Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/01/1985 AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL & HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1985 6 P. M. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOARD ROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Gary Peterson, Mayor; Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, Paul Redpath COMMISSION MEMBERS: Arlene Marshall, chairperson; Carole Hoel, Barbara Johnson, Coralyn Koschinska, Mona Leppla, Ruth Olson, Marie Wittenberg I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL COMMISSION IN REVIEW IV. REVIEW OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 1985-86 �gg V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. Expectations and Philosophy of City Council in Relationship to Historic Properties 1. Cummins-Grill Homestead and Smith-Douglas-More House 2. Status of Eden Prairie Historical Society & Public Access Records 3. Historic Preservation Ordinance and Preservation Commission 8. Status of Historic Museum & Relationship to Historical & Cultural Commission C. Development of Cultural Programs V. ADJOURNMENT 1 I� I EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA I TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: 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 PLEDGE OF AkkEOIANCF ROLL CA14 I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES IL A. City Council meeting held Tuesday, June 18, 1985 Page 2189 B. Special City Council meeting held Tuesday, September 2. 19B5 Page 2203 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 2205 B. Change Order #4, Northern segment of MCA roadway system, I.C. Page 2211 9 51-308C C. Preliminary & Final Plat Approval for Pralle Addition Page 2214 Location: Southeast corner of Pau son Drive & Ullman Circle (Resolution No. 85-219 - Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 85-221 - Final Plat) E. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 32-85, an Ordinance amending Page 2117 City Code Chapter 1, relating to beer, wine, and liquor licensing and regulation F. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 28-85, Round Lake Water Surface Use Page 2223 Ordinance G. Authorization for Grading Permit Issuance _ Eden Place Page 2226 Apartments, Tipton Corporation H. Final appproval for Housing Revenue Bonds in the amount of Page 2227 S17,1100,10 for Parkway Apartments Weiiilution No. 85-22T) City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,Oct. 1, 1985 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1985 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING (Resolution No. 85-213) Continued Page 2137 & from 9/17/85 Page 2234 B. EDEN POINTE APARTMENTS by Eden Pointe Partnership. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Page 2241 Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5, and Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres for 149 units. Location: Southeast quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills Road. (Resolution No. 85-217 - PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance No. 33-85 - Rezoning from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5; and Resolution No. 85-218 - Preliminary Plat) C. USE OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS Page 2282 D. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,226,000 FOR Page 2283 PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS PHASE I (Resolution No. 85-224) E. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,226 000 FOR Page 2284 PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS PHASE II (Resolution No. 85-225) F. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,000,000 FOR Page 2302 BARNETT RANGE G. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,300,000 Page 2303 FOR BAYPOINT II Resolution No. 85-22-37- V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 22869 _ 23082 Page 2313 VI. ORDINANCES & RESCLUTIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from Charles Koshenina to waive the requirements of Chapter 12 of the City Code VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Manager 1. 1986 City Budget (Resolution No. 85-226) Continued from Page 2319 9%10/85 C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Community Services XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. AOJOURNMENT PRELIMINARY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES EDEN PRAIRIE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL COMMISSION STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The Historical and Cultural Commission shall advise the City Council on matters pertaining to activities, programs and facilities of historical and cultural significance to the City of Eden Prairie. The Commission shall also implement programs of historical and cultural significance. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES By 1988 the Historical and Cultural Commission will: 1. Increase awareness of residents to Eden Prairie as an autonomous community. Objectives 1. By September 8, 1965 Sunbonnet Day will be held. 2. Establish September as local history month in Eden Prairie by September 1986. 2. Increase awareness of Eden Prairie residents to the Historical and Cultural Commission ( Objective Prepare "pat on back" awards to be placed in the Eden Prairie News following events offered by the Commission in 1985 and 1986. 3. Develop a master plan for historic sites in Eden Prairie Objectives 1. Develop interpretive plan for Cummins-Grill Homestead by December 31, 1985. 2. Have a joint meeting with the Restoration Committee for the purpose of touring historic properties by December 31, 1985. 3. Develop operating plans for the Cummins-Grill Homestead by May 31, 1 . 4. Develop purpose for Smith-Douglas-More House by May 31, 1986. 5. Complete National Register Application for Smith-Douglas-More house by March 15, 1986. 6. Develop an ordinance and structure for a preservation commission by December 31, 1986. • 4. Develop the structure of the Commission and broaden use of sub-committees Objectives 1. The Commission will revise and rewrite their by-laws by January 1, 1986. 2. All committees will have written their objectives for 1987 and prepare their budgetary needs by May 3D, 1986. 3. Review and revise the purpose and guidelines for current committees by February 1986, and consider creation of additional committees by December 1986. 5. Continue the review and development of programs of cultural and historical significance Objectives • • 1. The Commission will have written objectives for 1987 by June 30, 1986. 2. Gather information on the requirements of establishing or continuing the current Historical Society by December 31, 1985. i 3. Set up the Young Audience programs at the Elementary schools by February 1986. These goals and objectives were approved by the Historical and Cultural Commission on September 19, 1985. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1985 7:30 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, 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 Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Councilmember Richard Anderson was absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Item II. I. Autumn Woods 3rd Addition was removed from the Consent Calendar and continued to a date not certain; item II. B. regarding the Gould Kennel was taken off the Clerk's License List portion of the Consent Calendar to be discussed separately; item VI. A. Lueck sewer/water connection fee was placed on the Consent Calendar as II. N; and item IX D 1• Round Lake Study Proposal was removed from the Agenda. MTI : PidcockIOtemssNof Businessmasove amended nand published. Motionded by Bentley, to rcarried unanimously0ther II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Police Division Operations Manual B. Clerk's License List (with the exception of the Gould Kennel License) C. Agreement with HPB Limited Partnership regarding special assessments for Tech- nology Drive adjacent to Hoyt Roberts Addition D. Final plat, Ridgewood YJest Plat 5 (Resolution No. 85-141) E. Final plat Edenvale Executive Center Two (Resolution No. 85-142) F. Final lat, Mark Charles Third Addition (Resolution No. 85-143) G. Petition to Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for Smetana Lake Outlet City Council Minutes -2- June 18, 1985 H. Approve plans and specifications for Tanager Creek improvements (Edenvale Boulevard) and set bid opening for July 11, 1985, I.C. 52-060 (Resolution No. 85-144) • I. AUTUMN WOODS 3RD ADDITION, by Trumpy Homes. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 14-85, zoning district change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 2,64 acres, RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 on 2.37 acres, approval of Developer's Agreement for Autumn Woods 3rd Addition, and adoption of Resolution No. 85-139, approving Summary of Ordinance No. 14-85 and ordering publication of said Summary. 5.01 acres into twelve single family lots. Location: east of Highway #101, north of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad. (Ordinance No. 14-85 - rezoning and Resolution No. 85-139 - approving Summary and Publication) - this item was continued to a date not certain. J. RIDGWOOD WEST PLAT V by Centex Homes, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 16-85-PUD-2-85 for Planned Unit Development District Amendment on 6.03 acres, with variances and zoning district change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5, approval of Developer's Agreement for Ridgewood West Plat V, and adoption of Resolution No. 85-140, approving Summary of Ordinance No. 16-85-PUD-2-85 and ordering publication of said Summary. 6.03 acres into 27 single family lots. Location: Saratoga Lane and south of Wellington Drive. (Ordinance No. 16-85-PUD-2-85 - rezoning and PUD District Review and Resolution No. 85-140 - approving Summary and Publication) K. JUHL PACIFIC by Opus Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 18-85, zoning district change from Rural to 1-2 Park on 4.5 acres; approval of Developer's Agreement for Juhl Pacific, and adoption of Resolution No. 85-145, approving Summary of Ordinance No. 18-85 and ordering publication of said Summary, 61,000 square foot office/warehouse. Location: southeast corner of Valley View Road and Equitable Drive. (Ordinance No. 18-85 - rezoning and Resolution No. 85-145 - approving Summary and Publication) L. 1984 FINAL BUDGET (Resolution No. 85-154) M. Set 6:00 .m., Tuesda , JOpt-Out) 6 as date and time for study session on Transit Alernatives Study Opt- ut N. Lueck sewer/water connection fee. (continued from June 4, 1985) -- formerly VI. A. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve items A - H and J - N on the Consent Calendar with the exception of the Gould Kennel License under item B. Motion carried unanimously. Bentley said the Public Safety Department is to be commended on its fine job on the Operations Manual. City Council Minutes -3- June 18, 1985 Gould Kennel License - Dale Evans, 17017 West 62nd Street, said his property is adjacent to the Gould property. He noted that Gould has had a private kennel license and that as many as 40 dogs have been observed there. Redpath stated that when the first kennel license was granted to Gould there was very little, if any, development in this portion of the City. Evans said this has not become a business for Gould; dogs are bred and sold. He said the license now states that Gould can have 18 dogs, 12 of which can be adult dogs. City Manager Jullie said Gould now has 21 adult dogs and 3 pups. Peterson said he felt the issue was a question as to the number of dogs and the City's responsibility. City Attorney Pauly referred to the provisions of the City Code which govern this matter. Bentley suggested this matter be continued to July 2nd to allow Staff time to review this. Pidcock asked the size of Gould's property. Evans said it was about 3/4 - 1 acre in size. Redpath said the City could consider giving Gould a six.month license which would allow him time to move his operation. Bentley said he felt the question was whether this was a private or a commercial operation. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to continue action on this item to the July 2, 1985, meeting of the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES, INC. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment for approximately 313 acres; rezoning of approximately 14.44 acres in the Rural District to a district created specifically to allow the establishment of a temporary landfill or rezoning to a district presently identified in the Zoning Code by amending the permitted use section of such district to allow the operation of a temporary landfill; Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval for approximately 313 acres; and authorize an expansion of area to be used for sanitary landfill purposes from approximately 107.1 acres to approximately 148.9 acres. Location: southeast of Flying Cloud Drive-In Theater. (Ordinance No. 4-85) Mayor Peterson noted there are two requests before the City, one of which would be presented this evening; the other to be presented to the Council at its meeting on July 2, 1985. Peterson said he had met with some of the neighbors; they may choose to wait unitl the July 2nd meeting to voice their comments. City Council Minutes -4- June 18, 1985 City Attorney Pauly indicated Rick Rosow of his office had been in contactwith Dick Nowlin, attorney for the proponent, and they had come to the decision that a final decision on this matter could be extended to the July 16, 1985, meeting of the City Council. Peterson asked if this meant the proponent would not make a full presen- tation this evening. Nowlin said that was correct. Redpath said he would like to see the July 2, 1985, meeting used exclusively for the BFI Hearing with other Hearings and business scheduled for another time; or, if that is not possible, then to schedule a special meeting at which time the BFI matter could be considered. It was noted that Public Hearings had been scheduled for July 2nd already. City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and notices were sent to property owners within the project vicinity. Dick Nowlin, attorney for the proponent, addressed the proposal. Nowlin indicated he would respond, in part, to the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 23, 1985. He noted he would not address the covered- cap leachate liner and collection system or the ground water quality at this time; either written material or a direct presentation from the proponent's consultants would be provided at a later date. Nowlin said the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) was presently reviewing and commenting on a concept plan dealing with the liner and collection system and the covered cap. Nowlin confirmed the fact that no grading plan had been prepared as yet which was compounded by the MPCA's concern over the cap and the timing for the submission of plans for the final ele- vations of the landfill. He also indicated that a final plan would not be available until about three months after the MPCA has issued the permit because the MPCA's cap will impact the final grading plan. Nowlin stated there will be a need for the cap; the proponent will be putting materials on top of the cap to achieve the proposed end use, if the final end use is approved. Nowlin said the proponent would appreciate consideration of the permit which provides for the Council's review and approval of the final end use plan after the Council has acted on the main land use applications. He stated that, should this not be in conformance with City requirements, they would be agreeable to a condition which would make continued operation conditioned on completion of appropriate and approvable final land use plans for the facility. Nowlin also said that two additional issues which would not be addressed this evening would be the compensation issue and traffic. He stated they are still working on property values both in terms of trying to assess the potential impact as well as the issue of protection. Nowlin said they are working on the preparation of a supplemental traffic report to the EIS. Nowlin stated that this past week they had received the Hennepin County Draft Permit for license which calls for the development of a landfill liner; that was also recommended by the Metropolitan Council. He said the proponent is supportive of that as was stated in their application. Nowlin noted the Metropolitan Council's comments had been forwarded to the MPCA. Included among the Metropolitan Council's determiniations were limitations of the life of the landfill for ten years-; a requirement that horizontal expansion area only be used with the vertical expansion area not to be used for processed waste after March 1986. Nowlin said the MPCA postponed its tentative schedule for acting on the permit until City Council Minutes -5- June 18, 1985 1 its July meeting. Nowlin noted that Hennepin County action was antici- pated sometime in mid-July. Nowlin reviewed the history of the application process; he noted that in February of this year the application was revised to request a zoning amendment as well as a PUD amendment. Nowlin stated the Staff Report of May 23rd concluded that the entire horizontal and vertical landfill areas must be included in the zoning amendment. He stated that they maintain that,from a technical and legal standpoint,the use is, in fact, a non- confoming use and that the amendments are not absolutely necessary since the request is simply to keep the use in operation. He said when the process was begun in 1982 the intentions were to expand the operation of the landfill because they were running out of capacity and the need for more space was demonstrated; the intention was not necessarily to develop a golf course for the City of Eden Prairie. Nowlin said there had been a significant change since 1982 in that the decision had been made to shift from one type of solid waste disposal to another that being from a system which relied heavily on landfills to a system which relies on resource recovery and waste reduction. Nowlin noted material in the Staff Report as well as in the Staff's presentation to the Metropolitan Council which questionned the need for the landfill and which argued that expanded capacity was inconsistent with the Met- ropolitan Council's Solid Waste Policy. Nowlin stated they were requesting 5,644 acres feet of additional capacity; the metropolitan area needs about 8,700 acre feet between now and the year 2000 of which Hennepin County will need 3,400 acre feet. Nowlin said they were asking for more than was needed; the Metropolitan Council had considered that argument and had reviewed it. Nowlin said their analysis of disposal statistics indicate that 1,400,000 cubic yards of waste was disposed of last year or approximately 500 acre feet; they expect an increase of about 10% per year over the next 5 years. Nowlin explained that Hennepin County intends to be on line with a resource recovery and waste reduction facility by 1990. He said that an additional landfill or two will be needed in Hennepin County in the next decade. Nowlin noted that the Flying Cloud Landfill is the only landfill in southern Hennepin County and cited which landfills are at or near capacity. Nowlin stated the Flying Cloud Landfill now consumes about 23% of all the waste disposed of in the metropolitan area; it is the second largest landfill in the metropolitan area. Bentley questioned the end use plan. Nowlin said that an end use cannot be considered in terms of land use; he said they do not want to say what the grade will be unless they know what the end use will be. Nowlin stated the MPCA has said it would like to see a 6% grade on the cap; they want to preserve the integrity of the cap. Bentley said he felt the end use question should be consider separately from the rezoning; the end use must be considered no matter what is done. Nowlin indicated he felt the difference between a cap and the end use should be discussed with the MPCA. i f City Council Minutes -6- June 18, 1985 Redpath asked how long the landfill would be used as a disposal site for ash residue. Nowlin said that was dependent upon a lot of things such as whether or not Hennepin County is able to have two facilities. He said the volume would be reduced by 50% using this method. Nowlin stated the start up of the plant might be delayed and reconsideration would have to be given as to what would happen during that one or two year period. Redpath asked for clarification as to what was meant by the "kettle." Nowlin said he used that term in reference to the 105 acres which is under use now -- the kettle plus whatever has been excavated at the sides. Nowlin said the Staff Report talks about the potential impact on the airport. He said he had spoken with representatives of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and their position remains that of "no opposition" to the expansion. He said there have been isolated situations where there have been bird strikes but those have occurred at migration times. Redpath said he has heard of incidents of bird strikes which are not recorded because the FAA only records incidents which result in a crash. Nowlin said the EIS points out that the incidents only occur twice a year. Nowlin said he was not aware of what the FAA records. Pidcock asked what is done at the present time to prevent control of garbage as the result of wind. Nowlin said the lowest part of the landfill that is available is filled in first; if the wind is very strong, the landfill is shut down. Nowlin stated that snow fencing and other perimeter fencing is used and soil material is used to cover the waste to a depth of 6 inches each day. Nowlin addressed the problems which occurred on May 4th which was a day of unanticipated heavy use and the Landfill was not staffed appropriately. Pidcock asked about the security at the landfill. Nowlin said there is internal security; an attendant is on duty when the landfill is open. Pidcock said she was able to drive into the landfill with no problem in a regular car. Nowlin said most of the activity at the landfill is via truck traffic; car traffic is mainly limited to those who are touring the landfill. Fred Hoisington addressed his memorandum dated June 14, 1985, in which two questions which had been raised by City Staff were responded to -- 1) is the expansion of the Flying Cloud Landfill compatible with the surrounding land uses? and 2) is a limited and temporary expansion of the Flying Cloud Landfill compatible with the City's Guide Plan? (A copy of that memorandum is attached to these Minutes.) Hoisington stated the intention is to include the installation of a leachate liner collection system, an active and passive methane controls system, internal and final cover material requirements, phased development, noise reduction measures and screening of the 15' high berm which will all I City Council Minutes -7- June 18, 1985 tend to reduce the impact on the surrounding area and provide additional features to mitigate problems which tend to occur with landfills. Redpath asked if the proponent was willing to stay with the "state of the art" should that change over the next ten to fifteen years. Hoisington said he has never seen a landfill designed in the way this has been de- signed. Nowlin said BFI and Wooddale Sanitary Service do not want to operate a liability; it is in their interest to correct any problems. Redpath noted that new landfills are governed by criteria which is different from the criteria governing the expansion of existing landfills. Bentley said the EIS states that an expansion is not under the same rules as a new landfill would be. Nowlin said they will bring in their experts to discuss that issue; he indicated he was aware of the siting criteria being different. Director of Planning Enger reviewed the Staff Report which was dated May 23, 1985. (A copy of the Staff Report is attached to these Minutes.) Rick Rosow, City Attorney's Office, addressed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS.) Rosow said they had informed the proponent that it was improper to request rezoning on just the 14 acres because the entire piece of property except for the 90 acre kettle (which would be a non-conforming use under the present zoning) was improperly zoned because this can be considered a quasi-public facility and that use is no longer allowed in the Rural zone. Rosow said the applicant, after this matter was again raised in the May 23, 1985, Staff Report as well as in writing. has now chosen to request rezoning ( on the 149 acres. Rosow also noted that the Comprehensive Guide Plan must also be changed if the zoning is to be changed. Rosow indicated Mayor Peter- son and Staff had appeared before the Metropolitan Council on June 13, 1985. The Metropolitan Council, at that meeting, had put a time limit on the expansion; by 1996 the Flying Cloud Landfill will be terminated and will not receive any additional waste. Rosow noted that condition must be included in any permit which is granted by the MPCA. Rosow said the Metropolitan Council also prohibited the landfilling of any unprocessed waste on the present landfill (vertical expansion) after March 15, 1986; that portion of the landfill would only be allowed to receive processed waste or waste which had gone through a recycling process. Rosow said this must be con- sidered in light of what Nowlin had stated regarding the horizontal ex- pansion and the fact that this could not be completed prior to 1990. Rosow said the City must consider what happens in that interim period and this must be conveyed to the MPCA. Bentley asked about the Council's procedure since the question before it, regarding the rezoning, was found to be unacceptable by the Planning Commis- sion and in two weeks there would be another request from the proponent regarding zoning; what would be the appropriate action for the Council to take since the Council would have two separate issues before it. City Attorney Pauly said the 14 acres are included in the 149-acre request which will be coming before the City Council at its next meeting. Pauly indicated the requests are compatible; the actions could be combined at the July 2, 1985, meeting. City Council Minutes -8- June 18, 1985 Peterson asked if it would be appropriate to continue this Public Hearing ( to July 2nd. Pauly said it would be appropriate and action on the two t items could be handled together on July 2nd. Director of Public Works Lambert indicated his Staff Report was included in the materials presented to the Council. City Attorney Pauly stated he would like the Minutes to note the following documents were made a part of the record: 1) Pages 1342 - 1398C in the Council Packet; 2) Documents and materials described in pages 1399 - 140D along with a letter from the Federal Aviation Authorities and another from the Fish and Wildlife Service dated June 23, 1982, relating to a wildlife refuge proposal; and a letter dated October 20, 1983, from GME Consultants; 3) Waste Management Inc. 1970 application for sanitary landfill; 4) Waste Management Inc. sanitary landfill application portion prepared by D.K. Ripple; 5) Minutes of the Eden Prairie Planning Commission, February 17, 1970; 6) Minutes of the Eden Prairie Planning Commission, March 2, 1970; 7) Minutes of the Eden Prairie Planning Commission, April 7, 1970; 8) Village of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, Planning Review Report, April 9, 1970, Planning and Zoning Commission from Staff-Brauer and Asso- ciates Inc.; 9) Minutes of the Eden Prairie Village Council, May 12, 1970; 10) Letter to G.B. Seeborn from James L, Hetlund, Chairman of the Metro- ( politan Council, dated August 17, 197D; 11) Waste Management, Inc. proposed sanitary landfill, Greeley and Hansen Engineers, Report dated February 19, 1970, and appendices including that by Murray R. Nokomis; 12) Permit for construction and operation of solid waste disposal system by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the Flying Cloud Landfill, Permit No. SW 14, dated August 22, 1970; 13) Application by Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc., current application which is the subject for this Public Hearing; 14) Letter to Forrest Nowlin from Roger Pauly, dated March 29, 1985; 15) Letter to Carl J. Jullie from Fred Hoisington, dated April 2, 1985; 16) All notices of Public Hearings from the Planning Commission and the City Council; 17) the amended permit SW14 Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, dated January 31, 1983; 18) Metropolitan Council Resolution No. 85-60, Approving Permit Amendment for the Flying Cloud Landfill, adopted June 13, 1985; 19) and Minutes of the Eden Prairie Planning Commission, dated May 28, 1985. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to continue the Public Hearing to the July 2, 1985, Meeting of the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -9- June 18, 1985 B. HERZOG ADDITION by K.P. Properties. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 5.35 acres, and preliminary plat of 5.35 acres into ten single family lots. Location: southeast quadrant of Duck Lake Road and South Shore Lane. (Ordinance No. 20-85 - rezoning and Resolution No. 85-151 - preliminary plat) City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the project vicinity were notified. Don Peterson, representing K.P. Properties, addressed the request. Planning Director Enger stated the Planning Commission had reviewed this request at its meeting on May 28, 1985, at which time it voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the May 24, 1985, Staff Report. There was no report from the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Redpath asked what would become of the trees which now provide a wind screen on the property. Peterson said trees will be moved on the lots; no trees would be destroyed. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 20-85. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 85-151, approving the preliminary plat of Herzog Adddition for K.P. Properties. Motion carried unanimously. C. TECH IV, by Technology Park Associates. Request Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Industrial/High Density Residential to Office on 19.65 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 68.36 acres for Office, Office/ Showroom uses, zoning district change from Rural to I-2 Park on 4.52 acres and preliminary plat of 66.31 acres into one lot for construction of a 58,60D square foot office/warehouse, two outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: south and east of Valley View Road, west of Washington Avenue, north of Viking Drive. (Ordinance No. 19-85 - rezoning, Resolution No. 85-147 - Comprehensive Guide Plan change, Resolution No. 85-148 - Planned Unit Development Concept, and Resolution No. 85-150 - preliminary plat) City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and notices were sent to adjacent property owners. Brad Hoyt, Hoyt Development, addressed the request. Director of Planning Enger indicated this request had been reviewed by the Planning Commission originally as two separate requests. The request was reviewed by the Commission at meetings held April 25, 1985, May B, 1985, and June 10, 1985. The Commission voted to recommend approval at its May Bth meeting of the PUD concept; and at its meeting on June 10th it voted to recommend approval of the remaining items subject to the recom- mendations included in the Staff Reports dated April 8, 1985, and May 24, 1985. City Council Minutes -10- June 18, 1985 Director of Community Services Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission had reviewed this request at its meeting on June 3, 1985, at which time major concern was expressed regarding the preservation of the wooded knoll. The Commission did vote to recommend approval of the request subject to the recommendations included in the Planning Staff Reports. Lambert noted that concerns were also expressed about the bridge over the creek on Golden Triangle Drive. Bentley said he would like to see a retaining wall used, if necessary, to protect the wooded knoll. Bentley said he would like to have the end look of this wooded knoll be the same as that of the knoll south of the creek; he indicated he would like to see the tree line of this knoll go to the bottom of the hill. Redpath asked if Pearson, the former owner of the property under discussion, could "walk away" from the property leaving it in this condition. Director of Public Works Dietz said the area is now 12' - 14' below what was approved in the 1970's, there is enough material left there to bring it up to grade. Staff has been trying to determine whether or not the project would work without bringing it up to grade. Redpath said there were many dead elm trees on the property also and wondered who is responsible for those. City Attorney Pauly said he said he would have to review the terms of the permit which was issued to Pearson to determine responsibility/liability. He did state that responsibility would probably not accrue to the subsequent owner. Dietz said the work done by Pearson on that pit was secured by a $50,00D bond; it would take about $1 million to correct the grade. Bentley said he felt Pearson had violated the terms of the permit and therefore the bond should be cashed; other legal action should be considered if necessary. Hoyt spoke to the needs for office/warehouse space rather than office space. Bentley indicated that he did not feel this was true and said the metropolitan area needs about one million square feet of additional office space each year. Frank Smetana, 7722 Smetana Lane, said he would like to have the Council make a stronger point regarding the 875' contour. Redpath noted that if the Council adopts the recommendations made by the Commissions and Staff that will be taken care of. Enger said that an exhibit could be added to the Developer's Agreement which would show this also. Hoyt said that 875' is all right at this time; they might ask for a change when it comes time to develop the parcel. An 870' contour is now shown on the map. Enger noted the area west of Golden Triangle Drive is shown as high density residential and/or industrial on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 19-85. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt Resolution No. 85-147, amending the Comprehenisve Municipal Plan. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -11- June 18, 1985 1 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 85-148, approving the development of Planned Unit Development of Technology Park for Technology Park Associates. Motion carried unanimously. ( MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 85-15D, approving the preliminary plat of Technology Park 4th Addition for Hoyt Construction. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: 8entley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement per Commission and Staff recommendations and to include specific language regarding the 875' contour in the southeastern corner of the property, and to direct Staff to work with the developer on the creek crossing. Motion carried unanimously, D. PARKWAY APARTMENTS, by 8ar-Ett Construction Company. Request for Zoning District change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 35.9 acres, preliminary plat of 35.9 acres into five lots, and Environmental Assessment Worsheet (EAW) Review, for construction of five, 73-unit apartment buildings. Location: east of Mitchell Road and east of Chestnut Drive. (Ordinance No. 21-85 - rezoning and Resolution No. 85-152 - preliminary plat) City Manager Jul lie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners in the project vicinity had been notified. James Cooperman, architect for the project, addressed the request. Also present were Scott Bader and Zollie Baratz, Bar-Ett Construction Company. Planning Director Enger indicated this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 28, 1985, at which time it voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the Staff Report dated May 24, 1985. Director of Community Services Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed this request at its June 3, 1985, Meeting at which time it voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the Staff Reports. The main concern of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission was with the trail system. Pidcock asked what the density of the Chestnut Apartments and Atherton Townhouses are. Enger said their combined density is about ten units greater than the proposal under discussion; the density of the Chestnut Apartments is greater than what is being requested; the Burning Tree Apartment complex has a density of ten units per acre. Pidcock asked about the traffic in the area as a result of what is being proposed. Enger said traffic was analyzed in the Staff Report; there would be about 22DD daily trips generated by this proposal. Director of Public Works Dietz noted that Anderson Lakes Parkway would be completed this Fall between Mitchell Road and TH 169. City Council Minutes -12- June 18, 1985 Peterson asked when construction was expected to begin on the Parkway Apartments. Baratz stated the recreation building would be constructed first; construction of the first apartment buildings would begin this Fall with completion coming in 8 - 9 months. The entire project would take approximately two years. Peterson read a communication from R. Smith, part-owner and manager of the Chestnut Apartments regarding this request. (See attached.) MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 21-85, rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 85-152, approving the preliminary plat of Parkway Apartments for Bar-Ett Construction Company. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement per Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 20796 - 21083 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 20796 - 21083. Roll call vote: Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath, and Peterson voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. V. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS There were none. VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Lueck sewer/water connection fee. (Continued from June 4, 1985) This item was moved to the Consent Calendar as item II. N. VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS There were none. VII I. APPOINTMENTS A. Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District - Endorsement for the reappointment of Howard Petersen to the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to endorse the reappointment of Howard Petersen to the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District. Motion carried unanimously. 4 City Council Minutes -13- June 18, 1985 B. Appointment of representative to fill unexpired term on the Parks, ( Recreation and Natural Resources Commission - to expire 2-28-87 The names of Lesa McDowell and Charles Shaw were placed in nomination. (The Council had met with candidates far this position at a meeting at 6:00 p.m. at which time the candidates were interviewed.) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the nominations. Motion carried unanimously. Voting for Shaw were: Bentley, Redpath and Peterson. Voting for McDowell was: Pidcock. Charles Shaw was appointed to fill the unexpired term on the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, the term to expire on 2-28-87. IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members Bentley - expressed concern with pedestrians and bikers who are using roads and not the hikeways/bikeways. Staff was directed to examine this matter. Bentley said he had numerous complaints regarding this. Bentley - would like to have quarterly updates on attendance at Commission meetings by Commission members. Bentley - requested Staff talk to the homeowner's association in The Trails regarding the trail system through that area. Bentley - asked for an update on the Library facility. Director of Public Works Dietz said Landstrom stated bids have come in high on the project. Peterson - asked if there was a completion date for the signals at TH 169 and Prairie Center Drive. Dietz said some time in June. Pidcock - asked if there had been any complaints regarding the Liepke property. Planning Director Enger said Staff is looking into the problems there with outside storage. Redpath - suggested that the regular business of the City Council be conducted at a time other than the meeting scheduled for July 2nd since that was the date set to hear BIF's request. Discussion ensued with no consensus reached. Redpath - requested Staff work with the Hopkins Post Office to see what the problems are with Ads boxes. Bentley - expressed concern regarding the parking on County Road 1 near Riley Lake. Peterson - stated he had received a request from the Foundation Ball Coennittee regarding clean-up and requested Council members help with dish washing at II a.m. following the Ball. (The Foundation Ball is to be held November 23rd. City Council Minutes -14- June 18, 1985 B. Report of the City Manager City Manager Jullie suggested starting the Council Meeting on July 2nd at 7:00 p.m. rather than 7:30 p.m. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to set 7:00 p.m. as the time of the City Council Meeting on July 2, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. C. Report of City Attorney There was no report. D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Round Lake Study Proposal This item was removed from the Agenda. X. NEW BUSINESS There was none. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting at 12:14 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 7:30 P.M., 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, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Finance Director John D. Frane, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE I. ROLL CALL Council member Anderson was absent. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. ( III. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed 1986 Budget City Manager Jullie addressed his memorandum of September 6, 1985, in which assessed valuation, tax levies, mill rate, other non-tax revenues, and program expenditures were addressed. Jullie noted the 1986 Budget calls for expenditures of $7.9 million; no new programs are included. The Council proceeded to review the Budget on a page-by-page basis. Questions and concerns regarding specific items were noted and will be responded to in a memorandum to the Council prior to the time it next considers the budget. B. Schedule for Future Special Meetings for Budget Discussions The consensus was the next budget review would occur at the October 1, 19B5, meeting of the City Council. At this time the quesions posed this evening would be answered. City Council Minutes -2- September 10, 1985 C. Other The Council commended City Manager Jullie and Finance Director Frane for their work on the 1986 Budget. Jullie noted the work done by Assistant to the City Manager Dawson and Department Heads in this regard. IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. • • • • I ( . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST October 1, 1985 CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) PLUMBING Al car Builders Arnst Plumbing Gene Cassidy N. S. Services Peterson Pools Regency Plumbing Thomas G. Sathre Remodeling Mark Seavall Homes WATER SOFTENER GAS FITTER Minnesota Water Treatment Northland Mechanical Contractors SOLICITOR HEATING & VENTILATING Theodore Lee Zimmerman (Firewood) Northland Mechanical Contractors COMMERCIAL STABLE Hennepin Technical Centers (see attached) These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the 1icen,ed activity. alPat Solie, Licensing ( '1 2,[)`.' COMMERCIAL STABLE INSPECTION { Stable: Hennepin Technical Centers 6400 Rowland Road Owner: Hennepin County Park Reserve District Inspection Date: September 23, 1985 Inspected By: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Chuck Schaitberger, Animal Control Officer Introduction The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 34-83, enacting a City Ordinance for licensing, regulations and requirements for all commercial stables. Commercial stables in existence at the time of adoption of Section 5.7 were required to apply for and obtain a commercial stable license within two years of the date of adoption. A license is to be obtained in the manner specified in Section 5.02 through 5.10 of the Eden Prairie City Code. Following this procedure, the commercial stable license for Hennepin Technical Centers has been placed under the consent calendar. Background The Hennepin Technical Centers has been operating their horse care/study/train- , F ing/boarding facility since 1969. The 23 acre site is zoned Rural. Operation Review Shelters In the upper barn there are 30 box stalls, 10' x 1D' or greater, and 2 tie stalls for keeping of horses. The upper barn also contains classrooms, offices, feed room, tack room, and an indoor riding ring. The lower barn contains 14 tie stalls and 7 box stalls. Private boarded horses are kept in the lower barn. A shelter is located in the pasture area which can accommodate up to 10 horses. Exercise Horses are exercised in a classroom situation with instructors giving lessons to students, or they are turned out into paddocks or pastures if they are not scheduled for classroom time. The private boarded horses are exercised by their owners. If the Technical Staff notices that an owner has not been out to exercise a horse, the staff turns the horse out for an additional fee. Commercial Stable Inspection: Hennepin Technical Centers September 23, 1985 Page 2 Bedding Either ground cornstocks or wood shavings are used to bed the stalls. The stalls are disinfected once a week with lysol or lime. Manure Manure is stored in two different locations (see map). Storage The manure is stored in BFI dumpsters and removed 2x a week. Due to the wet weather at the time of our inspection, manure was stored next to the dumpsters, because the drive was impassable for the heavy trucks to pick up the dumpsters. Feed Horses are fed alfalfa/grass hay along with Purina 200 and 300 grain mixture. Water Stalls have individual waters in the upper barn and a combination of individual waters and pails in the lower barn. Outside paddocks and pastures have heated outside waterers. Condition All horses appeared to be in good health with ample of Horses body weight. Fencing Fencing types are outlined in the submitted material. Complaints Todate One complaint was received approximately 18 months ago. A boarder complained that holes in the lower barn wall created unsafe conditions for the horses. The item was inspected, and the stable manager stated he had already sent a work order through the Hennepin County Offices. The item has been corrected. Recommendation Staff recommends a license be issued for the Hennepin Technical Centers Commercial Stable. Follow up Prior to the 6 month inspection, staff will visit the stable periodically to monitor the manure storage pick up method. If manure is stored outside of the dumpsters during weather other than unusually wet weather, a resolution will be sought. Refer to Code pp. 150-152-1 3 1 COMMERCIAL STABLE LICENSE APPLICATION I �jG DATE: ( LOCATION: (,. 4/C C c✓ %2C/ TEL. 9e//-,216 C cl OWNER: f e-AVrt. Cal P hK ke setct'f. TEL4 9c!/-<-26 C le4seE LOT SIZE: �{C,vn . T�.�, e w l rks UPON ATTACHED SHEETS DESCRIBE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Proposed storage, handling and removal of manure and wastes. 2. Types and locations of fencing. 3. Type of barn and shelter construction. 4. Type of operation(boarding, training, leasing, etc.), and maximum number of equines to be kept. 5. Water source and distribution. 6. Type of feed and bedding to be used. 7. Any other information that you feel will contribute to the City's review of your license application. ATTACH A SITE PLAN DEPICTING THE FOLLOWING: 1. Barn, shelters, and fencing locations. 2. Manure storage area. 3. Distance to surrounding residences, wells& bodies of water. 4. Any other site information you feel would be useful in the City's review. LG Th ove signedc ere y cer i ies that he is familar with the City's Commercial Stable Code and that the information supplied is corret. CITY USE Council meeting dateea': /, / ,P License approved Denied • Annual License/Inspection Fee 550.00 _') i 7. ( 1 ( i HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS SOUTH CAMPUS i 9200 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE.EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 55344,(612)944-2222 Attachment 1) Manure handling - A) When using bedding with ground cornstalks the waste is removed 2-3 times per week according to quantity used. B) When bedding with shavings the waste is put in a thirty yard dumps • - ter which is removed when full. 2) Fencing - A) Perimeter fencing is common woven wire with two strands of smooth on top, lined with electric. B) Paddock fencing is wire mesh, seven feet high. C) Arena fencing is two-board, four foot high wood 2"x6" 3) Barn and Shelter construction - A) Barns are a basic pole structure in main arena and stall barn with ( 30 box stalls and two tie stalls. B) Boarding barn is cement foundation with structural steel second story for storage. C) Outdoor shelters are steel framed with all-weather fiberglass lined ' walls. 4) Type of operation - A) Our basic operation is instructional with limited boarding. maxi- mum number is approximately 70 animals in confinement. 5) Water source - Water source is our own well with automatic waterers in stalls and two heated automatic waterers in paddocks. 6) Feed and Bedding - • A) Nutrition sources are Purina Pure Pride 200 and 300 fed with 50% Timothy and 50% Alfalfa roughage. B) Bedding used is normally of two types; 1) ground cornstalks or 2) shavings. I .K)INi INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 287 • ACCREDITED BV THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION , / f' . t j dI I_ a tt / 10111°• ; I I ill) 0 $ O4 O C ac 1 1 1 5 _ — it •ii i�i..s. s. .• [1 5 0111111 it I q it H • 9 1 1 1 1 1 b. 3 it 121Q CONTRACT AMENDMENT N0. 4 TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IC 51-308C VALLEY VIEW ROAD AND INTERCHANGE AT 1494 CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA July , 1985 BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELO-JARVIS-GARONER, INC. 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 The following work shall be added by contract amendment to this project. SCHEOULE A (VALLEY VIEW ROAO) AOOITIONS • Item Estimated Unit No. item Unit Quantity Price Amount 1. F b t Norway Maples ea. 2.00 $ 544.50 $ 1089.00 2. Set Permanent Barricades L.S. 1.00 $ 270.00 $ 270.00 TOTAL ADOITIONS SCHEOULE A $1,359.00 SCHEOULE B (1494 AND RAMPS) A00iTiONS Item Estimated Unit No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount 1. Rock Mulch S.Y. 320.00 $ 4.45 $ 1424.00 2. Special Median Grading L.S. 1.00 $ 1960.00 $ 1960.00 3. Haul and Spread Black Dirt L.S. 1.00 $ 1080.00 $ 1,080.00 TOTAL ADOITIONS SCHEDULE B $ 4,464.00 Page 1 of 3 • NECESSITY FOR AMENDMENT SCHEDULE A (ADDITIONS) Items 1 - Two trees were replaced in-kind to meet the conditions of the easement for construction. Item 2 - The contractor set two additional barricades, furnished by the city, on the end of the old Valley View Road cul-de-sac. SCHEDULE B (ADDITIONS) Item 1 - The rock mulch was replaced to be consistent with the new bridge at TH169. The rock mulch,design was implemented by Mn/DOT after this contract was started. Item 2 - Special median grading was necessary around the overhead sign at Sta 145 for drainage. item 3 - Black dirt was hauled and spread at three locations not included in original plans. Areas included 1494 median, sta 109-114, 1494 median at overhead sign, sta 145 (see No. 2 above), and garden of 7255 Girard (freeway erosion washed silt into garden). Page 2 of 3 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $3,152,064.95 TOTAL PREVIOUS CONTRACT AMENDMENTS $ 39,082.83 SUBTOTAL $3,191,147.78 TOTAL ADDITIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT /4 $ 5,823.00 SUBTOTAL $3,196,970.78 TOTAL DEDUCTIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT X4 $ 0.00 CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE $3,196,970.78 CONTRACTOR Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. FLI Title BSc, Date Irr7'8S ENGINEER Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis-Gardner, Inca ./c-s.•C.1/-�— Title (�.Ritr. Date 7-8-8 f CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE City Engineer Date Page 3 of 3 �' I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #85-219 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PRALLE ADDITION FOR JAMES R. AND KAY L. PRALLE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Pralle Addition for James R. and Kay L. Pralle, dated September 4, 1985, consisting of 1.05 acres into two lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1st day of October, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 18189 Ullmann Circle f Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ( August 23, 1985 Mr. Chris Enger City Planner City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: Request approval of the attached replatting known as the Pralle Addition for the following reasons: 1. To protect the property value by maintaining its ecological and natural qualities. 2. To eliminate potential erosion of land behind my property. 3. To insure that no "out" buildings are built or placed directly between our property and the pond and trees. 4. To insure the trees are not cut down. 5. To eliminate any conflict which may arise because someone else owns the land between our property and the pond and trees. We originally agreed to purchase our existing property believing that the property included land up to the trees and pond, which we thought was controlled by a public easement. This was also the builder's (Tim King's) understanding. When we found that this was not the case--the land being added under this addition was a part of another lot (which Tim King had subsequently bought)--we agreed to transfer the land to our control either through an easement or replatting. After evaluating both alter- natives, Tim and I decided that an easement could cause future conflict for the reasons stated above plus the fact that someone would be paying taxes on land they did not control or shared with someone else. There- fore, we agreed to replatting and adding the land to our property. I hope this answers any questions you may have. If there are any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, • A-4Y/ae James R. Pralle� { , Kay L. $ralle -t'-&J-t /l7 g ,'',./:_, :J511 1 STAFF REPORT f TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Kipp, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: September 20, 1985 SUBJECT: Pralle Addition LOCATION: 18189 Ullmann Circle APPLICANT FEE OWNERS: James and Kay Pralle and Tim and Miriam King REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into two lots . Background This property is part of the Paulsen's Addition, approved by the .'''- '— City Council in October, 1983, for yt ,r ;- 43 single family R1-13.5 lots. lv h. ,, '' I Va y 'ell _ �N^ James and Kay Pralle are homeowners . C> I~.._ J ( of Lot 4, Block 3, Paulsen's ill v 'r' -- Addition and Timothy and Miriam King a - I 4 '1►1111 11111 ' are homeowners of Lot 6, Block 3. P r limp `*. When the Pralles purchased their N_ � EFt3I8t►'! property, it was their understanding rsFf,�✓'1fi�' that their lot extended to the ir,13ik C r.:�1 • existing pond and trees located to �I - '; ' the southeast. However, it was the —♦ ��///tea Kings' lot which actually included `.� -' , Jai�.�5 this area. Furthermore, proponents - � (,vr ;j�� -1-g.5 believed that an easement had been $ _ - established to protect this area of 1 \,; , . 1 = yl s� �y�83 �- trees. When it was discovered what r - 6cc.. MR.m-65 conditions actually existed, the iris, } I,. Pralles and Kings agreed upon a a- 6 Rt 135 . .�d'>�_ -, transfer of land to the Pralles via «,«. an easement, or re lattin . The �/ PROPOSED SITE.; i - . es p 9 decision was to replat Lots 4 and 6, \ I /)"", ., .o� e,'.i`, n , , t Block 3, Paulsen's Addition, to /i,•� 79-84 i '^�"�'�N WM include additional acreage for the -X/ RI-9 Pralles' lot in order for them to 5 have control of the land between ' 1.135 o- !, � their lot and the forested area. s 11Mi ; Preliminary Plat 14 5 The preliminary plat subdivides Lots AREA LOCATION MAPS 4 and 6, Block 3, into two lots. r ,�., Pralle Addition 2 September 20, 1985 ( City Code requires a minimum lot size of 13,500 sq. ft. in the R1-13.5 District. The proposed lots are 17,844 sq. ft. and 27,943 sq. ft. in size. Lot width and depth requirements are in excess of Code minimums. The setbacks to the houses on the new lots will remain in compliance with Code requirements after the replatting process. Should the replatting request be approved, the existing drainage and utility easement which divides Lots 4 and 6, Block 3, should be vacated. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff would recommend approval of the request for replatting of 1.05 acres into two lots, subject to the following condition: Concurrent with the final plat, proponent shall vacate the easement for drainage and utility purposes located between Lots 4 and 6, Block 3, Paulsen's Addition, as shown on Exhibit A. . . • ...- ... . ,. . ... .. .. . ... . _ , . ' / -., • . '... •,..i., \ X i , • ' .. ' cr.' -. 7 '' . •Zq' . N . ,.• • , ,, '• .. . • • ,• ., . • . • V •' • . . . . 1'' - ‘. '------- ,...----- • ,, \--n c-A'_.----" • 1,,,.......------ . . 4,0-:"..- '- _,. -`, • . , ,. . - - • V ---- ..-s, . ..- • W.. ' .: „ -\06.' •. ''' i '' %,,,. • ...-•- , i'f.)•"'-c‘-s•6 Ii.is ,,,1-...,••• u'7...7 .....:01 --, • ' _. •',..• .1 l• ., . 1 i ____'' '' ,-,_.,„- _____. . ,.•! 25 __c_____...----r,„,',,- , ., - 1.--.)•-, --,‘.-t•."- - .., " • g • --.1.•:* -.-1\i'.,--ir v.•"::‘-'''f'-......%••!-4-' - . - , ?.',;,,,. ..,•1.• t.c?,.c r \: ti'74!,_,,_,;; ' „,'<.)g ,Ft t•-'. ., . 03.3 7 '. .• ‘c..5.-i`• . . . „ - i ,: .1..-'/. C• .2'. , • -•-:•' ?6.;-,-,- '-'•• Z / ,-. b r•- • '-.4 .% 1"\ // O•-: . - •-'..- ,/. - - 'i. 3.- ----— . °'-•F—P-4-0-.*64 S.-,', ' 13 4) . PROPOSED LOT LINE .0 0 IN.::55 c..,.i.• ,-.. NO 4cA.,‘ .. •• --i° ' . '7 ..3 i !:---.• t•\ • .).,.:•-,-; •'-- --:-''-:'.5';--\. , ., i 1 ! -..• ' ,- .0-......._ ., .!,•'.)• - •-")s . ..- ''''',...,,.....-, , . ....•- k Th....., : .. , ......... ......... . . '•?t9.:..--i.- ' .,. - ---', / •••••.Z.,""", ... L.9'. • "...,.. - ,:. , , i .....„.. 4 1 ty, "s".Z.z.%,.._ "'":-.<------ VACATE z ASEMENT . -,..„, „ 6 , / • • / ..,. __,,,Ic..::; _. _'..-19.b.I____ ' ... EXISTING ,. / r • ' WOODED ‘, • AREA ' / ' .• / . . . . • / .. .. • . . • :.. '''i . i EXHIBIT A . i 1 . 1 . t . .,.. 4 1 ‘-i .. _.• .--1 I''.7::- '.. _ • -:.:- 7 . . C • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-221 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF Pralle Addition WHEREAS, the plat of Pralle 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 Pralle Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated September 24, 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. ADDPTED by the City Council on October 1, 1985. • Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL ( John D. Frane, Clerk T ( CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE j 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 d0 DATE: September 24, 1985 SUBJECT: PRALLE ADDITION PROPOSAL: The property owners have requested City Council approval of the final plat of Pralle Addition, a replat of Lots 4 and 6, Block 3, Paulsen's Addition. The parcels are located east of . Paulsen Drive and south of Ullmann Circle in the North 1/2 of Section 7. The property owners have requested approval to insure control and eliminate possible ownership conflicts of land between the lots and a pond area. HISTORY: Zoning to RI-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City J Council on November 1, 1983, per Ordinance 52-83. The preliminary plat, Resolution 85-219, is scheduled for City Council review on October 1, 1985. . Resolution 83-266, defining specific conditions for approval, was approved by the City Council on November 2, 1983, for Paulsen's Addiction. These conditions shall also apply to the Pralle Addition. VARIANCES: All variance requests must he processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities and streets necessary to serve the plat have been installed. Further extension will not be necessary. A request for vacation of the existing drainage and utility . easement across the approximate center of Lots 2, Block 1 has not been received. If requested, the normal vacation process will be followed. All other underlying easements are to remain in place. Page 1 of 2 ^J (- PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication will conform to City Code requirements. BONDING: No bonding will be necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Pralle Addition subject to the requirements of this report, Resolution 83-266 and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $100. 2. Approval of Resolution 85-219. DLO:sg cc: Mr. and Mrs. Pralle Mr. and Mrs. King Page 2 of 2 I 18189 Ullmann Circle ( Eden Prairie, MN 55344 August 23, 1985 • Mr. Chris Enger City Planner City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: Request approval of the attached replatting known as the Pralle Addition for the following reasons: • 1. To protect the property value by maintaining its ecological and natural qualities. 2. To eliminate potential erosion of land behind my property. 3. To insure that no "out" buildings are built or placed directly between our property and the pond and trees. 4. To insure the trees are not cut down. 5. To eliminate any conflict which may arise because someone else owns the land between our property and the pond and trees. We originally agreed to purchase our existing property believing that the property included land up to the trees and pond, which we thought was controlled by a public easement. This was also the builder's (Tim King's) understanding. When we found that this was not the case--the land being added under this addition was a part of another lot (which Tim King had subsequently bought)--we agreed to transfer the land to our control either through an easement or replatting. After evaluating both alter- natives, Tim and I decided that an easement could cause future conflict for the reasons stated above plus the fact that someone would be paying taxes on land they did not control or shared with someone else. There- fore, we agreed to replatting and adding the land to our property. I hope this answers any questions you may have. If there are any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, ar . rzLe/r t-." Kay 1. Pralle i ( / /r—Vii< II') �--, y MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services' DATE: September 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Round Lake Surface Ordinance On September 3, 1985, the City Council gave first reading to the Round Lake Surface Ordinance. At that time, staff noted that a copy of the ordinance had been sent to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources for his review and approval. Upon receipt of the approval of the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, staff would submit the ordinance for a second reading and final approval. Attached is a copy of the September 16, 1985 letter from Joseph Alexander, Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, approving Ordinance 28-85 subject to a change in the wording of subdivision 1 that would allow boats with gasoline motors attached to be launched as long as those motors were not used. The Community Services Department concurs with this change and recommends approval of the second reading of Ordinance 28-85 as amended. BL:md ORDINANCE NO. 28-85 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 BY RENUMBERING PRESENT SECTION 9.63 AS 9.64, AND BY RENUMBERING PRESENT SECTION 9.64 AS 9.65, AND BY ADDING SECTION 9.63 RELATING TO REGULATION OF THE USE OF ROUND LAKE; AND ADDPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CDNTAIN j PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY CDUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Chapter 9 shall be and is amended by renumbering present section 9.63 as 9.64, and by renumbering present Section 9.64 as 9.65. Section 2. City Code Chapter 9 shall be and is amended by adding thereto Section 9.63 whcih reads as follows: (SEC. 9.63. REGULATION OF USE OF ROUND LAKE. Subd. 1. It is unlawful to launch or operate a motorboat an Round Lake, except for 1) boats powered by electric motors, 2) boats operated by enforcement, emergency and resource management personnel acting in the performance of their duties and 3) excursion boats owned and operated by the City of Eden Prairie. ( Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 entitled "Violation A Misdeameanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said city on the day of , 1985. 1 I ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1985. STATE OF =�IM1V SODF i DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BOX 37, 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 5514b DNR INFORMATION September 16, 1985 (612)296407 Mr. Robert A. Lambert Director of Community Services 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2499 Dear Mr. Lambert: After reviewing your request for approval of the restrictions on Round Lake, our Water Surface Use Task Force has recommended that approval be granted as re- quired by M.S. & 378.32 and 459.20, subject to the following change: Subdivision should be amended to allow motorboats which have gasoline engines and electric motors to use just the electric motor. It is felt that this amendment should not result in any difficulties and should not alter the passive nature of the lake. (The Minneapolis and St. Paul City lakes both have ordinances allowing any motorboat as long as only the electric motor is used.) A suggested rewording is: "Subd. 1 It is unlawful to operate a motorboat on Round Lake, except for 1) boats powered by electric motors, 21 boats operated by enforcement, emergency and resource management personnel acting in the performance of their duties and 3) ex- cursion boats owned and operated by the City of Eden Prairie." In accordance with this recommendation, I am approving Eden Prairie's ordi- ance number 28-85 subject to the above amendment. I hope it will provide for a safer and more enjoyable recreational experience on Round Lake. Please send Kim Elverum, our boat and water safety coordinator, a copy of the final ordinance. Yours truly, 041h049^bweerft Joseph N. Alexander Commissioner KAE/dc CC: Division of Enforcement Region VI Administrator - Kathleen Wallace WSUM Task Force Hennepin County Water Patrol Nito Quitevis Steve Gallop Dick Smith AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager DATE: September 26, 1985 SUBJECT: Authorization for Grading Permit Issuance--Eden Place Apartments As you may recall, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was reviewed as part of the Eden Place Apartment project by Tipton Corporation. At this point in time, the EAW is in the middle of the review process required by the State Environmental Quality Board. This is a 30-day review process, which will be completed on October 22, 1985. The City is not able to allow any development of a property under such • EAW review until the 30-day process is completed. In the case of Eden Place Apartments, the City has received final engineering plans, final plat documents, and a signed developer's agreement for the property. In other I words, the developer has met all the City's requirements and is only awaiting clearance of the EAW to begin work on the property. • Because of this, Staff is asking for authorization to issue a grading permit after clearance of the EAW on October 22, 1985, since the Council will not have another regularly scheduled meeting until November 5 1985, two weeksafter clearance of the EAW. Those two weeks may make the difference between the project being started this year, or waiting until Spring, 1986. Staff feels that the developer has made a good faith effort to comply with all City requirements and we appreciate the position of developers during Minnesota's winter construction season. Therefore, we feel the authorization for grading after clearance of the EAW may be in order. • i TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John Frane DATE: September 26, 1985 RE: Final approval for Parkway Apartments $17,000,000 - Resolution 85-222 The 375 unit project is located at Chestnut Drive and Anderson Lakes Parkway. Preliminary approval was granted by the Council on July 2, 1985. The documents have been approved by the City Attorney's office. Resolution 85-222 is included for your consideration. C. RESOLUTION NO. !N Ua A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE $17,000,000 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE (PARKWAY APARTMENTS LI,MITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT), SERIES 1985, OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, WHICH NOTE AND THE INTEREST THEREON SHALL BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE REVENUES PLEDGED THERETO; PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LOAN AGREEMENT AND A PLEDGE AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND SALE OF THE NOTE AND DIRECTING DELIVERY THEREOF;PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A REGULATORY AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE HOLDERS OF SAID REVENUE NOTE. WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City"), is duly organized as a statutory city under and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota;and WHEREAS, pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C,as amended (the "Act"), the City is authorized ( to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated thereby by issuing its revenue bonds to defray, in whole or in part,the development costs of a multifamily rental housing development,and by entering into any agreements made in connection therewith and pledging them as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on any such revenue bonds;and WHEREAS, the City Council(the "Council") of the City has developed the Housing Plan for Local Housing Bonds for the City (the "Housing Plan") in compliance with the Act;and WHEREAS, the Housing Plan was adopted by the Council on February 2, 1982,at a public hearing held at Eden Prairie City Hall;and WHEREAS, the Acts define the term "multifamily housing development"to include a housing development in which at least 20 percent of the dwelling units are held for occupancy by families or individuals with adjusted gross incomes not in excess of 80% of the median family income estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis-St. Paul area; and WHEREAS, as required by the Act, the City has adopted a program for the issuance of bonds by the City to make a loan to Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership (the "Developer') to finance the acquisition and construction of a multifamily rental housing facility (the "Program'), located at the intersection of Chestnut Drive and Anderson Lake Parkway in the City, in accordance with the Acts and the requirements of the Local Bond Program Procedural Guide for the 1 Submission of Local Housing Programs to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; and WHEREAS, the Program was approved by the MHFA at their regularly scheduled meeting held on July 25, 1985;and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and the Loan Agreement, as hereinafter defined,the City proposes to undertake the Program,and for the financing thereof, to authorize, issue and sell its Housing Development Revenue Note (Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership Project), Series 1985 (the "Note"), in the aggregate principal amount of $17,000,000 payable from the revenues of the Program;and WHEREAS, the City proposes to enter into a Loan Agreement, a Pledge Agreement,and a Regulatory Agreement(all as hereinafter defined) in connection with the issuance,sale and delivery of the Note;and WHEREAS, the financing of the Project, the issuance and sale of the Note, the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement, and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, and the Regulatory Agreement are authorized by the Act. All other acts and things required under the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist or to be performed to make the Note, the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement,and the Regulatory Agreement when executed and delivered as therein and herein provided, valid and binding obligations of the City enforceable in accordance with their terms,have been done,do exist and have been performed as so required;and WHEREAS, the issuance of the Note and the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, Pledge Agreement, and Regulatory Agreement will not conflict with or constitute a breach of,or a default under,any existing law or agreement, indenture, mortgage,lease,or other instrument to which the City is subject or is a party or by which it is bound, provided that this finding is made solely for the purpose of estopping the City from denying the validity of the Loan Agreement, Pledge Agreement, Regulatory Agreement, and Note by reason of the existence of any facts contrary to this finding;and WHEREAS, no litigation is pending or, to the best knowledge of the Council, threatened against the City questioning the organization or boundaries of the City or the right of any officer of the City to hold his or her office,or in any manner questioning the right and power of the City to execute and deliver the Note, or otherwise questioning the validity of the Note or the execution,deivery or validity of the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, or the Regulatory Agreement, or questioning the appropriation of revenues to payment of the Note or the right of the City to loan the proceeds of the Note to the Developer. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY: Section 1. The Council of the City acknowledges, finds, determines, and declares that the preservation of the quality of life in the City is dependent upon the maintenance,provision,and preservation of an adequate housing stock and that accomplishing this is a public purpose. 2 Section 2. The Council of the City further finds, determines,and declares that the purpose of the Program is to issue the Note, the proceeds of which will be loaned to the Developer pursuant to the Loan Agreement to finance the acquisition and construction of a multifamily rental housing development located in the City, which will be affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income. Section 3. That for the purpose of financing the Program there is hereby authorized the issuance of the $17,000,000 Housing Development Revenue Note (Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership Project), Series 1985. The Note shall bear interest at such rate, shall be dated, shall mature, shall be subject to prepayment prior to maturity, shall be in such form and shall have such other details and provisions as are prescribed by the form of the Note attached hereto as "Exhibit A" with such insertions, additions or changes as may be necessary in connection therewith. Section 4. That the Note shall be a special obligation of the City payable solely from the revenues of the Program. The Council of the City hereby authorize and direct the Mayor and the City Manager of the City(the"Mayor"and the"City Manager")to execute the Note under the corporate seal of the City and do hereby authorize and direct the execution of the Note and the delivery thereof to the initial purchaser of the Note in accordance with the terms and conditions, covenants, rights, obligations, duties and agreements of the City as set forth therein and in this resolution. All of the provisions of the Note, when executed as authorized herein,shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Note shall be substantially in the form on file with the City, which is hereby approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as do not change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. Section 5. That the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute,under the corporate seal of the City, the Loan Agreement(the "Loan Agreement") by and between the City and the Developer. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Loan Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the City which is hereby approved, with such omissions and insertions as do not change the substance thereof,or as the Mayor,in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. Section 6. That the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute, under the corporate seal of the City, the Pledge Agreement (the "Pledge Agreement")between the City and First National Bank of Minneapolis (the "Lender"). All of the provisions of the Pledge Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Pledge Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the City which is hereby 3 _ J A approved, with such omissions and insertions as do not change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. Section 7. That the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute, under the corporate seal of the City, the Regulatory Agreement (the "Regulatory Agreement") between and among the City, the Developer and the Lender. All of the provisions of the Regulatory Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Regulatory Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the City which is hereby approved, with such omissions and insertions as do not change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such de termination. Section 8. That all covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of the City contained in this resolution and contained in the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement and all certificates of the City shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of the City to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations,obligations and agreements shall be binding upon the City. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights, powers and privileges conferred and duties and liabilities imposed upon the City or the Council thereof by the provisions of this resolution or of the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement,or the Regulatory Agreement shall be exercised or performed by the City or by the Council,officers,board,body or agency as may be required or authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties. No covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement herein contained or contained in the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, or the Regulatory Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation,obligation or agreement of the Council, or any officer, agent or employee of the City in that person's individual capacity, and neither the Council of the City nor any officer executing the Note shall be liable personally on the Note or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. Section 9. That except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this Resolution or in the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, or the Regulatory Agreement expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person or firm or corporation other than the respective parties thereto,any right,remedy or claim, legal or equitable,under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof or of the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement,or the Regulatory Agreement of any provision thereof; this resolution, the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement,or the Regulatory Agreement and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the parties thereto. Section 10. That in case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution,or o the aforementioned documents, or of the Note issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid,such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of the aforementioned 4 documents,or of the Note, but this resolution, the aforementioned documents,and the Note shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. Section 11. That all acts,conditions and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota, relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Note and to the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, and the Regulatory Agreement to happen, exist and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and precedent to the issuance of the Note and precedent to the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement,and the Regulatory Agreement have happened, exist and have been performed as so required by law. Section 12. That the Council, officers of the City,attorneys,engineers and other agents or employees of the City are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution and the aforementioned documents for the full, punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in the Note, the agreements referred to above and this resolution. Section 13. The Mayor, City Manager, and City Clerk of the City are authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all certificates, agreements or other documents which are required by the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement,or the Regulatory Agreement, or any other certificates or documents which are deemed necessary by bond counsel to evidence the validity or enforceability of the Note or the documents referred to in this resolution, or to evidence compliance with Section 103(b)(4)(A) or Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (provided such certificates or documents have been approved by the City Attorney); and all such agreements, certifications or representations when made shall be deemed to be agreements, certifications or representations,as the case may be,of the City. Section 14. That no covenant, provision or agreement of the City herein or in the Note or in any other document executed by the City in connection with the issuance,sale and delivery of the Note,or any obligation herein or therein imposed upon the City or breach thereof, shall give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers or shall obligate the City financially in any way except with respect to the Loan Agreement and the application of revenues therefrom and the proceeds of the Note. No failure of the City to comply with any term, condition, covenant or agreement therein shall subject the City to liability for any claim for damages, costs or other financial or pecuniary charges except to the extent that the same can be paid or recovered from the Loan Agreement or revenues therefrom or proceeds of the Note. No execution on any claim, demand, cause of action or judgment shall be levied upon or collected from the general credit,general funds or taxing powers of the City. In making the agreements,provisions and covenants set forth herein, the City has not obligated itself with respect to the Loan Agreement and the application of revenues thereunder as provided therein. The Note consitutes a special obligation of the City, payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof pursuant to the Loan Agreement and this Resolution, and does not now and shall never constitute an indebtedness or a loan of the credit of the City, the State of Minneoota or any political subdivision thereof or a charge against general taxing powers within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provision whatsoever. 5 The City shall incur no pecuniary liability hereunder and shall not be liable for any expenses related hereto,all of which the Borrower agrees to pay pursuant to the Loan Agreement. The liability of the City is further restricted as provided in Section 474.10 of the Act. Section 15. That this resolution shall be In full force and effect from and after its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ,1985. (SEAL) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA Mayor ATTEST: City Manager 6 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 85-213 RESOLUTION APPROVING 1985 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections in the proposed assessments for the following improvements to wit: (See Exhibit A attached) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such proposed assessments are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands in the final assessment rolls, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of years as shown on Exhibit A. Installments shall bear interest at the rates shown on Exhibit A, commencing January 1, 1986. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid on or before November 15, 1985. 3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes beginning in 1986. 4. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council to reimburse itself in the future for the portion of the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying additional assessments, on notice and hearing as provided for the assessments herein made, upon any properties abutting on the improvements but not herein assessed for the improvement when changed conditions relating to such properties make such assessment feasible. 5. The assessment data of Resolution No. 85-193 is herein revised in accordance with Exhibit A attached hereto. ADOPTED IN FINAL FORM BY THE Eden Prairie City Council on October 1, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Lf TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl 3. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Work DATE: September 25, 1985 RE: 1985 Special Assessment Hearing Rowland Road Property Owners During the discussion of the improvements that were installed concurrently with the Carmel subdivision, questions arose regarding the burden of the assessments against the existing property owners. Since there was a considerable discussion regarding potential deferments for the parcels, please note that a number of the parcels in the area have built-in deferments at present. The following property owners, who objected to the proposed assessments, have Green Acre status on their property: 1. Helen B. Pavelka ($15,789.15) 2. Hakon Torjeson $ 8,165.74) 3. Clifford 8odin ($ 3,463.54) Three property owners who voiced objections to the proposed assessments do not have Green Acre status. They are: 1. Marlene Larson ($1,369.52) 2. Roger Farber ($3,873.41) 3. Dean Holasek ($5,363.81) A Green Acre deferment allows the property owner to defer the principal and interest until the loss of Green Acre status which would occur when the use changes or a reduction of acreage less than the required 10 acres. The law now provides that after loss of status, the deferred principal and interest can be respread over the property for the remaining years of the assessment. There is no cap on the amount of interest that accrues. I will provide more information regarding the objections on this project at the Council meeting. However, I did wish to inform you of the Green Acre deferment that is being utilized by a number of the property owners objecting to the assessment. EAD:sg CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RESOLUTION NO. 85-2I3 EXHIBIT A 1. I.C. 52-0II A & B Sanitary sewer, water main, Project Cost: $905,390.00 storm sewer, and street improvements on Eden Road City Share: $ 71,464.68 and Singletree Lane Net Assessment: $833,925.32 17 years at 11% 52-011A $327,939.76/3576.85 ft. = $91.684 front foot *14-116-22 12 0003 $1I,002.08 14-116-22 12 0004 $ 4,584.20 *14-116-22 12 0008 $15,216.79 14-116-22 12 0009 $12,938.45 I4-116-22 13 0005 $12,825.68 14-116-22 13 0030 $30,861.75 14-116-22 13 0031 $79,566.13 14-116-22 13 0038 $11,918.92 14-116-22 13 0039 $17,939.81 14-116-22 24 0001 $18,336.80 14-116-22 24 0002 $13,752.60 14-115-22 24 0003 $I5,677.96 14-116-22 24 0004 $11,116.69 14-116-22 24 0005 $13,019.13 I4-116-22 24 0006 $13,385.86 14-116-22 24 0009 $27,653.73 14-116-22 23 0002 $ 7,584.51 52-0118 $516,544.24 14-I16-22 23 0002 $259,949.62 14-116-22 24 0010 8256,594.62 *Homestead Parcels - 4 yr. Deferment **Council Directive: 50% reduction (paid by city) 2. I.C. 52-059 A & 8 Sanitary sewer, water main, storm Project Cost: $505,023.00 and street improvements for the Carmel Plat and the area east City Share: $ 10,128.00 of Carmel to Old Shady Oak Road Net Assessment $494,895.00 17 Years at 11% PAGE 1 OF 5 1 52-059A $100,259.00 Subtrunk Sewer $383.03/Acre 1 Subtrunk Water $362.17/Acre 02-116-22 11 0001 $ 6,036.12 02-116-22 11 0002 $ 15,269.15 02-116-22 11 0005 $ 1,564.92 02-116-22 12 0001 $ 849.52 02-116-22 12 0007 $ 21,230.74 02-116-22 13 0004 $ 3,569.50 02-116-22 13 0040 $ 3,353.41 02-116-22 14 0001 $ 1,453.14 02-116-22 14 0002 $ 1,490.40 02-116-22 14 0004 $ 3,427.92 02-116-22 14 0005 $ 722.85 02-116-22 14 0006 $ 3,159.65 02-116-22 14 0008 $ 4,076.24 02-116-22 21 0004 $ 12,891.96 . 02-116-22 24 0001 $ 4,843.81 02-116-22 41 0002 $ 4,545.53 Carmel Lots (each) $ 392.47 52-059B $381,661.00 = $12,722.03/Lot in Carmel (30 Lots Only) 3. I.C. 52-061 Sanitary sewer for Apple Groves Project Cost: $ 94,779.00 Phase II and Paulsons 1st & 2nd Additions City Share: M.A. Net Assessment: $ 94,779.00 5 years at 11% Valley View Road portion of sanitary sewer pipe $3,405./2,840ft= $1.20 lin. ft. Paulsons Addition $ 78.33 Each Lot 07-116-22 14 0071 $ 1,427.00 07-116-22 42 0001 $ 803.00 Sanitary Sewer 32.174/lin. ft. Paulsons Addition $ 2,102.04 Each Lot 07-116-22 14 0071 $38,287.06 07-116-22 42 0001 $21,556.34 4. I.C. 52-064 Water main, storm sewer and Project Cost: $832,535.00 • street improvements on Flying Cloud Drive in the Wilson City Share: N.A. Ridge Plat and Lee Data Plats Net Assessment: $832,535.00 5 Years at 11% PAGE 2 OF 5 iC I $13,845.57/Acre for Wilson Ridge: 12-116-22 23 0009 $ 39,293.73 12-116-22 23 0010 $ 41,287.49 12-116-22 24 0006 $ 79,612.03 12-116-22 24 0007 $ 38,435.30 12-116-22 32 0004 $179,161.68 • 12-116-22 32 0005 $ 75,015.30 12-116-22 31 0009 $ 78,919.75 12-116-22 24 0009 $ 78,448.97 12-116-22 21 0006 $222,360.75 (Lee Oata) 5. I.C. 52-065 Sanitary sewer, water main, storm Project Cost: $479,902.00 sewer and street improvements on Golden Triangle Drive in the City Share: $ 38,623.00 Norseman Industrial Park 6th Addition Net Assessment: $441,279.00 17 Years at 11% Lateral Sanitary Sewer $23.41/ft. Lateral Water $24.66/ft. Street, Grading & Sanitary sewer $82.16/ft. 12-116-22 13 0004 $ 22,101.04 12-116-22 13 0005 $ 42,728.00 12-116-22 42 0007 $ 9,613.80 12-116-22 42 0008 $360,246.07 6. I.C. 52-071 Storm sewer, sidewalk, curb Project Cost: $500,000.00 & gutter on Preserve Boulevard from Prairie Center Drive to City Share: $375,402.12 Anderson Lakes Parkway Net Assessment: $124,597.88 17 Years at 11% $27.2B/Lin. Ft. 14-116-22 43 0011 $ 16,968.16 14-116-22 43 0013 $ 11,158.00 14-116-22 44 0034 $ 15,876.96 14-116-22 44 0106 $ 9,029.68 23-116-22 11 0080 $ 11,594.00 23-116-22 11 0081 $ 8,866.00 23-116-22 11 0082 $ 3,819.20 23-116-22 11 0083 $ 627.44 23-116-22 11 0084 $ 15,931.52 23-116-22 12 0001 $ 17,650.16 23-116-22 12 0003 $ 11,321.20 23-116-22 12 0004 $ 6,874.56 PAGE 3 OF 5 1 PAGE 3 OF 5 7. Supplementals 17 Years @ 11% Trunk Sewer and Water $2530/Acre or $520/Homestead Lot) 01-116-22 34 0017 $ 6,011.20 02-116-22-11-0001 $ 20,493.00 02-116-22-11-0002 $ 51,094.70* 02-116-22-11-0005 $ 5,313.00 02-116-22-12-0001 $ 2,139.20* 02-116-22-12-0003 $ 1,332.47 02-116-22-12-0004 02-116-22-12-0005 " 02-116-22-12-0006 02-116-22-12-0007 $ 72,079.70 02-116-22-13-0004 $ 12,118.70* 02-116-22-13-0010 $ 1,332.47 02-116-22-13-0011 02-116-22-13-0012 " 02-116-22-13-0015 " 02-116-22-13-0016 02-116-22-13-0017 02-116-22-13-0018 " 02-116-22-13-0019 02-116-22-13-0021 " 02-116-22-13-0022 02-116-22-13-0024 02-116-22-13-0025 02-116-22-13-0026 02-116-22-13-0027 02-116-22-13-0028 02-116-22-13-0029 02-116-22-13-0030 02-116-22-13-0031 02-116-22-13-0032 " 02-116-22-13-0033 02-116-22-13-0034 02-116-22-13-0035 02-116-22-13-0036 02-116-22-13-0037 02-116-22-13-0038 02-116-22-13-0039 $ 1,332.37 02-116-22-13-0040 $ 11,905.00* 02-116-22-14-0001 $ 4,188.50* 02-116-22-14-0002 $ 4,315.00* 02-116-22-14-0004 $ 11,638.00 02-116-22-14-0005 $ 1,709.10* 02-116-22-14-0006 $ 10,727.20 02-116-22-14-0008 $ 13,839.10* 02-116-22-21-0004 $ 43,769.00 02-116-22-24-0001 $ 15,700.00* 02-116-22-41-0002 $ 14,688.00* 08-116-22-21-0027 $ 1,728.00 14-116-22 12 0003 $ 220.00* Trunk Water Only 14-116-22 12 0008 $ 520.00* * $520.00 ASSESSED BALANCE OEFERRED UNTIL DEVELOPMENT PAGE 4 OF 5 14-116-22 12 0009 $ 773.90 14-116-22 23 0002 $ 1,493.30 14-116-22 24 0001 $ 839.30 14-116-22 24 0002 $ 632.20 i 14-116-22 24 0003 $ 220.00* Trunk Water Only 14-116-22 24 0004 $ 501.40 • 14-116-22 24 0005 $ 479.60 14-116-22 24 0006 $ 610.40 16-116-22-32-0003 $ 15,640.00 16-116-22-32-0004 $ 15,640.00 16-116-22-32-0005 $ 15,640.00 16-116-22-32-0006 $ 15,640.00 27-116-22-14-0008 $ 1,012.00 Lateral Sewer and Water 01-116-11-32-0002 $ 7,400.00 - 17 Yrs. at 11% 05-116-22-21-0010 $ 3,700.00 - 17 Yrs. at 11% 08-116-22-21-0027 $ 9,419.67 - 5 Yrs. at 11% 08-116-22 23 0050 $ 1,425.88 - 5 Yrs. at 11% 08-116-22-41-0060 $ 1,975.00 - 11 Yrs. at 6.6% Lateral Water Main 27-116-11-14-0008 $ 2,460.00 - 17 Yrs. at 11% Valley View Road Water Main - 17 Yrs. @ 11% 12-116-22 23 0009 - 1,729.19 12-116-22 23 0010 $ 1,816.93 12-116-22 24 0006 $ 3,503.48 12-116-22 24 0007 $ 1,691.42 12-116-22 24 0009 $ 3,452.09 12-116-22 31 0009 $ 3,473.01 12-116-22 32 0004 $ 7,884.34 12-116-22 32 0005 $ 3,301.19 12-116-22-33-0007 $ 9,196.65 Driveway Assessment - 5 Yrs. @ 11% D5-116-22-24-0055 $ 1,980.00 Tree Removal - 1 Yr. @ 11% 01-116-22-24-0012 $ 385.00 01-116-22-32-0007 $ 150.00 02-116-22 23 0006 $ 40.00 02-116-22-33-0005 $ 110.00 03-116-22-44-0019 $ 200.00 04-116-22-22-0024 $ 75.00 04-116-22-31-0020 $ 275.00 04-116-22-43-0056 $ 30.00 06-116-22-31-0026 $ 60.00 07-116-22-21-0035 $ 85.00 10-116-22-12-0084 $ 190.00 10-116-22-22-0086 $ 900.00 11-116-22-41-0010 $ 545.00 12-116-22-22-0002 $ 350.00 16-116-22-34-0047 $ 45.00 23-116-22-22-0005 $ 45.00 1 24-116-22-24-0085 $ 65.00 PAGE 5 OF 5 CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN CDUNTY, MINNESDTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-217 A RESOLUTION APPRDVING THE EDEN POINTE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CDNCEPT AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL MILL CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, Eden Pointe is considered a proper amendment to the overall Mill Creek Planned Unit Development Concept; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request of Federated Development, Inc., for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Mill Creek Planned Unit Development Concept for Eden Pointe and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on October 1, 1985; NDW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Eden Pointe PUD Concept Amendment, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to • the overall Mill Creek Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for Eden Pointe, dated September 25, 1985. 3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated September 3, 1985. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 1st day of October, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk .111 Exhibit A • Legal Description Outlot H, MILL CREEK 1ST ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota (_ .3 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #85-218 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EDEN POINTE APARTMENTS FOR EDEN POINTE PARTNERSHIP BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: • That the preliminary plat of Eden Pointe Apartments for Eden Pointe Partnership, dated August 30, 1985, consisting of 15.3 acres for 149 units, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1st day of October, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • 1 1 August 6, 1985 Dear Planning Commission Member; We live across from the proposed apartment complex that is suppose to go into the corner of Homeward Hills and County Road 1. Let me first say that we were completely appalled and upset to learn that such a thing was even being considered to be put on that land. We all knew that the land would be developed someday. But a large apartment complex??? We live in a nice quiet , home owned, neighborhood. There are no apartment buildings for a few miles around. In the first place, the land is zoned right now for medium density. The land developers want to rezone it for high density. Have you ever went out and looked at this land? It is a very steep and narrow piece of property. I don't think that it could even support medium densiLy much less high density. There is a beautiful pond right at the bottom of the hill and this would be changed dramatically. This land is just not suited for this project. We also are very concerned about the traffic problems that adding 300 or so cars would have on this small area. Both the entrances from the proposed development exit onto Homeward Hill Road. And we might add that they exit onto the steepest part of the road. Sometimes we sit for 5 minutes or so the way it is on Homeward Hills Road just to get out onto Co. Road 1. Can you image what kinds of problems that this apartment complex will add? And volumn is just the main problem of the summer. Wait until the winter time and these people have to try to get up the steep road without taking a run at it. It will be a total mess. We all know how apartments will get run down. They always do. People simply do not take care of something that doesn't really belong to them. Or we should say the majority of the people do not. The developer has said that the rents would be amoung the highest in the area, however after checking into the matter this simply is not true. So this means that the project will not necessary attract the professional crowd that the developer would have us all believe. All things considered, this land is not meant for this use. Take a drive out there and look for yourselves. Would you want the land used for 11 apartment buildings? Certainly there is a better place for them. But not there. Sincerely, Greg and Mary Damlo I-r 6 ;;. August 5, 1985 To: Eden Prairie Planning Commission From: The residents of Homeward Hills Subdivision Regarding: The proposed Eden Pointe Apartment project We are extremely concerned over the proposed Eden Pointe apartment project that is currently being planned for the southeast corner of Homeward Hills Drive and County Road One. Our first concern is that of density. The parcel of land under discussion is currently zoned at RM-6.5, medium density residential, not to exceed 6.7 units per acre. The project proposes the parcel 'e rezoned RM-2.5, high density residential. The basis under which the proposed project is submitted is the Mill Creek PUD Concept Plan of 1973. This PUD suggests a project of 160-200 units on a 20 acre parcel. The proposed project calls for a total of 149 units in 11 buildings on a 15.3 acre parcel. Even when using the PUD as a precedent, the proposed project is at the extreme upper unit limit when prorated per acre. When compared to the current property zoning, the project is 47 units over the allowable 102 units for the parcel. As the neighboring subdivision, we will be greatly affected by a project of this density. For example, 600 more cars will be traveling Homeward Hills Road, a road which already presents many driving hazards due to it's steep hills even under current traffic levels. This problem would be further compounded under winter driving conditions. Excessive noise and added strain on city utilities are just a couple of the inevitable problems that will arise as a result of 300-400 more people being added to the community in such a small area. In addition to the problem of density, we are opposed to the project being a rental property. There exists many potential time bombs with rental property such as high turn-over and the lack of quality property management. Apartments have tendencies to deteriorate faster and have higher crime rates because the element of non-ownership exists. These character- istics of rental property have only negative affects on the neighboring communities. 1 Alik 1 Our main concern is to protect our property value and the asthetic appeal of the neighborhood of which Eden Pointe would be an integral part. 11 We leave it up to your best judgement, as members of the planning commission and citizens of Eden Prairie, to vote against the proposed project. We also ask that you turn down the request to rezone the parcel to RM-2.5, high density residential. We hope you will protect our stand- ard of living that Eden Prairie has up to now, afforded us. Thank you in advance for your efforts and concern on our behalf. Sincerel , 61 1 , 1/44„ iti IO (.,AA......, d f/�je ,p,, f c— .s> ?/ om C, . �///^fit) L r(// //�'/J , 9 /p...,,,t , /� i' O .4„,, i ..?,c'f,.-_ /.G .,/,t„-,L.A. r • (ho h-�'� o�t•/a'./4i �.� ,, t 1�,�o P.V��Sl Cam. ,l 1 !me � .�r -u,. t c July 29, 1985 City of Eden Prairie c/o Planning Commission Eden Prairie, Minnesota RE: Proposed Development Outlot H Mill Creek Addition Dear Planning Commission Members: We are a group of Eden Prairie residents that are concerned about the proposed land development at Mill Creek area. Being neighbors of the proposed development and citizens of Eden Prairie, we feel that we should have a voice in the way our neighborhood and city is developed. We are not opposed to the development of this property, only the type of project that is proposed. We feel that the planning commission should not rezone this property to the higher density as requested by Federated Development. We have a number of concerns and comments that we would like to address before the planning commission makes a decision on the proposed project. We feel that a few areas of concern were not properly covered by the developer. They are as follows: VISUAL ASPECT The visual siting diagram provided by Federated uses only two site line examples, both of which are shown from the northern most homes on Portal Drive. Why use two examples so close to- gether? The homes that are used as an example have high berms in their back yards, reducing their view of the project. No sitings were used from homes further south on Portal Drive, Mill Creek Townhomes or the Homeward Hills Development. Enclosed is a picture taken from ground level in the backyard of 9741 Portal Drive. This view is typical of the view of 8 hones on Portal Drive. As you can see, even a six foot screening fence would not reduce the view of the project. Due to the lower elevation and bowl nature of land it would be next to impossible to screen the Mill Creek Townhomes and Homeward Hills homes from traffic and head lights. DENSITY The original Mill Creek plan called for a 12 acre townhouse site and a 20 acre apartment site. During development the plan was changed and the townhouse site was expanded to 16.7 acres leaving only 15.3 acres for apartments. With this expansion most of the more desirable building site was used, leaving the land with a steep grade. Because of the proposed higher density, there will 7 •, ,C' C C -2- { be no "buffer zone" between the apartments and single family property. This could be included in a lower density project for which this land is zoned for. TRAFFIC FLOW Following a freezing rain or snow storm, Homeward Hills Road is often not usable for residents of Hillsboro because the intersection and Homeward Hills Road is on a hill. The residents of Hillsboro can use Portal Drive as an alternate route to Hwy.l. Residents of Homeward Hills and Bluff's West must often take a run at this hill during slippery conditions. Right in the midst of this hill is where Federated proposes the only two exits from their project. An estimated 600 additional cars will enter and exit at this location. Residents of the proposed project would have a steep hill onto Homeward Hills Road and also a steep hill once they were on Homeward Hills. We feel a lower density plan would lessen traffic congestion and allow possibly only one better placed exit. UTILITIES When our city engineers designed our water and sewage systems, they used population densities that the land was zoned for, (6500 sq. ft. per unit). As you are aware, the city has already imposed a water use restriction. Even with this restriction, water pressure is dangerously low for residents in neighboring areas with higher elevations. Because of the lower elevations of the property, a higher density project would further tax a marginal system. We are told by city officials that system capacity will not be increased until 1988 and restrictions will be in place until then. We believe a project of fewer units would put less of a strain on the system. SURFACE WATER Special attention must be given to surface water run off on the steep slopes. If you use the pond for run off, the lawn fertilizer will cause the pond to turn more green than it now is. A fewer number of buildings would have less hard surface and more area for water to soak away and allow for more bearms to control water. The sandy soil will lend itself to erosion on the steep hills, much the same way as in the Hillsboro addition. Before voting on the project we ask you the following questions: 1) Will this project enhance our residential neighborhood of Eden Prairie? 2) Would the lay of the land lend itself to a less dense project? Possibly single family of townhomes? 3) Do we need a project with so many units? Continued - ( -3- i i When considering this project we ask that you weigh all of the above concerns and vote "ND" for this project as submitted. Sincerely, NAME �I ADDRESS r , I x:lnM.,/,,vc �'./11:•2-1.2Li 9 N t (CA' 0 zt, i ) I '\-..6%/,I.', /i,�. ' =T7'fI :`c;:.r..Z, ,1:.,. ii L /_ cz-� ( 7701 ✓�e.�.�� .rZ� ( 4iL P ti 1 ) 4 qqq/// _ ill -`-'1/(11/c./..-- ,___ /'/;/ y/ 21 /, f o / /_.+-. i ; (' .;1�7 C' 1 i 1 ,, _LI. . ,� r, 4 r am'� .1 �� r7� -, Lc.- - 0�' j' '-/& 3 , r, 1 I �: r, • C,L._. 1 i Ali : : i. i /..='1,�"y: -, .�/ U ( f -3- ( When considering this project we ask that you weigh all of the above concerns and vote "NO" for this project as submitted. • Sincerely, NAME ADDRESS ,- Gt.C. :.1 q(0w reict/ 4i tee, ����lam, ��/ `y�y/* �1-L�cr-'rl.:2 /+4111L'L it—CICJ 9‘)S ‘)CA;fril k1,4-t,e-- 4-kya 4- q6-alf -4))--f-'-ttj /C)-(kLe ✓/" , d p --.41-",-/,- ) '/uz�< /l ;,� /'- .;,"�,� /I PVC_ / J L, a•%,mot vo ie37�L %V 1. .` �7 � C t -3- ( When considering this project we ask that you weigh all of the above concerns and vote "NO" for this project as submitted. Sincerely, „ NAME ADDRESS /,/1 L� 42...✓ L`47 5.17A, 4/ Lim _"' . -i:::-.):7,,,,,,,) -------T-sy-4f C.:\ry,„„1„, ___ lcx_ ,� i) '1)0 ' .t Pc-{ni D . ,g c 1�� `11 3 c, '1t�•au2. vu zw b r,. - ---1 )1a-c o._.: 97> -1( 11,/ at. L. %ro teory J ., l'r. a#cl�l. .W / 4', J ft, * fZ Z:f. ,�.:, /(, KrNl( c ,u Cam' • We' s . L ewe✓ //5 ,Z /<un0 P/ et f C Nir h�A —NVe.hx.sacsismeAs..� 118-1p PNu..- —Gr.) taVg9 N liera g 04,. ^yleti /1')‘:p5, i,/ ::- , a oi //PI,7P, .4 -Li&c.6.- �qQ - ,ig4 (,A v 1 t(90s 4w'rvn a l•at dc, i • -3- i 1 When considering this project we ask that you weigh all of the above concerns and vote "NO" for this project as submitted. Sincerely, NAME ADDRESS 1er_743r �� �. ci 717 �,�� :c � / -Z _ 9 7 3 s )77 , ,e-1,..4._ S,-- e /47.,.., S. )24...,..4-16,-, Yauz....,"2_, �� d,,, 7 L a L ,:c.,'-^.- -- 7 7; .O '�F 4-o�::c a;�2,,-/,17/;:—.—_ g'7,5,',1?' L%7-L;_6 eAzz,, /at) ! 1 1. I\ 4-,-(,,,,,rer,1 4---e-t_ " 4, ;u',, 1:1,cs;,,i-i�;�i�lc..�. i 7/ /7j ,. ,?<,., ��",i},,,2— i ,)4, ,/ 7,:) =/ Lk, i . ( C -3- 1 { When considering this project we ask that you weigh all of the above concerns and vote "NO" for this project as submitted. • Sincerely, NAME ADDRESS n /1 _, q,..,„ /17-,;i7Le 4-,1,6,t `/.)C gin- )., . i 1 • • I . I 1 I t ---T( ( ( 1 , i ,/ , riirsis5 I Ulf).- tht_ mdvuoirld.... i.u.A.faic,rit2J. DoIci, ,txtvionly_4, ci el„. I tglo:uti, _,v4..to itp.73frnil.1 ok, th, pki,.pitztajtos... _ , J.41,4he.. Si E- 2.aacitcvnt, o-pihz- ,tirtizA.,0Lettitb_ci_4-47:1Luittita, __ 1 4t..6.41.) 041.01, autfy..t . i 1. Rzki+0 ,;Lc14.., )euzikttialooTritufe-Ciad. ' ( 2. ' 1\ _ t_ ii 7 chtkiii-oly _4V 7 .---- . 1 6 0-^iv . .4., oct 1,77-POCCIr--a.k&s4.-T !. /I _ 7. .,./.. z 8. 0k, .i.z.e.e_tld-1.4(.: 3'_:s : 1 ./ I , ifa-4 .. .-.- , 1 ), .7 e-. ,,•,,:---` • C 1 13 Via,~ a rfaat3of -- /g/937" U 1 .4-=i S.P& isa 2 _ y CL`� , °( lP D u ?641 Por}nf $r{y� { 1. iV 2) can,,ti �Jis (44.;/ v dy - z.,_ -41:4„e4,,, _ a 7.04,31,+.2e-Lsaybajf 9 n 4 z a&„„,,I,e,:t. - - -2o_C1) ._. ; '. t6a,..„. Le 175-59-g4A.A. --'.. _ ,_ _,),. 60elp . ,,eik,L cri„-pacLakali :- -1 , .'.:-.4. (- a- ' f cf?0I_.3, .- . ,,Ac__--• Ulf - • r C • 33 :2042: I1ITTTl/dTT< I iik Paul and Linda Rudberg 12100 Travois Rd. Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 Dear Ea dill. PainnA1;1 i L+'rrul1 j We have lived in our home since 6/1/81 and absoluteley love this area. We take much pride in our community and feel we are in the finest section of the Twin Cities area. Our neighborhood is clean, quiet and has a very warm friendly atmosphere. We like to think of ourselves as real "Neighbors"; caring about one another and feeling we are cared for too. Our big concern today is the proposed development of the 149 unit apartment rentals on the corner of Homeward Hills Rd and Pioneer Trail. First: The land is currently zoned for RM 6.5 not to exceed 6.7 units per acre, which would amount to 102 units. The Federated Development Corp. is proposing a 149 unit development which would mean a re-zoning would have to take place. Our estimated reveal a possibility of over 450 people and 250 or more vehicles to add to the already congested traffic on Hwy 169, Cty. Rd. 1, and Cty Rd. 18, not to mention Homeward Hills Rd. We have no guarantee that these units will be maintained through- out the years or turn into a small slum. We have no guarantee that our property will not decrease in value. We have no gaurantee that we won't see our property damaged or things disappear from our yards. As taxpayers and voters we implore you to make the right decision for all those involved in this important issue. We will be in attendance at the Aug. 12th meeting , with a positive attitude, knowing that you will well represent us and vote against any possible re-zoning. • Sincerely, PY-P1F)--zrZcc Paul and Linda Rudberg ,>u 'CHOCK July 25, 1985 I Dear Planning Commission Member: The proposed re-zoning of the property located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Homeward Hills and County Road 1 should not be approved. Since we moved to Eden Prairie in 1979, it has been a quiet, friendly, well-kept, crime-free neighborhood. We have been able to enjoy a beautiful view of a large grassy area around a pond at the proposed development site. It is extremely relaxing to bike, walk or run along this site as you feel you are totally away from the city. If we allow high density rental apartments within a few hundred feet of our single family homes, the traffic (a minimum of 149 cars added to already hectic Homeward Hills) and noise levels will become intolerable, crime will increase and the marketability of our homes will decline. Our neighborhood has been fighting the expansion of the Flying Cloud Landfill for about four years now. If it receives final approval, we will have the landfill in our backyard. Ban-Con (our builder) advised us the landfill would close within two years after we purchased our home -- now it could be open till 1996. Between 1981 and March 1985, we had two appraisals on our home. The most current appraisal was $15,000 less than in 1981. While I realize market conditions have changed all over, I believe the proposed expansion is already hurting the marketability of our home. We don't believe our neighborhood should be saddled with high density rental apartments in addition to the landfill. We place our trust in our government and elected officials and know you will take the property owners concerns into consideration and veto the proposed re-zoning. Sincerely, i Gary and Mary Stoecker 12107 Cartway Curve Eden Prairie, MN 55344 944-7905 7 C I Mr.Edward P.Farrell 9701 Portal Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344 941-6183 July 25, 1985 Mayor Gary Peterson 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 RE: Proposed Land Development at Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills I would,at this time,like to formally state my objection to the proposed rental property development at Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills,in Eden Prairie. The land across the street from my home. I attended the one meeting called by the developer to discuss the project. The impression I received at this meeting was one of severe disappointment on the part of the residents. Some attendants left in disgust. I heard one couple mention selling their home,and my own personal feeling was one of devastation. Although the attorney,who made the presentation for the developer,stated,and would have us believe,that such a development would have a miniscule impact on traffic,would in no way degrade the neighborhood and would do minimum damage to the scenic beauty of the area. I believe these statements to be false. At this meeting we were told that this land is zoned for approximately 200 units so the proposed 149 units isn't such a bad deal!? Since the meeting the residents have learned that the remaining land is zoned at 8.7 units per acre or a maximum of 102 units total. Another piece of misleading information conveyed at the meeting is,that the developer owned the land and that this meeting was called merely to inform the, residents of the inevitable. It was later learned that the purchase of said parcel is hinged on rezoning and the planning commission go-ahead. Mr.Mayor,members of the Planning Commission and City Council,please don't do this to us! I guarantee,you won't find a single homeowner in this area without an objection to a rental apartment development. The people in this area are already carrying enough of a load with BFI's proposed expansion. We all realize that this land will eventually be developed,but I'm sure no one who bought out here ever considered the possibility of a rental apartment complex. I was told that there were one of three possibilities for development(1)a church,(2)an expansion pension of the townhouse complex or(3)single family homes. This information was weighed into my decision to build here. I know I speak for all the local homeowners as a petition is being circulated by other members of the community and a significant attendance is expected at all meetings regarding this subject. Please consider these facts when making your decision. Sincerely, Edward P.Farre 1 cc: Planning Commission: Council Members: JulIian Bye Richard Anderson Kristine Dodge George Bentley Mike Franzen Patricia Pidcock Virginia Gartner Paul Redpath Stan Johannes Bob Hallett Dennis Marhula Ed Sehuck No.J L (. i- k . .-.. \1 .-..•-e ,, /c71..s / 1 ; ( vopose 0 0 ..%.., •e- n'..,.., „, (:.-if-6- ., .. . . . 1115 C-r,ogleatS :...-(...--I z,(..,. La c-:- ...(... ..(...,..."12,, c...--.-;:_,..,--,,.:- ...::,..,•••,,r-c (74/t/...- ,,,-t:c -Z..0 .,•:,-,..'.-7 • . , v a 42,71-1:-(24- ,)i c'•./..t- , : -2 i•,-c - t.:. 77_ ,.- - cr-i-7-z l:7 /G.7.---•,:,.:-12(eec • (-- '-'7 - / - i "„ \ •,(-•-•-- ,,:-•:1,':-.6,..1--2-c:"2-- ./e.-' . -e-E.--C:4"!:*._ -e26:-.*:•'-e-,,-C' ....2 .41-e 4,-.-e---,•-t-'-.4-1-• :1-ek"SeeC 11611. 6'. C!",A-.72-a-e,z-C7--,,-..-/ ,7.7 /7 ei .,.'.--1-1:---/1'4'44 ,--C".2-e-Z-1...1:.5.31e...., . .97ne tv 4..v.fr-A.. C.--,)/c.!1--"-e e-1:-- -z-.--c--,:-,-:---c..c 4...,.c.:•.•-•,,,..... gi-.--.-.c <-;•,e-,--,,,-.7.e., • ti4t-c" ,,,/(/7. _-o-r- ' e.-'7 --c-:4.'"ec-4.:-. -. ' "---;_42--?4-ete,7‘'.-1-*A7k: ,, / / / • f •." , ,- '144,/v,,- cAle ) ,,C c: ,.,c.:__C.,:---A7/),.e-'4...-/- • ‘t/e --....14,..:,--...,6e-> 4_4 -,-.Ae---,.../ 4: i --;7-2,"c-e..• ,,,?..,eel es-7 Z72_,.,:, i.e.2-* r:-C-,,,<•- ‘,.t-7,Z-zr 4-,,,,,..C-- ``-ee...,-- .... . --:,-6C---;'t-ev•-- 'e c.%1-A:-.:t..-c.c.'_.c.-ei:.7h4-7.' - e:.7..?..; (1 ` / t r(Z,....' i-e•k_,,..-. . ,6..,- ,.2-z:,.:., &-,.c-_-,--e' ,...4-,7:--, 1:-.c,,, Z-c- ,,c ,.: ---....:•,----7c---'Z-,-c ..- -71. ‘:-..=-C:.•1 C. C:A....C. ‹.-C....., ei!..-c-C ,(4%.-4-rzi--rt-.7,,I.L.-?_,-c...e..`, ,_;-7 i t',C-eC C7.'/I 6., e c.2e17- e-CC.-.:•-Z /7iee•Ce< /2/eC•-•Z:-.42. //Lee',_62 c:6- ` -c: ,, ec'",,, e-e-4.:-z: <Z-.-t--c-.,z- • ,••7---e ' ,. /- i,-./ec e•--6-C---,4- c-C-c:ra.-0 ./..:2-e c-e`1.el:-/-/,--, .L21L:-(-t ..--6-;.; .(:-,-t.".' /Z-et.---c2-e --$,-,Z-e, i-.•-7,--•---,f._,,, c.‘-'ee. -i.„L., ::.• -,,2-7 ef.T......,,, ,:-(,-,.....‘e' 9...44(...—,,,—C:1. • L- (....,.....,.... - , .:.'c: ,..•.,t(:-r‘...--,7 ... /.,, et. C e,`-e---6-..7//7 •- ---;:i.e......,--:= ....e r:ez,.',c_•-,--:- _ ,.,.•:/:.,..,. /2(-- ,...---c. X-,,,-I -7/6--%''bc:./:-.',",:'----,--.--1 .. • ./...:v.-J./it i(-"':::', . . "?:';:'-', .' - '-' c 7 i:L-c:‘ (.."..4.:-.-c-i 4 4 L.,-C ',,jc:: ,fi L --z' '-' L- C"/. ( /- ' / ... Cii[..,-' L.L / :' ji i'V /''4 ,---;'/)(:c.'-'i - 2' - '.--(-- 1/t:'.-/!,.• L ,;(..7(t..7,-,':-/-e_-!.--._ .:z" _. (-e L._•-• „4';,'t,''(...:, --7:--- . .. C ,y`% cL2G< c� CL c.LcC��1tGd'L/ Gf,C !U<Ctc — c/2c„ tZ..-a -eC ;7/7G<-t-, ee.P41--tt e L�'.':--z O L CC-c,K / 1"6.011 .I ei G G' LL C�- �L L,�2^t g..1 y7'C Z/2C / P-7 ', )2e 46 t Ul �l- o f�/ /` c C vL C-�c1`� - _-- LG?2 vT �� lC-- yY�-r ✓d.' i _ ` L`� ' —— �l E� 'C G?J.-—__ • • 4.v-e .e,ev e z c&. ,c G.C.p . ,7z— c. u✓• ee'Z- 2tiGLGfiC-c-1 G e t`t 4,2 eCiZe te/ 1 Aft July 25, 1985 Mr. Ed Schuck Planning Commission 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Regarding: Proposed project by Federated Development Corp. at Homeward Hills and Highway 1. Dear Mr. Schuck: We are writing to express concern over the above-mentioned project. Virtually all those we've talked to in our neighborhood are strongly opposed to the idea of such a large, high-density project. This area is one of Eden Prairie's most attractive due to it's openness and rolling landscape. A development consisting of eleven buildings and adequate parking for these would completely destroy this aspect of it's beauty, as compared to a lower density project. With the opening of the race track across the river and the Pax Christi Church, the traffic on Highway 1 has at least doubled. Perhaps if you're not in this area often you may not have noticed, but please try driving by anytime on a Sunday morning and you'll appreciate our concern. It's apparent to us that with the addition of 149 homes traffic will become extremely heavy on any day. This would definitely raise the need for a set or two of traffic lights almost immediately and perhaps the widening of Highway 1. Is this an expense the city can afford? Please also take into account the fact that our little neighborhood has already run across several unfortunate setbacks. These have decreased the value of our property and even caused the sale of one neighbor's home serious delays and possible failure. One problem is the approved expansion of the landfill. Another is the possibility of toxic waste in our groundwater. Yet another is the proposed Catholic community surrounding Pax Christi which will undoubtedly further our traffic problems. Please consider our position as you discuss the proposed project. Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, V atit12- C yC2dnk Kristy and Mark Armstrong 9611 Portal Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 .;.: /-16• ( 7-7-pta.47‘12,04.2-ti.-7(_:, .. . 4Mcfrt/4.4/_/'524,. ,Erg, . /, i ./4Cit.L_ritif--ev.A";./147itgc':. -A44' - 114,7A1-4 1"t' &lk.wizz_i,AtAL ' t , ,__d_ ) t,„ L,c. „-f-,, nyvitt d i pkiA 771f-rLteu,- ) Ac2Y-4---fr, / , ,,,f),, •,-6e, ;41(2:11"6-L11/(4M4, ,j.,-A__ i -1L-ix ,qAA)vitcd Ati-i-tt 816.4, ( --tliZ 14,f.,t,C ./-lic- 14 i- l'- 771-e- -T lAtz,t6-itu4e,,A11-471.4- 11(J;`04,1 , -/Z- -7 itt , i4 _...- - . , , / i 4. --- j :;1 :.:7 ,,..,-, - ,,,,e, ., „• ita. ., .- \ i) v. • .1 ,... .-,,.. ... .,..--.......t... ( ---' L._ ---" 1- •- -' ..-- . Aph July 25, 1985 Planning Commission 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Sir: This letter is in regards to the possible re-zoning of the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Homeward Hills & Hwy. 1. We want to inform you that we are adamantly opposed to the re-zoning proposed by Federated Development Corp. We do not want to see high density housing go into this area. We hope you will take our feelings plus the feelings of many other neighbors in the area who will be voicing their opinions and veto any proposal to re-zone higher density housing at this site. Thank you. Sincerely, r/V �� ZLccc: , I iiu•L.- Patrice Hamer • Mark Hamer 9725 Pallisades Circle 9725 Pallisades Circle i STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: September 6, 1985 PROJECT: Eden Pointe Apartments LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills Road APPLICANT: Federated Development Corporation FEE OWNER: Mildred E. Tuckey REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.3 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review for 15.3 acres 3. Rezoning from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 of 15.3 acres 4. Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres into one lot Background —l .-• " This is a continued item from the f` — �\ c � August 12, 1985, Planning Commission -c meeting. The Commission made a motion recommending that the deN. - velopment plans be returned to the 26-s `PROPOSED SITE • proponent for revisions in response �6-4 P. I to the following site development . lil guidelines: ; C 1. Modifythe site plan to il+' tl� ` ` provide an equal mixture of ���Iv a' ram , 1. 12, 13 and 14-unit build- *-�r. w„` CO PO�v -- iTP��(,v y'7 ings. This would mean a - ;o � reduction of 14 units, from '� • 153 to 139. This is a f2i l?; 'M r ;* ./i •;;! density reduction from 9.75 a7 r = �'1 / cL f 'a to 9.10 units per acre. z , � =--- 2. Modify the site plan to "� :;,R1-f-35 provide a minimum of 100 ( .. feet of stacking distance " NO„ 1 s \� between the private loop road and Homeward Hills Road 1 'Pat from the north driveway _ { entrance. \ II\ °"� j r ,,►°p0 ..,.F e !; I. i'l J A1� _ ~_ A E: Le�ATCMMAP . Eden Pointe Apartments 2 September 6, 1985 3. Modify the site plan to include an eight-foot wide bituminous trail along County Road #1 and an internal pedestrian system linking buildings to site perimeter trails. 4. Modify the site, grading, and landscape plans to provide a more appropriate visual and physical transition to adjacent single family uses, through a combination of increased setback, substantial berming, and heavy landscaping. 5. Modify exterior building elevations to be in complicance with a maximum of 25% wood materials on any one wall. Provide color samples of exterior materials which include a variety of colors within a common scheme. 6. Modify the fence detail to include brick walls, decorative fences with brick pillars, or a combination thereof. Site Plan The site plan has been changed to reflect a decrease in the number of buildings from eleven original to nine, while providing a mixture of 15, 16, and 17-unit buildings in the same basic footprint as the original 12-unit buildings. This has been accomplished by decreasing the number of tuck-under garages in same buildings from ten to six and utilizing the area for living units. The garages taken out of the buildings have been replaced by free-standing garages, which will help to provide scale for the project and function as part of the site screening. The site plan depicts a mixture of four, 16-unit buildings, three, 15-unit buildings, and two, 17- unit buildings, in comparison to eight, 15-unit and two, 14-unit buildings on the previous site plan. The resultant effect of this mixture of building types is to reduce the total number of units from 148 to 143 with a corresponding decrease in density from 9.69 units/acre, to 9.36 units/acre. In addition to the reduction in total units and density, a number of other benefits have been realized in the current site plan. This includes increasing the distance between the buildings thus allowing for more "open space" and landscaping, the mixture of 15, 16, and 17-unit buildings appears to provide the appealing architectural variety that was lacking in the previous plan, and an improved internal circulation system. Architecture As mentioned, a mixture of three primary building types have been proposed for this site. This mixture of 15, 16, and 17-unit apartment buildings has been designed and located on-site to compliment the existing grades and to provide for an aesthetic architectural quality not commonly associated with apartment complexes. As per Staff recommendations, all buildings and garages have been redesigned utilizing a 75% brick exterior building material which has substantially increased the visual appeal of the structures. In addition, the 16 and 17-unit buildings have integrated a wrap-around unit design on the first floor, thus eliminating the number of garage doors within the structure. The "free standing" garages have also taken into consideration the existing grades and have been recessed into the hill, thus reducing the massing of these structures. In summary, the architectural changes made to the structures, including the addition of 75% brick on both buildings and garages, the provision of a variety of building types, and the integration of a wrap-around unit design, has increased the attractiveness of the project as proposed. 1 Eden Pointe Apartments 3 September 6, 1985 g Since there are nine buildings, Staff feels that there should be a variety of colors within a common scheme to add variety to the project. Prior to Council review, the proponent shall submit the proposed color schemes for review. Grading The primary change to the grading plan has been the addition of small berms (2-4- foot) along Homeward Hills Road and a reduction in scale of the proposed swale along the south property line. Staff regards these changes as positive in that the berms add screening to the proposed garages and parking areas from views along Homeward Hills Road, while the reduction in swale size allows for a more gentler transition from the proposed project to the single family residences to the south. Landscaping. For a project of this size, a total number of 567 caliper inches would be required. A total of 667 caliper inches have been provided. Of these, 227.5 caliper inches are evergreen trees and 313.5 caliper inches are deciduous trees. In reviewing the site plan in conjunction with the landscape plan, Staff has determined that the placement of the planting material is satisfactory but that the sizing of the plant material for screening purposes is too small. As the plant list indicates, 91 evergreen trees, or 227.5 caliper inches, are of the six-foot variety. Because of the scale of the project in terms of building sizes, numbers, and location, Staff is recommending that the minimum size evergreen planted, except those used in a decorative nature, be at least eight feet in height. The result of using a minimum of eight-foot evergreens without decreasing the number would be to increase screening of the project from adjacent streets and residents while also adding to the "mature" look of the project. Internal Circulation (Pedestrian and Vehicular) Based on Staff recommendations, the proponents have provided an eight-foot bituminous path along County Road #1. Also provided is a six-foot bituminous path connecting to Homeward Hills Road and continuing throughout the site, thus allowing residents the ability to utilize the trail system. Minor changes have been made to the vehicular circulation, and include lessening the grade on some of the driveways, increasing the stacking distance of driveway access onto Homeward Hills Road, and eliminating a portion of the internal loop road adjacent to Homeward Hills Road. What this does is reduce the amount of impervious surface and grading, while allowing for the addition of some berming and landscaping, thus increasing the "attractiveness" of the proposed project. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.28 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.28 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 on 15.23 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 15.28 acres into one lot, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 6, 1985, and August 9, 1985, based on revised plans dated August 30, 1985, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: 1 Eden Pointe Apartments 4 September 6, 1985 Ir A. Modify the landscape plan to indicate a minimum evergreen tree size of eight feet, and an increase of planting materials between Buildings 7, 8, and 9, to help reduce the "tightness" of these structures. B. Submit plans for the garages and recreation building. C. Provide color samples of exterior materials for review. 2. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Submit an overall lighting plan, with details, for review. C. Submit an overall signage plan, with details, for review. 4. Prior to grading permit, proponent shall: A. Notify City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Stake the construction limits with an erosion control fence. C. Stake the grading limits with a snowfence. Any trees lost outside of the proposed grading limits shall be replaced on a cross- sectional trunk, area inch per area inch basis. ,' II STAFF REPORT ( TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: August 9, 1985 PROJECT: Eden Pointe Apartments LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills Road APPLICANT: Federated Development Corporation FEE OWNER: Mildred E. Tuckey REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.28 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances for exterior materials, for 15.28 acres 3. Rezoning from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 of 15.28 acres 4. Preliminary Plat of 15.28 acres into one lot Background '` ` IA& -- 1;'L „f This site is currently guided for `` \ Medium Density Residential land use f 11,126.2 ki +�. for up to ten units per acre. Surrounding land uses are Medium , �,:,.^= Density Residential to the east p26- PROPOSED SITE (Mill Creek Townhouses), single `1 6-4 J . family residential to the south an ■ a ',,,,, r west of the site, and Low Density ; �� •��,. (_ Residential and Church to the north m! ♦. �' of the site. II gam_ ', 10ea k. ,,� This site is part of a 32-acre a I _ /�N /j",r.Q" �.=. � cr._ Planned Unit Development g ` "� ve k�---; approved by the City in 1973. The _ ��,to4- ��', ._ ;� 32-acre Concept Plan included a l' - Q{ :-_.--� variety of uses, including a 12-acre -, � townhouse development on the eastern �_ 1-`L. •!f' .R ,,`J r y 7=_,_-Sg !- portion of the site and a 20-acre ,.� 'r ° r� terrace apartment/condominium de- velopment on the western portion of ' ` the site for six- and eight-unit \i buildings at a density of 8-10 units _ � - Per acre. I _, %is --1r - , i. . 1 / AREA LOCATION MAP 2 ti Eden Pointe Apartments 2 August 9, 1985 PUD Concept Amendment The proponents are requesting a PUD Concept Amendment to change the building type from six- and eight-unit buildings to 15-unit buildings. The larger buildings allow more open space to be consolidated in larger areas, and less site grading. The disadvantage to larger buildings would be a larger building mass. This, however, can be offset visually through use of a variety of building materials and architecture which helps visually reduce the building mass. Site Plan The site plan involves the construction of ten buildings, totalling 149 units. The Commission will note that the initial plans received indicated eleven buildings, which contained either twelve, thirteen, or fourteen units each. Based on input received at neighborhood meetings about the close proximity of the southern-most building and lack of transition, the proponent modified the site plan, eliminating one building and adding those units to the other buildings. Staff concurs that the southern-most building should be removed to provide greater setback and better transition to the existing neighborhood. This will not change the building foot print, but will change the front building elevations. The elimination of the 12 and 13-unit buildings means that all front elevations will be the same. This will be addressed in more detail in the architecture section. The density of the project, based on 15.28 acres, is 9.75 units per acre. The number of units approved under the PUD was 122-153 units. Building and parking areas meet minimum setback requirements for RM-2.5 zoning. The minimum separation between garages is 20 ft. and the minimum separation between buildings is 35 ft. RM-2.5 zoning would require the provision of two parking spaces per unit, for a total of 298 spaces. A total of 339 parking spaces are provided, including 160 garage spaces and 179 exterior spaces. Transition The approved PUD Concept Plan identified a buffer along the southern and western portions of the site adjacent to single family land uses. Sight sections provided by the proponent indicate a range in visual sight distance between homes in the Hillsborough Addition, west of the project, to buildings on this site of between 415 to 500 feet. Views from the second story homes in the Hillsborough Addition would be all garage fronts, detached garages, and parking spaces. Views of these buildings, although at a distance, are not broken up substantially through either grade changes, or plant materials, and since all front elevations are the same, the site plan could benefit from a combination of moving buildings farther down slope, substantial berming, and heavy landscaping. Sight lines from single family homes to the south of the project vary between 245 ft. to 445 ft. These views would also benefit from heavy mass plantings and herming to help break up the views of the buildings. Access Access to this site will be by driveway off Homeward Hills Road. Two driveway entrances are proposed: The first is 340 ft. south of County Road #I; the second C C Eden Pointe Apartments 3 August 9, 1985 driveway entrance aligns opposite Travois Road. There is a 430 ft., center to center, separation between the north and south entrances onto Homeward Hills Road. Sight vision distances in both directions from both driveways are adequate based upon a 40 mile per hour design speed. Homeward Hills Road currently has a 35 mile per hour speed limit. Internal circulation is through a loop road system serving the majority of the units, which provides for adequate emergency vehicle access, and a bypass, protected lane, which provides a more direct route to the end units on the project. Road grades, for the most part, vary between 2-4%; however, there are some short segments of 8% grades. The proximity of the internal bypass road to Homeward Hills Road at the north driveway entrance is not long enough to provide for adequate stacking distance and reaction time for easy turning movements. Staff expects that this situation will cause stacking problems onto Homeward Hills Road. Staff feels that the turning radii proposed are also too tight. Staff recommends that the site plan be modified to shift the bypass road approximately 60 ft. to the east to provide a minimum stacking distance of 100 feet. This will provide for better stacking distance and will also reduce the 8% road grades south of this driveway entrance. Staff expects that the change in road alignment will also cause a subsequent change in the site plan pushing adjacent buildings to the east. ( Traffic A total of 900 trips per day will be generated from this site based on a trip generation ratio of six trips per unit. Staff would expect that the majority of trips would travel northbound on Homeward Hills Road and from that point east, or west on County Road #1 to County Road #18, or Highway #169, since the desired travel line in the morning would be towards the major work centers of the Metropolitan Area. AM-PM Peak Hour Traffic will be approximately 10% of the total daily traffic, or 90 trips. Homeward Hills Road is a collector street, with 66 ft. of right-of-way in a 32-ft. wide road surface. Architecture Ten buildings are proposed, nine of which will contain 15 units, and one building in the northeast corner of the site will contain 14 units. All of the buildings will have the same basic foot print and exterior elevations. All buildings will be two- and three-story walk-outs, with the two-story elements above garages facing the exteriors of the site and the three-story element oriented towards the Mill Creek project to the east. Changing from an eleven to ten-building plan eliminates the 12 and 13-unit plans with one and two-story elements above the garages which Staff believes added variety to the project. This means that all front elevations are the same, creating a repetitive appearance. In order to add variety to the front building elevations, Staff would suggest an equal mix of 12, 13, and 14-unit buildings. With a 10-building plan, this would mean a reduction of at least 14 units. The size of the buildings would be comparable in scale, but somewhat shorter in length than buildings in the Village Greens project. The Village Greens project was approved at 9.5 units per acre, with a basic foot print of 55 ft. by 150 ft. The proposed Eden Pointe buildings are approximately 55 ft. wide and 120 ft. long. Eden Pointe Apartments 4 August 9, 1985 { The primary exterior building material proposed is wood, with some stucco as an accent material. For RM-2.5 zoning, the Code permits up to 25% of the exterior elevation of the building to be wood, with primary building materials being brick, glass, or stone. The use of wood siding would require a variance, which may be processed under a PUD District Review. The proponent has not adequately substantiated the request for variance. Staff feels that, because of the rental nature of the project, as opposed to home ownership, wood should be limited to 25% of the building exterior to help insure that the project will be maintained in an attractive condition for some time to come. Since all buildings will be the same shape and size, Staff feels that different material colors within a common scheme should be considered to add variety. Detached garages should reflect the same architectural style and exterior materials as the main buildings. Grading The use of walk-out units on this site in a two-tiered, linear fashion allows units to be tucked into the hillside and minimizes the amount of overall grading. Regraded slope areas are, in general, about 5/1. Some slopes adjacent to Homeward Hills Road are at 2/1. Landscaping For a project of this size, the Code would require the provision of 567 caliper r inches. The landscape plan indicates a total of 623 caliper inches. Parking areas are proposed to be screened by a privacy fence and plant materials. The privacy fence is a stockade type, constructed out of cedar. The fence will not be stained and will weather to a light gray color. The use of fencing to screen parking areas makes sense; however, Staff does not think that the stockade type fencing relates architecturally to the project and will present a long-term maintenance problem. Staff would suggest a brick wall or a more decorative type fence with brick pillars properly stained. The fencing should be jogged and supplemented with heavy plantings to create visual interest. Utilities Sewer and water service can be provided to this site. There is an existing twelve- inch watermain aligned along the western and northern sides of the property. There is a 50 ft. sanitary sewer easement for a 66-inch sanitary sewer pipe running through the center of the project. A permit will be required through the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for a connection to this sewer pipe and to allow any grading, or parking areas, within the easement area. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the project and recommends that watermains have a minimum size of six inches, six fire hydrants be added, looping of the watermains, and sprinkling of all buildings be required. The proponent should contact the Fire Marshall for the location of the hydrants and looping of the watermains. Storm water run-off is proposed to sheet drain across the parking areas and private drives into catch basins. There are three major storm sewer lines that will be (, constructed with this project to carry the storm water run-off down to a ponding area in the southeast corner of the site. There will be an overflow control structure, which will control the rate of storm water run-off into a ditch and Eden Pointe Apartments 5 August 9, 1985 "a overland swale system that also serves as a drain for the pond to the east of the site. The ultimate discharge of the water would be into Purgatory Creek. All proposed overland run-off should be through storm sewer pipe connected directly to the sedimentation pond as opposed to open swales. Pedestrian Systems There is an existing eight-foot wide bituminous trail along Homeward Hills Road. The City's overall pedestrian system plan identifies a need for an eight-foot wide bituminous trail along the south side of County Road #1. A six-foot wide bituminous trail is proposed. This should be changed to an eight-foot wide trail. There should also be an internal private pedestrian system which links the buildings to the trails•on the perimeter of the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the repetitive appearance of exterior building elevations, primary sight lines into the project of garage fronts and parking spaces and lack of an appropriate visual and physical transition to adjoining single family land uses, Staff would recommend that the development plans be returned to the proponent for revisions based on the following guidelines: 1. Modify the site plan to provide an equal mixture of 12, 13, and 14-unit buildings. This would mean a reduction of 14 units, from 153 to 139. This is a density reduction from 9.75 to 9.1D units per acre. 2. Modify the site plan to provide a minimum of 100 feet of stacking distance between the private loop road and Homeward Hills Road from the north driveway entrance. 3. Modify the site plan to include an eight-foot wide bituminus trail along County Road #1 and an internal pedestrian system linking buildings to site perimeter trails. 4. Modify the site, grading, and landscape plans to provide a more appropriate visual and physical transition to adjacent single family uses, through a combination of increased setback, substantial berming, and heavy landscaping. 5. Modify exterior building elevations to be in compliance with a 25% maximum wood materials on any one wall. Provide color samples of exterior materials • which include a variety of colors within a common scene. 6. Modify the fence detail to include brick walls, decorative fences with brick pillars or a combination thereof. MINUTES jr1 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 9, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett (7:35 p.m.), Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula MEMBER ABSENT: Julianne Bye STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDEN POINTE APARTMENTS, by Eden Pointe Partnership. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 15.3 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 15.3 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 on 15.3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres into one lot for construction of 143 apartment units in nine buildings. Location: Southeast quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills Road. A continued public hearing. This item had been continued from the August 12, 1985, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow proponents to redesign the plans responsive to the concerns of the Commission, surrounding residents, and Staff. Mr. Peter Beck, representing proponents, reviewed the history of the project to date. He then noted the changes which had been made to the plan, including: The project had now been reduced to 143 units; the most southern building had been removed from the plan and units from that building had been included within other structures on the property, creating different building types and architectural variety; the interior road had been redesigned to allow for greater stacking distance to Homeward Hills Road; a pedestrian system had been added for internal circulation; a greater buffer Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 9, 1985 had been created to the existing single family residents to the west and south, including increased setback and increased plant materials; building materials were modified to include 75% brick; fencing was eliminated and replaced by landscaping materials; trash enclosures of architecturally compatible materials had been added; and, grades of the driveways had been reduced to 5-6% for the south driveway and 8% for the north driveway. Mr. Beck stated that the distances between buildings for the redesigned project were also increased, in order that no unit was looking into another unit. Mr. Beck noted that 70% of the property would be in open space. Regarding the concern of the neighborhood raised at the previous meeting dealing with the impact of apartment units on single family residences, Mr. 8eck stated that proponents had reviewed other projects in other communities. He indicated that proponents had found that a project of the type and quality they were proposing had ro negative impacts on single family neighborhoods in terms of value of the single family properties. Mr. Beck stated that all of the conditions listed in the Staff Report were acceptable to the proponents, and that they would be willing to comply with these items. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report regarding the project. He stated that Staff was still concerned about the f` closeness of the two buildings at the northeast corner of the project. Planner Enger reported that he had discussed the matter of the icy road conditions of Homeward Hills Road with the Director of Public Works. Upon review of, the Director did not find any record of complaints for the road. The Director of Public Works also indicated that there would be no significant impact on such road conditions based on the difference between 103 and 143 units on the property. Planner Enger stated that he had also discussed the matter of potential crime problems with the Public Safety Department. They informed him that their studies had shown that when a neighborhood loses its identity, i.e. neighbors stop recognizing each others cars, or do not know each other, crime increases. With respect to this project, Public Safety noted that these were small buildings, with a greater chance for residents within each structure recognizing each other, and therefore, would likely not be a location for crime to increase. The Public Safety Department also informed Planning Staff that there was no evidence to support any conclusion that multiple family developments bring an increase in crime to adjacent single family neighborhoods. Marhula asked if this project had been reviewed by the Mill Creek Homeowners' Association, or if it was required to be. Mr. Beck responded that he had reviewed their bylaws and did not find any such provision. However, he noted that all of the residents in the Mill Creek development were notified of the neighborhood meetings held by the developer. Marhula asked if this western portion of the Mill Creek Planned Unit Development had been approved prior to the development of the single family neighborhoods to the west and south. Planner Enger stated that the entire n 1l1 1 i Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 9, 1985 Mill Creek development had been approved in 1973, while the single family residential neighborhoods to the west and south had been approved in 1978 and 1979. Dodge stated that she felt brick was a preferable exterior material to what was previously proposed. Mr. Greg DuMonceaux, 9733 Mill Creek Drive, stated that he would have a clear view of the project from his home in Mill Creek. He stated that he was aware that there would be more development to the west and that he thought most of the residents of Mill Creek were also aware that development of this property was expected, and that the type of development would be Medium Density Residential. Mr. DuMonceaux stated that he felt it was a good project and that the developers had been sensitive to the views of the property from Mill Creek. He added that he felt the exterior materials shown presented a positive image of the project. Mr. Mark Boomgaarden, 11870 Runnel Circle, indicated that he was concerned about the zoning of the property. He stated that he felt the density should be less than proposed. Mr. Boomgaarden also expressed concerns for the proposed holding pond in the southeast corner of the property, traffic, and road improvements that may be required by the development of this property. Ms. Jan Daly, 12260 Travois Road, stated that she agreed with the concerns of Mr. Boomgaarden, adding that she did not feel the developer had proven a case for the need of more apartments in the City of Eden Prairie, particularly in this location. Ms. Daly stated that she was still uncomfortable about the possible increase in crime in her neighborhood. Mr. Ken Meyer, 9741 Portal Drive, stated that he would prefer lower density on the site. He added that he preferred the proposed brick exterior materials for the development. Mr.Greg Damlo, 12117 Cartway Curve, asked about the future upgrading of Homeward Hills Road. He questioned whether the upgraded road would be located "closer" to the existing single family residents, or to the proposed multiple family development. He asked that the City consider not locating the upgraded road closer to the single family residents on the west side of Homeward Hills Road. Mr. Damlo stated that he preferred the proposed brick exterior materials and that he would like to see a minimum percentage of brick required on the structures. Planner Enger stated that City Code required 75% of the structure to be brick, unless a variance was granted. He noted that Staff was not supporting such a variance. Ms. Linda Rudberg, 12100 Travois Road, stated that she supported the use of brick as an exterior material for the property. She asked for more information as to the impact of this development on the value of their homes. Mr. Marty Mehl, 9821 Laguna Circle, stated that he appreciated that the developers had removed the south-most building from the development, and that he favored brick as an exterior materials for the property. He indicated that his major concern was the density of the project and the potential for increased crime, road improvements, public services, etc. i Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 9, 1985 caused by more people in one place. Mr. Mehl stated that he felt the project would be better for the existing residents if it were in private ownership, instead of available for rental. Mr. Oamlo asked how many units would be allowed under RM-6.5 zoning. Planner Enger estimated that it would be approximately 108 units. Marhula stated that he felt Staff should review the plans for upgrading of Homeward Hills Road to determine whether additional right-of-way was necessary from this development and to determine the location of the road bed within the right-of-way. Marhula stated that he felt the question of density for any project should be looked at carefully. He stated that there could be a difference between density and the number of units for a particular project. Marhula stated that less units would not necessarily mean a better project. For example, an RM-6.5 zone could possibly be the appropriate zoning for a ten-story apartment building. The density may be allowable under the RM-6.5 zone, but the design of the project may not be completely acceptable for the area. Chairman Schuck stated that the City could not control whether the units were rental, or not, any more than the City could control whether a single family home was rented out. Regarding the proposed priding in the southeast quadrant of the property, Planner Enger stated that most of the projects within the City provided a sedimentation pond for stormwater run-off purposes. At this point, it was still possible to proceed either way with the pond for the southeast portion of the property, i.e. it could be an open water pond, or a pond which would hold water only temporarily during wet times of the year. Mr. Beck stated that proponents would be willing to work with the neighborhood to determine what type of pond would be most acceptable to them, prior to Council review of the project. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Pointe Partnership for Planned Unit Oevelopment Concept Amendment on 15.3 acres for construction of 143 apartment units in nine buildings, based on revised plans dated August 30, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 9, and September 6, 1985. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 9, 1985 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Pointe Partnership for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 on 15.3 acres for construction of 143 apartment units in nine buildings, based on revised plans dated August 30, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 9, and September 6, 1985, and with the following added conditions: 1d. Redesign the elevations to provide for 75% brick per City Code requirements; le. Review the design plans for the upgrading of Homeward Hills Road and the impact of the future design on both the existing single family homes to the west and the proposed development. The location of the road bed within the right-of-way may be more towards the east; and if. Modify the landscape plan to provide additional berming and plantings along the south portion of the property; 1g. Determine the type of stormwater holding pond to be constructed in the southeast portion of the property after conferring with the residents to the south of the project and the City Engineering Department. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Pointe Partnership for Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres for construction of 143 apartment units in nine buildings, based on revised plans dated August 30, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 9, and September 6, 1985, and with the following added conditions: id. Redesign the elevations to provide for 75% brick per City Code requirements; le. Review the design plans for the upgrading of Homeward Hills Road and the impact of the future design on both the existing single family homes to the west and the proposed development. The location of the road bed within the right-of-way may be more towards the east; and lf. Modify the landscape plan to provide additional berming and plantings along the south portion of the property; 1g. Determine the type of stormwater holding pond to be constructed in the southeast portion of the property after conferring with the residents to the south of the project and the City Engineering Department. Motion carried--6-0-0 MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 12, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye (8:15) Christine Dodge, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula MEMBER ABSENT: Virginia Gartner STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner, Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant; Don Uram, Assistant Planner Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Dodge to adopt the agenda, as printed, with the following amendment to the order of items: Item IV.B., Item IV.A. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to approve the minutes of the July 22, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried--3-0-2 (Dodge and Marhula abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS B. EDEN POINTE APARTMENTS, by Eden Pointe Partnership. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review, with variances, on 15.3 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 on 15.3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres into one lot for construction of a 149-unit apartment complex in 11 buildings. Location: South of County Road #1, East of Homeward Hills Road. A public hearing. Planner Enger explained that the question of the zoning for the site had been raised at the time of application for development of this property. It had been assumed that the property was zoned Rural. However, upon checking i 9 r Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 12, 1985 f the legal description for rezoning of the eastern portion of the Mill Creek development, it was determined that the legal description for the overall Planned Unit Development of this property, including both the developed Mill Creek site and the proposed Eden Pointe Apartments site, not just the eastern portion of the site, had inadvertently been published. This "incorrect" legal description resulted in the rezoning of all of this property to RM-6.5. Mr. Peter Beck, attorney for proponents, stated that proponents had reviewed the Staff Report for this item and agreed that a continuance would be in order. He stated that proponents had made efforts to meet with the neighborhood to introduce them to the project and to find out what their concerns may be. At a meeting with the neighborhood held on July 10, 1985, Mr. Beck stated that the neighbors had raised a number of concerns, including concerns about the southern-most building on the property and that the landscaping and screening of that structure from the neighborhood to the south. Mr. Beck noted that a second neighborhood meeting had been held the week prior to the Planning Commission meeting, at which time, revised plans were presented to the neighbors. He stated that, at that time, one of the major concerns of the existing residents was that of the rental nature of the project. Mr. Beck stated that it was the intention of the proponents to develop the property of a rental project, and that, while the potential conversion to condominiums was possible in the future, it was not planned at this time. r Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of August 9, 1985. Concerns noted by Staff in their report included landscaping, screening, exterior materials, trail systems, and internal pedestrian system within the project. Hallett asked what their rental price would be of the units. Mr. Jack Brandt, proponent, stated that the rents would be between $525 to $630. He stated that the proponents were attempting to stay on the high end of the Twin Cities Area rental units in terms of quality for the units. Mr. Brandt noted that all units were either one or two-bedroom units. Hallett asked about run-off into the pond, in particular, the effect fertilizer might have on this pond. Mr. John Bergly, Wehrman and Associates, representing proponent, discussed the storm water drainage system proposed for the development. He noted an area where temporary storage would be located in the southeast corner of the property. Hallett asked about traffic in this vicinity and the impact that development of this parcel would have upon traffic conditions currently. Planner Enger responded that Hennepin County expected to upgrade County Road #1 to a four- lane road eventually. No time table for the upgrading was available at this time. 1 1 Ms. Jan Daly, 12260 Travois Road, expressed concern regarding the rental i nature of the development and the maintenance of the property. Mr. Robert Daly, 12260 Travois Road, stated that he felt this rental project would change the nature of the entire neighborhood due to the transient nature of apartment dwellers. He stated that he was also concerned about traffic problems at the intersection of Homeward Hills Road and County Road U T Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 12, 1985 Ir #1. Mr. Daly questioned the need for this type of building in the City of Eden Prairie. Mr. Paul Rudberg, 12100 Travois Road, stated that winter storms were a matter of great concern in this area due to the ice build-up on Homeward Hills Road. He stated that he did not feel that adding more cars to this area would help that type of situation. Ms. Linda Rudberg, 12100 Travois Road, stated that, at one of the neighborhood meetings, the developer had informed them that rental property would bring up the value of their homes. She stated that she did not believe that this was true. Ms. Mary Damlo, 12117 Cartway Curve, stated that she agreed with the concerns of the previous speakers. In particular, she expressed concern for the winter road conditions in this area. Mr. Greg Damlo, 12117 Cartway Curve, stated that he, too, disagreed with the need for more apartments in Eden Prairie. He stated that he felt the City had plenty of apartment units available and that there were enough smaller units in this area of the community. Mr. Damlo also expressed concern for the winter icy road conditions. Mr. Dennis Perry, 9661 Portal Drive, stated that wood had been stolen from his home. He expressed concern that this type of incident would increase with development of apartment units in this area. Mr. Dan Noethe, 9861 Laguna Circle, expressed concern about the density of the project and the impact of that density on traffic in the area. He stated tha t his main concern was the fact that this would be a rental project and how that would impact the neighborhood in the future. Mr. Noethe also expressed concern about the potential for burglaries and thefts if apartment units were built in this area. Mr. Mike Denny, 9810 Laguna Circle, stated that he agreed with the concerns of the previous speakers. Mr. Mark Utne, 9881 Laguna Circle, stated that he, too, agreed with the concerns of the previous speakers. Mr. Mark Boomgaarden, 11670 Runnel Circle, suggested that the proponents could design the development to better fit the existing densities in this area, as opposed to being the highest density project in this vicinity. Mr. Ken Meyer, 9741 Portal Drive, also expressed concern regarding the density of the project as proposed. He noted that the south access to the proposed development along Homeward Hills Road was at the point where Homeward Hills Road was the steepest, which could cause potential "bottlenecking" of the traffic for all the residents in this area. Mr. Teri Koch, 9728 Portal Drive, questioned what would happen to the views of the existing residents to the ponding to the east. She stated that she was concerned that the development of this property as proposed would cause the devaluation of her property. fir; Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 12, 1985 { Mr. Chris Awes, 9721 Portal Drive, stated that he agreed with the concerns 1 of the previous speakers. • Mr. Peter Horn, 9641 Portal Drive, expressed concern for compatability of the exterior materials with those already existing in the area, in particular, the Mill Creek area. He stated that he felt that the last revision made by the proponents, eliminating one building and adding the units from that building to the other buildings on the property, resulted in the loss of architectural variety for the project. Mr. William Warner, 9751 Portal Drive, stated that he agreed with the concerns expressed by previous speakers. He asked if some of the concerns raised by the neighbors would be reviewed and responded to by Staff in the near future. Chairman Schuck stated that Staff would try to have answers to all of their questions at the next Planning Commission meeting. Marhula asked when the Hillsborough neighborhood had been approved and whether they had been aware of the potential development of Mill Creek West (the property under discussion) at the time of that approval. Planner Enger responded that the Hillsborough neighborhood had been approved in approximately 1978 and that the plans for Mill Creek West had been known about at that time. Marhula asked if the City had adequate right-of-way for the widening of Homeward Hills Road. Planner Enger responded that there was adequate right- of-way, and, with this project, the total amount of right-of-way would be approximately 80 feet. Marhula asked about the concerns listed in the Staff Report. Planner Enger responded that transition to the north, south, and west of the project was one of the major concerns. He stated that it was Staff's opinion that it would take more than just landscaping, or screening with plant materials, or fencing, in order to provide adequate transition. Staff was suggesting a site planning solution as the best alternative available in order to provide transition in these directions. Hallett stated that he felt lower density may be an answer to the concerns of Staff and the neighbors. He stated that he did not feel that developers needed to always be at the top end of the range of density provided for a site. Marhula stated that he agreed with Hallett. He noted that it appeared from the site plan that some of the units could possibly be looking into other buildings and that perhaps the site plan could be "loosened" to provide better living space for the future residents. MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Dodge, to continue the public hearing on this item to the September 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent opportunity to revise their plans in accordance with the concerns presented at the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 1985. Motion carried--5-0-1 (Bye abstained) ci C To: Mayor and City Council From: John D. Frane/Finance Director Date: September 26, 1985 Re: Public Hearing on the use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds This hearing is required under Revenue Sharing rules even though the status of Revenue Sharing is uncertain because. of Federal tax legislation. The City has designated that funds be used for Public Safety purposes which is one of the allowable uses. No action other than the hearing is required. • l To: Mayor and City Council From: John D. Frane/Finance Director Date: September 26, 1985 Re: Housing Revenue Bonds for Prairie Village Apartments Phase I $2,226,000 Resolution 85-224 This project consists of 56 "Market Rate" units as opposed to the 56 units of subsidized elderly in Phase II. The project was approved by the City on August 20, 1985. Resolution 85-224 is included for your consideration. C JI CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Application for Housing Bond Financing 1. APPLICANT: A. Business Name: Mandara Company, or a limited partnership of which it will be a general partner B. Business Address: 1650 Shelard Tower 600 County Road 18 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 1 C. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc. ): corporation or limited partnership D. State of incorporation or organization: Minnesota E. Authorized Representative: Richard C. Krier F. Phone: - (612) 546-2276 2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: A. General Partner: Mandara Company, a Minnesota corporation, whose sole stockholder is Roger D. 1 Derrick 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC.: The development, construction, ownership, and management of multifamily rental housing projects. 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A. Location and intended use: Project will be a multifamily housing development and will be constructed on land located just east of the northeast corner of Highway 5 and County Road 4 in Eden Prairie. B. Present ownership of project site: Project site is currently owned by Dennis Gonyea. Developer has executed a purchase agreement to acquire the site. C. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor: 1. Architect 1 Tushie-Montgomery Associates, Inc. 6440 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 1 Engineer - Sunde Engineering, Inc. 10524 Zion Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 General Contractor and Managing Agent 1 Mark Z. Jones & Associates, Inc. 5920 Villa Way Edina, Minnesota 55437 5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: Land and Site Improvements $ 222,800 Construction contracts 1,877,790 Equipment acquisition and installation* 0 Architectural and Engineering 58,970 Legal fees (including bond issue) 58,000 Interest during construction 63,330 Market study, appraisal, survey, 1 soil tests 5,500 Taxes, insurance during construction, title 35,000 Bond reserve 106,000 Contingencies 53,695 SAC/WAC/Park Permits 75,600 y Costs of issuance (discount, lender's fee, trustee's fee, printing costs, rating fee) 128,050 TOTAL $2,684,735 *Heating and air conditioning should be included as building costs. Indicate the kind of equipment to be acquired here. 6. APPLICANT'S EQUITY IN PROJECT $ 458,735 7. BOND ISSUE: A. Amount of proposed bond issue: $2,226,000. B. Proposed date of sale of bond: November 1985 C. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities: No longer than 40 years. 2. 1 D. Proposed original purchaser of bonds: Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Incorporated. r E. Name and address of trustee: To be determined. 1 F. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original purchaser: None executed yet. 1 G. Describe any interim financing sought or available: None sought. 1 H. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing: No additional permanent financing. 8. BUSINESS PROFILE: 1 A. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No. B. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? 1 1. Before this project: None. 2. After this project: 3 permanent; approximately { 25 construction-related. C. Approximate gross sales: $4,603,451. D. Length of time in business: Approximately 14 years. E. Length of time in business in Eden Prairie: Not applicable. F. Do you have facilities in other locations? If so, where? No other facilities. G. Are you engaged in international trade? No. 9. OTHER INDUSTRIAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S): A. [Reference to "Applicant" includes applicant as owner, substantial user, or as a related person within meaning of section 103(b)(6) of I.R.C. 3. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial or housing development project(s) in which the Applicant is the owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a • "related person." Lakeland Joint Venture Project, Willmar, Minnesota. 3. Ir B. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested industrial or housing revenue development financing. Applicant has requested such financing in Richfield, Bloomington, and Willmar, Minnesota. C. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before any other city for industrial or housing development revenue financing. Lakeland Joint Venture Project, Willmar - bonds issued. Southwood Project, Bloomington - inducement resolution from the City has been obtained; housing bonds will be issued in August. Market Plaza Project, Richfield - industrial revenue bonds issued. 1 Market Plaza Project, Richfield - housing bonds to be issued in July. D. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused iJ industrial or housing development revenue financing. None. E. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in which final approval authorizing the financing has been denied. None. F. If Applicant has been denied industrial or housing development revenue financing in any other city as identified in (D) or (E), specify the reason(s) for the denial and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who have knowledge of the transaction. Not applicable. 10. NAMES, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE: A. Underwriter (if public offering) 1. Name: Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Incorporated. 2. Address: 1500 Piper Jaffray Tower, 222 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. 4. 3. Telephone Number: (612) 342-6665. 4. Contact Person: Terry McNellis. B. Private Placement Purchaser (if private placement) 1. Name: 2. Address: 3. Telephone Number: NOTE: If lender will not commit until City has passed its preliminary resolution approving the project, submit a letter from proposed lender that it has an interest in the offering subject to appropriate City approval and approval of the proper state agency. C. Bond Counsel: 1. Name: Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 2. Address: 1500 Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 3. Telephone Number: (612) 835-3800 4. Contact Person: Sherrill 0. Kuretich D. Corporate Counsel: 1. Name: Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 2. Address: 2000 Piper Jaffray Tower, 222 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 3. Telephone Number: (612) 338-6610 4. Contact Person: David C. Sellergren E. Accountant: 1. Name: Julius & Nordstrom, Ltd. 2. Address: Fox Meadows Office Park, 3140 Harbor Lane North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 3. Telephone Number: (612) 559-0155 4. Contact Person: Mery Nordstrom 5. 11. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: (" A. Construction start: November 30, 1985 {! B. Construction completion: Approximately nine months after construction start. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard C. Krier Vice President The Derrick Companies 1650 Shelard Tower 600 County Road 18 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 1 (612) 546-2276 The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development or Housing bond financing does not expressly or impliedly constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property included in this Project. a APPLICANT: ) PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP • BY: MANDARA COMPANY, its General Partner / BY: E<;�� (r ,v Roger D) Derrick, President Date: �� 12. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. A. Property is zoned: B. Present zoning (is) (is not) correct for the intended use. 6. 1 PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS 1 PRO FORMA } INCOME Type of Unit No. Monthly Rent Income 1 BR 11 $518 $ 5,698 1 BR 16 $565 9,040 1 BR/DEN 12 $621 7,452 2 BR 17 $643 10,931 33,121 56 Laundry at $8 448 3 x 12 Total Annual Income 402,828 Vac. 5% 20,141 Adjusted Gross Income $382,687 1 EXPENSES Estimated at $2,593 per unit 145,208 Income before Debt 237,479 with Housing Bonds: Debt (exclusive debt service reserve account) $2,120,000 at 9.5% 213,916 (30 years) Cash Flow $23,563 Income before Debt $237,479 without Housing Bonds: Debt $2,120,000 at 13% (30 year amortization with 15 year balloon) 281,417 Cash Flow $(43,938) {{ t ! RESOLUTION NO. Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS OR NOTES PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT; ADOPTING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE HOUSING PROGRAM TO THE 1 MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden 1 Prairie, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. ( 1.01. Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the Act), the City is authorized to issue and sell revenue 1 bonds or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one or more multifamily housing developments within its boundaries. 1.02. The Act provides that the City may make or purchase loans to finance one or more developments of the kinds described in Subdivisions 2, 3, 4, and 7 of Section 462C.05 of the Act upon adoption of a program setting forth the information required by Subdivision 6 of Section 462C.05 of the Act, after a public hearing held thereon, and after approval thereof by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, as provided in Section 462C.04, Subdivision 2, of the Act on the basis of the considerations stated therein. 1 1.03. Representatives of Mandara Company, or a limited partnership of which it will be a general partner (the Developer) have advised this Council that the Developer proposes to construct a multifamily residential housing development on approximately three and one-quarter acres of land owned by the Developer, located just east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 4 in the City, composed of 56 apartment units and other functionally related and subordinate facilities and to operate the facilities as a multifamily housing development under the Act, to be known as Prairie Village Apartments, Phase II (the Project). At least twenty percent (20%) of the units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are not greater than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income. Development and financing costs of the Project are presently estimated by representatives of the Developer to be approximately Two Million Six Hundred Eighty-four Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-five Dollars ($2,684,735). i 1.04. Representatives of the Developer have requested that the City issue its revenue bonds or other obligations in the approximate aggregate face amount of Two Million Two Hundred Twenty-six Thousand Dollars ($2,226,000) (the Bonds or Notes), pursuant to the Act, and make a loan of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds or Notes to the Developer for the acquisition of land for and the construction and equipping of the Project, subject to agreement by the Developer, or other persons or institutions, to promptly pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds or Notes. 1.05. The City has been advised by representatives of the Developer that conventional commercial financing of the costs of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of the Project would be significantly affected, but that with the aid of municipal financing the Project will be more economically feasible. 1.06. This Council has been advised by representatives of Piper, Jaffray, & Hopwood Incorporated, representing the Developer, that on the basis of information available to them, the Project is economically feasible, and the Bonds could be successfully issued and sold. 1.07. Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the City nor any property of the City will be pledged to the payment of the Bonds. The Bonds are to be paid from the { revenues of the Project. 1.08. The City has caused to be prepared a program for the proposed Project (the Program) under the Act which has been presented to this Council, and which contains information demonstrating the need for the Project, stating the method of financing proposed and that the Project is to be acquired, constructed, and equipped pursuant to Subdivision 2, Section 462C.05 of the Act. 1.09. Pursuant to the requirements of the Act and Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), a public hearing has been held relating to the Program proposed by the Developer under the Act, including the proposed issuance of the Bonds, after proper publication of notice of the public hearing in accord with the requirements of the Act and the Code. 1.10. The applicant has agreed to pay, directly or through the City, any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, whether or not the Project is carried to completion, and whether or not the Bonds or Notes are executed and issued. 1.11. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the 2. 1 1 Bonds or Notes as requested by the applicant. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds or Notes should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds or Notes or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. 1.12. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the condition that by October 1, 1986, the City and the applicant shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement pursuant to which the Developer will agree to pay to the City principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds or Notes, and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds or Notes and their issuance and sale. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth above, or any extension thereof, and the Bonds or Notes are not sold within such time, this resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. { Section 2. Approval and Authorization 2.01. The Program is hereby adopted by the City pursuant to Section 462C.05, Subd. 5 of the Act. The Mayor and the other officers, employees, and agents of the City are hereby authorized to prepare and execute the required certifications and to take such other actions as they deem necessary or advisable in order to submit the Program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for review and approval in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 2.02. It is hereby found and determined based upon the information presented to this Council by the representatives of the Developer that it would be in the best interests of the City to issue the Bonds under the provisions of the Act in order to finance costs to be incurred by the Developer in the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the described facilities. The City hereby gives its preliminary approval to the issuance of the Bonds in the approximate aggregate face amount of Two Million Two Hundred Twenty-six Thousand Dollars ($2,226,000), subject to the review and approval of the Program by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency under the provisions of the Act and subject to the City, the Developer, and the purchaser of the Bonds reaching definitive agreement and the provisions for their payment. 2.03. The City Attorney, the Mayor, the City Manager and other officers, employees, and agents of the City are authorized, in cooperation with bond counsel, to initiate the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to evidence the terms of all agreements for payment of the Bonds, and the provisions for payment of the principal of, the premium if any, and interest on the Bonds. 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this 1st day of October, 1985. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The Motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. ) STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on October 1, 1985, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true, and complete transcript thereof. Witness, my hand officially as such Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 1985. • John Frane City Clerk (SEAL) 4 SOK:AV9 d 1 Prairie Village Apartments, Phase I Construction of a Multifamily Housing Development Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the Act), the } City of Eden Prairie (the City) has been authorized to develop, plan, and administer programs of making construction and long- 1 term financing loans to finance multifamily housing developments located within its boundaries, under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth in the Act. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 provides that such programs for multifamily housing developments may be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City. j In creating its multifamily housing finance program, the City Council of the City has found and determined that the preservation and enhancement of the high quality of life in the 1 City is dependent upon the maintenance and provision of adequate, decent, safe, and sanitary housing stock; that accomplishing the provision of such housing stock is a public purpose and will benefit the citizens of the City; that a need exists within the City to provide in a timely fashion additional and affordable housing to persons residing and expected to reside in the City; that a need exists for mortgage credit to be made available for the new construction of additional multifamily housing; that a need exists to encourage elderly and low income housing projects; that a need exists to encourage development of a variety of living and working environments for all kinds of people by holding development costs down; that a need exists to encourage a variety of housing types and prices through innovative architecture and land use mixes; and that a need exists to encourage development of a variety of living and working environments for all people of all ages, races, and income groups. 1- The City has received a proposal from Mandara Company or a limited partnership in which Mandara Company will be a general partner (the Developer) that, pursuant to the authority found in the Act, the City approve a program providing for the construction of approximately fifty-six (56) units of rental housing (Housing Units) to be located on land legally described as: Part of Outlots B and Outlot C, Gonyea 4th Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which land is located just east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 4 in the City. The project is to be funded through one issue of revenue bonds, to be issued by the City for the acquisition of land for and the construction and equipping of the project. The acquisition of land for and construction and equipping of the Housing Units is hereinafter referred to as the Project. It is proposed that the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) be either sold publicly 1. through an underwriter or privately placed as a tax-exempt mortgage, depending upon the condition of the bond market at the time of the issuance of the Bonds, and that the Bonds, if sold publicly, include some form of credit enhancement, such as collateral, insurance, or a letter of credit to provide a Standard & Poor's rating of no less than "A." Following construction of the Project, the Developer will own and operate the Project as a multifamily residential rental project. The { fifty-six (56) Housing Units will be one and two bedroom apartments, of which at least twenty percent (20%) of the Housing Units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose Adjusted Gross Incomes are not greater than eighty percent (80%) of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan statistical area median income. It is estimated that rents for the one-bedroom Housing Units will be between Five Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($518) and Five Hundred Sixty-five Dollars ($565), and for the two-bedroom Housing Units will be between Six Hundred Twenty- 1 One Dollars ($621), and Six Hundred Forty-three Dollars ($643) per month. The City, in establishing this multifamily housing program (the Program), has considered generally available information regarding conditions in the housing industry and the information contained in the City's 462C Housing Plan, adopted on October 30, 1978, as amended February 2, 1982 (the Housing Plan), including particularly (i) the availability and affordability of other government housing programs; (ii) the availability and affordability of private market financing for the acquisition of land for and construction of multifamily housing units; (iii) an analysis of population and employment trends and projections of future population trends and future employment needs; (iv) the recent housing trends and future housing needs of the City; and (v) an analysis of how the 4 Program will meet the needs of persons and families residing and expected to reside in the City. The City, in adopting this Program, has further considered (i) the amount, timing, and sale of bonds to finance the estimated amount of construction and mortgage loans to be made under the Program, to fund the appropriate reserves and to pay the cost of issuance; (ii) the method of monitoring and implementation of the Program to assure compliance with the City's Housing Plan and its objectives; (iii) the method of administering, servicing, and supervising the Program; (iv) the cost to the City, including future administrative expenses; (v) the restrictions on the multifamily development to be financed under this Program; and (vi) certain other limitations. The City, in adopting this Program, considered the potential financing impact of bond issuance on affected public agencies. In addition, the City reviewed the method of marketing the Program. Such review examined the equal opportunity for participation by (i) minorities; (ii) households with incomes at the lower end of the range that can 2. be served by the Program; (iii) households displaced by public or private actions; (iv) families with children; and (v) accessibility to the handicapped. The Project will be constructed and financed pursuant to Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 462C.05 of the Act. Subsection A. Definitions The following terms used in this Program have the following meanings, respectively: (01) "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462C.01, et seq., as currently in effect and as the same may be from Etime to time amended. (02) "Adjusted Gross Income" means gross family income, less $750 for each adult in the family, to a maximum of two adults, and less $500 for each other dependent in the family. (03) "Agency" means the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, or any successor to its functions. (04) "Bonds" means the housing revenue bonds to be issued by the City to finance the Program and includes any and all other obligations payable as provided hereunder. 1, (05) "City" means the City of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, or any housing and redevelopment authority in and for the City authorized by resolution of the City Council to exercise, on its behalf, the powers conferred on the City under the Act. (06) "Developer" means Mandara Company or a limited partnership of which it will be a general partner. (07) "Housing Plan" means the City of Eden Prairie's 462C Housing Plan, adopted on October 30, 1978, setting forth certain information required by the Act. (08) "Housing Unit" means any one of the apartment units located in the Project, occupied by one person or family, and containing complete living facilities. (09) "Program" means this program for the financing of the Project pursuant to the Act. (10) "Project" means the fifty-six (56) unit multifamily rental housing project known as "Prairie Village Apartments" given approval by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 20, 1985, pursuant to a development proposal submitted by the Developer. 3. 1 Subsection B. Program For Financing the Project The City hereby establishes a Program to make a loan for construction financing and permanent mortgage financing for the Project. In establishing and carrying out such Program, the City may exercise, within the corporate limits of the City, any of the powers the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency is authorized to exercise under the provisions of Minnesota 1. Statutes, Chapter 462A. To do this, the City expects to issue Bonds, the proceeds of which will be loaned to the Developer for construction and initial financing of the Project. It is expected that a Trustee will be appointed by the City to monitor the construction of the Project and any payments of principal and interest on the Bonds. F The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of this Program. If required for the sale of the Bonds, the City will select a trustee for the Program and the bondholders that is experienced in trust management and has a large corporate trust portfolio. The trustee will administer and maintain the Bonds sold to finance the Program. The City will, however, incur administrative costs for which it will charge administrative fees of Eight Hundred Dollars ($800), plus one-eighth (1/8) of one percent (1%) annually, calculated 4 on the outstanding principal balance of the bonds on the date such fee is due. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager of the City to monitor all negotiations between the various parties taking part in the Program to ensure that the Program documents are consistent with the City's Housing Plan and the requirements of the City as set forth in this Section. Prior to the adoption of the resolutions authorizing the sale of Bonds to finance the Program, the City Manager shall report to the City Council his findings as to the consistency of the Program documents with the Housing Plan and the policies of the City contained in this Section. { It is contemplated that the Bonds shall have a maturity of no more than forty (40) years and will be priced to the market at the time of issuance. The Bonds will not be general obligation bonds of the City, but are expected to be paid from revenues and properties pledged to the payment thereof, which may include a credit enhancement item such as insurance or a letter of credit, or a mortgage or other encumbrance on the Project. Subsection C. Local Contributions to the Program It is not contemplated that any additional financing or contributions will be needed for the completion of the Project, or for the operation of the Program, other than the bond issue described above. 4. 1. Subsection D. Standards and Requirements Relating to the Financing of the Project Pursuant to the Program ( The following standards and requirements shall apply with respect to the operation of the Project by the Developer pursuant to this Program: (01) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used to provide funds for the construction of the Project, which will include approximately fifty-six (56) market rate residential units. The proceeds of the Bonds will be made available to the Developer pursuant to the terms of the Bond offering, which will include certain covenants to be entered into between the City and the Developer. (02) The Developer or owner of the Project will not arbitrarily reject an application from a proposed tenant because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or status with regard to public assistance or disability. (03) Each dwelling unit within the Project must be used primarily for residential purposes. (04) No Housing Unit may be in violation of applicable zoning ordinances or other applicable land use regulations, ;. including any urban renewal plan or development district plan, and including the state building code as set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 168.59, et seq. 4 (05) The Project shall be designed to be affordable by persons and families with Adjusted Gross Income not exceeding the income limits set forth in Section 462C.05, Subdivision 2 of the Act and by other persons and families determined to be necessary to further the policies of economic integration stated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462A.02, Subdivision 6. At least twenty percent (20%) of the Housing Units will be held for occupancy by families or individuals with Adjusted Gross Income not in excess of eighty percent (80%) of the median family income as estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban. Development for the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Subsection E. Evidence of Compliance The City may require from the Developer or such other person deemed necessary, at or before the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of the ability and intention of the Developer to complete the Project, and evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the standards and requirements for the making of the financing established by the City, as set forth herein; and in connection 5. - I therewith, the City or its representatives may inspect the relevant books and records of the Developer in order to confirm such ability, intention, and compliance. In addition, the City may periodically require certification from either the Developer or such other person deemed necessary concerning compliance with various aspects of this Program. Subsection F. Issuance of Bonds To finance the Program authorized by this Section, the City may, by resolution, authorize, issue, and sell the Bonds, in an aggregate principal amount presently estimated not to exceed Two Million Two Hundred Twenty-six Thousand Dollars ($2,226,000), pursuant to the Act. In issuing the Bonds, the City may exercise, within the corporate limits of the City, any of the powers the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is authorized to exercise under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462A, without limitation under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. Subsection G. Severability The provisions of this Program are severable and if any of its provisions, sentences, clauses, or paragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. Subsection H. Amendment The City shall not amend this Program while Bonds authorized hereby are outstanding, to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds. 1 i 6. SOK:AV9 To: Mayor and City Council From: John D. Frane/Finance Director Date: September 26, 1485 Re: Housing Revenue Bonds for Prairie Village Apartments Phase II - $2,226,000 - Resolution 85-224 This project consists of 56 units of elderly housing which is subsidized by C.D.B.G. funds of $128,819 for the purchase of land and tax increment for bond interest subsidy. The purchase agreement between the developer and the City, and the Management Agreement are close to final form. A hearing on a Tax Increment Financing Plan will probably be held in November. Resolution B5-225 is included for your consideration. C CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Application for Housing Bond Financing 1. APPLICANT: A. Business Name: Mandara Company, or a limited partnership of which it will be a general partner B. Business Address: 1650 Shelard Tower • 600 County Road 18 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 • C. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.): corporation or limited partnership D. State of incorporation or organization: Minnesota E. Authorized Representative: Richard C. Krier F. Phone: (612) 546-2276 2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: A. General Partner: Mandara Company, a Minnesota corporation, whose sole stockholder is Roger D. Derrick 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC.: The development, construction, ownership, and management of multifamily rental housing projects. 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A. Location and intended use: Project will be a multifamily housing development and will be constructed on land located just east of the northeast corner of Highway 5 and County Road 4 in Eden Prairie. B. Present ownership of project site: Project site is currently owned by Dennis Gonyea. Developer has executed a purchase agreement to acquire the site. C. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor: i i i Architect y Tushie-Montgomery Associates, Inc. i 6440 Flying Cloud Drive ( Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Engineer Sunde Engineering, Inc. 1 10524 Zion Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 General Contractor and Managing Agent Mark Z. Jones & Associates, Inc. 5920 Villa Way Edina, Minnesota 55437 1 5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: 1 Land and Site Improvements $ 222,800 Construction contracts 1,877,790 Equipment acquisition and installation* 0 1 Architectural and Engineering 58,970 Legal fees (including bond issue) 58,000 Interest during construction 63,330 Market study, appraisal, survey, soil tests 5,500 Taxes, insurance during construction, title 35,000 Bond reserve 106,000 Contingencies 53,695 SAC/WAC/Park Permits 75,600 1 Costs of issuance (discount, lender's 1 fee, trustee's fee, printing costs, rating fee) 128,050 1 TOTAL $2,684,735 *Heating and air conditioning should be included as building costs. Indicate the kind of equipment to be acquired here. ) 6. APPLICANT'S EQUITY IN PROJECT $ 458,735 7. BOND ISSUE: A. Amount of proposed bond issue: $2,226,000. • B. Proposed date of sale of bond: November 1985. • C. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities: No longer than 40 years. 2 _ i D. Proposed original purchaser of bonds: Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Incorporated. E. Name and address of trustee: To be determined. 1 F. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original purchaser: None executed yet. 1 G. Describe any interim financing sought or available: None sought. 1 H. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing: No additional permanent financing. 8. BUSINESS PROFILE: A. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No. B. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? 1. Before this project: None. 2. After this project: 3 permanent; approximately 25 construction-related. C. Approximate gross sales: $4,603,451. D. Length of time in business: Approximately 14 years. E. Length of time in business in Eden Prairie: Not } applicable. F. Do you have facilities in other locations? If so, where? No other facilities. G. Are you engaged in international trade? No. } 9. OTHER INDUSTRIAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S): A. [Reference to "Applicant" includes applicant as owner, substantial user, or as a related person within meaning of section 103(b)(6) of I.R.C.]. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial or housing development project(s) in which the Applicant is the owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a • "related person." Lakeland Joint Venture Project, Willmar, Minnesota. 3. B. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested industrial or housing revenue development financing. Applicant has requested such financing in Richfield, Bloomington, and Willmar, Minnesota. C. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before any other city for industrial or housing development revenue financing. Lakeland Joint Venture Project, Willmar - bonds issued. Southwood Project, Bloomington - inducement resolution from the City has been obtained; housing bonds will be issued in August. Market Plaza Project, Richfield - industrial revenue bonds issued. Market Plaza Project, Richfield - housing bonds to be issued in July. D. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused 1 industrial or housing development revenue financing. None. E. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant has acquired preliminary approval to proceed 1 but in which final approval authorizing the financing has been denied. None. F. If Applicant has been denied industrial or housing development revenue financing in any other city as identified in (D) or (E), specify the reason(s) for the denial and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who have knowledge of the transaction. ( Not applicable. 10. NAMES, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE: A. Underwriter (if public offering) 1. Name: Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Incorporated. 2. Address: 1500 Piper Jaffray Tower, 222 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. 4. 3. Telephone Number: (612) 342-6665. 4. Contact Person: Terry McNellis. 4 I B. Private Placement Purchaser (if private placement) 1. Name: 3 2. Address: 1 3. Telephone Number: NOTE: If lender will not commit until City has passed its preliminary resolution approving the project, t submit a letter from proposed lender that it has an interest in the offering subject to appropriate City approval and approval of the proper state agency. 1i C. Bond Counsel: 1. Name: Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 2. Address: 1500 Northwestern Financial Center, 1 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 3. Telephone Number: (612) 835-3800 4. Contact Person: Sherrill O. Kuretich D. Corporate Counsel: 1. Name: Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 2. Address: 2000 Piper Jaffray Tower, 222 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 3. Telephone Number: (612) 338-6610 4. Contact Person: David C. Sellergren 1 E. Accountant: 1. Name: Julius & Nordstrom, Ltd. 2. Address: Fox Meadows Office Park, 3140 Harbor Lane North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 3. Telephone Number: (612) 559-0155 4. Contact Person: Mery Nordstrom 5. • 11. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: A. Construction start: November 30, 1985 B. Construction completion: Approximately nine months after construction start. 1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard C. Krier Vice President The Derrick Companies 1650 Shelard Tower d! 600 County Road 18 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 (612) 546-2276 The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development or Housing bond financing does not expressly or impliedly constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property included in this Project. APPLICANT: PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY: MANDARA COMPANY, its General Partner .• By: 1 Roger D; Derrick, President Date: 12. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. A. Property is zoned: B. Present zoning (is) (is not) correct for the intended use. 6 l' f 1 1 (- PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS 1 PRO FORMA 1 INCOME 1 Type of Unit No. Monthly Rent Income 1 1 BR 1 BR 11 $518 $565 $ 5,698 16 9,040 1 BR/DEN 12 $621 7,452 1 2 BR 17 $643 10,931 33,121 56 Laundry at $8 448 33,569 x 12 Total Annual Income 402,828 Vac. 5% 20,141 Adjusted Gross Income $382,687 1 , EXPENSES Estimated at $2,593 per unit 145,208 r E Income before Debt 237,479 1 with Housing Bonds: Debt (exclusive debt service reserve account) $2,120,000 at 9.5% 213,916 (30 years) ! Cash Flow $23,563 • 1 1 Income before Debt $237,479 without Housing Bonds: Debt $2,120,000 at 13% (30 year amortization with 15 year balloon) 281,417 Cash Flow $(43,938) t RESOLUTION NO. 1S-12S Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS OR NOTES PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT; ADOPTING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE HOUSING PROGRAM TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the Act), the City is authorized to issue and sell revenue bonds or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one or more multifamily housing developments within its boundaries. 1.02. The Act provides that the City may make or purchase loans to finance one or more developments of the kinds described in Subdivisions 2, 3, 4, and 7 of Section 462C.05 of the Act upon adoption of a program setting forth the information required by Subdivision 6 of Section 462C.05 of the Act, after a public hearing held thereon, and after approval thereof by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, as provided in Section 462C.04, Subdivision 2, of the Act on the basis of the considerations stated therein. 1.03. Representatives of Mandara Company, or a limited partnership of which it will be a general partner (the Developer) have advised this Council that the Developer 1 proposes to construct a multifamily residential housing development on approximately three and one-quarter acres of • land owned by the Developer, located just east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 4 in the City, composed of 56 apartment units and other functionally related and subordinate facilities and to operate the • facilities as a multifamily housing development under the Act, to be known as Prairie Village Apartments, Phase II (the Project). At least twenty percent (20%) of the units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are not greater than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income. Development and financing costs of the Project are presently estimated by representatives of the Developer to be approximately Two Million Six Hundred Eighty-four Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-five Dollars ($2,684,735) . 1 I e 1.04. Representatives of the Developer have requested that the City issue its revenue bonds or other obligations in the approximate aggregate face amount of Two Million Two Hundred Twenty-six Thousand Dollars ($2,226,000) (the Bonds or Notes), pursuant to the Act, and make a loan of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds or Notes to the Developer for.the acquisition of land for and the construction and equipping of the Project, subject to agreement by the Developer, or other persons or institutions, to promptly pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds or Notes. 1.05. The City has been advised by representatives of the Developer that conventional commercial financing of the costs of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of the Project would be significantly affected, but that with the aid of municipal financing the Project will be more economically feasible. • 1.06. This Council has been advised by representatives of Piper, Jaffray, s Hopwood Incorporated, representing the Developer, that on the basis of information available to them, the Project is economically feasible, and the Bonds could be successfully issued and sold. 1.07. Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the City nor any property of the City will be pledged to the payment of the Bonds. The Bonds are to be paid from the revenues of the Project. 1.08. The City has caused to be prepared a program for the proposed Project (the Program) under the Act which has been presented to this Council, and which contains information demonstrating the need for the Project, stating the method of financing proposed and that the Project is to be acquired, constructed, and equipped pursuant to Subdivision 2, Section 462C.05 of the Act. 1.09. Pursuant to the requirements of the Act and Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), a public hearing has been held relating to the Program proposed by the Developer under the Act, including the proposed issuance of the Bonds, after proper publication of notice of the public hearing in accord with the requirements of the Act and the Code. 1.10. The applicant has agreed to pay, directly or through the City, any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, whether or not the Project is carried to completion., and whether or not the Bonds or Notes are executed and issued. 1.11. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the 2. I Bonds or Notes as requested by the applicant. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation • and accordingly not issue the Bonds or Notes should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds or Notes or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. 1.12. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the condition that by October 1, 1986, the City and the applicant shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement pursuant to which the Developer will agree to pay to the City principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds or Notes, and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds or Notes and their issuance and sale. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth above, or any extension thereof, and the Bonds or Notes are not sold within such time, this resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. Section 2. Approval and Authorization 2.01. The Program is hereby adopted by the City pursuant to Section 462C.05, Subd. 5 of the Act. The Mayor and the other officers, employees, and agents of the City are hereby authorized to prepare and execute the required certifications and to take such other actions as they deem necessary or advisable in order to submit the Program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for review and approval in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 2.02. It is hereby found and determined based upon the • information presented to this Council by the representatives of the Developer that it would be in the best interests of the City to issue the Bonds under the provisions of the Act in order to finance costs to be incurred by the Developer in the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the described facilities. The City hereby gives its preliminary approval to the issuance of the Bonds in the approximate aggregate face amount of Two Million Two Hundred Twenty-six Thousand Dollars ($2,226,000), subject to the review and approval of the Program by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency under the provisions of the Act and subject to the City, the Developer, and the purchaser of the Bonds reaching definitive agreement and the provisions for their payment. 2.03. The City Attorney, the Mayor, the City Manager and other officers, employees, and agents of the City are authorized, in cooperation with bond counsel, to initiate the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to evidence the terms of all agreements for payment of the Bonds, and the provisions for payment of the principal of, the premium if any, and interest on the Bonds. 3. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this 1st day of October, 1985. Mayor ATTEST: ICity Clerk The Motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: • 1 and the following voted against the same: Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. STATE OF MINNESOTA) } )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on October 1, 1985, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true, and complete transcript thereof. Witness, my hand officially as such Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 1985. John Frane City Clerk (SEAL) • 4 SOK:AV9 Prairie Village Apartments, Phase II Construction of a Multifamily Housing Development Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the Act), the City of Eden Prairie (the City) has been authorized to develop, plan, and administer programs of making construction and long- term financing loans to finance multifamily housing developments located within its boundaries, under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth in the Act. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 provides that such programs for multifamily housing developments may be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City. In creating its multifamily housing finance program, the City Council of the City has found and determined that the preservation and enhancement of the high quality of life in the City is dependent upon the maintenance and provision of adequate, decent, safe, and sanitary housing stock; that accomplishing the provision of such housing stock is a public 1 purpose and will benefit the citizens of the City; that a need exists within the City to provide in a timely fashion additional and affordable housing to persons residing and expected to reside in the City; that a need exists for mortgage credit to be made available for the new construction of additional multifamily housing; that a need exists to encourage elderly and low income housing projects; that a need exists to encourage development of a variety of living and working k environments for all kinds of people by holding development costs down; that a need exists to encourage a variety of housing types and prices through innovative architecture and land use mixes; and that a need exists to encourage development of a variety of living and working environments for all people of all ages, races, and income groups. 1 The City has received a proposal from Mandara Company or a limited partnership in which Mandara Company will be a general partner (the Developer) that, pursuant to the authority found in the Act, the City approve a program providing for the construction of approximately fifty-six (56) units of rental housing (Housing Units) to be located on land legally described as: Part of Outlots B and Outlot C, Gonyea 4th Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which land is located just east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 4 in the City. The project is to be funded through one issue of revenue bonds, to be issued by the City for the acquisition of land for and the construction and equipping of the project. The acquisition of land for and construction and equipping of the Housing Units is hereinafter referred to as the Project. It is proposed that the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) be either sold publicly 1. through an underwriter or privately placed as a tax-exempt mortgage, depending upon the condition of the bond market at the time of the issuance of the Bonds, and that the Bonds, if sold publicly, include some form of credit enhancement, such as collateral, insurance, or a letter of credit to provide a Standard & Poor's rating of no less than "A." Following construction of the Project, the Developer will own and operate the Project as a multifamily residential rental project. The fifty-six (56) Housing Units will be one and two bedroom apartments, of which at least twenty percent (20%) of the Housing Units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose Adjusted Gross Incomes are not greater than eighty percent (80%) of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan statistical area median income. It is estimated that rents for the one-bedroom Housing Units will be between Five Hundred Eighteen Dollars (S518) and Five Hundred Sixty-five Dollars ($565), and for the two-bedroom Housing Units will be between Six Hundred Twenty- One Dollars ($621), and Six Hundred Forty-three Dollars ($643) per month. The City, in establishing this multifamily housing program (the Program), has considered generally available information regarding conditions in the housing industry and the information contained in the City's 462C Housing Plan, adopted on October 30, 1978, as amended February 2, 1982 (the Housing Plan), including particularly (i) the availability and affordability of other government housing programs; (ii) the availability and affordability of private market financing for the acquisition of land for and construction of multifamily housing units; (iii) an analysis of population and employment trends and projections of future population trends and future employment needs; (iv) the recent housing trends and future housing needs of the City; and (v) an analysis of how the Program will meet the needs of persons and families residing and expected to reside in the City. The City, in adopting this Program, has further considered (i) the amount, timing, and sale of bonds to finance the estimated amount of construction and mortgage loans to be made under the Program, to fund the appropriate reserves and to pay the cost of issuance; (ii) the method of monitoring and implementation of the Program to assure compliance with the City's Housing Plan and its objectives; (iii) the method of administering, servicing, and supervising the Program; (iv) the cost to the City, including future administrative expenses; (v) the restrictions on the multifamily development to be financed under this Program; and (vi) certain other limitations. The City, in adopting this Program, considered the potential financing impact of bond issuance on affected public agencies. In addition, the City reviewed the method of marketing the Program. Such review examined the equal opportunity for participation by (i) minorities; (ii) households with incomes at the lower end of the range that can 2. 1 be served by the Program; (iii) households displaced by public 1 or private actions; (iv) families with children; and (v) accessibility to the handicapped. The Project will be constructed and financed pursuant to Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 462C.05 of the Act. iSubsection A. Definitions The following terms used in this Program have the following meanings, respectively: (01) "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462C.01, et seq., as currently in effect and as the same may be from Itime to time amended. (02) "Adjusted Gross Income" means gross family income, I less $750 for each adult in the family, to a maximum of two adults, and less $500 for each other dependent in the family. 1 (03) "Agency" means the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, or any successor to its functions. j (04) "Bonds" means the housing revenue bonds to be issued by the City to finance the Program and includes any and all other obligations payable as provided hereunder. : t (05) "City" means the City of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, or any housing and . redevelopment authority in and for the City authorized by resolution of the City Council to exercise, on its behalf, the powers conferred on the City under the Act. i (06) "Developer" means Mandara Company or a limited partnership of which it will be a general partner. i ' (07) "Housing Plan" means the City of Eden Prairie's 462C Housing Plan, adopted on October 30, 1978, setting forth certain information required by the Act. • (08) "Housing Unit" means any one of the apartment units located in the Project, occupied by one person or family, k and containing complete living facilities. ) (09) "Program" means this program for the financing of the Project pursuant to the Act. (10) "Project" means the fifty-six (56) unit multifamily rental housing project known as "Prairie Village Apartments" given approval by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 20, 1985, pursuant to a development proposal submitted by the Developer. 3. 1 Subsection B. Program For Financing the Project The City hereby establishes a Program to make a loan for construction financing and permanent mortgage financing for the Project. In establishing and carrying out such Program, the City may exercise, within the corporate limits of the City, any of the powers the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency is authorized to exercise under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462A. To do this, the City expects to issue Bonds, the proceeds of which will be loaned to the Developer for construction and initial financing of the Project. It is expected that a Trustee will be appointed by the City to monitor the construction of the Project and any payments of principal and interest on the Bonds. The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of this Program. If required for the sale of the Bonds, the City will select a trustee for the Program and the bondholders that is experienced in trust management and has a large corporate trust portfolio. The trustee will administer and maintain the Bonds sold to finance the Program. The City will, however, incur administrative costs for which it will charge administrative fees of Eight Hundred Dollars ($800), plus one-eighth (1/8) of one percent (11) annually, calculated on the outstanding principal balance of the bonds on the date such fee is due. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager of the City to monitor all negotiations between the various parties taking part in the Program to ensure that the Program documents are consistent with the City's Housing Plan and the requirements of the City as set forth in this Section. Prior to the adoption of the resolutions authorizing the sale of Bonds to finance the Program, the City Manager shall report to the City Council his findings as to the consistency of the Program documents with the Housing Plan and the policies of the City contained in this Section. It is contemplated that the Bonds shall have a maturity of no more than forty (40) years and will be priced to the market at the time of issuance. The Bonds will not be general obligation bonds of the City, but are expected to be paid from revenues and properties pledged to the payment thereof, which may include a credit enhancement item such as insurance or a letter of credit, or a mortgage or other encumbrance on the Project. Subsection C. Local Contributions to the Program It is not contemplated that any additional financing or contributions will be needed for the completion of the Project, or for the operation of the Program, other than the bond issue described above. 4. (01) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used to provide funds for the construction of the Project, which will include approximately fifty-six (56) market rate residential units. The proceeds of the Bonds will be made available to the Developer pursuant to the terms of the Bond offering, which will include certain covenants to be entered into between the City and the Developer. i (02) The Developer or owner of the Project will not arbitrarily reject an application from a proposed tenant 1 because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or status with regard to public assistance or disability. (03) Each dwelling unit within the Project must be used primarily for residential purposes. (04) No Housing Unit may be in violation of applicable zoning ordinances or other applicable land use regulations, including any urban renewal plan or development district plan, and including the state building code as set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 16B.59, et seq. (05) The Project shall be designed to be affordable by persons and families with Adjusted Gross Income not exceeding the income limits set forth in Section 462C.05, Subdivision 2 of the Act and by other persons and families determined to be necessary to further the policies of economic integration stated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462A.02, Subdivision 6. At least twenty percent (20%) of the Housing Units will be held for occupancy by families or individuals with Adjusted Gross Income not in excess of eighty percent (80%) of the median family income as estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Subsection E. Evidence of Compliance The City may require from the Developer or such other person deemed necessary, at or before the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of the ability and intention of the Developer to complete the Project, and evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the standards and requirements for the making of the financing established by the City, as set forth herein; and in connection therewith, the City or its representatives may inspect the relevant books and records of the Developer in order to confirm such ability, intention, and compliance. In addition, the City may periodically require certification from either the Developer or such other person deemed necessary concerning compliance with various aspects of this Program. 5. - , I • }( Subsection F. Issuance of Bonds "// To finance the Program authorized by this Section, the City l may, by resolution, authorize, issue, and sell the Bonds, in an I aggregate principal amount presently estimated not to exceed Two Million Two Hundred Twenty-six Thousand Dollars ($2,226,000), pursuant to the Act. In issuing the Bonds, the City may exercise, within the corporate limits of the City, any of the powers the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is authorized to exercise under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462A, without limitation under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. • Subsection G. Severability The provisions of this Program are severable and if any of its provisions, sentences, clauses, or paragraphs shall be held I unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of 1 competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not f affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. Subsection H. Amendment 1 The City shall not amend this Program while Bonds authorized hereby are outstanding, to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds. a 1 } 1 _ i 6. SOK:AV9 :;J+ 1 C To: Mayor and City Council From: John D. Frane/Finance Director Date: September 27, 1985 Re: Barnett-Range Housing Revenue Bonds Public Hearing $13,000,000 The developer wished to construct 242 units on 24 acres north of Northrup King west of 169. (Lloyd Cherne property) The project will be before the Planning Commission on October 7th. In order to speed up development of the project and to escape possible adverse changes in Federal tax laws the proponent wants to get the public hearing process over. They would have to return to the Council for actual approval. TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John Frane DATE: September 26, 1985 RE: Housing Bonds for Baypoint Manor II - $7,300,000 Resolution 85-223 This project was given bond approval at the May 7, 1985 council meeting for 124 units. The proponent requested and received subsequent approval for 136 units and some exterior changes. The change in the number of units requires a new hearing. Resolution 85-223 is included for your consideration. ( 1 1 I c RESOLUTION NO. '` "d: A RESOLUTION AMENDING A PROGRAM AND RATIFYING A RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT AND ITS FINANCING, UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C AND AUTHORIZING SUBMIS- SION OF THE PROGRAM TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY FOR REVIEW WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Housing Act") to develop and administer multifamily housing programs pursuant to a housing plan, which may be financed by the issuance of revenue bonds of the City; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted the City of Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan and Housing Assistance Plan (the "Housing Plan") pursuant to and in conformance with the provisions of the Housing Act and has held a public hearing thereon, after at least 30 days' published notice thereof, and after review and comment by the Metropolitan Council thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") has determined . that it is in the best interests of the City and in further- ance of the City's goals established in the Housing Plan that the City amend the Housing Plan, by approving and adopting a multifamily housing revenue bond program entitled "Program for Construction of a Multifamily Housing Develop- ment - Bay Point Manor Phase II Limited Partnership Project" (the "Program"); and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. adopted , 1985, after a public hearing conducted on that date, the Council gave preliminary approval to a housing program (the "Pro- gram") and to the issuance of the City's revenue bonds, in an amount of up to $7,300,000, to finance the acquisition, construction and installation of an approximately one hun- dred and twenty-four (124) unit multifamily rental housing development (the "Project") together with related issuance costs, to be located on Anderson Lakes Parkway west of the existing Bay Point Manor apartment complex located at 11185 Anderson Lakes Parkway in the City by Bay Point Manor Phase II Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership _o be formed in which Jim W. Miller Construction, Inc., or its assigns will be a general partner (the "Developer"); and WHEREAS, to account for modifications herein described, the City Council has determined that the Program as ini- tially adopted should be amended and restated, with such initial Program being deleted in its entirety and substi- tuted with the Program attached as Exhibit A hereto. WHEREAS, the Developer has determined to increase the number of rental units in the Project from 124 to approxi- mately 136. The Project is expected to consist of two buildings, each containing approximately 12 one-bedroom units, 44 two-bedroom units and 12 three-bedroom units. WHEREAS, the Project will be reserved for rental in part by persons of low and moderate income, with at least 20 percent of the units held open for occupancy by families or individuals with adjusted gross income not in excess of 80 percent of the median family income estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; and WHEREAS, the remainder of the Project not so reserved will be affordable to persons and families with adjusted gross income not in excess of those limits set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.03 subdivision 3 only to the extent determined necessary to further the policy of economic integration; and WHEREAS, the Program, as amended, is in conformance with the provisions of the Housing Act; and WHEREAS, the City has held a public hearing on the amended Program on October 1, 1985, after at least 15 days' published notice thereof and after submission of the Program as amended for review to the Metropolitan Council on or before the publication date of the Notice of Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, the Council and the staff of the City has re- viewed the Program and believes that the Program will in- crease the supply in the City of decent, safe and sanitary residential rental dwellings and that the Program is in furtherance of the housing policies of the City; and WHEREAS, neither the City nor the State of Minnesota shall be liable on the Bonds, and the Bonds shall not be a debt of the City within the meaning of any state constitu- tional provision or statutory limitation, and will not con- stitute or give rise to a charge against the general credit or taxing power of the City or a pecuniary liability of the City, nor shall the Bonds be payable out of any funds or properties other than those provided as security therefore; - 2 - p NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of i the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota: Section 1. The Program, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved and adopted by the City as an amendment to and restatement of the Program as initially adopted, with such initial Program being deleted in its entirety. Section 2. The City ratifies Resolution No. adopted , 1985 giving preliminary approval to the issuance of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Bay Point Manor Phase II Limited Partnership Project) in an aggregate principal amount of up to $7,300,000 to provide financing for the acquisition, construction and installation of the Project, together with related issuance costs. Notwith- standing the foregoing, however, the adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed to establish a legal obliga- tion on the part of the City or its Council to issue or cause the issuance of such revenue bonds. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participa- tion and accordingly not to issue the Bonds, or issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to in this Section, should the City at any time prior to issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interests of the City not to issue the Bonds, or to issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to in this Section, or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the docu- ments required for the transaction. Section 3. The City gives its further approval to the increase in the proposed number of rental units of the Proj- ect from one hundred and twenty-four (124), to one hundred and thirty-six (136) units. Section 4. The staff of the City has taken all actions necessary for review and comment on the amendment to the Housing Plan by the Metropolitan Council and is directed to take those actions necessary for review of the Program by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency pursuant to the re- quirements of the Act. Section 5. The staff of the City is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary and desirable to proceed to develop the Program and the financing therefor, and to prepare for implementation of the Program at the earliest possible date, provided, however, that no bonds - 3 - shall be issued pursuant to the Program until the Minnesota ( Housing Finance Agency shall have had an opportunity to review the Program in accordance with the Housing Act. Section 6. The Developer has agreed and it is hereby determined that any and all direct and indirect costs in- curred by the City in connection with the Program and the Project, whether or not the Project is carried to comple- tion, whether or not the Program is accepted by the Agency, and whether or not the City by resolution authorizes the issuance of the Bonds will be paid by the Developer upon request. Section 7. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the condition that by October 1, 1986 the City and the Developer shall have agreed to mutually accept- able terms and conditions of the Revenue Agreement, the Bonds and of other instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds and their issuance and sale. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth above, or any extension thereof, and the Bonds are not sold within such time, this Resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. PASSED AND APPROVED this 1st day of October, 1985. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk-Finance Director I - 4 - � f EXHIBIT A PROGRAM FOR A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT UNDER CHAPTER 462C BAY POINT MANOR PHASE II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT Section 1. Statutory Authority. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), the City of Eden Prairie (the "City") has been authorized to develop and administer programs of multifamily housing developments under the cir- cumstances and within the limitations set forth in the Act. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 provides that such programs for multifamily housing developments may be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City. Section 2. The Program. The City has received a pro- posal from Bay Point Manor Phase II Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership to be formed in which Jim W. Miller Construction, Inc., or its assigns will be a general partner (the "Developer") that, pursuant to Minnesota Stat- utes, Section 462C.05, subdivision 2, the City approve a program providing for the acquisition of land and construc- tion of approximately one hundred and thirty-six (136) units of rental housing (the "Housing Units") to be located on Anderson Lakes Parkway west of the existing Bay Point Manor apartment complex located at 11185 Anderson Lakes Parkway in the City. The proposed development is expected to consist of two buildings, each containing 12 one-bedroom units, 44 two-bedroom units and 12 three-bedroom units. Approximate initial rentals for the Housing Units are expected to range from $495 to $505 per month for one-bedroom units, $635 to $665 per month for two-bedroom units and $750 to $780 per month for three-bedroom units. Rentals vary depending on the location of the Unit within the building and the number of bathroom facilities within the Unit. It is contemplated that all Housing Units will be in compliance with all appli- cable zoning ordinances and other applicable land use regulations, including any urban renewal plan or development district plan, and including the state building code as set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 16.83, et. seq. Section 3. Income Limits. To the extent necessary to further the policy of economic integration the Housing Units will be designed to be affordable by persons and families with adjusted gross income not in excess of the limits set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 462C.03, subdivision 2. Twenty percent (20%) of the 136 Housing Units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are not greater than eighty percent (80%) of the median family in- , 1 k come estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis-St. Paul standard metropolitan statistical area. Section 4. Need for the Program; How the Program Meets the Needs of Low and Moderate Income Families. In estab- lishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program"), the City has considered the goals and information contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted on February 2, 1962 (the "Housing Plan"). The City has housing needs in terms of additional affordable, safe and sanitary housing as re- flected in data available to the City and contained in part in the Plan. Consistent with the local housing needs in this Program and the proposed Project will enable the City to meet its housing goals by (i) providing additional affordable housing with rents, amenities, construction and location not otherwise available to the same extent and land use; and (ii) encouraging low income housing throughout the City. The City has further considered other factors such as (i) the availability and affordability of other government housing programs; (ii) the availability and affordability of private market financing for the construction of multifamily housing units; (iii) the recent housing trends and future housing needs of the City; and (iv) population and unemploy- ment trends and projections of future population trends and future employment needs. Based on a review of the fore- going, the City has concluded that there is a need for the Program to help diversify housing options in the City and to provide affordable housing to complement expanding employ- ment opportunities within the City. The City additionally concludes that the Program is needed to and will further the statewide housing policy of encouraging private industry to assist in providing decent, safe and sanitary rental housing at affordable rentals to (i) the handicapped, (ii) minori- ties, (iii) households headed by women and (iv) households with low and moderate income. The Program meets the needs low and moderate income families by providing a variety of Housing Unit types and designs, some equipped specifically for the handicapped, at reasonable rentals. The Program also is also subject to the requirements of Section 3 hereof. Section 5. Method of Financing. The City expects to issue $7,300,000 of its multifamily housing revenue bonds (the "Bonds") for the purpose of providing construction and long-term financing for the Project and related reserve funding and administrative and bond issuance costs. They Bonds will be issued upon such terms and conditions as set forth herein and as may be agreed upon in writing between the City, the original purchaser of the Bonds and the Devel- oper. - 2 - y It is contemplated that the Bonds shall contain a maturity of approximately thirty (30) years with yearly amortization after the construction period. The Bonds are expected to be issued within twelve (12) months after adoption of this Program. A private placement of the Bonds is contemplated, but a public offering may be utilized to retain flexibility and to provide for the best means of financing the costs of the Project, provided the Bonds are secured in a manner approved by the City and original pur- chaser(s). Insofar as the City will or may be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel, bond counsel, a trustee, and others, all of whom will be reimbursed from Bond proceeds and revenues generated by the Program, no administrative costs will be paid from the City's budget with respect to this Program. The Bonds will not be general obligation bonds of the City, but are expected to be paid from the properties or credit pledged to the payment thereof. It is not contemplated that any additional financing or contributions on the part of the City will be needed for the completion of the Project or for the operation of the Pro- gram. It is expected that the Program can be implemented with- ( out subjecting some or all of the obligations thereafter to be issued by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to federal income tax. Section 6. Standards and Requirements Relating to Com- pliance with the Act. The following standards and require- ments shall apply with respect to the operation of the Proj- ect by the Developer pursuant to this Program: (1) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used to finance the Project, which will provide approximately one hundred and thirty-six (136) residential Housing Units. The funds will be made available to the Developer pursuant to the terms of the Bond offering, which may include certain covenants to be entered into between the City and the Developer. (2) The Developer or subsequent owner of the Proj- ect, will not reject an application from a proposed tenant because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age or status with regard to public assistance or disability. (3) No Housing Unit may be in violation of appli- cable zoning ordinances or other applicable land use regulations, including any urban renewal plan or devel- - 3 - 7 opment district plan, and including the state building ( code as set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 16.83, et seq. (4) Pursuant to Section 462C.05, subdivision 2 of the Act, at least twenty percent (20%) of the Housing Units will be held for occupancy by families or individ- uals with Adjusted Gross Income (as defined in the Act) not in excess of eighty percent (80%) of the median family income as estimated by the United States Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development for the Minne- apolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. (5) The Developer will enter into a Regulatory Agreement with the City to ensure compliance with the Program and that the level of low and moderate income occupancy requirements of the Act, herein specified, will be maintained for the period of time specified by the Act and the Internal Revenue Code, in order to re- tain the tax exempt status of the Bonds. Section 7. Evidence of Compliance; Method of Monitoring Implementation. The City may require from the Developer or such other person deemed necessary at or before the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of the ability and intention of the Developer to complete the Proj- ect, and evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the standards and requirements for the making of the financing established by the City, and in connection there- with, the City or its representatives may inspect the rele- vant books and records of the Developer in order to confirm such ability, intention and compliance. In addition, the City may periodically require certification from either the Developer or such other person deemed necessary concerning compliance with various aspects of this Program. Section 8. Marketing of Program to Ensure Equal Housing Opportunities. It is expected that the Program will be affirmatively marketed to ensure equal housing opportunities for minority households, households headed by women and handicapped persons. The Developer is additionally expected to use its best efforts to provide an opportunity for minorities and women to participate in the production of the Housing Units contemplated by this Program. Section 9. Severability. The provisions of this Pro- gram are severable and if any of its provisions, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, con- trary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the Decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. - 4 - t { Section 10. Amendment. This Program shall be a com- ponent of and amendment to the Plan as recognized by the Act. The City shall not amend this Program while Bonds are outstanding to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds. 1 - 5 - e OCTOBER 1,1985 22869 KERR COMPANIES FINAL FOR WATER MAIN OVERSIZING 11500.00 72870 SUSAN SEIFERT REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT 200.00 371 MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK REFUND-PAYMENT SENT TO WRONG ACCOUNT 103.00 L 872 DANA GIB8S PACKET DELIVERIES 65.00 22873 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 5212.41 22874 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO LIQUOR 701.47 22875 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 262.35 22876 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE 1462.51 22877 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 380.45 22878 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 1257.55 22879 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 5930.87 22880 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 157.62 2288I CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE I106.45 22882 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 8926.63 22883 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC SEPTEMBER RENT-LIQUOR STORE 3937.44 22884 BRYAN RANDALL REFUND -SINGLE SWIM FIT MEMBERSHIP 15.00 22885 JOEL PAYLOR REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 3.75 22886 PEGGY CARL REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 40.00 22887 STUART K ENGEN REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 40.00 2288E JOSEPH SIMONS REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 15.00 22889 BRADFORD LANDRY REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 15.00 22890 ANNA MAE MAKELA REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 22891 MATTHEW BRUCKNER REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 15.00 22892 BRIAN 8UESCHER REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 15.00 22893 MARK SCHUYT REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 15.00 22894 MARY CAMPBELL REFUND -POST NATAL CLASS 26.00 22895 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 338.00 i"896 WENDY CHRISTENSON REFUND -TENNIS LESSONS 20.00 397 MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTUR FALL CONFERENCE 40.00 22898 KAREN KREPPS REFUND -TENNIS LESSONS 17.00 22899 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 14186.26 i. 22900 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE AUGUST 85 SALES TAX 16563.82 22901 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE AUGUST 85 SPECIAL FUEL TAX 227.97 22902 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 1861.14 22903 MARK VII SALES WINE 114.90 , 22904 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1122.58 22905 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 929.38 22906 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 500.02 22907 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 12987.81 22908 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 957.09 22909 EO PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 16352.01 22910 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 4321.14 2291I OIANE LANDRY REFUND -SKATING LESSONS 10.00 22912 MICHAEL NORTH REFUND -ADV FIRST AID CLASS 25.00 22913 THOMAS A BROCKWELL REFUND -ADV FIRST AID CLASS 25.00 22914 DONNA SMETAK REFUND -ADV FIRST AID CLASS 25.00 22915 REBEKKA BUTLER REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 5.05 22916 JOEL D PAYLOR REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 8.25 22917 SANDRA HAAPALA REFUND -RACQUETBALL LESSONS 26.00 22918 CATHY J MATASK REFUND -RACQUETBALL LESSONS 26.00 22919 JIM WALTER PAPERS XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL 659.05 22920 INTL CONFERENCE OF BLOG OFFICIALS BOOKS -BUILDING DEPT 523.54 2292I STATE OF MINNESOTA BOOKS -BUILDING DEPT 62.00 122 SUBURBAN UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT WATERWORKS OPERATORS SCHOOL -WATER DEPT 30.00 L 923 A COMMERCIAL DOOR CO , REPAIR PUSLIC SAFETY GARAGE DOOR 99.50 11348401 2 22924 A & H WELDING & MFG CO PRISONER CAGE FOR SQUAD CAR 145.00 22925 ACOUSTICAL FLOORS REFUND -FIRE HYDRANT METER DEPOSIT 100.00 22926 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 104.25 22927 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC STREET SIGNS 500.25 22928 AQUA ENGINEERING INC -INSTALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT ROUND LAKE 2647.70 TREE NURSERY .929 AQUATROL DIGITAL SYSTEMS WELL CONTROL SYSTEM -WATER DEPT 940.30 22930 ARMOR SECURITY INC OCT-DEC 85 ALARM SERVICE 133.50 22931 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP 5096.52 22932 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 13.130 22933 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 831.75 22934 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC SHOCKS/CLEANING SUPPLIES- EQUIPMENT MAINT 79.02 22935 B R W INC SERVICE -VALLEY VIEW ROAD 540.18 22936 ISAAC RANSOM BLAKEY SR SOFTBALL OFFICIAL- FEES PO 958.00 22937 BMB SERVICES MOVE SOUND EQUIPMENT -COMMUNITY CENTER 399.15 22938 LOIS BOETTCHER MINUTES-PARK & REC COMM MEETING 9/16/85 54.00 22939 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC TIRE TUBE- FORESTRY DEPT 3B.40 22940 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC -SERVICE- TECHNOLOGY DR/TANAGER CREEK/ 5417.05 -APPLE GROVES/EDEN ROAD/SINGLETREE LANE/ ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY 22941 MAXINE BRUECK MILEAGE 2.50 22942 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 356.05 22943 CARDOX CORP CARDOX CO2- WATER DEPT 866.60 22944 WALLACE W CARLSON COMPANY 1985 FALL COMMUNITY EDUCATION BULLETIN 2436.09 22945 CHEMLAWN LAWN CARE -P/S BLDG & CITY HALL 703.00 22946 CLEAN SWEEP INC -STRIPING- RILEY LAKE PARK/ROUND LAKE PK/ 375.38 GRILL HOUSE/BALLFIELD 22947 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC -MOUNT 4 DRUMS/RELINE 4 SHOES/TURN 2 DRUM/ 1B32.17 P/W & FORESTRY DEPT 22948 COPY EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR -ENG DEPT 126.60 22949 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES - WATER DEPT 260.57 l '50 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC -WRENCH SETS/MOUNTING PLATES/BRASS CAPS/ 2909.84 -DISCHARGE CAPS/IRON PIPE/HYDRANT WRENCHS/ RELIEF VALVE 22951 CUTLER MAGNER CO QUICKLIME- WATER DEPT 1729.52 22952 DALCO -2 CDMBINATION VENDOR MACHINES/MASONARY 604.40 COATING 22953 CRAIG W DAWSON EXPENSES 30.75 22954 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -SUPPLIES FOR CONCESSION STAND- ROUND LAKE 509.95 & COMMUNITY CENTER 22955 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES - FIRE DEPT 934.33 22956 JDY EASTMAN MILEAGE 20.97 22957 ECONOMY TROPHY -TROPHIES- VOLLEYBALL/SOFTBALL/TENNIS/ 388.15 HORSESHOES 2295B EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DUES- LIQUOR STORES 200.00 22959 CITY OF EDINA AUGUST 85 TESTS 188.50 22960 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO JULY 85 CIVIL DEFENSE INSPECTION 724.00 22961 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC GOGGLES/SAFETY CAP/LINED PANTS- P/S 64.22 22962 EMPIRE-CROWN AUTO INC FLOOR MATS/CAR WAX 69.75 22963 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC SEWER COVER/DRAINAGE 152.00 22964 MRS TED FINHOLT SUPPLIES-SUNBONNET DAYS 57.77 22965 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MN BOOKS -FIRE DEPT 40.00 22966 FLOOR CARE SUPPLY CO -TROPHY EPDXY FINISH/SCREEN DISC/ 293.30 -APPLICATOR REFILL/PROTECTIVE COATING- COMMUNITY CENTER -'87528 . :a 22967 FLOYD SECURITY SECURITY SERVICE- LIQUOR STORES 306.00 22968 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC -RADIO REPAIR-FIRE RESCUE SQUAD/ P/S BASE 534.40 STATION/ P/W RADIO/ ?,969 GLIDDEN PAINT PAINT- PARK MAINT 284.22 70 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTERS TIRES 1571.67 j 22971 DALE GREEN CO SOD -WATER DEPT 4.50 22972 MACH CO SODIUM HYDROXIDE - WATER DEPT 110.56 22973 JOHN K HACKING EXPENSES - POLICE DEPT 161.01 22974 REBECCA PLOWMAN-HAHN TENNIS INSTRUCTOR -FEES PD 95.00 22975 HARMON GLASS -TRUCK MIRRORS/SHADED WINDSHIELD -EQUIP 178.35 MAINT & P/S 22976 HENNEPIN CDUNTY CHIEFS DF POLICE SCHOOL- POLICE DEPT 171.00 22977 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEES - ENG DEPT 84.00 22978 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT AUGUST BOOKING FEE 355.04 22979 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT RADID REPAIR & INSTALLATION - POLICE/FIRE 582.77 22980 DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY TAXATION PROPERTY TAXES- PARK DEPT 12.74 22981 DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY TAXATION 2ND HALF 85 PROPERTY TAXES 2457.18 22982 HENNEPIN CO DEPT OF PROPERTY TAX REIMBURSEMENT POSTAL VERIFICATIONS 31.62 22983 HONEYWELL INC REPAIR - WATER DEPT 614.63 22984 HOTSY CORP -CHANGE FLOAT TANK VALVE/REPLACE FLOW 176.05 -SWITCH PISTON/REPLACE UNLOADER-VEHICLE MAINT & P/W 22985 ICI AMERICAS INC FINGERPRINT PAD- POLICE DEPT 67.95 22986 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 AUG 85 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 1622.26 22987 INIERNATIONAL ASSOC OF CHIEFS DF SCHOOL - POLICE DEPT 425.00 22988 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC TONER - POLICE DEPT 51.70 22989 IRON MOUNTAIN FORGE 8 PARK BENCHES -STARING LAKE PARK 1966.68 22990 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC RUBBER STAMPS- WATER DEPT 62.26 22991 CARL JULLIE EXPENSES 53.08 92 KEYS WELL DRILLING CO MOTOR REPAIR- WATER WELL #4 21D1.75 1`^)3 KELLY SERVICES INC TEMPORARY SERVICE- POLICE DEPT 311.51 22994 RON KRUEGER & ASSOC INC -SET CORNERS ADJACENT TO RILEY LAKE PARK- 495.00 PARK MAINT 22995 LAKE STATE EQUIPMENT CO SWITCH 9.55 22996 LANCE SUPPLIES -LIQUOR STORES 97.06 22997 LANDCO EQUIPMENT INC PINS- FORESTRY DEPT 20.00 2299E LANE INSURANCE INC AUTO INSURANCE 2D3.00 22999 BOB LANZI SOFTBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 104.00 23000 LEEF BROS INC RUG SERVICE-P/S & P/W BLDG 267.50 23001 DAVID LINDAHL EXPENSES - PLANNING DEPT 6.60 23002 LITHO TECHNICAL SVC INC FORMS - ASSESSING DEPT 141.00 23003 LOGIS AUGUST 85 SERVICE 5787.78 23004 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR FILTER/GASKET/KIT/ -PARK MAINT 149.68 23005 TERRY LOUDASEN SCUBA INSTRUCTOR -FEES PD 544.00 23006 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING SERVICE -EQUIP REPAIRS- P/S 25.00 23007 MCFARLANES INC CONCRETE - PARK MAINT 111.00 23008 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN 43.40 23009 MERIT HVC INC REFUND HEATING PERMIT 55.34 23010 MERIT/JULIAN GRAPHICS FORMS - BUILDING DEPT 428.55 23011 METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEMENT ASSN EXPENSES - MANAGER 12.00 23012 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP 352.24 23013 MILLER/DAVIS CO FORMS - FINANCE DEPT 24.00 23014 MPLS AREA CHAPTER FILM RENTAL/BOOKS- COMMUNITY CENTER 22.15 2'129178 P 23015 MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO EMPLOYMENT AOS - ENG DEPT 786.00 23016 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 206.25 23017 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS - LIQUOR STORE/ENG DEPT 554.50 iI 23018 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 36.25 •-719 MINNESOTA WANNER CO HOSE/FITTINGS/HOSE PROTECTOR-FIRE DEPT 117.50 k i20 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT CO PICNIC TABLE FRAMES -PARK MAINT 1620.20 23021 MODERN TIRE CO WHEEL ALIGNMENT -POLICE DEPT 75.85 23022 MOTOROLA INC PAGER HOUSING -FIRE DEPT 68.75 23023 MTI DISTRIBUTING CD SPACER/SHAFT/BEARING -PARK MAINT 27.52 23D24 MY CHEESE SHOP EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE MEETING 353.27 23025 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 1419.94 23026 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC LETTER GOTHIC PRINTWHEELS- 100.00 23027 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC 12 TON PINTLE HITCH- EQUIP MAINT 47.00 23028 STEVE OLSTAD MILEAGE 5.08 23D29 HARRY A ORTLOFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 130.00 23030 MIKE PAUL ELECTRIC INC -REWIRE CONTROL CIRCUITS-WATER TREATMENT 938.72 -PLANT/MOTOR HEATERS-WELL #3/CONNECT TEMP -MOTOR & RECONNECT PERMANENT MOTOR- WELL #5 23031 PENNSYLVANIA OIL CO HAND TOWELS/OIL - STREET DEPT 331.95 23032 PIPES SERVICES CORP REFUND -FIRE HYDRANT METER 268.75 23033 POMMER MFG CO INC SOFTBALL TROPHIES 25.00 23034 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC CDMPANY INC TRACE UNDERGROUND CABLE AROUND HOCKEY RINK 77.00 23035 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN SPRING 2.95 23036 PUMP & METER SERVICE INC -ROTARY HAND PUMP/SUCTION TUBE/WATER 89.01 TREATMENT PLANT 23037 REED'S SALES & SERVICE TUBE - PARK MAINT 14.85 23038 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-PAULSENS/APPLE GROVE/SANITARY 6372.5D SEWER '3039 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO EQUIPMENT RENTAL - PARK MAINT 40 RDBBINSDALE FARM SUPPLY INC K9 SUPPLIES -POLICE DEPT 5 518.40 8.40 ...41 ROGERS SERVICE COMPANY REBUILD ALTERNATOR -EQUIPMENT MAINT 55.35 23042 DDNALD BRION SCHWARTZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 104.00 23043 SERVPRO OF NORTHWEST MPLS INC WATER DAMAGE EXPENSES - WATER DEPT 159.64 23044 W E NEAL SLATE CO SHELF DIVIDERS- COMMUNITY CENTER 67.5D 23045 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP VAC PUMP- PARK MAINT 43.95 23046 SNAP PRINT-WEST PRINTING 8.80 23047 SNYDERS DRUG STORES INC SUPPLIES -COMMUNITY CENTER 97.78 23048 SOLV-OIL SERVICE & SUPPLY INC WASTE LIQUID PUMPEO -PARK MAINT 80.00 23049 SOUTH HENNEPIN HSC 2ND HALF SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES 2700.00 23050 SOUTHTOWN PLUMBING REFUND- PLUMBING PERMIT 110.50 23051 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADS - PARK OEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER 42.96 23052 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC LEGAL ADS 754.91 23053 STANDARD SPRING COMPANY -U-BOLTS/NUTS/CLIPS/CLIP BOLTS/PLAIN 160.45 LEAVES-EQUIP MAINT 23054 MONTY STUHLER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PD 52.00 23055 TENNESSEE CHEMICAL CO FERRI FLOC- WATER DEPT 4524.26 23056 TIMBER PRODUCTS PINE TIMBERS -DRAINAGE DEPT 150O.75 23057 TURF SUPPLY CO GRASS SEEO 710.00 2305B TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN -WATER DEPT 7.12 23059 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN CYLINDERS - STREET DEPT 8.68 23060 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDER -COMMUNITY CENTER 98.47 2306I VESSCO INC 0-RINGS/SEAL/BEARINGS/SLEEVE-WATER DEPT 872.02 23062 VICTORIA REPAIR & MFG SHOP WELDING -PARK MAINT 35.00 7680725 nr�, 23063 VIKING PRESS INC LETTERHEAD -CITY HALL 514.98 23064 WATER PRODUCTS CO -ONE 1" METER $14240/RENTAL OF DRILLING 2437.87 -MACHINE/REMOTE/SAWBLADE/GASKET/NONWOVEN FABRIC/COUPLING 1 '65 WESCO LIGHT BULBS 30.00 \.-J66 MICHAEL C WHYLEN REFUND -BUILDING PERMIT 200.00 23067 ADAM WIETHOFF HOCKEY & BASEBALL OFFICIAL- FEES PD 20.00 2306E JOE WIETHOFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD 96.00 23069 WILSON TANNER INCENTIVES TROPHIES- SUNBONNET DAYS 10.00 23070 XEROX CORP SERVICE 607.11 0.00 23071 DANA GIBBS OELIVERIES 26.00 23072 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 9/24/85 20365.68 23073 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 9/24/85 8571.22 23074 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 9/24/85 15807.04 23075 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 9/24/85 229.62 23076 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSN PAYROLL 9/24/85 63.00 23077 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 9/24/B5 1428.00 2307E GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 9/24/65 5141.00 23079 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 9/24/85 1610.00 23080 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 9/24/B5 10.00 230B1 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK PAYROLL 9/24/85 250.00 23082 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSN PAYROLL 9/24/85 17459.63 7529715 $272755.47 ( f1 10 GENERAL 140460.97 f'5 LIOUOR STORE-P V M 40583.00 ( LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 34833.87 ..i PARK ACOUIST & DEVELOP 5458.77 • 33 UTILITY BOND FUND 11500.00 43 77 FIRE DEBT FUND 246.00 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 10193.90 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 1560.05 73 WATER FUND 25906.01 77 SEWER FUND 504.30 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 911.82 90 TAX INCREMENT FUND 596.78 5272755.47 • • • T MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie SUBJECT: 1986 City Budget Review Follow- p DATE: September 25, 1985 The following is additional review/data relating to the proposed 1986 City Budget as requested by the Council at the September 10 special budget review meeting. P-8 Assessing Department Council Members asked what the costs would be if Hennepin County were to provide assessing services to the City on a contractual basis. We checked with the County Assessor's office and found that the County would provide appraisal services on the following basis: - City must provide office space, furniture, equipment, etc. for all appraisers assigned. - City must provide 1 clerical person at all times City offices are open. - County requires a minimum four-year contract. - County charges are on a per-parcel appraised basis. The rate per parcel can be adjusted upwards each year based upon actual costs incurred by the County, but the annual increase is limited to 10%. If we look at 1985 and apply the County's current appraisal rate, our "savings" by utilizing the County's services would be approximately $40,000. The reasons that we recommend continuing with our current in- house assessing program despite this apparent extra cost are as follows: - We have direct supervisory control over our own appraisers and they are accountable to us. We insist that they are competent, courteous and patient with the public. We believe that we provide more responsive and personalized services than County appraisers would be expected to provide. - The County now provides appraisal services only in the following cities: Richfield, Golden Valley, New Hope, St. Anthony, Mound and Dayton ('86). These cities are not similar to Eden Prairie in terms of development activity. Several other cities had County services but dropped same in favor of local control. - 2 - lr - Eden Prairie has a great deal of new construction which takes much more time to appraise as compared to existing homes and business. For this reason, we believe that the County rates would go up the 10% maximum per year, thus reducing, and perhaps eliminating the "savings". P-11A More House_ $23,000 This is the final payment due for the More House. The City will also be spending approximately $9,000 for replacing the roof in 1985. The More's paid for the driveway improvements in 1984 at a cost of $1,800. By a memo dated April 27, 1984, included in the Council's FYI packet at that time, we advised the Council that Mr. More had not formally requested the City to reimburse him for that improvement, but that the Council "...may wish to reimburse Mr. More for all or a portion of the cost of that improvement." No further action was taken. The Council may wish to reconsider same at this time. P-11A - Capital Outlay - Parks 25 picnic tables - Approximately half of these tables will be placed in Staring Lake Park, the other half in Round Lake Park. We are attempting to develop additional small picnic areas in each of these parks that can be used by families on a first come first service basis, as the large reservation areas are reserved most Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays from May thru October. The picnic reservation area at Staring Lake Park will be open for picnic reservations 7 days a week in 1986. P-12 _ Telephone The Council questioned the locations of outside telephone in the parks. We have outside pay phones at Round Lake Park, Flying Cloud Fields and Riley Lake Park. The pay phone at Staring is inside and therefore available only when the building is open by groups or when the City is operating programs. The cost to the City for pay phones is $50 - $55 per month while in service; approximately half the amount when not in service. Each phone is in service for different periods of time. P-14 - Human Services 4330 Transportation 1985 budget $1,200 1986 budget $1,200 This item can be eliminated, as it was installed several years ago for van repair, gas, oil, etc. These costs have been picked up under the Public Works Department. 4382 Equipment Repair 1985 budget $1,000 1986 budget $1,000 This item is for repair of equipment belonging to the Senior Center including such items as the dishwasher, typewriter, record player, television set, telephone, piano tuning, etc. 4220 Supplies 1985 budget $1,900 1986 budget $2,000 The supplies are broken down basically as follows: $1,000 for new supplies - 3 - F for the Senior Center. This money has been spent differently each year { when different items were added to the Senior Center inventory. One year a paddle boat was purchased. Another year a stereo record player was purchased. In 1985 two benches were installed facing the lake in front of the building. Other equipment such as lifejackets, horseshoes, records, volleyball and net, etc. have been purchased through this fund. $400 of this fund is budgeted for office supplies for the Human Rights and Services Commission basically relating to supplies required of the Commission for the no-fault grievance process. $150 is budgeted for office supplies for the Human Services Coordinator. $150 is budgeted for the Adaptives Recreation Program and $200 is budgeted for Senior Center cleaning supplies - toilet paper, paper plates, etc. 4220 Commission Expense 1985 budget $300 1986 budget $300 This item is broken down as follows: $50 budgeted for training of Commission members in the no-fault grievance process basically goes toward mileage for the participants to attend training classes. $50 for conferences. This is budgeted in order to allow one member of the Commission to attend the League Conference each year. $100 is budgeted for meeting expenses (basically the no-fault grievance meeting with individuals, and $100 is budgeted for League dues.) P-16 - Organized Athletics - Equipment and Supplies Equipment and supplies are basically the same and should be reported as one line item rather than two. They include balls for leagues such as volleyball, basketball and football and similar items. In 1985 $2,900 was approved and spent. In 1986 we anticipate that $1,800 will be sufficient. P=18 - Recreation Programs The Council had several questions about the items under this program and staff's response is as follows: 4330 Transportation 1985 Budget 1986 Budget $4,200 $5,500 These costs are for busing for the special trips that are offered to both youth and adults. These include ski trips; field trips for Kids Korner; adult trips to the Guthrie, Red Wing, Stillwater, etc. The summer trips and Day Camp for youth are paid for by fees charged to the participants. In 1985, we started using coach buses for ski trips. We found the students behaved themselves better. We also increased their bus fees to correspond. Our costs were $600 more in 1985 for buses than in 1984. In 1985, we added a forth week of Day Camp and a week of Sports Camp, increasing the number of weeks for which we needed busing to five. Again, these costs are included in the program fees. It costs approximately $285/week to make a circular route of Eden Prairie stopping at from 5-7 locations. Transportation cost increases for these two programs amount to $1,170. 2321 - 4 - } 4226 Special Events (fees) $2,000 $3,500 These fees include the lift tickets for ski trips, snowtubing, adult trips such as the trip to Canterbury Downs, Christmas Idea House, Guthrie, Summer Evening of Romance, etc. In 1984, the admission fees paid were $3,230. The budget was increased to reflect actual costs. These fees are paid by the participants. 4426 Admission Fees $5,800 $6,400 These fees are for Special Trips and Events ($2,000) and trips as part of the Teen Volunteer Program ($2,000). Both are no change from 1985 and are based on a maximum participation. The Special Trip fees are paid by the participants. The Teen Volunteers earn their trips. The additional $2,400 is for horseback riding at Day Camp. This is based on 160 campers, at $15 each. These fees are paid by the campers. 4341 Advertising $ 100 $ 500 In 1984, we spent $478.15 for employment ads for rink attendants, summer personnel and program leaders. The proper budget amount for both 1985 and 1986 should be $500. 4350 Printing $ 200 $1,400 In 1985, almost all printing was removed from the recreation budget. After discussing this with Chuck Pappas it was decided that it would be more appropriate to place the costs of printing the individual program flyers back into the Recreation Supervisor's budget. 4130 Instructors $10,900 $4,500 These are the costs for instructors paid on an hourly wage for the Leisure Skill Development Programs. In May of 1984, the City Council turned over most of the programs conducted in the schools to Community Education. Many of the remaining programs are conducted on a contractual services arrangement such as ski lessons at Hyland Hills. Therefore, we shifted these amounts to more accurately reflect how the instructors were being paid. 4420 Other Contractual Services $2,200 $7,000 $6,200 of this amount is for Leisure Skill Development Programs, which are paid by fees from the participants. The remaining $800 is split - $400 to the Special Events budget for programs such as Community Band, the Halloween Party, Donuts with Santa and Adult Ski Trips, and $400 for the Summer Playgrounds and Day Camp. This money has been used to pay the fees for special entertainment such as the actress who performed at Donuts With Santa or special speakers who come out to the programs. 4220 Supplies $4,000 $5,100 Supplies are broken down as follows: 1. Recreation Supervisor 500 500 - 5 - 2. Afternoon Playgrounds --- 800 It takes a lot of paper, arts & crafts supplies, etc. to put on a program for 50 kids at one site. 3. Day Camp 1,200 1,200 Includes food, craft supplies, replacement or new equipment. 4. Munchkins, Kids Korner, Trips 850 1,000 5. Riley Park - Picnic Reservations 50 175 6. Leisure Skill Development 600 600 Supplies necessary to carry out program, paid by class fee 7. Skating Rinks 600 600 $100 per rink for first aid, brooms, log book 8. Teen volunteer Program 250 250 4224 Clothing - Staff Shirts 300 300 4238 Recreation Equipment 600 800 New and replacement balls, bats, games, etc. for playgrounds. P-19 Forestry The main question from the Council regarding the Forestry Program is how many cities are still operating a forestry program? Stu Fox has indicated that all of the first and second tier cities that he is aware of are still operating a forestry program, in that they hire tree inspectors to mark diseased trees. Each city has a different program regarding removal. Some require the property owner to take the tree down and remove it at their own expense. Some still subsidize cost of taking the tree down, and the hauling. The City of Eden Prairie subsidizes the hauling costs. Cities like Chanhassen, Minnetrista, etc. do not have a forestry program or a requirement to remove diseased trees. (See also attached memo of September 25 from Stu Fox). P-20 Community Center - Pool Motor 4550 Pool Pump Motor and Heater - 1986 request $4,800 The Council questioned the necessity of purchasing an extra pool motor. The answer is that a pool motor is not a normally stocked item. Pool suppliers indicate that the delay may be anywhere from 3 days to 3 weeks for order time. The pool pump circulates the water in the main pool. This runs the water through the filters and also brings chemicals into the pool. If the pool motor went down, the pool would have to be closed and the longer the pool is closed the longer time it will take to chemically balance the pool once the motor is back in operation. If the pool were � V - 6- down for even one week, it could cause a great disruption in the operation of the Community Center due to the heavily scheduled use of the pool during both summer and winter months with swimming lessons, swim meets, high school and swim team practices, etc., not to mention the loss of revenue. In 1984 the pool generated an average revenue of $1,713.43 per week. P_22 Guide Plan Update Council Members had questions and discussion regarding the Comprehensive Guide Plan Update process. Please refer to the attached memo of July 11, 1985 from Chris Enger. P-23 - Equipment Repairs & Maintenance (#4380) $1985 Budget $9,800 1986 Budget $26,700 Council Members questioned the large increase in this budget item. Staff has responded as follows: The sharp increase in the amount of monies requested for this item in 1986 over 1985 is a direct reflection of increased costs to maintain equipment added each year. As our division has grown in numbers of officers, companion equipment must be purchased for them to use in the performance of their duties. Also, technical equipment has been added to the Public Safety building which requires regular maintenance, i.e., closed circuit TV system and related parts. There are several other items that we don't list in our budget request justification since the items shown there are only meant to be representative. Additionally, items such as surveillance alarm equipment, squad car security devices, photographic equipment, educational audio/visual equipment, stationary radio equipment, to name a few. Over the past three or four budget years, we have consistently incurred more cost than we have requested because it was difficult to predict escalating labor costs for calibration and repair of some of our more complex pieces of equipment. It has also become necessary to overhaul and certify certain pieces of emergency equipment on a more frequent basis to be certain that it will function as designed when needed, i.e., resuscitators, radar, Aico-Sensor portable breath testers, intoxilyzers, sirens, speedometers on a squad cars and certain armaments. In 1984, total expenditures for this budget item were $11,830. Through 6/30 in '85 we have spent $12,014. I have requested Keith Wali and the Public Safety Department supervisors to do a complete review of their budget status and to monitor ail further spending to ensure strict compliance with their budgetary allotments. P-24 Fire Division Officers Council members questioned the organizational structure and duty assignments for the various supervisors. Our Fire Chief, Ron Johnson, has prepared the following response: The Fire Division has a total of 16 officers including one chief, three assistant chiefs, two battalion chiefs, four captains, and six lieutenants. - 7 The Fire Division has eliminated three officer positions over two years. The responsibilities of each officer position are: CHIEF (1) Responsible for the overall supervision and administration of the Fire Division. The fire chief prepares the annual budget input for the Fire Division and administrates the budgeted funds as approved. The fire chief supervises emergency incidents and maintains the resources necessary to handle them. The fire chief is the focal point of the Fire Division. ASSISTANT CHIEF-OPERATIONS (1) Responsible for maintaining apparatus, equipment, and personnel. Second in command to the fire chief. Supervises emergency incidents as directed and provides feedback to the fire chief on equipment, apparatus and fire fighter performance. ASSISTANT CHIEF-PREVENTION (1) Responsible for all prevention activities including inspections, code enforcement, code development, public education, and plan reviews. Investigates and determines causes of fires. This individual is also the Fire Marshal, and provides normal workday emergency incident supervision. ASSISTANT CHIEF-TRAINING (1) { Responsible for training and overall fire fighter and officer development. Also responsible for program development and youth organization assistance. Supervises emergency incidents as directed by the fire chief. BATTALION CHIEF (2) Responsible for the supervision of groups of stations, station captains and special programs. These individuals supervise the weekend rescue program, standby crews for special events, and fill in for the assistant chief of oeprations when absent. Supervise emergency incidents as directed by the fire chief. STATION CAPTAINS (3) Responsible for the supervision of a station, including its equipment, apparatus, and personnel. Supervises a company of fire fighters at emergency incidents. TRAINING CAPTAIN (1) Responsible for the training and development of all new fire fighters. Is used as a communications and fill-in officer when needed. SQUAD LIEUTENANTS (6) The Fire Division has six squads of fire fighters. The lieutenant 8 - supervises one squad. Supervises a company of fire fighters at emergency incidents. Provides fill-in for absent station captains. It is very seldom that all officers are available at the same time. It is our intent to always have a sufficient number of supervisory personnel available at a moment's notice. Also, in our organizational structure it is the intent to always have at least one chief level officer within city limits. I have attached an organization chart for your reference. • • . ... , .• „ . . • - 9 - ( a. 0 cn NJ.3 ...L V) f.0 =• •VI H 1.0 0 )4 0 70 9 M 0 70 = Z M X M 1. cn— 1. ). H L Pt tfl M M c M 1.'V 0 R2 .. 01 Z V/ Z 9 H A 5"' • H VI H Z 9 70 1-/ H Z M'Z . . H N A _ 0 — — z 0 c 0). .4.3 ›L 0 t-, In 0 en V/ 0 0 z . V 0 • . . m 0 z 0 z. .-1 9 0 1.-. cc' ni • . en t-, > . cn 0 , .-1 ,. •R2"0. . • =0 •0 H , C.(1) CA 8 0.01 03.0 `..1 VI M 4. . ( m= . .._. t- ic t- Z*. 0 0 •c,- A c... H 0 0 M E 0 C C Z n M VI .0 0' VI VI H 0 Z 0 Z A V ... .. . • RI H 0 Z . • • H .0 Z tt 1 CA '--- —.,.. 70 9 .-i V.• "'--- CA 0 S Z q n . — — o cz z .t 0 PI m CA C fA .-I .0 A.0 C I 0 >c c 0 Zr' en e-, 0...., en . . .4•-•—n I-1, , en . VI =RI M 0— 14 H C ll• V1 H 1.H r.% E VI Z CO Z 9 9 SA Z =S • , CI. Z 74 Z Z Z A IA• .4 CI J-1 .-i a L.] = •Z .A 0 H — — -- V 0.Z Z H . " Z Z 0 .. .. .., • i, ... . '.. . . • .. . . ,., , .• ., . „ —. ... .... . .. • - id* . .. . . .. .................... .. . - 10 - P-33 Custodial Service for Public Works Staff has requested custodial service to help maintain the new Public Works/Park Maintenance building. Council Members asked if the Public Safety Department custodians would have time to also provide services for Public Works/Parks. I requested staff to provide the attached breakdown of the duties and time-spent for the two Public Safety Department custodians. Based upon this analysis, I do not believe that they have sufficient extra time to provide the needed services at the Public Works/Parks building. P-40 Landfill Inspector The proposed '86 budget does not include funding for inspection of the Flying Cloud Landfill. Some thoughts the Council may wish to consider are discussed in Mr. Oawson's memo of September 26th. T i F - 11 - MEMORANDUM TO: Carl Jullie, City Manager THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services FROM: Stuart A. Fox, City Forester DATE: September 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Summary of Surrounding Communities - Tree Disease Programs A telephone survey was made the week of September 16, 1985 to determine how any adjacent communities were still continuing with their diseased tree programs. Basically, all communities which have conducted a shade tree disease program since the Minnesota Shade Tree Program was discontinued in 1982 are still doing so. Some of the neighboring cities with programs are: Minnetonka, Bloomington, Edina, Hopkins, Richfield, St. Louis Park and Plymouth. However, if you go west and south from Eden Prairie, the number of communities with programs is not as contiguous as those to our east. Communities with programs are Chaska, Victoria (limited) and Shakopee. Cities without programs are Chanhassen, Waconia and Prior Lake. As a point of interest, I also obtained the following budget information from some of the adjacent cammunites with tree programs. These totals are for tree disease removal or related activities such as boulevard tree trimming. 1984 19B6 Comments Chaska $24,000 $30,000 Trimming/removal contracts for public property St. Louis Park 130,000 134,000 Trimming/removal of City trees Plymouth 45,000 55,000 Voluntary program "having a lot of problems" Hopkins 90,000 100,000 Majority of budget for trimming/removal of City trees Richfield 183,000 190,000 Diseased tree removal Edina 96,000 125,000 Public removal and boulevard trimming Minnetonka 575,000 600,000 City contracts removal of all diseased trees, public and private Bloomington 229,000 250,000 City contracts removal and hauling diseased trees public and private it - 12 - i MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City tanager DATE: July 11, 1985 SUBJECT: Update of Comprehensive Guide Plan Staff had been requested to update the City Council on current activities relating to the ongoing updating of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The Guide Plan graphic has been undergoing continual updating since its adoption in 1982. Staff will be completing, within the next few weeks, the most recent version of the Guide Plan graphic, which will bring it up to date with the land use changes which have occurred since its last revision. No action will be required on the Council's part since Staff work merely reflects "catch-up" on changes which the Council has already officially adopted. Planning Staff has recently completed an overall City land use inventory, copies of which have been distributed to the Council, that quantifies existing urban uses and identifies amounts of land available for development in different urban categories. 1 This inventory update is a major portion of the framework for the Comprehensive j Plan. In 1983, the Planning Staff compiled a Community Profile, which was made up of population and employment demographics, trends, and general information. This has been brought up to date as of May, 1985, and will supplement the land use inventory information. An additional section of the Comprehensive Plan which has been completed in draft form is the Housing Assistance Plan. Internal Planning Department review is pending on this section of the Guide Plan. The Metropolitan Council is requiring ;ome changes to the Airport Chapter of our plan. The Planning Staff Liaison to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission (FCAAC) has reviewed the Metropolitan Council's requirements and will be working with the FCAAC to develop recommendations for the City Council's review. The Capital Improvements Program, which would include parks, public buildings, utility improvements, and roads, will need some work at this time to coordinate the recent recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Bond Issues for Public Needs. City Staff has been working with Black and Veatch engineering firm to update the City's Comprehensive Water Plan. Completion of this is expected later this Summer. Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan includes the goals, objectives, and policies of the City. We are currently reviewing that chapter of the Guide Plan to determine - 13 - the status of each item. In addition, we are working with the Development Commission of the City and the Economic Development Commission of the Chamber of Commerce, both of which have requested the opportunity to provide input on this section of the Guide Plan. We think that it would also be appropriate over the next few months to gain input from the other City Commissions on Chapter 4 for the City Council's review. The Planning Staff is currently compiling physical information such as property ownerships, topography, vegetation, etc., on the southwest area of the community, and will be working on a draft plan for submission to the Commissions and Council later in the year. It may also be beneficial to prepare, and Staff has begun work on, a more detailed land use plan for the Major Center Area. We feel that this could be prepared relatively quickly and be ready for -eview by the Planning Commission and City Council later in the year. Still pending from the 1g80 Metropolitan Council review of the City's Comprehensive Plan is the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The City has a schematic overall Comprehensive Sewer Plan, but it is not done in accordance with guidelines acceptable to the Metropolitan Council. City Staff has agreed to prepare this plan, but was never given proper guidelines from the Metropolitan Council Staff until this year. The City Engineering Staff will require until the end of this year to complete the plan in accordance with Metropolitan Council guidelines. Based upon our past experiences with the Metropolitan Council and other regional agencies, we believe it to be in Eden Prairie's best interest to continually update the Comprehensive Plan so that appropriate pieces of it may be submitted to the Metropolitan Council only when necessary. This should help keep the City continually on track and prevent any surprises from regional agencies by containing their review to manageable sections of the Comprehensive Plan. We feel that this way of proceeding will allow Eden Prairie to retain more control of its Comprehensive Plan at the local level. • Ii - 14 - BUILDINGS/GROUNDS AND VEHICLES MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR DUTIES PERCENTAGE OF TIME 1. Maintain inventory of emergency first aid supplies in all Public Safety vehicles. 1% 2. Purchase and maintain inventory of cleaning supplies for both Police and Fire Divisions. 1% • 3. Coordinate maintenance of all Public Safety vehicles. 10% 4. Maintain all Public Safety Department grounds to include trees, shrubs, lawns and also to include snow removal from all driveways and parking lots. 15% 5. Coordinate and maintain interior cleanliness of all Public Safety buildings. 35% 6. Coordinate and transport Public Safety vehicles (mainly fire vehicles) to various repair points. 3% 7. Repair and replace miscellaneous building equip- 1 ment, i.e., lights, filters, fixtures, dispensers, etc. 1% 8. Coordinate repair of all city radio equipment in Public Safety vehicles. 5% 9. Conduct tours of fire equipment and facilities. 2% 10. Conduct fire prevention lectures to daycare and kindergarten students. 2% 11. Respond to all daytime emergency fire and rescue calls. 10% 12. Operate and maintain Fire Division equipment apparatus. 5% 13. Deliver and pick up various items regarding the above mentioned jobs. 10% • - 15 - BUILDING AND GROUNDS CUSTODIAN DUTIES PERCENTAGE OF TIME 1. Maintain interior/exterior cleanliness of Public Safety buildings. 60% 2. Repair and replaces miscellaneous equipment i.e., doors, lights, fixtures, dispensors, etc. 15% 3. Maintain cleanliness of all police vehicles. 15% 4. Assist in snow removal and washing of driveways and parking lots. 10% - 16 - MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson ap SUBJECT: LANDFILL INSPECTION BY THE CITY DATE: September 26, 1985 As the hearing process for the proposed expansion of the Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill has lengthened and evidence of pollution has subsequently developed, the City Council has asked for information about a variety of inspections the City could conduct associated with landfill construction and operations. Staff has done some research in this area and can now identify alternatives. Definition of Inspection: Landfill inspection activities essentially fall into two areas: construction and operations. As a new phase of the landfill is opened, an inspector reviews plans and observes construction to ensure that the new phase is built in conformance with plans and specifications. Dperation inspections include observation of individual truckloads to ensure that only acceptable refuse is deposited in the landfill; inspection that adequate daily, interim and final cover is placed over waste material; and testing and monitoring for groundwater quality as well as the presence of methane and other gases. While construction and operations are inspection of the physical aspects of landfilling, there are such administrative matters as proper recording of the amount of waste received and fill area used which may be candidates for inspection. Throughout the remainder of this memorandum, however, comments will focus on inspection of the physical components of a landfill. Who Would Do Inspections?: The types of inspections contemplated are current the responsibility of and being done by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Hennepin County, and Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. These entities have available the knowledge and expertise to provide adequate inspection of the landfill. While the government agencies may have these specialized resources, it is perceived that these resources are insufficient to meet a desired level of inspection and enforcement in Eden Prairie. Consequently, the City must also have access to qualified inspectors to attain the desired level of vigilance. Procuring the services of a qualified consulting firm is one way to address the issue of providing staff for inspection. The advantages of this approach include having access to specialized and interdisciplinary knowledge and experience; having flexible working arrangements; and having the inspection services terminate with final closure of the landfill. An apparently limited number of properly qualified firms exist in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. As a consequence, consulting fees for these services may be somewhat higher than other types of services for which the City contracts. - 17 - An alternative to hiring a consultant would be adding an Environmental Health Inspector to the City staff. Environmental health inspectors monitor sources of air, water, and noise pollution. They are also in such public health areas as sanitation, litter, and nuisance control. Their work often involves issues of enforcing zoning and licensing regulations. Typical educational backgrounds for these positions are in biology, chemistry, industrial hygiene, or public health. Because spending most of every day at the landfill can be perceived as boring enough to create a high rate of employee turnover, limiting landfill inspections to periodic and unscheduled visits is desirable. If the City were to hire a consultant, this periodicity would be reflected in thee terms of the agreement for services. If the City were to hire an environmental health inspector, landfill inspection could be a part of the job responsibilities. Other areas of responsibility - e.g., general pollution control, sanitation, nuisance,litter, zoning and licensing enforcement - could be added to the duties of this position. These areas are ones in which the City has been receiving a slow but steadily increasing number of complaints. Costs and Sources of Revenue: The City of Medina retains the services of a consultant for part of its landfill inspection program. That City will pay $8,000 - $9,000 this year for having a member of the consultant staff present one full day twice per month. This consultant indicated that having a person at the landfill one-half day twice per week would cost $20,000 to $25,000 annually. The salary (without fringe benefits) for an environmental health inspector varies with the level of experience desired. Entry-level positions range in pay from $18,000 to $23,000. Experienced personnel generally have a starting salary of $22,000 to $26,000. Additional training in the characteristics of landfill and municipal solid waste may also be needed. Revenues may come from an additional general fund levy; any excess of landfill surcharge fees above the $200,000 figure in projected revenue in the 1986 budget; or through the negotiation process with the landfill owner as a condition of approval for solid waste permit(s). Some combination of these three revenue sources will likely be needed to fund either staffing alternative. Whither the State or County Responsibilities?: Both the MPCA and Hennepin County now do some inspection activities. The MPCA enforces the provisions of its solid waste permit. Hennepin County's license to operate the facility incorporates the MPCA permit and adds a few conditions more stringent than the State. If the City were to begin landfill inspection, we should not be too surprised if these agencies were to leave overall inspection of the landfill to the City by default, and thus be able to use their limited resources at other locations. What liability the City may then incur is unclear. Summary: If the City Council were to decide that it wished to begin separate inspection of the landfill, it appears that the primary consideration is whether to have it done by a consultant or City staff. If a level of service similar to that of the City of Medina were desired, then using a consultant would be more cost-effective. If a more rigorous enforcement program were desired, the City's overall needs would be better served by an in-house environmental health inspector. CWD:CJJ:jp City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,October 15, 1985 G. Final plat approval for Autumn Woods 3rd Addition (Resolution No. Page 2363 85-231) 0. H. Municipal State Aid System Route Designation (Resolution No. 85- Page 2366 234) I. THE PARK AT CITY WEST by Finger Enterprises. 2nd Reading of Page 2368 Ordinance No. 31-85, Rezoning from Rural to RM-2.5, Approval of Developer's Agreement for The Park at City West, and Adoption of Resolution No. 85-216 Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 31-85 and Ordering Publication of Said Ordinance. 13.5 acres for an apartment complex. Location: City West Parkway, east of Shady Oak Lane. J. Resolution No. 85-237, Final Approval for Park at City West Page 2385 Housing Bonds in the amount of $17,500760. K. HAGEN SYSTEMS by Hagen Systems. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. Page 2031 2 , 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. B5-190, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 23-85, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: East of City West Parkway, West of Highway #169. L. Resolution No. 85-227, Establishing November 5,. 1985 as the date Page 2386 for Public Hearing for Eden Square Shopping Center Municipal austrial Development Bonds in the amount of $6,20 O.00. M. Adoption of Resolution No. 85-240 Approving the appointments t the Mayor of the members to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DATASERV, INC. by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Page 2393 Development Concept Review, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Industrial, and Preliminary Plat of 9.56 acres for an office/warehouse/service area. Location: W. 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance No. 34-85 - Zoning; Resolution No. 85-199 - Preliminary Plat) B. FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR TECHNOLOGY DRIVE EXTENSION FROM PURGATORY Page 2415 CREEK TO PRAIRIE CETR DRIVE, I.C. 52-010 D (Resolution No. 85- 237 C. EASEMENT VACATION IN OUTLOT E, CITY WEST 2ND ADDITION Page 2416 Resolution No. 85732) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 23083 = 23387 Page 2419 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 85-236, Final Approval for Municipal Industrial Page 2427 Development Bonds in the amount of S4,850,000 for Bryant Lake Partners (formerly cared— vveergreen). City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,October 15, 1985 VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Layout Plan approval for Baker Road between Arbor Glen and Page 2428 CSAH 62 Resolution No. 857fYg) B. Review of decision made l the Board of Appeals & Adjustments Page 2429 regarding Pc-it-le-if-No. 85-37. The Board determined the proposed Normandale Racquet and Swim Club to be a permitted use in a Community Commercial Zoning District. VIII. REPORT 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 D. Report, of Director of Public Works 1. Award contract for 1985 Lime Sludge Disposal (Resolution No. 85-2331------- XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT. SPECIAL MEETING EDEN PRAIRIE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1985 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEETING HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, AUTHORITY MEMBERS: George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and Paul Redpath HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Director AUTHORITY STAFF: of Planning Chris Enger, Finance Director John Frane, City Attorney Roger Pauly and Recording Secretary Karen Michael I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING Page 2497 HELD SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 City Council Agenda - 4 - Tues.,October 15, 1985 IV. APPROVAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT Page 2498 FOR PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (WA Resolution No. T35-01 - V. ADJOURNMENT. • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1965 6:00 P.M., SCHOOL AOMINISTRATION BOARDROOM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. 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, Human Services Coordinator Jan Flynn Calhoon, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael CONSULTANT (BRW, INC.): Dick Wolsfeld and Jeff Benson I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL All Council members were present. II. DISCUSSION OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE (OPT-OUT) STUDY A. Background Dick Wolsfeld of BRW gave an overview of the transit service demonstration program. He noted the Legislature had given the City the right to "opt- ( should it so desire. The City now pays $540,000 to the Metropolitan Transit Commission for transit service. The study is looking at what might be done to improve transit service in this area. A specific implementation plan (noting costs, a service plan, who should provide the service, etc.) will be forthcoming. The consultant is now working on alternatives - defining and evaluating them - along with a management team consisting of representatives of each of the cities involved. B. Review of Study to Date The methodology used in the study was reviewed by Wolsfeld. He noted a more complete report would be provided sometime in late August. Wolsfeld reviewed the present service and the costs of that service. C. Discussion There was discussion on the amount of subsidy involved in the service provided to Eden Prairie residents. There are 420 transit trips in Eden Prairie each day at the present time. City Council Minutes -2- July 16, 1985 D. Direction of Study Wolsfeld reviewed the alternatives under consideration. Anderson said he would like to have more information as to what the City of Plymouth has done with its opt-out program -- how it is working and ridership information. He suggested a joint meeting with the cities Eden Prairie is working with be held at which time a representative(s) from Plymouth could tell about their program. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. UNAPPROVED MINUTES ( EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Rick Rosow, Finance Director John D. Frane, Senior Planner Mike Franzen, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: all members were present I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Agenda: II. G. Eames/Quail Ridge Housing Revenue Bonds, II H. Final Plat, Turnbull Addition, II. I. Jaycees Request for Temporary 3.2 Beer License, IX. B. 1. Nomination for Appointment to Regional Transit Board, IX. A. 2. Discussion on Landfill, IX. D. 2. Update on 169/Prairice Center Drive Traffic Signals. The following item was continued to the August 6, 1985, Meeting of the City Council: II. E. Receive Petition for Street Improvements Adjacent to Eames Addition and Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Report, I.C. 52-082. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. CDNSENT CALENDAR A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 27-85, changing terms on Historical and Cultural Commission from 3 years to 2 years B. Final Plat approval and Special Assessment Agreement for Eames Addition (Resolution No. 85-173) C. Final Plat approval for Tanager Creek 2nd Addition (Resolution No. B5-174) D. Contract Amendment No. 1, Anderson Lakes Parkway Improvement Project, I.C. 52-035 1 City Council Minutes -2- July 16, 1985 E. Receive Petition for Street Improvements Adjacent to Eames Addition and i Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Report, I.C. 52-082 (Resolution No. 85-176) - continued to August 6, 1985, Meeting F. Final Approval for Housing Revenue Bonds in the amount of $11,000,000.00 for Tanager Creek (Resolution No. 85-172) G. Eames/Quail Ridge Housing Revenue Bonds H. Final Plat, Turnbull Addition (Resolution No. 85-177) I. Jaycees Request for Temporary 3.2 Beer License, August 3-4, 1985, Round Lake Park MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve items A - D and F - I on the Consent Calendar with item E being continued to August 6, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. (Items F and G are subject to the City Attorney's approval.) III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOUNT CURVE ADDITION by Mount Curve Developers. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Resi- dential on 2.24 acres, rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 for 2.24 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.87 acres into nine lots for seven townhouse units. Location: southwest corner of Franio Road and Mount Curve Road. (Resolu- tion No. 85-169 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Ordinance No. 25-85 - rezoning and Resolution No. 85-170 - preliminary plat) ` Assistant to the City Manager Dawson stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified. Laurie Johnson, engineer for the proponent, and Bill Havek, attorney for the proponent were present to address the proposal. Senior Planner Franzen said this request had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meetings on June 10 and June 24, 1985. At the June 24th Meeting the Commission voted (4-3) to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the Staff Report dated June 7, 1985, the main point of discussion was whether or not there should be six or seven units. The Planning Commission was in basic agreement that multi-family use was better on this site than single-family use. Franzen noted the method to be used for tree replacement; oak trees would have to be replaced according to their diameter rather than on a caliper inch basis. Director of Public Works Dietz stated the proponent realized a solution must be reached regarding drainage in this area and said that this would be accomplished between 1st and 2nd Readings of the Ordinance. Anderson asked if the Planning Commission felt the method of tree replace- ment could be accomplished. Havek said they felt they could work around the existing oak trees. i 1 City Council Minutes -3- July 16, 1985 Redpath asked who would be responsible for the staking of the existing trees. Franzen noted the developer is required to stake the grading limits and the City then goes out to check to see that it is being done according to the plan. Franzen said that grading permits would not be granted until the City had made an initial inspection of the area. Bentley asked how long it would take to review the storm water question; could that be resolved prior to 2nd Reading. Dietz noted the Bluffs West 5th area posed a similar problem and was accomplished with a stipulation similar to what might be proposed here. Bentley asked if the eastern road connection was satisfactory. Dietz said it was from the standpoint of safety even though it was less than 125' from the intersection. Bentley said he did not see where removing one unit would improve the project. There was discussion regarding the drainage in the area and the impact of the proposal on the trees. There were no comments from the audience. MDT1ON: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. B5-169, amending the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 25-85, rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No. 85-170, approving the preliminary plat of Mount Curve Addition for Mount Curve Developers (into nine lots for seven townhouse units). Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement per Commission and Staff recommendations and with the 2nd Reading of the Ordinance contingent upon resolution of the storm drainage question. Motion carried unanimously. B. CROSSROADS CENTER by Vantage Properties. Request for a Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service on 2.99 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of approximately 11.4 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way, for construction of a commercial center. Location: east side of Highway #169, south and west of Prairie Center Drive, north of Major Media (Ordinance No. 26-85 - rezoning and Resolution No. 85-171 - preliminary plat) City Council Minutes -4- July 16, 1985 Assistant to the City Manager Dawson said notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified. Bruce Watson, Vantage Companies, addressed the request. Senior Planner Franzen stated the Planning Commission had considered this request at its meeting on June 24, 1985. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the request subject to the recommendations included in the June 21, 1985, Staff Report. Franzen called attention to a memorandum to the Council dated July 12, 1985, which further outlined to changes made in the site plan; these changes had been agreed to by Vantage. Bentley asked why parking requirements were not the same as those which had been previously required by Staff. Franzen said the size of cars is now smaller and more green area will be provided with smaller spaces. Anderson asked about the loss of trees on the site. Franzen noted that trees would be lost with any development of this area; tree replacement will be a requirement in the Developer's Agreement. Director of Community Services Lambert said this request had been re- viewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resouces Commission at its July 15, 1985, Meeting at which time the Commission voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the Staff Report. Lambert noted the only issue raised by the Commission dealt with the trees. Pidcock said she was concerned about the fact that old trees were being replaced by very young trees. Pidcock expressed concern about access to the site. Watson indicated they felt three access points to the site were enough. Bentley said traffic volumes to this type of center are not the same as those for a Cub, Super Valu, etc. Pidcock said she did not think it was adequate. Franzen referred to a letter from Bill Crawford, MN/DDT to Planning Director Enger in which this issue was addressed. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 28-85, rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 85-171, approving the preliminary plat of Crossroads Center for Vantage Properties. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -5- July 16, 1985 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement per Commission and Staff recommendations and with the inclusion of a provision regarding tree replacement: the developer will be responsible for 104 caliper inches of tree replacement on the sites 5 or 7 (site 5 is the future office site; site 7 is the future restaurant site.) Motion carried unanimously. IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NDS. 21341 - 21667 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 21341 - 21667. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath and Peterson voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. V. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS There were none. VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from Hustad Development Corporation regarding the Hampton Inn Project Wally Hustad, Sr. asked the Council to reconsider its previous action on this matter because there is a need for a variety in the type of hotels in Eden Prairie. He noted that this site is an excellent one for the type of hotel proposed. Hustad said he would like to present new information to the Council based on a new study. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to reconsider the Council's previous action regarding the Hampton Inn Project. Pidcock asked what new information was available. Hustad said he now has available site-line studies as well as architectural renderings. Bentley said he would ask that this be reconsidered at the August 6, 1985, Meeting of the City Council. Pidcock said she felt the proponent had been given ample opportunity to make a presentation at the last meeting. Peterson said that he felt any proponent who had to be heard at 1 a.m. was not given the best con- sideration the Council could give. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Pidcock voting "no." MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to request the proponent to meet with Staff and to direct Staff to place this matter on the August 6, 1985, City Council Agenda with the appropriate notices to be sent regarding this matter. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -6- July 16, 1985 VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS There were none. VIII. APPOINTMENTS Peterson announced that Bentley and Peterson had been appointed to serve as a committee of two to set up a review process for review of the City Manager. IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. Commendation for July 4th Celebration Anderson said there had been many positive things said about the July 4th Celebration. Anderson said commendations are due to the Community Service and Public Safety Staffs with special commendation to Superintendent of Recreation Chuck Pappas for the extra effort put forth to make this day such a success. 2. Discussion on the Landfill Anderson asked who is overseeing what is being dumped in the landfill. He expressed concern that someone should be inspecting what is being dumped. Anderson asked if anyone had ever heard of someone being tagged for illegal dumping. He suggested the City be involved in the inspection process and request help to that end from the County, Pollution Control Agency, and/or the State. Anderson asked that Staff check into what the City of Medina is doing about this. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct Staff to see what procedures are used by the City of Medina regarding landfill inspections and to review what might be done by the City of Eden Prairie to accomplish inspections. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Peterson - Pidcock and Bentley will attend the Municipal Legislative Commission Meeting on July 24, 1985, at the Decathlon Club. Bentley volunteered to serve on the Board of the Community Action Agency. Bentley and Redpath will attend the Firemen's Relief Association Meeting to be held on July 17, 1985. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to send City Manager Jullie, Finance Director Frane, and Councilmember Bentley to the Fair Labor Standards Act Briefing Seminar to be held on August 21, 1985, in Chicago. Bentley said he would go at his own expense; the City will be responsible for his registration only. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -7- July 16, 1985 t B. Report of City Manager 1. Nomination for Appointment to Regional Transit Board Assistant to the City Manager Dawson noted the Metropolitan Council is seeking nominees for appointment to the Regional Transit Board. Nominations close on July 22, 1985. C. Report of City Attorney City Attorney Rosow called attention to a letter from the PCA regarding the landfill. He noted the PCA has suspended the process pending remedial action. Rosow indicated they are attempting to stay on top of the situation should the Metropolitan Council be asked to reconsider its action. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to ask the Metropolitan Council to reconsider its previous action on the basis of new information. Motion carried unanimously. D. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Award contract for Utilities and Street Improvements for Tanager Creek, I. C. 52-060 (Resolution No. 85-175) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 85-175, a resolution accepting the bid for I.C. 52-060, street and utility improvements - Tanager Creek. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Update on 169/Prairie Center Drive Traffic Signals Director of Public Works Dietz said the supplier will not cone through with the necessary equipment to complete signalization of the TH 169/Prairie Center Drive intersection for 8 - 10 weeks. X. NEW BUSINESS There was none. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. k 11 11:11! CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST October 15, 1985 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) REFUSE HAULER Creative Century Builders Waste Technology, Inc. Dallas Development Company Elview Construction, Inc. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Andreasen Plumbing & Heating Co. Arlington Lumber Co., Inc. Monnens Bros. Construction PRIVATE KENNEL Sandcon, Inc. Stobbe Development, Inc. Eugene Swanson (9440 Eden Prairie Road) Tancor Construction GAS FITTER Cronstrom's Heating & Air Condiitoning HEATING & VENTILATING Cronstrom's Heating & Air Conditioning These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the license activity. Pat Solie, Licensing l _ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner DATE: October 9, 1985 RE: RESOLUTION NO. 85-229 Urban Hennepin County Communities, participating in the CDBG program, and who have allocated funds to be used for the Household and Outside Maintenance for the Elderly program, each year are required to execute a public service agreement. This agreement is between the City and the Agency providing the public service. In this agreeement, H.O.M.E. is a service developed by the South Hennepin Human Services Council. Hennepin County has prepared the agreement which is a standard contract signed by all communities participating in the H.O.M.E. program. Resolution No. 85-229 is the formal procedure the City follows to execute and (-_ approve this public service agreement. The agreement is prepared annually. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN RESOLUTION #85-229 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PUBLIC SERVICES AGREEMENT/H.O.M.E. PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL. WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie is an authorized cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program by virtue of a joint cooperation agreement executed between the City of Eden Prairie and Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has allocated Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds in program Year XI, Project Number 030, for the purpose of supporting the Household and Outside Maintenance far Elderly program. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, in consideraton of the mutual covenants and promises contained in the 'ocument entitled "Public Services Agreement/Home Project", approve and agree to its —conditions. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, on this 15th day of October, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk PUBLIC SERVICES AGREEMENT/HOME PROJECT This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Eden Prairie , herein after referred to as thee"City and South Hennepin Human Services Council, a public service agency, hereinafter referred to as the "Agency", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is an authorized subgrantee participant in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program by virtue of a joint cooperation agreement executed between the City and • Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59, and WHEREAS, the City has allocated Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds in program year XI , project number 030 , for the purpose of supporting the HOME program admini- stered by the Agency, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: The City agrees to provide S2,700 dollars in Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds to the Agency in support of the HOME program. II The Agency agrees to provide the City: 1. Affidavit of Agency service fee schedule. 2. A financial statement for the past full year. 3. A statement of public revenue sources for the period June 1, 1984 through June 1, 1985. III The Agency provides assurance that it will comply with: 1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL88-352) (Nondiscrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.) 2. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended. (Nondiscrimination in any program or activity subject to provision of the HCDA.) Public Services Agreement/Home Project Page Two 3. OMB Circular A-102 Attachment 0, Section 14, paragraph (h) by assuring the grantee, federal grantor agency, the Comp- troller General of the United States or arty duly authorized • representative access to all records directly pertinent to this contract for the purpose of making audit examinations, excerpts and transcriptions. 4. OMB Circular A-102 Attachment C (2), and maintain all required records for a period of three years after receiv- ing final payment. IV The Agency, prior to financial reimbursement from the City shall provide the City with: 1. Statement of service provided to client. 2. Individual Data Confidentiality form 3. Client Income Verification 4. Maintenance Service Plan/Service Evaluation V This Agreement is effective as of 10-15-85 , and shall continue in full force and effect until all funds made available under this agree- ment have been expended in accordance with paragraphs I-IV, but no later j than June 1, 1987 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals this 15th day of October , 1985. Upon proper execution, City of this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. State of Minnesota By South Hennepin Human Services Council City of and By Mayor South Hennepin Human Services Council and City Manager CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN RESOLUTION NO. 85-239 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie approves the Leaf Recycling Site Lease Agreement with Hennepin County; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute such agreement. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, on this 15th day of October, 1985. Gary D Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • I • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,, .P 320 Washington Av. South _' _ . �498S Hopk ins, Minnesota 55343 `k 4Mf s0a HENNEPIN n 935-3381 _„J L TTY 935-6433 September 26, 1985 Carl Jullie Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Carl: Submitted herewith are two copies of the leaf recycling site lease agree- ment for City approval. This agreement is similar in all respects to the previous agreement except, the time limit has been extended to cover a three year period with a 90 day notice termination provision. Carl, I took the liberty of revising the original time limit clause in an effort to eliminate what appears to be unnecessary administrative process- ing. The 90 day termination clause should protect the City with respect to the City's lease of the property from the Metropolitan Airports Com- mission. If this meets with City approval, will you please return all copies with the required signatures along with a certification of council resolution. Upon appropriate action by the County Board, one copy will be returned to the City. Very truly yours, r J.L-M. Kirtland Chief of Maintenance JMK/sjb Encl(s) I cc: V. T. Genzlinger H. 0. Klossner HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer Agreement No. PW 35-49-85 County Project No. 8558 City of Eden Prairie County of hennepin LEASE AGREEMENT This Agreement, made and entered into this day of 1985, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Eden Prairie, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City"; WITNESSETH; WHEREAS, The City has leased certain property from the Metropolitan Airports Commission, including the premises described in Article I below; and WHEREAS, The city wishes to sublease the said premises described in Article I below to the County to be used as a leaf recycling center; and WHEREAS, The County is desirous of instituting a leaf recycling center on the said premises; and WHEREAS, The County and the City are authorized by Minnesota Statute 471.59 to enter into agreements providing for the exercise of powers shared in common, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises herein recited and of the covenants, conditions and agreements hereinafter set forth to be made, kept and performed by the County and the City, it is hereby agreed: The City in consideration of the covenants hereinafter mentioned, does hereby -1- demise, lease and let unto the County, and the County does hereby hire and take from the City, the following described premises situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, Viz: The South 350 feet of the following described parcel: The Southerly 400 feet of the Westerly 433 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 116N, Range 22W, excluding the right- of-way of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 4 and the Northerly 350 feet of the Westerly 533 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28 Township 116N, Range 22W, excluding the right-of-way of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 4. II The term of this Lease shall commence upon execution of this agreement by the parties hereto and terminate on September 30, 1988. Either party, however, may terminate the Lease for any reason whatsoever upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party that said Lease shall cease and terminate at the end of the said ninety day period. III As rent for the premises, the County shall pay to the City S250.00 annually. IV The City and County agree that this Lease is being entered into and the premises -2- ( may only be used for the following purposes to-wit: for the purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining a leaf recycling center and keeping on said premises stock piles of leaves, and other materials to be used in a leaf composting operation and for • ingress end egress to and over the leased premises. V The County, at its own expense, shall: a) Provide all necessary maintenance of the access road to the leaf recycling center. b) Provide screening of the leaf recycling site through berming along Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 4. The berming and grading plan are subject to the approval of the City; (- c) Upon termination of this Lease, remove from the leased premises all materials placed by it thereon, and, at the option of the City, restore the leased premises to its original condition; d) Indemnify, save and hold harmless the City and all of its agents and employees of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, costs and expense of whatever nature, including attorneys' fees, arising out of or by reason of the County's use of the leased premises provided for herein, or as a result of the City's execution of this agreement or any action taken as a result therof; e) Defend at its own sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced against the City for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatever nature which may arise as a result of the work performed or use of the leased premises by the County; f) Prevent all unauthorized access to the premises; -3- g) Comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the United States of America, State of Minnesota, or of agencies, departments or divisions of either, including but not limited to, FAA regulations and state zoning requirements in connection with any use of or improvements on the premises; h) Prevent any use of the premises including, but not limited to, constructing structures or installing lights which would interfere with or be a hazard to the flight of aircraft over the property or to and from the airport or interfere with air navigation and communication facilities presently or in the future serving the airport; i) Keep the premises and improvements situated thereon free and clear of any and all liens in any way arising out of the use thereof by the County, and shall not r sublet the whole or any part of the premises or assign all or any part of its present interest in this Lease without first obtaining the written consent of the City, nor shall the County make use of the premises for any purpose other than those expressly stated herein; j) Pay any and all taxes, license fees or other charges that may be legally levied, assessed or made during the term of this Lease or any extension thereof by reason of the uses hereby permitted of the premises; k) Refrain from creating any unreasonable noise, dust, or odor in the conduct of its operations on the leased premises and in the event of a complaint by any owner of adjacent property that any unreasonable noise, dust or odor is being created or produced by such operation, will eliminate the same promptly. -4- I • VI The County and the City each binds itself its successors, executors, administrators and assigns to the other in respect to all covenants of this Lease. VII It is understood that this Lease and use of the premises is conditioned upon and shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Metropolitan Airports Commission as owner and operator of the public airport of which the subject premises constitute a part. The County agrees that the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall at all times and through its agents and employees or contractors have a right of entry upon the premises, as may be necessary in the development, maintenance, operation and control of the airport, with the further right reserved to.the Metropolitan Airports Commission to install and maintain under the premises such utility lines, conduits, pipes and facilities as may be necessary to the development of said airport. VIII The County expressly agrees that this Lease and the rights and privileges contained herein, is contingent upon the City's License Agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which is incorporated herein by reference. The County agrees to indemnify, save and hold harmless the City from any and all liability which may result from this Lease or the County's use, maintenance and occupancy of the subject premises described in paragraph I herein. The County shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from liability or claim of liability for loss, damage or injury to persons or property on or about the premises described in paragraph I from whatever cause, and the City shall not be liable to the County to any extent, nor will the County make any claim -5- against the City for or on account of damage to the lands described in paragraph I or loss damage to or destruction of improvements, facilities and structures hereon. In the event of the termination of this Lease for any reason whatsoever, the County shall, and hereby does waive any and all claims of any character for damages or loss which it may sustain for any reason or cause whatsoever. Ix The City agrees that, upon the performance of the covenants, conditions and agreements contained herein, the County shall and may peacefully have, hold and enjoy the premises for the purposes and term stated. -6_ IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE (Seal) By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: By: Clerk of the County Board Chairman of its County Board Date: Date: And: Upon proper execution, this agreement Associate County Administrator will be legally valid and binding. and County Engineer By: 1C Gz � j e'/4 Date: Assistant County Attorney / Date: 7— ( /— r RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Approved as to execution By: By: Director, Department of Transportation Assistant County Attorney Date: Date: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 85-230 RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make the following improvements: 1.C. 52-087, Sanitary Sewer Improvements Along Baker Road and North of Roberts Drive and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study, and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on October 15, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk C]TS OF iiJ=l; n;: , !+l':f. . ,•:h jE'nrioN FOR 1OCLL To The Tien Frairie City Council: The t:i.rersig ed f-•,ol•crty o.:ners herein petition the F.oen Prairie City Council to consider raking the following described improver.ents(s): /y (GAne-ral Location) ty ? ti unitary Sc er el.Oc Ule��i.IS. a�LP__�.•.-�R -to. �/Cl+�.. /aC hate�r.•ain Sto:-rn Sc.,er Strc-et Fay ing • Other Street Add:cse or Other Legal p:ccription of f::•.es of Petitioners Fro3.erty to be Served (t.;at ne P o-erty ^.ners) • - - - - 70.7 � 6q 7/0 ('or Cit. :.e) ; SEva 87 .-,l =.-_:, 007o.?02.- �3O CHANGE ORDER NO.3 September 27, 1985 PROJECT: Flying Cloud Drive JJ Eden Prairie,Minnesota E.P.I.C. 052-064 RCM Project No.841016 TO: Opus Corporation You are hereby directed to make the changes noted below in the subject contract. Nature of Change: I. Remove surcharge at station 27+30 to 28+80 in Spring, 1986. 2. Reconstruct bituminous roadway, construct sidewalk and restore boulevard in Spring, 1986. Justification: I. Required due to settlement of roadway due to underlying soft soils. Schedule of Adjustments to Contract Costs: 1. 966 Loader 8 hrs @$90.00 = $ 720.00 2. Tanden Truck 16 hrs @$45.00 = 720.00 3. Remove C&G 150 LF @$2.50 = 375.00 4. Remove Bituminous 250 SY @$2.00 = 500.00 5. Excavate and recompact upper 3' of damaged area I LS @$600.00 = 600.00 6. Bituminous paving mobilization 1 LS @$100.00 = 100.00 7. Bituminous base 125 tons @$13.30 = 1,662.50 8. Bituminous wear 55 tons @$14.50 = 797.50 9. Bituminous material for mix 8.5 tons @$198.00 = 1,683.00 10. Tack coat 100 gals.@ $1.60 = 160.00 11. CL. 5 (crushed) 100 ton @ $6.00 = 600.00 12. B618 C& G 150 LF @$10.00 _ 1,500.00 13. 5"Concrete sidewalk 84 SY @$20.00 - 1,680.00 14. 4"Topsoil 63 CY @$4.00 = 272.00 15. Sod 25 SY @$2.50 = 62.50 16. Flashers over winter 1 LS @$300.00 = 300.00 Summary of Contract Adjustments: Contract Amount Prior to this Change Order $ 698,367.50 Net Increase Resulting from this Change Order $ 11,732.50 Current Contract Amount Including this Change Order $710,100.00 The Above Changes are Approved: RCM,INC e CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE B y �L By Date (0 1( 13 C-- Date The Above Changes are Accepted: OPUS CORPORATION By _�.-c /'fr Date /U//d-s' l CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-231 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF AUTUMN WOODS 3RD ADOITION WHEREAS, the plat of Autumn Woods 3rd 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, 8E IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for Autumn Woods 3rd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated October 9, 1985. B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. D. 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 October 15, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL • John D. Frane, Clerk ( CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician DATE: October 9, 1985 SUBJECT: AUTUMN WOODS 3RD ADDITION PROPOSAL: The developer, Trumpy Homes, has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Autumn Woods 3rd Addition located Southwesterly of Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition and easterly of Autumn Woods addition in the South 1/2 of Section 7. The proposed plat consists of 27 single family residential lots on 9.80 acres. This addition is a replat of part of Outlot A, Autumn Woods and part of Outlots I and J, Autumn Woods 2nd Addition. HISTORY: The preliminary plat for the areas encompassed by Blocks 1 and 4 was approved by the City Council on May 7, 1985, per Resolution 85-101. The preliminary plat covering Blocks 2 and 3 was approved by the City Council on April 3, 1984, per Resolution 84-68. Zoning to RI-9.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council on June 18, 1985, per Ordinance 14-85 (covering Blocks 1 and 4) and on May 1, 1984, per Ordinance 25-84 (covering Blocks 2 and 3). Summary Resolutions 85-139 and 84-83, adopted on June 18, 1985 and May 1, 1984, respectively, and the Developer's Agreement executed August 6, 1985, apply to this subdivision. VARIANCES: A variance from the requirements of City Code 12.20, Subd. 2.A, waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. IiI All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. Page 1 Page 2, Final Plat Autumn Woods 3rd Addition, 10/9/85 UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities, streets and walkways will be installed throughout the addition in conformance with City standards, City Code requirements and the Developer's Agreement. • PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication requirements are defined in the Summary Resolutions and will be as required through the City Code. BONDING: Bonding shall conform to the requirements of the City Code. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Autumn Woods 3rd Addition subject to the requirements of this report, Resolutions 85-139 and B4-B3, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $115.00. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $2,560.00. 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1,080.00. 4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. 5. Receipt of development plan specified in Resolution 84-85. 5. Satisfaction of Special Assessment and Easement Agreements specified in the Developer's Agreement. DLO:sg cc: Mr. Dennis Trumpy Mr. Ron Krueger CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 85-234 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW PORTION TO MUNICIPAL STATE-AID ROUTE SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie has determined that the road hereinafter described should be designated as a Municipal State Aid street under the provisions of Minnesota Laws of 1959, Chapter 500. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that the road described as follows to wit: Municipal State Aid Street No. Beginning at the intersection of (Mn/DOT to Assign) Shady Oak Road (Hennepin County Road Rowland Road, between Shady Oak 61) and Rowland Road (approximately Road and City Limit 0.54 miles South and 0.05 miles east of the Northwest corner of Section 1, Township 116, Range 22); thence westerly 0.10 miles; thence southwes- terly 0.09 miles; thence westerly 0.10 miles; thence northwesterly 0.33 miles; thence westerly 0.12 miles; thence northerly 0.39 miles to the north line of Section 2, Township 116, Range 22 (approximately 0.64 miles east of the northeast corner thereof) a total of 1.13 miles and there terminating. Summit Drive extension Beginning at the intersection of between Co. Rd. i!4 and Dell Rd. Hennepin County Road 4 (Eden Prairie Road) and Summit Drive (approximately 0.43 miles south of the Northeast corner of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22); thence westerly 0.90 miles; thence southwesterly 0.31 miles; thence westerly approximately 0.14 miles to the intersection with Dell Road (MSAS 113) (approximately 0.26 miles west and 0.35 miles north of the southeast corner of Section 19, Township 116, Range 22) a total of 1.35 miles and there terminating. Cedar Forest Road Extension Beginning at the intersection of between CSAH 1 and Summit Hennepin County Road 1 and Cedar Drive Extension Forest Road (approximately 0.29 miles Page 2, Resolution 85-234 east and 0.30 miles north of the Southwest corner of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22); thence northerly 0.28 miles to the inter- section with Summit Drive (MSAS number to be assigned) (approximately 0.29 miles east and 0.44 miles south of the northwest corner of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22) a total of 0.29 miles and there terminating. be, and hereby is established, located and designated a Municipal State Aid street of the City of Eden Prairie, subject tot he approval of the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this Resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his consideration, and that upon his approval of the designation of said road, that same be constructed, improved and maintained as a Municipal State Aid street of the City of Eden Prairie. (Route number to be assigned by Mn/DOT). ADOPTED by the City Council on October 15, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. crane, Clerk The Park at City West CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 31-85 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 COOE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the 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 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 far 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 October 15, 1985, entered into between The Park at City West Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, and the City of Eden Prairie, and that certain Owner's Supplement to Developer's Agreement, between Anderson Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, dated as of October 15, 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 3rd day of September, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 15th day of October, 1985. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of Exhibit A Legal Description Outlots D and E, CITY WEST SECOND ADDITION, and Lot 8, Block 1, CITY WEST, all in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Park at City West DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by The Park At City West Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited 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 Amendment and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for construction of 288 • apartment units on 13.5 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #31-85, • 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 September 3, 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 of the 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 plans for storm water run-off and erosion 1 control for the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed in the above plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. i 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. Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property, i 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. Prior to approval by the City, the Developer must call for on-site inspection of the property by the City, and defects in ' materials and workmanship in the implementation of said measures 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. 5. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property within the construction limits as shown on Exhibit 8. 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 (12) 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 trees removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the construction area. Developer further agrees that said 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 the 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, Develoepr shall 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 I bond, or letter of credit, shall be 150% of the approved estimated cost of implementation of all tree replacement work and shall be in 1, such form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the Director of Planning. Developer agrees to prepare and submit for approval to the Director of Planning a written estimate of the costs of the tree replacement work to be completed. 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. 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 the following: A. Samples of exterior building materials, including, but not limited to the brick, cedar, and materials for the overhead doors for the structures. B. Detailed lighting and signage plans. C. A detailed landscaping plan identifying the type, quantity, size, and location of all proposed plant materials. In addition, the landscape plan shall include a five-foot high berm along City West Parkway in front of all parking areas. Regraded areas adjacent to any of the ponds shall be planted with lowland vegetation to restore the land to its original natural character. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed above with the materials and according to the plans as approved by the Director of Planning. 7. 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. 8. Developer agrees to became a member of the City West Owners' Association with respect to ownership and maintenance of the common areas of the overall Planned Unit Development property. 9. Developer agrees to the terms and conditions of Exhibit 0, "Amendment To City West Planned Development Agreement; Amendment To Purchase Agreement," regarding road access, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Exhibit D AMENDMENT TO CITY WEST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this ��!� day of August, 1985 by and among MARVEY FINGER, Suite 200, 99 Detering, Houston, Texas 77007 ("Finger"), RICHARD W. ANDERSON, INC. , a Minnesota corporation, 7665 Commerce Way, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ("Anderson"), and the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ("Eden Prairie"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Anderson owns those certain parcels of real prop- erty situated in the city of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota legally described as: Lot 8, Block 1, CITY WEST; and Outlots D and E, CITY WEST SECOND ADDITION (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, Finger is purchasing the Property from Anderson pursuant to an executory purchase agreement dated April 9, 1985, as amended by instrument dated as of June 27, 1985 (the "Purchase Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Property is part of the so-called City West . Planned Development and is subject to the terms and conditions of the City West Planned Development Agreement by and between Anderson and Eden Prairie dated February 16, 1982 (the "PUD Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the PUD Agreement requires that the owner of Outlot E, CITY WEST SECOND ADDITION (a part of the Property) plat a road designated as 'A Street" along a certain location on the northern portion of said Outlot E; and WHEREAS, Finger intends, after closing his purchase of the Property, to construct a multi-building apartment complex and numerous parking areas thereon (the "Project") and has submitted to Eden Prairie for approval a Land Development Application dated • July 12, 1985 regarding the Project (the "Application"); and WHEREAS, Finger, in the Application, among other things requests that the POD Agreement be amended to delete the require- ment that the owner of said Outlot E plat "A Street" and Eden Prairie ::has approved said request on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, Finger and Eden Prairie have agreed that _den Prairie shall acquire and construct, when and if necessary, a street of design and capacity similar to "A Street" at a yet to 0 • be determined location on the property lying adjacent and directly to the north of Outlot E, which property is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and is currently known as the Honeywell property (the "Honeywell Property"), and that the owner of Outlot E shall dedicate to Eden Prairie, at the time such street is constructed, a 60 foot wide right of way running from City West Parkway to the northern border of Outlot E. which right of way is depicted and legally described in Exhibit B attached hereto, to provide access from City West Parkway to the w Property; and street to be constructed on the Honeywell _ �+, WHEREAS, because of the terms and conditions imposed by Eden Prairie with respect to its approval of said Amendment of the PUD Agreement, Finger and Anderson have agreed to amend the Purchase Agreement in certain respects; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the prem- ises, commitments and undertakings hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and suffi- ciency of which each party hereby acknowledges, the parties agree as follows: 1. Amendment of PUD Agreement. A. The PUD Agreement is hereby amended to delete the requirement that "A Street" be platted, dedicated and/or con- ( on Outlot E, CITY WEST SECOND ADDITION. B. In the event Eden Prairie shall ever acquire a parcel of land on the Honeywell Property on which to construct a street in place of "A Street" (hereinafter the "Honeywell Street Parcel"), the owner of said Outlot E shall thereupon dedicate to Eden Prairie, by quit claim deed in recordable form, the 60 foot wide parcel shown and legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto (hereinafter the "Access Parcel"). As used herein, the term "street" shall refer to any street improvements constructed on the Access Parcel or the Honeywell Street Parcel. C. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Project, the owner of Outlot E shall pay to Eden Prairie the following sums: (1) S72,800.00, representing the accuisitipn price of the Honeywell Street Parcel; and (2) $17,095.00, representing one-half (1/2) of the engineering and construction costs or the street in accordance with Eden Prairie standards, including curb and gutter, grading, paving and storm sewer as may be necessary ("construction costs"), for the length of the Honeywell Street Parcel; and - 2 - 1' (3) $12,065.00, representing the total construc- tion costs of the street for the length of the Access Parcel. The above amounts have been agreed upon by the parties and repre- sent the entire liability of the owners of the Property with respect to the acquisition, engineering and construction of any street on the Access and Honeywell Street Parcels regardless of capacity, configuration or ancillary improvements, and the owner(s) of the Property shall have no further liability whatso- • ever to the City of Eden Prairie for any such costs, except for • parking lot reconfiguration costs discussed in section 1.0 below. Specifically, but without Limitation, the owner(s) of the • Property shall have no liability for any special assessments or other taxes or charges levied by the City of Eden Prairie or any other municipal unit in connection with acquisition, engineering and construction of said street and associated improvements, (except parking lot reconfiguration costs) . • D. In the event Eden Prairie constructs such a street upon the Access and Honeywell Street Parcels, and the Project shall as a result require additional parking, the owner of Outlot E shall make a good faith effort to acquire a parcel of land suf- ficient to allow it to reconfigure its parking area to meet Eden Prairie zoning and code requirements; provided, however, that under no circumstances shall the owner of Outlot E be required to ., acquire a parcel of land having dimensions greater than, or located in whole or in part outside the boundaries of, that cer- tain parcel located on the Honeywell Property depicted and Legally described in Exhibit C attached hereto. If within 45 days after Eden Prairie begins construction of such street, the • owner of Outlot E, acting in good faith, is unable to enter into a purchase agreement for such land for an amount not to exceed a sum equal to the amount listed in Section 2.A(4) hereof together • with simple interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum commenc- ing as of the date hereof (the "Acquisition Amount"), it shall be deemed as unable to acquire such land. In the event the owner of Outlot E is deemed as being unable to acquire such land, Eden Prairie may use its power of eminent domain, as part of the ,tr et improvement project, to acquire such land and the owner of Outlot E shall reimburse Eden Prairie for all condemnation awards and damages it pays in order to acquire such 1andeuta.-- a-- m="t c -ttion Amount. Should Eden Prairie be flab, a of unwilling Tto' acquire such land, then Eden Prairie nN 1,L7 9,,.,F (._.; ns.,;-air eew.r}a-n-t s t ha --i.-t—w 1- grant the owner of Ou t Lo t E a • 64,., t" variance (or other appropriate License, permission or approval) per tzt:nq the Project t0 continue operating with the numper of oar: r.a 'paces remaining after construction of said street. E. In the event the owner of Outlot E or Eden Prairie does acquire such land as may be necessary to reconfigure t e narRihq Lot, the owner of Outlot E snail, at its own expense, • arcmptLv proceed to construct the balance of the affected _a r:_ng • Lot to me. Eden Prairie zoning and .ode requirements. • - 3 - • F. The first median cut east of the bridge on City West Parkway will remain in its present location to provide access to the Project until construction of the street occurs, if ever. At the time of construction of the street, Eden Prairie shall grant the Property and the Project an additional "right in/right out" on the north side of City West Parkway in a loci- {� tion de 2. Amendment to Purchase Agreement. A. Anderson and Finger agree that the Purchase Agree- ment is hereby amended to reduce the Purchase Price by the aggre- gate of the following amounts: r . ,'/^+. r- (1) $72,800.00, representing a credit for the acquisition costs of the Honeywell Street Parcel; i _ (2) $17,095.00, representing a credit for one- half (1/2) the construction costs of the street for the length of the Honeywell Street Parcel; (3) $12,065.00, representing a credit for the total construction costs of the street for the length of the Access Parcel; (4) $21,286.00, representing a credit for the purchase price of certain land to be purchased by the owner of Outlot E from the owners of the Honeywell Property (which shall be a part or all of the parcel described in Exhibit C) for any required parking lot reconfiguration; and�( (5) $10,000.00, representing a credit for the engineering and construction cost to reconfigure the parking lot to meet Eden Prairie zoning and code requirements. Except as specifically amended by this Section 2, the Purchase • Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect. 3. Miscellaneous Provisions. A. Upon execution of this Agreement by Finger and Anderson, the provisions of Section 2 hereof will immediately become effective as an Amendment to the Purchase Agreement. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the provisions of Section 1 of this Agreement shall become effective only upon execution of this Agreement by Eden Prairie and final approval of the Application (for land development) by the Eden Pr Council, said approval to occur no later than otember 1985. In the event such approval is not forthcoming by said date, unless the parties extend the effective date hereof, the entire Agreement shall be null and void ab initio and of no force and effect whatsoever. - 4 - B. This Agreement may not be amended except in a writing executed by all the parties hereto. C. Any notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be delivered personally or mailed by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested to the applicable party at the address listed on the first page of this Agreement. D. The provisions of Section 1 and 3 of this Agree- ment shall run with the land, and all the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, personal representatives, executors, "successors and assigns. E. The following Exhibits are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein: Exhibit A -- Legal Description of the Honeywell Prop- erty Exhibit B -- Depiction and Legal Description of Access Parcel Exhibit C -- Depiction and Legal Description of Park- ing Lot Reconfiguration Parcel IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have hereunto set their names on the day and year first above written. Marvey F�nget- RICHARD W. ANDERSON, INC. BY JJ its President CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA By Its --and-- By Its - 5 - • � t STATE ) • � ) ss. COUNTY Ok_cllfc? r"w/ ) The foregoing agreement was acknowledged before me this cg-17 day of August, 1985, by Marvey Finger. (/p/7 (2--41/, ?-7(e,- Notary Public My Commission Expires: lCATHERINE R.WHEELER STATE OF •.,,r<'��fit ) Wen,�tiK•in and:nr tP:Stara,,i:ce s s. My CAmmrssion L4prrea 5 J.i do COUNTY OF/17 ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this f/51- day of August, 1985 by Richard W. Anderson, the President of RICHARD W. ANDERSON, INC., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. t M��j///j//"''' Comm i.gsion CH.ERYL A.JENSEN STATE OF MINNESOTA ) fg NOTARY PUBLIC•MINNESOTA t HENNEPIN COUNTY ) SS. My Canmoean Expires June11.1991 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of August, 1985 by and respectively, the and of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said municipal corporation. My Commission Expires: THIS :NSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD (JMF) Suite 1500 LOO South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 - 6 - • • • • • • • • • • EXHIBIT A Parcel 1: • That part of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter, Section 1, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, • lying Westerly of the East 43 acres thereof, lying Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 61, and lying Southerly of a line 393.17 feet Northerly of, as measured at a right angle to the South line of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter. NOTE: Parts of Parcel 1 are Registered Property as set forth on Certificates of Title Nos. 572290 and 556518. Parcel 2: • J That part of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and that part of Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way line of County Road No. in Section 1, Township 116, Range • 22, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, lying Northerly of the • following described line: • Beginning at the point of intersection of Northwesterly • right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 169 as described • in Document No. 3821860 and the East line of the West • Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter said Section 1; thence Northerly along said East line • a distance of 195 feet to the actual point of beginning • of the line to be described; thence South 68 degrees, • 17 minutes, 52 seconds West a distance of 687.98 feet; thence Southwesterly to the point of intersection of • the South line of the Northwest Quarter, said Section 1, • • • with the Northeasterly right-of-way line of County Highway Nc. 61 as defined in Document No. 3788715 and there terminating. EXHIBIT "B" A 60.00 -foot strip of land for public right-of-way over, under, and across the west 60.00 feet of the east 540.00 feet of Outlot E, CITY WEST SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • • • The Park at City West OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARK AT CITY WEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by and between Richard W. Anderson, Inc., 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 #31-85 changing the zoning of the property owned by Owner from Rural to RM-2.5, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1985, by and between The Park at City West Partnership, and City, Owners agree with the City as follows: 1. If The Park at City West Limited Partnership 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. 4. As part of the closing proceedings for the property between Owner and The Park at City West Limited Partnership, Owner agrees to pay to the City of Eden Prairie, from the closing proceeds, the amount of $24,000.00 for purposes of completion of the "jogging path" in the overall City West Development, as referred to in the "JOGGING PATH AGREEMENT," between the City of Eden Prairie and Richard W. Anderson, Inc., dated October 6, 1983. The City shall hold said $24,000.00 until such time as the construction of the "jogging path" is completed, and approved by the Director of Planning, as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. If the "jogging path" in the overall City West Development is not completed by October 31, 1985, the City of Eden Prairie may use the $24,000.00 to perform the necessary construction for completion of the jogging path. If there are any remaining funds left from the $24,000.00, Owner agrees that said remaining funds shall be used to complete improvements, other than the "jogging path," itself, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto (i.e. benches, lighting, and other items shown). RICHARD W. ANDERSON, INC. By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1985, by the of Richard W. Anderson, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public CITY Gary D. Peterson, Mayor Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1985, by Gary D. Peterson, the Mayor, and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public • The Park at City West CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-216 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 31-85 AND OROERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAIO SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 31-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 21st day of May, 19B5; 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. 31-85, 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. 31-85 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 October 15, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 31-85 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING OISTRICT 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 north of Shady Oak Road and east of City West Parkway, known as The Park at City West, 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: r /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson 4 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.) • TO: Mayro and City Council From: John D. Frane, Finance Director DATE: Dctober 11, 1985 RE: Final approval of Housing Bonds for Park at City West $17,500,000. Resolution 85-237 This project was given preliminary approval on September 17, 1985. There will be 2 issues for $17,500,000; the first to provide construction financing and the second to provide permanent financing. Both issues will be guaranteed by third parties. The city attorney's office has reviewed and approved the final document. The resolution will be in the Mayor's signature file. JDF:vab 10/11/85 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director DATE: October 11, 1985 RE: Eden Square Shopping Center Request to set a Public Hearing Date for M.I.D.B.'s $6,200,0O0 The project is proposed to be located south of the Eden Prairie Center and north of Prairie Center Drive. The proponent desires to have a hearing in 1985 to escape possible adverse tax changes. At the public hearing we could give them a preliminary resolution without allocating any of the City's "cap". Resolution No. 85-227 is included for your consideration. JDF:bw 10/11/85 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RESOLUTION NO. t;3 '--14 7 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO UNDERTAKE AND FINANCE A PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES,CHAPTER 474 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 474.01 et se . (the "Act"), authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds to finance projects;and WHEREAS, the term "project" is defined by Section 474.02, subdivision la, of the Act to include"any properties,real or personal,used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise";and WHEREAS, „.,d,"L L Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership to be formed in which Robert M. Larsen will be a general partner(the "Developer"), has presented this City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Eden Prairie (the"City") with information concerning a proposed shopping center (the"Project")to oe acquired and constructed within the City;and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City resolve to issue revenue bonds pursuant to the Act to finance the Project and have presented to the City Council an Application for Industrial Development or Housing Bond Financing, including a form of preliminary resolution concerning such issuance with a request that such preliminary resolution, attached hereto as Exhibit A, be considered for adoption by the City Council;and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 7b of the Act provides that the City Council must conduct a public hearing on any proposal to undertake and finance a project;and WHEREAS,Section 474.01,subdivision 7b,of the Act provides that notice of the time and place of such public hearing,stating the general nature of the project, and an estimate of the principal amount of the bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the project, must be published at least once not less than fifteen (15) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City;and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that the notice must state that a draft copy of the proposed applications (the "Applications") to the .Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development for approval of the Projects,together with all attachments and exhibits,are on file with the City and available for public inspection;and WHEREAS,the Developer has presented to the City a form of public notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B, with a request that the City Council establish a date for a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project and authorize publication of the form of public notice provided by the Developer; 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 13Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THAT: 1. The City will conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project on the rr' day of A`)s/.m/kn.. , 1985. 2. It is the present intention of the City Council to adopt the preliminary resolution in the f9rm attached hereto as Exhibit A after completion of the public hearing on ///,"/fJ ,1985. 3. The City Clerk of the City is hereby authorized to cause a public notice,substantially in the form of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit 8, to be published in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City once,not less than 15 days prior to the date set for such public hearing. 4. The City Clerk of the City is hereby authorized and directed to have available for public inspection in the offices of the City draft copies of the proposed Application,together with all attachments and exhibits thereto. Adopted this day of ,1985. Gary Peterson Mayor Attest: John Frane City Clerk 2 EXHIBIT A CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RESOLUTION NO. ' ) RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTivIENT OF ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL, AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OP NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the welfare of the State of Minnesota (the "State") requires active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible,emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment,and it is the policy of the State to facilitate and encourage action by local government units to prevent the economic deterioration of such areas to the point where the process can be reversed only by total redevelopment through the use of local, state and federal funds derived from taxation, with the attendant necessity of relocating displaced persons and of duplicating public services in other areas;and WHEREAS, technological change has caused a shift to a significant degree in the area of opportunity for educated youth to processing, transporting, marketing, service and other industries, and unless existing and related industries are retained and new industries are developed to use the available resources of the City of Eden Prairie (the "City"), a large part of the existing investment of the community and of the State as a whole in educational and public service facilities will be lost, and the movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to areas where their services may be effectively used and compensated and the lessening attraction of persons and businesses from other areas for purposes of industry, commerce and tourism will deprive the City and the State of the economic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities for the remaining population;and WHEREAS, the increase in the amount and cost of governmental services requires the need for more intensive development and use of land to provide an adequate tax base to finance.these costs;and WHEREAS, itr.-<?.• . ;n• i� a Minnesota general partnership to be formed in which Robert M. Larsen will be a general partner (the"Developer"), has advised this City Council that it desires to acquire land and construct thereon a 90,000 square foot,retail shopping facility(the"Project")in the City;and WHEiti.AS, the existence of the Project in the City will contribute to more intensive development and use of land to increase the tax base of the City and overlapping taxing authorities and maintain and provide for an increase in opportunities for employment for residents of the City, including economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals;and 1 WHEREAS, the City has been advised that conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital costs of the Project is available at such costs of borrowing that the Project would not be economically feasible without the availability of industrial development bond financing;and WHEREAS, this Council has been advised by the Developer that on the basis of information submitted to them and their discussions with representatives of area financial institutions and potential buyers of tax-exempt bonds, industrial development revenue bonds of the city could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the Project;and WHEREAS, on the basis of information given the City to date, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenue bonds under the provisions of Chapter 474, in an amount presently estimated not to exceed $6,200,000 to finance in part the cost of the Project currently estimated to be$6,465,000. NOW,THEREFORE,BE 1T RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Project are hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the issuance of the revenue bonds for such purposes and in such amounts approved, subject to(a) approval of the Project by the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development, (b) allocation to the City of authority to issue private activity bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.19, and (c) subject to the mutual agreement of this body,the Developer and the initial purchaser of the bonds as to the details of the bonds and provisions for their payment. In all events, it is understood, however,that the bonds of the City shall riot constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the Project, and the bonds, when, as, and if issued,shall recite in substance that the bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City. The City hereby authorizes and directs the staff of the City to seek an allocation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.18, Subdivision 4, to issue such bonds. Such allocation is subject to the agreement of the parties referred to above as to the terms of the bonds. 2. It is hereby found and determined that the Project would not be undertaken but for the availability of industrial development bond financing. 3. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01,Subdivision 7a and Section 474.16, the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and directed to submit a proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. The Mayor and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development with any preliminary information needed for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project,if it is approved. 4. The law firm of Holmes& Graven, Chartered,is authorized to act as Bond Counsel and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents relating to tiie Project and bonds issued in connection therewith. The Mayor, City 2 Attorney, and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to assist Bond Counsel in the preparation of such docu:nents. 5. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 11,the City Clerk and other officers,employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to encourage the Developer to provide employment opportunities to economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals. Such individuals may be identified by such mechanisms as are available to the City, including a first source agreement in which the Developer agree to use a designated State employment office as a first source for employment recruitment, referral,and placement. 6. The Developer has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved or an allocation is granted by the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development; whether or not the Project is carried to completion;and whether or not the bonds or operative instruments are executed. 7. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the condition that by December 31, 1985 the City and the Developer shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the Revenue Agreement,the bonds and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the bonds and their issuance and sale. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth above, or any extension thereof,and the bonds are not sold within such time,this resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. 8. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a ( firm commitment that the City will Issue the bonds as requested by the Developer. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not to issue the bonds,or issue the bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to above, should the City at any time prior to issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the bonds, or to issue the bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to above,or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. Additionally,the City is an entitlement issuer within the meaning of Minnesota Laws 1984,Chapter 582 (the"Act"); this resolution does not and shall not be deemed to constitute an agreement on the part of the City to allocate a portion of its entitlement allocation under the Act to the Project, and this resolution and the preliminary approval of the City set forth herein are contingent upon either an allocation or such entitlement allocation by the City of an additional allocation of bonding authority from the Commissioner of DEED with respect to the Project in an amount equal to or greater than the principal amount of the bonds prior to issuance and sale of the bonds. 3 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #85-199 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF DATASERV, INC. FOR OPUS CORPORATION BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Dataserv, Inc. for Opus Corporation, dated September 16, 1985, consisting of 9.56 acres for an office/warehouse/service area, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 15th day of October, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk } I 1 MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner HROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: September 20, 1985 PROJECT: Datasery LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of the intersection of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Opus Corporation REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres. 2. Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 10.1 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into one lot and one outlot. 10 -8 84 , R EG `�\:, \ Background J C REG-SCR �SER i\' This item was continued from the -- '---1 i_=• 75445 , August 26, 1985, and September 9, 49-83 C-REG `4! -8 1985, Planning Commission meetings, SER �¢g iREG, to allow the proponent the op- C-REG-S R /"-SEF�1 portunity to respond to direction as 82 S \\-- -- PROPO..ED SiTE �' outlined by the Planning Commission =C , L_e�,r. , !`� and Staff recommendations contained 2EG=S E--R"= - � in the August 23, 1985, Staff ��:. 10 \ - Report. 12- Th!:1o0nat:e primary issues raised included: y --, '0At,411 •.��• :-.. i 1. Inconsistency with the ap- _ / ' IOWA./ 14-1 ~ proved Planned Unit Develop- `�- - �411 i-5P':K ment in terms of usage, •4 Y�.- architecture, and building 1 t,'i\C'6- '_ materials. - , 1 j `: 8I-2( 1 c.-RFG-c. . s_� t5-L34 C-iti( Z:Z . 80-30. • • �,� OFC -- AREA LCCXflCN MAP 7 1 1 Datasery 2 September 20, 1985 2. Loading areas not screened from public view. 3. Office appearance towards Prairie Center Drive. 4. Screening of parking areas from adjacent roadways. 5. Screening of rooftop mechanical units. 6. A landscape plan meeting the minimum caliper inch requirement per Code. 7. A loss of 2.37 acres of green area as depicted on the revised Planned Unit Development. Site Plan Revisions There are five major site plan revisions to the project that are the result of a different parking lot configuration and a different shape to the building, and which include: 1. The setback area to parking along West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive has been increased from 50 to 70 feet; 20 feet would be designated as proof- of-parking area. 2. A 20-foot wide planting island has been added in the center of the parking lot to help break up the views of the cars and hard surface area. 3. The truck dock area has been completely enclosed with a roof, and partially with a wall, such that the loading docks would not be visible from higher elevations, and from on-grade elevations the loading docks would be in shadow. In addition, there would be substantial berming and landscaping in front of the loading areas to help downplay the warehouse portion of the project. 4. A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk has been added along the southern side of the parking area to allow people to walk from their vehicles with minimal interference from auto circulation within the parking lot. 5. The southern building elevation has two jogs which helps break up the overall flatness as originally proposed. Architecture An office appearance towards West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive was a condition of approval of the original Planned Unit Development Concept. Building elevations have changed substantially such that the office appearance of the structure has been wrapped completely around the southern building elevation, providing for architectural continuity. Metal sunscreens have been eliminated from the plan. The rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan depicts mechanical units in a central location on top of the building with a proposed bronze metal screen that is similar to the approach used on the Factory Outlet Building. Datasery 3 September 20, 1985 Primary exterior building materials will be facebrick and glass on all sides of the building. Landscaping A total of 142 additional caliper inches have been added to this project, exceeding the minimum caliper inch requirement for this project. A total of 619 caliper inches would be required per Code. The increased setback area from 50 to 70 feet along West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive provides more green area and berm heights have been increased. Although the proposed increase in berm height will adequately screen the parking areas from West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive, it will not break up the views of the parking area from Highway #5, which is at a higher elevation. Since the proposed berming along Prairie Center Drive is at a 6/1 slope, the height of the berm could be increased up to four feet by going to a 3/1 slope. Concept Plan for the Outlot The proponents have submitted two site usage plans for the balance of the property, which is to be platted as an outlot. The site usage pl&i, which calls for an expansion of the Datasery Building, continues the office character around the southern and western sides of the building, and stays out of the wooded area to be preserved along the south property line. However, the large parking area in front of the building will require heavy landscaping to screen parking areas and to break up the overall expanse of hard surface area. Phase II of Datasery is proposed at 100,000 square feet. The total gross building square footage would be 232,000 square feet, or 23,000 square feet more than the approved Planned Unit Development. The net effect would be approximately 1.2 acres of additional hard surface area on- site above the 1984 Planned Unit Development for 209,000 square feet of building as compared with 2.37 acres of additional hard surface area with the 264,000 square foot building approach. This site alternative eliminates the sidewalk connection to Prairie Center Drive. Future development plans must provide this connection. The alternative site usage plan calls for a 60,000 square foot office/warehouse building on the outlot, which means that the total square footage for the entire site would be 192,000 square feet; 17,000 square feet less than the approved Planned Unit Development. This site usage plan does encroach more into the existing trees on the southern property line and there will be problems with the screening of the loading areas from Prairie Center Drive. Although the parking area is somewhat smaller than the other site usage plan, it will still require substantial berming and landscaping to screen the parking areas and break up the overall hard surfaced area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres, a Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 10.1 acres, and a Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into one lot and one outlot, based upon the recommendations in the Staff Report, dated September 20, 1985, and August 23, 1985, based upon revised plans, dated September 16, 1985, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: 7 Datasery 4 September 20, 1985 A. Modify the grading plan to maximize berm heights at a 3/1 slope along Prairie Center Drive and West 78th Street. 2. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility plans for review by the City Engineering Department. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. • B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. Snow fencing shall be installed at the drip line limits of the wooded area along the south property line. No grading permit shall be issued until proposed erosion control and snow fencing have been installed. C. Submit samples of proposed exterior building materials for review. D. Submit an overall lighting plan with details for review. E. Submit an overall signage plan with details for review. • • I STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission • FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: August 23, 1985 PROJECT: Datasery LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of the intersection of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. APPLICANT: Opus Corporation FEE OWNER: Opus Corporation REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres. 2. Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 9.56 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into one lot and one outlot. ✓- --- Background - / r_ ;� 83 This site is part of a 17.4 acre 108-84 /' -REG y---\-\Ts.: , Planned Unit Development (PUD) for CREG-ER-- `Sch Office and Industrial uses known as \� J the Prairie Center Business Park, --r—i YYy j8:45 ' \': p� approved by the City Council in , r- C-KG '4' 43) March of 1984. The PUD Concept Plan • 4.3 83 SER (;ilr ; envisioned 206,000 square feet of C-REG-S R %-Y(.I office, warehouse, and manufacturing 82 (sFiOPQSED SITE uses in three buildings. The =C �,. lAZ.A c.�_—v __.,.=s . Prairie Center Business Park was Cr EG `-t3 ---- approved according to proposed // -A, + - Ht'1C `� ` design guidelines (see attached (( / — 2 fR C��_ guidelines, dated March 20 1984 —_ -_ � t To summarize the guidelines, any I' A ti�� L.r �/�-'X"`� `""„'�L� development of the parcel should / /- z (iX l appear as office on the south and ,- `yc�f X west elevations; primary building j^-. '` 1`, �y%' 14-I materials of brick or better, ` excluding concrete panel or concrete �/ ; 1-S P:K block; truck docks that mere not to �, �� i`e __ __,,j^_. r• be visible from public view; there i .-- a.\.`..46- L,-rxLt•- was to be a minimum of 50^. office _ 1 j (; P4-2' use in the project; and, arch- ` N ?„L;t4' ir.,; • itectural continuity was necessary \ - is tv C'T6'.i:71 On • tam i-,, /', ..e^.n p 1 7) )j/' , t '1 f 1 Datasery 2 August 23, 1985 to make the warehouse portions of the project similar to the office portions through consistent use of window treatments, building materials, and other architectural elements. The attached Commission and Council minutes reflect attitudes toward the development of this site as a transitional use between the industrial land uses (Rosemount Engineering to the east of the site, and office, regional commercial, and flood plain/open space uses to the south and west of the site). The minutes also indicate that this site was a "keystone" entrance to the Major Center Area and the Purgatory Creek Recreational Area, and because of this, development should be of the highest quality and reflect an office character. Site Plan The site plan depicts the construction of a 132,000 square foot building with a two- story office portion facing towards Prairie Center Drive, and a one-story, 30.5 foot high, warehouse portion behind the office portion of the project, adjacent to Rosemount Engineering. The building as proposed is 50% office. Expansion plans would double the size of the building to 264,000 square feet. Staff estimates that approximately 2.37 additional acres (14%) of green space, as depicted on the approved PUD, would be converted into hard surface area (building and parking). The expansion plans will also encroach into the wooded area along the south property line, which was to be preserved as a condition of PUD approval. The site is being developed at a Floor Area Ratio of 0.32. For I-2 Park zoning, the Code would allow up to a 0.3 Floor Area Ratio for a one-story building, and a 0.5 Floor Area Ratio for a two-story building. Building and parking areas meet minimum setback requirements. A total of 448 parking spaces are provided on-site, which includes 42 proof-of-parking spaces. The Code would require the provision of 448 parking spaces based on 66,000 square feet of office at five spaces per 1,000; 32,000 square feet of warehouse at 1 space per 1,000; and, 34,000 square feet of assembly at three spaces per 1,000. Access to this site will be by driveway off West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. The access on West 78th Street aligns with an existing median cut, ana the access on Prairie Center Drive is setback approximately 400 feet from the intersection of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. Due to the amount of berming and landscaping of the driveway entrance on West 78th Street, Staff expects there will be sight vision distance problems. Grading Overall site grading can he described as extensive. The majority of this site has been previously graded, and some of the material was used for contructinn of Prairie Center Drive. Conditions of approval for the PUD required that the tree stand and land farm along the southern side of the property he retained. The existing grading plan does this; however, the future building and parking expansion wiil encroach into this wooded area and result in tree loss. Any future development of the property to the south will require the submittal of a detailed tree inventory for further review and analysis of the proposed site plan impacts. Grading on the site will result in extensive cuts up to 27 feet. The knoll along the nerthwestern portion of the site will he removed, providing a window into this site frni Prairie Center Drive, West 78th Street, and iliqhwav #5, making this site very visible. Cuts on the eastern portion of the site will he up to 10 feet; l Datasery 3 August 23, 1985 however, the building is tucked into the hillside and makes use of an existing land form as a physical transition between Rosemount Engineering and this site. Proposed grading along West 78th Street from the driveway entrance easterly, will remove almost ail of the existing natural vegetation. The vegetation might be described as scrub vegetation consisting of elm and box elder; however, the land form is significant. Architecture Conditions of approval for the Prairie Center Business Park PUD included continuity of building materials and exterior treatment, such that the views of the project from the south and west would be office in appearance. The building, as proposed, is not consistent with the guidelines approved with the PUD. The south elevation has an office appearance for the west half of the building; however, the warehouse portion, constructed out of precast concrete panel and a different window design, does not create architectural continuity and contributes to a warehouse appearance of the building. The proponents contend that since the Oatasery project involves two phases, the use of tip-up concrete panels is temporary in nature until such time that the second half of the building is completed. While this makes sense economically, there is no guarantee as to the time frame for completion of the second phase, or whether the second phase would be built at all. The proponents also contend that proposed grading and berming constructed along Prairie Center Drive will block sight lines into the project. This will only be valid until the development of the remaining parcel takes place, when the berm height would be lowered to accommodate development, and the warehouse portion of the project would be visible from Prairie Center Drive. The west building elevation facing Prairie Center Drive and Highway #5, is office- like in character for a portion of the building; however, both the overhead doors and on-grade doors detract from this appearance and contribute to the warehouse look of the project. The proponents have indicated to Staff that at least ten semi- trucks per day would enter and exit this site. Since only three loading bays are proposed, at some point, trucks would be parked beyond the dock area, meaning that a larger area would require screening. Conditions of the PUD indicated that the overhead doors would not be visible from the public roads. City Ordinance requires that the overhead doors, loading and maneuvering areas be screened. The plans do not indicate screening of overhead doors, or the loading areas. Only schematic plans for the location of rooftop mechanical units have been submitted for review. Although the sight lines indicate, from adjacent and lower roadways, that mechanical units would he screened from view, the plan does not take into consideration views from higher elevations, or from adjacent land uses. Staff also expects that the rooftop mechanical units would be visible from Highway #5. Since the area of the roof is extensive, it will be necessary that mechanical units be grouped into the tightest area possible. This would be similar to the rooftop • screening plan for the Factory Outlot. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan is not in compliance with City Coda for the number of caliper inrhos haled upon the sine of the building. Since the warehouse portion is in exco;s of 20 foot in height, the caliper inch requirxeent for that portion of the project would he double. According to City Code, a total of 619 caliper inches would tw required. Ow landscape plan provides for 509 caliper inches. Datasery 4 August 23, 1985 Proposed berming and plantings along Prairie Center Drive do not screen parking . areas. In addition, since the natural ridge line along West 78th Street will be cut up to 24 feet, the large parking area becomes visible from Highway #5. Considering the size of the hard surface area and minimal amount of planting islands proposed, perhaps the I-5 zoning district would be more appropriate for this property, requiring 75-foot setbacks within which large berming and plant materials can occur to better break up'the view of the hard surface area. Utilities Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by connection to existing water lines and sanitary sewer lines within the right-of-way for Prairie Center Drive. Storm water run-off is proposed to sheet drain across the parking lot into catch basins, from which water will travel through underground storm sewer pipes in a northerly direction to existing 30-inch and 15-inch storm sewer lines in West 78th Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff Report indicates there are a number of areas in which the current submittal is not consistent with the PUD, including architectural and continuity of building materials, screening of loading areas, and office appearance towards Prairie Center Drive. In addition, the site plan is not in compliance with City Ordinance for screening of parking areas from adjacent roadways, the total caliper inch requirement, and screening of rooftop mechanical units. Since the site is envisioned as a Corporate Headquarters site, it may be more appropriate to consider an I-5 zoning for the property as opposed to I-2, since the I-5 zoning district is generally reserved for large scale single users. The advantage to the I-5 district is that there are greater setback areas required to building and parking which would allow for more land area in which to provide substantial berming and heavy landscaping. Due to the inconsistency with the approved PUD, development guidelines (agreed to by Opus), and a site plan, which is not in compliance with regulations of the City Code, one alternative action for the Commission to consider would be to return the development plans to the proponent to allow them the opportunity to revise the site plan in accordance with the approved PUD, current zoning requirements, other recommendations as outlined in the Staff Report, and Commission concerns as well. Another option available to the Planning Commission, if it is determined that the project is not consistent with the PUP and does not represent the highest and best use of the property, since it is a "keystone" entrance site to the Major Center Area, would be to recommend denial of the project as submitted. I , • , • • 9 • *1,i,' "---.'""/1 ...%. ' ' ' 1 ,4 \ a , \) \ • 441 : , , . •"J V 7 1\ .. I. /....x.'. ``,:-.. i LI ( ,i '\ C\‘ \ ii...) • , • ' S-)-C2 Ci l', .._.\t/... • ‘ ."'., . 1 \ \ • / / ....4 F • \ ' ar sp ' 1 ,1•"" / 7,--' - .1 % \ \ .„- .-,, ,,-, - -: ‘,...1 A,\ \ , • ,:, „.= ---. --1 \\ - : \ \ \ ;' 4 1 ." •"" \ ,, .4.. - -:"...-:•" ,.--N, \ \ ..."!... F. i • . . .3...." . .0 ! ..?:1 -1 •A .• :: • , • .at ‘t '\ • ,=• % ,•• _.- ; \ • \, . a rb 7. -.!It - ?: k , . •-.....„: -. .I 1\ ,,\ ( "4"Lawertmatawawartatv.-..-c.,...4 '''"1 t t•• ' ' r- . ta It 4 I , .....--.• e, ( -1.2 - .1 . -.....,-.--- I t, r •-• r ,.._ _,.. , • . ., t...1 a 1 , 7" (...): • , it I:: e.:1 ' i = r. : • 0° t --:: -- ,+,i i - '1': l' - a...i • ii • L_ 0- 0,11. =31 i 1 1 _ •,,i, . t2, ., 1 : : :: II• i Ii 0.- C•:' - t-. — / I - :T.. i PArsosti . • .. I, .., 1 II --- , 'I, ' = C. .20 ; -_,:' . •'4 i 1 :I 1;-; t '''''..,•,,.o. 4----- - ."*.r1 1. I - I i".! 1 .... ,...., i' 1: 1:::-.1 .---.., :/ r.,,„,„„.........,........„! , -,-., . ,• N., ........ , ..i. . . , ,. _. , 1 I 0, '-' i c .I E r• ‘. - ' i] . ri ! . 1 : r .L i „ . - , .: „ t -, •E •,,,r.— ' sk:-... ,,, n. ! ' .I ,,:---- r-,-7: ' • : !. ,-.- N -, 4 -,. t ' ' I i :•.1,. i4. 1 '': :`; -, lo '''' `. 4... :1 \ \ I I i.I I •. .' I ... 6 .1 1 .1 '.--t,.. .',rm....," . ......11••Cl•-.A.I at-,•...,••4 --_,-_ -• _, \ • March 20, 1984 PRAIRIE CENTER BUSINESS PARK - EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Proposed Design Guidelines 1. Brick or other quality architectural grade materials permitted, (excluding concrete panel, decorative concrete block or industrial metal panel). 2. Docks are to be enclosed, recessed, covered or otherwise architecturally screened with building or land forms, so as not to allow truck docks to be visible from public views. 3. Stepped buildings which conform to existing contours of two or three stories in height are possible in this development. 4. The buildings on Parcels B and C should be built to appear as office structures. This may be done in a variety of ways including one or more of the following: a) Enveloping the warehouse use with actual office space on the south and west sides. b) Designing the warehouse portion of the building similarly to the office portion through the consistent use of window treatments, building materials, and other architectural elements. c) Above grade warehouse heights could be made consistent with office space heights. d) The window area of the south and west faces of the buildings should be • at lease twenty-five percent (25%) of those elevations. 5. The amount of office in the project total would not be less than fifty percent (50%). A higher percentage of industrial space may be placed on • Parcel A. Parcels R and C should contain no more than forty percent (40%) warehousing or manufacturing. 6. Underground or deck parking is not feasible for the development as now anticipated. This, however, does not preclude that possibility if the space needs or use requirements of the tenant or owner allow. 7. Solar design or earth sheltering may he used if feasible and if consistent with earlier stated design guidelines. • 8. The development will he highly landscaped with emphasis along roadways, parking areas, and around buildings. The wooded slope on the southern part of the site will be preserved. liermi_ng and ]andforms will be used as needed to create a natural looking setting. • Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 23, 1984 C. PRAIRIE CENTER BUSINESS PARK, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Uevelopment Concept review for 17.4 acres for three office/warehouse buildings. Location: Southeast quadrant of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. Ms. Michelle Foster, Opus Corporation, reviewed the request for development with the Commission. She stated that, while Opus realized that the area should be a. "transitional" development between the industrial use to the east and- the Purgatory Creek recreational area to the west, the idea of maintaining the uses as • strictly office, as opposed to a mix of office'and industrial, was not an option for Opus. She suggested changes to the development framework as proposed by the Staff Report and submitted a copy of the proposed changes to the Commission. Planner Enger reviewed the recommendations of the Staff report evaluating the project. He stated that, compared to the development framework suggested by the Staff in the Staff Report, the proposed framework by Opus did nothing more for this area than the basic • requirements of the I-2 Park district of the City Code. Planner Enonr stated that *his area needed to be dealt with as a transition area and :.hat .he m.rt important factor involved . the proper development of this parcel would be the character of the product as an office development. Planner Enger pointed out that the examples of buildings offered by • Opus to the Staff and Commission would meet the criteria suggested by the Staff Report, and, therefore, would be appropriate for use as a development framework for this transitional area. Schuck questioned why Opus would not commit to the development framework suggested by the Staff, even though it was their intent, by the examples given, to build within such a framework. Ms. Foster stated that she understood the criteria to be required, not suggested, by the Staff. Hallett stated that he agreed with Schuck, and stated that he felt this location was a key to the development of this entire area. As a cornerstone within the City to the Major Center Area, he stated that he felt the image of the site should be high and should take advantage of the future recreation area to the west. Mr. Mark Anderson, Real Estate division of Opus, stated that they would like to maintain flexibility within the development as there were no known clients for the property at this time. 1•ir. Johathan 'Miller, architect for the proponent, stated that he did not feel there that r:!rch difference between tha intent of the Opur, irrol a rl tlovelepownt framwork and the Staff Report reco :asnded dov b rr..,nt tram,,wurk. He felt that Opus could work with Staff to mitigate any differences. Mr. John l.unr,n, reprowntinq EcoJCr,, Inc., owners of the property, Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 23, 1984 stated that they had operated on the basis that the site was industrial. He stated that they were concerned about the type of product built on this property, too, as Feeders was also the owner of the property to the west. • • Marhula stated that he felt the site plan shown by the developer was not appropriate according to the statements that had been made at the meeting. Ms. Foster stated that as long as the items within the Staff Report were considered suggestions, or guidelines, instead 'of rigid critera, then Opus would have no difficulty in working within such guidelines. Acting Chairman Gartner asked for questions and comments from members of the audience. There were none. • MOTION 1: • • Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to close the public hearing. • • Motion carriej--5-G-U • MOTION 2: • • Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept for Opus Corporation for the Prairie Center Business Park, based on plans and written materials dated December 20, 1983, photographic representations submitted to the Planning Commission on January 23, 1984, and subject to the suggested guidelines of the Staff Report dated January 20, 1984. Motion carried--5-0-0 • • • • • City Council Iiinutes ) -2- t•. )uary ci, t.J(••t rc • • • • iv. runic tiL_AUtIN1;S • j A. PRAIRIE CEHTfR BUSINESS PARK by Onus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Deveiopuient Concept for 11.4 acres tor three office/warehouse buildings. . Location: southeast quadrant of West 73th Street and Prairie Center Drive. (Resolution No.' 84-34 - PUD Concept Approval.) City iianager Jul l i e stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published atld property owners within the project vicinity had been notified. Michelle foster, Assistant Director of Planning and Governmental Affairs for Opus Corporation, addressed the request. • Director of Planning Enger said this proposal had been reviewed by the Planning Cm mission at. its January 23, 1981, :meting at which time it reco;::;rendcct appro. subject to the recor.`::(etuiation s included in the January 20, 1984, Staff Report.. • He toted this is a very sensitive piece of property; the Cc•;:alission would not approve the plan in tht' fern as shown to the City Council. He said the Co:ratit, sion felt this site shield be the site t:hiuh nifers the transition from itrdus• trial ail tIeretorc `should lie, at least in appearance, an office site with bcili!ir;s of I rick rut with truck Lays enclosed and away from viol. tie said the Clanrina C:ieaiaien approved *he plan _•ul;ject to specific review in the futnue prior to roning. Director of Coorcuni;y Services lar:l•ert raid the Parts, Rrurcatinn Natural • had reviewed this rrtjue.t at its lebrnary 6, 19.;1. a tt,! had di ,t..'.rJ 1;1i:1 u:t. rather titan 1at..i d,`;'elel r'nt. It h.td voted to opor,n'al t.uhjeut to thou recoll. ondatiow. in t.0 ntaff tl part cu• t a. • City Council Minutes ' -3- F nary 21, 1984 Penzel questioned the grading plan referred to by roster. Director of Public ) ( Works Dietz said there was no clear answer as to what had been previously approved by the Council -- whether a final or interim grading plan had been approved. The interim grading plan contemplated removal of 200,000 cubic yards of material of which the City needed the majority; the City • Council had approved of this proposal. Dietz indicated the City has • removed 150,000 cubic yards already -- this is being used to surcharge Technology Drive -- and another 50,000 cubic yards is still needed. This • • will.bring the total to 200,000 cubic yards. However, 50,000 - 110,000 cubic yards could still be generated off that site and still fall within the interim grading plan. He indicated that what Opus is asking for is within the terns of what had been approved, but something which he was not comfortable with approving administratively. Penzel asked where this additional material would go. Dietz said on the west side of Prairie Center Drive; it would remove most of the material which needs to be removed, but it would not make the site "site ready". Penzel asked what the development schedule is. Foster said it would be over Penzel asked if Opus development. P eriod a two building/site hree , a t yearp Corporation was averse to building buildings over two stories. Foster said they are aiming at a market that needs and wants two or three story buildings; •she noted that the Opus II project has buildings which appear to be office buildings rather than industrial. • Bentley said he felt this site was the "keystone entrance" to the Major Center 4 Area and the Purgatory Creek Recreational Area and should be reviewed in terms of what is the highest and best use for this property. He said he felt this • would indicate office rather than industrial usage. He also noted he would not like to see any additional grading on the site. Redpath concurred. • Tangen asked what the condition of the site would be after the grading has been done. Dietz said it would be made to look as natural as possible. Redpath asked what type of use was intended in these buildings. Foster said she thought the intention was to fill the sites with those who would use them . as their coporate headquarters and would be at that particular location for a number of years. She noted it would be high quality industrial use. Foster said if the percentage of office use is a question, Opus might be able to come up with something which would offer n:are office and less industrial space. She indicated that if an entirely office use was intended then Opus night not be interested in this site. She said they are willing to talk about what per- centage should be used for office, but that they arc talking about a preder:rinac high quality industrial use. Anderson said he did not think the issue of phasing had been adequately address: Penzel suggested this be reviewed further by Staff and then curve back to the Council. MOTION: Bedpan roved, seconded by Tangen, to refer this to Staff for further review and continuo tho Public Mooriop to March 6, 19R1. The Council's cencrn, are. the transi;ienal use of the northeast parcel, the desire to hove pure office: space available on this site, and buildings should he of two or more stories. Motion carried una nie'ously. The consensus of the Council was to proceed with the interior grading plan. City Council Minutes -7- ) March 27, 1984 e B. PRAIRIE CENTER BUSINESS PARE: by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept for 17.4 acres for three office/warehouse build- • ings. Location: southeast quadrant of West 78th Street and Prairie Center • Drive. (Resolution No. 84-34 - PUD Concept Approval) -- continued from March 6, 1984. City Manager Jullie said Planning Director Enger had met with the pro- ponents and had worked out certain revisions to their conceptual plan plus development guidelines which were included in Enger's memorandum dated March 22nd. Michelle Foster, Assistant Director of Planning and Governmental Affairs . for Opus Corporation, reviewed what had been determined in meetings with the Planning Staff. She indicated that Opus felt it had responded to the ( . . City's concerns which had been expressed at the last meeting. See attached letter of March 20, 1984, which includes Design Guidelines. • Planning Director Enger noted the revised plans are in line with the • recommendations of the Staff Report (February 1984) and Planning Commis- sion recommendations. Bentley said the cnpaescnted to a ��theeCouncil now earlare ier vast improvement from what had been • John Keefe, attorney representing the fee owner, Feeder's Inc., referred • to his letter of March 14, 1934 (see attached), and indicated Feeder's support of the Opus request. • Bentley asked Keefe whether or not Mr. Hyde had taken part in the Purga- tory Creek Recreational Area Study meetings. Keefe said he didplan. notK know. Bentley said the feeder's property was a vital part of that indicated he would relate that to Mr. Hyde. MOII0;: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. N-34, BUD) concept approval including the quid;1 ines as su:%.uit.ted in the March 20, 1934, letter from Opus Corpora- Lion. Motion carried unanimously. 1r MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 23, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. • A. DATASERV, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 Park on 10.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into one lot and one outlot. Location: Southeast corner of West 78th • Street and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. I Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 23, 1985 This item was continued from the August 26, and September 9, 1985, Planning Commission meetings in order to allow the proponents the opportunity to revise the plans in accordance with the approved design guidelines for the Prairie Center Business Park Planned Unit Development Concept. Staff had met with the Developer several times since the last Planning Commission meeting and mitigated all the technical problems raised by the Commission and in the Staff Report of August 23, 1985. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the revised request. With respect to the proposed expansion of the development to the south, Planner Franzen noted that Staff was most comfortable with the alternative whereby DataSery would expand its own facility in a "mirror image" to the south. The other alternative showed another building for a different use, and indicated encroachment into the treed area to the southeast. The second alternative also represented less total square footage of structure on the site, but a similar structural appearance to the building shown in Phase I. Mr. Bob Worthington, representing Opus Corporation, briefly reviewed additional changes made to the plan since the last Planning Commission meeting. Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of DataSery for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.45 acres for an office/warehouse structure, based on revised plans dated September 16, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 23, and September 20, 1985. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of DataSery for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 10.1 acres for an office/warehouse structure, based on revised plans dated September 16, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 23, and September 20, 1985. Motion carried--4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 23, 1985 1 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of DataSery for Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into one lot and one outlot for an office/warehouse structure, based on revised plans dated September 16, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 23, and September 20, 1985. Motion carried--4-0-0 I Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 9, 1985 i B. DATASERV, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 9.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres int one lot and one outlot for construction of an office/warehouse building. Location: Southeast corner of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. Mr. Bob Worthington, Opus Corporation, reviewed the revised plans with the Commission. Changes had been made responsive to the Commission and Staff concerns, including the following: The loading dock area was completely enclosed; the south wall indicated a different architectural treatment involving jogs in the building, brick as the exterior material, and window bands similar to the office portion of the structure; landscaping and i Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 9, 1985 screening had been increased along the road frontages by placing "proof-of- parking" areas along the perimeter of the site and landscaping within those areas, which also had the effect of increasing the front setbacks from 50 ft. to 69 ft.; a 20 ft. wide, bermed and planted island had been added to the parking lot; and mechanical equipment would be grouped and screened with architecturally compatible material. It was also noted by Mr. Worthington that proponents intended to preserve the wooded area along the south and southeast portions of the property. He added that, at the next meeting, proponents would be prepared to show the Commission how the expansion of the structure would be located on the remainder of the site and, in the event that the DataSery building was not expanded, how another building for another user would work on the site. Mr. Worthington stated that proponents did not want Commission action at this meeting; however, they would want to have any additional comments and direction the Commission may have prior to requesting a Commission recommendation at the next meeting. Johannes asked if the band of windows would be continued across the south side of the structure in order to continue the office-like appearance of the structure to the warehouse portion of the structure. Mr. Worthington acknowledged that this would be done. ( Chairman Schuck stated that he preferred the jogs which had been introduced to the south side of the structure. He added that he would prefer to see a door on the loading dock area. Chairman Schuck stated that the revised plans appeared to be more in keeping with the guidelines which had been established and approved for the Prairie Center Business Park. Johannes asked if the entryway to the loading docks would be sufficiently screened by the landscaping proposed. Planner Enger explained that the area would likely be well screened based on the locations of the plant materials on the site. He stated that Staff would review this in greater detail upon receipt of the revised landscape plan from the proponent. Hallett asked if it would be possible to include a band of windows along the north side of the structure as well. He added that he concurred with Chairman Schuck that the redesigned project was more in keeping with the guidelines for the Prairie Center Business Park. Hallett asked if the berms along the front yards of the property would remain in the event that the proof-of-parking areas were needed along the perimeter of the site. Planner Enger explained that the effectiveness of the berms would remain and that if the proof-of-parking areas were needed, there would likely be "internal" retaining walls installed against the berms, instead. Marhula stated that he was satisfied with the manner in which the loading dock was now being treated. He noted that there had been a history of the sensitivity of this site to grading work, adding that there were cuts proposed of up to 30 ft. He asked that proponents be aware of this in the construction of this project on the property. • Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 9, 1985 Marhula encouraged proponents to present detailed plans of the future plans for the south portion of the property as action on the north portion may be dependent upon future plans for the south portion. Mr. Worthington stated that these plans would be available at the next Planning Commission meeting. Marhula stated that he concurred in the concerns of Hallett regarding the proof-of-parking areas of the site. He also asked if there were any internal sidewalks planned in the area of the parking lot in order to provide for safety of pedestrians in this area. Mr. Worthington stated that this would be added to the plans and shown in greater detail at the next • Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue this item to the September 23, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponents opportunity to complete revisions to their plans. Motion carried--6-0-0 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTIDN 85-235 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS ANO PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 17th day of September, 1985, fixed the I5th day of October, 1985, as the date for a public hearing on the following proposed improvements: I.C. 52-010D, Technology Drive Extension from Purgatory Creek to Prairie Center Drive 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 15th day of October, 1985, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EOEN 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 RCM, Inc., consulting engineers. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on October 15, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL 1 • John D. Frane, Clerk `ti: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-232 VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN OUTLOT E, CITY WEST SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain drainage and utility easements described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Outlot E, City West Second Addition according to the recorded plat thereof Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence South 00 degrees, 25 minutes, 53 seconds east, assumed bearing; along the east line of said Outlot E, a distance of 197.54 feet to the point of beginning of the drainage and utility easement to be vacated; thence South 88 degrees, 54 minutes, 26 seconds west a distance of 248.11 feet; thence South 50 degrees, 55 minutes, 06 seconds west a distance of 33.26 feet to the westerly line of said Outlot E; thence South 24 degrees, 05 minutes, 34 seconds east a distance of 31.06 feet, thence North 50 degrees, 55 minutes, 06 seconds east a distance of 30.95 feet; thence north 88 degrees, 54 minutes, 26 seconds east a distance of 237.45 feet to the east line of said Outlet E; thence North 00 degrees, 25 minutes, 53 seconds west a distance of 30.00 feet along said east line to the point of beginning and there terminating. Except the easterly 5.00 feet of said easement and also except the westerly 10.00 feet of said easement. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 15, 1985, after due notice was published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said right-of-way and drainage and utility easements are not necessary and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said drainage and utility easements as above described are hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a Notice of Completion of the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on October 15, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk ow Z \ iL q,: r 5 y L •. tiil '.y-] a ce, r is p. Sib°+'c; -a.� � `' -{• R r • 1//•/1�1 a N. + R_� '^ Y (. 71I1 .( 8, V' p LT. -J 1 , Jyy n1 s 5 - g4 / ~ • • I o z $ / � x / 0JR w o riNio cur /^7` 0 r r ijd v ; a ' • Q gan`gf �i St"; 1 �• 1 Jp I'7j 4� it $� Z \ _''' • Ilk Of NE 11E11 1 r 'R.', a Or/x[S SW a SIC 1 EAST UM Of 4^ . AL.ram... .. ..r�...___.__� V.. ...: n i R I�.Y. . q"4=� .F fib. • -x I. W. 62 ND sr \. el-DE CI O CC ' k .1,, 40 fpsemEN1 . j0 $c OQ ,�gt;NfcO X ,� Oa ..... w +1= SOO , ( 111 //V . • "•- 4RkkQy , /7 .t J Ikl ii, , ar \VI 111 1/P/1 . 1 _:.•••• , m 2' ,,` // Ilki ` ! sti4 ;� Oy _ Vkc4.1-;o.... 85--6 Mr.:, OCTOBER 15,19B5 22937 VOID OUT CHECK 399.1' 1 22982 VOID OUT CHECK 31.62- '030 VOID OUT CHECK 938.72- '. 083 METRO CONNECTIONS INC CANTERBURY DDWNS TRIP 90.00 J 23084 MANKATO STATE UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT 75.00 23085 DIANNE OLSON REFUND -MARKET SQUARE TRIP 11.75 i 23086 KATHY HOLCOMB REFUND -KIDS CORNER CLASS 2.00 23087 VOID CHECK 0.00 23088 VOID CHECK 0.00 23089 HENNEPIN CO DEPT OF PROPERTY TAX REIMBURSEMENT POSTAL VERIFICATIONS 28.92 23090 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 17.86 23091 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 8049.10 23092 BMB SERVICES MOVED SOUND EQUIPMENT- COMMUNITY CENTER 389.15 23093 MIKE PAUL ELECTRIC INC -REWIRE CONTROL CIRCUITS-WATER TREATMENT 938.27 -PLANT/MOTOR HEATERS-WELL #3/CONNECT TEMP MOTOR/RECONNECT HEATERS- WELL #5 23094 CURTIS 0 ERICKSON REFUND -CANTEBURY DOWNS TOUR 12.00 23095 JOAN ERICKSON REFUND -CANTEBURY DOWNS TOUR 12.00 23096 MARY ZENOR REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASSES 5.25 23097 ANN ZENOR REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASSES 5.25 23098 JOANNE SIMPKINS REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASSES 5.25 23099 NANCY BUSH REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASSES 5.25 23100 JENNIFER CRUMP REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASSES 5.25 23101 PAM HORNER REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASSES 5.25 23102 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 2369.36 23103 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHDNE CO SERVICE 87.68 23104 PAM BEAUVAIS REFUND -GUTHRIE TRIP 11.95 '3105 CITY OF MAPLE GROVE -MUNICIPAL BANQUET -EMPLOYEE'S REIMBURSED 92.75 CITY , ,106 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 11248.49 23107 QUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR 6289.89 23108 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1406.95 23109 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 205.21 23110 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 820.62 23111 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 8854.31 23112 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 748.41 23113 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 986.31 23114 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 4579.15 23I15 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLL 9/6 & 9/20/85 480.00 23116 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 5355.42 23I17 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 228.50 231I8 BEVERLY A CRONK REFUND -GUTHRIE TRIP 11.95 23119 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE CO INSURANCE 861.42 23120 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN INSURANCE 12654.10 23121 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC INSURANCE 6051.45 23122 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC INSURANCE 2014.30 23123 MINNESOTA ANIMAL CONTROL ASSN CONFERENCE- ANIMAL WARDEN 12.00 23124 MINNESOTA ANIMAL CONTROL. ASSN MACA MEMBERSHIP FEE 20.00 23125 VOID CHECK 0.00 {{ 23I26 TTTC WINTER ROAD MAINT SEMINAR 25.00 1. 23127 DORI ANDERSON REFUND -FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 21.25 23128 CHRISTOPHER VINELLA REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 7.50 73129 KEVIN HANSON REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 6.35 'I30 TRICIA J HANSON REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 6.35 .3] SUMMER COMEAUX REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 5.60 7375033 23132 VOID CHECK 0.00 23133 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 52.85 23134 NORTHERN STATES POWER CD SERVICE 32.19 ' '35 JOSHUA P CARLSON REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 15.00 .36 MRS JANET DALY REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00 23137 BRIAN STREMPKE REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00 23138 MRS GERI BELL REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 15.0D 23139 GR1FF ALEXANDER REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 15.00 23140 WHIT ALEXANDER REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 12.00 23141 VOID CHECK 0.00 23142 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC OCTOBER RENT-LIQUOR STORE 3900.53 23143 JASON-NORTHCO PROPERTIES OCTOBER RENT -LIQUOR STORE 4621.06 23144 SENIOR OPTIONS DEAR ABBY LUNCHEON & EXPO TICKETS 63.00 23145 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER SNOWMOBILE SAFETY CERTIFICATES 80.00 23146 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 5B2.63 23147 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 262.42 2314B ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 988.49 23149 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO LIQUOR 385.15 23150 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 172.49 23151 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE 1672.96 23152 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 165.10 23153 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERIES 52.00 23154 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SCHOOL -STREET DEPT 195.00 23155 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 6624.50 23156 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 39.50 23157 CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 8307.05 23158 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIXES 729.55 23159 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 3418.10 7l60 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 6383.55 51 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 438.00 2J162 MARK VII SALES BEER 2009.70 23163 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO MIXES 545.50 I 23164 REX DISTRIBUTING CO INC BEER 500.00 23165 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO MIXES 111.20 I 23166 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CD BEER 8784.15 23167 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE CO MIXES 47.76 2316B EDEN PRAIRIE SNOWDRIFTERS CLUB REIMBURSE SNOWDRIFTERS CLUB 3597.28 23169 A TD Z RENTAL CENTER EQUIPMENT RENTAL 28.62 23170 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 35.08 23171 ADT INSTALL P/S ALARM SYSTEM 600.00 23172 THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP -FORESTRY DEPT 15.00 23173 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO SERVICE 9.05 23174 AMI PRODUCTS INC HYDRAULIC HOSE-EQUIPMENT MAINT 170.50 23175 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC -CABLE RIDE/TUBE/RIGHT HAZARD MARKERS/KEEP 8380.08 RIGHT SIGN-PARK MAINTENANCE 23176 AQUA ENGINEERING INC P1PE/REDUCER/COUPLING/TEE-PARK MAINTENANCE 49.59 23177 ARMOR SECURITY INC REPAIR SECURITY SYSTEM -SENIOR CENTER 61.00 23178 DALE ARNDT SEPT 85 CUSTODIAL SERVICE 200.00 23179 ASTLEFORD INTL INC -BEARING/VALVE/WHEEL/SPRING/CAP/GASKET/ 455.53 CLAMP/NUT/WHEEL/LOCK-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 23180 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP 824.72 23181 ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS INC SERVICE-LEONA DRIVE 750.00 23182 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 59.02 23183 THERATICAL SERVICES & CONSULTANTS LIGHTING EQUIPMENT -COMMUNITY THEATRE 3736.84 .u21974 23184 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 1037.35 Jr 23185 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY MASK TAPE/DURAGLASS/REDUCER- EQUIP MAINT 131.50 I 23186 BACHMANS FLOWERS 22.45 '87 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -HUB/BRAKE SHOE/OIL FILTERS/BATTERY/FLUID 10I0.62 -WIPER 8LADES/FRICTION BRAKE/PADS/ROTOR/ -POWER STEERING FLUID/SIGNAL LIGHTS- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 23188 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION 28626.03 23189 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON JULY ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE 380.OD 23190 LEE BRANDT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 283.DD 23191 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE-PRESERVE BLVD/FLYING CLOUD DRIVE 2206.25 23192 W E BREESE JR REFUND WATER & SEWER BILL 37.80 23193 6 R W INC -SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE/VALLEY VIEW 43963.75 -ROAD/MITCHELL TO CO RD 4/TECHNOLOGY DRIVE -WALLACE ROAD TO WEST OF MITCHELL/EDEN RD/ -SINGLETREE RD/ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY- MITCHELL ROAD 23194 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC ROCK 4407.38 23195 MIKE BURGETT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 104.00 23196 BSC MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS -REPAIR EXHAUST MANIFOLD & INSULATE - 96D.00 WATER WELL #6 23197 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC COAT HOOK MIRROR CHROME- POLICE DEPT 33.00 23198 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 361.00 23199 CARDOX CORP CO2 -WATER TREATMENT PLANT 689.85 2320D CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC SERVICE 3242.00 23201 CARLSON REFRIGERATION CO INC -REPAIR FAN MOTOR WALK IN COOLER-LIQUOR 137.81 STORE 23202 CASE POWER & EQUIPMENT SWITCH - PARK MAINT 20.64 "03 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER -CALIPER/BRAKE ROTOR/HOSES/FUEL PUMP/ 1237.05 -TURN DRUM/ROTOR/TUBES/BEARINGS/OIL SEAL/ -CIRCUIT BREAKER/SWITCH/WIRING ACCESS/ -EXHAUST/PIPE/AC ADAPTER/WATERGAUGE/FAN -CLUTCH/BELT/GREASE GUN/WHEEL/BRAKE SHOE/ WIRE 23204 CITY OF CHANHASSEN LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR ALIGNMENT 2596.8I 23205 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO LEGAL AD 69.36 9 23206 CHEMLAWN LAWN CARE- P/S BLDG 520.00 23207 CHEMSEARCH CHEMICALS -WATER TREATMENT PLANT 129.29 23208 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC YOKE-MACH WELD ASSEY -EQUIP MAINT 411.80 23209 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC -CHAMBER/SEAL/WASHER/LINED SHOE/TURN BRAKE 605.75 DRUM/SPRING 23210 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE- PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 993.47 232II JOYCE CONLEY EXPENSES 21.45 232I2 CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC -EXTINGUISHERS/BRACKETS/FIRE COATS/PANTS- 2222.22 FIRE DEPT 232I3 COPY EQUIPMENT INC AMMONIA/SURVEY REPAIR PARTS/FILM-ENG DEPT 344.98 23214 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC SUPPLIES -CITY HALL 158.14 23215 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO DESK SIGNS- FINANCE & PLANNING DEPT 21.44 23216 CURTIS INDUSTRIES -LABEL SET/CABINET/METAL DIVIDERS/PINS/ 234.99 -LEFT HAND DRILL/RED LUBE-WATER DEPT & EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 23217 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC AIR FILTER-CLEANER/CLAMPS -PARK MAINT 64.35 23218 CUTLER MAGNER CO QUICKLIME -WATER TREATMENT PLANT 6698.71 23219 WARD F DAHLBERG SEPT 85 EXPENSES 80.00 __406624 23220 DALCO CLEANERS- COMMUNITY CENTER 170.09 23221 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE 40.50 I, 1222 EUGENE DIETZ SEPT 85 EXPENSES 166.75 ,223 DON EVE AND SONS STRAW - PARK MAINT 187.50 23224 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES 202.56 23225 DUSTCOATING INC OIL FOR ROAOS 2200.00 23226 DENNIS P EARLEY MILEAGE 29.25 23227 EAU CLAIRE COUNTY WITHHOLDING FROM EMPLOYEE PER COURT ORDER 3.00 23228 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS CULVERTS-DRAINAGE DEPT 109.80 23229 CHRIS ENGER MILEAGE 174.54 23230 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHLORINE- WATER TREATMENT PLANT 769.05 23231 FLYING CLOUD SANITARY LANDFILL TAX ON LANDFILL WASTE 86.70 23232 FRANZ ENG REPRODUCTIONS INC PRINTING -BLDG DEPT 154.42 23233 G & K SERVICES TOWELS/COVERALLS 303.05 23234 G L CONTRACTING INC SERVICE- HICKORY LANE 659.73 23235 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC -CITY RADIO REPAIR/INSTALL 2 RADIOS -EQUIP 465.06 -MAINTENANCE/PAGER REPAIR-POLICE DEPT/ RESISTOR-FIRE DEPT 23236 GLIDDEN PAINT -PRIMECOAT/PAINT/LINING FIELD ON HOCKEY 458.86 RINKS-PARK MAINTENANCE 23237 GOPHER SIGN CO HYDRANT ENAMEL -WATER SYSTEM MAINT 144.00 23238 GOULD'S TIRE TUBE - PARK MAINT 21.90 23239 DALE GREEN CO SOD-STARING PARK/WATER OEPT/STREET MAINT 209.00 23240 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC -INSTALL & REMOVE PANEL AT CIVIC CENTER 38.D0 FOR POP WAGON 23241 HALLOCK COMPANY INC REPAIRS- WATER TREATMENT PLANT 58.71 23242 MICHAEL W HAMILTON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PO 174.00 ?3243 HARMON GLASS WINDSHIELD REPAIR -EQUIP REPAIR 306.12 ?44 HENNEPIN COUNTY AUG 85 BOARD OF PRISIONERS 2378.50 • 'cs245 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OXYGEN/STREET LIGHT LENS 71.04 23246 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -1/2 SECTION MAPS-ENG/RENT CHIPHARVESTOR- 4222.17 FORESTRY DEPT 23247 HENNEPIN CTY CHIEFS OF POLICE SCHOOL -POLICE DEPT 369.00 23248 BILL HENNING & CO REFUND DEPOSIT ON FIRE HYDRANT METER 42.48 23249 HILLYARD FLOOR CARE SUPPLY CO PROTECTIVE COATING- COMMUNITY CENTER 13.47 23250 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC CLEANER/BUFFER PAOS - COMMUNITY CENTER. 56.64 23251 THE HOME COMPANION ADS - LIQUOR STORES 279.00 23252 HONEYWELL MAINT AGREEMENT- WATER TREATMENT PLANT 3374.75 23253 HOPKINS DODGE SALES INC TURN SIGNAL HARNESS -EQUIP MAINT 29.60 23254 HYDRAULIC SERVICES CYLINDER RESEALED -EQUIP MAINT 71.28 23255 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 -BUS SERVICE -SUMMER PROGRAMS/SEPT 85 3412.98 CUSTODIAL SERVICE-CITY HALL 23256 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 RENTAL OF BAND ROOM -COMMUNITY CENTER 135.00 23257 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC INSTRUMENTATION LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 40.26 23258 INGRAM EXCAVATING SERVICE-HOMEWARD HILLS/WOODLAWN HGTS PARK 4483.00 23259 IBM TYPEWRITER MAINT - POLICE DEPT 68.25 23260 J & R RADIATOR CORP REPAIR RADIATOR -EQUIP MAINT 46.40 23261 F F JEDLICKI INC -BACKHOE & LOWBOY TO CLEAN DITCHES & PONDS 1010.00 DRAINAGE OEPT 23262 JERRYS SUPER VALUE EXPENSES -SUNBONNET DAYS 74.7D 23263 JET PHOTO PRINTING - COMMUNITY CENTER 31.16 23264 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES - 168.18 23265 JUSTUS LUMBER CO -LUMBER FOR SURVEILLANCE VAN/PAINT- WATER 166.45 DEPT 2767690 1 i 23266 KARULF HARDWARE INC -CONCRETE/GLOVES/PAINT ROLLERS/CARPET TAPE 680.40 -DRAWER ORGANIZERS/BUG SPRAY/BATTERY/ -SCREWS/BOLTS/WIRE/PADLOCK/ELECTRIC TESTER/CORD/CASTERS/KEYS 23267 DANIEL J KASID SOFTBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 104.00 23268 KELLY SERVICES INC TEMPORARY HELP- POLICE DEPT 160.04 23269 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC SUPPLIES-SUMMER FUN PROGRAM 90.50 23270 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER -SPRAYER PUMP/8ROOM/BATTERY/BOLT/GRASS 134.09 SEED/SPRAY PAINT/PLEXAGLASS/IMPACT DRIVER 23271 RALPH KRATOCHVIL INSTRUCTOR FOR EXERCISE CLASSES-FEES PD 26.00 23272 KUSTOM ELECTRONICS INC RADAR REPAIR -POLICE DPET 112.86 23273 LANCE SUPPLIES -LIQUOR STORE 144.39 23274 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD AUGUST 85 LEGAL SERVICE 12875.10 23275 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD AUGUST 65 LANDFILL LEGAL SERVICE 2767.55 23276 MARY LAZOR MILEAGE -FORESTRY DEPT 5.65 23277 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES DUES 70.00 23278 LEEF 8ROS INC RUG SERVICE-CITY HALL 49.20 23279 LIEBERMAN ENTERPRISES INC AL8UMS- COMMUNITY CENTER 56.00 23280 LYMAN LUMBER CO SIDING - STREET DEPT 24.00 23281 LIL RED EDEN PRAIRIE GROCERY EXPENSES 33.72 23282 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC TIRE RIM - PARK MAINT 45.65 23283 MACOONALD AND MACK PARTNERSHIP CUMMINS-GRILL HOUSE RESTORATION 120.00 23284 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIP CO REPAIR HURST TOOL - FIRE DEPT 473.90 23285 TOM MAERTENS MILEAGE -FORESTRY DEPT 9.00 23286 MARK'S EDEN PRAIRIE STANDARD FUEL- POLICE DEPT 27.00 23287 MASYS CORPORATION 4 TERMINALS & MAINT AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 8173.00 23268 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES 93.05 ?1289 MCI CELLCOM SERVICE 13.49 t '90 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN -FIRE DEPT 50.40 t.291 METRO ALARM INC 4TH QTR 85 ALARM SYSTEM - P/W BLDG 60.00 23292 METRO FONE COMM INC OCT 85 PAGER RENTAL 54.12 23293 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP 8LACKTOP 6783.54 23294 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM AUG 85 SAC CHARGES 47965.50 23295 MILSCO ENGINEERING FOUNTAIN REPAIRS-P/S BUILDING 8.54 23296 MPLS AREA CHAPTER 1ST AID BOOKS - FIRE DEPT 61.70 23297 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP OCT 85 PAGER RENTAL 25.75 23298 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC TOUCH FOOT8ALL REGISTRATIONS - FEES PD 150.00 23299 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS -LIQUOR STORES 311.44 23300 MODERN TIRE CO WHEEL ALIGNMENT-FIRE DEPT 57.90 23301 THOMAS MONTGOMERY EXPENSES 5.00 23302 MUNICILITE CO STROBE LIGHT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 159.00 23303 MY CHEESE SHOP EXPENSES -VARIOUS MEETINGS 113.56 23304 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1150.39 23305 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP -BRYANT LAKE DRIVE 961.50 23306 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 198.50 23307 HARRY A ORTLOFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 44.00 23308 CHARLES J PAPPAS MILEAGE 18.00 23309 MIKE PAUL ELECTRIC INC -CHECK CONTROL CIRCUIT ON HIGH SERVICE 246.00 PUMP-WATER DEPT 23310 T A PERRY ASSOCIATES INC COOLING TOWER REPAIR -P/S BLDG 178.30 23311 PETTY CASH-PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT EXPENSES - POLICE DEPT 42.00 23312 CONNIE PETERS MILEAGE - 11.25 23313 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 8ELT FOR LAWN MOWER -P/S BLDG 10.50 / 'I4 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING -PRINTING OF ANNUAL PANCAKE BREAKFAST 117.74 ( TICKETS-FIRE DEPT 8507322 1 23315 PROTECT -AIRE SCREEN/EXTENSION PANELS -SQUAD CARS 134.85 23316 PRIOR LAKE AGGRETATE INC SAND 96.91 '17 JAMES PUFAHL SOFTBALL OFFICIAL- FEES PO 161.00 418 RAPIT PRINTING FORMS -ENG DEPT 102.00 23319 REED'S SALES & SERVICE RECD1L- PARK MAINT 19.40 23320 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA CASH REGISTER TAPE -LIQUOR STORE 71.71 23321 CITY OF RICHFIELD OCT 1 TO DEC 31 1985 DISPATCHING SERVICE 14432.33 23322 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE- TECHNOLOGY DR/FLYING CLOUD DR/ 16739.66 -PRESERVE BLVD/CREEK CROSSING AT GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE 23323 PAUL ROGERS DISC PARK LAND- DUCK LAKE TRAIL 101.25 23324 ROGERS SERVICE CO 3 ALTERNATOR REPAIR - SQUAD CAR 236.5D 23325 RYANS RUBBER STAMPS STAMPS 28.40 23326 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RESTROOMS - PARK DEPT 2.14 23327 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RESTRDDMS -PARK MAINT 43.85 23328 SAVOIE SUPPLY COMPANY INC SUPPLIES - WATER DEPT 166.60 23329 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC CONCRETE - STREET DEPT 193.80 23330 GEORGE SEDQWICK HTG & A/C REFUND HEATING PERMIT 59.48 23331 SHAKOPEE FORD INC -GAS PEDAL/HEATER CABLE/BRAKE ADJUSTERS/ 199.58 FUEL PUMP/BRAKE SHOES/ 0 RINGS 23332 STEVEN R SINELL SEPTEMBER EXPENSES 192.15 23333 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO EQUIPMENT REPAIR - POLICE DEPT 84.OD 23334 W GORDON SMITH CO -SWITCH/CORD/CLAMPS/REAR VIEW MIRROR/GAS 378.06 CAP/UNLEADED FUEL $297.64 23335 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -WRENCHES/BRAKE PLIER/PLIER SET/STREET 130.60 GARAGE 23336 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC LEGAL AOS & HAPPENINGS 1696.60 ' 7337 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADS- EDEN PRAIRIE HISTORICAL CULTURE 432.00 ( 3B SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADS-LIQUOR STORES 685.76 24339 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PU8LISH INC EMPLOYMENT AD -KIDS KORNER PROGRAM 27.00 23340 STATE OF MINNESOTA BOILER & PRESSURE VALVE INSPECTION FEE 40.00 23341 STATE TREASURER JULY 85 BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGE 7552.69 23342 STATE TREASURER AUG 85 BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGE 6788.83 • 23343 STATE TREASURER OPERATOR CERTIFICATE FEES - WATER DEPT 45.OD 23344 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC SERVICE -LEONA LAND & RESEARCH ROAD 125.00 23345 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC SUPPLIES - LIQUOR STORE 2.87 23346 TESSMAN SEED & CHEMICAL COMPANY CHEMICALS - PARK MAINT 1548.70 23347 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC MERLIN LETTERING MACHINE & TYPE DISCS 1463.03 23348 TOTAL TOOL -NOZZLE & HOSE FDR SANDBLASTER-WATER DEPT 173.81 AND STREET DEPT 23349 TRACY OIL CO INC UNLEADED GAS 9172.35 23350 TRANSPORT CLEARINGS FREIGHT CHARGES - ENG DEPT 89.39 23351 STANLEY W TULL COMPANY INC SEALS/RINGS/BEARINGS - PARK MAINT 56.88 23352 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO DXYGEN/ACETYLENE - STREET DEPT 60.63 23353 TWIN CITY TESTING SLUDGE ANALYSIS - WATER DEPT 174.00 23354 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES UNIFORMS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES 1150.95 23355 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC RINGS/SCREWS/80LT-STREET DEPT 376.48 23356 VAUGHNS INC 2 FLAGS - POLICE DEPT 164.00 23357 VICTORIA REPAIR & MFG SHOP PONTOON TRAILER RENTAL - PARK MAINT 10.00 23358 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 384.85 23359 SUSAN VOGEL ASSIST CPR INSTRUCTOR -FIRE DEPT 50.DO 23360 MARCY WALL CPR INSTRUCTOR -FIRE DEPT 104.D0 23361 WATER PRODUCTS CO -ONE 6" METER $408.00/VALVE/ SIX 1" METERS 5863.56 • $738.00/GASKET/CULVERT GASKET 7181265 52 WATERITE INC REPAIR KITS- COMMUNITY CENTER 64.10 t ,b3 WEED KING SERVICE -WEED CUTTING 588.00 23364 SANDRA F WERTS MILEAGE - COMMUNITY CENTER 95.50 23365 WEST CENTRAL INDUSTRIES INC LATHS/STAKES- SURVEY CREW 470.40 23366 WEST WELD WIRE WHEEL/STONE - STREET DEPT 83.D4 23367 WESTERN CHEMICAL CO CHEMICALS -WATER DEPT 2856.60 23368 SHARON WESTMAN SUPPLIES - COMMUNITY SERVICE 10.30 23369 WINGFIELD PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING TWO OIL COOLERS-WATER & STREET DEPT 9D.00 23370 XEROX CDRP SERVICE 130.78 23371 ZACK'S INC CLEANERS -STREET DEPT 137.00 23372 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 1ST AID SUPPLIES - PARK GARAGE 35.10 23373 ZIEBART AUTO TRUCK RUSTPRDOFING RUSTPRDOF FIRE SQUAD #3 175.00 23374 ZIEGLER INC -REPAIR FORESTRY TRUCK/SPRING/FILTERS/ 90.55 -CHECK & ADJUST SAFETY SHUT OFF VALVE/ ANALYSIS OF GENERATOR 23375 PITNEY &OWES COPIER SUPPLIES 435.OD 23376 CHANNEL CONST SERVICE-TANAGER CREEK UTILITIES 31830.44 23377 HARDRIVES SERVICE- PRESERVE BLVD 118897.28 23378 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE - ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY 251743.79 23379 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE -EDEN ROAD & SINGLETREE LANE 25163.14 23380 OPUS CORPORATION SERVICE - FLYING CLOUD DRIVE 43677.05 23381 SHAFER CONTRACTING INC SERVICE - VALLEY VIEW ROAD 1772.90 23382 SHAFER CONTRACTING INC SERVICE - PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 4361.40 23383 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES 381.93 23384 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 103.08 22 R5 CONCRETE RAISING INC MUDJACKING SERVICE CREEKSIDE COURT 671.50 4 ,6 D C HEY CO INC REPAIRS ON COPIER -CITY HALL 55.00 23387 TENNESSEE CHEMICAL CO FERRI FLOC -WATER DEPT 4534.94 48845382 $488453.82 • 10 GENERAL 144730.15 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 7259.00 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 55268.80 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 33291.55 ( PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 21055.10 UTILITY BOND FUND 31222.84 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 529862.30 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 4801.17 73 WATER FUND 32488.43 77 SEWER FUND 48207.55 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 5428.96 87 CDBG FUND 120.00 90 TAX INCREMENT FUND 7317.05 $921052.90 • TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director DATE: October 11, 1985 RE: Final Approval Evergreen (now Bryant Lake Partnership) $4,850,000 - Resolution No. 85-236 This project was given preliminary approval on June 4, 1985. The attached letter from the developer request waiver of the 1/8 of 1% fee. It should be noted that even if they did not know about the fee their bond attorney did. The City Attorney's office has approved the final documents. The resolution will be in the Mayor's signature file. JDF:bw 10/11/85 WE COMVANIES, IIYC. October 8, 1985 Mr. John Frane Finance Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Priarie, MN 55344 Re: Revenue Bond Fees to the City of Eden Prairie Evergreen Properties Project Eden Prairie, MN Dear Mr. Franc: Pursuant to our discussion of Tuesday, October 8, 1985. we are request- ing that the City does not charge the 1/8 of 1% fee for our Evergreen Properties Project. At the time we applied to the city on April 3, 1985, we were not told of any Revenue Bond Fee to the City of Eden Prairie. On approximatley April 12th, Brigga and Morgan delivered to you the preliminary documents and although it wea revised on April 29th, we did expect the project to go to the City Council on approxi mutely May 7, 1985. In my review of the June 4th final resolution, I have now become aware of a City Renvenue Bond Fee in the amount of 1/8 of 1% annually to be peid to the City. Since such a fee and policy was not in effect at the time of our application, we do feel it is proper to charge such a fee at this time. As you may recall, you requested that the City postpone our preliminary resolution e pproval to June 4th so you could put all the tax exempt requests on the agenda for June 4th. We cooperated with you in this request. However, that does not mean that we agreed to pay a 1/8 of 1% fee annually just because the City Council held the meeting on June 4, 1985. Mr. Frane, we do not have anyproblem paying 1/8 of i% fee on any future deals, however, as I have mentioned above, we did not know about this fee and st the time of our application and at the time it was supposed to go to the City Council there was no revenue bond fee in Eden Prairie. Could you please review this matter and get back to us shortly. We appreciate your cooperation. Sine- sly, Air or ` - e e sh Dennis J. Doyle General Partner General Partner Evergreen Properties Evergreen Properties /shm cc.: Trudy Halls, Bond Counsel, Briggs & Morgan �� FTret::; Eden Paine,Monesota 55344 (612)944-5810 Rear E:,rare Services.De.e,oprnenr,BroAerdge Manage,nant CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 85-238 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ALIGNMENT OF BAKER ROAD • WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation proposes the widening of County State Aid Highway No. 60 (Baker Road) from County State Aid Highway No. 62 (Crosstown) to Arbor Glen Drive. WHEREAS, Layout No. 1, Project No. 8312 showing the proposed improvement of County State Aid Highway No. 60 within the limits of the City has been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That said Layout No. 1 be in all things approved and that Hennepin County is hereby authorized by the City to acquire all rights of way, permits and/or easements required for said improvement in accordance with said Layout No. 1. ADOPTED BY THE Eden Prairie City Council on October 15, 1985. Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk , I 1 Normandale Tennis Club Request Information Packet 1) Memorandum dated October 1, 1985 2) Application dated August 8, 1985 3) Application letter dated August 8, 1985 4) Notice of Public Hearing regarding Request #85-37 • a) Request b) Legal 5) Letter dated August 22, 1985 6) Staff report to 8oard of Appeals and Adjustments by #85-37 7) Resolution of St. Johns' Wood Home Association 8) Letter dated September 12, 1985, from Peter Stalland 9) Letter from Judith M. Simac 10) Final Order #85-37 11) Approved minutes from September 12, 1985, Board of Appeals meeting 12) Copy of NTC site plan 1 1 MEMDRANDUM TD: Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner THRDUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: October 1, 1985 REGARDING: PROPDSED SITE FOR NDRMANDALE RACQUET AND TENNIS CLUB REQUEST: For a 17D,ODD square foot racquet and tennis club to be considered as a "Community Commercial" use in the zoning district, rather than a "Regional Commercial District". Issue The item for discussion is not a land use issue. The issue at hand has only to do with whether the characteristics of a racquet and tennis club match the generally described characteristics of the Community Commercial Zoning District, or if they are better described by the Regional Commercial Service Zoning District. Background Normandale Tennis Clubs (NTC), Incorporated, represented by their attorney, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., applied for an appeal of a Staff interpretation of the City Code, to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at the September 12, 1985 meeting. Because of the regional service draw created by the size of the racquet and tennis club, the Staff considered it as a Regional Commercial use and not consistent with a Community Commercial Zoning District. A Staff Report dated September 6, 19B5, to the Board of Appeals, represented the Staff's interpretation of the City Code and intended use for the Community Commercial and Regional Commercial land use. (Note Exhibit A) The Board, after reviewing the Staff Report, submitted materials by the applicant and presentation by NTC, determined the proposed Racquet and Swim Club an appropriate use in a Community Commercial Zoning District. City Council has elected to review the Roard of Appeals and Adjustments deision as provided for in the City Code. Site Review NTC proposes to construct a 170,000 square foot racquet and swim club on approximately 9+ acres at 6233 Baker Road. The property is currently guided for a Community Commercial use and is zoned Community-Commercial. A wholesale nursery currently exists on the property. Indoor tennis courts will occupy approximately 79,000 square feet in a building separate from the clubhouse. The clubhouse will be approximately 85,000 square feet. A detailed site plan, including building elevations, landscape/screening plan, and grading plan has not been submitted. Exterior materials have not been identified. City Code The City has five established commercial zoning districts: Neighorhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, Regional Service, and Highway Commercial Districts. The special purpose of a Community Commercial District is to: 1) "Provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area. 2) To permit development of community shopping centers and related residential uses of the size, and in the appropriate locations, shown on the Guide Plan, according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses." Permitted uses in Commercial Zoning Districts include all direct retail sales to users of goods and services, conducted within structures and accessory uses.Specifically, the Commercial-Regional Service uses are limited to sales and service operations which require relatively large sites, attract little or no pedestrian traffic, and are not typically found in shopping center structures. The C-Reg-Ser definition characterizes the NTC use. Basis for Staff Determination The Guide Plan defines Community commercial with the following definition: Community Commercial is intended to meet the day-to-day shopping needs of residents of the City and would include the full range of retail shops and services, at a scale smaller than a regional center and would range in size from 100,000 to 20D,0D0 square feet of retail or service sales area. Eden Prairie has established four Community Commercial locations, two of which are developed. Prairie Village Mall and Preserve Mall each have approximately 80,0D0 square feet and provide a variety of retail stores, including supermarket, hardware store, bank facilities, vidio cassette store, restaurants, drug stores, and various retail service stores. Staff considers a health club a personal service establishment, which is permitted in all three Commercial Zoning Districts, provided it is proportional to and consistant with the special purpose of the designated zoning. The proposed NTC utilizes the entire nine acre site, which is intended for an assortment of retail and personal service establishments, therefore, inconsistent with the Community Commercial Zoning District. Ramifications 1) Developing the total nine acre site for a racquet and swim club will set a precedent for other regional type uses in designated Community Commercial site. For example, a bowling alley, roller skating rink or warehouse food store could locate in Community Commercial District. The above mentioned uses would be considered Regional Commercial in service area. The distinction between the Regional Commercial and Community Commercial Zoning District is lost, if Regional Commercial use is permitted in a Community Commercial District. I 2) By dedicating the entire nine acre site to a health club facility, the City loses the opportunity for a retail and personal service establishment for 11 the immediate community area. Although the health club will provide fitness related services, it will not provide such services as restaurant, dry cleaner, super market, daycare center, hardware store, gas station, or other related retail services to the immediate community area. The facility will serve the entire community and portions of surrounding communities. As stated earlier, two Community Commercial sites are developed in Eden Prairie serving a population of 25,000+. Removing this Community Commercial site from assorted retail/service establishments will put increased pressure on the exiting C-Comm centers, which when constructed, serviced a population of approximtely 15,00D. The service area for the NTC of this size is approximately 10 miles, and is tied into a regional sports club system. Community Commercial sites, as identified on the Guide Plan, are intended to serve approximately a 3 mile radius. 3) Permitting the NTC on the site will not require Planning Commission or City Council site plan review. Provided NTC meets all City Code requirements, any type of structure may be erected. This may include the use of precast concrete panels or prefinished metal wall units. The City loses all architectural control for the site. If the site were to develop as a traditional Community Commercial Zoning District, the site would require lot subdivision, which would necessitate Planning Commission and City Council review. The City could maintain site plan review and architectural control for the entire nine acre parcel. 4) Major pressure from all different types of Regional Commercial uses, locating in Community and Neighborhood Commercial Districts, will arise from land owners and developers, if the Code is interpreted to permit NTC in the C-Comm District. Conclusion/Recommendaton Although the racquet and tennis club would be of service and an asset, not only to Eden Prairie, but surrounding communities as well, it does not fit the purposes or characteristics of the Community Commercial Zoning District and cannot be allowed on this site without a rezoning and reguiding to Regional Commercial. City Council may wish to consider the following recommendation: 1) Reverse the Board of Adjustments and Appeals' interpretation, allowing the NTC to locate within a Community Commercial Zoning District. Findings include: NTC, proposal for the total nine acre site is inconsistent with the Community Commercial Guide Plan and zoning definition. STAFF REPORT FOR NORMADALE TENNIS CLUB - reviewed by the Board of Appeals Ir J. Request #85-37, submitted by Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, for property located at 6231 Baker Road. The request is for an interpretation of City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.25, Subdivision 1, B, to permit the construction of a Racquet and Swim Club within a Community Commercial Zoning District . (Code permits retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments to be patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area in Community Commercial Zoning District.) Background - The City Code specifically lists special purpose for Community Commercial and Regional Commercial Zoning Districts: City Code identifies special purpose of the C-COM Community Commercial District to: • 1. To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area. 2. To permit development of community shopping centers and related residential uses of the size and in the appropriate locations shown on the Guide Plan, according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses. City Code identifies special purpose of the C-REG Regional Commercial District to: 1. To provide a large site at an appropriate location for a major shopping center which serves a wider region than the City itself consistent with the intent of the Metropolitan Guide Plan. 2. To ensure that a major center will be developed in accord with high standards of site planning, architecture, and landscape design." Key areas in each district's purposes have been underlined. Staff Review - The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan designated 4 Community Commercial areas. These are: Corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18, the Preserve Village Center. Corner of County Road 4 and T.H. 5, the Prairie Village Mall. Corner of Baker Road and West 62nd Street, unbuilt todate. County Road 1, near future Dell Road, unbuilt todate. These 4 areas were designated to serve different sections of the City's residential areas. The C-Com areas are to provide community scale services, i.e., quick stop or full size grocery, cleaners, hair salons, auto gas and service stations, drug stores, etc.. EXHIBIT A • - 26 - The C-Com area designated at Baker and W. 62nd Street will serve residents approximately 2 miles around the site. This will provide services to approximately 4,500 people today, approximately 6,853 people, as estimated in our 1990 population forecast, and 9,000 people, as estimated in our 2,000 population forecast. A community commercial service center ranges in square feet from approximately 80,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet, and provides a variety of services to a community. A single use facility, as proposed by Normandale Tennis Center, would not provide the range of personal services needed by the residents of the area. • The International Racquet and Sports Association estimates that a 150,000 square foot + facility would have a draw area of 5-6 miles or 10-12 minute drive radius. This could mean NTC would serve Minnetonka, Edina, and Bloomington, besides Eden Prairie. It is unlikely a C-Com facility on this site would attract individuals from Edina or Bloomington. Recommendations - Staff finds that the Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. proposed racquet and swim club is not a permitted use within the Community Commercial District and recommends denial of the request for the following reasons: (. 1. The NTC use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan elements which outlines Community Commercial as, —"intended to meet the day-to-day shopping needs of residents of the City and would include the full range of retail shops and services at a scale smaller than a regional center...." 2. The NTC use as proposed, is inconsistent with the City's Code which outlines special purposes of C-Com as "....retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area." 3. No undue hardship has been demonstrated by the applicant. 4. A reasonable use of the land exists. 5. The granting of such an appeal is not in keeping with the intent of the Code. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE VARIANCE REQUEST Variance No.`57 71 DATE: August 8, 1985 • APPLICANT'S NAME Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc., 5525 ow-kr Lake Road, Minneapolis Minnesota 55416 • A1➢9i�lB60C by Their Attorneys: Peter K. Beck, Larkin,zicp: Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.; 7900 Xerxes Ave. So., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis 55431 PHONES: Work 835-3800 Home FEE: $50.00 receipt # PERWSPCIWMPANZIOCAMI Address: 6233 Baker Road APPEAL FROM DECISION AFFECTING PROPERTY AT: Legal: See Attached REASON FOR VsNPRWL:I See attached letter and supplemental information APPEAL: ATTACH THE FOLLOWING 1. 8'ix11"survey showing lot lines and setbacks of existing and proposed structures and 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 L. of the City's Code would cause hardship. Applicant's Signature, for Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, L •., At • ,- s f. Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc s, F=• Owner's S = .tore 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 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 contact adjacent property owners prior to the hearing in order to explain the variance and to be prepared to address their concerns at the hearing. • I.ARKIN. HHOF•FMAN. DALY & LINU(:RCN. LTD. rNAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW M4EY JR 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER JON S.SWILITZEWEIRI THOMAS.J.FLYNN WIENOELL N. H 7900 AERAES AVENUE SOUTH RODERICK I. METE O O RODENT PRICITCLL INN BLOOMINGTON.MINNESOTA 55431 ROBERT 0 IN UN TELEPHONE IBI2.835-3000 CHELL COW•RO DIHSCOLL 2000 PIPER JA TOWER FEDERAL PRACTICE PARTNERSHIP JOHN A.COTTER. 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET LARSIN.NOEL A FALE SS[H H MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA.55402 SUITE i110 [: NNOO NALD PULLER G. JO DAYIC C. N TELEPHONE 1812139E-0010 1301 PENNBTLYANIA. ILER L R[iICN WASNINOTON.O.C.20004 L IT.P NSETT • SUSAN R T ENCHANT,A.FORSCNLICP TELEPHONE 12021 737-1000 OARS ORAor • JR. OARTN C.E'00i LCR CH• RCHRISTOPNER J. EN MARK C O 0 W,.NENAN RICTIAND O AOCM [TER J.COTLC R CATHERINE EARNETT WILSOM• LINDA H.FISHER •TIONAS S7OLTN•N OP COUNT., August 8, 1985 • Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. Appeal from Planning Staff Determination Dear Board Members: This letter supplements the appeal of Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. from a determination by City planning staff. The determination appealed from is that a proposed Racquet and Swim Club is not an allowable use in the Community Commercial zoning district. Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. will submit shortly supplemental information in support of this appeal discussing the proposed Racquet • and Swim Club as it relates to the purposes and intent of the Zoning • Ordinance. • Very truly yours, Peter K. Beck, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Attorneys for Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. PKE.ks Enclosure 41► CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST # 85-37 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments will meet at the following time and place: 7:30 P.M. Thursday, Sept. 12 19 85 At the Eden Prairie School Board Room, Administration Bid 3100 School Rd., 55344 to review and consider Request #85-37, submitted by Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren for property located at 6231 Baker Road Eden Prairie, MN. Legally described as: See Attached The request is See Attached: . Written or oral comments relating to this request will be heard at this meeting. Said application is on file for public review at the Planning Department at Eden Prairie City Hall. PUBLISH: August 28, 1985 City of Eden Prairie PLANNING DEPARTMENT c c REQUEST #85-37 The request is from City Code, Chapter 2, Section 2.11, Subdivision 2, for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to hear an appeal of deter- mination made by City Staff, Zoning Administrator. Staff finds the construction of proposed Racquet and Swim Club of such scale to be considered a Regional Commercial use and not consistent with a Community Commercial Zoning District, in which the Racquet and Swim Club is proposed. Tract I < ; That part of the • North 1/2 of the NortheCc 1/4 if Section 3, Township 116. North Range 22 West .of the 5th Principal Meridian lying North of the South 450 feet thereof. East of the Easterly r right of way line of County Road No. 60. and West of the Westerly right of way line of U.S. Highway 494, according to the records in Hennepin County, Minnesota: except those Parcels or the above.Tract described as follows: i Parcel A The North 240 feet of that part of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3-116-22, lying East of the West 45 rods thereof and • West of State Highway No. 494. Records of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel B • That portion of the North half of the Northeast quarter of Section/3, Township 116. Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying West of the Westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No 494; East of the center line of County Road No. 60, 65 feet in width; and North of the Southerly 450 feet of said North half of the Northeast ' quarter of said Section 3; described as follows: Beginning at the • point of intersection of said centerline with a line parallel with and 450 feet Northerly as measured at right angles, of the South ( line of said North half of the Northwest quarter; thence Northerly along said centerline 30.06 feet; thence Easterly along a line parallel with said South line 331.87 feet; thence Northerly along a line parallel with said centerline 235-49 feet; thence Easterly along a line parallel with said South line 269.29 feet to a point on said Westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Interstate Highway No. 494; thence Southerly along said Westerly right-of-way line, 267.35 feet • to the point of intersection with the aforesaid line parallel with and 450 feet from said South line to the North half of the Northeast Quarter; thence Westerly 619.52 feet along last said parallel line to the point of beginning, according to the records of Hennepin County, Minnesota. • Tract II • • • • • • • • • I LARKIN. HOFFMAN. I)Ai.Y & LINDGREN. LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW L.SECK JACK r or,r or weer 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER JON S SWIENEEWSKI N 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH RODEMCK 1 MACKENZIE R▪OS[6T IA WHtTL IHN OCK BLOOMINGTON.Mt 55431 R ALLAN E.MULLIGAN TELEPHONE 15121035-3800 JEROME N.KA«NA[ L ILOWARD J. LL 2000 PIPER JAFFRAT TOwER fe0ERAL PRACTICE PARTNERSHIP DAVID 0 MOELLER 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET LARK/N.NOEL 6 FALK NINN[APOLIS.MINNESOTA S9402 SUITE 1110 N TELEPHONE 10121»0-6610 1301 PENNSTLYANIA,N.W. LLB E ROMERT[...SELL WASHINGTON,D.C.20004 TELEPHONE 12021737-1000 T JP. GARTH C COLLET. . C▪HARLESS [II KATHLEEN LI PICOTIC NEWNAN AlJAMES STROTNER CATHERINE•ARNETT WILSON• L INDA H.FISHER . MICHAEL S.CCCCCCCJC1.11.It If So O ""NGN August 22, 1985 wIRERN•.H HL Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. Appeal from Planning Staff Determination Dear Board Members: This letter supplements the application submitted by Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. (NTC) appealing to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments a ' decision made by the City's planning staff. The appeal is from staff's determination that a proposed NTC Racquet and Swim Club is not an allowable use within the Community Commercial zoning district. NTC has entered into an agreement to purchase approximately ten acres of property located at 6233 Baker Road (the Property). The Property is immediately adjacent to and southwest of the intersection of Interstate Highway 494 and the Crosstown Highway Extension. The Property is currently designated in the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan for Community Commercial uses. The bulk of the Property is zoned Community Commercial consistent with the land use designation. NTC is in the business of developing and operating racquet and swim clubs. They have purchased the Property for the purpose of constructing a racquet and swim club (the Club) in the City of Eden Prairie. The Club will contain five outdoor and twelve indoor tennis courts; nine racquetball and squash courts; an indoor gymnasium; an indoor pool; an indoor running track; a Nautilis training room; a weight room; other related fitness facilities; locker rooms; a small pro shop for the sale of sports equipment and clothing; and a small "juice bar" serving snacks and juices. There will be no restaurant facilities and no liquor served in the Club. 1 c � LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LT1). 3' Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments August 22, 1985 Page 2 The indoor tennis courts will occupy approximately 79,000 square feet of space in a permanent building. The balance of the facilities will be located in a clubhouse of approximately 85,000 square feet. The tennis building, the clubhouse and the walkways between them will occupy a total of approximately 170,000 square feet. NTC operates ten Racquet and Swim Clubs in the Metropolitan area. Suburban clubs similar in size to the Club proposed for Eden Prairie generate approximately 500 to 900 member visits per day during the peak season. Use during the summer is considerably less. The Eden Prairie Zoning Ordinance establishes three basic commercial zoning districts: Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and Regional Commercial. The special purposes of the Community Commercial district are set forth as: 1. To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area. (Emphasis added) 2. To permit development of community shopping centers and related residential uses of the size and in the appropriate locations shown on the guide plan, according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses. The purposes of the Regional Commercial district are set forth as: 1. To provide a large site at an appropriate location for a major shopping center which serves a wider region than the City itself consistent with the intent of the Metropolitan Guide Plan. 2. To ensure that a major center will be developed in accord with high standards of site planning, architecture and landscape design. 3. To minimize the adverse effect of major commercial facilities on nearby dwellings. The Club is clearly not of a scale and intensity of use which would require Regional Commercial zoning. However, planning staff has made the decision that the Club is not an allowable use in Community Commercial district because it will attract members from a larger area than the Eden Prairie Community and because of the size of the proposed structures. NTC, although reluctant to challenge City staff, is appealing this decision because they feel the proposed tennis center is a community use and will be a benefit to the Eden Prairie community. 1( C L:112KIN, HOFFMAN, Dais & LINDGREN, LTD. Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments August 22, 1985 Page 3 City staff's primary reason for opposing a tennis club use in the Community Commercial District is their perception that it will not be "patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area". NTC operates ten racquet and swim clubs in the Metropolitan Twin Cities area. Each of these clubs is open to all members of any club. The Eden Prairie club will, therefore, be open and available for use by any member of all ten clubs. However, it has been NTC's experience that each club attracts primarily members who live or work within ten minutes of the Club. Most tennis players and club members will not travel more than ten minutes each way to play an hour's worth of racquetball or tennis. For this reason, NTC's goal in locating its existing clubs and in the placement of future clubs has been to place them approximately ten minutes apart throughout the Metropolitan area. it is true that the ten minute travel time radius around the Club proposed for Eden Prairie will include portions of Minnetonka and Edina as well as Eden Prairie. However, any commercial use on this Property, which is located on the City's border with Minnetonka, will be patronized by residents of Minnetonka and Edina as well as Eden Prairie. NTC expects that this Club, like NTC's other suburban clubs, will be patronized primarily by members from the surrounding community and neighboring areas. City staff's second objection to the proposed Club is related to the size of the tennis facility and clubhouse. As noted above, the Club will be approximately 170,000 square feet in size including the indoor tennis facility, the clubhouse and walkways between the two structures. City staff has indicated they do not feel a structure of this size is appropriate in the Community Commercial district. However, the Comprehensive Guide Plan specifically states that areas designated for Community Commercial development are intended for uses which would range in size from 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of retail or service sales area. The Club falls well within this guideline and complies with all site coverage, floor area ratio, and other performance standards for the Community Commercial zoning district. More important than the size of the Club, however, is the intensity of use which it represents. The second special purpose of the Community Commercial zoning district specifically states that it is the purpose of this district to minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses. NTC expects the Club to generate somewhere between 500 and 900 member visits per day during the peak, winter season. Visits to the Club will be approximately one-half of that during the summer months. The maximum 1. number of total trips to and from the Club during the peak season will, therefore, be in the neighborhood of 1500. This is considerably less than would be generated by virtually any other allowable, permitted use in the LARKIN, I-HOFFM AN, DALY & LINDGREN. LTD. Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments August 22, 1985 Page 4 Community Commercial zoning district. For instance, a small to medium size fast food restaurant which would occupy no more space than a single indoor tennis court could easily generate three times more traffic than the entire club proposed for the Property. A single small convenience store of the same size could generate over twice the traffic of the Club. Combining these two uses with a small to medium size shopping center, all as allowed in the Community Commercial district, would result in the Property generating many times the traffic which will be generated by the proposed Racquet and Swim Club. In addition to the extra traffic, restaurant, shopping or other commercial use of the Property will certainly result in noise, litter and other nuisance problems which will not occur with a first class Racquet and Swim Club. The proposed Club is a very low intensity use of this ten acre site which, by its nature, minimizes adverse impact on neighboring residential uses. The City Zoning Ordinance has created the Community Commercial district to allow commercial development in areas outside the City's major center area, but to restrict that development to uses which minimize impact on adjoining residential development. The Racquet and Swim Club proposed by NTC is an ideal use for the Community Commercial district. it is a very low intensity use which will generate a minimum amount of traffic and no disruption for its neighbors. Just as importantly, the proposed Racquet and Swim Club will provide a recreational facility and service which will be of great benefit to the Community and the area surrounding the Club. There is a demonstrated need for this type of a facility in the Eden Prairie Community and NTC is anxious to fill this need. NTC has investigated a number of potential locations in Eden Prairie, including several suggested by City staff. However, none of the available alternative sites meet NTC's minimum site selection criteria. it does not appear, therefore, that a NTC Club can be located in Eden Prairie if the Club is not an allowed use on the proposed site. I For these reasons, Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc., respectfully requests that the Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments find that the proposed Racquet and Swim Club, which is within the allowable square footage guidelines for the Community Commercial district, is an allowable use in the Community Commercial district. We will be present at the Board's meeting to present plans and further information about the Club and to answer any questions which Board members may have. Very truly yours, Peter K. Beck, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Attorneys for Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. PB:ks STAFF REPORT FOR NORMADALE TENNIS CLUB - reviewed by the Board of Appeals J. Request #85-37, submitted by Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, for property located at 6231 Baker Road. The request is for an interpretation of City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.25, Subdivision 1, B, to permit the construction of a Racquet and Swim Club within a Community Commercial Zoning District . (Code permits retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments to be patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area in Community Commercial Zoning District.) Background - The City Code specifically lists special purpose for Community Commercial and Regional Commercial Zoning Districts: City Code identifies special purpose of the C-COM Community Commercial District to: 1. To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area. 2. To permit development of community shopping centers and related residential uses of the size and in the appropriate locations shown on the Guide Plan, according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses. City Code identifies special purpose of the C-REG Regional Commercial District to: 1. To provide a large site at an appropriate location for a l major shopping center which serves a wider region than the City itself consistent with the intent of the Metropolitan Guide Plan. 2. To ensure that a major center will be developed in accord with high standards of site planning, architecture, and landscape design." Key areas in each district's purposes have been underlined. Staff Review - The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan designated 4 Community Commercial areas. These are: Corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18, the Preserve Village Center. Corner of County Road 4 and T.H. 5, the Prairie Village Mall. Corner of Baker Road and West 62nd Street, unbuilt todate. County Road 1, near future Dell Road, unbuilt todate. These 4 areas were designated to serve different sections of the City's residential areas. The C-Com areas are to provide community scale services, i.e., quick stop or full size grocery, cleaners, hair salons, auto gas and service stations, drug stores, etc.. - 26 - The C-Com area designated at Baker and W. 62nd Street will serve residents approximately 2 miles around the site. This will provide services to approximately 4,500 people today, approximately 6,853 people, as estimated in our 1990 population forecast, and 9,000 people, as estimated in our 2,000 population forecast. A community commercial service center ranges in square feet from approximately • 80,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet, and provides a variety of services to a community. A single use facility, as proposed by Normandale Tennis Center, would not provide the range of personal services needed by the residents of the area. The International Racquet and Sports Association estimates that a 150,000 square foot + facility would have a draw area of 5-6 miles or 10-12 minute drive radius. This could mean NTC would serve Minnetonka, Edina, and Bloomington, besides Eden Prairie. It is unlikely a C-Com facility on this site would attract individuals from Edina or Bloomington. Recommendations - Staff finds that the Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. proposed racquet and swim club is not a permitted use within the Community Commercial District and recommends denial of the request for the following reasons: 1. The NTC use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan elements which outlines Community Commercial as, —"intended to meet the day-to-day shopping needs of residents of the City and would include the full range of retail shops and services • at a scale smaller than a regional center...." 1+, 2. The NTC use as proposed, is inconsistent with the City's Code which outlines special purposes of C-Com as "....retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area." 3. No undue hardship has been demonstrated by the applicant. 4. A reasonable use of the land exists. • 5. The granting of such an appeal is not in keeping with the intent of the Code. c c ( RESOLUTION OF ST. JOHN'S WOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION WHEREAS declarant is a duly Minnesota nonprofit association which comprises of property owners of townhomes located in the Village of Eden Prairie and said declarant is the owner of certain property in the Village of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as St. John's Wood; and WHEREAS it has come to the attention of the St. John's Wood Homes Association Board of Directors that Mr. Ron Bailey, owner of Arteka, Inc., which owns approximately ten acres across Baker Road to the east of St. John's Wood Townhomes, has entered into a purchase agreement to sell subject property to Normandale Tennis Centers. Inc.; and WHEREAS further declarant understands that Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc., as potential developer of the Arteka property, is presently appealing from the Eden Prairie Planning Staff determina- tion that said parcel is not appropriate within City zoning ordinance for the tennis facility; and WHEREAS St. John's Wood Homes Association Board of Directors on behalf of the homeowners in St. John's Wood has an interest in the potential development of said site as it directly affects the home- owners of St. John's Wood; and WHEREAS declarant desires that the Planning Commission; Board of Appeals and Adjustment; and City Council consider any decision they may make in regard to said application in light of the declar- ant's Resolution stated herein; BE IT HERESY RESOLVED that the declarant believes that Norman- dale Tennis Centers, Inc. is the most appropriate use for the c c subject property, and the declarant on behalf of the homeowners of St. John's Wood strongly recommends that the City of Eden Prairie grant any and all permits required for the construction and develop- ment of said site. RESOLVED FURTHER that in the opinion of the Board of Directors said tennis club will likely be patronized by the townhomeowners and other residents of the surrounding community; that the tennis club aesthetically would be a more appropriate and pleasing project than any other type of service, retail, or other commercial use; and traffic and safety problems will have less adverse impact to neighboring areas of a tennis club in contrast to any other commer- cial use. Dated this 12th day of September, 1985. BOARD OF DIRECTORS ST. JOHNS'S WOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION By ti T 'G.ta./ Its Preei,icnL -2- Law OFFIC[A STALLAND �C STALLAND TELEPHONE f fslldl tl01-anal ONE CORPORATE CENTER FINANCIAL PLAZA 7901 OHMS LANE MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 004as LUTHER M.STALLARD E.PETER STALLARD September 12, 1985 Eden Praire Board of Appeals and Adjustments City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. Appeal from Planning Staff Determination Dear Board Members: Please be advised that this office represents the St. John's Wood Homes Association in Eden Prairie. The St. John's Wood Townhomes are situated directly to the west across Baker Road from the subject site of the planned Normandale Tennis Center, which is presently the Arteka Nursery. The Normandale Tennis Center developers and their attorneys have met with various members of the Townhome Association about the project. The Board of Directors has recently had a special meeting and has resolved that the Tennis Center would be the most appropriate use for the property. The Board strongly endorses this project and urges the Board of Appeals to reverse the Planning Staff determination that this is not an appropriate use pursuant to the City Code. The City clearly has a heavy burden to carry if it decides to dis- allow this use pursuant to Section 11.25 of the City Code. It is our opinion that a tennis club clearly comes within the community • commercial district designation. Not only is the language of sub- section B, Section 11.25 so general as to clearly allow such a "personal service establishment" such as a tennis club which is patronized primarily by the residents of the immediate community, but in the event of a court test this ordinance could be struck down as unconstitutionally vague. The City cannot have a very generally worded ordinance and then pick and choose which types of uses it decides is appropriate for a certain parcel. The Minnesota Supreme Court has recently held that it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of an application which complies in all respects to the City ordinances. Odell v. City of Eaaan (1984) 348 NW 2d 792, The Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that zoning ordinances are to be construed strictly against a city and in favor of a property • owner, Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville (1980) 295 NW 2d 604; Amcon Cora. v. City of Eagan (1984) 348 NW 2d 66; Chan- hasren Estates Res. v. City of Channassen (1984) 342 NW 2d 335. 4 c ( Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments September 12, 1985 Page Two tl� Additionally it is the opinion of the Board that aesthetically the site as a tennis club would clearly be preferable over any type of shopping center, retail or other service-commercial use which may be allowable for that zoning district. Also, it is the opinion of the Board that traffic would be reduced and safety enhanced by a recrea- tional facility such as a tennis club versus the continual traffic flow in and out of a commercial-retail project. If the Board or staff have any questions about this letter or the enclosed Resolution from the Board, please do not hesitate to call me. The Board at St. John's Wood of course desires to help the City, the property owner, and the developers in any way toward the positive resolution of this issue. Yours- Y:,.1u1 ;(47 Peter Stalland 0 PS/jj Enclosure Clr Judith M. Simac ? 8800 Knollwood Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. Appeal of the Planning Department Determination Dear Board Members: I am unable to attend the public hearing to be held on September 12, 1985 concerning the Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. appeal of the staff determination that the proposed racquet and swim club is not a permitted use within the Community Commercial zoning district; therefore, I respect- fully request that my written comments be accepted as public testimony and be made part of the public record. Personally, I enjoy playing tennis (especially year- round) and I am pleased that an established club is interested in constructing another facility in Eden Prairie. I believe there is a market demand for a project of this scale within ` the community. From a professional planning point of view, I disagree with the staff interpretation of the purpose of the Community Commercial District in regard to the proposed development. A typical Community Commercial district is designated to provide retail sales and services for the local population. The district does not necessarily need the land area nor highway orientation which is imperative to a regional commercial district. If the Board conducted a survey of metropolitan cities, the result would most likely indicate that a majority of the cities have adopted within their zoning ordinance the concept that community commercial is the provision of services for the local population. In regard to the purposes of the Community Commercial district as described in the Eden Prairie ordinance, the proposed use is a service establishment which will be primarily used by local residents and is compatible with the existing residential land uses. Further, the proposed development complies with re- quirements of the district concerning land area, building size and other site design standards. C • Page two Normandale Tennis Centers it is the responsibility of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to determine whether the proposed use is compatible with the general purpose of the zoning district and the Compre- hensive Plan. The Board does not have the authority to decide which uses they would prefer to develop on select parcels of land. The Board determination on this particular application will create a precedent for future interpretations of the pur- poses of the community commercial district. Therefore, I would urge you to review the language stated in the ordinance regarding community commercial and regional commercial and determine that the proposed tennis and swim club clearly belongs in the Community Commercial district. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Yours truly, dith M. Simac P.S. My background includes a degree in urban planning from the University of Pittsburgh and seven years of professional planning experience. Presently I am the City Planner for the City of • Shakopee. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE VARIANCE # 85-37 BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS 1 4 FINAL DRDER • RE: Petition of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren ADDRESS: 6231 Baker Road VARIANCE REQUEST: See Attached: 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 therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (YES x NO ). 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 # 85-37is herein Granted x , Denied 4. Conditions to the granting x , Denial , of said variance are as follows: 5. This variance shall be revoked within 15 days after notice of failure to meet the required conditions has been given. 6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the City Clerk. 7. This order shall be effective Sept. 12, 1985 ; however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alterations permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. 3. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review. BOARD OF APPEALS .4flD ADJUSPIENTS DATEU: 9- -8S REQUEST 185-37 • The request is from City Code,.Chapter 2, Section 2.11, Subdivision 2, for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to hear an appeal of deter- • mination made by City Staff, Zoning Administrator. Staff finds the construction of proposed Racquet and Swim Club of such scale to be considered a Regional Commercial use and not consistent with.a Community Commercial Zoning District, in which the Racquet and Swim Club is proposed. • • • • c c REQUEST #85-37 The Board of Appeals and Adjustments find: The determination made by City Staff, Zoning Administrator, that the construction of the proposed Racquet and Swim Club is of such scale to be considered a Regional Commercial use and not consistent with a Community Commercial Zoning District is not a true and correct interpretation of the Code. Therefore, this Board determines the proposed Racquet and Swim Club an appropriate use in a Community Commerical Zoning District. UNAPPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1985 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG., SCHOOL BOARD RM. 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 ROLL CALL: Sandvick and Lynch were absent, I. MINUTES A. Minutes of August 9, 1985. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Krueger, to approve the minutes of August 9, 1985. Motion carried--2-0-1. (Dickey abstained.) II. VARIANCES A. Request #B5-27, submitte by E. A. ween Company for property located at 16101 West 78t Street. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 Sect' n 11.03, Subdivision 3, J, 1, to permit outside parking of t ck over 3/4 ton in the northwest corner of site. (Variance 43/41 prohibited parking in the north- west corner of the site.) This variance request has een co inued to the next regularly scheduled meeting, Octob 10, 198 Douglas Fincham of E. A. Sween Company, via phon , made the r quest on September 5, 1985. A letter from E. A. Sween dated September 6, 1985, confirmed the continuance request. B. Request #85-29, submitted by ntage Com4anies for property located at 10340 Viking Drive. The re est is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Sec on 1 03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit front yard parking setback fo 6 stalls, at 30 feet (PUD permitted 35 feet front yard setbac, from Viking Drive, City Code, requires 5D feet)..._ This variance request has been,%ithdraw based on information documenting realignment of 1594 property line 6 feet to the south. The 6 parking stall on the south ide of the property will meet the required 35 foot setback. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - September 12, 1985 Frye said that the building was 85% completed when the non-conforming ( material being use as identified. MOTION: Dickey ma e a motion to ap ove Variance Request #85-36, submitted b Business Campus Limited Partnership with the following fi ings:/ i 1 1) A rooftop mechanical c eening plan and bond be submitted to the Planning Depar nt for approval. 2) This request is f a one 3me occurence only. \, 3) The building s made all possible attempts to conform to the Code. 4) The buil er had dedicated a park t the City. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. J. Request #85-37, submitted by Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, for property located at 6231 Baker Road. The request is for an inter- pretation of City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.25, Subdivision 1, 1 B, to permit the construction of a Racquet and Swim Club within a 1 Community Commercial Zoning District. (Code permits retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments to be patronized pri- marily by residents of the immediate community area in Community Zoning District.) Peter Beck, attorney with Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, rep- resented Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. Also present were Jerry and Ron Bailey of Arteka and Alan Kimpell, architect for the project. Beck stated that the request is an appeal of determination and is an allowable use within the Community Commercial Zoning District. Pre- liminary site plans were shown. Beck noted that the proposed club will contain five outdoor and twelve indoor tennis courts, nine racquetball and squash courts, an indoor gymnasium, an indoor running track, a Nautilis room, a weight room, other related fitness facilities, locker rooms, a small pro shop for the sale of sports equipment and clothing, and a small "juice bar" serving snacks and juices. There will be no restaurant facilities and no liquor served in the Club. The tennis building, the clubhouse, and the walkways between them will occupy a total of approximately 170,000 square feet. There are 304 parking spaces, which is in excess of the City Code requirements. Beck stated that Normandale Tennis Club operates ten racquet and swim clubs in the metropolitan area. Each of these clubs is open to all members of any club. It will serve approximately 1,200- 1,300 members. Experience has shown that each club attracts primarily members who live or work within ten minutes of the Club. There are currently 600 club members from Eden Prairie that will form a nucleus that will support this club. Normandale Tennis Clubs generate approximately 500-900 member visits per day during Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 10 - September 12, 1985 the winter. In summer it is approximately 1 of that. The maximum number of total trips to and from the Club during the peak season will be between 1000-1500. Beck read from the Staff Report dated August 27,1985. It reads in part: "A single use facility, as proposed by Normandale Tennis Center, would not provide the range of personal services needed by the residents of the area." "The City Code, specifically lists special purpose for Community Commercial and Regional Commercial Zoning Districts: 1) To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and personal service establish- ments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate area. 2) To permit development of community shopping centers and related residential uses of the size and in the appropriate locations shown on the Guide Plan, according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses." "Staff finds that the Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. proposed racquet and swim club is not a permitted use within the Com- 4 munity Commercial District and recommends denial of the request for the following reasons: 1) The NTC use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan elements which outlines Community Commer- cial as,..."intended to meet the day-to-day shopping needs of residents of the City and would include the full range of retail shops and services at a scale smaller than a regional center..." 2) The NTC use as proposed, is inconsistent with the City's Code which outlines special purposes of C-Com as ...retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area." Beck said that they do not accept the fact that NTC is a single use facility. It is a multiple facility. Beck gave as an example of a single use facility, Lil Red Grocery Store, at the intersection of Valley View Road and County Road #4. Beck read again from the August 27, 1985 Staff Report. It states in part: "City Code identifies special purpose of the C-REG Regional Commercial District to: I) To provide a large site at an appropriate location • Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 11 - September 12, 1985 for a major shopping center which serves a wider region than the City itself consistent with the intent of the Metropolitan Guide Plan." Beck felt that this is not the intent of the ordinance. Staff is concerned that NTC would have a draw area of 5-6 miles and serve Minnetonka, Edina and Bloomington, besides Eden Prairie. Beck stated that they intend to serve the community of Eden Prairie with the 600 local members as a nucleus. They will also serve Minnetonka. The need is in Eden Prairie, not Edina or Bloomington. Beck said that the Institute of Traffic has found that 11 trips are generated per 1,000 square feet. Eden Prairie has 2 pieces of land the same size: The Preserve and Prairie Village Mall, each 80,000 square feet. These centers generate over 9,000 trips per day. Beck stated that if the proposed club were built, there would be no nuisance characteristics such as noise or litter. It would not be an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood. 1 Durham noted that NTC would be considered a single use; e.g. a health center only. It would not be considered as "Community Commercial". The C-Com area at Baker Road, and West 62 nd Street will serve residents in a 1-3 mile radius. Services would be provided to approximately 4,500 people today, approximately 6,853 people as estimated in the 1990 population forecast, and 9,000 people as estimated in the City's population forecast. Durham called three communities with NTC locations: 1) Bloomington has two NTC locations: a) The West 78th Street location is zoned FRWD, which is Freeway Zoning District. The NTC was permitted with a special use permit. Permitted use within this zoning district is Office and Industrial Development. b) The 98th Street Club is zoned FRWD-PD, which is a Planned Development. Permitted uses include Office, Industrial and Large Commercial Development. 2) Burnsville is Zoned General Development, which is a zoning district similar to C-REG Service. 3) St. Louis Park is zoned Diversified Development District, which is an intense zoning district, similar in character- istics to a C-REG Service. This district includes Large Office, Industrial, Commercial, and Hotel Development. Durham said that the NTC in these three communities have a zoning classification similar to Eden Prairie's C-REG Service Zoning District. 3oard of Appeals and Adjustments - 12 - September 12, 1985 4 Durham stated that by having a single use tennis club on this nine 4 acre site, Eden Prairie would be reducing a service area to be found within a Community Commercial District. Not everyone would go to the health club. Some might need a dry cleaners, or day care, etc. The nine acres should not be for just one use. We are not saying that this type of use can't be used in Community Commercial. It's not the use that the City is concerned about, but that we will lose the site for a shopping center. Staff would like to see an assortment of retail services as outlined in the City Code for Com- munity Commercial Zoning. Krueger asked if another route would be to rezone the property. Durham stated that it would have to go to the Planning Commission and City Council for a Guide plan change and C-REG Service Zoning. Anderson was not opposed to the idea. Durham read from the August 27, 1985 Staff Report. It reads in part: "City Code identifies special purpose of the C-COM Community Commercial District to: To permit development of community shopping centers and related residential uses of the size and in the appro- priate locations shown on the Guide Plan, according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses." Peter Stalland, attorney, representing residents of St. John's Wood Homes, was in strong support of the NTC project. (See Exhibits D and E.) Stalland said that the club is preferable to a shopping center as it will be aesthetically pleasing, with less traffic problems. From the homeowner's prospective, the values of the townhouses would be increased with the club. A shopping center would tend to decrease property values and degrade the area. Stalland stated that the ordinance allows this use. The Staff is picking and choosing what it wants to see developed on this site. Stalland stated that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that zoning ordinances are to be construed strictly against a City and in favor of a property owner. Neighbors present were in support of the tennis club versus the shopping center. Anderson said that he lives in the area, and would be in favor of a tennis club. He wondered about the need for a mall. Durham stated that the development of Tanager Creek, Cardinal Creek, and develop- ment of vacant lots is occuring rapidly. The two existing Community Commercial sites are experiencing saturation. The Preserve Mall and Prairie Village Mall served 16,263 people in 1980. Today, these Commercial Centers are serving approximately 25,000 +. Removal of this nine acre Community Commercial site creates added pressure to the existing Community Commercial sites. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 13 - September 12, 1985 Ron Bailey, owner of the site, said that they got a request from 4 the developer to sell the land. They have attempted to work with the City Planning Department and it hasn't worked out well. Many cities don't have a Community Commercial Zoning District. The scale for a shopping center is normally 50,000-100,00D square feet. City Planner Chris Enger would like to see 4 acres of 9.7 acres dedicated to a shopping center. (80,000 square feet shopping center.) Bailey felt that Enger wedged himself between the owner and interferred with the natural process. Dickey said that the Board has a responsibility to the City and the Council. If the Board denies the interpretation, the recourse is for the proponent to ask to go to the City Council. The Planning Department will appeal the Board's decision if the interpretation is in favor of permitting NTC Club on the complete 9 acre site. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments received a letter from Judy Simac, 8800 Knollwood Drive, on September 12, 1985. Simac was unable to attend the meeting and is in favor of the tennis club. (See Exhibit F.) MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-37, submitted by Larkin, Hoffman, and Lindgren, with the following findings: 1) It is a property that will serve residents in the immediate area. i 2) The determination made by City Staff, Zoning Administrator, • that the construction of the proposed Racquet and Swim Club • is of such scale to be considered a Regional Commercial use and not consistent with a Community Commercial Zoning District is not a true and correct interpretation of the Code. There • - fore, this Board determines the proposed Racquet and Swim Club an appropriate use in a Community Commercial Zoning District. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. K. Request #85-38. subm"tted by Krown Furniture, Inc. for property located at 10340 Viki Drive. The request is from City Code, Chapter 2, Section 2.11 Subdivision 2, fgrjthe Board of Appeals and Adly5tments to hear a a eel of de rmination made by City Staff, Zoning Administrate Staff fyfids the Krown Furniture use as a Commercial use and t minor or supporting in nature to an I-2 use, and is in excess o 15f,' of rinci al 1-2 use, there- fore, not ermitted in an 1- Z. ina District. David Zirbes, representing wn Fu iture, Inc., spoke to the request. Zirbes noted tha, they are 4s�king for an interpretation for the use of the build" g. They havd\ rown in the last 4 years to a 30,000 square foe building. An I- Zoning District was applied for by Vanta for office/showroom. A variance granted allowed up to 75 fice for this site. • LAN.)ll P'EA - TELEPHONE. STALLAND & STALLAND tom)6u6•nrw,v f ONE CORPORATE CENTER FINANCIAL PLAZA ' 7201 OHMS LANE. MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA EN.Sf16 LUTHER M.STALLAND t X.PETER STALLAND J 1 October 8, 1985 1 Honorable Gary Peterson and Members of the Eden Prairie City Council City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 1 Re: Board of Appeals and Adjustments Review of Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. Request for Interpretation of City Code Chapter 11 Section 11.25 Dear Mayor Peterson and Members of the City Council: Please be advised that this office represents Jerry Bailey and Ron Bailey who are owners of Arteka, Inc. Arteka is the owner and seller of the property at the corner of 62 and Baker Road which is the sub- ( ject site for the Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. proposal for a ten- nis and swim club. In May of 1985 the Baileys entered into a purchase agreement with Normandale Tennis Center to purchase Arteka's approxi- mately 10 acres for the sole purpose of constructing a tennis and swim club. Since that time the Baileys have been frustrated in their attempt to consummate the purchase agreement by the time of their clos- ing date which was September 1, 1985 because of the City's Planning Staff's position that the tennis club is not an appropriate use within the meaning of the community commercial district. To date my clients feel that they have been treated badly by the City and have been frus- trated in their attempts to sell their property. Therefore, this let- ter serves to articulate the Baileys' legal rights as land owners pur- suant to the community commercial zoning ordinance. The issue before the City Council is whether or not the community com- mercial zoning ordinance allows for a use such as the one submitted by the Normandale Tennis Center for a tennis and swim club. It is our opinion that the ordinance does allow for the use for the follow- ing reasons: 1. The very general language of the ordinance outlines special purposes of the C-Com as " . . . retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the imme- diate community area." No specific permitted uses are articulated in the ordinance, nor are there any definitions which would clarify 0 what this phrase means or what type of uses it would include. It is our opinion that a tennis club would be considered by a court as a "personal service establishment" which would be patronized by primarily Honorable Gary Peterson and Members of the Eden Prairie City Council October 8, 1985 Page Two residents of the immediate community area. Obviously a tennis and swim club is a personal service establishment. It is not so obvious how the ordinance defines the word "primarily" and how it determines who the "residents of the immediate community area" are. Apparently these decisions are arbitrarily made by the City Planner. The prop- erty owner, nor a potential purchaser, is given any indication by the law or notice thereof as to what these terms may mean. Based upon experience it is clear that the Normandale Tennis Clubs already in existence are used by residents of the immediate area. See Peter Beck's letter to the City dated August 22, 1985, hereto attached as Exhibit "A." It is also the opinion of the neighborhood that it would be patronized by those most affected by the tennis club. See Resolu- tion by the Board of Directors of St. John's Wood Homes Association, hereto attached as Exhibit "B." 2. Section 11.25 subd. 1 (B) (2) speaks of development which will "minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses." There is perhaps no greater authority on what a potential adverse impact on adjoining residential areas is than those residential citizens who will live closest to the projected use. The St. John's Wood Homes Association by resolution and by petition have dramatically shown their support for the tennis club versus any other type of commercial use. Many other neighboring property owners have also shown their support. There has been no individual, nor entity, other than the City's own Planning staff, who have opposed in any way the tennis club project. It is a matter of common sense to realize that residential areas surrounding the subject site would be more adversely impacted by a shopping center or other type of office or commercial use rather than a tennis and swim club. 3. The subject ordinance has been drafted with the apparent intent to allow the City staff with as much discretion as possible in determining which uses can or cannot be included in the community commercial district. The City cannot have a generally worded ordinance and then pick and choose which types of uses it decides is appropriate for a certain parcel. When an ambiguity arises, the Supreme Court of Minnesota has repeatedly held that zoning ordinances are to be con- strued strictly against a city and in favor of a property owner. Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan (1984) 348 NW 2d 66; Chanhassen Estates Res. v. City of Chanhassen (1984) 342 NW 2d 335; Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville (1980) 295 NW 2d 604. Provided that the Normandale Tennis Clubs' application for a site plan and building permit conforms with all City ordinances, the City as a matter of law must approve the application absent any showing that there are prob- lems associated with the project regarding public health, safety or welfare. Odell v. City of Eagan 1984) 348 NW 2d 792; Ostrand v. Vilage of North St. Paul (1966) 147 NW 2d 571. There has been no showing by the City staff, nor by anyone else, that the tennis and swim club presents problems of public health, safety or welfare. On Honorable Gary Peterson and Members of the Eden Prairie City Council October 8, 1985 Page Three the contrary, as stated above, all interested parties have indicated the opposite conclusion. 4. If the City denies the applicant's request, it will thwart the constitutionally protected right of the free alienation and trans- fer of private property. The Baileys have already suffered great financial loss as a result of the delays incurred because of the staff's position. If the City Council affirms the staff's position at its October 15th meeting, it may cause the direct and proximate result of the rescission of the purchase agreement with the Baileys by Normandale Tennis Club. This will cause the Baileys great finan- cial harm and will possibly subject the City to a money damage claim. See San Diego Gas and Electric Company v. City of San Diego (1981) 101 S.Ct. 1287; Hernandez v. City of Lafayette (5th Circuit 1981) 643 F. 2d 1188. A denial by the City Council of applicant's request would deny the Baileys' right to sell their property. The control of uses authorized within a zone must have a substantial relationship to the public good and not result from a desire to resist the operation of economic laws. Metro 500 Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park (1973) 221 NW 2d 358. See also Sanderson v. City of Willmar (1968) 162 NW 2d 494. A denial by the City which results in a rescission of the pur- chase agreement with Normandale Tennis Club may also serve to decrease the property value of the subject site. The City Council must by law take this into consideration. Beck v. City of St. Paul (1975) 231 NW 2d 919. In summary, zoning restrictions must be strictly construed in favor of the free use of the property. This is the overwhelming authority in both state and federal courts. Greenwalt v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Davenport (1984) 345 NW 2d 537; Crowley v. Knapp (1980) 288 NW 2d 815; League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Crystal Enter- prises (C.A. Nev. 1982) 685 F. 2d 1142. 5. A tennis and swim club use is not prohibited by the community commercial nor by any other zoning ordinance. Consistent with the court's generous interpretation of zoning ordinances in favor of the property owner, authority exists for the proposition that a zoning ordinance should not be extended by implication to prevent a use not clearly prohibited. Arkae Development, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjust- ment of the City of Ames (1983) 337 NW 2d 884. This position has been clearly enunciated by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in Odell v. City of Eagan (1984) 348 NW 2d 792 wherein it held that in interpreting terms of a zoning ordinance, the Court must look to their plain and ordinary meaning and use the least restrictive interpretation, protect- ing the rights of the property owner. (underlining added) . Therefore the City Council must interpret the zoning ordinance, which is ambigu- ous on its face, in favor of the property owner. The staff position is found in their recommendations in the Staff Report to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, copy of which is Honorable Gary Peterson and Members of the Eden Prairie City Council . October 8, 1985 Page Four hereto attached as Exhibit "C." The first recommendation is that tennis club use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. This finding by the staff is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand because the Minnesota Legislature on July 1, 1985 amended M.S.A. Section 462.357 subd. 2 and M.S.A. Section 473.858, by specifically stating that if the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the plan. This amendment was made to eliminate the constant conflicts which have arisen between the guide plan and the ordinance. The ordinance is what controls in our case, and that is what the City Council must review alone to determine the answer to the issue before it. The staff in the report also noted that no undue hardship has been demon- strated by the applicant and that a reasonable use of the land exists. These are legal criteria for a rezoning, not for the issue as to whether or not a use is appropriate within the construction of a zoning ordinance. Therefore they are irrelevant. The staff has also taken the approach that the tennis club is a more appropriate use within the regional commercial zone rather than the community commercial. There is no basis for this position. First the language of the C-Regional District focuses on a "large site" for a "major shopping center." Such regional shopping center zoning districts in the metropolitan area reflect projects such as the Eden Prairie Center, Southdale, the Burnsville Center, Ridgedale, etc. Alao, the permitted Uses" in subd. 2 within the C-Reg District ordi- nance are of a different type than a 170,000 square foot recreation club. Other reasons why the C-Reg District is inappropriate are more fully articulated in Peter Beck's letter, Exhibit "A." Consistent with the staff's position, if we look at the other end of the spectrum regarding the zoning classifications, the "neighborhood commercial" designation would not be appropriate for the tennis club either. Therefore of the three classifications of the zoning ordi- nance, community commercial best reflects the tennis club use. In reference to this argument, please also refer to those reports hereto submitted to the City Council from Bruce Pankonin and Richard Bloom, both ex-City Planners of the Cities of Chanhassen and Minnetonka respectively. The City Council's duty is to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Arteka is a good corporate citizen and Honorable Gary Peterson and Members of the Eden Prairie City Council October 8, 1985 Page Five deserves favorable treatment from the City with regard to the dispo- sition of this issue. The health, safety and welfare issue has been answered by all the neighbors which have submitted their resolutions, petitions and have appeared at the various meetings. All are in favor of the tennis club. The only apparent obstacle in this matter is the City staff which is making an overly technical interpretation of the ordinance to the detriment of the property owner, the appli- cant, and the neighboring residential property owners. In the spirit of fairly representing all of these parties, the Baileys respectfully request the City Council to determine without qualification that the Normandale Tennis Center is an appropriate use as a tennis and swim club within the community commercial district as zoned and accordingly to uphold the findings of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Thank you. You s ry u , V Peter Stalland PS/jj Enclosures cc: Mark Johnson, Esq. Pet Beck, Esq. rl Julie Chris Enger • • LARHIN. •AOI'F•M AN, I ALA & ),INll(7R1':\, LTD. ATTORNEYS At LAW 1p� • ruAN 1M OMAf f Mwt r,Jw. �,g ISOO NORTHWESTERN!INANE.,CENTER " fg00 ACR2[3 AVENUE SOUTH •' A' r M▪ Otw�C w'rLrM tl[ 1 Li OAN BLOOMING TON.MIN NCSO to 53431 ...el P ow +A[M w Oatwr n •w ...WA,. TELEPHONE 19121 e33-3900 OAMICL w vtwOM[M•AMwA[ r0001 9LL le00•IPEw TOWER CC OC.,t PRACTICE P M�rC N[LL AgrNCOSuIP MO[LLP.w 222 SOUTH NINTH Stq[EC LANNIN,NOEL&,ALA • C• !N..4 0w• N MINNEwweLl a,NINNCSOrA 33Ae2 L[;ou ♦C!• e<.a N lUlt[1110 tMOM• MNOONALO• wOwt r[LC PNONC Iw121]]e-e el0 1301 PCNNSrIVAN IA,N.W. ww•OLCr M Lw OrN w[Iltw wwaNwatoN,o.c.2000* [ncM IC•M•w0• t[LC PHONE 2021)])-1000 Aikte • w ftvHtOMl �O,Iw 10r s�`Cww 0 AO L[!] ALAN �LCOw r • M COLLCR UOCw• •i. • ea wtl[wl C rL[ AN IN[f•wNtrt wlLloN• reww Steve.O.L Or C N1tL ` • ...tit. O Nf • MI CA.(' NrC.•• L C. fir wu[M w 9.0lOMOM 'eMNte't~L August 22, 1985 w' .w 'Iw Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. C Appeal from Planning Staff Determination Dear Board Members: This letter supplements the application submitted by Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. (NTC) appealing to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments a decision made by the City's planning staff. The appeal is from staff's determination that a proposed NTC Racquet and Swim Club is not an allowable use within the Community Commercial zoning district. NTC has entered into an agreement to purchase approximately ten acres of property located at 6233 Baker Road (the Property) . The Property is immediately adjacent to and southwest of the intersection of Interstate Highway 494 and the Crosstown Highway Extension. The Property is currently designated in the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan for Community Commercial uses. The bulk of the Property is zoned Community Commercial consistent with the land use designation. NTC is in the business of developing and operating racquet and swim clubs. They have purchased the Property for the purpose of constructing a racquet • and swim club (the Club) in the City of Eden Prairie. The Club will contain five outdoor and twelve indoor tennis courts; nine racquetball and squash courts; an indoor gymnasium; an indoor pool; an indoor running track: a Nautilis training room; a weight room: other related fitness facilities; , 'ocker rooms; a small pro shop for the sale of sports equipment and clothing; d a small ('juice bars' serving snacks and juices. There will be no restaurant facilities and no liquor served in the Club. EXHIBIT "A" LARICIN, HOFFMAN. DAL1 & LINDGREN. I:rl). Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments August 22, 1985 Page 2 The indoor tennis courts will occupy approximately 79,000 square feet of space in a permanent building. The balance of the facilities will be located in a clubhouse of approximately 85,000 square feet. The tennis building, the clubhouse and the walkways between them will occupy a total of approximately 170,000 square feet. NTC operates ten Racquet and Swim Clubs in the Metropolitan area. Suburban clubs similar in size to the Club proposed for Eden Prairie generate approximately 500 to 900 member visits per day during the peak season. Use during the summer is considerably less. The Eden Prairie Zoning Ordinance establishes three basic commercial zoning districts: Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and Regional Commercial. The special purposes of the Community Commercial district are set forth as: 1. To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area. (Emphasis added) 2. To permit development of community shopping centers and related residential uses of the size and in the appropriate locations shown on the guide plan, according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses. The purposes of the Regional Commercial district are set forth as: 1. To provide a large site at an appropriate location for a major shopping center which serves a wider region than the City itself consistent with the intent of the Metropolitan Guide Plan. 2. To ensure that a major center will be developed in accord with high standards of site planning, architecture and landscape design. 3. To minimize the adverse effect of major commercial facilities on nearby dwellings. The Club is clearly not of a scale and intensity of use which would require Regional Commercial zoning. However, planning staff has made the decision that the Club is not an allowable use in Community Commercial district because it will attract members from a larger area than the "den Prairie Community and because of the size of the proposed structures. rC, although reluctant to challenge City staff, is appealing this decision because they feel the proposed tennis center is a community use and will be a benefit to the Eden Prairie community. LA121i IN, IlOFF MAN, I:):'i.Y �S I..INDGUUEN, L•rv. Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments August 22, 1985 Page 3 City staff's primary reason for opposing a tennis club use in the Community Commercial District is their perception that it will not be "patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area". NTC operates ten racquet and swim clubs in the Metropolitan Twin Cities area. Each of these clubs is open to all members of any club. The Eden Prairie club will, therefore, be open and available for use by any member of all ten clubs. However, it has been NTC's experience that each club attracts primarily members who live or work within ten minutes of the Club. Most tennis players and club members will not travel more than ten minutes each way to play an hour's worth of racquetball or tennis. For this reason, NTC's goal in locating its existing clubs and in the placement of future clubs has been to place them approximately ten minutes apart throughout the-Metropolitan area. It is true that the ten minute travel time radius around the Club proposed for Eden Prairie will include portions of Minnetonka and Edina as well as Eden Prairie. However, any commercial use on this Property, which is located on the City's border with Minnetonka, will be patronized by residents of Minnetonka and Edina as well as Eden Prairie. NTC expects that this Club, like NTC's other suburban clubs, will be patronized primarily by members from the irrounding community and neighboring areas. City staff's second objection to the proposed Club is related to the size of the tennis facility and clubhouse. As noted above, the Club will be approximately 170,000 square feet in size including the indoor tennis facility, the clubhouse.and walkways between the two structures. City staff has indicated they do not feel a structure of this size is appropriate in the Community Commercial district. However, the Comprehensive Guide Plan specifically states that areas designated for Community Commercial development are intended for uses which would range in size from 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of retail or service sales area. The Club falls well within this guideline and complies with all site coverage, floor area ratio, and other perfozmar,ce standards for the Community Commercial zoning district. More important than the size of the Club, however, is the intensity of use which it represents. The second special purpose of the Community Commercial zoning district specifically states that it is the purpose of this district to minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses. NTC expects the Club to generate somewhere between 500 and 900 member visits per day during the peak, winter season. Visits to the Club will be approximately one-half of that during the summer months. The maximum number of total trips to and from the Club during the peak season will, therefore, be in the neighborhood of 1500. This is considerably less than ''ould be generated by virtually any other allowable, permitted use in the tA. LARK 17,1, h OFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, l:rn. den Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments August 22, 1985 Page 4 Community Commercial zoning district. For instance, a small to medium size fast food restaurant which would occupy no more space than a single indoor tennis court could easily generate three times more traffic than the entire club proposed for the Property. A single small convenience store of the same size could generate over twice the traffic of the Club. Combining these two uses with a small to medium size shopping center, all as allowed in the Community Commercial district, would result in the Property generating many times the traffic which will be generated by the proposed Racquet and Swim Club. In addition to the extra traffic, restaurant, shopping or other commercial use of the Property will certainly result in noise, litter and other nuisance problems which will not occur with a first class Racquet and Swim Club. The proposed Club is a very low intensity use of this ten acre site which, by its nature, minimizes adverse impact on neighboring residential uses. The City Zoning Ordinance has created the Community Commercial district to allow commercial development in areas outside the City?s major center area, but to restrict that development to uses which minimize impact -n adjoining residential development. The Racquet and Swim Club proposed k NTC is an ideal use for the Community Commercial district. It is a very low intensity use which will generate a minimum amount of traffic and no disruption for its neighbors. Just as importantly, the proposed Racquet and Swim Club will provide a recreational facility and service which will be of great benefit to the Community and the area surrounding the Club. There is a demonstrated need for this type of a facility in the Eden Prairie Community and NTC is anxious to fill this need. NTC has investigated a number of potential locations in Eden Prairie, including several suggested by City staff. However, none of the available alternative sites meet NTC's minimum site selection criteria. It does not appear, therefore, that a NTC Club can be located in Eden Prairie if the Club is not an allowed use on the proposed site. For these reasons, Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc., respectfully requests that the Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments find that the proposed Racquet and Swim Club, which is within the allowable square footage guidelines for the Community Commercial district, is an allowable use in the Community Commercial district. We will be present at the Board's meeting to present plans and further information about the Club and to answer any questions which Board members may have. Very truly yours, Peter K. Beck, for LARKIN, HOFFM3.N, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Attorneys for Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. PR:ks RESOLUTION OF ST. JOHN'S WOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION WHEREAS declarant is a duly Minnesota nonprofit association which comprises of property owners of towntronres located in the Village of Eden Prairie and said declarant is the owner of certain property in the Village of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as St. John's Wood; and WHEREAS it has come to the attention of the St. John's Wood Homes Association Board of Directors that Mr. Ron Bailey, owner of Arteka, Inc., which owns approximately ten acres across Baker Road to the east of St. John's Wood Townhomes, has entered into a purchase agreement to sell subject property to Normandal.e Tennis Centers. Inc.; and WHEREAS further declarant understands that Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. , as potential developer of the Arteka property, is presently appealing from the Eden Prairie Planning Staff determina- tion that said parcel is not appropriate within City zoning ordinance for the tennis facility; and WHEREAS St. John's Wood Homes Association Board of Directors on behalf of the homeowners in St. John's Wood has an interest in the potential development of 'Said site as it directly affects the home- owners of St. John's Wood; and WHEREAS declarant desires that the Planning Commission; Board of Appeals and Adjustment; and City Council consider any decision they may make in regard to said application in light of the declar- ant's Resolution stated herein; BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the declarant believes that Norman- dale Tennis Centers, Inc. is the most appropriate use for the EXHIBIT "B" subject property, and the declarant on behalf of the homeowners of St. John's Wood strongly recommends that the City of Eden Prairie grant any and all permits required for the construction and develop- ment of said site. RESOLVED FURTHER that in the opinion of the Board of Directors said tennis club will likely be patronized by the townhomeowners and other residents of the surrounding community; that the tennis club aesthetically would be a more appropriate and pleasing project than any other type of service, retail, or other commercial use; and traffic and safety problems will have less adverse impact to neighboring areas of a tennis club in contrast to any other commer- cial use. (( I L Dated this 12th day of September, 1985. HOARD OF DIRECTORS ST. JOHNS'S WOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION �. By /s/ Karen Hollingsworth Its President " I • -2- I - z5 - J: Request #85-37 submitted by Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, for property located at 6231 Baker Road. The request is for an interpretation of City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.25, Subdivision 1, B, to permit the construction of a Racquet and Swim Club within a Community Commercial Zoning District . (Code Permits retail stores offices, and personal service establishments to be patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area in Community Commercial Zoning District.) Background - The City Code specifically lists special purpose for Community Commercial and Regional Commercial Zoning Districts: City Code identifies special purpose of the C-CDM Community Commercial District to: 1. To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area. 2. To permit development of community shopping centers and related residential uses of the size and in the appropriate locations shown on the Guide Plan, according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses. City Code identifies special purpose of the C-REG Regional Commercial District to: 1. To provide a large site at an appropriate location for a major shopping center which serves a wider region than the City itself consistent with the intent of the Metropolitan Guide Plan. 2. To ensure that a major center will be developed in accord with high standards of site planning, architecture, and landscape design." Key areas in each district's purposes have been underlined. Staff Review - The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan designated 4 Community Commercial areas, These are: Corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18, the Preserve Village Center. Corner of County Road 4 and T.A. 5, the Prairie Village Mall. Corner of Baker Road and West 62nd Street, unbuilt todate. County Road 1, near future Dell Road, unbuilt todate. These 4 areas were designated to serve different sections of the City's residential areas. The C-Com areas are to provide community scale services, i.e., quick stop or full size grocery, cleaners, hair salons,'auto gas and service stations, drug stores, etc.. EXHIBIT "C" • - 26 - I "r. The C-Com area designated at Baker and W. 62nd Street will serve residents approximateiy.?_mi-les around the site. This siwill provide de services to approximately 4,500 people today, ap people, as estimated in our 199l population forecast, and 9,000 people, as estimated in our 2,000 population forecast. A community commercial service center ranges in square feet from approximately • 80,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet, and provides a variety of services to a community. A single use facility, as proposed by Normandale Tennis Center, would not provide the range of personal services needed by the residents of the area. The International Racquet and Sports Association estimates that a 150,000 square foot + facility would have a draw area of 5-6 miles or 10-12 minute drive radius. This could mean NTC would serve Minnetonka. Edina, and Bloomington, besides Eden Prairie. It is unlikely a C-Com facility on this site would attract individuals from Edina or Bloomington. Recomme ns - Staff finds that the Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. proposed racquet and swim club is not a permitted use within the Community Commercial District and recommends denial of the request for the following reasons: ✓i. The NTC use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guid n elements which outlines Community Commercial as, ..."intended to meet the day-to-day shopping needs of residents of the City and would include the full range of retail shops and services at a scale smaller than a regional center...." • 2. The NTC use as proposed, is inconsistent with the City's Code which outlines special purposes of C-Com as "....retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments Patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area." 13• No undue hardship has been demonstrated by the applicant. i! '4• A reasonable use of the land exists. t J5. Tht1i granting intent of suchCoan appeal is not in keeping LAW OFFICES 'TELEPHONE. STALLAND 8C STALLAND (6171 505-E577 ONE CORPORATE CENTER FINANCIAL PLAZA ISM OHMS LANE MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 5 485 LUTHER M.STALLARD E.PETER STALLAND October 10, 1985 Mr. Carl Jullie City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Board of Appeals and Adjustments Review of Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. Request for Interpretation of City Code Chapter 11 Section 11.25 Dear Carl: rr Please find enclosed some supplementary materials to be enclosed in the City Council packet for the October 15th meeting regarding the above entitled matter. Enclosed are the following: Affidavit and Supplementary Affidavit by Ron and Jerry Bailey; letter from Richard Bloom, ex-City Planner, City of Minnetonka; letter from Bruce Pankonin, ex-City Planner, City of Chanhassen; copy of St. John's Wood Petition in favor of the tennis and swim club. Thank you. Your79ryirkly, 1 • Peter Stalland PS/jj Enclosures SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) JERRY L. BAILEY and RONALD G. BAILEY, being first duly sworn depose and state as follows: 1. That Affiants make this Supplementary Affidavit in further support of their appeal from the Planning staff determination regarding the Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. use of the subject's 10 acre Arteka site now before the Eden Prairie City Council, October 15, 1985. 2. That both Affiants were present at the Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting on September 12, 1985 whereat the subject appeal was before the Board; that at said meeting Mr. CX Steve Durham, staff member, was present. 3. That during said meeting Mr. Steve Durham publicly stated to the Board and to those present that "We want to see an assortment (of uses) . We are not saying that this type of use cannot be used in community-commercial. It's not that we are concerned about the use, but that we will lose the site for a shopping center." (parenthesis added) . 4. That we have been approached by many developers over the past several years with regard to purchasing the subject site, but at no time have we ever had any interest by any potential pur- chaser for a shopping center or retail use site. That we have inquired about the feasibility of such a site to many prospective purchasers and they have always stated that it is not appropriate for a shopping center site. That we have asked Mr. James Grobe, real estate broker, to investigate and solicit comments from ( potential shopping center users and that he has responded by indicating that there is no interest in the site by major tenants, as evidenced by a letter from Super Valu Stores to James Grobe dated October. 7, 1985, hereto attached as Exhibit "A." Further Affiants saith not. t- $ r.h:. or,r „t1'S'1S 7 erry I . Bailey sv V_d1414WI0ft..lwNWlr Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of October, 1985. //,- -id G. Bailey . Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of October, 1985. itNMM�rNrvNM b.:' x:o Ft p 31y -' y, ..4-IC.et L'TA R P A1�t�Ci7dC9 }T Ifnw.r U i.+ I t v s I -2- \.f it SUPER VALLE The Ita October 7, 1985 s ap SUPER VALU STORES,INC. kLI G ADDnESS.PO BOX 1451•MINNEAPOLIS.MN 55440 James M. Grobe James M. Grobe, Inc. 10249 Yellow Circle Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 Re: Proposed Shopping Center located on SE quadrant of County Road 67 and Baker Road, Eden Prairie, MN Dear Jim: In response to your proposal for a retail shopping center located on the t property known as the Arteka - Bailly Nursery property. we do not presently have any interest in becoming an anchor supermarket for the project. The site is situated in an area that currently has many supermarkets and with the announcement of the new Rainbow Food store going in next to Menards, it further precludes any interest in your site. I appreciate you presenting this opportunity to me and look forward to seeing any other worthwhile sites that would fit into our store expansion program. Best regards, uhlAg Vern Berggren VB/skr EXHIBIT "A" • .E• 40'4101 JEFFERSON AVENUE SOUTH•HOPKINS,MINNESOTA55343.PHONE OM)9324300 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) JERRY L. BAILEY and RONALD G. BAILEY, being first duly sworn depose and state as follows: 1. That Jerry L. Bailey is President of Arteka, Inc., 6233 Baker Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344; that Ronald G. Bailey is Vice President of Arteka, Inc., and is also a resident of Eden Prairie residing at 6950 Marianne Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota • 55344. That both affiants are joint owners in Arteka, Inc., which business comprises land planning, site planning, landscape design, and site, recreation and landscape construction. 2. That Arteka, Inc. is currently owner of the subject property which is located at the corner of Highway 62 and Baker Road in the northeast corner of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota. That said site is approximately ten acres and has been utilized for Arteka, Inc.'s headquarters together with nursery storage since 1977 to date. 3. That affiants purchased the subject property in 1977 primarily for investment purposes only after the City staff of Eden Prairie represented that the property was zoned community commercial. See letter to Jerry Bailey from Dick Putnam, Planning Director of Eden Prairie dated December 20, 1976 hereto attached as Exhibit "A." That the zoning classificatic:a of community commercial was of primary importance in the decision by affiants to purchase the subject site and that their intent was to hold the property until near completion , f the freeway systems and at that time to sell subject property as community commercial. 4. That affiants entered into negotiations with the Norman- dale Tennis Centers in May of 1985 and in reliance upon their belief that the community commercial zoning was appropriate for Normandale's Tennis Center, entered into a purchase agreement in June 1985 to sell the subject site. That the closing pursuant to the terms of said pur- chase agreement was to be by no later than September 1, 1985. That because of the City of Eden Prairie's staff position that the Tennis Center's use is not appropriate in a zoning classification of community commercial, and the resultant procedural and administrative efforts to correct this staff position, affiants have incurred great expense and financial loss both in respect to the purchase of the land and with Arteka's plans for moving its corporate site to a different location. 5. That the City staff's position that the Tennis Club is not an appropriate use in a community commercial zone has caused Arteka great hardship to date together with its 35 employees, and will continue to create hardship for affiants and their employees until such time as the use is determined to be appropriate and affiants together with Normandale Tennis Club are allowed to expeditiously pur- sue their building permit and site plan review of the Tennis Club pro- ject. 6. That it is the opinion of Jerry L. Bailey, land use planner since 1967, that the subject site's highest and best use for the affiants, the Tennis Club developer, and the community is the recreational use submitted hereinbefore to the City by the Normandale Tennis Club and not a commercial-retail shopping center. -2- • Further affiants saith not. Jerry . B ley Subscribed and sworn to before me on this ' day of October, 1985. -+x , ,..40 o d G. Bailey Subscribed and sworn to before me on this / day of October, 1985. -c..rr.+ n...strac/mrorrhr075 . yk.+ty -3- .{) PETITION f s ( I We, the undersigned, residents of St. John's Wood Townhomes, fully support the development of the Normandale Tennis Center on the Arteka property located directly to the east of St. John's Wood. We believe that the tennis club would be an asset to the community and would enhance the value of f our homes. Additionally, it would result in lesser traffic congestion and aesthetically it would be more pleasing than any other type of development. We oppose the City staff's position that the most appropriate use for the • subject property would be a commercial shopping center. We therefore request j the City Council to expedite the site plan and building permit application on behalf of the Normandale Tennis Centers and the owners of the Arteka property. NAME ADDRESS 1. • La \ jCC /1 I ,_ •t `11.•t1_> F G1 vi r:u- ! 2. ,,..F._ 3 j 1 u ..2 2!g ,.,f s. ��r.L �J(_. . ..•c� . 3. / / '�� • ZZZ Y Si, .l� 1--c- -4, 4. !'I /F It 626 * jl • c,L'tn1 , Z 5. ^ ` 1 d (G .5 , fit,` --,��� `er"e 6. C.i'1t.L ILA, ' a/L/ 6,716�' f� 't 4t' ,i:L/uPL t 7. 0 )It itil L( ' ►i IA1 11 + Ii illit i t� 8�tj`' Srith!itJ t i ..( 10v. L ✓Z (% J .z� \ j1.c_� 1 !i4 /. �A1 it lo.ii!s io-IGL`/</=/0/Jg (...23-3 21/7,,,,;�a 11. i7 , _ 7jF{y/rG / ' A...r-> .)de;— 12. c�LC. /-- F 3 7 5 ,V �(� 13. ,''I fa/1•..0\--A ) f--`/'):-t 4-�cr✓ Z. STi �, _ ' v 2 14. ��, _67,-).f 7,, -,('/1�9r'� 4'2 73 U!1/ / bra _ DEC. 16. .<<.0 I/L':-n,,•QC �iC 7 �c rt�l..t .7��. 17. e / t • _ �.�7/ U✓��L"'..; . 16.�/IJ L U iCfLsc.....„, _ ��Gn (�ylL 1j.o ltCt(. 19. C it (Wk.._ 6. .')(.)/ -f-'; . 14.c_ .‘(--/e,\ • �� ti20,j _ � L4.1.� -- 4'`,7 I - L ✓e G -t.. ' % -. 21. IiicaiL ii.aV,L/ ( ( 7t) 5I .fib) A.. 1 I PETITION r We, the undersigned, residents of St. John's Wood Townhomes, fully support the development of the Normandale Tennis Center on the Arteka property located directly to the east of St. John's Wood. We believe that the tennis club would be an asset to the community and would enhance the value of our homes. Additionally, it would result in lesser traffic congestion and aesthetically it would be more pleasing than any other type of development. We oppose the City staff's position that the most appropriate use for the subject property would be a commercial shopping center. We therefore request the City Council to expedite the site plan and building permit application on behalf of the Normandale Tennis Centers and the owners of the Arteka property. NAME ADDRESS 1. —e• 60.9V S -vim 2. "I'fr. :�-1/(/ 1;l ') t-( )1X' -? :l/iir,/,,/�26i 3. ,r'y(C C-7ll. 7,(-1/1 i. i, 1.Cr 4. 5. --;-r,.,t 1,i t•.� t c�r.�..� Cc '. 9,I %'; (I A. z..• i J 4---1::(i,-..', ic k)---,—,------, t7 2. E 51 ?t,..<,.42, 7.Q 1 -" (,A-X--- ' (ti...-e-4.\./ C-30 1 L›,b4 . (.),4_..1;, ,....,2%. 9. ) '' `' 7't'.t/', l-31i. 1.7 ,_,,;.,.. • i;,. , 1°._.e.tA.Z, .4 , ‘,5o Y oCI. c_, 0i.n.A /`C-'l.• 11. .iit( t 1, t. `t '-•( G:7() �T -14V(s .I? (, 12. ,, . .1: /-t N c i • L > r `1"f" lc.-, L-`, 13.�_.,',t;.._1 L .'i A L 4. L'3( 7 31 .16i',•5 i).14. . S eLie 17 , 16. 1 tr`�;, 1,1-.'tu.v 1:3i(: S�• .Jell/,'$ i)t"lT-- 17. )'h3�r.�� y..,„...... l/.•,,,. ,)I ( 41-,A4) ( _,-- 18. . Iilr � ✓ t V9�f.) /)1 iJ'L(.n u� — � � 20.(r� J \ �� ` 6.3( 1 :S • "St/)� i nIR ,....,,,- ( 1 j PETITION We, the undersigned, residents of St. John's Wood Townhomes, fully support the development of the Normandale Tennis Center on the Arteka property located directly to the east of St. John's Wood. We believe that the tennis club would be an asset to the community and would enhance the value of our homes. Additionally, it would result in lesser traffic congestion and aesthetically it would be more pleasing than any other type of development. We oppose the City staff's position that the most appropriate use for the subject property would be a commercial shopping center. We therefore request the City Council to expedite the site plan and building permit application on behalf of the Normand&le Tennis Centers and the owners of the Arteka property. NAME ADDRESS r 1. j_(1_(::t 'L. ef.-- /� `J'l ,��� ,� ✓ /i 2. 1)(11.14k. 1I(. / (,Z (.E� k�- i l' :, It11<2 t. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. _ r 17. 18. �!! 19. 20. 21. PETITION We, the undersigned, residents of St. John's Wood Townhomes, fully support the development of the Normandale Tennis Center on the Arteka property located directly to the east of St. John's Wood. We believe that the tennis club would be an asset to the conmunity and would enhance the value of our homes. Additionally, it would result in lesser traffic congestion and aesthetically it would be more pleasing than any other type of development. We oppose the City staff's position that the most appropriate use for the subject property would be a commercial shopping center. We therefore request the City Council to expedite the site plan and building permit application on behalf of the Normandale Tennis Centers and the owners of the Arteka property. NAME ADDRESS / ADDRESS 1. . !'J ,ri'd.Sv At Irbil f. t�2 2. Ili'/ / ktlAw''' '2r ✓S 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. • 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. __ PETITION We, the undersigned, residents of St. John's Wood Townhomes, fully support the development of the Normandale Tennis Center on the Arteks property located directly to the east of St. John's Wood. We believe that the tennis club would be an asset to the community and would enhance the value of our homes. Additionally, it would result in lesser traffic congestion and aesthetically it would be more pleasing than any other type of development. We oppose the City staff's position that the most appropriate use for the subject property would be a commercial shopping center. We therefore request the City Council to expedite the site plan and building permit application on behalf of the Normandale Tennis Centers and the owners of the Arteka property. NAME ADDRESS 1. - L ��� A L L vr✓1 2. !� .�_f`�. 'I I C L- t? r 3. � t;�_�._ .1'>e�� �. �•>v 1-- ter' 4. ?)., IN—.4‘.k_ _\„/ • ,J., \ .c�LS�—� �)�� •�ll.'6L Ll/J 5. 6. i.�i v ! } 7. e� �, l. ((AV ->C 0/VW' JT 8. a ' -. L 1 6/J'J p 9. L"." / / a&tom• U'%p / iotS11) �f w5 kt_ (e382- 1146, • 11 'v T 1 _613-J"1 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. __ I PETITION 1 , ( + We, the undersigned, residents of St. John's Wood Townhomes, fully support the development of the Notmandale Tennis Center on the Arteka property located directly to the east of St. John's Wood. We believe that the tennis club would be an asset to the community and would enhance the value of our homes. Additionally, it would result in lesser traffic congestion and aesthetically it would be more pleasing than any other type of development. We oppose the City staff's position that the most appropriate use for the subject property would be a commercial shopping center. We therefore request the City Council to expedite the site plan and building permit application on behalf of the Normandale Tennis Centers and the owners of the Arteka property. NAME ADDRESS 1. (-.3'6, (1.-yt.."2.:6 ':,)iit614.-2-e.1..,c,, 7,17..?„, -4/-,irtif:-x--,-1 Lt.-4.J 2. .<<. ' /69L �S/T-- 1'7°. -0 �7. _- 3. ^ �-- ( l/ 7b9L) 7). 4. )L A- of J�‘-(74' vi 7 ' 5. /- J G.,-- .c' c_- („3G' , - .zcz G rt/i) 6. Ln fl �G�l _ 4 i A , L , t 8. r��L 1•'1,n%.,� •_ �i? 7�� / _fL IA 9.' ,.1- e2Lc1_ a. i�t.se-,2, 636k Si 6I S PL-• 10. L _ 6.37 3 Cr L) II. i :2LLye ` j 12. �a�. i,3 Co SiTohn r p r;vQm 14. )7i311c,...._ cam. ) '(LQi.Ca'-,.� 4. 3‘-‘. R --/0l;h:s i)-7-. 15. j(ji2.rts ' -i'«..i 6'3' 16. Q' r.1 .-, __L3 '10 -i l,.�,,, , 17. ' % ''! _ 657/ -S 7,1;,. /),,l,e 18-.D - =-rn ,:4- 6,3'7/ 1"�`.*e__,,‘, �JV, � .. C 19. 20. 21. __ 4-� PETITION We, the undersigned, residents of St. John's Wood Townhomes, fully support the development of the Normandale Tennis Center on the Arteka property located directly to the east of St. John's Wood. We believe that the tennis club would be an asset to the community and would enhance the value of our homes. Additionally, it would result in lesser traffic congestion and aesthetically it would be more pleasing than any other type of development. We oppose the City staff's position that the most appropriate use for the subject property would be a commercial shopping center. We therefore request the City Council to expedite the site plan and building permit application on behalf of the Normandale Tennis Centers and the owners of the Arteka property. NAME ADDRESS cl. c L.-/ t� / r(.Cf - 1�.3G JC .Ju/�n�ch . 2. / t1 33-2 �1. JG''A S .1(• 3. 141 � r �ltlylP (,,�3.3 , . J f�k }l,: 4. • ic ,UU-(���. G: :2 32 -- - V . EL2per 5. {emu C L z��n . /�Zf10 l0?3 2 6. Q n G1,1,, 6 )f/, 67 3 u a 'fff tits . 7. ?1i.� c�.`- cv4 t • C.7 3 9. ' L.f ,3 0,4 /14:1) 41.%(` 10. 6_ �� ��:���,� 3a 4 fir. 12. M- ,C3SA' 5 cirA, /`r 13. -( — 13s 7 ,r;-- I o%ji___ 6i 14. ,�,. Drk 63dO t5t ( a�i 15. •Ut.. 16. 17. 18. --- 19._ 20. 21. `\ i PETITION We, the undersigned, residents of St. John's Wood Townhomes, fully support the development of the Normandale Tennis Center on the Arteka property located directly to the east of St. John's Wood. We believe that the tennis club would be an asset to the community and would enhance the value of our homes. Additionally, it would result in lesser traffic congestion and aesthetically it would be more pleasing than any other type of development. We oppose the City staff's position that the most appropriate use for the subject property would be a commercial shopping center. We therefore request the City Council to expedite the site plan and building permit application on behalf of the Normandale Tennis Centers and the owners of the Arteka property. NAME / ADDRESS 1 1. 447-7v.ar� /lx , ('� 6v2W - -free-11 , ,C/-,,'�_ 2. T'NIL `�/1I/_,- 6<'c(3 IT Jc'lf 'DR,. 3. 0 z) &t' ' 3()/ j/ „Jcf''S d14( 4. &I) t/t tf/ ,i . 'J o,C,._. 5. 6QU«E' 6al/At6tiv _ 63()z1 _4n/ s f 6. I(C(JUJ 1)4.///ila-/Li 4 SC-,jt/ 5 do us(' 7. — ' �$r1,el c .4 6%Y3 „ _ 9. 11/I ,lc G, 337 r( , lt. I ,7 6J0/ 7 i 12.s ll% (/l. Y� , -. ,: I , !� 13. F I L J i'Q�-vi/-1_ 6 35 dZ S 'Y'it-,1, h 14. �'1%t C{ f)lLti,,,_,, 3 S S/ • l 1!l l(.:, iGn . k.15. �' «��'t�� (JJ - )7 A'L 16. ,. i,/ 63.3 - 1 7, /, 17. / ��^ ,,,I, >.f ot! tg. !c 0-1.. tci aL,ACti`xyt. 47i5 /b ittil.. (t)ru, 19. -. .- ({a-r-,.t ,-- l:r ,w t�3 f - . / .) 20. ., o� (c�...d t'� G )c' ��Svti4-v 10.--t) 21.�t ems/ l�} /) ) >��_�� isY 7 JJ' ' &) Richard H. Bloom Planning and Development Consultant 4929 Highland Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 October 10, 1985 Mr. Carl Jullie City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Carl: I have been retained by Ronald and Jerry Bailey, owners of Arteka, Inc., to review their proposed sale of property to Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. They have instructed me to review the appropriateness of locating a proposed racquet and swim club within a community com- mercial (c-com) district. The Normandale Tennis Center is proposing to construct a racquet and swim club complex which will occupy the 9+ acre site on Baker Road. The Planning Staff report to the BZA rules that the proposed use is not permitted within the c-com district. The primary reasons are: the use is inconsistent with the Guide Plan and is contrary to the City's Code which states the special purposes of c-com as " . . . retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area." The primary purpose of a zoning ordinance is to establish certain dis- tinct districts within which various land uses may locate. The ordi- nance also establishes standards which mu:;t be met in order to ensure public health, safety and general welfare. The difficulty in this case is that the Eden Prairie City Code lists few permitted uses; the uses which are listed tend to be broad such as "retail stores, offices and personal service establishments." Since the issue at hand is one of interpretation of the zoning code, the following questions are ger- mane: 1. Does the proposed use fall within any of the three general use categories of the district? The proposed use of a tennis, racquet and swim club clearly may be considered to be a "personal service establishment." The provision of private recrea- tional facilities and associated programs such as training, exercise and fitness instruction all are services which are personal in nature. 2. Is the proposed swim and racquet club the type of personal service establishment "patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area?" Mr. Carl Jullie October 10, 1985 Page Two Defining the "immediate community area" in this instance is difficult since the site is on the boundary with the City with Minnetonka and is readily accessible from Interstate 494 and the Crosstown Freeway. Consequently the "market area" served by this location could include Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins and Edina as well as others. The market area proposed by the applicants is pri- marily directed towards this "community" as noted in the August 22 letter from Mr. Beck (page 3) . It should be noted that any "community commercial" development of the property would likely target their marketing efforts to this same area. 3. Does the proposed use "minimize adverse impacts on adjoining residential uses?" Clearly in terms of traffic generation the proposed use would be beneficial to the area and is well docu- mented in Mr. Beck's August 22 letter. Identifying "adverse impacts" is difficult since people's percep- 1 tions vary. Consequently, applicants are advised to review proposed plans with adjoining residential neighborhoods and to respond to their concerns in a responsible manner. The proposed use of the property area does respond to residential concerns as evi- denced by the Resolution and Petition from the St. John's Wood Homes Association who support the appli- cant's development. 4. Does the proposed use meet the other standards and requirements of the community commercial district? In terms of building size and scale, the proposal is consistent with zoning requirements. Moreover, the applicants have stated that all other zoning requirements will be adhered to as noted in Mr. Beck's letter. It is my considered opinion that the type of use proposed clearly falls within the category of "personal service establishment" that would be primarily patronized by the immediate community area. Moreover, the proposed use minimizes adverse impacts upon adjoining residential areas and the project can adhere to ordinance requirements. The City of Minnetonka, in their Comprehensive Plan, also suggests a neighborhood, community and regional commercial strategy. The Ridge- dale area is identified as "regional commercial" and the Co5/101, Hwy. 7/101 and the Glen Lake area are designated "community commercial." • Mr. Carl Jullie October 10, 1985 Page Three If one examines these community commercial areas, one finds such diverse uses such as K-Mart, movie theaters, medical facilities, office buildings, automobile dealerships, CUB Foods and tennis/ racquetball clubs. All of these uses are deemed appropriate and are considered to serve the immediate community area. This does not, however, mean only the City of Minnetonka since residents from thz Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Excelsior, Shorewood and • Deephaven also frequent these areas. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments have considered this entire issue and we believe that they have correctly ruled in favor of the applicant. I would urge the Eden Prairie City Council to concur in their findings. Respectfully submitted, • Richard H. Bloom Planning and Development Consultant 4929 Highland Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 938-4239 RIiB/j j • 1, • K, 15705 26th Avenue North • Plymouth.MN • (612)553-1035 October 10, 1985 Mr. Jerry Bailey Arteka Incorporated • 6233 Baker Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Jerry: Perusant to your rec es 'ill provide background information and answers to io_.lo:_ng question_: • { 1. Is a tennis facility, as proposed by Norsandale Tennis Clubs, an appropriate use for your property? 2. Is a tennis facility, as proposed, a "regional" or "community" use? C35 TI - 1 • - - a - - .., _ .._ .. occur, I e�_ a .. _.__. nt of .,. .,sic. _ _ ,_• _-- ._ ,sr. I'r-nu on my city rlrn.._ _ c-..,:perionze, I feel the 7Tocers is to correct the acC=i (eJ errors of the _ - _ :. g".u a cut the p:ese ecr atte,-,r t to pave the _...._.:, into the future. "...in; is judged by what it does, not by what the plans :2Fr r nc; to be effective, it must be continuous. Situations change L -c tie Situecion as it is, not r<Cr€ly as it was. i. se3u:.:;,. o c irye, sniff the ,tans shoule be ra_ :•eu and ::roved to rc nities. If application of ti:e laz will reveal defects .- - ., ".,:•:-iie`tltant' cast in eo cua:e. the C t of E.iea :f:,._iis ❑p%ac5.i city ceviet,er. t..c-it ._:e with specific emphasis placed on Eden Prairie's ..,_ hi.hlights of Eden Prairie's p_cns. _:. ,.ing is a process, continuous, changin , adsatin g, "Create a plan which is com2rehensive according to but ,.,.ich is `le::ible C:ac^ to alit. Icr • :.i.,i';u - Iu6,G00ta:.etC.er :'ith ra" tint. i7. 7 Cn Commercial Development "Commercial development will be encouraged at these activity centers for the convenience of residents. Recognizing that commercial development is affective by forces that are not in the public realm, the development plan specifies potential (highlight added) locations for commercial , activity and assumes that if commercial development takes place at one of • these locations, other potential locations will, in all likelihood, revert to other uses as a result of market forces." "Comruanity Commercial is intended to meet the day to day shopping needs of residents of the city and would include the full range of retail shops and services at a scale smaller than a regional center and would range in size from 60,000 to 200,000 SF of retail or service sales area." Men Prairie has designated your property along with 3 other sites to be community commercial areas. The other areas are located at: 1. Corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18, the Preserve Villag; Center. • 2. Cornet of County Road 4 and T.H. 5, the Prairie Village i ll. C 3. County Poad 1, near Dell Road (not built). Although the I•:enards Center is indicated as regional ccucercial, the site is developing (because of tenant nun_) as a conmtnity conrrercial center. TYPES Cc SHOPPING CENTE,PS - { Surburban shopping centers, since the 1940's, were originally divide0 into three basic csteoories - neighborhood, coTP.Tunity; F7,f. r_CCnal, e:nb ,,Loh F c1err c'.,._. diseinez function, trade o:ea?, cr.C; te: -. , o .: - mac, t.._ l: I!I distinction among the three types has not been clear. Further, as spcolLuirecl -orket opportunities have Leen __..___.t: several r_.::t•,__s of ce- ,.. . _ ,.sen cvcly_r.. 1.71 example ,eee _._ ... _ _ (• .;: ....... .inc tc Rit....._z. 71.11 _._. ',.. _ ,. :. ,...t ..- regional center. In all cases, even within the variations, the r.a cr tenant classifications determines the type of shopping center. Tano:c classifications and eusiiiar_. facilities are in keeping with the territory from which the center draws a:rto:.ers. The important thing to rerer:bet is that neither the site area nor the building size determines the type of center - it's the tenant min. Co tonity S`moj ping Center - Iciti:._ _.._ co:..unity center wag Ga:c_ o___.... L. j_n c.: _ ::_.. .. large ._ _ .tor we it:, anch3r t.'.r.o.._. to _::e . : ._.:Le . ._.c Colic: tyi.:es, the car unity cc-�:.i. 1..:.. c:C o _ _. _: _ _• .t chi - in characteristics. The junior co <rt ant store or. .: _c:. Tmunmm store, while not extinct as anchor tenants, are less prevalent, having been supplanted as principal anchor tenants by the discount or off-price department store, or by a strong specialty store such as a hardware/building/home improvement store or a combined drug/variety/garden center. A comaunity center can largely be defined by what it does and does not have. It does not have a full-line department store, which would automatically categorize it as a regional shopping center. It has a market area larger than a neighborhood center and thus draws customers from a longer distance. It offers greater depth and range of merchandise for the neighborhood center. The consunity shopping center is clearly the "in-between" center. Regional and Super Regional Shopping Center - The regional and super regional center provides shopping goods, general merchandise, apparel, furniture, and home furnishings in full depth and variety. Its main attraction, around which the center is built, is the full-line department store. Examples would be Eden Prairie Center and Eloomington's proposed "Mega-Mall." CHARACTERISTICS C' S00PPICv CEtTEfii - The Ur:;.J. Lon _.. _ute, L1, :h_ cost ruthorize:: scarce conducting practicd. Escarch in the V:.S;C%.i8 fields of real estate knowledge. The ULI is an independent, ccn-..rri:t rern rch •l;:c: educational organization incorporated in 1936 to ialja0,c t ,. r tinT,d s;:an:i rds of land use and development. The CLI has bee ntu::_;ir:g suburban shopping centers since the 1940's. In 1985, after analyzing hundreds of centers, the ULI published the following, as a general rule and varket standards, for all categories of centers. It should be rated, among planners, the ULI is the most highly recognized source for analyzing land-characteristics of shopping centers. Cr'::..'::YPL' Lt:.DI.:;TT^.v+.ri Tx'PICfL GW: 'u, USJF.I, IIQU:Ii! =meTs F(? CTA PR f•ZITvI!:t1 POPUWTIOY ` - T_:• ('._r, si ARM SUPPOFT ) __ 2::') r_.,TTI%ED FEET) .nigh orh od arket 50,000 30,000- 3-10 3,000- Centers 100,000 40,000 Cc.=anity __r.arket, 150,000 100,000- 10-30 40,000- Centers Ju;:icr Doparto;cat 300,000 150,000 Lard€ ... _.cUant, or _.,_.=7.nt Ccnsc. - 7-_ r•".�� _ _- 150,000 -_ I_ ,0D, or :gore SCFCP.: Urban ,,,stitute, SLz ing Canter Handbook, 1985, p. 6 EDEN PRAIRIE'S PLAN AND ZURDECMDINANCES GONFORMAICE 113 ACCEPTED CCIPPOIMAL S7 MAROS. - The city plan and zoning ordinance, as adopted, suggests your property be developed as a community commercial site. The plan, I feel, did not adequetely analyze the existing trade area to determine if a comrunity shopping center wou1 be viable. The plan turned its back on the fact that Minnetonka, for the most part, will contribute jobs, low density residential, protection open space, and lots of competition (Glen Lake) to the trade area. Eden Prairie will, for the • most part, contribute the same. I-194 and the Crosstown Highway (final link under construction) will place extreme pressure on the use of your property. The pressures are manifest by the absorption of high quality office and industrial use in Minnetonka, just north c put property. Eden Prairie would be wise to accept a low impact use, like the tennis center, rather than fighting every developer who will naturally want to develop highway orientated business on your site. • Existing Tennis Facilities - As shown i:. the attached graphic there are 22 tennis facilities located in the • western p°rt of the r.*etroolitan area. These facilities are no core than a 10 :cir.ute drive fro:, each other. CJ::MUSIoN - Eden Prairie's plan does not provide economic base line data justifying a community shop+ing'center on your site. I do not believe there will ever be a • market for such a center. However, the site aii] GE:.:�:rs-TF' e:tre:,r_ interest, on the part of the dvelopment community, for II._Efl office c::,d bigh ay orientated • uses. I Zeal the to: its center, as proposed, will gonorb e 1'e,::b - ic, • aid lave less c:f an iarvact on the land than a ccacranity si:o`2it:g center or any ct:ir cf.v, reial/i.,uustrie.1 rse. The tennis center c.oaic. ire use cf the i.... , l.c... ..�_ :.o E. ,._jor ,...te1. lenich wou1.6 In reference to your questions regarding tennis cen':vr:; cz a regicn:i use, I can • only say common facilities (there are 22 of them) less than 10 minutes apart, .r:.not be considered a regional. facility. Calling a tennis cl > a "se;ional facility" would be like calling a grocery store a "regional facility." Respectfully submitted, • • 7. . . .-. . • .I ... . .r..•• •. . ............„_..,...„...... .. ..,.. .. ......,_.,.. ...., 1 , I onnoo I I noun I OAK GOO, 6,111 NM. 1 I I Ai *aeon 1 .rn• I•••an irag ...1 16111 SCAM.. I 1111•1 ST I.••1 I E ' I • ,I OM.. "".., I ..... • A ••100 1. (A1,..••,11, •OC1 .,.,.., ' 4•110•,.;.:."."""" . I 1 ..1.11--rir Gni ormot 1 sant en ' '''' • 1 3 noanatnr7 . no ran .1 r.ot.g .• a a. ' I V.1.1,14•1• / .01.11•111 I 0.4t,.,H , „.—.ez,. . , 1 NENNI•1N CO ; ,11,11, .gt.. R. " .3.- .1 — • , 1 I ...iron r'I, g,••• t ...''''' .:14' K,. .'- t> r "'y k\r'INNEAPOLIS t ,....... •"' .1 ra, , ..6"... .-4..,,,, ...sr •••""^^ ,.": ."` - ',;; -',: ...., ,..,.'...1._.;:-ire:..„....r..................H,_./...;:t T!, I:L:T.::::::1-1, —__J____.......... ri-— , -... \T:".'i .n.i.'"il‘K 7'1„tst;'t K7......11............_. a ......... .......e- ''' .""""....- „,,,r"..;,`,, .1., ..,t.!, ,---.. ,--•••ise-.77),._ ' ,. ..... i i i c.,-,-,..K..-,-.1•-g gr'....... ,....,"`L. .,.."--.: - •, ...-. ....•.. , • I •••••• i..noo nant,.." nnt gn.:: • . 1 . ••7'''''''r-4-'--"----0'-'''''''' .2rt:.. • . L M I .it• IV. . . , c•„vr..., co ,f•C.MN . i..:-..,, de la". I 40.1 ,:11/10V1-11114•0•1 1.1001.1111 I ''..-..1„...L...0.• 0 t...".. I . 1 1;1,04., : non -...- not.vo,r--,-,....."7—"•••....,, ---.4..,, „;,,,, t tr..,t t,tt t e It... ... ... I 4 .....-•....,/-----r— ' S.....4._" ... \ • i t __ 1_. ./.,„,„ i ......;;...,„ i ,..c.... AWN,/ 1 1 i c.......1 1 IC - .-.... I .......... 1 I t .,......tar . 1 1 , ,j__,A1t“1•411.1 1 I ••. f",e?e-1.._,..•I'i.-.r,_./_cIIt___—_ —,,,, i—00“"-t.7.=7.•'-"-'it,_i.'. r ,__,IA—•-tf7,;..14n Iii' 1I o _ i- — "t" 1011EJ14-1,1-.11 r...L... r.t.•...1.1 . I , 1 IN•IM • .-• .L.7-S r. . ..-•• • 1 ;••N' !,....;,*r r.-P‘:,_ I-r.._r.F.r:^ r C:` i—f,..—. .....- I,'.4..a t ii.t1 A.- t ,...,...‘,-,Lbi t.104.•14,0 I , I ; . — , . . . ..._. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES UESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 Immediately following City Council Meeting OUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wolfgang H. Penzel, George Bentley, Dean Edstrom, MEMBERS: Paul Redpath and George Tangen OUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Finance Director STAFF: John D. Frane, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael I. ROLL CALL All members were present. II. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman pro-tem Penzel. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MDTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business. Motion carried unanimously. { , I IV. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY MDTION: Penzel moved, seconded by Tangen, to nominate Penzel as Chairman and Redpath as Secretary of the Eden Prairie Housing and Redevelopment Author- ity. Motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS There was none. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION ND. 85-1 APPROVING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Eden Prairie (HRA) and Prairie Village Limited Partnership (Developer) are engaged in the redevelopment of an elderly housing project known as Prairie Village Apartments in an area of the City located at the northeast corner of the intersection of T.H. 5 and County Road 4; and, WHEREAS, the HRA and Developer have agreed to enter into a Purchase Agreement for redevelopment of said elderly housing project for the purpose of developing a three i r (3) story building, containing fifty-six (56) units for lower income elderly persons; and, WHEREAS, the HRA and Developer have also agreed to enter into a Property Management Agreement subject to terms and conditions listed therein; WHEREAS, the HRA has reviewed the Purchase Agreement and the Property Management Agreement for the redevelopment of said elderly housing project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the Purchase Agreement and Property Management Agreement and all of the terms and conditions contained in each document are hereby approved; and; 2. That the Chairman and Administrator of the HRA are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Purchase Agreement and Property Management Agreement on behalf of the HRA. ADOPTED this 15th day of October, 1985. Gary Peterson, Chairman Carl J. Jullie, Administrator Housing and Redevelopment Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Eden Prairie Authority of the City of Eden Prairie • PURCHASE AGREEMENT • Dated: , 1985 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership, or its assigns (hereinafter "Buyer") and THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF EDEN - PRAIRIE, a Minnesota public body corporate (hereinafter "Seller"), in consideration of the terms and covenants in this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, hereby agree, as of this date, that: • 1.) Property Purchase - Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Buyer agrees to buy and Seller agrees to sell to Buyer the real property described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (hereinafter the "Property"), including trees and shrubbery attached and appertaining thereto and located on the Property. 2.) Purchase Price and Payment - The Purchase Price shall be Twenty-one Thousand One Hundred Eighty-one Dollars ($21,181) paid by Buyer on the date of closing, subject to contingencies contained herein. Seller shall in good faith use its best efforts to obtain the Community Development Block Grant Funds referred to herein. In addition to the foregoing, Buyer agrees to pay the Seller for all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Seller for the preparation of this Purchase Agreement and the Project Management Agreement entered into between the parties and any related documents; for the preparation of the Tax Increment Plan and the Interest Reduction Program to be adopted by the City; and for attending the closing on the purchase of the Property. The Project Management Agreement is specifically adopted and incorporated herein by reference. 3. ) Title and Conveyance - Subject to performance by the Buyer, the Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Quit Claim Deed conveying said premises. Seller shall also provide at closing such affidavits concerning identity or authority of executing persons, as reasonably required by Buyer. Within thirty (30) days of the anticipated closing, Buyer will obtain a Commitment for an owner's policy of title insurance, by a company acceptable to Buyer, certified to date • ir including proper searches bankruptcies, state and federal judgments, liens, and special assessments (levied and pending). In that Seller is acquiring the Property from Gonyea Company for the purpose of transferring it to Buyer to be developed in accordance with the terms of this Purchase Agreement and the Project Management Agreement between the parties hereto, Buyer shall in writing make any objections it has to title prior to the acquisition of the Property by Seller from Gonyea Company. If an objection to title is made and the title defect cannot be cured to Buyer's and Seller's satisfaction by the time of closing, then this Purchase Agreement shall be null and void. Closing may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties. Buyer agrees to waive any and all objections not made in writing prior to Seller's acquisition of the Property. Seller will deliver an abstract for the Property to Buyer upon its request for purposes of securing title insurance. 4.) Contingencies - In addition to other conditions and contingencies in this Agreement: a.) Title Contingency - Seller's obligation shall be contingent upon its acquiring marketable title to the Property from the current owners. b.) Federal Funding Contingency - The parties' obligations shall be contingent upon Seller's receipt of a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($128,819) to acquire the Property prior to sale to Buyer. 5. ) Condition Subsequent - The parties' obligations under this Purchase Agreement and the Project Management Agreement entered into between the parties this date are contingent on Seller establishing, within ninety (90) days of the date of closing, a redevelopment project, a Tax Increment Financing District, and an Interest Reduction Program, all as required by Minnesota Statutes and by the Project Management Agreement. In the event that this condition subsequent is not met, Buyer shall have the right to tender to Seller the amount of One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($128,819) and Seller shall in that event quit claim any interest which it has in the Property to Buyer and shall execute a document extinguishing all obligations of the parties under this Purchase Agreement and the Project Management Agreement. 6. ) Taxes and Assessments - Buyer shall pay all real estate taxes and special assessments on the Property, except those taxes and special assessments to be paid by Gonyea Company pursuant to the Purchase Agreement between Gonyea and Buyer. Seller shall not be responsible to pay any real estate taxes or special assessments. 2. 7.) Closing - All adjustments relating to the Property, including rent, utilities, and insurance, shall be made as of the date of closing. Closing shall be on or before October 31, 1985. • I 8.) Survival of Terms - This Agreement shall apply to and inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 9.) Use of Property - In consideration of the conveyance of the premises by Seller, Buyer agrees to use the premises for construction and operation of the proposed Prairie Village Apartments, consisting of one (1) structure containing fifty- six (56) elderly housing units. All of the housing units will be for occupancy by lower income elderly persons as defined in the Project Management Agreement. In the event that the premises are not used for the construction and operation of the proposed Prairie Village Apartments for the term of the Project Management Agreement, and provided that the Seller has performed its obligations under this Purchase Agreement and the Project Management Agreement, Buyer agrees, in addition, to all other remedies available to Seller as provided in the Project Management Agreement or otherwise, to refund to Seller the One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($128,819) in Community Development Block Grant Funds. 10.) Security - Buyer further agrees to execute a mortgage note in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($128,819) to secure its obligation to repay that amount in the event that the premises are not used for the construction and operation of the proposed Prairie Village Apartments as required by Section 8 above. Buyer further agrees to secure the Mortgage Note required by this Section 9 by executing a second mortgage against the Property in the form attached as Exhibit B hereto, which second mortgage shall be subordinate to Developer's construction and permanent financing or refinancing on the Project. SELLER: THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Date: By: Its: Chairman • Date: By: Its: Administrator 3. BUYER: PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Date: By: Its: General Partner Date: By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1985, by and , the Chairman and Administrator, respectively, of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1985, by and , the General Partner and , respectively, of Prairie Village Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public is 4. PKB:AF6 Ir EXHIBIT A That part of the following described tract: All 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 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 which lies southwesterly of a line bearing south 39 degrees 06 minutes 36 seconds east from a point on the northwesterly line of said OUTLOT B distant 282.11 feet northwesterly along said northwesterly line from the most westerly corner of said•OUTLOT B. For the purpose of this description, the north line of Outlot B is assumed to bear south 89 degrees, 18 minutes, 44 seconds east. PKB:AF6 No.1.614 /Melon,UW.m Yon r...14.reya trbig itotatutorp fiiortgagt, drags Oa,..........._._......._......day e/..._..._..._....__.....__.__...,19,........., between......_.................................... address.. fmortgagor........and ................................................................_......................................_......_._............_.....__._. !:: mortgagee...___ .wlllttggelb. That to secure the payment of............._...._...._. _._ .. __....__._._._.__.__......__._. ._..._............._......_......___.._ .____._.._..___..__.._.........._____......_.._..._...._. .....Dollars according to the terms of.........._...................................promissory note.......bearing even data herewith payable to the order of said mortgagee.......as fellows: with interest thereon at...................................per ant per annum payable...............................................................annually the mortgagor.......hereby mortgage to the mortgagee_....th..............._.tract....of land lying in the County o/....._.... _...........____...._____._._._.__ . State e/dfinnesota,described as fellows,to-wit: I ' _ iand ._..._.._...._.._...._.........-'—'---.._......_._........._____...._..._..._._...__............_._.___......_.._._..._._...._...___.-"---.__..._._._.._..._____... � ., the mortgagor.........covenant.....__with the mortgagee.._..the fetlowing statutory covenants:1. To warrant the title to the premises; j S. To pay the indebtedness as heroin provided; B.To pay all taxes; 4. To keep the buildings insured against fire fer a...............................................;and against windstorms and tornadoes for I................................_..............for the proleetion of the mortgagee_...; . 5. That the premises shall be kept in repair and no waste shall be committed; B. That the whole of the principal sum shall become due after default in the payment of any tnstallment of principal or interest,or of any tax,or in the performance of any other covenant,at the option of the mortgage........; 7. To pay principal and interest on prior mortgages. If default be made in any payment er cotenant herein,the mortgagee_shall have the statutory _ EXHIBIT B - I , ' { power of sale,and on foreclomore may rotate statutory wits and attorney'a INS. 1 In Vii(tness tilbercof. The mortgagor .ha..........,.,....daly executed this moot fa& 1 , .... . ... . . i • • i I 1 . ..... ... .. .. ... 1 : rotate of Iiiiirtnesota, Th.t foteeoing llextnolnitlit wax orkotoreledgrel before In 1' thi. day of . ,19 I hY i i W..01 PIPPON PCPPIOWLBOOPPO I 1 [ if IGNATOPP.OP PERSON TAXING ACIPPIOWLPOGRONT, I 1 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY Malt OP ItPOP1 1 IN.....) . 1 , 1 'Add,...) ! I : • I , I i1 I .. Al.e. . J . 0- ' t j ; !.?..- 70: •-;; J., '4 e. 2..::::. •E W1 ,, i i -... t 1 „ - tZ. t ... • 4, -':, 1 :. 7 .. ''.•• : ! 1 ,••. t , '0 . i 64 : •... At Z •Z r......,,r..Z 6 I = * b a ; A •: .i. E = ... . • , t :.-:. - - lag I . iz . ta '.: •'z' ; , i ..- ( i : 4.4 i y.., , N. ia .(i, ; — / f ' • i ;,:: ; , 11 . : ,., . .z . 2 f t:: 61 N ... ,..— : -,.z. -,, 4 .....:, ..4 , '. c.) 4'. : Z; •-,.. % ::: s: Z,;.= Z., --- ... ... PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN 1i i THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE (Agency) AND PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Developer) THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the day of , 1985, by and between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE (the Agency), a public body corporate, established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.411 to 462.711 (the Municipal i Housing and Redevelopment Act) and having its office at 8950 Eden Prairie Road, in the City of Eden Prairie (the City), State of Minnesota, and PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (the Developer), a limited partnership organized and operating under the laws of Minnesota and having its office for the transaction of business at 1650 Shelard Office Tower, 600 South County Road 18, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 (the Developer). WHEREAS, the Agency and Developer are engaged in carrying out a redevelopment project known as Prairie Village Apartments (the Redevelopment Project) in an area of the City located on the northeast corner of the intersection of T.H. 5 and County Road 4; and WHEREAS, Agency and Developer have this day entered into a Purchase Agreement for the sale of land for private development (the Purchase Agreement) pursuant to which Agency has agreed to sell and Developer has agreed to purchase a certain parcel of property (the Property) located within the Redevelopment Project area and legally described as follows: That part of the following described tract: All 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 to a 1 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 which lies southwesterly of a line bearing south 39 degrees 06 minutes 36 seconds east from a point on the northwesterly line of said OUTLOT B distant 282.11 feet northwesterly along said northwesterly line from the most westerly corner of said OUTLOT B. WHEREAS, Developer has purchased the Property for the purpose of developing a three (3) story elevator building containing fifty-six (56) housing units and underground parking (the Project); and WHEREAS, the Project will be occupied entirely by lower income elderly persons, which shall be defined as persons fifty-five (55) years of age or older; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and covenants in this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. ) Project Management - Agency and Developer hereby agree that Developer's management of the Project following completion of construction thereof shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Project Management Agreement, including the remedies for noncompliance set forth herein, contained in the Purchase Agreement or otherwise available by law. Developer agrees that the Project will be completed and operational on or before September 1, 1987. In the event the Project is not completed and operational on or before September 1, 1987, regardless of the reason, including any act or omission by Agency or City, the Developer shall be in default of the Agreement and subject to all remedies available to Agency. 2. ) Agency's Obligations - a.) Agency shall in good faith use its best efforts to obtain and use Community Development Block Grant Funds in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($128,819) to reduce the cost of the property to Developer as set forth in the Purchase Agreement and shall sell the Property to Developer on the terms set forth in the Purchase Agreement and shall comply with all of the terms of said Purchase Agreement, which is specifically adopted and incorporated herein by reference. 2. b.) Agency shall in good faith use its best efforts to establish the Redevelopment Project in conformance with Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes. c.) Agency shall in good faith use its best efforts to create, in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 et seq., a Housing Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District) within the Redevelopment Project, which TIF District shall include the Project and Developer's second Prairie Village Apartment Building located immediately adjacent to and west of the Project. d.) Agency shall in good faith use its best efforts to establish an Interest Reduction Program and regulations for the Interest Reduction Program in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.445. e.) In the event that all other terms and conditions of • this Agreement and the Purchase Agreement have been complied with and performed, Agency shall pay to Developer or its lender the sums set forth in the column identified as "Annual Tax Inc. Funds" on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Agency's payment of annual tax increment funds shall be made in two (2) equal installments, each installment to be paid within ten (10) business days of receipt by Agency of property tax revenues from Hennepin County. Agency's obligation to make such payments is expressly contingent upon sufficient tax increment funds being generated annually to make such payments. In no event will the Agency be required to make any payments from any funds whatsoever other than those generated by the TIF District. The Tax Increment Funds shall come from the tax increment generated by the TIF District and shall be used for the purpose of interest reduction pursuant to the interest reduction program. A portion of the Tax Increment Funds (the Contributed Tax Increment Funds) shall be the Agency's contribution to the Project. Interest reduction achieved through the Agency's contribution of the Contributed Tax Increment Funds shall be applied by Developer to reduce rents for the housing units. The remaining portion of the Tax Increment Funds (the Loaned Tax Increment Funds) shall also be used by Developer for interest reduction, but shall be considered a loan from Agency to Developer which loan shall be repaid as provided herein. Each year when Agency pays the Tax Increment Funds to Developer, Developer shall execute a Subordinate Note in the amount of the Loaned Tax Increment Funds as established in the schedule attached as Exhibit "A" to this Project Management Agreement. The 3. Subordinated Note shall be in the form attached as Exhibit "B" to this Project Management Agreement and shall be repaid as provided herein. f.) At the option of the Developer, Agency shall in good faith use its best efforts to either: (i) Cooperate with and assist Developer in obtaining Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) long-term financing for the Project; or (ii) Issue Housing Revenue Bonds sufficient to finance a long-term mortgage on the Project. 3. ) Developer's Obligations - a.) Tenants - All housing units in the Project shall be rented to lower income elderly persons. Lower income persons (unless otherwise defined by MHFA if MHFA is the mortgage lender for the Project) are those whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the median income for the standard metropolitan statistical area, as adjusted for family size and other facts by HUD. Developer must re-examine the income of each tenant household on an annual basis. { If the tenant's adjusted income exceeds eighty percent (80%) of the median, or such less restrictive • guidelines as HUD or the Agency may have established, Developer must notify the tenant that it must move by the latter of the date its lease expires or the date which is six (6) months from the date of notification. b. ) Rents - The rent charged by Developer for each unit shall not exceed: (i) The rents established in Exhibit "C" attached hereto, which rents will be no greater than the "Fair Market Rents" allowed by HUD pursuant to then currently applicable HUD rules, regulations, or policies; or (ii) Rents allowable by MHFA if MHFA is the mortgage lender for the Project. c. ) Rent Increases - Rents as herein attached and established by the Developer shall not be increased by more than seven and five-tenths percent (7.5%) a year, or that amount allowed by HUD or MHFA for increases in a particular year, whichever is less. • 4. jI d.) Public Disclosure - Developer will provide tenants with written notice at least thirty (30) days before e implementing any rent increase. The Project is not subject to state or local rent control unless otherwise provided in a loan agreement with MHFA. e.) Rent Schedules - Developer must submit for Agency's review Developer's initial and subsequent Rent Schedules for all Units in the Project. The Agency will review the rent schedules and will approve any schedules in compliance with subsections (02) and (03) above. Any rent schedule submitted by Developer will be considered approved unless Agency informs Developer within thirty (30) days that it is disapproved. The Agency shall provide written reasons if any rent schedule is disapproved. Developer's failure to obtain Agency's approval of rent schedules, unless such approval is improperly withheld, shall constitute a default by Developer. f.) Refusal to Lease - The Developer may not refuse to lease any unit in the Project to a prospective tenant on the basis of the prospective tenant's receipt of, or eligibility for, housing assistance, social security, or other types of public or private assistance. g.) Enforcement of Leases - Developer shall emphasize voluntary compliance of all tenants with their leases, but shall have the right to secure full compliance by residents with the terms and conditions of their respective leases and may terminate any tenancy when, in Developer's sole judgment, sufficient cause occurs under the terms of the tenant's lease. h. ) Maintenance and Repairs - Developer shall cause the buildings, appurtenances, equipment, and grounds of the Project to be maintained and repaired according to local codes. i. ) Utilities and Services - Developer shall make arrangements for water, electricity, gas, fuel oil, sewage and trash disposal, vermin extermination, decorating, laundry facilities, telephone services, and such other utilities and services as are required. j. ) Insurance - Developer shall obtain and cause to be placed in force all forms of insurance as required by the Lender, including but not limited to comprehensive insurance to cover all risks, including fire and extended coverage, in an amount equal to the 5. full insurable value of the property and all structures thereon. k.) Governmental Orders - Unless under formal appeal, processed in good faith by Developer in accordance with applicable law or regulation, Developer shall take such actions as may be necessary to comply promptly with any and all orders or requirements affecting the Project placed thereupon by any state, federal, county, or municipal authority having jurisdiction over the Project. 1.) Records and Reports - Developer shall establish and maintain a comprehensive system of records, books, and accounts in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the Agency. The Agency may inspect same during regular business hours upon reasonable notice thereof. Developer shall submit an annual report �. prepared by an independent third party certifying that all tenants are qualified as required by this Agreement. m.) Tenants Board - Developer shall establish a Tenants Board for the Project and shall fund the Tenants Board with an annual contribution of One Thousand Dollars ($1,O00). The purpose of the Tenants Board shall be to provide input to the management of the Project and to fund special projects or activities as determined by the Tenants Board. The bylaws of the Tenants Board shall be established by the Tenants and approved by Developer. 4.) Termination of Agreement - This Agreement shall remain .in full force and effect unless and until terminated as provided below. a.) Termination by Mutual Consent - To the extent allowed by law, this Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of Agency and Developer, provided that said termination must be approved by MHFA and/or other lenders to the Project. b. ) Termination by Right - Developer shall have the right to unilaterally terminate this Agreement at any time following the eighteenth (18th) anniversary of the date on which: (i) Housing Revenue Bonds to finance the Project are sold; or (ii) If the Project is financed by MHFA, the date on which a permanent mortgage loan is made by MHFA. 6. If this Agreement is unilaterally terminated by Developer as permitted by Section 4b above, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, Developer shall repay to Agency the Loaned Tax Increment Funds actually paid by Agency to Developer or its lender, plus the three percent (3%) simple interest provided for in the Subordinated Notes executed by Developer. Developer shall have no obligation to repay any portion of the One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($128,819) in Community Development Block Grant Funds. c.) Termination by Agency for Cause - (i) In the event that during the term of this Agreement Developer shall fail to comply with the terms of this Agreement or the Purchase Agreement, Agency may provide notice of such default or failure and, if Developer fails to cure within sixty (60) days or such greater time as allowed by Agency, then Agency may terminate this Agreement for cause upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Developer. Termination of this Agreement for cause shall subject Developer to the remedies set forth in this Agreement and to any additional remedies set forth in the Purchase Agreement or otherwise available to Agency. (ii) If this Agreement is terminated by Agency for cause, Developer shall repay to Agency the Loaned Tax Increment Funds actually paid by Agency to Developer or its lender, plus the three percent (3%) simple interest provided for in the Subordinated Note or Notes executed by Developer unless Agency, in its sole discretion, elects to allow Developer to retain the Loaned Tax Increment Funds for the sole purpose of applying said funds to reduce rents for the Project, thus alleviating the hardship which would be caused to tenants if the Project were immediately converted to market rate rents. Agency and Developer shall agree on the application of said funds to reduce rents and Agency shall have the right to examine Developer's records to ensure that said Loaned Tax Increment Funds are being applied to reduce rents. 7. (iii) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, and in addition to any other remedy, the Developer shall, in the event that this Agreement is terminated by Agency for cause, and upon receipt of a written demand by Agency therefor, immediately tender to Agency the sum of One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($128,819) in repayment of the Community Development Block Grant Funds acquired by the Agency and used in connection with this Project. In the event Developer fails to tender the One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($128,819) as required by this provision, Agency or its assigns may in addition to all other remedies, immediately proceed to foreclose its second mortgage on the Project in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement and the Mortgage Note and Second Mortgage delivered in connection therewith. d. ) Termination by Developer for Cause - In the event that during the term of this Agreement Agency fails to provide annual Tax Increment Funds in the amount set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement within ten ( (10) business days of receipt by Agency of property tax revenues from Hennepin County, and Agency has received from Hennepin County sufficient Tax Increment to make the required Tax Increment Fund payments, then Agency shall be in intentional default of this Agreement. Developer shall provide notice of such default and if Agency fails to cure within thirty (30) days or such greater time as allowed by Developer, Developer may either: (i) Commence an action in Hennepin County District Court for specific performance to compel Agency to provide to Developer all Tax Increment generated by the TIF District, up to the amount of Annual Tax Increment Funds to be provided as required by Exhibit "A" to this Agreement; or (ii) Terminate this Agreement for cause upon ten (10) days' written notice to Agency. If this Agreement is terminated by Developer for cause due to Agency's intentional default, Developer shall not be obligated to repay Agency any portion of the One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Dollar ($128,819) 8. — i Community Development Block Grant Funds nor any portion of the Tax Increment Funds and Developer's obligation to do so under the terms of any Subordinated Note or Notes shall be void; provided, however, that all Tax Increment Funds in Developer's possession at the time of the termination of the Agreement shall be applied by Developer to reduce rents for the Project, thus alleviating the hardship which would be caused to tenants if the Project were immediately converted to market rate rents. Agency and Developer shall agree on the application of said funds to reduce rents and Agency shall have the right to examine Developer's records to ensure that said Loaned Tax Increment Funds are being applied to reduce rents. e. Termination Due to Causes Beyond Agency's Control - In the event that during the term of this Agreement, Agency fails to provide Tax Increment Funds in the amount set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement within ten (10) business days of receipt by Agency of property tax revenues from Hennepin County because Agency has not received from Hennepin County sufficient Tax Increment to make the required Tax Increment Fund Payments, then Agency shall have been unable to perform under the terms of this Agreement for reasons beyond its control. Developer shall provide notice of such nonperformance and Agency shall have thirty (30) days, or such greater time as allowed by Developer, in which to determine whether to replace the Tax Increment Funds with payments to Developer of other City or Agency funds. If Agency elects not to replace the Tax Increment Funds, then Developer may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days' written notice to Agency. Each time Agency fails to make the required tax increment fund payment for reasons beyond its control shall constitute a separate event of nonperformance under this paragraph 4e. Failure of developer to terminate this Agreement due to such nonperformance shall not waive developer's right to terminate under this paragraph 4e with respect to any future nonperformance. If this Agreement is terminated by Developer due to nonperformance beyond the control of Agency, all of Developer's and Agency's obligations under this Project Management Agreement shall cease, except that: 9. (i) Developer shall repay to Agency the One Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($128,819) in Community Development Block Grant Funds; and (ii) Developer shall repay to Agency the Loaned Tax Increment Funds actually paid by Agency to Developer or its Lender, plus the three percent (3%) simple interest provided for in the Subordinated Notes executed by Developer, on the date which is the earlier of: (1) eighteen (18) years from the date of execution of this Agreement; or (2) the date on which any sale of the Project by Developer becomes effective. (iii) Developer shall be relieved of his obligation to pay Agency its equity interest in the Project if this Agreement is terminated under this paragraph 4e. 5. ) Agency's Equity Interest in Project - In addition to repayment of Loaned Tax Increment Funds and any other payments made by Developer to Agency, Developer shall also pay to Agency, if and when repayment of Loaned Tax Increment Funds is required, except in the event of a termination by Developer due to causes beyond Agency's control under Section 4e above, a sum of money equal to seventeen percent (17%) of Developer's net sale proceeds from the sale of the Project. Developer's net sale proceeds from the sale of the Project shall be the cash proceeds remaining from Developer's sale of the Project after all debt, closing costs, and other fees and/or expenses chargeable to the Project, not including taxes, have been paid. 6. ) Assignments - a. ) This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and constitute a building obligation upon Agency and Developer, and their respective successors and assigns. Any assignee, successor, buyer, lessee, or transferee of the Developer shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. b. ) Developer may sell, transfer, or assign its interest in the Project and the Project Management Agreement to any buyer which expressly assumes all of Developer's obligations under this Agreement and the Purchase Agreement. No such sale, transfer, or assignment shall be effective until Agency has received written notice thereof from Developer thereof and has given its written approval thereof; provided, however, that Agency shall be deemed to 10. have disapproved of said sale, transfer, or assignment if it fails to approve said sale, transfer, or assignment within sixty (60) days of receiving notice thereof. The approval required by this paragraph 6b shall not be unreasonably withheld by Agency. c.) Notwithstanding anything in this paragraph 6 to the contrary, Developer may transfer ownership of any portion of the Project er provided that Developer P continues to maintain someownership o hi Hers ' p in the Project itself, expressly remains liable under the terms of this Agreement, and retains authority to act on behalf of any other owners with respect to this Agreement. 7.) Prohibition on Conversion - Notwithstanding • Developer's right to assign its interest in this Agreement as set forth in paragraph 6 above, neither Developer nor any assignee or transferee of Developer shall convert the Project to condominium ownership during the term of this Agreement. • This prohibition on conversion to condominium ownership shall remain in effect notwithstanding the fact that Developer has assigned this Agreement to a third party. 8.) Amendments - This Assignment and the Purchase Agreement between the Parties hereto constitute the entire • agreement of the Agency and Developer and no amendment or modification thereof shall be valid and enforceable unless in writing, executed, and approved by both parties in the same manner as this Agreement. 9.) Notices - Any notice required by this Agreement or by the Purchase Agreement shall be sufficient if in writing and delivered as follows: To Agency: Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Eden Prairie c/o City Clerk City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota To Developer: . Prairie Village Limited Partnership c/o Derrick Land Company 1650 Shelard Office Tower 600 County Road 18 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426• 11. { IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. AGENCY: THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By: Its: Chairman By: Its: Administrator DEVELOPER: PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: Its: General Partner By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1985, by and , the Chairman and Administrator, respectively, of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1985, by and , the General Partner and , respectively, of Prairie Village Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public 12. PKB:AF7 Ij H 14 H H 14 14 14 H H 14 14 IN •< s 0 ID D ,0 1D D ,o 1D tD w tD tD fl A kb 1D 1D 1D 1D tD 1D 1D tD m m m G• tL m V at UI .1. W N H 0 01 m .) rt H a co tD V J V V V .) .) V .1 V .1 WC C CD a 7 .1 m m m m CO m m CO m m co to 7 X 7 • fat G • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In H a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n tt x co m m .) at UI UI .p W N 1-+ 1-+ '17 1.3> O t0 H aa. 0t m 0 N UI .1 0) H W G a n H .1 .J tD H W UI .d W H W 1-11 V 07 7 X C) O 1y H 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0 0 In H a H O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H > • Di •• rr m a to C) r i '1 li C)> 0 1 .J G 707 C 1 N at 01 01 01 01 01 W 01 rn rn 01 W 7 X 7 7 r .. UI U1 Ui U1 UI U1 UI U1 UI UI CO- N C). rr C T Ul H 1't a UI W W W W LI W W LI W W W ..I 7 Y'H 0 UI UI UI UI UI UI UI UI Ui UI Ui UI 0 0 C. '* 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • G IT 1.3 fD > 0. Y. H .) .7 01 Ui UI aa. W W N N H H "3 1.3 C)> Z rJ N 0 07 N 01 W W 07 W 01 0 W G a 0 0 C) (- .o. .� 1D W co W J N .J H 01 H Ka7 X 7 C) ."7. • t]. 0.G t7 UI U1 N m U1 H CO .p H -J - a.. 0 .) In H II a 3 • . UI Ul O UI 0 UI O UI O UI 0 UI 0 7 Y.C t7 0 0 0 0 0 0 to to 0 0 0 0 o 0 CH z • • c a 1.3 CI rr M M Ni 0,0. C z U) ID MHt+> H G a 0 7 > -4 • H H H H H H .p H H H 7 X a 7 .! N N N N N N N N N N N 07 0t 0. 7 C •7 W H tD a t-' .D. 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 W 7 C.H H UI U1 U1 UI U1 U1 UI Ui UI Ui 0 0 O C C) o o 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 • > . H I '17Ht'> Z C a 0 0 H H H H H H H 7 x a 0 > .J .J Ul at. W N 0 07 Ul .1% . N H C. 7 G Z . N N 07 .) A. H 1D O1 W H co UI 01 to H 1D a a T 0.G J J. co H U1 m N 0 0 N 01 07 W d H H UI U1 0 U1 0 0 0 Ui 0 0 0 UI 0 • a Z o O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 c .3 C. 7 t7 CO y >a H H V l) R7 W X 0 ft N U1 .C. .0. A. W W N : H C W ID 44 H a na/1 0• 1 H .J aa. 0 ON N CO 01 N m .p H 7 C rD N .J 1/40 H W UI -4 0, H W UI 44 CO C) H O In O at. A. Ul UI 01 01 4 4 m CO t0 tD • a 7 it rr "DID c a 7 Cl.r m 0 • EXHIBIT "B" 1 S_ Minneapolis, Minnesota , 1985 SUBORDINATED NOTE In the amount and manner hereinafter specified, for value received, PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a limited partnership under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as Maker, whether one or more), hereby promises to pay to the order of THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, Minnesota, a public body politic and corporate, and to the order of each subsequent holder of this Note (hereafter collectively referred to as Holder), at 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, or at such other locations as Holder may direct, the principal sum of $ , and to pay interest from the date hereof until this Note is paid in full at the rate of three percent (3%) per year, computed on the basis of actual number of days elapsed in a year of twelve (12) months of thirty (30) days each, on the principal balance of this Note outstanding from time to time, in the manner and at the time provided by that certain Project Management Agreement entered into on the day of , 1985, by and between the Maker and Holder. 1.) Security - Holder agrees that this Subordinated Note is not secured by any interest, legal or equitable, in the Prairie Village Apartments Project, and is subject and subordinate to all of the rights and agreements of the MHFA with respect to the Project, including without limitation, the MHFA mortgage, Mortgage Note, and Regulatory Agreement and all accounts and rights created thereunder. 2. ) Prepayment - This Subordinated Note may be prepaid in full or in part at any time without penalty. -1- EXHIBIT C Rent/Month Type Unit #/Unit (Includes Garage) One Bedroom/Very Low Income 13 $406 One Bedroom/Lower Income 14 469 One Bedroom/Den Very Low Income 14 438 One Bedroom/Den Lower Income 6 529 Two Bedroom/Lower Income 9 574 Total Units: 56 1