HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/07/1988 --------------------------------------------------------------
AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1988 6:00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia
Pidcock
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W.
Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and
I. ROLL CALL Recording Secretary Deb Edlund
II. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
III. DISCUSSION DN SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING
IV. ADJDURNMENT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 19B8 7:30 PM, CITY HALL CDUNCIL CHAMBERS,
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 Parks, Recreation &
Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director
of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and
Recording Secretary Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES
A. Special Joint City Council/Human Rights & Services Commission
meeting hejd—Tuesday, A ril 1988 Page 1032
B. Regular City Council meeting held Tuesday, March 15, 19BB Page 1034
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,June 7, 1988
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 1043
B. Final Plat Approval for Menard 5th Addition LA - Z RentalL located Page 1044
south of Valley View Road and west of Plaza Drive (Resolution No.
B8-90)—
C. Final Plat Approval for Idlewild Lake Addition, located north of Page 1046
Eden Road and west of U.S. 169 Resolution No. 88-91 9
D. Final Plat Approval for The Farm 2nd Addition located north of Page 1049
Duck Lake Trail and west of Boyd Avenue Resolution No. 88-93T 9
E. Final Plat Approval for Bluffs East Fifth Addition, located west Page 1052 of Franle Road, south of Pioneer Trail Resolution No. 88-94� g
F. Change Order No. 3 for Fire Stations Construction Contract Page 1055
G. Approve Special Assessment Agreement for Southgate Page 1061
H. Receive and Approve First Quarter General Fund Report Page 1065
I. Approve Special Assessment Agreement for Starrwood Addition Page 1069
J. Change Order No. s I.C.. 52-105, Bennett Place and Blossom Road Page 1073
K. Change Order No. 2, I.C. 52-096, Bluffs East 4th Addition Page 1075
L. Receive Petition for Street and Utility Improvements for Wyndham page 1076
Nob and Authorize Pre.aration of a Feasibility Study, I.C.
U i�(Resolution No 88-95
M. Receive Feasibility Study for Street Improvements on Hamilton Page 1078
Road and set Public Hearing, IC. 52-13 Resolution No. 88-96) 9
N. Approve Plans and Specifications for Sanitary Sewer, Watermain
and Storm Sewer Improvement to Legion Park Addition, and authorize Page 1079
bids to be received, I.C. 52-133 Resolution No. 88-97T
0. Approve Plans and Specifications for Watermain and Street Page 1080
Improvements to Golden Triangle Drive and authorize bids to be
received, I.C. 52 T�0 (Resolution No. 88-9TT—
P. Approve Final Planting Plan and Maintenance Plan for MWCC River page 1081
Siphon Facility on West Riverview Drive
Q. Change Order No. 3 for Well House Construction Project I.C. Page 1082
52-0728
R. Resolution of Appreciation to Those Who Participated in the 1988 Page 1084
rein —Chan-Up in Eden Prairie Resolution No. 88-89)
S. Request from Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce for City to help Page 1085
defray cost for the Eden Prairie Profile in the amount of
2-285.00
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,June 7, 1988
T. Request for Grading Permit �y MnDOT to construct an Park & Ride Page 1087
Lot at the—Southwest Corne[ of F1 in Cloud Drive and dy Sha Oak
Road-TContinued from May 17, 1988
U. BLUFFS EAST 5TH ADDITION by Hustad Development Corporation. 2nd page 1089
Reading of Ordinance No. 7-88, Zoning District Change from Rural to
R1-13.5 on 17.68 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Bluffs
East 5th Addition; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-81,
Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 7-88 and Ordering Publication
of Said Summary. 30.1 acres into 34 single family lots, 3 outlots,
and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast of Meade Lane
extension, west of 'ranlo Road, northwest of Antlers Ridge
extension. (Ordinance No. 7-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-81
Authorizing Summary & Publication)
V. FRANK BEDDOR PROPERTY by Fortier & Associates, Inc. Request for Page 1108
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Public Open Space to
Industrial on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from I-Gen to I-5 on
18.7 acres, and from R1-22 to I-5 on 19.3 acres for construction of
a 250,000 square foot industrial building. Location: Northeast
corner of Highway 5 and West 184th Street. (Resolution No. 88-100,
Denial of Request)
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BLUFFS EAST 6TH by Hustad Development Company. Request for page 1110
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 186.3 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review on 45.16 acres with Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.94 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 45.16 acres into 13 lots, 5 outlots, and road right-of-way
for construction of 26 townhome units. Location: South of Franlo
Road extension, south of Normandy Crest. (Resolution No. 88-102,
PUD Concept Amendment to Overall Bluff Country PUD; Ordinance No.
23-88-PUD-5-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-103, Preliminary Plat)
B. GLENSHIRE by Associated Investments. Request for Planned Unit Page 1131
Development Concept Review on 30.6 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 17.3 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District
Change from Rural to 111-9.5 on 17.3 acres, Preliminary Plat of 30.6
acres into 56 lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for construction
of a single family development. Location: Northeast corner of
Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard. (Resolution No. 88-104,
PUD Concept for Glenshire; Ordinance No. 24-88-PUD-6-88, PUD and
Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-105, Preliminary Plat)
C. TRANSFER OF CABLE OWNERSHIP (Resolution No. 88-108 giving Final page 1148
Approval to a Transfer of the City's Cable Television Franchise;
Ordinance No. 25-88 amending Ordinance No. 13-85 to change
the Name of Grantee; and approval of Documents)
D. VACATION 88-02 OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON GOLDEN Page 1169
RIDGE HILLS Resolution No. 88-99
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 1170
City Council Agenda - 4 - Tues.,June 7, 1988
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
5
A. Draft Ordinance regarding Recreational Vehicles (continued from May
17 Council meetinq)
B. BRAU ADDITION, by Scott Brau. Request for Preliminary Plat and
Final Plat of 2.12 acres into two single family lots within the R1-
22 Zoning District. Location: 16201 Pioneer Trail.
(Resolution #88-92, Preliminary Plat. and Final
Plat)
C. MEL HANSEN ADDITION, by Mel Hansen. Request for Preliminary Plat of
42 acres into two single family lots with the R1-22 Zoning
District. Location: 9091 West Staring Lane. (Resolution #88-107,
Preliminary Plat)
D. Resolution No. 88-109 establishing a Uniform Policy with Respect to
Lobbying Cable Applicants with Individual Council Members on
Staff
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District - Endorsement of the reappoint-
ment of Dr. Eugene Davis to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
B. Riley-Purqatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Endorsement of the
reappointment of Howard L. Peterson to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff
Creek Watershed District
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Re ort of Director of Planning
1. Report on Site Plan Review for Cedar Ridge School
E. Re ort of Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
F. Re ort of Director of Public Works
G. Report of Finance Director
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie
City Manager
FROM: Craig Dawson
Assistant to the City Manager
DATE: June 2, 1988
SUBJECT: Waste Abatement Options
Garbage, like death and taxes, remains one of the few things in life which is
sure to happen. Waste abatement is another thing sure to happen in the
metropolitan area, although the how, when, and how much issues seem to change
from week to week. This memorandum will review the latest changes in laws and
policies relating to solid waste abatement, and will identify several
operational and financial implications to the City of Eden Prairie.
Recent Re ulator and Polic Chan es: While the proposed Comprehensive Waste
e uc ion an ecyc ing c was not enacted by the Minnesota Legislature this
past session, several components of the bill were enacted as amendments to the
Waste Management Act. Among the changes relevant to Eden Prairie are:
Changing the definition of recyclable materials to include mechanical
separation. Paper converted to "fluff" RDF (refuse-derived fud) or IRDF
(densified to fuel pellets) would not count as being recycled.
Prohibiting disposal of yard waste in landfills after January 1, 1990.
Requiring in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) that suitable space be
provided for the separation, collection, and temporary storage of
recyclable materials to all new or significantly remodeled structures
having more than 1000 square feet. (Residential building of 12 or fewer
units wuld be excluded.)
Allowing cities having landfills to increase their landfill surcharge from
25 cents to 35 cents per cubic yard. Ten cents of this fee can go to the
General Fund; the remainder must be used for abatement, mitigation, or
compensation for the adverse effects of the facility.
The State law still requires that 16 percent of waste in the metropolitan area
be recycled. Meanwhile, Hennepin County adopted a resolution on a 4-3 vote
which would change its recycling objective. Data from studies in the early
1980's suggested that 23 percent of the County's solid waste already was being
recycled, most likely from non-residential sources. When the 16 percent
recycling objective was established, it represented "new" recycling to occur
after 1982. The County Commissioners decided that the distinctions between
"old" and "new" recycling have been confusing, and thus result in inaccurate
reporting and artificially inflated accounts of recycling being achieved.
- 2 -
Consequently, a new objective of 39 percent recycling -- combining old and new
-- by 1992 has been stated. At this point the County position does not have
the force of law, but it will affect plans and implementation of solid waste
abatement measures. For Eden Prairie, the City needs to work to achieve the 16
percent goal by 1990 while being prepared to meet the 39 percent figure at some
future date.
Hennepin County is also on record favoring mechanical separation of recyclables
to count toward achieving recycling goals established by the Metropolitan
Council. The County is including the Reuter Resource Recycling facility in its
waste processing planning. What recycling does occur there consistent with the
new statutory definition of recycling would not technically count as recycling,
however. The County's plan must conform with the Metropolitan Council's Solid
Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan. This plan currently recognizes
source separation as the only recycling method to achieve this waste abatement
objective. While the plan is now under review, it is not expected to be
adopted with revisions for another nine to twelve months. Until and unless the
Metropolitan Council changes its policy, Hennepin County will need to exclude
recycling occurring at the Reuter facility. Presumably, it may require Eden
Prairie to attain recycling levels without being able to take advantage of the
Reuter facility's capabilities.
In that same resolution to increase the recycling objective to 39 percent by
1992, Hennepin County also stated that the County will, in those cities not
achieving at least 10 percent residential source separation (excluding yard
waste) by May 1, 1989, inpose mandatory source separation on the residences in
that community and bill the City for all of the program costs and send them
notices that the City is not complying with County recycling directives. The
County also encouraged weekly pickup of recyclables.
The Eden Prairie City Council adopted a recycling plan in December 1987 and
sent it to Hennepin County. Essentially, it stated that the City would pursue
delivery of residential waste to a mechanical processing facility if laws and
policies were amended to recognize this recycling activity; be prepared to
implement a curbside source separation program if necessary as a backup to the
mechanical option; set up one or more collection centers; explore expansion of
yard waste collection; and, beginning in 1989, focus more effort on the
commercial sector of recycling. Much of this year has been spent awaiting the
legislative and regulatory processes to define the recycling environment in
which the City will operate. Several options are now available.
The General Direction of Solid Waste Costs: Costs to dispose of solid wastes
will rise . lCeably over the next several years. Prices for different
components of waste disposal services will rise at differing rates. It should
be noted that most of the cost involved is for the service for collecting
waste, rather than the processing and disposal process.
The average residential disposal service currently runs around $10.00 per
month. Tipping fees at landfills are around $28.00 per ton. Over a year, the
average family produces one ton of garbage that is now hauled to a landfill.
Thus, out of $120.00 per year in waste disposal costs, the family pays $28.00
(or 23%) for landfill disposal and $92.00 (or 77%) for a hauler's collection
services.
- 3 -
Hennepin County's latest estimate of the tipping fee at its waste processing
facilities is $14/ton. Assuming that waste haulers would maintain the
a collection service portion of their fees, annual costs to a family would be
$166.00 - an increase of 38 percent in the total bill. While the tipping fee
will increase 265 percent, the waste processing and disposal component of
refuse hauling charges will grow from 23 to 45 percent of the total bill.
Recycling Services: The overall metropolitan scheme envisions separate
co ec ion 0T recyclable materials. Recycling is just that - another refuse
collection service. Costs for collections of recyclable materials are less
expensive than mixed refuse because tipping fees are avoided and capital
equipment purchases are less. Prices paid for recyclables are cyclical and
volatile; at best, sales of these materials represent the profit in the
business. Collection fees are required to pay for the labor, equipment, and
administrative overhead costs of recyclables collection firms.
Two recyclables collection services are now common enough in the Twin Cities to
the predict costs with some accuracy. Biweekly residential curbside source
separation collection is around $0.50/unit/month, and separate yard waste
collection is around $1.00/unit/month. Combined, these collection services
would cost $18.00 per year. Costs for publicity and city staff administration
would add about $3.00 per year.
Yard wastes will need to be collected separately by 1990. It is assumed that
the waste hauling industry will be responsible for finding ways to have these
wastes collected, composted, and marketed. The industry could try to place
responsibility back on local governments. In any event, the $12 annual charge
will be present for customers on their taxes or garbage bills. The role of
local governments in 1988 and 1989 is to increase awareness of yard wastes as
renewable resources which are expensive to landfill, and to act as a bridge in
collection of these materials in 1988 and 1989.
Very little data exist on commercial recycling. Local government costs in this
area have been in staff services to determine the level of recycling in the
commercial sector and to encourage business to recycle. Aggressive campaigns
to foster commercial recycling have not been created.
Collection centers where residents drop off their recyclables have been common
features of recycling programs. They are often the easiest way to have
recycling services available to multi-family settings. Collection centers run
the gamut in sophistication from the unattended drop-off centers to the
attended centers operated by Goodwill Industries. Goodwill's service is
perceived to be one of the most effective in terms of receiving large amounts
of recyclables. It relies on semi-trailers to be parked in one spot to create
awareness and patronage. First-year costs are $30,000 - $35,000, and annual
costs thereafter for attendants is $15,000 - $17,000. Having such an operation
as part of the City's program may require an ordinance change to allow outside
storage.
Publicity and Containers: Successful programs have extensive publicity,
ranging r—�an continuous mailings and reminders in newsletters to random
drawings to reward people for recycling. For a community of Eden Prairie's
size, these costs are often in the $20,000 range in the initial year.
- 4 -
Separate containers to store recyclables have proven to be an effective tool to
increase recycling. These cost $5.00/unit; Hennepin County will pay
$2.00/unit, and is considering paying $4.00/unit. These containers would fit
well into single-family through quadraminium homes which, in April 1988, number
about 9500 in Eden Prairie. To provide two containers per home would cost
$95,000; the City's obligation would be between $19,000 and $57,000.
How Much Waste Is There?: Hennepin County has borrowed from several studies to
determine was a generatoon. It has reduced waste generation estimates to three
numbers: 2.45 lbs./day/resident; 3.21 lbs./day/commercial employee; and 8.16
lbs./day/industrial or manufacturing employee. City staff has some
disagreement with County staff over figuring non-residential waste. Because a
large percentage of Eden Prairie office/warehouse space is nearly all in
offices, the City maintains these waste estimates should be calculated at 3.21
lbs./day/employee. County staff, however, assigns office/warehouse space to
the industrial category and the higher 8.16 lbs./day/employee rate.
What results is a range of waste generation and recycling goals to be achieved:
City Estimate County Estimate
1988 N People Tons of Waste # People Tons of Waste
Warehouse/Industrial 8,000 11,914 20,660 30,767
Office/Commercial 27,100 15,876 14,440 8,459
Residents 34,100 15,247 34,100 15,247
_4T,"637 �dT3
Tons to Recycle @ 16% 6,886 8,716
Tons to Recycle @ 39% 16,784 21,244
As the City's resident and employment populations continue to grow at 8-10
percent each, the amount of recyclables to be collected annually will increase
by the same percentage.
Because of the addition of the "old" recycling - most of which was assumed to
be commercial - to the recycling objective, extensive initial and on-goning
surveys and monitoring will need to be conducted. The need for this effort is
reinforced because it is expected that residential recycling will contribute
only 10-I5 percent within either the 16 percent or the 39 percent figures.
Whither Shall the Waste Go?: One of the options which has strongly been
consideredby the City-ishaving much of its solid wastes processed at Reuter
Resource Recycling. Aside from questions about how much recycling would occur
(which will be discussed later,) was the question about directing the waste to
the facility. The City Attorney has given an opinion that that this waste
could be directed there as a condition of having a City waste hauling license.
It appears that this option would also need to be sanctioned by an agreement
with Reuter prior to Hennepin County making its waste designation ordinance
effective. There is some ambiguity in the State's Waste Management Act about
whether or what type of "organized" collection also may be required to effect
- 5 -
the direction of waste. But the act is quite clear that there is a public
participation process with such a change. It states:
"At least 90 �d��ayys�� before proposing an ordinance, franchise, license,
contract, or other means of organizing collection, a city -may
resolution ... shall announce its intent to organize collection and invite
e par icipation of interested persons in planning and establishing the
organized collection system. The resolution must be adopted after a
public hearing ... held at least two weeks after public anTC mailed notice
empTiasis added).
The City Attorney also advises that the changes to license conditions not be
effective until on or after January 1, 1989.
Reuter, Inc. has stated it will accept residential and most types of commercial
wastes. To date, Council discussion regarding rise of the Reuter facility has
been for residential waste. Metropolitan-area cities have seldom ventured into
the realm of organizing or having extensive license requirements for commercial
wastes. While licensing conditions for commercial waste collections are
possible, Council needs to give direction as to including this waste stream in
contract negotiations with Reuter, Inc.
Assuming that Council would prefer to have new licensing conditions adopted no
later than its first meeting in December (Dec.6), the public hearing proscribed
by statute would need to be held and resolution adopted no later than the first
Council meeting in September (Sept. 6). Published notice would need to be in
the August 17 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Contract negotiations with Reuter, Inc. should be substantially resolved by
August, prior to the public participation period from September 6 to December
6. Representatives of the cities of Bloomington and Richfield have expressed
an interest to develop a standard contract with Eden Prairie and/or Reuter,
Inc.
Recycling at Reuter, Inc. Facility^ Reuter, Inc. officials have expressed
eFi it 5 eyes to an a en rairie's residential and commercial wastes. It
would peg its tipping fee at 95 percent of the County's system. This
processing cost would be $70.30 per ton initially. The annual bill for the
average family would be $162.30.
The City's concern with use of the Reuter facility is how much waste is
diverted from landfill. Reuter, Inc. states that 80 to 90 percent of the
material will be processed and re-used. The breakdown on the material coming
out of the plant is as follows:
Recycled material 15%
Compost 25%
RDF/dRDF 50%
Waste 10%
TW
According to state law, only the recycled material and compost components will
count toward achieving the recycling goal. Extrapolating from these
percentages and waste generation estimates mentioned earlier, the amount of
-6-
residential and commercial recycling which could occur would range from 9,482
to 12,449 tons, or 17.4 to 28.9 percent of the City's waste stream. If only
the residential sector (9500 single-family through 4-plex units, or 26,200
people) were collected, the amount counted toward recycling would be 4,686
tons, or 8.6 to 10.9 percent of the City's waste stream. The amount of waste
diverted from landfills would include that converted to RDF or dRDF. Total
waste abatement would then double the figures shown for recycling.
Reuter, Inc. prefers a four-year contract for waste processing services. Any
such services having a contract length of five or more years requires
Metropolitan Council approval.
Hennepin County Funding Assistance: For the immediate future, Hennepin County
wi1T provi de suTis antnaI financial assistance for planning and operating
recycling programs. It is rethinking the criteria to be used for the level of
funding assistance because it is contemplating the new 39 percent objective.
It appears that six to ten percent abatement of all waste through residential
recycling will be necessary to receive significant funding under either the 16
or 39 percent goals. Recycling which occurs at a processing facility like
Reuter, Inc.'s will not be eligible for the County grant.
The County has not yet determined if it will have a leading or supportive role
in the commercial recycling arena. If it choses the former, the City's effort
in this area could be significantly reduced. If the County opts for the
latter, which would retain the status quo, the County may be willing to
subsidize a City's staffing need without close documentation of staff time
spent.
County assistance, which generally will run 40 to 60 percent of program costs,
does have a few strings attached. One is that the grant recipient adopt the
County AIDS policy. Another is that Hennepin County be mentioned in every item
of recycling literature. Other conditions may be added as years go by.
Some Scenarios: Several methods of recycling can occur within the city. Below
are discussions of possibilities and, where known, their costs.
I. Residential Recycling at Reuter, Inc. plus collection center
This scenario envisions having waste directed to Reuter from single-
family through four-plex units and a collection center available for residents
in settings with five or more units per building. Under this plan, residents
would have recycling program costs in their refuse bills, and the City would
pick up the cost of a Goodwill-type collection center.
Refuse Collection
Cost per home per year $ 162.30
City Cost per year $18,000.00
County Assistance minimal
Recycling Achieved:
Residential 4,686 tons
Collection Center 200 tons
Percent of Total Wastes Recycled
9.0% to 11.4%
- 7 -
II. Curbside Recyclables Collection and Collection Center
This scenario outlines the full behavior-modification plan as contained
in Metropolitan Council policy. It assumes bi-weekly collection of residential
recyclables - including yard wastes, and a collection center available for more
use in residential settings with common refuse collection service. While the
level of recycling achieved tends to increase slowly over time, the level of
recycling shown below reflects that which the County espects to be achieved.
The initial cost for recycling containers is also shown. The cost for
collection of household refuse would reflect use of the County waste processing
system.
Refuse Collection Cost per home per year $166.00
City Costs:
- Cost for curbside collection $ 30,000.00
- Cost for yard waste collection 100,000.00
- City portion for recycling containers 19,000-57,000
- Cost for publicity 20,000.00
- Cost for collection center 18,000.00
Total City Costs $18T, 9-f=;if66
County Assistance:
- Curbside and yard waste collection,
collection center and publicity $ 84,000.00
- Recycling containers 19,000-57,000
Total County Cost $103,600-14 FM
NET CITY COST $103,000-141,000
Recycling achieved:**
Curbside 2582-3268 tons (6% of total City waste)
Yard waste 1721-2179 tons (4% of total City waste)
Collection center 200- 200 tons
TO 6dT tons
* Note that annual operating cost would be $168,000; recycling
containers are one-time major purchase.
** Recycling achieved reflects County goals. How long it would take to
reach these goals is unknown.
III. Combine Reuter and Curbside Services
One way to approach recycling is to offer the full range of recycling
choices and opportunities. Having the Reuter Resource Recycling facility
included in the system acknowledges that some people will not bother to
separate wastes and provides a way to capture their recyclables. Having a
curbside about recycling by separating their wastes for a convenient, separate
pick up.
- 8 -
This system promises to be more costly, and its likelihood to result in
more recycling is questionable. Reuter, Inc. officials have said that their
tipping fees would need to be higher (at least until the County's system is on
line) because it relies on the sales of recyclables to maintain profitability;
a curbside program could significantly reduce the amount of recyclables Reuter
would receive. Similarly, a recyclables hauler would be seeing fewer
recyclables placed out for collection because residents would be mixing their
wastes for separation at the Reuter plant. Fees would be higher, either the
flat collection charge or cost per ton (or both), in order to cover fixed
expenses. Both components would go up in cost: for residents, their garbage
bills would be similar to the cost of the County system; and the City would
have to pay for most of a comprehensive although less extensive recycling
program yearly (because the recycling at the Reuter plant would not count
toward recycling recognized to receive much County assistance).
The amount of material recycled is not likely to increase
significantly. Residents would pay for greater convenience by having
recyclables collected in the manner they prefer (mixed for Reuter, separated
for curbside). It is more economical to use either the Reuter or curbside
system and combine the availability of collection centers to allow choice in a
resident's preferred disposal method.
To compare the alternatives:
Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III
Resident's refuse bill $T62.36 T---96 (�
City's Costs
* Recycling Program 18,000 84,000 ?
** Containers 19,000-57,000 19,000-57,000
$18,000 $1Tb66-iT41-,Mt 0 ----7--
County Costs
* Recycling Program 0.00 84,000 ?
** Containers 19,000-57,000 19,000-57,000
0.00 ;1m—,660=rTF 660 ----7— —
Total Public Cost $18,000 $187,000-225,000 ?
Recycling Achieved (Residential)
Tons 4,886 4,503 - 5,647 *** ?
Percent of Total Waste 9.0-11.4 **** 10.0 10.0+
* Assumes County assistance of 50%
** Per existing and proposed County assistance @ $2 and $4 per
container, respectively
*** Reflects County goal to be achieved; achievability has been
questioned
**** Reflects amount of material recognized as recycled. Amount diverted
from landfill would be double the figures shown.
9
r IV. Commercial Recycling
z
This field of recycling is one which no one has quite figured out. The
County's current position is that each City will be responsible to ensure that
commercial (and industrial) recycling is being accomplished. To fulfill this
responsibility, the City would need to monitor and encourage businesses
regarding their waste disposal and recycling practices. A significant amount
of start-up and on-going work will be necessary. The City should commit new
staff resources to this data-gathering and public information function.
A Recommendation to Add Staff: The recycling/solid waste abatement area is
one wifh growing responsibility for the City. Existing staff is spending an
increasing amounts of limited time to provide information about recycling
opportunities and the "how-to" of recycling. More work will be needed in the
commercial/industrial recycling area. The amount of effort to administer
residential recycling will vary depending on whether a Reuter-type program or a
"traditional"-type program is offered, but the residential component will not
run by itself. To make both the residential and non-residential systems work
properly will require significant time for publicity and public education. In
all, to do the job well, this service requires more resources than existing
staff has available.
It is recommended that there be a new position authorized for the City staff.
It is expected that part, rather than all, of this position's responsibility
would entail the City's recycling program. This approach is common in other
suburban communities and it should work well within the Eden Prairie
organization. The salary estimate for this position would be $25,000. Part of
this salary expense would be eligible for the County assistance grant program.
How To Pay for All of This?: Essentially, the net costs for operating a
recyc ing program ShOUIC be collected through property taxes because it is the
most efficient way to receive revenue. Some cities are able to charge for
recycling services on a utility bill. To do so in Eden Prairie is difficult
because many properties which would be served do not have City water or sewer.
Because Eden Prairie has not "organized" refuse collection, the City does not
send refuse collection bills on which it could add the cost of recycling
services. While the City could send an annual bill ($15-$20) to each
residence, setting up and operating such a system would be expensive.
Taxing for this service does raise some equity issues, however. Owners of more
expensive properties pay more for this service which is usually calculated on
the basis of a flat cost to serve a particular property. Businesses pay for a
collection service which may not be offered to them if curbside residential
recycling is the only program pursued.
If one were to assume that a City program would cost $200,000, this figure
would translate to 0.5 mills on taxes payable in 1988. This mill rate would
represent a 2.5 percent increase in the City's levy, and less than 0.5 percent
on the overall property tax levy within the City. These amounts would be
reduced by the amount of County assistance received. Taxes levied for solid
- lo -
waste abatement activites are exempt from the levy limit statute.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES: This memorandum may contain an overwhelming amount of
in orma ion, a ey issues at this time are:
1) Affirmation or revision of the City's current recycling plan.
- Should the City continue to pursue mechanical separation of
recyclables as the primary component of its program?
- Should commercial wastes also be directed to the Reuter Resource
Recycling facility?
- Should a collection center be provided for those persons who
will not have curbside or mechanical separation available?
- Should there be changes in the mix of recycling services?
2) Establishing a timetable to have waste flow directed by January 1,
1989.
- Follow the statutory time periods for hearings and public comment
and final Council action by December 6, 1988.
3) Consider addition of a staff position which will, in part, be
responsible for recycling and waste abatement.
4) Determine whether costs for the program will be recovered through
taxes or user fees.
i
Joint City Council/Human Rights&Services Commission April 5,1988 Page 1
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HUMAN RIGHTS&SERVICES COMMISSION
TUESDAY,APRIL 5,1988 6:00 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson,Richard Anderson,George
Bentley,Jean Harris and Patricia Pidcock.
HUMAN RIGHTS&SERVICES Gail Leipold,Elizabeth Kelly,William Jackson,
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Peter Iversen,Kent Barker,Melanie Lubbers Voris,
Virginia Gartner,Margaret(Peg)Johnson,and Ellie
Norberg
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J.Jullie,Asst.to the City Manager
Craig Dawson, Director of Human Resources&Services
Natalie Swagged,Personnel Coordinator Karen
Michaels, and Recording Secretary Sue Anderson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members were present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION
Pidcock moved,seconded by Harris to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried
unanimously.
II. DISCUSSION OF HUMAN SERVICES MODEL
Peterson entertained discussion and introductions were made of the Human Rights and Services
Commission Members.
Michael Groh,Human Services Consultant, who was hired to help design a Human Services Model
for Eden Prairie,spoke about the unique challenge of developing a proactive approach to meeting
present and future Human Service needs.
Gail Leipold stated that the mission statement, 'To create an environment In which all
Eden Prairie residents,adults and children,will be aware of,and utilize,
appropriate,competent,and affordable services for personal and family needs.
Ail providers of service,and supporters will work together in a coordinated,
cooperative manner to ensure quality client services and efficient use of human
and material resources,'was established to guide the commission in setting the goals which
are: 1)needs assessment.2)coordination,3)information and referral,4)outreach,5)funding,6)
evaluation,and 7)volunteers.
Joint City CounclUHuman Rights&Services Commission April 5,1988 Page 2
Virginia Gartner provided an overview of the Model by explaining how the various service
organizations functioned now and how under the proposed Model they would be linked together in
the form of a coordinating council.
Leipold explained that the new body,called the Human Services Coordinating Council, would
consist of:2 Elected Officials(1 City Council,1 School Board);1 Human Rights&Services
Commission Member,1 Community Education Advisory Board Member,1 Ministerial Association
Representative,1 Eden Prairie Foundation Representative,1 PROP Representative,1 City Staff
Member,1 School Administration Staff Member. She added that the Human Rights&Services
Commission would like to become better educated on the services and funding provided by
Hennepin County,and the State.
Kent Barker emphasized that the focus of the Human Services Coordinating Council would be total
community. He highlighted four areas of involvement:1)facilitate the exchange of information,2)
needs assessment and trend analysis,3)monitor quality and level of services,and 4)marshal
resources/leverage funds.
Peterson complimented the Commission on the work done and the presentation.
Harris commented that the Model provides a mechanism for better communication among present
service organizations and was a step forward in meeting Human Service needs of the future.
Swaggert stated the Model would allow the residents to become aware of the available resources,
and would result in an ongoing role for the City,possibly in the area of information and referral.
Bentley stated he was very impressed by what was put together and the result being a unique
approach and concept in meeting Human Service needs.
MOTION 1:
Pidcock moved,seconded by Harris to formally agree to support the proposed Model and allow the
Commission to proceed with an implementation plan. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION 2:
Pidcock moved,seconded by Harris to designate a representative to participate on the Human
Services Coordinating Council(HSCC)for a period of two years. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
Nominate Council representative to the Human Services Coordinating Council for a period of two
years.
MOTION
Pidcock moved,seconded by Anderson to nominate Jean Harris to represent the Council on the
Human Services Coordinating Council for a period of two years. Motion carried unanimously.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM.
Eden Prairie City Council Meeting Minutes March 15,1988 Page 1
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,MARCH 15,1988 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson,Richard Anderson,George
Bentley,Jean Harris and Patricia Pidcock.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Cad J.Jullie,Asst,to the City Manager
Craig Dawson,City Attorney Roger Pauly,Director of
Planning Chris Enger,Director of Community Service s
Robert Lambert,Director of Public Works Eugene A.
Dietz,and Recording Secretary Sue Anderson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members were present.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the Agenda. VIII,Grant Merritt Report on Legislative Landfill
Situation;X.A.1.Discussion on Orientation of Commission Members;X.B.A.Set Special Meeting
with Human Rights Commission for Presentation of Human Services Model.;X.B.S.Proposal for
Southwest Eden Prairie Development Plan Study;X.B.6.Membership on the Board of Appeals and
Adjustment;X.B.7.Closed Executive Session on George Hoff Report on NSP Power Line
Situation;X.E.S.Discussion on Eligibility Fee for Softball Teams.
MOTION
Motion was made,and seconded to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business,as
published and amended. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A.Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday,January 19,1988
The following changes were made:Page 11, paragraph 4 should read: Harris,lookiirg at
proposed Plan 1 B; Page 11,motion should read: Motion 1 Pidcock moved,seconded by Harris;
Page 11 add:Motion 2:Bentley moved,seconded by Anderson to table the motion that the
proposed development had no potential for significant environment effects. Motion carried
unanimously: Page 20,paragraph 3,line 3 should read: a revised section 2 should be
developed by Council review.
MOTION
Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock,to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held
Tuesday,January 19, 1988,as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously
B.Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday March 8,1988
The following changes were page: Page 2,paragraph 5,line 3 should read: He inquired of the
City Manager what the City might do to financially aid the development;Page 3,motion 2,line 2
should read:to participate in the preparation of a Request for Proposal for the Master Plan of the
Eden Prairie City Council Meeting Minutes March 15,1988 Page 2
area;Motion 3,line 1 should read:to direct Staff to try to bring other property owners;Motion 5,
line 5 add:Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION
Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock to approve the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting
held Tuesday,March 8,1988,as published and amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. Anderson
abstained.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License U
B. Change Order No 1-Fire Station Contract
C. Approval of Addendum to the Joint Powers South Suburban Adaptive Recreation Board
D. Qergman Addition by Richard and Lina Bergman and Richard and Marjorie Ziminske. Approval
of Developer's Agreement for Bergman Addition. (Location: South of Holly Road,east of
Rosemary Road)
E. AMOLUBE QUICK CHANGE 2nd Reading of Ordinacne No.10-88,Amending Ordinance No.
32-84-PUD-5-84 within the PUD-5-Neighborhood-Commercial District;Approval of Supplement
to Developer's Agreement for Amoco Oil Company,and Adoption of Resolution No.88-38,
Authorizing Summaryof Ordinance No.10-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary.
Location: Southeast quadrant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway 169,
F. Change Order No.1 for Bluffs East 4th Addition I C 52 096
G. Final Plat approval for Prairie Knoll 3rd Addition(located north of Valley View Road and west of
Ontario Boulevard)Resolution No.88.37
H. Agreement between Raymond N.Welter Jr and Carole Ann Welter(owners)and the City of
Eden Prairie regarding improvements to Blossom Road
I. Grading Permit for Steve Kohles to construct berm adjacent to Valley View Road on Lot 2 Block
3.Paulsen's Addition
J. ROGER'S AUTO BODY by Roger L.Lindeman. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No.44-87,
Rezoning from Rural to I-2;Approval of Developer's Agreement for Roger's Auto Body;and
Adoption of Resolution No.88-40,Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No.44-87 and Ordering
Publication of Said Summary. Location: East of Highway 169,south of Williams Mini-Storage)
K. Resolution No 88.39 Commending the Eden Prairie High School Girls Gymnastics Team for
Winning the Minnesota State High School"AA"ChampionshiQ
MOTION
Harris moved,seconded by Bentley to approve Items A-K on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried
unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. A TO Z RENTAL Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service on 1.67
acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,Preliminary Plat of 3.59 acres into
one lot and one outlot,for construction of a 15,500 sq.ft.retail facility. Location: Southwest
corner of Valley View Road and Plaza Drive. (Ordinance No.13-88-Rezoning;Resolution No.
88-36-Preliminary Plat)
Julie reported that notice of this Public Hearing was sent to owners of eight neighboring properties
and published in the March 2,1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. The proponent would
construct a 15,500 sq.ft.building in three phases. The first phase would be 7,100 sq.ft. The
proponent requests a variance to allow outside storage exceeding that permitted by Ordinance,and
a zero lot line rear yard setback to provide front yard setback and parking in front of the building.
Roman Roos,representative for proponent,presented the preliminary plat indicating Phase I,II and
III. Approval of all phases by the City Council was essential to the primary lender who had requested
the City's assurance that the project would continue and Phase II and III would be developed.
Phase 11 was described as expansion to take place concurrently with Phase I. Phase III would be a
Eden Prairie City Council Meeting Minutes March 15,1988 Page 3
small retail strip of 3600 sq.ft. Roos presented the color scheme and indicated signage would
consist of 1'high black letters and two series of signage.
Enger,Director of Planning,reported that the Planning Commission voted 4-0 at the February 11,
1988 meeting for Council approval of rezoning subject to staff recommendations dated February
22,amended to include that 1)plans for mechanical screening be submitted prior to Council review,
2)variance request be applied for Phase I and Phase II regarding outside storage,and 3)Phase III
would be allowed its own 10%outside storage. Enger continued to report to Council Items A
through F of the staff recommendations and the status of each item. There were three categories:
1)items that have been revised and submitted and changed for the Council,2)those items that
have been revised but additional work needed to be done on the plans,and 3)those items that
have not been changed or submitted. Prior to grading permit issuance and building permit
issuance,proponent shall have submitted a detailed storm water run-off,erosion control and uti'ity
plan for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District;and have applied for and received
approval of the variance request for outside storage;and concurrent with building construction, a
5-foot concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the west side of Plaza Drive.
Harris inquired what the timing was for Phase I.Proponent responded construction of Phase I would
commence immediately upon permit issuance,Phase II concurrent with Phase I,and Phase III
having possibly an eighteen month time line.
Discussion following on building size and adequate parking spaces in conjunction with the time line
for Phase I and Phase Il. Anderson inquired of size of trucks that would be stored and proponent
stated they were standard 12 ft.cargo box trucks.
Bentley inquired to Staff that if there were a PUD Concept in place, would this zoning district
change require a PUD district amendment. Enger responded that if the property is in accordance
with the PUD Concept and does not require an amendment. The original Menards concept was
quite general and this proposal would fit within that context.
Bentley inquired about the bricking of the wall on Phase I if Phase II did not proceed. He asked
what assurance the City would have that this would be done. Jullie responded that a bonding
agreement would be incorporated with the Development Agreement.
Peterson asked Enger 0 the project was acceptable with reference to the items not submitted. After
further discussion with proponent,Enger stated that the color of brick has been suggested,the
screening of the lower area of the sight line is in question,and a new sight line will bedrawn.It had
been agreed on the criteria that the outside storage area has to be screened. The City Council
accepted the color of brick in question.
MOTION 1:
Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock to close the public hearing and approve 1 st Reading of
Ordinance No.13-88 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION 2:
Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No.88-36 approved the Preliminary Plat
and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
recommendations and Council conditions including a bank letter of credit or similar guarantee for
finishing the north side of the building in the event that Phases II and III are not built,and that the
issues surrounding the unresolved issues be submitted and resolved before second reading.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. YEAR XIV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATION
(Resolution No.88-35).
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing for this item was properly published in the Eden
Prairie News. Federal Law requires that a Public Hearing be held on the proposed use of
Eden Prairie City Council Meeting Minutes March 15,1988 Page 4
Community Development Block Grant Funds. Eden Prairie participates in the Urban Hennepin
County Program and is eligible to apply for$64,853.00 in CDBG Funds for the Year XIV funding
(1988-89). The City's proposal is reviewed by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
Regarding the Scattered Site Housing Assistance,Harris inquired if the City recoups money when
the property is sold and is interest accrued. Assistant Planner David Lindahl responded that the
mortgage is a"sleepy second"and there is no interest. The City recoups the investment when the
property sells. If there is equity,the percentage the City gives would be what the City gets back
when the property was sold. The money collected would then be redirected to the Scattered Site
Housing Assistance.
Regarding day care assistance,Bentley inquired if there was an awareness in the community of
these resources,and if the dollars are being utilized by Eden Prairie residents. Grace Norris,of the
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, replied that this money can only be used by Eden Prairie
residents,but because they have the right to choose their licensed day care center,@ could be
outside of Eden Prairie.
There were no audience comments during the public hearing.
MOTION
Anderson moved and Pidcock seconded to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No.
88-35 regarding the use of CDBG Funds. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 41007 to 41293
MOTION
Pidcock moved,seconded by Harris to approve the Payment of Claims Nos.41007-41293. Roll
call vote: Anderson,Bentley,Harris Pidcock and Peterson voted"aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
VI. ORDINANCES&RESOLUTIONS
None
VII. PETITIONS,REQUESTS&COMMUNICATIONS
None
Vill. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
Grant Merritt reported on the landfill issue. He stated the lobbying effort to block the bill for waste
management changes failed. In the new language being proposed by Senator Merriam,new
landfills would not be allowed to be sited. An amendment to the bill,whereby any landfill which had
been approved for expansion prior to December 15,t 987, would not be subject to any zoning
power control, was still out of the bill and was not authorized in the Senate hearing before the
environmental committee. He reported that this could be sneaked in at any time and they must be
very vigilant to stop 0. The PCA has issued a new set of solid waste rules which are questionable
and That weakens the amendment.
Pauly responded that the issue of the contested case hearing,he received a letter form the
Attorney General that was written to the PCA that the contested case would be heard and was on
track. With regard to the closure question,the PCA had not had a response to date.
IX. APPOINTMENTS
None
i
Eden Prairie City Council Meeting Minutes March 15,1988 Page 5
X, REPORTS OF OFFICERS,BOARDS&COMMISSIONS
A.Report of Council Members
1. ORIENTATION OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS
Pidcock stated she was under the impression that a policy had been set for an annual general
orientation and a specific commission orientation for new commission members.
Peterson believed that before making this a policy,an evaluation should be completed by the
participants to hear what the consider to be important use of their time,what the beneficial
meaning was,if it was presented in a constructive way and then decide ft @ should be an annual
event.
MOTION
Pidcock moved,seconded by Harris that a policy be set for a general orientation annually for new
members and an evaluation of the orientation conducted at the time of the orientation,and that
there would be a specific orientation for each commission. Motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION
Bentley moved,seconded by Anderson to add to the above motion that previously appointed
Commission Members would be invited and encouraged to attend but their attendance would
not be mandatory but strongly encouraged. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Report of City Manager
1. AWARD UNIFORM CONTRACT
Jullie reported that as part of its agreement with IUOE No.49,the City provides uniforms to Street
Maintenance,Park Maintenance and Water Department staff. This benefit has also been
extended to several staff members in the City Offices who spend much of their time out-of-doors.
Bids were received for a two-year contract,and competitive and favorable bids were submitted.
MOTION
Bentley moved,seconded by Anderson to recommended that a two-year contract for employee
uniform rental be awarded to American Linen Supply Company in accordance with submitted
bid. Motion carried unanimously.
2. CITY HALL FINANCING OPTIONS
At its January 13 meeting,Council directed Staff to prepare scenarios on financing a City Hall. A
memorandum to this effect has been prepared.
MOTION
Harris moved,Pidcock seconded,to receive the data and postpone discussion until a future
date. Motion carried unanimously.
Council thanked Dawson for his very readable and understandable data.
3. 1.494 EIS AGREEMENT
Jullie reported on the inter-agency agreement draft that was prepared to conduct an
Environmental Impact Statement for Improvements to 1-494 as suggested by the recent
mufti-agency study on the highway corridor. Under the proposed agreement,the City of Eden
Prairie would be responsible for 5%of the study costs to a maximum contribution of$65,000.
Should the study begin this year,the City would use money from the General Fund Surplus for
invoices received in 1988,and could budget expenses from the General Fund in future years.
i
Eden Prairie City Council Meeting Minutes March 15,1988 Page 6
Jullie continued that the draft agreement was presented for Council's information. If Council
wishes to participate in this study,staff would participate in negotiations on the agreement and
provide timely updates to Council.
Bentley stated he continues to oppose the spending of property tax dollars on federal highway
projects. If there are federal and state highway then the appropriate bodies should be funding
them.
Discussion followed as Anderson stated that like Highway 5,this will change the way of doing
business. Perhaps something will move along faster.
Harris felt a yes vote was in the best interest of the vitality of the City.
MOTION
Pidcock moved,Peterson seconded that Council accept the concept of the 1-494 management
team for an EIS agreement contingent that the Minnesota Department of Transportation maintain
the currency of the EIS. Motion carried 4-1-0,Bentley opposed.
4. SET SPECIAL MEETING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS SERVICES COMMISSION
Jullie requested a meeting date for presentation by the Human Rights Services Commission of
the Human Services Model.
MOTION
Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock to set Special Council Meeting for joint meeting for Human
Rights Services Commission for Human Services Model update on April 5,1988 at 6:00 PM.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. SOUTHWEST EDEN PRAIRIE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Jullie reported that staff has been reviewing issues and discussing candidate selection for a
consultant team that would prepare a development plan for the southwest quadrant of Eden
Prairie. After completing the process,it recommended a team comprised of Don Brauer,Brauer
Group,Inc.,Jim Benshoof,Benshoof and Associates,Inc.,and Steve Pellinen,Hanson Thorp
Pellinen and Olson,Inc.
Jullie continued that the basic premise of the proposal is to provide a factual and practical basis
for the approval of development plans in the currently undeveloped southwestern area of the
City and to render such approvals in the most orderly and efficient manner possible. The
consultants have proposed a two-phase study and will cost$50,000 for Phase I and an
additional$27,00o for Phase 11. He asked Council to direct staff to authorize the team to proceed
with to study as outlined in the memo.
MOTION 1:
Anderson moved,seconded by Bentley to accept the recommendation and that,until the
planning study is done, a moratorium be placed on any projects coming through for the
southwest area.
Bentley inquired to Enger if any development proposals for this area have been submitted.
Enger replied affirmatively,that a proposal from Tandem Corporation for development of 260
acres will be submitted on March 25th for review by the City.
Pauly was unable to reply to an appropriate length of time for a moratorium. He did feel,however,
that a land owner should be permitted to present his argument as to why a moratorium would not
be in his best interest and prevent him from using his property in any respect.
Harris felt a case by case review would be a safety valve and the City should not be pushed by
developer demands.
Eden Prairie City Council Meeting Minutes March 15,1988 Page 7
MOTION 2:
Anderson moved,Bentley seconded to remove the moratorium from the motion and direct staff
to work with legal counsel and commence with a reasonable approach and terminology for such
moratorium that could be considered and adopted at the next council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
e. NSP
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
7. BOARD OF APPEALS
Jullie recapped staffs error at the appointment meeting and the transposing of totals. He
apologized for error and the embarrassment that occurred. Pauly had advised Jullie that Mr.
Freemeyer was the appointee and not Mr.Anderson. At this point,Jullie stated,an option would
be to increase the membership of the Board of Appeals giving the Council the opportunity to
make additional appointments.
Anderson felt that due to the amount of absenteeism in the past year,more members would be
an asset to the Board.
MOTION
Anderson moved,seconded by Pidcock that Council approve first reading of the Ordinance
No.14-88 be accepted increasing the Board of Appeals to nine memenrs. Motion carried
unanimously.
Peterson asked staff to communicate with liaison people and evaluate the possibility of enlarging
the other Boards and Commissions to increase citizen participation.
Bentley added that the Council should also be evaluated in the same manner. By consensus,
the Council asked for evaluation.
C. Report of City Attorney
None
D. Report of Director of Planning
None
E. Report of Director of Community Services
1. PHASE 2 REPAIRS TO COMMUNITY CENTER
Lambert reported that Phase I repairs to the Community Center was nearing completion,and it
would be advantageous to being Phase II repairs during the warm-weather construction
season. It is estimated the Phase II will take nearly nine months to complete,at a cost of
$480,000. He stated that recommended funding for this project would be to use cash park
fees that would be reimbursed to a limited extent from the litigation settlement.
MOTION
Bentley moved,seconded by Anderson to authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications and advertisement for bids for the 2nd phase of repairs to the Community
Center. Motion carried unanimously.
f
Eden Prairie City Council Meeting Minutes March 15,1988 Page 8
2. STARING LAKE PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Lambert reported the use of Staring Lake Park has increased and spoke of several changes
} that would enhance the use of the park and protection of the resource. The Eden Prairie
Lioness Club voted to donate$15,000 toward an amphitheater project and proposed to
reimburse the City over three to five years for this expense. The$95,000 estimated cost to
complete the project could be funded by cash park fees.
MOTION:
Anderson moved,seconded by Bentley to approve the proposed improvements to Staring
Lake Park. Motion carried unanimously.
Bentley thanked the Eden Prairie Lionesss Club for its generous contribution.
Pidcock inquired to Lambert if anything had been done about the snowmobiles on Staring
Lake. Due to lack of time for discussion,this topic would be placed on a future agenda.
3. OPERATING POLICIES FOR RILEY LAKE PARK
Lambert reported on the DNR ruling that the City cannot lawfully limit the number of boats
launched at Riley Lake Park. The Parks,Recreation&Natural Resources Commission,with the
concurrence of the President of the Riley Lake Homeowners Association,has recommended
that the Council pass an Ordinance which would eliminate the use of alcohol in Riley Lake Park
and the ability to moor or beach boats on park land. Lambert presented the following
recommendations: 1)authorize extending"no parking"signs along County Road 1,Riley Lake
Road and Crestwood Terrace,up to one mile from the access;and 2)not allowing any vehicles
pulling boat trailers to park in the overflow parking area.
Lambert fell that the two changes would discourage launching too many more boats than the
number permitted in the past;however,it the access continued to allow well over a safe
number of boats,staff would recommend adopting a park rule that would not allow boats to
moor on park land. This could be controlled through the expansion of the swimming area
along park property and extending a rope and buoy system the entire length of the park
property to discourage much of the type of use that exists at the park to date.
MOTION 1:
Anderson moved,seconded by Bentley to direct Staff to draft an Ordinance for Council's
consideration at its April 5.1988 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion by Council followed with the alternatives of management policy with the City of
Chanhassen regarding parking,alcohol,hours for boating,skiing,etc.,and the hiring of
qualified people to enforce the parking rules.
Lambert fell discussion with other bodies would take six months and that the present situation
needed direction and signs now.
MOTION 2:
Pidcock moved,seconded by Bentley to direct staff to work with legal counsel to work out a
solution for safety concerns, extend parking along the lake,and hire park attendants on the
bases of their ability to properly manage an unruly situation.
Lambert stated he would return to Council with a report regarding costs for attendants.
4. NAME CHANGE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE DEPARTMENT
Eden Prairie City Council Meeting Minutes March 15,1988 Page 9
Lambert reported the responsibilities of the Community Services Department have become
more focused over the past several yeas. The name"Community Services"carried many
confusing connotations,and it was appropriate to retitle the department to correspond with its
functions. The Parks,Recreation&Natural Resources Commission reviewed this issue and
unanimously recommended that the City Council consider renaming the Community Services
Department to the"Department of Parks,Recreation&Natural Resources."
MOTION:
Pidcock moved,seconded by Anderson to change the Community Services Department
name to the Department of Parks,Recreation&Natural Resources. Motion carried
unanimously.
5. ELIGIBILITY FEES FOR SOFTBALL
Lambert reported that last year at public meetings,residents were complaining that many of the
softball players were not Eden Prairie residents. At present Eden Prairie has no way of
enforcing the rule;however neighboring communities have spot checkers for ineligible
players. At present over 40 teams cannot play due to lack of space.
The staff is recommending a$100 deposit be made and if no ineligible players are found,the
money would be returned at the end of the season. The interest earned on the money will pay
for someone to spot check on the field the eligibility of the players. If someone is found,the
team forfeits the$100 and the remaining games.
Harris inquired as to the eligibility requirements. Lambert replied they must work or live in Eden
Prairie to be eligible.
MOTION
Anderson moved,seconded by Peterson to direct Parks,Recreation&Natural Resources to
institute an eligibility deposit fee for softball teams. Motion carried 3-0-2,Harris,and Pidcock
abstaining.
F. Report of Director of Public Works
None
G. Report of Finance Director
None
XI. NEW BUSINESS
None
XII. Adjournment
MOTION
Bentley moved,seconded by Pidcock to adjourn at 11:45 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
June 7, 1988
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) GAS FITTER
Act 90, Inc. Budget Plumbing Corp.
Bernu Companies, Inc. Clark Plumbing
Bor Son Building Corp. Larson Mechanical
Metro Build-Tech, Inc. Sunset Heating & Air Conditioning
Prime Development Corp.
Sandeen Construction, Inc. HEATING & VENTILATING
Waters & Bonner, Inc.
C. 0. Carlson Air Conditioning
Larson Mechanical
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Preferred Mechanical Services
Bjorklund Builders & Remodelers Sunset Heating & Air Conditioning
Cedarock Builders SCAVENGER
Custom Energy Homes
Decks With A Difference Quinnell, Inc.
Dimond Clear Pool Service
P. E. Fragale, Inc.
Giles Builders, Inc. RAFFLE
Roncor Construction, Inc.
St. Charles Homes Twin City Swiss American Association
Stonewood Homes, Inc. Staring Lake Park 7-30-88
T.L.A. Homes, Inc.
M.E.Zastera Construction
PLUMBING
Aarons Plumbing
Clark Plumbing
M & D Plumbing
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
24t4_
Licensing
l Jy�
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-90
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
MENARD 5TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of MENARD 5TH 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 MENARD 5TH ADDITION is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on
this plat dated JUNE 1, 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.
ADDPTED by the City Council on JUNE 7, 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
DATE: June 1, 1988 U
SUBJECT: MENARD 5TH ADDITION
PROPOSAL: The Developers, Eden Prairie Rental, Inc., have requested City
Council approval of the final plat of Menard 5th Addition, a commercial
property located south of Valley View Road and west of Plaza Drive.
Formerly, Outlot A of Menard 4th Addition, the plat contains 3.59 acres
to be subdivided into one lot and one outlot. Outlot A contain 1.92
acres and is intended to be an area for future development. Lot 1
contains 1.67 acres and is the proposed site for A to Z Rental Center's
new building.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March
15, 1988 per Resolution 88-36.
Second reading of Ordinance 13-88, changing zoning from rural to C-
Regional-Service, was finally read and approved at the City Council
meeting held April 19, 1988.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed
April 19, 1988.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities and roadways are currently in
place and available to serve this site.
PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING: Bonding must conform to City Code and the Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Menard 5th Addition
subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement
and the following:
1. Receipt of Engineering Fee in the amount of $359.00.
JJ:ss
cc: Rome Development Corp
Ron Krueger and Associates
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-91
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
IDLEWILD LAKE ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of IDLEWILD LAKE 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 IDLEWILD LAKE ADDITION is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on
this plat dated JUNE 1, 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 JUNE 1, 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�.�•� �
DATE: June 1, 1988 0
SUBJECT: IDLEWILD LAKE ADDITION
PROPOSAL: Suburban National Bank has requested City Council approval of the
final plat of Idlewild Lake Addition, a one lot subdivision for office
purposes located south of Lake Idlewild, west of US Highway 169 and
north of Eden Road. The plat contains 2.7 acres to be combined into
one lot.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council June 17, 1986
per Resolution 86-135.
Second reading of Ordinance 32-86, changing zoning from the Rural
District to the Office District, was finally read and approved at City
Council meeting held August 5, 1986.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed
August 5, 1986.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, roadways and walkways
necessary to serve 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 City Code and the Developer's Agreement.
1 ,
;s
Page 2 of 2 IDLEWILD LAKE ADDITION June 1, 1988
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Idlewild Lake
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's
Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of Street Lighting fee in the amount of $324.00.
2. Receipt of Engineering fee in the amount of $270.00.
3. Recommend that the area within Lake Idlewild contained within the
plat be platted as an outlot and dedicated to the City.
4. Recommend that Suburban National Bank enter into the requirements
of this Developer's Agreement.
5. Revision of the plat to include the standard drainage and utility
easements around the lot perimeters.
JJ:ss
cc: Suburban National Bank
Ron Krueger and Associates
9
S
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-93
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
THE FARM 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of THE FARM 2ND ADDITION has been submitted in a manner
required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Drdinance 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 THE FARM 2ND ADDITION is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on
this plat dated JUNE 1, 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 JUNE 7, 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 G�
DATE: June 1, 1988
SUBJECT: THE FARM 2ND ADDITION
PROPOSAL: Countryside Investments, Inc. has requested City Council approval
of the final plat of The Farm 2nd Addition, a single family residential
subdivision located North of Duck Lake Trail and West of Boyd Avenue in
the South half of Section 6. The plat contains 30.0 acres to be divided
into 17 lots, one outlot and right-of-way dedication for street
purposes. Outlot A contains 11.40 acres and is intended to be
dedicated to the City. Lot 17 contains 11.62 acres and is the current
site for King of Glory Luthern Church.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council April 5, 1988
per Resolution 88-45.
Second reading of Ordinance 16-88, changing zoning from Rural to R1-13.5
on 1.95 acres and from Public to R1-13.5 on 4.7 acres is scheduled for
final approval at the City Council meeting June 7, 198B.
The Developers Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for
execution June 7, 1988.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, roadways and walkways will be
installed throughout the plat in conformance with City Standards and the
requirements of the Developer's Agreement.
Per Items N4 and 5 in the Developer's Agreement, prior to release of the
final plat, the plat shall be revised to include a 20-foot easement for
trail purposes along the North side of Duck Lake Trail, and receipt of
corresponding easement documents stating the walkway purpose;
additionally, receipt of a scenic easement across the rear portions of
Lots 8 and 9 Block 1.
Page 2 of 2 THE FARM 2ND ADDITION June 1, 1988
PARK DEDICATION: Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall convey
to the City, by warranty deed Outlot A. The remaining requirements for
park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement.
BONDING: Bonding must conform to City Code and the Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of The Farm 2nd
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's
Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of Street Sign Fee in the amount of $374.00.
2. Receipt of Street Lighting Fee of $2,322.00.
3. Receipt of Engineering Fee in the amount of $680.00.
4. Receipt of Warranty Deed for Outlot A.
5. Receipt of Scenic Easement over lots 8 and 9.
6. Revision of plat to include 20-Foot Trail Easement
7. Satisfaction of Bonding Requirements.
JJ:ss
cc: Countryside Investments, Inc.
Ron Krueger and Associates
IJ�I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-94
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
BLUFFS EAST FIFTH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of BLUFFS EAST FIFTH 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 BLUFFS EAST FIFTH ADDITION is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
report on this plat dated JUNE 1, 198B.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of
this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named
plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the
certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon
compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on JUNE 7, 198B.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
' �.. A
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Juliie, City Manager
Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician
DATE: June 1, 1988
SUBJECT: BLUFFS EAST FIFTH ADDITION
PROPOSAL: The Developers, Nustad Development Corporation, have requested City
Council approval of the final plat of Bluffs East Fifth Addition, a
single family residential subdivision located south of Pioneer Trail and
west of Franlo Road in the South half of Section 25 and North half of
Section 36. The plat contains 30.10 acres to be divided into 34 single
family lots, three outiots and right-of-way dedication for roadway
purposes. Outiots A. B and C contain 0.07 acres, 0.08 acres and 12.47
acres respectively. Ownership of Outlots B and C will be retained by
the Developer with ownership of Outlot A being dedicated to the City for
trail purposes.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council January 199
1988 per Resolution 88-14.
Second reading of Ordinance 57-87, changing zoning from Rural to 111-13.5
is scheduled to be finally read and approved at the City Council meeting
held June 7, 19BB.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled
for execution June 7, 198B.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, roadways and walkways will be
installed thoughout the plat in conformance with City Standards and the
requirement of the Developer's Agreement. The Developers have submitted
a petition for local improvements for the extension of Bluff Road,
including turn lanes and bypass lanes at County Road 18 to service the
property. If these improvements are deemed feasible the Developer shall
enter into a special assessment agreement covering the cost of said
improvements with the City.
1 � �
Page 2 of 2 BLUFFS EAST FIFTH ADDITION June 1, 198B
PARK DEDICATION: Prior to release of the final plat the Developer shall
convey to the City, by warranty deed, Outlot A. The remaining
requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's
Agreement.
BONDING: Bonding must conform to City Code and the Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Bluffs East Fifth
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Develper's
Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of Street Sign fee of $577.00.
2. Receipt of Street Lighting fee of $4,644.00.
3. Receipt of Engineering fee of $1,360.00.
4. Receipt of Warranty Deed for Outlot A.
5. Prior to release of the final plat the Developer shall enter into a
special assessment agreement for public improvements for the
extension of Bluff Road.
JJ:ss
cc: Hustad Development Corporation
Hedlund Engineering
�i�r�
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie
FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson
SUBJECT: Change Order No. 3, Fire Stations Contract
DATE: June 2, 1988
Watson-Forsberg, Inc. has requested approval of Change Order No. 3 in the
amount of $18,723.00. Major items include $9,236 for modifications to
grading and drainage plans, and upgrading the concrete aprons around the
fire bay doors at Station No. 4; $1,847 to enclose a stairway at Station
No. 4; and nearly $8,000 to reinforce and increase the length of tarp
supports at both stations. Also shown is a $3,030 duduct for concrete
floor sealer on Station No. 4; this work will be done at the City's
direction.
To recap the contract status to date:
Original Contract $1,353,450.00
Change Orders 1 & 2 17,403.89
1,370,853.89
Change Order No. 3 18 723.00
$1,389,576.89
This change order is within the budget established for these projects.
Recommendation: It is recommended that Council approve Change Order No. 3
in the amount of $18,723,000 for the fire stations construction contract
with Watson-Forsberg, Inc.
CWD:jdp
Setter,Leach&Lindstrom
INFORMATION ONLY COPY: 1011 Nicollet Mail Attn: John Forsberg
Minneapolis,MN 55403
!tra g a o , 612/338-8741
Ron Johnson
Change Order Trensminal
(AIA Document G701)
Date June
Chem: City of Eden Prairie
Protect:Comm New and Remodeled Fire Stations, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Contractor:tor: 1848.003.03-1
Watson-Forsberg Company
Change Order No.: 3
EXPLANATION FOR CHANGE: -- ---_----_-- -' -
1. Increase size of berms, provide additional site drainage.
2. a. Reduce height of parking lot lights to reduce potential glare on
neighboring site.
b. Provide for future additional storage area.
3. Provide plumbing to clothes washer. Add vinyl base.
4. Delete floor sealer in Apparatus Bay of Station No. 4 only.
5. Provide construction information on wall and soffit closures at various
locations and miscellaneous other changes.
TO CONTRACTOR:
We attach—__copies of Change Order for your signature.
Please return all copies of Change Order and this letter of transmittal to this office.
After the Change Order has been approved by this oftice and the Owner,we will send the fully executed original copy
to you which will be your authorization to proceed with the work involved
TO OWNER:
We attach__.. copies of Change Order for your approval and signature Please return two copies to this office for
distribution and retain remaining cop-.s rrJf-louurr ies
By
SETTER,LEACH 8 LINDSTROM
(J`v L)
CHANGE I)II,Ib1111,1n I„ FORORDER YOUR
(,\VN1R I_l
AIA UOCUM ( TENI G701 (,N tl(I ❑
(INRA(I(7'
air
PROJECT. New and Remodeled Fire (IIAN(;I ()RIAR NUMBUR 3
o,.,me,addn,},I Stations, Eden Prairie,
TO(Cnnlr,u'tm)Minnesota ENIIIAIWN 1)AII: June 1, 1988
F AR( 11111( I S I'R()11( U No 1848.003.03-1
Watson-Forsberg Company r()NI RA( II()R General Construction
252 South Plaza Building
Minneapolis, MN 55416 November 5, 1987
L (()NIRr\( II)All
You are directed to make the following<hanl es in this Contract
A. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING WORK REQUIRED BY PROPOSAL REQUEST NO. 1:
Refer to Drawings-2—and 3, Revised November 11, 1987.
Provide modifications to grading, landscaping, and drainage as
indicated on Drawings 2 and 3. Concrete collar to be 22" x 16"
x 6". Concrete apron to be 22" x 6" x 18" and poured continu-
ous with collar. Bottom Of 10" PVC pipe to occur 2" above top
of apron. AUD: $9,236.00
(Cuntinue.d on Page 2)
ATTACHMENTS:
proposal Requests No. 1, 5, 6, and 7
Watson-Forsberg Company quotations for Proposal Requests No. 1, 5, 6, and 7
Watson-Forsberg Company letter dated April I, 1988
%-It�and Lin IIIcign,d I IN bot h t I,,,(),,I,,.n1,1 A„1111,.,I
\11:n,1l,nn 1,1 Ih,•( ,,,Ir.111, 1111,.11. I.I. ,- ,.n,I,11,1,,,,111, 1...1" ,n, ,nos l 11m,•
Iho urnan,lll(rl„I,,Itl Slnnl HhmnnHwr�LlnwnnnwFe•.Il way . .... $1,353,45D.DD
Nr•t rhan,ro by Innvinlnly at111un1i,J(h.un;, (h,lrr� .... .. 17,403.89
lho((onnarI Swnl((ilr.nmMnn.{Ahnnn,«n1�r.N prim In Ihic(hanr,• I)nl,•, r .1 -._...... $1,370,853.89
Ilu• ((,mlr.lU Suml IF,n.r�nMrd�.1.r.:,nernrFn.11 rlll Lr(in(n•.,,•d «♦,+,.-row♦•-n nr•I nlnr,w}t
I1, III,, (Ilanl•,,•()nl,•r $ 18,723.00
Ihonr•wI(,rnlla,ISunnIhnn,nnkrrlA+,nonn,nl, nulodlnl;0I (I,inI;,.(h,1,"v,IIIIto $1,389,576.89
Ihr Cnnlr.xl limn w,It hr (IHrN'r1•dvlal,*y«�..wN (Lin Ii,n,gndllwfor Station No. 3.
Ihr IL,Ir,rl tub•.Ln,11.11( !... ll„n.,.„I Ih,•(LIh•„I Ih1•.(-hanr,o thon lr,n•1•, 8/1 1/88 for Station NO. 4ha and
unchanged for Station No. 3.
Setter, Leach & Lindstrom, Inc. Watson-Forsberg Com Annn n,o'f
-- - -- _ Company City of Eden Prairie
2fY1T'Nitcollet Mall 252"$a(lf}i Plaza Building 'MOVEx_ecutive Drive
h�iAfi�apolis, MN 55403� - fY 66apolis, MN 55416 ff6'Prairie, MN 55344-36/
nvl Nil
--
AIA D()(UMf NT Wrif Kllo1 VRIl WA Ifn Inr\ I\---------
III! AAItKn \N IN\II(ll(f(11 AN(III III 11 I N'
rl,�:n\ �nena\r N\\ i�\�In• nr �,1,,,, G701-1978
1,1. ,
Change Order No. 3
Comm. No. 1848.003.03-1
Page 2
B. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING WORK REQUIRED BY PROPOSAL REQUEST NO. 5:
1. a. Sheet 301 Dated September 30. 1987.
Lighting Fixture Schedule Type N -- Change manufacturer
and catalog number to Devine No. PCR 1522A-150 HPS,
Pole No. 6SA8-20-A. Change lamps to 1-LU15O.
c. Sheet 3, dated-November 11, 1987.
Detail 2, paving striping, and roof plan. Provide 2
additional Type N fixtures with circuit 42:
- Locate one 2' west of the east sidewalk, 2' south of
the north end of the sidewalk.
- Locate one 2' west of the east sidewalk, 110' south
of the north end of the sidewalk.
Delete the two "N" fixtures on the east side of the
parking lot including bases and wiring to these
fixtures. Provide conduit to the two east side
locations for future installation of Type "N" fixtures
at these locations.
TOTAL ADD FOR PROPOSAL REQUEST NO. 1: E 592.00
2. Refer to Sheet 7, Plan 1.
See the wall dividing Rooms 09 and 22. Fill the block
cores of this wall from 7'-4" AFF to 8'-0" AFF.
ADD: E 50.00
TOTAL ADD FOR PROPOSAL REQUEST NO. 5: $ 642.00
C. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING WORK REQUIRED BY PROPOSAL REQUEST NO. 6:
1. Refer to Drawing 205 Dated September 30, 1987.
In Room 15 at clothes washer, provide a Symnons Model W-602
or approved equal supply and drain fixture. Provide 2"
drain pipe with trap, run down inside wall and connect to
2" sanitary line underfloor. Provide I-1/4" vent and
connect to 1-1/4" vent above ceiling. Provide 112" hot and
cold water connections to unit with 112" lines from 112"
hot and cold piping above ceiling at sink F-6. Run all
piping in wall or above ceiling. Mount supply and drain
unit at a height that will afford easy access for usage.
Coordinate with cloths washer being provided.
Submit shop drawing of supply and drain fixtures.
2. Refer to Plan 6 Detail 1.
Pr
ovide vide vinyl—base in Rooms 08 and 19.
TOTAL ADD FOR PROPOSAL REQUEST NO. 6: $ 783.00
I )_ !
Change Order No. 3
Comm. No. 1848.003.03-1
Page 3
D. Refer to Watson-Forsberg Company letter of April 1 1988:
Delete concrete floor sealer in the Apparatus Bay of Fire
Station No. 4 only.
DEDUCT: (S 3,030.00)
E. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING WORK REQUIRED BY PROPOSAL REQUEST NO. 7:
1. Refer to Drawing 6 Dated September 30 1987.
a. On Plan 1, provide gypsum board construction at east
wall of Room 20 as indicated on 1/110013 and 2/110013.
ADD: S 713.00
b. On Plan 1, increase length of tarp support to extend to
6" from wall near grid A and grid B. Field verify
required length. Reinforce joist as per Detail No. 1
by LeJeune Company dated March 18, 1988.
ADD: S 2,844.00
2. Refer to Drawing 7 and Specification Section 08710 dated
September 30, 1987.
a. On Floor 1, at Doors 9B and 9C, change threshold
from S205A to Reese V301A. Modify hollow metal door
bottom with metal filler piece to provide a flush
bottom that will contact neoprene portion of threshold.
Filler piece to be same gauge material as door skins
and welded to door, grind and paint. Use solid CMU
below threshold at both locations.
ADD: S 53.00
b. On Floor Plan 1, at east end of Rooms 5 and 10, provide
soffit constuction along grid 3 as indicate on Detail
1/R0011.
ADD: S 160.00
c. On Floor Plan I, at each transition between Rooms 18,
21, and 9, provide soffit construction as indicated on
Detail 2/110011 and 3/110013. Head conditon at frame
Type Q to be referenced to 15/12.
ADD: S 340.00
d. On Detail 15, provide CMU infill construction at west
wall of stair as indicated on 2/110012 and 1/110012.
ADD: $ 1,847.00
e. On Plan 1, increase length of the tarp supports and
join together to form two supports 71 feet in length.
Center between grids A and C. Reinforce joist as per
Detail No. 1 by LeJeune Company dated March 18, 1988.
ADD: E 5,135.00
Change Order No. 3
Comm. No. 1848.003.03-1
Page 4
3. Refer to Drawing 11 Dated September 30 1987
On Detail 26, provide continuous 20-mil plastic flashing on
outside of gypsum sheathing from head of aluminum WOW to
top of aluminum panel. Attach at top with aluminum clip
angles used to anchor aluminum panel. Extend flashing
beyond leg of angle to bottom and cut off neatly after
installation of aluminum panels.
No Charge
TOTAL ADD FOR PROPOSAL REQUEST NO. 7: $11,O92.00
TOTAL ADD FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER: $18,723.00
AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE THIS 2.D _ DAY DF MAY, 1988, between the City
of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, (the "City") and William F. Smith
(the "Owner").
A. The Owner holds legal and equitable title to property described as
Lots 1 through 5. Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2, Southgate, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, which property is the subject of this Agreement and is hereinafter
referred to as the "Property".
B. The Owner desires to develop the Property in such a marner that
will require the reconstruction and widening of St. Andrew Drive along the
southerly border of the Property and the installation of concrete curb and
gutter, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer (all of which is hereafter referred
to as the "Improvements").
C. The parties hereto desire to enter into an Agreement concerning the
financing of the construction of the Improvements all of which will inure to
the benefit of the Property.
AGREEMENTS
IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
1. The Owner consents to the levying of assessments against the
Property for the construction of the Improvements.
2. The Owner acknowledges that the Improvements referred to herein are
part of a larger construction project involving St. Andrew Drive as it passes
the Property as well as other land. The City has had prepared a Feasibility
Page -2-
Report which report shows the proposed costs to be assessed against the
Property. The actual cost to be assessed against the Property may differ
from the amount shown in the Feasibility Report when the actual cost of
construction is known. A pro rata share of the total cost of construction
for the entire "construction project" shall be assigned to the Property in
the same manner as is done in the Feasibility Report.
3. For the purposes of determining the amount of the assessment, the
cost of the Improvements shall include, in addition to actual construction
costs, administrative, interest, engineering and legal costs and fees
incurred or paid by the City in relationship to construction of the
Improvements.
4. The City's assessment records for the Property will show the
assessment as a "pending assessment" until levied.
5. The Owner waives notice of any assessment hearing to be held at
which hearing or hearings the assessment is to be considered by the City
Council and therefter approved and levied.
6. The Owner concurs that the benefit to the Property by virture of
the Improvements to be constructed exceeds the amount of the assessment to be
levied against the Property. The Owner waives all rights by virtue of
Minnesota Statute 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of
the assessments, or the procedures used by the City in apportioning the
assessments and hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees
from any and all liability related to or arising out of the imposition or
levying of the assessments.
Page -3-
Owner CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
A Minnesota Municipal Corporation
William F. Smith BY:
Gary D. Peterson
Its Mayor
BY:
Carl J. Jullie
Its City Manager
a
Page -4-
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN � ss,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
, 1988, by Gary D. Peterson, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie, the
City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation,
on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF ss.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
O _I 1988. by William F. Smith.
Y� Notary Public
4 Cfl W r!N'. qy
L.tic'Mry}IT`tY'V�YIIYc1:1ryY/y ry�
�01 j
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie
FROM: Finance Director John Frane
Assistant to the City Manager Crai W. Dawson
SUBJECT: 1988 First Quarter General Fund Budget Report
DATE: June 1, 1988
Attached is the report of the 1988 General Fund Budget status through March
23, 1988. The expenses result from invoices actually paid by that date.
As one can see, there are some accounts, such as parks capital outlay,
where bills had not yet been received. While some areas show less than 79%
of approved funds remaining with 79% of the year to go, these accounts
generally have seen one-time capital outlays or maintenance occurring early
in the fiscal year which skew trend analysis of expenditures. All in all,
the budget balance is in the range expected at this time of the year.
Expenditures:
The "adjusted budget" to the right of program names is the amount
originally approved plus salary adjustments distributed from the Reserve
which are necessary to reflect expenditures to date accurately, as well as
specific adjustments approved by Council and correction of omissions. In
the Recreation-Adult activity, $12,100 in various expenses for programs the
Council approved were inadvertently omitted from calculations. Similarly,
$7,7DO in Human Resources to cover employee physical and psychological
examinations (primarily new police officers) need to be added because it
was omitted from the budget submitted. A $3,500 adjustment in Human
Services reflects a Council-approved expense for printing the human
services directory. Council also approved $75,D00 for the southwest area
study being performed by the Brauer-Benshoof-PeiIinen team.
A few of the program activities can use a little elaboration. Under
Legislative, over one-half of the expenses were dues payments. In the
Community Center, several needed repairs were done early in the year. No
bills have been submitted for Adaptive Recreation, Criminal Prosecution, or
general Legal Services; in this last account, invoices received from the
City Attorney and Grant Merritt for work on landfill matters are the only
payments shown. In Fire, much of the department's annual expense is
firefighter call pay; these payments are made twice per year and have not
yet been made. The balance remaining for Streets and Drainage is shown to
be 91.3%; however, much of the staff expense for this department during
this quarter is accounted for in the Snow and Ice budget. One area which
may have misleading information is Streetlighting. There has been a
dramatic increase in the number of streets and subsequent streetlighting,
combined with rate structure adjustments granted to Northern States Power
Company. Fees are collected for streetlighting with development approvals,
and through the year reduce the tax-supported expense in this account. It
is still early in the year to have adequate data on the expense trend.
In the Reserve account, $60,000 received from NSP for an easement along
Highway 5 and nearly $16,OOD paid to Linda Lehman and Associates for
technical analysis on landfill issues result in a $44,129 net increase for
this budget activity.
2 -
Revenues•
Revenues come into the City at different times of the year. During the
first quarter of the year, the City receives little revenue and relies on
its year-end balance to meet cash-flow needs. The General Fund revenue
summary shows the amounts yet to be received this year from the various
revenue sources. With 15 percent of the year to go, the City has 93.4
percent of its General Fund revenue yet to be received.
An explanation of some major revenue sources:
*Taxes - No taxes are received during the first quarter.
*Licenses - Most of the license revenue is received during the
last quarter of the year.
*Building Permits - While revenues are seasonal with construction
activity, fees for these permits are a bit lower than
expected.
*Revenue from Other Agencies - Local government aid and
homestead credit reimbursement are not yet due from
the State.
*Recreation Programs - Collection of these fees is seasonal.
The first quarter is not the significant season for
registration in recreation programs.
*Court Fees - The courts remit fees two months after the month
in which they are collected.
*Miscellaneous Revenue - This is largely from rent payments for
City property.
As with the expenditure report, the overall revenue report shows the City
in a position which is to be expected.
In conclusion, the General Fund is sound overall and its balance is about
what should be expected to the date of the report.
Recommendation: It is recommended that Council approve the budget
adjustments relating to omissions totalling $19,800, and that Council
receive the 1988 First Quarter General Fund report.
CWD:JDF:jdp
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
1988
GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES
79% OF THE BUDGET YEAR IS LEFT
ADJUSTED BUDGET
BUDGET EXPENDED BALANCE % BALANCE
LEGISLATIVE 58400 15387 43013 73.7%
ELECTIONS 52900 801 52099 98.5%
CITY MANAGER 131300 29046 102254 77.9%
ASSESSING DEPT 259100 56078 203022 78.4%
BLDG INSPECTION DEPT 415700 85545 330155 79.4%
COMMUNITY SERVICES
ADMIN & PARR PLAN 139500 23859 115641 82.9%
PARR MAINTENANCE 530000 115186 414814 78.3%
PARK CAP. OUTLAY 52000 0 52000 100.0%
FORESTRY 130800 17144 113656 86.9%
RECREATION ADMIN 114500 15711 98789 86.3%
COMMUNITY CENTER 510300 128656 381644 74.8%
BEACH 43300 388 42912 99.1%
ORGANIZED ATHLETIC 202200 31487 170713 84.4%
RECREATION-YOUTH 158200 29910 128290 81.1%
RECREATION-ADULT 70500 12647 57853 82.1%
RECREATION-ADAPTIV 25900 0 25900 100.0%
HIST & CUL ARTS 15800 532 15268 96.6%
FINANCE 192500 41951 150549 78.2%
HUMAN RESOURCES 104300 20349 83951 80.5%
HUMAN SERVICES 73700 8884 64816 87.9%
PLANNING DEPT 334100 66517 267583 80.1%
POLICE DEPT
POLICE 1881000 382055 1498945 79.7%
CRIMINAL PROSEC 90000 90000 100.0%
CIVIL DEFENSE 22300 476 21824 97.9%
ANIMAL CONTROL 36900 7606 29294 79.4%
FIRE 400800 26270 374530 93.4%
FIRE & POLICE BLDGS 138200 26281 111919 81.0%
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT
ENGINEERING 520300 99265 421035 80.9%
STREETS & DRAINAGE 829300 72548 756752 91.3%
EQUIPMENT MNTC 419100 78055 341045 81.4%
SNOW & ICE CONTROL 92000 37479 54521 59.3%
STREET LIGHTING 150000 44610 105390 70.3%
P/W & PARK BLDG 57000 6111 50889 89.3%
SHARED SERVICES
GENERAL 375900 83516 292384 77.8%
DATA PROCESSING 77000 17963 59037 76.7%
LEGAL COUNSEL 131000 8282 122718 93.7%
CITY OFFICES 274400 57405 216995 79.1%
PUBLIC INFORMATION 26100 1192 24908 95.4%
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS &
TRAINING 1102000 278419 823581 74.7%
S W SECTOR STUDY 75000 75000 100.0%
RESERVE 188200 -44129 232329 123.4%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 10501500 1883482 8818018 82.1%
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
1988
GENERAL FUND
REVENUES
75% OF THE BUDGET YEAR IS LEFT
ADJUSTED BUDGET
BUDGET RECEIVED BALANCE X BALANCE
TAXES 6147200 0 6147200 100.0%
LICENSES 99000 15600 83400 84.2%
BUILDING PERMITS 1400000 200000 1200000 85.7%
OTHER PERMITS 30000 3100 26900 89.7%
FEES 485500 42850 442650 91.2%
REV FROM OTHER AGENCIES 456200 0 456200 100.0%
COMMUNITY CENTER FEES 453800 136400 317400 69.9%
RECREATION PROGRAMS 289190 55045 234145 81.0%
COURT FEES 240000 13400 226600 94.4%
INTEREST 100000 25000 75000 75.0%
USE OF FUND BALANCE 657900 164475 493425 75.0%
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 44410 31855 12555 28.3%
TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS 10403200 687725 9715475 93.4%
IU�E
AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
THIS 1S AN AGREEMENT MADE THIS DAY OF MAY, 1988. between the City
of Eden Prairie, a municioal corporation. (the "City") and Starring
Lake Partners, a Minnesota partnership, (by Lyman Lumber Company,
a Minnesota corporation and Cardarelle & Associates, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation) (the "Owners") and Construction Mortgage
Investors Co. a Minnesota corporation and Leonard J. Flesher
("Mortgagors").
A. The Owners hold legal and equitable title to property
described as Lots 1 through 14, Block 1, Lots 1 through 16, Block
2, Lots 1 through 8, Block 3, and Lots 1 through 5, Block 4,
Starrwood Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which property is
the subject of this Agreement and is hereinafter referred to as
the "Property."
B. The Owners desire to develop the Property in such a manner that
will require the reconstruction and widening of Research Road along the
southerly border of the Property and the installation of concrete curb and
gutter, storm sewer. catch basins and manholes (all of which is hereafter
referred to as the "Improvements').
C. The parties hereto desire to enter into an Agreement concerning the
financing of the construction of the Improvements all of which will inure to
the benefit of the Property.
AGREEMENTS
IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
1. The Owners consent to the levying of assessments against the
Property for the construction of the Improvements.
2. The Owners acknowledge that the Improvements referred to herein
will be part of a larger construction project involving Research Road as it
passes the Property as well as other land. The City has had prepared a
I ,)
Page -2
Feasibility Report which report shows the proposed costs to be assessed
against the Property. The actual cost,to be assessed against the Property
may differ from the amount shown in the Feasibility Report when the actual
cost of construction is known. A pro rata share of the total cost of
construction for the entire "construction project" shall be assigned to the
Property in the same manner as is done in the Feasibility Report.
3. The cost to be assessed against the Property for the construction
of the Improvements will be the cost to reconstruct and widen Research Road
as a 28 foot wide residential collector street, including concrete curb and
gutter and all utilities referred to above in Paragraph "B". For the purpose
of determining the amount of the asseement, the cost of the Improvement shall
include, in addition to actual construction costs, administrative, interest,
engineering and legal costs and fees incurred or paid by the City in
relationship to construction of the Improvements.
4. The City's assessment records for the Property will show the
assessment as a "pending assessment" until levied.
5. The Owners waive notice of any assessment hearing to be held at
which hearing or hearings the assessment is to be considered by the Cit)
Council and therefter approved and levied.
6. The Owners concur that the benefit to the Property by virture of
the Improvements to be constructed exceeds the amount of the assessment to be
levied against the Property. The Owners waive all rights they have by virtue
of Minnesota Statute 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity
Page -3-
of the assessments, or the procedures used by the City in apportioning the
assessments and hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees
from anv and all liability related to or arising out of the imposition o"
levying of the assessments.
r
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
A Minnesota Municipal Corporatior.
BY:
Gary D. keterson
Its Mayor
BY:
Carl J. Jullie
Its City Manager
STARRING LAKE PARTNERS
A Minnesota Corporation
by Lyman Lumber Company
A Minnesota Corporation
by
Stephen T. Ryan, Assistant Vice President
by Cardarelle & Associates, Inc.
A Minnesota Corporation
by
Frank R. Cardarelle, President
by Construction Mortgage Investors Co.
A Minnesota Corporation
by
ep, en T. Hyan, s s an vice res en
by
Leonard J. Flesher
Page -<-
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1988, by Gary D. Peterson, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie, the
City �;ananer of the City of Eden Prairie, a Min^esota municipal corporation,
on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1988, by Stephen T. Ryan, Assistant Vice President of Lyman Lumber
Company, partner of Starring Lake Partners, a Minnesota partnership, on
behalf of the partnership.
Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota
N•• commission expires
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1988, by Frank R. Cardarelle, President, of Cardarelle k
Associates, Inc., partner of Starring Lake Partners, a Minnesota
partnership, on behalf of the partnership.
Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota
My commission expires
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1988, by Stephen T. Ryan, Assistant Vice President of Constructio„Mortgage Investors Co., a Minnesota Corporation, on behalf of the
corporation.
Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota
My commission expires
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
_ , 1988, by Leonard J. Flesher, mortgagee.
Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota
My commission expires ':✓
t CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
BENNETT PLACE AND BLOSSOM ROAD
I.C. 52-105
OWNER: City of Eden Prairie CONTRACTOR: Brown & Cris, Inc.
7600 Executive Drive East Frontage Road I-35
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 1974D Kenrick Avenue
Lakeville, MN 55044
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents.
Description: Construct a segment of watermain southerly from Bluff
Road along the common lot line between Lots 5 & 6, Block
1, Bluffs East 4th Addition.
Purpose: This segment of watermain will complete a secondary trunk
watermain serving the Bluffs West Area.
Attachments: Plan Sheet 1 of 1
Watermain Construction Exhibit A, Cost Breakdown.
Adjustments to Contract Price:
Current Contract Price $385,980.15
Net Increase 9,460.53
Contract Price Including
this Change Drder $395,440.68
APPROVED: APPROVED:
By By
Brown & Cris City of Eden Prairie
%
EXHIBIT A
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
BENNETT PLACE & BLOSSOM ROAD
I.C. 52-105
COST BREAKDOWN
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 8" DIP Watermain LF 336 13.00 4,368.00
2 6" Wet Tap Including Tapping EA 1 1,500.00 1,500.00
Sleeve and Valve
3 Watermain Fittings LB 300 1.00 300.00
4 Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 60 0.30 18.00
5 Aggregate Base Class 5 TON 12 6.55 7B.60
6 Bituminous Base Course TON 7.0 11.25 7B.75
(Mn/DOT 2331)
7 Bituminous Wear Course TON 5.5 13.65 76.18
(Mn/DOT 2341)
8 Bituminous Mtl. for Mix TON 0.75 16B.00 126.00
9 Remove Curb and Cutter LF 30 2.00 60.00
10 Eden Prairie Mountable Curb LF 30 4.50 135.00
and Gutter
11 Topsoil, Seed and Sod SY 1600 1.70 2,720.00
TOTAL $9,460.53
CHANCE ORDER 02
1.C. 52-096
Bluffs East 4th Addition - Road 6 Utility Extensions
TO: City of Eden Prairie
Changes made for work performed in this contract:
NATURE OF CHANCES:
1. Add 12" PVC storm sewer and grading on the east end of Franlo Road.
Work to be done to correct a temporary drainage problem due to
onsite and offsite erosion problems.
ADJUSTMENTS TO CONTRACT COSTS:
1. Add the following quantities and costs to the contract:
12" PVC storm sewer 160 LF @ $13.29 - $2126.40
Grading - D-31 and loader 29 hours P 573.45 a 2130.05
Rip Rap 10 C.Y. @ $50.85 508.50
Mobilization Lump Sum @ $1000 a 1000.00
I TOTAL $5764.95
THE ABOVE. CHANCES ARE APPROVED
Engineer, City of Eden Prairie
By �G�,fl fl/ GIiHGI�iI� By
Date ^*,Zl7l/ Date
THE ABOVE CHANCES ARE ACCEPTED
ConraeLor S
By L,C�� (�
Date
r
y
ire
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 88-95
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND
ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT
WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make the
following improvements:
I.C. 52-145 (Street 8 Utility Improvements - Wyndham Nob)
and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429.
NDW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for
study with the assistance of RCM, Inc., and that a feasibility report
shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient
speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost
assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 7, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
a:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
To The Eden Prairie City Councils
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City
Council to consider making the following described improvements(s):
(General Location)
% Sanitary Sewer Wyndham Nob
X Watermain Wyndham Nob
% Storm Sewer Wyndham Nob
X Street Paving Wyndham Nob
other
Street Address or Other
Legal Description of Names of Petitioners
Property to be Served (Must Be Property Owners)
Outlot C, Wyndham Crest clarsd
r
(For City Use)
Date Received
Project No.
Council Consideration
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-96
RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer through Hanson Thorp
Pellinen and Olson to the City Council recommending the following
improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-131 (Street Improvements on Hamilton Road)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance
with the report and the assessment of property abutting or within
said boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement
pursuant to M.S.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated
total cost of the improvements as shown.
2. A public hearing shall be he'd on such proposed improvement on the
July 5, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600
Executive Road. The City Clerk shall give published and mailed
notice of such hearing on the improvements as required by law.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 7, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
i
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-97
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the
following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-133 (Legion Park Addition)
and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for
public inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby
approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the
official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement
for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved
plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for
3 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids
shall be received until 2:00 p.m., Thursday, July 14, 1988, at City
Hall after which time they will be publically opened by the Deputy
City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be
considered by the Council at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, July 19, 1988 at
the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Road, Eden Prairie. No
bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and
accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or
certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount
of such bid.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 7, 1988.
Gary D.Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
r,�79
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-98
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the
following improvements to wit;
I.C. 52-110 (Golden Triangle Drive)
and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for
public inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby
approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the
official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement
for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved
plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for
3 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids
shall be received until 2:00 p.m., Thursday, July 14, 1988, at City
Hall after which time they will be publically opened by the Deputy
City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be
considered by the Council at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, July 19, 1988 at
the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Road, Eden Prairie. No
bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and
accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or
certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount
of such bid.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 7, 1988.
Gary D.Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
r
['4
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
WATER WORKS IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 52-072B
CONTRACT NO. 2
WATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS
SECTION II - WELL HOUSES AND SITEWORK
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
I. SCOPE
This Change Order No. 3 will adjust the Contract price to account for
the actual quantities of items included in the construction of the
well houses. The Contract price will be adjusted based on the
Adjustment Unit Prices included in the Bid Form. These changes in
quantities were not included under the scope of the original Contract.
II. CHANGE ORDER ITEMS
The actual quantities of items included in the work varied from the
specified quantities, due to the actual depths at which piles
developed adequate driving resistance and the actual static water
levels in the aquifer at each well location. The specified, actual,
and change in quantities are as indicated below.
Quantities
Item Specified Actual Change
Concrete filled steel pipe
piling, lin ft 1044 1867.8 823.8
Pile bents for pipe
supports, each 32 34 2
Wood piling for pipe
supports, lin It 2250 3137 887
Pump column, lin ft 930 970 40
III. CHANGES IN CONTRACT AMOUNT
Adjustments to the Contract price resulting from the aforementioned
items shall be the following amounts based on the Adjustment Unit
Prices included in the Bid Form:
Change in Adjustment
Item Quantity Unit Price Amount
Concrete filled steel pipe
piling, lin ft 823.8 $ 20.00 $16,476.00
Pile bents for pipe supports,
each 2
$600.00 $ 1,200.00
A2LB051888 CO3-1
038
1:�7n
.4
Change in Adiustment
Item Quantity Unit Price Amount
Wood piling for pipe supports,
lin ft 887 $ 16.00 $14,192.00
Pump column, lin ft 40 $ 90.00 $ 3,600.00
Total - Change Order No. 3 $35,468.00
The net change to the Contract price is summarized as follows:
Current Contract Price $1,548,752.50
Change Order No. 3 35,468.00
New Contract Price $1,584,220.50
IV. ACCEPTANCE
The changes and conditions set forth in this Change Order No. 3 are
hereby accepted. All other provisions of the Contract, including
Contract time, remain unchanged.
BARBAROSSA AND SONS, INC. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
(Contractor) (Owner)
�t
By By
City Engineer
Date J//GU-1Z!�-
`- (�j Date
A2LBO51888 CO3-2
038
:y
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
RESOLUTION NO. 88-89
A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED
IN THE 1988 SPRING CLEAN-UP IN EDEN PRAIRIE
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie enhances its desirability to live,
work, shop, and play by being a clean place; and
WHEREAS, the environment benefits as much as residents by the removal
of trash and litter, especially along streams and lakes; and
WHEREAS, the residents of this community have demonstrated their
commitment to keeping Eden Prairie clean and beautiful by participating in
Eden Prairie's Spring Clean-Up on May 21, 1988;
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie that it recognize and express its appreciation• to the following
organizations and individuals for their participation in this event:
Stu Fox, City Forester and Project Coordinator
Lion's Club
Lionesses
Optimists
Jaycees
Scout Troop No. 422
Prairie View School
Forest Hills School
Eden Lake School
Eden Prairie High School
Concerned Residents 8arb Swanson, Sue and Don Uram
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council also express its gratitude to
those other participants whose names were not registered, and
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council encourage residents to
maintain their efforts to keep the City clean.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 7th day of June, 1988.
Mayor Gary D. Peterson
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
4 Eden Roide Clamber of Commerce
Singletree Center
11995 Singietree Lane
Eden Prairie MN 5n344
Phone 612 944-2830
Frederic L.Hoisington,President
Norman P.Friederichs,First Vice President
Galen G.Vetter,Second Vice President
John J.Brand,Secretary/Treasurer
Joan P Carlson,Past President
Marione D.FneaenchS.Executive Vice President
May 25, 1988
Mayor Gary Peterson
Councilmember Patricia Pidcock
Councilmember Richard Anderson
Councilmember Jean Harris
Councilmember George Bentley
City Manager Carl Jullie
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Request for Profile Funding
Dear Councilmembers:
Enclosed is a copy of the recently printed Eden Prairie Profile,
a product of the vision and expertise of a number of community
business people.
The Profile is an outstanding brochure depicting the quality of
life offered by Eden Prairie to its businesses and residents.
The goal for this first publication is an awareness campaign,
i.e., to "spread the good news" about Eden Prairie to the
business community. There are two primary target groups: 1)
corporate management whose officers may choose to live here; and
2) employees of our businesses, people who work in Eden Prairie
but know little or nothing of the community in which they work.
A subcommittee of the Chamber's Economic Growth Committee worked
for a year and a half developing this brochure. Of crit:_cal
importance were the topics to be covered and the manner in which
these topics were to be presented. Committee members researched
subjects, reported results, and wrote rough drafts. After that,
Charles Webber Advertising graciously contributed thousands of
dollars of time to fine-tune the brochure, the evidence of which
is in the finished product before you.
As rho aggressive voice ofbusiness in Eden Prame,the Chambero(Commerce is committed to supporting gccaEoireo
and enhancing the quality of growth and development in the community through
partnership opportunities for business interests.
The Chamber undertook this effort on a break-even basis. The
funding for the brochure was offered through sponsorships in
exchange for brochures. City Manager Carl Jullie has been
provided with copies of the bills.
The total bill is $16,860.00
Sponsorships provided $14.575 00
Balance needed $ 2,285.00
Last year I had requested financial help with this brochure. Most
of the cost has now been covered by sponsorships. I respectfully
request your help by providing the balance of $2,285.00. In
exchange I will provide give you with 1200 brochures to be used
as you see fit.
The brochure does credit to the qualities and benefits offered by
Eden Prairie.investment. I'm sure you'll find this brochure a good
Sincerely,
67,
Marjorie D. Friederichs
Executive Vice President
MDF:ma
/'11r,
j
TO: 14AYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FRO14: BEVERLEY MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR
SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT
THROUGH: CARL JULLIE
CITY MANAGER
DATE: JUNE 2, 1988
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AND RIDE LOT
HIGHWAY #169 AND SHADY OAK ROAD
Prior to the implementation of the City's Southwest Metro Transit
system, the MTC provided and planned for transit service in Eden
Prairie. The MTC has proposed construction of a 72 stall Park
and Ride lot at the southeast corner of Highway #169 and Shady
Oak Road. Due to regulations that go along with the funds
provided by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UNTA)
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a transfer to
Southwest Metro Transit would be an impossibly complex procedure.
Therefore, MTC would retain ownership of the improvements made on
this Mn/DOT owned land.
The Southwest Metro Transit system, would have responsibility for
the maintenance and operation of the facility as well as
exclusive use. The site is located within the Southwest Metro
Transit service area and all service provided would be under the
direction of the Southwest Metro Transit Commission.
Since the lot has not existed, currently, no service is provided
to it. With construction scheduled to be completed by Fall,
1988, Southwest Metro Transit will change its current Express
routes and schedules to utilize this facility. Present Park and
Ride sites in Eden Prairie exist under an "owner's-consent-to-
use agreement" (County Road 4 and Highway #5) or where vacant
land permits (Mitchell Road and Highway #5). Permanent,
exclusive Park and Ride lots in Eden Prairie are needed to safely
and conveniently accomodate growing transit ridership. (Express
ridership grew by more than 35% in 1987).
Recommend City Council approval of the MTC request for a grading
permit to construct a Park and Ride facility.
- M E M O R A N D U M -
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson n/�
Engineering Technician
THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, P.E.
City Engineer
DATE: June 2, 1988
RE: Grading Permit for MTC Park and Ride
Metropolitan Transit Commission has submitted an application for
a grading permit to construct a Park and Ride facility at the
southwest corner of Shady Oak Road and Flying Cloud Drive. The
site lies within the right-of-way for U.S. Highway 169. The
proposal consists of site grading, installation of parking
facilities for 70 cars, a bus shelter, and driveway facilities to
accomodate bus traffic. Please refer to attached memo by Beverly
Miller addressing Southwest Metro's concerns and recommendations.
Recommend City Council approval of the Metropolitan Transit
Commission's request for grading permit to construct a Park and
Ride facility.
JJ:ss
Attachments
s
Bluffs East 5th Addition
I. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 7-88
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 DF 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:
1.
t the
ect of this
(hereinafter,othe "land")hind s legally a described inwhichs Exhibit thesAbattached hereto0 and nmade
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the 111-13.5 District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in
City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended
accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted ir their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 7, 1988, entered into between
Hustad Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden
Prairie, and those certain Owner's Supplements to Developer's Agreement, between
Dean T. Brown and Margaret Brown, husband and wife, Robert T. Brown, a single
person, James C. Brown and Jane C. Brown, husband and wife, Richard J. Brown and
Elsie Brown, husband and wife, the Bluffs Company, a Minnesota corporation, and
Creek Knolls, a Minnesota limited partnership, and the City of Eden Prairie, all
dated as of June 7, 1988, which Agreement and Owners'
part hereof. Supplements are hereby made a
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
Prairie FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
publishednatha regular e 19th ymeetinguofythe9City Councilnoflsaidadcity anda onptthea7tho day rof
May, 1988.
1 �7
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Outlots F and G, Bluffs East 4th Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Bluffs East 5th Addition
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of 1988, by
Hustad Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural
to R1-13.5 on 17.7 acres and preliminary plat of 30.1 acres into 34 single family
lots and three outlots, 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 557-87,
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 January 14, 1988, reviewed and approved
by the City Council on January 19, 1988, and attached hereto as
Exhibit 8, 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 revise the plat for the property to indicate the
following:
A. All lots designed with the required minimum street frontages
for the R1-13.5 Zoning District, i.e. specifically, 85 ft.
for Lot 7, Block 1, and 55 ft. for Lot 13, Block 1, all as
depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. -
B. Dedication of Outlot A, as depicted in Exhibit 8, attached
hereto, to the City, free and clear of any mortgages, liens,
or encumbrances. Said Dutlot A shall be designed to be
twenty feet (201) in width for trail construction and
maintenance purposes. Developer shall also provide for a
five-foot (5') wide easement on each side of said Outlot A
for drainage and utility purposes.
4. Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the property,
Developer agrees to execute a special assessment agreement with the
City for purposes of public street and utility construction for
extension of Bluff Road, including turn lanes and bypass lanes at
County Road d18, to service the property.
5. Prior to issuance of any grading permit upon the property, Developer
agrees to submit to the City Engineer, and to obtain the City
Engineer's approval of a revised grading plan which reflects at
least the following:
A. A mass grading plan for Lots 9-13, Block 1. adjacent to
Purgatory Creek, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto,
which are to be graded on an individual, lot-by-lot basis,
concurrent with building construction. Said mass grading
plan shall depict at least the following information:
1) The extent of grading limits for each lot.
2) The extent of erosion control limits for each lot.
3) The direction of storm water drainage shall be to
the rear of each lot, down the slopes to Purgatory
Creek.
4) Revision of the grading adjacent to Purgatory Creek
to indicate slopes of no greater than 2.5 to 1.
B. Relocation of the 834 contour elevation (high water level of
the pond) beyond the building pads located on Lots 4 and 5,
Block 3, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said
building pads shall be designed in such a manner that no
structure shall be any less than two feet (2') above the
100-year flood plain, or, no lower than an 836 contour
elevation for basement floors of said structures.
C. Basement elevations for the structures for Lots 1-5, Block 2
at a minimum of 836.1 contour elevation, which is two feet
higher than the high water elevation for the storm water
holding pond. The graded elevation around the structures in
Block 3 shall be a minimum of two feet higher than the
emergency overflow elevation provided for said holding pond,
all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to implement•
said revised grading plan, as approved by the City Engineer, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached
y hereto.
6. Prior to issuance of any grading 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,
including the detention pond depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto,
and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
7. 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 grading permit on the property, Developer
agrees to submit to the Director of Community Services, and to
obtain the Director's approval of, detailed plans for the bituminous
trails and sidewalks to be installed on the property, including:
A) A five-foot wide, five-inch thick concrete sidewalk along
the south side of Meade lane, as depicted in Exhibit B,
attached hereto.
B) A five-foot wide, five-inch thick concrete sidewalk along
the south side of Antlers Ridge Drive to the point of
intersection of Antlers Ridge Drive and Outlot A, as
depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
C) A six-foot wide bituminous trail connecting from the
sidewalk along Antlers Ridge Drive, through Outlot A. and
looping within the park area to the west of Outlot A, all as
depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Upon approval by the Director of Community Services, Developer
agrees to construct said improvements, as approved by the Director,
in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C. attached
hereto. Said construction shall take place concurrent with street
and utility construction on the property.
9. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to
the Director of Planning and receive the Director's approval of a
tree inventory of those trees within 25 ft. outside of the
construction area, which are not planned to be removed by
construction on the property as approved by City, 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.
10. Prior to issuance of any grading permit upon the property, Developer
shall submit to the Director of Planning, and obtain the Director's
approval of a bond, letter of credit, or other form of security
acceptable to the City, in the amount of 150% of the cost of
'.mplementation of a tree replacement plan for 345 caliper inches of
trees for the purpose of guaranteeing the replacement of any
sigandificant trees lost, o
constructionon theproperty. Saidsecurity' o v
or
shall beretaiment
ned
by the City until development and building construction has been
completed on all lots where the tree inventory, depicted in Exhibit
B, attached hereto, indicates significant trees exist.
After development of and construction on all lots with significant
trees has been completed, City will conduct an on-site inspection to
determine which significant trees have been saved, which have been
lost, or are expected to be lost, as a result of development and
construction on the property. For all trees lost, or expected to be
lost as a result of development and building construction on the
property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning and
to obtain the Director's approval of a tree replacement plan in
compliance with the Tree Replacement Policy attached hereto as
Exhibit D, and made a part hereof. 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. Said plan shall indicate that the trees shall be
replaced by similar tree species and that the trees used for
reforestation shall be no less than six inches in diameter.
The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by
the Director of Planning, using a square inch per square
inch basis,
tthrough area
thef diameter circle
ofretedaatreebyas
measured 4.5 feet above the ground.
B. Prepare and submit to the Director of Planning, and receive
the Director's approval of a written estimate of the costs
of the reforestation work to be completed.
C. Submit a bond, or letter of credit, guaranteeing completion
of all reforestation work as approved by the Director of
Planning. Developer agrees that the amount of the bond, or
letter of credit, shall be 150% of the approved estimated
cost of implementation of all reforestation work and shall
be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms
as may be required by the Director of Planning.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning,
implement said tree replacement plan, as approved vbyothe Director of
Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
11. As part of the grading plan for the property, Developer agrees to
submit to the City, and to obtain the City's approval of an erosion
1 _
control plan for the property. Developer agrees to provide for
erosion control measures and adequate protective measures for areas
to be preserved and areas where grading is not to occur, and to
receive City approval of said measures prior to release by the City
of any grading permit for the property. Developer agrees that said
protective measures shall include, but not be limited to:
A. Grading shall be confined to that area of the property
within the construction limits.
B. Snow fencing shall be placed at the construction limits
within the wooded areas of the property prior to any grading
upon the property.
C. City shall perform an on-site inspection of said protective
measures on the property by the City. Developer shall
contact City for said inspection. Developer agrees that
defects in materials and workmanship in the implementation
of said measures shall then be determined by the City.
D. Defects in materials or workmanship, if any, shall be
corrected by Developer. Developer agrees to call City for
reinspection of the implementation measures, and to receive
approval 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.
Upon approval by the City, Developer shall implement those
improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached
hereto.
12. Developer agrees that, with the exception of Lots 9 - 13, Block 1,
as discussed in Item #; above, all lots shall be mass graded
concurrent with street construction and erosion control shall be
installed prior to any street construction and shall remain in place
until such time as City authorizes removal of said erosion control.
13. Prior to issuance of any building permit on any lot with significant
trees as depicted on the tree inventory within Exhibit B, attached
hereto, Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and
obtain the Director's approval of a detailed final grading plan for
each of said lots which indicates at least the following
information: topography at at least two-foot intervals, the
location of all structures, existing trees, direction of lot
drainage, grading limits, erosion control measures, construction
control fencing, and any other information, i.e. tree protection
measures, which may be required by the Director which would aid in
the understanding of the final grading plan.
Based upon said information, Developer shall be required to obtain
an individual grading permit from the City for each of said lots.
Said grading permit shall be processed as an administrative
amendment to the overall grading permit, if it is in conformance
with the overall grading plan as determined by the City. Developer
shall also be required to submit to the City a bond for site
restoration purposes in the amount of $5,000.00 (five-thousand-
dollars) for each of said lots. City shall retain the bond for the
particular lot until all final grading for that particular lot has
been completed in compliance with the grading permit.
If the final grading plan for any such lot indicates loss of
significant trees due to development of, or building construction
on, the property, Developer shall include said lot and the caliper
inches of trees lost in the tree replacement plan referred to in
item A9, above.
Ja� y
Bluffs East 5tt-Addition
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORP. flMPAttY
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of JUNE 1 1988, by
and between DEAN T. BROWN and MARGARET BROWN , husband and wife, (a
Rffl% ToW)-hPPff aftPr1Wf&Fre�Tf00%12"OwTArF�f l and the City of Eden Prairie,
hereinafter referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance 97-88,
changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner(s) from the Rural District to the
R1-13.5 District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement
entered into as of, JUNE 1. , 1988, by and between The Bluffs Company
and City, er(s)s agree with the City as follows:
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1. If fails to proceed in accordance with the
Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against
Owner(s), their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owner(s) transfers such property, Owner 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. Juliie, City Manager
Bluffs East 5t�ion
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO /f
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORP —BWFF5 £flMPAiiY-
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of JUNE 1, 1988, by
and between ROBERT T. BROWN and husband and wife, (a
single person) hereinafter referred to as "Owner(s)," and the City of Eden Prairie,
hereinafter referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance i#7-68,
changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner(s) from the Rural District'to the
R1-13.5 District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement
entered into as of J UNE 1, , 1988, by and between The Bluffs Company
and City, er(s)s agree with the City as follows:
1 If TAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
h the
Developer's Agreement w thin�24 months of the date hereof,ls to proceed in
rdance tOwner
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2• This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against
Owner(s), their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owner(s) transfers such property, Owner shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
CITY
ary D. Peterson, Mayor
art J. Julie, City Manager
,9 ?,
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TD Bluffs East 5th Addition
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORP. -BLUFFS-CoMp1N
y- --Ir
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of JUNE 1,
1988, by
and between JAMES C. BROWN and
husband and wife, (a
single person) hereinafter referred to as "Owner(s)," and the City of Eden Prairie,
hereinafter referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #7-88,
changing the zoning of the property owned by Dwner(s) from the Rural District'to the
R1-13.5 District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement
entered into as of JUNE 1, , 1988, by and between The Bluffs Company
and City, Owner(s)s agree with the City as follows:
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1. If The -£ompany fails to proceed in accordance with the
Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2• This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against
Owner(s)g, their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owner(s) transfers such property, Owner shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
CITY
ary D. Peterson, Mayor
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
f
.3
3
Bluffs East 5th Addition
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORP. --BL-}1fF-$- MPA4Y_
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of JUNE 1
1988, by
and between —JA I r BROWN and
by Robert T. Brown, Power of Attorney in—Fact . husband and wife, (a
single person) hereinafter referred to as "Owner(s)," and the City of Eden Prairie,
hereinafter referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce. City to adopt Ordinance #7-88,
changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner(s) from the Rural District to the
R1-13.5 District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement
entered into as of T[7NF i 1988, by and between The Bluffs Company
and City, Ow r(s)s agree with the City as follows:
1. If HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Developer's Agreementh the
within months roofed the n date rdhereof,ance tOwner
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against
Owner(s), their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owner(s) transfers such property, Owner shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
CITY
ary D. Peterson, Mayor
Carl J. 1u 1—ie, City Manager
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO Bluffs East 5th Addition
�!
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORP $LUFF&"E-0MPANY-
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of JUNE 1,
1988, by
and between RICHARD J. BROWN and ELSIE BROWN BY ROBERT T. BROWN POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FACT BY and wife, (a
single person) hereinafter referred to as "Owner(s)," and the City of Eden Prairie,
hereinafter referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #7-88,
changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner(s) from the Rural District'to the
R1-13.5 District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement
entered into as of JUKE 1, , 1988, by and between The Bluffs Company
and City, Owner(s)s agree with the City as follows:
1 � HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
f ��Bmpartq fails to
h the
Developer's Agreement within 24 months roofed the n date rdhereof,ance tOwner
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against
Owner(s), their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owner(s) transfers such property, Owner shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
CITY
ary D. Peterson, Mayor
I
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
I .
t
Bluffs East 5th Addition
OWNER' SUPPLEMENT 7'
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT C�gp -BLUFFS-COMPANY
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of JUNE 1, , 1988
by and between THE BLUFFS COMPANY , a MN
CORPORATION hereinaafter referred to as "Owner(s an t e ity
of Eden Prairie, herinafter referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance
#7-88, changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner(s) from the
Rural District to the R1-13.5 District, as more fully described in that
certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of JUNE 1, , 1988,
by and between the Bluffs company andcity, Owner(s) agree with the City
as follow:
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1. If-The- 6ompany_ fails to proceed in accordance with the
Developer's Agreement within 24 month of the date hereof,
Owner shall not oppose the rezoning ofthe property to Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against
Owner(s), their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property
3. If the Owner(s) transfers such property, Owner shall obtain
an agreement fromthe transferree requiring that such transfere
agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
CITY
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO Bluffs East 5th Addition
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORP. 4NE-$L-UFFS-£G"Y
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of DUNE 1, 1988, by
and between Creek Knolls, a Minnesota general partnership, , 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 #7-B8
changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner from the Rural District to the
R1-13.5 District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement
entered into as of ,,,n,F , 1988, by and between The Bluffs Company
and City, Owners agree with the City as follows:
1. if HUSTAD DEVELLOPMENT CORPORATION
T�1e--$$}tlff4_ vmparty fails to proceed in accordance with the
Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner,
their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owner transfers such property, Owner 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
11 U`�
Bluffs East 5th Addition
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESDTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-81
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 7-88 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 7-88 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 7th day of June,
1988;
PRAIRIE:NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 7-88, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the
ordinance. public of the intent and effect of said
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. 7-88 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph 8 herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on June 7, 1988.
ary D. rcterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
ohn D. Frane, City Clerk
IIU�
Bluffs East 5th Addition
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 7-88
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 i 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 southeast of
Meade Lane extension, west of Franlo Road, and northwest of Antlers Ridge extension,
from the Rural District to the R1-13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions
of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full
legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John 0. Frane /s/Gary 0. 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.)
a
Frank Beddor Property
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-100
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE BEDDOR PROPERTY REQUESTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TO INDUSTRIAL ON 20 ACRES, ZONING DISTRICT CHANGE
FROM I-GENERAL TO I-5 ON 18.7 ACRES AND FROM R1-22 TO I-5 ON 19.3 ACRES FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 250,000 SQ. FT. INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND WEST 184TH STREET
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has adopted a Comprehensive Guide Plan for
land uses within the city; and
WHEREAS, Frank Beddor has proposed an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide
Plan from Public Open Space to Industrial on 20 acres, with attendant requests for
Zoning District changes from I-General to I-5 on 18.7 acres and from R1-22 to I-5 on
19.3 acres for construction of a 250,000 sq. ft. industrial building at the
northeast corner of Highway 5 and West 184th Street; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did conduct a public hearing on said requests of
Frank Beddor on May 17, 1988;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby denies the requests of Frank Reddor
for amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Public Open Space to Industrial
on 20 acres and Zoning District changes from I-General to I-5 on 18.7 acres and from
R1-22 to I-5 on 19.3 acres for construction of a 250,000 sq. ft. industrial building
at the northeast corner of Highway 5 and West 184th Street, based upon the following
findings:
A. The proposed development is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan
and no substantiation for the change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan has
been provided.
B. The site plan, as proposed, does not meet City Code requirements with
respect to the lack of screening of parking and loading areas, location of a
loading facility in a front yard, and use of plain concrete block as an
exterior building material, all of which are not permitted by City Code.
C. The proposed rezoning request is speculative and is not based on a specific
project, contrary to provisions of City Code Section 11.30, Subdivision 3B.
D. Traffic impacts which would result from the proposed development would be
significant due to the size of the facility, the amount of loading proposed,
and the possible congestion which would result on Dell Road. The project
may be premature since the property would be dependent upon a right-in,
only, from Highway #5 for access until 1990.
E. There are significant negative impacts on the natural features of the
property by the proposed development, including removal of mature oak trees,
significant fill in areas of existing steep slopes, and fill adjacent to and
",)
within a designated wetland. The proposed filling and grading work is
contrary to the natural topography of the property.
F. The proposed development does not provide an effective transition to the
existing residential land uses to the north and east.
ADOPTED by the City Council on June 7, 1988.
Gary 0. eterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
f'
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 8B-102
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BLUFFS EAST 6TH
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT
TO THE OVERALL BLUFF COUNTRY 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 Bluffs East 6th development is considered a proper amendment to
the overall Bluff Country Planned Unit Development Concept; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the
request of Hustad Development Company for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the
overall Bluff Country Planned Unit Development Concept for the Bluffs East 6th
development and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on June 7, 19BB;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Bluffs East 6th 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 Bluff Country Planned Unit Development Concept as
outlined in the application materials for Bluffs East 6th.
3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the
Planning Commission dated May 9, 19BB.
ADDPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 7th day of June, 198B.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Ir�J
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 088-103
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFFS EAST 6TH FOR
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Bluffs East 6th for Hustad Development Company, dated
June 1, 1988, consisting of 45.16 acres into 13 lots, 5 outlots, and road right-of-
way for construction of 26 townhome units, 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 7th day of June, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: May 6, 1988
PROJECT: Bluffs East 6th Addition
LOCATION: South of Franlo Road extension, south of Normandy Crest
APPLICANT: Hustad Development
FEE OWNER: Wallace Hustad
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 1B6.3 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 45.16 acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.94 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of 45.16 acres into 13 lots, 5 outlots, and
road right-of-way.
Background
This is a continued item from the
April 22, I968, Planning Commission
meeting. The Planning Commission
recommended that the development
plans be returned to the proponent r' tnwcF it
for revisions as identified in the `v
previous Staff Report including
looking at ways to save more trees
on the property, providing a 77 -�" T
transition to the single family 13.5 �
homes to the west, and architectural
diversity. , I
Revised Site Plan
The site plan has not changed in the r� l "� '-.��Fu�w' ���__. q.. ronrc�' FC
total number of units or density >si'n�t1r73 5
from the previous proposal.
eTw r
However, in order to provide a I, �.� •+
better transition to the single
family homes to the west and to save
more trees, lot sizes have been
T' g PROPOSED SITE
AREA LOCATION MAP
Bluffs East 6 Addition 2 May 6, 1988
increased to the west of the roadway, pushing units farther apart. Units are closer
together around the cul-de-sac and on the east side of the roadway.
It was recommended in the previous Staff Report that a 90-degree intersection with
Franlo Road be created, thus eliminating the outlot. This change has been made on
the revised preliminary plat.
Tree Preservation
The initial plan removed 100% of the oak trees or 673 inches. The revised plan
removes 42% of the oak trees or 276 inches. Tree replacement would be 194 inches.
To save oak trees, the developer is proposing wider lots with special setbacks and a
two-tiered, 14-foot high, retaining wall on Lot 3 located 10 feet off the rear
building corner.
Since the houses and retaining walls are located at the edge of the trees and
setbacks are at the ordinance minimums, if larger units are built or if the
retaining walls are not located as shown on the plan, it will result in more tree
loss. Since these trees are located outside of the construction limits, they would
be replaced on an area inch basis according to the attached tree preservation
policy. The bond required for landscaping and tree replacement should include the
trees to be preserved.
Transition
The developer is proposing tree replacement and saving of oak trees as a transition
to the future single family homes to the west. Since building setbacks to rear lot
lines are tight, most of the tree replacement is proposed on the single family lots.
To save the oak trees on the future single family lots, special setbacks, narrow
house pads, and restricted grading wil be needed since these lots are only 120 feet
in depth. The Planning Commission should decide if the tree replacement and saving
of oak trees are an appropriate transition.
Grading
Steep slopes are proposed to the rear of the twinhomes adjacent to the pond to the
east. To minimize grading and tree loss on the slopes, the plan depicts the steep
slopes starting 15 feet in back of the twinhome units. If larger units are built or
more level area created behind the homes, it will result in more grading, filling,
and tree loss on the slopes. The slopes are proposed at 2.5:1 and should be changed
to 3:1 to minimize erosion.
Architectural Variety
The previous Staff Report suggested that three different elevations and at least one
additional unit type be developed to create variety in the project. Three
elevations have been designed. The proponent has indicated that it would be
possible to add another unit type but this would be inconsistent with their design
approach to the project. Rather than approach the project as a collection of
duplexes, the design is similar to townhouses with a predetermined design of
architecture, color, and materials to tie the project together visually. Common
elements would be cedarshake shingles, rooflines, and stucco color. Variety would
be created with accent trim colors, varied brick colors, and different front
Bluffs East 6 Addition 3 May 6, 19B8
elevations. This "townhouse" design approach is an alternative way of creating
architectural variety. Prior to Council review, proponents should provide a plan
with elevations keyed to specific lots plus color samples and exterior materials.
Summary
The changes in the site plan can provide a better transition and save more trees
than the previous plan. However, the amount of land area that can easily be
developed between the slopes to the east, and oak trees to the west, is limited.
The size and density of the twinhome plan maximizes the use of this land area,
resulting in a tight site plan with little room for flexibility. The success of
this project in saving trees and minimizing grading, is dependent upon strict
adherence to the plan as proposed. There is little room to accommodate plan changes
such as different unit locations and/or larger units without causing more grading
and tree loss. Experience has shown, at building permit issuance, that builders are
often unaware of the constraints, site planning, and grading requirements approved
at rezoning. The results have often been larger units in the wrong location with
grading and tree impacts. It is important for the builder to understand that the
plans approved at rezoning are expected to be built as proposed. If any substantial
changes from the approved plans are proposed at building permit issuance, the
changes should return to the Planning Commission and City Council for review.
The following are alternative courses of action for Commission consideration:
I. If the Planning Commission feels that the PUD Amendment is acceptable and
that the revisions in the site and grading plans and architectural plans
provide for an appropriate transition to the adjoining land uses and that
the amount of tree loss is acceptable, then one option would be to recommend
approval based on revised plans dated May 6, 19889 subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports, dated April 22, 1988, and May 6, 19889
and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Revise the plans to show a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along the north side of Franlo Road and an 8-foot wide
bituminous trail along the southern side of Franlo Road.
B. Modify the grading plan to reflect 3:1 slopes on all slopes
within the site.
C. Submit samples of building materials and colors for review
by City Staff.
D. Provide an architectural diversity plan which keys
elevations to specific lots.
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water, utility, and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer.
Bluffs East 6 Addition q
May 6, 1988
C. Provide a bond for 194 inches of tree replacement in
accordance with the tree preservation policy.
3. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in
advancfence. of Any grading.
lostStake
outside the limits grading
limits
with
limitsshallbe replaced
on an area inch per area inch basis.
B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing.
4. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Submit final landscape plan for review.
C. Submit building material samples and colors for review.
5. Any changes in the site plans proposed at building permit issuance,
which result in more grading and tree loss than the approved plans,
shall return to the Planning Commission and City Council for review.
II. If the Planning Commission feels that the revisions in the plans are not
substantial thePUD Amendment 9ist provide appropriate
r e land s
iththeoverallintent sand opurpose with
the PUD, then one option would be to recommend denial of the project as
proposed.
1:
TREE REPLACDAIENT POLICY
A. PURPOSE
It is the intent and desire of the City to protect, preserve, and enhance
the natural environment and beauty of Eden Prairie by encouraging the
resourceful and prudent development of our existing woodland areas. To
c.cate an incentive for good planning, design, and development, the Tree
Replacement Policy shall serve as a basis for project review in the
promotion of tree preservation and/or determining the required replacement
of significant trees.
When reviewing new development projects, either commercial or residential,
City Staff attempts through design to preserve and protect natural site
characteristics such as wooded areas, hills, and ponds. However, it is not
always possible and/or feasible to save 100% of any existing significant
natural site characteristic. Because of this, a tree replacement policy has
been developed.
B. BACKGROUND
In developing the Tree Replacement Policy, Staff had to determine the
following items:
1. Define significant tree.
A significant tree is defined as a tree of 12 inches in diameter or
greater whose mature height will be greater than 30 feet (examples:
oak, maple, basswood, etc.), or a tree of 8 inches in diameter or
more whose mature height is usually less than 30 feet (examples:
ironwood, cedar/juniper, etc.).
2. Which species of trees shall be replaced.4
Deciduous hardwood trees which shall be replaced includes oak,
maple, basswood, ash, ironwood, etc.. In addition, coniferous trees
shall also be replaced if they meet the specific size requirement.
Diseased trees shall not be subject to tree replacement. It is the
respor.siblity of the developer to submit a certified tree inventory
depicting:
a. The size, species, and condition of all trees greater than
12 inches in diameter whose mature height will be greater
than 30 feet (examples: oak, maple, basswood, ash, Colorado
Spruce, etc.).
b. The size, species, and condition of all trees greater than 8
inches in diameter whose mature height is usually less than
30 feet (examples: ironwood, cedar/juniper, etc.).
Based on this tree inventory, the actual tree loss will be
calculated and the amount of replacement determined. To reduce the
amount of tree replacement required, the proponent may opt to
relocate those -trees which are suitable. It will be the
responsibility of the City Forester to make the final determination
as to the number and types of trees which shall be replaced and/or
relocated.
3. At what point (percentage) is a significant wooded area
substantially altered by tree removal.
For a wooded site, short of acquisition by the City, some tree
removal is probably unavoidable and reasonable to expect as a part
of development of the land. By only replacing significant trees, a
substantial amount of vegetation under this size could be removed
without replacement. This fact alone allows considerable latitude
in the reasonable development of property.
Generally, the smaller the percentage of the overall wooded portion
of the site that is removed, the less the change in the character of
this site; and therefore, the less the percentage of replacement
necessary to preserve the character of the site. The larger the
percentage of removal of trees of the total wooded area the greater
the change in the character of the site and the larger the
percentage of tree replacement required to help mitigate the change
in site character. Staff, therefore, suggests that for any removal
of the significant trees on a site, a proportion of the trees shall
be replaced on a diameter (caliper) inch for diameter inch basis.
C. TREE REPLACEMENT
The first 100 caliper inches of tree removal from a site shall be replaced
100% with the remaining caliper inches replaced on a proportionate basis.
The proportion of tree replacement shall diminish from 100% replacement at
60% loss down at a constant rate to the 100 caliper inch mark. Trees
removed outside of an approved construction plan would continue to be
replaced at 100% on an area inch per area inch basis.
1. Tree Replacement Calculations
The amount of tree replacement is based upon the total amount of
caliper inches of significant trees removed from the site divided by
the total amount of caliper inches of significant trees on-site.
General provisions of this policy include:
a. The first 100 caliper inches removed from any site shall be
replaced 100 percent.
b. If the percent of caliper inches removed is greater than or
equal to 60 percent, the caliper inch replacement shall be
100 percent.
a
2. Tree Replacement Formula
Total Caliper Inches Removed = Percent Caliper Inches Removed
Total Ca iper Inches
Percent Caliper Inches Removed x Tree Replacement Factor
(1.66) = Percent Tree Replacement
Total Caliper Inches Removed - 100 = Total Caliper
Inches Replaced by Percentage
(Total Caliper Inches Replaced by Percentage x Percent
Tree Replacement) + 100 = Total Caliper Inch Replacement
Examples
a. 95 Caliper Inches Removed
400 Total Caliper Inches
95
406 = 23.750.
Regardless of percentage, because the total amount of tree
removal is less than or equal to 100, tree replacement shall
be 100% or 95 caliper inches.
b. 367 Caliper Inches Removed
743 Total Caliper Inches
367
74-7 = 49.39%
49.39% x 1.66 = 81.98%
367 - 100 = 267
(267 x 81.98%) + 100 = 318.88 or'319 Caliper Inches Replaced
C. 811 Caliper Inces Removed
923 Total Caliper Inches
811
M = 87.86%
- Because the percentage of trees removed is greater than or
equal to 60%, the amount of tree replacement shall be 100%
or 811 caliper inches.
3. Replacement Locations
Once the amount of tree replacement has been determined, the
proponent will be required to submit a landscape plan detailing the
location, type, and size of trees to be replaced. This plan will be
required prior to first reading by the City Council.
1 ;7
Locations in which tree replacement shall occur are as follows:
a. Site restoration areas including steep slopes.
b. Lot yard areas.
C. Outlots or common areas.
d. Buffering between different land use and/or activities.
e. Entrance monuments.
f. Adjacent park or community open space (shall be coordinated
by the Planning Staff and the Community Services Staff).
4. Sizes and Types
The minimum size of trees which shall be given credit for tree
replacement are a 3" deciduous tree or an 8' coniferous tree, except
that in steep slope restoration, using 2 1/2" size trees, credit
will be given. No replacement credit will be given for shrubs or
ornamental trees. The attached list describes the types of trees
suitable to be planted in Eden Prairie. Trees designated for
replacement shall be of a similar variety of the trees which were
removed when applicable and/or available.
0. ENFORCEMENT
In Multi-family, Office, Commercial or Industrial developments, the
developer will be required to follow normal landscape bonding procedures as
described in the City of Eden Prairie's Landscape/Screening Procedures and
Requirements.
In Single Family Residential subdivisions, the procedure shall be as
follows:
1. To determine the cost of the trees to be replaced, the developer
should either provide the City with a contract for the replacement
of the trees or two nursery estimates. If a developer fails to give
nursery estimates or provide the City with a copy of an actual
contract for installation of the trees, then the City will estimate
based on its knowledge of the approximate price per caliper inch to
determine the total cost.
2. Proponent will be required to submit surety at 1 1/2 times the cost
of the tree replacement. Surety shall either be a bond, letter of
credit, cash, or an assurance of an escrow with a title company.
3. The City will provide one landscape inspection each year (usually in
the fall) for each individual project. At that time, the amount of
landscaping installed will be determined. One complete growing
season after the 1st inspection a subsequent bond amount will be
released if in compliance with the developer's agreement and City
Code. The balance of the surety will be retained by the City as a
guarantee for tree replacement and/or completion.
hit)
Should any of the landscaping material not be installed, the City will
retain the associated bond amount which shall be placed into a Natural
Resources Fund. The purpose of the Natural Resources Fund shall include but
not limited to the purchase of landscaping to be placed within the adjacent
neighborhood or community park.
In addition to the number of trees being removed as part of construction,
the so be
directlypatent or nearlthelconstructionle for the limits whichrmayadieent as af those tres
direct result
of this construction activity. In order to protect the City and future
homeowner against additional tree loss, the proponent will be required to
bond for those trees which have been designated as being saved but due to
their proximity to any construction activity, may not survive. The number
of caliper inches of "questionable" trees shall be calculated and a
subsequent bond amount included as part of the tree replacement bond. At
the time of final inspection for the replacement trees, these "questionable"
trees will also be inspected. After this inspection, the proponent will be
contacted regarding any additional tree replacement and/or timing for the
bond release.
11?U
SHADE TREES - lar a trees 30+ feet mature height
Norway Maple - Acer platanoides
cultivars - 'Cleveland'
Red Maple - Acer rubrum
cultivars - 'Northwood', 'Firedance'
Silver Queen Silver Maple (seedless) - Acer saccharinum 'Silver Queen'
Sugar Maple - Acer saccharum
culitvar - 'Green Mountain'
River Birch - Betula nigra
Hackberry - Celtis occidentalis
Black Ash - Fraximus nigra
Green Ash - Fraxinus pennsylvanica
cultivars - "Newport', 'Bergeson' 'Marshall's Seedless', 'Patmore, 'Summit'
Ginkgo - Ginkgo biloba (male only)
Honeylocust - Glenditsia tricanthos inermis
Kentucky Coffeetree - Gymnocladus dioicus
Ironwood - Ostrya virginiara
White Oak - Quercus alba
Swamp White Oak - Quercus bicolor
Pin Oak - Quercus palustris
Northern Red Oak - Quercus rubra
American Linden - Tilia americana
Littleleaf Linden - Tilia cordata
cultivars - 'Glenleven', 'Greenspire'
Redmond Linden - Tilia americana 'Redmond'
Conifer Trees
Balsam Fir - Abies balsamea
White Fir - Abies concolor
European Larch - La rix decidua
Black Hills Spruce - Picea glauca 'Densata'
Austrian Pine - Pinus nigra
Ponderosa Pine - Pinus ponderosa
Norway Pine - Pinus resinosa
Scotch Pine - Pinus sylvestris
White Pine - Pinus strobus
Douglas Fir - Pseudotsuga menziesii
Canadian Hemlock - Tsuga canadensis
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: April 22, 1988
PROJECT: Bluffs East 6th Addition
LOCATION: South of Franlo Road extension, south of Normandy Crest
APPLICANT: Hustad Development Company
FEE OWNER: Wallace Hustad
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 186.3 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 45.16 acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.94 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of 45.16 acres into 13 lots, 5 outlots, and
road right-of-way.
Planned Unit Development _ .�
Concept Revision
The 1986 PUD depicted 385 units on
186 acres at an overall density of
2.07 units per acre. The plan
included a mixture of R1-9.5 units, T caNcra�M.�,S
R1-13.5 units, and some medium
density residential on an outlotV ., y..
adjacent to County Road N18. The
revised PUD amends an R1-9.5 area of °= r �
the original PUD (see Attachment A)
from 20, R1-9.5 units to 26 twinhome Nj=6:5 co.C." I
units. This increases the total -----"
number of units within the overall
PUD to 391 and the density would ,
increase from 2.07 to 2.1 units per ` !�' i G= ,� I
acre. The PUD Amendment from R1-9.5 I 1 "`" " FC
to RM-6.5 is on approximately B.15
acres. The PUD proposed 20, R1-9.5
lots, at a density of 2.45 units per
acre. This compares with the density v �for the twinhome project at 3.2 \`''•' ?'..'�\ F
PROPOSED SITE
AREA LOCATION MAP
Bluffs East 6th Addition p
April 22, 1988
units per acre. The average land area per unit under the original R1-9.5 PUD was
11,400 square feet per unit. The amount of land area per unit for the twinhomes
would be approximately 1D,000 square feet.
Land Use Transition
The R1-9.5 area was designated in this location to provide a transition between the
higher densities proposed for the multiple family outlot to the east of this area
and the proposed R1-13.5 lots to the west of the area. Since the density is greater
and the unit types are larger than the original PUD in addition to increased grading
and tree loss, the transition to the R1-13.5 area is not as gradual as originally
contemplated. The density of the outlot to the east was approved at a base of 5
units per acre with additional density possible pending specialized architecture and
a sensitive site plan. Staff has recently seen plans for 100 apartment units
proposed at 1D units per acre.
Site Plan/Prelimi nary Plat
Legally described as outlot I, containing 45.16 acres of the Bluffs East 5th
Addition plat, a total area of approximately 6.15 acres would be used for the
development of 26 duplex units. With the platting of outlot I, Bluffs East 6th
Addition, containing 45.16 acres, there will be five outlots remaining on this site
or 36.94 acres which will be utilized for future development.
There are a total of I3 lots being proposed with each lot containing two units. The
minimum lot size is 17,550 square feet with a maximum lot of 23,250 square feet.
Average lot size within the Bluffs East 6th Addition would be 20,130 square feet.
The proposed preliminary plat meets the requirements of the RM-6.5 Zoning District.
Access to this site would be provided by the extension of a cul-de-sac from Franlo
Road. The proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 75D in length which was conceptually
approved with the Bluff Country PUD. Even though the cul-de-sac length exceeds the
maximum requirement of the City, alternative road connections are not possible.
With the construction of this project, an outlot for signage is being proposed at
the intersection of Franlo Road and Fawns Way. In order to provide a 90-degree
intersection with Franlo Road and Fawns Way, the outlot should be eliminated. With
the removal of Dutlot A and the recommended "T" intersection, Lots 12 and 13 shall
be extended to the proposed new right-of-way.
Grading
In order to take advantage of the natural site features, including the pond to the
east, and the hill along the western portion of the site, cul-de-sacs were designed
in order to maintain as many of these features as possible. Natural elevations on
this site range from a high point of approximately 626 located along the western
property line to a low point at the 772 contour elevation along the eastern property
line near the rear Lot 13. The low contour elevation is approximately 5 feet higher
than the elevation of the ponding area. As part of this ponding area, there are two
natural drainage swales located within the grading area. With the development of
this site, both of these natural drainage swales will be filled in. The entire
project site slopes towards the east or Outlot E, which is
pond. location of the existing
Bluffs East 6th Addition 3 April 22, 1988
With the development of this project, the entire site will be required to be graded.
The maximum amount of cut on this site is approximately 14 feet located to the rear
of Lot 3 adjacent the high point to a fill of approximately 28 feet located to the
rear of Lot 13. The proposed grading plan is designed primarily to allow for the
construction of units along the western property line adjacent the knoll area and
providing a level area for the extension of cul-de-sac with walk-out units designed
around the ponding area.
The previous proposal was for R1-9.5 units along this cul-de-sac. With the previous
proposal for single family homes in this area, it appears that additional natural
site features including slopes and trees, could be retained as compared to the
current development plan. The units proposed measure approximately 75 feet in depth
due to the location of the garages in the front of the buildings. Currently,
average building pads being constructed within the City of Eden Prairie measure
approximately 50 feet in depth. If the grading plan could be revised to reflect a
25-foot reduction in the amount of grading on each side of the cul-de-sac by a
change in unit styles, additional trees totalling approximately 107 caliper inches
of significant oak trees could be saved and less encroachment down the slope towards
the pond could be achieved. In addition, the proposed grading plan depicts 2:1
slopes along the eastern property line towards the ponding area. As a matter of
comparison, with a 50-foot building pad these slopes could be extended
approximately 25 feet and meet the City Code requirement of 3:1.
Utilities
Utility connections to service this site would be made to existing utilities located
within the Franlo Road extension. This would include a six-inch waterline and and
eight-inch sanitary sewer line which would be extended through the cul-de-sac to the
southern property line.
Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected through an extensive series of catch
basins located within Franlo Road, Fawns Way, and along property lines in this area
to provide adequate drainage. The overall plan is designed to drain to the adjacent
pond located within Outlot E to the east of this project. Concern has been raised
regarding the fact that all storm water run-off is proposed to drain to this pond
which has no natural outlet at this time. A memo regarding the overall storm sewer
system in this area has been attached for review.
Tree Replacement/Landscape Plan
Based upon the submitted tree inventory, the proposed subdivision would involve the
removal of approximately 673 caliper inches of significant plant material. The
majority of the trees being removed are signficant oak trees located along the high
point along the western property line. Based upon a total amount of significant
trees within Outlot I at 1,605 caliper inches, the removal of 673 caliper inches
would be 41.9q. Based on these figures, a total of 499 caliper inches of plant
material is required for replacement. If the grading plan were altered to reflect
the R1-9.5 Zoning District, a total of 107 caliper inches of trees could be saved
which would lower the overall amount of tree removal from 673 to 566 caliper inches
and reduce the percentage to 35.3, This figure is consistent with what has been
approved in the past projects. The overall tree replacement would then be reduced
to 373 caliper inches.
The proponent has provided a tree replacement and landscape plan for review by the
Bluffs East 6th Addition 4 April 22, 1988
City. There are a total of 495 caliper inches provided on this plan. Based upon
the tree replacement of 499 caliper inches and an overall landscaping requirement
for the duplex units of 235 caliper inches, an additional 239 caliper inches of
plant material is required. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall
revise the landscape plan to include an additional 239 caliper inches of plant
material.
In calculating the overall tree replacement, assumptions were made that the
significant trees located within Outlot I to the east of this project would all be
saved in addition to the trees located along the western property line. Based upon
the Bluff Country PUD development plan, it appears that all of these trees can not
be saved. Because of this, Staff is questioning whether or not the percentages
calculated would actually reflect what is being removed on the project site. A more
reasonable way to calculate tree removal from this site would be to have the
proponent submit a preliminary development plan for those two areas mentioned and
tree loss calculated. The proponent has indicated that a planting program has been
implemented for the Bluff Country PUD which he feels provides mitigation for the
tree removal. This plan should be submitted for review in terms of how it
corresponds with the Tree Replacement Policy.
Architecture
The proponent has submitted an architectural plan for review. There is one unit
type proposed to be built on the 13 lots. The units measure approximately 26 feet
in height and are approximately 75 feet in depth and approximately 94 feet in
length. The overall square footage of the units have been calculated at
approximately 2,313 square feet with the garage containing approximately 576 square
feet. Overall duplex size is approximately 5,77B square feet. Proposed building
materials include brick veneer which would be on the front elevation with the rear
and side elevations being stucco. Building material samples and colors would be
required prior to Council review.
In reviewing the architectural plans for this development, Staff would recommend
that the proponent submit additional elevations to provide some variety of
architecture within the entire project site. At a minimum, an additional unit style
should be provided. Also, the proponent may wish to use different building material
samples and colors in order to provide additional variety.
Pedestrian Systems
With the development of this proposal , no pedestrian system would be required on
Fawns Way. However, a 5-foot concrete sidewalk and B-foot bituminous trail shall be
constructed along the north and south sides of Franlo Road.
Conclusions
Although the increase in density across the 1B6-acre PUD is not appreciable, the
increase in density on the 8.15-acre piece of property is significant. Following
are alternatives which could provide a better land use transition and save more
trees and require less grading with final slopes at less slope.
1. Reduce the twinhome density to 2.45 units per acre.
2. Develop the property in accordance with the approved PUD for 20, R1-9.5
lots.
3. Change the building design to require less depth of building pad.
Bluffs East 6th Addition 5
April 22, 1988
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are alternative courses of action for Commission consideration:
I. If the Planning Commission feels that the PUD Amendment is acceptable, that
an appropriate transition is provided to the adjoining land uses, and that
the amount of tree loss is acceptable, then one option would be to recommend
approval based on plans dated April 21, 1988, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated April 22, 1988, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Submit conceptual development plans for the area adjacent
the pond and the property to the west of this site in order
to calculate the overall amount of tree loss expected.
Based upon these plans overall tree loss will be calculated.
B. Revise the plans to reflect a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along
the north side of Franlo Road and an 8-foot wide bituminous
trail along the southern side of Franlo Road.
C. Remove Outlot A and provide a 90-degree intersection with
Fawns Way and Franlo Road.
D. Revise the grading plan to reflect 3:1 slopes on all the
slopes within the site.
E. Submit an overall Bluff Country PUD landscape paln for Staff
review.
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water, utility, and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer,
3. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 4B hours in
advance of grading. Stake all grading limits with a snow
fence. Any trees lost outside the limits shall be replaced
on an area inch per area inch basis.
B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing.
4. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee,
B. Submit building material samples and colors for review.
n �
Bluffs East 6th Addition 6 April 22, 1988
II. If the Planning Commission feels that the land use transition is not
effective, that the PUD Amendment is not consistent with the overall intent
and purpose of the approved PUD, and that tree loss is high, then one option
would be to return the development plans to the proponent for revisions.
on
ji
0luIr
\ L5 B
d �)
V 41�
W
J y I C \^
OZ
i Ili"
,,,,,,Attachment A
Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -- April 25, 1988
D. BLUFFS EAST 6TH, by Hustad Development Company. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 186.3
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 45.16
acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on
6.94 acres, Preliminary Plat of 45.16 acres into 13 lots,
5 outlots, and road right-of-way for construction of 26
townhome units. Location: South of Franlo Road
extension, south of Normandy Crest. A public hearing.
Wally Hustad, proponent, presented the concept revision from
single family lots to twinhome which would provide better
land use. Utilities were accessible, traffic not a problem,
tree removal of approximately 673 caliper inches was
proposed, and the roadway would be improved.
Franzen reported that Staff recommendations provide a
comparison with the originally approved single family
residential concept with the present proposed twinhome
proposal. Four issues that Staff was concerned about are: 1)
lack of architectural variety, 2) change in transition to
future R1-13.5 single family units from the approved PUD, 3)
100% tree loss, and 4) significant fill into the lowland
area.
Anderson felt that the single family home concept reduces
tree loss and therefore the amount of trees to be replaced.
Hustad replied this was the first area in Creek Knolls
that has a group of trees that would have to be removed. He
also felt that there would be far more greenery after they
are done than there presently is on the site.
Hustad stated there is a transition in change of style of
housing but the economic basis will remain the same. He
reported that the proponent found it to be economically
impossible to develop single family lots and Hustad stated
the project should be desirable or not desirable, but was not
open to changing style or returning to single family concept.
Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, was concerned with the
variation of zoning R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 and the increased density
to the area.
5
Ruebling felt that providing good quality townhomes was
positive, but the architectural variation would be very
important. To purchase home at that price would an
individual want it to look like all the rest on the street.
Dodge and Hallett agreed with this perception.
Anderson felt it would be an interesting transition, however
economic considerations for the builder would not move the
Commission, only that what is best for Eden Prairie.
Schuck was concerned that the builder was not interested in
being flexible by only providing one floor plan.
Hustad stated this project was at the lowest density, and he
was disturbed that the one half million dollar project would
be denied due to a density problem.
Franzen stated that the staff recommendations were: 1) reduce
the twinhome density to 2.45 units per acre, 2) develop the
property in accordance with the approved PUD for 10, R1-9.5
lots, and 3) change the building design to require less
depth of building pad. He continued that if the Commission
found the amendment acceptable, staff would recommend
approval subject to: 1) submission of a conceptual
development for the area adjacent to the pond and land west
of the site in order to calculate the overall amount of tree
loss expected, 2) reflect a 5-foot sidewalk along the north
side of Franlo Road and a trail along the southern side of
Franlo Road, 3) provide 90 degree intersection at Fawns Way
and Franlo Road, 4) reflect 3:1 slopes on all the slopes
within the site, and 5) submit an overall Bluff Country PUD
landscape plan for staff review.
Commission felt more thought should go into the plan for
variation of style and layout to preserve trees.
MOTION
Motion made by Anderson, seconded by Ruebling to continue the
public hearing to May 9th, 1988, directing the developer to
revise the plans per the recommendations of the Staff Report
of April 22, 1988 and the Planning Commission at this meeting.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
l
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. May 16, 1988
a'
-g-
as Clencrest Road which will eventually connect back to
Valley View Road. If the railroad is abandoned, some
of the land will again be available to the developer.
One of the issues to consider on this proposal is tree
replacement. There are not a lot of significant trees
on the site and Barb said the amount of grading done
would not make a significant difference since the trees
are spread out on the entire site. 345 caliper inches
of trees will be removed and replaced. The northeast
corner of the site will be graded down somewhat. The
sidewalk on Crestview Lane should run along the west
side and there will be a trail on one side of Edenvale
Blvd. and a sidewalk on the other side.
Barb added that it was recommended that the developer
align the Crestview Lane intersection directly opposite
the driveway entrance to the park or offset it 150 feet.
Another option would be to close off the north parking
lot entrance to the park at the developer's expense.
Lambert suggested that perhaps there should be a sidewalk
along Woodland Drive also to make a connection across
Edenvale Blvd. since there is a lot of pedestrian traffic
at this location. The sidewalk could also be extended
to Briarhill in the future.
Cook asked if there are cash park fees involved with
this development. Lambert said no.
Lambert asked what the developer's preference would
be regarding access. Robertson said that without looking
at the costs involved, he feels they would prefer to close
off the second access to the parking lot.
MOTION: Baker moved to recommend approval of Clenshire
per staff recommendation with the modification of the site
plan to include a 5' sidewalk along Crestview Lane and
Edenvale Blvd. and the south side of Woodland Drive
and offering the alternative of realigning the intersection
of Crestview Drive and Edenvale Blvd. by closing off
one park access and adding berming. Mikkelson seconded
the motion and it passed 6-0.
B. Bluffs East 6th Addition
Refer to staff report dated May 6, 1988.
Bob Smith of Hedlund Engineering was present at the
meeting to review the proposed development which is located
south of Franlo Road along Co. Rd. 18 & Co. Rd. 1.
Phase 1 has already been constructed and Phase 2 will
begin construction in a couple of weeks.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. May 16, 1988
-3-
Smith reviewed the boundary survey, existing vegetation,
slopes, surface drainage and preliminary plat. The revised
plan shows that the road's location is basically the same,
the signage island has been moved to Outlot A, the size
of the buildings has been reduced by 10% and they have
been moved to lessen the impact on existing trees. In
the original plan, 673 caliper inches of trees would have
been removed. This has been reduced to 292 caliper
inches which is about 40%. A retaining wall will also
be constructed to save more of the smaller trees on the
site. Grading has also been revised to have a more natural
grade around the trees and along the street.
Smith also showed a plan of preliminary utilities and added
that the plan does not show sidewalks and a bike trail,
but they will be included in the development.
Barb summarized the issues on this development which
are that the tree loss has been reduced from 100% to
4076, there is a better transition to single family homes
by increasing the lot sizes, slopes have been changed
from 2.5:1 to 3.0:1 to minimize erosion and a trail and
sidewalk will be constructed along Franlo Road.
Mikkelson asked what types of trees are proposed along
the sidewalk. Smith said they will be mostly maple with
some pin oak and pine.
Lambert suggested that a variety of trees be planted
along the boulevard to reduce the chance of complete
loss due to disease, etc.
Richard asked where on the site the large oaks are located.
Smith said they are on the slope.
MOTION: Shaw moved to recommend approval of Bluffs
East 6th Addition per staff recommendation. Cook seconded
the motion and it passed 6-0.
VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS, BOARDS AND STAFF
A. Re orts of Director of Parks Recreation and Natural Resources
1. City Council Meetin Report of May 3 1988
The Preserve Homeowners Association trail was discussed.
The Council recommended that the City and Ryan
Construction split the cost of plantings and fencing
materials which will be installed by the homeowners.
The Council approved the use of credit cards at
the Community Center.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION R88-104
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF GLENSHIRE FOR ASSOCIATED INVESTMENTS
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
Glenshire PUD Development by Associated Investments 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 June 7, I988;
NOW, THEREFORE, BY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. Glenshire by Associated Investments, 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, ar, revised, dated May 26, 1988.
3. That the PUD Development meet the recommendations of the Planning
Commission dated May 9, 1988.
1988. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 7th day of June,
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #88-105
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF GLENSHIRE FOR
ASSOCIATED INVESTMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Glenshire for Associated Investments, dated May 26,
1988, consisting of 30.6 acres into 45 lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way for
construction of a single family development, 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 7th day of June, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: April 8, 1988
PROJECT: Glenshire
LOCATION: Northeast comer of Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard
APPLICANT: Tom Robertson, Associated Investments, Incorporated
FEE OWNER: Eden Glen Sales, Incorporated
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Church to Neighborhood
Commercial on 3.5 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 30.6 acres.
3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.3 acres, with
variances.
4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 17.3 acres.
5. Preliminary Plat of 30.6 into 56 lots, 2 outlots, and road
right-of-way.
Y 1
Background Al' 3.� F. a
des-
The Comprehensive Guide Plan
.
ignates approximately 26 acres of �C; R1-13.5
t 1,
this site as Medium Density '
Residential for up to ten units per _3r of
acre. A 3.5-acre parcel adjacent to t �.
Valley View Road is guided Church. if - ~
The surrounding uses are guided Open Rt-13.5 r``
Space to the west across Edenvale RM'6.5 = '
Boulevard; Low Density Residential RM6.5 r RM-2.5 ff
to the northwest and north of the
site; and, Medium Density Res-
idential on the eastern side the
site across the railroad tracks.
�B
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
The proponents are requesting a PROPOSED SITE
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment II, M2.
�� AREA LOCATION MAP
Glenshire 2
April 8, 1988
from Church to Neighborhood Commercial on approximately 3.5 acres of land in the
northeast quadrant of the intersection of Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard.
The impetuous for the request is the proposal for the 9.5 single family lots to the
north which would leave a remnant piece adjacent to Valley View Road. The land use
and feasibility of this piece must be known before the single family subdivision can
be properly reviewed. The retail center requires the purchase of approximately one
acre of right-of-way which the City owns adjacent to Valley View Road to build the
site plan as proposed (see Attachment A). This one-acre piece of right-of-way is
part of new Valley View Road construction. If a bridge is constructed at the
railroad crossing, then the right-of-way may not be necesary and could be sold to
the adjoining property owner. If, on the other hand, there is an on-grade crossing,
then the right-of-way would be necessary. At this time, it is not known if there
will be a bridge or an on-grade crossing. Since the property is not in the control
of the developer, this one-acre piece of land cannot be requested for a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change.
The proponent requires the additional acreage in order to create a buffer zone of 75
feet between the proposed R1-9.5 units off Glen Crest Lane and the retail center.
The retail center has only one access point off Edenvale Boulevard which makes
internal circulation poor since there is no loop road around the center. Providing
this 20-foot loop road behind the retail center would reduce the buffer zone by 20
feet and make the proposed buffering less effective. The entrance from Edenvale
Boulevard is located too close to the Valley View Road intersection and should be
located further to the north.
Not all possible Neighborhood Commercial sites are designated on the Comprehensive
Guide Plan. The Guide Plan does refer to Neighborhood Commercial Centers in the
community based on need and the appropriateness of the location in relation to
adjoining land uses so that they are not impacted. Therefore, it is incumbent upon
a proponent to provide substantial evidence that a Neighborhood Commercial would be warranted where proposed. The proponent has not provided a compelling
site
reason from a land use perspective as to why the retail center could be appropriate.
Within one mile of this site is the PDQ Neighborhood Commercial Center and the
Little Red which provides for day to day retail goods and services. In addition,
within 1-112 miles of the site, are the Rainbow Foods Shopping Center and the
Prairie Village Mall. Since Neighborhood Commercial sites typically serve a radius
Of 1 to 1-112 miles. It is apparent from examining existing uses that there is more
than adequate retail available to meet the needs within the surrounding
neighbo rhood.
Planned Unit Development
The Planned Unit Development Concept depicts a subdivision of 56, R1-9.5 lots. Two
outlots are proposed which are not under the control of the developer but under
control of the land owner which is the Eden Land Sales. Outlot A is guided Medium
Density Residential. With the development of the R1-9.5 neighborhood, use of outlot
A for Medium Density at 10 units per acre will be less appropriate. A density that
would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood would be between 3-5 units per acre.
Outlot B is Proposed to be used for commercial uses.
Through the PUD District Review, the proponent is requesting variances from the R1-
9.5 zoning district for lot depth along the railroad for Lots 11 through 16, and 19
through 21. The current City Code requires a 150-foot lot depth when lots are
adjacent to railroad lines. The proponents reasons for the variance request are due
Glenshire 3 April 8, 1988
to the soil conditions adjacent to Outlot A, the pads for the lots adjacent to the
roadway are 11 to 22 feet below diminishing the visual impact, and that the future
use of the railroad is questionable.
Staff did a noise assessment study for the proposed homes adjacent to the railroad
tracks to determine how they would be impacted by the noise of the railroad. The
study ind1c ate that given current use of the railroad, noise levels would not
exceed the PCA requirements of L-10 65 decibels. The Apple Groves subdivision was
approved with lots adjacent to the railroad using the same criteria for noise.
111-9.5 Zoning
The density of the proposed R1-9.5 zoning district is 3.2 units per acre. The
maximum density allowed within this zoning district is 3.5 units per acre. All of
the lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-9.5 zoning district in terms of
street frontage and square footage. As mentioned in the previous section, variances
are requested for lot depth adjacent to the railroad. The developer has provided an
architectural diversity plan keying unit types to lots in accordance with City
Policy such that no two units be alike side by side, diagonally, or across from each
other.
Access
Access to this site will be by two street intersections off Edenvale Boulevard and
one street intersection off Wood la nd Drive. Sight vision distance at all
intersections are acceptable.
Grading
Most of the site is relatively level and minimal grading will be required. In the
northeast corner of the site is a hill and considerable land alteration will be
required in order to accommodate the homes as proposed. The building pad size are
proposed at 30 feet. However, since most of the site is relatively level, and the
proposed grading plan allows for, on the average, 30 feet of level area behind the
houses, the pads could easily be extended to meet the market conditions for larger
depth houses. This is important for R1-9.5 zoning with narrow street frontages,
because usually the garage is set out front which means that living quarters are to
the rear of the garage and typically the pads are deeper than what are shown at 30
feet.
Utilities
Sewer and water service is available to this site by connection to existing
facilities adjacent to the site. A portion of a watermain that runs through the
site is proposed to be relocated within Crestview right-of-way. Storm water run-off
is proposed to sheet drain across the lots into the roadway where the water is
collected and carried to a series of storm sewer pipes to Valley View Road for the
southern half of the site and to the ponding area within Outlot A for the northern
portion of the site. The proponent should provide the required storm water run-off
calculations for the Engineering Department for review to determine if there is
enough storage area within the low area in Outlot A to accommodate the storm water
run-off.
GIenshire 4 April 8, 1988
Tree Loss
The site is relatively level and across the western and southem portions of the
property contain mass areas of cottonwood and willow. In the northeast corner of
the site, there are significant trees including basswood, maple, and oak. The total
amount of significant trees is 345 caliper inches. Based on a field study, these
trees are not specimen trees. All of these trees would be lost due to construction.
Because the trees are scattered across the site, increasing the lot sizes or
reducing the number of units would not affect the tree loss appreciably.
Replacement would be 345 caliper inches and the proponent should provide a tree
replacement plan prior to final plat approval.
Sidewalks
There should be a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along one side of the internal loop
road in the proposed R1-9.5 area and along the east side of Edenvale Boulevard.
Conclusion
The proposed R1-9.5 zoning is appropriate within the Medium Density designation of
the Guide Plan on this site. The size of the proposed lots meet ordinance
requirements and the site plan as proposed is acceptable.
The proposed Guide Plan Change from Church to Neighborhood Commercial adjacent to
Valley View Road is not appropriate because there are adequate Commercial uses
within 1-112 miles of the site to serve the immediate neighborhood, the site relies
upon property over which the developer has no control in order to create an
appropriate transition, Outlot B by itself would be too small to accommodate the
Commercial use because there is not enough room for a transition, and the site plan,
as proposed, is not acceptable in terms of buffering and the circulation. In
addition, Outlot B, because of its size and configuration, would also be difficult
to develop as a church and still create an appropriate transition. The land use and
feasibility of this oulot must be known before the R1-9.5 portion of this request
can be properly reviewed and approved. For these reasons, a better land use would
be to develop Outlot B for additional R1-9.5 zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are alternatives for Planning Commission consideration;
1. If the Planning Commission feels that a Neighborhood Commercial use within
this location makes sense, then the plans should be retu m ed to the
proponent for revisions to demonstrate how a commercial use would work in
this location without relying on right-of-way from Valley View Road and
which also creates an appropriate transition to the adjoining residential
neighborhood. This would require approximately one acre of proposed R1-9.5
zoning to be converted to commercial in order to provide for the appropriate
transition.
2. If the Planning Commission feels that the proponents have not demonstrated
substantial compelling reasons for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan,
then one option would be to close the public hearing, and direct the
proponent to revise the plans to incorporate Outlot B as part of the
proposed R1-9.5 zoning.
.-V
GIenshire 5 April 8, 1988
3. If the Planning Commission feels that the proponent has not provided a
compelling reason for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change and the overall PUD
as proposed is not acceptable, then one option would be to recommend denial
of the project.
CONCEPT PLAN
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
17,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER
106 PARKING STALLS
75' BUFFER ALONG NORTH SIDE FOR BERMS,
LANDSCAPING, DECORATIVE TREES AND FENCING
RE T
Nor
23
26 a 25' / ///24 "
II I 1 1 -n •' / / a /
'TOO
J �\ RETAIL CE TERM I
I '�
411
VALLEY VIEW ROAd '
GTY RIC2HT of wAf
Attachment A
�r?z
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: May 6, 1988
PROJECT: Glenshire
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard
APPLICANT: Tom Robertson, Associated Investments, Inc.
FEE OWNER: Eden Land Sales, Inc.
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Church to Neighborhood
Commercial on 3.5 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 30.6 acres.
3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.3 acres, with
variances.
4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 17.3 acres.
5. Preliminary Plat of 30.6 acres into 56 lots, 2 outlots, and
road right-of-way.
Background 'R1-y3.511 u` •, ' ;�1/ _
This is a continued item from the
April 8, 1988, Planning Commission R1_13,5 '
I
t
meeting. The Planning Commission ���,� yl
recommended that the development
plans be returned to the proponents
for revisions. The Commission in-
dicated that the request for Guide >f��.
Plan Change from Church to R1-13.5•Commercial is is not appropriate and RM-2.5
that developing Outlot B adjacent to RAA-6S
Edenvale Boulevard would be more `� -.`__ `'•�1 f'
appropriate for R1-9.5 housing.
Since that meeting, the proponents
have withdrawn the request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change (see
attached letter). The revised :\
Planned Unit Development (PUD) would PROPOSED SITE ;rp
2.
�� AREA LOCATION MAP
Glenshire 2 May 6, 1988
reduce the amount of land area to be developed for R1-9.5 by about4 acres And the
size of Outlot B, adjacent to Edenvale Boulevard would be increased by about 3.4
acres to 6.1 acres. The revised development request is as follows and will be
published for the City Council as such, pending a recommendation by the Planning
Commission:
1. PUD Concept Review on 30.6 acres.
2. PUD District Review on 30.6 acres, with variances.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 13.9 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of 30.6 acres into 45 lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-
way.
Revised Planned Unit Development Concept
The revised PUD increases the size of Outlot B adjacent to Valley View Road from 2.7
to 6.1 acres. This correspondently reduces the area to be rezoned to R1-9.5 from
17.3 to 13.9 acres. Outlot A is still proposed to be developed as townhouses;
however, no plans have been submitted depicting the layout or the density. Although
the Guide Plan. depicts Outlot A as Medium Density Residential for up to 10 units per
acre, a density of 3 to 5 units per acre would be more appropriate as a transition
and would fit in better with the existing and future single family land uses.
No land use is proposed for Outlot B at this time. The proponents have talked about
this outlot being developed as Medium Density Residential or Commercial and would
return at a later date for Planning Commission review when specific plans and a
developer have been identified. Outlot B is guided for 2.6 acres of Medium Density
Residential and 3.5 acres of Church. Until a Guide Plan Change has been approved,
these would be the appropriate land uses for Outlot B.
Glencrest Road is proposed as a temporary cul-de-sac which will eventually connect
back to Edenvale Boulevard. If this road is extended along the alignment on the
previous plat request, it would create land use transition problems if Outlot B is
developed for any other land use other than R1-9.5 single family lots.
Through the PUD District Review, the proponent is requesting variances in the R1-9.5
zoning district for lot depth adjacent to the railroad for Lots 11 through 16, and
Lots 19 and 20, Block 1. The current City Code requires a 150-foot lot depth when
lots are adjacent to railroad lines. The proponents have indicated that the reason
for the variances are due to the soil conditions in Outlot A, the proposed pad
elevations for the lots adjacent to the railroad are 11 to 22 feet below the
railroad which helps diminish the visual impact, and that the future use of the
railroad is questionable.
Staff did a noise assessment study for lots adjacent to the railroad and determined
that, given the current use of the railroad, noise levels would not exceed the PCA
requirements of L10-65 decibels.
R1-9.5 Zoning
The revised preliminary plat depicts the subdivision of 13.9 acres into 45 single
family lots at a density of 3.2 units per acre. The maximum density of the R1-9.5
C
Glenshire 3 May 6, 1988
zoning district is 3.5 units per acre. All the lots meet the minimum requirements
of the R1-9.5 zoning district with the exception of lot depth adjacent to the
railroad for which the proponents have requested a variance.
The developer has provided an architectural diversity plan keying unit types to lots
in accordance with the City policy such that no two units be alike side by side,
diagonally, or across from each other.
Access
Access will be by one street intersection off Edenvale Boulevard and one street
intersection off Woodland Drive. Sight visions distance at all intersections are
acceptable. Crestview Lane intersection with Edenvale Boulevard should be aligned
directly opposite the driveway entrance to the park or 150 feet offset.
Grading
The grading plan is similar to the original proposal. The northeast corner of this
site is a hill and considerable land alteration will occur in order to accommodate
the pads as proposed. Building pads are proposed at 30 feet; however, since most of
the site is relatively level, there is room for expansion such that larger houses
could be accommodated according to market conditions. This is important for the R1-
9.5 zoning district with narrow street frontages because usually the garage is set
out front which means the living quarters are to the rear of the garage and
typically the pads are deeper than what are shown at 30 feet.
Utilities
Sewer and water service is available to this site by connection to existing
facilities to the property. A portion of the watermain that runs through the site
is proposed to be relocated in Crestview Road right-of-way. Storm water run-off is
proposed to drain into the ponding area in Outlot A. The proponent should provide
the required storm water run-off calculations for the Engineering Department for
review to determine if there is enough storage area within Outlot A to accommodate
the storm water run-off.
Tree Loss
In the northeast corner of the site, approximately 345 caliper inches of maple, oak,
and basswood would be lost due to construction. Based on a Staff field study, most
of these trees are not specimen trees. Because the trees are scattered across the
site, increase in the lot sizes or reduced in the number of units would not affect
tree loss appreciably. Replacement would be for 345 caliper inches and the
proponent should provide a tree replacement plan prior to City Council review.
Sidewalks
There should be a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk constructed along one side of the
internal loop road and along the east side of Edenvale Boulevard for the area to be
rezoned R1-9.5. The sidewalk on Edenvale Boulevard adjacent to Outlot A & B should
be constructed concurrent with proposals for those sites in the future.
Glenshire 4 May 6, 1988
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the revised plans of the Glenshire
project including a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 30.6 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review on 30.6 acres, with variances, a Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 13.9 acres and a Preliminary Plat of 30.6 acres into
45 lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way, based on plans dated May 2, 1988, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 8, 1988, and May 6, 1988,
and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the site plan to depict a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along one side of Crestview Lane and along the east side of Edenvale
Boulevard.
B. Provide a tree replacement plan for 345 caliper inches.
C. Realign the Crestview Lane access to Edenvale Boulevard to align
directly opposite the park entrance or 150 feet offset.
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer.
8. Provide detailed storm water run-off, and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
C. Submit a bond covering 1-1/2 times the amount of tree replacement
for 345 caliper inches.
3. Developer shall notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in
advance of grading.
4. Concurrent with street construction, proponent shall construct a five-foot
wide concrete sidewalk along Crestview Lane and along the east side of
Edenvale Boulevard for the area to be zoned R1-9.5.
5. Outlot A shall be designated as a Medium Density Residential land use with
the density not to exceed 3 to 5 units per acre. The development plan for
future townhouses should provide a physical transition to the surrounding
single family lots. Units should be designed to be residential in character
with staggered rooflines and building jogs to help reduce the overall
building mass. Heavy landscaping should also be required to help provide a
better transition.
6. Outlot B is currently guided Medium Density Residential and Church and any
use other than these would require a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. No
substantation has been provided for a change in the Guide Plan to
Commercial. All uses other than a continuation of R1-9.5 housing will also
require an architectural transition and a physical buffer zone.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. May 16, 1988
-g-
as Glencrest Road which will eventually connect back to
Valley View Road. If the railroad is abandoned, some
of the land will again be available to the developer.
One of the issues to consider on this proposal is tree
replacement. There are not a lot of significant trees
on the site and Barb said the amount of grading done
would not make a significant difference since the trees
are spread out on the entire site. 345 caliper inches
of trees will be removed and replaced. The northeast
corner of the site will be graded down somewhat. The
sidewalk on Crestview Lane should run along the west
side and there will be a trail on one side of Edenvale
Blvd, and a sidewalk on the other side.
Barb added that it was recommended that the developer
align the Crestview Lane intersection directly opposite
the driveway entrance to the park or offset it 150 feet.
Another option would be to close off the north parking
lot entrance to the park at the developer's expense.
Lambert suggested that perhaps there should be a sidewalk
along Woodland Drive also to make a connection across
Edenvale Blvd. since there is a lot of pedestrian traffic
at this location. The sidewalk could also be extended
to Briarhill in the future.
Cook asked if there are cash park fees involved with
this development. Lambert said no.
Lambert asked what the developer's preference would
be regarding access. Robertson said that without looking
at the costs involved, he feels they would prefer to close
off the second access to the parking lot.
MOTION: Baker moved to recommend approval of Glenshire
per staff recommendation with the modification of the site
plan to include a 5' sidewalk along Crestview Lane and
Edenvale Blvd. and the south side of Woodland Drive
and offering the alternative of realigning the intersection
of Crestview Drive and Edenvale Blvd. by closing off
one park access and adding berming. Mikkelson seconded
the motion and it passed 6-0.
B. Bluffs East 6th Addition
Refer to staff report dated May 6, 1988.
Bob Smith of Hedlund Engineering was present at the
meeting to review the proposed development which is located
south of Franlo Road along Co. Rd. 18 & Co. Rd. 1.
Phase 1 has already been constructed and Phase 2 will
begin construction in a couple of weeks.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
41 Monday, May 16, 1988 7:30 p.m., City Hall
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Breitenstein, chairperson;
Bud Baker, Moe Cook,
Karon Joyer, Brian Mikkelson,
Pat Richard, Charles Shaw
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None
COMMISSION STAFF: Bob Lambert, Director
of Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources, Barb Cross,
Landscape Architect
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by chairperson,
Pat Breitenstein.
11. TOUR OF UNDEVELOPED PARKLAND
The members of the commission toured several areas of undeveloped
parkland prior to the commission meeting.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Joyer moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Richard seconded the motion and it passed 6-0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 2, 1988
MOTION: Shaw moved to approve the minutes of May 2, 1988
as printed. Baker seconded the motion and It passed 6-0.
V. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
None
VI. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. Glenshire
Refer to staff report dated May 6, 1988.
Barb introduced Tom Robertson of Associated Investments:'
Mr. Robertson reviewed the site which is located at the
corner of Valley View Road and Edenvale Blvd. across
from the park. The plan is for 45 single family lots
and the Planning Commission is requiring the developer
to construct sidewalks on one side of Crestview Lane
and the east side of Edenvale Blvd. The original plan
was for apartment buildings which has been changed to
townhomes. There will be a temporary cul-de-sac known
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
C/O 1lerhtit X Thue,1.0.
950 No ni land Plaza
3800V'ew 8001 Street
NOon-11 um..NIN Y5 31
(012)89 i-6-1 l
April 28, 1988
City of Eden Prairie
City Hall
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
RE: Transfer of Cable Communications
System Serving the Southwest Suburbs
Our File No.. 88-0141G
Dear Mayor Peterson, City Manager
and Members of the City Council:
I have enclosed with this letter a number of documents for
review and consideration by your City Council. It will be
necessary for you to advertise a public hearing because the
situation involves franchise ordinance amendment. It would be
appreciated if you would advertise the proposed franchise
ordinance amendment at the earliest possible time so that all of
the actions by the five (5) Member Cities of the Southwest could
be concluded as soon as possible within the same time frame.
Let me explain the need for a proposed amendment to the
franchise, adoption of a resolution, and approval of other
documents enclosed.
The current Grantee of the cable system is Rogers
Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership (11RCMLP11) . This
partnership has as a general partner Rogers Cablesystems of the
Southwest, Inc. (11RCTSI11). This general partner RCTSI, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc.
(11RUSCI11) , which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers
Cablesystems of America, Inc. (11RCA11) both of which are
collectively referred to as "Rogers Companies".
The Rogers Companies have acquired all of the limited
partnership interests in RCMLP. Because of this there is no need
for RCMLP to operate the franchise. The Rogers Companies seek
to dissolve the RCMLP limited partnership and transfer the
franchise granted by your City to the general partner, RCTSI.
The transfer will not cause any change in the controlling
interest or change in the operation of the franchise because
RCTSI is the general partner of RCMLP.
Cilies cif Iiden Prairie,Edina. Hopkins,Minnetonka&. Richfield
April 28, 1988
Page 2
The transfer is not what you have been reading about in the
newspapers and what I have recently corresponded with you on
with regard to the sale of the United States cable systems of
Rogers Companies. That is a separate matter that will come to
you later. This particular matter was recently reviewed by the
Operating Committee of the Southwest Commission and it was
requested by the company that the cities act on this so that the
franchise documentation is in order and consistent with the
changes that have occurred as a consequence of the sale of their
partnership interest by the limited partners.
The Operating Committee determined that this transfer was in
the form of house cleaning and could not find any reason to
believe that there would be any change in the operation of the
system or impact on subscribers. For this reason, they
authorized me to direct the appropriate documentation to you for
action by the City Council. It is necessary for your City
Council to act on the matter because the franchise is granted
separately by you.
The documents that are enclosed include:
I. Resolution. A resolution giving final approval to a
transfer of the City's cable television franchise. The
resolution outlines the background of the transfer and the
findings of the City Council. Further, it consents to the
transfer and authorizes the Acceptance Agreement and the Joint
and Several Liability Agreement.
2. Ordinance Amendment. This ordinance amendment will
amend the existing franchise to change the definition of Grantee
to RCI'SI which is and has been the general partner of the
existing Grantee.
3. Acceptance Agreement and Joint and Several Liability
Agreement. Both of these documents are in accord with the
agreements prepared in joint meetings with the City Attorneys for
the five (5) Southwest cities several years ago in dealing with
other franchise amendments. The process was agreed upon with
respect to what was required in the case of amendments to the
franchise. The same documents had been used in the past and are
updated to reflect the necessary changes because of the new
designated Grantee under the franchise.
4. Sample Notice of Publication. Use this to advertise
hearing.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of all these
documents and this correspondence to your City Attorneys so that
April 28, 1988
Page 3
they will be apprised of the modification and can contact me
with regard to any changes or corrections. Please let me know if
you have any comments or questions or would like further
assistance from me. Likewise, if I receive any comments or
suggestions from the City Attorneys before your public hearing, I
will certainly let you know of that as well.
Very ruly yours,
Adrian E. Herbst
AEHEnc:i j
ncl res
cc: City Attorney
n
1 p
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION GIVING FINAL APPROVAL
TO A TRANSFER OF THE CITY'S CABLE
TELEVISION FRANCHISE
WHEREAS, the City of Pder Pralfl'L Minnesota, (°City")
has granted a cable television franchise (the "Franchise") to
Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership ("RCMLP")
pursuant to the City's cable communications ordinance (the
"Franchise Ordinance") ; and
WHEREAS, Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc.
("RCTSI") is the sole general partner of RCMLP and is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. (RUSCI"),
which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of
America, Inc. ( RCA ) (collectively called herein the "Rogers
Companies") ; and
WHEREAS, the Rogers Companies have acquired all the limited
partnership interests in RCMLP; and
WHEREAS, there is no need for RCMLP to operate the Franchise
now that the Rogers Companies has acquired all the limited
partnership interests in RCMLP; and
WHEREAS, the Rogers Companies seek to dissolve the RCMLP
limited partnership and transfer the Franchise to the general
partner, RCTSI; and
WHEREAS, the proposed transfer will not cause a change in
the controlling interest in, or a change in the operation of, the
Franchise, because RCTSI is the general partner of RCMLP; and
WHEREAS, the proposed transfer has been reviewed and
discussed by the Operating Committee of the Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission ("SWSCC") which has forwarded the proposed
transfer to the City with a recommendation for approval; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed transfer will be in
the general public interest and will not adversely affect
subscribers to the City's cable system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
A. The City hereby consents to and approves the transfer
of the Franchise from RCMLP to RCTSI and the dissolution of
RCMLP; such consent and approval is conditioned on the filing by
RCTSI of a written Acceptance Agreement ("Acceptance") in a form
and substance acceptable to the City and containing the
requirements set forth in Article XIV, Section 2 and Article XII
Section 1 of the Franchise Ordinance whereby RCTSI agrees to
assume, perform, and discharge those obligations and duties of
1i-;l
RCMLP in the Franchise Ordinance, such Acceptance to be tiled
With the City within days of the passage of this
Resolution.
B. The City
that the Franchise and lall s Resolution as of the time of this
agreements entered into by RCMLP are
deemed in full force and effect and will remain unchanged by thel
transfer, except that RCTSI will replace and be responsible as
the successor in interest to all obligations and rights held
formerly be RCMLP.
C. The City
1985 Relief Ordina notes nceprovides sfor iautomatic dtermination of ivision 2, of therelief therein, (among other things), when the Grantee collects
one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) as measured from
September 1, 1984, in gross revenue, or the relief terminates
March 1, 1992, whichever is earlier. Gross revenues, for
Purposes of this provision, are revenues received from all
franchises held, owned, or operated by RCTSI.
Passed and adopted this day of , 1988,
by the City of
DATED: CITY OF:
By:
Its:
4
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE 110.
All ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
I�-S5 TO CHANGE THE NAME OF GRANTEE.
THE CITY OF CQPa^ PMIrI,Ee MINNESOTA DOES
ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. That Article I, Section 2, Paragraph J of said
Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
J. "Grantee" is P,ag°ro-Cah}bspems�€-t4n�eseta-h€m€tea
Fzrtrrerst� p,--a <.inrfleets-lim;tc l-gzrtnersk€p,--sr€th Rogers
Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota corporation_ ,--as
the-C-e:geraF-Partner-.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance
with the provisions of Article XIV of said Ordinance, including
delivery to the City of the acceptance, opinion of legal counsel,
guarantees and other documents as required by said Article XIV,
and provided further, however, that it shall become effective
only if all of the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Richfield adopt an ordinance similar to this
Ordinance within ninety (90) days after the adoption of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof,
this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption
and publication.
Passed and adopted this day of 1988.
CITY OF , MINNESOTA
By
Its
And
Its
ACCEPTANCE OF A FRANCHISE FOR A
CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of , a Minnesota
municipal corporation (the "City"), by action of its governing
body on , adopted a Cable Communications
Franchise ordinance ( the "Franchise"), which is now recorded inl
the ordinance books of the City as Ordinance No. , and
originally, granted to Minnesota Cablesystems - Southwest, a
Minnesota Limited Partnership, with Minnesota Cablesystems, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation, as General Partner, a non-exclusive
franchise to contract, operate and maintain a cable
communications system (the "System") within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has amended the Franchise by Ordinance
Nos. , and , adopted on ,
and , respectively (together
called the "Amendments"); and
WHEREAS, by the Amendment dated May 22, 1985, the name of
the original grantee of the Franchise was changed to Rogers
Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership, a Minnesota
limited partnership, with Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation, as the General Partner and is now
renamed Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution dated , 1988 the
City consented to and approved the transfer of the Franchise from
Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, a Minnesota limited
partnership, to the general partner of that partnership, Rogers
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
the Grantee," including those instances where it is acting as the
successor in interest to the rights and obligations of the
original grantee) ; and
WHEREAS, by the Amendment dated May 22, 1985, Section 2
provided in part that the term of the franchise would be extended
by four years to December 31, 1999, upon satisfactory refinancing
of Existing Indebtedness; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has refinanced its Existing Indebtedness,
and the City, through the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission,
"SWSCC", has filed with the Minnesota Commerce Department in
compliance with Minnesota law and the City and Grantee have in
all respects completed the requirements for extension of the term
of the franchise; and
WHEREAS, the City by action of its governing body
on , adopted Ordinance No. (the "Relief
Ordinance") , and granted certain temporary relief to Grantee from
some of the financial and programming obligation imposed on
Grantee by the Franchise, as amended by the Amendments; and
1
ll% ,a
WHEREAS, City has additionally entered into an Agreement
with the Grantee, dated , which incorporated
a contract for Local Programming Facilities as Exhibit A, and a
contract for Public, Educational, and Government Access Services
as Exhibit B, (together referred to as the "Performance
Agreement") ; and
WHEREAS, the City by action of its governing body on
, adopted a Resolution, a copy of which is attached
(hereinafter "Resolution"), which approved the transfer of the
Franchise from Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited
Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership to Grantee; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has completed a reorganization of its
corporate structure which necessitates acceptance of the
franchise and other obligations, including the extension of the
franchise term, by the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution requires that the Franchise be
accepted in writing by Grantee in form and substance acceptable
to Cities and the Franchise requirement at Article XII, Section
1, and further that Grantee in acceptance of Franchise, comply
with the requirements of Article XIV, Section 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms and requirements of
the Resolution and Franchise, and in consideration of the
approval of the transfer, Grantee does hereby accept the
Franchise and make the following representations and warranties
to the Cities:
1. Grantee agrees to be bound by the Franchise, as amended
by the Amendments, the Offering (as defined in the Franchise),
and the Relief Ordinance, and to timely and fully perform and
fulfill the terms, provisions and conditions of the Franchise, as
so amended, the Offering, and the Relief Ordinance, and the
Performance Agreement, and to be bound by the Franchise for the
System through December 31, 1999.
2. Grantee agrees to provide, and warrants and represents
that it is able to provide, all services and offerings set forth
in the Franchise, as so amended, in the Offering, and in the
Relief Ordinance, and agrees to be bound by and to timely and
fully perform and fulfill all of the agreement, provisions,
promises, offers, representations and inducements contained in
the Franchise, as so amended, the Offering, Performance Agreement
and the Relief Ordinance. The Offering is hereby incorporated
into this Acceptance in full.
3. Grantee agrees that it is and shall be subject to the
regulatory authority of the City as set out in the Franchise, as
now amended, and as the Franchise may, from time to time,
hereinafter by supplemented or amended.
2
�l'
4. Grantee understands and agrees that the Offering is
specifically set out in the Franchise only in part, and that the
whole of the Offering is incorporated in the Franchise by
reference. Therefore, Grantee agrees that City may, at any time
and from time to time, amend the Franchise by the sole act of the
City, and without acceptance or agreement by Grantee, to include
in the Franchise, effective as of the date of commencement of the
Franchise term, any one or more specific provisions of the
Offering not then specifically in the Franchise.
5. No legislation or regulation passed by any legislative
body or administrative agency subsequent to the grant of the
Franchise, as so amended, or of the Relief Ordinance, shall
relieve Grantee of any obligations under the Franchise, as so
amended, or the Offering, or the Relief Ordinance, or the duty of
complying, in all respects, with the terms and conditions of the
Franchise, as so amended, the Offering, and of the Relief
Ordinance. Also, Grantee agrees that it will not seek to have
any legislative or administrative body, other than the City,
preempt or otherwise modify the terms of the Franchise, as so
amended, or of the Relief Ordinance. However, this provision
shall not be construed to deny Grantee the right to participate
in federal, or state , legislative or administrative rule making
procedures considering the adoption of legislation of rules of
general application.
6. Grantee agrees to cooperate fully with the City in
obtaining from any governmental agency all licenses, permits, and
other authority, necessary for the construction, operation and
maintenance of the System pursuant to the Franchise, as now or
hereafter amended.
7. Grantee represents, warrants and guarantees that
neither it, nor its representatives or agents, have committed any
illegal acts, or engaged in any wrongful conduct, contrary to or
in violation of, any federal, state or local law or regulation in
connection with operation of the System, or the obtaining of any
of the Amendments or of the Relief Ordinance.
8. Grantee further warrants and represents as follows:
A. That it is lawfully incorporated under the laws of
Minnesota; and has full right and authority to enter into and
fully perform the Franchise, as so amended, the Offering, the
Relief Ordinance, and this Acceptance; that all corporate action
required to authorize the execution and delivery of this
Franchise, as amended, the Relief Ordinance, and this Acceptance,
and all other documents to be executed and/or delivered by
Grantee pursuant to the Franchise, as so amended, the Relief
Ordinance, and this Acceptance, and to authorize the performance
by Grantee of all of its obligation under the Franchise, as so
amended, the Offering, the Relief Ordinance, and this
3
Acceptance, and all such other documents to be executed and/or
delivered by Grantee, have been validly and duly taken and are in
force and effect; and that the Franchise, as so amended, the
Relief Ordinance, this Acceptance, and all such other documents
executed and/or delivered by Grantee, have been duly executed and
delivered by Grantee and the terms of each thereof are fully
binding upon and enforceable against Grantee;
B. That Grantee has the fiscal and construction capability
to commence, complete, operate and maintain the System pursuant
to the terms of the Franchise, as so amended, and the Relief
Ordinance;
C. That Grantee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers
U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI") (Rogers American Cable
Corporation, a Delaware corporation "RACC11 was merged with RUSCI
May 13, 1987), a Delaware corporation, which is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. ("RCA"), a
Delaware corporation, and that RCA is principally owned by Rogers
Cablesystems International B.V., a Netherlands corporation, which
is a subsidiary of Rogers Communications, Inc. ("RCI"), a
Canadian corporation, which was formerly known as Rogers
Cablesystems, Inc. and Canadian Cablesystems, Limited; and
D. City understands that it shall have the right to hold
RCA, RUSCI and RCI each jointly and severally liable for the full
performance of all of the obligations of Grantee under the
Franchise as extended to December 31, 1999, the Relief Ordinance,
the Performance Agreement and this Acceptance and with the
further understanding that RCA and RUSCI have committed its
resources and credit, as available, from time to time to ensure
the operating viability of Grantee. RCA, RUSCI and RCI will each
have the identical obligation of Grantee under the Franchise
extended through December 31, 1999, the Relief Ordinance, the
Performance Agreement and this Acceptance, neither more nor less.
E. That Grantee is authorized to do business in Minnesota,
and is in good standing in Minnesota.
9. Grantee has agreed, by this acceptance, to the fees,
rates, rate change procedures and standards for review of rates
and rate changes, in the Franchise, as so amended, and in the
Relief Ordinance, to the extent not inconsistent with the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984. Also, Grantee agrees that the
City can use and consider in evaluating any rate change, among
other things, the tax benefits received by Grantee, its
shareholders, and others, as a result of investments in the
System, and the cash flow derived from the System.
10. Grantee further agrees to hold the City and SWSCC and
their respective officers, agents, employees and representatives,
4
�l� 1
harmless from and indemnified against any and all loss, cost,
damage and expense, including, without limitation, attorneys'
fees, now or hereafter incurred by them, or either of them, and
their respective officers, agents, employees or representatives,
and arising out of or due to, or claimed to arise out of or be
due to, the grant of the Franchise, as so amended, or the Relief
Ordinance to Grantee or the process followed by City and SWSCC in
granting the Franchise, the Amendments, or the Relief Ordinance.
11. Grantee agrees that all agreements, representations and
warranties set forth herein, in the Franchise, as so amended, in
the Offering, or in the Relief Ordinance, shall be binding upon
it and its successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit
of the City and its successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantee has caused this Acceptance to be
duly executed and delivered this day of
1988. r
DATED: ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE
SOUTHWEST, INC., a Minnesota
corporation
By:
Its:
And:
Its:
g
t,
b
AGREEMENT
9z
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
The City of ("City"), and Rogers
Cablesystems of America, Inc. ("RCA") , a Delaware corporation,
and Rogers Communications, Inc. , a Delaware corporation ("RUSCI")
in consideration of the original grant of the Franchise (below
defined) by the City to Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited
Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (11RCMLP1% and the
duly approved transfer of the franchise from RCMLP to its general
partner, Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. (referred to
hereinafter as the "Grantee" including those instances where it
is acting as the successor in interest to the rights and
obligations of the original grantee, RCMLP) and of the adoption
of the Relief ordinance (below defined) , and the approval of
Grantee refinancing plan and extension of the term of the
Franchise (below defined), agree as follows:
1. This Agreement supersedes that certain Agreement of
Joint and Several Liability entered into by and between the City,
RCA, Rogers Cablesystems, Inc. ("Canadian"), and Rogers American
Cable Corporation ("RACC") and dated July 11, 1985 and that
certain Agreement of Joint and Several Liability entered into by
and between the City, RCA, RCI, and RUSCI and dated January 19,
1988.
1
2. It is understood and agreed that the City originally
awarded a nonexclusive cable communications franchise to RCMLP
pursuant to the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance,
Ordinance No. as amended by Ordinance Nos. ,
I
and (the initial franchise, as so amended,
is herein called the "Franchise,,), and has consented to and
approved of the transfer of the Franchise from RCMLP to RCTSI by
Resolution No. , dated , 1988. The City
has granted certain relief to Grantee from some of its
obligations under the Franchise by a duly adopted Ordinance No.
(the "Relief Ordinance"), has adopted a Resolution, dated
approving the refinancing plan of Grantee
and a transfer in the controlling interest of Grantee, and the
City and Grantee have done all things required under Minnesota
law to extend the duration of the Franchise to December 31, 1999,
and the City has received-an Acceptance (Of Franchise For a Cable
Communications System (including the extension of the Franchise
term) and Amendments thereto, the Performance Agreement and of
the Relief Ordinance) signed and delivered by Grantee (the
"Acceptance") , with the understanding that the City will have the
right to hold RCA, RUSCI, and RCI each jointly and severally
liable for the full performance of all obligations of Grantee
under the Franchise as extended to December 31, 1999, the Relief
Ordinance, the Performance Agreement and the Acceptance, and with
the further understanding that RCA and RUSCI have committed their
resources and credit, as available, from time to time to ensure
2
1�`>J
the operating viability of Grantee. RCA, RUSCI and RCI will each
have the identical obligation of Grantee under the Franchise
through December 31, 1999, the Relief Ordinance, the Performance
Agreement and Acceptance, neither more nor less. (The Franchise,)
Relief Ordinance, Performance Agreement and Acceptance are herein
together called the "Franchise Documents.,,)
3. It is understood and agreed that the City has the right
to enforce any obligation, agreement, warranty, representation,
penalty or performance under the Franchise Documents, or any one,
or more, of said documents, against either RCA, RUSCI or RCI, or
all of them, without the requirement that the City follow or use
any different, or additional, procedures as to RCA, RUSCI or RCI
than the City would as to Grantee. Notice to Grantee shall
constitute notice to RCA, RUSCI and RCI. Commencement of any
enforcement procedure against Grantee shall constitute
commencement of any enforcement procedure as to RCA, RUSCI and
RCI.
4. It is intended that this not constitute a guaranty
agreement, but rather an agreement of joint and several liability
Of RCA, RUSCI and RCI to perform each, and all, of the
obligations, agreements, representations and warranties of
Grantee set forth in.the Franchise Documents, or any one, or
more, of said documents, to pay all claims, judgments and debts
of Grantee arising in connection with the Franchise Documents, or
any one, or more, of said documents, and to perform all offers,
representations, promises and inducements set forth in the
3
11'�i
Offering of Grantee (as defined in the Franchise).
5. This Agreement is absolute and complete, it shall be
a,
continuing and shall not be revocable. No notice of any
indebtedness, obligation or undertaking heretofore or hereafter
contracted or acquired by Grantee relating to the Franchise
Documents, or any one, or more, of said documents, need be given
to RCA, RUSCI or RCI.
6. RCA, RUSCI and RCI agree that (i) the City need not use
due diligence, or effort of any nature whatsoever, to compel
performance by Grantee of any of its obligations under the
Franchise Documents, or any one, or more, of said documents, or
to collect any amounts from any security held by, or for the
benefit of, the City or to realize any amounts on said security,
but may require performance or payment of such obligations
directly by RCA, RUSCI and RCI, or any of them; (ii) that
misfeasance or nonfeasance or the part of the City in enforcing
or not enforcing the obligations of Grantee under the Franchise
Documents, or any one, or more, of said documents, or in seeking
or not seeking to realize on any security held by, or for the
benefit of, the City, shall not defer the respective obligations
of RCA, RUSCI or RCI, under this Agreement, or negate, or detract
from, any of the obligations of RCA, RUSCI and RCI under this
Agreement; and (iii) RCA, RUSCI and RCI's obligations under this
Agreement shall not be affected by the City obtaining additional
security, or guarantees, or other agreements similar to this
Agreement, or releasing, with or without consideration, any such
4
additional security, guarantees or agreements, relating to
performance by Grantee of its obligations under the Franchise
Documents, or any one, or more, of said documents.
7. RCA, RUSCI and RCI hereby consent to the Franchise
Documents, the Offering of Grantee (as defined in the
Franchise), and all other documents executed and/or delivered by
Grantee in connection with the Franchise Documents (including,
without limitation, the letter of credit and bond now or
hereafter given pursuant to the Franchise) , being supplemented,
amended, renewed, or extended, with or without notice to RCA,
RUSCI or RCI. RCA, RUSCI and RCI also agree that they will
remain unconditionally bound to perform the obligations and
agreement of Grantee under the Franchise Documents, Offering of
Grantee, and all such other document, including said letter of
credit and bond, as so supplemented, amended, renewed or
extended.
8. RCA, RUSCI and RCI will pay to the City all costs,
including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, suffered or
incurred by the City in enforcing the City's rights under this
Agreement, whether suit be brought or not.
9. This Agreement will be governed, interpreted and
enforced pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota. RCA,
RUSCI and RCI hereby submit to the jurisdiction of the State and
Federal courts in Minnesota in connection with all matters
arising under the Franchise Documents or any one, or more, of
said documents.
5
lo. Any right or remedy hereby granted the City in this
Agreement which shall be found to be unenforceable for any
reason shall be severable, and the other rights and remedies may
continue to be enforced. All rights and remedies of the City
shall be separate and cumulative, and the exercise of one shall
not limit or prejudice the exercise of any other remedy at the
same, or a later, time. Failure of the City to exercise any
right or remedy that it possesses shall not be deemed a waiver of
that, or any other, right or remedy.
11. This Agreement shall be binding on RCA, RUSCI and RCI,
and the respective successors and assigns of RCA, RUSCI or RCI,
and shall inure to the benefit of the City and the successors or
assigns of the City.
12. Possession of this Agreement by the City shall be
conclusive evidence of delivery thereof by RCA, RUSCI and RCI to
the City.
13. The Franchise and Relief Ordinance shall not be
effective unless this Agreement is made and delivered to the
City.
14. RCA, RUSCI and RCI warrant and represent that Rogers
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of RUSCI and RUSCI is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of RCA, and that RCA is a principally owned company of
Rogers CAblesystems International B.V. a Netherlands corporation,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of RCI, and, therefore, the grant of
6
1I1,�
the Franchise to Grantee is for the benefit of, and in the best
interests of RCA, RUSCI and RCI.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused these
presents to be duly executed this day of
1988.
CITY OF:
By:
Its Mayor
7
ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA, INC.
By:
Its:
ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
By:
Its:
ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC.
By:
Its:
8
STATE OF MINNESOTA) -
ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of , 19_, by
the Mayor of the CITY OF a Minnesota municipal-
corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was subscribed.and sworn.-to.before.me .
this day of 19_, by
the City Manager of the CITY OF - a Minnesota
municipal corporation, on behalf of.said .corporatiow.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of , 19_, by
the of ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation. .
Notary Public
9
`STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of 19 by
the of ROGERS COtdt•1UNICATIONS,• INC., a Canadian
corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was subscribed.and.sworn-to_before me
this day of 19 -,.by
the of Rogers U.S. .Cablesystems, Inc.,..a Delaware ..
corporation, on behalf of said corporation. -
Notary Public
4636j
10
VAC 88-02
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-99
VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON
PART OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, GOLDEN RIDGE HILLS
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has a certain drainage and utility easement
described as follows:
The West 6 feet of the South 100 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Golden Ridge
Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 7, 1988, after due notice was
published and posted as required by law;
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said easement is not necessary and
has no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
1. Said drainage and utility easement as above described is hereby
vacated.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of proceedings
in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 7, 19B8.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
JUNE 7,1988
42582 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 2501.25
42583 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 16995.31
42584 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 24543.76
42585 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 150.12
42586 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 20575.27
42587 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 1997.76
42588 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 15790.71
42589 THE WINE CO WINE 477.12
42590 STATE OF MINNESOTA BIKE REGISTRATION 170.00
42591 METRO MAILING CENTER INC POSTAGE-FIRE DEPT 33.00
42592 JOHN H CROWTHER LIABILITY INSURANCE-LIQUOR STORE 4000.00
42593 MARSH ALLEN REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS 21.00
42594 BARBARA ANDERSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00
42595 BRADY BERGESON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 15.00
42596 KAREN BLACKEY REFUND-BEGINNING AEROBICS 28.00
42597 ALICIA BROZOVICH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 30.00
42598 WILLIAM CARRANE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00
42599 ANN DANIELSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 30.00
42600 DEBBIE DEBEER REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS 21.00
42601 PATRICE DOUCETTE REFUND-ADULT GOLF LESSONS 17.00
42602 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 12.70
42603 JEAN EISENREICH REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS 19.00
42604 JEFF FALKINGHAM REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS 27.00
42605 MAARIE GAYTHER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSDNS 20.00
42606 GRIGGS COOPER & CO LIQUOR 2632.47
42607 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 1313.83
42608 KAREN KNAEBLE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.50
42609 DARLENE KRUEGER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 30.00
42610 JENNIFER LEMONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00
42611 DEBRA LIEPKE REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS 27.00
42612 ERIC LINDGREN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00
42613 MARIE MEHNER REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS 27.00
42614 LINDA MELQUIST REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 1930
42615 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 236.83
42616 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PERMIT TO TREAT ROUND LAKE BEACH AREA 24.00
42617 MINNESOTA GREEN INDUSTRY '8B CONFERENCE-PARK DEPT 63.00
42618 MINNESOTA GREEN INDUSTRY '88 CONFERENCE-STREET DEPT 18.00
42619 MINNESOTA P 0 S T BOARD PEACE DFFICER LICENSE-POLICE DEPT 150.OD
42620 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 4318.17
42621 NSP SERVICE 10.70
42622 JUDY PETERSON REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS 21.00
42623 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 2827.73
42624 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 1610.16
42625 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO WINE 268.48
42626 DEBORAH RONGLIEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00
42627 KATHY RUCKER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 15.00
42628 MARY FRANCES SHOCKMAN REFUND-BEGINNING AEROBICS 28.00
42629 ANDREA SISAM REFUND-YOUTH TENNIS LESSONS 9.00
42630 RUTH STEIN REFUND-AQUA AEROBIC 24.00 `
42631 ROSALIE THORNE REFUND-ADULT GOLF LESSONS 17.OD
42632 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 205.82
42633 U S WEST CELLULAR SERVICE 16.34
42634 RIVIERA FINANCIAL SERVICES -SANDBLASTING UNIT-$699.OD-EQUIPMENT 1182.69
-MAINTENANCE/WASHERS/NUTS/BOLTS/CONNECTORS
-COTTER PINS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PARK
MAINTENANCE
10267972
P_/j
42635 MRPA SOFTBALL REGISTRATIONS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 3520.00
42636 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE APRIL 88 SALES TAX 19869.14
42637 MENARDS SINK FOR NEW SENIOR CENTER 49.88
42638 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 18.75
42639 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 5-13-88 891.00
42640 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 5-13-88 12683.50
42641 CROW WING COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 252.00
42642 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 5-13-88 48026.67
42643 GREAT-WEST LIFE ASSURANCE PAYROLL 5-13-88 4071.00
42644 ICMA RETIREMENT PAYROLL 5-13-88 1325.80
42645 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLL 4-29-88 & 5-13-88 900.00
42646 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA JUNE 88 LIFE INSURANCE 90.00
42647 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 5-13-88 24411.29
42648 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 5-13-88 211.50
42649 HAZEL JACOBSON HISTORIC TOUR/FEES PD 40.00
42650 POTTERS WHEEL RESTAURANT ADULT OUTING/FEES PD 172.75
42651 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 5.00
42652 DANA GIBBS SERVICE-PACKET DELIVERY 341.00
42653 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL 55.74
42654 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 10.55
42655 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 585.30
42656 MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LICENSE-WATER DEPT 30.00
42657 AMERICAN RED CROSS SCHOOL-COMMUNITY CENTER 20.00
4265B AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 65.00
42659 AT&T SERVICE 1351.16
42660 AT&T SERVICE 212.83
42661 BIRTCHER WELSH JUNE 88 RENT-CITY HALL 17596.36
42662 FIRST TRUST CENTER BOND PAYMENT 312.50
42663 VERDA HOPSTER REFUND-SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAMS 5.50
42664 JASON NORTHCO LP del JUNE 88 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 5518.75
42665 MARY JOHANDER REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 13.00
42666 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBERS 260.00
42667 SUSAN MIKELSON REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 6.66
42668 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 3807.23
42669 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 15B.27
42670 NSP SERVICE 37559.99
42671 CITY OF SAINT PAUL SCHOOLS-POLICE DEPT 150.00
42672 CAROL SUGGS REFUND-SPORTS CAMP 84.00
42673 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 9.95
42674 BRAUN PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES INC CONFERENCE-STREET DEPT 30.00
42675 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE-ADMINISTRATION 10.00
42676 DIAMOND ACCEPTANCE CORP -MAY & JUNE 88 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT- 600.00
POLICE DEPT
42677 CITICORP NORTH AMERICA JUNE 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 439.07
42678 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1918.40
42679 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 2664.00
42680 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 6056.75
42681 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE 9721.24
42682 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 270.60
42683 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 12536.79
42684 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 4267.86
42685 DOUGLAS E ANDREWS FIRE CALLS 570.00
42686 THOMAS J BLAIR FIRE CALLS 192.00
42687 JUERGEN A BOHLEN FIRE CALLS 333.00
22430178
��?Jh
JUNE 7,1988
42688 LANCE BRACE FIRE CALLS
42689 SPENCER L CONRAD FIRE CALLS 515.00
42690 GENE DAHLKE FIRE CALLS 2320.00
42691 RICHARD DEATON FIRE CALLS 710.00
42692 LARRY A DOIG FIRE CALLS 1515.00
42693 FRANKLIN ELLERING FIRE CALLS 930.00
42694 GEORGE ESBENSON FIRE CALLS 355.00
42695 CHARLES FERN FIRE CALLS 1460.00
42696 CHARLES GOBLE FIRE CALLS 1060.00
42697 ROBERT GRANT FIRE CALLS 1260.00
42698 RICK HAMMERSCHMIDT 985.00
42699 ROBERT HAUGEN FIRE CALLS 1065.00
42700 JOHN THOMAS HOBBS FIRE CALLS 930.00
42701 WALTER JAMES FIRE CALLS 1360.00
42702 JAMES G JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 715.00
42703 MICHAEL JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 1335.00
42704 RONALD JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 1140.00
42705 SCOTT E JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 3030.00
42706 MICHAEL D LADEN FIRE CALLS 339.00
42707 MARVIN A LAHTI FIRE CALLS 300.00
42708 SANDRA A LANDUCCI FIRE CALLS B35.O0
42709 MAILAND E LANE JR FIRE CALLS 30.00
42710 BRADLEY E LARSON FIRE CALLS 475.00
42711 JAMES W LINDGREN FIRE CALLS 905.00
42712 LOWELL D LUND FIRE CALLS 10.00
42713 REGAN L MASSEE FIRE CALLS 1130.00
42714 PHILIP G MATHIOWETZ FIRE CALLS 750.00
42715 JAMES L MATSON FIRE CALLS 1635.00
42716 BRIAN G MCGRAW FIRE CALLS 770.00
42717 GARY L MEYER FIRE CALLS 380.00
42718 THOMAS H MONTGOMERY FIRE CALLS 1535.00
42719 CURTIS R OBERLANDER FIRE CALLS 1765.00
42720 KATHLEEN OCONNOR FIRE CALLS 2405.00
4272I KEITH A OLSON FIRE CALLS 1570.00
42722 WANDA OVERBEY FIRE CALLS 1010.00
42723 JOHN E PAFKO FIRE CALLS 1270.00
42724 JAMES PELTIER FIRE CALLS 1330.00
42725 TIMOTHY J PELTIER FIRE CALLS 1130.00
42726 DOUGLAS L PLEHAL FIRE CALLS 1260.00
42727 JERRY PRODOEHL FIRE CALLS 2055.00
42728 GARY L RADTKE FIRE CALLS 465.00
42729 JOHN D RIEGERT FIRE CALLS 900.00
42730 JOHN D ROCHFORD FIRE CALLS 1555.00
42731 MICHAEL J ROGERS FIRE CALLS 955.00
42732 TIMOTHY A SATHER FIRE CALLS 560.00
FIRE CALLS 184O.00
42133 CHARLES C SCHAITBERGER FIRE CALLS 42734 MICHELE M SCHIRMERS FIRE CALLS 1800.00
42735 LEE A SCHNEIDER FIRE CALLS 246.00
42736 SCOTT G SCHRAM FIRE CALLS 1225.00
42737 GERALD M SCHWANKL FIRE CALLS 650.00
42738 JAMES OL SHAW FIRE CALLS 295.00
42739 RODNEY SIMONSON FIRE CALLS 630.00
42740 TODD SKATRUD FIRE CALLS 420.00
42741 JOHN J SKRANKA FIRE CALLS 1475.00
42742 MARK S SNETTING FIRE CALLS 1115.00
372.00
5807700
JUNE 7,1988
42743 GENE R SPANDE FIRE CALLS 1000.00
42744 SCOTT E TAYLOR FIRE CALLS 354.00
42745 MARC L THIELMAN FIRE CALLS 1790.00
42746 RODNEY J UTING FIRE CALLS 1225.00
42747 MARK A VANDENBERGHE FIRE CALLS 492.00
42748 PAUL D WELCOME FIRE CALLS 447.00
42749 THOMAS D WILSON FIRE CALLS 760.00
4275D ACRD-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES - CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 639.40
42751 ADOLPH KIEFER & ASSOCIATES BUOY - POOL OPERATION - COMM CTR 41.33
42752 AIRLIFT DOORS INC -REPLACE TROLLEY BRACKET/DRAWBAR ARM- 113.50
COMMUNITY CENTER
42753 AMERICAN LINEN DIRECT SALES UNIFORMS - CITY EMPLOYEES 344.00
42754 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO MOPS/DUSTERS - LIQUOR STORE B.95
42755 AMERICAN SPEEDY PRINTING CENTERS PRINTING-COMMUNITY CENTER 132.00
42756 GR MPLS AREA CHPT AMERICAN RED CR FIRST AID SUPPLIES - POOL LESSONS 15.00
42757 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSDC INC SIGNS-COMMUNITY CENTER/PARK MAINTENANCE 268.04
42758 ANDERSON'S GARDEN VASES-COMMUNITY CENTER 42.00
42759 ANDON INC HELIUM TANK/BALLOONS - SPECIAL EVENTS 108.90
4276D ANDY'S PICKUP PALACE INC PICKUP TOPPER - WATER DEPT 419.00
42761 ARMOR SECURITY INC -REKEY CYLINDERS/REPLACE GARAGE SWITCH/ 315.00
-SWITCH CONTROL UNIT-POLICE BUILDING/KEYS-
COMMUNITY CENTER
42762 ARTSIGN MATERIALS CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-PARKS & RECREATION DEPT/ 114.99
COMMUNITY CENTER
42763 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP - STREET MAINT 619.69
42764 ASSOC OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALIT EXPENSES - COUNCILMEMBERS/CITY MANAGER BO.DO
42765 SHEILA AUGUSTINE AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 275.00
42766 B R W INC -SERVICE-TRAFFIC STUDY/TRAFFIC STUDY FOR 4614.70
-MAJOR CENTER AREA/SIGNALS IN MAJOR CENTER
AREA
42767 BACDN'S ELECTRIC COMPANY CIRCUIT BREAKER TRIP UNIT - WATER DEPT 199.02
42768 BAILEY NURSERIES INC TREES - FORESTRY DEPT 1017.50
42769 S H BARTLETT COMPANY INC ON & OFF SHOWER VALVES-COMMUNITY CENTER 141.16
42770 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -WIRE/BATTERIES/LAMPS/BULBS/TIRE/DEGREASER 549.49
ENGINE CLEANER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
42771 TRACI BERGO SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 90.00
42772 BRIAN BENIEK CPR INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 2B.00
42773 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE - CITY HALL 5BB.34
42774 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL - PARK MAINT 99.50
42775 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE - WATER TREATMENT PLANT ADDITION 9443.60
42776 BLACKS PHOTDGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-PLANNING DEPT/WATER 199.57
-DEPT/POLICE DEPT/FORESTRY DEPT/COMMUNITY
CENTER
42777 LOIS BOETTCHER -MINUTES-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL 8B.73
RESOURCES
42778 RICK BOLINSKE MILEAGE - CDMMUNITY CENTER 156.00
42779 BRADY OFFICEWARE INC CARD CABINET%GUIDES-ENGINEERING DEPT 153.50
4278D LEE M BRANDT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PU 285.00
42781 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE - B6 FIRE STATION 271.40
42782 ED BRION SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 198.00
42783 BROADWAY EQUIPMENT CO CAR WASH POWDER - POLICE DEPT 11B.7B
42784 ANDREA BROSCH RACQUETBALL INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 42.00
427B5 BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF MN APRIL & MAY 88 TRASH DISPOSAL--LIQUOR 272.00
42786 BRIAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC -GRAVEL-STREET MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINT/DULY 1955.69
STORM DAMAGE -
3011698
JUNE 7,1988
42787 JOHN BULTMAN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 330.00
42788 BURGER BUILDING CORPORATION REFUND - OVERPAYMENT OF NSF CHECK 50.00
42789 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC SLOTTED ANGLE IRON - WATER DEPT 91.00
42790 BUSINESSLAND CENTER N12O MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - FIRE DEPT 716.00
42791 BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION VOTE COUNTERS - ELECTIONS 2749.35
42792 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC DIVIDERS - POLICE DEPT 937.20
42793 C & N W TRANSP CO STORM SEWER RENTAL AGREEMENT 180.00
42794 COUNTY OF CARVER -SERVICE-HWY 212 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1869.21
STATEMENT & STUDY REPORT
42795 CENTRAIRE INC AIR CONDITIONER REPAIR - CITY HALL 77.88
42796 CHUCK'S BAGS UNLIMITED UNIFORM SUPPLIES - FIRE DEPT 70.00
42797 CLIMATE MAKERS INC FILTER FRAMES-COMMUNITY CENTER 301.16
42798 CLUTS OBRIEN STROTHER ARCHITECTS SERVICE - SENIOR CENTER 337.50
42799 HEIGHTMAN MN MGMT REFUND - OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILL 258.49
42800 COMMERCIAL EMBLEM COMPANY EMBLEMS - POLICE DEPT 16.00
42801 COMMONWEALTH ELECTRIC OF MN INC PUMP STARTER - WATER DEPT 410.17
42802 COMPAS ENTERTAINMENT - SENIOR PROGRAMS/FEES PD 75.00
42803 COMPUTER PLACE -8 COMPUTERS/8 KEYBOARDS/8 STATIC MATS/ 13270.50
-8 POWER SURGE PROTECTORS/8 PRINTERS/8
CABLES-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS
42804 JEFF CONRAD HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 51.00
42805 CDNTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS REMOVE AND INSTALL RADIOS - POLICE DEPT 533.11
42806 COPY EQUIPMENT INC -PRINTING-PLANNING DEPT/TAPE MEASURE-SEWER 86.04
DEPT
42807 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC MAY 88 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 530.00
42808 BECKY CRONKHITE REFUND - ROUND LAKE BLDG RENTAL 41.50
42809 CROWN MARKING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES - CITY HALL 8.25
42810 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC SCREWS/CLEANING SUPPLIES/DRILL BITS 258.20
42811 CUTLER-14AGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME - WATER DEPT 6761.19
42812 D & K PRINTING PLUS INC SCORE CARDS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 36.8D
42813 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER/POLICE 2226.37
-DEPT/PARK MAINT/CARPET MACHINE-$165D.00-
42814 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO -2TER WATERPMAIN VALVE BOXES/WINCH-$1545.00- 2007.96
WATER DEPT
42815 CRAIG W DAWSON EXPENSES - ADMINISTRATION 53.30
42816 MONICA M DAY -SERVICE-EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER/HUMAN 123.00
RESOURCES
42817 DECORATIVE DESIGNS SERVICE JUNE 88 49.50
42818 DEM CON LANDFILL INC WASTE DISPOSAL - STREET MAINT 12.00
42819 DICTAPHONE CORPORATION DICTAPHONE MAINT AGREEMENT - POLICE DEPT 517.00
42820 BILL DOLNEY DIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 82.48
42821 DON EVE AND SONS STRAIN BALES - STREET DEPT 7.00
42822 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-CITY HALL/COMMUNITY CENTER 62.18
42823 DUNLOP SLAZENGER CORPORATION T-BALLS - YOUTH TENNIS PROGRAM 339.92
42824 DYNA SYSTEMS -BOLTS/WASHERS/NUTS & SCREWS/0-RINGS-WATER 229.P7
DEPT
42825 E. P. PHOTO FILM PROCESSING/PRINTS - POLICE DEPT 42.64
42826 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXPENSES - COUNCILMEMBER/ADMINISTRATION 30.00
42827 CITY OF EDINA SERVICE - APRIL B8 WATER TESTS 119.00
42828 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS MANHOLE RING - SEWER DEPT 90.35
42829 TERRY ELLIOTT REFUND - KENNEL LICENSE 17.00
42830 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC CHEMICALS - PARK MAINT 92.75
42831 CHRIS ENGER APRIL & MAY 88 EXPENSES - PLANNING DEPT 220.00
42832 FAIRCHILD MARKETING ADVERTISING - LIQUOR STORE 15.00
3638227
.s,
JUNE 7,1988
42833 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHEMICALS - WATER DEPT 7472.40
42834 FEIST-BLANCHARD COMPANY -GOGGLES/SHIELD/RESISTOR/ROTOR/SOLENOID 1173.45
-SOLENOID SWITCH/POWER PLUG/LINKS/OIL
-SEALS/TIE RODS/GASKETS/CAP/FUEL PUMP/VOLT
-REGULATORS/BELTS/BUSHINGS/POWER STEERING
UNIT & PUMP/CALIPER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
42835 FITNESS ASSOCIATES INC STRESS TESTS - POLICE DEPT 200.00
42836 FLAHERTY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION FUEL PUMP - FIRE DEPT 54.76
42837 FLEET MAINTENANCE INC -COOLER/GASKETS/FILTERS/REPAIR OIL COOLER/ 2551.49
ENGINE HEAD-FIRE DEPT
42838 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES - LIQUOR STORE 371.14
42B39 STUART FOX SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 180.00
42B40 JOHN FRANE MARCH & APRIL 88 EXPENSES - FINANCE DEPT 400.00
42841 BETH GERSTEIN POSTAGE - ADAPTIVE RECREATION SURVEY 18.75
42B42 GETTING TO KNOW YOU ADVERTISING - LIQUOR STORE 63.00
42B43 JOE GLEASON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 303.00
42B44 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD CUPS/SPRING WATER - FITNESS CLASSES 39.10
42B45 W W GRAINGER INC ELECTRIC MOTOR/GLOVES - WATER DEPT 193.46
42846 MARK GRANOWSKI SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 78.00
42847 ALAN 0 GRAY APRIL 88 EXPENSES 200.OD
42848 GREENKEEPER INC -START UP & CHECK LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEM- 211.15
FIRE BUILDING
42849 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES/COMPUTER TABLE - POLICE 625.25
42850 LEROY GUBA HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 306.00
42851 MARIE GUILLEMETTE REFUND - GARDEN PLOT CANCELLATION 7.00
42852 HACH LAB SUPPLIES - WATER DEPT 357.64
42853 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
42854 C F HAGLIN AND SONS COMPANY SERVICE - COMMUNITY CENTER REPAIR 15822.00
42855 HELLER'S CARBONIC WEST INC CHEMICALS - WATER DEPT 792.13
42856 HEALTH AND HOME ADVERTISING - LIQUOR STORE 52.00
42857 TILFORD E HELLIE JR SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 300.00
42858 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 39.25
42859 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT APRIL 88 BOOKING FEE 926.34
42860 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF POSTAGE - VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATION 99.75
42861 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE - PLANNING DEPT 134.DO
42862 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER APRIL 88 WASTE DISPOSAL - FORESTRY DEPT 37.50
42863 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER MARCH 88 PRISONER BOARD & ROOM - POLICE 2382.92
42864 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEE - HOME PROGRAM 10.50
42865 D C HEY COMPANY INC -SUPPLIES/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE DEPT/ 308.86
EQUIPMENT REPAIR-WATER DEPT/CITY HALL
42866 HOFFERS INC -FIELD MARKING-PARK MAINTENANCE/FRAME- 534.20
POLICE DEPT
42867 HONEYWELL INC CHART - WATER DEPT 10.74
42868 THE HOWE COMPANY GARDEN FERTILIZER - ADULT PROGRAMS 186.00
42869 HUGIN SWEDA INC -MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CONCESSIONS STAND- 230.00
COMMUNITY CENTER
42870 SCOTT HUTCHINS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 15.00
42871 IBM CORPORATION MAY 88 MAINT AGREEMENT - CITY HALL 424.32
42872 IBM CORPORATION -JUNE 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL/ 1467.82
MAY 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT
42873 ICMA DUES - ADMINISTRATION 469.00
42874 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST N272 PRINTING - SUMMER SCHOOL FLYER 283.58
42875 INTERNATIONAL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC MAY 88 MAINT AGREEMENT - CITY HALL 150.00
42876 INTERSTATE DIESEL PRODUCTS INC MAINT AGREEMENT/OIL CHANGE - POLICE DEPT 272.65
42877 ISS INTER SERVICE SYSTEMS MAY 88 JANITORIAL SERVICE - CITY HALL 1160.00
4091415
JUNE 7,1988
42878 J & R RADIATOR CORP EQUIP REPAIR - POLICE BLDG 40.50
42879 PENNY JESSEN HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PO 84.00
42880 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES - WATER DEPT/FIRE DEPT 203.26
42881 KAY JOHNSON EXERCISE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 236.00 r
42882 JUSTUS LUMBER CO TIMBERS/STAPLES/HARDWARE/ZINC PLATE/POLY - 423.56
42883 BOB LAMBERT -APRIL & MAY 88 EXPENSES-PARKS RECREATION 400.00
& NATURAL RESOURCES
42884 LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER TREES - FORESTRY DEPT 440.00
42885 SANDRA A LANDUCCI WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 115.00
42886 CINDY LANENBERG MILEAGE - FIRE DEPT 47.00
42887 LEEF BROS INC COVERALLS - EQUIP MAINT 83.75
42888 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC -APRIL 88 LEGAL EXPENSES-FLYING CLOUD 4260.64
LANDFILL
42889 MONA LEPPLA EXPENSES - HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMM 5.38
42890 LIGHTING SPECIALTIES INC REPAIRED FIELD LIGHTS - PARK MAINT 170.90
42891 LOGIS APRIL 88 SERVICE 6936.43
42892 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL INC WASTE DISPOSAL - STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT 144.DO
42893 LYMAN LUMBER CO TIMBERS - PARK MAINT 93.20
42894 M-V GAS CO GAS - STARING LAKE PARK 247.00
42895 GEORGE MARSHALL SERVICE - CEMETARY OPERATIONS 50.00
42896 MASYS CORPORATION -JUNE 88 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 1295.00
POLICE DEPT
42897 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES - CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 151.59
42898 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN - FIRE DEPT 54.00
42899 METRO PRINTING INC FORMS/ENVELOPES/EMPLOYEE BADGES - FIRE 1133.00
42900 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION JUNE 88 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 136607.35
42901 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 115.28
42902 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP - STREET MAINT 599.92
42903 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP MAY 88 PAGER SERVICE - POLICE DEPT/FIRE 125.00
42904 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -LOCK FITTINGS/6 EXTINQUISHERS-STREET 169.45
MAINTENANCE
42905 MINNESDTA DAILY EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER 137.34
42906 MICRO-DVENS MICROWAVE REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 150.00
42907 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION COMPUTER MAINTENANCE - POLICE DEPT 450.00
42908 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADVERTISING - LIQUOR STORE 820.80
42909 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 55.25
42910 MINNESOTA VALLEY WHOLESALE INC TREES - FORESTRY DEPT 107.50
42911 MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY PUMP/COUPLER/VALVE/BRASS TIP - PARK MAINT 265.97
42912 MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES - FIRE DEPT 19.40
42913 MODERN TIRE CO TIRE REPAIR - EQUIP MAINT 18.00
42914 SHARON MORGAN'S NOVELTIES SUPPLIES - LIQUOR STORE 144.80
42915 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR - FIRE DEPT 142.50
42916 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO BELTS/FORK/BUSHINGS/PULLEY - EQUIP MAINT 111.11
42917 GREG MUELLER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 60.00
42918 MY CHEESE SHOP -EXPENSES-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL 31.48
RESOURCES
42919 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE -3 BINOCULARS-$809.80-POLICE FORFEITURE 1231.36
FUND-DRUGS/FILM-POLICE DEPT
42920 NATL OFFICE INTERIORS INC BLINDS - CITY HALL 408.40
42921 NATIONAL SCREENPRINT T-SHIRTS - SPECIAL EVENTS 213.89
42922 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERV INC EMPLOYMENT ADS - HUMAN RESOURCES 71.40
42923 NEW CONCEPT HOMES INC DELL ROAD - INTEREST DUE 4767.61
42924 J P NOREX INC -SERVICE-WATERMAIN REPAIR AT MITCHELL RD & 14348.90
HWY 5
42925 NORTH STAR TURF INC TIMBERS-PARK MAINTENANCE 12.65
17779957
i 1�
JUNE 7,1988
42926 OCHS BRICK & TILE CO CEMENT BLOCKS - SEWER DEPT 61.60
42927 KATHLEEN OCONNOR EXPENSES - FIRE DEPT 76.51
42928 OPTIMIST CLUB OF EDEN PRAIRIE CITY/OPTIMIST TOURNAMENT/FEES PD 1255.26
42929 KIM OREN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 75.00
42930 ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY INC SERVICE - MAY 88 PEST EXTERMINATING I34.00
42931 HARRY H ORTLOFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 390.00
42932 DANIEL OTTEN SCHOOL - BLDG DEPT 83.00
42933 PACE LA80RATORIES INC WATER TESTS - WATER DEPT 54.00
42934 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER SERVICE 88.00
42935 PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT - HOMEWARD HILLS PARK 2483.56
42936 PET CREMATION SERVICE SERVICE 5.00
42937 PHOTOS INC FILM PROCESSING/SLIDES - PLANNING DEPT 37.60
42938 PITNEY BOWES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER 1449.97
42939 PITNEY BOWES DEVELOPER/PHOTO DRUM-COMMUNITY CENTER 1291.00
42940 PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT CO PLUG VALVE WITH ACTUATOR - WATER DEPT 3573.49
42941 POMMER COMPANY INC -PLAQUES/TROPHIES-CITY HALL/ORGANIZED 314.84
ATHLETICS
42942 PRAIRIE CYCLE LOCK/BRACKET/SEAT PACK - PARK DEPT 42.85
42943 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -REPLACE 4 SETS OF CONTACTS ON CHILLER 994.55
-MOTORS-ICE ARENA/REPAIR LIGHTS-RACQUETBALL
COURT-COMMUNITY CENTER
42944 PRAIRIE HARDWARE BATTERIES/EXTENSION CORD - FIRE DEPT 85.06
42945 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -EXTENSION CORD/BRUSHES/TAPE/PAINT/PLIERS/ 266.26
-BROOMS/PAINT ROLLERS/SCRAPERS/CHAIN/
-SPRING/KEYS/80LTS/RUST REMOVER/PAINT TRAY-
COMMUNITY CENTER
42946 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -MAILBOX/NUTS/JOINTS COMPOUND/RAKES/PAINT/ 312.22
-ROLLER REFILLS/BRUSHES/SAW BLADES/ROPE/
-HOOKS/GREASE GUN/80LTS/BATTERIES/RIBBONS/
-PULLEYS/WRENCH/TOOL BOX/HAMMER/PLIERS-
PARK DEPT
42947 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -ROPE/BUCKET/CLAMPS/80LTS/GLOVES/TAPE/ 107.12
-LEATHER PROTECTOR/BATTERIES/PAINT BRUSH-
SEWER DEPT
42948 PRAIRIE HARDWARE BROOM/PAPER PLATES/PAINT/PAINT BRUSHES 34.34
42949 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -CHISEL/PAINT BRUSHES/SANDPAPER/AMMONIA/ 173.99
-SPRAYER/CABLE/PAINT ROLLERS/CLAMPS/PAINT
-TRAY/TAPE/SEALER/WASTE BASKET/BATTERIES/
ROLLER REFILLS-WATER DEPT
42950 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN PLUGS/FUSES - FIRE DEPT 6.00
42951 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING - ASSESSING DEPT 54.95
42952 TERRY SULLIVAN PREFERRED IMAGE -T-SHIRTS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS/SPECIAL 5139.20
EVENTS
42953 PROTOOL HARD HATS - STREET MAINT 85.00
42954 PSQ LEASING & MAINTENANCE COMPUTER CABLES - CITY HALL 360.00
42955 PUMP & METER SERVICE INC -FUEL TANK FILLER CAPS & SEALS-EQUIPMENT 1B3.35
MAINTENANCE
42956 R & R SPECIALTIES INC ZAMBONI BLADES SHARPENED - ICE ARENA 53.20
42957 RED OWL SUPPLIES - POOL LESSONS 60.48
42958 CITY OF RICHFIELD 1ST QUARTER 88 DISPATCH SERVICE 19910.91
42959 ROLLINS OIL CO FUEL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 7268.00
42960 CITY OF ST PAUL CANINE CLASS - POLICE DEPT 1000.00
42961 SARGENT-WELCH SCIENTIFIC CDMPANY LAB SUPPLIES - WATER DEPT 150.08
42962 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC PAPER TOWELS - P/W & PARK BLDG 176.00
42963 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC CEMENT - PARK MAINT 112.90
4794929
JUNE 7,1988
42964 KEVIN W SCHMIEG MARCH 88 EXPENSES - BLDG DEPT 42965 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION LAB SUPPLIES - WATER DEPT 200.20
42966 SETTER LEACH 8 LINDSTROM INC -SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER LITIGATION/FIRE 17632.89
-STATIONS $3 8 4/SWIMMING POOL REPAIR-
42967 L N SICKELS AND COMPANY COMMUNITY CENTER
42968 SIMPLE BEGINNINGS CRACKFILLER-STREET MAINTENANCE 29.75
42969 STEVEN R SINELL FINAL PAYMENT - ICE SHOW COSTUMES 990.54
MAY 842970 SNYDER'S DRUG STORES INC NVELOPES/TAGEBOARDSSESPECIALEEVENTS PT 213.300
6
4
42971 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP WRENCHES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1. 0
42972 SOUTH HENNEPIN SERVICE COUNCIL JANITORIAL SERVICE-HOME PROGRAM .13
42973 SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COU FIRST QUARTER 88 SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SVCS 3000.00
42974 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE CDMMISSI THIRD QUARTER 88 SW SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISS 2655.63
42975 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADVERTISING - LIQUOR STORE 42976 STAR PLUMBING 8 eXCAVATING REFUND - PLUMBING PERMIT 250.
42977 EMMETT J STARK BAND DIRECTOR/FEES PD 20.50
0
42978 STATE OF MINNESOTA -LICENSE-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL 610.00
RESOURCES 52.00
42979 STATE TREASURER LICENSE - WATER DEPT
42980 DOUGLAS D STEEN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 15.00
35.00
42981 STRETCHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ -BALLISTIC VESTS/FLASHLIGHTS/SIREN/BADGES- 2280.45
-POLICE DEPT/PAGER CASES-FIRE DEPT/LIGHT
42982 STS CONSULTANTS LTD BAR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
42982 SUBURBAN CANTS LT SERVICE - WATER PLANT EXPANSION 573.54
-CONTROL ASSEMBLY/DIP STICKS/DECALS- 21.97
42964 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
PUMP 42985 SUNDERLAND DISPENSING SERVICES MOTOR SREPAIR EPTIC TANCONCESSIONS LAKE PARK 46.00
42986 SUPER AMERICA 50.00
42987 NATALIE SWAGGERT OVERSIZED EXPWATENSES
- HUMAN- RESOURCES STATION 8200.00
42988 SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC FILMBRENTAL NSESPECIALL EVENTS
200.00
42990 TEXGAS FITTINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94.00
42990 TIMBER PRODUCTS WALL - JULY STORM DAMAGE 3.95
42991 TJ'S EXPENSES - FIRE DEPT 31.65
42992 VALARIE TRADER AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 7647
50.00
42993 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS -CHALK/FINGER PAINTS/GLITTER/MOLDING 17 .
PLASTER-COMMUNITY CENTER 173.77
42994 JOHN TROMBLEY SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PO
42995 TURF SUPPLY CO GRASS SEED - STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT 15.00
42996 UNITED BUSINESS PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES - POLICE DEPT 307.59
42997 UNITDG RENTAL SERVICES UNIFORMS - CITY EMPLOYEES 14.75
42998 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CANINE SUPPLIES - POLICE DEPT 132.00
42999 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER196.98
96.98
43000 VAN WATERS 8 ROGERS CHEMICALS - WATER DEPT 196.
43001 VESSCO INC 1437.50
-CHEMICAL FEEDER BRACKETS & BEARINGS-WATER 154.79
43002 VICOM INC DEPT
-JUNE 88 TELEPHONE WIRE MAINTEANCE-PUBLIC 5.25
43003 VWR SCIENTIFIC INC WORKS & PARKS BUILDING
43004 J WALLACE LAB SUPPLIES - WATER DEPT 44.05
43005 CLARK WALKER REFUND - OVERPAYMENT BLDG PERMIT 100.00
43006 WATSON-FORSBERG CO SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 195.00
SERVICE - FIRE STATIONS #3 & M4 232641.00
43007 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS -LETTERHEAD-CITY HALL/HUMAN RESOURCES
-DI RECTOR Y-$5744.DD/FLYERS-ADAPTIVE 6494.00
RECREATION
28258947
117J h
JUNE 7,1988
43008 X-ERGON -SYRINGE/SWEAT BANDS/WELDING ELECTRODES 453.39
3009 XEROX CORP WELDING GLOVES-WATER DEPT
-SUPPLIES/APRIL 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 186.00
43010 YOUNGSTEDTS INC CITY HALL
43011 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE WHEEL ALIGNMENT - EQUIP MAINT 29.95
43012 EARL ZENT FIRST AID SUPPLIES - PARK DEPT 61.25
43013 KAY ZUCCARO RELOCATION EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 131.50
43014 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 277.50
43015 PRAIRIE HARDWARE SERVICE - CITY HALL 587.35
HUMIDIFIER CLEANER/TAPE-POLICE DEPT
43016 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING 18.12
41369 VOID OUT CHECK PRINTING-ASSESSING DEPT 45.95
41519 VOID OUT CHECK 300.00-
42562 VOID OUT CHECK 705.90-
42773 VOID OUT CHECK 1182.69-
" 951 VOID OUT CHECK 588.34-
:017 CHRIS JESSEN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 54.95-
-90587 135.00
$999904.36
i
DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS
10 GENERAL 322D84.50
J CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 6677.51
LIQUOR STORE-P V M 98682.59
17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 58560.36
20 CEMENTARY OPERATIONS 50.00
21 POLICE FORFEITURE 13270.50
22 STATE AID CONST 1869.21
31 PARK ACQUIST 8 DEVELOP 27964.59
33 UTILITY BOND FUND 18667.14
39 86 FIRE STATION CONST P388P8.48
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 3216.70
56 ROAD IMPROVEMENT DEBT FD 312.50
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 1110.00
73 WATER FUND 59641.86
11 SEWER FUND 138098.33
81 TRUST 6 ESCROW FUND 10015.46
87 CDBG FUND 854.63
$999904.36
„wl
MEMO
TO: City Council
FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: May 12, 1988
RE: DRAFT ORDINANCE REGARDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
Included in your Council packet are:
- January 4, 1988, memo on Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential
Districts.
- Planning Commission minutes of February 8, 1988.
- December 10, 1987, letter from the Topview neighborhood.
- February 3, 1988, letter from resident.
- May 2, 1988, letter from resident.
- Draft Ordinance from Roger Pauly's Office (for discussion purpose).
The Planning Commission did request to have the draft Code returned to them between
the Council's 1st and 2nd Reading. At the Planning Commission's February 8, 1988,
meeting, it was also discussed that if a recreational vehicle is grandfathered in it
should be expected to be brought into conformance (inv2 years) as to location upon
the lot if a conforming location exists.
Residents interested in this item have been notified that discussion of an ordinance
will appear on the Council's May 17, 1988, agenda.
Please refer back to the January 4, 1988, memo for information on the following:
- Windshield survey results.
- Requirements from other communities.
- Estimated increase in complaints Staff would anticipate.
Staff will prepare a public hearing notice for 1st Reading of a Code amendment at
the Council's direction.
t
MEMO
T0: City Council
FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: January 4, 1988
RE: Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Districts
City Zoning Code does not define recreational vehicles or regulate their
Placement on residential lots. Staff does receive inquiries from individuals
contemplating a home in Eden Prairie, who wish to park their boat or camper on
the lot and inquiries from residents objecting to the recreational vehicles.
If Staff receives a complaint about a vehicle parked upon the grass in a front
/ yard, the owner is requested to relocate the vehicle to the drive, garage, or
another part of the yard. If a complaint is received about a recreational
vehicle upon a driveway and projecting over a sidewalk or curb, the owner is
requested to correct the situation.
In Eden Prairie one easily sees the full line of recreational vehicles.
Residents own snowmobiles, small fishing boats, large day cruisers, small and
large sailboats, canoes, pop-up campers, tow campers, motor homes, all terrain
vehicles, hunting vehicles, trailers, etc. In some instances, the parking is
seasonal because some boats are taken to lakes in the summer.
Recreational vehicles are found parked upon driveways, in sideyards, in rear
yards, under decks, and occasionally in front yards. They are rarely found in
garages, because of automobile storage and because the size of some
recreational units are too large for a standard size garage stall.
When homes are built out to the 5 or 10 foot sideyard setbacks insufficient
space may remain to store recreational vehicles on the sideyard or to manuever
them to the rear yard. Steep slopes on sides and rear can also prevent some
homeowners from using these areas for storage.
At the end of this memo is a fictional scenario of recreational vehicle
parking.
�r1
Staff did a random survey in December, 1987 of 15
Eden
compile information on the number of households which park recreational vehicles
do Prairie neighborhoods to
outside and where they are parked. The following chart outlines what we found.
Area Number of Lots Lots With Rec.
Win Area Pehicles Location of Rec.
ehP icles ——
Front ode
Rear
1. Dellwood 90
11 g 2
2• High Trail 54 3
6 4 0
Estates 2
3• Edenvale 5th 16
3 2 0
Edenvale 10th 40 1
3 2 0
4. Kings Forest 55 1
10 5 4
5. Arbor Glen 49 1
0 0 0
6. Willow Creek P5 0
5 1• Valewoods 49 1 2 2
3 8. Lake Trail 44 1 0 2
1 Estates 4 1 2
9. Eickholt/Brace's 23
6
1
Bit 3 2
10. Lake Eden South 83
9 1 6
11. Northmark 1 28 2
2 1 1
12. Olympic Hills 13
3 2 1
13. Bluffs West 33
5 2 3
14. Yorkshire Point P7
4 1 1
15. Crestwood qq 2
1 2 4
2
!i
lira,
2 q S
6
1 a 9 T 9 B 10
� � I
Li
_ o
B Yeai
,�_- • y �_ s
"'_"`�_�/��._."a ray �� �\•s� - q� e
7 i
6 7 9 g 3
10
i
The count of lots with recreational vehicles may be low because this was a
windshield survey done from the street and it is difficult to see the entire
side and rear yards of some lots.
Of the 673 lots in this windshield survey 84 lots (12%) did have recreational
vehicles stored outside. A direct comparison to the 7,000 single family lots
in Eden Prairie would indicate an estimated 873 lots in the City with some
type of outside recreational vehicle storage.
At the end of this memo is a diagram illustrating some neighborhood scenarios.
If residents were not allowed to park recreational vehicles in Residential
Districts they would need to find storage space elsewhere. Some residents
would apply for permits to construct storage buildings or detached garages in
their rear yards to house their recreational vehicles.
Staff receives approximately 20 - 25 inquiries a year about recreational
vehicles storage. If an ordinance is adopted limiting or prohibiting such
storage, I would estimate 100+ complaints/year would be received. This would
increase the Zoning Administration case load by 40%. The case load increase
annually because of infill and growth is 25%.
Staff checked with the cities of Minnetonka, Maple Grove, Chanhassen, Edina,
and Bloomington to learn how they are regulating recreational vehicles. Their
situations are as follows:
Minnetonka
Allows up to 4 units (includes boats, trailers, campers, etc.) outside
on a residential lot. If a unit is parked in the front yard, it is to
be placed upon the hard-surfaced area. Units can also be parked in
side or rear yards with no minimum setback from the property lines.
All units are to be owned by the household. The Minnetonka ordinance
is about 6 months old and is enforced by building inspectors in the
Community Development Department.
Maple Grove
Does not regulate recreational vehicles in residential districts.
Chanhassen
Allows recreational vehicles in side or rear yards. If a vehicle is
parked in the front it must be screened. The Chanhassen Planning
Department reviews vehicle parking on a complaint basis.
Edina
Allows one recreational vehicle per dwelling unit. The vehicle is to
be parked on the driveway and maintain a 15 foot setback from the
street and 5 foot setback from the side property line.
Bloomington
i
Allows recreational vehicles less than 7 feet in height to be stored
in side yards or rear yards. Vehicles in excess of 7 feet are
permitted if they meet the building setback minimums.
i
yy�
V
A
00
NEIGHBORHOOD SCENARIOS
� N
Lot 1 has parked in the side yard a small
camper. If lot 2 has garage space adjacent
to this sideyard the parked camper will pro-
bably not concern the neighbor.
Lot 2 has a large cabin cruiser in the rear
yard. A boat such as this may impact
o homeowners on lots 3,6,7 8 8,
Lot 4 has parked upon the driveway a large
boat which fills the area from the garage
to the curb. A large boat on a driveway can
dominate the 'streetscape'. The side and
rear yard of this lot could be too steep
to locate the boat in the side or rear yard.
❑ Lot 5 has a small sailboat on the driveway.
This type of storage is not the type the staff
usually receives a complaint on.
N Lot 10 has a small sailboat in the side yard.
This can be of concern to the homeowner on
lot 9 if living or dining room windows face
❑ � that direction.
' Lot 11 has a small boat on the driveway and
one parked in the side yard. If the boats are
well maintained complaints may not be received.
Lot 13 has 3 recreational units, a fishing boat,
a sailboat , and a camper. Even though the units
are in the side and rear yard, they may impact
the views from windows of homes on lots 9,10,178
18.
Lot 15 has a sailboat in the sideyard and a
p hunting vehicle parked in the rear. Because the
sailboat is small and a heavy stand of trees
separate lot 15's rear yard from other yards,
( complaints would not be expected.
6 19.45 BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE § 19.50
or unloading or rendering a service. No more than one commercial vehicle shall be parked on or
adjacent to a platted residential lot at any time except -her. loading or unloading or rendering
a service. The word "platted" as used in this section shall include actual plats, registered
land surveys, and auditor's subdivisions. /
(Code, 1958 6 8.09; Village Ord. No. 179, 3-16-59; Ord. No. 54, 12-18-61. renumbered to § 8.06.
Ord. No. 77-47. 8-8-77; Ord. No. 78-46, 6-30-78)
SEC. 19.46. TENTS.
No tents shall be erected, maintained or used in any nonresidential district unless the
owner or occupant of the premises where the tent is to be placed shall first be issued a con-
ditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of this Chapter.
(Code, 1958 § 8.07; Added by Ord. No. 54. 12-18-61; Ord. No. 64-62, 7-20-64)
SEC, 19.47. HEIGHT.
In all residential districts, the required setback shall be increased by two feet for each
foot of height of the structure over 25 feet.
(Code, 1958 6 8.08; Added by Ord. No. 54, 12-18-61)
SEC. 19.48. EXCEPTIONS TO MINIMUM FLOOR AREA REOUIREMENTS.
(a) In districts where restaurants are allowed as permitted or conditional uses and the
minimum floor area requirements of the district for the principal building are in excess of
10,000 square feet, the minimum floor area requirements for restaurants is 10,000 square feet.
If, however, the restaurant is included in or is a part of a principal building which meets the
minimum floor area requirements of Section 19.41 of this Code, there shall be no required mini-
mum floor area for that restaurant.
(b) The minimum floor area requirements of Section I9.42(c) shall not be applicable to:
(I) Planned business developments, or
lopment.
(2) Gasoline service stations when they are included in an integrated roadside deve-
(Code, 1958 6 8,09; Added by Ord. No. 64-17, 3-2-64; Ord. No. 73-53, 9-20-73; Ord. No. 74-44,
5-20-74)
SEC. 19 M EXCEPTIONS TO CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. /
When a building is sought to be erected in any zoning district by- a governmental agency l
for the purpose of storage of chemical road materials, to protect against any adverse impact
which might be caused by such outside storage, the construction requirements of the zoning
district in which the building is to be located need not be complied with so long as the pro-
posed building has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and has been approved by the City
Council as:
(1) Necessary for environmental protection;
(2) Not contrary to the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the building is to be erected;
(3) Not having an appearance which will adversely affect adjacent uses;
(4) Having the building sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adja-
cent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value
and so that there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land.
(Code, 1958 6 8.10; Added by Ord. No. 74-41, 5-20-74)
ARTICLE V. PERFORMANCE STANOARDS
SEC. 19.50. EXTERIOR STORAGE.
(a) in R (Residential) Districts -
(TT-VI matena s, macmi eery and equipment shall be stored within a building or
fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining or adjacent lands, except for the
following: laundry drying and recreational equipment; construction materials, machinery and
equipment currently being used on the premises; landscaping and agricultural equipment and
machinery currently being used or intended for use on the premises; off-street parking of
passenger mobiles and pick-up trucks; trash and garbage receptacles.
2) Major recreational_ equipment, defined for the purposes of this Article as travel
trailers, ckup campers or coaches, motorized dwellings, tent trailers, boats and boat
trailers, less than seven feet in height above the ground may be stored in any side or rear
yard except when such yard is adjacent to a street. in addition to the general seven-foot
height permitted, minor portions of such equipment not exceeding four square feet in vertical
rcross-section as viewed from the adjacent lot line is permitted. Exterior storage of such
equipment which is seven feet or more in average height above the qround is prohibited except
in the buildable portion of a lot. No major recreational equipment shall be used for living,
sleeping or housekeeping purposes when stored on a residential lot. No such equipment shall be
stored out of doors on residential premises unless it is in condition for safe and effective
performance of the function for which it is intended or can be made so at a cost not exceeding
the value of the equipment in its existing state; in no event shall any such equipment be so
stored for a period of more than 90 days if not in condition for safe and efficient performance
Of its intended function. / 1
CRC. 103/-Al
(c) ' Recreational Vehicles: campers, pickups with
campers or mounted toppers, mobile homes, all
terrain vehicles, marine craft, camping trai-
lers, and snowmobiles. Also a trailer used to
transport recreational vehicles shall itself
be a recreational vehicle under this ordinance.
(d) Hard Surfaced: all-weather, durable, dust-
free surfacing material. l
(e) Screen; An opaque fence at least the height
of the recreational vehicle and of a design,
color and material similar to the house or
garage to which it is adjacent.
2. Permitted Storage.
Numerical
Zoning Permitted
Restrictions on
Type of Vehicle Districts Location Permitted Vehicles
C.
(a) Automobiles; motor- Rl, R2, On the driveway No restriction.
Cycles; or trucks, PRD 1-2 not within 15
pickups or vans feet of street
under 9,000 pounds. curb and not
within 5 feet of
lot line.
f '
R 1-5, In a garage or No restriction.
PRD 1-5 other lawfully con-
structed building.
R 3-5, On any hard sur- No restriction.
PRD 3-5 faced area.
(b) Recreational R1, R2, On the driveway One vehicle per dwelling
E)
vehicles. PRD 1-2 not within 15 ft. unit. When recreational
of street curb vehicle(s) on trailer, C
and not within 5 the trailer and vehicle(s)
ft. of the lot shall be considered one
line. vehicle. C
R 1-5, In a garage or No restriction.
PRO 1-5 other totally en- C
closed, lawfully
constructed buil-
ding. C
R 3-5, On any hard sur- One vehicle per
PRD 3-5 faced area. dwelling unit.
(c) Commercial usage All rgsi- In a garage or No restriction.
vehicles and dential other lawfully C
unmounted campers constructed buil-
and toppers. ding.
J / '74-J
cluttered and otherwise unsightly areas, (c) prevents the full
use of residential streets for residential parking. (d)
introduces commercial advertising signs into areas where
commercial advertising signs are otherwise orohibited (e)
decreases adjoining landowners and occupants' enjoyment of their
property and neighborhood, and (f) otherwise adversely affects
grope_ty values and neighborhood patterns.
unlawful Parking and Storage_
A_ No Jerson may place, store. or allow the placement or
storage of ice f<_sh houses skateboard ramus,
playhouses or other similar non-eermanent structures
outside continuously for longer than 24 hours in the
front-yard area of residentially—zoned property, unless
more than 100 feet back from the front pr tarty line
No person may place. store, or allow the placement or
storage of pipe lumber, forms steel machinery, or
similar materials, including all materials used in
connection with a burin as . ou t s i d e on
residentially-zoned property unless shielded from
public view by an oppque cover or fence ,
No person shall cause undertake permit or allow the
outside p1rking and storage of vehicles on
residential ty-zoned property unless it complies with
the following requirements:
No more than four vehicles per lawful dwelling
suit may be parked or stored anywhere outside on
R-1 and R-2 zoned property, excluding vehicles of
occasional guests who do not reside on he .
grope rtv.
ii. Yphicles which are parked or stored outside in
the front-vard area must be on a paved or
graveled narking or driveway area.
fill vehicles watercraft and other artl l
es
stored outside on residential property must be
owned by a person who resides on t h a t nrorw rt.
f Students who are away at school or period o
time but still claim the property as th it legal
residence shall be considered residents ��
ropes_
No person owning. driving or in charge of any y hid e
with a weight classification- (; thrOUgh T in -1 psi ve.
specified in Minn Srat 5168 013 Subd le may gag e
Or permit that veh;oi�to be parked outside or to stand
continuously for more than tog hOurt On fn` pr0
public street within a reaidenti al zone in the citiV,••�
Exceptions The prohibitions of this s cajun shall not
apply to the following.
6 �r�9
Eden Prairie Pianning Co^.^ission February 8, 198E Paae
10, B. LIMITATION OF STORAGE IN YARD SETBACKS
Proposed City Coae =nament
Franzen introduced Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson who has
been researching and drafting an ordinance increasing
restrictions on storage of recreational vehicles in residential
districts.
Johnson stated that the residents petitioning a change as well
as those affected by the change were notified of this meeting
before the Commission. She continued that the purpose of her
presentation was further review before drafting the ordinance
for final approval Dy Commission and City Council.
Bye commented that if recreational vehicles are permitted, they
must be screened.
Johnson stated that the sucaested height variance would be 7
ft., length of 10' , ana a grandfathering clause.
Commission Members discussion focused on storage allowed in
front yards, screening accomplished without blue tarps,
grandfathering be associated with present vehicle not
homeowner, and 7 ft. height would ban all recreational
or vehicles, as well as most vans.
Fell inquired if there was a time period for storage on
automobiles and boats. Johnson responded that all vehicles
must be operable and licensed.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Bye to recommend to
the City Council that the draft of the Limitation of Storage in
Yard Setbacks include the following: 1) the grandfathering be
stipulated to specific vehicles; 2) all vehicles licensed and
operable; 3) consider height limit that of a recreational
vehicle; and 4) minimize storage in front yards.
Motion carried 5-0-0
VII. PLANNERS P.FPORT
None
VIII. ADJ0URNMENT
Motion was made by bye and seconded by Fell to adjourn the
meeting at 8:35 PA:.
Motion carried 5-0-0
��ZO
December 10, 1987
Mr. Carl Julie
City Manager
Eden Prairie City Hall
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Julie:
As residents of Topview Acres in Eden Prairie, an area of single
family homes, we wish to propose that an ordinance be put forth
regulating the size, type, quantity and length of time that
recreational, sport and miscellaneous equipment can be stored
on one's property.
An example of our concern is a "Lake Superior" type boat being
stored at 7275 Topview Road. It is approximately 30 feet long,
20 feet high, and is covered by a bright blue plastic tarp. This
is clearly visible for at least two blocks. Also, at this resi-
dence there is a snowmobile on a trailer and another boat on a
trailer being stored on a long term basis.
Communities surrounding Eden Prairie have ordinances regulating
such storage. Examples are Edina and Bloomington. Also, local
areas, as the Preserve and Cardinal Creek, have restrictions
governing this kind of situation. Why is it that one area of
Eden Prairie has regulations and another doesn't? A city ordinance
would eliminate such inequities and unify our city's appearance.
Eden Prairie is developing a reputation as a beautiful and prime
area in which to live. If situations like the one described at
7275 Topview Road are allowed to continue ungoverned it will
foster more storage of all kinds of material. The neighborhood's
appearance will suffer dramatically and property values will fall.
We ask the City Council, City Manager, and all concerned officials
to put foreward a definitive plan designed to eliminate this type
Of storage. If other city governments have had the foresight to
protect their constituent's investments, ought not Eden Prairie do
the same?
Respectfully,��
Esc% 4-Y� 7a5 %OY-z�`�.•tcI—
cc: Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
Patricia Pidcock, Councilmember
Richard Anderson., Councilmember
Dr. Jean Harris, Councilmember
George Bentley, Councilmember
P� ll�l
l-
We the undersigned agree and support
' to storage and the accompanying letter pertaining
g parking of recreational vehicles in the Topview area and
all of Eden Prairie...
7238' C�y7itfCP.cv
1
j._S i`,�
Ir
1
0. .
^t y l 7 /''-
v"�
71 `r61
`SEE i x 198�
cmmx
18220 S, Shore Lane W.
Eden Prairie, Mn 55346
February 3, 1988
Jean Johnson
City Zone Administrator
Eden Prairie City Hall
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Jean,
I am writing in regard to an article in the February 3rd issue of the Eden
Prairie News. This article pertained to a new ordinance about the storage
of large boats or other recreational vehicles on residential property within
Eden Prairie. I have been an Eden Prairie resident for 20 years and a boat
or owner for 1 year. I own an 18 foot runabout which I store along side my
driveway on my grass during the late spring, simmer, and early fall. During
the past winter I stored the boat offsite at an indoor storage place for
boats and other recreational vehicles. I can appreciate the concern expressed
by some Eden Prairie residents about the unsightly storage of vehicles and
other paraphenailia that make the neighborhood look unsightly, however, I
believe there are limits of reasonableness. In defining these limits there
are several issues that need consideration.
1. The total height of the vehicle from the ground (including the
trailer it may be mounted on.
2. Phe total length of the vehicle, excluding the tongue of the
trailer (since it rests close to the ground).
3. 'llm amount. of time during the year in which the vehicle is stored
on the residential property.
4. The amount of distance from the road to the location of the vehicle,
In my own case the 1,-1L is an open bow runabout which is rests about 5 feet
above ground when mounted on the trailer, however the windshield is just over
7 feet above the ground when the boat is mounted on the trailer. The length
11 P�
of the hull of the boat is 18 feet excluding the engine mounted on the rear
of the boat and the tongue of the trailer which extends in front of the boat.
The boat is stored on my property approximately mid May through early October.
The boat is parked approximately 25 back from the road on the side of my
driveway. That is the only place I can park my boat since the house is located
on a hill where the landscape slopes down away from the road on both sides of
my house. The rear of my house is not accessible with the car.
I have not received any complaints from my neighbors about my parking the
boat on my propety during these times. Two of my neighbors across the street
have boats of similar size which they park on their property during the
whole year. I do not find this objectionable and I do not believe vehicles of
this size detract in any way from the property value of our homes. Boats of
this size are meant to be trailered to local lakes.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not opposed to an ordinance as long as it
represents a reasonable limitation and does not inadvertantly cover a lot
of smaller boats like mine.
Consider an ordinance as follows:
The ordinance should cover any boat whose hull length exceeds 20 feet.
There shall be a limit of one recreational vehicle stored per dwelling unit.
The vehicle must be stored at least 20 feet from the road.
If you find it necessary to add other dimensional requirements, exclude
the impact of the trailer it is mounted on.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely
Dick Gunderson
937-8322
JORN C. AND MARILYN K. MARTINSEN
7225 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN
55346-1712
May 02, 1988
Ms. Jean Johnson
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, Mn 55346
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Enclosed please find some sample ordinances for Recreational
Vehicles in other cities. They all have some good parts that I
would like to have considered. I have attached remarks on some
of the sections.
! Please advise me when hearings will start.assistance , please feel free to contact can 1bor of any
937-8242. me If et 3I
Sincerely,
John C. Martinsen
Yi
a�
0
CALIFORN A, Vallejo
Serving on committees and attending meetings can result in favorable legislation. That's
what the RV owners of Vallejo,California,found out when that community was in the process
of drawing up an ordinance to regulate RV parking.
Representatives of the Good Sam Club and other RV organizations were invited to attend
meetings with the City Council and deputy city attorney of Vallejo to offer their suggestions
and opinions on the direction that the ordinance should take.After a number of meetings that
generated input from all segments of the community,the final form of the ordinance was agreed
upon and voted into law.
In addition to permitting RV storage on residential property, the ordinance provides for
temporary use for sleeping purposes by friends,relatives or visitors for a period not to e
30 days in any one calendar year. xceed
ORDINANCE I
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OFVALLEJO AMENDING THE
VALLEJO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ENACTING,ADOPTING AND
ADDING THERETO, A NEW CHAPTER TO TITLE 7,SAID NEW
CHAPTER TO BE NUMBERED CHAPTER 7.96,PROHIBITING
THE OCCUPANCY O O S OF MOBILE LIVING UNITS
DEFINED THEREIN Y ANYPER ON FOR LIVING OR AS
SLEEPING PURPOSES UPON ANY STREET,ALLEY,LANE,
HIGHWAY,MUNICIPAL OFF-STREET PARKING LOT, OR
OTHER PUBLIC PLACE,OR UPON ANY LOT,PIECE, PARCEL,
OR TRACT OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF VALLEJO:
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS AS EXPRESSED
THEREIN: EXEMPTING THE PARKING OR STORAGE
THEREOF WHEN NOT USED FOR LIVING OR SLEEPING
PURPOSES IN VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCES OR
REGULATIONS: PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF
THE ORDINANCE AND A SEPARABILITY CLAUSE:AND
REPEALING SECTION I0(a) OF ORDINANCE NO.430 N.C.,
AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT OR INCONSISTENT THEREWITH.
The Council of the City of Vallejo does ordain as follows:
SECTION I.The Valiejo Municipal Code is hereby amended by enacting,adopting and adding
thereto a new chapter to Title 7,said new chapter to be numbered and read as follows:
CHAPTER 7.96
MOBILE LIVING UNITS
Section 7.96.010. DEFINITIONS.As used in this Chapter:
"Mobile living unit"means a camp car.commercial coach,mobile home,recreational
vehicle,or travel trailer as each of these terms is defined in Chapter I (Sections I8000-18013),
Part 2 (Mobile Homes)and in Chapter I (S ode o 18.00-Igiitl),Part ?.I (Nubile Homes Parks
Acts Division ai of theHealth and Safety Code of the State of California,and a camp trailer,
house car,or trailer coach,to each of these terms is defined in Division I (Sections 100-675)of
the Vehicle Code of the State of California,or any other vehicle or structure originally designed,
or permanently altered in such a manner as will permit occupancy or use thereof for living or
Sleeping purposes,and so designed or equipped with wheels,or capable of being mounted on
wheels and used as a conveyance on public streets or highways,propelled or drawn by its own
21
or other motive power,excepting a vehicle or device used exclusively upon stationary rails or
tracks.
c "Person"means and includes any natural person,partnership,firm,company,
orporation,trust,or unincorporated association.
Section 7.96.020-USE OR OCCUPANCY OF MOBILE LIVING UNITS FOR SLEEPING
PURPOSES PROHIRITF.D: EXCEf'fIONs.It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy or use
any mobile living unit fur Irving tg or%leii,ing purposes upon any street.alley,lane•highway,
municipal off-street parking lot.or other public place,or upon any lot.piece,parcel,or tract of
land within the City of Vallejo of this chapter: except as provided below and in Sections 7.96.040 and 7.96.050
l Within a
recreational(railer lawfully tr
r park.traveltra trailer labolished r camp csubject rto Chapter 4
(commencing with Sccuon 26101 Part 9,Division 2 of the Labor Code of he State of
California.or other like facility which is designed and equipped to operate for the
purpose of providing ternpurary or permanent accommodations for such mobile living
units;and
(b) A mobile living unit may be occupied or used for sleeping purposes only
by friends,relatives,or visitors an land entirely owned by or leased to the host person
for a period of not to exceed shiny-(301-days_in any one calendar year,provided that
said mobile living unit shall not be connected to any utility,other than temporary
electricity hookups,and provided further that the host person shall receive no
compensation for such occupancy or use.All temporary electrical hooku facilities
shall comply with applicable state law and i tF a vallejo Electnc5l Curie.No such mobile
living whits sha113ischaTg6�ri�t(icr,sewage.a tent o�0AF(r m'attcr except into
sanitary facilities designed to dispose of such material
Section 7.96.030.PERMITTING PROPERTY TO BE OCCUPIED OR USED FOR SUCH
PURPOSES i'ROIIIISIT[U.Sublet to the exceptions set forth in Sections 7.96.020,7.96. 440 and
7.96A50 of this chapter,it shall be unlawful for any owner,lessee,or occupant of any lot,piece.
parcel,or tract of land within the City of Vallejo, whether for gain,hire,reward,or gratuitously,
or otherwise,to permit he same to be occupied or used by any mobile/ sleeping purposes, living unit for living or
Section 7.96.040.OVERNIGHT PARKING EXCEPTION Nothing in this chapter shall be
deemed to prevent the temporary occupancy,for sleeping purposes,of a mobile living unit for a
single period of not more than fourteen (14)hours from the evening of one day to the morning
of the next day,if lawfully parked on a public street,when the following conditions are met:
(a) Said vehicle must conform to all applicable sections of the Vehicle Code
of the Slate of California;
(b) Said vehicle must have completely self-contained utilities,meeting all
applicable codes and laws of the State of California governing such mobile living units,
as defined in Section 7,96.010 of this chapter,or meeting such requirements in the
jurisdiction of registration,if the vehicle is registered Outside of the State of California;
facilities: (c) The self-contained utilities described in(b)above must include toilet
(d) Said vehicle,or the occupants thereof,may not discharge or discard anv
litter,effluent,sewage or other matter into any public street or wa
private property while parked as provided in his section: Y or upon any
(e) No mobile living unit may be parked under the provisions of this se nctio
in any residential zoned district; and
(f) No mobile living unit may be parked under the provisions of this section
anywhere in the City of Vallejo for two or more consecutive nights.
Section 7,96.050,EXEMPTION FOR PARKING OR STORAGE 1 +
LEASED Iblie,1Jv .Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to prohibit the ownerpor�Rperator
of any mulnlr.Irving unit from parking or storing his mobile living unit u onses 4
1—ca.or otherwise lawfully occupied or used by him,so long as such mobile living t Uniw is not
occupied or used for living or sleeping.purposes in violation of the provisions of this chapter,
Title 16,Zoning,of this Code,or any other applicable ordinance or regula
Vallejo. tion of the City of
Section 7,96.060.PENALTIES.Every person violating any of the rovisionsinter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,and upon a first conviction herreofrsha ltbe
22
tl Y
punished by a fine not exceeding ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS (5100.00),or t
the County Jail for not exceeding thirty(30)days,or by both such fine and imprisonment,and
upon a second conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding imprisonment,
ent,and
r FIFTY DOLLARS($250.00),or by imprisonment in the County Jail for nosexceed exceeding nTWO inety
ety
(90)days,or by both such fine and imprisonment•and upon a third or subsequent conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS($500.00),or by
imprisonment in the County Jail for not exceeding six(6)months,or by both such fine and
imprisonment.Every person continuing committing,or permitting any violation c the
provisions of this chapter shall be deemed gully of a separate offense for each and every day of
said violation of This chapter.
Section 7,96
I be the
Building Official,he Heal0th Of cerENFORCEMENT•other lempl yea the City of Vallejo designated by
uty of y Police Officer,the
tThehe City Manager by writing filed with the CityClerk,to enforce the provisions of this chapter.Department orOHealth[Department.he Health t.f and any other employee of the Cicer.or any regularly appointed ty
of said Building
Se the City Manager,are hereby empowered to make arrests and issue c aVonejo So Pur
suant o ted
Section 836.5 and 853.6 of the Penal Code of the State of California for violations scant
chapter.
SECTION 2.SEPARAg1LITY. If f this
any section,subsection,sentence,clause.or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held unconstitutional or invalid,such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.The City Council does hereby declare that it
would have passed this ordinance in every section,subsection,sentence,clause,or phrase
thereof•irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,sentences,clauses.or
Phrases be declared unconstitutional or invalid.
SECTION 3.REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES.Section I0(a)of Ordinance No.430
N.C.adopted March 27, 1961,and all other inconsistent with the her ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with or
provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4.EFFECTIVE DATE.This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect
from and after thirty(30)days after its final passage.
First read at the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Vallejo held on the 18th
day of March, 1974,and finally passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held the 25th day of March. 1974,by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Benuzzi,Cunningham,Curtola.Douglas and Sibley
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Asera and Dubnoff,excused.
Signed/FLORENCE E.DOUGLAS
Mayor
ATTEST:
Signed/HELEN G.SEEBER
City Clerk
- _ I l��t 23
y
I
FLORIDA, Boynton Beach
Good Samers in Boynton Beach,Florida,won a decisive victory and one of the most liberal
RV parking ordinances on the books.
Prior to 1978,the existing anti-RV ordinance prohibiting the parking of RVs on residential
property (except in a garage) was enforced only on complaint. This led to one RVer in the
community claiming that the practice Of enforcing only in response to complaints was discrim-
inatory; he had been cited several times while others in the city continued to park their RVs
on their properly without penalty since no complaints had been filed against them.
This lone RV owner's allegation led to a wholesale enforcement of the loud cry of protest from RV owners who requested a new ordinance. ordinance,and a
The new ordinance went far beyond most in allowing not one but two RVs to be parked
on a single residential lot provided that only one is parked or stored in the area between the
right-of-way and the structure on a hard surfaced area.A second one may be parked or stored
in a carport,on a driveway(behind the front line
The Ordinance goes a of the structure) or in a rear yard.
step further in allowing additional RVs stored in an enclosed structure.
Chapter 20
or RECREATIONAL VEHICLES,BOATS AND
BOAT TRAILERS
Sec.20-�, ote The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the parking and storage
of recreanonal vehicles and boats or heat trailers.These regulations are intended for and in the
best interest of the citizens of the city to provide easy access to recreational vehicles while
promoting the heath,safety and welfare of all the citizens of the city. (Ord.No.78-2,
78)
§ 1,2-7-
Sec.20
areas wit -2 Srnpe.This chapter is intended to be applicable in all residentially zoned
hin the- CuY limns.(Ord.No.78-2,§2,2-7-78)
Sec.20-3.Definition.As used in this chapter, "recreation vehicle"means any travel
trailer.motor home,.or a m camper,or other unit built or mounted on a chassis,excluding
vans,designed without a permanent foundation.which idriven or to s used for temporary dwelling or
sleeping purposes and which may
length does not exceed thirty-five(t35(c feet l and total body width does not excectiw'd on a highway and Which()dyrt,
or any roan or boat trailer,and all other sport type recreational vehicles and the trailers used to
store or transport all such recreational vehicles. (Ord. No. 78-2,§ 3,2.7-78)
Sec.20-4.More stringent regulations to apply.This chapter is primarily for the purpose
of protecting'residential zoning.'fherehrre.any orJinanccs of this city or laws of this snare
providing n t for is the regulation of recreation vehicles,boats or boat trailers or motor vehicles are in
addition no this chapter and wherever any provision of some other ordinance or applicable
statute-whether primarily for the regulation of recreation vehicles,boats or coat trailers or
motor vehicles or for purposes of zoning,imposes more stringent rcyuire'ments or limitations
then are imposed or required by the chapter than the o
provisions f[his
requirements or limitations shall apply.(Ord. This § 7,2-7.78)
more stringent
Sec.20-5,Effect on private limitations on land use This chapter shall not be con-
strued to lirrut any deed restrictions,cor��i)rrMunurn l--rs or similar private lit be con more
restncuve'than the regulations contained herein.Further this provision shall not be construed re
creating an obligation on the city to enforce private limitations o land use. (Ord.No.construed
§ s
2-7-78)
24
l/9<l
Sec.20-6.Conditions to arking on private property.Parking or storing of recreation
vehicles,boats or bunt trailers on private property may be permitted under the following
i
conditions:
(a) That the recreation vehicle,boat or boat trailer may be parked or stored in a
f carport.
(b) That the recreation vehicle,boat or boat trailer may be parked or stored on a
driveway,
(c) That the recreation vehicle.boat or boat trailer may be stored in the rear yard,not
closer than five(5)feet of the rear lot line or in the side yard not projecting
beyond the front roof line.
(d) That the recreation vehicle,boat or boat trailer must be owned or used by a
resident of the premises.
(e) That the recreation vehicle,boat or boat trailer must be currently registered and
licensed as required by state and federal law.
(f) That no recreation vehicle,boat or boat trailer may be parked between the right-
of-way and the structure unless on a driveway or other hard surfaced area.such
as asphalt,paving stones,shellrock or concrete.
(g) That the total number of vehicles(other than passenger vehicles)so parked or
stored shall be limited to two(2),not including those kept in a garage.Only one
recreation vehicle may be parked or stored between the right-of-way and the
structure.
(h) That the recreation vehicle,boat or boat trailer shall be parked or stored entirely
on the owner's property in a safe and orderly manner and that vehicles parked or
stored on a driveway shall not be a hazard to people entering the driveway or to
persons passing on the sidewalk.
(i) That the recreation vehicle,boat or boat trailer is not in the process of being
constructed,reconstructed or undergoing major repairs that have taken more than
seven(7)consecutive days to complete. (Ord.No.78-2,§4,2-7-78; Ord.No.
80-23,§ 1,6-3-80)
r Sec.20.7.Time limit for arkin on right-of-way.No recreation vehicle,boat or boat
a
trailer shll be parked or stored on any public right-of-way for a period exceeding one hour.
(Ord.No.78-2,§5,2-7-78)
Sec.20.8.Occupying on private property (a) Generally.It shall be unlawful to occupy
any recreation vehicle while sat.vehicle is parked or stored on private property unless such use
is specifically permitted in the applicable zoning district.
this Code.(b)Construction trailers shall be permitted as outlined in Section 4(H)of Appendix A of
Code shall c Mobile
applicableSection ts
b permit d in z zoned districts.(Ord.No.n78.25§6,2-7-78)x A of this
K
n 25
IOWA, Maquoketa
In 1981,Good Samers in Maquoketa,Iowa,requested a Legislative Kit in order to prepare
a pro-RV parking presentation to the city council. Details of their actual activities are not
available,but the current ordinance regulating RV parking in that community has been written
for the convenience of RV owners. It provides for front driveway and/or front yard parking
when space is not available in the side yard and there is no reasonable access to the side or
rear yard.
It is interesting to note that this particular ordinance addresses the issue of LP-gas containers,
requiring that they meet certain standards and that valves be closed unless the vehicle is being
readied for immediate use.
The ordinance also allows sleeping in the vehicle for a penod not exceeding 72 consecutive
hours to provide for non-paying guests.
5-IC-6:DEFINITIONS OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
AND VESSEL:
As used in this ordinance,camping and recreation vehicles and
equipment is defined as and shall include the following:
Recreational Vehicle:A general term for a vehicular unit not exceeding thirty-six(36) feet in
overall length, eight(8) feet in width,or twelve(12)feet in overall height,which applies to the
following specific vehicle types:
I. Camper Trailer—A folding or collapsible vehicular structure,without its own power,
designed as a temporary living quarters for travel,camping, recreation,and vacation uses:
and be licensed and registered for highway use.
2. Travel Trailer—A rigid structure,without its own motive power,designed as a temporary
dwelling for travel,camping,recreation,and vacation use; be licensed and registered for
highway use:and which when equipped for the road,has a body width of not more than
eight(8) feet.
3. Truck Camper—A portable structure,without its own motive power,designed to be
transported on a power vehicle as a temporary dwelling fur travel,camping,recreation,and
vacation use;and which in combination with the carrying vehicle;be licensed and
registered for highway use.
4. Motor Home—A vehicular unit built on or as a part of a self-propelled motor vehicle
chassis,primarily designed to provide temporary living quarters for travel,camping,
recreation,and vaca(von use: ud to be licensed and registered for highway use.
5. Boat Trailer—A vehicular structure without its own motive power,designed to transport a
recreational vessel for recreation and vacation use and which is licensed and registered for
highway use.
6. Horse Trailer—A vehicular structure without its own motive power designed primarily for
the transportation of horses and which,in combination with the towing vehicle,is licensed
and registered for highway use.
7. Utility Trailcr—A vehicular structure without its own motive power designed and or used
for the transportation of all manner of motor vehicles.goods,or materials and licensed and
registered for highway use.
Recreational Vessel:A general term applying to all manner of watercraft,other than a seaplane
on water.whether impelled by wind.oars,or mechanical devices,and which is igned
prirnardy for recreation or vacation use.A recreation vessel,when mounted upon des boat trailer,
31
i,�r).
and its towing vehicle, when parked,shall be considered one(1)unit,exclusive of its towing
t vehicle.
r 5-IC-7:REGULATIONS GOVERNING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
AND VESSELS:
Any owner,lessee,or bailee of a recreational vehicle may park
one such vehicle or one such vessel on a single lot in a
residential district,subject to the following:
1. Such recreational vehicle or vessel shall be maintained in a clean,well kept state so as not
to detract from the appearance of the surrounding area.
2. If such recreational vehicle or vessel is equipped with liquified gas containers,such contain-
ers shall meet the standards of either the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Federal
Department of Transportation or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,as such
standards exist on the date of passage hereof Further,the valves of such liquified petroleum
gas containers must be closed when the vehicle or vessel is not being readied for immediate
use,and in the event that leakage is detected from such liquified petroleum gas containers,
immediate corrective action must be taken.
3. At no time shall such parked recreational vehicle or vessel be occupied or used for living,
sleeping,or housekeeping purposes except as provided in sub-paragraph(4)of this Section.
4. It shall be lawful for only non-paying guests at a residence in a residential district to occupy
one recreational vehicle or vessel,parked subject to the provisions of this ordinance,for
sleeping purposes only for a period not exceeding seventy-two(72)consecutive hours.The
total number of days during which a recreational vehicle or vessel may be occupied under
this sub-section shall not exceed fourteen(14)in any calendar year.
5. Such recreational vehicle or vessel may be parked in the following manner:
(a) Inside any enclosed structure which structure otherwise conforms to the zoning re-
quirement of the particular district where located.
(b) Outside in the side yard or in the rear yard,and shall not be nearer than two feet(
to any side or rear lot line. 2')
or (c) Parking of recreational vehicles or vessels is permitted in front driveway or an area ad-
jacent to the driveway provided:
(1) Space is not available in the side yard,or there is no reasonable access to either
the side or rear yard.A lot shall be deemed to have reasonable access to the rear
yard if terrain permits and an access can be had without substantial damage to
existing large trees or landscaping.A corner lot shall normally be deemed to have
reasonable access to the rear yard.
(2) Inside parking is not possible.
(3) The recreational vehicle or vessel may not extend over the public sidewalk or
publicly owned right-of-way.
(d) The City Manager or Police Chief may issue a permit for parking on any City street or
alley for a period not to exceed seventy-two(72)hours.
(e) The City Manager or Chief of Police may issue a permit for parking more than one
recreational vehicie or more than one recreational vessel on a single lot in a residential
district.
(f) The owner of a recreational vehicle or recreational vessel parked on a single lot in a
residential district shall also be the owner or the renter of such residential lot.
32
i
r
f NEBRASKA, Bellevue
A few months after the establishment of a favorable RV parking ordinance in Albuquerque,
New Mexico (see page 41), Good Samer Victor Clarence of Bellevue, Nebraska, served on a
similar committee with the same favorable results.
Using the Albuquerque ordinance as a guideline,the Bellevue committee tailored it to suit
the needs of their own community.
I
j ORDINANCE NO.Ills
I AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PARKING AND STORAGE OF
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES,TRAILERS AND BOATS;
i DEFINING TERMS;PERMITTING PARKING AND USAGc
THEREOF; REPEALING SECTIONS 2240,2241,2437,2438,
24371,24381,2537,2538,2637,AND 2638 OF ORDINANCE
NO. 770,THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
BELLEVUE;TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Be it ordained by the Mayor and Council of the City of Bellevue Nebraska:
adopted:Section I. For the purpose of this ordinance,the following definitions are hereby
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE means a vehicular unit not exceeding 40 feet in overall
/ length,8 feet in width,or 12 feet in overall height,primarily designated as a temporary living
quarters for recreational,camping or travel use;it either has its own motive power or is
designed to be mounted on or drawn by an automotive vehicle. Recreational vehicle includes
motor home,truck camper,travel trailer,and camping trailer.A vehicle meeting the above
definition except for size is not deemed incidental to a dwelling unit.
TRAILER means a vehicle without motive power,designed so that it can be drawn by
motor vehicle,to be used for the carrying of persons or as a human habitation.However,a
structure which meets the requirements of the Building Code of the City of Bellevue in all ways,
including foundation,is not a trailer,whether or not it was once a vehicle.
BOAT means a vehicle for traveling in or on water,not exceeding 40 feet in body
length,8 feet in width,or 12 feet in overall height. Height includes the trailer,if the boat is
mounted on a trailer. A vehicle meeting the above definition except for size is not deemed
incidental to a dwelling unit.
YARD.FRONT,means that part of a lot between the front lot line and the front(s) of
the principal building on the lot,and extended to both side lot lines.
YARD.REAR,means that part of a lot between the rear lot line and the back(s)of the
principal building on the lot,and extended to both side lot lines.
YARD,SIDE,means that part of a lot not surrounded by building and not in the front
or rear yard.
Section 2.In all residential zones provided for in the Bellevue Zoning Code,it is
permissible to park a recreational vehicle,trailer,or boat and boat trailer in the following
manner:
a. Parking is permitted inside any enclosed structure,which structure otherwise
conforms to the zoning requirements of the particular zone,where located;
` b. Parking is permitted outside in the side yard or rear yard provided it is not nearer
than 2 feet to the lot line;
C. Parking is permitted outside on a concrete driveway,provided:
�Iq(f 35
F
r 1. Space is not available in the rear yard or side yard,or there is no reasonable
access to either the side yard or rear yard;a corner lot is always deemed to
have reasonable access to the rear yard;a fence is not necessarily deemed to
prevent reasonable access;
2. Inside parking is not possible;
3. The unit is parked perpendicular to the front curb;
d. The body of the recreational vehicle or boat must beat least 13 feet from the face
of any curb;
C. No part of the unit may extend over the public sidewalk or public thoroughfare
(right-of-way).
f. Parking is permitted only for storage purposes,and any recreational vehicle or
trailer shall not be:
I. Used for dwelling purposes,except for overnight sleeping for a maximum of 14
days in any one calendar year.Cooking is not permitted at any time.
2. Permanently connected to sewer lines,water lines,or electricity.The
recreational vehicle may be connected to electricity temporarily for charging
batteries and other purposes.
3. Used for storage of goods,materials,or equipment other than those items
considered to be part of the unit or essential for its immediate use.
g. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsections(3)above,a unit may be parked
anywhere on the premises during active loading or unloading;and the use of
electricity or propane fuel is permitted when necessary to prepare a recreational
vehicle for use.
h. The unit shall be owned by the resident on whose property the unit is parked for
storage.
Section 3.Sections 2240,2241.2437,2438,24371,24381,2537,2538,2637.and
2638 of Ordinance No.770 are hereby repealed.
Section 4.This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and approval
according to law.
Passed and approved this IOth day of June, 1974.
Signed/Robert M.Haworth
Mayor
ATTEST:
Signed/Mary Struklett
City Clerk
First reading:May 13,1974
Second reading:May 27, 1974
Third reading:June 10, 1974
Y
36
I I°15
NEW MEXICO, Albuquerque
Although the RV parking situation in Albuquerque,New Mexico,was resolved more than
a decade ago, it is included in this publication because it illustrates how RV owners cooperated
with non-RV owners and government officials in drawing up an ordinance that has been
satisfactory for all concerned.More than ten years later,
legislation. it still is a valid and effective piece of
At the time the need for a new ordinance was made public, the city was working with
an old ordinance that covered the parking of some RV units but prohibited parking other units.
Trucks with campers were permitted to park on driveways, but not trailers.
RV owners complained of discrimination, and the City Planning Commission responded
by forming an ad hoc committee of ten members,five of whom were RV owners and five non-
owners.Included on the committee were one Good Sam member(Murrav Getz),two members
of another RV organization, a representative from the real estate business, a lawyer and a
member of a boating club.
After six months of monthly meetings,the committee presented a recommended ordinance
to the City Council. The meeting was open to the public, and some of those present voiced
/ objections to the proposal.
The committee met again,and on March 12, 1973, the final reading of the new proposal
I generated no objections from the floor and the City Council voted unanimously to pass the
ordinance.
RVers gained the right to have their units in their driveways, I I feet back from the curb,
or in the side yard or back yard.
COMMISSION ORDINANCE NO.26.1973
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF
COMMISSION ORDINANCE NO.272
S
PERTAINING TO ZONING REGULATION.SO YARDS DBOATS,
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES,TRAILERS.THE PARKING OF
SUCH VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES,AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
Be it ordained by the City Commission,the Governing Body of the City of Albuquerque. New Mexico:
Section 1, The definition of"Trailer"in Section 4 of Connnission Ordinance No. 2726 as amended. is
herebv repealed and the following paragraphs are hereby added in correct alphethetica!sequence to Section
of that Ordinance:
BOAT means a vehicle for traveling in or on water, nor exceeding 30 feet in body
length,8 feet in width,or i I feet in overall height. Height includes the trailer,if the
boat is mounted on a[railer.A vehicle meeting[he above definition excel)[for size is
not deemed incidental Io a dwelling unit.
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE means a vehicular unit not exceeding 40 feet in body
length,8 feet in width.or I i (cct in overall height,primarily designed as a temporary
living quarters for recreational;camping,or travel use, i1 either has its own motive
power or is designed 10 be mounted on or drawn by an automotive vehicle.
Recreational vehicle includes moon home,truck camper,travel trailer,and camping
trailer.A vchicic•meeting the above definition except for a size is not deemed incidental
tO a dwelling unit.
l "1t0 41
TRAILER means a vehicle without motive power,designed so that it can be drawn by
a motor vehicle,to be used for the carrying of persons or Property or as a human
habitation. However,a structure which meets the requirements of the Building Code of
the City of Albuquerque ht all ways,including foundation,is not a trailer, whether or
not it was once a vehicle.
YARD.FRONT,means that part of a lot between the from lot line and the from(s)of
the principal building tin the lot,and extended w both side lot lines.
YARD.REAR,means that part of a lot between the rear lot line and the back(s)of the
principal building on the lot-and extended to both side lot lines.
YARD.SIDE,means that part of a lot not surrounded by building and not in the fr
or rear yard. out
Section 1. Section 7.A?.f of Coornrrssion Ordinance No. 2726,as amended. is hereby repealed.
Section 3. Section 7.A.2.e.ofCournrhsion Ordinance No.2726. as amended. is hereby redesignated
7.A 2.f.
Section 4. The folloudgg is added to Section 7.A.1.ofCononissron Ordinance No.2726. as amended.
e. Recreational vehicle,boat,or boat-and-boat-trailer parking as follows:
(1) Inside parking,or
(2) Outside parking in the side yard or the rear yard,or
(3) Outside parking in the front vard provided
(a) Space is not available or ere o reasonable access to either the side vard or
rear vard,a corner lot s thahvaysis an
to have reasonable access to the rear
yard;a lence is not necessanh deemed to prevent reasonable access;
(b) Inside parking is not possible
(c) The unit is parked perpendicular to the front curb:
(d) The body of the recreational vehicle or boal is at least I I feet from the face of the
Or curb;and
(e) Z.Pan of the unit extends over the public sidewalk.
(4) Parking is permitted only if the unit,while parked in this zone,is
(a) Not used for dwelling purposes,except one recreational vehicle may be used for
dwelling purposes for a maximum of 14 days in any calendar year on any given
lot.Cooking is not permuted it,the recreational vehicle at any time.Butane or
propane fuel shall not be used,`r5(c(?4- S,,_ fed I_l K y et6v,ee SF
(b) Not permanenl1v connected to sew lines water lines or electricity.The
ncrcauonal vehtele may be connectered to cleanetty temporarily ibr charging
batteries and other purposes if the receptacle and the connection from the
recreational vehicle has been inspected and approved by the City;this connection
must meet the Electrical Code of the City of Albuquerque and a City electrical
Permit must be obtained for all such installations.The individual taking out the
permit must call for an inspection of the electrical wiring when ready for
inspection.Standard inspection fees will be charged,except no inspection shall be
made for less than a$3.50 fee.
(c) Not used for storage of goods,materials or equipment other than those items
considered to be a part of the unit or essential for its immediate use.
(5) Notwithttandintz the Provisions of Subsections(3)and (4) above 3�� 'r t k cd
anysvhcre on the prenuses(luring active loadin or unloading,and use of cicetncity nr
Propane lucl Is f,crmuhd when necessary to ,rc,arc a rc'crca4chicic for use.
(6) If the dwelling tin the lot is under construction the provisions of Section 7.A.2.g.(3)
below shall control,rather than the provisions of Subsection 11) through(4)above.
g. Trailer parking as follows:
(1) Inside parking if all provisions of Section 7.A.2.c.(4)above are met.or
(2) Outside parking in the side yard or the rear yard of cargo trailers of less than 2500
pounds carrying capacity.
42 3) As a dwelling connected to any utilities,for a Period of UP to six months or until
11�'l
e construetiuu is completed, whichever conies first.The six-month period shall begin to
run from the date on which,a building permit is issued for a dwelling unit on the same
lot.The body of the trailer shall be set back at least 5 feet from any lot line and 3 feet
r from the dwelling under construction.
(4) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this subsection,a trailer may be parked
anywhere on the premises during active loading or unloading.
Section 5. If any section,subsection,paragraph,sentence,daose,phrase or part hereojare for any
reasons declared unconstitutional or invalid.the validity of rile remaining portions hereof shall not be
affected since it is rite express intent of rile City Commission,the governing bo lv of due City of
Albuquerque.to pass each section,subsection,paragraph,clause,phrase, and every part hereof
separately and independently of every other part.
Section 6. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an emergenry measure on the ground of public need.
It is therefore to become effective five days afier publication in full as provided by late.
PASSED, SIGNED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo
C✓tally.New Aferico this 12th day of March, 1973.
Signed/L.MAAVEDA
Chairman, City Commission
ATTEST..
Signed/GISELE GATEGNAL
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Signed/PATRICK L.McDONALD
Assistant City Attorney
1
C� 43 ��
�LLG'iv T Se�rPU,p
� Wdlvcy
t7 e � �orev 7-k,, 4-cC�J ✓Cc._f,�,
G r '-
�e'0
f�l5v � U F.�/"
.f d 5
�✓S UN �oy� ,
is 0� 5hcI6/�.,rs
1 �2
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. �2-dp y
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" BY
(1) ADDING THE DEFINITION OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, AND (2) ADDING
A NEW SECTION REGULATING OUTSIDE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AND
STORAGE IN ALL ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND ALL MULTI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, 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. City Code Section 11.01 entitled "Definitions" is
hereby amended by adding paragraph 38a which shall read as
follows:
l
[38a. "Recreational Vehicle" - Any trailer, watercraft,
snowmobile, pull camper, all terrain vehicle,
pickup mounted with topper, motorhome, travel
trailer or tent trailer, or other similar vehicle.
A recreational vehicle upon a trailer shall consti-
tute one recreational vehicle.)
Section 2. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 3.J., entitled
"Outside Storage and Displays" is hereby amended by adding
subsection 3 to read as follows:
[3. The parking or storing of recreational vehicles
outside of an enclosed building or structure in all One-Family
Residential Districts and all Multi-Family Residential Districts
is prohibited, except as hereafter provided.
-1-
(a) No more than 2 recreational vehicles
may be stored or parked outside upon a lot.
(b) Recreational vehicles of a height of 7
feet or less may be parked or stored on a lot provided no part of
a recreational vehicle of a height of 7 feet or less may be
closer than 15 feet from the traveled portion of a street.
(c) Recreational vehicles of a height greater
than 7 feet may be parked or stored on (i) that part of a front
yard of a lot occupied by a driveway, provided no part of a
recreational vehicle may be closer than 15 feet from the traveled
portion of a street, (ii) that part of a side or rear yard of a
lot not situated within 10 feet of a lot line, or (iii) that
part of a side yard within 10 feet of a lot line which is also
/ within that part of a front yard occupied by a driveway and is
not within 15 feet from the traveled portion of a street.
(d) Recreational vehicles parked or stored
outside must be owned by a person residing on the lot.
(e) All recreational vehicles parked or
stored outside must be operable and exhibit current license or
registration plates or tags.)
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.
-2-
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 the day of
1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the
day of 1988.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
1988,
RAP2 015-1
05-12-88
G
-3-
law
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-92
A RESOLUTION APPROVING
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
BRAU ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of BRAU 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 BRAU ADDITION is approved upon compliance with
the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated
JUNE 1, 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 JUNE 7, 19B8.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Fr—an e, Clerk
I:10�
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: June 1, 1988
SUBJECT: BRAU ADDITION
PROPOSAL: The owner Scott Brau, has requested City Council approval of the
preliminary and final plat of the Brau Addition, a single family
residential subdivision located south of Pioneer Trail and west of
County Road 4. The plat contains 2.12 acres to be divided into two
single family lots. Lot 1 contains 1.0 acres and will be offered for
sale. Lot 2 contains 1.12 acres and is the current site of the Brau
residence.
HISTORY: Approval of the preliminary plat is being requested at this time.
This property is currently zoned R1-22 and no rezoning has been
requested.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: No municipal utilities currently exist to serve this
site. On-site well and septic systems will be utilized. This property
lies within the service area for the Red Rock Sewer Interceptor that is
currently under construction, but it is unknown when lateral extensions
to serve this site would be done.
Hennepin County has requested that an additional 17 feet of right-of-way
for County Road 1 be dedicated with this plat. In addition, the County
has also requested that a shared driveway service be used on both lots
to minimize driveway access to County Road 1.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the preliminary and final plats of
Brau Addition subject to the requirement of this report and the
following:
1. Receipt of Engineering Fee in the amount of $250.00.
2. Revision of plat to include additional 17 feet of right-of-way
dedication for County Road 1 as requested by Hennepin County.
JJ:ss
cc: Scott Brau
Ron Krueger and Associates
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: May 20, 1988
PROJECT: Brau Addition
LOCATION: South of County Road 01, west of County Road 04
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Scott Brau
REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 2.12 acres into two single family lots.
Background
n 1-GG i
This site is currently designated on PUB
the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide '=,
Plan for Low Density Residential
land uses. Surrounding designations
within this area are also for Low
Density Residential. The proponent
is requesting the preliminary - - -
platting of a 2.12-acre tract
currently zoned R1-22 into two P U B-111=1
single family lots.
Site Plan PROPOSED SITE
The site plan depicts the division
of a 2.12-acre tract into two single _
family lots. Both lots will be r.�.
accessed from County Road M1. A R1-22.-_..
4ennepin County requirement is that --
a shared driveway service both lots
and that the proponent dedicate an j
additional 17 feet of right-of-way
for Co. Rd. NI (see attached -
letter). Lots range in size from a
minimum of 43,100 square feet to a
maximum of 48,657 square feet. Both
of the lots meet the minimum
requirements of the R1-22 Zoning '1-} " � 1 -----
District. Chapter 11.03, Subdivsion -
3, (C) states that "where 40% or +U B \'
more of the block is developed, the
required setback shall be equal to AREA LOCATION MAP
Brau Addition 2 May 20, 1988
or greater than the average existing setback." The average existing setback in this
k area is approximately 107 feet. The site slopes in both a northerly and southerly
direction from a high point within the middle of the site of 906 to a low point of
BB4 in the extreme southeast corner.
Because the possibility exists for further subdividing the property, Staff would
recommend that any structure be kept a minimum of 50 feet from the rear lot line
(see Attachment A).
Utilities
Since this property was zoned R1-22 prior to July 1, 19B2, water and sanitary sewer
service is not required for this site. Chapter 11.11, Subdivision 2, (B) states
that "permitted uses within the R1-22 Zoning District include single family detached
dwellings and accessory structures except sanitary sewer and water service shall not
be required with respect to those lands which were situated within the R1-22 Zoning
District on or before July 1, 1982". This property was zoned by Ordinance #20-6,
occuring in November, 1969.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for the Praliminary Plat of 2.12 acres
into two lots, based upon plans dated April* 22, 1988, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 20, 1988, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Revise the plans to reflect the location of the existing septic
system and well.
B. Revise the plans to depict a shared access to both of the homes.
C. Revise the plans to reflect an additional 17 feet of right-of-way
for County Road #1.
2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit- storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by
the Watershed District and City Engineer.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Submit plans for review by the Building Department for the
installation of the septic system and the well system.
4. When the opportunity for water and sewer connection become available, each
of the units shall hook up to the system at a time when the on-site systems
require repair.
E
5. Any structures shall be kept a minimum of 50 feet from the rear lot line.
6. Any structure shall be kept a minimum of 107 feet from the County Road #1
right-of-way.
1-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
320 WashInaTon Av. Soutr,
t HENNEPIN Hopkins, fVnnnesota 55343-846F
ni935 33P
May 3, 196E
Mr. Chris Enoer
Planning Director
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eccn Prairie. MN 55344
Dear Mr. Enger
RE: Proposed Plat - Brau Additior
CSAH 1. South Ode - aoeroximately 1750 feet west of CSAH 4 (W. Jct. )
Section 20, Township 116, Range 22
Hennepin County Plat No. 1624
Review and Recommendations
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of
proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the
following comments:
- For future improvements to this segment of CSAH 1 the developer should dedicate
an additional 17 feet of right of way making the right of way 50 feet from the
center of CSAH 1.
- To help limit access to county roads the driveway for Lot 1 and Lot 7 must be a
shared access constructed at the common lot line. The location of the exi^tino
access to Lot 2 is very near the pr000sed common lot line.
- Any new access to a county road or a revision to an existing access requires an
approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction
Contact our Maintenance Division for entrance permit forms.
- All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved
utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is no'
limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and
landscaping. Contact our Maintenance Division for utility permit form,-
- The developer must restore all areas disturbed ourinq construction within Count\
right of way
Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt,
Sincerely.
David W. Schmidt. PA
Transportation Planning
DWS/LOW:Iw HENNEPIN COUNTY
,1 on eauoi opponunnv cmpiovci
f WO�iiN�M4 ara No. .... .....-........F .
rs �t� a.r nay a4at �a 'rr
(
1.) 1mE I
• �� Y A i• • _• ' •I
(7) (I) I(II IQ (!) t Tr-
to M } R (7)
i HILL OP ROAD '
Is) ;lu)• i tH) Iw In) : Iro) ? Iro) (��• nr) 0.
• . 1
)
Ibl ISq INN; 1y) ��'
I rr) � •
a VALLEY ROAD
r -
1�Ot If) �} I I>Ot 179t _ IIn 4
I
4
ATTACHMENT A I?�y
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 088-107
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MEL HANSEN ADDITION FOR
MEL HANSEN
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Mel Hansen Addition for Mel Hansen, dated June 2, 1988,
consisting of 1.42 acres into two single family lots within the R1-22 Zoning
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 7th day of June, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
7
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: May 2D, 1988
PROJECT: Mel Hanson Addition
LOCATION: North of Ridge Road, east of West Staring Lane
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Mel Hanson
.REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 1.42 acres into two single family lots.
Background
This site is currently designated on
the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide r
Plan for Low Density Residential
land uses. Surrounding designations
within this area are also for Low c1i re'
�._y / ..,...
Density Residential. The proponent
is requesting the preliminary
platting of a 1.42-acre tract
currently zoned RI-22 into two ! was.•
single family lots.
Site Plan is
The site plan depicts the division ! �•'
of a 1.42-acre tract into two single PROPOSED SITE -
family lots. Both lots will be
accessed from West Staring Lane
which is currently a gravel road.
Lots range in size from a minimum of -
28,476 square feet to a maximum of
33,497 square feet. Both of the
lots meet the minimum requirements w
of the R1-22 Zoning District.
Chapter 11.03, Subdivsion 3, (C)
states that "where 401 or more of i.7"'•"
the block is developed, the required
setback shall be equalled to or
greater than the average existing
setback." The average existing set-
back in this area is currently +
approximately 46 feet. Plans shall
be revised to reflect a minimum of a
46-foot front yard setback. AREA LOCATION MAP ' ,
1
Mel Hanson Addition 2 May 20, 1988
This site is sloping in an easterly direction from a high point adjacent West
Staring Lane of 880 to a low point of 854 along the rear of Lot 2. Because of the
slope, a retaining wall is being proposed along the rear of the house. Any
retaining wall over 4 feet in height will require a building permit.
Utilities
Since this property was zoned R1-22 prior to July 1, 1982, water and sanitary sewer
service is not required for this site. Chapter 11.11, Subdivision 2, (B) states
that "permitted uses within the R1-22 Zoning District include single family detached
dwellings and accessory structures except sanitary sewer and water service shall not
be required with respect to those lands which were situated within the R1-22 Zoning
District on or before July 1, 1982". This property has zoned by Ordinance 021-8,
occuring in November, 1969.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for the Preliminary Plat of 1.42 acres
into two lots, based upon plans dated April 299 1988, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 20, 1988, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Revise the grading plan to reflect the maximum 3:1 slopes for the
proposed home to be constructed on Lot 2 or propose a retaining wall
system.
B. Revise the plans to reflect a minimum of a 46 foot front yard
setback.
2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by
the Watershed District and City Engineer.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Submit plans for review by the Building Department for the
installation of the septic system and the well system.
4. When the opportunity for water and sewer connection become available, each
of the units shall hook up to the system at a time when the specific systems
require repair.
5. Sign a special assessment agreement with the City of Eden Prairie for the
upgrading of West Staring Lane including water, sanitary sewer, and storm
sewer service.
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
C/O iierbst&rhue,W.
950 Northland Plaza
3800 West 80th Street
lilt ximington,MN 55-01
(612)993-6-11 `!AY 9 1988
May 6, 1988
Mayor, Manager and Members of
the City Council of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie City Hall
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
Our File No. 88-0175G
Dear Mayor, Manager and Members of the City Council:
A request has been made by Rogers Communications, Inc, to
have an evaluation done of the existing relief package approved
by the City Councils of each member city of the Southwest
Commission, several years ago. The evaluation will be for the
purpose of determining what the position of the cities will be
when Rogers transfers its cable system to a new operator, because
of their announced sale of United States systems.
A letter is enclosed from Rogers making a request to the
cities to evaluate the franchise. Also enclosed is a copy of a
letter we have been instructed to write to Rogers in response to
their letter. Our letter also includes a schedule of various
proceedings that has been adopted by the Southwest Commission to
deal with this matter. You will note that there would be
participation by each of the cities at the appropriate times.
In addition to the response, it has been recommended by the
Southwest Commission that each city adopt a lobbyist policy
similar to that adopted by them at the time of initial
franchising. It is intended by this lobbyist policy that all of
the proceedings be public and to insure that individual members
of city coune4ls and their staffs are not confronted with various
potential cable companies or others having an interest in the
matter other than constituants.
Each city should adopt the lobbyist policy. Further, if
there is any question with regard to the process that has been
established by the Southwest Commission, those comments should be
!') Cities of Eden Prairie,Edina,Hopkins,Minnetonka&Richfield
Mayor, Manager and Members of
the City Council of Eden Prairie
May 6, 1988
Page 2
forwarded to the Commission. Otherwise, the Commission will be
proceeding ahead with the process as outlined.
Vy
ly yo rs, -
�4
Adrian E. He b r st
AEH:tc
Enclosures
1
No w-109
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A UNIFORM POLICY WITH
RESPECT TO LOBBYING BY CABLE APPLICANTS WITH
INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS OR STAFF
WHEREAS, the City of in conjunction with
others comprising the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
("SWSCC") have been requested by the Grantee of their similar
Cable Communications System Franchises ("Franchise"), to evaluate
issues relating to the potential sale of the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, it is the concern of this City Council that in this
process all persons who may have an interest in a particular
cable company (either the existing Grantee under the Franchise
including its parent or affiliates, or interested purchasers of
the Franchise) conduct any communications with regard to this
matter with the City Council as a whole and not with individual
members of the City Council or administration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the
best interest of all of those participating in the franchising
process that all communications be public to avoid any sort of
misunderstanding and unwarranted accusations that would otherwise
develop either against the City or any of its Councilmembers or
representatives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined a policy must be
adopted that will be consistently followed by its Councilmembers
and staff and with the understanding that Councilmembers of other
communities will likewise adhere to a similar policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of , Minnesota:
1. It is the policy of the Mayor and City Council that all
communications regarding any matter of the cable
communications system proposed sale and transfer shall
be directed to the City Council as a whole and not to
an individual Council or staff member. It is not
intended by this that communications by a constituent
acting in a private capacity as a constituent will be
prohibited.
2. It is requested that the Chairman of the SWSCC will
request from the Grantee of the Franchise and other
interested cable companies that they provide a list
designating each person who will be the official
speakers or representatives on behalf of them, and
further, that the SWSCC shall provide to the City
Council from time to time, a report advising it of the
names of any such official speakers or representatives.
3. That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded by the City
Clerk to the Chairman of the SWSCC and to the Clerk of
each of the cities who may be forming the same cable
communications system.
4. The SWSCC is hereby authorized to distribute a copy of
this Resolution to each applicant or potential
applicant of a cable communications system for this
City.
5. This Resolution will be effective beginning with the
day of its passage and continue until an ordinance
granting a franchise for a cable communications system
is adopted.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of
this day of 1988.
By
Its
a
PROCEDURE IN RESPONSE TO ROGERS
PROPOSED NEGOTIATIONS PRIOR
TO THE TRANSFER
STEP I
Thur^,day, Full Commission Meeting
May 5, 1988
5:00 p.m. A. Establish that SWSCC position cannot be given
until their own review of negotiating stance
conducted.
B. Review and approve time line.
C. Discuss and decide at what point Full
Commission needs to be involved.
D. Discuss and agree to lobbyist policy. (Don't
talk to other companies while we are forming
our position) .
E. Revise charge to SWCPC to review various
options of operating access. (Corporation
vs. Company) (This report is part of
Southwest Operating Committee agenda June 16)
F. Assign the following tasks to staff:
1. Response letter to Rogers.
2. What can and cannot the Commission
legally do in the transfer process?
Including option of municipal ownership.
3. Review of original franchise (as
amended) and the Performance Agreement.
Outline issues so Commission can
determine what provisions are still
important so a list can be provided to
any proposed buyer. (SWSCC's Wish List)
4. Receive from Rogers a proposal of items
they want to see in the franchise for
the proposed buyer. (Rogers' Wish List)
Due Date: Friday, May 20, 1988
5. Research what other Rogers' systems are
operating on with their Relief package
in place.
f I
STEP II
Friday, Letter to Rogers - replying:
May 6, 1988
A. SWSCC intends to evaluate Rogers' proposal
preliminary to the transfer.
B. Outline reimbursement for expenses.
C. Specify that Rogers proposal is expected by
Friday, May 20.
STEP III
Monday, Letter to City Councils - outlining the process to
May 9, 1988 be followed, along with the anticipated date for
their review and approval. Include lobbyist
Policy for councils to adopt.
STEP IV
Friday,
May 20, 1988 Rogers proposal received.
A. Outlines their position on all aspects of
franchise and Performance Agreement
{ obligations.
STEP V
Thursday, Public Hearing at Edina.
June 2, 1988
7:00 p.m.
STEP VI
Thursday, Operating Committee Meeting.
June 16, 1988
3:00 p.m. Purpose: To review all items in Step I "F" above.
Note: Rescheduled the Thursday, May 19 meeting to
Thursday, June 16 at 3:00 p.m.
STEP VII
Wednesday, Full Commission Meeting.
June 29, 1988
5:00 p.m. A. Review recommendations by the Operating
Committee.
B. Determine recommendations to City Councils on
negotiations prior to the transfer.
�zi3
STEP VIII
July Council Meetings to determine whether or not to
accept SWSCC recommendations. (Agenda items due
a week in advance)
STEP IX
Date to Commission Meeting.
be set
A. Evaluate decisions of the cities.
B. Determine response to Rogers.
C. Designate staff to write correspondence to
Rogers.
STEP X
Date to Letter from the Cities to Rogers on items to be
be set included in transfer.
A. Include questionnaire for proposed buyer and
seller to complete.
I�,IU
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
CIO Herbst\ThtiC,Ltd.
950 Northland Pl;tza
3800 West 80th Street
F Bloomington,MN 55,431
(012)89 3-0711
P'ay 6, 1988
Mr. Vernon Achber
Vice President
Regulatory Affairs
Rogers Communications, Inc.
Suite 2600, Commercial Union Tower
Post Office Box 249
Toronto Dominion Centre
Toronto, Ontario M5K 1J5
Re: File No. 88-0175G
Dear Vernon:
I have been instructed by the Southwest Suburban Cable
Commission to respond to your letter dated April 28, 1988.
In your letter, you request the commission to enter into
discussions with Rogers to review and perhaps renegotiate the
Relief Agreement based upon the condition that the Buyer will be
required to accept the franchise as modified by the Amended
Relief Agreement on an "as is basis". Further, you describe a
time line within which you would expect those negotiations to
occur. You point out that you will provide a proposal, based
upon the willingness of the cities to proceed ahead.
We have attached to this letter, an outline approved by the
Southwest Suburban Cable Commission at a special Commission
meeting held May 5, 1988. This outline will also be forwarded to
the member cities of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission.
The Commission voted to forward a letter to you providing a time
line for discussions and stating tht the SWSCC is willing to
enter into discussions. It is requested that you respond with
your proposal. Your proposal should be received by us by May 20,
1988 according to the outline enclosed.
As you know, a request has also been made for reimbursement
for the expenses of the Commission. For the initial process, the
Commission is requesting an advance payment of $25,000.00. This
should be paid as promptly as possible in as much as the
I"�I5
Cities of Eden Priirie,Edina,Ilohkins,Minnetonka& Richfield
Mr. Vernon Achber
May 6, 1988
Page 2
Commission has directed its staff to proceed ahead with work on
this matter. You will be furnished with copies of all billing
statements for this work.
it is expected at this time for this initial process, that
our firm will be the only outside resource. it may well be that
at a future date financial consulting assistance would be
required during the process involving the transfer.
Please call me if you have any questions or comments on the
schedule enclosed. Otherwise, we will be waiting receipt of
payment from you and your proposal.
Very ly you",
Adrian�A—H'Kerb.
AEH:tc
cc: Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
Cliff D. Williams
Debra Cottone
MAY 4 /98g
TO: City of Eden Prairie
Gary Peterson, Mayor
Richard Anderson
George Bentley
Jean Harris
Patricia Pidcock
Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Howard L. Peterson, Manager
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
DATE: April ,, 1988
Within a month or two the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners will commence the process of appointing a Hennepin
County member to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory-
Bluff Creek Watershed District. I currently hold this position
and my present term will expire on July 30, 1988.
In the past you have supported my request for reappoint-
ment and I appreciate and value that confidence as I am again
seeking your continued confidence by requesting a letter from you
to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners in support of my
reappointment.
In view of the projects we are becoming involved in, or
have been involved in, I feel that my experience would be of
substantial value to the District. Probably as important as
experience is my personal commitment to environmental concerns
tied to a rational development plan of economic growth.
My experience and qualifications are as follows:
1. Coordinator of the petition that resulted in the
formation of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed
District. Bluff Creek was added by petition later as a
result of 509 legislation.
2. I am a founding member of the Minnesota State Association
of Watershed Districts and a member of the first Board of
Directors. I am currently serving as a member of that
Board.
3. I served on the Metropolitan Council Surface Water
Management Committee.
9. I served as Chairman of the Metro Area Watershed 509
Information Committee.
c City of Eden Prairie
Page two
5. I currently serve as a Manager on the Riley-Purgatory-
Bluff Creek Watershed District Board of Managers and hold
the position of Vice President.
6. I was appointed as a board member to the newly formed
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources for a three
year term.
7. I am employed by Control Data Corporation as a Mechanical
Engineer.
As noted earlier, I would welcome your support of my
reappointment and am willing to meet with you at any time you
choose should you have questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
Howard L. Peterson
6233n
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: June 7, 1988
RE: CEDAR RIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
On Monday, May 19, 1988, City Staff met with Mr. John Hamilton, of Cunningham
Architects, to go over the plans for the Cedar Ridge Elementary School.
During that meeting, concerns were raised regarding the placement of the
building within the trees, access routing into the property, and transitioning
of the school site to the future residential land uses surrounding the
property. On Thursday, May 26, 1988, Staff met with Mr. Jerry McCoy and Mr.
Merle Gamm, of the Eden Prairie School District, and Mr. John Hamilton to
review the District's future plans and to go over the site plar. revisions.
The revised plans indicate the building being shifted further out of the woods
in order to protect many more significant trees. The original access to the
property utilized two access points; these access points have now been merged
into one, and shifted further from the wooded area to save additional trees.
The ballfields and playfield area are still relatively close to the property
lines and do not provide adequate transition to the future residential
developments. The School District will need to provide fencing and
landscaping treatments to provide buffering and protection for the future
residential developments.
The future City road alignment has not been finalized at this time. The
contract for the school ends with the access roads somewhat into the property,
with temporary roads connecting to it. City Staff and the Engineers for the
School District will be working closely to design a proper alignment for the
future road which provides additional room for future school use and to create
the best possible site line for the access point to the school. At this time,
the school is in the process of putting together a tree replacement plan that
conforms to the tree preservation policy. Final buffering plans for the
ballfields have not been reviewed at this time.
The school district is anxious to commence with a building permit as soon as
possible in order to meet their timing schedule. Staff does not feel that a
final solution to the road alignment at this time should hold up the issuance
of the building permit for the school itself.
'a