Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 11/15/1988
AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1988 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: 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. City Council Special Assessment Hearing held Thursday, September Page 2647 8 1988 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List i2 Page 2676 B. Preliminary & Final Plat Approval of Welters Purgatory Acres Page 2677 5th Addition Ttiated north of Pioneer Trail and west of Bennett Place) Reseluten Ne. 88-262 C. Resolution No. 88-266 regarding State Funding of Minneapolis Page 2681 and St. Paul Combined Sewer Overflow Separation Project D. Resolution No. 88-267, Approving a Joint Public Hearing before Page 2686 the Southwest Cable Commission on a Proposed Transfer of Ownership Relating to the Cable Communication Franchise for the City of Eden Prairie E. Cable TV - Resolution No. 88-271, Approving the Extension of Page 2689 ime for the Execution of Transfer Documents F. Resolution Ne. 88-272, Granting a 15-day Extension for the Page 2690 Closing on $3,850,000 in Multi-family Housing Bonds for Preserve Place Apartments G. Resolution No. 8B-273Z Granting a 1-Year Extension of Approval Page 2694 for the Prairie Village Apartments to December 2: 1989 City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,November 15, 1988 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TIMBER BLUFFS by Brown Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Page 2701 Development District Review on approximately 19 acres with waiver of the public road requirement and requirement for frontage of lots on a public street, rezoning from Rural to R1-22 on approximately 4 acres, from Rural to R1-44 on approximately 15 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 44.4 acres into 14 single family lots, and 2 outlots. Location: South of Riverview Road, west of County Road 18, and east of Huntington Drive. (Ordinance No. 50- 88-PUD-14-88 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-258 - Preliminary Plat) B. PRAIRIE GREEN MINI-STORAGE by Prairie Green Associates. Request Page 2708 for Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 0.69 acres, Preliminary Plat of 7.2 acres into 2 lots for construction of 8,575 square feet of additional storage space. Location: East of County Road No. 4, South of Terrey Pine Drive. (Ordinance No. 52-88 - Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 88-259 - Preliminary Plat) C. SUTLIFF PROPERTY. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural Page 2714 to R1-13.5 on two lots comprising 0.95 acres. Location: 7070 and 7080 Eden Prairie Road. (Ordinance No. 53-88 - Rezoning) D. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS by Wirtanen Clark Larsen Architects, Inc. Page 2716 Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 1.01 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.01 acres into one lot for construction of a retail paint store. Location: Along Plaza Drive in front of the Menard's Center. (Ordinance No. 54-88 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-260 - Preliminary Plat) E. MIS SYSTEMS CORPORATION ADDITION by MTS Systems Corporation. Page 2723 Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-5 on 36.B acres for construction of an 85,000 square foot addition to the MTS building. Location: South of Highway No. 5, north of Technology Drive, west of Purgatory Creek (Ordinance No. 55-B8 - Rezoning) F. ELIM SHORES by Brauer & Associates. Request for a Zoning District Page 2727 Amendment within the RM-2.5 Zoning District on 8.36 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 3 lots for construction of a 64-unit senior housing development. Location: West of County Road No. 4, east of Mitchell Lake (Ordinance No. 56-88 - Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 88-261 - Preliminary Plat) G. ELIM SHORES. Resolution No. 88-269, Approving Housing Plan for Page 2732 Elim Shores H. VACATION 88-12 - Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements within Page 2744 Lot 1, B165 f, Eden Glen (Resolution No. 88-263) I. VACATION 88-13 - Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements in Page 2745 Wyndham Nob (Resolution No. 88-264) City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,November 15, 1988 J. APPROVAL OF STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND EXHIBITS Page 2746 Exhibit AA - Letter from Rogers Cable TV dated August 18, 19B8 to Adrian Herbst; Exhibit BB - Resolution No. 88-268, Approving a Settlement with the Grantee Under the City's Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance Regarding the Extension of the Term of the CATV Relief Ordinance, Based Upon Certain Modifications Thereof, to a Proposed Transferee of the Franchise for the City's Cable Communication System; Exhibit CC - 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 57-88 Amending CATV Relief Ordinance, Ordinance No. 12-85, Providing Modifications in Contemplation of a Transfer of Ownership of the City's Cable Communciations Franchise and Permitting Continuance of Relief to the Transferee of the Franchise in Accordance with this Ordinance; and Exhibit DD - Amendment to Performance Agreement) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 2772 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 88-270, Amending Fee Resolution No. 88-09 Page 2773 Regulating Fees and Charges for Municipal Services, Specifically as They Relate to Building Permits VII. PETITIONSi REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request for Liquor License from Applebee's Restaurant B. Approve TH 212 Layout Plan (Resolution No. 88-265) Page 2774 { VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A. Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission - Page 2779 Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - Appointment of a Page 2792 representative from the Flying Cloud Businessmen to fill an unexpired term to February 28, 1990 X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Manager 1. New Conditions for On-sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Page 2794 2. Third Quarter 1988 General Fund Report Page 2799 3. Affirmative Action Plan Page 2802 C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning City Council Agenda - 4 - Tues.,November 15, 1988 E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources F. Report of Director of Public Works G. Report of Finance Director IX. NEW BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT FINANCE DIRECTOR JOHN FRANE AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL E TIMBER LAKES HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1988 6:00 P. M. CITY HALL 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund I. INTRODUCTIONS II. DISCUSSION WITH BOARD OF DIRECTORS RE: HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION MEETING Page 2642 III. DISCUSSION OF ORIGINAL GOALS FOR PROTECTION OF SHORELINE & POSSIBLE CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS OF GOALS FOR PROTECTION OF SHORELINE ALONG UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF LAKE IV. DISCUSSION RE: EXISTING CITY EASEMENTS ON MITCHELL LAKE V. ADJOURNMENT • • ii MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources —. DATE: November 8, 1988 SUBJECT: Mitchell Lake Scenic Easements At the October 18, 1988 special meeting the City Council met with the Timber Lakes Homeowner's Association Board of Directors to discuss their scenic easement on Mitchell Lake. At that meeting, staff presented a summary of the other scenic easements on Mitchell Lake controlled by the City. The Council and the Board of Directors then discussed the status of the Homeowner's Association scenic easement. The City Council continued this item to the November 15th meeting and set a special meeting at 6:3D P. M. with the Board of Directors to continue discussion on this item. The Council requested the Board of Directors to contact all of the members of the Association to determine the majority opinion regarding enforcement of their easement. The Council also requested staff to again provide a memorandum relating to other scenic easements within the City for Council review, and requested staff to provide specific comments on other scenic easements controlled by the City on Mitchell Lake, and what options the City may have on remaining undeveloped lakeshore property. Attached to this memo is a copy of a June 29, 19B8 memo reviewing existing scenic easements within the City. Although there is some question as to the status of the scenic easement that runs to the Homeowner's Association on the east shore of Mitchell Lake, the City Attorney has indicated that the City Council clearly has authority to control all of the other scenic easements within the City that run to the City of Eden Prairie. The major question relating to scenic easements on Mitchell Lake is as follows: "What is going to be the acceptable shoreline use and preservation plan for the entire lake?" The entire west shoreline will be proposed for development in the very near future. The park system plan recommends that the City attempt to negotiate a minimum of a 100 foot wide trail corridor along the west shore of Mitchell Lake leading from Miller Park, north to the proposed underpass at Highway 5. This trail corridor would preserve this lakeshore in its natural condition and would allow all of the public to enjoy the entire lakeshore. If the City is unable to obtain this lakeshore and the developer simply requests to develop lakeshore lots with no variances, there is relatively little control the City has beyond the Shoreland Management Ordinance restrictions for controlling the installation of docks, and the Grading Ordinance over removal of vegetation along the shoreline. If the major goal of the Council is to maintain the quiet, natural character of this lake and its existing shoreline, staff would suggest consideration of �G�l� a compromise from the existing scenic easements that would continue to restrict the construction of any docks on the lake, but would allow removal of 50% of the natural vegetation in a "corridor" to the lake from each home. If each lot were to maintain 50% of the natural vegetation to the shoreline, the natural screening between lots would remain; yet, individuals would have direct access to the lake and use of their personal frontage on the lake. With the restriction of a 10 horsepower limit on boats, there should be no great demand for docks on the lakeshore. The Council should understand that these restrictions would also pertain to the City of Eden Prairie relating to any potential marina docks for paddle boats, canoe rental, etc., or any dock at the public launch site. The other two alternatives to be considered are as follows: 1. Remove all existing scenic easements and simply require property owners to conform to the Shoreland Management Ordinance regarding installation of docks or construction of any gazebos, etc. and to conform to the City grading ordinance regarding removal of vegetation (any removal of over 10% of the vegetation on a particular parcel of property requires a City permit). 2. The City could also strictly enforce all existing City scenic easements and strongly encourage the Homeowner's Association to enforce their scenic easement and attempt to negotiate a similar scenic easement on the west and north shoreline when those properties are developed. BL:mdd MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Planning Commission Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources l't► DATE: June 29, 19BB SUBJECT: Review of Scenic Easement Policy In June of 1988, the City Council received a request from Earl Ingram to allow him to maintain a lawn area, sand beach, and dock at his residence at 17064 Weston Bay. Mr. Ingram had already removed the natural vegetation between his house and the lakeshore in the process of removing trees that had died along the lakeshore due to the previous high water conditions. As a part of the Weston Bay Subdivision, a 75' wide scenic easement, measured from the shoreline was filed on all lots within Weston Bay. This scenic easement required a permit to remove any live vegetation within the scenic easement, and prohibited docks or sand beaches. The scenic easement was recommended by City staff and approved by the Commissions and the Council because this condition was consistent with a scenic easement that had been approved on all the previously developed eastern shoreline of Mitchell Lake. The major difference, however, was that the Timber Lakes Subdivision scenic easement was controlled by the Timber Lakes Homeowner's Association; whereas, the Weston Bay Subdivision scenic easement was controlled by the City of Eden Prairie. Earlier this year the Timber Lakes Homeowner's Association became aware of several violations of the scenic easement. When the Homeowner's Association requested the property owner to restore the property, the property owner indicated that he would pursue the matter in court. The Homeowner's Association decided not to enforce the scenic easement. Since that time, there have been several additional' docks installed and some additional clearing within the scenic easement in the Timber Lakes Subdivision. Much of the tree removal was initiated when the lake began receding and property owners began removing dead trees along the shoreline. Once the trees were cut down, in many cases, heavy equipment was brought in to remove the stumps. Several individuals then had sand hauled in to create a beach where the dead trees had previously been standing. At the June 21st meeting, the City Council reviewed the permit request for Earl Ingram and a June 15th memo suggesting the Council consider reassessing the desire for a scenic easement around the entire lakeshore at Mitchell Lake. The memo pointed out that the north shore has been developed for many years with large lots that have full use of the lakeshore and that unless the Timber Lakes Homeowner's Association changes their mind and decides to pursue the enforcement of the scenic easement, it may not make sense to continue to require a full scenic easement on additional shoreline around Mitchell Lake. The City Council was very concerned about the precedent that may be set by simply eliminating a scenic easement as soon as someone decides to violate the scenic easement. The Council requested staff to review the scenic easement policy with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the Planning Commission prior to taking any action with changes to scenic easements on Mitchell Lake. RECOMMENDATIONS ON SCENIC EASEMENTS The purpose of a scenic easement is to insure preservation of unique natural features. Scenic easements are most generally used along steep wooded slopes, creek valleys, bluffs, marshlands, or lakeshores. In the past, staff have delineated areas within subdivisions where a scenic easement line should be drawn; however, there have been no restrictions on how close a house could be constructed to the scenic easement line. In some cases, as with Mr. Ingram in Weston Bay, the house was placed within 5' of the scenic easement line. In many other cases, especially along Purgatory Creek, homes are constructed within 5-I0' of a scenic easement line and sooner or later an individual wants to build a deck into the scenic easement or a swimming pool or simply develop a small backyard. Staff would recommend a minimum of a 30' setback from a scenic easement line. If homes are allowed to build right up to scenic easements, the City will be constantly faced with requests to intrude into the scenic easement line and many of the requests might have to be considered a reasonable use of an individual's property. The number of requests to extend into the scenic easement and the unauthorized violations would be significantly reduced, if not eliminated. When individual property owners purchase an expensive lot on a lake, they will continue to push to have access to the lake through the use of docks and to maintain some manicured access to the lakeshore. Scenic easements should work satisfactorily when properties are abutting natural creek valleys, when the incentive of the property owner is to preserve the natural feature that gives value to the property; however, the majority of Lakeshore property owners would prefer to develop their lakeshore lot all the way to the lakeshore, and to have use of the lake. Staff would recommend that in the.future, if the City wishes to preserve lakeshore in it's natural condition, the City either negotiate for the acquisition of a stripe of land along the lakeshore for City ownership, rather than relying on scenic easements; or strictly adhere to the Shoreland Management Ordinance regarding setbacks and lot widths. The most affective method for preserving wooded lakeshore is to adhere to the Shoreland Management Ordinance, as the majority of lakeshore lots are developed with large expensive homes, it does not make since to give lot width or setback variances if the goal is to preserve the wooded character of the lakeshore. MITCHELL LAKE SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT Staff would recommend the City Council request a meeting of the Timber Lakes Homeowner's Association to determine their intent of (or lack of) enforcing the scenic easement along the lakeshore. The City should then decide to what extent shoreland development will be regulated around the remaining shoreline of Mitchell Lake, and what restrictins are reasonable within Weston Bay. a(e,t>- If the Homeowner's Association would decide to enforce the scenic easement, the City could continue with the previously planned policy of a 75' wide scenic easement around the entire shoreline. If the Homeowner's Association decides not to enforce the scenic easement, the City should determine to enforce the Shoreland Management Ordinance around the remaining portion of the lake without any variances in order to preserve the wooded character of the Mitchell Lake shoreline. The Weston Bay Subdivision was granted shoreland variances mainly due to the commitment of the scenic easement. Staff would recommend that even if there is not to be a scenic easement around the remaining portion of Mitchell Lake, the scenic easement in Weston Bay remain in place and that the City staff review each lakeshore parcel within Weston Bay prior to approving any grading plans. All grading plans would require preservation of at least 40% the scenic easement in its natural condition, and restrict removal of any vegetation above 4' in diameter within the scenic easement in order to maintain the natural character of the wooded shoreline. Staff would further recommend that no sodded lawns be allowed within 10' of the Lakeshore in order to reduce the amount of fertilizer running directly into the water. Under these conditions, staff would also recommend removal of the dock restriction, but that all docks conform to the Shoreland Management Ordinance regarding location, size, etc. The City staff does not believe this particular situation sets any precedent for eliminating or changing any of the other scenic easements within the City of Eden Prairie. There are so many altered conditions to Mitchell Lake that this one scenic easement does warrant reconsideration; however, all of the other scenic easements along creek valleys, etc are controlled by the City of Eden Prairie rather than any private Homeowner's Association that may decide not to enforce the scenic easement. Staff would recommend that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission review this analysis of our scenic easement policy and forward recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would then forward recommendations to the City Council for review of the scenic easement policy. Staff would then recommend the City Council call for a meeting of the Timber Creek Homeowner's Association and the Weston Bay Homeowner's Association, as well all other property owners on Mitchell Lake to discuss the future of shoreland development on Mitchell Lake. BL:mdd • ))(v u( . UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 8, 1938 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 760C Executive Drive COUNCIL :MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harries, and Patricia Fidcuck CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Director of Public Wurks Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present. 1. I t4TRODUCTI OBI City Manager Jullie repuri.ed that notice of the Special Assessment Hearing was published in the August 17, 1988 Eden Prairie News and was mailed to property owners in the Special Assessment Areas. Jullie explained that the purpose of the meeting was Lu review the recommended Special Assessment Roll as prepared by the Engineering Staff. He stated that after hearing objections from the public the Council would consider adoption of Resolution No. 88-194 which could certify the assessments to Hennepin County. Jullie explained the various options available for the property owners to pay the assessments, the determents available, and how the interest rates were' applied. Jullie stated that the State Law required that an appeal had to be made in written form prior to the meeting or presented tonight. Peterson explained that a property owner could address the Council tonight without prior written notice. Public Works Director Dietz reported that 10 projects and a list of supplements were on the agenda for review. Dietz explained the information necessary for an appeal. A. Pzoject_T_Q,_52=O89, Watermain, storm sewer, curb and gutter, and bituminous surfacing of Valley View Road west of Golden Triangle Drive. Dietz reported that a feasibility study was required fur the project and the assessments were split between two property owners. He reported that the total project costs were $112,005.00, the City share was $3,414.00, with a net assesament of $108,591.00. Dietz stated that the s tl�•JC::JiIlC 11 i, ��C_�L114 a 3eptembee u, 1)6S assessment was proposed to be levied over a 20 year period at 8% interest. Pidcock asked Dietz if there was storm sewer on the project. Dietz replied that a catch basin had been installed. Nu further comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I.C. 52-039. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Project IC,_52-102, Sidewalk, bikeway, storm sewer, and street improvements on Dell Road and in Hidden Glen 3rd Addition. Dietz reported that the project was a 100i petitioned project, petitioned for by a developer, with no other property owners involved in the project. Dietz stated that a partial assessment for the project had been levied in the Fall of 1987 to cover the costs incurred through July of 1987. He stated that the project had been in progress fur approximately 3 years. Dietz said that the project was still not far enough along to determine the final costs. He staled that his was another partial assessment, which was requested by the developer, with another assessment in the Fall of 1939 for a Final Assessment. Dietz estimated this assessment to represent over 85% of the total costs. Dietz reported the Net Assessment to be $308,642.00 through July 1, 1988. He staled that the assessment would be levied over a 5 year period at 8% interest. Dietz stated that each single- family unit was being assess at $2,637.96 and each duplex unit was to be assessed one and one-half times that of the single family unit, $3,956.24, per the developer's request. Harris asked Dietz if both halves of the duplex would be assessed one and one-half times the single-family unit. Dietz replied that the $3,956.24 assessment would be divided by two. Nu further comments from the audience. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Special Assessment Roll for Project I.C. 52-102. Motion carried unanimously. �W�D • Asse smc:hhi. i;ear i Ihg 3Cptl,Il,i)eC 3, 1900 3. Pr.oject I_C: 52_104, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, watermain, and streets on Prairie View Drive and St. Andrew Drive. { Dietz reported that a feasibility hearing was held in January of 1387. He reported the total project costs were $370,560.00, the City share was 37,257.00 for the interconnection of the watermain system to Pleasant Hill Road, leaving a net assessment of $363,303.00. Dietz stated that the project came in at 15 to 20 percent under the feasibility estimated costs. Dietz said that the streets were assessed at $43.02 per front foot and the watermain assessment was assessed at $2,561.74 per lot. Dietz said it was determined that a unit assessment would be best for the sanitary sewer; however, along St. Andrew Drive there was a potential fur future development, therefore, a front footage rate of $21.88 which applied over the entire subdivision along Prairie View Drive would come out to 32,761.53 per unit. Dietz summarized by stated that along St. Andrew Drive for the properties with potential for further development a front foot rate was used fur streets and sanitary sewer and for the interior of the project a unit rate fur water and sanitary sewer was used. Dietz recommended that the assessment be levied over a 20 year period at 8".. interest. Dietz explained that the method of a $1,000 credit fur sanitary sewer had become outdated because of the increasing costs of the newer project. Dietz suggested that the credit be eliminated and the amount of the assessment for the sanitary sewer and watermain be excluded for 5 years or until the property owner connected to the City sanitary sewer system. He said that for homestead properties the assessment fur streets and storm sewer would appear on the 1903 tax statement. Dietz said that the sanitary sewer and water assessment was a fixed amount and would be assessed when the Property owner connected or would be part of the 1994 Special Assessment Hearing, whichever came first. Dietz stated that the property owner would have the opportunity to object to the amount of the assessment at the 1334 Special Assessment Hearing or when the property owner connected. Harris asked Dietz if the deferment only applied to original property owners and how would the 1994 amount be handled if the property were sold. Dietz replied that this was not a deferment, but an exclusion and would remain with the property; however, that if the property were to be sold the lending facility could require the assessment to be deducted from the proceeds of the sale at the time of closing. Dietz commented that Eden Prairie was the only city to use this system. Roger Goetze, 7171 Prairie View Drive, asked Dietz if the property was currently connected or if it was connected aVOUa Assessme,A. iie tc io J •I UcptttULtr ::, 1908 before 1994 if there would be a charge to the seller. Dietz replied that typically the seller would be responsible for the assessment amount to be paid in full. Goetze stated that the costs of the project were to be 15 to 20% below the original estimate; however, he said the original assessment for his property had been $13,400 and was now at $12,000, representing only approximately a 10% reduction, which he did not believe reflected the 15 to 20% reduction for the entire project. Dietz replied that he could not quantify the exact difference related to each phase of the project, but the overall costs of the project were reduced by approximately 17e. Dietz said he did not compute the reduction for each parcel and the reduction would vary percentage wise for each parcel. Goetze asked if all Lhe properties got the benefit of the cost reduction and if it would be possible to get a report on how the reductions were arrived at. Dietz explained how the reductions were calculated. Goetze questioned the $520 trunk fee and if this was included in the assessment. Dietz stated that the trunk fee was a fixed amount. He said that the $520 amount was fur Lhe City trunk water system and trunk sewer system. Goetze asked Dietz if the $520 was a trunk cost_ then why was there an additional charge for trunk costs for both water and sewer when you connect. Dietz explained the three methods the City uses to collect for the water system. Goetze asked if the $1200 to $1300 charged to connect could be incorporated in the 20 year plan aL $% interest along with the $520. Dietz replied that this method had never been done in the past and that the City did not have code provisions to allow for this at the current time. Jullie stated that the City could look into the potential for including the connection charges into the 20 year plan; however, it would involve legal paper work, signing d 100% petition form and waving the assessment right. Goetze stated that he considered his trunk connection cost to be a large amount for an individual single-family homeowner. Dietz asked Goetze if he had made application to connect. Goetze replied no. Dietz stated that he would talk to the City Attorney regarding the legal requirements. Goetze asked if he needed to submit anything in writing tonight and who he should stay in touch with. Dietz replied that Goetze should talk directly to him and that because the trunk connection was not a part of the actual assessment that written appeal was not required. Mike Gust, 7280 Prairie View Drive, was upset with the amount of Lime City inspectors were on the project. Gust stated that when he had wanted to hook up to the sewer a City inspector came out and told him he could do the work himself as luny as it was done per City Code, but when he went to file for the permit he was told lie could not du the installation himself. Gust understood the amounts he had already paid; $375 for water, $200 for sewer, and $525 ass° September 8, 1)30 for SAC charges were to be the trunking charges. Gust asked if the $525 was the original trunking costs. Dietz replied that the SAC amount was passed directly to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Gust stated extreme confusion regarding what he was paying for, what he had already paid for, and if he was being charged twice for service.. He stated that when he had contacted City Hall to get help, no one was able to explain the $$520 invoice. Gust asked Dietz if everyone in Eden Prairie was being charged $520 for trunking fees. Dietz replied that the $520 was reported in the feasibility study and that the $525 SAC charge was not the same as the $520 trunk fee. Dietz explained the methods used to pay for the water trunk system and how they were collected. Dietz stated that $520 had been the charge for every single- family residential home since 1071. Gust suggested that a booklet be published regarding the process for sewer and water hook-up. Gust stated that he was still confused and very frustrated about not being able to get answers from City Hall personnel sod the charges. Peterson commented that he and the other Council members did not want residents to have communication problems with City personnel. Peterson said that if there was a problem getting to the right person for answers to contact City Manager Jullie and he would see that the proper person spent the time necessary to clarify the issues for any resident. Pidcock suggested that a booklet be published explaining the charges in language that the lay-person could understand. Dietz replied that the City had a fee schedule consisting of 25 pages and that it would be difficult to publish such a booklet. Pidcock stated that the residents should not have to deal with the confusion and frustration. Peterson stated that every project was different, which created the difficulty for creating a booklet. Jullie stated that he would look into developing a sample booklet. Judy Stephen, 7161 Frairie View Drive, had submitted a letter to the Council stating her concern about how the assessment amount compared against the value of her older home. She believed the assessment to be extremely high. Stephen asked why it had not been explained that the assessment amount for sewer and water could be deferred for 5 years. Stephen had understood that the total assessment had to be paid whether you connected or not and so she had connected right away, figuring since she had to pay for it she might as well enjoy it. Stephen said that the costs to connect were overwhelming and now she understands that she could have waited for 5 years. Peterson asked Dietz if the exclusion for the 5 years had been discussed at the feasibility hearing. Dietz replied CGS I • �1"c.cz:,in_nt. deariny 3epLember 8, 1300 that, he did not believe the exclusion was discussed for this project at that time and that the exclusion policy had been developed in the Fall of 1987. Jullie stated that the City could make the policy retroactive. Peterson suggested that the 5 year exclusion be made available to all property owners for this project. Pidcock stated agreement with Peterson. Anderson believed the 5 year exclusion to be a fair approach since the property owners already had their own water and septic systems and since there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the options available to the property owners. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock that the 5 year exclusion pertain to all the property owners for this project. Dietz asked for clarification o the motion, he understood the Council to say that the amounts in the 1994 column would not be assessed to any property owner, whether they connect tomorrow or in 1980 etc, until 1994. Dietz stated that the 1334 column amount would then need to be listed as a pending assessment. Bentley asked if the motion would include the property owners that had already connected. Pidcock replied that all the amounts in the 1094 column would be deferred until 1934 and would include those owners which had already connected. Motion carried unanimously. Paul Schee, 7288 Prairie View Drive, stated agreement with Mr. Gust regarding the difficulty in getting answers from City Hall personnel and getting consistent answers. Schee stated that he had been told that the project had come in around $245,000 and his assessment would be $7,294.73, which was not how the final figures had been presented. Schee stated concern about the lack of City inspectors on the project. Schee believed that the sod installation was not done properly and had talked to City Hall personnel several times, but nothing had been to correct the situation. Schee stated that after approximately one month had lapsed, finally a City Inspector did come out to look at the sod and then the next day he received a letter stating that the contractor had fulfilled it's obligation and that he would be responsible for the sod now. Schee believed that the City of Eden Prairie should do better and that the City Inspectors should have the interest of the residents at heart. Schee stated disappointment in the information given about the assessment and the manner in which the sod issue was handled. aV.,:a ir:,.,es LeMiiL i1ear in.; deptcawer 3, 1333 Pidcock asked what the City policy was for overseeing work contracted out by the City. Dietz replied that it was the Engineering Department's responsibility to oversee the work. Dietz said that City Staff had to depend on the residents to tell the City if they were not satisfied with the work done. Dietz stated that he would look into the sod installation and would try to rectify the situation. Bentley suggested that the City policy for overseeing contractors work be discussed at a special Council workshop. Peterson commented that the Council takes the residents comments seriously and that the Council had made a commitment to preside better communication. Peterson stated that he had not received any phone calls regarding a problem with the sod or the City Inspectors. Peterson encouraged residents to contact their elected officials. Tom Schramm, 7151 Prairie View Drive, stated that in general the project went well, but that he believed that reseeding did need to be redone because of the drought. Schramm stated that he had talked with a Realtor and had been told the improvements would only add $3,000 to $4,000 to the value of his home and had difficulty justifying the $13,000 assessment being levied for something that he did not believe to be necessary since they already had wells and septic systems. MQT I 7t1__ Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Assessment Roll for. Project I.C. 52-104. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Pr,.p ect I.C.._.55, watermain, sanitary sewer, streets and storm sewer on Bennett Place and Blossom Road. Dietz reported that a cul -de sac had been installed. He said that pavement had not been extended due to a request by Wagner, McDonald, and Welter, owner's of the last 3 lots due to the possibility for future development. Dietz stated that the project came in approximately 15% below the feasibility study. Dietz reported the project costs to be $456,417.00, the City share to be $4,663.00, with a net assessment of $451,754.00. Dietz proposed a 20 year assessment period at 8% interest. Dietz stated that because the lots were not uniform in size and because of the development potential a front font assessment was used. Dietz said that the Wagner, McDonald, and Welter properties were assessed $1,700 for gravel road restoration in lieu of the assessment fur concrete curb and gutter and bituminous pavement. a(s 3e ptember 3, 1983 David Nelson, 3350 Chicago Avenue, stated that he would be homesteading the property at 9950 Bennett Place on October 1, 1033. Nelson stated that the assessment would cost him $250 to $300 per month just in interest. Nelson realized that he owned a lot of property and that when the property was developed he would come out financially, but until that time the assessment would create a financial hardship. Nelson stated that the assessment was for 3.53 acres and a front footage of 273.7, but he had a certified survey which showed his property at 2.49 acres and a front footage of 232.7. Nelson said that the City was requiring an additional 13.5 feet of his property for a 60-foot right-of-way, which would make the lot size actually 2.42 acres. Nelson stated that he believed the assessment fur the construction of the turn lane and the by-pass lane at County Road 1 and Bennett Place should be assessed over a larger area or taken out of the City's General Fund, since these items would benefit more properties than just those on Bennett Place and Blossom Lane. Dietz stated that per a letter from Nelson dated 4-29-88, which questioned the acreage, the assessment was computed using 2.43 acres; however, the discrepancy on the front footage was not brought up at that time and a front footage of 278 feet was used. Dietz said he would check on the front footage. Dietz said that the cost of the turn lane was approximately $13,000 to $14,000, which would only represent approximately $1 per front foot. Dietz said that the turn lane was installed fur the safety of the neighborhood and was deemed necessary due to development potential of the area. Dietz stated that the policy regarding homestead property was that the property needed to be homesteaded prior to the Special Assessment Hearing. Peterson commented that technically a person had to reside in the home on January 1st or June 1st to homestead. Dietz said that there was a lot of development property in the area and the exclusion policy had been established to recognize benefit for long term residents which had well and septic systems already in place and which had been paying taxes. Pidcock asked if all the properties for this project were assessed for the turn lane. Dietz replied that all the properties had been assessed approximately $1 per front foot. Harold Johnson, 0005 Bennett Lane, stated that his property was not on the assessment roll. Dietz believed that the property had been subdivided which would change the PTD number. Dietz stated that he would look into the property numbers. Johnson stated that he had sold a lot which bordered on Windsor Terrace. Bentley asked Dietz how the assessment roll for this project should be dealt with tonight. A short recess was held for Dietz to Assessmeot .,eptemLer 3, 1008 investigate the PID numbers. Diet:: reported that the new DID numbers had been determined, Johnson had been informed of the assessments and the issue had been resolved. 1 Bentley asked what would be done about the Nelson property. Dietz replied that there would be an adjustment to the front footage. Jullie suggested that the homestead consideration could be extended since Nelson would be living in the home this fall and he already had private water and sewer. Pidcock stated that he would need to prove residence by October 1, 1988. Dietz stated that the assessment rolls had to be certified to Hennepin County by October 9, 1938, so it would be critical to have Nelson prove residence as soon as possible. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I.C. 52-105, subject to the appropriate corrections to the Nelson property, PID 0 25- 116-22-41-0037. 5. Pz.c..ject_.I-,,C,,_.52c105A, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, watermain and streets in/on Windsor Terrace. Dietz reported this project to be a 100% petition project by the developer and was added as a change order to the 52-105 project. Dietz said this was for an extension of Windsor Terrace. Dietz reported the project costs to be 858,954.00. Dietz sated that the developer requested that 9 lots split the assessment at $6,550.44 per lot. He said that Mr. Ca.:darelle had requested that his 4 lots be assessed as 7 lots, thus reflecting the $3,743.11 for each of the 7 lots. Dietz proposed that this project be assessed over a 5 year period at 8% interest. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Asse sment Roll for Project 52-105A. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Project I..C._,5?_._1,0 _, streets, storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewer in Sunnybrook Road west of Homeward Hills Road. Dietz reported that this project came about due to the development of a subdivision called Meadow Park. He reported that a feasibility study had been done. Dietz reported that because of tie soil conditions the project cost were approximately 20% higher than the feasibility study. Dietz reported the project cost to be 8131,684.00, the City share to be $16,033.00, with the net assessment to Le ;113,337.00. Dietz explained the City share to be ass; As,_wssment 10 Ceptcmber C, 1983 for i.he park in the area. Dietz proposed the assessment period to be for 20 years at 3° interest. Dietz reported that the higher costs were for an additional 08,000 for { extra fill and approximately $3,000 for subgrade correction. Dietz stated that a letter of objection had been received from Patricia Nelsen; however, he believed that the assessment was in line with other projects. He said that the assessment was done on the front footage and unit basis as per the original feasibility study and suggested that the assessment be levied as shown. Peterson asked Nelson if she was aware of the appeal process offered beyond the City Council. Nelson stated that she was aware of the process, but still wished to address the Council. Patricia Nelson, 12205 Sunnybrook Road, stated that she believed the assessment to far exceed the added value to her older home. Nelson had retained a professional real estate appraiser which concluded that any assessment in excess of $6, 00 would not add to the value of the property. Nelson stated that in the original feasibility study her assessment was $9,343, but the final assessment was for $12,050.03 which represents an approximate increase of 30%, which she believed to be excessive. Nelson believed the high assessment to hurt the marketability of the older home and would increase the possibility fur financial loss on her part. Nelson stated that on the original feasibility study the Meadow Park subdivision had assessments totalling approximately $90,000, but on the final roll their assessment only totaled $81,000 representing a decrease of approximately $9,000. Nelson questioned why Meadow Park's assessment decreased while her assessment increased approximately 30%. Nelson believed the inequitability of the assessments for the 3 existing homes should be spread out to the City and the Meadow Park subdivision. Dietz stated that when the feasibility study was done Staff had tried to reflect more costs into the Meadow Park subdivision. He said that the City had not constructed any of the interior streets of the subdivision. Dietz reported that 16 of the lots which do not connect directly to the sanitary sewer were being assessed. Dietz believed that Staff had taken into account that the development would pay a higher than usual share of the costs. Pidcock asked Dietz why all of Sunnybrook Road was not assessed instead of stopping at the park. Dietz replied that the acreage of these lots were significant and the assessments would have exceeded $30,000. Ile said that there was potential for future development of these properties and that assessments should wait until the properties developed. WOO Asaussmt..,,. Heazing 11 September 0, 1)S0 Pidcock asked Dietz if because of soil problems on Homeward Hill:; Road why Staff had not anticipated soil problems with this part of the road. Dietz replied that: there was money budgeted for soil problems, but the costs exceeded what was originally anticipated. Anderson asked Dietz what the City had done in the past when the final costs came in this much over the feasibility study. Dietz replied that this had only happened one other time during his employment and the project had been a 100% petition project with a 5 year payback. Dietz said that the Council had increased the payback period for an additional 5 years. Dietz stated that the assessment periud for this project was 20 years and did not see any benefit in extending the payback period due to the fact that Nelson was considering selling the home. Anderson stated that this project came about due to a request by a developer and the existing residents did not need City sewer or water. Anderson believed this was a situation of growth and asked what had been done in the past to defer payments. Dietz replied that the utilities are not the significant amount of the assessment. Jullie suggested that because of the over-run of costs the exclusion amount could be doubled, which would briny the sewer and water costs more in line and the initial assessment would be reduced. Peterson stated that while this: could be done, it does not address Nelson's concern about the assessment exceeding the added value to ,:he home. Peterson commented that he did not believe the Council was in a position to answer this. Peterson said that this was why the higher appeal process was available. Pidcock asked if there was any way to work the difference in the cost overruns and divide this among the three properties to reduce the assessments. Jullie replied that this type of action would set a precedent. Dietz replied that there had to be some form of uniformity in the assessments and that any reduction would have to be for all of the properties. Dietz said that there had to be a rationale behind the assessments. Pidcock said that the best the Council could do then would be to do as City Manager Jullie suggested and double the exclusion. Bentley stated that the problem was to make a determination as to the value of the property, which the Council did not have the authority to do. Bentley believed that the value of the property would have to be determined by the courts. Dietz stated that if the appeal went to court and was reduced it would not effect the Meadow Park assessments. MCTT ON: ass) ept,wLer ;, 1900 Pidcock moved, :seconded by Anderson to double the amount of the exclusion for the 3 homesteaded properties and reduce the 1989 assessment amount. Peterson asked that Dietz notify the other two property owners. Dietz replied that this was standard procedure. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I.C. 52-109 as amended by the previous motion. Notion carried unanimously. 7. Project I_C. 2-110, sidewalk along West 7Gth 7treet. Dietz reported that the project was currently under contract. He stated that the project costs were $5,921.00 to be assessed over a 5 year period at 3% interest. Dietz • did not foresee the costs exceeding or decreasing from the projected amount. "OTION Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I.C. 52-110. Motion carried unanimously. C. Project I.C. 2-117., watermain from Baker Road to Rowland Road north of Bryant Lake. Dietz reported the project costs to be $202,307.00, the City share to be $130,757.00, with a net assessment of $62,550.00 to bt levied over a 20 year period at 8% interest. MOTION_ Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I.C. 52-117. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Project I_C. 52_11_9_, sanitary sewer and watermain to serve Shady Oak Ridge. Dietz reported the project to be a 100% petition project. Dietz reported the project costs to be $198,866.00, the City share to be $43,920.00, a 5% Petition credit of $2,700.00, with a net assessment of $152,246.00. Dietz explained that the City share was for watermain from Fallbrook Road to the Luknic Fifth Addition. He said the $2,700 represented a down payment by Ruzic. Dietz suggested the project be assessed over a 5 year period at September 2, 1900 80 interest. Dietz stated that a 12" watermain was put in which bisected the property. He said that Ruzic put the watermain in and the City had agreed to pay the oversizing costs. Dietz stated that currently there were discussions regarding what the exact amount should be. Dietz stated that Ruzic estimated the cost at approximately $15,500 and the Engineering Staff estimated the cost at approximately C10,000. He said that the amount would be resolved soon, but that it did not directly effect this assessment. Dietz stated the assessment was spread over 26 lots all of which were owned by Ruzic. John Rice, Attorney fur Joseph Ruzic, presented a letter to the Council stating the objections regarding the assessment. Rice stated that the oversizing costs had been estimated at $16,439. Rice presented the following objections: 1) the area benefited by the project was not properly determined, the Luknic and Pavelka properties were excluded from the assessment 2) the costs of the improvements had not been distributed proportionately 3) the assessment process was subject to irregularities and was not in accordance with Minnesota Statues Chapter 420 4) the bid process was not used for securing services of Rieke Car'_ull Muller Associates 5) the cost of insulation board e..ceecled the original bid in excess of 25% 6) eight construction costs were excessive and/or unnecessary as described in the letter to become part of the record. Peterson stated that these were legal questions which the Council cuuld nut deal with. Bentley commented that these issues should be addressed to the City Attorney. Dietz replied that Ruzic had signed a developers agreement and that tie following was part of that agreement: Section V.B I lieu of the obligation imposed by subparagraph V.A above, Developer may submit a 100% petition signed by all owners of the property, requesting the City to install the improvements. If Developer chooses to execute the 100% petition, Developer waives all rights they have by virtue of Minnesota State Statues Sec. 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of amounts, or the procedure used by the City in levying the assessments and hereby releases the City, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all liability related to or arising out of the levying of the assessments. Upon approval by the City Council, the City may cause said improvements to be made and special assessments for all costs for said improvements will be levied on the property, except any property which is or shall be dedicated to the public, over a five-year period. Dietz stated that Staff had relied on the petition, Ruzic was aware: of the costs before the contract was awarded. Dietz stated that meetings had been held with Ruzic and tU,9 1.5 odS.., ,_,, .,, a il,•i I ••'l ct p�csij , 19;) Luknic where he was shown an agreement which they had entered into regarding special assessments, how the projects would be developed, and how the utilities would be installed. Dietz stated disbelief regarding the letter presented tonight. He said that if the developer and his attorney wished to proceed with this it would have to he resolved in the courts. Dietz challenged the statements made regarding irregularities and inappropriate action by Ctaff and categorically denied that any of these things had taken place. Dietz stated that City Attorney Pauly had not reviewed this letter and suggested that the Council could continue this item for two weeks or the Council could levy the assessment and have the issues settled in court. Peterson stated that the developer had a legal recourse available. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I.C. 52-119. Motion carried unanimously. 10. o_je tT.C. 52_121, streets and utilities to serve Nemec Knolls. Dietz reported the project costs to be $75,090.00 to be levied ever a 5 year period at 99 interest. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I.C. 52-121. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Suplementals Dietz stated that Touve was the builder for the home of Howard Remeta. Dietz said that Touve believed that he had paid the connection fee at the time of the building permit issuance, but the Building Department records show that the connection fee had not been paid. Dietz suggested that this item be continued until the next regular Council meeting. Touve stated that he remembered writing a check for approximately 010,000 at the time he got the building permit. He said that as far as he was concerned everything had been paid in full. MOTION: 9,4260 As_-_.went flea:in 15 , .ptember 3, 1000 Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue Item 05- 116-22-33-0033 under Connection Fees until the next regular Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Supplementals as listed with the exception of Item 05-116- 22-33-0033 as per previous motion. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Resolution 88-194 with the exception previously noted. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 PM. • • aLL� • NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS September 8, 1988 TO: The City of Eden Prairie, The City Council and the Honorable Members thereof, RE: Proposed Special Assessments Project - I.C. 52-119 Legal Description of Property to be assessed: SHADY OAK RIDGE, SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, SHADY OAK RIDGE 3RD ADDITION. OWNER - Joseph Ruzic Joseph Ruzic, 6825 Rowland Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota does hereby object to the special assessments on the property described, as proposed in the amount of $152,246.00. Joseph Ruzic objects to the assessment upon the following grounds: A. The area benefitted by Project I.C. 52-119 was not properly determined. 1. Luknic Fifth Addition was erroneously excluded. 2. Property located to the North of Shady Oak Ridge 3rd Addition was erroneously excluded. (Pavelka Property). B. The total costs of the improvement are not proposed to be distributed proportionately among the benefitted property owners. 1. The owners of lots in Luknic Fifth Addition have benefitted by the improvement and have not been assessed a proportionate share of the cost of the improvement. 2. The owners of the property to the North (Pavelka Property) of Shady Oak Ridge 3rd Addition have benefitted by the improvement and have not been assessed a proportionate share of the cost of the improvement. aP(a a C. The Assessment process was subject to irregularities and was not in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. 1. The services of Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. were not secured in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, and Minnesota Statutes Section 429.041, in that the City did not use the bid process for securing the services. 2. The cost of insulation board was bid at $4,180.00 and actual amount charged was $15,390.00, which results in an overcharge in excess of bid of $11,210.00. Since this is in excess of 25% of the original amount, authorization, installation, and payment are prohibited by Minnesota Statutes Section 429.041, Subd. 7, without the bid process. D. Certain construction costs are excessive or unnecessary and do not result from required construction for completion of the project. 1. The costs of design and supervision services provided by Rieke Carroll Muller Associates are excessive. Five percent (5%) of the construction price is a generous allowance for design and supervision, especially considering the supervisory function exercised and assistance provided by City staff, and considering the previous work or Joseph Ruzic's surveyor. Any amount in excess of 5% should be excluded. 2. Damage to Bodin driveway was due to fault of contractor and was not a part of contract, and the restoration cost was $1,170.00. That overcharge in excess of the bid should be excluded. 3. An unnecessary replacement of a functioning culvert was made, and the overcharge in the amount of $543.00 in excess of the bid in that amount should be excluded. 4. See No. 2 under Subdivision C related to the insulation board. 6?t,03 4 5. Manhole No. 3 as originally installed was too high; Joseph Ruzic was required to contract for and obtain the lowering of the height of the manhole, at a cost of $200.00, which amount should be excluded. 6. A service to a corner lot on Cherokee Trail West and Old Shady Oak Road was placed incorrectly, necessitating its replacement by Joseph Ruzic by a private contractor. The sum of $845.00 should be excluded. 7. A service to Outlot A, Shady Oak Road 3rd Addition was incorrectly placed, and a charge for relocation and placement at a different location was made. $845.00 should be excluded. 8. Manhole No.4 was installed 4 feet too low. This will have to be corrected at estimated cost as yet unknown. ACTION REQUESTED BY JOSEPH RUZIC: 1. Reduce contract charges by exclusions specified. 2. Recalculate percentage charges. a. Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc.; b. City engineering legal, and administrative; c. Temporary funding. 3. Reduce resulting Assessment amount by benefit allocable to Luknic Fifth Addition. 4. Divide balance by 27, 26 lots for Ruzic and 1 for Pavelka, to obtain individual assessment for each lot. Respectfully submitted, JOHN D. RICE LAW FIRM By: Joseph Ruzic John D. Rice 6825 Rowland Road 630 Interchange Tower Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 Tel. 944-1530 Tel. 545-2844 log . Y September 1, 1988 City Council of Eden Prairie c/o Kathy Hermann, Deputy City Clerk City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Council Members: The purpose of this letter is to object to the amount of special assessments proposed to be levied against my property: 12205 Sunnybrook Road PID No. 23-116-22-34-0007 My residence is a smaller 26 year old house with a detached , double garage situated on a somewhat large lot of about one acre. I've lived here since 1962 when its was built and now may have to sell it in the near future. I'm currently facing major repair/replacement costs for both the hot water heating system and the air conditioning system. In the Spring of 1987 Mr. Dietz sent me information on the preliminary assessments estimated, at that time, to amount to a total of $9,843 for my property. I felt that that amount was terribly high and upon inquiring as to how I might object, was informed that there would be a hearing before the assessments were levied. I was recently sent two separate notices of the hearing set for September 8, 1988 and discover that they now are proposing to assess my property a total of $12,950.03 for those same items. That's more than $3,000 or 30% greater than the $9,843 estimated costs from last year, which I felt were excessive! In view of this, I have retained the help of a professional real estate appraiser/consultant to advise me as to what might be an appropriate level of special assessments against my property for the City constructed street and water and sewer lines. a6,(5 Page 2 City Council I also find that in order to connect to the water and sewer, there would be substantial additional costs of $2,000-$2,500 for a private plumber, permit fees, SAC charges and City water and sewer connection charges! A copy of that report is enclosed and the conclusion is that assessments of not more than $6,500 could be justified inasmuch as the benefit to my property is no more than this amount due to the existence of the new street surfacing and also availability of city water and sewer for future connection. Any assessments that would be levied over $6,500 would not add to my property's market value and therefore would have a negative impact on its market value if so levied. Smaller, less expensive older homes like mine just can't absorb high assessments like the proposed amount of $12,950. It would very much hurt the marketability of my home and cause me financial loss if adopted. I urge you to read the report and request that my assessments be reduced to an appropriate level. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Patricia J. Nelsen Enclosures Ao?le/l9brr 7/988 C��C/i O� CD/lCr', 91-f j. Z'C. Sol-/05/ 674///i i- �/ on/ 1.4174e,J --4e/ QSscss,27,w74 i cs Ova/ Ond Q6ov� Q /r.Sonab/c . /noent tea/ `74c q�'c aah,e5 Gho� 0C//474Q7c% dc-,6/ o Aoase /i&j &/./74 /96/ o27y�'�,s Qfo. ( oil/ U&/ue-c2 54c • 75 9o0 4/ /gig /29G/,elf value. CjsS-.s•/72..774 /oS /S 8/D Q7 7/iG /22 /Ae7 a /UG ,-s is ek74i/�ey `j�h. �j,� a"a/G �s�//!uG � ` L Sae ' C/!G 7"�� �lw�/ ail GC T�/ (Q/JT DU/ j2l�7L•C p%lG. �G hoicS was /e" /��� /9g7 / 79 3.s-o. �-- s7..3 0/6 Of ' - ess/f7'n/Ss4 7toe( 4,7 :i�ian Se/7 V.7 7 GiGf'C!�/7/io�7 min/G c D/7/i-2a/aSSess- fyj/ /t y ///�,6a-" /I ij p&SSI e Qui\f y/- 74/4 a.74 "f7 //r2 , 77 C, •t y �(J// 75% , •7 ' fiv /i r/7,7rd /./7e097)G cS/1Lia74ion. 712e ass�ssin��7� 26, // G.rc /721#Je" rfy,(77/,2 74. /22e: { -/Djh / rnG710 /27��� C'rm�n4/4 `> D T 7"G d`ceSs/yl//J 14ar:Aa T 7iS G l /UG Q 7 74 r' ///�YJ2 G �/7.r� GJCf/Cl c�T T‘ GLi r4/4:cra.-?4'46/e. /4i'/2). t -144 7f----- 7/ / Q/r�i/ic ac'u) 2/iJG 61,7 717// s 53V6 s 2 JAN 2, 1448 REAL PRUPERIY ASSES:v4EN1 VALI`AT1UN WIIT10. CITY OF INEN PRAIRIE FUF; PRAIRIE CITY ASSESsur( 7b00 EXECUTIVE DRIVE. PRUP(.RTY 1.U. FUEN PRAIRIE, ►IN. 55544 1u-II4-22 1 0u2d TELEPHONE: (b12) 937-7415 10-11b-G2 21 OOen 1948 MARKET V LuL 75.900 CLASbIr 1CA I IOI+ I JOuI1H STEPHAN 71b1 PRAIRIE VTL'n IIR EVEN PRAIRIE_ Mr. `15544 PRUPEN1Y TYPE RESIOENTIAL 'IUMESTEAU TOE tuFW PRAIRIE HUAkU 1* LIVIEw Ilf4T3 1HUas APNiE ?N,l968 AT 7:50 PM 14 flit LUUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7t1u EXFCUi1VE Do, ELAN PRAlklt, APPUTN1MENTS FUR APPEALS AkE MAOE HY CALLTrot, THE 4:.SESo1N6 HEFT, 937-741S. FOR APPT fU Cf'NfY IIUARU OF EQUAL. PItFTIi16 6/20/bt CALL S4n-5076 FtFORE t/15/08 a469 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Notice is hereby given that the City Council will meet at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, September 8, 1988 in the City Hall, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie. Minnesota. for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing to consider the proposed assessments for the following improvements in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Township 116, Range 22: Trunk sewer and water The proposed assessment roll is now on file in the office of the Deputy City Clerk and is open to inspection by all persons interested. All persons who wish to be heard with reference to the assessment roll should be present at the hearing to present either written or oral objections. Written or oral objections will be considered by the Council prior to the adoption of the assessment roll. CAUTION: No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a written objection, signed by the affected property owner, is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. An owner may appeal an assessment to the District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.081, by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. For your further information, please note the following: 435.193 through 435.195 of Minnesota Statutes provides that a city may, at its discretion, defer any payment of special assessments for homestead property of persons 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payment. Additionally, the City of Eden Prairie has determined that disabled persons may be entitled to deferments. Applications therefore may be obtained from the City of Eden Prairie by contacting the undersigned. A. The amount to be specially assessed against PID No. lo- 116-22-a1-oogi is $ 520.00 B. The property owner may prepay the entire assessment and such payment should be made to the City of Eden Prairie; C. Partial prepayment of the assessment has not been authorized by Ordinance; D. Prepayments made prior to November 15, I988, may be made without the assessment of interest; and E. If the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period stated above, it will bear an interested rate of 8%. F. The assessment period is proposed to be 20 years. Kathy Hermann, Deputy City Clerk City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 937-2262 By order of the City Council, Kathy Hermann, Deputy City Clerk a6/10 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Notice is hereby given that the City Council will meet at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, September 8, 1988 in the City Hall, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing to consider the proposed assessments for the following improvements in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Township 116, Range 22: PROJECT I.C. 52-104 Sanitary sewer, storm sewer, watermain and streets on Prairie View Drive and St. Andrew Drive. The area to be assessed is lots 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 Auditor's Subdivision 225 and the lots in the Prairie View Subdivision. The total amount to be assessed is $363,303.00. The proposed assessment roll is now on file in the office of the Deputy City Clerk and is open to inspection by all persons interested. All persons who wish to be heard with reference to the assessment roll should be present at the hearing to present either written or oral objections. Written or oral objections will be considered by the Council prior to the adoption of the assessment roll. CAUTION: No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unl-ess a written objection, signed by the affected property owner, is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. An owner may appeal an assessment to the District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.081, by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. For your further information, please note the following: 435.193 through 435.195 of Minnesota Statutes provides that a city may, at its discretion, defer any payment of special assessments for homestead property of persons 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payment. Additionally, the City of Eden Prairie has determined that disabled persons may be entitled to deferments. Applications therefore may be obtained from the City of Eden Prairie by contacting the undersigned. A. The amount to be specially assessed against PIO No.io_116-22-ai-ooa1$ is $ I(,49(..oI ; 8. The property owner may prepay the entire assessment and such payment should be made to the City of Eden Prairie; C. Partial prepayment of the assessment has not been authorized by Ordinance; D. Prepayments made prior to November 15 1988, may be made without the assessment of interest; and E. If the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period stated above, it will bear an interested rate of 8%. F. The assessment period is proposed to be 20 years. Kathy Hermann, Deputy City Clerk City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 937-2262 By order of the City Council, Kathy Hermann, Deputy City Clerk a67 September 8,1988 Mayor and City Council City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Re: Special Assessment Hearing Bennett Place/Blossom Road Improvement Contract 52-105 Dear Sir/Madam: I would like to make the following comments in regards to the assessments for the Bennett Place/Blossom Road Project,and how they affect my property. I will be homesteading this property as of October 1,1988. Since the proposed assessments will not actually be levied until 1989,I should be eligible both for the trunk sewer and water credit, and the deferred assessment for homesteaded properties. At the time of the original public hearing for the feasibility report(April,1987),I was informed by Mr.Gene Dietz(through his secretary Kathy Herman),that if the property was homesteaded in Fall,1988,then it would be considered homesteaded for this City Improvement Project. Councilman Bentley also commented in the April 21,1987,City Council Minutes,about"deferring the assessments on those properties that would probably be subdivided in the future until such time as the properties were hooked up or were subdivided". The Preliminary Assessment Roll dated March,1987,showed my property at 3.53 acres and 278.7 feet of street frontage. A Certificate of Survey of my property by Cardarelle and Associates,Inc.(9/16/69),shows I have 2.49 acres and 232.7 feet of street frontage. Since the City will be requiring an additional 13.5 feet of my property to make a 60 foot right-of-way for Bennett Place,my actual lot area is 2.42 acres, A final comment I have is that I believe the construction of the turn lane and bypass lane at County Road 1 and Bennett Place should not be assessed only to the property owners who front on this section of Bennett Place and Blossom Lane. Since the turn lane and bypass lane benefit many more properties than just those listed in the assessment role for this project,I believe the construction costs should be spread over a larger area or paid out of the City's General Fund. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, POVI N 1• David Nelson 9950 Bennett Place Eden Prairie,MN 55344 - aiiirta :..' Tt sty : S'�ictta / tilZaai,7- .si WJ.MkM.N=17.2.4. f r.NS9Y9ZEZ,A1 ".W"6 sai ii ti.r.F tom$ u Cs,Mf'"z.Ytlstir i r' 7ri7v 1 , n57 .Engineeriaim INNER !,• ng r " + `.--sautiarAtratvaisestagisiandsolvityings Ron Krueger R Associates,Inc. 8080 Wallace Road Eden Prairie.Minnesota 55344 (612)934-4242 August 19,1988 Dave Olson City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Re: Shady Oak Ridge,Phases 1&2 Eden Prairie,MN RKA#6782 Dear Dave: Per the attached information,we estimated the City's share of the watennain cost for the above referenced project at$15,578.36. The watemtain was bid with the fittings included as incidental to the lineal feet of pipe. Pay estimates and contracts hom the contractor have been previously submitted with the recent letter of credit information. The Owner,Joe Ruzik,has requested that we calculate an estimated cost for interim construction financing for the above City watemtain costs. The Phase I watenain was completed Novembcr4,1987,and the Phase 11 watemtain on April 13,1988. We therefore estimate the following interim construction financing amounts: Phase 1 Phase II Total City's Share $2983 $10,564 $13,547 +Eng.,Survey,Inspect.(@ 15%) $447 $1585 $2032 Total $3430 $12,149 $15,579 +Interim Const.Financing(@13%) (Ph.I @ 9 nto.,Ph.II(!_, 4 mo.) $334 $52( g8 611 TOTAL. $3764 $12,675 $16,439 If you have any questions,please call. Sutediclp, "' id ter J.Knacl c,P.E. RON KRIIE ER AND ASSOCIATES,INC. CC: Joe Ruzik 7 ,. 7 yoL- Pt {o doh o,c Coc,nQ 1;nerd b v-3 bq(e a- mte irctc y s 'fo o L. t 14,4,thJ / k.po5C./1 a5-5,55.rnen (s ) i I. C, No 5d "10.1- P-r D N . b(Q- I1(o-21- ,a,a-008C0 P,or J-3ev, 73-5 e35tne 14.n„c,,y/ 41 a (37 Wo J 04444--M�1.7z��� a),' I89i(e ?Ieesavtfvievu Ragd E.P. i nJ .55(4469 H 937-.5LM IA) 7cahwc� r.�s;s � T � L I pc rioh : sN►-8500 Bui�lta "vor�tier �llidw iv sold. howl 5-11,f1 P-�l 4ssessm.'vk+s would bz- ivx 4- paid. I^o+ flu?s S- kowf\ w .fkrActsil konnc_. skm)ea' Dell oaot °' read/ consMvkcded. \A) c),& we- ctss►avt d vv 4.s pui d j fl &l i by lu i10Vbr c4/or bevel beer. Atkukyki05 Lo+ hue S-fcqdr rct 1 o45 o is -Crow\ -rod-ter V►1idwe51- : C? 2Ls r t.� novv� = tTAL&LG+-Molly R.Nc1 ti\S 155 CU P-oo4 dev‘. PR,trtg_ ,P+ # 55344:0 'lt No ofc- Ii�-zz-2� oc��35 , tea., '"Ai ocf.,¢. o C- a- w.kit e.+.-- CkseG2- vk „ *LL c _.c. 5Z-toz bet) fUUsov's �c -�^e..low L r ul"c.t-un ititctucu& w L:k. a 11 1' O AQ4 ' , tutu_ L� Vrov.4uA. Rice tit: Vcti, ckAkd.S-reQ,�S skokes 1�Q- dad cu \oQ.ly CANpLjeCk j 3� -P,p ►)o OL-zi-zz-cz.of6 Cc€ v\.o.. tvtcl,�c� S tc,RJubl A.s or bt�e. (s so mac.. Se +0 Lcv42.ot.ovkL&.. 51n0v lck Ititt oCCu.r. 4� -Derrick beoe.lopew&ed f\h,tdwes* 1-k vJ;A) 0,,k1„., cie uelo ye.'"4-tOw.loLL..,ovu R KELSV,ed ,Uc k VtArOMANCata .bcas,_ o•E AL,AL law 4- . I,, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST November 15, 1988 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & Comn.) PLUMBING A B J Enterprises Madsen Plumbing & Heating TCM Construction, Inc. The Plumbing Place HEATING & VENTILATING CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Climate Designers, Inc. Custom Built Environment The Plumbing Place Oenstenstad Building Co. J. Paul Sterns Company R. G. Construction GAS FITTER Windfield Homes Climate Designers, Inc. Feder Plumbing & Heating, Inc. PEDDLAR Harris Mechanical Contracting Kevin Joseph Wishy (Christmas Trees at Anderson Lk. Pkw. & 169) These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. F C at o ie Licensing t CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-262 A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF WELTER PURGATORY 5TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of WELTER PURGATORY 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 Welter Purgatory 5th Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated November 9, 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 November 15, 1968. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: October 21, 1988 PROJECT: Welter's Purgatory Acres 5th Addition LOCATION: East of Olympia Drive, north of Bennett Place APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Trammell Crow Residential Company REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 1.17 acres into 2 lots. Background These lots are part of the Welter's i \ Purgatory Acres project, originally approved in December of 1986 for 96, ' , , P r ``R1 13.R1-13.5 single family lots. Surrounding properties to the north r', include Olympic Hills 6th and 7th i -• Addition, and Olympic Hills Golf Course, located to the east. ;: :;:::n:::que:ts a combination ' of three lots into two lots •\ • r3 consisting of 30,400 square feet, 4J�'.; and 2D,600 square feet, at a density �'t R1-1j.5 .. PROPOSED SITE of 1.7 units per acre, Lots of this • 1�•/� �'6; ". size are consistent with the other � 1i C !. lots surrounding the cul-de-sac along Olympia Drive. Lot 14, lying I R1-1 to the south is 13,500 square feet .)(1 i in size. This request meets all City r ordinances. The replatting of this property will require vacation of 2.5' drainage and utility easements concurrent with the final platting, • - AREA LOCATION MAP Welter's 5th Addition 2 October 21, 1988 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of 1.17 acres into two single family lots, based on plans dated September 23, 1988, this Staff Report, and the following: 1. Concurrent with Final Plat, proponent shall vacate all unnecessary drainage and utility easements. 2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall pay the Cash Park Fee. • dcei 9 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THRDUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: November 9, 1988 SUBJECT: Welter Purgatory Acres 5th Addition PROPOSAL: Trammell Crow Residential Company has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Welter Purgatory Acres 5th Addition. The plat is located within the original Welter Purgatory Acres 1st Addition and contains 1.17 acres. This proposal consists of combining Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 2 of Welter Purgatory Acres 1st Addition into two larger single family lots. Vacation of underlying drainage and utility easements have been completed and new drainage and utility easements over the proposed new lots have been provided. HISTORY: Approval of the preliminary plat is being requested at this City Council meeting. Zoning to R1-13.5 was done through the original subdivision and approved by the City Council on January 20, 1987 per Ordinance No. 57-86. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities and streets are currently in place and available to serve these two lots. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Welter Purgatory Acres 5th Addition subject to the requirements of this report and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250.00. JJ:ssa cc: Trammell Crow Company James R. Hill, Inc. _ a 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson SUBJECT: Resolution regarding State Funding of Minneapolis and St. Paul Combined Sewer Overflow Separation Project DATE: November 2, 1988 The Suburban Rate Authority (SRA), of which the City of Eden Prairie is a member, has recommended that its member cities take a position opposing a change in the funding of the combined storm and sanitary sewer separation project in the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. These cities essentially had loans from the State of Minnesota to make their shares of the project more affordable. Late in the 1988 session, the Legislature took action which in effect forgave $32 million in loans to the cities. The memorandum from the SRA (attached) summarizes the issues involved and provides sound rationale for opposition to the action of the Legislature. While one could argue that the State is well-served by cleaning up the combined sewer overflow problem to forestall a lawsuit by the State of Wisconsin, the SRA maintains that the equity of this solution is poor as residents of the rest of the state have not contributed to this problem of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution opposing State funding of the combined sewer separation project in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. CWD:jdp Attachment SUBURBAN RATE Orr AUTHORITY /988 MEMBERS RLOOMINGTON POOKLYN PARK RURNSVIL LE MEMORANDUM CHAMPLIN CIRCLE PINES COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DEEPHAVEN TO: SRA Member City Managers ers and Clerks EDEN PRAIRIE EDINA FRIDLEY FROM: William D. Schoell GREENWOOD HASTINGS Chairman HOPKINS LP UDERDALE MAPLE PLAIN DATE: October 27, 1988 MAPLEWOOD MINNETONKA MINNETRISTA RE: Funding of Combined Sewer Separation Programs NEW BRIGHTON in St. Paul and Minneapolis NORTH ST.PAUL ORONO OSSEO PLYMOUTH RICHFIELD At its quarterly meeting on October 19 the Suburban Rate ROBSINSDALE Authorit ROSEVILLE Y Board of Directors unanimously passed a reso- SAVAGE lution urging member cities to contact their State ST LOUIS SHAKOPEE ARK elected representatives regarding the funding of the SHOREVIEW Combined Sewer Separation Program in the Cities of St. SPRINGPARK Paul and Minnea VADNAIS HFIGHTS polis. The Board recommends that cities WAYZATA adopt a resolution along the lines of the enclosed model. WEST ST PAUL WOODLAND In 1983 and after the Suburban Rate Authority was very active in working with the MPCA and others to develop a method of funding Combined Sewer Separation projects in the two core cities. The purpose of SRA participation was, of course, to safeguard insofar as possible the resources of its members, who had installed their own separated sewers. At that time EPA was threatening to shut off all hookups in the Metropolitan area until the problem was resolved. Such action would have landed particularly hard upon SRA members who are experiencing growth. After many meetings over a period of approxi- mately two years, and appearances in the legislature, it passed a bill providing for a loan and grant program which would enable St. Paul and Minneapolis to complete their sewer separations by 1996. The scheme settled upon by all of the parties included a combination of federal grants, no interest state loans to be repaid beginning in 1996, state grants and self-help. In the waning hours of the last legislature, two provisions were inserted in the appropriations bill which repealed the provisions re- quiring repayment ;h 1 loins. The re,••oalrs were not heard by any committee of the legislature, except a conference committee on the appropriations bill. In 2000 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST • MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55402 • (612)333-0543 SRA Member Cities October 27, 1988 Page 2 effect, the repealer forgives approximately $32 million in loans to the two cities. Another more important matter, at least in terms of dollars, is the abolition of the federal grant program. It now appears that the federal share will be reduced by approximately $49 million from that expected when the funding plan was developed. The legislature will have to face the problem this session. The Board anticipates that the two cities will ask the legislature to make up the $49 million in federal money which will not be forthcoming. The Board feels it is patently unfair for the residents of the state to pay for the replacement and separation of sewers in St. Paul and Minneapolis. The SRA Board feels that it is imperative that we speak up. In addition to passing the resolution or something similar, elected officials should make sure that their state legislative delegation under- stands the problem. I would appreciate it if you will provide a copy of the resolution, should your council decide to adopt it, to me or to SRA counsel. A brief report on what other steps have been taken would assist the SRA Board at its January meeting in determining what more to do on this subject. Enclosure 00601t01.b18 cc: Directors ( 1 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the Suburban Rate Authority has assisted the Metro- politan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Legislature in formulating a program for funding combined sewer separation in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul; and WHEREAS, such sewer separation is required by law and by contract, and is otherwise desirable; and WHEREAS, expected federal funding for the program has been cancelled and replacement funding must be identified; and WHEREAS, most cities in the seven county metropolitan area have built separate sanitary and storm sewer systems, principally through local funding; and WHEREAS, the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis have ob- tained legislation forgiving approximately $32 million in sepa- ration loans from the state; NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of does by this resolution state that it is opposed to the spreading of the replacement funding upon the State Treasury, and that it believes the most equitable resolution is for the affected cities to themselves provide that funding. 0060se01.b18 uti 7 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION STATING THE OPPOSITION OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE TO FORGIVENESS OF THE LOAN BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE CITIES OF MINNEAPOLIS AND SAINT PAUL FOR THEIR COMBINED SEWER SEPARATION PROJECTS WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie is a member of the Suburban Rate Authority, an organization it supports for its efforts to make equitable rates for public utilities; and WHEREAS, the Suburban Rate Authority has assisted the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Legislature in formulating a program for funding combined sewer separation in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul; and WHEREAS, such sewer separation is required by law and by contract, and is otherwise desirable; and WHEREAS, expected federal funding for the program has been cancelled and replacement funding must be identified; and WHEREAS, most cities in the seven-county metropolitan area have built separate sanitary and storm sewer systems, principally through local funding; and WHEREAS, the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis have obtained legislation forgiving approximately $32 million in separation loans from the state; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie that it states its opposition to the spreading of the replacement funding upon the State Treasury, and that it believes the most equitable resolution is for the affected cities themselves to provide that funding. ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie November 15, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. n-,V,12 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION ON A PROPOSED TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP RELATING TO THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie ("City") is the official governing body of the City; and, WHEREAS, the City, in association with the Cities of Edina Hopkins , Richfield and Minnetonka ("Member Cities") formed the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC") , a joint powers commission; and, WHEREAS, the City, in association with the other Member Cities, granted a Cable Communications Franchise ("Franchise") to Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ("Rogers") ; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, Subdivision 5, authorizes the City to delegate authority vested in it to grant, administer, and enforce the Franchise; and, WHEREAS, Article XIII, Section 3, of the Franchise authorizes the City to delegate from time to time certain rights or obligations under the Franchise to the SWSCC; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083 provides that a public hearing may be held in the event of a proposed transfer of ownership of the Franchise; and, WHEREAS, Rogers has proposed a transfer of ownership to KBL Cable, Inc. of the Grantee of the Franchise through the transfer of the controlling stock interest in an indirect parent corporation of the Grantee; and, WHEREAS, the City, in cooperation with the other Member Cities, wishes to hold a joint public hearing to consider the proposed transfer of ownership pertaining to the Franchise; and, WHEREAS, the SWSCC through its Operating Committee has recommended to the City and the Member Cities that a joint public hearing relating to this proposed transfer of ownership be held on behalf of all Member Cities on November 30, 1988, before the SWSCC at the Edina City Hall beginning at 7:00 p.m.; and, WHEREAS, legal public notice of said public hearing shall be published inviting any interested person to discuss the legal, technical and financial qualifications and character of the proposed transferee; and, WHEREAS, this public hearing and legal notice shall be in satisfaction of all state and local public hearing requirements related to the proposed transfer of ownership. NOW, THEREFORE, in a regular meeting assembled of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie , the following was resolved: 1. The SWSCC is requested on behalf of the City, in cooperation with the other Member Cities, to hold a joint public hearing on the proposed transfer of ownership of the Franchise on November 30, 1988. 2. Legal notice of this hearing will be published by the SWSCC pursuant to the requirements of state and local law. 3. All interested persons in the City who wish to attend or participate in the public hearing on the proposed transfer of - 2 - 2611 ownership of the Franchise are asked to attend the joint public hearing on November 30, 1988. 4. The foregoing notice of public hearing and public hearing shall satisfy all state and local requirements pertaining to this proposed transfer of ownership of the Franchise. This Resolution is passed and adopted the day of , 1988. CITY OF Eden Prairie The Mayor SW2 11/4/88 - 3 - RESOLUTION NO. n 2,7/ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE EXECUTION OF TRANSFER DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie , 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 hereinafter referred to as "Rogers Companies"); and WHEREAS, on or about June 7, 1988 the City, pursuant to Resolution No. 88-108 , approved the transfer of the franchise from RCMLP to RCTSI; and WHEREAS, the approval of the transfer considered in Resolution No. 88-108 is conditioned on the filing by RCTSI of necessary documents in conformance with the requirements in Article XIV, Section 2, of the Franchise Ordinance; and WHEREAS, due to matters arising from the sale of RCA Cablesystems Holding Co., there is a need to extend the time for execution and filing of the documents required by Resolution No. 88-108 ; and WHEREAS, RCTSI acknowledges that the Stipulation of Settlement and Release approved by the SWSCC and submitted for approval to its Member Cities shall be binding on RCMLP; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City hereby consents to the extension of time for filing documents required by Section A of Resolution No. 88-108 as follows: That the Acceptance Agreement containing the requirements set forth in Article XIV, Section 2 of the Franchise Ordinance will be executed and filed with the City on or before March 1, 1989. Passed and adopted this day of , 1988, by the City of Eden Prairie DATED: City of Eden Prairie By ATTEST: Its Mayor City Clerk RESOLAPP/SW2 To: Mayor & City Council From: John Frane, City Clerk Date: November 9, 1988 Subject: $3,850,000 Multifamily Housing Bonds for Preserve Place Apartments. Resolution 88-272 FHA approval of insurance for this project has been slower than anticipated because of FHA problems. They have indicated that approval will come within 15 days. An extension of the closing date approved by the city is needed to coincide with the FHA approval. (i7 C)() A RESOLUTION NO. 88-)I)- A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE $3,850,000 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (FHA INSURED MORTGAGE LOAN - PRESERVE PLACE APARTMENTS) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, that the changes to the indenture of Trust, dated as of July 1, 1987, relating to the above-described Bonds contemplated by that certain Supplemental Indenture Number One to Indenture of Trust, dated as of November 15, 1988 (attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference), shall be and hereby are, in all respects, adopted and approved, effective as of the date thereof. RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the proper officials of the City, and each of them, shall be, and they each hereby are, authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge, perform and deliver, in the name of and on behalf of the City, Supplemental Indenture Number One to Indenture of Trust in substantially the form of Exhibit A hereto, together with such changes therein and additions thereto as the official or officials executing the same, acting upon the advice of the City Attorney, shall deem advisable or appropriate, and all other instruments, documents, certificates, actions or deeds which may be deemed by said officials, or any of them, to be necessary or advisable to consummate the transactions contemplated by the foregoing Resolution, all of which may contain such clauses, terms, conditions and provisions as the official or officials who execute the same, acting upon the advice of the City Attorney, shall deem advisable or appropriate; the execution, delivery and performance of any of the foregoing by such official or officials to be conclusive evidence of the approval by the City of the terms, conditions and performance thereto. RESOLVED, FURTHER, that all proper actions of the officials of the City heretofore taken, in the name of and on behalf of the City, with respect to the transactions contemplated by the foregoing Resolutions shall be, and they hereby are, in all respects, adopted, ratified, confirmed and endorsed. Adopted by the City Counsel of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota this 15th day of November, 1988. Gary Peterson, Mayor (SEAL) John Frane, City Clerk A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE $3,850,000 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (FHA-INSURED MORTGAGE LOAN -- PRESERVE PLACE APARTMENTS) ISSUER'S CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL ACTION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I, the undersigned, John Frane, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), do hereby certify that attached hereto is a true, correct and complete copy of Resolution No. 88- entitled "A Resolution Relating to the $3,850,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Multifamily Housing Development Refunding Revenue Bonds (FHA Insured Mortgage Loan - Preserve Place Apartments)", duly adopted by the affirmative vote cf a majority of the members of the City Council of the Issuer at a lawful meeting duly called and held for such purpose on November 15, 1988, at which meeting a quorum was present and acting throughout, and further certify that said Resolution remains in full force and effect in the form in which it was adopted. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Issuer this 15th day of November, 1988. [SEAL] John Frane, City Clerk November , 1988 OW&D DRAFT 110788 First Trust National Association First Trust Center 180 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: $3,850,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Multifamily Housing Development Refunding Revenue Bonds (FHA Insured Mortgage Loan - Preserve Place Apartments) Gentlemen and Ladies: We have acted as bond counsel in connection with the issuance and sale of $3,850,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Multifamily Housing Development Refunding Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds"), pursuant to the terms of an Indenture of Trust, dated as of July 1, 1987 (the "Indenture"), between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Issuer") and First Trust Company, Inc. (now First Trust National Association) (the "Trustee"). In connection with the Bonds, we have reviewed those certain amendments, modifications and supplements to the Indenture that are contemplated by Supplemental Indenture Number One to Indenture of Trust, dated as of November 15, 1988 (the "Supplemental Indenture"), between the Trustee and the Issuer, and consented to and approved by Preserve Place Apartments Limited Partnership (the "Company"). Pursuant to the Indenture, you have requested our opinion that the amendments, modifications and supplements that are contemplated by the Supplemental Indenture will not adversely affect the tax-exempt nature of the Bonds. Based upon our examination of the Supplemental Indenture, and assuming due authorization, execution and delivery of the Supplemental Indenture by the parties thereto, we are of the opinion that the amendments, modifications and supplements to the Indenture that are contemplated by the Supplemental Indenture will not be considered a reissuance of the Bonds and will not adversely affect the tax-exempt nature of the Bonds, as described more fully in our bond counsel opinion, dated August 5, 1987. The foregoing opinion is subject to the assumptions and conditions set forth in our August 5, 1987 bond counsel opinion. Very truly yours, OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY To: Mayor & City Council From: John Frane, City Clerk Date: November 10, 1988 Subject: Extension of approval for the Prairie Village Apartment Project. $5,750,000 Resolution 88-273 In November of 1987 the city gave approval for transfer of the project to Century Capital Group from Wisconsin. That developer did not follow through with the plans contemplated at that time. The attached resolution reinstates Derrick Land as the developer and grants a 1 year extension for the project. RESOLUTION NO. Ni d 7 Councilmembel introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS OR NOTES PURSUANT '1'(i MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 46ir, i-uS THE PSkPoSE OE' FINANCING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT; CONFIRMING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. OF THE PROJECT; APPROVING THE CHANGE: IN IDENTITY OF DEVELOPER; AND EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE OF INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 87-311 . BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Recitals 1 .01. On October 1, 1985, the City adopted Resolutions 85-224 and 85- 225 (the 1985 Resolutions), pursuant to which, among other things, it (i) adopted multifamily housing programs for Prairie Village Apartments, Phases I and II (the Programs), after holding a duly noticed public hearing thereon; (ii ) authorized transmission of the Programs to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; and (I.ii) preliminarily approved two bond issues for Prairie Village Apartments, Phases I and II (herein collectively referred to as the "Projects" or the "Project"), each in the amount of Two Million Two Hundred Twenty-six Thousand Dollars ($2,226,000) . 1 .02. The Programs were submitted by the City to t'ie Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for review and approval, and on December 19, 1985, t.In' Hoard of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency adopted Resolution No. MIIFA 85-71, which stated that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency had failed to reject. the Programs, resulting in approval of the Programs, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.04, subd. 2. 1 .0.3. On December' 2, 1986, the City adopted Resolution 86-295, pursuant to which, among other things it gave its preliminary approval to the issuance of bonds or notes in the approximate aggregate face amount of Five Million Seven hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($5,750,000) (the Bonds), to finance a portion of the costs of Phases I and II of the Project in a single phase as one Project, subject to the City and the Applicant, agreeing to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of a loan agreement by December 2, 1987. 1 .04. On December' 16, 1986, the City adopted Resolution 86-315, pursuant to which, among other things, it approved an amended multifamily housing program (the Amended Program) and authorized submission of the Amended Program to the Minnesota (lousing Finance Agency for review and approval. �419-/ 1.05. On January 19, 1987, the MIIPA confirmed that the Amended Program win reviewed and not !ejected, resulting in approval of the Amended Program. 1 .06. A Certificate of Allocation for the Project was granted by the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development on December 22, 1986. The expiration date of such allocation has been extended to Dec:emb't! 2, 1988. A federal volume allocation carry for.-ward wet; filed on December 29, 1986. 1.07. On October 6, 1987, the City adopted Resolution No. 87 -277 (the 1987 Inducement Resolution) pursuant to which, among other things, iL approved the conveyance of the Project by Prairie Village Apartments Limited Partnership (t l,e Original Developer) to a limited partnership to be formed, whose general partners were to he Wayne C. Chaney, J. Peter Jungbacker, Century Capital Group, Ltd., and RPM, Incorporated (collectively referred to as Transferee Developer). 1.08. On November 17, 1981i, by Resolution No. 88-311, the City approved the extension of the expiration date of the 1987 Inducement Resolution to December 2, 1988. 1.09. The original developer of the Project, the Prairie Village Limited Partnership, never conveyed the Project to the Transferee Developer, and the Original Developer intends to develop the Project itself. It is intended that the Program and the Project will, in all other respects remain substantially the same as previously approved by the City, 1 .10. Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the Act), the City is ant-hoti:.ed to issue and sell revenue bonds or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one or more multifamily housing developments within its boundaries. 1 . 11. The Project consists of a multifamily residential housing development on approximately eight and one-quarter acres of land to be acquired by the Developer, located just east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 4 in the City, composed of 112 apartment units and other functionally related and subordinate facilities and the operation of the facilities as a multifamily housing development under the Act, to be known as Prairie Village Apartments. Either (i) at. least twenty percent (20%) of the units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are no greater than fifty percent (50R) of the area median income; or (ii) at least forty percent (401) of the units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are no greater than sixty percent. (607,) of the area median income. Determinations as to whether a unit meets the requirements of (i) or (ii), above, will include adjustments for family sine. Development and financing costs of the Project are presently estimated by representatives of thy, Developer to be approximately Seven Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($7,200,000). 2. 1.12. Representatives of the Original Developer have 4 requested that. the City approve the substitution of the • Original Developer for the Transferee Developer to develop the Project, issue its Bonds pursuant to the Act., and make a loan of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds to the original Developer for the acquisition of land for and the construction and equipping of the Project, subject to agreement by the Original. Developer, or other persons or institutions, to promptly pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. 1.13. The Original Developer has further requested that the City approve the extension of the 1987 Inducement Resolution, as amended hereby, to December 2, 1989 and that, with the exception of the identity of the developer of the Project, all other terms and conditions of the 1987 Inducement Resolution remain the same. 1.14. Representatives of the Original Developer have also advised the City that. the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development will extend the expiration date of the Certificate of Allocation to December 2, 1989, upon receipt of an opinion of Bond Counsel that such an extension will not violate the earryforward provisions of Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and upon receipt of a copy of a resolution extending the expiration date of the 1987 Inducement Resolution. 1.15. The City has been advised by representatives of the Original Developer that conventional commercial financing of the costs of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of burrowing that the economic feasibility of the Project would he significantly affected, but that with the aid of municipal financing the Project_ will be more economically feasible. 1.16. This Council has been advised by representatives of Miller & Schroeder Financial , Inc. , representing the Original Developer , that on the basis of information available to them, the Project remains economically feasible, and the Bonds could be successfully issued and sold. 1 .17. Neither the full faith and credit_ nor the taxing powers of. the City trot any property of the City will be pledged to the payment_ of the ponds. The Bonds are to be paid solely from the revenues of the Project. 1.18. The applicant has agreed to pay, directly or through the City, any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project., whether or not. the Project is carried to completion, whether or not the Project is approved by the City, and whether or not the Bonds are executed and issued. 1.19. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the 3. rx�' 11 }3o11drs as requested by the applicant.. The city retains the right in its sole discretion to wit-hdiaw from, participation and accordingly not. issue the: Bonds should the City at. any time pilot- to the issuance thr:iout derelmine that it is in the best interest of the City not. to issue the Bond!. ,n 'should the parties to the rnust..act ion to' unable to leach agreement as to the Leans and cond i f ions of any of t hn rioc uun iris r et)u i t ed for t.Nm t.ran:nt t ion. 1.20. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the condition that by December 2, 1989, the City and the applicant. shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement pursuant to which the Original Developer- will agree to pay to the City principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds and their issuance and sale. If the event, set. forth herein do not take place within the time set. forth above, or any extension thereof, and the Bonds are not sold within such time, this resolution shall expire and be of no futther effect. 1.21. Putsuant to the requirements of the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the code), a public hearing will be held on December .(/'1988, at 7:30 p.m. , relating to the Amended Program proposed by the Original Developer under the Act, .including the proposed issuance of the Bonds or Notes and the substitution of the Original Developer for the Transferee Developer as the developer, after proper publication of notice of the public hearing in accord with the requirements of the Act and the Code. Section 2. Approval and Authorization 2.01 . It, is hereby IQuad and determined based upon the information pret,ented to this Council by the representatives of the Original Developer that it would be in the bent interests of the city to issue the Bond'tt under the provisions of the Act and the City's earlier )•nelimir.Iry approval in order to finance costs to be incutrcd by the original Developer in the logoit;t i,>i;, consti act ice,, and equipping of the described facilities. The City hc'telty approves the r.t,bstitution of the Original Developer for the '1'retnsleree Developer as developer of the Project and c:onfirrns its preliminary approval to the issuance of the Bonds or Notes in the approximate aggregate face amount of Five Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($5,730,000), subject to the City, the Original Developer , and the purchaser of the Bends reaching definitive agreement_ on the provir;ions foi their payment.. The City hereby calls for a public hearing on the Amended Program to be held on December G', 1988, at 7:30 p.m., at. the ('if.y Hall. /7 2.02. 'I'he City Attorney, the Mayor, the City Manager, and other officers, employee:;, and agents of the City are 4. ('.A ' authorized, in cooperation with bond counsel, to initiate and continue the preparation and revision of such documents as may be appropriate to evidence the change in the identity of the developer, the terms of all agreements for payment of the Bonds, and the provisions for payment of the principal of, the premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. 2.03. It is further hereby found and determined, based upon the information presented to this Council by the Original Developer and its representatives, that it would be in the best interests of the City to extend the expiration date of the 1987 Inducement Resolution to December 2, 1989. Accordingly, all commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the condition that, by December 2, 1989, the City and the Original Developer shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement pursuant to which the Original Developer will agree to pay to the City principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds and their issuance and sale. If the events set forth in this Resolution do not take place on or before December 2, 1989, or any extension thereof, and the Bonds are not sold within such time, this Resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. 2.04. The Mayor and other officers, employees, and agents of the City, including Bond Counsel, are hereby authorized to notify the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development of the extension of the expiration date of the 1987 Inducement Resolution to December 2, 1989, and to request an extension of the expiration date of the Certificate of Allocation for the Project to December 2, 1989. • 2.05. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to cause notice of the public hearing on the Amended Program, set for December 101988, at 7:30 p.m., to be published once, at least fifteen (15) days prior thereto, in the Eden Prairie News. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this day of November, 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk SOK:ETB 5. r�1// 11 ;ti The Motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the city of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby certify that the attached and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie at its meeting on the day of November, 1988, as the ,aloe is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of such council for said date, on file and of record in my office. Dated this day of , 1988. City clerk flop • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #88-258 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF TIMBER BLUFFS FOR BROWN LAND COMPANY BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Timber Bluffs for Brown Land Company, dated November 7, 1988, consisting of 44.4 acres into 14 single family lots, and 2 outlots, 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 15th day of November, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FRDM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: October 21, 1988 PROJECT: Timber Bluffs LOCATION: Southeast Eden Prairie, south of Riverview Road, west of County Road #18, and east of Huntington Drive. DEVELOPER: Brown Land Company REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 19 acres with waiver of the public road requirement and requirement for frontage of lots on a public street. 2. Rezoning from Rural to R1-22 on approximately 4 acres, and from Rural to R1-44 on approximately 15 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 14 single family lots, and 2 outlots. Background v:� �' . � '4 +.T`' IT 1~ { • .t • R1-13.5 The request is for platting and 1 a.� zoning of 14 single family lots, "�--\;‹ �1 sa, n. 'fi; . yN with an average lot size of 82,764 •�—(`\�`>>}6 1�Jdr -`=" +,f; square feet, a minimum of 36,800 rr.,,,_ ,,� / - '',. L. square feet, and a maximum lot size •y `, r � i .\ ;i .y`rsY of 96,000 square feet in the R1-44 - ` -'--I v(`• R .5 /-4:, vl J -F"" and R1-22 zoning districts. The 1 ,• 1- F ,.•" •", request includes a Planned Unit t � ; ��" cAll °,�,j Development which would allow a rr ''7•-��'`' .y. r , `` waiver of that portion of the City • `.7'7 , y, ;:"4<, �-+,: & .,.. •.fir +.,, Code which requires lots to have °�<. i ,.'� `• •. . iy i : public street frontage and to allow �� ?7' (• .f• the use of a private road. - - `` � � �� PROPOSED SITE The plan has been mod ified to r , .� e ►�.���,1I accommodate initial concerns re- �A •��1 —=— „��. garding building pad sizes on the +Lir j���= ��grI. ` Minnesota River Bluffs. The .44 - 1 original request was for zoning to :�'L+ 4i`.'•. ^•'.•, ' "�. ►�1�� �14 the R1-44 district for all 14 lots, F'1�' , ,, srp a 'T � �� '., . > ' PSG �1�4 but included some lot size waivers x , vv',0a: 1-4 ., Aa oo� The new request utilizes R1-44 lots, �'vr, ,}��' f;,,73'f.4£ �•#,t0 ►$<�S$4k ,,,. '?,— all along the Minnesota River Bluffs -` )• •r,o- f .®�aJ.4,��'a�>� :, 1i� 1_ and on the east and west boundaries 'r����'{�� �' "°t� Agin''.4. 4t,4':`t � kits t 4�. AREA LOCATION MAP Timber Bluffs 2 October 21, 1988 of the project. The remaining Lots 2, 3, 4, Block 1, and Lot 10, Block 2, would be a minimum in size of 33,400 square feet and would be zoned to the R1-22 District. The private set of cul-de-sacs have also been moved further north in order to allow for the proper size building pads to be expected on large prestigious lots. The developer has now planned for 1OD-foot deep building pads, 120 feet wide on all the river bluff lots. Surrounding Uses The property is bordered to the north by Riverview Road and Bell Oaks Addition currently under development. Bell Oaks, known previously to the Planning Commission as Creekview, is made of R1-13.5 lots. There is a single family home on a large acreage occuring on the project's east boundary and a single family home on a large acreage occuring on the project's west boundary. Both of those properties are currently zoned Rural. To the south, the project is bordered by the Minnesota River and the Minnesota River floodplain. The R1-44 lot on the east and west sides of the project should be a good transition to the larger lots currently existing on the bluffs and the three-quarter acre lots in the R1-22 district along Riverview Road should be a good transition from the Bell Oaks R1-13.5 lots to the proposed 11/2 acre river bluff lots. There is an existing subdivision of similarly sized lots several hundred feet to the west of the project, currently zoned R1-22, but not served by public sewer and water. Further to the west in the Bluffs West Additions, the City had approved R1- 13.5 with City sewer and water at the bluff rim which, in that location, occurs at approximately the 860 contour. Those lots have never been developed because of impact and concern for the landfill. Adjacent to the Bluffs West Additions and further to the west is the Flying Cloud Landfill, which also has been held to the 860 contour, with the bluff face in that area ultimately committed to the City as dedication. Bluff Character The character of the bluff in the area of this proposed development is steep, dropping from a average rim elevation of approximately 840, to a floodplain elevation of the Minnesota River at 722.75. The face of the bluffs is largely wooded as contrasted with locations toward the landfill and Bluff West Additions which are largely devoid of trees. There are some open pockets of meadow and prairie that exist on the bluff face in this location. There is an existing bituminous lane which traverses the bluff from north to south on the west portion of this property used as pasture access for the landowners to remain in the development. The bluff is of highly erodable soil character but is largely protected in this area because of the heavy vegetation. There are spots of vegetation which were introduced into the area, mostly of an evergreen variety. Homes placed at the top of the bluff carefully which don't precipitate excessive vegetation removal should be largely unseen from the Minnesota River Valley down below because of the heavy vegetation in the bluff. Site Character The site is divided into three distinct portions; the upper plateau just adjacent to and south of Riverview Road, which is gently rolling until it reaches the bluff rim elevation at 840. The river bluffs fall from an elevation of approximately B40 to a • a�o� Timber Bluffs 3 October 21, 1988 slope and 100-year floodplain elevation of 722.75. The slopes are in the 30% to 40% grade and are made up of highly erodable soils. The slope face itself is fairly densely wooded with a mixture of hardwoods and evergreens with some interspersed open meadows, some containing natural prairie vegetation. The bottom third of the site is approximately 19 acres and is the Minnesota River floodplain. It is partly pasture until it reaches the Minnesota River, at which point, there is a thin band of cottonwood and willow vegetation. The Shoreland Management Ordinance applies to all land within 300 feet of a river. All the proposed development at this time is in excess of 400 feet from the river. There are two known indian mounds on the site from archealogical records in the location of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2; however, no apparent evidence of them is visible at this time. The developer continues to work with the Minnesota Historical Society to obtain field survey information as to whether and how these indian mounds should be designated and preserved. R1-44 Zoning District The R1-44 district of the City's Zoning Code is provided, " to reserve appropriately located areas for single family living on large lots where vegetation slopes, water bodies, or other significant natural features are best preserved through large lot development." The developer's request for the RI-44 district is consistent with the purposes of that district in this area because of the sensitivity and significance of the Minnesota River bluffs. Planned Unit Development, Proposed Zoning, and Preliminary Plat The developer is proposing 14 lots on the plateau of the Minnesota River bluffs to be served with a private road. The purpose of the private road is to allow for security, and to decrease the intrusion on to the Minnesota River bluffs by allowing less distance for setback and right-of-way to a public road. The developer proposes a 2B-foot wide street constructed to public standards, but not within a public right-of-way. The minimum setback from the curb of this street would be 30 feet. The developer would like the opportunity to create an exclusive neighborhood which may also require the use of special paving (not acceptable to City use), a security system (which would not allow for the passage of the general public), and the inclusion of special entrance monuments and gate. The developer will retain a 30-foot wide access down to the Minnesota River floodplain to be known as Outlot B and to include an existing bituminous lane. The final use of Outlot B is not known at this time; however, it is possible it could be developed for private recreational purposes for the homeowners' association or kept in ownership by the developer for use as pasture. Bluff Protection As part of the public trust, the City has the responsibility to review development in an area as significant as the Minnesota River bluffs in a way which protects it as a natural resource while allowing private development and use of it as private property. To this end, the R1-44 district on the bluff face itself is an appropriate request. The developer plans to minimize the amount of grading for the subdivision itself by constructing the road and utility improvements only at this time. The developer has provided exhibits which indicate a minimal amount of grading and tree removal necessary for those 1st-phase improvements. However, with Timber Bluffs 4 October 21, 1988 the development of a subdivision, quite often the most impact on a site is realized when the individual homes are built. Sizing lots to match the expected home size is a critical step in impacting a site as little as possible. The developer has provided a worst case grading scenario with construction limits. The developer would be restricted from grading beyond the worst case situation. However, the developer plans to work with individual owners and will require as part of the sale of the lot, that Brown land Company be responsible for and is the only group allowed to do individual site grading. The developer plans to set up an architectural review board which will review the siting and development of each house and has offered to allow City participation in that process. The developer would be required to place and maintain erosion control around all initial construction and shall also be responsible for placement and maintenance of erosion control on each of the individual lots as needed (but at no time later than building permit issuance for individual homes). The developer shall not rely upon extensive use of retaining walls on the bluff face itself, but should plan the homes to match grade at the walk-out elevations. Storm water run-off from the fronts of the lots and the fronts of the roof of the homes is to be directed toward the private street and then collected in catch basins and directed toward the storm sewer which will be constructed in the location of the existing bituminous road on the west portion of the plat. Tree Protection There are 12,304 caliper inches of significant trees existing on this site. With the installation of utilities and the roadway, the developer expects that there will be 1,089 caliper inches lost or approximately 9% which will have to be removed. In the worst case scenario, which the developer has provided, there could be as many as 2,015 caliper inches of trees removed, or between 16% or 17%. This is within the average of other subdivisions of approximately 30%. The lower percentage in this case is consistent with the sensitivity of this area. Although the tree replacement will be calculated based upon the worst case grading plan, the developer will be credited back as the individual homes are constructed if additional trees are saved. The City and the developer have therefore planned for the worst case situation which should be acceptable under the City's policy, but will work toward less tree loss and replacement. Consistent with City policy regarding scenic areas along creeks and rivers, the developer should provide to the City's benefit, a scenic easement which protects the bluff vegetation (south of the construction limits to the lot's southern boundary) while allowing the possibility of prairie management within those areas identified as being natural prairie. Park/Trails • Riverview Road is planned with a sidewalk along the north side and will not require a sidewalk along the south side. The Park and Recreation Staff has visited the site and is recommending an outlot be platted 150 feet in width adjacent to the Minnesota River which will allow the opportunity for connection with a future Minnesota River wildlife trail. The cash park fee would be applicable on this project. a')os Timber Bluffs 5 October 21, 1988 Utilities/Roads The City Staff has reviewed the private road request. It could be considered a mitigating factor to bluff development in that it allows for larger building pads without having them encroach to a greater extent on the bluff. The private road is consistent with security and exclusiveness desired in a small development of this type located in a sensitive area. To extend the road further east would conflict with an existing home. The possibility of extending the road further west is not desirable because of topographic constraints. Sewer and water for the property will be obtained from Riverview Road with four of the lots being at an elevation which will require private pumps to reach gravity sewer elevation. Storm sewer is to be handled by a series of catch basins in the private road and will be directed down the alignment of the existing bituminous roadway on the west side of the project to a holding pond in the floodplain area of the Minnesota River. The sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer systems, will require review and approval of final details from the City Engineering Department. A voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been prepared on this project and will require a finding of no significant impact. Summary The request for subdivision and rezoning to the R1-44 and R1-22 districts is consistent with City policy and the Comprehensive Guide Plan for this site. The use of the private road will help provide space for the utilization of 100-foot deep building pads to the bluff rim which will be a more realistic expectation of the size and type of development on these 1;-acre lots overlooking the Minnesota River. The use of the private road should he judiciously considered and only be used in those cases which, because of mitigation of other factors, merit. The R1-22 zoning district adjacent to Bell Oaks with 3/4-acre size lots provides an adequate transition from the 13.5 lots in Bell Oaks to this R1-44 neighborhood. The use of R1-44 lots on the east and west boundaries of this site provides a good transition to the existing homes. The use of special protection and developer during construction is critical to the success of this subdivision with regard to bluff protection. The provision of a scenic easement will protect the natural vegetation while allowing for prairie management along the face of the bluff as necessary. City Staff would recommend approval of the request for Planned Unit Development District Review, Rezoning of approximately 15 acres from Rural to R1-44, and approximately 4 acres from Rural to R1-22, and Preliminary Plat of approximately 38 acres into 14 lots and 2 outlots, subject to the following: 1. The plans submitted and dated October 11, 1988. 2. Finding of no significant impact from the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 3. Approval of the Minnesota Historical Society. Timber Bluffs 6 October 21, 1988 4. Approval of the Lower Minnesota Watershed District. 5. Receipt by the City, of a tree replacement plan, which is based upon the City's tree preservation policy, and the removal of 2,115 caliper inches of trees. The developer to be credited back upon completion of the project if less trees are removed. 6. Approval of a private road to City standards. 7. A waiver of the provision for Lots 1-8, Block 2, not having frontage on a public street. B. Dedication of a 15D-foot side outlot adjacent to the Minnesota River for trail purposes. 9. Cash Park Fee would be applicable to the site. 10. Provision of a scenic easement to include the area bounded by the southern lot lines in Block 2 on the south and the proposed grading limits at approximately the 830+ contour on the north. Said scenic easements shall prohibit the cutting of any vegetation or the planting of any vegetation or any construction. There would be exceptions for cutting of vegetation within the areas identified as natural prairie. 11. All public utilities must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 12. All grading and erosion control plans would be subject to review and approval by the City's Engineering Department and by the Lower Minnesota Watershed District. 13. The City must be notified 48 hours prior to any grading on the property. 14. The construction limits of the project must be staked and fenced with either Enviro fencing and/or snow fencing in the wooded areas. The Enviro fencing would be required in those areas required for erosion control and the snow fencing would be required in those areas for tree production. ",r CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 088-259 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PRAIRIE GREEN MINI-STORAGE FOR PRAIRIE GREEN ASSOCIATES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Prairie Green Mini-Storage for Prairie Green Associates, dated November 7, 1988, consisting of 7.2 acres into 2 lots for construction of 7,250 square feet of additional storage space, 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 15th day of November, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk a7OO MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FRDM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: November 9, 1988 SUBJECT: ADDITION TO PRAIRIE GREEN MINI-STORAGE At the October 24, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council, approval of the addition to the Prairie Green Mini- Storage subject to the Staff Report and submitted plans. Since that recommendation, the proponents have made the required revisions, including a minor modification to the plan which reduces the total building square footage from 7,800 square feet to 7,250 square feet, and adds a drive aisle around the ends of the buildings to provide adequate circulation. Both revisions are in compliance with City Code and Staff recommends approval. • aw9 STAFF REPORT i TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: October 21, 1988 PROJECT: Addition to Prairie Green Mini-Storage LOCATION: East of County Road #4, south of Terrey Pine Drive APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Prairie Green Association REQUEST: I. Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 0.69 acres 2. Preliminary Plat of 7.2 acres into two lots. Background ?PUB i--._ ; - - -i,. The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts - I �•y F--', this site and surrounding sites for • i..R1"2 G I C---_) industrial land use. The property ---�' -" - rr F � [r�'~-• �� was zoned I-2 in 1969 per Ordinance R1-22 t -a! 1-.1'•-- #135. Surrounding land uses consist "" " ry,-�" �� of the existing Prairie Green Mini- RM-2:5 P116 �� (_`... k , . :i'1.1- Storage to the south, Birchwood Labs N00 . !7:;- A��tn uI,) RM; to the east, undeveloped industrial C-COM y ;. �<� land to the north, County Road N4 OFC ,i10. • '4.,x .- t1 and the Timber Lakes townhomes, I�c�.0 CbM zoned RM-2.5, to the west. This • ' C•COM`_• -- site is part of the 16.5 acre OFC` Birchwood Labs property previously RM•6.5 / ri:• platted in 1987. As part of that _ rV ai— �•> platting approval, the City Council ♦.,� .. required that any request beyond the ''�� 2 Q rGEN • `glr22 existing mini-storage complex be ". d ,} reviewed and approved by the , RM2.5 D.a. PROPOSED SITE '`' -• , Planning Commission and City ;% ` ��� -(i' "`. Council. The request at this time . / \ �� R1-22 d j `I is to construct a small addition to ` the existing mini-storage site. 1 f. / 16. ,, cfl ® i PUB'. = Preliminary Plat ..i ,, / i >. el The preliminary plat consists of 7.2 '1- :�r ' �`CiCOM 7- 1, acres in 2 lots, of which .069 acres <,,------ 4 AREA LOCATION MAP a-)io Prairie Green Mini-Storage 2 October 21, 1988 will be added to the original mini-storage site. As part of the final platting request, all unnecessary drainage and utility easements will need to be vacated. The existing entrance to the mini-storage facility is setback less than the 10 feet required by ordinate to the side lot line of Lot 2. A variance was granted for this setback in April of 1988. Hennepin County has recommended that the 10 foot drainage and utility easement along the west property line be included as a trail easement for possible trail relocation when the upgrading of County Road #4 takes place in the future. Prior to release of the final plat, the proponent will record a trail easement over the 10 foot drainage and utility easement along the west property line abutting County Road 04. Cash park fees have been paid for the existing mini-storage consisting of 2.2 acres. Cash park fees will be required for the additional 0.69-acre addition prior to a building permit issuance, and prior to any future building permits for the undeveloped property to the north. Site Plan A total of 7,800 square feet of additional storage space in 4 buildings is proposed to be combined with the Prairie Green Mini-Storage. With this addition, the total site of 2.9 acres will be built at a F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) of 28.5%, while the I-2 Zoning District allows up to 30% F.A.R.. All setbacks meet Code within the I-2 Zoning District. No additional parking is being required for this expansion. The site plan also depicts possible future land uses to the north, demonstrating that adequate site area will remain for development to meet City Code with the addition to the mini-storage. No action is requested for this future concept at this time. Currently, the property to the north is zoned and guided for Industrial land uses. The review of this expansion request does not include or infer any approvals for the future use of the additional phases lying to the north. Prior to issuance of any building permits for these lots, the developer shall first receive approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. The City's review process in this respect shall be consistent with that customarily afforded to all other developers of I-2 zoned property requiring site plan review prior to issuance of building permits. When phase two of the property develops, a cross access easement will be necessary for the shared entrance that the mini-storage currently uses. As provided with the existing mini-storage approval, a 6 foot wood screening fences will be necessary at the end of each proposed drive aisle for screening of the storage doors from County Road #4 and the future uses to the north. In addition concrete curbing will be required at the end of each drive aisle. Grading and Drainage Grading will be limited to building pad construction and a small storage basin for storm water. A two tier retaining wall is proposed at the northeast corner of the addition in order to save the exisiting significant trees. Each wall averages 4 feet in height with one wall 6 feet at its highest point. All significant trees on site will be preserved with the use of snow fencing prior to any grading operation. The majority of the existing mini-storage site will continue to utilize the concrete spillway and drainage swale to Terrey Pine Drive previously approved with the original mini-storage submittal. All additional storm water run-off will be collected through a series of catch basins and storm water pipes to a small storm al I Prairie Green Mini-Storage 3 October 21, 1988 water detention pond to the north. When future development takes place to the north, a storm water pipe will be constructed from the mini-storage site to Terrey Pine Drive. Utilities Since the mini-storage addition will be unoccupied storage buildings, no additional sanitary sewer or water will be necessary for the expansion. When the future uses to the north develop, connection to water will take place in County Road #4 and sanitary sewer connection within Terrey Pine Drive. Landscaping An overall landscaping plan has been submitted to reflect Code compliance for this property and the future uses to the north. Landscaping for the mini-storage addition provides 28 inches of tree to meet City Code. Architecture A total of four, 1,95D square foot storage buildings are proposed to be added to this existing facility. Each building will be 12 feet in height and constructed with similar building materials to match the existing storage buildings. The use of split face block and scored block are being proposed. A minimum of a double-scored concrete block is required in order to meet the City Code. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall revise the elevations to indicate a minimum of a double- scored concrete block. No rooftop equipment is being proposed for these facilities. Site lighting shall be of a type that limits off-site glare, and shall be limited to the interior portion of the mini-storage. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on D.69 acres, for construction of 4 additional mini-storage buildings, and Preliminary Plat of 7.2 acres into 2 lots, based on plans dated October 7, 1988, this Staff Report, and the following recommendations: 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the site plan to include 6-foot high wood screening fences at the end of each drive aisle in order to screen mini-storage doors. Also, include concrete curb and gutter at the end of each drive aisle. B. Revise architectural elevations to indicate a minimum of a double- scored concrete block in place of the single-scored block. 2. Concurrent with Final Plat, proponent shall: A. Vacate all unnecessary drainage and utility easements. B. Record at Hennepin County, and provide proof of filing of a trail easement over the 10-foot drainage and utility easement along the west property line abutting County Road #4. Prairie Green Mini-Storage 4 October 21, 1988 C. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. D. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Stake the construction limits near the significant trees with snow fencing. B. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. 4. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park fee. B. Demonstrate that all site lighting shall be limited to the interior portion of the mini-storage facility. 5. Developer acknowledges that any requests beyond this mini-storage expansion will require the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. 2113 MEMO • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: October 21, 1988 PROJECT: Sutliff Rezoning LOCATION: 7070 and 7080 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, MN APPLICANT: City of Eden Prairie FEE OWNER: Louis Sutliff and Frieda Kocorek REQUEST: Zoning District Change from Rural to RI-13.5 for 2 lots. Background The properties under rezoning consideration are currently utilized _jr, 1 j,, ' ' for single family residences. The ( ,- home at 7070 Eden Prairie Road was I--r ' '' " aour:a' . constructed in 1965. The home at 1.,j� ." -�-- 7080 Eden Prairie Road wasRpm � R�—�3.rJ constructed in 1969. At the time ;; :;-.1 . both these homes were constructed -i the zoning classification was RI R1-13.5 • under Ordinance #8 adopted in 1956. L. ,FP N K f �?.r,y ~` The R1 zoningdistrict '� permitted 1, 915 ; ,, single family use with a minimum lot - 00 size of 22,000 square feet. Both , •,,�, lots conformed to Code at the time =-r'".;f - - di -�" ( '` of construction. :1'... �R1-22 ; Z -LA 1' • In November of 1969, the Village of ,-, • �� ,S Eden Prairie adopted Drdinance #135. PROPOSED SITE-)o ;•• ' ,.- Ordinance #135 involved the City ---:—22+;•- rezoning all property in Eden 1 .; j 1. , T;, %/7-1— Prairie to conform with the new zoning regulations. The appropriate 1 I ' 1 !! I zoning for these lots in 1969 would have been R1-22. It appears that ' P U B •\+,`" L (the above referenced properties were �. not zoned according to the new RI-22 riq zoning district regulations for `...._, reasons unknown. The properties ri • ' automatically reverted to the Rural (, ' !' �• , zoning district and became a non- _._.. ..•.;., '. I: '' .. conforming uses. It appears the '" " "' 1( property owners were not aware of AREA LOCATION MAP this situation nor had the City 2'11 y Sutliff Rezoning 2 October 21, 1988 identified this zoning situation. In late Sumer of 1988, the owner added a deck which brought to light the non-conforming status of the properties. The owner at 7070 Eden Prairie Road requested the City to research the zoning history for this site and make the necessary arrangements to rezone the properties so they conform with the current city code. The surrounding properties to the north, west, and south, were zoned R1-13.5 in 1979. The properties are bounded on the east by County Road #4 and residential property zoned R1-22. The two homes on the lots meet minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks for the R1-13.5 zoning district. Based on surrounding zoning the appropriate zoning classification is R1-13.5. Utilities Had the properties been zoned R1-22 in November of 1969, the properties could have continued to utilize the well and septic systems installed. In 1962 City Code required all properties zoned R1-22 to connect to City sewer and water if available when well or septic systems fail. The property at 7070 Eden Prairie Road connected to City sewer and water in July of 1980. The property at 7080 Eden Prairie Road is on well and septic system. Access Access to both sites are via County Road #4 which have been in existence since the homes were constructed in 1969. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for the two lots. The zoning is consistent with surrounding R1-13.5 zoning and will remove the properties from a non-conforming status. A condition of the zoning is that the property located at 7080 Eden Prairie Road connect to City sewer and water when the current system fails. This would be a requirement if the properties had originally be zoned R1-22 in 1969. 2')15' • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #88-260 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SHERWIN-WILLIAMS FOR WIRTANEN CLARK LARSEN ARCHITECTS BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Sherwin-Williams for Wirtanen Clark Larsen Architects, dated November 8, 1988, consisting of 0.97 acres into one lot for construction of a retail paint store, 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. AOOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 15th day of November, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor • ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • STAFF REPORT 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: October 21, 1988 PROJECT: Sherwin-Williams LOCATION: Along Plaza Drive in front of the Menard's Center APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Sherwin-Williams Company REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on D.968 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. 2. Preliminary Plat of 0.968 acres into one lot. Background This site is currently guided -44441./4---, N ,,4 Regional Commercial. Surrounding • �° \ 4�;;5' properties are also guided for0' \t: .,' �.c'' ' ;' ti Regional Commercial. Specific land . `\'' �••a, H;�." '+ uses in the area includes Menard's ?_N. ! � "n and the Factory Outlet Center, zoned i�\ 11 `kr � C-Regional Service to the north and i ` Ilia- east. The proponent is requesting a `;`` �.1 Zoning District Change from Rural to '�\`', �•`'W OFC Service and Preliminary j__�, :. �.__._.. FC,-___, Platting of 0.968 acres into one lot to allow for the construction of a \. �-"1 • qt,104 7,020 square foot Sherwin-Williams ' • \\ 1'; err retai 1 store. •• ,‹ \ C-REG-SEA 1;, \} ).r R �\ R.G Site Plan • p;, , 1 \ , `�.G,REG The site plan depicts the C-REG-SER PROPOSED SITE C•R construction of a 7,020 square foot • .:i EG'SE• building on 0.968 acres at a 16.6% • �'. r` 1. �` - j Base Area Ratio (B.A.R.). In the C- / ' Regional Service zoning district, - -• the Code would allow up to a 20% - . (!. };: ' .•.'a B.A.R.. Based on B parking spaces = - per 1000 square feet, 56 parking � ' Il •---« � • a spaces are required. A total of 55 mot'. _ - - �!! ` parking spaces are provided. The :i:::1 C' `. /!C•R Et , _ .4t7,....._. , ' 'C'ftEG-SE it it j a 21;'1 AREA LOCATION MAP 1 Sherwin-Williams 2 October 21, 1988 $ plans shall either be revised to reflect an additional parking space or a reduction in building square footage to 6,875. The building and parking areas meet the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district with the exception of the rear lot line. A variance will be required for a zero lot line setback along the eastern property line. Access is proposed by a common driveway from Plaza Drive and from two existing driveways which provide access into Menard's. The existing access points are located within 150 feet of the project site. Due to an anticipated sight distance problem caused by the future construction of structures in the area, and the location of the driveway on the curve, Staff is recommending that the common access be eliminated and cross-access easements be provided. With the elimination of the access, a loop circulation system shall be developed in conjunction with the adjacent property (see Attachment A). Revised plans shall be submitted prior to Council review. Grading This site has been previously graded with the Menard's Shopping Center. Minor grading will be necessary to provide a level pad area for the building and parking. The grading plan shall be revised to reflect a minimum 4-foot berm adjacent Plaza Drive in order to screen parking areas. Utilities Utility service is available to this project through connections made to a 36-inch sanitary sewer line and an 8-inch water line located to the north of the project. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a parking lot catch basin system and discharged into an existing 36-inch storm sewer line. Architecture The building will be one story in height, with the primary orientation towards Plaza Drive and to the west. Building materials include face brick, metal, and glass. The proponent should consider a canopy color which is compatible with others in the area without being identical. For example, all the Menard's buildings and Crown Auto are chocolate brown, the Rainbow center is green and Baker's Square is rust colored. Medium brown, green, and rust, are all compatible with the buildings in the immediate area, but not identical, and some variety would add interest in the area (particularly for a paint store). Finally, to add interest to the building, the canopy shall be extended around to the rear of the building to the approximate location of the overhead door (see Attachment A). A mechanical equipment screening plan is required. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan meets the minimum requirements of the City's landscape ordinance. In order to provide additional screening, and to be consistent with the landscape plan developed for Menard's, 6 and 8-foot evergreen trees shall be planted on the berm adjacent to Plaza Drive. Signage/Lighting Site lighting shall be of the same type as the existing Menard's site lighting. 2'117 Sherwin-Williams 3 October 21, 1988 Sherwin-Williams' typical signage package is proposed. The signage for the lease spaces shall be of consistent style, size, and color as that of Sherwin-Williams. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 3 (F) states that "Roof signs are prohibited in all districts. A roof sign is defined as any sign erected upon or projecting above the roof of a structure to which it is affixed except signs erected below the top of a parapet wall." The building elevations depict a sign area above the roof of the proposed structure (see Attachment B). All signage proposed shall meet the requirements of the City of Eden Prairie. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 0.968 acres, and the Preliminary Platting of 0.968 acres into 1 lot, based upon plans dated September 17, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated October 21, 1988, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the architectural building elevations to provide for a canopy around the rear of the building to the approximate location of the overhead door. B. Revise the site plan to depict the elimination of the access point to Plaza Drive according to Attachment A. C. Revise the landscape plan to include 6 and 8-foot evergreen trees on the berm adjacent Plaza Drive. D. Revise the grading plan to depict a minimum of a 4-foot berm adjacent Plaza Drive. E. Revise the building elevations to depict a sign area below the extension of the top of the roof. . 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. C. Provide cross-access easements for access from Menard's into the project site. D. Provide utility easements for the proposed utility extensions. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance. B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 2-1 19 Sherwin-Williams 4 October 21, 1988 C. Provide samples of exterior building material and colors for review. D. Provide an overall lighting plan with details for review. E. Provide an overall signage plan with details for review. 4. Apply for and receive a variance from the Board of appeals for the rear yard setback. M1 ai N0 Cr' �r T IPAr./A4g4II � i gi •- — 1 Acdess 1 14 I 1.. I 1I �` oh...porA1 " 1 r4rip" lortv . ea C! _iy CA i - L I 0 C i - y 1 c 1 a) 1 ! ; W 1 A >, 1 i i JO o I a3 • c I . as I V Awl II —) I I 11 i I 1 I 1 I I i I 1 4d i i i /\ / .44 a d Adik ,,, ,„,,,,,,, ATTACHMENT A ! c C. >g o T -< g �. ; rn xa tip.. o . ,C.r :; , rn Cl) / 4 : I /I < = 11111► o > _ .. O 1 _•g2CC M r A 1 'i T I ?i rq ni fr'T %N� G ' ® El1- _ • T r ^^ 1� G m N ��� I I{Y ' N� Y r W i N • 1 1 M•s •N I Nam I .n_4 ® ® T • N g 0 Al 7Z7. — t ATTACHMENT B STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: November 10, 1988 PROJECT: MTS Systems Corporation LOCATION: South of Highway #5, north of Technology Drive, west of Purgatory Creek APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: MTS Systems Corporation REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to I-5 on 36.8 acres. Background �., .. This site is currently designated on •— ir / 2- the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide --:I'; • Plan for Industrial land uses. .__•-• "1;I-2• V>: i' Specific land uses in this area •, include the City Services complex, 'w ,Y: _ a�=J zoned 1-5 to the west and vacant ,. -GQ,'I _�1 . / , property to the south and east. The proponent is currently re- questing a Zoning District Change, �.'" .�, from Rural to 1-5 to allow for an I , • �---- -.-; , 85,100 square foot building !`/��^�l I-5 �....'...'.':,t expansion. `-' ��•••�•�•.�, PUD/Site Plan *�� ,�.�• PROPOSED SITE `'' In 1981, a PUD Concept for this site Y� —" " •-•••�'�•����4�••�•�•�•�•�•1•�• . ^ - ••1••1 was presented before the Planning j- 4A�1•w.♦ ✓ Commission and City Council. The ! i approved PUD depicted an ultimate • building size for MTS Systems Corporation of 570,000 square feeti • .n and 1,666 parking stalls. In . L__ accordance with the PUD, a plat was approved in 1982 for the entire 159 g� t acres into 3 lots and road right-of-r- -`-':i • way. The proposed building - '�' - \+r RM-2.5 /- 1-+ expansion is in conformance with the �;� approved PUD Concept Plan. '�4 - "r `:. —1 AREA LOCATION MAP 2123 MTS Systems Corporation 2 November 10, 1988 The site plan depicts an 85,100 square foot building expansion to the existing 284,100 square foot building. Based upon a site size of 36.86 acres, a Base Area Ratio (B.A.R.) of 13.7% and a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 23% has been calculated. The expansion would occur on the south side of the existing building adjacent the pond and meets the minimum requirements of the I-5 zoning district. Based upon a building use including 27,100 square feet of warehouse, 153,000 square feet of manufacturing, and 189,100 square feet of office, a total of 1,419 parking stalls are required. In a letter dated October 13, 19BB, MTS has indicated that based upon the number of employees, car pools, etc., 1,015 parking stalls are actually needed. A total of 1,032 parking stalls are proposed with an additional 392 parking stalls designated as proof-of-parking. The plans shall be revised to reflect all driveways within the parking lot to measure 25 feet in width and the eastern-most access drive, which shall be constructed as part of this project, a minimum of 24 feet in width. Grading Grading of the site is primarily to allow for the building expansion and for the construction of the parking lot. The building expansion, with a floor elevation of 850, will require a maximum of approximately 16 feet of fill while the parking lot will require approximately 12 feet of fill adjacent the proposed building expansion and approximately 6 feet cut within the center portion of the site. An early grading permit for the building expansion was approved at the November 1, 1988, City Council meeting. The grading plan shall be revised to indicate the extent of grading to occur with the parking lot expansion. Purgatory Creek Study/Shoreland Ordinance Oue to the location of Purgatory Creek along the eastern property line, this property is subject to the Purgatory Creek study. The plans indicate the 100-year floodplain elevation at B24 which is the approximate limit of the conservancy zone. The 100-year floodplain and the conservancy zone will be dedicated to the City as part of the development of this project. In addition, because of Purgatory Creek, this property is also subject to the Shoreland Ordinance. The plan, as submitted, meet the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. Utilities Because this site is already served by utilities, the extension of storm sewer would be the only significant utility work to occur. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a series of catch basins located within the proposed parking lot and from the proposed building expansion with discharge into the existing pond located adjacent Technology Orive. Storm water run-off calculations must be submitted for review by the Engineering Department. Landscaping Based upon a building expansion of B5,100 square feet, a total of 266 caliper inches of plant material is required. The plans depict a total of 268 caliper inches planted initially with an additional 600 caliper inches planted at some future date. A phasing plan must be submitted indicating which trees will be planted with the initial development. The proponent must also demonstrate that parking areas are screened from view from the adjacent roadways including Highway A5 and Technology Drive. 212 q MTS Systems Corporation 3 November 10, 1988 Archi tecture The 85,100 square foot building expansion includes a total of 48,000 square feet of office and cafeteria on the first floor and 37,100 square feet of office on the second floor. The building is approximately 311 feet in height and is constructed out of a glass curtainwail system, with a copper-clad sloped roof. The building expansion is designed to portray an office image which takes advantage of the view over the existing pond and floodplain area located to the south. Building elevations indicate that any new mechanical equipment is proposed to be screened by a white prefinished metal louver screen wall. A mechanical equipment screening plan for the entire building must be submitted. Prior to City Council, building material samples and colors must be submitted for review. Signage/Lighting Proposed plans depict downcast lighting within the parking lot expansion. These lights shall not exceed 3D feet in height. The only signage proposed would be an employee parking sign located adjacent the easterly drive access. All signage must meet the requirements of the City of Eden Prairie. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request from MTS Systems Corporation for a Zoning District Change from Rural to I-5 on approximately 36.8 acres to allow for an 85,100 square foot building expansion based upon plans dated October 26, 1988, and subject to the Staff Report dated November 10, 1988, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Submit a revised grading plan which indicates the proposed phasing for grading. B. Submit a revised landscape plan indicating tie phasing for landscaping. C. Submit building material colors and samples for review. D. Submit an overall mechanical equipment screening plan for the entire building. 2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control , and utility plans for review by the Watershed District. C. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 4B hours in advance of grading. D. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal. • MTS Systems Corporation 4 November 10, 1988 3. As part of the development of the project, the proponent has indicated that they will be dedicating that portion of the Purgatory Creek floodplain along the eastern property line at and below the 824 contour elevation. 4. Prior to any additional development on the site, the proponent will be required to go through the site plan review process with the Planning Commission and City Council. • 2'124 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 088-261 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ELIM SHORES FOR BRAUER & ASSOCIATES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Elim Shores for Brauer & Associates, dated November 7, 1988, consisting of 8.36 acres into 3 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 15th day of November, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John 0. Frane, City Clerk • 21 21 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: November 10, 1988 PROJECT: Elim Shores LOCATION: West of County Road #4, east of Mitchell Lake APPLICANT: Elim Homes, Inc. FEE OWNER: Norwest Bank REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Amendment within the existing RM-2.5 zoning district on 8.36 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. 2. Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 3 lots for the construction of a 64-unit senior housing development. Background {cF 11[� ;j- U,1,,;. Ky. This site is currently zoned RM-2.5 - r NCO +' according to theplans approved _ C-COM -tih ,,' g in 2y 1973 for apartments. A zoningIt:" OFF 0."7 a. „11 ihlk amendment is requested to permit the -• development of a 64-unit elderly RM2. i 0�� housing building on 8.36 acres. The . • . surrounding areas are zoned RM-6.5 ; lutift ' ,//I for duplexes to the north, R1-13.5 1 i ::i; across Mitchell Lake to the west, j .•..;•;.-.-..•... C±! Y/ / %::%$ 1 i RM-6.5 for townhouses to the south, 20POSE0 SITE';->;•;psi: i �`2 . and I-2 Park for Industrial uses to � ,•.. Rthe oad east of the site across County ' rf �f � � r/ Site Plan _ ll >. f ,..0 ,' -0%., , The site plan depicts thea. ■ f, ' i p FM `= ° . w� construction of a 4-story, 64-unit 4r.n.; l ® C� elderly housing apartment building ` ,, �"W;%,- ' • �' on 8.36 acres at a density of 7.66 'fi' ` �Or' • Y�7 a1mu� C COM units per acre. The RM-2.5 zoning /`�n district would permit up to 17.4 .I/ -`,\'. units per acre. ! f' 6 tl 1 aul AREA LOCATION MAP Staff Report Elim Shores 2 November 10, 1988 Parking required for apartments is based on a City Code requirement for 1 enclosed space and 1 open parking space per unit, or a total of 128 for this project. A total of 65 on-grade parking spaces are provided. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit covered parking at a ratio of 0.75 stalls per unit, as compared to the City Code requirement of 1 covered stall per unit. A total of 41 covered parking stalls are provided. Elim Homes indicated that this parking ratio is appropriate as documented with Elim Home housing projects in other communities. It is anticipated that some residents will not operate motor vehicles. Similar variances have been granted for other elderly housing projects in Eden Prairie. No parking problems have been observed with the existing elderly projects. The building meets the minimum setback requirements for the RM-2.5 zoning district. Parking does not meet the front yard setback requirement of 35 feet. A variance is requested to allow a 17.5-foot front yard setback for a portion of the parking. This variance may have merit because the parking on the eastern portion of the site would not be visible from Mitchell Lake since it is screened by the building. In addition, the parking sits at a lower elevation than County Road 04 which also helps screen the views. Berming alone will not completely screen the parking areas and it is recommended that additional mass shrub plantings and conifers be substituted for the shade trees along County Road 04. One access is provided from County Road 04 which utilizes an existing access through the townhouse units to the south of the project. Elim Homes will enter into a cross-access and maintenance agreement with the Homeowners' Association for use and maintenance of the driveway. The driveway, as shown on the plan, is 25 feet wide. It is recommended that this driveway entrance be constructed to City standards as a residential street which would require that the proposed design be increased in width from 25 to 28 feet. Shoreland Ordinance • Mitchell Lake is classified as a Natural Environmental Water. This means that the building must be setback a minimum of 150 feet from the High Water Level of the lake. The plan, as proposed, depicts the building meeting this setback requirement. There is a deck and a gazebo which is within the 150-foot shoreland area setback. This will require a variance from the Board of Appeals. Grading The northern arm of Mitchell Lake will be left undisturbed as well as 80-foot buffer area between the building and the duplexes to the north. The remainder of the site will be graded to provide a level building pad area for parking and building and also to provide the required sedimentation ponds. Tree Loss The tree inventory depicts a total of 372 caliper inches of significant trees on the property. 226 of these trees would be lost due to construction or 61%. Tree replacement would be a total of 146 caliper inches. Landscaping The landscaping plan meets the City Code requirement for caliper inches based upon building square footage and tree replacement. Additional shrubs and conifers are needed within the setback along County Road 04 to better screen the views of the parking areas. 91 9,9 Staff Report Elim Shores 3 November 10, 1988 Utilities Sewer and water is available to this site. Storm water run-off is required to drain through to sedimentation ponds before being discharged into Mitchell Lake. Architecture The building is proposed to be constructed out of facebrick, glass, and wood. The applicant needs to provide documentation which indicates that the exterior elevations are in compliance with the City Code requirements for a minimum of 75% facebrick, glass, or stone. The building is proposed to be constructed to a height of 58' 2". The Shoreland Ordinance has a maximum building height of 30 feet, and the RM-2.5 zoning district has a maximum height of 45 feet. Variances are required through the Board of Appeals. The proposed pitched roof on the building, which adds to the residential character of the project, increases the height of the building. The height variances may have merit based upon the building size, the low density of project, the residential character of the building, and setbacks to property lines in excess of the ordinance. Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat depicts the subdivision of the 8.36-acre site into 3 lots. Variances will be necessary for shoreland lot width on proposed Lot 2, shoreland lot size for proposed Lots 2 and 3, and lot frontage variances for proposed Lots 2 and 3. Proposed Lots 2 and 3 are lots will not be building sites but will provide access only to Mitchell Lake for the North Bay of Timber Lakes Condominium Association. Concl usions The proposed use of this site for elderly housing is appropriate. The site is zoned for up to a maximum of 17.4 units per acres and the density of the project is low at 7.66 units per acre. The residential character of the building will help the project fit in to the surrounding area. Although the number of variances requested appear to be numerous for the site, it should be noted that 4 of the 9 variances are related to proposed lots 2 and 3 which are not building sites but provide only access to Mitchell Lake for the North Bay of Timber Lakes Condominium Association. The parking variance requested is consistent with other variances requested and approved by the City for other elderly projects. The building height variance has merit since the building will have a residential character, the overall density of the project is low, and is setback from the property lines in excess of Code requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request for Zoning District Amendment in the RM-2.5 Zoning District for a 64-unit elderly housing building and a Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 3 lots based on plans dated November 1D, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 10, 1988, and subject to the following conditions: Staff Report Elim Shores 4 November 10, 1988 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the site plan to provide a 28-foot wide driveway access into the site. Revise the landscape plan to provide additional mass plantings of shrubs and conifers to screen parking areas from County Road #4. Provide documentation showing compliance with City Code for exterior materials. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Provide detailed utility, storm water run-off, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. C. Submit samples of proposed exterior building materials with colors for review. D. Submit the overall lighting standards for review. E. Submit the overall signage sign plan with details for review. 4. Prior to Final Plat release, proponent shall: A. Provide evidence of recording with Hennepin County the cress-access and maintenance agreement between Elim Homes and the North Bay of Timber Lakes Homeowners' Association. 5. Receive Board of Appeals variances for parking, height, and shoreland setbacks. a13I Councilmember introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. c -01(,, APPROVING A HOUSING PLAN FOR ELIr SNORES WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Housing Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act") , a City is authorized by its housing plan to carry out programs for the financing of multifamily housing for rental primarily to elderly and/or handicapped persons as described in Subdivision 4 of Section 462C.05; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota by Resolution 82-27 adopted on February 2, 1982, has heretofore approved a comprehensive guide plan and housing assistance plan (the "Housing Plan") following a public hearing required by and otherwise in compliance with the requirements of Section 462C.01(a) (b) (c) and Section 462C.04, Subd. 1; and WHEREAS, the Act (§462C.04, Subd. 2) requires approval of a program after a public hearing held thereon after publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least fifteen days in advance of the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie (the "City") has on this date conducted a public hearing, after publication of notice as required by the Act, on the proposed Elim Shores Housing Program (the "Program") and the proposed issuance of housing revenue bonds to finance a housing development described in said notice; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Program, as amended hereby, is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Act further requires submission of the Program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (the "MHFA") for its approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that: 1. The Program is hereby amended by revising the definition of "Qualified Project Period" to read as follows: (12) "Qualified Project Period" for the set aside of 20% of the Housing Units shall mean a period beginning on the later of the first day on which at least 10 percent of the units in the Projects are first occupied or the date of issue of the Bonds for the Project and ending on the date which is the earlier of (i) the date on which all Bonds are a�3� redeemed or (ii) the date which is 28 years after the date on which at least 50 percent of the units in the Project are first occupied, but in no event shall such period be less than 12 years from the date on which at least 50 percent of the units in the Project are first occupied. 2 The Program is further amended by the addition of the following sentence under Subsection C on Page 4 thereof: "The Company has requested the City to fund an interest write down program with tax increments from the Project." 3. The Program (as amended) is hereby in all respects adopted, and it is further found and determined that said Program (as amended) is consistent with the City's Housing Plan as presently constituted and approved by the City and the Metropolitan Council. 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the Program (as amended) to the MHFA, and to do all other things and take all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Program (as amended) in accordance with the Act and any other applicable laws and regulations. Adopted by the City Council, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this day of November, 1988. Mayor City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: redeemed or (ii) the date which is 28 years after the date on which at least 50 percent of the units in the Project are first occupied, but in no event shall such period be less than 12 years from the date on which at least 50 percent of the units in the Project are first occupied. 2. The Program is further amended by the addition of the following sentence under Subsection C on Page 4 thereof: "The Company has requested the City to fund an interest write down program with tax increments from the Project." 3. The Program (as amended) is hereby in all respects adopted, and it is further found and determined that said Program (as amended) is consistent with the City's Housing Plan as presently constituted and approved by the City and the Metropolitan Council. 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the Program (as amended) to the MHFA, and to do all other things and take all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Program (as amended) in accordance with the Act and any other applicable laws and regulations. Adopted by the City Council, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this day of November, 1988. Mayor City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. )73y EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 462C, MINNESOTA STATUTES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ELDERLY; GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND CALLING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REVENUE BONDS • • X 35 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PROGRAM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED ON NOVEMBER 15, 1988 (ELIM SHORES, INC. PROJECT) • Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") has been authorized to develop and administer programs of multifamily housing developments under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth in the Act. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 provides that such programs for multifamily housing developments may be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City. The City has received a proposal from Elim Homes, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation on behalf of itself and Elim Shores, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (collectively, the "Company") that, pursuant to the authority found in the Act, the City approve a program (the "Program") for the financing of the acquisition, construction and equipping by the Company of a multifamily rental facility with an approximate total of 64 units for rental primarily to elderly persons together with common recreation and support facilities (the "Project") . The Project will be located adjacent to Lake Mitchell near the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 4 in the City of Eden Prairie. It is estimated that rents for the Housing Units will be between $575 and $1,250 per month. The apartments will be rented to members of the general public, without regard to race, religion, creed or national origin. The Company will not give preference to any particular class or group of persons, other than elderly and Lower Income Tenants (as hereinafter defined) . Accessibility to the handicapped will be considered in the construction of the Project. The construction of the Project is to be funded through the issuance of one or more series of up to $4,400,000 in revenue bonds issued by the City (the "Bonds") . It is proposed that the Bonds be sold publicly through an underwriter. The Bonds will be secured primarily by a revenue agreement with the Company. Following construction of the Project, the Company will own and operate the Project as a multifamily residential rental project primarily for the elderly. At least twenty percent (20%) of the units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are not greater than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462C.05, Subd. 2. The use of tax-exempt bonds for the Project will allow approximately 64 more affordable rental units for use by the elderly and/or low and moderate income families and individuals as required by law. The Project will also increase the variety - 1 - of housing types and costs in the City. The Project, by providing alternative housing in which the elderly and/or low and moderate income families and individuals are housed in the same development as others of varied economic means will meet the needs and objectives of the City and the public at the least expense possible. The City, in establishing this Program, has considered the information contained in the Housing Plan, including particularly (i) the availability and affordability of private market financing for the construction of multifamily housing units; (ii) the availability and affordability of other government housing programs; (iii) an analysis of population and employment trends and projections of future employment needs; (iv) the recent housing trends and future housing needs of the City; and (v) an analysis of how the Program will meet the needs of persons and families residing and expected to reside in the City. The City, in adopting the Program, has further considered (i) the amount, timing and sale of Bonds to finance the construction of the Housing Units, to fund the appropriate reserves and to pay the cost of issuance; (ii) the method of monitoring and implementation of the Program to ensure compliance with the City's Housing Plan and its objectives; (iii) the method of administering, servicing and supervising the Program; (iv) the cost to the City, including future administrative expenses; (v) the restrictions on the multifamily development to be financed under the Program; and (vi) other matters deemed relevant. The City, in adopting the Program, considered the potential financial impact of a bond issuance on affected public agencies. In addition, the City reviewed the method of marketing the Program. Such review included the examination of the equal opportunity for participation by: (i) minorities; (ii) house- holds with incomes at the lower end of the range that can be served by the Program; (iii) households displaced by public or private action; (iv) families with children; and (v) access- ibility to the handicapped. The Project will be constructed and financed pursuant to Subd. 1 through 4 of Section 462C.05 of the Act (particularly Subd. 2 thereof) and Section 469.175, Subd. 4. Subsection A. Definitions The following terms used in this Program shall have the following meanings, respectively: (1) "Act" shall mean Minnesota Statutes, Section - 2 - 462C.01, et seq., as currently in effect and as the same may from time to time be amended. (2) "Adjusted Gross Income" shall mean gross family income less $750 for each adult (maximum of two) and less $500 for each other dependent in the family as provided by and consistent with Section 462C.02, Subd. 7. (3) "Bonds" shall mean the revenue bonds to be issued by the City to finance the Program. (4) "City" shall mean the City of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. (5) "Company" shall mean Elim Homes, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, and/or Elim Shores, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. (6) "Housing Plan" shall mean the City of Eden Prairie 462C Housing Plan, adopted on February 2, 1982, as amended, setting forth certain information required by the Act. (7) "Housing Unit" shall mean any one of the apartment units located in the Project, occupied by one person or family, and containing complete living facilities. (8) "Land" shall mean the real property upon which the Project will be situated. (9) "Lower-Income Tenants" shall mean individuals who on the date of their initial occupancy of dwelling units in the Projects are individuals of low or moderate income within the meaning of Section 142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); without limiting the foregoing, the occupants of a unit shall not be considered to be of low or moderate income if all the occupants are students (as defined in Section 151(e) (4) of the Code), no one of whom is entitled to file a joint return under Section 6013 of the Code. (10) "Program" shall mean the program for the financing of the Project pursuant to the Act. (11) "Project" shall mean the multifamily housing development consisting of approximately 64 Housing Units to be constructed by the Company on the Land. (12) "Qualified Project Period" for the set aside of 20% of the Housing Units shall mean a period beginning on the later of the first day on which at least 10 percent of the units in the Projects are first occupied or the date of issue of the Bonds for the Project and ending on the date which is the earlier of (i) the date on which all Bonds are redeemed or (ii) the date - 3 - which is 28 years after the date on which at least 50 percent of the units in the Project are first occupied, but in no event shall such period be less than 12 years from the date on which at least 50 percent of the units in the Project are first occupied. Subsection B. Program for Financing the Project It is proposed that the City establish this Project to construct 64 Housing Units to be owned by the Company, at the price and upon such other terms and conditions as may be agreed upon in writing between the City and the Company. To do this, the City expects to issue one or more series of Bonds, the proceeds of which will be loaned to the Company for construction and initial financing of the Project. It is expected that a Trustee will be appointed by the City to monitor the construction of the Project and any payments of principal and interest on the Bonds. It is contemplated that the Bonds shall contain a maturity of not more than thirty (30) years and will be priced to the market at the time of issuance. It is anticipated that the Bonds will be issued on or about December 1, 1988. The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the Program. The City intends to select and contract with a trustee experienced in trust matters to administrate the Bonds. Insofar as the City will be contracting with under- writers, the trustee, and others, all of whom will be reimbursed from bond proceeds and revenues generated by the Program, little or no administrative costs will be paid from the City's budget with respect to this Program. The City will charge an administrative fee of 1/8 of one percent of the outstanding principal amount of bonds annually for administrative costs. The Bonds will not be general obligation bonds of the City, but are expected to be paid from properties pledged to the payment thereof, and out of net revenues of the Project or otherwise by Elim Homes, Inc. Subsection C. Local Contributions to the Program The Company has requested the City to fund an interest write down program with tax increments from the Project. It is not contemplated that any additional financing or contributions will be needed for the completion of the Project, or for the operation of the Program. Subsection D. Standards and Requirements Relating to the Financing of the Project Pursuant to the Program - 4 - The following standards and requirements shall apply with respect to the operation of the Project by the Company pursuant to this Program: (1) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used to provide funds for the construction of the Project, which will provide approximately 64 residential units. The funds will be made available to the Company pursuant to the terms of the Bond offering, which may include certain covenants to be entered into between the City and the Company. (2) The Company will not arbitrarily reject an application from a proposed tenant because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status or status with regard to public assistance or disability. The Housing Units are intended to be rented primarily to elderly persons. (3) No Housing Unit may be in violation of applicable zoning ordinances or other applicable land use regulations, including any urban renewal plan or development district plan, and including the state building code as set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 16.83, et seq. (4) At all times during the Qualified Project Period the Company will allocate (without designation) at least twenty percent (20%) of the dwelling units in the Project for occupancy by Lower-Income Tenants. (5) The Company has proposed a plan by which it will use its best efforts to see that approximately 70 percent of the Housing Units will be made available to individuals or families whose anticipated annual income is not more than 80 percent of the median income (adjusted for family size) of the metropolitan area (approximately $24,400), and 20 percent of the Housing Units (13 units) are targeted to be set aside for individuals with 50 percent or less of the area median income (adjusted for family size of 1 and 2) with the proposed limitation that no more than 40 percent of the latter group's income would be spent on rents. To the extent the foregoing describes a program to assist tenants of low to median income above and beyond the requirements of the Act, the Company has stated a good faith intention to implement such a program subject to the condition that the Company has the overriding concern and intention to operate the Project so that the Bonds are payable solely out of net revenues (i.e., the Project is expected to be and remain economically viable and self-supporting) subject only to (i) certain subsidies contemplated by a tax increment interest reduction program being considered by the City of Eden Prairie and (ii) the proposal that Elim Foundation use its best efforts to subsidize rents in the approximate amount of $50,000 per year for certain tenants. Subsection E. Evidence of Compliance - 5 - • The City may require from the Company or such other persons deemed necessary, at or before the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of the ability and intention of the Company to complete the Project, and evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the standards and requirements for the making of the financing established by the City, as set forth herein; and in connection therewith, the City or its representatives may inspect the relevant books and records of the Company in order to confirm such ability, intention and compliance. In addition, the City may periodically require certification from either the Company or such other persons deemed necessary, concerning compliance with various aspects of this Program. Subsection F. Issuance of Bonds To finance the Program authorized by this Section, the City may by resolution authorize, issue and sell une or more series of its Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount estimated to be up to $4,400,000. The Bonds shall be issued pursuant to Section 462C.07, Subd. 1 of the Act, and shall be payable primarily from the revenues of the Program authorized by this Section. Subsection G. Severability l The provisions of this Program are severable and if any of its provisions, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. Subsection H. Amendment The City shall not amend this Program while Bonds authorized hereby are outstanding to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds. - 6 - a :r t I EXHIBIT B NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING $4,400,000 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (ELIM SHORES, INC. PROJECT) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie will meet at City Hall, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota on Tuesday, the 15th day of November, 1988, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., to conduct a public hearing on a proposed program for the acquisition and construction of a Multifamily Housing Development for the Elderly (the Program) to be financed by the issuance of revenue bonds or notes of the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C (the Minnesota Municipal Housing Programs Act) in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,400,000. The Program describes a development, to be owned by Elim Homes, Inc. and/or Elim Shores, Inc., both of which are Minnesota nonprofit corporations (the "Company"), which will consist generally of approximately 64 apartment units together with common recreational and support facilities to be constructed at a site adjacent to Lake Mitchell, near the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 4 in the City. (The street addresses of such building has not been established.) The Bonds or other obligations issued to finance the development will be payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof or other security or collateral furnished by or through the Company and in no event shall the bonds constitute a debt of the City. The Program describes the need for the development and the method of financing proposed and states that the development is to be constructed pursuant to Section 462C.05, Subd. 4, of the Minnesota Municipal Housing Programs Act. Copies of the City's Housing Plan and the Program are on file and available for inspection in the office of the Finance Director at City Hall, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, 55344, during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) . All persons desiring to appear at the public hearing will be afforded an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the Program. At such public hearing, or at any adjournment or continuance thereof, the City Council will consider and, if appropriate, will adopt a resolution determining to proceed with the proposal to undertake the Program. All persons interested may file written comments with the City Clerk prior to the date of the hearing set forth above. ,,��a Dated at Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this 26th day of October, 1988. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL VAC 88-12 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-263 VACATION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, EDEN GLEN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain drainage and utility easements described as follows: All drainage and utility easements within that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Eden Glen not embraced in the plat of Montgomery Addition, according to the plats thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 15, 1988, after due notice was published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said drainage and utility easements are not necessary and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said drainage and utility easements as above described are hereby vacated. 2. The City. Clerk shall prepare a Notice of Completion of the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on November 15, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk aY1c-I VAC 88-13 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-264 VACATION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, WYNDHAM NOB WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain drainage and utility easements described as follows: The westerly 10.00 feet, as measured at right angles, of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Wyndham Nob, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 15, 1988, after due notice was published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said drainage and utility easements are not necessary and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said drainage and utility easements as above described are hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a Notice of Completion of the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on November 15, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John 0. Frane, Clerk • 2A5 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE This Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Stipulation") is entered into this day of , 1988 by and between, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and one of the Member Cities of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (the "SWSCC"), Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, ("Grantee") Grantee under the Franchise which was granted to it by City, Rogers Communications, Inc., ("Rogers"), a Canadian corporation, Rogers Cablesystems of America, a Delaware corporation, and Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, guarantors of Grantee (herein together called "Rogers Subsidiaries"). WHEREAS, Rogers has agreed to sell all interests and holdings in its U.S. cable systems; and WHEREAS, Rogers and the City agree that KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Proposed Transferee") should assume all Rogers' responsibilities and liabilities related to the Franchise on and after the close of transfer ("Closing"); and WHEREAS, the transfer from Rogers to Transferee shall be effectuated through the transfer of the controlling stock interest in RCA Cablesystems Holding Co., the parent corporation of Grantee; and WHEREAS, while the Grantee of the Franchise shall remain the same, Proposed Transferee shall on and after closing of the transfer of ownership from Rogers to Proposed Transferee, guarantee all responsibilities and liabilities relating to Rogers and the Grantee and Rogers shall be released and discharged from all responsibilities and liabilities for its actions and the actions of the Grantee occurring on or after such Closing; and WHEREAS, the City understands that Grantee and Rogers agree that the terms of this Stipulation shall not be effective unless the Proposed Transferee enters into a guarantee agreement on or before the time of Closing guaranteeing Grantee's performance of the Franchise as amended, this Stipulation, the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, the Performance Agreement as amended, and compliance with the acceptance terms of the Franchise; and WHEREAS, Rogers has requested that the City extend the terms of the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended by Exhibit CC approved by City and other Member Cities of the SWSCC to Proposed Transferee after the Closing; and 1 WHEREAS, in consideration of the extension of the CATV Relief Ordinance, Rogers has made an offer, included in a letter dated August 18, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit AA; and WHEREAS, it is intended by the acceptance of Exhibit AA by City that continuation of the relief provided for under the terms of the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended by Exhibit CC will continue after the Closing based upon the following Exhibits being complied with by Grantee, Rogers and Proposed Transferee: Exhibit BB - Proposed Resolution Exhibit CC - Proposed CATV Relief Ordinance Amendment Exhibit DD - Proposed Amendment to Performance Agreement; WHEREAS, in consideration of payment to the SWSCC in the sum of $3.5 Million (U.S.), City, along with other Member Cities of the SWSCC, agree to the approval of Exhibits BB, CC and DD, and agree that the waiver or deferral of certain Franchise requirements shall be approved and that Rogers and the Grantee shall be relieved of any further liability or responsibility for completion thereof; and WHEREAS, upon compliance by Grantee of all of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation and the attached Exhibits, the payment of $3.5 Million (U.S.) by Rogers to SWSCC, and, upon execution between the parties of this Stipulation and Exhibit DD, the relief provided for by City to Grantee in the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended by Exhibit CC and Exhibit DD will be continued after the Closing; and WHEREAS, Rogers seeks a release from liability under the Franchise by City, effective upon the date of transfer to Proposed Transferee. WHEREAS, the City and Grantee make the following acknowledgements: 1. By City: As of the date of this Stipulation and except for the waivers and deferrals provided for in this Stipulation, City has found, that to the best of its knowledge, Grantee is not in violation of the Franchise; 2. By City and Grantee: As set forth in Article XII, Section 5, and Article XIV, Section 2B, of the Franchise, any previous, current or future deferral or failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance with all provisions in the Franchise does not constitute a waiver of the City's rights or obligations to enforce compliance in the future; further this provision does not relieve the Grantee and the Proposed Transferee of any obligations they have to comply with all provisions of the Franchise, except as such obligations are amended, waived, or extended by this Stipulation and the CATV Relief Ordinance as 2 amended. Upon transfer of ownership and control of Grantee by the stock purchase to the Proposed Transferee, the City shall again be entitled to enforce prompt compliance of any obligation and any deferral or failure to enforce the then existing obligations by the City shall not constitute a waiver of the City's rights or remedies; and 3. By Grantee: That Grantee is not, to the best of its knowledge and except for the waivers and deferrals provided for in this Stipulation, in violation of any of the terms or conditions of the Franchise and all requirements of the Franchise are being complied with except as identified by this Stipulation. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing mutual agreement and negotiated settlement between the Grantee, Rogers and City and upon compliance by Grantee and Rogers of all of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation, it is hereby mutually agreed that: 1. In consideration of the Proposed Transferee's guarantee of Grantee's performance which includes the execution and delivery of the agreement pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Stipulation of the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended by Exhibit CC and Exhibit DD and in consideration of payment by Rogers of $3.5 Million (U.S.) in immediately available U.S. funds, wired to the SWSCC account, First Bank Minneapolis, Account No. 602-3377-564, for the benefit of its Member Cities, at the Closing between Rogers and its Proposed Transferee, City agrees to the following: a. Continue after the Closing in accordance with the terms of the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, evidenced by Exhibit CC and the Performance Agreement as amended as exhibited by Exhibit DD, to the Proposed Transferee of Grantee; b. The "Waiver of completion of the minor Franchise offerings" as set forth in Exhibit EE hereto; c. Deferral for negotiation with the Proposed Transferee regarding compliance with liability insurance requirements of the Franchise; d. Waiver of its right to review for purchase by City and right to purchase the cable system prior to transfer of control of Grantee of Franchise to Proposed Transferee; and, e. Waiver of reimbursement for costs in connection with the Stipulation in excess of the amount paid to the SWSCC by Grantee and Rogers. 2. Rogers and Grantee shall complete enhancement of the 3 Residential Network as described in the report of the Southwest Institutional Network Group ("SWING"). The cost in implementing the SWING recommendation is approximately $34,000.00, of which up to $17,660.50 shall be paid by all Member Cities. Rogers shall pay the $34,000.00 total cost initially, and the City's portion of the cost shall be repaid to Rogers at the time of the payment of the $3.5 Million (U.S.) on condition Grantee complete this work prior to the Closing with Proposed Transferee. If this work is not completed at the time of Closing, the estimated cost shall be held in escrow by SWSCC at the Closing and distributed when Grantee completes the work. 3. This Stipulation shall be effective only if the City and all Member Cities of the SWSCC have approved it and its Exhibits, and each are accepted by Grantee and Rogers. The terms of this Stipulation shall be effective for six (6) months from the final date of passage by all five Member Cities of a resolution approving settlement, and may be extended by either Grantee or SWSCC for an additional six (6) months without further consideration. Upon payment by Rogers of the $3.5 million (U.S.) described in paragraph 1 of this Stipulation and as a condition of approval of the transfer of ownership and control of Grantee to Proposed Transferee, Grantee and Proposed Transferee shall hold harmless City, SWSCC, and Member Cities on and after Closing of the transfer from any liability or responsibility with respect to the sale or transfer of ownership of the cable communications system and the Franchise of the City to Proposed Transferee. On and after the transfer from Rogers to Proposed Transferee, Proposed Transferee shall guarantee and Grantee shall assume any and all then existing responsibilities and liabilities related to the Franchise, the CATV Relief Ordinance, the CATV Relief Ordinance Amendment, the Performance Agreement, as amended, the Contract for Local Programming Activities between SWSCC and Grantee, including Rogers' responsibilities and liabilities, and the City, SWSCC and Member Cities shall release and discharge Rogers and Grantee from any and all responsibilities, liabilities, claims and disputes, known and unknown, related to the Franchise and Grantee. 4. If the conditions of this Stipulation are not satisfied because of actions by Rogers, Grantee or Proposed Transferee, Grantee and Rogers agree to reimburse the City and SWSCC for all expenses over and above amounts previously paid by Rogers and/or Grantee in connection with this Stipulation and also agree to be continuously bound by the terms of the existing Franchise, the CATV Relief Ordinance, the Performance Agreement, the Contract for Local Programming Activities, the Acceptance Agreement and Agreement of Joint and Several Liability both given in connection with the transfer of the Franchise to Grantee. 5. This Stipulation and all of its Exhibits shall be null and void and shall not be effective, unless Proposed Transferee 4 ;7U9 enters into a guarantee agreement on or before the time of Closing of transfer of ownership from Rogers to Proposed Transferee agreeing to guarantee Grantee's performance of the Franchise as amended, this Stipulation, the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, and the Performance Agreement as amended, and unless the Proposed Transferee complies with the terms of Article XIV of the Franchise. The foregoing was agreed to and entered into between the Grantee, Rogers, and City on the day of , 1988. City of Wen Prairie Mayor City Manager ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC., a Minnesota orporatio, ✓,By Its ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Canadian corporation By � r Its ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware CilatZorcl.) ' \ By Its ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA, BY VVV ,l C., a Dejgware Cp�porat�lot:\�,J - Its \1 SW3/STIPUL2.SW - 11/7/88 • 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 corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this ^tt) day of Al. , 19•)" , by /-i;,/,,) I 4/.07 , the 6„'t IN,r',/ri•.(of ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said co r tion. ,/, ,N"^ Notary Public X AAAAA4AAAAAAAkAAAAAAAAA4AAAA4AIAAA X Hor a E r -;oTA STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss My Ccmrn,c Ex,rc,EeJ 7 1^;g xwvvrvrrbtlrbmbbrobtrowwrobavroreenx COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this rj/!/ day of 7\/ 0-r l nIX.m , 19 1 , by /)Gr-7, i I'; l.Yf%f , the.N L.,cr /,� rrr:P of ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a Canadian corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Nory Pu:,:ri;::A 6 xA44AAAAOfAA4.1qt G1�i,1 My � � .; �yEq,FPS.7,1E 7hbtltlW7btlbLbWrt,M11G'bpyy4•y p ( STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this r7/) day of A/( , 19,.X, by /. i f ) r-; 1,, /r , the , ,'i I ( /00'dk4 I of ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation. ( . (Pc N a---'"A'^"'"'F .hAAAPR nAA40.00.ep AAA NN1 ?(I I^ F,,.. q to Coa �s;:an G res F e2 7,U3 , 1 .')STATE OF MINNESOTA) SS XVevvVrvvvrnvvrvtinVVVV VVVVVVVYYPC , COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this )tIi day of /Vi(.r i)/Xv' , 19 �fC, by l)/u/,,.) [t. LHY/ the !'r 0,r r 0 1 of ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation. n a 9/ c,Llia/'--, Nptary Public !AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF AA AC A6140.444AA,Me • LET A' n< P T / S NOG::; O ,AI FCr c I "m 1A k Y Ccnm�_ oo ;;r; SW3/STIPUL.SW - 10/20/88 7 al5a fld, • 1! Cable TV A...:,Trot 18, 13;a • Y= Adiln F.a:t,t Y-'._',3d:. ?, LTD. 9.v Fcr h'a::d Pia:_ 35C0 gcst a S: to Lsar Adrian: This lattsr is in r:s;cnse tc a counter effa: tads by the C3eritir.; cc".-^.ittae of t a EcutnW;zt Su*u:tan Cc`-lasicn. The cffe Crfollcwinitial prcpcsal c'_ }Ely 10, 19S8, and sulsey'_ant diecuss f: g and July 6, 151i. Given these di_cutsicns ircl`uG!n5 t =sa ,Rai s! Ag::•t$r.`_ and the C,:at:nc �irC 35iC.'.3, c`u analysis cfthe3sa. the f:llc4.; Cffar tas'cd •t ctG S er: r. i:.c -' - 1 s r�F � d to ;: it lode t se L;.c:• cur �nda:ztar.Zins w*a :3 ., _-ly cc..c a•z. ""cns. � fti: i7 t: p final a;;:C'iwl Ly all a,,__,.lata ��7$ C= effec Ys tr�.. 'tti aut!:critien and te final clesi-- cf t`.a p:.,:cued equity sale to a now buyer. The details c_ cur p_c;,csal arl as fcllcws: a) 'franchise fee r-t aa;is will irc=sasa fro_ 3 to :1 of Foos rtvar...es an! the lolled Acretea_ will be so amended. buys: will ass::-o :`a annual chli;atica for acosss Ind L.C. ,_ cf 1% cf gross rave-ues and the cities shall co continua t' _- •• C3 Curra.`.-1y ;r n t«o t c`- 14 cz Sr _ __va-Lzs ..etc.. - x_:ief ,lg-saas, c) Fc=a:, will pro= : $3,5CC,CCC in lie:: cf all ether ac ass,' L.. ..t..1 c� _ ., frt. 1So3 t•_:L'iw the e.. cf tY: relief in 9 , C.. 1 t ati c__.: cf the 15i2, iacl•.:di.:� all incidental c..a_�. a._--••�_s` &ccs-s t transfer a-d all cthar z'_sput:s a:t.'. cliff:s aga-.• y cities. 'd c-= .ded tar=ina o ca tns earlier a) c F;a_-•f l+y-_e_n..-t bc:._ the t_^in :ic.. of the franchise c: for iron-F+rforra:ca c y. Serer V.rr_:^: .&:.r _:n E:ra.F^4�f;• f'412"a 1rL Za.6iC i . ?t_. Adriaz Re:ra. Fa,a2 .'cat la, 1233 ej ^..e. Net tear_-- will, AZ racc==ended ky sw 1, to cc..t_a_ed .:: 5 additional years. :) —..a tu*,'er would c..na disa accoItt n2 f:zno!.isa Hal i1K ane cities will al^'da ty tho pr.,cec::_es a,.d finddines fz: raviav a3 sat fo %Indx ?t'_"n99cta lax, Bu7er will fuiaia.`. t`.a racezed law, t:c`.n_cal and financial rtaliticaticns. we ayrrocia_a your and t.'.a Curn:'_ny Ctc=ittae's daai:l to exrdi_icualf concluda this zrat:a=. :::i: p_ci.csal i: int -:e! t_ ccnfI rm t ;tint; y._ rai_sad tc _a a3 a a..la to tIe C_:r_tin; C.:"zittsa. lea f=tna: u.ndarsta;d t;.:t. t..i3 Oita. Will iz ra way a_ :c: a °xi:tins Relief Acr:+are^t if it is nct ac:a;,ad c_ a s_l. an. trt;afar is rct cic.ad W. shall ;Wait yc.:. response. Your traly, Your .il'Iv&-t-2 . Vsrncz acrw,r Vic. Frasident, Racsla`_ory A1"1 .g rare, 83-:.c:52 a15y EXHIBIT BB RESOLUTION NO. ILIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SETTLEMENT WITH THE GRANTEE UNDER THE CITY'S CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE ORDINANCE REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF THE TERM OF THE CATV RELIEF ORDINANCE, BASED UPON CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS THEREOF, TO A PROPOSED TRANSFEREE OF THE FRANCHISE FOR THE CITY'S CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie("City") is the official governing body of City; and WHEREAS, City, in association with other cities, granted a Cable Communications Franchise to Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ("Grantee"); and WHEREAS, the City adopted the CATV Relief Ordinance No. I2 RS in 1985 ("CATV Relief Ordinance"), providing for modifications of the requirements of the City's Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance ("Franchise") ; and WHEREAS, in approximately August 1988, Rogers Communications, Inc. ("Rogers"), notified City and the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC"), a joint powers commission comprised of this City and the cities of Edina , Hopkins , Minnetonka , and Richfield ("Member Cities"), of the fact that Rogers intended to sell all interest and holdings in its U.S. cable systems to KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Proposed Transferee"); and WHEREAS, as part of Rogers' proposed sale of its U.S. cable systems, Rogers requested that the City extend the term of the CATV Relief Ordinance after the Closing; and WHEREAS, on behalf of this City and other Member Cities of the SWSCC, the SWSCC undertook an evaluation and study of the request of Rogers; and WHEREAS, after considerable study and negotiation, the SWSCC made a recommendation based upon the final offer of Rogers, which is included as Exhibit 1 to this Resolution as a Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Stipulation") ; and WHEREAS, at a Commission meeting of the SWSCC on September 7, 1988, the SWSCC recommended that the City approve and accept the conditions under which an extension of the terms of the CATV Relief Ordinance would be made; and 1 WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the recommendation of the SWSCC and the Stipulation and has determined that an extension of the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Stipulation, is reasonable and acceptable to the City; and WHEREAS, the City understands that Grantee and Rogers agree that the terms of the Stipulation shall not be effective unless the Proposed Transferee enters into a Guarantee Agreement on or before the time of Closing agreeing to guarantee Grantee's performance of the Franchise as amended, the Stipulation, the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, the Performance Agreement as amended, and compliance with the acceptance terms of the Franchise; and WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that the SWSCC has incurred substantial expense in evaluating this proposed settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation. The City also has incurred expense in this process. Both the SWSCC and City must be paid for the expenses incurred. The City acknowledges that as part of the process undertaken by the SWSCC, the Grantee has paid monies towards such expenses incurred by SWSCC. The balance of such expenses of SWSCC and also the City will be paid from the funds paid pursuant to paragraph 7 below; and WHEREAS, the SWSCC has recommended that Rogers pay to it directly the proceeds of the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation and such monies be held by the SWSCC until the SWSCC is able to recommend the best use and distribution for and on behalf of each of the Member Cities; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Stipulation with its attached Exhibits and Resolution, shall not be effective until the sale and transfer by Rogers to the Proposed Transferee is completed. The terms of this Resolution shall not be effective until Grantee and Rogers have complied in full with the Resolution and satisfied all of the requirements of this Resolution, the Stipulation, the acceptance of modifications to the Performance Agreement, and the amendment to the CATV Relief Ordinance, as well as having closed with the Proposed Transferee. NOW, THEREFORE, in a regular meeting assembled of the City Council of the City of F,den prairte the following was resolved; 1) That the Stipulation with its exhibits, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to sign the same on behalf of City. 2 yr 2) That the terms of this Resolution are contingent upon approval and adoption of the CATV Relief Ordinance Amendment and Amendment to Performance Agreement, which are attached to the Stipulation, by the City, other Member Cities of the SWSCC and the SWSCC. 3) That the terms of this Resolution shall be null and void if a similar Resolution is not approved by other Member Cities of the SWSCC within 45 days from the date of this Resolution. 4) That the terms of this Resolution shall be null and void unless Grantee and Rogers shall have signed the Stipulation and the Proposed Transferee guarantees the performance of the Grantee and satisfies the transfer requirements of the Franchise. 5) This Stipulation and all of its Exhibits shall be null and void and shall not be effective, unless Proposed Transferee enters into a guarantee agreement on or before the time of Closing of transfer of ownership from Rogers to Proposed Transferee agreeing to guarantee Grantee's performance of the Franchise as amended, this Stipulation, the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, and the Performance Agreement as amended, and unless the Proposed Transferee complies with the terms of Article XIV of the Franchise; and 6) That if a Closing of the transfer by and between Rogers and Proposed Transferee does not occur within six (6) months, the terms of this Resolution shall be null and void. The 6-month period commences when the last of the five Member Cities has given final approval to a similar resolution. The 6-month period may be extended by either Grantee or SWSCC for an additional six (6) months without further consideration. Notice of such extension must be done in writing and mailed to the last known address of each of the parties identified herein. The Closing shall also provide that the Proposed Transferee of the Franchise shall agree to be bound by the terms in this Resolution and shall guarantee Grantee's performance of the Franchise, the CATV Relief Ordinance and Amendment to the CATV Relief Ordinance, the Stipulation and such other requirements as may be set forth in the resolution by the City approving the transfer to the Proposed Transferee. 7) The SWSCC is hereby authorized to collect the sum of $3.5 Million (U.S.) in immediately available U.S. funds wired by Rogers to the SWSCC account, First Bank Minneapolis, Account No. 602-3377-564 at the time of the Closing between Rogers and its Proposed Transferee. The sum so collected by the SWSCC may be deposited in the 3 a�,c) account of the SWSCC and invested in accordance with requirements applicable to municipalities. Within thirty (30) days after the $3.5 Million (U.S.) payment is deposited in the SWSCC account, the SWSCC shall accomplish the following: (a) The SWSCC is authorized to reimburse itself for its costs and expenses in connection with the Stipulation and not previously paid for by the Grantee and Rogers. (b) The SWSCC will reimburse to each of the Member Cities an advance payment made by the Member Cities to the SWSCC for expenses of the SWSCC in connection with this Stipulation. (c) The SWSCC will pay to Rogers or place the sums in escrow pursuant to Section 2 of the Stipulation, if required, the Cities' portion of costs for the enhancement of the subscriber network as identified in the Stipulation. (d) The balance of the $3.5 Million (U.S.) together with accrued interest will be disbursed by the SWSCC in accordance with paragraph 8 below. 8) Unless otherwise specifically authorized by resolution of all the Member Cities, the SWSCC shall distribute the balance of the proceeds to the Member Cities in accordance with the following distribution formula and City shall be responsible for its own costs and expenses in connection with this Stipulation out of its portion of the distribution: PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTION* Percent Eden Prairie 20.0% $ 700,000 Edina 25.0 875,000 Hopkins 10.0 350,000 Minnetonka 24.5 857,500 Richfield 20.5 717,500 TOTAL 100.0% $3,500,000 *Based on an average of each city's proportion of the total subscriber revenues for the 7-year period of the Relief Agreement adjusted to reflect the fact that each city provides an equal contribution for a portion of the funding of the SWSCC. 4 The SWSCC shall review cable-related needs of the Member Cities and shall make its recommendations on the uses of the $3.5 Million (U.S.) proceeds prior to the Closing between Grantee and the Proposed Transferee. The Member Cities shall have the opportunity for consideration and approval. Consideration of such recommendations shall not delay distribution of such balance to the Member Cities. This Resolution is passed and adopted the day of 1988. CITY OF Eden Prairie Mayor SW3/RESOL2.SW - 11/7/88 5 ar9 qQ EXHIBIT CC ORDINANCE NO. S 1^�4 O An Ordinance Amending CATV Relief Ordinance, Ordinance No. 12-85 , Providing Modifications in Contemplation of a Transfer of Ownership of the City's Cable Communications Franchise and Permitting Continuance of Relief to the Transferee of the Franchise in Accordance with this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie ordains as follows: Section 1. Short Title. This Ordinance shall be known as the "CATV Relief Ordinance Amendment." Section 2. Background and Purpose. Rogers Communications, Inc. ("Rogers") has agreed to sell all interests and holding in its U.S. cable systems to KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Proposed Transferee") . The transfer from Rogers to the Proposed Transferee shall be effectuated through the transfer of the controlling stock interest in RCA Cablesystems Holding Co., the parent corporation of the Grantee. The City previously granted relief to the Grantee under the Franchise by Ordinance known as the CATV Relief Ordinance. Rogers has requested relief from the Franchise to be extended after the Closing, irrespective of the requirement in the CATV Relief Ordinance that the CATV Relief Ordinance terminates upon transfer of ownership and control of Grantee of the Franchise to a new owner. The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC") has reviewed the request of Rogers and recommended extending certain portions of the CATV Relief Ordinance to a proposed new owner. This recommendation is based upon compliance with certain conditions by the Grantee and acceptance of requirements including this Ordinance, by the Proposed Transferee of the Franchise. A Stipulation of Settlement with Rogers and Grantee, Exhibit A ("Stipulation") and a Resolution of Approval of Settlement, Exhibit B ("Resolution"), are attached. The Stipulation and Resolution provide a description of requirements and conditions and are made part of this Ordinance by reference. This Ordinance will be effective only if the Stipulation and Resolution are satisfied and Proposed Transferee agrees to be 1 bound by the terms of this Ordinance as part of its acceptance of the transfer of the ownership of Grantee. Section 3. That Section 4 of the Relief Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. The definitions in the Franchise also apply to this ordinance. Subdivision 2. In addition, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given them: [(1) "Existing indebtedness" means an $18,000,000 loan made to Grantee to Toronto Dominion Bank of Toronto, Canada under loan documents dated April 1, 1982.] (1) [(2)] "Franchise" means the Cable Communications Ordinance as now or hereafter amended. (2) [(3)] "Local Programming Obligations" means, for the purpose of this ordinance, Grantee's obligations under the Franchise and the Offering for cablecast access, community access and local origination programming. (3) [(4)] "Performance Agreement" means a contractual agreement between Grantee, City and SWSCC providing a means for monitoring Grantee's financial condition, assuring an adequate level of local programming, and providing for certain other matters related to Grantee's requested relief[.],, as amended. Section 4. That Section 5 of the CATV Relief Ordinance is amended to read as follows: SECTION 5. RELIEF GRANTED. While this Ordinance is in effect the obligations of Grantee are modified to the extent provided in this section. Subdivision 1. Franchise Fees - Percentage. Until the effective date of this Ordinance, the annual franchise fee shall be 3% of gross revenues. Commencing with [Grantee's fiscal year 1985] the effective date of this ordinance the annual 2 a1 co franchise fee is [reduced from] 5% of Gross Revenues [to 3%]. Such annual fees shall be paid to City in equal quarterly payments on or before the first day of each of the months of November, February, May and August next following the end of Grantee's fiscal year. [If this ordinance terminates during any of Grantee's fiscal years, the franchise fee shall be restored to the rate of 5% of Gross Revenues at the end of the calendar month in which termination occurs. The restored rate of 5% and the reduced rate of 3% shall be applied respectively to the Gross Revenues collected only in the months during which each rate was in effect. The fees accruing at the restored rate shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the Franchise. The fees accruing at the reduced rate shall be paid in equal quarterly installments in accordance with the terms of this ordinance.] [Subd. 2. Past Due Franchise Fees. The 1984 franchise fee in the amount of $57,253 payable on or before November 1, 1984 shall be deemed fully discharged and paid if, but only if, Grantee pays the sum of $34,352 to the City, in four equal payments on or before June 1, June 15, August 15 and October 15, 1985.] Subd. [3.] 2 Letters of Credit. The City Council may by resolution reduce the required amount of the Letter of Credit below $50,000 if in its sole discretion it determines that a lesser amount is reasonable and adequate to protect the public. It may thereafter, by resolution, require the amount of the Letter of Credit to be increased or fully restored to the amount of $50,000. Grantee shall comply with this requirement within sixty days after written notice has been given by the City. Subd. [4.] 1 Performance Bond. The Grantee may dispense with the $300,000 performance bond required by the Franchise. The City Council may thereafter by resolution require that such bond, or a similar bond in a lesser amount, be provided by Grantee. Grantee shall comply with this requirement within sixty days after written notice has been given by the City. Subd. [5.] Q Local Programming Obligations. Grantee shall expend at least 1% of its annual 3 I l �. Gross Revenues each fiscal year in fulfilling its Local Programming Obligations under the Franchise for public, governmental, and educational access, but it shall not be obligated to expend more than that amount for such access. That amount shall not include any costs of operation, capital for access equipment replacement previously agreed to by the parties in Exhibit 2 to the Contract for Local Programming Facilities. which is Exhibit A to the Performance Agreement, which shows the equipment to be maintained and replaced, or administration not directly related to the provision of local programming. This expenditure shall be in complete satisfaction of Grantee's total Local Programming Obligations during the period of this ordinance. Section 5. That Section 6 of the Relief Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 6. AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF RELIEF ORDINANCE PROVISIONS. The provisions of this ordinance, and the relief herein granted, shall cease to be effective, automatically, upon the occurrence of the earliest of any of the following events: [Subdivision 1. Failure of the Grantee to complete refinancing its Existing Indebtedness by December 31, 1987 in accordance with Article II, Section 4 of the Franchise.] [Subd. 2. The end of the next month after Grantee has collected cumulative Gross Revenues in the amount of one hundred million dollars as measured from September 1, 1984. The determination of cumulative Gross Revenues shall be based upon audited financial statements for periods for which they are available and upon Grantee's operating reports for period for which audited statements are not then available. Grantee shall provide City with its financial statements and financial operating reports promptly after they are prepared.] [Subd. 3.] Subdivision 1. March 1, 1992. [Subd. 4. Payment, discharge, or satisfaction of the Existing Indebtedness, except through refinancing as provided in Article II, Section 4 of the Franchise.] 4 [Subd. 5. Payment, discharge, or satisfaction of the indebtedness arising from the refinancing provided in Article II, Section 4 of the Franchise.] [Subd. 6.] Subdivision 2. Failure of the Grantee to restore or replace the full required amount of the Letter of Credit as provided in Article VIII, Section 4, paragraph H of the Franchise. [Subd. 7. Failure of the Grantee to pay the fees as required in Section 5, Subd. 2 of this ordinance.] [Subd. 8.] Subdivision 3. Failure of the Grantee to restore, replace or increase either a Letter of Credit or bond within sixty days of written notice by the City, as provided in Section 5, Subdivisions [3 and 4] 2 and 3 of this ordinance. [Subd. 9.] Subdivision 4. A holding or determination by any court or agency that any term, condition or provision of this Relief Ordinance is invalid or unenforceable, as a result of any action taken by Grantee or anyone acting on Grantee's behalf seeking such determination. [Subd. 10. Sale or transfer of all or substantially all of the System to a person or entity other than a parent, subsidiary, related corporation, affiliated corporation, partner or joint venturer of Grantee or any parent of Grantee.] [Subd. 11.] ,$ubdivision 5. Termination of the Franchise. Section 6. That Section 7 of the Relief Ordinance is amended to read as follows: SECTION 7. OTHER TERMINATIONS. This ordinance may also be terminated for cause, under the same procedures for termination as are contained in the Franchise, for the following reasons: Subdivision 1. All grounds for termination provided in the Franchise, includina the Relief Ordinance as amended, except to the extent that 5 Grantee's performance obligations are modified in this Ordinance. [Subd. 2. The purchase by Grantee, its general partner, or any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or other related corporation of Grantee or its general partner, of a cable communications system or any part thereof or interest therein, located within the seven-county metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.121, Subd. 2. For this purpose the definition of a cable communications system shall be as that term is currently defined by the Board. Such a purchase shall not be grounds for termination of this ordinance, however, if the Grantee demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that the purchase (1) will not impair the operating cash flow or financial position of Grantee and (2) will involve independent financing of the purchase without resort to the assets of the System.] [Subd. 3.) Subdivision 2. Failure of the Grantee to comply with any of the provisions of the Performance Agreement. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and adoption by City and upon satisfaction of all of the following conditions: (1) Publication of this Ordinance; (2) Passage and adoption by each of the Member Cities of the SWSCC of an Ordinance similar to this Ordinance within 45 days of the adoption of this Ordinance; (3) Conformance by Grantee with all the terms and conditions of the Resolution, Exhibit B and of the Stipulation, Exhibit A, and of the Amendment to the Performance Agreement, Exhibit DD to the Stipulation, Exhibit A; (4) Acceptance by Grantee in conformance with Section 8 of this Ordinance; (5) Closing of the transfer of ownership from Rogers to Proposed Transferee within one (1) year from the date hereof and notice thereof to the Member Cities of SWSCC. 6 (6) Execution and delivery by Proposed Transferee of a guarantee agreement as required by Paragraph 5 of the Stipulation. Section 8. Acceptance of the Relief Ordinance as amended; Providing of Guarantees. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with the provisions of Article XIV of the Franchise including delivery to the City of the acceptance, opinion of legal counsel, guarantees and other documents as required by said Article XIV. Passed by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie Minnesota this day of 1988. City Mayor Action on above ordinance: Date of first reading: Date of second reading: Motion for Adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Ordinance adopted. Date of publication: SW2/ORD2 11/7/88 7 EXHIBIT DD AMENDMENT TO PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated the day of , 1988, by and between ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC., ("Grantee"), a Minnesota corporation, its successors or assigns, ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC. ("Parent"), a Delaware corporation, its successors or assigns, the CITY OF Eden prairie MINNESOTA ("City"), a municipal corporation, and the SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION ("SWSCC"), a joint powers organization created by the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield, Minnesota ("Member Cities") to amend a Performance Agreement entered into by them (hereinafter "Performance Agreement") to be consistent with Ordinance No. 12-85 (hereinafter "CATV Relief Ordinance") as amended by Ordinance No. hereby agree as follows: WHEREAS, City has adopted a Resolution, approving this Agreement; WHEREAS, in accordance with the Resolution and the terms and conditions therein, certain modifications in relief previously provided in the CATV Relief Ordinance are required; and WHEREAS, acceptance of this Agreement and of the changes provided for herein are required in order to satisfy the conditions of the Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the consideration of each of the parties herein and the mutual understandings of them, the following changes to the Performance Agreement are hereby mutually agreed to: 1. Section 2 is amended to read as follows: Section 2. Definitions. The words and phrases used in this Agreement shall have the meanings given to them in the Franchise and CATV Relief Ordinance. "CATV Relief Ordinance" as used herein, in the Contract for Local Programming Facilities, the Contract for Public, Educational, and Government Access Services, and all agreements related thereto, shall mean the CATV Relief Ordinance (Ordinance No. 12-85 ) as amended by Ordinance No. 1 2. Section 4.04 is amended to read as follows: 4.04. The City agrees to pay, to assist in providing local programming, up to, but not in excess of one- fifth (1/5) of the five percent (5%) annual franchise fee actually received by the City pursuant to the cATV Relief Ordinance, as amended, on the following terms and conditions: (Paragraphs A through B are unchanged) C. Grantee shall deduct up to one-fifth (1/5) of the quarterly franchise fee payment made to City. The actual amount to be deducted shall be based upon the access budget prepared by Grantee and approved by the SWSCC each year. The amount deducted in accordance with the access budget shall be identified by Grantee with each payment of the franchise fee. If Grantee's required payment for local programming of one percent (1%) of gross revenues is not fully expended in the performance of the Facilities Contract, then the remaining amounts will be expended by Grantee for local programming or used to reduce the amount payable under this paragraph pro rate among the Member Cities on the basis of the contribution of each, in the discretion of SWSCC. (Paragraphs D through H are unchanged) 3. Section 5 is amended by adding a new Section 5.07 as follows: 5.07. Pursuant to the report and recommendations issued under Section 5.04 above, development of an institutional network shall be deferred for the longer of: 1) five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, or 2) until the SWSCC reconvenes and/or reappoints SWING and SWING determines pursuant to this agreement that the institutional network is economically viable and that the construction of the network would not have an adverse impact on the financial condition of Grantee and residential subscriber rates. 2 al L� 4. This Agreement shall be effective only upon Ordinance No. becoming effective and four parallel ordinances for all Member Cities becoming effective and upon completion of the purchase of the common stock of RCA Cablesystems Holding Co. by KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation, and compliance by KBL Cable, Inc., with all of the requirements of Closing including signing and delivering a guarantee agreement required by paragraph 5 of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release between the City, Grantee, Rogers Communications, Inc., and Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. 5. Except as specifically modified herein, all other requirements of the Performance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. CITY OF Eden Prairie By Its SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION By Its ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, • INC., a Minnesota corpor ion B Y Its ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC. its successors or assigns By � N\ Its SW3/AMEND2.SW 11/7/88 l 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 , by the 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 of the SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION, 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 FY/) day of AICLY.;ifl. , 19 ;(, by i),:i,le,) 1:;, l,,lll , the 4 n' 14 r'„!1{, bf ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public AAA AAAAAAAAA.a.ApAAAAAAAAAe1C AAAAAAAAX STATE OF MINNESOTA) " LEEANNO r K ;, 1A ) BB -= ur-.r;;.:rN� :;,e,Y COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) "�"' u My Commis, f;p.7,17JO XK'bsbvvvvvvYvvCCOtmtrtyr rAl.etay;t The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this 5,I( day of A/Cr,( 1/)('' , 19 UC" , by ,41e1,,) /t ( rt , the ( j1.4,•,;k;e 1 of ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC., its successors or assigns, on behalf of said corporation. /� paTL A I ri( pl<}�... N7(tNA RAAA44aAtaAAMAAAx LESA1N K FFT R? N ▪ NOT 5? 1A SW3/AMEND.SW - 10/19/88 MyC ms 30E > ,w 7.17 ;. k▪vesesevevrrwncwirt'G1'vvtlVc.bVbu'r..�a 4 EXHIBIT EE WAIVER OF COMPLETION OF MINOR FRANCHISE OFFERINGS 1. The cable company provided for inter-city connection via ultra high performance bi-directional trunks utilizing feed- forward amplifiers and three-quarter or one-inch size low loss cable. The 270 MHz Mid-Split Channel Capacity would provide 17 forward and 17 reverse channels. (Form I, p. 22) Such waiver does not extend to the Proposed Transferee. 2. The cable company provided that 55 miles of PVC conduit would be installed in areas of underground construction undertaken during the initial construction period. The use of the conduit would provide for future expansion of the system to a dual cable network should the need for additional channel capacity arise. (Form I, p. la) In constructing the system, Rogers found that over 200 miles of underground plant were required. Rogers built the system using conduit under all streets and highways but not for other construction. It is the intent of the parties to this Stipulation that this policy would be continued by the Proposed Transferee. 3. Cable company was to provide 20 modulators at 20 locations throughout the joint system in addition to those provided to educational institutions. (Article IV, Sec. 1 C5) The policy of the cable company has been to provide modulators on an "as needed" basis. It is the intent of the parties to this Stipulation that this policy would be continued by the Proposed Transferee. AM2 10/19/88 :in 1 NOVEMBER 15,19BB 46661 J P NOREX INC SERVICE-RIVERVIEW RO & RIVERVIEW DRIVE 33945.00 46662 ARCHIE'S INC REFUND-VOLLEYBALL REGISTRATION 25.00 '6bb3 MARSHA BETZ REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 30.00 664 BOUSTEAD ELECTRIC & MANUFACTURING -REPAIR GEAR DRIVE TO PRIMARY BASIN 5229.97 CLARIFIER-WATER DEPT 46665 CHILDREN'S PALACE SLIDE/TOYS-CENTER CARE 50.00 46666 CHARLOTTE JARAMILLO REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 9.50 46667 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 518.55 4666E HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-ELECTIONS 1298.86 4461.0 MM oECREAT!ON t, ono', PSS INC -CO FERFNCE-PAPA PPCPFATTQN T. NATURAL 175,AA RESOURCES 46670 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-ENGINEERING DEPT 90.00 46671 AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION LEGAL SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER LITIGATION 3000.00 46672 MINNEAPOLIS HEALTH DEPARTMENT LAB TESTS-POLICE DEPT 9B.80 46b73 AT&T SERVICE 154.40 46674 BIRTCHER WELSH COMPANIES NOVEMBER B8 RENT-CITY HALL 17596.36 46675 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 13093.48 46676 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 160.41 4b677 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 101.41 4b678 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 2496.95 46679 GRIGGS COOPER & CD INC LIOUOR 4004.11 466B0 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 4352.52 4b681 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIOUOR 2843.75 46682 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 225.84 46683 DUALITY WINE CO WINE 2638.59 46684 NANCY WELLS HALLOWEEN PARTY-SOCIAL/FEES PAID 25.00 46685 KYM LONGHI HALLOWEEN PARTY-SOCIAL/FEES PAID 25.00 46686 MN ANIMAL CONTROL ASSOC CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 20.00 687 TWIN CITIES CHAPTER STC CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES 60.00 0688 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE POSTAGE-DOG TAGS-CITY HALL 16.89 46689 MINUTEMAN PRESS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 45.30 46690 VOSS ELECTRIC CO LIGHT BULBS-POLICE BUILDING 101.80 4bb91 SUBWAY SANDWICHES & SALADS EXPENSES-ADULT HOCKEY 122.27 46692 RICHY ATHERTON REFUND-SEATING LESSONS 34.25 46693 JOYCE FAIRCHILD REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 1.75 46b94 A, R FITZSIMMONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 46695 JOHN FRANE -SEPTEMBER & OCTOBER 88 EXPENSES-FINANCE 400.00 DEPT 4b696 KRIS VEDAD HAGHI REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00 46697 ANDREA HEBRINK REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 13.00 46698 NANCY HEBRINK REFUND-PARENT & CHILD CRAFTS 15.00 46b99 RUTH LECY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 32.00 46700 LINDA JOHNSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 46701 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 5156.66 46702 ALYSSA PLOSZAY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 46703 KAREN THDMPSON REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 19.00 46704 VOID OUT CHECK 6.00 46705 EDENVALE GOLF CLUB EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES 80.50 46706 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 10/28/88 1226.00 46707 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 10/28/88 9569.52 46708 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 252.00 46709 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYRDLL 10/28/88 47926.81 46710 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 10/28/88 4451.00 '4711 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 211.00 '12 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION PAYROLL 10/28/88 1204.24 16323149 2772- NOVEMBER 15,1988 46713 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC NOVEMBER 88 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 12458.95 46714 MINNESOTA UC FUND 3RD OUARTER 88 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS 3500.00 46715 NORWEST BANK HDPKINS PAYROLL 10/14/80 & 10/28/88 900.00 6716 EXECUTIVE DIRECTDR-PERA PAYRDLL 10/28/8B 24464.89 46717 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN NOVEMBER 88 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 19813.52 46718 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 10/28/8B 211.50 46719 AT:T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 29.25 46720 CAPE DN THE PDND EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 113.10 46721 KAMI JDHNSON REFUND-PARENT & CHILD CRAFTS 15.00 46722 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 10153.27 46723 NORTHERN STATES PDWER CO SERVICE 2225.01 46724 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 19.08 46725 STATE TREASURER STATE OF MINNESOT LICENSE-WATER DEPT 15.00 46726 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 50.92 46727 SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COU CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESDURCES 10.00 46728 SUPPLIES 7 HI ENTER INC NOVEMBER 88 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 4507.94 46729 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 46730 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 150.84 46731 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1I89.60 46732 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 26901.96 46733 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUDR 12233.84 46734 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 93.96 46735 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 144I.84 46736 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 571.I3 46737 OUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR 6014.64 4673B THE WINE CDMPANY WINE 79.00 46739 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL 50.99 46740 BROWN & CRIS INC SERVICE-BENNETT PLACE & BLOSSOM ROAD 14992.69 :741 KENKO INC SERVICE-BLUFFS EAST 4TH ADDITION 23922.86 o742 MAX JOHNSON TRUCKING -SERVICE-1988 LIME SLUDGE REMOVAL & 36658.13 DISPOSAL 46743 JP NOREX INC SERVICE-RIVERVIEW RDAD & RIVERVIEW DRIVE 3012.14 46744 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CD SERVICE-FRANLD ROAD IMPRDVEMENTS 61655.95 46745 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-MITCHELL/RESEARCH ROAD 285713.63 46746 NDRTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN LEGION PK 28931.77 46747 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER TRAILER & SPRAYER RENTAL-PART: MAINTENANCE 10I.00 46748 A & H WELDING & MFG CD DOOR REPAIR-SEWER DEPT 61.00 46749 A 6 DICK CO XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL 120.37 46750 ACRD-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 487.62 46751 AIRLIFT DOORS INC -DOOR REPAIR-POLICE BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS 215.00 BUILDING/COMMUNITY CENTER 46752 ALPHA VIOEO & AUDIO PHOTO SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT I7.20 46753 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO -AIR FRESHENER SERVICE-CITY HALL/UNIFORMS- II14.53 -WATER DEPT/STREET DEPT/SEWER DEPT/PARK MAINT/CDMMUNITY CENTER 46754 MARY BOTTOLENE AMIOT -PRINTING-DPEN HOUSE FLYER-HISTORICAL & 30.00 CULTURAL COMMISSIDN 46755 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BONO PAYMENT 166937.50 46756 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS-STREET DEPT 364.50 46757 ADK RENTAL CENTER TRUCK RENTAL-ELECTIONS 73.28 46758 AQUA ENGINEERING INC -PVC PIPE/SPRINKER HEADS/BUSHINGS-PARK 219.76 MAINTENANCE 46759 ASPLUND COFFEE CO INC CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 218.00 "4760 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET DEPT 410.02 761 ASTLEFORD INTL INC -SEAL KITS/SEALS/SCREWS/RETAINERS/AXLE 270.03 SHAFT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 75274221 2?')27 46762 AWARDS INC AWARDS-COUNCIL 70.40 46763 B R W INC -SERVICE-TRAFFIC SIGNALS IN MAJOR CENTER 2676.53 AREA/TRAFFIC STUDY 46764 BACHMAN'S EXPENSES-CITY HALL 129.25 '6765 BARTLEY SALES COMPANY INC 6 PAPER TOWEL DISPENSERS-POLICE BUILDING 236.00 l 6766 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC SPARK PLUGS/LAMPS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 164.36 46767 BERGIN AUTO BODY PAINT & REPAIR POLICE VAN-EQUIPMENT MAINT 1270.00 4676E BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION 3686.60 46769 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-WATER DEPT/POLICE 1129.15 -DEPT/FIRE DEPT/PLANNING DEPT/ENGINEERING DEPT/FORESTRY DEPT 46770 LEE BRANDT HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 166.00 46771 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE-RESEARCH & MITCHELL ROAD 1657.00 46772 DAVID J BRAZIL SCHOOL-WATER DEPT 24.00 46773 NATHAN BUCK FOOTBALL & VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 346.50 46774 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC -CURTAIN/TRACK/SUPPORTS/ROLLERS/END STOPS- 86.37 WATER DEPT 46775 BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC DECEMBER 8B COPIER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT 182.75 46776 BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION MN LEGAL FORMS-ASSESSING DEPT 78.78 46777 FRANCIE BUTORAC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 6.00 46778 BWBR ARCHITECTS -SERVICE-FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR INDOOR 1519.03 SHOOTING RANGE-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 46779 C & N W TRANSP CO STORM SEWER RENTAL AGREEMENT 180.00 46780 CARGILL SALT DIVISION SALT-SNOW & ICE CONTROL 4936.09 46781 CARVER COUNTY TREASURER -SERVICE-HWY 212 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1545.53 STATEMENTS & STUDY REPORT 46782 CLIMATE MAKERS INC REPAIR ICE RINK UNITS-COMMUNITY CENTER 123.25 46783 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC -BRAKE DRUM/BRAKE LINING/BRAKE SHOE 587.13 -RELINING/WHEEL CYLINDER/PIN/SHAFT/DRIVE LINE WELDING/BALANCING-EQUIPMENT MAINT 1 784 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OCTOBER 8B FUEL TAX 658.40 o785 CONCEPT MICROFILM INC TONER-ENGINEERING DEPT 60.40 46786 CONCRETE RAISING INC CURBING-DRAINAGE CONTROL 260.00 46787 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC -FUSE/FUSE HOLOER/TRANSISTOR/RADIO REPAIR- 145.25 POLICE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 4678E CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC GAS TESTER-SEWER DEPT 126.68 46789 COPY EQUIPMENT INC -PAINT/ERASERS/FIBERGLASS TAPE-SEWER DEPT/ 81.33 ENGINEERING DEPT 46790 CRIME FUND SERVICE-ST ANDREW DRIVE & BAKER RD 200.00 46791 CROWN MARKING INC RUBBER STAMP-ENGINEERING DEPT 36.25 46792 CULLIGAN SERVICE 82.90 46793 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC -DRAIN PLUGS/ORILL BITS/KEYS/KEY BLANKS/ 300.92 SILICONE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46794 CURT'S STUMP REMOVAL STUMP REMOVAL-FORESTRY DEPT 240.00 46795 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT B316.96 46796 D & K PRINTING PLUS INC -PRINTING-MUSICAL PROGAM/INVITATIONS/ 549.30 -HALLOWEEN FLYER-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL -COMMISSION/OPEN HOUSE FLYERS-OUTDOOR -CENTER/SENIOR NEWSLETTER/INVITATIONS- SENIOR PROGRAMS/FORMS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 46797 BILL DAGGETT HOCKEY & VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 93.00 4679E WARD F DAHLBERG OCTOBER 8B EXPENSE-LIQUOR STORE 80.00 46799 OAKTRONICS INC SCOREBOARD REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 240.84 46800 OALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE BUILDING/ 708.64 COMMUNITY CENTER 298159 2772 0 46801 DECORATIVE DESIGNS NOVEMBER 88 SERVICE 49.50 46802 DEPENDABLE HEATING REFUND-HEATING PERMIT 32.20 46803 DIAMDND ACCEPTANCE -DECEMBER 88 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT- 300.00 POLICE DEPT '5804 PHILIP DIEN REFUND-UTILITY BILLING 51.94 .,805 EUGENE DIETZ OCTOBER 88 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 312.56 46806 DIXIE PETRO CHEM INC CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 984.00 46807 DON'S SOD SERVICE SOO-WYNDHAM PARK/STREET MAINTENANCE 1216.50 46808 DYNA SYSTEMS WASHERS/DRILL BITS/NUTS/SCREWS-WATER DEPT 210.5E 46809 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION 24.00 46810 EGAN MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS -SERVICE-GRAFFITI BRIOGE-REPLACE 276.73 CONDUCTORS/REPAIR OVERHEAD SIGNAL SYSTEM 46811 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS MANHOLE RINGS/JOINT SEAL-DRAINAGE CONTROL 133.28 46812 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC SAFETY GLOVES/JACKET-WATER OEPT 92.65 46813 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC MANHOLE RINGS-DRAINAGE CONTROL 330.00 46814 FEDERAL PARKS & RECREATION SUBSCRIPTION-PARK PLANNING 147.00 46815 FEIST BLANCHARD CO -OIL FILLER CAPS/RADIATOR CAPS/OIL SEAL/ 1541.35 -VALVES/GASKETS/BELTS/LAMPS/POWER STEERING -UNIT/BEARINGS/REFLECTORS/WHEEL CYLINDER/ -BRAKE SHOE/HUB CAPS/ROTOR/DRUM/TOGGLE -SWITCH/U-JOINTS/BLOWER MOTOR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46816 EDEN PRAIRIE FLORIST EXPENSES-SENIOR PROGRAMS 26.50 46817 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC SERVICE-FINANCE DEPT 405.00 46818 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES SERVICE-HARD SURFACE GRAPHICS-PARK MAINT 320.00 46819 FLEXIBLE TOOL COMPANY -CULVERT NOZZLE/COUPLING/HOSE ROLLER CLAW- 517.24 DRAINAGE CONTROL 46820 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 526.90 46821 G & K SERVICES -COVERALLS/TOWELS-WATER DEPT/PARK MAINT/ 418.94 LIQUOR STORE 822 DARRELL GEDNEY HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 54.00 0823 GETTING TO KNOW YOU AOVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 163.50 46824 GME CONSULTANTS INC SERVICE-LEGION PARK ADDITION 1835.80 46825 W W GOETSCH ASSOC INC SUMP PUMP-WATER DEPT 3986.00 46826 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVIC -TIRES/TIRE RIMS-POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT/ 2418.31 EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46827 GOPHER OIL COMPANY HYORAULIC OIL/GEAR LUBRICANT-WATER DEPT 645.20 4682E GOPHER SIGN CO WATER MAIN VALVE MARKING-WATER OEPT 488.19 46829 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE SERVICE-STRATEGIC PLANNING-HUMAN RESOURCES 635.00 46830 GREENKEEPER INC -WINTERIZATION OF LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEMS- 161.75 FIRE DEPT 46831 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC -CIRCUIT BREAKERS/FUSES-PARK MAINTENANCE/ 19.54 COMMUNITY CENTER 46832 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 171.65 46833 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC -SERVICE-HAMILTON RD/FRANLO RO/SW EDEN 32320.77 -PRAIRIE DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUOY/COUNTY ROAD 4 WATER MAIN/RED ROCK LAKE CONNECTION 46834 HARORIVES INC LIMESTONE-STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT 499.10 46835 HARRIS WAREHOUSE & CANVAS SALES CANVAS-STREET MAINT 334.80 46836 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 758.00 46837 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEE-ENGINEERING DEPT 211.00 46838 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 120.00 46839 D C HEY CO INC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE DEPT 30.00 46840 JOHN HOBBS LICENSE-STREET DEPT 22.50 `279198 2?32C NOVEMBER 15,1988 46841 HONEYWELL INC -MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-2-15-88 TO 2-15-89- 8065.00 WATER DEPT ,6842 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES RESET ALARM CODE-SENIOR CENTER 25.00 6843 IBM CORPORATION - DECEMBER 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 424.32 46844 IBM CORPORATION -NOVEMBER 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY 586.65 HALL 46845 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST M272 -OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT/CLEANING 296.06 SUPPLIES-PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 46846 INTL ASSOC OF LAW ENFORCEMENT DUES-POLICE DEPT 40.00 46847 INTL OFFICE S'iaicna IWC -OLIUM6R 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/OFFICE 220.88 SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 46848 INTERSTATE DIESEL PRODUCTS INC -FUEL FILTER/FITTING/DISC BRAKE/SPRING/ 1585.14 -BOLT/PLATE/SEAL/BEARING/CLUTCH/ENGINE REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 46849 ISS INTER SERVICE SYSTEM -OCTOBER 88 JANITORIAL SERVICE/CLEANING 1341.82 SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 46850 PENNY JESSEN HOCKEY & BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 245.00 46851 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-SEWER DEPT/WATER DEPT 211.13 46852 JOHNSON CONTROLS AIR VALVE-COMMUNITY CENTER 50.47 46853 JUSTUS LUMBER CO -SANDPAPER/NAILS/TIMBERS/VOTING BOOTHS- 493.70 -ELECTIONS/POLICE BUILDING/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE 46854 MADALINE KALMBACH AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 80.00 46855 KATE KARNAS MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 10.25 46856 ASSOC OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALIT DUES 2000.00 46857 MARY KOTTKE VOLLEYBALL & BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 70.40 46858 ROBERT LAMBERT -NOVEMBER 88 EXPENSES-PARKS RECREATION & 211.60 NATURAL RESOURCES 859 LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER TREES-FORESTRY DEPT/JULY 87 STORM DAMAGE 550.70 .3860 CINDY LANENBERG MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 55.75 46861 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD -JULY 88 LEGAL SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER 1943.75 LITIGATION 46862 MDRA LEPPLA EXPENSES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 31.05 46863 LMC INSURANCE TRUST WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE-CITY HALL 49120.00 46864 LOGIS SEPTEMBER 08 SERVICE 6652.I2 46865 M & I INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC LUBRICANTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 284.02 46866 JAMES L MATSON CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 14.29 46867 TOM MC INTOSH -TRANSPORTATION SERVICE-SPECIAL TRIP/FEES 20.00 PAID 46868 METRO PRINTING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 169.00 46869 METRO SYSTEMS FURNITURE CHAIR REPAIR-CITY NALL 28.50 46870 MIOLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 366.46 46871 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 1805.86 46872 HERMAN MILLER INC -PARTITIONS/WORK SURFACES/TACK BOARDS/ 2835.84 -LIGHTS-PARK PLANNING/ADMINISTRATION/ BUILDING DEPT/PLANNING DEPT 46873 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP -NOVEMBER BB PAGER SERVICE-SEWER DEPT/FIRE 77.00 DEPT 46874 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -EXTINGUISHER REPAIR & RECHARGING- 143.00 RECREATION SUPERVISOR/FIRE DEPT 46875 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS -EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER/ 444.96 ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 46876 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING-SWIM FLYERS-SPECIAL EVENT 208.00 Ac877 MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES SAND-STREET MAINT 12.00 378 R E MOONEY & ASSOCIATES INC PAINT-WATER DEPT 234.10 8095382 2'112fl NOVEMBER 15,1988 46879 MOTOROLA INC BASE STATION RADIO EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 4614.00 46880 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 390.50 16881 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO -CHAIN/CONNECTOR LINK/CHAIN ROLLER-PARK 35.09 MAINTENANCE 46882 MUNITECH INC REPAIR & INSTALL METER-WATER OEPT 322.39 46883 MY CHEESE SHOP EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 34.51 46884 VINH NGUYEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 67.50 46885 BETH NILSSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 2031.67 46886 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE-WYNDHAM COURT 420.00 4APP7 NOPWFCT BANV MDIC NA BOND PAYMENT 142810.90 4688E OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC TYPEWRITER & PRINTER REPAIR-CITY HALL 427.50 46889 ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY INC -OCTOBER 88 PEST EXTERMINATING SERVICE- 58.00 FIRE DEPT 46890 PAPER WAREHOUSE EXPENSES-CITY HALL/SENIOR CENTER 108.91 46891 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL-HUMAN RESOURCES 120.00 46892 PENNZOIL PRODUCTS COMPANY OIL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1074.89 46893 CONNIE L PETERS MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 14.25 46894 T A PERRY ASSOCIATES INC -4TH QUARTER 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/ 1332.75 -CHEMICALS FOR CODLING TOWER/BOILER PUMP -REPAIR/AIR CONDITIONING REPAIR-POLICE BUILDING 46895 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INC ' SERVICE-COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY 360.00 46896 PERSONNEL POOL -SERVICE-ASSESSING DEPT/PARKS & RECREATION 69.96 DEPT 46897 PATRICIA PIDCOCK EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER 405.50 4689E PITNEY BOWES -SEPT OCT NOV 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 212.31 COMMUNITY CENTER 46899 POKORNY COMPANY SEATS-POLICE BUILDING 39.60 903 POMMER COMPANY INC TRDPHIES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 38.45 0901 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -REPAIR POLES & FIXTURES-PARK MAINT/REPAIR 797.70 HEATING UNIT-COMMUNITY CENTER 46902 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -ANGLE IRON/SCREWS/WASHERS/PAINT SPRAY/ 78.69 -PAINT/PLUMBERS COMPOUND/ROPE/STEEL TAPE/ KEYS-POLICE DEPT 46903 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING FORMS-PLANNING DEPT 68.00 46904 FRIOR LAKE AGGREGATE INC SAND-SNOW & ICE CONTROL 5616.01 46905 PRENTICE HALL SUBSCRIPTIDN-FIRE DEPT 128.27 46906 GERALD PRODOEHL LICENSE-STREET DEPT 30.00 46907 ROBERT J PUGLEASA COMPANY INC MECHANIC STEPLADDER-POLICE BUILDING 479.00 46908 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -ZAMBONI BLADES SHARPENED/SPREADER CLOTH- 68.20 ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER 46909 RADIO SHACK PORTABLE TELEPHONES/CASES-SEWER DEPT/ 54.32 46910 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN CASH REGISTER TAPE-LIQUOR STORE 56.44 46911 REVERE MARKING PAINT-WATER DEPT 195.36 46912 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-MITCHELL/RESEARCH ST IMPRDVEMENTS/ 25B15.99 -ROWLAND ROAD/HIDDEN GLEN 3R0 ADOITION/ -GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE EXTENSION/SHADY OAK RIDGE 46913 ROAD RESCUE INC FIRST AID EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 362.12 46914 ROLLINS OIL CO GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 5820.97 46915 ROYAL COIN CANDY-HALLOWEEN PARTY-SOCIAL EVENT 400.00 46916 ROGER'S SERVICE ALTERNATORS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 220.30 46917 ST PAUL BOOK. & STATIONERY CO TAPE-PAD/PAPER/STAPLES/GLUE-KIDS KDRNER 9.83 "4,918 JOHN SAMS MILEAGE-ASSESSING DEPT 29.50 )19 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE BUILDING 480.96 19570034 2'172� NOVEMBER 15,1988 46920 THE SANDWICH FACTORY INC EXPENSES-CITY HALL 150.54 4692I KEVIN SCHMIEG -AUGUST & SEPTEMBER 88 EXPENSES-BUILDING 400.00 DEPT ( 6922 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 93.28 46923 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC -SERVICE-INDOOR POOL REMODELING/COMMUNITY 7937.20 CENTER REPAIR 46924 SCHWAB VOLLHABER LUBRATT SERV CDR MOTOR-POLICE BUILDING I03.00 46925 SHAKOPEE FORD INC -GEAR/PEDAL/ADAPTER/PAINT/VALVE ASSEMBLY/ 132.92 -GASKET/SWITCH/SWITCH ASSEMBLY-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46926 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS INC JACKETS-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 909.20 46927 STEVE SINELL OCTOBER B8 EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 291.40 46928 CORY SMITH HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 23.00 46929 W GORDON SMITH CO -PLIERS/LIGHTS/OIL MIX/GREASE GUN-SEWER 669B.50 -DEPT/DIESEL-$3945.53/REGULAR GAS-$2632.85- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46930 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 23.65 4693I SNYDER DRUG STORES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 20.69 46932 SODERQUIST SERVICES INC MOWING-PLEASANT HILL CEMETERY /CITY LOTS 675.00 46933 SOUTHTOWN PLUMBING INC INSTALL SINK-FIRE DEPT I00.34 46934 SOUTHWEST AUTO SUPPLY INC -CARBURETORS/BRAKE SHOES/FILTERS/SEALS/ 1675.42 -CONNECTORS/LIGHTS/MIRRORS/BRAKE PADS/ -BEARINGS/ROTOR/WHEEL CYLINDER/CALIPER -KITS/PAINT/HEATER/U-JOINT/CLUTCHES/DISC GRINDER/EXHAUST PIPE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46935 SPORTS WORLD USA UNIFORMS-PARK RANGER 244.25 46936 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EU -UNIFORMS/BATTERY COVER/GUN ACCESSORIES- I6I2.50 -POLICE DEPT/GUN STOCKS/SIDE GRIPS-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 0937 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET -HEAD ASSEMBLY/GASKET/INSULATOR/SEALER/ I93.00 -GASKET KIT/MIRROR-FIRE DEPT/WATER DEPT/ EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46938 SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC FILM RENTAL-SPECIAL EVENTS 164.50 46939 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-PARK PLANNING 252.I9 46940 TIMBER PRDDUCTS TREATED TIMBERS-PARK MAINTENANCE 9.00 46941 TRANSPORTATION ELECTRONICS INC PHONE & INSTALLATION-PDLICE DEPT 177.00 46942 TROPICAL SNO OF MN CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 276.00 46943 T S HOWARD COMPANY LADDER REPAIR-PARK MAINTENANCE 39.I0 46944 TURF SUPPLY CO GRASS SEED/SPREADER-PARK MAINTENANCE 637.00 46945 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CD -ACETYLENE/OXYGEN/BUG STRIKER-EQUIPMENT 55.39 MAINTENANCE 46946 TWIN CITY TESTING SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER REPAIR 6II.34 46947 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 8B0.66 • 46948 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT 443.79 46949 USA TODAY ADVERTISING-LIOUOR STORES 34.00 46950 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER I4.22 46951 VESSCO INC CHEMICAL FEEDER BELT-WATER DEPT 57.47 46952 VICOM INC -OCTOBER 88 TELEPHONE WIRE MAINTENANCE- 5.25 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 46953 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-POOL-COMMUNITY CENTER 27.00 46954 CLAYTON G VNUK -PLIERS/LEAD TESTER SET/WRENCH/ANTI-FREEZE 467.60 -TESTER/BATTERY HYDROMETER/FILE CLEANER/ -WRENCH SET/SWIVEL HOSE/SPARK PLUGS-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE )55 WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP CO -SUBMERSIBLE PUMP REPAIR-SEWER DEPT 52.50 2548790 27 46956 KEITH WALL DUES-POLICE DEPT 50.00 46957 WATERITE INC -SEALS/GASKETS/BEARINGS/PUMP REPAIR-POOL- 466.70 COMMUNITY CENTER 46958 WATER PRODUCTS CO -TUBING CUTTER/CUTTER WHEEL/1 1/2 1000 GAL 3524.01 -METER-$!588.95/2 3" 100 GAL GENERATORS- -$179.08/STRAINERS/GASKETS/COUPLINGS/PVC -PIPE/2 SADDLES FOR WATER FLOW METERS- $785.68-WATER DEPT 46959 WATSON-FORSBERG CO SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER REPAIRS 103950.00 46960 SANDY F WERTS MILEAGE/EXPENSES-SENIOR CENTER 94.08 46961 WESCO LIGHT BULBS-COMMUNITY CENTER/PARK MAINT 620.61 4062 WEST WELD BLADES-PARK MAINTENANCE 172.39 46963 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS -PARKING SIGNS-ELECTIONS/OCTOBER 88 925.00 -NEWSLETTER-HUMAN RESOURCES/OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/HALLOWEEN FLYERS-SOCIAL 46964 PHILIP A WINN JR HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 49.00 46965 KEN WDRDE HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 125.00 46966 XEROX CORP -SEPTEMBER 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY 94.00 HALL 46967 YOUNGSTEDTS INC WHEEL ALIGNMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 31.00 46968 ZIEGLER INC -LOCKS/GASKETS/SCREWS/SEALS/HOSES/CLAMPS/ 4932.35 -NUTS/BOLTS/WASHERS/CLIPS-EQUIPMENT MAINT/ TRACTOR RENTAL-PARK DEPT 46051 VOID OUT CHECK 34.25- 46137 VOID OUT CHECK 33945.00- 46445 VOID OUT CHECK 4000.00- 46593 V0111 OUT CHECK 32.80- 7707459 $1380911.42 2/72� DISTR1BUT10N BY FUNDS 10 GENERAL 309509.04 3, 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 853.75 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 40140.07 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 31393.62 21 POLICE FORFEITURE 22 STATE AID CONST ,545.53 31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 1732.96 33 UTILITY POND FUND 3112285.45 44 UTILITY DEBT FUND142810.9080.9 45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARB 35 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 148473.61 55 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND ARP 435993.7 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 35469.05 73 WATER FUND 2434.23 77 SEWER FUND 8 5 1273.15273. 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 138091 1.42 789.33 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie City FROM: Kevin Schmieg Director- of Inspections,Safety & Facilities DATE: November 10, 1988 SUBJECT: Amendments to Building Permit Fees. The City of Eden Prairie presently charges building permit fees as recommended in the 1982 Uniform Building Code. To help defray increased costs of inspection services and maintain current fee schedules as recommended in the 1985 UBC, the following fee schedule is proposed: TABLE NO.3 A—BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE SI.OUto$500.00 515.00 $501.00 to$2,000.00 S1500 for the lust S50000pIus S200 for each additional SI(X1.00 or fraction thereof,to and including S2.000.CO S2,001.00 to S25.000.00 S45(k)for the first$2.000.00 plus 59.00 for each adds. Iwnal S1.00000 or fraction Incrcol,to and Including $25.000.00 S25,00I.00 to SS0.000.00 S252.00 for the first $25.000.00 plus S6 50 for each additional SI,W0.00 or fraction thereof,to and Including $50.000.00 $50,001.00 to S100,000.00 S414 50 for the first S50.000.00 plus S4 50 for each additional S1.000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including $100.000.00 $100,001.00 to S500,000.00 S639 50 for the first SI00,000.00 plus S3.50 for each additional SI.000.00 or fraction thereof • S500.001 00 to S2039.50 for the first S500.000 00 plus$3.00 for each • $I.000.OWA0 additional S1.000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including S I.000.000 CO. $1.000,001.00 and up S3539 50 for the Pint S 1.000.000 00 plus$2,00 for each additional$I,000,00 or fraction thereof • Plan review fees will be maintained at the current level of 65% of the permit fee with the exception of charging no fee for the review of • building plans with a construction value of less than $10,000. This is to limit the impact on small protects (i.e. homeowner decks, porches, etc... ). • Current permit fees as recommended in the 1979 and 5992 building code. TABLE N0.0•A—BUILDING PERI.IIT FEES t0ral valuation etc SI 00 to S500 00 $10.00 • S501.00 to S2,000.00 110.00 for the first S500.00 plus St.50 for each additional $100.00 or tnrnnn fin..;,! dwg$2,00000 $2,001.00 to$25,000.00 S32.50 fur the first$2,000.00 plus S6.00 for each addi' tonal S1,000.00 or fraction thereof.to and including S25.000.00 S25,001.00 to S50,000.00 S170.50 for the first 125,000.00 plus S4.50 for each additional$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including S50,000.00 S50.001.00 to S100,000.00 S283.00 for the first S50,C00.00 plus S3.00 for each additional S1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including S100.000.00 S100,001.00 and up S433.00 for the first$100,000.00 plus S2.50 for each additional$1,000.00 or traction thereof Plan review fees are currently charged at the rate of 65% of the permit fee for all construction. EXAMPLES 1982 UDC* 1985 UBC* ( Permit Fees Permit Fees 1) $4,000 Deck $73.43 $63.00 2) $130,000 Home $239.20 $1229.43 3) $1,000,000 Commercial $4426.95 $5940.18 * Reflects only permit fees, does not include SACS, WACS, or Park Dedication Fees. A survey was conducted of 33 surrounding communities to indicate which permit fee schedule they utilized. The following communities currently use the 1982 UBC permit fee schedule: Chaska Minnetonka • Columbia Heights Robbinsdale Coon Rapids South St. Paul The following communities currently use the 1985 UBC permit fee schedule: Anoka Hopkins Blaine Maple Grove Bloomington* Minneapolis* Brooklyn Center Mound Brooklyn Park Nc.. �+.� ui:yhtun Burnsville New Hope Champlin Plymouth Chanhassen Richfield Crystal Shakopee Eagan St. Louis Park* Edina St. Paul Elk River West St. Paul Fridley Roseville Golden Valley * Indicates cities with a higher fee schedule than recommended in the 19B5 UBC. 27 of the 33 communities surveyed used permit fees at least as high as those recommended in the 1985 UBC. • • • • 2'Y139 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-270 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88-09 REGULATING FEES AND CHARGES FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES, SPECIFICALLY AS THEY RELATE TO BUILDING PERMITS. The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie amends Resolution no. 88-09 to reflect the following fees and charges relating to building permits: The fee schedule contained in the 1985 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) is hereby adopted by reference in its entirety, with the exception of plan reviews for improvements totalling less that $10,000 for which the fee will be waived. These fees identified in this Resolution will be effective December 5, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 88-265 TH 212 LAYOUT APPROVAL WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has prepared a layout for the improvement of a part of Trunk Highway ;212, within the corporate limits of the City of Eden Prairie, from I-494 to West Corporate Limits, and seeks the approval thereof; and WHEREAS, said layouts are on file in the office of the Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled, and identified as layout R4 from West Hennepin County Line to Junction T.H. 494. NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED that said layout for the improvements of said Trunk Highway within the corporate limits be and hereby are approved subject to the following: A. Provision for a bridge to provide grade separation for a new local road between Dell Road and CSAH 4 at an exact location yet to be determined; B. Provision for access from and to T.H. 5 Westbound at Wallace Road instead of T.H. 212 Westbound; C. Provision for construction of Technology Drive to Wallace Road to enhance access circulation to the industrial development lost due to T.H. 212/T.H. 5 access configuration; D. Inclusion of right-of-way for Technology Drive onto the official map to protect it from development; E. Provision for 'a future ramp from northbound Prairie Center Drive to eastbound I-494 as traffic demands warrant; and F. Inclusion of the vacant parcel (bounded on the West by Prairie Center Drive, on the South by Technology Drive, on the East by NSP substation, and on the North by T.H. 212/T.H. 5) onto official right-of-way map to protect it from development. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on November 15, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk .277v - MEMORANDUM - TD: Mayor and City Council FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, P.E. Director of Public Works I/// DATE: November Q, 1988 RE: T.H. 212 LAYOUT APPROVAL The Council Agenda includes a Resolution to approve the Layout Plan for T.H. 212 through Eden Prairie. The City Council approved the concept plan for this alignment on April 21, 1987. The Layout Plan that has been submitted for approval is a much more complete document and includes grading limits for the project as well as all the details for access to and from our City street system. City Staff has reviewed the Plan in detail and have had a meeting with District 5 staff to discuss our primary concerns. Attached for your review is a letter from District Engineer, Bill Crawford, regarding the issues raised by City Staff. While it is not possible to obtain all the access that might be desirable, I believe that the Mn/Dot provided an appropriate solution to each of the issues raised. The resolution enumerates six items that need to.be corrected on the Plan. The suggestion is that the Plan be approved subject to those items listed. Upon approval of the Layout Plan, Mn/Dot will make corrections and submit the official map to the City for approval. The official map has additional technical detail beyond the Layout Plan, but both drawings are accurate to scale and location. • I have reviewed the State Statutes regarding the official mapping process. Generally, once we receive the official map from Mn/Dot, we will need to hold a public hearing. The changes that we are suggesting to the Layout Plan are minor and we should get a relatively fast turn-around time on the corrections. It my interpretation that we require a ten-day notice of the public hearing and it's probably not advisable to set the hearing until we are certain of when Mn/Dot can have the corrections made. Mr. Pauly will review the statutory provisions of this process prior to the Council Meeting and will be able to more properly advise us of the legal procedures for adopting the official map. If Mn/Dot can make the corrections to the map in a very short period of time, we will try to set the public hearing for the second meeting in December. I will be available at the meeting to discuss all the corrections we are suggesting to the plan. EAD:ssa ;9'2 J elEsoti Minnesota fit' 1,i Department of Transportation District 5 2055 No. Lilac Drive or ' Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (6121593. 8403 November 3, 1988 Mr. Gene Dietz City Engineer City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: S.P. 2762-08 (T.H. 212) From W. Hennepin Co. Line to I-494 Layout No. Dear Mr. aetz: !� The Eden Prairie city staff review of Layout No. 4 raised five concerns as noted below: 1. Bridge over T.H. 212 for local road between Dell Road and CSAH 4. 2. Access from Wallace Road to T.H. 5 W. B. instead of to T.H. 212 W.B. . 3. Full access to both T.H. 5 and T.H. 212 at Wallace Road. 4. Full access to both T.H. 5 and T.H. 212 at Mitchell Road. 5. The Prairie Center Drive northbound to eastbound T.H. 212/5 movement was over capacity based on the downtown Eden Prairie traffic projections prepared by BRW. My staff has reviewed the concerns and the response to each concern is as follows: 1. The bridge can be incorporated into the T.H. 212 plans when the city of Eden Prairie has defined the bridge location and 1.9 al road alignment. 2. The access can be reversed if that is what the city of Eden Prairie desires. An Equal Opportunity Employer n Mr. Gene Dietz November 3, 1988 Page 2 3. & 4. In order to provide full access to both T.H. 212 and T.H. 5 at Wallace and Mitchell Roads, additional right-of-way acquisition would be needed above and beyond what is proposed on Layout No. 4. The properties north of T.H. 5 between Wallace and Mitchell would probably be acquired as well as some additional taking on the south side. A full access interchange at both locations would be inconsistent with the Metropolitan Council's policies on interchange spacing in an urban area. Since T.H. 212 is being proposed as a controlled access facility, Metropolitan Council approval will be necessary. Mn/DOT has developed Layout No. 4 based on the city of Eden Prairie's approval of Concept Layout '!o. 3B on April 21, 1987. Access circulation in the area can be enhanced by the completion of Technology Drive to Wallace. While this is not included in the present layout plan, it could be incorporated and constructed by Mn/DOT and turned over to local jurisdiction upon completion. An enormous amount of Mn/DOT time and effort has gone into the development of Layout No. 4. Any major changes at this time would significantly alter Mn/DOT's position on keeping the first stage of T.H. 212 in the 1993 construction program. 5. The traffic forecasts prepared by BRW have not been accepted by Mn/DOT for use concerning the T.H. 212-Prairie Center Drive interchange. The Prairie Center Drive northbound to T.H. 212/5 eastbound traffic movement provisions will be enhanced by providing a double left turn lane that will be incorporated into the layout. If at some future date the traffic movement becomes congested, a ramp for the Prairie Center Drive northbound to I-494 eastbound traffic could be provided as a possible solution. A traffic study at that time may result in other possible remedies to alleviate congestion. 2:11) • Mr. Gene Dietz November 3, 1988 Page 3 It is my understanding that the Eden Prairie City Council may act on the T.H. 212 layout plan at its November 15, 1988 meeting. Mn/DOT is ready to submit the official map to the city of Eden Prairie as soon as the layout plan has been approved. Sinnc/ce lyXf47h1/ , . W.M. Craw , District Engineer/ • ayii MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council • THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: November 8, 1988 SUBJECT: Review of Draft Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan Attached to this memo is an October 14, 1988 memorandum from staff regarding comments relating to the draft plan. Also, attached is a copy of the minutes of the October 17, 1988 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting that include comments from Commission members. After that meeting staff forwarded an October 26, 1988 memo recommending revisions to the Comprehensive Plan that would address some of the comments the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. The October 26th memo is also attached. On October 24, 1988 the Planning Commission held a special meeting at 6:30 . P. M. to review the Park and Open Space System Plan and heard a presentation from Barry Warner of Barton-Aschman. The Planning Commission did not feel the 45 minutes scheduled at that time was sufficient time to discuss many of the critical issues relating to this plan, and continued the item to a special meeting held at 6 P. M. on November 7th. At the November 7th meeting, the Commission met with the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources and continued discussion relating to the Park and Open Space System Plan. Members of the Planning Commission had many questions and discussed at length the following items: 1. The need for the City to acquire immediately significant parcels of the additional parkland property necessary to complete the park system. 2. The Commission strongly supported the concept for a golf course that had a multi use community building as the clubhouse, and a course that was used for cross country skiing and cross country running and would have pedestrian trails around the course and would be tied into a community park over looking the Minnesota River Valley. The Commission felt that the community would support a course that could be used by all of the public during some times of the year, especially if the golfers paid for the construction of the course. Commission members also felt it was important to work with the property owners on planning for residential development adjacent to the course that would improve the property value of that adjacent property, yet would not conflict with the golf course operation. 3. The Commission had a lengthy discussion regarding the need for an outdoor community swimming pool, preferably in western Eden Prairie, that was similar to the outdoor pool operated by the Preserve Homeowner's Association, or a pool that offered a wide variety of opportunities for swim meets as well as recreational play. • drug 4. The Commission wanted additional information regarding the "resolution of the Community Center function" and an additional ice arena. Staff indicated that there seemed to be a need for a youth center that provided supervised but unorganized play for especially Middle School and High School age youth. It was suggested that the major addition needed to accomplish that was either a gymnasium or large multi-purpose room that could accommodate teen dances, pick-up basketball games, table tennis, billiards, board games and video games. The wnuuission concurred that such a facility would not duplicate either the Flagship Athletic Club or the Northwest Racquet Club and would be a benefit to the park system. The need for a second sheet of ice was discussed, and although the majority of the Commission members concurred that a second sheet of ice would be used to its fullest extent by the residents of Eden Prairie, there was some question as to its priority compared to other needs addressed in the open space plan. Hallett suggested the City attempt to fit those needs together. 5. The Commission agreed with the proposal to develop a bluff protection ordinance and questioned how the City was going to obtain ownership of the floodplain along the Minnesota River, and supported public access to that floodplain through the existing trail system. 6. One of the Commission members questioned whether or not the City actually made weekly checks of playground structures as per the policy. Staff indicated there are weekly checks of every piece of playground equipment within the park system for safety concerns. 7. The Commission questioned the Smetana Lake Park and after discussions of the trail system around the park and the preservation of the shoreline and comparisons of that park to Normandale Park and Normandale Lake in Bloomington, the Commission concurred with the need and supported the idea of that concept. B. The Commission wanted to be sure that the 5-6 Middle School on the Northrup King site would be connected to the Purgatory Creek trail system and Staring Lake Park, as well as the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. Staff assured the Commission that the school staff have been involved in connecting that school to the trail system. At this point, the Commission indicated they strongly supported the Park and Open Space System Plan and the recommendations of City staff and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, and requested the Planning staff develop a recommendation that included all the suggestions and items discussed at the last two Planning Commission meetings to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their November 14th meeting. The Commission would take formal action recommending this report to the City Council at that meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the City Council approve the Draft Comprehensive Park and Open Space System Plan with the recommended changes and additions from the City staff, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the Planning Commission. Upon final approval of the City Council this draft plan will then be updated with the recommended changes as approved by the City Council and will then be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review as a revision to the City Guide Plan. Upon approval of the revision by the Metropolitan Council the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the final draft and the City Council will then approve the change to the Guide Plan. Once that process is completed, Barton-Aschman will print and run the final copies as per the contract. BL:mdd • MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: October 14, 1988 SUBJECT: Review of Draft Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan At the October 17th meeting Barry Warner, Barton-Aschman and Associates, Inc, will review the draft of the Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan Update and will seek input and comments from Commission members, staff and the public relating to the draft copy. As is stated in the executive summary, the Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan was prepared for the City to develop a coordinated program for future park and open space needs. The plan is developed to be used as a working document for staff, Commission and Council members, and the public to reference policies on development of trails and park and recreation facilities, as well as determining what types of natural areas should be preserved, etc. This plan not only provides background information on the City park system, but inventories the existing park and open space facilities and the policies that have been established as guidelines for directing the park development. The plan also documents the previous needs and demands analysis for this city which should help to determine existing and future needs of the park system. COMMENTS RELATING TO DRAFT PLAN Inventory of Existing Park and Open Space Systems This chapter is incomplete in the draft form. In the final form, this chapter will include conceptual plans showing existing and future facilities proposed to be developed in various parks. These illustrated plans for future parks and improvements are "conceptual" in nature and are not intended to be specific approved plans. This chapter will be updated on an annual basis as parks are developed or added to the system. Needs and Demands Analysis Chapter three relates to the regional recreation demands as determined by the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, as well as comparing the Eden Prairie facilities to national standards. This comparison of national standards takes into consideration the high percentage of preservation area that exists within the typical Eden Prairie park compared to the national standards. City Commissions and Council should also understand that park standards are "suggested to establish consistency and equality throughout the community's park and open space system" not to propose limits for development of the park system. The residents of Eden Prairie have always suggested that Eden Prairie should have a park system above the average, and that our system should be an example on how a well planned city should preserve its natural features, rather than simply following a checklist of standards. Commission and Council members will note that the City has followed national standards on recommendations for providing neighborhood and community parks within a suggested service radius for the most part; however, the City's total park and open space acreage will exceed national standards, mainly, because the City of Eden Prairie with all of its lakes and creek valleys exceed "national standards" for the amount of natural features that deserve protection and preservation. Most cities aren't blessed with all of our natural features such as lakes, streams, river bluffs, etc. Park and Open Space Policies The park and open space policies chapter is an attempt to include policies that have been approved over the years relating to the development of parks, trails, and recreation facilities. As additional policies are developed they will be written in the same format and added to this chapter. Water Resources The only recommendation I would have relating to the water resources chapter is to possibly include copies of the Surface Management Ordinances already approved on existing lakes and to add to this chapter future surface management ordinances as they are approved by the City Council. Special Use Facilities, Support Facilities, Historic Sites and Golf Course Needs The need for a golf course was surprisingly high on the City Needs Assessment Survey and staff have received many requests from residents for a municipal golf course over the last few years. Since 1968 the Guide Plan has depicted open space as a land use around the west and south side of the airport. City staff believe this would be an ideal location for an 18 hole public course not only due to the land use issue, but also due to the topography and the magnificent views of the Minnesota River Valley afforded from several points within that area. After extensive discussion with several municipal golf course managers, as well as park and recreation directors that operate municipal golf courses, all concur that a municipal golf course could be constructed with revenue bonds if the City owned the land. It is has been suggested that the City consider acquisition of a community park on the Minnesota River Bluffs in order to provide residents of Eden Prairie with the opportunity to enjoy the views of the Minnesota River Valley. Staff would suggest the City Council consider the acquisition of approximately 200 acres along the Minnesota River Bluffs and preferably around the airport for the purpose of a community park and a public golf course. Staff would suggest approximately 30-40 acres be committed to a community park that would tie directly into the golf course club house on the Minnesota River Bluffs. The golf course club house could be designed for a multiple use as a park shelter and a golf course club house, and the golf course could be used as a cross country ski area during the winter time with the club house used for ski xl 13 rental and a warming house. In this fashion, the citizens of the community would all get use of the entire 200 acres during the winter and approximately 40 acres on a year-round basis, and the golf course users would be paying exclusively for the development and operation of the golf course. All of the citizens would also benefit by the preservation of the beautiful hilly area around the airport and a significant portion of the Minnesota River Bluffs. Page 233 under Future Steps outlines the future steps that must be taken by the City if a golf course is to be considered in the future. Capital Impoovements Program This chapter should be expanded to include the most important recommendation relating to the capital improvement program and that is the priorities for the CIP. The draft plan stops short of making any recommendations, but simply offers the existing Five Year CIP and a list of some other long term capital improvement projects without giving any priority. Ultimately, the Citizens of Eden Prairie must determine priorities for capital improvements to the park system; however, if the City is to reach its goals of providing neighborhood parks within a half mile radius of all its residential population, and if the City ever wants to have an opportunity to provide either a public golf course for its citizens or a community park along the Minnesota River Bluffs, the City must consider acquisition of land as its highest priority at this time. ar Once the land is preserved development can wait until the park facilities are demanded by residents; however, if the remaining parkland isn't purchased soon it may never be available or affordable. The decision to acquire land prior to perceived needs requires strong leadership and a neighborhood "grassroots" education process, if money is to be approved for the referendum process. The obvious perceived need at this time is the development of Miller Park in order to continue to provide youth athletic fields at the same rate of growth as the City and school system. Other needs perceived by a significant portion of the City include: bike/hike trails along existing road systems, preservation of unique features such as our creek valleys and public golf course. Community Center There is a significant number of people that believe the expansion of the Community Center is the number one need of the community and there are other groups that believe the City should provide a place for middle school and high school age youth to go for "unorganized" recreation. The expansion of the Community Center might accomplish both of those needs. The City should consider forming a citizens committee to consider the possibility of reassessing the major purpose of the Community Center. Staff would suggest an ad hoc committee under the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission that would include a representive from the Hockey Association, the Figure Skating Club, the High School, The Foxjets Swimming a.1 7y Team, the Child Care Center, and an equal number of individuals not associated 4r with special interest groups that would meet on a monthly basis with staff to recommend policy and improvements not only to the operation of the Community Center, but to proposed improvements to the facility. This facility may best serve the City by focusing on the youth and young family programs, an area that is not the focus of private athletic clubs. An expansion providing larger locker rooms, larger lobby, recreation staff offices, a child care area and a large multi purpose room/gym that could accommodate court games such as volleyball, basketball, bad minton, and other recreation activities such as dances, table tennis, billiards, floor hockey, etc. might best serve this large segment of the community. The need for a second sheet of ice at this facility is eminent; however, the need for that facility serves a relatively small segment of the community compared to other perceived needs. Other Park System Improvements The development of the first phase of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area should occur within the next 5 years, if at all possible, in order for citizens to begin to get to use this large resource and for the general citizens to be able to "see" a park in this area rather than a "swamp". The most recent survey indicated a strong desire of many citizens for an outdoor swimming pool. The City Council should consider planning for a large outdoor pool to be able to be constructed within Miller Park for two reasons: Ar 1. It is unlikely that the water quality of Mitchell Lake will improve to the level of supporting a swimming beach. 2. Miller Park is an active use oriented community park and is the only park large enough to accommodate a large community pool. Prior to making any decision on a pool in this area, the City should investigate the feasibility of a "water curtain" that has been somewhat successful in several of the regional parks. Communication With the Community The majority of the large capital expenditures referred to in this plan will require a referendum for financing. There is a possibility of some other funding sources that may help with portions of these projects; however, a park bond referendum will be required to finance the majority of the major improvements. No referendum can be successful without an extensive effort to communicate with the community the facts relating to the growth of this community, the increasing land costs, and the future needs projected through this plan. The City staff are confident that once the residents of Eden Prairie understand these facts, they will support future improvements to the park system in order to maintain the excellent service initiated by far sighted residents in the late 1960's. The City must seek better communication methods in order to accomplish this task. Staff would recommend articles in the HAPPENINGS, perhaps several programs on Cable TV, and developing a grass roots neighborhood communication network where neighbors are informing other neighbors on these issues. BL:mdd -6- October 17, I988 UNAPPROVED MINUTES - PRNRC The Commission members then discussed the possibilities of limiting to I0 horsepower, but with directing the City Attorney to develop some language that would provide for exceptions to the two pontoon boats that are presently on the lake. MOTION: Motion by Shaw to recommend the City council draft an ordinance limiting the watercraft on Mitchell Lake to a 10 horsepower limit with a possibility of a special use permit to be renewed on an annual basis for the two existing pontoon boats limiting those boats to 25 horsepower. Motion seconded by Joyer. Passed 5-0. C. Riley Lake Acquisition - Lambert summarized the proposal for the land expansion at Riley Lake and indicated the seller is not a willing seller at the proposed price. Lambert also explained the difference between the appraisal that "recognizes the year 2000 MUSA Line" and developers that are offering Mrs. Jacques more than appraised value because the developers are betting that the MUSA Line will move before the year 2000. MOTION: Shaw moved to recommend the City Council acquire the Jacques property as per the staff memo. Seconded by Baker. Motion passed 4 in favor, Pat Richard abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. D. Comprehensive Park Plan Update Draft Review - Lambert introduced Barry Warner and summarized his memo of October 14th. Warner explained that this process started on May 15, 19BB and has proceeded to complete all of the tasks identified in the Request for Proposal. The major purpose of the Comprehensive Park Plan is to identify the park and open space existing needs,..as well as the needs in 1995 and the year 2000. Warner explained that the City of Eden Prairie is dominated by young families at this time and it is difficult to determine exactly how this will change as the community grows through the year 2020. He explained that the needs and demands on the park system will change as the community grows and the age distribution changes. All existing recreation facilities, as well as park and open space areas were inventoried, as well as the proposed open space preservation areas for the future. Mr. Warner explained that a representation in "site plan format" for all existing and proposed park sites will be developed in the final plan, and would depict existing and proposed improvements for all park sites. Mr. Warner indicated that the needs and demand analysis included a comparison of Eden Prairie to the Minnesota SCORP, 4 public meetings, a community newspaper survey, comparison with the accepted standards, a park service area analysis and athletic participation projection study. Several conclusions were reached through this study: -7- October 17, 1988 UNAPPROVED MINUTES - PRNRC 1. The park and open space system has a broad base community a support. There is approximately a 50/50 split of opinion on whether facilities are adequate, or more are needed. Most individuals think that the level of quality of the parks will continue without an expansion to the system. 2. The residents of Eden Prairie have high expectations regarding the quality of the park system. Many residents believe that the level of the quality will continue without continued investment in the park system and, therefore, are obviously not considering what the projected growth of the community will do to the demand on the existing system. 3. Additional land acquisition should occur immediately. 4. Neighborhood service areas are adequately served with the exception in the southwest where three additional neighborhood parks must be acquired in the near future. This is also true in the west central area. There is limited neighborhood areas in the developed area that are not adequately served. The main concern is the mid-central area south of Birch Island Park. Birch Island Park could accommodate the deficiency in this area with an adequate trail system and some development of Birch Island Park to accommodate neighborhood park needs. 5. Youth and adult athletic facilities will be over burdened in the very near future. 6. The Community Center facility and programs should be addressed through an ad hoc committee to study the possible new focus for the Community Center. 7. Completion of the passive open space system is of critical importance to the citizens of Eden Prairie. Under the policies chapter, the City should provide an inventory of the bluffs area that should be protected and a policy developed for protection of this area. The City should review the Bloomington policy as a good starting point. Mr. Warner then summarized the remaining chapters of the draft plan and then discussed recommendations for priorities of the major projects that must be addressed in the next 5-10 year period. Mr. Warner handed out a list of nine major priority projects and requested Commission members to each rate the priorities from 1-9 for each project. Upon completion of that task, Mr. Warner then went through how Barton-Aschman ranked these priority projects. Barton-Aschman ranked the priorities as 1) land acquisition, 2) Miller Park, 3) neighborhood parks 4) trail system, 5) Community Center, 6) golf course, 7) Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, 8) outdoor swimming, 9) special use facilities. The Commission scores ranked the projects in the following manner: 1) land acquisition, 2) 52i -8- Dctober 17, 1988 UNAPPROVED MINUTES - PRNRC Miller Park, 3) Community Center, 4) trail system, 5) neighborhood parks, 6) Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, 7) golf course, 8) special use facilities, 9) outdoor swimming area. Warner then indicated the major job for the City to accomplish prior to getting any of these tasks completed is COMMUNITY EDUCATION. Mr. Warner stressed how important it is to convey this information to residents of the community in order to accomplish any of the large tasks that remain before the citizens of Eden Prairie. Breintenstein suggested putting the same list of priorities in the newspaper under an article requesting residents to fill in the blanks in their own priorities and then compare on the back page of the newspaper with how Barton-Aschman ranked these needs and the reasons Barton-Aschman ranked each of the major needs. That might force people to get involved in thinking about priorities and reading why someone else would rank them differently than they would, or perhaps the same as they would. Warner suggested that if the budget allows, there is a last chapter that is not in the scope of services but would be nice to accomplish that could be titled "Scope of Vision for the Future" that would include brainstorming with perhaps a futurist and some of the City planners what recreation needs might be in the year 2010 or 2020. Ar Commission members then discussed various aspects of the plan and ways to accomplish meeting some of those needs. Baker indicated that he had four recommendations to include into the draft plan. Those included: 1. The plan should have a stronger statement on Riley Creek preservation. He would like to see the plan recommend a study of Riley Creek similar to the one that was completed for the Purgatory Creek in the mid 1970's. This should be addressed on page 158 in the plan. 2. Baker also suggested that he would like to see a stronger statement on what function the Community Center should or should not be performing. He recognizes the planner suggested an ad hoc committee, but he would like to see the recommendation from the planner. 3. Baker also believes the plan should incorporate more comments on Eden Prairie use of the Minnesota River valley. Most Eden Prairie residents have an attitude that Eden Prairie stops at Highway 169 when, in fact, our borders extend to the Minnesota River and we should take more advantage of the recreational potential of this Minnesota River valley by incorporating not only trails leading to the proposed Refuge and Recreation Area, but also incorporating shared programs that would utilize this great resource. - -9- OCTOBER 17, 1988 UNAPPROVED MINUTES - PRNRC 4. Baker would like to see the plan address a proposal to improve boulevards and medians at intersections with stop lights, as well as to improve the entryways to the City with plantings, flowers, decorative trees, etc. to improve the community image of Eden Prairie. These highly visible areas should make a statement to people that live in our community or are passing through Eden Prairie that Eden Prairie is a very special place. Breitenstein asked for recommendations from the planner on methods for educating the public to our needs. Richard indicated there is a need to keep these issues constantly in front of the public and a need to get City Council members to make bold statements and issue strong support for the needs that are addressed in this report. MOTION: Motion by Baker to recommend the City Council adopt this master plan with the comments from staff and Commission members. Seconded by Richard. Passed 5-0. VII. NEW BUSINESS Review of Appraisal and Consideration of Janikula Property - Lambert summarized the appraisal and proposal to acquire the Janikula property. MOTION: Motion by Baker to make an offer $77,000 for the Janikula property. Seconded by Joyer. Motion passed 5-0. VIII. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF A. Reports of Community Center Operations Supervisor 1. Request for New Rates and Promotional Lock-ins - Tom Eastman explained the proposed reasons for the new rates and the promotion program for lock-ins. MOTION: Motion by Shaw to approve the new rates and promotional program for lock-ins. Seconded by Mikkelson. Motion passed 5-0. 2. Membership Renewal Program - Tom Eastman explained the new membership promotional program. MOTION: Motion by Joyer to recommend the City Council adopt the membership renewal program. Seconded by Shaw. Motion passed 5-0. 3. Community Center Monthly Report - Baker qLestioned the head count for the Foxjets and Hockey Association on the first page. Eastman explained that head count did not include the number of individuals that participate under rental of ice or pool time. MOTION: Motion by Baker, seconded by Richard to accept the monthly report. Motion passed 5-0. MEMORANDUM TO: Barry Warner, Barton-Aschman Associates FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources 7 _ DATE: October 26, 1988 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Park Plan Revisions As you know, Bud Baker, of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, suggested a more detailed reference to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Upon review of our records and the approved Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area Comprehensive Park Plan, I would offer the following information and request this be included in the park plan. On December 20, 1983, the Eden Prairie City Council approved the Minnesota Valley Refuge and Recreation Area Comprehensive Park Plan with several minor recommended revisions. The City first reviewed the concept plan in February of 1981, at which time the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had several concepts. The City recommended "Concept C" as proposed by the Refuge planners and recommended the plan limit and carefully manage development of snowmobile trails within Eden Prairie, and that the equestrian trails be included that connect Eden Prairie trails to the Minnesota River Valley trail. The City also recommended the expansion of the Refuge boundaries to include i the bluff area, as proposed by the Refuge planners. The Comprehensive Plan includes equestrian trails, bicycle, hiking and cross country ski trails. There would be limited hunting within the Upgrala Unit for handicapped hunters and for a hunter's education facility that would provide facilities for interpretive and educational programs for young hunters. There is approximately 2,448 acres within Eden Prairie to be acquired by the federal government for the National Wildlife Refuge Area, and an additional 161 acres of land within the Wildlife Recreation Area to be acquired by the City of Eden Prairie. This portion of the Refuge and Recreation Area can either be managed by the City of Eden Prairie or transferred to the Refuge and Recreation Area for their management. The 161 acre area to be acquired by the City is located on the eastern end of the Refuge within Eden Prairie from a location where the Minnesota River turns north and comes very close to Riverview Road and easterly to the area just east of Purgatory Creek. The main purpose of this 161 acre area is to provide trail corridor access from the Purgatory Creek nature trail westerly to the trails within the Refuge, to preserve the floodplain in its natural condition and to provide limited passive recreation such as hiking and biking trails, picnicking and perhaps a canoe launch. This property should be acquired concurrent with adjacent development, if at all possible, and should be acquired through the use of park dedication as land in lieu of park fees for the river frontage and through a negotiated purchase when other funding is available. X)90 Due to the isolated nature of this proposed park property, access points should be controlled through gates that can be secured when the park is closed. ( Barry, I would also like to include this park (Minnesota River Valley) in the table 2.1 titled "Park Functional Classification" and list it under Conservation Area. On page 19 under "Conservation Areas" the second paragraph should read as follows: "Several large conservation areas are directly adjacent to neighborhood parks or have some limited passive recreation facilities developed within their boundaries such as hiking and biking trails, picnicking and wildlife observation." The fourth paragraph on the same page should read as follows: "Based upon community policy, all of the floodplain designated parcels within the three major creek valleys are ultimately to be acquired for City ownership to insure long term preservation of their resources. Approximately 160 acres of floodplain within the Minnesota River Valley is proposed for acquisition by the City within the approved Comprehensive Plan for the Minnesota Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area. This acreage is to be acquired for conservation and passive recreation such as bike/hike trails, picnicking and perhaps a canoe launch. In addition, wooded slopes of the creek valleys have been designated for preservation through scenic easements or public ownership. Steep bluffs along the Minnesota River Valley may also be preserved through scenic easement or public acquisition." On page 123 under table 3.6 "Existing and Future Park Acreage by Facility" number ten - Minnesota River Valley future acreage should be 161 acres total, rather than the 80 acres depicted. Chapter 7 "Special Use Facilities" under special use facilities needs - there should be a recommendation for consideration of a trap and skeet range that may be considered for including within the Minnesota Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area. The most appropriate place for a range to be considered would be south of Highway 169 a minimum of a half mile in distance from any residential areas. This facility might work very well with the hunter's education program proposed by the Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area Plan. There are a number of development proposals that are addressing the Minnesota River Valley at this time; therefore, I would appreciate it if you would incorporate these changes as soon as possible, and provide me with the revised sheets as soon as you are able. - I have a 200' scale plan depicting conceptually how the 161 acre park could look. I'll provide you with a copy of that plan the next time you are in Eden Prairie. Thank you for your assistance. RAL:mdd o 'A[tO SEIVI(IS,INC sil 11111111111111111, :ober 31, 1988 Olson sident ing Cloud Businessmans Association Thunderbird Aviation ing Cloud Field i Prairie, MN 55344 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Jay: following is a brief biography of my qualifications to serve on the Flying i Airport Advisory Commission. 'dt. al in 1975 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering Cal Poly University. After graduation, I worked in industry as a Sales eer, Industrial Sales Manager and Vice President of Sales. 33, I started my own business at Flying Cloud Airport, ASI-Aero Services, ASI is an aircraft dealer, charter, rental and fuel sales company. In purchased Modern Aero, Inc. (an aircraft maintenance company). We )tly employ over 35 people, many who live in Eden Prairie, as well as their livelihood there. `-� 6 years old, married for 15 years and have three (3) children. e My oldest uprivatel is 9pilotht dsince our t1968 andinownhold Insument, Tomy are musts old.with approximatly 2,000 hours of flight experiencend multi-anginal have forward to working with the members of the FCM Advisory C �t at my qualifications and experience will be viewed as satisfactory., and 1Y. SERVICES, INC. /iM /140` `�do'U12 b� riterlq ejtwc1/11.4, Al- 'Jan.' . 11,Ltt____,_ vices,Inc. • 1410s o:....---.--.. -- '• 11�4W ate..... 4a�,.+J.61.....:...a..... October 4, 1988 To: Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission For the past year and a half I have been a member of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission and have been very proud of the fact that I was asked to serve. Over the past few months, however, my career goals have changed. I now desire a more active involvement in actual flying and find that this activity makes my prescence at meetings uncertain at best. I am certain there are any number of qualified Businessmen that would welcome this appointment as much as I did. I, therefore, respectfully resign from the commission. Thank You, ._ _ Robert Perkins § j 2,19 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson SUBJECT: New Conditions for On-sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses DATE: November 1, 1988 Minnesota law establishes the number of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses a community may issue by its population. Because their number is limited, these licenses can be important tools for shaping what cities will become. Eden Prairie has several licenses remaining. As there has been increasing interest among businesses to be granted these licenses, it is timely to revisit this issue and determine what changes, if any, should be made. CURRENT STATUS OF LICENSING AUTHORITY: Due to the 1985 federal census of the City, Eden Prairie is considered a city of second class for purposes of on-sale licensing. In this classification, a city may issue up to 18 licenses plus one for every 2500 residents over 45,000 population. (Assuming an ultimate population of 70,000, Eden Prairie would have 28 licenses available.) The City may choose to limit the number of licenses to fewer than that authorized by statute, but may not issue more licenses without a referendum to do so. The number of club, non-intoxicating, and wine licenses are not limited by statute. Licenses are issued to a particular person (or corporation or partnership) for a particular location and are not transferable. License applicants are subject to a thorough police background investigation. In Eden Prairie, licensees pay $7,500 per year ($7,700 if they have Sunday sale) for the license. Current licenses in Eden Prairie are held by: Abby's.Great American Food Ciatti's Italian Ristorante Edenvale Golf Club Greenstreets of Eden Prairie Kabuki/Ernest T's Restaurant Mexican Village Restaurant Mirage Restaurant Snax Bar & Grill Stars Restaurant (Flagship Athletic Club) Two other license applications have been submitted: Applebees Neighborhood Grill and Bar Marriott Courtyard Inn CURRENT CONDITIONS OF LICENSE: Chapter 4 of the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code covers the licensing and regulation of beer, wine, and liquor sales. Essentially, the following conditions must be met in order for a license to be issued: a) A restaurant shall have seating facilities for not less than 150 guests. (Sec. 4.01, subd. 20) a19(4 - 2 - b) A hotel or motel shall have not less than 100 guest rooms, and if it has a dining room as an integral part of its establishment, seating for at least 100 guests must be provided for food service. (Sec. 4.01, subd. 21) c) In a restaurant, or in that part of a hotel where there is a restaurant, 50 percent or more of the gross receipts shall be derived from the serving of food. (Sec. 4.11) d) No license shall be granted for any building within 300 feet of a public elementary or secondary school structure, or within 100 feet of any church structure. (Sec. 4.32, subd. 5) e) On-sale licenses shall be granted only to bona fide clubs, exclusive liquor stores, drug stores, restaurants and motels or hotels. (Sec. 4.32, subd. 6) f) No more than one license (or having 5 percent or more interest in a license) shall be held by any person. (Sec. 4.71, subd. 8) g) No license shall be granted to a person of questionable character or business reputation (Sec. 4.02, subd. 4F). SURVEY OF OTHER COMMUNITIES: As might be expected, each city will have somewhat different criteria to be met before a license will be issued. One of the major differences which can occur relates to the physical establishment - its value of construction and size expressed in terms of seating or square footage. For purposes of surveying other cities, staff focused on these issues. As some cities sent more extensive information, this is reported below: Valuation Space Food Sale City Requirement Requirement Requirement Other Apple Valley No NR NR Bloomington No 50 seats & 1200 SF; "principal part" *Distances - 50 hotel rooms & of business at least 1000 ft 900 SF dining area from school parcel, 900 ft from church parcel Eagan $200,0O0 40 seats; 60%+ *4 licenses for that 25 guest rooms designated for portion in hotels (1 which liquor currently held) can be *2 licenses served designated for restaurants having more than $350,000 value non-leasehold improvements *These designa- tions made by • 95 ordinance - 3 - Minnetonka No 100 seats 50%+ Referendum approved which removed statutory limit on number of on-sale licenses Plymouth $1.1 million 150 seats 40%+ *Distance - 500 (1987) adj. feet of school annually on or church a building property; 750 cost index feet of resi- dentially zoned or guided property Richfield $600,000 4000 SF & 40 "principal part" restaurant; seats; 100 of restaurant $1,000,000 guest rooms & business or that hotel 30 seats area of a hotel which serves food St.Louis No 30 seats; No *Resolution Park 30 guest rooms states favor- able considera- tion of location *Distance - 300 feet from church or school *1977 Referendum added 6 licenses ($750,000 or 10,000 S.F. "Class I" former (excl.land restaurant restaurant ) ( standard in ) ( effect 1975 -) ($250,000 or 5,00D S.F. w/"Class I" former hotel ) (excl. land restaurant standard in ) ( effect 1975 -) Eden Prairie No 150 seats; 50%+ *Distance - 300 10D guest feet from public rooms & 100 school or church seats EDEN PRAIRIE INVENTORY To give an idea how on-sale establishments in Eden Prairie would relate to square footage or valuation minima, the following data have been assembled from City records. All have at least 150 seats. Building value is the value of construction in the year built (unless noted by "*" to show the 1988 estimated market value). In cases where the establishment is part of a larger complex, the value was not determined. - 4 - Square Footage Bldg. Value Abby's Great American Food 4840 $ 170.000 Ciatti's Italian Ristorante 47B0 500,000 Edenvale Golf Club (2nd floor) 4228 413,000 Greenstreets of Eden Prairie 4887 271,000* Kabuki/Ernest T's Restaurant 8174 354,000* Mexican Village Restaurant 4548 358,000* Mirage Restaurant 5603 383,000 Snax Bar & Grill 5194 Stars Restaurant 5000 ALTERNATIVES Eden Prairie's performance criteria are relatively stringent compared with other communities. All but one of the current or pending licenses are restaurants or auxiliary to recreation establishments. Inasmuch as the Council has identified having a hotel with banquet and meeting facilities as a priority for the community, the Council may consider designating one or more licenses for this land use. The Council is supportive of a special downtown area; an establishment which also serves liquor could be one which would attract desirable development to the area. Similarly, the Council may consider designating one or more licenses for a specific geographic area(s). Reserving two licenses for hotels would underscore the City's priority to have lodging and meeting facilities in the community. Standards on banquet facilities and meeting space would need to be established (for example, Marriott Courtyard Inn has two meeting/dining rooms with seating for 43 persons in each, an amount of space generally less than desirable for the type of hotel the City and the Chamber of Commerce, among others, has tried to attract). With two licenses reserved for this type of hotel use, the City would keep competition alive in this business. One of the concepts behind a "hometown downtown" is an opportunity to create an entertainment district.. A concentration of on-sale establishments would create a lively, attractive ambiance as well as contain the police enforcement associated with liquor operations. From an urban planning perspective, it appears that four or five establishments would be an optimal number (one - Ciatti's - is already in place). If a downtown zoning area were created, additional controls regarding architecture, open space, adjacent uses, etc., could be used. Perhaps some credit for outdoor seating could be given to offset indoor year-round seating requirements. While all on-sale establishments must be located on commercially-zoned properties, this downtown appproach would define further where the majority of licenses could do business in a manner consistent with community expectations. The alternatives above assume that the number of licenses will be fixed in accordance with Statute. This number is tied to the decennial census or a federally-conducted special census; consequently, it could remain at 18 throughout the 1990s unless the Council decides that taking a special census is desirable (and cost-effective). If, as suggested, two licenses were reserved for large hotels and three or four new licenses are reserved for "downtown", and if the licenses for Applebees and Marriott Courtyard Inn were granted, only one or two licenses would remain undesignated. If Councilmembers are concerned about this situation, there is yet another alternative - a referendum to exempt the City from the statutorily-prescribed number of licenses. - 5 - Minnesota statutes provide that a referendum may be held to a) increase the number of licenses by a specific number above the statute, or b) to remove the statutory limit altogether. This referendum may be held at either a general or a special election. Either of these approaches has its advantages and disadvantages. With an unlimited number, denial of a license may be difficult if the applicant has met all conditions. On the other hand, the stringent performance standards set by Eden Prairie acts to limit the number and type of potential establishments. The City of Minnetonka, for instance, has adopted the unlimited number option and, because of its demanding performance criteria, is not finding this approach to be a problem. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Depending on the types of land uses desired by the City and economic conditions, the number of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses may become a critical issue during the next few years. No change in policy could be followed, in which case those appplicants who meet the City's requirements for seating and food service sales would be granted a license unless there were compelling reasons for denial. A change in policy could work to the City's advantage to attract desriable land uses, and perhaps to preferred areas. As long as the number of on-sale licenses is limited by statute, staff suggests that the Council consider an amendment to the Ordinance Code to designate a number of the licenses remaining to be issued. If Council wishes to reserve a number of licenses for particular types of hotels, staff will develop definitions and prepare an ordinance. Similarly, if Council wishes to set aside a number of licenses for a particular area such as the "hometown downtown," staff will delineate the area for incorporation into a proposed ordinance. Council may also wish to consider a referendum to exceed the number of licenses which may be issued. If the option to remove limits altogether is chosen, then designating the types of uses and/or locations for licenses would no longer be necessary. No further changes are suggested in the performance standards to be met prior to license issuance. The seating and food sales requirements appear to be working well. Staff will proceed based upon Council direction. CWD:jdp MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie FROM: Finance Director John Frane and Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson SUBJECT: Third Quarter 1988 General Fund Report DATE: November 8, 1988 Attached are summaries of expenditures and revenues in the General Fund through the third quarter of 1988. As with the reports of the first and second quarters, the overall financial picture is about what was to be expected, with the exception of building permit fees lagging behind the amount anticipated when the 1988 budget was adopted. EXPENDITURES Expenditures through September 30, 1968 totalled $7,400,000, or 71.4 percent of the amount in the 1988 Budget. The following discussion highlights the areas which significantly differ from the expenditure trend. Elections: The major costs for this activity will be incurred during the fourth quarter. Park Maintenance: While 21 percent of the expenses approved remain on balance, the division on the whole is not overspending as fertilizer, chemicals, grass seed, sand and gravel are seasonal purchases. Park Capital Outlay: Expenses for the trail along Duck Lake Trail were not incurred during the third quarter. A total of $34,000 was budget for this project. Forestry: A substantial balance remains in this activity because summer tree inspectors were not hired and use of spades for large trees is much less than anticipated thus far. Beach: This division came in over budget due to the Council's decision to add staff at Riley Lake Park. Little if any aditional expense is expected to be charged against this activity for the remainder of 1988. Organized Athletics: Costs are not incurred for several programs until the fourth quarter. These expenses total $15,100. Adult Recreation: Several costs (e.g., teen work program, art and music services) have not yet been incurred. Several savings in operating and staffing expenses have also been realized through the year. Adaptive Recreation: Contractual services for this program had been paid in full by the end of September; few, if any expenses will remain this year. Historical & Cultural: Several items have not yet had costs incurred (postage and Community Theater) or only partially incurred (concerts-in-the-park). - 2 - Finance: The 1988 financial audit was a major one-time expense which skews the trend for expenses in this department. Human Resources: Some programs will be started in fourth quarter and savings have been made in employment ads. Human Services: Third quarter costs for South Hennepin Human Services Council, Cornerstone, and the Human Services Fund had not been incurred for this report. Criminal Prosecution: June through September 1988 billings have not been received. Based on billings through May, these fees would total approximately $100,000 for 1988. Civil Defense: The new civil defense siren had not been purchased by September. Fire: Volunteer firefighter wages are paid twice each year. The second payment will occur in December. Police & Fire Buildings: A mild winter and good luck in the maintenance and repair area have resulted in cost savings in this activity. Streets & Drainage: Most of the non-wage expense occurs in the summer and particularly for blacktop and gravel. The balance in this division's budget will be sufficient. Snow & Ice: Salt and sand for this coming winter have yet to be purchased. Street Lighting: The expense shown here is a net amount after crediting streetlighting fees due with final plats. As few plats are expected to be processed during the fourth quarter, this activity will run over the budget. Public Works/Parks Building: Savings in this activity result mainly from a mild winter. Shared Services-General: The liability insurance premium has been paid entirely. Shared Services-Data Processing: Invoices for services rendered in August and September 1968 had not been received. Otherwise, expenses are on track. Legal Counsel: Billings for services rendered from June through September 1988 had not been received. Employee Benefits: Workmen's Compensation premiums for October and November 1988 were pepaid. REVENUES Total General Fund revenues credited through September 30, 1988 totalled approximately $5,450,000, or about 48 percent of anticipated receipts. The format of the revenue report is opposite that of the expense report: it shows the percentage of funds received to date instead of the amount yet to be collected. Taxes: The second half property tax payments will be received during the fourth quarter. r)c00 - 3 - Licenses: Most of the license fees are collected in December, and liquor licenses constitute the vast majority of license fees (at $7700 each for on-sale intoxicating liquor, including Sunday sale). Building Permits: Fees for these permits will not be realized to the extent anticipated for the 1988 budget. Receipts will probably fall in the $1.1 - 1.2 million range. Fees are proposed to increase December 5, 1988. Fees: Such items as engineering fees are transferred into this account at year- end. This practice makes the revenue in this activity appear artificially low. Revenue from Other Agencies: All these intergovernmental agencies have been received except the second half local government aid (LGA) payment. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council receive the third quarter 1988 General Fund financial report. CWD:JDF:jdp Attachment MO 3RD88BUD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 1988 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 25% OF THE BUDGET YEAR IS LEFT ADJUSTED BUDGET BUDGET EXPENDED BALANCE 7. BALANCE LEGISLATIVE 58400 43796 14604 25.07 ELECTIONS 52900 16400 36500 69.0% CITY MANAGER 133600 100715 32885 24.67. ASSESSING DEPT 260700 187045 73655 28.37. BLDG INSPECTION DEPT 447100 319080 128020 28.6% PARKS/RECREATION ADMIN & PARK PLAN 139900 98029 41871 29.97. PARK MAINTENANCE 510900 403918 106982 20.97 PARK CAP. OUTLAY 52000 20885 31115 59.8%. FORESTRY 110700 47817 62883 56.8% RE-CREATION ADMIN 114500 81108 33392 29.7/. CCPMJNITY CENTER 536900 395126 141774 26.47 BEACH 43300 46466 -3166 -7.37. ORGANIZED ATHLETIC 185200 108281 76919 41.5% RECREATION-YOUTH 139500 109155 30345 21.8% RECREATION-ADLLT 90588 55515 35073 38.7/. RECREATION--ADAPTIV 25900 24839 1061 4.1. HIST & ILL ARTS 15800 6862 8938 56.67. FINANCE 192500 154865 37635 19.67. HUMAN RESOURCES 96600 67259 29341 30.47 HUMAN SERVICES 71500 45076 26424 37.0% PLANNING DEPT 338800 236597 102203 30.7/. POLICE DEPT POLICE 1896300 1390608 505692 26.7/. CRIMINAL PROSEC 90000 42794 47206 52.57 CIVIL DEFENSE 22300 2066 20234 90.7/. ANIMAL CDNIHUL 36900 26534 10366 28.1% FIRE 356900 165424 191476 53.67. FIRE & POLICE BLDGS 145200 93948 51252 35.3/. PUBLIC WORKS DEPT ENGINEERING 520300 357486 162814 31.37 SiHELTS & DRAINAGE 772000 611841 160159 20.7% EQUIPMENT MNTC 440100 308135 131965 30.07 SNOW & ICE CONTROL 93000 37614 55386 59.67 STREET LIGHTING 150000 130850 19150 12.8% P/W & PARK R DG 57000 33463 23537 41.37. SHARED CERVICES GENERAL 373412 351733 21679 5.8% DATA PROCESSING 77000 49137 27863 36.7/. LEGAL CDLNSEL 131000 41689 89311 68.2. CITY OFFICES 274400 197059 77341 28.7/. PUBLIC INFORMATION 26100 11403 14697 56.37 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS & TRAINING 1102000 892265 209735 19.0% RESERVE 182700 B7841 94859 51.9% TOTAL C-EPER2L FUND 10363900 7400724 2963176 28.6% �3c 1 A CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 1988 GENERAL FWD REVENLES 75% OF THE BUDGET YEAR ELAPSED ADJUSTED BUDGET BUDGET RECEIVED V. RECEIVED TAXES 5777700 2481083 42.97. LICENSES 99000 17264 17.4'/. BUILDING PERMITS 1400000 837740 59.8% OTHER PERMITS 30000 6815 22.7% FEES 485500 133124 27.4'/. REV FHU1 OTHER AGENCIES 825700 681190 82.5% COMMUNITY CENTER FEES 453800 335870 74.0% RECREATION PROGRAM' 289190 216748 75.0% ri7 RT FEES 240000 121671 50.7/. INTEREST 100000 75000 75.0% USE OF FWD BALANCE 657900 493425 75.0% MI'-+1-I LANEOUS REVENJE 44410 47403 106.7% TOTAL GENERAL. FUNDS 10403200 5447333 47.6% BALANCE TO BE RECEIVED 4955867 ( 28Ci(3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Members THRU: Carl J. Jullie FROM: Natalie Swaggert DATE: November 10, 1988 SUBJECT: Affirmative Action Plan Attached for your review is the 1988 Affirmative Action Plan for the City of Eden Prairie. The proposed Affirmative Action Plan will replace the current City plan which was adopted in January 1975. The plan, as written, complies with all State requirements for format and content. The updated plan is required for the City to be elgible for State grant and aid programs and transfers. The plan is based on June 1988 payroll data. The June date was selected because it is the reporting time frame required by the Federal government for completing the annual EEOC report. To simplify your review of the Affirmative Action Plan I recommend that you do the following: 1) Read the Affirmative Action Policy statement (page 1) 2) Review the Availability/Utilization/Underutilization Chart on (page 26) 3) Read Section VI Corrective Action and Goals (page 28) These three sections give you the basis of the cities responsibilities, the job groups in which we need to increase the number of female and minority employees and the corrective action we plan to take. It is important that we submit our Affirmative Action Plan to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights by December 1st. They will review the plan to ensure that it meets their requirements and issue the City of Eden Prairie a Certificate of Compliance. Once we have the Certificate of Compliance the Affirmative Action Policy and Plan will be returned to you for adoption as a resolution. NJS:bmm 2?UZ AGENDA SPECIAL EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING The City Council will meet at 6:00 P.M. to interview candidates for the Waste Management Commission TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 19BB 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: 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 W. Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Planning Director Chris Enger, Zoning Administrator Jean Jean Johnson, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL • I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. PRESENTATION BY METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION ON DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT III. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT • • MEMO TO: Eden Prairie City Council and Commissions FROM: Planning Department DATE; October 26, 1988 RE: FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 1988 BACKGROUND Flying Cloud Airport was acquired by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) in 1947. At that time the airport consisted of 134 acres. Today airport land totals 560 acres, or approximately 2% of the City's total land. For comparison approximately 2% of the City is designated for office (548 acres), and also for commercial (616 acres). Flying Cloud Airport is 1 of 7 airports managed by MAC. The other airports are MSP International Airport, St. Paul Downtown, Airlake, Anoka, Crystal and Lake Elmo. Presently Flying Cloud Airport is classified as a minor airport. Attachment A illustrates the Functional Classification of Metropolitan Airport Facilities. The Metropolitan Council developed a Metropolitan Airport System Plan in 1972. In the plan, Flying Cloud was to become an Intermediate Airport. Later it was determined Flying Cloud should remain as a Minor Airport. According to Metropolitan Council policies, MAC is to complete and submit for approval, a comprehensive master plan on all airports owned and managed by MAC. In 1975, a Master Plan was developed for Flying Cloud. Proposed in that plan were: extension of the north/south runway from 2700 to 3100 feet, extension of the southerly east/west runway from 3200 to 4100 feet, and installation of a landing system and lights. Numerous residents were strongly opposed to any expansion of the airport or extension of runways. Complaints about aircraft noise, low altitude flying, late hour operations, jet use, etc. were voiced by the people attending the meetings. A petition of 1200 names in opposition was received. Following numerous City meetings, the City Council recommended to MAC no expansion of the airport and requested designation of the airport as general utility (Minor Airport). In 1979, the southerly east/west runway was extended 600 feet, 300 feet less than the 900 foot extension outlined in the 1975 Master Plan. Also in 1979, a Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission was established by the City Council. The Commission's duties are to advise the City Council and MAC on items relating to the airport. Ordinance 51 which was adopted by MAC in 1978 prohibits jet aircraft at Flying Cloud of more than 20,000 lbs. maximum take off weight, prohibits jet training operations and requires aircraft at the airport to meet Federal Air Regulation Part 36 Noise Standards. Flying Cloud Airport 2 October 26, 1988 -- Since the 1975 commenting on Master variousplan Metropolitan the Council guidelines iwithverespectretoviewin and airport influences and noise compatibility. Contained in the City's 1978 Comprehensive Guide Plan is a policy for safety zones which guide the type and density of use to occur near the airport. (See Attancment B). In 1986, the City received a Model Aircraft Noise Attenuation ordinance from the Metropolitan Council. The model ordinance overlayed Zones A - D upon land around the airport and included a list of uses. Zones A and B are MAC owned property. Approximately 25 acres of Zone C is private owned property and 200 acres of Zone D is private land. The City is to amend its Comprehensive Guide Plan with zones and guidelines during the next update process. Adjacent Land Uses The most compatible uses around an airport are open space, commercial, industrial, or office. Aircraft traffic patterns over these areas disrupt activity less than over residential or active recreational areas. • The uses surrounding flying Cloud Airport are: open space, recreational, residential, and industrial. Open space and industrial uses are more compatible than the residential which exists and is planned around the airport. (See Attachment C). Another incompatible use next to the airport is the landfill. Presently, the landfill is closed, but if operations resume, gulls and other birds will again be attracted to the landfill and pose a safety hazard to aircraft. If the landfill expansion is approved, the deep excavated area will be under the flight pattern and can cause turbulence for aircraft. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge located south of the airport will be habitat for local and-migrating waterfowl which can also interfere with aircraft. THE 1988 MASTER PLAN Existing Conditions The airports 560 acres contain aircraft related businesses, a Votec institute, hangar buildings, open space and recreational uses. The airport serves business and recreational fliers in Eden Prairie and other communities. Approximately 200 employees, 250 Votec students, and numerous visitors and flight training students are at the airport. Utilities Presently all users at the airport are on private wells and sanitary systems. With 200+ employees at the airport, 250 students at the Votec, and numerous visitors a day, it appears a plan for public water and sewer should be developed. Time spent now developing a municipal service plan will give MAC and the City time to evaluate the best service for the area, prior to system failures which could require emergency service. With or without expansion at the airport a service plan is Flying Cloud Airport 3 October 26, 1988 recommended for the airport users and for fire fighting purposes. Storm water is handled via a systems of ditches, pipes, and holding ponds. Any improvements or changes should be submitted to the appropriate watershed district. Future Projections Over the next 20 years it is projected the number of aircraft based at the airport and the number of operations will increase. Based Aircraft Number of Operations 1987 492 209,423 2010 843 379,000 These projections are based upon "unconstrained" conditions, meaning sufficient facilities will be at Flying Cloud to accommodate additional based aircraft and operations. An aircraft operation is defined as a take-off or landing. If a plane'takes off and returns to land 2 operations have occured. Over the past 20 years, airport operations have fluctuated and a yearly increase in numbers has not always occured. Forecasts contained in the Master Plan projects unconstrained annual operations to increase from 209,423 to 379,000 from 1987 to 2010. This 169,577 operation increase over 23 years is an average of 7,373 operations per year, or approximately 20 per day. On a single day such an increase is not significant but the cumulative numbers will be noticeable to residents just as the decrease in operations from the high of 446,198 in 1968 is noticeable today. The 1977 Master Plan projected 440,000 operations for 1985 and 500,000 for 1995. The more recent projection of 379,000 for 2010 is significantly below the previous 500,000 operation estimated for 1995. The types of aircraft using Flying Cloud are: antique, experimental, single engine, multi-engine, helicoptors, turbo-prop, and turbo jets. Single engine planes do make up the largest percentage and according to the projections they will continue to do so. The jet aircraft increases will occur slowly and although their increased numbers may not significantly affect the overall percentages, they are more frequently the cause of resident noise complaints than single engine aircraft. Noise The consultant for MAC, Howard Needles Tammern & Bergendoff, has evaluated noise impacts using the yearly average day-night sound level (LON) expressed in decibels and the Metropolitan Council's four (A - 0) Noise Exposure Zones. Refer to the HNTB submitted information for their compiled noise review. Proposed Hangar Sites Four future hangar sites for the airport have been identified by the 1988 Development Plan. Flying Cloud Airport 4 October 26, 1988 Building Area Alternate #1 is along the southwest corner of the airport and would require land acquisition. Substantial fill is needed to prepare this area and Staff is concerned about the sight lines from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife area. The land surrounding Alternative $l is designated on the City's Guide Plan for low density residential. Aircraft engine runups adjacent to the future single family would not be compatible. If significant land is purchased in this area, it is recommended a remnant narrow piece of land not be left. Instead MAC should consider purchasing all the property to Highway /169. Building Area Alternative $2 is west of the existing hangars which abut County Road #1. MAC already owns the property and some is leased to the City for field recreation. These additional hangars would impact the City in 2 ways; aircraft runups would be near existing single family, and 1 ballfield, approximately 60 parking spaces and 7 acres of soccer/football fields would be removed. This alternative will negatively impact ground traffic circulation when both parallel runways are being used because the majority of aircraft will be at the north side of the airport and some will need to cross the north east/west runway in order to reach the south east/west runway. If the parallel runways cannot be used efficiently, congestion of aircraft will occur on the ground and in the air. Building Area Alternative #3 is along the southwest corner of the airport and would involve some additional land acquisition. Less land acquisition and fill would be required than Alternative #1. This alternative would require relocation of the TVOR (High Frequency Omni Range - a navigation aid). And it would impair the tower controller's visibility unless hangar heights are limited. Building Area Alternative !4 divides hangar space between the west and south ends of the existing airport property. The space proposed at the west end will remove the one ballfield and approximately 2 acres of soccer/football fields. Engine runups may impact single family homes or park users at Staring Lake Park. The existence of any significant archeological sites will need to be reviewed with Alternative I's 1 and 4. Runway Alternatives 5,000 Foot Runway Alternate A shows a 1,100 foot extension to the southerly east/west runway, 9 R-27L. This alternate changes the existing 3,900 foot runway to 5,000 feet, the maximum length for a Minor Airport. The additional runway length is the alternate which responds to the unconstrained forecast which expects hangar areas to be added and anticipates 36 jet aircraft at the airport. Presently, approximately 500 aircraft are based at Flying Cloud, 6 of the 500 are turbo-jet aircraft. In conjunction with the runway extension, Safety Zones A and B are likewise extended. The extended Zone A in the 5,000 foot alternate would impact approximately 70 acres. Extended Zone B would impact approximately 100 acres. The majority of these acres are guided for residential use and over half are within the MUSA. According to Safety Zone A Regulations (refer to Attachment B), no building could occur. According to Safety Zone B Regulations, residential development would be approximately 1/4 of what would be expected under current City Zoning Regulations for Low Density Residential. Todate no compensation plan has been outlined by MAC. Flying Cloud Airport 5 October 26, 1988 Extended Zone A covers a site which is a possible municipal golf course. Although a golf course use may be permitted in the zone, and other examples of golf courses near airports exist in the Twin Cities, it is not a preferred location for a golf course. Also in Zone A is a natural topographic feature, an evergreen covered hill which encompasses approximately 7 acres and rises 100 feet from Eden Prairie Road to a 900+ elevation. Given the 900+ elevation and upon that tree heights of 20-30 feet, Staff is concerned the hill top and trees may be removed unless the City is given the assurances the hill is not an obstruction to approaching or departing aircraft. A significant amount of fill will be necessary to construct this runway and clear zone approach which may impact the surface water drainage and significantly alter the appearance of the west end of the airport as seen from County Road 4. The easterly extension of Zone A will place restrictions upon Homeward Hills Park use and prevent it from having full flexibility of use in the future. 4500 Foot Runway Runway Alternate B depicts extension of the southerly east/west runway, 9R-27L, from the existing 3900' to 4500', an additional 600 feet. The associated extension of Safety Zones A and B would impact 25 acres and 60 acres respectively. The land use regulations would be the same as outlined under the 5,000 foot runway alternative. This alternative would require less fill and alteration than the 5,000 foot alternative. The 600 foot runway extension does not appear to be needed for the existing eight aircraft and is of insufficient length to attract certain corporate jets at the airport. It does provide a stepping process; if the runway is extended 600' to 4500' a future extension of 500' would achieve the 5000' runway. No Build Alternative Alternative C is the "no build" scenario, leaving the runway lengths as is. This alternative adequately serves 95% of the aircraft use at the airport today and the 10 year projections. After that time, the aviation economy and the overall Metropolitan aviation picture may be different and could be re-evaluated. Howard Needles Tamnen and Bergendoff, consultants to MAC, have selected Preferred Alternatives of: Extending the runway to 5,000 feet. Adding new hangar space along the southwest side of the airport. MAC Staff has not yet selected the alternatives they will be recommending to the MAC Commission. After MAC holds a public hearing, their preferred alternatives will be sent to the Metropolitan Council for approval. Flying Cloud Airport 6 October 26, 1988 CONCLUSIONS The airport and the City have co-existed since 1947. There have been cooperative ventures in the multiple use of the airport's open space. The City and its residents appreciate MAC's cooperation in this area. This year it became apparent a need exists to irrigate the playfields so activity is not conditioned upon the weather. Irrigation improvements can be made in the future if agreements are made which will allow the City to make improvements and feel that the investment can be protected for a longer length of time than the present agreement condition of a year to year lease with a 90 day cancellation clause. The Metropolitan Council Aviation Plan predicts Flying Cloud Airport can meet the future 2003 aircraft operations needs. With this possibility it does not appear a costly runway extension or significant expansion in hangar areas will be needed for some time. With the rehabilitation of old smaller hangars, existing hangar areas could be used to the optimum and decrease the need to designate new hangar sites. This would "face lift" the airport while providing space for the existing users and new users. In addition, given the Metropolitan Council and MAC are still involved in a search and study of locating a new general aviation airport somewhere in west central Hennepin, the expansion at Flying Cloud appears premature. In the meantime, other existing Minor and Intermediate airports should be able to assimilate the slow increase of corporate planes and diverted planes from MSP. This could eliminate the need to make a sizeable investment in Flying Cloud when existing facilities meet the needs of the majority of users. CITY PLANNING STAFF FINDS PREFERRED ALTERNATE A, RUNWAY EXTENSION TO 5,000 FEET, IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The extended runway and its associated extended Safety Zones A and B will remove acreage designated on the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan from park and single family and change it to Public-Airport. 2. The land use regulations contained in Safety Zone B will impact approximately 100 acres. Similarly, use regulations may restrict the City from using its present Homeward Hills Park and any golf course to its fullest potential. 3. Neither the landfill or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge are compatible uses with an airport. Waiving these concerns now could prove to create unsafe conditions in the future. 4. Flight patterns will be extended out and around neighborhoods which presently have minimal plane traffic and noise. And when the land presently outside the MUSA is ready to develop as residential, the area may not be desireable as residential if plane traffic and noise is perceived as objectionable. 5. An extended runway will attract additional jet traffic where the majority of users are single engine. It will mix slow single engine planes with fast jet aircraft. As flight operations increase, the interaction of slow and fast planes could decrease safe distances between planes. Flying Cloud Airport 7 October 26, 1988 • An increase in jet use would be more compatible at: other minor airports which have a greater percentage of jets, at the intermediate airport, or at a new airport which may result from the ongoing study. 6. It has not been demonstrated that the Metopolitan Council's Aviation Plan which predicts the airport can meet its aircraft operation needs until 2003 is in error. City Planning Staff believes an alternate to designating large acreage for new hangars is rehabilitation of existing hangars. After this alternative has been fully studied and incorporated where most appropriate, smaller acreage could be developed for additional new hangars. City Staff recommends MAC review building leases and work towards rehabilitating old hangars in order to meet the hangar space needs prior to adding new hangars. This could be be achieved by re-negotiating the length of hangar leases so adjacent hangar leases would expire at the same time. Hangar owners could still be given the opportunity Or, if existing owners are puninterested,canotherialternativeucwould bee forh MAC angators�construct new hangars and lease space. Rehabilitation will improve the airport's appearance and bring antiquated buildings up to Code. Following rehabilitation of some older hangars, smaller building areas along the southwest side of the airport may be the most appropriate if ' sight lines from the river bottoms can be interrupted with berms and plantings where needed and noise affects to any future residential can be mitigated. These conclusions are based upon the information todate. To fully review the proposed alternatives detailed grading plans, sight line drawings and zoning height map would be needed. Staff has requested the above noted information and hopes to receive the data prior to the public hearing. • • 7,.A c a 3 3 3.7, 3c a ^_ .^1 Y Y 4. A a s ` 1 Y o r A A Y S C y I O n c 7 Y 5 o. . m n 7 us O .� - J Y es Y a -2 c 3 a C 2 n n A w — ° 3 n n >;I.. • a • F. < c Z 2-'. cp. OD 7 C 7 J J n CI n D O o. p Q w » n T07> 3n w0>� 30»,H 22- 2 > ri • O J n '2 i es . •2 o,a x = •2 o r oo e w 3.3 = w n d 3 : C= C O c C n 3 o ; = '2 o M Z H > ^ n 5. n co o Y a a 2 > Y+. 3a• N noo Aoo F. 3 it. •,''" '' mm n n c et a n n Q O .6... N 3 0o D Z n o O o o` a n Z Y a Y J T Q ]] O ; A T c 0• n 3 3= t Z goz ' 3 DD 3n r n - o.°r ono °.. � w �_,n n • f1 A u • o O a 1n O O O J O O 2 � V1 N 9 H 9 J Y y J w 0 J 7 u 3 O a n. C Y d O 7 7 O y 'A Y Y J O A o 2 n Z d G D n 7 O XI Z.Y N N N m r y S O O p p V n n 33' ,:oS. + ' n N i D r < z7 7 7^3 i a 0 el ^_re n 9 • N ts " N •Y a ^.•P n J 7 = =A > o ' y O D J n N A C�Y 7 1 : 3 3 3 e n 3 a n M. N N ,n w y C. •;D N e p / r • Attachment A 5g. SPECIAL PLAN AREAS EDEN PRAIRIE COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN Flying Cloud Airport Flying Cloud Airport is presently a general utility facility; it is designed to accomodate virtually all aircraft of less than 12,500 pounds gross weight. Aircraft of this size generally have a seating capacity of 2 to 12 passengers and consist of light and medium single engine and twin engine airplanes. In March, 1973 the Metropolitan Council adopted an airport system plan that designed to accomodate turbo- jet powered aircraft up to 60,000 pounds gross weight. Such aircraft are usually business jets with a 6 to 20 passenger capacity. Just recently, however, the new proposed Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide has redesignated the airport as a general utility facility once again. It was, felt that upgrading the airport to a basic transport role would adversely affect the quiet residential character of • the community as•welll as the wildlife populations inhabiting the National Wildlife Refuge along the Minnesota River just • south of the airport. figure 5-12 illustrates the Land Use Safety Zones associated with the existing runway configuaration at Flying Cloud Air- port. The Minnesota Department of Aeronautics has established use restrictions for these zones (Aero 10, Airport Zoning . Standatds) as follows: Zone - A: Zone A shall contain no buildings, temporary structures, exposed transmission lines, or other similar land use structural hazards, and shall be restricted to those uses which will not create, attract, or bring to- gether an assembly of persons thereon. Permitted uses may include, but are not limited to, such uses as agri- culture (seasonal crops), horticulture, raising of livestock, animal husbandry, wildlife habitat, light outdoor recreation (nonspectator), cemetaries and auto parking. Zone - B: Zone B shall be restricted in use as follows: -Each use shall be on a site whose area shall not be less than three acres. -Each use shall not create, attract, or bring together a site population that would exceed 15 times that of the site acreage. • Attachment B • -Each site shall have no more than one building plot • upom which any number of structures may be erected. -A building plot shall be a single, uniform and non- . • contrived area, whose shape is uncomplicated and whose- area shall not exceed the following minimum ratios with respect to the total site area: Site Area But Less Ratio of Site Building Max. Site at least Than Area to Bldg. Plot Area Population (Acres) (Acres) Plot Area (sq. ft.) (15 persons/A) 3 4 . 12:1 10,900 45 ' 12:1 4 6 10:1 17,400 60 10:1 6 10 8:1 32,600 • 90 8:1 10 20 • 6:1 72,500 150 6:1 20 • and up 4:1 218,000 300 • -The following uses are specifically prohibited in Zone ' B: churches, hospitals, schools, theaters, stadiums, hotels and motels, trailer courts, camp grounds, and other places of public or semipublic assembly. • Zone .- C & General: No use shall '_ made of any land in any of the safety zones which creates or causes inter- • ference with the operation of radio or electronic communi- cations between the airport and aircraft, makes it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport • lights and other lights, results in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or otherwise endangers the landing, taking off, or maneuvering or aircraft. The only area of petential safety zone/land use conflict is at the northesst corner of U.S. 169-212 and CSAH 1. When CSAH 1 is realigned to the south, as proposed, care will have to be taken to ensure that the proposed commercial and - institutional uses are located such that they conform to Air- port Zoning Standards. • A joint Airport Zoning Board has been established to make recommendations to the Eden Prairie City Council and Planning Commission along the guide lines of the State Law for zoning in the Airport influence area. An Airport Advisory Commission has also been established to improve communications between the Metropolitan Airports Comp*.fission and the City and to discuss Flying Cloud operations as it affects the City" (Ordinance no. 78-36) 10/30/78 5-j9 fig: 5;12 Airport Safety Zones • P. 1.,._0_,•,1'...,. ..\-.P...'_-..‘..(..l..Q,.\b.',./,,1.z--:--/•.1‘'_"-.. N.-.•_.-1- 1\:.ifiP--_:•f,•'.".'d•'1-.•..:7.':."'.':.''....:!.-.(./..••.-„..'.,,1„--..,•/7:', /.".-.,..-.p>.,/4/_1.,.1.,2()1..',•l r '-1 I,,.._-/•,'1,.-y-Mn:--_,:--x..k.-.,'_-.-.)r„-''.,,,.r‘:.-.-I..„--.•`.-.!,i.-,.,:.,\'1\i..‘„\,..1.1..\7,"\\\b\y‘'•)-'\'.'(.\i\,.l:...'i,i.•...,'f•.P\r'piv4i._,,i•±...•....'•-•'..1I 1(,.y•1,I1-'...•6,•••_.C.-...._......r_'.-i,..'‘.,,,X'-„-,..,.,y.',y..••.„.:l.‘._,''_r,'_',,.J,'_;..„,..I.,1:,.:,,(,•.-.,,-...‘-'-\‘-.1;,..._... ...•.'--'7 :n.'1'.j•:;1,; • • :i,.,• (...-1,_I -i- 0.1,- Of__ .:...• .- ... ;1..\ c v-i \\.; , fc...,____)S.. :11(' Nu c :. 'L '.,-_:„(. 5 , ,.... ric,,,,/,,) ...c.„..\p., • . ,\"--.0:4 11M.,...-•• \\.-(-,. RS'1, ....:: •').-.),.J.. ,.., 1 ; 1/4" A !.-2,- ,;:_""1.,';•.„-,- : '';-"--4..„‘"..-.:j.::•,4. _—,--,...L...,,7,-••-'-:. ,---).....,.,:i...s --'c ......2...'._ .',9 .,,--,-,-/1 i ._ , :\ ) .:•.',.._ c j----) _. "--7, '''-7°‘...:11\ -`,,'.iiji P,-...„....--- •• • -------', :,' . ..,.._ .,....,, 1,F ( .id/ Id.' . •_ .1.......4.t)1 fl ,.'i''',...:-/ ir P \'•':. -)(7-7—.;T;„''',I. ://,'2...Sjr---,..f. ici5i -Vi Q.)) ‘-__.j.. •':-..F.::"----;.!:•1 -4....L....... ' , ','7-. ..-.1,.-id .,,,,, • \-• •, .: . •• 4,;... ,./.."S,N,,_ C/\._.----,.. ... ,..:..i,...7,...,....„‘ ,,‘.... _ ,..„.„:•-•.,...,,,,rs._.....,---.. . ,...,.:•,,„,.,ii---,,,........„,..,.--.• y(..,.,..-,,,,,:,..,..4.,.......)-jit,,, 1- . '.;I I:: .__ _t,,........•,.. . r1,11,!„,, ,..._7_,..:.....:_____...s, t.,_,.F..,:_::.:,,,,.......„.:_, _____,/:_k___,--c-,)., c.."/;k,c. i... ........ .... . . A. ' ''. -. -,- -','j,,/ ...X'.. ,..: . ,, ,7,, LS., t r---,:;..c, ,...,k,i,..,..•...-.„ _.. ,,,,„ I ii..: . . , ./1• '', , •'177 ' c ,.-- ri.---' '..7)7.-''4---,;Z_,,,..77.777- 1..V2 '.'A,. .) I .....,... • p .../0, CS/. . ;,- /. IL ri,' • •., . V,"=-1---1 ‘`"-- '••••<;? f'---N, '''''‘N7:f I:. '..- P sc 3 , (N',,, C-.1 . • , , ;\ ....--,><,„,..Zi/ 1......',..1 v.1-11 - °\ ......,,,,..._____. '."--,...„‹...........„.. \ •-. ...,„,•••, ,....,---r----------_,(____ 3 , s't• ' ' .:t'' . - '-------' . -7-L-•-:.'-t-1:-.' , •,, ---77..-,Q---'-,:•(--L'r.:7,(A-...':1) .,_.... '•-i.,','•-;',.:', .•• -\ ' •t.,..2::___ I' .-137.7-Nil. ,ri V-- .7::::- , ....,::. • smi- ;;-.4'.---- -. -1..)1.i- -. --------' -. kiE- Ai .f.-- • ....I.:, ,.._ 1/ hz.z.„.„,i, -.... .4-:.__, •L'17.-......„..,.2 " . _..-----"--_:_- - .„,---"-----(_1,_„..../..‘,1 - .,---,•-:.,-. --=-- ._.--:-.1 c.,..1"'N...'- , ..; -. 7:17 .I .-• -' - -•-•'J : ... "-.1-. 011. • .:,.-I, ..--\ ' ,••;..._ . . ..,, P J . .. :,...,.., .... `;.one, ••:1- . --1-- 1 7 .. ...- „...- see text for safety zone classifications C1 ,.,..,. .......... den Prairie Guide Plan Update source: I , Minnesota Dept. of Acro- nautics Rules and Regulations • , . ! ' i' 1 , rr 1 >sI j . Z 07 t___. I ;y n amI�.,r +f= - tr; _ r]-/, „,„, y vim\ , -}-1 1 .Ex4un- [1 ✓ �,2 . co I Zons g, ! 0.1 CD I I ' I m ►f .. =Y rJ �?x y ey- , m I E#1-_ /r f_ tea ,� .i+.b a , C '� •-- 4 a ft I,I'f a i — I,-7 � '-__ I. I v I- [n 1! I�� �' I . D D M r.r r, 73 li _ � - -//((--1.12 1 - 2 ' , 1 Ask ,,, ....f,.,V; ' Ii\v----3:', .....il: — , !' — _— /, y ' L_;-- -VA _� /•,• a• r , ! V ( r 11 la L Z�.0 a �,z. � � 1 rj.. aH At acKmer>I't C ; v `'1 0,,.�k3J; F, - ! N '0.i J j— 1' �--I w' / s. oz , ../ 1 = � , N •N i �r , LI- LO - __mg__Mk(0 CD___u_NC 11- MEN\b_Egt5 _ z HavE LivED PRNR3E FoR OVER ___73Ey EN._IGAR5_ E./ s5T__o LYING _CLO up._ Poo- ON LDcO 'DF _PORP_DR.T___ E N.) \? WATC-MINC.7 ±11-t_g_m_,_81:THDLISA___35_0_KETAIS__111Ey_na_ZELo_ _ C7.17.14S1\1110.C.7 D BuIL.01_N&JAD&E \A2cLuLD OLD rwc R P_uWEs R_P_UKT . _MASTER RJA,N) -frO pp _, I V5.--L IC. Ti-kkS Ls OASTr Kt _F_Ro_K__TA ___1(VCKEFAS _LARC.7F_R_ PLANES, chLAN_LAK155EL_E-Poy\tLy icL?_aDD_____vikuy /Cei / Y• ea,kkg ea. 0.e000s PROFESSIONAL SALES AND MARKETING SERVICE R v�► 'J� �» FOOD BROKERS Ocu 5460 FELTL ROAD MINNETONKA,MN 55344 612/938.9110•EZLINK 62616400 November 3, 1988 Jean Johnson Zoning Administrator City of Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Jean: Thanks so much for the time and consideration extended during the evening of Wednesday, November 2, 1988, at the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. There were a number of points that needed clarification and we would greatly appreciate having you advise us on the following items: I. Based on the new 5,000 foot runway, the Metropolitan Airports Comm- ission had the A-zone located differently on their map than the Planning Department had it located on their map. We would greatly appreciate having a specific location for the ending of the A-zone and the ending of the B-zone in respect to the properties west of the runway. 2. By extending the runways 1,100 feet to the west, the ascent and desc- ent of the airplanes will change a certain amount. We would greatly appreciate knowing how much closer the propeller driven aircraft and the jet aircraft will be flying using Wood Bear Stables as the high point. We would like to know the difference as it pertains to the various wea- ther conditions rather than on an average basis. We have found that as the ceiling is lower the jet aircraft come substantially closer to the top of our stables. 3. With reference to paragraph 2, we would also like to know the differ- ence in the noise level based on the new runway extension. We would also appreciate knowing where the spike Levels will be the greatest based on lithis runway extension, and what the decibel level will be at these spike locations. 4. At the western and northern ens of the Charleston property, there is a large stand of trees on a fairly high hill. If the new runway is ex- •, ® - tended to the 5,000 foot length, will this stand of trees be a hazard? t" v,.� that while the Metropolitan Airports Commission may deem that those The flavor of the conversation during the November 2nd meeting showed l'ilili.k .4.A4�� _,`.�: s. ALLIED IF® n ' ma S. N Beatnuivz audzeuye ea. Jean Johnson November 3, 1988 Page 2 trees are not a hazard, it is a possibility that the FAA would deem them a hazard. We would greatly appreciate having both of these govern- mental bodies comment on this subject. 5. There still is much confusion sit:, what can or cannot be built in the B-zone. We would greatly appreciate having your advice as to what can presently be built or is planned for the properties west of Eden Prairie Road and what those densities could be. We would also appreciate having your advice that if these properties become integrated into the B-zone of the airport, what could be built on these properties and what the density could be. 6. At the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission meeting,_decibel levels were addressed as far as how they effect human beings. As we stated at the meeting, propeller driven aircraft do not seem to have any dilatorius effect on our horses. However, Jean, on a number of occasions when jet aircraft have taken off from the airport and particularly when they have taken off in cold weather or low ceiling weather, they have frightened our horses to the point where they have broken through pasture fencing and scattered around the countryside. What we would like to know Jean, is what effect these new decibel levels will have on horses. Thanks again, Jean, for all of your help. rt dest re at s, ^t eA^ / d,O William J. Bearman for S. N. BEARMAN BROKERAGE COMPANY WJB/mm cc: Gary Peterson Pat Breitenstein Julianne Bye • • y • Jean Johnson Zoning Administrator City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55'.44-3677 Oct. 22, 1988 Re; Flying Cloud Airport Planning We are very concerned about any plans to expand the airport, increase the number of airplanes using the airport, or increase the size of airplanes using the airport. We are irritated by the • amount of noise that we presently get from airplanes and do not want it to get any worse. It does not make sense to expand airports and increase air traffic in residential areas. Airport expansion will only degrade the quality of life for Eden Prairie residents. Eden Prairie was virtually a rural area when the airport was originally built, and I'm sure that it made sense to build an airport here at that time. Eden Prairie is now heavily residential, housing is rapidly expanding here, and it does not make sense to expand the airport or increase air traffic any more. If the metropolitan area needs an increase in airport capacity then a new airport should be built farther out of town. We would also like to see steps taken Co minimize the amounts of noiE•e from the air traffic that does e;:ist at Flying Cloud. The following ideas should be considered: Restrict the amounts of air traffic that is allowed during evenings and weekends. We frequently notice alot of airplanes on weekends when the weather is nice. We suspect that this is largely recreational flying we don't feel that we should have to put up with clot of noise just so someone can be up there having fun in their airplanes. Restrict low flying aircraft over residential areas. We're not sure what the regulations are on low flying aircraft or what is being done to enforce them. Anything that we can do to keep aircraft farther above houses will obviously reduce the amount of noise that people have to put up with. Residents should be informed of what the restrictions are on low flying aircraft and what they can do about it when they feel that the restrictions are being violated. 1 Restrict loud aircraft. Some airplanes are distinctly noisier than others. Tighter restrictions should be placed on the numbers of noisy airplanes that are allowed to take off and land at Flying Cloud, the areas that they are allowed to fly over, and the altitudes that they are allowed to fly at. Respectfully, Mark and Deb Elliott 15372 Sand Hill Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55347 ey • • • • S • • NATIONAL CHECKING IN ill COT 1323 P.O.BOX 64534 • ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55164 AREA CODE(6121646.6573 October 19, 1988 uFo Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 - 28th Avenue So. . Minneapolis, MN 55450 Attn: Mark Ryan • Dear Mr. Ryan: It is our understanding that you are considering a new plan fdr'Flying Cloud Airport. We ask that you please take into consideration the tax-paying citizens who must put up with undue airport noise. We realize that there are certain benefits in having Corporate Jets use this airport, but to this point they have been minimal and acceptable. Please don't change this. Yours very rul , Ben Olk © I ms • fl —� l BEN A.OLK President October 21, 1988 Jean Johnson Zoning Administrator City of Eden Prairie Dear Ms. Johnson, We would like to comment on the potential changes at Flying Cloud Airport. We are concerned over additional expansion at the airport. There are many flights today - they start as early as 6:00am and go to at least 10:ODpm. We are concerned that expanding the airport will also mean larger/noisier planes and jets coming to Flying Cloud that will greatly increase the noise pollution over all of Eden Prairie. We live directly north of the airport now and have lived directly east of the airport, and the numerous flights are very noisy - all day long. We're also concerned about the future of the recreational fields on the north side of the airport. Our three children are very involved in the Eden Prairie Soccer Association. The fields at Flying Cloud are a necessity for the soccer, as well as baseball and football, programs in Eden Prairie. We feel the city must take a strong positive action to preserve these fields for the future use by our children. We would appreciate continuing to receive updates on the status of these proposals. Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions. David Beyer 15327 Village Woods Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 1 A 9595 Yorkshire Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55347 October 18, 1988 Jean Johnson Zoning Administrator City of E.P. Ref: Expantion of Flying Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Cloud Airport. I am among one of hundreds of homeowners who lives on the east- side of Flying Cloud Airport. I am strongly concerned about the development of the airport. However, if there is any devel- opment or expanding of the airport, then I have three main con- cerns for M.A.C. to study: 1) Airport Noise: Noise from aircrafts landing and taking off during the early morning hours and at night; To improve and reduce these Con- ditions, take offs and landings should only be on the west and south sides of the airport. 2) Airport Safety: Safety and prevention of accidents must be studied to avoid harm to the lives of not only the passengers, but also OE the people who reside near the airport. 3) Air traffic and congestion: To prevent the traffic and congestion, Co.1W, HW 169, and Co.4 must be enlarged into four lanes and exits for all vehicles in or around Flying Cloud Airport. I believe my recommendations are very important to meet the needs of the growing population in the near f ture. Sinc rely (--- 4 I'LQIIL"' . Vong Suvannarad • 2805 North slake Harlingen, Texas 78550 Tel: Code 512-428-9300 17 October 1988 Ms Jean Johnson Zoning Administrator City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive FdPn Prairie, MN 55344-3677 Dear Ms Johnson: Thank you for your letter of 7 Oct 1988 regarding the Master Plan underway at Flying Cloud Airport. I have not read any newspaper articles on this subject. Down here in the Rio Grande Valley articles on the development and expansion of the airports Mm glen, Harlingen and Brownsville have appeared recently in the Valley MorningStar. you may know our economy is emerging boon the declining peso and OPEC oil; high real estate loans; and resulting bank and savings and loan failures. Representatives of foreign and domestic corporations are frequent visitors, and some are establishing industrial plants that manufacture parts for planes, autos, etc. More factories are expected. Ready transportation must be available for the pro- duction of these plants. it is hard to estimate accurately how many runways and what lengths will be needed for passenger and cargo planes. I believe the airport here got something like $10-12 million dollars for local expansion. Then our Airport director accepted a position at Dallas-Ft. Worth, and a new man just reported. The expansion is now due to start, rot as scheduled in January, but in February 1980. In my mind's eye I have been measuring all this against our facilities at Flying Cloud. I recall that airport provided some training of pilots as well as provided hangars for private planes mainly of corporation executives, and 1 to overflow aircraft from the Minneapolis landing privileges enough runways were needed to accommodate largege aircraft.these conditions long If present indications are that pilot training will be the field of major detelopment there it might be desirable to close Flying Cloud in Eden Prairie and transfer the equipment and functions to a less populous area; and then rezone the land for high rise apartments; and sell to the highest bidder or bidders. The view would be mag- nificent of the River Valley and round about. If, on the other hand, present indications are that corporations are requiring more planes for executive Ilse, and more overflow is anticipated from the Minneapolis port, then leave the airport where it is. No corporate executive caresto rirta p 45 miles to get to his client after a 2-hour or longer air flight. Right now the world has an oversupply of STRESS. In the D.C. area we were going to close National Airport when Dulles opened, but National is still in use after all these years: How I wish I was in Minneaplis area and could study what has occurred among the other smaller airports that ring the Twin Cities. Many factors oust be considered for the development of airports: 1. What size planes does Flying Cloud expect in the future?—especially the width and weight so that engineers may know the strength for runways. 2. How soon may we expect to have planes capable of lift-off versus swoop-off ascensions" The 2-mile hazardous ring around airports could be lessened for lift-off. Personally, i would guess about 15 years. 3. Is there a military representative (retired Admiral or General) on MAC who watches for military preparedness? A. Are the present airport buildings and personnel adequately insured for life, fire and tornado losses? 5. How are identification records maintained on arrivals and departures of each plane? 6. How much storage space (for aircraft and re: ssary daily supplies) is required now, and how much is estimated for the next 5 years? 7. What has been the rate of growth or decline of annual budgets for Flying Cloud? —over the past 10 years. 6. How many residents of the greater Minneapolis area have planes using hangars or requiring under-Sky parking at Flying Cloud? If inquiry has not been made of them I suggest inquiry now be made of them for ideas that might be incorporated in a revised Master Plan. 9. In our present global community where drug smugglers and terrorists have already attained sane stature, however small, it is essential that security precautions be taken at all airports. Plans for preparedness to meet such threats must be made. Just a month ago I returned to Harlingen Airport about 1:00 a.m. due to a wait of some 5 hours in Dallas for a relief plane. There were not many on the flight, and I found myself alone at the airport until I noticed a police car and officer waiting until I cleared out of the building. This made me feel they really care around here that all goes well at our airport. A few days before when I left Harlingen by air two Border Patrolmen were there checking. Just one person can smuggle considerable cocaine. The rough comments submitted above can be costly, but careful planning can reduce the cost. Also, the Minnesota taxpayer will say when enough is enough. Personally. I am interested in all that pertains to Flying Cloud. I have never been a pilot, but I love to fly. In any line of work time spent planning insures successful competition. TIME IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN ANY ACCOMPLISHMENT. Today is tanorrow's yes- terday. ) With my heartfelt wishes to each one of you as you work on the various phases of this revision of the Master Plan, and my personal l pe that Flying Cloud will always be the best smeller airport around Minneapois. Sincerely, r.J.�h.L1.Li7.Jr7�:<�: �\,''c3,L:v •. Bertha Iona Baguet, Landowrrr P.S. Not long ago, 7 years or so, the State of Minnesota bought the corner of my small acreage and erected a flood light for the airport use. Just after the installation was complete a "so-called Baptist Minister" landed with a load of drugs. Events like that make me heartsick. I 2 • September 24, 1988 Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Comm 5sion Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 A„ To: Flying Cloud Airport Commission From: Eden Prairie Biuestem Hills Addition Residents. Located So. of County Road 1 on Jackson Drive and Biuestem Lane, east of Flying Cloud Airport and surrounding residents. RE: Proposed Flying Cloud Airport Expansion. The Biuestem Hills residents, and surrounding neighborhoods are concerned about the proposed expansion of Flying Cloud Airport for the following reasons: 1. You propose that this expansion would not effect residents because the current and proposed flight pattern is not over residential areas, but over the Minnesota River. However, the airplanes are currently not following this flight pattern and are consistently flying overhead, directly In line with Jackson Drive. 2. There Is currently an increase in noise secondary to the planes not following the Pattern Flight Track. In addition, planes are flying frequently at very low levels. If the airport were expanded, this would only increase the noise and would also pose a danger to the residential areas with the low traffic patterns. Because of the above concerns, we do not support the Flying Cloud Airport expansion as proposed. We also would like the current Flying Cloud Airport Traffic Pattern Flight Tracks enforced. A response to the above concerns can be directed to: Kathy Wagle 10928 Jackson Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 The following residents share the above concerns: The following residents are concerned about the proposed expansion of Flying Cloud Airport as currently proposed and the current air traffic noise: 7013 W W /0 �l�•fiitr�J• �� ��ODD �,L(G I�YiMPi dadt4. 1101Zj-41-e4461" L U` , /G99‘71 Icceioa 11,P,ci 1094�-V /so4, 4 I f/P caV yet . 1107( 9;j4"4"."- ((I 3 3 .1 ,E-Eru* Pn^� ((d3 'q 1P/e' if,06_aa.t0 //db 6tYtAAit. R(1 a� �i ///Pu 7an The following residents are concerned about the proposed expansion of Flying Cloud Airport as currently proposed and the current air traffic noise: /,. J ,/ `,/1 C , • /IOVL I c'5 3TEK 4-4L/E �� �� ✓� PO73 u. /-�G? --� nn„�, CecE m ii�,3 B(,.nsTa�Os oram., ��-- ((03o Rloe c; I,-s- r�a Lc• e-f�cs�E /ca'7 6a�e , L Io-► 90 6vu.„f- nor. <r�,e5. �/a �.140z. , 7gy o-l9ck po; 3 Al rS INr o ro7i9 �ivc�5oi► p� /h r • 6- /his ; ° �, `t /o G S 7 a%o cis O PV" "" S Jo623 -)4.Jks�6k; D "f2 ✓il�c� IYunt 6 �C(LyU � -' /0 U0 b� /l,0v,it y i1 mrs //�� �t l(3 fS ('• ea�cr.cif{ Ci .' UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Nov. 7, 1988 _4_ Lambert asked what the setback is for the gazebo. Watson said it is 87 feet. Lambert asked if this will be subsidized housing. Watson said it will be subsidized by the Evangelical Free Church. Lambert asked if the construction of the building is on a contingency basis. Watson said it is contingent upon receiving financing. Lambert asked who can rent this housing. Watson said there is a certain age required, but it is not necessary to be a member of the church. Richard suggested that perhaps the proposed sidewalk along County Road 4 should be a bike path instead because of future development of Miller Park. Lambert felt this was a good point and should be recommended. Lambert asked if there is a dock proposed on the site. Watson said no. Cook asked how the parking lot will be screened. Watson said there will be a retaining wall and heavy plantings will be added. MOTIGN: Richard moved to recommend approval of Elim Shores per staff but lk to an 8' bike path. Mikkelson�seconded nthe gmotion the land ait passed 6-0. VI. OLD BUSINESS None VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Met Airports Commission Plan for Flying Cloud Airport Refer to memo dated November 2, 1988 from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. Mark Ryan, Airport Planner for the Metropolitan Airports Commission was present at the meeting along with Greg Schmidt and Greg Ahlberg. Ryan said the airport master plan has been updated. This plan should be updated every five years. The MAC' reviews airport need, airport role and airport location. Project implementation includes an EIS (environmental impact statement), design review and construction. The UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. 8 NATURAL RESOURCES COMM, Nov. 7, 1988 -5- master plan involves taking an inventory from which a forecast is done. Facility requirements are determined, alternatives are developer) and analyzed. A recommended preferred development alternative is chosen. This is the point that MAC is now with Flying Cloud Airport. Public information meetings were held two weeks ago and there will be a public hearing on December 7. Ryan showed a graph with an operations forecast, both historical and forecast and a summary of unconstrained forecast activity. The building area alternatives include expanding the runway to 5000 feet, expanding the runway to 4500 feet and no build. Alternative A would meet facility requirements at a cost of $3.9 million. Alternative B would partially meet requirements at a cost of $3.2 million. Alternative C which would be adequate at this time would only widen the runway at a cost of $.3 million. MAC recommends Alternative A. There would be an increase in noise with this alternative, but it would not be great according to Mr. Ryan. Lambert introduced Jean Johnson who represents the City to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Johnson said the extension of the runway to 5000 feet would remove acreage which could be used for residential or park areas in the future and would prohibit residential development. The airport is also adjacent to the landfill and wildlife refuge. Although flight patterns would be directed further out of residential areas, the longer runway would attract more jet aircraft. Johnson added that a 3500 foot runway serves the current need. The Flying Cloud Advisory Committee voted 3-2 to concur with the Planning Staff report. Steve Yerkes of 16575 Hilltop Road said he is very concerned that a 5000 foot runway will attract more jet traffic and there will be much more noise. He asked how noise levels are measured. Holman said that they were prepared to measure the noise level, but on that particular day there was not enough jet traffic to get an accurate measurement. He added that he feels the field should be utilized. Art Weeks of 14469 Village Woods Dr. asked what the term "operations" refers to. Holman said this refers to both take-offs and landings. Weeks asked how projections are formulated. Ryan said forecasts are prepared and based on current usage and probable increase in the future, the projections are determined. • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. Nov. 7, 1988 -6_ Lambert asked if the chart was created showing "spike" areas when an aircraft is taking off, as jet aircraft are known to produce more than 80 decibels of noise at take-off. Ryan gave the example of a Lear 35 which has a noise level of 99 decibels at its highest level. He also indicated that one of the jets would have a noise level of 113 decibels at Spring Road. This compares to 110 decibels inside the Metrodome when the Twins won the World Series. Lambert asked who determines that these are acceptable levels and also if there is a requirement that all aircraft remain in the traffic pattern. Ryan said there is no requirement. Lambert asked if there is a plan to screen the buildings and hangars located along County Road 1. Ryan said nn Cal Fckstead of Westridge Dr. referred to the MAC ordinance limiting weight of aircraft to 20,000 pounds. Bill Donnelly of Cedar Forest Road said he does not feel that the resid,. .ts should suffer because corporate people do not want to travel all the way to Holman Field. Lambert said there are environmental concerns relating to the noise, both at Staring Lake Park and Homeward Hills Parks and any future parkland development to the west of the runway. The expansion of the runway would also effect Flying Cloud Ballfields, as well as impact any golf course that would be built in the future .The hangar expansion would also interfere with views of the bluff from the wildlife area. Cook asked if Flying Cloud Airport is used mainly for business or recreational travel. Ryan said 60-65% of the business is local and it is difficult to distinguish which are recreational flights. Cook asked if touch and go landings take as long as regular landings. Ryan said no. Cook asked if this plan were approved, when would construction begin. Ryan said an EIS is done first, then a design has to be completed and funding established. It would probably be 1952 before construction would begin. MOTION: Baker moved to recommend Alternative C "no build" at Flying Cloud Airport as per the staff report for all of the reasons listed in that report. Cook seconded the motion and IL passed 6-0. Unapproved MINUTES FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION November 2, 1988 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bill Helker, David Barker, Jay Olson, Dennis Larson, Gary Schmidt (M.A.C.) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: John Dow, Robert Perkins STAFF LIAISON: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator GUESTS: Gregory Albjerg (Howard Needles Tanmen & Bergendorf), Mark Ryan (M.A.C.), Al Lindquist (FCM, ATCT, FAA), Other Resident Guests Per Attached List The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by acting chair Bill Helker. David Barker was asked to serve as recording secretary. I. Commission Members and City Staff were introduced as guests. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was amended to insert a report and open question session about the Facility Study conducted by M.A.C. and HNTB ahead of the Planning Department report. (See file copy - Attachment 1) III. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 5, 1988 MINUTES A. Minutes were reviewed by Commission. B. Minutes were approved as presented. IV. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS A. Mark Ryan stated to the group of residents that this study is an update of the Master Plan completed in 1976. It is composed of four major components; Inventory of Existing Conditions, Forecasts, Facility Requirements, and Recommendations. Mark further described the December 7th Public Hearing, held at the Hennepin Vo-Tech, and the hearing record would be held open for written comments for approximately 7 days following the hearing date. He also gave an overview of the process following the hearing; The Staff and Commission will prepare a report to MAC for action in 1989. The anticipated action will be to continue and make a presentation to the Metropolitan Council, who will decide the plan of action. Any construction activities would be preceeded by an Environmental Impact Statement. • Greg Albjerg described the activities involved in the Master Plan Update: 1. Establish an inventory of existing conditions and facilities. Flying Cloud Airport Minutes 2 November 2, 1988 2. Prepare a forecast for the next twenty year period. 3. Based on the first two tasks what would the ideal facility be to meet the anticipated requirements. 4. Develop alternatives to see if the ideal can be achieved, also to see what other improvements could be implemented to achieve a portion of the ideal facility. In this study HNTB forcast started with a look into history, in 1968 Flying Cloud was one of the nation's 10 busiest airports. That year approximately 440,000 operations were recorded. This level of operation was reduced to a low in 1982 and has risen to 209,000 in 1987, and 1988 is projected to be somewhat higher. The term UNCONSTRAINED FORECAST was defined as the potential growth if there were no facility constraints. The 2010 unconstrained forecast project 380,000 operations, while the FAA forecast is 310,000 and the constrained forecast is 260,000 operations. The ideal facility requires increasing aircraft storage from approximately 600 to 800 aircraft. The runway design requirements as established by the FAA say the runway should be of sufficient length for the most critical aircraft. The design tables indicate a 5000 foot runway would be required, however, Minnesota law says MINOR AIRPORTS are limited to 5000 foot length. Greg pointed out that the present 3900 foot runway is adequate only on a limited basis. Take-offs are limited in summer for some of the jets, the effective range of the aircraft may be reduced to 400-500 nautical miles. He also pointed out that the length may be too short for a safe landing during hot, wet, or icey conditions. Even 5000 feet is not adequate for all conditions, but is the longest allowed by law. Question from floor - Why is the unconstrained forecast of 380,000 operations not as high as 1968? Greg answers, aviation has changed less training without the GI Bill, increased expenses of fuel, liability insurance on aircraft manufacturers, few "touch and go" operations, but more business usage. Question from floor - Was this study of Flying Cloud only, or did it consider the rest of the airports in the system? Greg answers that it did consider the other airports on a limited basis. Question from the floor - What about studies for the other airports? M.A.C. answers that they hope to have similar studies completed in two years for the rest of the syste.b. Greg continued with his presentation, by reviewing the other alternatives. Of the 3 runway proposals and the four hangar alternatives HNTB is recommending the 5000 foot runway and building alternative #1 (all on the southwest). Greg also discussed the noise contours. These contours are yearly averages in db expressed as LDN. He indicated several federal Flying Cloud Airport Minutes 3 November 2, 1988 agencies the set LDN guidelies and compatible uses. Greg noted the LDN 65 contour, which has federal significance, is primarily on airport property. The 2010 forecasts are based on up to 36 turbojets of the quietest "Stage 3" type, which result in net LDN increases of 3-5 db over 20 years. Greg reviewed CLEAR and SAFETY zones, M.A.C. would try to purchase property within 2500 feet of the end of the runway. The SAFETY zone is not a binding but a model zone that extends the length of the runway and limits the type of development allowed. This would require enactment from a joint zoning board. Question from the floor - You've discussed average noise levels, what about peak noise levels, say 1/2 mile west of airport? Greg believes that single engine generate 65-70 db, same as overflights from MSP. High performance single engines generate 75-80 db. Question - Is the study incomplete without peak noise information? Yes for peak levels, but not for LDN, Greg volunteered to generate some additional data for future meetings. Question from the floor - What is the increase from ambient noise levels at night? Greg says quietest times are 40-45 db, a peak noise level would definitely be noticeable. Question from the floor - What is the MODE of the sound level statisticly? Greg responds that he is unsure, but most of the noise contour is generated by planes other than jets. Question - What will be other opportunities for the public to interact before the hearing? Jay Olson announced a public demonstration on December 3 at 9:00 at Elliot Beech. Aircraft will be on display and flying. This includes single and multi-engine, turbo prop, and jets, and possibly a helicopter. Also future Parks and Recreation, Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Jean Johnson presented the City Staff report, which recommends no runway expansion and rehabilitation of the hangar area, rather than hangar area expansion. B. OPEN QUESTION SESSION If the hangar area expands, who has control over appearance of the structures? Jean responded, she expects they would be typical of the newer facilities recently constructed, a block or metal building. Who owns the hangars, MAC? No the hangers are owned by lessee, the land is owned by MAC and leased. What is the reason for the 5000 feet? Greg responds that the runway length design is stipulated by the FAA for the most critical aircraft. Further discussion, the forecast says 13,000 operations in 2010 with 5000 foot runway, this would be less with 4500 feet or Flying Cloud Airport Minutes 4 November 2, 1988 present 3900 foot length. Airlake is being treated similarly, 4400 feet now, in future it will be lengthened to 5000 feet. Why not build another airport? That is in the planning and search stage now. The search area is northwest Hennepin County, but has not produced results yet. A question about St. Paul. MAC has added a runway there (6700 feet) and is encouraging corporate use, they have spent $15M at St. Paul. However, west side business users don't like going there. Kent 8arker asked: 1. Was the old Noise information used from the previous study? 2. MAC "promised" that "never again" would Eden Prairie hear from the MAC about expansion. 3. The $6000 an acre used in the study is "way off", is the rest of the study valid? 4. What are the economic impacts to the community, does the City see much of the tax revenues? Gary Schmidt responded to item 4. The tax revenues are a legal issue. #2. Reviewing the written record, it never says anything about never expanding again. Gary continues, our intent is not to go beyond 5000 feet. Scott Mays stated the 1100 foot extension improves safety, the runway bearing capacity would not support large planes from Minneapolis. 0 this Loren becoming ,alcargoFhubng likeoforud DFederal ask Ex ress - s there a aGaryysn"T of ?Minneapolis),T is not a "Certificated Airport" (like St. Paul and and MAC has no intention to make it so". Questions were asked about the 20,000 lb. weight restriction at the airport. Is it a MAC ordinance, and not a city ordinance as some people have said? Gary Schmidt responded the weight limit was arbitrarily set to keep out certain aircraft of the day. As an individual, he supports changing the limit to 30,000 lb. He feels however, that MAC is morally obligated to the community. Robert Gardner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road stated, in the past MAC wouldn't take action to kick out overweight aircraft. Can Eden Prairie enforce? Gary Schmidt answered that MAC can issue a misdemeanor. Kathy Wagle, 1D928 Jackson Drive, stated the flight patterns are misrepresented, supposed to be over the river valley, instead they fly over Jackson Drive, low. Gary Schmidt responded the tracks indicated are ideal, there is a lot of variation. Flying Cloud Airport Minutes 5 November 2, 1988 Lisa Haviland, 9185 Cedar Forest Road, asked with this increase in traffic, what about the road capacity? Greg believes that there will not ba major impact, especially when Highway #212 goes in. There could be a possible signal needed at the #169 intersection. Bob Hallett, 17051 Valley Road, asked 2 questions: What is make up of commission? Jets are his main problem. Commission members stated their representation. Gary Schmidt recommended all attend the Public Hearing. Bob Blad, 17345 Pioneer Trail asked if there are any plans for instrument approach improvements? Now planes may be 300-400 feet above homes. Is there a way to enforce noise abatement? Gary Schmidt said ILS is being installed now, commissioned in a few months. Kent Barker, 15801 Cedar Ridge Road, remarked the public pressure shut down Santa Monica airport. Don Atkins, 9580 Eden Prairie Road, - At least we have progress in Minnesota. Stan Johannes, 12134 Chesholm Lane felt the preferred alternative disregards the FAA's own criteria. Joel Lehrke, 8901 Knollwood Orive, lives 1 mile north, Just what type of jets do the people envision? He believes no cargo would ever go to Flying Cloud, the economics of ground transporation are only at MSP. Cal Astraf asked if the weight restriction, is an Eden Prairie ordinance? Gary Schmidt said it is a MAC ordinance, MAC has had approximately 10 requests to use the airport by aircraft over 20,000 lb. all of them have been turned down. Residents felt Eden Prairie is bearing more than its share of aircraft operations, why not other cities? Unidentified - If we started all over would anybody recommend putting an airport there, considering houses etc.? Greg Albjerg said probably not. "Then why expand if you wouldn't build there in the first place? Gary Schmidt stated it is MAC's responsibility to maximize existing airports. Doug Astry, 13992 Wellington Drive - Is usage going to be as high as forecast? Is there data to back up the projections? Gary and Greg said certain corporations are interested in moving to Flying Cloud. Bill Bearman asked what figures are available on the loss of potential taxes on the enlarged Zones A and B? What will future losses be? Tim Ashenfelter, Flying Cloud Airport Businessmen - Consider the positive impacts of the airport on the community. My small company Flying Cloud Airport Minutes 6 November 2, 1988 employs 40 people, we pay personal property taxes, fees to MAC, etc. The operators at FCM are conscious of the noise issue. Consider all the outstate business coming into Flying Cloud and Eden Prairie. Jay Olson stated there was an economic study of the airport done in 1983. The impact was something like $24M, this information is available. Gary Schmidt wanted to make it clear, MAC does not pay taxes to the City. Kent Barker again questioned the $6000 value per acre for property. Greg stated that was a figure from the tax records. They are bound to use those figures, but used only for comparison of development options. Bearman stated his horses have gone through the fence when jets go over and asked if the increase in noise would be addressed in the EIS. Kent Barker felt it is the noise SPIKES that are important! Also night activity is much higher than stated in the study. Dennis Larson said he believes the airport is adequate, should consolidate operations at MSP. Suggests executives take commercial airlines. Gary Peterson, glad so many people came and are interested, he hopes people will stay involved. Let the issue run through the process. Are the comments from tonight being carried forward? Yes, as much as possible. Address letters for the public hearing to: MAC 6040 28th Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55450 A Motion was Made and Ammended to wit: The Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission concurs with the findings of the Flying Cloud Comprehensive Plan Interim Report and forwards this concurrance to the City Council of Eden Prairie, and to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Motion made by Jay Olson Seconded by Gary Schmidt Vote: 3 aye, 2 nay (Aye: Schmidt, Olson, Barker, Nay: Larson, Helker) C. Update on the Hangar Mural Bill Helker has done nothing yet for recognition, he will do it soon. Dennis Larson said of the parties contacted, only one was willing to donate two trees. Flying Cloud Airport Minutes 7 November 2, 1988 V. OLD BUSINESS Gary Schmidt stated the 90 day termination clause on non-aviation uses at MAC airports, was a FAA requirement. Interested parties could try for a waiver with the FAA. VI. NEW BUSINESS Bill Helker made a motion to publicly thank the zoning department secretary Barb, for the fine quality of the meeting minutes. Seconded by Gary Schmidt. Passed unanimously. VII. Adjournment Being no further business adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David W. Barker, Acting Recording Secretary ATTENDANCE SHEET NAME ADDRESS Doug Fell 10449 Huntington Drive, E.P., 55347 Jerry Fallon, Kris Fallon 891B Pine Bluff Court, E.P., 55347 Daryl Benson 8676 Shiloh Court, E.P., 55347 Steve Yerkes 16575 Hilltop Road, E.P., 55347 John R. Kissel 16200 Valley Road, E.P., 55347 Pat Bauer 7404 Frontier Trail, E.P., 55347 Bob Blad 17345 Pioneer Trail Connie Blad 17345 Pioneer Trail, E.P., 55347 William Dolny 9440 Cedar Forest Road, E.P., 55347 Virginia & Bob Gartner 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, E.P., 55347 Don 6 Evelyn Atkins 958D Eden Prairie Road, E.P., 55347 Bill Bearman 9630 Eden Prairie Road, E.P., 55347 Loren R. Wuttke — 16860 Flying Cloud Drive. E.P., 55347 Tim Ashenfelter 14701 Pioneer Trail, E.P., 55347 _ Richard Perkins 16351 Pioneer Trail, E.P., 55347 Don 6 Shirley Berg 590D Hansen Road, E.P., 55347 Joel E. Lehrke 8901 Knollwood Drive, E.P., 55347 Larry Simonsen 16199 Valley Road, E.P., 55347 Scott Mace 16150 Valley Road, E.P., 55347 Jerry Portnoy 16320 Valley Road, E.P., 55347 Sherm Nelson 8796 Knollwood Drive, E.P., 55347 Larry Lewis 8081 Meadowvale Drive, E.P., 55347 Jim Kelly 9330 Cedar Forest Road, E.P.. 55347 Jack Hagberg 9417 Cedar Forest Road, E.P., 55347 Stan Johannes 12134 Chesholm Lane, E.P., 55347 Lisa Haviland 9185 Cedar Forest Road, E.P., 55347 Phyllis Vest 9100 Eden Prairie Road, E.P., 55347 Harry Rogers 9100 Eden Prairie Road, E.P., 55347 Bob Hallett 17051 Valley Road, E.P., 55347 Kent Barker, Sr. 15801 Cedar Forest Road, E.P., 55347 Gary Peterson, Mayor 9400 Creekwood Drive, E.P., 55347 Alex Zubar 10370 Englewood Drive, E.P., 55347 Doug Astry 13992 Wellington Drive, E.P., 55347 ,