HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/03/1980 i
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1980 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave f
Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath
COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney
Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger;
Finance Director John Frane; Director of
Community Services Bob Lambert; City Engineer
Carl Jullie, and Joyce Provo, Recording
Secretary
INVOCATION PLEDGE OF A'LEGIANCE ROLL CALL
a
I,. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
i
II:/MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1980 Page 1385
III;,/"CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 1405 j
B. Resolution reqardinq fueding for County Road 4 Bikeway project Page 1406 1
jRes6lution No. 80 1
C. , Resolution for appropriation of MSA funds to F.H. 5/W.78th Street Page i409
` si�cnal project, 1.C. 51-327 Resolution No. 80-109
D. Approval of final agreement with Hennepin County for traffic signal Page 1411
proj ect 7841, I.C. 51-338, Co. Rd. 18 at Anderson Lakes Parkway
Resolution No. 80 Y 0
E. Amend Resolution No. 1210 relating to deferment of special assessments Page 1424
for Senior Citizens Resolution No. 80-11
F. Final approval for Municipal Indust 1 D elo ment Bonds in the amountPage 1427
of 287,250.00 for Alston aud Je Lu en Resolution No. 80-101
G. Final approval for Munici -IndjAltrial Development Bonds in the amountPage 1439
of 6,000,000.00 for the M nn ota Vikings Facility-TResolution No,
80-f 63T—
H. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. , rezoning 22 acres from Rural to Page 1448
Rf-13.5 for Rymarlan ition b�
a iM1ilt Quam and developer s
reement --
1. 2nd Readigc of Ordinance No, 80- 1 L rezoning 8 acres from Rural to Page 1456
Office for Cardarclle 8 Asso tes, inc., and devel�er s agreement
J. Resolution No. 80-105, requestiiy approval for transferrinq—nf Page 1463
10,[100 fioni-Coniminity Dc_velo ment Rlock Grant County Road 4_bike
tra it to Valley View Road bike trail
K. Resolution.No. 80-104,_1-onuestinq the release of 19£,0 LAWCON funds Page 1465
and to restore 1981 LAWCUN funding level
3
Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,June 3, 1980
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
^� A?Irs
{ A. Braun's Fashions,lnc. by Rauenhorst Corporation. Request to rezone Page 1467 1.
from Rural to 1-2 and preliminary plat 9.95 acres into 1 lot and
1 outlet. Located north of Valley View Road across fro 955 Valley
View Road (Ordinance No. 80-13 and Resolution No.
9: Northmark`East"by Ban-Con. Re uest to rezone 5.2 acres from Rural Page 1494
to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat the property for 32 quadra-minium units.
Located West of Center Way, across from Hyland,Terrace,-and Morthmark �.
Drive. (Ordinance No. 80-14 and Resolution No. --
!.�,,Northmark West by Request to rezone 11.7 acres from Rural Page 1508
o RM 6.5 and preliminary plat the property for 68 quadra-minium
units. Located east of Preserve Boulevard and North o_f Westwind
Addition. (Ordinance No. 80-15 and Resolution No. I00)
,ar ,
o -!� 8,4 Request for Nahicipal Industrial Development Bond apgroval in the Page 1520
amount of ,750,000.00 for Wilson Learmnq Corporation Resolution
No. 89,4102
"
E. Establishment of an HRA (Housing & Redevelopment Authority) for Page 1528
Tax Increment Financing tResolution No. 80-112
V4,' PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 1703 - 1859 Page 1529
i
VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
( A Report from the Hunting/Shooting Zone Commi wee f^!- J Page 1533
1;
VII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members tip, QGf t,
1. Appointment of 2 members to CAG (Citizens Advisory Group) Page 1534
B. Report of City Attorney
C. Report of City Manager
1. Discussion on Dog Impounding Fees (Ordinance No. 134) Page 1536
D. Report of City Engineer
1. 42rove RLS and ric_ht_of_way trade-off for Schooner Boulevard Page 1537
extension north of 41. 78th Street
-- 2': Extend bid openi�nc date for Valley View Road/Dell Road, Phase Page 1540
2, I.C. 51-325
E. Report of Finance Director
1. 1979 Audit Report -f;; 4 ti Page 1541
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. ADJOURNMLNT.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE. CITY COUNCIL
1,
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1980 7:30 FM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave
Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney
Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger;
Finance Director John Frane; Director of
Community Services Bob Lambert; Engineer d
Carl Jullie; and Joyce Provo, Recording
Secretary
INVOCATION: Councilman Paul Redpath
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members present
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were added to tore Consent Calendar: "Permission to advertise
and receive bids for tennis courts at Round Lake Park and Prairie East heijhliorlruod
_ Permission_o 5dvrefse
Park, andorult =usetour_ at TgRview Neighborhood Park", and "
ena recer've-bids for tine porch at T;he 5ennor Citizen Center",
The following items were removed from the regular agenda and placed on the
Consent Calendar: VIII. C. 2. Amendment to Mutual Aid A rn eement; VIII,E. 2. Consider
bids for improvements_ in Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition, I.C_51-376 �(f;esoluiion No.
80-91 aiid Resolution No;E30_93 VIII,E. 3. A rove flans and specifications and order
bids foi I'iiase lI, Valley Vieri Road/Dell Road Improvements, I.C. 51-325 {Ke_s_olu£ion
Ne. FO_J4 and VIII_P. 4. Receive feasibilit report for street and walkway
.im ro_ements from Preserve Boulevard to T H 169, I.C. 51-341 Resolution No. 80795).
Regi�est-for a Special Meeting r� vith Smiley-Glotter,architects for the Community
Genter,to be added as ileiii VIII. U. 4; �eguest liy Mr.. t1c itt of Ric.tmat�n
Contractors to extend their rvorkinq horns on the Menard's site from 7:t10 AM
—----
to 1:U0 I'M t0 !c added as nt.em VIIi. E, f3; ancTRequest by the Lion's Club for
•a on:' da_y_ivi ne l i cerise for• Schaener Da s pis i tciii VIII. 0. 1.—
MOTION: Redpath moved, soccnded by Osterholt, to approve and agenda as amended and
published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. 511Ccial Joint SC1n001 Doard/City Council mc.eiinc�held April 17___l9£t0
M0110N: Redpath moved, secondr-d by Osterholt, to approve the rrirwtrs 0f the
Special Joint. SChcol hoard/City Cr�uncil ureeting held April 17, 191,0 .rs published.
Redi"ath, Osterholt, Edstrom and Penzel voted "aye Pauly °abstained". Motion
carried.
B. City_Couucil rr:ct iny_lreld Tut day_filay a, 19t,0
1�101`1011 F&trom moved, Sccondod by 11ec11 at;h, to approve the urirtrrt.eS of the
City Council 11weting lield Tuesday, Mz:y 6, 1'-1:;O,as published. Motion earriod
1111a1)ini0u51Y. vC
Council Minutes - 2 - Tues„May 20, 1980
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Resolution No. 80-96, ark oving the Final Plat for Value Knolls 2nd Addition
B. Resolution No. 80-97, alT rovinq_the Final Plat for Menard's 2nd Addition
C. Permission to advertise and receive bids for tennis courts at Round Lake Park
andt'rairie East Neighborhood Park, and rnulti-use coot at Toj)v ideijh1'orhood
Park - — e
D. Permission to advertise and receive bids for the porch at the Senior Citizen
Center
E. Amendment to Mutual Aid Agreement (formerly item VIII, C, 2,)
F. Consider bids for improvements in Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition, I.C. 51-376
Resolutiori No`80-92 and Resolution No, 80-93) forierly item VIIi, E, 2
G. Approve plans and specifications and order bids for Phase I1, Valley View
Road/Dell !toad Improvements, I.C. 511-325 Resolution No, 8D-9Tfiormerly item ,
VIII. E. 3
i
H. Receive feasibility report for street and walkw� improvements from Preserve
Boulevard to T.H. 169, I-C,51-3413Reso`lution No, 80-95�forrnerly item TIII, E. 4 r
MDTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve items A - H on the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously,
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. R�marland Camp 2.nd Additions Milt uam, Re_._1cuest to rezone 22 acres from
Rural to R1-13,5 anpreliminar lat Ulots for single family!detached homes, i
Located cast of TH 101 and south of Hidden Ponds Second Addition. (Drdinante
No, 80-10 and Resolution No, 80-90) Continued from May 6, 1980 1
Tom Bergquist of McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc,, representing Mr. Milt Quam,
spoke to the proposal as submitted to the Council,
City Planner Enger explained this item was considered at the March 24, 1980
Planning Commission and was given a unanimous recommendation for approval to
the City Council subject to the Staff Report dated March 19th and two additional
items added by the Planning Cornnission.
Mr. Joseph Schmitz, 19055 Deerfield Trail, expressed the following concerns;
1) Does not think the connection on Greenrid9e makes much sense other than a short++
cut to get out of the development. Feels it is going to be a short cut to get Y
to Valley View or on to Duck Lake Trail and does not see the necessity for, the
access when #101 is there; 2) Rumor that the pond will be dredged. The water leve
is very lua; now becauso of the lack of rain and dredging the pond would just lower,
the %Q ter table therefore causing a lot of dry spots without improving tho
appearance of it; and 3) Another rumor that sever and water will bu connected to
the. existing sewer and water in Hidden Ponds. Mr. Schmitz added his tqat("r Pressur
is very low at this point, and asked what that connection might do to the existiuq
pressure.
City Engineer Jullie responded to 1.11•. schmitz's concerns: I) The connection of
the road access to the north would siwpl•v match up with what was the right of way
provided in ilicldon Ponds 2nd Addition. It leas peen envisioned that the two areas
rtiiti both simile family uses should Ire tickt together rrith a road SystOW 2.) 1he
Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,May 20, 1980
A. Ry,u,Lland Camp 2nd Addition (continued)
water pressure situation will he rectified shortly by a looping system which the
City is in the process of completing and that should help substantially. In fact
there will be an elevated reservoir in the general area that will assure proper
supply; and 3) The pond Mr. Schmitz referred to is a storm water retention pond
and the storm sewer drains into that pond. That will help to keep the level
up properly and as time goes by the bottom will tend to seal and will hold the
water. Of course, in a real extended dry period there will be timesit will get
low. They are dredged out to provide four feet of normal elevation, which
usually is enough to sustain itself.
Bev Cronk, 18895 Pheasant Circle, asked if there is going to be any actual park l
area developed with this proposal as they do not have any at all. Director
of Conrwnity Services Lambert replied the City within the next couple of weeks E
will close on the Hidden Ponds Neighborhood Park which will be about a 15 acre
park - hopefully to be graded and seeded sometime this year.
Mrs. Cronk added on the Greenridge connection they have always known there was
going to be a connection. However, it is one of the few streets that she has 1
seen in a housing development that is so curvy•- it goes both uphill and curves.
There is one point just before it goes to Valley View where it goes straight,
then it curves right, and then back left again, which is a really dangerous
point. Mrs. Cronk added everyone knows the connection has to go through, but
putting stopsigns up at this point might be a good idea before something happens.
Penzel requested City Engineer Jullie to review the situation which Mrs.Cronk I,
{ outlined.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pauly, to close the Public Hearing and give
a Ist Reading to Ordinance No. 80-10, rezoning 22 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for
Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition by Milt Quam. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adopt Resolution No. 80-90,
approving the preliminary plat for Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition by Milt Quam.
Motion carried unanimously.
4
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct staff to draft a .
developer's agreement incorporating the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated March 19, 1980,and the recommendations of the Planning Conunission/Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Cardarelle & Associates, Inc., Office._ Request to rezone 8 acre from Rural to
Of-face andl scltack variances. Located at 8123 Lden Road (Ordinance No. 311-11)
Continued froin May 6, 1980
Frank Cardarelle, Cardarelle & Associates, Inc., spoke to the proposal as submitte
to the Council.
City Plannr.r Cngcr explained this item was rcviowed by the Planning Conunission
on Piarch 2.1, 1S'80, and the Conunission rcconraended unanimous approval to the
City Caincil of the rezoning as per the Staff Report dated March 20th vrith the
addition of one rccoitwvndation to read: "Cardarelle to build retaining walls
aiul la•ovide sidewalk easements along T.H. 169 and Edon Road". Setback variances
win r. also recommended for approval to the City Council as per the plan dated
2./25/8U.
Director of Comounity Services Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation & N,itural
Resources Comvdo,sion approval to the City Council on April 7, 1980
as .per the Plot Wing Staff Report. I'�:1
Council Minutes - A - Tues.,May 20, 1980
B. Cardarelle & Associates, Inc.,Office (continued)
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public hearing and
! give it 1st Reading to Ordinance No. BO-11, rezoning .8 acre from Rural to Office
with setback variances for Cardarelle & Associates, Inc. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct staff to draft a
developer's agreement incorporating the reconrnendations of the Staff Report
dated March 20, 1980 and the plan dated 2/25/80, and the recommendations of the
Planning Commission/Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Conmrission. Motion
carried unanimously.
C. American FamiIY Insurance Phase 2 BuiIdinq�y Rauenhorst Corporation. Request to
rezone 3 acies from Rural to Office Located west of present building at 131
f31uc Circle Drive. (Ordinance
Robert Worthington, Director of Planning and Governmental Affairs for
Rauenhorst Corporation, spoke to the proposal and displayed graphics depicting j
same.
City Planner Enger explained this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission
on May 12, 1980,and the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Conenission
on May 19, 1980. Both commissions recommended to the City Council approval of
the request for rezoning based on the May 9, 1980 Planning Staff Report.
Enger added Rauenhorst has now complied with the 8 items outlined in the Report.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Pauly, to close the Public Hearing and give
a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 80-12, rezoning 3 acres from Rural to Office.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Oster•holt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to direct Staff to draft a
developer's agreement incorporating the recommendations of the Planning
Staff Report dated May 9, 1980, and recommendations of the Planning Commission/
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Conmiission. Motion carried unanimously.
The Council congratulated Mr. Worthington on his appointment by the Governor
as Director of the !lousing Finance Agency.
D. Apl?oal petition from The Preserve on decision of Board of Arteals & 11d_iusi.ments
on AJir_il 1/ 1980 denying rr<ir yc+rd setback variances far lots 2 a_nd_.1,_lsl_ock l,_
p oposcd Garr�istinForest 4tti Addition (Resolution do. 30-86)
Larry Peterson, representing The Preserve, spoke to the appeal petition as
outlined in connnunication from Lee Johnson dated 11/2/80, requesting variances
on Lots 2 and 3 (attached as part of minutes). Mr. Peterson added since the
connrunication from 1.1r, Johnson was sent to the Council, there has been snn:r
hesitancy of the gentlemen to put the house on Lot 3 which was designed to qo
there because of negative reaction he has gotten from so,ne of the hoeiroarnnrs in
the area. 11oriever, in any event, The Preserve would still like to have tha
Council consider granting ill(, variance because that style of house would he
placed on Lot 3 anyr:ay. Mr- Peterson added the house designed by to
go on Lot 3 went through the design review process as any other house in The
I'ruscrrve t•:vuld •• the size of the house is adeduate, building materials u°.ed
in thr. boosts arc os good as an•y lruu:c, the•Y have all of the nice anicniIios
in that price catr,gory, i.a„ fireplace, odk trim, oak cabinets and cedar siding.
City fngiui,er• Jullit explained there was quite a lengthy discussion at the Board
aining to
of Apprals & Adjustmonts and detailed the minutes pert :,acre.
Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.,May 20, 1980
D. Affuvalyoutition from The Preserve (continued)
Redhat.h conniented it is his understanding that The Preserve could build a
house on Lot 3 without a variance. Mr. Peterson replied
hu doesn't think another house would be as acceptable as the
one under consideration. Peterson added eventually The Preserve aright find a
house to fit the lot, but he does not believe any other house would he as
acceptable in t:he neighburhood as the one under consideration from Vo-Tech.
The Preserve would still like the variance even if they can't put the proposed
Vo-Tech house on the lot. If necessary they will have a builder design and
build a house to fit the lots-in question.
Pauly felt the 50 foot setback is there for a good reason. The Board of Appeals &
Adjustments evidentally looked at the hardship point of view. The Preserve
still has in effect,a buildable lot and she doesn't see the hardship which warrant!#
granting the variance. If The Preserve gets a variance for something like this
which apparently is an oversight on their part, it shoots dorm the reasons for
setbacks. The Preserve hasn't created an unbuidable lot - they have created a
very awkward lot which is going to require a very individualized design.
Pauly added she sees no problem with a Vo-Tech house, but has misgivings about 1
granting a variance.
Mr. Peterson asked if The Preserve could go back to the Board of Appeals & j
Adjustments with another house design - maybe for something Tess than a 12
foot variance?
City Attorney Pauly replied there is nothing in the ordinance that precludes
( one from making a subsequent request for a variance. The only thing in
Ordinance No. 135 that refers to that is in case of denial of a zoning applica-
tion within a one year period. Pauly concluded in the absence of the ordinance
being specific, someone could come in again.
i
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Osterholt, to uphold the decision of the
Board of Appeals & Adjustments on April 17, 1980, denying rear yard setback
variances for Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, proposed Garrison Forest 4th Addition. i
Motion carried unanimously.
Edstrom encouraged a resolution of the problem as he felt there is one that can
be reached. s"
E. Spell 2etition from John O. Dougherty on decision of Board of A11leals & Adjust-
ments on ALril 17_ 1980 gra_ntin( bufldin2nu)Vinnj)ermit regiicst No, b S0 8 for Lot
j,_Block 1, LroLsed Garrison Fores Cif th Addition (fteso- ion No. 8a-ti5)
In the absence of the petitioner, John D. Dougherty, the Council made the
following motion:
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to table the appeal petition from
John D. Dougherty until 9:30 I'M. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAYHR11 OF CLAiMS NOS. 1522 - 1702
r t1o110N Redl"oth moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 1522 _
1702. Roll Coll Vote: Redpath, Edstrom, Osterholt and I'crizcl voted "aye"; Pauly
"absiainrd Motion carried,
Osterholt, encouraged the City to buy products from local businesWs.
I�z9
Council Minutes - 6 - Tues.,May 20, 1980
VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
{
No reports.
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS R COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Hustad_ Development Co oration for a revision on their 8luff's
II(st 3rd Addition, r;hich i•�as ai- .- for 169 siacdfe 1�,uFft ff i-lots,to allow
torarilioiisc density on—a portion of the si to -
Jim Ostenson, Hustad Development Corporation, spoke to their request as outlined 1
in coilvionication dated April 10, 1980 (attached as part of minutes). Ostenson
explained the letter was written basically with respect to the plan that was
approved and how it affected the park property that was contained as part of the
plat. The neighborhood park in Bluff's Nest 2nd and 3rd Additions were in two
phases - about 16 acres was dedicated with the 1st Addition, and the other half
(16 acres) was dedicated with the 3rd Addition. What has happened during the
time of the approvals and since then, is the fact that the single family market 9
has really slowed down. The builder they had in mind when they received approval
was Dreyfus Development and they because of lack of volume in the Twin Cities
area are proving out of the State. Now Hustad is left with 169 lots with really
no builder and a slow market ahead of them. The reason they wrote the letter,
according to Ostenson, was to ask the Council to reconsider and allow Hustad to
replat a portion of the site (15 acres of the 85 acres) to a multiple density
(townhouse density). Hustad's understand they did come in with that proposal
initially and it was turned down. The only advantage it would give Ilustad
would be they could exercise on the land, purchase the land, get that project
going because multiple is a very strong market right now and something they
could start developing right away. At the same time the proponents would
dedicate the park to the City. Ostenson stated Hustad would be willing to go back;
through the cornnissions avid have everyone review the plan. If not, they will
accept the decision and the land will be developed as single family.
Penzel expressed two concerns: 1) there is a substantial increase in overall )
density and 2) in effect, the activities which have occurred since last November !
have cost the City and its citizens the development of a park this year.
Ostonson replied he can understand the City wanting to go ahead and develop the
park and he, as a businessman, wants that park in that area as obviously it is
a very goad marketing tool for them. However, they are caught in that when they
exercise their option on the land and start to release property, the park is
the first piece that has to come down as part of their purchase agreement.
Without a project it is difficult for the proponents to go and purchase and
finance land that is given away.
N0T10N: Rcdpath moved, seconded by Pauly for purposes of discussion, to close
the Public: Hearing and encourage Hustad Development Corporation to ga back
through the reviarr process with a revised plan for G1urf's West 3rd Addition.
Pauly questioned if Hustad goes back through the Conniissions and receives approval '
for quads, when will the park be dedicated to the: City? Ostenson repli,�d if they
receive approval they would hope to be developing yet this Fall and tirut,ibly
would be looking at Spring construction. thus they would have their develpperent
loan and financing lined up and Could dedicate the park this Pall - appruxirrateiy
in Septenuier.
Osterholt. felt the Council i.'ent over this thoroughly r,hen the proposal was before
the Council previously which was to be the ult.iwate decision, and ire is nut
thrilled Navin<i it before: the Council again.
19,L)
Council Minutes - 7 - Tues.,May 20, 1980
A. Request from Ilustad Development Corporation on Bluff's 4fest 3rd Addition (continued
( Edstrom added he is not sure that this is the best development idea as proposed
by the proponents, and if the proponents carry this proposal back through the
process they should recognize the Council is not necessarily committing itself
to what may be developed in the process. Ostenson stated that is his under-
standing.
VOTE ON PREVIOUS MOTION: Edstrom and Redpath voted "aye"; Osterholt, Pauly and
Penzel voted "ayL"'. Motion failed.
Penzel prefaced his "no" vote on the premise a valiant and thorough effort was
made previously to arrive at the proposal which was finally agreed to by all
parties.
Item 1V. E. Ap)eal_petition from John D. Dougherty on decision of Board of Appeals &
Adjustments on April 17, 1980 grantiiy_building uVeving�ermit reqtiest No.
M80-8 for Lot 1, Block 1, proposed Garrison Forest 4th Addition was discussed
at this time as per the Council's previous motion 30 Vhl)In the absence of the petitioner, Mr. Dougherty, the following motion was
adopted:
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to close the Public Hearing and
uphold the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments of April 17, 1980,
granting building moving permit request No. 1180-8 for Lot 1, Block 1, proposed
(- Garrison Forest 4th Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
The following motion was adopted on behalf of Councilwoman Sidney Pauly:
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to recommend to the Governor
the appointment of Councilwoman Sidney Pauly as a member of the Waste Management
Board. Motion carried unanimously.
B. RLport of City Attorney
1. Request by the Lion's Club for a one daY wine license for Schooner Des
City Attorney Pauly responded to the inquiry by the Lion's Club on the
possibility of obtaining a one time license for the serving of wine with
dinner. Pauly explained there is a provision in the State Statutes to
grant temporary licenses for 3.2 beer, but no similar provisionfor wine.
Penzel asked if the Eden Prairic Center could obtain a wine license for
their Community Room to be used under such circumstances when the users
of the room are putting on a food consuming event.
City Attorney Pauly replied the State Statutes require a restaurant facility
for a certain nnmher of persons open to the public.
Penzel request.rd City Manager tflst.ad to advirc the t.ion's Club under State
Statute!, unfortunately it is impossible for the: City Council to ciraiit their
rcgne:t.
Council Minutes - 8 - Tues.,May 20, 1980
C. Resort of Citj agaao
1. Receive and consider bids for Two-Way Radio Ecaui�iment
City Manager Ulstad introduced John R. DuBois, PH.D, Communications
Manager, Registered Professional Communications Engineer from Hennepin
County, vdio assisted in drafting the specifications for bids. Ulstad
spoke to the three bids received, recommending the Council consider
the low bid of General Electric in the amount of $124,579.00.
Penzel questioned where the money would come from to pay for the system.
Ulstad replied the recommendation to the Council was when the City
advertises for bids the City would use certificates.
Penzel further asked how long this acquisition will last the City before
we have to have an additio:,al expenditure to expand the system. Ulstad
responded the system will last a number of year - 15 years or more.
Mr. DuBois spoke to the merits of the system under consideration and
answered questions of Council members.
Osterholt stated he recognized the need for the communication facilities,
however, failed to see the necessity for equipping all units.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to accept the bid of
General Electric, the low responsible bidder, in the amount of
$110,489.00 for 58 units. Roll Call Vote:
Edstrom, Redpath, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye"; Osterholt voted "nay".
( Motion carried.
2. Amendment to Mutual Aid Agreement
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. E.).
3. Liquor Store Lease at Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18
i
Finance Director Frane answered questions as to the operational costs of
the present liquor store in the Prairie Village Mall, and to the estimated
costs of the proposed liquor store location under consideration. j
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the formation of
a second unmicipal liquor store and to approve the lease at Anderson Lakes
Parkway and County Road 18 for purposes of discussion.
Councilwoman Pauly stated she is not going to vote to open a 2nd liquor
store as she is opposed to having municipal liquor because of the hassle,
running of employees, the questionnable amount of profit, and in this
particular case in direct compotiton with private stores.
Osterholt asked why it is so essential we lease the space right now.
Ulsted replied this is the space vie have discussed with the owners and
a year from now that space may not be available.
Penzel asked viliat the profits were on the liquor store last year.
Franc replied the net profit was $34,500.00; generated cash of S38,000.00.
City Attorney Pauly spoke to the lease vihich is for a firm three yGai's•
The couniiment would be for a period of three years only and fools the
rest of the terms could be worked out.
Council Minutes - 9 - Tues.,May 20, 1980
3, Lakes'Parkway and County Road 10 (continued)
{ Discussion took place regarding the possibility of the public voting not
to continue on with municipal liquor, and the City having to continue leasing
the space if this happens.
VOTE ON PREVIOUS MOTION: Edstrom, Osterholt, Pauly, Redpath and Penzel voted
"nay". Motion failed.
D. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Swedlund Property - Riley Lake
Director of Community Services Lambert explained this item has been before
the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission on several occasions)
and on May 5th the Conunission toured the Swedlund property. After that
tour the Commission moved to recommend to the Council purchasing the
Swedlund property to include a 200 x 30 foot parcel in Carver County if
possible. Further it was recommended to continue use of the Schaitberger
property as a boat access to Riley Lake. . The notion was unanimously
adopted by the Commission.
Lambert added the City did have a 1980 LA14CON grant approved for acquisition
of Miller Park on Mitchell Lake for about $112,000.00. President
Carter is balancing the budget and right now all LAWCON money for the State
of Minnesota is frozen at least until the first of July. At this point,
Lambert stated, he is uncomfortable with making a decision on this
acquisition until we have a good idea on what is going to happen with the
1980 and 1981 LAWCON dollars for the Miller Park on Mitchell Lake.
Mrs. Kirtland, who owns a cabin on Riley Lake, stated her concern is about I
the parking around the area and a boat ramp on the west side of the i
pennisula, as it would be dangerous to the people using the cabin areas t
for swimming. Also felt the cost to develop the Swedlund property might
become prohibitive and feels Eden Prairie has better places to put their money
at the moment.
140TION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to table consideration of
the Swedlund property on Riley Lake indefinitely. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Round Lake Park Plan and School Site Plan
Director of Commmmity Services Lambert displayed the master plan
for Round Lake Park and the School Site, requesting the Council consider
approval of same.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the mastc). Plan
for Round Lake Park and the School Site as presented by Director of Cous:mnity
Services Lambert. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Creekwood Park Purchase
MOTION: Osterholt mo�,ed, seconded by Edstrom, to authorize Director of
Conenunity Services Lambert to acquire the Creckwood Park property as per
memo dote-d May 15, 1980. notion carried unanimously.
Council Minutes 10 Tucs.,May 20, 1980
4. RequcSC for a Special Ideetin with Sm iley-GI t.tcr, architects for the
Cmuuuni ty Center
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to set a Special Meeting .
( to meet with Smiley-Glotter, architects for the Community Center,
to follow the Board of Review meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1980.
E. Report of City Engineer
1. Final Plat approval for Garrison Forest 4th Addition. (Resolution No.
f30-81T Continuedfroui May 6, 1980
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution
No. 80-87, approving the final plat for Garrison Forest 4th
Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consider bids for improvements in Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition,
I.C. 51-376 Re lut soion No. f30-92 a'ndJResolution Plo. 80-93�
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. F.).
3. Ap�ro_ve ll aans and specifications and order bids for Phase 11, Valle
View Road/hell Road improvements, I.C. 51-325 TResolution No. 80-95
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. G.).
4. Receive feasibil_ily report for street and walkwa rm rovements from
Preserve Boulevard to T.H. 169, I.C. 51-341 Resolution No. 80-9
737
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. H.).
5. Report on Edenbrooke development and Dell Road project north of Duck
Lake Trail
Greg D. Gustafson, legal counsel for Catco, Inc., spoke to his
cormnunication dated May 15, 1980 (attached as part of minutes). The
request that Catco, Inc., the present owners of the property, have is
that they come directly to the City because time-is of the essence from
the City's standpoint, and they are trying to respond to City Engineer
Jullie's request that they do move as quickly as possible. Mr. Gustafson
added it was Mr. Jullie's suggestion that they come to the. City Council
with their proposal and see what the general attitude of the Council is
with respect to the proposed single family project.
The Council urged the proponents to apply for their rezoning for single
family use.
Concern was expressed by Council members about the viability of the
respreading of the improvements costs (the assessments that have been
spread) and the aspect of the interest which might have accrued in the
meantime.
6. Repn;_t on Eden Prairie School District request for acCrss to Co. Rd.-A.
for• future h1 ddleSchool at Round Lal:c site
City Cnginocr Jullie explained the School District would like some gener•;il.
commitment from t:ho Council on the future middle School access to Co. Rd.
4 which he del.ailed in his memo dated May 15, 19J0.
Id0T1ON: P,odpoth moved, seconded 12Y r:oto reconvnend the access
point. lfest of County Road 4�LODUtV locj� 1__ sed on the plan submitted
to the Council this evening`. 1-tabu, 6,triccl una01"Ously.
Council Minutes - 11 - Tues„May 20, 1980
i
7. ReP9rt on Bluffs Boulevard street name Chan e
i
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to set Tuesday,
July 1, 1980, as the Public Hearing date to consider changing the
( street names of Bluffs Boulevard, Bluff Road and Homeward Hills
s
Road. Motion carried unanimously.
8. Request L Mr. DeWitt of Rietmann Contractors to extend their
4iorknq hours on the hlenard s site from 7:00 AM to 7:U0 f(i; a
Mr. DeWitt, Rietmann Contractors of Rochester, explained they hope to
get a majority of the Menard's site completed this year, however, it
is a very tight schedule expecially for the next month. To meet this
schedule they have three choices: 1) a double shift, 2) more equipment
or 3) work longer days - which they are trying to do. Mr. Rietmann
apologized for the inconvenience caused to neighbors by their starting
too early on occasion, and promised, if the Council approves their
request, to only work from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to grant the request
of Mr. DeWitt to work the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on the Menard's
site. Motion carried unanimously.
F. Reort of Finance Director
1, Draft Housing & Redevelopment Authority Ordinance
Penzel suggested if the Council were to choose to make itself the
Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA), it might be worthwhile to consider
the Development Co+ranission as the HRA Advisory Board. Council concurred
(_ with Penzel's suggestion.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to instruct staff to draft
an ordinance establishing a Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) based
on the suggestion made by Mayor Penzel. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consideration of Insurance proposals
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to award the insurance
coverage to the M.E. Lane Agency for the year beginning 6/l/80.
Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Redpath, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
3. Resolution No,80-91, a roving the Environmental Health Services
Coiitract with Hennepin County
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution
No. 80-91, approving the Environmental Health services Contract with
Hennepin County. I-lotion carried unanimously.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Mayor, Penzel referred to the Resolution recently adopted by School Ploard
relative to the settlement of the hound Lakc site litigation. and asked
the Council if they wished to make a counter proposal or adopt the resolution.
0ste.rholt asked for a +rcossmendation from City Attorney Pauly. City Attorney
Pauly recomiiondcd the Council join in the oPPl'oval of the resolution.
MOTION: Q:,,tcrholt moved, seconded by Redpc;th, to approve the Resolution
adopted by the School Board elated Moy 1, 1980, regarding Lire Round Lal:e
I
Council Minutes - 12 - Tues.,May 20, 1980
X. ADJOUREMINT
i MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adjourn the Council meeting at
11:20 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
j
i
i
r
1
t
i
J
t
i
i
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
l
7
F7��
y �M
VIC ,I`CSCpile
April 21, 19BO
Eden Prairie City Council
City of Edon Prairie
8950 Ed,.n prairie Road
Eden prairie, MN 55344
Atten: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
ladies and Gentlemen:
On April 17 the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denied our request for variance
from the 50' rear yard setback requirements of the Garrison Forest Second
Addition rezoning Agreement (this area is being replatted, so we are requesting
variances on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Garrison Forest Fourth Addition).
The owner of lot 3 still wants to place his house on the corner lot and there-
fore we are requesting you to grant the variances. Specifically the request is'
for a reduction to 41 feet-on lot 3 and 38 feet on-lot-2. To refresh your
memory I have attached copies of some of the prior information supplied.
The reasons for this variance request are as follows:
1 - The 50' rear yard and 30' fi-ont yard setback would only allow an 18'
deep house on lot 3 and a 23' deep house on lot 2. While this is
possible, tye felt it was better to have houses on these lots that 00
not require unique designs.
2 - The rear yard setbacks will still exceed the 20' requirements of
Ordinance 135.
3 - The topography of the lots allow for any berms and landscaping nece-
ssary to buffer the rear yards from the roadway. {
4.- The land on the other side of Anderson Lakes Parkway is County Park
and therefore no future residential construction Would be affected. d
5 - The topography, vegetation and pond along the south side of the
existing road mould suggest that it ticould be more econa,Iic and less
disruptive if the future expansion of Anderson Lakes Parkr ay would
be to a 4 lane, undivided road rather than a divided parkway. If this
is true the house to curb distance would be approximately the same as
the rest of the Parkway.
Ccnt'd, on Page 2
i
Eden Prairie City Council Page 2
6 - The approval would accommodate the owner of a quality built house and
resolve the use of these lots.
7 - Old Outlot 1 was wide enough for two lots but this question was de-
ferred at the time of rezoning. We have decided not to request a
subdivision and ask for only one house on the corner lot.
This area has been a point of disagreement between us for some time. To
resolve this in a fair and equitable manner, we urge your favorable consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
'TILE PPTSERVE
ILI�CeLwaohnson _
Vice President - Engineering
LWJ/j 1
cc: Emmett Johnson
Attachments on 1
fife of C,+y
o
1�9`� �rfi' r 1 ii"il •
y uaKS
-� \ Vt 2�•y', .1'. M w.m G.A..
N•11 let• I+e..� :J�i:Jiil Iyrk
10
nd I .
J
':'� [Nj rr::c lilu 't�u�hrj ";,n � 1`�•'..r. tl/ �\ n _. ... '
._j
hills
• 1 i li
I +
c.
• /� �,4^;1 ij0' Oap9 `'p "'r+;ail 1
eta;=•'` °�Ito,
r:ii7pt dltlfl� A ., ��� / ,1,\'•N11i r r 60 1
i rry J ,e7, r O /rT_ �`•``,1��'` � p.a^•,�;04� 1
i!) •30
,,,,, 1 r.4•r;.cv,I,�,•.I.trM ..y l3 9 V4 G«� •r J .Lrlrn I'i,rr n,ll,nrw,nld .`..y14 •.. ' v
r
P
April 1.0, 1930 ¢
I
Ptayer Fenzel anti City Cuun--il .:embers
City of Lden Prairie
1:350 Eden PreliriP. fioad
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Bluffs West 3rd Addition
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I ern requesting your conoiderz,tion of a revision of our Bluffs West 3rd Addi-
tion plat of 169 single family lots. The City Council approvP_d the first
C reading of the 3rd Ad fition Uctobar Z, 1979, based upon the plan date:f SoPtr'm-
ber 26, 1979. Thu rpp:.ovcd plan provided 169 luts on approximately 85 aerr.s
(attached exhibit 13).
Our proposed phasing plan provided about 30 lots to begin spring 19BO. Pceausc
of changes in market demand, financial constraints and housing costa, there is
a greatly reduced need for addi.tiunal single family lots at thin tirly. Orrin
Thompson Homes, Inc, will begin come horn(- in the fi0 lot fir;t {hoso of Bluffs
West 2nd Addition during 1980. Future timing for 3rd Addition lots is unclear.
The s.lowanwn in the current single family homn market is most likrly tempor-
nry, with drin(nd for homed returning after the curlvnt downturn. Hcw(ver, a
grim;iter share of the hou;;iny musket will be Pri.ce:i out of :•in9le family hor'cs
as a rosult.. FoJor builders such as Orrin Thompson Hamcs .1rn develof:ion altcr-
huucinr
nation 1 :.t c..l ,. to fill the void created by tho high coot of avon the r,u::t
y
basic single family horn.
W, hnvc approved planned unit dr.veiopment:; in 3 comiaunitivs, in which we are rc-
qut:sting rcron'riIlt'roticn by the city to .'.allow the intraduct.ion of a n(w hnusinq
typo If the Ldrn Prrjiri, City Council uauld con:+ider a dc1I.r:c to :flluw i1
tuwnhou:::: dr.n:;ity on a portion uP our Bluffs West 3rd sitr- we will p:ur.nr:: to
dvvvirp plans for .u;,:ni.:.sir.n to the Plonning Caa:,nis::iun. 11,1acrr..o if tf,n City.
CounIJI dor:: not tir•licvo such a proposed revision i1pprupriu0to, Thl. Hluff,
pmiy, will plocct•d with the oxisting Uuv,anper';; A.Irrn.i..r.nt datrd 11/4/0.
I ++pprrr.iatP your c(n;iHcratinn of our requr:fit.
ft .,•,�. ally, �`•
f �,...• I.,..v 1.0
- ,,,,,,,,,,,..«„ ,,,,,,,,,,.,.,........y ... .+.r..,•....r...+..r.....�.wwrr.w...✓'yl
12750 11101,;':II t 1•V-JI.,1:DEN Pip✓ojlj JE,A MINI,LSOFi+ -55313 (6109,"1-4383
\ re.
{� -ram'/-� ` -� 1:�. ,f�i#�{'`�.= .. T° ��_1 I I _ � • \, 1
l r
GUSTAFSUN h AI)AMS, P. A.
ATI'UNNKYS AT I.A\V
MI('IIAVI,J.ADAMS SU1711 411
•UI(I.UUI(Y 1).(;I'N'1'A1-SON 74UO It 1;'fNO IIOULI:YA141)
HANK 0•011N.IrAl) LDINA.MINNESOTA 66466
STANLEY C.UI.';I:N,JI(. __ (11'
T111111A4 I.IIAI(A TKLISI1110NI:1011)1136-7277
,IUIIN)I.RUJAN
W)NAI.I)L.KNIA.I.INO
JAMES U.ATIMI:ON.III
JOnN 11,110Y171.N\' May 15, 1980
JO41i I'll•1.l'tIOIS'f l'.NS LN
Mr. Carl 3ullie
City Engineer
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Dell Road Relocation - Catco Property
Dear Carl:
As we have discussed over the past several months, Catco,
{. Inc. has reacquired the property adjacent to proposed Dell Road
from the Pautz' , said property having been sold on a contract to
the Paut:z' in 1973. Catco, Inc. has had no role in the proposed
development plans for the subject property until the last few
months. You have been most helpful in bringing us up to speed
with respect to the status of the property and the engineering
problems faced by the City with respect to Dell Road.
You have asked us to consider a proposed relocation of Dell
Road approximately 150 feet to the west of its present location
due to the extreme adverse soil conditions which were encountered }
during construction last year. I represent Catco, Inc. and in
that capacity have suggested to you that my clients wish to
cooperate in every way with the City in this request and are j
looking favorably upon a replatting and rezoning of the subject
property to a single-family development.
In this regard, you asked Lo prepare a rough schcmat-ic
of a proposed ninglc-family .layout within the Catco property
after giving effect to the necessary relocation of Dell Road.
Catco, Inc. will consent to an immediate relocation of. Dell. Road
as per your I:equ(!sL in consideration of. City apprOval Of t1l
following goncra.l parameters for a single-family dcvel.opmcnL:
j
��I1�
Mr. Carl Jullie
Page Two
May 15, 1980
1, Catco, Inc. will make a park, dedication of all land
lying to the east of relocated Dell Road with the
singular exception of the "knoll." which will be
deve.lopcd into single-family home sites as indicated
on the attached rough proposed plat. The knoll is
existing high ground and its development will'in no
way require interfe-ence with the flood plain.
2. The single-family development will include development
of the 400 foot setback previously established as a
buffer between the existing single-family homes located
to the west of the property and the proposed multiple-
family project.
3. Catco, Inc. will agree to handle special assessments in
the manner set forth in paragraph 4 of the Development
Agreement dated April 6, 1978, executed by the City of.
Eden Prairie and Eden Prairie Townhouse Company. Included
in said paragraph 4 is the agreement that:
"All special assessments, including Dell. Road,
and currently levied trunk sewer and water assess-
ments, on the 1.18.17 acre rdengate site as shown
on Exhibit C shall be spread equally over the 176
platted lots, and paid only on a per unit basis at
time of final closing of the sale of each unit;
provided, however, amounts paid towards the assess-
ments hereunder shall be at least equal to the normal
amortized annual payment of principal and interest
of such assessments. The parties agree that the
above-described special assessment for the construc-
tion of Dell Road and the trailway shall be spread
over a five-year period."
Despite said language, the special assessments have
already been levied on the property and penalties and
interest are presently accruing thereon. It is the
request: of Catco, Inc. that all said special assessmcnts,
together with accrued penalties and interest, be
"cancelled" and that the special assessments be sub-
sequently levied in a manner consistent with the fore-
going provision contained in paragraph 5 of the Development
Agreement. Catco, Inc. will execute whatever documents
i
i'
�uG�
Mr. Carl Jullie
Page Three
May 15, 1980
the City deems necessary to insure compliance with
this undertaking.
A. It is the intention of Catco, Inc. to comply with all
provisions of said Development Agreement except as j
specifically noted to the contrary in this letter
and except as any such provisions are inconsistent
with a single-family development.
5. The attached proposed plat was prepared by BRW at your
request to serve merely as a starting point for our
discussions. The actual number, dimensions and loca-
tions of any lots and/or roads will be as mutually
agreed upon by our land architect (who has not yet
been involved in this process) and City staff. We
will want to give consideration to questions of
topography
h and the other normal factors which must
be considered in a project of this nature.
Very truly yours,
GUSTAr & ADAMS, P.A.
Gregory . Gustafson
Attorney at Law f
i
GDG:sn
Enclosure
cc: Catco, Inc.
i"
I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
June 3, 1980
CONTRACTORS (1 & 2 FAMILY)
Bayside Construction, Inc.
Clemen Construction, Inc.
Woodland Homes, Inc.
CONTRACTORS (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.
Aerolift, Inc.
Marshall Erdman & Assoc.
C. F. Haglin & Sons Co.
Hustad Development Corp.
C. B. Jacobson & Sons, Inc.
Leibfrid Construction, Inc.
Tuckerman Optical
Earl Weikle & Sons, Inc.
HEATING & VENTILATING
Environmental Air Contracting, Inc.
Ryan Air Conditioning, Inc.
Southside Plumbing & Heating Co.
PLUMBING
Aqua City Plumbing, Inc.
Minnesota Mechanical, Inc.
Plumbing Specialties
WELL DRILLING
Associated Well Drillers
Max Renner Well Co., Inc.
Torgerson Well Co., Inc.
VENDING MACHINES
Starkey Laboratories, Inc.
GAS FITTER
Northern Propane
These licenses have been approved by the department head responsible for
the licensed activity. i
�iriay 11. Tl�r'te, licensing or,
�j
{
i
MEMO
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager u
'I
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
DATE: May 29, 1980
r
SUBJECT: MN/DOT State Bike Program Grant j
for Co. Rd. 4 Bikeway, I.C. 51-310
i
Attached is a copy of Grant Agreement No. 27-1094-01 with MN/DOT for cost "
sharing on the Co. Rd. 4 bikeway project. The grant amount is 75% of the j
construction costs and the estimated grant amount if $45,700. Adoption
of Resolution No. R80-108 is required for approval of this agreement..
The balance of the project cost will come from CDBG funds and County
funds.
Construction plans for the project have been approved by MN/DOT and City
crews are about to commence construction. We are having some difficulty
a permit from the Chicago-NorthVestern Railway Co. for a crossing of
their tracks, which may require the City to use condemnation. Mr. Pauly's
office is working on this problem.
s
CJJ:kh
Attachment
{
. s
i
f
i
I
June 3, 1980
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. R80-108
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AGREEMENT
NO. 27-1094-02 WITH MN/DOT FOR CO.-RD.
BIKEWAY PROJECT I.C. 51-310
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has applied to the Commissioner
of Transportation for a grant from the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Act, �.
Chapter 421, for the development of a bikeway (terminal sections are:
begins MNTH 5, ends CSAH 1) and located within CSAH 4 Road Right of Way.
WHEREAS, the amount of the grant has been determined to be $45,717.75 {
by reason of the lowest responsible bid.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie
does hereby affirm that any cost of the Bikeway in excess of the grant will
be the responsibility of Eden Prairie, and that any grant monies appropriated
for the bikeway but not required, based on the final estimate, shall be
returned to the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Fund, Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
ADOPTED by the City of Eden Prairie on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
f
John D. Frane, Clerk
{
lgbl)
MnIDOT TP 7999911.79)
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0
GRANT AGREEMENT No27-1094-01
o. Account I,D. Organization F.V, Requisition No. Vendor Number Type Terms Source S.Acl Task S.Task
Trry" 683235 79050 X 02201,
V
A Suffix Object
Cost,Job or Client Code Amount ,
01 712SEND—]
TYPE OF TRANSACTION D O Da� Number Entered by
r, Entered by
44 A4 AA46 Date Number
Note: If encumbrance is to a specific vendor,print vendor name and address as shown into vendor file.
Vendor name Eden Prairie City.Treasurer ,
Address
..................................... g p
THIS AG9EEMEtry{,T, 'g,,r�ade py and between she State of Minnesota,actin by end thru the Minnesota Department of Transportation(hereinafter"Bute")and
the City OT 11 r Yralrle __thereinafter"Recipient"1
WHEREAS the State,pursuant to Laws 1977.Chapter 421,Section 5,Subdivision 2 and Laws 1977.Chapter 454.Section 3,Subdivision 9 are authorized to
provide financial assistance for the betterment of public land for local bicycle trails to units of government as they are defned in the Acts;and
WHEREAS the Recipient is determined eligible to receive said financial assistance;
IN consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements as hereinafter set forth,the parties to this grant agreement do agree as follows: -
I. 14 MCAR 1.5032—Rules for Sigy. QZ ra�ns will be applicable to the worlc-t9�4 pt411ptad under this agreement. and
it, The project is identified as S.A.P.1251"U and located between MN1N Z 4
cSAB 1 on CS0 4 — 181-020-02
III. Work:The Recipient or its agent wits let&consuuct the bikeway shown in tht plans and specifications identified asOS.A.E.eirl-�—
nRineer S office of the tar t I;CI
which are incorporated by reference and are on file in theClty p
�. and the office of the commissioner of TramportatIOM
IV. The State agrees to pay the Recipient an amount not to exceed$ as determined by the lowest responsible bid,or
75%of the total eligible costs as determined by final quantities,whichever is less,the Recipient agrees to pay all other costs of S.A.P._
V. Any grant monies awarded,but not required,based on the final construction estimate,shall be returned to the State for its use.
VI. The Recipient agrer to continue operation and maintenance of the constructed facility for the benefit of the public after Its completion.
VI 1. Recipient and its agent agreelsl to indemnity end save and hold the State,its agents and employees harmless from any and all claims or causes of
by Recipient or Recipienl's agents or employees.This clause shalt not be construed to bar any
action arising from the performance of this agreement
legal remedies Recipient or its agent may have for the Stale's failure to fulfill its obligation pursuant to this agreement.
Vil 1. Any amendments to this agreement shall be in writing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have caused this agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby.
1
APPROVED: As to form and execution by the
i
RECIPIENT: the City of Eden Prairie ATTORNEY GENERAL:
8Y: BY:
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
TITLE:
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION:
DATE:
BY:
AGENT OF THE RECIPIENT:
Authorized Signature
BY: DATE:
Authorized Signature
TITLE: COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE:
DATE: ENCUMBERED
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION: DEPARTMENT Of FINANCE
F BY:
Authorized Signature
DATE:
DATE:—
Copy 1 Finance Dept.
2Ld,celunitofg.vrYment (ATTACNCOPYOFRESOLUTION&CERTIFICATION)
3 Agrnry Am—niin Unit
4 Off,"of F-4.nmrnlal Aftxin 6 Dislricl Stile Aid Engineer -
{ MEMO }
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
DATE: May 29, 1980
SUBJECT: Appropriation of MSA Funds to T.H. 5/W. 78th St.
Signal Project
I.C. 51-327
The attached Resolution No. RBO-109 will allow use of City's Municipal
State Aid funds in the amount of $71,910.00 to cover design engineering
fees incurred by the City for the above referenced project. MN/DOT will
pay for construction staking and inspection services.
The City's total estimated costs share of this project, including the work
on Mitchell Road, for design engineering and construction cost sharing, is
$150,000. This total cost is eligible for MSA reimbursement. Some tem-
porary financing charges have also been incurred by the City, which must
be paid for from the general fund.
CJJ:kh
Attachment
1
I
I�IC�
June 3, 1980
( CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
R80-109
RESOLUTION
Appropriation of Municipal State-Aid Funds
To C.S.A.H. or T.H. Project
s
i
i
WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of
Eden Prairie to participate in the cost of a construction project
located on T.H. No. 5 within the limits of said municipality, and;
I
WHEREAS, said construction project has been approved by the
Oepartment of Highways and identified in its records as No. 2701-23;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO: that we do hereby appropriate from
our Municipal State-Aid Street Funds the sum of $71,910.10 to apply j
toward the design of said project and request the Commissioner of
Highways to approve this authorization.
AOOPTEO by the Eden. Prairie City Council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
ohn 0. rane,Clercf
r
i
MEMO
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Carl Julie, City Engineer
DATE: May 29, 1980
SUBJECT: Forma] Agreement No. PW 08-49-80 with Hennepin
County for Co. Rd. 18/Anderson Lakes Parkway
Signal - I.C. 51-338
Attached is the formal Construction Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin
County with the above referenced project. The City's estimated share is
$178,606, as summarized on the last page of the Agreement. A]1 costs {.
incurred by the City are reimbursib]e from our MSA Construction Fund.
CJJ:kh
Attachment
i
i
I
d
0.
{
(I
I
I
i
i
June 3, 1980
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. R80-110
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL AGREEMENT
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR CO. RD. 18/
ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY SIGNAL
I.C. 51-338
i
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie Enter into an
agreement with Hennepin County for the following purposes, to wit:
e �
Agreement No. PW 08-49-80
County Project No. 7841
State Aid Project No. 181-107-01
County State Aid Highway No 18
City of Eden Prairie
County of Hennepin
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Mayor and Manager 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.
AOOPTEO by the Ed2n Prairie City Council on
i
j
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
i
ATTEST: SEAL
I
John D. Frane, Clerk
/y/z
Agreement No. PW 08-49-80
County Project No. 7841
State Aid Project Ho. 181-107-01
County State Aid Highway No. 18
City of Eden Prairie
County of Hennepin
CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT Made and entered into this _day of 19
by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of
the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Eden
Prairie, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota. here-
inafter referred to as the "City".
WITNESSETH:
j
WHEREAS,The County and the City have been negotiating to bring about the improve-
ment of that portion of County State Aid Highway No. 18 from 643' South of Amsden Road
to 402' North of Amsden Road (Engineer's Stations LSL 170+78 to LSL 181+23.5), and that I
portion of Anderson Lakes Parkway from 595' West of County State Aid Highway No. 18
' to County State Aid Highway No. 18 (Engineer's Stations LOR1 1+70 to LORI 7+84.98) as
shown on the County Engineer's plan for County Project No. 7841 and State Aid Project
No. 181-107-01,which improvement contemplates and includes grading, drainage, concrete
curb and gutter, bituminous base,bituminous surfacing, traffic control signal, and
other related improvements, and
i
WHEREAS, Portions of the above described projects lie within the corporate limits
of the City, and
WHEREAS, The County Engineer has heretofore prepared an engineer's estimate of
quantities and unit prices of materials and labor for the above described projects
and an estimate of the total cost for contract work in the sum of Two Hundred Seventeen
Thousand One Hundred Three Dollars and Fifty Cents ($217,103.50). A copy of said
estimate (marked Exhibit "A") is attached hereto and by this reference is made a part
hereof, and
WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the'parties hereto
under the provisions of M.S. Sec. 162.17, Subd. 1.
NOW T11CREFORE, 1T 1S HEREBY AGREED.
I
That the Comity or its agents will advertise for bids for the work and construction
i
of the afnre4aid Project Nos. 7841 and 181-107-01, receive and open bids pursuant to
said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit
prices specified in the bid of such bidder, according to law in such case Provided
l q l'P
for counties. The contract will be in form and will include the plans and specifica-
tions prepared by the County or its agents, which said plans and specifications are
by this reference made a part hereof.
• II
The County will administer the contract and inspect the construction of the
contract work contemplated herewith. llowever, the City Engineer of Eden Prairie shall
cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent
necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work.
III
The City or its agents at its or their own expense shall acquire those portions
of the rights of way, permits and/or easements required for the construction of said
projects within its corporate limits.
The right of way costs incurred as described herein shall include all acquisition
costs including, but not limited to,any and all damages occurring to any person or
persons, including private utilities in relocating or removing or adjusting main
conduits or other structures located in or upon the land taken; or damage in procuring
such right of way,whether such damage is caused by the County or the City in the
performance of such contract with respect to the improvement of County State Aid
Highway No. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, as shown on the plans for County Project
No. 7841 and S.A.P. 181-107-01.
Such right of way expense is not included in the Engineer's estimate mentioned
1
on Page 1 herein.
IV
The City shall reimburse the County for 100 percent of the contract construction
cost incurred by the County for work on Anderson Lakes Parkway between Engineer's
Stations LOR1 1+70 and LOR1 7+84.98 (S.A.P. 181-107-01). The estimated cost share
for said work is shown in said Exhibit "A" attached hereto. It is further agreed that
the Engineer's Estimate referred to on Page I of this agreement is an estimate of the
construction cost for the contract work on said projects and that the unit prices set
forth in the contract with the successful bidder and the final quantities as measured
by the Engineer shall govern in computing the total final contract construction cost
i
for apportioning the cost of said projects according to the provisions of this pars-
graph.
v
In addition to payment of the City's share of the contract construction costs,
the City also agrees to pay to the County a sum equal to twenty percent (2011) of the
amount computed as the City's share of the said contract construction costs, it being
understood that said additional payment by the City is its proportionate share of all
engineering costs incurred by the County in connection with the contract work performed
within the corporate limits of the City.
VI
Within sixty (60) days after an award by the County to the successful bidder, the
City shall deposit with the Finance Division Director of Hennepin County, ninety per-
cent (90%) of the estimated City share in the contract construction and engineering
costs for the projects. Said estimated City share shall be based on actual contract
unit prices for estimated quantities shown in the plans.
The remaining ten percent (10%) is to be paid to the County upon the completion
of the projects and submittal to the City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for
the projects showing the City's final share in the contract construction and engineer-
(_ ing costs for the projects.
- Upon payment of the Final Estimate to the successful bidder by Hennepin County,
any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the
City; likewise any amount due the County by the City upon payment of the Final Estimate
by the County shall then be paid by the City as its final payment for the construction
and engineering costs of these projects.
VIi
The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress reports as provided in the
specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to the City upon request.
Vi ll
All records kept by the City and the County with respect to these projects shall
be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto.
ix
Tile County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a period of five (5)
years after completion of these projects for any service cuts in the roadway surfacing
of the County Highway included in these projects for any installation of underground
utilities which would be considered as new work; service cuts shall be allowed for
the ukiintrnance aid repair of any existing underground utilities.
I
►qt5
- 3
X
It is agreed that the City shall remove and replace all City owned signs that
are within the construction limits of these projects, all at City expense.
X1
It is agreed that the County, at its expense, shall place the necessary no
parking signs and the City, at its expense, shall provide the enforcement for the
prohibition of on-street parking within its corporate limits on said portion of
County State Aid Highway No. 18 constructed under these projects.
Any modification of the above parking restriction shall not be made without
first obtaining a resolution from the County Board of Commissioners permitting said
modification. i
XII
It is understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed
herein, the.new bituminous bicycle path within the corporate limits of the City
included in said improvement shall become the property of the City and all maintenance,
restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be performed by the City
at its own expense.
It is further understood that neither the County, its officers, agents or
employees either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or
liable in any manner to the City for any claim, demand, action or cause of action of
any kind or character arising out of or by reason of negligent performance of the
hereinbefore described maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement work by the
City, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any contract let by
the City for the performance of said work; and the City agrees to defend, save and
keep said County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, demands,
actions or causes of action arising out of negligent performance by the City, its
officers, agents or employees.
X111
The County shall prepare the necessary plans and with its own forces shall
install a traffic control signal at the intersection of County State Aid ilighway ito. 18
and Anderson Lakes Parl.way as relocated under these projects.
XiV
tThe City agrees that any City license required to perform electrical work shall
be issued to the County at no cost to the County. Electrical inspection fees shall be
not more than those estahlished by the State Ward of Elcetririty in the most recontly
recorded Electrical Inspection fee Schedule.
Ill��n 4
XV
The City shall install, or cause the installation of an adequate two wire,
120 Volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to the
controller cabinet of the hereinbefore mentioned signal at its sole cost and expense.
The City shall provide the electrical energy for the operation of the said signal
at no cost to the County.
XV1
The construction cost of the said signal shall be the cost of labor,materials
and equipment rental required to complete its construction: The cost of labor shall
include the wages paid to complete the construction of the signal plus a percentage
thereof to cover the indirect cost of labor to the County.
The total estimated construction cost of the signal is $10,000.00. it is
understood that this estimate is'for informational purposes only.
i
Xvu
The City as its respective share of the construction cost of the said signal
shall pay the County 371a percent of the actual above defined construction cost, plus
10 percent of such share as payment for engineering and inspection.
\ payment shall be made to the Finance Division Director of Hennepin County within
60 days after submittal to the City of the County's final, itemized, statement of the
signal cost. J'
XV111
The City shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any
component, part, sequence, or timing of the aforesaid traffic control signal; however, i
nothing herein shall be construed as restraint of prompt, prudent action by properly 3
I
constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control signal f.
may be directly involved in an emergency.
X1X
Upon completion of the work, the County shall maintain and repair said traffic
control signal all at the sole cost and expense of the County.
XX
It is further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be responsible
or liable to the other or to any other person whomsoever for any claims, daxages.
actions, at, causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of at,by reason
( of the performance of any work or part hereof by the other as provided herein;
I
- 5 -
It��7
and each party further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or
proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character
arising in connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided
herein.
XXI
It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other
persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or
provided herein to he performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the
County, and that any and al; claims that may or might arise under the Worker's
Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on
behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third
parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while
so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in
no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County.
Also, any and ail employees of the County and ail other persons engaged by
the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for
tf herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City,
and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation
Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of
said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as
a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged
on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the
obligation or responsibility of the City.
xxu a
The provisions of M.S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating f
i
to civil rights and discrimination and the affirmative action policy statement of
Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set
forth herein.
- G -
�Ul'
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be
�. executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By:
Mayor
i
(Seal) Date:
f
And:
Manager 9
Date: q
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
i
ATTEST: By: Chair of its County Board
Date:
And:
Deputy County Auditor Associate County Administrator
and County Engineer
Date:
Date:
Upon proper execution, this agreement
will be legally valid and binding.
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 9
sistant County Attorney By: _ (.
Y Director, Department of Transpw'Wtien
Date: go
Date: _
Approved as to execution
By: — —
Assistau[ Lounty Attorney
Date: — ---
I -
j'fQ �
1j-1
i
{
n ww N:om me.rnwmrnlo oaa�
� < Mnrvn �a..'laa �w m wnan
•w y C.
HV coDooNNNr J0000cDD o000 _.
�K OOO N�+ wl{Y ry wlF r.N wi,•N.�
d ONOM CIry wwnl .•
a nnn
a .N h e• r�n n !
Wggqq
M yxxy s1 a•a•a• rsxr:.„s=
w ;:J:JY L LU ULLL U:J LLL;
Z D 4
0130.�,� w<<w ww« J�3
� 3 w W.di V:J U V 3W wiiiww w1•n�+
wa• O'�OOOOO JO aOg J OJ JO O J J
J O
h h O O J J O O O J O O O a D D t O D J J
ih wwwwa 000F fNNNaNNO
w L V o N N O Y Y N F r N O
K C D O.•T
J J 1�11�1 ry N � ••
i J
a
t y
<
O q
a ;
w
n u
\ N
J w x
t• :x
..z >D x S xx-
w <V W
e+ a: N l
•w�a is +1wL < N MV U um
D a a o lo a w N h w 4
Z FFwH NN3 Wa•4 NN ry q
w w a:; mow ww ul• _i,
wa • •a i
V«O p a� > •�
.�V DJ L N Fqi ;a N qq w w.wM w
6 Zi W • N w
y N wU7UN w 0. •U V Z wv w iLN LZww h 3w
ZhS V a P w a+a.4 D M N w JL X www3 w Vox"
<U 4 x x 0 h M S W w Z<Z w i 2 D•1 N W 3< h 3 J K
L Ww..2 HH •• M DA.7HDS D H 33 L c 6<a Sl Z wDa.••
p =D QNDDx L La!<]G<>HUx < U <N wi O <xa
,�11•• 4 X N LH 4 ; Oyd V F+6<!tU D W S x W< O CO 1gMw
D :] KU>wal O W d W W V VN4 N
w J i O M h W 9 g U N< d w p d H H¢M V W W 4 4
X •U. W h <u.•LL d W U W¢3 W wd ww<i N3 Z FhW J
}y V Z O*0 3 U d N U 3 6 r1 O a t V d y y U U V a w u<H 7
4 V H -Z u
MOLI¢:aU i V J N V V V M•+ 1 V V i WJL
Ij
q�= W q .4w .J.J4Uxu m 44 V K YNNn W K 4 W
6•+:] U W N D.J a1.4Z j-1 0um
., a • LLN••9 S V VM1q
4 4 M W Uw wi W:]„i D 4 a a m a o J V Vw<
X V W•. V V wq ti W WUK Vi W V W q •+www uuxm V i' q <•t W al
�� wN1 ww wN Fw wN N MFr a ry w
O O O w O D 0 0 ry w w w o O w p O Oo w
N N O N N N N ..
w
:m ... ... v ui vi o u� •i.�.»�s,o o a Ji ...;w
Wx rv.'11'1OOOOOO O"OOOoF wrvrlA
1-�, OOo ww.ywww N NNNN N 44N191�1
• N:f; rvrvrvrvNrvrvNC/ rvNNrvrvrvNO Nrvrvrr .
t t C C C C 0 0 0 0 p n 1 )
10-0
t_
o as aaoo ono ooln
N O:•O J a 0,�.V a O a C I J f
i
J On uti uIV UUr♦1alnNn n
J ylr 11 u.v ti r hr��LYI O
t '1r rPtyPrA.•1�•.•
Q PP :v Yf d O wP
a
Boa ao oo ovl000
w Jl aJt n!n_..�aOrOOa
•+u
' L w JP tiwr a JJl.Y000
�i W ti O ONUI
y w n nNvl
N N
w W 2 x W
LL.�`J:zz.� zzz
L JJ 6 awwU�a:J UJ '
� nnJ W.idi YJ)n in '
M N a a a a a o r a o a r n
• L M tia,.!av •a�1 w •
w i ywO+le a �1 n
xa aJfs am +t
O O ti ti CY
X a
y
C" 4
a
,y
^I 1V
w w
i b
r J {v a w
nz•c ms .. ,a
al x�V c n
:> w
i A,K w V V
y u
X ti X!G V1 VIV N
J o.iW aJL N O
.•.W+.i00 wVl .i V K W !
a t O Q i W M
• .i Z.i V V ul W w w R '
.Q L 4O i W a!X W Ro
U L
O www.7 U JJO .>
w X �JJL L N NS.6 w
W x Q u w 4 4 �!
Y w VN U O wt]L+.V 6 W
� w 62 R G VUHY X •C aGw
z awa;u N wU ..1
14
ao aov000 aw wn
X YINNNu.NN J1NNN Yf
W
T.A �•r ww wyl Jl J1✓!NN �
W>; YJf tVnnrr rlr
' !1 n1 N Y1 Y1 Jl Jl VI VY N N
M w !r lr Hlr i`1M1i`1h(V hHry
UoOOOOOOb ,N OOo OOOC QU an C3,.C,
o
n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N ce U o 0 o U c) oU o o N O o 0
O OO oOOV IO ION ,n ,l+,nOW OMu tiONOOM(]n b.
U UtlC),lI V'O�Nnn ,(+ WN„a•-.,fl t�„1Of(� �,
OW OV NO+W O+(0 W ObMV•-Inn(TWOaM•-,ulV•-,
' �i �M N M .�-I ti.Mi m W •-t N W M tT� N,ta,p ,p .
W N
p w
0
v n M
woon ,nm....vovovo v M.�oo
a Noo"'.rn n�+n O,o.+L'a M•yb Mtn '
� M o,nmWLo M
a
000U00000 0 000000000000 000
v Utic.oUu>omol o OOU ooua ooO000 '990
U I.piN�OOO NNn N OInOH OatOO OOOON OO,I+'
NUUOM✓+ .O„bri�ln In �,
b Oi M�+•-,sY
0'DN tff.N MN�N i+l NMObH N
S W p p
Q
NY 1?M.,M I N ONO
UYN 000OO W0 O N�vNo OOOO�O OOO
7 W W4
0p oo r,^ pp
b OOtlON O„tlSN N 99OOO1!09OOO O1 O99
Ypp pp
W6 OjU O4O1O0V w�+OtbO,Lbi- � tffOOOO�OCS N•N-,O NONE
tl✓ NN tiM N��,ph {p �OObMO+WO•N.-,t�N•-t•-t
N 10 V'�tr W N101p p
FJr1 ~W p pp
0.1
• FN� W nnn -
8KpO pp ss�� O 000
QF NT t t ~NbbOO ^OM nN�N cM pp w ON 1
000
v
J
a¢ u oogaotoL,toL,IQin ioLQi9914i uoa„o)00001ood -
' to a a0000•.tri lom,o � vi tv Lp+�10 "
V ✓ O Ifl U V' Ila L•1 N YI
p �
�
64NYiV•} YYE,
LL W W V N
b p F c>> = c c c c c c.� C c L C c L c
JWW-luuuU FI�FI010-I�U�'y�jJJauL6V�l IU.o
1
I
M
v v w Ip r
N co
..r-i•..-M,0 W 0, N
n„W N tnkvW i1 O n•d L
Oa N J Y J •
U E,•.N?L 1N-N%q 0 µ H
fl V U C - .r•`ram.�� 10 •-
; 1-L Qi...C•m n N • A�.,'N aE.•�u U M^V, r�LT L
r.E�•,l m"' ,ii r: ii •a'c a.n i,as m c w - _.
LL T4-Ya T�)A n. '" YO- MN••d•n 0•)�•U uVIi d n.-
r N 7 In l LI % ♦.N
YM
f:41
C7 _41,.U,�U_:to C'J Vl � StnN u1 Ct0.7lJUf 4l,%,.'Ol
In oP0000Poo 0 0 0
M N OOOlJ IJ UUO O Uf V N
O h OOOCIO ut ltt['� O M MO�eNVM•••1Wh o 0
Aw N N N N
M
O
Y
40 O
Y
C ONNNOID�N '
O O O O O O O O O O O O
N Uf 00000000 P 10 S 10 Ij; .
1 {O.1 �O sPp�UPIPO�INl1O0 N O IPfl VNf li
O M t0 It 16 h N Of
.+Y M r•1 N ^ 1p
_•W N N N N
Q �
• N Y 10
CN NN OONIDOO I f
N h OO OSC1OOO O O pNp S S N
^U � OOOIOOn Ono � O 0] 100 n p it ..
O • h N O.+ W h O O O h. M b _
1W-VI I N IN V 10 V N M ^
�Y NW w N w N
W 2 1 Y O
Y(?h Q++ OONNII]OION
. yf VVtC11 . N M .N•1 N 1
99999999
J ��h• W O
2 d•ppa H c -
NW 6' L 00000000
a S 6 -oN N•hN•11O bg W'1 K w
Q Y N
V w LA o
Y u LL LLLL u J H �
C •.0 •Ft •L s[ 'I
O�•M N
JWJWIJ JJ•�•�RI M G •� ,.
W -K >• O p
8 i > 1
M 2 Q 9 LL
rZi W R~' N••6 � -
1 W 3
w
`I vl ul aoi w � w � o LL
o r� orc �o M al ii w o
p•C L C r� � W m W W Q H
W r
�A C.f.�- -•J L•1 _
N V.CN•l N u u N n uil
O] D lY W J W m P
G
Q H LLLL 6l1L 1� LL LL 1 tl L
t O YYY�.Y 1— N 6 Y
NUN'l70• ? W l] U O O weN U (']N
It VI •If . .L L L l' N N 1"• O bl3 t•~I
D a C V l'14 R'O uYi Y N Y Vl ILLi VI M �� j
Wh C W�NI I•V 1101UU 1O• 4 h 6 ♦ J•+K
11 rr � •
MEMO
t
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
DATE: May 29, 1980
SUBJECT: Amending Resolution 1210 - Senior Citizens
Deferment of Special Assessments
i
f
City Council Resolution No. 1210, providing deferment of special assessments
for senior citizens, was adopted in November, 1976, Dne of the provisions
of this resolution states that "any homesteaded property with an assessor's,
market value in excess of $75,OOD shall not qualify." We have one property
owner under this deferment program who has qualified in the past, however
this property has been appreciating to the extent that the market value
now exceeds the $75,000 limit.
We would suggest that the Council amend Resolution No. 1210 by raising the
$75,000 limit to $130,000, which provides for a 15% a year inflation factor j
through 1980. Mr. Martz, City Assessor, recommends the 15% figure as an
appropriate rate.
Ii
i
CJJ:kh
Attachment
j
f
QNov. 9, 1976
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1210 1�
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEFERMENT OP
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
WHEREAS, M.S.A. S444.22 through S444.24 authorizes the City
of Eden Prairie, upon receipt of proper application, to defer the pay-
meet of special assessments against any homestead propel owned by a -
person 65 years of age or older on January 1 of the payment year and
for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments; and
WHEREAS, M.S.A. S444.22.through S444.24 authorizes the muni-
cipality to determine the limits of the term "hardship" within the
scope of the law; and
WHEREAS, M.S.A. S444.23 authorizes the municipality to estab-
lish an interest rate to he added to the deferred assessment_which shall ,
be payable in addition to the deferred assessment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL,
that special assessments against any homesteaded property owned by a
person 65 years of age or older and for whom it would'be a hardship, as
defined hereinafter, to make the payments be deferred subject to the
following conditions:
•1. Submission of an appropriate appl�� to the City
Engineer's office signed by the qualified property
owner, no later than Nov. loth of the year preceding
the payment year.
2. Any homesteaded property with an assessor's market
value in excess of $75,000 shall not qualify.
3. Assessments pending or levied against a parcel r'Lior
to ownership by the applicant shall not be eligible
for deferment.
4. A hardship shall be determined to exist if the total
combined annual household income of husband and wife .
is $9,000 or less.
5. Deferred interest at the rate for that particular
assessment shall be added to the deferred assessment,
but not exceeding 50% of the original assessment
amount.
t , •
I�I�
/ 6. Multi le dwell' designed and organized
for retirement living exclusively shall not be eligible '
for deferment unless specifically authorized by the
City Council. _
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the right of deferment is auto-
matically terminated per S444.24 if:.
A. The owner dies and the spouse.is not otherwise eligibles
B. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred,
or subdivided;
C. The property should lose its homestead status, or
D. If for any reason the City determines that the taxpayer
is no longer in-the-hardship category.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on.
i
Wolfgang H. Penzel,.Mayor
ATTEST: Ste'
I,
i -
I
John D. Frane, Clerk
• 1
i
t.
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: May 28, 1980
RE: Final Approval M1DB'S - Lundgren's $287,250 -
I
i
The Lundgren's are constructing a Family Practice Clinic south of the
Superamerica Station west of County #4. The final resolution which has
been approved by the City Attorney is attached.
i
i
I
,I
i
i
i
1�121
YO - /ol
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF
REVENUE BONDS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 474,
MINNESOTA STATUTES, TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO BE LOANED
TO ALSTON C. LUNDGREN AND JEAN 0. LUNDGREN FOR INDUSTRIAL
PROJECT AND APPROVING MORTGAGE, ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS,
LOAN AGREEMENT, GUARANTY AGREEMENT AND PLEDGE AGREEMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Authority. The City is, by the Constitution and
Laws of the State o�f Minnesota, including Chapter 474, Minnesota
Statutes, as amended (the "Act") authorized to issue and sell its
revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the cost of construc-
tion of authorized projects and to enter into contracts necessary
or convenient in the exercise of the powers granted by the Act.
2. Documents Presented. This Council proposes that
the City shall issue and se its City of Eden Prairie Industrial
Development Revenue Bond (Lundgren Project) in substantially the
form set forth in Exhibit A hereto (the "Bond") pursuant to the
Act and loan the proceeds thereof to Alston C. Lundgren and
Jean 0. Lundgren (the "Borrowers") to pay the cost of construct-
ing a medical clinic building, together with necessary equipment,
exterior utilities and site improvements (the "Project"), all
pursuant to the Act. Forms of the following documents relating
to the Bond and the Project have been submitted to the City
Council and are now on file in the office of the City Clerk:
(a) Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1980,
between the City and Alston C. Lundgren and Jean 0.
Lundgren whereby the City agrees to make a loan to the
Borrowers and the Borrowers agree to complete the
Project and to pay amounts sufficient to provide for
the prompt payment of the principal of, premium, if
any, and interest on the Bond;
(b) Assignment and Pledge Agreement (the "Pledge
Agreement"), dated as of May 1, 1980 from the City to
The Ministers Life and Casualty Union (the "Mortgagee")
whereby the City assigns its interest in the Loan
Agreement to the Mortgagee as security for the Bond;
(c) Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement, and
Fixture Financing Statement (the "Mortgage"), dated as
of May 1, 1980, between the Borrowers and the Mortgagee
by which the Borrowers will grant to the Mortgagee a
mortgage lien on and security interest in the Project
and all improvements thereto as security for the Bond
(this document will not be executed by the City);
14�.Z
(d) Assignment of Rents (the "Assignment"), dated
{ May 1, 1980, from the Borrowers to the Mortgagee assigning
the Borrowers' interests in leases of the Project to
the Mortgagee as additional security for the Bond (this
document will not be executed by the City); and
3. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and
declared that:
(a) The Project, comprised of the buildings,
improvements and equipment described in the Loan Agree-
ment and the Mortgage constitutes a project authorized
by and described in Section 474.02, Subd. la of the _ .
Act.
(b) The purpose of the Project is and the effect
thereof will be to promote the public welfare by:
preventing the emergence of blighted and marginal lands
and areas of chronic unemployment, preventing economic
deterioration; the development of sound industry and
commerce to use the available resources of the commu-
nity, in order to retain the benefit of the community's
existing investment in educational and public service
facilities; halting the movement of talented, educated
personnel to other areas and thus preserving the eco-
nomic and human resources needed as a base for provid-
ing governmental services and facilities; and increasing
the tax base of the city and the county and school
district in which the Project is located.
(c) The Project has been approved by the Commis-
sioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota as
tending to further the purposes and policies of the
Act.
(d) The issuance and sale of the Bond, the execu-
tion and delivery of the Loan Agreement and the Pledge
Agreement and the performance of all covenants and
agreements of the City contained in the Bond, the Loan
Agreement, and the Pledge Agreement and of all other
acts of the City to make the Loan Agreement, the Pledge
Agreement and Bond valid and binding obligations of the
City in accordance with their terms, are authorized by
the Act.
(e) It is desirable that the City of Eden Prairie
Industrial Development Revenue Bond (Lundgren Project)
in the amount of $287,250 be issued by the City upon
the terms set forth herein, and that the City's interest
in the Loan Agreement be assigned to the Mortgagee as
security for the payment of principal and interest on
the Bond.
i
-2-
1t(29
(f) The Loan Agreement provides for payments by
the Borrowers to the Mortgagee for the account of the
City of such amounts as will be sufficient to pay the
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond
when due. No reserve funds are deemed necessary for
this purpose. The Loan Agreement obligates the Borrowers
to provide for the operation and maintenance of the
Project, including adequate insurance, taxes and special
assessments.
(g) Under the provisions of Section 474.10,
Minnesota Statutes, and as provided in the Loan Agree-
ment, the Bond is not to be payable from nor charged
upon any funds other than amounts payable by the Bor-
rowers pursuant to the Loan Agreement which are pledged
to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any
liability thereon; no holder of the Bond shall ever
have the right to compel the exercise of the taxing
power of the City to pay the Bond or the interest
thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any
property of the City; the Bond shall not constitute a
charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon
any property of the City, other than its rights under
the Loan Agreement; the Bond shall recite that the
Bond, including interest thereon, shall not constitute
t nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a
charge against its general credit or taxing powers and
that the Bond does not constitute an indebtedness of
the City within the meaning of any constitutional or
statutory limitation.
(h) The Municipality is a duly organized and
existing municipal corporation under the laws of Minne-
sota and has power to issue the Bond under the Act.
(i) The Project, the issuance and sale of the
Bond, the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement
and the Pledge Agreement, the performance of all cove-
nants and agreements of the Municipality contained in
the Loan Agreement and Pledge Agreement are valid and
binding obligations of the Municipality in accordance
with their terms, and the loan of money thereunder are
authorized and have been duly authorized by this reso-
lution.
(j) There is no litigation pending or, to the
best of its knowledge threatened, against the Munici-
pality relating to the acquisition, construction and
financing of the Project or to the Bond or this Loan
Agreement or questioning the organization, powers or
authority of the Municipality.
-3-
It1'�0
(k) The execution, delivery and performance by
the City of the Resolution, the Bond, the Pledge Agree-
ment and the Loan Agreement will not conflict with or
result in any breach of, any provisions of, or con-
stitute a default under, any agreement or instrument to
which the City is a party or by which it is bound;
provided, however, that this finding is made solely for
the purpose of estopping the City from denying the
validity of the Bond, or of any of the documents refer-
red to in this paragraph, by reason of the existence of
any facts contrary to this finding.
4. Approval and Execution of Documents. The forms of
Loan Agreement, Pledge Agreement, Combination Mortgage, Security
Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement and Assignment of Rents
referred to in paragraph 2 are approved. The Loan Agreement
shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the
Mayor and City Manager, upon execution thereof by the Borrowers,
in substantially the form on file, but with all such changes
therein, not inconsistent with the Act or other law, as may be
approved by the officers executing the same, which approval shall
be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. The Pledge
Agreement shall also be executed in the name and on behalf of the
City by the Mayor and City Manager in substantially the form on
file, but with all such changes therein, not inconsistent with
the Act or other laws, as may be approved by the officers executing
the same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the
execution thereof. Copies of all documents shall be delivered
and filed as provided therein. The Mortgage, and Assignment
may contain such revisions as may be approved by the Mortgagee
and the parties executing the same.
5. Approval Execution and Delivery of Bond. The City
shall proceed forthwith to issue its City of Eden Prairie Indus-
trial Development Revenue Bond (Lundgren Project), to be dated
the date of delivery, in the principal amount of $287,250 in the
form and containing the terms set forth in the form of Bond
attached hereto as Exhibit A, which terms are for this purpose
incorporated in this resolution and made a part hereof. The
proposal of the Mortgagee to purchase such Bond at a price of
$287,250 (100% of its par value) is hereby found and determined
to be reasonable and is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City
Manager are authorized and directed to prepare the Bond in type-
written form substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A.
The Bond shall be executed by the manual signatures of the Mayor
and City Manager and the official seal of the City shall be
affixed thereto. When so prepared and executed the Bond shall be
delivered to the Mortgagee upon receipt of the purchase price
therefor, which may be paid to the parties entitled to receive
the loan proceeds in accordance with the Loan Agreement. The
Bond shall contain a recital that it is issued pursuant to the
Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity
and regularity of the issuance thereof.
-4-
6. Registration Records. The City Clerk, as Bond
Registrar, shall keep a Bond register in which the City shall
provide for the registration of the Bond and for transfers of the
Bond. The principal of and interest on the Bond shall be payable
to the Mortgagee or registered assigns in lawful money of the
United States of America at the address of the Mortgagee or
registered assigns as shown on the Bond register.
7. Mutilated Lost Stolen or Destroyed Bond. If the
Bond is mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed, the City may exe-
cute and deliver to the registered owner a new Bond of like date,
number, maturity and tenor as that mutilated, lost, stolen or
destroyed; provided that, in the case of mutilation, the mutilated
Bond shall first be surrendered to the City, and in the case of a
lost, stolen or destroyed Bond, there shall be first furnished to
the City and the Borrowers evidence of such loss, theft or destruc-
tion satisfactory to the City and the Borrowers together with
indemnity satisfactory to them. The City may charge the Bond-
holder with its reasonable fees and expenses in this connection.
6. Transfer of Bond; Person Treated as Owner. The
Bond shall be transferable by the registered owner on the Bond
register of the City, upon presentation of the Bond for notation
of such transfer thereon at the office of the City Clerk, as Bond
registrar, accompanied by a written instrument of transfer in
i form satisfactory to the Bond registrar duly executed by the
registered owner or its attorney duly authorized in writing. The
registered owner seeking to transfer ownership of the Bond shall
also give written notice thereof to the Borrowers. The Bond shall
continue to be subject to successive transfers at the option of
the registered owner of the Bond. No service charge shall be
made for any such transfer, but the Bond registrar may require
payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental
charge payable in connection therewith. The Bond registrar shall
give written notice to the Borrowers of any transfer of ownership
recorded on the Bond register immediately upon effectuating same.
The person in whose name the Bond shall be registered from time
to time shall be deemed and regarded as the absolute owner thereof
for all purposes, and payment of or on account of the principal
of and interest on the Bond shall be made only to or upon the
order of the owner thereof, or its attorney duly authorized in
writing, and neither the City, the Bond registrar nor the Borrowers
shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. All such payments
shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability
upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
9. Amendments Chan es and Modifications to Loan
Agreement, Ple ge Aid greement and Bond Resolution. T e City shall
not, without the written consent of the Mortgagee, enter into any
agreement, change, modification, alteration or termination of the
Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement or this Bond Resolution.
-5 MAI
i
10. The Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk and other
( officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and
furnish to the purchaser of the Bond, certified copies of all
proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bond, and
subject to the approval of the City Attorney, such other affi-
davits and certificates as may be required to show the facts
appearing from the books and records in the officers' custody and
control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified
copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the
truth of all statements contained therein.
Approved
Mayor
i
t
Attest
City clerk
I
i
-6-
IV33
EXHIBIT A
TO
BOND RESOLUTION
(Form of Bond)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Industrial Development Revenue Bond
(Lundgren Project)
No. R-1 $287,250
The City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation in
the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota (the "City"), for
value received, hereby promises to pay, but solely from the
revenues derived by the City from the Loan Agreement hereinafter
described, to THE MINISTERS LIFE AND CASUALTY UNION or its regis-
tered assigns, the outstanding and unpaid balance of advances on
account of an authorized principal sum of Two Hundred Eighty
Seven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($287,250), or such
portion thereof as may be advanced under the Loan Agreement
hereinafter described, upon the presentation and surrender
hereof, not later than July 1, 2000, to make prepayments of said
principal sum in installments as hereinafter provided, and to pay
to the owner hereof interest on the outstanding and unpaid balance
of such principal sum from the date hereof until said principal
sum is paid at the rate of Ten and fifty hundredths percent
(10.50%) per annum, which rate is subject to being increased to
14.00% in the event of a Determination of Taxability as is here-
inafter provided. Interest only on this Bond accruing from the
date hereof shall be paid on July 1, 1980. Thereafter, principal
and interest shall be due and payable in consecutive monthly
installments of principal and interest in the amount of $2,867.85
each on the first day of each month, commencing August 1, 1980 to
and including June 1, 2000 and one final installment of all
unpaid principal and interest shall be paid on July 1, 2000.
Payments of such installments shall be applied, first to accrued
and unpaid interest and next to unpaid principal. Principal and
interest on this Bond shall be paid by check or draft mailed to
the registered holder hereof at its address as it appears on the
registration records maintained by the City Clerk.
This Bond is issued pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal
Industrial Development Act, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, as
amended (the "Act"), and in conformity with the provisions, re-
strictions and limitations thereof. This Bond does not consti-
tute a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the
City and does not grant to the owner or holder of this Bond any
right to have the City levy any taxes or appropriate any funds
I�I�y
a
f for the payment of the principal hereof or interest hereon, nor
is this Bond a general obligation of the City or the individual
officers or agents thereof. This Bond, the interest, premiums,
penalties, late charges, processing fees and other payments
required herein, however designated, are payable solely and only
from the moneys received under the Loan Agreement hereinafter
mentioned, including the loan repayments to be made by Alston C.
Lundgren and Jean 0. Lundgren, individuals residing in the City
of Minnetonka, Minnesota (the "Borrowers") and from enforcement
of the Mortgage and other security documents hereinafter described.
The provisions of this paragraph are controlling and shall not be
construed as being limited by any other provision of the Bond.
This Bond represents an authorized series of special
obligation Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $287,250
which have been authorized by law to be issued and have been
issued for the purpose of funding a loan from the City to the
Borrowers to finance the costs of constructing a medical clinic
building in the City (the "Project"). This Bond is issued pur-
suant to a Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") between the City
and the Borrowers dated as of May 1, 1980, and a Bond Resolution
of the City duly adopted June 3, 1980. This Bond is secured by
the Loan Agreement, the Bond Resolution, a Combination Mortgage,
Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement (the "Mortgage")
by the Borrowers to The Ministers Life and Casualty Union (the
"Mortgagee") dated as of May 1, 1980, an Assignment of Rents (the
"Assignment") from the Borrowers to the Mortgagee dated as of
May 1, 1980 an Assignment and Pledge Agreement (the "Pledge
Agreement") dated as of May 1, 1980 whereby the Municipality has
pledged its rights under the Loan Agreement to the Mortgagee to
which Loan Agreement, Bond Resolution, Mortgage, Assignment, and
Pledge Agreement and amendments thereof reference is hereby made
for a description and limitation of the revenues and funds pledged
and appropriated to the payment of the Bond, the nature and
extent of the security thereby created, the rights of the Holder
of the Bond, the rights, duties and immunities of the Borrowers,
and the Guarantors and the rights, immunities and obligations of
the City thereunder. Certified copies of the Bond Resolution and
executed counterparts of the Loan Agreement, Mortgage, Assign-
ment, and Pledge Agreement are on file at the office of the City
Clerk.
In the event of a Determination of Taxability, as
defined in the Loan Agreement, this Bond shall bear interest at
the rate of 14.00% per annum from the date from which interest
the Bond is determined to have been taxable, and in such event
monthly payments of principal and interest from and after the
date from which the Bond is determined to have been taxable shall
be increased as is necessary to amortize the then outstanding
principal and interest thereon at the rate of 14.00% per annum
for the remaining maturity of this Bond, and the Borrowers shall
promptly pay on behalf of the City to the registered owner the
aggregate difference between (i) the amounts actually paid hereunder
i
-Z_
IY��
t
between the date from which the Bond is determined to have been
taxable and the effective date of such rate increase and (ii) the
amounts which would have been paid to such registered owner
during such period if the increased rate had been in effect.
The outstanding and unpaid balance of advances on
account of the authorized principal sum of this Bond is equal to
the aggregate of loans made by the City to the Borrowers from
Bond proceeds paid by the Mortgagee under the Loan Agreement, as
evidenced by the notations on Annex A attached to this Bond and
hereby made a part hereof, less repayments of principal made to
the Holder hereof. The notation of the amount and date of an
advance and receipt by the Authorized Borrowers Represeatative
set forth on Annex A is conclusive evidence of the amount and
date of the payment by the Mortgagee, the loan by the Munici-
pality to the Borrowers, and the receipt of the loan by the
Borrowers.
This Bond is subject to prepayment, at the option of
the City, at the request of the Borrowers, in whole or in part on
any installment payment date on or after July 1, 1990 at par,
plus accrued interest, plus a premium on the principal amount
prepaid as follows:
Prepayment
t
Redemption Dates Premium
July 1, 1990 to June 1, 1991 5%
July 1, 1991 to June 1, 1992 4%
July 1, 1992 to June 1, 1993 3%
July 1, 1993 to June 1, 1994 2%
July 1, 1994 and thereafter 1%
This Bond is also subject to prepayment without premium
in certain instances of damage to or destruction or condemnation
of the Project as provided in the Loan Agreement and Mortgage.
All prepayments, whether voluntary or otherwise, shall be applied
in inverse order of maturity.
Notice of any such prepayment shall be given to the
owner or registered assigns of this Bond by certified or regis-
tered mail, addressed to him at his registered address, not later
than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for prepayment, and
shall be published, if required by law, in a financial journal
circulated in the English language in the cities of Minneapolis
or St. Paul, Minnesota, at least once, not less than thirty (30)
days before the date so fixed for prepayment. At the date fixed
for prepayment, funds shall be paid to the registered owner
hereof at its registered address, sufficient to pay the Bond,
prepayment premium and accrued interest thereon. Upon the happen-
my of the above conditions, the Bond thus called shall not bear
interest after the date specified for prepayment.
-3 1g,
This Bond is transferable, as provided in the Bond
Resolution, only upon the Bond register of the City Clerk, as
bond registrar, by the owner hereof in person or by his duly
authorized attorney, as provided in the Bond Resolution. In case
this Bond shall become mutilated, lost or destroyed, a substitute
Bond may be issued in the manner and subject to the conditions
provided in the Bond Resolution.
In case an Event of Default as defined in the Loan
Agreement occurs, the Bond and the Loan Repayments thereafter to
become due under the Loan Agreement may become immediately due
and payable, in the manner and with the effect and subject to the
conditions provided in the -Loan Agreement. The Holder of the
Bond shall have the right to enforce the
g provisions of the Bond �
Resolution, Loan Agreement, Pledge Agreement, Assignment and
Mortgage. l
The terms and provisions of the Bond Resolution, Loan
Agreement, Mortgage and Assignment or of any instrument supple-
mental thereto, may be modified or altered pursuant to Section
8.04 of the Loan Agreement and paragraph 9 of the Bond Resolution.
It is hereby certified and recited and the City council
has found: That the Project is an eligible "project" defined in
Section 474.02, Subd. la of the Act; that the issuance of the
Bond and the acquisition and construction of the Project will
( promote the public welfare and carry out the purposes of the Act;
that the Project has been approved by the Commissioner of Secur-
ities of the State of Minnesota as tending to further the purposes
and policies of the Act; that all acts, conditions and things
required to be done precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond
have been properly done, have happened and have been performed in
regular and due time, form and manner as required by law; and
that this Bond does not constitute a debt of the City within the
meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie, by its
City Council, has caused this Bond to be signed in its behalf by
the manual signatures of the Mayor and the City Clerk and sealed
with the corporate seal of the City, all as of the day of
1980.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By
(Seal) Mayor
And by
City Clerk
-4-
IKI
(Form of Transfer Endorsement)
For value received, the undersigned owner does hereby
assign and transfer the foregoing Bond to the named Assignee, and
the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie as bond
registrar hereby certifies that the foregoing Bond has been
transferred and registered -on the note register in the name of
such Assignee.
Date of
Name of Signature of Signature of Transfer on
Assignee Owner City Clerk Bond Register
(Form .of Annex A)
I
The undersigned Authorized Borrowers Representative
hereby certify that The Ministers Life and Casualty Union as
purchaser thereof, has made the following payment of an install-
ment of the purchase price of the City of Eden Prairie Industrial
Development Revenue Bond (Lundgren Project), and that said payment
( has been loaned to and received by Alston C. Lundgren and Jean 0.
Landgren (the "Borrowers") pursuant to the Loan Agreement dated
as of May 1, 1980, between the City of Eden Prairie and the
Borrowers.
Signature of
Amount of Date of Authorized Borrowers
Payment Payment Representative
t3
y
1
i
I
i
-5-
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: May 28, 1980
RE: Final Approval MIDB'S - Viking Project $6,000,000
Passage of Resolution #80-103 authorizes the issuance of permanent revenue
bonds of the City to finance the Viking project. The specific terms of such
revenue bonds are subject to final approval at a later date. This resolution
�.._ also authorizes the issuance of a $4,000,000 Industrial Development Revenue
Note in order to provide immediate temporary financing for the project.
The loan Agreement contains a representation by the City that it has authorized
both the issuance of the permanent revenue bonds and the Note. The Note has
a maximum term of two years.
The Resolution also contains "findings". Your attention is directed specifically
to item 4(i) of these findings.
I,.
1�j�9
z
[Bond Resolution]
[RESOLUTION f0 - 103 ]
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVENUE BONDS AND
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A TEMPORARY
REVENUE NOTE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 474,
MINNESOTA STATUTES, TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO BE LOANED TO
VIKINGS II, INC.
FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Authority. The City is, by the Constitution and
Laws of the State of Minnesota, including Chapter 474, Minnesota
Statutes, as amended (the "Act"), authorized to issue and sell
1 its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the cost of con-
struction of authorized projects, to issue and sell notes to
evidence temporary loans to be repaid from the proceeds of reve-
nue bonds when issued, and to enter into contracts necessary or
convenient in the exercise of the powers granted by the Act and
to pledge revenues of the project and otherwise secure such bonds
and notes.
2. Authorization of Note and Bonds. The City Council
hereby determines that it is desirable and expedient to autho-
rize, and the City Council does hereby authorize, subject to
final approval of the terms thereof by this Council, the issuance
of revenue bonds of the City in the authorized principal amount
of Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) pursuant to the Act to provide
money to be loaned to Vikings II, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
(the "Company"), to finance costs of acquiring land in the City
for, and to construct and equip, an office builidng and training
and practice facilities (the "Project," as more fully defined in
the Loan Agreement hereinafter mentioned) to be leased to the
Minnesota Vikings Football Club, Inc. (the "Lessee"). In antic-
ipation of the issuance of the revenue bonds authorized by this
paragraph, and in order to provide temporary financing for the
Project, the City shall issue and sell its $4,000,000 City of
Eden Prairie Industrial Development Revenue Note (Vikings II,
Inc. Project) (the "Note").
1
3. Documents Presented. Forms of the following docu-
ments relating to the Note and the Project have been submitted to
and examined by the City Council and are now on file in the
office of the City Clerk:
(a) Loan and Purchase Agreement (the "Loan Agree-
ment"), dated as of June 1, 1980, by and among the
City, the Company and First National Bank of Minneapolis
(the "Bank") whereby, among other things, the City
agrees to sell and the Bank agrees to purchase the
Note, the City agrees to make a loan to the Company of
the proceeds of the sale of the Note and the Company
covenants to complete the Project and to pay amounts
sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of the
principal of and interest on the Note;
(b) Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and
Fixture Financing Statement (the "Mortgage") dated as
of June 1, 1980, by and between the Company and the
Bank, whereby the Company mortgages to the Bank the
Project Site, and the other Project Facilities, all as
defined in the Loan Agreement, as security for the Note
(this document not to be executed by the City);
(c) Assignment of Rents (the "Assignment") dated
as of June 1, 1980, from the Borrower to the Bank,
whereby the Company assigns to the Bank its interests
in all leases and rents derived from the Project
Facilities;
(d) Pledge Agreement (the "Pledge Agreement")
dated as of June 1, 1980, whereby the City assigns to
the Bank all of its interest in the Loan Agreement and
Loan Repayments of the Company payable thereunder
(except its rights under Sections 5.02, 7.01, 8.04 and
8.05), for the purpose of securing the Note; and .
(e) Escrow Agreement (the "Escrow Agreement")
dated as of June 1, 1980 by and among the City, the
Company and the Bank as Escrow Agent, whereby among
other things the City directs that proceeds of the sale
of the Note shall be paid to the Bank, as Escrow Agent,
and held, administered and invested by the Escrow Agent
and disbursed for the payment of Project Costs.
4. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and
declared that:
(a) The Project, as described in paragraph 2
hereof and in the Loan Agreement, based upon the re-
presentations of the Company, constitutes a project
authorized by and described in Section 474.02, Subd.
la, of the Act. j
-2 I6'U�
(b) The purpose of the Project is and the effect
thereof will be to promote the public welfare by:
preventing the emergence of blighted and marginal lands
and areas of chronic unemployment; preventing economic
deterioration; the development of sound industry and
commerce to use the available resources of the com-
munity, in order to retain the benefit of the com-
munity's existing investment in educational and public
service facilities; and halting the movement of talented,
educated personnel to other areas and thus preserving
the economic and human resources needed as a base for
providing governmental services and facilities; and
providing a more adequate tax base to finance the costs
of governmental services.
(c) The Project has been approved by a prelim-
inary resolution of the City Council duly adopted
May 6, 1980, and by the Commissioner of Securities of
the State of Minnesota as tending to further the pur-
poses and policies of the Act.
(d) The issuance and sale of the Note, the execu-
tion and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Pledge
Agreement and the Escrow Agreement and the performance
of all covenants and agreements of the City contained
in the Note, the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement
and the Escrow Agreement and of all other acts and
things required to make the Note, the Loan Agreement,
the Pledge Agreement and the Escrow Agreement valid and
binding obligations of the City in accordance with
their terms, are authorized by the Act.
(e) There is no litigation pending or, to the
best of its knowledge threatened, against the City
relating to the Project or to the Note or Loan Agree-
ment, or questioning the organization of the City or
its power or authority to issue the Note or execute and
deliver the Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement and
the Escrow Agreement.
(f) The execution, delivery and performance of
the City's obligations under the Note, the Loan Agree-
ment, the Pledge Agreement, and the Escrow Agreement
have been fully authorized by all requisite action,
including adoption of this resolution, and do not and
will not violate any order or judgment of any court or
other agency of government in any litigation to which
the City is a party or by which it is bound, or any
indenture, agreement or other instrument to which the
City is a party or by which it or any of its property
is bound, or be in conflict with, result in a breach
of, or constitute (with due notice or lapse of time or
both) a default under any such indenture, agreement or
other instrument; provided, however, that this finding
is made solely for the purpose of estopping the City
-3- rf142
from denying the validity of the Note or any of the
documents referenced in this paragraph by reason of the
existence of any facts contrary to this finding.
(g) The Loan Agreement provides for payments by
the Company to the Bank as Holder of the Note for the
account of the City of such amounts as will be suf-
ficient to pay the principal of and interest on the
Note when due. No reserve funds are deemed necessary
for this purpose. The Loan Agreement obligates the
Company to provide for the operation and maintenance of
the Project Facilities, including adequate insurance,
taxes and special assessments.
(h) Under the provisions of Section 474.14 of the
Act, and the Note shall recite that, the Note is not to
be payable from nor charged upon any funds other than
amounts payable by the Company pursuant to the Loan
Agreement which are pledged to the payment thereof,
and, in event of default, undisbursed moneys held under
the Escrow Agreement and moneys derived from foreclo-
sure or other enforcement of the Mortgage; the City is
not subject to any liability thereon; no Holder of the
Note shall ever have the right to compel the exercise
of the taxing power of the City to pay the Note or the
( interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against
any property of the City; the Note shall not constitute
a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon
any property of the City; and such Note does not con-
stitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning
of any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation.
(i) Nothing has come to the attention of the City
Council to indicate that any member of the City Council
(i) has a direct or indirect interest in the Project,
the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, the Escrow
Agreement or the Note, (ii) owns any capital stock of
or other interest in the Project, the Company, the
Lessee or the Bank, (iii) is an officer or director of
either the Company, the Lessee, or the Bank, (iv) will
be involved in supervising the completion of the Project
on behalf of the Company, or (v) will receive any
commission, bonus or other remuneration for or in
respect of the Project, the Loan Agreement, the Escrow
Agreement or the Note.
(j) The Municipality is a duly organized and
existing municipal corporation under the laws of the
State of Minnesota and has power to issue the Note
under the Act.
1
-4-
5. Approval and Execution of Documents. The forms of
Loan Agreement, Pledge Agreement, Escrow Agreement, Mortgage and
Assignment referred to in paragraph 3 are approved. The Loan
Agreement, Escrow Agreement and Pledge Agreement shall be executed
in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor, the City
Manager and the City Clerk, upon execution of the Loan Agreement
and Escrow Agreement by the Company and the Bank, or shall be
executed by other appropriate officers of the City authorized to
execute documents on behalf of such officers, in substantially
the form on file, but with all such changes therein, not incon-
sistent with the Act or other law, as may be approved by the
officers executing the same, which approval shall-be conclusively .
evidenced by the execution thereof. The Mortgage and the Assign-
ment may contain such revisions as may be approved by the Bank
and the Company.
6. Approval of Terms and Sale of Note. The City shall
proceed forthwith to issue the Note, in the authorized principal
amount of $4,000,000, substantially in the form, maturing, bearing
interest, payable in the installments and otherwise containing
the provisions set forth in the form of Note attached hereto as
Exhibit 1, which terms and provisions are hereby approved and
incorporated in this Bond Resolution and made a part hereof.
A single Note, substantially in the form of Exhibit 1
to this Bond Resolution, shall be issued and delivered to the
Bank in the principal amount of $4,000,000 and as authorized by
the Act, the principal of and interest on the Note shall be
payable at the office of the Bank in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The
proposal of the Bank to purchase the Note at a purchase price of
$4,000,000 (100% of par value) is hereby found and determined to
be reasonable and is hereby accepted. Pursuant to the Loan
Agreement, the Bank has agreed to pay the purchase price to
provide funds to be loaned by the City to the Company to pay
Project Costs, as defined in the Escrow Agreement, when due.
7. Execution, and Delivery of Note. The Note may be
in typewritten or printed form and shall be executed by the
manual signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager and shall be
attested by the manual signature of the City Clerk, and the
official seal of the City shall be affixed thereto. When so
prepared and executed, the Note shall be delivered to the Bank
upon payment of the purchase price, and upon receipt of the
signed legal. opinion of Faegre & Benson, of Minneapolis, Minnesota,
bond counsel, pursuant to the Loan Agreement. The Note shall
contain a recital that it is issued pursuant to the Act, and such
recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity and regular-
ity of the issuance thereof.
8. Registration Records. The City Clerk, as note
registrar, shall keep a note register in which the City shall
provide for the registration of the Note and for transfers of the
Note. The principal of and interest gn the Note shall be paid to
the Bank for the account of the Holder entitled thereto in Federal
-5- IUfll1 i_
y
or other immediately available funds. The City Clerk is autho-
rized and directed to deliver a certified copy of this Bond
Resolution to the Director of Finance and Records, acting as
County Auditor, of Hennepin County, together with such other
information as the County Auditor may require, and obtain the
certificate of the County Auditor as to entry of the Note on his
bond register as required by the Act and Section 475.63, Minnesota
Statutes.
9. Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. If the
Note is mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed, the City may execute
and d�!liver to the Holder a new Note of like amount, date, number
and tenor as that mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed; provided
that, in the case of mutilation, the mutilated Note shall first
be surrendered to the City, and in the case of a lost, stolen or
destroyed Note, there shall be first furnished to the City and
the Company evidence of such loss, theft or destruction satis-
factory to the City and the Company, together with indemnity
satisfactory to them. The City and the Company may charge the
Holder with their reasonable fees and expenses in replacing any
mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed Note.
10. Transfer of Note; Person Treated as Holder. The
Note shall be transferable by the Holder on the note register of
the City, upon presentation of the Note for notation of such
transfer thereon at the office of the City Clerk, as note regis-
trar, accompanied by a written instrument of transfer in form
satisfactory to the City Clerk duly executed by the Holder or its
attorney duly authorized in writing. The Holder seeking to
transfer ownership of the Note shall also give written notice
thereof to the Company. The Note shall continue to be subject to
successive transfers at the option of the Holder of the Note. No
service charge shall be made for any such transfer, but the City
Clerk may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or
other governmental charge payable in connection therewith. The
person in whose name the Note shall be issued or, if transferred,
shall be registered from time to time shall be deemed and regarded
as the absolute Holder thereof for all purposes, and payment of
or on account of the principal of and interest on the Note shall
be made only to or upon the order of the Holder thereof, or its
attorney duly authorized in writing, and neither the City, the
City Clerk, the Company, nor the Bank shall be affected by any
notice to the contrary. All such payments shall be valid and
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Note to
the extent of the sum or sums so paid. The Note shall be initially
registered in the name of the Bank.
11. Amendments, Changes and Modifications to Loan
Agree ment_Pledge Agreement and Bond Resolution. Except pursuant
to Section 9.03 of the an Agreement, the City shall not enter
into or make any change, modification, alteration or termination
of the Loan Agreement, Pledge Agreement, Escrow Agreement or this
Bond Resolution.
i
-6- rua
12. Pledge to Holder. The City hereby pledges
and assigns to the Holder of the Note the proceeds of the
revenue bonds authorized by paragraph 2 hereof, provided
that the final terms of such revenue bonds shall be subject
to final approval by the City Council, in anticipation of
the issuance of which revenue bonds the Note is being issued.
Pursuant to the Pledge Agreement, the City shall pledge and
assign to the Bank and its successor Holders of the Note all
interest of the City (other than certain rights to indemnity
and repayment of advances and expenses) in the revenues of
the Project and the Project Facilities, including all Loan
Repayments to be made by the Company under the Loan Agreement
and moneys derived from enforcement of the Mortgage. All
collections of moneys by the City in any proceeding for
enforcement of the obligations of the Company under the Loan
Agreement shall be received, held and applied by the City
for the benefit of the Holder of the Note.
13. Covenants with Holders; Enforceability.
All provisions of the Note and of this Bond Resolution and
all representations and undertakings by the City in the Loan
Agreement are hereby declared to be covenants between the
City and the Bank and its successor Holders of the Note and
shall be enforceable by the Bank or any Holder in a proceeding
brought for that purpose, provided that no such covenant,
t representation or undertaking shall ever give rise to any
general liability of the City, its employees, officers or
agents or constitute a charge against its general credit or
taxing powers.
14. Authorized Representative. The City Clerk is
hereby designated as the Authorized Municipal representative
for all purposes of the Loan Agreement with full authority
to do on behalf of the City all those things required or
authorized by the Loan Agreement to be done by action or
certificate of the Authorized Municipal Representative.
15. Disbursement of Proceeds. There is hereby
created and established with the Escrow Agent pursuant to
the Escrow Agreement a trust fund in the name of the City to
be designated "City of Eden Prairie Construction Fund - Vikings
II, Inc. Project" (the "Construction Fund") into which all
proceeds derived from the sale of the Note by the City will
be deposited. The Escrow Agent shall hold, administer,
invest and disburse the moneys in accordance with the terms
of the Escrow Agreement for the payment of authorized Project
Costs as defined in Section 4 of the Escrow Agreement and of
the Note pursuant to Section 3 or 9 of the Escrow Agreement.
16. Definitions and Interpretation. Terms not
otherwise defined in this Bond Resolution but defined in the
Loan Agreement shall have the same meanings in this Bond
Resolution and shall be interpreted herein as provided
therein. Notices may be given as provided in Section 9.01
of the Loan Agreement. In case any provision of this Bond
-7-
i
Resolution is for any reason illegal or invalid or inoperable,
such illegality or invalidity or inoperability shall not
affect the remaining provisions of this Bond Resolution,
which shall be construed or enforced as if such illegal or
invalid or inoperable provision were not contained herein.
17. Election Under Internal Revenue Code. The
City hereby elects that the provisions of Section 103(b)(6)(D)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and Reg. §1.103-10(b)(2)(vi)
thereunder, permitting the issuance of tax exempt industrial
development bonds in amounts up to $10,000,000 under certain
conditions, shall apply to the Bond, and the Mayor, the City
Manager or City Clerk or any of them are authorized to
execute and file the appropriate form of election under the
Code and Regulations with the Internal Revenue Service.
16. Certifications. The Mayor, City Manager,
City Clerk, and other o ficers of the City are authorized
and directed to prepare and furnish to Messrs. Faegre &
Benson, bond counsel, to the Company, to the Bank and to
counsel for the Company and the Bank, certified copies of
all proceedings and records of the City relating to the
Project and the Note, and such other affidavits and certifi-
cates as may be required to show the facts appearing from
the books and records in the officers' custody and control
t or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies,
certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished,
shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth
of all statements contained therein.
Sidney Pauly, Acting Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John Frane, C erk
-8- 1 W
Rymarland Camp 2nd - RAP
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Ordinance No. 80-10
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 135
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended as
follows: The following described property, Lot 2, Block 1, and
Outlot A, Rymarland Camp, Hennepin County, Minnesota
shall be and hereby is removed from the Rural District
and shall be included hereinafter in the RI-13.5 District.
i
Section 2. The above-described property shall be subject to the
i
terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as
of 1990, between Rymarland Camps, Inc.
and Robert A. Quam, Sr.,
and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part
hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules
and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie relating to the R1-13.5
District.
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 1990, and
finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting
of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1980.
Wolfgang H. Penzel - Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Franc - City Clerk
i.
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of _ , 1980. t
�u���
a
I
May 22, 1980
Rymarland Camps 2nd
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
PHIS ACREf-MENT, made cold entered into as of /itcec 9 1980
by and between Robert A. Quam Sr., a single person and Rymarland Camps, Inc.,
a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "OWNER" and the City of
Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City",
WITNESSETH:
h1il?RLAS, Owner has applied to City to rezone from rural to R1-13.5
approximately 22 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota,
more fully described as Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot A, Rymarland Camps, and
hereafter referred to as "the property", and
WHEREAS, Owner desires to plat and develop the property into 42 lots
for single family residences.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance 80-10
Owner covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance
of said property as follows:
1. Owner shall plat and develop the property in conformance with the
material dated February 29, 1980 reviewed and approved by the City
Council on May 20, 1980 and attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject
to such changes and modifications as provided horcin. 0%,alcr shall
not develop the property in any other respect or manner than provided i
herein.
2. Owner covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Owner
at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all the terms,
covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit R,
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
i
3. Owner shall convey by Warranty hoed that part of the property shown
as Outlot. R, Exhibit A, outlined in green, to the City ieunediotely
upon filing of the plat and prior to issuaucc of Illy building permit.
Owner shall not grade or Permit or muse to occur any consUvction
upon Outlot B.
f .
Developer's Agreement•-Rymarland Camps 2nd Page 2
4. Owner shall final plat all building lots within the property having
r
a minimum size of 13,500 square feet.
S. Owner shall final plat the area designated as pond, Exhibit A,
outlined in red, as Outlot C, and grant to the City casements
thereon and thereto containing such provisions and in such form
as shall be required and approved by the City Engineer, upon filing
of the plat. j.
G. Owner shall propose agreements providing for the maintenance of
the common areas, labeled Outlots A & C, Exhibit A, within the
property and shall submit said agreements to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to final plat approval.
7. Owner shall, prior to issuance of any building permit upon the
property, obtain an entrance permit for access to T.H. 101 from
the Minnesota Department of Transportation and shall install the �
necessary turning lane improvements as required by the State
Department of Transportation.
8. Owner shall final plat a strip of the property 7 feet wide (or
more as required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation)
for right-of-way extending along the easterly lane of TH 101
adjacent to the property.
C. 9. Owner shall notify City's and the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed
District's engineers"48 hours prior to commencing any grading
upon the property.
i
1
i' .
1�►�U
Developer's Agreement-Rymarland Camps 2nd Addition page 3
IN WITNESS b11HREOP, the parties to this Agreement have caused those
presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
CITY:
By
Wolfgang 11. Penzel, Mayor
By
Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) '
i
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of i
1980 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor and Roger K. Ulstad, the City Manager of Eden
Prairie on behalf of the corporation. ,
s
Notary Public
i
OWNER:
Robert A. Quam Sr.
RYMARLANND CMIPS, INC.
By
Jo i1 S. Netland
Its President
i
s
STATE 01: MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrtmiont was acknowledged before me this _:19 day of>�:. ,
1980 by Robert A. Qucun Sr. a single person.
Notary Public /..
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
0UNTY OF HENNEPIN i..• ,,:, . _.,....,,.'
lay i;•ninu:p;u iVc..,l:.!..I". ,
lql
Developer's Agreement-Rymarland Camps 2nd Addition page 4
* The foregoing instrtunent was acknowledged before me this ?' day of -5:; r ,
1�J60 by John S. Netland the ./-T 4.`ae�t of Rymarland Camps, Inc.,
on behalf of the corporation.
el-
Notary'I'ublic
RAL11,HAGE,11,1^NN
HLNgY oU[LfC;NINYrSOfA
Mfdy commiwon a<rirN, "NIY
a6 6,1985
I
1
l
I
I
i
i
�us�.
/ S
ij \
TP
Ln
Cj
In
lit
Nl
- �--: '�\', ram; �1�� ;'- -.., •,,.>\ �� . .
- 'CA
GA
iY J
r
I Z,
�..._:-`�-�i�•—�—
l�l�3 "GXHIBITA 1j
12
A AT lots
zoo,
WAR AS L .
rms,
cJu
hilli fL
1115 HIM
hot
mill, al
HIM
51ANNIMMS-6 HIM 1- it PH."
WME
lit %K
o
"S ohs
touOC Cja OMO
N UV —mv.211
Ativt
inIn-too T
A an
AM
. .; .1;",.,
tie
sh. 2u.
a at St into!
yu-
its Cal —'InMIMN
. a . .
% } _
\ {
" 2! §§[§{
_ ;��: •
. . ® hHhub
} \ \\\ \ \\\ \\\ \} \ \ \ \\\\
\�{
\\\ � Eli
WIN \ \ \Not \\\
%rz-rK,2;- ./g 2 Oil E$ q |
Sur Q e S/'j\� }(\\ 3 �
| i
Cardarelle Office - RAP
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
( Ordinance No. 80-11
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 135
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended as
follows: The following described property, Tracts A & B, Registered
i
Land Survey No. 335, Hennepin County, Minnesota
sha11 be and hereby is removed from the Rural District !
and shall be included'hereinafter in the Office District.
Section 2. The above-described property shall be subject to the
i
terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as
of , 1990, between Cardarelle & Associates,
Inc., a Minnesota corporation
t and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part
hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules
and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie relating to the Office
District.
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 , 1980, and
finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting
of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1980.
Wolfgang H. Penzel - Mayor
ATTEST:
Joofin D. Franc - City Clerk
PUBLISHED in the rden Prairie News on the day of , 1980.
' t UAL
• May 22, 1980
Cardarelle Office
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of
1980 by and between CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Minnesota
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to
as "City".
WITNESSETH;
WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to rezone from Rural p
to Office approximately .8 acres, situated in Hennepin County,
State of Minnesota, more fully described as Tracts A & B,
Registered Land Survey No. 335 and hereafter referred to as
"the property", and
WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property to construct
+ thereon an office building containing 8,000 square feet of floor
space, and
] WHEREAS, the property is included with other lands in
1 the Major Center Area PUD.
{{ NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting
Ordinance No. 80-11, Owner covenants and agrees to construction
upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows:
a
1. Owner shall develop the property in conformance with
the material dated Feb. 25, 1980 reviewed and approved
by the City Council on May 20, 1980 and attached hereto
as Exhibit A, subject to such changes and modifications
as lirovidcd—herein. Owner shall not develop the
property in any other respect than provided herein.
i 2. Owner covenants and agrees to the performance and
observance by Owner at such times and in such manner
as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants,
agreements, and conditions set forth in 1;xhibit 11,
attached hcreto and made a part hereof.
Iu5'1
Developer's Agreement-Cardarelle Office Page 2
3. Owner shall, prior to issuance of any building permit
upon the property, grant to City easements for sidewalks
and other public use as depicted on Exhibit A, but at
least 10 feet in width and in such form anca containing
such provisions as shall be approved by the City's
Attorney and Director of Planning and Development.
4. Owner shall construct upon the property at least 40
hard surface parking spaces-
5. Owner shall construct, prior to occupancy of the office
} building, retaining walls in the locations outlined in
red on-Exhibit A.
6. In amendment of and supplemental to the Major Center
Area PUD, Owner is granted variances from Ordinance
135 relating to setbacks as set forth in Exhibit A hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have
caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By:
o Wolfgang H. Penze , Mayor
1
By:
Roger K. U sta , Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day
of 1980 by Wolfgang H. Penzcl, Mayor and Roger K. UictadI
Manager of the City of Eden Prairie on behalf of the corporation.
i
Notary Public
OWNER: CARDAREI,I.E a ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:_
ran arc ta'rclle�~�
its '[17
lw6< .
i
Developer's Agreement-Cardarelle Office Page 3
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before njy this
day of f�1t\ , 1980 by Frank Cardarelle the t K6Staet4r f
of Cardarelle & Associates, Inc., on behalf of the corporation.
CINDY M.PLANTE
�� � �/7,,•./, °"'"� ere r rr':sG•�artHesoTe �
• cX t!COUNTY
Not Public
i
q
V
l
1
1
1
1
i
f
ry5°1
y
' /,C4AL � f�CSCq,F•TraN � 1
Ex
` ;r •s
WTD e.oennew i
MAP i
WALLY
ol
du
IN
i {K- ��'�' of •f 5 / /
lQ \ '• � (•G:C,{X7:�'l.� SICC.YdAI._1L PI.At!
A \
PLAN L.
G ! ,f \y { SITE FLnN+d�.nD11.1G ..
i�-�-,'`' � \ / � crr.tern.ns�z�s�r•.,en._;oeu:'e•::j INC
�'� �� 14bo gX111111 T A"k VIM
Aw V 34, W
OAK
L ARYWHO!, Q�a S"
A AS AS My,
MOW I
MEM :10m:A HIT A A
Milk
insist,"]p\\11Z
W
\\\
W m :
s11
1
...1 T'",10,1011 IRV"ASSM hiply,
ARROW 11100\
still H\\\\1: HOVSHMEN sh ?S 10221, y;. a0 at ""
a ERR
11 U Eon, a
MAN
LIZ mg mp.......
a a a 1 1, \\�
\ \ \ j\\I\�
A
St Off�\{ /} �
SIT,
\\( Sato
�
i
. �
( �
! §E F. § .
` r]
�
/\/ iq_\ .
,- \ §;§ \/\_/ $;§ / \) {
at§ :%
£`/
[
 /{ ;
| i
;
MEWRANDIN
T
T0: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: May 29, 1980
SUBJECT: Resolution Transferring CDBG Funds from County Road 4
to Valley View Road
In 1979, the City Council authorized staff-to spend $6,000 for construction
of a 6' wide aglime path along Valley View Road east of County Road 4 to
Edenvale Blvd. The purpose of the path was to provide an off road surface
for young bikers and joggers.
The aglime surface will be completed in the very near future, however it
will take several weeks of use before this surface sets up. After each
rain, the surface will again become quite soft, but again will harden
as it dries. Aglime is the same surface that is used on the infields
of softball diamonds. This makes a very satisfactory running surface, but
it a marginal biking surface. The City staff have already received complaints
from people in the area that bikers will not use this surface and have
requested that the trail be completed with an asphalt surface.
Due to using City staff on the construction of the County Road 4 Bikeway,
our estimated construction costs are well below the original estimates;
therefore, staff is recommending to transfer $10,000 from the Community
Development Block Grant funding to the Valley View Road Flikeway/Bikeway for
the purpose of completing the trail with an asphalt surface.
.BL:md
l
r .
t��3
i
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
t RESOLUTION NO. RBO-105
RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
FROM YEAR I BIKEWAY/COUNTY ROAD 4 TO BIK171VAY/VALLEY VIEW ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has received Community Development
Block Grant funding and Minnesota Highway Department funding for construction
of bikeway along County Road 4, and
WHEREAS, Community Development Block Grant funding for County Road
4 was approved because of its proximity to the Briarhill housing project, and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has authorized a separated aglime
surface bikeway/bikeway trail adjacent to Valley View Road running casterly
from County Road 4 in the direction of the Briarhill project, and
WHEREAS, existing Community Development Block Grant funding for County
Road 4 exceeds present construction cost estimates for County Road 4 Bikeway
by $10,000, and
WHEREAS, the Valley View Road Bikeway/Bikeway will receive much greater
use with an asphalt surface
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Eden Prairie City Council
request that Year I Community Development Block Grant application be
amended to reprogram $10,000 from Bikeway/County Road 4 to Valley View
Road Bikeway.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of June 1980.
Wolfgang H. Penze1, Mayor
ATTEST
}
John D. Franc, City Clerk SEAL
I
a.
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
711RU: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: May 29, 1980
SUBJECT: Resolution Concerning LAWCON Funds
As I have indicated in an earlier temo, the Federal Administration requested
that over $110 million dollars in Fiscal Year 1930 Park and Preservation
Grant Funds be rescinded. This action has resulted in the halt to all
LIVCF Grant Programs as of March 28 and also impacts the Urban Parks Rehabilitation
Grants and Historic Preservation Grants.
The Douse Sub Committee on Interior Appropriations rejected the administration
request to rescind and instead has deferred spending until October. The I
Sub Committee action is subject to further review by the House Appropriation
Committee and the Full House and Senate action. Congress has until the end of
May to take action on the recession legislation. No action by Congress would
direct the administration to obligate the funds. However, it appears that
Congress is considering deferring spending until the Fall.
i The picture looks equally bleak for 1981 funds as the House on a motion by
Representative David Obey to restore LIVCF and other domestic funding was
defeated.
Another negative inpact that the freeze on LAWCON Funding has is that it ties
up all State matching funds administered through the Legislative Commission
on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) for park projects.
The freeze on LAWCON finding obviously has a negative impact on all park and
acquisition development projects and specifically has an impact on Eden Prairie
in regard to the approved 1930 LAWCON acquisition project at Miller Park on
Mitchell Lake. The City of Edcn Prairie is also applying for LAWCON grants
for Parcel #3 of Miller Park on Mitchell Lake for 1981.
Since LAWCON funding comes from a designated source where revenues will not
be reduced it seems unfair to allocate those dollars to other programs.
The City of Eden Prairie has benefited from LAWCON and LCMR funds for the
acquisition and development of parkland. At this time, I would like to rreonmond
the City Council adopt Resolution No. RSO-104 requesting the release of 1980
LAWCON Funds and to Restore the 1981 LA co,,4 Funding Level.
If the City Council chooses to adopt this resolution, I would recommend that we
send it to Senator Rudy Boschwitz, Senator Dave Iturenburger and Rrpresontativc
i' Bill. Fronzel.
i
BL:md 1
ITS
CITY 01: EDEN PRAIRIE•
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. R80-104
RESOLUTION REQUP.STTNG THE RELEASE OF 1980 LAWCON FUNDS AND TO RESTORE THE
1981 LAWCON FUNDING LEVEL
I:
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has established a five year Park
Acquisiton and Development Program to meet Citizens needs, and 6
WHEREAS, the Five Year Program has been implemented through the
joint funding of local, state, and federal funds, and
W'HE•REAS, LAWCON funding has made possible the acquistion of land for
preservation, and recreational purposes, and
WHEREAS, funding has provided the opportunity to develop land to meet .
leisure needs and satisfy a demand placed on existing facilities, and
WHEREAS, the loss of LAWCON funding creates a serious hardship upon !
the City of Eden Prairie to acquire land and develop existing parks, and
WHEREAS, LAWCON funding was allocated from designated sources, and g
WHEREAS, to wait and release LAWCON funding towards the end of the
{
Fiscal year will take Minnesota Cities out of the construction season, and
WHEREAS, with inflation and its impact on the cost of land and impact
on escalating construction costs;
i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Eden Prairie strongly
urges your support of legislation to release the 1980 LAWCON Funds
immediately, and
FURTHER, that the 1981 LAWCON Funds be restored.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of June 1980.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
N 6
RAUENHORST CORPORATION
l DESIGNERS•BUILDERS•DEVELOPERS/MINNEAPOLIS•CHICAGO•MILWAUKEE
May 29, 1980
The Honorable Mayor and Members
Eden Prairie City Council
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Briarfield Estates
Dear Mayor Penzel,
I hereby request that the rezoning application and
plat for Briarfield Estates be withdrawn from a"
further consideration by the Council.
The property is currently proposed for the construc-
tion of a regional office warehouse distribution
center for Brauns Fashions, Inc.
In the event that the Brauns project does not go
ahead on this property, I reserve the option of
resubmitting the Briarfield Estates plan and plat
for reconsideration by the city.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
/ Very truly yours,
Dominic Sciola
7705 Glasgow Drive
Edina, MN 55435
cc: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Alan Braun, Brauns Fashions, Inc.
DS/jad
i
EEECUTIVE 0771cES 27W NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER,7900 EEREE. VENUE SOUTH.MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 5543I 141215594444
1
BRAUNS FAST-BONS, INC.
C 7630 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55426
TELEPHONE (612)933-6161
April 4, 1980
Mr. Chris Enger
Director of City Planning
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN. 55344
Re: Braun's Fashions, Inc.
Proposed Office-Distribution Center
Dear Mr. Enger:
We have been advised that you would like certain additional information
in connection with your evaluation of cur proposed office and distribution
center to be located in Eden Prairie.
Our company operates forty-one women's clothing stores within the Upper
Midwest. The proposed building would house our corporate headquarters and
our central distribution center. All merchandise to be sold in our stores
would be shipped to the distribution center. There, the merchandise would be
put on hangers, ticketed and allocated for delivery to our various stares.
Merchandise for stores within the metropolitan area is delivered on hangers
in step-van delivery trucks; merchandise for out-of-town stores is boxed for
pickup by common carrier.
The truck traffic at the building would be of three varieties. First
there would be inbound shipments delivered to a fully enclosed loading dock.
Although the number of deliveries varies considerably by the day of the week
and the time of the year, we average approximately eight to ten deliveries per
day. Some days there may be no deliveries and there could be eighteen to
twenty deliveries on a peak day. This traffic should •remain constant for
Phase I and Phase II with the increase in the volume of merchandise to be de- I
livered accomodated by larger deliveries off the same trucks. `
The second type of traffic is out-bound common carrier. This traffic j±
would involve a maximum of five trucks per day. This traffic will likely also '.
remain constant for both phases since our planned expansion will be in the
same geographical areas (or states) in which we already operate stores.
Larger out-bound shipments will be accomodated by larger quantities being picked
up by the same trucks.
The third type of traffic would be our company step-vans which deliver to
our stores within the metropolitan area. We own three step-vans, each of which
averages two pick-ups per day from the distribution center. Since we recently
added the third step-van and our expansion plans are very limited within the
metropolitan area, the number of step-vans should not be increased during either
I Ulo��
( Page 2
phase. At most, one or more of the step-vans would make one additional trip
per day, if needed.
The three step-vans, as well as a semi-trailer (without tractor) which we }!,
own would be housed within fully-enclosed garage loading areas. The semi- !j
trailer is used approximately six to ten times per year to deliver inventory
on hangers to new stores outside the Twin Cities.
At present, we employ eighty employees in our combined office-distribution
center. Because of part-time personnel and staggered shifts, we average sixty
to!sixty:-five employees on the premises at any given -.time.--The employees --
are split approximately evenly between the office and distribution center and, j
because of the nature of our business, are predominently women. Upon moving
into the new facility, we would estimate that we would add eight to ten people.
At such time as Phase II is completed we might add an additional twenty to
twenty-five people. !
Of our employees, our experience has been that an average of ten to fifteen
people do not drive a car to work, but rather ride with another employee or
are pooling as energy costs continue to rise.
If you desire additional information or if I may be of any further assistance,
please do not hesitate,to contact me. . ;
t�
Sincerely, H
Br un's Fashions, Inc.
Alan Braun
Vice President t,
AB:sw
cc: Mr. Robert Worthington
Mr. Robert Stiglich
I
r u��1
x
MEMORANDUM
PWJNINGITRANSPOnTAT10NIENGINEERINGIARCHITECTUPE
February 25, 1980
TO: Mr. Robert Worthington, Rauedhorst
FROM: Arnold UIIevig
i
SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis of Braun's Warehouse and Analysis of
Hennepin County Road 39 Gradeline in Eden Prairie, Minnesota p
PURPOSE/SCOPE
Brauns Fashions, Inc. is proposing to develop approximately 12 acres of land in
Eden Prairie along Hennepin County Road 39 (Valley View Road) west of Hennepin
County Road 18 and Washington Avenue. The development consists of a warehouse
and supplemental office space to be constructed in two phases. Total project'
size is approximately 134,000 square feet.
f
BRW has been requested to conduct an analysis of the proposed development rela-
tive to: 9
f
• Overall trip generation characteristics to determine compatibility with
existing traffic operations.
• Alignment alternatives for County Road 39 to improve existing grade and
curvature conditions.
E
• Driveway access needs and design requirements.
This memorandum documents the results of the analysis and makes recommendations
relative to both roadway adjustments and access design. I
TRIP GENERATION
An analysis of the potential trip generation characteristics of the proposed
development was conducted based upon numerous studies of similar typos of
developments. The expected trip generation of both phase one and phase two are
summarized below:
i
i
i
BATHER,RINGAME.WOESTEED.OMIS.GsARDNER,INC. 2M UNIVERSITY AYE SE.I i N„MINNEAPOLIS.WIN S1116 ►NONE 6171:W ryt6
Mr. Robert Worthington
February 25, 1980
Page 2
(
EXPECTED DAILY AND PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION
Phase 1 Phase 2
24-Hour 498 vehicles/day 788 vehicles/day
Peak Hour 135 vehicles/hour 229 vehicles/hour
The maximum traffic projected for the development is significantly less.than_..
1000 vehicles per day and the projected year 2000 daily traffic volume for
County Road 39 Is only 8000 vehicles per day. These volumes are relatively low
compared to other similar situations. It is concluded, therefore, that no
major capacity or operational problems will occur due to traffic volumes alone.
PROFILE ALTERNATIVES
A review of the topography of the area and the existing profile of valley view
Road indicates that grades are quite steep. The consequence of this condition
is that sight distances are minimal and certain safety hazards could occur.
Because the proposed development will require driveway access onto valley view
Road, these grade and sight distance issues need to be addressed.
Figure 1 depicts the current plan and profile on valley view Road. The maximum
existing grade is approximately 9% which lies between two horizontal curves.
The horizontal curve at the top of the hill is approximately an 18° curve
(radius - 312 feet) while the horizontal curve at the bottom of the hill is
approximately a 20' curve (radius - 289 feet). A small horizontal curve also
occurs on the 9% grade which is approximately a 3° curve.
Figure 3 depicts an alternative profile for County Road 39 which conforms to
the current County standard of 4% maximum grade.
The important aspects of the revised profile are summarized below:
• Because County Road 39 is on a continuous ascent from the creek to the
west of the site, the take off point has been established at the bottom
of the existing 9% grade. It is also not considered feasible to raise
this portion of the roadway (in order to minimize the amount of cut at
the top of the hill), because of the horizontal curve that exists at the
bottom of• the hill.
• The establishment of a 4% maximum grade (with the appropriate vertical
curves) results in a maximum cut of approximately 21 feet.
• The maximum reduction in grade occurs at the driveway opening to a
singie-family residence on the east side of County Road 39. This amount
of grade change will make the residence inaccessible unloss a viable now
access location can be found.
14�C
3
Mr. Robert Worthington
February 25, 1980
Page 3-
Therefore, the following sequence of activities is suggested which will allow
both the grade of County Road 39 to be improved and avoid the disruption of
properties east of County Road 39 until that side of the roadway undergoes
development.
• Retain County 39 in its present condition for the Phase 1 development of
the 8rauns' site.
• Allow only two access .points (rather than three) to the site as shown in
Figure 2. One access will serve the parking lot and the other access
will serve the loading dock.
i
• If and when the property on the east side of County Road 39 is devel-
oped, the site can be re-graded to be compatible with the proposed grade
of County Road 39.
• Upgrade County Raod 39 in conjunction with the final development plans
on both sides of County 39.
This approach is workable in terms of overall traffic operations because of the
{ low trip generation associated with the Brauns' warehouse.
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS
Other improvements are contemplated for County Road 39 in addition to the
objective of improving its grade and increasing its right of way. One of these
improvements consists of an improved connection to the interchange at County
Road 18 by relocating the roadway to eliminate the right angle intersection
with Washington Avenue. A second option Laing considered is the flattening of
the curve at the bottom of the 9N grade to improve traffic flow. Improving
this curve would be done in lieu of extending Valley View Road southerly on a
new right of way.
The horizontal alignment option which has the most significant impact upon the
Brauns' site is the flattening of the existing curve at the bottom of the 9%
grade. In order to meet Hennepin County quidelines for horizontal curves
(degree of curve = V) the existing roadway centerline would be relocated
approximately 108 feet in a northerly direction at the point of its maximum
displacement. This would result in an additional 10B feet of R/W acquisition
from the Brauns site (at the maximum point) as well as lesser amounts from the
property to the west.
Tabulated below are the maximum displacements of the centerline of County Road
39 (In a northerly direction) if the horizontal curve at the bottom of the hill
(20° degree of curve) were flattened to a lesser degree of curve.
k
4
Mr. Robert Worthington
February 25, 1980
Page 4 y
New Degree Displacement of Co. Rd. 39 Approximate
of Curve _—at Maximum Point
20° (existing) 0 feet 30 mph
18: 4 feet 30 mph
16 7 feet 35 mph
iqe 12 feet 35 mph
12: 19 feet 40 mph
10 28 feet 45 mph
qe 108 feet 60 mph
It will be noted from the above that unless a substantial change in degree of
curve is made, very little change in overall design speed can be achieved.
Therefore, since a major flattening of the horizontal curve would require
significant land acqusitions and because the principal traffic operational
Improvements are obtained by reducing the profile grade on County Road 39, it
is suggested that the existing horizontal alignment be retained.
i
RIGHT OF WAY
The existing right of way for County Road 39 is 66 feet which has been
requested to be increased to 100 feet. This requires that 17 feet of addi-
tional right of way be acquired on each side of the roadway. This width of
right of way will allow for the development of a four lane roadway section in
the future if it becomes warranted. This situation is shown in Figure 3 which
Illustrates the plan and profile for the ultimate upgrading of County Road 39
if development occurs on the east side of the roadway.
DRIVEWAY LOCATION AND DESIGN
The final element of the site plan review and analysis involves the location
and design of the appropriate driveways. [because of the low trip generation
rate anticipated for this development, two driveways are recommended. One
driveway will serve truck access to the proposed loading dock, while the second
driveway will serve employee and visitor access to the parking lot. The recom-
mended design of each driveway opening is also diagrammed in Figures 2 and 3.
The driveway to the truck loading dock must be of sufficient width to allow
semi vehicles to turn without encroaching upon the opposing lane of Valley View
Road. The driveway to the parking lot is recommended to include two outbound
lanes and one inbound lane separated by either a raised median or a double
yellow stripe. While a raised medlan is generally preferred, simpio striping
should be adequate due to fhe low projected travel demand to the site. In
addition, a right turn lane Is recommended on southbound Valley View Drive In
3
11M
Mr. Robert Worthington
t. February 25, 1980 ,
Page 5.
order to provide a safety area for inbound vehicles as a part of Stage I (sea
Figure 2). A right turn lane will allow inbound vehicles to move off of Valley
View Drive while they are decelerating on the down grade of Valley View Drive
to enter the parking lot. After the grade of Valley View Road is improved a
right turn lane may not be required if a four Lane roadway Is constructed.
However, if Valley View Road remains a two-way facility, a right turn lane into
the Brauns site is recommended. After the profile grade .of Valley View Drive._• . . ,
Is improved, access to now developments on the east side of the roadway is
recommended to occur opposite the entrance to the Brauns site in order to mini-
mize conflicts on County Road 39. Figure 3 illustrates the ultimate access
plan for both sides of the roadway. b.
I
SUMMARY
The analysis documented herein has made the following recommendations:
• Adjust the grade of Hennepin County Road 39 (Valley View Road) to 4%
when the future of the property on the east side of the roadway is
determined.
• Provide two driveways to the Brauns site; one to the truck loading dock
and one to the parking tot for both the immediate situation and the
ultimate situation.
• Provide 40 feet of width on both driveways. The driveway to the parking
lot should have one inbound and two outbound lanes.
I
• Provide a right turn lane Into the.Brauns site parking tot.
• Provide access to new developments on the east side of the roadway at a
driveway located opposite the driveway into the Brauns' parking lot.
These recommendations are considered to be sufficient and result in safe and
efficient traffic operations for both the Immediate situation as well as the
ultimate situation.
AU:a j
cc: Carl Julie, Eden Prairie
Dennis Hansen, Hennepin County
i
141U
a
V bi o o' 0 cI °I Ile,
! 'IF,l,
0'
� V
i Jill!
I 1
l
r
Iol
b}I I,'11
ill I III +
44
IIT
II
\ i
t
{
Omi I' i� I� jb IU ii0' !j0O O O O I 'p.
ly�5
0q ° o m o 10 °u r
P P O O O O {
MI
1
�1,� rN • • � _ ,�i +_Iltl I
-
k �
V1 r F r . j4f"
• ��WI \ li�( �i �i 'IIdI I kk Il"I r� '�I �� �.
1 ,
dTIE,of
�—
� 11� � i
1 " t
j
Oi o o O
. P P aPD i00 O O
fG Ot G O :O G, G
,� m1 Im. o io 1
C Z
zt_-
1 a 0
I.
UE
• �� ueo - L u� _ _.
1
,_ . 1 Y � � •I p�p I I � .I
�77iWiM
'I
�; I1 � ` II�� II tl •. ,� ��-'la i �II��11� I r' � N
�l'III �'I,}� :���II 'I , �".'I iFjlj� it � • � i
jnl Uj I'I' I" II
77
II
II� I I
77 71
}'
444« I'
1I�i -41
��I
I
. I
i l�I I I � ,• _
a �
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
FEE OWNER: Braun's Fashions Inc.
APPLICANT: Rauenhorst Corporation
REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Industrial Park
and preliminary platting for :9,95 acres of
property.
DATE: April 11, 1980
LOCATION: West of Washington Avenue, north of Valley
a View Road,and west of Shady Oak Road extended.
This is the eastern half of the site previously
zoned as Briarfield Estates.
BACKGROUND
The 1979 Guide Plan Update illustrates this entire area as high density resi-
dential or industrial. The existing zoning of the parcel is Rural. I-2 In=
dustrial zoning adjoins this property along the entire northern edge and in-
dustrial property is to the southeast of it as well. Directy south of this
property are two single family lots in a Rural district,. the Bearman
and the Hilger residence. On the south side of Valley View Road,sur-
rounding the two residential lots,is property owned by Herliev Helle antici-
pated for industrial development.
Valley View Road,as it runs past this property on the diagonal,is planned
for a future upgrading which would reduce the grade of the road from 912'
to 4% which would require a 21 foot cut at the high point of the hump of
the road. The is now at a 916 elevation. Since the scope of this upgrading
is beyond the capability of one project,Braun's Fashions has planned their site
so as to take access from the lower portion of Valley View Road. They have
planned their grading to work with the upgrading of Valley View Road in the future.
Brauns*Fashions is proposed on the eastern half of an original proposal by
Domonic Sciola which was known as Briarfield Estates. In that original
PUO the western half of the property was qiven a first reading
of zoning for duplex housing units with the caster portion (rahich Brauns
now proposes as industrial) shown in the original proposal as high density
residential in concept. Brauns has purchased the entire piece and is with-
drawing the original zoning request for duplexes on the western side of
their site,but wishes to retain that side of the site in concept as some
type of residential. They are further amending the PUD by requesting in-
dustrial zoning on the site of the proposed apartment and restaurant.
EXISTING SITE CHARACTER
Dealing now with the eastern half of the site on which the Brauns Fashions
building is proposed)• The topography of the site consits of a very high
hill (934 elevation) on the cast end and sloping to a lowland area on the
west (850).
Brauns Fashions -2- April 11, 1980
buildings, riding academy, and a horse stable on the site which will he
f removed as part of construction. The upper portion on the site is sparcely
covered with emmergent vegetation cottonwoods, aspen, and some mature trees.
At the northern property boundary of this site the grade has been sheared
off approximately 30 feet by the LeParc industrial subdivision and a cliff
has resulted.
Soil of the site is poor on the western third and a gravel material on the
eastern portion covered by the hill form.
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
The proposal meets setback requirements, floor area ratio requirements and
lot size requirements a well as building material requirements of Ordinance-,
135.
The loading for the semis is provided for in front of the building and
although the building is constructed to allow backing in of four semis
at one time with pull down doors, it is our understanding that as many
as 20 semis may service this building in'one day. It is therefore, very
possible that semis will be sitting outside of the building in the front•
yard area wating to unload. For this reason if the navpd area required
for maneuvering of semis in front of the building (and a 14 to 15 foot
elevation above that area for the height of a semi) can not be screened
from Vslley View Raod at the present time, the site plan should be redone
in order to provide loading toward the north of the building which would
{ face in toward other industrial uses.
All parking areas must be screened from differing land uses and public roads,
The Planning Staff would recommend the uses of cut-off lumenaire down lighting
of the parking area in order to prevent glare from flowing off of the site.
SITE PLAN
Grading
Massive grading and land alteration is proposed by Brauns. The high eleva-
tion of the site of 934 occurs on the very eastern tip of the site. Brauns
plans to cut this hill to an elevation of 882 or a total 52 feet of cut.
This quantity of cut will be used as fill on the western portion of the
site which is low at this time, the western portion of this site will be
filled basically from the low elevation of the 850 to a new constructed ele-
vation of approximately 868.
Included with this staff report are threesections taken through the Brauns
site.As you can see from Section (A),cutting of the hill will make the back
of the LeParc industrial plat completely visible from Valley View Road and
land uses to the south. This will open up all the loading base to view.
Section (A) illustrates that with proper grading done at the edge of the
proposed new R.O.W. line on the Brauns site that a 5 foot obstruction could
screen the loading areas of the LeParc area and the tops of the building
which would contain the mechanical equipment. The Planning Staff feels
that this is mandatory if the hill form is to be removed. The Planning
Staff would recommend a fence be utilized along the new R.O.W. line from
the northeastern corner of the Brauns site parallel'to Valley View Road
t
y
Brauns Fashions -3- April 11, 1980
down to the most notheasterly access. As you can
see from the Sections A, B, and C this fence will provide screening for
} the top and mechanical equipment located on the tops of Brauns building,
the LeParc building, the loading areas for the Brauns building, and the
LeParc building and a portion of the Brauns parking lot when viewed from
the northeast. This fence maybe various height based upon the site line
study. Additional information should be submitted to the Planning Staff
for review and approval prior to action by the City Council. This infor-
mation should illustrate any screening elements to be utilitized to mitigate
the effect of the severe change in elevation proposed by Brauns.
The drainage from the Brauns site is taken through storm sewer westerly to
the lower area of the site. However, an outlet from this area is not cur-
rently in place and will have to be created by Brauns as a part of the
detailed storm sewer study.
Heavy screening along the western portion of this site will have to be
accomplished if the property to the west owned by Brauns is to be used
as residential in the future. This additional screening should accom-
pany the screening information requested prior to the Council,
TRANSPORTATION
The two access points illustrated by Brauns have been reviewed by the County
and found to have acceptable site lines. However, the access to this area
is at the bottom of a 9'-Z% grade of Valley View Road. Prior to reconstruction
of Valley View (which has no time table) this 9'z% grade will have to be nego-
tiated by at least 20 semis per day as well as over 30 trips by over the
road vans. In periods of inclement weather turning on to Valley View Road
toward the northeast from the Brauns site by trucks will be impossible. The
City,in the studies of Valley View Road has sought to preclude any truck
traffic accessing the industrial park from the west along existing
Valley View Road. For this reason the City has proposed a new industrial road
going south through the Heile property from the location of the southern-
most Brauns access to Valley View Road. Prior to construction of this Road,
however, the steep grade on Valley View will still have to be negotiated by
trucks. One possible temporary solution to this problem would be co-opera-
tion between the Brauns site and the LeParc Development to the north to pro-
vide a second -access out through the LeParc site to Shady Oak Road.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for rezoning of 9.95 acres and prelim-
inary platting for the Brauns Fashions Inc. office warehouse building sub-
ject to the following items:
1. A second access to the north through the LeParc subdivision
must be included as a part of the planning to allow an addi-
tional way out of the project.
2. All mechanical equipment, car parking areas, truck loading
areas, and truck maneuver areas must be screened from differing
adjacent land uses and public roads.
3. Since extensive grading in proposed on this site and altera-
tion of the hill in this fashion will open up the site line to the
r
140
Brauns fashions -4- April 11, 1980
loading area of the leParc project, 8rauns must provide addi-
tional screening in lieu of the existing land form parallel to
Valley View Road as outlined in this report.
4. Extensive planting and screening along the orojectt western
boundary must be included as a part of construction of this
building.
S. Cash park fee of $1,400/acre or that fee applicable at the
time of building permit issuance will be assessed.
i
6. Seventeen feet of additional R.O.W. should be dedicated to !'
the City as a part of final platting along Valley View Road.
7. Parking lot lighting shall be accomplished only with cut-off
luminaire down lighting to prevent lighting flow from the
properties boundaries.
8. A detailed grading plan and storm sewer plan must be submitted
to the Engineering Department for review and approval prior to
grading.
9. The project must be reviewed and approved by the 9-Mile Water-
shed District.
E
a
i
t
6
")Per �
/ i ' III• l_
to
S E C T I O N A ( VALLEY VIEW TO LEPARC )
e
930
920
o —I\o I /5ft /
\�
910
`r' }e i•
��• top elev. 900
o� LePerc• lot 0
Valley Vlow \ 9ewd^jC
690 rloor clev. 89160
`•ss��s^ -•-sa- -�.�—
100 1SJ eu0 ehU UUtI s ]50�TUO �!Y S6o '
1'•50' Vol,
/U 0
1••10' rorticv}
S E C T I O N B (VALLEY VIEW ROM TO DRAMS)
910 o
_
top elev. 908
1
900
�'..� Braun Phase 1
\ proposed W
890 •,� graAe
• V.
' ^e ` r� floor elev.882 !,
•4 \$ I
.9AI 9
880 'c� p. •
1 J
Y 070 ~~
0 50 too ISO 200 250 300 750 f.
P•50' Iwrixontal
1`•10' vertical
f
i
S E C T 1 0 N C (VALLEY VIER TO BMMS) is
1
a
920
o
I
w
o
910
SOO
�* v
top elev.898
s
.i•" ea
O
ego ho
P
floor elev.082
980
e70 0 SOtoo 200 250 700 350 400
i
9
1"•50' horixonlal
1"•10' rertICal Irk
a
-approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 28, 1980
MEMBERS ABSENT: Hakon Torjesen
1 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
{ A. BRAUN'S FASHIONS, INC., by Rauenhorst Corporation. Request to rezone from
Rural to I-2 Park and preliminary plat 9.95 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot.
A continued public hearing.
-- Bearman relinquished the chair to Vice-chairperson Retterath---
Bob Worthington, Rauenhorst Corp., illustrated the changes to the plan as: land-
scaping, commitment to maintain Valley View Road during slippery conditions,and
agreement with LeParc to the north for possible future access'.
Levitt expressed concern about 'creeping' industrial within the Smetana Ldke
PUD which is designated for both industrial and multiple residential uses.
The Plainer responded that residential is still planned to the west of Braun's
and that more residential in the Smetana Lake Sector can be expected.
Sutliff inquired if there would be a bypass lane for east bound traffic.
Mr. Worthington felt Braun's commitment to maintain the road during slippery
conditions would keep traffic moving up the hill and a bypass would not be
needed at this time.
Vice-chairperson Retterath asked if anyone in the audience had questions or
comments. None were raised.
Motion I
Bentley moved, Sutliff seconded, to close the public hearing on the Braun's
preliminary plat. Motion carried 5-0-1. ( Bearman abstained )
Motion P
Bentley moved, Sutliff seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the
rezoning from Rural to 1-2 as per the revised plans dated 4-23-80, the staff
report of 4-11-80, including the analysis by B.R.W. , the Braun's agreement
with LeParc for access, Braun's commitment for supplementary maintenance of Valley
View Road, and that Outlot A be developed as residential. Motion carried 5-0-1.
( Bearman abstained )
Motion 3
entley moved,Gartner seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the Braun's preliminary plat as per the conditions listed in motion 2. Motion
carried 5-0-1. ( Bearman abstained )
Bearman reassumed the chair.
B. PRAIRIE CORPORATION ADDITION, by Feeder's Inc., Request to rezone from Rural
to I-5 Park and preliminary plat 5 lots and 1 outlot. Located south of
West 78th Street and east of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing.
Rick Sathre, McCombs-Knutson, presented the plat and rezoning request to the
commission.
The Planner reviewed the staff report of April 23, 1980, summarizing its major
points as placement and screening of the Lavair building, intended use of the
lots, access points, etc.
Levitt inquired how large the Feeder's site is . The planner replied the
site is 88 acres in size including approximately 40 acres of flood plain.
/11 B11
y
Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 14, 1980
Bentley inquired about the projects access and road systems.
4 Pescola stated this development would in the future have its
MEMBERS ABSENT: permanent access on 169 but for the present it would be obtaining
Hakon Torjesen temporary access on Schooner Boulevard through Tudor Oaks.
Bearman inquired if Mr. Cherne was planning to convert this
building from manufacturing to office in the future.
Pescola stated that due to the type of structure that would
have to be built for manufacturing, the building would not be
suitable for office in the future. Therefore Mr. Cherne has
decided against changing to office.
Levitt stated that -e did not feel that a manufacturing plant
was a good use for _nis site.
Bearman asked for audience comments, there were none.
MOTION: Levitt moved, Gartner seconded to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6 - 0.
MOTION: Levitt moved,Retterath seconded to recommend to the
City Council denial of the rezoning request from Rural to I-2
Park and the P.U.D. as proposed because the use is inconsistant
with the 1979 Comprehensive Guide Plan and the Maior Center
Area P.U.D. Motion carried 6 - 0.
MOTION: Levitt moved, Gartner seconded to recommend to the
City Council denial of the preliminary platting because the
use is inconsistant with the 1979 Comprehensive Guide Plan and
the Major Center Area PUD. Motion carried 6 - 0.
MOTION: Levitt moved, Retterath seconded to table the E.A.W.
for the Cherne property. Motion carried 6 - 0.
C. BRAUN'S FASHIONS, INC., by Rauenhorst Corporation. ,Request to
rezone from Rural to I-2 Park and preliminary plat 9.9 acres
into 1 lot and 1 outlot.
Bearman relinquished the chair to Retterath.
Bob Worthington, Rauenhorst Corporation, gave a presentation
explaining the type of building planned for this site and the
amount of this building proposed for office and the amount pro-
posed for warehouse. He explained how this development,cor-
responds with V41ley View Road, the developments parking and-
loading area, and the screening planned for this site.
The Planner went over the recommendation of the staff report
dated 4-11-80 and the letter from Hennepin County Transportation
Department dated 4/9/80.
Levitt inquired how this development would obtain its second
access.
s
Pys
3.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 14, 1980
The Planner stated that there is a possibility that the Braun's
development could, provided they had co-operation from the
LeParc development to the north, obtain a second access through
t the LeParc site to Shady Oak Road.
Bentley inquired how much of the hill would be graded and if
the proponent had considered the possibility of building in-
to the hill.
Worthington stated that Braun's is planning to bring the hill
from an elevation 934 to an elevation of 882 ( a total of 52
feet of cut) and use this cut to fill the western portion of
the site which is low at this time. He also stated that be-
cause of the building's use, building into the hill would not
be possible.
Sutliff inquired if it's possible for Braun's to co-operate
with Hennepin County in the the development of Valley View
Road in the area of grading.
The Planner stated that the City has talked with Braun's and
are planning to work out some type of an agreement as to what
they should be expected to do. -
Retterath asked for audience comments.
Bearman inquired how much truck traffic this development would
q" have and at what time of day would the traffic occur.
Mr. Braun, Braun's Fashions, stated that there would be approxi-
mately 20 trucks servicing this building a day, most of which
would come between the hours of 8:00am and 1:30pm. He also
stated that there would be no truck traffic at all after 4:30.
Beaman stated that he felt that something should be done
to protect the surrounding residents from pollution and
dust during development of this project.
MOTION: Bentley moved, Gartner seconded to continue the
Braun's public hearing to the April 28, 1980 meeting. Motion
carried 3 - 2 - 1. (Bentley, Gartner, and Sutliff voting aye)
(Levitt and Retterath voting nay) (Beaman abstaining)
D. NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, Request for PUD Development
'Stbge approval in order to construct an N.S.P. substation
upon 12 acres zoned I-2 Park. A public hearing.
Don Chimeil N.S.P., gave a brief presentation of what they
are planning to build. He explained what type of materials
they are planning to use and the location of the proposed
substation.
Keith Wehrman, Landscape Architect, gave a brief presenta-
tion on the landscaping planned for screening the substa-
tion from surrounding sites and highways.
IU��O
x
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
320 Washington Av. South c= �
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
HENNEPIN
935-3381 April 9, 1980
Mr. Chris Enger
Planning Director
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Enger:
RE Proposed Plat - "Braun's Fashions Inc."
C.R. 39 North side 800 feet west of Washington Ave.
Section 12, Township 116, Range 22
Hennepin County Plat No. 826
Review and Recommendations
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review
of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and found
it acceptable with consideration of these conditions:
- As shown on the preliminary plat, the developer should dedicate an additional
17 ft. of right of way making the right of way 50 ft. from the center of C.R.39.
- The access locations shown on the plan dated March 14, 1980 are acceptable to
Hennepin County.
- To allow better traffic flow in the curved driveway the westerly access must
be constructed 28 ft. wide with 3D ft. radius returns.
- To allow semi-truck movements the easterly access must be constructed 34 ft.
wide with 35 ft. radius returns.
- The developer must construct right turn lanes (attachment no.l) at both
entrances with the full auxilliary lane carried between entrances.
- With the design shown on the plan dated March 14, 1980 it appears westbound
semi-trucks cannot make the sharp turns leading to the front dock area.
- Any new access to a county road requires an approved Hennepin County entrance
permit. See our Traffic Division for entrance permit forms.
- All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved
utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not
limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and land-
scaping. See our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
'Uo on equal oppodunity employer
./ "Braun's fashions Inc."
page two
- the developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within
County right of way.
Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt.
Sincerely,
ames M. Wold, P.E.
Chief, Planning and Programming !
JMW/LDW:de
Attachment
s
- i
13'
m
• n i
o
m
Z i
( m C
m I—
�' z
rm ,
1
a,
0
7D `
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
E HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ,
RESOLUTION NO.R80-98
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF BRAUN'S FASHIONS , INC.
BE IT RESOLVED ' by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of . Braun's Fashions, Inc..
dated May 14, lgsn a copy of which is attached hereto and amended
as follows:
I
{ l
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 _day of ,
19
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
John D. Frane, City Clerk
SEAL
itoo
11i'.lIORAKDIIDt
Ib; Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Bob lambert, Director of Conmiunity Services
DATE: May 16, 1980
SUI1J UCT: Development Proposal Check List
PROJECT: Braun's Fashion Inc.
PROPONENT: Rauci . t Cornnrnrion
REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Industrial Park and preliminary platting_
for 9.95•acres.
LOCATION: North of Valley View Road (provious Briarhill Estates site).
BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Report
CIIECKMIST:
1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) No
Affect on park: N/A
2. Adjacent to public waters? No
Affect on waters: N/A —
3. Adjacent to trails? No
Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) Valley View Road Bikeway
p
Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglimo) Asphalt
Vidth: 8' Party Responsible for construction? City
Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.) Dediented
Type of Development? (residential, commercial, indu:.trial) Industrial
Where will CASH PARK FEE go? (what ncirhborhood)_r., uyily r-U-J.y
Nand for a mini-park? No i
i
�y9 I
a
-2-
5,' 1:1:1'IiItGNCf• Cl1CCK:
�.
a, Major Center Area Study: N/A
b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: N/A
C. Purgatory Crcok Study:
d. Shorcland !•lanagement Ordinance: N/A
e. Floodplain Ordinance: N/A
l
1
f. Guide Plan: Shows this area as industrial or hiPh density residential.
I
g. Other:
N/A j
6. Existing or Pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: E
Fee applicable at time of building permit shall be paid.
7. CAS11 PARK FEE? Pp i
8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or
3'
against proposal: }
I
i
9. Number of units in residential development? N/A _
Number of acres in the project?
Special recreation space requirements: No _
10. STAf•1' RECOMMUNDMIONS: Recommend approval as Per 111ainninf Staff It'eport with the
following; addition. 1.0. Sufficient R.O.W. along the north side of Palley
View Road 'hall he dedicated for future construction of an 3' WIX144 when
Palley View Road is up^radcd,
1�19�
t11inuteo —Parks, Recreation & unapproved May 19, 1980
Natural Rosources Commission —2—
B. Reports of Staff
1. Drvel.onmen T'ronosals
_lBraun's Fashions, Inc.
6ATION:' Tangen moved to recommend tabling this proposal until a
representative of the developer is present to explain the project
in more detail and answer questions. D. Anderson seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: Tangen mentioned that he recently drove by the site
and feels the development to the-north (LeParc) is awful in terms
of flat grading the land, and that the Braun proposal should be
looked at carefully with that in mind.
b. Northmark East &West
Mr. Larry Peterson was present representing the developer, BanCon,
Inc. Ile pointed out that lorthmark East is a 5 acre site with
8 buildings, 4 units in each projected. Northmark West is
approximately a 12 acre site with 17 buildings, 4 units in each I�
projected. Mr. Peterson said BanCon proposes these quads as !
carriage house type structures with cedar shake siding which will
sell for a base price of approximately $75,000+. He expects mainly
retired people and young professionals to buy the units, which
( would dictate not many children in the development. g
R. Anderson asked if there is a trailway system planned. Peterson 4#
explained the proposed system, pointing out the proposed trails
on a map.
D. Anderson asked if there presently is a tot lot in the Northmark ,
development. Peterson said yes, the Preserve built it through
Homeowners Association.
R. Anderson suggested a rest area with bench, picnic table, etc.,
be put in along the trailway instead of putting in a "tot lot" r
(mini park) that might not be used.
140TION: D. Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval of
BanCon, Inc., Northmark East (Northmark Third) per reeonunendrtions
in staff report of April 23, 1980. Vam:l•Ieter seconded the motion
and it carried unanimously.
KOTIOiI: D. Anderson moved to recomiend to the Council approval of
lianGon, Inc., Northmark West (Nortlunark Fourth) per recommendations
in staff report of April 22, 1980. Vanlleter seconded the motion and
it carried unanimously.
c. American Family In:prance
( Lainbert said this proposal will be going before the Council to:xnorrow
(11ry 20, 19.`Vi). Ile explairiod that there was it miutuko in obtaining
the proper ,uuing changu on the project, and work in being hold up
on the project until this is straightened out. i
I��i�
Ban C011,lnc.
2345 Rice Slreel Ncrill
SI.Paul,Mannesola 55113
Telephone 6121483-OBU1
February 25, 1980
Eden Prairie City Council
Eden Prairie Planning Conmission
City of Eden Prairie
8950 County Road 4
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
ATTN: Mr. Chris Enger, City Planner
Dear Chris:
We are submitting the following information pursuant to the zoning and planning
ordinance.
1. OwnershiQ - The Preserve are fee owners of the property to be platted in
connection with this project.
2. Developer - Ban-Con, Inc. will be the developer of Northmark East and The
Preserve will be the developer of Northmark West.
3. Fiscal, Economic - The project will be financed with private funds. The
colistructiiii loan financing will be out of the developer-; normal lines.
The long-term financing available for home buyers will be available through
Savings R Loan and other financial markets.
4. DeveloprIMt Method - Ban-Con, Inc. will sub-contract for all utilities and
streets for Northmark East. The Preserve will sub-contract for all
utilities for Northmark West. Ban-Con, Inc. will be the builder for all
residential units.
5. Identify Roundaries and Boundary Conditions - See attached exhibits.
6. Identify Project Area and Other Major Ownerships - The property to the
tiol'lfiis o-icned by liaitfoid Insurance Co. and will be developed for corun-
ercial use. The property between Northmark East and Northmark West and
the property immediately to the cast and south is fully developed single
family homes. The property to the west will be developed into multi-family
and/or conrnercial.
7. Renional_ Relationships - There are no known regional relationships which
will Lc ilifluenced by, or have a significant impact on the project.
8. Existing Land Use and Occupancy - The present land is not used, it has been
aPProved mider PUU /0-3 for rii,lti-family housing. The PUD approval assumes
desities ranging frrnm six to 23 units per acre.
Mr. Chris Enger
February 25, 1980
Page 2
9. Existing Transportation Systems - There are no transportations on the site
other than those used by pedestrians and automobiles.
10. Existing Zoning - The existing zoning is pursuant to PUD 70-2.
11. City Guide Plan Framework - Residential land use.
12. Critical Public Decision - The critical public decisions in connection with
this project include lateral sanitary sewer and water construciton. There
are no other critical public decisions.
13. Add tional General Project Information - The project will be initiated _
n the spring of 1980 and should be completed by the end of 1981.
i
Site Area Analysis:
1. Development Objectives - This project is intended as a townhouse project with i
homes ranging in value from the middle 6O's to the upper 7O's. i9
2. Site Plans - See attached exhibit.
3. Grading - See attached exhibit. i
4. Utility Plans - See attached exhibit.
(` 5. Preliminary Architectural Drawings - See attached exhibit.
}
6. Legal Instruments for Plan Implementation - See attached Covenants.
7. Housing or Land Building Use Profiled - Not applicable.
8. Zoning Classification and/or Variations from City Ordinance - None !!!`
9. Phasing and Construction Schedule - Grading will commence in the spring of
198Q and—all development work on the site will be completed by the fall of
1980. Home construction will begin in the spring of 1980 and be completed
by the end of 1981.
10. Additional Information - None !'
• I
Please call me if an have o l
y y questions. i
Cordially, "
anageo,Jr.,
Pre ident
HT /',n�
1U95
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning,Commission I
FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Planning Director
DATE: April 23, 1980
PROJECT: NORTHMARK EAST (Northmark Third)
DEVELOPER: Ban-Con, Inc.
LOCATION: The Preserve, West of Center Way and
North of Lanewood Circle
REQUEST: 1. PUD Development Stage Approval:
a. Rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5
b. Preliminary Plat approval of
32 quadraminium units on 5 acres
( 8 buildings, 4 units each )
BACKGROUND
The Preserve PUD 70-03 depicted this area as medium density residential.
The new Comprehensive Guide Plan illustrates this area as possible
regional/commercial or office.
EXISTING SITE CHARACTER
To the south,west&east of the site is residential development, Northmark
and Northmark Second both zoned for single family detached. The site itself
is characterized by upland grasses with little tree growth.
To the north of the site is Office zoned property being developed
by Hartford Real Estate Company.
LOCATION " MAP
v �.....
� kae'Rsor
«�np 79-12 839
Q OFC. FP:
MG. 78-1 PUB -12 Hartford
-REG- ^
SER
6 Northmark13-5
PUB
Plorthm,arti
' rI r
park /lP�
71251
Staff Report-Northmark East -2- Apri123 , 1980 i!
1
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: RM 6.5 DISTRICT
Minimum lot size 13,OOOsq.ft. Front yard setback 30 feet
Minimum width 90 feet Side yard setback 10:25 feet
Minimum depth 100 feet Rear yard setback 20 feet
The building locations depicted on the plan meet the ordinance setback
requirements.
The density of the project is 6.1 units/acre , 32 units / 5.18 acres.
Parkinq Requirements
Ordinance 135 requires 1 enclosed and 1 outside parking stall for each
unit. The project protrays 2 enclosed and 2 outside parking areas for
each unit, and 22 guest parking spaces.
I ,
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The minimum distance between the proposed guads and the single family is
approximately 9D feet(See Figure 1).
The grading of the site illustrates berms 10-12 feet in height when compared
to the backyards of the surrounding single family homes. Landscaping on top
{ of the berms of 5-6 feet in height produces some screening of the multiple
units from the single family. The landscaping plan will be reviewed by City
Staff prior to building permit issuance to insure that it meets ordinance
requirements. The Planning Staff suggests that plant material installed
should be of the 'size' indicated on the landscaping plans, and not the
'alternate size'.
In addition to the landscaping depicted on the submitted plans, the proponent
must also provide landscaping along the north side of the project in order
to screen the multiple units from future office development.
The City Engineering Department reviewed the utility plans and requests
additional storm sewer information from the proponent. The developer should
contact the Engineering Staff regarding inclusion of a storm water system
to prevent the drainage of water onto other property. .
All traffic from the 32 quads must exist south on Center Way to Anderson
Lakes Parkway as the Center Way connection to the north is barricaded.
Presently there are 140 homes which also gain their only access from Center
Way(part of Westwind, Northmark & Northmark Second).
Ordinance 93(Platting Ordinance) requires a minimum offset between
centerlines of streets of 150 feet. The entrance cul-de-sac is only 80 feet
from Hyland Terrace. The Planning Staff would recommend that the entrance
be relocated so that it is a minimum of 150 feet from Hyland Terrace and
Northmark Drive. ( See Figure 1 ).
Units 2 & 3 are shown as having access from Center Way. The Planning Staff
would recommend that it be changed to access to the internal cul-de-sac,
Staff Report-Northmark East -3- Apri123, 1980
t Cash Park Fee
As this project is located within The Preserve PUD and said PUD has
already met its parkland dedication requirements, no cash park fee is
required prior to building permit issuance.
Plat Name
The City Engineering Department has requested that the proponent change
the name of the Plat from Northmark East to Northmark Third which will
be consistent with the previous Northmark plats of Northmark and Northmark
Second. This change can be accomplished on the final plat.
Guide Plan Change
The change in the designated'guide use'of regional commercial/office to medium
density residential is appropriate in this case as the medium density residential
can be a buffer use between the existing residential to the south and the
Hartford office development to the north.
i
( RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning from Rural
to RM 6.5 and preliminary platting of 32 quadraminiums contingent upon
the following:
1. That the project be reviewed and approved by the Riley-
Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
2. That the plat name be changed from Northmark East to, i.e.,
Northmark Third Addition.
3. The landscaping plan should be revised and submitted to the
Planning Staff , including but not limited to: landscaping
along the north boundary, &use of 'size' material not 'alternate
size'.
4. That the developer meet with the City Engineering Staff regarding
drainage and storm sewer and comply with the City Engineer's
recommendations prior to the City Council public hearing.
5. That the access cul-de-sac and the drive for units 2 & 3 be
redesigned as per the recommendations contained in this
report.
JJ:jj
1u97
Staff Report-Northmark East -4- April 23 , 1980
ce
1 '
coo
tD-• 68
m t,
M
. 4j oor Y
1 V
c
i
r g r u o r t �/��
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 28, 1980
MEMBERS ABSENT: Hakon Tor'esen
Levitt asked what type oi' use would be constructed on Lot 1, Block 3.
t Mr. Hyde, Feeder's Inc., replied Lavair & Company, a spec builder, would be
constructing an industrial building.
Bearman instructed the staff to make the Bermel letter, dated April 25, 19BO,
a part of the minutes.
Bentley expressed the following concerns: the Guide Plan designation of industrial
could be intended to protect existing industrial, and the City's review of the
approval request is premature because action on the lowering of the flood plain
should occur first.
Bearman inquired if there was adequate land available in the City for this type
of industrial. The Planner replied yes.
Bentley inquired if the E.A.W. is considered a public or private action. The Planner
replied it is a public action.
Levitt asked if the E.A.W. is considered a major action. The Planner replied it is
not a major action and the E.A.W. would be likewise corrected.
Don Brauer, representing Tudor Oaks, stated his objection to this type of industrial
in the M.C.A.,stating that the Guide Plan was meant to represent a small amount of
supportive industrial around Rosemount Engineering. He felt that no proposal in
this quadrant of the M.C.A. should be acted on until a detailed study of the
flood plain is conducted.
Motion 1
evitt moved, Sutliff seconded, to close the public hearing on the Feeder's Inc.
Prairie Corporation Addition plat. Motion carried 6-0.
Motion 2
Levitt moved, Gartner seconded, to recommend to the City Council denial of the
rezoning of Lot 1, Block 3, from Rural to I-5 . Motion carried 6-0.
Motion 3
Levitt moved, Gartner seconded, to recommend to the City Council denial of the
preliminary plat dated April 10, 19BO. Motion carried 6-0.
Motion 4
Levitt moved, Gartner seconded, to table action on the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet. Motion carried 6-0.
---Commission member Bentley was excused from the meeting---
C. NORTHMARK EAST, by Ban-Con,Inc. Request to rezone 5.2 acres from Rural to
RM 6.5 and preliminary plat the property for construction of 32 units,
(8 buildings of 4 units each). Located west of Center Way and North of
Lanewood Circle. A public hearing.
Mr. Hans Hagen, Ban-Con, Inc., presented the development plans to the Commission.
The Planner reviewed the staff report of April 23, 19BO.
Retterath asked if the units would be rental or owner occupied. Mr. Hagen replied
they would be owner occupied as far as they know.
Sutliff inquired as to the size of the buildings. Mr. Hagen replied 8444 feet
with double garages. P"o0
x
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 28, 1980
Bear-man asked how much the units would sell for. Mr. Hagen estimated
$70,000.
Levitt inquired how large the units are. Mr. Hagen replied approximately
1,380 square feet(upper & lower levels).
i
Mr. Bill Person, 11220 Lanewood Circle, stated he speaks for 3 homeowners, expressed
concern about the project contributing water to their backyards which already
have a water problem. The Planner replied the City Engineering Department will
review the storm water plans.
Mr. Jim Guy, 11250 Lanewood Circle, expressed approval of the development
plans and Ban-Con's cooperation.
Beaman instructed the staff to make the petition from the homeowners part
of the minutes.
Motion 1
Gartner moved, Retterath seconded, to close the public hearing on Northmark
East. Motion carried 5-0.
i
Motion 2
artner moved, Levitt seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval
of the rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 as per the material dated Feb. 29, 1980
t and the staff report of April 23, 1980. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion 3
Gartner moved, Sutliff seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the preliminary plat dated Feb. 29, 1980 as per the staff report of April 23, 1980.
Motion carried 5-0.
D. NORTHMARK WEST, New public hearing set for May 12, 1980
E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 62 CROSSTOWN FROM
SHAUY—OAK ROAD TO I-494.
Jim Wold and Dave Schmidt, Hennepin County Department of Transportation, presented
the new profile for the Crosstown 62 from Shady Oak Road to I-494. They
explained there would be substantial savings in changing the profile to include
a 40 foot fill section over Nine Mile Creek rather than the previous planned
80 foot high bridge. Mr. Wold stated that at the direction of the County Board
they are putting engineering plans in final form in order to apply for any and
all federal funds that are available so the Crosstown can be constructed as
soon as possible. He stated that in order to receive federal funding it is
necessary to obtain positive resolutions from the Cities of Minnetonka and
Eden Prairie without contingencies. Mr. Wold then spoke to the 1976 City Resolution
and said they would be conforming with all requests except participation in the
Ring Road, construction of Townline Road, and a bridge across I-494. He also
stated that the Baker Road improvements would be part of the project, and Mitchell
Road improvements are scheduled for 1982.
The Conruission discussed the impact of the Crosstown upon the City and related
road systems, conditions attached to the 1976 approval, and previous
approvals.
Sutliff expressed concern that the timeframe for improving Townline Road should
coincide with the extension of Crosstown 62. '�vl
PETITION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
The undersigned, residents in the neighborhood adjacent to the.North-
mark East and Northmark West residential development, have reviewed both the
building and the development plans. We hereby request that the Planning
Commission and City Council approve the development plan in accordance with
those plans dated 2. —1 O —8 d attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
&p i
i .
1502
a _
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
( HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA .
RESOLUTION NO. RBO-99
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF NORTHMARK EAST
i
BE IT RESOLVED by-the Eden Prairie City Council as follows.
That the preliminary plat of _. Northmark East ,
dated Feb. 29. 1980 a copy of which is attached hereto and amended
as follows:
1
i
9
is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie
Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein
approved. j
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the _ day of , I
19
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
I
-John 0. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
15�3
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District
t .A 8950 COUNTY ROAD 04
EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55343 I
a
Q
May 15, 1980
R
Mr. Chris Enger
City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Northmark Development
Dear Mr. Enger:
The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory
Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary plans, as submitted
to the District for the Northmark Development in Eden Prairie. The following
policies and criteria of the Watershed District are applicable for this
development.
1. In accordance with Section E(2) of the District's revised Rules
and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit application
must be `submitted to the District for review and approval. Accom-
panying this permit application, a detailed erosion control plan
outlining how sediment will be prevented from leaving the altered
areas on the site both during and after construction must be sub- _.
mitted to the District for review and approval.
2. A detailed storm sewer plan must be submitted to the District for
review and approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development at an early
'date. -If you have any questions regarding the District's convents, please
contact us at 920-0655.
Sincerel ,
Ro rt C. Obermey
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
Engineers for the District
RCO/111
cc: Mr. Conrad Fiskness
Mr. Frederick Richards
���ULi
MEMORANDUM
l TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
PROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE:: May 16, 1960
SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List
PROJECT: Northmark East
PROPONENT: Ban Con Inc.
REQUEST: PUD development stage approval rezoning from Purai to RBI 6.5. Preliminary
Plat approval of 32 quads on 5 acres (6 buildings)
t
LOCATION: The Preserve west of Center Way and north of Lanewood Circle
BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Re ort of A ril 23 1980
CHECKLIST:
(" 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) neighborhood
Affect on Park:11ill increase use of park
2. Adjacent to public waters? No
Affect on waters:
N/A '
3. Adjacent to trails? Mn
Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) u!A
Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglime)
Width: Party Responsible for construction?
Landoirncrship: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.)
Type of Drvclopmcnt? (residential, eommcrcial, industrial)
Where will. CASH PARE: 171iE go? (Wilat neighborhood)^_ N/A
Need for a mini-park? No
15U
-2-
S: REFERENCE CIIECG: ^�
a. Major Center Area Study: Shows this area as "Preserve Residential Sector". •J
b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: Preserve neighborhood nark serves t is -tXSL
c. Purgatory Crock Study: N/A
d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: N/A
e. Floodplain Ordinance: N/A
f. Guide Plan: Depicts this area as possible regional/commercial or officq.
C g. Other:-
G. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: N/A
7. CASH PARE: FI:E? Within Preserve PUD - no cash park fee
8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or
against proposal:
9. Number of units in residential development? 32 cpad units
Number of acres in the project? S acres
Special recreation space requirements: none
10. STAFF RIiCO;d�RiNllA'1'IONS; �iccp�tctc»cl ry�i»i y_pc, 0.1 wyi-St�fE lto�o�rt
of Aprll 23, 1950.
s,U60
Minutes — Parks, Recreation & unapproved May 19, 1980
Natural Resources Comaaission —2—
B. Reports of Staff
1. Development Pronosals
a. Braun's Fashions, Inc.
POTION: Tangen moved to recommend tabling this proposal until a
representative of the developer is present to explain the project
in more detail and answer questions. D. Anderson seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: Tangen mentioned that he recently drove by the situ
-
and feels the development to the north (LeParc) is awful in terms
of flat grading the land, and that the Braun proposal should be
looked at carefully with that in mind.
b. Northmark East& West
i
Mr. Larry Peterson was present representing the developer, BanCon,
Inc. He pointed out that Northmark East is a 5 acre site with
8 buildings, 4 units in each projected. Northmark West is
approximately a 12 acre site with 17 buildings, 4 units in each ,
projected. Mr. Peterson said BanCon proposes these quads as
carriage house—type structures with cedar shake siding which will 1
sell for a base price of approximately $75,000+. He expects mainly
retired people and young professionals to buy the units, which j
would dictate not many children in the development.
R. Anderson asked if there is a trailway system planned. Peterson
explained the proposed system, pointing out the proposed trails
on a map.
i
D. Anderson asked if there presently is a tot lot in the Northmark
development. Peterson said yes, the Preserve built it through
. Homeowners Association.
R. Anderson suggested a rest area with bench, picnic table, etc.,
be put in along the trailway instead of putting in a "tot lot"
(mini park) that might not be used.
NOTION: D. Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval of
BanCon, Inc., Northmark East (Northmark Third) per recommendations
in staff report of April 23, 1980. VaiVdoter seconded the motion
and it carried unanimously.
NOTION: D. Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval of
BanCon, Inc., Northmark West (Nortlunark Fourth) per recommendations
in staff report of April 22, 1980. VantSeter seconded the motion and
it carried unanimously.
o. American Family Insurance
Lambert said this proposal will be going before the Council toamorrow
(Flay 20, 1930). He explained that there was a mistako in obtaining
the proper zoning chsngo on the project, and work io being hold up
on the project until thio is straightened out.
I�.i�1
We I+
Ban Con,111C.
2345 Rica Street North
St.Paul,Minnesota 55113
Telephone 6 1 214 8 3-080 1
February 25, 1980
Eden Prairie City Council
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
8950 County Road 4
Eden Prairie, MN •55344
ATTN: Mr. Chris Enger, City Planner
Dear Chris:
We are submitting the following information pursuant to the zoning and planning
ordinance.
1. Ownership - The Preserve are fee owners of the property to be platted in
connection with this project.
2. Dev0l�er - Ban-Con, Inc. will be the developer of Northmark East and The
Preserve will be the developer of Northmark West.
3. Fiscal, Economic - The project will be financed with private funds. The
construction loan financing will be out of the developers normal lines.
The long-term financing available for home buyers will be available through
Savings & Loan and other financial markets.
4. Development Method - Ban-Con, Inc. will sub-contract for all utilities and
streets for Northmark East. The Preserve will sub-contract for all
utilities for Northmark West. Ban-Con, Inc. will be the builder for all
residential units.
5. IdentLa Botmdaries and Bounder Conditions - See attached exhibits.
6. Identify Project Area and Other Major Ownerships - The property to the
nortili is owned by tlartfoi Insurance Co.and wi l l be developed for comm-
ercial use. The property between Northmark East and Northmark West and
the properly innnediately to the east and south is fully developed single
family homes. The property to the west will be developed into multi-family
and/or eonnercial.
7. Regional Relationships - There are no known rrgional relationships which
will ;'5--1fliicnced by, or have a significant impact on the project.
8. Existing Land llse and Occupancy - The present land is not used, it has been
a[IjiiNed inkier 111:1 70-3 for Multi-family housing. The PUD approval assumes
desities ranging from six to 23 units Per acre.
i
i
a _
Mr. Chris Enger
February 25, 1980
Page 2
9. ExistingTransportation�stems - There are no transportations on the site
other than those used by pedestrians and automobiles.
10. Existin_Zoning. - The existing zoning is pursuant to PUD 70-2.
11. Ci_,�Guide Plan Framework - Residential land use.
12. Critical Public Decision - The critical public decisions in connection with
this project include lateral sanitary sewer and water construciton. There
are no other critical public decisions.
13. Additional General Project Information - The project will be initiated
the spring of 1980 and should be completed by the end of 1981.
Site Area Analysis:
1. Development Objectives - This project is intended as a townhouse project with
homes ranging in value from the middle 60's to the upper 70's.
2. Site Plans - See attached exhibit.
3. Grading - See attached exhibit.
4. Utility Plans - See attached exhibit..
5. Preliminary Architectural Drawings - See attached exhibit. g
6. Legal Instruments for Plan Implementation - See attached Covenants.
7. Housing or Land Building Use Profiled - Not applicable.
8. Zoning Classification and/or Variations from City Ordinance - None
9. PhasincL acid Construction Schedule - Grading will commence in the spring of
1980 and all development work on the site will be completed by the fall of
1980. Home construction will begin in the spring of 1980 and be completed
by the end of 1981.
10. Additional Information - None
Please call me if yo have any questions.
Cordially,'
an gen, Jr..,
Pre ident,'
HT /ld
Ir(}�
• L
.a.
STAFF REPORT
TO- Planning Commission
FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Planning Director
DATE: April 22, 1980
PROJECT: NORTHMARK WEST(Northmark Fourth)
DEVELOPER: Ban-Con, Inc.
LOCATION: The Preserve, East of Preserve Boulevard, West of
Northmark, and North of Westwind
REQUEST: 1. PUD Development Stage Approval:
a. Rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5
b. Preliminary plat approval of
68 quadraminium units on 11.7
acres (11 buildings, 4 units each)
BACKGROUND
The Preserve PUD 70-03 depicted this area as medium density residential.
acre. j
The City Guide Plan illustrates this area as regional commercial/ office.
EXISTING SITE CHARACTER j
i
To the East and South of the site is single family detached development.
To the North of the site is future regional commercial development , and
to the West is Preserve Boulevard. The site is characterized by a north/south band of '
elm, box elder, and willow trees along the western portion, with the remainder of
the site being covered with grass. (see figure 1 )
i
LOCATION MAP
-may ��[--✓✓✓/a 79-12
ra
-1 ommam,moot-ill SER
f)I\/
Staff Report-Northmar' West -2- Apr1122. 1980
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: RM 6.5 DISTRICT
Minimum lot size 13,000 sq.ft. Front yard setback 30 feet
Minimum width 90 feet Side yard setback 10:25 feet
Minimum depth 100 feet Rear yard setback 20 feet
The proposed plat meets the above setbacks. The gross density of the
proposal is 5.8 units/acre.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
'The submitted plan includes 2 cul-de-sacs. The northern cul-de-sac , Circle A,
serves 13 quads, is in excess of 500 feet in length, and shows the potential
for being extended to the north. The southern cul-de-sac, Circle B, serves
4 quads, is across Preserve Boulevard from Franlo Road, and abuts the backyards
of 2 singlejamily lots in Westwind.
The possibility of extending Circle A to the north would be desirable if
additional multiple were planned to the north, but to the north is anticipated
regional commercial development by Hartford. Therefore, the Planning Staff
would recommend the through easement be eliminated and a variance be qranted for
a cul-de-sac in excess of 500 feet (640')because access to the north is not requirec
i
The location of Circle B cul-de-sac adjacent to backyards of single
family is not ideal, but in investigating numerous alternate designs it
appears that the alignment shown is the only one which does not exceed
a 7�% grade. The landscaping depicted will only screen z of the building
until the trees reach a height of 11+feet. The landscaping plan will be
reviewed in detail prior to building permit issuance.
The plantings depicted south of Circle B must be outside of the street
right-of-way and should be within a homeowner's association outlot for
their ownership and maintenance. All plant material should be of the
'size' noted on the landscape plan, not the 'alternate size'.
Landscaping should also be provided along the north side of the site to
screen the quads from the office/commercial to the north.
Due to the steep grade between the upper(northern) and lower (southern)units,
the Planning Staff would recommend that the area be sodded and staked prior
to sale of the lower units.
Traffic access is via Preserve Boulevard which connects to Schooner
Boulevard on the north end and Anderson Lakes Parkway on the south giving
traffic access to the north and south.
The Engineering Department's review of the site plan reveals that additional
storm sewer will have to be designed for the project. This should be
f accomplished and submitted to the Engineering Staff for review and approval
prior to the Council's action. An existing storm water pond is located
in the southwest corner of the project, just north of Circle B. This must
be redesigned and incorporated into an overall storm sewer plan. Another
storm water pond exists north of the northwest corner of the porject. This
water comes from the Eden Prairie Center and must be incorporated into an
overall storm sewer.plan taking into account the needs of the Center,
Hartford, Northmark Additions, and other surrounding properties. /���
r
i
Staff Report-Northmark West -3- April 22, 1980
Cash Park Fee
As this project is located within The Preserve PUD and said PUD has
already met its parkland dedication requirements, no cash park fee is
required prior to building permit issuance.
Plat Name
The City Engineering Department has requested that the proponent change the
name of the plat from Northmark West to Northmark Fourth which will be consis-
tent with the previous Northmark plats of Northmark , Northmark Second and
the renaming of Northmark East to Northmark Third. This can be accomplished
on the final plat.
Guide Plan Change
The change in the designated 'guide use' of regional commercial/office to
medium density residential is appropriate in this cas as the medium density
residential can be a buffer use between the existing residential to the #
south and the regional commercial/office development to the north.
i
(, Sidewalks
As indicated on the plat , pathways come into Circle 8 cul-de-sac from
the east and southeast from existing Preserve pathways and a pathway will be
constructed south of Circle 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning and platting
contingent upon the following:
1. That the cul-de-sac labeled Circle A be reduced in size to
no more than 640 feet.
2. That a revised landscaping plan shnuld be submitted to the Planning
Staff for review and approval. Plantings must be outside of right-of-ways
and be of the 'size' indicated not the 'alternate size'.
3- That the proponent meet with the City Engineering Staff to develop a
storm water plan which will serve the project site and address the needs
of adjoining properties.
4. That the plat name be changed from Northmark West, i.e., to Northmark Fourth.
S. That the project be reviewed and approved by the Riley Purgatory Creek
Watershed District prior to building permit issuance.
JJ:j j Jr lo? '!
a.
� T
Staff Report-Northmark West -4- April22, 1980
o
w a
z �
KC
o
1 7 buildings
Area to be sodded and staked
Existing Storm water ponc-
es / Existing Overland D ainag i
� F
14
C
111y 111 1 -I `f-- t T/�i�'�.`:..�. N.a'�'cY� ia�:�.-.S.:S.�T'14 .�► !{� —:
-- -�OWA11f•00-`��---„'---...--..:JNIKiW���
---�
FIGURE
►f�3 '
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Unapproved
Monday, May 12, 1980 7:30 PM City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-chairperson Liz Retterath, Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner,
Matthew Levitt, George Bentley.
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman, Hakon Torjesen(on leave of absence).
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Jean Johnson, Assistant
Planner
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Planner Chris Enger notified the commission that Superamerica representatives
have asked for continuation to June 9, 1980 in order to allow them ample time
to work with CDR to resolve access.
Motion
Bentley moved, Sutliff seconded, to approve the agenda with the continuation
of the Superamerica public meeting item to June 9, 1980. Motion carried.
II. MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 1980
l,I,Motionl-change Bentley moved to Retterath moved.
P.2,IV,A,Motion 3-change Sutliff seconded to Gartner seconded.
P.3,Motion 1- change Bentely seconded to Sutliff seconded.
P.4,Motion 2- change Retterath seconded to Levitt seconded.
Motion 3-change Retterath seconded to Sutliff seconded. j
At bottom of page add-Sutliff expressed concern that the timeframe
for improving Townline Road should coincide with the extension of
Crosstown 62.
P.5,Motion-change Gartner seconded to Retterath seconded.
Add vote- Motion carried 4:1 with Sutliff voting nay.
VI. change sentence to read-1. Discussion of cancelling May 26, 1980
Meeting(Memorial Day). Discussion continued to May 12, 1980.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS None.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PRDPOSALS:
A. NORTH-TARK WEST, by Ban-Con,Inc. Request to rezone 11.7 acres from Rural
to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat the property for 17 quadraminiums,
(68units). Located West of Center Way and North of Lanewood Circle.
A public hearing.
Mr. Enger stated this project was rescheduled from the April 28, 1980 meeting after
incorrect notices were discovered.
Mr. Hans Hagen, Ban-Con,Inc., located the project site in The Preserve and
illustrated the location of existing single family and future multiple around
the site. He stated that the narrow portion of the 4484 foot buildings would
be oriented towards the single family to give the impression of additional single
family, that the additional strip of land north of the southern cul-de-sac would
be dedicated to the Preserve Homeowners Association so that the plantings would
be maintained by the association, and that the plan takes advantage of tiering the
units upon the existing topography and maximizing the open space.
The Planner sunararized the concerns in the staff report as follows: 1. Northern
cul-de-sac should not be continued northward. 2. A revised landscape plan
should be submitted for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
3. No plantings should occur in City right-of-way. 4. Proponent should work with
City Engineer to resolve storm water plans. 5, (plat should be renamed to Northmark
u Fnrth Addition. 11
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 12, 1980
Bentley inquired why the southern cul-de-sac occurs adjacent to existing
single family. Mr. Enger replied that various alternatives were explored but
the topography of the site makes any other design difficult. Mr. Hagen agreed
that the location is not ideal but given the topo it was necessay and that
the plantings would buffer the single family from the street.
Retterath asked how large of an area is being dedicated to the Preserve.
Mr. Hagen replied .68 acres would be dedicated.
Bentley asked where the nearest totlot is located. Larry Peterson, The Preserve,
replied in Westwind Addition.
Mr. Hagen did not feel that the quad units warrant an individual totlot because
their experience is that sales would be to young professionals and empty nesters.
Bob Dunbar,11270 Lanewood Circle, inquired why a gap in the landscaping occurs
along the east. Mr. Hagen responded that the gap occurs to facilitate drainage
and a break in the landscaping scene.
Mr. Dunbar then asked how the ground surfaces would be treated. Mr. Hagen replied
that all areas would be sodded.
Jay Eberenz,11330 Lanewood Circle, commented that the Spring drainage in their
single family backyards is sometimes knee deep and hopes that this development
will not contribute more water to this problem.
Gerald Gourley ,11280 Lanewood Circle, stated that Mr. Hagen has met with the
homeowners 3 or 4 times and has been very cooperative in working with the residents.
Motion I-
Gartner moved, Sutliff seconded, to close the public hearing on Northmark West.
Motion carried 4:O:I with Bentley abstaining.
Motion 2:
Gartner moved, Levitt seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 as per the material dated Feb. 29, 1980 and
the staff report of April 22, 1980, including that the plantings along the south
side of the southern cul-de-sac be included in a Preserve homeowners outlot.
Motion carried 4:0:1 with Bentley abstaining.
Motion 3:
Gartner moved, Levitt seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the
preliminary plat dated Feb. 29, 19BO as per the conditions in Motion2. Motion
carried 4:0:1 with Bentley abstaining.
B. DEER CREEK PUD AND REZONING, by T.G.C. Development, Inc. Request for PUD
Concept approval on TF0 acres for single f anti ly,townhouse, guadraminiums,
and commercial use; rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 ; preliminary plat approval,
and approval of an Environmental Assessment,Worksheet. Located East of Mitchell
Road , South of Old Farm , and North of Ridgewood West. A public hearing.
Mr. Bill Oolan, project engineer, located the project and outlined the proposed
uses: condominiums in 2 phases next to Mitchell Road, townhouses in the center
by Orrin Thompson, single family adjacent to the creek, townhouses adjacent to
the flood plain, possible small commercial area east of Anderson Lakes Parkway,
and a 3 acre piece East of the creek which must be developed in conjunction
with property to the east or south for access. {
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA .
RESOLUTION NO.R80-I00
RESOLUTION
APPROVING
PP OVIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF
ST
BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Northmark West.
dated
Feb. 29 1980 a copy of which is attached hereto and amended
as follows:
9
i
i
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 day of
19
o (gang H. PPenzel, Mayor
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
'r l(0
M13101MIDUM
t
•1'p: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE-: May 16, 1980
SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List
PROJECT: Northmark (lest
PROPONENT: Ban Con, Inc. ,
REQUEST: PUD development stage approval, rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 and
preliminary plat ,approval of 68 quads ou 11.7 acres. (17 buildings)
LOCATION: The Preserve, east of Preserve Blvd. and north of Westwind.
BACKGROUND: Sec Planning Staff Report dated April 22, 1980.
i
i
CHECKLIST: j
1.. 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) No
Affect on park:
2. Adjacent to public waters? No
Affect on waters:
3. Adjacent to trails? Yes, 5' concrete
Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) multi-use
Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglime) asphalt
Width: S' Party Responsible for construction? dcvcloPcr
Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.) R.O.W.
Type of Development? (residential, commercial, industrial)
xcsidrntial
Where will CASH PARK HE go? (what neighborhood) N/A
Need for :1 mini-park? No
151�
-2-
S. REFFRENCE CHECK:
1
a. Major Center Area Study: Preserve RrsJAgTJ ia] Scrtor
b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: Preserve neighborhood park will serme this
development.
c. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A
d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: N/A
e. Ploodplain Ordinance: N/A
f. Guide Plan: Illustrates this area as regional commercial/office
d
g. Other: J
G. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: N/A
i
7. CASH PARK FEE? N/A Preserve PUO
8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or
against proposal:
9. Number of units in residential development? G8
Number of acres in the project? 11.7 acres
Special recreation space.rrquiremcnts: Consistent with nurSLdillJ11CC.—L1�——
COmmiSSi On should consider the need for a tot]ot homeowner rn�n rd]_IdlLa_tb.i5..w ea.
10. STAFF RECU;PIMIATIONS: Recommend approval as_cr Planning,Staff' Tl'cL+LPSIhILLiy1L__
of April 22, 19So.
i
3
Minutes —Parks, Recreation& unapproved May 19, 1980
Natural Resources Commission —2—
B. Reports of Staff
1. Development Pronocals
a. Braun's Fashions, Inc.
MOTIM: Tangen moved to recommend tabling this proposal until a
repreoentative of the developer is present to explain the project
in more detail and answer questions. D. Anderson seconded tho
motion and it carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: Tangen mentioned that he recently drove by tho site
and feels the development to the north (LeParc) is awful in terms
of flat grading the land, and that the Braun proposal should be
looked at carefully with that in mind.
b. Northmark East & West
Mr, Larry Peterson was present representing the developer, BanCon,
Inc. lie pointed out that Northmark East is a 5 acre site with
8 buildings, 4 units in each projected. Northmark West is
approximately a 12 acre site with 17 buildings, 4 units in each
projected. Mr. Peterson said BanCon proposes these quads as
carriage house type structures with cedar shake siding which will 9
sell for a base price of approximately $75,000+. He expects mainly
( retired people and young professionals to buy the units, which
would dictate not many children in the development.
t
R. Anderson asked if there is a trailway system planned. Peterson
explained the proposed system, pointing out the proposed trails
on a map.
D. Anderson asked if there presently is a tot lot in the Northmark
development. Peterson said yes, the Preserve built it through
Homeowners Association.
R. Anderson suggested a rest area with bench, picnic table, eto.,
be put in along the trailway instead of putting in a "tot lot"
(mini park) that might not be used.
MOTION: D. Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval of
BanCon, Inc., Northmark East (Northmark Third.) per recommendations
in staff report of April 23, 1980. Vanlleter seconded the motion
and it carried unanimously.
MOTION: D. Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval of
BanCon, Inc., Northmark.West (Northmark fourth) per recommendations
in staff report of April 22, 1980. Vuillcter seconded the motion and
it carried unanimously.
o. American Pam" •ly In:uranee
Lambert said this proposal will be going before the Council tom:morrow
(May 206 1930). Ito explained that there was a mistake in obtaining
the proper zuninr chzngo on the project, and work is being hold up
on the project until this is straiChtened out.
1619
C
TO: Mayor and Council
FRO14: John Frane
DATE: May 28, 1980
RE: Preliminary approval MIDB'S Wilson Learning - $1,750,000
Wilson Learning Corporation intends to construct a 50,000 square foot
addition to their Eden Prairie facility. They anticipate that the
enlarged facility will employ 168 persons; present employment is 130.
The property is zoned I-5 Park which is correct for the intended use.
Resolution #80-102 is included for your consideration.
i
i
i
i�
I
i
a.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA
l`
Application for
Industrial Development Bond Project Financing
1. APPLICANT:
a. Business Name-{Nilson Learning Corporation
b. Business Address - 6950 Washington Avenue South; Eden Prairie,
Minnesota 55343
C. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.) -
corporation
d. State of Incorporation or organization- Minnesota
e. Authorized Representative-Matthew Juechter, President
f. Phone-944-2880
i
I
2. NAME(S)AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: #
}
a. Larry Wilson; 27965 Woodside Road, Excelsior, Minnesota
b. Matthew Juechter; 6566 France Avenue Suuth, Edina, Minnesota t
55435
C. Daniel Chabot;5800 Loring Drive; Mound,Minnesota 55364
d. Bob Utne; 1123 Sibley Memorial Highway; Saint Paul, Minnesota
55118
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRO-
DUCTS, ETC: production and marketing of sales training and management
programs
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
a. Location and intended use: 6950 Washington Avenue South, Eden
Prairie. The project will be the expansion of an existing building for
use as warehouse,classroom and employee facilities.
b. Present ownership of project site: Wilson Learning Corporation
1
C. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor:
Architect-None, design built; Project Supervisor-James O'Neal
t Company, Shakopee, Minnesota; Construction Company-Amcon,
12751 County Road 5, Burnsville, Minnesota
5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR:
Land $ -0-
Building 1,040,000
Equipment 450,000
Other 260,000
Total $1,750,000
6. BOND ISSUE-
a. Amount of proposed bond issue-$1,750,000
b. Proposed date of sale of bond-on or before July 1,1980
c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - twenty-five (25)
years;annual debt service pursuant to tax-exempt note
d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds-Dain Bosworth Incorporated
{ e. Name and address of suggested trustee-nonapplicable
f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original purchaser -
attached
g. Describe any interim financing sought or available- proposed single
lender interim and permanent
h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition
to bond financing-none
7. BUSINESS PROFILE-
a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie?Yes
b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
i. Before this project: 130
ii. After this project? 168
C. Approximate annual sales-$10,000,000
2 bra 2
d. Length of time in business- 15 years;in Eden Prairie-9 years
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? The company
has offices in cities around the world.
f. Are you engaged in international trade? Yes
8. OTIiER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S):
a. 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 person" within the meaning of Section
103(b)(6)of the Internal Revenue Code. None
b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested industrial revenue
development financing. None
C. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before any other
city for industrial development revenue financing. None
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 author- 1
izing the financing has been denied. None
f. If Applicant has been denied industrial development revenue finan-
cing in any other city as identified in (d) or (e), specify the reason(s)
for the denial and the name(s)of appropriate city officials who have
knowledge of the transaction. Nonapplicable
9. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF:
a. Underwriter(If public offering)-nonapplicable
b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement) -Dain Bosworth
Incorporated; 100 Dain Tower; Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
i. If lender will not commit until City has passed its preliminary
resolution approving the project, submit a letter from pro-
posed lender that it has an interest in the offering subject to
appropriate City approval and approval of the Commissioner
of Securities. Attached
b. Bond Counsel - Holmes & Graven, Chartered; 4610 IDS Center;
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
ii
I
C. Corporate Counsel - Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., 1500
Northwest Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloom-
ington, Minnesota 554.31
d. Accountant - Main, H.urdman & Cranstoun; 1730 Northstar Center;
Minneapolis, Minnesota
10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start-July 1, 1980
b. Construction completion-December 1,1980
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pat Mulligan
Larkin,Hoffman,Daly&Lindgren, Ltd.
1500 Northwest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
9
The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or disapproval by the City
of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development bond financing does not expressly or
impliedly constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or re-
quirement 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. tl
UIt,Sok, �EA12ii1k+6
Applicant
/
By
'd_0
Date
r
4
-i
G/fA�
go -/ Oa
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO
A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL
TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR AP-
PROVAL, AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota,as follows:
1. It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows:
1.1. The welfare of the State of Minnesota requires active promo-
tion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound
industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as
possible, emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment, r
and it is the policy of the State of Minnesota to facilitate and encourage i
action by local government units to prevent the economic deterioration of
such areas to the point where the process can be reversed only by total
redevelopment through the use of local, state and federal funds derived p
from taxation, with the attendant necessity of relocating displaced persons
and of duplicating public services in other areas.
1.2. Technological change has caused a shift to a significant degree
in the area of opportunity for educated youth to processing, transporting,
marketing, service and other industries, and unless existing and related
industries are retained and new industries are developed to use the available
resources of the City of Eden Prairie (the "City"), a large part of the
existing investment of the community and of the state as a whole in
educational and public service facilities will be lost, and the movement of
talented, educated personnel of mature age to areas where their services
may be effectively used and compensated and the lessening attraction of
persons and businesses from other areas for purposes of industry, commerce
and tourism will deprive the City and the State of the economic and human
resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facil-
ities for the remaining population.
1.3. The increase in the amount and cost of governmental services
requires the need for more intensive development and use of land to provide
an adequate tax base to finance these costs.
1.4. Wilson Learning Corporation, a !Minnesota corporation or its
designee (hereinafter the "Applicant"), has advised this City Council (the
"Council") that it desires to expand an existing building and acquire and
install equipment therefor(hereinafter referred to as the"Project").
i
i
i
y
1.5. The existence of the Project in the City will contribute to more
intensive development and use of land to increase the tax base of the City
and overlapping taxing authorities and maintain and provide for an increase
in opportunities for employment for residents of the City.
1.6. The City has been advised that conventional, commercial
financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is available at such costs of
borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be
significantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing, and its
resulting low borrowing cost, the Project are economically more feasible.
1.7. This Council has been advised by representatives of Dain
Bosworth Incorporated, as placement agent, that on the basis of information
submitted to them and their discussions with representatives of area
financial institutions and potential buyers of tax-exempt bonds, industrial
development revenue bonds of the City could be issued and sold upon
favorable rates and terms to finance the Project.
1.8. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to
issue its revenue bonds to finance the cost, in whole or in part, of the
acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement or extension of cap-
ital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a
revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the Applicant, and the
issuance of such bonds by the City would be a substantial inducement to the
Applicant to construct its facility in the City.
2. On the basis of information given the City to date, it appears that it
would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenue
bonds under the provisions of Chapter 474 to finance the Project of the Applicant
at a cost presently estimated not to exceed$1,750,000.
3. 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 Commission of Securities; whether or not the project is
carried to completion; and whether or not the bonds or operative instruments are
executed.
4. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a
firm commitment that the City will issue the bond as requested by the applicant.
The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and
accordingly not issue the bond 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 bond 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.
5. The Project above referred to is hereby given preliminary approval by
the City and the issuance of bonds for such purpose and in such amount approved,
subject to approval of the Project by the Commissioner of Securities and to the
mutual agreement of this body, the Applicant and the initial purchasers of the
bonds as to the details of the bond issue 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 j
I
2
-j
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.
6. Whereas, Dain Bosworth Incorporated,being familiar with the Project
and the marketability of industrial development revenue bonds, has advised the
Council that in its opinion the bonds in the approximate principal amount of
$1,750,000 may be sold on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City and the
Developer.
7. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision
7a,the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal
for the Project to the Commissioner of Securities for her approval ofthe Project.
The Mayor,Clerk,Treasurer and other officers,employees and agents of the City
are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with any preliminary infor-
mation she may need for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to
initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to
the Project,if it is approved by the Commissioner.
8. The law firm of Holmes do Graven, Chartered,is authorized to act as
Bond Counsel and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents
relating to the Project and bonds issued in connection therewith.
Attest:
t Clerk
Mayor
I ,.
3
�ha�
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane, City Clerk
DATE: May 15, 1980
A Housing and Redevelopment Authority exists in every City in the
state according to state statutes. In order for the HRA to function
it needs to be activated by the governing body of.the municipality
and members appointed to serve on its board.
i
The Council appoints the HRA Board members, reappoints members
whose terms have expired and can remove members after a hearing.
Any citizen of Eden Prairie can be appointed. One or more members
of this Council can be appointed.
The HRA once activated has, as far as I can tell, all the powers
of a City except Public Safety and law making. It can for in-
stance buy and sell real and personal property, enter into contracts,
borrow money, employ legal council and staff.
The actions of the HRA can be monitored should the Council choose
not to appoint itself as the HRA by requiring council ratification
of certain HRA actions.
JDF:bw
5/15/BO i
I
r
i
I -
TO: Mayor & Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: May 30, 1980
RE: Tax Increment Financing
Attached for your consideration is Resolution #80-112 which
will activate a Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in
the City of Eden Prairie.
Mr. Pauly is investigating the possibility of using a different
vehicle other than an HRA. We do not have specifics at this
time. Mr. Pauly will address this alternate at the council
meeting if it is a viable alternative.
E
I
f
a
c .
After all persons who wished to do so had stated
their views on the proposal, the Mayor declared the
hearing to be closed.
After some discussion, Member then
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. ?L9—11
RESOLUTION ACTIVATING A
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN
AND FOR THE CITY
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City) as follows:
Section 1. It is hereby found, determined and
declared:
I.I. The Minnesota Legislature has enacted the
Housing and Redevelopment Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 462.411 to 462.711 (the Act) , which authorizes a
municipality to activate a housing and redevelopment
authority in and for the municipality for the purpose of
undertaking redevelopment projects, including the j
acquisition and improvement of blighted areas or open oz
undeveloped land. The Act itself created a housing and
redevelopment authority in each municipality in the state,
but forbade the authority to transact any business or
exercise any powers granted by the Act until activated by
resolution of the governing body of the municipality.
1.2. In enacting the Act, the Legislature found
that the welfare of the State requires the redevelopment
of urban and rural areas which by reason of sociological
and technological changes, faulty arrangement or design of
buildings and improvements, lack of public facilities, or
deleterious land use or obsolete layout inflict blight
upon the economic value of large areas, impair the value
of private investments, threaten the source of public
revenues and decentralize communities to areas improperly
planned and not related to public facilites. The
Legislature found that such conditions cannot be remedied
by the ordinary operations of private enterprise or by
regulation alone, but that local public bodies must be
created and authorized to undertake redevelopment where
-2-
i
f
r.
the cost would not warrant private initiative, subject to
the declared policy of the State that before public
participation is authorized or undertaken it be determined
locally that redevelopment cannot be met through reliance
solely upon private initiative. Participation by
municipalities in redevelopment projects according to a
redevelopment plan as provided in the Act was declared by
the Legislature to be a public use and purpose for which
private property may be acquired and public money may be
spent.
1.3. As required by Section 462.425,
Subdivision 2 of the Act, a public hearing was conducted
June 3, 1980, on the proposal to activate a housing and
redevelopment authority for the City, after publication of
notice of the hearing in the official newspaper of the
City once not less than ten days nor more than thirty days
before the public hearing.
1.4. This Council finds that local roads and
thoroughfares in the vicinity of and leading to the Major
Center Area of the City are inadequate to handle
adequately the flow of traffic in the area. The
inadequacy of these roadways has hindered development of
open and undeveloped land in the Major Center Area and
continguous areas. Because these areas contain buildings
or improvements and are by reason of faulty arrangement or
design, deleterious land use or obsolete layout
detrimental to the welfare of the City, this Council finds
the areas to comprise a "deterioriated area" within the
meaning of Section 462.421, Subdivision 11 of the Act.
The open or undeveloped land comprising most of these
areas is blighted within the meaning of the Act by virtue
of physical characteristics of the ground and the present
pattern of roadways which have hindered normal development
by private enterprise. Such land is potentially useful
and valuable for contributing to the welfare of the City.
The specific findings underlying these conclusions are the
following:
(a) The Major Center Area, a 1,000-acre
tract identified by the Metropolitan Council and
the City as a major diversified center, is
served by Interstate 494, U. S. Highways 169 and
212, and State Highway 5, making the area readily
amenable to development.
(b) In 1973, the City Council adopted the
MCA Planneo Unit Development as an official
amendment to its 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan to
r
-3-
a.
( provide opportunity for high density commercial,
industrial and residential development. In that
regard, the City has prepared a master plan for
land uses within the Major Center Area, in
cooperation with major property owners, the
Minnesota highway Department and the Metropolitan
Council.
(c) Substantial development interest has
been shown in the Major Center Area, and a
significant amount of commercial and residential
development has occurred in recent years,
including construction of the Eden Prairie
Regional Shopping Center. Nonetheless, the
amount of development has not met the
expectations of the City. i!
(d) Patronage of the Eden Prairie Regional
Shopping Center and other commercial developments
in the Major Center Area has been hindered by the
existing pattern of local roads and thoroughfares. e
(e) Development by private enterprise of
the open or undeveloped land within the Major
Center Area would be materially enhanced by the
improvement of local roads and thoroughfares to
provide local access from the major federal and
state highways serving the area.
1.5. Redevelopment of the open or undeveloped
land within the Major Center Area and its vicinity would d
be significantly more attractive to {
private enterprise if �
local roads and thoroughfares were upgraded to provide
efficient traffic movement. By their nature, such public
improvements, including the construction of roads and
bridges, cannot be undertaken without government .
assistance.
1.6. 7his Council hereby declares that there is
a need for a housing and redevelopment authority to
function in the City, since there exists a deterioriated
area within the City which cannot be redeveloped without
government assistance.
Section 2. 1here is hereby activated in and for
the City a housing and redevelopment authority, created as
a public body corporate and politic by Section 462.425,
Subdivision 1 of the Act. Said authority shall be known
as the housing ano Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Eden Prairie and shall consist of five
3
-4-
commissioners, who shall be persons residing within the
territorial boundaries of the City. The commissioners
shall be appointed by the Mayor, with the approval of this
Council, after this resolution becomes finally effective.
Initial appointments shall be for terms of one, two,
three, four and five years, respectively; thereafter each
commissioner shall be appointed for a five-year term;
provided that if members of the City Council are appointed
commissioners, their terms of office as commissioners may
coincide with their terms of office as council members.
Upon appointment of the commissioners and adoption of
by-laws, the Authority shall exercise all powers and
transact such business as it deems necessary or desirable
under the Act.
Section 3. The Finance Director-Clerk shall
cause this resolution to be published in the official
newspaper of the City in the same manner in which
ordinances are published. The Finance Director-Clerk is
further authorized and directed to file, when this ! ,
resolution is finally effective, a certified copy of this
resolution with the Minnesota Housing Commission.
Mayor
f
Attest: {
Finance Director-Clerk
The motion of the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was duly seconded by Member ,
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof:
-5-
h
Ay �
June 3, 1980
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows:
6789 VOID OUT CHECK
1631 VOID OUT CHECK M.00)
1703 OLYMPIC HILLS Service 1,579.70
1704 JIM RICHARDSON Mirror 13.95
1705 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC. Summer playground workshop 35.00
1706 ROBERT LAMBERT Expenses 113.50
1707 VOID OUT CHECK
1708 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 751.09
1709 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 1,071.48
1710 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING Wine 300.71
1711 OLD PEORIA COMPANY, INC. Liquor 1,015.47
1712 JOHNSON WINE CO. Wine 1,420.94
1713 BUTCH'S BAR SUPPLY Supplies-Liquor store 50.75
1714 ED. PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 2,876.60 t
1715 DICKMAN C. KNUTSON Earnest money-Hidden Ponds 100.00
1716 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage 433.61
1717 SUN NEWSPAPERS Eden Prairie Phone Directories 30.00
11 SANDY WERTS Change fund-Community Service 100.00 i
1719 'i-1 POSTMASTER Postage 88.95
1720'? JOHN SORENSON Expenses 25.00
1721 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE April Sales & Use tax 2,104.58
1722 GUNILLA MONTGOMERY, TRAINING Registration fee 20.DO
1723 JAMES LORENCE Easement-Duck Lake Road 5,000.00
1724 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Liquor 1,019.28
1725 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Summer Happenings & Rec Brochure mailing 20.24
1726 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Liquor license 54.00
1727 JOHNSON WINE CO. Wine 300.66
1728 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 1,374.45
1729 OLD PEORIA COMPANY, INC. Wine 700.32
1730 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO. Liquor 76.43
1731 MIDWEST WINE CO. Wine 463.85
1732 DAN UNZE Gas testing supplement 15.00
1733 BUTCH'S BAR SUPPLY Supplies-Liquor store 145.95
1734 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 1,085.93.
1735 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Payroll 11,698.57
1736 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Payroll 8,772.44
1737 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY Payroll 205.00
1738 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS Payroll 29.50,
1739 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK Payroll 150.00
1740 P E R A Payroll 8,659.90
1741 ACRO-MINNESOTA, INC. Office supplies 53.51
17^? AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC. AWWA dues 50.00,
1. EARL F. ANDERSEN & ASSOC. Road signs 3,268.80
1744 AQUATROL CORPORATION Well control repair-Water dept 172.54;
1745 ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS, INC. Repair well-Grill House 44.25
1746 VOID OUT CHECK
Page two
June 3, 1980
l; BRW Service-Ringroute 7Bth Street-Hwy 169, 8,469.47
Anderson Lake Parkway, Temp Signal on
TH 169, Homeward Hills Road, TH N5 & W
78th Street & Mitchell Road, Lotus View Drive
1748 BLACK & VEATCH Water treatment Plant addition 10,639.43
1749 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING Service-W 70th St. Shady Oak Ind Park, 2,4B2.05
Proposed sedimentation pond & related overflow
sewer S.E. of County Road 39 & Nine Mile
Creek
1750 MARY BETH BUCKMAN May Happenings 286.15,
1751 BUSINESS FURNITURE INCORPORATED Chair, table-Fire dept, Table top-City Hall 698.50,
1752 BUTTERWORTHS Training book-Police dept 17.95;
1753 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal ads 64.95
1754 CHASKA YAMAHA Equipment repair & parts 133.52'
1755 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE, INC Equipment repair & parts 16.69
1756 COLUMBIA TRANSIT Transportation for Senior Citizens 76.50
1757 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION Re-Lamping of signals 559.01
1758 CONCORDE CONST. Overpayment of utility bill 501.48a.
1759 COPY EQUIPMENT, INC. Tape, Nat'l field book, x-acto knife & blades 46.53
1760 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO. Engraved desk signs 28.05
1761 CURLE PRINTING COMPANY, INC. Business cards 68.00
1762 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY Quicklime 1,526.091
1763 DECATUR ELECTRONICS, INC. Repair radar 10.00
1764 DEL VENDING Refund on license 27.00
5 DORHOLT PRINTING & STATIONERY Office supplies 123.7?1
...o DOWN TO EARTH Transplant trees 4,305.0E
1767 DUSTCOATING, INC. Oil roads 4,816.00r
1768 EDEN PIONEER CLUB Labeling envelopes 15.00
1769 EDEN PRAIRIE CRIME PREVENTION Confiscated funds 582.7E.
1770 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPARTMENT Conference-Fire dept 347.0[
1771 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS Cement blocks 116.9E`
1772 FEDERAL DYNAMICS, INC. Hand cleaner 304.B1
1773 FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC Ferric sulfate-Water dept 5,644.8(,
1774 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN. OF MINN. Training manual-Fire dept 15.0C
1775 FIRE SAFETY & COMMUNICATIONS Safety caps 6.5(
1776 TONY 1ORENTINO Postage 7.85
1777 LEWIS F&1ti Supervisor-Rec dept 35.0(
1778 G.L. CONTRACTING, INC. Repair water pipes '1,017.8(
1779 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Equipment repair & parts 50.7!
1780 . GLIDDEN COATINGS & RESINS Paint-Park dept 40.0(
1781 JOHN W. GORMAN, INC. Equipment-Engineering dept 2,000.0(
1782 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS Tuition-Fire dept 128.01
1783 SUSAN HILL Instructor-Rec dept 80.01
1784 HOPKINS GLENROSE FLORAL Flowers-Awards 17.5(
1785 HOPKINS PRINT SHOP, INC. Cards, newsletter-Senior Citizens 47.71
1786 HOWE INCORPORATED Fertilizer 210.7!
1787 IMPERIAL, INC. Bolts & nuts-Street maintenance 43.31
1788 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY, INC. Lighting-Water dept 80.71.
1789 I8M Correction ribbon 277.5�
JAYCEE WOMEN Happenings & summer rec stuffing 25.0•
1,91 KLEVE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING Equipment repair & parts 29.5
1792 KOKESH ATHLETIC & GOLF SUPPLY Softballs, anchor plates-Rec dept 784.2
1793`` TRAVIS KUSKE Refund-Rec dept 1.5
1794 LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD. Legal service 5,905.5;
1795 PAM LESTER Instructor-Rec dept 76.0E
15�J)U
Page three
June 3, 1980
1796 LOGIS
March service 1,391.16
1797 LUND PAINT & DECORATING CENTER Paint-Building dept 15.52
1798 ROBERT N. MARTZ Expenses 122.99
1799 MASON PUBLISHING COMPANY Subscription-Police dept 29.50
1800 MATT'S AUTO SERVICE, INC. Towing service 20.00
1801 METRO FONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Service 59.00
1802 METRO PRINTING INC. Printing Happenings 848.00
1803 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIPMENT Extinguishers-Fire dept 300.40 '
1804 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL April SAC charges 16,409.25
1805 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION Blacktop 2,787.65
1806 MIDWEST LANDSCAPING Trees removed 4,260.00
1807 MILLER/DAVIS COMPANY Legal forms-Assessing dept 14.00
1808 MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE Employment ads 46.40 !
1809 MINNESOTA FLEXIBLE CORP. Hose 20.00 '
1810 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY Service 801.58
1811 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP Service 21.78
1812 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC. Membership-Fire dept 58.00
1813 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Service 1,768.11
1814 VOID OUT CHECK
1815 ANNE POWERS Refund-Rec dept 9.40
1816 RICK RABENORT Expenses 2.08 1
1817 DARLENE RICHARDSON Refund-Rec dept 9.6D
1818 ST. PAUL POLICE PISTOL CLUB, INC. Ammunition-Police dept 40.00
1 ^ : ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY Snow fence 522.92 >
l . .a SATELLITE INDUSTRIES, INC. Portable restrooms 664.8D
1821 SCHOELL_& MADSON, INC. Service-Chatham Woods 7,046.73
1822 ROLAND SCHULZE Packet delivery 156.00
1823 SHADYWOOD TREE INJECTION, INC. Remove tree stumps 100.00
1824 W.E. NEAL SLATE CO. Vinyl-Fire dept 91.20�
1825 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN ADVERTISER Employment ads 17.50!
1826 STATE OF MINNESOTA Unclaimed Bond Interest 570.00'
1827 SUBURBAN AUTO ELECTRIC Rebuild starter 36.05
1828 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET CO. Equipment repairs & parts 100.96
1829 SUN NEWSPAPERS Employment ads 86.00
1830 SUTPHEN CORPORATION Red lens-Fire dept 5.00'
1831 TELE-TERMINALS Paper 67.90'
1832 THRIFTY PRINT Name cards-Police dept 275.65
1833 LOWELL THONE Expenses 1.60'
1834 CARRIE TIETZ Minutes-Park & Rec 96.00
1835 TOWNS EDGE FORD, INC. Equipment repairs & parts 460.28
1836 ROGER ULSTAD Expenses 100.00.
1837 VALLEY EQUIPMENT CO. Filters & parts 101.44
1838 VAUGHN'S Flags 272.00
1839 VESSCO Repair chlorinator-Water dept 132.53
1840 KEITH WALL Expenses 20.32`:
1841 BECKI WARNER Mileage 14.80
1842 RIVER WARREN AGGREGATES INC. Rock 403.89`
1843 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY Fire hydrant parts, valve box extension 11008.301
& cover-Water dept
ZIEGLER TIRE SERVICE Tires 271.121.
IB45 AWARDS, INC. Volleyballs-Rec dept, office supplies 210.25I
1846 CAROLYN CASSOLA Rentals-Rec dept 687.501
1847 CLASSES UNLIMITED Aerobic Dance exercise classes-Rec dept 1,360.00
1848 JOE KASID Official-Rec dept 22.00
i
Pa99f� `our
JUK s, 1980
1849 ROBERT LAMBERT Expenses 100.00
1850 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER Firearm safety 34.00
1851 NORTHWESTERN BELL Service 188.25
1852 GLEN REED Softball official-Rec dept 11.00
1853 SANDRA WERTS Mileage 22.42
1854 808 WILDE Softball official-Rec dept 22.00
1855 JACK G. BURKE Refund on building permit 30.10
1856 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC. Softball team registration 856.00
1857 VAN WATERS & ROGERS Chlorine-Water dept 258.80
1858 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO. Water meters-Water dept 5,137.74
1859 SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS, INC. Tree removal 2,256.00
TOTAL l`61'00-21
i
j `
1
D
TO: Roger Ulstad
FROM: The Hunting/Shooting Zone Committee
The committee held two formal meetings, one on March 13, 1980 and the other on
April 17, 1980. Additionally, some of it's members conducted tours of areas
which were discussed at these meetings. Four topics were established for
discussion and we have arrived at recommendations concerning each.
I. MITCHELL LAKE AREA
The committee concluded that the present northern shooting boundary along
Highway 5 from the Chanhassen border to County Road 4 be lowered to the
C & NW railroad tracks (running from County Road 4 to our border with
Chanhassen just below Riley Lake). This change would place Mitchell Lake
in a zone where shooting is prohibited unless special consideration is
given by the Department of Public Safety pursuant to Ordinance P347.
Those who presently shoot would still be allowed to do so with some
restriction and the entire area would be depicted in general publications
as a No Shooting Zone. Because of these added restrictions, it was felt
that shooters without permits would be more easily recognized and subsequently
reported to the Department of Public Safety. Secondly, it was decided that
shooters and some homeowners from the Mitchell Lake area would jointly place
buoys across the lake so as to establish "safe zones" for boating during the
first weeks of the duck hunting season. This entire approach was presented
to concerned homeowners in a door-to-door visit by committee members and
agreed to by all concerned.
II. REMAINDER OF SHOOTING ZONES
Present established zones (with the exception of the area mentioned above)
should remain essentially the same. However, special shooting allowed per
Ordinance #347 in that area identified as the Kerber property north of
Highway 5, should discontinue unless the new owners of that property choose
to shoot and follow the guidelines established in Ordinance #347.
III. RIVER BOTTOMS
This area is unique in that it's isolation from populated areas creates
safer shooting conditions except that occasionally a few too many hunters
are issued permits for relatively small areas. However, the committee felt
that this was a personal safety consideration best left to resolution by
individual shooters. Any indepth discussion about this area was deemed
unnecessary since the river bottoms are slated to become a Federal Game Preserve.
IV. FUTURE OF SHOOTING/HUNTING IN EDEN PRAIRIE
All members agreed that shooting/hunting in the city would eventually be
phased out. In the meantime, hunting should continue since it is a popular
form of recreation for many so long as it can be done safety. The committee r
thought it would be adviseable to meet once each year for the next five years i
for a re-evaluation of the entire shooting situation. They would also be
willing to meet on an emergency basis should a situation arise that requires
immediate consideration.
l'�32
MAY 2 1 1.980 ;; d
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
320 Washington Av. South ?
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 `'``:'�''
�FA
HENNEPIN
ffu 935-3381 !
May 19, 1980 !
Mr. Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor
City of Eden Prairie I .
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 i ..
Dear Mr. Penzel:
Hennepin County and Scott County have signed a consultant contract with
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to prepare reports for the Location Study
process for County Road (CSAH) 18. As an integral part of this process,
the counties are attempting to have a Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) formed.
Thus, the counties are requesting that each of the local units of government
which the County Road 18 Corridor is located in, appoint two citizen members
to the CAG. It is anticipated that the first CAG meeting will be in July
of 1980 and thus we are requesting that the appointment be made and noti-
fication of those appointments be sent to Vern Genzlinger, Project Manager,
Hennepin County Department of Transportation, 320 Washington Avenue South,
Hopkins, Minnesota, 55343, by June 30, 1980.
A brief summary of the functions and background information relative to
the CSAH 18 CAG is attached.
ZSince Ty, ``
L O. /sC/...,.,w
Herbert 0. Klossner, P.E.
Director
HOK:Iar
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opporhmlly emplovar
f��I�
i
CSAH 18 LOCATION STUDIES
CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP
Introduction
The Location Study process for County Road (CSAH) 18 commenced with the signing of
a contract with the Consultant, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. in April, 19BO.
This process includes the preparation of Draft and final Environmental Impact State-
ments. The first phase of the process is scoping of the project which will entail
a preliminary analysis of the alternatives and establishing a criteria for evaluating
the alternatives.
Hennepin and Scott Counties are the agencies jointly responsible for the Location
Study process. Hennepin County has been designated as the lead agency. The two
counties wish to establish a Citizens Advisory Group to work with the Consultant
and a Technical Advisory Committee being formed to provide insight and feedback
from the public for the duration of the process. There are six units of government
which have a vital interest in any decisions regarding CSAH 18. The counties are
inviting each of the below listed governmental units to name two citizen members to
the Citizen Advisory Group:
City of Bloomington
City of Eden Prairie
City of Savage
t City of Shakopee
Hennepin County
Scott County
Assignment
The members of the CSAH 18 Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) will be called upon to express
community and neighborhood attitudes and opinions throughout the location study process.
Additionally, they will be asked how to best schedule and announce public meetings
and to better insure public involvement.
The group will also directly input the CSAH 18 Technical Advisory Committee which has
recently been formed. This will form a key link in the ultimate decision making
process for the CSAH 18 project.
Scheduling
It is anticipated the first meeting of the CSAH 18 Citizens Advisory Group will be
held in July of 1980, and that this Group will remain active through the thirty month
life of the location study process. The regularity of meetings will be determined by
the Group itself. In order to insure adequate notification of the first meeting each
of the governments listed above are requested to designate two members to the CAG
and notify Vern Genzlinger, of Hennepin County, by June 30, 1980.
/5-
i
December 29, 1978
4
TO: Chief Hacking
FROM: Donna
SUBJECT: Dog Impound Fees
3
1
The following is the list of impound fees I have compiled:
Fridley $20.00
Golden Valley '15.00
New Hope 15.00
Plymouth 30.00 Mi
Orono 20.00, 30.00, 40.00
Vadnais Heights 25.00
Wayzata 25.00 �,� ate
St. Louis Park 15.00, 25.00, 50.00
Chanhassen 15.00
Crystal 13.50 �,✓ s��
Edina 25.00, 50.00, 100.00
Bloomington 10.00, 20.00, 30.00, etc.
Minnetonka 10.00, 20.00, 30.00, etc.
Eden Prairie 10.00
f�j�Cc
-k
l MEMO
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
DATE: May 29, 1980
SUBJTCT: Right-of Way Trade-off for Schooner Blvd.
Extension North of W. 78th St.
i
About six years ago the City acquired several parcels as right-of-way
for the future extension of Schooner Blvd. north of W. 78th St.. There
are certain residual pieces of these parcels that will not be needed for
right-of-way which could be transferred to the adjoining parcels. Per
the attached letter of March 24, 1980, the owners of Lot 8, Aud. Subd.
No. 355, are asking for a trade-off of these residual pieces in return f
for other easements across their property which will be needed by the }
City for the Schooner Blvd. extension. In order to accomplish the trans-
fer of these parcels, approval of a Registered Land Survey of the City's
property would be required.
The attached drawing shows the parcels involved. Mr. Martz and I have
reviewed the proposal and suggest that a fair price to be paid to the
City would be $9,400
I
Parcel 1 2,025 sq. ft. @ 1•0 = 2,025
Parcel 2 15,583 sq. ft. @ 1.00 = 15,583
Less:
Parcel 2 770 sq. ft. @ 2.00 = 1,540
Slope easm't: 1 3,793 sq. ft. @ .50 = 1,897
Slope easm't. 2 29161 sq. ft. @ 1.00 = 2,161
Slope easm't. 3 2,625 sq. ft. @ 1.00 = 2,625
--U23
Say 9,400
It is recommended that the Council recive this memo, approve the Registered
Land Survey for Tracts A and B and authorize the staff to negotiate a final
purchase price to be approved by the City Council.
CJJ:kh
Attachments
153�
March 24, 19BO
i
E
e
Mr. Carl Jullie
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden. Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Auditor's Subdivision Number 355, Lot 8
(see attached)
Dear Carl:
We are interested in opening negotiations on a potential trade
of property as concerns the above parcel. It is our understanding
the City of Eden Prairie may want to obtain a certain portion of
our lot for the extension of Scooner Boulevard ring road. The
City also owns a piece of property to the north which will eventually
be landlocked. This landlocked piece of property may be of benefit
to our property which adjoins it.
We would be interested in talking with you concerning a trade as
respects the above property. If you have any desire to pursue
this matter, kindly contact us at 100 Builders Exchange, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402. 8
Sincerely,
Bradley J. Hepp J�mcsl Fee
BJH:rw
Enclosures !
cc: John Darkenwald 3
{
I 6
200. _ ORTNERLYILINg
A
War
Iro� roll
2'' Oltn
I M
SOUTHWEST COR.
R.L.S.NO.--*-\ "
_SOUTHEWILINE R.L.S.N0. SOUTHEAST COR.LOT 6 •i
585 27"5Z"W
NORTHWEST COR 3-)3--
LOT 0_. _:_,+ _9.00- j
NORTHEASTCORI
i LOT 9
1
+ / � L
— —SLOPE EASM'T 2
F v 2161 SQ.FT. `
W IO
2 � G iV a0
11 Ir1'YI+ti. �: /vl I���1'it��I�I',i 7,u 1\1:i1�� •j.i.J I'j"�f
Z O �'I•�Jlill 1 �Ja.rIV.. I_I, Iv,in JJl.e1 1 J
1 W
I� J I
I h W
< 1
PARCEL I-
2025SQFT. '
Voss Sp'� $ I
3_.20 �.;W ��50uTNLINEIOT 1R
I s�OPE EI'` 577�o.5g24 .SOUTHWEST COR. ,•/'
LOT 6-
PARCEL 2�
770SO.FT. 78 Vs r
St
i MEMO
T0: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
f,
DATE: May 30, 1980
4
SUBJECT: Bids for Valley View Rd./Dell Rd., Phase II
I.C. 51-325
The Council has set the bid opening date for Phase II of the Valley View
Rd./Dell Rd. project for July 10, 1980. However, we are having some
difficulty with the Chicago-Milwaukee Railroad Co. in securing a permit
for the at-grade railroad crossing. ''Also, some of the easement acqui-
sition required for the project is taking longer than anticipated.
Accordingly, we recommend that said bid opening date be extended to
August 28, 19BO.
CJJ:kh
i
i
i.
FOX, MCCUE & MURPHY
CERTIFIED FU6LIC ACCOUNTANT$
7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344
' JOHN E FOX CPA TELEPHONE
WILLIAM M MCCUE C P A 16121944.6106
JAME66 MURPHY,CPA
Mr. Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager
Mr. John D. Frans, Finance Director
City of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Ulstad and Mr. Frane:
We have prepared a letter addressed to the City Council in which we have
commented on matters of a significant nature that came to our attention dur-
ing our examination of the financial statements of the City of Eden Prairie
for the year ended December 31, 1979. We would like to comment on some
additional matters of lesser importance that we feel warrant your attention.
i
Journal Entries
It appears that journal entry documentation as well as the organization of
journal entries could be improved. We had difficulty in finding journal
entries as they were not bound together or organized in numerical order.
Upon finding them we noted many instances of little or no documentation 1
attached to the journal entry as support. 6
Recording of Transactions
We noted many instances where transactions were coded to incorrect funds,
account numbers or project numbers. It appears more extensive review is
needed to bring such errors to appropriate supervisory attention earlier, b
so appropriate adjustments can be made. As an example of this lack of
review, we noted that retail liquor inventory prices were not recorded in ;
the accounting system for seven months before it was noted through super-
visory review. This lack of review during the year results in numerous
adjustments being made by us during our examination. The examination could
be performed in a more efficient manner if greater supervisory review were
performed and necessary adjustments made before the audit examination was
initiated.
' 3
Contracts Payable and Encumbrances
Presently contracts payable recorded include only liabilities for work com-
pleted to date. The remaining contract amounts are not recorded as encum-
brances. We recommend that the remaining open contract amounts be recorded
as encumbrances in the future in order to present a more correct statement
of fund balances. Z
15U1
7
-2-
Disbursements
Internal control would be improved if checks were signed by someone independent
of the check preparation or bank reconciliation process. If this is not practical,
the checks should at least be distributed after being signed, without being returned
to the person responsible for their preparation.
We noted a few instances where department supervisor's written approval did not
appear on paid vendor invoices. We recommend that invoices received for payment
without proper approval be returned to the appropriate department supervisor for
written approval before payment is made.
Grants Receivable (Park Bond Fund)
Included in grants receivable at January 1, 1979 were 1970 and 1971 LAWCON grants
receivable of $125,000. These grants were cancelled during 1979 because extensions
were not requested for these programs. The grants cancelled involved the Nagengast
and Morley/Grill properties which were subsequently acquired through other govern-
mental grants or tax forfeitures. No funds were lost as a result. However, con-
tinuing attention to grant programs and requirements thereof is necessary. We
recommend that supervisory review of grants receivable be performed on a quarterly
basis to ensure available grants are not lost and to properly record grant monies
received.
Utility Fund
We noted potential uncollectible customer accounts of $2,000 to $3,000. While
this is a minor amount, we recommend more timely collection efforts be implemented
to ensure the problem does not increase. This comment was also made in our prior
year Letter and is presented again as customer accounts receivable increased from
$126,100 at December 31, 1978 to $217,289 at December 31, 1979. We recommend
continuing attention be given to collection efforts in this area.
Cash
We noted that petty cash funds did not agree with recorded amounts at the time
of our surprise cash count. While the differences noted were minor, we recommend
the custodians make counts of their funds on a periodic basis and submit count
reports to Mr. Frane. We also noted the December 31, 1979 bank reconciliations
contained minor unreconciled differences.
We appreciate the courtesy extended to us by all of the City employees, but
especially that of Mr. Frane, who spent a great deal of time in assisting us.
We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments and recommendations for 1
your consideration, and are prepared to discuss them further at your convenience. f
s.
Very truly yours,
1
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
May 21, 1980
l5ua
y
FOX, MCCUE & MURPHY
CIPTMlO PUlUC ACCOUNTANTS
7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344
JOHN E FOX CPA TELEPHONE
WILLIAMM MCCUE CPA. 161216&&-6166
DAMES S MURPHY.C P A
The City Council
City of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Dear Mayor Penzel and Council:
The purpose of this letter is twofold. First, we would like to comment upon
selected information presented in the City of Eden Prairie's 1979 audited
financial statements in order to make the financial information presented
therein more easily understandable; and second, we would like to comment on
some internal control matters that came to our attention.
SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION 3
m 1
General Fund
The General Fund statements of revenue and expenditures contain a comparison
of actual results compared to approved budgeted estimates. Total actual revenue
was $2,787,985 compared to budgeted revenue of $2,330,500. Actual expenditures 7
were $2,467,474 compared to budgeted expenditures of $2,502,400. The total z'
fund balance increased $320,511 for 1979 of which $149,000 has been appropriated
for the 1980 budget. The remaining December 31, 1979 unappropriated fund balance
of $594,628 appears reasonable in amount as it represents approximately 19% of
1980 budgeted expenditures of $3,125,600.
Capital Proiects Funds
Total revenue of $1,408,466 included bond proceeds of $297,922 as well as several
other items as shown on page 11 of the audited financial statements. Land
acquisition expenditures were $530,394 of the total expenditures of $1,738,558.
Improvement expenditures were $438,339 and capital outlay expenditures were
$356,459.
Special Assessment Funds
These funds are segregated into construction funds and debt service funds.
Revenue totaled $8,446,758 and consisted primarily of bond sale proceeds of
$4,791,408, special assessments levied of $1,344,085, and interest on special
assessments of $1,135,714. Expenditures were $10,912,393 including bonds issued
of $4,800,000 and construction costs of $4,019,012. The fund balance deficit
of $8,611,164 at December 31, 1979 is $2,465,635 greater than the deficit at
December 31, 1918.
At December 31, 1979, special assessments receivable was $16,597,645 while
future bond maturities were $30,665,000.
d
i
3
-2-
General Debt Service Funds
Revenue of $298,851 exceeded expenditures of $267,838 by $31,013. At December 31,
1979, general obligation debt payable was $1,840,000 while the fund balance was
$65,323.
Investment Fund
Interest earnings for 1979 were $592,722 compared to $289,517 for 1978.
Liquor Fund
1979 net income was $33,510 compared to $18,983 for 1978. Sales increased 42%
from $404,308 for 1978 to $573,069 for the year ended December 31, 1979. Net
income as a percentage of sales increased from 4.7% for 1978 to 5.8% for the
year ended December 31, 1979.
Utility Fund
Total revenue was $739,198 for the year ended December 31, 1979 compared to i
$594,710 for 1978. Net income was $133,880 for the year ended December 31, 1979
compared to $152,877 for the previous year. The decrease resulted from increased
operating expenses, especially for disposal charges.
t
Ad Valorem Taxes and Special Assessments Levies and Collections
The 1979 total ad valorem tax collections were $1,795,328 while the total special
assessment collections were $2,554,366. These amounts represented 119% and 111%
of the amounts levied for ad valorem taxes and special assessments, respectively. i3
INTERNAL CONTROL MATTERS
Our examination of the financial statements of the City of Eden Prairie for the
year ended December 31, 1979 included a review of the system of internal control j
and the accounting procedures of the City. Although our reviews disclosed no S
weaknesses which we consider significant in relation to the financial statements,
we would like to comment on some matters that came to our attention.
Accounting and internal control in the area of special assessments needs improve-
ment. The accounting system needs revamping and more time devoted to it, includ-
ing performing a reconciliation process between the County records and the City
records on a timely basis. Internal control should be strengthened by a segre-
gation of duties between the engineering, special assessments, and accounting
departments. Each department should have set responsibilities and serve as a
"check and balance" on the other departments.
Several departments within the City receive cash or check receipts which are
recorded in receipt books and then given to the cashier for deposit. lnternal
control over such receipts should be improved to reduce the possibility of all
such receipts not reaching the cashier. We previously recommended that each
department maintain a separately sequenced receipt book and that the numerical
sequence of all receipts be accounted for by the cashier. While separately i
sequenced receipt books are now maintained by each department, the numerical
sequence of all receipts is not being accounted for by the cashier. We again
recommend that all such receipts be accounted for to strengthen internal
controls in the cash receipt area. gg.
k
l�uu
-3-
The City does not maintain detailed individual records of general fixed assets.
While an annual physical inventory is taken of all general fixed assets, the
benefit of this inventory is reduced from a control standpoint as there is no
reconciliation to detail records. We recommend that detailed fixed asset records
be prepared and maintained. Annual physical inventories of general fixed assets
should then be reconciled to these detail records. The importance of this con-
trol procedure is increasing as the City's expenditures for general fixed assets s'
has increased significantly over the past five years. !!�
The City is planning a second municipal liquor store to open in 1981. While the. .. f
present store financial controls have been adequate, present control procedures
should be examined critically upon opening a second store. The store manager's
daily involvement in the operation of the present store has resulted in adequate
control with minimal involvement of the City's accounting department being
necessary. Because the store manager will be responsible for two stores, his
direct involvement in store operations will be reduced. Greater involvement by
the City's accounting department will be necessary in the areas of inventory
control and review of retail pricing. Because the retail inventory system of
controlling inventory was discontinued during 1979, we recommend that an inven-
tory control system be established and monitored throughout the year. Review of
retail pricing should be performed on a continuous basis in order to correct any
errors found before the inventory item is possibly sold at an incorrect price.
t The items commented upon above resulted at least partially from the lack of
experienced accounting personnel to perform all tasks in a timely manner.
Improvement in this area was noted during 1979 and with present accounting
personnel now somewhat experienced, we noted that accounting matters are being
handled in a more timely and efficient manner.
We have prepared a letter to Mr. Roger Ulstad and Mr. John Frane commenting
upon other matters of lesser importance that came to our attention during
our examination.
Our comments are based upon conditions noted during our audit and are not
intended to be all-inclusive. They are submitted as constructive suggestions
to assist you in strengthening controls and procedures.
We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments and recommendations
for your consideration, and are prepared to discuss them further at your
convenience. We also wish to express our appreciation for the courtesy and
assistance extended to us during our examination.
Very truly yours,
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
May 21, 1980
�JY S