HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/20/1985 EDEN PRAIRIE
1. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING BOARDROOM
•
COUNCIL MEM8ERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and
Paul Redpath
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie; Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson; City
Attorney Roger Pauly; Finance Director {.
John Frane; Planning Director Chris
Enger; Director of Community Services
Robert Lambert; Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
- Secretary Karen Michael :j
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A
1
ROLL CALL .
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES
( A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 4 1985 Page 1750
B. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 18, 1985 Page 1761
III. CONSENT CALENDAR a
A. Award contract for Preserve Boulevard Improvements, I.C. 52-071 Page 1762
resolution No. 85-185) 'i
B. Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering Page 1765 j
preparation of proposed 1985 Special Assessment Rolls and set .
Public Hearin date for Tuesday, September 17i 1985 5
Resolution No. 85-19� 1
C. PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS by Derrick Land Company. 2nd Reading Page 1766
of Ordinance No. 2-85, Zoning District Change from Rural to q
RM-2.5 on 6.61 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for : 1
Prairie Village Apartments; and Adoption of Resolution No.
85-118, Authorizing Suranary of Ordinance No. 2-85, and 0.
Ordering Publication of Said Ordinance. 14.25 acres into two 1
lots and one outlot for two, 56-unit apartment buildings.
Location: Gonyea 4th Addition, Outlot B.
Ai
D. HIGHWAY #101/VALLEY VIEW ROAD. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. Page 1773
29-85, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22, for 3.62
acres; Adoption of Resolution No. 85-194, Authorizing
Summary of Ordinance No. 29-85, and Ordering Publication of
Said Summary. Location: Northeast Quadrant of Highway #101
and Valley View Road.
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,August 20, 1985
E. TECHNOLOGY PARK by Technology Park Associates. Approval of Page 1775
Developer's Agreement for Technology Park Planned Unit
Development Concept; 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 19-85,
Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 4.5 acres;
Approval of Developer's Agreement for Tech Park III; and
Adoption of Resolution No. 85-197, Authorizing Summary of
Ordinance No. 19-85, and Ordering Publication of Said Ordinance.
Location: South and east of Valley View Road, West of Washington
Avenue, North of Viking Drive, and West of Smetana Road.
F. HERZOG ADDITION by K. P. Properties. 2nd Reading of Ordinance Page 1785
No. 20-85, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 5.35
acres; Approval of Resolution No. 85-195, Authorizing Summary
of Drdinance No. 20-85, and Ordering Publication of Said
Summary. 5.35 acres into ten single family lots. Location:
Southeast quadrant of Duck Lake Road and South Shore Lane.
G. Final Plat Approval for Herzog Addition (Resolution No. 85-192) Page 1791 A
H. HAGEN SYSTEMS by Hagen Systems. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. Page 1794
23-85-PUD-4-85, Planned Unit Development District Review and
Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park, on 3.02 acres;
Approval of Developer's Agreement for Hagen Systems; Adoption
of Resolution No. 85-198, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance .
No. 23-85-PUD-4-85, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary.
Location: East of City West Parkway, West of Highway #169.
I. Change Order No. 4. N.E.. Quadrant Prairie Center Drive,, I.C.. Page 1804
51-3D8A
J. Change Order No. , Eden Road & Singletree Lane, I.C. 52-011 Page 1806 .►
A
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS '
A. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE by Chico Development Corportation. Page 1809
Request for a revised Planned Unit Development Concept Review
and Environmental Assessment Worksheet for a range of
209-249 units of multiple family development on 40.7 acres.
Location: North of Cardinal Creek, east of Baker Road.
(Resolution No. 85-196)
B. FEASIBILITY REPORT FDR TECHNDLOGY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS FROM Page 1856
WALLACE ROAD EAST TO CPT I.C.. 52-010A (Resolution No.
85-160T
C. Request from Welcome Home to g.peal decision rendered July 25 py Page 1857
the Board of Mleals & Adjustments on Variance Request No. 85-26
TT-Public Fleeting
D. Request from Midwest Asphalt Corporation to appeal decision Page 1923
rendered Jut/ 11 the Board of Appeals R Adjustments on
Variance Request No. 85-24 jA Public Meeting
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,August 20, 1985
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 22030 _ 22315 Page 1943
r" VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 85-179 establishing just compensation and Page 1950
authorizing offer for the City of Eden Prairie to acquire
Prairie Village Elderly Apartment Site of 3.05±; and
Resolution No. 85-180 authorizing the C ty of Eden Prairie to
sell 3.051 acres of land to Derrick Land Companies
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
C. Report of City Attorney
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George x
Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and Paul Redpath
•
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jutlie, Assistant to the
City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger
Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning
Director Chris Enger, Director of Community
Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary i
Karen Michael t
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: all members were present.
7
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were added to the Agenda: IX. A. Woodlawn Heights Park
Grading, IX. B. Anderson Lakes Outlet Project.
The following item VII. A. Lueck sewer/water connection fee was continued to
the June 18, 1985, meeting of the City Council.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Agenda and Other
Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 16, 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes of
the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 16, 1985, as published.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Board of Review Meeting held Tuesday, May 21, 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Minutes of
the Board of Review Meeting held Tuesday, May 21, 1985, as published.
Motion carried unanimously. ii
C. Joint School/City Meeting held Tuesday, May 2B, 1985 .1.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Minutes of
the Joint School/City Meeting held Tuesday, May 28, 1985, as published.
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -2- June 4, 1985
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 12-85, CATV Relief Ordinance, 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 13-85, Amending Cable TV Franchise Ordinance No. 80-33,
and approval of Performance Agreement and authorize execution as per approval
of City Manager
B. Change Order No. 1, Norsemen's 6th Addition, I.C. 52-065
C. Receive feasibility report for Technology Drive Road Improvements east
from Wallace Road and set public hearing date for July 2, 1985, at 7:3D
p.m., I.C. 52-010A
•
D. Clerk's License List
E. THE OAKS BUSINESS CENTER by Steiner Development, Inc. Request for 2nd •
Reading of Ordinance No. 17-85-PUD-3-85, rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park,
Approval of Developer's Agreement for The Oaks Business Center, and adoption
of Resolution No. 85-129, approving the Summary of Ordinance No. 17-85-PUD-
3-B5 and ordering Publication of said Ordinance. (Ordinance No. 17-85-PUD-
3-85 and Resolution No. 85-129 - approving Summary and Ordering Publication)
F. Change Order for Franlo Park Grading
G. Resolution No. 85-135, amending Resolution No. 85-10 (Fee Resolution)
establishing fees for Tax Exempt Financing
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt items A - G on
the Consent Calendar with item A subject to City Manager Jullie's final
review and approval. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. SOUTHWEST CROSSING by Vantage Companies. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on approximately 106 acres for 1.626 million square feet of
office and commercial uses. Location: east of Highway #169, north of
Interstate I-494, west of Viking Training facility, and south of Nine Mile
Creek. (Resolution No. 85-127 - PUD Concept Approval)
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published
and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
•
Matt Nichol, Vantage Companies, and Dale Beckman, engineer with 8RW, addressed
the request.
City Council Minutes -3- June 4, 1985
Planning Director Enger stated this request had been reviewed by the
Planning Commission at its meeting on May 13, 1985, at which time the
Commission voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations
included in the Staff Report dated May 10, 1985. Enger noted the request
to raise Smetana Lake had been withdrawn by the proponent. Enger addressed
the traffic study which had been recently completed by BRW, commissioned
by the City.
Director of Community Services Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission had reviewed this proposal at its meeting on June 3,
1985, and had voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations
included in the Planning Staff Report and those included in the May 23,
1985, memorandum from Lambert to the Commission. Lambert stated the
major concern of the Commission was the attempt to maintain a creek
corridor in as natural a state as possible. The Commission wishes to
maintain as many of the hardwood trees as possible.
Redpath asked if there would be restrictions in the amount of traffic
in the Golden Triangle area. Enger said Staff would be suggesting to
the Council that there be a 20% reduction in traffic in the Major Center
Area.
Redpath asked what the extent was of the grading already done in this
area. Beckman indicated grading had been done for the stubbing in of
Golden Triangle Drive and for the four buildings on the east end of the
Vantage site.
Anderson expressed concern about the grading of the creek valley. He
said he felt the character of the area will be changed once there are .
buildings there. He said he hoped this could be kept as a very special
area. Pidcock concurred.
Redpath asked how this proposal differs from what had been previously
proposed. Beckman reviewed the plans using a map. Beckman said they
would request a variance from the setback standards if the woodland j.
area is to be dedicated at this time.
Bentley expressed concern about the fart that the knoll to the creek had
been indicated as a conservation area on the previous plan. He said the
new plan indicates a greater density on the eastern area. He questioned
why the preservation area had been reduced.
Don Brauer stated the plans are for the same density and for the same
land use which exists. He said he felt the area of preservation is the
same. Brauer said the plans now relect an urban space.
Enger said Staff had walked the site and a tree inventory was completed.
The tree inventory indicated there were no good trees north of the power
line; the highest value of trees were found on the knoll. Enger stated
the creek setting was determined to be attractive but not pristine.
City Council Minutes -4- June 4, 1985
Peterson asked if the decrease in density in this area was due to reasons
other than just traffic. Enger said the traffic concerns are the major
reason for the decrease; he outlined measures which might be taken to
reduce the amount of traffic in that area.
s
Pidcock asked who would be responsible for seeing that this proposal
is carried out in the way it is now planned. Enger reviewed the process
which is used.
Anderson said he did not feel things should be done along the creek in a
piecemeal fashion. He said he thought there should be a plan for that
whole area. Enger said the plans for the other half of the creek will
come before the Council at its next meeting. Pidcock asked what the
setback is along Minnehaha Creek in Minneapolis. Enger said it varies 1
but there will be more of a setback in this area.
P
Frank Smetana, 7680 Smetana Lane, noted there have been lots of ducks
and geese on Smetana Lake over the years. He said he did not think a
trail alongside the lake would be compatible with the wildlife in the
area. He said he was pleased to hear the lake level will not be raised.
He said he did not like the idea of having people tell him he would have
to go along with this or else be condemned. Smetana said he would like
to have the area be declared a "no hunting" area. Redpath said this is
a "no hunting" area. Staff was asked to check into the condemnation
threat issue.
Mrs. Gary Kostecka, 10805 Valley View Road, said she felt the proposal
was a "class project" and much better than what had been proposed earlier.
She said she hoped the City would protect the rights of the homeowners in
the area.
Bentley said he would like to have the Council apprised of any raising of
the level of Smetana Lake,
Beckman said he was at a neighborhood meeting which Smetana was referring
to at which time the question was raised as to what the alternatives were
should the lake level be raised. At that time someone did mention that
condemnation would be one of the means but that comment was in no way
intended to indicate that would be done or even that it was under con-
sideration.
Anderson said a trail along the lake is fine, but consideration must
be given to preserving a "backstage" area for the ducks to nest.
Marilyn Heath, 7665 Smetana Lane, stated there would be a lot of problems
with flooding of her mother's property if the water level in Smetana Lake
were to be raised. She said the low level now is at 834' which is the
highest it has ever been.
City Council Minutes -5- June 4, 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. 85-127, approving the development of Planned
Unit Development of Southwest Crossings by Vantage Companies with close
attention being given to Lot 18; no consideration is being given to the
raising of the level of Smetana Lake. Motion carried unanimously.
B. JUHL PACIFIC by Opus Corporation. Request for Zoning District change
from Rural to I-2 Park on 4.5 acres and preliminary plat of 4.5 acres
into one lot for construction of a 61,000 square foot office/warehouse.
Location: southeast corner of Valley View Road and Equitable Drive.
(Ordinance No. 18-85 - rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park and Resolution
No. 85-128 - preliminary plat)
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published
and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
David Hunt, project manager for Opus Corporation, and Greg Nook, architect,
addressed the request.
Planning Director Enger noted the Planning Commission had reviewed this
request at its meeting on May 13, 1985, at which time it voted to recom-
ment approval subject to the recommendations included in the May 10,
1985, Staff Report. Enger said the plans which are dated May 30, 1985,
were done with the changes recommended by the Planning Commission.
This item was not reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission as no cash park fees are indicated in the Edenvale area.
Peterson asked how the problem with the loading area had been resolved.
Enger said the loading had been broken up into three areas and each area
would be bermed and landscaped.
Bentley expressed concern about the rooftop material. Nook said the
roof material is an architectural metal with a mylar surface. Enger
said the material is similar to that on the Public Safety Building.
Enger stated his only concern was with the way this fits in with the
rest of the area and the design framework in that area.
Anderson noted this would be across the street from some high density
residential and expressed concern about the view the residents would
have. Enger said the mechanical equipment would be screened. Nook
said the metal roof screens the rooftop mechanical and also provides
clerestory windows.
City Council Minutes -6- June 4, 1985
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 18-85, rezoning. Motion. carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt Resolution No.
85-128, approving the preliminary plat of Juhl Pacific for Opus Cor-
poration. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct Staff to prepare
a Summary Resolution of Approval per Commission and Staff recommendations.
Motion carried unanimously
C. VACATION OF ST. JOHN'S DRIVE (Resolution No. 85-133)
City Manager Jullie indicated notice of this Public Hearing had been pub-
lished and stated the homeowners in the St. John Woods area are in favor
of this action.
Director of Public Works Dietz addressed his memorandum of May 30, 1985,
in which this issue was reviewed.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. 85-133, vacating St. John's Drive in the
northwest ; of the northeast to of Section 3. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to prepare
the appropriate maintenance agreement and easement documents for execution
by the Homeowner's Association. Release of the Resolution authorizing
the vacation is subject to receipt of these documents, Motion carried
unanimously.
D. VACATION OF EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY IN PART OF RIDGEWOOD WEST (as newly
platted as Plat-1) Resolution No. 85-131
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published,
Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed the details of the vacation.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by 8entley, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. 85-131, vacating the right-of-way and drainage
and utility easements in Ridgewood West. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -7- June 4, 1985
E. VACATION OF A SEGMENT OF OLD SHADY OAK ROAD IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF 62nd
STREET (Resolution No. 85-132)
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published.
Director of Public Works Dietz explained the details of the vacation.
Mike Loosen, 6200 Shady Oak Road, indicated this provided access to
his property; he stated he had no objection to the vacation.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. 85-132, vacating a portion of the Old Shady
Oak Road right-of-way in northeast 4 of the northeast 4 of Section 2,
T 116 R 22. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to work
with Loosen to find a solution to his access problem. Motion carried
unanimously.
F. REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4,850,000.06 FOR EVERGREEN PROPERTIES (Resolution No. 85-136)
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing was published;
Jullie called attention to Finance Director Frane's memorandum dated
May 3D, 1985, in which this was reviewed.
Dennis Doyle, President, Welsh Companies, spoke to the request.
Wally Hustad, Sr. said he felt there were problems confronting the
City due to the limited amount of funds available for municipal indus-
trial development bonds. He said he would like to point out that the
best interests of the City are not necessarily the best interests of
those making the rules. He stated that some of his projects will not
be rated very highly because hotels do not provide the number of
jobs that other businesses and industries do. Hustad said his hotel
project is dependent on bonds. He said he was asking the Council to
look at what is being proposed and not just what proposals are before
it at the present time. Hustad noted there are Eden Prairie investors
involved in his project.
Anderson asked what the local cap amount was. Frane said $7,4D0,00D
which means only one or two more proposals would be covered.
Bentley asked about the State cap; were any funds available from that
source. Frane said he did not think there would be funds available
from the State's cap. Bentley asked if there would be funds available
from excess allocations. Frane said there are plenty of rumors but
as yet nothing concrete.
/')IJ
City Council Minutes -8- June 4, 1985
Ei
Bentley said he was not unsympathetic to Hustad's concerns. He noted
the City has not established criteria as to priorities. Bentley pointed
out the the Council had established that those projects with prior zoning
would be considered before those without. Bentley also said that the
City is looking into "finding" other available MIDB money.
Peterson asked if the City had any other options available to it. City
• Attorney Pauly said a "first come, first served" basis might be used or
else to delay the matter. Peterson asked if the Council is bound to
the procedure it has been following. Redpath said he thought the Council
had adopted a policy whereby those who had come through the process would
be taken care of first. He said the Council must realize that everyone
is not going to be able to get MIDBs.
Pidcock asked Hustad how many employees his hotel would have. Hustad
said there would be about 30 full-time employees. Pidcock asked what
the annual sales would be. Hustad said they were expecting about
$2,000,000; this hotel would be a lower-end, comparable to a Dillon Inn.
He indicated they could get by with about $4,000,000 in MIDBs.
Redpath said he would suggest the Council go with what has gone through
the process. 1
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing
i
and to adopt Resolution No. 85-136, reciting a proposal for a commercial
facilities development project, giving preliminary approval to the project
pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act authorizing
the submission of an application for approval of the project to the Energy
and Economic Development Authority of the State of Minnesota and authorizing
the preparation of necessary documents and materials in connection with ,
the project. (This would be "inside" the City's cap.) Motion carried i
• unanimously. j
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to do {
everything possible to seek other MIDB monies. Motion carried unanimously.
G. REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
T2,5-00,003-60 FOR HAGEN SYSTrF1S (RIALTOS Resolution No. 85-1377-
a
City Manager Jullie indicated notice of this Public Hearing had been
published.
Finance Director Frane addressed his memorandum of May 30, 19B5, in
which this issue was reviewed.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. 85-137, giving preliminary approval to a
proposed industrial development project by Rialto Investments under the
Municipal Industrial Development Act and authorizing submission of an
application to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority
for approval thereof. (This would be "outside" the City's cap.) Motion
carried unanimously.
(
l'i '1 .
City Council Minutes -9- June 4, 1985
H. REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
T4,500,000.00 FOR HARPTON HOTE�Resolution No. 85-138)
City Manager Jullie indicated notice of this Public Hearing was published;
Finance Director Frane's memorandum of May 30, 1985, referred to this
proposal.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing
• and to adopt Resolution No. 85-138, giving preliminary approval to a
project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, referring the
proposal to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development
for approval, and authorizing preparation of necessary documents.
(This would be "outside" the City's cap.) Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 20464 - 20795
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Payment of Claims
Nos. 20464 - 20795. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath, and
Peterson voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
There were none. •
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Lueck sewer/water connection fee. (Continued from May 21, 1985)
This item was continued to the June 18, 1985, Meeting of the City Council.
B. RESEARCH FARM 2ND ADDITION by Northrup King. Request for preliminary plat
o roximately 177 acres into six outlots. Location: west of Highway
169 at Anderson Lakes Parkway. (Resolution No. 85-126 - preliminary plat
and Resolution No. 85-130 - final plat)
City Manager Jullie noted the official Public Hearing for this platting
request was held before the Planning Commission which recommended approval.
He indicated the proposed platting accomplishes the right-of-way dedica-
tion
plus the creation of parcels of property to be sold.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt Resolution No. •
85-126, approving the preliminary plat of Research Farm 2nd Addition
for Northrup King. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt Resolution No.
85-130, approving the final plat of Research Farm 2nd Addition. Motion
carried unanimously.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
•
There were none.
•
rr''7
City Council Minutes -10- June 4, 1985 }:
i
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District - Endorsement for the reappointment of
Dr. Eugene Davis to the NineMile Creek Watershed District
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to endorse the reappointment
of Dr. Eugene Davis to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Motion
carried unanimously.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Pidcock - reported on a recent conference which she had attended in Boston.
She noted the Council should act and not react, should create a favorable
business environment, and should know where it wants to go. Pidcock said
she would share pertinent materials with Council members.
Peterson - noted that Jesse Schwartz, Jr. has resigned from the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission effective July 1, 1985. Peter-
son !!!i
stated there were eight people interested in serving on this Commission 1.
and suggested the Council meet at 6 p.m. prior to its June 18, 1985,
Meeting to interview those interested in serving. He asked Staff to
determine what area of expertise is most needed on the Commission.
Anderson said he felt someone with a natural resource background or
concern was needed at this time.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Staffing Request - Public Safety Department
City Manager Jullie called attention to his memorandum of May 30,
1985, in which this matter was addressed.
Director of Public Safety Hacking spoke to the need.
Bentley asked if one office was enough; based on the information
provided the Council he felt there might be a need for more than
one officer.
Anderson asked if we have officers on duty to provide back-ups.
Hacking said it is not always possible to do this.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to authorize the
addition of one Public Safety Officer at this time. Motion carried
unanimously.
Redpath asked when the authorized Assistant Planner would be
starting work. Planning Director Enger said he was in the process
of hiring someone right now. Anderson said the City cannot afford
to not be competitive when it comes to salaries.
City Council Minutes -11- June 4, 1985
C. Report of City Attorney
There was no report.
XI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Woodlawn Heights Park Grading
Director of Community Services Lambert reviewed the plans and the problems
which have been encountered in this area.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the grading plan
for the Woodlawn Heights Park grading and to request a letter of credit
for $25,000. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Anderson Lakes Outlet Project
City Manager Jullie stated this item had been before the Council at its
last meeting.
Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed the options available to the
City as well as the cost estimates.
Director of Community Services Lambert said he felt the $16,000 which
would be the City's share was acceptable.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the $16,000
expenditure to provide an outlet to Anderson Lakes which will aid in
maintaining the lake levels; a minimum water elevation is to be guaran-
teed; this expenditure is contingent upon Hennepin County and Metro-
politan Council support via the Master Plan. Motion carried unanimously.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the meeting at
11:35 p.m. Motion carried unanimously,
•
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1985 6:00 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM •
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George
Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and Paul Redpath
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Director of Communit
Services Robert Lambert, Parks, Recreation & •
Natural Resources Commission Chairman Pat
Brietenstein, and Recording Secretary Karen
Michael
ROLL CALL: Council member Anderson was absent.
The City Council met at 6:00 p.m. to interview persons interested in serving on the
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Those interviewed were: Karon
Joyer, Lesa McOowell, Rod Olsen, Bob Rose, Chuck Shaw, and Robert Woodcock. Lorrie
Heimkes was unable to attend the meeting because she was out of town on business;
Janet Whiteford expressed interest but did not attend the interview session.
•
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
NOTE: Action on the vacancy on the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
was taken at the City Council Meeting held later on June 18, 1985, at which time
Chuck Shaw was elected (3-1) to fill the unexpired term of Jesse Schwartz, Jr.
/"764
•
August 2, 1985 •
Mr.Eugene A.Dietz,P.E.
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road •
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Preserve Boulevard
LC.52-071
• State Project No.181-102-02
RCM Project No.841039
E:a• � Dear Mr.Dietz:
Bids were opened on August 1, 1985 at 10:30 A.M.for the above-referenced
project. The low bid for the project was submitted by Hardrives, Inc. in
cake
rrroll the amount of $416,538.70. This is approximately 6.8% greater than the
molter engineer's estimate ($390,000). The original feasibility report showed an •
ssociates,inc. estimated construction cost of $270,000. That cost did not include
Architects extending the four-lane road with center median to Westwind Drive,
engineers
land surveyors removing all of the existing bituminous, or the thicker street section that
was ultimately designed.
A summary of the two bids received is attached. Also attached is a
Resolution Accepting Bid for your use.
The low bidder is a reputable contractor. We therefore recommend
awarding the contract to Hardrives.
Very truly yours,
) r
l lAvvt."{t
ter 7. csnaeble, P.E.
RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATES,INC.
P3K:jj
Attachment
1011 h;si stt 4 t south
post oft oh',;.st
hop;fff., tiw,,,,sot.t 0:r3.13
612-935-6901
SUMMARY OF BIDS
LC.524 071
State Project No. 181-102-02
DESCRIPTION: Preserve Blvd. RCM #841039
BIDS OPENED: August 1, 19B5 10:30 A.M.
CONSULTING ENGINEER: Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, lnc.
CHECKED BY: Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc.
11 BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL AMOUNT
Hardrives, Inc. Yes, 5% $416,538.70
Midwest Asphalt Yes, 5% $426,629.80
•
is
l
The undersigned recommend award of Contract to:
Hardrives, Inc.
•
as the lowest responsible bidder for this Improvement Contract.
- A Ni-)0_:(
Consulting I'ngineer u,ene A.Dietz,P.E.
Peter J. Knaeble, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Rieke Carroll Muller Assoc., Inc.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-185
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following
improvements:
I.C. 52-071
Preserve Blvd. (RCM #841039)
State Project No. 181-102-02
bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are
shown on the attached Summary of Bids;and
WHEREAS,the City Engineer recommends award of contract to
Hardrives, Inc.
as the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as
follows:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a contract with Hardrives, Inc.
in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $416,538.70
in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the
Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. •
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 20, 1985
Gary Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: •
SEAL:
John I).Frane,Clerk •
/f)tJ`l
• 1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-193
RESOLUTION OECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF 1985 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND SETTING
•
HEARING OATE
WHEREAS, contracts have been let for the following listed improvements and the
total project cost, including expenses incurred, or to be incurred and the
City's share, exclusive of that assignable to City property, are established
as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
1. The cost of such improvements to be specially assessed are hereby
declared to be those as set forth in Exhibit A.
2. The City Clerk with the assistance of the City Engineer shall
forthwith calculate the proper amount to be assessed for each
improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land
within the district affected without regard to cash valuation, as
provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment
in the office of the Oeputy City Clerk for public inspection.
3. A hearing shall be held on the 17th day of September, 1985, in the
School Boardroom, 8100 School Road, at 7:30 p.m., to pass upon such
proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning
property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to
be heard with reference to such assessments.
4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the
hearing on the proposed assessments to be published once in
the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing.
He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner
of record of each parcel described in the assessment roll
not less than two weeks prior to the hearing.
•
ADOPTEO by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 20, 1985.
Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor •
ATTEST SEAL
•
•
John D. Franc, Clerk
/") 1
0
W
N
N
W
CI O 0 to 0 0 O 0
Q00 00 0 0 0 O N O to CO en O O
W I N )O C) an - N to O CO en CS CD CO CI CD
tO 20.
m t+f
m n CO N N U •..I 0. N ON 0 CO O n
C7 CO
OI • v ON en N tO .-. el
03 O ON 0 c, 2-2 N ••-I
CO V)
an en en CO 0 CNI el
Z
0 W IA w VR IA 4A M IA IA M 49 C W 2229
gO
0
i
0 CD
V) CO 0 O O
0 •
IN LC) Q
LSO CO C
Le.. .7t
> o) .- CO
. N. CO !.
- to Q `t Cr to
to
U W fA ZS Z .9 W
o 0 C7 0 0 0
O 0
1-1
tD en N en an 0
1- O CO 0 03 O u) O
= UI O
W� J O 0 001 eni n N. 0 �/�
V 1- C WI O er u)
Q w C)LO .r+ - - IA VI W 5
NI
O]
Ir J
2
X r+
W
W
d W
N 2-.0
to H C.L 4-1C t0 C
O0)I S.
W ; Y O al
In al L L 1J
ro NF ro a) C
.0 Y W Q. Y C)
E S.Y D. N> E Cl.- 7 C C./ 1
E S. O VSSA0 OC 0 w ro C N C L - �C rtl CO ) >
VI a+ W ) 0 v O
VI 0 N O L. W S.Y
V)C C N Y 0 CC 0 a+ C .. N .0•2-2•0 S. C
.0 W L•0 C 7 .,-
0-
•C •OC C 7 L. L IO
C EJ ^ W LY CD V ror OC 70-6
Eroro C) S. 0 vE a) E
•
ro ta C) '0 CD W 0 M a) 1. S.
E > .. 0.0 >f 6 C W 00.- a+ •
O L0.C 3 C 0- L C C Y 0 Y S. 3 a) W
L 0 a• L L FI C W Cr ro W ro C = ro
-
' E— ♦W.IEC O. t CN VW) >W a) EE •a J
ro rn ro w+ CVl ro C 3
L o0 01 MI W W 4) C a •0 C j
' C 3 ro 0 ELL C a 0 In 0 C C
m3a1 V) OI •W Y9 W N an 0 .1.0 0 O > 0 C L. 0 ro
AIL 0 V) 401L W ro0 L••-I a)00 L. O.Z t/) C) L. N ro 3 L L t0
Q I W L C W L. C) V) C W E a, r
a) C C ;VI d O .-. W C Q •4 N )n a)~L ••-I L O C A L N 3 a+ 3 ro
.-r W V) ro O)C)V)_a') Up in 0 t0 C C r tO a+Y ^O aI CO Q ; N VW'1 3 i 0 4444
O▪ v)C C O N C W r O V1 O 'us
•r O W
t >)C ro ) A c E W 1 T� ) ro E a 1 >)61 c C ) a) a) O W W Y > >) E
1- N L. IO 0 CV i ro L E N L 7 N Z W N L S.•- O N N S.
a) E V) C r r ICI W
U to ro tY t<7 MI 10 L 0 IO IO IS) > W VI ION ti') Cr 7 ell co >) 3 O
W .V 1. S.U ro -0 S. 0.0 ^N W a) E al C) �Y L L L ^ Q)
"O •I W C W U Cr L 4- >•.- .L In > > 4 N 1 > C)
O UIC 3 W CI C 3 W U C-0 U ' O. U C C•rC L310 C)'^ L i
tY .ro WC •IOW. W • .0C •IroEC ..�NCG.0 •Y d0 Ill N J J > co 1—
d •-•V)V)W «.�V)V)a-) 0 Ir�N ro I-I 3.-.'� 99
— N CO C. In tO n
i
71
Prairie Village Apartments
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2-85
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 1
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 1
(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 RM-2.5 District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural District and.shall be included hereafter in the
RM-2.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in
City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph 6, 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 August 2D, 1985, entered into between
Prairie Village Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, and the City
of Eden Prairie, and that certain Owner's Supplement to Developer's Agreement,
between Gonyea Investment, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden •
Prairie, dated as of August 20, 1985, which Agreement and Owner's Supplement are
hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 2nd day of February, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th day of
August, 1985.
ATTEST:
John U. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
066
Exhibit A
Legal Description •
Zoning
All of Outlot 8 and that part of Outlot C, Gonyea 4th Addition, lying northwesterly
of a line drawn from a point on the westerly line of said Outlot C, distant 92.68
feet southeasterly along said westerly line from the most westerly corner of said
Outlot C, to a point on the northerly line of said Outlot C, distant 159.24 feet
southwesterly along said northerly line from the most northerly corner of said
Outlot C.
Platting •
Outlot 8 and C, Gonyea 4th Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
•
•
))3.
et
•
•
Prairie Village Apartments
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
1985, by PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership,
hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City;"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developers have applied to City for zoning district change from
Rural to RM-2.5 for 6.6 acres for 112 subsidized apartment units in two 56-unit
structures, one subsidized structure for elderly residents and one market rate
structure for family residents, located north of Highway #5, east of County Road #4,
situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, and legally described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a part hereof, said entire 6.6 acres hereinafter referred
to as the "property;" and,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. 2-85,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development and maintenance of
the property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated July 24, 1985, reviewed and approved by
the Eden Prairie City Council on March 19, 1985, and attached hereto
as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided
herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain
the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, Developer agrees to
submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's
approval of detailed stormwater run-off and erosion control plans.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct,
or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in
accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto, as approved by the City
Engineer.
• 4. Developer agrees to notify the City and the Watershed District at
least 48 hours in advance of any grading, or tree removal, on the
property.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Developer
agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of:
A. Plans indicating internal circulation pathways, and a picnic
and sitting area for the elderly structure and a picnic area
and a totlot for the market rate structure. The internal
circulation pathways shall be connected to the public
pedestrian circulation system within the Bittersweet Drive
neighborhood.
B. • Overall lighting plans for the property.
C. Overall signage plans for the property.
D. Revised building elevation plans which indicate the color
ranges and types of materials to be used for the exterior of
the structures. Said building plans shall indicate the use
of wood as an exterior material on no more than 25% of
either structure.
• E. Revised landscape plans which provide for additional
buffering and screening adjacent to the single family
residential areas to the north and east and which provides
for lowland plant materials to create a transition to the
wetland area of Outlot A to the east. •
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed
above, as approved by the Director of Planning.
•
6. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the elderly structure,
Developer shall submit to the Building Dfficial, and receive the
Building Official's approval of:
A. Detailed construction plans for a canopy which shall extend
out from the structure to the driveway drop-off area.
B. Detailed construction plans fdr all bathrooms to be
handicapped accessible.
C. Detailed construction plans for public restrooms, which shall
be handicapped accessible, to be located in the lobby of the
structure.
D. A public telephone to be located in the lobby of the
structure.
Upon approval by the Building Official, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed
above, as approved by the Building Official.
7. Concurrent with construction, and prior to issuance of any occupancy
permit for the elderly structure, Developer agrees to notify the
Public Safety Department for purposes of inspections of the
structure for its fire safety, medical emergency notification
system, and security of the entrances, locks, and underground
parking areas.
8. As part of the management system for the elderly structure,
Developer agrees to maintain a resident manager of the structure and
to establish and maintain a tenants advisory board, with a minimum
$1,O00.00 per year discretionary budget available to said board.
9. Developer agrees that the elderly structure shall remain as an
elderly structure, and that it shall not convert to family housing,
for a period of at least eighteen years, beginning on the date of
occupancy of the structure.
•
•
/?X)
Prairie Village Apartments
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-118
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 2-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
•
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of August,
1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY DF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 2-85, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the.Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Drdinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 2-85 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 August 20, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Franc, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2-85
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:
Summar : This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located on Gonyea
4th Addition, Outlot B, known as Prairie Village Apartments, from the-Rural District
to the RM-2.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's
agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal
description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk Mayor
•
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _day of , 1985.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
Highway #101 & Valley View Road
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 29-85
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 DF 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 Oistrict and be placed in the R1-22 District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
R1-22 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in
City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph .B, shall be, and are amended
accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. 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 6th day of August, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th day of
August, 1985. •
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
1 li fo
•
o • n.t Cl-4 ')
I-AO .(0 O 3'
• -1 O.N N C O.
• V r. .•(+rt 7 co.
A 7"in0 rt tt
t+i M :1.OK•O
(D W n C. C.
i- 0..)In 7 !D 0. - a
prt n -, XM
NOrt•
• .41.0 -II ID 3 0
1D C 0 '1 7 -'
iv p. ..I _..• (D
rt'4 to rt
• o•V 01 rI O
(D .0• 3'c+(0
re ••{ A ix,0 W
• 07. x
• 0 W N n 0
C.-hn a-1
tD .-I.(D 2,n 3 •
-
(n (D rt o n .
=rt to -1 '1 x
(D W rt rt rt-..I,' ti
to7 Oo•a'—. •
t
• re n (D 0 -•h •
(D rt rt-1 O. I
• re SS•• 0
00 (D(D•c D, -t,
-n 3 U,
re. nO W (4 q1.
?N N O •-•n 7•
• (D 4 •O O ID 11
(nm73FJ •
-a• W rt,O 3 2
• O O to (D O
• -.3< (D -h S n rt
c1-4•'1 (D -••7-
• _._m...LQ. 3 x_
O co•c co T10 (D
• .,rt 10(D (^
p' W 7 r+r+
• • (D r+'1 7 .O
to 3'a •...rt C
.+.(D -•7 -••S W
7 -•t03N -f !)
•
• p ( 0.. (D r+ -
•(DD N(D
t t 7 00 0 '1
CO N£ _ -h C •
Io •m rt0
0 .•.7 to 3'-tt
'...• ...... 3•rt n W
• 4 ',•7• (D •co N'
(0 (D rt O.N (D
• L -1 S n M(•
,y 1c 3 O n .
S (n r+'1 O O
(D•0 0 -••r• •1 3
W C 7 S 3
f0 '4 tw C (D V
N W 3--'•2-1.
•rt .—. 7 0 '
rD -.-.t0 -•0 --1
• -s,,0 ... -+,-n 0
ac ..7 2 F
(D O O N 7
(.7 ,4 -1 -t,W V.
W 0O14 -••3-
(D In m 7' V
0 Curt j to (D 0
r* 0--.•`< 2-i
7• O. 0 rt01
� r: n, •1 •
T --•r. f T1
ro ,n0 O S S 77 X
• re kta (D 7 7-
_.7• to ••„O
N rt (0 r+
7 2 N 0
CD W -.-.0 ti,N ).
.- O.t= N
W .h (m r•.
7:1 T
.....h V, n, ID
to o-1 :1
r. /• 0 :1
el RI 4 3
Technology Park
•
PUD-DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT 3
• THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985,
by HOYT DEVELOPMENT, a Minnesota partnership, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept ,
for 68.36 acres for development of an office, office/service, and office/warehouse
park, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter
referred to as "the property;" .
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution #85-148,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of
said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated May 23, 1985, reviewed and approved by
the City Council on June 18, 1985, and attached hereto as Exhibit B,
subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the
property in any other respect, or manner, than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Development of the property east of Golden Triangle Drive,
consisting of approximately 21 acres, shall be for land uses as
depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto, including approximately 2.28
acres in the southeast quadrant of the property for Office use and
approximately 18.62 acres for Industrial use in the north central
and northeast portions of the property. No land uses west of Golden
Triangle Drive, as depicted on Exhibit 8, attached hereto, are
herein approved.
4. Developer agrees to be responsible for the construction of Golden
Triangle Drive and the extension of West 76th Street. Construction
of Golden Triangle Drive and the extension of West 76th Street shall
be coordinated with the construction of the creek crossing.
Developer agrees that Golden Triangle Drive shall be completed from
the planned western terminus of West 76th Street to the northern
boundary of the property and to the southern boundary of the
property prior to occupancy of any buildings beyond Tech III.
5. Developer agrees to construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along the east side of Golden Triangle Drive and both sides of
extended West 76th Street, including a sidewalk along the southern
property line of the Tech I, II, and III structures. Developer also
agrees to construction of an eight-foot wide bituminous trail along
the west side of Golden Triangle Drive. Sidewalk and trail
improvements shall be constructed concurrent with street
construction.
6. Developer agrees that the final grade for that portion of the
property west of Golden Triangle Drive, as depicted on Exhibit B,
attached hereto, shall be at elevation 875.
7. Developer agrees that, prior to development, or any grading of that
portion of the property located west of Golden Triangle Drive,
Developer shall submit a detailed tree inventory including all trees
twelve inches in diameter, or greater, at a level 4.5 feet above
ground level. Developer agrees to notify the City and the Watershed
District at least 48 hours in advance of any grading, or tree
removal, on the property.
Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property,
Developer agrees to implement erosion control measures and adequate
protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where
grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said
measures. This shall include the area of the south-facing hill, as
depicted on Exhibit 8, attached hereto. Prior to approval by the
City, the Developer shall call for an on-site inspection of the
property by the City. Any defects in materials and workmanship in
the implementation of said measures, if any, shall then be
determined by the City. Defects in materials or workmanship shall
then be corrected by the Developer, reinspected and approved by the
City, prior to issuance of the grading permit by the City. Approval
of materials and workmanship may be subject to such conditions as
the City may impose at the time of acceptance.
7. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property
within the construction limits as approved by the City. Developer
shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within the
wooded areas of the property prior to any grading upon the property.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to
the Director of Planning and receive the Director's approval of a
tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and
within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size,
type, and location of all trees twelve inches in diameter, or
greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level.
If any such trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the
construction area, Developer agrees that, prior to issuance of any
building permit for the property, Developer shall submit to the
Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a
replacement plan for all such trees removed, damaged, or destroyed •
outside of the construction area. Developer further agrees that
such trees shall be replaced by similar tree species and that the
trees used for replacement shall be no less than four inches in
diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by
the Director of Planning, using a square inch per square inch basis,
according to the area of a circle created by a cross sectional cut
through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the
ground.
If a tree replacement plan is required, Developer agrees that, prior
to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer shall
prepare and submit for approval to the Director of Planning a
written estimate of the costs of the tree replacement work to be
completed. Developer shall then submit a bond, or letter of credit,
guaranteeing completion of all tree replacement work as approved by
the Director of Planning. The amount of the bond, or letter of
credit, shall be 150% of the approved estimated cost of
implementation of all tree replacement work and shall be in such
form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required
by the Director of Planning.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
'7 r1'7
•
Exhibit A ''!'
Technology Park PUD. --
Legal Description
The South Half c .he Northwest Quarter of . Southeast Quarter
of Section 12, Township 116 , 'Range 22 ; also--The Notheast Quarter
' .of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12,'Tdwnship 116, Range 22,
.except 'the following described part thereof, to-wit: Beginning,
ai the Northwest corner of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter
• of said Section 12; thence South on the West line of said East
Half of said Southwest Quarter of said Section 12, 1320 feet; `
thence North 56 degrees East 476 feet to the center of the Creek
running Southwesterly through said East Half of the said Southwest
Quarter of said Section 12; thence Northeasterly along the center
line of said creek to the North line of said East Half of the
Southwest Quarter of said Section 12; thence West 960 feet along {
6aid North line to the point of beginning; and also except that part t
of said• Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter-of said Section
12; described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner .of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 12;
thence East along the South line thereof 240 feet to the center
line of a private cartway now established; thence Northwesterly q
129 feet along the center line of said cartway; thence Southwesterly ;
.213 feet to the point of beginning; together with all the rights
of the grantors hercin_ to the use of the cartway hcreinbcfore x
referred to and reserved by the grantors herein in-deeds recorded
in Book 1322 of Deeds, Page 545 and Book 1350 of Deeds, Page 307y
Except that part platted .as Technology Park 2nd Addition.
,
.. i
That:part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12,
Township 116, Range 22 , lying North of Nine Mile Creek except that
portion thereof described as follows: Beginning at the point of int
section of the center line of Nine Mile Creek with the west line of
Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, thence North along said West lint
to a point 400.29 •feet north from the Southwest corner of the South••:, .i
• 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, thence deflecting to the rig' -
103 degrees ono minute a distance of 07,51 feet; thence south parall• ,
with the west line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 to the
center line of Nino Mile Creek; thence southwesterly along the
center line of Nino Milo Creek to the point of beginning, according
to Oa nap or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of
•he !naaister of Deeds of Hennepin_County.._i
- -
Subject to a private road casement ever that part of the Southwest 1
of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 116, Range 22 , descr he
as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Southwest I.
1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 400,29 feet north from the southwest come
thereof; thence. north along said west lino 60;feet; thence deflectir: 1.
to the right 103 degrees one minute a distance of 07.51 feet; thence
south parallel with. the west line of said Southwest 1/4+ of the
Southeast 1/4 a di.t?nce of G0 feet; thence northwesterly to the po`.
of 2`egir.a ng • ,
• / I ? (, 1
711
1.
Tech Park IV
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 19-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZDNING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG DTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
•
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESDTA, 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 I-2 Park 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
I-2 Park District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to
in City Code, Section 1I.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are
amended accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of August 20, 1985, entered into between
Hoyt Development, a general partnership, 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 18th day of June, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th day of
August, 1985.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, Cffy Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
•
/7'J 3 s
Exhibit A
• Tech IV
• Legal Description
•
TECH IV
ZONING AND PLATTING DESCRIPTION •
the
That pt ar12 °fTownshipth116,Half
Range the
22,Northwest
HennepinQuarter
County,ofMinnesota, d Quarter
the described as
Section
• follows; •
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Technology Park 2nd Addition, according to the
plat on file in the Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota;
thence North 87 degrees 06' 35" West, assumed bearing, along the North line of said
South Half a distance of 430.53 feet; thence South 3 degrees 21' 32" West 20.29
feet; thence Southerly 215.96 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the East,
having a radius of 665.00 feet and a central angle of 18 degrees 36' 25"; thence
Southerly 226.49 feet along reverse curve,
having a radius of 735.00 feet and a
central angle of 17 degees 39' 22"; thence South 2 degrees 24' 28" West 40.55 feet; •
thence South 87 degrees 06' 33" East 339.87 feet; thence Easterly 25.15 feet along a
nglenoa1 curvedegree 43' 32"; the thence Northuth, h2ving a degreesadius 24' 828"DOEast feet
496.32 feet to central
the
angle of9
point of beginning. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
l7` U
y: -
S
•
•
Tech IV
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
• THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of • , 1985, by
HOYT DEVELOPMENT, a Minnesota general partnership, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural
to I-2 Park for 4.52 acres for construction of a building for office/warehouse
purposes, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter
referred to as "the property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #19-85,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of
said property as follows: -
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials dated May 17, 1985, reviewed and approved by the City
Council on June 18, 1985, and attached hereto as Exhibit 8, subject
to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer
shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any
other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to release of the final plat, Developer agrees to submit to
the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of:
A. Detailed utility, erosion control, and storm water run-off
plans.
D. Detailed plans for road construction for Golden Triangle
Drive and the extension of West 7Gth Street.
/7//
•
•
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct,
or cause to be constructed, those plans listed above, in accordance
with Exhibit C, attached hereto, as approved by the City Engineer.
4. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, Developer agrees to 4
provide to the City Engineer proof of permission from the adjacent
land owner to the north for the grading necessary off-site.
5. Developer agrees to contact the City and Watershed District at least
48 hours in advance of grading, tree cutting, or tree removal on the
property.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive
the Director's approval of:
A. A modified landscape plan which provides for increased berm
height along Golden Triangle Drive and the extension of West
76th Street in order to adequately screen parking areas.
Said plan shall also provide for a berm similar to that
shown on Exhibit D, attached hereto, and made a part hereof,
to be located along the north boundary of the property.
B. Detailed plans for signage on the property.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
implement, or cause to be implemented, those plans listed above, as
approved by the Director of Planning.
•
7. Concurrent with building construction, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, in accordance with Exhibit C,
attached hereto, the following improvements:
A. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along both sides of the
extension of West 76th Street, including a five-foot wide
concrete sidewalk along the southern property line of
Technology Park, Phases I, II, and III.
B. An eight-foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of
Golden Triangle Drive, and a five-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along the east side of Golden Triangle Drive.
C. Golden Triangle Drive and the extension of West 76th Street.
8. Developer agrees to be responsible for all applicable terms and
conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement between the City
and Developer for the Technology Park Planned Unit Development,
dated August 2D, 1935, in accordance with the approved plans
• therefor.
Technology Park
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-197
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 19-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 19-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of August,
1985;
NDW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 19-85, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
•
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 19-85 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 August 20, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Franc, City Clerk
•
/?/3
•
{ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 19-85
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, OROAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located south and
east of Valley View Road, west of Washington Avenue, north of Viking Drive, and west
of Smetana Road, known as Technology Park, from the Rural District to the I-2 Park
District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit
A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1985.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
•
•
/fit
i
Herzog Addition
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
OROINANCE NO. 20-85
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 EOEN 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.
1
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the R1-22 District and be placed in the R1-13.5 District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the R1-22 District and shall be included hereafter in the
R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in
City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph 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 August 20, 1985, entered into between
United Mortgage Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie,
which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 18th day of June, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City an the 20th day of
August, 1985.
ATTEST:
•
John D. franc, City Clerk- Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor
•
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
I / Ia
-r:
•
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Tract A, Registered Land Survey #714, and Outlot 1, PRAIRIE SHORES, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
•
•
•
/ y !
Herzog Addition
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
1
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by
United Mortgage Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:" 1
WITNESSETH: •
1
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District change from R1-22
to R1-13.5 for 5.35 acres for ten single family residential lots, situated in
Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the
F
property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #20-85,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of
said.property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated June 18, 1985, reviewed and approved by
the City Council on June 18, 1985, and attached Developer shall not
develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other
respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
•
3. Concurrent with, and as part of the final plat, Developer agrees to
dedicate the right-of-way for Duck Lake Road to the City, clear of
any mortgages, liens, assessments, or encumbrances.
4. Developer shall notify the City and Watershed District at least 4:;
hours prior to grading, tree cutting, or tree removal on the
property.
5. Prior to issuance of any permit for building upon the property,
•
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City
Engineer's approval of: .
A. Detailed plans for drainage and erosion control.
B. Detailed plans for streets, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and
water.
• Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed those improvements in said plans, in
accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto, as approved by the City
Engineer. •
6. Developer agrees to provide building plans for Lot 10, as depicted
on Exhibit B, indicating the garage portion of the house as located
on the south side of the property in order to provide adequate sight •
vision distance to Duck Lake Trail.
7. Developer agrees that the front yard setbacks for Lots 1 and 3, as
depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto, shall be the same as the
front yard setbacks for the homes on the north side South Shore
Lane.
•
•
•
•
%1/f
Herzog Addition
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA •
RESOLUTION NO. 85-195
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 20-85 AND ORDERING THE •
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY •
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 20-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of August,
•
1985;
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. 2D-85, 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.
•
8. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
•
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
•
D. That Ordinance No. 20-85 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 August 20, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 20-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located southeast of
Duck Lake Road and South Shore Lane, known as Herzog. Addition, from the R1-22
District to the R1-13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a
developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full
legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Mary U. Peterson
City Clerk
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _day of , 1985.
•
(A full copy of the.text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT •
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
DATE: July 17, 1985 •
SUBJECT: HERZOG ADDITION
PROPOSAL:
The owner, Alphonse Herzog, has requested City Council approval of the final
plat of Herzog Addition, a single family residential plat located east of Duck
Lake Trail and south of South Shore Lane in the North 1/2 of Section 8. The
proposed plat will contain 10 lots on approximately 5.3 acres.
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on June 18, 1985, per
Resolution 85-151.
The City Council is scheduled to finally read and approve Drdinance 20-85
rezoning the site to RI-13.5, on August 20, 1985.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for
execution on August 20, 1985.
VARIANCES:
All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
Municipal utilities, streets and walkways will be installed throughout the
addition in conformance with City Standards, by the Developer. Some of the
lots will be servied by existing utilities which assessments in the amount of •
$11,146 are due.
PARK DEDICATION:
The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement.
BONDING:
The requirements for Bonding are covered in the Developer's Agreement.
•
Page 2, Final Mat Herzog Addition 7/17/85
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Herzog Addition subject to the
requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $280.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $1,872.
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $400.
4. Second reading of Ordinance.
5. Execution of bonding requirement.
6. Satisfaction of bonding requirement.
7. Payment of assessments in the amount of $11,146.
DLO:sg
cc: United Mortgage
Roy Hansen
CITY Of EDEN PRAIRIE •
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-192
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
HERZOG ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Herzog 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 Herzog Addition is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
report on this plat dated July I7, 1985.
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 August 20, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
f,)9
Hagen Systems
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 23-85-PUD-4-85
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 g
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 4-85-
I-2-Park District (hereinafter "PUD 4-B5-I-2-Park").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of August 20, 1985, entered into between
Rialto Investments, a Minnesota partnership, and the City of Eden Prairie j
(hereinafter "Developer's Agreement") and those certain supplements to the i
Developer's Agreement, dated as of August 20, 1985, entered into between Prime
Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, and
between Anderson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden
Prairie, (hereinafter "Supplements") The Developer's Agreement and Supplements
contain the terms and conditions of PUD 4-85-I-2-Park, and are hereby made a part
hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
1
A. PUD 4-85-I-2-Park is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide
Plan of the City.
B. PUD 4-85-I-2-Park is designed in such a manner to form a desirable
and unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of
the City Code, which are contained in PUD 4-85-I-2-Park, are
justified by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 4-85-I-2-Park is of sufficient size, composition, and
arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is
feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent
unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and $:
hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
Planned Unit Development 4-85-I-2-Park 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 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 2nd day of July, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th day of
August, 1985.
ATTEST:
•
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
•
•
EXHIBIT A
HAGEN SYSTEMS
•
ZONING '
That part of Outlot C, CITY WEST SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
described as follows; Beginning at the most Northwesterly corner of said Outlot
• C; said point being on the easterly right-of-way line of City West Parkway; .
• thence North 45°15'26" East. assumed bearing, along the northerly line of said
Outlet C. 125.00 feet; thence North 69°11'18" East along said northerly line
315.00 feet; thence South 20°48'42" East 30.00 feet; thence South 69°11'18"
West, parallel with the northerly line of said Outlot C, 30.00 feet; thence
southeasterly 209.79 feet along a non-tangential curve with a radius of 220.00
feet,through a central angle of 54°38'09", a chord distance of 201.93 feet and
a chord hearing of South 23°20'0S" East; thence South 34°20'50" West 280.00
•
feet; thence northwesterly 72.02 feet along a non-tangential curve with a f
radius of 500.00 feet,through a central angle of 08°15'11", chord distance of
71.96 feet and a chord bearing of North 51°31'36" Vest; thence South 89°27'56"
West 155.34 feet to the easterly right-tzf--way line of City West Parkway; thence
northerly along said right-of-way line 229.01 feet along a non-tangential
Curve with a radius of 320.00 feet, through a central angle of 41°00'13",
chord distance of 224.15 feet and a chord bearing of North 24°14'36" West to
the point of beginning. Said tract contains 2.73 acres, more or less. Subject
to easements, reservations, or restrictions of record, if any.
( PLATTING
Outlot C. City Vest 2nd Addition
Hennepin County, MN
i
I
i
1
i
I
i
Hagen Systems
PUD-DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
• THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by
and between RIALTO INVESTMENTS, a Minnesota partnership of major stockholders of
Hagen Systems, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development District
Review Amendment of approximately 20 acres, with variances to allow for a) more than
50% office use within the I-2 Park Zoning District, b) a 35 ft. front yard structure
setback along City West Parkway, from 50 ft., and c) a 17.5 ft. parking setback
along City West Parkway, from 35 ft., and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2
Park for 2.94 acres for construction of a two-story structure, situated in Hennepin
County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, said 20 acres hereinafter referred to as "the Overall PUD
property" and said 2.94 acres hereinafter referred to as "the property," and;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #PUD-4-85-
23-85, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and
maintenance of said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated , 1985, reviewed and approved
by the City Council on July 2, 1Jt3C, and attached hereto as Exhibit
B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the
property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. •
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in 1,
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, Developer shall
submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's
approval of:
A. Detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans.
B. Detailed plans showing utility easements.
1
C. Detailed plans for the revised median cut in City West
Parkway and detailed plans for the right-in, only,•access to
the property. i.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall implement, or
cause to be implemented, those improvements listed above, in
accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto, as approved by the City
Engineer.
4. Developer agrees to notify the City and Watershed District at least
48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the
property.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of:
A. Modified landscape plans which provide for a ten-foot
planting strip between the.Phase I and Phase II parking
areas, and with additional coniferous trees to screen the
loading areas from Highway #169 and the adjacent residential
property to the north.
B. Plans depicting screening of the rooftop mechanical units
and overhead loading doors, which shall be done in a manner
which is architecturally compatible with the exterior
materials of the structure, as depicted in Exhibit B,
attached hereto.
C. Plans depicting lighting and signage details.
D. Color samples of the proposed exterior building materials
for the structure.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above, as approved by the Director of Planning.
6. Developer has provided the City with access control of the western
side of City West Parkway. A copy of the access control document is
attached hereto as Exhibit D, and made a part hereof. Developer •
shall revise the document to extend access control opposite of the
relocated median cut and shall promptly record an original of said
document.
•
1. Developer agrees that the revised median cut, referred to in 3. C.
• above, shall be constructed in conformance with City Engineering
standards. Developer agrees that Developer shall bear all costs
associated with planning and construction of the revised median cut
and with closing of the existing median cut.
8. Developer agrees that the right-in, only, access to the property,
referred to in 3. C. above, shall be constructed in accordance with
City Engineering standards and Developer further agrees that
Developer shall bear all costs associated with construction of said
right-in, only, access to the property.
9. Developer acknowledges that the property will benefit from any
future improvements to Shady Oak Road in the vicinity of City West
and agrees to pay its fair share of the corresponding special
assessments.
•
10. Developer agrees to become a member of the City West Owners'
Association with respect to ownership and maintenance of the common
areas of the Overall PUD property.
Hagen Systems
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT (Prime Development)
TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
RIALTO INVESTMENTS
AND THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
•
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by
and between , a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "Owners," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as
"City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #23-85-
PUD-4-85 changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner from Rural to I-2, with
variances, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered
into as of , 1985, by and between Rialto Investments, and City,
•
Owners agree with the City as follows:
1. If Rialto Investments fails to proceed in accordance with the
Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners,
their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owners transfer such property, owners shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
OWNERS
By
Its
/?oO
Hagen Systems
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT (Anderson Development, Inc.)
TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
RIALTO INVESTMENTS
AND THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by
and between , a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "Owners," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as
"City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #23-85-
PUD-4-85 changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner from Rural to I-2, with
variances, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered
into as of , 1985, by and between Rialto Investments, and City,
Owners agree with the City as follows: •
1. If Rialto Investments fails to proceed in accordance with the
Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners,
their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owners transfer such property, owners shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
OWNERS
By
Its
Hagen Systems
' CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-198
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 23-85-PUD-4-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 23-85-PUD-4-85 was adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of
August, 1985;
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. 23-85-PUD-4-85 which
is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that
said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of
said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 23-85-PUD-4-85 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 August 20, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: •
John O.Frane,, City Clerk
If
I
l CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 23-85-PUD-4-85
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 PRDVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Drdinance allows rezoning of land located east of City
West Parkway, west of Highway #169, known as Hagen Systems, from the Rural District
to the I-2 Park District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's
agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal
description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of , 1985.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
!;(&
,�•YV
. . RECEIVED
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4 JUL 22 1985
( TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IC 51-308A-2 B.R.W.
PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE AND INTERCHANGE AT •
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
July , 1985 BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC.
700 Third Street South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
The following work shall be added by contract amendment to this project.
SCHEDULE B
(LOCAL STREETS)
ADDITIONS _
Estimated Unit
Noo.. Item
I Unit Quantity Price Amount
1. 21" CMP L.F. 32.00 $ 32.00 $ 1024.00
2. 21" Surge Basin EA. 1.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00
3. 48" RCP Apron w/trashguard EA.
1.00 $ 1850.00 $ 1850.00
TOTAL ADDITIONS SCHEDULE B $3,724.00
DEDUCTIONS
Item Estimated Unit
No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
1. 36" RC pipe sewer, class III L.F. 20.00 $ 56.00 S 1120.00
•- TOTAL DEDUCTIONS SCHEDULE B $ 1120.00
Page 1 of 2
' ,1
•
NECESSITY FOR AMENDMENT
SCHEDULE B (ADDITIONS)
Items 1 and 2 - The relocation of the bituminous path from the northside of
Valley View to the southside significantly increased the grade
of the subject pipe, resulting In a change to CMP and the need
for a surge basin.
Item 3 - The apron was inadvertently left off of contract amendment
number 3.
•
SCHEDULE B (DEDUCTIONS)
Item 1 - See items 1 and 2 above. _ •
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT S3,782,476.29
TOTAL PREVIOUS CONTRACT AMENDMENTS $ 82,313.98
SUBTOTAL $3,864,790.27
TOTAL ADDITIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT #4 $ 3,724.00
SUBTOTAL $3,868,514.27
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT #4 $ 1,120.00
CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE $3,867,394.27
CONTRACTOR
Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. ��—
Title Sr..�=r�vr�r+t Date 7//,/d -
FNG I NF FR
Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis-Gardner, Inc.
( T—
Title --- �. Az.S_ ------ Date 7-8-83
•
CITY OF FDEN PRAIRIE
City Engineer --_ Date
Page ? of 2
lrJ�
I
•
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 52-011 A and B
EDEN ROAD AND SINGLETREE LANE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
July , 1985 BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC.
700 Third Street South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
The following work shall be added by contract amendment to this project.
SCHEDULE A
(EDEN ROAD)
ADDITIONS
Iter Estimated Unit
No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
1. Cut in 8" x 6" Tee L.S. 1.00 $ 859.46 $ 859.46
2. Const. driveway pavement S.Y.
29.70 $ 120.00 $ 3,564.0Q
3. Sanitary sewer time & mat. L.S.
1.00 $ 1,717.42 $ 1,717.42
4-. Connect to Kidde Care L.S. 1.00 $ 869.84 $ 869.84
storm sewer
5. Re-lay sanitary sewer stub L.S.
1.00 S 995.63 $ 995.63
TOTAL ADDITIONS SCHEDULE A $ 8,006.35
SCHEDULE B
(SINGLETREE LANE)
ADDITIONS
Item Estimated Unit Amount
No. Item Unit Quantit Price
1. 54" RCP pipe sewer,
design 3006, class IV L.F.
315.00 $ 96.90 $30,523.50
2. 3" RSC
L.F. 12.00 $ 350.00 $ 4,200.00
3. Reconstruct sanitary NI L.S.
1.00 $ 338.14 $ 338.14
4. 4" perforated pipe L.F. 12.00 $ 350.00 $ 4,200.00
TOTAL ADDITIONS SCHEDULE B S39,261.64
Page 1 of 3
//006
•
DEDUCTIONS
Item Estimated Unit
No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
1. 54" RCP pipe sewer
design 3006, L.F. 235.00 $ 83.60 $19,646.00
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS SCHEDULE B $19,646.DD
NECESSITY FOR AMENDMENT
SCHEDULE A (ADDITIONS)
Item 1 Water service added to new lot created by replatting of adjacent pro-
perty after project was designed.
Item 2 Pay item for concrete driveway pavement was inadvertently left out of
contract at time of bidding.
item 3 Effort expended by contractor to provide sanitary service to Teman
property.
Item 4 Kidde Care drainage was redirected.
Item 5 The existing sanitary sewer stub was not aligned in correct direction
as Indicated by as-bullts. The stub had to be taken out back to the
manhole and replaced.
SCHEDULE B (ADDITIONS)
item I The 54" pipe was extended 80 feet as the result of updated planning by
the Flagship Athletic Club and the pipe was increased in strength
classification due to revised fill heights over the pipe.
Item 2 Rigid steel conduit was added to facilitate the future installation of
lighting and signals.
Item 3 The sanitary manhole at station 13+50 was lowered after construction as
a result of grade revisions requested by abutting property owners.
Item 4 Perforated pipe was added between stations 4+50 and 8+00 to correct
groundwater infiltration apparently caused by regrading of natural run-
off areas. •
Page 2 of 3
SCHEDULE B (DEDUCTIONS)
Item I Deducted Item replaced by higher class of pipe required due to higher
overfill of earth.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 632,607.68
TOTAL PREVIOUS CONTRACT AMENDMENTS $ 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 632,607.68
TOTAL ADDITIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT 01 $ 47,267.99
SUBTOTAL $ 679,875.67
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT 11 $ 19,646.00
CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE $ 660,229.67
CONTRACTOR
Northdale Construction Co., Inc.
Title E54-,M4 (l. Date g- 1 -e)c--
ENGINEER
Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis-Gardner, Inc. .
Title ( / tpti Date -Z9-es.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
City Engineer Date
Page 3 of 3
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
•
RESOLUTION #85-196
•
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE
•
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on
Cardinal Creek Village PUD Concept by Chimo Development and considered their request
for approval for development (and variances) and recommended approval of the
requests to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on August 20, 1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. Cardinal Creek Village by Chimo Development, being in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, is legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in
the plans, as revised, dated July 22, 1985.
. 3. That the PUO Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning
Commission dated July 22, 1985.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 20th day of
August, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John 0. Frane, City Clerk
•
•
EXHIBIT A - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL
That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter,
and that part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter, of Section 3, Township 116, Range 22,
• lying Westerly of the Westerly Right-of-way line of U.S.
Highway No. 494, lying Northerly and Easterly of the centerline
of Nine Mile Creek, and lying northerly of the following
described line: Beginning at the most Easterly corner of Lot 4,
Block 1, Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition: thence Northeasterly
along the Northeasterly extension of the Southeasterly line of
said Lot 4, a distance of 160.00 feet; thence Easterly to a point
on the East line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, a distance
of 1469.90 feet North of the Southeast corner of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 3, and there terminating.
Also, that part of the Northwest Quarter of the South-
east Quarter of Section 3, Township 116, Range 22, described as
follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northwest
• Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence Westerly 10 rods; •
thence Southeasterly to a point on the Easterly line of the
Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 10 rods
Southerly from the point of beginning; thence Northerly to the
point of beginning.
Containing 40.7 acres±. Which property is located in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
•
. !/C,: •
TT
• -
TO: EDEN PRAIRIE CITY C0UNCIL
FROM: CARDINAL CREEK HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
We, the residents of Cardinal Creek, are deeply i
concerned about the possibility of City approval of the high
density rental development proposed for the area immediately
i.
north of the present Cardinal Creek single family resident- 'i
ial area. We are further alarmed at the City Council's
positive response to the developer's request to increase the
previously approved number of units from a range of 192-208
to a present level of up to 249 units,' approxi.mately 25%
greater than the prior approval .
• Any large, predominantly rental development on the sub-
•
ject property is an inappropriate use of this land.
Although there has never been an apartment development in i
Eden Prairie even approaching the proposed size, those which I
have been built are located in light commercial/industrial
areas or on major thoroughfares, apart from single family }
housing. Few, if any, are served by roadways, which pass
directly through existing single family areas. Such housing
has beer; developed in areas of comparable multi-family 1
structures; none has ever been built immediately adjacent to
previously established single family residences. The
subject development, as proposed, is thus totally without
precedent in the history of our City, as regards size,
relative density, lack of transition, architectural massing
and negative impact on present residents.
Please understand, that the residents of Cardinal Creek
are not totally opposed to the establishment of a multi-
family development on the subject property. We are
convinced, however, that a responsible and creative
developer can come up with a plan which assures reasonable
preservation of the nature] environment. Such an approach
would totally preclude the unit density for developable
acreage represented by the developer's most recent request.
It would call for a total number of units in the 130-180
range, which is, in fact, supportable by prior 'precedent within the City. 3 3
On the density issue, we would like to highlight, that
the only reason given by the proposed developer for
requiring the high requested density is to assure his own
profit:.bility in the project; this upon direct inquiry
•
before the City Council . specifically, he sited the h,gher
than c:ridinary cost of coreing the cite with- road and util-
1 ,
/f•(i i t-.
• zi
ity services. At the same time, he has continuously refused
to commit to providing said services at his expense,
preferring to preserve options, which could require both the
City and neighboring property owners to become involved `-
financially. It would seem imprudent for the City of Eden
Prairie to support a plan with any such open possibility,
especially in light of the City's massive upcoming capital
expenditures, which have been so widely publicized.
We believe the issue at hand extends well beyond the
negative impact this development, as proposed, would have on
our immediate neighborhood. Thousands of passers through i
Eden Prairie each day view this most evident hillside, which
would hardly be enhanced by five-deep, three story apart-
ments, all of which would be visible in a single panorama.
The visual impact would be devestating, both to the i
environment and potentially to the City of Eden Prairie, as
a quality community in which to seek residence. Our kinder- j
gar.ten children can no longer attend an elementary school
only a few hundred yards from their homes due to overcrowd-
ing. Our property taxes are among the highest in the Twin
Cities; a situation which will only worsen with the dispro-
portionate addition of high density housing, this due to the
lower per capita property tax yield of such housing. Your 1
• own City departments confirm that applications for new
single family residence development have fallen in 1985 to a
•
fraction of those for more dense housing. If the City
cannot achieve a posture, which is favorable to all types
and levels of residential development, the negative result
could be significant and irreversible.
One subject that has not been addressed by the City
Council is preservation of property values. We have been
given outside professional opinion, supporting our conten-
tion that such a development, as it stands, would have a
signficant adverse affect on neighboring properties. The
City Council is charged with protection of property values
and our Association is determined to see that our interests
are not subjugated to expediency by the developer or the
City Council .
The recent crescendo of public voices raised against
PUD's in Eden Priaire reflects the growing concern of your
constituents. We would question the motives of City Council
members who would avidly support projects so repugnant to
the interests and sensibility of the residents of the
community.
( We appreciate the efforts of both the Eden Prairie City
Council and city staff in trying to achieve a fair resolu-
tion of the proposed development request. We believe, that
our resident7. have likewise been open-minded and responsive
in this matter. - t this time, the present residents and
prapo.ed developer are far apart. We only hope that the
1O
•
•
•
City Council will not desert those of us, who have committed
such a large part of our resources and personal hues to
this community; that your decisions wi11 not unduly favor
the profit objectives of a developer group, none of whom
reside in our community or share the goals of our residents.
Thank you for your consideration of the enclosed
documentation supporting our position.
•
•
/�f1`(
•
•
• ' .
BASIS FOR DISAPPROVAL
of 1
1
RENTAL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF CARDINAL CREEK
i
d'
The proposed high density apartment development of 249
. rental units•should be disapproved. Substantial reduction
in unit density should be made, along with numerous other
improvements and commitments before approval is considered.
Recommendations and supporting rationale follow.
1
1. Density i
The project should be reduced in size to a range of 130-180
units to reduce density and provide for reasonable open
space within the project's developable area.
The proposed 249 unit project is nearly 40% larger than the 1
largest apartment complex (132 units) presently existing in
1.
Eden Prairie.
The proposed project is more than twice the size of the i
average apartment development in Eden Prairie (see Exhibit I
I). 1
Taking developments of over 20 gross acres in north Eden 1
Prairie, the highest density on developable acreage is 5.9
units/acre; the proposed is 8.8 units/acre (or 9.5 1
units/acre if primary roadway is excepted) - far too high.
(see Exhibit II) I
Of the six developments in north Eden Prairie, which exceed 1
6.5 units/acre in density, the largest is 17.4 acres. The ,
28 acre development proposed should have much lower density
to prevent over-massing of construction, especially as the
proposed site has limited, if any, natural foliage to break
up the visual impact. (see Exhibit III) 9
All multi-family developments of over 5 units/acre in north
Eden Prairie are located in light commercial/industrial
surroundings or on major thoroughfares, as are the majority
of all apartments in the City. None are integral or
directly connected to single family housing.
R crmrnrndtiran
Limit tl'e proposed development to 130-180 units, based on
appropriate density of 5 to 6.5 units/acre. (see Exhibit IV)
• }
1
. r
2. Appropriate Use •
A development of totally rental units by the developers' own
admisson attracts a comparatively transient occupant, creat—
ing the potential for more rapid building deterioration and
less diligent occupant upkeep.
•
No large apartment in Eden Prairie has ever been built in
the proposed proximity to a single family residential area;
most are in commercial areas or on isolated sites.
No large apartment in Eden Prairie has major access through
a single family area.
The proposed developer has restrictions against rental of
units on one of his own higher quality "for sale" devel—
opments in another community, an indication of the incom—
patibility of rental and sale units in close proximity.
Recommendation
Limit project to "for sale" condominiums, or at least
develop the project in phases, requiring certain units to be .
sold or held exclusively for sale.
•
3. Inadequate Transition
The proposal locates an apartment building, housing over 50
units, less than 200 yards from an existing single family
residence. This problem can only be addressed by
significant reduction in project density.
4. Traffic Link
The developer was encouraged by both City staff and City
Council to creatively develop a road link to Cardinal Creek
Road, which would limit traffic between the single and
multi—family developments. The proposed "T" intersection
fails to respond to this need, which is now magnified by the
developer's decision to go all rental units.
Rscc_nr_:nd.at ion
Require a redesign of the road connection as a condition of
plan approval , specifically to include a "Double T" or the
equivalent with two stop signs.
0, N_gtive Imilact on Natural Surroundings
The prupoc.ed plan does not respond to the need to preserve,
insofar as possible, the natural environment.
I1'i.J
7
4
The previous plan called for excavation cuts of up to 40 ,
feet on the hilltop to accomodate the large building; the
revised plan appears to have the same problem.
A major stand of 50 foot, or taller, trees in the central
area of the site are to be destroyed — this should be
prevented, and a design should be developed using these
trees to shield views of the multi—family units.
.
No analysis has been done of the major water run—off from 7,�
the project into the low areas surrounding, nor of the :r
ultimate impact on wildlife areas and Bryant Lake. Such a ,.
study should be conducted prior to even preliminary approval
of unit density.
Recommendation •
Require the developer to post a substantial bond prior to
zoning approval to be used to rectify any damage caused to
the natural environment by the project.
t
i
6. Project Aesthetics •
yi
The primary problem with this project, as proposed, cannot
be corrected by architectural cosmetics. It is simply too
dense to allow adequate building separation, so that open
spaces are seen. - 1
Views of the proposed project from both Cardinal Creek and
I-04 are of the entire project, due to the hill . As many I
as 5 apartment units line up, one behind the other up the
hill , thus the project will appear as a stack of up to 15
floors of rental units. The only remedy is to reduce
project density to allow wider spacing between buildings.
The project site has no natural foliage to shield it from
surrounding residential areas, making more difficult the i
problem of breaking up the visual impact of the large mass .
of buildings. p
Recoo.,msnd.>_t i can
Reduce project density. Require the developer to shift the
building sites east to allow a system of berms and plantings
to be installed. Perhaps the developer would also consider •
planting large evergreen trees on the Cardinal Creek side,
to further restrict views of the project.
c.
7. North Acco st Proictt
At the time of the May, 1755, City Council meeting, the
developer had made no recent effort to arrange suitable
acce-.._ to the site through the Miller property. Such access
is a requirement of the project. • .
•
/0f
•
The present north access to the site creates an unsafe
condition at its connection to Baker Road. If a suitable
solution is not found, traffic could be forced south through
Cardinal Creek, creating unsafe conditions there.
The developer has continuously evaded questions regarding
his willingness to pay for the north access road to the k
development. This situation requires clarification.
Otherwise, Mr. Miller may be unfairly assessed for
°improvements" to his property or the City may be forced to
share this financial burden.
The project should be developed via its own road with the
connection to Cardinal Creek Road being made only after i
construction of much of the development is completed.
Construction traffic should be strictly forbidden access to ,
the site via Cardinal Creek. 7
The developer justified his above normal unit density
request based upon his cost of building roads and bringing
in utilities. Should he seek City financial involvement x
with these items, the City should request according R
reduction in density. I.
l
B. Quality of Project
The developer depicts his latest plan as being a new design
concept, which is "upscale" from his prior one. This claim .
is simply unsubstantiated in fact. 4
The major design change from the past proposal is a break- i,
up of larger units into smaller ones. Density is reduced by
only half the units requested originally by City Council ,
when a range of 190-208 units was suggested. Open space
actually appears to be reduced; a negative.
The project concept has changed to total rental , a step in
the wrong direction.
The $600 starting rental for an oversized 1 bedroom
apartment is hardly a major departure from the present
market. According to information provided by City staff,
standard I bedroom apartments typically rent for $450-$500
per month, with 2 bedroom units going as high as $600. On
thiF basis, the developer's claim that his new- development
will attract a unique type of tenant, appears to be largely
unfounded.
9. lmlaot_nn Cf7r1m,lnitY
At present, Eden Prairie seems to be experiencing a
significant trend toward multi-family development, which yyyy
threatens the balance of residential growth (see Exhibit V) d
•
•
The fact that only 29% of new residential housing
applications are for single family homes is alarming. Our
'present Guide Plan gives no assurance whatever, that our new
construction will be properly distributed between different
residence types. For example, an overbuilding of
• multi-family units close to sites designated for single
family residences could make these sites unsuitable for
quality future development. Perhaps a quota system should
be established to assure that no more than a predetermined
percentage of new residential construction, in a given year,
can be of any given type.
• Disproportionate high density apartment development is also
known to be a generator of crime and public nuisance, both
within its own confines and impacting neighboring
residential areas. Consider, for example, the Eden Prairie
Police Report of June 5, 1935. During the prior week, five
•
separate incidents of theft and intentional property damage
were reported from the Edenvale Apartments alone, with
numerous others at other high density housing (see Exhibit
VI).
•
In summary, the proposed developer has failed to produce any
rationale whatever, other than his own need for
profitability, as to why so may precedents should be
exceeded in behalf of his project. The potential harm a
project of this size, density and location can do to
residents and the City, as a whole, is truly signficant. In
facts Cardinal Creek would almost certainly not exist in its
present form, had the proposed apartment complex been
developed first.
The residents of Cardinal Creek believe the facts herein
presented substantiate clearly our position, that the
proposed apartment development concept should be modified to
include 130-130 units and greater assurance of quality. We
appreciate your consideration of this matter.
•
EXHIBIT 1
EXISTING APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS
Completed Projects
• Units
Chestnut 120
Burning Tree 64
Baxpoint Manor 114
Shadow Green • 182
Neill Lake 84
Scenic Heights 6
Briar Hill 126
Windslope 168 •
174
Edenvale Edenvale (2nd) 74
7
Edendale
Average Size 106
Approved — Not Built
Units
Eden Commons • 1966
10
Quail Ridge 1
Prairie Village 18
•
Neill Lake Apt. II 160
Preserve Apts.
Average Size 130
ail
EXHIBIT II .
ANALYSIS OF LARGE AREA DEVELOPMENTS
(INCLUDES ALL DEVELOPMENTS OF 20 ACRES NET DEVELOPABLE AND
LARGER) •
•
Project Acres Units Net
. Gross Net Density
Tanager Creek 70.0 41.0 192 .5/4.9
Cardinal Ck I 53.0 42.4 59 •
Arbor Glen 40.3 32.0 79 2.1/3
Forest Knolls I 39.8 39.8 59 1.5.1
Valley Curve 37.0 25.8 80 32.3
•
Edenvale 6th 36.0 36.0 86 1.9
Topview III 35.8 35.8 69 1.9
Kings Forest 32.6 32.6 42 1.7
Cardinal Ck II 30.0 16.8 28
Topview II 26.1 26.1 32 1.2
Topview I • 21.6 21.6 7 .3
Stewart Highlds. 20.4 20.4 106 5.9
•
•
•
t d�.t
• . '
. EXHIBIT III
• •
. .
•
• •
. .
. •
ANALYSIS OF MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS . •
(IN ORDER OF DESCENDING DENSITY)
• .
• , • • .
' .
. ,
ProJect ' ' Islet Density Units Acres
Gross Usq, .
Eden Prairie Apt.* 16.6 108 6.5 6.5
Edenvale Apt. II* 14.0 70 5.0 5.0
Shadow Green Apt.* 12.8 180 14.0 14.0
Edenvale Apt. I* . 10.0 174 ' 17.4 17.4
Village Green 9.5 122 12.9 12.9 .
Edgewood Condo* 8.5 . 40 4.7 4.7
St Johns Woods* 6.5 124 18.9 18.9
Stewart Highlands* . 5.9' 106 20.4 20.4
Valley View Manor* 5.7 112 19.4 19.4
Tanager Creek 4.9/.5 192** 70.0 41 .0
Arbor Glen 3.58/2.10 79 40.3 32.0
Cardinal Creek III 1.09 18 . 16.4 9.5
. . .
. .
. . .
•
* Major road and land separation from single family
** Part of development single family
. .
. .
. ,
. .
. '
. ,
. •
. .
. - -
. ,
• •
(
•
HA
- •
EXHIBIT IV
t ,
•
•
• .
. •
DEVELOPMENTS IN NORTH EDEN PRAIRIE ANALYZED r
Overall Size Developments Net Density • .
200 units & larger 0
150-200 units 3 .5/4.89,10.0*,12.8*
100-150 units 5 6.5,5.9,5.7,16.6,9.5
Under 100 units 23
Developments Over 100 Units
•
Units Acres Net Density
Gross Jet
Tanager Creek 192 70.0 41.0 .5/4.89
Shadow Green Apt* 180 14.0 14.0 12.8
Edenvale Apt I* 174 17.4 17.4 10.0
.5
St. Johns Woods* 124 18.9 18.9 6.5
•
Village Green 122 12.8 12.8 6
Valley View Manor* 112 19.4 19.4 5.7
Eden Prairie Apt* 108 6.5 6.5 16.6
Stewart Highlands* 106 20.4 20.4 5.9
*Major road and land separation from single family
•
-
Ex'stnc,, 15'34 19S5
n: s Fa.,7-i!), 60% 45% 99%
27% 17%
lan 4Qoa 19-E5 •
8:7;14 F.:,nHy SS% 75% 55'%
154 25% 41%
Citx P!ann'i7.,c Sta+f Data
•
•
IK1(
• t xi4' 't cr
P OitCe Re�ort On June 13, the Repliques jewelry
t 1 On
all?denl'rairie Center reported the
iSe", .;, r.. a .q,,xr,r,- loss of gold chains valued at approx.- ` h11SCE1I ANi 0U3
hnately M.The loss apparently took Police received a cumpfainl of
• place over the past several months.Pro•i disorderly conduct at approximately
THEFTS perty was recovered by the Burnsville 1:47 a.m.Sunday at 143'i3 View
Kenneth Foote reported to police in Public Safety Department and was turn- Rd. A man was reported ValleyR View
Kenneth 1.
Eden Prairie a theft from his vehicle Fri- ed over to police in enPrairie. ween buildings wearing only tennis
• day or Saturday at 19115I lomestcad Cyr- The theft of a pester painting worth shoes
Me.Takes was one stereo cassette deck $300 from 13700 Valley View Rd.was 1'he W.Gordon Smith Co.reported a
valued at$100. reported June 15 by ivy It avav,who forgery June 11 at 7920 Wallace Rd.The
Christopher Pierce reported the theft said the painting was taken from a coin- loss was$80. q,
of his bicycle front Round Like Park on mon area in the apartment building. lluricl Dixon was arrested by police E
• June 13.The lwy's Schwinn Scrainbler, Fosmoor Casuals at Eden Prairie June 18 on a county warrant for forgery.
black with yellow lettering and yellow Center reported the toss of$250in cash oo That same day, Jerry's Super Val.
nag wheels,i valued at$0. June 14.Company repreoontatves said reported receiving closed-account 3
Card America, 2108 Eden Prairie the loss occurred over the past several checks from Dixon. .
Center,reported being short-changed months due to fraudulent refunds.An ex- Cltaepersansuffcreda broken jaw inan a
on Thursday and described two suspects. employee is suspected. assault June 10 at70'7 Woodland Dr.The .
One had blonde,shoulder-length hair,. Ricky If eupei reported the theft of a victim said he had asked the suspect to
was approximately 5'6", 140 pounds, Sanyo stereo and two speakers from a leave a party around 1 a.m. t
with stocky build and a left arm am- car parked at 6735 Canterbury Dr.on An"interfering with privacy"incident I
putated at the elbow.The other had dark .June 17.The loss was 5 0. took place at 14020 Chestnut Dr.on June
brown hair,was 5'6"and 140pounds with A 1984 Honda Accord was reported 18.A young man was found looking in the
a stocky build. stolen from 6944 Neill Lake 11d.on June window of an apartment around 11:30 1
The Limited Store,1292 Eden Prairie 17.Victim Thomas Christensen said tinp.m.A female had been on the couchwat•
Center, also reported being short- keys were in the glove box.The car was chuag TV.
changed$39 on Thursday.The suspects recovered later, but missing from the (police to Eden Prairie received 569
fit the description offered by Card trunk was a Sony Walkman radio worth calls for service last week.Incidents In- •d
America. $100. eluded two domestics and one harrassing
A 10-year-old Eden Prairie male was Stolen from a Chevrolet van located at phone call.Palace made eight DWI ar
arrested Friday at Snyders drug store, 14239 Valley View Rd.on Jw:e 18 was a rests Two of those arrested for DWI are
W.iiwh St.,for allegedly shoplifting Sanyo cassette deck,a firaco equalizer Eden Prairie residents.) ,
three •
packages of batteries valued at and two speakers.Victim Edward Ebert
PR. placed the loss at 6200.•
The Joe Miller Construction Co. A 14-year-old Eden Prairie male was :I
reported the theftof one 24-footaltmlinim apprehended for taking a cap gun worth
scaffold plank and two pump tacks, $2.97 from Toys Plus store in Eden
•
together valued at5500,on June 19.The Prairie Center,lune10.That same day,a
scaffold plank was later recovered. 14-year-old male from Eden Prairie was-
The J.P.Hibbard Painting contra apprehended for takntg raps and a cap
tors,Farmington,retorted the theft of gun valued at 53.57 from Target.
two aluminum extension ladders worth A purse and credit cards belonging to
•
$259 frsm a con,?nictron site at County
Road 1 and Franfo!toad June 19.One of 1
the ladders was recovered.
Anthony D',toy reported the theft of a •
red and blue duffle big containing a
leather jacket, a Canon camera and
clothing on Thursday.The property, •
valued at f't5,was taken irons a vehicle
al G401 Kinrtslom Dr.
A 24-year•old Eden Praire resident is
a SUnIw't in tfi.^,t'.;:'lt of a wetdin?torch
kit from Wim'stope Apartment...1lie
theft was reported May 15; an !
anonymous tip ie.1 to the is sauce of a
search warrant for an apartment at .
Windstl,e June 4.The welding kit was
recover d.
A f cell;e j;avrnele from C7ei ka w:a.;:ir •
-
re.,trd Lc ..::in arrest foih„vrnif the
alleged ,,ha,aiIftu:g of ct.aahm:; north
$11.47 p1 Jun, la at Sit:ua,k;51 Flying
Claud Dr.
Petty li.tit reported the theft of tn0
hidx•.ips wecth 1.10 June 14 or to at 711I0
Eden(1.
Guy Speaker i',t., 14J90 Martin Dr.,
repi t,d:a rl,rt,.n.foae Iit at ti,e,ante
edits.T.d.on wa-,ao orani;e,two-tun `n )
flour jack valued;it S f rY! r C,1 Oa
'1 �} Perry Mude,Chaska,reported the is
PoLYYv vr,:crt• • theft of a radar detector a graphic DAMAGE TOYt1O.ERTY
,H ai,,,=,,arw_a-s.+.rQ,remcca7y exlualizer Brun his car packed at Eden Akeywasuse td t13 00o 'Valltch ey View wl Itd.
Prairie Center on May 29.The loss was vehicle parked
5180. between May 18 and 22.Damage to the
THEFTS Earl Greaves,59,of Minneapolis,was vehicle, which belonged to Lynda
Four Juveniles were arrested last week arrested by a miler+un May'20 at Target• Mielke,tot iced 5100.
by security at Powers department store fur allegedly shoplifting:n rdculator A hit•;md•rwi ca property 500` ��`, oa
at Eden Prairie Center.Felice in lsi.en valued at$13. denloiiMOy22 •
•
Prairie said the four were allegedly in- A Alurraybrand IJMX bicycle valued vehicle belonituigtoJutu+Dixon.'th eac
volved in an internal theft involving at$:5O was taken from behind Central cident occurred on Grandview Drive.
more than b1.yJ in nierclutulic.'Die •
Middle School on May 30. Charles Damage was$50 when a window was
•
juveniles are all 17 and females from Dustman parked the bike there and broken at W'uaLslupe Aparttuents May 24
• Eden Prairie.Most of the elolwy;was discovered it miusuu;when he returned al approxuruudy 3:15 a.mi.'[lie damage
• recovered but could not be resold several hours later was reported by Mary Stafford.
because it had bees worn.The four were Michael Cabot also reported the theft Atherton Townhouses,8300 Mitchell
referred to juvenile court of a$250 Murray BMX bike at Ce7ntral Rd.,reported$150 damage to three eleC-
An Escort-brand radar detector was Middle School on May 7). tric yard lights following a tar a parttyely
reported stolen from:m auto blot uig to The loftofa1977ToyotaCorolla,Alin- the complex on May 25atapp
John Stilwell of Bloomington on May 2t. nesota license No. BQY370,took place 2:15 a.m.
Also taken from the vehicle,which was •
•
May 31 at the Eden Prairie Center park- Debra Ruseher,of 11255 Westwind,
• parked at Eden Prairie Center,was an ing lot The victim.Donald llayden,of discovered that her car's windshield was
eight-track-tape storage box containing •
Bloomint,'ton.saidheparkedthecarnear broken on May26.Thecosttorepairwas
six tapes.The loss was b495. Powers.When he returned,the vehicle estimated at$200.
A new baby stroller belonging to Mary was gone.It was hater recovered in an The roof vent and duct piping at Forest
Recke was taken from a garage in the •
Eden Prairie driveway. Hills Elementary School was damaged
7300 block of bagpipe Boulevard •
On May31atapproxunatety8:30p.m., between May24and23.Thelosswas$50.
sometime before May 21.The too was Green Streets restaurant employee Persons would have had to climb onto the
$te• Elizabeth Black suffered the loss of roof rido he d matron Co.reported that
e.
Sean Pieropan repotted the loss of a $3I7 19 in cash taken from her purse
Toshiba personal stereo within the Last uOraximately$700in cash andchecks_ someone entered a home under construe-
lion at 1816t Maple Leaf Dr.on May 22 or
two months alum Eden 50Prairic High 11375 23 and cut numerous electrical wires in School.Ill is valued at$I2.0. was taken from a apartmentgingt at ndra •
Two lounge chairs and a table with a lVeshvind Dr. belonging to Sandra the home.Damage was$350.That pro-
glass center were stolen from time patio of Dwvers on May 31. perty was damaged again on May 28 bet-
Wayne boner at 11518 Carriage Ct.prior The Walden book store at Eden Prairie wean midnight and 8 a.m.In addition to
to 2 a.m.on May 2-1.The loss was$135. last approximately ii,20 to a short-change electrical wires being cut,initials were
A Kenwood stereo worth$180 was artist on May31.Thelassoccurredwhile scratched in woodwork.Police said the
reported stolen from a vehicle belonging the suspect was purchasing a book for initials"L.O.C.A."and"A.S.T.A."stand
to Debbie Starr at 13710 Valley View Rd. $1.06. for League Of Creative Anarchism and
on May 24• The vehicle was in the A 1978 Suzuki motorcycle was stolen Anarchy Student Terrorist Alliance. .
underground garage, from 7310 Franklin Circle on May 27.The Total damage was$1,600. 6,
At the same address and time, a victim, William Lliafee,estimated its Two damage incidents were reported I
factory-installed radio worth$1,[a0 was value at $1,500. The vehicle was at Fairview Receiving Center on Valley •1,
taken from a vehicle belonging to recovered the next day,parked down the View Road Nlay 23 and May 30.1n one,a
Thomas Del'etra. There was also street. 17-year-old male front Minneapolis :t
damage to the dashboard. On May 28,a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice damaged a window and window blinds;
Property valued at S1!175 was stolen automobile was stolen from a parking lot damage totaled$110. In the other. 11
from a It 4iJagua b:•Ion;:ua;toJett l•dny at 11325 Weiawind Dr.Tee complainant, Michael Anderson,a 27-year-old front
on May 75 at Olympic Itii;s Gulf Club. Joseph'liners,said the vehicle was Minneapolis,allegedly threw an elec.
Taken after a passmi;,'r window was valued at $1,500. The car was later tronic then omenter at one of the staff.
brd;en were a radar debietur,Cullclubs, recovered by St. Paid police, who ar- Damage was$275.The staff member was
golf shoes, a two-piece suit and rested a suspect. not hurt.
miscellaneous item:. Three male Al2-yearoldutle front Edina was ar- A 1984 Mitsubishi belonging to En }f
juveniles suspected,nf pmoadie;vehicles rested for allot:idly::huplr:tm„a$12 set Roca received$ 10 damage May 31 it
In Iturnsvihe wen e lah•r err-,led by of hradlttiones it i arget on May 29, A 13715J Valley View ltd.Someone scratch-
police in that city,:m,l Lilly's radar 13-year-okl Edina ut:rile nas arnrsted the, eil the vehicle's paint. •
detr ..f.
e•'rr hasrero,�•n•d.The irver:up:a- ,Nne ally fur t,llee:c,ily siir,;i;rtbu a set A tire irrnr,V.-as app•irently used to
thin is co .i i;iin(.All Varee.)uceniles are of heeelphoine:s also win th'1P break windows in 12 cars located at
from l ernssnie. . Stolen front a V,ll.::matten at 17185 Cnunlryside Auto 1'art::Is•twoen M:iy dl y
>' Valley View ltd of M.n',tl v. r e r h:uige and D m age totaled i,fm0
loon Ore;;ne, r )1 ,a V n •View
Rd r,•poeitd1 the th if nir;,- a e n r+anti,i paw of an r hisses The Two large soccer nets la'lon.png to the
,.
brand is's etc, tat-,;'later;:ed r alia oil teal il losn was GO.The car belongs to Eden Prairie kucer V::o,•iatum were
• mac!!-1 e::;i i } .'r cvh.5 ,i-`"t n) 1:ai;iiti'$m:tf. • damaged between May 22 and 29.•Ih•
the a+.+i i'+nuu.t -r:ux. d I na:cane Wili,:iin Ito'.:rr{xirted that his wallet '
Apal%nn•as.The:.Irmo oafs stolen,nil'' rani:,:niait f-i inc:nh anal credit cards
brf:,rc;ei,i 1 ,•u,,;ed by:;t.lams t'vk was taicenfrovitu•ur>nk:,nrc;it i..;iAlit-
i on,:e.'rho 1-es,,:n•.5175. Atoll Rd.\lay P.or 23.
1):In,, \ti,t:t at lli,• N.ime a11,1rc.s.s $,
retie,:i,d the list el a stereo rsJie,from ,f
h: e lii ,,i,it u,•d.1 Tt,ie wa.,
al• -ur,:e to t '.�:bt ,nl The his il•
ie s pat at Cl Sari
CIIA1'l'tU 11
LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)
SECTION 11.01. OBJECTIVES. This Chapter is adopted to
protect and to promote the public health, safety, peace, cony
fort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare, and speci- p '
fically to achieve the following objectives: (I) to assist in
the implementation of the City Comprehensive Guide Plan as •
amended; (2) to foster a harmonious, convenient workable rela-
tionship among land uses; (3! to promote the stability of •
existing land uses that conform with the Guide Plan and to
protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intru-
sions; (4) to insure that public and private lands ultimately 1
arc used for the purposes which are most appropriate and most 1 t-• - '- -
beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole; (S) to •
prevent excessive population densities and over-crowding of
the land with structures; (6) to promote a safe, effective
traffic circulation system; (7) to foster the provision of ,
adequate off-street parking and off-street truck-loading fact- 'p
lities; (81 to facilitate the appropriate location of com-
f munity facilities and institutions; (9) to provide human and
i physical resources of sufficient quantity and quality to sus-
tain needed public services and facilities; (101 to protect
and enhance real property values; and, (11) to safeguard and
enhance the appearance of the City, including natural ameni-
ties of hills, woods, lakes, and ponds. ! —
• SEC. 11.02. DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this :•• '..?
Chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings stated:
1. "Accessory Building" - A detached structure •
which is located on the same lot as the main building and the •
use of which is clearly incidental to the use of the main -
building.
•
2. 'Accessory Use" - A subordinate use which is
clearly and customarily incidental to the principal use of a i
building or premises and which is located on the same lot as
the principal building or lot. '
3. "Agriculture" - The cultivation of the soil and -
all activities incident thereto, except that said term shall - . •
not. include the raising and feeding of hogs, sheep, goats,
cattle, poultry and fur-bearing animals and shall not include r
riding academies, commercial stables or kennels.
•
4. "Buffer" - The use of land, topography (differ •
-
ence in elevation), space, fences or landscape plant ins to s .r.
screen or partially screen a tract or property from another
i tract or property and thus reduce undesirable influences such
Li (9-17-d2)
282
•
It
•
•
_ •
• t(Yn
1
•
5 11.60
Subor Public hearing.
A public hearing on an
• a
application Co[ a PUD shall be held before both the Planning -
l. A notice of the time, place and 1.::.evx._ '""�`�""'
Commission o and the heCouaring
ishall be published in t
prior to the day of the hearing.
purpose of each ;' ...;:....'. :: ..'::••,..ir..
• newspaper at least ten days shall be ,
Changes in district boundaries notice shall affecting when a at l rfivvevacrees or less, A similar ... _-.
an area ten days before the day of the hearing to each
mailed least ro erty and property situated wholly or
property to which the
e P D ren
p
owner of affected property mailed notice,
laresy within the feet of tgivinga appropriate •
rases. For purpose the 9 use any app p
responsible fore mailing
notice may of owners.' A
addresses to
of the owners and addresses
records to determine the names and bythe [espon- •
•
ropy of thehe noticecce and a list ._
which was sent shall be attested h0o rcords of the
Broce Person and shall be made a p
proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual
property owners,
or defects in the notice shall too comply invalidate
wite
the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt
this Subdivision has been made. not be acted
A. An application for a PUO may
Commission or until 60 days have elapsed from
upon by the Council until it has received the recommendation
ofh the Planning red Commission.
•
D. In the event land within a POD is or will
. � the date of referral to the Planning such subdivision put-
s subdivision
of, k,..•..".• ••....••••,•"arraurrrsr.,..:.
be suant to, ord arnycwaiverlor modifiication of any
with such
C
to, be approved only upon come 12. ` :' ';
additiornal
12 rmoy
additional procedures as are set forth in Chapter ' ti--.•. •' ."-:..,.,..^.'"��.�^
Subd. 11. Findings Required.
The findings neces- r•
sary for approval of a PUO shall be as follows: •
A. The proposed development is not in conflict
ty.
B. The proposed development is designed in
pith the goals of the Guide Plan of the ihnified environment
such a manner to form a desirable rot � ...� ._ —W � ••-
within its own bounniyrexceptions to the standard requirements
C.and Chapter 12 of this Code are justified by
of Chapter composition.
the Gdesign of the D. developmens• sufficient size, ,.
D. The POD is of and opera-
tionhout dependence upon
and arrangement that its complete r
lion is feasible as
any subsequent unit.
Subd. 12. Revisions and Amendments.
Minor changes in the location, placement
A. as well as other matters
or stn�ccure°° agreement, except as
set forthht of h development ment plan, or any 7
Cc[ in the de�c P i LW 0-17-621
•
317 `/
•
•
CORPORATE RELOCATION DIVISION OF ELLIOTT REALTY
May 20, 1985
Ronald and Leslie Ezerski
13192 Cardinal Creek Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Ezerski:
To begin with, I apologize for the tardiness of this
correspondence. I have been acutely aware of the ongoing
fight that the homeowners of Cardinal Creek have lodged
against the proposed development of multifamily housing
which would be located adjacent to your neighborhood.
I do agree with the position that you. have taken. In my
professional opinion, any multifamily construction that
would be constructed on the proposed site in question would
have a severe negative impact on the market value of the
single family detached housing of Cardinal Creek. I would
like to site a couple of classic examples:
As you enter the Olympic Hills area of Eden Prairie on Mount
Curve Road from Franlo Road, you will drive by some attached
housing. As a Realtor, I show many homes in this area without
exception the person(s) I am assisting with their homesearch
will make mention of the attached housing and in most cases
discard this neighborhood due to that fact.
Another neighborhood which is located in Bloomington, named
Normandale Hills which was constructed between 1969 and 1972
enjoyed beautiful views in all directions. In 1974-1975 the
residents were informed that there were two proposed projects
under consideration. An apartment comples (Tarn Hill) on the
corner of West 102nd Street and Normandale Blvd. and also a
shopping center (Lohmann's Plaza) on the corner of West 98th
Street and Normandale Blvd.
L. _.._A L'_ Is/ 6
51:5\LS T ?8 i H STREET.FI .1'•I=TON.M'fi N;"OiA 55437 619/831 8010
THE THINK OF EVERYTHING PEOPLE
•
CORPORATE RELOCATION DIVISION OF ELLIOTT:PEALTY
0
Page 2
•
• The residents of Normandale Highlands fought both proposals
to no avail. Homeowners on two sides of this nice neighborhood
have suffered because of neglect on the part of two different
cities (Bloomington and Eden Prairie) , in my professional
opinion. •
•
• Market times (length of time to sell) in both locales has
been measured in months/years rather than days. While Olympic
Hills is "upper-bracket" residences, Normandale Hills is "mid-
bracket" homes ($85,000 to $135,000) . Anytime a city does not
protect its' residences and places a dramatically different
type of housing/commercial property in eyesight or visually
apparent to that subject neighborhood, it will result in
damage.
I realize that these statements are not inviting, but they are
my professional opinion. My credentials include:
*Real Estate Salesperson 1968-1971
*Real Estate Broker 1971-Present
*Professional Witness (Hennepin County)
Sincerely,
Gary D. Elliott
• - President
Elliott Realty, Inc.
•
' „, \
•
•
r,.� MIN r
5I't3\`dL`�1 c,8TH 5ii�_�T.Ei��`�-�1���=:,�-i�l.���� ^:L :C�l,�1 S.�,a37 612/831 8010
THE THINK OF EV I THING PEOPLE
rrrltrrrr,i�
i NDIZUS 17809 HUTCHINS DItIVE,MINNETONKA,MINNESOTA 55343, PHONE 1512)474.5291
ly7,.=r_
REALTORS
c •
i July 11, 1985
i
Cardinal Creek Home Owners Association
Eden Prairie, MI. 55344
k
I:
Dear Sir,
May I go on record on backing your efforts of preventing the
erection of 249 unit apartment complex with in view of Cardinal
1 Creek Single family developement.
1
C' As a Realtor and appraiser, I am convinced the apartment complex
I would have a very negative effect on the value of existing homes
and those now under construction.
il
1 Cardinal Creek is the finest in Eden Prairie and it should not
be jeopardized by income producing property and the increased
traffic that is generated.
F Thank You,
t,
!• cer y,
I Qtiwf
I /
erry Wdn arks •
•
it
qq
•
7 RF AL I STATE' IN TI11:I AKl MINN'TD:JKA AND WEST cUllURCAN AREA
HESIOLNTIAL • COMMERCIAL • APPAAISALS • LAND DEVLLDI't NT
)
) .-_-_-_-, • - •.,,, -7,-•••••• ,.4.7:r!'..A.,.1'.,....',.....!
1 t. . r.,•2 IT..,..;g 4u; 2,L, %,,,Ati
k.
ej u) —9,.E •:2 i'. I : . . ,
, ,...,_ S E 42.1--'4 r,, ti z. ,••:',
% • ,.... ,,;.• .2- t-... -2 k:--...:;,,t
,,v...0,---„ ,.. ,_,,..:...._: .,.:• .,,,,;1-_;•• .,„, ,
)
.:
) i.,.. ft- '- --7....ii--: _,,,...,-
z,;,:..-y-, ...
.. _.:-.A, 'k-,:::,-:• •' - - ' •..• :4-'^e,;-••.,••-'
k
...,..C,....t'7"1"-ote 0 t 44 - -E.:
IC' am ' —2 7 g 2 'g'cr-• '
:..,C___ ,-0.1P.p,.. . c,...,—.... ,, •R,„,.. .,
;.„ .., ,,pogyi ...--a„=›..,-•e- • '., Q... •
i. -,-„,.. ••-iv ,,in-E-ii- -:--.5,s',.•••-.:g.-- '-
°.,-.? i
i FI
`i-1,- :z7," .c....•!,1 e A.c3:.„'". fl,"0E3-:.
0 5 i"..,:.1.:,..£3 i I 1 ifi f':::::-. -..` ..:t*2' ..:7::..,:q!...j?..4,.....ga..-:-:::t--4. X,t...,...i,;.7,„........,,11.
< ..4..":.-1 ,`"7.0i.-'.--•,'%.7.,.... 1, i-.-;„, ,_,-.10,,... ,
•
* 0,.. crs,,r.,
-',.-..z..., .
)
-- ,- 7; i•i--:.9.-, : , r...--.1-'4,
. .:..?..,
7.
,.. , 4 i - ,,,,-----,,,(--•,-,_ ----,_.-1..:1 c• ' , ,,-.,-", •
,-,-
-
. -..•...I,
,.,
. . 1
.:-
— - :,.a.- ..,•,-- ',,i,..--_-:-; ,.......
.,,,,,--
.,, ..-,.; ..... ::'t!,,,-:- , - ,.....,„!., -,•-• ,- • E
o1.' ' '.' ‘...1 - : ...j ...j.z.,,,:. '-".. .t..,.! ... , , ....,...,.E:r .6..‘--. -'''. a ,
, %,.., •. - i7, 2.1,...,_; ";-..,1_,'c•:'''.,.-=';',.• „ ,..7., '? ,-_-".,-•,","N 1:/.v2.2-''',./.. :r-•'.l'..E s 2.L IV-`2
t , t.. L .-,.-.. ,..L.,;; ..,....r •LIE.:.t.,,,, ..,"-- ._ t.,:- .77:74'24s=8
‘,...,.. - - ., ....1., -..... 1 ..t...7.: 44.51 7. . I'.r.:••...:.'.' ill=....J..' .
' • 1... ' • ,,,, .L......-_,'..
, - •% -r.._ ..,. . a ni.
) , .
f . .,
....., Z1-..<
, --.! s--- . ..- .:c ".!./••,' 1 ...<,,''.- • .7.1.
-,c-t.,.-_•t-•c..• .t:" tr,'-',;^
-l _ ,. : ! ',.': ' n:-.";..st t ,..t.,. : ''-' '''-• „tt...,,,,,",-;,`!...i ''''.....7tt.'t,',...;;.' t. "',.-
0,,....C.,4,..,.... .!.- --.:,-,..i.r,..-...
,, :"` 1.,,!:a ,.!! r .*.-Z LI:,.: 1.,...2.‘.1...,....t.-1,;.....,::.:- i...:I:::..,....e.rt J Z..,:.,0 CI U.:* Z...:..:-.4.•&ria,d-',..... '.
$ ........ , ... — __ ,
!
4 i
4
? ti:Ise)
This "Showcase" Site
The "Main Street" of Eden Prairie for 1,000s
of Twin Cities travelers each day is I-494.
This site is:
0 Our most visible multiunit development
'. o A high, rural hillside still left by 1-494,
overlooking Nine Mile Creek and Bryant Lake
o A yhotrcw^c for the architect and developer
O Not to "un'c ale" single family homes
(Cardinal Creek and West Bryant Lake)
0 A in`31,tr•r, st^.?.ement of how attractive
E(2. a is as a. place to live
•
IS hat; This Speeid? De,o Cub
o Retention of the site's current character
1
O Attractive townhouses, manor homes and
the like spread across the hillside
a Construction quality and architecture 1
at the upper end of the spectrum
0 Large units attractive as condominiums
a No massive buildings stacked one
above the other on the hillside
o Units per acre at the lower end
of the multiunit density range
I7 1
Appropriate Density
'With 28.2 acres, including roadways:
Total Units/
Units Acre Remarks
142 5.0 An "upscale" Density
184 6.5 St. John's Woods' Density
208 7.3 Present Council Resolution
249 8.8 Chimo Development's Request
This request c:ceeds the resolution by 20% !
This request el:ceeds 8.5 units/acre by
•
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Planning Commission i
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner v
THOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning 1
1
DATE: July 19, 1985
PROJECT: Cardinal Creek Village
LOCATION: East of Baker Road, West of I-494, North of Cardinal Creek Road
APPLICANT: Chimo Development Corporation {
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development (PUD} Concept approval for 249 units on
40.7 acres of land.
7,
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report of SeStaff Report of Decemberr7, 19844 1
1
1.: Y "S'.:'E?� _�PU ,Flee I 3
Background - PRK 4, .V q `'z
The Planning Commission has reviewed ` U �
several Concept Plan alternatives \.!• #
for the Cardinal Creek Village, , ..,,�'�., tE. '9 ; 4
beginning with a request for 350 t, I PROPOSE SITE,
units. A Planned Unit Development1 i. > •�1-?_2 �`�
Concept Plan was approved by the I
Planning Commission with a base of 't i,/- �23 ��
209 emits, and an upper limit of 280 -..�� PUBf� x<`ti• ,
units subject to meeting specific I }, 1. Ve.x A
performance criteria, such as: \F.p
1. Site plan must show sensi- `.. \�_� •�51� '*� �Qc
tivity to existing land forms and • -\ ai cq-.. ,'\l• '\
PUB --N -/ `i: . 7 \C4
vegetation. \`; \
2. There should be heavy use of /x -�� `
landscaping to decrease the scale of � ,�1 } ,, •.0 .•
` ,
the buildings. Ll' 77 ,y 1 )�b:i •`t'v� ?
3. The primary building ma- -��.., , rc;.,F,_ . i , ��
• 1
ter ial should he brick and the !i� `^1 i
building should be residential in �\'` ' ii it' �17" ..A.', ,�.\c(
. character with pitched roofs. �\,y ! / • p
�..,r.,\ -i?-
•
4. The mass of the apartment Li_ 1 V __
buildings should be reduced by .- ---,i ^� irk)-
4 \I I Al
---111 111
either reducing the size of the 4: in_a 111Lr++
-s.D p. .,.•+r.� Y 4i t L t
L Y 0 �4.
Cardinal Creek Village 2 July 19, 1985 4`
X
individual buildings or provision of a very specific architectural treatment to
decrease the mass, or a combination of a number of similar factors. ;t
0n January 8, 1985, the City Council approved a Concept for this site, with a
different range using 190 units as the base, and 209 units as the upper limit, A
subject to the above criteria as recommended by the Planning Commission. 4
On May 21, 1985, the proponents asked the City Council to reconsider a revised I
Concept Plan with a maximum of 249 units. Council action was to refer the revised
Concept Plan back to the Planning Comnission for consideration of a range of 209 to 3
249 units. )
. i
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Revisions 1
In addition to the reduction in the overall number of units at the upper end of the
range from 280 to 249, there are specific areas in the Planned Unit Development
Concept Plan which should be examined in more detail. The original Concept Plan i
proposed five development areas. The current Concept Plan retains the same areas; ;.
however, the number of units in each of these areas has changed. '#
Area 10-26-84 Plan Revised Plan +/- i
1A 12 units 18 units + 6 . 'i
18 30 units 36 units + 6 }
1C 102 units 51 units - 51
2A 6 units 6 units 0
28 14 units 14 units 0
3 36 units 45 units + 9
4 4 units 4 units 0
5A 76 units 16 units - 1
58_ 59 units _
Total 280 units 249 units -32
The above chart indicates that the most significant change is in the center portion dd
of the site, Areas 1A, 1B, and 1C, in which the overall number of units dropped by 3
39. In Area 1C, two, three-story apartment buildings (42 and 60-unit) have been 'i
replaced by seven smaller, two and three-story walkups, totaling 51 units. In Areas t
1A and 18, one, two and three-story walkups have been added, increasing total units i
by 12. j
Although the size of buildings are smaller, and the total number of units is less, •
the project is still massive-looking architecturally, because of the increase in
number of buildings with a corresponding decrease in large open areas. The revised
• plan appears to be more cluttered than the original plan. In addition, the revised
Concept Plan (Areas IA, IR, and 1C) has a cluttered curb appearance, consisting •
primarily of garage fronts and parking spaces abutting the private roadway, with
( minimal open space in between. Areas 1A, 18, and 1f, would benefit from a loosening
up of the site plan to provide more open area for heavy landscaping and "breathing
room" to help break up building mass.
Tho Concept Plan proposes two large apartment' buildings; a 59-unit building in Area •
•
Cardinal Creek Village 3 July 19, 1985
( 5 and a 45-unit building in Area 3. These two buildings appear to be out of scale
visually with the remainder of the buildings and would benefit from a reduction in
size, or special architectural treatment designed to decrease mass.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
A drawback of the Concept Plan review is that there are often some proposals which
require significantly more detail in order to justify the higher densities on a site
specific basis. In other words, the details of the project become the merits by
which we judge the project successfull, or not, on a performance review basis. The
issue of density on the project centers around the sensitivity •to the site, and the
massiveness of the buildings. Even though buildings are smaller, the increase in
number of units, creates a tight site plan with smaller open areas, and
collectively, the view of the units appears to be as massive as the original
proposal. The tightness of the site plan also creates a cluttered curb appearance,
since parking areas and garages directly abut the private roadway with minimal open
areas in between.
Since the developer, at this point, is not in the position to be more specific about
the final architectural form of the project and detailed grading plans and
landscaping plans, Staff would recornnend that the Planning Commission entertain a
range of units from 209 to 249, with the bottom end of the range being the base and
any parcels coming back in for specific zoning approval having to meet specific i
performance criteria, including, but not limited to, the following:
1. A "loosening up" of the site plan in the central portion of the site to
provide larger open space areas.
2. A change in the site plan, which provides a more attractive and less
cluttered curb appeal in the central portion of the site.
3. Heavy use of landscaping and berming to decrease the overall massive
appearance of the project.
4. Individual site plans must show sensitivity to existing land forms and
vegetation.
5. Primary building materials of the building should be facebrick and the
buildings should be residential in character, with pitched roofs. In order
to provide continuity, building materials and colors should be in a
comparable color and style.
6. For the two large apartment buildings proposed in Areas 3 and 5, size of the
individual buildings should be reduced, or a very specific architectural
treatment designed to decrease the mass or a combination of a number of
these factors.
'f?Jc
i
STAFF REPORT
r
TO: Planning Commission lE
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner .
THROUGH; Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: December 7, 1984
•
PROJECT: Cardinal Creek Village
• E
iiN
APPLICANT/ '
EE JER: Chimp Development Corporation 4'
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept stage approval for 350
multiple family units on 40.7 acres.
2. Review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
I
Background I
This is a continued item from the
September 10, and November 13, 1984,
Planning Commission meetings. At
those meetings, a number of issues
were identified by Staff, the j
Planning Commission, and the neigh- I
borhood, which included density,
transition, grading, architecture, }
access, traffic, and neighborhood
connections.
Revised Site Plan/Density
The proponents have submitted a 4
revised site plan for 280 units on i
40.7 acres of land at a gross
density of 6.35 units per acre.
This compares with the original site 1
plan at 350 units at a gross density
of 8.6 units per acre. The density
of the revised site plan, based on
28 acres of develupahie land, is ten
units per acre. The original site
plan had a net density of 12.57
units per acre. The gross density
• of 6.8 units per acre compares with
density allowed under 18,l-6.5 zoning,
of 6.7 units per acre.
The reduction in units from 350 to
/ ; .
•
Cardinal Creek Village 2 December 7, 198444
280 includes some reduction in the high density and medium density housing areas.
The area south of new Cardinal Creek Road, adjacent to existing Cardinal Creek, was
originally envisioned for 64 townhome units at a net density of 9.2 units per acre.
The revised site plan now indicates 24 duplex units at a net density of 4.3 dwelling
units per acre. The land area, north of Cardinal Creek Road, was originally planned
for 286 high density units at an overall density of approximately 13 units per acre.
The revised site plan has a mixture of medium and high density multiple family
units, totalling 256 units at a net density of 12.43 units per acre. The density in ••!
this area, ranges from 5.8 to 17.9 units per acre. The areas planned at densities
of 17.5 and 17.9 du/acre are above the Code maximum for RM-2.5 zoning at 17.4 units
•
per acre.
Transition
The revised site plan indicates a reduction of 40 units in areas adjacent to
existing Cardinal Creek, and allows for more open space in consolidated areas. The
duplex units are also smaller architecturally than the six-unit attached buildings
originally proposed.
u
Grading
The Staff Report of September 7, 1984, indicated that there was a considerable
amount of cut in the central portion of the site. The ccutffwas shonecessaryt to
accommodate the proponents original plan. At that time,
different plan, which did not require as much level land area, might better utilize
this portion of the site, and reduction in the overall density would allow for more a
r
of the existing site features to be retained.
The grading plan has been modified to provide for two building areas; an upper and a
lower area. The lower area would have access off new Cardinal Creek Road, and the
upper level would have access off a road which will eventually connect to the
property to the north. The two-tiered arrangement of huildings on-site allows for
less grading to occur. In general, the amount of cut has been reduced to
approximately 25 feet on the average as opposed to approximately 40 feet under the
ai
original submittal.
ArchitectureV.
Three distinct building types, with varying architectural mass, are shown and are
proposed to he architecturally integrated by the use of common building materials li
such as wood, stucco, and brick. The architecture for the multiple family units
remains the same and will he primarily three-story buildings, with double loaded
corridors, underground parking, and elevators. The other building type will be a
duplex unit.
• The architectural sketches submitted depict steep rooflines, varied roof heights and
staggered facades. The use of the duplex units, adjacent to existing housing in
Cardinal Creek to the south of the project, could help provide an architectural
( transition. Buildings to the north of the new Cardinal Creek Road still appear
massive. The plan indicates more open space and grade separation than the original
stantial
hermindirand mass
r break up plantingts tofrlarge trees may helpincluding
view of building
mass as well.
1 •) /
•
Cardinal Creek Village •
3 December 7, 1984
Access
The revised concept plan proposes the construction of new Cardinal Creek Road from
Baker Road to Cardinal Creek Road in the southeast corner of the site. The road is
•
proposed to be constructed with 60 feet of right-of-way with a 32-foot road surface.
A bikeway and sidewalk will be constructed along either side of the road. The
.access road to the north, which will provide an ultimate connection point to
•
adjacent property, has been changed. Rather than running the entire length of the
powerline easement and connecting into new Cardinal Creek Road near proposed
building site three, the road connection to the north occurs just to the west of
proposed Phase I. This allows for less roadway to be constructed and less grading 3
. work to occur.
The proposed road extension to the north property line is at 7.5 per cent. City
Code would allow a maximum street grade of 8.0 per cent.
The proponent is in the process of negotiating a 100 per cent petition for local
improvements. If the petition cannot be obtained, the proponent may request the
City to acquire right-of-way by condemnation.
• Traffic
The construction of new Cardinal Creek Road is necessary to accommodate the amount
of new traffic expected to be generated, and to provide for appropriate emergency
vehicle access by the connection to existing Cardinal Creek Road. Construction of
the proposed residential street to the north may only be necessary to provide
additional access to the parking areas for Phase I. The balance of the road could
be completed concurrent with Phase V. Since the proponent's phasing plan envisions
the construction of Phase I in the central portion of the project, perhaps new
Cardinal Creek Road may need to be extended to serve the first site at this time
with construction of the remainder of new Cardinal Creek Road within a two-year time
•
period. .
The initial traffic study provided by the proponent indicated that for a project of
•
350 units, 2,0E10 vehicle trips would be generated daily. The study represented •
approximately two-thirds of the traffic north-bound on Baker Road to 1-494. The
remainder of the traffic would be attracted in a southerly direction towards Valley •
View Road.
Baker Road is classified as a minor arterial by the City. It currently carries
3,000 vehicles per day and it is projected to carry a volume of 7,000 trips per day
in the year 2000. The current capacity of Baker Road is 7,500 to 10,000 trips per ..
day, and is scheduled for upgrading into four lanes in 1987. The upgrading of Baker `f
Road will include cone realinnemnt allowing for a design speed of 40 miles per hour •
and an ultimate capacity of 17,500 vehicle trips per day.
• The proponents have submitted an updated traffic study for Cardinal Creek Village, 4
dated Pecemher 4, 1984, from ",enshoof and Associates. The attached muNnorandum
•
indicate; that, based upon 280 units, there would be 1,800 vehicle trips per day. A
•
traffic study eras conducted at the intersection of Baker Road and existing Cardinal
Crock Road at the p.m. p,'ok to determine the direction of trips. 52 per cent of all
trips, use Baker Cod to and from the north, while Oil per cent travel Raker Road to
and fain the south. The report indicates that. with the completion of Highway 4,2,
the amount of traffic going north would increase by about thirteen per cent, which
•
Cardinal Creek Village 4 December 7, 1984
would be consistent with the 65/35 per cent directional distribution presented in
the original report and the updated report of November 8, 1984.
•
The study also indicates travel times and distances from this site following a route •
from Cardinal Creek Road, south on Baker, to Valley View Road, to Plaza Drive, Trunk •
.Highway #5, to I-494 east-bound, and a return route exactly the opposite. A second
route was also studied, proceeding north-bound on Baker Road from a location of the
proposed northerly access of new Cardinal Creek Road, to County Road #67, to I-494
south-bound, to the same point on I-494 as the first route. The return segment was
the exact opposite of this route. The study indicates that the first route was
approximately two-tenths of a mile longer and required approximately 2-1/2 minutes
. longer to travel than the northerly route. Their conclusions are that the northerly
route along Baker Road, to County Road #67, to 1-494, would be the preferred route.
•
The study also talks about volumes on existing Cardinal Creek Road. Current vehicle
projections were for 710 trips per day. With the looping of new Cardinal Creek
Road, the amount of vehicles generated on existing Cardinal Creek Road, would be 645
vehicles per day with a 65/35 per cent directional distribution, and 705 vehicles •
per day with a 55/45 per cent directional distribution. •
Staff has received a letter from the Cardinal Creek Home Owners Association in
response to the proponent's traffic study. The letter has been given to the •
proponents, and they were asked for a response to be prepared for the Planning
Commission meeting.
Neighborhood Connections •
New Cardinal Creek Road is proposed to be connected to existing Cardinal Creek Road,
in the southeast corner of the site. Since residents have expressed a concern about
an increase in traffic, one alternative would be to create a stop condition at a "T"
•
intersection to discourage through traffic.
•
Conclusions
One of the drawbacks of the Planned Unit Development Concept stage review is that
there are some proposals which require significantly more detail to justify higher
densities on a site specific basis. Aside from the issue of traffic, the issue of
density on this project centers around the sensitivity to the site, and the
massiveness of the buildings. Since the total possible density range on this
property varies so widely, depending upon the degree of density transfer, if any,
and the interpretation of the graphic depiction of the Comprehensive Guide Plan,
Staff does not believe it is possible to justify either an increase, or a decrease, ;.
in density without a complete evaluation of the impact of particular plan on site. 4
A liberal way of interpreting the Comprehensive Guide Plan would he to attribute ten
units per acre maximum allowed in the Medium Censity Residential areas on the _$,
' Comprehensive Guide Plan over the entire 40-acre parcel to reach a total unit count 1
of 400. The proponent originally applied to 350 units and the Planning Commission ![
indicated that. it was not. an acceptable number of units on the site. The proponent
has changed the site plan and reduced the total number of units to 280, which would
correspond to ?R acres at ten units per acre. This would be consistent with the
top end of the range of the Comprehensive Guide Plan taking a liberal interpretation
of the development area in allowing no density transfer credit. 280 units would
also appianheataly correspond to zoning the. entire 40-acre piece to the Rbl-6.5
designation.
Y
Cardinal Creek Village 5 December 7, 1984
Some members of the Planning Commission expressed concern that densities in the
. immediate neighborhood did not exceed 6.5 units per acre on a gross, or net, basis.
St. John's Woods is the example developed at approximately 6.5 units per acre
gross/net density. However, it is important to bear in mind that the Comprehensive
Guide Plan does specifically designate this area as Medium Density Residential,
which would allow a maximum density of ten units per acre on a net basis.
A conservative way of applying the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation to this site
would be to limit the zoning district, if possible, at the high end of the RM-6.5
district. Using 31 as a base figure for developable acreage outside of the flood
plain area, a total of 208 units would be possible using the RM-6.5 Zoning District.
Since, at this point, the developer is not at a stage to be more specific about the
final architectural form of the project, and since there may be significant concern
about allowing densities higher than the RM-6.5 District without these specifics,
one additional alternative available to the Planning Commission would be to
entertain the idea of approving a range of units perhaps from 208 to 280, with the
bottom end of the range being the base and any parcels coming back in for specific
zoning approval in the RM-2.5 category having to meet specific performance criteria
such as:
1. Site plan must show sensitivity to existing land forms and vegetation.
2. There should be heavy use of landscaping to decrease the scale of the
buildings.
3. The primary building material of the building should be brick, and the
building should be residential in character with pitched roof.
4. The mass of the apartment buildings should be reduced by either reducing the
size of individual buildings, or provide a very specific architectural
treatment to decrease the mass, or a combination of a number of similar
factors.
In other words, the Planning Commission may wish to entertain a range such that they
are comfortable with the low end of the range without more specifics and would
require much more specific information which would be reviewed on a merit basis in
order for the developer to justify higher densities on individual parcels.
StCdMARY
The Planning Commission may choose to recommend any of the following alternative
courses of action:
1. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend approval of the request for
Planned Unit Development Concept for 280 units on 40.7 acres of land based
upon plans dated November 3, t9b4, revised November 28, 1984, subject to the
Staff Reports, dated December 7, 1984, and September 7, 1934.
2. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend that the development plans
be returned to the proponent if the Commission feels that the issues of
density, transition, and traffic had nut been satisfactorily addressed and
would require additional information. •
1
•
•
Cardinal Creek Village 6 December 7, 1984
3. The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the request for Planned
Unit Development Concept based upon impacts including density, transition,
grading, access, and traffic.
•
•
ii
' i
STAFF REPORT •
TO: Planning Commission
•
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Engel', Director of Planning
DATE: September 7, 1984
PROJECT: Cardinal Creek Village •
APPLICRHT/ •
FEE 04rER: Chimo Development Corporation
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept stage approval for 350
multiple family on 40.7 acres. •
•
2. Review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
•
Background •
The Comprehensive Guide Plan ident-
ifies Medium Density Residential (up
to ten units per acre) and Public
•
Open Space land uses for this site.
The Guide Plan depicts surrounding
future land uses as predominantly •
Residential Medium to the north and
west of the site, I-494 to the east,
and Low Density single family
housing to the south, which consists
of the Cardinal Creek I and II. The •
site is currently zoned Rural.
Existing Site Char_ecteristics •
The site slopes in a north-south
direction, with en elevation change
of approximat:e1y 130 feet from a
high point of elevation 996 in the
northeast corner of the site, to .
elevation 860 adjacent to Nine-Nile •
Creek. the southern port ion of the
•
site is relatively level, indicative.
of a lore-land and flood plain area . •
. adjacent to Nino-"file Creek. The
upper and central portions of tine
site are qui te st- ep. The natural •
lay of the land suggests three
possible hui1,1ina aro,n : ono at the •
•
top of the hill, one central side
i
, n }
it ii�t- 1
•
Cardinal Creek Village 2 September 7, 1984
hill site, and a lower level site adjacent to the Nine-Mile Creek.
•
• Soil conditions vary considerably. The upper, level areas of the site consist
primarily of sand and clay, containing fine gravel with some small boulders, which •
is considered excellent for building and road construction. There are other areas
of the site near Nine-Mile Creek consisting of peat, muck, and organic material,
which will be excavated and replaced with fill material borrowed from higher Y
elevations.
The dominant vegetative type is grass land. There are pockets of deciduous trees
and shrubs, which consist of either dense upland oak species along the northeastern •
and northwestern boundaries, or as wooded swamp areas in the southeastern corner of
the site, which include primarily willow and cottonwood species.
The.cattail marsh in the southeast corner of the site is classified as a shallow
fresh marsh, and any alterations would require specific approval from the Department
of Natural Resources. No such alteration is proposed. The area along Nine-Mile
Creek and the adjacent wetland area are designated as flood plain areas. The •
elevation of the flood plain ranges from 861-868.
•
Nine Mile Creek is classified as a general development water, and provisions of the •
Shoreland Management Ordinance and the Flood Plain Ordinance will apply, which
include development guidelines for building elevations to be two feet above the
hundred-year flood elevation, a 150-foot setback from the ordinary high-water mark
of Nine-Mile Creek, a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft., and a maximum allowable •
impervious surface of 30%.
There is a variety of wildlife inhabitting the site, consisting primarily of
pheasants, squirrels, rabbits, and various songbirds. There is some transitory use
by several deer that utilize the wooded areas along the northern border of the site
and the outside edge of I-494 right-of-way as a deer run. The deer run will be left •
as open space as part of the overall development plan.
Since the project involves more than 150 attached units, an Environmental Assessment •
Worksheet is required per the Minnesota Statutes.
Land Use Projlosal
•
The concept plan involves the construction of 350 multiple family units on 40.7
acres of land at an overall gross density of 8.6 units per acre. The net density of
the project, based on 28.2 acres of developable land (including 4.5 acres street ti
right-of-way) is 12.4 units per acre. The site plan concept. indicates five building
areas on sites, with different densities ranging from 9.8 to 18.6 units per acre.
The site plan concept illustrates a density transition, with lower density areas and
open space surrounding the site perimeter, and with the highest density areas
located in the central portion of the site (1-A, 1-8, and 1-C, on the plan).
•
The concept plan works well within the existing site development constraints.
Building; seem to he in the most appropriate locations, while protecting open space
• areas along Nine-Mile Creek, steep slope areas, and wooded areas on the site.
h',r:__iit.tdtng j
A general way of describing the mass grading plan is that the higher areas of the
0t11>
Cardinal Creek Village 3 September 7, 1984
site will be cut between 20 and 40 feet to fill low areas adjacent Nine-Mile Creek.
The steep slope areas, which occur along the open space corridor adjacent to 1-494
•
within Northern States Power easement, form a natural buffer adjacent to the
highway. Grading in this area will involve a reshaping of the berm to accommodate a
future road. The cut area in the northwest corner of the site will be approximately •
20 feet. This is necessary in order to provide a level building area for the •
housing units. The steep slope areas along the southern border of this cut area
•
will be retained and modified somewhat to provide a transition between this housing
area and the housing area to the south. Grading in the central_ portion of the site
•
will result in up to 40 feet of cut off the top of the hill, which is at elevation •
956. In general, the proposed grades will vary between 900 and 910. Staff feels
• the amount of cut in this area is significant and that perhaps a different housing
plan, which does not require as much level land area, would better utilize this
•
portion of the site, or perhaps a reduction in the overall density to allow for more
of the existing natural features to be maintained may be appropriate. The proposed
housing density in this area is 18.6 units per acre.
Mass grading in the lower portion of the site will require sub-grade correction and
fill between five and ten feet.
Site Access •
The concept plan proposes the construction of Cardinal Creek Road from Baker Road to
Cardinal Creek Road in the southeast corner of the site. The road is proposed to be ?,,
constructed with 60 feet of right-of-way and a 32-foot road surface. A bikeway and
sidewalk will be constructed on either side of the road. Another road is planned
along the northeast portion of the site and would provide a future access to the
property to the north. This would be a typical 50-foot residential road with a 28-
foot
road surface.
The roadways appear to be located, from a topographic standpoint, in the portions of •
the site requiring the least amount of grading work. The road proposed to extend to
the north property line will require a considerable amount of grade correction and 4
will be at a 7.5% road grade. •
•
The extention of Cardinal Creek Road from the western boundary of this site to Baker f
Road appears to he planned in the most logical location. The proposed right-of-way •
would be centered on property owned by Oscar Miller and Harold Griffiths. These
properties are relatively level, and Cardinal Creek Road could be located farther to
the north, or to the south. There are some topographic limitations involving steep
slopes on the northeastern half of the Griffiths property and shoreland area
adjacent to Nine-Mile Creek along the southern half of the Oscar Miller property.
locating the road to the north or south of the principal access location would
•
result in increased road length and additional cost.
•
The proponent is in the process of negotiating a 100% petition for local
improvements. If the petition cannot be obtained, it may be necessary for the City
to acquire a necessary right-of-way by eminent domain.
•
Traffic_l e acts
The construction of Cardinal Creek Road is necessary to accommodate the amount of
traffic anticipated and to provide for appropriate emergency vehicle access by 1
looping Cardinal Creek Road. the construction of the proposed residential street
•
,�r iH
Cardinal Creek Village 4 September 7, 1984
may only be necessary to provide additional access to the parking areas for Phase I.
The balance of that road could be completed concurrent with Phase V.
The traffic analysis provided by the proponent indicates that, for a project of this
• size, 2,080 vehicle trips per day would be generated. Approximately two-thirds of
the traffic would be attracted northbound on Baker Road to County Road 1167 to
utilize access to north and southbound I-494. The remaining one-third of the
traffic would be attracted in the southerly direction towards Valley View Road.
Baker Road is classified as a minor arterial by the City. It currently carries
J.
3,000 vehicle trips per day and is projected to carry a volume of 7,000 Average
Daily Trips in the year 2000. Baker Road currently has the capacity of 7,500 to
10,000 vehicle trips per day and is scheduled for upgrading to four lanes in 1986.
The upgrading of Baker Road will include some realignment allowing for a design
speed of 40 miles per hour and a capacity of 17,500 vehicle trips per day.
The intersection of Cardinal Creek Road and Baker Road will require improvements
necessary to accomnodate three maneuvering lanes for right and left turn outbound
•
•
movements, plus one inbound lane.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by connection to an existing
•
water line in Baker Road and connection to a sewer line in existing Cardinal Creek
Road to the south of the project. The water main system will be looped for water
protection.
Storm water run-off will sheet drain overland across parking areas and the existing
road system into a series of catch basins and storm sewer pipes, which will outlet
•
into Nine-Mile Creek. It appears that the storm water run-off will be following the
natural slope of the land from the high points in the northern portion of the site
to the low areas in the south-central portion of the site.
Architecture
Three distinct building types, with varying architectural mass, are proposed and
will be architecturally integrated by the use of common building materials such as i
wood, stucco, and brick. The architectural images indicate views of various housing
areas in different portions of the site. '1
Building Type I, in the center portion of the project, will he three stories in
height, with double loaded corridors, underground parking, and elevators. Building
Type 11 will be a walk-up unit proposed in part of Phase I and Phase V, with
attached garages and single loaded corridors. Building Type III in Phase II and IV,
•
is both one and two stories in height and has both attached and detached garages. 6
1.
The architectural images suggest a strong residential character with steep roof
lines, varied roof height, and staggered facades. Staff believes that the one and
two-story units in Phase II provide transition to the low density single family
housing in Cardinal Creek to the south of Nine-bile Creek. Buildings in Phase I,
when viewed frito adjacent property to the south and west of this site, will appear
to be ma.,sive. Alt.houyh the buildings in plan view appear to be separated by
considerable open space and grade separation, from a distance t'-a buildings will . 1
appear as a long and continual mass. This may mean a different arrangement of units i.
r
I?
Cardinal Creek Village 5 September 7, 1984
within Phase I or a lowering of the density, or a combination thereof. Heavy
landscaping, which includes herming and mass plantings of large trees, may help
break up this view of building mass. Additional space separation between the units
may help, as well. This may mean a different arrangement of units within Phase I,
or a lowering of the density, or a combination of these options.
Parking
A total of 735 parking spaces are provided on-site at a ratio of 2.23 parking stalls
per unit. This includes 183 underground spaces, 201 on-grade garage spaces, and 351
on-grade surface parking spaces. Of the 203 on-grade garage spaces provided, only
23 are detached garages. The use of underground parking and detached garages allows
for more.land area to be used as part of common open space.
Common Open Space
As part of the overall development plan, there will be considerable common areas,
including outdoor play areas for small children, an outdoor pool, sundeck, and
walkways. The common areas and facilities associated with the apartment and
condominium components will be owned and maintained by the Chimo/Mark Management and
the Homeowner's Association respectively. The flood plain area will be platted as
an outlet and dedicated to the City as permanent open space. Open space corridor
along the highway right-of-way will be maintained as part of the apartment complex.
Any internal pedestrian systems, planned as part of individual cluster areas within
the project, should provide appropriate connections to sidewalks and bikeways
planned along Cardinal Creek Road. There should also be a connection to any trail
system provided along Nine-Mile Creek. This trail location and type of trail would
be subject to review by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission.
Conclusions
Approval of any Planned Unit Development should be based upon how well the proposal
meets the criteria of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, which include:
1. Providing a better development than would be possible under the
strict interpretation and application of other zoning regulations.
2. Providing a variety of housing types and environments.
3. Efficient allocation and maintenance of privately controlled open
space through distribution of population density and intensity of
land use where desirable and feasible.
Other criteria should include:
1. Adequacy of the existing transportation system to handle the
increased traffic and, if not, a solution for upgrading of the
roads.
2. Provision for sewer and water service and drainage of the site to an
appropriote outlet without creating erosion, or flooding up, or
clown, stream.
•
Cardinal Creek Village •
6 September 7, 1984
3. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan
4. Preservation of natural features through arrangement of land uses
•
and roadways and common open space. •
•
Staff feels that the Planned Unit Development Concept is consistent with the -
• objectives of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. It appears that the concept
plan proposes to develop the site in such a manner that existing natural features
can be preserved. Three buildable areas are possible on site with minimal
disruption of the natural features, with the exception of the central portion of the
site where up to 40 feet of cut is proposed. Within this area, either a different
•
• density, different arrangement of uses, or an alternative building type may be t
appropriate, which would require less grading. One approach would be to terrace
this area with an upper site at a similar grade to the north residential road and •
two or three sites at a similar elevation to Cardinal Creek Road. (See Attachment
A) Using a cluster approach with grade changes can provide more open space between
the buildings and reduce overall building mass. An appropriate transition between
adjacent land uses is provided through the planning of lower density, one and two-
story units, and open space adjacent to lower density land uses adjacent to the
site. Higher density areas are concentrated in the central portion of the site at a
considerable distance from adjoining property.
Roadways appear to planned in the most logical location from a topographic
•
standpoint. It will be necessary to construct Cardinal Creek Road from Baker Road
to this site, which will require the cooperation of adjacent land owners. The •
location of this connection appears to be an appropriate location centered on the
property line between the Griffiths and Miller properties. The intersection at 1
Baker Road appears to he in an appropriate location, approximately 200 feet south of 3
the driveway entrance to the Crosstown Baptist Church. Sight distances in both a'1
:I:
directions should be adequate.
Baker Road has the capacity to handle the additional amount of traffic in its
current configuration, since it is designated as a minor arterial with a capacity of
up to 10,000 vehicle trips per day.
The architecture of the project has a strong residential character and will be
coordinated between the various unit types proposed. The view of the higher density
portion of the project from adjacent property to the south and west is massive and
1.
the site plan wnu ld benefit from either greater separation between the
buildings,
fewer units, and/or a different arrangement of units on site, supplemented (
heavy landscaping to break up the overall building mass. 3
Staff feels that the development plan has considerable merit, is consistent with the 1
•
criteria of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and develops the site in a
sensitive way. It is Staff's recommendation that the concept plan be modified in
the central portion of the site, in order to require less grading and with a site
arrangement of buildings that, would break up the total building mass.
•i
RECUtt',;F'ilr�'�T 10;S r
Staff would recommend any of the following actions:
1. The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the Planted. Unit E.
Development Concept Plan for 350 units on 40.7 acres based on plans Staff- •
1
i% `J •
•
Cardinal Creek Village 7 September 7, 1984
dated September 10, I984, subject to the recommendations of the September 7,
1984, Staff Report. In addition, final site and development plans that
accompany any future rezoning, or platting, request for the central portion
of the site should involve less grading and a building arrangement that
would break up the total building mass;
Or,
2. The Planning Commission could recommend that the development plans be
returned to proponent for revisions based on the recommendations of the
Staff Report;
•
Or,
3.. The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the request.
•
s , .. •
---":_ ;•-- ..--7•.\\\\VV• •7";4. I \ '1 \ .' 4"'"".."..'''.:7.;::-..-.Z.;Z..•••=0.. RI.
,
• s ' i' ` ' \
. i
• / /, '), „, \ \ , `-.. "-" lir.: 11=
U.u/ ,t,<, ,•-•c•-, 1. 'N, s:,i, , ' \ ‘
\\ . ' :::::::::::;:.•.•:..17.:"."::::•""•• ,
1k'
* A Y 0 ,--., \\ , \ \• \\ , \ ,
-.Pi, ..:\,•,' C.it' \'‘...• .Y" ‘.\\....,'K. \ \ 1 \ \ \ '' 4 ..:.:71.;:..j....*;":77. .
. ,,,, • \ , ,,,-. ...? \ ( \ • \ \ ‘
.,k.)...r , . •X \\ a N\ , ‘ \, t'A.-:.:. '•-•''••,•....,-"--1-.."::":::",.-
• c----•,'''• <•-./..4-' ,..>• ,\\ , ,., \ •,,\ . , s r ,
„,
„,,,,,',-\\/ •:,-,,\.1. \ \ - ',Ii., ,
I ' :,-.-•••••• ,...:-_,..----,-,..:"\- \,‘...- '. ' N-•;:::-/'i'.41 ) vt" ^.7..^.Att:.-•......^.:-..",7.17.-••••••••• i
li; ' ' .;,,,,"f"...". -'---,--\',\,N, '\ '' . ,---_-.I. \\ -- \ -:::_ \ kr•Th"
\ ' „.„,..-ri,„* ---- -0--,,.,"-:;15:-...:-.....,;"4:‘,. '', \;„ ----.........:.•,!_. .,..),,1 / "v""It""', ;
% ,`,•Y . .; -...-,, - , ' i .--,.:: , • )
s \ • ,,,c-„,...":„. ::-;(2,,,-.;,\N..\\,...„.. ,_ .•,.•':.';','",...-; .7"---;•::- ' 1• ...\‘..\. . t
f/X. • ' .-.... ;•14 s'-',;i '• e< '----°----.1..•---' :...::> '/1'• ‘k \ .
.\ •\•\,..1 , •'..-'''''..'. ..•• t ' '''..:•`• .1 • - •'.- ...:‘!'N.c..s•----....:-...: :----'-'7---ri ''''.7''''\ \ ' N. \ I
\N,.. s `.},4 /,/,,,,." ,z-C.,1\‘‘,„,...‘Y",„,• 1 f j,.. -.,, ....;,...,„ ..,--............ . 'V .,.: s' ,
\N‘•'\\‘\‘` \ • // V i. ''',7.1 is ' ‘'7' i .N.j''''.7....`'" i::"..e-s.1.:- \ . ,
1:..'s' . ' /i i .7'A'."'-'.';'''''...•\\ \t. ..': ''' '''9' '-'''', ''' :1-' .NIF..1'-' '' : \ Vilf1VW 1
.-,. ..t.r...': ::'..e' %://,/...,o' .., \,... \. ''..,,,„:'V "'LL i'Cl;9,r•-.':.'- '' 1;;'''',....--\ 7..-' '/ \ i
,.,..- \ \ \\
/,..,:/ ,,,,,,.< , ,...... rizr7.4„. ......-,,--- -, .,,, ,--,,....,:
' 7-.'-c---', '',"-...,,. '- -. . 1 1--}i-,,,,,-- \-„,-2,‘, • \ , \
,,,\N\j..., ,. :::..:..,.,,,,,,,".,,/,.,,/.1::.›..z..4...j,..,-. ,..-'.-....,...,..t-:TaaSSole.... -.11.7;,..,,.7,,,,,,,';.: -.\3:sA'.'‘.\......;:.-...•,,,,, k . ,
r.„..
,, 0 \.(;_>...„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.'7',.'',,; •1::.'';---,:,i,5'(\\T-4,,..(-.-1.z ' .--.\-.;),`\- 'n. ,,,,, __./ \ \
itiv `. ,Xc...\ ..---`1-...r.''''';:N.^.,le.:,;'.11 .-, •:.';':, ..:-"11....:4--,,...-'' k%. /' •''''' ,N.•.,._.-_z_ w •
\ \7:-- '''. ''. \'''..:/e.,/' \'' ‘'''\:,..., . A'',Ir i''.- :-Nr•C'''' '1.'7'-'''./ i t "t..:4\-2t::-..‘ - ''''''''-. . ---''-'-'' '' . ' . .
\ •‘ \ /.•---\',..,--7's ..,‘ ...'.`'..-T.'• :', '-.---•1.-N „..E.....e`;_t"''' 4."."---f _-...--;!" ' 't ,.----\11.--' ----r"-N\ \ \
\ s \ '' • ' .'-'=.-N::-IL i --•'----,-=:,;;;s;*.-- .• ::•";---.4:- 1 - --`:: \ . ' \
N. ik- ' ,..----, - s ..,-, '------.7,---- ----!`" .,.....1+4-1‘2-1•1''' Is Cr' l'i.; .. ,I,'- -- 4, \\ 1
\ .., ' •• : ':T. ----- ...411"0"" ' . q',.,, 4,/ " ,, ,,,,,->„.. ci,,
( \A i...///'itc*rAc's. \ ,,,,\- \',IT:.•;\\,-/;',.,7,113:77.-L-. 1;4,,.1).(j.:: ll'i/diii /) %s1-7.., . ` \
\ —.I', 1 -,... ,,,;\I \\\.\\ s' -.°7.-=-,...........: :•-•.: '`./,'"? •-//l• ---I„, '(., / ' \ `
\*I', jj ) ict 2A\N>,\ 'Ns's' \''''• \-'7."Ccw7. Q....;.41,,,;' ;‘,..Y..; '.'",i/ c-1....., ,.-."-",7 \:.. , \\ ‘ 1
;
\\-___—. i i • -:.,,,,..• i',,----..,.._ •\-1 ,--__- -,----..--,--. , ,4 kJ,' ../.".24z,..., , \ 1 I
-.- , -.,,,_/ ...-- - ,..... ,.76,...--;,•!--1,-;:.-.;,; • , . • .
:.—"-------1._ ;.v.:,,a..,' \,-.--1 f --7-1'-'1:-----..- ,'-'7.---'- ,": `,,,`-'' --.:,•," ' " ' \ ,
,...z.,:,-.,_:. _...,:z.„,,,., ,,, ,- .,..-.-..,-... . -‘,-,.) si - .-._----.• ---74-= ' N . .:----'' --\ ' `
1 .,,,,',,,:•.,,,, __ ,Y;\ C...:'-71:;''l •i--i' .2-2';',•,' _/-2.--.\/'-'' .1 ...,,,.;':•:'... ----
1 ...L.,...LS1-41'-4- '../ • 4\ ./`,--.-t'S.:'''' -f,.....--e°3rf"VS..-.,•••-•-••• ..'•
/1)/N. ..."' . U •1 .•.•:...-.•,N, ` '..\ \I• k'- 1
. . . '-.. ..-.104.• \
../.... ..":',.. /-e ,v\Y\a\\, ,i
e;,)tc..1::4 ri'a 11 urrrfZ 1_11_vrt /71TE P.-larr rtoi\-rick) evx.) wrri-i ittizr///) 1
Q., ' i La 4 ()I r t\ICI-C6 Ki2.-biOilt•iliAL 1;cA17
il\ICI. t)1TE AllouT EtTio1\1 90E3 +MTH AtLE,>h-- ... _
, OF f- LAi7\0101., e_kfiK RoAv
. _
l'ITE: A3.)1' ft111-10).1 915 wiTH
t‘z.,) A-/LC1/1) OFF kti(NTti fiE/A l'F..N1 CAI- fCv\t", 1
If,:A/r.l. i.,ITY,-7, AA,_rt I.EllATION, .C3.0 wrri1 Aett./79
01 i (.Ai:IiiMt.. k*.i.C.LI l',N*4-*\1/
, ;./ ., 4 , =
itql t I c.sii 4 \,,..4 P ki 4 iziro WI'l 1
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 22, 1985
•
•
•
B. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE, by Chimo Development Corporation. Request r
for reconsideration of a Planned Unit Development Concept Review and p
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for up to 249 units (209-249
units) of multiple family development on 40.7 acres. A public
hearing.
This item was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council at its
May 21, 1985, meeting upon the request by the proponents for the City to
reconsider their revised plans for the Planned Unit Development Concept of
Cardinal Creek Village and the accompanying Environmental Assessment
Worksheet.
Planner Franzen reviewed the previous plans with the Commission, along with
the actions recommended and approved by the various City Commissions and the
City Council.
Mr. Greg Kallenherger, Chimo Development, reviewed the changes in the plan
from the previous Planning Commission review of the project. He stated that
the density in the southwest portion of the property, that area south and
west of the proposed major road through the project, had been changed to'1.4
units per acre gross density, or, 2.5 units per acre net density. The
northeast portion of the property was now shown at 8.6 units per acre gross
density, or 9.7 units per acre net density. Ile added that the amount of
open . space was now proposed at approximately 65%. Mr. Kallenberger
explained that the original concept of the developer had been to provide a
"village" type of development for the property, and that that idea had been
revived in the revised plans, with mere, smaller huildings for the site.
•
Mr. Roger Friebery, architect for proponents, reviewed the revised
1r J
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 22, 1985
architectural plans with the Commission. He pointed out that the proponents
had changed the name of the major street through the project from Cardinal
Creek Road, which was objected to by some of the existing neighbors, to
• Stonewood Court, instead. Mr. Frieberg indicated the location of the
proposed recreation building for the property, and explained the changes in
architecture in detail.
Hallett asked about the size of the units proposed. Mr. Kallenberger
responded that the units, overall, were larger than previously proposed.
For example, the largest units previously proposed were approximately 1,000
sq. ft. Now the largest units proposed were 1,100 sq. ft. Also, he stated
that there were a greater number of larger units in this proposal, than in
the previous submission. Mr. Kallenberger stated that the price range of
the units would be between $6004900 per month.
Chairman Schuck stated that, previously, there had been concern about the
amount of alteration necessary to the hill in the central portion of the
project. He asked if this was the case with this proposal and whether a
retaining walls would be necessary in order for the structures to be built
as proposed. Planner Franzen indicated that the level of detail necessary
to review the need for retaining walls had not been provided by the
proponents at this stage of the development, but would be necessary as
further development of the property was reviewed by the City. He stated
that, based upon the plan submitted, any density greater that the bottom of
the range of 209 units would have to be justified by the developer. As
presented, Staff would be willing to recommend approval of the lower end of
the density range proposed, only.
Planner Franzen stated that one of the concerns of Staff in review of the 1
project was the curb view of the project. The change to more clustered and
smaller buildings provided a greater view of the garages and parking areas, 1
detracting from the curb appeal of the project. The Staff report stated
that the previous six criteria for review of future development of the i
project would still apply.
Johannes stated that he agreed that the design of the project appeared •
"tight," and would look much like the Residence Inn project along Highway
1/169. He stated that he felt the project would have a massive look as
proposed. Johannes stated that he also felt that transition would be a 4
major consideration for this project. He suggested that the larger 1
buildings of the previous proposal, with architectural treatment to provide
better scale, and provision of more open space, might have been a better
approach to the development of this property. Johannes stated that he was
not as concerned about the number of units for the project as he was about
the look of the. project.
Hallett stated that he was pleased that the number of units had been
reduced.
Bye stated that she was concerned about the curb appeal of the project. She
stated that she felt there was too much view of driveways and garages from
the interior of the project, as well.
Johannes asked about the length of the building at the southeast corner of
tG'. t
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 22, 1985 4
l i
the project. Planner Franzen responded that it was approximately 200 feet.
By comparison, recent apartment projects in the City had shown buildings of
290 feet in length. Johannes stated that he was concerned about the wide-
• angle view of the structures. He asked what the distance was between the
• structures. Mr. Frieberg responded that it varied between 30 and 70 feet.
By comparison, the Residence Inn had buildings between 20 and 40 feet apart'L
Mr. Floyd Siefferman, Jr., 6997 Edgebrook Place, presented pictures of
Bryant Lake from the property, stating that this was a unique parcel which
should be developed carefully. He expressed concern that the revised
proposal resulted in less open space than was previously shown by the
developers. Mr. Siefferman suggested that the development be reduced to
approximately 168 units, instead of 209. He stated that the developers had
previously represented that the units would be owner-occupied, but were now
stating that the units would be rented, instead, and expressed concern about
the upkeep of the units and the area in general, if the units were rented,
as opposed to owned by people living in the area. He stated that he felt
the sizes of the units proposed were still small.
Mr. Siefferman Stated that he felt there was a fault in the City's PUD
ordinance in that there was not a cap provided for the amount of density
increase that would be allowed for a PUD. He also expressed concern for the
crowding of Forest Hills Elementary School in this area and stated that this
should be taken into consideration in planning for this development.
Mr. Roger Swigart, 13184 Cardinal Creek Road, reviewed the number of
apartment projects that existed in the City of Eden Prairie, and the number
being proposed. He then reviewed the developments within the vicinity of j
• the existing Cardinal Creek area and stated that he did not feel a precedent
had been set for the level of density proposed by this developer for this
area.
Mr. Swigart pointed out that, during previous review of the project by the
City, the developer had agreed to work out a more creative design of the
road connection between the proposed and existing areas of Cardinal Creek.
He stated that he did not feel this had been done yet by the developer. Mr.
Swigart stated that the developer was currently proposing a 25 ft. cut in
the central portion of the property and noted that this would mean the
cutting of a tree stand in this area. He showed a slide of the trees
involved. He pointed out that the removal of these trees, which were
greater than twelve inches in diameter, would be in violation of City policy
regarding preservation of trees.
Mr. Swigart expressed concern for the resultant view of this project from I-
494. He stated that those vehicles travelling north on I-494 would have a
view of seven separate levels of structures based on the current plan and
that this would present a massive view of the structures, with no break for
trees, or open space.
Mr. Swigart stated that he did not feel the developer had adequately
addressed the problem of the north access to the property. In addition, he
expressed concern that this would not be an "up scale" development as stated
by the developer, based on the rental rates proposed.
s
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 22, 1985
t
Mr. Swigart stated that in 1985, approximately 50% of the units proposed
were apartment units. He stated that he felt the City should call a halt to
development of so many multiple units in the community.
Mr. Art Roberts, 13543 Woodmere Circle, expressed concern for the lack of
transition provided to the existing residential development to the south ire ,
existing Cardinal Creek. He stated that he felt the units should be owned,
not rented, as the developer had originally represented. Mr. Roberts
pointed out that the request of the developer was for 20% greater density
than was approved by the City Council.
Mr. Gordon Alexander, 6895 Sand Ridge Road, stated that he felt 209 units
was still too much density for this property by about 25% and that he did
not feel the developer was looking at the property carefully enough in order
to design a project that would work with this area. He also expressed
concern about potential traffic problems in the future, especially along
existing Cardinal Creek Road. Mr. Alexander pointed out that he did not
feel the developer was adequately protecting the hills of the project, any
more than was proposed by the previous plan.
Mr. Oscar Miller, 6521 Baker Road, stated that he had heard much about the l
developer wanting to use his property for provision of better access from
the north end of the development. He stated that, while he had no objection
to his property being used for the road, he did not feel he should pay for
this road when the benefit for the road would all accrue to other property
than his own. He stated that he had no assurances from the developer that
he would be paid for his property, and further, he had no intention of
selling, or moving, from his land. Mr. Miller stated that he felt since the
developers would receive the profits from the property, the developers
should pay for the road, not him, or the City. i
k
Johannes stated that he was unsure whether the City was able to control
whether the units were rented, or owned, for any project. He pointed out
that . condominiums could still be rented out by individual owners of the
units, as could single family homes.
Johannes stated that he felt the Commission was still in a position to make :j
a negative recommendation for a project of 209 units if the developers did
not meet the criteria discussed and approved for the development of this r
property. Other Commissioners concurred.
Hallett asked that the City Forester he requested to review the trees in the
central portion of the development, as mentioned by Mr. Swigart, in order to
determine their type, size, etc., and report back to the Commission prior to
the next stage of development of this proposal. Hallett asked about the
connection of the development to the existing area of Cardinal Creek. Mr.
Kallenberger responded that the developers had not been able to complete the
plan to that level of detail at this time. However, they would be willing
to do whatever the City felt necessary to meet the needs of the neighbors in j
d this Casa in order to make use of the road connection by the future Cardinal
Creek Village residents less desirable. .
Kellett asked for Staff's response to the statement about too much multiple
residential development in the community. Planner Franzen stated that this j
i
1
i
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 22, 1985
site had been designated on the Comprehensive Guide Plan for Medium Density
Residential development for years. He stated that it is also a known fact
that development, like many things, was cyclical. The current economic
situation was one which made it desirable to develop multiple residential
• properties. He pointed out that very little multiple residential
development had taken place within the recent past, even prior to 1980
During 1983 and 1984, for example, the economic situation was one which made
it more desirable to develop commercial/industrial properties, and the City •
had an influx of that type of development. Planner Franzen pointed out that
the projects being proposed as multiple residential this year had been on
property which had been designated for such uses by the Comprehensive Guide
Plan.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the developers had a unique piece of
property to deal with for this development. He stated that he felt the
challenge was to the developers to be creative in order to propose a
development that would work on this site. Chairman Schuck stated that he
felt the developers should stick to the lowest end of the density range,
near 209 units, and that the problems discussed at this meeting should be
mitigated by creative design for this development. He stated that he felt
the terrain of the property demanded special treatment of the property.
Mr. Kallenberger stated that the developers mainly wanted to have a range of
units established for this development at this point in time. Chairman
Schuck stated that he felt it was clear from the discussion at this meeting
that the Commission was looking for development of the property around 209
units, and not greater, based on the plans presented, even though the
request was for a range of 209-249. The other Commissioners concurred.
Bye stated that she could only agree that the concept of 209-249 units was
an acceptable range based on the general nature of the information
presented. She added that she would want to see detailed plans at the next
stage of this development before she would agree that a plan within that
density range would he acceptable and stated that the plan would have to
meet the criteria listed within the Staff Report even to achieve a density
of 209 units.
Hallett stated that he did not feel that 249 units was possible for this
property and that the developers would have to be closer to 209 units for
the entire property. He added that he felt they would have to prove that
209 units would work based on the criteria of the Staff Report, that 209
units was not automatically approved for the site.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the developers still had an opportunity
•
for more than 209 units, but not based upon the plans presented at this
time. He encouraged the developers to be creative with their design and to
put their talents to work to present a plan which would fit into the
community within the guidelines listed in the Staff Report.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0 • r
1/ 71
•
Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 22, 1985
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
. Council approval of the request of Chimo Development for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment for Cardinal Creek Village, for a range of
209-249 units on 40.7 acres, based on plans dated July 12, 1985, subject to 4
the recommendations of the Staff Report of July 19, 1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council to submit to the State Environmental Quality Board for review the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Cardinal Creek Village, for a range
• of 209-249 units on 40.7 acres, by Chimo Development, based on plans dated
July 12, 1985, with a finding of no significant impact.
Motion carried--4-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None. •
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
•
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Bye, seconded by Hallett.
Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
( HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-160
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 4th day of June, 1985,
fixed the 2nd day of July, 1985, (and subsequently continued to August 20,
1985) as the date for a public hearing on the following proposed improvements:
I.C. 52-010A, Technology Drive Road Improvements east from Wallace Rd.
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the Council hearing through two weekly
publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the
20th day of August, 1985, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given
an opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered.
2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for
this project and is hereby directed to prepare Plans and
Specifications for the making of such improvement, with the
assistance of BRW, Inc., consulting engineers.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 20, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Irane, Cl erk
1
/
1;k
•
•
•
August 20, 1985
WELCOME HOME PACKET
1) Welcome Home letter dated duly 26, 1985.
2) Findings and conclusions relating to the request of Welcome Home to operate
a licensed residential facility.
3) Public Hearing Notice for Variance Request #85-26. '
•
4) Welcome Home application. •
5) Welcome Home letter dated June 19, 1985.
6) Staff Report dated June 26, 1985.
7) Welcome Home letter dated July 3, 1985. •
8) Minutes dated July 11, 1985.
9) Welcome Home letter dated July 19, 1985.
10) Fredrikson and Byron letter dated July 25, 1985.
11) Final order #85-26 dated duly 25, 1985.
12) Site plan. •
13) Fredrikson and Byron Memorandum dated August 15, 1985
•
•
•
'l
JUl 2 i,S5 •
1J'e!coMe Home PHONE.t61 21 4747052
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
JAMES JU57, 4250 STONEORIDGE CIRCLE
MINNETRISTA,MN 55364
July 26, 1985
Carl Jullie
City Manager •
• City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
'Eden Prairie, MN 55343
Dear Mr. Jullie:
We wish to appeal to the City Council at the earliest possible
date the?/25 decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
regarding our variance request :65-26. As a point of clarification,
we no longer intend to modify the garage, as indicated in item
#4 of that request.
i
Sincerely
Stephen K. chele
Program Director/Administrator
fi
•
•
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
RELATING TO THE REQUEST OF
WELCOME HOME TO OPERATE
A LICENSED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
This matter was commenced upon application by Welcome
Home for Variance No. 84-53 to permit property at 7170 Flying
r
Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, to be used as a licensed
•
residential facility for up to eighteen mentally ill persons.
The matter was heard by the Board of Appeals & Adjustments
on October 11, 1984, and on November 8, 1984, which denied
the request. Applicant appealed the denial to the Council.
Subsequently, Applicant modified its proposal by reducing
the number of persons who would inhabit the facility, from
eighteen to sixteen. Accordingly, Applicant no longer seeks
a variance as requested in its application, but seeks a
determination that the use of the property is that of a
"multi-family residential use . . . for purposes of zoning"
as those terms are used in MS §462.357, Subd. 8, and
MS 5245.812, Subd. 4. The matter was first considered by
the Council at its meeting on January 22, 1985.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS •
1. The property at 7170 Flying Cloud Drive is legally
described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and rude a part
hereof. The property consists of .93 acres and contains
improvements consi.stin(3 of a house and a detached garage.
2. The property is situated in the Rural district.
City Code Section 31.7.0 authorizes the use of land situated
• E
1( y)
17
in the Rural district (in addition to other uses not perti-
nent) for single-family detached dwellings and accessory
structures without platting on parcels of not less than ten
acres (five or more acres as of July 6, 1982). The five-
• acre minimum size requirement for single-family dwellings in
the Rural district was first adopted by the City by the
adoption of Ordinance 135 on October 14, 1969.
3. Chapter 11 of the City Code, as did its predecessor,
Ordinance No. 135, contains a provision authorizing the con-
tinuation of non-conforming uses. Code Section 11.02 defines
a non-conforming use as a "Use of a building or of land that
does not conform to the regulations as to use for the district
in which it is situated." Section 11.75 provides that a use
lawfully occupying a structure or site on the effective date
of the section, that does not conform with the use regulations
or the site area per dwelling unit regulations for the district
in which the use is located, shall be deemed a non-conforming
use and may be continued.
4. The property is presently being used for residential
dwelling purposes. Applicant claims that the property is
currently and has, since and prior to the adoption of Ordi-
nance 135 on October 14, 1969, and continuously thereafter,
been used as a multiple family dwelling; and further claims
that pursuant. to MS §462.357, Subd. 8, and MS 5245.812,
Subd. 4, a licensed residential facility serving from seven
to sixteen persons must be considered a permitted multi-
family res.i.dnt:ial use of property for purposes of zoning,
-2-
that the proposed use of the property will be as a licensed
residential facility and, therefore, is authorized by Subd.
4 and 8.
5. City Code Section 11.02 defines-a multiple dwelling
as "[a] building designed for or occupied by two or more
families," and family as "(o)ne or more persons related by
blood, marriage or adoption . . . or a group of not more
than five persons . . . some or all.of whom are not related
by blood, marriage or adoption, living together and main-
taining a common household . . ."
•
6. The evidence bearing on the question of whether the
property is currently and has, since and prior to October
1969, been used as a multiple family dwelling includes the
following:
a. An Affidavit of Illah M. Sutton, dated January 19,
1985, indicating that she and her husband lived
in a then-duplex unit of the property from 1948
through 1979, purchased it in 1958 and sold it,
in 1979, to the present owner, Donald Hanson.
She states that from 1948 through 1979, the
property was used and operated as a multiple
family dwelling with two dwelling units.
b. An Affidavit of Donald Hanson, dated January 10,
1985, stating that, he is now, and since Decem-
. ber 1, 1979, has been, the owner of the property,
and that the structure has been a multiple
dwelling throughout the time he has owned it.
-3-
c. An inspection report of Steve Durham, a member ),
t
of the City Staff, dated December 18, 1984, and
a memorandum of Mr. Durham, dated January 8,
1985, to which are attached diagrams showing
configurations of the premises as it existed 1
prior to 1969 and currently. The inspection j
report and diagrams indicate that the house was 1
constructed 90-100 years ago. The present con-
figuration shows there are three kitchens and
three bathrooms in the structure, constituting
three living units. The structure has two
entrances and two stairwells. The diagram of
the premises as it existed prior to 1969 reveals
the same two separate entrances, two bathrooms,
and two kitchens in a configuration constituting
two separate living units. The principal dif-
ferences in the two configurations are that in
•
the current configuration, the northerly portion
of the first floor of the premises, which was
shown as a storeroom prior to 1969, now is shown
to contain a living room, bathroom, and kitchen,
as well as laundry facilities.
7. Based upon the foregoing evidence, it is found that
the property 7170 Plying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, is presently and, since and prior to 1969, has
-4-
been used as a multiple dwelling and constitutes a non-
• conforming use as a duplex multiple dwelling, and as such,
the use of the property is as a "multi-family residential
use . . . for purposes of zoning" as those terms are used in
MS §462.357, Subd. 8, and MS §245.812, Subd. 4, and that the
• provisions thereof apply, subject to the following:
a. Because it is not known at this time the extent
• of any remodeling which may be required for the
purposes of the use of the premises as proposed
by Applicant, no conclusion is reached as to
whether such remodeling would constitute an
unlawful enlargement of the present non-conforming
• use.
b. The proposed use of the premises as a licensed
residential facility is subject to the Applicant's
receipt of an appropriate license from state
authorities as contemplated by MS §462.357,
Subd. 8, and MS §245.812, Subd. 4.
•
-5-
•
t CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST
II 85__6
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 4
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
Will meet at the following time and place:
11
7:30 P.M. July
Thursday,_19 85 At the Eden Prairie School Administration B Minnesota 55344 Room 5
g•+
8100 School Road, Eden Prairie, submitted by
to review and consider the Variance Request it 85-26___,
for property located at7170 Blyanklake
Welcome Home _
_ seeJliasl�ed.-----
Drive, Eden Pra_ rie,_le4ally described as:
The request is for a variance from See Attached_---- ----
__—_--------------1 __ will be heard
Written or oral comments relating to this variance request
Said variance application is
on file for public review
at this meeting.
Nall.
at, the Planning Department at Eden Prairie City
City Eden Prairie
PU;;t.l`'11: -June 7r,, 1935.-.__.--- City ofG den Prairie
•
• •
•
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 12, Township 116, Range 22, llennnepin County, Minnesota
described as follows;
Beginning at a point in the westerly line of State Highway No.
. 169 distant 153.00 feet northeasterly from the south line of
the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence westerly
to a point in the centerline of Old Eden Prairie Road distant
204.00 feet northwesterly from the south line of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter,. as measured along said
centerline; thence northwesterly along said centerline 232.00
feet; thence southeasterly to a point in the westerly line of
State Highway No. 169 distant 191.00 feet northeasterly from
the point of beginning; thence southwesterly 191.00 feet to the
point of beginning.
•
•
• • Excepting therefrom the East ten (10) feet thereof for state
• highway right of way purposes.
Subject to a temporary construction.easement on, over, under and
across the cast fifty (50) feet of the above described property.
•
•
•
VARIANCE REQUEST #85-26
•
The request is for a variance from provisions of City Code, Chapter 11,
including Sections 11.03, 11.45 and 11.50: •
•
1) To permit conversion of a screened porch, 18 feet from the
rear lot line, into an office/conference room.
2) To permit a deck addition to the northwest corner of the main '
structure 15.E feet from the rear lot line.
3) To permit construction of enclosed stairway, .to be added to
the west side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear lot
line. •
4) To permit an addition of a garage and 1-3 above within 150
feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of General Development '
Waters.
•
5) To determine whether proposed changes in the building,
constituting a non-conforming use, located on the property,
may be made.
CITY or EDEN PRAIRIE Variance No.
VARIANCE REQUEST
6/19/05 •
DATE: .
• •APPLICANT'S NAME Welcome Home Rey ito Care, Ltd.
4250 Stonebr.idge Cr. Fintrsta, P�•1 zi 55364
ADDRESS: .
PHONES: Work 729-7060 (tome (same)
receipt k
FEE: �50 00 •
7164 & 7170 Flying Cloud Drive
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT: Address: •
• Leal:
REASON FOR VARIANCE: (see attached)
•
d
tbacks
ATTACH.THE FOLLOWING 1' existingrand proposed. structures vey showing lot lines nand e of
location
of buildings on adjoining properties. Also show
pertinent topographical features such as trees,
• fences, berms, steep slopes, ponds, roads, and
existing and proposed elevations.
2. Letter addressed to the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments explaining nature of variance request
and reason(s) why conformance to the literal pro-
visions of the City's Code would cause hardship.
Mature
i t nt s Si-
c t c ( , 1. .�
Fee Owner's Signature
Notes to Applicant:
-Appl ications roust he filed no later than the
•l.nd Thursday of the Month previous to the meeting
-The Board meets on the 2nd Thursday of the Month,
7:30 PM, City tlall,8950 Eden Prairie Road
•
-Notices are published in the Fden Prairie News
and railed to p1nperty owners within 500feet.
Applicants arc rn:uura,le,l to personally contact
adj,+ts nt property a;:n:•r, print to t' r hearing—in
order to explain the variance and to be prcp,rrt•t(
to address their coot erns at the hearing.
i,y. /
;_
. a
Welcome Home Respite Care, Ltd ''::::.
4250 Stonebridge Circle
( Minnetrista, Minn. 55364
June 19, 1955
•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments I
City of Eden Prairie :.
. E 950 Eden Prairie Road 1
Eden Prairie, Flinn 55c•43 1
Sirs: •
Welcome Home has made a request for a building permit for structures
1.
at 7164 Cc 7170 Flying Cloud Drive. We have been told that certain
variances may be required. While we are uncertain that our building }
permit application requires such variances, we wish to obtain whatever
permits, authorizations, variances, etc. as are necessary for our
proposed use and improvement of the property as detailed to the city.
Accordingly, we hereby request all variances as necessary for the
property and the building permits we have applied for. 1
The following is a list of the variances the Assistant Planner has
told us are necessary wi th comments as to our need for such features:
1, We are requesting a variance of 32 feet for the minimum
setback to the rear lot line for the screened porch on the south side {
that we would convert to a office/conference room. The addition of i
this office/conference would enhance the effectiveness of the overall
delivery of service by providing both client-staff private meeting I
space and protected space .if or professionals to collaborate with
assurance that clients' confidentiality may be maintained.
i
2. We would retain the deck' that has been added to the
northwest corner. We are given to understand that i t was an illegal
addition. We did not know this, however, when we chose this building q
and the deck has. cons.idcrahla value in our desire to offer clients- a
eonfort able , secure OM,iroment that addresses their need for
rela'ection and a reduction of stress. The deck faces a wooded area
that hide,: it from view from tale other house in
the di sLnce but it is easily monitored from the house. It seems
ideal .C.or our r cow i to care program.
Variance of feet from the I feat H',
LJe are requesting a /�
d stairtaay. UB table E:3ia
minimum rc-qurrorr,[•itl for add inn, the c•nclos.e �-
repuir - - u_. t� add tI:i e c F
one. 1 t<irela> laec+use our occ up nt load
•
will c 'ce d ten. That pa.rticul :.r po_i timning ra,x<.. deaircble becati e of
ils mi n ii:cil iml. ct upon the appear MICE' of the building.
'llir:nk Ye-Al -ior your consideration.
L c 1.1 r i.:f or t(;
•
•
•
•
•
'Variances requested:
•
•
1. The partially screened porch on the south side is to be con-
• verted into an office/conference room. City Code Chapter 11,
Section 11.03, Su!33. 23 requires a 50-foot minimum setback to
•
rear lot lino. Our p1an indicates 1" feet. We request a
variance of 32 feet. •
•
2. We -Tau}:' 1;'.e to retain the deck that has been added to the
•
northwest corner. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11-c3,
Subd. 21). requires a 50-foot minimum setback to a rear lot •
line. We request a variance of 34.3feet.
3. A new enclosed stairway is to be added to the west side. City
Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subd. 6C,1,b,4 reauires a mini-
mum setback from the normal high-water mark of LeO feet. Our
•
plan indicates 43 feet. We request a variance of,07 feet.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
/la`)
r'''''STArr REPORT
•
TO: Board of Appeals and Adjustments I
FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner 1
DATE: June 26, 1985
'RE: July 11, 1985 Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting
I. Variances
•
A. Request #8 -21, submitted by Hampton Inn for prop rty located
West of Hie r;ay ):T69, South of Valley View Road East of
Hghrray05. The request is for a variance fro City Code,
Chapter r1-S‘ction 11.03_Subdivision-73,to .errnit the
construction o a 125 room hotel with a flop area ration of
-.47.--(Code permits a maximum F.A.R. of .46)
i
1. Backeroun - Eden Prairie Hotel vestors plan to construct
Hampton In , a tree-story, 125 r.om motel, on 2.54 acres. t
Hampton In is a "limited se,vice" motel, that provides
primarily lo+ging, similar to a Super 8 or a Dillon Inn. j
Hampton Inn v .s before the Pl nning Commission on June 11,
. 1985, and co'tinued to J ne 24, 1985. The Planning
Commission apprved Hampton Inn, based on the Staff Report
dated June 7, 19.5, and pl ns dated June 3, 1985. i
i
The approval is conti gent upon receiving a floor area
ration variance frog the Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
. 2. Site Plan - The si - plan includes the construction of a
building with a gro - building area of 54,878 square feet. j
The floor area ratio i .47. The building does include an
•
unassigned baseme t a ea of 4,592 square feet. The
•
effective gross uildin• area is 50,286 square feet or a 1
floor area rati .n of .43. Because it is undetermined, at
this time, if tin. basement t ea will be utilized for meeting
facility, the gross builds g area of 54, 878 square feet
must be utiliz d in determining' of F.A.R. of .47.
Variances f.- motels and hote's is not uncommon. In many
instances t.! .. site for a hotel, w ich has commercial zoning,
does not rclnire the parking r•equi•ements of the traditional
retail ca:.aercial site. less parking requirements warrant
less acr age for a building site.
Planni ,l Staff, in most cases, is confartable with higher
floor area ratio for motel/hotels, if a,equate room exists
on-s' e to cccr:;c;iai.o building and par.inq areas within
sett ack', and provide ad'v)uate room for 1, idscape screening
of rarkinq areas from public roads.
ro Planning Con aist.ion rrco ncndod approval o Hampton Inn
on duo ?1, 1['•d' , ha..-0-,1 n'� the Staff Report < ated Jnnn 7,
1985. •ihe City Council denied Hampton Inn on July 2, 19115.
TO 0
. 1
0 Variance Request r)Bc 2G submitted by '!drone Home for property
located at 7171) I.r y t. L.i_'.r, Drive. The request is for a
variance from provision,i of Ch
City Coda, apter ,11, includinq
Sections 11:03, 1.1.45, and TE..td).
( 1. To permit conversion of a screened porch, 18 feet from the rear .r
lot line, into an office/conference room.
2. To permit a deck addition to the Northwest corner of the main
structure 15.7 feet from the rear lot line.
3. To permit construction of enclosed stairway, to be added to the
west side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear lot line.
4. To permit an addition of a garage and 1-3 above within 150 feet of
the Ordinary High Water Mark of General Development Waters.
5. To determine whether proposed changes in the building,
constituting a non-conforming use, located on the property may be
made.
1. Background - Welcome Home was first before the Board of Appeals
an—il Adjustments on October 11, 1984. The request, at that time,
was for a variance from City,Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.66,
Subdivision 2, to permit a maximum of 18 unrelated adult residents
• in a "family care home". Coda permits a maximum of six unrelated
adults or cliff ldren. The original buff lding plan did not include
any building additions or enclosures.
At the October 11, 1984 meeting, the issue was raised as to the
use of the structure. The property is zoned rural, permitting a
single family use. The structure appeared to contain more than
one dwelling unit.
The Board continued the item to November 8, 1984. It was
requested by the Board that the City Attorney provide legal input,
as to the powers of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments right to
grant or deny the variance request. The Board also requested
clarificat.ion on the building use and input from the Human Rights
and Services Commission.
The item was heard before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
again on itove!r,her 8, 1984. The variance was denied, based on the i
finclines and conclusions attached to final order #84-53, note
exhibit F.
At. its ,lane:.r•y 14, 1985 meeting, the Human Rights and Services
Commission revriwed the Welcome Ileino proposal. The commission
supported the concept of deinstitutionalized, residential type,
short term respite care for (In' eentally ill, and felt the Welcome
•
tune project has the potential to be an asset to the Eden Prairie
Cow,uunity. i
1
r•dye ,
Welcome. Home appealed the Board of Appeals And Adjustments denial
for Variance Request 084-53.
The appeal included a reduc_t,ion in the number of residents from 18
to 16. Welcome Home submitted revised building plans. The new
•
plans included physical enlargements, note Exhibit G.
City Council reviewed the appeal for Variance Request 084-53 on d
January 22, 1985, February 5, 1985, March 19, 1985, and on April 0
16, 1985.
At the City Council's January 22, 1985 meeting, a motion was made #:
by Councilman Redpath, seconded by Councilman Anderson, that the
use of the structure has been extablished as a duplex-residential,
non-conforming use, and that the Statute relating to the 16
persons applies. As to the changes that might have to be made in
the structure, by virtue of some further review by the Building {
Department and the Fire Marshal, the motion was carried with•
Councilman Bentley and Mayor Peterson voting no. !
City Attorney prepared the findings and conclusions relating to
the request of Welcome Home to operate a licensed residential
facility at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive. The findings and conclusions ,I
were approved by City Council on April 16, 1985, note exhibit H. i
An opinion from the Attorney General, concerning the Welcome Home i
matter, was prepared for City Council review, note exhibit I. }
2. Enlargement of Non-Conforming Use 3
. It hasn u the
at 7170nBryantnLakedeteDrivedashatlielcome icensed fameilyacare Structure
facility for
16 residents.
Welcome Home is now before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to
•
seek variances from the required rural zoning setbacks, Shoreland
Ordinance, and Floodplain Ordinance.
Prior to reviewing those variances referenced to above, the Board
must detemine whether proposed changes in the building
constituting a non-conforming use located at 7170 Bryant Lake
Drive may be made.
City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.75, Subdivision 1, outlines the
purpose of the nor-conformine use in the C_it.v. This section of
the Code is intended to prohibit the enlargement, their re-
establish:nont after abandonment, and the alteration or restoration
•
after destruction of the structures they occupy.
•
City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.45, Floodplain, Subdivision 9, A,
•
1, states "no such obstruction or structure or use shallhoht
• expanded, clranr,ed, enlartied, or altered in any way
• complying, in all respects, with this section."
City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Shoreland Ordinance,
/ .:iLqi.
,a ft •v
Subdivision 12, A, states "no structure or use shall be expanded,
changed, enlarged, or altered in any way without complying in all
respects with this section."
•
The Findings and Conclusions, approved by the City Council, state
under item 7A "Because it is not known, at this time, the extent
of any remodeling which may be required for the purposes of the
use of the premises, as proposed by applicant, no conclusion is
reached as to whether such remodeling would constitute an unlawful
enlargement of the present non-conforming use."
Last, note Question 1, pertaining to the expansion of non-
conforming uses found in the Attorney General's opinion, regarding
expansions of non-conforming uses.
3. Site Review - Welcome Home proposes several additions, not
•
--- —
including interior renovations to the structure at 7170 Bryant
Lake Drive. The additions may require variances from city code.
The property is zoned rural. City code Chapter 11, section 11.03,
•
subdivision 2B, pertaining to rural land use, requires a front
yard setback, side yard setback and rear yard setback of 50 feet.
•
Any building addition would be required to meet the minimum
setbacks.
Nine Mile Creek crosses through the property. City Code Chapter
11.50: Entitled Shoreland Ordinance apply.
Under flood plain regulations, Section 11.45, Subdivision 4, b, 1, .
an easement not less than 50 feet, is required for purposes of
widening, deepening, sloping, improving, or protecting the bed,
banks, and flood plain for hydralic efficiency.
Under the Shoreland Ordinance, Nine Mile Creek is classified a
General Development Water. Section 11.50, Subdivision 6, c, 2, b,
requires multiple housing attached dwellings to have a minimum
setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark of 150 feet.
•
A single family dwelling is required to have a minimum setback
•
from the Ordinary High dater Mark of 100 feet.
The first item under consideration is the conversion of an
existing screened porch, into an office/conference room. The
•
proposed addition is 59' from the Nine Mile Creek and 18' from the
rear lot line.
The second item under consideration is the addition to permit a
deck on the Northwest corner of the main structure 15.7' from the
rear lot lino. The deck, which is already existing, was
constructed without a building permit, by the current owner. The
deck will also require a setback variance from Nine Mile Creek of
70'. •
The third item under consideration is the construction of enclosed
stairway, to the West side of the building, 3.1 feet from the rear
•
•
tr
rayc as
•
• lot line and 45' from Nine Mile Creek. State Law requires two
{ stairwells 50 feet from each other in a residential care facility.
The structure is •within 50' of the bank/channel of Nine Mile
Creek. The flood plain ordinance specifically states that a
"contigous parcel of property of sufficient width, but in no case A'
less than 50 feet from the nearest bank of the channel, as the
case may be, shall be sujected to a perpetual easement in favor of y
the City for purposes of: widening, deepening, sloping, improving
or protecting the bed, banks, and flood plain for hydraulic j
efficiency.
Preliminarily, the proposed stairwell addition was reviewed by the
Riley-Purgatory Creek Bluff Watershed District and Department of
Natural Resources.
The Watershed District did not have a concern with the addition, I
so long as proof of a 100' easement could be maintained for a
greenbelt. The plans indicate that a 100' wide greenbelt strip
could be maintained without the easement under the new addition.
• The Department of Natural Resources had the same concerns as the 1
Watershed District.
Both the Watershed District and DNR indicated no concern, so long
as the additions complied with all other City ordinances.
The item must be reviewed by the Parks Commission. j
The fourth request is for a garage addition 70' from Nine Mile
Creek.
4. Site Considerations - The Board should be aware of the total site
plan in considering this variance request.
The site plan indicates 8 exterior parking stalls and 3 covered
parking stalls, for a total of 11 stalls. Two of the stalls will
be earmarked for the facility van and one handicapped parkin± •
stall. According to the program description submitted in •
September of 1934, Welcome Home required a staff of 14, including
full time and part time, to service 18 residents. Checking witl;
Welcome Home, staffing has not been decreased. In total during;
day time haurs, it is possible t.o have 9+ staff members on the
facility site., dopending on scheduling. Parking is limited, if
not non-existent, for visitor parking. The. Board may request
Welcome None to substantiate the number of parking stalls shown On
Idle plan: and indicate the number of visitor stalls required frc.:
•
their experience.
5. Screening and driveway surfacing - City Code requires all off-
street parking areas containing more than 5 stalls to he screone,'
on each i.ido adjoining a residential use or public street. City
Cole also require, all off-street parking areas to be stirfacrd
with asphaltic or Portland cement binder and to be graded, so a•.
to dispose of all area surface water.
rage is
( The site plan does not include screening of the parking areas from
adjacent residential property, or indicate hard surfacing.
• 6. Conclusion - It has been determined that the structure is a •
multiple family dwelling zoned rural, and is, therefore, a non-
conforming use. It must also be determined if the variance
requests are in keeping with the letter and spirit and intent of
the City Code. •
•
The Board will have to answer the following questions prior to
action on the variance request.
Question #1 Do the proposed changes constitute a
material enlargement of a non-conforming use?
•
If the answer to this question is afirmative, the Board must
determine the second question.
Question #2 Is the proponent entitled to the variances
• requested based on a demonstrated hardship?
7. Recommendations
a. The Board could choose to grant Variance Request #85-26
•
with the following findings and conditions:
1. The family care facility must secure a license
under the Public Welfare Licensing Act, Minnesota
Statue 245.801.
•
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
building inspector and fire marshal shall review
building plans for compliance with State and City
building/fire codes.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,
Welcome hone must submit a landscape screening •
plan, indicating screening of parking area fro::1
adjoining residential properties. The plan shoul,!
include type, number, and height of plant material
or height, material and location of a fence. •
•
4. All off-street parking areas shall be hard
surfaced and graded to dispose of all surface
water.
b. The Board could choose to deny Variance Request f35-2G,
based on the following:
•
1. The additions constitutes an enlarq,•ment of a non-
• conformim, mse and is not in keeping with thy' •
spirit. and intcnl of the City Cock.
•
c. The Board could choose • to approve selected variance
request. r
Roger A. Pauly Welcome Home
Lange, Pauly and Gregerson, Ltd. 4250 Stonebridge Circle
4005 IDS Center Minnetrista , MN 55364
'Minneapolis, MN 55402
July 3, 1985
•1
Dear Mr. Pauly,
Welcome Home has submitted to the City of Eden Prairie an
application for a building permit at 7164 and 7'170 Flying Cloud Drive.
My purpose in writing you is to address the emergent issues upon which
approval of our application now appears to depend. The plans we
submitted with our application indicated certain modifications which,
we are told, will require variances. While we are uncertain that our
application requires such variances, we wish to obtain whatever
permits, authorizations, variances as are necessary for our proposed
use of the facility. Accordingly, I wish to offer you here my
perspective as to to the viability of our requests for the variances
and also to speak to the question of expansion of a non-conforming use,
which you identified in our recent meeting. Please find enclosed a
list of the three variances requested, which we submitted to the Board
of Appeals and Adjustments on June 19, 1985.
We are requesting a variance of 32 feet for the minimum setback to
the rear lot line for the screened porch on the South side that we
would convert to an office/conference room (var. 01). We believe this
would enhance the overall effectiveness of our delivery of service by
providing private meeting space for both supervisory and client issues.
Also, we would retain the deck already in place on the Northwest corner
•
(var. 02). We did not know until recently that one or more City
officials consider this an illegal addition. It has considerable value
for our purpose of offering clients a comfortable, secure environment;
if offers privacy from neighbors and is easily monitored from the
house. The deck in question is only 8 feet by 22 1/2 feet and only 3
feet or so off of ground level. It is a functional improvement of the
building and does not adversely affect anyone. Residents of this
facility would be benefited by enjoying such a deck and denial of same
would be a hardship.
We are required (UAC table 33A), however, to add a stairway (var.
113), since our occupancy will exceed ten. The particular positioning
of the proposed stairway was chosen for its minimal impact on the
appearance of the building. Without the stairway described in our
plans we cannot as effectively use the facility for the proposed
program.
It Las been suggested that the buildings proximity (43 feet) to
Nine-Mile Crcek places it within a flood plain and subject. to Flood
Plains liogulat.ien:;, City Code, Chapter 11, Sect 11.115. In terms of the
provisions contained therein, 1 :ubqsIt to you in our behalf the
following:
Subd. 1.h. "Specific Purposes": the oh:rnge:; we propose are
cerrgruen; with the nine purposes identified in this section
(see ;rt t:rehed).
1
{ Subd. 4, II, 2. : inherent here is the assumption of an
"equal degree of encroachment". That is, as I understand it,
the assumption that if the volume of water in the creek were
• to increase, both aides of the stream are equally vulnerable
to inundation. The facility in question, however, sits atop
a bluff on land that is observably higher than the land
• across the stream from it, minimizing the threat of flood
damage. The land upon which the building sits has an
elevation of 860 feet then drops sharply to the stream bed at
850 feet. The opposite bank rises gradually to 852 feet.
Subd. 7, A.: this specifics that variances from .the strict
language of this section may be granted when "(1) such a
variance is determined to be in the public interest, or (2) ff
where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship." Both
apply here: the program will serve primarily western
Hennepin Country residents and without the stairway we cannot
use the building for the program described at all as
effectively.
Subd. 8, A. Factors and conditions upon which decisions for
a permit or variance may be based:
5. "The importance of the sery ices prov ided by the •
proposed facility to the community."
-This has been extensively documented as an earlier •
subject of consideration before the City Council.
The service is badly needed.
7. "The computability of the proposed use with the
existing development.."
-Each of the modifications proposed is highly
computable with the structure as it now exists in
terms of both use and appearance.
11. "The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of •
• rise , and sediment transport of flood waters
expected at the site."
-As mentioned earlier, the relative high altitude
of the facility minimizes this as a concern.
Subd. 16, Interpretation: "... shall be held to be the •
minimum requirement for the promotion of the public heal th,
... and general welfare." The City can grant the variances
we request and meet these requirements.
It has been suggested also that t.hc! building's proximity to the
creek places it in the pury iew of sec. 11.50, Shorel and Management.
submit for your coLsidercltion the fol lowing:
Subd. 3, 1, 4: specifies that compatabil i.ty of proposed
fan.i.l ;'ty with adjacent dnvelep,:,ent will be a consideration
for granting a g"•rmit. As at.:,ted earl ier, the modifi eat ions
are high1.y coin pat.ahie.
Subd. 7, E, 3. Exceptions to zoning restrictions of this
section: the setbacks of existing structures on the lot may
be taken into account and the thesetback of garage our r mtodification
may
be altered. (In this case,
question arc the existing structures.)
With regard to our modifications consituting an expansion of Q8Clihe
e
existing facility, the Attorney General's response to your
inquiry seems to offer compelling guidance. In responding to Question
1 the Attorney General states, "Ordinance provisions against
enlargement... prohibit only a change in a substantial particular in
the structure of the building itself... so that
ing there
i is is as n ff dive
Conversion of the previously existing bth
sure." Theheuctildin into irent
as different structure. ed It merely l does not accomplishes convert
ddition of the accomplishes
bu code.
theB
The Attorney General cited an example which suggests that a change
in a non-conforming use which is not material under applicable
ordinances would not constitute an expansion .of a a non conI rm
1ing City
Further, the Attorney General cited Northwest ate- h re the Court
Brooklyn Center, 352 N.W. 2nd 764 (Minn. App. 1984), ajor
of Appeals rejected an argument that additional residents or "major
physical changes" in a building on or non-conforming
site w
constitue an expansion of a non-conforming
ing-conforming Attorney
iGsGeneral
was
pointed out here that the propertyite
ed in any material respect
characteristics, which were not being chang
by the new use.
If I can provide you with additional information home r ift 729uyo7a have
any questions, please feel free to contact me at my
Thank you for your time and your consideration.of our requests.
Since
S. -G�
Stephen K. Schele
Program Director/Administrator
•
•
•
dra
•
1
• j
APPROVED MINUTES •
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
• i
THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1985 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION - 1
• BLDG., ROOM 5
8100 SCHOOL ROAD
•. BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch,
Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and
Hanley Anderson
BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve•Durham and j
• Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede . i
ROLL CALL: Anderson and Dickey were absent.
•.l. MINUTES
• A. Minutes of J 'e 13, 1985.
}.
• Lynch moved, sec. ded by Krueger, to approve the minut: of June 13,
. . 1985, with the fo .wing amendments: • j.
P. 2, para. 1, line 2, change to read,"Rodberg se. that he only had
one bid for the block w. • which was from Hans H gen. P. 2, para.14, j'
~ k. change to read,"Lynch was concerned about the tree season porch being •
accomplished as a do-it-yo 'self project." P 2, para. 3, line 2, .
change to read, "Rodberg sai • that he plans •o put decorative panels
on the existing garage door." P. 7, para. •, line 2, change "reviewed
the Code" to "brought up to Cod. " P. 8 para., change "$100,000"
to "$10,000." P. 9, para. 1, ch ge "c•rtrol" to"conformance."
Motion carried --2-0-1. (Sandvick abs wined.)
i,
ii. VARiANCES
A Request "85 21 submitted by Hai' ton inn for property located .dent 1
of Nrv. :169 south of Val ley. V ow Cod 1st of Hwy. '...1.-----The re-
guest i s for a variance 1rt, r tv C.ed Cho.: t< r 11 Section r 11.03,
Su!drersion 2 B. to Inr+ it 1 e Construction r i 125 room hotel
with a floor are ratio of .4r. (Code permits a r xi:nul i .AY,. of
11 FT-
George Watson, represei .inq Hnn:pton Inn, stated th t. they would
like a continuation a the request until the next s-heduled
meeting. (The City 'IounciI denied first reading of nipton inn
at its duly 2, 198' meeting.)
)
MOTION: by ch made a motion to continue Variance Pe guest
,: `, 21 to he next schcdiled r :etirrg Angust 8, 19:15. Sand-
via set-. nded the rot ion Motion coil'rr•d un n rously. i
l
1
•. 1
1
11 l
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - July 11, 1985
F. Request_#85-26, submitted� by_Welcome Home for property located at 7170 Bryant take Drive. The request is for a variance fram pro-
visToiis of City Code, Chapter 11, including Sections 11.03, 11.45,
and11.5O:
1) To permit conversion of a screened porch, 18 feet from the
rear lot line, into an office/conference room.
2) To permit a deck addition to the northwest corner of the
main structure 15.7 feet from the.rear lot line.
3) To permit construction of enclosed stairway, to be added
to the west side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear
lot line.
4) To permit an addition of a garage and 1-3 above within 150
feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of General Development
Waters.
5) To determine whether proposed changes in the building,
constituting a non-conforming use, located on the property,
may be made.
Steve Schele, Program Director/Administrator of Welcome Home, re-
viewed the request with the Board. Blueprints of the house were
displayed. Schele identified the requested variances:
• 1) To permit conversion of a screened porch 18 feet from the
rear lot line, into an office/conference room.
•
The screened porch is on the south side of the building.
It would be used as an office/meeting room. This would
enhance the overall effectiveness of delivery of service
• by providing private meeting space to both supervisory
and client issues. It will not change the external appear-
ance of the building.
2) To permit a deck addition to the northwest corner of the
main structure 15.7 feet from the rear lot line.
/ i O
•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - July 11, 1985
•
Welcome Home is requesting to keep the deck which is al-
ready in place on the northwest corner. It will offer
• clients a comfortable, secure, stress-free environment.
•
3) To permit construction of an enclosed stairway, to be added
• to the west side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear 4
lot line.
•
Welcome Home is required (UBC Table 33 A) to add a stairway,
since the occupancy will exceed 10. It will have a minimal
impact on the appearance of the building. Without the
stairway, they cannot use the facility as effectively for
the proposed program.
Lynch inquired about the stairway requirements. Schele said that
the Uniform Building Code requires that they have two stairways a
specific distance apart. Even though there are two stairways
there now, they are not the required distance apart. •
•
Schele referred to provisions in the City Code in regard to the
variances. Nothing that Welcome Home wants to do is contrary to i
anything in these sections. They are all within the harmony and �.
intent of the Code.
Schele read from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.45, Subd. 4, Flood
Plain Uses, B, 2. It states in part:
"Consideration of the effects of a proposed obstruction or use
shall be based on the reasonable assumption that there will be
an equal degree of encroachment extending for an entire reach
on both sides of the stream."
Schele felt that the assumption is, as water rises, it is going to
extend beyond the banks of the stream. The site that the building
sits on is on much higher ground. It is not in danger'of flooding.
Schele referred to City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.45, Subd. 7,
Variance Standards, A. It states in part:
"Variances from the strict language of this Section may be
granted by the Council only when 1) such variance is determined
to be in the public interest."
Schiele noted that the program will serve priiaari ly western Henn-
epin County residents and without the stairway, they cannot use
. j
•
/ (
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 10- July 11, 1985 it
•
• the program described as effectively.
or 2)°where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship
because of circumstances unique to the individual property
under consideration. However, no variance shall have the
effect of permitting a lower degree of flood protection than
the regulatory flood protection elevation for the land under
consideration. The Council shall grant variances only pursuant
to the provisions of this Section."
Schele read from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.45, Subd. 3, Factors
and Conditions Upon tihich Decisions May be Based. It reads in part:
A. "Factors. In passing upon a permit or variance application,
the Council shall consider all revelent factors s?ecified
in this Section, and also consider the following factors:
5. The importance of the services provided by the proposed
facility to the community.
7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing devel-
opment and development reasonably anticipated in the future.
11. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and
sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site."
Schele stated that the service is badly needed. Also, each of the
modifications proposed is highly compatible with the structure as
it now exists in terms of both use and appearance.
Schele referred to City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11.45, Subd. 16,
Interpretation. It states in part:
"In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Section
they shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the pro-
nation of the public health, safety, prosperity and general
welfare."
Schele felt that the City can grant the variances requested and meet
these requirements.
Schele read from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Shoreland
Management, Subd. 3, Regulation of Structures Within the Lake. It
reads in part:
If
L. Factors Considered Prior to Granting Permit. In exercising
its discretion to grant. or deny permits, the Council may
consider, among other things, the following:
4. Whether the proposed facility will be compatible with
adjacent. dove Invent,
Schele felt that the facility is highly compatible.
r
Board of Appeals and Adjustments -11 - . July 11, 1985
Schele referred to City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Shoreland
Management, Subd. 7, Additional Zoning Restrictions. In addition
to the requirements set out in Subd. 6 above, the following restrict-
ions shall apply to all shoreland areas and protected waters. It
reads in part:
E. Exceptions to Zoning Restrictions of this Section.
3. "Where development exists on both sides of a proposed •
•
building site within the same lot as the proposed
building site, structural setbacks may be altered to
take setbacks of existing structures into account if
approved by the Building Inspector."
Schele said that the garage and the house itself are the existing
•
structure. The stairway would not be significantly close to the
stream.
Schele noted that Variance Request #4 had been eliminated from
the request.
Schele said that Variance Request #5 deals with future expansion
of the building. There are 3 points on which expansion could be
debated: i
1) The City Council on January 22, 1985, decided that the use •
had been established as multi-residential. The Attorney
General's opinion substantiates that vote.
2) The Attorney General cited an example which suggested that
a change in non-conforming use which is not material under
applicable ordinances would not constitute an expansion of
a non-conforming use.
3) The Court of Appeals rejected an argument that additional
residents on "major physical changes" in a building on a {
non-conforming site would constitute an expansion of a non-
conforming use. (Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of
Brooklyn Center.)
John Koneck, lawyer from the firm of Fredrikson and Bryon, represented
several residents of the Willow Creek neighborhood. Koneck opposes A
the variance and questioned why Welcome home was present as they have l
no interest in the property. Koneck said that there is no purchase •
agreecnt. Y.onrck reviewed background information. Don Hanson,
owner of the property, entered into a purchase agreement and sold i
the property to I rancis Condon. Condon intended to lease the pro- i
perty to Welcome Home. That purchase agreement: is no longer in force
because certain contingencies in it ;were not satisfied. Condon has no 1,
interest, in the property. Koneck felt Welcome Home has no interest in
the property and they are here prematurely. The matter should either
be continued or denied. •
Schele stated that: Welcome How has demonstrated interest in the tt-
property 1ur our yam'. •
•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 12-
July 11, 1985
James Just, Executive Director of Welcome Home, said that Koneck is
using a smoke screen attempt, which has been demonstrated time and
( time again. There is some question as to legality of the continuing ,
purchase agreement. Legal counsel informs Welcome Home that they do indeed have interest to the property. Welcome Home is present here 1
tonight with a valid application.
whichYconCclted udeshthaththereeishnonval idnpurchase agreement�?placation,
Koneck noted that the setback requirements in the variance are not 4
small. They are for 32 feet, 34 feet, and 16 feet. Koneck referred
to City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.45, Subd. 7, A, Variance Stand- }
ares. (See p. 2.) Koneck stated that he has not heard any discussion
that would fall in the category of undue hardship as required by the it
ordinance for Welcome Home. i
Koneck noted that there are 3 criteria for a hardship:
1) The property in question can't be put to a reasonable use if l
the ordinance were enforced.
• Koneck felt that Welcome Home could be used as a duplex.
2) The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances
unique to his property; not created by the landowner. 1
Koneck felt that the landowner created the problem himself.
The plight of the landowner is caused by the fact that the
J.
landowner wants to use the property in ways that the zoning
ordinance doesn't allow.
3) The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential
t
character of the locality. l
Koneck noted that it is a single family low density area. The 1
variance will change the area into a high density, apartment. ,
quasi-conr,;ercial use. If Welcome Halle has to comply with the
ordinances regarding setbacks, they are going to suffer econ-
omic hardships. Economic hardship alone is not enough to grant
•
a variance.
Schele stated that they could not put the structure to a reasonable
use for Welcome Home's purposes without variances.
Schele said that they have a contract with Hennepin County to provide
service for 16 people. Regarding altering the essential character
of the locality, Schele said that the issue of a higher density was
discussed at the City Council level. It does not belong before the
Board tonight. •
Kru,rgi• staled that he had no prohlel' with,thesepisetbackks, Heequestioned
if prontine of the v,ui,�nccs is the
approv l process. Oust replied that they hoped so.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 13 -
July 11, 1985
• Roger Pauly, City Attorney, stated that this request could go to
the City Council if someone appealed the decision.
r
Krueger said that if the Board approved the variances, construction
could begin. He inquired if Welcome Home had all necessary licenses. ?.
Just said that they have applied for the licenses and gone through
the entire process. The situation is contingent upon Welcome Home
being able to occupy, modify and utilize the building. The health,
and program licenses, etc., all come together at that time.
Pauly noted that the only issue that has been determined by the City
Council is that the property is presently a proper non-conforming use
as a multi-dwelling. Under State Law, use of the licensed facility
• for up to 16 persons would be permitted. The issue now involves the
modifications of the property. There are two basic questions that
should be addressed and answered:
1) Under the City Code, relating to non-conforming uses, can
•
these physical changes be made to the property. You should
disregard the fact that it will be used for a group home
facility. That issue is not here; the question is, can the
physical changes proposed to the property, be made to a non- .
conforming structure.
2) The request for the variances should or should not be granted.
The same criteria should be used that is used in determining
all variances. It raises the issue of whether it should or
•
should not be granted. i
Pauly suggested that members of the Board make a judgment on their 1
own determination and on the basis of the Code. (Pertinent sections I
are quoted in the Staff Report.) The section is intended to limit
the number and extent of non-conforming uses by prohibiting their
enlargment. Also, the Board can compare sections of the Code that
deal with the Shoreland and Flood Plain. The Board must decide if
changes are of such a magnitude that they are material, significant,
and constitute an expansion. A review of similar cases brought before 1
the State Supreme Court indicates the law on the subject of improve-
ments to non-conforming uses is rather chaotic. (Ex. The Northwest
Residence case involved a four-plex that was turned into a group a
home. It had four kitchens which were converted into bedrooms and
office space. This did not bother the higher court.)
i
Koneck agreed with Mr. Pauly's statement. Koneck stated that it
mist be decided if it is an enlarge:.eiit or an alteration of a non-
confor,idng uc.e or just routine maintenance and repairs. Koneck
remarked that the interior of the hour.e is being revamped and cost
is an important factor. Initially, the cost vets set at S20,000-
$30,000. lho building permit application represented S50,000. The
contractor hired by the Wi11ow Creek norghbcn•haod, estimated the cost
to be represented as $65,000. That. is ': or more ': the value of
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
14- July 11, 1985 `
• the property. That is a significant enlargement or extension of
a non-conforming use. .
Koneck read from City Code, Chapter 11.45 Flood Plain Regulation,
Subd. 9. Non-Conforming Structures or Obstructions; Lapse; Des- i
truction. A, 3. It states in part: ,',
"If any non-conforming structure or obstruction is destroyed
or damaged by any means, including floods, to the extent that
the cost of repairing or restoring such destroyed or damaged
non-conforming structure or obstruction would be 50% or more
of the Assessor's Market Value for tax purposes at the time r4
of damage, then it shall not be reconstructed.except in full
compliance, in all respects, with the provisions of this
• Section including, but not limited to, the obtaining of all
1.
required permits." I.
Koneck remarked that Welcome Home's building hasn't been damaged,
but they are spending 50 or more to fix it up. It is an expan-
sion of a non-conforming use. Koneck suggested that they tear i
the building down and start over.
Schele said that virtually none of the changes will be on the j
exterior. Regarding the cost, it doesn't make sense for Koneck ,
to present it as an argument here as the cost is unknown to them.
Just noted that Welcome Home has a firm contractor bid that is not 1
near $65,000. i
Just mentioned the case brought before the Supreme Court consisting
e sa
Home andr
rwhich 1ista �permitted odificatause.ons alAnpreg icedent has nalready es as ebeen e I
set.
Schele said that the Board of Appeals rejected an argument that .
additional residents or major physical changes in a building in a
•
non-conforming site constitute expansion of a non-conforming use. 4
Koneck stated that he has a copy of the case; there is no language
in it regarding the use.
Krueger noted that. we are here to discuss the variance requests.
•
Koneck said that regarding the Flood Plain Regulation, Section 11.45,
and the Shoreland ilanagement, none of the factors have been discussed.
It must. be considered if it is an undue hardship and also the effect •
on the community. •
Koneck npnlogi e,d to Welcome Home for his aargiriiients. Koneck felt
•
that. the essential character of the neighborhood will be changed.
Krupu r said that the proposed stairway is no catastrophe. There is
a turn-around in the trunt yard and additional parking spaces will be
added. •
•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments -15 - • July ll, 1985
Koneck said that one should look at the building on the interior and
the way it will look after all the changes are made.
•
Schele noted that the building itself was chosen because it was re-
moved from the rest of the neighborhood. It is on a frontage road. i
Even though it abutts other property, it has a sense of being isolated
• with much foliage in the area. )
i
• Just added that down the road is a salvage company,which is not ,
exactly a residential neighborhood.
Dan Grote, 7061 Willow Creek Road, stated neighbors are concerned 1
about a precedent being set along Bryant Lake Drive with Welcome
Home in the neighborhood. High density land use is being proposed l
in an area guided for low density. There will be significant changes
in the appearance of the neighborhood. There was also concern re-
garding use of the Bren driveway (7150 Bryant Lake Drive), which
was not part of the property's access. i
• i
Just apologized for his attitude. • t
•
Just said that the Attorney General has indicated that the property •
. is a multi-use property. The language says that it must be permitted
as a use for this type of clientele. Welcome Home is trying to accom •
-
plish provisions as put before them by the State and the City. The
parking provisions are City requirements. It would be their preference
• not to pave. The determination has been made with regard to the •
character and the nature of the building, any modifications to be
• made don't alter the character of the building. The only change that .
would suggest an enlargement or expansion of the physical property
itself, would be the stairway. It is not a significant change to .
the character of the building. If the building were to be continued
to be used as a duplex, the requirements would apply anyway.
•
Elaine Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, felt that the facility would
be an expansion of the present site. Sorensen was concerned about the
purchase agreement.
Krueger felt that the purchase agreement was not an issue.
Sorensen said that the Board must decide if the changes are an expan-
sion of a non-conforming use. Sorensen asked if the Board would
approve those changes if someone other than Welcome Home were proposing •
changes to the building. •
LOTION: lynch made a notion to deny Variince Request P85-26
submitted by Welco;.;r ilou:e with the following findings:
•
1) The conversion of a screened porch, the addition to the deck,
and tip, stairwayf
addition, do constitute do enlargement o
a lion-conforiinn use. -
2) The propsed ch.+rages Arc not in keeping with the spirit and •
intent of l.ne Lity Code.
•
Iil• )
1
Board of Appeals and Adjusbnent$
- 16- July ll, 1985
Sandvick indicated that he would have to abstain from the vote.
( Pauly suggested the motion be sure to include:
•
1) Whether or not proposed modifications constitute a
change or changes not permitted under the Code for
•
• a non-conforming use.
2) Whether or not the variance requested should or should
not be granted.
Lynch did not understand the difference of including Question #2
in the motion. •
Pauly explained the difference. If it is concluded that the
proposed changes do not constitute an enlargement, are not sig-
nificant, not material, and are permitted under Code, his view
of the state of the law is that a variance is not technically
required.
Pauly stated that there was a stalemate 'situation as to the
motion for the variance.
•
Motion to deny the variance failed for lack of a second.
The motion did include the two questions that Pauly stated.
Lynch stated that we must continue the meeting and have more
Board representation.
. Pauly said that the Public Hearing can
b continued
dstoot notheional
er
date so that all parties have an opportunity tret .o
information and supplement what they have presented.
MOTION: Krueger made a motion to continue the meeting until
July 25, 1985. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
III. OLD BUSINFSS
None
IV. NEW BUSINESS •
None
V. ti0,10 Il:i_1ENT
liOTTON: Sandvick waved, seconded by Krueger to adjourn the meeting at
9:,0 I'M. i;otion carried unanimously.
!f •l
� lii.b Welcome [ionic PHONE:(012)474.7052
►—+ JAMCS JUST,EXECUTIVE omECTOR 4250 STONEantDGE CIRCLE
MINNETHISTA,MN 55354 ,
July 19,1985
Mr.Ronald Krueger
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
City of Eden Prairie
73821"ashington Ave.S.
• Eden Prairie,111N 55344
Dear Mr.Krueger:
My purpose in writing is to address tho two questions identified by City Attorney
Roger Pauly at the July 11 meeting.1 understood them to be: (1)do the modifications 1
we propose constitute an expansion of use?(2)are the variances we request .
permissible? hir.Pauly explained that if the wort does not constitute an expansion
then the variances are not required.
with regard to the first question,I submit to you that it has already boon
established that the modificetionsvo propose do not constitute an expansion.
Multi-residential Use has been doomed permissible at this particular site and,as 1
identified in an earlier letter to you,the Attorney General stated clearly"Ordinance
provisions against...onirrgeraent...prohibit only a change in a substantial i
particular in the structure of the building i'z elf...&o that there is an effective j
conversion of.,.the building into adifferont structure." II-oro the addition of the
propes2d stairway dogs not,its f act,convert the buil:.ti:)•;into a"different structure".
it merely acco^t.ni ishes coda. (I hays included a copy of I he Attorney General's
opinion for your considorat.ion.)
Further,rs I else identified in my earlier totter,tho Minnesota Court.of Appeals,
jdor(i cst" c• Inr V.t 'yef' ro'17Li.C,7 at .r 352!I AI.2nd 764(::'inn.App.
1930,t.jean• an arcument t.hst,.hatten !r esic..,nt::or major physical changes in a
t
buildic,out a non-conforraag siiuvoc.tld constitut<r.,1 cr.pnnsion of a
non-cunformis tt use. P.g.tin,our pro..osed modifications cannot be regarded an
elp:assion of c o n-cents:going use. •
VirtusIty sit the vtor`.t'.so propesa*is to meet code rr:eguireronts. Enclosing tho
furnaca and irestntlin sar iern liluin,eing would is c required of whomever owns the
facility.
Ra;;nrciinr,tho sccottct question concerning v'ria COS°1,x2,and"3,the
prep^.N.,! 1 if v.:y 1 n rticui t es. a*of our I C_tin; C(•c!re uirealentS 1
id rti i.d t. :.;to i,uit t :t Oanu;Ci..c cotttci:a:,. Tlioc c ntcd cIc andthe porch
arc .;.Jtic.).co ci+ulct r,).i y icryc,:r-round use,a.ro:ninraal inodtfic;tiotts having 1
consi;leral Ic value for ctionts.
c3
i
•
•
' MUNICIPT:LITIE£:: ZONING. An expansion of a lawful non-conforming
_ duplex into a tri-plea does not constitute abandonment of the use
as a duplex. Minn. Stat. SS 245.812, subd. 4 and 462.357, subd. 8
% permit residential facilities licensed by the Departmentloffof Human
Services and housing between 7 and 16 persons
non-conforming multi-family uses in districts zoned as single family.
The local zoning authority may not restrict the facility to less
than sixteen persons.
April 25, 1985 1
1
Roger A. Pauly ;
Lange, Pauly & Gregerson, Ltd. 477b-34
4005 IDS Center (Cr. 59a-32) •
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 t
Dear Mr. Pauly: .
In your capacity as city attorney of Eden Prairie, you
i
present substantially the following
' FACTS i
An organization known as Welcome Home has `1
indicated to the City its desire to establish a
facility licensed under the Public Welfare ti
Licensing Act, Minn. Stat. S 245.801 et seg.,
serving up to 16 mentally ill persons. The
• property consists of .93 acres and contains
improvements consisting of a house and a
detached garage. Evidence submitted to and
obtained by the City indicates that the house ,
was used continuously as a multi-family duplex 1
during the period commencing prior to ,
October 14, 1969, to approximately 1980. If
• true, use of the property as a duplex would
constitute a lawful non-conforming use under
applicable city ordinances, although the area
was re--:zoned in 1969 to prohibit residential
uses other than single family :ts parcels ed notdwellingsless
of
and accessory structures on
than five acres. I
Tn 1980, the dwelling was remodeled, apparently
without a permit from the City, into a tri-plex,
for which it has been used up until the
present.1/
We undurctnnd that Welcome Home and community residents y
�� e fact::. Attorney General opinions do not
di PUtD !:U1pt of olvc r t :c i:(ci_::..rill
t.
r, tc : :.._':c G;.:: opinion; we
base' ; •` for purpose of this of
•
boned on ar.s•ut;u�d fact:;. Thus,
take as true the version of the facts with which you have
presented us and base our response herein on those facts. Jk)
.'V.J .k' ':..�.
Roger A. Pauly •
Page 2
April 25, 1985
You then asked the following questions: !.
QUESTION 1
Is a lawful non-conforming use of a dwelling as
a multi-family duplex abandoned or otherwise
lost forever by converting it into and using it •
as a tri-plex without approval of the local
governing authority?
OPINION
At the outset, we note that your question assumes that
changing a duplex to a tri-plex is an unlawful expansion of a
non-conforming use. While not passing on this question, we do not
wish to imply that its answer is clear. Courts have permitted
changes in non-conforming uses that are not substantial, including
changes that necessitated interior re-modeling. See 4A Rathkopf,
The Law of Zoning and Planning, at section 51.06f2)(b) (4th Ed.
1985); Annotation, "Construction of a New Building or Structure on
Premises Devoted to Non—conforming Use as Violation of Zoning
Ordinance," 10 ALR 4th 1122 (1981) . An increase in the volume of a
trade or business conducted as a non-conforming use or other
intensification of the use is generally held to be permissible so
long as the basic nature and character of the use is unchanged from
that which existed at the time the use or structure became
•
non-conforming. Rathkonf, sworn at page 51-86.
Ordinance provisions against extension or enlargement have
been held to prohibit only a change or substitution in a substantial
particular in Ow Stru,:tult of tic c.a in ow_ of•
•
•
[')l
1 �
Roger A. Pauly •
page 3
April 25, 1985
parts or by the addition of another structure to it so that there is
an effective conversion of the previously existing building into a
different structure. Rathkopf, supra, page 51-93. Thus, in
Immordino v. Zoning Bearing Board of Morrisville Borough, 441 A.2d
816 (Penn. 1962), the court indicated in dictum that a property
owner who enlarged a non-conforming four unit dwelling into a
six-unit dwelling could lawfully have accomplished the enlargement
had the six apartments in question each met the minimum square
footage requirements in the applicable zoning ordinance. This
suggests that a change in a non-conforming use which is not material
under applicable ordinances would not constitute an expansion of a
non-conforming use. Similarly, in Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City
of Brooklyn Center, 352 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. App. 1984) , the Minnesota
Court of Appeals rejected an argument that a proposed group home for
the mentally ill would constitute an expansion of a non-conforming
use where the buyer contemplated additional residents and major
physical changes in a four unit building already found on a
non-conforming site, on the ground that the property was
non--conforming only in its site characteristics, which were not
being changed in any material respect by the new use. 352 N.W.2d at
771.
Determining whether the change from a duplex to a tri-plex
would con: titute an expansion of a non•-conforming use would
{
nccc:;;;it.;,tc Loth ranking factual determinations and construing 1oca1
I/9 2`
A . i
Roger A. Pauly
�, Page 4
April 25, 1985
{
Eden Prairie ordinances, which we decline to do. It is unnecessary
to answer this question, however, in order to respond to your
inquiry whether the change from a duplex to a tri-plex, assuming it
to be an expansion of a non-conforming use, constituted abandonment
of a prior use. We answer that question in the negative.
Abandonment of a non-conforming use is a question of
intent. This intent can be implied in many situations. See
generals Rathkopf, su ra, at Section 51.08. Non-use alone, even
for lengthy periods of time, has been held to be insufficient
evidence of the necessary intent to abandon, particularly when a
court finds indications of a contrary intent on the part of owner or
• operator. Id. at page 51-133. However, non-use may be evidence of
an intent to abandon. Similarly, a change from one non-conforming
use to a completely different one nay indicate an intent to abandon.
Id. at page 51-129; see State v. Hiller., 206 Minn. 345, 288 N.W. 713
(1939).
An expansion of a non-conforming use does not establish
the requisite intent to abandon under Minnesota law. In County of e.
F'reobern v. Clausen, 233 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. 1972), the defendant
constructed a new building on his non-conforming commercial property
• located in a residential district, in order to enclose the storage
and repair of earth-moving equipment, which he was then conducting
in the open. In passing on the constitutionality of the city's
C'C L� of C.c.s,...0,:nt,' s petition to re::onc, the Supri'I'd_ Court held
Roger A. Pauly
( Page 5
April 25, 1985
that the defendant was entitled to continue his present
nonconforming use in the same manner and to the same extent that it
was operated at the time the zoning ordinance went into effect. 203
N.W.2d at 327.
• The facts which you have outlined bring this case within
the purview of the Claussen decision, rather than the Miller
decision, su ra. Where a property owner has abandoned one
non-conforming use for another completely different one, as in
Miller, it is logical to infer that the earlier non-conforming use
has been abandoned. Aowever, where, as here, the property owner has
enlarged a two-family unit to a three-family unit, it is not logical
to infer that the two-family use has been abandoned. •
QUESTION 2
Do Minn. Stat. S 245.812, subd. 4 and g 462.357,
subd. 8, require a municipality to permit the
use of a lawful non-conforming multi-family
residence (which is situated in a zoning
district which otherwise permits only
single-family dwellings) for a licensed
residential facility serving from seven to 16
persons?
OPINION
We answer your question in the affirmative. .Relevant
portions of the Public Welfare Licensing Act (hereinafter "Act")
•
Minn. Stat. § 245.812, subd. 4, together with its sister provision,
Minn. Stat. 5 462.357, subd. 8, state that "a licensed residential
facil ity r"rving from Seven through sixteen persons . . . shall be
•
Boger A. Pauly •
( Page• 6
April 25, 1985
j
considered a permitted multi-family residential use of property for
purposes of zoning." If this property constitutes a lawful
non-conforming multi-family residence, the city of Eden Prairie must
. allow its use as a residential facility for the mentally ill. Had
the Legislature intended to restrict the ambit of this provision to
multi-family zones, it could have so stated. Instead, it has
designated such facilities as multi-family residential uses of
property "for purposes of zoning," a designation that is, in our
view, applicable to the entire body of local zoning law, including
that pertaining to permitted non-conforming uses. This means that
any permitted multi-family dwelling may be used for a residential
facility licensed under the Act, regardless of whether it is in a
single family district.
The structure of the statute supports this reading. Under
Minn. Stat. §§ 245.812 and 462.357, residential facilities licensed
under the Act are permitted in both single and multi-family zoning .
districts. Sec subds. 3 and 7 respectively. Thus, the statute
draws no distinction as to where such a facility should exit:. i1
Rather, the distinction is drawn simply in terms of the number of
residents. If a single family district contains a permitted
. multi-family use which could meet the state licensing requirements
pertaining to space and sanitation for seven to sixteen mentally
disabled persons, it would be an absurd result if state law only
allows the building to house up to six such inciiviuuals. Y'nu
Roger A. Pauly
ge 7
'r,pril 25, 1985
•
Legislature avoided this result by establishing facilities housing
from seven to sixteen persons as permitted multi-family uses "for
purposes of zoning," rather than as permitted use in multi-family
zones.
This reading of the statute is also consistent with its
basic intent: to effectuate "the policy of this state that
handicapped persons and children should not be excluded by municipal
zoning from normal residential surroundings" and "to facilitate
•
acceptance of group homes in residential communities." See
respectively, Minn. Stat. S 245.812, subd. 2a, Minn. Stat.
J 462.357, subd. 6a, Costley v. Caromin house, Inc., 313 N.W.2d 21,
27 (Minn. 1971). See also Good Neighbor Care Center v. Little
Canada, 357 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. App. 1984) .
• OUrsTION 3
If the answer to 2 is in the affirmative, may .
the City restrict the number of persons who may
reside in a licensed residential facility to
less than 16, e.g. , 10?
OP7NTON
We answer your question in the negative. While the city
could enforce neutral zoning ordinances that prohibit in excess of
16 persons, sae Northwest ue:.idence, Supra, the statute makes clear
that, once a residential facility is established as a permitted
multi-family use, it may house 7 through 16 persons. Minn. Stat.
S 245.812, subd. 4 and 462.357, subd. 8. See also, Op. Atty.
I R&`
1
•
Roger A. Pauly
Page 8
,( April 25, 1985
Gen. 477b 34 (April 26, 1982). The city cannot reduce the number of
persons permitted without violating the statute. The city can,
however, require a conditional or special use permit "in order to
assure proper maintenance and operation" of the facility. Minn.
Stat. S 245.812, subd. 4. In so doing, it cannot impose conditions
on the facility "which are more restrictive than those imposed on
other conditional uses or _•pecial uses of residential property in
the same zones" Id. The City's ability to impose conditions "for
• the health and safety of residents" under this provision is
restricted to site characteristics. See Northwest Residence, Inc,
352 N.W.2d at 773.
Sincerely, •
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY► III
Attorney General
MARY ANN BERNARD
Special Assistant
Attorney General
515 Transportation Building
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
Telephone: (612) 297-4003
Again,I hope this is helpful. feel free to contact for any further information.
Sincerely.
Stephen K.Scheie
Program Director/Administrator •
•
•
jj
r`:a� 2
FREDIIKSON & BYRON
,.PROI L\+w.U.au"CLcl laa •
i
1100 lail'R\\TIPS aL C1:S1R!
000 al.COSI,.a11'.\l t SOt oil
MIS\E IPUI.tS.MINNESOT.A S3.I03.339T (n,n;tin,vm i,�1`;:Imnl4st,N
'1..r.N,,, M. .nr R it t1.%i ,",I X ILOOkar,A MPT U�% o ^,,.,I.n n.iTm o,
�.I"rY� �.��'`R TI'.u.,,,, ,,,uit 341•)u7f f1 ,,..u,r 3
_ Tl:Ll P,10\,:I.1/,311•)000 Nl'�A' '
!' --In ., NIi rtls UI Rl f:T OI.aL -T' <NN4
u F•
T .. U. 347-7038 .R„ I,_,� R. r.kr
" - WU•L I, Mlw ay..,.wao,:R4
n� ,�.u�i:.. X, .1
•
July 25, 1985
Mr. Hanley Anderson
Mr. James Dickey ,
Mr. Ronald Krueger
Mr. Richard Lynch .
Mr. Roger Sandvick
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
City of Eden Prairie
7382 Washington Avenue South
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 1
Gentlemen: '
• I represent several persons residing in Willow
Creek Road. This letter concerns the request by Welcome
Home, Inc. for certain variances and is in response to its
letter to Mr. Krueger dated July 19, 1985.
Welcome Home submits that there are two questions
to be answered with regard to its variance requests:
"1. Do the modifications we propose constitute
an expansion of use?
2. are the variances we request permissible?"
Enl;lrrc;nent of Non-Conforming Use.
As; to the first question, as Mr. Pauly explained at
the hearing on July 11, 195'), you must determine whether the
improver,"nts proposed by Welcome Home, Inc. constitute (a)
an expansion or enlarr;cment or a non-conforming use, or (b)
merely routine maintenance and repairs relating to a 000-
confor i lot use. 1f you find thot the improvements proposed
by We1come Home constitute an expansion or enlargement, then
you must deny Welcome Home, inc. 's variance requests.
-1c�
I
!
f
I:It E I)ItIKS0N & I3YIt0N •
• Members of the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments
Page Two
July 25, 1985 •
The following is what we believe is a partial list
of the improvements proposed by Welcome Home, Inc. :
Build stairway on first floor
Remove and cover another stairway on the first floor
Move wall on second floor bathroom graded entrance
Build wall in furnace room
Build wall in current laundry room
Build wall in living/dining room
Substantial alterations in kitchen
Change porch to office
' Change kitchen to reception area
Landscaping for volleyball
Change driveway
Change landscaping for parking
Add passage through bedroom on second floor
Divide building into two sides
Build wall on second floor to divide open living
area into two bedrooms
Build shower to second floor bathroom
Expand bathroom into areas covered by stairway
Remove closets from bedrooms j
We estimate that the improvements proposed by Welcome Home A
should be valued at approximately $65,000 and the value of
the building is approximately $130,000 (and this estimate
is based on only a partial list of the improvements to be
completed) . Thus, the improvements proposed by Welcome Home
will comprise at least 50 percent of the value of the building.
In a similar context, Sections 11..45, Subd. 9.A. 3 and 11.50,
Subd. 12.13 of the Eden Prairie City Code provide that an
illegal expansion or enlargement of a non-conforming use 9
occurs if the cost of repairing damaged property exceeds 50 . t
percent of the value of the property. i
Welcome Home's position appears to be that the text
of whether an expansion or enlargement of a non—conforming
use has occurred is whether the changes are so substantial
that. the building becomos a different structure. We submit
i that a simple list of the improvements establishes that after
I the improvoments, the building would truly become a different
f structure. In fact, the improvements are _.o substantial that
, t.hu City Building Inspector said t:h, t. it might be cheaper
i to tear down the building and start. over.
•
! Variance P.eeuest_
With t h regard to the vari ancc request : to perm.i t. con-
ver::ion of a :;creenc•d porch 13 feet from the rear. lot line
i
•
• FREDRIKSON Sc BYRON
Members of the Board of
( Appeals and Adjustments
A.
Page Three
July 25, 1985 {
into an office/conference room, to permit a deck addition
- to the northwest corner of the main structure 15.7 feet from
1.1
the rear lot line, and to permit construction of an enclosed
stairway be added to the west side of the main structure,
34 from the rear lot line, Welcome Home must prove two t
elements pursuant to Section 11.76 of the City Code: j
i
1. that strict enforcement of the zoning ordinances
would cause undue hardship because of circum-
stances unique to Welcome Home; and
J.
2. that the granting of such variances will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
zoning ordinance.
"Undue hardship" means that the property (1) cannot
be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed
by the zoning ordinance, (2) the plight of Welcome Home must be due
to circumstances unique to its property not created by it, (
and (3) the variance, if granted, will not alther the essential
character of the locality. Most importantly, economic con-
siderations alone do not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use of the property exists.
Welcome Home simply cannot satisfy the standard
for the variances. First, the property can obviously be put
to a reasonable use as a residential duplex or even as a
residential care facility for 6 or fewer residents if used
under conditions controlled by the current zoning ordinances. 3:
Moreover, Welcome Home's plight is due to its desire to modify
the current use of the property. Finally, granting the ,
variances will allow the property to be converted into a
quasi-commercial, high density use when all of the adjoining
neighborhood is a residential, low •den::ity use--in other words,
the essential character of the neighborhood will be altered.
'j.
Welcome Homo, Inc. cites Northwest Pe;;.idence,
Inc. v. City of ? reekly s Center, 352 N.ld.2d 14o (Minn. App.
1984) , and an attorney .j .,rra1 's opinion, in support of its k
argument::. Noitht r the case nor the opinion are relevant.
f.i rst , the only imp rovc a nts noted by the: court., in
1\�,rtfn:ef t n. . i,i.•n-o were conve r ;ion of two kitchens into 1
one perren bedrooms and one kitchen into an office. No other
{
/(J3/ #
•
•
•
FRCDRIKSON & BYRON
Members of the Board of •
Appeals and Adjustments
Page Four
July 25, 1985
changes were noted. Unlike the improvements proposed by
Welcome Home, no mention was made of adding stairways on the
outside of the building, removing and covering stairways on
the inside of the building, moving walls within the building,
building additional walls in the building, substantially modify-
ing several rooms on the interior of the building, adding
landscaping to the property, altering the driveway on the
property, dividing the building into two sides, expanding
the bathrooms, and removing closets. In fact, the court never
even addressed the issue of whether the physical improvements
to the property constituted expansion of a non-conforming
use. Second, with regard to the attorney general's opinion,
one needs only to look at the questions that were presented
for his opinion to see that nothing in it relates to your
consideration of these issues.
•
Very truly yours,
hn M. Koneck
JMK:djm
_$
APPROVED MINUTES t
(: BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS f
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1985 7:3D PM, ADMINISTRATION
BLDn., SCHOOL HOARD ROOM
8100 SCHOOL ROAD
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch,
•
Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and
Hanley Anderson
BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and
• Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede
1
ROLL CALL: Sandvick was absent. 1
I. VARIANCE
A. Request ##85-26, submitted by Welcome Home for property located at t
7T y 70 B ant Lake Drive__The request is for a variance rem pro- j
visions of City Code, Chapter 11, including Sections 11.03, 11.45,
and—lT.50
1) To permit conversion of a screened porch, 18 feet from the
rear lot line, into an office/conference room.
•
•
2) To permit a deck addition to the northwest corner of the
main structure 15.7 feet from the rear lot line. •
3) To permit construction of enclosed stairway, to be added
to the west side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear
lot line. •
4) To permit an addition of a garage and 1-3 above within 150
feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of General Development
Waters.
•
•
5) To determine whether proposed changes in the building,
constituting a non-conforming use, located on the property,
may be made.
This variance request was continued from the July 11, 1985 meeting
to allow all parties to have an opportunity to present additional
information and supplement what they have presented. Also, it will f
allow for more Board representation.
Chairman Krueger suggested that: proponent keep,within the two issues
that the variance is concerned. They are:
T.
1) Would the modifications proposed by %!elcome Ilome for property J
which it proposes to occupy at 7170 8ryant Lake Drive, cote-
stitute such :r CIIJW.10 as to violate the provisions of the
A.
City Code relating; t.o non-conforming structures and;
4
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - July 25, 1985
• 2) Is Welcome Home entitled to a variance with provisions -i
maintained in City Code, Chapter 11, with proposed mod-
ifications. J
Steve Schele, Program Director/Administrator of Welcome Home spoke to
:i
• the request.
i
Schele noted that roger Pauly, City Attorney, posed two questions
• at the July 11, 1985 meeting:
1) Do the modifications we propose constitute an expansion i
of use? I
Welcome Home feels that it does not constitute an expansion 1
of use. Schele based this on an opinion of the Attorney q
General, which was submitted by Mr. Pauly. The State Supreme t
Court decision dealt with the same issue in other cases. Both
of these stand as an argument against the expansion of use.
Schele quoted from the Attorney General. It reads in part: i
"Ordinance provisions against...enlargment...prohibit
only a change in a substantial particular in the i
structure of the builidng, itself...so that there is
an effective conversion of the previously existing
building into a different structure." i
Schele said that it accomplishes Code.
2) Are the variances we request permissible?
At the July 11, 1985,meeting Schele quoted various provisions
within the City Code. They are provisions for providing a
variance; not loopholes. The provisions speak clearly to the
exception that needs to be taken.
Dickey asked what rights Welcome Home had in respect to the home.
Schele stated that they have a signed purchase agreement and a
signed variance request by the owner.
Dickey asked the name of the owner. Schele replied that it V1as Don
Hanson.
Dickey said that he can understand Welcome Home's concept; he is not
against it.
Dickey questioned if the property really serves the county when it
is on the ed,ie of the county. Dickey has a problem with the place-
ment of the property and the n;c tc•r of people in it. The job of
the hoard is to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of
Eden Prairie. Adjacent to Welcome Home's property is single family
homes. Dickey wondered if there was not a better place for this
type of hone.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
3 - • July 25, 1985
James Just, Executive Director of Welcome Home, responded that
Hennepin County is satisfied and enthusiastic about the proposed
( location. There have been a number of county studies indicating
that there is a population to be served specifically in the western
suburbs. Just could not say that this was the best location, however.
Welcome Home decided not to invite representatives of the Mental
Health Board. Their support was given at a previous meeting.
Dickey noted that after looking at all information relating to
Welcome Home, it might be best to just build a new building right
from scratch. The home could be built in an area that might be more
pleasant and more conducive to the other citizens of Eden Prairie.
Just said that Council Member Redpath addressed that issue at one
council meeting. There will be objections wherever they go. Just
added that Welcome Home has provided service to the community for
14 years. They have considered whether it is advantageous to
identify a building and make the necessary modifications or build
from scratch. It is their determination that the particular char-
acter of the building is such that they would like to retain it.
Aesthetically speaking,it is an aspect that is appealing to the
Mental Health Board. One Board member stated that it was the only j
facility that she had seen that provides services to clients that
she would like to live in.
Dickey asked if Just and Schele live in Eden Prairie. They both
replied no.
Don Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, asked Steve Durham, Assistant
Planner, if the City has been provided with the signed purchase
agreement and variance request. Durham replied that no purchase
agreement has been submitted. Welcome Home has been asked twice to i
bring in a completed appl i cati on.
Just stated that he had a valid agreement. He didn't see any point 1
or appropriateness to having the terms of the agreement shared with
people who are opposed to the project.
Krueger said that the Board is not asking if they have a purchase
r
agreement or not. Krueger noted that Welcome Home is concerned
with improving their property which is already in violation of 1
the Code.
Sorensen stated that only the owner or a representative of the
owner can mambo a request for a variance. He questioned the
legality of the purchase agreement submitted. There have been
representations made by tic. Hanson, Mm. koneck. Mr. Grote, and
by Mr. H;rn'un's attorney that he has no factual obligations to 1
• F.el cCarc I mm xr or to the third party purchaser who was formerly I
1 i sted on the purchase aorec:rent.
Krueger acted if the Board had received a signed variance request.
Durham rep)ied orgihally no, not a full application.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
- 4 - July 25, 1985
1.
Durham noted that Francis D. Condon's signature was on the agree-
ment just submitted. Just stated that Don Hanson also signed the
form.
Lynch said that the issues before us are out of order. It is not
the Board's decision to decide who owns the property, but to deal
with the variance request.
Krueger asked if there were any comments from the audience.
John Koneck, lawyer with the firkin of Fredrikson and Bryon, represent-
ed several residents of the Willow Creek neighborhood. Koneck asked
if City Attorney Pauly explained the two questions in regard to •
Welcome Home:
1) Would the modifications proposed by Welcome Home, for
property which it proposes to occupy at 7170 Bryant Lake
Drive, constitute such a change as to violate the pro-
visions of the City Code relating to non-conforming
• structures.
2) Is Welcome Home entitled to a variance from provisions
contained in Chapter 11 of the, City Code relating to
the proposed modifications.
•
It was Koneck's understanding from the July 11, 1985 meeting that
•
the second question was addressed not only to the modifications •
•
• in the form of a variance, but the substantial modifications that
•
Welcome Home was proposing relating both to the exterior and the
interior of the building.
Durham said that he did not recall the interior being mentioned. •
Koneck disagreed.
•
Koneck stated that with regard to the first question, it was covered
at great length at the July 11, 1935 meeting. Mr. Pauly highlighted
the issue clearly when he said that you have to decide whether the
improvements proposed by Welcome Home constitute an expansion or •
enlargement of a non-conforming use, or merely routine maintenance
and repairs relating to a non-conforming use. Koneck noted that the
improvements proposed by Welcome Howe are substantial.
Koneck said that City Building Official '.rayne Sanders told Sorensen •
that it mould probably be cheaper for Welcome Home to tear the building
down and start over again. •
Koneck noted that the standards that you have to apply when deter-
mininir,hethcr a variance is appropriate are found in Section 11.76 •
of the City Code, It reads in part:
1) That strict enforcement of the zoning ordinances Mould
cause endue hardship because of circumMnnces unique to
Welcome Home; and
•
,
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - July 25, 1985
2) That the granting of such variances will be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. • 'i
Koneck stated that Welcome Nome has not satisfied either of the
standards with regards to comments on the court case. This is not
rt
. • a Supreme Court case, but a Court of Appeals case. The Attorney Gen-
eral wasn't asked these questions. The City Council specifically did
not address the variance issue, only the use. The City Council did
• not approve the variances, but directed any variance request to the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
Lynch reviewed his motion of denial that he made at the July 11, 1985 •
meeting:
1) The conversion of a screened porch, the addition to the deck, •
and the stairway addition, do constitute an enlargement of
a non-conforming use.
2) The proposed changes are not in keeping with the spirit of
the City Code. •
Lynch felt that no hardship has been demonstrated. It is hard to
look at the stairway and feel the configuration of the wall hasn't
changed. Also, the screen porch changed into an office is a sub-
stantial change. Perhaps the deck isn't that great an issue. The
Watershed District and Flood Plain areas are also an issue. .•
Sorensen stated that the critical issue was that of expanded use,
not a question of type of use that the proponents are attempting
to make use of the property. There is an argument that it is simply
a situation of bringing things up to Code. Anyone with a non-
conforming use may want to make changes and extend the life of the
•
property by bringing it up to Code. If you continue to bring prop-
erty
up to Code you will continue forever to have non-conforming a
uses.
Sorensen mentioned that there was a letter sent to Roger Pauly from
Wayne Sanders dated February 23, 1985, stating 26 items that had to
be done to the home and others that needed to be confirmed.
Sorensen said that there was representation made at the July 11, 1985
meeting that 520,000 - S30,000 was the cost for making improvements.
The ir.•pr-over;ents n,ay now cost S50,000, but Welcome Home refuses to
shots the bid. Sorensen noted that conversation with Sanders indicated }
that Welcome Home has not yet submitted adequate plans. If Welcome
Home has not sunnaitted plans to the building Deportment, how can they
say if the S50,000 bid is accurate. A S50,000 improvement to a
property, simply to bring it up to Code, is an expansion. It is• j
not lett tog property die its natural death. if 550.000 is spent
:very '.> years en a property to bring it u„ to Code, then there will •
he a new property.
Sorensen referred to road access needed. Final consent of raric and
DDi11 I;rep to get access has not been received. 'io evidence has been
submitteu this evening. ,
OAi
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - July 25, 1985
Marie and Bill Bren are opposed to this request.
•
Sorensen noted that Welcome Home is requesting a prior illegal act to
be legal such as: the addition of a deck with no building permit, putting
in a new furnace, etc. The Board is being asked to condone prior illegal
• acts. The extent of the use and the changes do not show a hardship.
Schele said that the $50,000 figure is not in regard to the variance i
• request. Welcome Home owning the building is not any different than
anyone else owning the building and bringing it up to Code. With
regard to the zoning of the building, the Minnesota Statute reads in
part:
"A licensed residential facility serving from -7-16 persons
shall be considered a permitted multi-family residential use
for a property for purposes of zoning."
• Schele stated that this particular statute was written specifically
for the kinds of reaction in the neighborhood. Neighbors are fear-
ful of property values, but it doesn't bear up. Zoning is not a
question; it has been dealt with before.
In regard to not being the spirit of the City Code, Schele stated
•
that there is a spirit in the City Code that provides for variances.
He stated the spirit of the provisions; they are not loopholes, but
clear and straight forward.
With regard to hardship, the clients of western Hennepin County are
the ones that will suffer hardship. Also, without the stairway, it .
would be a hardship as it is required by the State Building Code.
Schele received on July 9, 1985, the details on building code re-
quirements from the City Building Inspector. They had been waiting
1'j months for the details.
Sorensen handed a copy of the building permit application for
Welcome Home to the Board for the stated value of $50,000.
•
MOTION: Lynch made a motion to deny Variance Request 1185-26
with the following findings:
1) With regard to question 111 posed by Mr. Pauly, the
modifications proposed by Welcome Howe for property
located at 7170 Dryant Lake Drive, do constitute
such a change that violates provisions of the City
Code relating to non-conforming structure. The
proposed changes arc significant. •
2) With regard to question #2, no Undue hardship has been
demonstrated. This is a hardship created by Welcome
Home's own attempt to take a piece of property that is
not suited for the use that they intend to use it for.
3) The conversion of a screened perch, the addition to the
deck, and thw stoir;.iy add itine, do cons ti tute an enlarg-
meat of a non-conforming use. -
/D•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - . July 25, 1985
71
4) The proposed changes are not in keeping with the spirit
and intent of the City Code.
Dickey seconded the motion.
Discussion: Anderson did not see the material expansion of the
property at all. The hardship question is there,if you accept that
the property is property utilized in a way Welcome Home wants to
use it. It is a hardship because they need the variance to make the
facility meet State requirements. Anderson noted that r.hen someone
wants to build a deck, it usually is allowed and it is not a hardship
per se. If we accept that we are not expanding the use we do have a
hardship.
Anderson was not sure about the conversion of the screened porch.
If denied, could Welcome Home come back and ask for the stairway.
Durham said that the Board can grant variances accordingly. The Beard
can modify the request as it deems necessary.
Lynch noted that the Council has accepted that we can have multi-
residents, but the property is grandfathered in as a multi-residential
use. Therefore, they can have 16 people.
Dickey felt that the question for the Board is what is for the best
interests of Eden Prairie for all involved, Welcome Home as well as
the landowners. The Board must look at it as one building and the
intended purpose of the building. We must ask if the building
goes along with the area around it. The residents that pay the
taxes are the people that must be protected.
•
Anderson felt that Welcome Home is situated on its own.
Motion carried--3-1-0. Anderson voted nay.
II. NEW BUSINESS
None
III. OLD BUSINESS
None
IV. ADJOOR.I.MENT
MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Dickey, to adjourn the meeting at
8:20 NI. Motion carried unanimously.
•
•
(1 or ERNis::,1R1E 1';,I:;-: : 85-26 7
BOARD Of tii'I'Et.LS .'f ABJUSV.::Tc j
1( r IBAL-ORDER
RE: Petition of Welcome Home —_—__._—.-- —
ADDRESS: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive— _--_____-_—___.___-.--._--- .
• :
VARIANCE REQUEST:._ See Attached:_,,__--_-____ --------
-- i
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a
regular (special) meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and
after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file i
therein does hereby find and order as follows:
1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said
variance have been met. (YES . NO-_- )• j
2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration,
and granting such variance does not violate the spirit and intent
of the City's Zoning and platting Code. '{
3, Variance Request `85-26. is herein Granted _.—, Denied x_—
Denial__ ____, of said variance
4. Conditions to the granting-____—' t
are as follows: s
See_Attached -..-.•____-------_.-- — --- s
5. This variance shall he reveled within 15 days after notice of
failure to meet the required conditions, has Leen given.
6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the
City Clerk.
7. This order shall be effective July 25, 19G5_; however, this
variance shall lapse and be of no t•i feat. unless the erection r f the i
or alterations iirr.itted shall occur within one ( ) y-�
effective date unless said period of time is't'xtended pursuant ;,
to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one !
year from the effective date hereof.
9 actions are subject to City
8. All R6trd of Ad•ius,t :,cuts and App sl',
Council review' 1 p t,i'i':7,15 ,,;D P ;,t;c : :'i5
;Pf,Ril 1 ;J i t
/ U BAIfU: .1-Z5 • '5 - - --- p
•
•
t
•
VARIANCE REQUEST N.15-26
•
The request isforla0 va3,riance
ce from
and 1provisions of City Code, Chapter 11,
including Sections
1.50:
1) To permit conversion of a screened porch, 18 feet from the
rear lot line, ;nt.o an off ice/conference room.
2) To permit a deck addition to the northwest corner of the main
structure 15.7 feet from the rear lot line.
3) To permit construction of enclosed stirway, to be added to
the west side of the main structure, 34 feet from rear lot
line. �.
4) To permit an addition of a garage and 1-3 above within 150
feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of General Development
Eaters. .
5) To determine whether proposed changes in the building.
•
constituting a non-conforming use, located on the property,
may be made.
•
•
Conditions to the denial of said variance are as follows:
Question 01
Would the modifications proposed by Welcome Home for property which it
proposes to occupy at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, constitute such a change
as to violate the provisions of the City Code relating to non-conforming
structures.
Question 02
Is Welcome Home entitled to a variance from provisions contained in Chapter
11 of the City Code relating to the proposed modifications.
The motion and findings for Variance Request 085-26 were based on the
following questions posed by City Attorney Roger Pauly:
1) With regard to question 01 posed by Mr. Pauly, the modifications
proposed by Welcome Home for property located at 7170 Bryant Lake
Drive, do constitute such a change that violates provisions of
the City Code relating to non-conforming structure. The proposed
changes are significant.
2) With regard to question 2, no undue hardship has been demonstrated.
That is not a hardship created by Welcome Home's own attempt to
take a piece of property that is not suited for the use that they
intend to use it for.
3) The conversion of a screened porch, the addition to the deck, and
the stairway addition, do constitute an enlargement of a non-
conforming use.
4) The proposed changes are not in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the City Code.
4
SITE PLAN
•
1
It)
•
•
•
•
NOT TO SCALE . ..
•
•
•
. per/ \\ ' _ - -y•R/1 iIFE R iiO /'
{ jJ r •
4.
� \t}Iq5-!a\\ y\O25.0\
/7 -,\ \
I /..1++I I, .
•�4in Al \
/ el i I li •
//: . V .1 1 1 .
. . y ' I I
iii- //ill \
1,•• Or /.1ill I
re
7.
• .70 --'--.....____-__./ ....,-..t / / 1 / t
. 0 •..q
,.....- :,• ..."----''......... n / I I*
1.
i•
.7- 0: ,.....-----' / ///// I
/ (i. A\v4, •• .. 1
i!
o
v.
/ // ,/
/ / • •t• ( /
��/// i----
•
/•ti---,=51",„..._. ......—
11 .
t
1
( 1
1
•
. I NOT TO SCALE
. .
, • I
• .
•
• i \\...
•
•
•
.. •
.
.
•
. ..
. . I
. • .• •
. .
• • F, '
, ' •
....
, .
.• -.(---4,. t . -'s. 'k..- ..4
C si
. ''s s.•-,...-1-----'5'4•7C,",f_7..'7 Y., - : (_,..>) ; .i -
•A %) /4...-`) 7 .., .
.....'' ''.4. (/•_.:..:. . ..-1 .t ., 7,. ;...f.".Z. .c. j
... .-•..... ,t,,. )t \• \. N'1 ) --.. ..
..7‘..t • i
0 ....., - , ..... •
..-),..,
_. •
il‘to . •-•;.f.c., .-' (?,(1,11 .. t . ". — ---- --1; i:-.•: . t
1 ''. -- k li -..:. c,,116 ,
rZ .,
O
•
. ,, :.
1 ..' . .,
.
. k • .
.1 ,„ ..,..,_., ) tk
,1 )441 '.
• ,, N-4—tx,—,:. \k . -- -
bN ••'•-
1
0 ..
A\ • •
1.3 Isi ••• . ,
,
` „s' • VI .
2 0. •
• .
•
... .....
' \
-.i.,,-v.v. '' .4 (k •,,,.
... .,61 ::,7 ,-..:/ .:-.
A
I .
(\,, • '\ ( ' ''',.11.,) . •
k...
A) .
l ) /
0----.--'---
>
ni -7' .... . \.) c• .
0) •-.-?","• : \,) '? (.„) 1\ T- -- .,.... .... 1
(IN
-__
•
' ' - ----__._j 6, 1 • -/•' 7 • I •
'AI
- .. --- ;
--)-(..."......2„.._, - •
••• --. . ..... ...• ••• -• •
tr)
. •
' .•. • .
' '74 1 ., 0, , •
:•.. 1,\ \
-. •••
•
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Mayor Peterson and Council Members
Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock and Redpath
FROM: Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. representing Eden Prairie Residents
Wally and Roberta Cruz, Bob and Maggie Dickhaus, Jim and
Barb Gabbert, Joe and Ray Gardner, John and Linda Golle,
Dan and Jean Grote, Bob and Clo Mary Hayes, Jim and Jean
McNeill, Kent and Julie Molde, Jim and Raynelle Perkins,
Don and Elaine Sorensen, George and Jeanne Tangen, Gedney
and Mary Tuttle, Jon and Bonita Wilkie, George and Donna
Welsh, Curt Botko
DATE: August 15, 1985
RE: Appeal by Welcome Home, Inc. from Denial of .Variance
Requests
At a special meeting on July 25, 1985, the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments, by a vote of four to one, voted to deny the request
by Welcome Home, Inc. for certain variances. Welcome Home has appealed
the denial to the City Council for consideration at its meeting on
August 20, 1985. The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the
standards that the council must apply when considering requests for
variances and to apply those standards to Welcome Home's request.
I. Test for Variance.
A. Two Requirements (§ 11.76) .
1. Strict enforcement of zoning ordinances would cause
"undue hardship" because of circumstances unique to
the individual property under consideration; and
2. Granting the variance is in keeping with the spirit
of the intent of the zoning ordinances.
B. Three requirements for "undue hardship" as used above.
1. The property cannot be put to a reasonable use if
used under conditions allowed by the zoning
ordinances.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances
unique to his property not created by the land owner.
•
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality.
1
Ii. Application of the Test to Welcome Home's Request for Variances.
1
A. Variance request to permit conversion of a screened
•
porch, 18 feet from the rear lot line, into an office/
conference room.
1. No undue hardship has been shown.
i. There is no'indication that the property
cannot be reasonably used if the zoning
ordinance is complied with. In fact,
evidence establishes that it can be used
as a duplex without the variances.
i
ii. Welcome Home's plight is caused by its own
actions in changing the use of the property
from a duplex to a residential care facility.
• iii. Allowing Welcome Home to go ahead will,
without question, change the character of
the locality. A high density, quasi-commercial
use will be allowed in an area that is currently
filled with low density residential uses.
iv. The change to the character of the locality
becomes more important when it is realized that
Welcome Home needs substantial parking areas and
does not even have an easement for ingress and
egress over the property where its driveway is
currently located. Thus, a grassy, natural front
yard will become an asphalt-paved parking lot
and driveway.
2. The spirit of zoning ordinances will be violated by
granting the variance.
i. The proposed change violates the zoning
ordinances and remains there only as a
non-conforming use, which cannot be expanded
or enlarged.
ii. The change will allow Welcome Home to place
a high density, quasi-commercial use in an
area zoned for low density, residential uses.
B. Variance request to permit a deck addition to the northwest
corner of the main structure 15.7 feet from, the rear lot line.
1. No undue hardship exists.
i. Reasons as stated in response to first
variance request.
2. The spirit and intent of the zoning ordinances will
be clearly violated.
-2- '`4 r I
I.
i. Reasons as stated in response to first
variance request.
ii. The original deck on the property was built
without a building permit. If Welcome Home
is allowed to expand that deck because it
already exists, other landowners will be
encouraged to undertake construction with- +f
out building permits, with the hope that
after the construction is completed, they 4
will be able to obtain a building permit li
for expansions. Granting the variance would
establish a dangerous precedent and encour-
age this conduct.
C. Variance require to permit construction of an enclosed r
stairway to be added to the west side of the main structure, i
34 feet from the rear lot line.
1. No undue hardship is shown. i
i. For the same reasons as stated in response
to first variance request. j
2. The spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance will
be violated.
i. Reasons stated in response to first
variance request.
III. Variance Regarding Expansion or Enlargement of a Non-Conforming
Use.
A. The test: to which of the following two extremes
is the request closer.
1. First extreme: an expansion or enlargement of
a non-conforming use. If this is the case, the
zoning ordinances will not allow the changes to occur.
2. Second extreme: routine maintenance and repairs.
If this is the case, the changes may be made. l
3. In considering where this matter falls, it is
helpful to consider the purpose of prohibiting the
expansion of non-conforming uses: to ensure that
the life of non-conforming uses, which violate
the zoning ordinances but were lawful at the time
that the zoning ordinances were adopted and there-
fore cannot be immediately eliminated, are not
extended beyond the time that they naturally would cease
to exist without expansion or enlargement.
I
-3-
B. The changes proposed by Welcome Home are substantial.
1. The following is a partial list of these changes:
Build stairway on first floor
Remove and cover another stairway on the first
floor
Move wall on second floor bathroom graded
entrance a.
Build wall in furnace room
Build wall in current laundry room
Build wall in living/dining room
Substantial alterations in kitchen
Change porch to office and place windows
in porch
Change kitchen to reception area
Landscaping for volleyball
Change driveway
Change landscaping for parking
Add passage through bedroom on second floor
Divide building into two sides .
Build wall on second floor to divide open
living area into two bedrooms
Build shower to second floor bathroom
Expand bathroom into areas covered by stairway �.
Remove closets from bedrooms
2. The cost of the changes is large and continues to grow
as more facts become available.
i. Welcome Home originally estimated the
cost to be approximately $30,000.
ii. Welcome Home estimated in its building
permit application that the cost would
be $50,000.
iii. Construction experts engaged by us
estimate that the cost will be at least
$65,000 (and the cost will increase
after the building inspector and fire
marshall review building plans for
compliance with state and city building
and fire codes) .
iv. Assuming that the cost is at least
$65,000, and that the value of the
property is approximately $130,000, the
cost of improving the property is greater
than 50 percent of the value of the
property.
-4-
I
C. The changes proposed by Welcome Home are an illegal
. expansion or enlargement of a non-conforming use.
1. The changes are obviously more than "routine repair
and maintenance." A quick inspection of the building
reveals that no repair and maintenance is necessary.
2. The building itself will be expanded on the outside
and completely redesigned on the inside (i.e.,
outside and inside walls will be moved and uses of
the space will be completely altered), and the
surrounding property will be substantially modified
through paving and landscaping. •
3. To paraphrase the City Building Inspector, the
changes proposed by Welcome Home are so substantial
that it might be cheaper for it to tear the build-
ing down and start over with a new building.
4. As noted above, the cost of the improvements is
well over one-half of the value of the property.
Sections 11.45, subd. 9.A.3 and 11.50, subd. 12.B
of the zoning ordinances (applicable to flood
plain and shoreline management, respectively)
provide that if a non-conforming building is
damaged or destroyed, and the cost of repair
exceeds 50 percent of the assessor's market value
of the building at the time of the damage, the
building cannot be repaired because it would be •
an expansion of a non-conforming use. Thus, if
the building had been destroyed or damaged, and
Welcome Home proposed to make the changes that
it desires to make now, those changes would be
prohibited.
5. A simple example, which actually occurred in Eden
Prairie, shows that Welcome Home's expansion must
not be allowed. Assume that a gas station has
existed in an area for a number of years. The
zoning ordinance has changed so that the gas
station is now a non-conforming use. As equipment
and design changes, the gas station becomes
obsolete. The owner of the gas station desires to
modernize his gas station by bringing in new t
equipmrent and altering the building design. This,
however, will obviously extend the life of the
gas station, contrary to the purposes of § 11.75
prohibiting the expansion of non-conforming uses.
In this situation, the gas station owner should
be and, when Eden Prairie considered this issue, properly i
was denied a variance.
•
•
-5- l , ')
i
D. A variance allowing expansion of a non-conforming use
should not be allowed.
1. No undue hardship has been shown.
2. The spirit and intent of the zoning ordinances 'tip
would indeed be violated.
a
• i. The purpose of the ordinance prohibiting '
the expansion of non-conforming uses is
to ensure that the life of those uses is
not extended. Granting a variance here will
ensure the opposite result.
V. The Fallacies of Welcome Home's Argument.
A. Welcome Home will claim that it will suffer a hardship if
the variances are not granted because it will then be unable 1
to use the property for a residential care facility.
1. The ordinance makes clear that so long as the
property can be put to any reasonable use
(whether or not the use intended.by the applicant)
the variance request must be denied. The
current use of the property establishes the
reasonableness of other uses.
2. We submit that the property can be reasonably
used as a duplex and therefore no variance
is appropriate.
3. In any event, the use proposed by Welcome Home is
irrelevant. Opposition to these variance requests
is based not on Welcome Home's use, but on proposed
changes that would extend the life of a non-conforming
use.
B. Welcome Home argues that, because variances are a
law under the zoning ordinance, granting a variance
here will be in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the zoning ordinance.
1. This circular reasoning is incorrect: the variance
must be examined against the spirit and intent
of all zoning ordinances, not just that part
of the ordinances allowing variances.
-6- W+ r
c. Welcome Home relies on the opinion of the Attorney
General on this matter.
1. As the City Attorney will agree, the Attorney
General was not asked, and was not presented
facts to enable him to answer, the questions
posed by Welcome Home's request for variances.
Instead, the question presented now by Welcome
Home was specifically reserved by the City
Council when it made its initial findings on
this matter.
D. Welcome Home will argue that Northwest Residence, inc. v.
City of Brooklyn Center, 352 N.W.2d 647 (Minn. App. 1984)
is relevant to its application for variances. In
Northwest Residence, the only change to the property
noted by the court was the conversion in a four-plex
of two kitchens to one-person bedrooms and one kitchen
to an office. No other changes were mentioned.
With the facts presented here, we submit that the court
would have reached the same conclusion that we request
you to reach.
In closing, Welcome Home's request for a variance should be denied.
•
-7-
August 20, 1985
MIDWEST ASPHALT PACKET
1) Midwest Asphalt letter dated July 31, 1985.
2) Public Hearing Notice for Variance Request #85-24.
3) Midwest Asphalt letter dated June 12, 1985
4) . James R. Hill, Inc. letter dated June 13, 1985.
5) Two variance request applications dated June 12, 1985.
•
6) Staff Report dated June 26, 1985.
7) July 11, 1985, Board of Appeals and Adjustments minutes.
8) Site plan. '
t MEMORANDUM •
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner
DATE: August 15, 1985
RE: Variance Request #85-24
Midwest Asphalt submitted a variance request application on June 12, 1985. The
variance request included platting of an I-General lot at 2.3 acres, (5. acres is
required); permit a reduction in lot depth requirements for two lots, and permit a
truck scale within the required front yard setback of 75 feet.
The entire Industrial Park, in which Midwest Asphalt is located, as a whole, does
rot meet City Code requirement for I-General zoning. Granting of variances, to
expand the use of any business in the Industrial Park, perpetuates land use which
does not meet City Code.
The site plan submitted was missing key elements, which are required for Staff to
review a variance request. Items not in the 'site plan included: building
elevations, location of loading doors and loading docks, a landscape and screening
plan, and parking plan. Staff was not comfortable in supporting a variance with
incomplete site information.
The Board of Appeals questioned the lack of detail of the site plan. It was
suggested by the Board that Mr. Bury, of Midwest Asphalt, continue the item until a
more detailed site plan was developed. Mr. Bury did not indicate a willingness to
respond to the Board of Appeals suggestion.
A motion was made to deny Variance Request #85-24, based on the motion in the July
11, 1985, Board of Appeals minutes dated July 11, 1985.
`
AUG .. J935i
READY MIX ASPHALT
/ ,` RECYCLED ASPHALT 'RIVER WARREN
( .\ e. v lOWEST AGOREDATES
CRUSHED LIMESTONE
SPHALT RIP HAP
WEST PLANT QUARTZITE CHIPS
8401 Industrial Drive GRAVEL BASE
Edon Prairie ORPORATION Highway 41
037-0034 .. -... .. --.. Chaska ;V
NDRTH PLANT 8401 INOUSTRIAL DRIVE,EDEN PRAIRIE 445-2032
1400 Highway 8 OFFICE 037-8033
New Brighton Mailing Address
6,30.3707 P.O.BOX 338,HOPKINS,MINNESOTA 56343
July 31, 1985 .
Mr. Carl Julie '
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
RE: Variance Request #85-24 !
Dear Carl:
.r
On July 11, 1985, the Eden Prairie Board of Appeals denied our request to con-
struct a new office and shop facility on a piece of property we have optioned from
our neighbor to the North of our present property. Three of the four variances we I
requested are not in our control or possible as they relate to minimum lot depths, E
or parcel areas which are already in place and cannot be changed. The fourth
variance requested was for a ground level truck scale which we must place in the
traffic flow pattern from our plant to be practical and useable.
The properties in this area were all in place prior to Eden Prairie even be-
coming a city. Almost all the properties are non-conforming in set backs, lot depths,
plot area, or whatever.
For eighteen years, I have looked at piles of pipes or junk, and now for the last
four years at piles of dead trees. Our interest is to clean up this mess, and build
an attractive office and shop facility similar to the new Hopkins Maintenance Build-
ing located at Seventh Avenue and County Road 3 in Hopkins. To do this we must have
approval on the variances we requested, and he able to add the South 109 feet of
Midland Equipm nt.'a property to our North property line, thus enlarging our piece by
approximately - 0.6 acre, and reducing theirs by the same.
I, therefore, would like to appeal to the Eden Prairie Council to reconsider
our request. Please advise us as to the date set for the appeal so that we may appear
to again state our case. Should you need any further information please let me know.
Waiting for your response, I remain,
Very truly yours,
M]DWES`p ASPHALT CORPORATION
,�^ 1
fir,-t_-c( <<f�� - )L•• I
1\C Richard B. dory, P.E. ~ 1`�.�
RHti/nm President
•
. • CITY OF EllEii PRMRIE
• • BOARD OF APPEALS ANDAUJUSiI;FfllS
(
•
.. `. NOTICE OF 11G3L)C BLARING
REG:0101I:G VV1:R)�'85-2 r, QULST
5
•
14 MAY CONCERN: nts
70 1,N0 IT us.tme
Appeals and.Adj
1i01ICE IS 11EREBY GIVEN that the Board of ,t
• �. the following time and place:
' will meet at •
]:30 P.M. .July ll 1g_8S—
• . At the Eden Prairie S61001 Administration Building,Room L
810D Sc`ool Rd., 55344
p 85-24 , submitted by
variance request >��---
•• • .to rc�,i�r, and consider the
Midwest
•Corp. • ...• '
Asph ---- - for property located a.
6401 In•d u,
strial
•
• • Drive, legally dcrb—ed—
a Tract E an1, 111LShn--1�¢+—I�eRi>_CounLy+Minnesot
.�--- City Code, Chapter•11 Secti on1�3,-
The request is for a variance from _— •
Subdivision 2 0, 1) To permit platting of Lot t at 2.3 acres (C t 5-5
--'— a ninlmum lot depth.for Lot L of 169 feet (Cody
• acre minimum. 2) To permit
---__--_--
requiresdepth fnr�Qis—ZGO�cet—(�9sle
300 feet) 3) To permit' minimstn�nL -
_ seibad _(bode
requires 300 feat) 4)To permit truck scale 75feel.nf_thant�a.rd
_ -- request will be heard
i equires 75 feet).
..• -Written or oral a+rr„ents relating to thi icm`:,�s:,ion file for public review.
Said variance 2pplic,.t
at this ua•C;ing• , •
;t the Pl,,nning Departr:ent at Eden Prairie City I;a11.
4 Prai ci c•
• of Coen
Citall,•.. Dtl•;:;1I
•
•
• •
•
•. /q. G:, 1
•
• HEADY MIX ASPHALT RIVER WAnnL'N
HL'CYCLLD ASP HALT :'I:
7i \� ADOIILGATLS `
IOIVEST CRUSIICD LIurSTDNC
MP RAP i
SPHALT Ounnrzlrt CHIPS WEST tvlblPLANT .r•r GRAVEL:CHE
ORItORATtON HlVEL 11 SE
(.404 Indul•Inl Urly Chetk• '
Lean 034 .. • - 44tr104
037.OD34 0404 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE,EDEN PRAIRIE
N 00 ItI PLANT Orrice 0379033
4No I llrhwty 0 _ Molllnp A.Mrov
New tr3707 p.O.BOX 330,HOPKINS.MINNESOTA 5E343 t
WG•3707 {
. F
June 12, 1985
City of Eden Prairie •
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Attn: hoard of Appeals and Adjustments
To Whom it may Concern:
With this letter we have presented a variance request for several variances
I
involved with the construction of a new office and shop facility for our company.
We have a purchase agreement with our neighbor (P&L Enterprises) to buy
•
the 108 feet adjacent to our North property
line.
Tis pspla11dnd rothinlast 2 i
last 3
years or more has been used to store junkequipment,
years diseased cut elm trees. It has been nothing but an eye sore to all of us
who have had to look at it daily. We want to build a decent office and shop
facility, very similar in design to the new Hopkins Public Works building on 17th 1
Avenue and County Road 3 in Hopkins. This is a tilt up concrete panel building,
1
t
two story in height. i
Due to the irregular shapes of the various properties in the area, almost
everything in this vicinity is non-conforming. All the buildings are closer to
the street then allowed, and most of the property is fenced at the right of way
with equipment stored behind it. The area is industrial and is being used
properly. There arc no immediate neighbors or through traffic so it does not ,
bother anyone.
We must: install a new scale to comply with new State standards. This should
be located in front of the
fiubuie lding
ctoe cbe]inrour traes so ffic caflowgiittern rt fa rom
othem.
e
plant. We also only have
i
1
•
19 2,.fi
•
City of Eden Prairie
page 2
(• If we ever moved, obviously the plant, scale, and all other equipment would
. also go so that the building could then be conforming by itself on the property.
I feel this proposal would greatly enhance the area and provide additional
tax base also for Eden Prairie. if you have any questions, I would be happy to
answer then in person or in writing.
Hoping you approve our request, I remain, • •
• Very truly yours, '
MIDWES \SPRALT CORPORATION
•
ichard B. Bury, P.E.
. President
•
R$g�nm
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
1
•
( MEMO
• TO: Steven Durham
City of Eden Prairie
FROM: Harold C. Peterson
James R. Hill, Inc.
• DATE: June 13, 1985 • ;;
• SUBJECT: MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION SUBDIVISION REQUEST
We are requesting the following variances from the existing I-General •
zoning:
I. MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO. PARCEL .
A. Area - The present parcel is undersized at 2.976 acres. A
it minimum lot size of 5.00D acres is required. After the
subdivision the area will be 2.302 acres. .
it it B. Depth - A lot depth of 300 feet is required. The parcel will.
' have an average depth of 210 feet.
ii
l II. MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION PARCEL
.
1 A. Depth - The minimum lot depth will be approximately 260 feet.
B. Place truck scale within 75 foot front yard setback.
i
.. 0 tn0 A .
. I4dv .
H.C.P.
HCP/sh •
Janes R. 1--1i11, inc.
i
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Variance No. 8S'Z'\
VARIANCE REQUEST
DATE:
12 June 1985
APPLICANT'S NAME Midwest Asphalt Corporation (F 6 L Enter rises) .
ADDRESS:
6401 Indust• rial Drive zi 55344
PHONES: Work 937-8033 Home
FEE:
E50.00 recei t it
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT: Address: 6401 Industrial Drive
• Le al Tract E, RLS No. 1280, Hennepin County
REASON FOR VARIANCE:
SEE ATTACHED
•
d
tbacks
ATTACH THE FOLLOWING 1• existing rand proposed lstructures ot lines nand e f
location
of buildings on adjoining properties. Also show
pertinent topographical features
choasstrees,
• fences, berms, steep slopes, ponds,
existing and proposed elevations.
•
2. Letter addressed to the Board of Appeals and
• Adjustments explaining nature of variance request
and reason(s) why conformance to the literal pro-
visions of the City's Code would cause hardship.
�-eft -� c4;,),4), •
. .
Applicant's Signature t r','
Fee Owner's Signature
Notes to Applicant:
•
_Applications must be filed no later than the
2nd Thursday of the Month previous to the meeting
-The Board meets on the ?.nd Thursday of the Month,
7:30 PM, City Hal1,8950 Eden Prairie Road
-Notices are published in the Eden Prairie News
and mailed to property owners within 500 feet.
Applicants are encouraged to personally
rsonallyonctn
adjacent property owners priorhearing1 aced
order to explain the variance and to be prep
I`'.? to address their concerns at the hearing.
•
1 .
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE variance No.QS " '
VARIANCE REQUEST
DATE: 12 June
• APPLICANT'S NAME Midland Equipment Co. (r 6 L Enterprises)
ADDRESS: 6331 Industrial Drive
zi 55340.
• PHONES: Work 934-7505 Nome
•
�50 00 receipt N
FEE:
. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT: Address: 6331 Industrial DriveNennepin County
Le al: Tract L, RLS No. 1054,
.
.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: SEE ATTACNEO
ve showing lot lines and setbacks bf
ATTACH THE FOLLOWING 1. existing rand proposed structures andto at stionow j
• of buildings on adjoining properties.
pertinent topographical
ofeatures
resds,cho ss,as rees,
. fences, berms, steep
existing and proposed elevations.
•
2. letter addressed to the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments exwhyiConformance to the nature of 1ance literalguest
pro-
visreason(s))
visions of the City's Code would cause hardship.
•
Applicant's Signature •
• --.L.... ,.,n1/$
Fee Owner's Signature
Notes to Applicant:
•
_Applications must be filed no later than the
2nd Thursday of the Month previous to the meeting
-The Board meets on the 2nd Thursday of the Month,
7:30 PM, City Ha11,8950 Eden Prairie Road
Notices are published in the Eden Prairie News
and mailed to property ow1ers within 5Q0Cfeet.
Applicants are encouraged to pcesonally
ct
adjacent property owners prior to the hearing in
i order to explain the variance and to be P p
.- .\ to :address their concerns au the hearing.
/STAFF REPORT •
TO: - Board of Appeals and Adjustments
FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner
DATE: June 26, 1985 .
.RE: July 11, 1985 Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting
I. . Variances
A. Requ st 75-21, submitted by Hampton Inn for property located I
et ghway +T 6-9, South of Valley View Road, East ofHighway,5. The request is for a variance from City Code,
Chapter g, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2S, to permit the c
construction of a 125 room hotel with a floor area ration of I
.4 Code permits a maximum F.A.R. of .40).
N .
• 1. Background - Eden Prairie Hotel Investors plan to co truct
Hampton Inn, a tree-story, 125 room motel, on 2.64 acres.
Hampton Inn<, is a "limited service" motel, that provides
primarily lod 'rig, similar to a Super 8 or a lion Inn.
• Hampton Inn was efore the Planning Commission n June 11,
1985, and conti ed to June 24, 1985. he Planning
• Commission approve arnpton Inn, based on , e Staff Report
dated June 7, 1985, d plans dated June 3 1985.
The approval is conti ent upon rec, iving a floor area
ration variance from the and of Appe 1s and Adjustments.
2. Site Plan - The site plan induct. the construction of a
• building with a gross buildin area of 54,878 square feet.
The floor area ration is .47. a building does include an
unassigned basement area of , ,592 square feet. The
effective gross building area is 50,286 square feet or a
floor area ration of .43. /8ecaus it is undetermined, at
this time, if the basement area will e utilized for meeting
facility, the gross building area o 54, 878 square feet
must be utilized in determining of F.A. . of .47.
Variances for motels and hotels is not ncommon. In many
• instances the site for a hotel, which has c mmercial zoning,
does not require yie parking requirements of he traditional
retail cn'iiercial site. Less parking require ents warrant
less acreage fqr a building site.
Planning Staff, in most cases, is comfortable 'th higher
floor area ratio for motel/hotels, if adequate roo, exists
on-site to accomodate building and 'parking areas within
• setbacks and provide adequate room for landscape sc ening
of parking areas from public roads.
/
(, The Planning C.owm fission recommended approval of Hampton nn
on/ Juno 24, 19i5, based on the Staff Report dated June 1,
)iS . the City Council denied Hampton inn on July 2, 1985.
j`i1,)
Iuyc n
/ D. Variance Request 11R5-24 submitted by Midwest Asphalt Corpora-
liiin`liir hrnpWrtVTnc.iEr7d 1E_G,TOEtri,Tfir+vr.':ITic lutist
is fora variance_ from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03,
u rdivi i 2iic Z) lo permit olat[inu of Lot L at f.3 acres
(Cock: rec ices 5 acre minimii Z) To permit a minimum lot
aejth for Lot L of 169 fret (Code rewires 300 feet). 3) To
m
permit a a minimum lot depth for Lot E 260 feet (Code requires
36CET }To permit truck scale within 75-feet front yard
setback (Code requires 75 feet).
1. Background - Midwest Asphalt Corporation is located in Eden•
Prairie at 6401 Industrial Drive, Eden Prairie. The
property is zoned Industrial-General, The only zoning
district which permits heavy industry and outside storage.
Midwest Asphalt produces bituminous material for parking lot I
and driveway surfacing.
i
Presently, the entire operation is conducted on Tract C, D,
and E Registered Land Survey 128O, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, and on Tract J, RLS - No. 1054, Hennepin. County, (
Minnesota (Note Exhibit E). )
Two buildings exist, one being an office and the other
storage for equipment. The site also houses the plant for
the bituminous production and stock piling of material
utilized in the production of bituminous asphalt. r
The entire Industrial Park located off of Industrial
Boulevard, as a whole, does not meet the City Code
requirements, for I-General zoning district. This includes
lot size requirements, screening and landscaping, building
setbacks and parking requirements.
The intent of the City Code is to eventually phase out areas
of the City, which do not meet the zoning district
requiremnets, or bring them up to City Code standards.
The City does net want to perpetuate land used in violation
of the City Code by allowing building and operational
expansions, which do not meet Code requirements.
2. Site Review - The site plan is missing key elements, which
are required for staff to completely review a proposal of
this nature.
Items not included in the site plan include: Site
elevations of the proposed building, the location of loading
docks, if any, a landscape and screening plan, and a
landscape plan indicating the location of green space and
berming.
The proponent plans to purchase approximately 108 feet of
Lot 1. Registered Land Survey 1054, Hennepin County Minnesota
for the purpose of constructing an office and shop facility.
Loa 1. currently has 2.976 acres and dons not tweet City Code
1-Gen. eoning requirement of a 5 acre minimum. The new
proposed let will be 2.301 acres. Lot L will not meet the
depth requiroment of 300 feet. At its smallest measurement.
The proposed tot L will he 169,93 feet. A vat mace is ,
�i;',,', required to create a lot less than 5 acres. •
7f
4
Page 5
Lot E will be increased from 5.793 acres to 6.468 'acres.
( This lot requires a variance for lot depth. At its smallest
measurement, the lot is 257.66 feet. Code requires 100
feet.
The proposed office and shop facility will meet all front,
rear, and side yard setbacks for an I-Gen zoning district.
• The building will be constructed out of tilt up concrete
panels. At this time, extensive building plans have not
been drafted. The amount of office space versus shop, has
not been determined. The location of loading docks has not
been addressed. •
• To determine the number of parking stalls required in this
case, the planning staff divides the building into thirds.
The proposed building measures 8,640 square feet. Using
• this "third" formula, 24 stalls are required. Proof of
parking for the stalls shall be required, if this variance
is approved.
The proponent also indicates the need for a truck scale. 1
The scale is proposed at 43' from the front property line.
• Code does not permit parking within a front yard setback.
The proponent maintains that this location is optimal to the
operation of the facility. The site plan does not include
any screening of the truck scale from Industrial Blvd. Staff
suggest an alternative location for the proposed truck scale
outside of the front yard setback.
. 3. Conclusion: Staff is not comfortable with the proposed site
plan as submitted. The plan does not include landscaping
and screening plan, a complete building plan, or positive ,
planning approaches, which support the variances requested.
In essence, if the variance is approved, the City would be
in conflict with City Code philosophy and policy. For a
variance to be approved, an undue hardship must be
demonstrated, and the plan should improve an already }'
unsatisfactory situation. The proponent has unsuccessfully
proved a hardship or created a positive site plan. The
proponent-p-loos—to-f>urehase—approx-irna >1 1i13-f-eet
4. Recommendation
a. Staff would recommend continuance of variance request
#85-24 to allow the proponent time to prepare in greater
detail a site plan which would warrent the variance
requested. the proponent should be directed to: 1. Submit
detailed building plans, 2. indicate location of parking
areas and amount of parking stalls required, 3. Provide a
land.capc and screening plan. 4. Provide an alternative
location for truck scale located outside of 75' front yard
setback.
b. Should the roard choose to grant Variance Request Fi85-24,
the following conditions slioulJ be part of the final order.
r
1. Prior to the issuance of building permit,
j•?;-.I the proponent submits a lant'.,cape plan . in
• Page 6
conformance with City Code to the Planning
• Department for approval. A landscape
performance bond will be required. The plan
{' shall include screening of the truck scale.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,
the proponent must submit to the Planning
Department, an example of the tilt-up
concrete panel for approval.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,
the proponent must submit to the Planning
Department, a plan indicating the location
of parking for 24 parking stalls.
•
c. The Board could choose to deny Variance Request 185-
24, based on the following finding:
1. The variance request is not in keeping with
the spirit and intent of the City Code.
2. No undue hardship has been demonstrated.
•
•
•
•
•
•
f'1 '
.• „.1.f)- -4.-A`• r• 1
.1 i.,..-4 1.24•44 cs,-- _I
/ ..., 2 _
....v.' siQ
'•••• F.''• - .... , .' •' :,,, • .• f;;;‘, .7v.:- .,
/ .:t , 1
:igp 4. (10,4 :, / : ,':iif: ••••4 /- i
(.1.) (30
//
. t,,./ .• .:‘.\-:- 0:, 4.
P
-----7 .(50.,,),F • ' q:..... %.,... :: e... ,..,.41. • • ,..,.s
• , (1) .,.... , ,.., ,..)., . ,, .. .
• • (3623) ,..,,,- .1:, c •;;;.•:.. ..i (7; . t
• ( )
'(f3) '.....‘.';: A . II? I,.
.4.
< 1 ,
I-Z. ?MA . , .• , ,;„.. :. ,•••
.„..,\:, (.1) s., ,.„,, j.,„;, . ,> ,•,s ,
4/ k5/
. .,• ..t ...... - ..--,-.... c.( , • .,....:;_, .• , • ck. '• 1-----— 1
\,.,...% " N‘•.'6•;•' \<r•\-.-t" t. " •01.,,W I
.•
•-4 N...:.,, 40. A : '70 < • 0 0 -•
/
,' v_!..,t e• .
•%`• ' •,' ^ 1 I
' 17 . -4.' . • . `....2 V"." r, )
• '' • .,s :..1, . ..•••--r,0 -•)" 0),,s.. ,„.,- . r..A..., i a• l)l ''''%, " . 0 7) . ht), 0
Gip - m (30) 8
Cd
tr ,
,-° • . •''':, H • i• '2,\, 1
•v• , • .f•. . • , .1 1 ,
....,,!. •.' .4%• "rec (I ) •‘ .• 10 ,,,,r),
o, • , 0,, ,
c
, /
,.. \,...s.• c o': -`,.,/ ^:s1 s:.,
..',.'• .....•.• „. ,:i.- ,'?' : / .,,f 7.,
.,,..i ,,.,, , , ,,:, „. '• • . ., , qt.,,,...... • ..,,
......... ,
% VIC.4%,1,. ,(24) •• B f-,F , t
i ,N I 74-'s ,,,,,,,,,.• ,. 4r r/ a ...0 r
st k.
r ,. ‹,.. . .•!'' " s 0) ''
&sat ,,V. „. ..1 •A. <z. Q 10) 'sl. (Z- N N 1•I i c (21) ..1" 1:;'; i
,..e. /\ $.'4..(41 • t• 0. ,;.;-,
'-',"'• '1 C') L
Co ."1 \ j",;•,....z.tio. ..,. j ]
.t ,/'IN ,,,,,•• .,. ',ft ".1, .i
, •
. ,•‘',-; Cti) e • 0 1— GOA/ .."' <4, c \ I.— .
, so, ..• ,„„p A , ,Z.,?. ,•i* ..i. \ : so
....,. ._ ,
•'s 14) - ,""Zs e\
1. .•
• t -77..7. 1
r‘. e,,,...\ •
.....___SS!!•E 4.:E '''''Iii-,3 ,- 3,. „Ct. I
',Ct3 ----- ..' ' .••' ...." ,%...)
' 1.11.1.11.4 i
•<" ' ' '. 1D) /''. if .c" ;le k „.•-•
.. ,
, e•• •'-'1,(77) / ., N.,. ..- •,
/ .. I,
, .:1''...
‘." B A 7 so• --.. 36
\
+.6 • AO‘ Cia ,,ii,. ••••• Al
sz-G• 1 OW.
,,,•,0//,/,o...0.• ( ....,,t5 \ '
,,\''''••;; . .1' ‘I't ,,t, .......... •••., . .1
liy • • :: • :::' • ..
tc. • / •-• A';'\'' D \.
. ,_-„,/,.,, ..,..• , , •
•
1, ....•,...., „
:. .-.. , .,...
, , • ..,1,,,,,,„r:'r.• ;
.J.
:. ..A..._}/ • / • ;
le •"•• ----...... — . — .—
......:' .1
"-..:•.. 1•)'>, s) I
: ,C.••‘ .%• (ZI) / ''-1••• i 1
..) 5
,, „,./ i
.{.. . - ct(9 . '
, Av
0 / ' `V T-2 PA1c
I,..'>
/ • / (21°) :r.,
.• ; it, / . I.
••, . .04:
' ? /
/ , 1
/ ......,„
'...4.-•:N'., i. /*-..4 r--• -..
H:?/ ( f t.
- , ...• ,-. , - EXHIBIT E
• • ,
/ t....; .....0,1 •4 . .
lb
/
. / ,
' • 4• i
-'tw; / �i.`
A
• /•,> '' •
North ia♦♦.. '
•
�os r; :;� •
/
•
r ' F
,
;4';
� !i./ •,.• /I. is �/
. /7 ' " .s! / •'`'•\• 0 •-•\ "I . • i
I �k {� .1) € r
' 3
•
• / o- I A
• / % wh •
y
3 {
• , ,
♦♦
4
i
•
• ! t: :
.; I
ttot to state • I
�•
{
t 1.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - July 11, 1985
Durham noted that the City Staff reviewed both properties. The
1.15 acre property has a 30 foot access to Dell Road. The 15 acre
property has no access; it is landlocked. The Ci ty would like to
see an easement for a public access plus a plat and dedication of
a public street right-of-way and scenic easement along Riley Creek.
If approved by the Board of Appeals, the request must go to the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
Krueger asked if there were any continents from the audience.
George Marshall, 9905 Dell Road, has property to the west of Smisek.
He inquired if Smisek had an easement to Mr. Anderson's 19 acres.
Smisek said yes. This was also not recorded.
•
Marshall said that he was not interested in how much land Smisek
keeps. He was interested in the right-of-way or easement for the
property that Smisek sold across the creek. Marshall does not
want to have to furnish easements. His concern was for the ease-
ment to the north.
MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-23,
submitted by William Smisek with the following findings:
1) Both the 4.26 acre site and the 15.89 acre site be subject
to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
2) Both the 4.26 acre site and 15.89 acre site be recorded
plats within one year from approval of variance.
3) Both the 4.26 acre site and 15.89 acre site be subject to •
a scenic easement along Riley Creek.
4) Both the 4.26 acre site and 15.89 acre site be subject to
a 30' road right-of-way easement along the southern border
of the lots.
Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Regiest f35-24, submitted by Midwest Asphalt Corporation for property-
located at. 6401 Industrial Drive. Then est is for a variance from
City_Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2 8:
1) To permit platting of Lot L at 2.3 acres (Code requires 5
acre minimum).
•
2) To permit a minimum lot depth for tot L of 169 feet (Code
requires 300 feet).
3) To permit a minimum lot depth for Lot E of 260 feet (Code
requires 300 feet).
4) To permit truck scale in front yard setback (Code requires
75 feet).
•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - • July 11, 1985 '!
Dick Bury, president of Midwest Asphalt, reviewed the request
with the Board. They would like to construct a new office and •
(; shop facility for their company. They have a purchase agreement •
with F & l Enterprises to buy the 108 feet adjacent to their north
property line.
Krueger inquired if they owned the land next door. Bury replied yes.
Krueger suggested that they incorporate the 108 feet into one big lot
and move the lot line. Bury said that was part of their original plan.
Sandvick asked if Bury had any blueprints. Bury said no, first they
wanted to see if the Board would approve the request. There are
$2,000 of fees tied up in the surveys . Bury said that he did
not want to spend more money if the request was going to be denied.
Sandvick said that the Board would like to see some more detail such
as: lot lines, parking stalls and landscaping.
Bury stated that it is a shop building and there is no room for land-
scaping. Bury intends to blacktop the entire area.
Sandvick asked how many employees were in the building. Bury said that
there are 5 people in the office. They have 20 parking stalls across
the street. There is not a lot of room for landscaping and parking.
Durham stated that the City ilould like to see this area brought up to
City Code standards. Separate from the variance request, all other
portions of City Code relating to landscaping, building materials,
and parking requirements, would be applicable. Any new construction
or redevelopment is subject to present City Code.
Bury said that if the plant was ever moved, everything would go but
the proposed building.
Sandvick read from the Staff report for the July 11, 1985 meeting:
"Staff would recommend continuance of Variance Request 485-24
to allow the proponent time to prepare in greater detail a site
plan which would warrent the variance requested. The proponent
should be directed to: 1. Suhinit detailed building plans,
2. Indicate location of parking areas and amount of parking
stalls required, 3. Provide a landscape and screening plan.
4. Provide an alternative location for truck scale located
outside of 75' front yard setback.
Sandvick noted that the area needs to be cleaned up and brought up
to City Code.
•
Bury said that without some encouragement from the Board he is not
going to hire. an architect.
Lynch said that. the request looks reasonable to him, but that it
lacks dotal 1.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - July 11, 1985
4
• Bury stated that the truck scale has to be in front of the building.
Krueger asked if the building could be shifted back. Bury said that
they got a 50 foot setback from the back. They are trying to min-
imize the variance request.
Durham said that the rear setback is 25 feet.
Bury stated that they would rather make a longer building then.
lynch noted that the scale is not a building. It is not a big deal.
It is just a platform.
Lynch felt that the property is fundamentally unique. •
Sandvick suggested that they slide the building back 25 feet, allowing
the truck scale to be out of the front yard setback. Bury said that
they could add 25 feet of building to the back.
lynch said that Bury's plan is fundamentally sound, but that it needs
detail.
• Sandvick suggested that Bury get ideas from Staff and bring them back
to the Board.
Sandvick asked if Bury wanted to continue the variance. Bury said
• that he would leave it up to the Board. Sandvick said that they
could continue the variance or deny it. Bury said that if the Board
wanted to continue the variance they could, however, he did not want .
to spend a large amount of money going to an architect to get plans
drawn up.
Sandvick said that they weren't asking for that. They were asking
for some preliminary drawings showing detail.
Durham noted that they needed details such as: landscaping and amount
of office space vs. shop space. Bury said all right.
Lynch felt that it was unreasonable for Bury to come in and put a
box on a piece of paper and expect the Board to approve the variance.
The placement must depict areas such as: loading docks, ramps,
accesses, etc. It leaves too much to the imagination. Bury said
that he understood; it was a misunderstanding on his part. He
apologi zed.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to deny Variance Request 085-24,
with the following findings:
1) The proponent has not showed a strong case to detail to the
patterns of his drawing.
2) Proponent had a chance to continue the variance request to
the roxt re ularly scheduled l:uird of Appeals meeting and
did not accept it.
•
NW.)
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - July 11, 1985
3) The variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the City Code.
,s
t 4) No undue hardship has been demonstrated.
Lynch seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
E. R_equest e85-25, submitted by Idi 11iam K D for property located at
17301 Padons Drive. The request is_for a variance from City Code,
• tha-pter 11, Section 11 50, Subdivision 6 8C to permit construction
of a_garage 25 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark (Code requires
100 feet. j
William Kelly, 17301 Padons Drive, spoke to the request. He would
•
like to build a 2': car garage at the end of the driveway. It is a
logical location for the garage. It will not cause undue hardship
to the neighbors. The Code requires 100 feet of clearance from
Duck Lake. •
•
Krueger inquired what other choices there were. Kelly said that as •
far as the survey is concerned, there is not much choice. Placement
of a garage anywhere on his lot would require a variance. •
•
•
Durham noted that the house was constructed in 1963, prior to the
Shoreland Ordinance which was adopted in 1982. The house is 60
feet from the Normal Ordinary High Water Mark at the elevation
of 918 feet.
Kelly said that it is logical to build the garage at the end of
the driveway. If put in another location, it could block the view •
of the lake for neighbors. a.
Lynch noted that the Watershed District and the Department of
Natural Resources do not look favorably on the location. Duck Lake
Trail historically has water problems. •
,
Kelly stated that he has never had water problems in the basement.
•
Krueger inquired if the problem was the elevation on the location.
Durham said that the Ordinary High Water Mark and the Flood Plain
are both 915 feet. The Watershed District requires that any
•
•
structure be built 2 feet above. the flood plain.
•
Krueger asked how many feet he would have to put the garage up.
Durham said that it would have to be 917 feet.
•
Krueger suggested that Kelly put the garage on the end of the house.
Kelly said that was an idea, but it would he easier to build a de-
tached garage.
Durham said that the DWR would not recommend the garage location 25
feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark.
Welly noted that he aunt, resurvey his land, Kelly felt that he
naiad wore land to the west.
t
ill L
•
•
/ f
A c.. a
� /•
•.... / '•.
•
• • i
North �'°.' ' •
//C"r!; ;1% • t
•• v
n
�/1 l " . f+ 1
•
•
i • //� k'O fit t•.r' �i/' t• •r •
(.0 l .�. t. �� a
•
%) i, •
tt� r
•
/'•
� • ` `•
/• ' / ;II •'
�a •
i
/
• i1 • t
•
•r
p:
t 1:z •
�. • .
( ' nOt to scale
li' •
+� l •
'
/(;
i
1
AUGUST 20,1985
21 )_._ VOID OUT CHECK 31.63-
22030 BASKIN-ROBBINS TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM EXPENSES 9.40
22031 MOVIES AT EDEN PRAIRIE TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM EXPENSES 25.00
.22032 MARK VII SALES WINE 738.66
22033 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 7367.63
22034 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 658.07 I
22035 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 2553.82
22036 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 515.89
22037 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 5996.30
22038 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 4891.03 1
22039 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 668.36 1
22040 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 171.18
22041 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 407.58
22042 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 337.95
22043 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERIES 52.00
22044 MINNESOTA GAS CD SERVICE 2979.59
22045 SUPPLEE'S 7 HI ENTERPRISES INC AUGUST RENT 4254.97
22046 KAREN WALKER REFUND-SKATING CLASSES ' 22.00
22047 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE CO AUGUST INSURANCE 831.24
22048 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN AUGUST INSURANCE 12546.91
22049 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC AUGUST INSURANCE 5917.15
22050 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC AUGUST INSURANCE 2014.30
22051 MARA FJELLAND REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 12.00
22052 BRIAN HOLMES REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 12.00 7
22T ANDY PAUPORE REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING CLASSES 15.00
22054 TROY DERKSEN REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDNlG CLASSES 15.00
22055 MARJORIE CALLAHAN REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 20.00
22056 VERVE F. CHRISTENSEN REFUND-SAIL BOATING CLASSES 30.00
22057 CHERIE NIMMO REFUND-GOLF CLASSES 25.00
22053 SHOWBIZ PIZZA TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM EXPENSES 55.00
22059 MARK VII SALES BEER 5745.75
22060 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 465.12
22061 REX DISTRINNUTIEG CO INC BEER 472.50 :':
22062 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 767.10
22063 CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 14637.95
22064 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 4400.70
22065 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO MIXES 1057.35
22366 TWIN CITY HEFIF JUICE COMPANY MIXES 58.86
22057 BEER WHO!ESALERS INC BEER 85B7.60
220ES ROYAI. CW013 BEVERAGE CO MIXES 237.75
27339 TFOAPE DISIRIUNTIRG CO BEER I5454.47
22373 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 9683.55
22371 HEATER ROLE REFUND-BEAVER FOUNTAIN WATER SLIDE 5.00
27072 ENO; l'OLF RLFU;D-BEAVER FOUNTAIN WATER SLIDE 5.00
22.:?73 PiIER F:COGH REIUBD-BEAVER f;(IUNTAIN WATER SLIDE 5.00
22074 AGAREU GEOCEI REFUND-BEAVER ft.)UNIAIN WATER SLIDE 5.00
?:075 LACI;1 N.:J!1'LR•F RFfUt0-GOLF LESSORS 15.00
75 CI!ERYL CROIJI.EY RE1 UND-DAY CAF:P 35.00
'77 SUE HORN REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 17.00 •
RJ:': V11 SALES WINE 154.35 •
?:. EAt!!. i un.. CO WINE 110.96
3 FCIi.^ t;;;i1. CO WINE . 89.55
2.2 NI (;Ua1.iTF 100,1 CO LIQUOR 4637.78 -
L;O:',2_ IldI rC 01!iNIAL PCKG CO LIQUOR 2040.23 i•
27353 LO MEL115 h SUNS CO LIQUOR 8605.60 i
?_/
?2084 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE 5072.58
'2035 GRIGGS COOPER &CO INC LIQUOR •
6227.17
7086 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 850,01
0.00
?2087 CAIRAN EIGEN REFUND -ONE-ON-ONE EXERCISE CLASS 20,00
?2088 ANNE KOEGELE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
?208Q JENNIFER CRUMP REFUND-SWitdtiiUG LESSONS I.75
?204 JOE HEINNILLER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
?2091 MARVA NELSON REFUND-AEROBIC FITNESS CLASS 25.00
?2092 SCOTT STANDRIDGE REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 11.00 j
?2093 LISA COLLINS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 13,00
'.2094 TDNY BLACK REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
?2095 MELANIE KREMER REFUND-YOU AND ME BABY 26.00
?2096 BRYAN STANORIDGE REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 14.00
?2097 ANNETTE DESLAURIERS REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 15.00
?2098 CAROLYN PARSONS REFUND-RIVER CRUISE 21.50
?2099 CHRIS PETERSEN REFUND-RIVER CRUISE 21.50
?2100 CAOL SHERIDAN REFUND-RIVER CRUISE 21.50
?2101 WILLIAM WOUDSTRA REFUND-RIVER CRUISE 21.50
?2102 KATE MENEELY REFUND-DAY CAMP 35.00
?2103 KATE MENEELY REFUND-HORSEBACK RIOING 12.00
?2104 MINNESOTA CLE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 160.00
?2105 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1808.74
?2106 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 8197.45 •
?2107 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 3153.84
?2108 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE • 750.94
?2109 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 103.08
?2110 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 668.83
?2111 STATE OF MINNESOTA BIKE REGISTRATIONS 55.00
?2I12 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 189.05
?2113 STUART ALEXANDER MILEAGE 38.00
?211' AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO RUG SERVICE STORE #2 9.05
?211 AMERICAN RED CROSS BOOKS- COMMUNITY CENTER 15.00
?2116 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC SUBSCRIPTION-WATER DEPT 479.00
?2117 EARL F ANOERSEN & ASSOC INC STREET SIGNS/DECALS-STREET & PARKS DEPT 458,32
?2118 ANDERSON GARDEN STORES INSECTICIDE SPRAYS- P/W BLDG 3.49
?2119 DALE ARNDT JULY 85 CUSTODIAL SERVICE 200.00
?2120 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP 14367.78
?2I21 AT & T INFORI1.ATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 50.47
?2122 AT & T INFORN.ATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 7229.47
?2123 S H BARTLETT COiPANY INC REPAIR KIT-COMMUNITY CENTER 156.76
?2124 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC BATTERY/OIL FILTERS/CLAMPS/FLOOR DRY 244.91
?2125 BLOOMINGTOX LOCKSMITH CO REPAIR LOCKS-P/S BLDG 86.00
?2126 61.U1•IBERG C01',':UNICATIONS INC TV WALL MOUNT SWIVEL-CIVIL DEFENSE 50.57
?2127 LOIS BOETTCHER SERVICE-PARK & REC COMMISSION MEETING 64.50
?2128 BOUSTLAU ELECTRIC & MEG CO SMALL MOTOR REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 84.40
22129 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC -SERVICE-EDEN ROAD/ANDERSON LANES PARKWAY/ 925.20
PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
22130 BROWN PHOTO -PHOTOS-POLICE DEPT/JULY 4 CELEBRATION 171.05
/REPAIR CAMERA-PLANNING DEPT
22131 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC ROCK 1382.89
22132 J F. BU11KE CO GALVANIZED LEGS-PARK DEPT 411.70
22133 .GUTCUS INC SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 143.52
22133 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPI.ILS-LIQUOR STORES 156.65
5i"•317
•
l H)44
22135 CARDOX CORP CARBON DIOXIDE 1378.72
22136 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC SERVICE 639.00
22137 CEDAR IIILLS GOLF PARK GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 45.00
22138 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER -DRAIN PLUG/BRAKE ROTOR/MIRROR/REFLECTOR/ 1577.63
-LAMP/AIR FILTER/SPARK PLUGS/HORN/
-DISTRIBUTOR CAP/SHOCKS/OIL VALVE/GASKET/
EXHAUST/SWITCH s
22139 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS SHOP SUPPLIES-FORESTRY DEPT 34.45
22140 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SERVICE-LAKE ANN INTECEPTOR ALIGNMENT 1646.5E
.22141 JAMES G CLARK EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 41.31
22I42 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC BRAKE LINING 34.70
22143 CONCRETE RISING INC SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 434.50
22144 COPY EQUIPMENT INC %EWISER%SCGLEAPE/MARKERS/XEROX BOND/VELLUM 250.56
22145 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO DESK NAME PLATES • 55.05
22146 CURT'S STUMP REMOVAL STUMP GRINDING SERVICE-FORESTRY DEPT 300.00
22147 CUTLER MAGNER CO QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 4102.03
22148 D & L MACHINE CO HOCKEY GOAL MOUNTS-BAR-COMMUNITY CENTER 132.00
22149 WARD F DAHLBERG JULY 85 EXPENSES 80.00
22150 DATED BOOKS OFFICE SUPPLIES 70.50
22151 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE 19.50
22152 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 116.14
22153 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES-SUMMER PROGRAMS 1I2.47
22154 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -ROUND LAKE & COMMUNITY-CENTER CONCESSION 609.04
STAND SUPPLIES l
22155 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER & ROUND LAKE 317.47
CONCESSION
22156 DUSTCOATING INC OIL FOR ROADS 3616.00
22157 JOY EASTMAN MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 52.02
2 9 EAU CLAIRE COUNTY WITHHOLDING FROM EMPLOYEE PER COURT ORDER 3.00
2-4.,o9 EDEN PRAIRIE CLEANERS CLEAN BLANKETS-FIRE DEPT 8.00
22160 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS JULY 85 TRASH PICKUP 325.00
22I61 ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL SERVICE INC BEARINGS/BRACKET-WATER DEPT 77.54
22162 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS GASKET/RINGS-DRAINAGE DEPT 855.44
22163 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 25.65
22164 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC 3 PORTABLE RESUSCITATOR-FIRE DEPT 1674.69
22165 EMPIRE-CROWN AUTO INC -BATTERY/TIRE CLEANER/FLOOR MATS-POLICE 121.1$
DEPT
22166 CHRIS ENGER JULY 85 EXPENSES 165.00
22167 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC MANHOLE COVER RINGS 373.00
22168 FAUVER COMPANY INC HYDRAULIC HOSE COUPLERS 109.35
22169 FEED RITE CO:TROLS INC SULFATE-WATER DEPT 1513.58
22170 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES BACKSTOP-HOMEWARD RILLS PARK 1485.00
22171 FIRESTONE STORES 4 TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINT 653.76 }
22172 FLYING CLOUD SANITARY LANDFILL TAX ON LANDFILL WASTE 24D.39 j
22173 FUNK-HANLCY DISTRIBUTORS INC CARPET FOR E"IERG0NCY OPERATING CENTER 1576.6c I
22174 G & K SERVICES TOWELS/MOPS/CO'ERALI./JAC.KETS 262.2E
22175 G R AVIAIIOU INC AIRCRAFT RENTAL-PLAXAING DEPT 39.60
22176 GENERAL Ca8 UNICATIONS INC REPAIR RADIO 2564.90
22I77 GIatI \L Uf l ICI: PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 344.20
22178 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTERS TIRE-CQUI1'RENT MINT • 22.27
221/9 DALE ORLLN CO BLACK DIRT/SOD 72.08
72180 GINENEIEPI:R INC PIPE/PIPE FITTINGS 48.3?
?y?181 REBECCA PLOLAN-HAIIN TENNIS INS1RUCTIOR/FEES PD 171.00
I7::U9632
22182 HENNEPIN COUNTY MAPS-ENGINEERING DEPT 360.00
22183 HENNEPIN COUNTY JUNE 85 BOARD OF PRISONERS 3116.87
22184 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 8/9/85 20675.90 «i;.
22185 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 8/9/85 8668.23
22)^S DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 8/9/85 15261.48
22t CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 8/9/85 I670.00
22188 PERA PAYROLL 8/9/85 17151.9D HI
22189 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG AUGUST DUES 668.85 4
22190 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 8/9/85 10.00
22191 GREAT WEST LIFE INSURANCE CO PAYROLL 8/9/85 5121.00 is
22192 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 JULY 85 CUSTODIAL SERVICE 1874.94
22193 INSTANTWHIP-141NNESOTA INC ROUND LAKE CONCESSION 141.08
22194 INTERNATIONAL ASSOC OF CHIEFS OF SCHOOL - POLICE DEPT 425.00
22195 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC TONER FOR COPIER -WATER DEPT . 62.10
22196 J & R RADIATOR CORP REPAIR RADIATORS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 139.20
22197 WALTER C JAMES STATE FIRE CONFERENCE EXPENSES • 61.17 ,
22198 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 26.88
22199 JOHNSON-BIGLER COMPANY INC CONCRETE- PARK MAINT 318.50 j
22200 JONAH USA LTD LUBE STICKS-COMMUNITY CENTER 49.52
22201 JUSTUS LUMBER CO LUMBER -PARK MAINT 628.02
22202 KARULF HARDWARE INC -HOUSEBATTERIES/DRILL BITS/ 1067.67
PIPE/CLAMPS/SWITCHES/
-INSECT SPRAY/CAN OPENER/NAPKINS/PAPER
-PLATES/SAND PAPER/FAUCET/ENAMEL PAINT I
-PLASTIC PLIERS/HITCH/FITTINGS/HOOKS
/BRACKET 205.D0
22203 DANIEL J KASID SOFTBALL OFFICIAL r
22204 KELLY SERVICES INC TEMPORARY HELP-POLICE DEPT 299.20
22205 KLASONS ATHLETIC REPAIR 3 TENNIS NETS REPAIRED-PARK M4INT 255.00
2" '5 K MART TENNIS BALLS/CAMP SHOVELS/COOLER/BLUE ICE 79.52
2i._..7 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER -TAPE/BATTERIES/FUNNEL/SPIKES/VALVE/ 160.08
SPRAYER PARTS
22208 RALPH KRATOCHVIL EXERCISE CLASSES INSTRUCTOR/FEE PO 26.00 j.
22209 GUST LAGERQUIST & SONS INC REPAIR ELEVATOR-COMMUNITY CENTER 252.78 !
22210 LAKE STATE EQUIPMENT CO HOSE-EQUIPMENT MAINT 12.97 .
22211 LANCE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 176.95
22212 LANDEY'S CAMPING CENTER BATTERY-POLICE DEPT 12.62
22213 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTO JUNE 85 LANDFILL LEGAL SERVICES 6302.25
22214 DOUGLAS A LAUVER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 147.00
22215 MARY LAZOR MILEAGE-FORESTY DEPT 123.75
22216 LEEF BROS INC RUGS/CITY MALL/POLICE DEPT & STREET GARAGE 249.40
22217 IEO00RI?/STREET/& DEINARO REFUND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCH 10.00
22218 LOGIS JULY 85 SERVICE 5896.1S
22219 D-A LUBRICANT CO INC ENGINE OIL 75.30
22220 LYNON LUMBER CO LUMBER-PARK MAINT 214.80
22221 IIASYS CO?E ORATION COMPUTER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 914.0o
22222 BALFARA MATTSON AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 210.0c
22723 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 120.0:•
22224 MCFARI.AN[S INC CEMENT-PARK MAINT 79.00
22225 HALL Mi.SEROW CANCEL STARING LAKE PARK RESERVATION 20.00
22226 MEINO PONE COMM INC AUGUST 85 PACER SERVICE 54.1
27 MEIR00OLITAM vASTE CONTROL COMM SEPTEMBER 85 SEMEN SERVICE 93146.St
22728 METR000LITA'1 WASH CONTROL COMM DEFLMUENT PAYMENT 138265.(U
22229 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO -ROUND LANE 8 COMMUNITY CENTER CONCESSION 612.21
STAND SUPPLIES .;
32541836 ppf.
1 q, T
•:•tl.
1
22230 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET DEPT •
3156.07
22231 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER 84.50
22232 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORES 48.30
22233 MINNESOTA TREE INC TREES -WATER DEPT 351.71 •
22234 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 36.25 •
22( ROBERT G MODEEN INC PAINT P/S BLDG OFFICES 558.94
224.,J MODERN TIRE CD -ALIGNMENT OF WHEELS/TIRE FOR DUTCH ELM 375.70
SMALL LOADER/5 TIRES
22237 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO BELTS-PARK MAINT 167.30
22238 WM MUELLER & SONS INC SAND-PARK MAINT 239.95
.22239 MY CHEESE SHOP EXPENSES 80.00
22240 NATIONAL SEMINARS INC FEE- WATER DEPT 98.00
22241 NCNB FINANCIAL SERVICES INC LANDSCAPE FABRIC-PARK DEPT 312.00
22242 JEFF NELSON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 136.00
22243 NORTH CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY JACKSCREW-WATER DEPT 80.14
22244 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 23.82
22245 NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA BOND PAYMENTS 1301806.32
22246 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC EXPANSION OF HP150-FINANCE DEPT 773.00
22247 PACE LABORATORIES INC SERVICE-RIGHT TO KNOW TRAINING SESSION 1686.00
22248 PACKAGING SALES CHARLTDN-GARRETT BAGS-LIQUOR STORES 417.70
22249 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO POP FOR COMMUNITY CENTER CONCESSION STAND 127.00
22250 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO POP FOR ROUND LAKE CONCESSION STAND 158.80
22251 T A PERRY ASSOCIATES INC REPAIR AIR CONDITIONER-P/S BLDG 78.00
22252 CONNIE PETERS MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 13.25
22253 PETERSON PONTIAC GMC INC REPAIR RIGHT VENT GLASS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 66.80
22254 POMMER 1•IFG CO INC ENGRAVED PLATES-ROUND LAKE BEACH 24.00
22255 POWER SYSTEMS HYDRAULIC FITTINGS-PARK DEPT 21.75
22256 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC BALLAST-COMMUNITY CENTER 74.20
22257 R & R SPECIALTIES INC SHARPEN ZAMBONI BLADES 152.45
22258 RECREDNICS CORP 2 MEGAPHONES-ROUND LAKE 275.35
2 1 RIDGE DOOR SALES CO OF MN INC REPAIR EAST FIRE STATION DOOR 126.00 •
22c60 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-TECHNOLOGY DRIVE/LIFT STATION/ 17025.89
-FLYING CLOUD DRIVE/NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL
PARK/PRESERVE BLVD/SEWER POLICY PLAN
22261 ROAD RESCUE INC REPAIR VEHICLE CHARGING SYSTEM-FIRE DEPT 47.26 •
22262 PAUL ROGERS -SERVICE-DISC1NG-HOiiEWARD HILLS ROAD & 241.50
DUCK LAKE ROAD
22263 JOHN RUDQUIST MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT 137.00 1
22264 ST PAUL POLICE PISTOL CLUB AMMUNITION-POLICE DEPT 100.00
22265 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RES1ROOt•iS 1660.28
22266 SEARS ROEBUCK & CD -AIR NOSE/BATTERY CHARGER/3 CALCULATORS & 477,51
RIBBONS
22267 SHAKDPEE FORD INC NM BUTTON/TURN SIGNAL/SWITCH/BU1.IPER 573.07
22268 It E NEAL SLATE CO PANELS-FINANCE DEPT 2422.00 4.
22269 W CORDON SI1I1H CO -HOSE/WAX/TOGGLE SEITCFI/MIRRORS/GREASE/ 9112.06
ANTIFREEZE/BELTS/SWITCHES/REGULAR GAS
22270 SNAP PRINT-HEST PRINTING-St1 1kli.NET DAYS 40.56
2227) SUMPS DRUG STORES INC SUPPLIES-SU 1•iCR PROGRAMS 50.26
22272 SOU1NWEsi SUBURBAN POLISH INC AD`..-LIQUOR STORES 113 0;
22273 SO!11mL51 _SUL UI RAN PUBLISii INC EMPLOYiMENT 7 DS COti'IUNITY CENTER 50.40
27?.74 EL:1•1E1T 51 AHK MUSIC DIRECTOR/Ft-ES PD 425.06
22275 DON S1REICNEG GUNS 5 RIrLCS-PULIC!: DEPT • 1257.0o
22276 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC PUMP TANK-RESEARCH RD 50.DU �"
'14533213
1
22277 TARGET 220 -FILM-ENGINEERING & PLANNING DEPT/TENNIS 142.72
BALLS/RACQUETBALLS-SUMMER PROGRAMS
22278 GENE THOMPSON COMMUNITY BAND DIRECTOR/FEES PD 20.00
22279 TIPTON CORP LAND DEVELOPMENT FEE REFUND 300.00
24 TRACY OIL CO INC UNLEADED GAS-STREET DEPT 9944.15
222oc TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS -PAPER/CANDLE WICKS/PASTE ON EYES-SUMMER 34.63
PROGRAMS
22282 . TV FANFARE PUBLICATIONS INCORP ADS-LIQUOR STORES 65.00
22283 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN/ACETYLENE-STREET DEPT 50.49
22284 TWIN CITY PRICING & LABEL INC LABELS-LIQUOR STORES 401.50
22285 TWIN CITY TESTING -WATER SAMPLES FOR LANOFILLE/REVIEW OF 4526.75
WATER LEAKAGE AT COMMUNITY CENTER
22286 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES UNIFORMS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES 212.20
22287 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 227.62
22288 VIDEOTRONIX INC PHOTO BEAM-POLICE DEPT 420.00 i
22289 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHLORINE CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 229.50
22290 DAVE VITTERA SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 514.00
22291 WATER PRODUCTS CO 3" METER $539/BOLTS & NUTS/ 5/8" REMOTE 1088.92
22292 WEED KING WEED CUTTING-PARK DEPT 280.00 1 22293 WESCO LIGHT BULBS 133.86
22294 WESTERN CHEMICAL CO CHEMICALS -WATER DEPT 4773.60
22295 WILLIAM J ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES -ADS & POSTERS FOR RESTORATION OF CUMMINS/ 547.12
GRILL HOUSE
22296 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS BUSINESS CARDS 875.00
22297 WINGFIELD PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING REPAIR TRUCK TRANSMISSION 798.00
22298 XEROX CORP SERVICE 2728.50
22299 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO CHEMICALS-STREET DEPT 204.50
22300 FRONT END ALIGNMENT-STREET DEPT 72.95
223^1 CURTIS INDUSTRIES BOLTS/NUTS/DRILL BIT/WASHER 310.35
22 JOE CELLA DEPOSIT ON PICNIC KIT 15.00
22303 ALLIED BLACKTOP CO SERVICE-SEAL COATING 102127.75
223D4 BROWN & CHRIS INC SERVICE-CARTEL ADDN 51173.85
22305 CUSTOM SURFACING SERVICE-STARING LAKE TRAIL 1275.I3
22306 S M HENTGES & SONS SERVICE- COUNTY ROAD 1 13883.95
22307 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-NORSENAN INDUSTRIAL PARK 44406.59
22308 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE-ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY 123980.30
22309 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-EDEN RGAD A SINGLETREE LANE 256673.85
22310 OPUS CORPORATION SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD DRIVE 50942.21
22311 SHAFER CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 33903.75
22312 SHAFER CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 16689.27
21599 VOID OUT CHECK 300.00-
22019 VOID OUT CHECK 666.15-
22313 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT CO WHEELS-PARK MAINT 90.00
22314 MINNESTO1 COMMUNICATIONS CORP AUGUST 85 PAGER SERVICE 25.75
22315 PREFERRED PAVING FINAL PAYMENT FRAINLO & EDEN VALLEY PARKS 5614.87
72874948
0 1 / $26121)53.03
10 BENERAL 295150.46
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 2931.69
12 CERTIFICATE DEBT FD 24252.42
15 LIOUDR STORE-P V 11 70803.21
17 LIQUOR STDRE-PRESERVE 49183.92
31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 21833.59
33 UTILITY BOND FUND 2676.02
36 P/S & P/W BOND FUND 558.94
4 '1TILITY DEBT FUND 78178.75
4S UTILITY DEBT FD ARB 154971.25
48 82 G 0 DEBT-P/S & P/W 147129.11
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 555584.85
52 IMPROVEMENT_DEBT FUND 44.04
55 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND ARB 97181.25
56 ROAD IMPROVEMENT DEBT FD 54412.05
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CDNST FD 2069.55
73 WATER FUND 26187.42
77 SEWER FUND 94033.92
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 547.12
90 TA% INCREMENT FUND 50921.02
91 T I F DEBT FUND 883902.45
$2612553.03
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM •
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner •
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning •
DATE: August 1, 1985
•
SUBJECT: PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS ELDERLY SITE ACQUISITION •
During the last eight months City staff has been working with Derrick Land
Companies in developing a satisfactory financial package to present of the City
Council for the construction of 112 apartment units to be known as Prairie
Village Apartments. •
One of the buildings proposed consist of 56 units which will be designated for
low and moderate income elderly. At least fifty-one percent of the units (28) •
will be available for below market rents. Tax Increment Financing, Housing
Revenue Bonds, and Community Development Block Grant Funds will make the elderly
building available for below market rents.
Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $128,819.00 will be
utilized in conjuction with the elderly building for site acquisition. The City
will acquire the site and simultaneously sell the site to Derrick Land companies
for development of 56 elderly apartment units. •
We are is now at a point, in the acquisition schedule, for City Council to pass
two resolutions. Resolution #85-179 establishes just compensation and authorizes
the City staff and City attorneys to acquire the elderly site of 3.05+ acres.
Resolution #85-180 Authorizes the City to sell the elderly site to Derrick Land
Companies. "}
Newcombe & Hansen Appraisals, Inc. completed an appraisal of the Prairie Village
Apartment elderly site on June 10, 1985 with a supplement dated July 17, 1985.
In their opinion, the value of the unimproved land , before soil correction, is
$150,000.00. A review appraisal was completed by Donald A Hennessy, CRA, whos
agreed with this value established. Therefore just compensation has been
established at $150,000.00.
Housing and urban Development policies require that the City offer just
compensation to the land holder in the amount established by the appraisal.
Therefore, the City should suhmit an offer of $150,000.00 to Dennis Gonyea,
Gonyea Land Companies, the Current land holder. We propsed to acquirethe iste
for $150,000.00 and sell it to Derrick Land Companies for $21,181.00, thereby,
"writting down" the cost of the land.
Staff would suggest the City pass Resolution #R5-179 establishing just i
corpenst.ation and authorizing offer to purchase the elderly site from Gonyea
Land companies at S150,000.00. Staff would also suggest City Council pass •
Resolution ,''Rh-i80 authori7inq the City to sell the property to Derrick Land
Cempanies for S?1,131.00 for the purpose of constructing 56 elderly apartment •
units.
•
A w9rarate set of legal documents is being prepared which wi 1 include a purchase
a;lrr-;•mont, hTyhMk Jiriy:,,a'nt, Ind long ter.; manaue:n;rnt agreement. The purchase
and suh:eryurnt sale will not take place unitil these documents are completed.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-179
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING OFFER FOR THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE TD ACQUIRE PRAIRIE VILLAGE ELDERLY APARTMENT SITE OF 3.05+ ACRES
• WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie is carrying out a Community Development Block
Grant project known as Site Acquisition (Assisted Housing) Project #009 and
Senior Housing (Prairie Village Apartments) Project #958, which includes the
acquisition of real property; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has had the parcel of real property to be
acquired appraised for its fair market value by a qualified independent
professional real estate appraiser, who has completed a written report
documenting said value; and
WHEREAS; another qualified appraiser has reviewed the appraisal report, and has
on file a written report setting forth his opinion as to a fair market value;
and
WHEREAS, the work of the appraiser and review appraiser with respect to the
property has been performed in a competent manner in accordance with applicable
State Law, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitin Act,
and Department of Housing and Urban Development policies and requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AS FOLLOWS:
1. That said opinion of fair market value in writing by the
qualified review appraisal are certified to be accurate and
correct and the fair market value of $150,000.00 is hereby
• adopted by the City of Eden Prairie as just compensation; and
2. That the fair market value for the subject property and the
interests to be acquired are delineated and identified in the
City of Eden Prairie report entitled "Determination of Fair
Market Value for Acquisition" dated June 10,1985, and July 17,
1985, and kept on record in the file of the City of Eden
Prairie; and
3. That the City of Eden Prairie's staff and its attorneys are
hereby authorized to acquire the subject property by direct
purchase or donation for the amount not to exceed those
certified herein as just compensation.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota this 6th day
of August, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Johni).hone, City Clerk •
I � i.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-180
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE TO SELL 3.05± ACRES OF LAND TO
DERRICK LAND COMPANIES.
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie is carrying out a Community Development Block
Grant project known as Site Acquisition (Assisted Housing) project #009 and
Senior Housing (Prairie Village Apartments) project #958, which includes the
acquisition of real property for 56 elderly apartment units; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the City is to provide moderate cost elderly housing units
and has an approved site ready for development; and
WHEREAS, the City goal established in 1982 was to provide 161 elderly apartment
units of which 61 exist currently; and
WHEREAS, the City has followed requirements consistent with Hennepin County and
Housing and Urban Development policies,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
That the City of Eden Prairie's staff and its attorneys are hereby authorized to
prepare documents and carry out the sale of 3.05+ acres, Exhibit A, to Derrick
Land Companies.
EXHIBIT A
The Southwest 3.05+ acres of Outlot B and that part of Outlot C, Gonyea 4th
Addition, lying Northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the Westerly line
of said Outlot C, distant 92.68 feet Southeasterly along said Westerly line from
the most Westerly corner of said Outlot C, most Northerly corner of said outlot
•
C.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this 6th day
of Auoust,1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
)
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
/ ';
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS. INC.
11111(.l //AN`.1 N,"n' M.\MIA( .vrr.“1 NS
CIIN••.1.•I•r.l.t.In{INN ,AI.ue1N/VI1N
Al A� JOANN 1IA N'.I.N,••A• 1.C•t.l Nl 1,I.'.1 III NNI'..f it I.nl.t•'•.IN
Y u.•.'wrnu cV.l...a( II.n I I.ANN \I UN1 MICEN
..-rw CAI NItIN(l.a'u111 I`.NN.'.II P.11:.nII
t ' IA Al,NI w/NMI.I a.nl 1.«I I
Sac NONw151 M.uI ANI.1.1r.1 lINt. 401$t CONI)AYE NUC SOUON MINNCAI.O(II. MINNI I•1.IA•.'.A..I•I.1:3111 0400
#18474 July 17, 1985
Mr. Stephen Durham •
City of Eden Prairie Housing &
Redevelopment Authority
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Mn 55344-2499
RE: Soil Corrections
City Acquisition (Lot One)
Prairie Village Apartments
Trunk Hwy. #5 & Cty. Road #4
Eden Prairie, MN
Dear Mr. Durham:
• Dur appraisal of the above identified property, dated ,tune 10, 1985, .
stated a land value of $180,000 after soil correction. Soil correction
costs were estimated at about $30,000 or less.
It is our opinion that the value of the unimproved land, before soil
correction, is:
ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS: $150,000
• It is our understanding that the value for acquisition by the City of Eden
Prairie, is not to include costs of soil correction. If you have any
questions or need further assistance, please call.
Sincerely,
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
By:
t
.JoAnn Hansen, MAI
sb S
. cc: Richard Kricr
(
i 1
i
CITY ACQUISITION - LOT"ONE
1 PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS
1 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Lf
Li
.. NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
62G MIDLAND HANK
MINNEAPOLIS.MiNNEStOTA 65401 f!
012/339O40G
BERGE HANSEN,M.A.I.,President
JO ANN HANSEN,Vice President
DEWEY NEWCOMBE,M.A.I.
•
ft�1
1 NEWCOMC3E & HANSEN APPRAISALS. INC. ,
wf,DCIAT[APPOIMSt..
ISI:NC•l 14AN`.�E N.I.A 1 C.I1N1S1t)I'IN II11nLUtN KA11111YN LVILN
MAI :UMI.JMu/A NS .I N.Iy•I..II4,.1 wr 14 M.• HOOCH'DI IOW DLNNIS NICNANLISON
CTNTNIA I UIILI.MANN VENNE 11ANSLN
'E"�• wtw,t0•11.wrl'.w•“... NO
CATNILCN CN0007 DENNIS D.KELSAL
t OLWLY NCWCOMOE.A A I•LIIMt4
l530 NW/WEST MIDLAND(WILDING 401 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55401.612 339.0400
. #18474 June 10, 1985
Mr. Stephen Durham
City of Eden Prairie Housing &
j Redevelopment Authority
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Mn 55344-2499
RE: City Acquisition (Lot One)
Prairie Village Apartments
Trunk Hwy. #5 & Cty. Road #4
Eden Prairie, MN
Dear Mr. Durham:
At your request we have completed an appraisal of this property for the
purpose of estimating its Cash Equivalent market value. Based upon an
inspection of the property and analysis of the many factors influencing
` market value, it is our opinion that its value, assuming soil corrections
completed that will allow the construction of a 56 unit apartment
- building, including pending and outstanding special assessments paid in
L� full, as of June 10, 1985, to be: •
3 ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS $180,000
3 Distribution: $180,000
(Realty) Land000
:� (Realty) Improvements
(Personalty) Fixtures, Furnishings & Equipment Not Appraised
We submit our appraisal report containing a description of the property, a
summary of significant factors affecting market value, and a portion of
the computations employed in arriving at the value estimate. The
Appraisers' Definition of Market Value, the Appraisers' Qualifications,
and a statement of Underlying Assumptions and Contingent Conditions are
included.
This appraisal has been completed in conformance with the Professional
1 Ethics of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. Information
in this report was gathered from sources believed to be reliable, but it
is not guaranteed.
4
•
1
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC. !.
MINNCAPOLIS. MINNCSOTA 55401
#18474 -2-
• Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the
right of publication nor may it be used for any purpose, except that for
which it was requested, without the previous written consent of the i
appraiser and, in any event, only with proper qualification. i
It has been a pleasure to serve you, and should you desire further
assistance, please call us at your convenience. I
Sincerely,
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
By:
•
'1 45:5W2(-44--'2 :2--te-a-e--kt-
3".31 Hansen, MAI
J /-d
sb • Timothy Xin, Ap iser 1
t
1
.I
1
•
•
I
I 1
NEWCOMI3E & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC
M,N N C A P O N S. MIHNICSOIA 9 3 4 0 1
)
PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL A
1
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the cash equivalent market
value of the fee simple interest in this property as of June 5, 1985, to
be used as a site for one 56 unit apartment building. ;
The definition of market value is that found in Real Estate Appraisal E
I t Terminology (Bryl N. Boyce, Cambridge, MA: Balling 75J, which is
reproduced in the Exhibit Section.
GPROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
11 The Southwest 3.05+ acres of Outlot B and that part of Outlot C, Gonyea
4th Addition, lying—Northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the i
Westerly line of said Outlot C, distant 92.68 feet Southeasterly along i
,I said Westerly line from the most Westerly corner of said Outlot C, to a
IU, point on the Northerly line of said Outlot C, most Northerly corner of
said Outlot C. 1
r
.
i'T•.M I
r'I'.%1..:t. I tol".ii Y.p l' ,rq I. 1w �)Iar r•n
'-
o.�
tHi•
L ,
E 1
I
f
L
I
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55401 I
f
TATE TAXES
The Real Estate Tax Information relates to real estate taxes payable in
1985 based on the Assessor's estimated market value as of January 2, 1984. ,
The balance of unpaid special assessments are those remaining after the i
current installment is paid. Information has been taken from public j
records. The assessed market value of the subject property was determined
under the assumption that the land was vacant. •
•
`' Property Identification Number:
#009/958 Site Acquisition/Assisted Housing ,
LAssessor's Market Value I
Pi Land $35,871.66
Improvements
Total: $35,871.66
L •
Assessed Market Value of Site
$35,871.66 .
Current Taxes
El
L' • Real Estate Taxes $664.28
Special Assessment Payment $265.72
[I Total Annual Tax Payment $903.01 j
U'i Balance of Unpaid Special Assessments
I Sewer and water $530.34 1
Storm sewer $ 20.75
�' Total Balance of Unpaid Special Assessments $551.09 .
j
e ,
L )
E 4
L
r 18474 <;2 1
_ ,..
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, IN(
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 5S401 '.
• ( 'i
LOCATION '
— •...' .1••.i r. -., "
\ :.':
k....1::.....':..... .. . .-.4.:
P . '. i • 4 .: ; , MINNEIONKA.. -\ • ,I_. _ii,...':.,,,',••.3.' '• e t• ,, ,I.... . .. 1.',i )..
•• '• •• -:, .,.' • T. 171U1SPARK 7 3;;,i:,, 0;_•,.,-, , • ;
•)'
....3...;','•:• \. , 3:1' . '''''-.. ...".,:.';‘,'„,.--..•31.•' 1 ..,••;7',.-••••,',":"'ili..;i•..;'..• -•••,:.'.;..;• .,!.. .., t,• •
•
.. •:1:•.;,.:-..:f .:7-. ;'," .•.,,'......•.'....\,''Z"!!.;;;,:;1!,1',.,:...*"... '• 1.,':. ',;,.'. ;
,, , ,: 1 i...::1 l'21 , , '-..,----: ,--:(.,i1'':-.-j-----'4':',... - •1::i•',:,-;•1'!!k....' ,....1 t-IN -:..':•;:' -." ' --. ;'''
'Ii4Evi:i1i.,,,. 1;.:.)4'..,1.1;;-''-'1"-----, ---7.c.:;t -,-;...•:::, •;"?'.,....14..,s,..;''.., '::".:f. ' : .''::-.:.. .'S-....:7:'.i:t.'t‘'...,:/:,• ''::-.-;.,..'•,..:- ,
. :P i),- 1.'',:'...c-..::;-1,.';.7,-,-::-.,.•;i::,;I::..-,--,.-t•,:.•,.,.'.;,`.3-fi l•ii.,";\:••••10.'i..1,1; ,.in•j•• ,"....:,„•, :„1:..`,:_:,.;•,,,‹: • -,•,..2,•:•%;fz's,. _ i
:'S: ..;• :ir'''''•C't-1`..-":4. .\7 1±•-i'•'•-•!.. .j:.:;:i•':'‘XI.I.:-11:11•!-',.:-;.1...:\--i-'4'.11..;..?•.' :•:. ..:.'••••r''. .. • :
. ••••,..2`..::!;" :•;-:..•t.--,_..._;--.--;::!,;',;r .,:':z....7.:.;:.;...; ..3;.,...,:i.,-,1-1-y.-::-:'.,..,..:-....1; 7•.":::. ••:•-• \:,,,,. ;7„
' ; • i l•\---.I•.•;:j ''!",17'.',..''. ti.-3",,1;3e:.•• Hc:ITKIN •..:11..1:r• .3,....-t 0;4...1,1. „,.,z...4 •k,,
.t.:,.' '.„,-"' .-c.f.1., , t:•.1.:4•••;.,.III '..i.!'t 14:••••' ••''‘.r1".'•44 :'.•-'1.1.-•••----"at,1-1'•:).••••'-i:0- r-r'-'-si--,-
. •••1 t-:. ' -:•,.(4---.-••••••-'..:... ..;....i•-.:.1;:. !' •--;:•;:-.-s,'- -•:-._.:::i•.;,,..": ',..;,.....•••-'2 ......;I,•)%4•,!4?-•.!..3,- ..'":!,ILI"•••,;34 ' :
;•;,-.1,..,,,:',; j,:-• t,;;..E'ic; .,.,,, .;,'...' -..ts= .. , ,i-•`; ;3:•_-;,-,ci,..7•A,-, - "."_,.`,(:
I
••••-i7j...' •IIi3 ........ --•-'•••=•,- i' VI (.1,, • •:•VII'.•••''''.-; El Iii..,2...4 r-,--14,‘,....•777- '"I..' •• i
' ,-- 1 •,;-,-";. ;.,.. .....7-t",' I••-•••4 . ...:.•• • ,•,E: !4\7'",...-IL''',•-5,...,.:".;•••,•••,..:-1 i (":•,./7 •,-*, i
..-••,,,,,1:',"...''.:::-;,;-••• ' •,..;'':•.'":-...-,;.T.. '';3 I;•) ;...0•1 i E; '.•••1!,\Sk-.•;,.(' '.7.-",-'.'_•E''• -, '•i'..Y.'„--•.','CI.I:s.: -i'•'' E'''?•-1••!• ','"It•il.3,1•''‘,.3:•:•-•;:-- '''-: I • ei.?•; I'''. I"1".\,•:,.:-'. •"'I.I:-.3,'. ,riti -r:/il.' •••••••• '
..'s., :3••••• ,,-;C'-3-„V,,,,I,:.,;'‘. " •‘',, 'I'-.''. ''•- • • r"--•"'• 1..-tD1NA'-' •::• :1-._' .'. .
. ... ..
. . ...,.•')•••'•\-:!'.'-kkt,:t•.4.. •.,•:••.._:•.,I..._,,; , ..; .:1.... ,). •L'il "\\!:,-,,I, .•-•-•'.(....ii,,, l' ',J, , ,\I'1\,t•- ,,,t. ,N,.,-:-..-.: 0.•,....:•-ir',..p...i...•,..!,1. •-.--:----±_-
i ) ' ' .11\-L, 'N' •. .i 2.:-: ., .. ,. ''',., ...;• ' 7.!--',..,.in-,,...-.-AL, ..';'... 0;17.1,1,:: _
-.:.
. . •.....V! ..- -, , '' ',..;;'''.,?\ , -,) 4 ... 4. ,--..",t...;,!.,....•1 •.••-.,-..!..1.i,..::: ,•......'
' •••.* • -.-':••, ' 1SL>y• • '.• ...,, ..t• -7,2. r 7 r.--- ,...:
V..---... ;. ' ... • ,1. -
1 .
. _
, }-j1 .1J...• ....:.EDEN PRAIRIE •- .-, """ 73-.,-"'",•...-7 '•j.',. .;,•• ,•;3; "Iv.' . •:t
1 9, •, %
'.1. '''.t,t'i..›.•t 1:' : •.'7 f;1 '',''..'1.. •• •
.-..)' I
j'e i.. ..r.,'! ' : •f- \" -,.....' (:i•••• • •:.! ....,:•••-i, ; ••'• " •:: ''. ::" '• ..4.:'•" • -
' 'q•''••••(•-•., '-' .1 .....'', .!.',•-•-.', ...'- ''.'',.-''' il' -. i....:::"..,i =. %-..:* t •,.A'.' .- 7 .
.• • . . 1
/. •.• 1:1.-..-- "'-'.'' s 1 ' •irs' • \-L.I. ...,./.:'- 1. i't•-••:‘,...: '
.. i...,..--\•' • ,l .- 1 I
CI,J,' . ,•,0.,, ,, I
i, - . •,• • I -- •. :•
0
--..•-? .. s---i ' ;*
. " . .).• - ''• - 'I i'r.:.,,\.4; 1.00.MINGTON.!,
Ie *. . -/ • ... -
• "‘''s I" : •.' " '\ p i'-*••,.. •• - ,:,, , -:' ' -:—. . '
I 3,3' . •
N.'1:.', : . .--;',:.'3 '''`''., 7.... ..' • "., '- ,: ; . '
1 ..,„, . . ...
. N- ‘'. . 1....' • ,•,:- . + ••
'.,—I• „_
1 1'" • `f '
-•'-',‘.1),.,,,%:,•,..SHAKOPEE : - •• ,..• ,,, -ft.'s..., ,,... 3 ..,‘.. , . ,, . ,
. ... . N,
i• 11 N-•••••1 ' \ '.\. .-' _
1; '
, .
• I
I
•
NEWCOMDE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC
M i N N E A P O L,{. MINNESOTA 1515401
,-�..r...---
•
I
LOCATION (Cont'd) •
. (
The subject property is a semi-cubic land parcel of 3.05+ acres. The site
is legally described and located on the plat found on page one of this
report. The subject property is located at the intersection of County 1
Road #4 and State Trunk Highway #5 in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, a fast 1
growing suburb of Minneapolis. The site is situated approximately 13
miles southwest of the Minneapolis Downtown Central Business District.
To the north of the subject are single family homes, ranging in value from
$70,000 to $90,000. To the south of the property, running east and
. westerly, is State Highway #5. Immediately across Highway #5 are light
• Commercial/office buildings and some single-family residences. The eastern
edge of the property is bordered by Westgate Addition, a residential
development area zoned R1-22 (Single Family Residential).
Immediately west of the property, across County Road #4, is the Emmanuel
Lutheran Church. Directly south of the church, at the intersection of
,, Hwy#5 and Cty Rd #4 is the Prairie Village Mall. This mall provides for
•
many of the shopping needs of consumers in the area. Snyder's Drug is a
major tenant. ,
L. North along Eden Prairie Road (Cty #4) are additional amenities that
enhance the subject's location. Among these is the Eden Prairie High
School, Eden Prairie Community Center, Eden Prairie Fire Station, and
Round Lake Park. All of these amenities are located within one mile north
_ -of the subject site.
f Eden Prairie, with an estimated population of 24,000, is bordered by
Minnetonka on the north, Edina and Bloomington on the east, Chanhassen
i.
along the west, and Shakopee along the south. Substantial population
17 increases are projected for the city in the immediate future.
1 Eden Prairie is served by Interstate Highway 494 and Minnesota Highway #5,
which intersect and create good access to the Metropolitan area and are
I' readily accessible to the subject site.
In general, the subject has excellent access to all previously mentioned
1 , amenities, and equally adequate access to the Out-State areas.
• L The subject property is a well located site for a multiple-family
( structure. !
1.1
[:
l'
18474 4
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
MINNS A P 0 1.l f. MINNESOTA 0 0•0 1 'i
SITE DESCRIPTION
Size of Land (See Exhibit Section)
•
The subject site is an irregularly shaped parcel measuring as
follows:
(About) 300' along Wagner Way '
About) 327' along the westerly border '!
About) 405' along the southerly border
__ About 375' along the easterly border
Containing approximately 3.05 acres
Total Land Area = 3.05+ acres
r •
...f.e.- —= --,,N\ r-- 1 e;---- i
'' it!� Ip/t/ / .um,nun+r.ntin sot. ` �, / 7 , nr._e.wn..t.w_Nrs
•
•
1 D //
Reported Zoning 1
:1
The current zoning is R, Rural. However, this appraisal is based on
'- the assumption that the subject property will be rezoned to RM 2.5
(Multiple Residential), which will allow for the construction of a 56
unit apartment complex. J.
)
i
Terrain and Soil Conditions !
The site is generally rolling with sloped drainage to the small pond '1
on out lot A. Additional drainage is provided from the street adjacent
to the site. •
Soil Corrections are reported to have been tompleted and to be
appropriate for the construction, as proposed, of the 56 unit
apartment building.
The subject property is not located in an FIA Designated flood hazard I
area. I
1
18474 5
1
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
M I N N L A P O L I S. MINNESOTA S S 4 0 1
SITE DESCRIPTION (Cont'd)
Utilities Available •
Storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water, gas and electricity are currently
accessible from the subject property.
Streets
State Highway Number 5, County Road Number 4 and Wagner Way, are three
bituminous surface roadways. Wagner Way has concrete curb and gutter.
•
Access and Identity
•
Wagner Way provides access from the northwest. State Highway Number 5
will provide the best access into the Minneapolis/St. Paul Central
• Business District.
•
( Highest and Best Use
•
As Though Vacant:
•
The land is vacant. The permitted use of the subject land is reported
to be a 56 unit apartment complex. The zoning of the property will be •,
RM 2.5. Estimated market value is contingent upon a zoning change
from R (Rural) to RM 2.5 (Multiple Residential). Under the proposed
�; zoning of RM 2.5, the use of the subject property for a 56 unit
apartment complex is considered to meet the highest and best use
criteria. The proposed apartment structure is both a logical and
Cauthorized use for the subject site.
The subject property is platted. Final approval of the plat and zoning
amendment will take place in mid-July.
LJ
The per unit restrictions under RM ?.5 zoning require a minimum 2,500
(p sf. of land per apartment unit. Therefore, the maximum number of
kJ units allowed on the 132,858 sf. of the subject site is 53 units.
however, this appraisal was conducted under the assumption that the 56
f, unit complex is an authorized use for the subject site.
•
18474 6
NEWCOME3E & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
M I N N E A P O L I P. M I N N E S O T A 5 5 4 0 1
MARKET APPROACH TO VALUE
The comparable land sales are potential building sites for
multiple-residential housing and are considered to be appropriate in
estimating the subject site value.
All of the sales are from the Southwest Suburban area.
•
Sales #2 and #3 are the most comparable to the subject because of their
location in relation to the subject, and their intended uses. Value
adjustments were made for location, size and date of sale. 1
COMPARABLE LAND SALES I
•
l
•
Sale Sloe of Units/Acre No.of Proposed Sale
t- tocatton Date Bldg. SF. Price/Unit Allowed Units Use Price .
1. Crnter Way L 7/80 23D.868 $4.875 6.03 32 Apt or 3156,000
Nort nmark Dr. limb
Eden Prairie,MN 1 i
2. N.W.Corner of 8/83 559,750 $2.143 I7.35 223 Apt $480.000
Valley View Rd
i L Golf View Rd S
Eden Prairie,M tlftlftlf
t 3. 10025 Penn Ave S 4/83 787,050 $3,541 13.28 - 240 Apt $0S0.000
Bteot.MN 1t
. 4. S of SEC of 4/83 196,020 $3,409 32.59 132 Aot $450.000
Xaapshire Ave&
- Hoy 612,
St. Louis Park.MN i
S. 9735 Betty 1/01 260.000 $4.027 16.61 99 Apt $398.702
Crocker Dr.
St louts Park,MN
6. SEC Cty Rd III 4/83 43,361 ►2,917 12.0 12 Apt $35.000
L E 10th Are. •
Shakopee.M
-- 7. NEC of V With St 4/81 373,650 $3,098 13.45 100 Tanh/ 8311,536
L Mormandale Subd.Msg.
Bimpt.MN t
Sub rcl
Prairie Village ..- 132,858 ---- 17.42 56 Apt ---
Apt.)rank iVy AS
L Cty Rd 44
Eden Prairie.Me
1
56 units x $3,200 per unit = $179,200
Estimated Market. Value $180,000
•
18474 7 - •
•
1 1, �. .
s •
J
NEWCOMBE 8c HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
MINNLAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 1164O1
RECONCILIATION OF VALUE
MARKET APPROACH TO VALUE $180,000
The Prairie Village Apartment elderly site is located in an area that will
be zoned RN 2.5, Multiple-Residential, with a 2,500 square footage minimum
required per unit constructed. The proposed development on the property
is a 56 unit apartment complex designed as elderly housing.
Entrance to the Prairie Village Apartments is excellent. The location at
the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Trunk Highway #5 provides for
• convenient transportation, both to and from the Metropolitan area.
The surrounding area has mixed commercial, light industrial residential
uses. The comprehensive guide plan change and the proposed building
construction are expected to set into motion use changes that will upgrade
the entire area.
Soil corrections are reported to have been completed at a cost of
approximately $30,000. The estimated land value includes the value of the
corrections and also assumes that the City of Eden Prairie will allow the
construction of a 56 unit apartment building. The subject site has been
graded, water drainage is good, the subject lot has been platted, and the
access road is constructed.
The jetlan parcel, as identified in this report, is considered to
have the following •
•
MARKET VALUE CONCLUSION $180,000
18474 8
75
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
MINNCA•OLIC• MINNCIIOTA 55401
CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL
The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a voluntary
program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and
• RM's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded
periodic educational certification. The undersigned designated
members of the American Institute of Real Estate appraisers are '°
certified under this program.
The undersigned do hereby further certify as follows:
• a) We have inspected the property.
b) We have no present or contemplated future interest in the
real estate that is the subject of this appraisal report or
the parties involved.
c) We have no personal interest or bias with respect to the
subject matter of this appraisal report or the parties
involved.
d) To the best of our knowledge and belief, the
statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon
which the analysis, opinions and conclusions expressed
herein are based, are true and correct.
e) This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting
conditions (imposed by the terms of our assignment or by
the undersigned) affecting the analysis, opinions and
conclusions contained in this report.
f) This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and
is subject to the requirement of the Code of Professional
Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the
National Association of Realtors.
g) No one other than the undersigned prepared the
analysis, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate
that are set forth in this appraisal report.
h) The real property which is the subject of this appraisal
report was valued as of June 10, 1985.
•
JoAnn Hansen, MAI Timothy L ergin, Appraiser
•
18474 . - 9
Ip:^ 1
.l NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
M I N N C A P O L 1 6. MINNEMOTA O D a 0 1
II
II
3 I 7
3 1
I •
3 I d
I'
EXHIBIT SECTION
i
.
I
3
_I
-1
1
.
1.
• NEWCOME3E & HANSEN APPRAISALS. INC
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401
. . ( .
r .
1 ,
i . ... ... , .
•. .!...1 :-..• l':.. , , ,
. '$ i • ': 4
. . . ,
?);) 5 ' .- • .
I . :i i I.
f, I ..., * ./• i . .1-,a• .
g *I I ,
L. lit . 1*.:
>-•
f--1, U.1
i:lf."' 1—
. -
.., .
• 1—,
•
Li „, •• I • U. .
t: ,.3,1 ! ....:::I
,, 0
. ,. 7
1.i .
.."Y.;1;'1.‘
•t 1 . • _ I 11' 8 :
r
, ...,
1
'
1.. S-..4- r '• '-'1. i
1...
." . I a_
'V
0.; ,.,
. C l':' °
... s .
• i ,' t.. i L4jj .
1:1 ) it
1
.;
11
n
Li ,
1.:-. 1 ,' '44f,
?i•,
•
•') ft •
f?! • ' 1 ti - , • .
,c,,
vt-,
•
,,
- -
4.,.i• tr./,,/-
; .
[ , :
L ,
i....L.1;,.._ 4
1
. L i, ..:i •
! •
NEWCOMBE 8c HANSEN APPRAISALS. INC
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 84401
4cni T --I
, .,.
..li i
I - 1 It ;
''')
iri
. i
( .„ \,.., . . i;i' 1
4 - i :..,...„
; 11, '1.11,
•J• ,. 1. I I.;
. ) f-1
-'• i..;.,ili•
LAJ i
I c',•. . , ! ' ',.
r„• ,,:,:. ,
ce •
._.• , , .4 1 I a.
.1 • 47.k, ! ... I.i ii.f A:
• ,I.:-. , 1--
L.)
LAJ
•-, 1
I '-'• `.i 1- ' =
in 1
/ • t li ,..1. ,.' 'il iai 1
0
1 •
I.'i'• '''' x- h., ••-; - ,:•--- -. . nn.n
• ", 1/ : —
:T. : ,•I .•, . T
i'/. i 1 .•'it. ' ....1 .
.V-• ''..., Il tr,
U .
:,1/•,T.".1( li. '' 1 1 .
ce '
11‘.41-•1r i li, t CD ,
FT I 'V St 1
; 'AI I',', t• c, .
r
i
I 3
t.s.1•-• .
'1+i ''''
11. ? .- '14 ! ' 11
II :1 '','Z‘11 •
cAI .j.1, , 4.• ,
i.,.-Ii :?i ,i1,1t.t
PI: ',r :
•' lL
'
Al /,',h,ik
I: , I 1 .
C.
"..*:{f, I
''...j,''‘
I 1*--",47.' i '•‘ :i''
[. -,/ ----..
It
•
aliZirani=ina-ccna.";.pc ,
1
- a•••••••11W ha.aka:L-.....
I \i.. :". .
• ! .
[ N EWCOM SC E3c I-
IANSEN APPRAISALS. INC
+ MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA SSA 0 1
l‘ft.,i''''!.I'''' 4;it 'if..F .'''
4'1 '
iii: 1; ,1 1
, ,S
1: Jt
w
fc,. • •:'..;> .''- �• )' .it '
r
.1 F
i he• o
'� it 'f 4‘ .' + +
. sis:1 ,-,‘ 1,„, . .,t;It; \'', 1 OD
VI fir 1 '. ' 3
...�1 �,�!I.i:�I,t? tiJ
}• ,i. .1`
1 .
n Attu t i ; 10,.',
u ~�ii:, .
a. +I i. 1,
u PI 1
(I.'I.1" I� 1'
11 ,i .!;.y+ 1
Pr 1 i .i._I I'
•
3
r
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS. IN( i
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA SS 4O1 ..;
I
•
EMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH
DIRECTLY ACROSS COUNTY RD. #4 FROM SUBJECT
, .t3Fi4
. ''''''''"T"'"rcr",..,.",-.7.-7,,„,. -.: '/
rb.../.51•Yr..041 —rt'I 'V. ��" .a.
.
i
BANKING FACILITY AN() APARTMENTS
WEST Of SUBJECT ALONG STATE HWY #5
NEWCOME3E & I-IANSEN APF'RAISALS. IN(
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55401
, • 1
1 )
. 1
g
1
. /
!
/11170,77/1 Ii.i .•.— ;' r •1'!: •
vlls1, !,11 ' '',:. ,,,•,,.,• .
. .,_....•--"
... .. ..., ..,,..l',,,--.011dli 1 j! !I..
i.„ 1.0.0
. • .
. .
. . .
. .
.
.. ..• .
- - .
I -- • • .
I ._ • . • .... ....
• .. i
1 , . . •
•I . .. . . .
• ,
.- .
. - --•..-,........:::-.f,..)c.,„,.0 .,. - . -• .• ..- .. ;. .. •:.„,- -......-..-' i
:,,:"."..I...i...'...!::...-:.,.,-...-
•
. ,
. i
PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL
. i
•
6 414 1
• S.1111
1
1
1
\ ••
;:f•'• 1
r.. . .J ...„........ _,..,.....,...„. ...... 1
k:,.;r:,-...- • , ,A•:•-•-•,.• .',r •rry.•••••--- .••-• 1•,• ...., ----***••••••.-
*-- r..'•-•„ •. .•- (•••••ig,„!:1,2_' "-".7----'-1,:-'.. ..,. .re
. . —4
. .1
. .
•
. • , . . .1
• . . . • '- • • - • ...•-•-•,•. . .•,• ••
VIEW OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC. T
M 1 N N[A P O l 1 0. MINNESOTA 0 0 4 O 1
1.
( 1
i, •
t
1
I
.
i
I
r I
COMPARABLE LAND SALES
••
•
•
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
MINNEA►OLIe. MINNEOOTA EE401
1*w �
•
•
I-
• r , vot,"
' i,f�4 •.f"• SEiGr1• •& <J' 5-' 4.
(. I 3:20, %4' � U • 1 6 ,. �.
i
APARTMENT LAND SALE
LOCATION: Center Way & Northmark Drive, Eden Prairie, MN.
t 1 Block 11, Northmark, 2nd Addition, Hennepin
LEGAL: County, MN. PID # 13-116-22-33-0048
BUYER: Ban Con, Inc.
SELLER: The Preserve
SALE DATE: July, 1980
SIZE: 5.3 Acres or 230,8GB sf.
ZONING: POD 70-3
PRICE: $156,000
UNIT PRICE: $4875 per unit; $.68 psf.
RLARKS: Purchased with intent to build townhouses or
apartments. Property has been approved for 32 units.
I �
1 �
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
i MINNEAPOLIS. MINNEEBOTA 55401/
�-..-.�=a 4,4� - .--s-���_ • '-;�Jr., � �,•1: 11 ."jam !=\\ ii 4_..,_.�.J...�-.-. C
, ,. • . :
;;;;-1 ..
.;:1▪ 1• ../
r «, i
V
I mil;~71. S tix i
�
• Po• 'Ysh y •1 I I
0 tot,N� r r *pi,�{i
'
•
'r , f-,
APARTMENT LAND SALE
- LOCATION: NWC of Valley View Road & Golfview Road, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota
I• LEGAL: Lot 1, Block 2, Edenvale 2nd Addition, Hennepin Cty, MN
BUYER: Pelletier Corporation
SELLER: Equitable Life Association of USA I
ii SALE DATE: August, 1983
f SIZE: 559,750 sf.. •
`, ZONING: RN 2.5 (1 Unit/2,500 sf. Max.)
L11 PRICE: $480,000
UNIT PRICE: $2,143
l! REMARKS: Purchased with the interest to build apartments. ',
Property is allowed to have 223 units.
I
I I.
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
MINNEAPOLI•. MINNESOTA 55401
Lr-'-i" ------repiel•-••et--,.=....:
,
Ion, 6Toy
1 2i
1 . A,
is �
o S _sty
• �-�' wet A R;K g i
„t . •`�QL4OMINGTON- l
I,;M �;��S'�'� ., .! 2 O T N ADOITI0N1°r 1+�''4 `
. .. .-.7e,_4e,,,4,44,_Z.N.,. t t. --40 1' . 1
L. a
APARTMENT LAND SALE
It
LOCATION: 10025 Penn Avenue South, Bloomington, MN
`J LEGAL: Lengthy - see office file. •
BUYER: Bloomington Housing & Redevelopment
r:
I SELLER: Assemblies of God Church
t - SALE DATE: January, 1983
I SIZE: 787,050 sf.
E ZONING: Multiple Residential
PRICE: $85O,OD0 '
UNIT PRICE: $3,541 psf.
f REMARKS: The site currently supports a GO unit elderly housing
l •' project and is scheduled to be the site of a 240 unit
co-operative complex.
I
t
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
�' M I N N E A P O L I S. MINNESOTA 6 0 4 0 1
� .
[I :••yr(1) a �1: • ..0 I.,•I.').'I ,. e
. . Y! PoI,
A
��� N —_r FjY•�9J'III i� to r14i ^ 41'
.y �'lidr -i a
{.; Q _:Y4 t:o = /
1
Ili 1} 1'Rl L. (j,It lI
0 y II i3 y.I °L2 fI.'.,..v .I.. .If 1 .
'u} =.a w;_,,J.•- ..`c5,.��-.1(Si 2,� ' J\�,,0.0 D + P
L 1
APARTMENT LAND
c
LOCATION: S. of SEC of Hampshire Ave., & Hwy #12, St. Louis Park,
MN
1 ' LEGAL: Lot 6, Block 1, Lou Park Addition, Hennepin County, MN
ISALE DATE: April, 1983 I
BUYER: Brutger Co. • 1
IIT
I_: SELLER: N/A .
SITE: 196,020 sf. or 4.5 Acres
�± SALE PRICE: $450,000
{ PRICE PER UNIT: $3,409
I
I PRICE PER ACRE: $100,000
COMMENTS: Purchased for development of 132 unit apartment building •
(Park Pointe)
t
DENSITY: 29.33 units per acre.
1 .
I
i
NEWCOMBE 8c HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
MINNEAPOLI9. MINNE.OTA 95401
':: E
, C,,.1` •if, :.?:I :c, a
z yams 0 i 1:,1 1:.'' .;—�-
.v:1 ....ia''4ti''' '
APARTMENT LAND SALE
LOCATION: 9935 Betty Crocker Drive, St. Louis Park, MN
LEGAL: Lot 2, Block 3, Shelard Park Addition, Hennepin County,
MN
•
SALE DATE: January 14, 1981
BUYER: Duraps, Inc.
SELLER: Shelard
•
SITE: 260,300 sf.
SALE PRICE: $398,702 (Includes specials of $37,702)
PRICE PER UNIT: $4,027
PRICE PER ACRE: $66,672
COMMENTS: Intended use is three story buildings with 99 apartment
units. 1.
NEWCOMBE 8c HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC.
MINN[A•OLIU. MINNESOTA S54OI -.1
I
-- .-...�._+...0 ..._tea._ ..—_ _ ____.__—_
. i
3
\'''.\-.
i
• i
\-: xiloo' o ..
.[
_ i I
APARTMENT LAND SALE
LOCATION: SEC County Road #17 & E. 1Oth Ave., Shakopee, MN �.
LEGAL: Outlot 1, Scenic Heights 1st Addition, Scott County,
Minnesota
SELLER: Kermit Lindemeyer
BUYER: Cletus Link
DATE OF SALE: June, 1983; Closed April, 1983
SITE: 43,361 sf.
ZONING: R-3; Multiple 1
UTILITIES: All public and available. 1
SALE PRICE: $35,000 1
UNIT PRICE:. $2,917 or $.81 psf.
COMMENTS: Twelve unit apartment building to be constructed.
°, Yi •
7
Q
e
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, IN(
MINNEAPOl19. MINNESOTA 55401
1 _ . _ _ .---. -- _.r_.,._, _.. _
---
1
1 P
1
' ` I ) ,11
. 1. 11 tt 1 , r,W .T l 1 1! 1 ._
1}i%f f t1 --,1 . . 1.-✓y(I 1 f1 (i ( a}1f
L k+ s.. " 5 ,' q ,(=1 t -( ; Ill"j.z 1 j -,e
. i 1 :,/ yr' I:- 1,. �. p1,1 •
,,1 i 1. 1 �i ] L ter+. 4 -.�♦i S� i '"'f
l 1h4 0 . -"' 1 Y i 10 lit
f �"„1.z,-4".4i.. lilt }( j n_ � --y'` {�1' 1{1r
:� ,. �
...t LA- .. .i1:' 7. `` ‘`".C.,.i,.....7x ..n,. _ •1d•- J:µ.,;1'lik....il''(rt
APARTMENT LAND SALE
•
LOCATION: NEC of W. 98th Street & Normandale Boulevard,
0 Bloomington, MN
LEGAL: Lot 1, Block 1, Normandale Plaza 2nd Addition, Hennepin
County, MN
LOT SIZE: 7.43 acres or 323,650 sf.
U UTILITIES: All available
ZONING: B-1
SELLER/BUYER: 1st National Bank St. Paul/Boisclair Corp.
ESALE DATE: April, 1981
PRICE: $300,518 including $11,018 special assessments assumed
j' by buyer.
L:
• UNIT PRICE: $3,098.12
ri
COMMENTS: Intended use of this property is for townhouse and
subsidized housing.
La
r 1,, i
l'. NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC
-
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 0.5401
14. v.:sesame/lass...war- I
If
r (
1 1
L . 1
E
1 • ,
1 ,
E ,
E 1
, • ,
,
1 ,
MAPS
E1
E , .
n I .
III
. ,
3 • .,
] ..,
.1 •
1
.,.
1 . ...
. , 1,., ..1. . ..,_ . : ,, . , 1, . 1 , ii .-.1 ' :3,‘. \
i. 7;:'\\ ,i
,1i. 11' -7 '1 f" 1 1 '.
/4%);:i.' rl 1S �V i�)tl itV J
. .-.. ,.. , ,,,_, ‘ .__,....tt.. ...._ ..., 2 ,,-0.: ,. '_-:::--J.--.T-:--;-f-7.-,-=-.:' - .
1\r,
-jI-
I 0-t t 1',1;:••
_I, ` ;i7 a _yam - --: t •
� : ' '
o 1 ' ` ?, •:Isr - . :-. 0 1:fr '; 13_11 ,
� .1 • 3
w. •i-mil ;r1. 1 ' LI; / • • r ;(-..:�, n . t
.;-..:,............c.......r---7 , . _ ___ _,,. . ..:- ......0 , ' 1/ 'IF:7 c-17
- •I• •---'•_ •ii• - !-7:-- --.,---.-- ---(-- - •, .•;12f. „ )7-:".• ‘4‘ni c.1 !l• : 1 • : 1 I \i ""•'-• !
._c_, �, airJ • • 1
:L.,, ,1 1,--.) -. -\ . ,1: 1 ,, , .
-7-57T 7--7 ...• .,'; . : ).. '1 ... •-.' 1 (.... •
i ...._.'.� \ C> Sri.
4
\I-.d
! .`ice' 1 1 i'•
• $. ,
• • ,,:
1. .
. I •!
t 1 ,u)
. z I
w 1
' i a ..
il I • '
I-- : 1 0 ill,
fr i : 1,0- 0.,1 , ;., i i-! i •
,
' a I : J.: ti t•vl , Itit 14: I j
11 0- •, t• t'• O....1- 1 •••i'N
i.1.• .1 0!• - 'ri /.1.
, < it!1 !
[i s ' 6? !;', • i':•!'i'. '11:.1 II i 1
,ti ;i1 I •tt.!I ti,!,, t.,
4 : ILI i i:JIA 1 iiii;:ii:i!ilii • • III I I •
0 i .4
a --I
ic•N. ...,.... c.c.s.. 3.1:01.5.311, I
te.;:uar.v
0 >
•
U.1 I.__
_____----
,k .
El a
cr /
)1 / C• .3
c.:1 ,I.,;•
ea- 6
.t.,
'., .
V. .
a. •t• , i i 2 .
0 . .$• !
I 1 ,
t I
$ 1 , (
1 ..,...
•••0 ,
, .1
E , 1
. .
. . .
• .t."1 \'',4.`. \ \,\'''X , %••'.
%•••
v 'kr' 'r-- , . 1 •
Ii t \ ti•t %,%,\;, c'-''rN `. ",:i o ,. i
r • I 1 ‘\\t'.\Vct...., 1,1.2.1- \ ..
I ,
[1: oi ' \II . t 1 \ •. • \\'.•,. \,1-:\ ,
.. 1 11.:,..,.., \\ ,3 ,,, ,,, \ ••••1\ 1-
it , 1 4... —.., •-. \ •) .
•
/ * •
2 x .
--' ':, 1 \ \ \`rt‘ 1/4.-•;•\\\ ' \ fiN /
r" •... \N _i -4\• \, ,\\ \\ :, N 0
__ •••,. i i\‘`,., \\\\ 1
'.:', ',, * \.,\ Z s<\\\t, K!.;••••i, i:,:-\) \ 2 \ .
•s, .,,, . , ..s, \\\•,,,,...,.x., :.,:: 4- .
, -,\ .s. , ,---1 ...-•,\...v . \-,_ - --
r .
.6. i • -, \ ,
ri . L.:: '.4„.\ 4.,‘„-\- ."\./...,. •—",_-;V:.t.' 1 I
i
. .
-,.. vo, s t-,,,, N, \ I- ..-›=•=..:;.'
... . ,c,
1 ii. tr14 r,i4.
r k
r 2.1 \
.
i,..,
i
. .
r
1
1 4
'4
1 NEWCOMBE & I--IANSEN APPRAISALS. IN( 1
I
.. i MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA S5A01
PLAT MAP .!
i
,
/
- /
!i .1. —14/ ••• ••• • „ 1 '%-, -L -I-.— - ...4—j4i1.-.. . -,'„, (•:_f,
il 4:ti- • ... : 4 t s 7\ 2. •.: pr. co.) • .0„): ,!, v,.\..,,
, I, .,-- • .0 •, ,
4 1 I .-.' Wt.SIGAIE 0.• ,.,,,,
I, . ti,..;;:•; . .-- .
11 t It (%) 2();) kW .00 ' INS):•- 464; - , : .
I t--•- —Fa' •-•:----"4.-- ;41-- —.TM-4..7' Jr) - ,:y., . ,
-- ....r';' _..
'' • 1 00 .. 'Ivo.: .(so)
44) 4)) 07) 48 ,„ ' 4,4 •,'...,:-.3 ,.
' — —------
. i W.'---1.„ , - ,L;Ii. ---wEsTGATE—•--—1.1'.
• •
CI° ICY "2, NZ4 11111111111 '"-
I.
i
. .1J
,.
LH tiA Ct.i
/
/ k
.
58.72.1(I)
/ 1
/
.. . :,, / Lth D.
(111 • - le.r...:fg-7 ,.. ,,
/ .1k-0-1/:•• ' .:
,.
,..... ,
,
, kc .54 oic---•----__ ..
, 1 !
—(:: i pi (....".• .
P /
) , A
-.:.44
a
,..-k•04 i T. . . .4,-• c Pon
're
1 ez.,
4. 0 ' 4•.4..4v
i ',.\") 7!4'11'';'• 't4Ii2) ,--., ;-.•- '.....,,!''.2,_ '''''N iSly . -----14- 7--(. ..t-
• i i '4 tes ,•::,,,,•„,,:t ,., ,_ *-. ‘1....4._74\..----------.,:,--.--i
1 1 .-)1,t,,. . `„„,•173/10) ----L__...____________ 10.—'•-t) .il
1 -1 f7;;•;-:trl:''''..s` * l' .4?hot Ye; Oa/1)
' , WA" 1 ri ,.• .
1 ,
-...---
""•-1-.....
. I'll 0.• AtVIR R. I
:. ':: CP Count Sur vrl..• 1
Y
1 .
•
. ' Pensttnn Couni.,
1 ....-1-;., 1_..i 1 si 1 if)'6)) 61.-c.-•
____.................-+...........-..............------J
j
S
PROPERTY INSPECTION CERTIFICATION
•
I hereby acknowledge that I have contacted Dennis Gonyea of Gonyea Land
Company regarding the appraisal of the Prairie Village Apartment Elderly
• Housing Site.
• 6/0/95
Date ame
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC
M I N H E A 0 0 1.1 0. M I N N[O O T A 6 0 4 0 1
APPRAISERS' DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
The highest price in terms of money which a property will bring in a
competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair }
sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and
•
assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. '!
Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a
specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer whereby:
1. buyer and seller are typically motivated:
2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting
in what he considers his own best interest.
3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
4. payment is made in cash or its equivalent.
5. financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the
community at the specified date and typical for the property
type in its locale.
6. the price represents a normal consideration for the property
sold unaffected by special financing amounts and/or terms,
services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in the transaction.
INVESTMENT VALUE
Value to a particular investor based upon individual investment
requirements as distinguished from the concept of market value,
which is impersonal and detached.
VALUE IN USE •
The value of an economic good to its owner/user which is based on the
productivity (privacies in income, utility or amenity form) of the ec-
•
onomic good to a specific individual; subjective value. May not nec-
essarily represent market value.
APPRAISING QUALIFICATIONS OF
JOANN HANSEN
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Elected Member of American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, M.A.I.
Designation No. 6368
Associate Member of Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors.
Bachelor of Science Degree South Dakota State University• .•
Advanced Education South Dakota State University
North Dakota State University •
Professional Real Estate Appraisal Studies
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
Course VI - Investment Analysis 1981
Course IV - Condemnation 1979
Course II Urban Properties 1979
Course 1-B - Capitalization Theory & Techniques 1979
Course 1-A - Basic Appraisal Principles, Methods and
Techniques 1978
Course VIII - Single Family Residential Appraisal 1974
Society of Real Estate Appraisers
• r
Course 201 - Principles of Income Property Appraising 1976
APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE
1
Newcombe & Hansen Appraisals, Inc.
Independent Fee Appraiser since 1972. r
1
A Partial List of Clients Served is as Follows:
First National Bank of Minneapolis 1
Midland National Bank of Minneapolis
Knutson Mortgage and Financing Corporation i
Hennepin Federal Savings & Loan
Prudential life Insurance Company of America
Builders Properties, Inc. (Residential Subdivisions) :i,
Ninth District Federal Reserve Bank
Investors' Mortgage Insurance Company
Hennepin County Parks Department
Hennepin County Highrcay Department
Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank
Appraisals have been made for buyers, sellers and investors of all types
of real estate.
Residential appraisals for private individuals for sale, estates, and
mortgage purposes.
llr :r'
i
NEWCOMBE & HANSEN APPRAISALS, INC
M I N N E A►O L 1S, M INN[IOTA 0.4401
C ( UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND CONTINGENT CONDITIONS
Findings, estimates, and conclusions in the
appraisal are made subject to the following
L` assumptions and conditions:
r 1. The appraiser has neither present nor contemplated future interest in
[, the property appraised and his employment is not contingent upon the i
conclusions reported.
11
U 2. The appraiser is not responsible for legal matters. The title is
assumed good and marketable. All structures and improvements,
existing or proposed, are assumed to be in compliance with community
E zoning ordinances and building code requirements. The appraiser does
not guarantee that the property complies with zoning or building code
requirements.
1,-.'
U 3. Improvements described as "proposed" are considered as though
satisfactorily completed in substantial conformance with plans and
Especifications.
4. Information in the report, though gathered from sources believed
reliable, is not guaranteed and is subject to confirmation.
!` / Confidential market data documentation is in the office of the
! appraiser.
0 5. Consent of the appraiser is required to publish all or part of the
appraisal report. Expert testimony may be obtained through special
arrangement with the appraiser.
L6. Proper repairs, maintenance, and administration are to be given the
property by competent management.
7. Unless otherwise stated, the property is considered free and clear of I
all indebtedness, except future special assessment payments.
i
I
L
I_+
L
F
�. ia` fa •
1 i•a c
-� ��
1
:.•
` ,i 1
_I
I 4
1i.
1 •./ Y
A' a
,Y
to
i a.•
S. I.
a .a
•
I�
�(1
i
t ,4
. tc (.. . v,. .
X t r
r4
i ,IIc i — II c, i:,i.4 1\ rr•• Sc
•\• 4 C. r ( \
,44
0
rg l a - !-- - C °
0
• c o �'
0 0
4 4 o L.
'ioa I e
SI 1
1
S)
o
�v
U
i.
` It.
\
I . �.
b A.
o t
i� c i (
N C� �
0. i
N. I?
r
CAMERA OPERATOR'S CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the microphotographs appearing on this roll of film are true,
accurate,and complete copies of the original records described below.
Reproductions intended to serve as permanent records comply with standards
established by the Minnesota Ilistorical Society.
AGENCY OF ORIGIN: CITY OF EDEN PRAIF.TTE •
RECORD SERIES: COUNCIL PACKETS
INCLUSIVE DATES/NOS: a9NUARY 1977 — DECE13ER 1991
1;OLL. 11
•
BEGINS WITH: DECEMBER 1984
ENDS WITH: AUGUST 1985
2/7/94 V
DATE
CAMERA PERAT 'S S GNATURE
CA41
CONCEPT MICRO litIAGIIVG AffNNE1OA'K 1. AIN
PRODUCING LABORATORY CITY/STATE