HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 11/19/1985 •
•
EIEN PRAIRIE /! /AA° •
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY, NIVEMBER 19, 1985 7:38 PM, SCHOOL AIMINISTRATIIN ;.
BUIIIING BIARIRIIM
CIUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Petersen, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and
Pau] Redpath
CITY CIUNCIL 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 IF ALLEGIANCE
RILL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND•THER ITEMS IF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES
A. Special City Council/Plannin Commission minutes from meeting Page 2720
held Tuesday, December 11 1984
B. Special City Council meeting held Tuesday, August 13 1985 Page 2726
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 2735
B. Approval of Lease Agreement between the City of Eden Prairie Page 2736
and Independent School District No. 272 for the School
Administration Boardroom
C. Modification of Kirsch Municipal Industrial Development Bond Page 2740
Document
D. Change Order No. 1, Tanager Creek Improvements, I.C.. 52-060 Page 2741
E. Change Order No. 1� Preserve Boulevard Improvements, I.C. 52- Page 2742
071.
F. Cooperative agreement with Minnetonka,. Mn DOT and Henne in Page 2743
County to construct and maintain signals, at the ramp terminals
of I-494 as CSAH 62 Crosstown Resolution No. 85-259
G. Final Plat approval for Coachman's Landing Third Addition Page 2755
Location: North of Village Woods Drive, West of Hiawatha
(Resolution No. 85-260)
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,November 19„41115
H. Final Plat approval for Datasery Business Center Location. Page 2758
Southeast corner of 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive West
(Resolution No. 85-261)
I. Final Plat approval for Primeland 3rd Addition Location: In
City West Development, Hagen Systems (Resolution No. 85-262)
Page 2761
J. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 38-85, Revisions on the Unclaimed
Property Ordinance Page 2764
K. Revisions to the Park Use Ordinance Page 2768
L. 1986 Softball Field Improvements Page 2775
M. Approve plans and specifications for Technology Orive between Page 2777
Purgatory Creek and Prairie Center Drive and authorize bids
to be received, I.C.. 52-OlOD Resolution No. 85-264
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
fi A. ALLSTATE DISTRICT CLAIMS OFFICE by Opus Corporation. Request Page 2778,.
for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, and Preliminary
�✓ 4D Plat of 2.62 acres for the construction of an insurance claims
t-' office. Location: Highway No. 5 and Prairie Center Drive.
I (Ordinance No. 39-85 - Zoning from Rural to Office; Resolution
A No. 85-256 Preliminary Plat).
{ 8. PARKWAY $FFICE/SERVICE CENTER by The Brauer Group, Inc. Request Page 2784
for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.67 acres,
Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial on 2.75 acres,
Rezoning from Rural to Office on 0.92 acres, and Preliminary Plat
of 3.67 acres into two lots. Location: Northeast corner of
Anderson Lakes Parkway and U.S. Highway No. 169-212. (Resolution
No. 85-257 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance No.
40-85 - Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial and to Office;
Resolution No. 85-258 - Preliminary Plat)
C. EASEMENT VACATION BRYANT LAKE OFFICE TECH CENTER (Resolution No. Page 2B00
85-26 }-
D. STREET NAME CHANGE - CONSIDER RENAMING WEST 66TH STREET TO Page 2801
TANAGER LANE EAST SF MANCHESTER LANE) Ordinance No. 41-85
E. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,235,000 Page 2803
FOR PRESERVE PLACE (Resolution No. 85265)
AO F. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,865,000 Page 2808
FOR EDEN POINTE Resolution No. 85-2661—
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,November,. ,AA I9CS
( / G. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,000,D00 Page 2814
FOR CSM Resolution No. 85-267
S jC SLTG
H. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,080,000 , Page 2g6
FOR H.L.7Resolution No. 85-2fi8 TIT--gel
d N7
Uf I. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000,000 Page 2838
8e 1 FOR CHIME TCRR$INAL CREEK) Resolution No. 85-269 AK A
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 23719 - 24D16 S Page 2847
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. LION'S TAP - Review of excessive fill (beyond permit approval), • Page 2855
from Lion's Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's
land. Location: Northeast corner of U.S. No. 169 and County
Road No. 4.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS 1J4�'°
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS • ew et
ll
A. Reports of Council Members ee,f':
B. Report of City Manager
1. Special Assessment Update (Resolution No. 85-270) Page 2893
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Round Lake Treatment Pro ma•�""'" Page 2894
X. NEW BUSINESS (. /J. - , ;. /b/2
XI. ADJOURNMENT t 6A-
4
od
k y ,
1_t{ y L
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEM8ER 11, 1984 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Richard Anderson, George
Bentley, Paul Redpath, and George Tangen
PLANNING COMMISSIDN MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Bob
Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed
• Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
CITY STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the
City Manager Craig Dawson, Director of Planning
Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Bob
Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A.
Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael
RDLL CALL: Mayor Penzel arrived at 9:30 p.m.
Planning Commission member Dennis Marhula was absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTIDN: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried unanimously.
II. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
A. Roll of City Council, Planning Commission. and Staff in Development Process
City Manager Jullie stated that Planning Director Enger had included in
the packets a list of items usually covered by the Staff in reviewing a
project. Jullie asked if this was the approach the City Council and the
Planning Commission wished to use or would a narrative format be better.
He also asked for input renardinm the general tone of the Staff Reports;
should the "devil's advocate" approach be used, should there be a more
positive approvach, or should it be limited to facts.
Redpath said he felt he needed the recommendations from the Staff. Fe
said he did not feel he could spend the amount of time on any one pro-
posal that Staff can and he has grown to rely on the Staff Reports.
Bentley stated he felt the Staff Reports were very good and very thorough.
He said he had heard from others that they felt the reports were thorough,
comprehensive and should be continued in their present form -- they
should delineate the good and the bad. Bentley pointed out that one of
the problems is that the Staff Reports are sometimes used and viewed as
City Council Meeting -2- December 11, Jagn
an absolute in the review process whereas they should be regarded as a
tool. He said there are things which should be looked at above and beyond
the Staff Report: this should be done by the Planning Commission and by
the City Council.
Torjesen said he felt the recommendations included in the Staff Reports
were a good idea but he felt they should be graduated. He said he felt
there should be room for people to disagree. He said there is a real
effort to get beyond the site plan itself. Redpath said it was often
unnecessary to look beyond the site plan if the proposal conformed to the
Guide Plan. Torjesen said there are implications on what goes on around
various proposals.
Jullie indicated there was feedback from developers and others that Staff
Reports were being perceived as being more negative than they needed to
be. The implication was that the Staff was running the show. He said
he had discussed this with Enger and they had decided that Staff Reports
could be amended in format to eliminate that perception. The descriptive
words were deleted and the reports were made to be more factual. Rather
than a recommendation of denial, a list of what might be changed was in-
cluded;
just the facts were given. Jullie stated he felt the Staff Reports
were fine in this format. Schuck said the Planning Commission needed all
the help it could get from Staff. He said he would not like to see a
change because the Commission has grown to rely on the recommendations;
he said he was very frustrated by the fact the Staff was not able to make
recommendations. •
Bearman stated he felt care must be taken in evaluating data and in the
way that it was presented; some data has come across as being rather neg-
ative when that really was not the case. Bearman noted that sometimes a
developer will come in totally unprepared, He pointed out that most people
don't realize the amount of work necessary to review these projects; it is
imperative to have Staff Reports. He said developers must realize they
must come prepared.
Hallett said he felt Staff was doing an exceptional job. He indicated he
liked the way Staff Reports were written earlier; he did not feel his
"hands were tied" because of the recommendations included in the Staff
Reports.
Gartner noted that the Planning Commissioners often disagree with the
recommendations in the Staff Reports and that changes are made.
Redpath said he had met with a developer who was concerned and he had
tried to point out that it is the job of the planner to help the developer
through the maze of the likes and dislikes of a number of individuals who
would ultimately make the approvals or disapprovals regarding a proposal.
Bentley stated this had been an on-going concern for six or eight years.
He said he felt developers had a tendency to come forward unprepared:
perhaps things would have to be looked at a little more tightly rather
than attempting to fast track items. Bearman said he thouoht there seemed
to be a rush on Friday afternoons to get the materials into the planner
for review.
Torjesen said he would like to see the Staff Report express judgements and
not only the facts.
City Council Meeting -3- December J1, 1384
Enger indicated the "Staff Review of Development Proposals" %wild be
made available to developers. Tangen said he had never seen anything
like that before and felt it was a positive step. He said he felt
Staff Reports are very important and should be continued.
Bearman said he knew of developers who felt a positive Staff Report assured
approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Anderson said he perceived the Staff Report as a method of getting the
necessary information to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council
for its review. He said he felt the reports were informative. As a
result, developments are ending up better, He said he thought Staff
had been doing a good job in catching mistakes.
Tanaen said he thought developers should be expected to feel they will
get approval if they are following the guidelines and the policies.
Hallett noted that Staff accepts the fact that not all the recommendations
included in the Staff Reports are going to be accepted.
Redpath stated that these guidelines mean that everyone is looking at the
same things.
Enger said that seventy projects had been reviewed in 1984. The average time
to go through the development process was less than three and a half months.
He said there were two denials out of the seventy proposals. Enger called
attention to the materials which had been presented to the Council and the
( Commission this evening which included a review of planning proposals in
1983 and 1984 along with maps.
B. Review of R1-9.5 Zoning District
Bearman said the Planning Commission had been told by developers that the
9.5 zoning district would bring down the price of the lots and that would
mean more affordable housing.
Torjesen said the Commission should ask Staff to look at how the Ordinance
might be rewritten so that it would accomplish what was intended.
Enger explained the chart which is included in the City Code, Enger noted
that by lowering the density, the City should accomplish its goal of pro-
viding more affordable housing.
Torjesen said the City needs to say "no" to more of the 9,5 requirements.
Bentley suggested that perhaps the 9.5 zone could be changed by putting
a maximum density per acre; this zone could only be used in areas "guided"
as medium density. The variance process would have to be used. Bentley
questionned whether the 9.5 zone a truly a low-density zone. He said he
felt it was a medium-density zone Enger noted that there would be an
"expense" in saying that 9.5 was a medium-density zone as medium-density
areas command a greater price
City Council Minutes -4- December 11. 1984
Redpath said that if the Council were to limit 9.5 districts to only
medium density areas then these would not be scattered throughout the
community. Bentley said he felt the City had accomplished 9.5 zoning
by default. Torjesen suggested the 9.5 district be abolished. Bearman
said 9.5 was not a low-density project, it is medium-density.
Tangen suggested there be two categories and recommended a 70' standard
be adopted right now and that a 3.5 density be kept in the medium-density
area. Anderson concurred.
Enger said lot widths in a 9.5 zone at between 55' and 70'; in a 13.5
zone they are 75' and 85'. He indicated this makes for better propor-
tioned lots.
Redpath said he felt the number of projects sent to the Board of Appeals
& Adjustments for variances is disturbing.
C. Analysis of High-tech Projects and Recommendations for Zoning District Changes
Enger referred to his memorandum of December 6, 19840 in which this subject
was addressed. He also showed slides of representative high-tech projects
in the City.
Bearman said the Planning Commission has not been able to define hi-tech;
it is a conglomerate of many things. Redpath asked if it might be helpful
if there were another step -- a step up. Bearman said there did not seem
to be a problem with high-tech as long as it was in an office zone; it did
become a problem when it was in the industrial zone.
Anderson noted the City was finding a problem in transition areas where
developers want a campus effect. We are not looking at the industrial
areas of old that we are accustomed to. He said he liked what he was
seeing.
Enger asked if the Council and Commission would think it appropriate to
amend the industrial zone to allow for 75% office use. Tangen said con-
sideration must be given to what is allowed in an industrial zone versus
what is allowed in an office zone.
Hallett said that what happens inside a building does not concern many
as much as what it looks like on the outside. He said he felt the City
must remain flexible on this. How a building fits in is important
Tangen noted there are varying requirements regarding parking. Redpath
said concern must be given regarding the second user. Johannes pointed
out that the market creates the users. He said the way to control use
is by the money that must be put into the project such as landscaping.
etc. Johannes said the economics of each development must be looked at.
Penzel arrived.
y�y
1
City Council Minutes -5- Decemb:r 11 1984
Enger noted the industrial designation bothers people: this bas-been true
for the past couple of years. He said he would suggest that the Ordinance
be amended to allow more uses in the office district -- the dilemna is that
this cannot be done in the office district right now. Johannes suggested
approvals be made on a case-by-case basis. Enqer said the City could opt
for the most conservative approach such as 10% office use in an industrial
zone.
Penzel asked how this is being controlled presently and how do we know
what percentage is used for what? Enger said it is done on a complaint
basis or as parking becomes a problem.
Bentley said perhaps a worksheet process could be used based on established
criteria with a score based on that. This approach could control the building.
This would have to be reviewed after a certain period of time to see if
if was working. Staff would be asked to come up with a scoring or grading
system. If it does not work then the City might try something else.
Bentley said this would give the City the greatest amount of flexibility.
Anderson asked what percentage of the City has been developed in the past
two years. Enger said about 25%. Anderson said that was a large percentage
of the City to be experimenting with.
Bearman said he was uncomfortable in putting this in ordinance form. He
said he would rather see controls via a PUD.
Redpath said he was looking at getting away from the variance process.
Hallett said he could support what Bentley was talking about (using a work-
sheet.)
Johannes asked how many of the proposals the Planning Commission had looked
at would fit into that type of review process (using a worksheet). Enger
said about half would.
The consensus was that the Code should be amended to reflect the fact that
consideration must be given to allow a certain percentage of office use in
an industrial zone. Staff will review this further.
D. Comprehensive Guide Plan Review Criteria and Justifications
Redpath reviewed the definition of "guide."
Penzel asked what degree of change will be found proper, is the change
compatible with the uses within a certain number of feet?
Bentley asked what the word compatible meant; he questionned PUD changes.
Penzel said he felt compatibility meant not more than one zoning classifi-
cation away from each other. Bearman said compatibility means what might
fit in that particular instant.
City Council Minutes -6- December ]1 1984
Enger said that some developers do not justify their Guide Rap changes.
Tangen said he felt that sometimes the City gets too hung-up Ian Guide
Plan changes, He said he did not feel there had to be compelling reasons
for making changes. He said the City must be able to move with the times.
He stated there must be justification for changes. He approved of the
"Substantiation for Guide Plan Changes" which was included in the infor-
mation distributed for this evening. Redpath concurred.
Bentley said he felt justice was not given if a project had Guide Plan
changes, variances, rezoning, etc., etc. He said he felt that in proposals
where a Guide Plan change was being requested, only that issue should be
considered at a particular meeting. Redpath said Muirfield pointed that out
very well.
Bentley asked whether the City Attorney had looked at the role of the
Plannina Commission in the Guide Plan change process. Jullie said he had
asked for an opinion from the Attorney General regarding this and that
legislation will be introduced to clarify this matter.
Enger noted that some Guide Plan chanaes generate so much information that
it is sometimes as easy to consider more than just the Guide Plan at a given
meeting.
E. Cash Park Fee Background on Preserve and Edenvale PUD's
Lambert reviewed the history as to why the City does not collect cash
park fees in the Edenvale and The Preserve PUDs.
Torjesen asked to what extent the City was going to renegotiate these
PUDs. Penzel said the City can initiate changes but that is rather hard
to do unless the City can go in and purchase the property.
F. Comprehensive Guide Plan Density Designations and Zoning District Densities
Enger stated that in some communities the guide plan densities correspond
to the zoning designations. Penzel suggested this might be a good thing
to look at when the Guide Plan is reviewed.
III. OLD BUSINESS
Tangen expressed his appreciation for all the work the Planning Commission has
done. He noted that being a Commission member is a tough and time-consuming
job. Tangen said he felt this was the best meeting he had been a part of in
long time. Redpath concurred and suggested that the Commission and the Council
get together more often,
IV. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m,
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL ?
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary O. 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, 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
I. ROLL CALL
All members were present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded•by Anderson, to approve the Agenda as
published. 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 approval for approximately 313 acres.. and authorize an
expansion of area to be used for sanitary landfill purposes from approxi-
mately 107.1 acres to approximately 148.9 acres. Location: southeast of
Flying Cloud Drive-In Theater. (Ordinance No. 4-85 - rezoning and
Resolution No. 85-162 - PUD Concept & Development Stage Approval) -
continued Public Hearing from July 2, 1985.
City Manager Jullie said the intended purpose of tonight's hearing was
to review the grading and final end-use plan that was to be prepared by
the proponent; but.for reasons which they will explain,that plan has not
been finalized or prepared. The proponent, however, does wish to address
the Council on the question of dealing with the contaminants which have
been found at the site and to also discuss some of the work they have
done regarding impacts on property values.
•
err
1
City Council Minutes -2- August 13, 1985
Jullie noted there were representatives in the audience from the Pollution
Control Agency (PCA), the Metropolitan Council. Hennepin County, the Minne-
sota Geological Survey as well as State Representative Sidney Pauly.
•
Dick Nowlin, attorney with the Larkin Hoffman firm, was the spokesman for
the proponent, Woodlake Sanitary Services and BFI. He explained that after
the emanation incident the focus of this meeting had changed. He noted
that volatile organic contamination was discovered at the landfill; the
source of that contamination is under investigation. As a result, the
focus has switched from a permitting process in early July to a remedial
action/enforcement setting designed to uncover and identify the problem.
The PCA told them to wait until this process has been completed so that
the results can be included i.n the final plans. He stated that they are
now in the process of developing a consent order which will identify the
pollution contaminant situation and the remedial action necessary.
Roy Ball, expert on hazardous waste, gave a status report on the investiga-
tion. Ball stated this is a remedial investigation. He used charts to
illustrate the location of the test wells. Ball noted the different
pattern of contamination and said it appears to be restricted to a
relatively small area. Paint strippers and degreasers are the source
of the contamination. He stated the remedial investigation will; determine
the extent and severity of the problem: prepare an evaluation report and
work plans which will be reviewed and approved by the PCA; once that is
done they will proceed with the remedial investigation (a remedial inves-
tigation report is due in May 1986; an alternatives' report is due in
July 1986). Once the contamination is satisfactorily defined and the
risk to human health and the environment has been addressed, alternatives
as to what to do,along with a schedule of timing,will be presented. Ball
said this will be followed by a detailed report along with an analysis
of what is to be done, Once this is approved, implementation will begin. 1
Ball said the remedial investigation will help to negotiate a consent
order.
Ball said they felt some additional wells will be required. He noted that
vapors will be collected. This will result in a soil-gas survey which will
determine the boundaries of contamination. Ball stated that at this time
there is no risk to human health perceived. He said that with these types
of studies a source can be isolated, encapsulated and the ground water can
be controlled.
Bentley questionned the timetable. Nowlin said he did not think anyone
had decided whether or not the resolution of the permit process was depen-
dent upon the study being completed. Bentley said he felt that the permit
process would be delayed as a result of the study. Nowlin said he felt
the same way and they would like this to be done in an expeditious manner.
Peterson asked if it was BFI's intention to continue to apply for 300
acre feet at a time. Nowlin stated a determination would have to be made
whether or not to keep the landfill open and. if so. under what conditions.
Nowlin said whether or not it should be allowed to expand was another
consideration and those considerations are all interrelated. Peterson
asked if it was the intention of BFI to apply for interim permits in
the meantime. Nowlin said he thought this would be the case.
City Council Minutes -3- August 13, 1985
Bentley asked how often the testing is done in the monitoring Toles.
Nowlin indicated this is done on a quarterly basis. Ball said not a71
the wells are done on that basis.
Bentley asked how long it takes to fill 300 acre feet. Nowlin said six
months.
Anderson asked about the harm to wildlife of the run-off from the land-
fill. Ball stated the remedial investigation will look at the impact
on the environment.
Anderson expressed concern about the fact that wells are now showing
indications of being contaminated and yet the dumping goes on, he ques-
tionned what will happen 15 - 20 years from now,
Bentley asked if there were any major landfills that were unlined which
have not ultimately created significant levels of ground water pollution.
He recalled an article in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune about six
months ago in which major landfills were listed as "superfund sites."
Ball said most of the pollutants were the result of industrial wastes.
Anderson asked who is responsible for checking what is being dumped at
the landfill, Nowlin related that the RCA allowed liquid waste to be
deposited until a few years ago and that has resulted in some of the
contamination. He said he could assure the Council that no liquid waste
was being deposited now and has not since the mid 1970's, Nowlin stated
that BFI contracts with all commercial-waste generators that should BFI
find any liquid industrial waste not permitted by the contract. BFI has
{ the right to go back to the company. He said there is also employee train-
ing, a program which helps employees to identify those wastes which are
not allowed in the landfill, Nowlin noted that it is, for the most part,
difficult to monitor household wastes
Jullie asked about the advisability of drilling some additional water-test
holes through the refuse. Ball said it is difficult to drill through
refuse -- tires and mattresses pose a problem; it would be good to be able
to do that, however.
Redpath asked what effect there would be on the ground water it the landfill
was not granted the vertical expansion or if it was shut down for a year
or a year and a half. Ball said anything that would increase the amount
of water in the landfill would increase the amount of chemicals. Redpath
said that would then indicate that the faster the hole is filled, the
better. Ball said the level of chemicals which can be tolerated must be
determined
Peterson asked what proportion of the present landfill is under a perman-
ent cap. Nowlin and Ball said they did not know. Nowlin stated the south-
west and west Portions of the landfill are near completion,
City Council Minutes -4- August 13., 1935
Anderson noted that since the landfill is nearing its limits sow, would
it not be best to permanently cap it as soon as possible. Ball said
there was no evidence that that was necessary to do at this time and
based on his experience there was nothing to point to that and he would
not recommend any immediate action.
Pidcock asked why someone from BFI was not here this evening, Nowlin
stated that John Curry had intended to be here but was called out of
town. Nowlin apologized for no one being here to answer questions
relating to the operation of the landfill,
Pauly asked what effect the methane collection system would have on the
gathering of volatiles. Ball said it would have a considerable effect.
The methane probes will be sampled; the entire collection system will
be examined. Pauly asked what the vapor collection was designed to show.
Ball said they would hope to be able to determine concentrations of
volatiles. Pauly asked if the studies would show the impact of the
leachate flow on, and possible discharge into, Grass Lake. Ball said
it would. Pauly noted that Hennepin County consultants had, in their
report, questionned the assumption that the leachate, once it gets into
the Jordan aquifer will percolate into Grass Lake and the River. He
asked if this had enough environmental significance to warrant further
investigation. Ball said if they were to get to a "worst case" they
would stop there, with the PCA's approval. Ball said they will be making
further investigations in this area, but he could not determine yet what
those will be.
Rick Rosow, Assistant City Attorney, asked where the PCA is in terms of
the consent order. Bruce Nelson, hydrologist with the PCA, stated the
PCA is now preparing a draft consent order to present to BFI and its
consultants for their review. He said tonight was the first time they
had seen the schedule and that will be part of the PCA's review; they
have not formally received this information from BFI, Rosow asked if
August was a realistic date for the consent order. Nelson said it was
possible. Rosow asked if the PCA had addressed the issue of a issuing
a temporary permit for the 300 acre feet. Nelson said that there was
75 acre feet of fill capacity remaining according to their calculations.
This would mean there is capacity until September 16, 1985, at which
time capacity would be reached. Nelson said the PCA has not agreed to
any extensions at this time. Rosow stated the PCA's data did not agree
with that of Hennepin County. Nelson said he understood that to be
correct, but they had not received Hennepin County's data yet.
Pidcock asked how many people were working on this at the PCA. Nelson
said there was one engineer, a hydrologist, and one other person. Once
they are into the super fund program, more people will be involved.
Pidcock asked about the level of experience of these people. Nelson
said they all had a Bachelor's degree or a Master's degree; the engineer
on the study has five years of experience with the PCA.
s'
City Council Minutes -5- August 13 1986
Bentley noted the issue before the Council is that of expansioa_of titre
landfill. Bentley said he understood the PCA would not deal with the
issue of expansion until such time as the contamination issue has been
determined. Nelson stated that permits had not been issued in the past
to those landfills where super funds had been initiated or where there
was an on-going investigation. Nelson said he did not expect there would
be a permit reissuance until the study is completed. Bentley said it
could be a matter of several months before the PCA was ready to examine
the expansion question. Bentley said the City Council must attempt to
determine a date when it, too, can look at the expansion question. Nelson
said the expansion permit has been postponed indefinitely by the PCA.
Redpath asked if the PCA was looking at issuing temporary permits
through January of 1987. Nelson said the PCA would stipulate a volume
or an end date in a consent agreement should it agree to authorize
continued operation.
Peterson asked for clarification as to the permitting authority. Pauly
said the original authorization by the City terminates when the completion
of the fill authorized by the PCA is arrived at. The City still has the
authority to control additional use. Peterson asked what the City's
options are. Pauly said 1) to ignore the situation - do nothing; or 2) to
go through the process. Pauly said the City probably would piggy-back the
PCA's original permit. Bentley noted that the temporary permitting process
goes from the County where it originates and then goes to the PCA. He
asked at what point does the City have anything other than input; when
does the City exercise its zoning rights to preclude the possiblity of
an on-going series of temporary permits. Pauly said this would happen
at the time when the landfills capacity, according to the PCA permit,
was reached. Bentley said the only option open to the City would
be to enter litigation. Pauly concurred.
Tim Homes, 10391 Greyfield Court, asked if the proponents are legally
bound in regard to the environment -- have they contacted the Chicago
Office of the Environmental Proctection Agency (EPA). Ball said there is no
regulatory requirement to contact the EPA. Homes asked if the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) had been contacted. Ball said he knew of no require-
ment to contact that agency. Homes said that according to the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), the proponent must notify Hennepin County and the
PCA seven months prior to closure regarding final cover, procedures, etc.
He asked if that process had been implemented Nowlin said that a closure
plan had been prepared. He said no one had been notified as referred to
by Homes.
Steve Fritz, 10382 Greyfield Court, asked if the City intended to do any
testino of the water. Jullie said the City had no immediate plans to do
any testing; however, the PCA has been testing and the results of those
tests will be available soon. Nelson stated that copies of those tests
will be provided to the City as soon as possible. Bentley noted that City
well water is constantly monitored and tested; anyone "on" City water
does not have a problem.
City Council Minutes -6- August 13 1985
Pat Grant, 12438 Sandy Point Road. asked about the effect of the methane
closure on the neighboring homes. Ball said the effects have not been
calculated yet but they will not endanger any of the homes. He said they
will have to satisfy themselves as well as the PCA.
Cary Cooper, 12033 Jasper Lane, asked Ball what his qualifications were.
Ball said he is a consultant and works on a project basis. BFI is one
of 40 - 50 clients at present. lie stated he was hired to carry out an
investigation, to do a specific job. Bentley noted that the law requires
the proponent to pay for the study because the City and/or the PCA does
not have the funds to do so; therefore, the proponent hired a consultant.
Judy Giddings, 12510 Sandy Point Road, asked why building permits were
granted in the area in which she lives when as recently as two years ago
there was talk about the environmental impact of the landfill on the
residential area. Bentley stated there has not been any legal reason
why the builders could not build on these lots as they were platted
and zoned quite some time ago. Bentley said there was no indication
at that time that there were any contaminants. State Representative
Pauly said she had served on the City Council in the 1970's. At that
time representatives from BFI came before the City Council and said the
landfill would be closed in two or three years and then it would be
open space and a park. She stated the Council did not foresee at that
time there would be all the requests for extensions. She said the original
platting and zoning was granted in 1978.
Rick Baker, no address given, asked what the turn around time is on the
testing. Ball said it was two weeks. Baker questionned why the testing
which was done in April was not made available until June. Ball said
he understood the routine analyses "go on the back burner"; three months
would be a long time. Baker asked what type of testing is done by the
PCA. Nelson said their test results are available from the State Health
Department and take four weeks. Baker asked what is presently being done
to address the situation, other than the study which is underway. Ball
said the consent order is being negotiated; there are no clear-cut remedies
which he can recommend today. He noted that an investigation is being
initiated with the prime objective being that a solution be the result.
Anderson asked if it was ethical to do testing and not notify people of
the results. Ball stated the routine process is to retestiif there is
an indication of a public health problem with severe impact then there
is notification and retesting. Anderson asked what the PCA's rules and
regulations were regarding notification. Nelson stated the WSS is required
to sample quarterly and to send the results to the PCA. He said he felt
Woodlake Sanitary Services (WSS) should have contacted the PCA but they
had not done so. Ball said it is not unusual to be suspicious of test
results. He said he can understand why PCA is unhappy but he can under-
stand
why it was not done.
73t
City Council Minutes -7- August 13, 1985
Peterson asked if there is a specific time when the test results are
to go to the PCA. Nelson said there is a time specified in the permit.
The PCA was notified by phone by 8FI of the test results.
Bentley said it would seem that a stepped-up testing program should be
implemented immediately when contaminants are found. Ball said there
have been three tests in six weeks. Nowlin said their permit legal
obligation was to provide the PCA,as well as the City and the County,
with their monitoring activities for the second quarter by July 31.
The first indication that there was a problem was received by BFI
toward the end of June. There was immediate resampling. There had
been two other incidents where the sampling had been wrong, therefore,
retesting was called for. Not revealing the results of the first
tests was a conscious business choice based on background and precedents.
The question as to why the proponent did not come forth with this infor-
mation at the July 2, 1985, meeting of the City Council has been raised,
and Nowlin said the proponent had asked that that meeting be postponed
for a week or two.
Homes stated that according to the final EIS, there was a 90-day limit
imposed on the review process. He wondered whether or not a new EIS
would be drafted. John Rafferty, Metropolitan Council, stated there
would not be a need to do a new EIS.
Homes asked if the issue of property values was going to be addressed.
Nowlin said a study had been conducted (copies were made available to
those who so desired a copy). Nowlin reviewed cases which have been
in court regarding diminution of property. He said the problem, as
they perceive it, is not one of diminution but rather of insurance
against diminution. The study which was done did not show any diminution
in property values in the area of the Flying Cloud Landfill. He said
the company has tried to determine what is going on with property values
over the last two years.
Rosow summarized what had transpired at the County Commissioner's Meeting.
He said he had told the 8oard that BFI had told the City that as long
as the City kept beating the company over the head at public meetings,
it was not willing to discuss the property values issue. Consequently,
the City had decided there were many fronts on which to fight the battle
so the City was withdrawing its objection from supporting the proposal.
In a gesture of good faith the City would attempt to evoke some response
from the company in this regard.
Representative Pauly noted that during the last session of the Legislature
she had presented three bills regarding compensation. None was passed.
She said she felt people who live next to a landfill deserve compensation.
Pauly said she hoped that landfill expansions would be treated in a manner
similar to new landfills.
Rosow noted the proponent had gone to the Hennepin County Board and the
PCA to request authorization for temporary expansion and he asked if the
company's intention was to come before the City Council with the same
request. Nowlin said they would like to request the City Council to
table consideration of the pending applications to a date not certain.
1
City Council Minutes -8- August 13 1985
Bentley asked what the status of that would be in terms of the public
hearing process. Pauly said the matter has progressed through the Planning
Commission, public hearings have been intitiated, and he felt the matter
could be tabled with the understanding that when it is revived it would
be republished and renoticed as a new public hearing. It would be agreed
that all the matters entered into the record so far would be a part of
the record. Nowlin stated they would like to have both items tabled.
Rosow asked what the company's intent would be on its requests before
the PCA and Hennepin County should the Council vote to table the items,
Nowlin said the company was not intending to come back before the City.
Stan Johannes, 12134 Chesholm Lane, asked about the timing; he said it
appears that we are looking at the potential of another long delay.
He wondered if the company was ready to offer some form of compensation
to the homeowners. Nowlin said they were; they are willing to negotiate
in good faith. Nowlin noted the landfill matter will again come before
the Metropolitan Council on August 2lst.
Doug Reuter, 8750 Black Maple Drive, asked if there had been any discussion
on the part of the City as to using part of the landfill tax as remuneration
to the homeowners. He said compensation seems to be based on expansion.
Jullie said there is no specific amount assured to the City; at this point
the City is looking at the company to fund that separately.
Anderson noted that once contaminants were found, doubts were raised in
the minds of many regarding any expansion.
Pauly asked if Nowlin was in agreement with the following conditions: the
proponent requests that items A & B on the Agenda be tabled for an indefinite
period of time with the understanding the City would have the right to
request further hearings on those matters and that upon such a request
it would be necessary for the City to go through the publication procedures
used for those hearings: and to further understand that the proponent will
grant to the City an indefinite continuation of the 90-day EIS, Nowlin
said that the conditions were correct with the addition that the materials
presented earlier be made a part of the record, Pauly asked if there were
copies of the exhibits available to the City. Nowlin said yes.
MDTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath_ to close the Public Hearing
and to table this request to a date not certain. Motion carried unanimously.
B. WDODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES, INC., to amend Chapter 11 of the City Code to
rezone approximately 149 acres described below from the Rural District to
a District which permits its use for first, landfill, and second, Public-
recreational and Industrial uses; and, to amend the City Comprehensive
Guide Plan to designate approximately 149 acres described below for Public-
Recreational/Industrial uses. Location southeast of Flying Cloud Drive-
In Theater. (Ordinance No. 24-85 - rezoning and Resolution No. 85-163 -
Amendina Guide Plan) - continued Public Hearing from July 2, 1985.
City Council Minutes -9- August 13. 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath. to close the Public Hearing
and to table this request to a date not certain. Motion carried unanimously.
City Attorney Pauly noted that it is understood that the City would have
the option to initiate or reinstate these Public Hearings should it
so desire. Nowlin concurred.
Peterson thanked those present for their insightful comments.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
VI. AOJOURNMENT
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting at
10:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
November 19, 1985
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING
R. H. Romens Construction Co. A-Aace Plumbing
B & D Plumbing & Heating
Dakota Plumbing & Heating
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Doran Enterprises
Eide Plumbing Company
Arden Nelson Grupa & Sons Plumbing & Heating
Post Construction •
WELL DRILLING
( HEATING & VENTILATING
Geib Well Company
B & D Plumbing & Heating Kimmes-Bauer, Inc.
Marsh Heating & Air Conditioning
UTILITY INSTALLER
GAS FITTER
Volk Sewer & Water
B & D Plumbing & Heating
Marsh Heating & Air Conditioning
TYPE B FOOD
TEMPORARY LIQUOR
Hickory Farms of Ohio
Eden Prairie Foundation Ball
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
Oa jtaLt
Pat Solie, Licensing
c prairie schools `°-
• •District 272
Business Office
October 16, 1985
0
a
�o
Mr. Carl Jullie
m City Manager
°' City of Eden Prairie
N 8950 Eden Prairie Road
o Eden Prairie, MN 55344
r REFERENCE: 1985-86 PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT
a
d Dear Carl:
v Please find enclosed an updated lease agreement for the 1985-86 fiscal year.
g We would appreciate your reviewing this lease, signing it and returning it to
Ligus as soon as possible. The lease was approved at our August 15, 1985 School
Board meeting. Thanks for your help. Please call us if you have any questions.
2 Sincerely yours,
d
EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS
• Merle 0. Gamm
Executive Director of Business Services
cc
c AND
o
eanne Zetah
Community Education Director
MOG:bg
Enclosure
�-l3
LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
AND
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #272, EDEN PRAIRIE
It is agreed that Independent School District #272, Eden Prairie (school
district) shall lease the school district's Boardroom located in the
Administration Building located at 8100 School Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344
to the City of Eden Prairie as further provided in this agreement.
The City of Eden Prairie agrees that:
1. It shall provide its own public liability insurance coverage for all expo-
sures deemed appropriate by the City of Eden Prairie and that the school
district shall be named as "an additional insured" on the City of Eden
Prairie's public liability insurance policy.
2. The lease shall be for the period of one year starting July 1, 1985
through June 30, 1986. This lease may be renewed by mutual consent.
3. The City of Eden Prairie agrees to provide the school district a list of
scheduled events and/or meeting dates thirty days in advance of the
scheduled meetings and such scheduling shall be made through the
Community Education office.
4. The school district and the City of Eden Prairie agree that in those iso-
lated cases where a scheduling conflict may occur between the needs of the
two governmental units for the use of said Boardroom that the school
district shall have first option on the use of the Boardroom.
5. It is generally understood that the City of Eden Prairie will have a need
for use of the Boardroom on most Mondays and Tuesdays and the first
Wednesday of each month.
6. The school district agrees to provide a sixty day advance notice to the
City of Eden Prairie if this cooperative arrangement needs to be terminated.
7. The school district shall provide the necessary utility and custodial ser-
vices.
8. The City of Eden Prairie agrees to assign a city staff member to turn off
the lights and to secure the building prior to departure each time the
building is used after 9:00 P.M.
9. There shall be no smoking within the building except in the lounge.
Merle 0. Gamm Carl Jullie
Exec. Director of Business Services City Manager
Ind. School Dist. #272, Eden Prairie City of Eden Prairie
Jeanne Zetah
Community Service Director
Date rl�?_ Date
•
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: November 1, 1985
RE: MIDB's Kirsch
In 1981 the City issued MIDB's for the Kirsch Company. The company
has been purchased by Cooper Industries and Cooper is requesting a
modification of the MIDB documents so that it can assume this debt.
The Aetna Insurance Company holds the bonds and has agreed to the
transfer.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council authorize this
modification.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
I.C. 52-060
NOVEMBER 6, 1985
•
TANAGER CREEK
TO: Channel Construction Company, Inc.
The City agrees to make the following revisions for work performed by this
Contract:
ADDITIONS:
1. Water main relocating and storm sewer removal
Equipment, labor, overhead and profit - 13 hrs. @ $275.25 = $3578.25
2. Replace 48" manhole with a 72" manhole
Materials $ 597.00
DEDUCTIONS
1. Replace 48" catchbasin with 27" catchbasin
Materials - 4 each @ $189.85= $ 759.40
SUMMARY OF CHANGE ORDER pl
Total Additions - Change Order #1 $4175.25
Total Deductions - Change Order #1 $ 759.40
Total Net Increase in Change Order #1 $3415.85
Justification for Change Drder #1:
ADDITIONS
1. Existing water main needed to be relocated to avoid conflict with
proposed storm sewer.
2. The 48" manhole was of insufficient size to sup
port the three pipes in
the manhole.
DEDUCTIONS
1. The Contractor had substituted 27" catchbasins for 48" catchbasins.
SUMMARY DE CONTRACT ADJUSTMENTS:
Contract Amount Prior to this Change Order 5290,570.70
Net Increase Resulting from this Change Order $ 3,415.85
Current Contract Amount Including this Change Order $293,986.55
The Above Changes are Approved:
Channel Construction Co. City of Eden Prairie
BY ��~' By
Date � (— 5 Date
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 P,
November 4, 1985
PROJECT: Preserve Blvd.
Eden Prairie,Minnesota
E.P.I.C.#52-071
State Project No. 181-102-02
RCM Project No.841039
TO: Hardrives
You are hereby directed to make the changes noted below in the subject contract.
Nature of Change:
1. Place geotextile fabric from Station 0+25 to 4+15 for full width of roadway due
to soft subgrade.
2. Place 4-inch perforated draintile with aggregate bedding wrapped in geotextile
fabric at the following locations:
a. CB50 and 51 (50'south+ 10'north)
b. CB54,60 and 62(40'north)
3. Extend substantial completion date from November I, 1985 to November 15,
1985 due to poor fall weather.
Schedule of Adjustments to Contract Costs:
1. Geotextile Fabric 2058.3 SY @$1.30/SY = $ 2,675.79
2. 4"Perforated Draintile 1 LS @$2,730.68 = $ 2,730.68
Summary of Contract Adjustments:
Contract Amount Prior to this Change Order $416,538.70
Net Increase Resulting from this Change Order $ 5,406.47
Current Contract Amount Including this Change Order $421,945.17
The Above Changes are Approved:
RCM,1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By C"UZ /4 By
Date II(S(((l Date
The Above Changes are Accepted:
HARDRIVES
By
Date
(4 . (asp/ Cop ty)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-259
Whereas, Hennepin County has awarded contracts to extend County State Aid
Highway No. 62 (Crosstown), which includes the installation of traffic signals
at the intersection of Interstate Highway 494 and Crosstown, and
Whereas, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has prepared an agreement
No. 62999, which defines the responsibilities of the parties.
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie enter into an agreement with the
State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes,
to wit:
To install a traffic control signal with integral street lights
and interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 494 at County State Aid
Highway No. 62 West Ramp in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth and contained in Agreement 62999, a copy
of which was before the Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are
authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of
the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein.
ADOPTED by the City Council on November 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
DATE: November 14, 1985
RE: Cooperative Signal Agreement
I-494 at Crosstown
This agreement provides for the cost participation and ongoing maintenance
responsibilities for the signals which will be installed at the ramp terminals
for I-494 at Crosstown. As written, the City of Eden Prairie will not
participate in the construction cost of the project, but will be required to
pay 14% of the project costs for design and inspection ($5,600). Furthermore,
the City will be responsible for providing power connections to the west
signal and paying for ongoing energy costs as well as maintaining glassware,
relamping cleaning of the integral street lights associated with the signals.
(Minnetonka has these same responsibilities at the easterly location.) This
agreement is consistent with our other cooperative signal agreements and Staff
therefore recommends approval of the Resolution.
EAD:sg
1
I
•
MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
4q
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 62999
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
AND
THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
AND
THE CITY OF MINNETONKA
TO
r
Install Traffic Control Signals with Integral Street Lights and
Interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 494 at County State Aid Highway
No. 62 East and West Ramps in Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
C.P. 6839
S.P. 27-662-38
F.P. M 5168(1)
Prepared by Traffic Engineering
ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FOR AMOUNT TO BE ENCUMBERED
STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS
None Hennepin County State Aid
Account $41,302.56
6141.,
!4
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the
State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter
referred to as the "State", and the County of Hennepin, hereinafter
referred to as "County", and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter
referred to as "Eden Prairie", and the City of Minnetonka,
hereinafter referred to as "Minnetonka", WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County has prepared the necessary plans and
specifications to install traffic control signals with integral
street lights and interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 494 at County
State Aid Highway No. 62 East and West Ramps; and
WHEREAS, the County has prepared the necessary plans,
{ specifications and proposal, which includes the aforesaid County
! prepared traffic control signal plans and specifications, for
grading, surfacing and bridge construction on County State Aid
Highway No. 62 designated as Hennepin County Project No. 6839, State
Project No. 27-662-38, and Federal Project No. M 5168(1); and
WHEREAS, a contract for the construction of all of the
facilities contained in the aforesaid County plans has been
advertised and awarded and will be administered, supervised and
directed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in an
existing "Agency Agreement" between the County and the Commissioner
of Transportation which "Agency Agreement" also provides for the
said Commissioner to act as agent for the County for the acceptance
and the receipt of all Federal funds made available for County
projects; and
62999
-1-
/MC
WHEREAS, the State desires that the aforesaid traffic
control signals with integral street lights and interconnect
construction be performed under said "Agency Agreement" with the
State participating in the costs thereof as hereinafter set forth;
and pursuant to said "Agency Agreement" the Commissioner of
Transportation will make all payments to the Contractor including
the State's share of the said traffic control signals and
interconnect construction plus the anticipated Federal-aid funds
participation portion of such construction. This agreement also
provides for payment by the State directly to the County of the
State's proportionate share of the construction engineering costs
incurred by the County in connection with said State cost
participation construction; and
WHEREAS, the traffic control signals with integral street
lights and interconnect are eligible for Federal-aid Urban Funds at
the rate of '76.74 percent of the construction costs; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said "Agency Agreement" the said
Commissioner will among other things administer the contract for the
construction set forth in the aforesaid County plans and in
conjunction therewith make payments to the Contractor; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 161.20 authorizes the
Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and
cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of
constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system;
1_ and
62999
-2-
'7
/.r11.
WHEREAS, the County, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and the
State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of
said new traffic control signals with integral street lights and
interconnect as hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The necessary plans, specifications and proposals
have been prepared and the County shall perform the engineering and •
inspection required to complete the items of work hereinafter set
forth. Such work as described immediately above shall constitute
"Engineering and Inspection" and shall be so referred to
here mt ter.
2. The contract cost of the work, except the cost of
providing the power supply to the service poles or pads, shall
constitute the actual "Construction Cost" and shall be so referred
to hereinafter.
3. The County shall install, or cause the installation
of new traffic control signals with integral street lights and
interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 494 at County State Aid Highway
No. 62 East and West Ramps and in accordance with the plans and
specifications for State Project No. 27-662-38 also identified as
Federal-aid Project No. M 5168(1) and Hennepin County Project
No. 6839 made a part hereof by reference. The construction costs,
based on actual bid prices, are as follows:
62999
-3-
r I
yyi
A. County State Aid Highway No. 62 West Ramp.
Signal System "n". $40,000.00
B. County State Aid Highway No. 62 East Ramp.
Signal System "C". $40,000.00
4. In accordance with the terms and conditions set forth
in the aforesaid "Agency Agreement" the following costs shall be
paid to the Contractor:
Of the $80,000.00 construction cost for
Systems "8" and "C" -- State's share of 11.63
percent and fifty (50) percent of the
Federal-aid share.
5. The amount to be encumbered for payment to the
Hennepin County State Aid Account from Trunk Highway Funds for
construction work performed under this Agreement is $41,302.56r
which amount includes $30,696.00 for the Federal-aid share and
$1 ,302.56 for the State's share of Design and Engineering and
Inspection Costs (14 percent). In the event that at any time it
appearo that such reimbursement will exceed said sum, the County
shall promptly notify the State's District Engineer at Golden Valley
or his duly authorized representative of the reason for the increase
in cost and the amount of additional funds necessary to complete the
project. If approved by the State's District Engineer at Golden
Valley or his duly authorized representative, additional funds shall
be encumbered by the State and notice by the State's District
Engineer at Golden Valley or his duly authorized representative to
62999
-4-
V n2iR
•
the County of that additional encumbrance will permit the County to
perform that additional work.
6. Eden Prairie's, Minnetonka's and the State's shares
in the cost of Design, which was done by the County and is six (6)
percent; and Engineering and Inspection, to be performed by the
County which is eight (8) percent, shall be a total of fourteen (14)
percent of their respective shares of the actual Construction Costs.
7. Upon execution of this agreement and a request in
writing by the County, Eden Prairie and Minnetonka shall advance to
the County an amount equal to fourteen (14) percent of their
respective shares of the Construction-Costs for the contract work
based on the actual bid prices to reimburse the County for Design
Costs and Engineering and Inspection Costs.
8. The construction work provided for herein shall be
under the direction and supervision of the County as provided in the
"Agency Agreement". It is agreed, however, that the State shall
have the right to periodically inspect said cost sharing
construction work.
9. At the West Ramp of County State Aid Highway No. 62
and Trunk Highway No. 494, Eden Prairie, at its cost and expense,
shall provide the electrical power connections to the traffic
controller cabinet. Upon completion of the work provided for in
Paragraph 3 hereof, Eden Prairie shall provide electrical energy for
the operation of the traffic control signal system and the integral
street lights, at its sole cost and expense for the West Ramp, and
62999 .
-5-
I
shall maintain the photoelectric control and glassware, relamp, and
clean tl,e yiassware of the integral street lights.
10. At the East Ramp of County State Aid Highway No. 62
and Trunk Highway No. 494, Minnetonka, at its cost and expense,
shall provide the electrical power connections to the traffic
controller cabinet. Upon completion of the work provided for in
Paragraph 3 hereof, Minnetonka shall provide electrical energy for
the operation of the traffic control signal system and the integral
street lights, at its sole cost and expense for the East Ramp, and
shall maintain the photoelectric control and glassware, relamp and
clean the glassware of the integral street lights.
11. Upon completion of the work provided for in Paragraph
No. 3 hereof, the County shall maintain and repair said traffic
control signals at the East and West Ramps of County State Aid
Highway No. 62 and Trunk Highway No. 494 at its sole cost and
•
expense. The County shall also maintain the integral street lights
for Eden Prairie and Minnetonka except for maintaining the
photoelectric controls, relamping, glassware, and cleaning of the
glassware thereof.
12. Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work to
he performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the
State, Eden Prairie or Minnetonka and any and all claims that may or
might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of this State on
behalf said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims
made by any fifth party as a consequence of any act or omission on
62999
-6- •
the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work
contemplated herein shall not be the obligation and responsibility
of the State, Eden Prairie or Minnetonka. The County shall not be
responsible under the Worker's Compensation Act or Unemployment
Compensation Act for any employees of the State, Eden Prairie or
Minnetonka.
13. Timing of the traffic control signals provided for
herein shall be determined by the County. The County shall prepare,
implement, and make any adjustment in signal timings for the traffic
control signals. The County shall take into account all prevailing
traffic conditions on Trunk Highway No. 494 Ramps for preparation of
signal timing and shall make every effort to avoid any traffic
congestions on the ramps in cooperation with the State. The City
shall not revise, by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any
component, part, sequence, or timing of the aforesaid traffic
control signals; however, nothing herein shall be construed as
restraint of prompt, prudent action by properly constituted
authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control
signals may be directly involved in an emergency. Adjustments of
said signal timing may be determined by the State, through its
Commissioner of Transportation.
ff�
62999
-7-
rC
•
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ATTEST:
By
Deputy Clerk of the County Board Chairman of its County Board
Da ted Da ted
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By And
Director - Acting Associate County Administrator
Dept. of Transportation and County Engineer
Da ted Da ted
(County Seal)
Upon proper execution, this APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
agreement will be legally
valid and binding.
•
By By
Assistant County Attorney Assistant County Attorney
Da ted Da ted
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
City Attorney Mayor
(City Seal)
By
City Manager
62999
-8-
j
6�:
CITY OF MINNETONKA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
City Attorney Mayor
(City Seal)
By
City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By
For District Engineer Assistant Commissioner
Operations Division
Dated
APPROVED AS TO E'ORM AND EXECUTION:
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
By
Special Assistant Attorney
General State of Minnesota
Dated
62999
-9-
-19Ai
/Mt
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-260
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
COACHMANS LANDING THIRD ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Coachmans Landing Third 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. Mat approval request for Coachmans Landing Third Addition is
approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer's report on this plat dated November 12, 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 November 19, 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 :forks
FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
DATE: November 12, 1985
SUBJECT: COACHMANS LANDING THIRD ADDITION
PROPOSAL:
The Developer, Butler Homes, is requesting Council approval of
the final plat of Coachmans Landing Third Addition. The
proposal is a replat of Outlot A, Coachmans Landing and Outlot
B, Coachmans Landing Second Addition. The plat contains
approximately 13 acres to be divided into 8 lots and 2
outlots. Outlots A (8.04 acres) and B (1.01 acres) will be
replatted at a later date with ownership to be retained by the
Developer.
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat (known as Pheasant Oaks) was approved by
the City Council on April 18, 1978, per Resolution 78-57.
Zoning to RI-I3.5 was finally read and approved by the City
Council on June 7, 1978, per Ordinance 78-17.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was
executed on June 28, 1978.
This plat was previously approved February 5, 1985, Resolution
85-55. The attached plat is a revision and requires Council
approval.
The final plat now submitted for approval conforms with the
approved preliminary plat.
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.
•
All other variance requests must be processed through the
Board of Appeals.
( Page 2, Final Mat Report Coachmans Third Addition
•
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Coachmans Landing
Third Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the
Developer's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $345.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $1024.
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $320.
4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements
DLO:sg
cc: Mr. George Butler, Butler Homes, Inc.
Mr. Cal Hedlund, Hedlund Engineering
•
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-261
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
DATASERV BUSINESS CENTER
WHEREAS, the plat of Datasery Business Center has been submitted in a manner
required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under
Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had
thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Datasery Business Center is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
report on this plat dated November 12, 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.
ADOPTEO by the City Council on November 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
John 0. 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: November 12, 1985
SUBJECT:. DATASERVE BUSINESS CENTER
PROPOSAL:
The Developer, Opus Corporation, has requested City Council
approval of the final plat of Datasery Business Center. This
site, located at the Southeast quadrant of Prairie Center
Drive and West 78th Street in the North 1/2 of Section 15,
contains 17.4 acres to be divided into one lot and one outlot.
Lot 1, Block 1, contains 10.6 acres intended for
office/warehouse/service use and Outlot A, to be rezoned and
platted at a latter date contains 6.8 acres.
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on
October 15, 1985, per Resolution 85-199.
Zoning to I-2 Park District was finally read and approved by
the City Council on November 5, 1985, per Ordinance 34-85.
Zoning approval applies to Lot 1, Block 1, only. Outlot A is
to be rezoned and replatted at a later date in conformance
with City Code requirements.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was
executed on November 5, 1985.
VARIANCES:
All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
All municipal utilities and streets necessary to serve this
site have been installed.
Item 7 of the Developer's Agreement refers to the requirements
for installation of a walkway along the south side of West
78th Street.
During the construction process for Prairie Center Drive,
easements were obtained by the City to cover installation of
the utilities and roadway. The Developer is now expected to
dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the improvements.
Dedication of Prairie Center Drive and West 78th Street must
be shown on the plat prior to release.
Page 2 Final Plat Report Dataserve 11/14/85
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication shall be in conformance with City Code
requi rements.
BONDING:
Bonding shall be in conformance with City Code and Developer's
Agreement requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Datasery Business
Center, subject to the requirements of this report, the
Developer's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street light fee in the amount of $1536.
2. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1060.
3. Satisfaction of bonding requirement (check with
Director of Community Services for requirements for
walkway). .
4. Dedication of right-of-way for Prairie Center Drive
and West 78th Street.
DLD:sg
cc: Mr. Bob Worthington, Opus Corp.
;)1(1?).(1).
•
CITY OF.EDEN PRAIRIE •
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESULuTIUN NO. 85-2bz
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
PRIMELAND 3RD ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Primeland 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 Primeland 3rd Addition is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
report on this plat dated November 12, 1985.
8. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the
above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on November 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
•
John 0. Frane, Clerk
l
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager II�
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
(
FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician ,i67.0
DATE: November 12, 1985
SUBJECT: PRIMELAND 3RD ADDITION
a.k,a. Hagen Systems
PROPOSAL:
The Developers, Hagen Systems, Inc. and Prime Development
Corp., have requested City Council approval of the final plat
of Primeland 3rd Addition. The site, a replat of Outlot C,
City West Second Addition, contains 9.78 acres. It is located
north of and adjacent to Primeland 2nd Addition, in the North
1/2 of Section 1. The plat will divide the site into one lot
(containing 2.94 acres) and two outlots. Outlot A, which will
contain a private access roadway and utilities, will be owned
and maintained by the owners association. Outlot B will be
divided at a later date with ownership to be retained by the
Developer.
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on July
2, 1985, per Resolution 85-157.
Zoning to 1-2 Park was finally read and approved by the City
Council on September 3, 1985, per Ordinance 23-85. Zoning
applies only to Lot 1, Block 1 with Outlot B to be rezoned and
replatted in conformance with City Code requirements.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was
executed on September 3, 1985.
VARIANCES:
Variance requests not allowed through the Developer's
Agreement must be processed through the 8oard of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
All utilities and streets to be installed within the plat will
be owned and maintained by the Owner's Association. The
maintenance responsibilities for the utilities and streets are
covered in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Easements
and Restrictions for City West dated October 27, 1983 and
recorded at Hennepin County.
Additonal requirements for the installation of utilities and
streets are covered in the Developer's Agreement.
.Z7(J2
Page 2, Final Plat Primeland 3rd Addition 11/14/85
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication shall conform to City Code requirements.
BONDING:
The requirements for bonding are covered in the Developer's
Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Primeland 3rd Addition
subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's
Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250.
DLO:sg
cc: Hagen Systems
Prime Development
Mr. Dave Putnam, Merila Assoc.
��r
•
•
r MEMORANDUM {j
l
TO: Mayor and City Council
TNROUnH: Carl Jullie, City Manager •
FROM: Roger A. Pauly, City Attorney
RE: Revisions on Unclaimed Property Ordinance
DATE: November 12, 1985
The Public Safety Department has asked that we amend this
Unclaimed Property Ordinance in several respects. A copy of a
draft is attached hereto. We believe these revisions are consis-
tent with the statutory authority for such ordinances (Minn. Stat.
5471.195). Following are the principal changes:
First, the holding period for property before which it is
deemed to be abandoned is increased from sixty to ninety days.
Second, the ordinance is clarified to indicate clearly that it
covers lost cash and negotiable instruments as well as other
property. Third, the City is given the option of retaining the
abandoned property for public use instead of selling it. Last,
we have added a section which indicates that the City is not res-
ponsible for damage to or diminution in the value of property held
by the City pursuant to the ordinance.
If
ORDINANCE NO. 38-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY
CODE SECTION 2.86 SUBD. 2. AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Section 2.86, Subd. 2.A. is
hereby amended to read:
A. Definition. "Abandoned property" means tangible or
intangible property [, including cash and negotiable instruments,]
that has lawfully come into the possession of the City in the course
of municipal operations, remains unclaimed by the owner, and has
been in the possession of the City for at least sixty [ninety] days
and has been declared such by a resolution of the Council.
Section 2. Eden Prairie City Code Section 2.86, Subd. 3.C. is
hereby amended to read:
C. [Retention of Property for City Use or] Notice and
Sale. Upon adoption of a resolution declaring certain property to
be abandoned property, the City Manager shall publish a notice
thereof describing the same, together with the names (if known)
and addresses (if known) of prior owners and holders thereof, and
including a brief description of such property. The text of such
notice shall also state the-time;-piaee-and-meaner-ef-sale-of-all
stieh-grepertpr-exeept-cash-and-segetiables4 [either, (1) that the
property will be retained by the City for City use; or (2) that a
sale of the property will take place and the time, place and
manner of sale of all such property is designated in the notice;
or (3) in the case of cash or negotiable instruments, that the
cash will be paid into the General Fund of the City and negotiable
instruments will be negotiated and the cash received therefore
will be paid into the General Fund of the City.] [In the case of
a sale of the property,] such notice shall be published once at
least three weeks prior to sale. [In all other cases, the notice
shall be published once within three weeks after the Council
resolution declaring the property to be abandoned property.] [In
the event of a sale of the property,] sale shall be made to the
highest bidder at public auction or sale conducted in the manner
directed by the Council in its resolution declaring the property
abandoned.
Section 3. Eden Prairie City Code Section 2.86, Subd. 2.D.
is hereby amended to read:
D. Fund and Claims Thereon. [All such cash and cash
from the negotiation of such negotiable instruments, and] all
proceeds from such sale shall be paid into the General Fund of the
City and expenses thereof paid therefrom. [In the event the
property is retained by the City for City use, the property shall
be used by the City only for public purposes of the City and not
for any private use.] The former owner, if he makes claim within
eight months from the date of publication of the notice herein
provided, and upon application and satisfactory proof of ownership,
[may, in the case of property retained by the City, have the pro-
perty returned to him or her or,] may be paid the amount of cash
or negotiable instruments or, in the case of property sold, [may
be paid] the amount received therefore, less a pro rata share of
the expenses of storage, publication of notice, and sale expenses,
-2-
1/f Why
but without interest. Such payment shall also be made from the
General Fund. [In the case of property retained by the City for
City use, or in the case of property held for sale by the City, the
City will not be responsible for any diminution in value of or
damage to the property during the period of time in which the
property is in the City's custody and control.]
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" is hereby adopted in its entirety, by
reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Eden Prairie on the 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.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
, 1985.
-3-
MEMDRANDUM
TD: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FRDM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: October 3D, 19B5
SUBJECT: Park Use Ordinance Update
Since the City adopted the Park Use Ordinance several years ago, the Community
Services Department has maintained a file listing proposed regulations for
park uses that are not presently included in the Park Use Ordinance. These
recommendations have been prompted due to suggestions from the Public Safety
Department, Park Maintenance Department, or from Community Services staff
observations.
The City has 600-7DD acres of parkland that will generally remain in its
natural condition. Staff often find structures that have been placed on City !.
parkland such as: deer tree stands, playhouses, tree houses, temporary
storage buildings, etc. Subdivision 4.5 will address those concerns.
Staff have noticed on several occasions that some people believe that City
parks are a convenient place to change the oil in their cars. Although, most
don't dump the oil on the parking lot (a few have), the City park parking lot
was not developed as an area for the public to maintain their motor vehicles.
Several times within the last few years, individuals have brought trampolines
to various parks, set them up and had a great time jumping on the trampoline.
Again, the main concern for this type of activity is the City liability of
allowing the use of the trampoline on public property.
The City has experienced more and more incidents of tampering with park
equipment such as picnic tables, boats, lifeguard chairs, etc. The major
problem is neither defacing or destroying the public property, but simply
tampering with the property that causes park maintenance staff an undue amount
of work. Staff are forced to remove picnic tables almost on a daily basis
from Round Lake and recently several young people were caught moving the guard ;.
chairs at Round Lake beach out into the lake. Another favorite pass time is
to cut the cables securing boats, canoes, etc. at the lake and allowing them
to drift out into the middle of the lake.
The revisions in the ordinance will provide specific language prohibiting that
type of behavior.
The City has regulations against using flotation devices at our City beaches
due to the problem of non-swimmers getting out to water that is over their
head. Recently, we have seen more and more people launching small rubber
rafts (one and two man type) from the boat launch site, paddling out to the
middle of the lake and often overturning them. These are not licensed boats
and more often than not, the individuals in the rafts aren't wearing life
preservers. Again, the City staff is questioning the City's liability
( regarding these people. Our beach staff are required to guard the individuals
within the defined swimming area, and are concerned that the people using
those rafts may be depending on the beach staff if they found themselves in
trouble. Subdivision 4.V. prohibits the use of air mattresses, intertubes, or
other inflated articles or flotation equipment in park lakes, except that
inflatable boats may be used on park lakes pursuant to Minnesota State
Watercraft license or permit. This will prohibit people from using these
flotation devices when they are launching them from parkland. It does not
prohibit them from using them within a lake where they are able to launch the
inflated device from land other than city parkland. The only lake that has
City parkland completely surrounding the lake is Round Lake.
The City has several designated picnic areas and has approved a "policy" to
reserve those picnic areas for a fee; however, there is not an ordinance
allowing exclusive use of those reservation sites. The staff recommended
Subdivision 4.Y. prohibiting the use of park facilities such as picnic areas,
ballfields, tennis courts, or volleyball courts which have been reserved by
another party; or to conduct picnic activity at reservation picnic sites in
violation of a permit.
The City is receiving more and more complaints regarding people that use City
parks as a place to allow their dogs to relieve themselves. The City
presently has an ordinance that makes it unlawful for a pet to defecate on
public property. Most communities have taken that ordinance one step further
and require anyone bringing a pet into a park to possess an appropriate device
for cleaning up pet feces. Subdivision 4.H. would prohibit bringing any dog
i or domestic pet into a park without possessing an appropriate devise for
cleaning up pet feces and disposing the feces as required by City Code Section
9.02.
The high demand for the use of the boat launch facilities at Riley Lake, in
comparision to the limited launching facilities, has developed a number of
problems at that site. Individuals will bring a trailered boat into the park
in the middle of the night and store it there to ensure a parking space the
next day; others will trailer a boat to the park in the very early morning
hours, launch the boat and tie it to a tree or to the dock and then leave an
unattended trailer parked in the parking lot in order to guarantee themselves
a trailer parking spot for the day. The park attendants have had to deal with
many irate people that come to the park at 10 a.m. on a Saturday morning and
find the boat launch closed, and then notice half of the trailers in the
parking lot are not attached to cars, and unattended boats are parked all
along the shore. Subdivision 4.K and 4.1 will hopefully alleviate this
problem in the future by prohibiting those practices.
Staff requests the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the
City Council to review and approve the revisions to the Park Use Ordinance.
BL:md
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 9, SECTION 9.04, SUBD. 4, RELATING TO RULES AND REGU-
LATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC PARKS, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN
PENALTY PROVISIONS:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.04,
Subd. 4, shall be and is amended to read as follows:
Subd. 4. It is a petty misdemeanor for any person in a
park to:
A. Camp in or erect or maintain a tent or other
shelter when a park is closed, except fish or dark houses on park
waters or as authorized by permit;
B. Swim in waters, use a beach or other play areas
of any park at any time such park is closed or during such time as
such beach or play area is closed pursuant to notice posted by the
Director;
C. Practice or engage in golf or golfing, except
in areas designated by the Director;
D. Start or permit a fire to burn, except in areas
designed for such purposes, and then only in fire rings, fire
scars, portable stoves, or grills. Any person who starts or per-
mits a fire to burn as authorized in this Subdivision shall
extinguish it completely before leaving the park and shall dispose
of the residue or refuse therefrom in a trash container. Smoking
of cigarettes, cigars or pipes shall not constitute a fire as that
( term is used herein;
L
I •
E. Kill, trap, pursue, catch or remove any wildlife,
except as may be authorized by permit;
F. Introduce any plant into a park, except as
authorized by permit;
G. Permit a pet to enter or go upon beaches,
buildings, structures, skating rinks or cross country ski trails;
[permit a pet to disturb, harass or interfere with any park visitor
or park employee or his property; or to tether any animal to any
tree, plant, building or park equipment within the park;
H. Have custody or control of any dog or domestic
pet without possessing an appropriate device for cleaning up pet
feces and disposing of the feces as required by City Code Section
9.02;)
H---operate-any-meter-vehicle;-exeept-en-sheets;-reae-
Hays-er-parking-aEeas-anel-reereatienai-meteE-vekieles-im-these-areas
desi9nateel-by-the-93reetet-
I. Operate a [any motor) vehicle at a speed in excess
of 20 miles per hour or [the] posted speed limits; [operate any
motor vehicle in an area other than a street, roadway or parking
area; or operate any recreational motor vehicle in an area other
than an area designed by the Director;)
[J. Perform non-emergency motor vehicle maintenance
or dump motor oil within the park;]
[K.] Park or leave a motor vehicle [with or without
a boat trailer] in other than an established or designated parking
area[; park an unattached boat trailer in any parking space;) or
violate posted directions or instructions of any park attendant
t �
at a designated parking area;
-2-
[L.) Launch any trailered watercraft upon any waters,
except at posted launch areas; laenek; dock;-eperate= [or] store
er-keep any boat of-any-kind, [other than a City owned boat, within
any park] while the park is closed;
[M.) Fish on or from a beach, [or] in waters delineated
as swimming areas [or boat marinas] by placement of buoys[,] or in
waters within 100 feet thereof;
[N.] Cut a hole in the ice of any park waters larger
than 12" in diameter, except a hole covered by a fish or dark house,
provided that upon removal of the fish or dark house such hole is
secured in such a manner as to prevent a person from falling into
it, and except as authorized by permit;
[O.] Use a sled, toboggan, hockey stick or puck in or
on [free] skating rinks, provided, nothing herein shall prohibit the
use of hockey sticks and pucks in hockey rinks;
[P.] Ride or permit a horse under such person's control
on or in any park, except on or in any street, shoulder or ditch
thereof, trail, or other area designated by the Director, provided,
however, whenever a trail through a park for riding horses has been
designated by the Director, the riding of a horse in such park or
the bringing into such park of a horse shall be limited to such
trail;
[Q.] Serve, possess, or consume any alcoholic beverage
in areas prohibited by the Director, notice of which is posted in
such areas;
-3-
!!'
[R.] Sell or offer for sale any article or tii7►g
Cwhatseever [service] in any park without a permit, provided, however,
this prohibition shall not apply to any such sale or offer for sale
by the City, its agents, employees, and its concessionaires and
their agents and employees;
[S. Construct or place any type of structure, including,
but not limited to, deer tree stands, playhouses, treehouses,
temporary storage buildings, motorcycle or bicycle launches,
temporary shelters, tents, tarps, canopies, or other such devices
upon park land without a permit;
T. Set up or use a trampoline;
U. Tamper with or move park equipment, property or •
facilities, including, but not limited to, picnic tables, boats,
lifeguard chairs, garbage containers and portable bathrooms;
V. Use air mattresses, inner tubes, or other inflated
articles or flotation equipment in any park lakes, except that
inflatable boats may be used on park lakes pursuant to Minnesota
State Water Craft License or Permit;
W. Swim outside of the marked designated boundaries
of park swimming beaches;
X. Operate any fuel-powered model aircraft, boat,
rockets or similar toy within a park without a permit;
Y. Use park facilities, such as picnic areas,
ballfields, tennis courts, or volleyball courts which have been
reserved by another party; or to conduct picnic activity at•
reservation picnic sites in violation of a permit;
-4-
Z. Deposit, scatter, drop or abandon bottles.-:3 „,
glass, coals, ashes, sewage, waste or other material, except in
receptacles provided for such purposes.]
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 are hereby adopted in
their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the day of
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.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
, 1985.
L I
-5-
i .
I
I
MEMORANDUM
•
f TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: November 14, 1985
SUBJECT: 1986 Softball Field Improvements
In early 1984, the City Council authorized charging adult softball teams an
additional $60 per team during the summer league and an additional $40 per team
during the fall league to be set aside in a separate fund for softball field
improvements. The softball players were informed of the decision at the manager's
meeting in late winter of 1984. There were no negative comments from the managers,
as they agreed it was fair to charge them for improvements such as lighting a
ballfield or providing chain link fences in lieu of snow fences, etc.
In 1984, $9,260 was collected and deposited in this fund. In 1985, $10,480 was
collected for a $19,740 two year total. City staff would anticipate approximately
$11,000 being collected in 1986, which would bring the total at the end of 1986 to
over $30,000.
The City does not charge the co-rec teams this fee as they are not scheduled to use
any of the fields at Round Lake Park or Staring Lake Park. The City had 148 adult
teams and 26 co-rec teams this summer and 40 additional adult teams during the fall
program in 1985. In order to accommodate the 148 teams on the six fields at Round
Lake and the two fields at Staring Lake Park, all the fields were used Monday thru
Thursday and six fields were used on Friday. Assuming the City receives requests
from 15 additional teams in 1986, the City will either have to turn down requests
from new teams or begin scheduling some of this league play on neighborhood park
fields.
The Community Services staff have concern regarding scheduling adult softball league
play on neighborhood park fields for several reasons:
1. Nearly all of the neigborhood park fields are presently scheduled for use by
youth softball and youth baseball associations.
2. Adult softball requires approximately 60 car parking per field, if two games
are scheduled on a field per night. Neighborhood parks do not have parking
facilities sufficient to accommodate those needs.
3. Adult softball games can tend to become noisy and often players stay after the
game to drink beer. Although, this activity rarely causes any problems in a
community park, it may cause problems in a neighborhood park.
All of the players that play in the adult softball league either live or work in
Eden Prairie. Many of the new companies that build in Eden Prairie (and pay a
substantial cash park fee) support their company softball teams as one of the means
of building morale within the company. Up until now, the City has been able to
( accommodate all of the requests for adult softball teams. Staff is concerned that
without construction of new facilities or the ability to light some of the existing
fields, the City will no longer be able to accommodate the requests of its growing
number of commercial, office and industrial teams.
•
The Community Services Department also notes that softball field number 6, directly
behind the Community Center, will be changed into a baseball field during the summer
of 1986, and will be replaced by a new softball field north of the Fire Station at
Round Lake Park. During this construction process, it is possible that this field
will also be lost for the 1986 season. The Communtiy Services staff is working with
the school staff in hopes that the expansions of the softball field can be
accommodated after the 1986 summer softball season.
Staff requests the Council to authorize development of plans and specifications and
receiving bids for lighting softball fields number 2 and 3 at Round Lake Park (south
of Valley View Road) and to install chain link fences on fields 1-4 (all of the
fields south of Valley View Road within Round Lake Park). The estimated cost to
light a softball field using wood poles is approximately $30,000 per field. Using
aluminum poles is approximately $40,000 per field. The estimated cost for
installing a 6' chain link fence in lieu of the existing wood/slat snow fence is
approximately $3,500 per field. Total cost of the project would vary from
approximately $74,00D to $94,000 depending on whether or not the City decided to use
wood or aluminum light poles.
Staff requests authorization to develop plans and specifications for this project
and to advertize for bids for construction in the early spring of 1986. Funding
would come from the cash park fees fund, which would be reimbursed from the adult
softball fees.
BL:md
is
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-264
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Engineer, with the assistance of RCM, Inc., has prepared
plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-0100, Technology Drive between Purgatory Creek
and Prairie Center Drive
and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public
inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official
paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon
the making of such improvement under such approved plans and
specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 2 weeks,
shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be
received until 10:00 P.M., Thursday, December 12, 1985, at City Hall
after which time they will be publically opened by The Deputy City
Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by
the Council at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, December 17, 1985, at the Eden
Prairie School Administration Building, B100 School Road, Eden
Prairie. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or
certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of
such bid.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on November 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
t, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-256
•
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ALLSTATE DISTRICT CLAIMS OFFICE
FOR OPUS CORPORATION
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Allstate District Claims Office for Opus Corporation,
dated September 25, 1985, consisting of 2.62 acres for the construction of an
insurance claims office, 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.
•
•
AOOPTEO by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 19th day of November, 1985.
Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
r
k'
' 1
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: October 25, 1985
PROJECT: Allstate District Claims Office
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Opus Corporation
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and
Valley View Road.
REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to Office on 2.62 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
4.43 acres into two lots.
Background 79-18 A ' -.--,
The Comprehensive Guide Plan ident- ;wol'..)'s„ i_i-sa , �,, /1
ifies an Office use for this site. ���
-oecar , .
The Guide Plan depicts surrounding `� )11
adjacent land uses as Office to the ,10 1 .� 111.24041 Fn`4
not , south,th, and Commercial
of the '�'. „ �
property, to the \ :: o 3►`.
east. The site is currently zoned . = ,�-�"
Rural. - a a1 C 274 .t i�
�' .or PUB , WI
The existing site character can be 76-84 ` 2 =
described as steeply sloped with a RM 2 5
drop in elevation of 30 feet from
the southwest to the eastern border 5 P '..,f I-
of the property. Because of the 30- ---- ,- _� 108-84
foot drop in grade, a steep slope ., PROPOSED SITE C-PEG-S R'
review will be required and analyzed `'� .-.
under the grading section. There 7$45
are a number of pine trees on the C-REG
northcentral portion of the project 49-83 SER
which are proposed to be trans- C REG S
planted and incorporated as part of 82 1� .
the overall landscape plan. There `.T,.E '" ,,�,� OFC i o`":. r'46 s
is a wooded area along the western IL_GrtC
portion of the property, a portion (/ -
of which will be cut down in order 1� , �_. i;
to accommodate site grading. The 1 ip 'e.i—majority —
of trees are a scrub _,/ „'v'� ��
variety consisting of elm, ash, and / y ,
cottonwood.
AREA LOCATION MAP
f
Allstate Claims Office 2 October 25, 1985
Site Plan
The site plan involves the construction of a two-story, 25,500 square foot office
huildirg, at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.27. For Office zoning, the Code would
allow up to a 0.5 FAR. Building and parking areas meet minimum setback
requirements. The required minimum number of parking stalls, based upon a ratio of
five spaces per 1,000 is provided on-site.
Access to this site is by a driveway from Prairie Center Drive. The southern-most
driveway entrance aligns opposite the full intersection median cut in Prairie Center
Orive and serves as a joint access with the Norwest Bank site to the south. In
addition, there is a right-in/right-out entrance proposed along the common boundary
line between this site and the outlot to the north. Because of the medians in
Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road, access to the 1.81-acre parcel to the
north will be a right-in/right-out access only. Due to the limited access, and
surrounding land uses, Staff would expect that the future land use for this property
would also be Office.
Grading
Proposed grading on the property will be a significant amount of cut since the
property has a 30-foot drop in elevation from the high point on the western border
of the property to Prairie Center Drive. Much of the setback area between parking
and the west property line will be utilized to take up grade. Even with a resultant
in grading, slopes across the parking lot will vary between three to five percent.
Regrading areas are at 3/1 or less.
Proposed berming along Prairie Center Drive should be high enough to adequately
screen parking areas.
Landscaping
The landscape plan provides the minimum number of plant materials per Code.
Staff expects that because of the nature of the business as auto claims service,
that a number of damaged vehicles could be parked on the property for some time
period. If this is the case, because of the unsightly nature of these vehicles,
they should be located in a central spot on the property and appropriately screened
from adjacent land uses and Prairie Center Drive. Staff would suggest the 14-car
parking area on the extreme western border of the site. To better screen this area
from adjacent land uses, Staff would recommend that the large concrete island along
the one-way driveway, be converted into green space and planted heavily with
coniferous trees.
Architecture
The building, as proposed, will be a two-story office building, containing 25,500
square feet. Proposed exterior building materials will be face brick and glass.
Rooftop mechanical units are proposed to be screened in a manner architecturally
integral with the building. The proponent must submit detailed rooftop mechanical
t screening plans prior to Council review.
7)
Allstate Claims Office 3 October 25, AM
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be extended to this site from utilities located within
Prairie Center Drive.
The majority of storm water run-off would sheet drain across the parking areas into
catch basins. From that point, water will chanel through an underground storm sewer
system and connect into Prairie Center Drive.
Signaqe and Lighting
Prior to building permit issuance, it will be required that the proponent submit an
overall signage and lighting program for review by the City Staff. Signage should
be of a consistent size and style.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for Zoning District Change from Rural
to Office, and Preliminary Plat of 4.48 acres into one lot and one outlot subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 25, 1985, based on plans dated
September 25, 1985, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the landscape plan and provide for additional coniferous
plantings within the concrete planting island to screen damaged
vehicles. Damaged vehicles shall be concentrated in the 14-car
parking space on the western border.
B. Submit samples of the proposed exterior building materials and
rooftop mechanical screening for review. •
2. Prior to Final plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Provide 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 48 hours in advance of
grading.
C. Submit signage and lighting details for review.
•
FYI
A It
Planning Commission Minutes 9 OcteGer 8.. 1985
•
G. ALLSTATE DISTRICT CLAIMS OFFICE, by Opus Corporation. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, and Preliminary Plat of
2.62 acres for the construction of a insurance claims office.
Location: Highway p5 and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Bob Worthington, Executive Director of Governmental Affairs, Opus
Corporation, reviwed the site characteristics and surrounding existing uses
with the Commission. He then reviewed the proposed development plans in
detail. Mr. Worthington noted that there was no objection to the requested
access to the property to the north.
Mr. Worthington stated that there was concern about the potential for people
to drive through from the bank, across the Allstate property, accessing the
parcel north of Allstate, making this a service road across these
properties, if a use such as a fast-food restaurant were approved. He
stated that there would be no objection to the use of the parcel to the
north as an office, however.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of October 25, 1985.
Mr. Walter Carpentar, current owner of the property proposed for
development, as well as the property to the north and east, expressed
concern about access to the property to the north. He stated that he was
considering a "supper club" type of restaurant for the site. Mr. Carpentar
stated that his major concern was for access to the property for north-bound
traffic. He suggested that a median cut could be located between the
Allstate site and the property to the north to alleviate this.
Planner Enger stated that it had been known for some time that this site
would have right-in, right-out access only due to its proximity to the
intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. He stated that
this represented limited flexibility for this property, making it more
Planning Commission Minutes 10 October 28, 1985
conducive to development as an office use, as opposed to a restaurant, or,
particularly a fast-food restaurant.
Mr. Carpentar stated that he had discussed the possibility of a "protected
lane" across the east side of both the Allstate property and the parcel to
the north with the representatives of Allstate and that Allstate had
indicated no objection to such an alternative.
Marhula stated that he felt the proposed development was well prepared. He
expressed concern about access to the northern parcel, based on information
from the owner. He asked if it would be possible to "flip-flop" the uses.
Mr. Worthington stated that this had been reviewed as an alternative early
in the process. However, the parcel to the north was not as flexible in
that a major easement existed along its southern boundary, disallowing any
flexibility in lot size or in building location on the lot. He stated that
Allstate required a larger lot to meet its needs.
Dodge stated that she felt the decision about access should be made at the
time of a proposal for the site to the north. She added that she felt it
would be unfair for the Commission to make it a requirement of this site
plan, without knowing wat the use would be to the north.
Gartner stated that she felt the protected lane was an acceptable
alternative.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Opus Corporation for Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office for 2.62 acres for Allstate District Claims
Office, based on plans dated September 25, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Opus Corporation for Preliminary Plat of
2.62 acres for Allstate District Claims Office, based on plans dated
September 25, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-257
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE IIW,ICIPAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive
Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review
and comment; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal of the Brauer Group for development of Parkway
Office/Service Center for Neighborhood Commercial use requires the amendment of the
Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: approximately 3.67
acres located at the northeast quadrant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway #169
be modified from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 19th day of November, 1985.
Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-258
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PARKWAY OFFICE/SERVICE CENTER
FOR THE BRAUER GROUP, INC.
8E IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Parkway Office/Service Center for The Brauer Group,
Inc., dated October 7, 1985, consisting of 3.67 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 19th day of November, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John 0. Frane, City Clerk
ENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
( TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS
e. 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,SUITE 1191 EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344/(612)944-7590
•
REFER TO FILE:
November 6, 1985 85-34-59
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Brauer
9rli(ti/
FROM: James A. Benshoof and Michael L. Wonson
RE: Traffic Analysis for the Parkway Office/
Service Center In Eden Prairie
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum Is to document our analysis
and findings concerning the traffic implications of the
proposed Parkway Office/Service Center located at the north-
east corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and T.H. 169. As we
understand it, the proposal consists of 8.000 sq. ft. of
office development and 13.000 sq. ft. of commercial conven-
ience center. The principal traffic question concerning the
development is the effect of the proposal on the operation
of the Anderson Lakes Parkway/T.H. 169 intersection vis a
vis the effects created by development of the site as a
residential use consistent with the current guide plan
designation.
For the purpose of this analysis. we related to our previous
analysis and forecasts prepared for the proposed guide plan
amendment for the Northrup King Research Farm documented in
our report dated January 18. 1985. As we understand it. the
Douglas Corporation is proposing to utilize a portion of the
Northrup King site at a lesser density of development than
assumed in our report. This development would result in
fewer trips than originally forecasted through the Anderson
Lakes Parkway/T.H. 169: however, for the purposes of this
analysis we took a conservative approach of using the
original (and thus potentially higher) traffic fore-casts.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Trip generation rates published by the institute of Trans-
( portation Engineers were utilized to calculate PM Peak Hour
traffic generated by the proposal, as well as traffic
Don Brauer -2- November 6, 1985
generated by development of the site as residential. The PM
peak hour (about 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.) Is the time period
during which traffic volumes are highest on adjacent
roadways and is the time period during which traffic impacts
of the proposal would be the most significant. Trips
associated with the two development scenarios were then
assigned to the roadway system utilizing the trip
distribution percentages documented In our report of January
18. 1985. This distribution was modified for the conven-
ience center to account for a slightly higher orientation to
the east for residences in that area shopping at the pro-
posed center.
Based upon these traffic forecasts. the proposed Parkway
Center would add an additional 77 trips during the PM peak
hour to the Anderson Lakes Parkway/T.H. 169 intersection
above those added by a residential development on the site.
These 77 trips represent an Increase in total approach
volumes at the intersection of approximately 3 percent of
the 1985 volumes and less than 2 percent of the 1990 volumes
forecasted in our report of January 18. 1985. A capacity
analysis was performed to determine the effects of the dev-
elopment traffic at the Anderson Lakes Parkway/T.H. 169
intersection for the 1990 condition. This analysis indi-
cates that traffic associated with the proposed development
will not affect the intersection level of service.
The conclusion of the analysis is that the intersection of
Anderson Lakes Parkway and T.H. 169. with the improvements
documented in our report dated January 18, 1985. can effec-
tively accommodate traffic generated by the proposed Parkway
Office/Service Center.
L_
STAFF REPORT
i,
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
HR UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: October 25, 1985
PROJECT: Parkway Office/Service Center
LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and
Highway #169
APPLICANT: Don Brauer
FEE OWNER: Allyn A. Lindstrom
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density
Residential to Commercial.
2. Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 0.92 acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial on 2.73
acres.
( 4. Preliminary Plat of 3.65 acres into two lots.
+:$4'. MI ` t sy�1,' ' . .-vb' 35
*.y � i + ,!
Background
�N`
Y guided Medium 0 -ti, ,... , „.i„, +k ",-
This site is currently = r irk '�)
Density Residential for up to ten {'^ '3n ;1-',°; ' r k 'r' „+ ��45 ,
units per acre. The Guide Plan �,, i RM-�"*� • E.
ct
depicts surrounding land uses as Low t:"4 i }:. i� ,A7., � Rm 2, ,'
Density Residential to the north and
east of the site, Commercial uses to >*r ' �+ � ��?�" 4Yt r
the south of the site, and ' t� wAyt7! . <,'SE
Commercial and Office uses to the `. °y. ''" • ���
west of this site across Highway `v ,e,."1"—..'-'-'"'!";:',..,,,,..'
�r T' , , &;o
#169. This site is part of a 13.7- "` ': : ' =� `� '
,:,
acre site originally proposed for �, �� ` ,
High Density Residential zoning, and . .4�,�
165 dwelling units as part of the (/ _ _>„Cu
1973 Edenvale South Planned Unit f 7
Development (PUD). The 1973 PUD was .x PROPOSED SITE // - �'o
mostly Medium Density Residential f,' + bu i
land uses. In 1974 the PUD was " `�
amended, changing the majority of �. `'~-
land uses from �•. •, r'
Medium Density i'++p+, .~ _
Residential to Single Family Res- ,+�.�;�_
idential and this site was des- „- - __: L. / ez,;
ignated as an outlot for future .-�,' J,re ' R;!I!=
•
— ---Pc4, ...-IP_A '
;t'-, , AREA LOCATION MAP- I
i
Parkway Office/Service Center 2 October 25, 1985
development. In 1968, the Guide Plan depicted this site as a Medium Density
Residential site.
The 1973 and 1974 Edenvale South PUD's also considered this site for either a small
Neighborhood Commercial uce, provided the orientation was toward Anderson Lakes
Parkway and Highway #169, and that there be an appropriate landscape transition
between the single family homes to the north and east of the site.
Land Use/Zoning
The proponents are requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density
Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. In addition, they are requesting separate
zoning districts for the Office and Commercial portions of the project.
The request for Guide Plan Change is not so much a question of how the change would
effect the balance of Residential and Commercial land uses in the City, since the
size of the site is small and only 36 units would be displaced, it is more a
question of a site planning issues and is the project as proposed a better, or equal
way, to develop the site. Another important question to address is whether there is
an adequate transition between the adjoining single family land uses. The site
specific issues and transitional use issues, will be addressed under later sections
in the Staff Report.
Site Plan
The site plan involves the relocation of the Major Media Office Building (8,00D
square feet) and the construction of a one-story, 13,000 square foot office service
or commercial building. The relocated office building is being developed on a 0.92-
acre lot at a Floor Area Ratio of 0.20. The commercial building proposed is on a
2.67-acre site at a Floor Area Ratio of 0.11. Both Floor Area Ratio's meet the
maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio's for commercial zoning.
Building and parking areas are located in compliance with minimum setbacks for
Neighborhood Commercial zoning.
Access to this site will be by driveway off Anderson Lakes Parkway directly opposite
Aztec Drive to the south. Because of the commercial nature of the project and
anticipated traffic volumes, with only one access to this site, Staff would
recommend that a right turn deceleration lane and a right turn acceleration lane be
constructed at this driveway intersection with Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Internal circulation is a problem immediately upon entering the commercial portion
of the project. Where the gabled roof projects into the parking area, a small
convenience store with two gas pumps is proposed. Because of the tight turning
radii and inadequate amount of room for manuevering, Staff does not feel that this
type of land use is appropriate in this location on this site. Either the gasoline
service use of the building should be dropped or it could be located at the northern
end of the parking lot where the circulation would not interfere with other
automobile movement.
t Parking for a project of this size would be based upon five spaces per 1,000 for the
relocated office building and eight spaces per 1,000 for the proposed commercial
building. A total of 144 parking spaces are required per ordinance, and 144 are
provided on-site. If 5.5 spaces per 1,OD0 is used as an acceptable norm for parking
1 `
I
?arkway Office/Service Center 3 October 25, 1985
{
demand in a commercial shopping center, 33 parking spaces could be converted to
proof-of-parking and utilized as planting islands or for additional manuevering area
for the gas pumps.
Since a good portion of the this project is proposed for commercial uses, and since
that the parking lot at the north end is dead-ended, Staff would recommend that a
drivelane be provided for around the north side of the building. Since steep slopes
are proposed adjacent to the ponding area, the driveway could not be constructed
without the use of retaining walls. Staff would recommend a different approach by
reducing the size of the building by the width of a minimum two-way traffic or 25
feet.
Grading
The dominant site feature is the pond to the north of the project. Most of the
development is proposed on the relatively level portions of the site, adjacent to
the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway #169. Up to ten feet of cut
would be necessary along the southern edge of the pond. Regraded areas along the
edge of the pond will be at 21 to 1. Prior to any grading on the property it will
be required that appropriate erosion control measures be installed around the
perimeter of the pond.
Architecture
The proposed office building will be the Major Media Office Building currently
( located on Highway #169 opposite the Brock Residence Inn. The building might be
described as residential in character because of the pitched roofs and application
of brick and wood around the building exterior. The proposed one-story commercial
building will reflect the same type of residential character with pitched roofs with
brick, wood, and wood shingles to match the Major Media Building. It will be
important that the architecture on the building's front exterior be carried around
and into the back of the building since there will be views into this site from
adjacent residential property.
Landscaping
The proposed landscape plan meets the minimum caliper inch requirement per
ordinance. The proposed three-foot berm within the front yard setback along Highway
#169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway is not high enough to screen parking areas. Since a
35-foot setback is provided, the berm can be increased up to five feet in height at
a 3/1 slope.
The proposed service area of the retail building will be visible from adjacent
residential land uses to the north and east of the site. Staff feels that the
proposed single row of coniferous plantings will not be adequate enough to screen
views and would recommend a double row of conifers at a twelve-foot minimum height
along the back side of the property.
There are four large oak trees that the proponents intend to retain as part of the
landscape plan. Because a portion of the regraded areas and hard surface areas fall
within the drip line of the trees, Staff expects that the normal life expectancy of
these oak trees would be shortened. There are, however, opportunities to add green
space adjacent to the oak tree areas by converting some of the parking into proof-
of-parking spaces.
Parkway Office/Service Center 4 October 25, 1985
The landscape plan does not provide for any physical transition along the eastern
borders of the site adjacent to the single family homes. Although there is an
existing fence and small berm Staff does not feel that this is an adequate
transition. Staff feels that substantial planting transition may be possible within
a 20-foot setback, and should be more than a single row of conifers. Staff would
recommend a mass planting, which combines overstory shade trees, large coniferous
trees, and shrub mass plantings, so that the proposed buffering serves a dual
purpose as a physical transition and also for decoration.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by connection to existing
utilities which are stubbed at the east property line at the end of a sewer and
water easement.
Storm water run-off is proposed to drain across the parking lot into catch basins.
Through the catch basins water will flow through a series of underground storm sewer
pipes to a proposed storm water settling pond in the northwest corner of the site.
The settling pond will filter out nutrients so that clean water would be discharged
into the ponding area.
Signage and Lighting
The proponent should submit an overall signage plan with details for review. For
°• the commercial building, lettering should be of a common size and style, internally
lit, and individually affixed in a common location on the exterior of the building.
Any proposed pylon signs should meet minimum setback requirements for neighborhood
commercial zoning.
The proponent should submit an overall lighting plan with details for review. Since
the site is adjacent to residential areas, lighting standards should be a maximum of
20 feet high and downcast cut-off luminars, so that glare would be focused down onto
the site and not reflected onto adjacent properties.
Pedestrian Systems
Since this is planned as a Neighborhood Commercial site, there should be a means of
providing for pedestrian access between this site and the adjacent residential
neighborhoods. Since an eight-foot wide bituminous trail exists along the south
side of Anderson Lakes Parkway, it would be appropriate to provide a sidewalk
connection between the building and a sidewalk along Anderson Lakes Parkway which
should be extended back to Darnell Court.
Traffic
The Anderson Lakes Parkway/Highway #169 intersection currently operates at a level
of service C during the P.M. peak hour. This intersection was analyzed in a traffic
study prepared by Benshoof and Associates for the Northrup King Planned Unit
Development. The results of that study indicated that this intersection would
operate at a level of service F at full development. To mitigate the level of
service F condition, which is a stop condition, alternative geometric improvements
were proposed which would reduce the level of service to a D condition. This would
include double left turn lanes from Anderson Lakes Parkway onto Highway #159 and
I
1
Parkway Office/Service Center 5 October 25, 1985
' double left turn lanes from Highway #169 northbound into this site. The level of
service analysis conducted by Benshoof and Associates were based upon the proposed
Guide Plan for Northrup King and the surrounding land uses as depicted by the City's
current Guide Plan. This would have included a P.M. peak hour traffic of 28 trips
for a residential project at ten units per acre. The proposed office/commercial
development would generate 41 P.M. peak hour trips or 13 additional trips. Staff
expects that this additional increase in traffic would not be significant enough
with improvements as identified in the Benshoof study to raise the level of service
from a D to and E condition. Prior to Council review, proponent should provide a
detailed traffic analysis plugging the trip generation from the proposed office
service center project into the study by Benshoof and Associates so that a more
accurate assessment of what type of improvements and when they should occur at this
intersection.
Conclusions
Since this requested change in the Guide Plan from Medium Density Residential to
Office will not effect the overall Guide Plan balance appreciably, the request for
Guide Plan Change will be based upon whether the proposed land use is a better use
of the site and what impacts this project has on adjacent land uses. Since the
request for Guide Plan Change is predicated upon an acceptable site plan, approval
of the project should be based upon recommendations in the Staff Report which
specify a need for the following:
1. Improved access to this site supplemented with right-turn lanes in to and
t_ out of the site.
2. Improved internal circulation by eliminating the gas pumps or relocating
elsewhere on site.
3. Improved internal circulation by providing for two-way access around the
proposed commercial building.
4. Architecture that reflects a residential scale and exterior materials that
are comparable to the Major Media Building. This would include similar
brick, wood, and shingles.
5. Appropriate screening of the service areas from land uses to the north with
a double row of coniferous plantings.
6. Raising the berm height along Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway #169 a
minimum of two feet to screen parking. Converting excess parking areas to
proof-of-parking spaces to add green space. In addition, convert additional
parking spaces for additional land area adjacent to the existing oak trees
on-site.
7. Provide an appropriate physical, natural landscape buffer along the east
property line.
8. Provide a five-foot concrete sidewalk connection between this site, Anderson
Lakes Parkway, and Darnell Court. This can be constructed within road
right-of-way.
If the Commission feels that the proponent has adequately substantiated the request
Parkway Office/Service Center 6 October 25, 1985
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, then Staff would recommend that the developer
commit to the above recommended changes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial, a Zoning District Change
from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial and a Preliminary Plat of 3.67 acres into two
lots, based upon plans dated September 19, 1985, and October 7, 1985, subject to the
recommendations contained in the Staff Report dated October 25, 1985, and subject to
the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the site plan to provide for two-way traffic around the
proposed commercial building.
B. Improve internal circulation by eliminating the proposed gas pumps
or relocating to the northwest side of the commercial building.
C. Modify the site plan to provide for a right-turn lane in and a
right-turn lane out of this site.
D. Modify the landscape plan to increase berm height up to five feet
along Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway #169. Convert excess
parking areas to proof-of-parking and utilize for green space.
Provide additional green space around the proposed oak trees to be
retained. Provide additional coniferous plantings along the north
property line. Provide a mass planting of a mixture of plant
materials along the east property line.
E. Modify the site plan to show a five-foot concrete sidewalk
connection between this site and the sidewalk to be constructed
within road right-of-way along the north side of Anderson Lakes
Parkway.
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 Engineer.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
C. Submit an overall signaqe plan and lighting plan with details for
review.
nlC?'
Parkway Office/Service Center 7 October 25, 1985 •
O. Submit samples of proposed exterior building materials for review.
E. Construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk connecting this site to
a sidewalk to be constructed within the Anderson Lakes Parkway
between this site and Darnell Court along the north side of the
court.
1 r��
•
Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 28, 1985
C
.
•
•
•
•
F. PARKWAY OFFICE/SERVICE CENTER, by The Brauer Group, Inc. Request
for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density
fResidential to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.67 acres, Rezoning from
Rural to Community Commercial on 2.75 acres, Rezoning from Rural to
Office on 0.92 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.67 acres into two
lots. Location• Northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and
U.S. Highway #169-212. A public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 28, 1985
Mr. Don Brauer, representing the owners of the structure, reviewed the
proposal for relocating the structure known as the Major Media building from
its current location to the northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and
Highway #169, and adding structures to the development for a Community
Commercial/Office development. He then reviewed site characteristics and
existing surrounding land uses with the Commission.
Mr. Brauer stated that the final landscaping plan was still not available as
proponents wanted to meet with the surrounding adjacent property owners
again in order to meet their needs for screening from the uses proposed.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report with the Commission, noting that the areas of concern with the
proposal included access, internal circulation, parking, transition to the
existing and adjacent single family homes, protection of existing oaks on
the property, and pedestrian access from the adjacent neighborhood.
Mr. Bob Casey, 12695 Tussock Court, stated that the residents of the area
had met with the developer prior to the meeting. He stated that he felt
that, if the final details of the landscaping plan could be worked out to
adequately screen the existing single family homes from the proposed uses,
then there would be no objections to the development as proposed.
Mr. Rick Bowlds, 12575 Crowfoot Court, asked how long the project would take
r to complete. Mr. Brauer responded that it was the owner's intention to move
the structure prior to January, 1986. The remainder of the development
would take place in Spring, 1986. Mr. Bowlds asked about potential impact
on the pond to the north from the cars which would be in the parking lot.
Mr. Brauer explained that the Watershed District required the use of
skimming devices on all ponds now, and that one would be installed for
protection of this pond from any negative impacts of this development.
Marhuia stated that he felt the land use was appropriate for the area. He
asked if there was concern about the potential for two gas stations, one on
each side of Anderson Lakes Parkway. Planner Franzen stated that the
proposed gas station on the south side of Anderson Lakes Parkway, part of
another development, had never become a formal proposal.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Brauer Group, Inc., for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood
Commercial for 3.67 acres, for the Parkway Office/Service Center based on
plans dated October 21, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
7
Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 28, 1985
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Brauer Group, Inc., for Zoning
District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial for 2.75 acres and
from Rural to Office for 0.92 acre, for the Parkway Dffice/Service Center,
based on plans dated October 21, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Brauer Group, Inc., for Preliminary
Plat of 3.67 acres into two lots, for the Parkway Office/Service Center,
based on plans dated October 21, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-D-0
-
Ir
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-263
VACATION OF DRATNAGF AND UTIIITY FASFMFNTS ON
OUTLOT A, BRYANT LAKE OFFICE TECH CENTER
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has a certain drainage and utility easement
on Outlot A, Bryant Lake Office Tech Center, and
WHEREAS, the owner of said lot requests a vacation of a part of the easement
described as follows:
All drainage and utility easements within Outlot A, Bryant Lake Office
Tech Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the record plat
thereof.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 19, 1985, after due notice was
published and posted as required by law;
{ WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said easement is not necessary and
has no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
1. Said utility easement as above described is 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 November 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John 0. Frane, Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 41-85
BE IT ORDAINED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the following street
shalt be renamed:
West 66th Street east of Manchester Lane changed to Tanager Lane.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on November 19, 1985, and finally read, adopted and ordered published
at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on the 3rd day of December,
1985.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on November 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
}
John D. Frane, Clerk
l
:mil
6614 Manchester Lane
Eden Prairie, Mn, 55344
November 11, 19d5
City of Eden Prairie
6950 Eden Prairie Rd
Eden Prairie, Mn, 55344
SUBJECT: RENAMING W 66TH ST TO TANAGER LANE
•
TO lAWOM IT MaY CONCERN:
I object to the renaming of West 66tn St. It is one of the h
fen streets in Eden Prairie that references a relative location to
other communities. Please keep the West 66th St name for the East-
West portion of this street and name the North-South adjoining
street Tanager Lane.
Very truly yours,
1. i 'irr.4
L. E. Hirman
•
To: Mayor and Council
From: John D. Frane
Date: November 14, 1985
Re: Housing Revenue Bonds for Preserve Place Apartments-
$4,235,DOD Resolution 85-265
The project is located at the Northwest corner of Preserve Blvd.
and Basswood Road and consists of 77 units. The total cost is
estimated to be $5,294,D00; the applicant% equity is estimated at
$1,059,000. The sale will be a public offering backed by a letter
of credit or similiar securities. The property is zoned correctly
for its intended use. Resolution 85-265 is attached.
Councilmember offered the following Reso1rt±on
and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by
Councilmember _ . .
RESOLUTION NO. d S ^? C.
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
TO A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
REVENUE BOND PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA
STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C
WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") has, by Resolution No.
dated , adopted a Housing Plan for the
City in accordance with the Municipal Housing Programs Act,
Chapter 462C of the Minnesota Statutes (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, the Council has received a proposal from Preserve
Place Apartments Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited
partnership to be formed (the "Applicant"), that the City issue
its bonds or obligations in an approximate face amount not
to exceed $4,235,000 (the "Bonds") under the Act to finance
a proposed project that will consist of the acquisition of
land in the Northwest Quadrant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and
Basswood Road in the City, and the construction and equipping
( thereon, of up to seventy-seven rental apartment units (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project as proposed, will provide housing within
the City for families and individuals of low and moderate income
in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and the Housing
Plan of the City; and
WHEREAS, there was published in the Eden Prairie News and in
the Minneapolis Star & Tribune on , 1985 and
, 1985, respectively, a notice of public hearing
on the proposed Project, and that such duly noticed public
hearing was properly held before the Council on
, 1985, and at which public hearing all persons
who appeared were given an opportunity to express their views
with respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the
Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. On the basis of the public hearing and on the basis of
such facts and information as the Council has received
and deems relevant, the Council finds, determines and
declares that it appears to be in the best interest of
the City to issue its Bonds, either by private placement
1
or by public offering, under the Act to finance the Project
in an amount not to exceed $4,235,000.
2. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the
City Council and the issuance of Bonds for the purpose
of financing the development costs of the Project approved,
subject to final adoption of the Housing Plan and approval
of this program by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency,
and to mutual agreement of the Council, the Applicant,
and the initial purchasers 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 not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance,
legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except
the Project and each Bond, when, as, and if issued, shall
recite in substance that the Bond, including interest
thereon, is 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.
3. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to submit the
program proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency for its review and requesting its approval.
The Mayor, City Clerk, City Attorney and other officers,
employees, and agents of the City are hereby authorized
and directed to provide the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
with any preliminary information it may need for this
purpose, and the City Attorney is also authorized, in
cooperation with Oppenheimer Wolff Foster Shepard and
Donnelly, as bond counsel, to initiate preparation of such
documents as may be appropriate to the Project in order
that the Project may be carried forward expeditiously.
4. 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 operative instruments are executed. The
Applicant has agreed to pay to the City a fee equal to
one-eighth (1/8) of one percent (1%) of the outstanding
unpaid principal balance of the Bonds, as of the end of
each twelve (12) calendar month period following the issuance
of the Bonds.
5. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject
to the condition that by December 31, 1985 the City and
the Applicant shall have agreed to mutually acceptable
terms and conditions of a 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
-2-
above, or any extension thereof, and the Bonds are not
sold within such time, this Resolution shall expire and
be of no further effect.
6. The adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a 1
gu.:.....tcc or a firm commitment that the City will issue
the Bonds as requested by the Applicant. 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 in paragraph I hereof, 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 paragraph 1 hereof, 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.
7. The publications of the notices of public hearing referred
to above are hereby, in all respects, ratified and affirmed
by the Council.
Adopted by the City Council this day of
, 1985.
Mayor
•
Attest:
City Clerk
[SEAL]
•
•
Upon call of the roll, the vote on said motion was as follows:
Councilmembers: In Favor Opposed Absent Not Voting
1r
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Dated:
.xL'�c; I
To: Mayor and Council
From: John D. Frane
Date: Novemb
er 14, 1985
Re: Housing Revenue Bonds for Eden Pointe Apartments-
$7,865,000 Resolution 85-266
This project, located at the southwest quadrant of Homeward Hills
Road and Pioneer Trail, consists of 143 units and is zoned correctly
for its intended use. The applicants equity is estimated at
$1,966,250 an a total project cost of $9,831,250. The sale will
be a public offering backed by a letter of credit or similiar security.
Resolution 85-266 is attached for your consideration.
RESOLUTION NO. S G ,i
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 Subdivision 2 of Section 462C.05 of the Act upon
adoption of a program setting forth the information required by
(i 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 Eden Pointe Apartments Limited
Partnership (the Developer) have advised this Council that the
Developer proposes to construct a multifamily residential
housing development on approximately 15.3 acres of land owned
by the Developer, situated in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Homeward Hills Road and Pioneer Trail in the
City, composed of one hundred forty-three (143) 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 Eden Pointe Apartments (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 Nine Million Eight Hundred Thirty-one Thousand
Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($9,831,250).
1.04. Representatives of the Developer have requested that
the City issue its revenue bonds or other obligations in the
1.
1
lr
I
approximate aggregate face amount of Seven Million Eight
Hundred Sixty-five Thousand Dollars ($7,865,000) (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 he more economically
feasible.
1.06. This Council has been advised by representatives of
Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc., representing the Developer,
that on the basis of information available to them, the Project
is economically feasible, and the Bonds cr Notes 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 or Notes. The Bonds or Notes are
to be paid from the revenues of the Project.
i 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. On or before the day in which the notice of the
public hearing was published, the City submitted the Program
proposed to be adopted under the Act to the Metropolitan
Council for review and comment in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. Any comments submitted by the
Metropolitan Council have been presented to this Council in the
course of the public hearing held with respect to the proposed
Program.
1.11. The applicant has agreed to pay, directly or through
the City, any and all costs incurred by the City in connection
2.
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.
1.12. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a
guar ntce or .a fir„ commitment that the City will issue the
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.
1.13. All commitments of the City expressed herein are
subject to the condition that by November 19, 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 or Notes 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 or Notes in the
approximate aggregate face amount of Seven Million Eight
Hundred Sixty-five Thousand Dollars ($7,865,000), 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 or
Notes reaching definitive agreement and the provisions for
their payment.
3.
-,ii
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 or Notes,
and the provisions for payment of the principal of, the premium
if any, and interest on the Bonds or Notes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, this 19th day of November, 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
November 19, 1985, with the original thereof on file in my
4.
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)
5.
SOK:BLO
MEMORANDUM •
TO: Mayor and City Council
•
FROM: John D. Frane
SUBJECT: Housing Revenue Bonds for C.S.M. - $64,000,000
Resolution No. 85-267 •
DATE: November 15, 1985
The proponent is planning to construct 800 rental units on 31
acres of the Lloyd Cherne property north of Northrup King. Our
guide plan shows the site to be high density residential (up to
40 units per acre in the Major Center Area); the property is
zoned rural. An agreement addressing lack of proper zoning will
be drawn by the City Attorney's office. Owner's equity is
estimated at $7,114,500. Resolution No. 85-267 is included for •
your consideration.
JDF:jp
Zi
RESOLUTION NO. G
Councilmember introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF
REVENUE BONDS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES, GHAP'1'bR 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 the 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 multifmmily 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 C.M.S. Corporation, a Minnesota corporation or a
partnership in which it will be a general partner (the "Developer") have advised this
Council that the Developer proposes to construct a multifamily residential housing
development consisting of approximately 800 units of rental housing, located
Southwest of Eden Prairie Center on Highway 169 in the City and to operate the
facilities as a multifamily housing development under the Act (the "Project"). The
Project will consist of acquisition of land,the construction of the building thereon,and
the installation of equipment in connection therewith. At least twenty percent (20%)
of the units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are not greater
then 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 One Hundred Nine Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars($109,600,000).
1.04. Representatives of the Developer have requested that the City issue its
revenue bonds in the approximate aggregate face amount of Sixty Four Million Dollars
($64,000,000) (the "Bonds"), pursuant to the Act,and make a loan of the proceeds of
the sale of the Bonds to the Developer for 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.
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 Miller do Schroeder
Financial,Inc., 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.Q7. 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 constructed and equipped pursuant to
Subdivision 2,Section 462C.05 of the Act.
1.09. The Developer has agreed to pay any and all costs incurred by the City in
connection with the Project and its financing whether or not the program is approved
by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, whether or not the Project is completed,
and whether or not the Bonds are issued.
1.10. 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.
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 of issue the Bonds under the provisions of the Act in order to
finance costs to be incurred by the Developer in the 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 Sixty Four Million Dollars
($64,000,000), 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,and further subject to the Findings of Fact setting forth
the basis for issuance of 462C Housing Revenue Bonds for this project attached hereto.
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.
L+ij
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this {
day of November,1985.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for
Industrial Development or Housing Bond Financing
1. APPLICANT:
A. Business Name: CSM Corporation, or a partnership in which it is a
general partner.
B. Business Address: 680 Kasota Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
C. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor-
. ship, etc.):
CSM Corporation is a corporation. The partnership would be a general
or limited partnership.
D. State of incorporation or organization: Minnesota
E. Authorized Representative: Gary S. Holmes
F. Phone: 623-3311
2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS:
A. Gary S. Holmes President and Sole Shareholder
680 Kasota Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55414
B.
C. I.
Page -2-
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, ?RINCIPAL
PRODUCTS, ETC.: •
Developing, owning and managing real estate property.
•
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
A. Location and intended use:
Development of multifamily rental housing on approximately 31 acres
located Southwest of Eden Prairie Center on Highway 169
800 units will be develo ed.
B. Present ownership of project site:
Lloyd G. Cherne
C. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general
contractor:
• To be determined •
•
5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR:
Land $ 620.60O' 1,d.o,o+•*
Construction contracts ahrzar, AA, _SDISsa�rr'+
Equipment acquisition and installation* ,3,S015, agr: $.
Architectural and Engineering 2.LULDOG 4TaaK`e
Legal —la 99B 1 r x o,t-+-+
Interest during construction 4„99948
Bond reserve 44094390 a`?s'�t t't
Contingencies 4,.243r020,. 1-4-1 Ire"
Loan fees 3,-5Q9.•860 +,44-04 r4-1
Other .215r86A' c4-7l tt'p
rri
TOTAL $4041-690THOO-
*Heating and air conditioning should be included as building
costs. Indicate the kind of equipment to be acquired here.
7///4/"(6o
6. APPLICANT'S EQUITY IN PROJECT S 446600-09o'
•
Page -3-
7. BOND ISSUE:
A. Amount of proposed bond issue: 594800,0pe-
B. Proposed date of sale of bond: December, 1985
C. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities:
To be determined by Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
D. Proposed original purchaser of bonds:
To be determined by Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
E. Name and address of trustee:
To be determined
F. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original
purchaser:
N/A
G. Describe any interim financing sought or available:
To be determined
B. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing
in addition to bond financing:
N/A
8. BUSINESS PROFILE:
A. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie?
No
B. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
N/A
1. Before this project:
0
•
Page -4-
2. After this project? •36-40
•
C. Approximate annual sales: N/A
D. Length of time in business 9 years
in Eden Prairie N/A
•
E. Do you have facilities in other locations? If so, where?
• Sole Shareholder has mutltifamily rental projects in Minnesota,
South Dakota, Kansas, Missouri and Wyoming. Applicant also has
• commercial and industrial properties.
F. Are you engaged in international trade?
No
9. OTHER INDUSTRIAL 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 names) and
location(s) of other industrial development project(s)
in which the Applicant is the owner or a "substantial
user" of the facilities or a "related person".
None, however. applicant is a 5% partner in an industrial facility
financed through the Port Authority of the City of Saint Paul.
•
Page -5-
B. List all cities in which the Applicant h*srequestra
industrial revenue development financing.
1
Application for industrial facility in Saint Paul (approved).
Applications may be filed in other cities for housing financing.
C. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has
before any other city for industrial development
revenue financing.
Industrial - None
Housing - Pending
D. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused
industrial 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
•
Page -6-
P. If Applicant has been denied industrial deve] e'(
revenue financing in any other city as identi"tied is
(D) or (E), specify the reason(s) for the denial and
the name(s) of appropriate city officials who have
knowledge of the transaction.
N/A
10. NAMES, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE:
A. Underwriter (if public offering)
•
1. Name: Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
{
2. Address:. 7900 Xerxes Avenue, South
Minneapolis, MN 55431
3. Telephone Number: 831-1500
H. Private Placement Purchaser (if private placement)
To be determined by Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
1. Name:
2. Address:
3. Telephone Number:
•
n�w��
Page -7-
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: Holmes & Graven
2. Address: 470 Pillsbury Center
3. Telephone Number: 338-1177
D. Corporate Counsel:
1. Name: Steven A. Schumeister
2. Address: 680 Kasota Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55414
3. Telephone Number: 623-3311
E. Accountant:
1. Name: Schreier, Heimer & Kosbab
2. Address: 3570 Lexington Avenue
Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55112
3. Telephone Number: 482-1698
•
Page -B-
ll
. 11. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: •
A. Construction start: •
B. Construction completion:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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.
CSM CORPORATIQN
1 Applilccant
• BY: �lD''�--. e.0 •
DATE: October 25, 1985
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane
SUBJECT: Housing Revenue Bonds for H.D. Investments -
$10,080,000 Resolution No. 85-268
DATE: November 15, 1985
The parcel is located in the Timber Lakes area and is zoned R.M.
2.5 which is correct for the proposed use. The project would
consist of up to 144 units. Owner's equity is estimated to be
$1,420,000. Resolution No. 85-268 is included for your
consideration. •
JDF:jdp
.1 L✓�
RESOLUTION NO. OJ a 6�
CouncIlmember introduced the following resOition gad
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF
REVENUE BONDS 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 the 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 multifineily 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 HD Investment, Inc., a Minnesota corporation or a
partnership in which it will be a general partner (the "Developer") have advised this
Council that the Developer proposes to construct a multifamily residential housing
development consisting of approximately 144 units of rental housing, located on the
east side of Mitchell Lake, approximately one-half mile south of Highway 5, near
County Road 4 in the City and to operate the facilities as a multifamily housing
development under the Act (the "Project"). The Project will consist of acquisition of
land, the construction of the building thereon, and the installation of equipment in
connection therewith. At least twenty percent (20%)of the units will be specifically
reserved for tenants whose incomes are not greater then 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 Eleven Million Five
Hundred Thousand Dollars($11,500,000).
1.04. Representatives of the Developer have requested that the City issue its
revenue bonds in the approximate aggregate face amount of Ten Million Dollars
($10,000,000) (the 'Bonds"), pursuant to the Act, and make a loan of the proceeds of
the sale of the Bonds to the Developer for 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.
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.
I
1.06. This Council has been advised by representatives of Miller do Schroeder
Financial,Inc.,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 constructed and equipped pursuant to
Subdivision 2,Section 462C.05 of the Act.
1.09. The Developer has agreed to pay any and all costs incurred by the City in
connection with the Project and its financing whether or not the program is approved
by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, whether or not the Project is completed,
and whether or not the Bonds are issued.
1.10. 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.
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 of issue the Bonds under the provisions of the Act in order to
finance costs to be incurred by the Developer in the 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 Ten Million Dollars
($10,000,000), 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, and further subject to the Findings of Fact setting forth
the basis for issuance of 462C Housing Revenue Bonds for this project attached hereto.
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.
1,7
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota,this
day of November,1985,
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
:era;
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for
Industrial Development or Housing Bond Financing
1. APPLICANT:
A. Business Name: HD Investments, Inc., or a partnership in which it is a
general partner.
B. Business Address: 680 Kasota Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
C. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor—
. ship, etc.) :
HD Investments, Inc. is a corporation
The partnership may be a general or a limited partnership
D. State of incorporation or organization:
Minnesota
E. Authorized Representative:
David Carland
F. Phone: 623-3311
2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS:
A. David Carland
680 Kasota Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55414
B. Harold Dokmo
30 E. Plato
St. Paul, MN 55107
C.
•
Page -2-
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS,-IRFINCIPr1L
PRODUCTS, ETC.:
( Developing, owning and managing real estate property
•
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
A. Location and intended use:
Development of 144 multifamily housing rental units on 8.4 acres at
Timber Lake Trail and Eden Prairie Road ,
B. Present ownership of project site:
Norwest Bank Minneapolis
C. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general
contractor:
To be determined
•
5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR:
Land $ 440.000
Construction contracts 7.770_000
Equipment acquisition and installation* 415_000
Architectural and Engineering 35n_onn
Legal tnn.non
Interest during construction t.tso.non
Bond reserve 600.0nn •
Contingencies im.nnn
Loan fees 330.000
Other 150.0nn
TOTAL $11,500,000
*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 $iyar,npn
n+�J
•
• Page -3-
Ir
7. BOND ISSUE:
(
A. Amount of proposed bond issue: $10,080,000
B. Proposed date of sale of bond: December, 1985
•
C. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities:
To be determined by Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
D. Proposed original purchaser of bonds:
To be determined by Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
E. Name and address of trustee:
To be determined
F. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original •
purchaser:
N/A
G. Describe any interim financing sought or available:
To be determined
H. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing
in addition to bond financing:
N/A
8. BUSINESS PROFILE:
A. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie?
No
B. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
N/A See 2 below
1. Before this project:
0 •
' i
Page -4-
2. After this project? Approximately 10
•
C. Approximate annual sales:
N/A
D. Length of time in business In second year with corporate
entity, but substantial prior time in real estate development
in partnership and other entities.
• in Eden Prairie N/A
E. Do you have facilities in other locations? If so, where?
• Wyoming. Applicant also has commercial/industrial properties in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
P. Are you engaged in international trade? •
No
9. OTHER INDUSTRIAL 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 development project(s)
in which the Applicant is the owner or a "substantial
user" of the facilities or a "related persons.
Applicant is a 95Z partner in an industrial facility financed
through the Port Authority of the City of Saint Paul.
it
•
•
• Page -5-
B. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested
industrial revenue development financing.
Application for industrial facility in Saint Paul (approved).
G. Applications may be filed in other cities for housing financing.
•
•
C. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has
before any other city for industrial development
revenue financing.
D. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused
industrial 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 •
•
•
•
•
rh
Page -6-
F. If Applicant has been denied industrial develoEwat
. revenue financing in any other city as identifie!!! 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.
N/A
•
10. NAMES, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE:
A. Underwriter (if public offering)
•
1. Name: Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
2. Address:, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55431
• 3. Telephone Number: 831-1500
B. Private Placement Purchaser (if private placement)
To be determined by Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
1. Name:
2. Address:
3. Telephone Number:
•
Page
-'-
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: Holmes & Graven
2. Address: 470 Pillsbury Center
3. Telephone Number: 338-1177
D. Corporate Counsel:
1. Name: Steven A. Schumeister
2. Address: 680 Kasota Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55414
3. Telephone Number: 623-3311
E. Accountant:
1. Name: Schreier, Helmer & Kosbab
2. Address: 3570 Lexington Avenue
Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55112
3. Telephone Number: 482-1698
i
't? (d
•
Page -8-
11. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: •
A. Construction start:
B. Construction completion:
.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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.
11D INVESTME1fFS,_INC. •
pplicant
BY: b,. (2
DATE: October 25, 1985
•
1. .
•
f3'7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane
SUBJECT: Housing Revenue Bonds for Chimo Development
(Cardinal Creek) - $10,000,000 Resolution No.
85-269
DATE: November 15, 1985
This project is for Cardinal Creek Apartments which has received
PUD approval for up to 2OB units. The project cost is estimated
at $11,000,000 with developers' equity of S1,000,000. Resolution
No. 85-269 is included for your consideration.
JDF:jdp
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for
Housing Revenue Bonds
Under Chapter 426C, Minnesota Statutes
1. APPLICANT:
a. Business Name
Chime Development Corporation
b. Business Address
5290 Villa Way
Edina, MN 55436
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship,
etc.)
Corporation
•
d. State of Incorporation or Organization
( Minnesota
e. Authorized Representative
Robert L. Skarsten
f. Phone
(612) 925-1020
2. NAMES(S) ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS:
General Partners:
a. Mark Z. Jones II
5290 Villa Way
Edina, MN 55436
b.
t
•
I
•
•
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS;ZTC.:
Chimo Development is a building development company
that builds primarily multifamily residential housing.
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
a. Location and Intended Use:
The 40.7 acre site is located between Baker Road and I494,
just north of Cardinal Creek Road. A multi-family project of
208 units in several different building types is planned.
b. Present Ownership of Project Site:
Site is presently owned by Russell C. and Helen E. Marsh.
Cardinal Creek Village, a Minnesota limited partnership has an
option agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Marsh for the land.
• c. Names and Addresses of Architect, Engineer, and General
Contractor:
Freeberg Designs, Roger Freeberg - principle
Architect: 8624 Pine Hill Road
Bloomington, MN 55438
Engineer: Temple Associates, Inc. , Duane Temple - principle
1024 Twelve Oaks Center
15500 Wayzata Blvd.
General ContiarfifPta, MN 55391
Highland Villa Builders, Inc.
5290 Villa Way
Edina, MN 55436
5. ESTIMATED PROJECT FOR:
Land 1,5000,000.00
Building & Equipment $ 9,000,000.00
Other - Legal and 1,750,000.00
Underwriting Estimate $
160,COO.vv
Debt Service Reserve Fund
TOTAL $ 12,350,000.00
-JJ
•
6. BOND ISSUE:
a. Amount of Proposed Bond Issue
S10,000,000.00
•
b. Proposed Date of Sale of Bond
December, 1985
c. Length of Bond Issue and Proposed Maturities
20 Years - 2005
d. Proposed Original Purchaser of Bonds
Miller & Schroeder, Inc.
e. Name and Address of Suggested Trustee
First Trust Co., Inc.
f. Copy of any Agreement Between Applicant and Original Purchaser
g. Describe any Interim Financing Sought or Available
Interim financing would be secured through a local bank, such
as First Bank Minneapolis
h. Describe Nature and Amount of any Permanent Financing in Addition
to Bond Financing
We have commitments from private investors for permanent financing.
7. BUSINESS PROFILE OF APPLICANT:
a. Are You Located in the City of Eden Prairie?
No
b. Number of Employees in Eden Prairie?
i. Before this Project: _0_
ii. During this Project:
83
iii. After this Project? 10
c. Approximate Annual Sales S7,000,000.00
d. Length of Time in Business? six (6) years
In Eden Prairie? n/a
e. 49XR rH v PlaLD s in 0thcer hocat Bns? i g Sotcn Where? ApartmentRobBuildingsinsdale -
, Ric hfield,
ivavZZat
f ngaged in International Trade?
no
8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OR HOUSING REVENUE BOND PROJECT(S):
a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other housing or industrial
development project(s) in which the applicant is the owner or a
"substantial user" of the facilities or a "related person" within
the meaning of Section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code.
b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested industrial
revenue development or housing bond financing.
c. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before any
other city for industrial development or housing revenue
financing.
d. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused industrial
development or housing revenue financing.
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.
f. If Applicant has been denied industrial development or housing
revenue financing in any other city as indentified 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.
9. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF:
a. Underwriter (If Public Offering)
Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.
7900 Xerxes Aveneu South
P.O. Box 789
Minneapolis, MN 55431
b. Private Placement Purchaser (If Private Placement)
c. Bond Counsel
Barbara Portwood
Holmes & Graven
Minneapolis, MN
d. Corporate Counsel
Greg Gustafson
Gustafson h Adams
e. Accountant
j St.i.rtz, Bernard & Casey
\ St. Paul, MN
r�t�.l
10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction Start
June 1986
b. Construction Completion
August 1989
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or disapproval by
the City of Eden Prairie for revenue bond financing under Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 462C, or adoption of a program thereunder, does not
expressly or by implication 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, and any other law
applicable to the property included in this project.
4/.2,1.5;i7e, .4'‘,/‘/.4),,47.10,,,,4 Pr;
Applicant 4
B �sPa' "1141.e ;tr
Date
11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.b S d` y
CounciImember introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF
REVENUE BONDS 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 the 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 multifmaily 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 Chimo Development, a Minnesota corporation or a
partnership in which it will be a general partner in a Minnesota general partnership
(the "Developer")have advised this Council that the Developer proposes to construct a
multifamily residential housing development consisting of approximately 208 units of
rental housing, located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Baker Road
and Cardinal Creek Road in the City and to operate the facilities as a multifamily
housing development under the Act (the "Project"). The Project will consist of
acquisition of land, the construction of the building thereon, and the installation of
equipment in connection therewith. At least twenty percent(20%)of the units will be
specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are not greater then 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 Eleven
Million Dollars($11,000,000).
1.04. Representatives of the Developer have requested that the City issue its
revenue bonds in the approximate aggregate face amount of Ten Million Dollars
($10,000,000) (the "Bonds"), pursuant to the Act, and make a loan of the proceeds of
the sale of the Bonds to the Developer for 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.
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.
�L`
1.06. This Council has been advised by representatives of Miller &Pain-vier
Financial,Inc.,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 constructed and equipped pursuant to
Subdivision 2,Section 462C.05 of the Act.
1.09. The Developer has agreed to pay any and all costs incurred by the City in
connection with the Project and its financing whether or not the program is approved
by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, whether or not the Project is completed,
and whether or not the Bonds are issued.
1.10. 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.
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 of issue the Bonds under the provisions of the Act in order to
finance costs to be incurred by the Developer in the 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 Ten Million Dollars
($10,000,000), 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, and further subject to the Findings of Fact setting forth
the basis for issuance of 462C Housing Revenue Bonds for this project attached hereto.
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.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota,this
day of November, 1985.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
NOVEMBER 19,1985
23667 VOID OUT CHECK 204.00-
'3719 CECERE & SONS FURNITURE UPHOLSTERY -COMMUNITY CENTER 48.00
23720 JOHN CONLEY SCHOOL -POLICE DEPT 50.00
23721 BOB MORAN STORAGE BUILDING-POLICE DEPT 950.00
23722 SAM CHARCHIAN REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 23.00
23723 BRADFORD LANDRY REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 1.75
23724 LAURA NEWMAN REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 9.75
23725 COLIN SCHMITT REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
23726 ANNE STRAND REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 11.25
23727 SUSAN STRAND REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 23.00
23728 JOHN D WELLS REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 12.75
23729 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 6470.95
2373D JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE 2611.70
23731 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 3058.58
23732 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 978.10
23733 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 2214.24
23734 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 484.26
23735 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 157.67
23736 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 3634.14
23737 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 1420.11
23738 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 525.41
23739 INTERNATIONAL MARKET SQUARE ADULT TRIP- HISTORICAL TOUR 67.50
23740 ATRIUM CAFE INTERNATIONAL ADULT TRIP & LUNCH -MARKET SQUARE 352.14
23741 ST ANDREWS LUTHERAN CHURCH CLOWN MAKEUP SUPPLIES FOR HALLOWEEN PARTY 25.00
23742 ALEC BURTON REFUND -TOTS SKATING LESSONS 11.00
23743 BERNETTE BRANDON REFUND -INTERNATIONAL MARKET SQUARE TRIP 14.75
'3744 KATHY GARDNER REFUND -KIDS KORNER 13.00
3745 KRIS HOLBROOK REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 23.00
23746 CHRISTENE WATT REFUND -MARKET SQUARE TRIP 14.75
23747 MRPA MRPA FALL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 110.00
23748 REGISTAR DEPT OF PRDF DEVELOPMENT REGISTRATION APWA FALL CONFERENCE-ENG DEPT 85.00 '
23749 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 8.75
23750 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 10.75
23751 CHECK PAPPAS MILEAGE -COMMUNITY CENTER 56.25
23752 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 11/1/85 19509.69
23753 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 11/1/85 8218.78
23754 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 11/1/85 15621.70
23755 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG NOVEMBER 85 DUES 647.85
23756 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 11/1/85 4951.00
23757 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 11/1/85 10.00
23758 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 11/1/85 1858.00
23759 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 11/1/85 1810.00
23760 PER A PAYROLL 11/1/85 17356.20
23761 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 5822.39
23762 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC NOVEMBER 85 INSURANCE 6051.45
23763 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC NOVEMBER 85 INSURANCE 1887.90
23764 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN NOVEMBER 85 INSURANCE 12849.12
23765 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE CO NOVEMBER 85 INSURANCE 842.03
23766 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERIES 65.00
23767 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 13.80
23768 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC NOV RENT -LIQUOR STORE 3967.04
23769 KRISTIN DE WEESE REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 3.25
3770 JUSTIN VORTHERMS REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
c3771 HOPKINS POSTMASTER HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 56.42
23772 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 2345.04
I2718521
1
23773 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 63.05 1
23774 PAUSTIS & SONS WINE 207.87
23775 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 940.20
23776 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO WINE 591.32
'3777 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 350.85
1 ;778 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 434.77
6779 ED PHILLIPS & SONS WINE 3638.63
23780 JOHNSON 8ROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 3255.69
23781 PAUL REDPATH EXPENSES 31.63
?37R2 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER -DNR PERMIT APPLICATION FEE-SMETANA LANE 50.00
CULVERT REPLACEMENT
23783 VOID CHECK 0.00
23784 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 665.63
23785 KURT A SANDNESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 204.00
23786 TRACY OIL CO INC UNLEADED GAS -STREET DEPT 9265.D6
237B7 HENNEPIN COUNTY BAR ASSDCIATION CDNFERENCE-ASSISTANT MANAGER 8.00
23788 BEVERLY EASTHOUSE REFUND -MARKET SQUARE TRIP 11.75
23789 MARY J JEUB REFUND -MARKET SQUARE TRIP 11.75
23790 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 58.41
23791 BEER WHOLESALERS BEER 4328.15
23792 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CD BEER 48.40
23793 CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 10375.25
23794 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIXES 529.14
23795 DAY DISTRI8UTING CO BEER 2935.20
23796 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 5882.20
23797 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 310.80
23798 MARK VII SALES BEER 3768.15
23799 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO MIXES 424.20
23800 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CD MIXES 160.75
238D1 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CD BEER 10896.61
-'802 TWIN CITY HDME JUICE CO • MIXES 35.28
.303 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 257.88 !,
23804 ALLIED STEEL & ENGINEERING INC WIRE MESH-DRAINAGE DEPT 40.00
23805 AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH CO -FIRE ALARM & SECURITY SYSTEM-WATER & 700.59
STREET BUILDINGS
23806 AMERICAN EXCELSIOR COMPANY SOIL EROSION CONTROL MATERIAL -PARK MAINT 103.20
23807 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO RUG SERVICE 9.05
23808 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC BOOKS-PLANNING DEPT 73.00
23809 AMP PRODUCTS CORP BATTERY CABLES/BATTERY BOLT 556.63
23810 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC STREET SIGNS 2140.60
23811 JERRY ANDERSON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 70.00
23812 AQUA ENGINEERING INC 1" PIPE & COUPLERS -DRAINAGE 6.76
23813 AQUATIC MANAGEMENT COUNSULTING POND MAINTENANCE- P/S BLDG 160.00
23814 AQUATROL DIGITAL SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT REPAIRS -WATER DEPT 108.25
23815 DALE ARNDT OCTOBER 85 CUSTODIAL SERVICE 200.00
23816 ASPLUND COFFEE CO INC CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 78.00
23817 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP 2051.84
23818 ASTLEFORD INTL INC OIL PUMP- EQUIPMENT MAINT 25.30
23819 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 50.47
23820 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 1020.35
23821 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY SHOP BENCHES -STREET GARAGE 375.57
23822 AVR INC CONCRETE- PARK MAINT 87.24
23823 BACHMANS FLOWERS 20.50
23824 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -3 BATTERIES/BRAKE SHOES/WIPER BLADES/ 353.13
WASHER PUMPS/MIRROR HEAD
i '97110
23825 8LACK & VEATCH SERVICE- WATER TREATMENT EXPANSINI ,29537.P3
23826 LOIS BOETTCHER SERVICE- PARK & REC COMM MEETIMI 11/4/85 73.50
23827 CHARLES BORGMAN EXPENSES- WATER DEPT 31.61
'3828 BOYER FORD TRUCK STEERING WHEEL PARTS -EQUIPMENT M ! T 981.25
J829 8RAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE- TANAGER CREEK 3162.35
23830 8REDEMUS HARDWARE CO SPINDALS -P/S BLDG 9.75 '
23831 BROWN PHOTO -FILM -ASSESSING DEPT 5298.75/CAMERA -FIRE 1713.20
-DEPT $1225.35/FILM PROCESSING -POLICE & •
FORESTRY DEPT
23832 MAXINE 8RUECK OFFICE SUPPLIES 7.74
23833 MICHAEL BURGETT VOLLEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 52.00
23834 8RUNSON INSTRUMENT CO EQUIPMENT RENTAL -ENG & WATER TREATMENT 208.50
23835 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC ROCK 3763.46
23836 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC 2 LOCKERS -WATER DEPT 441.12
23837 8URY & CARLSON INC SERVICE- EDENVAI.E 8LVD RAILROAD CROSSING 4100.62
23838 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES -LIQUOR STORE 684.00
23839 CARGILL SALT DIVISION SALT -STREET DEPT 8215.20
23840 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC SERVICE P993.28
23841 BILL CARROLL HOCKEY & 8ASKET8ALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 138.00
23842 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SERVICE- LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR 2263.43
23843 CHANHASSEN 8UMPER TO 8UMPER -VALVES/GAS CAP/8ELTS/HOSES/EXHAUST OIL 2768.15
-FILTER/OIL SWITCH/GASKET/ROTOR/SPARK
-PLUGS/PIPE/WHEEL WEIGHTS/ALTERNATOR/HOSE
CLAMPS/FITTINGS/MUFFLER
23844 CHEMSPEC ORDOR SPRAY- FIRE DEPT 107.45
23845 PETER CHOU REFUND - WATER & SEWER BILL 117.33
23846 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC HUB CAP SEALS/VALVES 160.32
23847 CLUTCH & U-JOINT 8URNSVILLE INC SPEED KITS- EQUIPMENT MAINT 78.96
23848 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE -MITCHELL RD 733.54 '
'849 COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY MN SQUAD LIGHTS -POLICE DEPT 150.99
..5850 CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC FACEPIECE/DRY CHEMICAL -FIRE DEPT 278.50
23851 COPY EQUIPMENT INC VELLUM/BLACKLINE -PLANNING DEPT 13.78
23852 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC COFFEE -CITY HALL 149.13
23853 CRYSTAPLEX PLASTICS LTD ICE EDGER BLADES -COMMUNITY CENTER 50.00
23854 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC ADAPTER/CAPS -FIRE DEPT 174.60
23855 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME -WATER DEPT 5D69.96
23856 WARD F DAHLBERG OCTOBER 85 EXPENSES 80.00
23857 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE 25.25
23858 DAY-TIMERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES -COMMUNITY SERVICES 15.45
23859 DEVOE & RAYNOLDS CO PAINT BRUSHES -WATER DEPT 142.04
23860 EUGENE DIETZ OCTOBER 85 EXPENSES 165.00
23861 DOYLE LOCK SUPPLY REPAIR LOCKS -P/S BLDG 11.63
23862 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 152.80
23863 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES -POLICE DEPT 22.83
23864 DENNIS P EARLEY MILEAGE 33.75
23865 EAU CLAIRE COUNTY WITHHOLDING FROM EMPLOYEE PER COURD ORDER 3.00
23866 ECONOMY TROPHY 8ASKETBALL TROPHIES & PLAQUES 126.80
23867 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS OCTOBER 85 TRASH PICKUP 325.00
23868 CITY OF EDINA OCTOBER 85 TESTS 197.00
23869 JEFFREY ELWELL MILEAGE 10.00
23870 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHLORINE -WATER DEPT 769.05
23871 RICHARD FEERICK REFUND FIRE HYDRANT DEPOSIT 100.00
23872 FINLEY 8ROS ENTERPRISES -INSTALL 3 BACKSTOPS- FRANLO RD PARK & 5485.00
EDEN VALLEY PARK
589355
1
23873 FLYING CLDUD SANITARY LANDFILL TAX ON LANDFILL REFUSE -PARK MAIM 72.78 1
23874 FDRD TANK & PAINTING CO INC PAINT EXTERIOR OF RESERVOIR -WRIER DEPT 1500.00 !
23875 G & K SERVICES TOWELS/COVERALLS/MOPS -WATER-DEPT 258.10
23876 SHARON GAGNON SERVICE 80.00 1
'3877 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR & PARTS 88.81
3878 G L CONTRACTING INC -SERVICE- VALLEY VIEW/PARKVIEW/GULFVIEW/ ID863.44
PARKVIEW TERRACE
23879 GLIDDEN PAINT PAINT- PARK MAINT 130.56
23880 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTERS 13 TIRES -EQUIPMENT MAINT 957.42
23881 DALE GREEN CO SOD- WATER DEPT 5.50
23882 EDDIE GREGORY SOFTBALL & HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 104.95
23883 HACH CO FLUORIDE -WATER DEPT 211.08
23884 HANCO LOCK RING -STREET MAINT 27.90
23885 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT SEPTEMBER 85 BOOKING FEE 367.96
23886 HENNEPIN COUNTY SEPTEMBER 85 BOARD OF PRISIONERS 2833.84
23887 HI Fl SOUND ELECTRONICS REPAIR TAPE RECORDER 30.75
23888 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -FLOAT SWITCHES/SQUEEGEE REFILL-COMMUNITY 493.90
CENTER
23889 HOTSY EQUIPMENT CO NOZZLE/COUPLERS -P/W BLDG 77.60
23890 HOPKINS PARTS CO TRAILER LIGHTS -EQUIP MAINT 16.36
23891 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 CUSTODIAL WORK -OCT 85 I788.19
23892 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC BULBS- WATER TREATMENT PLANT 160.20
23893 INTL CONFERENCE OF BLDG OFFICIALS 1986 DUES - BLDG 120.00
23894 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC CANON TONER -POLICE DEPT 51.70
23895 JAK OFFICE PRODUCTS RECORD BOOK -FIRE DEPT 26.00
23896 JET PHOTO LABS PRINTS -PDLICE DEPT 8.81 '
23897 CARL JULLIE EXPENSES - OCTOBER 44.51
23898 JUSTUS LUMBER CO -ROOF CEMENT/LUMBER/SCREWS -WATER TREAT- 279.34
-MENT PLANT/PARK MAINT/TREES
3899 KATE KARNAS EXPENSES -PLANNING DEPT 31.75
_3900 KARULF HARDWARE INC -EXTENSION CORD/KEYS/SCREWS/NAILS/TOOL 819.55
-RACK/WIRE CUTTERS/HOE/SOAP/PLASTIC BAGS/
-SCREWDRIVERS/BATTERIES/STEEL WOOL/PAINT/
GARBAGE CAN/OUTLET/LIGHT BULB
23901 KELLY SERVICES INC TEMPORARY HELP- POLICE DEPT 349.91
23902 KOCH BUS SERVICE INC 8US SERVICE -COMMUNITY SERVICES 173.60
23903 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER TUBING/TAPE/PICTURE FRAMES- WATER DEPT 27.74
23904 RALPH KRATOCHVIL EXERCISE CLASSES INSTRUCTOR -FEES PD 26.00
23905 LANCE SUPPLIES -LIQUOR STORE 81.20
23906 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD SEPTEMBER 85 LEGAL SERVICE 10672.60
23907 ROBERT LAMBERT OCTOBER 85 EXPENSES 165.00
23908 LANE INSURANCE INC INSURANCE 6021.00
23909 BRAD LARSON REFUND - WATER & SEWER 8ILL 21.66
23910 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES -VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT FOR SPECIAL LEAGUE 3061.23
-OF MINNESOTA CITIES/NAHRD TAX INCREMENT
FINANCE STUDY & LOBBYING EFFORT
23911 LEEF 8ROS INC RUGS/COVERALLS -STREET/POLICE & CITY HALL 515.90
23912 LYMAN LUMBER CO LUMBER FOR MITCHELL TRAIL BRIDGE 16.64
23913 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC SPRINGS -STREET MAINT 8.82
23914 MARK'S EDEN PRAIRIE AMOCO GAS - POLICE DEPT 27.00
23915 MASYS CORPORATION DEC 85 SYSTEM MAINT 914.00
239I6 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO DXYGEN -FIRE DEPT 52.08
435853E
( )i
,2?SJ
23917 MERIT/JULIAN GRAPHICS FORMS- BUILDING DEPT 648.75
23918 MERLIN'S HARDWARE HANK SPRING/BOLTS -EQUIP MAINT 8.74
23919 METRO FONE COMM INC NOVEMBER 85 PAGER SERVICE 54.12
23920 METRO SALES INC TONER FOR COPIER - STREET GARAGE 75.74
23921 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM DEC 85 SEWER SERVICE 93146.96
'3922 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY LETTER 192.25
23923 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP 13699.57 '!
23924 MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO EMPLOYMENT AD -ASSESSING DEPT 99.00
23925 MINNESOTA ASSOC OF ASSESSING OFFI EMPLOYMENT AD -ASSESSING DEPT 136.80
23926 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES -LIQUOR STORE 59.75
23927 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP NOV 85 PAGER RENTAL -WATER DEPT 25.75
23928 MINNESOTA PROTECTIVE LIFE/ SERVICE 175.00
23929 CARL J JULLIE CONFERENCE -CITY MANAGER 55.00
23930 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC -EMPLOYMENT ADS -SUPERINTENDENT OF 35.00
RECREATION
23931 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC VOLLEYBALL TEAM REGISTRATIONS -FEES PD 352.00
23932 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC BASKETBALL TEAM REGISTRATION -FEES PD 264.00
23933 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC EMPLOYMENT AD-COMMUNITY CENTER 16.25
23934 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 72.50
23935 M-V GAS CO FUEL- SENIOR CENTER 152.00
23936 MODERN TIRE CO WHEEL ALIGNMENT -POLICE DEPT 19.95
23937 MOTOROLA INC REPAIR RADIO -POLICE DEPT 112.10
23938 MY CHEESE SHOP EXPENSES 57.06
23939 MUNICILITE CO STROBE LIGHTS -STREET MAINT 159.00
23940 PAUL R MYERS OPEN GYM SUPERVISOR -FEES PD 60.00
23941 THE NATIONAL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION TREE CITY USA PATCHES 60.00
23942 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC BOOKS/DUES -FIRE DEPT 211.50
23943 NORTHERN CULVERT OPERATIONS CULVERTS -DRAINAGE CONTROL 253.50
23944 NORTHERN POWER PRODUCTS INC SERVICE CONTRACT KOHLER GENERATOR-P/S 247.50
23945 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1673.17
'3946 NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA BOND PAYMENTS 153635.12
t 3947 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO REPAIR CUT CABLE-STARING LANE/MITCHELL RD 1375.50
23948 CURTIS R OBERLANDER MILEAGE 131.00
23949 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 173.95
23950 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC SHEAVE/BINDER CHAIN- P/W 224.50
23951 PARK AUTO UPHOLSTERY REPAD CAR SEAT- PARK MAINT 45.00
23952 MIKE PAUL ELECTRIC INC CHECK WELDING OUTLET -WATER PLANT 41.00
23953 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO CONCESSION -COMMUNITY CENTER 96.00
23954 CONNIE PETERS MILEAGE 13.25
23955 JOYCE PHELPS SKATING INSTRUCTOR -FEES PD 12.00
23956 THE PIERCE COMPANY WINDOW SHADE -FIRE DEPT 71.50
23957 PLEHAL BLACKTOPPING INSTALL ASPHALT DRIVEWAY 1980.00
23958 KEITH A POKELA VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 52.00
23959 POMMER MFG CO INC BASKETBALL & FOOTBALL TROPHIES 70.00 ,
23960 POWER RAKE EQUIPMENT CO SNOWPLOW LAMP -STREET DEPT 130.00
23961 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -REPAIR OUTSIDE LIGHTS -COMMUNITY CENTER/ 488.60
REPLACE BALLAST - LS#1
23962 PRIOR LAKE AGGRETATE INC SAND 2085.48
23963 QUALITY FITNESS EXERCISE CLASSES INSTRUCTOR -FEES PD 120.00
23964 AAGE REFFSGAARD EXPENSES -BUILDING DEPT 15.00
23965 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-COMPREHENSIVE SEWER/PRESERVE BLVD 19308.86
-/CREEK CROSSING AT GOLDEN TRIANGLE DR/
FLYING CLOUD DR/TECHNOLOGY DR
23966 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO -INSTALL SEAL KIT IN LOWER BOOM CYLINDER- 282.46
PARK MAINT
"9247418
7`.I
r
23967 ROAD RESCUE INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR -FIRE DEPT 555.09 /
23968 ROHACO STRAINER FOR DRAIN- WATER TREATMENT PLANT 33.00
23969 R H ROMENS CONST CO REFUND -BLDG DEPT 25.00
23970 ST PAUL STAMP WORKS INC DOG TAGS 153.42
'3971 BETH SAUGEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 104.00
i, 3972 VOID CHECK 0.00
23973 SAVOIE SUPPLY COMPANY INC PAINT - WATER DEPT 89.50
23974 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO -WIRE WHEEL/SANDING DRUM SET/SANDING 22.55
SHEAVES -PARK MAINT
23975 ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY ADVANCED DRIVERS TRAINING -FIRE DEPT 646.00
23916 STEVEN R SIiELL EXPENSES OCTOBER 65 829.48
23977 SHAKOPEE FORD INC -CABLE/SWITCH/ARM REST/VISOR/KNOB/NUTS/ 23I6.95 .
-GRILLE/FLOOR MAT/REPAIR K9 UNIT/-EQUIP
MAINT/FIRE/POLICE DEPTS
23978 W E NEAL SLATE CO LINE BOARD -POLICE DEPT 32.50
23979 W GORDON SMITH CO -REG GAS $524.50/MUFFLER/PIPE/CHOKE/PULL 10564.61
-OFF/FITTINGS/HYDRAULIC FLUID/ADAPTOR/
MOBILUBE- EQUIP MAINT & REPAIR/P/S/POLICE
23980 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP CLUTCH ADJ WRENCHES/DOOR OIL -ST GARAGE 92.90
23981 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC LEGAL ADS 882.90
23982 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADS -COMM CENTER/ASSESSING 69.00
23983 SPRAYCO INC OIL/REPAIR GUN -POLICE DEPT 88.20 '
23984 SPECIALTY SCREENING 31 BLUE NUMBERS- POLICE DEPT 4.00
23985 STEWART LUMBER CO LUMBER 100.10
23986 STENCILS & MARKING PRODUCTS INC BLACK MARKERS -BLDG DEPT 29.24
23987 SULLIVANS SERVICE REFUNO- PLUMBING PERMIT 41.00
23988 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC SERVICE-RESEARCH RD 50.00 f
23989 TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICES INC PAGER BATTERIES -FIRE DEPT 151.46
23990 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC KROY TAPE & RIBBONS/COMMUNITY SERVICES 67.44
23991 KEVIN TIMM FOOTBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 351.00
1992 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN 13.02
_3993 TWIN CITY TESTING SERVICE- REVIEW WATER LEAKAGE 599.22
23994 UNITED LABORATORIES INC UNIFORMS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES 1156.90
23995 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC SCREWS & NUTS -STREET GARAGE 145.77
23996 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS- COMMUNITY CENTER 638.55
23997 WATER PRODUCTS CO -METERS #3197.00/WOVEN FABRIC WATER LEAK 4750.92
LOCATOR 1450.OD
23998 WATERITE INC PUMP/CHART PAPER - COMMUNITY CENTER 390.46
23999 WEST WELD ADAPTER/WIRE WHEEL/DIE GRINDER-ST GARAGE 116.21 '
24000 JON WESTERHAUS HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 28.00
24001 XEROX CORP SERVICE 130.78
24002 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID SUPPLIES 113.05
24003 ZIEGLER INC BREAKER -STREET DEPT 9.40
24004 CHANNEL CONST SERVICE -TANAGER CREEK 96805.17
24005 HARDRIVES SERVICE - PRESERVE BLVD 187563.78
24006 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE - ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY 2132B3.26
24007 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE - EDEN ROAD & SINGLETREE LANE 3839.95
24008 BRIDGET RIPKA REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 10.10
24009 JEFF JOHNSON REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 5.50
24010 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 1981.97
240I1 NORTHERN STATES POWER SERVICE 839.54
24012 AT & T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 5.85
240I3 KLEVE HTG & AIR COND INC -CHEMICAL STORAGE ROOM ALTERNATIONS TO 545.00
PUBLIC SAFETY AREA
53029374
24014 DENNIS 0 & FRANCES ANN GONYEA LAND -PRAIRIE VILLAGE APTS -SENIOR BLDG 150000.00
24015 ERIC SAUGEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 208.00
24D16 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORMS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES 1156.90
15136490
S1288768.06
t
_phi
10 GENERAL 217838.01
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 2175.35
15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 396225.95
17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 32148.55
PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 6694.01
UTILITY BOND FUND 31900.66
44 UTILITY DEBT FUND 153433.82
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 523879.73
52 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FLND 201.30
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 5970.27
73 WATER FUND 27684.88 •
77 SEWER FUND 94485.68
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 152729.85
$1288768.06
•
•
•
r4
STATE OF
it
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PHONENO.296-7523
October 21, 1985 gi .HF"i�<f[. `�
Ms. Jean Johnson
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Euen Prairie, Minnesota 55344
•
Re: SEVER PETERSON FLOODPLAIN FILL, RILEY CREEK
Dear Ms. Johnson:
As you requested I have reviewed the calculations made by Leon Zeug of
the Hennepin Conservation District and have the following comments for •
the City to consider.
It is apparent from the best information available that the fill placed
east of County Road 4 between Highway 169 and Mr. Peterson's driveway does
not substantially affect the flood stage of the Minnesota River. With
respect to the effect of the fill on the Riley Creek floodplain,
Mr. Zeug's analysis - as he said - does not absolutely show the resulting
floodstage because of the lack of coordinating information supplied to
( him. However, it appears there will be no measurable change in floodstages
upstream or downstream of Mr. Peterson's driveway.
Therefore we would not object to the City's approval of the inplace fill.
We do feel, however, that some conditions should be placed on that approval:
1. Should the filled site ever be developed, extensive tests should
be performed to ensure structure stability.
2. In the event of development, more accurate hydraulic studies
should be done - i.e. a backwater analysis - to ensure that future
structures will not be impacted by the 100-year flood.
3. Because Mr. Peterson's existing driveway is lower than the
anticipated 100-year flood elevation, an emergency evacuation
plan should be established in the event that his access is cut
off.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please feel free to call should •
you like to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
(JucHi Bo
Area Hydrologist
dv
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Hennepin Conservation District
12450 Wayzata Boulevard,Suite 205•Minnetonka,Minnesota 55343•Telephone(812)544-8572
October 2, 1985
•
`D iEa:yE.4ivdiE•
F
Mr. Sever Peterson
F;^ L16 .r
15900 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Sever:
At your request, the HCD has reviewed the affects of
your work along Riley Creek. The City of Eden Prairie is
concerned over the fill placed along the backwaters of the
Minnesota River. The MN DNR is concerned with the affects
on the flood stage of Riley Creek, because of your altered
driveway.
The fill placed along the east bank of Riley Creek next
to County Road 4 will have a negligible impact on the
Minnesota River 100 year flood profile. The fill represents
only a loss in flood storage and not a change in the
capability of the cross section to pass flows. This fill
would present a problem if placed on the south side of
Highway 169 where a constriction of the cross section of the
Minnesota River would increase the flood stage. This type
of constriction is that which the MN DNR based the existing
law for flood plan regulations. Lost flood storage
traditionally has not been the basis for administering flood
plain regulations. Rather, flood storage lost to
construction activities is a concern for storm water
drainage plans and policies.
The following table lists the lost flood storage to the
Minnesota River. This table was computed according to the
topography mapped for the adjacent property, Lion's Tap.
The engineer for the Lower Minnesota River Watershed
District will need to interpret the final affect on the
flood plain according to the lost storage.
Fill Volume
Stage Volume
feet above MSL acre-feet
718 0.6
720 2.4
722 4.8
724 7.7
726 10.2
728 12.7
cousrm.,ATION ()EVE/OP,..Er4T •,ELF G'JVEA'JMENT
Iz�=r •
Mr. Sever Peterson
October 2, 1985
Page 2
The fill on the private driveway represents a changed
constriction to the Riley Creek 100 year flood profile. The
filling above the driveway altered.the cross section of flow
on Riley Creek by an unknown amount. The MN DNR requests
that the affect on the 100 year flood profile for Riley
Creek be determined.
This analysis is difficult for the following reasons.
The original profile of the private driveway is not
available. The methodology for computing the 100 year
profile was not disclosed. The 100 year flood elevations
were listed to the nearest whole foot on the profile.
The above three points require some discussion since we
need to compare the existing conditions with the 100 year
profile. For example, the original profile of the driveway
should be compared with the surveyed profile of the existing
driveway in order to determine the altered flow area.
Presently, the owner can only give his best estimate of the
fill which he placed. Also, this analysis must be
consistent with the previous work in order to reasonably
compute the surcharge at this private driveway. If this
analysis cannot match the original 100 year flood profile,
then how correct will the computed surcharge be? Finally,
the 100 year profile is shown and listed to the nearest
whole foot, however the surcharge must be computed to the
nearest 0.1 foot. The computations for the surcharge
requires an accuracy one order of magnitude greater than the
100 year flood profile. Again, any analysis different than
the original flood study will face considerable difficulty
in both determining and presenting the final surcharge
resulting from the fill at the driveway.
The following discussion lists the assumptions,
analysis, and results for determining the surcharge at the
private driveway. This analysis used Manning's equation for
steady-state, open channel flow.
Assumptions:
- The difference in stage determined by just this
analysis is representative of the surcharge.
- No submergence of the driveway due to downstream
conditions
- Owner's best estimate of the driveway fill
represents the altered cross section.
- Energy grade line is the same as the channel
grade.
- Friction value is approximately 0.02.
Mr. Sever Peterson
October 2, 1985
Page 3 •
- The flow of the stream does not have such momentum
causing one overbank to be more effective than
another overbank.
- Culverts do not contribute to the capacity of the
cross section. j
Analysis:
• The following tables list the altered cross
sections according .to flow area and discharge.
Area Rating Curve
Area
•
Stage Previous Existing
Feet above MSL Conditions, sq. ft. Conditions, sq. ft.
723.2 0 0
724 49 49
725 166 166
726 317 315
727 491 486
728 684 678
Discharge Rating Curve
Discharge
Stage Previous Existing
Feet above MSL Conditions, cfs Conditions, cfs
723.2 0 0 •
724 230 230
725 1410 1420
726 3640 3730
727 6990 7140
Results:
- The above tables and the attached plot of the
discharge rating curve shows that no surcharge
occurs because of the fill on the driveway at Q100
= 1360 cfs.
- This analysis shows that the flood stage for the
driveway is at 725.0 without submergence.
- The backwater from the Minnesota River submerges
the driveway at a depth of 726.
•
•
•
Mr. Sever Peterson _
October 2, 1985
Page 4
- The energy grade line for this reach of Riley
Creek is different than the profile of the stream
bottom.
- The correct energy grade is complicated because of
the submergence of the cross section. More de-
tailed information would reasonably determine the
correct value.
In conclusion, this analysis does not absolutely show
the correct surcharge resulting from fill at the driveway.
However, the preceding table for area shows that the flow
area does not measurably change at the flood stage. The
discharge rating curve reflects this small change at the ex-
pected flood stage.
If you have any questions, call me at 544-8572.
Sincerely,
Leon M. Zeug, P.E.
District Engineer
•
LMZ:sj
Enclosure
cc: Judy Boudreau, DNR
Jean Johnson, Eden Prairie
Robert Obermeyer, Barr Engineering
10 Divisions/Inch 5th& 10th Accent
asansaslsssassmeMsasassaslasafallssasaasmsasasesea E
•-r. . AfffaalOWSIII aaaIlsaalaaalaaaaflaflaafaaaalaNNas•faaf■aaaaalaa J
anaffaalaslaNNMsaleaaaaslffafflfa!lfalafaswalNaallsaaa
assasafamllaaNn ssaelffssalaasfaamasaassasaN sa�amsssS
r▪+.panfaflmssaNafaf asssateMaassslaassflasaasaslsssslfassanass
llfffraa!lsrlMINI!aaaassalaallsaanafssaalNaaramfaaessaa
assaafnsasaasaffsalssssafelalfsefaafsaasla/ass•MIIMMI Nfslf
• a11111Msaassa11111S safsaf IBII assassesselaaalmalas■ e�eaNmalf
▪ flf%��t�MMIIMI IUM•11N�n1111MMEMISuRIMBIB IMI� \��i%Ili! ,.
~ nsasaassalsafsalfusssfafssasallafl/aaanalfa•laalwfawslaaNsa
l051111 iiaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiia IMIONIMIII i.u.r.smifM_iiw.f�i
a fffffflaatsttta.masississl�N�Isuslsut ausEsaOM IR���.if�siti�s
. fflfaasaalsalaafslNassaaflNfaaaaaflf/ffa
afsassafNas!!lslflsaaNNf■ssassssssasaasseat.elM ININNE aeeaa
LrsasfarrassaaassamusNsalfawimifaalalalalaaff!aassfsassess0111•f
uMis�iusisiissfasiiisMssisisiissisiuuaM�fIeaamsfsi sal Mi
nffaffffaalsNsaIIMMIMaasllNfaafalaaaaaalalMswMINIM!trial
fsssaftassMINIMalefuaaNlaslafsasltalaaseEME:Maf•far+CalsINNOs
t sssssaCfsaaasaemflmminiassaafNfessimm aswesomemfaasalara
T--mum a►.alaslNlflNaaasasssa/laafaafa moanOasaalffaas amens•
!sari 'atmmerni asaassaaaalssessesssasaasap_msssasfas assasesa
inommiapaassaeslalafsassaafasalalfaseinim ic.Mssaffmlamsslf
ffffaur aallaasNmsslNsalmuaslaaaal mut:'Iwasafamorafswwf
senor-or ns■assafssalsmassasasaf ixessaafal:.:.m mfsasslaasss
mum*E:salsmmusu lssassasassssafsa\sssafasasmrfursasawalf
• mum chni salssalassoNlaaas emmu ms.\sa soma samm siGafasala
arises rieso NNasminu tsasNsaNsaawwesassssa umemir!•sasalaf
fsssafR"sllNsssassssaasalNaselaaNflasa Va•MMEmmsa N••••f
nafs slsa�sNflssaNlsssssafalallaN6�ssslaMsarsarNsasMf
slat!! �a s!slNaasls!ariaasaasesfeaaafN INIMIIrfNfsaNsfasrss
asn �a a�e !mats!NNasaassllfaallllfa.�saasMswlla�lalMrl
NffNarl"! GasINseaaflesesassasaifllfsameNaw.>:ssemssIIIIIMMIONSI■
afssamaesassaf aasN./sss Assaf NNs assaasN.lar'aa-sasaNa.
lafnfalaNaaassfNaNNNSNaaasslafsaris!!!!► OINIMI assIMsafss■af
asfafsaffaasasalsa!sassmummatwaeafalasesaasaaawaefssassasaslss
ssafuasasasa ssmsammir lasafafaNassfssainomma onsic/7 tamer
�uiaunnfa..m.UURNaaan sNsiqnsssiisiissusaisisf ssmallmo.. amenes
nanm umiu NNssenriom luaNNssausau ss riessaffa is sass
aafaff unall muimNsalsssaa mummumsammiu almm/saeAf
sass!!ffsMAISINIMIMIMNstuaalsflNNfNNeslsafl+VIIIIIsa raasMwa
fsmuummmusqueeNaNNafsouram ummin fsmslaimma
saf.NanNsaNamaNaaaaease sommaINNsaNssallasafainNaNNs
i ofora mumu nmNa/lllNsssssaanimmasar am amass♦
fummainme aasssinumaNlaNsaNemausaanseinfsmeaseaf
• . iumus a lumen! eNNsesssama iminu mamswsaflssalllNawf
slsasfaNalsaN ommesoaNIINNmusalsesssoiafsossomess
fafsafomnammNNaasaelsaNNwimmi NNfusaassfs•slmfaNsas
asffua esmaaNNssmemaueaau usaasmaslaminsaewmflmu
sssamfussesseassassassala ummeselaalNlsaseslifs�afsasssa
t sasiummumiumaNlsNNss mica eNsimminiaasslasssses
mina lsammuni maisllsssalSse usimmanwamsslumasmmasaM�s
fNpfaseaaaaaN sumana ss omisi iNaNamsomuam mosum sea
-ins >lMar-masaamaaaummuamsauaiu m matoum�ffss�anfleas •
sal • +f�alris�ssass.sNss iniafNfafsssasaaefs imorimaastsslf
m�gLii3aslasass!salNNs mmommummNmusommaimaaNel•#swam
aflefefsemisaee esssmallsaNmwmisN os saaas mmismasr nm
lles
fal.NNsaaafsaasaONasselsaasslsslf /salanlaNsils•afr�ssssalf
asaflasaffsasefassamsaaaaasealsa ■ �m s
sssssassesasbfsasfasasa
sfs saafassssalfaasfm mussiiau ■ isslsssesaas mesh ens umme ani
masuaaaanalammaasaeNess sfallL.5aslaasalf sass waussssewnsawas
Nssurim iu ■sasm iumaasaasssesaaaessa emarimfsllssssassf
qq�p�a�agql�Esuaaauaalasaesallsr.aslseusm iumnea famumu erf
aspaaslfaaa an osmiu fe ass!iro Ilsasfasr.ierrsasifsamf
a manure fasaee mamas Nfasasl aamaafassalN✓ismamfaaisesalasf
sassmmill lmmta aaaaaommu ssamarzamssemniL•aesms
' ' ' NMafaa slsasmslsaaNtiasslslfu'l7sessl•arfsmme-hams
Emu asaasNaN=���■••selafarm, seasairoil ammfs� Ns•af
faaaN q N
saaesl ••I aaafar.AYssssassm as as saaaefa
afN� faaaae•/pa 11 Mulls!sussalrfaaeaEarpas/,aleasalsfaasaaaaaN•
■■■tress lellaNl nissia'�N% t Lrassl.a■mstamfflslaleelaf
allIMIE tlaaalasauslaaIIalNIMOSY•/nelINE lQ2111erewafawafaelf!■
MMEMMINIMIIIIIMININIIM
fg i siva lsiiiiiiissu aiamisii r'tii=edam iii i
■asam safasNirsamm naamurn iunwituslewraaaaNPaasimuf
�Nq sNsis Umim .m. lYt summt siawan ai ai Ali_____
_ agIIII tasNsausalfil1lai=IYAM aaaunfanama•aaa�faa�f
aem§masimomm m miesu scar iummNNNNaEnamamumulSNs
saNsmsaaasNavnaesfslssuseuaMeamaaasaaeass
aaalsalNNlrNalsasaumunimm saseaaaaamaaaaasea
eassingmanrinimummiwasamissmoussamosimmiummusainwismi
/!eases!milmieMouggpsousafamaasaasa !.•aril
Naawaa fefsaamas7aslarems•W, a sumn�
1 -, ,. t . also sNasi flaam�ia�lM as • ■
� 1 !sanns!! air iaNNa NMs rs
.1 Wan a!!s� . •Na•.� farlesuls�a
aasaalssea laNaasaNsa saaas�s
aaIIIIIM l
i aaaamifasa maNassaaa aalsaaa IMMIOMMI Mmaaasamsasf
SMIIINNIMIIMERSMIUMIEMIIIIIIIMIIIIIM"•Na�aa IMIII INNll��1IINM UUNIIMIIaNqaNIIIIM�awlauasnsmEN
■ ■■■ �■ ME nn,. _11i_ ' t ! . 14
t !
" 5
111 I
, , , , ,
■
•
11BIN®IIIIi111111111111 • . r__L_I_._,_,___;_;+La,_i immTirmiistrimonf111 11 ` f i I
' . , r ,
-.ii, ,, -: , ,
,i
. ,
, ,_, •
' EMI -iIm.
�„ { j11 i�li, , 1 i � � � I t
�nillnn11nu1111h1u i.. I l + ' . r .
iiIIIIIIII " , '' . - I ; u
irommunalmasommumi
ss
asissaarsom
tj t t 1 I( , , , {! •f i ' j ' l ' t 141 l t l l 1 ' 1 I `
■■■■■■■■NNN■NN■rgN■■■■■
1fli1111R N■NN■ �� u■■i
■■N■■■ �
MMINI
■■■■ �■■■■
■N■■■■■Nw■N■N■■ru WvN■ EN=
11
I t ate■
NN■N�NR . N, ■ U UI U immussow .
N IN• Ntsommias�
e ■ `N■■■■■■■'N■N"NNN}
■ .■ N■■ A N.N®
■Ns_ i'f■■N■NN■■
EIMIIMEME. N ■ 'EEMOMMIEMOM '■■
NN■as■ im ■• NNN■■NN
■■■■■■N■■N■■•{ ' u■■■N■■N■N■■NN■NN■N■■■N■■■s■■■■Nw■■N■■
■ NN■N 's . N■■N■N■■■N■■■■ U. R N ■■■■■■ Y NN ■■■laircruman I ■ N■■rNMN ■.mm simu Ns■
inanna r ■■■NN■■ p ■■ ■ ■■N■N ■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■NAP
■N N■NN■N■■■N■N 1■■N■■N ■MEW.
p�dulln 1 . �!■uu�,
•
uN■N■NI:= ■■1=■ 11 ►1•■■■ MEIN
POSES ,■N■Or11 NNN■
SEMIEE
i p lnii" a NN■N
� � NNpNNN■NN■NN�
■N■■■ t seW � , ■y , . ■
iiii
fj r inN. jT�--�- j ' } I 1 ' '
cd-_ l I +-t - at i 1 [
1:fir. i; ,
_ lu o
• ''74. 4 -,-:117,-, 'i-;-; ' i -;--: '—.71:V14. 13)1...-c---.:-Tr--7-:-.1--.. ' , ' ' ' ' ' ; ' . ' ' ME
r �1 ---1 { I , , . 1 - i t , I f I T.S_._. _
- -1-'—T- -- -1-�-�
iu300y 4101 7 41S 43u1/su9ts)A!00t
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. .
-` `• - -- 6800 France Ave.
0 .MN 55435
92 -0
920-0655
;4r a1 _..t Legal Advisor. Popham,Haik,Schnobrich,nasImnu Si.Doty
� i L 4344 apoCenter
�'� 333-48puiis.MN 55402 QaQ 7!.:.
,�� 333-4800
y-3o-851`
September 26, 1985
Mr. Leon Zeug
District Engineer
Hennepin County Conservation District
12450 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 205
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Re: Sever Peterson Property: Eden Prairie
Dear Mr. Zeug:
In response to your correspondence of September 17, 1985, the following
information is from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District's
files regarding the area of T.H. 169-212 and Co. Rd. 4 in Eden Prairie.
The District has delineated a 100-year frequency flood envelope based on
ultimate development conditions for Riley Creek. In the area of the Peterson
farm, the flood elevation at the T.H. 169 crossing is Elevation 726 and the
flood elevation downstream of County Road 4 is Elevation 740. The flood
elevation at T.H. 169-212 is the 100-year frequency flood elevation for the
Minnesota River obtained from the Lower Minnesota Watershed District. If you
have any questions regarding this elevation, please contact Mr. Larry
Samstad, Itasca Engineering, engineering advisor to the Lower Minnesota River
Watershed District.
In 1970, the crossings of Riley Creek were surveyed by the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. The survey indicated that the T.H.
169-212 crossing is an 8.0' x 8.6' box culvert with a downstream invert
elevation of 711.6 and an upstream invert elevation of 713.3; the roadway
surface elevation is 730. The crossing at the Peterson driveway is two 48-
inch corrugated metal pipes with a downstream invert elevation of 717.9 and an
upstream invert elevation of 719.4; the driveway elevation is 723.2. The
distance between these two crossings, T.N. 169-212 and the Peterson driveway,
is approximately 540 feet. The crossing at County Road 4 is a 60-inch
corrugated metal pipe with a downstream invert elevation of 732.4, and an
upstream invert elevation of 733.3.
The critical 100-year frequency discharge passing through the County
Road 4 crossing has been calculated to be 1,220 cfs. The peak discharge at
the Peterson driveway and T.H. 169-212 culvert crossing has been calculated to
Mr. Leon Zeug
Page 2
September 26, 1985
be 1,360 cfs. Again, these discharges are based on ultimate development
conditions.
Attached are xeroxed portions of the District's Overall Plan, prepared
in•1973, and Rules and Regulations, as amended in 1977, outlining the Dis-
trict's criteria dealing with floodplain encroachment and crossings of the
creek. The Watershed District's criteria regarding rise of flood elevation
for both encroachment and crossings is consistent with Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources criteria.
If you have any questions or we may be of further assistance in this
matter, please call me at 830-055.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Obermeyer
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
Engineers for the District
RC0/111
enc.
c: Mr. Frederick Richards
Mr. Frederick Rahr •
LMs. Jean Johnson
•
Hennepin Conservation District
- 12450 Wayzata Boulevard,Suite 205-Minnetonka,Minnesota 55343-Telephone(6121544.8572
•
September 17, 1985 49-jq-f
- Mr. Robert C. Obermeyer
Barr Engineering Company
7803 Glenroy
Edina, MN 55435
Dear Mr. Obermeyer:
Mr. Sever Peterson has requested the assistance of the
Hennepin Conservation District in determining the effects of ,
his filling in Riley Creek. In order to determine the ef-
fects on the 100 year profile of Riley Creek as you re-
quested i.
on August 21, I need the following information from
your files.
▪ Stage - discharge curve for the culvert under
Highway 169.
▪ Stage - storage curve immediately upstream of
Highway 169.
• Tailwater elevation of the Minnesota River immedi-
ately downstream of the culvert under 169 used for
the 100 year profile of Riley Creek.
▪ Surveyed cross section of the private driveway up-
stream of Highway 169 used for the computation of
the 100 year profile of Riley Creek.
▪ Stage - discharge curve for the private driveway.
• 100 year discharge of Riley Creek for the reach in
question.
▪ The exact 100 year flood water elevations immedi-
ately upstream of the culvert under 169 and at the
private driveway.
Statement of policy by the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff
Creek Watershed District concerning both fill and
constrictions in the flood plain.
1..01:5E"HVATION Of VEIOVMENT SCI F G")vf H'.!'ENT
•
•
Barr Engineering Company
September 17, 1985
Page 2
Friction values used for flow computations along
the creek for this reach in question according to
the 100 year profile.
I will need all this information so that the methods
used to compute the stage increase is consistent with the
methods used to compute the 100 year profile.
During the next two weeks, I will have the top profile
of his driveway surveyed in order to determine the altered
stream cross-section; so, I appreciate your earliest
response to the requested information.
Sincerely,
Leon M. Zeug, P.E.
District Engineer
LMZ:sj
cc: Judy Boudreau, DNR
Jean Johnson,
Eden Prairie Zoning Administrator
II
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
' PHONE NO. 612/296-7523 Division of Waters
1200 Warner Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106
Iiao-rF,.7�•�
August 26, 1985 1 5-1'
Ms. Jean Johnson
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
RE: SEVER PETERSON - RETENTION OF FILL REQUEST, RILEY CREEK FLOODPLAIN
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above project. It is our
opinion that the City should require the applicant to submit hydraulic
calculations as to the stage increase on the 100-year flood elevation as a
result of the unauthorized fill. (Base information on the culvert under
Highway 169/212 might be available from the Mn/DOT District 5 Hydrologist.)
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at
the above number.
Sincerely,
Lt-ta.i.
`Judy Boudreau, Area Hydrologist
Metro Region Division of Waters
JB:kmh
c Riley Creek file
JB-18
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
C31-4 1Q-6±C:je4 "
I.
,%�'= Lower Minnesota River Watershei District
�.. Z ;
s�7_ ,.l' _�f� ,�1. VVIYiiRQF LrP>:ICE BUILDING i
'.w .. — :!1;;'f%- BURNSVILLE.M,Nr.ESG1A 5533%
April 3, 19S5
Rote!!A.S•creci.:d.. Pr.,iir •
Csnl B.E.s Il.r Pesulrnr
Russell Reline Trea+ur,•r
Merrill Madsen Asu Treasurer '
Wd'uam J.larger.Jr. Secrera,- 1
Lissrenee E.Sam,iad Encon.•r
Frederick S.Richards .Worrier
• Mr. Richard W. Sathre, P.E.
Sathre-Berquist, Inc. •
106 South Broadway.
Wayzata, Kp; 55391
Re: Lions Tap
Dear Mr. Sathre:
I enclose a copy of a memo regarding the revised plans for the Lions Tap
grading and filling. I also enclose a copy of the unapproved minutes of
the March 28th, special meeting of the Board of Managers of the Lower Minnesota
River Watershed District. Together they represent the action taken by
\ the Board of Managers at that meeting.
If you have any questions please call me at 445-7993 (new number) and I will
be happy to answer them for you.
Sincerely,
IIv - ,.v +.
I awrence E. Samstad, P.E.
Engineer
LS/mm
Enclosures (2)
cc: City of Eden Prairie
Henn. Co. Highway Dept.
M.D.O.T.
J.D.N.P.
Board of Managers '
f
. .,-
<...
:...' Lower Minnesota River Watershed District.
a 1.` h a,.
�'i.fi�-v� :�}; VMk:V7D�I�IFFICE HUILDtNG -
'' DL i ..1 BURNSVILLE.MINNESOTA 55337
`larch :S, 1965
I
e�..etl A..Sorenson Pre s::!e;:r To: Board of managers
t\nt B.Esa Ftce J'rrtt'.5
Ru,sellHeltne Tr,va,rtr From: Lawrence E. Samstad, P.E., Engineer
NV:rntt Madsen .itsr.Trearua+
Ndtum J.Jaeger.Jr. Saretan Re: Lions Tap Revised Grading Plan, Eden Prairie
Lawrence E.Samstad fngmerr
Frederick S.Richards .+Homer
I have reviewed the plans, after-the-fact topography, and the site and find
the following:
•
1. Fill material has been placed on the Sever Peterson driveway and this fill
was not authorized and is not a part of this permit.
2. Fill material has been placed on the east side of County Road 4 and
encroaches on Riley to within 62 to 100 feet of the west bank of Riley Creek.
Hydraulically this will still allow for the proper flow of Riley Creek
which is constricted above and below the fill by road culverts.
3. The east and south slopes of the fill (above) should be compacted for
stability. Compaction to 95% of Modified Proctor Density is suggested.
4. Black dirt and sod or mesh seed should then be applied to these compacted
slopes and the slopes should be repaired if erosion occurs.
5. Until final seeding and sodding takes hold, the silt fence on the plan
should be maintained.
6. The Owner should require the contractor to provide completion insurance
which would name the Owner, the City of Eden Prairie and the Lower Minnesota
River Watershed District.
7. The open face of the excavation north of the Lions Tap buildings seems to
be poorly done and possibly may erode severly. This problem should be
corrected.
With the above items of concern, I approve the revised grading plan for Lions
Tap and refer it to the Managers of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed
District for their consideration.
Respectfully,
ill..:',-e_`! ,1,01(
Lawrence E. Samstad, P.E.
Engineer
k
•
/ A
/ or F5 or �NF
cF G i1.u.
P27a 0r /{1��1�S c � <,✓. L1les.iEn7;s s,
eF/114uAG,fRs P.` TNF. e,..
• 01r74. z8 rTo 6iffi.p,,,„,,,, 414As)
Indian mounds located on this site will be substantially left •
in place and not altered whatsoever by this development_
Following further discussion, it was moved by Madsen, seconded
by Jaeger that the District's permit for grading on this site
be approved subject to the revision and submission to the •
District's engineer for final approval to provide for a
. skimming device to be installed as part of the ponding basin
and surface water control apparatus to be placed on this site.
Upon vote the motion carried. Mr. Samstad way instructed to
transmit the District's approvals to the City in order that the
Watershed District's requirements may be integrated with the
City requirements for the final review and approval for the
development of this site. The. Managers noted that it was
anticipated that if plans are submitted to the District's
engineer by the first week in April, 1985, the District can
complete its review process by the end of that week.
Lions Tap Development - Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Manager Ess and staff advisors Samstad and Richards
reported on meetingwith representatives from the City of Eden
Prairie and involved private landowners regarding the Lions Tap
development in Eden Prairie. Mr. Samstad stated that he had
received revised plans and specifications showing the filling
which has occurred after the fact of the District's issued
grading permit for this site. Mr. Richards reported that he
had received a copy of a letter submitted by the City of Eden
Prairie to Mr. Sever Peterson regarding the status of this
unauthorized filling operation and the necessity to comply
fully with City filling requirements. Mr. Samstad recommended
that various corrective measures be undertaken and if done,
that the District should issue its revised grading proposal to
the developers of the Lions Tap area, including the deposit of
fill material on the adjacent land owned by Mr. Sever
Peterson. The Managers noted that the City intends to initiate
its permit review process in order that appropriate comments
from all appropriate governmental agencies, including the
District, would be included in the revised permit to be issued,
if at all, by the City of Eden Prairie. Following discussion,
and based upon the engineer's recommendation that a revised
grading permit is in substantial compliance with the policies •
and criteria of the District, subject to the full compliance
with the revised plans and specifications submitted to the
District, as well as the engineer's recommendation contained in
his memorandum dated March 28, 1985, regarding this site, it
was moved by Ess, seconded by Heltne, that the District approve
these revised plans and specifications subject to compliance of
the seven conditions set forth in the above-referenced
memorandum. Upon vote, the motion carried. Chairman Sorenson
instructed Mr. Samstad to transmit the Watershed District
revised permit conditions to all affected parties for
incorporation in the City permits as well as being incorporated
in the District's revised grading permit.
-2-
• •
r
•
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
HROUGH: Chris Enger, Department of Planning
DATE: August 23, 1985
SUBJECT: FILL DEPOSITED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF US #169 AND COUNTY ROAD #4
WITHOUT A PERMIT .
Background: 7-- Dv
The grading permit, approved in k �
conjunction with the Lions Tap I 1 k'�G/
rezoning, allowed 0.4 acres east of \;
County Road #4 to be filled. The )/
purpose of the fill was for County �
Road #4 relocation. (See Diagram — ! ,
#1) 1 __ ___
The actual fill deposited east of c_.
^
County Road #4 covers approximately
2.2 acres and is 10 to 12 feet in __ r�o
depth, (includes proposed right-of- terson
way filled). (See Diagram #2) This / Lions,,:.,, �pe-y
unauthorized fill was discovered by —. Tape v`� _
Staff, and had been placed in � ,
violation of the approved permit and —�.� -� i1`�1G�'
without City Commission/Council and
Watershed Board approvals.
The individuals the Staff has /
corresper,dcd with regarding this _ ',.._j i!! /:
issue are: .., f
L '
N I\
•
Lion's Tap 2 August 22,1985
Bert Noterman, Lion's Tap
•
Tony Noterman, Attorney for Bert Noterman
Sever and Lovell Peterson
Rick Sathre and Tom Bergquist, Engineers on the project
Larry Samstad, Lower Minnesota River.Watershed District
•
Frederick Richards, Attorney for the Lower Minnesota River Watershed
District and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Watershed District
Bob Obermeyer, Engineer for Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
Judy Beaudreau, Department of Natural Resources
At a March meeting of the interested parties, these circumstances were relayed to
the Planning Staff:
The approved fill area was to receive 9,000 cubic yards.
The total amount to be taken from the Tap property was 39,000 cubic yards.
Timing to haul excess material to other sites did not coincide.
Peterson desired the fill and the material delivered. He represents that he
intends to utilize the area for a pumpkin field.
Fill of this amount in this location, violates the City's Floodplain, Shoreland, and
Land Alteration Codes.
At the same meeting, Staff for the City and Watershed directed the responsible
parties and landowner to promptly stablize the side slopes to prevent erosion into
the creek, and to submit an after-the-fact request for fill permit. In exchange for
not being required to remove fill and to bring the property into conformance with
the original permit, the parties have agreed to abide by the decision resulting from
the new permit.
Since that meeting, Staff has supplied to, and discussed with, the landowner
applicable to City Code and scheduling process for the item.
CITY CODE
Floodplain Code, Section 11.45, pp. 319-331
Code defines floodplain as follows; "The area adjoining a watercourse, which has
been, or hereafter, may he covered by the Regional Flood."
The 100-year frequency flood lone profile depicts a flood elevation of 729, at the
existing :r vc, and 7?6 at i1S -169. The majority of the property is within the
floodplain. The majority of the site has been revised to 718-730 elevations.
Any storage of material in the floodplain is defined as an obstruction. Written
permits are required prim• to placement of fill in floodplains.
Lion's Tap 3 August 22.7:985
The following is a summary of the standards and conditions for issuance of a permit
to fill the floodplain.
1. Minimum of 50' from bank shall be subject to easement in favor of
City.
2. Obstruction cannot unduly decrease capacity of channel or
floodplain, result in danger to persons or properties, and is
subject to M.S.S. Chapter 105 and other applicable statutes.
3. Obstruction cannot restrict right of public passage and use of
channels, banks, and watercourses.
4. Protection of surface and ground water supplies must be maintained.
5. Obstruction is not to be incompatible with preservation of
vegetation, marshes, etc., needed for constant rate of flow.
6. No permit shall be issued for areas reasonably necessary for water
holding.
7. Permit for fill must have beneficial purpose. No fill on 50-foot
easement area.
8. No permits for disposal sites.
9. No City permit until approval granted by Watershed District and
other governmental agencies.
10. No permit if proposed use does not conform to City land use plan.
11. No permit in river floodway unless permitted by watershed.
Shoreland Code, Section 11.50, pp. 332-350
Land within 300 feet of a stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain, whichever
is greater, is defined as shoreland.
Diagram #3 illustrates the shoreland area filled without a permit. •
Riley Creek is classified as General Development Waters.
Permits are necessary prior to filling within the shoreland.
The following is a summary of standards for granting or denying a permit:
1. Adequacy of lot size and building setbacks.
2. Adequacy of sewer facilities.
3. Adequacy of grading and filling.
4. Adequacy of other shoreland protection measures as set out in this
Section. ^?.
I
•
4 August ?1..7985
Lion's Tap
The Council may impose written conditions on the permit.
Land Alteration Code, Section 11.55, pp. 351-358.
A permit is required prior to filling of more than 100 cubic yards of earth, or
alteration of land of more than one foot.
In this instance, approximately 30,000 cubic yards beyond the approved permit was
deposited on the property changing its elevation 12+ feet and in some areas.
Conditions to approve or deny a permit are:
1. Whether the land alteration creates safety risks.
2. Whether, and the extent of, erosion and destruction of vegetation.
3. Are there adequate plans for restoration.
4. Can the applicant comply with regulations on dust, weeds, or
nuisance.
Site Conditions
In checking aerial photographs over the past 12 years, it was found that this site
had been used for pasture and some limited row crop farming. The soil types are
Chaska and Mixed Alluvial. Flooding of this property has occured.
Presently, the site is filled with 12+ feet of uncompacted sand from the bluff
behind Lion's Tap. The side slope, towards the creek, have grades of 24-28% and
have been stabilized as requested.
Relocation of County Road #4 was not resolved between the parties, and therefore, no
barrier has been constructed to discourage Tap patrons from parking in the right-of-
way. In addition to parking in the right-of-way, parking on the Peterson property
also occurs.
Staff Concerns
The filling of the 2-acre site to an elevation approximately level with County Road
#4 has been done without specific building plans or a permit.
This fill is traditionally seen if a site is being prepared for development. This
area is not served by utilities, is designated as Low Density Residential on the
Guide Plan, and is presently zoned Rural. . .
Review Process
Mr. Petrson's request to be allowed to retain the unauthorized fill was distributed
to tatershed District and the Department of natural Resources. When the
original per:oit was issued, the site ;is within the Lower Minnesota River Watershed
District. The site is now within the Riley-l'urgatar•y-ulutf Watershed District.
•
Lion's Tap 5 August 22, 1985
When comments are received from the Watershed and DNR, they will be forwarded to the
City Commission and Council. City Commission recommendations will be forwarded to
the City Council for final action.
The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources is to receive a 10-day
notice prior to any final City action.
Action alternatives in this matter could be:
1. Require all fill beyond the original permit to be removed, and the site
restored to its original condition. If the fill is not removed, it could be
removed by the City and the cost assessed to the property. Reasons for
removal are: a) no development plan exists in conjunction with the fill;
and, b) the area should be retained for water storage.
2. Require removal of fill, 'X' number of feet from the creek, and require
restoration of the area to its original conditions for reasons stated in
item #1.
3. Permit the fill to remain for agricultural purposes if the area is net
needed for water storage.
Items 2 and 3 could be in conjunction with a land hold agreement, in which the owner
would agree that no rezoning application will be filed until the property is served
with sewer and water, and the property is contained within the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area.
•
/o,— �_.= _� 1
.flt. _ ..;,,, i.• / •
. ,•,..\ ''.74,./111 .,,'.(,, /ir.,,y1,4-1......':.() i.:/Z-Ti:///1, N) .
,f/Z , • ////j/? r.I.
o __S
=. '`• t i4. it" lulro >•
Q
....__._.„,.. i.,1/1,.-1 1,--,...-. 7-
,j ^ /I /�/�r FEIOCATED FI�REa•END
./,/
� ./ , j�/j.C.Y.RIV—NAP
9: i.. `•..�I.�.. a
DIAGRAM # 1 ' ," \ `-. _
•
•
DIAGRAM # 2 //,.. /7/
�j ; p !� ��4
jjg/ ,// \
/ \. \ \ '% - 1
;/ // / /, /,// it , //i r • ` �4 C'
i
It
:: J��' :i f i
f
existing ••r•::; /
• i
countours
.Q
near contours / .'4A . a,r 1 \\'''''''
. -
• , - / i I_ .. ''',1'•'''t''' - i
, . I or ('\• '
,
,
/ '
:'•/4. / ::i0;i::Ati.:: :?iA °# \\ ------Z'\N . '. .
Tk.
iy44P• ' / ,'• / ..•.• / /7„,,,, -.;:;:i::',:;:::::•*i*i;:...5..„::::i:';:i::i*::*..1:7:;:i:.?,k.:.:.!. .:::::: ::: ::::,0
A
!I.
/ , ,,/,, 4, ../., ;..... /(--....e:ii:iii •::.i ,ifi.m.:.mtilii,,,y.iii.::.:A:ii-ii,
/r• / i",' , 4.': ,,,:'
,,,,/,,/,/ /21 . '....X/i /,/-. :„;:riN:fri:griOgiir:,:a:::: :::::':::1:::::::4•:.•:.•:•:•-::::::',-:: .
:.......1 ,,,,,,,,„ , ., r/s• , / :.:,:':::::•??.?i:i:isif.r,,:;:r•-::::::::::::::::;:::::"::::•::',:::.:::::::::::::K:fi::: :••:•:.:.:ci::::":`,:::;:?•4 '`--"
, , ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,::::::-..:,:•:,,,s.,::.1:-:,!:,:,..,:,::
11
, , ,, ,,./ /,' , „:::::::::::::::::::::::*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::*:.:::::::::::::::,..,:::::.,,,,,,, ,!k: ?;::::',.:::::::.°.
••••••a—... ;•'„v.,: .,„ ,
-.,
, ,,,. ,.. ,,, /A.:4,/f. , :i,,i.i.Rii:i:::::**f::-;::,::.:i:::::::,*::-:::: :x:::::::,..:1,.: ,: ::1.:::,:i,l'.....::::.:':!::i!:',:::::A::::,',::.•t II;si
-...:::i::::::::::.::::::::,,,::::;::•.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:•:•:::::-:::::::::::::::5,,:::,1•::'::.*:::::".:".l.:.'::. ' II
.,- ;- •„?..72: 'I I
,
ii: .„.•,,.,, . , , , :,..i::::::::: *:,:::„.......,,:.,;::::::::::::::::::.:.:::.:.:::::::::::::::%.:•:.;,::::::::::::::.:,^:•:•:',.•:^:.:.,:•:•:,::::-;---%•:.: •
I 1
r- , . N;::::aif:,:i.:i*:::::::::::::::::::::::•:•:.:•:•:•:•::::::::':':-•-:-:-:-:-'''-':':'%':::'-'%''':';':;.::r:11:. \‘
'''..,,,........:•:;,..:•....:......:Tici:,..::v::::....i.:...-i-i..:r-i•i;i::::::::::::::::i::::•::::i.:,.,:::::::::.:::::::::::•:4';-:-:-:-:,:-S::.::::•,:,
///
I - i / ..;,..,:;i:::::::::::::::::::-,...;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:::•:•:•:-:•:-:-:•:••.•:••••••••••••••...••••• .......i..-
, .: ,,,i/ ! ::::77m..0;W:Rai•::„ ..:i:.:•:,,if,ii?.:i:i:i:i::::: : :::4.-.::::::;::::-••:.•:;••::::::1::'%':':1.1' , 7
. i • 1
.....;.;ii..,;.:cx..:+6,4„.,::::::.,...:rx.:„.,:r:,:r:,.:,,,,,:„...„:„:.,„,::::::...,..:.:.:.:.:„;:::::::;::-..:•:•:•:•:::•;S:•:::4:-%-i••• 0
:Jr
.n"4...„. ,,,f,.,,.,,...,,,,,,„,,,,r::::::5;:r.?•:?!....,„,:::::::::::: ::::::::::::::':::.*M::::::::::::::::*K:::::•:.•::::::-:::':-••:<%-:-,--:-•:::::',:':":•:1' $
.., ...Z.-,, c.,...... -‘,..:,:r:.:,...........:„.,:r.:,:,:r:r:r.r,....:.:„:..,:..:,:.:„.:.,:,:.:.;,•:.:•:•:-:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:••:•:•%.:.:-:::•::::::::•....:-%::•:':•:•:::-::::::-7
,*„....,...!.x.T.•,•::•,+:,!.:.w.4!-!;:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-:•:•:•:•:•:%::-:-:-:-:-:-.:••:-.77:::'x':':':::-:-:-•-',:'''':::'-':':';':':':',':-..':' °....4, 4.,,,,.,:.,‘,_.......,,,,,,i„,,.„,,:.„!,,!.,:.:!;::::•:.,,,:::..,:::::::::::::::•:-:-:•:-:•:::•::::::::::•:::,%:•-•:::-::::'::::::-':'%'::':::;:'::::::::';-:.:.:.:::::::II
„r r, ....,, ,7,/ .. :•, ::':::,:::•:::::::*::::•:::::iiiiii.',. ..57::F.::::3i:1:;:i:?1?:::::: : :::::::::::i:i:::i*:g: $0#
i/
„••••••.,, ----?•4•.'7.;:i?!, ..r,..:.,.,....::44:,;..... ..: :::::::::•:•:.::'X:-:•:•::::::::::..i:::*':::::::::;::::%:' P
6:>")
I
.,...„..„.,,,.„4, _______:,5:7,7:,i::..:3t:.:::::::::,:::::,..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.7..:.:.:•,•: ::::::::::::':::::',''':.'":7 01 \\,
,'1 •.4------;_.________fri:::,iw...,:;,?,::„„,,,,,. ..„:„:::.:„...._:,:f.;,.,„,v,,,,.:...,:-.„:„.:-:::-.--_,......:.: :. , _ . .
_.._.__ ._,:i,:,„i:......::,:.,:....,:t7...7i„;.,..;,,,„:„.„,..:„,:.r.„5:,7:„.m..:::i::.::::::::::::.:::.„,.:,..... 4 VE•* \ .
1 ....--- „___..---:::.:.....::: :!:!..,... ,5.'..:•....::.:.:-:.:;;;i::::::::::::::.:::::.:-.:•!•:;fet :: -... -:4-:•:-!::'5:::::i4;'- ,
•:::::i.;;•;4:4,:::.?:•:::•:,-••:••......:-.-•••-•.:,.......:,.,-•:,..::.z÷:,;(10:,i•:•:•:',77.:-..,,,,,Y-''
...2.,--,......4ft
i s 1 t:r 4 \'
1
s •
0 11
— ---------------:—==7—*T=—:----,— —' --- _ —,,
___________:_______________________„__________ •
..,
.30
•,.,,,. •
FILL IN SHORELAND
DIAGRAM ii 3
. ...
I .
Planning Commission Minutes 2 Danier28, 1985
C. LION'S TAP, review of excessive fill (beyond permit approval), from
Lion's Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's land.
Location: Northeast corner of U.S. #169 and County Road #4. A
continued public meeting.
This item had been continued from previous Planning Commission meetings
awaiting the evaluation of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) regarding the location of the fill on Mr. Peterson's property. Zoning
Administrator Jean Johnson reviewed the findings of the DNR. She noted that
their report indicated that there would be no significant change in the
flood plain, no measurable change in the upstream, or downstream, areas of
the flood plain, and that their report recommended approval, with
conditions.
Planner Enger reviewed the proposed conditions of a land hold agreement
which had been discussed at previous Planning Commission meetings in order
to prevent premature development of this area.
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt parking should not be allowed on
this fill area and that a barrier of some sort should be strategically
placed in order to prevent parking by Lion's Tap patrons on this fill area.
He added that he felt the construction of the barrier should be a condition
of allowing the fill to remain in place.
Dodge stated that she found it difficult to approve the request "after the
fact." She stated that she was concerned about the potential for setting a
precedent by approving this fill within the flood plain after it had already
been accomplished. Dodge stated that she felt the fill should be removed.
1
Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 28, 1985
Planner Enger stated that it would be necessary to set a reasonable time
limit to remove this amount of fill.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by eye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for fill of Sever Peterson at the northeast
corner of Highway #169 and County Road #4, based on plans and data presented
and on file at City Hall, subject to the recommendations of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, the conditions of the proposed land hold
agreement, and the condition that fencing, or some other barrier, be located
at the right-of-way line of the property and County Road #4 in order to
prevent parking on the fill area by patrons of the restaurant to the west.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Dodge voted against)
MINUTES r
EDEN PRAIRIE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 7, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge (7:40
p.m.), Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula
MEMBER ABSENT: Stan Johannes
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; 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 Hallett, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the
September 23, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--3-0-2 (Chairman Schuck and Marhula abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. LION'S TAP, review of excessive fill (beyond permit approval), from
Lion's Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's land.
Location: Northeast corner of U.S. #169 and County Road #4. A
continued pubic meeting.
Staff has not yet received information from the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) regarding this project. DNR Staff informed the City
that they had just received the information, themselves, and stated that
they would have their evaluation completed by the October 28, 1985, Planning
Commission meeting.
.�U
Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 7, I985 '
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to continue to the October
28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting pending receipt of the evaluation of
the request from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Motion carried--5-0-0
i
i
•
�t,lG I
Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 9, 1985
•
D. LION'S TAP. Review of Excessive Fill (beyond permit approval), from
Lions Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's land.
Location: Northeast corner of U. S. Highway #169 and County Road
#4.
Planner Enger reported that Staff had been in contact with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and found that they are still awaiting
information from Mr. Peterson prior to making their final determination on •
this matter.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 Sep eer 9,.985
Hallett asked whether an agricultural use could be allowed filar the fill
area, if a land-hold agreement was executed as discussed at the previous
meeting. Planner Enger responded that it could be allowed in accordance
with City Code, but that this would not mean storage of equipment or outside
storage of any kind. He added that any further development should be denied
until sewer and water were available to the site.
Chairman Schuck stated that, since patrons of the Lion's Tap were using the
filled area on Mr. Peterson's property for parking, some method of policing
the parking, or preventing parking in this area, was necessary immediately.
Hallett stated that, in that regard, he felt the City should make every
attempt to facilitate the realignment of the intersection of County Road #4
with Highway #169.
Mr. Sever Peterson stated that he had no difficulties with the property
remaining in a Rural zoning category in terms of use. He stated that if
parking machinery on the property was not allowed, he would not do so. He
reaffirmed that the would be willing to meet any, and all, requirements of
the Rural District.
Johannes stated that he was most concerned about the possibility of setting
a precedent by allowing the fill to remain in this area. He added that,
while he did not want to cause any financial hardship by requiring the
removal of the fill, he still felt that it may be a necessary alternative.
Marhula stated that he suspected that the major impact of filling in this
floodplain area would be upon Mr. Peterson's property, but that the City
should consider whether other properties would be impacted, as well,
including major roads, such as County Road #4 and Highway #169.
Marhula stated that he felt that the land use matter was a separate issue.
He concurred with Chairman Schuck that the parking by patrons of Lion's Tap
needed to be controlled in the immediate future and suggested that fencing,
or some other type of barrier, be installed to prevent such parking.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the fill on Mr. Peterson's land, subject to the
following: 1) A land-hold agreement being signed by Mr. Peterson including
conditions precluding development of the property until sewer and water were
available to the site; 2) Allowing only Rural use of the site; 3) Immediate
measures be implemented to prevent parking by patrons of the Lion's Tap on
the filled property; and 4) Subject to any conditions which may be imposed
by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Riley-Purgatory-
Bluff Watershed District.
Marhula stated that he felt it was necessary to have the data from DNR and
the Watershed District regarding impact of the fill in the floodplain on
adjacent properties prior to taking any action on this item.
Motion failed--2-4-0 (Chairman Schuck, Dodge, Johannes, and Marhula
against)
•
Planning Commission Minutes 9 Sepberher „ 1 35
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Oodge, to continue this item to the
October 7, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt of findings
from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Riley-Purgatory-
Bluff Watershed District as to potential impact on the adjacent properties
and upon County Road #4 and Highway #169 of filling within the floodplain.
Motion carried--6-0-0 •
•
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Highway #212 Progress Report
Gartner stated that she had recently attended a meeting regarding the
progress of the Highway #212 corridor through Eden Prairie. She stated that
the current schedule was for Highway #5 to its intersection with Mitchell
Road would be completed in 1986, the intersection of Highway #5 with County
Road #4 would be improved in 1987, and the railroad bridge would be replaced
in approximately 1989.
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. PLANNER'S REPORT
Meeting Dates for October and November, 1985
Staff noted that, due to public holidays, it would be necessary to change
the meeting schedule for the Planning Commission in October and November,
1985.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the following
schedule for meetings in October and November, 1985:
Special Meeting Monday, October 7, 1985
Regular Meeting Monday, October 28, 1985
Special Meeting Tuesday, November 12, 1985
Regular Meeting Monday, November 25, 1985
Motion carried--6-0-0
( VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett. Chairman Schuck
adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 26, 1985
C. LION'S TAP, review of excessive fill (beyond permit approval), from
Lion's Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's land.
Location: Northeast corner of U.S. #169 and County Road #4.
The Planning Staff expressed concern about two major items with regard to
the illegal placement of fill on the Peterson property adjacent to the
Lion's Tap. First, the lack of compliance with City ordinances controlling
this type of activity and the possibility of encouraging more of the same.
Second, the expansion of the Lion's Tap was an accommodation to the owner of
the use to allow expansion of an existing non-conforming land use outside of
the City's Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA Line), in conflict with its
Comprehensive Plan, and contrary to the Bluff Preservation Policy, in order
to solve the parking and circulation problems; however, the problems had not
yet been resolved.
Planner Enger stated that the problem was that the use had grown to a point
where parking and circulation were becoming safety hazards. The owner of
the Lion's Tap had indicated that the only way to provide safe parking off
the County and State Highways was to allow significant expansion of his
building in conjunction with redesign of the site. The expansion of the
building was accomplished, and the expansion of the business appeared to
have been even greater, leaving the same parking and circulation problems.
Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson reviewed the Staff Report with the
Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 26, 1985
Commission and presented slides of the existing conditions on the site after
the fill had been placed on Mr. Peterson's property. She noted that the
fill was likely placed on the property on, or about, December, 1984.
Gartner asked if the placement of this fill in the floodplain would cause
County Road #4, or Highway #169, to be flooded. Zoning Administrator
Johnson reported that the Watershed District engineers were in the process
of making those calculations and would be reporting back to the City.
Chairman Schuck as Mr. Peterson how it came to be that the fill was
deposited in this location. Mr. Peterson stated that he was unaware of the
requirements of the City for review, but that he had checked with the
Watershed District and thought that he had received an approval from them to
place the fill in that location.
Planner Enger stated that the City was concerned about the technical aspects
of this situation, specifically that this was a significant amount of fill,
there was danger of setting a precedent for others to do the same in the
City, and that the potential future land use of the property had also been
changed by the addition of the fill.
Regarding the potential future land use, Planner Enger stated that the City
would now be discussing a parcel of property at the corner of two major
thoroughfares, instead of a designated floodplain. He suggested that a
"land-hold" agreement may need to be prepared in order to prevent premature
development of the property until the point in time when sewer and water
were available to the property. Currently, the property was located outside
of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, which precluded development.
Hallett stated that he had attended a meeting on Mr. Peterson's site, with
representatives of the Watershed District, the City, Mr. Peterson, and Mr.
Noterman, owner of the Lion's Tap, after the fill had been located on Mr.
Peterson's property. Hallett stated that the representative from the
Watershed District had stated that he did not feel the location of the fill
would create a problem for the floodplain. Hallett added that he felt there
was no ill intent on the part of Mr. Peterson, or Mr. Noterman, but that an
honest mistake had been made and that they should have checked with the City
prior to locating the fill on this property.
Hallett stated that he, too, was concerned about the potential future land
use of the property. He added that he felt the City should also continue to
work with Hennepin County in order to achieve a safer alignment of County
Road #4 with Highway #169 in this area.
Mr. Peterson stated that he would want the property to retain its Rural
zoning and that his intentions were for agricultural use of the property.
Chairman Schuck expressed concern about the possibility of setting precedent
by recommending approval of this action. He stated that by approving Mr.
Peterson's request, the City would find it difficult to deny a similar
_ request of any other resident of the community.
Planner Enger stated for clarification that the Watershed District Board had
not approved the proposed fill, nor had the representative from the
Planning Commission Minutes 6 Aajustat .-1985
� I
Watershed District represented that the Board had approved the fill. He
stated that there had clearly been a misunderstanding as to what was
approved by the Watershed District.
Gartner stated that she felt the Commission should not take any action on
this matter until information was available from the Watershed District and
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources with respect to the impact of
filling this area of the floodplain.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue review of this
item to the September 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt
of reports from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Watershed District.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None. •
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes. Chairman
Schuck adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Nov.j 1985
-2-
V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. Lion's Tap/Sever Peterson Fill in Floodplain
Refer to memo dated September 17, 1985 from Bob Lambert, Director
of Community Services, letters dated August 26, 1985 and
October 21, 1985 from the DNR, letters dated September 17, 1985 and
October 2, 1985 from the Hennepin Conservation District, staff
report dated August 23, 1985 and letters dated March 28, 1985 and
April 3, 1985 from the Lover Minnesota River Watershed District.
Lambert said this item is being continued from a previous meeting,
as we were awaiting further information from the state.
Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator, was present at the meeting to
review the decisions made by the Planning Commission.
Johnson reported that the Hennepin Conservation District's
calculations have been done since the last meeting. 39,000 yards
of fill were deposited east of County Road 4 so instead of the 0.4
acres allowed in the grading permit the actual fill is
approximately 2.2 acres. ,The final calculations and comments were
needed by the DNR to finalize their findings. It is not felt that
there will be a substantial effect on the Minnesota River
floodplain and it was determined that there will not be a
measurable change either upstream or downstream. It was
recommended that the City require additional testing for further
building and hydraulic studies. It is also recommended that there
be an evacuation plan for the Petersons in case of a flood.
At the October 28 Planning Commission meeting, it was voted 4-1
that the fill be allowed to remain on the site; that there be a
land hold agreement stating that the area is to be used for
agricultural crop raising purposes only with no buildings or
machinery storage; that there be no parking on the site and that a
fence be installed at the property line. Another condition is that
the site shall not be used for any commercial purpose and no
rezoning request be considered until the site is served by City
sewer and water.
Kingrey asked if there was a date on which the county would realign
County Road 4. Johnson said that no date has been given.
Kingrey asked if the City would alleviate the problem by requiring
a right-of-way. Lambert said that probably would not make a
difference. •
Kingrey said the use of the land could be put on a hold pattern
until the City has a right-of-way.
Johnson said the hold agreements have been used before, but not for
several years and she feels the City Attorney should be consulted
for his recommendations.
.'t<:e
•
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Nov 4, 1985
-3-
Lambert said there were several conditions that were considered by
the Planning Commission to leave the fill where it is. He said
that Sever Peterson's comments regarding the recommendations should
be noted.
Kingrey asked if the final Planning Staff recommendations were
included in the packet. ,Johnson said they were not.
Peterson explained that when the offer came for the fill to be
placed on his property, he talked to the Minnesota River Watershed
engineer who told him to what point the fill could be placed.
Permission was not received from the City, as Peterson did not
realize this was necessary. Peterson wants this site zoned as
rural only and he feels that since the studies were done, the fill
should not be considered illegal in terms of the floodplain. He
feels it is the property owner's right to fill if it does not
affect the floodplain. Peterson added that he agrees with some of
the conditions of the Planning Staff's recommendation, but he feels
that if he ever wants to rezone he has to come back to the various
boards anyway so does not feel this needs to be included in the
recommendation.
Johnson again reviewed the conditions of the Planning Staff
recommendation.
Peterson said he feels that a fence will not eliminate parking on
the site, but he will install a fence on the property line. He
stressed again that he wishes the land to be zoned as rural only.
Johnson added that there was no recommendation from the Riley-
Purgatory Creek-Bluff Creek Watershed District, as they had
accepted it at the time the boundaries cnanged.
Gonyea asked why the land cannot be left rural instead of adding
the agriculture crop use clause and why a land hold agreement was
needed. Johnson said that rural is designated as agricultural use
with one single family home per ten acres of land.
Kingrey asked if Johnson has only a verbal agreement with
Bert Noterman for the exchange of land once the road is realigned.
Peterson said yes. Kingrey asked what would happen it Noterman
decided to sell. Peterson said he may have the right to pass the
agreement on.
Lambert felt the word legal should be clarified. It is legal only
when the property owner has the approval of all the agencies. Even
though the fill is there and will not affect the floodplain, he is
concerned with the City allowing someone to fill in the floodplain
area. Lambert added that this subject was originally brought up
when cars from the Lion's Tap were parking in the right-of-way. He
said the City could require an easement for the road or set a
price. Johnson pointed out the approved location of the
realignment and the right of vay on the plan.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
{ EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Nov. 4, 1985
-4-
Kingrey said he feels that everyone he has spoken to wants to make
sure that Peterson is not in a better situation than he was before
the fill was added, especially since it was not done legally.
Shaw said he feels that there are some benefits to both parties
since hauling the fill across the road was certainly cheaper than
hauling it away and that possibly Peterson would have a benefit
from the extra land. He added that the violation probably occurred
when it got to late in the year to haul fill and they just kept
adding to the original fill. Shaw does not feel the City should
allow permit violations. He would be interested in seeing both
participants at the same time.
Kingrey asked if Noterman has been present at any of the meetings.
Johnson said he has been at several Planning Commission meetings.
Cook asked who got the permit for the original fill. Johnson said
it was probably the excavators working for Noterman. Peterson said
he wanted the record to show that he did accept the fill since he
thought everything was legal.
Kingrey asked if Peterson,has paid for the fill. Peterson said no.
Kingrey said he does not see a benefit in fining the two parties,
but feels Peterson and Noterman should be required to dedicate the
right-of-way to the City as compensation.
Peterson said the engineer had shown him the line to where fill
could be added and this is what they did.
Lambert said he had no specific recommendation for this case.
However, he saw it as two questions that should be answered: 1.
Would the Commission approve a request for the fill if the request
came prior to the action? 2. Does the Commission feel it is
appropriate to take some action to reprimand the applicants for the
illegal action?
Peterson said the only requests he has are that land is zoned as
rural only, that he has the right to apply for rezoning and if the
City has concerns about parking on the site, he will install a
fence.
MOTION: A motion was made by Gonyea to recommend approval of the
fill permit per Planning Staff recommendations with the condition
that a fence will be installed to eliminate safety hazards and
parking on the site. Baker seconded the motion. Cook said he felt
the permit should be approved with all the conditions the Planning
Staff recommended. The motion passed 4-1.
l
1
C
B. Fill Deposited at Highway,169 and County Road 4
Refer to staff report dated August 23, 1985 and letter dated
September 4, 1985 from Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator, letter
dated August 26, 1985 from the DNR and letter dated August 21, 1985
from the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
Lambert introduced Sever Peterson who was present at the meeting to
discuss approval of a grading permit which was allowed on 0.4 acres
east of County Road 4 in conjunction with the Lion's Tap rezoning.
The actual fill in the floodplain was approximately 2.2 acres and
was done without prior approval from the Watershed District and the
City. This issue was delayed by the Planning Commission pending
the receipt of further information.
Jessen asked what specific kind of information was being waited
for. Peterson said they are waiting for the results of a study by
the DNR and Watershed District regarding the implications this fill
could have on flood storage.
Jessen asked Peterson if his driveway was a boundary of the two
watershed districts. Peterson said he doesn't know.
•
•
tt?�f
C {
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Sept. 16, 1985
-4-
Lambert asked if Peterson had received approval on the Watershed
District for the filling of 2.2 acres. Peterson said that an
engineer from the Watershed District had come out to the site and
told Peterson he could "fill to here".
Jessen said he would like to know if the Lower Minnesota River
Watershed District had approved the filling of the 2.2 acres
previously.
Kingrey said he understood that part of the fill would be used for
the straightening of County Road 4. Peterson said he assumed the
same thing and thinks that eventually it will be.
Cook asked if this issue has anything to do with the burial grounds
along the river valley that were discussed at an earlier meeting.
Lambert said no.
Peterson said that he wanted the Commission to know that City staff
has been very diligent in bringing this issue to the various
boards.
Jessen asked Lambert to find if the 0.4 acres is going to be
acquired by the county.
Kingrey referred to the paragraph in Jean Johnson's memo which
states, "In exchange for not being required to remove fill and to
bring the property into conformance with the original permit, the
parties have agreed to abide by the decision resulting from the new
permit" and felt it was rather difficult to understand. Lambert
had the same feeling and will look into it further.
MOTION: A motion was made by Breitenstein to table the discussion
of the fill deposited on County Road 4 and Hwy. 169 until a future
meeting. Cook seconded the motion and it passed 5-0.
VI. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS, BOARDS AND STAFF
A. Reports of Director of Community Services
1. LAWCON/LCMR Grant Application for Fiscal Year 1986
Refer to memo dated September 3, 1985 from Bob Lambert,
Director of Community Services and letter dated August 20, 1985
from Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development.
Lambert reported that the requests for funding for athletic
field improvements at Round Lake Park and the acquisition of 25
acres at Riley Lake Park were not approved since the ranking
was not high enough. Lambert said that they have changed the
review process. The major changes are that the Metro Council
no longer reviews the requests and they have developed a new
form that gives each item points.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
•
RESOLUTION R5-270
REVISION TO FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
RESOLUTION 85-213
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie adopted Resolution 85-213 on the 1st day of
October, 1985, which prescribed final assessments for a variety of improvement
projects;
WHEREAS, at the request of property owners affected by improvement projects
I.C. 52-011A (Eden Road street improvements) and I.C. 52-059A (Carmel and
vicinity subtrunk improvements) the City has reviewed the impact of the
proposed assessments to homesteaded property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
1. The Council finds that the homesteaded parcels affected by improvement
project I.C. 52-011A and I.C. 52-059A would incur undue financial
hardships if the assessments are deferred without a limit on interest
accrual.
2. The Council furthers finds that no particular benefit will accrue to
these properties unless and until the uses change through the rezoning
and development process.
3. As a result of these findings, the Council hereby modifies Resolution
85-213 such that "all homesteaded parcels affected by I.C. 52-011A and
I.C. 52-059A are deferred and that the accrual of interest shall not
exceed 50% of the original principal".
4. Upon recommendation of the City Attorney, parcels 02-116-22 14 0006,
02-116-22 14 0008 and 02-116-22 41 0002 shall be deleted from the
assessment rolls under project I.C. 52-059A and re-levied at some
future time pursuant to Mn. Statutes 429.071 because such parcels were
not included under the improvement hearing for project I.C. 52-059A.
ADOPTED by the City Council on November 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
•
`)3
1936 :den Road
Sden Prairie, ,-.:d 5 344
Cct. 22, 1985
City Council
City Ui. hoes t'rairie
?ttn: Carl Jullie
Dear Council :.embers:
The ::ur:ose of this letter is to :euest deferment of assess-
aents aed ::ost.poner.ent of interest accrual for our ;-roperty at 7936
Alen Road until such time as the proporty is sold.
•
•
Cs Cct. 15 we :got a cony of our assessment summary at the
City C"fice whch shows "Levy 6153 T?A at time of development or
rezonirr 216.05, Schooner .d1va. -;,90. I!omestead Deferred 52011A
to be Deferred for 4 years from 1986 'r ,15,060.12". dno Wirer •
special assessment decir-nated s�l-3c5 for a drainage outlet is
bean: chard annually and also appears on the summary.
Cur property size is approximately one acre ant we have our
own well er water, se'otic tank and drain .ieid for sewer and use
oil e�.t. In addition we like it here and especially like the
proximity to Sob (ocian's employer of 27 year's, Rosemount Inc. •
(3rc::i:.:rtely one 'clock away) .
.:e do not dispute the fact that these improvements have
•
_potential value enhancement for the property by a commercial user.
However we think you will asnr•ee that these improvements have no
benefit for the residential home we have enjoyed for 24 years. •
The only benefactor of such improvements is an ultimate commercial
user. de believe we should not be assessed interest on something
that only :.e (the potential commercial user) can benefit from--in
the event the 'property does become commercialized.
•
Oral comments were made and a written objection was filed
with you at the Sept. li, 1965 Council heeting (copy attached).
Cm Oct. 15 we sou;.ht a copy of the minutes of the Sept. 1•( meetin6
tut were told they were not yet <va"_lsble. then met with Carl
Ju_iie and understood that the def er'reent cuesticn had not yet •
been :u'__y decided. ;.e race cur request that interest not accrue •
•
on as=;ssrtent 52011A for our property until sold. he further under •
-
stood that our n.ssescment :a::ount was increased to 1.521ti.55 (dic-
•
cu:.; at e:at. 1'i Council ;h.eetini) and from a telephone con-
v-rsation with: ;ene Dietz Oct. l; we understand that this amount
•
dos not include s .,anht r'J -, ter ` n]tar,j wer portion •
..bout 1f72 and te assessment was deferred until
Ju:sci.:c 1 (to so char:no r-ates). I,.
•
•
In uunxoary: •
there is _.recedent for deferments on 9.3ae3sment3 for our
property.
The present assessmert . 520111 has no value for us as
residents. ;o moved into this propertyin 1361 and have no
plans or present desire tc sell.
The assessment coat should not be our burden. It should be
applied to the benefited party at fair market value when utilized.
•
Respectfully,
Robert R and Lary C Kooiman
•
•
i -
•
•
j�
' I
MEMORANDUM
{
TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services 14
DATE: October 9, 1985
SUBJECT: Round Lake Treatment Program •
On October 2, 1985, the Department of Natural Resources treated Round Lake with
Rotenone as approved by the City earlier this year. The treatment was very
successful and upon reviewing the number and size of fish that were in the lake,
staff is convinced the full treatment was the correct action.
Upon inspection of the lake on Thursday, October 3rd, approximately 40 large mouth
bass of 1/2 lb or smaller were observed, 1 walleye approximately 2 1/2 lbs was
observed and thousands of dead sunfish were observed with less than a dozen of
keeper size (6" or longer). The majority of the sunfish were less than 3" in
length.
Later this fall, the DNR will again introduce several thousand fingerling sunfish,
walleyes and large mouth bass and 2,000-3,000 1/2 to 3/4 lb rainbow trout. In the
spring of 1986, the DNR will also stock several thousand male sunfish that will be
of catchable size by mid-summer.
Later this year or early in 1986, the DNR will hold a public hearing on a law that
will prohibit the keeping of any bass less that 12" caught in Round Lake. Once that
law is approved, the lake will be posted at several prominent locations.
You may recall that on May 17, 1985, Dr. Joseph Shapiro, Limnologist from the
University of Minnesota, submitted a Round Lake Study Proposal to the City of Eden
Prairie. Dr. Shapiro also conducted the 1980 study of Round Lake. Dr. Shapiro
recommended the Rotenone treatment of the whole lake again in 1985 with the special
fishing restrictions to protect young large mouth bass, as well stocking a high
number of large male bluegill sunfish. Dr. Shapiro requested the City to consider
subsidizing a monitoring program by his staff upon approval of the treatment
project. The DNR would be monitoring this program simply for fish numbers and
sizes. Dr. Shapiro would be providing a relatively detailed monitoring program that
would provide a consistent measure of the biological and chemical conditions of the
lake. This information, in addition to the detailed information that has been
gathered on the lake since 1980, would provide valuable research data for the
management of small lakes similar to Round Lake. City staff believe this research
would be helpful in making future decisions regarding the management of Mitchell
Lake and Red Rock Lake, tip other lakes within the City that have'recreation
potential.
Dr. Shapiro has requested the City budget $4,500 for 1985 and "although work in
subsequent years will likely be considerably more frequent, we will limit costs to
10% increase per year."
In July 1985, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed this
request and recommended the Council approve a monitoring program for a maximum co
of $4,500/year for two years prior to making a decision for any further monitorik,
or the detail of monitoring required.
•
In August of 1985, the City Council approved the Rotenone treatment of Round Lake,
but decided to delay a decision on funding the University of Minnesota study until
,after budget hearings.
Community Services staff recommend the Council approve the Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources Commission recommendation for a commitment to monitor the lake for
two years (1986 & 1987) at a cost not to exceed $4,500 per year.
BL:md
1
Round Lake Study Proposal
F
Background
In the fait of 19 O rantnrarinn of An,n.A Tnke .. ,n.dnrt*ke. A fish *--4
rotenone, was used to eliminate the existing fish populations and then restocking
was done. The goal of this restoration was twofold -- to improve the fishing
potential of the lake by removing bullheads and stunted populations of bluegill
sunfish and black crappies, and to improve water clarity by making possible an
abundance of large Daphnia. The restoration initially was a great success. As
we had predicted, water clarity improved dramatically in 1981 and 1982, and MDNR
netting surveys indicated rapidly growing populations of bluegill sunfish, large—
mouth bass, and walleyes.
However, samples collected by the Limnological Research Center during the
summers of 1983 and 1984 indicate that Round Lake water quality has reverted
to pretreatment conditions. This trend is evident in the following average
summer Secchi disc transparencies:
1980 Treatment 1981 1982 1983 1984
Secchi Disc Depth (m) 2.1 4.8 4.7 2.9 3.0
The results of the fish restocking are more encouraging but also show
disturbing trends. The three species stocked, sunfish, walleye and bass, did
well initially, and the populations of bluegill sunfish and largemouth bass
expanded rapidly as shown below:
1980 Treatment 1981 1982 1983 1984
Bluegill Sunfish (0/trapnet set) 118 14 50.6 211 139
Largemouth Bass (i'/trapnet set) 0.4 7 8.8 43 1
Walleyes 0 /gillnet set) 0 12 4 2.5 2.0
Thus, Roune Lake contains sizeable numbers of walleyes, bluegill sunfish, and
t _ largemouth bass in the acceptable size range for angling. Whether this fish community
can he maintained, however, is another matter. Bluegill numbers are again high, even
- 2 -
exceeding those measured in 1980. An overpopulation of bluegills will lead to
the same stunting problem observed prior to treatment. The increase in blue-
gilt. numbers coincided with the decline in large Daphnia and decrease in water
clarity. The number of largemouth bass trapped in 1984 showed a disturbing
drop. This decline to some extent reflects lower trapping success for bass
spawned in 1981 and 1982, as they have now grown out of the easily-trapped
size range. However, it may also reflect declining recruitment of new bass
in recent years due to increased predation by bluegills on bass eggs and fry.
If recruitment falls, bass fishing in the lake will quickly fade as the 1981
and 1982 year classes are eliminated by angling or natural causes. Walleyes,
which will not reproduce in the lake, will have to be restocked to maintain
their fishery.
Possible remedial action: C
It is our feeling that numbers of bluegill sunfish should be reduced again
to enhance water quality and to guard against their overpopulation. Based on
discussions with Duane Shodeen of the DNB the following two treatment options
are feasible:
1) Rotenone treatment of the whole lake and restock as in 1980. However,
this time special fishing restrictions would be implemented to protect young
largemouth bass (e.g. 12 inches would be the minimum legal size) so that the
number of adult bass would remain high. A sizeable number (e.g. 2500) of large
male bluegill sunfish would be stocked to provide an immediate fishery that
would not increase bluegill reproduction.
2) A partial treatment of the lake using a fish toxicant, at low concentra-
tions, directed at small sunfish.
The first option, above, provides the ,greater likelihood of rapidly enhancing C
water quality in that it mimics the initial treatment, hut with modification to
•
7
- 3 -
�
provide long-term improvement. The stocked adult bluegill sunfish would provide
the fishing resource for the first few years. The success of the second option,
on the other hand, is dependent on the proportion of the young bluegills that are
killed. The outcome of this experimental approach could range from no improvement
in water quality to significant improvements in clarity, but likely only after
some time. This treatment would leave a larger proportion of the present fishing
resource intact since treatment-induced mortality of bass and walleyes should be
low, but, as noted, this resource already is deteriorating.
From our point of view the first is far preferable. Based on our present
knowledge it has a much greater chance of meeting the dual goals of improved
water clarity and fishing potential. In addition it fits in closely with our
need for a well-studied lake, that will be rotenoned in the fall of 1985, to
study intensively as part of a large National Science Foundation Study in which
we are now engaged.
Proposal
We propose therefore, that Round Lake be treated in fall 1985 as in 1980,
with the addition of the size limit on the bass, and the stocking of adult male
sunfish. We also propose that Round Lake be studied during the next 3-5 years
(beginning May 1985) to evaluate the impact of this action and the hoped-for
increased longevity of the treatment. In general, the same approaches and pro-
cedures used since 1980 would be followed.
During 1985 sampling would be monthly May-September inclusive, but would
increase during 1986 to twice a month. Frequency during subsequent years would
range between the two.
I) Physical/Chemical Parameters
a. Temperature - :at 1-m intervals to bottom
- 4 (7
b. Dissolved oxygen - at 1-m intervals - to bottom
c. pH - at 2-m intervals to bottom
{
d. Secchi disc depth
e. Light intensity - at 1-m intervals through well-lit stratum
f. Total phosphorus - at 2-m intervals to bottom
g. Total nitrogren - at 2-m intervals to bottom
h. Lake surface elevation
2) Biological Parameters
a. Phytoplankton composition in surface waters
b. Chlorophyll concentration in surface waters
c. Primary productivity profiles - once monthly in June, July and
August
d. Zooplankton composition throughout the water column.
e. Macrophyte - determination of maximum depth of growth at several
locations in midsummer.
f. Fish composition - Minnesota DNR
This approach would provide a consistent measure of the biological and chemical
conditions in the lake since 1980 and allow assessment of treatment impacts.
Additional parameters fpH and primary productivity) have been added over prior years
to increase our understanding of why nutrient levels in the lake change (see en-
closed reprint) and to assess the potential detrimental impact of increased water
clarity (macrophyte growth). In addition, coupled with local rainfall measure-
ments and lake level fluctuations, these data would help assess the impact of the
increased stormwater runoff reaching the lake from continuing urbanization in the
watershed.
- 5 -
e
Cost
• i
We propose that the 1985 program be done for $4500, including all costs and
preparation of a data report. Although work in subsequent years will likely
be considerably more frequent, we will limit costs to a 10% increase per year.
•
•
I
{
0 -
e- APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Oct. 21, 1985
-4-
B. Datasery
Refer to staff reports dated August 23, 1985 and September 20,
1985.
Lambert said Bob Worthington of Opus Corporation was unable to
attend the meeting. However, the site and PUD have already been
approved and the only issue is the 8' asphalt walkway.
Jessen asked if there is'any other way to get to Lake Idlewild from
the site. Lambert said the developer is willing to build a trail
along their West 78th St. boundary which is the only way to get to
Lake Idlewild from this site.
Kingrey said he is concerned with having a large parking area
across from the lake. Lambert said there is really no alternative.
Kingrey added that the plantings proposed by the developer look
good.
MOTION: Kingrey moved to recommend approval of the Datasery
proposal. Shaw seconded the motion and it passed 5-0.
r
VI. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS, BOARDS AND STAFF
A. Reports of Director of Community Services
1. Round Lake Surface Use Ordinance
Refer to memo dated September 25, 1985 from Bob Lambert,
Director of Community Services.
This is an information item only.
Lambert reported that the ordinance was brought to the Council
and was approved subject to one change from the DNR. The
Commission requested that no boats with motors be allowed on
Round Lake. The DNR wants to promote fishing and suggested
that only boats with electric motors be allowed.
2. Round Lake Treatment Program
Refer to memo dated October 9, 1985 from Bob Lambert, Director
of Community Services.
Lambert reported that the treatment has been done and he needs
approval from the Commission to pay $4,500 per year for the U
of M study.
•
r- APPROVED MINUTES '
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Oct. 21, 1985
-5-
Shaw asked when payments to the U of M are to be made. Lambert
said the City will receive an annual report and a condition can
be added that payment will be made when the report is received.
Shaw reported that he is attempting to go before the Metro
Council and ask for their support of the study.
MOTION: Shaw moved to recommend approval of payment of $4,500
per year to the U of M for the Round Lake study to be paid at
the time the annual report is received. Cook seconded the
motion and it passed 5-0.
Kingrey referred to Page 1, Paragraph 3 regarding fingerling
sunfish that will be added later this fall. He did not recall
this being discussed earlier. Lambert said male and female
sunfish cannot be distinguished at such a young age.
Cook asked if the fingerlings are meant to be food for the
spring stock. Lambert said no, they will grow to an adult
stage.
3. Round Lake Water Elevation
Refer to memo dated October 10, 1985 from Bob Lambert, Director
of Community Services.
Lambert reported that the reading taken about a week ago was
882.2 which is higher than has ever been recorded.
The Commission discussed the extensive damage that could result
if the water elevation continues to be high and possible
solutions to the problem.
MOTION: Kingrey moved to recommend that the City seek
immediate resolution to the high water level at Round Lake and
take whatever steps are necessary to preserve the park. Baker
seconded the motion and it passed 5-0.
8. Reports of Superintendent of Recreation
1. Masters Swim Meet - April 5-6
Refer to memo dated September 19, 1985 from Joy Eastman,
Aquatic Supervisor. •
Pappas said that this is the second year such a request has
been made and the swim meet has gone well in the past.
1