Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 06/13/1989
Ft/Pk,' AGENDA SPECIAL EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989 6:00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Assistant Planner Don Uram and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE DF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPER'S FDRUM MEETINGS Page 1327 III. DISCUSSION ON BOARD OF REVIEW PROCESS FOR PROPERTY VALUATION APPEALS Page 1343 (7:30 PM) IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT • I I "1L 41 ► •. II II • Getting to Ridgedale Confused about property taxes? may be easier now ,Are cities.counties on its portion,the overall tax ball will go Here's good news for motorists. READ and school districts up because of increases by the county there will be no changes in traffic out of control in their and school district. patterns in the Ridgedale area until ON: spending?Is there a What is clear about tax reform is next summer Construction taking homestead credit or that it has not resulted in simpldi- place this winter will be off the traveled Isn't there?Why does the City say Its cation.If anything.the system is even roadways.This will include excavating portion of the tax bill is lower,yet my more complicated and unpredictable between Ridgedale Dr.and Co.Rd.73 property taxes are projected to go up than in the past.Further,the for the future South Frontage Road again in 19897' legislature has made a decision to and cutting down the hill north of These are all appropriate questions transfer more money from the metro- Ridgedale Center on what was reflecting the confusion over property politan area to greater Minnesota Ridgedale continued on page 2 tax"reform"implemented by the While some transfer is appropriate. legislature over the last several years. research shows that the result is an There are explanations. unfair disparity.For example.the Primary is a legislative decision to average property tax paid in 1988 by Holiday Happenings eninO s redistribute state aids on a propor- families making between$15.000- Pr tionately greater basis to outstate local $35,000 is about$600 in the I Members of the,Minnetonka governments and school districts. metropolitan area and about$350 in I', Historical Sot let invite you to a The result in the metropolitan area, rural Minnesota.Similar inequities II Christmas Open House Sun..Dec.4, generally,is that these taxing exist when taxes on similar homes are I; I I a.m,J p,m.at Charles H.Burwell jurisdictions must levy considerably compared.In significant part,this i Horne.13200.McGinty Road last, more lust to maintain spending levels. occurs because outstate taxing . I Minneronka.There will he Ficronan For example,it is estimated that the jurisdictions are more favorably Idecoration,.house tours.a display of '' Minnetonka School District's levy for affected by the property tax system f \'i,torian C'hnsrmas toys and dull,from 1988-89 needs to be increased by than their metropolitan counterparts. ;! I lennepin Count,Historical Society about 15%lust to compensate for a What can you do?The City has been III and refreshments.Park across the surer loss in state aid.This is not an lobbying hard with other metropolitan at Burwell Community Center. aberration but a well-designed trend. communities to represent your The Minnetonka Orchestral For the most part.in the metro area, interests with the legislature.with III Asa iw ianun presents the following tree . property tax increases next year will some success,You also need to make hobdav concerts: occur because of lower state revenue. your feelings known.Contact your Perhaps no single part of the tax legislators and let them know that II I loaders Messiah.'Rh annual sing- reform effort has received more something needs to be done to a-long,Sat..Dec.. 3,Gerhscmane notoriety than the homestead credit. provide a fairer distribution of property Lutheran Church.71 S.Minnetonka The reason for the controversy and tax relief. jH..'` .Mills Rd..Hupkmw. publicity in the last several months is f Christmas I'esmal.15th this.while the homestead credit will Makeyour home fire- "\ annual.lianvm,the still remain for the property taxpayer, ),."1g there is no longer assurance that the safe for the holidays Svmphum Oa hcstra.Crerc cities.counties and school districts will C` and youth t hchestras, The holiday season is a very special be reimbursed equal to that credit.as S„nphom Chorus,Senior time of year for all of us.However,it �" has always been the case.This may Chorale and Chddreris can also bring many serious and `liki I, Chun.Sun,Der.4 and 11. mean that local government will need unsuspected fire hazards into your to levy even more to make up the 7-:30 p m..I.isenho,ser home.Here are some suggestions to _ difference between the credit C'ommunir Crmcr,1001 taxpayers receive and the compen- sating help make your home fire-safe during „I _..'• I hghswav 7. the holiday season, p -r a; sating payment local governments �.;•:' Child's Plas Theatre receive from the state. •Buy only fresh,firm trees V:, Cumpan.'presents Lastly,it is possible for a portion of •Cut off the base of the tree before "i i 'the\\'mil u,the the overall tax rate to decline and yet setting it in the stand:check water I Mlllosss-opening I)e, not prevent an overall tax increase. level daily2 and rnnig through The propery tax dollar is shared by a .Locate the tree away from sources of Ike.28 at lunhoer inumber of jurisdictions.School heat; Cornmumr Center. districts usually receive about 50%, .Take the tree down as soon as Ix mtvmal].and the county about 25%,the City about reservations,call 15%.and all others, 10%,Therefore if,lik possible after the holidays. v 3r.r1a8J. II as will occur in 1989 in Minnetonka, •Absolutely never put lighted candles __-_h the City's levy will result in a decrease on or near any evergreen decorations. Fire-safety continued on page 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie SUBJECT: Developer's Forum Meetings DATE: June 7, 1989 The agenda attachments provide some relevant background information on the origins of the Developer's Forum process. The correspondence enclosed also indicates the basic complaint of some developers that the City is making decisions on several issues without having presented these issues through the Developer's Forum process. When the Developer's Forum process was approved by the Council in January 1988, it was my understanding that the agendas and specific discussion items would be set jointly by the City staff and the designated persons from the Chamber (Paul Dunn & Ron Krueger). This has worked reasonably well and City staff has made the presentation on all of the meetings so far. Many issues which come before the Council ultimately do have some impact on developers. It was never my understanding that all matters having any impact on developers would come before the Developer's Forum prior to staff reports and/or City Council action. I think that situation would be very difficult and impractical to comply with. I would suggest that the Council consider approval of the following: 1. City Manager to continue working through the Chamber's Economic Development Committee to keep the Chamber's membership informed on City government issues. 2. City Manager to continue meeting with representatives of the Developer's Forum to set agenda items for the Forum meetings. 3. City Council will continue depending upon the City Manager to determine which issues shall be referred to the Developer's Forum prior to or in conjunction with City Council approval. There may be further directives from the City Council depending upon the requests and discussion with the developers. CJJ:jdp Eden Prairie City Council -18- January 19, 1988 "?I. A. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR DEVELOPERS FORUM Char Johnson, representing the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, announced that the Developers Forum will be holding its first meeting on January 27th. The purpose of the Developers Forum is to have good communication between the City and developers and eliminate a lot of time for City Staff once they have educated the developers. To make the Developers Forum a success, they are requesting a written statement or resolution from the City Council stating that they are in support of the Forum. Peterson questioned the phrase "provide an advisory committee to the City.. ." as stated in the Chamber letter dated December 15, 1987, and in the January 13, 1988 letter to Chris Enger. He asked Johnson what is the vision of an advisory committee? What is the definition of the City - is it the Staff, is it the Staff, Council and Commission? Johnson responded that before a meeting the issues to be discussed will be decided by the Chairman of the Forum and Eden Prairie City Manager and who would best represent the City on that particular issue. The definition of an advisory committee is to bring the thoughts of the Forum out at the meeting. Bentley suggested the wording of the advisory committee he stated as follows: Advisory Committee provides the opportunity for advising the City during the process of a Forum or subsequent letter out of the Forum. Peterson stated that with that understanding he was in agreement. Bentley requested City Manager's thoughts on Item 3 of the letter dated December 15, 1987. Jullie responded that his thoughts from the beginning were that this would be a Chamber function, a chance for communication to occur. He has no problem with Staff attending the meetings; however, if City sends out the agendas on its letterhead, it will be perceived as a City project. Johnson responded that the original intention of the Forum was to follow the layout of the Plymouth Developers Forum. The Chamber would feel comfortable with sending out the agendas. Johnson continued that the meetings are very informal and would probably only be meeting four times a year. Paul Dunn will begin as Chairman and will converse with Eden Prairie City Manager and Director of Planning in preparation of an agenda. Eden Prairie City Council -19- January 19, 1988 MOTION 1: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock that Council give formal endorsement of the concept of a Developers' Forum and manifest its support through: 1) having the city Manager and City Planner coordinate agenda items with the Forum chair; 2) have a Councilmember assigned as liaison; and a Planning Commissioner assigned as liaison. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 2: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to nominate George Bentley as liaison to Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce Developers' Forum. Motion carried unanimously. B. STORAGE IN SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS In December, 1987, residents of the Topview Road area requested an ordinance regulating the size, type, quantity, and length of time that recreational and miscellaneous equipment can be stored on a property. Staff has conducted research about the extent of such outside storage in the City and the practices of neighboring communities. Recommendations for development of an ordinance appeared in the City Manager's memo dated January 15, 1988. Zoning Administrator .:•ean Johnson was present and available to C respond to the research regarding storage of recreational vehicles in residential districts. Jullie stated that an ordinance would not solve existing problems, but it would address future items which are inevitable. Anderson felt due to resident petitions, the City must have discussion and action on this issue MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to draft an ordinance for approval by Council for Regulation of Rear Yard Setback Storage. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS None IX. APPOINTMENTS None City of Eden Prairie eden i Offices prairie /600 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie,MN 55344-3677• Telephone(612)937-2262 March 20, 1989 Mr. Paul Dunn Welsh Companies, Inc. 11200 West 78th Street Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Dunn: After having received your letter of March 1, 1989, and giving it considerable thought, I must say that I am disappointed. You indicate that the City's failure to send the Site Plan Review Ordinance to the Developer's Forum was "an example of the kind of changes the City is implementing without consulting the development community." The Site Plan Review Ordinance was adopted after several public meetings and hearings mostly as a way of regulating Public uses. The MCA Traffic Study has not been reviewed by the City Council; however, 173 notices and 45 copies of the preliminary report were sent to all affected property owners. The study has been in progress over two years. My understanding of the purpose of the Developer's Forum is that it is to provide both the Developers and the City a forum in which to talk. The City never intended the Developer's Forum to become a review authority prior to or as a part of the City Public Hearing process. The City, to date, has not only participated in, but provided the program for each forum held over the past year. I cannot agree with your opinion that the City has only paid "lip service" to the forum so far. I am also disturbed that you would use an individual concern on a specific project as the basis for criticizing the whole effort made with the Developer's Forum over the past year. Our understanding was clearly that this would not be done. With regard to the Site Plan Review Ordinance, the impetus for it was to assure public review of public projects in an identical way to private sector development. It also affects a very limited number of parcels that were zoned more than twenty years ago, which fairness would dictate should receive up-to-date review. Finally, since 1974, Eden Prairie has utilized Developer Agreements to control implementation of projects, hopefully to assure that what was promised is built. I am sure you can appreciate the conditions which made these agreements necessary. The Developer's Agreements have always included an item which allows the City to rezone the project back to Rural if the development does not proceed within two years. This helps assure that projects fit their current surroundings. The Site Plan Review Ordinance formalizes this 15-year-old practice and puts it up front. Mr. Paul Dunn March 20, 1989 { Page Two I am sorry that you feel as you do and I hope I have clarified our position. I suggest, that if the Developer's Forum is to continue, we use it as a method of building rapport between the groups so that business can be carried on in a professional manner, not as a special interest lobby group. If you would like to discuss this further, please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Gary D. Peterson Mayor A 0a1wA > Meeting with Mayor Peterson Jim Ostenson/E. Paul Dunn April 7, 1989 Items for Discussion: 1. "Individual concern on a specific project" - not the case here or the reason for my letter. Very important that everyone understands this. 2. Purpose of the Forum a) See notes from Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce dated December 4, 1987. b) See copy of the Agenda from very first meeting - January 27, 1988. c) See example of how Plymouth works. d) See my summary to Marge Friederichs February 13, 1989. 3. City Endorsement Must come from Mayor and City Manager; staff will then follow. EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Economic Growth Committee Minutes: December 4, 1987 Present: Char Johnson, chr., Fred Hoisington, Ruth Hustad, Steve Garver, Don Uram, Dick Putnam, Joan Carlson, Galen Vetter, Dick Sager, Pat Hagan, Al Lyng, Gary Lally Guests: Blair-Tremere, Bob Burger, Virgil Snyder Absent: Walt Carpenter, Barb Blattner, George Bentley After the meeting was called to order by Char Johnson, a motion to approve the Minutes of September 18 was made by Galen Vetter, seconded by Fred Hoisington with the correction of the spelling of the name of Blair Tremere, carried. Items of business: Blair Tremere, community development director, Bob Burger, chairman of the Plymouth Community Development Council, and Virgil Snyder, mayor of Plymouth, joined the committee to talk about the establishment of their council. Historical perspective: In the mid-1970's Al Hilde, mayor, met with sever developers to develop a forum in which they could express themselves collectively on generic issues and in which the city could have a forum for communication with developers other than legal notices. The council started in late '73. Early on it had officers, and dues structure. It started with residential developers and evolved to commercial. Today the city send meeting notices, helps keep the mailing list current, and has no dues. Always attending is the city manager or his assistant, and the city planner. Other staff members as required by the agenda attend. They meet four times a year. A city council member and a planning commission member are assigned as liaisons to the council. The chairperson is a developer and sets the agenda, sometimes in consultation with the staff development director. Keep it informal! Chairperson volunteers or is elected and serves indefinitely. The chairperson is the point of communication; the agenda is set by him/her; contact from developers or city staff is through him/her. Generic subjects such as policy, assessments, taxes, land use, guide plan changes can be discussed before they go to the city council. Examples of subjects include, changes in the road standards, recycling station, aesthetics of building, analysis of the building departments procedures. The influence of the council varies. They do have credibility and work together for the good of the community. The driving force is "Communication. ' Trust must be established. No big surprises arise. Subjects are treated as mass-issues; no individual problems are allowed for discussion. Its membership remains open to everyone. It must have both developers and builders. It could also have land planners, engineers, commercial builders and developers, both large and small, residential builders and developers, both large and small, financial persons. The council must have the endorsement of the city council in order to have credibility and for the staff persons to provide mailing services and give up time for meetings. This endorsement makes staff persons participate. Plymouth persons recommended inviting everyone and letting the membership sift itself out through a leveling process. They also recommended collecting 20 or so developers and just start meeting. Others will find out about it and come along by themselves. Quarterly meetings are enough. Ad hoc committees are used for specific issue study in between meetings. The Economic Growth Committee agreed to bring together Al Lyng, Ruth Hustad, Marge Friederichs, Char Johnson, Fred Hoisington, Gary Lally, and Dick Putnam on Friday, Dec. 11 at 7:30 a.m. to prepare the list for the first meeting. The Chamber office will contact by telephone the above persons about the meeting. Other items: the profile is being worked on. The draft writing is nearly finished. Funding is under way. The brochures will be printed with funding is adequate, hopefully in time to meet the February, 1988 deadline. Post office: Dick Sager said he would seek another update before the next committee meeting, which would be some time in January. Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Marge Friederichs, Recorder 1/2 /88 Eden Prairie Developers Forum - Basic idea: to provide a communications vehicle between city staff and the development community. - Topics that might be discussed (examples): a) proposed ordinance changes b) future policy decisions c) city budget/growth projections d) sewer extensions/MUSA line e) general procedures - Topics not open for discussion (examples): a) individual developer approval problems b) personalities - Approach a) keep it informal b) address an issue, deal with it, move on to the next item c) open participation from all - city staff and development community d) three developer representatives: 1. Commercial E. Paul Dunn { Welsh Companies, Inc. 11200 West 78th Street Eden Prairie, MN 55344 829-3434 2. Residential Jim Ostenson Trammell Crow Co. - Residential 7808 Creekridge Circle Bloomington, MN 55435 941-2147 3. Consultants Ron Krueger Ron Krueger & Associates 8080 Wallace Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 937-4242 e) filter comments to the proper representative, and they will then determine the Agenda, along with the city staff liaison, for the next meeting. - Next Meeting: Time: Place: Date: Mailing List and Notices handled by Chamber of Commerce. • CITY OF PLYMOUTH � Q ;4 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447YL NJ- J� ' TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO /c-L. L,\)(/_ DATE. March 27, 1939 �I \ TO: Plymouth Development Council • FROM' Bob Burger, President r SUBJECT APRIL 19 DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL AGENDA iJ Y Toe next meeting of the Plymouth Development Council will be held on Wednesday morning, April 19 at 7:30 a.m. in the Plymouth City Council Chambers. The following items are scheduled for discussion. You may wish to bring up other items as well: I. Streamlining the Permit Issuance Process - John Griffith/Joe Ryan II. Residential construction plan review and inspection checklist - Joe Ryan III. Annual Builders Meeting IV. Sanitary Sewer REC and Water RFC Fees - Fred Moore V. Erosion and Siltation Control Reminder VI. Comments on Update of City Comprehensive Plan - Bob Burger, Craig Freeman and Bill Pritchard VII. Comments on Tree Preservation Policy - Bob Burger, Marlin Grant and Mike Pflaum VIII. Other business. I hope to see you at the meeting. My phone number is 473-5507. BB:kec cc: James C. Willis, City Manager Blair Tremere, Director of Planning & Community Development Fred Moore, Director of Public Works Joe Ryan, Building Official Dick Carlquist, Public Safety Director Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager S.F. 3/18/89 I MINUTES PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL February 23, 1969 Present: Bob Burger, Bill Pritchard, Marlin Grant, Greg Frank, Craig Freeman, Fran Hagen, Sr., Mike Pflaum, Anthony Eiden, R.W. Anderson, Kyle Hunt, Randy Laurent, Paul Anderson, John Griffith, Bev Kodis, Sherm Goldberg City Personnel included: Mayor Virgil Schneider, Councilmember Bob Zitur, James G. Willis, Frank Boyles, Blair Tremere, Fred Moore, Chuck Dillerud, Joe Ryan, Michael Kulczyk. I. CITY POLICY ON SKETCH PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN UNSERVICED AREAS. Blair Tremere summarized the Council's new policy on accepting sketch plans for development proposed in unserviced areas. There are numerous qualifying conditions for a parcel to be eligible for this policy including that they must be at least 20 acres in size and be in a location designated for municipal sewer service within the next three years of the current Capital Improvement Program. The fee for this review is S1,00O. Copies of the policy are available through the Community Development Department. II. AUTOMATED BUILDING PERMIT SYSTEM AND OTHER INSPECTION DIVISION ITEMS. Joe Ryan stated that he and Blair have met twice with a Development Council. subcommittee to discuss issues of concern regarding the permit issuance system. A third meeting is scheduled within the next two weeks. They have identified areas where streamlining may be possible. A report will be supplied at the next Development Council meeting. John Griffith stated that there are a number of items which builders themselves can do to expedite the process. Bob Burger asked about the personnel in the Building Inspection Department. Joe Ryan stated that there is a new inspector position authorized. At present there are three residential building/mechanical inspectors, one pl;osbi.g and one non-residential building/mechanical inspector. Currently new single-family residential building permits are being processed within the departmental standard of within seven working days. Last year there were 450 new single-family permits. Blair Tremere stated that a five-year building permit history is being tabulated which will be shared with Development Council members once it is done. Joe Ryan stated that the design of automatic permit system conversion will result in a change of the permit application forms. If the system works appropriately, it should also allow for the issuance of residential plumbing, mechanical and sewer/water permits "on demand." I PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL February 23, 1989 Page two Joe announced that a second annual builder's meeting will he held in March to discuss changes in the 1988 building code, changes in the policies and procedures regarding permit issuance and water meter issuance. Additional notification will be provided. III. REVISED PARK DEDICATION FEES IN LIEU OF DEDICATION. Blair Tremere stated that the City Council has revised the residential park dedication fees per dwelling unit from $600 to $825 and per acre fees from 52,800 to $3,300 for commercial/industrial. The basis for the revision is land values in the community as well as comparison with other communities. Marlin Grant asked about the basis for such changes. Jim Willis stated that there is a shortage of funds to provide for new parks in new subdivisions based upon City projections. The City's comprehensive plan determines where parks go throughout the community. Park dedication fees are used only for construction and not maintenance. Jim stated that the SAC charged by MWCC is $575. City sanitary sewer REC is $320 and the area charge is $380 per acre. City water REC fees are $550, and the area charge is 5685 per acre. He stated that these figures would be reviewed by the City Council for potential revision this year as well. IV. DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL REVIEW OF PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT CHANGES TO EROSION CONIHOL/SEDIMENTATION POLICY. Fred Moore reviewed the proposed changes to the Erosion Control Policy in legislative format. He stated that the basis for the more aggressive revisions was failure on the part of a number of developers and contractors to appropriately control erosion in and adjacent to their developments. Marlin Grant stated that he hopes this is the last time a revision is needed as this is one of the most aggressive policies in the Twin City area. Mike Pflaum stated that a set of standards for sweeping is required so that only one person is determining whether appropriate erosion control is taking place rather than a number of people with different value systems. By focusing this responsibility on one person, accountability can also be enhanced. The changes will be presented to the City Council en March 20 for final adoption. Any comments should be given to Fred Moore a week before that meeting. V. UPDITF OF CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Blair Tremere stated that the City's comprehensive plan will be updated in the near future. The Planning Commission will be conducting public hearings in March or April. Development Council members have received a written notification of this fact and are encouraged to attend and submit their recommendations. Blair stated that in the absence of other action, the current stage growth plan will sunset on January 1, 1990. PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL February 23, 1989 Page three Bob Burger appointed a committee consisting of Craig Freeman, representing commercial/industrial; Bill Pritchard, representing residential: and Bob Burger to meet with Blair Tremere to provide input about developer concerns relating to possible comprehensive plan revisions. VI. TREE PRESERVATION POLICY. Blair Tremere stated that the current policy is embodied in new development contracts but is soon to be codefied. The Planning staff is in the process of investigating the appropriate methods of implementing the policy. Bob Burger described how the policy worked. Fran Hagen expressed concern about the number of years which a developer can be held responsible if certain parcels fail to develop for some years. The required security could be a substantial cost. Chuck Dillerud explained that the forester conducts the initial inspection to determine the trees included under the policy and once again after development to determine what damages have taken place. There is a 16-month period of time that developers are responsible and a fee of $200 per diameter inch is charged for each tree which is destroyed outside of the designated development area. A development area is determined at the time of survey once the house for the lot has been identified. Roughly an area of 20 feet outside the radius of the foundation is considered construction area. Mike Pflaum suggested that the policy may require the City to hire substantially more foresters to enforce it. Bob Burger stated that letters of credit are getting more difficult to secure. Banks are becoming concerned about the fact that letters are being called upon. This situation is likely to worsen. Marlin Grant asked how an adjustment for a larger building footprint would take place. Bob Burger asked Marlin Grant and Mike Pflaum to work with him as a committee to discuss the tree preservation policy in hopes of balancing the City's needs with developer concerns. Blair Tremere stated he would provide the subcommittee with the information available at this time. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m. FB:kec 1 ° CITY OF PLYMOUTH • 3400\YMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 / � TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 fl �\ MEMO DATE: " February 15, 1989 All Plymouth Development Council Members TO: FROM. Bob Burger, President (612) 473-5507 SUBJECT PLYMOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING We will be holding our next regular PDC meeting Thursday, February 23, 1.999 at 7:30 a.m., at the Plymouth City Hall, City Council Chambers. Because of the many very important items to be discussed at this meeting, I urge your support and attendance. Some of the major items on the agenda (attached) are as follows: 1. The newly adopted City policy regarding review and acceptance of Concept plans for development in areas which do not have Urban services available. (See the attached City Policy.) 2. An updating on the City Building Department's procedures and inspection services. 3. A discussion on the new evolving Preservation of Tree policy and its financial ramifications. 4. The proposed review of the City's Comprehensive Plan with the intention of formulating recommendations necessary to update the Comprehensive Plan relevant to the decade of the 1990's (see the attached letter from Blair Tremere). 5. The ne;" City Fee Schedules such as Park Dedication, Ptc. As you can see, the above items are of great significance to your present and future development activities in the City of Plymouth. To show our interest in these key matters, I urge your presence or a representative of your company at this important meeting. Please advise me of your attendance. BB:kec enclosure Welsh( on ipan le Memorandum Date• February 13, 1988 T. Marge Friederichs, Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce cc: Ron Krueger Jim Ostenson From. Paul Dunn Subject: Eden Prairie Developers Forum You have asked me to summarize our activities for the past year with regard to the Eden Prairie Developers Forum. You have also asked that I comment on ways to make the organization even more effective. During the past year, we have had four formal meetings and five or six informal meetings. The formal meetings occurred on January 27, 1988, March 16, 1988, June 20, 1988 and January 12, 1989. A variety of topics were covered, including ways to communicate better with the City, a review of the building permit process, a presentation on development in wooded areas with a detailed explanation of tree preservation, and a presentation by the Eden Prairie Assessor regarding real estate taxes. Probably our single biggest "success" occurred in the summer of 1988 when, working together with the City staff, we were involved in the change of the tree preservation policy for the City, generally making it a little bit more economical and sensible for developers to work within the City guidelines. Bob Bjorklacd of New Concept Homes, Inc. deserves a great deal of credit for this accomplishment. Overall, our interplay with the City has been cordial and cooperative. However, we would like to see the City involve the Forum earlier in the process of any ordinance changes or policy changes affecting the development community. Specifically, there have been at least three issues that have come up wherein the Developers Forum was not consulted until after the fact. These include: 1. A proposed change involving the requirement for underground sprinkling systems in all new commercial developments. 2. An increase in the park dedication fees. 3. A comprehensive parking and traffic study for the major center area. in all three cases, we believe that the Developers Forum should have been involved in discussions early during the process so that the City could know first hand our feelings with regard to the above issues. As I mentioned to you, I will be leaving the leadership role (due to other "outside" commitments) as soon as a replacement is selected. We believe Jim Ostenson will be taking over and that a replacement for the commercial liason will come forth from Vantage or one of the other major commercial developers in Eden Prairie. Ron Krueger has agreed to stay on as the liason for the consultants. I��J, February 13, 1989 Page 2 Overall, I believe we have made reasonably good progress for the first year of the organization but would strongly recommend that we receive a little bit better consideration from the City staff in the future in order to make the Forum truly worthwhile. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie Cj SUBJECT: 1989 Board of Review Process DATE: June 9, 1989 Attached for the Council's reference is a re-cap of the 1989 Board of Review decisions. Also attached is various data and information relating to property valuation and taxes, including the State Statute referring to the Board of Review. I would suggest that the Council consider following this outline to help focus our discussion. Ms. Barbara Arney will be present as our facilitator. I. Review agenda attachments II. Critique the 'B9 Board of Review Process (discuss positives and negatives) III. Determine some action plan. Upon reflecting on the '89 Board of Review process from my perspective, I have the following observations for your reference: Positives 1. Out of 14,731 valuation notices mailed out, only 135 (less than 1%) appealed to the Board. 2. City Assessing staff resolved 64 (47%) of the appeals made to the Board by reaching agreement with the owners prior to the re-convene. 3. The Spring '89 residential ratio study by Hennepin County showed the Eden Prairie median at 93.2% and a C.O.D. of 5.9. This compares well with our neighboring cities and exactly matches the County-wide median. In other words, taken as a whole, our assessment is very well done. For next year, we may not have to raise values as much as other ciites who are below the County-wide median. 4. 72% of our single-family homes range in value between $75-$150,000. Only 33 out of 73 (45%) of the appeals that staff could not resolve with the owners fell within this range. Negatives Our current process does create the potential for problems in the following areas: 1. Staff perceptions on the credibility of their work. - 2 - 2. Council teamwork and consistent application of policy. 3. The entire process could break down if larger numbers of owners decide to appeal. 4. There is a strong political temptation for the Council to send messages to the State on tax policy by reducing values. In order to possibly improve the process, I suggest that we discuss the following potential actions: A. Appoint 3 advisors to the Board who would have some expertise in real-estate values (i.e., appraisers, realtors). The City of Minnetonka does this with some success, or B. Appoint a separate Board of Review whose membership would not include Councilmembers. C. Amend the appeal application form to require that the form be submitted at least 5 working days before the meeting and that the owner provide more meaningful information in support of the appeal. There certainly are no easy answers to the problems of escalating property values and taxes. It is a common dilemma in most suburbs, and many City Managers report that their Board of Review meetings were heavily attended this year and difficult because people are angry over high taxes. I do believe however, that we must remember that it is the assessor's legal duty to determine the market value of all properties, regardless of length of ownership or resulting tax liability for the owners. The Board's legal responsibility is to review appealed values by determining if they have been properly valued by the assessor and to "...correct as it appears just." Maintaining an overall assessment that is equitable and reflective of the market should be our goal. CJJ:jdp Recap of 1989 Board of Review Decisions There were 135 seperate appeals filed with the 1989 Eden Prairie Board of Review affecting 239 parcels. 75 parcels remained at the original values. 10 parcels increased for a total of $1000 increase in value. 154 parcels were reduced for a tctal reduction of $3,025,400. The 135 appeals can be broken into 4 categories: 1) On 61 appeals the owner agreed with the assessor's recommendation and were not present at the time the decision was made by the Board of Review. The Board affirmed the assessor's recommendation on all 61 appeals. 2) On 29 appeals the owner disagreed with the assessor's recommendations and were not present at the time the decision was made by the Board of Review. The Board affirmed the assessor's recommendation on all 29 appeals. 3) On 3 appeals the owner agreed with the assessor's recommendation and were present when the Board of Review made their decision. The Board affirmed the assessor's recommendation on all 3 appeals. 4) On 42 appeals the owner disagreed with the assessor's recommendation and were present when the Board of Review made their decision. The Board affirmed the assessor's recommendation on 2 appeals and reduced the values of 40 appeals below the assessor's recommendation. APPEAL ORIGINAL OWNERS ASSESSOR'S OWNERS BOARD TAXPAYER PRESENT NUMBER VALUE REQUESTED RECOMMEND. AGREE ACTION AT TIME OF VALUE W/REC. DECISION 1 84,000 60,000 84,000 NO 74,000 YES 2 203,400 195,000 203,400 NO AFFIRMED NO 3 CLASSIF. CLASSIF. NO CHANGE YES AFFIRMED NO 4 CLASSIF. CLASSIF. RETURN GA YES AFFIRMED NO 5 163,300 158,000 163,300 NO 158,000 YES 6 205,300 157,496 183,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 7 20,000 N/A 20,000 NO 7,000 YES 8 112,300 N/A 112,300 YES AFFIRMED YES 9 194,200 180,000 194,200 NO 181,700 YES 10 141,000 133,000 133,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 11 201,500 125,000 161,500 NO 131,500 YES 12 123,500 112,100 117,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 13 269,200 225,000 249,400 YES AFFIRMED NO 14 443,000 403,000 413,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 15 96,700 85,000 89,000 YES AFFRIMED NO 16 271,000 236,700 263,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 17 91,500 85,000 91,500 NO AFFIRMED NO 18 113,500 100,000 113,500 NO AFFIRMED NO 19 27,500 -0- 10,000 NO 6,500 YES 20 152,300 146,200 152,300 NO 144,000 YES 21 149,200 129,000 149,200 NO AFFIRMED NO 22 20,600 7,800 20,600 NO AFFIRMED NO �3 152,300 87,700 117,500 NO AFFIRMED NO 24 171,400 159,000 171,400 NO 165,000 YES 25 158,400 139,000 152,000 NO 133,900 YES I 1 /`'J APPEAL ORIGINAL OWNERS ASSESSOR'S OWNERS BOARD TAXPAYER PRESENT NUMBER VALUE REQUESTED RECOMMEND. AGREE ACTION AT TIME OF VALUE W/REC. DECISION 25A 159,600 143,000 142,700 YES AFFIRMED NO 26 73,700 70,000 73,700 NO AFFIRMED NO 27 172,700 148,050 172,700 NO 164,500 YES 28 362,300 286,000 337,800 NO AFFIRMED NO 29 381,700 242,100 3i1,300 NO AFFIRMED NO 30 120,300 112,000 120,300 NO 114,000 YES 31 101,600 98,777 96,600 YES AFFIRMED NO 32 224,700 210,000 224,700 NO 210,000 YES 33 102,200 92,160 102,200 NO AFFIRMED YES 34 327,200 300,000 310,500 YES AFFIRMED NO 35 99,300 86,000 95,000 NO AFFIRMED NO 36 214,000 190,000 182,000 NO 170,000 YES 37 127,100 115,000 113,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 38 88,400 74,000 80,700 NO AFFIRMED NO 39 183,600 176,000 183,600 NO 174,000 YES 40 222,600 175,000 187,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 41 99,000 89,000 89,000 YES AFFIRMED YES 42 226,800 155,900 181,800 NO 156,800 YES 43 111,100 103,000 108,800 YES AFFIRMED NO 44 168,200 105,000 112,500 YES AFFIRMED NO �15 139,900 133,900 134,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 46 143,300 135,000 139,400 NO 135,000 YES 47 184,000 N/A 184,000 NO AFFIRMED YES 48 150,700 132,000 147,200 YES AFFIRMED NO 4 '9 130,000 N/A 130,000 NO 123,900 YES 2 1: APPEAL ORIGINAL OWNERS ASSESSOR'S OWNERS BOARD TAXPAYER PRESENT NUMBER VALUE REQUESTED RECOMMEND. AGREE ACTION AT TIME OF VALUE W/REC. DECISION 50 40,000 N/A 40,000 NO 37,000 YES 51 179,700 165,500 179,700 NO 165,500 YES 52 140,500 124,000 140,500 NO 132,900 YES 53 125,500 120,500 125,500 NO 120,500 YES 54 215,000 180,000 215,000 NO 179,300 YES 55 141,100 132,200 139,400 NO 132,800 YES 56 214,400 175,000 192,000 NO 188,000 YES 57 117,000 105,000 107,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 58 202,600 N/A 175,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 59 150,000 128,300 150,000 NO 128,300 YES 60 428,000 363,000 411,000 NO AFFIRMED NO 61 104,300 100,000 100,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 62 176,200 170,000 162,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 63 94,500 84,500 86,400 YES AFFIRMED NO 64 151,500 N/A 147,400 NO 138,000 YES 65 257,500 190,000 237,000 NO 237,000 NO 66 217,000 205,000 211,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 67 446,800 350,000 379,800 NO 350,000 YES 68 355,500 325,000 324,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 69 153,800 160,000 153,800 YES AFFIRMED NO 70 2,700,900 N/A 1,735,700 NO AFFIRMED NO 71 81,800 70,156 72,000 YES AFFIRMED NO f 72 169,900 160,000 162,900 YES AFFIRMED NO 73 157,400 135,000 150,900 NO 143,000 YES 74 76,400 N/A 76,400 NO 72,900 YES APPEAL ORIGINAL OWNERS ASSESSOR'S OWNERS BOARD TAXPAYER PRESENT NUMBER VALUE REQUESTED RECOMMEND. AGREE ACTION AT TIME OF VALUE W/REC. DECISION 75 117,200 94,000 117,200 NO AFFIRMED NO 76 126,400 116,000 126,400 YES AFFIRMED NO 77 168,500 140,000 154,600 YES AFFIRMED NO 78 172,300 155,792 164,700 YES AFFIRMED NO 1001 154,000 140,000 146,000 NO AFFIRMED NO 1002 178,900 165,000 167,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1003 72,400 70,000 72,400 NO AFFIRMED NO 1004 78,200 67,000 78,200 NO 72,400 YES 1005 99,100 90,000 90,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1006 143,300 132,210 139,400 NO 132,200 YES 1007 80,200 70,500 75,000 NO 70,500 YES 1008 80,200 70,500 75,000 NO 70,500 YES 1009 121,700 110,000 117,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1010 176,500 162,000 171,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1011 115,100 106,100 107,400 YES AFFIRMED NO 1012 107,900 100,000 99,900 YES AFFIRMED NO 1013 182,100 128,500 142,100 NO AFFIRMED NO 1014 247,200 205,200 215,900 NO AFFIRMED NO 1015 332,800 300,000 317,800 YES AFFIRMED NO 1016 360,000 50,000 260,000 NO 90,000 YES 1017 227,600 217,000 217,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1018 167,100 150,000 156,700 YES AFFIRMED NO -T 1019 119,600 113,000 119,600 YES AFFIRMED NO 1020 125,900 90,000 117,600 YES AFFIRMED NO 1021 140,400 135,000 140,400 YES AFFIRMED NO I 4 j , APPEAL ORIGINAL OWNERS ASSESSOR'S OWNERS BOARD TAXPAYER PRESENT NUMBER VALUE REQUESTED RECOMMEND. AGREE ACTION AT TIME OF VALUE W/REC. DECISION Y a 1022 240,000 220,000 220,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1023 140,100 134,000 131,700 YES AFFIRMED NO 1024 146,700 135,000 142,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1025 140,700 110,000 115,100 YES AFFIRMED NO 1026 74,300 70,000 72,500 YES AFFIRMED NO 1027 410,700 385,000 410,700 NO 385,000 YES 1028 560,500 425,000 448,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1029 303,800 287,800 303,800 NO 287,800 YES 1030 485,000 325,000 435,000 NO AFFIRMED NO 1031 486,100 445,000 447,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1032 7,062,000 N/A 7,062,000 NO AFFIRMED NO 1033 538,500 300,000 298,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1034 406,000 350,000 360,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1035 3,482,000 N/A 3,482,000 NO AFFIRMED NO 1036 145,200 130,000 133,900 YES AFFIRMED NO 1037 141,500 120,000 130,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1038 282,600 N/A 268,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1039 320,700 N/A 225,000 NO AFFIRMED NO 1040 2,143,600 N/A 2,143,600 NO AFFIRMED NO 1041 76,400 73,000 74,200 NO 70,500 YES 1042 117,800 110,000 117,800 NO AFFIRMED NO 1043 136,900 128,500 134,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1044 198,500 140,000 166,000 NO AFFIRMED NO 1045 374,500 325,000 374,500 NO 350,000 YES 1046 346,600 300,000 310,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 5 ' . APPEAL ORIGINAL OWNERS ASSESSOR'S OWNERS BOARD TAXPAYER PRESENT NUMBER VALUE REQUESTED RECOMMEND. AGREE ACTION AT TIME OF VALUE W/REC. DECISION 1047 153,200 141,000 153,200 NO AFFIRMED NO 1048 105,200 94,500 105,200 NO AFFIRMED NO 1049 181,000 N/A 181,000 NO 165,000 YES 1050 290,300 280,300 278,000 YES AFFIRMED NO 1051 171,400 157,000 169,000 NO 161,000 YES 1052 96,200 90,000 92,000 YES AFFIRMED YES 1053 600,000 490,000 600,000 NO AFFIRMED NO 1054 174,300 164,500 174,300 YES AFFIRMED NO 1055 CLASSIF. CLASSIF. RETURN GA YES AFFIRMED NO 1056 CLASSIF. CLASSIF. RETURN GA YES AFFIRMED NO 1057 394,900 N/A 385,000 NO 350,000 YES 6 I:I Jan. 2, 1989 Assessment - Distribution of Residential Values. Single Family - (Property Types R & RL) ( $EMV # of Parcels % of Total 49000 & Under 126 1.6 50000 to 74000 220 2.8 75000 to 99000 2108 26.6 100000 to 124000 2306 29.0 125000 to 149000 1264 15.9 150000 to 174000 722 9.1 175000 to 199000 388 4.9 200000 to 249000 404 5.0 250000 to 299000 174 2.2 300000 to 399000 159 2.0 400000 to 499000 37 .5 500000 to 599000 15 .2 600000 to 699000 4 .05 700000 & Over 3 .03 Total 7930 100.0 Townhouse, Condo., Twin Home & Double Bungalow (Property Types X,Y,RZ & DB) $EMV # of Parcels % of Total 49000 & Under 486 15.7 50000 to 74000 1295 41.9 75000 to 99000 1000 32.4 100000 to 124000 146 4.7 125000 to 149000 81 2.6 150000 to 174000 39 1.3 175000 to 199000 32 1.0 200000 to 249000 5 .2 2500D0 & Over 4 .2 Total 3088 100.0 SRS/akn 4/21/89 • MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor Through: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Subject: January 2, 1989 Assessment and the April 27,1989 Board of Review. Date: March 20, 1989 The January 2, 1989 assessment was completed and submitted to the Hennepin County Assessor on March 9, 1989 for review and approval. The Hennepin County Assessor has approved our assessment and 14731 valuation notices will be mailed to the owners of all property in the City of Eden Prairie informing them of the value and classification of their property as of January 2, 1989, and informing them of their appeal rights to the local board of review, county board of equalization, state board of equalization and the Minnesota Tax Court. Value notices will be mailed between March 31st and April 7th, pending the availability of LOGIS for printing notices and the availability of Dennison Mailing Service. To complete the annual assessment the Assessing Department must view and appraise: 1) 25% of the existing properties, and 2) all new construction valued over $1,000 whether completed or under construction, and 3) All property platted since the last assessment. The January 2, 1989 assessment consisted of 14,731 parcels. The assessing staff completed 4,755 appraisals as outlined below: 4016 single family, twin home, townhouse and condominiums 16 apartment properties 55 commercial properties 40 industrial properties 628 vacant land, farm and miscellaneous properties 4755 Total One of the assessment goals is to increase the uniformity of assessment. Many of the properties that were physically appraised were new or had changed since our last appraisal resulting in changes to their values which varied considerably from parcel to parcel. • The values of properties that were not physically appraised were adjusted, if necessary, based on sales studies and other information to insure uniformity with those properties that were actually viewed and appraised. The typical adjustments for January 2, 1989 by property type are: Single Family = +3.4% Farms = +3.4% Twin Homes = +3.4% Apartments = No Change Condominiums No Change Commercial = +3.0% Townhouse = +1.4% Industrial = +4.0% The properties not physically appraised that had adjustments made other than the typical ranged from decreases of 15% to increases of 10%. The preliminary assessment reports show the total estimated market value of the City of Eden Prairie growing from the January 2, 1988 value of $1,996,382,500 to $2,264,384,900 for January 2, 1989. The growth of $268,002,400 or 13.4% consists of $156,127,200 due to new construction and $111,875,200 due to inflation. The values and classifications determined by the Eden Prairie Assessing Department for January 2, 1989 are those that may be appealed at the April 27, 1989 Eden Prairie Board of Review. The question is occasionally raised regarding whether Eden Prairie has more properties over valued than other communities. The most objective way to evaluate assessment performance is to make an assessment ratio study. An assessment ratio study is a comparison of the properties estimated market value as determined by the assessor and the actual sales prices of the same properties. An assessment ratio is calculated by dividing the estimated market value by the sale price. An assessment ratio study reveals how closely appraised values correspond to sale price. The overall relationship between estimated market value and sale prices is represented by the average (mean) or middle (median) assessment ratio. The variation among individual assessment ratios is represented by the coefficient of dispersion. The coefficient of dispersion is the average percentage by which individual assessment ratios deviate from the median assessment ratio. It is also a measure of assessment equity. For example, a 5% coefficient of dispersion means that roughly half of the properties fall within a range of 5% above or below the median assessment ratio. Industry standards indicate coefficients of dispersion of less than 15% are attainable using mass appraisal techniques and coefficients of dispersion under 10% are attainable and desirable in newer communities. The Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Minnesota Tax Court accept a median assessment ratio between 90% and 100% as being representative of an assessment that meets the market value standard. The Eden Prairie Assessing Department completed numerous assessment ratio studies before and after making adjustments to existing values for the January 2, 1989 assessment. Our studies confirmed the information that was provided to us by the Hennepin County Assessor in September 1988. The assessment ratio study compared sales that occurred between October 1987 and September 1988 with the January 2, 1988 assessment. The study showed the need to increase residential values by 3.4% to meet the Hennepin County goal of 92.5% median ratio and the state mandated median ratio of over 90% for the January 2, 1989 assessment. The Hennepin County Assessor's Office analyzed our January 2, 1989 assessment. Their analysis used an assessment ratio study comparing our January 2, 1989 estimated market values to sales that occurred between October 1987 and September 1988. The results are a median assessment ratio of 93,Z ;. and a coefficient of dispersion of ? %, both rates are acceptable and meet county, state and industry standards. What does the median assessment ratio of 93.Z. % and coefficient of dispersion of 5.' % have to do with the board of review? It shows that statistically most individual properties are valued very close to actual market value, yet probably somewhat below full value. The question remains, are some properties valued in excess of market value? The answer is yes. There are properties which because of their unusual character, do not lend themselves to the use of mass appraisal techniques. The review appraisals that will be completed for the board of review by the assessing staff will be done to see if a complete market comparison of the subject property supports the mass appraisal value that has been assigned. The assessing staff advises taxpayers to contact us for review and discussion prior to the April 27, 1989 Board of Review as many problems and questions are easily resolved. I've attached the following materials for your review: MLS 1988 Real Estate Activity Report What does the Assessor do? The Property Tax Process Board of Review Information SRS/akn --':.C'S JUN 1989 7.5— ASSESSOR A-2103 Government Center 7! PIN 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 1June 2, 1989 Steven Sinell Eden Prairie City Assessor 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Steve: We have just completed the analysis of each class of property for the City of Eden Prairie's 1989 assessment. I am very pleased to advise you that the assessment meets the standards required with regard to level and quality of the assessment. The analysis clearly indicates that Eden Prairie is well equalized with the other cities in Hennepin County. My sincere thanks to you and your staff for a job well done. Ver ruly yours, onald F. Monk Director of Assessments DFM:jb HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer ( ( C ( ( t i 4 ( t i i 4 t t I1 1 r Y > n M O 8m Vy 1 O O Ki WN C N +YWO+VpV 74 WIVNWWNNaMN 0.00. 0 005 0 N N M A T O 14 w r�.....000004140041.4005000.4.4.4.4.4.0.0004 r��o.0000�+... o rw O '7d2 • .p.p.0.p.0000f00V V V V V PO.000. C W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 O O 0 rem H =0 O O O O O O O O O■O■O o t O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O �1 fyt C 8. Or.. ..Y Y Y Y■Y�■Y*Y Y Mt Y f■M Y Y Y Y Y Y*t Y• Y Y t 0. ••1 S M M Y ■Y I!!!!! Y rl Y 1■Y1t 1■t Ik y*f II *I t m y� 0 ♦ Y Y Y Y Y Y.# F YI Yt fi S Y*1 M M t•Y Y:t I*[M•#f!1M '11t Y 7■t M#**it I •O•O C‹ 0 Pl N f• y1 i •Y : :t:t!M G O 8 4 n 1M Y f f Y i f r b VI Y vN C: 0 ♦ iis aii�is �.r• O 1p w t`i'e■*'r �ii fy1 e�m U. N.M t f f* f 1YI i > 0 0 1 N S O P z O O Qpg .. ...:. y OO f01 C0 3y g sr 0 ■*It lii pp..0 43 ' $ i v • m vn o:. V ✓ 9 `. OD 0 (?57 L L c L L L L L 0 • (. L L ( _ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( t ( ( t i k i ii I LI s oa M A OS C V� 1'1 Y•+ t�N P V 0)0)V VI t W N•+ M W 1`V•+V VIOONOI P V P JPN•+N YI i•N h•Y m m W{•mNawe M W I••ON N NJNANOI t•W P W t•JPW J N ( IJiI C TA Vl P dVNdOONOOJVJwJWONWmVN PP y it o J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O = OOo00000000000000000000o000000 R =_ ..... g •• x#i i i r i#i Y Y i i i i x Y Y i Y#x r••« 2 0 • Y Y i#Y fY i;i Y Y Y ; i Y Y Y Y Y R Y m M T x Y i i =Y Y i Y i Y x i■Y i• o$ f, • i x i i i i x Y i i i 4#Y 4 i T O 4 M :Y#x###x x Y x x Y## • Lj ■i i i i## i i i i i i i i N �ti i r#Y ; # x #Y Y Y O ■x i i i x Y x t###x <<KN H V • Y i i a i x Y 4 i i 4 x SQ� . i Y Y Y Y ; # i Y • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 i i i# C M m N 34.. 0 i Y x ;##x e N O• M1 i x Y i Y Y* r A . O w z o~ i t a* iii t tilt x 0. 4 • i'x i s t0�i i* a r�}��jjR{ • • t i Y Y i ii{y■i� gyp( AP, i# i1i•• M ON y GM •• i Y #Y x 'ar i Y ; i N iT< •. !if! ixx N OH 91 O N R i i s j o• m!1 Jy\<CI N N• A ( N 9 nY 0 8 e,.1 L C. L • • C L L L L L 0 • t. L SPRING 1989 RESIDENTIAL RATIO STUDY 4/11/89 NNINICIPALITY 1 SALES MEDIAN MEAN COO MUNICIPALITY 1 SALES MEDIAN MEAN COD BLOOMINGTON 926 92.61 93.21 6.6 MEDIAA 23 94.61 93.41 7.3 BROOKLYN CENTER 261 91.81 92.11 5.4 MINNEAPOLIS BROOKLYN PARK 474 92.41 92.51 5.0 MINNETDNKA 540 92.61 92.61 7.5 CHAMPLIN 178 95.21 94.61 7.4 MINNETONKA BEACH 14 91.41 90.91 4.8 CORCORAN 51 93.11 92.1I 6.1 MINNETRISTA 60 91.71 94.21 8.9 CRYSTAL 317 93.DX 93.8% 5.7 MOUND 188 94.31 93.91 7.8 DAYTON 32 93.71 93.6I 7.1 NEW HOPE 214 92.1I 92.71 5.4 DEEPHAVEN 46 91.51 90.2I 9.0 ORONO 119 91.61 90.41 9.6 EDEN PRAIRIE . _y 419 93.21 93.6I 5.9 OSSEO 28 92.6% 93.31 10.0 EDINA 579 . 91.1I 90.81 8.4 PLYMOUTH 474 91.51 91.31 7.2 EXCELSIOR 19 94.31 92.81 5.6 RICHFIELD 373 92.6I 92.91 6.1 6UL EN VALLEY 278 92.71 93.31 6.6 ROBBINSDALE 221 92.8I 93.51 6.9 GREENFIELD 17 92.51 93.71 5.5 ROCKFORD 1 104.31 104.31 0.0 GREENWOOD 13 93.01 92.61 6.2 ROGERS 3 93.0I 94.41 4.1 HANOVER 0 ST ANTHONY 57 92.61 92.71 7.3 HASSAN 19 94.0I 93.1I 4.5 ST BONIFACIUS 11 92.91 93.51 5.7 HOPKINS 97 94.61 95.51 6.7 ST LOUIS PARK 595 91.91 92.01 1.3 INDEPENDENCE 24 93.31 93.1I 6.8 SHOREWDOD 73 92.1I 91.81 10.4 LONG LAKE 28 92.01 91.71 6.8 SPRING PARK 19 94.71 96.11 6.1 LORETTO 1 100.71 100.7I 0.0 TONKA BAY 23 91.11 93.31 6.3 MAPLE GROVE 410 91.51 91.71 5.0 WAYZATA 27 91.51 89.61 12.2 MAPLE PLAIN 20 93.01 93.3I 5.3 WOODLAND 9 91.3I 91.81 5.7 MEDICINE LAKE 7 93.61 92.4I 5.8 HENNEPIN COUNTY 7,288 93.22 93.21 6.5 Irk (COUNTY FIGURES (EXCEPT SALES) ARE RUNIC AVERAGES " 1989 Eden Prairie Real Estate Taxes - Residential Property of 3 or less units. Properties in School District 272 and WS k4 1989 Payable EM. Hmstd. * Mid-Yr. Hmstd. * Non-Hmstd. * Tax Rates ( ) 50000 504 1136 1768 City of Eden Prairie 15.953 * 55000 555 1250 1945 Hennepin County 27.101 * 60000 605 1363 2122 School District 272 50.969 * School District 270 41.725 65D00 700 1499 2298 School District 276 58.062 Misc. 5.337 * 70000 816 1646 2475 Watershed # 1 .351 75000 943 1797 2655 Watershed # 2 .217 Watershed # 4 .445 * 80000 1069 1949 2829 Voc. Tech. 1.223 * 85000 1195 2100 3D06 900D0 1321 2252 3182 *101.028 * 95000 1448 2403 3359 * Typical Total Tax Rate 100000 1574 2555 3536 Calculation of Tax Capacity & Tax 1D5000 1741 2727 3713 110000 1907 2898 3890 Non-Homestead: EMV X 3.50% = Tax Capacity 115000 2074 3070 4066 Tax Capacity X 101.028% = Tax Payable 120D00 2241 3242 4243 125090 2407 3414 4420 Homestead: 1301,00 2574 3585 4597 1st 68000 EMV X 2.17% 13500D 2741 3757 4774 + Next 32000 EMV X 2.50% + Remainder EMV X 3.30% 140000 2908 3929 4950 145000 3074 4101 5127 = Tax Capacity X 101.028 % 150000 3241 4272 5304 = Gross Tax 160000 3574 4616 5658 - Homestead Credit of 54% of the 170000 3908 4959 6011 Gross Tax on the 1st 68000 of EMV to a max. of $725 180000 4241 5303 6365 190000 4575 5646 6718 = Net Tax Payable 200000 4908 5990 7072 225000 5741 6849 7956 250000 6575 7707 8840 275000 7408 8566 9724 300000 8242 9425 10608 325000 9075 10284 11492 350000 9909 11142 12376 375000 10742 12001 13260 400it 11576 12860 14144 500000 14910 16295 17680 600000 18244 19730 21216 Revised 1/27/89 * Tax Calculated at Typical Tax Rate. i,.,J_wun ! Id, IU ,,edi Lstate Idxes - ,<esiaential Property - 3 or less units EMV Hmstd.* Mid-Yr. Hmstd.* Non-Hmstd.* 1988 Payable 0 50,000 W 468 #1074 ' '1678 Mill Rates 55,000 516 1182 1846 _ 000 562 1283 City 19.940 * 2014 65,000 624 1404 2182 County 31.667 * 70,000 750 1550 School Dist. #272 6D.O12 235D 75,000 912 1716 School 01st. #270 48.939 2518 80,000 1074 1880 School Dist. #276 63.947 2686 85,000 1236 2044 Misc. - 6.209 * 2854 90,000 1398 PZ10 Watershed #1 .428 3022 95,000 1560 P374 Watershed #2 .251 3190 100,000 1722 2540 Watershed #4 .570 * 3358 105,000 1384 P704 Voc. Tech. 1.493 * 3526 110,000 2046 2870 3692 Total 119.891 115,000 2203 3034 3360 * Typical Total Mill Rate 120,000 2370 3200 4028 125,000 2532 3364 4196 Calculation of Assessed Value & Tax 130,000 2694 3528 4364 Non-Homestead: 135,000 2856 3694 4532 EMV x 28% = Assessed Value 140,000 3016 3858 4700 Assessed X .119891 = Tax 14E )0 3178 4024 4868 Homestead: 150,000 3340 4188 5036 1st $68,000 EMV X 17% 160,000 3664 4518 5372 + Remainder EMV X 27% 170,000 3988 4843 5703 = Assessed Value 180,000 4312 5178 6042 X .119891 190,000 4636 5508 6378 = Gross Tax I 200,000 4960 5336 6714 Hmstd. Credit - 54% of Gross Tax on the 225,000 5768 6662 7554 1st $68,000 to a Max. of $7C 250,000 6578 7486 8392 = Net Tax Payable 275,000 7388 8310 9232 300,000 8196 9134 1OD72 325,000 9006 9958 10910 _ 350,000 9816 10782 11750 375,000 10624 11606 12590 100,000 11434 12432 13428 Tax Calculated at Typical Mill Ra e et-31 = 01,44.4.,,v442t...,,t4 ktv-c-1-4-Arolt-,-e. I,, 5959 ASSESSMENTS;REVIEW,CORRECTION,EQUALIZATION 274.01 • I CHAPTER 274 1 ASSESSMEN"i'S; REVIEW,CORRLCTION, ! EQUALIZATION " I•1 w , 274 01 Board of review. 274.1: Dube of auditor and assessors. SS I i 27401 Notice of meeting. 271.I3 County board of equalization. i'.' t 274 04 Assessor s return to auditor. 274.14 Length of session•record. r 27405 Auditor'tcenincale. 274.16 Corrected lists,abstracts. 1 274 07 Lot be person sick or abunl. 274.17 Record;abstract to county aud,ton. I i t.274 09 Correction of books. 274.IS Abstract of realty assessment toll town. t 27409 Correct Ion of false lists and returns. to clerks. 274 10 Property umibed or undervalued. 271.19 Assessment of manufactured homes. 11 I • 274.11 Taxes a ben on property in eumtncr's 1 rl,_! ; list. Hi� , 274.01 BOARD OF REVIEW. 1, •`' I Subdivision I. Ordinary board;meetings,deadlines,grievances. (a)The town 11! { hoard of a town,or the council or other governing body of a city,is the board of review A 1 • except in cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization.The county assessor j i . Mall fix a day and time when the board or the board of equalization shall meet in the assessment districts of the county. On or before February 15 of each year the assessor !'II, shall give written notice of the time to the city or town clerk. Notwithstanding the provisions of any charter to the contrary,the meetings must be held between April 1 I''11.1, „ -. and May 31 each year.The clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meeting , ,. at least ten days before the date of the meeting.The board shall meet at the office of 1 the clerk to review the assessment and classification of property in the town or city.No changes in valuation may be made by the county assessor after the board of review or the county board of equalization has adjourned. This restriction does not apply to corrections of errors that are merely clerical or administrative in nature. I (b)The board shall determine whether the taxable property in the town or city has 'I 1 been properly placed on the list and properly valued by the assessor. If real or personal •r • property has been omitted,the board shall place it on the list with its market value,and II' ri correct the assessment so that each tract or lot of real property,and each article,parcel, • , or class of personal property,is entered on the assessment list at its market value. No !; ) assessment of the property of any person may be raised unless the person has been duly { notified of the intent of the board to do so. On application of any person feeling aggrieved,the board shall review the assessment or classification,or both,and correct j; 1 4 it as appears just. 11 i (c)A local board of review may reduce assessments upon petition of the taxpayer f but the total reductions must not reduce the aggregate assessment made by the county I,, assessor by more than one percent. If the total reductions would lower the aggregate q • i;•, assessments made by the county assessor by more than one percent, none of the , 1} adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct any clerical errors or double '{ 1 assessments discovered by the board of review without regard to the one percent { 1 limitation. ;, (d)A majority of the members may act at the meeting,and adjourn from day to day until they finish hearing the cases presented, The assessor shall attend,with the i assessment books and papers,and take part in the proceedings,but must not vote. The j'; 1 r county assessor, or an assistant delegated by the county assessor shall attend the . ?., meetings. The board shall list separately,on a form appended to the assessment book, I all omitted property added to the list by the board and all items of property increased 1! ) ! or decreased,with the market value of each item of property,added or changed by the board,placed opposite the item. The county assessor shall enter all changes made by �i 1 the board in the assessment book. I ., ! i �'• (e)If a person fails to appear in person,by counsel,or by written communication : I 'II .if- 1 ' .. ,, r:) ,274.01 ASSESSMENTS:REVIEW,CORRECTION.EQUALIZATION 5960 i 3961 I before the board after being duly notified of the board's intcnt to raise the assessment; and the grc of the property,or if a person feeling aggrieved by an assessment or classification fails the assessr j; , to apply for a review of the assessment or classification,the person may not appear board"),a I; before the county board of equalization for a review of the assessment or classification. statement ' • This paragraph does not apply if an assessment was made after the board meeting,as ?' • t provided in section 273.01,or if the person can establish not having received notice r. Assess ;I I. of market value at least five days before the local board of review meeting. • ,• Signer "!: I -' (i)The board of review or the board of equalization must complete its work and i -, ' adjourn within 20 days from the time of convening stated in the notice of the clerk, y s 1 1 • unless a longer period is approved by the commissioner of revenue. No action taken i.>,,',<` Audit( after that date is valid. All complaints about an assessment or classification made after . x t n r The at • ' the meeting of the board must be heard and determined by the county board of '.I equalization.A nonresident may,at any time,before the meeting of the board of review -+ to keep rec y.j . # — file written objections to an assessment or classification with the county assessor. The i• summaries 11'I,ii l objections must be presented to the board of review at its meeting by the county : .;;subdivisior assessor for its consideration. • ba summary n ' I I j'. Subd. 2. Special board:duties delegated.The governing body of a city,including : ' must be sul a city whose charter provides for a board ofequalization,may appoint a special board Mom, assessor's a I; '• of review. The city may delegate to the special board of review all of the powers and ru;, duties in subdivision 1. The special board of review shall serve at the direction and "State of • 11 tc.1i discretion of the appointing body,subject to the restrictions imposed by law. The• s"`f,.:; tt '- '• Count c I III appointing body shall determine the number of members of the board.the compensa- t_ y Lion and expenses to be paid,and the term of office of each member. At least one ': I, '; member of the special board of review must be an appraiser,realtor,or other persc: affidavit cc Lt 1' ' familiar with property valuations in the assessment district capacities( ; i r 11�•• History:(2034)RL s 847;1941 c 402 s l;1945 c 401 s 1;1949 t 543 s 1;Ex196• s )- -• : c32 art 8s3;1971c434s3:1971c564s6;1973c123 art 5s7;1973c150sI;Ic%' 4'• Assessi j I!''' c 582 s 3;1975 c 339 s 5;1977 c 434 s 11;1986 t 444;1987 t 229 art 4 s 1;1987 t:6, '01q Signed { i,,t art 7 s 37;I988 t 719 art 7 s 8 r.;n • 1 l Audito •`, '1 274.013 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70] i''' A co v P, [ I i: 274.02 [Repealed, 1949 c 543 s 2] ?: forwarded t I iii • li '' ,, 274.03 NOTICE OF MEETING. '.1• Histors I •s 3;1975 c. ;� s •The clerk shall give at least ten days'posted notice of the time and place of Or. �, . meeting of the board of review.Failure to give notice or hold the meeting does nc: j i ' ( vitiate any assessment,except as to the excess over the market value of the property ' 274.05 AU t i i I•) History:(2036)RL s 849:1941 c 402 s 2;1975 c 339 s 8;1987 c 229 art 4 s I Subdiv; assessment •1 I 274.04 ASSESSOR'S RETURN TO AUDITOR. if found in `` state th II •• Subdivision 1. Assessment books;affidavits.The assessor shall foot each coluir.a „with the that th in the assessment books,and make in each book,under proper headings,a tabu:?: the assessor ei 1 i statement showing the footings of the several columns on each page.The assessor sha'l' also foot the total amounts of the columns under the headings. On or before the nrst section 274. T Subd. 1 • Monday of May,the assessor shall return the assessment books to the county auditor proper form and deliver the lists and statements of persons assessed. The return must be vcnlizd summaries r by affidavit,substantially in the following form: i I •t• History { "State of Minnesota ) - ., 1987 a 229, )ss. ' County of ) • . 274.% [I ter"�t/i I assessor of solemnly swear that the book to which this is attached ._ 274.07 LIS 1 contains a correct and full list of real property(or personal property,as the case may If be)subject to taxation in and that the market value and the gross tax capacity = any l in the proper column,opposite the descriptions of property,is in each case the market `.absence fron I. . Property Tax Impact Made Understandable City,county,and school officials are increasingly concerned about legislative changes in the property tax l system. For many years local governments have relied upon property tax to fund a significant portion of the services they provide for their constituents.Recent changes in the tax and aid programs provided to local governments,are placing greater tax burdens on metro area homeowners. Ultimately,these taxpayers must decide whether this trend is acceptable or not. City,county,and school officials are concerned that if this trend continues many taxpayers will be unable to pay these higher taxes. The following are common questions about the tax dilemma and responses to clarify the situation. QThe Legislature has made a number of changes Q Let me get this straight. Even though we will over the past two years to the state's property tax be paying more property taxes,we will not necessar- system. I also understand the Legislature has also ily receive proportionally more in services by our changed the formula for aid to schools and cities. city and school district? What impact will these changes have on the average household? No,not if you live in the metro area. AUnfortunately,the combined effect of all the AVERAGE TAX ON THE AVERAGE changes made by the Legislature will increase prop- VALUE HOUSE erty taxes for most homeowners in the metropolitan Metro Area area. 51100 Property Tax I I I I I 51000 I I I I Q f900 If the state does not spend our local property 1 Irlingi tax dollars then how can these changes end up $eoo f— costing us more money? I u. - i I $700 1 1 1 I I A Local governments get most of their money Seoo I I I I from property taxes and state aid. State aid is a 11 t500 partial return of money generated through state sales , I I I Non Metro Area and income tax. Sales taxes were initially approved 8400 property Tax to reduce local property taxes. Most cities and I �.f 1 schools in the metro area are receiving less,or at =3oof best,only slightly more aids than they have received 1 Szoo in past years. Therefore,in order to maintain the I I I I same level of services and education, they must Stool I I I raise property taxes to make up for the loss in state ( I I aid. e I ' I 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 eat. FISCAL YEAR QSo,are you saying that if my property taxes Q Why is so much more money going to non- increase 10%that my city and school will not re- metro communities? ceive 10%more in revenue to spend on services? AThe formula for aid to cities and school A That's right. Cities and schools frequently districts is largely dependent upon property values. must increase taxes to balance the loss of state aids. The lower property values in non-metro triggers more aid to cities and school districts there. QI know I am paying more in income tax,and the cost of goods I am buying is going up,so sales Q How much of my sales and income tax dollar tax revenues must also be increasing. If cities and stays within our metropolitan area? schools are not receiving this money, where is it going? A In 1987,only 65 cents of every dollar stayed Awithin the metro area. A larger percentage of state aid is being sent to non-metro communities,which leaves a smaller percentage within the metropolitan area. In 1986, Q 64% of state sales and income tax revenue was What can be done to correct this problem?�[ generated within the metro area, yet we received only 46%back in aid,creating an 18%aid gap. In 1987,this disparity increased about 20%,and 1988 A The Legislature must recognize the need to is projected to be even more. develop a more equitable tax system. Call or write your legislators. Comparison of Taxes Returned I D Metro Per S1 Paid Metro vs.Non-Metro D Non-Metro $1.60 S 1.40 $1.20 • S1.00•••.••••• ••.••••• St Paid • S0.80-- �_Q1, S0.60 # S0.00 I 1985 1988 i 1987 YEAR Allpi*--* Prepared by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 183 University Avenue East, - f_ St.Paul,Minnesota 55101(612)227-4008 ��'. METRO AREA SUBURBAN TAXES GOING UP Many suburban homeowners will get a nasty jolt when they open For 1989,the cities of our population size(Owatonna.Hibbing,and their 1989 property tax bills,due to action taken by the 1987 and Albert Lea)outstate will receive$160,$331,and$206.respectively, ]° 8 legislatures Because state financial aid,derived principally while West St.Paul will receive$91 per capita.Remember that every 1 income and sales tax,is being cut to many suburban school $1 per capita means over$18,000 in state tax money directed to Istricts,they must raise their property tax levies just to stay even. each of the above cities!Aid payments to non-Metro cities were The West St.Paul schools are projected to lose$1,263,766 in aid, increased an average of 62%,and although aid to Metro area cities because this is considered a"rich"district.Fortunately,state aid to was increased an ge of 27%,most of that money went to Min- this city government was increased sufficiently to allow a decrease neapolis and St.Paul(who will get per capita payments of$127 and in city government tax millage,for the fourth year in a row.There is $185.respectively),leaving some suburbs with increases of as little much concern aboat funding for future years,especially since the as 2%. "homestead credit"has been abolished for 1990,and will be re- All these state decisions have combined to raise suburban property placed by another formula. taxes.The increase in Metro area residential homesteaded taxes is Consider the following facts we obtained from State and League of expected to average 10.6%,with some suburbs expecting increas- Cities documents: Our city,which is perenially in the Citizens es of 30%or more.It will be interesting to see what happens if these League standings as one of the five lowest-taxed cities in the Metro predictions come true,especially since not everyone who happens area,has a total 1988 property tax burden of$14,518,237.None of to live in a suburb is rich. the three outstate cities in the 18.000 population range have pro- pertytax burdens higher than$11,588,455,because they receive so much state aid.Per capita,those cities get state Local Government Aid of$99,$139.and$136 compared to$70 in West St.Paul.Faced with this disparity in state aid,the Legislature acted to increase • the difference. Numbers and Locations: CITY OFFICIALS POLICE AND FIRE Emergency 911 Routine.....450 1111 City Council. stab: Adminstration 455-9673 Kenneth H.Kobe,Mayor City Manager' William Craig MUNICIPAL CENTER 455-9671 Lee Welker,Alderman,Werd City Attorney' Arnold Kampe James Wazlewrk.Alderman,Ward I City Clerk/Asst.Mgr .Dianne Latuf PARKS AND RECREATION 450-9005 Joe Fenton,Aldermen,Ward II Police Chet Gerald Busman A"-ity departments except Parks and Rec- James Kennedy.Alderman,Ward II Fire Cheat . Richard Krogh f on can be contacted by calling or visiting John Jakwey,Aldermen.Ward Ill Park 6 Recreation Director .William Klameck the Municipal Center at 1616 Humboldt Bob Kelly,Aldermen,Ward m City Engineer/Public Works Avenue. director . ..... ...Philip Stetaniak Finance Director , . ....John Remkus The Parks and Recreation office is located at Building Inspector . Terry Maruska the city Ice Arena,60 West Emerson Avenue. Street and utility sups .... . Robert Johnson The city swimming pool is at 92 West Orme -Appointed by City Council Avenue. POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS ARE LOCATED AT THE MUNICIPAL CENTER. The West St. Paul branch of the Dakota County Library is located at 40 East Emerson Avenue. Carrier Route Pre-Sort U.S.Postage Paid St.Paul,MN 55118 Permit#2583 POSTAL CUSTOMER,LDCAL City of West St. Paul NEWSLETTER 1 . AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEM8ERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation b Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. from ularnCar ity Counc Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 16, 1989 (Continued Page 1369 B. Joint City Council/Waste Management Commission Meeting held Tuesday, May 23 1989 (Continued from June 6, 1989) Page 1393 C. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 23, 1989 (Continued Page 1397 from June 6, 1989) D. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, December 20, 1988 Page 1400 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 1419 B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 19-89 Amending Section 5.36 of the City Code relating to License Requirements for Refuse Collectors Page 1420 and Adoption of Resolution No. 89-133 Authorizing Summary for Publication C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 15-89 for Name Change - Diamond Circle Page 1305 to LaRivier Court — — D. Resolution of Findings for Denial for Preliminary Plat of Outlot AL Crestwood 89 by Alex Dorenkemper (Resolution No.89-T28 j-- Page 1422 E. Final Plat Approval of Bluffs West 7th Additic• located north of 8luestem Lane and west of Bennett Place) Reso ution No. 89-93 Page 1423 F. A 1?rove Change Order No. 3 for Mitchell/Research Road Improvements, Page 1426 City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,June 20, 1989 G. Approve Layout for Pedestrian Bridge over TH 5 at CSAH 4 Page 1428 (Resolution No. 89-132) H. Resolution No. 89-134 Providing for a Special Election for Page 1430 Issuance of General Obligation Park Bonds in the Amount of $5,545,000 I. BLUFFS WEST 7TH ADDITION by Hustad Development. 2nd Reading of Page 1433 Ordinance No. 9-89, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 4.66 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Bluffs West 7th Addition; and Adoption of Resolution No. 89-120, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 9-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 26.3 acres into 11 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: North of Bluestein Lane, north of Bluestein Hills 5th Addition. (Ordinance No. 9-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-120 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) J. Approve Permit for Connection to MWCC Facilities for Summit Drive page 1442 Area Sanitary Sewer, I.C. 52-152 Resolution No. B9-99) K. CHASE POINT by Crosstown Investors. 2nd Reading of Ordinance Page 1443 No. 14-89, Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.78 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Chase Point; and Adoption of Resolution No. 89-98, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 14-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Sumary. 7.9 acres into 2 lots, 1 outlot with variances approved by the Board of Appeals for construction of a gas station, and daycare facility. Location: West of Shady Oak Road, north of the proposed City West Parkway extension. (Ordinance No. 14-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-98 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) L. Resolution No. 89-142 Approving Refinancing of $5,560,000 in Page 1452 Multi-Family Housing Bonds for Edenvale Apartments M. Resolution No. 89-143 Approving Final 1988 City Budget Page 1458 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RED ROCK SHORES by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Pgs. 1076 Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 13 acres, & 1462 Preliminary Plat of 19.77 Acres into 17 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road No. 4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. (Ordinance No. 13-89 - Rezoning from Rural to R1-22; Resolution No. 89-104 - Preliminary Plat) Continued from June 6, 1989 Council meeting B. TECH CENTER AT CITY WEST by Steven Hoyt Company. Request for Page 1463 Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review and Planned Unit Development District Review Amendment on 87 acres with waiver for percentage of office use in the I-2 Zoning District, Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 12.46 acres for construction of 160,868 square feet of office/warehouse uses. Location: West of City West Parkway, north and east of Shady Oak Road. (Resolution No. 89-137, PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance No. 16-89-PUD-5-89, PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment within I-2 Zoning District) City Council Agenda Tues.,June 20, 1989 - 3 - C. CHATHAM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION by Centex Real Estate Corporation. Page 1473 Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 101 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 8.13 acres, Preliminary Plat of 8.13 acres into 23 single family lots. Location: North and west of Cumberland Road, northeast of Wellington Drive. (Resolution #89-138 - PUD Concept Amendment to Overall Ridgewood Westover Planned Unit Development; Ordinance No. 20-89-PUD-6-89 - PUD District Review and Zoning District Change; Resolution No. 89-139 - Preliminary Plat) D. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER for United Artist Theaters. Request for a second free-standing pylon to advertise the United Artist Movies. Page 1480 The sign is proposed at 249 square feet, 22 feet in height, 2'1" wide between faces, and to be located at the Eden Prairie Shopping Center's northeast entrance off Prairie Center Drive. Location: 1D76 Eden Prairie Center. (Resolution No. 89-140 - PUD Concept Amendment to Overall Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development) E. FREEBURG/PERKINS ADDITION by Clayton Freeburg. Request for a Registered Land Survey of 2.84 acres into 3 lots with variances to Page 1489 be reviewed by the Board of Appeals within the R1-22 Zoning District. Location: 7010 Willow Creek Road. (Resolution No. 89-141 - Registered Land Survey) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 1507 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 89403 recommending the nomination of Edward J. Page 15DB Kranz to the Regional Transit Board VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of 2 Representatives to the Preserve Area G Design Page 1509 Review Committee (1 Councilmember or Council-appointed Representative, and 1 representative of The Preserve) B. Appointment of a Councilmember to be liaison to the Developer's Forum — — — — X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources City Council Agenda - 4 - Tues.,June 20, 1989 F. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Special Assessment Policy (Continued from May 16, 1989) Page 829 2. Report on Mitchell Lake and Red Rock Lake Control Level (as Page 1510 requested la Timber Lake Homeowners Association) G. Report of Finance Director XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT t • .71 7rigef, .5 w, , ,j 721.7 T- J 77: '77,CP.7 1!.1'10t.t t!-•.• Eagl • 71-:. 11; 1 1,..,•.;!, the 777,7 ' -7:177; :n• . •, ! • ! 2 ,42,r,!,, • : • ;; .r I ,i �I, •�. .. . ., r -777 rL 1 f :. : ;;7 „1 • •. ,_. ..- .. • • • • ,n • jk • . 1 l .. .4�.. ,. f 41.,E , rl _ YI'• ter . _ ... • I ;l _ :. 1. .,', t'it. 1 .IC Lr r v _ r1 r. 1'_ • .._ .:Il' .. 1 :ef: '�:i,. - 11.. "1 :1:1 r., .(.1 H, Phe ar.; jre ,,,_r—t ' `: ... 7 •„i:il _. .•� 1 . . ' . : . 7 . . . , l 1 .::11 • .. , . .1 ! •.:., . • ..• - _ .r . 1, r 1':- 1.11 I ' __ _'1 . :EC .,,;'1. ..,,,....._ .:'. , x• _ .. 1' .,,r. , ouL !!; • _. .1„1.1v 1 I . 1: gill !'i 't•r ..�, .,1 ..!:.1!: rl r `' to • _': ... ., t :. I ,._ .n •'c' • : ..1 • ' '.:i. y / '_•t . Hi' is '.'G i:�t .'Cr .. ', . Er.gr ,' n'J t . _ w,,L a:r : t . '' a 3 th, `r . F:,;':: "J trl,t� t!,,,rc WTI,. � . 1. .. ui c iv._ . ..1,• ..• I i t.'. . 'C' �" '��i. III. ,... i1_1 i,-2. l:ai l ILI ,1.. r ,. I. 9 •=1 J; 'f' •. •... rt•f• r - 1 the tL. uc r,(r . ., l 11: . _ . . .,r,.,- :-'r 'rit to j t '..-,1. ul1 the r • ~lr 1 pt'.;;c.rl; ut had City' it I. J uit•_l ,.. ,I nli':oc wh i; h 'd:l.-. -I-., . -'! y t.!:� et r-111y. H'.-ff 1,21 the , ,. �.rwC1Y CI :i..1 ''.1'.rl .,it fi1Yt!,-.r 1t,1, r, .a �L.,. iTt err ,dn :71 ... �.. - - . It I• .1.I. -1:C.!• ._ .:",,1'_' ':!'; . 1 .^-t n • .. .. .i is .i M: .. ' . 'P. 11 • n 1'..;i: ],] ,.it. r 'I; sectic.ri 1.1d :,'l.`_•. .v. l _ f.1r .•h fr .. .._...j I.�. ..ff `.`1. i'•.- Tree 7 p11- r.:lt i ,,.,.. ..r. '.I:�.. . Lu.:1.4ht r. orl _ rr_ 'J ._ be riegrti=tio;.. ].;-.:,:,11 by :t.:.ff t ,.11r. _,,,.,,,_.: .. .,. .' 'Ik_ .a '+..... .,'rl ba.Led c,n the L16Jt !re war. r.OI:'.. :::III•,l lerj._tl .i.l y'tce '1,.. lt' r-' ' .. 1^ , imi !.. F,:u11 l r t •r, c c .., l I r .I! h t ' , t1 TI' 11 i r, • _3 I ..1.. l 1. . . ..- -1:. f'.I:I, ...li L.. :`i' ...i , ^c, .:'1, 2. ,'3 a'.. :c., ..l ^' ". " 1 - c,-- �.-- .. �} . .. 7 1 .. o f ; .I • ...t. . . .. ' L, . ] IT . . 1" 1' .,, .E'l: '..t . .`I1: IV: 1' . . l •!:... ... . ..t f ',� 1.1 I .- : t ' •t 1 I I . . ''. . ' • ` , 1 ; . t' • ..,...'1 . .„.,. . •.:l'. .. .1' .,.. 1 .. ... I .... ,... ;vr., ...,. 1.. !!l j 1 r f 1 1 tir' n, . . r'.. .... . .-; .... -.: „. . ,1:; r r . .• •. I I •i. , i 1 • �r • . ., ,,f'.. . n ,111 . 1 '„. III. r ..1 , ..':I;, "f':�a� ,.�.,. ' ,. 1 f: I1:.. .. .. ! ;,, L,,t ...,. : .. ' _'ll.. ;i_ _ ..... . `/1 n I 1' 1:. .., `.,. ,.:r. .... .. .' .:.. .,ill... .I .I .:L , " .. _ j L. .. , . .. .. .. :1 �.. . I .. 4 _,_.i: Wr . _ .''.. !:P 1?^? • ;.. - ... •, ' C ' 1 . 1.. 7 8. f`ice . f 111 .. ... .. L.. - _ .. ... .... _ ..,..i., aCl r l t '9 ] .•, 1. :L r :,1' .L'au-.�I?: `!, f:�.SS`1'• , •.1 i'Y t: ti•? that _. . _. !..., .- .. 1;:�1 __:Il.. ... - �.1. '!ll.','_'. .hat ▪ !, I • 1 1 .nc,. . ..- .. .. _. . -ir e ` _:lUI, [' . c.,. ca t: ... • by Jr:.lit: 7.7 t,! '1, • t ' ! �ac- • , e7 .J: r t ....,,, 1.13 t.hc J .7... _.i.. f:I: .... .. !-!`-.'.. . i.7irt ' I�.. 1_'. _� �.. r ,I is !. • _ .1 17. �. • .. ! ,. —',1(. .,l` f .7 .. ,�7 w • 11 l r.+. 11.0 1 ,I j 1.1.'It: ! .. ,n; r Here' I I ` I_.!:: ,...!. ..is !' !1 1 1,1 I f, ! i I I ,. • • 1' • 1. , !. _ _ 1 . _ .. :1 1 1 1 .1 t -' -, 1 . _ is ...., :, :'.I .. . 1 ... , .1 1. , }1 • ... ., . .. ..r: l .. ,L r 11,.:, '1 • . ` 1 F. 1 .. L 1,. ' !, .. ' .;'j ,' . „ .. • ,1 1 ,. m , ., � ', •. ` ..a-:._ ._ a .. .,.. ...., _ _., .. .. �..,. .. �'•,. N.'�1 11. ,. . ,. r . '. 1 �. . , .,,, •.' , , , 11 1 11...1. , i I w w _ • - .. I r!. t • f: �l I / 13r: . . 1 .. .!. i n !13V0 ! ! ,t • n v Y j: . .,,.I�.. r.i . .:Ii; ''!. :.'I,' • r ...ed 1 . f .:,! ...'; '1 r I 7. . , II l� .,.. � I'... f ,'j .: , - _ ,1 ....,.. • • X T. ], .• . • ' ,!. 7:•". . . 1 : .1 JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1989 7:30 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY OFFICES 7600 Executive Drive CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: All Councilmembers present. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leslie Ellis, Vice-Chair Jan Mosman, Cindy Adalbert, Yvonne Hargens, Fred Hoisington, and Tim Pierce COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Evans STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie and Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson ROLL CALL Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. All Councilmembers were present. All Commission members except Dennis Evans were present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Harris moved and Tenpas seconded to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5-0. II. INTRODUCTIONS Peterson explained the purposes of the Council's joint meetings with advisory boards and commissions. They offered an opportunity to share information about the activities and expectations between the Council and Commissions as well as an opportunity to get to know each other personally. Councilmembers, Commission members, and Staff introduced themselves. III. COMMISSION PRESENTATION A. Review of Commission Accomplishments Hargens explained how the Commission had come a long way since its formation five or six months ago. The Commission first met on December 12, 1988 and has adopted a twice-a-month meeting schedule. The Commission has two committees which also have met frequently. Among the activities of the Commission during this time were a tour of the Reuter Recycling Facility; develop- ment of a work plan; meetings with refuse collectors; a public meeting on recycling plans; and development of a recycling program. She thanked the Council for the staff assistance provided to help the Commission in its rapid progress. - 2 - B. Review of Upcoming Projects 1. Recycling Program Adalbert gave an overview of the recycling activities which have been implemented and which are planned. She reviewed the 1988 performance figures, provided an overview of the Goodwill/Easter Seal operation, and related the plans underway for private haulers to provide recycling services and their initiative with volume-based charges for service. Harris suggested that running totals be published to show progress and encourage participation in recycling. Tenpas wondered if the rates charged if one recycled would approach those without recycling sometime in the future. Adalbert responded that the firms appear to be committed to making recycling work. Anderson expressed concerns that yard wastes were not being encouraged to be recycled nor that the City was gaining credit for the yard wastes which were being recycled by private firms. Dawson explained that yard waste recycling would not count toward recycling objectives established by Hennepin County. 2. Public Education and Information Mosman reviewed the activities of this Committee of the Commission. The Committee met early to develop an educational campaign; however, after BFI's announcement that it would provide recycling services to its customers, the education effort has changed to adapt to changing conditions. A postcard is being mailed to all addresses in the City to explain existing and upcoming recycling opportunities, and a brochure is being printed to include with the distribution of recycling containers. The Committee will be developing a presentation this Fall for public speaking to a variety of groups. Art students at Eden Prairie High School will be helping to provide graphics for this presentation. The Committee is also exploring the idea of having cash prize drawings to reward people who are recycling. Tenpas mentioned that the Junior League of Minneapolis had developed an educational program for the Minneapolis School System about recycling. The Commission could find this program useful in its public education efforts. Peterson suggested the Youth Development Board of the Eden Prairie School System has another resource in the public education efforts. Anderson mentioned that recycling was occurring within the Eden Prairie School System and believed the District to be a leader among institutions in recycling. He stated that School District staff had not received much support from Hennepin County in developing its recycling program. Anderson wondered about the extent to which the City should be involved in business recycling as County efforts have been minimal thus far. /2 - 3 - Peterson responded that the City should look to the County for leadership in this area at this time. Hoisington related that the Council charge to the Commission was global in scope. The Commission has had to look at short-term objectives thus far, and consequently the focus has been on residential waste. Anderson stated that he wanted the City to be involved in the whole gamut of recycling. 3. Packaging Ordinance Pierce thanked the Council for allowing the Commission to look at the proposed Ordinance on environmentally acceptable packaging before Council took final action on this matter. He related the study elements that the Commission would consider in the preparation of recommendations to the Council. Pidcock left at 8:20 PM. Pierce asked when Council would like to have the Commission's recommendations on the Packaging Ordinance. Anderson said he would like to have the Ordinance effective with the date established by Minneapolis (July 1, 1990). He hoped that the results of actions taken with plastics regulations would not end up repeating the experience with the recent newspaper glut. Peterson said that the purpose of the Ordinance is to stimulate momentum for manufacturers and users of packaging materials to have recyclable materials in widespread use. He said that the Commission should attach priority to making residents know where plastics can be recycled. Anderson said he would like to see plastics included in the City's recycling requirements as soon as as practical, and by August 1, 1989 if at all possible. Harris said that the Council wanted the Commission to take the amount of time necessary to study the issues the Commission had identified in relation to the proposed Ordinance. Hargens suggested that Council communicate with its Congressional delegation to encourage Federal action to work toward the widespread recyclability of plastic. Harris found this idea attractive. She believed that a push needs to be made on the national level to look at regional systems for collection and distribution of recyclable plastics. 4. Household Hazardous Waste Collection with Hennepin County Pierce related that the main thrust of efforts in the household hazardous waste area is public education. He said that Hennepin County has an education and collection program which appears to be the most readily available opportunity for residents. Peterson suggested that the Commission look at the effectiveness of the County program and the issues of convenience and frequency of collection for residents. Dawson mentioned that Hennepin County will have year-round drop-off centers at the soon-to-be-built transfer stations in the County's waste processing system. Two of these stations would be located in Plymouth and Bloomington. - 4 - Pidcock returned at 8:40 PM. C. Discussion with Council re: Priorities Hoisington related that Commission members had provided Council an overview of the Commission's current projects and upcoming studies. He asked the Councilmembers what they consider to be priorities so that the Commission can incorporate them in its work. Peterson said his priorities would be implementation of the curb- side recycling program in 1989 and the proper management of household hazardous wastes. Pidcock said that working toward having plastics recycled was important. She suggested working with Bill Barnhart, the legislative liaison for the City of Minneapolis. Anderson said that residential recycling is the top priority. The City needs to look at areas where the County is not performing well in waste management in order to fill in the gaps. There also needs to be something done about the enforcement of Ordinances and Code provisions to clean up the community. Tenpas said that the Council may be reactive to some pressures and issues identified by the public. The Commission should keep abreast of legislation and technologies in waste management. The Commission should be creative and bring issues to the Council, and not wait for the Council to bring the issues to the Commission. Harris said that a determination needs to be made about what the community wishes to do with plastics. She said that education and information will be a continuing struggle; it is necessary to get the same message out in many different ways. The City also needs to push for action on the national level to encourage the reuse and recycling of waste materials. D. Discussion of Council/Commission Relations Commission Chair Ellis said that this part of the meeting was planned for open dialogue between the Council and Commission; however, he believed that this communication had been accomplished throughout the meeting. Councilmembers expressed the need for partnership and two-way communication between the Council and the Commission. Council- members expected that the Commission would be proactive in providing recommendations. The Council had a consensus that the Commission would be expected to make recommendations on when plastics could and/or should be included in the City's recycling requirements. Pidcock wished for a demand to be made for the recyclability of plastics so that plastics manufacturers would be pushed toward providing these products. On behalf of the Commission, Ellis thanked the Council for its support to get the Commission up and running and effective. IV. ADJDURNMENT OF JOINT MEETING Pidcock moved and it was seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:2D PM. Motion carried 5-0. /' ,) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1989 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL/WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie and Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson ROLL CALL All members were present when the meeting was called to order at 9:25 PM. I. DISCUSSION OF 1989 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WITH CITY MANAGER Councilmembers reviewed a memorandum prepared by the City Manager with recommended goals for 1989. Councilmembers chose the three issues that they considered to be priorities for the City Manager. Anderson said his three priorities were City Hall; implementing a recycling program - including plastics; and holding the line on the City's property tax rate while determining what the City can do in general on this matter. Harris listed the recycling program implementation; City Hall; and holding the line on property taxes as her three priorities for the Manager. Peterson listed City Hall; the City's property tax rate; and an active program of employee performance review and efficiency measures as his priorities. Pidcock stated that implementing a recycling program; deciding on a site for City Hall; and holding the line on property taxes and lobbying for changes in fiscal disparities as her priorities for the Manager. Tenpas listed as his priorities holding the line on property taxes; improved staff management in terms of on-going in-house training, employee performaiu a reviews and efficiency measures, and assistance to the department head to achieve departmental goals; and City Hall as his priorities. Councilmembers then had further discussion of these identified priorities. With regard to implementing a recycling program, Councilmembers believed that there had been enough discussion with the Waste Management Commission earlier in the evening to have made their expectations clear. With reference to City Hall, Councilmembers recognized that this was an important economic decision for the City. The building would need to be - 2 - functional. At a minimum a decision needs to be made on the site for the building, and in considering these possible sites the Council needed to revisit the recommendations of the blue-ribbon Residents Committee for City Administrative Offices. Analysis should also be prepared on continuing to rent compared to purchasing the facility. The City Manager was to recommend a date to the Council for late-summer work session on this overall issue. Pidcock had concerns that residents would vote against any referendum that resulted in a tax increase. She suggested that the City look at the settlement from the sale of Rogers Cablesystems's franchise for capital to purchase a site for the City Hall. Tenpas said that a good financial analysis would show the City was being fiscally responsible in its proposal. He requested background information for the analysis done to date. In terms of in-house training, the Council wished to see an effective program continue to improve. There was general discussion about the programs which have been instituted over the last six to nine months to address the training needs of the City staff. Tenpas suggested that courses like that offered by Dale Carnegie be considered. He hoped that staff members would attend longer training sessions, perhaps spaced out over a few weeks, so that new skills could be practiced and reinforced. With regard to property taxes, it was understood that the objective was to hold the line on the City's property tax rate. Anderson hoped that there would be some way to remove the pressure from the City for property taxes because other local governments levied a far greater proportion of the property tax. Tenpas was most concerned with the accuracy of valuation and believed that more properties were under- valued than over-valued. Pidcock was concerned that the differential in property taxes paid between Eden Prairie and other communities should be narrowed. Councilmembers agreed that active lobbying for changes in the tax laws was not an appropriate one to which the City Manager should be held accountable. By consensus, the Council identified the following as objectives for the City Manager in 1989: implementation of recycling programs; making decisions on a site and financing options to be pursued for a City Hall; increasing the level of on-going in-house training; continuation of employee performance review and efficiency measures; and assistance to department heads in pursuit of department goals. II. DTHER BUSINESS 1. Salary Range for City Manager Position Harris said that the Council should affirm the pay standards shown Grade 12 of the City's pay structure as the salary for the City Manager position. Tenpas said that the Council should look at benefits as ways to add compensation. Harris moved and Pidcock seconded to adopt the salary range in the 1989 salary structure of the City in order to establish the current salary range for the City Manager position. Motion passed 5-0. - 3 - 2. Key to the City Request Peterson related that he had been approached by the organizers of an appreciation function for Roy Terwilliger. They had requested that the City consider giving Mr. Terwilliger a Key to the City during the event scheduled for May 25, 1989. Councilmembers engaged in discussion about how this request related to the policy guidelines adopted earlier in the year for presentations of a Key to the City. Anderson moved and Tenpas seconded to present Roy Terwilliger with a Key to the City. Motion passed 5-0. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 PM. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTE,E TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1988 7:40 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Paul, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All Members Present A presentation of the keys to the City and a plaque were made by Mayor Peterson to Councilmember Bentley for his many years of service. All the Councilmembers expressed their appreciation of Councilmember Bentley's expertise over the years. Bentley stated that he appreciated having the opportunity to serve the community. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OVER ITEMS QF BUSIJ ESS MOTION_ Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as amended. ADDITIONS: ADD Item X.A.1, Happy Hour Sign at Ciatti's. ADD Item X.A.2, Frequency of Power Outages. ADD Item X.A.3, Recycling Program & Process. ADD Item X.B.3, Purchase Agreement for Purgatory Recreation Area Entrance. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES III. CONSENT CAhENDAR 1 A. Clerk's License List 1 City Council Minutes 2 December 20, 1988 B. Final Plat Approval for Bell Oaks Second (located north of Riverview Road in the north half of Section 36) Resolution No. 88-280 C. EArt.i Release ot_Age.0.511 Assessment for trot 2, Block 2. Sluffs_EastAtii_Additlon (Resolution No. 88-301) D. Final Plat Approval of Chestnut Plate (located west of Anderson Lakes Parkway and north of Chestnut Drive) Resolution No. 88-300 E. Rese_lmL_PetIt1011_110.d_g_rde F.easibili y Report for �h� Improvement of Riverview Road in Section 36, I.C. 52-151 (Resolution No. 88-302) F. Final Plat Approval for Bulger King,__Fden Pra se A. ttion. (Resolution No. 88-303) G. SUTLIFF PROPERTY. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 53-88, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.95 acres; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-287, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 53-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: 7070 and 7080 Eden Prairie Road. (Ordinance No. 53-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-287, Authorizing Summary and Publication) H. FiTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION ADDITION by MTS Systems Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 55-88, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-5 on 36.8 acres; Approval of Addendum to Developer's Agreement for MTS Systems Corporation Addition; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88- 288, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 55-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 85,200 square foot addition to the MTS building. Location: South of Highway #5, north of Technology Drive, west of Purgatory Creek. (Ordinance No. 55-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-288, Authorizing Summary and Publication) I. SHERWIN-WILLIAI1S by Wirtanen Clark Larsen Architects, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 54-88, Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.01 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Sherwin-Williams; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-289, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 54-88, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 1.01 acres for one lot for construction of a retail paint store. Location: Along Plaza Drive in front of Menard's Center. (Ordinance No. 54-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-289, Authorizing Summary and Publication) (REMOVED FROM THE &RUA) City Council Minutes 3 December 20, 1988 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Consent Calendar as amended with the deletion of Item I. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PU[L,.LO_HE RING. A. ELIM SHORES. (Continued from 12/13/88) Resolution No. 88- 294, Approving Housing Plan for Elim Shores MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to continue the Public Hearing to the January 3, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. ELIZ7 SHORES. Tax Increment Financing Plan (Resolution No. 88-295) Continued from 12/13/88 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to continue the Public Hearing to the January 3, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. C. OFFICIALL MAP. T.H, 212 (Ordinance No. 63-88) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been properly published and sent to the owners of affected properties. Dietz presented the proposed official design for Highway #212. Dietz stated that full access was proposed at Prairie Center Drive and that Technology Drive would be relocated. He added that he would like to preserve the possibility of a ramp for the east bound traffic on Highway #212. A change which would be required was the exclusion of the 2.6 acres owned by the Carpenter Land Company which was originally proposed to be acquired. Dietz explained which properties would be eliminated by proposed construction. Highway N 212 and County Road A5 would be combined from I-494 to Mitchell Road where the roads would separate. Dietz stated that Staff had requested MnDot to have the access at Wallace Road be changed from Highway #212 and directed to County Road #5. Highway #212 would be a freeway design with County Road #5 providing more of the local access needs. Dietz added that access to and from west bound Highway Y5 would be the most appropriate. The Eden Prairie School District would need local access at Wallace Road. Dietz noted that MnDot would acquire the 2 industrial lots to provide better access to the Wallace Road area. The School District would lose many of the amenities at the school. A full City Council Minutes 4 December 20, 1988 interchange was proposed at County Road N4. Dietz stated that the process would be to approve the 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 63-88, the 2nd Reading would be scheduled for January, and then the Official Map would be recorded with the County. Dietz added that the recording of the Official Map would enable the property owners to apply for Right-of Way Acquisition Loan Fund through the City. Dietz explained the details of the acquisition loan process. Fred Hoisington, representing the Eden Prairie School District, stated that the school would lose approximately 21 acres of land and added that the school could not operate with this loss unless the land was replaced. He said the Eden Prairie School District was in the process of formalizing a plan for functional replacement of the land. The School District was requesting MnDot to acquire the entire residential area known as "the School Addition"; however, he added there was not enough property in the residential area to supply the school's needs. Hoisington noted that 3 additional lots could be needed along Wallace Road. The School District had proposed three alternatives to MnDot for the land replacement. He noted that the School District was not opposed to the Official Mapping and added that the School District recognized the importance of the road improvements to the Southwest Corridor. Hoisington stated that the School District could ask that the map be amended to allow 3 additional properties on Wallace Road to be acquired in two to three years. Harris asked how many acres were involved in the land acquisition. Hoisington replied that the School District was losing 21 acres and receiving 27 acres; however, the land being received in exchange was not as good as the property being lost due to the land topography. Harris then asked if the school would be provided easy access to its property. Hoisington replied that the property would be easily accessible. Anderson asked what the acreage requirement was for the middle schools. Hoisington replied that the School District would have a total acreage of approximately 55 acres, which he believed would meet the State requirements. Peterson asked if the three additional properties on Wallace Road could be flagged at this time on the Official Map. Dietz replied that Staff could circulate a memorandum in-house; however, he did not recommend including them as part of the Official Map at this time. Dietz added that all three properties had existing structures and were currently useable. � ,l City Council Minutes 5 December 20, 1988 Dietz stated that the 1st Phase from I-494 to County Road 114 was scheduled to begin in 1993 at an estimated cost of $36,000,000. He added that the cost estimates had significantly increased since the original estimates and questioned when funding for the project would be available. Bentley asked Dietz for clarification on the City's responsibility to obtain the rights-of-way. Dietz replied that the legislature funds approximately $1,000,000 per year for land acquisition and the City would work with the property owners to obtain the funding. Dietz explained the process by which the property owners would bring the information to the City and the City would formulate the information for presentation to the Metro Council and MnDot. Dietz noted that the Metro Council would make the final determination. Dietz stated that Eden Prairie would be the first City to adopt the Official Map. Verlaine Miller, 8059 Kentucky Avenue South, stated that she had made the first application for the hardship funding. Miller said that the Miller family owned 34 acres which had been on the market for over 5 years. Miller added that two of the Miller brothers had passed away and their estates were currently being held up due to the uncertainty of this land. She believed it was important for the Official Map to be approved not only for the Miller family but for the City of Eden Prairie. Steve Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, asked if city roads would be included in the official mapping and noted special interest in Scenic Heights Road. Dietz replied that the official map would not include city streets with the exception of the areas where the city streets needed to be aligned to facilitate the construction of Highway 1212. He added that there would be some flexibility In the alignment of Scenic Heights Road. Walter Carpenter, Carpenter Land Company, thanked City Staff for working with MnDot in the behalf of the Carpenter Land Company. Carpenter questioned the impact on the southeast quadrant of his property if there was the potential for an "on ramp" and what would happen in the interim. Dietz replied that the intersection at West 78th Street and Technology Drive was the main problem. Dietz noted that MnDot had not approved an "on ramp"; however, he would like to see the land preserved to provide for this possibility. Carpenter stated that he wac concerned that his property would be in limbo until 1993. Dietz stated that design work was continuing and he hoped a decision from MnDot would be forthcoming before 1993. Carpenter believed that the "on ramp" was a positive City Council Minutes 6 December 20, 1988 solution for the City's problem, he would like to have more definite answers as to the possible impact on his property. Carpenter added that the realignment of Technology Drive would have a significant impact on the Carpenter property. Dietz replied that the preferred alignment for Technology Drive would be the most northern alignment. Richard Feerick, 7103 Interlachen Court, stated that he strongly recommended Staff's design for the total intersection and ramp at West 78th Street and Technology Drive. He believed having east bound access at this location was vital to Eden Prairie. Bill Gilk, 15801 Scenic Heights Road, stated opposition to the Official Map. He stated that he had purchased several pieces of property in this area which would be directly impacted by this project. Tim King, representing Metropolitan Federal Bank, owners of the Pheasant Run Office Complex, stated that the marketing of the property was becoming increasingly difficult and believed the Official Mapping would impede the marketing of the property. Dietz noted that the Land Acquisition Funding was for homesteaded properties only. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Bentley to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 63-88 for the Official Map of T.H. 212 to include the amendment regarding the exclusion of the 2.6 acres from the Carpenter Land Company. Bentley stated that the process would be a long one; however, if the project was going to move forward the City needed to start the process. Bentley added that the road was necessary, but questioned if it would ever become a reality. Bentley asked Dietz if it would be difficult to amend the Official Map once it had been recorded with the County. Dietz replied that if requests were reasonable it would not be difficult, but if requests were controversial it could be more difficult. Harris asked if a public hearing would be required to amend the Official Map. Dietz replied a public hearing would be necessary. Anderson asked if there would be a commitment from the State once monies had been spent and was there a time frame proposed. Dietz replied that there was no commitment or time frame. Dietz added that an Environmental Impact Statement was to be completed by the end of 1989. Anderson stated that he was concerned about City Council Minutes 7 December 20, 1988 the difficulties of the property owners while everything was undecided. Dietz replied that there would be problems for development of the properties with or without the Official Map being approved. Peterson believed that the land being taken away from Eden Prairie and the other communities could be put to better use; however, he realized the need to provide increased traffic capacity. Motion carried unanimously. D. STARVIEW TERRACE by Patrick Bauer. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 15.62 acres, Preliminary Plat of 15.62 acres into 30 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way for construction of a single family development. Location: West side of Staring Lake, west of Mitchell Road. (Ordinance No. 60- 88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-290, Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been sent to owners of 24 surrounding properties and published in the December 7, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, stated that the request was to rezone the parcel from Rural to R1-13.5 for the development of 26 single-family lots. The proposed density of the project would be 1.65 units per acre with an average lot size of 22,515 square feet. Cardarelle noted that a neighborhood meeting had been held. He concluded by stating that the homes would be priced from $200,000 and higher. Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its October 10, 1988 and November 28, 1988 meeting. The main issue raised at the meetings was the amount of grading proposed for the hill and the building pad sizes. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project based on the revised plans submitted November 17, 1988 and the recommendations outlined in the Staff Reported dated November 25, 1988. Lambert reported that this item had been reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission at its December 5, 1988 meeting. The Commission recommended approval on a 5-0 vote per the Planning Department Staff Report dated November 25, 1988 with the additional recommendation that a berm and landscaping be provided along Mitchell Road to maintain the park-like character. Peterson asked when Victoria Drive would be extended. Enger replied that Victoria Drive could be extended to the north with the Boulder Pointe development and was not !;1 )' , City Council Minutes 8 December 20, 1988 proposed to be extended to the south at this time. Enger added that Victoria Drive would extend to the lot to the south and end in a cul-de-sac. Anderson asked how high the berm would be along Mitchell Road. Lambert replied that the berm was not as important as the landscaping would be. Anderson stated that this would be the last project to surround the lake and he was concerned about how far down the grading cut would be. Cardarelle replied that the grading would vary from 2 to 6 feet along the road and added that the gully an other areas could be filled up to approximately 10 to 15 feet. Anderson asked if the cut had been reduced from the original plan. Enger replied the cut would be comparable to the Cardinal Hills project. Anderson asked how large the trees would be when planted. Cardarelle replied this was yet to be negotiated with Staff. Dave Kraemer, 9010 Mitchell Road, stated that he owned the small triangle of property abutting this development and questioned if his property would be rezoned and what would the tax consequences be. Cardarelle explained that the proponent and Kraemer were attempting to work out a land exchange for this small triangular portion. Jullie replied that it would be rezoned; however, it would not have an impact on the property taxes. Pauly stated that this property exchange should be determined due to the impact it could have on the Kraemer property if a portion was platted and the other portion was not. No further comments from the audience. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 60-88 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 88-290 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations contingent on the adjoining property being acquired prior to Final Plat Approval and if the property were not acquired, the triangular portion would not be included in the Final Plat. Motion carried unanimously. E. ARBY'S by Homart Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser on 3.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 3.4 acres into 2 lots for construction of a commercial restaurant. Location: East of Franlo Road, north of Prairie Center Drive, within the ,J i l City Council Minutes 9 December 20, 1988 Eden Prairie Center property. (Ordinance No. 61-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-291, Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been sent to owners of 14 surrounding properties and published in the December 7, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Greg Tilsch, representing Homart Development, stated that the request was for rezoning of the parcel from Rural and Public to C-Regional Service. He added that a portion of the parcel was proposed to be sold to Franchise Associates for the development of an Arby's restaurant. Doug Kennedy, representing Franchise Associates for Arby's, stated that the stacking distance had been revised to 12 cars for the drive-thru window and added that he concurred with the Staff recommendations. Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its November 28, 1988 meeting and recommended approval of the project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988. Bentley asked if the entire parcel between the Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard entrances was being rezoned. Enger replied that the Arby's facility would only occupy the western portion of the parcel. Bentley then questioned the effect of traffic limits to be placed on Homart Development if this project were approved. Enger believed that originally this parcel was to be used as a buffer zone and then the parcel had been planned as a library site. Enger stated that this parcel and the parcel adjacent to it were both considered developable at this time. Traffic estimates were not done on this parcel with the original Homart Development. Enger stated that traffic distribution could occur through a mix of land uses. He noted that there would be shared trips with this development and Homart Development. Peterson was concerned about the aesthetics of the entire area and asked if a portion of the property would still be zoned Public and Rural. Enger replied a portion would be zoned Public and Rural. Peterson hoped that Homart Development would recognize the importance of the green space areas and its aesthetics. Tilsch stated that Homart also wanted to maintain the green areas around the Mall and believed that this property could accommodate both green space and possibly two developments. Tilsch added that there would be 75 feet of green space from the parking area to the roadway curb with adequate landscaping. Tilsch believed this project would be aesthetically pleasing. Tilsch noted that a one-acre City Council Minutes 10 December 20, 1988 parcel to the east would always remain green space and would be landscaped. Anderson believed that a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru was not appropriate in the same area as the shopping center. Enger replied that the approvals in 1972 and 1973 for the development of this land were conceptual; however, the land was approved for development and it was on this basis that Staff proceeded with the request by Homart. Bentley believed that an Arby's would be a more attractive use than auto service uses, etc. Bentley believed that the character of the land uses were different on the east side of the Preserve Boulevard entrance and added that this proposal would be compatible with the land uses to the west of the Preserve Boulevard entrance. Anderson questioned where the City would draw the line on intrusions to the green space buffer and added that he thought the line had been drawn with the Firestone facility. Anderson asked the City Attorney what the City's legal position was on this item. City Attorney Pauly replied that there had been no negative comments in the Staff Report and suggested a continuance to review the historical development of the parcel. Anderson then asked if the project could be denied. Pauly replied that this parcel was part of the original PUD and added there would be no basis for denial. Anderson replied that he would like to see the historical background of when the property was zoned Commercial. Enger replied that the property was zoned Public at the Library's request and was not part of the original PUD. Enger stated that Staff had proceeded on the basis that it was not a question as to if the property could or could not be developed, but rather what type of development would be appropriate. Harris commented that the struggle seemed to be with the aesthetics of the property. She added that after reviewing the information from Staff she could find no reason to deny the project. Pidcock asked if the drive-thru could be eliminated similar to the Arby's at Southdale. Pidcock stated that the issues were aesthetics and the heavy traffic volume. Tilsch stated that typically Arby's did not generate the amount of traffic seen in other fast-food restaurants. Bruce Jones, architect for the project, stated that more than 50% of the front of the parcel would remain green space. Bentley stated that the developer had a right to come to the City with a variation of the initial plan as long as ) ) City Council Minutes 11 December 20, 1988 the project was within the framework of the Original PUD. Peterson asked for further description of the drive-thru area. Jones replied that the drive-thru would be along the west side of the building screened by a 4-foot berm with additional berming on the hill to screen the drive- thru area. Jones added that the driveway would be 16 feet wide with and escape lane. Jones said that landscaping would also be provided adjacent to the building. Anderson asked why there was no outside eating area planned. Jones replied that an open atrium-like affect was planned to create a lighter atmosphere inside. Jones added that Arby's had found that outdoor eating areas created more debris problems. Bentley suggested that a portion of the property between Arby's and the adjacent parcel be left as green space to possibly consider a joint outside picnic area at some point in the future. Peterson asked if Homart anticipated pressure from another fast-food restaurant for the adjacent property. Tilsch replied that Homart Development had declined several fast- food restaurants and added that Homart was committed to the development of only one fast-food restaurant in this area. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Bentley to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 61-88 for Rezoning. Motion carried 4-1. Anderson voted "NO". MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Bentley to adopt Resolution No. 88-291 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried 4-1. Anderson voted "NO". Bentley commented that he strongly objected to limiting development solely on traffic generation. Anderson stated that he was against fast-food restaurants in this area. He added that currently the area was aesthetically pleasing and would like to see it remain as such. Anderson stated that he had the understanding that the fast-food type facilities would be developed across the road from the Major Center area. Anderson believed that the City should be concerned about the types of ) City Council Minutes 12 December 20, 1988 businesses allowed in this area. F. MAACU$ DEVELOPMENT by Marcus Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 0.65 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.61 acres into 2 lots and 1 outlot, for construction of a 3,300 square foot commercial building. Location: South of Prairie Center Drive, east of Highway #169, west of Joiner Way. (Ordinance No. 62- 88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-292, Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been sent to owners of 17 surrounding properties and published in the December 7, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Mark Senn presented plans for a commercial/retail facility to be occupied by one to two tenants. Senn stated that the proposed facility would share a driveway with Youngstedts requiring a cross-access easement. He said that twenty-four parking spaces would be provided on the new parcel and would have shared parking for four additional spaces with Youngstedts. Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at it November 28, 1988 meeting and had received approval based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988. Enger noted that Staff had revised the drive-thru window recommendation to allow for a photo processing facility only and to provide a stacking distance limited to two cars. Peterson asked if the proponent had a lease with a credit union. Senn replied that a credit union had withdrawn due to the timing of the development and added that the photo processing tenant was also on hold at this time. No further comments from the audience. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 62-88 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-292 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations to include the Staff City Council Minutes 13 December 20, 1988 recommendation that the drive-thru window allow for a stacking distance of only 2 cars. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT gE SLALMa MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Payment of Claims No. 47565 through No. 47794. Pidcock questioned Claim No. 47729 for Orkin Exterminating Company of S467.12. Jullie replied that Fire Station No. 3 had had problems with bees. Pidcock questioned Claim No. 47664 for Driskills Super Valu relating to expenses for the Fire Department. Jullie replied this was for the Christmas party and other social events. Pidcock questioned Claim No. 47587 for Lane Insurance. Jullie replied that this was for a sewer backflow problem. ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson all voting "AYE". VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Findings Relating to City's Position on the Flying Cloud Airport Long Term Comprehensive Development Plan (Master Elan) Interim Report dated NQygmber 1988 (Resolution No. 88-299) MDTlON: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Resolution No. 88-299. Motion carried unanimously. VII . PETITIONS, REQUESTS 6 COMMUNICA1IONS A. High School_apilsiing Expansion Plans John Hamilton presented the new plans for the High School expansion. Anderson questioned the rationale for the different color of the brick. Hamilton replied that some of the brick would match and some would be a contrasting color. Hamilton added that the contrasting color was being used to reduce the massive appearance of building and the lighter color had been chosen to try to create a warmer appearance. Anderson stated that he was concerned about the use of the contrasting brick and added that he liked what currently existed. Bentley recommended reviewing the brick selection between Phase 1 & 2. Hamilton stated that City Council Minutes 19 December 20, 1988 a lot of time had been spent analyzing the brick selection. Hamilton added that the new brick color would be added in five areas. Pidcock commented that she was pleased to see the use of more windows. Enger stated that he would prefer a lighter shade of the existing brick rather than a contrasting color. Harris commented that she had seen buildings using two and three different colors of brick. VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COJ1M_hSSIONS. IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS &_CQMMI;_S_SION$ A. Reports of Council Members 1._H.appy Hour Sign at Ciatt112. Peterson believed that the Happy Hour sign presently located outside of Ciatti's was inconsistent and inappropriate considering the stress placed on responsible use of alcohol. Peterson questioned if the sign would meet the City Ordinance. Bentley suggested that Staff inspect the sign to see if it was in compliance with City Code; if not, it should be requested that it be removed and that a letter be written by Staff and signed by the Council suggesting that Ciatti's review its happy hour policy. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Peterson to draft a letter to Ciatti's from the Council requesting that Ciatti's take a look at the Happy Hour sign and its intent. Anderson asked if the banners were legal because they were temporary. Enger replied that the banners were illegal and the City could have them taken down. Harris and Anderson were concerned about writing a letter. Bentley stated that the letter should not pass Judgement, but should express the Council's concern as viewing this banner as excessive. Harris asked if the Council would send letters on a case- by-case basis. Harris added that she was concerned about the Council telling a business how to conduct its business. City Council Minutes 15 December 20, 1988 Bentley withdrew the motion. Peterson concurred that the City should not be in the management of business; however, the City was more active in the management of businesses which acquired liquor licenses through the City. Pidcock believed that establishing criteria for requesting a license was totally different than determining business marketing tools. 2. Power Qjtages Peterson stated that different areas of the community had experienced 4 to 5 power outages this week and asked if the Council would find it appropriate to request Staff to address a letter to NSP advising them of the City's concern. Jullie replied that he had talked with NSP and had asked for a summary of these last outages and to supply the City with a monthly report on outages. 3. Recycling Program °< Proce=.1s Peterson asked Staff to draft a memorandum related to what progress was being made to begin a recycling program and to set a date for a special meeting of the City Council to discuss the Recycling Program for January 10, 1989 if the item could not be added to the Agenda for the January 3, 1989 meeting. Jullie stated that the Agenda would be relatively light on January 3, 1989. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to direct Staff to present the information regarding the Recycling Program at the January 3, 1989 City Council meeting. B. Report of City Manager 1. New Conditions for On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses (Continued from 11/15/88) MOTION_ Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to recommend the following distribution of the 7 remaining liquor licenses: 2 for convention-type hotels, 3 for the downtown development area, and 2 open locations and to direct Staff to further study the establishment of a criteria for a convention-type hotel. Peterson believed that Councilmember Bentley's 1 City Council Minutes 16 December 20, 1988 ( recommendation would be an acceptable direction to begin with. He added that this item regarding the number of liquor licenses would probably go to a referendum and at that time it could be necessary to change the direction. Peterson believed that a substantial distance should be maintained from schools and churches. Anderson believed that limitations should be established for the locations of facilities with liquor licenses and did not wish to have the locations spread out over the City. Harris questioned how the issuance of 2 liquor licenses for hotels could be used as a development tool. Peterson replied that it was not a development tool; however, hotels would probably not wish Lc) come to Eden Prairie unless liquor licenses were available. Pidcock stated that she would like to set a minimum building value necessary for the issuance of the licenses. Bentley replied that Eden Prairie currently had one of the most strict criteria in the metropolitan area. Pidcock was concerned about 1/3 of the total licenses being in the downtown area. Peterson believed that this was consistent with good city planning. Harris added that these recommendations could be changed if necessary. Peterson believed this would be used as a development tool and concurred with Harris that these recommendations were only temporary. Bentley stated that the intent of the motion was to utilize the 18 existing licenses prudently, which did not mean that in the future additional licenses could not be granted by a referendum. Motion carried 9-1. Pidcock voted "NO". 2. Request from City of Corcoran Jullie reported that Staff was concerned about Eden Prairie supporting this proposal regarding landfill siting at this time and believed it would not be well-received by the Legislature. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to decline the offer to join in the petition proposed by the City of Corcoran. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Pucjase of Purgatory Creek Park EntFjtc. Jullie requested that the Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign a purchase agreement for the purchase of the land for the park entrance upon review and approval City Council Minutes 17 December 20, 1988 by City Attorney Pauly. Jullie added that the closing should occur by the end of the year. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to sign a purchase agreement for the purchase of the Purgatory Creek Park entrance, subject to review by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. C. Reaort�f City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning E. Director of Parks. Rec;eatLon & Natur,01 Resources 1. Recommendation on Revised Cash Park Fees (Continued from 12/13/88) Mayor Peterson asked Councilmember Bentley to Chair the meeting at this time. Lambert summarized the Staff memorandum and added that Staff believed that a conservative estimated property value within the MUSA Line was $18,000 per acre. The recommended Cash Park Fee would be proposed at $720 per unit. Lambert added that the City of Lakeville was forwarding a copy of its ordinance regarding its policy for cash fees for trails. Lambert recommended that the Lakeville ordinance be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to review by the City Council. Bentley asked if the cash fee for trails would be in addition to the $720 proposed. Lambert believed that it would not be advisable to add a trail fee on top of the substantial Cash Park Fee increase. Lambert added that the trail system could be completed as part of the proposed referendum. Anderson was concerned that every resident would pay the same $720; however, the value of the land was different depending on the location of the property. Lambert stated that there were two ways to assess cash park fees: the establishment of a flat rate or having the rate based on the value of the property which would require the City Assessor's office to determine the value of the property. Lambert believed that the assessment of 10% of the average lot value because the residents with the smaller lots used the parks as much if not more than those with the larger lots. Anderson stated that there rah considerable difference in the value of an R1-9.5 lot and an R1-22 lot, yet both would pay $720. City Council Minutes 18 December 20, 1988 MOTION Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to accept the Staff recommendation of $720 Cash Park Fee for all residential units for 1989. Pidcock stated that she favored the motion because she concurred with Lambert's statement that the smaller units did use the parks as much or more than the larger units. Anderson stated that technically the cash park fees were to be based on land value and with this recommendation it indicates that all land in Eden Prairie is valued the same, which it is not. Lambert replied that the $720 was based on 10% value of unapproved, unplatted land. Peterson stated that the cash park fee was based on the impact on the park not the ability of the individual to pay the fee. Motion carried 4-1. Anderson voted "NO". 2. Prqposed Park_Bond Referendum Process MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to recommend Plan B as outlined in the Staff Memorandum dated December 12, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Peterson moved, seconded by Anderson to set the date of January 10, 1989, 8:00 PM for discussion of the Park Bond Referendum, subject to review on January 3, 1989 subject to change based on Councilmember-elect Tenpas's schedule. Motion carried unanimously. Lambert recommended that if the Council wished to consider land acquisition for a golf course, a golf course architect be hired to prepare a brief study to determine the feasibility of its development. MOTION: Peterson moved, seconded by Anderson to authorize Staff to hire an architect to prepare a study for the potential development of a golf course, with an expenditure not to exceed $10,000. Motion carried unanimously. F. R ortof Director of Public Works 1. Receive Southwest Area Study and Set Special City council Meeting for Tuesday, January 24, 1989 City Council Minutes 19 December 20, 1988 Dietz presented a copy of the completed Southwest Area Study. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to set a Special City Council Meeting for Tuesday, January 24, 1989 at 8:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously. G. Report of Finance Dirgctor XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:45 PM. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST June 20, 1989 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) GAS FITTER Arbuckle Construction, Inc. Blaylock Plumbing Company Design 1 of Edina McDermott Plumbing, Inc. Simply Window Blinds HEATING & VENTILATING CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Hinding Heating & Air Conditioning Decks Plus JRH Equipment Decks With a Difference, Ltd. Romark, Inc. Feekut Home Builders,Inc. Getty Construction WELL DRILLING Giles Builders, Inc. J. L. Kelley Construction Gary's Well Drilling, Inc. Lundgren Bros. Construction Gene Mace Construction PEDDLAR Jeff Oland Carpentry Tom Peterson Construction Robin Yvonne Hicks (Books) Seaman's Construction Smuckler Corporation MECHANICAL LAMES Steiner & Koppelman, Inc. Tony's Construction Miller Companies Darryl Trones Construction GAMBLING (CLASS A) all types of gambling PLUMBING Eden Prairie Legion Womens Auxiliary Blaylock Plumbing Co. #409 Bohn Plumbing & Heating Crown Plumbing GAMBLING (CLASS C) Bingo @ Eden Prairie McDermott Plumbing Legion T. J. Miller Plumbing Laryngectomee Speak Again of St. Paul R & P Plumbing St. Mary's Romanian Orthodox Church 3.2 BEER ON SALE ON SALE CLUB & SUNDAY LIQUOR Lunds Deli Style Restaurant Eden Prairie American Legion These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. / -J(J_C--( Pat Solie, Licensing �1 City Code Sec. 5.36 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-133 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 19-89 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 19-89 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of June, 1989; 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. 56-89, 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 non-pareil, or six-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. 19-89 shall be recorded in the Ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 20, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk ,n CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 19-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING SECTION 5.36 OF THE CITY CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 5.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance amends Section 5.36 of the City Code which relates to requirements for refuse collectors to fulfill in order to obtain a license to do business in the City. Refuse collectors are required to provide curbside source-separation recycling services and recycling containers to their residential customers by August 1, 1989. They will also be required to provide separate collection of yard wastes from residential customers by October 1, 1989. The Ordinance addresses more specific issues regarding implementation of these measures and insurance coverages to be carried by licensed collectors. 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 , 1989. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) RESOLUTION NO. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION RE: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL DISTRICT TO R1-22 DISTRICT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO THREE LOTS OF OUTLOT A, CRESTWOOD '73 BACKGROUND Alex Dorenkemper has applied for the rezoning of Outlot A, Crestwood '73 from the Rural District to the R1-22 District and approval of a subdivision of Outlot A, consisting of 95,630 sq. ft., into three lots, to-wit: Lot 1, 36,450 sq. ft.; Lot 2, 30,780 sq. ft.; and Lot 3, 28,400 sq. ft. There is presently situated on Lot 1 a single family residence. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Outlot A is situated outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as determined by the Metropolitan Council and does not have available to it municipal sewer and water facilities at this time, and the Metropolitan Council has discouraged develop- ment in those portions of the metropolitan area outside of such service area. 2. The proposed subdivision does not comply with the requirements of the City's Zoning Code (Chapter 11, City Code) for lots in the R1-22 District in that the East wall of the existing single family dwelling is 10 feet from the East line of Lot 1, whereas City Code §11.03, Subd. 2. B. requires 15 feet. 3. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 3. A. provides that lots in all districts are required to have frontage on a public street. The owner of Outlot A has not proposed the extension to Lot 3 of a public street meeting the City's design standards; also, the present access to Lot 2 does not meet the City's public street design standards. 4. City Code §11.11 requires that single family dwellings in the R1-22 District have sanitary sewer and water service. Municipal sewer and water service are not expected to be extended to the area until after the year 2000. 5. The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan designates the pro- perty as low density permitting 2} units with municipal sewer and I i A d water, per acre. Outlot A does not have access to municipal sewer and water. 6. The Metropolitan Council's policy is to limit residen- tial development to no more than one unit for each 10 acres (a maximum of four units for each 40 acres). The proposed rezoning and subdivision would exceed such density. Additional findings relating to the request for preliminary plat approval follow: 7. City Code Chapter 11, §11.03, Subd. 2. B. requires at least 10 acres for construction of a single family dwelling in a Rural District an) in addition, a minimum lot width of 300 feet and depth of 300 feet. 8. Lots 1, 2, and 3 are each less than 10 acres in area, are less than 300 feet wide and in the case of the East line of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 are less than 300 feet in depth, and do not meet the requirements of City Code §12.30, Subd. 12. B. that the minimum dimensions of a lot in a subdivision shall not be less than those required by Chapter 11 of the City Code. 9. There is situated on Lot 1 a house and approval of the subdivision would result in the Easterly line of the house being within a distance of 10 feet from the Easterly line of Lot 1 thereof, which line constitutes a side lot line as defined in the Zoning Code. 10. The Zoning Code requires single family detached dwellings in Rural Districts to be situated to leave at least a 50 feet side yard setback. 11. The proposed subdivision would result in the East line of the single family dwelling situated on Lot 1 being in viola- tion of the Zoning Code, relating to the Rural District. DECISION Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions the request for rezoning Outlot A, Crestwood '73 from the Rural District to the R1-22 District and subdividing it into three lots is denied. y CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-93 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BLUFFS WEST 7TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of BLUFFS WEST 7TH ADDITION has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for BLUFFS WEST 7TH ADDITION is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated JUNE 15, 19B9. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on JUNE 2D, 19B9. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT RESOLUTION 89-93 TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FRDM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: June 15, 1989 SUBJECT: BLUFFS WEST 7TH ADDITION PROPOSAL: Hustad Development Corporation has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Bluffs West 7th Addition located north of Bluestem Lane, west of Bennett Place in the south half of Section 26. The site contains 26.3 acres to be divided into 11 single family lots, 3 outlots, and right-of-way dedication for road purposes. Outlots A, B and C contain 2.42, 13.06, 5.62 acres respectively. Outlot A will be dedicated to the City for park purposes. Ownership of Outlots B and C will be retained by the Developer for future development. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March 21, 1989, per Resolution No. B9-30. Second reading of Ordinance No. 9-89, changing zoning from Rural and R1- 22 to RI-I3.5, is scheduled for final approval by the City Council June 20, 1989. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution June 20, 1989. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities, streets and walkways will be installed throughout this site in conformance with City Standards. PARK DEDICATION: Prior to release of the final plat by the City, the Developer shall provide the City with a warranty deed for Outlot A. As described in Item 4 of the Developer's Agreement, the Developer shall provide a conservancy easement over Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 prior to release of the final plat. BONDING: Prior to release of the final plat the Developer shall provide the City with a bond or letter of credit guarantying completion of tree replacement of 163 caliper inches. All other bonding requirements shall conform to City Code and the Developer's Agreement. BLUFFS WEST 7TH ADDITION (RESOLUTION NO. 89-93) RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Bluffs West 7th 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 $338.00. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $972.00. 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $440.00. 4. Receipt of warranty deed for Outlot A. 5. Receipt of conservation easement for Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. 6. Receipt of bonding for tree replacement of 163 caliper inches. JJ:ssa cc: Hustad Development Hedlund Engineering `! S ) CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 May 18, 1989 Projcct: Mitchell/Research Road lmprovcmcnts- I.C. 52-051 West 76th St.Sidewalk Improvements-I.C. 52-110 Eden Prairie, Minnesota RCM Projcct No. 831015-2 TO: Northdalc Construction Company, Inc. You arc hereby directed to make thc changcs notcd below in thc subject contract. Nature of Change This change order covers items that arc required due to changcs requested by various adjacent developers and property owners. Adjustments to Contract Quantities and Costs Add the following quantities and costs to the contract: Connect 8" DIP to 12" Valve Inplacc Remove Hydrant LS 1 $650.00 $650.00 8"Scwcr Pipc 18-20' Deep LF 215 17.00 3.655.00 ( 6" DIP Watcrmain LF 216 15.00 3.240.00 Air Release Manhole LS 1 2,200.00 2,200.00 12" x 6" Wet Tap LS 1 2,100.00 2,100.00 4'x 2" Insulation ' LF 250 4.75 1,187.50 Gcotcxtilc Fabric SY 3.000 1.80 5,400.00 Large Arborvitae Replacement EA 2 172.50 345.00 E.P. Mountable Curb and Gutter LF 150 6.0 900.00 Valley Gutter LF 80 11.50 920.00 Remove & Replace Wooden Board Fence LF 160 5.00 800.00 36" R.C. Apron w/ trash guard and Riprap EA 1 1,200.00 1,200.00 36" R.C.P. CL III Storm Scwcr LF 88 41.25 3,630.00 3-Rail Split Rail LF 200 7.20 1,440.00 6"x6" Timber Retaining Wall with Cribbing Tic Back & Drift Pins SF 2,250 10.50 23,625.00 INCREASE $51,292.50 I. r,! i Ai) Rcmovc the following items and costs from the contract: 4 Wet Tap 20"Watcrmain with 20"x8" Saddle and 8"Gate Valve EA I $2,750.00 $2,750.00 Cantilever Post Retaining Wall 74+25 - 76+75 SF 560 13.00 7,280.00 8" Sewer Pipe 16-18'Dccp LF 215 14.00 3,010.00 27" R.C. Apron w/ trash guard and Riprap EA I 660.00 660.00 27" R.C.P. CL III Storm Scwcr LF 88 24.00 2.112.00 DECREASE $15,812.00 Summary of Contract Adiustmcnts Contract Amount Prior to this Change Order $1,435,325.85 Net Increase Resulting From this Change Order 35,480.50 Current Contract Amount Including this Change Order $1,470,806.35 RECOMMENDED BY: APPROVED: APPROVED: i By,/,. !/, —, -% ' f i ,,'`fig Engineer Contractor City Engineer 107 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 89-132 (I.C. 52-154) PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LAYOUT APPROVAL TH 5 AT CSAH 4 WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has prepared a preliminary layout for a pedestrian bridge over TH5 at CSAH 4, within the corporate limits of the City of Eden Prairie; and WHEREAS, said preliminary layout is on file in the office of the Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled, and identified as Layout #1, S.P. 2701-35 (T.H. 5) NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED that said preliminary layout for the pedestrian bridge within the corporate limits be and hereby is approved subject to the following: A. City shall pay 100% of construction cost (estimated to cost $350,000.00). B. MnDOT will provide pre-design, detail design, surveys, letting and construction engineering. C. City will acquire right-of-way necessary. D. City shall retain approval for aesthetic considerations of the bridge which is currently proposed to be: 1. Steel girder; 2. S-type (modified) railings without chain link, but design provisions to allow future addition; 3. Tapered concrete piers with boxouts; and 4. Provision for as much open design as technically possible. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 20, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk r r'tJ� Ss's! I I fss_. 5. ssCsi.sa,70,0:sm S 1st,' a s'1.-. - rapt.St.ZTC`ZS I' , '''1 1 C .i. ,7'• t,,,,....:(0:sssf•SfCs, 1 I sari U I •,- ,— C_,) t . PLAn7,. r N -----t t,..yrEs? SO . /\ I 0 k...7,•-..„,„ , : \' I "'"•••••./..., _----7-'-'-„:::.:.--::":: /-,....!")/ i .1. 0/. ./.."'\ - {---___ ------: ':' ---------"---------------"'----------------' i " C ,_.---„„ " ""—I------ s"------T-------- -"---- - --...... ..._ _ 0 :- —.,,,,.._ -.4,,, ,....„. ,.....,,---- !:5, -----„i, -------:-_-___--- ,---------__________ ___:::•=i, ...., 1:1 i'7 --('-<--''-z•-.-- '''''':;,,,,'''. :'.\-1- ,,,-,-----___ ___ __________________________:: ict—,- '--,,', / V;• s. n 1-------...„., ..--_____________ ."•44.--.---:, ---_____,___ • .:: ,f: /----- - ...• ,_...— ---, / .\.,- )'. , ,r . _.4, -,<----------.. .--`-; c.:. 'I 1 ----•--2-—.1\...„...„ ( I 1 q , 0 II ------- ,i / ''' ' ' ,.., 8 c c° ) ) 0 0 i I e c I ,; :,.•. - F-: c c c c II :w"D ::.--- -',1_.::::.•: L.., —-. 0 c -- — — --.. .,-... I (CI 0 eN i .:i RESOLUTION 89-134 RESOLUTION RELATING TO $5,545,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION PARK BONDS; PROVIDING FOR AN ELECTION ON ISSUANCE THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: Council1. This has investigated to ascertain and does hereby find, determineanddecla rethat eitaiss necessary yand expedient for the City to issue and sell general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,545,000 to provide funds for the acquisition and development of land, buildings and facilities for its program of public recreation. 2. The question of issuing bonds in such amounts and for such purposes shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City at a special election to be held on Tuesday, August 8, 1989, between the hours of 7:00 o'clock A.M. and B:00 o'clock P.M. at the polling places set forth in the Notice described in paragraph 4 hereof. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the election to be given as follows: (A) by immediately posting in his office for public inspection a copy of the notice set forth in paragraph 4; { (B) by publication of said notice in the official newspaper of the City, once each week for two successive weeks, the first publication to be not less than fourteen days before the election; (C) by posting said notice at each polling place and at three of the most public and conspicuous places in the City not less than ten days before the election; (D) by publishing in the official newspaper of the City a sample ballot as set forth in paragraph 5 at least one week before the election; and (E) by posting a sample ballot in his office for public inspection at least four days before the election, and in each polling place on the election day. 4. The Notice to be published and posted as provided in paragraph 3 (A), (B) and (C) above shall be in substantially the following form: ^:J • NOTICE OF ELECTION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special election will be held in and for the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, on Tuesday, August 8, 1989, between the hours of 7:00 o'clock A.M. and 8:00 o'clock P.M., for the purpose of submitting to the voters the following question: Shall the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, be authorized to issue and sell general obligation bonds in an amount not exceeding $5,545,000 for the acquisition and development of land, buildings and facilities for its program of public recreation? The polling places for said election shall be as follows: Precinct Number Polling Place IA King of Glory Lutheran Church 18 Eden Prairie Community Center 2 Eden Prairie Assembly of God Church 3 Eden Prairie Community Church 4 St. Andrew Lutheran Church 5A Immanuel Lutheran Church 5B Immanuel Lutheran Church 6 Eden Prairie United Methodist Church 7A New Testament Church 7B South Suburban Hennepin County Vo-Tech 8 Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church 9A Pax Christi Catholic Community Church 9B Pax Christi Catholic Community Church Any qualified voter residing in the City may vote at said election at the polling place for the precinct in which the voter resides. Dated: June 20, 1989 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL John Frane City Finance Director/Clerk • A 5. The sample ballot to be posted and published as provided in paragraph 3 (0) and (E) shall be in substantially the following form: OFFICIAL BALLOT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA SPECIAL ELECTION AUGUST B, 1989 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: If you wish to vote in favor of the proposition below, make a cross (X) in the square preceding the word "YES". If you wish to vote against the proposition below, mark a cross (X) in the square preceding the word "NO" next to the proposition. PLEASE VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: Shall the City of Eden Prairie be authorized to issue and sell ❑ YES general obligation bonds in an amount not exceeding $5,545,000 NO for the acquisition and development of land, buildings and facilities for its program of public recreation? ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor Bluffs West 7th Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 9-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZDNING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural and R1-22 Districts and be placed in the R1:13.5 District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural and R1-22 Districts and shall be included hereafter in the R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Oeveloper's Agreement dated as of June 2D, I989, entered into between Hustad Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, 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 21st day of March, 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th day of June, 1989. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of EXHIBIT A PRELIMINARY PLAT OLIONIMS LESAL 7.11 CM.0.Outlot•111 Co an•O.8,1,69 6E3T, ana th•t 0•rt 4,Lots 12 an•13.tt,•. 14100,6.1. .......cm.two••••••••••Stm t••••••••. ••e•••Out 913. 911191911, ACMES. aee,,61.to th• 0.1.1 04, Co••••••c•••• dot tn••••••••14......Of•4141 Dull.%0. l••••••• •n Count,.. do•C•1000••falion•. a. ••••••••low,'0....... •Lnot••52 twt••••••••st, •Ien0 1n•*sot 1.n• ••d• llot a 1111,1 toot 1.•00.pant•41 ••••nnln• Of •t tom ........t c..... ••••06..1 91 th.C• on en mmt ot ••••Out1ot 0.0•••••••daw. ••.• •oanl •loo 640+. too 11•1,Ing of Mar.0.......23•S.....13 69cono• immt. •Iono -.dm...•..... tat II. .1.0.1•71•1•11 •CPMS. •cco.,sn•la tno •••••••• •••17 tins.1••••Outlot 9. •.....nc•of 393.01 ..dt to tho ootnt •••••••• tneht• •••tro.o•d•elr a.....nco et 70.09 1•0t •Ion. • •.1 two...... of lona tO Oa em•crl.o. 6.0 pot. •I•• tortho tn• non-t•nomottat eon..to tne••••,Ino•••.••••.....••••&n.•......se sout...t corn, of L•t 12. CO.1.911111C ACRES, ace..... the 100.co •...AM,4..21•od••••••••00 ot••••1•• 32 Or•C•n••. %Nu 0.14tt....... Monc•6.9..trumetar10•6/.•tanca 01"AM 1.1d.t C,•••• •, ••1• gm,.taw.33•••••••13 •••••••• ••••• •10., • ••••••-t•npont1•1 cue.con•••••t• •77011.•••t, ••1• ln•nc•South So 6•6•••• samots•3.•••ton•• .1.9.11 t••••13 • 1•••1. • 1,0166 0, 190.00*v...0•7......1 •no.of 9 00 .....ne• od 77,1 deo. Inooto acr...••••10. *so,......IV. •......32 Idocon.. C7.0,11*I••141 .....South 31••••••• 13 ..... nollnoelt a•••••oc•01 201.1•71 410,•tul..• Cont••• 11,...•04**cont.MmItt thonc•South 30••0•••••42.......34 Seco.. 1•••t. tanownt to ea. . • dllatenc• 04 17.9! CM, thonc• 221.......o•ammo,.M dmonom.to In•••••Stn•••••••Outlet 11J ...a 0ut..-19, •ou..... 1/6...0.......73 tionot••33•mecno•••••t. •10•••••.0•••1 Ur.•41.•tonto 301.4.0.•t ale.•<6•111': ......•••'' .".;•"..191:".••111 SO,.teat to t.point o.•••••mtnil• •.•• • ret3/6• of 30.00 femt and,•COnt,, Mp. .1 23, .0.-••• 0. 91.•<rut•••1 9.Out•ot C. •.•01.1.663 .....••••t•1 two•••••••11. olnuts•79 16.0.10, to te.•••t a/6•16 Out.t 03 thenc•Soot',0 •••••••23.......53.c0.6 C•at. trio,6•MO•••t 11n••611..t•hc•o• 700.00 f••t1 1....-.:6 09 0••••••34•InutO•02••con•••••• 120•00 41•6%Nat Om",O.••10 11.1.6.113 ......tn• Mr.... tfonc•6Mrtm 32 0•9••••00 arm t••00••ccmo•1•••t 2113.•• ga•tt 9.6.ort, t.r.e•Mort.,50 dm,0•••• 12•Inuto•00•ocone•C••t•I7.•3..... th.c• North 72 6.3•••••07 athuto•00••conO•C••t 123.33,a•t3 tn•hc• Sou. ✓.,. that ••.I 1:41.1ol••••••rwo•Itnin,•••Noel 112 of Om 09 00.1 oo••cono•Ir•ot 701.36....At tnenc• 00.77 90 •••••••CO 61.....24••eono•C•••311.33 dowto 101•1,110 deo•••• •• sash,. oo••cono•C••••••••• o•tt lnonC•Soul', 0 ••0•••• 20 •......33••cono•t••t 120.03 46,, thene•50.4111, 0•9••••00•tnut•• 6.S•c1.410..33.Tommnt•11•...... 70••cenc•••••t 70.11 f•at to a on the ..... o,••••L•t 33 .....nt 91B.73 foot•••1 tno Ilautno••t c..•.. 6.41 Lot 13, th•ne• ..... of tno c...M.••11.•1......Ory C••••. ne•tm•••••,-. •••• • .....•••• etI 97.03 ,••• •Iono • non-t•no•ntlal etmmO. to<no ••/..3 c•e••••••,no • 4140 <rut pa,.of In.•1•47,1••••1. 17,of t•••So..11••••• ii• Sec"... 2, oI 110.00,••t•AO•control v..of 33 600••••33•Inut•• .146...n.114.1.nem 22.Ylonn•pin ......flostr.•••1••••11•Nos. •ocende. tan*Ct..,Of••111 Curv•..... 73•••••••• •thmt•• 77 • amm •t RN. Nort.••••7 ...... •410 ••••,0•711.4t ••Centl• Waal, tn•fiC• SCruln B9.1•91-••• 3. ••cone. 1•••t 1.1.11 a.m. Sou.0 6..6.00 23 ascoms• t•noont to••1.3 curv•. •ell•t•nc•of••1.4.7..... Inonc•SoutPummt•.-19 •••••••• omarIng, Ms. •••• *0 a•t•1•••••••••• It• of llle• .15,0 •Ctioro CanC•v•te tn••Owtn kart, Of 190.00 •••t t• ••••••••••••17•. ••1•1•7•••ft.3093.t•foot; Mr...,South 73••••••• tem point•• o•otAntno. otnot••42•••••••“mt.•/11•••••••oI 59.76 I., mlon.•••••••••••141 C.....to,•••to<no 4tutno••, 04...0•......•• 162.42 a e.g.,••••1•61 l••••••••23 e......07 • •14tanc• o, •1.90 •mot to • 6•Int ad curoot tflonc• 1.00tfo•• on,4•10 coo.••••1•••• of 216.. • cant•al mm$• 13••••••••09 Or..con0, • .....nc• • feet,Own.366.•• •3•......4/ ••••t.tangent to t.iaat••••t•Smm cu.,••t•t••••of 13.0.•••••tt thenc• ..... •tono • ...... mme••• ••••....., ...M.• of 90.•2 •••... • 6,21 SO o• sm.*, • •1•114ne• toi 410,3 0.01 to tfo a* of tIl• Irv. la Ito ••••••10•01 Itonc•canillno•••••••••1••1sy•4.01...... Ino•In••7,01..• 90.62 Imm. •comm.angle SO a....•3•tnut••71•••••66*. • •1•16,••a, 17.00 Medi thene•Mar.71 spe•••mO •••••‘. t•n•Ont Re ln•1401•••C•1..0 cu,740. ••1•tonf•of 47.37 fort. th•••••ker. .......42 ma.....24 m•••••••or.,•.....ne••I 41.09 tmone•...471••••••114,1••1onp•l••••••••••1 . 407•••• to tn• angle •• 22 deo.,3•athut••24••tone, •......c•.11 39.1.1 •3 ••••••••3•......00•econo• toms.to t 1••1 •••1 co.... •6......• 33.00•••11, lnonc•foa,an 24•••••••21&L..... e.o.m. to. • 111•.94•••to ...Co Sou.36 •••••••• 11 othut•• 34'mamma t.t. •.....ne••10 132.71 1.1.1 Imme•mmtn 33 1306.•....... •47,to• •0412.41•.047. 0•a•aarm•ad 290.51 ,m.t to two mon.,emothe.m... •I•• tn• 1.16,,*cr..1.••dluato• tn•Camhtv Manmeoln anal .....of 141,0011.0t, &W. :Ile,.both 50 fowl Of 11•••blest 55.0;•••.0 L•t C00141:1:1:17;47/1;57.weLn:•:••••"7: •••••-r•o0•14l<taro., 1.0 Molt.fn•14,41 0o0n•••••.....•n•too Oliolln SO feet 6. bee 14n.I••••• aeon JolliC141 Lona.....owl in 1•••••••• C•••I.. 174/0. tr.{ Wet 01 tot•SI•••••12 I•or• .• C••t••5 ,••11 ▪ ••••1.•••11••••12 ant,.1•..0.14•1 Of tn.•••••250'ow<of ••le L•••ID•••1/, f•••1.0,...,1 fool 41,17.1.•••••3 fro.a,Lot 12. 1,1 12. O 004 0106101r 07.0.occ•rfilna t•toy,•roto.,•11 plat 1.•••••••• •11 tn.•aton•••••1.77•4 of two Apo........ 147•1 tyro tor ••360.e..1 .....••• C••• 37•/7. ••t••• atm••••‘ 350 dew. poon.44.• 11.• of Ina,F.,. ••ts Lo. 11•••••12 3•4.9 ta, tem mo•In 30...,od th•Smon 16 Ivo.Of La. 12. 100.66.11t 11.C.31 .....to•non-,c1661.•••••••••••••••Ad••••• dr.tn.toot,•0 fool of Lel 13.COO.19•1111C ar./.11. ,or 111 em mmt ...... mott 1•••• •••c•ted,0••• Sou. od •••••350 00 Lod 1o, •••‘350.6,60 Le. andl 12. all in CO•••••1OIC el.(mom' 4.o. 3210,791 so•to•••2.. ••mmt mmt •••‘ ol••.•Itot 13. (0.Pot/S•lt ACRES. mdomm. t• th• •••••••• 11••••.,. •••••••••1•o•tom m.ilmmhp•••erto. .1 ..... ••••to.13. .11 •••.6610 1.••,..6.mo•th•••••••••l•wimod••5.secon••t....61.0 11.••6111, D.6...Lod 13. •......e•61 0111.75 to iln•pofint of 17•••nntna of ...ot alp, • .....1...... tant•••• 17.0•10,11•••••, •••• 17.•••••••••••••od • •^•.• ••.'••• 711 um... O.••••co•.••••••north 73••••••••• •mmt•• •••••••••••t, d.••••••soutn........26 et.....5a moon.km, . ••••...... •........of mm. mo.• •••,..• v....a,.to.. •......•-• 1...00 fort t•an•••••tro•rel••••••••• m•tat 13 any•41.1 11•••••1•••. • •7 I • Bluffs West 7th Addition DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT 1 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1989, by Hustad Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 4.66 acres and Preliminary Plat of 26.3 acres into eleven (11) single family lots, two (2) outlots, and road right-of-way, all 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;" NDW, THEREFDRE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #9-89, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated March 31, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 4, 1969, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Concurrent with, and as part of the final plat for the property, Developer agrees to dedicate to the City Outlot A, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, for preservation and park purposes. Said Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, mortgages, or other encumbrances. Developer and City acknowledge that development of Outlots B and C, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, will take place in the ( future and that Developer shall return to the City for review of such development through prescribed City procedures in place at the time development of said Outlots shall be proposed. 4. Concurrent with and as part of the final plat for the property, Developer agrees submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a "drainage casement fnr conservancy purposes" to be located on Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, in favor of the City, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said easement shall be represented as such on the final plat for the property and shall also be represented in written form as depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. Developer agrees to file said written conservancy easement on the property with Hennepin County and provide proof of filing of said written easement to the City prior to release by City of any grading permit on the property. 5. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. Developer acknowledges that a total of 815 caliper inches of trees are planned to be removed from the property, caused by the development of the eleven (11) single family lots depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer and City agree that it is not practical to locate all 815 caliper inches of replacement trees on said eleven (11) lots. Therefore, Developer agrees to replace 163 of said 815 caliper inches of trees on the eleven (11) lots proposed for single family development, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Further, Developer agrees that the remaining 652 caliper inches of replacement trees shall be replaced within Outlots B and C, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, as part of the development of said outlots. And further, Developer acknowledges that said 652 caliper inches of replacement trees shall be in addition to the amount of caliper inches, if any, which must be replaced due to development of said Outlots B and C. All said replacement shall be accomplished in accordance with the Tree Replacement Policy as amended, or supplemented, at the time of development of said outlots. 7. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and obtain the Director's approval of, a tree replacement plan for 163 of the 815 caliper inches of trees which are planned to be removed from the property due to construction on said property as approved by City. Said plan shall provide that the 163 caliper inches of replacement trees shall be located on the eleven (11) single family lots as depicted in Exhibit 8, attached hereto. Developer further agrees that, prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer shall submit to the City a bond, or letter of credit, guaranteeing completion of all tree replacement 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, or $14,670.00, 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 agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, said tree replacement plan, in accordance with the tree replacement policy of the City, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and made a part hereof. 8. 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 obtain 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. 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. 9. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 10. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning and obtain the Director's approval of a i�,�'1 tree inventory of those trees within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, which are not planned to be removed by construction on the property as approved by City, indicating the size, type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level. 11. If any trees located outside of the construction area are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area, Developer agrees that prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Developer shall: A. Submit to the Director of Planning, and obtain the Director's approval of a reforestation plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area. 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 a cross sectional 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, a five- foot wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of Purgatory Road as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer further agrees that said sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 13. Developer and City acknowledge that the development of Outlots B and C, of the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, will impact the development of lands located directly to the north and to the east of the property in terms of public street access, extension of utilities, and lotting patterns. Developer agrees to and acknowledges the following requirements for future development of said outlots: A. Developer agrees to grant a "right of construction entry" to the City for extension of utilities to service properties to the north and east. Said "right of construction entry" shall be located along the east side of Lot 5, Block 1, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and shall extend northerly within Outlot C, along the east side of Outlot C to the north boundary of the property, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. B. For the parcel marked "Hustad Development" on Sheet #2 of Exhibit B, attached hereto, consisting of the west 445.00 feet of Outlot C, which accesses Bennett Place, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, Developer and City agree that the configuration of the lots for said portion of Outlot C, shall be as depicted on said Sheet #2 of said Exhibit B. That is, there shall be four lots allowed within said portion of Outlot C: two lots shall directly access and front Bennett Place; one lot shall be a "flag lot" accessing Bennett Place; the fourth lot shall be a "flag lot" accessing Bluestem Lane. Bluffs West 7th Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-120 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 9-89 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 9-89 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of June, 1989; 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. 9-B9, 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 non-pareil, or six-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. 9-89 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 20, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk i.) Bluffs West 7th Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE ND. 9-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZDNING 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 DTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL DF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Drdinance allows rezoning of land located north of Bluestem Lane, east of Purgatory Creek from the Rural and R1-22 Districts to the R1- 13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the — day of , 1989. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-99 (I.C. 52-152) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT APPLICATION WHEREAS, the proposed sanitary sewer to be constructed in the Summit Drive Area requires a connection to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (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 June 20, 19B9. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk Chase Point CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESDTA ORDINANCE NO. 14-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMDVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADDPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG DTHER THINGS, CDNTAIN PENALTY PRDVISIONS 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 be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Neighborhood Commercial District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Neighborhood Commercial District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 20, 1989, entered into between Crosstown Investors, a Minnesota general partnership, and the City of Eden Prairie, and the Owners' Supplement to Developer's Agreement dated as of June 20, 1989, entered into between Leonard and Betty Uherka, husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement and Supplement are hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of May, 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th day of June, 1989. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of • LI EXHIBIT A REZONING FROM RURAL TO N-COM That part of Tracts E, F and G. Registered Land Survey No. 1581 lying south of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 1581; thence North 3 degrees 07 minutes 46 seconds West, assumed bearing along the west line of said Tracts E, G and F, Registered Land Survey No. 1581, a distance of 396.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described: thence North 89 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds Fast 450.00 feet and there Le:-ninating. GUIDE PLAN CHANGE AND PRELIMINARY PLAT Tracts C, D, E, F and G. Registered Land Survey No. 1581 Chase Point DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1989, by Crosstown Investors, a Minnesota general partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 7.9 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.78 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.9 acres into two lots and one outlot, for construction of a day care center and a service station, all said 7.9 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 #14-89, 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 June 15, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on May 16, 1989, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to release of any final plat for the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, storm water run-off calculations, 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. 4. Prior to release of the final plat for the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of a surety for the landscaping and screening materials and work to be accomplished on the property. Said surety shall be in such form and contain such provisions as required by the Director of Planning, in accordance with City Code requirements. 5. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer agrees to provide for alternative access for the loosen parcel , located west of the property, as depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. Said alternative access shall be subject to the following conditions: A. City approval of right-of-way vacation of Old Shady Oak Road. B. City approval of a cross-access and maintenance agreement between Developer and owners of the Loosen parcel. Said agreement shall include provision for City control such that the agreement may not be dissolved without City approval and that any change to said agreement shall require City approval. Developer further acknowledges that any change to said agreement shall also be predicated upon provision of an alternative access from Did Shady Oak Road. C. Said agreement shall be filed against the property and against the Loosen parcel at Hennepin County and Developer shall provide proof of filing of said agreement to the City prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property. 6. Concurrent with, and as part of the grading on the property, Developer agrees as follows: A. The construction limits shall be staked with snow fencing materials for protection of trees and erosion control. B. No grading shall take place in the treed area located along the west-northwest portion of the property, within Outlot A, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. C. No tree removal shall be allowed on the property. 7. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading on the property. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Pllanning, and to obtain the Director's approval of the following: �L�11 A. Signage details for all wall signs and pylon signs to be located on the property. Developer agrees that all such signs shall be constructed of common materials, he of a common shape, and that all such signs shall meet all City Code requirements. Further, Developer agrees that there shall not be any signage located on the canopy over the gas pumps for the service station portion of the property. B. Exterior materials details for the structures on the property. Developer agrees that the metal panel material used on the roof of the service station shall be identical to the metal panel material used on the canopy over the gas pumps of the service station. C. A revised landscape plan which screens parking and provides for a landscaped buffer for transition to the land use to the west. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to 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. 9. Concurrent with construction of utilities and structures on the property, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, the sidewalk and trail along the Shady Oak Road connection, the internal sidewalk along the east side of the private road, and appropriate connections to the proposed uses, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer agrees to construct said sidewalks and trail in accordance with City standards and specifications. 10. With respect to future construction on Outlot A of the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, Developer acknowledges the following: A. Said Outlot A has been guided for Neighborhood Commercial uses subject to the condition that future land uses shall not generate more than 134 P.M. Peak Hour trips. B. The reserve capacity of traffic generation available for said Dutlot A, as identified in the traffic study for the property, attached hereto as Exhibit E, and made a part hereof, is predicated upon the addition of a third northbound lane through the Crosstown intersection with Shady Oak Road and a third lane on the eastbound approach lane at Crosstown and Shady Oak Road. C. The use(s) for said Outlot A shall be compliant with all applicable zoning Codes. D. The use(s) shall provide for transition to the land to the west of the property. Transition shall include, but not be limited to use of berming, use of heavy amounts of landscaping materials, low Floor Area Ratio, and preservation of the wooded slope. E. The use(s) shall be designed consistent with the standards and specifications of the Design Framework Manual for the property, attached hereto as Exhibit F, and made a part hereof. 11. Developer acknowledges that final design for the west extension of City West Parkway shall require approval by the City Engineer and the traffic consultant, based on recommendations in the traffic study for the property, attached hereto as Exhibit E. 12. Developer acknowledges that the property will benefit from upgrading of Old Shady Oak Road and from the upgrading of Shady Oak Road in the future and, therefore, Developer agrees to pay its fair share of the corresponding assessments for such upgrading. J Chase Point OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TD DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN CROSSTOWN INVESTORS AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1989, by and between Leonard and Betty Uherka, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "Owners," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as "City:" For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #14-89 changing the zoning of the property owned by Owners from the Rural District to the Neighborhood Commercial District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1989, by and between Crosstown Investors and City, Owners agree with the City as follows: 1. If Crosstown Investors, fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owners shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property. 3. If the Owners transfer such property, Owners shall obtain an agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. CITY Gary D. Peterson, Mayor Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Chase Point CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-98 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 9-89 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 14-89 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of June, 19B9; 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. 14-89, 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 non-pareil, or six-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. 14-89 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 20, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk { luc,() CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, $5,375,000 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (EDENVALE APARTMENTS PROJECT), SERIES 1989A, AND $185,000 TAXABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (EDENVALE APARTMENTS PROJECT), SERIES 1989B; APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INDENTURE OF TRUST, A LOAN AGREEMENT, AND APPROVING CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS; APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXEUCTION AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE HOLDERS OF SAID BONDS WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Issuer") is a statutory city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Issuer, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), is authorized to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated thereby by issuing its revenue bonds and is authorized to enter into any agreements made in connection therewith: and WHEREAS, the Issuer on August 31, 1982, issued its $5,500,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Housing Development Revenue Note (the "Prior Note") to First National Bank of Minneapolis the proceeds of which were lent to Edenvale Apartments, a Minnesota general partnership pursuant to a Loan Agreement (the "Prior Loan Agreement") dated as of August 31, 1982 between the Issuer and Edenvale Apartments to finance the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a 174-unit multifamily rental housing development, known as Edenvale Apartments (the"Project");and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Prior Note and the Prior Loan Agreement, the interests and obligations of Edenvale Apartments thereunder have been transferred to Edenvale Company, a Minnesota general partnership(the"Company"),as its successor and assign;and WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to issue its $5,375,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Housing Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Edenvale Apartments Project),Series 1989A(the"Series 1989A Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to issue its $185,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Taxable Rousing Development Revenue Bonds (Edenvale Apartments Project), Series 198913(the"Series 1989B Bonds");and WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to issue the Series 1989A Bonds to refund and prepay the entire outstanding principal amount of the Prior Note and the proceeds of the Series 1989B Bonds will be used to pay certain costs of issuance (the Series 1989A Bonds and the Series 1989B Bonds are referred to jointly herein as the"Bonds"); and 1 WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued under an Indenture of Trust dated as of June I, 1989 (the "Indenture") between the Issuer and American National Bank and Trust Company, as trustee(the"Trustee"); and WHEREAS, the Issuer has agreed to enter into the Loan Agreement dated as of June 1, 1989 between the Issuer and the Company (the "Loan Agreement') pursuant to which the Issuer wil lend to the Company the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, it is further proposed that, in order to comply with the provisions of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Issuer, the Trustee and the Company enter into an Arbitrage Compliance Agreement (the "Arbitrage Compliance Agreement")dated as of June 1, 1989;and WHEREAS, it is further proposed that payment of the Bonds be secured by an Irrevocable Direct Pay Letter of Credit (the"Letter of Credit") to be issued by Norwest Bank Minneapolis,N.A.(the"Bank"); and WHEREAS, the Bonds issued under this resolution will be secured by a pledge of certain re/enues and other amounts to be received by the Issuer pursuant to the Loan Agreement, which will be paid from draws made under the Letter of Credit, which are designed to be sufficient to pay, when due, the principal of and interest on the Bonds and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional, charter, or statuory limitation nor constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers and shall not constitue a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Issuer other than its interest in the Loan Agreement; and WHEREAS, Norwest Investment Services, Inc. (the "Underwriter") proposes to purchase the Bonds;and WHEREAS, forms of the following documents have been submitted to the Issuer for approval: (a) the Loan Agreement; (b) the Indenture;and (c) the Arbitrage Compliance Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. That the City Council of the Issuer (the "Council') ratifies and confirms its findings previously made that the undertaking of the Project within the Issuer has served to provide decent, safe and sanitary rental housing to persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the"Act"), and as such has served the public purposes provided in the Act. 2. That for the purpose of refunding the Prior Note there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of revenue bonds of the Issuer in the aggregate principal amount of $5,375,000 to be designated the $5,375,000 City of 2 Eden Prairie, Minnesota Housing Development Revenue Refunding Bonds(Edenvale Apartments Project), Series 1989A and for the purpose of paying certain costs of issuance of the Bonds, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of revenue bonds of the Issuer in the aggregate principal amount not exceeding $185,000 to be designated the City of Eden Prairie, Taxable Housing Development Revenue Bonds(Edenvale Apart ments Project),Series 1989B, pursuant to the terms and conditions as set forth in the Indenture. The Bonds shall be in such denominations,shall be numbered, and shall be dated, shall mature, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, shall bear interest, shall be subject to mandatory tender for purchase, shall be in such form, and shall have such other details and provisions as are prescribed in the Indenture of Trust. The interest rates on the Bonds shall be determined by Norwest Investment Services, Inc., the underwriter with respect to the Bonds (the "Underwriter"), subject to approval of the rates by the City Manager of the Issuer. Execution of the Indenture and Loan Agreement by the City Manager of the Issuer shall be evidence of such approval. In no event shall the interest rate on the Series 1989A Bonds exceed eight and one-half percent(8.5%). 3. That the Bonds shall not be general obligations but shall be special limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from the revenues derived from the Loan Agreement dated as of June 1, 1989, and executed by the Issuer and the Company in the manner provided in the Indenture. The Mayor and City Manager of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds in accordance with the Indenture. 4. That the Loan Agreement; the Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement relating to the Bonds (the "Bond Purchase Agreement") to be dated as of the date of initial delivery of the Bonds by and between the Issuer, the Company, and the Underwriter; and an Arbitrage Compliance Agreement (the "Arbitrage Compliance Agreement") dated as of June 1, 1989, by and between the Issuer and the other parties specified therein; are hereby approved. That the Mayor and City Manager of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the Issuer the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Arbitrage Compliance Agreement,substantially in the forms now on file with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate omissions, modifications, insertions, and additions as are not materially inconsistent with the form on file with the Issuer, and which are consistent with the Act, as the City Attorney and Bond Counsel in their discretion shall determine. The execution of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Arbitrage Compliance Agreement, and the Bond Purchase Agreement by the appropriate officers of the Issuer with approval of the City Attorney as to form shall be conclusive evidence that any omissions, modifications, insertions and additions to such documents meet the conditions of the preceding sentence. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Arbitrage Compliance Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. 5. The Issuer hereby consents to the distribution of the Official Statement, substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement, a copy of which is on file with the Issuer, prepared for the Bonds by or on behalf of the Underwriter in connection with the offering an sale of the Bonds; however, the Issuer has not participated in the preparation of the Official Statement and 3 assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness thereof, or otherwise. The Official Statement is the sole material consented to by the Issuer in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. 6. That the Mayor and City Manager of the Issuer are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Issuer, an amendment to the Deed and Covenants Running with the Land originally executed in connection with the issuance of the Prior Note, in such form as maybe required by Bond Counsel and approved by the City Attorney, and such other documents, certificates, financing statements, releases, satisfactions and other instruments as are necessary or appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds and the prepayment of the Prior Note. 7. That all covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements of the Issuer contained in this resolution and the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations,obligations, and agreements of the Issuer to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements shall be binding upon the Issuer upon execution and delivery of such documents. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights, powers, and privileges conferred and duties and liabilities imposed upon the Issuer or its officers by the provisions of this resolution or of the aforementioned documents to be executed and delivered by the Issuer shall be exercised or performed by the Issuer or by such officers of the Issuer, or such board, body, or agency thereof as in the opinion of the City Attorney may be required by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties. No covenant, stipulation, obligation, or agreement herein contained or contained in the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation, or agreement of any member of the governing body of the Issuer, or any officer, agent or employee of the Issuer in that person's individual capacity, and neither the governing body of the Issuer nor any officer of the Issuer executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. 6. That except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the aforementioned documents expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person or firm or corporation,other than the Issuer, the Company or any holder of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution, any right, remedy or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Issuer, the Company and any holder from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution. The Issuer reserves the right to withhold execution and delivery of all such documents in the event the City Attorney and Bond Counsel are not satisfied as to the form and content of such documents or any other material aspect of the Bonds. 9. That in case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds issued hereunder (except any provision limiting the Issuer's liability under the Bonds)shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds, but this resolution, the aforementioned documents and the Bonds shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. 4 10. That the Bonds shall contain a recital that they are issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof, and that all acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the aforementioned documents to happen, exist,and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and precedent to issuance of the Bonds, and precedent to the execution of the aforementioned documents have happened, exist, and have been performed as so required by law. 11. That the officers and other agents or employees of the Issuer are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements contained in the Bonds, the aforementioned documents,and this resolution. 12. That the Mayor, or in his absence, his designee, is hereby designated as Issuer Representative for the purpose of taking all actions and doing all things required to be taken or done by the Issuer Representative pursuant to the aforementioned documents. 13. That in the event any of the officers of the Issuer authorized to execute documents on behalf of the Issuer under this resolution shall for any reason be unable to do so, any other officer of the Issuer who is in the opinion of the City Attorney authorized to act for such designated officer, is hereby directed and authorized to do so on behalf of the Issuer with the same effect as if executed by the officer authorized to do so in this resolution. 14. All actions of the members, employees, and staff of the governing body heretofore taken in furtherance of the Project are hereby approved, ratified and confirmed. 15. The Mayor and City Clerk and other officers of the Issuer are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish with regard to the issuance of the Bonds, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the Issuer relating to the Bonds and such other affidavits and certificates(including but not limited to those required by the Bond Purchase Agreement) as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in said officers'custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the Issuer as to the truth of all statements made by the Issuer and contained therein. 16. The Trustee is hereby appointed authenticating agent with respect to the Bonds, and paying agent with respect to the Bonds. The Trustee is hereby directed to accept as additional security for the Bonds such other documents and instruments as shall be provided to it by the Company. If required the Trustee is hereby authorized to become a party to such documents and instruments and to take all necessary and appropriate actions thereto as required by a party to such documents and instruments. 17. The issuance of the Bonds and the transactions contemplated thereby are hereby found to be consistent with the procedures of the Issuer established for 5 such undertakings and, in the event of any inconsistencies, strict compliance with such procedures is hereby waived. Adopted this 20th day of June, 1989. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Franey Finance Director DATE: June 15, 1989 SUBJECT: 1988 General Fund Budget The general fund budget adopted in 1987 for the 1988 year was $10,4D3,200. On the revenue side, tax collections were down $267,DDO and building permits were down $306,000 from budget projections. Fees from the overhead charges to public improvement projects were increased $241,000 and miscellaneous revenues were up $109,000. Other, less significant revenue changes brought the total revenues to $10,263,000 or $104,000 less than anticipated. Expenditure budgets have been adjusted to reflect actual experience in 1988 in each of the programs. Total expenditures are $140,000 less than originally estimated. The general fund balance (net worth of the general fund) is the same as 1987 and stands at $1,666,000. • ' RESOLUTION 89-143 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.. OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THAT THE FINAL_ 198E GENERAL FUND BUDGET BE AMENDED ACCORDING IC THE ATTACHED SUMMARIES OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES. PASSED JUNE 20, 1989 GARY A. PETERSON, MAYOR JOHN D. FRANE, CITY CLERK CITY OF I._GI.PI I-i (11.ETIF IOHF1 GENF:NAI. FUND 1FVFNLIFS BUDGET RECEIVED BALANCE GENERAL PROPERTY '[AXES CURRENT 51280/70 5014517 -11355 3 DEL I NLPUE NT COLLECTIONS 80000 14772 -65228 PENALLY & IN1FRFSI 200000 111927 -88077 101(4_ TAXES 5408070 5141216 -266854 REVENUE FROM GOVT AGENCY LOCAL GOV( ATD 324200 324234 34 POLICE PENSION 120000 128848 8848 RECYCL..ING GRANTS 1 HOMESTEAD CNEDI f 739130 73913 OTHER 36632 366: ?. CIVIL DEFENSE 12000 5.120 -6880 TOTAL 'JTHEE AGENCIES 1195330 1233967 38637 LICENSES o L.IOUOR 6 BEER 73000 90708 17708 BUILDING CON(PALruNs 8000 83005 305 OTHER 12000 17919 5919 --9- -T 3000-TOTAL LICENSES 116932 23932 PERMITS & FEES DOG REGISTRATION 6000 8499 2499 BUILDING 1400000 1093788 -306012 PLANNING & ZONING 50000 69042 19042 ENGINEERING INB '% ADNIN 400000 64087.1. 240871 IMPOUND FEES CABLE TV 1.2000 79082 47082 OTHER TOTAL FERMI IS .< FEES 1921500 1918085 -3415 -------- RECREATION FEES 762400 710995 -51405 COURT FINES 240000 212646 -27354 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 100000 1.1433.3 14333 TITHER FOND TRANSFERS UTILITY OPERAIINu 10Ug0 10000 T.I.F. ADMINISTRATION 200000 200000 () L.1CLUR OPERATIONS 100000 1251i00 25000 FUND BALANCE 30/900 306949_ -951 111TAL.. 0 LFIER FUNDS 61/900 64.1949 24049 U(HEN REVENUE --------- - SCHOOL LIAISON 37000 i0 37396 396 [ISLET. 1 CRIF SALES 3000 -3 LILT) M I SLELL..ANFODD 25000 134475 109475 L_ANUF IL.L FEES 1035 1035 r01AL. OTHER 65(100 172906 107906 11_11 AL GENERAL FUND 10403200 10263029 -140171 7) CITY OF EDEN I-KHIRIE 1988 GENERAL FLINT) EXPENSES AMENDED BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE CITY COUNCIL 60,700 60,599 101 CIiY MANAGER 136,400 136,279 121 ELECTIONS 41,500 41,350 150 ASSESSING 253,.100 252,916 184 FINANCE 198,900 198,794 106 HUMAN RESOURCES 94,200 94,069 131 HUMAN SERVICES 67,400 67,267 .13 GENERAL SERVICES 414,100 413,394 206 DATA PROCESSING 74,700 74,585 115 LEGAL./CIVIL 110,000 109,753 247 CITY HALL 266,.100 265,973 127 PUBLIC INFORMATION 16,100 15,914 186 PLANNING 313,300 313,166 134 BUILDING INSPECTION 436,000 435,379 121 POLICE 1,963,00u 1,962,897 103 FIRE .22,000 - 21.,854 146 CIVIL DEFENSE 20,800 20,604 196 ANIMAL CONTROL 39,600 39,426 174 P.S. BUILDINGS 135,200 135,043 157 . ENGINEERING 478,300 478,160 140 EQUIPMENT MNTC 455,400 455,208 192 SNOW & ICE CONTROL 81,700 81,573 127 STREETS & DRAINAGE 773,30') 773,159 141 STREET LIGHTING 176,700 176,543 157 P.W. BUILDINGS 44,600 44,422 178 COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 133,200 133,000 200 PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES 508,500 508,351 149 PARKS 566,400 566,266 134 FORESTRY 59,200 59,064 136 COMMUNITY CENTER 531,500 531,331 169 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,124,700 1,124,548 152 RESERVE LANDFILL LITIGATION 362,600 362,402 198 ETHER 144,000 8,740 135,260 TOTALS 10,403,200 10,263,029 140,171 Imo(,) MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: June 15, 1989 RE: RED ROCK SHORES At the June 6, 1989, City Council meeting, the Red Rock Shores project was continued to allow Staff time to review a new road alignment and calculate the associated tree loss. A revised plan, depicting the relocation of Red Oak Drive approximately 161/2 feet to the east was submitted for Staff review on June 15, 1989. The primary reason for the road relocation was to allow Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, to meet the minimum Code requirements of the R1-22 zoning district. As a result, the building pad depths on Lots 1-4, Block 2 have been reduced from 80 feet to 60 feet. Because the average building pad depth adjacent significant natural site features is 70 feet, variances from the 150 foot shoreland setback may be requested. The relocation of the road also causes an increase In the size of Outlot C from 1,674 square feet to 4,240 square feet. Outlot C will be included with the Rogers' property at time of development. The road alignment through the Rogers' property is still in the same approximate location and no further acquisition from the Rogers' is required. The developer has previously indicated that he would be responsible for tree repl acement within the road right-of-way. The proposed plan depicts a significant tree loss of approximately 223 caliper inches. Staff review has indicated an additional 139 caliper inches of significant trees which are expected to be removed as part of the road construction. The significant tree loss calculated due to street construction is 362 caliper inches. Based upon an overall tree loss on the entire project site of 33.4%, a tree replacement plan depicting a total of 161 caliper inches is required. Based upon this information, the City Council could make the following decision: 1. The City Council could approve the project with the proponents agreement to replace 161 caliper inches of trees from the construction areas per the requirements of the Tree Preservation Policy with individual home owners being responsible for tree replacement as part of the building permit issuance. 2. The City Council could approve the project subject to the proponent meeting the provisions of the Tree Preservation Policy, requiring the replacement of 462 caliper inches of trees. 3. The City Council could deny the project. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-137 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TECH CENTER AT CITY WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL CITY WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Tech Center at City West development is considered a proper amendment to the overall City West Planned Unit Development Concept; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request of Steven Hoyt Company for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall City West Planned Unit Development Concept for the Tech Center at City West development and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on June 20, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Tech Center at City West development PUD Concept Amendment, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall City West Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for Tech Center at City West. 3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated May 22, 1989. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 20th day of June, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk i l- • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 19, 1989 PROJECT: Tech Center at City West LDCATIDN: City West Parkway, north of City West Business Center APPLICANT: Steve Hoyt FEE OWNER: Northwestern National Life Insurance Company REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 87 acres. .. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 87 acres, with waivers for percentage of office and front yard setback. 3. Zoning District Amendment within the existing I-2 Park zoning district on 12.46 acres. 4. Site Plan Review within the existing I-2 Park zoning 1, district on 12.46 acres. -} cc,-►-IwY -�� Background O FC' This site is part of the original ;i) I`1I � ,,\ 1981 City West Planned Unit ; . j �� Development Area. This PUD was ?`\ �.. OFC amended in 1982 for City West Plaza ' 1 >'.'`:.;.,. 1, 2, and 3, totalling 240,000 i g square feet of office in 3 to 5- U C-REG-SER.. • , story buildings. In 1985, the PUD i • was again amended by Ryan Develop- ment for 2 buildings totalling 'ROPOSED autri �: 161,520 square feet of 7-SITE ''���uakil� • office/warehouse/showroom, i ���e•- ��.�' `�'/ _I_• This site is currently guided Office ���i� • S . - • C-Wild and zoned I-2 Park. Site Plan Ai . V -REGs - I , The site plan i s similar to the f �OFC' approved plan, with office around •the perimeter and the loading --{ r-•-,` facilities in the interior, i PUB ;, ,i' ,/,; A I-0' AREA LOCATION MAP Tech Center at City West 2 May 19, 1989 The site plan depicts the construction of 2, 1-story office/warehouse/showroom buildings totalling 160,800 square feet on 12.46 acres at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.295. The 1-2 Park zoning district would allow up to a 0.3 FAR. The buildings meet the minimum 50-foot front yard setback requirement in the I-2 Park zoning district. A waiver to allow a setback of 35 feet instead of the Code requirement of 50 feet to parking is requested through the PUD along the frontage of City West Parkway. This will be addressed in detail in the PUD waiver section. The amount of parking required for the 2 buildings is 516 parking spaces. A total of 536 parking spaces are shown on the site plan. There are 3 proposed driveway access points to this project. Two of the driveways align opposite existing median cuts in City West Parkway. The third access point is the service entry and requires a new median cut in City West Parkway. This new access is acceptable to the Engineering Department. PUD Waivers The proponent is requesting 2 waivers through the PUD District Review. One is a front yard setback variance from 50 to 35 feet along City West Parkway. The other is for an increase in percentage of office above the 50% maximum permitted in the I- 2 Park zoning district. The setback to 35 feet would be consistent with parking setbacks on both sides of City West Parkway for sites zoned office or industrial. Revisions in the landscape plan will screen parking to Code. This waiver was approved with the 1984 request. The 1985 approved plan included a waiver for 75% office in the I-2 zoning district predicated upon providing enough parking. The current proposal is for 60% office. The amount of parking provided meets City Code requirements. The percentage of office within this project would be consistent with other Industrial zoned property within the City West PUD. The Ryan project to the south was approved with 60% office and the Primetech Industrial buildings to the east were approved with 65% to 70% office. Architecture The proposed 1-story buildings will be constructed of facebrick and glass around the exterior perimeter of the buildings. Rock face block will be used for the interior loading bay areas. Brick should be wrapped around the ends of the building and extends to the beginning of the first loading bays where shown on Attachment A. Mechanical equipment is proposed to be screened with a metal panel of a material to match the anodized rose-colored roof flashing. Landscaping The amount of landscaping required for this project is based upon the caliper inch requirement based on building square footage, screening of parking areas from City West Parkway, and screening of loading areas from City West Parkway, the adjoining residential uses to the northwest, and from the ponding area to the southwest. There is an existing I5-foot easement for Northwestern Bell which reduces the amount of area available for screening along City West Parkway to 20 feet. Because of the I' j Tech Center at City West 3 May 19, 1989 limited setback, it is not possible to construct a berm high enough to screen parking, and screening must rely exclusively upon plant materials. Relying on plant materials exclusively in a tight setback area will not effectively screen parking. Attachment A indicates where a screen wall should be constructed on the property, for about 1/3 of frontage on City West Parkway. Approximately 1/3 of the frontage could be utilized for mass plantings provided the shrub plantings are a minimum of 3 feet in height at time of planting and are a triple row. The remaining 1/3 of the frontage could be screened with normal landscaping. The revisions in the landscape plan along City West Parkway should provide screening to Code and be comparable to screening of parking in the Primetech projects across the street. The throat into the loading facilities is wide when viewed from City West Parkway, the pond, and the apartment units to the northwest. A wall and mass plantings along City West Parkway should screen that view of the loading facilities. The view of the loading facilities from the northwest can be better screened through revisions in the landscape plan for larger plant materials and berming as shown on Attachment A. Since screening relies heavy upon the use of plant materials, an irrigation system is recommended. Site Grading This site has previously been used for stock pile material from grading on other sites in the overall City West PUD. The grading plan depicts a general levelling of the site to provide for building pads. Since the setback between the parking area { and the trail along the pond is tight, an 8-foot high retaining wall must be constructed to take up the change in grade. The retaining wall will remove a good portion of the existing natural vegetation which could screen the parking areas and the loading area. This will open up the views of the parking areas from across the pond. There is a 10-foot setback between the edge of the parking lot and the retaining wall. This area could be used for large shrub plantings. Staff would recommend shrubs of 3-foot in height installed at time of planting where shown on Attachment A. Utilities Sewer and water service is available to this site within City West Parkway. Storm water run-off is proposed to sheet drain across the parking lot into catch basins which will ultimately discharge into the DNR wetland to the west of the site. The number of catch basins within the parking lot may have to be increased to handle the amount of storm water run-off. Storm sewer calculations should be provided for review by the City Engineer. Discharge of the water into the DNR wetland will require a DNR permit. Traffic The approved project for this site, based on 75% office and 25% warehouse, was expected to generate 1,700 daily trips and 238 p.m. peak hour trips. The current proposal, which is proposed to be finished at 60% office and 40% warehouse, would generate 1,500 daily trips and 21D trips in the p.m. peak hour. Tech Center at City West 4 May 19, 1989 Sidewalks and Trails There is an existing 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of City West Parkway. In addition, there is an existing gravel walkway between this site and the Park at City West which extends from this walkway down to the trail along the pond. Concurrent with this project, there should be an 8-foot wide bituminous trail constructed over the gravel walkway (see Attachment A). The completion of this trail connection plus the relocation of the trail along the pond will require an approval by the City West Homeowners' Association. There should be a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk connection made from each building to the sidewalk along City West Parkway. Lighting Parking lot lighting will be 30-foot high downcast cut-off luminars consistent with the lighting standards in the City West PUD. Signs Monument signs will be placed at each entrance. Monument signs were required as part of the overall City West PUD sign program. Materials proposed for the signs should be compatible with the building. Proposed locations for the sign should not interfere with sight vision distance along the parkway. Tenant signage will be monument signs in front of each entrance on the building. Materials should be compatible with the building. Lettering should be of a consistent size and color. Preliminary Plat There is no preliminary plat request with this project. This property was subdivided into 2 lots with the previous request. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers for increased office in the I-2 Park zoning district, and front yard setback to 35 feet for • parking, Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Park zoning district, and a Site Plan Review in the I-2 Park zoning district based on plans dated May 12, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 19, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Modify the landscape plan according to Attachment A to provide for better screening of the parking areas along City West Parkway, screening of the loading areas from City West Parkway, and screening of parking and loading areas from the pond and the apartment complex to the northwest. 2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. Tech Center at City West 5 May 19, 1989 B. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. Stake the proposed construction areas with a snow fence around the trees. C. Provide samples of exterior building materials and colors for review. D. Provide samples of the exterior lighting details for review. E. Provide the sign package with details for review. 3. Prior to grading permit issuance, provide storm sewer calculations for review by the City Engineer. Receive approval from the DNR for wetland alteration. 4. Concurrent with site construction, complete the bituminous surface connection between the sidewalk along City West Parkway and the trail along , the pond. Relocate the trail along the pond and receive approvals for both improvements from the City West Homeowners' Association. Construct 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk connections between each building and sidewalk along City West Parkway. 5. This property will benefit from any future improvements to Shady Dak Road in the vicinity of City West and should pay its fair share of a corresponding special assessments. • May 72, 11C9 - - - . • - . _ F. TPCH CT7ITER AT CITY WEST, by Steven Hoyt Company. R:.•quest fot Planned Unit Pevelopment Concept Ar.,eo,lnient Review 7.ind .",:ne.u.1:nent '37 • w 1 w•1 vcr. i,erc,t;1!::03,! f"r - 7oJning DiatrIct Ameilnt and flit- tan 11 71oviow withia the T-2 Zoning District 12.Ir for consIruction af 160,n6s sy.tare feet: cf o'jfice/w:.rencr hcation; West of City Wert 7.;thway, in; aud ;Just of Shdy oat Rood. A public tear SLe o Hoyt r:oL,enled the plan for a 71 ac,:;' L.ii:C2 to be dovo1eped isto an office/service centec . by CeO prsj;.'cLing fr,. office uae for the project. The truck traffic w,_,11,1 he res,tricted to a small orea. Hoyt toted that NCI' hr:d hurled a cable along City 7,-eet. 7,:ray Jr.',: for z.creellii.g of t!„: Rot to Led f.n..it he would prefer to screen with naturel plant mater!A r.J'hr than a wall. Hoyt : .-.r.ted that the exterior of the 1-.•1101.:r3 of N.AF;rirICe Urick cnI‘dre'l ancqliz.ed window frames. The entry ways would be a "V" -hope suspended with masonry columns. Hoyt coealed,:d by stating that a cross mcoo had heen cleared with Nerthwestern Life insurance Hc L rroforred that thL lighLog be polo lighticig for eafuty re;:,cor.s and that the signage be' at the entrances. Hoyt believed the only issue to be resolved at this time coo the methnd to far er.cenin uf the parking areas. Sandotad complimented Hoyt on the design of the project. Hoyt stated that timing was important for the proJect'and .7(10ed tl,at 1,e would like to begin construction in ‘,.Ignst and complete the project by the end of November. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the Staff Report dated May 19, 19S9. Franzen stated that the landscape regoizements to meet City Code were Lased on caliper inches related to the square footage of the building and screening the loading area and the parking area. He added that the Staff recommendation was t rcvide larger plants, change the location of ;:eme of the Clanta, and/nr change the type of plant material to be esod. Franzen :.tato'' that upp,,ttc,1 the requct for a setback variance from r° feet tn 7.7 feet for the front yard ; however, he bell eyed he screen!n,l recluiremonts should I" that Staff had se,aom:4ended tho hrich tall plant m.-Acrial alone could not ocred , th :king t'o code. Franzen maid that The view of tho loading area more pea than ether 'prej,:ctz end wo: a reaz,on to recommend the wall and additional screening. • Anderson asked for clarification if Ftoff would con3ider -, 4 eher ty[HcC of plant. materiel being ;.In what i..)toposed. Franzen re;Jied that 1.10ing different tyr- of 76ntnii. 72, 191 fr .onld Wfir;: Ho cof the "oading tot plant material tloao0.01to ble t: ..creen from City West 7:- co lied t!, t.. The to the variance which rudlced the p.nt:,nt....1 acreening area by 11 feet, it was not possiblu u berm aa i- 'Ion:- in most L,rojest. The narrow area also doe.. not laave fOOM for plant maturial. It tight sitt;akions walls work best. The wall could be constructed of atstter Ly- e of material other than brick or possitiy the u1L1 he ...loped and a retaining-type wail be .7onstra.:Led. • Candstad asked how 111..0 the wall woulc I. :. replied 3 to 4 feet hi,J!.. .Eoy!. rtata.1 thtt tbic build!rtg was of a low design and p:eferra,d t6 screening. Hoyt believed that a Colons!cc for t more effective method of stareen!!..t,; he worked out with rttaff. Hoyt added that ho had made every effsrt ko create a beautiful complex and did ci:,! I vtve it tatally screened. Franzen repliad that only 1/3 of the project area was proposed to ave on wall onl ,olded Lhat the wall would not screen the buildin.g. Fsan7en stid the .:all would only provide 751 sereenin-, capnity. stnLed that to pr.efurred the ura of natural material for screening. Hallett concurred, tot added that if natural materials C12 not work a wall may be necessary. Rye stated that the concern of Ctoff so cc the ,nrvival of the plant material due to the 1!-foot planting area ::nd the limited room for ,,n7:ngt plantings to screen the parking to code. 7.ZINTL:t::: suggest the addition of Moro aonifers. Hallett asked if tenants had been identified. Hoyt replied no, the project was based on speculation. MOTION 1: Anderson moved, seconded by Cant:et:ad to ,:lone the public hearing. Motion carried 5-C-0. MOTION 7: Anderson :wvecl, ,.(,!ctulded by Cand_.tad recommend La the City Council approval of the r-reirest of Cteven Hoyt Company for Planned Mn it fev-lopuent 7.:.nrept 1tmendmeut to the City West Planned Unit Fovol..d;..ant. an 17 acres rt• Tech 7sntor at City WeHt non',trectian of 1.60,n6 feet of efficeletrhao ::cc, an pltn-. Lcy II, 2039, LItfect :sco.mmundat'un::. of the CtzfE Report dated May 10, 19C9 with the modification of • recommendation 1.A. to provide natural screening •i3 the first alternative with a brick wall ton he used as •c !.; cond alternate. Motion carried 5-0-0. • • 11 McTIC7! 7: AlIC:02011 moved, seconded by Dwdge Lu zr... mmond to th.: city ef the request of t-A.vf.:1 4yt Company for 71..nned '7olt 7,evelament, DL.trictTr"ovw, with waivec foc 1,k•:,-: nt.:1,3 of office use in the I-2 11oning 2iytelot Amendment within the I-7. Zoniny District on 12. 1f; urees for Tech Center at City West, for con....tr•Jotion of 160,360 square feet uf offico/warehococ usec., !).ised on plans dated May 15, 1999, !:,!cot to ne recondntfons of the Staff Report d...ted May 19, 1999 with the modification of reco=endation 1.1.. to i)rovi..lo screening ac the first alternative with a brie% wall to to csed as a second alternate. Motion aarciotll 0-0. • M0T:N7N Anderson moved, seconded by Oc:Ige c. recommend to the City Ccoacil approval of the requeut. of ive oy% C. apan:2 for ' Site Pl:;li gevi .w within the 1-2 Zoniny 1,', F-'^L L:1 12. 1G acres for Tech Center at City WF.st, 'or euvratructIon of 1C0,3C3 ovare feet of office/warehowle nse , Lianc dated May 15, 1009, subject to thu reeommendations of the Staff Eeport dated May 19, 1939 with the modification of recommendation l.A. to provide natural r.creoning the first alternative vUh brio% wall tu be aced d alternate. Motion carried 5-0-0. V. OLD TISINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S RETORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Dodge moved, sucended by Sandstad tu adjourn the meeting 0t 9:25 PM. Motisu carried 5-0-0. - . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA itRESOLUTION NO. 89-138 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CHATHAM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL RIDGEWOOD WESTOVER PLANNED UNIT WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Chatham Ridge 2nd Addition at Ridgewood Westover development is considered a proper amendment to the overall Ridgewood Westover Planned Unit Development Concept; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request of Centex Real Estate Corporation for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Ridgewood Westover Planned Unit Development Concept for the Chatham Ridge 2nd Addition development and recommended approval of the PUO Concept Amendment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on June 20, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Chatham Ridge 2nd Addition development PUD Concept Amendment, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Ridgewood Westover Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for Chatham Ridge 2nd Addition. 3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated May 22, 1989. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 20th day of June, 1989. • Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-139 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CHATHAM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION FOR CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Chatham Ridge 2nd Addition for Centex Real Estate Corporation, dated June 16, 1989, consisting of 8.13 acres into 23 single family lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 2Dth day of June, 19B9. Gary O. Peterson, Mayor ( ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk I 'IJL. STAFF REPORT 1 TO: • Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assi stant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 19, 1989 PROJECT: Chatham Ridge 2nd LOCATION: North and east of Wellington Drive, north and west of Cumberland Road APPLICANT/ ' FEE OWNER: Centex Homes Midwest, Inc. REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on approximately 101 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 101 acres. 3. Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 8.13 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 8.13 acres into 23 single family lots. Background ' '` - ' � This site is currently designated on ce•,� RM.-2.5\'•''RM-6.5 ) `% '.1 y' the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide w /•-'r•• f Plan for Medium Density Residential t NN.../',217 \r/_; land uses. Surrounding Guide Plan 4j M-2.5 designations include Low and Medium "' � Density Residential to the north, I z- .•., Medium Density Residential to the ar:r.1_ W 13 west and and south, and Anderson Lakes ll'' 'T Ji �:-� •.' Parkway to the east. Specific land Iso;,p`, '3 .. �. `: uses include the Ridgewood West 5th % ; , 1'. L . , Addition, zoned R1-9.5 to the west AN _ / PROPOSED SITE and south; Westover Woods, zoned R1- ` ' h �, `` '�' 13.5 to the south; Deer Creek Phases �� `, f �/ I and II, zoned R-13.5 and R1-9.5 to - m+s' I1�•` v���- .�. the north; and Anderson Lakes = , M .•� �,j4a.0���� , .� Parkway to the east. �IP WfifVOr110M,,, •r1 wit ;,�` / cuaatn hilliq a° +'yG17s�*PUD Amendment /4 1... e,0 / This property is the last un oa°. n /,� developed parcel in the orig • inal �� tv� Ridgewood West single family sub ti , '��:- / division approved in 1978. Amend- j' ~ ��, ments since that time include the -•--`_I - :i AREA LOCATION MAP) Chatham Ridge 2nd 2 May 19, 1989 4 request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on approximately 64 acres. This amendment proposed a total of 168 single family cluster homes and 168 condominium units. The 1982 PUD identified this 8.13-acre site for 96 condominium units. A plan which was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 27, 1987, included a change from the 96 condominium units to a total of 55 townhouse units. This item was approved by the Planning Commission; however, it received a denial from the City Council at the May 19, 1987, City Council meeting. The current proposal is to subdivide this 8.13-acre parcel into 23 single family lots, which would be consistent with the adjacent land uses. Site Plan The proposed site plan depicts the subdivision of an 8.13-acre site into 23 single family lots at a density of 2.83 units per acre. Adjacent developments, including the Ridgewood West 5th Addition is developed at approximately 4.5 units per acre, Westover Woods at approximately 2.26 units per acre, and Deer Creek Phases I and II which would allow up to 3.5 units per acre. Lot sizes within the subdivision range from a minimum of 10,250 square feet, to a maximum of 24,000 square feet. The average lot size is 13,576 square feet. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-9.5 zoning district except for Lot 2, Block 1. Because Lot 2, Block 1, is a corner lot, it requires 90 feet of frontage along Essex Court. The plans shall be revised to reflect a 90-foot lot width. Access to the project would be provided by the extension of Essex Court from Cumberland Road. The project will be served by two cul-de-sacs which meet City Code requirements. The cul-de-sac design shall be revised to reflect City Engineering standards (see Attachment A). In addition, the plans shall be revised to reflect the street location within the proposed right-of-way. Grading This site was originally graded in 1979 in accordance with the single family proposal. Currently, this site is being used for a stock pile area. The proposed grading plan indicates a general leveling of the area consistent with single family home development. Utilities Water and sanitary sewer service is available to the site through connections made to an existing 6-inch water line and an 8-inch sanitary sewer line located in Cumberland Road and Wellington Drive. Storm water run-off will be collected through a series of catch basins and flow in an easterly direction with a connection made to a 21-inch storm sewer pipe located in Cumberland Road. Architecture Because the proponent is requesting the R1-9.5 zoning district, this project is subject to architectural control. The proponent shall submit a plan keying individual houses to lots which indicate conformance with the architectural control policy. Chatham Ridge 2nd 3 May 19, 1989 Pedestrian Systems A 5-foot concrete sidewalk currently exists along the south side of Wellington Drive and along the north side of Cumberland Road. Concurrent with this project, the proponent shall complete the extension of a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Cumberland Road with a connection made to Anderson Lakes Parkway. STAFF RECDMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Planners Unit Development Amendment Review on approximately 101 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 101 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 8.13 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.13 acres into 23 single family lots, based on revised plans dated May 5, 1989, subject to the Staff Report dated May 19, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the plans to reflect a 9D-foot lot width for Lot 2, Block 1. B. Revise the cul-de-sacs to reflect the teardrop design and to show the actual street location within the right-of-way. C. Provide an architectural control plan keying individual plans to specific lots to insure compliance with the archi tectural control pol icy. 2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility 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. Insure compliance with the architectural control pol icy. 4. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing. 5. Concurrent with building construction, a 5-foot concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the north side of Cumberland Road. 7 .,.,.� 2" +1n9 I E. CHATHAM RiDCE 2iD ADDIT;^N, by Center. Real Rotate Ccr porati�on. Request fo= a Pla&in..;d Unit Development Amendment Deview and Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 101 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 3.13 acres, Preliminary P1 t of 3.13 acres into 23 single family lots. LonatIan: North and we t of Cohorl.and Road, uorLhr:•::!.t: of Wee ington Drive. A p':b_.. i;.-t_ng. ';evin Cla I:, representing Conte.< Flome;:., sta;od that appro:•:.retcly 130 notices had been sent to the surrot:'7Iing property owners advising them of a neighborhood meeting and added that the response from the neighbors Had been positive. Clark stated that the proposed plans had changed over the years from 95 condominium units to CD townhouse unit:: and currently revised for a 23 single- family unit: development. The average lot size would be 13,500 square feet. The cul-de-sac and corner lot would be modified based on the Staff recommendations. A grading problem soloed by a neighbor had been adds :,.red to the neighbors .,.,Lisfnction. The model lopir for tb: pre ect would be located is the Fairfield .:'_:r?ir is . .n, :ith approximately I to 12 designs to chur.se from. rnlet .l i if the t ore's wou1d ::.iv Ili rt. ci.Iled flat th, ,.:,m.„ wcs ..p t:;"..•l on:,, ,. '. ,;; with ,rfc•red _o• redwood Anderson asked the price range of the hums:.;, Clark C replied approximately ;1D0,000 to 110,000, with jests of the homes being first-time houses and some being .for those •.aii:hiog to up-gr.aade. Cemmion May 22, 1119 ^ari,J_.t.a1 :_:1;ra] 'l.::CF: If l:!;.. `. ,,l,.n;iat vat, agreeable to the 5' _ id_wali along the north a!a rl.:end f'v,n-1. C l- ,, . -l • 1 ��1' :�e'i : .et that the pYi•i� .ne•Ilt i•u,^..C'r CC Wltt: the fdewali r: proposal; however, . ' . '. _ Y ,lvert�,:L' left the plait.. 4,1 C• .acted - ..'i(-r r. Or:o reported that Staff r••C:,Ir,men.'.,-al ap- al of the f:r,,j::L:t based on the rec:o,:.men1 t.t t;l ,f ii: 2toff Report flay 21, 1989. '_0=7flrr 1: Dodgu ;loved, seconded by , 1•' hearing. Motion carried 5-0-n. ;.fn^•n•.r 2: , Dodge moved, seconded by Sandetad to recommend to the City Council approval of the 1.:•guest of Centex Real Route Corporation for Planned Unit Development Conccpt t,mo'deent to the overall Ridgewood West Planned Unit Development for ''hatham Ridge 2nd Addition, based on plans dated May 5, .001, aeb set. to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 19, 1989. Motion carried 5--0-I. MTDTON 2: hedge moved, seconded by Sancta tad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Real Estate Corporation for Planned Unit Developmont District Review Amendment on approximately 101 acres, with waivers, and Tuning District Change from ^,1-12.` to R1-9.5 on R.13 acres, for Chatham Ridge 2nd Addition fur construction of 23 single family lots, based on plane dated Hay 5, 190.0, i,i:hject to the recorr,mendatiotiu of the ff Report ? May 11, 1910. Motion carried 5-0-0. M^T1C'N 4: Dodge ;ov C, ;:-co d ed by ':and:t,:,d ,,o recommend to the C" Corms. >rr:v.g `y ' ��{ 1 of tLC r^yr: ;�t . ; �•�i;-.ex Re..l E:.r.at,: Corporation for Preliminary Plot of^3.13 acree into 23 _:inyle Tamil le,la for C!i, the2nd Addition, Y i un Ri�1� •id ,. pie:., dated !hey 5, 1999, 7.u1 ju:;.'. ! a the rccomme :l•:at.:nnL of t:::_ Staff Rci:ort d_,tcd May 10, 1001. Motion earr,;..d f- CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-140 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL EDO, PRAIRIE CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Center development is considered a proper amendment to the overall Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development Concept; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request of United Artist Theaters for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development Concept for the Eden Prairie Center development and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on June 20, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Eden Prairie Center development PUD Concept Amendment, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for Eden Prairie Center. 3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated June 12, 1989. ADDPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 20th day of June, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Homart Development Co, 1018 Eden e 4r Eden Prm ae,MN MN 55344 eden prairie center (812)941-7650 May 26, 1989 Eden Prairie Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Exterior Signage for U.A. Theatres Eden Prairie Center Dear Commission Members: I am writing this letter to address the need for informative and directional signs for the nine screens that U.A. Theatres has put into Eden Prairie Center. We badly need two plyon signs indicating what movies are currently playing at the theaters. One of these signs should be located off Hwy. 169 where it currently is and another sign off Prairie Center Drive south from Suburban National Bank. These signs would be professionally done and indicate what is playing at the UA Theatres East and UA Theatres West. After the customer sees that a certain movie is playing here at the Center they drive into the parking lot and we will have a directional sign by the mall entrances where the East and West Theatres are located. This will save customers the frustration of walking in the wrong entrance to see the movie they have selected. I'm sure there will he some confusion at first, however we feel that with the East and West listings on the pylons and the directional signs the confusion will be short term. We have a great deal of concern over the appearance of any sign placed on the property and do not wish to have any more signage than necessary. We feel that our request for this signage concerning the Theatres represents the minimum amount necessary to be effective and we further feel the signage is professional in quality and design. We sincerely hope that you approve of these signs as submitted and we stand ready to answer any questions or concerns you may have. inc l .ly, 4-r V .- ar .ensen, Gene 1 Mena. , Eden Pr. e Center LJ/dp D y y N m mn A Zraxi \4 , � A Z m m - Z 7/i 7.,*/ -4 r m ymX '� ,. r -r mNE 1 ','. 0 /2- ' , -, -.' -(> r-'7 J4. V., 72 rY ta,c\a9,1 1/4. \\ 4. , ";./... ''' OYc==//#‘/' i( , ,,,//// \ a/ lill 5 ....$) (% \\ a o ,. . 717' ,4,,,\ ' \; \'\ '- /7/77,/,' yi- e ' c''' ,, //7. 61.\\6 ' 3 7---'',NN,,,'\H %,( //A \.\ 1 ' 'iis'ili© p° ., \-\\44 :- .. Y , . . .:. avi 11O1.6•11T DIV[IOVMfNT CO. �. ,;�`���j J t I. 11i y � • � r' i io,i 1.. a a f � � r tI tf I I I iI +X a ,_ I,I , I2 x�� iGCGCN—y' g:''IL:--9E-j ���///t � -Ito), m ' im � 4!II 4 l': 7 , I ii I . .I i : r II Irrt. 1rvZ ��� r1i I T IpT 1. 3 ,: 1.11 i X$ T^ -ful>fri:to Ili r *= r Ti. zas, iRli; Ilki.-. €€ P2 g ' `I ,`1, m[!7 � µ ' ^ I' ,nz _I4 4yI ' £ v C i .f Tit rn ifTiij} _ Q c RAY C; Sl Veh.i- F. lil f £j ILla o y as +., . F. , 'I s J�:k i, is 1 C'A { 4 Il? 'i uY ' ; Jl S > 6i 11( • NOD caa,Je,r -w eden-prairie=center oTN UA. �en the movies- at eden•prairie= MOON OVER T OIE? . • PARAOOR;Pi;'Ii HA'1D FISH I ALLED BETRA ED Co7 c-PC�o� �• WAND H p,pQrf�PQdr_` N ;j 1M1r11,, s.124 c �. ` f• '� MEWL Cot.'"M ..As • • • 14.1 . EXLS'fINC SICN NI' NUk1IIWL:S'f DIUVI. F.N1IL1' m uu No. 153C HASTINGS.YN LOS ANGEU6.CNICAGO-tOOAN. NCGREGOR.TZ•LOCUST GROVE. U.S.A. • 41� �a far Planning Commission Unapproved June 12, 1989 MOTION ON UNITED ARTISTS SIGN/EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER Motion Reubling moved, Hallett seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of United Artists Theaters for PUD Concept Amendment to permit a second free-standing sign at the Eden Prairie Center, based on the plans and written materials dated 5- 26-89, subject to the staff report 6-1-89, with the modification that the second sign be a maximum of 20 feet in height. Amendment Recommend the second sign be reduced in size approximately 25%. Vote On Amendment: Amendment carried 5:2 (Bye and Fell voting nay). Vote On Motion: Motion carried 6:1 (Anderson voting nay). Summary Of Commission Comments: Pro - EPC large regional use and two signs not inappropriate. - Building set too far back for wall signs to be readable. - Identification of and direction to new theater necessary. - Sign size is not out of proportion to site and building size. Con - May set precedent - Traffic on Prairie Center Drive slower than U.S. #169. - Center management should provide cross access within Center after hours. - Direction to East theater can be accomplished on West theater sign. � 1?J STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 1, 1989 PROJECT: Eden Prairie Center/United Artist Sign Proposal REQUEST: 2nd Freestanding Pylon Sign for United Artists (UA) and Eden Prairie Center to be located adjacent to Eden Prairie Center's northeast entrance (Prairie Center Drive). Background The original UA pylon was approved in 1976 by the City Planning Commission and City Council as an amendment to the Eden Prairie Center PUD, 73-6. The original sign approval included: 1 major exterior sign, the UA cinema sign. Anchor wall signs (Sears, Target, Carsons, etc.) No more than 6 tenant wall signs for tenants with separate entrances and hours of operation different than the Center, i.e., banks, restaurants. In 1979, the City approved an amended sign request which allowed the Eden Prairie Center name atop the UA pylon sign at the U.S. #169 entrance. Proposed 2nd Pylon Sign The present request is for a 2nd UA sign to be located adjacent to the Center's northeast entrance. The purpose of the sign is to serve patrons who will be coming to the UA's additional theatre complex recently constructed at the Center's northeast side. For illustration of surrounding uses see Attachment A. The sign design being requested for the 2nd pylon will also replace the existing UA pylon next to U.S. #169. The sign compares to City Sign Code as follows: Sign Code Proposed UA Sign Maximum Height 20' 22' Maximum Size 80 sq. ft. 249 sq. ft. Maximum Distance Between Faces 12" P5" I 0(49 The original UA sign was 22 feet in height and 336 square feet in size. The new sign is 87 square feet less in size than the original sign. Staff Recommendations Due to the Center's physical size both in acres of land and square feet of building, the 3 street frontages, and the addition of a second theatre complex at the Center's northeast side, the 2nd pylon request does not appear excessive. Options available to the Planning Commission are: 1. Recommend approval of the 2nd free-standing sign for the Eden Prairie Center and to be utilized by United Artists. 2. Recommend modification to the sign request. 3. Recommend denial of the request. Planning Staff would recommend #1. 1 t J11 '&4-7-E.(7;""4"*.%.„,.....L.L.,.....••> ,.,,..,, . 1 l ' C-REG-SER .-,- • .• 0 '. P-y\B ! '7') . - '1.."....."7:7.".."... N1 LU CC 1-2 , ' C-REG-SER OF Co-RrEG-SER. it): 'Ri-22' •'''. ' 4..." . valOFC.p_ _ ,: ' eJ iI i' ! . tr....7L..., C-REG PUB c-REG-5ER.- E .III 'xistiog...‘ C-REG-SEB'' , 4.1)IV' s ‘ . ..• OE Capi ER W . c-REG7g8:0 t . ... , , °F.,2..' „,..---• EDEN op sed a RM-657. , . .. ;•:. cc PRNRIE 4 „ .• ..4 4 V. 'IL 4 .. 11) CENTER 4., Hart , , , 91.4-2..5 joco Dev ,i. .,., . PUB 45" OFC C-RE1C4*- < R E9 ER ' • 0 .. 1, Siiiii/Sit 4.K.S\. . ,,.... .1 RM-2.5 : i.."Fig. 6 ' • R113 • ,-,.. ‘, . - „• . i . . - - - -nrittammei --;[-A3wo...$,.-.,,, , ' :,..,•,,,,,,:, , t. . .... I. ... - . N-CO .,.:. ';'R1:13.5. • R403:.5 '•,:, '''' ,":.,..! , . , , '''131.13.• ....'`. ' " -4V OFC 1 . RM-2.5 . . $ ' RM-2 5 •- ''' . : .0 ..." . LOCATION MAP north 1' t4fi' . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-141 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR FREEBURG/PERKINS ADDITIDN BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the Registered Land Survey for Freeburg/Perkins Addition, dated June 16, 1989, consisting of 2.84 acres into 3 lots with variances, 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 20th day of June, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk !,'((' ( Stuart H. Nolan 1 7020 Willow Creek Road gg Eden Prairie, MN 55344 May 17, 1989 Mr. Don Uram, City Planner City of Eden Prairie ,.,,00 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Freeburg Perkins Subdivision Dear Don: As I mentioned to you over the telephone, I will be unable to attend the planning commission meeting on the above noted matter on May 22, 1989 because I will be out of town; however, I am writing this letter so that my feelings will become part of the public record. I am the adjacent homeowner along the entire north boundary of the subject property and, other than Perkins, will be the most affected by the subdivision. I am opposed to the proposed subdivision because it is in violation of so many city and shoreline ordinances and because I believe it will visually violate the environmental setting that we now have on Willow Creek Road. In other words, the existing houses on Willow Creek Road are spread ( apart and have much more open space than would result in the Freeburg Perkins subdivision. For these reasons, I believe that the proposed sub- division would adversely affect my property value. Sincerely, /(1/4/1/L S art . olan SHN:jk 'i J I, ✓� STAFF REPORT 1 TO: Planning Commission - FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 19, 1989 PROJECT: Freeburg/Perkins Addition LOCATION: 7010 Willow Creek Road APPLICANT: Clayton Freeburg FEE OWNERS: Raymond Freeburg, Raynell Perkins, and Clayton Freeburg REQUEST: Registered Land Survey of approximately 2.9 acres into 3 tracts, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background/History \ ; 1 \N22i Please first refer to the Staff is+.c,; 1 ,.,- Report to the Planning Commission ''V�; k.. • .� dated June 10, 1988, for information '•' 'i4..- regarding the background and history ' e ' , ,• of the proposed project, r' "f ! i&:,:i,, „ ----- Site Plan/R.L.S. "'* 1 �_+ Changes to the plan in response to77. Al• �R -- ` ;1,' " PROPOSED SITE additional utilit information ,• • � � provided by the proponent, included ` '` ,44' 'F rV .1 2-2 an increase in lot size for Tract C . 4". ,,,,_' 1 from 32,000 to 36,000 square feet, , y'�+••. ,`,.;*., �. due to the relocation of the eastern . ' r'_,..yv•:' � ��i°; :y,� I i1 lot line. This change was made so I ;•�; /`�►' �. 1 that the existing septic system ��. , , - t 1`' :\� �^�?'"�' would be included on the parcel. No �= KxY •• • '/ 4: • soVil a% r other changes have been made to the 1. .� ` a ji- proposed subdivision. All of the C�7'' eS+•�.as 4'I`.7„:1 / `l lots meet the minimum requirements F .�'` i. "' �. „luy;, d of the RI-22 zoning district withp. ` ', r •, the exception of frontage on a �':` ,,' N •iF, �; publicly dedicated street. A 20- : \`.' <` ',, `.•4 if 1 foot easement has been submitted 0 F C40."q"ti,"` //� which would 1 _._- -"'^" I provide access to Tracts I v �'�j•• 1 /' I- A and C. Tract B would access I__• ` o 1 i! % Willow Creek Road. •1 i� ,zt/ AREA LOCATION MAP Freeburg/Perkins Addition 2 May 19, 1989 Resolution #868 adopted by City Council on July 9, 1974, cited the following reasons for denying the request to subdivide the property into 3 building sites: 1. Ordinance #93, Chapter 12, as amended, requires each property to abut a public road to better serve the occupants therein. Since the June 10, 1988, Staff Report, two subdivisions have been approved with private roads with characteristics such as the Freeburg/Perkins Addition. The Red Rock Shores subdivision abutting Mitchell Lake has a private road providing access to 6 single family lots. The reasons behind the granting of the private road is that it provided a better site plan, saved additional trees and natural site features, and allowed for larger lots than what could be accomplished with a public road. The Creekview Addition also has a private road providing access to two single family lots. This road was approved because of its ability to save additional natural site features such as slopes and trees. A public road could be extended to service the 3 lots within the Freeburg/Perkins Addition; however, it would result in mass grading and tree loss and would not serve the public benefit. The two homes which are benefiting from the road easement are already existing. Tract B, the proposed location of the new home would have access to Willow Creek Road. 2. The topography of the land lends itself to two building sites and is more in conformace with the neighboring plat and the restrictions thereon. The proponent has submitted a prototype building pad designed to work with the contours of the existing property. The two homes currently existing will not result in any additional grading or land alteration. The proposed building plan indicates a tuck-under design home with no attached garage, thus requiring grading for only that portion of the building pad placed on the hillside. Although the plans depict a 50-foot building pad which was recommended for purpose of analysis in the previous Staff Report, the proponent will be required to submit a more detailed grading plan showing all grading which may be expected with the construction of a single family home. This plan shall be submitted prior to City Council review. Any deviation from the proposed grading plan at time of building permit issuance will require both Planning Commission and City Council review. A tree inventory has been submitted by the proponent for Tract C. There are a total of 854 caliper inches of significant trees on-site with a calculated tree loss of 355 caliper inches, or 41.6X. Based upon this figure, a tree replacement plan depicting 196 caliper inches is required. The proponent shall submit a detailed tree inventory for the entire property which is expected to reduce the percentage of tree replacement required. In response to the question: "Is there a restriction applicable to the Freeburg/Perkins property that the lot size be a least one acre in size pursuant to covenant or furtherance of a general plan?" Freeburg/Perkins Addition 3 May 19, 1989 The Court judgement dated May 13, 1977 stated that: "The Freeburg/Perkins property is not subject to any restriction requiring lot size to he not less than one acre." The City Councils decision reflected in Resolution #868 was made prior to and without the benefit of the court judgement of May 13, 1977. 3. Failure to subdivide said tract into 3 parcels would not cause an exceptional undue hardship and deprive the applicant of substantial property right. According to the history of the proposed project, deeds were given to Raynell Perkins and Clayton Freeburg in 1973 for Tracts B and C. If the subdivision had been approved at the time of the earlier request, it could have been accomplished without variances except for road frontage. Since that time, the City has adopted the Shoreland Ordinance, which creates 8 of the 11 variances being requested. The denial of the proposed subdivision deprives the applicant of the use of his 52,000 square foot lot, apparently owned since 1973, for a single family home. Shorel and Ordinance The minimum requirements for single family homes on abutting lots, without public sewer include the following: 1. Minimum lot size - 5 Acres. 2. Minimum width at building line - 300feet. 3. Minimum width at O.H.W. - 150 feet. 4. Minimum setback from O.H.W. - 100 feet. The following chart indicates how the revised Tracts A, B, and C respond to the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. Required Tract A Tract B Tract C 1. 5 ac. 0.83 ac.* 1.19 ac.* 0.63 ac.* 2. 300 feet 268 feet* 270 feet* 195 feet* 3. 150 feet 350 feet 80 feet* 225 feet 4. 100 feet 110 feet 200 feet 75 feet* * - Items which will require a variance. As indicated, a total of 8 variances will be required from the Shoreland Ordinance. If the project had been approved when originally submitted, the Shoreland Ordinance would not have been in effect and the variances would not be required. Freeburg/Perkins Addition 4 May 19, 1989 Conclusions In the report dated June 10, 1988, Staff concluded the following: 1. "The proponent, in order to subdivide the property as proposed, and according to current City Code requirements will be requesting a total of 12 variances from the Board of Appeals. This includes 9 shoreland variances and 3 variances which are required because of the lot frontage requirement on a publicly dedicated street." The current plan indicates 8 shoreland variances. In order to meet the lot size requirement, a parcel would have to be I5 acres in size. The lot size of the parcel prior to subdividing is approximately 3 acres. None of the lots abutting Bryant Lake along the east side of Willow Creek Road meet the lot size requirement. Additional variances are caused by the width of the lots at the building line. Again, no adjacent lots meet the existing requirements for lot width. The proposed lot widths of this project are as large or larger than those existing along Willow Creek Road. The width at the Ordinary High Water Mark for Tract B is the only lot which does not meet the 150-foot width requirement. This variance could be eliminated by the elimination of lot frontage along Bryant Lake. However, lot frontage along Bryant Lake adds value to the property and does not create any significant deviation to the shoreland esthetics. Finally, Tracts A and C are the lots which do not meet the setback requirements from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The original house was not subject to these requirements and the home on Tract C was built and approved by the City in 1975 and met the requirements at that time. Mr. Freeburg's home on Tract B meets the requirement of the Shoreland Ordinance in regards to setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark with a setback of approximately 200 feet. 2. "The lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning districts; however, the size of the lots, and the setbacks from the lake, vary greatly from what is existing in the neighborhood. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 41,333 square feet (0.95 acres) with a 95-foot setback from the lake as compared to an existing average lot size in the area of 60,144 square feet (1.38 acres) and a setback of 182.5 feet. The City Council in Resolution #868 cited the incompatibility of the 3-lot subdivision with the existing neighborhood as one of their reasons for the denial of the 3-lot subdivision." The average lot size of the proposed R.L.S. is 44,733 square feet, or 1.03 acres. Existing lots within the area average approximately 60,144 square feet, or 1.38 acres. The difference between the averages is approximately 15,411 square feet. In this particular case, 2 of the lots proposed exceed the size of the smallest lot abutting Bryant Lake along the east side. Thus, the lots proposed would not be the smallest in this particular area. In regards to building setbacks from Bryant Lake, 2 of the setbacks are based upon homes which are currently existing and met the requirements of the zoning district when built. Based upon the proposed plan, the house setback for Tract B is a minimum of 200 feet which exceeds the average setback of homes in the area. As this information indicates, the lots which are being proposed are not significantly out of character with the existing neighborhood. i ,/ Freeburg/Perkins Addition 6 May 19, 1989 By eliminating the lake frontage for Tract B, 3 of the proposed 8 variances could be eliminated. As indicated in the previous Staff Report, an easement could be placed over a portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract B. The Planning Commission and proponent may wish to consider this alternative. Summary Based upon the current analysis, it appears that the proposed subdivision would not be significantly out of character with what is existing in the adjacent neighborhood. Staff has indicated that if the proper procedures had been followed in the early 1970's, this project could have been approved without variances except for lot frontage. Currently, the majority of the variances being requested are Shoreland Ordinance which would be required of any lot located along Willow Creek Drive. Information which has been submitted including the grading plan and tree inventory has indicated that the proposal would not seriously alter the natural characteristics of the site or shoreland area other than that expected with the construction of a single family home. STAFF RECOMMENDATIDNS If the Planning Commission feels that the proposed R.L.S. has merit, appropriate action would be to recommend approval of the proposed R.L.S. of approximately 2.9 acres into 3 tracts, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, subject to plans dated April 25, 1989, and May 8, 1989, the Staff Report dated May 19, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Submit a revised grading plan detailing all grading expected. B. Submit an overall tree inventory for the entire project site. Tree replacement will be based upon the revised tree inventory. 2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed building plans for review. B. Notify the City at least 48 hours in advance of grading. C. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 3. Apply for, and receive, variances from the Board of Appeals for shoreland variances and lot frontages on a publicly dedicated street. If the Planning Commission feels that the number of variances are excessive, and that the proposed development is incompatible with the existing neighborhood, then the appropriate action would be for denial. IqL)(. Freeburg/Perkins Addition 5 May 19, 1989 3. "In order to review this project, Staff must have complete and accurate information to evaluate all aspects of the project. As stated in the letter of May 18, 1988, Staff requested additional information from the proponent. The proponent has not submitted the requested information." In the minutes dated June 13, 1988, Staff and Planning Commission stated that the minimum information which must be submitted for review purposes included: 1) an overall grading plan depicting a 50- foot building pad, 2) a tree inventory, 3) utility locations. This information has been submitted for Staff review. A typical grading plan has been submitted which indicates a 50-foot housepad with a tuck-under design. The proposed plan indicates minimal grading designed primarily to show drainage around the house. Staff would recommend that the grading plan be further detailed. The plan does not currently indicate an attached garage. According to the proponent, the existing garage at the base of the hill is proposed to be utilized. Once a specific home is designed, Staff recommends additional review to determine conformance with the approved plan. If any deviation exists between the proposed grading plan and the approved grading plan causing more impact, the proponent must return to the Planning Commission and City Council for review. A tree inventory has been submitted which indicates a total of 854 caliper inches of significant trees on-site. A tree loss of 355 caliper inches has been calculated. Staff recommends that the proponent provide a detailed tree inventory for the entire site to reduce the amount of tree replacement required. A tree replacement plan must be submitted prior to Council review. The utility locations shown on the plan indicate that the minimum State requirements are being met for Tract B. In a memo, dated January 14, 1974, from Marty Jessen, former Director of Parks and Community Services, stated that information provided by the Department of Natural Resources indicated that the proposed Shoreland Management Regulations may require an approximate lot size of 20,000 to 40,000 square feet without sewer, building setbacks of 75 to 100 feet, and a sanitary sewer setback of 5n feet. Based upon the assumed regulations in 1974, all three lots would meet the minimum requirements of the shoreland management regulations. A permit for the septic system for Tract C was inspected and approved September 9, 1975. There is no permit information existing for the septic system on Tract A. Because the septic systems for Tract A and C are both setback approximately 70 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark, they would have to be relocated according to the current minimum State standards if they were to fail. 4. "Final 1y, an alternative exists for the development of the property which would reduce the number of variances required and make the lot sizes more consistent with the existing neighborhood. By eliminating the lake frontage of Tract B, the number of variances could be reduced from 12 to 9 and Tracts A and C could be increased in size. An easement could be placed over a portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract B." ( C STAFF REPORT i TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram. Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Oirector of Planning OATE: June 10, 1988 PROJECT: Freeburg/Perkins Addition LOCATION: 7010 Willow Creek Road APPLICANT: Clayton Freeburg FEE OWNER: Raymond Freeberg, Raynelle Perkins, and Clayton Freeburg REQUEST: Registered Land Survey of 2.84 acres into three lots with variances - to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background \ ; I • This site is currently designated on imli - .\I the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide ';fey; „;. -, ,'—..' ' Plan for Low Density Residential ... "'4': : r,. land uses. Surrounding designations "•4 �,. '!, i to the north. south, and east are ?*r :�T ...4.4.4.. .,. .4.." - i t also for Low Density Residential. '.i '' 't9 �' Bryant • Recreational eDevelopment{eWater, is i,: .,}*n J o,am _.,,,. •+ 1, ; located to the south and west of the ~ `r r ~~ � r ' y, 14;i:: a p i PROPOSED SITEII subject property. Specific land ,,. y�:.t . ;i uses in this area include the Willow V. 7�M,'+r .", ��+, V � / Creek Addition, zoned R1-22 to the , �, „ a�� -,...•• ev •'i east and south, and R.L.S. 1875 and ^=•'.�.Rq" �• ' 'ett, •A R.L.S. 11421, zoned R1-22 to the ,:t ° , i ''i,� q li; north. The proponent is requesting • ^,1�J"r& �� • an R.L.S. to divide the property J. •,, ` r •�lots j4i allow for the construction one 1 1: '' + 11 I single family home. ► '$ „ ' : i `' Z�' � 1 l' History % c`; �•4. r (d. The following is a brief history of ' '\f • 't'! .. 111-%. (( 1i/ the Freeburg/Perkins property and O_. r,,,,;, ,,?,7; their involvement with the City of �;, % \1�7 1 Eden Prairie and Hennepin County +r �" leading to the court judgement of �_ uC1 •Y't%`, •6 :;'' ; `z f May 13, 1977: AREA LOCATION MAP tuc C C Freeburg/Perkins Addition 2 June 10, 1988 1) July 25, 1973 - City Assessor with written administrative approval divide the Freeburg/Perkins land into 3 lots designated parcels A, B, and C. No Notice of Application for the division or of a hearing on the application was ever published or served upon anyone having an interest in the lots in Willow Creek subdivision or other nearby properties. Nor was any hearing held. The division was not approved by the City Council. 2) Deeds dated August 14, 1973, indicate conveyance of Parcel B to Raynelle Perkins and Parcel C to Clayton Freeburg. Deeds denied by Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. 3) 8uilding permit issued April 23, 1974, for Parcel B. 4) April 30, 1974, Council adopted a resolution dividing the Freeburg/Perkins land into two lots without making findings supporting the granting of a variance. No published or mailed Notice of Hearing had previously been given. 5) Dn an unknown date following April 30, 1974, City executed R.L.S. 1371. Two tracts, A and B, were created. 6) June 25, 1974, - City Council rescinded its resolution of April 30, 1974, dividing the Freeburg/Perkins property into two lots and adopted the following motion: That a new resolution be formed denying the request for division into 3 lots and approving the division into 2 lots, both fronting on the public road. 7) July 9, 1974 - City Council adopted a resolution denying subdivision of the Freeburg/Perkins property into 3 lots but approving a 2-lot subdivision. 8) July 12, 1974 - Stop on building permit. 9) May 27, 1975 - City Council approved a division of Freeburg/Perkins property into two lots. No notices were mailed or variances given. The court, on May 13, 1977, found that action taken on May 27, 1975, was not in accordance with City Drdinances and invalid. The following are the court's Conclusions Of Law: 1) Freeburg property is not subject to any private restriction requiring lot size to be not less than 1 acre. 2) The Freeburg/Perkins property has not been subdivided by valid municipal action. In summary, the court judgement dated May 13, 1977, declared that the Freeburg/Perkins property was not subdivided by valid municipal action. Because of this, the proponent is proceeding to the Planning Commission with a request for an R.L.S. to subdivide the property into three single family parcels. In the attached letters dated August 23, 1985, and August 7, 1987, from Richard F. Rosow, City Attorney, to Clayton Freeburg, proponent, the court judgement was explained and the proper procedures for proceeding with the subdivision of the property was discussed. Iy9B C C Freeburg/Perkins Addition 3 June 10, 1988 Site Plan/R.L.S. This property is currently zoned R1-22 which was zoned by Ordinance #11-6, in November of 1969. The minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning district include: 1. Minimum lot size - 22,000 square feet. 2. Lot width - 90 feet. 3. Lot depth - 125 feet. 4. Front yard setback - 30 feet. 5. Side yard setbacks - 15 feet. 6. Rear yard setback - 25 feet. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning district with the exception of frontage on a publicly dedicated street or street that has received legal status as such. Tracts A and C of the proposed R.L.S. are the locations of two existing homes while Tract B would be the location of a new home. Access to this subdivision is provided by Willow Creek Road which is a 2,800-foot long cul-de-sac in addition to a 20-foot wide private road easement to provide access to Tracts A and C. If the subdivision is approved, this easement shall be filed with Hennepin County. Based upon the submitted R.L.S., Tract B is the only lot having frontage on Willow Creek Road. In the R1-22 zoning district, 90 feet of frontage on a publicly dedicated street is required. A variance for street frontage will be required for all three lots. In addition, because the proposed subdivision is by registered land survey and does not indicate easements as on a plat, the proponent will be required to file separate drainage and utility easements as required by the Engineering Department. Lots sizes within the subdivision range from a minimum of 32,000 square feet for Tract C to a maximum of 56,ODO square feet for Tract 8. The average lot size is 41,333 square feet. Overall density of the proposed R.L.S. is approximately 1.05 units per acre. Adjacent lots, located to the north and south of this proposal average approximately 60,144 square feet or 1.3 acres. The minimum lot size within the adjacent area is 38,115 square feet and the maximum lot size is 82,764 square feet. Resolution 868 (see Attachment A), adopted by the City Council on July 9, 1974, cites the following reasons for denying the request to subdivide the property into three building sites: 1. Ordinance No. 93 (Chapter 12) as amended, requires each property to abut a public road to better serve the occupants therein. 2. The topography of the land lends itself to two building sites, and is more in conformance with the neighboring plat, and the restrictions thereon. 3. Failure to subdivide said Tract into 3 parcels would not cause an exceptional undue hardship and deprive the applicant of substantial property right. Based upon these reasons, the City Council approved the division of the property into two building sites both fronting on a public road. Freeburg/Perkins Addition 4 June 10, 1988 Shoreland Ordinance The Shoreland Ordinance, No. 82-18 and effective 9-17-82, is designed to "provide standards and criteria for the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of protected waters in order to preserve and enhance the quality of service waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands and provide for a wise utilization of water and related land resources and thereby promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare." Bryant Lake is classified as a Recreational Development Water on the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan. The requirements for single family homes on abutting lots, without public sewer include • the following: 1. Minimum lot size - 5 acres. 2. Minimum width at building line - 3D0 feet. 3. Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Mark - 150 feet. 4. Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Mark - 100 feet. 5. Minimum setback to septic tanks and soil absorption systems - 100 feet. The following chart indicates how Tracts A, B, and C, respond to the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance: Required Tract A Tract B Tract C 1. 5 ac. 0.83 ac.* 1.29 ac.* 0.74 ac.* 2. . 300 feet 268 feet* 246 feet* 140 feet* 3. 150 feet 350 feet 133 feet* 225 feet 4. 100 feet 84 feet* 160 feet 40 feet* 5. 100 feet No data No data No data * - Items which will require a variance. The proponent will be required to apply for, and receive, 9 shoreland variances from the Board of Appeals to allow for the subdivision and subsequent construction of a single family home on Tract B. No data has been provided regarding the minimum setbacks of the septic tanks to the O.H.W. so it cannot be determined by Staff as to whether or not there is enough room on the project site to accomodate an additional septic system or whether the existing systems meet Code requirements. Grading/Utilities There are two existing homes located on Tracts A and C which would not require any -- additional grading or utility work. However, because of the slopes on Tract B. it appears that a significant amount of grading work would be required to allow for the development of the home and the proposed septic and well system. No information has been submitted by the proponent regarding the grading of the home site or utility placement. Staff has inspected the site with the proponent and observed a number of large oak trees on Tract B which would be subject to tree replacement if . removed. The proponent has not provided information regarding any significant vegetation on this site. 1600 C IC- Freeburg/Perkins Addition 5 June 10, 1988 The following is a partial list of the information which has not been submitted by the proponent as requested in the May 18, 1988, (see Attachment B) letter: 1. General description of the request or proposal. 2. Variances requested. 3. Shoreland Ordinance/Floodplain restrictions (if applicable). 4. Existing vegetation (identify significant trees to be removed). 5. Wetlands, creeks, and ponds (type of wetland, determination of public or private waters, shoreland classifications, depict Ordinary High Water Mark and 100-year flood elevation). 6. Easement locations and type. 7. Locations of existing and proposed utilities. In regards to septic systems, the State of Minnesota requires that there be a 100- foot minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark, a 20-foot minimum setback from the building and a 10-foot minimum setback from the property line. A well must be setback a minimum of three feet from a building, five feet from a property line, 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark, and 50 feet from the septic tank. - In order to evaluate the proposal, the plans must show the existing and proposed utility locations. In addition, the proponent has indicated a 30-foot building pad with no proposed grading. A 50-foot building pad is the recommended standard for reviewing building pad grading. At a minimum, additional information which must be submitted in order to evaluate this development proposal includes an overall grading plan, utility locations, and the locations and sizes of any significant vegetation. • Conclusions Staff has evaluated the proposal as submitted and has concluded the following: 1. The proponent, in order to subdivide the property as proposed, and according to current City Code requirements will be requesting a total of 12 variances from the Board of Appeals. This includes 9 shoreland variances and 3 variances which are required because of the lot frontage requirement on a publicly dedicated street. The proponent has not provided any substantiation for the variances which he would be requesting. 2. The lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning districts, however, the size of the lots, and the setbacks from the lake, vary greatly from what is existing in the neighborhood. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 41,333 square feet (0.95 acres) with a 95-foot setback from the lake as compared to an existing average lot size of 60,144 square feet (1.38 acres) and a setback of 182.5 feet. The City Council in Resolution 868 cited the incompatibility of the 3-lot subdivision with the existing neighborhood as one of their reasons for the denial of the 3-lot subdivision. 3. In order to review this project, Staff must have complete and accurate information to evaluate all aspects of the project. As stated in the letter of May 18, 1988, Staff requested additional information from the proponent. The proponent has not submitted the requested information. 4. Finally, an alternative exists for the development of the property which would reduce the number of variances required and make the lot sizes more consistent with the existing neighborhood. By eliminating the lake frontage of Tract B, the number of variances could be reduced from 12 to 9 and Tracts A and C could be increased in size. An easement could be placed over a portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract B. i5 j c c Freeburg/Perkins Addition 6 June 10, 1988 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the Planning Commission feels that an alternative may have merit, Staff would recommend that the plans be returned to the proponent for revisions based upon Staff recommendations and Commission concerns. If the Planning Commission feels that the number of variances is excessive, that adequate information has not been provided to support the development proposal, and that the proposed R.I.S. is incompatable with the existing neighborhood, then the appropriate action would be for denial. 15oa 1 • Planning COMMiL7.:2i011 Minutes •1 May 22, 1939 .. , -... _ . _ I . .- , • . :. tig.V.12'.:, • -.• -rt.1:::zslii.ik,*x••• 01. . . ,.. C. FREEBURG/PERKINS ADDITTON, by Clayton Freeburg. Regnest for.ra:Regisphred.:,Land Survey of 2.84, acres,...:into 3 lots • , r • e. with itariblitWitA'o"..-be reviewed by the Board of',Appeals •'•'. i r. -,.', s.:*.': . ..- '' withillitehe`4Ra- is.-.2247oning•D istr ict. . LOcatiOn-. 7010 Willow <, - - • Creek.,Road4AA;public hearing . ,.. •. .'',,, '--,l'' .- : i '. •.-;:;. UramrepOt ed(thatqClayton Freeburg Irfciri. iii and,pox a reguest.l. r.oralgArs*Freebt.srg, he. would make the.,presentation .., ,,',....-.-...-. - for the proponent if the Commission approved.- • The Commission was. concerned that: residents had been in attendance. in the past and were not here tonight. !Tram •4 replied that the-.proper notices had been mailed,'.1, ua.s *„.1,.-..... publ r]:che 'in the•paper, and added that Sta.':f had received -, - ,inguirieregardingx.the-proposal ,f,rtilt• Stu' Noluncl -related ii---”' ,-- tu.-the hOuse...locatrion and Don ;Sorenson related.to.the, :--,... ....,..f.,2t.,;...,:...,.,,,,,,...1.•!..1.4: :..fibfli,v135.7.1 i-i.,,rn',.:;•.:eriCiar;,.hoie ,...."4 -'.1.4Sei 6±_g,i•X4 eiiirit;a.6-7 ' '-.. . -..: -410.tii=a4Flptifitkili 2 c ,,..0,1P4 swIgn,`. :•.i";:.:.4,k4'T. Artlig • ntpV615ftl. • ti.t. . -.--;•••-.•-r-..-•':-.,-;!p:..could',belth-.,a ...,'.„,,-.7---•,•...1., ,,:!,,-.,.; ip-.";4,:•-z,,.'''..0-;"--17. . ;! .'''1-5.-:,•;'; Vi,'. ..'"' : - 1503 P1,,''utl:iy Co',nm.i::.:.: ir, Tina`. . 4,ry 22, 1989 Mrs. Freeburg stated that this. wo.; a :et ti,.-,t the family . hi,'. wanted to develop for 35 yearn. • reporti,d that the proponent had ierovided staff with Lte additional information requested 4eeardieg grading, tree inventory, and the location of the present utilities. - !;ram noted that one of the earlier objecticns vas that each of the lots must abut a public road; however, since the original request two other subdivisions had been approved in Eden Prairie; Boulder Pointe and Bell Oaks, which had a private road which served more than one lot. • added that a public road would destroy the site due to the topography of the land and the 50-foot right-of-way required. A private road easement would be filed with the property to service the two eeletiriy homes and the a Freeburg home would have access to willow Creek Road. Ur.am •added that due to the grade uE the site the garage y weui�—not `-he home--and—would tc located adjacent to Willow Creek Road. Uram stated that a second objection to the original _ qrr :it was related to the topog,..,pLy of the land and the's' recommendation that a two. lot subdivision would be mere in;" , conformance with the existing homes. A court case in 1977 , ruled that the lots were not subject to the one-acre ! `i+; • minimum lui: size private covenant of the adjacent properties. Uram noted that the Council did not have the , benefit of the court case information. Pram stated that two of the homes were existing structures. The Freeburg home being a tuck-in unit wou180'' not significantly alter the site based on the grading•.pldp `'." submitted. The property had been deeded to the proponen, _ . in 1973 and he had been unable to use the land. If ther::3' • proposal had been .apprOed originally, the proponent wbu T. have had the benefit ofutilizing this lakeshore propert , for 15 years. The new plan would require 8 shoreland u` • ' variances due to lot;;sizes and sanitary sewer regulation?3 Uram stated that in'order 'to meet the Shore land Ordinance i the property would need to contain 15 acres due to' the 5 ?;i;''i acre minimum lot size requirement; however, he :voted that,'''` none of the lots along Bryant Lake would meet the Shoreland Ordinance today. He added that the proposal beim; pr,•seirteC was not out of character with the existing neighborhood, with the lots being approximately the same • and width. The proposed shoreland setback of 200 feNt would exceed the existing average shoreland ;etl,ack= e.f if,.. feet. poite i P-tied. FEeeburg..irnme,iara • the state' regdiiremekii ig•:�-f$r='the• septic system, hos'+ever;'. he.,:•-. existing homes" did ant. Uram stated that when they : existing septiL :.systems failed the new eyetcros would need I OLi _ --r Planning Commission Minute:. May 22, 1989 (74i to be relocated to meet state requirement.,. staff • recommended the tree inventory include the entire three acre site Uram said the i rol,orient was proposing S0 feet of l.ikeshe:e frontage on 0.yant Lake. An .alternative • existed tc eliminate the lakeshore frontage through an easement for lake access. Uram stated that the lakeshore frontage would add value to the Freeburg property, would nut take away from the view of the lake, and would not be inconsistent with the existing properties. • Anderson asked how many of the variances .applied- to the existing homes. Uram replied 8 of the variances were for tic existing homes. Sandstad asked how the City would know if the septic systems had failed. ::rem replied it would be difficult unless they applied for a permit fur a new system or if a neighbor complained. la'-&tad .f.ked if it would be expensive to relocate the systems. Uram replied yes. • Hallett asked when City water and sewer would be available in this area. Un.am replied the neighborhood world need to retltion fr: eater -and :ewer . Bye asked if there was currently any monitoring of the lake by the P•>,ris>•-. and Recreation Department. Ur:;:a ceplicd he was not aware of ow' monitoring. Hallett sugjcnted recommending monitoring to the Parks and-Recreation. Department. Dodge asked what the requirement was for private sewers. Uram replied 100 feet from the high water mark. Dodge then asked about the minimum lot size outside the HUCA Line of 10 acres to allow for the private septic systems. Uram replied that private septic systems could be used on R1-22 lots within the City and added that these proposed lots exceeded the average R1-22 lot o'ize. Sandstad asked Mrs. Freeburg i, they had given consideration to the easement alternative. Freda:;::; replied that they would like to keep the lakeshore frontage and believed that the property value would be lessened without the lakeshore frontage property. MOTION 1: ;andstad moved, •,?condenl by Dodge to clo.-e the public hearing. Motion carried 0-0-0. MOTII�ON J; ., t L.41 . ,' Sandstad'moved, ..econded':'by Dodge.t'b zecommen'd to the Clty Council approval rf the request. of Clayton' Freeburg for approval of lull:. .. rocl Laid Corvey of the Fr eeburg/Perkins 15�5 Planning CommL..f...1,;c1 MiauteL: 7 M.:y 22, 1989 (71 i Addltion on 2.34 acres for three lut::, based on plans ,lated May 8, 1939, subject It, t:Ic cecNmu;endatio= of the Ctiff Report dated May 19, I9C1 with the addition to the Staff Report that the road eaement ...1,:jrment must be filed with the RLS. Motion carri1 5-n-o. „..... ,_. . ... .. .... ., . . . ,, .. . . _ . . • • _. .• .,.: ,.... .-. • - . — .L'' '-'1,e0,--,•• •• 1 ., ",..,..o.', -....• • ,,,. ..',•• 1,...,64,,,,44.4.•,....:•,. ,. .• • .,. , ....,` . ,•.•,... .. , . . . , ..... . •:!' •••f•-•:.,t, • . :,-",..4;-4.f.,,:g44.,,..-,„-- : . • • ,. . .•,,', , .. :,-... , .-- -• • -•;,, •.::'4,-,!....,,z-.,,:- • • ,. .. . • :,y, , •'' •": , . • .-.. . • . . . . . .'.-.. '. ,.. ..., . . . . ... .. • . " '.f;':,.::.-.1. ...::2-*1...P.•1' ,., -;!•'+.t. I4-,' et .... , . Isuo . . „ JUNE 20,1989 51476 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 5/26/89 11355.82 51477 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 5/26/89 55448.47 78 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 9815.70 6.479 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 165.80 51480 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BOND PAYMENT 123.00 51481 DEBBIE BANDHOLLZ REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 19.00 51482 SHEILA BECKER REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 19.00 51483 CAROL CLARKE REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 17.00 514B4 RUTH HERRMANN REFUND-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 5.00 51485 MINNEGASCD SERVICE 3404.48 51486 MATT NISSEN REFUND-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 5.00 51487 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 51488 JOANN WOESSNER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 6.00 51489 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 82.42 51490 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SCHOOL-ASSESSING DEPT 135.00 51491 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBER/ADMINISTRATIDN 525.00 51492 GREGG NELSON TRAVEL CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBERS 616.00 51493 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBERS 300.00 51494 STDUFFER MADISON HOTEL CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBERS 867.16 51495 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 2.84 51496 MN SAFETY COUNCIL INC CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 200.00 51497 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 11993.56 51498 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 5/26/89 1363.00 51499 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 276.00 51500 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 5/26/89 27605.33 51501 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 5/26/89 4491.00 51502 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER CHILD SUPPORT OEDUCTION 194.76 ' 13 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION PAYROLL 5/26/89 1278.92 . J4 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC JUNE 89 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 14362.55 51505 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 5/26/B9 & 4/14/89 50.00 51506 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLL 5/12/89 & 5/26/89 1000.00 51507 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN JUNE 89 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 24094.86 51508 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 5/26/89 246.50 51509 JASON-NDRTHCO PROP LPII JUNE 89 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 6141.94 51510 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1269.94 51511 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 20140.91 51512 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 19506.84 51513 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 54.12 51514 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 14344.27 51515 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 3432.96 51516 QUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR 12522.89 51517 DR CARL D HAUSEN EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 300.00 51518 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CENTER PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY 3189.4B 51519 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE-HIGHWAY 5 IMPROVEMENTS 275000.00 51520 JEROME KLONNE TRAIL EASEMENT-COUNTY ROAD 1 137.50 51521 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE-HOMEWARD HILLS ROAD 858.00 51522 JENNIFER PAYNE MILEAGE-ROUND LAKE MARINA 102.05 51523 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN CASH REGISTER TAPE-L1QUOR STORES 171.97 51524 WHEELS & THINGS 12 T SHIRTS-RECREATION SUPERVISOR 180.00 51525 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS 01V. SERVICE 40.20 51526 AT&T SERVICE 532.21 51527 MARK AMUNDSON REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE 5.00 '18 STEVEN BROWN REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE 5.00 .9 FAITH ANNE FELTL REFUND-TEAM TENNIS TRAINING 23.00 51530 JANICE GLADDEN REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 22.00 52804945 160 JUNE 20,1989 51531 HILREE HAM:LTON REFUND-OUTDOOR CENTER BUILDING RENTAL 109.60 5 532 CARL JULLIE APRIL & MAY 89 EXPENSES-AOMINISTRATION 143.96 3 GREG KELA REFUND-RACQUETUALL LEAGUE 5.00 5 334 DANIEL KIBBE REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE 5.00 51535 JOHN KOKESH REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE 5.00 51536 GERRY KORB REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 36.00 51537 CATHY LAWLER REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 13.00 51538 PAM LINDEMEIER REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE 5.00 51539 MARY LOMBARD REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 13.00 51540 BETH LOUGHRAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 51541 KAREN MCSHAN REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE 5.00 51542 MERV METCALF REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 54.00 51543 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1476.98 51544 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY -190 ELECTRICAL CONNECTI0NS-S1689.39/ONE 2186.39 1000 FT ELECTRICAL CORD-$454.80-FIRE DEPT 51545 SHELLY SCHUETZ REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE 5.00 51546 DAVID M SIMPSON JR REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE 5.00 51547 LENNICE KEEFE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 51548 LENNICE KEEFE REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 16.00 51549 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 408B.34 51550 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 5433.20 51551 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 8054.71 51552 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 22391.45 51553 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 110.00 51554 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 18235.00 51555 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 683.05 51556 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX 585.25 c 7 RC BEVERAGE-TWIN CITIES MIX 309.85 5. .8 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 31450.31 51559 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE MIX 90.00 51560 THE BLUEBERRY COMPANY -DOWNPAYMENT-ENTERTAINMENT-JULY 4TH 20.00 CELEBRATIDN 51561 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 18.75 51562 JOHN M FREY COMPANY 240 PRESSURE REGULATORS-BUILDING DEPT 5767.10 51563 PREMIER RENT A CAR -FIRST DF THREE INSTALLMENTS-CAR RENTAL- 246.00 TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 51564 BROWN & CRIS INC -SERVICE-HAMILTON RD STREET & STORM SEWER 56754.18 IMPROVEMENTS 51565 KILLMER ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE TRAFFIC 11345.28 SIGNALS 51566 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE-COUNTY RDS 1 & 4 WATERMAIN 173119.17 51567 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO -SERVICE-MITCHELL/RESEARCH RD & WEST 76TH 64652.56 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 51568 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 218.36 51569 AIRLIFT DOORS INC DOOR REPAIR-PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 266.91 51570 AIRSIGNAL INC PAGER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 82.00 51571 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE BOOKS-ASSESSING DEPT 31.50 51572 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO -UNIFORMS-WATER DEPT/INSPECTIDNS DEPT/ 1382.48 -FACILITIES DEPT/STREET DEPT/SEWER DEPT/ -EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE/ COMMUNITY CENTER/MATS-LIQUOR STORE 51573 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BOND PAYMENT 23462.75 5'-'4 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION DUES-PLANNING DEPT 15.00 5 3 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS-STREET DEPT 119.10 51576 ANDERSON'S GARDEN EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT/SOD-CEMETERY OPERATIONS 45.92 43310115 /5U7'1 JUNE 20,1989 51577 AQUA ENGINEERING INC -SERVICE-LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEM-FIRE 200.00 STATIONS 78 ARTISANS INC 30 T SHIRTS-YOUTH TENNIS 93.88 .579 ASTLEFORD INTL INC -CARBURETOR KIT/EQUIPMENT PARTS-EQUIPMENT 105.25 MAINTENANCE 5I580 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY TOUCH UP PAINT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 4.49 5I58I BACON'S ELECTRIC CO WELL VENT FAN REPAIRS-WATER DEPT 608.48 51582 BARTON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-HIGHWAY 5 TO COUNTY RD 4 34398.56 51583 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -FLASHLIGHTS/CHARGERS/BATTERIES-WATER DEPT 698.04 SEWER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51584 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 1777.54 51585 JAMES BITTNER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 30.00 51586 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-ENGINEERING DEPT/ 193.26 -ASSESSING DEPT/POLICE DEPT/PLANNING DEPT/ FORESTRY DEPT 51587 THOMAS J BLAIR FIRE CALLS 879.00 51588 LEE BRANDT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 240.00 51589 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE-DELL ROAD 1671.75 51590 GEROLD BROS REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 1630.00 51591 NATHAN D BUCK SOFTBALL & VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 579.00 51592 BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL INC MAY 89 WASTE DISPOSAL 871.00 51593 MATT BULLOCK CONTRACTING CO SERVICE-STARING LAKE PARK 61452.48 51594 BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC JULY 89 COPIER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT 182.75 51595 BUTLER PAPER COMPANY XEROX PAPER-POLICE DEPT 761.00 51596 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE-HUMAN RESOURCES 120.00 5I597 CENTER FOR URBAN POLICY RESEARCH BOOK-PLANNING DEPT 44.90 51598 CENTURION TECHNOLDGY SYSTEMS INC -SQUAD CAR SET-UP-POLICE DEPT/SET UP 3303.28 -SURVEILLANCE VAN-$872.00-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 51599 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS TRIMMER-WATER DEPT/CHAIN-FORESTRY DEPT 288.95 51600 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY LEGAL ADS-HAMILTON ROAD 167.40 51601 CIMLINE INC HOSE & COVER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 309.27 51602 JAMES 6 CLARK MILEAGE-POLICE DEPT 30.50 51603 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC -WHEEL CYLINDER/BEARINGS/BRAKE SHOES/SEALS 2051.BI -WASHERS/NUTS/CLUTCH PACKS/ADAPTER KITS- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51604 COMMERICAL ASPHALT CO BLACKTOP-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1904.14 51605 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE-I-494 TRAFFIC STUDY 15000.00 51606 COMPUTER KNOW HOW SOFTWARE SERVICE-FIRE DEPT 160.00 51607 CONCEPT MICROFILM INC MICROFILMING-ENGINEERING DEPT 2215.20 51608 CONCRETE RAISING INC CURBING-FIRE STATION 125.00 5I609 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINT/POLICE DEPT 444.46 51610 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC 2 AIR PACKS-WATER DEPT 635.90 51611 COPY EQUIPMENT INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT/BUILDING 461.74 DEPT 51612 CORONET MTI FILM & VIDEO INC VIDEO CASSETTE-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 400.50 51613 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC MAY 89 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 560.00 51614 CURB MASTERS INC -REMOVE & REPLACE DRIVEWAY-WATER TREATMENT 880.00 PLANT 51615 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC -COTTER PIN/DRILL BITS/SCREWS/PENS/SCREW 229.63 GAUGES/KEYS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 516I6 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 11650.72 5'&17 TOM DAHLEN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 225.00 .8 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/FACILITIES 178.11 DEPT 14776299 16676 51619 CRAIG W DAWSON MAY & JUNE EXPENSES/MILEAGE-ADMINISTRATION 77.75 51620 DECORATIVE DESIGNS JUNE B9 SERVICE-CITY HALL 49.50 51621 DIAMOND ACCEPTANCE -JULY B9 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT-POLICE 300.00 DEPT 5I622 EU6ENE DIETZ MAY 89 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 210.95 3 523 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHLORINE-WATER DEPT I293.00 \.624 DORSEY & WHITNEY LEGAL SERVICE 1780.00 51625 PAULA DUNNUM AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 200.00 5I626 DUSTCOATIN6 INC DUSTCOATIN6-STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT I3650.00 51627 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRINTING-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION INSERTS 50.00 51628 EDEN PRAIRIE CRIME FUND REIMBURSE EDEN PRAIRIE CRIME FUND 25.00 51629 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT 214.08 51630 DEB EDLUND MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 275.00 51631 ELK RIVER CDNCRETE PRODUCTS CEMENT CHAMBERS-SEWER DEPT 920.00 51632 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC JACKET/PVC BOOTS-WATER DEPT 32.90 51633 EMPRO CORPORATION SPRAYER REPAIR-FACILITIES DEPT 218.50 51634 FAIRVIEW BLOOD TESTS-POLICE DEPT 49.00 51635 J N FAUVER COMPANY REBUILD TRANSMISSION-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE I525.00 51636 FLEX COMPENSATION INC SERVICE-HUMAN SERVICES 1200.00 51637 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 275.I0 51638 STUART FOX SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 225.00 51639 JOHN FRANE MAY 89 EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 200.00 51640 G & K SERVICES -COVERALLS/TOWELS-WATER DEPT/PARK MAINT/ 472.31 LIQUOR STORE 51641 GETTING TO KNOW YOU ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 99.00 51642 JAMIESON GIEFER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 255.00 51643 JOE GLEASON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 330.00 51644 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC MAY 89 EXPENSES-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1814.67 51645 GOPHER OIL COMPANY HYDRAULIC OIL/LUBRICANT-WATER DEPT B3B.00 51646 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 285.00 547 MARK GRANOWSKI SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 195.00 .)48 GRANT MERRITT & ASSOCIATES LTD -MAY B9 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 7865.00 LANDFILL 51649 ALAN GRAY MAY 89 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00 51650 THE DALE GREEN CO BLACK DIRT-STREET MAINT 37.50 51651 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 194.87 51652 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 309.98 51653 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC -SERVICE-PIONEER TRAIL & COUNTY RO 18 49025.27 -DRAINAGE STUDIES/HAMILTON RD/BLUFF RD/ -COUNTY RD 4 & PIONEER TRAIL WATERMAIN/ -CEDAR RIDGE STORM SEWER/RIVERVIEW RD/ STARING LAKE PARK 51654 JIM HATCH SALES CO BLACKTOP LUTE RAKES-STREET MAINTENANCE 25.63 51655 HEALTH & HOME ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 69.34 51656 LAURIE HELLING EXPENSES-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 25.95 51657 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POSTAGE-VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATIONS 36.30 51658 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 197.00 51659 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 960.00 51660 D C HEY COMPANY INC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE DEPT 30.42 51661 HOFFERS INC FIELD MARKING PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 484.65 51662 HOME MAINTENANCE REPAIR REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT 30.00 51663 IBM DICTAPHONE REPAIR-PARKS & RECREATION DEPT 145.25 51664 IBM CORPORATION JULY 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 424.32 5I665 ICMA SUBSCRIPTION-ADMINISTRATION 426.00 ^754724 JUNE 20,1989 51666 ICMA DUES-ADMINISTRATION 291.25 51667 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 6272 -CITY SHARE OF POSTAGE & PRINTING OF 4625.24 -SUMMER BROCHURES/ROOM RENTAL-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 668 INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES INC EQUIPMENT REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT 23.10 51669 GARY ISAACS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 546.00 51670 JERRY'S NEWMARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 104.79 51671 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/WATER DEPT 200.81 51672 JUSTUS LUMBER CO TREATED TIMBERS-PARK MAINTENANCE 42.82 51673 KEVIN KASTELLE KARATE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 364.00 51674 JOHN A KAZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 90.00 51675 CHRIS KELLEY NAFTA DUES-FIRE DEPT 1241.00 51676 SCOTT KIPP MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 8.45 51677 TOM KLITZKE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 45.00 51678 BRADLEY KNUTSON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 195.00 51679 KRAEMER'S HOME CENTER -GAS CANS/FUNNELS/SCREWS/CLAMPS/NUTS/HOSE/ 217.79 -NDZZLE/PICTURE FRAMES/TWINE/RUBBER MALLETS-WATER DEPT/STREET MAINT/FIRE DEPT 51680 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC MAY 89 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 5274.48 51681 LA HASS MFG & SALES INC AUTO CRANE-SEWER DEPT 4268.00 51682 CINDY LANENBERG MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 50.50 51683 LAKESIDE FUSSEE CORPORATION FLARES-POLICE DEPT 499.66 51684 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD -APRIL B9 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 10233.56 LANDFILL 51685 BRADLEY E LARSON FIRE CALLS 857.00 51686 LEEF BROS INC COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 87.20 51687 LORENZ BUS SERVICE INC BUS SERVICE-ADULT PROGRAMS 121.00 51688 JAMES R LININGER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 135.00 489 LOGIS APRIL B9 SERVICE 6364.04 o9O LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC -BACKHOE BUCKET RIPPER TEETH/SKID-PARK 127.29 MAINTENANCE/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51691 LYMAN LUMBER CO -PLYWOOD/TREATED TIMBERS/TREATED PLYWOOD- 315.94 SEWER DEPT/STREET DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE 51692 M-V GAS CO GAS-OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE PARK 195.00 51693 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC DRIVE SHAFT COUPLER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 193.39 51694 THE MANAGEMENT CENTER CONFERENCE-CITY HALL 3600.00 51695 MASYS CORPORATION SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE-POLICE DEPT 1295.00 51696 MCGRAW HILL BOOK COMPANY BOOK-PLANNING DEPT 47.75 51697 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 65.10 51698 MERLINS HARDWARE HANK -CLAMPS/WIRE/CLEANING CLOTHS-PARK MAINT/ 126.89 COMMUNITY CENTER 51699 METRO PRINTING INC -PRINTING-CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION- 324.00 FIRE DEPT 51700 METRO SALES INC -MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/EQUIPMENT REPAIR- 907.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 51701 METRO SYSTEMS 6 CHAIRS-STREET DEPT 1680.00 51702 MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSN OF REALTORS BOOKS-ASSESSING DEPT I5.90 51703 MID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS & EQ MICROFILM PAPER/TONER-CITY HALL I17.01 51704 MID CENTRAL -150 GALS OF FOAM-$I462.50/8 WRENCHES- 1937.70 $475.2O-FIRE DEPT 51705 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO TUBING-SEWER DEPT 72.00 51706 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP SEAL COATING-STREET MAINTENANCE 43.49 51707 MINNESOTA ASSN OF WOMEN POLICE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 55.00 708 MINNESOTA BLUEPRINT PRINTINB-ENGINEERING DEPT 163.33 09 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP -JUNE 89 PAGER SERVICE-SEWER DEPT/WATER 210.50 DEPT/POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT 4737798 150'1 I� 51710 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -5 WRENCH HOLDERS-$295.00/100 FACE MASKS- 3215.30 -$2595.00/FIRE EXTINQUISHERS-$322.00-SEWER DEPT/WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1-'71I MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 634.40 12 MINNESOTA VALLEY WHOLESALE INC TREES-PARK MAINTENANCE 79.60 51713 TONY MOLITOR LICENSE-PARK MAINTENANCE 7.50 51714 JOSEPH MORIN REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 53.92 51715 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 131.37 51716 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GROUNDSMASTER TRACTDR MOWER-PARK MAINT 43295.00 51717 MUNITECH INC PROPELLER METER REPAIR-WATER DEPT 130.30 51718 NATIONAL CITY BANK OF MPLS BOND PAYMENT 12565.00 51719 NATIONAL SCREENPRINT 68 T SHIRTS-ORGANIZED AHTLETICS 400.00 51720 NATIDNWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES 730.38 51721 DOUG NORD VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 54.00 51722 JP NOREX INC SERVICE-WATERMAIN REPAIR-DELL ROAD 2140.05 51723 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE-BAKER ROAD/SUNSET CIRCLE 3577.50 51724 NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA N A BONO PAYMENT 200894.00 51725 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC -MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-PUBLIC WORKS/ 181.00 CALCULATOR-ENGINEERING DEPT 51726 BUD OLSON AWARDS PLAQUES-ORGANIZED ATHETICS 150.00 51727 DAVE ORLDWSKY SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 135.00 51728 HARRY ORTLOFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 2I8.00 51729 PC CONNECTION COMPUTER SOFTWARE-POLICE DEPT 161.55 51730 THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY FILM RENTAL-POOL LESSONS 18.50 51731 PATRICIA PIDCOCK EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER 382.00 51732 PITNEY BOXES INC -3RD QUARTER 89 POSTAGE METER RENTAL-CITY 109.50 HALL 51733 POMMER COMPANY INC PLAQUES/TROPHIES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 659.04 ,5+734 PRAIRIE CYCLE INC BICYCLE MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 120.00 35 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -REPAIR 6:RAGE LIGHTS-POLICE BUILDING/ 273.60 -REPAIR FANS-PUBLIC WORKS BLDG/INSTALL DOORBELL-FIRE STATION 51736 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -MOUNTING TAPE/PLASTIC SHEETING/BROOM 174.17 -HANGERS/PAINT/PAINT THINNER/BRUSHES/ VACUUM/CURTAINS/HOOKS/RINGS-FIRE DEPT 51737 PRAIRIE HARDWARE DOOR CHIMES/WIRE-LIQUOR STORE 34.86 51738 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -SPRAY NOZZLES/CATCHES/TURNBUCKLES/SCREW 246.14 -HOOKS/CAULKING/DUST MASKS/BOLTS/NUTS/ -WASHERS/BROOM/DUST PANS/LAWN RACKS/ -SHOVELS/PRUNER/SCREWS/PAINT-PARK MAINT/ OUTDOOR CENTER 51739 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -METAL STRIPS/KEYS/MOUNTING TAPE/BATTERIES 207.40 -SOAP/VELCRO/SPONGE/POLISHING CLOTH/ROPE/ -MEASURING CUP/BRUSH/TOTE BOXES/PLASTIC CONTAINERS/SCRAPER/BLADES-POLICE DEPT 51740 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -LETTERS/CORKS/VISE GRIPS/GLOVES/RUST 448.37 -REMOVER/BROOM/SLEDGE HAMMER/BELT HOLSTER- SEWER DEPT 51741 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -CHEESE CLOTH/SPRINGS/BELT/WIRE/DUCT TAPE/ 139.77 NAILS/COPPER TUBING/TAPE-STREET DEPT 51742 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -SCREWDRIVERS/HOOKS/NOZZLES/BATTERIES/ 518.80 -CONNECTORS/SPRINKLERS/GLASSES/TAPE/SPONGE/ -TOWEL/DISH CLOTH/DISHES/COUPLINGS/PLUG/ BOOSTER CABLE/BRUSH-WATER DEPT _.208602 JUNE 20,1989 51743 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING -PRINTING FORMS-FIRE DEPT/ASSESSING DEPT/ 258.31 i PLANNING DEPT '44 THOMAS PRENDERGAST SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 45.00 '51745 PRENTICE HALL INFORMATION SERVICE BOOKS-HUMAN RESOURCES 863.10 51746 J A PRICE AGENCY INC LIABILITY INSURANCE-LIQUOR STORES 16912.00 51747 RADIO SHACK HEADPHONES-POLICE DEPT 12.95 51748 SCOTT REIN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 375.00 51749 REGAL CLEANERS BLANKET CLEANING-POLICE DEPT 150.45 51750 RFD PET & SUPPLY CO CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 51.11 51751 RIDGE DOOR SALES & SERVICE INC DOOR REPAIRS-FIRE STATIONS 637.97 51752 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-MITCHELL/RESEARCH ST IMPROVEMENTS 7176.52 -ROWLAND RD/OLD SHADY OAK RD/HIDDEN GLEN -3RD ADDITION/GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE EXTENSION/COUNTY ROAD I WATERMAIN 51753 RIGS & SQUADS LIGHT BAR REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 34.00 51754 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO -DRUM-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/REPAIR BOOMS 4950.20 -ON AERIAL LIFT TRUCK-$4902.90-FORESTRY DEPT 51755 ROAD RESCUE INC FIRST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 638.50 51756 ROBINSON PLUMBINS SUPPLY CO -COPPER TUBING/VALVES/PVC PIPE/COUPLINGS/ 70.66 TEFLON TAPE/RODS-WATER DEPT 51757 ROLLINS OIL CO GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 9561.62 51758 SAFETY KLEEN CORP -TOWELS/CHOKE CLEANER-EQUIPMENT MAINT/PARK 178.75 MAINTENANCE 51759 ST CRDIX RECREATION CO -25 PICNIC TABLES/12 BENCHES-PARKS DEPT/ 5425.00 CITY HALL 51760 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/ 56.27 COMMUNITY CENTER SANCD INC -CLEANING SUPPLIES/CARPET DRYER-$224.25- 273.15 FACILITIES DEPT 51762 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE 257.50 51763 SAYLORS SOFTWAREFIRST COMPUTER UPGRADE-PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 600.00 51764 SCSCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 93.98 i 51765 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC CEMENT-STREET MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE 341.49 51766 KEVIN SCHMIEG -APRIL & MAY 89 EXPENSES-INSPECTIONS/ 400.00 SAFETY/FACILITIES DEPT 51767 WILLIAM SCHROEDDL -CANOE TRIP GUIDE-OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING 150.00 T LAKE PARK • 51768 WILBUR W SCHULTZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 120.00 51769 SEELYE PLASTICS INC PVC PIPE-WATER DEPT 11.45 51770 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC -SERVICE-INDOOR POOL REMODELING/COMMUNITY 3735.69 CENTER REPAIR 51771 SHENEHON GOODLUND TAYLOR INC APPRAISAL FEE-MILLER PROPERTIES 4700.00 51772 DEAN SHERMAN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 15.00 51773 SIMON LADDER TOWERS INC -PARTIAL PAYMENT ON LADDER TRUCK CHASSIS- 117370.00 FIRE DEPT 51774 SIMPLICITY SYSTEMS INC COMPUTER SOFTWARE-ENGINEERING DEPT 204.75 51775 STEVEN R SINELL MAY 89 EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 104.50 51776 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -DRILL/BATTERY/PUNCHES/SCREWDRIVER/RATCHET 567.95 -WRENCHES/TEST LITES/TIN SNIPS/SOCKET SETS- WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51777 SNYOER DRUG STORES INC PHOTOS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 7.59 78 JODI SORRELL TENNIS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 168.00 . .79 SOUTHWEST AUTO SUPPLY INC -EXHAUST PIPES/FILTERS/TRUCK TOPPER- 1834.59 -$392.34/LIGHTS/RADIATOR HOSE/SPARK PLUGS/ -BRAKE PADS/DOOR KNOBS/JUMPER CABLES/TOOL 17835305 j -SET/CLAMPS/BELTS/CABLE TIES-WATER DEPT/ EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/FACILITIES DEPT 51780 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -LEGAL ADS-PLANNING DEPT/ADVERTISING-CITY 2395.52 HALL/FIRE DEPT/LIQUOR STORES 11 SPORTS WORLD USA ICE PACKS-ORGANIIED ATHLETICS 36.25 S.,82 STANOARD SPRING COMPANY -TOP PLATES/NUTS/CLIP BOLTS/REPAIR AXLES/ 1527.70 BUSHINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51783 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE ED -RELAY SWITCHES/FLASHLIGHT REPAIR/HEARING 2140.19 -PROTECTION EAR MUFFS/LIGHTBARS/ADAPTER -KITS/LIGHTS/MICROPHONES/PUSH BUMPERS- POLICE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51784 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC -SERVICE-DELL ROAD/SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD 6579.54 STUDY 51785 BARB STRUWE MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 3.75 51786 SPS COMPANIES BUSHINGS/VALVES/ADAPTER KITS-PARK MAINT 335.43 51787 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET -SENSOR CONTROL/BEARING/PLATE ASSEMBLY/ 531.52 -SEALS/BOLTS/SPRINGS/SWITCHES/FLYWHEEL/ -ENGINE REPAIR/HEATER CONTROL LEVER- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51788 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC -WASTE DISPOSAL-OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING 62.14 LAKE PARK 51789 SW METRO TRANSIT -REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMUTER TICKET 12.50 DEPOSITED IN CITY'S ACCOUNT 51790 TARGET STORES -UTILITY CART-OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE 50.00 PARK 51791 TENNANT COMPANY SIDE DOOR SKIRT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 12.20 51792 THOMPSON PLUMBING REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 40.00 51793 THORPE REALTORS -REFUND-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 25.00 SUBSCRIPTION '4 TJ'S OF EDEN PRAIRIE EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 38.58 /5 NANCY TOUVE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 330.00 51796 VALERIE TRADER AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 150.00 51797 TURNQUIST PAPER CO CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT 873.70 51798 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT 105.15 51799 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 335.30 51800 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 134.83 51801 ALVIN VAN HORN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 90.00 51802 VERNON COMPANY DECALS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 513.60 51803 VESSCO INC -MOTORS/GASKETS/BEARINGS/GEAR BOX/SEAR 4947.54 -MOTOR/COUPLINGS/CHLDRINE CYLINDERS-WATER DEPT 51804 VICOM INC JULY 89 WIRE MAINTENANCE-PUBLIC WORKS BLDG 5.25 51805 VOHNOUTKA ROOFING REPAIR HOSE TOWER LEAK-FACILITIES DEPT 421.7E 51806 VOSS ELECTRIC CO LIGHT BULBS-FACILITIES DEPT 36.68 51807 WALOOR PUMP & EQUIP CO PUMP REPAIR-SEWER DEPT 601.20 51808 WALLY'S SPORTS -T-SHIRTS/TANK TOPS-ROUND LAKE BEACH/RILEY 570.00 LAKE BEACH 51809 MR JEFFREY WALZ -SERVICE-SUNDAY VARIETY IN THE PARKS FLYER 75.00 RECREATION SUPERVISOR 51810 WATER PRODUCTS CO -HOSE/HYDRANT/ADAPTERS/COUPLINGS/MEASURING 6056.90 -TAPE/WRENCHES/WASHERS/RUBBER VALVES/ -NOZZLE CAPS/GREASE/PLUNGERS/4 1. 1000 6AL -METERS-$520.00/CONNECTIONS/6 1 1/2' 1000 6AL METERS-$I909.44-WATER DEPT 3725 150rG JUNE 20,1989 51811 PAUL MELIN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 195.00 F''12 SANDRA F WERTS NILEAGE-SENIOR CENTER 92.90 3 J DAVID WHITEFORD MILEAGE-CONNUNITY CENTER 37.75 51814 CITY OF WOODBURY EXPENSES-COUNCILNENBERS 160.29 51615 XEROX CORP TONER-CITY HALL 87.00 51816 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE -FIRST AID SUPPLIES-ROUND LAKE BEACH/RILEY 237.75 :AKE BEACH/WATER DEPT 48284 VOID OUT CHECK 65.00- 51042 VOID OUT CHECK 50.00- 51388 VOID OUT CHECK 585.00- 51399 VOID OUT CHECK 99.75- 51412 VOID OUT CHECK 161.97- -15103 $1723164.10 INN DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS GENERAL 352044.30 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 3750.53 12 CERTIFICATE DEBT FD 1780.00 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 111400.25 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 72858.94 20 CEMETERY OPERATIONS 23.92 21 POLICE DRUG FORFEITURE 1799.05 22 STATE AID CONST 39098.56 30 CASH PARK FEES 720.00 31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 74923.88 33 UTILITY BOND FUND 183732.59 39 86 FIRE STATION CONST 120335.04 44 UTILITY DEBT FUND 197315.25 45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARB 293.00 47 80 G 0 DEBT FUND 331.50 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 176091.46 52 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND 39275.00 55 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND ARB 50.00 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 290009.59 73 WATER FUND 48614.64 77 SEWER FUND 8468.54 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 248.06 $1723164.10 I1- CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-103 A Resolution recommending the nomination of Edward J. Kranz to the Regional Transit Board. WHEREAS, Edward J. Kranz has served since 1984 as a member of the Regional Transit Board representing Metropolitan Council Districts 15 and 16; and, WHEREAS, Edward J. Kranz has been one of the key leaders to foster and encourage transit service in suburban areas; and WHEREAS, Edward J. Kranz demonstrated his ability to advise and work cooperatively with local government; and WHEREAS, Edward J. Kranz has provided leadership to the Regional Transit Board in setting policies and standards for improving the coordination, availability and delivery of transit service in the Metropolitan area; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota that the City Council recommends the nomination of Edward J. Kranz representing District H, consisting of Metropolitan Council District 15 and 16, to the Regional Transit Board. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on day of , 1989. Mayor Gary D. Peterson Attest City Clerk Seal 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Preserve Area G Design Review Committee The Developer's Agreement for the Preserve Area G (Burger King/Skippers area along 169 & Prairie Center Drive) calls for a design review committee consisting of one representative from the City Council, one Staff member, and one member representing the Preserve. At this time we need replacement of both the Council representative and the Preserve representative. George Bentley previously participated and before him, Paul Redpath. We would suggest that the Council select one of their members, or if desired, delegate to a member of the Planning Commission and Ed Flaherty be the representative for the Preserve. Ed Flaherty is currently the land owner of the remaining open land in the Preserve Area G area. While there are no pending review items at this time, we have had preliminary discussions with individuals who may require the activation of this group at any time. 15 - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Counc FROM: Eugene A. Dietz DATE: June 15, 1989 RE: Mitchell Lake and Red Rock Lake Normal Ordinary Water Level In accordance with the Council's request that the lake elevations for Mitchell and Red Rock be reevaluated, we have determined that the request can be accommodated. MITCHELL LAKE The Chain-of-Lakes project proposed a normal water elevation for Mitchell Lake of 870.0. This was based on a 4-foot fluctuation to flood stage and a nominal 2-foot safety factor between flood stage and the lowest home elevation adjacent. The design was in fact conservative and did not take into account the storage capacity of the marshland/storage area on the north side of TH 5. Barr Engineering has reevaluated their design, utilizing the marsh area for flood storage, and has determined that a 1.5-foot increase in the normal water elevation to 871.5 can be accommodate (see attached correspondence from Barr Engineering). In fact, if the normal water elevation is set at 871.5, the actual flood elevation for a 100-year event ::`11 be 873.8, which leaves 2.5 feet of clearance to the low basement' elevation at 7990 Island Road (elevation 876.3). The following criteria for this elevation change would be as follows: 1. The culvert that connects the marsh area to Mitchell Lake is currently 24 inches in diameter. The TH 5 improvement project anticipated replacing that culvert, but in order to accommodate the lake level change, the pipe size needs to be increased to 30 inches. The cost to do this would be about $2,000.00 and MnDOT may or may not require the City to pay that cost. 2. A modification in the outlet structure from Mitchell Lake can be constructed for less than $500.DO, which would allow for the lake level to increase. This would result in the outlet structure for the lake to be submerged and could result in a frozen pipe condition. However, the danger of that situation occurring and causing significant problems is limited, but present. We can monitor the situation and make corrections in the future if necessary, since the actual full impact of the design storm would not occur until full development around Mitchell Lake. 1 1610 3. If Council desires to pursue the permanent water elevation change, it would be necessary to apply to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to obtain a permit. Since the general perameters of the DNR regulations allows the water elevation to vary between 870.0 and 871.5, it would seem that the permit should be attainable. 4. If the Council desires to pursue the lake elevation change, it should be with the understanding that a certain margin of safety will be eliminated as a result. On the heels of the July 1987 super storm, a conservative approach to storm water design is not totally inappropriate. However, the 100-year design storm with a 2-foot safety factor has been our standard criteria since implementation of our water management plan in 1970 and is consistent with many areas of the country. This criteria is therefore a common standard of the industry and should not increase our liability exposure beyond what we would experience in other areas of our city. On June 14, 1989, we determined that the present elevation of Mitchell Lake is 868.4. Based on an increased outlet structure elevation to 871.5, if we get sufficient rainfall, there would be a net change in the lake level of approximately 3 feet. RED ROCK LAKE The acceptable DNR range of the permanent lake elevation for Red Rock is 839.0 to 840.5. At the time of the public hearing held before the watershed district, a Mr. Jenkins accompanied by his attorney made a point of requesting that the lake elevation be as low as possible. Since there was not other vocal comments to the contrary, the elevation was set at 839.0.' Mr. Jenkins no longer resides on Red Rock Lake and the tree damage that occurred because of high water elevation has been done. Therefore, it would not be inappropriate to change the permanent elevation. Mr. Bill Edes spoke to this issue at the council meeting at which the investigation was authorized and it is his request that the lake level be increased by 6 inches to one foot. Based on the information available to me, the elevation could be increased one foot without a negative impact to existing (living) vegetation. SUMMARY In summary, the specific request made by homeowners can be accommodated from a technical standpoint. One issue which was not addressed above has to do with easement acquisition. One overriding factor was prevalent when the decision was made to keep the lake elevations at their lowest point for both Mitchell and Red Rock -- we do not have permanent drainage and utility easement around the entire perimeter of either lake. Mr. Pauly can tell you the reality of case law that deals with "taking" private property for public use. Prior to the Chain-of-Lakes project, neither lake had a permanent outlet and certainly a case could be made that the changes noted above would not have any greater impact on the adjacent properties than what could happen 2 if the outlets were not in place and the water elevations flucuate with nature. However, a case from the opposite stand point could also be made. The attached letter from Lee Johnson who represents US Homes/Orin Thompson is an example. Because of the set back requirement from floodplain elevation on adjacent water bodies, a certain building set back is discernible if the water elevation is 870.0. However, at 871.5, the water surface encroaches on portions of the property by as much as 10-15 feet, depending on the slope of the land adjacent. This in turn has an impact on the set back of homes and a ripple affect on location and lot size in the balance of the subdivision. You can expect that Lee Johnson will request that either the elevation of the lake remain the same or that a variance be considered to the set back requirement. The latter would seem to be a reasonable approach, since the project was submitted in good faith at a point when the elevation had been officially established at 870.0. While most residents that would appear at the meeting will not agree, there are a number of good reasons to leave the elevation as is. However, even though we risk some claims of inverse condemnation, I believe that the vast majority of adjacent landowners would welcome a lake level increase and that those risks are relatively small (we have received petitions signed by 119 people representing approximately 79 addresses around Mitchell Lake, requesting the increase in elevation and only the US Homes project in opposition). EAD:ssa 3 1619, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District 0 1, Engineering Advisor:Barr Engineering Co. 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis,MN 55435 7}"" 830-0555 Legal Advisor:Popham.Haik,Schnobrich&Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower Minneapolis.MN 55402 333-4800 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eugene Dietz, Director of Public Works City of Eden Prairie FROM: Bob Obermeyer, Barr Engineering Co. SUBJECT: Mitchell Lake and Mitchell Lake Marsh Normal Water Lev is DATE: June 13, 1989 The City of Eden Prairie has requested the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District to analyze the effects of raising the normal elevation of Mitchell Lake on the calculated 100-year frequency flood elevation. The Eden Prairie Chain of Lakes project provided an outlet for Mitchell Lake and ' established the normal elevation of the lake at elevation 870.0. This elevation is 1.5 feet lower than the natural ordinary high water elevation of the lake established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and was established in accordance with the criteria set forth by the MDNR. The City and Watershed District require that structures adjacent to the creek and lakes have basement floor elevations set a minimum of two feet above the calculated flood elevation of the water body. The existing home located at 7990 Island Road is the low structure adjacent to Mitchell Lake and has a walk-out elevation of 876.3 (from City of Eden Prairie survey). The normal elevation of Mitchell Lake was set to provide the necessary flood storage for the critical 100-year frequency event, which is a snow melt event, and the required two feet of freeboard or factor of safety to the low structure. In calculating the Mitchell Lake flood elevation, utilizing the 151� MEMO-Mr. E. Dietz, City of Eden Prairie. June 14, 1989 Page 2 storage avallshlc in the Mitchell Lake Marsh by creating an equalized condition between the lake and m..::h was not considered. The residents riparian to Mitchell lake have requested that the normal level of the lake be raised from between 1.0 to 1.5 feet from the elevation established by the Chain of Lakes project. The City has requested a reanalysis of the stormwater management plan for the Mitchell Lake system utilizing the available storage in the Mitchell Lake Marsh and the assumption that the lake would be raised as requested by the residents. It is our understanding that the existing 24-inch culvert beneath T.H. 5 between the marsh and Mitchell Lake is to be replaced in conjunction with the T.H. 5 upgrading. The preliminary construction information proposes that the normal elevation of the marsh be established at elevation 871.4. Our calculations indicate that if the normal elevation of Mitchell Lake is set at 871.0 and the outlet for the marsh is set at elevation 871.4, with the outlet pipe from the marsh acting as an equalizer pipe, the resultant flood elevation of Mitchell Lake and the marsh is 873.3. For the critical event, ' 398 acre-feet of flood storage is required with an outflow discharge of 27 c.f.s, being provided by the Mitchell Lake outlet. This results in 3.0 feet of freeboard or factor of safety provided between the calculated flood elevation and the low structure. The City also requested that we determine the flood elevation if both the lake and marsh were set at elevation 871.5. Our calculations indicate that with this normal elevation, 420 acre-feet of flood storage is required with a 27 c.f.s. outflow discharge provided by the Mitchell Lake outlet. This results in a flood elevation of 873.8. At this elevation, 2.5 feet of freeboard or factor of safety is provided between the flood elevation and the low structure. It is recommended that a minimum 30-inch pipe be installed to provide the required equalized condition at flood stage between the lake and marsh. ( A:2327285/MITCHELL.WP/BCO /514 us•Home® Thompson Land Development Division 300 South County Road 18 • Suite 870 • St.Louis Park,Minnesota 55426 • (612)544.7333 May 8, 1989 rk:Mr. Gene Dietz . Director of Public Works CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Dietz: As additional information for your review of the Ordinary High Water Mark for Mitchell Lake, I am enclosing the proposed preliminary plat for our property on the west side of the lake. We have developed this plan with City staff over the last 18 months. You can readily see that changes to the OHWM as it relates to building set back lines will have a dramatic imp-at on our development. The planning time and effort incurred to date and the potential loss of buildable land both can be translated into a significant economic problem for us. We urge the City not to have a knee—jerk reaction to the drought conditions of the past few years. The lake needs to go through a number of wet/dry cycles and should be evaluated over a 15-20 year period. Please keep me informed. Thank you. Sincere L e W. J son Sr. Vice President/Project Manager LWJ/lds Enclosure Hustad DEVEIOPMENI June 20, 1989 Mr. Carl J. Jullie City Manager City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Bluffs West Seventh Addition, Eden Prairie Dear Carl, I have been asked to describe for you my intention with respect to the future use of Outlot A, Bluffs West Seventh Addition. It is my intention to gift this parcel along with other parcels along Purgatory Creek for the purpose of creating a linear park system. I am anxious to discuss this project with you in the near future. Sincerely, /4/0 Wallace H. Hustad President Hustad Development Corporation WHH/am 7460 Market Place Drive•Eden Prairie,MN 55344.941.4383 Bluffs West 7th Addition DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1989, by Hustad Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 4.66 acres and Preliminary Plat of 26.3 acres into eleven (11) single family lots, three (3) outlots, and road right-of-way, all 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 #9-89, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated March 31, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 4, 1989, 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 and City acknowledge that development of Outlots B and C, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, will take place in the future and that Developer shall return to the City for review of such development through prescribed City procedures in place at the time development of said Outlots shall be proposed. 4. Concurrent with and as part of the final plat for the property, Developer agrees submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a "drainage easement for conservancy purposes" to be located on Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, in favor of the City, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said easement shall be represented as such on the final plat for the property and shall also be represented in written form as depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. Developer agrees to file said written conservancy easement on the property with Hennepin County and provide proof cf filing of said written easement to the City prior to release by City of any grading permit on the property. 5. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. Developer acknowledges that a total of 815 caliper inches of trees are planned to be removed from the property, caused by the development of the eleven (11) single family lots depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer and City agree that it is not practical to locate all 815 caliper inches of replacement trees on said eleven (11) lots. Therefore, Developer agrees to replace 163 of said B15 caliper inches of trees on the eleven (11) lots proposed for single family development, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Further, Developer agrees that the remaining 652 caliper inches of replacement trees shall be replaced within Outlots B and C, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, as part of the development of said outlots. And further, Developer acknowledges that said 652 caliper inches of replacement trees shall be in addition to the amount of caliper inches, if any, which must be replaced due to development of said Outlots B and C. All said replacement shall be accomplished in accordance with the Tree Replacement Policy as amended, or supplemented, at the time of development of said outlots. 7. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and obtain the Cabriole Center SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT This Supplement to Developer's Agreement made and entered into as of this day of , 1989, by and between Lexington-Cabriole Limited Partnership, an Illinois limited partnership, hereinafter "Developer," transferees of the property as described in the developer's agreement between James E. Sutherlin, an individual, and the City of Eden Prairie, for the Bachman-Anderson, Inc., development, dated June 7, 1978, and the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City;" WHEREAS, James E. Sutherlin and City made and entered into a Developer's Agreement, dated June 7, 1978, for the Bachman-Anderson, Inc., development, (the "Developer's Agreement") and Developer has succeeded to all of the rights and interests in the lands included within the Bachman-Anderson, Inc., development, previously owned by James Sutherlin; and, WHEREAS, the Developer and City desire to amend said agreement for the property, said property being as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The Developer's Agreement shall be and hereby is supplemented and amended in the following respects: A. Paragraph 3. shall be amended to read as follows: Prior to issuance by City of any building permit upon the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Planning Commission for review and recommendation, and to submit to the City Council for review and action, information for site plan review, including, but not limited to, architectural elevations, grading plans, utility plans, landscape plans, and any other plans as may be required for a building to be constructed on the property. Developer agrees that said plans shall be prepared to included the following design details: — — A. All landscape materials shall be located above the 844 contour elevation. —B. All grading below the 852 contour elevation shall be eliminated. —C. The building on said plans shall be relocated to the location originally approved in the "Developer's Agreement." B. Paragraph 9. shall be amended to read as follows: Developer shall ay cash park fees as to all of the property required City Code in effect as of the date of the issuance of any building permit for construction on the property. Presently, the amount of cash park fee applicable to the property is $2,560.00 per acre. The amount to be paid by Developer shall be increased or decreased to the extent that the City Code is amended or supplemented to require a greater or lesser amount as of the date of the issuance of any building permit for construction on the property. — — — C. There shall be added paragraphs 23. and 24. as follows: 23. Prior to release of the final plat for the property by City, Developer agrees to submit to the City Attorney two (2) executed copies an agreement for cross-access easements and parking ramp use for the proposed lots on the property, which agreement shall be in recordable form. 24. Within two years of the date first written above, Developer agrees to have completed installation of a buffer strip of landscaping, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. The purpose of the buffer strip shall be to provide a landscaped transition to the residents to the east from the use(s) on the property. Developer agrees to provide a security for said landscaping materials in accordance with City Code requirements.2. Lexington-Cabriole Limited Partnership agrees to all of the terms and conditions and accepts the obligations of the "Owner" under the Developer's Agreement, as amended and supplemented herein. WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this Supplement to Developer's Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Gary D. Peterson, Mayor Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE DF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by Gary D. Peterson, the Mayor, and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager, of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public LEXINGTON-CABRIOLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Joseph H. Ryan STATE DF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged by me this day of , 1989, by Joseph H. Ryan, on behalf of the Lexington-Cabriole Limited Partnership. Notary Public EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION The East 615 feet of that part of Government Lot 7 lying South of State Highway No. 5 in Section 13, Township 116, Range 22, lying North of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the East line of said Government Lot 7 with the South line of Old State Highway Number 5; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 02 minutes 40 seconds West along the East line of Government Lot 7, a distance of 544.57 feet to the beginning of the line to be described; thence South 66 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 320.00 feet; thence South 22 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 236.00 feet; thence South 86 degrees 30 minutes West a distance of 160.00 feet; thence North 42 degrees 12 minutes 02 seconds West, a distance of 106.81 feet, more—or—less, to the West line of said East 615.00 feet and there terminating. Being registered land as is evidence by Certificate of Title No. 673092. 4zt ran 30 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-118 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF CABRIOLE CENTER WHEREAS, the plat of CABRIOLE CENTER has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for CABRIOLE CENTER is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated JUNE 20, 1989. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on JUNE 20, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan 0. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: June 20, 1989 SUBJECT: CABRIOLE CENTER PROPOSAL: The Developers, Lexington-Cabriole Limited Partnership, have requested City Council approval of the final plat of Cabriole Center. Located south of West 78th Street on the eastern border of Eden Prairie, the plat contains 10.3 acres to be divided into two lots. Lot 1 contains the existing Cabriole Office Building and Lot 2 is the proposed site of a future office building. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council June 6, 1989 per Resolution No. 89-122. Zoning change from Rural to Office was done on this site in June of 1978. The supplement to the Cabriole Center Developers Agreement is scheduled for execution June 20, 1989. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities and streets are currently in place and are available to serve this site. All utilities extended into the site to serve the existing building and the proposed new office building will be privately owned and maintained. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for Park Dedication are covered in the Developers Agreement. BONDING: Bonding must conform to the City Code and the Developers Agreement requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Cabriole Center subject to the requirements of this report, the Developers Agreement and the following: I. Receipt of engineering fees in the amount of $1,030.00. JJ:ssa cc: Lexington-Cabriole Ltd. Partnership Hanson Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Craig W. Dawson, Assistant to the City Manager ek SUBJECT: Request To Relocate Geese by Hoyt Development DATE: June 16, 1989 Hoyt Development contacted staff on Friday, June 16 and requested City Council approval to remove geese from its property at 7664 Golden Triangle Drive. This property abuts the north bank of Nine-Mile Creek. Hoyt Development spoke with Dr. James Cooper of the University of Minnesota before contacting the City. He informed Hoyt Development that only three weeks remained for the geese to be captured and relocated this year. Council action at its July 11, 1989 meeting would be too late for relocation this year. In accordance with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources policy, Hoyt Development contacted nearly all of the owners and tenants of properties in the area to let them know of its request. None of the business owners and tenants which had been notified had contacted staff by Friday afternoon if they were opposed to the request. Hoyt Development did not notify the owners of the two residences along the creek and Smetana Lake immediately to the west of its property. I contacted Marcella Smetana, who lives closest to the Hoyt property, on Friday afternoon. She enthusiastically supported relocation of the geese. I was unable to contact the owners of the next property to the west, Frank jr. and Mary Smetana. Council should add this request to the agenda for the June 20 Council meeting. Staff will report on any comments received before the Council meeting. Hoyt Development CO MPA N Y 5555 WEST SEVENTY EIGHTH STREET EDINA MINNESOTA 554:15 612 941-8200 June 16, 1989 The City Couch l of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Assistant City Manager Dear Sir: Per our telephone conversation toaay, we are hereby requesting a hearing before the City Council on Tuesday, June 20, 1989, to acquire approval for the removal of geese from our property located at 7664 Golden Triangle Drive. Per your instructions, we have notified all the tenants in the surrounding buildings and have enclosed a list of these tenants with the person we contacted. I look forward to your response. Very truly yours, HOYT DEVELOPMENT Denise G. Hoyt, RPA Director of Property Management Enclosure DGH:am DE VE ORME_NT CONSTRUCTION lit MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY PARR IV 10120 WEST 76th STREET EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 TENANTS SPOKE TO Response Marketing Judy Arrow Electronics Pat Network communications Eusa Castlerock Manufacturing Rhonda • fr TECHNOLOGY PARK V 7615 GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 TENANT SPOKE TO Skyline Displays Linda Minnetonka Motors Tom Berkel Dina Nova Technology Inc. Charlie • TECHNOLOGY PARE VI 7625 GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 TENANT SPOKE TO Bio—Medicus Marnie Goldeneye Pioneer standard Electronics Lana U.S. Amada, Ltd. Eric Eckstam Linda L.A. Studios Rob IMM Corporation Disc. Wilson Tanner Linda D.S. Manufacturing Patty Classic Roadsters Answer machine TECHNOLOGY PARK VII 7668 GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 TENANTS SPOKE TO Harfiel Company Mary Fargo Electronics Connie Sick Optic Michael Hudson Department 56 Teresa Westin—Reid Linda ( - ,)r # �. sJ C 4 '� V I ) 40 )' c • • 0 r r is • I • 4. .- Q a c \\I , u 4 -- I.) . p.. v 9 o (. _a i o ci e 1 U a IR r , u CAMERA OPERATOR'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the microphotographs appearing on this roll of film are true, accurate,and complete copies of the original records described below. Reproductions intended to serve as permanent records comply with standards established by the Minnesota I Iistorical Society. AGENCY OF ORIGIN: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RECORD SERIES: COUNCIL PACKETS INCLUSIVE DATES/NOS: JANUARY 1977 — DECEMBER 1991 ROLL 16 BEGINS WITH: OCTOBER 1988 ENDS WITH: JUNE 1989 — 2/10/94 u a �G 7(.7/7L "�'b/ DATE CAMERA GGGGOPERATOR',S SIGNATURE l'M/ CONCEPT A1/CRO IrtlilG/NlG AfINN/TONKA AIN PRODUCING LABORATORY CITY/STATE •