HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/12/1989ej:Frait
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1989
COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and
Douglas Tenpas
City Manager Carl J. Jullie,
Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson,
Attorney Roger Pauly,
Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and
Recording Secretary Deb Edlund
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-102, Storm Sewer and Street Impro
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
in Hidden Glen 3rd Addition.
B. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-110, Street Improvements on
G
o
l
d
e
n
Triangle Drive south of West 74th Street.
C. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-129, Watermain, Sanitary Sewer
,
S
t
o
r
m
Sewer and Street Improvement in Wyndham Crest Addition.
D. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-131, Storm Sewer and Street Improv
e
m
e
n
t
s
on Hamilton Road.
E. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-132, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Watermain Improvements on Franlo Road from Prairie Center Dr
i
v
e
t
o
Grier Lane.
F. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-133, Storm Sewer, Watermain and Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
Sewer in the Legion Park Plat.
G. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-147, Watermain Improvement alo
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
Road 4 and County Road 1 east of Cedar Ridge Estates and
w
e
s
t
o
f
Staring Lake II.
H. Special Assessments, I.C. 52-149, Watermain Improvements alon
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
Road 1 west of Staring Lake Parkway and east of Staring Lake
I
I
.
I. Special Assessments, Supplementals.
III. NEW BUSINESS
IV. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 89-199
RESOLUTION APPROVING 1990 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City
Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections in the proposed
assessments for the following improvements to wit:
(See Exhibit A attached)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
I. Such proposed assessments are hereby accepted and shall constitute
the special assessment against the lands in the final assessment
rolls, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to
be benefitted by the improvement in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments
extending over a period of years as shown on Exhibit A.
Installments shall bear interest at the rates shown on Exhibit A,
commencing January I, 1990. No interest shall be charged if the
entire assessment is paid on or before November 15, 1989.
3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax
lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and
paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes beginning in
1990.
4. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council to
reimburse itself in the future for the portion of the cost of this
improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying additional
assessments, on notice and hearing as provided for the assessments
herein made, upon any properties abutting on the improvements but
not herein assessed for the improvement when changed conditions
relating to such properties make such assessment feasible.
5. The assessment data of Resolution No. 89-181 is herein revised in
accordance with Exhibit A attached hereto.
ADOPTED BY THE Eden Prairie City Council on September 12, 1989.
ATTEST:
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
1. I.C. 52-102
Sidewalk, Bikeway, Storm Sewer &
Project Cost: $233,311.00 Street Improvements on Dell Road
Final 7/1/88 to 9/1/89) and in Hidden Glen 3rd Addition
City Share: $ 10,898.00
Net Assessment: $222,413.00
5 Years at 8.5%
$211,147.56 1-117 Units = $1,804.68/Family Unit
$ 11,265.444- 41 Lots = $ 274.77/Lot per Special Assess. Agreement
with Wyndham Nob II
$ 1,804.68/Single Family
$ 2,707.02/Duplex
I .C.If PIDI7
52-102
06-116-22-21-0004
52-102
06-116-22-21-0005
52-102
06-116-22-21-0006
52-102
06-116-22-21-0007
52-102
06-116-22-21-0008
52-102
06-116-22-21-0009
52-102
06-116-22-21-0010
52-102
06-116-22-21-0011
52-102
06-116-22-21-0012
52-102
06-116-22-21-0013
52-102
06-116-22-21-0014
52-102
06-116-22-21-0015
52-102
06-116-22-21-0016
52-102
06-116-22-21-0017
52-102
06-116-22-21-0018
52-102
06-116-22-21-0019
52-102
06-116-22-21-0020
52-102
06-116-22-21-0021
52-102
06-116-22-21-0022
52-102
06-116-22-21-0023
52-102
06-116-22-21-0034
52-102
06-116-22-21-0035
52-102
06-116-22-21-0036
52-102
06-116-22-21-0037
52-102
06-116-22-21-0038
52-102
06-116-22-21-0039
52-102
06-116-22-21-0040
52-102
06-116-22-21-0041
52-102
06-116-22-21-0042
52-102
06-116-22-21-0043
52-102
06-116-22-21-0044
52-102
06-116-22-21-0045
52-102
06-116-22-21-0046
52-102
06-116-22-21-0047
52-102
06-116-22-21-0048
52-102
06-116-22-21-0049
52-102
06-116-22-21-0050
52-102
06-116-22-21-0051
1990
($AMOUNT)
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
4,812.39
9,624.76
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
274.77
INT. 1995
RATE YEARS $AMOUNT
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
INT. 1995
1990 1.C.# P1D#
RATE YEARS EAMOUNT
(EAMOUNT)
06-116-22-21-0052
06-116-22-21-0053
06-116-22-21-0054
06-116-22-21-0055
06-116-22-21-0056
06-116-22-21-0057
06- 116-22-21 -0058
06-116-22-21-0059
06-116-22-21-0060
06-116-22-21-0061
06-116-22-21-0062
06-116-22-21-0063
06-116-22-21-0064
06-116-22-21-0065
06-116-22-21-0066
06-116-22-21-0067
06-116-22-21-0068
06-116-22-21-0069
06-116-22-21-0070
06-116-22-21-0071
06-116-22-21-0072
06-116-22-21-0076
06-116-22-21-0077
06-116-22-22-0014
06-116-22-22-0015
06-116-22-22-0016
06-116-22-22-0017
06-116-22-22-0018
06-116-22-22-0019
06-116-22-22-0020
06-116-22-22-0021
06-116-22-22-0022
06-116-22-22-0023
06-116-22-22-0024
06-116-22-22-0025
06-116-22-22-0026
06-116-22-22-0027
06-116-22-22-0028
06-116-22-22-0029
06-116-22-22-0030
06-116-22-22-0031
06-116-22-22-0032
06-116-22-22-0033
06-116-22-22-0034
06-116-22-22-0035
06-116-22-22-0036
06-116-22-22-0037
06-116-22-22-0038
06-116-22-22-0039
06-116-22-22-0040
06-116-22-22-0041
06-116-22-22-0042
06-116-22-22-0043
06-116-22-22-0044
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.77
8.5
5
274.60
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
1,804.68
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
2,707.02
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
INT. 1995
1990 I .0 .#
PI D#
RATE
YEARS SAMOUNT
(SAMOUNT)
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
52-102
06-116-22-22-0045
06-116-22-22-0046
06-116-22-22-0047
06-116-22-22-0048
06-116-22-22-0049
06-116-22-22-0050
06-116-22-22-0051
06-116-22-22-0052
06-116-22-22-0053
06-116-22-22-0054
06-116-22-22-0055
06-116-22-22-0056
06-116-22-22-0057
06-116-22-22-0058
06-116-22-22-0059
06-116-22-22-0060
06-116-22-22-0061
06-116-22-22-0062
06-116-22-22-0063
06-116-22-22-0064
06-116-22-22-0065
06-116-22-22-0066
06-116-22-22-0067
06-116-22-22-0068
06-116-22-22-0069
06-116-22-22-0070
06-116-22-22-0071
06-116-22-22-0072
06-116-22-22-0073
06-115-22-22-0074
06-116-22-22-0075
06-116-22-22-0076
06-116-22-22-0077
06-116-22-22-0078
06-116-22-22-0079
06-116-22-22-0080
06-116-22-22-0081
06-116-22-22-0082
06-116-22-22-0083
06-116-22-22-0084
06-116-22-22-0085
06-116-22-22-0086
06-116-22-22-0087
06-116-22-22-0088
06-116-22-22-0089
06-116-22-22-0090
06-116-22-22-0091
06-116-22-22-0092
06-116-22-22-0093
06-116-22-22-0094
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
1,804.68
2. I.C. 52-110
Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street
Improvements on Golden Triangle
Drive from W. 74th to W. 76th
Project Cost: $84,499.00
City Share:
Net Assessment: $84,499.00
10 Years at 8.5%
$68,991.00 : 12.99 Acres = $5,311.09/Acre
$15,508.00 Water Services to 12-42-17
INT. 1995
1990 I.C.0
P1 D#
RATE
YEARS $AMOUNT
(SAMOUNT)
52-110
12-116-22-42-0016
8.5
10
47,003.00
52-110
12-116-22-42-0017
8.5
10
37,496.00
3. I.C. 52-129
Utilities and Street Improvements
in Wyndham Crest Addition
Project Cost:
City Share:
Net Assessment:
5 Years at 8.5%
$252,516.00
$
$252,516.00
$252,516.00 4. 24 Lots = $10,521.50/Lot
INT. 1995
1990
I.C.. PIDO
RATE
YEARS $AMOUNT
($AMOUNT)
52-129
06-116-22-12-0003
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-12-0004
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-12-0005
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-12-0006
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-12-0007
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-12-0008
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0003
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0004
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0005
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0006
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0007
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0008
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0009
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0010
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0011
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0012
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0013
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0014
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0015
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0016
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0017
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-13-0018
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-21-0026
8.5
5
10,521.50
52-129
06-116-22-21-0027
8.5
5
10,521.50
4. I.C. 52-131
Storm Sewer and Street Improvements
on Hamilton Road
Project Cost: $340,025.00
City Share:
Net Assessment: $340,025.00
20 Years at 8.5%
$340,025.00 4. 21.71 Acres = $15,622.14/Acres
I.C.# PID#
52-131
01-116-22-41-0005
52-131
01-116-22-41-0006
52-131
01-116-22-41-0007
52-131
01-116-22-41-0008
52-131
01-116-22-41-0016
52-131
01-116-22-41-0017
52-131
01-116-22-41-0018
52-131
01-116-22-41-0019
52-131
01-116-22-41-0020
1995
YEARS $AMOUNT
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1990
($AMOUNT)
103,839.99
34,926.57
35,866.30
22,240.24
47,926.15
24,902.80
24,589.56
25,685.91
20,047.48
INT.
RATE
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
I.C. 52-132
Utilities and Street Improvements
Project Cost:
$350,152.00
on Franlo Road Between Grier Lane
and Prairie Center Drive
City Share:
$ 11,079.00
Net Assessment: $339,013.00
20 Years at 8.5%
Lateral Sewer $ 23.32 Front Foot
Lateral Water $ 19.49 Front Foot
Streets and Drainage $ 98.34 Front Foot
$117.33 Front Foot (Comm'l Guided Prop.)
INT. 1995
1990
DEFERRED I .C.4
PID#1
RATE YEARS $AMOUNT
(SAMOUNT)
WI INTEREST
52-132
52-132
52-132
52-132
7" 132
32
52-132
52-132
52-132
52-132
52-132
14-116-22-34-0003 8.5
14-116-22-34-0004 8.5
14-116-22-34-0005 8.5
14-116-22-34-0012 8.5
14-116-22-34-0013 8.5
14-116-22-43-0002 8.5
14-116-22-43-0003 8.5
14-116-22-43-0004 8.5
14-116-22-43-0005 8.5
14-116-22-43-0010 8.5
14-116-22-43-0015 8.5
26,423.10
10,207.96
48,362.28
32,028.00
2,346.00
10,196.77
27,524.25
10,195.08
10,251.81
50,549.07
61,504.48
20
20
4,272.04
20
20
20
20
4,283.23
20
20
4,284.92
20
4,228.19
20
20
7,398.25
6,410.20
6,269.05
12,338.50
6. I.C. 52-133
Utilities in the Legion Park Plat Project Cost: $155,036.00
City Share:
Net Assessment: $155,036.00
5 Years at 8.5%
$155,036.00-1- 8.66 Acres = $17,902.51/Acres
INT. 1995
1990
I.C.0
PID# RATE YEARS SAMOUNT
($AMOUNT)
52-133
17-116-22-14-0085 8.5
5
24,353.77
52-133
17-116-22-14-0086 8.5
5
76,808.12
52-133
17-116-22-14-0087 8.5
5
48,873.83
INT. 1995
RATE YEARS $AMOUNT
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
2,194.72
8.5
20
8.5
20
2,856.92
8.5
20
2,932.60
8.5
20
983.84
8.5
20
3,311.00
8.5
20
3,311.00
8.5
20
3,311.00
8.5
20
3,311.00
8.5
20
8.5
20
2,667.72
8.5
20
2,062.28
8.5
20
2,043.36
8.5
20
2,289.32
8.5
20
2,251.48
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
1990
($AMOUNT)
13,187.24
3,992.12
832.48
2,402.84
2,932.60
1,324.40
1,664.96
42,632.22
DEFERRED
W/ INTEREST
8,078.84
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
2,554.20
2,100.12
5,467.88
12,279.08
7. I.C. 52-147
Watermain Improvement along
County Road 4 and County Road 1
east of Cedar Ridge Estates and
west of Staring Lake II
Project Cost: $503,972.00
City Share: $276,619.00
Net Assessment: $227,353.00
20 Years at 8.5%
Lateral Water $18.92 Front Foot
Large Developable Single Family Homesteaded Lots = 175 Front Feet Maximum
I.C.# PID#
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
5%147
, '47
5,-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
r 1 47
.
52-147
17-116-22-41-0001
17-116-22-41-0002
17-116-22-42-0002
17-116-22-42-0003
17-116-22-42-0005
17-116-22-42-0006
17-116-22-42-0007
17-116-22-43-0002
17-116-22-43-0003
17-116-22-44-0002
17-116-22-44-0003
17-116-22-44-0008
17-116-22-44-0009
17-116-22-44-0010
17-116-22-44-0012
17-116-22-44-0013
20-116-22-11-0002
20-116-22-11-0003
20-116-22-11-0004
20-116-22-11-0005
20-116-22-11-0006
20-116-22-11-0011
20-116-22-11-0017
20-116-22-11-0018
20-116-22-11-0019
20-116-22-11-0020
20-116-22-11-0021
20-116-22-11-0022
20-116-22-11-0023
20-116-22-11-0024
20-116-22-11-0025
20-116-22-11-0026
20-116-22-11-0027
20-116-22-11-0028
20-116-22-11-0029
20-116-22-11-0030
20-116-22-11-0031
52-147
• 147
_ 147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
47
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
5_ '47
47
52-147
20-116-22-11-0032
20-116-22-11-0033
20-116-22-11-0034
20-116-22-11-0035
20-116-22-11-0036
20-116-22-11-0037
20-116-22-11-0038
20-116-22-11-0039
20-116-22-11-0040
20-116-22-11-0041
20-116-22-11-0042
20-116-22-11-0043
20-116-22-11-0044
20-116-22-11-0045
20-116-22-11-0046
20-116-22-11-0047
20-116-22-11-0048
20-116-22-11-0049
20-116-22-11-0050
20-116-22-11-0051
20-116-22-11-0052
20-116-22-11-0053
20-116-22-11-0054
20-116-22-11-0055
20-116-22-11-0056
20-116-22-12-0001
20-116-22-14-0008
20-116-22-14-0009
20-116-22-14-0010
20-116-22-14-0011
20-116-22-14-0012
20-116-22-14-0013
20-116-22-14-0014
20-116-22-14-0015
20-116-22-14-0016
20-116-22-14-0017
20-116-22-14-0018
20-116-22-14-0019
20-116-22-14-0020
20-116-22-14-0021
20-116-22-14-0022
20-116-22-14-0023
20-116-22-14-0024
20-116-22-14-0025
20-116-22-14-0026
20-116-22-14-0027
20-116-22-14-0028
20-116-22-14-0029
20-116-22-14-0030
20-116-22-14-0031
20-116-22-14-0032
20-116-22-14-0033
20-116-22-14-0034
20-116-22-14-0035
20-116-22-41-0001
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20
8.5 20 3,311.00
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
140.68
•n•
2,932.60
3,311.00
3,311.00
3,311.00
2,838.00
2,743.40
2,648.80
2,743.40
6,281.44
5,978.72
23,101.32
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.70
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
343.98
12,695.32
4,257.00
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
52-147
52-147
147
147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
5 2 -147
i 47
'.,-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
p .47
5 47
20-116-22-41-0003
21-116-22-23-0003
21-116-22-31-0024
21-116-22-31-0025
21-116-22-31-0026
21-116-22-31-0035
21-116-22-32-0002
21-116-22-32-0003
21-116-22-32-0004
21-116-22-32-0005
20-116-22-13-0004
20-116-22-13-0005
20-116-22-13-0006
20-116-22-13-0007
20-116-22-13-0008
20-116-22-13-0009
20-116-22-13-0010
20-116-22-13-0011
20-116-22-13-0012
20-116-22-13-0013
20-116-22-13-0014
20-116-22-13-0015
20-116-22-13-0016
20-116-22-13-0017
20-116-22-13-0018
20-116-22-13-0019
20-116-22-13-0020
20-116-22-13-0021
20-116-22-13-0022
20-116-22-13-0023
20-116-22-13-0024
20-116-22-13-0025
20-116-22-13-0026
20-116-22-13-0027
20-116-22-13-0028
20-116-22-13-0029
20-116-22-13-0030
20-116-22-13-0031
20-116-22-13-0032
20-116-22-13-0033
20-116-22-13-0034
20-116-22-41-0021
20-116-22-41-0022
20-116-22-41-0023
20-116-22-41-0024
20-116-22-41-0025
20-116-22-41-0026
20-116-22-41-0027
20-116-22-41-0028
20-116-22-41-0029
20-116-22-41-0030
20-116-22-41-0031
20-116-22-41-0032
20-116-22-41-0033
20-116-22-41-0034
52-147
g'-147
c 147
z-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
52-147
20-116-22-41-0035
20-116-22-41-0036
20-116-22-41-0037
20-116-22-41-0038
20-116-22-41-0039
20-116-22-41-0040
20-116-22-41-0041
20-116-22-41-0042
20-116-22-42-0007
20-116-22-42-0008
20-116-22-42-0009
20-116-22-42-0010
20-116-22-42-0011
20-116-22-42-0012
20-116-22-42-0013
20-116-22-42-0014
20-116-22-42-0015
20-116-22-42-0016
20-116-22-42-0017
20- 116-22-42-00 18
20-116-22-42-0019
20-116-22-42-0020
20-116-22-42-0021
20-116-22-42-0022
20-116-22-42-0023
20-116-22-42-0024
20-116-22-42-0025
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20 343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20 343.98
8.5 20 343.98
8.5 20 343.98
8.5
20
343.98
8.5 20 343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20 343.98
8.5 20 343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5
20 343.98
8.5
20 343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20 343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8.5 20
343.98
8. I.C. 52-149
Watermain on Pioneer Trail west
of Staring Lake Parkway to
LaRivier Court
Project Cost:
City Share:
$92,969.00
$61,367.00
Net Assessment: $31,602.00
20 Years at 8.5%
Lateral Watermain $19.62 Front Foot
I.C.# P1D#
52-149
21-116-22-31-0030
52-149
21-116-22-31-0031
52-149
21-116-22-31-0032
52-149
21-116-22-31-0033
52-149
21-116-22-34-0002
52-149
21-116-22-34-0004
52-149
21-116-22-34-0005
52-149
21-116-22-34-0006
52-149
21-116-22-42-0035
52-149
21-116-22-42-0036
52-149
21-116-22-43-0006
52-149
21-116-22-43-0007
52-149
21-116-22-43-0008
52-149
21-116-22-43-0017
52-149
21-116-22-43-0018
52-149
21-116-22-43-0019
52-149
21-116-22-43-0020
52-149
21-116-22-43-0021
52-149
21-116-22-43-0022
52- 14 9
21-116-22-43-0023
52-149
21-116-22-43-0029
52-149
21-116-22-43-0030
INT. 1995
RATE YEARS $AMOUNT
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
1,971.81
8.5
20
1,971.81
8.5
20
1,971.81
8.5
20
2,136.03
8.5
20
1,963.09
8.5
20
1,963.09
8.5
20
1,963.09
8.5
20
1,963.09
8.5
20
1,963.09
8.5
20
8.5
20
8.5
20
1490
($AMOUNT)
981.00
981.00
981.00
981.00
981.00
981.00
981.00
981.00
981.00
981.00
1,963.09
981.00
981.00
9. SUPPLEMENTALS
Trunk Sewer and Water
Lateral Water
Subtrunks
Lateral Sewer
Street Improvements
SAC-WAC
Lateral Exclusion
Bikepath Co. Rd. 4
Connection Fee
Weed Removal
Special Assessment Agreement
$963,346.59
2,960.00
2,253.45
6,503.00
25,405.03
51,570.00
3,938.11
2,597.73
21,093.40
1,487.50
12,272.13
INT. 1995
1990
I.C.#
PID#
RATE YEARS $AMOUNT
($AMOUNT)
TRUNK SEWER AND WATER
TS&W
02-116-22-11-0013
TS&W
05-116-22-21-0053
TS&W
05-116-22-44-0021
TS&W
06-116-22-12-0010
TS&W
06-116-22-12-0011
TS&W
06-116-22-12-0012
TS&W
06-116-22-12-0013
TS&W
06-116-22-12-0014
TS&W
06-116-22-12-0015
TS&W
06-116-22-12-0016
TS&W
06-116-22-12-0017
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0031
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0032
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0033
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0034
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0035
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0036
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0037
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0038
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0039
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0040
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0041
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0042
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0043
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0044
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0045
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0046
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0047
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0048
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0049
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0050
TS&W
06-116-22-21 0051
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0052
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0053
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0054
8.5
20
23,180.00
8.5
20
27,720.00
8.5
20
22,935.50
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
1,424.04
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
20
553.95
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
520.00
520.00
--
520.00
520.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
06-116-22-21-0055
06-116-22-21-0056
06-116-22-21-0057
06-116-22-21-0058
06-116-22-21-0059
06-116-22-21-0060
06-116-22-21-0061
06-116-22-21-0062
06-116-22-21-0063
06-116-22-21-0064
06-116-22-21-0065
06-116-22-21-0066
06-116-22-21-0067
06-116-22-21-0068
06-116-22-21-0069
06-116-22-21-0070
06-116-22-21-0071
06-116-22-21-0072
06-116-22-21-0076
06-116-22-21-0077
08-116-22-12-0003
10-116-22-21-0007
14-116-22-34-0003
14-116-22-34-0004
14-116-22-34-0005
14-116-22-34-0012
14-116-22-43-0002
14-116-22-43-0003
14-116-22-43-0004
14-116-22-43-0005
15-116-22-31-0008
17-116-22-42-0005
17-116-22-43-0002
17-116-22-43-0003
17-116-22-44-0002
17-116-22-44-0013
20-116-22-11-0002
20-116-22-11-0003
20-116-22-11-0004
20-116-22-11-0005
20-116-22-11-0006
20-116-22-11-0011
20-116-22-11-0017
20-116-22-11-0018
20-116-22-11-0019
20-116-22-11-0020
20-116-22-11-0021
20-116-22-11-0022
20-116-22-11-0023
20-116-22-11-0024
20-116-22-11-0025
20-116-22-11-0026
20-116-22-11-0027
20-116-22-11-0028
20-116-22-11-0029
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
553.95
520.00
220.00
2,195.00
5,814.00
2,622.00
1,938.00
4,845.00
4,702.50
476,235.00
10,374.00
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
2.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
rS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
20-116-22-11-0030
20-116-22-11-0031
20-116-22-11-0032
20-116-22-11-0033
20-116-22-11-0034
20-116-22-11-0035
20-116-22-11-0036
20-116-22-11-0037
20-116-22-11-0038
20-116-22-11-0039
20-116-22-11-0040
20-116-22-11-0041
20-116-22-11-0042
20-116-22-11-0043
20-116-22-11-0044
20-116-22-11-0045
20-116-22-11-0046
20-116-22-11-0047
20-116-22-11-0048
20-116-22-11-0049
20-116-22-11-0050
20-116-22-11-0051
20-116-22-11-0052
20-116-22-11-0053
20-116-22-11-0054
20-116-22-11-0055
20-116-22-11-0056
20-116-22-12-0001
20-116-22-14-0008
20-116-22-14-0009
20-116-22-14-0010
20-116-22-14-0011
20-116-22-14-0012
20-116-22-14-0013
20-116-22-14-0014
20-116-22-14-0015
20-116-22-14-0016
20-116-22-14-0017
20-116-22-14-0018
20-116-22-14-0019
20-116-22-14-0020
20-116-22-14-0021
20-116-22-14-0022
20-116-22-14-0023
20-116-22-14-0024
20-116-22-14-0025
20-116-22-14-0026
20-116-22-14-0027
20-116-22-14-0028
20-116-22-14-0029
20-116-22-14-0030
20-116-22-14-0031
20-116-22-14-0032
20-116-22-14-0033
20-116-22-14-0034
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
1,573.69
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TSUI
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TSUI
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TSUI
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
20-116-22-14-0035
20-116-22-41-0003
21-116-22-23-0003
21-116-22-31-0024
21-116-22-31-0025
21-116-22-31-0026
21-116-22-31-0030
21-116-22-31-0031
21-116-22-31-0032
21-116-22-31-0033
21-116-22-32-0003
21-116-22-32-0004
21-116-22-34-0002
21-116-22-34-0004
21-116-22-34-0005
21-116-22-34-0006
21-116-22-41-0004
21-116-22-42-0035
21-116-22-42-0036
21-116-22-43-0029
21-116-22-43-0030
21-116-22-43-0006
21-116-22-43-0007
21-116-22-43-0008
21-116-22-43-0009
21-116-22-43-0017
21-116-22-43-0018
21-116-22-43-0019
21-116-22-43-0020
21- 116- 22-43-0021
21-116-22-43-0022
21-116-22-43-0023
25-116-22-32-0018
25-116-22-42-0037
20-116-22-13-0004
20-116-22-13-0005
20-116-22-13-0006
20-116-22-13-0007
20-116-22-13-0008
20-116-22-13-0009
20-116-22-13-0010
20-116-22-13-0011
20-116-22-13-0012
20-116-22-13-0013
20-116-22-13-0014
20-116-22-13-0015
20-116-22-13-0016
20-116-22-13-0017
20-116-22-13-0018
20-116-22-13-0019
20-116-22-13-0020
20-116-22-13-0021
20-116-22-13-0022
20-116-22-13-0023
20-116-22-13-0024
1,573.69
220.00
220.00
440.00
1,852.50
1,852.50
1,852.50
1,852.50
1,852.50
1,852.50
1,852.50
1,852.50
44,545.00
1,852.50
1,852.50
1,852.50
1,852.50
2,422.50
1,650.00
60,000.00
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
TS&W
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
20-11 6-22-1 3-0025
20-116-22-13-0026
20-116-22-13-0027
20-116-22-13-0028
20-116-22-13-0029
20-116-22-13-0030
20-116-22-13-0031
20-116-22-13-0032
20-116-22-13-0033
20-116-22-13-0034
20-116-22-41-0021
20-116-22-41-0022
20-116-22-41-0023
20-116-22-41-0024
20-116-22-41-0025
20-116-22-41-0026
20-116-22-41-0027
20-116-22-41-0028
20-116-22-41-0029
20-116-22-41-0030
20-116-22-41-0031
20-116-22-41-0032
20-116-22-41-0033
20-116-22-41-0034
20-116-22-41-0035
20-116-22-41-0036
20-116-22-41-0037
20-116-22-41-0038
20-116-22-41-0039
20-116-22-41-0040
20-116-22-41-0041
20-116-22-41-0042
20-116-22-42-0007
20-116-22-42-0008
20-116-22-42-0009
20-116-22-42-0010
20-116-22-42-0011
20-116-22-42-0012
20-116-22-42-0013
20-116-22-42-0014
20-116-22-42-0015
20-116-22-42-0016
20-116-22-42-0017
20-116-22-42-0018
20-116-22-42-0019
20-116-22-42-0020
20-116-22-42-0021
20-116-22-42-0022
20-116-22-42-0023
20-116-22-42-0024
20-116-22-42-0025
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1,275.38
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
75.00
100.00
75.00
75.00
150.00
150.00
37.50
75.00
225.00
112.50
75.00
56.25
56.25
225.00
SUBTRUNKS
02-116-22-11-0013 11.0 13 2,253.48
LATERAL WATER
10-116-22-21-0007 8.5
20
2,960.00
LATERAL SEWER
02-116-22-34-0007 8.0
7
6,503.00
STREET IMPROVEMENT - (52-110B)
12-116-22-41-0002 13.0 10 25,405.03
LATERAL EXCLUSION
03-116-22-12-0001 8.0 18 3,938.11
SAC- WAC
17-116-22-14-0087 6.0 10 51,570.00
CONNECTION FEE
17-116-22-11-0004
8.5
20
6,710.00
26-116-22-41-0043
8.5
20
273.40
03-116-22-33-0048
8.5
20
6,710.00
08-116-22-12-0003
8.5
20
7,400.00
WEED REMOVAL
06-116-22-21-0004
06-116-22-44-0002
07-116-22-22-0048
07-116-22-23-0030
17-116-22-13-0006
17-116-22-13-0008
17-116-22-13-0066
17-116-22-13-0067
17-116-22-21-0030
23-116-22-34-0015
25-116-22-31-0002
25-116-22-31-0075
26-116-22-31-0029
27-116-22-14-0007
BIKEPATH CO.RO. 4
17-116-22-12-0111 8.5 5 2,597.73
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
22-116-22-24-0004 8.5 20 12,272.13
FINANCE DIRECTOR
JOHN FRANE
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1989
6:00 PM - Dinner
6:30 PM - Interviews
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1989
7:30 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, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director
John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris
Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation &
Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director
of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENTATION OF 1989 MRPA CITATION AWARD
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES
A. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 11„ 1989
B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 6, 1989
C. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 5, 1989
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
Page 2188
Page 2207
Page 2222
Page 2250
Page 2270
City Council Agenda
- 2 - Tues.,September 19, 1989
B. LAMETTRY CENTER by Richard A. LaMettry. 2nd Reading of
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
P
a
g
e
2
2
7
1
26-89, Zoning District Change from Rural
t
o
C
-
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
1.88 acres; Approval of Developer's Agree
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
L
a
M
e
t
t
r
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
;
Adoption of Resolution No. 89-189, Auth
o
r
i
z
i
n
g
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
Ordinance No. 26-89 and Ordering Publicat
i
o
n
o
f
S
a
i
d
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
;
and Adoption of Resolution No. 89-190, S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
.
1
.
8
8
acres for one lot for construction of a 3
2
,
6
9
8
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
a
u
t
o
body repair facility. Location: West o
f
P
l
a
z
a
D
r
i
v
e
,
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
o
f
Menards. (Ordinance No. 26-89 - Rezonin
g
;
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
8
9
-
1
8
9
-
Authorizing Summary and Publication; Re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
8
9
-
1
9
0
-
S
i
t
e
Plan Review)
C. Final Plat Approval for Lamettry Addition (located north and west of Plaza Drive and south of Valley
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
Menards Complex) Resolution No. 89-200
D. Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Contract with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. for Design OrT.H. 5 from CSAH 4 to UTR—T7
E. Eighteen Park Business Center - Extension of Developer's Agreement and Site Plan Review for One
Y
e
a
r
t
o
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
1990
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. NELSON ADDITION by David Nelson. Request for Zoning Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and Prelimi
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
o
n
2
.
4
1
a
c
r
e
s
into 6 single family lots. Location: 99
5
0
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
.
(Ordinance No. 35-89 - Zoning; Resoluti
o
n
N
o
.
8
9
-
2
0
2
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Plat)
B. BLUFFS WEST 8TH by Hustad Development. Request for Zon
i
n
g
Page 2297 District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on
2
.
1
2
a
c
r
e
s
a
n
d
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Plat of 2.12 acres into four single fami
l
y
l
o
t
s
,
w
i
t
h
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
s
t
o
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Locat
i
o
n
:
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
B
l
u
e
s
t
e
m
Road & access off Bennett Place. (Ordina
n
c
e
N
o
.
3
6
-
8
9
-
R
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
;
Resolution No. 89-203 - Preliminary Plat)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 27-89, Amendment to City Code Chapter Page 2314 9 Section 9.40 Relating to the Discharge of Firearms
B. Resolution No. 89-205 recommending the appointment of Glenn G.C. Page 2324 Olson to the Metropolitan Transit Commission
C. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 34-89 to Regulate Snowmobile rat ions
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. BURNETT ADDITION by Transtar. Request for Preliminary
P
l
a
t
o
f
4.57 acres into 9 single family lots.
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
9
9
4
0
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
Place. (Resolution No. 89-204 - Prelim
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
)
Page 2279
Page 2281
Page 2288
Page 2289
Page 2305
Page 2326
Page 2329
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,September 19, 1989
B. Request from George Bentley on behalf of John Teman
Page 2339
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointment of member to the Planning Commission to fill an
unexpired term to February 28, 1990
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
1. Set Date to Review Proposed 1990 City Budget
2. City Hall Lease Renewal
Page 2342
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Planning
E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
F. Report of Director of Public Works
G. Report of Finance Director
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources
DATE: September 11, 1989
SUBJECT: 1989 MRPA Citation Award
Attached to this memo is information regarding the MRPA Citation
Awards for 1989. Eden Prairie staff submitted Round Lake Community
Park for this award not only for the unique park design that
incorporates a variety of high use areas associated with athletic
fields, a high school campus and a Community Center within a
community park that still maintains a very park like setting; but
also for the many cooperative programs and agreements between the
City and the School District, as well as with many of the service
groups and with other governmental agencies such as the DNR and the
Watershed District.
This award should be recognized as a compliment to all governmental
agencies and public service organizations that have been involved
in the development of this unique community facility.
John VonDeLinde, Chairman of the Awards Committee for the Minnesota
Recreation and Park Association, will present this award to Mayor
Peterson at the beginning of the September 19th meeting.
RL:mdd
/ 7
oF eagan
3&30 PILOT KNOB POAD. PO BOX 21199
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121
PHONE (612) 4541.8100
JULY 13, 1989
MC ELLISON
Map
NOVAS EGAN
DAVID K GUSTAFSON
MASA McC-REA
114E000RE WACHIZR
Carol Membart
THOMAS HEDGES
ciNKanynancrot
EVGENE VAN OVEMIEKE
ON ow,
BOB LAMBERT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
RE: 1989 MRPA CITATION AWARDS
Dear Mr. Lambert:
Congratulations! The Minnesota Recreation and Park As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
,
Awards Committee, has selected your project to recei
v
e
a
1
9
8
9
Citation Award.
This year, Citation Awards are being granted to four co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
from an initial field of ten applications. These commu
n
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
their projects are as follows:
* City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Sculpture Garden
* City of Eden Prairie, Round Lake Community Park
* City of Rockford, Stork House Historical Project
* City of Eagan, Park Shelter Building Design
The Minnesota Recreation and Park Association is plea
s
e
d
t
o
a
d
d
your project to the list of distinguished recipients o
f
t
h
e
p
a
s
t
three years.
A representative from the Awards Committee will be in co
n
t
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
you in the near future, to arrange a presentation before
y
o
u
r
C
i
t
y
Council or Parks and Recreation Commission. If you
f
e
e
l
i
t
i
s
appropriate, we would like to suggest that a member of
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
press be invited to take a photo of the presenta
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
publication in your local newsletter. One of the obviou
s
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
to an award program of this nature, of course, is to take
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
of opportunities to increase the visibility and awaren
e
s
s
o
f
o
u
r
State association in local communities.
THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Again, congratulations, on your fine wor
k
.
W
e
a
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
an effort that you put into filing the i
n
i
t
i
a
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
me ing with our 1989 Awards Committee. I
f
y
o
u
h
a
v
e
a
n
y
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
Or oncerns, in the meantime, please be sure t
o
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
m
e
a
t
4
5
4
-
52
ohn K. VonDeLinde,
air, )PA Awards Committee
JKV/cm
15wp:mrpaawrd.rec
MEM0RANDUM
TO: Citation Award Revi
e
w
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
FROM: Bob Lambert, Dire
c
t
o
r
o
f
P
a
r
k
s
,
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
&
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
Resources../V50-- City of Eden Prairi
e
DATE: March 28, 1989
SUBJECT: 19.89 Citation Award A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Although this app
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
"
p
a
r
k
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
development"; it
c
o
u
l
d
j
u
s
t
— as well be sub
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
"administration/pub
l
i
c
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
"
.
Round Lake Park, as
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
r
i
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
,
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
s
o
f
a 220
acre site - 80 of w
h
i
c
h
i
s
o
w
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
the City completed
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
and the School Dis
t
r
i
c
t
o
f
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
o
r
k
e
d
closely with the S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
the site and vise
v
e
r
s
a
.
T
h
e
s
i
t
e
h
a
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
i
n
t
o
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
finest school/park
s
i
t
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
.
W
h
e
r
e
e
l
s
e
d
o
students have ac
c
e
s
s
t
o
a
c
a
m
p
u
s
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
facilities depicted
o
n
t
h
e
e
n
c
l
o
s
e
d
p
a
r
k
p
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
where else does
a community have com
p
l
e
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
a
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
i
e
l
d
s
and facilities dir
e
c
t
l
y
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
u
c
h
a
s
R
o
u
n
d
Lake Park? In fact
,
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
a
b
l
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
property ownership
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
I
t
t
r
u
l
y
w
o
r
k
s
a
s
o
n
e
l
a
r
g
e
p
a
r
k
.
Due to the amount o
f
s
p
a
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
s
o
f
t
b
a
l
l
f
i
e
l
d
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
a
s
s
i
v
e
amount of landscapi
n
g
t
h
a
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
p
l
a
n
t
e
d
t
o
d
a
t
e
,
a
s
t
h
i
s
p
a
r
k
matures it will eve
n
t
u
a
l
l
y
h
a
v
e
a
m
u
c
h
m
o
r
e
p
a
s
s
i
v
e
f
e
e
l
t
h
a
n
m
o
s
t
community "play fi
e
l
d
s
"
,
a
s
a
l
l
b
a
l
l
f
i
e
l
d
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
a variety of decid
u
o
u
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
t
r
e
e
s
.
T
h
e
p
a
r
k
w
i
l
l
s
t
i
l
l
accommodate an ext
r
e
m
e
l
y
h
i
g
h
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
a
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
p
l
a
y
,
but will also retai
n
t
h
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
o
f
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
"
p
a
r
k
"
.
The three communit
y
b
u
i
l
a
i
n
g
s
a
l
o
n
g
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
(
t
h
e
F
i
r
e
Station, the Comm
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
t
h
e
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
)
a
r
e
a
l
l
constructed of a da
r
k
r
u
s
t
c
o
l
o
r
e
d
b
r
i
c
k
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
t
i
e
d
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
i
n
a campus like atm
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
t
r
a
i
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
n
d
h
e
a
v
y
landscaping on eit
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
.
City and School Dis
t
r
i
c
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
v
e
r
y
f
o
r
t
u
n
a
t
e
t
o
h
a
v
e
h
a
d
City Council and Sc
h
o
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
o
n
this long term proj
e
c
t
.
HL:mdd
1. Brief description o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
a
r
k
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
project - Round Lake Par
k
.
R
o
u
n
d
L
a
k
e
P
a
r
k
i
s
a
2
2
0
a
c
r
e
s
i
t
e
that includes a 33 acre
l
a
k
e
a
n
d
8
0
a
c
r
e
s
o
w
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
district. The park has
b
e
e
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
phases or projects - s
o
m
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
s
o
m
e
b
y
t
h
e
school district and some
j
o
i
n
t
l
y
.
T
h
e
p
a
r
k
n
o
t
o
n
l
y
s
e
r
v
e
s
a
s
the main community activ
i
t
y
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
b
u
t
a
l
s
o
s
e
r
v
e
s
as a 220 acre campus for
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
.
T
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
District relies on the
C
i
t
y
t
e
n
n
i
s
c
o
u
r
t
s
,
s
o
f
t
b
a
l
l
a
n
d
baseball fields, as wel
l
a
s
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
p
o
o
l
a
n
d
i
c
e
-- arena for physical ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
,
i
n
t
e
r
s
c
h
o
l
a
s
t
i
c
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
areas and interscholasti
c
l
e
a
g
u
e
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
r
e
l
i
e
s
school football and so
c
c
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
s
-
a
n
d
g
y
m
s
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
- recreation and athlet
i
c
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
The Round Lake Park "Pr
o
j
e
c
t
"
i
s
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
j
o
i
n
t
projects between the City
a
n
d
t
h
e
"
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
t
h
e
O
N
R
,
a
n
d
the Watershed District
,
t
h
a
t
h
a
s
t
a
k
e
n
n
e
a
r
l
y
2
0
y
e
a
r
s
t
o
• complete.
2 Outline the initial pla
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
including community invol
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
/
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
y
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
if any: The City and Sc
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
j
o
i
n
t
l
y
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
t
h
e
majority of the prope
r
t
y
i
n
t
h
e
l
a
t
e
1
9
6
0
'
s
.
T
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
property "boundary" wa
s
n
o
t
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
w
a
s
planned, showing the loc
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
C
i
t
y
r
o
a
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
the location of the hig
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
p
a
r
k
p
l
a
n
.
(
T
h
e
boundary actually passes
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
o
u
t
f
i
e
l
d
o
f
t
h
e
b
a
s
e
b
a
l
l
field.) All phases of
t
h
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
e
r
e
jointly reviewed throug
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
several of the phases we
r
e
j
o
i
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
3. Outline funding/budget
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
and/or public/private fu
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
c
e
:
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
-
City of Eden Prairie, S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
L
A
W
C
O
N
g
r
a
n
t
s
,
S
t
a
t
e
grants and park dedicati
o
n
.
Development - City fund
i
n
g
,
S
c
h
o
o
l
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
,
j
o
i
n
t
C
i
t
y
/
S
c
h
o
o
l
funding, LAWCON and Stat
e
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
g
r
a
n
t
s
,
S
t
a
t
e
Tennis Court Grants, DN
R
g
r
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
b
o
a
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
piers. Lions Club donat
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
p
a
r
k
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
,
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
p
i
e
r
,
playstructure, and par
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
,
J
a
y
c
e
e
d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
r
e
e
nursery, individual d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
i
t
e
m
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
individual trees, benche
s
,
e
t
c
.
,
p
a
r
k
f
e
e
s
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
p
a
r
k
b
o
n
d
referendum for the major
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
4. Community response an
d
/
o
r
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
i
.
e
.
attendance, newspaper a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
,
p
r
o
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
publicity.
A 1986 survey indicated
t
h
a
t
o
v
e
r
9
3
%
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
u
s
e
s
Round Lake Park at leas
t
o
n
c
e
/
y
e
a
r
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
citizens of Eden Prairi
e
r
e
g
a
r
d
R
o
u
n
d
L
a
k
e
P
a
r
k
a
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
focal point.
5. Briefly describe why you feel the pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
u
n
i
q
u
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
deserving of a spec
i
a
l
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
:
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
n
o
t
o
n
l
y
provided the citizen
s
o
f
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
w
i
t
h
a
g
r
e
a
t
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
park, and the School
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
f
i
n
e
c
a
m
p
u
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
school, but it has s
e
r
v
e
d
a
s
a
c
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
f
o
r
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
C
i
t
y
-
School planning on
a
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
i
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
City over the last
2
0
y
e
a
r
s
,
(
a
l
l
b
u
t
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
schools use City pa
r
k
s
a
s
t
h
e
i
r
p
l
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
)
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
School District have
a
l
s
o
l
e
a
r
n
e
d
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
u
s
e
o
f
a
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
facilities to get ma
x
i
m
u
m
u
s
e
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
6. Outline the evaluati
o
n
,
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
r
i
t
i
q
u
e
or review process that
VAS utilized at-the proj
e
c
t
'
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
:
T
h
e
R
o
u
n
d
L
a
k
e
P
a
r
k
"Project" actually h
a
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
or phases over the l
a
s
t
2
0
y
e
a
r
s
.
A
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
p
h
a
s
e
s
,
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
planned separately or
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
,
w
e
r
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
b
o
t
h
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
.
Both the School Dis
t
r
i
c
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
h
a
v
e
g
a
i
n
e
d
i
m
m
e
n
s
e
l
y
from this project.
T
h
e
m
o
s
t
r
e
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
r
p
h
a
s
e
w
a
s
t
h
e
School District's co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
o
c
c
e
r
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
a
n
d
n
e
w
baseball field comple
t
e
d
i
n
1
9
8
0
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
toward the project
a
n
d
i
n
r
e
t
u
r
n
h
a
v
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
t
the park, four new soccer fields and a new bas
e
b
a
l
l
f
i
e
l
d
t
h
a
t
will be used by comm
u
n
i
t
y
g
r
o
u
p
s
f
o
r
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
,
l
e
a
g
u
e
p
l
a
y
a
n
d
tournaments.
zqS
ROUND LAKE PARK
• qq
lire Stork lit is — Roc kforrl
Eagan Picnic Shelter
1989 MRPA Citation Award Recipients
le 1087 . the Minnesota Recrean,,n and
Park Assos are ininarated a new program to
honor outstanding achievements tor parks,
ret reatii iii aid leisure services
This program. entitled MRPA Citation
Awards, recognizes agencies and organi-
zations who have sompieted prOint.ts that
best exemplify sound, yet innsexatIve
approth lies to leisure survIces desvery
A tenor goai ot the program is to pro-
mote Irdsitiye pukic, awareness, (trough-
our Minnesota, ot tlieu ontrIbutIon ot these
prolec is to the quarav ot Ste
On :wheat if MR PA President. leo
Rudolph. thanks to the Minnesota
Recreation and Park Foundation tor their
co sponsorship ot the 1989 Otausx1Awards
Program. Appreciation and thanks is also
extended to the Awards Committee. lohn
VonDetwate. Chair, Bruce Andelson, lohr.
Kepnees.Panline!Staples and Sandra Worts.
Pie MRPA Award sC ommittee s pleased
to annount e the recipients of the 1.89
Citation Awards as Sdiows:
Rockford Historical Society
and City of Rockford
"The Historic Stork House"
An Outstanding evannore r,ommunity
volunteerism. This protest involved more
than 85 volunteers contributing over 900
hours of assistance iMth restoration com-
pleted in 1088. the Florida Ames
Storkhouse has been entered on the
NatiOnal Register of Historic Homes Ori-
ginally built in 1857. Ore louse is now open,
130 years later. lot public touts rind school
programs
City of Eagan
"Park Shelter Buildings
Architectural Program
and Design"
During the past four years. the City of
Eagan has designed and conStrikted ten
park shelter buildings f rom the concept
phase through detail design, froth the public
and Co officials have been involved in the
establishment of 'architectural programs -.
This approach has led to a "palette of
buildings wbich offer superb architectural
design, high quality amenities, energy
efficiency, and good construction value.
f f.•‘'.•
City of Eden Prairie
"Round Lake Community
Park"
Ii t ,rir Ii I [ ake• ['ark is ,Isttperbts . t11•..,17,11,1
le,tritth tot ritty t(Sit lilt 111114, 1
33 R 11.11.11,. ,111,11-10 .1( 1,101 St /it ,I ‘11,111, f
(ii( iii.Offfaslf icti III ,f,f,f,e•s rite
DVV1•11 ,111111`1111'1,1 .1.7,41111,1 ,‘ 1 n 1,1, I
),,rtt Its, urn1 (no( ,try,trtht,t
nor, tht.ill,tttr,..tlt N,11,I.11 Ii Isnuulur '.
1A1,.1e1,11,11511.1111.1 LAVVCON t Mfi tint
Pro;,,,rttlt, ,thtl t tic" l'r n trr.• t
EY.<•:111,tfly Oft`t)ft.t1,1 111 I n tht.i (Inc fl,t1I. us
nits, l•rtrerritt.t., rt. 20th yr,ir scrvite ht ttle
Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board
"Minneapolis Sculpture
Garden"
();”•11,1 III 1988 the Mirtrte•,tttohs
StAtIpturt•ttordt.rt, /et ..,,t111. Vt1 trit1,1,1,
...11t. 1,1 Ole .11,1 must 11(114, 1, Of
IfS1,110 The ,t.vt.r, II It 411h lull Il1LICS111.1101
1,.1.111 ,1111c1,,r, tutu, ,111111,1/1 1W1,1t.
11Ve 1111,1 111,111 t 111111111.111/1.; 111 ,1
,,11, I rvti,runty nint1,,li
1111(1gt !mks tht g.tIcif ,r1 ti I otif -T, Rink .1n1,1
1111,V111.1,, 11,1/ilf1,111 ,111, The Sr tIff flUft'
therrsn hrr rirflf we, ,n {101 ,,f,f(foll
enc'rerr 111t. W,111,111 Art crlf f
r.iiriirrr;rr it ltrin tint R,1<•,111,11111 ,0111
1,01=••••••
(..0\
, 4
' r 7
— , , ,
\ I ,
•o-Nst " 'J., •
,
j4-1,S
"hr
- •
rr-s7t177
Round Lake Park /High School Campus
.14;slarilkil a
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1480
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and
Douglas Tenpas
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of
Planning Chris Enger, Director of
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Robert Lambert, Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All Members Present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as
published and amended.
Add Item VI. City Manager Evaluation.
Motion carried unanimously.
IT. PRESENTATION OF GOLF COURSE ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR PRAIRIE
BLUFF PARK - BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES
Barry Warner, Barton-Aschman Associates, presented three
possible alternatives for a golf course. A household survey,
community demographics and market competition were taken into
consideration. The issues which were addressed in the
decision making process were the MUSA Line, the Flying Cloud
Airport clear zone, another golf course at the west boundary,
the Minnesota River Valley Bluff line, respect of the natural
vegetation, the City's object, and the natural characteristics
of each property. The first alternative was a publicly- owned
18-hole course with the provision for two open-space parks.
The second alternative would retain the par-3 course at Cedar
Hills. It would require access from Highway 161, which would
require a significant expenditure to provide turn lanes for
safety. It would also allow for five pockets of single-family
residential homes. The third alternative would be along the
Minnesota River Bluffs. Residential homes would be broken
into small pocket areas. The clubhouse would overlook the
Minnesota River Valley.
2207
City Council Minutes 2 February 14, 1989
Warner stated that the preferred plan was to have the
clubhouse centrally located; the first 9 holes would have an
attractive view. This would he a good use of the property
because of the restrictions of MAC. Open space adjacent to
the golf course would be preserved as well As the Riley Creek
Valley. This location would provide a good opportunity for
residential development. Warner noted that additional mapping
would be required prior to courue design. Warner believed
there was enough land available for the golf course to exist
successfully with single-family residential and that this
would be a good vehicle to preserve sensitive areas within the
property.
Peterson asked if land which was not part of the Charlson
property would also be developed as residential. Lambert
replied yes.
Tom Bierman questioned what the rationale had been to include
residential property throughout the entire 300-acre site for
the golf course. Lambert replied that 140 to 160 acres would
be required for an 18-hole golf course; in many of the areas,
the contour was extremely steep which caused the additional
land requirement. Lambert believed that this proposal would
provide a win-win situation for both Mr. Charlson and the City
by allowing Charlson to retain prime lots for sale as
residential homes at an increase in value because of the golf
course, which would help make up the difference for the price
the land sold to the City.
A resident asked If the course would be hilly. Warner replied
that the portion to the east was rolling hills.
John Standal, 9955 Spring Road, asked if sewer and water would
be available in this area. Warner replied sewer and water
would not be available until approximately the year 2000, the
home sites would have private wells, and the golf course would
have its own well.
III. REVIEW OF PROJECTS LIST AS AMENDED AFTER THE JANUARY 31ST
MUTIPG__-__ROPJ,AMBEPT
TV. DISC-1-10N_RE: BOND REFERENDUM
A. AMoullt....QI_Beblr.2 0.dlIM
B. Proiects to be Included
Lambert reported that with • purchase of 230 acres the City
would be able to develop a golf course, provide for 70 acres
of park land, and the balance of the property would be
residential. A conceptual agreement to purchase 230 acres
would be estimated at $12,500 per acre for $2,900,000; 70
acres would be dedicated to the City as a gift. The property
owner would maintain the best lots for residential use, and
2207
City Council Minutes 3 February 14, 1989
the Riley Creek Valley would be retained. The City would not
he able to have the softball fields and the clubhouse would
not overlook the Minnesota River Bluffs; however, several
other sites were available with magnificent views. Lambert
briefly addressed the other items listed as proposed projects
to be included in the referendum with a proposed estimated
cost of $10,750,000.
Peterson asked Lambert if the amounts took into consideration
the increasing population and if the figures included for any
maintenance of the facilities. Lambert replied that a steady
Increase in population growth was included; however, it did
not include any maintenance, only the cost to pay the bond.
Woody Ginkel, 10430 White Tail Crossing, asked if there was a
timetable established for the projects. Lambert replied that
construction could begin in 1990 but would not see use until
1991. Lambert added the bubble on the ice would be at least
one year away.
Standal asked who would pay for the development of the golf
course. Lambert replied that the development would be
provided for as part of the bond referendum. Other
communities had indicated that fees from the course would pay
for the development and operating cost if the City had the
property available.
Kevin Dahl was concerned that Miller Park would not be able to
cover the soccer field needs if the Flying Cloud fields were
no longer available.
A resident questioned the $3,400,000 cost for Miller Park.
Lambert replied that the $3.4 million was for the completion
of Miller Park, with the major portion of the cost being for
grading and utilities. Lamhert added that the storm water
piping and utilities needed to be installed at the same time
as the road system. This amount did not include any outdoor
hockey, or beach. Lambert stated that an outdoor pool in the
future was a possibility if a beach were determined not to be
feasible.
Pat Richard, 6793 Lorena Lane, believed that it was important
that neighborhood meetings be held to discuss these parks so
that no misunderstandings occurred. Lambert replied that
notice to those in the service area would advised of
neighborhood meetings. All plans were conceptual in nature.
Lambert added that the City had no intention of developing a
neighborhood park in opposition to a neighborhoods wishes.
Ginkel believed that 99% of the success of the referendum
would depend on informing the public and believed that when
the information packets were sent out the public should be
made aware of the neighborhood meetings.
2zoq
City Counci) Minntee 4 February 14, 1989
Lorrie Heimkes, 12157 Cartway Curve, asked if the trail from
Homeward Hills east to County Road 18 wau included. Lambert
replied that this trail was included in the $95,000 figure;
however, it had been inadvertently left out of the
description.
Mary Campbell, 17918 South Shore Lane West, believed that the
gentleman who had brought up the issue of the children's
wading pool did not mean to close in the existing structure,
but to build a new one. Lambert replied that this was
correct.
Ginkel stated that during the last referendum 35% were for an
Ice arena and 47% were opposed. The cost for the last
proposal was three times the amount of the current referendum
cost for an ice dome. Ginkel believed that it was vital to
make new items clear and to provide detailed costs. Ginkel
added that the voters should be infozmed that they would be
voting for their future and it would be possibly 7 to 8 years
before given another chance. Ginkel believed that if the
voters were informed properly and completely the referendum
would be successful.
Frank LeGrand, 9866 Linden, questioned if the amount of the
referendum being over $10,000,000 might have a psychological
barrier to some voters.
Steve Krause, 6832 Sugar Hill Circle, stated that these items
being presented were items that the committee believed were
important. Krause believed that the voters should be informed
about the items which were also looked at and rejected as well
as those included. He believed that the voters needed to see
some common sense used.
Christine Dodge, 15850 Westgate Drive, stated that the Council
had been asked to determine the priority of the community's
needs. Dodge believed that it was important to inform the
voters that these were only the beginning of park needs, and
not the end, so that voters realize that other referendums
would be coming up in the future. Dodge noted that the City
Hall issue still needed to be resolved at some time in the
future. She believed that the most Important aspect of the
referendum was the land acquisition and that It possibly
should be separated from the other area of the referendum.
Dodge believed that some of the items could be done at a later
time; however, the land could be gone forever if not purchased
now.
Peterson believed that if the majority of the items listed
were approved on this referendum, another referendum would not
be necessary in the near future.
Bierman stated that a double gym had been added at the last
meeting. Bierman questioned the need for a double gym when
2210
City Council Minutes 5 February 14, 1989
the high school and junior high were both adding new gyms to
their facilities. BiermAn noted that voters tended to get
emotional about certain issues. Lambert replied that he had
received several negative comments regarding the double gym
and believed this item would be difficult to sell to the
voters because of the following objections: 1) taxes, 2)
schools have gyms already, and 3) private facilities are
available.
A resident commented that he was disappointed that after
spending $10,000,000, very little land would be preserved,
especially the natural areas. Lambert replied that there
would be 70 acres reserved as part of the Bluff Park area, the
City had approximately 1,400 acres of open space park land,
and would eventually have 3,000 acres to be part of a wild
life and conservation area. Lambert believed that Eden
Prairie would have enough land left in natural states.
Pat Richard believed that the dollar amount should be kept
under $10,000,000. Richard asked how much could be saved if
the roads were not paved at the parks. Lambert replied that
this alternative was not acceptable because additional land
would be taken up with the ditch space required if gravel road
were used. Lambert said this would save approximately
$250,000.
Mayor Peterson concurred that the dollar amount needed to be
reduced.
Anderson believed that the land acquisition amount should not
he reduced. He believed that the land acquisition was the
future of Eden Prairie.
Peterson asked Lambert how important the 3 neighborhood parks
at 15 acres each were in the Southwest Area at this time.
Lambert replied that the Rice Marsh Lake Park was important
and should not be delayed because developers were already
wanting to develop this property. The other two parks were
outside the MUSA Line and could possibly wait for another five
years. Lambert believed that the Rice Marsh Lake Park land
should be purchased in 1989 or 1990 at the very latest.
Peterson believed that if other funding methods were available
to purchase these two parks they should be considered.
Anderson asked Lambert what the estimated cost of the Rice
Marsh Lake Park would be. Lambert replied that each of the 15
acre parks were estimated at $200,000 each. Lambert added
that an exact figure was not known at this time and there was
also the possibility to acquire land in lieu of park fees.
Anderson believed that if the City delayed in the purchase of
the property it would have to pay more for the land in the
future. Lambert concurred that the land would be more
expensive in the future; however, the cash park fees should
be higher as well. Lambert was concerned that the City's
City Council Minutes February 14, 1989
ability to purchase large parcels of land was decreasing.
Lambert was not as concerned about the area south of County
Road 1.
Pidcock asked Lambert if he believed that $240,000 would be
enough purchase the land for Riley Lake Park. Lambert replied
that the cost would be higher. The matching amount of the
grant was from several years ago and now the City would have
to pay the same rate as the developers. Lambert believed that
with cash park fees and the matching grant it could be
possible to come close to the $240,000 figure.
Tenpas stated that he was frustrated with the accuracy of the
figures being presented. Lambert replied that whenever he had
to present figures to the public before an actual decision was
made the figures are higher. Lambert believed that the actual
costs would be lower than these estimated figures and that
some of the projects could be negotiated through the cash park
fee process.
Peterson pointed out that this process was only to approve a
possible funding concept and the City was not committed to
spend these dollars.
LAND ACQUISITION
Anderson was concerned about the City waiting for land
acquisition. He added that the price of land would only be
higher and the land available was quickly disappearing.
Peterson stated that purpose was to get a referendum passed
and believed that costs needed to be reduced in order to
accomplish this goal. Harris concurred with Mayor Peterson
that the costs needed to be reduced and added that she
believed the costs needed to be under $10,000,000. Harris
believed that a need for each item needed to be identified for
the voters. She also believed that while land acquisition was
an important issue, there were other needs which were equally
important and because the development of the Southwest sector
was well into the future and cuts needed to be made, that the
two 15-acre parks could be eliminated at this time.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Peterson to remove from the land
acquisition two of the 15-acre neighborhood parks at an
estimated cost of $200,000 each, leaving the land acquisition
cost at $3,730,000. Motion failed 2-3. Anderson, Pidcock,
and Tenpas all voting "NO".
22-17-
City Council Minutes 7 February 14, 1989
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the entire land
acquisition amount of $4,130,000.
Peterson stated that there was an opportunity to reduce this
amount by $400,000 by eliminating the two parks and he
believed that there were more important current needs which
needed funding now, while these two parks could wait for a few
years.
Anderson stated that this was a unique area. Anderson pointed
out that in the past the City had not always been able to
purchase property which was needed. Anderson believed that
the land acquisition was the most important issue.
Motion carried 3-2. Harris and Peterson voted "NO".
COMMUNITY PARK DEVELOPMENT
Harris asked Lambert if there would be another alternative to
Irrigate the fields at Flying Cloud Field. Lambert replied
no.
Anderson asked Lambert if the City had not been able to get
help from the DNR in the past for fishing piers. Lambert
replied that the cost was approximately $5,000 and that grants
could be possible.
Harris believed that all of the items 1:nder the Community Park
Development were essential.
Peterson asked if the City would lose the matching grant if
Riley Lake Park was not in the budget. Lambert replied that
the matching funds could be lost.
Tenpas believed that the improvement proposed for Round Lake
Park, Staring Lake Park, and Flying Cloud Fields were
aesthetic in nature and questioned if these items could not be
eliminated at this time.
MOTION:
Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to remove Round Lake Park,
Staring Lake Park, and Flying Cloud Fields from the Community
Park Development for a savings of $90,000.
Lambert believed that the City needed to expand the hard-
surfaced areas at Round Lake Park and Staring Lake Park
because of the traffic patterns and the increase in use.
Lambert stated that the turf at these parks was not holding up
and an irrigation system was necessary. A possible erosion
problem could occur at these parks if the turf was lost due to
the lack of water.
22 13
City Council Minutes R February 14, 1989
Anderson concurred with Lambert that irrigating the Flying
Cloud Fields was not a good idea. Lambert added that for a
$30,000 investment the City should at least anticipate 5 to 10
years of use and that could not be guaranteed at this time.
Pidcock asked if wood chips could be used at Round Lake Park.
Lambert replied that it would not look as good and would not
hold up in the well-traveled areas around the buildings.
Peterson stated that he favored the motion and believed that
alternate funding sources for these projects should be
considered.
Motion carried 4-1. Harris voted "NO".
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PEVELOPMENT
Peterson asked Lambert to clarify the need for the garage at
Edenvale Park to be replaced. Lambert replied that the floor
was cracking and there were also problems with the building
structure itself. Lambert stated Staff believed that the
building either needed to be overhauled or replaced.
Tenpas asked if the building was used year round. Lambert
replied it was used as a warming house in the winter and for a
few summer programs; however, it had not been used at all this
last summer. Tenpas stated that he would like to see the
Preserve Park building eliminated and the second floor
renovation at Homeard Hills Park.
Anderson believed that there had been a strong interest from
the public for Homeward Hills Park, Wyndham Knoll Park, and
Pioneer Park. Lambert concurred.
Peterson asked what could be done at Pioneer Park for $50,000
Instead of $100,000. Lambert replied that grading, seeding,
and a gravel parking lot could be done for $50,000.
Anderson asked if everything had been resolved at Prairie East
Park. Lambert replied that this park should have a skating
rink and a picnic shelter which was not enclosed. He added
that two years ago the neighbors have voiced strong requests
for these items. The neighbors did not want a parking lot on
Buckingham Drive.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to reduce Preserve Park to
$10,000, delete Homeward Hills Park entirely, and Edenvale
Park, reducing the costs by $130,000.
Lambert stated that Homeward Hills was a large neighborhood
which had a strong interest about the park shelter. This
neighborhood was a long way from any other park. Lambert
27_1(-1
City Council Minutes February 14, 1989
believed that this park would help gain a lot of support for
the referendum if left in.
Pidcock asked why the cost was $45,000. Lambert replied that
the barn needed to be insulated and brought up to code
standards. He added that a second access for a fire escape
also needed to be provided.
Tenpas asked what the square footage of the first floor was.
Lambert replied that the barn was 40'x60' with an open space
area of 20'x40' on the first floor. Tenpas believed that the
City's money would be better spent developing new facilities
where none currently existed and in the acquisition of land.
Anderson asked how usable the facility was presently. Lambert
replied it was currently used as a warming house in the winter
and for summer playground programs. Lambert believed that the
potential use would be unlimited if the building were opened
up. Lambert emphasized the need to get the referendum passed
and believed that the elimination of Homeward Hills Park would
be detrimental.
Peterson concurred that Homeward Hills was far away from any
other park and suggested a compromise to include $30,000 for
Homeward Hills Park.
AMEYOMFNT TQ_THF NOTIOY:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to include $30,000 for
Homeward Hills Park. Amendment to the Motion carried 4-1.
Tenpas voted "NO".
The original motion carried 4-1. Tenpas voted "NO".
TRA11_03TEMS
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to accept the Trail System
as recommended.
Peterson asked if two trails were included at Purgatory Creek.
Lambert replied yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
;.2-K;
City Council Minute 10 February 14, 1989
COMMUNITY CENTER IMPROVEMENTS
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to delete the double
gymnasium, indoor running track, and indoor children's wading
pool.
Motion carried unanimously.
Lambert noted that the entrance improvement for the Community
Center for $75,000 had been forgotten. Lambert also commented
that the reason the wading pool had been included was that
there was no place for the small children to swim.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to include the following
under the Community Center Improvements: Recreation Staff
offices and multi purpose room, fabric dome and ice rink, and
the entrance, totalling $925,000.
Peterson questioned if the multi-purpose room would be
necessary if the plans for the Factory Outlet Centre proceeded
for development as a family entertainment center. Lambert
replied it would depend on the types of facilities and the
supervision provided. Peterson asked what portion of the
$250,000 was for the multi-purpose room. Lambert replied that
it would be hard to estimate because some of the offices were
included in this area also.
Motion carried unanimously.
Referendum Total at this point $9,140,000.
Paul Karpinko, 6891 Sugar Hill, stated that the Council had
done an excellent Job in reviewing the recommended projects.
Karpinko was concerned that the maintenance costs were not
included and asked where these funds would come from.
Peterson replied that estimated would be provided for
maintenance and personnel costs; however, these figures were
difficult to determine because many of the project would not
be completed for 5 or more years.
Bierman stated that the Council had gotten below the
$10,000,000, but questioned some of the reductions. He
believed that Flying Cloud Fields, Round Lake Park, and
Staring Lake Park were all highly visible projects and the
amount of money saved by eliminating them had been minimal.
Bierman was concerned that the costs had been reduced by too
much. Peterson replied that the $10,000,000 figure did not
preclude some of these items being addressed at another time;
additional dollars will be spent over the next few years and
?-716,
City Council Minutes 11 February 14, 1989
other methods of funding could be used to handle some of the
items.
Cathy LeGrand, 9866 Linden, recommended that the Council
consider taking out the $400,000 from the land acquisition as
originally considered and put back in the items that the
residents will vote for.
Kevin Dahl concurred with LeGrand that the land acquisition
reduction should be considered. He added that the southwest
quadrant was undeveloped at this time and the funds could be
better used in other areas at this time.
Lorrie Heimkes, 12157 Cartway Curve, stated that only one
Councilmember had said they had visited a neighborhood park
and believed that these items should be readdressed. She
believed that the Council was cutting out important items to
the voters when only one Councilmember had indicated that they
had actually visited or used any of the parks.
Vicki Koenig, 7239 Topview Road, supported leaving the land
acquisition as it was. She added that if the City did not
purchase the land now it might not have the parks in the
future.
John Freemyer, 6616 Harlan Drive, believed that land
acquisition was the most important issue; however, he would
support taking out the 2 parks at $400,000, especially if
there was a possibility of a land dedication by the
developers. Freemyer stated that the City was asking the
voters to extend into the next 10 years for land acquisition
and believed that maybe this was too much to ask right now.
Mr. Wuttke, 16860 Flying Cloud Drive, concurred that the land
acquisition should be reconsidered and reduced by $400,000
because it was too far in the future. Wuttke believed that
the Council had cut out areas which would be vote getters.
Brian Nicholson, 6635 175th Avenue West, stated that he was
pro land acquisition for the parks in the future; however, the
ultimate goal of having the referendum pass also needed to be
considered.
Moe Cook, 6920 Parkview Lane, supported the land acquisition
and believed that the residents needed to begin thinking of
the needs of the City 10 years from now. He believed that the
goal was to have the referendum pass, but also believed that
the City needed to project the image that it was looking at
the long-term needs of the residents and, therefore, land
acquisition should be the number one priority.
Fred LeGrand noted that the land acquisition was 45% of the
total referendum figure.
7 20
City Counc:11 Minntes 12 February 14, 1989
Tenpas believed that it was important to look at long-range
plans for the rity and it was equally important to educate the
residents of this need. He believed that land acquisition was
important. Tenpas further believed that financing items such
as community park improvements should be handled on a short-
term finance basis and not through long-term bond referendums.
Harris stated that those residents who are living here now are
the ones which are paying for the parks and other items and
the Council needed to he cognizant that they are using the
facilities now. Harris stated that the City had been
successful to acquire park land as the areas were developed.
She believed that the same opportunity would be available in
the southwest section of the City.
Anderson stated that maybe it was an impossible task to have
the referendum be under $10,000,000.
Peterson stated that the issue was to provide what the
residents wanted. Anderson replied that the cuts had started
to be able to get the cost under $10,000,000. Peterson stated
that it was important for the residents to know that the
Council had considered all of these items very carefully.
Woody Ginkel stated that if the philosophy of the Council was
presented to the voters related to long-term versus short-term
plans, the voters would understand.
Doug Lawyer, 16631 North Hillcrest Court, believed that the
City should put forward a first class referendum or do none at
all. He did not believe that $8,000,000 to $11,000,000 was an
unrealistic figure.
Another resident stated that the Council had come a long way
and that the ultimate goal to be under $10,000,000 could be
reached by the elimination of the double gymnasium and the
indoor track and there would still be a short-term and a long-
term balance.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to bring the land
acquisition question back for further discussion and proposed
to delete the two 15- acre parcels for $400,000.
Harris asked if the intent was then to add items back in which
had been excluded in exchange for the land acquisition.
Pidcock replied that was the intent.
Tenpas believed that to reduce the land acquisition figure
would be short-sighted And irresponsible when surveys had
indicated that the residents believed that land acquisition
was vital to the community.
City Council Minutes 13 February 14, 1989
Peterson stated that the Council was only talking about 30
acres in the southwest Area out of a total of 360 acres, which
was a minor reduction, and should not be considered short-
sighted.
Anderson asked if a compromise could be reached by reducing
the land acquisition figure by $200,000.
Peterson stated that he would not be inclined to add items
unless something was taken out in exchange.
Pidcock stated that she had been the Councilmember who had
introduced strategic planning to Eden Prairie and did not
consider it fiscally irresponsible or short-sighted to
consider reducing the land acquisition figure.
AMENDMENT THE
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to reduce the land
acquisition amount by $200,000. Motion carried 3-2. Tenpas
and Harris both voted "NO".
MOTION.:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to include Staring Lake
Park and Round Lake Park in the referendum figure for an
addition of $60,000.
Tenpas asked how long it would take for these items to be
completed through the operating budget. Lambert replied these
two parks could be done next year if included in the budget.
Tenpas believed that these parks were important but should be
handled by short-term funding.
Anderson asked if these two parks could be included in next
years budget. Jullie replied it was possible.
Motion carried 3-2. Tenpas and Peterson voting "NO".
Tenpas stated that it was not a question of need, but rather
how the City could best pay for the needs. Tenpas added that
with taxes rising it was important to consider every possible
means of paying for these Items.
Anderson questioned the need for the garage at Edenvale Park
and why it would cost $45,000. Lambert replied that the
proposal was to put up a park shelter and warming house. The
proposed cost in 1983 had teen approximately $35,000. Lambert
noted that it was these types of items which seemed to be cut
from the budget first.
2219
city Council Minutes 14 February 14, 1989
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Peterson to add back into the
referendum cost the Edenvale Park garage. Motion carried 3-2.
Tenpas and Pidcock voted "NO".
C. 511.9OL_MA1tiple _Questions
LIDTIDN:
Pidcock moved to have a multiple question ballot. The
motion failed for lack of a second.
QI1Qi :
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to have a single
question ballot. Motion carried unanimously.
P. Pate Of....Relt.U.1A01
MDTUE:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to set April 18, 1989
as the date for the referendum.
Lambert noted that this would be close to the same time as
when the property valuations would be sent.
Tenpas believed that it should be at least postponed for
two weeks after the proposed date due to income taxes
being due on April 17, 1989.
Peterson believed that one week would be sufficient.
A resident noted that the first half of the property taxes
were due on May 15, 1989. Another resident noted that
many would be getting state and federal tax refunds.
&1Nl IQ. T4F_MPTIO:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to change the original
proposed date to April 25, 1989.
Motion to set the date for April 25, 1989 was approved
U nanimously.
V. AVTURTZATJQN FD.IR_PULIg_11 1 PORMATION_WPG.ET_FPR_UFEBENPUE
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the budget as
proposed. Motion carried unanimously.
22-9-0
City Council Minutes 15 February 14, 1989
VI. CITY MANAGER GNU
Harris believed that the subject of the City Manager's goals
needed to addressed. She recommended that the City Manager
come to the Strategic Planning meeting with these goals in
mind.
Jullie stated that he had a list of specific goals.
Peterson questioned if the Strategic Planning meeting was the
appropriate place to include this item.
Harris requested information by the next regular City Council
meeting.
VII. ARIMPLEAM
The meeting adjourned at 10:35.
2 2-2 1
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and
Douglas Tenpas
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of
Planning Chris Eager, Director of
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Robert Lambert, Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members present.
COMMENDATIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS IN 1989 EDEN PRAIRIE SPRING CLEAN-UP
uy. mp....y..FILBE....FRqUE,.REcipIENT OF THE HORATIO AL.Q.ER_AYARD
Mayor Peterson presented commendations to all those present who had
participated in the 1989 Spring Clean-Up Day, and to Kellee Kruger for
her award.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as
published and amended.
ADDITIONS:
Add item X.A.2., Ciatti's and the Lot between Hampton Inn &
Residence Inn. Add item X.A.3, Safety Issues on County Road
4. Add item X.A.4, 4th of July Celebration. Add Item X.A.5,
Public Access on Bryant Lake.
Motion carried unanimously.
II. MJNIITE5.
A. Regular City. Council Meeting held Tuesday, May_15,_1 .989
B. Joint City_council./Waste Management commaf-iLID._&ttlPa
Held Tuesday, May 23 4 1389
C. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesgay„Alm._23, 1989
City Council Minutes 2 June 6, 1989
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to continue the three
sets of minutes to the June 20, 1989 City Council Meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
III. CQNSENT_CALENPAR
A. Clerk!s 41PeDs.e
B. Resolution No. 89-81_Authodzing_the Issuance_of
in Industrial Refunding Revenue Bonds for Kinder -Car.e.
Learning Centers, Inc.
C. APProval of Senior Citizen Discount
D. apoon Ridge Neighborhood Petition
E. Approve Bids on Franlo Park and Wyndham Knoll Park for
C.OD_Strilcti9A
F. Approve Plans and Specification for Storm Sewer
Improvements At CSAH 1 and C.1AH I.C. 52 -121
(Resolution No. 89-131)
G. Appuve Agreement with Northeril_1t5Ie5 egw_e_r_c_Qpputy.tg.
Convert (2,rh.A Transmission Facilities to Buried
Transmission Facilities Adiapent_to CSARJ South of T.U. 5
H. Receive Feaslbility Study_for Bluff Road Street and
1,1t i 1 i ty_ m_pr ove s_a nsUp et_ Public Hearing, I,C.„52 -194.
(Resolution No. 89-94)
I. Aparove Plans and Specifications for Cedar Riclge Storm
Sewer Improvements,_arid AuthotliZg Bldg to..J.Q13e_c_PIAPd,
L,c,_52 7 152 (Resolution No. 89-110)
J. Receive Feasibility_atudy jor_caji.ffo,.._1_14...72/1:11111 Lant
at Cedar Ridge Elementary School and Set Public Hearing,
I.C. 52-155 (Resolution No. 89-111)
K. ApprgvnLpl.mf,.„ryLspuifications for CSAH 1 By -PassiTurn
Lane at Cedar Ridge Elementary ,achool_and Authorfle_Bids
to be Received, I.C. 52-155 (Resolution No. 89-112)
L. ADV.T.Ove_Qpit Claim Deed Releasing_TImpor,ary_cPnAtiuction
F,;54.72.perit over_Lot 29, Eden Prairie Acres, Kgrms,Tin County,
MirInesotq
M. Apprpve_plans_lEesplullop No, 89-1141and Agrgement
(Resolution No 19 -115 with Hennepin County for
Participation in the_Construchion_and operatim of Traffic
Contnol Signal SysLea_g_t_CSAH 61 _1Shady Oak Roadj and City
West Parkway, I.C. 52-159
2_2_23
City Council Minutes 3 June 6, 1989
N. APPr.ove SUPPI ement No. 1 to Construction Cooperatiye
Agreement P.W. 70-49-87 with )nn.P)JL County adding 452
feet of Bituminous Bilieway_Adjacent to CSAH No. 4 south of Teuty_Pine Drivg,_i„.c,_52_197,4 (Resolution No. 89-116)
O. Uflrove ConstructlOn_qQoPe.Wive_AgfeeMeni_PW.2 7-.49.-89 with Hennepin County for Imgrovement to Terrey Pine Drive
and Wagner Way at their intersection with CSAH No. 4 1,c. 52:074 (Resolution No. 89-117)
P. Ordinan,Ce Wending Section 5.36 of the City_Code rfq:atinq
tP_Idgenqe Requirements for Refuse Collect_OLS (Ordinance
No. 19-89, First Reading)
Q. Request_by.Eden Wood Camping and Retreat Center fo.r_a 10.0. Alteration Permit to ConstLuct a New Access Drive tp Serve
tbg CARIP_Ivgaterh of W. 62nd Street 4nd West of
Inollan_g_llief Road
R. Re4O1AtiOn_ft......5.9:-.121...Authorizing_the_fity_p_f_ndltn Prairie Flexible Benefit Plan and the cily ot_gdep_prairie
Pft2enfle_nt aLe ReirduirSement_Plan
!ICTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve Items A
through R on the Consent Calendar.
ITEM
Harris asked if the yard waste would go to compost.
Dawson replied that Hennepin County was nearing a final
decision on a site for yard waste disposal.
Peterson asked if a compost and a disposal facility were
in the same category. Dawson replied that they were not
the same and were two separate facilities at separate
locations. Peterson then question the language of Item 1
related to collection units. Dawson replied that the
distinction was that they did not use a common dumpsters.
This wording was meant to include 4-and 8-plex units which
were responsible for their own trash disposal and did not
use a common dumpster. Peterson then requested that the
wording be clarified. Pauly noted that the wording was
clarified in the ordinance.
CLE RK 'S...LICENS E
Tenpas asked for clarification on the dog license kennel
permit and how many dogs would be allowed. Jullie replied
that there was a maximum number of dogs allowed. Tenpas
then asked if this was allowed in a residential area.
Pidcock believed that a certain amount of acreage was
needed to allow a kennel. Jullie replied that at times
222(4
City Council Minutes 4 June 6, 1989
the acreage requirement was waived and added that the main
concern was how the owner cared for the animals.
ITEM_ 1?
Harris asked if the City offered a cafeteria plan for
benefits. Jullie replied no. Jullie added that the
wording would also be clarified regarding the program for
reimbursement for dependent care services.
Motion to approve the items on the consent calendar
carried unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. RED_RgCK_SHQRES by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 13 acres,
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
May 16, 1989 Council meeting
Jullie reported that changes had been made to the grading
plan and the tree restoration issues.
Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that
currently the property consisted of two parcels zoned R1-
22 and two parcels zoned Rural. The request was for
subdivision approval for 15 lots with 3 variances required
due to the 80-foot building pad depth requested by Staff.
Smith did not believe the deeper pads were necessary
because of the wider lots and the fact that shallower
homes would be built on these lots. Smith noted that
other homes had been approved by the City which did not
have 80-foot building pad depths. He stated that the
homes would be in the $250,000 to $375,000 range.
Peterson asked if the restriction was on the building pad
size or construction limits. Enger replied that the
construction limit and the building pad depth were the
same - there would be 80 feet allowed for a home to be
built. Staff was concerned about the homeowners buying
the lots and then requesting variances for decks, etc.
Smith stated that construction of a deck on these lots
would not be allowed because of conservancy zones.
Smith recommended that the building pads be between 55
feet and 75 feet and the street moved back approximately
18 feet. He believed this to be a viable solution, which
would not cause any problems with the Shoreland Ordinance.
Smith did not believe that the previously recommended
City Council Minutes 5 June 6, 1989
zoning of R1-44 would be appropriate because of the loss
of an additional lots.
Smith reported that the utilities would be extended from
Meadowvale and Red Oak Dirves. The holding pond would
have enough area; however, some grading would be necessary
on the Mark Olson property, which Olson had agreed to.
This plan would reduce the cost of the storm sewer. Smith
noted that the Engineering Staff had briefly reviewed
this plan and that by 2nd Reading the proponent would have
full approval of the owner and the Engineering Staff
related to the best route for the storm sewer.
Smith stated that the initial grading would be for the
streets and utilities within the wooded areas;. outside of
the wooded areas would be grading for the building pads
and Scenic Heights Road, which would result in a
significant tree savings. The Initial grading would only
result in approximately 190 caliper inches of tree loss.
Mr. Hoff, attorney for the proponent, requested that his
letter dated June 5, 1989 be entered into the public
record. After several meetings with Staff, Hoff believed
that a compromise had been reached. The proponent would
comply with the tree replacement policy for those trees
removed as a result of his construction activities and in
addition would have the appropriate restrictions added
into the Developer's Agreement. The two variances would
no longer be necessary based on Mr. Smith's presentation.
Mr. Gilk would bear the risk for proceeding with the
smaller building pads. Hoff requested that the revised
plans be approved with the minor modifications presented
by Mr. Smith and that the Council accept the compromise
proposal reached between Staff and himself.
Enger reported that Staff had met with the proponent and
had discussed a number of methods to mitigate the tree
loss at the time of construction as a result of the
subdivision. The City could compromise. Enger stated
that if the City Council believed that the Tree
Replacement Policy could be used as a mitigation tool, the
proponent would be required to guarantee and replace the
trees removed at the time of construction when the streets
and utilities were provided. He believed that the impact
should be mitigated, but the developer believed that with
restriction placed on the lots the burden should be borne
by the builders and homeowners. By placing the burden of
tree replacement on the property it could have an affect
on the sale of the lots. The City's burden would be to
the extent that documents sometimes get lost in closing
and the owners could become upset when they would apply
for a building permit and find out about the restrictions
on the lot. Enger did not believe this to be a positive
solution for the proponent or the City. Enger stated that
2.22&)
City Council Minutes 6 June 6, 1989
the proponent's new figures of 190 caliper inches of tree
loss had not been verified by Staff because a new grading
plan was being presented tonight. Enger believed that
Staff needed more time to review this new proposal to
determine the actual impact to the property. Another
Issue which had not been resolved was whether the
utilities would be privately or publicly petitioned.
Enger reported that the 80-foot building pad size was used
as a practical measure for Staff to determine the impact
to the property. If the proponent was willing to accept
the risk of using smaller building pad sizes, it would be
acceptable and it would be noted in the Developer's
Agreement. Enger also noted that any hardship would not
substantiate a variance request.
Enger stated that the City's Tree Replacement Policy was a
means approved by the City to mitigate the loss of trees
due to land alteration. Enger noted that to date no other
developers have suggested any difficulty in adhering to
this policy. Staff believed that the subdivision of the
property caused the need for land alteration and the
Issues related to the alteration should be dealt with at
the time of development.
Lambert reported that the proponent was being requested to
construct an asphalt trail to connect to the existing
trail along Scenic Heights Road.
Peterson questioned the proposed change in the road
alignment. Enger replied that he had not seen this change
in the road alignment until this evening. Peterson then
asked if the Council was being requested to approve the
plan and trust that the issues would be resolved by the
2nd Reading. Smith replied that the change in the road
alignment had been offered as an alternative; however, the
road could stay In its present location.
Harris asked what the benefit would be for the change in
the road alignment. Smith replied that building pad sizes
could be reduced on the 3 lots with the proposed
realignment of the road.
Pidcock asked whether the Parks, Recreation, and Natural
Resources Commission had discussed any other trails in
this area, especially around the lake. Lambert replied
there would be no connection available. Pidcock believed
that the City was trying to get trails around the lakes.
Lambert replied that the trail would not connect to any
other trail in the future.
Anderson asked if there would be a connection from Red Oak
Drive to the city park. Lambert replied that the park
located at the Old City Hall site would serve this area.
City Counuil Minutes 7 June 6, 1989
Anderson then asked how the residents of this subdivision
would get to the park. Lambert replied the residents
would have to go along County Road 4. Lambert replied
that with the Cedar Ridge development the roads were
proposed to connect to Corral Lane and Mitchell Road.
Anderson stated that the residents would be able to see
the lake, but would have to walk 2.5 miles to use it.
Lambert replied when the land to the south of Cedar Ridge
developed a connection would be made. Lambert added that
a sidewalk system would be up to the neighbors. Anderson
believed that the City needed to plan ahead of time.
Lambert stated that this road would connect to the
neighborhood to the south. Smith noted that a sidewalk
which would connect to Meadowvale Drive had been
recommended by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission. Smith added that a sidewalk would be
constructed in the subdivision.
Tenpas believed that the tree loss would be the same, the
only difference being that the burden of replacement would
now he on the homeowner. He believed that the tree loss
was a critical issue and the objective should be to save
as many trees as possible. The homeowner needed to be
aware of the burden of tree replacement when purchasing
the home if the restriction was noted in the Developer's
Agreement. Enger replied that he agreed that by the lots
not being graded at this time trees could be saved;
however, Staff would prefer to have the tree issues
resolved prior to homeowners being involved. Enger stated
that with this compromise the homeowner would be
responsible for a tree inventory and would have to come up
with a surety for the tree loss. The Staff would be
responsible for dealing with each individual homeowner.
Tenpas stated that if the lots did not sell then the
developer would bear the burden.
Harris asked what the tree loss would be if the road was
realigned. Tenpas stated that the Council was relying
only on the developer's calculations at this time and
believed that this should be referred back to Staff.
Harris believed that the two important issues were tree
loss and the variance request for the building pads.
Harris then asked when the trees would be replaced by the
developer. Enger replied that there was some flexibility:
it could be done when the rough grading was finished or
toward the end of the road construction.
Peterson believed that only because the project was
relatively small and that Mr. Gilk had proven to be a
responsible developer in the past did this compromise made
sense. He further stated that if this was a larger
development the City would not he able to monitor this
type of compromise. Peterson recommended that signs be
posted on the lots which would be affected which clearly
222_7
City COunCil Minutes a June 6, 1989
stated the tree replacement requirements. He believed
that enforcement of the tree replacement by the homeowners
could be difficult.
Tenpas asked how many other areas in the City would be
similar to this one which needed to be addressed.
Anderson believed that Staff was being asked to be
responsible for the wooded lots within the City and that
with this compromise the burden was now being placed on
the City and not on the developer. The City would have to
inspect the lots and he believed this to be a complete
policy change from what was currently In place. Enger
concurred with Mayor Peterson that this would only make
sense on the smaller areas. Enger noted that the Council
would be having the same discussions as tonight with the
developer with 8 individual homeowners and did not believe
this to be a practical long-term solution.
Pidcock was concerned about the lack of access to a public
lake from the south side of Red Rock Lake. Peterson
replied that there had been a trail system program in
place which identified the trails in Eden Prairie and the
City Council did not have a policy which provided trails
all along the lakes. Pidcock stated that Eden Prairie was
becoming crowded and she would like the residents to be
able to walk around the lakes and have access to them.
Peterson recommended that the City Council have a workshop
session to discuss trail systems in Eden Prairie.
Tenpas asked if the Tree Replacement Policy issue was
totally an economic issue. Gilk replied that he believed
that the homeowners and builders should have the same
responsibility as the developer to replace and conserve
the trees. Gilk added that he supported the conservation
efforts of the City; however, this was an extensively
wooded area and the cost of providing a surety bond and
replacing the trees would create a substantial financial
burden.
Kathy Anderson, 6420 Craig Drive, asked why two of the
lots could not be combined. Peterson stated that
combining lots cost money from the developers standpoint.
Anderson believed that the homeowners would want the trees
replaced on the lots.
Nancy Nicolay, 16011 Lakeshore Drive, requested that this
project not be approved until the exact road alignment had
been determined. Peterson stated that the plan could be
approved subject to approval of the road alignment prior
to 2nd Reading. Nicolay stated that she had spent many
hours working out the previous road alignment. She noted
that she had an option to buy the Harry Rogers property,
72_2_9
City Council minutes 9 June 6, 1989
which would be affected by a change in the alignment.
Smith replied that discussions had taken place with Mr.
Rogers. He noted that the realignment of the road would
move the road further away from the Rogers property.
Nicolay agreed that direct access to Red Rock Lake would
be in the best interest of the City, but she was disturbed
because she had believed that everything was final and now
everything was being changed at the last minute. Peterson
asked Nicolay if she believed this would adversely affect
her property if the road were moved closer to the lake.
Nicolay replied that she could not speak for her
grandfather, Mr. Rogers. Nicolay was concerned that her
yard would be used as park land.
Dietz asked if the utilities would be private or publicly
petitioned. Gilk replied that the utilities would be
privately installed.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MPTIOti:
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to close the public
hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 13-89 for
Rezoning.
Pauly asked that this motion be subject to the conditions
In the Developer's Agreement.
Peterson stated that he would reluctantly support the
motion only because a 2nd Reading was necessary. Peterson
added that he was disappointed that the plan was at the
City Council level and road alignments were still being
negotiated and a report to the Council from Staff on this
matter was not available.
Anderson stated that the responsibility was on the City
Council because this was officially the last public
hearing. He believed that this proposal would present
problems for the City in the future and because the exact
road alignment had not been determined, he would not
support the motion. Anderson also noted that he was not
pleased with the compromise being made regarding the tree
replacement policy.
Peterson stated that the Council did have a road alignment
and a recommendation for possibly a better alignment. In voting for the motion Peterson believed that he was voting
for the alignment as presented in the Council's packet and
that which was currently agreed upon with Staff.
Pidcock stated that she would not support the motion until
a definite agreement had been reached.
2,2 30
City Council Minutes 10 June 6, 1989
Tenpas stated that he was comfortable with the alt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
road alignment being addressed at the 2nd Reading
.
H
e
believed that the tree replacement issue needed mor
e
w
o
r
k
.
Harris recommended the following conditions be part
o
f
t
h
e
motion: 1) Approve the recommendations in the Staf
f
reports, 2) Approve the compromise proposed by Staf
f
regarding the tree replacements, 3) Proponent would
agree not to make any variance requests related to the 55
-
f
o
o
t
building pad size, 4) Reach a decision regarding the road alignment, either of which was acceptable to the
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
at this time, 5) Add a section to the Developer's
Agreement regarding notification to the property ow
n
e
r
s
regarding the tree replacement stipulations. Pau
l
y
recommended that a separate agreement be written
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
the notification of the potential buyers of the p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
of the tree replacement, setback, and building pa
d
reE,trictions placed on the property.
Gilk stated that he would be comfortable with a t
w
o
-
w
e
e
k
continuance. He added that he did not want the C
o
u
n
c
i
l
t
o
think that he was trying to push anything through.
Tenpas asked if an agreement on road alignment cou
l
d
b
e
reached in two weeks. Dietz stated that he could
n
o
t
b
e
sure that it could be completely resolved.
Pauly stated that he believed that the road realig
n
m
e
n
t
was done in part to avoid the tree replacement pol
i
c
y
Issue and was an attempt to get assurance from the
C
i
t
y
.
Pauly noted that the City did not have to give an
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
or a denial based on the road alignment.
Peterson believed that there would be merit in a t
w
o
week continuance and further negotiations. He noted tha
t
a
rezoning issue would require 4 affirmative votes.
Anderson commented that he remembered when the Cit
y
d
i
d
not have a tree replacement policy and did not
want to go through those times again. He added that from comm
e
n
t
s
h
e
had received from the residents, they liked having
t
h
e
tree replacement policy.
Harris withdrew her motion.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, second1 by Harris to continue this
i
t
e
m
to the June 20, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion ca
r
r
i
e
d
4- 1. Tenpas voted "NO".
R. ERFB.B.R.V.B._50QTR by BRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately
18 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood
2Z3
City Council Minutes 11 June 6, 1989
Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
approximately 18 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District
Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots for construction
of a 25,248 square foot theater complex. Location: East
of Highway #169, south of Medcom Boulevard. (Resolution
No. 89-124 - PUD Concept Amendment to Overall Preserve
South Planned Unit Development; Resolution No. 89-125 -
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance No. 17-89-
P00-4-89 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-
126 - Preliminary Plat)
Jullie reported that notice of this public hearing had
been mailed to 172 surrounding property owners and had
been published in the May 24, 1989 issue of the Eden
Prairie News.
Ed Flaherty, representing the proponent, stated that the
project had started in 1987. Several other uses such as
high-density office, a strip mall, high-rise residential
and medical use had been considered and it was determined
that the movie theater was the most appropriate use.
Flaherty also stated that several neighborhood meetings
had been held.
Miles Lindberg, representing the proponent, stated that
the proposed movie theater use was consistent with the
traffic generation allowed for the area. The theater
would not need to rely on direct access or view from a
highway. Residential areas surrounded the proposed
development. The plan was to subdivide the property into
two lots with the second lot being used for proof-of-
parking. The movie theater would occupy approximately 8
acres with the second lot consisting of approximately 5
acres. The theater would be located at the north end of
the property with the parking area located to the south.
This plan would keep the activity of the theaters away
from the residential areas. A sidewalk and driveway would
extend all around the building. The street plan was
designed based on the extension of Medcom Boulevard to
Frani° Road. All utility details had been worked out with
Staff. The DNR and the Watershed District had given their
approvals for the project. A conservation easement was
provided to maintain the open area. A trail connection
had been discussed with the Park & Recreation department.
The landscape plan had been revised to limit the impact to
the neighboring residential areas. The parking lot would
be terraced with berming and landscaping provided
throughout. The setback had been increased along the
eastern boundary. Retaining walls would be constructed.
The extension of Medcom Boulevard would not have an impact
on the site. The exterior of the building would be
constructed of brick, glass, and metal. The building
22)-2-
City Counll Mlnute5
12 June 6, 1989
height would be 32 feet. The signage for the facility
would consist of a marquee and another identification
sign.
Flaherty gave a slide presentation which summarized the
proposal. He stated that Cinemark was a quality
organization and he believed that this movie theater would
be one of the finest in Minnesota. Flaherty gave the
following reasons to support the Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change: 1) The technical interpretation of regional use,
while other communities considered this neighborhood
commercial, 2) the impact on the residents had been
mitigated with berming and landscaping, 3) the proposed
use was the best land use alternative, 4) he was committed
to owning the property long term and being active in the
management of the business. Flaherty further believed
that all the issues had been positively resolved and,
therefore, a Guide Plan change was warranted.
Enger reported that this item had been reviewed at several
Planning Commission meetings and had received approval at
the May 8, 1989 meeting by a 4-2 vote based on the
recommendations outlined in the Staff Report. Enger noted
that much of the concern had been for the screening and
buffering of the residential areas. Enger recommended
that the berming be increased in height. A safer access
would be from Medcom Boulevard to Frani° Road once Medcom
was extended. The present access did not rely heavily on
access to Highway 169.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission had reviewed this item at its June 5,
1989 meeting and recommended approval on a 4-3 vote. The
main discussion had centered around screening and noise
mitigation.
Tenpas asked how many of the Planning Commission members
had walked the property. Enger replied that all of the
Commissioners voting yes had walked the property.
Peterson asked for clarification on the lighting proposed
and the pedestrian flow from the building to the parking
lot. Flaherty replied that the lighting would be 20 feet
in height and would be downcast. Flaherty noted that the
main concern by the residents had been the headlights.
The parking lot had been terraced to direct the headlights
down to mitigate this concern. Lindberg replied that the
islands would have pedestrian ramps through them and exits
would come from each theater.
Harris asked what was the purpose of the game room.
Flaherty replied that the game room was to provide
entertainment before and after the movie.
City Council Minutes 13 June 6, 1989
Harris asked Dietz if there would be left turns allowed
onto Highway 8169. Dietz replied that left turns would be
allowed until Medcom Boulevard was extended.
Tenpas asked what the reasoning was for not having a left-
turn lane into the Lariat Center. Dietz replied that a
turn lane would interfere with the spacing of traffic for
Highway 169.
Pidcock asked if the parking lots would be video
monitored. Flaherty replied that there would be workers
at the theater cleaning up after the last movie had ended.
Bill Horn, 11875 Boulder Say Road, asked if this project
was contingent on the extension of Medcom Boulevard.
Dietz replied that the City was looking at a feasibility
study for the extension of Medcom Boulevard. The site was
designed with provisions that allowed for the extension of
Medcom Boulevard.
Mark Pfister, 11929 Joy Circle, had been asked to
represent the neighborhood to the southeast of the
proposed site. The residents were very proud of their
neighborhood. A slide presentation was given depicting
the neighborhood. The residents believed that a
significant traffic impact would occur on Grier Lane.
Pfister noted that the streets were constructed for
residential traffic. A Comprehensive Guide Plan was being
requested on this site and Pfister noted that a Guide Plan
change had already been allowed at the Lariat Center;
therefore, reducing the buffer area in half. Pfister
believed that the City Council would be setting a
precedent. The designated open space would also see a
significant reduction. Pfister noted that the residents
already in this area had purchased their homes based on
the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan designation and did
not believe that it was appropriate to change that
designation after the fact. The residents believed that
the project should be denied based on the requested change
in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the incompatible use
with a residential area based on the hours of operation
being in the evening and on weekends, generating
intolerable noise and traffic levels. The residents were
concerned that their property values and quality of life
would be reduced if this development were allowed to
proceed. The residents believed that the noise from the
proposed development would disturb their privacy, outside
social gatherings, and their sleep because of the late
shows. The traffic would be concentrated and not random
as with other possible land uses. The residents also
believed that the times the traffic would increase were
not compatible with a residential neighborhood. Pfister
stated that the project had been planned around the
extension of Medcom Boulevard, which he believed would
2_31,I
City Council Minutes 14 June 6, 1989
increase traffic significantly for Crier Lane. The
residents would prefer some type of office use rather than
retail use because they believed that the traffic and
noise patterns would be more compatible with a residential
net
Joe Weber, 11917 Joy Circle, believed that the developer
had presented false Arguments regarding the fact that this
proposed use would he better than other uses and further
believed that the project should be judged on its own
merit.
Tom Walters, 12490 Porcupine Court, stated that he was
representing himself and had been asked to speak for his
neighborhood. Walters believed that there were four major
problems with the development: 1) The theater proposal
Itself, 2) Deviation from the Comprehensive Guide Plan, 3)
Undefined parameters for a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change, and 4) Poor traffic flow. Walters presented
further written explanation of the objections for the
above mentioned items. Walters believed that with the
extension of Medcom Boulevard the neighborhood traffic
would increase. Walters recommended that the project be
denied. Walters believed that a formal study should be
conducted regarding water run-off and traffic.
Wayne Mueller, 8710 Grier Lane, asked why the City needed
8 more movie theaters and what would happen to the site if
Cinemark was not successful. Peterson replied that the
site would most likely be developed as office use.
Mueller then asked what Cinemark's track record was for
successful developments. Enger replied that he did not
believe that it was necessary to have the theaters on this
particular site; however, the theaters could contribute to
the downtown area. Flaherty replied that in the last
seven years Cinemark had not closed one theater and
currently had 400 theaters in operation. Flaherty added
that the theater was designed to be able to be converted
to office uses if the movie theaters were not successful.
Rich Jensen, 8680 Grier Lane, stated that the proponent
WAS asking that the second lot also be rezoned. Jensen
believed that this should be kept for public waters and
the proponent should be obligated to comply with shoreland
regulations. He believed that to approve the rezoning of
the second lot would be in violation of State Laws.
Lee Johnson, an owner of property along Franlo Road,
stated that he had expected to have a parking lot adjacent
to his property and had found the developers very
cooperative in addressing his concerns. Johnson did not
agree, however, with the circulation and blocking.
Johnson had planned to develop his property for
residential use and believed that additional screening
222)7
City Council Minutes 15 June 6, 1989
would be required on the eastern boundary and that
Possibly a fence would be appropriate to block the homes
from the headlights, otherwise Johnson believed that he
would have to downgrade his plans.
Chuck Pufahl, 8560 Franlo Road, stated that his property
bordered this development and he would not be able to see
the project. He believed that the project should be
allowed to proceed and added that the proponent had proven
in the past that he developed quality projects. Pufahl
requested that a large oak tree be saved if possible which
was close to his property line. Mueller asked Pufahl if
he had anything to gain financially by supporting this
project. Pufahl replied that he did not.
•
Mike Doherty, 8716 Grier Lane, asked if the DNR had signed
off on this project. Lindberg replied that the proponent
had met on site with the DNR and had determined that there
would be no impact on the wetland area; however, there was
another formalizing process which still needed to be
completed.
Mike Wallace, 8722 Grier Lane, asked how the proponent had
determined this particular use for the property. Flaherty
replied that he had looked at the trade area and
determined that this would be a regional use and would
generate regional traffic on regional roads and not
neighborhood road systems. Flaherty believed that those
using the facility would take the most convenient route,
not the most direct.
Mueller asked if Frani° Road was considered a regional
road. Dietz replied that it was considered a collector
road. Peterson added that Franlo Road had been designed
to be wider as a collector road.
Pidcock asked Lambert if this project would be in
violation of the Shoreland Ordinance. Lambert replied
that the Shoreland Ordinance had been developed over 3
years ago and that Eden Lake was considered by the DNR to
be a man-made holding area and, therefore, was not subject
to the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
Peterson commended all of the residents making
presentations. Peterson stated that a number of the
concerns raised related to the Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change. Peterson assured that residents that anytime a
change was made in the Comprehensive Guide Plan it was
done only after very careful and thorough study. He added
that a Neighborhood Commercial designation allowed for a
50,000 square-foot structure to be build and the proposed
development would only be one-half of that size. Peterson
also believed that the proposal before the Council would
be a less intense use of the property.
2 2 36,
City Council M1nute5 16 June 1989
Anderson stated that the proposed project would fit into
the area, would benefit the major center area, was
compatible with other adjacent land uses, would aid in the
development of the downtown area, and will help attract
regional trade to Eden Prairie. Anderson believed that
this development would have only a minor effect on the
residential areas adjacent to it.
Tenpas stated that if the theater was not successful a
more intense use could be developed on this site. Tenpas
noted that another major concern of the residents had been
traffic. Tenpas believed that from a safety issue it
would be better to have the traffic later rather than
during the day, and added that it was a definite benefit
that the traffic would not he during the peak .hours.
Tenpas stated that the theaters would draw business from a
larger area which would be beneficial to other businesses
in Eden Prairie. Tenpas asked the residents if there had
been an increase in noise since Applebees had been
constructed. Pfister replied that there had been an
increase. Tenpas then stated that he had walked the area
and did not believe that the residents on Porcupine Court
could see the project at all and the residents on Joy
Circle would only be able to view the parking lot. Tenpas
also questioned how much of the noise would be heard by
the residents. Tenpas stated that he would support the
project.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 89-124 for PhD Concept
Amendment.
Pidcock stated that the Council was voting for the benefit
of the City as a whole and believed that this project
would be good for Eden Prairie.
Peterson stated that he believed that this project would
be the most benign use for the property.
Tenpas requested that Staff do whatever was possible to
mitigate the traffic problems.
Harris stated that this was a difficult decision, the
neighborhoods had made compelling arguments; however, she
believed that this project would add to the recreational
facilities available in the City
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes 17 June 6, 1989
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution
No. 89-125 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment.
Peterson asked if it was essential to approve a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment on both lots. Enger
replied no. Lindberg stated that he had understood that
it was necessary to rezone the second lot because of the
proof-of-parking requirement. Enger replied that he did
not believe that an application had been made to rezone
the second lot and, therefore, the Council could not act
on that request.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 17-89-PUD-4-89 for P0D District and
Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution
No. 89-126 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct
Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating
Committee and Staff recommendations. Motion carried
unanimously.
C. gouqTRy_GLEN by Coffman Development. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.3 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 9.3 acres into 20 single family lots,
1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of
Town] me Road, west of Claycross Way. (Ordinance No. 18-
89, Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-129, Preliminary Plat)
Jullie reported that notice of this public hearing had
been mailed to 65 surrounding property owners and had been
published in the May 24, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie
News.
Ron Bastyr, representing the proponent, stated that the
proponent concurred with the Staff recommendations and he
was available to answer any questions.
Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the
Planning Commission at the May 8 and May 22, 1989 meeting
and had recommended approval of the project unanimously at
the May 22, 1989 meeting based on the recommendations
outlined in the Staff Report.
Lambert reported that this proposal had been reviewed by
the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission at
City Council Minutes 18 June 6, 1989
its June 5, 1989 meeting and recommended approval of the
project with the addition that trees be provided to screen
both boundaries of outlot A. Bastyr stated that the
proponent concurred.
Anderson asked if the trail would he signed as a
prospective trail. Lambert replied that the trail might
never go through this area. Anderson believed that it was
important that it be signed as a possibility.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the public
hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 18-89 for
Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTET:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No.
89-129 approving the Preliminary Plat and to Direct Staff
to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried
unanimously.
D. WFING PRE58,4 _INC,MAN.81.04 by Fortier and Associates,
Inc. Request for Site Plan Review within the 1-5 zoning
district on 6.7 acres with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals for construction of an addition to a
building. Location: 7000 Washington Avenue South.
(Resolution No. 89-127 - Site Plan Approval)
Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing had been
mailed to 11 surrounding property owners and published in
the May 24, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Enger reported that this item had been reviewed at the May
8, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and had received
approval on a 6-0 vote based on the recommendations
outlined in the May 5, 1989 Staff Report.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION :
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 89-127 for Site Plan
Approval. Motion carried unanimously.
E. NTLDY_A.,_5713.E.3TWOSKI 89 by Alex Dorenkemper. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 2.17 acres
with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
Preliminary Plat of 2.17 acres into 3 single family lots.
2,g9
City Council Minutes 19 June 6, 1989
Location: North of Dell Road.
Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing had been
mailed to 25 surrounding property owners and had been
published in the May 24, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie
News.
Alex Dorenkemper, 18925 Pioneer Trail, stated that he had
been turned down four times on this project. Dorenkemper
did not believe that the City Council or the City Attorney
had ever known all the details. He added that he had
written several letters over a 5 1/2-month period to the
City and had presented a copy of the original Building
Permit for the Wilson home. Dorenkemper stated that he
had sold two lots pending preliminary plat approval, which
he had never received.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed
this item at the May 8, 1989 meeting and recommended
denial of the request on a 6-0 vote based on the Staff
Report dated May 5, 1989. Enger noted that this was the
exact request which had resulted in a lawsuit against the
City in which the City prevailed.
Dorenkemper stated that the courts had never known about
Outlot A and, therefore, the court had not ruled on this
issue.
Harris asked if the lots all had homes on them and if
septic systems were on all of the lots. Enger replied
that not all the lots had homes.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and direct Staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial
with Findings on the Outlot A, Crestwood 89 application.
Peterson stated that the reasons for denial outlined in
the Staff Report were compelling ones.
Motion carried unanimously.
F. TIREF.PLUS by M. Austin Smith. Request for Site Plan
Approval for Eden Prairie Auto Mall to allow a Tires Plus
sign on the building's northwest side which does not have
a sign band designation. Location: 8453 Joiner Way.
(Resolution No. 89-130 - Site Plan Approval)
Jullie reported that the notice of this public hearing had
been mailed to 17 surrounding property owners and
published in the May 24, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie
2,20
City Council Minutes 20 dune 6, 1989
News.
Enger reported that this request comes about because of
the newly-adopted Site Plan Review Ordinance. He added
that the proponent would like to add a zign on the west
side of the building, which would be consistent with the
City's Sign Ordinance.
The proponent stated that a pylon sign would be used to
list all of the tenants and that no other free-standing
sign would be approved for Tires Plus.
There were n3 further comments from the audience.
MolIDa:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Putlic
Hearing and adopt Resolution No.89-130 for Site Plan
approval. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAyMENT OF cLAIMS
M012.0.:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Payment of
Claims No. 51008 through No. 51475.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and
Peterson all voting "AYE".
VI. ORDINAnES & usuolops
A. MEJ0LE CENTER by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc.
Appeal from Decision of Board of Appeals and Request for
Preliminary Plat of 10.3 acres into 2 lots for
construction of a 65,000 square foot office building.
Location: South of 1-494 and West 78th Street, and north
of Anderson Lakes. (Resolution No. 89-122 - Preliminary
Plat)
Joe Ryan, Lexington Company, stated that the request was
to subdivide the property into two parcels of 5 acres
each. Collateral was provided on the entire parcel and
the proponent would like to have a construction loan
approved on the second lot. The proponent wanted to be
prepared for development in the future. Ryan noted that
the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the
lot separation unanimously. Ryan realized that this
property was a sensitive issue due to the lake and issues
were also raised regarding parking. A cross-easement had
been developed between Phases I & II to provide parking
and the parking agreement would go with the land in the
future and would become part of the public record.
22til
City Council Minutes 21 June 6, 1989
Enger reported that the proposal had received unanimous
approval by the Planning Commission and had been denied by
the Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission had
recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat with 8
conditions due to a concern for future development. Enger
stated that the Board of Appeals had denied the request
because a hardship had not been proven and it believed the
request to be strictly for economic reasons. Enger said
that the Council needed to determine how much the City
wanted to have deferred into the future.
Anderson asked if the property was originally proposed to
be split. Enger replied no.
Tenpas asked if the developer could have built a second
building. Enger replied that the proponent could have
constructed a second building. Tenpas believed that the
proponent was limited due to financing restrictions.
Peterson asked if the original intent was to have a second
building attached to the first structure. Enger replied
that the second building was not to be attached. Peterson
then asked if the proponent could keep the financing and
sell half of the property. Ryan replied that it would be
possible to have two lenders on the property. Enger
stated that this would present a dilemma, having multiple
buildings on a site not owned by the same developer.
Peterson asked what variance requests were being made.
Enger replied a height variance for the existing building,
setback variances, and a proof-of-parking variance.
Dale Hubred, 8065 Ensign Road, stated that he had met
several times with the developer and Staff. He noted that
the original building had been approved at 45 feet in
height, but was constructed at 52 feet and that many oak
trees were removed and never replaced as originally agreed
upon. Hubred stated that the project was designed as one
project and should be left as such because this proposal
would leave Phase I without parking. Hubred asked what
would happen with the proponent not having an actual plan
before the City Council. The Board of Appeals had voiced
a concern about the request for future variances. Hubred
stressed that Phase I had not been completed as promised.
Hubred said that 7 feet might not seem like a lot to the
Council, but when the building was on a hill it had the
appearance of a 10-story building.
Peterson stated that the fact that a specific plan was not
available at this time was not an issue. Peterson did
believe, however, that the unresolved requirements of the
original development should be addressed.
Tenpas statPd that the Lexington Company was not the
original owner and the residents were talking about issues
City Council minutes 22 June 6, 1989
which this developer had no control over.
Peterson believed that the City would not lose any control
over the project if the property were to be split.
Peterson understood the residents' concern over
unfulfilled requirements.
Tenpas stated that the City had a Developer's Agreement
and the burden was on the City to see that these
requirements are upheld.
Peterson asked what items specifically had not been
fulfilled. Enger replied that landscaping had been
Installed because trees had been removed which were not
designated to be taken; however, the landscaping that was
added also died and had not been replaced. Enger added
that to enforce all of the Developer's Agreements
successfully would require additional Staff. Peterson
then asked if the landscaping was substantial. Enger
replied that the landscaping had been requested to help
mask the size of the building and had been substantial.
MOTION.:
Pldcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to adopt Resolution No.
89-122 approving the Preliminary Plat of the Cabriole
Center with the condition that the cross-easement
agreement for these parcels be executed prior to approval
of the Final Plat.
Pauly noted that in addition to the above requirements a
declaration of the easements was necessary. Ryan replied
that lot 2 would be for supplemental parking. Pauly
believed that this should be part of the conditions, and
that declaration of the easements would not be changed
without prior notification to the City.
Motion carried 4-1. Anderson voted "NO".
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to reverse the Board of
Appeals decision and grant the variance subject to the
condition that the declaration of the easement be
executed, delivered, and filed and that Lexington Company
would enter into an agreement with the City to construct
the parking structure and that Lexington Company would not
agree to any modification of the easement without the
City's consent.
Anderson asked if this declaration related to all the
easements. Pauly replied that this was only related to
City Council Minutes 23 June 6, 1989
parking and did not modify the conservation easement.
Motion carried 4-1. Anderson voted "NO".
B. ardiriance_f_o_r_nme Change - Diamond Circle to LaRivier
Court (Ordinance No. 15-89)
Dietz reported that all concerned parties were in
agreement.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 15-89 to change the name of Diamond
Circle to LaRivier Court. Motion carried unanimously.
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & OMMUNICATIONS
A. Receive 100 Percent Petition for Sanitary Sewer,
WatermaLQ, Storm Sewer and Street Paving for Proposed
Country Road and Claycross Way with the 'lap t Coup
Glen and Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications,
(Resolution No. 89-113)
tioTTAN.:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No
89-113 to order the Preparation of Plans and
Specifications for I.C. 52-171. Motion carried
unanimously.
VIII. Fusau oF_AplauRy_wmmususs
A. Maynral_arm_3tudy Committee - Recommendations for the
Mayoral Term
The Mayor left the room during this discussion.
Harris reported that the Study Committee unanimously
agreed that the Mayor's term should be extended to 4
years. The committee believed that the decision-making
process would be improved and that the powers of the Mayor
were the same as any other Council member. The Study
Committee had surveyed 12 cities with 11 responding
favorably to the 4-year term of the Mayor.
Tenpas added that the City could easily go from a 5-member
Council to a 7-member Council and that once a 7-member
Council were approved terms could change.
Anderson stated that he was pleased to see this proposal.
Anderson believed that a considerable amount of the
Mayor's time was taken away from the City when he was
City Council Minutes 24 June 6, 1989
asked to run for office every two years and it also had an
added cost factor.
MMON:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt the
recommendation to change the Mayoral term from 2 to 4
years beginning with the 1990 election.
Harris stated that the Committee would like public comment
when this item was going through the Ordinance adoption
process.
Motion carried 4-0-1. Mayor Peterson was not present for
the vote.
MOTION:
Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct the City
Attorney to draft an Ordinance changing the Mayoral term
from 2 years to 4 years. Motion carried 4-0-1. Mayor
Peterson was not present for the vote.
IX. AREQINTMENTs.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICEM,. 11QAEDS COMMIDU
A. Rg.P.P:Lts
1. Reschedule City Council Meeting of July_A„._1_98.1
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to reschedule the July
4, 1989 City Council meeting to July 11, 1989. Motion
carried unanimously.
2. Ciatti's and Lot 1.2.Y HaliatOn Inn
Pidcock asked what the City could do to have Ciatti's
clean up the area in the back of its building and also the
lot between the Residence Inn and the Hampton Inn. Jullie
replied that the manager of Ciatti's had been notified and
had indicated that construction was still taking place at
this time.
3. Safety Issues on_County Road LI
Peterson requested Staff to review the pedestrian traffic
safety in the Round Lake Park and County Road 114 area.
Peterson questioned if these areas were as safe as they
could be.
Tenpas added that it was frightening to see the children
2 2_LI S
City Council Minutes 25 June 6, 1989
in these locations and also along county Road #18.
Harris asked if there was any way the City could
discourage Joggers from jogging in the street when
sidewalks and trails were available.
Pauly replied that he would review the issue.
4. 4t11_01.J.PlY..g_lehr3tion
Tenpas asked if more portable restrooms could be available
for the event. Tenpas added that he was also concerned
about the safety of the rides both at the 4th of July
Celebration and at Schooner Days. Peterson replied that
the rides were inspected by State inspectors.
5. Imargytment of Pjcc qrytJJsi esS
Anderson asked if Hennepin County was responsible to
upgrade this public access. Anderson added that it was
virtually impossible to launch a boat at this time.
MUTPP:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to make a formal
request that Suburban Hennepin County Park District put in
A concrete landing at the public access for Bryant Lake.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Report of_City_Managek
C. RnPr.t...of_CitY_At.12V2tY.
D. Report of Director of Planning.
E. D1reCtOr_o1_PAL1544_RefratJQM..&__PIIIIIra1 Besoar.Ces
1. h .LcFi1. pJ iUin Rept=
Lambert reported that Staff would be closing the Flying
Cloud Ball Fields this fall for renovation and would be
discussing limiting the number of days that a non-
irrigated field could be used.
Peterson stated that it was important that the Council be
Informed of any major change. Lambert replied that he
would be talking to all of the major athletic
associations.
2. Re_port on_PAris__RphdReferencluip
Lambert believed that the referendum failed because the
golf course became the issue. The recommendation from the
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission was to
City Council Minutes 26 June 6, 1989
come back with another referendum immediately with the
removal of Bluff Park and Miller Park's lighted ball
fields. Lambert added that this would not require
additional funds from the City for brochures, etc.
Anderson asked what the new proposed amount of the
referendum would be. Lambert replied $5,945,000.
Harris asked if the City would be able to purchase any of
the Bluff Park land. Lambert replied that the City was
looking at requesting land in lieu of park fees in the
Bluffs and Riley Creek areas. Lambert added that the City
was looking at other creative ways to acquire the land.
Harris believed that the land acquisition was very
important. •
MOTIM:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to proceed with the
Parks, Recreation & Natural Commissions recommendation to
present another Bond Referendum for $5,945,000 to be
scheduled for August 8, 1989.
Pauly noted that a certain period of time needed to elapse
before the same question could be presented to the public.
Lambert replied that this would not be the same question.
Tenpas believed that there was more public awareness of
tax issues. He added that a new City Hall was another
issue which needed to be addressed. Tenpas was not
comfortable returning to the public right away. Tenpas
asked for time for additional public input and further
believed that the referendum should be scaled down even
further.
Harris stated that she was not comfortable that a
referendum would pass right now.
Anderson stated that those that were critical of the
referendum have said that if the items were reduced it
would be acceptable to bring the referendum back right
away. Anderson added that the land acquisition was
important as developers were buying up the land.
Peterson concurred with Councilmember Anderson that it
would be timely to come back with major modifications.
Peterson added that he had heard some of the same comments
about the golf course being the issue which caused the
referendum to fail. Peterson believed that if the two
parks for $400,000 were removed the residents would see a
major change.
Pidcock asked what had been the cost of the Bluff Park.
Lambert replied $2.9 million. Pidcock then recommended
Aaul
City Council Minutes 27 June 6, 1989
that two questions be presented: one for land acquisition
and one for improvement projects. Lambert noted that this
had been discussed at great length at the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meeting and
members had concluded that this would not be advisable.
Pidcock commented that she too had heard that the golf
course was the main objection of the residents voting
"NO". Lambert believed that the golf course issue would
not be forgotten in three months and added that neither
the committee nor Staff had emphasized the golf course
use; therefore, it was recommended to eliminate Bluff Park
at this time.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to amend the amount to
$5,545,000.
Tenpas believed that it would be difficult to get the same
people out to vote again. Tenpas believed that there
needed to be cooling-off period regarding taxes in
general.
Motion to approve the Amendment carried 4-1. Tenpas voted
"NO".
Discus*Jon Qn the Orjginal Motion.
Peterson believed that this referendum reflected a
commitment to the park systems.
Anderson stated that he realized the mood of the
community, but also believed that the Council had an
obligation to the Community.
Tenpas stated that his concern was that the referendum
would fail again and the City would get nothing.
Anderson stated that this revised referendum figure would
be a bare minimum.
Original motion carried 4-1. Tenpas voted "NO".
Pidcock stated that she would like to see two questions
presented. Peterson believed that the residents would be
upset because they would view this as not being reduced at
all, but only being split into two questions. Pidcock
stated that she had heard that the residents were upset
because they did not have a choice presented to them.
Harris believed that by a choice the residents had wanted
to pick and chose the projects they wanted to see
approved.
zq7
City Council Minutes 28 June 6, 1989
F. Rftux1 ot_nrector of Public Works
G. RepArt.of_Einance Dir.ertor
XI.NEw_pugiFgss
XII. ANOURNKFNT
Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to adjourn the meeting at
1:15 AM. Motion carried unanimously.
aaq9
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and
Douglas Tenpas
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of
Planning Chris Enger, City Engineer
Alan Gray, City Assessor Steve Sinell,
and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Doug Tenpas Absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as
published and amended.
ADDITIONS:
Add Item VTI.C, Traffic Study Request from Sue Dodan. Add
Item X.A.1, Comment on Directional Road Signs in Eden Prairie.
nELETE:
Item III.J, Fairfield Phases 2 Through 6, from the Consent
Calendar.
Motion carried unanimously.
II. WIN.T.Fa
A. Minutes of the_loigt CitY_CouncilLHuman_Rights & Services
qopmiesion Meeting Held Tuesday„luggst /1.4 _1989
MQ.1719N:
Anderson moved, seconded by Peterson to approve the
minutes of the Joint City Council/Human Rights & Services
Commission meeting held Tuesday, August 29, 1989 as
published. Motion carried 2-0-2. Pidcock and Harris
abstained.
City Council Minutes 2 September 5, 1989
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CleIk'l_LiclOose..L.Ut.
B. Cllange Order No. 1 for Frani° Park Tenras Courts
C. ResoLut p_n_a_l_Deltsati on to 8ponsox__ansi _Sup_pqr_t Plastics Recycling Measures
(Resolution No. 89-187)
D. ChangejlEder No. 1 for Amphitheater Construction al. Staring_Lake_Park
F. Flnal Plat ADProval DI_FLIen PrAir1e Center_ith AdditIon
llocated at the northeast corner of TH 169 and Prairie
center_PriYei Resolution No. 89-188
F. Resolution Authorizing Amendment No. 2 to_the Cooperative
Agreemtut (No. 641401 foran EIS and Design Study Report
for_T,E,_ala (Resolution No. 89-197)
G. kpprOve_SAPDJeMent_nl.,..1 til_Aaretneat_NO,_511.11_Witl. MnDOT
for_ Design_at_Vi_5 between CSAB 4_apd_CIAB 17 (Resolution
No. 89-193)
H. &gPX_PYP1tAII.01 tO_Ping-Mile_Creek.ATAterAlled_kict_for
Smetana Lake Outlel_Improvements (Resolution No. 89-198)
I PRAIRrE GREEN_IIINI.:-.STD_RAgE by Prairie Green Associates.
Adoption of Resolution No. 89-195, Denial of Ordinance No.
52-88 for Zoning District Amendment within 1-2 Zoning
District on 0.69 acres and attendant requests for
Preliminary Plat of 7.2 acres into 2 lots for construction
of 8,575 square feet of additional storage space.
Location: East of County Road #4, South of Terrey Pine
Drive. (Resolution 089-195 - Denial of Zoning)
J. FAIFFIE.LP_RB.M.F5_2_THROUGH 1 by Tandem Properties. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 59-88-PUD-15-88, Planned Unit
Development District Review, with waivers, and underlying
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres
and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Fairfield Phases 2 - 6; and Adoption of Resolution No. 89-196, Authorizing Summary of
Ordinance 059-88-PUD-18-88 and Ordering Publication of
Said Summary. 148.2 acres into 299 single family lots, 28
outlots and road right-of-way. Location: West of County
Road #4, south of Scenic Heights Road, east of Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad. (Ordinance No. 59-88-PUD-15-88 -
PUP District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-196 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) (RSIOVED FRPM_TUK
CONUNTS.AL.WAR)
City Council Minutes September 5, 1989
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve th
e
C
o
n
s
e
n
t
Calendar as published with the deletion of Item
J
.
ITEki c
Harris recommended that the language In the cov
e
r
m
e
m
o
from Staff be incorporated into a cover letter
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
accompany the information.
ITEt_E
Harris asked if there were any firm tenant com
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
the Eden Prairie Center 6th Addition. Jullie .
n
o
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
this would be for the perimeter parcels. Enge
r
r
e
p
l
i
e
d
that McDonalds had expressed interest in havi
n
g
a
f
r
e
e
-
standing facility.
Motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried
unanimously.
Iv. PUBLIC 5FARINGS
A. EDEN PRAIRIE RETAIL D.EVELOPMENT (FESTIVAL CENTRE) by curt Johnson Properties. Request for Planned Unit
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Review on 16.2 acres with waivers, Zoning Distr
i
c
t
Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District
o
n
1
6
.
2
acres and Site Plan Review on 16.2 acres for d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of a 153,756 square foot commercial, retail an
d
entertainment complex. Location: East of Plaz
a
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
south of Valley View Road. (Resolution No. 89-
1
9
4
-
P
U
D
Concept Amendment to Overall Factory Outlet Cen
t
r
e
P
U
D
;
Ordinance No. 31-89-PUD-7-89 - PUD District Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
Zoning District Amendment within C-Reg-Ser Dist
r
i
c
t
)
Jullie reported that notice of the public heari
n
g
h
a
d
b
e
e
n
published in the August 23, 1989 issue of the E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
News and mailed to 14 property owners within
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
vicinity.
Ron Krank, representing the proponent, presen
t
e
d
t
h
e
places for the renovation of the facility know
n
a
s
t
h
e
Factory Outlet Centre. The proponent believed
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
property would be an excellent location for a
r
e
t
a
i
l
development If handled properly. The difficu
l
t
i
e
s
w
h
i
c
h
the proponent would need to overcome would be
t
h
e
unattractiveness of the present building, the
l
a
c
k
o
f
identification, and the redevelopment of the p
a
r
k
i
n
g
orientation to better serve the facility. The
f
l
a
t
r
o
o
f
concept would be eliminated, character given
t
o
t
h
e
building, effective signage would be added, a
n
d
t
h
e
entrance would be clearly identified. The vi
e
w
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
6Q2S-2
City Council Minutes 4 September 5, 1989
north was limited and the primary access would be at Plaza
Drive and, therefore, the attention would be focused to
Highway 494 and Plaza Drive. Krank described
architectural features designed to make the building more
inviting and more easily entered. The restaurants would
be able to have outdoor dining areas if desired. An
eight-screen movie theater was also proposed. The signage
would consist of 3 foot letters in a 4 foot band on the
east and south sides of the building, with only minimal
signage on the north and west sides of the facility.
Enger reported that this item had been reviewed at the
August 14 and 28, 1989 Planning Commission meeting with
action taken at the August 28, 1989 meeting recommending
approval of the proposed plan with a 4-0 vote based on the
Staff recommendations outlined in the August 11, 1989
Staff Report. Enger added that the prior Factory Outlet
Centre had a restrictive sign covenant based on the
Centre's request for a 52-foot-high pylon. The proponent
wished to be allowed to transfer signage areas from the
north and west of the building to allow more concentrated
signage on the south and east sides of the building to
increase visibility of the facility. Enger recommended
that if the City Council agreed to this trade-off, the
existing restrictive covenant should be altered to take
Into account the newly intended purpose. Staff had
supported the reduction in the parking requirement based
on the overlapping times of two proposed uses indicated by
the proponent at this time. Enger added that if the
proposed tenants changed the parking requirements would
not necessarily work as proposed and would require
additional review by the City Council and Planning
Commission. The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission did not review this proposal.
Harris asked for clarification on the wording in the Staff
recommendations referring to the removal of all signs from
the metal colonnade. Enger replied that originally the
proponent had planned a marquee to advertise the movie
theaters and a sign saying "Festival Centre", which the
Staff had recommended be removed and that no signage be
over the 20-foot level.
Peterson asked the proponent if he had not indicated that
signage would be on the west and north sides of the
building as well as the south and east sides. Mark Rooney
replied that because of the elevations of the building on
the north and west sides the signage would be for
directional purposes only, with the majority of the
signage located on the south and east sides which would be
clearly visible.
Enger stated that signage packages for shopping centers
were difficult. The proponents had good intentions to
City Council Minutes 5 September 5, 1989
uphold to the original agreement and be within the code,
but the tenants' needs were not always anticipated. The
Staff's goal had always been to have the signs be
consistent. The proponent was requesting a waiver of
transference of usage from the north and west to the south
and east sides of the building and this was the purpose of
the restrictive covenant. anger added that the City
should discourage the proponent from coming back with
requests for sign changes. Enger stated that the
proponent should be sure exactly where the signs would be
placed, or that signage be approved according to City Code
and waivers not be granted because of the unknown factors.
Rooney stated that he appreciated the City's concern with
the project being at an entrance to the City. .Rooney said
that the proponent would be willing to stand on the
original request for the signage transfer. He added that
in the past the proponent had always been able to
negotiate an agreement successfully with the Staff for the
minor changes which occurred in any project where various
tenants are involved. Rooney believed that because of the
singular access from Highway 494, identification and
signage would be vital to the success of the project. The
plan Was to have the tenants occupy no less than 4,000
square feet. Rooney pointed out that some of the tenants
would not have an outside entrance due to the design of
the present structure, thus making the signage even more
important.
Peterson asked if the proponent could assure the Council
that continuity would be present in the signage package.
Rooney replied that the signage would be the same quality
or higher than that of the Prairie View Center. Rooney
added that the proponent wanted that center to be
attractive, that national tenants would dictate the color
scheme, and that the signs would be individually-lit
letters with the height restriction being within City
Code.
Pidcock asked if the space for the drop-off area was
adequate, how many cars could drop people off at one time,
and if this feature would create a traffic problems.
Krank replied there would be a stacking distance for 10
cars. Pidcock then asked what the landscaping plan would
be. Rooney replied the property would be irrigated and
the landscaping equivalent to that of the Prairie View
Center. The dead vegetation would be removed and replaced
and come new landscaping added. Anderson was pleased that
an irrigation system was being considered.
Peterson asked if the only two firm tenants at this time
were the movie theater and the Chuck-E-Cheese restaurant.
Rooney replied a letter of intent had been received from
Chuck-E-Cheese and that negotiations were progressing with
Ag Szt
City Council Minutes 6 September 5, 1989
other restaurants as well. He added that other types of
businesses being considered were a national soft goods
store, daycare, auto supply, and an office supply store.
Harris commented that she was pleased to see the interest
In the prior Factory Outlet Centre.
Pidcock commented that she wished the proponents success
and believed that it would be a significant improvement to
what was currently there.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 89-124 approving the
Festival Centre PUD Concept Amendment to the overall
Factory Outlet Centre PUD. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 31-89-PUD-7-89 for PUD District Review
and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Regional-
Service District; and to direct Staff to prepare an
Addendum to the existing Developer's Agreement
incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations.
Anderson asked if specific recommendations were going to
be made regarding signage. Peterson replied that the
proponent had stated that they would proceed as planned.
Anderson then asked the proponent if it would he possible
to provide an area in this facility for the young people
of the community between the ages of 17 and 20. Anderson
believed that there was a need in the community for a
place for young people to socialize. Rooney replied that
it was a good idea and that two prospective tenants had
approached the proponent; however, they did not have the
experience or the credit to proceed at this time. Rooney
added that this did not prohibit the possibility of this
occurring during a second round of tenant applications.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. gABDINAL CREEK 3RD_ADDITIPN by GAC Partners. Request for
a Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to RM6.5 on 1.21
acres for development of three twinhome lots. Location:
6855-59, 6871-75, 6887-91 Stonewood Court. (Ordinance No.
32-89 - Rezoning)
Jullie reported that notice for the public hearing had
been published in the August 23, 1989 and mailed out to 24
surrounding property owners.
a .)
City Council Minutes 7 September 5, 1989
Gustafson stated that the market was not favorable for
single-family homes at this time and he was requesting
that 3 lots be rezoned hack to twinhomes.
Enger reported that this item was reviewed at the August
14, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and recommended
approval of the rezoning request unanimously based on the
Staff recommendations as outlined in the Staff Report
dated August 11, 1989.
Peterson was concerned about statements made by the
proponent at the prior public hearing requesting single-
family zoning where the proponent had indicated that if,
because of the economic climate, he were forced to build
twinhomes they might be of less-than-desirable buildings.
Peterson noted that the proponent had also had
neighborhood support at that time for single-family homes.
Peterson stated that he needed some type of assurance that
an inexpensive product would not be built Just to be able
to move the lots. Gustafson replied that the lots were
selling at $65,000 each and because of taxes, etc., he
wanted to have owner-occupied twinhomes instead of rental
units. Gustafson stated that he was not planning on
building rental units. He added that he currently owned
nine of the lots on the street.
Pidcock asked what the price range of the homes would be
and would the homes he of the same caliber as the existing
homes. Gustafson replied that he did not have a price
range in mind at this time; however, the homes would have
to be compatible with what was already there.
Harris was concerned that twinhomes could be sold and
added that the Council had believed that the single-family
home market was the best at the time. Gustafson believed
that it would be more compatible to develop as twinhomes.
Gustafson stated that some of the homes in the existing
neighborhood are in the $250,000 to $300,000 range. He
added that these lots were on the freeway side and thus
the least desirable lots. Gustafson stated that he
planned to build walkouts with an approximate value of
$150,000.
Pidcock stated that the Council was looking for assurances
of consistency in the neighborhood. Gustafson replied
that he had been able to sell five units in this
neighborhood since the last time he had been before the
Council and believed that these units could also be sold
and owner-occupied. Gustafson stated that he would not be
opposed to having City Council approval of the house plans
required.
There were no further comments from the audience.
g.2S(1
City Council Minutes 8 September 5, 1989
MDT ION:
Harris moved, .-Pconded by Pidcock to close the public
hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 32-89 for
Rezoning.
Peterson asked Roger if there would be any way possible to
flag these properties to assure the quality. Enger
replied that the proponent could be requested to submit a
minimum square footage per unit. Peterson recommended
that the proponent discuss this plan with Staff prior to
second reading. Gustafson recommended a condition stating
that no new unit would be built which was smaller than an
existing unit and that a double garage he required.
Motion carried unanimously.
MITTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to
prepare an Addendum to the original Developer's Agreement
incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and the
following Council Condition that no new unit would be
constructed that had any less square footage than the
existing units and that a two car garage was required.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. TO Z RENTAL AND_EpEN_ETAIRIF ABILIAKE by Rome
Development. Request for Zoning District Amendment within
the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 1.67 acres with variance,
Site Plan Review on 1.67 acres with variances, Site Plan
Review on 1.67 acres for construction of a 21,014 square
foot commercial facility. Location: South of Valley View
Road, west of Plaza Drive. (Ordinance No. 33-89 - Zoning
District Amendment within C-Reg-Ser District)
Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing had been
published in the August 23, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie
News and mailed out to 8 surrounding property owners.
Mark Johnson, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for Phases II and III of the original three phase
development approved for A to Z Rental. At the time the
original plan was approved tenants for Phases II and III
were not known. Eden Prairie Appliance will be the tenant
for Phase TI and Phase III will be a two-story office
building. Johnson noted that only minor changes had been
made to thP original plan.
Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at the August 14, 1989 meeting and had
recommended approval of the project on a 4 -2 vote based on
the recommendations outlined in the August 11, 1989 Staff
Report. The Planning Commission had added a
City Council Minutes September 5, 1989
recommendation in its motion to request that the proponent
lower the elevation of the parking area by 2 feet if
possible to provide additional screening of the truck
area. Enger noted that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission did not review this project.
Peterson asked if irrigation of the landscaping had been
discussed. Johnson replied that it had not been
considered. Anderson stated that he believed an
irrigation systems was important, especially when a
project had just been approved earlier tonight across the
street from this project which would have an irrigation
system. Anderson commented that it was very evident
throughout the City which facilities did or did not have
Irrigation systems. Peterson then asked the proponent if
they had any objection to installing an irrigation system.
Jim Wey replied that during Phase I the tubing had been
run to provide an irrigation system, but had never been
connected. He believed that the connection would be
possible now.
Roman Roos, representing the proponent, stated that would
the lower elevation of the parking area would be difficult
to accomplish because of existing gas and water lines and,
therefore, proposed to provide additional landscaping
along the southern portion of the project for the
necessary screening effect.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public
hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 33-89 for
approval of Zoning District Amendment within the C-
Regional-Service District. Motion carried unanimously.
11QTTOY:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to direct Staff to
prepare an Amendment to the prior Developer's Agreement
incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and the
Council Conditions that an irrigation system and suitable
landscaping and berming be negotiated prior to 2nd
Reading. Motion carried unanimously.
D. VACATION 89-11VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND...UTILITY EASEMENTS
WITHIN A PORTION OF DONNAy'S ROUND LAKE ESTATE§ 2ND
ADDITION (Resolution No. 89-191)
Jullie reported that the notice for the public hearing had been published in the August 30, 1989 issue of the Eden
Prairie News and notices mailed to affected property
owners. Jullie added that the request was for vacation of
013
City Council Minutes 10 September 5, 1989
certain drainage and utility easements within a port
i
o
n
o
f
Donnay's Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition which were
n
o
longer deemed necessary.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the publi
c
hearing and adopt Resolution No. 89-191 Vacating Drai
n
a
g
e
and Utility Easements in Donnay's Round Lake 2nd Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
Motion carried unanimously.
E. VACATION 89-12, VACATION OF TEMPORARY_EASEMENIF
T
R
FMEROENCY ACCESS PURPOSES WITHIN LOT 1, BLOCK A, CEDAR
RITKIR_UTATEs_ (Reolution No. 89-192)
Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing h
a
d
b
e
e
n
published in the August 30, 1989 issue of the Eden
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
News and mailed to the affected property owners. Ju
l
l
i
e
added that the request was for vacation of a tempor
a
r
y
easement for emergency access purposes within Cedar
R
i
d
g
e
Estates.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION :
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the pub
l
i
c
hearing and adopt Resolution No. 89-192 vacating a
temporary Easement within Lot 3, Block 4, Cedar Ridg
e
Estates. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAVIENT_QP:_gtALMs
NOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the P
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
Claims No. 53302 through No. 53995.
Harris questioned Claim No. 53368 for a driving instr
u
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
mature drivers. Jullie replied that he would need to
g
e
t
m
o
r
e
information. Peterson commented that there were insu
r
a
n
c
e
companies which would give reductions in rates for th
e
m
a
t
u
r
e
drivers which had taken a driving course.
Pidcock asked who had attended the conference plastic
recycling. Jullie replied that Councilmember Anderso
n
h
a
d
attended. Anderson stated that he had found the se
s
s
i
o
n
s
v
e
r
y
Informative and he now had a much better understandin
g
o
f
t
h
e
many Issues related to plastic recycling. He added
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
representatives there from the state and local leve
l
s
a
s
w
e
l
l
as representatives from the plastics industry.
aaN
City Council Minutes 11 September 5, 1989
Harris questioned why there were so many softball refunds.
Jullie replied that teams are required to make a $100 deposit
at the beginning of the season and if all the rules are
adhered to throughout the season then the money is refunded.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, and Peterson all
voting "AYE". Motion carried.
gEMNWES RF.5.01.UTIoN5
A. 1.5± Read ing ot 0.rdinADC± _NS?, 0.2.7:2.3.,..Alleacillleilt...tg...fitY_S22..fie.
chakter 1.,..5eCtion 9.40, Relating to the Discharge of
Firearms
City Attorney Pauly presented the Council with a revised
version of the Ordinance with the addition of the section
which set the parameters for the shotgun slug firing area.
Pauly noted that the committee had recommended that the
Darrell Peterson property be included in the designated
hunting area; however, this was not included in the
revised version. Pauly stated that the regular shotgun
discharge area had been extended from the original
Ordinance.
Anderson asked Pauly if the area for shotgun slugs had
been extended north of Riverview Road and Highway 169.
Pauly replied that it had not been extended, the area
extended was the regular shotgun area which had been
extended to County Road #1. Anderson then asked Jullie if
Riverview Road was considered a public road. Jullie
replied there was public right-of-way; however, the road
was barricaded. Anderson stated that It a resident or
hunter were walking on Riverview Road they would not be
trespassing. Jullie concurred. Anderson then asked about
the status of Indian Road. Jullie replied that this also
was a public right-of-way. Anderson believed that a
shotgun with slugs should be considered a dangerous weapon
and was concerned about the amount of traffic now on
Riverview Road and Indian Trail. These roads had become
popular for hiking and for mountain bikes and Anderson was
concerned for user safety. Anderson added that the
subject of hunting areas and possible added restrictions
came up every year. Anderson believed that the Council
should begin making plans now to drop all hunting from the
western boundary of the City and only allow hunting in the
river bottoms.
Harris supported Councilmember Anderson's concerns.
Harris added that she would also he uncomfortable going
beyond this year without having further hunting
restrictions.
Peterson questioned if a complete ban on hunting would not
have a negative affect on wildlife management. Anderson
g260
City Council Minutes 12 September 5, 1989
stated that the DNR would give special permits if crops
were being damaged. Peterson then asked who was
responsible for the posting of the property and who paid
for the posting. Pauly replied that both areas were the
responsibility of the landowner.
Anderson recalled a City Council meeting approximately
three years ago when residents were before the Council
complaining about hunters coming on their property with
loaded guns without permission to chase a wounded deer.
Anderson was concerned because he as a Councilmember had
had no participation in crafting the Ordinance and the
members on the committee were primarily of hunters.
MOTIO:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item
to the September 19, 1989 City Council meeting to allow
further review and consideration.
Pidcock asked when the hunting season started. Mike Farr
replied that the waterfowl season would begin October 7,
1989 and the Metro Goose season had already started.
Peterson reminded the Council that the ordinance would
require a 2nd Reading.
Jullie believed that the revised Ordinance took another
step toward the goals of the City. He added that the area
north of County Road 1 had been closed to hunting.
Anderson stated that the intent last year that this item
be reviewed was that hunting within the City be banned
completely with the exception of the river bottoms only.
Peterson believed that the revisions presented tonight
were minor and the Council had had the opportunity to
study the previous draft. He added that the intent and
purpose of the Council had been to restrict the hunting
areas, which had been accomplished and, therefore, he
would not support the motion to continue.
Anderson stated that he had talked with police Staff today
and they had indicated that they were comfortable with the
ordinance as written. Anderson added that he would have
liked to have had a police officer present to address the
issues and without that discussion he was not comfortable
passing the ordinance.
Jullie stated that police Staff had been concerned about
the shotgun slug area, which had not been defined
previously. Jullie believed that the revisions would be
satisfactory for public safety purposes.
n6)1
City Council Minutee 13 3 ,iTtember 5, 1989
Harris believed that there were two issues to be resolved:
1) to look realistically at the ordinance which is more
restrictive, and 2) if the ordinance is one which the City
can live with. Harris then asked Anderson if with the
clarification on the shotgun slug area if he was more
comfortable with the ordinance.
Peterson stated that he believed that an acceptable
compromise would be to approve the 1st Reading of the
Ordinance and have the 2nd Reading not appear on the
Consent Calendar, but rather be in the form of another
public hearing and have police Staff and residents be able
to provide additional comment at that time.
Anderson stated that he would prefer to take care of the
hunting situation once and for all.
Harris stated that there were no non-hunting residents on
the committee and she would like to have more public
participation by the non-hunters.
Anderson stated that he was not comfortable with the
ordinance and would not be until he had police department
approval. Anderson stated that the previous ordinance was
unenforceable and believed this ordinance to be the same.
Motion to continue this item failed 1-3. Harris, Pidcock
and Peterson all voting "NO".
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the 1st
Reading of Ordinance No. 89-27 with the understanding that
the 2nd Reading would not appear on the Consent Calendar
and that public comment would be received at the 2nd
Reading. Motion carried 3-1. Anderson voted "NO".
Anderson stated that the reason for his "NO" vote was that
he could not accept the procedure followed at this time.
He wanted a report from the police Staff. Anderson stated
that he had asked in July 1988 that this issue be resolved
prior to the hunting season this year and was disappointed
that he had not been given the information he had
requested.
Pidcock concurred with Councilmemher Anderson that it was
unfair that he and the Council be put in this position
without police Staff analysis.
Harris asked if the ordinance covered air rifles. Pauly
replied that air rifles were covered.
City Council Minutes 14 September 5, 1989
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS s COMMUNICATIONS
A. EDEN PRAIRIE ED1ERU_HOU by Marcus Corporation. Appeal
from Decision of Board of Appeals Regarding Variance
Request for Lot Size, Lot Depth, and Lot Width within
Community Commercial District. Location: South of Terrey
Pine Drive, west of County Road 114.
Jullie reported that the Board of Appeals had denied the
variance request and the proponent was before the Council
tonight to appeal that decision.
Pidcock noted that the decision of the Board of Appeals
could have been different If a full board had been
present.
Peterson stated that unless the Council wished to reopen
the issue of appropriate land use the discussion would be
limited to the variance request.
Pidcock believed that the Council had heard the
Information necessary regarding the land use and that only
the variance request should be considered.
Marc Senn, representing the proponent, stated that the
Board of Appeals decision had been based on Its belief
that a hardship case did not exist and that this variance
would be a precedent-setting issue. Senn believed that
because of the development existing all around this parcel
that A hardship did exist. He added that it had been on
Staff's recommendation that the proponent proceed with a
Community Commercial designation for the parcel. Senn
stated that he did not believe the land use would overtax
the property and could provide the Council with an
extensive list of existing funeral homes throughout the
Twin Cities which were located on less than one acre of
land. Senn added that all of the parking requirements had
been met and that he had the plans available if the
Council would like to see them again.
Peterson asked what mailing list was used to inform the
public of the Board of Appeals hearing and this appeal.
Enger replied that same list that was used to notify
residents of the public hearing.
Peterson requested that if anyone in the audience had new
information regarding setbacks nr landscaping they could
address the Council.
Bill Myers, representing Elim Shores, asked if the Council
would permit pictures to be submitted to show that more
than just the third floor of the complex would be affected
by the view of this project. Peterson asked if the
screening issues had been discussed further. Senn replied
City Council Minutes 15 September 5, 1989
that 6 additional pine trees would be added. Peterson
believed that the screening issue had been resolved
satisfactorily.
Pidcock stated that this was a difficult decision for the
Council to make. She added that Elim Shores had been
given significant assistance by the Council to get its
project off to a good start and was disappointed about the
amount of pressure being placed on the Council to change
Its decision. Pldcock believed that the land use was
appropriate and said she would stand by the original
decision.
Pidcock moved, seconded by Peterson to reverse the
decision of the Board of Appeals and grant Variance
Request No. 89-42.
Peterson believed that the Board of Appeals decision was
not inappropriate; however, this was an in-fill project
and it was also appropriate for the City Council to see
this project as a unique situation.
Pauly recommended that the Council articulate the reasons
for the appropriateness of the reversal.
Peterson stated that the reasons were: 1) hardship case
appropriate because of the uniqueness of the property, 2)
the project would not alter the character of the
neighborhood, 3) this project was an in-fill project which
would be difficult to develop as noted in the Staff
Report, and 4) the Community Commercial designation was an
appropriate designation based on the Staff Report.
Harris concurred with Councilmember Pidcock that this had
been a difficult decision; however, she believed that
extenuating circumstances did warrant the approval of the
project. Harris requested that the landscaping be as
Intense and as extensive as possible and be to Staff's
satisfaction.
Anderson stated that he would abstain from the vote
because he was not in attendance at the meeting where the
majority of these issues were discussed.
Motion carried 3-0-1. Anderson abstained.
B. BpADLpy_IMIER. Appeal from Decision of Board of Appeals
Regarding Variance Request for Rear Yard Setback within
RI 13.5 District. Location: 16534 South Manor Road.
Brad Kuyppr stated that the back of his house was 31 feet
from the back of the lot line. No neighbors had objected
c,c4
City Council Minutes 16 September 5, 1989
to his proposal to construct a 20-foot deck off the back
side of the home and had in fact signed letters to that
affect. Kuyper did not believe that any of the members of
the Board of Appeals had COMP out to his property to see
how it would affect the neighbors.
Peterson asked Kuyper what the distance was between his
home and the home behind him. Kuyper believed the
distance to be approximately 90 feet. Kuyper added that
the adjacent neighbors home sat back further than what his
proposed deck would be.
Enger presented drawings of the neighborhood layout for
the Council to be able to visualize the project. Enger
pointed out that the houses staggered and believed that
distance between the Kuyper home and the home immediately
behind his to be approximately 60 feet.
Peterson asked Enger what the rationale was for the rear
lot line setbacks. Enger replied that the Board of
Appeals had granted a partial variance for a 14-foot deck.
Peterson asked if the properties to the north could build
to within 20 feet of their lot lines. Peterson also noted
that the issue was not just a deck and the proponent had
Indicated in the request that eventually the deck would be
made into a three-season porch.
Anderson stated that the residents should know the limits
of the use of their property prior to purchasing it.
Anderson added that this request was going beyond the
rules and regulations set forth by the City.
Peterson believed that the Board of Appeals had offered a reasonable compromise.
Kuyper stated that he had not checked into the limits when
he had purchased the property. Kuyper believed that the
sideyard and rearyard setbacks were morn restrictive than
other communities. He added that many individuals
lifestyles were different and he and his family planned on
spending a lot of time on the deck and believed that only
a 14-foot deck would be too restrictive.
Anderson asked how much distance Kuyper had on the side of
his home. Kuyper replied that a neighbor had built a
gazebo on the side of his home and, therefore, he would
not have enough room on the side of his home.
Peterson stated that the City had regulations to protect
both the homeowner and the neighbors and that the City had good reasons for the setback requirements.
Kuyper stated that it was very frustrating when he had
tried to follow all the rules and apply for the permit,
City Council Minutes 17 September 5, 1989
when there were many residents doing the same things
without getting permits. Kuyper added that it had been 17 weeks since he had applied for the permit.
Pidcock stated that there were penalties for those who
built without permits and in fact the City had forced
residents to take down structures which they had built
without a permit. Pidcock believed that the Board of
Appeals had offered a reasonable compromise.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to uphold the Board of
Appeals decision.
Peterson stated that he appreciated Kuyper's frustration;
however, it was the Council's Job to protect the rights of
everyone
Motion carried unanimously.
Dwight Harvey, Board of Appeals member, stated that he had
visited the site.
C. T“i f_f 1 /LOY- tial4t1.51.__b_!4 g_..1)0.0 n
Peterson stated that residents were concerned about the
amount and the speed of the traffic on Village Wood Drive
and requested that Staff review this issue.
MDTIa:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to
conduct a study on the traffic and speed on Village Woods
Drive.
Anderson asked how long it would be before Mitchell Road
would be reopened. City Engineer Alan Gray, replied that
technically residents could drive on Mitchell Road now.
The underground utility work had been completed and the
signs would be removed within the week.
Peterson asked Gray if he believed that the closing of
Mitchell Road had a significant Impact on the traffic for
Village Woods Drive. Gray replied that he believed the
traffic was all neighborhood traffic and had not been
affected by the closing of Mitchell Road.
Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVifORY SaIMUSTONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
dc26,)
City Council Minutes 18 September 5, 1989
X. REPORTS OF BOARDS & COMMJ_SSJONS
A. Eep_orts of cs).mrsil Meml?ers
1. DiLe.ftUnal
Pidcock stated that there was no consistency for the
directional signs in the major center area. There were no
signs which gave visitors any indication on how to get to
the major highway systems. Pidcock believed that it would
be a plus for Eden Prairie to have these types of signs
posted for county and state roads.
Harris asked if it would also be possible to have the
house numbers indicated on the street signs, (ex: 200 to
900). Gray replied that the cost to the City would
increase because the signs would need to be increased in
size to accommodate the additional lettering. Gray added
that he would address the directional sign issue with
MnDOT.
2. Employee Recognition invitai ions
Pidcock stated her disappointment in the invitation to
employee recognition events be extended only from the City
Manager and the Mayor and not include the remainder of the
Councilmembers.
B RePOIr Qf_CitY M.anAatr
1. pe.schLzi:tul_parit.
commission meet tag_fronj__$_tattlikitt...Z.6 • 1_981. to Noyember
14, 1989
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to reschedule the
meeting date from September 26, 1989 to November 14, 1989
for the Joint City Council/Historical & Cultural
Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
2. R.;*_170...0_191..atSIty c2maci1LPALKA,_...B.gsxeAttosLA
lnItur.al_RfAources Commission meeting from_aptember 12,
1989 to September 21989
moTtoti:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to reschedule the Joint
City Council/Parks, Recreations & Natural Resources
Commission meeting from September 12, 1989 to September
26, 1989. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Set Speciaj City cpuncil Date for Tue_pday, (letober 24
1989 to Review Lawful Gambling Comilist_ge2epprt and to
City Council Minutee, 19 September c,1 989
Djscus_CApital_Lmarovements Proiects
WITTON:
Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to set a Special City
Council meeting for Tuesday, October 24, 1989 to review
the Lawful Gambling Committee Report and to discuss
Capital Improvements Projects. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. Rgnuial
Jullie reported that the lease for the existing space
would expire in February. The revised lease agreement
would he $8.50 per square foot of office space. Jullie
stated that he had contacted several leasing agents and
had determined this to be a fair market price. Jullie
added that another option for Council consideration would
be to move to a lower cost facility, but cautioned that
the quality would also be lower. Jullie recommended
consideration of the current proposal.
Peterson asked if there were any penalties. Jullie
replied that if the City left the facility after two years
there would be a $22,000 penalty. Jullie added that there
could be a possibility of a lower rate If the City would
lease for a longer term.
Pidcock asked what would be the projected savings if the
offices were moved to a lower cost facility. Jullie
replied that the saving estimated could be approximately
$130,000; however, the Council also needed to consider the
moving costs of approximately $60,000. Peterson stated
that he would not encourage a move at this time.
Peterson asked when a decision needed to be made. Jullie
replied the deadline was 7 days from tonight.
Linda Winer, representing the leasing company, stated that
the building owner appreciated the City as a tenant;
however, the landlord was also entitled to an increase in
rent because of the inflation rates. Winer believed that
$8.50 was a fair rate. The going rate was over $9.00 per
square foot and believed that the discount being offered
the City for the amount of space rented was a fair one.
Pidcock stated that the City was a good tenant and that
should also be worth something to the landlord.
Peterson recommended sending this back to Mr. Sinell for
further negotiation. Peterson believed that if the City
were to guarantee three more years there should not be an
escalation in the rate. Sinell replied that the decision
needed to be made within 7 days if the City intended to
City Council Minutes 20 September 5, 1989
renew the lease or not. Pauly noted that the City was to
have received an estimate 30 days before a decision was to
be made and this did not take place. Winer replied that
this was an oversight; however, City Staff had indicated
that the 30 days was not necessary. Pauly added that the
provision in the lease agreement which stated that 30 days
in advance of the six month expiration date the City was
to be notified of the market rate was built into the
contract to allow the City ample time to consider its
options. Pauly asked if the time could be extended to the
September 19, 1989 City Council meeting. Winer agreed to
an extension to the September 19, 1989 City Council
meeting. Sinell asked if the Council did not want an
early-out provision. Winer asked if it would be
acceptable to hold the rate at $8.50 per square foot for
the three year term. Peterson replied that the
negotiations were up to Mr. Sinell.
C. Report of City Attorney
E. Fttvut_PLarertor
E. akrImtpx_IQl_13xkft,_Yec_oi4.tisn
F. Report of Director_of_puhlic Works
G. Reporl_of Finance Director
xi.NEY_BWIttEal.
Peterson asked if the City Council would like to conduct
interview to fill Doug Fell's position on the Planning
Commission.
m9 TION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to conduct the interview for
the opening on the Planning Commission on Tuesday, September
19, 1989 at 6:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
xII. WIPURRIETT
MOTION:
pidcook moved, seconded by Harris to adjourn the meeting at
10:49 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
70 641 c",c9
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
September 19, 1989
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.)
DeJager Construction
Flannery Construction, Inc.
Gladstone Construction, Inc.
Hastings & Associates, Inc.
Washtock Construction
CONTRACTOR (I & 2 FAMILY)
J. Nagengast
Welch, Casey & Forsman, Inc.
PLUMBING
Hilgers Plumbing & Heating Company
HEATING & VENTILATING
One Way Building Service, Inc.
Willette Refrigeration Heating & Air
GAS FITTER
One Way Building Service, Inc.
Parsons Hardware Plumbing & Heating
GAMBLING (CLASS A) all types of gambling
Acrogymnastics Sports Education Assoc.
Bingo & Pull-tabs at the Eden Prairie
Legion
These licenses have been approved by the dapartment heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
Pat Solie, Licensing
A RIO
LaMettry Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 26-89
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the C-Reg-Ser 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
C-Reg-Ser District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to
in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph 8, 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 September 19. 1989, entered into
between Richard A. and Joanne M. LaMettry, husband and wife, and the City of Eden
Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 1st day of August, 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 19th day of
September, 1989.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
2211
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Outlets B and C, MENARD 4TH ADDITION, Hennep
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
.
2 2-1
LaMettry Center
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into a
s
o
f
, 1989, by
Richard A. and Joanne M. LaMettry, husban
d
a
n
d
w
i
f
e
,
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
f
t
e
r
j
o
i
n
t
l
y
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRA
I
R
I
E
,
a
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
f
t
e
r
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City fo
r
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
R
u
r
a
l
to C-Reg-Ser on 1.88 acres, and prelimi
n
a
r
y
p
l
a
t
o
f
1
.
8
8
a
c
r
e
s
i
n
t
o
o
n
e
l
o
t
f
o
r
construction of a 32,508 sq. ft. automobi
l
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
s
i
t
u
a
t
e
d
i
n
H
e
n
n
e
p
i
n
County, State of Minnesota, more fully de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
a
n
d
made a part hereof, and said acreage herei
n
a
f
t
e
r
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
a
s
"
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
;
"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
C
i
t
y
a
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
#
2
6
-
8
9
,
Developer covenants and agrees to construc
t
i
o
n
u
p
o
n
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property
i
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
materials revised and dated July 25, 1989
,
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
the City Council on August 1, 1989, and
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
a
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
8, subject to such changes and modifica
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
h
e
r
e
i
n
.
Developer shall not develop, constru
c
t
u
p
o
n
,
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
property in any other respect or manner th
a
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
h
e
r
e
i
n
.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
e
b
y
Developer at such times and in such mann
e
r
a
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
h
e
r
e
i
n
o
f
all of the terms, covenants, agreements,
a
n
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part
h
e
r
e
o
f
.
3. Concurrent with submission of, and prior
t
o
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
,
the final plat for the property, Develop
e
r
a
g
r
e
e
s
t
o
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
o
t
h
e
City, and obtain the City's approval of,
c
r
o
s
s
-
a
c
c
e
s
s
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
access to the Menard's parcel.
Prior to issuance of any building permit
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
agrees to submit to the City proof of fi
l
i
n
g
o
f
s
a
i
d
c
r
o
s
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
easements with Hennepin County both on
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
Menard's parcel.
22-3/3
4. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary s
e
w
e
r
,
w
a
t
e
r
,
irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion cont
r
o
l
f
o
r
t
h
e
property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
,
o
r
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed ab
o
v
e
i
n
s
a
i
d
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance w
i
t
h
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
C, attached hereto.
5. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed Distr
i
c
t
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on th
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
6. Prior to issuance by the City of any building p
e
r
m
i
t
o
n
t
h
e
property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director o
f
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
and to obtain the Director's approval of:
A. An overall signage plan which indicates size, color,
a
n
d
lettering style of any sign to be located on the proper
t
y
.
Developer acknowledges that all signage in such plan
s
h
a
l
l
meet City Code requirements for the C-Reg-Ser zoning
district.
B. An overall lighting plan which indicates the loca
t
i
o
n
,
height, color, and type of lighting standard(s)
t
o
b
e
Implemented on the property.
C. Samples of exterior materials to be implemented o
n
t
h
e
property, including the style, texture, color, and ty
p
e
o
f
material(s) to be implemented.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Develop
e
r
a
g
r
e
e
s
t
o
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improve
m
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
above, as approved by the Director of Planning, in acc
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
7. Concurrent with extension of utilities to, and constr
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
structure on, the property, Developer agrees to constr
u
c
t
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
-
foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north and west s
i
d
e
s
o
f
P
l
a
z
a
Drive, as depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto. Deve
l
o
p
e
r
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
agrees to add a sidewalk connection between the si
d
e
w
a
l
k
t
o
b
e
constructed along Plaza Drive and the structure at the n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
-
m
o
s
t
driveway entrance to the property, in the location as
d
e
p
i
c
t
e
d
i
n
Exhibit D, attached hereto, and made a part hereof.
8. Developer has submitted to the City, and obtained City's
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on th
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Security to guarantee said screening shall be includ
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
a
t
provided for the landscaping on the property, pe
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
d
e
requirements.
If, after completion of construction of said mechanica
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
screening, it is determined by City, in its sole disc
r
e
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
a
t
22.")
the proposed screening does not meet the intent of the City Cod
e
requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and
differing, adjacent uses, then City shall notify Developer a
n
d
Developer shall take corrective action to revise the mechanica
l
equipment screening to meet Code requirements. Develope
r
acknowledges that City will not release the security provided unti
l
any such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed b
y
Developer.
9. Developer and City acknowledge that the proof-of-parking space
s
proposed for the property, as depicted in Exhibit E, attached heret
o
and made a part hereof, are not required to be constructed at thi
s
time. However, said proof-of-parking spaces may be required to be
constructed in the future, if it is determined by City, in its sol
e
discretion, that it is necessary.
At such time as City, in its sole discretion, may determine that it
Is necessary for all, or a portion of, said proof-of-parking spaces
to be constructed in order to accommodate existing or future uses on the property, the following events shall occur:
A. City shall notify Developer in writing of the need to
construct all, or a portion of, said proof-of-parking spaces
based on City's sole determination.
B. Within six (6) months of receipt of written notice from
City, Developer agrees to complete construction of all, or a
portion of, said proof-of-parking spaces, as determined by
City, as depicted in Exhibit E, attached hereto.
10. Developer acknowledges that there shall be no outside storage of a
n
y
vehicles on the property. Developer agrees to limit all automobi
l
e
storage to that area within the basement of the structure on t
h
e
property.
11. In the event that the use within the structure changes from t
h
e
automobile service facility to another use acceptable within the
C
-
Reg-Ser Zoning District, Developer acknowledges that no use shall
b
e
made of the basement level of the structure, other than storage.
2_2-1 S
LaMettry Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 89-189
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 26-89 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 26-89 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 19th day of
September, 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. 26-89, 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. 26-89 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 September 19, 1989.
Giry D. Peterson, May
ATTEST:
kein D. Frane, City Clerk
2.2q62
LaMettry Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 26-89
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVEIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
§2212EX: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located west of
Plaza Drive, southeast of Menard's, from the Rural District to the C-Reg-Ser
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 O. 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.)
LaMettry Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 89-190
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR LAMETTRY CENTER FOR RICHARD AND JOANNE LAMETTRY
WHEREAS, Richard and Joanne LaMettry have applied
f
o
r
s
i
t
e
p
l
a
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
LaMettry Center on 1.88 acres for construction o
f
a
3
2
,
6
9
8
s
q
.
f
t
.
a
u
t
o
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
facility on property located west of Plaza Drive, s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
o
f
M
e
n
a
r
d
'
s
,
t
o
z
o
n
e
d
C
-
Reg-Ser by Ordinance #26-89 adopted by the City Cou
n
c
i
l
o
n
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
,
1
9
8
9
;
a
n
d
,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
hearing at its July 10, 1989, Planning Commission
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
of said site plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said applic
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
at its August 1, 1989, meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
O
F
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted t
o
R
i
c
h
a
r
d
a
n
d
J
o
a
n
n
e
L
a
M
e
t
t
r
y
f
o
r
LaMettry Center for construction of a 32,698 sq. ft
.
a
u
t
o
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
based on plans dated July 25, 1989, subject to t
h
e
t
e
r
m
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
a
t
certain Developer's Agreement between Richard and J
o
a
n
n
e
L
a
M
e
t
t
r
y
,
h
u
s
b
a
n
d
a
n
d
w
i
f
e
,
and the City of Eden Prairie, dated September 19, 19
8
9
,
f
o
r
s
a
i
d
L
a
M
e
t
t
r
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
.
ADOPTED by the City Council on September 19, 1989.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
2 211 Z
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 89-200
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
LAMETTRY ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of LaMettry 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 LaMettry Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on
this plat dated September 14,1989.
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 September 19, 1989.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
22'79
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician
• ''?".4/
DATE: September 13, 1989
SUBJECT: LaMettry Addition
PROPOSAL: The Developer, Richard A. LaMettry, has reques
t
e
d
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
approval of the final plat of LaMettry Addition
.
L
o
c
a
t
e
d
n
o
r
t
h
a
n
d
w
e
s
t
of Plaza Drive and south of Valley View Road,
t
h
e
p
l
a
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
1
.
8
8
acres which combines Outlots 8 and C of Menards F
o
u
r
t
h
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
o
n
e
lot for the construction of a proposed auto se
r
v
i
c
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
n
J
u
l
y
2
4
,
-----1989 per Resolution No. 89-171.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 26-89, changin
g
z
o
n
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
R
u
r
a
l
t
o
C
-
Regional-Service, is scheduled for final appr
o
v
a
l
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
meeting to be held September 19, 1989.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
for execution September 19, 1989.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities and walkways will be
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
throughout the plat in conformance with Ci
t
y
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
the requirements of the Developer's Agreement.
All roadways necessary to serve this property are currently in place.
Prior to release of the final plat the Devel
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
o
t
h
e
City a cross-access easement for access to the M
e
n
a
r
d
s
p
a
r
c
e
l
.
PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are co
v
e
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING: Bonding must conform to City Code and the Deve
l
o
p
e
r
'
s
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of LaM
e
t
t
r
y
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
subject to the requirements of this report, th
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
'
s
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
and the following:
1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250
.
0
0
.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of
$
5
9
4
.
0
0
.
3. Receipt of cross-access easement for access to t
h
e
M
e
n
a
r
d
s
p
a
r
c
e
l
.
JJ:ssa
cc: Richard A. LaMettry
Ron Krueger & Associates
Anal= TOTAL FEE $609,858.00
CCNSULT7OF AGREEMENT R7R
ENGINEERING SERVICES
OR
FINAL MS= SER'V10ES
Supplement No. 1
to
Agreement
between
The City of Eden Prairie
and
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
S.P. 2701, S.P. 1002 TH 5
In Eden Prairie and Chanhassen
2.2
SUBJECf
Parties to the Agreement
planation and Justification
Revision 1.0 - Services to be provided by the City
Revision 2.0 - Time Schedule
Revision 3.0 - Payment to the Consultant
Statue of Original Agreement
Approvals
Signatures
PAGE NO.
This Supplemental Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Barton-
Asohman Associates, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant."
wnwesserx•
WHEREAS the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation hereinafter
referred to as the "State" and the City entered into Agreement No. 64918 for
final design services, and
WHEREAS the State and City has agreed that additional work is required to
complete said services, and
WHEREAS the State and City desires to continue the services of the
Consultant to ea:Ddi:Sri this additional work.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS MIMS:
REVISION 1.0 - SERVICES TD BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY
Section 2.0 of the original agreement between the City and the Consultant is
hereby amended and modified to read as follows:
2.331 Complete the right-of-way preacquisition for 62 additional
parcels.
2.511 Redesign required gemetrics including cross-sections in Eden
Prairie and Chanhassen to accommodate various intersections.
22
2.512 Prepare a tree inventory coordination and p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
as per the City of Eden Prairie tree transpl
a
n
t
p
o
l
i
c
y
.
2.5121 Incorporate tree transplants into the plan,
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
a
n
d
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
provisions.
2.531 Prepare Signal Justification Report at Market
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
2.541 Design signal system at Market Boulevard and
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
c
o
n
d
u
i
t
and cable work for signal at Heritage Road.
2.542 Design Temporary Bypass.
2.543 Design Trail Illumination at underpass and
e
x
t
e
n
d
t
r
a
i
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
n
Eden Prairie.
2.821 Eesign and incorporate into plan estimate and
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
a
retaining wall for the NSP transmission tower.
2.822 Redesign Sanitary sewer from a force main t
o
a
g
r
a
v
i
t
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
incorporate design into plan, estimate and sp
e
c
i
a
l
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
Relative to the scope of services as
l
i
s
t
e
d
A
b
o
v
e
,
a
m
o
r
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
description of said work is contained in the
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
'
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
dated March 28, 1989. Said proposal is mad
e
a
part hereof by reference with
the same force and effect as though fully se
t
f
o
r
t
h
h
e
r
e
i
n
.
Z111-1
REVISION 2.0 - TIME SCHEDULE
Section 5.0 of the original agreement is hereby amended and modified to read
as follows:
5.21 The Consultant shall canplete all work and services required under
the terms of this agreement by March 31, 1990.
REVISION 3.0 -_PAYMENP TO THE crry
Section 6.0 of the original agreement is hereby amended and modified to read
as follows:
6.11 The City shall pay to the Consultant, from monies received from
the State for the services performed under this agreement the lump
sum amount of $355,463.00.
In addition, the following entities shall pay the following
amounts as compensation for the services performed by the
Consultant:
1. Southwest Coalition
2. City of Chanhassen
3. City of Eden Prairie
4. City of Chaska
5. City of Waconia
6. County of Hennepin
7. County of Carver
$75,000.00
$74,395.00
$50,000.00
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
The total compensation to be paid to the Consultant sh
a
l
l
b
e
$609,858.00. Not withstanding any term or coalition contai
n
e
d
i
n
this agreement to the contrary, the City shall have no obli
g
a
t
i
o
n
to do anything or perform any act until and unless the Stat
e
a
n
d
all of the other entities make the payments as required b
y
t
h
i
s
paragraph. In the event that either the State or any o
f
t
h
e
entities fail to make the payments set forth above, the
n
t
h
e
City's obligations under this agreement shall be rendered voi
d
a
n
d
unenforceable.
6.21 If it appears at any time that the Consultant will exceed a total
estimated payment of $609,858.00 the Consultant agrees n
o
t
t
o
perform any services that would cause that amount to be exce
e
d
e
d
unless the City's Consultant has been advised by the City
t
h
a
t
additional funds have been encumbered, a supplemental agree
m
e
n
t
has been issued and that work may proceed. It shall be
t
h
e
resPonsibirtv of the Co_ tent to originate all requests
f
o
r
additional encumbrances, compensations and for suppleme
n
t
a
l
&memento.
STAILIS OF 0 GINAL AGREEMENT
Except as amended and modified herein, the terms and c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
original agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
APPROVALS
Before this supplemental agreement shall become binding
a
n
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
t
shall be approved by resolution of the City Courcil of Eden
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
.
a23(,
IN WITNESS ICEREOF, the parties have use this contract to
b
e
d
u
l
y
executed intending' to be bound thereby.
CITY OF ECEN PRAIRIE
BARION-ASH ASSOCIATES, INC.
By
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
TE DATE
BY
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Dyq/igifif
W i
ATTEST
(''
kTE
ATTEST _eett-dit g/t;
c-
E_- . v
Real Estate And Financial Services
August 31, 1989
Eden Prairie City Council
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-3677
Dear Council Members:
This letter shall serve as our request for an extension of the
approvals associated with the proposed development known as the
Eighteen Park Business Center.
As background, on August 5, 1986, the above mentioned development
was approved by the City in the form of a Developer's Agreement.
On September 15, 1986, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approved a variance request regarding front yard parking setback
and floor area ratio. On September 8, 1988, we received an
extension of the above mentioned approvals.
Since pertinent building ordinances have not changed since the
original approval of our development, please consider our request
to extend such approvals for an additional year.
I look forward to your granting of this request.
Sincerely,
Anthony ffer, RpiLTOR
Chairman CE
Investme rvices Group, Inc.
AEF:mgm
6974 Shady Oak Road, Eden Prairie,Minnesota55344,Telephone: (612)941-8533
22 37
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #89-202
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NELSON ADDITION FOR
DAVID NELSON
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Nelson Addition for David Nelson, dated September 15,
1989, consisting of 2.41 acres into six 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 19th day of September, 1989.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
2276)
September 5, 1989
City Council Members
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677
SUBJECT: Burnett, Nelson and Hustad Additions
ATTENTION: Members of the City Council
We are writing to express our concerns in relation to
proposed developments along Bennett Place. There are many
children in the neighborhood and our major concern is one of
safety. We are not opposed to the developments, but we are
concerned about the increased traffic it will cause on
Bennett Place. We have continually been concerned about the
speed of traffic on this road. Last year, we asked the City
to install signs indicating "children at play" and the City
refused Saying these can only be erected near playgrounds or
schools. The City did, finally, put up 30 M.P.H. speed limit
signs, but drivers continue to exceed this limit. The Police
have indicated they will monitor the situation. The City
Planning Commission heard much testimony about this problem
at their August 28, 1989 meeting and they did recommend that
the City review the problem.
We understand that the proposed site for the new intersection
with Bennett Place meets the visibility guidelines for a 30
M.P.H. speed limit. It is our opinion, however, that
vehicles constantly exceed the posted speed limits on Bennett
Place and that at these higher speeds longer visibility
distances should be required.
For safety concerns, we would encourage the City to post stop
signs at the intersection of Bennett Place and the new road.
A 3-way stop sign would slow the traffic on Bennett Place and
make for a safer intersection.
We understand that you will consider approving these plans
for development at the September 19, 1989 City Council
meeting. We would invite you to come and listen to our
concerns at a neighborhood meeting on Monday, September le, 1989, 7:00 P.M., at 9947 Bennett Place, Eden Prairie. If you
have any questions, please contact Jane Kelly at 944-7803.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Concerned Neighbors
-qtigEt1 E [1)
PLANNING DEPT
AUG 22 l89
ary OF
City of Eden PrafjgN RAMIE
Planning Cgmmission
7600 Executilie Drive
Eden Prairie&MN 55344-3677
Subject: Burnett Addition
August 21, 1989
Patrick J. Finnegan
9925 Bennett Place
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Attention: Members of the City Planning Commission
I am writing to express my concerns in relation to the proposed
development known as Burnett Addition which you are scheduled to
consider at your August 28, 1989 meeting.
My wife and I have 3 young children (ages 4, 8, and 11) and live
at 9925 Bennett Place which is directly across Bennett Place
from the proposed development. Our major concern is for the
safety of our children and the children in the neighborhood.
We are not opposed to the development but we are concerned about
the increased traffic it will cause on Bennett Place. We have
continually been concerned about the speed of traffic on this
road. Last year we called and asked the City to install signs
indicating "children at play" and the City refused saying these
can only be erected near playgrounds or schools. The City did
finally put up 30 M.P.H. speed limit signs but drivers
continuously exceed this limit. The Police have indicated they
will monitor the situation.
We understand that the proposed site for the new intersection
with Bennett Place meets the visibility guidelines for a 30
M.P.H. speed limit. It is our opinion, however, that vehicles
constantly exceed the posted speed limits on Bennett Place and
that at these higher speeds longer visibility distances should
be required.
The proposed access road into the development will come directly
at our driveway. I would encourage your consideration of moving
this road north at least 25 feet. The road would then face the
side of our neighbor's shed. This would also decrease the
amount of headlights shining into our house as vehicles turn
onto Bennett Place.
For safety concerns we would encourage the City to post stop
signs at the intersection of Bennett Place and the new road. A
3-way stop sign would slow the traffic on Bennett Place and make
it a safer intersection.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
P trick J Finnegan
2,;201
-MEMORANDUM-
TO: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner
FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Design Engineer '')FG4J .R.
SUBJECT: Burnett Addition
DATE: September 14, 1989
In response to the request for a three-way stop condition at the
intersection of Bennett Place and the new street within the Burnett
Addition, this intersection would not likely meet warrants for a
three-way stop. Minimum volumes entering the intersection must
average at least 500 vehicles per hour for the highest eight (8)
hours of an average day. Also, the minor street must average at
least 200 vehicle and pedestrian units per hour for the same eight
hours.
If sight distance was a problem, that may be justification for a
stop sign, however, in this situation it doesn't appear to be
warranted since the sight distance is adequate.
In regards to the speeding issue, the City has not conducted a
speed survey in this area. However, in my opinion, speeding would
tend to be more of a problem for southbound vehicles in the area of
the steep grade rather than northbound vehicles, which is the
traffic that is of concern for sight distance.
Therefore, we would not recommend a three-way stop in this location
based on anticipated volumes being less than the minimums required
and sight distance being adequate. At no time should speeding be
the only criteria in determining the need for a multi-way stop
situation.
RWR:ssa
22S1 k
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
1 i
7
( i5)
.0s 26,88. 5 1:.n 6 E
( 13) \
DR r.
56
YID NOLA D (42)
6'37 ICE
131.14
4
v5 63 1;
2
(4 0)E(41)1
Mr ICE
BURNETT ADDITION
( 18)
to
( 16)
g (453)-5
•:•1
BLUFFS WEST 8TH
ADDITION
'3701 026j
AVESTAN I
mmo.
(39)
1T7734
15
I A
(38)
tri (60
2
t •
ILiA
NP "TM 47N
/ I •
city of Eden Prairie
;tly 01;:ce.S
xecutive Drive • Eden Prairie. MN 55344 -3677 • Telephone (612)937 -2262
r --7410-11;
PLEASE NOTICE THAT
THERE ARE 3 PUBLIC
HEARING NOTICES
ENCLOSED IN THIS
ENVELOPE. IF YOU
WILL REFERENCE THE
MAP TO THE RIGHT, YOU
WILL SEE THAT THE
THREE PROJECTS ARE
ALL ADJACENT TO EACH
OTHER.
BECAUSE THESE
PR CTS ARE RELATED
IN MANY WAYS, AND
BECAUSE THE DEVELOP -
MENT OF EACH WILL
LIKELY IMPACT THE
OTHER, ALL THREE
ARE BEING CONSIDERED
AT THE SAME TIME--
MONDAY, AUGUST 28TH,
AT 7:30 P.M., IN THE
CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
PLEASE CALL THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AT 937-2262 IF YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
AB THESE PROJECTS
OR THE MEETING.
NELSON ADDITION
-it ,
RA; 11 AREA LOCATION MAP
9.1q3
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
August 25, 1989
Nelson Addition
West of Bennett Place, north of Bluestem
L
a
n
e
David Nelson
1. Zoning District Change on 2.41 acres fro
m
R
1
-
2
2
t
o
R
1
-
1
3
.
5
.
2. A Preliminary Plat of 2.41 acres into 6
s
i
n
g
l
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
l
o
t
s
.
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER:
REQUEST:
Background
This site is guided Low Density
Residential for up to 2.5 units per
acre. The property is currently
zoned R1-22. Surrounding existing
uses are single family homes.
Site Plan
The preliminary plat depicts the
subdivision of 2.41 acres into 6
single family lots at a density of
2.49 units per acre. Surrounding
densities are 1.88 units per acre
for Bluffs West 8th, 1.97 units per
acre for Burnett Addition, 2.27
units per acre for Bluffs West 7th,
2.22 units per acre for Blossom
Ridge, 2.0 units per acre for
Creekview Estates, and Holland Addition 2.0 units per acre. All of
the lots meet the minimum requirements of R1-13.5 Zoning District.
Five of the lots will have access
from the east/west street through
the Burnett Addition to the north.
One lot will have direct driveway
access off Bennett Place. The
driveway for the proposed
house
Nelson Addition 2 August 25, 1989
should be located along the south property line in order to provide for the required
minimum site vision distance of 350 feet to the north and 250 feet to the south.
Site Grading and Tree Loss
The proposed grading for the road and house construction will remove 99 out of the
297 total significant inches of trees on site. This is a 33% loss which compares to
the 26% average tree loss for 32 other subdivisions approved with tree replacement.
Tree replacement required for this project would be total of 43 caliper inches.
Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent should provide a tree replacement
plan for the 43 caliper inches.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to the site by connecting to existing
utilities in Bluestem Lane.
Storm water run-off is proposed to drain in a southeasterly direction through a
series of storm sewer pipes to Purgatory Creek. This site is part of a 30 acre
watershed draining into this pipe system. In order to evaluate the size of the
proposed piping, the proponent must provide detailed storm water run-off
calculations for review by the City Engineer.
Sidewalks
Attachment A indicates the location of existing and proposed sidewalks and trails
In this area as recommended by the Park and Recreation Staff. Concurrent with
street and utility construction, a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk must be constructed
along the north side of the east/west road.
Staff Recommendations
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request for rezoning from R1-22
to R1-13.5 and a preliminary plat of 2.41 acres into 6 single family lots based on
plans dated August 11, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated August 25, 1989, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to review by the City Council:
A. Provide a tree replacement plan based on 43 caliper inches.
B. Revise the preliminary plat to show the driveway location for the
house fronting on Bennett Place along the southern property line.
2. Prior to the Final Plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Provide detailed storm water run-off utility and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer.
2 :10
Nelson Addition 3 August 25, 1989
3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal.
4. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Stake the proposed construction and erosion control limits with snow
fencing and erosion control fencing.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hour in advance
of grading.
S. Concurrent with street and utility construction the proponent shall
construct a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of the
east/west road.
L._ • ' 4 "1 • •. .1 . _y__ •n••-) BilejffS\.‘, • /- " FP EY Kr 0). COkr-FME., 5IDEVJALX- Ftta1t'SEA 5' ca•lopqr. FPC/FOSEP EATLA411401X
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 089-20?.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFFS WEST 8TH FOP
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Bluffs West 8th for Hustad Development, dated September
15, 1989, consisting of 2.12 acres into 4 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 19th day of September, 1989.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
22 0'7
September 5, 1989
City Council Members
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677
SUBJECT: Burnett, Nelson and Hu
s
t
a
d
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
ATTENTION: Members of the City
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
We are writing to express our co
n
c
e
r
n
s
i
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
proposed developments along Ben
n
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
m
a
n
y
children in the neighborhood and
o
u
r
m
a
j
o
r
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
s
o
n
e
o
f
safety. We are not opposed to th
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
,
b
u
t
w
e
a
r
e
concerned about the increased t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
t
w
i
l
l
c
a
u
s
e
o
n
•
Bennett Place. We have continua
l
l
y
b
e
e
n
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
speed of traffic on this road. L
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
,
w
e
a
s
k
e
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
to install signs indicating "chi
l
d
r
e
n
a
t
p
l
a
y
"
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
refused saying these can only be
e
r
e
c
t
e
d
n
e
a
r
p
l
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
o
r
schools. The City did, finally,
p
u
t
u
p
3
0
M
.
P
.
H
.
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
signs, but drivers continue to e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
.
T
h
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
have indicated they will monitor
t
h
e
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
Planning Commission heard much
t
e
s
t
i
m
o
n
y
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
at their August 2B, 1989 meeting
a
n
d
t
h
e
y
d
i
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
h
a
t
the City review the problem.
We understand that the proposed
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
e
w
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
with Bennett Place meets the vis
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
a
3
0
M.P.H. speed limit. It is our o
p
i
n
i
o
n
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
a
t
vehicles constantly exceed the p
o
s
t
e
d
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
s
o
n
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
Place and that at these higher s
p
e
e
d
s
l
o
n
g
e
r
v
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
distances should be required.
For safety concerns, we would en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
p
o
s
t
s
t
o
p
signs at the intersection of Benn
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
e
w
r
o
a
d
.
A 3-way stop sign would slow th
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
n
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
make for a safer intersection.
We understand that you will con
s
i
d
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
p
l
a
n
s
for development at the September
1
9
,
1
9
8
9
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
meeting. We would invite you to
c
o
m
e
a
n
d
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
o
u
r
concerns at a neighborhood meeti
n
g
o
n
M
o
n
d
a
y
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
8
,
1989, 7:00 P.M., at 9947 Bennet
t
P
l
a
c
e
,
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
.
I
f
y
o
u
have any questions, please conta
c
t
J
a
n
e
K
e
l
l
y
a
t
9
4
4
-
7
8
0
3
.
Thank you for your consideration
o
f
o
u
r
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
Sincerely,
Concerned Neighbors
22q7
IV@EllWE
PLANN1141 DEPT. 11 August 21, 1989
Patrick J. Finnegan
9925 Bennett Place
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
AUG 22 19E9
CITY OF
City of Eden Praf,igN PRAIRIE
Planning Commission
7600 Executiie Drive
Eden Prairib4;MN 55344-3677
Subject: Burnett Addition
••••••••
Attention: Members of the City Planning
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
I am writing to express my concerns in rel
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
development known as Burnett Addition whi
c
h
y
o
u
a
r
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
t
o
consider at your August 28, 1989 meeting.
My wife and I have 3 young children (ages
4
,
8
,
a
n
d
1
1
)
a
n
d
l
i
v
e
at 9925 Bennett Place which is directly a
c
r
o
s
s
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
from the proposed development. Our major
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
safety of our children and the children i
n
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
We are not opposed to the development bu
t
w
e
a
r
e
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
the increased traffic it will cause on
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
.
W
e
h
a
v
e
continually been concerned about the spe
e
d
o
f
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
n
t
h
i
s
road. Last year we called and asked the
C
i
t
y
t
o
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
s
indicating "children at play" and the Ci
t
y
r
e
f
u
s
e
d
s
a
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
can only be erected near playgrounds or
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
d
i
d
finally put up 30 M.P.H. speed limit sig
n
s
b
u
t
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
continuously exceed this limit. The Poli
c
e
h
a
v
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
y
will monitor the situation.
We understand that the proposed site for
t
h
e
n
e
w
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
with Bennett Place meets the visibility g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
a
3
0
M.P.H. speed limit. It is our opinion, h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
a
t
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
constantly exceed the posted speed limits
o
n
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
that at these higher speeds longer visibi
l
i
t
y
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
be required.
The proposed access road into the develop
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
c
o
m
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
at our driveway. I would encourage your
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
v
i
n
g
this road north at least 25 feet. The r
o
a
d
w
o
u
l
d
t
h
e
n
f
a
c
e
t
h
e
side of our neighbor's shed. This would
a
l
s
o
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
amount of headlights shining into our ho
u
s
e
a
s
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
t
u
r
n
onto Bennett Place.
For safety concerns we would encourage t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
p
o
s
t
s
t
o
p
signs at the intersection of Bennett Pl
a
c
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
e
w
r
o
a
d
.
A
3-way stop sign would slow the traffic on Bennett Place
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
it a safer intersection.
Thank you for your consideration of our c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
Sincerely,
P trick J
071-•:44,P1
Finnegan z q9
-MEMORANDUM-
TO: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner
FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Design Engineer
SUBJECT: Burnett Addition
DATE: September 14, 1989
In response to the request for a three-way stop condition at the
intersection of Bennett Place and the new street within the Burnett
Addition, this intersection would not likely meet warrants for a
three-way stop. Minimum volumes entering the intersection must
average at least 500 vehicles per hour for the highest eight (8)
hours of an average day. Also, the minor street must average at
least 200 vehicle and pedestrian units per hour for the same eight
hours.
If sight distance was a problem, that may be justification for a
stop sign, however, in this situation it doesn't appear to be
warranted since the sight distance is adequate.
In regards to the speeding issue, the City has not conducted a
speed survey in this area. However, in my opinion, speeding would
tend to be more of a problem for southbound vehicles in the area of
the steep grade rather than northbound vehicles, which is the
traffic that is of concern for sight distance.
Therefore, we would not recommend a three-way stop in this location
based on anticipated volumes being less than the minimums required
and sight distance being adequate. At no time should speeding be
the only criteria in determining the need for a multi-way stop
situation.
RWR:ssa
1‘)k
6 9
(16) (17)
90
F
(39)
BURNETT ADDITION
1 NELSON ADDITION
I BLUFFS WEST 8TH
ADDITION
Sr91 669 .6 7' c
aSTEN
mnoTA
(39)
3
..e7 (37)
61 iR
4C79r. InS•63.4
TWAVge.:40:
tr-
( 38)
itaig %
3°0
AV 4-,4741
OWWV,
71
( 18) 7.
10 r.
fi?
(3'.1y cf En
7: ..;n I. --_xect..I•ve Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344.3677 • Tereprione (612) 937-2262
•i.:417 1
! r =1101 =1
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
PLEASE NOTICE THAT
THERE ARE 3 PUBLIC
HEARING NOTICES
ENCLOSED IN THIS
ENVELOPE. IF YOU
WILL REFERENCE THE
MAP TO THE RIGHT, YOU
WILL SEE THAT THE
THREE PROJECTS ARE
ALL ADJACENT TO EACH
OTHER.
BECAUSE THESE
P ECTS ARE RELATED
IN MANY WAYS, AND
BECAUSE THE DEVELOP -
MENT OF EACH WILL
LIKELY IMPACT THE
OTHER, ALL THREE
ARE BEING CONSIDERED
AT THE SAME TIME --
MONDAY, AUGUST 28TH,
AT 7:30 P.M., IN THE
CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
PLEASE CALL THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AT 937-2262 IF YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
A if THESE PROJECTS
OR THE MEETING.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
August 25, 1989
Bluffs West 8th Addition
West of Bennett Place, north of Bluestem Road
Wallace Hustad
1. Zoning District Change from R1-22 to RI-13.5 on 2.12 acres.
2. A Preliminary Plat of 2.12 acres into 4 single family lots.
3. Street frontage variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments.
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER:
REQUEST:
Background
This site is guided Low Density
Residential for up to 2.5 units per
acre. The site is currently zoned
R1-22. Surrounding existing uses
are single family homes.
Site Plan
The site plan depicts the
subdivision of 2.12 acres into 4 RI-
13.5 lots at a density of 1.88 units
per acre. Surrounding densities are
1.97 units per acre for Burnett
subdivision, 2.49 units per acre for
Nelson Addition, 2.0 units per acre
for Creekview Addition, 2.0 units
per acre for Holland Addition, and
2.2 units per acre for Bluffs West
7th.
The lots meet the minimum square
footage requirements for the R1-13.5
Zoning District, however proposed
Lot 1 and 2 are flag lots which have
a street frontage of 20 feet. Code
currently requires a minimum street
frontage of 85 feet in the R1-13.5
Bluffs West 8th Addition 2 August 25, 1989
Zoning District. When the Bluffs West 7th Addition immediately to the west of this
site was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, the overall
development plan for the area to the north which included this site was studied to
determine the appropriate type of access for the area. A cul-de-sac was initially
to be extended from the Nelson property to this site to provide access. However,
due to extensive site grading and tree loss and sewer depth, it was determined that
this property might be better be served by flag lots. A variance was granted for
Lot 1, Block 1 of Bluffs West 7th Addition for street frontage variance from 89 to
65 feet for the lot immediately adjacent to and west of proposed Lot 1. The
proponent must apply to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the flag lot
variances.
There will be three driveway access points on Bennett Place. Site vision distance
has been evaluated and meets the minimum criteria for a 30 mile an hour design
speed.
Grading and Tree Loss
Proposed grading for the house pads will result in the loss of 239 out of 701 total
caliper inches or 34%. Tree loss on this site could be reduced further by
eliminating one lot, however, the density of 1.88 units per acre is lower than the
2.14 units per acre density for surrounding subdivisions. Since this site is part
of approximately 26 acres of land owned by the Hustad Development Corporation, tree
loss was calculated over the entire property when the Bluffs West 7th Addition was
approved earlier this year. Initially, the overall tree loss was calulated at 29%.
With a more detailed inventory and grading plan submitted with the Bluffs West 8th
Addition, overall tree loss has been recalculated at 31%. Though this number is
slightly higher than what was originally estimated, it is below the 35% maximum tree
loss considered acceptable before alternative site plans must be explored.
Since the estimate over 26.3 acres is for 2,229 caliper inches of tree loss, the
tree replacement would be 914 caliper inches. Since 163 caliper inches are being
replaced in the Bluffs West 7th Addition, a total of 751 caliper inches must be
Spread out over the balance of the undeveloped property. Since this site is wooded
in the backyards, the amount of area available for tree replacement is small and
confined to the front yard setback. It is recommended that 12 caliper inches of
trees be replaced on each lot or a total of 48 inches. Prior to review by the City
Council, the proponent shall submit a tree replacement plan for 48 inches.
Two, four foot, retaining walls must be constructed in order to provide a driveway
access to proposed Lot 2. Details of the retaining walls must be provided prior to
grading permit issuance. Since the retaining walls are constructed along the narrow
20 foot wide access to this lot, it is recommended that the retaining walls and
bituminous surface be constructed concurrent with site grading.
Utilities
Sewer and water service is available by connection to existing facilities in
Bluestem Lane and Bennett Place. Storm water run-off in the backyard of these four
lots collects in a low area. There should be a storm sewer outlet pipe from this
low area to the nearest available catch basin in either Bennett Place or Bluestem
Lane.
g?ia
Bluffs West 9th 3 August 25, 1929
Sidewalks
There is an existing 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Bennett
Place which serves this project. There will also be a sidewalk along Bluestem Lane.
Staff Recommendation
The Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning request from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and
a preliminary plat of 2.12 acres into 4 single family lots based on plans dated July
20, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989,
and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall:
A. Submit a tree replacement plan for 48 caliper inches.
B. Revise the grading and drainage plan to depict a storm sewer outlet
from the low area within the back yards of the houses.
2. Prior to Final Plat approval proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility
plans for review by the City Engineer.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshal.
4. Prior to grading permit issuance proponent shall:
A. Stake the proposed construction limits with a snow fence.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
5. Retaining walls and the blacktop driveway on proposed Lot 2 must be
constructed concurrent with site grading for Lots 2 and Lot 3.
6. Apply for and receive Board of Appeals variances for the flag lots.
2.303
1 C" ne• Pt'lfr71 0 f FrecoSE-0 C Nic., 441 'Ise *sift, I 1-7 .2 Mill-Z.:" P n ells-11149 07' coMr-frr •4tcesoxix_. FraFoseD 5' COJCV.E:TE, sit:ex/4NX- " ••• " • iToposep eIbiluMiNOtx
SEPTEMBER 19.1989
53996 FRANK SMETANA
53997 HELEN B SMETANA
5 7 99B COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
STATE OF MN
,a DAVID A CORNELIUS
54001 MINNESOTA TENANTS UNION
54002 BIRTCHER WELSH
54003 JASON-NORTHCO PROP LPM1
54004 AT&T
54005 AT&T
54006 MINNEGASCO
54007 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
54008 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
54009 PETTY CASH
54010 INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL EXCHANGE
54011 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
54012 VOID OUT CHECK
54013 DOUG ARMSTRONG
54014 DATASERVE
54015 LAURA DERICKSON
54016 SHAWN DRILL
54017 LINDAY GOEBEL
54018 MARK KARINIEMI
54019 MARION L NESBITT
54020 PAX CHRISTI
54021 LORI SPAULDING
54822 THERESA STOWELL
54023 ROSANNA SVOBODNY
SHARLEEN TOWNSEND
5 JIM STUKEL
54v26 JAMES BITTNER
54027 BROADWAY EQUIPMENT CO
54028 MICHAEL SKARP
54029 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS
54030 SANDRA F WERTS
54031 ROGER'S CABLESYSTEMS
54032 DAVID LINDAHL
54033 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN
54034 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN
54035 FIVE STAR CONSTRUCTION INC
54036 CEDAR HILLS GOLF PARK
54037 PETTY CASH
54038 SUPPLEE'S 7 HI ENTERPRISES INC
54039 CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE
54040 KAY ZUCCARO
54041 AT&T
54042 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV
54043 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS
54044 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE
5 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
15402 173
EASEMENTS-BRYANT LAKE SEWER
EASEMENTS-BRYANT LAKE SEWER
LICENSE-ASSESSING DEPT
HOUSING BOND FEE
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
SUBSCRIPTION-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
SEPTEMBER 89 RENT-CITY HALL
SEPTEMBER 89 RENT-LIQUOR STORE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
EXPENSES-RILEY LAKE BEACH
CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBER
CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBER
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-ROUND LAKE PARK PAVILION RENTAL
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-BOUNDARY WATERS TRIP
REFUND-BOUNDARY WATERS TRIP
REFUND-MEMBERSHIP FEE
REFUND-NOERENBERG GARDEN TOUR
REFUND-STARING LAKE PARK BUILDING RENTAL
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-AEROBICS CLASS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE TRIP GUIDE/FEES PAID
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT
LIFEGUARD INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID
-REFRIGERATOR-$1195.00/FREEZER-$465.00/
ICEMAKER REGRIGERATOR-$1430.00-FIRE DEPT
MILEAGE-SENIOR CENTER
SECOND CABLE HOOKUP-SENIOR CENTER
-REFUND-OVERPAYMENT TOUCH FOOTBALL LEAGUE
FEE
-1989 FOOTBALL STATE REGISTRATION FEE-
ORGANIZED ATHLETICS
FOOTBALL REGISTRATION-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS
PARTIAL PAYMENT-CONFERENCE ROOM/OFFICE
-ENTRANCES/COUNCIL CHAMBERS/HALL
REMODELING-CITY HALL
GOLF TOURNAMENT/FEES PAID
CHANGE FUND-SUNBONNET DAY
SEPTEMBER RENT-LIQUOR STORE
CONFERENCE-ADMINISTRATION
AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
PAYROLL 8/17/89 & 9/1/89
PAYROLL 9/1189
6500.00
6500.00
15.00
2500.00
300.00
4.50
19880.79
6141.94
4.45
227.91
164.76
13035.09
10421.70
53.50
183.00
245.00
0.00
20.00
65.00
20.00
92.00
92.00
40.02
4.00
53.00
40.00
19.00
7.00
22.00
680.00
30.00
120.96
135.00
3408.47
60.28
29.95
45.00
99.00
200.00
2900.00
143.75
200.00
4737.16
16.00
210.00
545.05
121.70
4404.59
57524.68
11758.48
S05
SEPTEMBER 19.1989
54046 APPLIED ROOFING SYSTEMS INC
54047 KATHY HERMANN
8JOYCE PROVO
A T 0 M
54050 DECATHLON ATHLETIC CLUB
54051 INSTY PRINTS
54052 MESSERLI & KRAMER
54053 MONA MEYER & MCGRATH
54054 PLYMOUTH PLACE HOTEL
54055 ROEMER G ROBERTSON COMPANY
54056 VOTO TAUTGES REDPATH & CO LTD
-ROOF & GUTTER WORK-TICONDEROGA TRAIL-
HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
EXPENSES-CITY HALL
EXPENSES-CITY HALL
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT
EXPENSES-MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION
PRINTING-MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION
SERVICE-MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION
JULY 89 SERVICE
EXPENSES-MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION
ADS-MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION
-AUDIT SERVICES-MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE
COMMISSION
3950.00
100.56
19.19
120.00
412.41
432.61
4200.00
2094.72
336.71
347.30
1100.00
54057 1111 IV REFUND-MEMBERSHIP FEE
92.10
54058 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
17.00
54059 REFUND-STARING LAKE PARK BUILDING RENTAL
12.00
54060 I 1 REFUND-FIREARM SAFETY CLASS
2.00
54061 1111 REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS
28.00
54062 REFUND-MEMBERSHIP FEE
10.28
54063 1111 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
43.00
54064 1111 11 REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS
18.00
54065 REFUND-MEMBERSHIP FEE
52.54
54066 1 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
19.00
54067 REFUND-FIREARM SAFETY CLASS
2.00
54068 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
19.00
54069 REFUNO-EXERCISE CLASS
26.00
54070 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
38.00
54071 -ENTERTAINMENT-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL &
100.00
CULTURAL COMMISSION
E 2 JACK PEARSON -ENTERTAINMENT-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL &
181.00
CULTURAL COMMISSION
54073 DUN & BRADSTREET BUSINESS ED SERV CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT
99.00
54074 HOLIDAY INN DULUTH
CONFERENCE-WATER DEPT
214.80
54075 NORTH CENTRAL SECTION AWWA
CONFERENCE-WATER DEPT
100.00
54076 ETHYL WOKASCH
EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES
32.65
54077 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC
LIQUOR
22417.55
54078 PRIOR WINE CO
WINE
4361.11
54079 EAGLE WINE CO
WINE
1618.20
54080 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
WINE
19647.24
54081 QUALITY WINE CO
WINE
11570.89
54082 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR
LIQUOR
36311.61
54083 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
WINE
79.00
54084 PAUST1S & SONS CO
WINE
602.72
54085 BEER WHOLESALERS INC
BEER
4856.35
54086 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO
BEER
7210.40
54087 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO
BEER
26205.80
54088 HOME JUICE CITRUS PRODUCTS INC
MIX 60.96
54089 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO
BEER
793.07
54090 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
BEER
19046.45
54091 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO
MIX 1074.54
54092 PEPSI COLA COMPANY
MIX
449.43
54093 ALL AMERICAN BOTTLING CORP
MIX
429.42
54094 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
BEER
10342.70
54095 ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY
SERVICE-1989 BITUMINOUS SEALCOATING
19344.91
E.Jr BROWN & CRIS INC
-SERVICE-HAMILTON RD STREET & STORM SEWER 697.77
IMPROVEMENTS
20134199
54097 MATT BULLOCK CONTRACTING CO SERVICE-STARING LAKE PARK
54098 F F JEDLICKI SERVICE-CSHA COUNTY I & 18 STORM SEWER
54099 KILLMER ELECTRIC COMPANY SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DR TRAFFIC SIGNALS
54100 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE-COUNTY RDS 1 & 4 WATERMAIN
5P01 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP -SERVICE-BYPASS & TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR CEDAR RIDGE SCHOOL
5'4102 NODLAND CONSTRUCTION CO -SERVICE-COUNTRY GLEN UTILITY & STREET
IMPROVEMENTS/CEDAR RIDGE STORM SEWER
54103 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO -SERVICE-MITCHELL/RESEARCH RD & WEST 76TH
-STREET IMPROVEMENTS/GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE
IMPROVEMENTS
54104 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER EQUIPMENT RENTAL-WATER DEPT/OUTDOOR CENTER
54105 AAA STRIPING SERVICE CO STREET STRIPING-STREET DEPT
54106 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL
54107 HERBERT S ADOLPHSON EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT
54108 ADOLFSON & PETERSON INC REFUND-PERMIT FEE DEPOSIT
54109 AIRSIGNAL INC PAGER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT
54110 AMERICAN EXCELSIOR CO EROSION CONTROL MAT-STARING LACE PARK
54111 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO -UNIFORMS-WATER DEPT/SEWER DEPT/STREET
-DEPT/PARK MAINT/FACILITIES DEPT/BUILDING
INSPECTIONS DEPT/MATS-LIQUOR STORE
54112 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BOND PAYMENT
54113 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION DUES-PLANNING DEPT
54114 AMERICAN RED CROSS BOOKS-AQUATICS SUPERVISOR
54115 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARC DUES-PARK PLANNING DEPT
54116 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS-STREET DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE
54117 ANDERSON'S GARDEN EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT
54118 RICHARD T ANDERSON EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER
54119 ARMOR SECURITY INC
3RD QUARTER SECURITY SYSTEM-OUTDOOR CENTER
54120 B & S TOOLS -PRY BARS/AIR HOSE/AIR CHISEL REPAIR/
-HAMMER HEADS/GAUGE/NUT DRIVERS/PLIERS/
-SCREWDRIVERS/SCRAPERS/SOCKET SET/RAZOR
-BLADES/KNIFE SHARPENER-WATER DEPT/
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
54121 BAREFOOT GRASS LAWN SERVICE LAWN CARE SERVICE-POLICE BUILDING
54122 GERALD J BARTZ
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
54123 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC FLASHERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
54124 DANIEL BECKER REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING
54125 BERGIN AUTO BODY REFINISH POLICE VEHICLE-EQUIPMENT MAINT
54126 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE
54127 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT/FIRE
-DEPT/PARK PLANNING DEPT/FORESTRY DEPT/
PLANNING DEPT54128
54128 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON -JULY 89 ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE/AIRPORT
ADEQUACY STUDY
54129 STAN BORELLA
MILEAGE-OUTDOOR CENTER
54130 TORY BOYUM HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
54131 BRO-TEX INC -HAND TOWELS-FACILITIES DEPT/EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
54132 BURNSVILLE BEAVER MT WATER SLIDE BEAVER MT WATER SLIDE/FEES PAID
54133 BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC OCTOBER 89 COPIER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT
54134 CAFE ON THE POND
EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT
54135 CARDOX CORPORATION
CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT
54136 CASE POWER & EQUIPMENT
BOBCAT/TRAILER/PLANER RENTAL-STREET DEPT
32180.57
35079.70
11897.20
3325.00
15988.52
174153.00
197783.47
37.10
2419.80
71.50
15.00
2000.00
94.00
192.00
1978.21
341.50
619.00
61.20
193.00
2434.65
22.99
189.54
155.10
509.75
69.33
1080.00
7.52
79.43
240.00
643.88
285.18
5753.00
64.00
40.00
210.07
63.75
182.75
132.13
446.92
1250.00
4 0 728976
.M /7
54171 JAMIESON J GIEFER
54172 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
54173 GOPHER SIGN COMPANY
54174 W W GRAINGER INC
54175 GRANT MERRITT & ASSOCIATES LTD
54176 GREAT AMERICAN MARINE
54177 JANET GREENLEES
54 17 8 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY
5i GROUP WEB INC
541o0 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC
21549362
LIQUOR STORE
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
JULY 89 SERVICE
SIGN POSTS-WATER DEPT
3 CIRCULATING FANS-WATER DEPT
-AUGUST 89 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD
LANDFILL
BOAT MOTOR/ACCESSORIES-ROUND LAKE MARINA
MILEAGE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM
OFFICE SUPPLIES-CIVIL DEFENSE
PRINTING-HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTORIES
-WARNING STICKERS/REPLACE 3 WAY SWITCH-
PARK MAINTENANCE
SEPTEMBER 19.1989
54137 CASHCO INC 2 HAND CONTROL VALVES-WATER DEPT
5 .,18 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS OIL/KNIFE SET-WATER DEPT/FORESTRY DEPT
CHEMLAWN LAWN CARE SERVICE-WATER DEPT
s4140 CIRCUS AMERICAN AMUSEMENT ARCADES NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM/FEES PAID
54141 CLEVELAND COTTON PRODUCTS TOWELS-WATER DEPT
54142 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC -BRAKE DRUM REPAIRS/SEALS/BRAKE SPRING-
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
54143 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE
54144 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE-HWY 5 & EDEN PRAIRIE RD
54145 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-POLICE DEPT
54146 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR-SEWER DEPT
54147 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC -CONNECTIONS/DRILL BITS/SILICONE/SORT
TRAYS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
54148 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT
54149 WARD F DAHLPERG AUGUST 89 EXPENSES-LIQUOR STORES
54150 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 54151 BUD DAMON INSTALL TWIN DOLLIES ON PIANO-SENIOR CTR
54152 DAN & DAN'S MINUTEMAN PRESS -PRINTING FOR SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL &
CULTURAL COMMISSION
54153 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT
54154 DYNA SYSTEMS DRILL BITS/SCREWS-WATER DEPT
54155 ECONOMY TROPHY TROPHIES-YOUTH TENNIS 54156 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE RELIEF 1989 FIRE RELIEF FUND
54157 EDEN PRAIRIE'S BOYS BASKETBALL AS POSTAGE-SUMMER SKILL DEVELOPMENT
541_58 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT
54159 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-FIRE DEPT
54160 DEB EDLUND MINUTES-PLANNING COMMISSION
5 I ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC -EARPLUGS/SAFETY GLOVES/APRONS/JACKETS/
-SAFETY VESTS/RAINCOATS-WATER DEPT/STREET
MAINTENANCE
54162 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-PLANNING DEPT/AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND
54163 FAIRVIEW BLOOD TESTS-POLICE DEPT
54164 FEIST BLANCHARD CO -BATTERY CARRIER/CLOCK/RADIATOR HOSE/BELTS/
-BEARINGS/SEALS/HUB CAPS/ROTOR/SOLENOID
-SWITCHES/FUSEHOLDER KITS/CABLE TIE/VALVES/
STRIP CRIMPER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
54165 FLAGHOUSE INC -SOFTBALL BAT/BALL BAG-NEIGHBORHOOD
OUTREACH PROGRAM
54166 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE
54167 FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS INC MARKING PAINT-WATER DEPT 54168 JOHN FRANE JULY & AUGUST 89 EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT
54169 LYNDELL F FREY EXPENSES-DAY CAMP
54170 G & K SERVICES -COVERALLS/TOWELS-WATER DEPT/PARK MAINT/
997.62
44.65
48.80
50.88
96.44
336.00
39985.58
23.17
322.40
35.00
488.85
20136.53
80.00
516.50
85.50
724.30
10315.00
481.39
18.10
119741.00
105.50
35.77
9.91
125.00
353.49
15.30
49.00
418.30
17.28
1020.18
179.49
400.00
55.56
480.58
105.00
223.55
1494.56
593.43
10969.52
429.65
26.95
37.60
3748.00
74.71
C)Z
54181 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT
54182 AMY HAHN VIDEO TAPES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND
54183 ROBERT HANNON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
, 84 HARMON GLASS SHADED WINDSHIELD-SEWER DEPT
J5 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEE-ENGINEERING DEPT
54186 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT
54187 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER JULY 89 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE DEPT
54188 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER JULY 89 WASTE DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT
54189 D C HEY COMPANY INC TONER/DEVELOPER-BUILDING DEPT
54190 HIAWATHA OIL COMPANY ANTI-FREEZE-WATER DEPT
54191 HODGES BADGE COMPANY INC BADGES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION
54192 HOFFERS INC FIELD MARKING PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE
54193 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES -4TH QUARTER 89 SECURITY SYSTEM-SENIOR CT11/
LIQUOR STORE
54194 HONEYWELL INC COMPRESSOR REPAIR/AIR FILTER-WATER DEPT
54195 HYDRAULIC SERVICES INC CYLINDER REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
54196 IBM CORPORATION OCTOBER 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL
54197 INTL CONFERENCE OF BLDG OFFICIALS DUES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT
54198 INSTY PRINTS
54199 J & R RADIATOR CORP
54200 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC
54201 CARL JULL1E
54202 KAHNKE BROS INC
54203 KEYS WELL DRILLING CO
54204 JIM KILDAHL
54205 SCOTT A KIPP
54206 LAKESIDE FUSEE CORPORATION
54207 ROBERT LAMBERT
PRINTING-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
RADIATOR REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/WATER DEPT
EXPENSES/DUES-ADMINISTRATION
BLACK DIRT-STREET MAINTENANCE
RATCHET FOR MOTOR-WATER DEPT
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
EXPENSES/MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT
FLARES-POLICE DEPT
-AUGUST 89 EXPENSES/DUES-PARK & RECREATION
DEPT
8 CINDY LANENBERG
:9 LANOLINE COMMUNICATION SERVICES
54210 LMCIT
54211 LESMANN ENTERPRISES INC
54212 LINHOFF CORPORATE COLOR
54213 LOOTS
54214 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC
54215 RODERICK MACRAE
54216 ROBERT MASON HOMES
54217 MASTER CRAFT LABELS INC
54218 MASYS CORPORATION
54219 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC
54220 MBA DESKTOP PUBLISHING PLUS
54221 MARSHALL & SWIFT
54222 MCFARLANES INC
54223 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC
54224 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC
54225 R S MEANS CO INC
54226 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO
54227 MEDICINE LAKE LINES
6613676
MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT
I CALIBRATION GAS-WATER DEPT
LIABILITY INSURANCE
REPAIR & PAINT VEHICLE-EQUIPMENT MAINT
-FILM PROCESSING-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION/
FORESTRY DEPT
JULY 89 SERVICE
-DRIVE CHAINS/BUSHINGS/SNAP RING/SCREWS/
-SPROCKET ASSEMBLY/BEARINGS-EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES/MILEAGE-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAMS
INSTALL RETAINING WALL-PARK MAINTENANCE
FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT
-OCTOBER 89 COMPUTER MAINTENANCE-POLICE
DEPT
TOWING-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/POLICE DEPT
PRINTING-RECREATION SUPERVISOR
BOOK-ASSESSING DEPT
CEMENT-PARK MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT
-EXPENSES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/AFTERNOON
PLAYGROUND/SENIOR PROGRAMS
BOOK-PARK PLANNING DEPT
OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT
-BUS SERVICE-APPLE RIVER-TEEN WORK PROGRAM/
BERNE MN SWISSFEST-ADULT PROGRAMS
407.58
30.60
40.00
130.86
20.50
72.00
1079.50
462.50
132.20
82.80
89.55
289.80
520.81
604.45
94.02
424.32
150.00
36.70
99.32
684.44
196.06
80.00
1500.00
90.00
15.25
445.82
311.00
57.50
146.00
46997.66
478.00
70.00
5921.55
590.05
127.01
441.00
495.00
1295.00
148.00
136.05
49.00
228.00
55.53
249.78
61.95
65.10
434.50
,309
OCHS PRICK & TILE CO
HARRY ORTLOFF
PACE LABORATORIES INC
PAPER WAREHOUSE
KIM BECKER PARMATER
PERSONNEL DECISIONS INC
PERSONNEL POOL
CONNIE L PETERS
GARY D PETERSON
TOM PETERSON
PIONEER MIDWEST INC
PITNEY BOWES INC
54263 PLEHAL BLACKTOPPING INC
54264 POMMER COMPANY INC
54265 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
54266 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
54267 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
54251
54252
5(
54255
54256
54257
54258
54259
54260
54261
54262
54228 METRO ALARM INC
-4TH QUARTER 89 SECURITY MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT-PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING
54229 METRO PRINTING INC
PRINTING FORMS-POLICE DEPT
f:k"0 METRO SALES INC
-4TH QUARTER 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-
COMMUNITY CENTER
54231 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
DIRECTORIES-RECREATION SUPERVISOR 54232 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE
54233 MINNEAPOLIS HEALTH DEPARTMENT
LABORATORY TESTS-POLICE DEPT
54234 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP -SEPTEMBER 89 PAGER SERVICE-SEWER DEPT/
FIRE DEPT
54235 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -AIR MASK BAGS/EYTINQUISHER RECHARGING/
0-RINGS/VALVE/PULL PIN-FIRE DEPT 54236 MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL INC
POSTERS-SAFETY DEPTMENT
54237 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS
ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORE
54238 LYNN MORRIS
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
54239 MOTOROLA INC
RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT
54240 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO
25 BLADES-PARK MAINTENANCE
54241 NATIONAL SCREENPR1NT
T-SHIRTS/TANK SHIRTS-PARK MAINTENANCE 54242 NATURAL GREEN INC
IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR-WATER DEPT
54243 STEVE NEWMAN
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
54244 BETH NILSSON
SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID
54245 DOUG NORD
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
54246 JP NOREX INC
WATERMA1N REPAIR-HWY 5 & COUNTY RD 4
54247 NORTHERN ENGINE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 54248 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE-BELL OAKS 2ND ADDITION
54249 NORTHLAND BUSINESS COMMUNCICATION DICTAPHONE REPAIR-POLICE DE
P
T
54250 NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA N A BOND PAYMENT
RODS-PARK MAINTENANCE
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT
EXPENSES-AQUATICS SUPERVISOR
REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING
COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY-HUMAN RESOURCES
SERVICE-PLANNING DEPT
MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER
EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
SPRINKLER HEADS-FACILITIES DEPT
-4TH QUARTER 89 POSTAGE METER RENTAL-CITY
-HALL/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FACILITIES
DEPT/POLICE DEPT
PAVER RENTAL-STREET DEPT
TROPHIES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS
-CONNECTOR/HOSE CLAMPS/DRILL BIT/FUSES/CAR
-WAX/RUST REMOVER/TIE/KEYS/KEY RINGS/
SCREWS-FIRE DEPT
-FLY SWATTERS/STEEL CABLE/KEYS/SNAPS/PAINT
-SUPPLIES/U CLAMPS/CORNER BRACES/WASHERS/
FLASHLIGHT/BATTERIES/BLADES-COMMUNITY CTR
-ROPE/CLAMP/SCISSOR/SANDPAPER/NAILS/SPRAY
-PAINT/BOLTS/INSECT SPRAY/SPIKES/PAINT
-BRUSHES/OIL/DUCT TAPE/KEY/RUBBER GLOVES/
-PAINT ROLLERS/ELECTRICAL TAPE/KNIVES/
-WASHERS/CHALK/SAW BLADES/SPONGE/BROOM/
BUCKET-PARK MAINTENANCE
78.00
632.00
827.00
6.00
1404.81
266.60
104.00
333.25
233.11
146.40
81.00
246.30
179.59
179.59
417.61
15.00
317.00
120.00
5115.69
280.99
689.35
58.00
157438.75
5.60
303.00
90.00
8.32
40.22
100.00
1794.00
15.25
434.50
90.00
17.54
536.50
4972.50
32.00
55.62
128.93
454.47
17824849
2 10
54268 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
5, A PRAIRIE HARDWARE
54270 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
54271 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
-VELCRO/SPONGE/SCREWDRIVER SET/CABLE CLIPS/
-CAR CLEANER/SPONGE/CHROME POLISH/RAZOR
-BLADES/CAR WAX/BUG & TAR REMOVER-POL10E
DEPT
BOLTS/GLOVES/PAINT/MIRRORS-SEWER DEPT
-BRUSHES/CLOCK/CLEANING SUPPLIES/HANDLES/
-SCRAPER/BOLTS/PREMIXED CEMENT/RAZOR
BLADES/PAINT/INSECT SPRAY-STREET DEPT
-CLEANING SUPPLIES/BATTERIES/TAPE/HOSE/
-PRESSURE GAUGES/SPRINKLER HOSES/NOZZLES/
-CONNECTIONS/HANDLE/SHOVEL/BOLTS/WIRE/
-POWER PAINTER/CHISEL/SLEDGE HAMMER/HAND
MAULS-WATER DEPT
40.53
65.14
241.73
810.39
54272 111 it 111 1/ AWARDS-HUMAN RESOURCES
54273 11,1 111 1111 TELEPHONE REPAIR-FIRE DEPT
54274 111 CHEMICAL FEEDER REPAIR-WATER DEPT
54275 11 1111 EXPENSES-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAMS
54276 1 111111 EXPENSES-BUILDING DEPT
54277 /1 1111 1 1 1111 -CASH REGISTER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-
LIQUOR STORE
54278 1 11 111 1 -TRUCK CHASSIS & HYDRAULIC AIR COMPRESSOR-
-$10748.00-WATER DEPT/BLACKTOP ROLLER
RENTAL-STREET MAINTENANCE
54279 1 11 HI FIRST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT
54280 111 11 -ALTERNATOR/STARTER/GENERATOR REPAIR-
EQUIPKENT MAINTENANCE
54281 ROLLINS OIL CO GAS/DIESEL FUEL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
54282 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO IN STREET FLUSHER TRUCK-STREET DEPT
54 1 83 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT
' 4 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC CEMENT-STREET MAINTENANCE
5,,d5 KEVIN SCHMIES -JUNE & JULY 89 EXPENSES-BLDG INSPECTIONS
DEPT/SAFETY DEPT/FACILITIES DEPT
54286 SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS SUBSCRIPTION-BUILDING DEPT
54287 SEELYE PLASTICS INC CHEMICAL FEEDER REPAIR-WATER DEPT
54288 JESSICA SELISKI TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES
54289 SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY SIGNS/LABELS/TAGS-WATER DEPT
54290 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER REPAIR
54291 SHAFER CONTRACTING CO SERVICE-SALES TAX REFUND
54292 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -SCREWDRIVER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PLIERS-
FIRE DEPT
54293 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC -FILM/RING BINDERS/BUBBLES/STRAWS/BALLS/
-FRISBE/BATTERIES-SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS/
-DAY CAMP/TEEN WORK PROGRAM/ROUND LAKE
MARINA/RECREATION SUPERVISOR
54294 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT
54295 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-BUILDING DEPT/COMMUNITY CTR
54296 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES
54297 SPECTRUM SAFETY CONSULTANTS INC -WATER SAFETY & FIRST AID TRAINING/FEES
PAID
54298 SPS COMPANIES COUPLING-PARK MAINTENANCE
54299 STARS RESTAURANT EXPENSES-CITY HALL
54300 STANDARD SPRING CO REBUILD REAR AXLES-WATER DEPT
54301 STEVE STENSGAARD AWARDS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS
54302 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ -LIGHTBAR/SWITCH CONTROL CENTER/HOLSTERS/
-AMMUNITION/GUN CLEANING SUPPLIES/SIGNAL
8627873
81.46
185.00
685.81
78.30
15.00
1117.20
11142.00
100.83
253.73
14257.02
27916.00
18.60
678.32
400.00
71.00
78.76
35.00
128.95
686.02
24373.00
86.15
89.17
5.97
82.36
486.95
400.00
13.67
130.82
282.10
286.00
955.75
g 311
-MOUNT KIT/SIGNAL-SEWER DEPT/EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE/POLICE DEPT
54303 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET -GASKETS/CLUTCHES/HOSES/GENERATORS/GEAR/ 1235.25 -MANIFOLD/SWITCHES/DOOR REPAIR/PLATE
-ASSEMBLY/DISTRIBUTOR CAP/COIL ASSEMBLY/
-ROTOR/AIR CONDITIONING REPAIR-EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
54304 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC SOAP/AIR FILTER-LIQUOR STORE 26.19 54305 SUPRA COLOR INC FILM-POLICE DEPT 75.45 54306 TARGET STORES -FOLDERS/PENCILS/PENS/MARKERS/CUPS-DAY 23.38
CAMP
54307 TIRES FOR WET SPOTS TIRE CHIPS-CITY WEST PARKWAY 14210.00 54308 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS INC CRAFT STICKS-DAY CAMP 28.00 54309 TURF PRO INC SERVICE-MOWING-FORESTRY DEPT 787.50 54310 TURF SUPPLY CO GRASS SEED/FERTILIZER-PARK MAINTENANCE 3971.25 54311 TURNQUIST PAPER CO PAPER TOWELS-FACILITIES DEPT 281.30 54312 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO ACETYLENE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 18.60 54313 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT 260.20 54314 UNITED LABORATORIES INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 298.70 54315 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SERVICE-ANIMAL CONTROL 25.00 54316 VAN WATERS & ROGERS CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 1862.50 54317 SUSAN VAN SANT -SUNBONNET DAY SIGN-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 1307.20
COMMISSION
54318 NEIL VASILAKES REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 22.60 54319 VESSCO INC CARBON DIOXIDE FEEDER REPAIRS-WATER DEPT 1169.72 54320 WALDEN BROS LUMBER PLYWOOD-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 227.4 0 54321 WALRAVEN BOOK COVER COMPANY POCKET FOLDERS/BOOK COVERS-FIRE DEPT 1025.38 54322 WATER PRODUCTS CO -ROD EXTENSIONS/METER CONNECTIONS/NUT & 929.24
-HOSE SPANNERS/MASONRY SAWBLADE/COUPLING
-GASKET/REPAIR LID/FLANGE GASKETS-WATER
DEPT
54323 WATSON FORSBERG CO SERVICE-FIRE STATIONS #2 & #3 5450.00 54324 SANDRA F WERTS MILEAGE-SENIOR CENTER 73.20 54325 WILLIAMS MECHANICAL SERVICE INC STEMS/BEVEL WASHERS-WATER DEPT 26.58 54326 SHELLY W1TTCOFF TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 40.00 54327 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 85.80 54328 ZIEGLER INC PUMP-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46.08 54329 BARTON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-MCA TRAFFIC SIGNALS 115190.50 53115 VOID OUT CHECK
300.00- 53676 VOID OUT CHECK
13000.00- 53736 VOID OUT CHECK
127.44- 53959 VOID OUT CHECK
3408.47- 53984 VOID OUT CHECK
66.28- 53989 VOID OUT CHECK
117.00- 53994 VOID OUT CHECK
307.50- 53740 VOID OUT CHECK
20.66-
13 134967
$1525160.75
291
DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS
713625.70
28504.44
98072.13
83992.92
33149.75
3325.00
5450.00
64670.00
92768.75
341.50
565000.16
74481.15
2006.59
2648.55
119741.00
4086.36
8923. 75
24373.00
10 GENERAL
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT
15 LIDUOR STORE-F' V M
17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE
31 PARK ACOUIST & DEVELOP
33 UTILITY BOND FUND
79 86 FIRE STATION CONST
43 77 FIRE DEBT FUND
44 UTILITY DEBT FUND
45 UTILITY DEFT FD ARB
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD
73 WATER FUND
77 SEWER FUND
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND
82 FIRE RELIEF FUND
87 CDBG FUND
es MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION
90 TAX INCREMENT FUND
X1525160.75
A313
September 12, 1989
TO: Carl Jullie
FROM: Keith Wall
SUBJECT: FIREARMS ORDINANCE
The attached memo lists some changes in the firearms ordinance
that we feel would be acceptable for the long term, particularly
the firearms discharge area. However, we do recognize that there
are some other areas where shotguns with bird shot and bow and
arrows could be used for the short term with relative safety.
These areas are included in the new ordinance now under
consideration.
The ordinance as written is manageable from our perspective.
July 6, 1989
TO: CARL JULLIE
THROUGH: KEITH WALL
FROM: JAMES CLARK
SUBJECT: FIREARMS CODE REVISIONS
Last September, the City Council revised the hunting areas as
defined in City Code 9.40. This was in response to city growth
forcing the closure of hunting areas.
At that meeting, it was clear that the council felt the hunting
areas should be evaluated with the future in mind.
It should be noted that public feedback to the publicity
surrounding the last revision was limited to 15 calls - 13 asked
if they could hunt, 2 were upset that they could not hunt in
areas that they previously hunted.
The current code has been revised numerous times and there are
also council resolutions that apply to hunting. As we revise it,
it may be appropriate to "clean up" the entire code.
At this time, we would recommend the following revisions:
- Discharge of firearms be limited to the Minnesota River
Valley south of HIghway 169 and south of Riverview Road with
the following exceptions:
- 1. "lawful defense of person, property or family or in
the necessary defense of enforcement of laws.
- 2. By police officer in normal course of duty including
but not limited to training.
- 3. By council approval when in the best interests of
public safety for wildlife management purposes, i.e.,
currently M.A.C. shoots birds to minimize risks to
aircraft.
- 4. At approved archery ranges where only target tipped
arrows are used.
Council may also want to include language that allows them to
issue blanket permits in the hunting area. The U. S. Fish &
.1,3 litN*
Wildlife Service (Terry Shriner) tells us that approximately 1500
permits are issued in the Bloomington/Burnsville area to control
deer population. I can provide additional information regarding
the reasons for this hunting if needed.
,Z,316)
SEPTEMBER 13, 1989
TO: CHIEF WALL
FROM: DONNA
SUBJECT: HUNTING SURVEY
As you requested, I contacted the following cities to inquire
about their hunting regulations. The results are as follows:
BLOOMINGTON
EAGAN
PLYMOUTH
MAPLE GROVE
SHAKOPEE
CHAMPLIN
NO HUNTING ALLOWED
NO HUNTING ALLOWED
NO HUNTING ALLOWED
BOW AND ARROW ONLY - NO SHOTGUNS
SHOTGUN ALLOWED - BIRD SHOT ONLY
HUNTING ALLOWED ONLY ON ONE 40-ACRE
PLOT IN THE CITY. SHOTGUN IS ALLOWED
WITH BIRD SHOT ONLY
THEY ONLY ALLOW BOW AND ARROW HUNTING
THEY ALLOW BIRD SHOT ONLY IN ONE SHALL
AREA.
BLAINE
CHASKA
;31()
27- ORDINANCE NO. 89
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDIN
G
CITY CODE CHAPTER 9, SECTION 9.40 RELATING TO THE DISCHARGE
O
F
FIREARMS, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTION 9.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.40 shall be and
is amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 9.40. FIREARMS REGULATION.
Subd. 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby found and
declared that inasmuch as the City is a developing
community wherein the land uses are becoming more intense
thus reducing the amount of open land available for the
discharge of firearms and dangerous weapons and that it
has become necessary to limit the discharge of firearms
and dangerous weapons to certain areas in the community
in which it will not pose a hazard to the safety of
others.
Subd. 2. Definitions. Terms used in this Section shall
have the following meanings:
A. "Approved Archery Ranges" means those ranges
which have been approved by the City Manager
or designee where special target-tipped
arrows are used.
B. "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether
loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death
or great bodily harm, or any other device
or instrumentality which, in the manner it
is used or intended to be used, is calculated
or likely to produce death or great bodily
harm.
C. "Discharge of firearms" means any shooting
whether it be for hunting game, target
practice or otherwise.
D. "Shotgun shotshell" means a shell fired in
a shotgun containing multiple shot.
-1-
E. "Shotgun slug" means a shell fired in a
shotgun containing one slug, ball, or
other single projectile.
Subd. 3. Permit Required for Discharge of Firearms or
Dangerous Weapons. No person may fire or discharge
a firearm or discharge or use any dangerous weapon within
the City without first securing a permit to do so from
the City.
A. Areas Where Permitted.
a. A permit may be granted to discharge
firearms or dangerous weapons, except shotguns
firing shotgun slugs, only in the following
areas:
(1) In that part of the City, West and
South of the following line:
commencing at the intersection of
Hennepin County Road 1 and a line
("Line A") parallel to and 1600
feet West of the East line of
Sections 27 and 34, Township 116,
Range 22, then South along Line A
to River Road, then East along
River Road to the East line of
Section 34, then South along the
East line of Section 34 to the
southerly line of the City and
there terminating; South of
Hennepin County Road 1; North
of the southerly line of the
City and East of the westerly
line of the City.
(2) In that part of the City which is
Section 18 and Section 19,
Township 116, Range 22, for the
remainder of 1989 when the
landowner is present.
(3) In areas approved by the City
Council where the issuance of
a permit is for the purpose of
wildlife management and is in
the best interest of public
safety.
b. A permit may be granted to discharge
shotguns firing shotgun slugs only in the
following areas:
-2-
g,319
(1) Commencing at the intersection of
Trunk Highway 169-212 with the
westerly border of the City; then
easterly along Trunk Highway 169-212
to Riverview Road; then easterly
along Riverview Road to the East
line of Section 34, Township 116,
Range 22, then South along said
East line to the Minnesota River
to the westerly border of the
City; then along the westerly
border of the City to the point of
beginning -- in accordance with
the following:
(i) Permits for the discharge of
shotgun slugs shall not at any time
exceed 15 each for that part of
the area West and that part of the
area East of a line beginning at the
intersection of Indian Road with
Trunk Highway 169-212 extending
southerly along Indian Road to a
point where Indian Road turns
westerly and then South to the
Minnesota River.
(ii) The land on which any holder
of a permit may discharge a shotgun
slug within the area bordering on
Highway 169-212 shall be posted with
signs prohibiting hunting without
permission of the owner situated
not greater than 500 feet from each
other.
B. Application For Permit. A permit may be
issued to individuals who comply with the
following criteria:
(1) Persons over eighteen (18) years
of age may apply for an individual
permit to discharge a firearm or
dangerous weapon. Persons under
eighteen (18) years of age may
apply for a permit to discharge
a firearm or dangerous weapon if
at the time of such discharge or
use, the youth is accompanied by
an adult parent or legal guardian.
(2) An application for a permit shall
be filed in writing on forms provided
by the City and accompanied by a fee
determined by City Council resolution.
No fee shall be required for a permit
for a landowner, his immediate
family, or his guests, to discharge
a firearm or dangerous weapon on
property owned by himself.
(3) A landowner may obtain a guest
permit for a maximum of four (4)
guests, who must be accompanied
by said landowner.
(4) The application shall include at
least the following information:
a) Type of firearm or dangerous
weapon to be discharged.
b) Location of the property on
which the discharge of the
firearm or dangerous weapon
will occur.
c) The permission and signature
of the landowner or designee
on whose property the discharge
of the firearm or dangerous
weapon will occur.
d) Such other information as
may be deemed necessary by
the City Manager or designee
in order to pass upon such
application.
C. Limitations on Permits. Permits issued for the
discharge of firearms or dangerous weapons shall
be subject to the following limitations:
(1) The property upon which the discharge
will occur shall be at least forty (40)
contiguous acres.
(2) The holder of a permit shall not discharge
a shotgun slug within fifteen hundred
(1500) feet of a building or a roadway.
(3) The holder of a permit shall not discharge
a shotgun shotshell within one thousand
(1000) feet of a building or a roadway.
-4-
(4) Permits issued for the discharge of
firearms or dangerous weapons shall be
limited to the use of bows and arrows,
B-B guns, shotgun shells, and shotgun
slugs.
(5) An individual who is hunting pursuant
to a guest permit must be accompanied
by the landowner.
(6) Permits issued for the discharge
of shotgun slugs shall be limited to
those times permitted for hunting deer
by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources. Permits issued for the
discharge of other dangerous weapons
shall be restricted to the calendar
year during which the permit was
issued.
Subd. 4. Approved Archery Ranges. A permit is not required
for the discharge of special target-tipped arrows at
approved archery ranges. The use of crossbows are
prohibited from approved archery ranges.
Subd. 5. Cancellation of Permit. A violation of the
provisions of this Section or any permit issued here-
under on any property for which the permit has been
issued may result in the cancellation of all permits for
the discharge of weapons or firearms on such property and
the denial of applications for permits on such property.
Subd. 6. Lawful Defense of Person, Property or Family.
Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit any firing of
a gun, pistol or other weapon when done in lawful defense of
person, property or family or by law enforcement personnel
executing their official duties.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 entitled "Violation A
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1989,
and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on the _ day of
, 1989.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
Published in the Eden Prairie News on the
, 1989.
day of
-6-
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 89-205
WHEREAS, the term of Glenn G. C. Olson on the Metropolitan Transit
Commission is expiring, and
WHEREAS, he has demonstrated his ability to work effectively in public
affairs and has served as Vice Chair of the Metropolitan Transit Commission
and as Chairman of the Finance and Administration Committee, and
WHEREAS, he has been a dedicated at-large representative of the
suburban communities in the metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie is vitally concerned about the
continuity of responsible leadership on the Metropolitan Transit Commission
because the MTC provides transit services under contract to the Southwest
Metro Transit Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, that it hereby nominates Glenn G. C. Olson for
reappointment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Eden Prairie City Council urges the
Regional Transit Board to approve the reappointment of Glenn G. C. Olson to
the Metropolitan Transit Commission.
1989. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 19th day of September,
Mayor Gary D. Peterson
SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Q3,2q
E F- - - LA L., Li
Glenn G. C. Olson
Appointment to the Metropolitan Transit Commission
Home Address:
Business Address:
21690 Fairview St. NSP - 414 Nicollet Mall
Greenwood, Minn. 55331
Minneapolis, Minn. 55401
(612) 474-6838
(612) 330-5975
General Qualifications
Demonstrated ability to work in a public affairs environment. Extensive
experience as a member of public bodies. Presently serves as Vice Chair of the
Metropolitan Transit Commission and Chairman of Finance and Administration
Committee.
Major Activities
'Worked with MTC staff to update the criteria for implementing new
services and evaluating the cost effectiveness of existing routes.
'Supervised the first competitive bidding of bus service by MTC. This
permits MTC to continue in service routes that would exceed subsidy per
passenger standards and insures that bid service is coordinated with other MTC
routes.
"Worked to relieve overloads on MTC peak hour buses that serve
suburban areas. MTC ridership grew in 1988 after years of stability or decline.
'Accomplished implementation of a fare restructuring program.
"Worked on replacement of MTC fleet. Average fleet age has dropped to
seven years by purchasing about 125 new buses yearly.
Record of Public Service
'Currently serving on the Metropolitan Transit Commission. Appointed in
1986 to represent suburban communities.
'Appointed Chairman of MTC's Advisory Committee of Transit, 1976.
Served for 10 years.
'Appointed to MTC to represent Minneapolis, 1972-74.
'Greenwood City Council, 1977.
'Minnetonka School Board, 1977-82. Chairman, 1979-82.
'Metropolitan Council, 1967-71.
'Minneapolis City Council Member, 1963-67. President, 1965-67.
ProfessionalHistory
Administrator for Northern States Power Company; since 1980, Metropolitan
Governmental Affairs.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources-
DATE: September 11, 1989
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending the Snowmobile Ordinance and the
Recreation Vehicle Ordinance
Attached is Ordinance No. 89-34 Amending the Snowmobile Ordinance
and the Recreation Vehicle Ordinance.
With this new ordinance, snowmobiles are allowed only on the
snowmobile trail within the City. Snowmobilers will no longer be
able to ride a snowmobile from their home to and from this trail.
Anyone wishing to ride on this trail must trailer the snowmobile
to a trail head site and enter the snowmobile trail from that
location. A trail head will be maintained at the riding arena
parking lot on Spring Road, south of County Road 1.
Snowmobiles will still be able to operate on City streets during
emergencies when snow upon the roadway renders travel by automobile
impractical.
The other major change this ordinance makes relates to the use of
any recreational motor vehicle (snowmobile, all terrain vehicle,
motorcycles, etc.) upon frozen waters within the limits of the
City.
Upon the adoption of this ordinance it will be a misdemeanor for
any person to operate a recreational vehicle on any frozen waters
within the City.
These are major changes to the laws regulating snowmobiles and
other recreational vehicles within the City and will require
extensive education of the public for these to be effective.
Hopefully, the local newspapers will provide good coverage to these
changes at this time and again in November or December when we
experience that first heavy snowfall. City staff will be post
signs at all access points to City lakes and will request that the
Snowmobile Club assist the City in notifying snowmobile owners of
these revised changes to our ordinance.
BL:mdd
34-
ORDINANCE NO. 89-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 7, SECTION 7.06, SUBD. 2 TO LIMIT THE OPERATION
OF SNOWMOBILES WITHIN THE CITY; AMENDING SECTION 7.07 TO PROHIBIT
THE OPERATION OF RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLES ON FROZEN WATERS;
AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 7.99,
WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 7, Section 7.06, Subd. 2 shall
be and is amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 7.06. SNOWMOBILES.
Subd. 2. Operation on Streets and Highways.
A. It is a misdemeanor for any person to operate a
snowmobile within the right-of-way of any trunk,
County State-aid, County highway, or other
street or roadway within the City of Eden
Prairie, except as hereinafter permitted.
B. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing
of a highway or street when it is on an
approved snowmobile trail and provided:
1. The crossing is made at an angle of
approximately 90 degrees to the direction
of the highway or street and at a place
where no obstruction prevents a quick
and safe crossing.
2. The snowmobile is brought to a complete
stop before crossing the shoulder or main
traveled way of the highway or street.
3. The operator yields the right-of-way to
all oncoming roadway traffic and pedestrians.
4. In crossing a divided street or highway,
the crossing is made only at an inter-
section of such street or highway with
another street or highway.
5. Both front and rear lights are on if
the crossing is made between the hours
of one-half hour after sunset to one-half
hour before sunrise or in conditions of
reduced visibility.
C. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this Section, a
snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare
in an emergency during the period of time when and
at locations where snow upon the roadway renders
travel by automobile impractical."
Section 2. City Code Chapter 7, Section 7.07 shall be and
is amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 7.07. RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLES.
It is a misdemeanor for any person to operate a recreational
motor vehicle upon frozen waters within the limits of the City.
The definitional and regulatory provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 84.90, are hereby incorporated herein and adopted by
reference including the penalty provisions thereof."
Section 3. City Code Chapter I entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 7.99 entitled "Violation A
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the_____ of . 1989, and finally read and aid and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1989.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
Published in the Eden Prairie News on the
1989.
day of
aa-a
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #89-204
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BURNETT ADDITION FOR
TRANSTAR
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Burnett Addition for Transtar, dated September 15,
1989, consisting of 4.57 acres into 9 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 19th day of September, 1989.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Cleri!
232q
September 5, 1989
City Council Members
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677
SUBJECT: Burnett, Nelson and Hus
t
a
d
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
ATTENTION: Members of the City C
o
u
n
c
i
l
We are writing to express our con
c
e
r
n
s
i
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
proposed developments along Benn
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
m
a
n
y
children in the neighborhood and
o
u
r
m
a
j
o
r
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
s
o
n
e
o
f
safety. We are not opposed to th
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
,
b
u
t
w
e
a
r
e
concerned about the increased tra
f
f
i
c
i
t
w
i
l
l
c
a
u
s
e
o
n
Bennett Place. We have continuall
y
b
e
e
n
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
speed of traffic on this road. La
s
t
y
e
a
r
,
w
e
a
s
k
e
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
to install signs indicating "chil
d
r
e
n
a
t
p
l
a
y
"
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
refused saying these can only be e
r
e
c
t
e
d
n
e
a
r
p
l
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
o
r
schools. The City did, finally, p
u
t
u
p
3
0
M
.
P
.
H
.
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
signs, but drivers continue to ex
c
e
e
d
t
h
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
.
T
h
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
have indicated they will monitor
t
h
e
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
Planning Commission heard much te
s
t
i
m
o
n
y
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
at their August 28, 1989 meeting
a
n
d
t
h
e
y
d
i
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
h
a
t
the City review the problem.
We understand that the proposed s
i
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
e
w
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
with Bennett Place meets the visi
b
i
l
i
t
y
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
a
3
0
M.P.H. speed limit. It is our op
i
n
i
o
n
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
a
t
vehicles constantly exceed the po
s
t
e
d
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
s
o
n
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
Place and that at these higher sp
e
e
d
s
l
o
n
g
e
r
v
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
distances should be required.
For safety concerns, we would enco
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
p
o
s
t
s
t
o
p
signs at the intersection of Benne
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
e
w
r
o
a
d
.
A 3-way stop sign would slow the t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
n
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
make for a safer intersection.
We understand that you will cons
i
d
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
p
l
a
n
s
for development at the September
1
9
,
1
9
8
9
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
meeting. We would invite you to
c
o
m
e
a
n
d
l
i
s
t
e
n
t
o
o
u
r
concerns at a neighborhood meetin
g
o
n
M
o
n
d
a
y
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
le, 1989, 7:00 P.M., at 9947 Bennett
P
l
a
c
e
,
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
.
I
f
y
o
u
have any questions, please contac
t
J
a
n
e
K
e
l
l
y
a
t
9
4
4
-
7
8
0
3
.
Thank you for your consideration
o
f
o
u
r
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
Sincerely,
Concerned Neighbors
a340
E 11
PLANNING DEPT.
AUG 2 2 1969
CITY OF
City of Eden Praf,IXN MAMIE
Planning Commission
7600 Executivte Drive
Eden Prairi -64.1MN 55344-3677
•n•nn••••
August 21, 1989
Patrick J. Finnegan
9925 Bennett Place
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Subject: Burnett Addition
Attention: Members of the City Planning Commis
s
i
o
n
I am writing to express my concerns in relatio
n
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
development known as Burnett Addition which yo
u
a
r
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
t
o
consider at your August 28, 1989 meeting.
My wife and I have 3 young children (ages 4, 8
,
a
n
d
1
1
)
a
n
d
l
i
v
e
at 9925 Bennett Place which is directly across
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
from the proposed development. Our major conce
r
n
i
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
safety of our children and the children in the
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
We are not opposed to the development but we ar
e
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
the increased traffic it will cause on Bennett
P
l
a
c
e
.
W
e
h
a
v
e
continually been concerned about the speed of t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
n
t
h
i
s
road. Last year we called and asked the City t
o
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
s
indicating "children at play" and the City refu
s
e
d
s
a
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
can only be erected near playgrounds or school
s
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
d
i
d
finally put up 30 M.P.H. speed limit signs but
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
continuously exceed this limit. The Police have indicated they
will monitor the situation.
We understand that the proposed site for the ne
w
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
with Bennett Place meets the visibility guidel
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
a
3
0
M.P.H. speed limit. It is our opinion, howeve
r
,
t
h
a
t
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
constantly exceed the posted speed limits on B
e
n
n
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
that at these higher speeds longer visibility
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
be required.
The proposed access road into the development
w
i
l
l
c
o
m
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
at our driveway. I would encourage your consi
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
v
i
n
g
this road north at least 25 feet. The road would then face the side of our neighbor's shed. This would also
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
amount of headlights shining into our house as
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
t
u
r
n
onto Bennett Place.
For safety concerns we would encourage the Cit
y
t
o
p
o
s
t
s
t
o
p
signs at the intersection of Bennett Place an
d
t
h
e
n
e
w
r
o
a
d
.
A
3-way stop sign would slow the traffic on Benn
e
t
t
P
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
it a safer intersection.
Thank you for your consideration of our concern
s
.
Sincerely,
P trick J Finnegan
g?3I
-MEMORANDUM-
TO: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner
FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Design Engineer UJR
SUBJECT: Burnett Addition
DATE:
September 14, 1989
In response to the request for a three-way stop condition at the
intersection of Bennett Place and the new street within the Burnett
Addition, this intersection would not likely meet warrants for a
three-way stop. Minimum volumes entering the intersection must
average at least 500 vehicles per hour for the highest eight (8)
hours of an average day. Also, the minor street must average at
least 200 vehicle and pedestrian units per hour for the same eight
hours.
If sight distance was a problem, tnat may be justification for a
stop sign, however, in this situation it doesn't appear to be
warranted since the sight distance is adequate.
In regards to the speeding issue, the City has not conducted a
speed survey in this area. However, in my opinion, speeding would
tend to be more of a problem for southbound vehicles in the area of
the steep grade rather than northbound vehicles, which is the
traffic that is of concern for sight distance.
Therefore, we would not recommend a three-way stop in this location
based on anticipated volumes being less than the minimums required
and sight distance being adequate. At no time should speeding be
the only criteria in determining the need for a multi-way stop
situation.
RWR:ssa
nr3 lk
150
7
".Z.; (32)
193
J
§o
( 35)
• ( 36)
( 28)
93.35 91.35 52.96
YID NOLA Dm )
55937 44•E
85 6. rsi-.T4
_ 4
2 A mezpx.2...,
(40)1(41)1
442 589.31 .
85 rtc 13i.14 13
1:1.=17.Z.72
1 ee.
(N))
0 106.15 156. 88
153
5
Tr. 6
(31) 3
5 Kr,
(43)
BURNETT ADDITION
....•••••.•;4•2.:•:•••••••:•:
..,0-1•6166.46 064) E 5 S
( 13)V..8
• ( 15)
4.6 ao
11
BLUFFS WEST 8TH
ADDITION
itarzumr--
SLIESTENN, 1s2
mnm A
(35),
(39) k
Vlirr
So.0i;
(4.1
12 (i6) 8
elf 'W m
.4J35.93 01
.1n•
din/ ra
(32) ga'
(35)
•• 24402X
8 :It
4;(79r irr„.4
Abit
ty of Edan Prairie
0:n ,ce:
76 ---xecutive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 • Telephone (612) 937-2262 LT
( 1 1 -c-711-7 1
r .=-411-7 i."•* _
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
PLEASE NOTICE THAT
THERE ARE 3 PUBLIC
HEARING NOTICES
ENCLOSED IN THIS
ENVELOPE. IF YOU
WILL REFERENCE THE
MAP TO THE RIGHT, YOU
WILL SEE THAT THE
THREE PROJECTS ARE
ALL ADJACENT TO EACH
OTHER.
-
BECAUSE THESE
PR CTS ARE RELATED
IN MANY WAYS, AND
BECAUSE THE DEVELOP -
MENT OF EACH WILL
LIKELY IMPACT THE
OTHER, ALL THREE
ARE BEING CONSIDERED
AT THE SAME TIME --
MONDAY, AUGUST 28TH,
AT 7:30 P.M., IN THE
CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
PLEASE CALL THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AT 937-2262 IF YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
AB THESE PROJECTS
OR THE MEETING.
NELSON ADDITION
g 33A
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH:
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 25, 1989
SUBJECT: Burnett Addition
APPLICANT: Transtar Corporation .
FEE OWNER/
APPLICANT: Carol Burnett
LOCATION: West of Bennett Place, south of Creekridge Drive
REQUEST:
A Preliminary Plat of 4.57 acres into 9 single family lots.
Background
This site is currently guided Low
Density Residential for up to 2.5
units per acre. The site is
currently zoned R1-13.5. This
property was zoned in 1979 as part
of the Creekview Estates single
family subdivision. Surrounding
existing uses are single family
homes.
Site Plan
The site plan depicts the
subdivision of 4.57 acres into 9
lots at a density of 1.97 units per
acre. Surrounding densities are 2.0
units per acre for Creekview, 2.0
units per acre for Holland Addition,
2.2 units per acre for Blossom Ridge
and 2.49 units per acre for Nelson
Addition. All proposed lots in the
subdivision meet the minimum
requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning
District.
Overall access for this area is a
road connection between Bennett
Place and Purgatory Road. This
helps distribute neighborhood
traffic and provides better
Burnett Addition 2 August 25, 1989
emergency vehicle access to the neighborhood. Access to Lots 7 and 8 was initially
envisioned as part of a previous overall road plan (See Attachment A) to be from a
cul-de-sac off the extension of the east/west road through the Hustad property south
and west of this proposed subdivision. Since the cul-de-sac to the south was
eliminated to save trees and topography, ten feet less cut is necessary on the
Burnett property. The raising of the grade on the Burnett property makes a cul-de-
sac extension to Lots 7 and 8 impractical due to steep road grades and sewer depth.
Also to extend the cul-de-sac as originally envisioned would result in approximately
60% tree loss. (A detailed tree inventory was not available when the overall road
layout was first evaluated.) It is possible to extend the cul-de-sac within the
Burnett property to the west to Lots 7 and 8 with all lots meeting Code, but grading
from the cul-de-sac and house pads would be as significant as the cul-de-sac
extension from the south. A private drive between Lots 4 and 5 can provide access
and minimize grading and tree loss. (See Attachment B)
The location of this east/west road access on Bennett Place is based on site vision
distance for a 30 mile per hour design speed. The line of site to the left (north)
should be a minimum of 350 feet and to the right (south) a minimum distance of 250
feet. The site vision distance to the north is 1200 feet and to the south is 294
feet.
The road intersection at Bennett Place is directly opposite the front window of the
single family residence. To minimize glare from headlights at night, it is
recommended that the road be shifted a minimum of 20 feet to the north. Prior to
review by the City Council, the proponent shall provide a revised site plan which
shifts this roadway to the north and includes the relationship to homes across the
street.
Site Grading and Tree Loss
Initial site grading is proposed to be confined to the construction of the roads. A
grading plan is necessary for the house pads which shows driveway locations and
grades. This is necessary to more accurately evaluate tree loss on the property. A
preliminary estimate indicates a total of 1213 significant trees and 367 inches of
tree loss or 30%. This is slightly higher than the 26% average tree loss for 32
subdivisions approved with tree replacement. When tree loss exceeds 35%,
alternative site plans should be explored for the site.
Prior to any grading work on the property, a snow fence must he placed at the
construction limits behind all houses which indicates where trees are to be saved on
the property.
Utilities
Sewer and water service is available to this site by connection to utilities in
Bennett Place.
Storm water run-off is proposed to drain in a southeasterly direction through a
series of storm sewer pipes into Purgatory Creek. This site is part of a 30 acre
watershed area. The proponent must provide the Engineering Department with storm
drainage calculations in order to evaluate if the proposed pipe sizes are adequate
to handle the storm water run-off.
Sidewalks
aBq
Burnett Addition 3 August 25, 1989
Sidewalks
Atttachment C represents the overall trail system as recommen
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
Recreation Staff. As it affects this subdivision, a 5 foot wi
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
should be constructed along the north side of the propos
e
d
e
a
s
t
/
w
e
s
t
s
t
r
e
e
t
extension.
Staff Recommendations
The Planning Staff would recommend an approval of
plat of 4.57 acres into 9 single family lots based
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
to the following conditions:
1. Prior to City Council review proponent shall:
the request from the preliminary
on pl ans dated August 11, 1989
dated August 25, 1989 and subject
A. Revise the site plan to shift the proposed road intersection
w
i
t
h
Bennett Place approximately 20 feet to the north.
B. Revise the site plan according to Attachment B for a private
r
o
a
d
access to Lots 7 and 8.
C. Provide a tree replacement plan based on 146 inches.
D. Provide a grading plan for the house pads and driveways.
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans
f
o
r
review for the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion cont
r
o
l
plans for review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal.
4. Concurrent with street and utility construction construct a fi
v
e
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
concrete sidewalk along the north side of the interior east/west
r
o
a
d
.
5. Prior to grading, proponent shall stake the proposed constru
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
m
i
t
s
with a snow fence. Proponent shall notify the City and Watershe
d
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
minimum of 48 hours in advance of grading in order for erosion
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
construction limit fencing he inspected according to the approve
d
p
l
a
n
.
6. Apply for and receive Board of Appeals variances for the fl
a
g
l
o
t
s
a
n
d
access of a private drive.
Overall Road Plan 1988
Attachment A 5a(p
I •n•••••• •-rf • U. TIM — Cant CONT ano.PIP C0.11 l•••41..w •••••• • 0-11,.n 04.1 .1Vr.• .011 ••••••• CU. 1.••••n18.11, F ag Lots - Road Shift Attachment B
\\
"
\N,Side walk g _=Trails
Attachment C
I
G. C. BENTLEY ASSOC., INC.
3209 W. 76th St., Suite 209
Edina, MN 55435
(612) 897-1919
September 1, 1989
Mr. Chris Enger
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
7600 Executive Dr.
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Chris:
°CP 1989
),
As you know, John Teman has expresse
d
h
i
s
d
i
s
p
l
e
a
s
u
r
e
upon numerous occasions with the over
a
l
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
Ciatti's building, its attendant scre
e
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
in getting them and the property's de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
t
o
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
w
i
t
h
necessary requirements. Since Mr. Te
a
m
a
n
'
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
h
a
v
e
been tangentially addressed by Ciatti
'
s
,
e
t
a
l
,
a
n
d
•
s
i
n
c
e
M
r
.
Teaman has not seen, or is unaware of
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
o
n
the part of the City to enforce corre
c
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
a
t
i
m
e
l
y
manner, he has asked me to intervene o
n
h
i
s
b
e
h
a
l
f
.
The primary concern is one of screen
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
and trash area immediately behind Ciat
t
i
'
s
i
s
p
o
o
r
l
y
k
e
p
t
,
and the common sight of unloading truc
k
s
i
s
n
o
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
screened from surrounding properties.
W
h
i
l
e
s
o
m
e
e
f
f
o
r
t
h
a
s
been made to clean up garbage around
t
h
e
d
u
m
p
s
t
e
r
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
still trash stacked on the ground near
t
h
e
d
u
m
p
s
t
e
r
.
Obviously, various rodents (including
r
a
c
c
o
o
n
s
)
a
r
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
to messy garbage areas causing a poten
t
i
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
l
t
h
problem. This area must be cleaned up
a
n
d
r
e
m
a
i
n
c
l
e
a
n
a
t
all times, even if screened from vie
w
.
Due to the location of the access roa
d
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
across the street from Mr. Teman's pro
p
e
r
t
y
,
t
h
e
b
a
c
k
o
f
the building is very visible. Conduit, p
i
p
e
s
,
a
t
r
a
s
h
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
o
r
and other unappealing sights are ver
y
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
street. When this project was approv
e
d
,
t
h
e
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
was the back of the building would b
e
attractive and give the appearance of a two -sided mall. This effect has not been accomplished with Ciatti's, and rais
e
s
s
e
r
i
o
u
s
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
about the treatment of the remaining
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
h
e
n
i
t
i
s
built.
Trucks of various sizes, including se
m
i
s
,
a
r
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
visitors to the rear of Ciatti's. Wh
i
l
e
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
unloading is to be expected here, th
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
w
a
s
t
o
l
d
at the time this project was approved
t
h
a
t
l
a
r
g
e
t
r
u
c
k
s
,
s
u
c
h
as semis, would not be unloading her
e
.
I
t
i
s
d
i
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
g
for the City Council to be told one t
h
i
n
g
b
y
a
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
w
h
e
n
approval is being sought, and then to
h
a
v
e
u
s
e
r
d
o
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
else once the project is built, and t
o
d
o
s
o
with apparent
FINANCIAL CONSULTANT • INSURANCE • coNsuum
2W)
G. C. BENTLEY Assoc., INC.
3209 W. 76th St., Suite 209
Edina, MN 55435
(612) 897-1919
Chris Enger
Page 2
impunity. The City must tighten up its enforcement of
development agreements, and force developers to abide by
promises made at a public hearing.
Much of the screening problem could be solved by the
construction of an enclosed loading and trash area, made Of
building materials identical to the primary structure. Also,
the relocation of the access road across from Mr. Teman's
property would help allow berming and plantings to add
additional screening to the back of this mall.
Other problems that need to be addressed with this site
are:
1.) There is still a collapsing snow fence along the top of
the retaining wall behind Ciatti's. This temporary and
unsafe fence must be replaced by a fence of attractive
design. Chain link fencing is not an acceptable
material.
2.) There was to be a sidewalk constructed along the south
and east side of Eden Road adjacent to this project. No
such sidewalk has been built or even graded. Along the
north side of this project a retaining wall was built,
around the grove of oak trees (which, by the way, are
dying), that left room for a sidewalk immediately next
to the road. However, starting behind Ciatti's and
going south along Eden Road the berm construction has
left no room for a sidewalk. To make matters worse, it
appears that a sprinkling system has been or is going to
be installed right along the path where the sidewalk
should go. The sidewalk must be built to conform with
existing City policy and development approval
requirements.
3.) NSP had indicated some time ago they would bury the
electrical service in this area when development
occurred. It is very important to nail down NSP as to
exactly when this will happen. They should be able to
provide some sort of timetable to the City.
4.) There has been a submission to the City of plans for a
Frank's Nursery and Crafts store as part of this mall.
Mr. Teman and I have serious concerns about this
proposal and how outside storage would be treated. To
my knowledge, all Frank's have outside storage, so it is
essential that all such outside storage be completely -
screened from all surrounding properties. I would
appreciate any opportunities for input on this project
FINANCIAL CONSULTANT • INSURANCE • CONSULTING
ANO
G. C. BENTLEYAssoc., INC.
3209 W. 76th St., Suite 209
Edina, MN 55435
(612) 897-1919
Chris Enger
Page 3
as it proceeds through the process.
This mall points up the importance of developing an
overall policy on how to treat the back sides of strip malls.
Since strip malls will probably be the primary commercial
development for many years, it is essential that time and
effort be given to comprehensive review of requirements for
architectural treatment and screening to avoid future
problems.
What must be kept in mind with the mall that includes
Ciatti's is that the area across the street, the area that
looks at the back of this structure, is the potential site
for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of development.
This mall backs up to the heart of future downtown
development in Eden Prairie. If corrective action is not
taken soon on existing problems, and proper treatment not
required on the remainder of the mall, the prospects for
quality development on the west side of Eden Road are greatly
diminished. This poses long-term implications for downtown
development efforts as well as for the Purgatory Creek
Recreation Area.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please
keep me informed on the progress of corrective and future ,
actions as they relate to this site.
S cerely,
Georg C. Bentley
cc: City Council
Carl Jullie
Norm Brody
FINANCIAL CONSULTANT • INSURANCE • CONSULTING
I
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Steve Sinell, City Assessor251 7
September 6, 1989
City Hall Lease Renewal
The original lease has the city paying $14,116.66 per month or
$169,399.92 per year in base rent for the period November 1, 1987
through February 28, 1990. This base rent equates to $7.70 per
sq. ft. per year. The city paid no base rent for the period
March 1, 1987 through October 31, 1987. In addition to the base
rent the city is responsible for 19.78% of the Common Area
Maintenance and Real Estate Taxes on the property.
The attached revised lease renewal proposal has the city paying
$15,583.33 per month or $186,999.96 per year in base rent for the
period March 1, 1990 through the last day of February, 1993.
This base rent equates to $8.50 per sq. ft. per year.
We will still be paying 19.78% of the Common Area Maintenance
costs and Real Estate Taxes. The city is being billed $15,448.20
Maintenance Costs and $53,721.36 per year for Real Estate Taxes
for 1989. The total rental costs for 1989 are $238,569.
There is an option to terminate after 24 months with a $22,000
penalty. The penalty is equal to the difference between paying
$8.50 sq. ft. and $9.00 sq. ft. for the period March 1, 1990 thru
the last day of February, 1992.
I've reviewed the confidential income and expense information
we've collected from other sources, reviewed the Towle Real
Estate Company Office-Showroom/Business Center Report (attached),
and have talked with N. Craig Johnson MAI of N. Craig Johnson
Appraisals.
My review of the confidential income and expense surveys supports
the $8.50 per sq. ft. rate. The information I have is historical
in nature and the surveys don't attempt to ask for proposed rents
3 years in the future.
The Towle Office-Showroom/Business Center Report indicates stated
rental rates for the 3rd Quarter of 1988 in the southwest suburbs
at $6.00 to $10.00 per sq. ft. for office space and average rents
of $7.95 per sq. ft.
31.4
I talked with N. Craig Johnson MAI on August 25, 1989 to solicit
his opinion as to "market rent" for our office space. He
indicated that new leases are in the $8.00 to $9.00 net rent
range and that any number in that range would be indicative of
market rent. He also indicated that the best office showroom
spaces have been offered at $10.00 net rent for office space and
$5.00 net rent for warehouse space.
Subsequent to the Sept. 5th council meeting, Linda Winer of the
Welsh Companies has provided me with a current (8/3/89) rent
roll, which details the rental rates and lease dates of all the
tenants of our building (the Edenvale Executive Center).. The
office rates on leases signed in 1988 are typically at base rents
of $8.50 or more. This supports the contention that the "market
rent" for our space is $8.50 per square foot.
I've also contacted numerous leasing agents, and office-warehouse
developers to verify that the proposed base rent, or net rent, is
market supported. Basically, the leasing agents and developers
have indicated that if a building owner has available space and
is very aggresive in negotiating the initial lease, we may be
able to save $1.00 or more. The offsetting items to moving to
get a lower base rent include, cost of moving, cost of
reinstalling our communications equipment, loss of time for the
public in trying to find us at a different location, and
dissruption and lost work time to the city staff.
SRS/akn
attachments
2,13
WishCompanies
September 6, INA
Mr. Steve Sinell
City Assessor
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Sinell:
Enclosed please find the revised renewal proposal for your space located at 7600
Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. As we discussed, the base rate per
square foot for the three year renewal period will be $8.50. All other terms of
the renewal option will remain the same as noted below.
ANNUAL BASE RENT:
COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE COSTS
AND TAXES:
Edenvale Executive Center
Approximately 22,000 square feet of office
space.
The Term of this Lease shall be for a period
of three years commencing March 1, 1990, and
terminating the last day of February, 1993.
The Annual Base Rent for the term of this
Lease shall be set out as follows:
For the period March 1, 1990, through and
including the last day of February, 1993,
base rent shall be $15,583.33 per month.
The above quoted rates are base rents only
and do not include Common Area Maintenance
costs and Real Estate Taxes.
Tenant shall pay their prorata share of Com-
mon Area Maintenance costs and Real Estate
Taxes based on 19.78% of the building.
BUILDING:
PREMISES:
TERN:
Real Estate Deveropment • Construction • Brokerage • Property Management • Investment
MLILi
Mr. Steve Sinell
September 6, 1989
Page 2
OPTIONS TO TERMINATE:
OPTION TO RENEW:
Tenant shall also be obligated to pay their
own utility charges.
Tenant may elect to terminate the lease
extension agreement after 24 months by
giving the Landlord 150 written notice of
their intent to terminate. Should the
tenant elect this option, the tenant agrees
to pay to Landlord above and beyond the
monthly rental payments, a penalty of
$22,000 which shall be due the first day of
the last month of occupancy. However, if
the City should decide to relocate to any
land parcel owned by Equitable at any time
during this lease agreement, the Landlord
will release the tenant from the lease
agreement with no penalty charges.
If tenant vacates the premises after 24
months and promptly pays the penalty for the
early termination, along with any other base
rent or additional changes which are due as
stated in the lease agreement, the tenant
will be under no further obligation to the
Landlord.
Providing that tenant is not in default
under the lease, Tenant will have the right,
at tenant's option, to extend the term of
this lease for a period of three years by
giving Landlord written notice of the exer-
cise of such right at least six months prior
to the expiration of the lease term. The
annual base rental payable for and during
the extension term will be at the then pre-
vailing market rate.
This proposal is subject to the owner's final approval and completion of fully-
executed lease extension agreements by both parties. We would appreciate
receiving your acceptance or rejection of this proposal within seven days after
the September 19, 1989, City Council Meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at 829-5254, if you should have any questions.
Sincerely,
' /i C
Linda Winer
Property Manager
umak/8-18.2