. ,,,,,,,5„..- :,.,..„..4.,..!w. NI:-i,_11-,(4.)lirark.. ,.(..-.. VP '. k ' i.. ... ,-‘, ! , , iii i3M 'r.,`.T ', :fir, �> L W.l�:;`, 1 x,\ I� •.i •) T I r \\ ,l Ptv4u+i+:ca,' �� — 9[bti r 11 :�1 11 ai:q:',.,,,-,,,,,e../.;i5d„.,,•L-,,-' Jf i • r. v EL.111111 —yr r `. ; �cl . ',mot. ,.... ...,:,. .:„, ., , , ..crivilli,•-'"..&-A. .,i t_ I . ''' ,• '' I 11 -: -01,Y,id. ' r.'''-, .,..;',(A'CO v-, .r; �' (,..4, , i ��_.� 44,„, ,,.,11,/), ,-„-fit_ . _ 1 _VA ,J ---.. ,...-......1...-,, o / 1, "Ifr4.•-;',ir1,1_.; - _i I i s l i • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /oia Page 1 PID: - " S'C Owner: Address: 7 �, Subject property was reinspected on Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ • Owner A rees with value. Value Being_ qp_ pA eiled Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value — /P�nn� i93oo Building Value Total EMV Appraiser .as • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: .42/2 Page 1 PI : .15/-//G-aa- y3-© S7 Owner: fir.,. P �/, A..n r Address Subject property was reinspected on y-g-gR• Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ ,,,, __// oC Owner Agrees,with value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value Building Value 7//D a • Total EMV R:7 sOn Appraiser • • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 1013 Page 1 PID: Olo - I Ilo -'L2 -33 Pwor�gcY No. - UO I� Owner: "E�} -Riry Cow rRv -ri Address: '5 - 4S 14'Z AvE. W, Subject property was reinspected on 3 4 i5 . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ Owner A rees with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Aopraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value ZZ5 �lt„m _�► t�nn Building Value 141 ocp • 1254.00 Total EMV 1 l3 500 —100O 47 000 Appraiser ZsNT 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 1 o 13 Page 1 "PaOVEaTy NO. . PID: Ot, - ttly - 2'Z - 33 - 0071 Owner: -EL. R t iVe) CONSM.X.T1On) Address: (a 815 142 AVE. W. Subject property was reinspected on 5 Pd,j gg . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ 71000 . Owner Agrees with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 1'ZOp IOBoo 10 Soo Building Value 104300 ' L02.00 (00200 Total EMV Z0500 Z 1 OOn Z 1 OOb Appraiser r..Yr • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 1013 Page 1 PID: Ol, - Illo -Z2 -33 - 6o-18 Raaw�mcy No.3 Owner: fit_ -R�Nr Co,vSr. Address: (p trat 142.. gWE. W. Subject property was reinspected on 514`f 88 . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ 'C'Z`�nn Owner Agrees with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value I lZpo 108� IUBo Building Value (oG3OO Total EMV BOB(X) Appraiser oC C. ZgNr 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: inldr. Page 1 PIO: 35 - Ills -2"Z-2( -ooci n Owner: "1'1-10 vti,A..s \IV LS«rJ Address: 1 o2Tc, f lcc-E. Subject property was reinspected on 5/111 . Corrections to Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ 122cyb . Owner Agrees with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value -11-00 C 7 2 1-> Building Value qq4 - - q-noco q1C(200 Total EMV Q{kj I-1-2.om 122.{Xk0 Appraiser L ZwT 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 1015- Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: O3-I Ile-22,-41- o0o'4 Owner: -hovJc.�.p E. . LESuE 0• ELEKSkL Address: 131SZ. ('Apo t.su- C,ac _12,j fTEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Iit9L 1iZo0 1Az0 lii(oQa Address • YR r"[ii1- CNKDruAL CteEek 3 Ea.eeaar- GiaKE_ Cafsruo{Cxsaa' Proximity to Subject III II I II NI IIIIIIIIIIII Vt . wv.a KA_ V.1 • --• Sales Price MINI IIIIIIUMUs z t000 IIIIIQIIIIII Ill HUM z o0o IINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$ 24scxxJ it Price/Gross Leo.Area $ 0,s el .ao mHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIII'$ • .,-w czHUll111UUNlJ111111:s atz_.z_-{ 0IIIII111111111111111IIUII Data Source Cad elf-J/ CR-V VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I •I-IS AONsrmmr DESCRIPTION I •(-Is Adrysrmmr DESCRIPTION I•Hs know! Sales or Financing Concessions I IA v1l1F --- Kty43E NpA)E I Dale of Sale/Time i� 17/ . 10/P-1 -4'zLYb 9le-( rZ500 co Location �C?gyp o w FmutiA_ Fov?At_ H Sile/View G E,ereG +5txx) SocEo,ro -7r7-0 tc12. .L IyTr0 • Design and Appeal Edo-- Em,w Eit2LrenA_ TAJL ,-- Z Duality of Construction 0-{oEY[., GJJGt rrn�. -1 g_ -1� -4 — �W, O Age IcifiZ- 19$7- — IcI.5 - S lCt '1 - Ico. . Condition C,mp E4z, valued__iiOS- F EQ3,301_ Above Grade row •Wm t 6aiM local aarmt t Oaths Total Barms Baths torsi t iw+mt amM 4 Room Count q ;3 :lo{ 61 :4 1D-ci:x _- -T 1 :13-CZx cl : 4 :10-(Ye Gross Living Area at..-TL Sq.RI Z'7g4j Sq.Ft Z,3s-i Sq Ft. +ISZCO zAa� Sq.Ft. _ p Basement&Finished O Rooms Below Grade ISZLA,74 r-1-36=Ep-ao2 ."( emu -•3ACL) •vrep .-lEO WFunctional Utility &c t" 54.11i - ECQ.\.IOL EQUr4t-- a Healing/Cooling GLO..'C,,,2wr my p•ri EA:,UAL - EmM ok N Garage/Carport o r llt,0-mots, EQt_je,t.. Cali -1z !; Porches,Patio. (.oc A6cc._ • Pools.etc. 1.01,1 cp SuPEQrM - 1St30 EQuAt ,Tw>Fr-euyL 2_426 17 Special Energy J —" • Efficient Items 1..ZAJE.CO lJ E-Ql..xsc. E41AL Fyj.L. L. ( Fireplace(s) 4 �reiC/a ;y` T Other( kitchen equip.,remodeling) -iE-7 ate e-tele--• -S-ZTi Fiz uB'1a - Ecet_sAla_ 1` Nel Adj dotal) I I I 1 I-+ R-'S ICC) 1+ X'-'$ mil°JTE + -'$ as-OO 1. Indicated Value I 1 1 I '+ of Subject I ;5? 'Y•'L) I $Z IGC-) S Z-TU'-c-- Comments on Sales Comparison: ( fe,_ [`F-Mg LJAM143.E ar� cc-T1',b- <iJ - -� a C erJF F Th.1 1 cra.mr-A AND Sroac f]aa6 t;F 0004). 03 1 2TU4. ',Jor+crr A..0-1s.5E. ylarer c>o- l sbtiED_twass Ult -TW WLSfli2GFl11F SM1t s .4 rCC_ s` :�SUO:TETx-t,_Y1.Y_!]_. �7= co c le -- AS 1 'fEft=a=1 --tc-c>A4J9 WE= wrTu-TNE MELD t.muie.. AS ARa?(UEO Ar 4C3 x so&THE OrV LEL ) a*Pe1l4.<43.a., • Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ ZaS-K1Cr- as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recofmnendation Land Value L C(,YX) cc Building Value ZZ-7POO Zo79c0 P4,64,.44.40 Total ETV ZEC7PCp Z5119On 2.510CX.) Appraiser: ''Wg�? 44- Cu>A v 5 Abr't F I El> AAA) RCa1REE- TO - E>> IJRLU Appeal No: I D t.5 Page 2 Photo of Subject ..:. 1,,:y+ '•t om'.• � ':�+t*Vkii. • .tea; ,tom" g ��r 's,yr.r: - / I i Building Sketch 5.�. . . yS 45r24 . . . ': : tot to ' ' � . . �11 1512, go. . . . . _ c..L -4 • 4 • l.i L✓.c i(4r4:t) 5 - a 4 ...� ...t...o • • I 4 4 PL. Lrlp a t4 La .4 yCyn 4 v 14 1'78 Le e v..r_b.ce — 4-.. Y 44 v 14 2.....yL..., vIV 43Z --t. •:-----^i-,a 7-7-- .v---.4. --e \. taw** 4.v4 L,..7.,;, ly - L� e,o..� . . Y� E aM b l r4 t4 VW C.oca t4 ...__ • �4 • Appeal No: 1015 Page 3 City of Eden Prairie• Subject and Comparables Location Map a7 .. .._:Lod. . .. .., Sul . : �„ d_A-izor 3: p,9.i -. 1 „,.-l.l:.„ : . 15!,' .4,�k,w ' -\`.8. ham. .1„ \a�\f!+�7 ti�i� 1 N- 'ail, , -,4,,,,t,.., .,„._ ...,_ -,,. . :rt,'mithIL--, S *.° Ar vim,11 '4\fij 0, _ ,..„ a- • . ,fr<.- ' lik' P.Iii ,-1.0k.. ,, 4 I;j rilemajd ,o. „LI:,. JO .. IP _ ...."--,Iiipt.'1':::,,, ;rod*. . r'r min f i-91- ,"\:.%411111111‘on 1 G=; mNM a .mot:• `a , ir :� � . I" : I + ,Iy►. — f. -_. / .-°°. iI NI., . • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: I(. /{o Page 1 PIO: OS - 11(p— a � 1 DO ►3 Owner: J .yv ouN Address: 1l0t70 �1 �RaQtto Subject property was reinspected on 5 4/418 ._.__ Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be 11111111111$ 22 b CU . Owner A reel with .� value. Value Beino Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value a3000 c9getiO Building Value 7,q1000 8 oOU Total EMV /Op //0/0710 Appraiser ectobtutt_ �i • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /D/S Page 1 PIO: - - - 3/- Owner: ,ef 3 Address: �v d Subject property was reinspected on _ 5_t gam. Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ liar_ Owner Agreel with new value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value Building Value 9s�Doo �'/Sbo 7s�s—o 0 Total EMV /35�ooq Appraiser 7�:,s 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 1014:1 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: 03 - 11to-ZZ-U3 - Oo1i Owner: -DgU10 Yti'troar) Address: (cell ZWpp121DcE. (2,1) REM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO I 55 l.8'tl 1°ZZS ,- COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 i. Address �9g5 �] 13Zoo P. Proximity to Subject 'IIIMIW�4.H� CA.nA,.i+tn�Cxr. oL ad. �d-yubnraelc- 1-tnre ('nr�i..n„P CnaatC-E4 if Sales Price S 28SCC10 III���I $Z oGb Yt ..alo Price/Gross Liv.Area S (p S • R] S 3'�SC-7Co S LS`(pO0 'r' Data Source am "l`dQy CQ,/ S IZI.�i,S' Q] III)' S �,, p QI 1-1 VALUE ADJUSTMENTS RIP ,y DESCRIPTION •(-lS Adius.eer �~ C�� µI DESCRIPTION .plS admumem Sales or Financing I I``I SaaOara. DESCRIPTION I••1-ls aaaarmrm Concessions ill I[I 011 III Z000 t 35 Date of Sale/Time 9 4�Ti _ ZOO ow '-'133S- F tis N Location C¢u� �q'lx' +Zlrxp 4/$-E S.31,000 ,yE4PS M Site/ViewotionU^ 'C, EGA EQocu_. EQ0 _ Gopo Surpice. -lorc, Z _- R -Sc -t SeuY• Design and Appeal EreF.usrrr rOcJA�- S-a•N; .A -Vicar, Etwi _Duality of Construction Evice t a cur , Et?utn_ __ S.3PFe_trIL -34'77' EZu> — ng Age 1c1�3 19 RI A- Ictc,- - L q{n 19RZ, +ZSCpzp Condition 4Uo0 � Abode Grade �Qu� EQs.IA`. CC tool ,Bdrms, Barns roue Bdrms• Bams �'Qm,• B t Room Count IU tool Berms Urn roar Barmz Bans 4 Gross Contg Area µ :� CI ' 5 '14 9 ;L ;-- a` --- 33T10 Set Ft 1Z.. Sq.Ft. -. t3 ,p0 g a 9 I SO rt �loOGip 21Oa s.Ft ;Jrtns , co Basement E.Finished 0 Rooms Below Grade 14t�Z rot moos +ZIb0.o 1.oa� —11 Sb° 1tt11 11C Functional Utility Goo 11YIo 96F T�0 Healing/Cooling E�IaAL E uAt_ GrA-cturaq-Cla m�,ar_ EQ"o1`Garage/Carport � ,� .i�ai Frsr tnL --� urnr`. EQUAL t` Porches,Patio, sub..Qr+.L ----- -JtpL Pc_k.etc. -i;�.g 8 6Gb�0.t Special Energy + � rti�'R•IeYZ. a•1.1LlG�l _ Efficient Items 'lit VefCA E4.Uo.L Fueplace(s) 1rQ' l_ �-" EQUAL- .. I Ey 7-400➢ .S.)We • Other leg.kitchen `� -ia -- 4- Hopp Tp-1 +Z3�' equip,remodeling) UELl-&Q3P SuPere.torz_ -Z .�'. Net Adj(total) -�'� -- _.�U�R1p2. -7��Y1 ��ICp -�b �,�r + S � + S Indicated Value it 'n r 19 �- �g5orJ i�� I i��i!!I I III���s3ta + s �Z3ao of subject I I� Commend on Sales Comparison. /�� 300 .II,I I I s 3L55oo li s 3z9300 SoaspaanaF 1r,2_ _IN pi EipacUrs Sutl 4►45 BEFd�Sactly_n F�R,•grto.� C.A. IO/P �. IUE: liars+ u w.«+ • acTv,•Pano. fU rxZ-- tip $C>'1i+..Coh.P._ik(SLz wrt+(�nao, ^-—,� c,>s - Pelt watxD Fd,a.,t_BEaa s 1 Icc,.,: n. - CLruGdo,aa F Alo ( QNo 7 Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ 3zt006 as of 1/2/88 Value Beino Appealed Review Ap__praisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 5a000 z1 1Up _ - Building Value Z5Total ENVZ 1 Z1� L•^ctta+x.E 3cq 1c0 3UD Appraiser: I22e 3C t lao c�vac.E Appeal No: IO l9 Page 2 Photo of Subject --------------------- i. L\ .f ili .W. 15` ...�e4t if i \. • Z•.`, ram. Building Sketch ivi, .v 'Gvlz 16 'i0v4Z '1,34 eZvl a .ie. :.. .. : •• .• . , .• ' 4 d Ye 14 vlj " •• Ievlefla'^ 1.5 t. I,, boil : G4 . • Io .. It. p• 1 I+ ,:w . it Ye 1, a) z.. n.ck 5,4 . .. :a r., •r ,v — I� .5� 5r4 17 le I �=Mp�. , d L U 16 ,I IL /0 . YG 4 tI 4. Z. • It I It 4. 8// '1Z 10 ire ;° Z I'� Zit . �' II IL It • , . .. • 4 r0 .4 JL I. b . lz . . :: .. : :''. 41 ys l i. 1T y I' Appeal No: 1,01c1 Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map • ;17 / 7Pj , if �{�`�� metl `� II 1 �/r,� � 0�-0 $UbjC� 4`"� !� :a�y��=• 1`a (T1�. Il ' C .r .I, �. S Y { _ IV , ------ — -. ,-,-E-- F.', , Illiamie —46.: —__<47.:1"—L.. ,_, - s k - isi.. .,, rr. , ,,s.„.„7„,...4...: , , , , ..., ,../., , 0 — r . . .,„ __, , , , • it1v '{ sy f `� � • �' Cr—I ft I 4 I.1 n 9 � '41 e 1 r_ � � ;•,_ j•1-; - I_ ,"tj Iry , - ,,, 1< nr dl f. 1� -`�� -I I- Fad �` 11 :..4:4„,..3.„.lek,A:)..:‘----H___1, /- 4. . t,,,1 .--------.-r. i _ 1- _, :. _ _ • _-_— -__1__:A..).. — 4 t•,-,. h.4 i? 1,____ .'g 1up1.-141 1 , J r ;4 1\ J 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Ai/peal No: /c20 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: 04-116-22 44 0007 Owner: Jeffrey Lukens Address:6824 Jeremy Court ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE N0.3 c9-rr� .-r:r y3 ccalo o5-'/ -.aa y3 CCa9 0•1-//4.-z2 43 ecd7 Address 68a'1 ,.,at,'} 44dc✓a-.,d ,„Cro-..(. /BSao Gi..4,c/rc_ hell /d T Plozlmity to Subject IIIIIIIIWlluu114ylUlilll y,n.�, � �� � � / , fi Sales Price $ 1111I11]1TIIIhII[II11Dllllls a ,/. IIII MI II MI! s.':4,aco II I II I IIIIIIlls,7asecn 1 Price/Gross Liv,Area $ w$ 8,,/, 011IIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIII$ d6 88 0IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S qv.to 011111111011111111 Oata Source dK✓ C.e v c,w VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION OESCRIP DON •I•Is/Jew. DESCRIPTION •Hs AJ„stmen DESCRIPTION I.t-0S Ad tr nancing �I ConcessionsSalesorFi I_II[l OII I Ca./A, — Pmw 9..5 7, — Cen,u. re.7s 9 — c ,,, Date of Sale/Time Cc/g7 4-a/9co '/g7 t qSeo 8/87 +.78ee iiiiN Location ."..e..L CI-0,-rt., — 9"-',/ — g,,.-ei Site/View �� —?Ate"-, g n""" — Qso-u. :1 Design and Appeal ?iW.ts.qbe-JJG VI s.tt pcM'.- — .4,, 1".•1_ 0LL...1e r+1... Z OualdyofConsnuction /13 Ac1Au/eExa_ A,,!. A'er.r/.fnf,.t,* — q,g `NeNI,.'AEr= — q3 rrdAvipEAC — Z Age lq°S /9fl3 f.?e^e /9ii.: +'3coo /9?7 —aooc 0 Condd,on _ c.,,,.,/. 9n',Si- — a-o-c•�f_ q VI _ — e'.•.G — Above Grade blal •BOrms: Oaths Wall Bons, Baths TUUI .OOrms• Baths Total .Woos. Bann 4 4Room Count 9 : :.i'/a. 9' 4 :.%%7 9 : 4 : ..Q'/2 a ,-. ;.g'/a OGross Living Area .3$77 Sq.Ft ,1 AS3 So Ft. —//r,coe .2744 SQ.Ft. —/a,7CC a?bo SQ.Fl. t/f,6 cc Basement 8 Finished 1.24,1 m 4Aa-.•.h ,sir 3 da...,., —a pe0 /4 re r} daa....A _3„,Co rd•F8 .sa..,.a. U Rooms Below Grade /°Cb`}f`"""A1- 'its-ate'-'.' ,a,,,.Lvee.,.n r'e.o,�,A.o sect, +zdoe :l FunctionalUldity _a ""''� �9a l a.+A-A t-dgon mi Heating/Cooling 7,.,-- A-�. a A,d' — `. J 0 Garage/Carport ..,pfla ,•r,a.t. 7'1(V .1 Oct, —��, nr ({ c 44- A — �� Porches,Patio, o-ppa.A.rJ t+ .�p,, ._ ;:y — 3seo 7,p�+ 3nu —32oo abo 3oa —G too nC.el pew.. 4'"tf Qa..4 rn„A,ad9 —I d aC Au'`Yi°"Frn..k, r yeo °pc.pn....l� y:t .- 4. Pcols.etc. QUA 3cI ��Y�..4 ."9n3 ./1...-'J",.4.r9:`a —a7e,6 Aa g4..dFv.,k. ..—ySCO a t * 6c0 Rt,r rwc,d fAnnn LCacra/34 r Special Energy t 9te Ellx;ient Items Fneplace(s) A a — / s`.?oo0 / f Other(eg kitchen '?OC^ equip.,remodeling) 4.- Nel Adj,(total) I ( il-+ -.$ ,2c0 + —'_TS /2,200 FT] + -----:s 32,0oz Indcated Value of Subject s 3�,aco J J. Id $.?38,3Oo S.237,&et" Comments on Sales Comparison:_ tin ,,• e_ 4-s, !r lie.,,i,i.a.�P �,.n f r r t., Cu 4,/n r, x1/ ./yLJ.,t �74...? 4/11le i 7,l,e r t'j '"f d.4n('. ✓ it 0' 0 Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value of,ce^n ,,/p,con a4a ,✓" Building Value /73, ' ,., /F6„Ao0 7/n i:A,/k f Total Eh111 ..c/, ,/r„ a ,/,aon %Lit ci./a,.,-e- Appraiser: 1-7- Appeal No: /o,�o Page 2 Photo of Subject • '� + ° fir • 'C?"?; 1� 5 ,cfF)� • Building Sketch / \ /13 wo ac / IL 93 scw. b N / Ranh trw;I, 3f 11 Wo'Dr, II B 2 i 13 32 22 lacer, maw. ad, 9 Appeal No: /D,go Page 3 City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map .__ INIFIL...„ , 13- ,ri-A- 10.4,440 "1' ' k'll,„ 1111 L ki,i_, IP, .--di'Q, :. :1,,, r II:.,,-,-.i.', -..: wititro„,v,1*. 17 'ir-7,, ' i.. -kill "I.09..„41._ ria. - ; Fig r NI-,' HP -itrimir-.,,NO 1.,•"2 . 4:::, ' 1 .1‘, ' zik71111iirtro i 'Ikik?(`4-; ,!.' . trill., % f#10.. - !"IA 3$,-44:Intt mail ii ' -, r ,, - _,_,........T . . , i .,. „... , .1, yre004 0 , • A • `• I G,_j ,.. Mil'. �>�I. _-1 `�i qt,v. . , - -.0.2;.si% op �!)i .. 4 ,r,.-- j- t,•,'. , "Jo �/' } . 4 - l ' -(‘ r ,, ,...k,,,,, or 4�- A-J... 1vN% w : ' :...„,,,,,9Q, , ,,, 1., T .1 ---7 _. - -<,. 57.1tispx:3 - i i n',,,..,,,,&tvit."..,,, j ,,,v_i* -4, \-,,fr.„--, • Y ::, ; ... l�, ___•-__ 5 . 1 1y(// n —IIIIII ;y, �, /t4 ..A- ' tip _„.... ,, i ,,rir- --,-__-- '',', • , - -- .-- , i, i L1.1 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /O I Page 1 PI O: DI—///,—9/2 c / 6rOP) Owner: �d/e, ,4 r, 7e: Address: l� U/ (�f1 S/ OesT ^4;;., y Subject property was reinspected on y9'4/,{',j . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ JV�tirt . Sae. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value 60,(�L'D In4 Z, ' °�F--fo Building Value 4516a /33906 , Total EMV /9- 666 /9 ) /93,66& Appraiser Sfet, t,ie(/ �PrJ fa.% � i ,(,'C'f e J • m X 1 y m -I D y t.N I-.n 0 0 r r -. 0 V D 2 . m n A Cr..001313100 D m > A 0 0.n 1 £ D Z r-1rn.'_ am 00 GI X O D- O m In m n 1-.o rn D m D-i O D 'O m y Om .n A A 7C 1X T_GI 2-1 r > A Inn -1m y y 1 D U1DAA0• D O 5�� 0 \ODD o 0 DC'V.> O m -A-1 0 ml9-. I�\o 1 n Z<r Z<o '�< Z< Z< Z< > G7 GI m i A n0 Gino O m a 0 m o m O m I 11 I .23 CO y O O C 00 y y y y y I I I IT,{ 1 V �A O 3 m33 N m< ��•-•n N.-• N N _ O UI in CA N.�• N ZI n a 1 -}---- q, r m V Ta GI m mn orn m 4 DiN«• n I (7ri ►.U1 o><o x T 0 2 n c 01Hm 0 n T <Q 0 C+1 D<T r a C1 rnz I�� 0'V A A A O I T y y"n D<m X £ < o X n D rn 0-i.r0-i Tf OMm*n D p �N GI r o I. n 2 1-I'A T A A<m A •`a m m Z M a.-.O m y D r n r�i O n O A O Z 0 <<r n n I-I C1 GI r 2 1�1 by rn -1 F I m RI 11 D►I A m 0 nl• In 11-1i . a-n N <A I I 11 m 0 1 D 1 0 Q^ Q` p n O A 11 I O r ` ,\ i v a m Z 1 1 1 0 m 1�(] ...r. m D �` s o• C I 1 " r .-N• - 4 yrw N.. o rw N... ~IA yl I4 x J (-1 D V 2Z0n1 O2 V U•Xmm OI-.>£V 0GI02£y'0 �y000 a D 1mm• • IN 7 V OQr -1-00.-. A -i r0 m0-i13m 0 .I AANAO T CO n C1 D-1 Afn 2y-00-1A 0 SDZ 1OCHX 0-0£0 Ayn '+1 A N1-IN• • • C rn n nn InC• ono O myn>on n 1 .y}.y.I*00n 10 C 3 D I-4 A D C m£m-I 2 A r Z O -n A O A r 0 X m -42 m O .r rn a rn Z1 n 2rn Z DDD r •+ Z DOAm D yy -re T 0 A GTn 1 OCZ my Aar Do 11.-.A AA O **I- -I M D mrZ0Z I m2mrnm -{ m3n1 ml2i.2 t.n 09y£yl 0 (a-I m A>-n rXXI Dr-I XIS 1 Am DDD Z A.r O-"GIO 1A•-l09 A \ 0 13010-nC A D M 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 A GIGIA< 2 rn m 0 C D r 0�n D 2401 I I I I I 1 '-'n' Gl Arr Dm mnm0r PEE' m X% D-4 N. rrn o ` N•-O'.p W.•• O 1 m<A AD r Z ' O�O rn � 'Oily y r men 0 �WN - ^�.`�\D Al V yd,wN. ZWN m �IQ'y1 rwN y G*YAr co N.-• _ T73y "—'"'.57 o 1 Z O^yVn 1 om m#Im- St CyA y 0ItD oa> L9aa ya r-in < m« m<w 2U0— O .... D i n Z 00 m 0 O A 3 a .n mom r m O m r m o �'m m m 9 V C r- D m A 0 A<r O A<-0 1 Z m CI O DZ nz1 ACI AD D A m A 2 EDmrn EDrnr- Crn G9 2 O V A 7C 2 Gf 2 y D n n A I-1 < 1A N.m GI n GI A 0 0 rnr m 2T vam 7[ -1 0Z1. 21 .. amal >Inn DC 01 CA-I.-. C1 Or Dr 000 73 > n0 + '« CO1 I0y GI < <A < <W m In T m Om D Z 0 I-4A 12 RI In h. m .n DIGl yy mA GIin01 A A0 A A .y •• j 0 y "•�0 < 1 S RIA D D a D a GI may`' 0 DI 1y< m CI m fOt1 m 2 W Nr N.-. O • • • - WN.-• W IV D. 00 n a AGIf Z0m<O A aD D '0 mA D V'n>A m m m S A Z v 1 m m n o Z N. aSa A�>OZ(AA a Dnm ra '^ p v ./�0.'Vl Q y 6�1 Z 0 1 n.1•.0 r1., \ C 1 CO `) �1 10`N. i-iC FT A`m • m n7 m2GZ CA cr•I14m 1 X ry rn se. A A°o Q1 < A 1 m 0 XI n D �� N • m(4 Z m �' AI 7C 17-n In H( 0 V fl m LI 1 0 m ///'''111... Z HH n -1I-I M Z0 m 0 W •••m 1 m D W N r.n ..'Z.' '11 n n < D Z< Z y rn ' 1'0 IP m < < m CO T _ fT+1({��1 D A Xi 'n rn T A A 'n m y `4.y I ci Cl N y m C. .T I". rn Al en ,I�!�\r- i'`\� ni I� Al X J..p\ y m I• s m o � n hd� 0 c i ^I .1. y A= 0 0 m` 1 2 a 1 ter- __-:- '-- --�-•----• �o �^_�-11� _ f. _,.._.-- - .__ flew �.f,�o4f;'1y'- �--- - 4a-- _ ._•__� r_ L 1 - , t. . ._ ,_ • . 1-,..i.:-:,.. -.7-, ::-.--*-- MARKET APPROACH Bldg. Land Price Sales Address Date Size Age Area Price Terms Per Sq. Ft. 1 s -t,Yw.% Nyo.-/-/Cj city 5/LF tit ,.4q3,>a.�.6t' - 6543 2 SO / . ez q ;y _. i 24,Son cc 19�/s;37 !l'�D1 t i 1i 3 o E. 19G 7� ., .�;ae1`4t/6 644,0,41-Atwy 2X S f __-. S 6,1.<t 969 /*/07,_ ,3 V 7quare Foott doe{ x pp,ao Per Sq.Ft,. c/OD )�/f441.15/0,,... 45' Gross Income x GRM = .Jq�r i09.D"J VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $Jos-V o Cost Approach: Replacement Cost a0.sle SS.ov $ ( yo.sb Less: Depreciation JZ/te- ',h -./ Depreciated Value of Building L$ /45 yam, Land Value (Site Value)E //9.5:3s11.5°_�.+y6S + S9e01) VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH $a09, OD Net Income Capitalization Approach f / 100% Potential Gross Income @ (Actua / conomic $aDSS/O -,/1i"Un",korr"y Less: Vacancy & Credit Loss /D % - ,”5-5X 164../e,_ LL Effective Gross Income $/ktlk(., -„tu, �4„z� Less: Expenses / Management 52 er- 1P,gy41,1,�° `!, Utilities, Repairs, Reserves, etc. before taxes / Total Expenses }_ het-4, - rjdW 4.-Fos,.), Net Income Before Taxes 6o..04 $ /yam 1 Capitalization Rate (1O %) + Tax Rate ( %) + "662, % VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS $ /VSG,U Correlated Estimate of Value:Land (,O,Prr Bld,eeg. /33�ant) TOTAL $f' a� Value Estimate is fo � -y 2, 19 — € �J- - Date of Appraisal ccYY�b'''' r •h/C 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /Qqc% Page 1 PID: /' -u/4- 01-- P-0_ Cirt/ ,1-109)-/ --O090- Owner: No, OUGbcQ' 64S [moo , Address: Ode) J/J j/ Ird-e_ Subject property was reinspected on CjsY/(fO , Mass Appraisal card is attached for your information. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation civil cAbli ooa - 019 COI 0002-1- 040i9 ,oa/ Go Land value $ iOO 11S1/:'o IS'15o0 %oJJpre #e/BGO I8crt ' rev "/.ICU`' Building Value o11306 -- 40 — aftmv Total EMV ga-6 76000 .5�''5o0 g�OO aOtY6 S( .'p6 'Nero f (atio Appraiser Sit- Sir/ I 49pL't( ,Ua.' /aaa rfAdZ 01 m n , Vielrn )Xl V >U1 n N 1-.i.[] T r y n a .,. b 2 UI rn Ui fm11 (^ n C Cr---I rn n A m A A + in D Z O O ➢rn Z O A y 0 n�mbtiz GI X A Z c D A m 11 to N i D to b A A Gl•(il x j 0 ��1r1 I. A m E .y m r0 r rn NOr-nil 2 rn A r,. 1 m A w ZZi b. A m Z b 1 a \`rn A K m Z Z Z K .mo o _ m Z v A (4 O m n O m O m O m O rn O m > 1 '1 rn 1 A " O n 0 Uf A VI N N N 1 1 1 1 I I 0 '-1 .Ta1 3 Z m H rn N.-.n N.-. N... N.. L" �`� O (/1 A y K N.-. N..,. a m K Z �• • I .) ' �. 0 .. • .,Hn• -n DGIm mn Srnm rm XIm0(Xl ni0 xoC OwN... n ^ N xci• AAOm mt5l1nZn 7X G1 m2 F, Q\ CA0 1. niZ n-ia1O-1 Onn. E A O n-nZ1-IA m tANm ZT r-I ry0 Nrn mA0 <K n 1rrS rC rn m I l b A rnrn VI H-i DI IrD nx M KA 1 1 1 1 -1biin O A 1 1 1Z I IIZmrnom r N wwlYto .. .-V1 Vi M N N N N < N D V 2 ZG)T Ox mtA S mm 0.-1 Dxl to 2EN.• A -ymm. -I a>[Sn 00 r -1 Z• 01-I A -1 r0m O-1 A n1 (AOnfAA 0 A SSnN A0T[9 0G1a-I Am xtn . 0-1A O 2aZ-10C H X 0SEfStnn C• 0 n o 0 In Ul0 Da nn-1 tiA00 m-10 cx b IC-1 ADCInT_m.n-Ix 13 r SO -n ,ScSr nxm xrn0:_ftm Z A s=n Ti n =m Z D b b r 1-I Z 1 n 0 A m 1 O n Z m N A b Mn 0 I -1-a]SAO it Snip 1aH b --I22 P.T (4 -1 nlr n I m mrnrn' -1 m bn /.1 .y n a '�T rSn Ar-1X O I Am A bn._ A .4 O Gt0 O A-10 Sn m O bm A A n 1-I I I 1 I I I G) A 0C1 A< 2 m m O C 'A wAwnmC A >Gl-1 11 1 1 1 1 Cl Mr r b In m n iO( 1. 27OA n n rin O ( N.+O-F W... 0 m<A An r -I E M• (Z)3II m O U f(A m N C r • rn 0 W IV.-M D m r ~ A r Z m N VI 1s N r C,W N.+ V 0)to C`W N u. P V1 rIA N.-• XXXXX 1111.1•• -■• -m.. !7 -n �..�_N I- \tA bCOAftm Dft CUf A N 01O\� A 0 PI 0 A -1:'in m r- A n ft A m s m -1 C' ma -1;J-1 ZOO m00 A n m mom m m 3N0� n 00 b in _n an~TA GI DT A D-0 -0 A r D mA O •O<r E V ti3m x 0013 A.... < A N\m E mn E r Cma i A a O m r m`A m Sn b p N n n A _I n a a m in -1 A A x D D Sn A C N C O D73 m O00 AAb n0 rr Z H H C• H m 0N0 mym m r Uf a rnnm m7 Cl ONN Z A CII.10-n A An A -. n O •< N Na K -1 XIA ' O Z CA cii H -1 N K m m r m 0 m 4Zl IV.r m W N- m K E 3 W I,.r 0.)r 3 INW I-1 `NN T b D n D 1 A n Z O m<CI A - I m A D m Sn Sn>A m ca PI m S A \ 1 z 3 A-1 in T n• D O Z >'. \ Ain bCi N A DA A Z C �. � m H - 1-I to D -1 A n m r C A �� A 01 Z A -1!l tain-I1-I r 1Z 0 A Q — < A r •m m 0 0m._ m DN mD FF \(((���-C��� - iG1N(nO X r AA G t, 0 r Z O X Z m m 7. ci = FO }� 3 A A Z 1 A v n y -I o m_ N m nn K D Z 3 m �0mmm Km < rnfAmm K� AZ' ( N m m H H Z m UZ) m m Z D A A A T V m A A A T V O p , _ r N Sn r m mm m A o Q O O 1,-1 0 p�\ AZ V n 0 z m G, H A • (a N N n • • 1 - r„( A big- Y (e3 r , - t - — ..�. L_ _-mot .l.. - MARKET APPROACH Bldg. Land Price Sales Address Date Size Age Area Price Terms Per Sq. Ft. 1 2 3 4 Square Foot x _ Per Sq.Ft. _ Gross Income x GRM = VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $ Cost Approach: Replacement Cost $ Less: Depreciation -.ezi Value of Build/ing / Land Value (Site�d1ue)Aki— a,SdD� ,36s,7,_ VALUE BY THE APPROACH 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 ( %) 4 % VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS $ Q�w Correlated Estimate of Value:Land at?) Bldg. —� TOTAL $ ead Value Estimate is for J/fyg2, 19 d �Q� / he 43-//�-09.0 ga Ddli Date of Appraisal �/ Jl cam'` �7 , i 4ed/t /tIao2 ( m UI L6 Vt -I n I n N.-•t•CJ T m Cl A rn A C r.r 'Al O. A L rn L D a m D - O 0 L X o In m m ; rn n :.om.�-•COD 9-- p "\` t A m 9 2 A M 0 m 'A „•5. A 7S -I 1' T_0 S-� 1 r > A m VI 0 "I i n N A:A A G4• A. 0 �A = _17 O-- G') \Conn N a D O m o M. li m a -I-I 2 m -I m A < it z Z A m 1-I.. n I D UI 01<+In Om0 00m 0m 0< 0< D a rn 1 A 7 �0 Q f1 O 00 UI 0 0 00 0Ul I i t I I N 77 ^` p �( -I17 O m W =-I RI A G" �1/��N/_p� v M L /� UI mNn N.-• N - N••• N r. ry �•f�l i'( � IIK�G�.. GI` D N 0 m D CI om ConlfC FWN.-• Cl (�(•n� MN O a<OX TO SnC lyy/t'lJ y� ZO Omit On '+Iz<O� CmD<Itl r a Gl mZ h •I" CI XI AAA0m m1111AZ(1 D<mX `� O < O X{/i \ C a rn n-i t••10 -i t OI-tm AC Y C E m O n--1 ti. N N GI r 0 -I• n,i.4 A m A A m A C\0 A 0 m A 11t�v�` Cl m Z M a H 0 In A. r Cl m a r C . �` A O 0 <<r n n Ir Gl GI r S {V-, 7J -1N rim I I pN A mom. Clrn m 1 ~'� -I n I t r D D 0 Z 0 z, '� r N N <A t I 1 -I 0 0-1 n 0 Cl 0 A 11 1 N r L m ~Z r C O m z 1 I 1 m L UIrn D $ a c s r ). ••-NNW W Xs p IT F v.N.-. 'Z Ul F W N r w9 .•-VI V1 VI N ?( I N N N `›< NNNN J .4 N A.. -Dlm m ZGI•+I 02LU12 mm 0t-ta£L 0GIn2£0 0 W On COD Zl cex 1700r. -1 ZUION A -Ir0rn0-I Am 0 m AA N ACO•+ICO nGl D-1Am SN•UO-IA 0 IDZ-10 CNX O LEnZUl n m A I-I4"I N. . • C in n nn mC• 0 n o O mNnD 0nn-1 -I ZOOm-10 C2 D N ADCm£m-412 Zr- I T AN Ar n xrn S m 0 ZNIn Z A..r_n v n 2 m 2 n D n r ^N. Vl 1 0 Z A O n Z m u)A n rn n o I -1�a A A O U A N 1 0.-.p 1 2 S w m mrZ0 Z 1 m - mmm. - -y mnn-1 m11N Cl 00 02 -I m a 27 r-1.'C O I Am DAD Z AN -�. 0""n0 -1 A•-I0 A A CD AOIf•nC AaN I I 1 1 1 1 Gl A G)G)A< SmmOC ar0Af D D Gl-I I t 1 1 1 I rr GIArrnm m n m O n s. r rn 0 0 ul in ni LA C r- • M 0\,...) Ill Qye'��� N.-•O•F LA.•• C) m<A A D r -1 I. i11•GI 3 N V. WN 0 ZOO Ui F W N VCAVI F W N•-•UI PutF WN.- N NNNNNNN N.. 1----- Pc .-,< n N in T xco co N H D O N p 0 .m A Se-n DA At C 0 A 0 n At DCODA. O D D Ul D -1 CZ -*UM N -1Z00 TOO A= Cl m mom rmom rm0 -Im +l 0 M D n I m 0 D T m T L L C r a T A O A<r O A<L • 2 n O D T T A A GI A D n A In AI £n m m ET.m r C m CO S 0L AN _Gl 00 n N nn A N < 0\m GI Cl GI C Ul2C > A0 mr iAm LDA % LAm 7S i OZD S-4 .-t Dm nN Dm D3 m-1N G1 0 ap 000 n A nc•n0 N Z<-C CO-i M00GI < <A < <CO r mr C n m G 7 n C Z O m O N A-1 2 m in.-1 m CO N n 0 0In COX 0 00 mA GN0-1 A An A AZ 0 `. 0 O 0 0 •< =1 S m A D D n a D GI O . Ut i NU < mmr mt CI` m m < `�\m Lot N.• _ N N.-• 2 W N N... p . . • \ W N... IA N H ) �k'0tI lems- na Cl- a m�nrnOTb� m ' O i �� �C1 9 mm z 1-C i3�I-IATnO Z -1 Z U I....\O \ A N 0-G I Z UI D flit r , C A m 1-I�D . UI 7.Z-IAC r N Z • 2 D % p, D Ul -1 D -1IN0HN \ C-1 CO A �C k 6 Z. N.N. 1C•t mA�m m • m MO"'Cl UI UI CY x �N A•-A�•� p O l n D NOn 'A•I i mm N 3 ' N 3 1, \ I `,l O LL 4 O XZ m Zit = AA N A mo m OWN m -1'O*1 D W N.-•m -1-i �q rn n n < r U m UZ Co rn N D A A T L m AAA n m H Z Z i -4 0 0 -11 .4 < CT)CO CO < -`I mm r m m.XL o P 'A O N U T. m D \ in 0 D n F m -4 = m r- n xi \ c oN Coo y Cl 0 N 0 Z D£ D 0 I 0 -I D N.- 1 X N I i +feitt fiia -prig s tit p r �---� t. .—.1., .v. ._. ... . . .- . .. ,, ,,, .. . -., .—_._:. ' : - 4----------..______Li.-:.,.. --_..—. .---_4_---_.—_ „ {----r MARKET APPROACH Bldg. Land Price Sales rp Address } Date Size Age Area Price Terms Per Sq. Ft. 1 01.3- 7//h 9G-,�e,-6,, ,642 n/d too >a ‘4) Actor) 44 a...„ 22.as- 3 rD yh3 OR,i' i►e&w A I/'t1W - can ) -/' . 4 ))c Ere !! 1/� �N..' �/.�j �y�'a- Air -A : 14TM. _ -7 ��Je` /Square Foot �,qj-) x xs-,,00 PerSq.ft. = /,,/ /n0-0 /J Gross Income x GRM = ``C XgO lra VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $aD,O079 Cost Approach: Replacement Cost $/,71D1c/ Less: Depreciation 449yys Depreciated Value of Building - ���� $„2 p-O Land Value (Site value)V9 s.{.Cc /5 + 2446,79 VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH $ /i/i(,ero Net Income Capitalization Approach: / 4 100% Potential Gross Income SActu /Economic) $ �ayDy i Q 1Z 2.0a Less: Vacancy & Credit Loss % - `3� Effective Gross Income $ /a0>0 4.4 ';On ,J5/ Less: Expenses Management Utilities, Repairs, Reserves, etc. before taxes Total Expenses - /e9O /e Net Income Before Taxes $/0&L.:3 Capitalization Rate (ff%) +-iex-Ra-to--(-- )' + jp2, %----_ VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS $W8� Correlated Estimate of Value:Land►74i O B1dg.1700-0 TOTAL $T/<Q3',i Value Estimate is fo q/fury 2, 19 eJ /) /).D o' / Date of Appraisal �jL B(J0� 02//C �a 1 • m to L VI -I A 1n n N A O-,1 -1 0 It A RI -I A n V C r,-. 00 V Unt D A T > E A 0 13n1 T 0 rn -1 - IA Z r'-1 T 1'D T V O O fn m T RI 0 N 0!n A H M A-1 r p Cl Y A 0 Z .1AI Z UI in T X1 14 A 7: -1 E Z.Gl X-1 c -r rn UI N CI NCO XI xl Ab01n GI T. 1 0 m 33 1 Co mH 0 r m A r--1-1 = m i. U) 2 I 4. m. MI �- A I > A Al < A I-- AIV > n 0 Z< <o --< Z< z< z< b GI0 T 1 7�� O m n 0 m O m o en O m o en I 1 I 1 I I-I CA 0N 0 N 0 UI I I I I 1 0 0 0 C A LV 13 1 �p Q/J 3 Z '',, �•1 11-1 �N 1 fan< N...n Nr. N I.' N r' N.... Nr.• ate:�'' .' ' Z �1N n 0 V m 11'111 bGIR1 Inn 17mT #W Nr. n Ft,.. O- rIN O b<O X T O S n C o Z O p Xi Xi X10fnn m(n NO f1 Zb<m X O < O XUZI 0- Ft> C - b rn n-11-10-1 v 0.1m AnD E m O ni r VI GI r0 -i• n3.-,C TA A a A ,V Cl Jr XI (�� Al frn H bh1 Om UI b rn A rC \ ^ 7J X10 O «r n n N GI GI r X Gt I-I•n -i M m m 11 D I-I A rn 0 m• rn '-4 ^ T X.T -1 I. 1 1 r b D 0 Z 1•. `''�l N <A 1 I I -1 O 0-1 D Iv. ,- r-'A 0 A I I I hl r V '` Z 1 1 10 Al V i Z (.. 1 ` 11. y m Z b C (t r�l' (N� i .- -N N W W 1F> . 7J b VI 1F W N.- VI 1F L.,N r- VI 1n VI Ir•1 �, N N N N N N N 1 f 1j ,_ \ D A m m• 0• m O S V N S-n T O F1➢E t O GI n 3£N O N 0 01CO➢ 0 en XI XI ACOm03 10 CIb-1Am S ul""000-1XI 0 SDZ-IOCf1X O VE*AUIn • C m n 00 m C• 000 0 01N 0>0 0 n 1 -i A OOT-1 O C 3b m AHC MT.m-1 S Ar- 20 T 4U)Ar n7CT -1m Smol. Z r_D n v mn 3 ZD Anr DOA m b Ill Ul T m 71A m A 0 1 -1.133]CD 0 St AN -1 A -1W N N ."V IS -4 0 11 • •2r- rnr Z 0._ I mZmmm ra -- -1 m D0-1 rnr1N 0 O1l(n E-1 m nr-17C 0 I Amn TD 7 AI-1 1-4 C1.C)O -4A-10A A OAOnmC 3 b F1 I I 1 1 1 1 GI D Z 60 al< Srnmo C nr0 An n D Gl 1 IIIIII I-.• C, It r r b rn rn n m o n 0 rm0 m N.-POW•-' 00ANn1A Ait C b m�• Al r m O r 2 W N.•.Z n V1 1F W N.- 1F W N.-'in V P UI F W N.-UI Q'UI 1F W\N.-' .�. 0 . N N N N N N N N N 1 UI T X 01WN.- r In n C0 AStn D#C0 A N 0it4 CO nD 0142- 101b b 01-I 09 1' In m r A C I. rn r < m<01 m<01 fn0! 1 C Z •na -10-1 ZOO rn0o m 3 0 m in 0m r e0m rm0 -11nm -4 0 -I D rn b•-1-n O D m1 m•n II C r b"1 A O A<r 0 A<•0 • 3 C) 00 1.2 n T xi 13» A m A 3 £Dmm E Ymr CMG) S 00.0 x17C G1=WO Y In GI0 A la < N\m GI n C7 C 0 2 C • T. O ZO mr m 4 m m>A v am 7C 1 C)1> X-I -I I.mbi AAA_^. in-1 la."V 0 Dm 000 DA b D0 I-I Z-[-( Co-1 mOUI0 < <XI < <01 r G1 r A C 0m0 n C Z Om YZ0 .1711-1S m mr1 m m.1 0 O rn In n rn m 0Ul to 1 In 4 GI h1 0-1 A MO A XI- 0 en•• UI 0 UI UI 0 m1 S m x] D 1.b b b Gl 0 N UI N -I UI< G1 GI r CI CI m Gt 1 rn -1 rn m rn m rn W N.. E N.- 3 3 . • hi _ W N N. = ('WAN.-• W N.• -I N ` . N S - (C.1�• }� 1-Ai N 9 �Onm V�1bA m 0 Z fne I ��, �3�-1 A•rn AO 1 bA a �l n� Y\O N. AIti YGt Z N b nm r ZC `� m I-10' T. en co D Z1A n r -1Z =p A N"� -1 0 •I n I-,O rn1 Ir \ C-1 W'O (� 31— \\ C MN.PI -1 • M rn AUI rn A (� .ti TI m T _ct UI UI 0 X r A.L < A • T 0 m D 1 l.• O r �� O X Z m Z _ m '1, (D 3 XI V rn -1 U v o In 1 O -I 3 AA 1 O rn O W N.••m -1-n < WN.-m 11 m NN 0 N N 3 -1C10701m < < 00001m •[ Ca -Z1 rn0 < r 0 m N mrn N b AA TIT '0 T XI TI xi-n •p CO 1 UI N N N V Z r T m m n m S m `n n A \ x to v\� O 1 O >EOL 0 2 .V Z b 0rn S\ b N Z 3 b Nc. \ \ ~ , 1 p st/b, x ;I 1, • :._ :..:.. ._ ill_ i _ MARKET APPROACH Bldg. Land Price Sales Address Date Size Age Area_ Price Terms Per Sq. Ft. 1 2 3 4 Square Foot x Per Sq.Ft. = Gross Income x GRM VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $ Cost Approach: Replacement Cost $ Less: Depreciation - Depreciated Value of Building $ Land Value (Site Value)1/0s,f'@/9-'1/ ¢ / + g/,0r'4 • VALUE BY THE CDST APPROACH $ t t" Net Income Capitalization Approach: I00% 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 ( %) r % VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS $ Correlated Estimate of Value:Land g/B'DU Bldg. —TOTAL $ F/arro Value Estimate is for nary 2, lg fa /,� Date of Appraisal Sr/ ..0 S 4 Ali( 03-//6,,72 a2- aoda i \ I Y Appeal No:/Go-") Page 1 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review • Sales Comparison Approach PID: 44,- //(r-,.,.7) - `// CA-33 Owner: OQ,tel Atet.tiaeZ(- n Address: ?'9'/Q rin r7t Pa ct_ tITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE N0. 1 &&& COMPARABLE NO COMPARABLE N0.3 �4-N1-3j :ll--/r-7 /-bv Andress 99 & r>l Fl -a A/--! -l7 s /53ae Pa/-yi;cVTra.l' /050/ ?c,r;,rcna,nn:fi /5i3e3 Rrrhe. R.,:al Proximity to Subject I II�llllIDllQllllll➢�Illllll o?, ,�, �� / J '� Sales Price ; z m�O�. WI llf111ljIQIIIlI�Ilflls ,•5 rrc> I IIIIIIlf01f[I11llGlil S '30,0(,r, I �I 1s�7" F. Price/Gross Llv.Area $ m$ 7,1 4L. mIfliffI„ iV�,if( s 51, d3 I(lI➢IlIl1p11ID�1[Ills 7� `�c,c; Data Source I� m]lll(III�1111 Zak$ 7g Yo !DI[I�(Jllmf l�I��li C VALVE AO.I1ISTMENTS DESCRIPTION r P r l I V A.1 e,, et v. nA tS DESCRIPTION I •1-Is Agustin.. DESCRIPTION I �, Sales or Financing III — •(-is"o xm DESCRIPTION Z•(-IS Aaaasrmem i. Concessions Date of Sale/Time me ' __ — p1•,0 bosh�r i -asoo 5/ N Location Lcrl K7 c lC'C'C' R/y7 rgn0 (8T +d5r0 a Sile/Viewer HOnrU poor +fOOoo J d H*A C' r l ,V.,, A,eaaca +!Scno a Design and Appeal Aa}f\a - ...tcoc) q,raw • Ar. L -- A�.t��a roc, — GOO (aua..act a� rl$CCp Z Duality of Construction A 0.Na r, �aaSa — Aua c4_ a Age .,,a r. •E.n r r-_- �. ®lm - • -IC O Rt•:-.aC L. a,ranWsusseassixrase ._ p Condition Fein, �y��F.a,rii7777 1�) A Grade To same• eon Fair - ,B i` C bUl ea,ms gams brae :NM): Baths -'�'S C r' R Room Count ' i , d 7 ' .3 ' r'At 3 Tour , , oaths MJ IE Gross Living Area l 3 1 l Sq.Ft. �,S C I '�OCO 3 / /F 5 ...5 1 Q Basement&Finished rr3m t•-,1 Sq.Fl. ..?/73 Sq.Ft -350G +$OOU .3 a.C. 592 1r.i.:. f O I N Sq.FI. V Rooms Below Grade if;b•I TA Al 'b'T` ,r./37611 fH 000 No Z...... • iLoS o,dr''F:i IGR IA FunchonalDuh'y �src4AI flp0e0 /cr.-T�nl ire. -15o ij ieatin iCooing ra (R ""'i 333- ^ti"'L ' -5 00 _ -'vr. -l5op ot N GaragHeating/Cooling /Coolie 3 V1 4 -1'a%r PtncL r, , {- r 1ru -1u1.., '.,OCO _ Porches,Patio. dlat. Ir&^sF ,N1,,5,,kpohsns., /Cu•t } } �000 tt Pools.etc. ,A dralt3L75.r �s�SE eP+e ,a WHs.F *r5oo v<• I ux,aagkp I -boob -(0000 ,;, Special Energy • y: Efficient Items T i Other(e.g.kitchen i — — equip.,remodeling) + o U o tNet ate(total) HHIIIl1111111111111U11MIME—s /8000 '' Indicated Value I C + -,S •7 '00 G�� .ems of Subject I ,1INIIII.IINNN 11111l Comments on SatesComnson S lN7oc>o II�s ,�y5/,� IIII�INNIIIIIINIIIa iisoo • I. • -kt• Q. .,:i pa P rabl�tl locnlvd Rt�c, wo�cloc� I. 1- r'GC[ 'i^K (�'h.. It , .• .__ A., r:'.`. k...a\c. i:., f. .L„a.a.. el 'c. .. 4 b ...bwal j.tiL c 1 \a..,' . . s. .r. .: .. �.. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ n , • I�15 000 as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealyd Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value ,_q Scjlz Building Value % ( IA n . . Total EtIV 1 Ir IC',O Appraiser: EC aCr Ln Photo of Subject Appeal No: /Goff" Page 2 z es .. Y _ • Building Sketch y ., ate. ,. . . -_. . ...... . :a.+. . . .....•..• . b 1O' , . 4., • . „ 1999 AJdte+., W ::. S.L. • . : . I4 d.J n o I_I, Bx • Appeal No: //c2I/ Page 3 City of Eden Prairie• Subject and Comparables Location Ma• A9y ''+�^_�^r:�Ii .% ICI � Tl Iiilliiir'- � .�1�.; it._`1. Y mid ®gym NI l� l L , .--:\-l .r• ' • ttJ I ..• l' AglIti . 1 �11%9• !I f'C '1. _ 4, ; zT'-V• IE. . Y,.s.<:. r ��-"rriet.7�_ I1 • Ali �n - S •Ii•Wy� . i�1t--^tt1y,] �f1 ' ` Y �'f��g�1��� h,.ef_-�� rf 4� R'W ��•�i .. ;�`�„1r�. u„ ..r,:, t11% ��, 1 I ,�, j III ,��, � ►7 } ,. 4" '(-'.. i$V46 0 NOMILV„( i. IL 5‘4..f,.,j;,N ' „ /: r—j 1�" ,7 I t .jrl I �c } F, ✓,1, f fcomicI �. , i��-07:i ✓ I "-i}t ', 3E '..) �.. ... --Er/ I e A;ICI _ a-,l_ ,r 1\x _I - A' 4,41:::'11•777.., C311t.7-''.1 j'A''''--.: \ ' '.1i441;•,1-. ' : T ,IAfi,, i ,, <� a sir' {w h EAz�. CA• I I/ 4 r:'14,''',11 . .i...{ I yfl I � •.. ' ,f- -I- ice. li),I� • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review (Q% II�� /n1 /^� Appeal No: /Q,?'J Page 1 PID: () - I I l�- dd N I 0033 Owner: FQ 1A \, I l J Address: d V� e«tc r)t , j' Subject property was reinspected on . Corrections to Mass Appraisal indicate value should be reduced to $ g g_a) Owner Agrees with new value. Value 8eing Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value a OOO QOO QO O Building Value (Q !OO 1204100 LpO"100 Total EMV I471 I OU $7q0C) Sig CO Appraiser �Ct��CelfeJ �B(4 f • 1988 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 1O2$ Page 1 PID: 04-- 11lc - 2'Z - 4-3 - 004-1 Owner: — M L�-R Address: 15 i(1'j 1-Row WOOD COUTIT Subject property was reinspected on S-2.88 . Mass Appraisal indicate value should be $ o 3O. . Owner Agrees with value. Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value -33300 - 3300 rVo CNr>r� Building Value 77000 • T-(nCYI Total EMV 110300 110300 Appraiser 1988'Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: l02ci Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: -Zr�_ _ tIto-?2-31 - OAI Owner: Tyr -razr Ckw---) Address: qci t 14tch y 5,,,.,,-r cos REM COMPARABLE NO.I SUBJECT ti� �051 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE N0.3 Address t o'(I� \.nsC-c.o.s., -Dr; ol 4g w ottc wa.--cM 62Sg macro-RocK Rate.its:w Rv.ar cA -2Q._ ' i - 12( 2d.- _ _ Proximity to Subject I II 1111111l1IllI JJi I I^ h T \ r-.ti `` e \ 2 E. Sales Price S III II IIII IIII'I�I,S ;'>�'c \tits-T �rn\�E., Price/Gross Liv.Area E �1 111I1III11f1�111III111llpIIS ''� 'e 11IIIII'ES 8•llllfllllillllls IZ1.a!7l • Data Source m5 civ4 Oul�! llgl(Ps N. O11J1lIlll� f((II;s �e.� O1[I1I111Ill1�111�1!Ili ��` MIL 1. VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION .I.I S Admummr DESCRIPTION I .(-is anastmmr DESCRIPTION I•I-I S Adwtment $ Sales or Financing I II L. ,- Concessions c,P.>u ' Date of Sale/Time O I./R-( A Location rip +2lccC`V Q./g-. +?gam 4/ +-3 Ica, co.._ �rov.4.. �. Site/View Z, Design and Appeal 9/ems cAJ4 l� ,�s Pv5 1c;L.)s,m Au-, l2 Pc>v t41 Assesi Quality of Construction n `JF_ r_..q 51- 6O s(e Cyp Q o TVA) +SCOT A.vA ' Age ..Z2 rt "^tc'vY� �x.� - at o Condition P.vh 5 ..- -lc SIX N Above Grade ri" 1' -an�cl TT Cho msh. Total BOo �CC .. Total ,Bdmn, Baths brat Bdtms, Baths Total t&bins t Baths K Room Count b ; 3 ;1'-(c (o b1a1 'Bons' Baths d Gross Living Area y ly •2 t F 75 1p . ;I q F Ito A_ Sq.FI \glob 15p.ft. +1tep 0 Basement&Finished G74-� Knack') 1(l;- Sq.Ft +R-13 18-L 2 Sq.Fl. } �a V Rooms Below Grade -. : FR yY-e 2 y,�,ax. -Igoop r°ry fly ra,_,S..-w - � Z4.y4 .l„•lore Functiuiiai Utility cso - Q Heating/Cooling `�,/� UA t ip. CO Garage/Carport - ,r.u 2Cm C./A 2C-I A'T-r. GCS Azz-,- Porches.Patio, 0ic P..-no -t,K 2C.' Tom. Pools,etc. / + t�j �' -CMS.fTTq . . Special Energy y Ellicient Items - - _ Fireplace(s) l;M 1 /P .. Other(e.g.kitchen "G..r.run C-r tH; t�/-a ISIP equip.,remodeling) Cyr. rN�. -1�",LT aaV3 • Net Adj.(total) _ =. I..,i�ra•n VrILp ��.. 9. 1j II !IS I db40 � + -'S Z1o0 �S 41?� • of Subject Li, „�Ilt'�ILiS 341 S 1 32boo I ,Ij S I'A 13'_ Comments on Sales Comparison: C uwti+ct a ttq 1 t 2 A 1 Cw<✓c.-, -E'n s,.v_F:—..E'3!4c R 5_^Fr _ ,"C- + ' F'^:q -P.:,cr 1-r » a lra, ^a gE_Fd9^1.gb.2ti T1 i. C2___ Sni. ... w.��<_r t� R? M. ____ Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ 1- 3t ory, as of 1/2/88 Value Being Appealed Review A`al Assessor's Recommendation Land Value \too0 Building Value In1 tom Ipl4cx_) Total El1V In-a , In1Lpm �.v:�. Z.r� Z.L�Q Appraiser: Appeal No: Io2S Page 2 Photo of Subject • • • a4 • •V• =� �` :tom �'' • Building Sketch - -- --- l O A.2ta T40-10 -ee�ow • "18P_ • Appeal No: 1 O'2n Page 3 • City of Eden Prairie Subject and Comparables Location Map • r j ►�wrt lr r I�,� ; a, "; , �ik` r taimmiou i. 4—- - ,n. --"4'---- ' r ;,,,,,;I _ . ,,..ii, , ik% pir 11111 1.-. "1 /0,„:„,, ilicIrja,-,;,>43'''' P.:::(... j . --:, -t ":"..1.1-1, „, -f7i.:;'.i). '''' — ' --.---4'' •S f(1.,:tmi- -i,,, im, •., tl ir- .-.' \li- ,It.,,,. ,r.•<-4.:4,-- '1%.f1,•,' ''It... - . .":(. .i,i,-",----- ---:•-' .1' railing! i R /-117L 'N.:,.''' ,‘ 1 fl /114 II '-'•••nlsi-..r..11 iv\I 1 / J I I -,,7""� ( _11 L 1 '���w`• Sub�'ec ' / 4 • 4,0;1 , •. �� I/ I,J- ` �i-- a f 1 I �/ t.. .. r i • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-87 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 1988 ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute No. 274.01, and WHEREAS, the Board of Review met, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 1988 assessment be accepted. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 16th day of May 1988. Gary D. Peterson, President Board of Review ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk