HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 12/13/1988 FINANCE DIRECTOR
--------- JOHN FRANE
-
-------------------------
AGENDA
HOUSING b REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1988 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
HOUSING b REDEVELOPMENT Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
AUTHORITY MEMBERS: George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia
Pidcock
HOUSING b REDEVELOPMENT City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
AUTHORITY STAFF: to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson,
Finance Director John Frane, City Attorney
Roger Pauly, and Recording Secretary Deb
Edlund
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II. HRA RESOLUTION NO. B8-02, APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR SLIM SHORE Page 2803
III. ADJOURNMENT
---------------------------------------------------
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1988 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING HRA MEETING
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 0. Frane, Director of Planning Chris
Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation b
Natural Resources Robert Lambert, City
Engineer Alan Gray, and Recording
Secretary Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENTATION BY RILEY PURGATORY CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT OF FUNDING FOR THE
A N-0 -LAKES P-R-6TECT
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. AWARD BID OF $9,800 ODO IN GENERAL OBLIGATION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
UNDO Resolution No��8 9�—
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,December 13, 1988
III. MINUTES
` A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 6, 1988 Page 2824
B. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 20' 1988 Page 2825
C. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, November 1. 1988 Page 2826
D. Snecial City Council Meeting held Tuesday, November 29. 1988 Page 2827
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 2828
B. Tax Forfeited Lands Page 2829
C. Approve Bids for 4-Wheel Drive Tractor/Snowblower Page 2832
D. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No.57-88, Providing Modifications in Page 2839
Cnnt2Tlati�on of a Transfer of Ownership of the City's Cable
ommu� nications Franchise Permitting Continuance of Relief
to the Transferee of the franchise in Accordance with this
Ordinance , — — —E. PRAIRIEVIEW II by Curt Johnson Properties, Inc. 2nd Reading of Page 2846
Ordinance No. 43-88, Zoning District Amendment within the C-
Regional Service Zoning District on 2.17; Approval of Developer's
Agreement for Prairieview II; and Adoption of Resolution
No. 88-251, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 43-88, and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 12,658 square foot
retail/office use. Location: North of Plaza Drive, east of the
Prairie View Shopping Center. (Ordinance No. 43-88, Zoning
District Amendment; Resolution No. 88-251, Authorizing Summary and
Publication)
F BOULDER POINTE (AKA RED ROCK RANCH) Robert H. Mason Homes, Inc. Page 2853
Ind—Reading of Ordinance No. 35-88-PUD-9-88, Planned Unit
Development District Review on approximately 52 acres with waivers
and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on approximately
52 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals; Approving Developer's Agreement for Red Rock Ranch; and
Adoption of Resolution No. 88-203, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance
No. #35-88-PUD-9-88, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 150
acres into 61 single family lots, 5 outlots, and road right-of-way.
Location: West of Mitchell Road, east of Red Rock Lake.
(Ordinance No. 35-88-PUD-9-88, PUD District and Rezoning;
Resolution No. 88-2039 Authorizing Summary and Publication)
G. Approve Connection of Proposed Sherwin Williams Building to Page 2866
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Facilities Located on
Plaza Drive (Resolution No. 88-28
H. Final Plat Approval of Bluestem Hills 5th Addition located on
�--—— Page 2867
the westerly extension of Bluestem lane, west of Bennett Place
and east of Purgatory Creek Resolution No. 8g_279
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,December 13, 1988
I. Receive Petition and Order FeasibilitU Re ort for the Extension of Page 2870
the Collector Road throw h Boulder Pointe aka Red Rock Ranch
to CSAH , I.C. 52-156 Resolution No. 88-262)
J. Resolution Assuring MnDOT that Eden Prairie will Participate in
The Cost of T.H. 5 Improvements, I_C. Resolution No.
52- 4 — Page 2872
88--283 — — _
K. MnDOT Agreement for Access Control al- onq T.H.. 169, south of
Anderson Lakes Parkway Resolution No. 88-264) Page 2873
L. Resolution correctin Final Assessment Roll for 1988 Special
Assessments Resolution No. 88-285 Page 2875
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION by Gustafson & Associates Company.
Request for Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 1.67 Page 2876
acres with front yard setback variances to be reviewed by the Board
of Appeals, for construction of 4 single family lots. Location:
6801-05, 6855-59, 6871-75, and 6887-91 Stonewood Court. (Drdinance
No. 49-88, Rezoning)
B. ZACHMAN BROTHERS 1ST ADDITION by Zachman Development Corporation.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Page 2883
Residential to Medium Density Residential on 5 acres, Zoning
District Change from Rural and RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 on 5 acres with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat
of 5 acres into 20 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-
of-way. Location: The southwest corner of Franlo Road and
Preserve Boulevard. (Resolution No. 86-276, Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment; Ordinance No. 58-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-
277, Preliminary Plat)
C. FAIRFIELD PHASES 2 THROUGH 6 by Tandem Corporation. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers for street Page 2893
frontage and lot size on 118.2 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-9.5 on 82.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 33.6
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 118.2 acres into 299 single family
lots, 28 outlots, and road right-of-way, for construction of a
residential development. Location: West of County Road No. 4,
southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. (Ordinance
No. 59-68-PUD-15-86, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-
278, Preliminary Plat)
D. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROLLING INTEREST OF THE CABLE SYSTEM
Resolution No. 88-297, Recommending Approval of the Acquisition Page 2897
of Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., by KBL Cable, Inc.;
Resolution No. 8B-298, Giving Final Approval of the Transfer, and
Approval of Consent Agreement & Guaranty of Performance Document
with 3 Exhibits)
City Council Agenda - 4 - Tues.,December 13, 1988
E. AMENDED HOUSING PLAN FOR PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS (Resolution Page 2924
No. 88-293
F. ELIM SHORES by Brauer & Associates. Request for a Zoning page 2930
District 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-B8, Zoning District Amendment;
Resolution No. B8-275, Preliminary Plat) Continued from 11/15/88
G. ELIM SHORES. (Continued from 11/15/8) Resolution No. 88-294,
Approving Housing Plan for Elim Shores Page 2937
H. ELIM SHORES. Tax Increment Financing Plan (Resolution No. 88-295) Page 2946
VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 2967
VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 88-266 regarding State Funding of Minneapolis Page 2981
and St. Paul Combined Sewer Overflow Separation Project
continued from 11 15/88
B. Draft Ordinance regarding Recreational Vehicles Page 2985
VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. TOUCH OF CLASS--Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Appeals and Page 3018
Adjustments for Variance Request No. 88-51.
B. ELIM SHORES--Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Appeals and Page 3034
Adjustments for Variance Request No. B8-57.
C. Request for Exterior Changes to Eden Prairie Center Page 3055
D. Request from Fortier & Associates for a Grading Permit on the Page 3058
Beddor pE2ptEtj located at the N.E. uadrant of 'Dell and
fi H.5 for Site Grading and Construction of _a Gravel Access Road
IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
X. APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointment of one member to the Southwest Metro Transit Page 3059
Commission
XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Re ort of City Manager
I. Temporary Funding for the Cash Fee Park Improvement Fund Page 3060
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Planning
City Council Agenda - 5 - Tues.,December 13, 1988
E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
1. Request from Foxjet Swim club Page 3061
2. Recommendation on Revised Cash Park Fees Page 3083
3. Janikula Pro pert Page 3090
4. Naming Park on Red Rock Lake Page 3093
F. Report of Director of Public Werks
6. Report of Finance Director
XII. NEW BUSINESS
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Jean Harris, and
Patricia Pidcock
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of
Planning Chris Enger, Director of
Parks, Recreation 6 Natural Resources
Robert Lambert, Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members present.
I. PPPOVAL OF AGENnA AND OTHER_ ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Agenda as
published.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to amend the Agenda by
moving Item K from the Consent Calendar to Item X.B.1, move
Item D from the Consent Calendar to Item X.B.2, and removing
Item L from the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
ADD Item X.A.3, an announcement from Councilmember Bentley.
ADD Item X.A.4, discussion regarding Bryant Lake Park
requested by Councilmember Anderson. ADD Item X.F.2, Grading
Permit for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce property from
City Manager Jullie.
Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. r_lerk's License�ist
City Council Minutes 2 September 6, 1988
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 38-88. Amending City Code
Chapter 2 by Adding New Section 2.32 Relating to Authority
t_o_ I_sue Citations and Adopting by Reference City Code
Chapter 1, Except Sections 1.03, 1.06 and 1.09
C. 2nd ReadinS_of Ordinance No. 34-8R1„ Amending City Code
Chapter 2 by Adding New Section 2.19 Establishing a_Waste
Management Commission
D. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 42-88, Rules Relating to
Firearms Regulations by Amending City Code Chapter 9,
Section 9.40, Subd. 3A to Restrict the Area Where
Discharge of Firearms are Permitted. (THIS ITEM MOVED TO
X.B.1)
E. LARIAT._CENTER. by Edward F. Flaherty S M. Austin Smith.
2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 28-88-PUD-7-88, Rezoning from
Rural to PUD-7-88-Commercial-Regional-Service; Approval of
Developer's Agreements for Lariat Center Retail Center,
Lariat Center Auto Mall, and Owner's Supplement to Lariat
Center Auto Mall; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-186,
Authorizing Summary of. Ordinance No. 28-88-PUD-7-88 and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary. PUD on 18 acres
with waivers within the C-Reg-Service Zoning District,
Rezoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.8 acres, Preliminary
Platting of 4.8 acres into 2 lots for construction of a
18,845 square foot auto mall and a 22,180 square foot
retail center. Location: South of Prairie Center Drive,
east of Joiner Way, north of Medcom Boulevard (Ordinance
No. 28-88-PUD-7-88. PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution
No. 88-186, Authorizing Summary S Publication)
F. MINNE_;OTA_ MINI-STORAGE by Bruce Hubbard. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance No. 31-88, Rezoning from Rural to I-2 on 2..35
acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Minnesota
Mini-STorage; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-187,
Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 31-88 and Ordering
Publication of Said Summary. Rezoning of 2.35 acres to I-
2 and Platting 7.7 acres into one lot for construction of
44,255 square feet of storage buildings. Location:
Northwest of Flying Cloud Drive, southeast of U.S. Highway
0169 (Ordinance No. 31-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-
187, Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication)
G. ChangNOrde.r No. 9, Fire Stations Construction Contract
H. lst__Readin_g_ of Ordinance No__39-88, Rules and Regulations
Covnrning Municipal - etery
I . Final Plat Approval for Flahert Addition located south of
Prairie Center Drive and north of Medcom Boulevard
(Resolution No.88-183)
City Council Minutes 3 September 6, 1988
J. Shange_Order_No_._ 1 to__Mi_tchell_Rgaj[Res_earch Raa3 I.C.
2 0 1 -- ---_
K. Aprove Gradinq Permit for Patrick Bauer progerty adjacent
Mitchell Road inort_h.,,at CSAH M1 (THIS ITEM MOVED TO X.B.2)
L. Resolution directin _the__County_Audit_gr to deny-, ivision
p documents without _ r oAezty_C1�ce.1 _ rtification (Resolution
No. 88-192) (THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED)
M. Res,ol.iltion to re_vok_e the designation of. County_Road_.67
along the_Townllne Road/CSAH 62 alignment. between I-494
and CSAH 4 (Resolution No. 88-193)
N. Special Assessment Agreement release for Bluffs West Sth
Addition
0. Proclamation for United Wav's 1988 Eden Prairie Communjty
(Lampai.-g-ri (Resolution No. 88-180)
P. Reguest_._foz Grading Permit by,_ Alex,,,_Dozenkempez to
construct a haul road to serve adjacent property in
Chanhassen
MOTION:
Harris m,)ved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Consent
Calendar as amended with the removal of Items K, L and D.
Enger stated that an amendment to the Developer's Agreement
for Item E, Lariat Center should be made regarding an
assessment agreement, a cross access agreement, and parking
spaces to be 30, subject to City approval. It was by
consensus of the Council to approve the amendment.
Bentley asked Pauly what the purpose was for Section 2 of
Ordinance No. 34-88. Pauly replied that each Ordinance that
was adopted amending the Code incorporated Chapter 1 because
It includes the definition. Peterson commented that per
discussions from previous meetings the Council had suggested
that at least 5 members of the Waste Management Commission be
residents of Eden Prairie and requested that Subdivision 1,
sentence 2 be amended to read as follows: Commission members
shall either be residents of the City or employed within the
City; however, at least 5 of the members must reside in Eden
Prairie. The amendment was approved by consensus of the
Council. Peterson asked Pauly if the Council could pass the
Ordinance with the above amendment. Pauly replied yes.
ITEM G:
Bentley asked why the cost was $3,000 higher for a bituminous
apron versus a concrete apron. Dietz replied that the cost
was higher due to the thickness of the apron.
City Council Minutes 9 September 6, 1988
Bentley questioned the high cost of the paint for the
mezzanine ceilings and walls. Dawson replied that this was a
special paint which had a longer life span, dried on contact,
and would help protect the ceiling from moisture damage.
Pidcock asked if the City had received any other bids for the
painting work. Dawson replied that the painting was part of a
change order to an existing contract, the prices had been
reviewed by the architect who deemed the prices reasonable.
ITEM K:
Bentley asked if the tree removal policy was applied for
grading permits. Dietz replied that on City pro,ccts in the
past the tree removal policy had not applied; however, on
private projects it had applied. Dietz said that trees were
not being removed on this project.
ITEM M:
Bentley asked for the history of Item M. Dietz replied that
currently the section of State Aid Highway 62 between Baker
Road and Eden Prairie Road was also designated as County Road
67. He said the State would like to drop the County Road 67
designation for clarification purposes and would keep the
State Aid Highway 62 to maintain State subsidy.
Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. DATASERV by Opus Corporation. Request for PUD Concept
Amendment on 17.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 17.4 acres with a waiver for office use up to
100% within the I-2 Zoning District, Zoning District
Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.4 acres and Preliminary Plat
of 17.4 acres into 1 lot for construction of additional
parking spaces for the Datasery Headquarters. Location:
South of Technology Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive.
(Resolution No. 88-188, PUD Concept Amendment to overall
Prairie Center Business Park PUD; ordinance No. 90-88-PUD-
11-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-189,
Preliminary Plat)
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock that this item be
continued until the September 20, 1988 City Council
Meeting.
Bentley questioned where the authority had come from to
have plans reviewed based on the traffic generation and
did not believe that the City Council had established a
policy relative to this issue. Bentley further commented
that he was not aware of any other developer in the City
City Council Minutes 5 September 6, 1988
of Eden Prairie having a traffic management restriction of
this nature placed on a development. Bentley stated
objection to delaying the project based on traffic
management issues that the City did not have a policy on.
Enger replied that Staff was under the impression that
clear direction had come from the City Council after
traffic studies were authorized in 1985 and again in 1987-
88. Enger said that the City Council had reviewed over a
dozen projects since the completion of the studies with
traffic as a major issue. Enger believed that the
Datasery project was being handled like the Wilson Ridge,
Vantage, and Lunds projects. Enger stated that the
Council had clearly stated that the review of traffic and
the impact of traffic was a valid tool of the City and
should be persuaded. Enger said that the delay on the
project had been per a request from Dataserv. He stated
that Datasery was investigating the possibility of a
flextime program to reduce the traffic problem.
Peterson stated that even though traffic issues had been
discussed in conjunction with other projects, that the
Council may not have formally or officially discussed and
agreed on the direction that the City of Eden Prairie
would like to pursue. Peterson believed that the BRW
Study would be an excellent tool in helping determine the
direction and asked Enger when the study would be
complete. Enger replied that the BRW Study should be
completed within approximately 30 days. Pidcock believed
that traffic was an impact on the quality of life of the
residents. Bentley stated that this issue needed to be
discussed on the level of establishing policy.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. CHEYENNE PLACE by Westar Properties, Inc. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 38.27 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.27 acres
with waivers for lot frontage, Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 38.27 acres, Preliminary Plat of 38.27
acres into 76 single family lots, 6 outlots, and road
right-of-way. Location: North of County Road 1, 640 feet
west of County Road #4 and County Road #1 intersection.
(Resolution No. 88-190, PUD Concept for Cheyenne Place;
Ordinance No. 41-88-PUD-12-88, PUD District and Rezoning;
Resolution No. 88-191, Preliminary Plat)
Peter Knaeble, representing the proponent, presented that
project and approvals requested. Knaeble stated that the
4 lots that front County Road 1 had been revised per Staff
recommendations to widen the lots to 110 feet. He said
that berming had been added along County Road 1 and the
school site. Knaeble stated the density of the project
would be 2.0 units per acre. He said that utilities for
the project would come from the Fairfield Phase I
i
�, I
City Council Minutes 6 September 6, 1988
development by late fall of 1988 or early spring of 1989.
Knaeble stated that a tree replacement plan had been
submitted per Staff recommendations to replace 300 caliper
inches of trees. He stated that the develop had agreed to
meet the phasing guidelines as set forth in the Southwest
Area Study. Knaeble said that the plan had been revised
to reflect the sidewalks as recommended by the Planning
Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission. Knaeble concluded by stating that he believed
that all conditions and recommendations of Staff had been
met.
Enger reported that this proposal was reviewed at the
August 8, 1988 Planning Commission meeting and unanimously
recommended approval subject to recommendations per the
August 9, 1988 Staff Report. Enger stated that the plans
had changed to reflect Staff recommendations. Enger said
that the Southwest Area Study was scheduled to be
completed in approximately two weeks. He said that
because the Southwest Area Study was not completed at this
time, Staff, the developer, and the school district had
been working with contingencies. Enger believed that this
project would work well with any recommendations by the
Southwest Area Study in terms of timing for utilities and
road connections. Enger said that sewer connections for
the School District could come from this project or the
project from the north.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation 6 Natural
Resources Commission had reviewed this proposal at its
August 15, 1988 meeting and recommended approval on a 5-0
vote per the August 4, 1988 Staff Report and the August 9,
1988 Supplemental Staff Report. Lambert stated that the
developer had been a cooperative group to work with. He
said that the existing City park did not connect to the
existing school site. Lambert said that the developer had
dedicated a strip of land to make a physical connection
between the Old City Hall park site and the new school
site. Lambert said that two trail connections would be
provided and sidewalk connections would be available
between the parks. Lambert stated that the neighborhood
park would have playground equipment and court areas. He
stated that the park would have a passive theme to tie
into the Senior Center. Lambert stated that a park plan
would be presented to the Council in approximately a
month.
Bentley was concerned if there would be storm sewer, where
exactly it would be, its depth or elevation, and who would
be paying for it. Bentley asked City Engineer Gray when
answers to these questions would be available. Bentley
commented that it would be easier to deal with these
issues with the developers now rather than individual home
owners later. City Engineer Gray replied that Staff would
City Council Minutes 7 September 6, 1988
have more definite answers by the 2nd Reading; however, a
feasibility study could not be completed by 2nd Reading.
Peterson asked if future development: of County Road 1 had
been taken into consideration relating to the location of
the berm. Gray replied that it had.
Anderson asked Lambert if Outlot C would connect to the
City park and the school property. Lambert replied that
there would be a physical connection; however, a trail
system would not be required.
Anderson asked Lambert if the City had plans for the pond
and if the level of the pond could be managed with a storm
sewer. Lambert replied that only the outlot could be
controlled and that at the current time there were no
plans for the pond area.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-190 for PUD Concept
Approval. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 41-88-PUD-12-88 for approval of PUD
District Review and Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution
No. 88-191 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to direct Staff to
prepare a Development and Special Assessment Agreements
incorporating commission and staff recommendations, and to
include the recommendation from the Engineering Department
that this property be asked to petition for a feasibility
study on the drainage. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Resolution of Intent to_ 0 a.n.ize Refuse Collection
(Resolution No. 88-184)
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing was
published in the August 17, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie
News and letters had been sent to licensed refuse haulers
within the City in early August. He said that the Eden
Prairie News had a front-page article on the hearing in
the August 31, 1988 issue. Jullie stated that the Council
City Council Minutes 8 September 6, 1988
had discussed way which would provide the most effective
waste abatement within the City and that one of the ways
to accomplish this goal would be to have refuse delivered
to a waste processing facility, specifically the Rueter
facility. Jullie said that to accomplish this would
require some form of contract or license changes, an
arrangement which would fall within the statutory
definition of organizing refuse collection. Jullie stated
that the State Statute required a minimum 90-day public
comment period for planning an organized collection
system. He said that the public hearing tonight would
begin the process. Jullie stated that if the Resolution
was adopted that the following public meetings would be
scheduled: 1) October 6, 1988 for discussion of
alternatives 2) November 9, 1988 for discussion of
contract provisions 3) December 6, 1988 for Council
action to formalize the license conditions with the
program to be implemented by January 1989.
Peterson commented that by passing the Resolution the
Council would not be making a final commitment to any
particular program.
Bentley commented that the intent was to establish license
stipulations for haulers and to determine an end dumping
site.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-184.
Peterson asked Dawson if the Rueter facility would fall
under the category of a resource recovery facility.
Dawson replied that it would.
Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOT 7 JN:
Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Payment of
Claims No. 44642 to No. 45369.
Pidcock asked, relating to #44771, what type of books for the
Fire Department would cost $354.65. Jullle replied that the
City had recently reorganized the Fire Prevention Department
as a part of the Building Inspection Department. He stated
that this charge was for new fire code manuals and updates
necessary to have current code manuals.
City Council Minutes 9 September 6, 1988
Pidcock asked, relating to 945056, what child support
d deductions the City was responsible for. Jullie replied that
the City was required by law to participate in the program.
Pidcock asked, relating to 945113, why the City was obtaining
services from a company that was testifying against the City.
Pauly replied that the BRW was not testifying against the City
regarding the landfill issue. Peterson commented that the BRW
was related to traffic and was not involved in the landfill
problem.
Pidcock asked Jullie if anyone specific was in charge of
advertising adds for the liquor stores. Jullie replied that
Liquor Operations Manager Dahlberg handled all the advertising
for the liquor stores.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock, and
Peterson all voting "AYE".
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. REPORTS_OF_ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. I-.494 Corridor Commission - Appointment of 1 Councilmember
and 1 City Staff Member
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to nominate Mayor Peterson
for the I-494 Corridor Commission.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to nominate David Lindahl as
staff person representative for the I-494 Corridor Commission.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the nominations
and cast a unanimous ballot for Mayor Peterson and David
Lindahl for the I-494 Corridor Commission. Motion carried
unanimously.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
City Council Minutes 10 September 6, 1988
A. Reports of Council Members
1. 51Ccial CitCouscil Meeting fob Cit .EudGet car
Wednesday. September la, 1988 at 7:00 PM
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to schedule the Budget
Review Meeting for Wednesday, September 14, 1988 at 7:00
PM in the Council Chambers. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Set Special City Council Meeting for Tuesday, October
18, 1988, 6:00 PM for-meeting with Timber Lakes
Homeowners Association Board of Directors to Discuss
Scenic Easement on Mitchell Lake
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Bentley to schedule a Special
Council meeting to meet with the Timber Lakes Homeowners
Association Board of Directors for October 18, 1988 at
6:00 PM in the Council Chambers. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Announcement by Councilmgmber Bentley
Bentley announced that he would not be a candidate for the
City Council this year; however, he did not exclude the
possibility of running for office again at a later date.
Bentley commented that he believed it was time for a break
after serving on the Council for 8 years and the Planning
Commission for 2 years prior to the Council.
Pidcock commented that Councilmember Bentley had
contributed a great deal to the Council and would be
missed.
Peterson commented that Councilmember Bentley had shared
his energy, talents, and leadership for many years and
that this expertise would be missed.
9. Discussion on Brant Lake_Park
Anderson was concerned that the development of Bryant Lake
Park had been lowered on the priority list for Hennepin
Parks projects. Anderson believed that a commitment had
been made by the Park District to the City to purchase the
property by the International School and to develop the
park. Anderson believed that additional pressure was
being placed on the Eden Prairie parks, especially Riley
Lake Park, because Bryant Lake Park was not developed.
Anderson would like to see the Hennepin Parks Board
reconsider the delay in the development of Bryant Lake
Park or at least to work with the Council to consider
i
City Council minutes 11 September 6, 1988
minimal upgrading of the public access and not to drop the
plans for the purchase of the property from the school.
Anderson believed that it was time for Eden Prairie to let
the Hennepin Parks Board know officially these concerns of
the City. Anderson stated that the residents of Eden
Prairie could not use Bryant Lake because of the poor
public access. He said that the Hennepin Parks Board had
received funding to develop Bryant Lake Park and that so
far nothing had been done.
Peterson asked Lambert if the City had been formally
notified of the Park Board's decision to: 1) defer the
development 2) not to purchase the lakeshore property
from the school. Lambert replied that he had not been
formally notified. Lambert said that he and the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission members had been
Invited to attend a meeting late this summer where the
Bryant Lake project was discussed. The Hennepin Parks
Board indicated that there were problems in obtaining the
property from the school and that it would like to back
out of the agreement and pursue other alternatives.
Lambert stated that he had informed the Hennepin Parks
Board that the City's main concern was to protect the
north shore of Bryant Lake and to acquire the pedestrian
and bikeway access easements. Lambert stated that the
Hennepin Parks Board had indicated it would maintain the
plans for the easement and that if there were problems the
City would be notified. Lambert said that the Hennepin
Parks Board was trying to negotiate the purchase of some
of the shoreline and floodplain. He said that the
Hennepin Parks Board had only been given half of the
funding requested and had to make a choice between
developing portions of both Fish Lake and Bryant Lake or
developing Fish Lake fully as originally planned and
postponing the development of Bryant Lake. The Hennepin
Parks Board recommended the complete development of Fish
Lake. Lambert stated that the proposal was before the
State Legislature for funding in 1989-1990. Peterson
asked Lambert to keep the Council informed on any
developments.
Anderson stated that Bryant Lake was a natural resource
that was meant to be used. He said that he would like to
see the City make specific requests that the public
access, beach and swimming area be upgraded. Anderson
said that if these things could be done the rest of the
park development could wait. Anderson stated that he
would like to have someone from the Park District to come
to a Council meeting to discuss the plans for Bryant Lake
Park. Peterson asked Lambert to arrange to have the
appropriate person come to an early Council meeting.
City Council Minutes 12 September 6, 1988
B. Resort._ of Ci.. tY,Man..gFr
1. Item D from the Consent Calendar (Firearms Diachar..ge
RPgn)atIons)
Jullie reported that this was an Ordinance change. He
said that Staff was asking the Council to formalize
further hunting limitations within the City.
Harris was concerned that in one or two years these
limitations would need to be revised again. She commented
that the City of Eden Prairie was filling up and filling
in. Harris stated that she would prefer seeing a complete
ban on the discharge of firearms in the community.
Pidcock concurred with Harris.
Bentley stated that the discharge of firearms had been a
major issue over the years. He commented that the limits
had been restricted further a few years ago. Bentley
stated that he had never received a complaint about
hunting. Bentley believed that hunting was well-regulated
and restricted currently and was not in favor of a
complete ban.
Pidcock stated that she had been informed that there were
properties in the southwest area of the City which had
made investments in the promotion of hunting and shooting.
Pauly stated that there was a gun club in the Minnesota
River valley area.
Chief of. Police Wall stated that the area which allowed
hunting in Eden Prairie had been progressively reduced.
He said that there were permitted areas south of Highway
169 that could support hunting for several years. Wall
stated that the City had special areas designated which
required that a hunter had to be in the presence of the
property owner. Wall said that the question was where
should the boundaries be placed. He said that the Police
Department did not have the personnel to monitor the
hunters adequately. Wail said that the area allowed for
hunting needed to be moved further south as development of
the City progresses.
Pidcock stated that because it was so easy for anyone to
obtain firearms, she believed more restrictions were
needed.
Harris asked what would be gained by not restricting the
hunting to south of Highway 169 now. Captain Clark stated
that there would be upset hunters and there would be an
impact to the farmers who rented their land for hunting
purposes.
City Council Minutes 13 September 6, 1988
Anderson stated that with a new elementary school going up
in the southwest area and a new housing development being
approved tonight for that area, restrictions would be
necessary in the future. Anderson believed that for this
year the Police seemed to have things under control and
suggested that a change in the ordinance be made for next
year's hunting season. Harris said that she agreed with
Anderson, but would suggest when the change was made that
the City look at limits that would be acceptable for 5 to
10 years.
Bentley was concerned about the wording of the Ordinance;
he said that according to the wording he could shoot in
the middle of Flying Cloud Airport. Captain Clark replied
that this was true and that federal licenses were granted
to shoot the birds on the property to prevent accidents.
Bentley stated that the wording was confusing. Pauly
replied that he believed there was a clear division as
worded and that it could be clearly enforced.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the lst
Reading of Ordinance No. 42-88. Motion carried 4-0-1,
with Harris abstaining.
Harris stated that she was not against hunting; however,
she did not believe that the ordinance was as restrictive
as it should be.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris that a recommendation
from the Police Department be presented to the City
Council on hunting in Eden Prairie before July 1, 1989.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Item K from the Consent Calendar (Bauer property
Grading Permit
Dietz believed that this proposal was a win-win situation
for the property owner and for the City. Dietz stated
that Mitchell Road was in need of fill material and that a
proposal for development of the Bauer property had been
submitted along with a grading plan. Dietz stated that
the two plans appear to be compatible; however, the
Council had not reviewed the proposal for the Bauer
project. Dietz stated that a shelf would be created in
the hill and he believed that the grading would be
necessary at sometime in order to develop the property.
Anderson believed that the City had made a statement to
the residents that the City wanted to maintain the hills,
trees and wetlands. Anderson stated that he was opposed
City Council Minutes 19 September 6, 1988
to taking down the hill on this property and using the
{ area for a borrow pit, when the Council did not have a
development plan available and that a plan had not been
reviewed by the Planning Commission. Anderson was
concerned about what this would do to the appearance of
the area. Bentley commented that the hill would not be
taken down, the hill would be defaced and contours
altered. Anderson said that the area would be changed
aesthetically. Dietz replied that the City would not save
money by allowing the grading and this area was not
designated as a borrow pit in the construction plans.
Dietz said that the proposal was a plan being negotiated
between the property owner and the contractor, Staff
supported the proposal, having seen the plans; however, it
was not imperative to the Mitchell Road project. Diet
said that grading would not occur within 100 feet of any
adjacent property line.
Peterson concurred with Anderson that even though the
proposal might be a good one, he believed that the Council
needed more time to review the plan and that the Planning
Commission should have an opportunity to review the plan.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to deny the grading
permit for Patrick Bauer. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Report of City Attornty
D. Report,o_f Director of Planning,
1. T_r..ee_Pli
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to
prepare a tree preservation ordinance.
Anderson asked if large masses of trees that individually
would not be considered significant were included in the
preservation policy. Anderson stated that previously
Staff had been dealing with tree replacement and asked if
now the ordinance would include preservation as well.
Enger replied that the ordinance would include
preservation.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Unc3ery_roun0_ sVrinkIinca Requ_irements
Enger reported that after talking with other communities
in the area, there were many communities that require
underground irrigation systems in commercial and
City Council Minutes 15 September 6, 1988
industrial areas. Enger oaid that other communities had
received little or no resistance to the requirement for
irrigation and in fact was considered an assumed standard.
Enger reported that irrigation systems could add as much
as 20-25% to the landscaping costs for a project; hnwever,
the users found that these costs could be recovered by not
having to replace plant material. He said that the amount
of water used was not Increased by irrigation systems and
could save approximately 40% in water use if properly
managed. Enger reported that Staff was recommending
irrigation systems for all properties except single-family
and duplex properties.
OTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to
prepare an ordinance to require landscaping irrigation for
all developments except single-family and duplex
resider:tial properties.
Peterson commented that he was In favor of an ordinance
that would help to promote good water management
Harris commented that at first she had viewed the
ordinance as another case of government interference and
not as a health and safety issue. Harris asked Enger what
percentage of businesses currently use automatic
sprinkling systems. Enger replied that approximately 1/3
of the businesses use sprinkling systems regularly.
Peterson asked why it was recommended that businesses who
added on to their facilities would riot be required to
install an irrigation system. Enger replied that an when
a husiness adds on to its facility, it would otherwise be
required to adhere to the current code.
Bentley stated that he would prefer to take a voluntary
approach. Bentley did not want this to become a
requirement, but to offer some type of incentive to
encourage the installation of irrigation systems. Bentley
said that all the fees and permits required by the City
add up and the costs are substantial. Bentley said that
when there was a water shortage increased sprinkler
systems could cause problems. Bentley commented that he
agreed that It could help to preserve the grass and
plantings, but believed there should be an incentive
program rather than ,3 mandatory program.
Harris agreed that there should be a program to encourage
sprinkler use, but not mandate it. Harris believed that
there should be an educational program to accompany the
sprinkler program for good water management, but was not
sure that Eden Prairie was prepared to provide this.
City Council Minutes 16 September 6, 1988
Enger stated th•-it 75% of the time the developers provide
for a sprinkling system on their own and that when Staff
had suggested sprinkling systems to developers they were
glad that Staff had brought the matter to their attention.
Enger stated that the systems are not always managed well
and believed that the City was not in a position to
mandate that the systems be used properly. Enger said
that Staff had considered reducing the landscaping
requirements if a sprinkler system was installed.
Peterson suggested that this item be presented at the
Developer's Forum for discussion.
Anderson stated that the issue came up as a result of the
drought this year. Anderson stated that the original
Intent of the ordinance was to help protect the natural
resource of water and to help businesses and residents to
protect their investments in grass and plantings.
Anderson believed that if the policy was in place it would
save businesses and residents money in the long run.
Pidcock preferred that sprinkling systems be encouraged,
but not required.
Peterson stated that he was not prepared at this time to
say that an ordinance was not appropriate, but would like
to have this carried to the Developer's Forum and have the
benefit of their input before making a decision.
Motion failed with a 1-4 vote. Anderson voting in favor;
Bentley, Harris, Pidcock, and Peterson voting No.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to do
further research into incentive and encouragement programs
and to take the item to the Developer's Forum. Motion
carried on a 4-1 vote, with Anderson voting No.
Harris stated that she was not adamantly against an
ordinance but, at this time she was not satisfied that
this was the approach to take.
E. Re Lott of Director of Community Services
1. Purgator.� Creek Recreation Area Access Firguisition
Lambert reported that upon direction from the Council
Staff had contacted owners of the property adjacent to
Prairie Center Drive. Lambert stated that per a report
from Bauer 6 Associates, the northern site was the
preferred site and the southern site the secondary site.
Lambert stated that it would be necessary to purchase the
entire southern site to make the design work. Lambert
City Council Minutes 17 September 6, 1988
said that the northern site had flexibility as to the size
of the property to acquire based on where Technology Drive
would line up. Lambert recommended purchasing the largest
site that the City could afford on the northern site.
Lambert stated that the purchase of this property was a
bold move; however, the City would be gaining access to a
160-acre park.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to authorize the
negotiation of a purchase agreement for the northern site
of 4.9 to 5.5 acres through a Contract for Deed over a 5-
year period and obtain a title opinion.
After a discussion regarding the necessity of an appraisal
of the property, it was the consensus of the Council that
an appraisal would not be necessary.
Peterson stated that the City had made a commitment to the
park and that the property was needed for an entrance.
Pidcock asked if Staff could not get a lower price from
the seller for the property. Richard Feerlck,
representing the property owner, replied that the price
was a fair one and related he was currently working on the
dedication to the City of an additional 90 acres of
floodplain.
Anderson stated that he was pleased with the decision made
tonight to proceed. He said that plans had started over 6
years ago and had Incurred several delays. Anderson
believed this decision would put the project back on
target.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Correspondence from Duane Janikula
Lambert stated that Duane Janikula had written to the City
stating his desire to sell the property which is located
immediately west of the airport property on the north side
of Pioneer Trail. Lambert said that the City
Comprehensive Park Plan depicts this property as future
park property and recommended that an appraisal of the
property be obtained.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to authorize Staff to
obtain an appraisal for the Duane Janikula property.
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes 18 September 6, 1988
F. Re-ort of Director of Public Works
9
1. ApgrnvePreliminar.y Plan or T.H. 5 from 800' west of
CSAH No. _4 to Dell Road (Resolution No. 88-185)
Jullie reported that a public meetin,l for residents with
properties adjacent to the proposed Highway 5 project was
held August 31, 1988. Jullie stated that residents and
staff had presented concerns about noise abatement, tree
replacement, screening and/or berming, signalization at
Heritage Road and Dell Road, future speed limits, land
acquisition procedures, maintenance of service roads, and
access during construction. Jullie stated that Staff
recommended to approve the layout plan regarding the
geometries, with the following conditions: 1)
signalization be included at intersections of Dell Road
and Heritage Road 2) further evaluation be made by MnDot
regarding noise abatement measures, tree planting and/or
relocation and landscaping.
Peterson presented to the audience the contents of the
memorandum from Staff.
Pidcock wished to go on record stating that the signals
for Heritage Road and Dell Road should be installed
immediately, that the road be brought further south where
there was a high impact to present homes, and that a noise
wall be constructed on the north side of Highway 5 west
from Prairie Village Mall.
Bentley concurred with Pidcock that noise abatement walls
should be constructed; however, per a statement from
MnDot, its findings, based on Federal regulations, did not
support the need for a noise abatement wall and therefore,
if any wall were to be constructed it would be entirely at
the City's expense.
Pidcock stated that a four-lane highway was going to be
constructed adjacent to residents' homes and she believed
that a noise wall was necessary and considered this to be
a health and safety issue. Pidcock believed that the
Council should not approve the plan without noise
abatement measures in place.
Evan Green, project manager from MnDot, introduced Jim
Hanson, who had prepared the noise =.tudy for Highway 5.
Jim Hanson presented that Federal criteria for noise
ahatement, the State day-and night-time noise level
criteria, and the predicted noise levels based on the
study conducted. Hanson staged that two noise mounds were
currently in place along the proposed highway. Hanson
stated that the State night-time level was exceeded only
between the hours of 6AM to 7AM according to the study.
City Council Minutes 19 September 6, 1988
Lonnie Gray, 7780 Heritage Road, questioned the
credibility of the study because there were so many
variables. Gray asked MnDot if Highway 5 would become the
preferred route and what the speed limit would be. Gray
believed that the noise level would be altered based on
the speed limit, Gray stated a concern about the noise
created from the truck traffic. Hanson replied that the
traffic projections were based on forecast figures from
the Metropolitan Council for the .year 2010. Hanson
explained how the hourly figures were broken down into
various factors and stated that the truck traffic was part
of these factors. Hanson stated that the study was based
on using a speed limit of 50 MPH and that there would nut
be a significant difference for noise at 55 MPH.
Pidcock was concerned about the study being based on
Metropolitan Council figures. Mr. Christensen from MnDot,
stated that the Metropolitan Council was a recognized
planning body for the metropolitan area and that the
numbers used were based on worst possible cases.
Christensen believed that MnDot had received valid
information from a reputable source. Christensen stated
that the current plan was to leave the speed limit the
same as it is today. He said that the road was designed
for a speed limit of 65 MPH. Christensen said that the
speed limit would be determined after the road was open to
traffic.
Lonnie Gray stated that after meeting with neighbors in
the area, the consensus was that a speed limit by Heritage
Road of 55 MPH was too fast for a residential area,
especially without noise abatement. Gray said that there
was a berm on the east side of Heritage Road and
questioned why a berm could not be placed on the west
side. Gray believed that this would compromise his living
conditions and would effect him financially. Gray
believed that the proposed highway would have a monumental
effect on the selling price of his home.
Bentley commented that the City had no control over the
speed limits set for a State road. Peterson stated that
the two signals at Heritage Road and Dell Road should help
to reduce the speed.
Hanson stated that it was because of State recommendations
that the two berms currently in place were constructed by
the developers.
Kenneth Meuwissen, 172G0 Park Circle, asked MnDot if it
had considered the seasonal grain truck traffic. Hanson
stated that: the figures were from the Metropolitan Council
and that grain truck traffic was considered to be under
10% of the total traffic. Bentley stated that up until
three years ago Highway 5 was not considered a regional
City Council Minutes 20 September 6, 1988
highway by the Metropolitan Council. He stated that
Highway 5 and Highway 169 were the major farm to market
routes and found it difficult to believe that the grain
traffic was under 10%.
Mike Boen, 7760 Heritage Road, stated that noise was a
problem in the area and that he had been awakened
continually by the truck traffic early in the morning.
Boen stated that the property owners needed some
protection from the noise.
Don Sabinske, 7740 Heritage Road, stated that just by
widening the road it seemed to have created more noise.
Sabinske stated that something had changed drastically in
the area because currently he was being awakened at 4:30
AM from noise from the trucks on the highway. Hanson
replied that MnDot could build a 50-foot wall along the
highway, but the annoyance factor would still be there
because traffic noise could still be heard. Sabinske
stated that he had lived in his home for 11 years and had
not had a problem until recently. Sabinske stated that
the noise was a serious problem and believed that
something had to be done.
Glenn Johnson, 7067 Springhill, asked MnDot if it had
taken actual noise level readings from Highway 5. Hanson
replied that the traffic had been monitored all summer and
that a study had been done 3 to 9 years ago. Johnson
asked MnDot who would be responsible to correct the noise
problem if in 5 to 10 years it was determined that the
figures for acceptable noise levels presented were being
exceeded. Johnson asked if residents would have to
petition the City or if the State would be responsible.
Hanson replied that this was a 20-year forecast and did
not believe that in 5 to 10 years the dBA's would be
exceeded. Peterson stated that the time frame was
irrelevant and asked what the State policy was if the
predictions for noise levels were not accurate and did
exceed Federal regulations. Hanson said that monitoring
would begin one year after construction and then would be
done periodically. Peterson asked if the figures were
determined to be Incorrect, would the State assume the
responsibility to mitigate the problem. Green stated that
to his knowledge this had never been done before. Bentley
stated that I-35W was a case, where the road was there for
20 years, and when the residents said that it was too
noisy and the State pa;( to have the barriers put up.
Green stated that the bacriers along 35W were mandated by
the Legislature and fund:: were provided to construct the
barriers.
Lonnie Gray stated that the 35W scenario was not a fair
comparison, because thousands of homeowners were involved,
and asked if the State would really consider the problem
City Council Minutes 21 September 6, 1988
for the 7 to 10 homeowners involved in the Highway .9
project.
Bentley stated that noise abatement walls were placed
along freeways where the traffic volumes were high and
that MnDot was stating that Highway 5 would not come close
to the amount of traffic along the freeways. Bentley
stated that he could not justify having the City spend
money for noise abatement along Highway 5, because of the
expense and other areas in the City would be requesting
the same type of protection. Bentley believed that noise
abatement along State highways should be the State's
responsibility. Bentley stated that if the noise levels
did exceed the standards then it should be a community
effort to request the State to correct the problem, not
Just the 5 or 6 property owners.
Dietz commented that there would be a grade change in the
Heritage Road area which should reduce the noise problem.
Hanson explained the safety clear zone area requirements
and how it related to each house and intersection along
the project. He stressed that the safety clear zones were
established to prevent accidents and that if the FHWA
standards were violated the entire project would be held
up.
Lonnie Gray stated that the safety clear zones were
already violated with the berm at Heritage Road. Hanson
replied that the State did not have a berm there, the berm
was placed there by the contractor on private property and
was not on State property.
Roger Pauly, 17450 W. 78th Street, stated that on page 2
of the memorandum it clearly stated that the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency day-and night-time standards were
exceeded. Pauly questioned the cost-benefit ratio
presented in the memorandum. He stated that the cost was
for a 19-foot wall and questioned why the wall could not
be placed on top of the berm already in place. Pauly
believed that the number of homes benefited by the noise
abatement wall was judgmental. He stated that the cost
had been based on only the ist and 2nd tier of homes;
however, he had calculated 10 homes just on the 1st tier
and this did not consider any future development which
might take place in the area. Pauly believed that the
park land located to the cart of Heritage Road was also
entitled to protection from the noise. Pauly questioned
why sight distance standards would not be the same for a
private contractor and the State, regarding the berm
located at Heritage Road. Pauly was concerned about Lhe
tree preservation for the project. He said that there
were several stands of pines which he believed should be
preserved. Pauly believed that if the City approved the
City Council Minutes 22 September 6, 1988
plan with the condition that noise abatement be provided
then it would be the State's obligation to pay for the
noise abatement, not the City's obligation. Pauly
believed that this was a question of justice; the property
owners along the Highway 5 project were being asked to
endure the expansion of the highway, which would benefit
all of western Minnesota. He said that the property
owners were being asked to bear the burden of the
increased noise on the highway, which he believed would
become intolerable. Pauly stated that the question
becomes, whether it is fair to impose the costs on those
that are impacted by the highway for the benefit of the
public at large. Pauly asked that the Council continue
the item until specifics have been provided by MnDot for
noise abatement, tree preservation and signals or to
impose definite conditions that these matters be resolved
satisfactorily with proper Implementation.
Peterson concurred with Pauly that more definitive answers
to the concerns of Staff, Council, and the residents were
necessary. Peterson asked MnDot to provide compelling
reasons why it was not possible to protect some or all of
the properties from the noise, and if it was not possible
then what other alternatives were available. Peterson
believed that Staff needed time to further negotiate with
MnDot the issues presented tonight.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue approval of
the Plan for Highway 5.
Bentley stated that he would vote in favor of the motion
with the understanding that the decision to upgrade
Highway 5 or not was hanging in the balance. He commented
that the State wanted to proceed quickly on the project
based on a request and funds from Eden Prairie. Bentley
stated that he could not believe that the issues had not
been discussed earlier and that a noise abatement wall was
going to become the deciding factor as to whether Highway
5 would be improved or not.
Harris did not believe that the noise abatement would
become the deciding factor, but whether there was a
possibility to provide relief to those residents that were
being impacted by the upgrading.
Peterson stated that he appreciated the memorandum from
Staff; however, he stated that he was not comfortable with
the general statement which referred to requesting further
evaluation from MnDot regarding noise abatement measures,
tree planting and/or relocation, and landscaping.
Peterson believed that very specific answers to these
issues were necessary.
City Council Minutes 23 September 6, 1988
Carolyn Anderson, 17065 W. 78th Sltreet, stated a concern
about the service road at Terrey Pine Court. She
commented that the area contained residents with several
small children. Anderson was concerned about the
increased traffic. Anderson commented that the street
would no longer be a neighborhood street, but would become
a major through street. Peterson replied that the street
had always been designed to be a through street. Anderson
requested that the area be looked at again because of the
Increased traffic.
Doug Tenpa:, 10005 Amsden Way, stated that the residents
are not asking for a 30 foot wall, but are requesting that
additional berming be provided. Tenpas believed that the
solution was not as complex as it seemed.
Richard Feerick, 7103 Interlachen Court, stated that he
respected the council's concern, but noted the project was
a fast-track project and believed that the plans should be
approved with conditions placed on berming. Peterson
replied that the item would be continued for two weeks to
allow Staff to work with MnDot on the issues.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Grading Permit for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
Jullie reported that the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce had requested a grading permit for property it
owned on the west die of Prairie Center Drive between
Flagship Athletic Club and Broodmoor Apartments.
Dietz reported that fill material was available from
construction sites in Eden Prairie and that the plan was
to raise the elevation of the property for future
development purposes. Dietz stated that the Engineering
Department had recommended approval of the grading permit
subject to the requirements as outlined in the memorandum
dated September 6, 1988.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the issuance
of a grading permit for Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce, subject to Staff recommendations dated September
6, 1988. Motion carried unanimously.
G. Rep.o..et., of Finance DirectQz
XI. NFW BUSINESS
XI- ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:20 PM.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Jean Harris, and
Patricia Pidcock
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, 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: All members present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENpA AND OTF(ER_JTEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as
published.
Jullie reported that an amended Developers Agreement had been
presented to the Council for Item J on the Consent Calendar,
LaVonne Industrial Park Building IV. Jullie stated that the
changes clarified the dedication of an easement for a trail
and cash park fee.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to amend the previous
Motion and REMOVE Item D from the Consent Calendar and place
under ITEM, VII.A. Motion carried.
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes 2 September 20, 1988
II. MINUTES
A. Regular City__Council,M.eeting_held Tuesday_, July 19, 1988
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Minutes
of the Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, July 19,
1988 as published. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Re.gglar Cit�_Coi.incil Meeting held Tuesday. A'-;gust 9.
1988 _
MOTION:
Corrections: Page 23, Paragraph 2 should read: Harris
Inquired into the City's legal rights.
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Minutes
of the Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, August
9, 1988 as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Cle.rk's Li_c...ense_ List
B. 2nd Reading of. Ordinance Nn. 92.-88, Rul_e_s Relating to
Firearms Regulations by Amending City Code Chapter 9
Section 9.90 Subd 3A to Restrict the Area Where
Discha_,rge of Firearms are Permitted
C. 2nd_Readin2_of Ordinance No. 39-BB, Rulesand Regulations
Governing Municipal Cemetery
D. Request for City approval of Charitable Gambling from the
Hockey Association of Eden Prairie (THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND MOVED TO ITEM VII.A)
E. Final Plat Approval for Fairfield (located west of Eden
Prairie Road and south of Mitchell Lakei Resolution No.
88-195
F. Flnal_Plat Approval f_or Technolo.gy,Park 6th Addition
(located south of west 79th Street and east of Golden
Triangle Drive_ Resolution No. 88-196
G. Change Order No. 1 to Old Shady Oak Road/Rowland Road
5 2-119
H. Order_Feasabl.ity Rtport for Storm_SQver Facilities to
Provide a Connect between Red Rock Lake and the Proposed
City Council Minutes 3 September 20, 1988
Fairfield and Che enne Place Additions I.C. 52-152
i (Resolution No. 88-197)
I. Re,ceI. e Feasibility_Study foz W�termain_ Extension on Eden
Prairie Road (CSAH No 1) and Pioneer Trail (CSAH No• 1)
and Set_Public Hearin4 Date, T.C. 52-147 (Resolution No.
88-199)
J. LAVONNE INDUSTRIAL PARK BUILDING IV, by LaVonne Industrial
Park Partnership IV. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 36-88-
PUD-10-88, PUD District and Zoning District Amendment
within the I-2 Zoning District on 4.64 acres, Zoning
District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 0.25 acres, and from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.89 acres; Approval of Developer's
Agreement for LaVonne Industrial Park Building IV; and
Adoption of Resolution No. 88-204, Authorizing Summary of
Ordinance No. 36-88-PUD-10-88, and Ordering Publication of
Said Summary. 33 acres for PUD District; 7.66 acres into
one lot and one outlot for construction of 60,000 square
feet of office/warehouse use. Location: South of
Edenvale Boulevard. (Ordinance No. 36-88-PUD-10-88, PUD
District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-204, Authorizing
Summary and Publication)
K. TLrCCH PARK 6TH ADDITION. (FKA Norseman Industrial Park 6th
Addition) by Eberhardt/Hoyt Development. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance No. 37-88, Zoning District Amendment within the
I-2 Zoning District on 4.5 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to I-2 on 4.3 acres; Approval of Developer's
Agreement for Tech Park 6th Addition; and Adoption of
Resolution No. 88-205, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance
No. 37-88, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 24.2
acres into one lot, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for
construction of a 90,600 square foot building addition.
Location: South of W. 74th Street, east of Golden
Triangle Drive. (Ordinance No. 37-88, Rezoning;
Resolution No. 88-205, Authorizing Summary and
Publication)
L. THE OAKS BUSINESS CENTER--Resolution No. 88-202, Recording
Compliance with Developer's Agreement Requirements for The
Oaks Business Center (Resolution No. 88-202)
M. Resolution Directinca_the County_ Audiaor to Denv_Diyision
Documents Without Prover city Certification (Resolution
No. 88-192)
N. Resolution No. 88_212 Commending the Optimist Club of Eden
prairie for Tts Ten Years of Service to the Community
City Council Minutes 4 September 20, 1988
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Consent
Calendar with ITEM D being removed. Motion carried
unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 1988 Assessment Hearj n_q (Resolution No. 88-194A) Continued
from September 8, 1988
City Manager Jullie reported that this item was continued
from the September 8, 1988 Special Assessment Hearing.
Dietz reported that regarding I.C. 52-105, item 2, was
continued due to the request by the property owner to
allow a portion of the utility assessment be homesteaded.
This was done per the direction of the Council and in
addition the error in front footage was corrected. Dietz
reported that item 1 had been shown as homesteaded and was
non-homesteaded and that item 3 was shown as non-
homesteaded and was homesteaded. Dietz reported that all
the necessary corrections had been completed.
Dietz reported that regarding the Trunk Sewer and Water
Supplement Assessment, it was discovered that Mr. Touve
had been assessed and had paid the connection fees. Dietz
reported that item 3 had shown the properties as non-
homesteaded and the property should have been homesteaded
and therefore, the $520.00 would be moved from the 1989
column to the 1994 column.
Dietz reported that per the Council's request Staff had
looked at the sod on Prairie View Drive and found that two
of the properties had taken care of the sod and it was
found to be in excellent condition; however, there were
other properties that had not taken care of the sod and
the sod was found to be in poor condition. Dietz stated
that Staff did not recommend to replace the sod. He said
that all the residents had been given adequate notice that
they would be required to take responsibility for the sod.
Dietz said that Staff did recommend that the center island
be reseeded and that weed control be implemented.
Pidcock asked Dietz what had been determined regarding the
grading. Dietz replied that the grading had been
corrected previously.
Dietz stated that regarding the request to allow the
assessment of fees which were charged at the time of
plumbing permit issuance to be paid over an extended
period of time, it was the Staff's recommendation that
since the entire project had been allowed a 5-year
exclusion for utility assessments that no further change
City Council Minutes 5 September 20, 1988
In the policy of collecting the fee at permit issuance was
4 advisable.
Peterson stated that regarding the sod issue, that there
may have been extenuating circumstances. He said that
because of the drought two of the property owners had
stated a concern about their private wells, had watered
the sod to the extent that they had deemed safe for the
wells and had not ignored the warning about being
responsible for the sod. Peterson asked Dietz if an
exception could be made and some assistance given to the
residents. Dietz replied that it would be the Council's
prerogative. Dietz stated that the Superintendent of
Parks had looked at the area and determined that
overseeding would not resolve the problem. He said that
the old sod would have to be removed and the ground seeded
or the area resodded. Jullie suggested that the matter be
referred back to Staff to determine a compromise with the
residents of this neighborhood.
Anderson asked Dietz for more information on other
projects in the City and asked if this was an isolated
case. Dietz replied that related to City projects, this
project was the only one at the stage of sodding when the
drought started. Anderson commented that the reason for
the question was that he did not want to he caught with
the problem of helping out one neighborhood and not
another if more than one area had been effected. Dietz
believed this to be a unique case.
Bentley stated that he believed that the concerns were
Justified about the precedents that the City would be
setting. Bentley asked City Engineer Gray if he had
personally inspected the grade of the property in
question. Bentley said that based on the comments at the
Special Assessment Hearing he did not believe that the
situation had been corrected satisfactorily. Gray replied
that he understood that the situation had been corrected.
Gray stated that it was difficult to evaluate the
situation today and to judge what had happened due to the
sod shrinking. Bentley suggested that if the sod did need
to be taken out that the grade be checked and corrected if
necessary.
Harris stated that she believed that it was important that
the residents understand their responsibility for the sod.
Anderson stated that even though the City had special
problems this year with the drought, two of the residents
had maintained the sod. Anderson believed that the City
should take the old sod out, provide new sod, but the
residents should be responsible to replace the sod and to
maintain the sod.
City Council Minutes 6 September 20, 1988
f MOTION:
1 Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-194A to certify these
revisions to the 1988 Special Assessments. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to refer the matter of
sod replacement back to Staff for review and return to the
Council with recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
B. DATASERV by Opus Corporation. Request for PUD Amendment
Review on 17.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 17.4 acres with a waiver for office use up to
100% within the I-2 Zoning District, Zoning District
Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.4 acres and Preliminary Plat
of 17.4 acres into 1 lot for construction of additional
parking spaces for the Datasery Headquarters. Location:
South of Technology Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive.
(Resolution #88-188, PUD Concept Amendment to Overall
Prairie Center Business Park PUD; Ordinance No. 40-88-PUD-
11-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution #88-189,
Preliminary Plat) (Continued from September 6, 1988
Council Meeting)
Jullie reported that this Stem was continued from the
September 6, 1988 meeting and proper notices had been
mailed out.
Enger stated that Bob Worthington of Opus Corporation was
not present to address the project at this time. Enger
said the question on this project had been traffic and had
been resolved by a letter from the Opus Corporation.
Enger reported that the request was to add 350 parking
spaces south of the 650 spaces current
said that building was ly in place. He
zoned industrial currently with 50%
of the building utilized as office space. Enger said that
Datasery would like the flexibility to convert the
building to 100% office space over a gradual period of
time, but it would like to keep Industrial Zoning. Enger
stated that 100% office would be consistent with the use
expected in the center area of the City; however, traffic
was the main issue.
Enger stated that because of the location of the building
between Prairie Center Drive, Highway 5, and Technology
Drive it was important to be aware of the afternoon
traffic that would be generated. Enger said that Datasery
was flexible to have employees leaving at different times.
He said that the 1985 BRW study had indicated 217
afternoon peak-hour trips would be acceptable; however,
Datasery would generate 319 P.m. peak-hour trips. As 319
}
City Council Minutes 7 September 20, 1988
trips was an existing situation and that Datasery had not
Physically altered the building, Staff recommended that
319 trips be used as a base figure for traffic. He said
that Datasery had agreed that as it added employees the
shifts would be staggered to keep the trips at the current
level. Enger stated that Staff was recommending that the
staggered shifts be a mandatory condition of the waiver of
the code limitation to 50`k office. Enger stated that the
Planning Commission had reviewed the proposal at its
August 8, 1988 meeting and had recommended approval on a
5-0 vote.
Pidcock asked if Datasery was aware of the services
provided by Southwest Metro. Bob Worthington, having by
now arrived to represent Opus Corporation, stated that he
had not directly communicated with the administrator of
Southwest Metro. Worthington presented the Datasery
traffic management plan and the conversion plan of office
space on a yearly basis. Worthington stated that the
flextime and traffic management plans only pertained to
Datasery and that if another tenant were to take over the
building the traffic management plan would not apply and a
new program would be implemented at that time.
Peterson commended Datasery for voluntarily creating an
aggressive traffic management program. Worthington stated
that Datasery wanted to be a good neighbor in the
community and believed that implementing the traffic
management program represented such a commitment.
Bentley asked Enger if the BRW 1985 Study had taken into
consideration the potential of an overpass and
corresponding ramp at Highway 5. Enger replied that the
Highway 5 improvements had been taken into account.
Bentley asked Enger what specific intersections would have
significant problems. Enger replied that all the
Intersection would have problems, with the worst
intersections being at Prairie Center Drive and the
Highway 5 interconnect, and the ramps at Valley View Road
and Highway 169. Bentley stated that he would support the
proposal because 100% office use was the original intent
of the City for that property.
Bentley wished to go on record as objecting to the City
imposing as a condition of approval for the project a
traffic management plan or traffic quotas to any parcel of
land in Eden Prairie. Peterson suggested that a special
meeting be held to discuss the City's position on traffic
management.
Brad Hoyt, of Hoyt Development, was concerned with the
request for a variance to allow 100% office space on an I-
2 site, when as a developer he had been asked to make trip
City council Minutes 8 September 20, 1988
reductions of approximately 20% and to de-intensify
development projects. Hoyt believed that rather than
requesting a variance from I-2 to 100`L office spat=, the
project should be zoned for 100% office with a variance to
limited industrial use. Hoyt was concerned with the
precedents being set and asked the Council where the line
would be drawn. Hoyt stated that as a taxpayer in the
community he objected to allowing 100% office use and
paying taxes on an industrial property. Hoyt concurred
with Bentley that in the near future there would be an
attempt to tie development intensity to trip generation
and believed that this would be a difficult issue to
resolve because It places the developer in a difficult
position to buy property without knowing in advance what
would be allowed to be built on the property. Hoyt
commended the proponent for the development of the traffic
management plan; however, he believed that the plan would
be difficult to monitor. Hoyt asked the Council about
enforcement procedures and what sanctions would be
implemented if it was determined that the plan was not
working.
Peterson asked Enger if the proponent would request
rezoning to 100% office at a later date. Enger replied
that the proponent did not plan to request 100% office
rezoning.
Bentley asked Enger if a ratio of occupancy could be set
when the proponent would be required to have the property
rezoned for 100% office use. Enger replied that Opus was
the building owner and Datasery was leasing the space from
Opus. He said that Opus had requested to have the
property remain industrial to allow flexibility if the
tenant should change. Enger stated that under the City
Zoning Code the City may not vary a permitted use through
a waiver or variance; however, the City may vary the
degree of the performance criteria to be met. Enger
commented that when discussions took place regarding
"high-tech" the problem was that industrial use could not
be allowed in an office zone. City Attorney Pauly stated
that in reply to Councilmember Bentley's suggestion, one
technique that could be employed would be to grant the
waiver of office use to only 85% or 90% usage and that
rezoning would be necessary to go to 100% office usage.
Peterson believed that the issue was the inequity of
valuation for tax purposes.
Hoyt stated that a variance should not be allowed to run
with the lease of a property. Hoyt believed that after a
building had been converted to 100% office use it would
Impractical for a business with part office and part
industrial to consider the property. Hoyt stated that he
did not object to the entire project, but was concerned
about the precedents being set. Hoyt stated that a
City Council Minutes 9 September 20, 1988
developer pays two completely different prices for office
and industrial properties because of the economic factors.
Hoyt believed that the project should be zoned for office.
Worthington believed that a property was taxed based on
use and income stream. Worthington stated that the
building was finished to appear like an office building
per direction from the Council. Worthington did not
believe that the I-2 zoning would not depreciate the value
of the surrounding properties. Worthington stated that
Opus was not trying to subvert the zoning ordinance.
Worthington stated that the reason for the variance
procedure was because the conversion would take place over
a 3-to 4-year period. Worthington stated that if Datasery
went to 100% office use all the industrial space would
become non-conforming. He stated that a potential buyer
would not be interested in a property that was in non-
conforming use. Worthington believed that Opus had
developed the most reasonable solution to the problem.
Worthington stated that Opus would not object to rezoning
the property when and if the building would come close to
100`6 office use.
Peterson asked for clarification on the tax issue. He
asked If office use in an industrial zone was taxed the
same as office use in an office zone. Jullie suggested
that an opinion from the City Assessor be obtained.
Jullie said that there were alternative ways for the
assessing staff could determine the value of a property.
Jullie believed that the property would be evaluated on an
income basis.
Bentley stated that ultimately he would like to see the
property zoned office for the following reasons: 1) The
use would be. compatible with other buildings in the area
2) When the original request came before the Council the
problem was an overlapping of industrial designation onto
this parcel that represented Rosemount's use and the
intent was not to indicate that the property had to be
industrial. Bentley stated that the major issue at the
time of the original proposal was to designate the
building for office use. Bentley suggested that when a
specific level of occupancy was reached the property would
automatically require rezoning and the situation be
reviewed again in a designated period of time. Bentley
believed that there was a possibility to achieve the
original intended use for the property. Bentley concurred
with Hoyt that there were inconsistencies and did not
believe that the City should issue these types of waivers
on a regular basis.
Worthington believed that the Council and Opus agreed on
the objectives for the project and Opus would not have a
problem rezoning the property when it neared the 100%
,� 1
City Council Minutes 10 September 2.0, 1988
Office use. Worthington stated that while he agreed in
principle he suggested that the Council keep the
percentage as high as possible before the rezoning was
required.
Peterson asked Enger if after hearing the concerns of the
Council if the issues could be worked out between staff
and Opus as part of the Developer's Agreement between the
1st and 2nd Reading. Enger believed that the issues could
be resolved.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-188 for PUD Concept
Amending. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the 1st
Reading of Ordinance No. 40-88-PUD-11-88 for Rezoning.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No.
88-189 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff
to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations and including the
Council's discussions. Motion carried unanimously.
C. FAIRFIELD PHASES 2 1'HPOUGH 6, by Tandem Properties.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres
from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres,
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres and
review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for
construction of a residential development. Location:
West of County Road 4, southeast of Minneapolis and St.
Louis Railroad. (Resolution No. 88-206, Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 88-207, PUD Concept
for Fairfield Phases 2-6, Resolution #88-209,
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Finding of No
Significant Impact)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was sent
to owners of 56 surrounding properties and published in
the September 7, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Jim Ostenson, of Tandem Properties, presented the project.
Ostenson said that several weeks ago the Council had
approved Phase I of the project and tonight the request
City Council Minutes 11 September 20, 1988
was to approve Phase 2 through 6. Ostenson believed that
after working with Staff for several months all of the
problems for the development had been resolved. Ostenson
stated that the access to County Road 9 had been
relocated, lots widened, provided access to the park to
the south of the project, reduced the tree loss, and
relocated the road to offer better access to the school.
Ostenson stated that the proponent was requesting rezoning
and PUD change for the balance of the property. Ostenson
said that the proponent was in agreement with the findings
of the Southwest Study.
Enger reported that this Item had been reviewed by the
Planning Commission at the July 25, 1988 and August 22,
1988 meetings and recommended approval on a 6-0 vote.
Enger stated that the Zoning and Platting of the property
would be review by the Planning Commission at its next
meeting. Enger stated that the issues addressed in the
August 19, 1988 Staff Report had been resolved as the
proponent had indicated in the presentation. Enger stated
that it was important to note that approximately 1/3 of
the request was for R1-13.5 and 2/3 for R1-9.5 single-
family lots. He said that approximately 1/2 of the R1-9.5
lots would be cluster home lots and would require
variances. Enger stated that lots for the cluster homes
would be not be less than 8000 square feet and based on
past experiences with cluster home developments the
Planning Commission was comfortable with the size of the
lots for the cluster homes.
Enger reported that a memorandum had been presented to the
Council analyzing the R1-9.5 Zoning District and
considered the R1-9.5 issue pertinent to this proposal.
Enger said that Staff had reviewed every R1-9.5
development since 1982 and looked at the market value of
the homes. Enger said that the conclusion of the review
was that approximately 1/2 of the homes in the R1-9.5
zones could be considered as starter homes per FHA
standards.
Enger stated that the Staff had recommended that a revised
concept plan be prepared by the proponent to reduce the
overall visual derisity by creating individual
neighborhoods with distinctive architectural themes such
that the R1-9.5 area would appear as a collection of
smaller neighborhoods. Enger titated that the proponent
had not had a chance to revise the plan. Enger reported
that Staff agreed with the concept of the PI1D waivers;
however, the final decision on granting the waivers would
occur concurrent with the PUD District Review at a later
date. Enger said that a concept plan for tree replacement
had been completed; however, a more detailed plan would be
presented at the time of rezoning.
d
City Council Minutes 12 September 20, 1988
Enger reported that the Southwest Area Phasing Plan was
approximately 3/4 completed and he expected a fir:.t draft
to be available within a few weeks. Enger said that the
rezoning and PUD District Review with waivers for street
frontage and lot size for Phases 2-6 should be reviewed
subsequent to the completion of the Southwest Area Phasing
Plan. Enger stated that Staff recommended that no more
than 100 units be constructed within the Phase I area
prior to upgrading of County Road 4 and State Highway 5,
and the Intersection at Scenic Heights going on to County
Road 4 and State Highway 5.
Enger reported that Staff had recommended that Scenic
Heights Road be constructed in the early portion of Phase
II so that a traffic pattern for the neighborhood not
become established with heavy use on the internal roadways
of the project rather, Scenic Heights Road should function
as the collector road as designed. Enger stated that
Staff believed if the project would proceed before the
roadways were upgraded, there would be a significant
environmental impact to the area; however, if the phases
of the project proceeded per the Staff recommendations,
there would not be an environmental impact.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission had reviewed this item at its
September 19, 1983 meeting and recommended approval with a
unanimous vote per the Staff Report of August 19, 1988.
Harris asked the proponent if the concept of the small
distinct neighborhoods for the R1-9.5 was acceptable.
Tom Boyce, President of Centex Homes, stated that the
concept was acceptable and that Centex Homes had already
started working on the architectural plans for the
neighborhoods.
Bentley was concerned about proposing to include a waiver
In the concept approval without approving the Preliminary
Plat. He was concerned about the proponent coming back to
the Council requesting larger numbers of variances which
would automatically fall under the PUD waiver. Enger
replied that larger numbers of variances could be
requested; however, he believed that since the Southwest
Study was near completion, that Phase I had been approved,
and that Phase II would not be started this year that the
time factor was not as pressing. He said that the entire
plan was to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on
September 26, 1988 and that if the Council was not
comfortable with the proposal tonight the project could be
continued and the proposal recombined and reviewed again
in several weeks. Enger said that the proponent would
like some type of guideline to follow. Bentley asked
Enger if the granting of the waiver for variances could be
City Council Minutes 13 September 20, 1988
dealt with at the time the Preliminary Plat was approved.
Enger concurred.
Pidcock asked for clarification on when the intersection
of Scenic Heights Road on the west side of Eden Prairie
Road would be completed. Enger replied that Scenic
Heights Road would be realigned to the south when Highway
212 would be constructed. He said that the proponent was
anticipating the construction of Highway 212; however,
their location of Sceric Heights Road would not line up
with the current Scenic Heights Road, leaving the roads
disjointed. Enger said that existing Scenic Heights Road
needed to be upgraded, the new Scenic Heights Road needed
to be constructed to an upgraded level, and the upgrading
of County Road 4/Highway 5 intersection needed to take
place before any further development past Phase I of
Fairfield.
Bentley asked Enger what would happen to the road
alignment at Scenic Heights Road if Highway 212 was never
built. Enger replied that this had not been taken into
consideration. Dietz replied that the jog was
approximately 500 feet and that if Highway 212 was not
built an adjustment would not necessarily have to be made.
Bentley said that the road was intended to be a east/west
collector road. Bentley was concerned about approving the
plan based on the assumption the Highway 212 would be
built and that MN/DOT would realign Scenic Heights Road,
without making allowances for an interim period. Dietz
replied that because of the poor vertical and horizontal
alignment of Scenic Heights Road that it would be a
significant: project to undertake to make Scenic Heights
Road an east/west major collector road.
Peterson stated that Tandem Development did not own the
property to the east of the development. Enger replied
that this was a problem; however, the road would have to
be extended to County Road A. Bentley asked what the City
would do if the road was not extended and the developer
came before the Council for approval of a plan. Enger
replied that the City had to control this. Bentley was
concerned about the position the City was being placed in.
He believed that it was premature to grant a zoning of the
property without a contingent that a completed Scenic
Heights Road to County Road 4 was in place prior to final
building permit issuance. Enger concurred.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-206 for the
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. Motion carried
unanimously.
n — '
City Council Minutes 19 September 20, 1988
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
88-207 giving PUD Concept Approval for Fairfield Phases 2
through 6. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
88-209 for a Finding of No Significant Impact on the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission
and Staff recommendations and Council discussions. Motion
carried unanimously.
D. CNE. PNUT PLACE by Chestnut Place Partner. Request for
Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to
Neighborhood Commercial on 1.69 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to N-Com on 1.69 acres with variances to
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat. of
1.69 acres into 1 lot for construction of a 8,208 square
foot commercial renter. Location: Northwest corner of
Anderson Lakes Parkway and Chestnut Drive. (Resolution
#88-210, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance
R99-88, Rezoning; Resolution #88-211, Preliminary Plat)
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Nearing was
sent to owners of 17 surrounding properties and published
In the September 17, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Brian Cluts, representing the proponent, presented that
project. Cluts stated that the project would be a
neighborhood commercial center, approximately 8200 square
feet in size. He said that a convenience store would be
the anchor for the center and that a small neighborhood
restaurant was currently being negotiated. Cluts stated
that the center would be unique in that pedestrian traffic
would make up 50% of the business for the center. Gluts
said that the Planning Commission was concerned about
traffic onto Anderson Lakes Parkway, internal traffic
congestion, and pedestrian access to the center. Cluts
stated that after working with Staff all the concerns had
been addressed. He said that new sidewalks would be
installed, there would he one access from Anderson Lakes
Parkway and one access from Chestnut Drive, the parking
layout had been revised, and that increased landscaping
and screening was planned around the gas pumps.
City Council Minutes 15 September 20, 1988
Enger reported that thib item was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at its August 22, 1988 meeting and recommended
approval of the proposal on a 4-2 vote, with Anderson and
Hallett voting No due to safety reasons regarding the
location of the gas pumps in traffic lanes. Enger said
that proponent agreed to look at alternative circulation
plans to reduce the conflict between cars and pedestrians.
Enger stated that Staff and the Planning Commission
believed that the corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and
Chestnut Drive met the criteria for neighborhood-family
housing commercial designation. He said that there would
be a one-mile service area with several multiple units in
the area. Enger stated that the 1.69-acre site would
require a variance from the 2-acre minimum required by
Code for a neighborhood commercial district. Enger said
that the proposal was approved based on recommendations
per the Staff Report dated August 19, 1988.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation s Natural
Resources Commission reviewed this item at its September
19, 1988 meeting and recommended approval with a unanimous
vote.
Harris asked Enger how far this development was from the
Thom Thumb store located on Anderson Lakes Parkway. Enger
replied approximately one mile.
Harris asked if the developer had a tenant in mind for the
restaurant. Cluts replied that negotiations were taking
place with a Vietnamese restaurant for take out and
delivery.
Pidcock asked how many tenants would be in the center.
Cluts replied four units. He said that the two tenants
were already taking up 5400 square feet of the total.
Pidcock asked Enger how many dwelling units were in the
surrounding area. Enger replied approximately 3000 units
within one mile.
Peterson asked if Anderson Lakes Parkway were wide enough
to accommodate bypassing turning traffic. Enger replied
that Anderson Lakes Parkway was a wide 2-lane street at
this location, sight distance was good, a field check had
been done, and he believed that the road was wide enough
to allow traffic to bypass. Pidcock believed that going
around turning cars would be difficult. Bentley believed
that if any traffic flow problems did occur and street
improvements deemed necessary, the improvement costs would
be assessed to the property owner. Peterson stated that
he would like to see the street system reviewed in this
area and determine if improvements would be necessary.
Dietz stated that Anderson Lakes Parkway was a 36-foot-
wide street, which would be tight for a striped left turn
i
City Council Minutes 16 September 20, 1988
lane; however, this would not be a major project. Dietz
commented that when Anderson Lakes Parkway was originally
constructed it was determined that turn lanes would not be
necessary and he did not believe this development would
generate significant traffic in the peak hours. Peterson
commented that he could envision a striped lane at
Chestnut Drive; however, he did not believe that another
striped lane would be necessary at the north access, nor
should traffic be impeded on Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Peterson said that he would like more information on
traffic in this area.
Anderson asked what impact would traffic have on Chestnut
and were there currently any pathways or sidewalks on
Chestnut. Lambert replied that there was a sidewalk on
the south side of Chestnut. Anderson was concerned about
Increased traffic and the pedestrian traffic. Anderson
commented that the plan did not designate a pedestrian
system. Cluts stated that there was a plan to provide a
connection of the sidewalk at the intersection to
discourage pedestrian traffic from cutting across in the
middle of the street.
Pidcock was concerned about the increase of pedestrian
traffic along Anderson Lakes Parkway and asked what was
being proposed and if additional signs would be posted.
Lambert replied that he anticipated increased use of the
8-foot trail along Anderson Lakes Parkway, but did not
recommend additional signage. Pidcock was concerned about
the speed of the cars turning into the center off Anderson
Lakes Parkway.
Glenn Johnson, 7067 Springhill, stated that he had not had
difficulty getting around traffic as a firefighter on
Anderson Lakes Parkway. Johnson was concerned about the
speed of the traffic on Anderson Lakes Parkway and the
number of small children in the area.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-210 for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the lst
Reading of Ordinance No. 99-88 for Rezoning. Motion
carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes 17 September 20, 1988
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to adopt Resolution
No. 88-211 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission
and staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
E. TRUNK WATERMAINIMPROVEMENTS ON PIONEER TRAIL_ CSAH_ NP_ 19
FROM MITCHELL ROAD WEST TO STARING LAKE 2ND ADDITION I.r
52-149 (Resolution No. 88-200)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was
published in the August 31 and September 7, 1988 issues of
the Eden Prairie News and that owners of affected
properties were notified.
Dietz reported that the project was to extend a 12"
watermain from Mitchell Road west to the Staring Lake 2nd
Addition. Dietz said that the project costs were
estimated at $81,000. Dietz stated that the adjacent
property owners would be assessed the equivalent of a 6"
watermain or $19.95 per lineal foot. He said that
sanitary sewer would be proposed at a future time and
would not come from Mitchell Road but would probably come
from the Staring Lake area. Dietz said that there were
two types of assessments proposed. He said that the
standard rate of $525 for trunk sewer and water for
residential property, the Staring Lake 2nd Addition would
be assessed at the per acre rate of $250 per acre, and the
rate of $19.95 per lineal foot for adjacent properties.
Dietz said that the homesteaded properties would be
allowed the 5-year extension or until they connect to the
system. He said that the project would start this fall
and if approved tonight could have substantial completion
by November.
Jullie informed the residents that there were connection
charges in addition to the assessments.
Ed Fisher, 15160 Pioneer Trail, questioned why the
watermain had to be installed at this time. He said that
he was satisfied with the present setup.
Dietz stated that a property owner can request that
improvements be made, then the City was obligated to go
through the feasibility study process. Dietz said that
the purpose of the Public Hearing tonight was to give the
Council a chance to hear from residents whether they
believe the improvements are needed. Dietz stated that
City Council Minutes 18 September 20, 1988
there had been a request from the developer of the Staring
Lake 2nd Addition for the improvements. Dietz stated that
the project was timely based on other improvements taking
place in the area. He said that the City did recognize
that this could be bad timing for existing residents that
have functioning wells and that was why the 5-year
extension was proposed.
Ron Fischer, 15140 Pioneer Trail, asked how deep the pipe
would run. Dietz replied 7-1/2 feet. Fisher asked if a
soil study had been done because the soil was sand. Dietz
said that the project had not gone out for bids yet and
the final design had been determined. Dietz said that the
contractor would not be allowed to close County Road 1.
Fischer asked if there had been any consideration to
assessing the property on the other side of the road.
Dietz replied that the other side of the street was
outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and that
City utilities were not to be installed in that area until
after the year 2000. Dietz said that there was a clause
In the assessment policy which allowed for additional
costs incurred by the City to be assessed to properties
riot on the original assessment. Fischer asked who at City
Hall he should see about the other connection fees. Dietz
replied that he should come to the Building Inspections
Department to obtain a fee schedule.
Carol Ehler, 14960 Pioneer Trail, asked when sewer would
be hooked up. Dietz replied that a plan was not available
currently. He said that the Red Rock Ranch project would
have to be in the 2nd phase of development before sewer
could be extended to this area. Ayler asked when the
sewer would be installed for Staring Lake 2nd Addition.
Dietz replied that Staring Lake 2nd Addition would be on
private septic systems initially.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-200 Ordering
Improvements and Preparation of Plan and Specifications
for I.C. 52-149. Motion carried unanimously.
F. EASEMENT VACATION 88-07. NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK 5TH
[ADDITION (Resolution No. 88-201)
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-201 to vacate the
easement. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes 19 September 20, 1988
V. PAYMENT_OF_CLAIMS
i
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, -,econded by Bentley to approve Payment of
Claims No. 45370 to No.45671. ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson,
Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson all voting "Aye".
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Item D from the Consent calendar - Charitable Gambling for
the Hockey Association
Anderson stated that he was concerned about the youth
athletic organizations of the community getting involved
with gambling. Anderson was concerned about allowing the
selling of pulltabs in a public restaurant with a liquor
license. Anderson believed that the City should take a
closer look at this issue and would like more information
before he would be prepared to vote on this item.
Anderson was concerned that if the City allowed one
organization to use charitable gambling that this would
open up the City to requests from more organizations to do
the same thing.
Bentley suggested that the item be continued and allow
time to gather more information. Peterson suggested that
the Hockey Association be in attendance when this item
would be discussed again.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue the request
for Charitable Gambling for the Hockey Association and
refer the matter to Staff for additional information.
Harris commented that the letter of request did not have
enough information for her to vote on this issue tonight.
Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
A. Human_Rightq_L Services Commission - Report on Elim Homes
Proposal
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to accept the Human
Rights & Services Commission Report on the proposal by
Elim Homes. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes 20 September 20, 1988
IX. APPOINTMFNTS
X. ,REPORTS OF OFFICERS-,--BOARDs & COMMISSIONS
A. Report_s u[ Council Members
B. Renort__of Clty Manager
1. Full Yard Waste Collection Proposals
Dawson reported that the City had Issued an RFP to
licensed haulers within the City. He said that the City
had received a letter from the Woodlake Sanitary Services
stating that it was planning to offer a fall yard waste
program. Dawson reported that after further research it
was the recommendation of Staff not to authorize an
official residential yard waste collection program for
fall 1988. Dawson stated that Staff would work with
refuse haulers to gather data on yard waste collection and
forward the findings to the various agencies.
Peterson asked If the haulers would require the residents
to separate the yard waste from the regular refuse.
Dawson replied that the haulers would require separation
of waste.
Harris asked if a yard waste collection program was
offered last year. Dawson replied that a program was
offered last year.
Peterson asked Dawson If the City was not responsible to
require all refuse haulers to comply with a separation
program for yard waste due to the State mandate that yard
waste could not be taken to the landfills. Dawson replied
that the State mandate would not take effect until 1990.
Pidcock believed that the City should make sure that a
yard waste separation program did take place this year.
She believed that the City should have a program started
before the City was compelled to do so. Peterson
commented that if the City would have 90% compliance with
a voluntary program that this would be an excellent start.
Anderson commented that if the haulers were asked to keep
records that the City would get credit for providing the
service. Dawson stated that the program did not have to
be sponsored by the City to obtain credit for a recycling
program.
Peterson commented that he would encourage the County to
look into the possibility for a facility similar to the
one in Maple Grove be located In Eden Prairie. Dawson
replied that discussions had taken place with the County
regarding this matter. Peterson suggested looking into
City Council Minutes 21 September 20, 1988
providing biodegradable bags. Anderson stated that he
would like to have more information on the cost of the
bags. Dawson replied that the cost would be 25 to 30
cents per bag.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Anderson that the City not
conduct a fall 1988 yard waste collection program and that
Staff work with the refuse haulers to design a system for
recording and gathering data on the yard waste collected.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Planning
E. Re sort of Director of Community Services
F. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Approve Preliminary Plan for T.H. 5 from 800' West of
CSAH No. 4 to Dell Road (Resolution No. 88-185)
Continued from September 6, 1988
Dietz presented to the Council a letter from MN/DOT
summarizing a meeting that he attended along with City
Engineer Gray and MN/DOT representatives. Dietz said
that basically the letter points out that there are 9
areas of the project that need further consideration with
noise abatement being the most significant. He said that
MN/DOT would construction a 7-to 8-foot high earth mound
west of Heritage Road to the end of the urban section,
which would be to the west line of the Pauly property.
Dietz said that MN/DOT was proposing to lower the grade of
the road by 2 to 3 feet; however, this was not the final
design. He said that MN/DOT had combined the lowering of
the grade and the 7-to 8-foot high earth mound to
accomplish the equivalent of a 9-to 11-foot berm. Dietz
stated that MN/DOT was considering a request by the
property owner at the northwest corner of Heritage Road
and Highway 5 to buy the property and that if it purchased
the property the berm would be extended along that
property to allow for additional noise abatement. Dietz
commented that the located at the northwest corner of
Heritage Road was the lot that would have the most impact
by noise. Dietz stated that another issue was the speed
limit and that MN/DOT had agreed to do a speed study. He
said that the study would be done for the entire length of
Highway 5 from I-494 to the City limits. Dietz stated
that MN/DOT would re-sign the Highway for speed limits if
the study results indicated a need. Dietz said that
MN/DOT had a copy of the City's Tree Ordinance and agreed
to follow the guidelines set forth in the ordinance. He
City Council Minutes 22 September 20, 1988
said that MN/DOT was committed to transplanting as many
trees as possible and provide screening. Dietz stated
that MN/DOT did not believe that a signal at Heritage Road
was warranted; however, they did agree to review this and
to conduct a gap study at the intersection. He said that
MN/DOT had committed to installing conduit and that if a
signal was warranted one would be Installed. Dietz stated
that MN/DOT agreed that a signal would be warranted as
Dell Road was developed. Dietz recommended that the
Council approve the layout plan with these qualifications.
Sidney Pauly, 17450 W. 78th Street, stated that she
appreciated the work that MN/DOT had done to address the
concerns of the residents. Mrs. Pauly was concerned about
the future noise that might possibly generated. She said
that it was her understanding that MN/DOT could come back
to correct the problem of noise if deemed necessary and
questioned who would have to initiate the request for
MN/DOT to conduct a noise study. Mr. Hofsted,
representing MN/DOT, replied that they did get requests
from residents to monitor noise along roadways. Mrs.
Pauly asked if the City would have this in writing.
Hofsted replied that the statement would become part of
the record tonight. Mrs. Pauly asked for clarification on
the tree replacement and what trees would be replaced.
Dietz replied that any significant trees would be
replaced. Mrs. Pauly was concerned about the evergreen
trees in the area being saved.
Roger Pauly asked after the monitoring took place, what
would happen if the noise levels were exceeded. Hofsted
replied that the determination would have to be made at
the time what was needed and funding would need to be
obtained.
Pidcock asked what the City could do to help residents
along the Highway if they did not get a response to their
satisfaction from the State. Peterson replied that they
could come to the Council and the City would then join
with the residents in presenting the complaints to the
State if the Council found them to be legitimate. Pidcock
agreed.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
88-185 to approve the Preliminary Plan for Highway 5 West
of Eden Prairie Road.
Peterson commended Director of Public Works Dietz, Staff
and MN/DOT for working to achieve the improvements
presented tonight.
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes 23 September 20, 1988
2. &ward Contract for Lime Sludge Removal and Disposal
I.C. 52-151
Dietz recommended that the contract be awarded to Max
Johnson Trucking per its bid at a cost not to exceed
$112,500.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to award the contract
No. 52-151 for Lime Sludge Removal to Max Johnson Trucking
per its bid at a cost not to exceed $112,500.
Pidcock asked if any care was taken to improve the looks
of the area. Dietz replied that a fence and landscaping
would be placed in the area. Anderson concurred with
Pidcock that the area should be cleaned up.
Motion carried unanimously.
G. Report of Finance Director
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:55 PM.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 190B 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Jean Harris, and
Patricia Pidcock
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, 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: All members present.
I. APPROVAL. nF AGENDA AND OT14ER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Agenda as
published.
ADDS to the Agenda as Follow: Item X.A.1, Discussion of Waste
Management Commiosion appointment process. Item X.A.2,
Discussion of Letter regarding Franklin Homes. Item X.B.3,
Schedule meeting to canvass the election results.
REMOVE from the Consent Calendar the following: Items J & L
as the Developers Agreements had not been signed.
Motion carried unanimously.
I I.MI NTJTFS
III.CONSF,NT CALENDAR
A. CIer_k._'s_. License _List
B. Authorization to Suburban Associates (Suburban National
Bank I.D.R. Bond) to Place a Second Mortgage on Their
Property
City Council Minutes 2 November 1, 1988
C. Change Order No_1 for Communi_ry center Ph�se_II Repair
D. A_pj)_rove Bids for_Well at Fr_�nlo_ Park
E. Final_ Plat Aporoval_of Wyndham Nub 2nd Addition located
soith_of 52nd Street and east of Dell_RoadL Resolution No.
88-242
F. Final_Pla.t-Approval of Crosstown Prairie Addition (located
south of 62nd Street and west of Industrial Drivel
Resolution No. 88-243
G. Ch.ang_e_Orde.r No,_ 1,_Legion Park, I.C. 52=133
H. Change Order No._2�.Mit.chel_1LReseazch RnadI.C. 52-051
I. CHESTNUT_PLACE by Chestnut Place Partners. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance No. 44-88, Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to
Neighborhood Commercial; Approval of Developer's Agreement
for Chestnut Place; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-248,
Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 44-88 and Ordering
Publication of Said Summary. 1.69 acres into 1 lot for
construction of a 8,208 square foot commercial center.
Location: Northwest corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and
Chestnut Drive. (Ordinance #44-88, Rezoning; Resolution
#88-248, Authorizing Summary and Publication)
J. DATASERV_II. by Opus Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance
No. 40-88-PUD-11-88, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 17.4 acres with a waiver for office use of to
1001. within the I-2 Zoning District, Zoning District
Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.4 acres; Approval of
Supplement to Developer's Agreement for Datasery II; and
Adoption of Resolution No. 88-249, Authorizing Summary of
Ordinance No. 40-88-PUD-11-88 and Ordering Publication of
Said Summary. 17.4 acres into 1 lot for construction of
additional parking spaces for the Datasery Headquarters.
Location: South of Technology Drive, east of Prairie
Center Drive. (Ordinance No. 40-88-PUD-11-88, PUD
District and Rezoning; Resolution #88-249, Authorizing
Summary and Publication) (THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED)
K. REDBURN BUILDING., by Bud Redburn Insurance Agency, Inc.
2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 45-88, Zoning District Change
from Rural to Office on 0.58 acres; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Redburn Building; and Adoption
of Resolution No. 88-250, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance
No. 45-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 2.33
acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way for construction
of a 3,000 square foot office building. Location: East
of Terrey Pine Drive, south of Highway 95, east of Burger
King. (Ordinance No. 45-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-
250, Authorizing Summary and Publication)
City Council Minutes 3 November 1, 1988
L. PRAIRIE_VIEW II by Curt Johnson Properties, Inc. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 43-88, Zoning District Amendment
within the C-Regional Service Zoning District on 2.17
acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Prairie View
II; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-251, Authorizing
Summary of Ordinance No. 43-88 and Ordering Publication of
Said Summary. 12,658 square foot retail/office use.
Location: North of Plaza Drive, east of the Prairie View
Shopping Center. (Ordinance No. 43-88, Rezoning;
Resolution No. 88-251, Authorizing Summary and
Publication) (THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED)
M. WYNDHAM. NOB_2ND ADDITION by Burl Corporation. 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 46-88, Zoning District Change from Rural
to R1-9.5 on 7.2 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 18.9
acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Wyndham Nob
2nd Addition; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-252,
Authorizing Summary of Ordinance 46-88 and Ordering
Publication of Said Summary. 27.2 acres into 41 single
family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location:
South of Townllne Road, east of Chennault Way within
Hidden Glen 3rd Addition. (Ordinance No. 46-88, Rezoning;
Resolution No. 88-252, Authorizing summary and
Publication)
N. CROSSTOWN PRAIRIE.__OFFICE_WAREHOUSE by Gary A. Hilden. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 47-88, Zoning District Amendment
within the I-2 District on 1.89 acres; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Crosstown Prairie Office
Warehouse; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-253,
Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 47-88, and Ordering
Publication of Said Summary. 1.89 acres for construction
of a 19,216 square foot office warehouse. Location: South
of County Road 67, east of Nine Mile Creek, north of the
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul 5 Pacific Railroad.
(Ordinance No. 47-88, Zoning Amendment; Resolution No. 88-
253, Authorizing Summary and Publication)
0. BLUFSTEM HILLS 5TH ADDITION by Brown Land Company. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 48-88-PUD-13-88, PUD District
Review on 15.92 acres with waivers, Zoning District
Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District from Rural
toRl-13.5 on 2.26 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement
for Bluestem Hills 5th Addition; and Adoption of
Resolution No. 88-254, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance
No. 48-88-PUD-13-88, and Ordering Publication of Said
Summary. 15.92 acres into 15 single family lots, 3
outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: West of
RluPstem Lane, north of Purgatory Creek. (Ordinance No.
48-88-PUD-13-88, PUD District, Zoning District Amendment,
and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-254, Authorizing summary
and Publication)
1
City Council Minutes 4 November 1, 1988
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Consent
Calendar as amended, removing Items J & L.
Discussion of Item H.
Dietz stated that Item H was for the extension of
watermain along County Road N1, west of Mitchell Road. He
said that a feasibility study had been done. Dietz stated
that the Change Order was to add the extension to the
project under contract with Northdale Construction instead
of rebidding as a separate item.
Discussion of Item C.
Pidcock question Change Order N 1 and why at the time of
the bid it was not know that these walls inside the arena
would require stripping and repainting. Lambert replied
that over the years Staff had repainted the walls. He
said that during the process it was noted that the paint
on the south and west walls was pulling away. Lambert
stated that because several coats of paint had been
applied over the years it did not come off easily and a
chemical stripper was applied. He said that the need for
the south and west walls to be painted was not determined
until the project was in progress.
Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. HI.... .. 91CROSSTOWN RACQUETI SWIM AND HEALTH CLUB by
Northwest Racquet, Swim and Health Club, Inc. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial
on 2.2 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the
Community Commercial District on 9.73 acres with variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat
of 9.73 acres into one lot, and 6.4 acres into one lot,
one outlot, and road right-of-way for construction of a
21,500 square foot addition to the health club and an
additional parking lot. Location: East of Baker Road,
north of Holasek Lane. (Ordinance No. 51-88, Rezoning and
Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 88-255 & 256,
Preliminary Plats)
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing was
sent to owners of 82 surrounding properties and published
In the October 19, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News,
Allen Kimpeil, Architect for the project, presented the
project. Kimpeil stated that parking was a major problem
at the Health Club. He stated that currently a shuttle
system had been provided for employees to the Health Club
l
City Council Minutes 5 November 1, 1988
from the Corporate Headquarters. Kimpell said that the
proponent had considered developing an additional parking
area to the south of the building, originally planned for
5 outdoor tennis courts. He said that the proponent
encountered resistance from the neighbors for this plan.
Kimpell stated that a traffic and parking analysis had
been done and that the proposal was currently to develop a
parking ramp in the lower portion of the existing lot.
Kimpell stated that the proponent would come back to the
Planning Commission and Council with a plan to develop 2
tennis courts and an addition to the building at a later
date. He stated that the tennis courts would be proposed
to be City-owned and used.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed
this item at its October 11, 1988 meeting and recommended
approval for Rezoning and Platting request with a 7-0
vote. Enger said that the timing of the construction of
the parking ramp and dedication of the tennis courts to
the City was a recommendation of the Planning Commission.
He stated that the Planning Commission was concerned that
the parking ramp be in place and a study be completed
prior to any further expansion of the facility. Enger
reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the project per plans dated September 21, 1988, the
Staff Report dated October 7, 1988, and the Planning
Commission's conditions set forth in the October 7, 1988
report. Enger said that as part of the landscape plan the
Planning Commission believed that it was important to
included a buffer on the south side of the tennis court
area, to which the proponent had agreed. Enger stated
variances were required which would be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals. Enger stated that even with the
addition of the land the lot was still too small according
to code.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission reviewed the proposal at its October
17, 1988 meeting and recommended approval of the project
on a 6-0 vote per the Staff Report of October 7, 1988.
Lambert said that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission recommended accepting the land
donation and the construction of the tennis court as
proposed by the developer. He said that the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission was concerned
about how the public would have equal access to the tennis
cnurta as compared to the members of the club. Lambert
stated that all of the City courts were on a first-come-
first-served basis and recommended a bank of four courts
in lieu of two courts. Lambert stated that the Health
Club had assured the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission that the members would be informed of the rules
and regulations.
City Council Minutes 6 November 1, 1988
Anderson asked the proponent if it would not be better off
looking for another location to build another club.
Anderson questioned if it was appropriate to expand
parking facilities when the facilities inside were crowded
currently. Kimpell stated that rapacity inside the
facility had not been a problem at this time. Anderson
believed that the traffic and club capacity were at peak
limits now. Anderson said that possibly the traffic
problem would be solved; however, would this proposal
solve the capacity problem. Kimpell replied that indoor
tennis time was a problem with all the other clubs as well
and that this proposal would not solve that particular
problem. Kimpell said that this facility was busier than
other clubs.
Anderson asked what parcels would be dedicated to the City
and would any grading be taking place. Kimpell pointed
out the proposed area and assured the Council that there
would be no grading in the upper hill area.
Peterson asked Kimpell if the dedication of the property
to the south to the City would preclude any further
development. Kimpell replied that the project would be
land locked.
Peterson asked Kimpell what security was being proposed
for the parking ramp. Kimpell replied that security staff
currently patrolled the parking lot on the hour and half
hour and assisted in starting cars. He said that this;
would be continued in the parking ramp and would be
Increased if necessary. Kimpell said that cut-off
lighting would be installed. Peterson commented that
parking ramp structures were more difficult to secure than
flat lots and stated concern about what was being proposed
to provide a secure facility. Kimpell stated that at this
time security staff would walk the ramp and additional
lighting provided. Peterson asked Kimpell if a camera
monitoring system was being considered. Kimpell stated
that the camera monitoring system had not proven fully
effective in the past. Peterson asked Enger if the
security issue had been addressed by Staff. Enger replied
that the discussion had centered on the lighting of the
ramp. Enger :.;aid that the proponent did have the ability
to enclose the parking ramp with a mesh cyclone fence,
which would limit the access; to the ramp from one
location. He said that shriek alarms had also been
discussed. Kimpell said that the club management was
concerned about the quality of a shriek alarm system.
Kimpell said that the camp would have adequate security
staff and that a camera monitoring system could be
installed. Peterson stated that he would like to see more
specific details for security and questioned what happened
with the discussion of the cyclone fence. Kimpell replied
that a fence could be installed; however, there was
City Council Minutes 7 November 1, 1988
concern about the aesthetics of a cyclone fence. Peterson
believed that precautions should be taken now.
Harris asked Enger to expand on the variance reguirtw,antc.
Enger replied that at the time the Racquet Club came in
for review the City Ordinance had a provision for floor
area ratio not to exceed 30% for a single story or 50 %
for a multiple story building. He said that the Ordinance
had been administered that the 30% governed the footprint
of the building. Enger stated that attorneys representing
the club had pointed out that there were portions of the
building that were two story and, although they were in
excess of the 30%, they were not in excess of the 50%.
Enger said that the base area ratio had been developed to
allow the ordinance to be administered as Staff and the
Council had originally intended and therefore, the
Ordinance was amended. He said that the base area ratio
was defined as the footprint area. Enger stated that the
purpose was to keep building sizes limited in relation to
the size of the property. Enger stated that now the
building was bigger than the Ordinance allowed and would
require a variance.
Pidcock asked what kind of inspection plan had been
Implemented for the structural integrity of the parking
ramp. Enger replied that the plan had not been developed
yet. He said that Staff was working with the architect
and the City's Inspection Department. Enger said that
specific plans would be part of the developers agreement
and would be available by the time of 2nd Reading.
Julie Stevens, 6259 St. Johns Drive, stated objection to
the parking structure. Stevens believed that the club was
big enough and that the parking ramp would not be
aesthetically pleasant. She believed that the shuttle
service had helped the parking problem. Stevens stated
that currently the lights from the parking area shine in
her windows. She stated concern about the security of the
parking ramp. Peterson asked Stevens if she was a
resident when the initial proposal for the club was
presented. Stevens stated that she was and that at the
time she believed that the club would be a better
alternative than a shopping center. She stated that the
building was bigger than what she had perceived originally
and believed it to be too big for the property.
Enger asked Kimpell to explain the plans for lighting and
landscaping being proposed for Stevens. Kimpell replied
that the lights would be in the same area, but would be
higher. He said the lighting would be cut-off lighting
with ,additional lighting within the structure. Stevens
stated a concern about more lighting being installed.
Kimpell said that the glare from the parking structure
would not be as strong as the street lights. Kimpell
City Council Minutes 8 November 1, 1988
stated that the landscaping would consiot of 10-foot
evergreens which would provide an additional buffer.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and approve the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 51-88
for Rezoning and Zoning District Amendment.
Bentley commented that when the project was originally
approved, he and the Planning Director were two persons
who were consistently concerned about the magnitude of the
project. Bentley believed that the City now had a mega
structure in a mini space and did not believe it was the
correct use for the land. Bentley said that a 70%
variance on the base area ratio was a significant request;
however, at this time the structure was already in place.
He agreed that a parking structure would not look
attractive, but there were not many alternatives
available. Bentley commented that if he were to be
consistent with his vote he should vote NO, and even
though he believed the original proposal was a mistake he
would vote in favor of the parking structure, but with
deep regret.
Anderson stated that he had voted in favor of the proposal
originally based on comments he had heard from residents
In the neighborhood that they would prefer the health club
to a shopping center. Anderson said that he hoped the
parking problem would be solved by this parking rasp;
however, he believed that the Crosstown Club developers
should be required to assume responsibility for parking
violations for special events, because the City had to
take emergency measures last year during tournaments.
Anderson stated that he would vote in favor of the motion
because a buffer was being provided and tie believed the
facility filled a need for the community; however, he
still believed that the facility was overcrowded.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution Nos.
88-2.25 and 88-256 for aphravtng Preliminary Plats. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to
Prepare a development agreement incorporating Commission
and Staff recommendations and the Council conditions
relating to the security of the parking ramp
City Council Minutes 9 November 1, 1988
Peterson stated that he would like to see the proponent
and Staff work out the language for the Developers
r.^.reement relatin,l to security and would like specific
plans for the security and monitoring so that it was very
clear what the Council expected so that an evaluation of
performance could be made at a later date.
Anderson suggested that it be written as part of the
recommendations that the Health Club be responsible for
any parking violations because of special events sponsored
by the club.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. VACATION 88-10, Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements
within Welters Purgatory Acres 2nd Addition (Resolution
No. 88-244)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was sent
to owners of affected properties and was published in the
October 5, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-244 to vacate the
easements. Motion carried unanimously.
C. VACATION 88-11.. Vacation of Drainage_and Utility Easements
within Lots 12, 13, & 14, Block 2, Welter Purgatory Acres
lst_Addition. (Resolution No. 88-245)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was, sent
to owners of affected properties and published in the
October 5, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-245 to vacate the
easements. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the Payment
of Claims No. 46378 to No. 46660.
Harris questioned Item No. 46478 as to what medical wastes
the City generated. Jullie replied that he would check
Into the matter.
City Council Minutes 10 November 1, 1988
Harris questioned Item No. 46488 as to what type of waste
Buckingham Disposal picked up. Jullie replied that
Buckingham Disposal was under contract to the pickup
general waste material at City Hall.
Roll Call Vote: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and
Peterson all voting "AYE".
VI. ORi7TNANCF.S & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIOMS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request fqz Citx Approval of Charitable Gambling License
from the Hockey As_3ociation of Eden Prairie (Continued
from 10/4/88)
Peterson commented that this item had been discussed at
two previous meeting and that the Council members had all
received phone calls and correspondence both for and
against the issuing of the license for charitable
gambling. Peterson stated that this was not a public
hearing; however, brief comments would be heard from the
audience.
Bob Mizell, President of the Hockey Association, stated
tnat at the last meeting some Council members had
suggested the Association withdraw its request for a
charitable gambling license. He stated that the Board of
Directors of the Hockey Association had voted not to
withdraw the request. Mizell stated that the Association
had come before the Council on two previous occasions and
believed that the Association had provided the Council
with answers to all the Council's questions and had
provided honestly all the information that the Association
had. Mizell said that he knew there was concern from the
pastoral community and that they would like to see the
Association raise money from bake sales, car rashes, etc.
Mizell believed that these types of fund raisers could not
generate the money necessary to get a second sheet of ice
and lower the fees to allow underprivileged children to
skate. Mizell said that if the license were denied the
Association would be looking into calendars or raffles,
which were just a different form of gambling, which was
not regulated. Mizell stated that he understood that part
of the proceeds from the Municipal Liquor Store and the
American Legion Post went to finance the Park & Recreation
programs. Mizell questioned the difference between
drinking and gambling to finance youth activities. Mizell
concluded by stating that the Association needed the
funds, it w.ar,tcd to improve its programs, it would support
the second sheet of ice being used by other organizations,
and believed that a second sheet of ice could actually
generate profit..
City Council Minutes 11 November 1, 1g88
Steve McDonald, 19030 Deerfield Trail, stated that his
family donated over $1,000 a year to the pursuit of
hockey. McDonald believed that Pulltabs would allow more
people to participate in the hockey programs. McDonald
believed that the ice center was a money generator now and
was not a tax liability. He said that he
second facility could generate a positive cash flow and
could be used by other groups in the community. McDonald
believed that the best investments a community could make
was in its children and the positive values that
activities like hockey could impart.
Peterson commented that the issue tonight was not the
value of hockey or any other sport, but the issue of
allowing Pulltabs to sponsor such sports.
John Freemyer, 6115 Harlan Drive, stated opposition to
allowing pulltabs. Freemyer believed that gambling was
not a good value to show to the youth of the community.
He disagreed with the Association that gambling was a good
way to support the Hockey Association. Freemyer stated
that he believed that other sports would want to follow
suit and was concerned about how the Council could allow
one association to have gambling and not another.
Freemyer believed that there were other methods to raise
money. Freemyer stated that fees could be raised and a
portion earmarked for the underprivileged. Freemyer
concluded by stating that he did not believe that liquor
sales justified gambling being allowed to support youth
activities.
Jane Anderson, 11.005 Hyland Terrace, stated as a member on
behalf of the Eden Prairie Figure Skating Club Board, the
Board supported the pulltab request and believed that a
second sheet of ice was needed in the community. Anderson
stated that currently her daughter needed nine sessions a
week on the ice and could only get three sessions a week
In Eden Prairie. Anderson believed that any possible
means of revenue generation should be persued.
Bill Kemp, 7350 Hunters Run, stated opposition to
pulltabs. Kemp stated that he believed in hockey and that
there was a need for ice time to be made available at
reasonable hours for youths. Kemp stated that using
pulltabs was a creative idea to raise funds; however, he
did not believe that it was fair that the Association was
put in this Position as a second sheet of ice had been
hidden in a bond referendum along with other issue;; that
were unrelat.erl. Kemp stated that hockey had merit and
should e considered as part of the community. Kemp
requested that the Council consider ways to create funds.
Kemp concluded by stating that there was a need in the
community for a second sheet of ice and that other means
of funding rather than gambling should be provided.
City Council Minutes 12 November 1, 1988
Bentley stated that a survey had been conducted after the
bond referendum and it indicated that the residents that
voted no did so because the second sheet of ice was on the
bond referendum. Bentley said that the reason Eden
Prairie did not have a second sheet of ice was not because
Of the City Council as indicated in a letter to the Hockey
Association members by Mizell. Bentley stated that he
would support a bond referendum for a second sheet of ice,
which he believed was an important item. Bentley asked
Lambert what a second sheet of ice would cost. Lambert
replied that a shell attached to the existing building
without altering the interior of the Community Center
would cost approximately $2 million. Bentley stated that
if the Hockey Association could raise $100,000 a year and
had 50% earmarked for a second sheet of ice as previously
indicated, it would take a long time to pay for the second
sheet of ice in this manner. Bentley commented that the
Community Center was not a revenue generator, the
Community Center had been in a break-even situation only
twice since it was built. He said that the City would
never recover the capital costs, which were substantial.
Bentley did not believe that a second sheet of ice could
pay for itself in fees generated and could never pay for
the capital costs. He did agree that a second sheet of
ice was needed.
Bentley stated concern regarding Mizell's presentation
referring to a need for underprivileged children. Bentley
said that after several discussions with present and past
Hockey Association members that a program exists now and
had always existed to help underprivileged children.
Bentley believed the underprivileged children's program
should be a top priority for any money generated by fund
raisers.
Bentley stated that he agreed that raffle tickets were a
form of gambling. He said that he had supported pulltabs
for the Legion Club because it was a private club.
Bentley commented that he was not opposed to gambling;
however, he did believe that to tie directly and sponsor a
gambling operation in a public liquor establishment went
against the values taught in youth athletics. Bentley
stated that he had received calls approximately 20-to-1 in
opposition of the proposal. Bentley concluded by stating
that he could not support the issuing of a charitable
gambling license.
Liz Brown, 18195 South Shore Lane, stated that she had
been treasurer of the Hockey Association and that the
"Scholarship Fund" consisted of a payment plan which
parents could work out. Brown said that the policy of the
Association in the past was that no child would be turned
away; however, the child would not be allowed to
participate in the traveling team. Brown stated that the
City Council Minutes 13 November 1, 1988
fees and insurance were high and if it were possible to
put a lid on the fees or even to lower them it would be
helpful. Brown believed that the original intent was to
let residents know that the Hockey Association was still
active, there was a need for a second sheet of ice, and
that the Hockey Association believed It could support a
second sheet. Brown stated that the Hockey Association
was willing to work for a second sheet of ice.
Tom Krmpotich, 10456 Devonshire, asked Lambert If the
Community Center Sheet of ice was not filled to capacity
and if the sheet of ice alone did not indeed generate an
income for the Community Center. Lambert replied that the
sheet of ice did generate funds and did subsidize more of
the facility operational costs than any other activity in
the Community Center. Lambert believed that an additional
sheet of ice would exceed It7 operating costs, but would
not be able to help pay for the capital expenditure.
Krmpotich stated that what was needed was a basic sheet of
ice with a cover to keep out wind and cold, not an
extravagant $2 million building as Lambert had Indicated.
Krmpotich believed that there had to be a starting point
and that the property should be purchased now. Krmpotich
stated that the intent was to try to lower fees so that
children would have an affordable opportunity. Krmpotich
stated that If just one child could be kept away from
using drugs by having hockey or other sports to
participate in the program would be justified. Krmpotich
stated that the establishment would state which
organization was being sponsored by the pulltabs;
residents make the choice if they wish to support the
organization or not. Krmpotich said that he did not want
hockey to become a sport that only the residents with
money could afford to play. Krmpotich concluded by
stating that it was not the intent of the Hockey
Association to bring gambling to Eden Prairie, but to
raise our children in a value system that justifies the
Community.
Theresa Shipp, 14251 Wedgeway Court, asked Bentley how the
City could yet a second sheet of ice. Bentley replied by
a referendum. Shipp asked when a referendum might take
place. Lambert replied that the Comprehensive Park Plan
would be presented to the Council at the November 15, 1988
meeting. Bentley stated that the earliest possible time
for a referendum would probably be in April or May of
1989. Shipp stated that she was in favor of the pulltabs
and believed it to be painless way to make money. She
stated that It had worked In several other communities.
Peterson commended the Hockey Association Board for the
thoughtful presentation and for responding to the
questions presented by the Council. Peterson thanked all
Of the residents that had taken the time to respond to
r -
City Council Minutes 19 November 1, 1988
this issue. Peterson stated that based on conversations
with residents and his own belief he would oppose the
request to permit pulltabs to support youth sports.
Peterson believed that this would be inconsistent with the
community's values. Peterson commented that a major
purpose had been served to focus the attention of the
community on the needs of the Hockey Assuciation, and now
the challenge would be to gain the support of the
community to share that conclusion. Peterson said that he
would look forward to working with the Hockey Association
and other youth associations so that facilities could be
provided to reflect the community'r, valued.
Pidcock stated that she would support a second sheet of
Ice; however, she could not support funding it with
pulltabs. She stated that she had received several phone
calls which indicated that pulltab5 would be inconsistent
with youth activities. Pidcock empathized with the
parents and the high fees; however, the calls and letters
she had received were 5-to-1 against pulltabs.
Anderson stated that as a coach a Bloomington-Kennedy High
School, to support youth athletics with gambling was
against his philosophy. Anderson wished to go on record
as being in favor of a second sheet of ice, but was not in
favor of gambling for funding the second sheet. Anderson
believed that pulltabs and gambling should not be in the
hands of youth athletic associations. He said that the
Legion was a private organization and stated concern about
opening up any of the bars in Eden Prairie to pulltabs.
Anderson said that he hoped that within the next 4 to 5
years that Eden Prairie could get a second sheet of ice,
but not through pulltab gambling.
Harris stated that she sympathized with the goals of the
requests of the Hockey Association. Harris said that she
had not received one call in support of the pulltabs and
since it was her responsibility to represent the public,
she could not support the proposal.
MOTTnN:
Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to deny the request for
charitable gambling and adopt Resolution No. 88-257.
Motion carried unanimously.
Micell stated that he would take the denial of the request
gracefully and would look forward to working with the
Council for support of a bond referendum.
B. Request the Hockey Association. Harris said that she
had not received one call in support of the pulltabs and
since it was her responsibility to represent the public
she could not support the proposal.
City Council Minutes 15 November 1, 1988
B. ReZir_st. by._M.T..S_,._for,_a_n,__Er,ly._Grading_Permi,t_,,,,f n Commence
Soils Corrections in Co— ction with Propound Building
Expansion
Jullie reported that M.T.S. .Systems Corporation was
planning to construct an addition to its Eden Prairie
facility and that plans submitted thus far indicated that
the proposal was consistent with the existing PUD;
however, rezoning of the site to be graded would be
necessary. Jullie stated that Staff recommended that the
City Council approve the request for an early grading
permit with the usual conditions that the grading be
performed at the proponent's own risk.
OTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve th- issuance
of an early grading permit with the understanding that the
proponent was proceeding at its own risk.
Pidcock asked that M.T.S. be informed that the City was
working on the landscaping at the water plant. Dietz
replied that he has had conversations with officers of
M.T.S. and that Staff would do everything possible to have
the project completed as soon as possible. He said that
additional grading was planned on the site to screen the
lagoons and that the project would probably not be
completed until next summer.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Regue_t from School District to Install Bypa s._Lgnes_.on
C^AH T it New Elementary School Site -- Authorize
Fe,as b,ili_ty Study, 52-155 (Resolution No. 88-246)
Dietz reported that the Eden Prairie School District had
requested that the City conduct a feasibility study for
construction of a bypass lane on County Road 1 at the
entrance to the new Cedar Ridge Elementary School.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No.
88-295 authorizing a feasibility study. Motion carried
unanimously.
VIII. REPORTS OF_ngVISORY COMMISSICNS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFTCFRS, BOARDS 5 COMMIS,SIgR
City Council Minutes 16 November 1, 1988
A. Reports of Council Members
1. D..srn _,... On the prj_Qc. s_ 1_---1= eW_i_rj .—a i 3 tP
for the wiste Management Commission.
Harris asked if the Council would have an opportunity to
Interview the candidates. Peterson recommended that an
interview process be implemented to determine the Waste
Commission members.
A discussion took place among the Council members as to
the best time for the interviews.
Jullie recommended possibly the meeting could be scheduled
for November 29, 1988. He stated that Staff was
recommending the 29th to meet with MAC and that the
interview could he dnne prior to the meeting with MAC.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to hold a special
Council Meeting at 6:00 PM on November 29, 1988 to
interview candidates for the Waste Management Commission
and set the special meeting with the Metropolitan Airports
Commission at 7:30 PM on November 29, 1988. Motion
carried unanimously.
2. Discussion on the- letter re4a1dingJ.,,,B,._Frank.lin Homes.
Harris asked Jullie what was being done about the items
presented in the letter from Tina Hanlon, 19017 Joseph
Curve, and were the statements in the letter accurate.
Jullie replied that a detailed response had been prepared.
Jullie stated that Staff would be contacting the property
owners to set up a meeting to discuss the concerns and the
practical limits of how the City could respond. Jullie
stated that the allegation that six months had passed
before a response was made by the City was not accurate
according to Staff reports. Jullie stated that he wanted
to let the property owners know that the City had not
ignored their concerns. Peterson suggested that a meeting
be set up in their area rather than at City Hall and that
the Mayor and at least one Councilmember be invited to
attend the meeting.
Harris asked what the City's options would be to
discourage this type of workmanship in the future. Jullie
replied that at the time of closing on a property the
owner should insist that money be escrowed for repairs.
Anderson asked if builders were required to get a license
from the City. Jullie replied that contractors are
licensed, but bonding was nct required. Jullie stated
that the State Statute required warranty for the
City Council Minutes 17 November 1, 1988
construction for 10 years on the basic structure. He
commented that if bonding were required that all builders
would he effected and this could add possibly C500 to
$1,000 to the price of the homes.
Anderson asked the City Attorney if a builder had a
reputation of poor workmanship could the City deny a
license. Pauly replied that there was a provision within
the City Code for licensing of contractors. Pauly stated
that a license could be revoked for any reasonable cause.
Pauly stated that a hearing would be required and that in
this case the builder was gone from the area. Peterson
asked Pauly if a builder had the same name and came back
to the area a year later could the City deny a request for
a license. Pauly replied that the same basis as before
would apply and if there was a good sufficient reasonable
basis it could be done, this was a matter of judgement.
Peterson asked if the City had ever denied a license in
the past. Pauly replied not to his knowledge. Jullie
agreed that he was not aware of a denial taking place and
commented that many times the builder would come back
under a different name. Pauly stated that the
corporations changing names was a problem because a new
corporation under a new name could not be held responsible
for the former corporations liabilities.
Pidcock stated that the City could keep on file letters of
complaint. She suggested that homeowners be encouraged to
write to the Better Business Bureau.
Bentley commented that if controls and restriction were
placed on the builders that the Council should keep in
mind that there were several reputable small builders that
work on narrow margins that could potentially be put out
of business.
3. M-Lcel laneor?G omm n rom o uncil member
s.
Pidcock asked Dietz if it would be possible to have a
street light placed on Park Terrace Circle. She commented
that elderly and handicapped residents lived in the
neighborhood and it was very dark in the area. Dietz
replied that he would check into the possibility.
Bentley asked Dietz why the two City street lights by the
Lunds store were not on. Dietz replied that to his
knowledge the lights were functional, but he would check
on the status of the problem.
Bentley asked Dietz to inform MN/DOT that the lights on
the entrance ramp on to Highway 169 from Prairie Center
Drive were not working. Dietz replied that this was part
of the City's responsibility and he would check on the
lights.
City Council Minutes 18 November 1, 1988
Harris asked Dietz when the signal would go in at Prairie
Center Drive and Preserve Boulevard. Dietz rrplicd that
the controllers had shipped, the underground work was
completed, and he estimated a mid-January target date to
have the signal working.
B. Repprt of City_ Manager
I. Schedule Time for Sracial City Council Moptippq for
Presentation by MAC (Metropolitan Airports Commission)
on Proposed Airport Expansion
A motion was made under the Council members report to
schedule the meeting for November 29, 1988 at 7:30 PM.
2. Reschedule Citv ��uncll meeting from December 6 to
December 13, 1988
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to reschedule the City
Council meeting from December 6 to December 13, 1988.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Schedule Meeting Canvass of November 8, 1988 Election
Result-
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to schedule the
meeting Canvass of the November 8, 1988 Election Results
for November 9, 1988 at 5:00 PM at City Hall. Motion
carried unanimously.
C. Repor.t_of City Attornevy
D. Resort of Director of Planning
E. Rtaaort. of _pirector of Community sorvices
1. Purchase of Janikula Property
Lambert reported that an appraisal report had been
completed for the Janikula property on the north side of
Pioneer Trail and immediately west of the Metropolitan
Airports Commission flyout zone for the north/south
runway. He said that the property was within the proposed
boundaries for the .Staring Lake Community Park. Lambert
stated that the ,appraisal proposes a market value of
$77,000 for the property.
:E.
City Council Minutes 19 November 1, 1988
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to authorize Staff to
present an offer to purchase the Janikula Property for
$77,000.
Cidcock stated that appraisals were used that were 18
months old and that appraisals should be with G months.
She asked if Janikula had agree with the offer. Lambert
replied that the appraisals used were considered to be
good comparisons in the neighborhood. Lambert said that
Janikula's now reside in Florida, he had sent a copy of
the appraisal to them, informed them that the item would
be on the Agenda for this date, and at this time had not
received a response.
Motinn r..�rrtf,d unanimonsly.
2. Red_FQc}_ Lake Surface Mananement Ordinance
Lambert reported that this item had been discussed at two
Park, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meetings
and that the major concern was noise and limiting the
horsepower of boat motors to 10-horsepower. He said that
the possibility of a noise ordinance was discussed.
Lambert stated that the jetski bikes and other small
recreational vehicles have a minimum of 20-horsepower
motors and therefore, the 10-horsepower limit would
eliminate the use of recreational type vehicles on the
lake. He said that the DNR had informed the Park,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission that a State law
governing the noise levels on all lakes was already in
place; after hearing this the Commission was comfortable
with 10-horsepower restriction only. Lambert reported
that if the Council would approve the 10-horsepower
restriction, City Attorney Pauly would draft an Ordinance
to that effect. The draft would go to the DNR
Commissioner for approval, and then it would come back to
the Council for a 1st and 2nd Reading.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the
recommendations of the Parks, Recreations & Natural
Resources Commission and Staff and forward the proposed
Ordinance to the DNR.
Pidcock stated that she would like to see no motors on the
lake, and limit it just to canoes. She stated that she
had received several phone calls from residents on the
lake that were unable to attend the Parks, Recreation &
Natural Resources Commission meeting--. Anderson commented
that after this wac reviewed by the DNR it would come back
to the City Council for a public hearing and the Council
r
City Council Minutes 20 November 1, 1988
would have a chance to deny the ordinance if the residents
only wanted electric motors. Peterson commented that the
Council needed to keep in mind that; this lake was a
recreational water.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Mitchell Lake Surface Management Ordinance
Lambert reported that a meeting was held for Mitchell Lake
residents with approximately 20 to 25 residents attending.
He said that residents had requested a 10-horsepower limit
and that provisions be made to allow for the two pontoon
boats presently on the lake. Lambert said that he had
discussed this with the DNR and the DNR stated that the
limit would have to be either 10-horsepower or 25-
horsepower to allow for the pontoons, but the DNR would
not allow a 10-horsepower limit with special provisions
for the two pontoons or any special permit usage. Lambert
said that residents did not want the jetskis on the lake.
Lambert commented that he had talked with boat owners that
had informed him that pontoons could use 10-horsepower
motors and therefore, would recommend approval of the 10-
horsepower limit.
Peterson asked Lambert if two 10-horsepower motors could
be used on the pontoons. Lambert replied that the limit
would be one 10-horsepower motor per craft.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to send to the DNR a
recommendation of a 10-horsepower motor limit on Mitchell
Lake. Motion carried unanimously.
Peterson asked Lambert if the jetskis conformed to the
noise tolerance levels of the State noise ordinance.
Lambert replied that he did not know.
Anderson asked Lambert if there were a 25-horsepower limit
on Sundays for Bryant Lake. Lambert replied that there
was only a speed limit restriction for Sundays and
holidays on Bryant Lake. Anderson stated that he would
like Staff to investigate the possibility of a horsepower
restriction for Bryant Lake. Anderson said that he had
received several phone calls from residents on Bryant Lake
that would like to see a horsepower restriction on
Sundays. Lambert stated that if the Council wanted
restrictions for next season the process needed to start
now.
4
City Council Minutes 21 November 1, 1988
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to direct Staff to
talk with the residents of Bryant Lake possible horsepower
restrictions for motors on Bryant Lake. Motion carried
unanimously.
F. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Receive Bids and Award Construction Contract for Trunk
Watermain Extension Eden Prairie Road CSA4 4 and
Pioneer Trail (CSAH 1) I C. 52 147 (Resolution No. 88-
247)
Dietz reported that Richard Knutson, Inc. was the low
bidder. Dietz said that this was a fast-track project and
that there would be change orders, because all the
easements had not been acquired. He commented that there
would be complaints on this project because this project
was in a visibility area along the highway and the
watermain would be going through residents yards. Dietz
recommended that the contract be awarded to Richard
Knutson, Inc. in the amount of $414,840.27.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve Resolution
No. 88-247 awarding the contract to Richard Knutson, Inc.
for $414,840.27. Motion carried unanimouFly.
G._ R_ftv?rt Of Fin_snce Director
1. Set Da for. the__S _1_e.,_of_$9_�BOO,D00 General Obligation Imgr.ovements Bonds (Resolution No. 88-291)
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to set the date of
December 13, 1988 for the sale of $9,800,000 Ceneral
Obligation Improvement Bonds and adopt Resolution No. 88-
241. Motion carried unanimously.
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT.
Meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM.
MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
i TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1988 6:00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard
Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris,
and Patricia Pidcock
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, and
Assistant to the City Manager Craig W.
Dawson
All Councilmembers were present. Councilmember-elect Doug Tenpas also was
present.
The purpose of this meeting was to interview and select candidates to the newly-
created Waste Management Commission. The following candidates were present:
Cindy Adalbert Jan Mosman
Leslie Ellis Tim Pierce
Dennis Evans Lynn Putnam
Yvonne Hargens Kevin Tritz
Fred Hoisington Mitch Wonson
Two candidates were not present:
John Curry, Jr.
George Plaza
Councilmembers asked several questions of all and individual candidates. Some
candidates had questions regarding the scope of the Commission's charge.
Councilmembers responded that the enabling ordinance deliberatley gave the
commission a broad range of issues; however, solid waste matters probably would
dominate the early work of the Commission.
At the conclusion of the interview session, all of the candidates left the
Council Chamber after having been informed that the Council would begin its
selection process.
Councilmember Pidcock nominated Adalbert, Ellis, Hargens, Hoisington, Mosman,
Pierce, and Putnam to serve on the Commission.
Councilmember Bentley nominated Tritz.
Councilmember Harris nominated Evans.
Councilmember Anderson nominated Wonson.
Bentley moved and Anderson seconded that nominations be closed. Motion passed
5-0.
Councilmembers agreed that the initial terms of Commission members should be
differentiated into one-, two-, and three-year terms to establish a staggered
system of three-year appointments in the future. The three persons receiving
the most votes would have three-year terms; the two persons of the seven
selected having the least votes would have one-year terms; and the remaining two
would have two-year terms.
City Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,November 29, 1988
Councilmembers then submitted ballots for the seven positions. The results were
as follows:
1. Yvonne Hargens 5 6. Fred Hoisington 4
2. Jan Mosman 5 7. Tim Pierce 3
3. Cindy Adalbert 4 7. Kevin Tritz 3
4. Leslie Ellis 4 9. Mitch Wonson 2
5. Dennis Evans 4 10. Lynn Putnam 1
Councilmembers then cast four votes for Pierce, one vote for Tritz for the
seventh position.
Pidcock moved and Bentley seconded that Ellis be appointed to the third three-
year term. Motion passed, 5-0.
Harris moved and Anderson seconded that Adalbert be appointed to the second two-
year term. Motion passed 5-0.
Bentley moved and Harris seconded that the Council cast a unanimous ballot for
the following nominees and terms.
Ellis 2/28/92 Evans 2/28/91
Hargens 2/28/92 Hoisington 2/28/91
Mosman 2/28/92 Adalbert 2/28/90
Pierce
Motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
<i
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
December 13, 1988
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) HEATING & VENTILATING
Alran Construction Co., Inc. Spartan Mechanical, Inc.
K.S.C.S. Properties, Inc. Summit Energy, Inc.
Westbrook Development, Inc.
PLUMBING
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Accent Plumbing
College City Plumbing & Heating
B & J Construction McQuire Mechanical
Lakin Enterprises, Inc. SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Scott Construction Corp.
Stone Arch, Inc. Thompson Plumbing
Sussel Corporation
K. C. Winchell Co., Inc.
GAS FILTER GAMBLING
McQuire Mechanical Telephone Pioneers (Raffle of Calendars
on 1-23-89)
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
�_eGEC._at o i
Licensing
21�
1
4r MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Environmental Services Manager 7Xlr
DATE: November 3, 1988
SUBJECT: Tax Forfeited Lands
Hennepin County has just notified the City that there are two parcels of
property which have been forfeited due to non payment of taxes. These parcels
are described as follows:
Parcel 1 - 8-116-22-12-0038 - Outlot A. Duck Lake Vista
This parcel of property is wetlands and contains a small pond. The parcel is
landlocked and doesn't have a public access point.
Parcel 2 - 8-116-22-23-0062 - Outlot A, Lorence 2nd Addition
This parcel of property is adjacent to Round Lake Park and was originally to
be deeded to the City as an access point for Round Lake Park. For what ever
reason the property wasn't deeded, however, a bike trail was constructed to
link non motorized traffic from Hames Way into the Round Lake Park loop trail.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommends that we do not acquire parcel 1 because it would not
serve any public recreational purpose; however, we should acquire parcel 2
since this was intended to be City owned from the time of platting.
SAF:mdd
a
Al
' Parcel 1 ('S)
9
IORES r �!
� '. •`.� (Iti) A- �7•,o'er' (71 t
t 16 n!> pro e,.•e•-
p 10)
P 7 131
n•
(z1) 1 ,a I m.>s n. HIIICRES
wer•rq.pt.f >',��h. ..`.ice • 'e� ris'
�D u (27) F j 61) T' a t•o) 16?IS
/t LG _ 7070 � �0}0 - a ...+'1��-41- (e2;
e. (25)^ S (.40 g y
.r. 16690` CC1 (27) 4 /6yy�r7, I> .Y... (e
� .+r.s• r O �I
e` �. e.tos• e.v`'r Sl2e)- ran• rri.N .• �_ (56)i.�e.er:.' �p'1liA
-1550 40 •''°• i 9 :..
CT N 8t (le) A (7) i..• .• '� ~ QU19' Ilp
IOSI �t /6460 I � .a• vo.s * 1, is
75) V lelrs• - t,,� s I .- r.,s r 16 i3 (53 y(52) j
4.. fi s 7 I (55)
a {,91 V R(7n• 16b.1f' _ �(p(7)
(.,, _ (In ((() • 1... 9i �� (5�) = N\\J D
16 77 /6IVY, I n. `•4 1� 163� il•'Ss0 .I6 I
�• A HILLCRESi C1 H 1 �'o7.s._ qs• nr tto•_ AJ
NORTHi,,
• � qy'7 8 ns• ns 1
LL J� I .o•w• - (2) e 16
G• 7 11 1� SG y—. ? IA (I) 8 (/ CO) e) '
IG37711 11��
�r �z.n• rss• �l/{ n
IMP®millMINIM ®® 116-123)
�®®®®®®v®®®®�S®�����®®����
1, e .
' v �tIS4 r ,b, sr . p•r,...i phi •q. 'b. 8: 7 f.,yp.ee'd
a ly
(61) - �• -(JS)� ® (9 -102)
i b�Slr ^�r�n• Q� 4,0�.t'b .rr•4 (5562) 40
• , (60) z g('.f6�19: lFl"�' e'. Y�^�g� t• lea .pG'i. hey
' ' n .b. > D (91-98)!L , '� NO •^
(J3) I F
t 'o a• •fry, � 1s � -,I
(72),ni v _ �' ADO i� 'a� a• " ° P�"�• dt°�d 'let"' tr
nt tnp. i,o• u '(esS'a Lo�nl0 (Jt)
;, p ' ' i 7 397 3 ea l(r5 7eP Jg(SB) (JO)F Orl v' 7311
A:i"•' '" . �� �'b e � •''oJ 0 •'I .e` > �•. >°r. CatDOoi c gyp'( p � '
t ,tet (17) �'
b tt v • 'b. b. m ve' 11S3 z4 16 (t7)
iY(E(23) A q o: , si a a• I ilys- srµ'
(4J)A 7775j6 n t g.e r
(I(955) i "° I,o 3-11L. cA n�l(zt :035$7
s ^I. (7 )
''g •' •lr9cnilu sp' 1771)nl�t (79) (27) �.f.s• e77,q' L '7
11 m 10 1
-o tn, 8 5r) b g• . � �ro�pt 1S s {.ur`^ W. rr_e•(•
8 (e1) 8
sort w•A )u w•B beGo.B �. 8 (26)B R(25) d 7h�s e� R Parcel 2
R l ORENCE
>p. - �?^.er u' v,' v, 'sr.e�• WAY p R'(20) i
Aowl llvvl 9lhVt1F 173Yfp � �71 f)7
(21) 8 .
J(52) (51) - 7V�� ((9) 7 ' _ IU...• ,•
vs•
ti r I , I
d�J (60) R(59) R(SB) R(57) e(56) A(55) R(Se)-�I & (57)
R I ,
f>. I
APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. 8 NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Nov. 7, 1988
-7-
B. Tax Forfeited Lands
Refer to memo dated November 3, 1988 from Stu Fox, Environmental
Services Manager.
Lambert said the City has no need to acquire Parcel 1 .
Parcel 2 is adjacent to Round Lake Park and was to be
deeded to the City for access to Round Lake.
MOTION: Richard moved to support the City in acquiring
Parcel 2. Mikkelson seconded the motion and it passed
6-0.
VIII. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
A. Resorts of Director of. Parks, Recreation 8 Natural Resources
1. Naming of Park on Red Rock Lake
Refer to memo dated November 3, 1988 from Bob Lambert,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources.
MOTION: Shaw moved to recommend that the park on the lake
named Red Rock Lake Park,and that the present Red Rock Park
be renamed by the residents. Cook seconded the motion.
On call for discussion, Baker asked if suggestions
should be given to the residents or if it should be left
up to them,and what would be the criteria for judging
a winner. It was agreed that it should be left up
to the residents to come up with names. The Parks,
Recreation and Natural Resources Commission will pick
three finalists and the City Council will pick the
final name. The motion passed 6-0.
B. Reports of Environmental Services Manager
1. Update on Larkspur Trail Connection
This is an information item only.
C. Reports of Recreation Supervisors
1. Update on Data Relating to Students with Disabilities
This is an information item only.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources �.�C—
DATE: December 7, 1988
SUBJECT: Accept Bids for Four Wheel Articulate Tractor with Attachments
The City Council has included $45,000 in the 1989 budget for purchase of a
four wheel drive tractor with snow removal attachments for removal of snow on
five foot wide sidewalks.
In October of 1988, the City advertised for bids for a four wheel drive
articulated tractor with attachments, as per the attached specifications. On
Tuesday, November 22, 1988, the City received one sealed from Boyum Equipment
Company. The base bid for the four wheel drive articulated tractor with snow
blower is $42,682 and a vee plow attachment was bid as an option at $1,247.
Additional options were a 74" wide flail mower at $3,960 and a hydraulic dump
for the box on the tractor at $902.
This piece of equipment meets all specifications and staff recommends
acquisition of the HOLDER tractor with snow blower and vee plow attachment for
a total cost of $43,929.
BL:mdd
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
1. Bids are to be delivered to the Parks, Recreation E Natural Resources
Department, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344. no later
that 2:00 P. M., Tuesday, November 22, 1988. at which time they will be
publicly opened and read.
2. Bids are to be securely sealed and clearly labelled "4 Wheel Drive
Articulated Tractor with Attachments".
3. Bids must be accompanied by Bid Bond, Cashier's Check or Certified Check
in an amount of, but not less than, five percent (5%) of the total net
bid, payable to the City of Eden Prairie.
4. All bids must be submitted on the enclosed Proposal Form, one copy of
which is for the bidder's records.
S. All bids shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications as
prepared by the City of Eden Prairie.
6. Bids may not we withdrawn until 30 days after they are opened.
7. The right is reserved by the City Council to reject any or all bids.
8. Terms are cash within 30 days of delivery.
r.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOUR WHEEL ARTICULATED TRACTOR WITH ATTACHMENTS
Bids Close: 2:00 P. M.
Tuesday, November 22, 1988
NOTICE is hereby given that sealed bids will be received until 2 P. M.,
Tuesday, November 22, 1988, by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources and City Clerk, City of Eden Prairie, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden
Prairie, Minnesota 55344 (Tel: 937-2262, ext. 27D) for the following:
ONE 4 WHEEL DRIVE ARTICULATED TRACTOR WITH ATTACHMENTS
Specifications and proposal forms may be obtained at the Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources Department, City of Eden Prairie.
Each bid must be accompanied by a bid bond for at least five percent (5%) of
the amount of the bid, made payable to the City of Eden Prairie, which amount
shall be forfeited to the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as liquidated
damages if the bidder, upon the letting of the contract to him, shall fail to
enter into the contract so let.
The City reserves the right to retain the deposits of the three lowest bidders
for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days after the date and time set for
the opening of the bids. No bid may withdrawn for a period of thirty (30)
days after the date and time set for the opening of bids.
Payment will be by check within 30 days of delivery, F. 0. B., Eden Prairie.
The City Council reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive
minor irregularities and informalities therein, and further reserves the right '
to award the contract in the best interests of the City.
All bids must be addressed to: City Clerk, City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
55344, and shall have endorsed thereon:
BID FOR ONE 4 WHEEL DRIVE ARTICULATED TRACTOR WITH ATTACHMENTS
BIDS CLOSE
2 P. M., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1988
ADDENDUM NO. INCLUDED
PUBLISH: Eden Prairie News November 9, 1988
Specifications for 4 Wheel Drive Articulated Tractor with Attachments
GENERAL
a
These specifications cover the requirements for one new currently advertised
tractor with front mounted snowblower with full factory warranty. This tractor
shall be equipped with all standard equipemnt as currently advertised by the
manufacturer, whether or not specifically covered in these specifications, in
addition to all equipment called for herein. All bids must meet or exceed
these specifications.
INTENT
It is the intent of these specifications to describe a new, current production
model 4 wheel drive articulated tractor. These specifications are intended to
describe:
A Holder C500 Turbo or approved equal
QUALIFICATION OF BIDDERS
To gain consideration as an "approved equal", the prospective bidder must make
available to the City for its' use the same model of the piece of equipment it
intends to bid as an "approved equal". This equipment shall be furnished at least
5 working days prior to the opening date of bids. A piece of equipment must be
available for demonstration by the City during that period so the City can
evaluate its performance. In addition, the prospective bidder shall furnish a
list of cities in the State of Minnesota preferably the 7 County metropolitan
area who are currently operating the model of machine intended to be considered
as an "approved equal". Following the review of the unit and the information
furnished, the City will notify the prospective supplier of an "approved equal"
unit whether or not it will be accepted for bidding and whether or not it meets
the specifications. This notification shall be given at least 2 days prior to
the opening of bids.
COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS
All units bid shall be current production model units furnished as specified and
ready to operate. All parts not specifically mentioned within these specifications
which are required for a complete unit and necessary for safe operation shall be
furnished. It shall be equipped with the equipment and accessories which are
included as standard in the advertised and published literature for the unit.
The complete unit as furnished shall meet all current Federal Highway Safety
Standards and all current OSHA requirements. Catalog information showing the
make, model and complete specifications of the unit the bidder proposed to furnish
shall accompany the bid.
SERVI^E
The bidder shall state in his proposal the location of the nearest stock of
repair parts or servicemen who may be called if required.
MANUALS
The contractor agrees to furnish operator's manuals, repair manuals, and parts
books at the time delivery.
TRAINING PROGRAM
The contractor agrees to provide a training program for employees in sufficient
scope to assure efficient and economical performance and maintenance of equipment.
1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION - MAKE AND MODEL
Current production mode1-1989. The tractor to be furnished shall have a
FRAMELESS all cast iron transaxle, articulated power steering and four wheel
( drive on four equally sized tires.
2. ENGINE
The engine shall be a turbo charged diesel with a minimum 64 horsepower. Engine
must be equipped with dry element air cleaner with precleaner and maintenance
indicator, heavy duty muffler with heat guard and full flow oil filter with
bypass.
3. TRANSMISSION
Mechanical drive type, synchronized, with 8 forward and 4 reverse speeds, with
creeper gear.
4• POWER TAKE OFF (P.T.O.)
Front 540 RPM @ 2360 Engine RPM Rear 1000 RPM @ 2390 Engine RPM Reduction Gear
box for P.T.O. 540 RPM.
5. STEERING G SYSTEM
Steering shall be hydraulic system. Steering shall be articulated design, two
cylinder closed system, priority flow with safety reservoir, steerable when motor
is shut down. Articulated joints shall have high strength spherical type
bearings.
6. HYDRAULIC SYSTEM AND 3 PT. LINKAGE LIFT CAPACITIES
Bosch gear type pump (12-14 GPM), system pressure 2800 psi,
filter, front 3 Point linkage; y P P pressure in line
allowing attachment g 2 lift cylinders, special pendulum arm movement
2866 lbs., Lift, down opressure ow gand nfloatation Posd contourt t hydraulic outlets,hitch Cat. 1, Lift capacity
acting front, 2 double acting rear. Hydraulic accumulator for transportdofble
attachments shall be furnished.
7. DIFFERENTIAL LOCK
Positive 4 wheel lock required, hydraulically actuated on 4 wheel
simultaneously by means of hand lever in cab.
8. BRAKES
Drum brakes, simplex inboard type, acting on all four wheels, hand parking
brake acting an all four wheels with indicator light on dashboard.
9. FLAT_ BED BOX
Rear mounted with folding side and rear tail gates, attached tool box, manual
dumping left and right, hydraulic rear dumping (optional),
10. REAR 3 POINT LINKACC
1 lift cylinder, lift cap, (1102 1Ls,, 500 KG), down pressure, lift and float
control, penulum designed lift arms allowing attachment to follow ground
contours, linkage arms feature quick hitch to to
as on front 3 point
linkage, rear and front hitch dimensions same at that attachments will fit
both ends.
11. REAR HYDRAULICS
Rear mounted double acting coupling
t 12. Both front and rear hydraulics to have quick couplers
13. DIFFERENTIAL LOK
Positive 4 wheel lock required, hydraulically actuated on 4 wheel simultaneously
by means of hand lever in cab.
14. STEERING SYSTEM
Steering shall be hydraulic system. Steering shall be articulated design, two
Cylinder closed system, priority flow with safety reservoir, steerable when
motor is shut down. Articulated joints shall have high strength spherical type
bearings.
15. SPEED
Range one to twenty MPH
16. TIRES
Standard tire: 10.5 x 18 as 6 ply rating with wheel weights. A spare fire with
rim shall be furnished.
17. ELECTICAL SYSTEM
Bosch 3 phase alternator, 33 amp. 12 volt system, battery 80 amp (or larger)
HR rating or 395 amp total, Bosch fly wheel starter, cold start glow plug, 2
headlights with high/low beam with dash indicator light, signal lights front
and rear, brake lights, 4-way flasher front and rear, license plate light,
horn, dome lights on gauge, fuel gauge, temp, gauge, combination tachometer,
hourmeter, speedometer and RPM tachometer, all gauges sealed, 2 top mounted
working lights, 2 fuse panels.
18. SNOW BLOWER
Blower shall have an opening of the following dimensions: width-51", height-38"
two spiral augers 13" diameter full length, supported by heavy duty'4 bolt sealed
bearings. Driven by 3/4" pitch roller chain with fan and auger shear pin
protected. The blower shall have a 22" diameter and be 6" wide. The chute shall
be a sidewalk model, heavy duty quick removable. Hydraulic cylinder control
of deflector to be provided. Rotation of chute vernier to be controlled by
hydraulic motor with worm and sprocket. P.T.O. to be Weasler heavy duty
cutting edge-3/8"-3".
OPTIONS
Vee Plow: Heavy duty construction, quick detach 3 point mounted 50" wide witf:
replaceable cutting edge and nose plate.
72" Flail Mower: Heavy duty construction, quick detach, 3 point mounted.
Bidder shall specify earliest delivery date.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ONE 4 WHEEL ARTICULATED TRACTOR WITH ATTACHMENTS
PROPOSAL FORM
City Council
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Councilmembers:
The undersigned has examined the specifications and bid material on file in
the City offices and hereby proposes to furnish the following item in
conformance with said specifications:
ONE FOR WHEEL ARTICULATED TRACTOR WITH ATTACHMENTS
Total F.O.B. Eden Prairie $ 42,682.00
The equipment is to be completely serviced by dealer before delivery subject
to inspection and approval by the City. No material deviation from the
specifications will be permitted.
Bid price does not include Federal or State taxes. It is agreed that the
equipment will be delivered complete on or before Januar 5, 1989
and failure to do so within this period will be cause for cancellation of t e
purchase order. '
Bid security equal to at least five (5%) of the total net bid accompanies this
proposal, the same being subject to forfeit in the event the bidder defaults.
It is understood by the undersigned that the City reserves the right to reject
any or all bids, and that the bids may not be withdrawn until 30 days after
the bids are opened.
9oyun Equipment, Inc
hlRM
OPTIONS: �/
AUTHORIZED GNATURE �—
Vee Plow $1,247.00 President ((//
74" Flail TITLE
3,960.00
Hydraulic Durn 7780 215 Street West
P 902.00 ADDRESS
612-469-5650
PHONE NUMBER
November 22, 1988
( DATE
EXHIBIT CC
ORDINANCE NO. 0
An Ordinance Amending CATV Relief Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 12-89 , 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 I. 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
$18,000,000 loan made to Grantee to Toronto
Dominion Bank of Toronto, Canada under loan
documents dated April 1, 1982.]
LU [(2)] "Franchise" means the Cable
Communications Ordinance as now or hereafter
amended.
u [(3)] "Local Programming Obligations"
means, for the purpose of this ordinance, Grantee's
obligations under the Franchise and the Offering
for cablecast access, community access and local
origination programming.
_L1 [(4)] "Performance Agreement" means a
contractual agreement between Grantee, City and
SWSCC providing a means for monitoring Grantee's
financial condition, assuring an adequate level of
local programming, and providing for certain other
matters related to Grantee's requested relief[.],_
as amended
Section 4. That Section 5 of the CATV Relief Ordinance is
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 5. RELIEF GRANTED.
While this ordinance is in effect the obligations
of Grantee are modified to the extent provided in
this section.
Subdivision I. Franchise Fees - Percentage.
Until the effective date of this Ordinance the
annual franchise fee shall be 3$ of gross revenues
Commencing with [Grantee's fiscal year 1985] the
effective date of this ordinance the annual
2
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.] 3 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.] A Local Programming Obligations.
Grantee shall expend at least It of its annual
3
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
'fJ �
[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.) lUtaW—SiDD-2, 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 a_nd 3 of this
ordinance.
[Subd. 9.) Subdivision a 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.) Subdivision S. 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 I. All grounds for termination
provided in the Franchise, including the Belief
Qrdinance as amended, except to the extent that
5
s.
i
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 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
,i
(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
i
Prairie View II
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN CDUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 43-88
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, DRDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land
within the Commercial Regional Service District be amended.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is amended within the Commercial Regional Service District and shall be
included hereafter in the Commercial Regional Service District, and the legal
descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03,
Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of December 13, 1988, entered into
between Johnson Properties, Inc., a Minnesota, and the City of Eden Prairie, which
Agreement is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 4th day of October, 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 13th day of
December, 1988.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
l Exhibit A
Legal Description
Lot 2, Block 1, Prairie View Center 2nd Addition, according to the recorded
plat thereof.
Prairie View II
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of 1988, by
Curt Johnson Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Amendment within
the Commercial-Regional-Service Zoning District on 2.17 acres for construction of a
12,658 sq. ft. retail/office building, situated in Hennepin County, State of
Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #43-88,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of
said property as follows:
1. If Developer develops the property, Developer shall develop the
property in conformance with the materials revised and dated
September 23, 1988, reviewed and approved by the City Council on
October 4, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such
changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not
develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other
respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to issuance of any grading permit on the property, Developer
shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's
approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer,
and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
1
4. Prior to issuance of any grading permit on the property, Developer
agrees to submit to the Building Department, and to obtain the
Building Department's approval of detailed plans for the retaining
walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B. attached hereto.
Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of
materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining
walls.
Upon approval by the Building Department, Developer agrees to
construct said retaining wall improvements as stated above, as
approved by the Building Department, concurrent with the grading and
street construction on the property, and in accordance with the
terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
5. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 4B hours
prior to any grading on the property.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer
agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the
Director's approval of:
A. A revised site plan which depicts amendment to the
driveway/access on the west side of the property, as
depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
B. A detailed lighting plan for the property, indicating the
location, style, and color of lighting standards to be
implemented on the property. Said plan shall provide for 30
ft. high lighting poles and for lighting at both entrances
to the property. Said lighting shall be the same as, or
complimentary to, the lighting used for the Prairie View
Shopping Center located west of the property.
C. A detailed signage plan for the property, indicating the
location, style, and color(s) of all signs to be implemented
on the property. Said plan shall depict individual letters,
internally lit, with a uniform color, and a maximum height
of 24 inches, and a maximum length of sign as 15 ft. Said
plan shall also depict a free-standing pylon sign, located
along Plaza Drive, which is consistent with the materials
used for the retail and office signage on the property. The
signage shall be the same as, or complimentary to, the
signage used for the Prairie View Shopping Center, located
west of the property.
D. Samples of exterior materials to be implemented on the
structure, including metal, glass, brick, and block samples.
Said exterior materials shall be the same as, or
complimentary to, those used for the Prairie View Shopping
Center located west of the property.
s
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with
the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
7. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer
agrees to provide to the City a copy of a cross access easement for
the property, which provides for cross access with the land to the
west, Prairie View Center.
Prairie View II
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION MO. 88-251
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 43-88 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 43-88 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 13th day of December,
1988;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 43-88, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 43-88 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on December 13, I9B8.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
'I
t.
Prairie View II
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 43-88
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Sum: This Ordinance allows amendment of the zoning of property
located north of Plaza Drive, east of Prairie View Shopping Center Mitchell Road,
east of Red Rock Lake, within the Commercial Regional Service District, subject to
the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this
Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of 19B8.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
r3
a
"2
.qdy
'1 �
Red Rock Ranch
(aka Boulder Pointe)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 35-88-PUD-9-88
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 9-88-
R1-13.5 District (hereinafter "PUD 9-88-R1-13.5").
Sectithat certainon 3. e land shall e subject
j h terms and
Developer's AgreementdatedasofDecember131988, entered
oninto
between R. H. Mason Homes, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter
"Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains contain the terms and
conditions of PUD 9-38-R1-13.5, and is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 9-88-R1-13.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan
of the City.
B. PUD 9-88-R1-13.5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable
and unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of
the City Code, that are contained in PUD 9-88-R1-13.5, are justified
by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 9-88-R1-13.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement
that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a
complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and
hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
Planned Unit Development 9-88-R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land
in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph
B, shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 16th day of August, 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 13th day of
December, 1988.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
EXHIBIT A
f
.•I ..
Inwl I nry)1«il 4 if aV).wu).wl«�WIM�1�
f....«. ..)... •lY
•w.w.otw �»r.u•r u�M'l.q�.uln.w• •r�.wa..a�,°,°.ar
i"Iw Wl 'iNI W'0001�I•.)hVngl�))�n1 wV/il.uwill wl 1•W 1)w N
' n)w.i.gj)•s Nl l�.w Snot rims gw4r fr ruW P f.ln µyle lw)
I•wl Y
1•.ww u•.r).Y w wan.
i•lr•o1 W~aY)f«i 1 WI�)1)r.H��))a.'1).w W.Ll.w)«1r..V.yrw-4)t IM
rl«1•fi w`I W'Nf lir1y0 j�/1�iyrvi«l•I•)� L«IV Iw rM w wV)
II
/r i.w 11 Y.•r.V 4i «1/•1.••r•11 Y)IW�)yl.•)'S)w lw•w..yr
• N.•Mwp lr•wMw w)f10 4N IW),W f1yVKfYilil•l.•1.mE11.•wuw.«vii
. 1)r�u«er 1.4Y i•ri
• MIYLry YY Null
8 3 F _tat-c`:: a::: Ev =•
Ua Eg:.
-�=8�-`F � : f •- to::���:_: �..". :L: - i'.:
; ;
!'' -' ��t.-s^ p_ts Q? ems: II-: 8E •! (
! _ �F: ;. .� __ ".:: :S:i f •7 f..��--8_-- -!`.ice •`
pf
"1.2 =� A�� :RdxSlt.^.�:�_ :� �=�3��L.r<<f�Yi`^�::��• '.
9 `:IC��' s' •2Lg.-- s:I �:" .:tom;�:`::f:'�"- :«i'.
'28:•`
Red Rock Ranch
(aka Boulder Pointe)
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1988, by
Robert H. Mason, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, here-Inafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have previously entered into a Developer's
Agreement, dated March 27, 1984, for the PUD Concept for Red Rock Ranch, hereinafter
"the Concept Agreement,"; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend and supplement said agreement; and,
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on
approximately 40 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall
Red Rock Ranch Planned Unit Development Concept on approximately 150 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review with waivers on approximately 52 acres, with
underlying Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on said 52 acres, and
Shoreland Management variances reviewed and approved by the Board of Appeals, and
Preliminary Plat of 150 acres into 61 single family lots, five outlots, and road
right-of-way, all of said 150 acres situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota,
more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said
acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #35-B8-PUD-
9-88, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and
maintenance of said property as follows:
1• Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated August 11, 1988, reviewed and approved
by the City Council on August 16, 1988, and attached hereto as
Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided
herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain
the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Developer agrees to develop the property in accordance with that
certain Concept Agreement dated March 27, 1984, between Developer
and City, except to the extent that said agreement is inconsistent
with this Agreement. Said Concept Agreement, as amended, is
incorporated herein by reference.
Planned Unit Development Concept 84-1, approved by the City Council
on March 27, 1984, for the property, is hereby amended to the extent
that it is inconsistent with this Agreement, and, in particular, as
follows:
A. Phase I of the development of the property shall be limited
to a total of 61 single family lots. No occupancy permits
will be issued by City until the temporary road connection
between the northern loop road and the minor collector road
has been completed by the Developer. Developer shall
construct said temporary road connection with a 20 ft. wide
surface of Class 5 materials and shall be responsible for
the maintenance of said temporary road connection, including
repairs, dust control, snow plowing, etc., on a year-round
basis. Said temporary road connection shall remain in place
until the northern loop road connects permanently to
Mitchell Road, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached
hereto. Developer agrees that construction traffic shall
not be allowed to utilize said temporary road connection.
Further, Developer agrees to mark the temporary terminus of
the northern loop road with a street sign indicating that it
is a "temporary dead-end" for purposes of notifying future
residents of the intent to extend the northern loop road to
the east.
B. The intersection of the minor collector road and Mitchell
Road shall be designed with the minor collector road as the
dominant road movement and existing Mitchell Road shall "T"
into the minor collector road from the south, all as
depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto, and made a part
hereof.
C. The density for the property is hereby amended to decrease
the total number of units from 535 to a range of 250-300
based on Exhibit B, attached hereto, and made a part hereof.
D. Item #9 of the Concept Agreement is hereinafter deleted and
no longer applies to the property.
's
8
�lJ'i�
E. Items 17, 18, and 19, of the Concept Agreement, referencing
Exhibits C, D, and E, are hereinafter deleted and no longer
apply to the property.
F. The following densities are established for the future
phases of the property which are not being rezoned to R1-
13.5 by Ordinance #35-88-PUD-9-88:
1) Phase I is established at net mere than 61 units.
2) Phase II is established at not more than 30 units.
3) Phase III is established at not more than 86 units.
4) Phase IV is established as a range of 42 - 92 units.
Any units beyond 42 for said Phase IV may be
possible, subject to a detailed review of the site
and architectural plans for said Phase IV, and based
on the following performance criteria:
a) Sensitivity shown to the existing land forms
and vegetation.
b) Heavy use of landscaping to decrease the
scale of the buildings to be constructed in
said Phase IV.
c) Buildings in said Phase IV shall be designed
to be residential in character and the mass
of said buildings shall be reduced through
specific architectural treatments such as
varied roof heights and building jogs.
5) Phase V is established at not more than 31 units.
4. Concurrent with, and as part of the final plat for the property,
Developer agrees to provide for the following:
A. Deletion of the islands from the cul-de-sacs.
B. Redesign of the intersection of existing Mitchell Road and
the collector road through the property in order to conform
to the configuration as depicted in Figure #3, Alternate B
of the Feasibility Report for Mitchell Road/Research Road,
I.C. #52-051, dated April, 1988, attached hereto as Exhibit
D.
C. Dedication to the City of the following:
1) A 4.017 acre parcel, designated as "Park" in Exhibit
B, attached hereto, located at the intersection of
northwest of the Northern Loop Road, north of B
Street, east of Red Rock Lake. City shall commence
construction of said park facility in Spring, 1989.
J
2) Outlot A, located east of Research Road, as depicted
in Exhibit 8, attached hereto, consisting of 0.14
acre, to be added to Staring Lake Park.
3) A 40 ft. wide outlot for trail purposes between Lots
10, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 39 as depicted in
Exhibit 8, attached hereto.
All said dedicated properties shall be deeded to the City
free and clear of any liens, mortgages, or encumbrances. other
5• Prior to release of the final plat by the City, Developer agrees to
submit to the City Engineer, and to obtain the City Engineer's
approval of:
A. A Special Assessment agreement for Mitchell Road
improvements which are currently under construction.
Developer acknowledges that said improvements will benefit
the property.
8• An executed Petition for Local Improvements, as provided by
the City, for extension of the collector road through the
property from the intersection of the connector road between
Boulder Pointe Road and Mitchell Road, southerly, to County
Road N1, and for utilities and other appurtenances in said
collector road . Developer agrees that said petition shall
be submitted to the City no later than December 1, 1988.
C. A Special Assessment Agreement for the petitioned
improvements in item B., above. Developer acknowledges that
said improvements will benefit the property as well as other
I ands in arees Ciy may begin
construction heinarApril, 1990p, or thereafter,tas determined
appropriate by the City. It is acknowledged by both parties
that the assessment may be levied in 1991, with first
payment due in 1992. City agrees that the assessment period
shall be 20 years. If, at any time, Developer provides City
with an executed Petition for Local Improvements, as
described above in Item B., for extension of said collector,
City agrees to install said collector.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to execute, or
cause to be executed and submitted to the City, those items listed
above, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with the
terms and conditions of Exhibit C. attached hereto.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City
Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer, and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C. attached hereto.
{
7. Developer acknowledges that, in accordance with the City's Tree
Preservation Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit E. and made a part
hereof, Developer is responsible for a total of 1,241 caliper
inches of tree replacement for the property for trees which are
planned to be removed during construction, as approved by the City.
With respect to implementation of the Tree Preservation Policy, City
and Developer agree as follows:
A. Prior to release of any final plat for the property by the
City, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of
Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of, a tree
replacement plan for the property for a total of 1,241
caliper inches of trees.
B. The security to be provided by the Developer pursuant to
said Tree Preservation Policy, shall be in the amount of
$32,DD0.00, and shall be submitted to the City prior to
release by the City of the first final plat for the
property. The bond amount shall not be increased, or
reduced, but shall "roll over" from one development phase,
to the next. Said bond shall be renewed annually and remain
in full force and effect until the plantings have all been
completed and it is determined by the City that the
replacement stock is healthy, per the Tree Preservation
Policy in Exhibit E, attached hereto. Said bond shall cease
to be required at a point one year after the installation of
the required planting of 1,241 caliper inches of trees. A
lesser amount of caliper inches of trees may be required to
be replaced if it is determined by City to be appropriate to
do so due to lower tree loss as demonstrated by Developer.
City shall make such determination according to the criteria
listed in Exhibit F, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
regarding tree preservation evaluation of construction
sites.
C. City shall, on a yearly basis, conduct an inspection of the
property for determination of tree loss and tree
replacement.
D. If additional trees are saved by Developer during
construction, Developer agrees to provide City a survey of
such additionally saved trees for review by the City. If it
is determined by City that such trees have been saved, City
will give Developer credit towards the total number of
caliper inches in the tree replacement plan. The
determination as to whether the trees) will be saved, or
lost shall be made by City based on Exhibit F, attached
hereto.
8. Developer agrees to notify the City and the Watershed District at
least 48 hours in advance of any grading, or tree removal, on the
property.
9. Developer agrees to implement erosion control measures and adequate
protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where
grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said
measures. Developer agrees that said protective measures shall
include, but not be limited to:
A. Grading shall be confined to that area of the property
within the construction limits.
B. Snow fencing shall be placed at the construction limits
within the wooded areas of the property prior to any grading
upon the property.
C. City shall perform an on-site inspection of said protective
measures on the property by the City. Developer shall
contact City for said inspection. City agrees to inspect
said protective measures on the property within three (3)
working days of notification by Developer. Developer agrees
that defects in materials and workmanship in the
implementation of said measures shall then be determined by
the City.
D. Defects in materials or workmanship, if any, shall be
corrected by Developer. Developer agrees to call City for
reinspection of the implementation measures, and to receive
approval by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit
by the City. Approval of materials and workmanship may be
subject to such conditions as the City may impose at the
time of acceptance.
1D. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to
the Director of Planning and obtain the Director's approval of a
tree inventory of those trees within 25 ft. outside of the
construction limits, which are not planned to be removed by
construction on the property as approved by City, indicating the
size, type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in
diameter, or greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level.
Developer and City agree that it may be appropriate to change said
construction limits from time to time to adjust to site conditions,
topographical variances, aerial survey inaccuracies, and the like.
If Developer desires such a change, Developer shall notify City of
any proposed change and City shall inspect the property within 46
hours of said notification to determine whether such change shall be
of a lesser impact on the property than previously agreed to
construction limits. If City finds that there is a lesser impact on
the property, the construction limits may be altered as approved by
the City.
11. If any such trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the
construction limits as discussed in item #1D., above, Developer
agrees that prior to issuance of any building permit for the
property, Developer shall:
A. Submit to the Director of Planning, and obtain the
Director's approval of a reforestation plan for all trees
removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction
area. Said plan shall indicate that the trees shall be
replaced by similar tree species and that the trees used for
reforestation shall be no less than three inches in
diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be
determined by the Director of Planning, using a diameter
inch basis, according to the area of the circle created by a
cross sectiunal Cut through the diameter of a tree as
measured 4.5 feet above the ground.
B. Prepare and submit to the Director of Planning, and obtain
the Director's approval of a written estimate of the costs
of the reforestation work to be completed.
C. Submit a bond, or letter of credit, guaranteeing completion
of all reforestation work as approved by the Director of
Planning. Developer agrees that the amount of the bond, or
letter of credit, shall be 150% of the approved estimated
cost of implementation of all reforestation work and shall
be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms
as may be required by the Director of Planning.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
12. Concurrent with street and utility construction on the property,
Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, the
following bituminous trails and concrete sidewalks on the property:
A. An eight-foot wide bituinous trail along the north side and
a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of
Boulder Pointe Road, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached
hereto.
B. Along both the north and south sides of the the connector
road connecting Mitchell Road with the Boulder Pointe Road,
as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, a five-foot wide
concrete sidewalk.
C. Along the west and north sides of the Boulder Pointe Road
road, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, a five-foot
wide concrete sidewalk.
D. Within the 40-ft. wide outlot located between Lot 10, Block
2, and Lot 1, Block 3, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached
hereto, an eight-foot wide bituminous trail. Said trail
shall be field-staked and inspected by City prior to
construction in order to determine the safety of the steep
grades, need for preservation of mature trees. City
reserves the right to modify said trail design and may, in
its sole discretion, determine that it is necessary to
incorporate a series of concrete steps, to be constructed by
Developer, based upon said field inspection.
Upon approval by the City, Developer agrees to construct, or cause
to be constructed, those improvements listed above, in accordance
with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto and
according to the specifications for Hikeways and Bikeways as
depicted in Exhibit G, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said
specifications may be altered, at the discretion of the City, to
save trees or to match existing topography.
13. City agrees to construct a park facility to be located along the
shore of Red Rock Lake, west of the Boulder Pointe Road, within
Park, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, after such time as
a Surface Management Ordinance for Red Rock Lake has been
established by City. Said Ordinance shall be enacted by March,
1989. Park design, including privacy landscaping plan shall be as
depicted in Exhibit B. attached hereto. Lights shall be shielded
from adjacent homes.
14. As part of Planned Unit Development A9-8B, City hereby grants the
following waivers for Lots 6 through 11, inclusive, Block 3, as
depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto:
A. From the requirements of Chapter 11 to allow for a 25 ft.
front yard setback, instead of a 30 ft. front yard setback.
B. From the requirements of Chapter 12 to allow for a private
road to service said lots, instead of a public road.
[i
I:,
Red Rock Ranch
(aka Boulder Pointe)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-203
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 35-88-PUD-9-88 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 35-88-PUD-9-88 was adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 13th day of
December, 1988;
PRAIRIE:NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 35-88-PUD-9-88, which
is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that
said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of
said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 35-88-PUD-9-88 shall be recorded in the ordinance
book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B
herein, within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on December 13, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Red Rock Ranch
(aka Boulder Pointe)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 35-B8-PUD-8-88
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located west of
Mitchell Road, east of Red Rock Lake, from the Rural District to the PUD-9-8B-R1-
13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement.
Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the
property. full legal description of this
Effective a Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
Ctty Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of 19B8
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
3
a
x
i
��r
{
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-281
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the proposed sanitary sewer to be constructed in proposed Sherwin
Williams building requires a connection to the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commisssion (MWCC) interceptor system; and
WHEREAS, the proposed connection conforms to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive
Sewer Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to submit an
application for "Permit for Connection to or Use of Commission
Facilities" to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on December 13, 198B.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-279
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
BLUESTEM HILLS 5TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of BLUESTEM HILLS 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 BLUESTEM HILLS 5TH ADDITION is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
report on this plat dated DECEMBFR 6, 19BB.
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 DECEMBER 10, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
1
f.o�
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician�I�•
DATE: December 7, I988
SUBJECT: BLUESTEM HILLS 5TH ADDITION
PROPOSAL: Brown Land Company has requested City Council approval of final
plat of Bluestem Hills 5th Addition, a single family residential sub-
division located along the westerly extension of Bluestem Lane, south of
Bennett Place, north of Purgatory Creek in the south half of section 26.
The plat contains I2.63 acres to be divided into I6 single family lots,
2 outlots and right-of-way dedication for street purposes. Outlots A
and B are within the Purgatory Creek floodplain and conservation area
and contain 2.13 and 0.51 acres respectively. Ownership of Outlots A
and 8 will be dedicated to the City for conservation purposes.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council October 4,
1988 per Resolution 88-228.
Second reading of Ordinance 48-88-PUD-I3-88, changing zoning from Rural
to R1-13.5, was finally read and approved at the City Council meeting
held November 1, 19B8,
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed
November 1, 1988.
VARIANCES: All variance requests not granted with the Planned Unit
Development District Review must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, roadways and walkways will be
in stalled throughout the plat in conformance with City Standards and
requirements of the Developer's Agreement.
PARK DEDICATION: Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall convey
to the City, by warranty deed Outlots A and B. Prior to release of the
final plat, the Developer shall provide the City with a conservation
easement over the drainage and utility easement abutting Outlots A and B
on Block 1 as shown on the plat. The remaining requirements for Park
Dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement.
PAGE 2 OF 2 BLUESTEM HILLS 5TH ADDITION
BONDING: Bonding for municipal utilities and street construction must be
provided to the City prior to release of the final plat.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Bluestem Hills 5th
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's
Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $473.OD.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $3,186.00.
3. Receipt of engineering fee of $640.00.
4. Receipt of warranty deeds for Outlots A and B.
5. Receipt of scenic easement documents covering conservation area.
6. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
JJ:ssa
cc: Brown Land Company
Ron Krueger and Associates
'i
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 88-282
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND
ORDERING FEASI8ILITY REPORT
WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make the following
improvements:
I.C. 52-156 (Extension of the Collector Road through Boulder Pointe
to CSAH 1)
and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study
with the assistance of R.C.M., and that a feasibility report shall be
prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient speed
advising the Council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost
assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on December 13, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
k
f
n(7J a
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
To The Eden Prairie City Council:
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City
Council to consider making the following described improvements(s):
(General Location)
X Sanitary Sewer
X watermain Collector Read Southwesterly
x Storm Sewer Thru Red Rock Ranch to
X Street Paving CSAH #1.
Other
Street Address or Other
Legal Description of Names of Petitioners
Property to be Served (Must Be Property Owners)
RED ROCK RANCH 9qBERT H. MASON, INC.
(AKA BOULDER POINTE) ��) —
�Lc,o
As well as other lands 1n the area U
(For City Use)
Date Received /V e
Project No.
Council Consideration / '. - 1 . (`; '•
1
1
CITY CI' EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 88-283
CITY COST PARTICIPATION
T.H. 5 IMPROVEMENTS
WALLACE ROAD TO HERITAGE ROAD
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT) proposes to
construct T.H. 5 (SP 2701-25 (T.H. 5 - 121)) between Wallace Road and
Heritage Road commencing in 1989;
WHEREAS, in accordance with State policy, the City will be participating in
the cost of this project in an estimated amount of $44D,D00.00;
WHEREAS, the MN/DDT is willing to allow the City's share to be repaid in a
series of payments as the work is performed instead of the customary lump sum
amount; and
WHEREAS, the MN/DDT has requested that the City give written acknowledgement
Of its intent to pay its share in exchange for the allowance of a repayment
schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the City
of Eden Prairie hereby agrees to pay its share of the construction costs as
to be determined through the competitive bid process and will execute an
agreement to this effect at a date in the future.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST; SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 88-284
MN/DOT AGREEMENT FOR T.H. 169
ACCESS CONTROL
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT) proposes to
reconstruct T.H. 169 from CSAH 1 to Prairie Center Drive (S.p. 2744-43 (169 =
5-31-1));
WHEREAS, the MN/DOT proposes to construct an extension of Aztec Drive
southerly and thence westerly to a connection with T.H. 169;
WHEREAS, the MN/DOT has requested that the City of Eden Prairie secure access
control for the land abutting the easterly right-of-way line of T.H. 169
between the new Aztec Drive intersection and Anderson Lakes Parkway in
exchange and as a prerequisite to that construction; and
WHEREAS, the MN/DOT has prepared the attached agreement to define the
responsibilities for acquiring right-of-way and access control
segment of the project. in this
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that said
agreement is hereby approved and that the Mayor is authorized to execute the
document on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the City Council on December 13, 1989.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
d
a
- MEMORANDUM
-
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM; Eugene A. Dietz, P.E.
Director of Public Works
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie
City Manager
DATE: December 8, 1988
RE: T.H. 169 (I.C. 52-099) Access Control Agreement
The attached agreement provides for the City obligation towards getting Aztec
Drive extended southerly and connected to T.H. 169 adjacent to Modern Tire.
The MN/DOT is willing to acquire all the right-of-way and perform and pay for
all the construction for this work if the City of Eden Prairie will acquire
access control for the properties lying on the east side of T.N. 169 between
Modern Tire and Anderson Lakes Parkway.
I have at this time acquired access control from the majority of the
property and still have to get the document from AMOCO and the Prince
property immediately north of Modern Tire. Because of the difficulty in
reaching someone responsible to deal with the Prince property, I am certain
that the acquisition of this access control will be through the condemnation
process. As the agreement is written, the City of Eden Prairie will be
responsible for repayment of this amount to the State of Minnesota. However,
I am fairly certain that this cost will be relatively minor, especially since
the State will be acquiring a significant amount of the property for road
construction purposes. The property will have almost immediate access to
T.H. 169 via Aztec Drive and therefore the purchase price of access should be
very minor or perhaps non-existent.
Frankly, the reasons for us to be responsible for access control are quite
vague. However, it is the only condition that the MN/DOT put on us in order
to get Aztec Drive extended and constructed at MN/DOT expense. Therefore it
is a significant benefit to the City and the property owners in that area and
I encourage the Council to approve the agreement.
EAD:ssa
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-285
AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 88-194A
1988 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie levied a special assessment against parcel
number 16-116-22-22-OOD7 in the amount of $3,420.00;
WHEREAS, we received an objection and appeal as to the amount of the special
assessment; and
WHEREAS, upon thorough review, it has been determined that the trunk
assessment for this parcel had previously been fully assessed and that this
particular assessment is a duplication.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Eden Prairie City Council that
Resolution 88-194A be amended so as to delete the trunk sewer and water
assessment in its entirety against said property.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
1
C C
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: September 23, 1988
PROJECT: Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition
LOCATION: Lots 1, 6, 7, 8, Block 2, Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Gustafson and Associates Company
REQUEST: Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 1.67 acres with
front yard setback variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
Background
In 1982, Gustafson and Associates ^i•[ �',
applied for platting and zoning ontl
j�
this piece of property for 17 duplex1`
ir
lots and 1 triplex lot to be known
as Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition. The J� ;�; R f ^'• `r
preliminary plat and zoning district �� '`�'"
\�,
change were approved by Resolution 1 UB i ��\
82-100 and Ordinance 82-11. Two of
?.
the lots in the subdivision were :. �'� •> \ ,
unbuildable due to their proximity ;, y
to Nine Mile Creek and the •� �J Jr
requirement for a 150-foot setback
from the Normal Ordinary High Water ' 'i` PROPOSED SITE.
Mark of the creek. Because of this, v;,`� _ q
>>ti,..
Gustafson and Associates applied for ,�,
a rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, and \
Lot 17, Block 2, to 111-13.5 in 1983
(see Attachment A). The zoning
district change was approved from �-�_tt � //"1'� • ;�. �� r, ` I
RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 by Ordinance 29- `;`T»n + `F'•��. s: J ^S
83. The reason for the approval was
that these lots were somewhat
separate from the interior portion —F.
of the project and that they are
•[•». , 1
located on the main road frontage ,%_--:--r•r '`• � � `
which extends through the Cardinal
Creek 1st and 2nd Additions. Also, ���,''af.• � 1 � � _
the single family land use proposed
were consistent with the uses �`�'�,
occurin on the adjacentproperties. . . <a
AREA LOCATION MAP
c
Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition 2
September 23, 1988
The proponent is currently requesting the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 2, which is on
Cardinal Creek Road and Lots 6, 1, and 8, which is within the interior portion of
the project from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 to allow for the construction of 4 single lots.
Analysis
1. Guide Plan Designation
This property is currently guided Low Density Residential which would allow
both zoning classifications subject to the density requirements of 2� units
per acre. The proposal, as submitted, meets the density requirement.
2. Zoning Classification - R1-13 5 vs RM 6 5
Chapter 11 states that the purpose of the R1 zoning district is to "reserve
appropriately located areas for single family living at reasonable
population densities." The purpose of the RM zoning district is to "reserve
appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of dwellings."
The current proposal would create an R1-13.5 "island" within an RM-6.5
zoning district.
Historically, with an inclusive zoning ordinance, single family homes would
be allowed in multiple family zoning districts. However, because of the
perception of incompatible land uses, exclusive zoning ordinances were
developed. Eden Prairie's zoning ordinance is exclusive which does not allow
uses from one zoning district in another zoning district. Thus, single
family homes are not allowed in the RM zoning district.
3• Current Housing Market
The developer is requesting the zoning district change because of his
ability to sell single family homes at this time in a strong single family
home market. While market conditions should be taken into consideration,
land use statistics compiled by City Staff, has indicated that there are 120
vacant lots for single family development in Sector 6 which
Cardinal Creek. Overall, there are includes
1,194 vacant single family lots within
the City of Eden Prairie as of April, 1988. Based on these figures,
approved single family lots are available for development at this time in
this general location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternative g1
If the Planning Commission feels that the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 2, to R1-13.5 is
acceptable based upon the compatibility of adjacent land uses, the consistency of
the zoning districts, and the background of the overall pjectthat the
rezoning of Lots 6-8, Block 2, is not acceptable for the exactroppositeureasons, the
appropriate action would be to approve the Zoning District Change for Lot 1, Block
2, only.
Alternative A2
The Planning Commission could conclude that the developer is requesting something
that may not be perfectly compatible but that single family homes do not pose an
C C
Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition 3 September 23, 1988
adverse impact upon surrounding duplexes, and therefore could be allowed. The risk
of single family buyers complaining later about imcompatibility of single family
homes being designed for single occupancy but later being converted to duplexes may
be minimal or of little consequence if it does occur.
Staff recommends Alternative 01 subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction of home on Lot 1, Block 2, shall be consistent with all
portions of the City Code.
2. Pay the Cash Park Fee.
A
b(2 ab/
e }
a (22)it le �A
�y�V (46)
\rsa• I r - (23)DUTLOT
9t.4 ,19
\ (52) (14) r. (47)
14e.BT
a4 \¢ 'A20
p�9 ( m (48)
(17 's'�?y'. 1ag.e9.I I � Ii5.7e
q s S IS it MOT e
(26) (49) (53)
■ 3D :` va.n
^Ms. _� s-.f Ng`t•la'E 0 IS7.to
o I199'21100 E Q R`- ,gs:4e (6 `�'e s2 iT (50)
? v IsL.
0y� 9 Nea•oe'E '°ib. 28 n
,(• �, r..a: 4 36.44, t ' '
I ®� (21)h( I(3) (4) (5) �a�(I1)a t b" (9),
(4) J
(5) qQN (8) a3ve� a e
a� Q,., gas R �o t a(I )
(13
/� '8 I ea. .I bt`(' _ � a, -- o„'�,,•, Is"si by '_ _' _
T 4.: IT
�: R.,� J•Ia•09 °i�'.109.93 o (2) (4) iF b�bt (51)a(52) N ''97 R'••
tea w Ry1..N.e` (46) 58)�}�.. .� s s
�1� 43.x4 (3) �i1e «�4v (59) (33)
(4) (3) ',g
62J
14
(2 (26) TS19 y tr.
m
CD
0
(25) m y ls% (4�) or :$ (35)
a (50) •W.
(7)�' ti
$ �%3 `q.�.�• s ��(9) (27) ,
• n yt : o (65 ` s 4e• (37)
�®(22) ° o M li` gga4
(49) r (IV) '. 4e ,� MSy). Ip- a(60J
53)
a o 3 GIs s.(II) ,.. \' ,•34.ea
(20)
o\t r r (47)
N 13 a ,N,
= .+
4c 5 (18) (13�
tt: e�
(28) 0 2p4.1 �9
(17) R ATTACHMENT A t
cg (4N oslm-,— EXISTING CONDITIONS
x94,31 351 N89•�•3!•E � n89.39'33•E xb3.71
NW'
4 00.0
ot 4 C„RDINAL CREEK
T I -
C (20)e eb�x J Slsb (45)
4e (21)` p p�•�
.T (22)zz
�'o• (46)cn
•
laasr r (23)0 nx.rfi
•^fs 4p.
1 OUTLOT A19
(52) (24) r, (47)
\� - 19512 .�
a A11
(17) Pr4 w (25) m (48)rn
-
_. :• gas � 14a39
13 21 OUiIOT B
n2 (26) (49) (53)
^MS'2e•� 7. •� ss.1e
> „; 14
'l0 11151 53 a �$4 411' -IK4� (6 '? ?PJ (27) (50)
51 57 1 _
12 1, OJ `1• .:•..E.A91.7T 167.49
155,
A (22)1 ' N•r�• a`: .r9.�e'0 Mr 'onr (SI)
2 3 •oJ a �51 i. NBI.23•orr
(4) `r..aI - 9644'
�4' 2 (//)t"dl (5) .'°1,(11) 1 4i" .• (9)
(s) q a (8) M 6a 99 g a e
�.6b_ tt A
rT� / .fib '.�� A s 7 '-''` n '0�.:+
0 4 (S5)
a• (2) l yn (4) 4, 3�: 65 n
� '�G
Azp e ° ;eo '109.9 ns u" etic (SI :(52)
119.45 ,�:. .•.(32)
(5) ' ., o Rf fl T..
JS $ �s'1sJ n 0 eJ N 5 e°' P.L` (46) 5B)1SS _ '� ss 111
~ (4) (3) ° :'q'�J> 43.24 145.E Q'�1`26 .b , 1'�ffi 41 -(59) mf (3.3)5
4 % d r (62) `
R(2) I21 u
$ ,_. o cs�34
GY8 (26) IT-la
: (25) m (6)'!xe9.ze v Sh s
%'W- (35)
(24) O 2�� t6 (50IS 62 P�a�
IQ
(23)� ° J' (8) 2� - 1Q t- '$ 46 4e 13D.41
• .)q, 17 'tn ', i S� � \ot (65�` '4,46.'Sr; (37�
V(22) J• re G N �'1. ` �• �� /31
r $ 'p' `f+1e s y (10) ' ?B �� 1'1� 54):'10- D(60)
R y'O (21) gss 2Ay `�• (53)
a o $ s a (61)Is
(20)
ib
2 (19) (12) Donor c
v
¢c (18) •
(28) 16
w 22� tf
("' Z A ATTACHMENT A ,r
t
�•' C •R'y'E 1L p1s .. o
3i �51 �9•�•„•E 8 \�.�n�Mb.� EXISTING CONDITIONS
CAMNAL CREEK 4
•1ao.o •;
Eden I'minc Planning Comm's f,Iccting Minutes `/
September 36,1988 Page 4
u:
N
01
co
co
C. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION by Gustafson E Associates Company. Request for
Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1.13.5 on 1.67 acres with tront yard setback variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,for construction of four single family lots. Location:
6801-05, 6855.59,6871.75, and 6887-91.Stonewood Court. A public meeting.
Ron Krueger,representative for the proponent,spoke about the rezoning request from duplex to
single family lots. He did not have a copy of the preliminary plan,but the proponent was planning to
attend this meeting and bring the preliminary plat.
Don Uram reported that the request for rezoning from RM-6.5 to R 1-13.5 was unusual in that the
properties were not contiguous. Although there are merits for rezoning from multiple to single
family, this action of rezoning may have an adverse effect on the surrounding duplex properties.
The people in the duplex,at this time,do not have a problem with single family homes in the
neighborhood. He concluded to the Commission that the Staff was recommending Alternative#1
whereby rezoning be approved for Lot 1,Block 2 only.
In view of the fact that the proponent himself is not present for questions and comments,it was
noted that he could appeal to the City Council if he was unhappy with the Commissions decision.
Richard Anderson arrived 8:05 pm
Uram stated that other similar requests have been denied in the past. In regards to site grading,
either land use would preserve the same site characteristics.
Schuck summarized that with the proposed change,single family homes and twin homes would be
side by side. The Commission normally approves the two when they are back to back,visually
breaking the two.
Anderson reminded those present that approving multiple and single family homes together would
be precedent setting and create many problems in the years to come for the Commission.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Schuck to recommend approval of the request p{
Gustafson and Associates for rezoning of 6801--05 Stonewood Court from RM-6.5 to R request
within the Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition,based on the findings in the Staff Report dated September
23, 1988.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
1
,:ti
Eden Prairie Planning Commimid eeuno Minutes r -
September 26,1988
Page 5
MOTION
{ Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council the request of Gustafson and Associates for rezoning of 6855-59,6871-75 and 6887-91 from denial of
RM-6.5 to RI-13.5 within the Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition,based on the findings in the Staff Repcn
dated September 23,1988.
Motion carried 5.0.0.
i
{
i
- _ avib
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-276
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive
Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review
and comment; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal of Zachman Development Corporation for development of
Zachman Brothers 1st Addition for Medium Density Residential use requires the
amendment of the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: approximately 5
acres located at the southwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard be
modified from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 13th day of December, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 088-277
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ZACHMAN BROTHERS 1ST ADDITION
FOR ZACHMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Zachman Brothers 1st Addition for Zachman Development
Corporation, dated December 9, 1988, consisting of 5 acres into 16 single family
lots, and road right-of-way, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found
to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting
ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 13th day of December, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: October 21, 1988
PROJECT: Zachman Brothers 1st Addition
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard
APPLICANT: Zachman Development Corporation
FEE OWNER: Doug Grobe
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on 5 acres.
2. Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 on 5
acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals.
3. Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 18 single family lots, 3
outlots, and road right-of-way.
Background C-HWY'
This site is currently guided for
Low Density Residential land uses.
Adjacent Guide Plan designations C-R EG
include High Density Residential to cc
the north and Low Density Res- u
idential to the south, east, and
west. Specific land uses in this w .
area include Eden Lake North, zoned , rO FC. ,
R1-13.5 to the south and west, PU B
Franlo Road to the north, and SER
Preserve Boulevard to the east. The
proponent is currently requesting
the preliminary platting of
approximately 5 acres into 18 single
family lots, 3 outlots, and road �-�--� RM-2.5 �° .'RM'6;5;
right-of-way.
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
. PROPOSED SITE
In accordance with the City
CounciI's policy on R1-9.5 lots, a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from J:rJ,i.r.
Low Density Residential to Medium "_
AREA LOCATION MAP
Zachman Brothers 1st Addition 2 October 21, 1988
Density Residential has been requested. In reviewing this request, the
Comprehensive Guide Plan, Staff looked primarily at the effect on the adjacent land
uses. In particular, the adjacent property to the South and west is guided for Low
Density Residential and zoned RI-13.5. Within the Eden Lake North subdivision,
there are seven lots which abut the cluster units on the south side of Westwind
Drive. These lots range in size from a maximum of 19,080 square feet to a minimum
of 13,520 square feet and average approximately 15,046 square feet. Abutting the
single family lots are seven cluster lots which average 8,662 square feet. The
difference in average lot sizes between the subdivisions is approximately 6,384
square feet. The location of the buildings on the lots were also reviewed. Within
the proposed subdivision, the buildings are located within 20 feet of the rear lot
line which is the Code minimum. The adjacent single family homes range in setback
from 50 feet to 130 feet. Based on the differences in lot sizes and rear yard
setbacks, the development proposal as submitted does not provide a transition
between the two alternative living styles. In reviewing alternatives, the
possibility exists for the relocation of six cluster lots to Block 2 where five
proposed single family homes were to be located. The south and west sides of
Westwind Drive should then be designed with all R1-9.5 single family lots.
Including the existing home, the property could be subdivided into approximately
nine single family lots for a total of fifteen lots overall. Another alternative
would be to subdivide the property into conventional R1-9.5 lots. With this
alternative, a total of fourteen lots could be subdivided. Finally, the property
could be developed according to the existing Guide Plan classification and zoning
district. Currently, approximately 0.96 acres is zoned RM-6.5. Including the road,
2 duplex's (4 units) could be constructed adjacent Franlo Road. Because the
property is guided Low Density Residential, a maximum of 2.5 units per acre is
allowed. Based on a site size of 5 acres, a total of 12 lots could be developed.
Site Plan/Preliminary Plat
Of the 18 lots being subdivided, 8 are considered standard R1-9.5 single family
lots, while the remaining 10 lots would be developed as cluster lots. All of the
standard R1-9.5 lots meet the minimum requirements of the RI-9.5 zoning district.
Standard lot sizes range from a minimum of 9,500 square feet to a maximum of 14,688
square feet. The average lot size is 11,50E square feet.
Lot sizes within the cluster areas range from a minimum of B4O46 square feet to a
maximum of 9,342 square feet. The average lot size is 8,648 square feet. Due to
the size and configuration of the cluster lots, many require variances. For
instance, because a 9,500 square foot minimum lot size is required, all ten lots
require variances. Previously, a minimum lot size standard of 8,000 square feet was
established for cluster lots. In addition, Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12, will require
lot frontage variances. A minimum of 70 feet is required in the R1-9.5 zoning
district.
Because of the R1-9.5 zoning district, this project is subject to architectural
control. This means that no two units on either side, across, or diagonally, shall
be the same unit type. The proponent has submitted a package of unit types to be
built within this area.
Access to this site would be provided from Westwind Drive which provides a loop
street connection between Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard.
Zachman Brothers lst Addition 3 October 21, 1988
Grading
Elevations on this site range from a high point of 832 located adjacent the existing
house to a low point of SIB, within the southwest corner of the site. This site is
generally sloping in a southerly direction. Cut and fill on this site ranges from
approximately 4 feet of cut and approximately 4 feet of fill. The majority of the
grading is designed to level the project site in order to allow for building pad and
road construction. Due to its location on Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard, the
proponent is providing a series of berms along Preserve Boulevard as a buffer
between the proposed single family homes and Preserve Boulevard.
The grading plan depicts the removal of approximately 89 caliper inches of plant
material. Based upon the Tree Preservation Policy, a total of 39 caliper inches
must be replaced. A tree replacement plan shall be submitted prior to Council
review.
Utilities
Water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer service will be provided to this site by
connections made to existing utilities within Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard.
Extensions to service this project include an B-inch sanitary sewer line and a 6-
inch water line. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a catch
basin system located within the cul-de-sac bubble and discharged into the holding
pond at the rear of Lots 5 and 6. In order to prevent overflow from Franlo Road
entering the holding pond, the cul-de-sac bubble shall be raised and the catch basin
system relocated towards Preserve Boulevard. Discharge from the holding pond will
be to Eden Lake through the existing storm sewer system.
Pedestrian Systems
The pedestrian system within this area includes a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the
west side of Preserve Boulevard and an 8-foot bituminous trail along the north side
of Franlo Way. No additional pedestrian system improvements have been identified
with this project.
STAFF RECDMMENDATIONS
If the Planning Commission feels that the project as proposed is acceptable in
regards to land use, density and transition to the existing single family homes,
proper action would be to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 5 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 on 5 acres with variances to
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 1B single
family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, based upon plans dated October 12,
1988, and subject to the Staff Report dated October 21, 1988, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Submit a tree replacement plan depicting 39 caliper inches of plant
material.
B. Revise the grading and utility plan to reflect a higher elevation
for the dul-de-sac bubble and the relocation of the catch basin
system.
Zachman Brothers lst Addition 4 October 21, 198B
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for
review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of any grading.
B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing.
4. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Submit building elevations for lots within the R1-9.5 zoning
district as required for architectural control.
5. Apply for, and receive variances for Lots 1-7, and Lots 11-13, Block 1, from
the Board of Appeals.
If the Planning Commission feels that a transition has not been provided and the
cluster lots in this location are inappropriate, then the Planning Commission may
consider one of the following alternatives:
1) Return the plans to the proponent for revisions which include the relocation
of cluster lots from adjacent the single family lots to within Block 2 and
the development of standard R1-9.5 lots south and west of Westwind Drive.
In order to allow the proponent time to revise the plans, a 30-day
continuance is recommended.
2) Recommend denial of the project citing the inconsistency with the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Staff would recommend Alternative #I.
- 9
i
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 25, 1988
PROJECT: Zachman Brothers 1st Addition
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard
APPLICANT: Zachman Development Corporation
FEE OWNER: Doug Grobe
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on 5 acres.
2. Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-5.5 to R1-9.5 on 5
acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
3. Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 17 single family lots and
road right-of-way.
Background
This is a continued item from the
C-REG
October 24•, 1988, Planning cc i
Commission meeting. At that time, � \ �4
this item was continued for further
review regarding transition to the \
single family homes to the south and %. PUB ;'O FC
west, storm water run-off and ` _
overall utility systems, access, and ;6ER (1� "''! �•
the possibility of developing all
single family homes on this site. SE emu'
The proponent is currently re-
questing the subdivision of 5 acres
into 17 single family lots. l._._7 RM-2.5 'kRM''6:5, _-``✓ RIA%
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change PROPOSED SITE 1
Although the subdivision has been : ,� �• ,
redesigned to include all single '4 t
family lots, a Comprehensive Guide , . .'c.'•' "'
Plan Change from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density
Residential is still required. The RM-2.5
RM-2.5
AREA LOCATION MAP
------------
Zachman Brothers 1st Addition 2 November 25, 1988
r
subdivision will be developed with 17 lots at a density of 3.4 units per acres. The
Low Density Residential Guide Plan designation would allow up to 2.5 units per acre.
Site Plan/Preliminary Plat
In response to Planning Commission and neighborhood concerns regarding transition,
the proponent has redesigned the project to include 17 single family lots. Of the
total, 4 of the lots adjacent the single family homes have been designed as R1-13.5
lots with sizes ranging from a minimum of 13,500 square feet to a maximum of 17,120
square feet. The remaining lot sizes range from a minimum of 8,095 square feet to a
maximum of 13,135 square feet. The overall average lot size is 10,975 square feet.
Because of the existing home location, the width and depth of the site, and the
number of lots proposed, a total of 16 variances are being requested. The variances
are for lot frontage and lot size within the R1-9.5 zoning district.
VARIANCES
Frontage (70) Size (9,500)
Proposed Difference Proposed Diffference
Lot 1 81 _ g
2 59 -11 8,380 -1,120
3 63 - 7 8,950 - 550
11 8,515 - 985
12 65 - 5 9,230
13 60 -10 - 0
" 14 57 8,580 - 930
-13 8,095 -1,405
" 15 65 - 5 9,230 - 270
" 16 60 -10 8,520
- 980
Although all of the variances could be eliminated by removing one lot from each side
of the cul-de-sac, the Planning Commission may consider recommending approval of the
the south homes to
project
based
and west and Franlo Road aand tPreserve ional eBoulevard ce nto the 9north aand yeast. If
the Planning Commission feels that the number of variances are excessive, another
alternative would be the removal of Lot 14 which would eliminate 11 of the 16
requested variances.
In comparison to the previous project, specific changes made include the elimination
of the cluster units, a combination of R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 size lots, and access
provided by a single cul-de-sac from Franlo Road,
Grading
The grading plan will remain approximately the same as previously proposed with the
exception of raising the cul-de-sac bubble to allow for drainage to the north. A 4
to 5-foot berm adjacent Preserve Boulevard is provided for screening purposes.
Zachman Brothers 1st Addition 3 November 25, 1988
Utilities
Utility service will be provided to this site by connections made within Franlo Road
and Preserve Boulevard.
Storm water run-off is designed to be collected within a catch basin system located
in the cul-de-sac bubble and discharged to Preserve Boulevard. A swale is provided
between Lots 10 and 11 to provide an emergency overflow. The holding pond located
along the south property line has ueen enlarged and the amount of run-off decreased
in response to concerns regarding flooding. The preliminary design has been
reviewed by the Engineering Department and is acceptable. Final design must be
submitted for detailed engineering review.
Pedestrian Systems
No additional pedestrian systems improvements have been identified with this
project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Planning Commission feels that the project is acceptable in regards to
density and transition to the existing single family homes, proper action would be
to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Re e Ruraland aRMt6.5etouRI-9n5�on 5eacrrestwith ovarianceseto ben
revieewedrbyisticttheaBoardrof
Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 17 single family lots and road right-
of-way, based upon plans dated November 18, 1988, and subject to the Staff Report
dated November 25, 1988, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, the proponent shall submit a tree replacement plan
depicting 57 caliper inches of plant material.
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water, utility, and erosion control plans for
review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of any grading.
B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing.
4. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Submit building elevations for lots within the R1-9.5 zoning
district as required for architectural control.
5. Apply for, and receive, a variance for Lots 1-3, and Lots 12-16, for lot
frontage and Lots 2, 3, 11-16 for lot size.
Zachman Brothers 1st Addition 4 November 25, 1988
If the Planning Commission feels that a better transition could be provided and that
the amount of variances is excessive, then the Planning Commission may wish to
consider the following alternative:
1. Remove Lot 14 and distribute the frontage and square footage over the
remaining portions of the lots on the east side of the cul-de-sac thereby
eliminating 11 of the 16 variances being requested.
In adiion to
t'lat prior to
Counciltreview,tthecproponent shallonreviseovthe plans toureflectmthedelimination of
Lot 14.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #88-278
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FAIRFIELD PHASES 2 THROUGH 6
FOR TANDEM CORPORATION
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Fairfield Phases 2 through 6 for Tandem Corporation,
dated December 9, 1988, consisting of 118.2 acres into 299 single family lots, 28
outlots, and road right-of-way, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is
found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and
Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 13th day of December, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
=a
r
'r
�`10
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 10, 1988
PROJECT: Fairfield Phases 2 through 6
LOCATION: West of County Road 04, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis
Railroad.
APPLICAN"i: Centex Homes Midwest
FEE OWNER: Tandem Corporation
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers for
street frontage and lot size on 118.2 acres.
2. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 82.7 acres
and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 33.6 acres.
3. Preliminary Plat of 118 acres into 299 single family lots,
28 outlots, and road right-of-way. PU
r
>T -v C
Background OM_ � \
~\
Over the last 6 months the City has
reviewed and approved portions of i
the Fairfield Planned Unit Develop-
ment. Approximately 30 acres
immediately adjacent County Road N4
has been zoned and subdivided for 68
units. The Comprehensive Guide Plan
has been changed on approximately 50 /
acres from Industrial to Low and - --- �,
Medium Density Residential and a PUD
Concept on 150 acres for 367 units PROPOSED SITE
was approved. The PUD Concept was
approved predicated upon the
following: '
PUB
AREA LOCATION MAP 1
Fairfield Phases 2 through 6 2 November 10, 1988
1. Compliance with the final findings of the Southwest Area Phasing Study.
2. Revising the PUD phasing plan to be consistent with the phasing
recommendations of the Southwest Area Study.
3. Develop architectural elevations and architectural styles to create
individual neighborhoods to help reduce the overall visual density of the
project.
Rezoning
Centex Homes is requesting rezoning and preliminary plat approval for Phases 2
through 6 involving 299 units of R1-13.5 lots, standard R1-9.5 lots, and cluster
lots. Waivers are needed through the PUD District Review for street frontage and
lot size. Commission may wish to consider a low tree loss at 3D%, lifestyle choice,
average lot size of 10,500 square feet in the cluster lot area, provision of small
open spaces for private recreational uses, architectural diversity and the
architectural neighborhoods as trade-offs, or reasons for granting of the waivers.
There are four basic types of architectural styles envisioned for the cluster area;
Country, Traditional, French Tudor, and a mix of all of these architectural types.
Staff feels that the architectural types are different enough, and the size of the
areas planned for each style large enough, to create distinct architectural
neighborhoods which will help reduce the overall visual density of the project.
Phasing
Rezoning and final plat approval should be subject to the results of the Southwest
Area Phasing Plan. The ph<esing plan states that no final platting should be granted
on Phases 2 through 6 until such time that the intersection of County Road p4 and
Highway 05 has been substantially complete. The intersection is scheduled to be
upgraded starting in June of 1989 and to be substantially complete in 1990. The
study also recommends that Scenic Heights Road be extended from County Road A4, west
to the railroad tracks on the north end of the project concurrent with Phase 2. The
developers phasing plan provides for the extension of Scenic Heights Road with Phase
2. The developer understands and agrees that no final platting shall take place for
Phase 2 and beyond until the County Road A4 and Highway A5 intersection has been
substantially complete.
Grading
As part of the overall grading of the site, the developer proposes to excavate
90,000 yards of granular material off-site. In addition, there will 50,000 cubic
yards of clay material imported for berming as clay liners for the ponding areas.
The amount of excess cut and fill is more a mining operation than site grading which
would require a mining permit. Considering that the standard truck could carry up
to 14 yards of dirt, means approximately 10,000 trips on County Road N4 before the
mining operation would be completed. If the Commission is comfortable with the
mining operation, it should be subject to a permit being granted by the City
Council. If the Commission is uncomfortable with the mining operation, the
Commission could stipulate that the developer balance the grading plan on-site.
1
Fairfield Phases 2 through 6 3 November 10, 1988
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Staff would recommend approval of the request for rezoning and preliminary plat
approval on 118 acres for 299 lots, with waivers for lot size and street frontage,
subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report dated November 10, 1988, and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Final platting should take place subsequent to the upgrading of the
intersection of County Road 04 and County Road A5. This intersection should
be substantially complete in 1990. Final platting would be subject to other
conditions identified in the study.
2. Scenic Heights Road must be extended from County Road N4 west to the
railroad tracks.
3. Waivers through the PUD District Review would be granted for street frontage
and lot size.
4. Approval of the rezoning and subdivision of this property is subject to the
findings of the Southwest Area Phasing Plan. This would include
requirements for necessary storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water, road
improvements, and cost for major infrastructure improvements that benefit
all of southwest Eden Prairie in the study area.
5. The grading plan should be revised to balance cut and fill on-site.
6. Rezoning would be subject to adherence to the 4 architectural styles
including Traditional, Country, French Tudor, and the mix.
s
I
'r
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE
ACQUISITION OF ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE
SOUTHWEST, INC., BY KBL CABLE, INC.
WHEREAS, each of the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota ("Member Cities"), all of the
members of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC"),
granted a cable television franchise to Rogers Cablesystems of
Minnesota Limited Partnership ("RCMLP") pursuant to each City's
cable communications ordinance (the ordinances and the grants of
the franchise are collectively referred to as the "Franchises");
and
WHEREAS, RCMLP subsequently decided to dissolve and the
Member Cities approved the transfer of the Franchises to Rogers
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ("RCTSI"), which, upon the
dissolution of RCMLP, will be the grantee under the Franchises;
and
WHEREAS, RCTSI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers U.S.
Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI"), which in turn is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. ("RCA"). RCA
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of RCA Cablesystems Holding Co.
("RCACH"), which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers
U.S. Holdings, Limited ("RUSHL"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Rogers Communications, Inc. ("RCI"); and
WHEREAS, KBL Cable, Inc. ("KBLC"), a Texas corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of KBLCOM Incorporated ("KBLCOM"), has
agreed to acquire all of the issued and outstanding common stock
and all of the issued and outstanding preferred stock of RCACH;
and
WHEREAS, under the Franchises, the acquisition by KBLC of
all of RCACH's issued and outstanding common and preferred stock
constitutes a transfer by means of a fundamental corporate change
with respect to RCACH and its subsidiaries, including RCTSI; and
WHEREAS, under the Franchises, any transfer of the
Franchises requires the approval of the Member Cities; and
WHEREAS, KBLC, as the parent company of RCTSI, desires to
leave the Franchises in the name of RCTSI and, to the extent not
inconsistent with state or federal law, including the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, to guarantee, unconditionally,
the full performance of all the obligations and commitments of
RCTSI and its parent companies under the Franchises and all
other ordinances and agreements between the Member Cities and
RCTSI relating to the Franchises; and
WHEREAS, RCI desires the Member Cities to release it and
RUSHL from any and all obligations and responsibilities relating
to the Franchises or to RCTSI's performance thereunder; and
WHEREAS, the Operating Committee of the SWSCC, with the
assistance of the Herbst Law Firm, Ltd., and Don Richards
Associates, has reviewed the proposed acquisition by KBLC of
control over RCTSI and the legal, technical, financial and
character qualifications of KBLC and its parent company, KBLCOM;
and
WHEREAS, the Operating Committee has presented reports and
information to the SWSCC regarding the acquisition of control by
KBLC over RCTSI for consideration; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 1988, the SWSCC conducted a joint
public hearing on behalf of the Member Cities regarding KBLC's
acquisition of control over RCTSI and KBLC's request that the
Franchises remain in the name of RCTSI; and
WHEREAS, based on the reports and information received from
the Operating Committee and on the results of the joint public
hearing, the SWSCC has found no reason to disapprove of the
acquisition by KBLC of control over RCTSI or of KBLC's request to
leave the Franchises in the name of RCTSI.
NOW, THEREFORE, the SWSCC at a special meeting, resolved as
follows:
1. The SWSCC hereby approves and recommends to the
Member Cities that each of them consent to and approve
KBLC's purchase of the common and preferred stock of ROACH
(resulting in the acquisition of control by KBLC over
RCTSI) and the maintenance of the Franchises in the name of
RCTSI, subject to the following conditions:
a. Within ten days of the date KBLC acquires all
of the issued and outstanding common stock of RCACH,
KBLC and KBLCOM shall file with each Member City an
executed copy of a Consent Agreement and Guaranty of
Performance substantially in the form and substance of
Exhibit 1 attached hereto, along with an executed copy
of each document required by said Agreement (including,
without limitation, an opinion of legal counsel,
certified articles of incorporation of RCTSI, KBLC and
KBLCOM, evidence of insurance coverage as required by
the Franchises, RCTSI's letter of credit, and RCTSI's
bond); and
b. RCTSI shall have performed its obligations
under the Stipulation of Settlement and Release dated
2
1988, including, without limitation,
the payment to SWSCC of $3.5 million.
C. Subject to the terms of the letter agreement
dated October 17, 1988, between KBLC and the SWSCC,
KBLC shall reimburse the SWSCC (which, in turn, shall
reimburse its Member Cities, pro rata) for all
reasonable costs, expenses and professional fees
incurred as a result of the approval of KBLC's
acquisition of the common and preferred stock of RCACH
(and the resulting acquisition of control over RCTSI.
2. The SWSCC recommends to the Member Cities that
upon KBLC's and RCTSI's performance of the foregoing
conditions, each Member City release RCI and RUSHL from any
and all responsibilities, liabilities, claims and disputes,
known or unknown, related to or arising from the Franchises
or to RCTSI's performance thereunder, or from the approval
of KBLC's acquisition of control over RCTSI.
3. The SWSCC recommends to the Member Cities that
each of them waive any right of first refusal to purchase
the Franchise or related System, but only as such right-of-
first-refusal would apply to the request for approval of the
acquisition of control by KBLC over RCTSI by the acquisition
of the common and preferred stock of RCACH by KBLC.
Dated this 3 day of November, 1988.
SOUTHWEST
SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
By 61 f1'jI(''
Its Chairperson
SW2
12/1/88
3 -
3
RESOLUTION NO. 'iu J '
RESOLUTION GIVING FINAL PYPROVAL TO THE
ACQUISITION OF ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE
SOUTHWEST, INC., BY KBL CABLE, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City"),
granted a cable television franchise to Rogers Cablesystems of
Minnesota Limited Partnership ("RCMLP") pursuant to the City's
cable communications ordinance (the ordinance and the grant of
the franchise are referred to collectively as the "Franchise");
and
WHEREAS, RCMLP subsequently decided to dissolve and pursuant
to Amending Ordinance No. , the City approved the transfer
of the Franchise to Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc.
("RCTSI"), which, upon the dissolution of RCMLP, will be the
grantee under the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, RCTSI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers U.S.
Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI") , which in turn is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. ("RCA"). RCA
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of RCA Cablesystems Holding Co.
("RCACH"), which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers
U.S. Holdings, Limited ("RUSHL") , a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Rogers Communications, Inc. ("RCI") ; and
WHEREAS, KBL Cable, Inc. ("KBLC") , a Texas corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of KBLCOM Incorporated ("KBLCOM"), has
agreed to acquire all of the issued and outstanding common stock
and all of the issued and outstanding preferred stock of ROACH;
and
WHEREAS, under the Franchise, the acquisition by KBLC of all
of RCACH's issued and outstanding common and preferred stock
constitutes a transfer by means of a fundamental corporate change
with respect to RCACH and its subsidiaries, including RCTSI; and
WHEREAS, under the Franchise, any transfer of the Franchise
requires the approval of the City; and
WHEREAS, KBLC as the parent company of RCTSI, desires to
leave the Franchise in the name of RCTSI and, to the extent not
inconsistent with state or federal law, including the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, to guarantee, unconditionally,
the full performance of all the obligations and commitments of
RCTSI under the Franchise and all other ordinances and
agreements between the City and RCTSI relating to the Franchise;
and
WHEREAS, RCI desires the City to release it and RUSHL from
any and all obligations and responsibilities relating to the
Franchise or to RCTSI's performance thereunder; and
WHEREAS; the Operating Committee of the Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission (the "SWSCC"), with the assistance of the Herbst
Law Firm, Ltd., and Don Richards Associates, has reviewed the
proposed acquisition by KBLC of the common and preferred stock of
ROACH (and the resulting acquisition of control over RCTSI) and
the legal, technical, financial and character qualifications of
KBLC and its parent company, KBLCOM; and
WHEREAS, reports and information regarding the
qualifications of KBLC and KBLCOM were prepared and the Operating
Committee presented these reports to the SWSCC so that a
recommendation could be made as to the acquisition of control by
KBLC over RCTSI; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 1988, the SWSCC conducted a joint
public hearing on behalf of its member cities regarding KBLC's
acquisition of control over RCTSI and KBLC's request that the
Franchise remain in the name of RCTSI; and
WHEREAS, based on the reports and information of the
Operating Committee and the results of the joint public hearing,
the SWSCC found no reason to disapprove of the acquisition by
KBLC of control over RCTSI or of KBLC's request to leave the
Franchise in the name of RCTSI, and the SWSCC recommended to the
City that it approve said acquisition and request; and
WHEREAS, the City, after considering KBLC's technical
ability, financial condition, character and legal qualifications,
and based on the recommendation of the SWSCC, has found no reason
to disapprove of the acquisition by KBLC of the common and
preferred stock of RCACH (or the resulting acquisition of control
over RCTSI), or of KBLC's request to leave the Franchise in the
name of RCTSI.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie:
1. That the City hereby approves the acquisition by
KBLC of the common and preferred stock of ROACH (and the
resulting acquisition of control over RCTSI), and the
maintenance of the Franchise in the name of RCTSI, subject
to the following conditions:
a. Within ten days of the date KBLC acquires all
of the issued and outstanding common stock of RCACH,
KBLC and KBLCOM shall file with the City an executed
copy of a Consent Agreement and Guaranty of
Performance substantially in the form and substance of
Exhibit 1 attached hereto, along with an executed copy
of each document required by the Consent Agreement and
Guaranty of Performance (including, without limitation,
an opinion of legal counsel, certified articles of
incorporation of RCTSI, KBLC and KBLCOM, evidence of
insurance coverage as required by the Franchise,
RCTSI's letter of credit, and RCTSI's bond) ; and
i , - 2 -
b. RCTSI shall have performed its obligations
under the Stipulation of Settlement and Release dated
1988, including, without limitation,
the payment to SWSCC of $3.5 million; and
C. Subject to the terms of the letter agreement
dated October 17, 1988, between KBLC and the SWSCC,
KBLC shall reimburse the SWSCC (which, in turn, shall
reimburse its Member Cities, pro rata) for all
reasonable costs, expenses and professional fees
incurred as a result of the approval of KBLC's
acquisition of the common and preferred stock of ROACH
(and the resulting acquisition of control over RCTSI).
2. Effective only upon the performance by RCTSI and
KBLC of the conditions set forth in paragraph 1 hereof, the
City forever releases and discharges RCI and RUSHL from any
and all responsibilities, liabilities, claims and disputes,
known or unknown, related to or arising from the Franchise
or RCTSI's performance hereunder, or the approval of KBLC's
acquisition of control over RCTSI.
3. The City hereby waives its right of first refusal
to purchase the Franchise or related system, but only as
such right-of-first-refusal applies to the request by KBLC
for approval of the acquisition of control by KBLC over
RCTSI.
4. In the event KBLC fails to comply with any of the
above requirements within the time specified, unless the
time is extended by the City, this Resolution and any and
all approvals, releases, discharges and waivers by the City
set forth herein shall be null and void.
5. This Resolution shall become effective only if all
of the cities of Edina Minnetonka , Hopkins ,
and Richfield adopt a substantially similar resolution
within sixty (60) days after the adoption of this
resolution.
This Resolution is passed and adopted the day of
1988.
DATED: CITY OF: Eden Prairie
The Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
SW2 - 12/1/88
3 -
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND GUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE
Parties: City of Eden Prairie , a Minnesota
municipal corporation (the "City")
KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation ("KBLC")
KBLCOM Incorporated, a Texas corporation
("KBLCOM")
Effective Date: , 1989
Recitals:
1. Pursuant to the City's cable communications ordinance,
the City granted a cable television franchise (the ordinance and
the grant of the franchise are referred to collectively as the
"Franchise") to Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited
Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership in which Rogers
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ("RCTSI") is the general
partner. Pursuant to Amending Ordinance No. , the City
approved the transfer of the Franchise to RCTSI, subject to the
dissolution of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited
Partnership.
2. Pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated August 9,
1988, between KBLC and Rogers U.S. Holdings, Limited ("RUSHL"),
KBLC has agreed to purchase all of the outstanding common stock
and Series A Multiple Voting Preferred Stock of RCA Cablesystems
Holding Co. ("RCACH").
3. RCTSI 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"), which in turn is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of RCACH. RCACH is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of RUSHL, which in turn is indirectly wholly owned by
Rogers Communications, Inc. ("RCI").
4. The City has determined that the acquisition by KBLC of
the common and preferred stock of RCACH (sometimes referred to
herein as the acquisition of control by KBLC over RCTSI)
constitutes a fundamental corporate change in RCTSI which
requires the consent and approval of the City under the Franchise
Ordinance.
5. KBLC desires to obtain the City's consent and approval
and, in consideration therefore and to the extent not
inconsistent with state and federal law, including the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, is willing to guarantee,
unconditionally, all of the obligations and commitments of RCTSI
and its parent companies under the Franchise and other ordinances
and agreements between the City and RCTSI and its parent
companies.
6. RCI and RUSHL desire to be released from all
obligations and responsibilities to the City under the Franchise
and from all other ordinances and agreements between the City and
RCI and its subsidiaries regarding the Franchise. The City is
willing to release RCI and RUSHL from such responsibilities and
obligations, but only if KBLC (and KBLCOM, by guaranteeing KBLC's
obligations) unconditionally guarantees the full performance by
RCTSI and its parent companies of RCTSI's lawful obligations and
responsibilities under the Franchise and all other ordinances and
agreements between the City and RCTSI and its remaining parent
companies.
7. In consideration of the City's consent to and approval
of the fundamental corporate change in RCTSI to be effected by
KBLC's purchase of the common and preferred stock of ROACH,
KBLCOM is willing to guarantee the performance of KBLC's lawful
obligations and duties under this Agreement.
8. RCTSI has requested and the City has agreed to extend
the terms of the CATV Relief Ordinance, as amended, to KBLC
pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and Release dated
, 1988, approved by the City and other Member Cities
of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (the "SWSCC").
9. The SWSCC and the City have reviewed KBLC's technical
ability, financial condition, legal qualifications and character
in a public proceeding after due notice and inquiry.
10. Neither the SWSCC nor the City has found any reasonable
cause to disapprove of the acquisition of control by KBLC over
RCTSI as a result of said review.
Agreements:
The parties hereto agree as follows:
A. Except as specified in this paragraph A, KBLC hereby
unconditionally and absolutely guarantees to the City the full,
prompt and complete performance of all obligations, duties, and
agreements of RCTSI, RUSCI, and RCA, respectively, to the extent
not inconsistent with state and federal law, including the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, under each of the following
agreements and all of the ordinances, amending ordinances,
agreements, and exhibits referred to and incorporated therein,
as the same from time to time may have been amended (collectively
referred to herein as the "Guaranteed Documents") :
1. Acceptance of a Franchise For a Cable Television
System dated , 1988 (the "Acceptance", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1).
For purposes of this Agreement, the Acceptance shall be
deemed to be amended as follows:
2 _
C� J
a. Paragraph 5 of the Acceptance shall be deleted in
its entirety; and
b. Paragraph 8.C. shall be revised to read as
follows:
Grantee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI"), a
Delaware corporation, which is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc.
("RCA"), a Delaware corporation, which in turn is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of RCA Cablesystems
Holding Co. ("RCACH"), a Delaware corporation.
RCACH is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers U.S.
Holdings, Limited, a Canadian corporation, which
in turn is indirectly wholly owned by Rogers
Communications, Inc., a Canadian corporation.
2. Stipulation of Settlement and Release dated
1988 (the "Stipulation", attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as Exhibit 2). For the purposes
of this Agreement, the Stipulation shall be deemed to be
amended by deleting the words "and Grantee" from the twenty-
fourth (24th) line of paragraph 3 on page 4, and by deleting
from paragraph 4 on page 4 the words "and Agreement of Joint
and Several Liability" and adding the word "and" before the
words "Acceptance Agreement". KBLC and KBLCOM acknowledge
and agree that for the purposes of this Agreement, no
provisions of the Stipulation shall be construed as a
release or waiver of any of RCTSI's obligations and
agreements under any of the Guaranteed Documents.
B. KBLCOM hereby unconditionally guarantees to the City
the full, prompt and complete performance of all of KBLC's (and
of any successor or assign of KBLC) lawful obligations under this
Agreement to the extent not inconsistent with state and federal
law, including the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984.
C. The obligations of KBLC and the guaranty of KBLCOM
hereunder shall be absolute, complete, continuing, and
irrevocable, and KBLC and KBLCOM shall not be released of their
respective obligations and guaranty hereunder so long as any
claim of the City against RCTSI arising out of the Franchise, the
Guaranteed Documents, or otherwise is not settled or discharged
in full. KBLC (or, in the event KBLC defaults on the terms of
its obligations, KBLCOM) will pay to the City all reasonable
expenses, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred by the City in
protecting or enforcing the City's lawful rights under this
Agreement or any of the Guaranteed Documents, whether suit be
brought or not.
3 r
D. In the event either KBLC or KBLCOM chooses, or is
required, to perform in Minnesota RCTSI's obligations under this
Agreement, KBLC or KBLCOM, as the case may be, shall obtain all
authorizations, licenses, permits and regulatory approval
necessary to do business in Minnesota and to perform RCTSI's
obligations under the Franchise.
E. In the event RCTSI defaults in the performance of any
of its lawful obligations under the Franchise or the Guaranteed
Documents, the City shall give written notice of the default to
RCTSI pursuant to the terms of Article IX of the Franchise and
shall concurrently give the same notice to KBLC and KBLCOM. In
the event of such default, and in the event of KBLCOM's failure
to perform its obligations under its guaranty, the City, at its
option, may elect to invoke some or all of the provisions of
Article IX of the Franchise. The City shall have the right to
enforce against KBLC any obligations, agreements, warranties,
representations, penalties or performances under this Agreement
or the Guaranteed Documents without the requirement that the City
follow any different or additional procedures as to KBLC than the
City would follow as to RCTSI. KBLCOM agrees that in the event
KBLC does not cause RCTSI to cure any default under this
Agreement or the Guaranteed Documents within thirty (30) days of
receiving notice of the default from the City, the City may, at
its election, require KBLCOM to cause to be performed RCTSI's
obligations. KBLCOM agrees that in the event KBLC does not cure
any such default within said thirty (30) days, the City, at its
election, may require KBLCOM to cause to be performed RCTSI's
obligations, at which time the City shall have the same rights
and remedies against KBLCOM under this paragraph E as it has
against KBLC in the event of any default by RCTSI.
F. No right or power of the City hereunder shall be deemed
to have been waived by any act or conduct on the part of the
City, or by any neglect to exercise such right or power, or by
any delay in so doing; and every right or power of the City shall
continue in full force and effect until specifically waived or
released by an instrument in writing executed by the City.
Unless specifically waived or released by the City in writing,
the respective obligations and guarantees of KBLC and KBLCOM
under this Agreement and under the Guaranteed Documents shall
remain unchanged in the event the City either obtains additional
guarantees, security, or agreements securing RCTSI's performance
hereunder, or releases or waives such guarantees, security or
agreements.
G. Provided RCTSI is a party to any such amendments,
renewals, or extensions, KBLC (and KBLCOM with respect to its
guaranty of KBLC's obligations) hereby consents to the Guaranteed
Documents being amended, renewed, or extended in writing, with or
without notice to KBLC or KBLCOM, and KBLC (and KBLCOM, with
respect to its guaranty of KBLC's obligations) agrees that it
q _
, 1
will remain the unconditional guarantor of RCTSI's obligations
under the Guaranteed Documents as so amended, renewed, or
extended.
H. Each of KBLC and KBLCOM warrants and represents to the
City as follows:
1. That it is lawfully incorporated under the laws
of Texas and is in good standing in Texas.
2. That it has full right and authority to enter into
this Consent Agreement and Guaranty of Performance and, in
the event of RCTSI's default on any of its lawful
obligations to the City in connection with the Franchise, to
cause to be performed RCTSI's obligations.
3. That it has taken all corporate action required to
authorize the execution and delivery of this Agreement.
I. At such time as KBLC and KBLCOM execute this Agreement,
each of them shall deliver to the City a certified copy of its
Articles of Incorporation and an opinion from its legal counsel
stating that it has duly entered into this Agreement with full
and proper corporate authority and that, to the extent not
inconsistent with state and federal law, including the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, this Agreement is enforceable
against KBLC or KBLCOM, as the case may be, in accordance with
its terms, subject to (i) any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization or other laws relating to or affecting creditors'
rights generally, and (ii) general principles of equity
(regardless of whether such enforceability is considered a
proceeding in equity or law) . Such legal opinion shall be in a
form and substance acceptable to the City.
J. KBLC shall, at the time it executes this Agreement,
fully comply with the terms and conditions of Article XIV,
Section 2, of the Franchise. Pursuant to a letter of
understanding dated October 17, 1988, between KBLC and SWSCC
(attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 3),
KBLC agrees to reimburse the SWSCC for the SWSCC's reasonable
expenses, costs, and professional fees incurred in connection
with the City's approval of the acquisition by KBLC of control
over RCTSI. At the same time, to the extent not inconsistent
with state and federal law, including the Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984, KBLC shall cause RCTSI to comply with all of
the insurance, letter of credit, and bonding requirements of
Article VIII of the Franchise.
K. KBLC agrees to indemnify and to hold the SWSCC and the
City harmless from (i) any liability or responsibility with
respect to KBLC's acquisition of control over RCTSI, and (ii) all
reasonable costs, expenses and professional fees of any nature
5
that arise from third-party claims directly resulting from the
City's consent to and approval of the fundamental corporate
changes in RCACH and RCTSI.
L. The City hereby waives any right of first refusal to
purchase the Franchise or related system, but only as such right-
of-first-refusal would apply to the request for approval of the
acquisition of control by KBLC over RCTSI.
M. Upon the filing by KBLC and KBLCOM with the City of an
executed copy of this Agreement, together with executed copies of
each of the agreements and exhibits required hereunder, the City
shall release RCI and RUSHL from any and all responsibilities,
liabilities, claims and disputes, known or unknown, of any type
whatsoever, related to or arising from the Franchise or RCTSI's
performance thereunder, or the approval of KBLC's acquisition of
control over RCTSI.
N. Upon the filing by KBLC and KBLCOM with the City of an
executed copy of this Agreement, together with executed copies of
each of the agreements and exhibits required hereunder, the
acquisition by KBLC of the common and preferred stock of RCACH
(and the resulting fundamental corporate change in RCTSI), and
KBLC's request that the Franchise currently remain in the name of
RCTSI, shall be approved by the City.
O. This Agreement shall be governed, interpreted and
enforced according to the laws of the State of Minnesota and
relevant federal law. In connection with all matters arising out
of this Agreement, KBLC and KBLCOM hereby submit to the
jurisdiction of the state and federal courts of Minnesota,
exclusively.
P. This Agreement shall remain in force as long as RCTSI
or any subsidiary of KBLC operates or controls the Franchise.
Q. Any right or remedy granted to the City under this
Agreement or the Guaranteed Documents which shall be found to be
unenforceable for any reason shall be severable and all remaining
rights and remedies shall continue to be valid and enforceable.
All rights and remedies of the City shall be separate and
cumulative, and the exercise of one shall not limit or prejudice
the exercise of any other remedy at the same or at a later time.
R. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the
benefit of, the parties and their respective successors and
assigns. Any change or amendment to this Agreement shall be
valid only if made in a writing duly executed by each of the
parties hereto.
6 -
S. All notices or demands required or permitted to be
given in writing under this Agreement shall be deemed to be given
when delivered personally to any officer of KBLC or KBLCOM, as
the case may be, or to the City's Administrator of the Franchise,
or forty-eight (48) hours after such notice or demand is
deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with
registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed
to the party to which notice is being given, as follows:
If to the City:
If to KBLC: 4582 South Ulster Street Parkway
Suite 405
Denver, CO 80237
Attn: President
If to KBLC: 4582 South Ulster Street Parkway
Suite 405
Denver, CO 80237
Attn: President
An address may be changed by a party upon notice to each of
the other parties given as provided in this paragraph.
CITY OF: Eden Prairie
By
Its Mayor
By
Its Manager
KBL CABLE, INC.
By
Its
KBLCOM INCORPORATED
By
Its
SW2 - 12/3/88
E
7
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 Eden Prairie , 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 Eden Prairie , a Minnesota
municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF TEXAS )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HARRIS)
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of , 19_, by
the of KBL CABLE, INC., a Texas corporation, on
behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF TEXAS )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HARRIS)
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of , 19_, by ,
the of KBLCOM INCORPORATED, a Texas corporation,
on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
8 -
EXHIBIT 1
ACCEPTANCE OF A FRANCHISE FOR A
CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie , a Minnesota
municipal corporation (the "City"), by action of its governing
body on Janu_=:i 6, 1981 , adopted a Cable Communications
Franchise ordinance ( the "Franchise") , which is now recorded in
the ordinance books of the City as Ordinance No. 80-33 , and
originally, granted to Minnesota Cablesystems - Southwest, a
Minnesota Limited Partnership, with Minnesota Cablesystems, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation, as General Partner, a non-exclusive
franchise to contract, nnerate and maintain a cable
communications system (the "System") within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has amended the Franchise by Ordinance
Nos. 25-93 1 46-83 , and 13-85 , adopted on Jure 21, 1923
Oc`ber 4, 1983 , and June 4, 1983 respectively
(together called the "Amendments"); and
WHEREAS, by the Amendment dated May 22, 1985, the name of
the original grantee of the Franchise was changed to Rogers
Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership, a Minnesota
limited partnership, with Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation, as the General Partner and is now
renamed Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution (the "Resolution"), dated June 7 ,
1988, the C'_ty consented to and approved the transfer of the
Franchise from Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Limited
Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, to the general
partner of that partnership, Rogers Cablesystems of the
Southwest, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee,"
including those instances where it is acting as the successor in
interest to the rights and obligations of the original grantee);
and
WHEREAS, the Resolution requires, among other requirements,
that the Franchise be accepted in writing by Grantee in form and
substance acceptable to the City and the Franchise requirements
at Article XII, Section 1, and further that Grantee in acceptance
of the Franchise, comply with the requirements of Article XIV,
Section 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms and requirements of
the Resolution and Franchise, and in consideration of the
approval of the transfer, Grantee does hereby accept the
Franchise and make the following representations and warranties
to the Cities:
1
1. Grantee agrees to be bound by the Franchise, as amended
by the Amendments, the Offering (as defined in the Franchise),
and Ordinance No. 12--85 of the City (the "Relief Ordinance")
and to timely and fully perform and fulfill the terms, provisions
and conditions of the Franchise, as so amended, the Offering, and
the Relief Ordinance, and the Performance Agreement between City
and Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership, dated
P.cca=t 2, 1985 , including the contracts attached thereto as
Exhibit A and B (together called the "Performance Agreement"),
and to be bound by the Franchise for the System through December
31, 1999.
2. Grantee agrees to provide, and warrants and represents
that it is able to provide, all services and offerings set forth
in the Franchise, as so amended, in the Offering, and in the
Relief Ordinance, and agrees to be bound by and to timely and
fully perform and fulfill all of the agreement, provisions,
promises, offers, representations and inducements contained in
the Franchise, as so amended, the Offering, Performance Agreement
and the Relief Ordinance. The Offering is hereby incorporated
into this Acceptance in full as if fully set forth herein.
3. Grantee agrees that it is and shall be subject to the
regulatory authority of the City as set out in the Franchise, as
now amended, and as the Franchise may, from time to time,
hereinafter be supplemented or amended.
4. Grantee understands and agrees that the Offering is
specifically set out in the Franchise only in part, and that the
whole of the Offering is incorporated in the Franchise by
reference. Therefore, Grantee agrees that City may, at any time
and from time to time, amend the Franchise by the sole act of the
City, and without acceptance or agreement by Grantee, to include
in the Franchise, effective as of the date of commencement of the
Franchise term, any one or more specific provisions of the
Offering not then specifically in the Franchise.
5. No legislation or regulation passed by any legislative
body or administrative agency subsequent to the grant of the
Franchise, as so amended, or of the Relief Ordinance4 shall
relieve Grantee of any obligations under the Franchise, as so
amended, or the Offering, or the Relief Ordinance, or the duty of
complying, in all respects, with the terms and conditions of the
Franchise, as so amended, the Offering, and of the Relief
Ordinance. Also, Grantee agrees that it will not seek to have
any legislative or administrative body, other than the City,
preempt or other-wise modify the terms of the Franchise, as so
amended, or of the Relief Ordinance. However, this provision
shall not be construed to deny Grantee the right to participate
in federal, or state, legislative or administrative rule making
procedures considering the adoption of legislation of rules of
general application.
2
n�l '�
6. Grantee agrees to cooperate fully with the City in
obtaining from any governmental agency all licenses, permits, and
other authority, necessary for the construction, operation and
maintenance of the System pursuant to the Franchise, as now or
hereafter amended.
7. Grantee represents, warrants and guarantees that
neither it, nor its representatives or agents, have committed any
illegal acts, or engaged in any wrongful conduct, contrary to or
in violation of, any federal, state or local law or regulation in
connection with operation of the System, or the obtaining of any
of the Amendments or of the Relief Ordinance.
8. Grantee further warrants and represents as follows;
A. That it is lawfully incorporated under the laws of
Minnesota, and has full right and authority to enter into
and fully perform the Franchise, as so amended, the
Offering, the Performance Agreement, the Relief Ordinance,
and this Acceptance; that all corporate action required to
authorize the execution and delivery of the Franchise, as
amended, the Relief Ordinance, and this Acceptance, and all
other documents to be executed and/or delivered by Grantee
pursuant to the Franchise, as so amended, the Relief
Ordinance, and this Acceptance, and to authorize the
performance by Grantee of all of its obligation under the
Franchise, as so amended, the Offering, the Relief
Ordinance, and this Acceptance, and all such other documents
to be executed and/or delivered by Grantee, have been
validly and duly taken and are in force and effect; and that
the Franchise, as so amended, the Relief Ordinance, this
Acceptance, and all such other documents executed and/or
delivered by Grantee, have been duly executed and delivered
by Grantee and the terms of each thereof are fully binding
upon and enforceable against Grantee;
B. That Grantee has the fiscal and construction capability
to commence, complete, operate and maintain the System
pursuant to the terms of the Franchise, as so amended, and
the Relief Ordinance;
C. That Grantee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers
U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI") (Rogers American Cable
Corporation, a Delaware corporation "RACC" was merged with
RUSCI May 13, 1987), a Delaware corporation, which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of America,
Inc. ("RCA"), a Delaware corporation, and that RCA is
principally owned by Rogers Cablesystems International B.V.,
a Netherlands corporation, which is a subsidiary of Rogers
Communications, Inc. ("RCI"), a Canadian corporation, which
was formerly known as Rogers Cablesystems, Inc. and Canadian
Cablesystems, Limited; and
3
D. City understands that it shall have the right to hold
RCA, RUSCI and RCI each jointly and severally liable for the
full performance of all of the obligations of Grantee under
the Franchise as extended to December 31, 1999, the Relief
Ordinance, the Performance Agreement and this Acceptance and
with the further understanding that RCA and RUSCI have
committed their resources and credit, as available, from
time to time to ensure the operating viability of Grantee.
RCA, RUSCI and RCI will each have the identical obligation
of Grantee under the Franchise extended through December 31,
1999, the Relief Ordinance, the Performance Agreement and
this Acceptance, neither more nor less.
E. That Grantee is authorized to do business in Minnesota,
and is in good standing in Minnesota.
9. Grantee has agreed, by this acceptance, to the fees,
rates, rate change procedures and standards for review of rates
and rate changes, in the Franchise, as so amended, and in the
Relief Ordinance, to the extent not inconsistent with the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984. Also, Grantee agrees that the
City can use and consider in evaluating any rate change, among
other things, the tax benefits received by Grantee, its
shareholders, and others, as a result of investments in the
System, and the cash flow derived from the System.
10. Grantee further agrees to hold the City and SWSCC and
their respective officers, agents, employees and representatives,
harmless from and indemnified against any and all loss, cost,
damage and expense, including, without limitation, attorneys'
fees, now or hereafter incurred by them, or either of them, and
their respective officers, agents, employees or representatives,
and arising out of or due to, or claimed to arise out of or be
due to, the grant of the Franchise, as so amended, or the Relief
Ordinance or the process followed by City and SWSCC in granting
the Franchise, the Amendments, or the Relief Ordinance.
11. Grantee agrees that all agreements, representations and
warranties set forth herein, in the Franchise, as so amended, in
the Offering, or in the Relief Ordinance, shall be binding upon
it and its successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit
of the City and its successors and assigns.
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantee has caused this Acceptance to be
duly executed and delivered this day of
1988.
DATED: ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE
SOUTHWEST, INC., a Minnesota
corporation
By:
Its:
And:
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
1988, by , the
respectively, of Rogers Cablesystems of
Minnesota Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership,
on behalf of said limited partnership.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
1988, by , the
, respectively, of Rogers Cablesystems of
the Southwest, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, the General Partner
of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership, a
Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of said corporation.
ACCEPT.CLP/SW3
10/25/83
5
EXHIBIT 2
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 , 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 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
Residential Network as described in the report of the Southwest
3
Institutional Network Group ("SWING"). The cost in implementing
the SWING recommendation is approximately $34,000.00, of which
half, but not more than $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
enters into a guarantee agreement on or before the time of
4 -
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
Mayor
City Manager
ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE
SOUTHWEST, INC., a Minnesota
corporation
By
Its
ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
Canadian corporation
By
Its
ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC., a
Delaware corporation
By
Its
ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware corporation
By
Its
SW3/STIPUL2A.SW - 11/7/88
5 -
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 day of 19_ by
the of ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS�OF THE SOUTHWEST,
INC., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of , 19 by
the of ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a Canadian
corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
6 -
j STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of , 19_, by ,
the of ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of , 19_, by ,
the of ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
SW3/STIPUL2A.SW - 11/7/88
7 -
EXHIBIT 3
INCORPORATED
October 11, 1988
Southwest Suburban Cable C=ission
C/o Adrian Herbst
Herbst i Thus, Ltd.
950 Horthland Plaza
3800 heat 80th Street
Bloomington, Minnesota $5431
Gentlemen.
Enclosed herewith you will find checks for $30,000
in response to the request of the Southwest Suburban Cable .
Commission ('SWOCC') contained in the Application for the
Transfer of A Cable Co=unications Franchise (the
'Application*) filed by RBLCOX Incorporated and KSL Cable,
Inc. datod October S, 1988.
This $30,000 is furnished to you and you are
authorised to utilize such funds Solely on the understanding
that the aggregate obligation to reimburse the SWSCC shall
not exceed 160,000 and that any expenses in excess Of
$30,000 shall be reasonable. Any Obligation to pay Any
Aunt in excess of $60,000 shall arise solely pursuant to a
written agreement by the parties.
If the foregoing is agreeable to you, please
execute a counterpart of this letter.
RBLCOX INCORPORATED
ACCBPTLDt
SOUTHWZST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
By: � Q`\
4583 South Ulster$beet Parkwh Suite 4O! Demet.Colorado 80137 • 303/771.0079
- ..-.... .i ..n �..0 v�..un ...... .n.., 00 .1 .ten
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN FRANE
DATE: DECEMBER 8,1988
RE: AMENDED HOUSING PLAN FOR PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS
RESOLUTION 88-293
THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED IN DECEMBER OF 1985. IN NOVEMBER
OF 1987 WE APPROVED A CHANGE OF DEVELOPER FROM THE MANDARA
COMPANY TO CENTURY CAPITAL GROUP, LTD. THE REQUEST IS TO
SWITCH THE DEVELOPER BACK TO THE MANDARA COMPANY. ROGER
DERRICK, THE OWNER OF MANDARA, IS IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING
MANDARA TO THE PODAWILTZ DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WHO WILL
COMPLETE THE PROJECT. RESOLUTION 88-293 IS INCLUDED FOR
YOUR APPROVAL.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-J21_7
Councilmember introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE
BONDS OR NOTES PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES,
CHAPTER 462C, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT; AND APPROVING
AN AMENDED HOUSING PROGRAM.
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 (iii) 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 the
Minnesota Housing Finance t,gency for review and approval, and
on December 19, 1985, the Board of the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency adopted Resolution No. MHFA 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.
1.03. 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
Housing Finance Agency for review and approval.
1.05. On January 19, 1987, the MHFA confirmed that the
Amended Program was reviewed and not rejected, 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 December 2, 1988. A federal
volume allocation carry forward was filed on December 29, 1986.
i.07. On October 6, 1987, the City adopted Resolution
No. 87-277 (the 1987 Inducement Resolution) pursuant to which,
among other things, it approved the conveyance of the Project
by Prairie Village Apartments Limited Partnership (the Original
Developer) to a limited partnership to be formed, whose general
partners were to be Wayne C. Chaney, J. Peter Jungbacker,
Century Capital Group, Ltd., and RRM, Incorporated
(collectively referred to as Transferee Developer.) .
1.08. On November 17, 1987, by Resolution No. 87-311, the
City approved the extension of the expiration date of the 1987
Inducement Resolution to December 2, 1988.
1.09. On November 15, 1988, by Resolution No. 88-273, the
City approved the substitution of the Original Developer of the
Project for the Transferee Developer and further extended the
expiration of the 1987 Inducement Resolution to December 2,
1989.
1.10. Representatives of the Original Developer have
advised the City that the Minnesota Department of Energy and
Economic Development has extended the expiration date of the
Certificate of Allocation to December 2, 1989.
1.11. Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended
(the Act), the City is authorized to issue and sell revenue
bonds or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one
or more multifamily housing developments within its boundaries.
1.12. 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 (50%) of the area median
income; or (ii) at least forty percent (40%) of the units will
2.
be specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are no
greater than sixty percent (60%) of the area median income,
Determinations as to whether a unit meets the requirements of
(i) or (ii), above, will include adjustments for family size.
Development and financing costs of the Project are presently
estimated by representatives of the Developer to be
approximately Seven Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($7,200,000).
1.13. The City has caused to be prepared and placed on
file in the City offices a second revised housing program (the
Second Amended Program) for the proposed Project under the Act,
which contains information demonstrating the need for the
Project, stating the method of financing proposed and that the
Project is to be constructed and equipped pursuant to
Subdivision 2, Section 462C.05 of the Act.
1.14. It is necessary for the City to approve the proposed
bonds and notes to finance the Project and to approve the
Second Amended Program relating to the financing of the
Project.
1.15. Pursuant to the requirements of the Act and Section
147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
Code), a public hearing was held on December 13, 1988, at
7:30 p.m., relating to the Second 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 found and determined based upon the
information presented to this Council by the representatives of
the Original Developer that it would be in the best interests
of the City to issue the Bonds under the provisions of the Act
and the City's earlier preliminary approvals in order to
finance costs to be incurred by the Original Developer in the
acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project. The
City hereby approves and adopts the Second Amended Program.
2.02. The Mayor and other officers, employees, and agents
of the City, including Bond Counsel, are hereby authorized to
notify the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) of the
approval of the Second Amended Program and to submit the Second
Amended Program to the MHFA, together with such other
information as the MHFA shall require, for the approval of the
MHFA.
i
3.
i
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, this 13th day of December, 1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
SOK:EZ5s 4.
The Motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
J duly seconded by Councilmember , and
1 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 13th day of
December, 1988, as the same 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 December, 1988.
City Clerk
4
SOK:EZ5s
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #88-275
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ELIM SHORES FOR
BRAUER AND ASSOCIATES
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Elim Shores for Brauer and Associates, dated December
9, 1988, consisting of 8.36 acres into 3 lots for construction of a 64-unit senior
housing development, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in
conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances,
and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 13th day of December, 1988.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 10, 1988
PROJECT: Elim Shores
LOCATION: West of County Road A4, 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 j j— -p
=1—.. -��� PUB
This site is currently zoned RM-2.5N-CO' —
according to the plans approved in C-COM •�,< <y./
1973 for apartments. A zoning PUB OF
amendment is requested to permit the
1r
development of a 64-unit elderly RM-2�• i - ON1-�
housing building on B.36 acres. The j��` FC,V _
surrounding areas are zoned RM-6.5
for duplexes to the north, R1-13.5 i :, C Hwy
across Mitchell Lake to the west,
RM-6.5 for townhouses to the south. II 2 20POSED�SITE,i I `' -GE
and I-2 Park for Industrial uses to
the east of the site across County `X,11
Road
Site Plan
The site plan depicts the
construction of a 4-story, 64-unit t , •, 7:41•r1t, 1-2
elderly housing apartment building
on 8.36 acres at a density of 7.66 Rfzi
units per acre. The RM-2.5 zoningC,COM
district would permit up to 17.4
units per acre.
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 nPen narking 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 cove^ed 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 #4 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 #4.
One access is provided from County Road #4 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 M4 to better screen the views of the
parking areas.
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%
facebr+ck, 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 B.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.
Conclusions
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 10, 1988,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 10, 19BB, 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 cross-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.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 25, 1988
PROJECT: Elim Shores
LOCATION: West of County Road 04, east of Mitchell Lake
APPLICANT: Elim Homes
FEE OWNER: Norwest Bank
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Amendment within the 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 building.
Background
This is a continued item from the r' \
November I4, I9B8, Planning lz, - Wu
!
Commission meeting. At that time, �.:' PUB
the developer requested a con- NC0 -
tinuance to review the response from - C-COM �,�,�" Zh
the Planning Commission with regards " PUB
to encroachment into the shoreland lr
setback area, and the height of the R_-2 i 0
building in excess of the ordinance. 4 FC
i Was-
Revised - M Y
Revised Development Proposal C HW / i I
. . I L-GE
The attached letter from George
10POSED SITE
Watson indicates that Elim Shores a 2b
has revised their request to reduce
the building height from 58 feet to l =!/ y Fi;2^2
37 feet. The building will still
have a residential style pitched Mr-iC�y l'•
roof. This reduces the number of ,V V f
I-2
units from 64 to 61 and would change ` , i.a-x, I
the density from 7.66 units per acre •
to 6.12 units per acre. There is no �;f► ,�j�Td� PLC .`
change in the site plan, grading �" arn�
R
AREA LOCATION MAP
Elim Shores 2 November 25, 1983
plan, landscape plan, and utility plans. The only change in the plan is to remove
the 4th floor. Because of the short time frame between the previous meeting and the
current meeting, no new architectural plans have been prepared at this time. We
expect that a sketch plan of the revised architecture would be available for Monday
night's meeting.
The revised building height to 37 feet should fit in better with the surrounding
neighborhood. This was the height variance granted to the CSM Corporation by the
Board of Appeals to build a 90-unit apartment building on this site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request for Zoning District
Amendment in the RM-2.5 Zoning District for a 61-unit elderly housing building and a
Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 3 lots based upon plans dated November 1D, 1988,
and November 21, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated
November 10, 1988, and November 25, 1988, and subject to the following conditions:
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 R4.
B. Provide documentation showing compliance with City Code for exterior
materials. Provide revised exterior building elevations.
C. Plan revision prior to Council review.
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 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 plan with details for review.
4. Prior to Final plat release, proponent shall:
f
A. Provide evidence of recording with Hennepin County for the cross-
access and maintenance agreement between Elim Homes and North Bay of
Timber Lakes Homeowners' Association.
5. Receive Board of Appeals variances for parking, height, and shoreland
setbacks. l�
Councilmember introduced the following
Resolution and moved its adoption: r
RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A PROGRAM FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
(ELIM SHORES, INC., PROJECT) TO THE MINNESOTA
HOUSING AGENCY
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
November 15, 1988 conducted a public hearing, after publication
of notice as required by the Act, for the Program for the
Construction of a Multifamily Housing Development (Slim Shores,
Inc. Project) (herein, the "Program") and issuance of housing
revenue bonds to finance a housing development described in said
notice (the "Project") to be owned by Elim Homes, Inc. or Elim
Shores, Inc. (collectively, the "Company") ; 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
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 if further amended by revising the
third sentence in the second paragraph to read as follows:
It is estimated that market rents for the Housing Units
will be between $620 and $1,160 and subsidized rents
will range from $370 to $510 (as further described
in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elim
Shores, Inc. Project) .
4. That 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.
5 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. I
Adopted by the City Council, the City of Ede, ' _rairie,
Minnesota, this 13th day of December, 1988.
Mayor
City Clerk
i
0
n�I
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution
was duly seconded by councilmember
being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof:
� �v�c
and the following voted against the same:
Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
PROGRAM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
[AS AMENDED ON DECEMBER 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, constructi.on 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 market rents for the Housing Units will be
between $620 and $1,160 and subsidized rents will range from
$370 to $510 (as further described in the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for the Elim Shores, Inc. Project) . 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 (200) 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.
- 1 -
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
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
2 -
The following terms used in this Program shall have the
following meanings, respectively:
(1) "Act" shall mean Minnesota Statutes, Section
462C.01, et sea., 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
200 of the Housing Units shall mean a period beginning on the
3 -
�_n
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
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
Flim Homes, Inc.
Subsection C. Local Contributions to the Program
The Company has requested the City to fund an interest
write down proqram 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.
4 -
Subsection D. Standards and Requirements Relating to
the Financing of the Project Pursuant to the Program
The following standards and requirements shall apply
with respect to the operation of the Prcject 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 sect.
(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
5 -
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
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 one 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
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 -
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL TO A REVISED TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN IN CONNECTION WITH
THE ELIM SHORES, INC. PROJECT UNDER CHAPTER
469, MINNESOTA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the
"City") has established the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Eden Prairie (the "Authority") for the
purpose, among others, to undertake tax increment projects under
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 (the "Act") ;
WHEREAS, Elim Homes, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit
corporation acting on behalf of itself and for Elim Shores, Inc.,
an affiliated Minnesota nonprofit corporation (collectively, the
"Developer") has filed a proposal dated August 12, 1988 with the
City (the "Proposal") requesting that the City and the Authority
approve a project which will consist of the acquisition of the
real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and the
construction thereon of a 64-unit housing facility and related
common recreation and support facilities for rental to elderly
persons and families of low and moderate income (the "Project") ;
and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested the approval of
an interest reduction program for the Project as permitted by the
Act (Minnesota Statutes §469.176, Subd. 4(b)) to be funded with
revenues derived from a tax increment financing plan; and
WHEREAS, based in part upon the representations of the
Developer in the Proposal (in particular, pages 5 and 6 thereof)
the Project is not reasonably expected to occur solely through
private investment within the reasonable forseeable future and,
accordingly, tax increment financing is deemed necessary to
encourage the development of the Project and to serve the
purposes of the Act as more fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, based upon the Proposal and other information
provided to the Authority, the Authority preliminarily
determined on October 18, 1988 that it is necessary and
appropriate to proceed with the Project and approved a Tax
Increment Financing Plan on such date (the "Tax Increment
Financing Plan") ; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, subd.
2 and 3, (i) all notices and information have been given in
timely fashion to the members of the county board of
commissioners and (ii) affected school districts have been given
the opportunity to present their comments on the Tax Increment
Financing Plan; and
WHEREAS, earlier on this date the Authority adopted a
! resolution approving certain minor revisions to the Tax Increment
Financing Plan (as revised, the "Revised Tax Increment Financing
Plan") :
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Revised Tax Increment Financing Plan for Elim
Shores Project as attached hereto as Schedule I is hereby
incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full herein,
including (i) the establishment of the tax increment financing
district as a housing district and (ii) the findings,
expectations, estimates and determinations set forth therein.
2. The Tax Increment Financing Plan is hereby
determined to be in full compliance with the provisions of the
Act including, without limitation, Minnesota Statutes §469.175,
Subd. 1 and is hereby approved.
3. The Interest Reduction Program authorized by the
Authority on this date is hereby approved, ratified and
authorized.
4. The City Manager and such other officers of the
City as may be selected by the Manager, with the advice of the
City Attorney, are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to
negotiate a form of Interest Reduction Assessment Agreement and a
Development Agreement, together with such other and further
documents in the form and content consistent with this Resolution
and the Revised Tax Increment Financing Plan, as shall be
necessary or appropriate and to do all such acts and other things
and to execute all such documents as be necessary to carry out
and comply with the provisions thereof.
5. The City Manager, Mayor and City Clerk, with the
advice of the City Attorney, are hereby authorized and directed
to do a]I such other acts and things and to execute all such
other documents as be necessary to carry out and comply with the
provisions of this Resolution and the documents approved hereby,
and all of the acts and doings of the City Manager, Mayor, City
Clerk and other representatives of the City which are in
conformity with the intent and purposes of this Resolution,
whether heretofore or hereafter taken or done, shall be and are
hereby ratified, confirmed and approved.
6. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
request the county auditor to certify the original assessed value
of the tax increment financing district established hereby
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §469.177.
r
Approved and adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota this day of
December, 1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
s
F
1�
Revised December 13, 1988
SCHEDULE I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
REVISED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
ELIM SHORES, INC. PROJECT
i
Revised: December 13, 1988
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR
ELIM SHORES PROJECT
I. BACKGROUND
ELIM Homes, Inc., a Minnesota non-profit corporation
(the "Developer"), has proposed the construction and operation of
a rental housing facility (the "Project") in the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") , consisting of approximately 64
apartments and common recreation and support facilities. The
Project will be located adjacent to Lake Mitchell, near the
intersection of Highway 5 and Country Road 4, on the real estate
described on Exhibit A hereto (the "Project Site") . The Project
will be designed for rental to elderly persons and families of
low to moderate income, and will offer a full range of living and
care services.
The Developer intends to finance construction of the
Project through the issuance by the City of multifamily housing
revenue bonds (the "Bonds") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 462C, which will be secured by a first mortgage on this
Project and the Project Site and by full recourse loan agreement
with the Developer. In order to make the Project and its
financing feasible, the Developer has requested the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of the City of Eden Prairie (the
"Authority") to finance an interest reduction program for the
Project with revenues derived from a tax increment financing plan
i
established for the Project, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
i
Section 469.176, subdivision 4(b).
II. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The Authority has power and authority to establish
tax increment financing districts pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (the "Act"), and to
use tax increments to reduce interest payments on the Bonds
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.012, subdivision 7
through 10 and an Interest Reduction Program adopted by the
Authority on [December 13, 1988).
III. BOUNDARIES AND CLASSIFICATION OF DISTRICT
The Authority hereby creates a tax increment
financing district (the "District") consisting of a "housing
district" as defined in Section 469.174, subdivision 11, of
the Act, and encompassing the parcels of property
identified on Exhibit B attached hereto. The Authority hereby
finds that the Project, which is to be located within the
boundaries of the District, is intended for occupancy, in part,
by persons or families of low and moderate income within the
meaning of Section 469.174, subdivision 11, of the Act. The
Authority also hereby finds that at least 75% of the rental units
in the Project will be available to low and moderate income
elderly persons, as set forth in Part VI hereof, and therefore
not more than one-third of the total fair market value of the
Project consists of improvements to be constructed for
3
commercial uses or for uses other than low and moderate income
housing.
IV. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The Authority has determined that there is a need for
development of rental housing facilities in the City, and
in particular a need for development of rental housing facilities
which provide a high quality of life for low to moderate income
elderly persons or families in the City, in a manner consistent
with the City's comprehensive plan and housing policies. The
objectives sought to be accomplished by the Authority in carrying
out this Tax Increment Financing Plan are to meet such needs by:
1. promoting and securing the prompt development of the
property in the District in a manner consistent with the
City's comprehensive plan and housing policies;
2. promoting and securing additional housing and
employment opportunities in the City, thereby improving
City living standards, reducing unemployment and
preventing areas of chronic unemployment and the loss of
skilled and unskilled labor and other human resources;
3. improving the financial base of the City and
surrounding area, and increasing the tax base; and
4. encouraging the development of safe, decent and
attractive rental housing in the City, and particularly
rental housing designed for occupancy by elderly persons
or families of low or moderate income.
4
i
V. DEVErnPMPNT ACTIVITIES
The development program for the Project consists of
the acquisition and construction by the Developer of an
approximately 64-unit multifamily rental housing facility
designed for occupancy by elderly persons or families of low to
moderate income. In order to permit the Developer to keep
rentals for the units at an affordable level and to permit the
Developer to provide low rent units as provided in Part VI below,
the Authority will use tax increments derived from the District
to pay a portion of the interest on the Bonds, or other first
mortgage financing used to finance the Project.
Except as described in Part VII below, the Authority does
not intend to acquire any property within the District in
connection with the development of the Project.
The Authority has not entered into any contracts at the
present time relating to the development activities to take
place within the District. However, the Authority reasonably
expects to enter into a Development Agreement and an Interest
Rate Reduction Assessment ;agreement (the "Development
Agreements") with the Developer, under which the Developer
agrees to construct the Project and the Authority agrees to
provide tax increment financing assistance through an interest
reduction program as described herein. The Development
Agreements will also (a) provide income limitations for the
rental units as set forth in Part VI hereof and as
required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.012, subdivision 8,
5
(b) provide that, upon any sale or transfer of the Project by the
ueveicper, the Authority shall be entitled to a payment by the
Developer in an amount determined pursuant to Part VII hereof, as
required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.012, subdivision 9,
and (c) provide rent limitations for 13 of the units as set forth
in Part VI hereof.
It is currently expected that construction of the
Project will commence on or about February, 1989, and that the
Project will be available for initial occupancy on or about June,
1989.
VI. LOW AND MODERATE INCOME AND RENT LIMITS
The Development Agreement with the Developer will
provide, and the Developer shall agree, that as long as tax
{ increment financing assistance through the interest reduction
program (as described herein) is being provided for the Project,
the Developer will make a good faith effort to ensure (a) that
20% of the rental units in the Project are made available to and
occupied by persons or families whose anticipated annual income
(at initial occupancy) is not more than 50% of the median income
(adjusted for family size) for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,
as established from time to time by the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), and (b) that an
additional 55% of the rental units are made available to and
occupied by persons or families whose anticipated annual income
(at initial occupancy) is not more than 66 times 120 percent of
the monthly fair market rent for the unit as established from
6
'� r
time to time by HUD. No single family housing units, as defined
{
in Minnesota Statutes 462C.02, Subdivision 4, are being financed
in conjunction herewith. The Development Agreements will also
provide for income certification at the time of initial occupancy
and other measures designed to verify the extent to which the low
and moderate income occupancy goals are met.
The Development Agreements with the Developer will
also provide, and the Developer shall agree, that as long as tax
increment financing assistance through the interest reduction
program is being provided for the Project, the Developer will
make a good faith effort to limit the monthly rents for thirteen
(13) , or twenty percent (20a) , of the units as follows:
Unit Type Number of Units Rent Limit
1 Bedroom (590 sq. ft.) 7 $370
1 Bedroom (620 sq. ft.) 4 $390
1 Bedroom/Den (715 sq. ft.) 1 $450
1 Bedroom/Den (820 sq. ft.) 1 $510
Provided, however, notwithstanding the rent limits set forth
above, the monthly rents for the 13 low-rent units may be
increased from time to time by the Developer in the same amount
as the monthly rents for comparable units in the Project are
increased.
VII. AUTHORITY EQUITY
The Development Agreement will provide that during
the term of the Development Agreement the Authority will have an
equity interest in the Project, which shall consist of the
7
Authority's right, upon any sale or transfer by the Developer of
its fee title interest in the Project to any person other than an
affiliate of the Developer, to receive a payment from the
Developer in an amount equal to (a) the sale price for the
Project (or, in the case of any sale or transfer other than an
arms-length sale, the appraised value of the Project) , less the
sum of the following:
(i) an amount equal to the Developer's cash equity put
into the Project, (currently proposed to be $1,000,000)
plus the amount of any additional cash equity contributed
by the Developer or an affiliate in connection with the
construction, acquisition or improvement of the Project,
plus the amount of all payments of principal made by the
Developer on the Bonds and any other debt secured by the
Project (to the extent incurred in connection with the
construction, acquisition or improvement of the Project) ,
plus the outstanding amount of the Bonds or any other debt
secured by a lien or security interest in the Project (to
the extent incurred in connection with the construction,
acquisition or improvement of the Project) , and
(ii) an amount representing a return on the Developer's
cash equity investment in the Project, calculated from the
date of completion of the Project to the date of sale at a
rate equal to eight percent (8%) per annum and on the
basis of a 360-day year and actual days elapsed,
8
multiplied by (b) a fraction, the numerator of which is the sum
1
of the interest reduction payments made by the Authority here-
under through the date of sale, and the denominator of which is
the amount determined under (a) (i) above plus the amount of all
interest payments made through the date of sale on the Bonds, any
rent subsidies paid by any Elim affiliate (e.g. the proposed
$50,000 per year from the Elim Foundation) and on any other debt
secured by the Project (to the extent incurred in connection with
the construction, acquisition or improvement of the Project) .
The Authority's right to receive such payment shall
be secured by the Development Agreements and/or a mortgage on the
Project and the Project Site in favor of the Authority; provided
any such mortgage shall be subordinate to any mortgage securing
the Bonds or any other mortgage financing improvements to the
Project.
VIII. FINANCIAL DATA
1. Costs of the Project. The estimated costs of
acquiring the Project Site, preparation of the Project Site,
construction of the Project and operating the Project during the
initial rent-up period, are set forth below:
Construction of the Facility $2,747,000
Land Acquisition Costs 325,000
Site Preparation and Improvement Costs 349,600
Furnishings and Equipment Costs 100,000
Architect, Engineering and Other Project Costs 195,000
Capitalized Construction Period Interest 196,100
Debt Service Reserve Fund 410,000
Legal, Accounting and Financing Costs 280,800
Marketing Costs 225,000
Working Capital 271,500
TOTAL $5,100,000
9
The Developer intends to invest in 1988 and 1989 approxi-
mately $1,000,000 cash toward development of the Project, and to
raise the additional $4,100,000 through issuance of the Bonds by
the City. (Depending on actual construction bids, the principal
amount of the Bonds may be increased to $4,400,000.)
2. Amount and Source of Authority Assistance. The
Authority anticipates that it will provide total assistance to
the Developer in an amount equal to $900,000, consisting of the
use of $75,000 of the tax increment derived from the District in
each of the years 1991 through 2002 to pay a portion of the
interest on the Bonds or other first mortgage financing for the
Project in each of those years. The Authority also estimates
that it will incur administrative expenses relating to the
District of not more than $9,000, which will be reimbursed
from tax increment.
3. Bonded Indebtedness. The Authority does not
anticipate incurring any bonded indebtedness in connection with
the District or the Project.
4. Original Assessed Value. The assessed value of the
taxable property in the District, as most recently certified by
the Commissioner of Revenue, is $51,840, which is expected to be
the "original assessed value" of such property within the
meaning of Section 469.174, subdivision 7, of the Act.
5. Captured Assessed Value. It is estimated that, upon
completion of the Project, the captured assessed value of the
taxable property in the District will be $702,000. The Authority
10
4
anticipates that all of the tax increment derived from all of the
captured assessed value will be needed for purposes of this Plan.
6. Tax Increment. The Authority estimates that, upon
completion of the Project, the tax increment to be derived from
taxes levied on the taxable property in the District will,
initially, be approximately $84,200 per year, and that such tax
increment will increase at the rate of four percent (4.0%) per
year. Any excess tax increment which is not needed for purposes
of this Plan will be returned to the county auditor pursuant to
Section 469.176, subdivision 2, of the Act.
7. Duration of District. The duration of the District
will be the lesser of 25 years from the date of receipt of the
first tax increment, or 12 years after the date of the first
interest reduction payment.
IX. ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Authority has analyzed the impact of the tax
increment financing on all of the taxing jurisdictions in which
all or any part of the District is located. Attached hereto as
Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively, are the Authority's
analysis of such impact (a) assuming that the captured assessed
value expected to be generated by the Project would be available
to the taxing jurisdictions without creation of the District, and
(b) assuming that none of the captured assessed value expected to
be generated by the Project would be available to the taxing
jurisdictions without creation of the District.
X. NEED FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
11
l
The Authority has determined, in its opinion, that the
f
Project would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through
private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future, and
therefore the use of tax increment financing as contemplated
herein is necessary. The Authority has based this determination
on various representations made by the Developer, and in
particular on the Developer's Proposal to the City of Eden
Prairie dated August 12, 1988 (the "Proposal"), and the financial
analyses set forth therein. The Proposal and the financial
analyses set forth therein establish that (a) the Project (given
the proposed rents and income guidelines) cannot be expected to
generate cash flows necessary to meet debt service requirements
for the Bonds or other first mortgage financing for the Project,
based on the current market conditions, without some form of
public assistance, and (b) other potential forms of public
assistance or governmental programs are either unavailable to the
Project or unaffordable.
XI. FINDINGS
The Authority hereby makes the following findings in
connection with the creation of the District:
1. The District constitutes a "housing district" within
the meaning of the Act, in that the Project is intended,
in part, for occupancy by persons or families of low or
moderate income.
2. The Project would not reasonably be expected to occur
12
r solely through private investment in the reasonably
foreseeable future, as set forth in Part VIII above.
3. This Plan conforms to the general plan for the
development or redevelopment of the City as a whole.
4. This Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent
with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the
development of the Project by private enterprise.
5. This Plan, and the provision of interest reduction
assistance for the project as contemplated herein, is
consistent with the Authority's Interest Reduction Program
and any rules contained therein, and financing for the
acquisition and construction of the Project is not
otherwise available from private lenders upon terms and
conditions affordable to the Developer.
XII. SUBMISSION TO CITY
This Plan shall be submitted to the City Council of
the City for its approval, after notice and public hearing, as
required by Section 469.175, subdivision 3, of the Act. The
Authority recommends the approval of this Plan by the City
Council, based on the Authority's findings and determinations set
forth herein.
XIII. CONSULTATIONS
As required by Section 469.175, subdivision 2, of the
Act, prior to the actual formation of the District, and at least
30 days before the public hearing referred to in Part X above, a
copy of this Plan was submitted to the members of the Hennepin
13
County Board of Commissioners, the members of the board of
t Independent School District No. 272, and to any other parties
referred to in said Section 469.175, subdivision 2. Such members
and other parties have been given an opportunity to meet with
representatives of the Authority and/or to present their comments
at the public hearing.
This plan was adopted and approved by the Board of
Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the
City of Eden Prairie on this 13th day of December, 1988.
Chairman
Secretary
f
14 '
,a r
EXHIBIT A
All that part of Outlot A, NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND
ADDITION, according to the plat on file and of record in the
Office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota
lying northerly and northeasterly of the following described
line: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 2, Block 1,
NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES, according to the plat on file and of
record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; thence South 88 degrees 02 minutes 18 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the north line of said Lot 2 a distance of
261.74 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 2 and the point
of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 70 degrees
26 minutes 32 seconds West a distance of 266.88 feet to the most
northerly corner of Lot 2, Block 1, said plat of NORTH BAY OF
TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION; thence North 29 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds West, along the northwesterly extension of the
northeasterly line of said Lot 2 a distance of 121.46 feet to a
point on the survey line which is as shown on said plat of NORTH
BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION distant 120.61 feet
northeasterly of the westerly line of said Outlot A as measured
along said survey line; thence continuing North 29 degrees 00
minutes 00 seconds West to the shoreline of Mitchell Lake as
shown on said plat of NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION and
said line there terminating.
,J
EXHIBIT B
All that part of Outlot A, NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND
ADDITION, according to the plat on file and of record in the
Office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota
lying northerly and northeasterly of the following described
line: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 2, Block 1,
NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES, according to the plat on file and of
record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; thence South 88 degrees 02 minutes 18 seconds West,
assumed bearing, along the north line of said Lot 2 a distance of
261.74 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 2 and the point
of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 70 degrees
26 minutes 32 seconds West a distance of 266.88 feet to the most
northerly corner of Lot 2, Block 1, said plat of NORTH BAY OF
TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION; thence North 29 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds West, along the northwesterly extension of the
northeasterly line of said Lot 2 a distance of 121.46 feet to a
point on the survey line which is as shown on said plat of NORTH
BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION distant 120.61 feet
northeasterly of the westerly line of said Outlot A as measured
along said survey line; thence continuing North 29 degrees 00
minutes 00 seconds West to the shoreline of Mitchell Lake as
shown on said plat of NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION and
said line there terminating.
{
EXHIBIT C
ELIM HOMES - EDEN PRAIRIE
Tax Increment Financing
BUILDING LAND
CAPTURED VALUE COMPUTATION COMPONENT COMPONENT TOTAL
Annual Rents - Stabilized at
94% Occupancy $ 546,000
Less: 25% Allowance (Normal
Operating Expenses) (136,500)
Less: 10% Allowance
(Special Services) (54,600)
Adjusted Value $ 354,900
Capitalization Rate 0.12
Estimated Tax Market
Value $2,957,500 $ 325,000
Assessment Rate -------0-- --
----0-- ---
Estimated Captured
Assessed Value $ 591,500 $ 110,500 $702,000
----------- ---------- --------
i
( ELIM HOMES - EDEN PRAIRIE EXHIBIT D
Tax Increment Financing
Advances of the Interest Rate Reduction could be scheduled as
follows:
Interest Tax
Rate Increment
Reduction Taxes
Elim's Fiscal Year Ending Advances Paid Balance
September 30, 1989 $6,200 $6,200
September 30, 1990 15,000 21,200
September 30, 1991 $75,000 30,000 (23,800)
September 30, 1992 75,000 60,000 (38,800)
September 30, 1993 75,000 84,200 (29,600)
September 30, 1994 75,000 87,600 (17,000)
September 30, 1995 75,000 91,100 (900)
September 30, 1996 75,000 94,700 18,800
September 30, 1997 75,000 98,500 42,300
September 30, 1998 75,000 102,400 69,700
September 30, 1999 75,000 106,500 101,200
September 30, 2000 75,000 110,800 137,000
September 30, 2001 75,000 115,200 177,200
September 30, 2002 75,000 119,800 222,000
------- -----------
------- -----------
$ 900,000 $1,122,000
Real Estate Taxes are assumed to increase at the rate of�4% per
year after 1992. Based on the above schedule, it is est mated
that in the 10 years following the termination of the a,' - .nces,
Elim will pay approximately $1,500,000 in real estate taxes in
addition to the amount shown above.
d
t
J
DECEMBER 13,1988
46969 SUBWAY SANDWICHES & SALADS EXPENSES-ELECTIONS 341.78
46970 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-ELECTIONS 69.60
6971 DALE SCHMIDT EXPENSES-STREET DEPT 15.79
46972 BEST BUY COMPANY ANSWERING MACHINE-POLICE DEPT 59.99
46973 STEWART TITLE COMPANY SERVICE-SCATTERED SITE HOUSING ASSISTANCE 11200.00
46974 AMERICAN RED CROSS CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY CENTER 35.00
46975 AT&T SERVICE 532.21
46976 BEER WHOLESALES INC BEER 3044.75
46977 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 5026.25
46978 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 14253.00
46979 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE CONFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT 50.00
469BO KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 283.62
46981 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER CONFERENCE-BUILDING DEPT 170.00
469B2 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES CONFERENCE-ADMINISTRATION 50.00
46983 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING INC BEER 12453.80
469B4 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 497.70
469B5 NSP SERVICE 237.98
469B6 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX 582.15
46987 RC BEVERAGE TWIN CITIES MIX 139.55
46988 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 14B91.85
46989 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE COMPANY MIX 92.12
46990 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 4346.BO
469FI GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE CO NOVEMBER 88 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 2339.68
46992 MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE NOVEMBER 88 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 2288.89
46993 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE CONFERENCE-PLANNING COMMISSION 100.00
46994 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD -JULY 88 LEGAL SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER 1933.75
LITIGATION
5995 LEFEVERE LEFLER KENNEDY OBRIEN LEGAL SERVICE 10.00
,996 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT 711.09
46997 CONSTANCE EWING REFUND-SEATING LESSONS 22.00
46998 SHEILA HALLORAN REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 20.00
46999 ROXANNE HARRI REFUND-KIDS KORNER CLASS 15.75
47000 JENNIFER MUNDALE REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 20.00
47001 STATE TREASURER STATE OF MN LICENSE FEE-WATER DEPT 15.00
47002 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 875.18
47003 USA TODAY ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 34.00
47004 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 242.17
47005 GRIGGS COOPER & CO LIQUOR 3497.08
47006 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 9691.98
47007 PAUSTIS & SONS WINE 359.25
47008 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR 6984.72
47009 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 1923.55
47010 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO LIQUOR 3825.04
47011 THE WINE COMPANY WINE 102.00
47012 CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE 3RD QUARTER 88 SERVICE 1500.00
47013 JUDITH MULVERY REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 17.00
47014 KIMBERLY CARLSON REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 17.00
47015 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OCTOBER 88 SALES TAX 283B6.93
47016 WATSON-FDRSBERG CD SERVICE-FIRE STATION M3 & 4 155338.00
47017 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERIES 146.00
47018 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
47019 LANE INSURANCE INC INSURANCE CLAIM 743.00
47020 KENNETH KOWALSKI REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 11.70
021 MEGAN STUCKEL REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 11.70
.022 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 11-11-88 1276.00
29078240
DECEMBER 13,1968
47023 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 11-11-66 9956.89
{ 7024 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL I1-11-68 278.63
47025 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES PAYROLL 11-11-86 252.00
47026 FEDERAL RESERVE BANE; PAYROLL 11-11-68 48903.65
47027 GREAT-WEST LIFE ASSURANCE PAYROLL 11-11-66 4451.00
47028 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL SE PAYROLL 11-11-68 211.00
47029 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 11-11-86 1204.24
47030 INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL & OPER NOVEMBER 68 UNION DUES 897.00
47031 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DECEMBER 88 LIFE INSURANCE 90.00
47032 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PEAA PAYROLL 11-I1-86 25576.09
47035 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 11-11-88 211.50
47034 OLIVE LARSON REFUND-SENIOR PROGRAM 2.55
47035 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBER 50.00
47036 BRAUN PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES INC CONFERENCE-STREET DEPT 30.00
47037 NDRMANDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE CONFERENCE-SEWER DEPT 60.00
47038 NSP SERVICE 2624.94
47039 NSP SERVICE 6977.56
47040 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 96.07
47041 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 175.75
47042 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 156.58
47043 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIOUDA 4598.54
47044 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIDUOR WINE 6921.82
47045 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 5175.39
47046 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 835.33
47047 QUALITY WINE CD WINE 4913.14
47048 TOW DISTRIBUTING CORP WINE 249.80
049 THE WINE COMPANY WINE 265.95
050 STATE TREASURER STATE OF MINNESOT LICENSE FEE-WATER DEPT 20.00
47051 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 85.85
47052 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PERMIT FEE-PURGATORY CREEK. DITCH CLEANING 180.00
47053 LAURIE LINDQUIST REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00
47054 BRIAN S NIELSEN REFUND-ADULT MEMBERSHIP 45.60
47055 POMMEA CO EXPENSES-SENIOR PROGRAMS 2.05
47056 STATE TREASURER OCTOBER 88 BUILDING SURCHARGE 5822.33
47057 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 99.50
47056 WATSON FORSBERG CO SERVICE-REPAIRS TO COMMUNITY CENTER 103950.00
47059 AT&T SERVICE 962.75
47060 AT&T SERVICE 111.21
47061 BIRTCHER WELSH DECEMBER 86 RENT-CITY HALL 17596.36
47062 JASON-NORTHCO PROP LPM1 DECEMBER 88 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 5885.67
47063 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 12452.47
47064 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 10809.50
47065 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 164.16
47066 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 69.26
47067 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 617.10
47068 AARP DEFENSIVE DRIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID I66.00
47069 AMERICAN SWEDISH INSTITUTE TOUR-SENIOR PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 18.00
47070 MINNEAPOLIS INSTITUTE OF ARTS TOUR-SENIDR PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 21.00
47071 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 633.25
47072 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 6175.38
47073 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIOUOR LIQUOR 1769.26
47074 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 2529.25
75 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 908.65
„076 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 129.49
47077 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 89.31
29854662 �l
oC��JI
DECEMBER 13,1988
17078 JEAN HARRIS EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER 275.00
1 7079 GARY PETERSON EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER 275.00
47080 PATRICIA PIDCOCK EXPENSES-COUNZ.T1MEMBER 225.00
47081 BOSTON PARE; PLAZA CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBERS 1508.00
47082 AMERICAN RED CROSS -1ST AID CERTIFICATION COURSE-AQUATIC 20.00
SUPERVISOR
47083 THE WOMAN'S CLUB OF MPLS ADULT PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 8.00
47084 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 11/25/88 1226.00
47085 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 11/25/88 9724.50
47086 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 11/25/88 278.63
47087 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 252.00
47088 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK; PAYROLL 11/25/88 47307.44
47089 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 11/25/88 4451.00
47090 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 211.00
47091 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC DECEMBER 88 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 12008.45
47092 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLL 11/11/88 & It/25/88 900.00
47093 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 11/25/BB 25273.09
47094 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN DECEMBER 88 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 19253.48
47095 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 11/25/8B 211.50
47096 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 11/25/88 1204.24
47097 HOPKINS POSTMASTER PDSTAGE-DOG LICENSE APPLICATIDNS!RENEWALS 254.23
47098 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 61.35
47099 BUTLER PAPER COMPANY XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL 711.48
47100 MINNEGASCU SERVICE 7980.64
47101 NSP SERVICE 9427.21
47102 NSP SERVICE 6526.82
7103 PETTY CASH - POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 18.74
.7104 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -POINTS/VALVE PADS/AIR FILTER/ZAMBDNI 147.61
REPAIR-ICE AREA-COMMUNITY CENTER
47105 CURTIS SOLIE REFUND-ICE RENTAL DEPOSIT 30.00
47106 X-ERGON ELECTRICAL CONTACT CLEANER-WATER DEPT 106.28
47107 ACTION PRINTING POSTAGE-FLYERS-CRIME PREVENTION FUND 1540.19
47108 DOUGLAS EDWARD ANDREWS FIRE CALLS 720.00
47109 THOMAS JOSEPH BLAIR FIRE CALLS 4IB.00
47110 JUERGEN ALVA BOHLEN FIRE CALLS 603.00
47111 GERALD BOHN FIRE CALLS 6.00
47112 LANCE BRACE FIRE CALLS 965.00
47113 DUANE CABLE FIRE CALLS 690.00
47114 SPENCER LEE CONRAD FIRE CALLS 2350.00
47115 GENE DAHLK:E FIRE CALLS 810.00
47116 RICHARD DEATON FIRE CALLS 1695.00
47117 LARRY DOIG FIRE CALLS 1375.00
47118 FRANKLIN ELLERING FIRE CALLS 190.00
47119 PATRICIA JEAN ENFIELD FIRE CALLS 426.00
47120 GEORGE ESBENSEN FIRE CALLS 1615.00
47121 CHARLES FERN FIRE CALLS 1425.00
47122 DAVID GILMDRE FIRE CALLS 575.00
47173 CHARLES GOBLE FIRE CALLS 1110.00
47124 ROBERT GRANT FIRE CALLS 795.00
47175 RICK HAMMERSCHMIDT FIRE CALLS 1160.00
47126 ROBERT HAUGEN FIRE CALLS 965.00
47127 JOHN THOMAS HOBBS FIRE CALLS 1595.00
12B WALTER JAMES FIRE CALLS 795.00
47129 DAVID ROBERT JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 198.00
47130 JAMMS GLENN JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 1780.00
17367788
DECEMBER 13,1988
{{ "'31 MICHAEL JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 1055.00
3` 7132 RONALD JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 3070.00
47133 SCOTT EDWARD JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 1017.00
47134 MICHAEL DAVID LADEN FIRE CALLS 807.00
47135 MARVIN ALLEN LAHTI FIRE CALLS 835.00
47136 SANDRA ANN LANDUCCI FIRE CALLS 590.00
47137 MAILAND EARL LANE FIRE CALLS 255.00
47138 BRADLEY EARL LARSON FIRE CALLS 695.00
47139 LOWELL DENNIS LUND FIRE CALLS 1205.00
47140 BRIAN GILL MCGRAW FIRE CALLS 565.00
47141 REGAN LAWRENCE MASSEE FIRE CALLS 745.00
47142 PHILIP GEORGE MATHIOWET2 FIRE CALLS 1670.00
47143 JAMES LEE MATSON FIRE CALLS 725.00
47144 GARY LEE MEYER FIRE CALLS 1820.00
47145 THOMAS HAMILTON MONTGOMERY FIRE CALLS 1860.00
47146 CURTIS REED OBERLANOER FIRE CALLS 2555.00
47147 KATHLEEN O'CONNOR FIRE CALLS 1885.00
47148 KEITH ANDREW OLSON FIRE CALLS 1050.00
47149 DONALD WILLIAM OVERBEY FIRE CALLS 558.00
47150 WANDA OVERBEY FIRE CALLS 1110.00
47151 JOHN EDWARD PAFKO FIRE CALLS 1310.00
47152 JAMES PELTIER FIRE CALLS 1340.00
47153 TIMOTHY JOHN PELTIER FIRE CALLS 1235.00
47154 DOUGLAS LEE PLEHAL FIRE CALLS 2130.00
47155 JERRY PRODOEHL FIRE CALLS 145.00
47156 GARY LEE RADTKE FIRE CALLS 855.00
'157 JOHN RIEGERT FIRE CALLS 1290.00
/158 JOHN DAVID ROCHFORD FIRE CALLS 845.00
47159 MICHAEL JOHN ROGERS FIRE CALLS 665.00
47160 TIMOTHY ALLEN SATHER FIRE CALLS 2130.00
47161 CHARLES CLARENCE SCHAITBERGER FIRE CALLS 2035.00
47162 ROGER HERBERT SCHMIDTKE FIRE CALLS 434.00
47163 LEE ALLEN SCHNEIDER FIRE CALLS 1240.00
47164 SCOTT GERALD SCHRAM FIRE CALLS 1215.00
47165 GERALD MATHEW SCHWANKL FIRE CALLS 385.00
47166 JAMES OLIVER SHAW FIRE CALLS 740.00
47167 RODNEY SIMDNSON FIRE CALLS 554.00
47168 TODD SKATRUD FIRE CALLS 1370.00
47169 JOHN JOSEPH SKRANKA FIRE CALLS 1220.00
47170 MARE; EARL SNETTING FIRE CALLS 706.00
47171 GENE RAYMOND SPANDE FIRE CALLS 940.00
47172 MICHELE MARIE SUNDBERG FIRE CALLS 549.00
47173 SCOTT EUGENE TAYLOR FIRE CALLS 653.00
47174 MARC LEWIS THIELMAN FIRE CALLS 1925.00
47175 ROONEY JAY UTING FIRE CALLS 1195.00
47176 MARK ANTHONY VANDENBERGHE FIRE CALLS 1302.00
47177 PAUL DONALD WELCOME FIRE CALLS 682.00
47178 THOMAS DEFOREST WILSON FIRE CALLS 1405.00
47179 THOMAS ALBERTI ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 52.80
47180 RITA ANDERSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 117.00
47181 PRISCILLA BAILEY ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 112.80
47182 JUDITH E BAKER ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 129.50
183 KENT BARKER ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 36.00
,/184 LEONE BARTA ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 121.80
47185 BERNADINE BEAUVAIS ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 112.80
5524970
DECEMBER 13,1788
47186 CONNIE BLAD ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 106.80
7187 MARY L BOLL ELECTIDN JUDGE WAGES 124.80
7188 ADELINE M BRAMWELL ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 117.00
47189 LYNN BRAMWELL ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 120.00
47190 JEANNE BRANDT ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 129.50
47191 CHERYL BRIDGE ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 114.00
47192 ROBERTA BRONSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 114.00
47193 BILLIE BROWN ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 118.80
47194 DOLORES BROWN ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 108.00
47195 JAMES P BROWN ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 129.00
47196 DOROTHY A CABA ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 109,80
47197 BARBARA G CAIL ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 196.50
47198 LOTS JANE CAMPBELL ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 106.80
47199 SHIRLEY CARLON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 114.00
47200 ANN CHEATHAM ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 115.80
47201 FAY CLARK ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 140,00
47202 GERTRUDE L DAHLBERG ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 112.80
47203 JANET DAHLKE ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 108.00
47204 LOUISfJ DOUGHTY ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 114.00
47205 LORETTA M ELLISON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 117.00
47206 PERRY FORSTER ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 30,00
47207 DAVID GALLEGER ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 60,00
47208 RENEE J GARPESTAD ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 54,00
47209 VIRGINIA K, GARTNER ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 147.00
47210 JINNY GIBSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 115.80
47211 JULIET A GLEASON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 120.00
47212 TIM GORDON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
11 .00
'2I3 K,AREN HACKMAN ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 111.00
.7214 LAVERNE C HALES ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 114.00
47215 CHERYL HANSEN ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 114.00
47216 JUNE L HANSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 115.80
47217 HELEN HAUPT ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 540.00
47218 ANNE R HAWKINS ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 108.00
47219 BECKY L HEALD ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
114.00
47220 CAROL HEGGE ELECTION JUDGE WAGES f08.00
47221 LEONARD M HELFAND ELECTION JUDGE WAGES IIB.B0
47222 MARY B HELFAND ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 108.00
47223 KATHARINE C HENDRICKSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 105.00
47224 BERNICE M HOLASEK ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 108 00
47225 ALLENE HOOKOM ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 105.00
47226 ISABELL IVERSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 111.00
47227 ELAINE M .IA000ES ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 112.80
4722E BILL JELLISON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 108 00
47229 LYLE J JOHNSTON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 118.80
47230 PAULINE G JOHNSTON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
47231 DELORES KLEIN ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 117.00
47232 DAVID C K,NAAK ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 123 00
47233 LESTER LABORE ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 11I
4723 00
4 BRAD LANE ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 80. 0
47235 OLIVE LARSON ELECTIDN JUDGE WAGES 117.00
47236 LINDA LEATHERS ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 105 00
47237 JEAN D LEE ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 118. 0
'238 ADELINE L LEVIN ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
279 NANCY LITTLE ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
114.00
47240 LYDIA MARTINSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 1100
1144..00
660170
DECEMBER 13,1988
47241 TiNA MATZ ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 31.50
7242 VIOLA E MCLAIN ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 129.00
7243 CARDLE MEIDINGER ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
47244 DELDRIS MILLER ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 108.00
47245 JUDY MILLER ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 124.80
47246 MAUREEN S MILLER 115.80
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 47247 RUTH MITAL ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 118.80
47248 KATE MORROW 133.00
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 31.50
47249 JOYCE MYHRE ELECTION JUDGE WAGES o
47250 ALFRED L NELSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 126.00
47251 CAROLINE NELSON 122.50
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 47252 MARIDN NESBITT 111.00
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
47253 KATHLYN NICHOLSON 1.3.00
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 106.80
47254 PHIL DL50N ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 114.00
47255 RUTH OLSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
47256 LAURIE PENNEBAKER ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 114.00
47257 CHERYL PETERSEN 108.00
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 472 124.80
58 KATHLEEN PORTA ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 114.00
47259 JIM RANNOW ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 147.00
47260 LAURINA REIFF ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 105.00
47261 BERNICE SANDNESS ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 47262 BETTY SCHAITBERGEk 117.00
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 105.00
47263 FRANCES SCHAITBERGER ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
47264 ALICE J SCHULTZ 129.00
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 0
.8
47265 DOROTHY SCHWARTZ ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 11 112. 0
47266 WILLIAM 5CHWAkTZ ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 111.00
47267 CARDLE J SHERIDAN ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 124.80
268 ANNE C THDMAS ELECTION JUDGE WAGES .80
269 iDWAL THDMAS ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 1 11212 00
47270 WALTER THOMPSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES .00
47271 ELAINE UDSTUEN ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 10 1088.00
47272 MARY UPTON ELECTIDN JUDGE WAGES 475.80
47273 BARBARA VANDERPLOEG ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
47274 MELODY VILLARS ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 143.50
47275 MERRILL WATSON ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 124.80
47276 ELIZABETH WATSON 102.00
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 47277 MARIE WITTENBERG ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 112.80
47278 ETHYL L WOKASCH ELECTIDN JUDGE WAGES 108.00
47279 JO ANN WRONSKI 108.00
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES 47280 A 8 DICK CO XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL 131.60
47281 AAA STRIPING SERVICE INC -PAINTING CROSSWAiKSiSTOPBARS/ARROWS- 37.20
STREET DEPT 465.60
47282 ABCO CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC CURB STOPS-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK
472B3 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 810.00
47284 ADSP ADVANCED DUPLICATING F PRINT PRINTING-CITY CODE BOOKS-POLICE DEPT 2254.34
47285 AIRLIFT DOORS INC DOOR REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 169.00
47286 AIRSIGNAL INC PAGER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 66.00
47287 ALASKAN AIR CONDITIONING INC ICE RINK REPAIRS-COMMUNITY CENTER 82.00
47288 ALPHA VIDEO S AUDIO CASSETTES-POLICE DEPT 2472.50
47289 AMERICAN HEAT TRAINING SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 17.20
47290 AMERI-STAR LIGHTING 650.00
LIGHT BULBS-TRAFFIC CONTROL 47291 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO 386.40
-UNIFORMS-CITY HALL/FIRE DEPT/TOWELS-
LIDUOR STORE 155.84
92 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BOND PAYMENT
4/293 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION DUES-PLANNING DEPT 254257.35
245.00
26683083
DECEMBER 13,1988
47294 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSDC INC LETTERS FOR SIGN-SENIOR CENTER 510.80
7295 CATHY ANDERSON MILEAGE-SOCIAL EVENTS 66.50
,7296 MIKE ANDERSDN TENNIS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 144.00
47297 ANR FREIGHT SYSTEM INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 58.80
47298 AQUATROL CORPORATION WELL CONTROLS-WATER DEPT 175.36
47299 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 46B3.77
47300 ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS INC WELL DRILLING-FRANLO PARK 9660.00
47301 ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNIC EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION 56.00
47302 B R W INC -SERVICE-DELL ROAD/EVENER WAY FEASIBILITY/ 1023.52
TRAFFIC SIGNALS IN MAJOR CENTER AREA
47303 BACON'S ELECTRIC CD -STARTER/5 WALL RECEPTACLES-32821.33-WATER 2893.79
DEPT
47304 GWEN BARKER EXPENSES-SUNBONNET DAY 15.21
47305 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -FUSES/BEARINGS/BATTERIES/SIGNAL LAMPS- 173.52
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
47306 BERGIN AUTO BODY -REPAIR TAILGATE/REAR BUMPER/RIGHT CORNER 1136.55
PANEL & PAINTED POLICE RESERVE VEHICLE
47307 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE-CITY HALL 743.50
47309 BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS SERVICE 10.00
47309 RUSS BILLISON EXPENSES-SENIOR PROGRAMS 1.96
47310 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION 2660.42
47311 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON SEPTEMBER 88 ANIMAL SERVICE 7R7.50
47312 BMB SERVICES -SCOREBOARD PLUGS-ICE ARENA-CDMMUNITY 52.75
CENTER
47313 LOIS BOETTCHER -MINUTES-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL 80.60
RESOURCES COMMISSION
47314 BOHL HELGESON REFUND-METER DEPOSIT 292.88
315 BOR-SON CONSTRUCTION REFUND-METER DEPOSIT 295.25
.i316 BRAUN ENS TESTING INC SERVICE-FRANLO ROAD 6403.10
47317 DAVID BROWN FOOTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 174.00
47318 BROWN LAND CO REFUND-HYDRANT DEPOSIT 379.56
47319 PAUL BROWN FOOTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 390.00
47320 MAXINE BRUECK MILEAGE/EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 47.24
47321 BUCKING14AM DISPOSAL INC NOVEMBER 88 WASTE DISPOSAL 804.00
47322 BUDGET PLUMBING CORP -HOTWATER HEATER & INSTALLATION-SENIOR 290.63
CENTER
47323 BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION MN TRANSFER CASES/KEYS-ELECTIONS 37.55
47324 C & N W TRANSP CO WATER MAIN RENTAL-WATER DEPT 420.00
47325 CARGILL SALT DIVISION SALT-SNOW & ICE CONTROL 7854.64
47326 KEROS CAkTWkIGHT SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 2489.44
47327 CARVER COUNTY TREASURER -SERVICE-HWY 212 ENVIRONME14TAL IMPACT 3363.41
STATEMENTS & STUDY REPORT
47328 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES LUBRICANT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 127.52
47329 CENTURION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS INC SQUAD CAR SETUP-POLICE DEPT 908.71
47330 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY -LEGAL ADS-COUNTY RD 1 & COUNTY RD 4 WATER 147.90
MAIN EXTENSION
47331 LLOYD CHERNE REFUND-SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 867.64
47332 CLEVELAND COTTON PRODUCTS PAPER TOWELS-WATER DEPT 151 4q
47333 CLIMATE MAKERS INC -REPAIR HEAT RECOVERY ON POOL UNIT- 93.00
COMMUNITY CENTER
47334 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC -GEARS/BUSHINGS/CLUTCH/BEARINGS/ I35D.22
TRANSMISSION REPAIR/YOKE-EQUIPMENT MAINT
,5 CONCEPT MICROFILM INC -PORTABLE MICROFILM READER REPAIR/ 94.P0
BATTERIES-WATER DEPT
47336 CONSTRUCTION FABRICS INC -EROSION CONTROL MAT/STAPLES-POLICE 223.75
PARKING LOT
5214048
47337 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 140.00
4733E CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC GAS TESTER/FILAMENTS-SEWER DEPT 47.00
47339 COPY EQUIPMENT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT 128.29
47340 CORPORATE RiSK MANAGERS INC NOVEMBER 88 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 550.00
q 73,41 CROWN MARKING INC NAME PLATES/RUBBER STAMP-ASSESSING DEPT 26.25
47342 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC -DRILL BiTS/SCREWS/LIGHTERS/KEYS/PINS/ 430.96
WASHERS/CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINT
47343 CURT'S STUMP REMOVAL STUMP REMOVAL-FDRESTRY DEPT 75.00
47344 CUSTOM AUTOBODY S-10 PICKUP REPAIR-WATER DEPT 242.20
47345 CUSTOM FiRE APPARATUS INC LADDERS/FUEL GAUGE-FIRE DEPT 845.00
47346 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 4995.72
47347 D & K PRINTING PLUS INC PRINTING-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 15.00
47348 WARD F DAHLBERG NOVEMBER 88 EXPENSES-LIQUOR STORES 80.00
47349 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE BLDG/COMMUNITY 802.76
CENTER
47350 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE/EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION 79.50
47351 DECORATIVE DESIGNS DECEMBER 88 SERVICE 49.50
47352 DIXIE PETRO CHEM INC CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 1968.00
47353 BiLL DOLNY DIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 152.75
47354 DEM CON LANDFILL INC OCTOBER 88 WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK: MAINTENANCE 38.00
47355 EROSION CONTROL MAT-POLICE BLDG EROSION CONTROL MAT-POLICE PARKING LOT 286.00
47356 DON'S SOD SERVICE SOD-STREET MAINTENANCE 371.70
47357 DRiSKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 289.54
47358 DRISK,ILLS SUPER VALU -EXPENSES-CITY HALL/HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 185.40
COMMISSION/POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER
47359 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 26.51
47360 PAULA DUNNUM AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAiD 200.00
47361 DYNA SYSTEMS CDMPRESSORS-WATER DEPT 201.57
47362 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER Of COMMERCE EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATIDN 12.00
7363 EDEM PR410IE FTPEFIGHTERS RELIEF 1988-CiTY'S SHARE OF FIRE RELIEF FUND 27079.00
64 VOID OUT CRECR 0.00
41365 CiTY Of EDINA SERVICE-OCTOBER 88 WATER TEST 91.00
47366 EGAN MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS -SERVICE- REPAIR GRAFFITI BRIDGE SIGNAL 22.83
SYSTEM
47367 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO -MAINTENANCE ON 7 CIVIL DEFENSE WARNING 2122.00
SIRENS-POLICE DEPT
47368 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC -VINYL SUIT/RESPIRATOR/SAFETY SUPPLIES- 156.14
SEWER DEPT
47369 CHRIS ENGER NOVEMBER 88 EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 237.67
47370 JEFF ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 63.00
47311 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAiD 63.00
47372 EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE-CITY HALL 40.85
47313 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC -OFFICE PARTITION INSTALLATION-BUILDING 168.03
DEPT
47374 FAIRVIEW BLOOD TESTS-POLICE DEPT 45.76
47375 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 4496.80
47376 THE FiTNESS STORE 2 EXERCISE MATS-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 560.00
47377 FLOYD SECURITY -SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 60.00
CUMMINS GRILL HOUSE
47378 FOUNTAIN PLACE APTS REFUND-METER DEPDS17 82.62
47319 FOUNTAIN PLACE APTS REFUND-METER DEPOSIT 595.50
47780 FOUR STAR BAR S RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 923.72
47391 FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS INC MARKING PAINT-WATER DEPT 1I8.54
41382 JOHN FRANE NOVEMBER 8B EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 200.00
.,4511
:)o"?
DECEMBER 13,1988
47383 GARDNER HARDWARE CO DOOR STOPPERS-WATER DEPT 77.36
73B4 GETTING TO KNOW YOU ADVERTISING-LIOUOR STORES 157.50
47395 JEANETTE GILLIS KIDS KORNER INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 170.00
47386 JOSEPH GLEASON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 292.50
47387 GNERER WELDING 1NC CUTTING EDGE-PARK MAINTENANCE 99.95
473B8 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVIC TIRES-EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 368.B0
47389 GOPHER OIL COMPANY HYDRAULIC OIL!GEAR LUBRICANT-WATER DEPT 479.45
47390 GOPHER SIGN CO SIGN POSTS-WATER DEPT 88.00
47391 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT 510.00
41392 GRANT MERRITT S ASSOCIATES LTD OCTOBER 88 LEGAL SERVICE 16360.06
47393 ALAN D GRAY OCT0BER 88 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00
47394 GREATER MINNEAPOLIS AREA BOARD OF BOOKS-ASSESSING DEPT 90.00
47395 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 483.69
47396 LEROY GUBA HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 115.00
47397 SARA GULLICKSON TENNIS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 108.00
47398 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC -SERVICE-HAMILTON RD/FRANLO RD/COUNTY RD 4 17877.70
WATER MAIN/RED ROCK LAKE STORM SEWER
47399 HARDRIVES INC LIMESTONE-STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT 7306.37
47400 HARMON GLASS -TINTED WINDSHIELDS-EOUIPMENT MAINT/SAFETY 614.47
PLATE-PARK MAINTENANCE
47401 HEIMARK FOODS CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 190.82
47402 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-CDMMUNITY CENTER 51.75
47403 HELLER'S CARBONIC WEST INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 593.25
47404 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEFT OCTOBER B8 BOOKING FEE-PDLICE DEPT 779.02
47405 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SEPTEMBER BB BOARD OF PRISONERS 2020.50
47406 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 433.00
7407 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEE-ENGINEERING DEPT 25.50
,7408 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OCTOBER 8B WATTE DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 75.00
47409 D C HEY COMPANY INC -OCTOBER 8B MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/COPIER 270.00
PARTS & REPAIR-CITY HALL
47410 DAVE HOEL REFUND-METER DEPOSIT 295.50
47411 HOFFERS INC CHLORINE STORAGE DDOR-WATER DEPT 114.07
47412 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -COUPLINGS/NOZZLES-ICE ARENA-CDMMUNITY 297.22
CENTER
47413 HONEYWELL INC CHARTS-WATER DEPT 185.73
47414 HORWITZ INC REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 10.50
47415 IBM CORPORATION -DECEMBER B8 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY 638.94
HALL
47416 ICMA SUBSCRIPTION-ADMINISTRATION 60.00
47417 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 -ROOM RENTAL-CDMMUNITY BAND/ADULT PROGRAMS 420.25
ART S MUSIC/ORGANIZED ATHLETICS
47418 INTL SOCIETY OF FIRE SERVICE INST DUES-FIRE DEPT 60 00
47419 INTL SOCIETY OF FIRE SERV INSTRUC DUES-FIRE DEPT 60.00
47420 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC -NOVEMBER B8 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY 150.00
HALL
47421 ISS INTER SERVICE SYSTEM NOVEMBER 88 JANITDRIAL SERVICE-CITY HALL 1160.00
47422 MICHAEL W JACOUES MILEAGE-LIOUDR STORE I1.25
47423 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT B0.B8
47424 THE JAMIESON COMPANY -5 VOLY SCOPE SCORING UNITS-ORGANIZED 146.05
ATHLETICS
47425 MADELINE KALMBACH ADUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 105.00
'426 FENNEL-HIRE INC -SOUAD CAR SCREEN/EXTENSION PANEL-POLICE 133.35
DEPT
47427 SCOTT A KIPP MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 6.25
4982868
DECEMBER 13,1988
47428 KOSS PAINT & WALLPAPER INC PAINT-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK 159.40
7429 MARY KOTTKE VOLLEYBALL & BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 30.00
,7430 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER BOLTS/TURNBUCKLES CCU?PMFNT MAINTENANCE 17.90
47431 THE LANDSCAPER REFUND-METER DEPOSIT 595.25
47432 SUZANNE K LANE EXPENSES/MILEAGE CLECTIONS 46.97
47433 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD -JULY 88 LEGAL SEP,VICE/JULY 88 CABLE TV/ 37835.18
-OCTOBER 88 FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL/MAY 88
COMMUNITY CENTER LITIGATION
47434 LANO EQUIPMENT INC PLANER RENTAL-STREET MAINTENANCE 792.25
47435 BOB LANZI 6 STEP LADDERS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 57.18
47436 LOIS LAYNE CREATIVE DESIGN -20 DECALS/36 NUMBERS/REMOVE & INSTALL 4 I286.72
DECALS/POLICE DEPT
47437 LAYNE MINNESOTA COMPANY WELL PUMP REPAIR-WATER DEPT 242.00
4743B LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES -4TH QUARTER 88 WORKERS COMPENSATION 41722.00
INSURANCE
47439 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURA LIABILITY INSURANCE-CITY HALL 44985.08
47440 LEEF BROS INC COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 83.80
47441 EUGENE M LEFEBVRE TRUCKING INC SERVICE-DOZER WORK-PARK MAINTENANCE 130.00
47442 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC -OCTOBER 88 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 17738.56
LANDFILL
47443 LOGIS OCTOBER 88 SERVICE 5042.78
47444 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL INC -OCTOBER 88 WASTE DISPOSAL-STREET MAINT/ 698.00
PARK MAINTENANCE
47445 TRACY JEAN LUKE EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 3.85
47446 LYMAN LUMBER CO -PLYWOOD/TIMBERS-STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT/ 139.78
SENIOR CENTER
47447 M SHANKEN COMMUICATIONS INC SUBSCRIPTION-LIQUOR STORE 60.00
'448 MAGELSSEN PIANO TUNING-SENIOR CENTER 40.00
,7449 MARTIN-MCALLISTER STRESS TESTS-POLICE DEPT 400.00
47450 MASYS CORPORATION -DECEMBER 88 COMPUTER MAINTENANCE-POLICE 1295.00
DEPT
47451 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 55.80
47452 METRO PRINTING INC -PRINTING FORMS-3102.00-POLICE DEPT/ 688.00
LETTERHEAD & ENVELOPES-S586.00-FIRE DEPT
47453 METROPDLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS OCTOBER 88 SAC CHARGES 49549.50
47454 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS DECEMBER 88 SEWER SERVICE 136607.35
47455 MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS MICROFILM PRINTER REPAIR-CITY HALL 73.84
47456 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO STEEL PLATE-PARK MAINTENANCE 15.00
47457 MIDLAND PRODUCTS COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 413.20
47458 MIDWEST ASPHALT REFUND-METER DEPOSIT 105.66
47459 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET MAINT/PARK, MAINT 29775.07
47460 MIDWEST PUBLISHERS SUPPLY CO TAPE-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 22.56
47461 MINNEAPOLIS SPOKESMAN EMPLOYMENT ADS-POLICE DEPT 51.12
47462 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SA LICENSE FEE-LIQUOR STORES 12.00
47463 MARION MILLER KIDS KORNER INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 310.50
47464 HERMAN MILLER INC PARTITIONS-ASSESSING DEPT 912.BO
47465 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP -NOVEMBER 88 PAGER SERVICE-WATER DEPT/ 133.50
POLICE DEPT
47466 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -UNIFORMS/EXTINGUISHERS/EXTINGUISHER 710.50
-RECHARGING/NOZZLES/PULL PINS/O RINGS-
FIRE DEPT
47467 MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND INC WALLYBALL NETS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 208.86
'468 MN STATE FIRE DEPT ASSN DUES-FIRE DEPT 165.00
469 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS -EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER/ 642.16
ADVERTISING-LIOUOR STORES
37385412
DECEMBER 13,1988
47470 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CDDPERA SERVICE 55.25
i '7471 MINNESOTA WANNER CO BANDS/HOSE REEL SWIVEL/HOSE-POLICE BLDG 39.52
A ,7472 MINUTEMAN PRESS -PRINTING-FLYERS/MEMBERSHIP CARDS- 493.90
COMMUNITY CENTER
47473 R G MODEEN INC PAINTING-FIRE STATION Ul 2964.50
47474 MODERN OFFICE STORAGE CABINET-COMMUNITY CENTER 184.95
47475 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 162.32
47476 NATIONAL SCREENPRINT -POLO SHIRTS/AWARDS-WALLEYBALL/COMMUNITY 216.00
CENTER
47477 NATIDNWIDE ADVERTISING SERV INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES 95.20
47478 BETH NILSSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 1764.77
47479 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS INC TARPS/MATS-SEWER DEPT/STREET MAINTENANCE 174.97
47460 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE-STREET LIGHTS-EDENVALE BLVD 2660.00
47481 OCHS BRICK; a TILE CO CEMENT-PARK MAINTENANCE 26.36
47482 SCOTT ODEGARD TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 9.00
47483 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC PRINTER/TYPEWRITER REPAIR-CITY HALL 170.00
47484 BUD OLSON AWARDS PLAQUES-SOCIAL/WALLYBALL 257.00
47485 PAPER WAREHOUSE -PAPER CUPS/PLATES/NAPKINS/NAMETAGS/ 36.25
CUTLERY/CANDLES-OUTDOOR CENTER
47466 PARE; NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER STRESS TESTS-FIRE DEPT 1385.50
47487 PEDERSON SELLS EQUIP CO INC HYDRAULIC FITTINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 156.41
47488 RICHARD R PETERSBURG SCHOOL/EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 64.75
47469 PITNEY BOWES -4TH QUARTER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 1019.79
COMMUNITY CENTER
47490 PLEHAL BLACKTOPPING INC PAVER RENTAL-STREET MAINTENANCE 2514.00
47491 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 20.50
47492 POMMER COMPANY INC BASKETBALL TROPHIES-DRGANIZED ATHLETICS 194.00
7493 POWER BRAKE EQUIPMENT CO LIGHTS/BRAKE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 166.24
.1494 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC CDMFANY INC -ZAMBONI WATER HEATER REPAIR/FIXTURE 923,90
-REPAIR/POOL MOTOR REPAIR/BASEBALL FIELD
COVERS-COMMUNITY CENTER/PARE; MAINTENANCE
47495 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -PAINT/BRUSH/TURPENTINE/COPPER TUBING/ 166.15
-FITTINGS/DRILL BITSiSCREWS/BATTERIES-FIRE
DEPT
47496 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -RUST REMOVER/WASHERS/UTILITY KNIFE/NUTS/ 184.37
-BOLTS/KEYS/SOCKET/BATTERIES/DRILL BITS/
-PLUG/SCREWS/TAPE/BATTERY CHARGER/CAPS-
COMMUNITY CENTER
47497 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -PAINT/PAINT RDLLERS/RUST REMOVER!FILTERS/ 74.00
-BATTERIES/LIGHT BULBS/SCREWS/PRINT MIXER/
-PLEXIGLASS/CAULK/TWINE/SAW BLADES/BOLTS/
-NUTS/STAPLES/GLASSiWATERING CAN/SPRAY
BOTTLE-PARK MAINTENANCE/OUTDOOR CENTER
47498 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -STAPLES/GUN CLEANER/STEEL TAPE/GLASS/ 51.16
-BATTERIES/PLUNGERS/ELECTRIC PLATES-POLICE
DEPT
47499 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -BATTERY/VALVEI BELTS/NUTS/WASHERS/CLAMPS/ 79.38
-CABLE/WIRE/RUBBER MALLOT/UTILITY KNIFE/
BLADES/BOLT-SEWER DEPT
47500 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -GARBAGE CANS/TOGGLE BOLTS/PAPER TOWELS/ 120.25
-KEY/SPOONS,PAPER PLATES/HAMMER/WASHERS/
-SCREWS/TURNBUCKLES iSCREWDRIVER TIPS/HOOKS/
NUTS/BOLTS-STREET DEPT
501 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -WIRING TOOL iSTRAPICAPS/TAPE/BOLTS/BUCKETS 224.22
-GARBAGE BAGS/LAMP GLOBE/CABLESICAULKING
-GUN/SPRAY PAINT/PAINT PADS/CLEANING
1665661
f
i
-SUPPLIES/GREASE GUN/SPRINKLERS/GARDEN
HOSES-WATER DEPT
47502 PRAIRIE LAWN t GARDEN REPAIR ICE AUGER-COMMUNITY CENTER 26.94
'7503 PSG BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 530.00
.7504 R S R SPECIALTIES INC -ZAMBONI BLADES SHARPENED-ICE ARENA- 110.40
COMMUNITY CENTER
47505 RECREONICS CORP RATCHET WRENCH-COMMUNITY CENTER 37.03
47506 RAGE REFFSGAARD DUES-BUILDING DEPT 15.00
47507 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN CASH REGISTER RENTAL-L10UOR STORE 500.00
47508 RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATES I -SERVICE-MITCHELL/RESEARCH ST IMPROVEMENTS 22529.71
-HIDDEN GLEN 3RD ADDITION/GOLDEN TRIANGLE
DRIVE EXTENSION/COUNTY ROAD I WATER MAIN
47509 ROAD RESCUE INC BURN SHEETS/SYRINGES-FIRE DEPT 132.66
47510 BOB RYAN HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 137.50
47511 ST PAUL BOOK. & STATIONERY CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-STREET MAINT 14.91
47512 SAFETY KLEEN CUHP -TOWELS/CARBURETOR SPRAY-PARK MAINTENANCE/ 139.68
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
47513 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC POTS/CANDLES/WHISTLES-SPECIAL EVENTS 26.00
47514 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE BUILDING 114.47
47515 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC -CLEANING SUPPLIES-PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING/ 343.00
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
47516 K.EVIN W SCHMIEG OCTOBER S NOVEMBER EXPENSES-BUILDING DEPT 400.00
47517 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC CEMENT-STREET MAINTENANCE 920.36
47518 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 40.73
47519 SEARS ROCKING CHAIR-CENTER CARE-COMMUNITY CENTER 149.99
47520 SHADY OAK PRINTING PRINTING FORMS-ENGINEERING DEPT 36.00
47521 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO -REPAIR DOOR SENSORS FOR SECURITY SYSTEM- 103.00
COMMUNITY CENTER
47522 STEVEN R SINELL 14OVEMBER 88 EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 223.13
'523 THE SKETCH PAD SIGNS-ELECTIONS 105.00
,7524 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -WRENCHES/EXTRACTOR/SCREWDRIVERS-EQUIPMENT 171.70
MAINTENANCE
47525 SODERQUIST SERVICES INC MOWING-CITY LOTS/PLEASANT HILL CEMETERY 675.00
47526 SOUTH HENN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL -SERVICE-3RD QUARTER 88 SOUTH HENNEPIN 3000.00
HUMAN SERVICES
47527 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -LEGAL ADS-PLANNING DEPT/ADVERTISING- 1000.60
LIQUOR STORES
47528 SPIRIT COACHES INC BUS SERVICE-SKI TRIP-ADULT PROGRAMS 100.00
47529 SPORTS WORLD USA -VOLLEYBALLS/NETS/WHISTLES-ORGANIZED 122.90
ATHLETICS
47530 SQUARE CUT -CABINET-$540.00-POLICE DEPT/SHELVES- 725.00
$185.00-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS
47531 STANDARD SPRING CO AXLE ASSEMBLY/BOLTS/NUTS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 248.60
47532 STEMPF AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES INC PIN-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 88.91
47533 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE ED -UNIFORMS/GUN CASES/INTOXILYZER 366.40
MOUTHPIECES-POLICE DEPT
47534 STATE OF MINNESOTA BOOK-LIQUOR STORES 10.00
47535 SUBURBAN CHEIROLET -CABLE ASSEMBLIES/SWITCH ASSEMBLY/BOLTS/ 131.19
-RETAINERS/LEVER ASSEMBLY-FIRE DEPT
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
47536 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC AIR FILTERS-LIQUOR STORE 4.76
47537 NATALIE SWAGGERT NOVEMBER 88 EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES 200.00
47538 TECHNOLOGY PART; REFUND-METER DEPOSIT 292.91
47539 VOID OUT CHECK
0.00
377348
i
DECEMBER 13,1988
47540 TJ'S OF EDEN PRAIRIE EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 63.07
7541 VALERIE TRADER AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 200.00
,7542 TURNOUIST PAPER CO PAPER TOWELS-FIRE DEPT 717.62
47543 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CD OXYGEN-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46.32
47544 TWIN CITY TESTING SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER REPAIR 480.80
47545 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 216.81
47546 VAUGHNS INC FLAG REPAIR-POLICE BUILDING 14.97
47547 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-PDOL-COMMUNITY CENTER 381.80
47548 VOSS ELECTRIC CO LIGHT BULBS-POLICE BUILDING 414.17
47549 CLAYTON G VNUK -HAMMER/DRIVE IMPACT SET/METRIC WRENCHES- 281.30
WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
47550 VWR SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 72.25
47551 WALDOR PUMP S EQUIP CO ASSEMBLIES-SEWER DEPT 634.72
47552 KEITH WALL NOVEMBER 88 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 200.00
47553 WATER PRODUCTS CO -1 4 IN 1000 GAL METER-32238.00/4 1 IN X 6963.16
-1 1/4 IN 1000 GAL METER-$592.32/8 1 IN
-1000 GAL METERS-SI067.04/1 HYDRANT-
-$850.00/4 2 IN METERS-$1831.71/
CONNECTIONS/GASKETS/NUTS/BOLTS-WATER DEPT
47554 WATERITE INC -VALVE ASSEMBLY/CLAMP RING/SPRINGS/SEAL 284.64
-RINGS/CABLE/CHEMICAL PUMP REPAIR-POOL-
COMMUNITY CENTER
47555 MARC WEBER RACQUETBALL INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 72.00
47556 TOM WEKO BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 87.00
47557 RICHARD C WILLIAMSON SCHOOL-STREET DEPT 89.10
47558 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS -BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE DEPT/VOTING 19,10.00
-LOCATION MAPS-$1530.00-ELECTIONS/
LETTERHEAD-CITY HALL
,7559 XEROX CORP OCTOBER 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 94.00
47560 YOUNGSTEDTS INC TUBES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 15.10
47561 EARL ZENT SCHOOL-ASSESSING DEPT 74.00
47562 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 243.90
47563 ZIEGLER INC -FUEL SYSTEM REPAIR/SEAL/GASKETS/VALVES- 1472.55
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
47564 KAY ZUCCARO AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID I42.50
46861 VOID OUT CHECK
46948 VOID OUT CHECK 1943.75-
46949 VOID OUT CHECK 443.79-
46959 VOID OUT CHECK 34.00-
46979 VOID OUT CHECK 103950.00-
47001 VOID OUT CHECK 50.00-
-9125476 15.00-
$1576033.05
DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS
10 GENERAL 671864.76
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 1042.20
15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 85719.77
17 LIQUOR STORE-PHmbERVE 52057.11
20 CEMETERY OPERATIONS 560.00
21 POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUG$ 745.00
22 STATE AID CDNST 3363.41
31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 11710.20
33 UTILITY BOND FUND 18882.32
39 66 FIRE STATION CDNST 155338.00
43 77 FIRE DEBT FUND 11.95
44 UTILITY DEBT FUND 254037.50
51 IMPROVEMENT CDNST FD 35654.22
55 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND ARB 219.85
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CDNST FD 890.64
73 WATER FUND 49480.45
77 SEWER FUND 168140.30
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 7129.13
82 FIRE RELIEF FUND 27079.00
87 CDBG FUND 10040.Oo
91 T I F DEBT FUND 867.64
$1576033.05
3
f
{
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 Legisiature took action which in effect forgave $32
million in loans to the cities.
C 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
i
SUBURBAN
)
RATE
AUTHORITY
8
MEMBERS
BLOOMINGTON
BROOKLYN PARK
RURNSVILLE
CNAMPLIN MEMORANDUM
CIRCLE PINES
COLUM BIA HEIGHTS
DEEPNAVEN
:DEN PRAIRIE TO: SRA Member City Managers and Clerks
EDINA
FRIDLEY FROM:"IFENWoop William D. Schoell
NASTIN Chairman
NOPRINS
LAUDERDA LE
MMARL:PPLOOD DATE: October 27, 1988
MINNETONKA
MINNETRI"TA
NEW BRGHTON RE° Funding of Combined Sewer Separation Programs
NORTH ST.PAUL in St. Paul and Minneapolis
ORoNo
OSSEO
►LYMOUTN
:ICNFIELD At its quarterly y meeting on October 19 the Suburban Rate
RosEVILLE Authority Board of Directors unanimously passed a reso-
SAVAGE lution urging member cities to contact their State
IT,LOUIS PARK
5 AKOPEE elected representatives regarding the funding of the
SNOREVIEW Combined Sewer Separation SPRING Program in the Cities of St.
VADNAIS Paul and Minneapolis. The Board recommends that cities
AD HEIGHTS EI
WEST ATA STT.PAUI adopt a resolution along WEST the lines of the enclosed model.
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 cf 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 i•h . loans. Thege rennalars were not
heard by any conuni"tae of the legislature, except a
conference committee on the appropriations bill. In
2000 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST R MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55402 P (612)333-0543
SRA Member Cities
October 27, 1988
Page 2
i
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
00601tO1.b18 r
cc: Directors
s
S
r CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 266
A RESOLUTION STATING THE OPPOSITION OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE
TO
FORGIVENESS OFHE ATE OF
THEIR CNESOTA
OMBINEDSEWER 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.
ary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
4 John D. rane, City Clerk
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 21, 1988
RE: PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CODE
On November 7th, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed Ordinance #22-88, past
Council minutes, and letters sent to the City regarding pro and con feelings on a
recreational vehicle code.
Residents on the mailing list were notified of the Planning Commission's discussion
and approximately 8 people attended (Approximately 30 residents are on the list).
Over 2 hours were spent discussing items relative to a proposed Code amendment.
In conclusion, the Planning Commission members felt an advisory resident committee
might be helpful, or if the draft ordinance is approved by the Council the following
points should be considered:
- Grandfathering should be defined to apply to a specific recreational
vehicle and a time period for abandonment of the non-conforming
status should be given.
- Prohibit parking any portion of vehicle over a bikeway, pathway, or
sidewalk.
- For safety concerns, a minimum standard yard setback should be
considered. This would pertain to vehicles whether they are under
or over 7 feet in height.
- The 7 foot height as used in Bloomington's Code, may not be the most
appropriate.
When the Council chooses to have the recreational vehicle item back upon an agenda,
please advise Planning Staff so interested residents can again be notified.
I
n fir.
Lt •
• r _;
• ;.'.,y70
33
� � tom`�1�,,, � �� 1 •
a
rr 1,�
r ,
x
f
--titlrlq 't•Li'W7E7 ' '�b�r t� '1Y E
vOL IL
City Council Minutes 19 July 19, 1988
load factor to allow for water flow and personnel on the
ladder at the same time if necessary, which increases the
stress load, as the optimum safely factor.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Reschedule date for Mid=Year Strategic Planning Session
t10TI0N:
Anderson moved to schedule the Mid-year Strategic Planning
Session for Saturday, September 10, 1988 from 9 AM to 1
PM.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
OTION;
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to schedule the Mid-
year Strategic Planning Session for Tuesday, September 13,
1988 from 5 PM to 9 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Reoort of City Attorney
1. Draft of Ordinance Regarding outside Storage of
Recreational Vehicle
Pauly reported that the language had been changed In that
a pickup mounted with a topper had been removed from the
definition of a recreational vehicle, some verbiage had
been incorporated from the Bloomington ordinance and
section F had been added to prohibit housekeeping in a
parked or stored recreational vehicle.
Bentley said that the original intent was that occasional
use would be allowed for a day or two, but a permanent
arrangement would not be permitted. Pauly said this would
be difficult to enforce, but a time frame would be
necessary before the final draft was written.
Madeline St. James, 6990 Duck Lake Road, questioned the
height and length restrictions and asked what the
definition of a street was. St. James was given a copy of
the ordinance to explain the height and length
restrictions and Pauly defined a street as a thoroughfare
on which vehicles traversed, that was owned by the public,
that would include a cul-de-sac, unless the cul-de-sac was
privately owned. St. James asked if there would be a
grandfathering policy. Pauly replied that uses already in
effect at the time the ordinance was adopted could
continue as a non-conforming use, but that if there was an
obvious visual violation it would be up to that individual
to prove that the use was non-conforming at the time of
the ordinance adoption. St. James commented that at this
i
City Council minutes 15 July 19, 1988
time there are no storage facilities In Eden Prairie, the
closest facility being In Shakopee.
1
Mike McCosky, 7251 Topview Road, stated that he and his
neighbors held a neighborhood meeting and were concerned
about the grandfathering policy. McCosky believed that a
dividing line for height LeLitrictions was necessary and
that anything over 7' should be prohibited. He believed
that ordinance would be an asset to the community.
Marlu Brekke, 16460 Baywood Lane, submitted a letter to
the Council stating opposition to the ordinance. She
believed that the people wanting the ordinance were in the
minority.
MOT IQN_
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to send the results of
the ordinance to the Planning Commission for a public
meeting.
Peterson stated that his positive vote did not indicate a
strong preference for passing of the ordinance. Peterson
further stated that he would like to hear more public
comment from the public meetings.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. Report of Director of Planning
E. Report of Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources —
1. Alternate MCA Park Entrance Location Studv
Lambert reported that the Brauer & Associates study had
been completed and the north end of the Flagship Athletic
Club property was the preferred site. Lambert said that
he would like authorization to approach three property
owners- Naegele, Feerick, and the Canadian Imperial Bank
Of Commerce representatives on the southern site- to
obtain quotes on the price of these properties.
MOTION;
Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to authorize Staff to
negotiate for the acquisition of the property in the north
study area as the preferred site, and to obtain a price on
the southern site in order to provide comparable options.
Peterson asked Lambert if it would be feasible to enter
into negotiations with only Feerick and if that property
would be sufficient, if Naegele was not interested.
Lambert replied that Naegele was not favorable when last
' M E M O
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: CARL J. JULLIE, CITY FIANAGER
FROM: ROGER A. PAULY,
CITY ATTORNEY
DATED: JULY 14, 1988
SUBJECT: RECREATIONALVEHICLEPARKING AND STORAGE
-- - -
Attached is the revised Ordinance No 22-38, which contains
the following changes:
1. The reference to "pickup mounted with topper" has been
removed from Section 1 (38a.).
2• Section 2 (3. (e)) has been revised to incorporate
the verbiage from S some of
g Section 2 (3. (d)), page 2, of the Bloomingto
model. n
3• There has been added to Section 2 a subsection 3. (f) which
is similar to Section 2 (3. (c) ) of the Bloomington model.
RAP:cw
1
j
- r
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 22-88
AN ORDINANCE RD_NANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" BY
(1) ADDING THE DEFINITION OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, AND (2) ADDING
A NEW SECTION REGULATING OUTSIDE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AND
STORAGE IN ALL ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND ALL MULTI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN
PENALTY PROVISIONS:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Section 11.02 entitled "Definitions" is
hereby amended by adding paragraph 38a which shall read as
follows:
[38a. "Recreational Vehicle" - Any trailer, watercraft,
snowmobile, pull camper, all terrain vehicle,
motorhome, travel trailer or tent trailer, or other
similar vehicle. A recreational vehicle upon a
trailer shall constitute one recreational
vehicle,)
Section 2. City Code Section 11,03, Subd. 3.J., entitled
"Outside Storage and Displays', is hereby amended by adding
subsection 3 to read as follows:
(3. The parking or storing of recreational vehicles
outside of an enclosed building or structure in all One-Family
Residential Districts and all Multi-Family Residential Districts
is prohibited, except as hereafter provided.
-I-
i
(a) No more than 2 recreational vehicles
may be stored or parked outside upon a lot.
(b) Recreational vehicles of a height of 7
feet or less may be parked or stored on a lot provided no part of
a recreational vehicle of a height of 7 feet or less may be
closer than 15 feet from the traveled portion of a street.
- (c) Recreational vehicles of a height greater
than 7 feet may be parked or stored on (i) that part of a front
yard of a lot occupied by a driveway, provided the body of a rec-
reational vehicle may not be closer than 15 feet from the trav-
eled portion of a street, (ii) that part of a side or rear yard
of a lot not situated within 10 feet of a lot line, or (iii) that
part of a side yard within 10 feet of a lot line which is also
within that part of a front yard occupied by a driveway and is
not within 15 feet from the traveled portion of a street.
(d) Recreational vehicles parked or stored
outside for a period in excess of days must be owned by
a person residing on the lot.
(e) All recreational vehicles parked or
stored outside must be in a safe, operable condition and exhibit
current license or registration plates or tags if the vehicle is
one for which a license or registration plate or tag is required
by law for its operation.
(f) No recreational vehicle shall be used for
living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or stored
in a One-Family Residential District or a Multi-Family
Residential District.)
. _ -Z-
Section 9. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "violation a
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the day of
1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the
day of
1988.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
day of _
1988.
RAP2 015-1
07-14-88
t
J
-3-
3
Sup�9�9ea
July 14, 1988
I
Ms. Marlu Brekke
16460 Baywood Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Eden Prairie City Council
Eden Prairie City Hall
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: RV Ordinance
Dear Council:
I just wanted to express my feelings on the RV Ordinance
before an actual decision is made since it does not sound
like there will be a public meeting. I strongly agree
iwith some of the comments made by councilmembers at your
last meeting that were quoted in the paper that maybe
You jumped the gun with only a few complaints when
actually maybe the majority does not feel the need for
an ordinance. I am among those that do not feel there is
really a need for a written ordinance. I feel that if we
are going to need an ordinance for RV vehicles that we
also will need one for piles of wood, weeds, junk piles,
etc. I would rather see an RV vehicle parked along
someone's house than a mess of some other sort. I do
not really see much difference between an RV vehicle
parked somewhere or a car since not everyone parks their
vehicles in their garage.
This may have a few people upset in one neighborhood but
I would like you to make sure that they are the majority
and not the minority before you decide if an ordinance
is really needed.
Thanking you in advance for the chance to express my
opinion for the record.
Sincerely, p
Marlu Brekke
City Council Minutes 3 July 5, 1988
or
Brntl?y ask::l if in ad111tior, to approving the ,acquisition was
the Council approving the expenditure of funds. Pauly replied
that if an offer was made and accepted that this would bind
the City and commit the expenditure of funds.
MOT I nN_
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to amend the previous motion
and remove Item L from the Consent Calendar and require a Roll
Call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Pidcock requested an update on Item I regarding the
metr,;politan sewer Eor this parcel by the next Council
meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the acquisition
of the Riley Lake Park as recommended by Staff. Roll Call
Vote: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock, Peterson voting
"Aye".
Bentley asked Dietz if residents were aware. of the grading in
regard to Item I. Dietz replied the residents were informed.
IV. PURLTC HEARTNGS
V. PAYMENT OF CLnIMS
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Payment of
Claims No. 43354 to No. 43668.
Pidcock questioned No. 43414 to Gregg Nelson Travel. Dawson
replied that there was a National Award given for the City
video. Rogers Cable Company was paying for one staff person
to attend. There were two staff personnel involved in t)!,-.
project and it was believed to be fair that both should
attend.
Roll Call Vote: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock, Peter
all voting "Aye". on
VI. ORDTNApWTES & RFSOLUTTONS
A. Di_r_u;sion of. Draft 0 dinanct(s) regarding Outsidp stor�rtn
of Recreational Vehicles
Harris thanked Pauly for preparing the documents for
review; however, she was uncomfortable with the three.
Harris believed that possibly they could be melded
{
v
City Council Minutes 4 July 5, 1938
together. Harris stated that she would like more public
input and that she was not prepared to vote on any of the
ordinances at this time.
Pidcock stated that she would like this to be reviewed by
the Planning Commission.
Pauly stated that this would be an Amendment of Chapter
11, the zoning chapter and require a Public Hearing,
Planning Commission review and a Public Hearing in front
of the City Council. The most that could be dnne tonight
was to indicate what the Council would like to see in an
ordinance and to make recommendations to the Planning
Commission.
Anderson suggested sending the information before the
Council tonight to the Planning Commission. This would
give the Council feedback from the Planning Commission.
Bentley suggested taking ,a different approach. Bentley
stated that if the City was going to put an ordinance in
effect it should accomplish something, and if the
ordinance were effective additional staff could be
required to enforce it. Bentley further stated that the
public could be significantly impacted by the ordinance.
Bentley suggested the following: 1) Table the issue. 2)
Have Staff prepare budget information. 3) Allow a six-
month period for comments from the public as to how strict
the ordinance should be. 4) Send it to the Planning
Commission.
Pidcock questioned why extra staff would be necessary, as
the City currently had water meter readers and police
which covered the City. Pidcock asked why these City
employees could not also handle this. Bentley replied
that it would require someone trained in proper zoning
techniques for each subdivision and would require
additional training. Pidcock stated that the
neighborhoods would be monitoring this and filing
complaints with the City Staff. Peterson stated the
police would not be the enforcers of the ordinance; it
would come from City Hall Staff.
Anderson stated that this issue started with a complaint
and the City did not have the ability to respond. The
City had grown rapidly and with the increase in Population
more laws are required to protect citizens rights.
Bentley stated that becau_,e funds were budgeted it does
not mean that the money had to be spent. Bentley further
C commented that the City had not been overwhelmed with
complaints .and in protecting one indivtdual's rights the
Council must make sure it was not taking another
individual's rights away.
V
City Council Minut,>> 5 July 5, 1°38
Anderson stated that I.1e was comparing Eden Prairie to the
surrounding communities which all had ordinances that were
stricter than Eden Prairie's. Anderson believed that the
Council should be able to give the residents who hart
complained -ome results in a reasonable amount of time.
Pidcock stated that she had received many complaints and
believed that there was a need to look at this issue.
Pidcock believed that by forwarding the proposals to the
Planning Commission the Council could get a better feel
about how the public felt.
Harris questioned what would be forwarded to the Planning
Commission at this time - all three documents or a
generic format. Peterson replied that he believed it
would be the one that got the majority of Council support
or a combination of the three that got the majority of
support.
Anderson stated that he believed that direction had been
given to the City Attorney and that the Council should be
ready to make some decisions. Anderson believed the
Council was not being effective on this issue.
Bentley believed that the Council was trying to adopt an
effective ordinance and that the ordinance should not be
based on an isolated case. Bentley did not believe that
the public was aware of the significance of the type of
ordinance that the Council was trying to put in place.
Anderson believed that ample information had been in the
paper, it had been discussed at length by the Council, and
further that the issue was being pushed aside. Bentley
replied that this was not the intent.
Peterson stated that this was the kind of ordinance that
potentially effects everyone's perception of their own
property rights. People's perceptions vary from an
absolute right to the recognition that people living in a
• civilized society have rights and obligations to their
neighbors. Peterson further stated that he agreed that if
the Council was going to pass an ordinance it should be
meaningful, address the problems and be aware that there
would be a cost factor.
Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson stated that if there was
effective publicity there would be approximately a 40,
increase in reports of all zoning violations in the city.
Peterson Stated that the ordinance should protect against
C excesses. Peterson commented that he wished there was a
way to get more public input.
City Counci: Minutes 6 July 5, 1933
Harris believed that as it was now the Council would be
Placing the Planning Commission in the same dilemma.
Harris believed that the Council needed to send the
Planning Commission something that the Council felt
reasonably comfortable with.
Anderson believed that the Council could give the Planning
Commission what was presented tonight or what the Council
originally started with and request a recommendation.
Peterson was concerned about forwarding all this
information without a stated preference or model from the
Council, and if by doing so whether this world allow the
Planning Commission to enter into the formal Public
Hearing process.
Bentley was concerned that no absolute height restriction
was stated and that there was no prohibition regarding
height. Bentley believed that the Council should send
something specific to the Planning Commission and
suggested having Pauly make another attempt at drafting an
ordinance based on the concerns stated tonight.
Peterson asked Pauly what effect possible grandfathering
would have on any ordinance that the Council would pass.
Pauly replied that the proposal tonight would be part of
the limitations on use on the zoning portion of the code.
When a zoning provision was tightened the uses that were
Inconsistent with the revised zoning may continue under
the nonconforming use provision of the code and
constitutional law.
Peterson said that any ordinance passed by the Council
would not directly effect the property use of any existing
situations. Pauly replied that this was correct.
Bentley stated that the Cuuncil could go through the
process, but did not believe it would have any significant
Impact.
Harris believed that it would be appropriate to have an
ordinance. Harris agreed that a period for more public
Input prior to imposing this ordinance was necessary.
Bentley suggested requesting the City Attorney to assemble
a final draft for Counci'1 review and then determine where
It should go.
Peterson questioned exactly what the public interest was
In this matter :and commented that he did not believe this
C to be a health and safety issue and nor a significant
Issue to the majority of residents of the City. Peterson
asked if there was another way to determine the interest.
City Council Minutes 7 July 5, 1988
MOTI n!1:
Ucat?�v moved, seconded by Harris to direct City Attorney
Pauly to take our statements and prepare a final draft for
review at the next Council meeting.
Anderson asked Pauly if the Council had given him the
proper direction. Bentley replied that the combination
come from P.1459 subsections B, C & D adding section C & D
from F.
Peterson asked Pauly to consider the language in, 1459
subsection B referring to a truck with a toppez.
Peterson stated that he would be voting against the motion
at this time. Peterson did not believe that the Council
was close to something workable and would like the option
when a more workable ordinance or an ordinance with
modifications was presented. He stated he may vote in
favor of an ordinance subsequently if he would receive
clear indication from significant residents that they
really do want and need such an ordinance and reserves the
right to vote in favor of an ordinance at a later time.
Bentley stated that the motion was to refer this hack to
the City Attorney. Peterson understood this but wanted to
make clear his deep-seated reservations that a workable
ordinance was possible and that reflects the values of the
majority of the residents of Eden Prairie. Peterson
wished to reserve the right to change his mind.
Motion carried 9-1 with Peterson voting "No".
VII. PETITIONS. RE2UESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from The Bank Eden Prairie for a Sign Code
Amendment Allowing Motion Signs Giving Information Other
Than TimA. T mnperature Dates Weather or Similar Public
Service Information
Dawson reported that The Dank Eden Prairie was requesting
a Sign Code Amendment to allow approximately 35% of sign
time to carry business advertising. This amendment would
apply to all moving illuminated signs in the City. The
Bank Eden Prairie had requested a variance for its
specific sign last year; -this request was denied by the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
Jack Lawrance of Sign Crafters stated that the bank had
received Positive response to the sign. The proposal
would be to advertise The Bank's features products .and
services. Lawrance said there would not be flashing
lights, the sign would scroll. Currently the sign runs
M E M O
i
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: CARL J. JULLIE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROGER A. PAULY, CITY ATTORNEY
DATED: JUNE 20, 1988
SUBJECT: RECREATION VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE
----------------------------------------
As a result of the comments concerning the draft ordinance
on the regulation of parking and storage of recreational vehicles,
I have taken the following actions:
1. Amended draft Ordinance 22-88 by amending subsection 3(d)
contained in Section 2 thereof to the effect that recreational
vehicles parked or stored outside for a period in excess of
days must be owned by a person residing on the lot. This is to
permit the temporary parking of such a vehicle by a visitor.
2. Drafted an alternative ordinance modeled on the Bloomington
City Code provision,which is submitted herewith.
3. Drafted a second alternative ordinance based upon the
Bellevue, Nebraska, ordinance, which is also submitted herewith.
The Bloomington type ordinance contains one feature which would
make it rather difficult to enforce. That is the provision which
permits parking of recreational vehicles of seven feet or more in
height "in the buildable portion of a lot." In the enforcement
process, determining the buildable portion of a lot would entail
at least the following actions:
• a. Determining the zoning district in which a parcel is
{
situated;