HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/15/1981 EOEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, George Bentley, Dean
/1 Edstrom, Paul Redpath and George Tangen
COUNCIL STAFF: - City Manager Carl Jullie; City Attorney Roger
Pauly; Finance Director John Franc; Planning
• Director Chris Enger; Director of Conmiunity
Services Bob Lambert; City Engineer Eugene A.
Oietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael
•
INVOCATION: Councilman George Bentley
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ,
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS i
II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 Page 2042 t
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 2043 {
B. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 81-10, an ordinance amending Ordinance Page 2044
No. 79-43 which provides regulations prohibiting the parking of
vehicles and wllch authorizes the aesignation of areas where parking
is prohibited and the ordering and placing of signs relative thereto
C. Award contract for Bennett Place Improvements, I.C. 52-001 (Resolution page 2046
No. 81-192)
D. Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a supplemental lease Page 2048 i
agreement withPilysicai Electronics Industries, which will allow an
easen"ant to the CJy to he established (Resolution No. 81-194)
E. Award bids for softball backstops Page 2060
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing for crretinn of flevelop nt District No. 1 and Page 2061
Econor c DevelopentDistrict, and fax Increment Financing Plan
Resolution No. 81-190)
B. OVERLDOK PLACE by Hustad_ Deyelqment_Corporatien_ Request to preliminary
plat 30 duplex lots and 9 single family lots. Located north of Pioneer Page 1913
Trail and East of Yorkshire Point (Resolution No. 81-175) Continued & 2065A
'from 9/1/81 (Rezoning of approximately 10 acres from R1-13.5 to
RM 6.5 was approved on 9/1/81)
C. CITY WEST y Richard W. Anderson_ Request for PUD Concept approval Page 1937 8
for office and commercial upon 87 acres (Resolution No. 81-177) & 2066 `
Continued from 9/1/81
D. MEAOO'WS 2ND REZONING LOTS I - Il, BLOCK I by Central Investment Page 2071
Corpiiratien kaput:-« to rezone 8 lots from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5.
Located at 7508 - 7578 Bittersweet Drive (Ordinance No. 81-19)
`:i!•y Council Agenda - 2 - Tees.,Septemr3er 15, 1981
E. 11i.ST1:115 18,USrRiAL PARK. hy .Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Request for PUS Page 2885 1
approval of 42 acres as indost.rial,prefiniiriary platting of 4 industrial
lots, rezoning from Rural and I•5 to I-2, and approval of an
( Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located south of Co. Rd. 67 and 1
west of St. John's Woods Townhouses. (Ordinance No. 81-28 - rezoning, .
Resolution No. 81-188 - preliminary plat, Resolution No.
81-189 - EAW, and Resolution No. 81-187 - PUS)
1.
F. Drainage Improvements for vicinity of West 69th Page 2149
Strce t and r,TwOnnnton r.v..__. .L. _> e!'a.. Request to order improvements
and aut orize preparation of plans and specifications
(Resolution No. 81-191)
G. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of Page 2158
P06410 tor Town & Countt _Claim Service, Inc ((Blunt Lake Center -
Lakeridge Office Project) Resolution No. 81-197)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NIS. 8274 - 8465 Page 2164
VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY CUMISSIONS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
1
A. -Request-from-Timothy Gagner for time extension on rezoning for Page 2159 +
Alpine Estates 2nd Addition
VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Memhers
B. Report of City Attorney
C. Report of City Manager
1. City services options Page 2172
O. Report of City Engineer
1. Resolution receivinq..petition from MTS and authorizing a Page 2173
feasibility report fora combined project to include Mitchell t
RoadJcenic Heights to TNN 0/CPT Road/PITS Road, I.C. 52-Ill
TResolution No. 81-193)
2. Receive petition for improvements in and adjacent to Westwood Page 2177
Industrial Park and uthori e feasibility study Th hiding_
trunk r:,itcrm,iiii lolcrel ratcrnniri, lateral sanitary seraer,
roadway along west line of develpyment and the interior
CUT-de-sac, I.C. 52-115 (Resolution No. 61:195)
3. Receive Illir petition for improvements for Autumn Woods, Phase Page 2161 •
I-Ma—authorize preparation of plans and specifications, I.51-$16A (Resolution No. 81-196)d
IX. NFW BUSINESS
X. ADJOURNMENT. •
•
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, George Bentley, Dean
Edstrom, Paul Redpath, and George Tangen
•
. •COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Attorney Roger
Pauly, City Engineer Gene Dietz, Planning Direct,
• Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Bob
• Lambert, Finance Director John D. Frane, Communit.:
Center Manager Chuck Pappas, Human Services Coor-
dinator Jan Flynn, and Recording Secretary Karen
Michael
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 the Agenda: VIII. A. Edstrom - 1. Hennepin
County Solid Waste; 2. Metropolitan Council Housing Conference; 3. DNR Action
Regarding Flying Cloud Airport; VIII. D. 2. Riley Lake Citizens' Meeting; D. 3.
Vikings; VIII. A, Task Force.
The following item was continued to October 6, 1981: IV. D. COR PUD AMENDMENT
by Karl F. Peterson.
MOTION: Moved by Redpath, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the Agenda as amended
and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1981
Page 5, para. 10, line 4: change "must" to "should", , .
Page 7, para. 9, line 1: change "Gary" to MaclayTM,
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the minutes of the August
18, 1981, Council meeting as amended and published, Motion carried unanimously,
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 81-04, changing the street name of W. I68th
Avenue to Chatham Way in Chatham Wood
•
CNpud
4
City Council Minutes -2- September 1, 1981
C. Resolution No. 81-180 for Community Development Block Grants Year VIII,
IX, and X Participation
D. Award bid for irrigation system at Round Lake Park
E. Change Order for Community Center
• F. Change Order for Round Lake Park Shelter
G: Award contract for Valley Place Offices Project, I.C. 51-409 and Franlo
Road Improvements, I.C. 51-331 Resolution No. 81-183)
H. Agreement with MnDOT to remove temporary signals and install permanent signals
and related street improvements at the entrance to Hennepin County Vocational_
Technical School on TH 169 (Resolution No. 81-184)
I. Resolution declaring cost to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed
1981 Special Assessment Rolls and setting a hearing date for 7:30 p.m., eptem-
ber 22, 1981 (Resolution No. 81-185)
J. Reschedule public hearing on feasibility of drainage improvements, vicinity of
W. 69th Street and Washington Avenue, I.C. 52-004, to September 15, 1981, at
7:30 p.m. (Resolution No. 81-186)
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve items A - J on the Consent
Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.' AUTUMN WOODS by Dennis J. Truempi. Request for rezoning of 13 acres from Rural
to RM 6.5 for duplexes (46 units) and 29 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 38
single family lots, and preliminary plat approval. Located east of TH 101 and
south of Rymarland Camp. (Ordinance No. 81-15 and Resolution No. 81-173)
City Manager Jullie indicated notice of the Public Hearing had been published
in the newspaper and notices had been sent to adjacent property owners.
James Hill, representing Dennis Truempi, spoke to the proposal. The heavily
wooded area on the eastern half of the site corresponds to the proposed single
family development.
Planning Director Enger said this request had come before the Planning Com-
mission at its August 10, 1981, meeting. The Commission recommended approval
by a vote of 6-0 subject to the recommendations contained in the Staff Report
dated August 6, 1981, with the following additions/changes: a) prior to final
plat submission, the developer meet with the City Engineering Department and
submit revised storm water, drainage, and street name plans as requested herein
paying particular attention to the surrounding land uses in Chanhassen and Eder.
Prairie; b) no building permits be requested for lots within phase 3 until suc ,
time as sanitary sewer is available for all roads; and c) that double car gar-
ages for each duplex unit be required,
City Council Minutes -3- September 1, 1981
Director of Community Services Lambert reported the Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources Connission had recommended its approval of this request
at its August 17, 1981, meeting. Their recommendation was that approval
be subject to the recommendations outlined in the Planning Staff Report
as well as the Community Service Staff Report.
Penzel asked if the sewer capacities were adequate. City Engineer Dietz
said they are because of a new connection at Valley View Road.
Penzel inquired when Dell Road would be extended to TH 5. Dietz said the
Guide Plan talks about 1990, but this will be looked into in the next few
weeks when a Capital Improvements Plan is developed. Penzel asked if Chan-
hassen had expressed interest in this connection, Dietz said it might be
possible to negotiate something, but nothing has been specifically discussed.
Joe Schmitz, 19055 Deerfield Trail, asked if the trees Rymarland Camp and the 1
site would remain as they help cut down on the noise from Highway 5. He ex-
pressed concern about enrollments at Prairie View Elementary School and also
concern that more lots would be available while those to the north remain un-
sold. Hill said they would attempt to minimize tree removal; however many
have been lost to Dutch Elm disease and storms. Penzel said the City cannot
tell a developer what he can develop as far as the economics of a project;
school capacities are determined by the School Board.
Edstrom asked the developer if he was amenable to the conditions contained in
the Planning Staff Report and the Community Services Staff Report. Truempi
said he was.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and
to give 1st Reading to Ordinance 81-15, rezoning of 13 acres from Rural to RM
6.5 for duplexes (46 units) and 2G acres from Rural to R1-13.5 fro 38 single
family lots. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Moved by Edstrom, seconded by Tangen, to adpot Resolution No. 81-173,
approving the preliminary plat of Autumn Woods, Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to instruct Staff to draft a
Developer's Agreement subject to the conditions contained in the various re-
ports of Staff members and Commissions. Motion carried unanimously,
B. SUNDQUIST ADDITION by Nils Sundquist. Request to rezone 20 acres from Rural to
RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 37 acres into a 13 acre outlot and 46 duplex lots
for duplexes (92 units.) Located in the southeast corner of Baker Road and
Valley View Road. (Ordinance No. 81-16 and Resolution No, 81-174)
City Manager Jullie said the proper notices had been sent and published in
the Eden Prairie News.
Lee Johnson, representing Nils Sundquist, spoke to the reason for the request,
outlining surrounding land uses, grading plans, road location, and access.
•
d�4A
City Council Minutes -4- September 1, 1981
Planning Director Enger stated this item had been reviewed by the Planning
Commission at its August 10, 1981, meeting at which time approval was recom-
mended subject to the recommendations contained in the August 7, 1981, Staff
Report per the Commission's additions/changes.
Director of Community Services Lambert indicated the Parks, Recreation &
Natural Resources Commission had discussed the request at its August 17, 1981,
meeting and had recommended approval as per the Staff Reports.
Penzel read a communication from James R. Dungan, 12771 Vina Lane, in which he
• Expressed concern that the units will be renter-occupied. (See attached.)
•
Bentley asked if there would be active development of the park site to the
south of this area. 'Lambert said there is none contemplated as the soil con-
ditions are bad.
Penzel questioned the rationale for proposing 21 units per acre. Johnson said a,
it was his feeling that the 21 units fits into the Guide Plan. The number of
structures turns out to be 1.2 per acre on a density basis.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing and
to give 1st Reading to Ordinance 81-16, request to rezone 20 acres from Rural
to RM 6.5. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Moved by Redpath, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 81-174,
approving the preliminary plat of Sundquist Addition. Motion carried unani-
mously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to draft the
Developer's Agreement including the recommendations contained in the Staff
Reports and those of the various Commissions and including the 100' road con-
nection to be paid for by Sundquist. Motion carried unanimously.
C. OVERLOOK PLACE by Hustad Development Corporation. Request to rezone approx-
imately 10 acres from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 30 duplex lots
and 9 single family lots. Located north of Pioneer Trail and East of Yorkshire
Point. (Ordinance No. 81-17 and Resolution No. 81-175)
City Manager Jullie said the proper notices had been published and sent to
surrounding residents.
Dick Putnam and Wally Hustad were present to discuss the request to rezone
the Overlook Place property.
Planning Director Enger said the Planning Commission had reviewed the request
at its August 10, 1981, and August 24, 1981, meetings; the original plan was
revised prior to the second meeting to meet objections Planning Commission
members had. The Planning Commission voted to approve the preliminary plat
and rezoning subject to the recommendations contained in the August 24, 1981,
Staff Report (the vote was 5-1.)
z
•I„ :: ,
City Council Minutes -5- September 1, 1981
Director of Community Services Lambert explained this has not been before
the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission because they have not
met since the Planning Commission finished with this item. The only concern
the Community Services Staff has is with the size of the totlot and its con-
figuration, neither of which has been discussed with the developer. Generally
speaking, totlots of less than an acre have proven to he a problem. Bentley
asked if there was any other place for a totlot. Lambert said the area slopes
steeply to Purgatory Creek. Bentley asked Putnam the same question to which
he responded there is a spot for a larger totlot, but the slope creates a pro-
• • blem with that.
Edstrom wondered why the plans for this piece of property have changed. Hustad
said the City at one time had rezoned the parcel for offices. While it was a
desirable office site for the Hustad Company, it was determined not to be as
desirable for others due to the surrounding residential area. In 1979 they had
a purchaser for this parcel who wished to build doubles. A plan very similar t,
that before the Council now was presented; this was passed by the Planning Com-
mission but denied by the Council because they wanted to see single family res-
idences built here. Hustad said they have been trying to sell this property
ever since for single family homes. The marketability of the property seems
to be only for doubles.
Stewart Loper, 9506 Woodridge Circle, said the main issue is that of transition: I
the transition between the single family low density residences in Creekwood an,
the high density single family residences in Yorkshire Point.
Larry Jensen, 9540 Yorkshire Lane, noted there are about 30 young kids in his
neighborhood now, and it would not be safe for them to venture down the slope
to a totlot and the creek. He also expressed concern about drainage problems
which might occur if single family homes were to be built along the eastern
edge of the property.
John Kelley, 9576 Yorkshire Lane, said Hustad had told him he was not going to
reduce the size of the totlot and he has. He also wondered why single family
homes are proposed on the eastern edge when Hustad has claimed single family
homes will not sell when duplex units are "in their backyards,"
Gary Radtke, 9564 Yorkshire Lane, said there will be twice as many people on
Overlook Place as there now are on Yorkshire Lane. At times Yorkshire Lane
is almost impassable due to on street parking. He wondered how many times Hus-
tad has to be told "no." Penzel said the same proposal can be made a year afte ,
it has been turned down by the Council.
Roland Peterson, 9507 Creekwood Drive, expressed concern about the totlot situ-
ation -- he would like to see a totlot which would serve the whole area. He
feels that high density housing is not a good transition betweeen the Creekwooc
and Yorkshire Lane areas, Director of Community Services Lambert addressed thn
parks issue stating Creekwood is served by a park off of Sunnybrook Road, He
said that this is not easily accessible to the Creekwood residents right now,
but as further development occurs, it will become more so,
1
City Council Minutes -6- September 1, 1981
Tom Myers, 9539 Creekwood Drive, questioned why the City had agreed to
duplexes when two years ago the Council did not approve a plan similar to
this. Planning Director Enger said two years ago City Staff had recomended
approval as did the Planning Commission. He said Staff has been consistent
in feeling duplexes were an appropriate use in the area, Myers also questioned
the road work in the area. City Engineer Dietz said Creek Knoll Road will be
improved pending Council action this evening -- a cul-de-sac will be built
at the present intersection of Creek Knoll Road and TH 169.
• Michael Blum, 9432 Creekwood Drive, asked how the City could justify putting
such high density housing next to single family residences. Penzel explained
this is not a City proposal, but that of a land owner; after going through var-
ious Commissions/Boards, the request comes before the Council. The Council can
then approve, deny, or refer back to a Commission the proposal. The proponent
can come back with the same proposal one year later. Putnam said many of the
issues under discussion this evening had been discussed when he appeared before
the Planning Commission.
Sue Schultz, 9395 Creekwood Drive, asked about the unit styles, Putnam said
there would be quite a bit of variety -- four floor plans using different
facades would be used,
Roland Peterson wondered about the height of the slope,
Edstrom asked for clarification regarding the change between the 1979 and the
proposed plan. Enger said the 1979 original request was for rezoning for 28
duplex units with lot sizes ranging from 6500 - 12,000 square fee. In 1979
that request was revised to a single family request for 29 single family lots.
The current request is for 30 duplex units on approximately 9.9 acres. This
is a part of a larger PUD, 26 acres in size, a portion of which has already
been conveyed to the City for park purposes.
Edstrom asked Hustad what the price of a single family lot here would be, Hust=
replied they had tried to sell them for $14,000 which was below market, The
price for a double lot would be slightly more than the going price of a single
family lot which is more than $20,000; however, the price would be half of that
because it is a double lot.
Tangen said some real concerns have been brought before the Council. He expres
sed concern with the fact this had not been before the Parks, Recreation & Nat- 1
ural Resources Commission.
MOTION: Tangen moved, Bentley seconded, to continue this item to the October
6, 1981, Council meeting. Motion was withdrawn after discussion relative to
the timing of the project,
Edstrom said he is sensitive to the transition question and would not like to
approve the project at this time, Penzel concurred, Redpath said he remember•e'
the comments residents of Creekwood had about Yorkshire when that was proposed.
He wondered if the people would like to see the area zoned for office as its
present use is. Penzel said a transition is not putting duplexes between
single family.
•
•
City Council Minutes -7- September 1, 1981
Bentley asked what is being considered when the question of density is discusses
-- number of people, units, buildings, or what? At one point 29 single family
homes were proposed and now the proposal is for 15 buildings or 30 units. Fewer
buildings does create the feeling of transition between areas. Penzel pointed
out that the total number of units on the entire property would be increased
by 33%. Putnam said a commitment had been made to the Creekwood residents --
the proponent had agreed to put in single family lots on the west side of Creek
• Knoll Road once that road was terminated with a cul-de-sac. These lots were
to be similar in nature to those in Creekwood, but could not be developed unless
' the fill from the area now proposed for duplex lots was used to make them build-
' able lots.
MOTION: Moved by Redpath, seconded by Tangen, to continue this item to the
September 15, 1981, Council Meeting pending resolution of the totlot issue.
Motion carried unanimously.
0. COR PUD AMENDMENT by Karl F. Peterson. Request for a revised PUD Concept
approval to utilize 4.21 acres for office use with variances for parking,
sideyard setback and a lot with no public road frontage. Located in
the southwest corner of Co. Rd. 4 and TH 5 behind Superamerica. (Resolution 1-
No. 81-176)
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue this item to the
October 6, 1981, Council meeting at the request of the proponent. Motion
carried unanimously,
E. CITY WEST by Richard W. Anderson, Request for PUD Concept for office and
• commercial upon 87 acres, rezoning of 26 acres from Rural to Office, prelimin-
ary plat approval with possible variances, and approval of an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet, Located east of Shady Oak Road and south of Crosstown
62. (Resolution No. 81-177 - PUO; Ordinance No. 81-18 - Rezoning; Resolution
No. 81-178 - Preliminary Plat; and Resolution No, 81-179 - EAW)
Redpath announced he would abstain from the discussion because his wife owns
property which would be affected by this proposal.
Peter Jarvis, BRW, was present to discuss the proposal. He said the request
to amend the Guide Plan had been denied by the Planning Commission at its August
17, 1981, meeting. Jarvis said Anderson would be willing to go through the pro-
cess once again if only the land use issue would be discussed.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to restrict discussion to Resolutic
No. 81-177, PUD Concept for office and commercial upon 87 acres. Motion carried
unanimously.
Redpath said he would join in the discussion since it was limited to the PUO
Concept.
•
0Lt cZ -r
City Council Minutes -8- September 1, 1981
Jarvis reviewed the location, physiography, slopes, vegetation, soils,
utilities, and access. He addressed the changes which would have to be made
in amending the Guide Plan; largely changing medium density residential to
office and regional commercial.
Larry Laukka, Laukka and Associates, spoke as a housing specialist. Laukka
stated most people would not elect this area as a housing/residential site.
He said there are better places to build housing.
' Planning Director Enger said the Planning Commission had reviewed this at its
• August 10, 1981, meeting. The Staff Report of August 6, 1981, addressed the
three requests (PUD, Rezoning, & Guide Plan Change.) The Commission voted
4-2 to uphold the Guide Plan and to deny the request as presented.
Director of Community Services Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission had recommended approval of City West as a concept at its 1
August 17, 1981, meeting.
Edstrom asked if any warehousing was planned in the development. Jarvis said 1
there was none. Edstrom wondered who owns the home which is adjacent to this
property. Anderson said Mr. Lazeretti from Champaign, Illinois, owns the home
which is used by a student fellowship group. Edstrom asked if Anderson has beer
working with Honeywell regarding the property they own to the north of the pro-
posed project. Anderson said they are planning 500-600,000 square feet of offic
and a parking ramp on 35 acres.
Bentley wondered about the construction of utilities adjacent to the site. City
Manager Jullie explained the sewer and water lines were constructed according tc !
overall plans for the area. Redpath asked if these trunks were of a size so
sewer and water would be available to Golden Ridge and Willow Creek. Jullie
said they would.
Penzel asked if there are any limitations as to the percentage of impervious
cover allowed in a given area. Enger said there are no limits; however the
building footprint is limited to 30% and no more than a 50% floor area ratio.
Penzel asked if structured parking would be preferable in this area. Enger
said that might be a solution to lessen the impervious surface.
Bentley questioned whether this type of project would be in competition with
the Major Center Area. He asked if the City West project referred to spec offi:
space or just what. Anderson said it would be pre-leased to large computer fir
-- there are four such firms which have expressed an interest in office space i-
this area. He said they are willing to put in a parking ramp, if the Council
wishes them to do so.
Penzel asked how traffic generation varies between the old Guide Plan and this
•
new proposal. Enger said the Guide Plan shows 8500 trips per day while the new
proposal shows 15,000.
•
•
City Council Minutes -9- September 1, 1981
Tangen asked if the heights of the buildings were of any concern to Staff.
Enger responded that Phase I buildings will be 2 - 8 stories in height; we
have the fire equipment to accommodate such buildings. The floor area ratio
is less than the Ordinance requires. Tangen asked if the visual aspects of
the building heights had been considered. Enger said that had been a consider-
ation, but of more concern was the view of a massive parking area by the resi-
dents to the west.
• Jarvis presented letters from: Carlson Companies Inc. regarding a management
contract for a hotel, Lee Data Corporation regarding the need for a hotel,
and Morning Star, Inc. supporting the proposed development of office and hotel
• • facilities. Penzel noted a letter had been received from James R. Dungan in
opposition to the proposed project. These letters are attached to the minutes.
Redpath asked what the grading plans were for the area. Jarvis said there woulc
be grading, but the overall rolling character of the area will be maintained.
Penzel called attention to a letter from John H. Herman whose law firm has
been retained by the Greater Bryant Lake Neighborhood Association, the letter
will be made a part of the record.
Phyllis Redpath, owner of property at 6609 Golden Ridge Drive, asked why sewer
water had been put in when rezoning had not been requested. Jullie said since
the project was consistent with plans for the City and because the developer was }
paying for it, the request for sewer and water was not unreasonable. Mrs. Red-
path expressed concern about the roads which had been built without the knowled.
and permission of the City. City Attorney Pauly said the Land Alteration Ordin-
ance requires a permit if the landowner is intending to alter the land to the 1
extent of filling or excavating 1' or a 10% change in the natural features in
the total area. It was determined that there was no violation of City Ordinance
in this case. The Watershed District has restrained the owner; the matter was
resolved to the satisfaction of the Watershed District.
Warren Gerecke, 6622 Golden Ridge Drive, submitted petitions singned by area
residents supporting the action of the Planning Commission. These petitions
are attached to the minutes.
John Herman, attorney for the Greater Bryant Lake Neighborhood Association,
expressed concern about the effect development will have on the area to the
west. Another concern is that the regional commercial area as proposed will
compete with the Major Center Area. Herman is concerned with the state of re-
view of the project and the fact the landowner has gone ahead on various phases
of the project without the necessary authorization/review/permits. He foresees
the need for a full environmental impact statement review.
Edstrom asked the Planning Director what he forsees in the area north of Bryant
Lake and west of the proposed area. Enger does not foresee office buildings in
the area; but perhaps medium density residential might be built. Bentley asked
if Enger thought multiple density housing would be built in that area even if
City West were not to be built. Enger replied he thought so.
•
City Council Minutes -10- September 1, 1981
Tangen asked Anderson about the billboards on the property which have been
advertising the development long before City West has come before the Council
-- had the City ever been informed as to the magnitude of the project? Ander-
son said he has been involved with this property for a year and a half and dur-
ing that time he has spoken with City officials about once a month -- more sinc.
BRW became involved in the project in February. Advertising has not been dis-
cussed with City officials.
• Penzel asked Pauly his view on the environmental reviews referred to in Her-
• man's letter. Pauly said he would prefer to review the questions posed in
the letter before commenting. Pauly did say it was his feeling that procedur-
• ally PUD Concept should be followed by modification of the Guide Plan and then
consideration of the environmental impact statement would follow. The current
planning act is rather specific as to amending the Guidc Plan.
Alfred Harrison, 6941 Beach Road, submitted a petition from residents of
Beach Road opposing the proposal. He would like to see the Council look at
this proposal as it affects the totality of the area.
John Wilkie, 7221 Willow Creek Road, submitted a petition from the residents
of Willow Creek Road requesting the Council to deny the proposal.
•
Ken Biersdorf, speaker for the Uherkas of 6301 Shady Dak Road, said the Uherkas
are not opposed to the development. They do not feel that westward movement
of office development would go beyond Old Shady Oak Road. •
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to continue this item to the
September 15, 1981, meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
a
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Bentley, to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
F. Re uest for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of
2, 00,000.00 for ITT (Schadow) Project. (Resolution No. 81-182)
Robert Inglis, General Manager of ITT Schadow, spoke to the request. Also
present to answer questions was Larry McGinnis. 9
Questions centered on the depreciation schedule and the fact that the major
dollar amount of the bonds is for the purchase of equipment.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and
to adopt Resolution No. 81-182, approving in principle the financing of a
proposed industrial project for ITT. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 8091 - 8273
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve Payment of Claims Nos.
B091 - 8273. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom, Redpath, Tangen, and Penzel
voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -11- September 1, 1981
VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
A. Human Rights & Services Commission - Study of human service needs in
South Hennepin.
Duane Pidcock, Chairman of the Human Rights and Services Commission,
presented the goals and objectives of the Community Based Service Board
to the Council which the Council had requested at the Joint Meeting on
• July 27, 1981.
•
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the goals and
objectives as outlined. Motion carried unanimously.
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Weis Development Corporation for an additional 12-month
extension on the Masters Condominiums project
Mr. Weis, Rochester, Minnesota, was represented by Linnea Nye of the
Eberhardt Company. She explained construction financing is very hard
to find at this time. A six-month extension would not help them at all. {{�
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to grant a 9-month extension
to Weis Development Corporation for the Masters Consominiums project. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY. Review of the Smetana Lake Traffic Study pre-
pared for the City of Eden Prairie by Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvic,
Gardner, Inc.
Dick Wolsfeld of BRW reviewed the Smetana Lake Traffic Study and went over each
system alternate. The object of the Study was to assess what traffic impact
ultimate development would have and what kind of road system would be necessar:. -
to serve the area. The area included in the Study was that bounded by County
Road 18, I-494, TH 169/212,
Bentley asked if a Washington Avenue bridge over 494 was a possibility from
a financial standpoint. Wolsfeld felt a bridge would be considerably easier
to get than an interchange at 1B.
Bill Pearson, 8680 W. 158th Street, Prior Lake and owner of property at 7600
Washington Avenue, spoke in opposition to a frontage road along 494. He would
like to see a road along 76th Street to Valley View Road. He thinks the 100'
road width is too wide. He is in favor of a bridge at Washington Avenue over
494.
Herleiv Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, stated he feels a folded diamond inter-
change at Schooner Boulevard and I-494 would be a good idea.
C1'0 n.
City Council Minutes -12- September 1, 1981
Haakon Torjesen, 6605 Rowland Road, and a member of the Planning Commission
expressed concern that a bridge over 494 at Washington Avenue would only pro-
vide for access to the east. Little has been done under this Study to provide
access or egress to the west/north.
Pat Kostecka, 10805 Valley View Road, was concerned about how the costs would
be assessed should Valley View Road be upgraded to serve the Study area and not
because the residents in the area desire it to be upgraded.
•
• Frank Smetana, Sr., 7680 Smetana Lane, concurs with the findings in the Study.
City Manager Jullie agrees with the recommendations contained in the Study and
feel it will provide a useful guide for potential development.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to accept the recommendations
of the consultant contained in the Smetana Lake Traffic Study. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to continue the meeting beyond the pre-
viously designated time of 12:30 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
Edstrom - 1. Hennepin County Solid Waste - The Solid Waste Commission would
like to know if Eden Prairie would be interested in being a part of a demon-
stration services project. Staff will look into this. 2. Metropolitan Housinc +
Conference - will be held on September 16, 1981, in Brooklyn Park. 3. DNR
Action Regarding Flying Cloud Airport - the DNR is making some changesinn
airport regulations; Edstrom wished to call the Council's attention to this
action and refer it to Staff.
Bentley - inquired as to what action had been taken on the Barge Traffic Study.
Planning Director Enger stated a hearing will be held in the near future and
someone from Staff will attend.
Task Force - At the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission, Development
Commission, and City Council earlier this evening, the formation of a Task •
Force was discussed. The Council will communicate with all of the Commissions
(Human Rights and Services, Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources, Planning,
and Development) asking them to appoint 1 or 2 representatives to the Housing
Task Force. Interested citizens will be asked to join this Task Force through
announcements in the Eden Prairie News and Happenings. Bentley and Redpath s'
volunteered to be members of the Task Force. The remaining members will be
appointed at the October 20, 1981, meeting of the Council.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to direct Staff to assist in
forming the Housing Task Force and to develop a formal charge for the Task
Force. Motion carried unanimously.
1
City Council Minutes -13- September 1, 1981
B. Report of City Attorney
{ The purchase of the Moore House was closed today,
C. Report of City Manager
1. Receipt of 1981-82 City Budget
City Manager Jullie presented the Budget for the coming year to the
Council and noted that it calls for less than a one mill increase in
City expenditures. Assessed valuations show a substantial increase.
Jullie said the Budget is the product of much hard work on the part of
Department Heads and John Frane.
D. Report of Director of Community Services
1. FOXJET Swim Team Proposal
Lambert spoke to the Swim Club proposal as outlined in his memorandum
of August 13, 1981, to the Council.
Gary Gandrud, FOXJET Board member, answered questions Council members
had regarding the proposal. He introduced members of the FOXJET Board
who were in the audience.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the FOXJET Swim
Club proposal. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Riley Lake Citizens' Meeting
Lambert explained he had met with Mrs. Jakes and Mr, Hendrickson and
City Manager Jullie regarding the realignment of Riley Lake Road. He
is confident that their questions were sufficiently answered, but they
might still like to express their opinions to the Council at a future
meeting.
3. Vikings
Concern had recently been expressed to Councilmen Redpath and Edstrom
by Mike Lynn and Max Winter of the Vikings organization about the dead
elm trees on property bordering their property. Lambert explained the
trees present an eyesore but are so dead they do not create a disease
problem. Staff was directed to assist the Vikings in rectifying the
problem,
E. Report of City Engineer
1, Resolution approving plans and specificiations for the improvement of the
7-494/CSAH 18 interchange, State Project No. 2785-109, f07. (Resolution
No. 81-166) (continued from 8/18/81)
A
6 4a cti.
City Council Minutes -14- September 1, 1981
Bentley expressed concern about the westbound traffic on Townline
Avenue where it intersects with West 78th Street. Enger said the
merge ramp at this point had been put into the plan at the City's
request.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No.
81-166, approving plans and special provisions for State Project 2785-190,
• • 207 (494-393); Federal Project I-IG-F 494-4 (139) 234; 1494 at CSAH 18.
• And to request MnDOT to assist in design and funding of a grade separated
crossing of I494 along the approximate alignment of Washington Avenue to
replace access removed by the proposed one way frontage road. Motion
• • carried unanimously.
2. Consider resolution rescinding Resolution No. 352, restricting home
construction until public improvements are constructed - Nicholson
property on Valley Road. (Resolution No. 81-167) - continued from 8/18/81
• City Engineer Dietz referred the Council to his memorandum of August
27, 1981.
Edstrom inquired as to the cost of sewer and water per lot. Dietz said
at this time the costs are not feasible on a cost/benefit ratio.
Edstrom said he realizes an inequity has been created but feels by
correcting the inequity a more serious problem will be creat'l. Penzel
felt it would be perceived as victimizing the property owner, if this
( were not rescinded, because the property has been taxed as buildable land
for a number of years.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Penzel, to adopt Resolution No.
81-167, rescinding Resolution No. 352. Motion carried with Edstrom voting •
"no."
3. Protected left turn lanes vs. right turn lane/bypass lane
City Engineer Dietz called attention to his memo of August 27, 1981,
in which he addressed the problem.
Edstrom noted that a serious problem exists with a protected left turn
lane on TH169 and Country Road 4.
4. Water Tower Colors
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to paint the water tower
under construction near Highway 101 "oyster shell." Motion carried •
unanimously.
��5�� Ltd
•
City Council Minutes -15- September 1, 1981
IX. NEW BUSINESS
( There was none.
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Redpath, seconded by Edstrom, to adjourn the meeting at
1:34 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.
is
{
•
•
{
• CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
•
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
September 15, 1981
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.)
J. R. Jones Fixture Co.
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY)
Scottom, Inc.
Al Sieben Construction
HEATING& VENTILATING
General Sheet Metal
McQuire Mechanical Services, Inc.
CIGARETTE & TOBACCO
Warehouse Deli
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible
for the lice Sed activity.
at S Polie, Licensing Clerk
2.0g3
•
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 81-10
•
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 79-43 WHICH PROVIDES
REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES AND WHICH
AUTHORIZES THE DESIGNATION OF AREAS WHERE PARKING IS PRO-
HIBITED AND THE ORDERING AND PLACING OF SIGNS RELATIVE
• THERETO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 2, Subdivision 1 of Ordinance 179-43 is amended
by adding subdivision (j) as follows: •
"(j) In any area prohibited by the City Council, including
(i) On CSAH 1 on both sides of the roadway from
250' east of the centerline of Mitchell Road
to 1,300 feet west of the centerline of
Mitchell Road."
'Section 2. Section 3 of Ordinance .79-43 is amended to read
as follows:
"Section 3. No Parking Signs. Whenever the owner or
person who is in lawful possession of property is required
by ordinance, by the conditions precedent or applicable to
the issuance of a use or occupancy permit, or by order of
the Fire Chief, Director of Public Safety, or Bureau of Fire
Prevention, to maintain driveways, access lanes, or other
areas unobstructed by parked or stopped vehicles for the •
•
•
purpose of insuring access or egress for police, fire and
emergency vehicles, the owner or person in lawful possession
of such property shall place or cause to be placed a sign •
or signs and yellow paint curbing as follows:
(1) A sign or signs shall be placed at appropriate
locations, within 30 days after notification,
under the supervision of the Fire Chief, Director
of Public Safety, or Bureau of Fire Prevention.
(2) Any such sign shall be placed in such a position
• that it is visible to anyone attempting to use
the way, lane or area for parking, and shall
•
200
•
•
•
state: "No Parking Fire Lane - By Order of
(name of authorized person issuing order)".
(3) Any such sign shall be permanent and nonportable,
except when a temporary sign is approved by
written order of the Fire Chief, Director of
Public Safety, or Bureau of Fire Prevention.
Such sign shall be no smaller than 12 inches '
and.shall be white with red lettering that is
• at least two inches high. No signs designating
• •
a fire lane area shall be more than 50 feet apart.
• (4) At the entrance to a business or an establishment
where any such sign has been placed as set forth
in this section, exception may be made for persons
who discharge passengers from their vehicles at
such an entrance.
•
•
(5) All curbing which borders on or is adjacent to
any such way, lane or area shall be painted
yellow at least once a year as directed by the
Fire Chief, Director of Public Safety, or Fire
Inspector."
Section 3. Section 4 of Ordinance #79-43 is amended by adding:
"Any vehicle parked in violation of this ordinance
( shall be subject to tow at the owner's expense."
First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of Eden Prairie
this day of , 1981, and finally read and adopted
and ordered published at a regular meeting of said City Council on the
day of , 1981.
• • Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
•
John D. Franc, City Clerk
Published in the' Eden Prairie News on the day of
1981.
21. September 15, 1981
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA •
RESOLUTION NO. R81-192 •
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID
I.C. 52-001
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following
improvements:
I.C. 52-001, Sanitary sewer, watermain, storm
sewer and street improvements for Bennett Place,
south of Co. Road 1
bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received
are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of contract to
Richard Knutson, Inc.
as the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council
as follows:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed ..
to enter into a contract with Richard Knutson, Inc.
in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of
$118,287.40 in accordance with the plans and
specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file
in the office of the City Engineer.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
Jnhn D. Franc, City Clerk
2(AG
MEMO
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
.FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
DATE: September 10, 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of construction bids for Improvement Contract
52-002, involving utility and street improvements
on Bennett Place south of County Road No. 1.
Sealed bids were received at 10:00 A.M. on Thursday, September 10, 1981,
for the above referenced improvements. Eleven bids were received and tabulated
as follows:
BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL BID AMOUNT
Richard Knutson 5% $118,287.40
Thomas Montgomery 122,775.60
0 & P Contr. " 127,309.90
Kirkwold Constr. 132,677.93
Brown & Cris 136,041.60
Nodland Assoc. 136,646.30
Hennen Const. 160,358.30
Orfei & Sons 161;840:31 172,249.75
Northdale Cons. Co., Inc. 177,135.70
Parrott Const., Inc. 184,199.50
G & L Contracting
Engineer's Estimate $140,200.00
The low bid is approximately 16% below our estimate.
The #3 and #9 bidders submitted irregular bids by not using the amended
bid form. All other bidders used the correct form. I have reviewed these
two bids and find that the proper bid form would not alter the low and
second low bid. Therefore, I recommend that Contract 52-002 be awarded
to Richard Knutson, Inc., in the amount of $118,267.40.
EAD:kh
.7.oq7
CITY OF EVEN PRAIRIE September 11, 1981
HENNE.PIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION
NO. R81-194
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie as lessor has entered
into a Lease with Physical Electronics Industries, Inc. as tenant
dated March 1, 1974 in connection with the $980,000.00 Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds Physical Electronics Industries, Inc.
Series 1974 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota financing; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie desires to establish an
easement for utility purposes over, under and across a part of
j
the leased premises described in the attached Exhibit A; and
k
WHEREAS, the tenant's representative has provided written
certification that the easement is necessary or desirable to I
provide utility service for the project and will not impair the
usefulness of the project for the purposes contemplated in the
}
Lease; and 1
WHEREAS, the Lease contemplates the execution of a Supple-
ment to the Lease as called for in Section 8.02 of the Lease; and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to this council a copy of
the Supplement to the Lease, which copy is now on file in the
office of the Clerk; 1
NOW, THEREFORE, on execution of the Supplement to the Lease
by the tenant, the Mayor and City Manager shall execute the same
(in substantially the form as is on file with the Clerk) and such
other certifications, documents or instruments as shall be required
on behalf of the City, subject to approval of the City Attorney.
All certifications, recitals and representations therein shall
constitute the certifications, recitals and representations of the
2 QA
Page -2-
City. Execution of any instrument or document by one or more
appropriate officers of the City shall constitute and be deemed
the conclusive evidence of the approval and authorization by the
City and the council of the instrument or document so executed.
• .Adopted, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, this day
of , 198___
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
John D. Franc, Clerk
•
•
aau9
•
f61XI 600-0766
•
LAW O P C I C C■
LAND, PAULY & GREOERHON, LTD.
4100 100 CENTER
MINNCAPOUO,MINNCOOTA 65402
ROOC.RT I.'RNLI
RORC.R A. PAIILY
OAVIO'N. I,R[uCRBON
R.THOMAU tirlrcuc.JR.
RICHAIIO C. ROUOW •
LAW/V./CC J.BAOOLUNO
• September 3, 1981
•
•
Mr. Gene Dietz I
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Utility Easement - Physical Electronics
Dear Mr. Dietz:
Enclosed please find for execution by the City a supplement
to the lease between the City of Eden Prairie and Physical
Electronics Industries, Inc. and a resolution authorizing the
execution of the documents by the City. The City had previously
requested an easement from Physical Electronics for utility
purposes, but since the property is the subject of an industrial
revenue bond financing and is currently owned by the City, a
supplemental lease is required. Please have the resolution
placed on the next City Council agenda and thereafter return
to me two fully executed copies of the supplemental lease.
Please ask the mayor and city manager to initial the changes
made to the agreement on page one. The tenant, Perkin-Elmer
Corporation held an to these documents for almost a year and
accordingly these changes on the first page were initialed rather
than submitting a new agreement.
If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
LANG, P Y & GREGERSON, f .
RFR:flc BY: .1
Enclosures i lar• P. R sow
Zoo
•
CERTIFICATE
I, John D. Franc, City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota (the City) hereby certify that the attached is a true
and correct copy of Resolution No. adopted by the City Council
at a meeting duly called and held on August , 1981.
Witness my hand and the official seal of this City this
day of , 1981
John D. Frane, City Clerk
(SEAL)
2GS1
•
DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
•
•
•
An easement for utility purposes over, under and across that part
of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 1,
Township 116, Range 22,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of Flying Cloud
Drive (formerly Trunk Highway No. 169) said easement lying ��
and 5.00efeetu each Jsideterlyofof the efollowing gdescribedd line e"BA.
LINE "A"
Commencing at the intersection of the East line of said SW 1/4
of the NE 1/4 and the southeasterly right of way line of Flying
Cloud Drive; thence S 68° 50' 01" W, on an assumed bearing
along the southeasterly right of way line of Flying Cloud
Drive, a distance of 472.00 feet to the point of beginning
of Line "A"; thence N 68° 50' 01" E along said southeasterly
right of way line, a distance of 407.00 feet and there
terminating. •
LINE "B"
Beginning at the termination of the above described Line "A";
thence S 46° 39' 59" E, a distance of 80 feet more or less to
the East line of said SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and there terminating.
•
•
•
•
EXHIBIT "A"
•
2USz
•
•
SUPPLEMENT TO LEASE BETWEEN
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AND
PHYSICAL ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES, INC.
AS TENANT DATED MARCH 1, 1974
` r
DATED AUGUST I?, 198w
•
•
This Supplement to Lease between City Of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
• and Physical Electronics Industries, Inc. as Tennant dated March 1,
1974, made this /q day of ilu9JS i" , 1984 by and between the City of
Eden Prairie, Minnesota and The Perkin-Elmer Corporation.•
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota and Physical
•
Electronics Industries, Inc. entered into a Lease dated March 1, 1974;
•
and J_.
WHEREAS on July 29, 1977 pursuant to the terms and conditions of
an Agreement of Merger dated as of June 16, 1977 (the "Merger Agreement")
between P.K.N. Corporation ("P.K.N.") a wholly-owned subsidiary of The
Perkin-Elmer Corporation ("Perkin-Elmor") and Physical Electronics
Industries, Inc. ("PHI"), P.K.N. was merged into PiHI ("the merger") and
PHI became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Perkin-Elmer; and
WHEREAS on July 30, 1978 PHI was dissolved and merged into and
became an operating division of Perkin-Elmer; and
WHEREAS the City desires to establish an easement for utility
purposes over, under and across a certain part of the leased premises
described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS neither the City nor the Tenant is now in default under
the Lease or the Mortgage and Indenture of Trust.•
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the provisions and covenants
contained herein, the City and Perkin-Elmer hereby agree as follows:
1. The City may establish an easement for utility purposes over,
under and across that part of the leased premises described
in Exhibit A hereto.
2. The City and Perkin-Elmer agree to execute all documents
necessary to release the land covered by said easement from
• the lien of the Mortgage and Indenture of Trust between the
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota and Northwestern National
Bank of Minneapolis, Trustee, dated March 1, 1974.
( 3. At such time, if any, as Perkin-Elmer exercises the option
to purchase the project pursuant to Section 8.07 of the
Lease, the title to be conveyed by the City shall, in addi-
tion to the items set forth in Section 8.07(4), be subject
to an easement in favor of the City as described in Exhibit A.
4. This supplement may be simultaneously executed in several
.counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of
which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
• IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Perkin-Elmer have caused this
• supplement to be executed in their respective corporate names and
attested by their duly authorized officers, all as of the date first
above-written.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
.
By
H. Penzel, Mayor
By
City Manager
•
THE PERKIN-ELMER CORPORATION
Dr. Roland Weber, Vice-President
•
_2-
2094
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OFy,vI
74
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .26
day of ��` ��% ; 1980, by Dr. Poland Weber, Vice-President of
• the corporaftion named herein, a New York corporation, on behalf of
• the corporation.
FItALL“, l• }(n e.
\ 111;rrirf:ta tJ.:atA �i� a,
F@h riNC u NWraa' Notary Public
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF •
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this !
day of , 1981, by Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor and Carl. !�
Jullie, City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, the municipal cor-
f `1 poration named herein, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf
of the municipal corporation.
Notary Public
DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
•
An easement for utility purposes over, under and across that part
of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 116, Range 22,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of Flying Cloud
• Drive (formerly Trunk Highway No. 169) said casement lying
10.00 feet southeasterly of the following described line 'A"
and 5.00 feet each side of the following described line "B".
LINE "A"
1 Commencing at the intersection of the East line of said SW 1/4
of the NE 1/4 and the southeasterly right of way line of Flying
Cloud Drive; thence S 68° 50' 01" W, on an assumed bearing I _ -
along the southeasterly right of way line of Flying Cloud
Drive, a distance of 472.00 feet to the point of beginning
of Line "A"; thence N 68° 50' 01" E along said southeasterly
right of way line, a distance of 407.00 feet and there
terminating.
•
LINE "B" 1
v.
Beginning at the termination of the above described Line "Al..;
thence S 46° 39' 59" E, a distance of 80 feet more or less to
the East line of said SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and there terminating.
•
EXHIBIT A
• ZUS6O
•
CONSENT AND RELEASE
The undersigned, a corporation under the laws of the State of
New York, successor to the lesee under a Lease hereinafter described,
for a valuable consideration, does hereby consent to the establishment
' • of the easement described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and does forever
• discharge and release the above-described easement from all claims and
liens of and under the Lease dated March 1, 1974, executed by City of
Eden Prairie, as .lessor, to Physical Electronics Industries, Inc., as
• .lessee, filed in the Office of the County Recorder in and for the County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, on the llth day of March, 1974, and
recorded in Book of , Page , as Document No. 4070692,
• covering the above and other land.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said corporation has caused these
presents to be executed in its corporate nq by its Vice-President
this Iq day of Avyvst , 198/7z1")
• i
•
1
THE PERKIN-ELMER CORPORATION
By s'CZej
Dr. Roland Weber, Its Vice-President
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS:
• COUNTY Oui :�✓
//
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Q
day of , 1980, by Dr. Roland Weber, the Vice-President
•
of the cor ration named herein, a New York corporation, on behalf
•
of the corporation.
►ArwaM«« Notary Public
ELLA E.KASPER
• • �N1 NOTAAT PIS:WC•IAINNCSOTA
L
,Y:'I HENNEPIN COUNTY
•
�) NT WMn+r.An GIPIM Mn a Ixs
2057 .
•
DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
•
•
An easement for utility purposes over, under and across that part
of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 116, Range 22,
liennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of Flying Cloud
Drive (formerly Trunk Highway No. 169) said easement lying
10.00 feet southeasterly of the following described line 'A"
and 5.00 feet each side of the following described line "B".
• LINE "A"
•
Commencing at the intersection of the East line of said SW 1/4
of the NE 1/4 and the southeasterly right of way line of Flying
Cloud Drive; thence S 68° 50' 01" W, on an assumed bearing
along the southeasterly right.of way line of Flying Cloud
Drive, a distance of 472.00 feet to the point of beginning
of Line "A"; thence N 68° 50' 01" E along said southeasterly
right of way line, a distance of 407.00 feet and there
( terminating,
•
LINE "B"
Beginning at the termination of the above described Line "A";
thence S 46° 39' 59" E, a distance of 80 feet more or less to
the East line of said SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and there terminating.
•
•
•
2O EXHIBIT A
•
CERTIFICATE OF TENANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
The Perkin-Elmer Corporation, hereby certifies that the easement
proposed to be established by the City of Eden Prairie over the leased
premises is necessary and desirable to provide utility services for the
project and will not impair the usefulness of the project for the pur-
poses contemplated in the Lease dated May 1, 1974 by and between the
• City 4f Eden Prairie, Minnesota and Physical Electronics Industries,
Inc. as Tenant.
• Tena�Representative
1
•
20S9
•
• i
MEMORANDUM
•
TO; Mayor and City Council
THRU: Robert A. Lambert, Director of Community Services
•
FROM: Stephen Calhoon, Park Planner
DATE: September 9, 1981
SUBJECT: Softball Backstop Bids
On Tuesday, September 8, 1981, staff received, opened and publicly read
bids for 8 softball backstops. The backstops are to be installed at
Round Lake Park (4), Lake Eden Park (2), Hidden Ponds Park (1) and
Creekwood Park (1).. These backstops are to be completed on or before
October 15, 1981. Funding for these backstops is derived from the 1979
Park Bond Referendum.
Bids received are as follows:
Tennis West Ltd. $6,975.00
Century Fence Co. 7,984.00
Crowley Fence Co. 8,773.00
E. F. Anderson & Associates 10,800.00
Lynx Fencing Inc. 11,720.00
Staff recommends the contract be awarded to Tennis West. Ltd in the amount of
$6,975.
SC:md
•
•
•
2U6:0
FIRST DRAFT - O'CONNOR & HANNAN
September 2, 1981
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 81-190
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AND DESIGNATING DEVELOP-
' MENT DISTRICT NO. 1 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 472A.01 TO 472A.13,
INCLUSIVE, AS AMENDED, AND MINNESOTA STATUTES,
• SECTIONS 273.71 TO 273.78, INCLUSIVE, AS AMENDED,
AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 PUR-
SUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES,
SECTIONS 273.71 TO 273.78, INCLUSIVE, AS AMENDED
AND ADOPTING AND APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
AND FINANCE PLAN FOR SAID DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND
TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of
the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City"), as fol-
lows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. It has been proposed that the City establish a
development district within the corporate limits of the City
and approve a tax increment financing district and a tax in-
crement financing plan with respect thereto, all pursuant to
and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A, as
amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78,
inclusive, as amended. The proposed development district
has been designated as Development District No. 1 (the "De-
velopment District").
1.02. This Council has caused to be prepared, and has
investigated the facts with respect thereto, a proposed
Development Plan and Program for the Development District
(the "Development Plan") , defining more precisely the prop-
erty to be included in the Development District and de-
scribing the action to be undertaken by the City to aid the
development of the Development District, and has caused to
be prepared, and has investigated the facts with respect
thereto, a proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan (the
"Financing Plan"), defining more precisely the property to
be included in the tax increment financing district (the
"Tax Increment District") and other matters relating
thereto.
s
. g
e
8
, : :. 2061
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by
law to be performed prior to the establishment of the De-
velopment District, the Tax Increment District and the adop-
tion of the Development Plan and the Financing Plan relating
thereto, including, but not limited to, consultations with
Hennepin County and the School Districts having taxing
jurisdiction over the property proposed to be included in
the Tax Increment District, a review of the proposed De-
••• • velopment District and Tax Increment District and the De-
velopment Plan and Financing Plan by the City Planning Com-
mission and the holding of a public hearing upon published
• and mailed notice as required by law.
1.04. The Council hereby determines that it is neces-
sary and in the best interests of the City at this time to
establish the Development District and the Tax Increment
District and to adopt and approve the Development Plan and
the Financing Plan relating thereto.
Section 2. Findings and Establishment of Development
District
2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares
that the Development District constitutes a "development
district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 472A.02,
Subdivision 11, and, therefore, constitutes a "project," as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision
8.
2.02. The Council further finds, determines and de-
clares that the establishment of the Development District
and the financing of the Development Plan by the City pur-
suant to the Financing Plan is intended and, in the judgment ,
of this Council, its effect will be, to provide an impetus
for commercial development, increase employment and other-
wise promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain
objectives specified in the Development Plan, Minnesota
Statutes, Section 472A.01, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections
273.71 to 273.78, inclusive, as amended.
2.03. Under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
472A, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to
273.78, inclusive, as amended, Development District No. 1 is
hereby established, designated and numbered in and for the
City. The property included in the Development District
shall be the property described in the Development Plan for
the Development District approved in Section 4 hereof.
- 2 -
• 2GG2
Section 3. Findings and Establishment of Tax Increment
District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares
that the Tax Increment District constitutes a "tax increment
financing district", as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sec-
tion 273.73, Subdivision 9, and further constitutes an
"economic development district", as defined in Minnesota
• Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 12.
3.02. The Council further finds, declares and deter-
• •mines that the Tax Increment District does not meet the
requirements found in the definition of redevelopment dis-
trict or housing district, as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.73, Subdivisions 10 and 11, respectively, but is
in the public interest because:
(a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manu-
facturing from moving their operations to another state;
(b) It will result in increased employment in the
City;
(c) It will result in the preservation and en-
hancement of the tax base of the City.
3.03. The Council further finds, determines and de-
clares that the proposed development, in the opinion of the
Council, would not occur solely through private investment
within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the
use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary; that the
Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the develop-
ment of the City as a whole; and that the Financing Plan
will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Tax
Increment District by private enterprise.
3.04. The Council further finds, determines and de-
clares that the establishment of the Tax Increment District
and the adoption and approval of the Development Plan and
the Financing Plan by the City is intended and, in the judg-
ment of this Council, its effect will be, to promote the
purposes and objectives specified in this Section 3 and
otherwise promote certain public purposes and accomplish
certain objectives specified in the Development Plan, the
Financing Plan, Minnesota Statutes, Section 472A.01, and
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78, inclusive, as
amended.
3.05. Under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sec-
tions 273.71 to 273.78, inclusive, as amended, Tax Increment
District No. 1 is hereby established and approved in and for
- 3 -
zU63
the City. The property included in the Tax Increment Dis-
trict No. 1 shall be the property described in the Financing
Plan for the Tax Increment District approved in Section 4
hereof.
Section 4. Adoption of Development Plan and Financing
Plan.
4.01. The Development Plan for the Development District
and the Financing Plan related thereto, presented to the
. Council on this date, is hereby approved and adopted and
.shall be. placed on file in the office of the City Clerk.
The Development Plan and the Financing Plan are in the form
attached as Exhibit A hereto, and hereby made a part hereof,
entitled "Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment Fin-
ancing Plan for Economic Development District, City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, September 15, 1981."
Section 5. Implementation of Development Plan and Fin-
ancing Plan.
5.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial
advisor and underwriter therefor, and the City's legal coun-
sel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed
with the implementation of the Development Plan and Financ-
ing Plan and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare
and present to this Council for its consideration all fur-
ther plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary
for this purpose.
Section 6. Certification of Assessed Value.
6.01. The Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County,
acting as County Auditor of Hennepin County, are hereby
requested to certify the original assessed value of all real
property within the applicable parcels of the Tax Increment
District, as described in the Financing Plan as of January
2, 1980, and each year hereafter to certify the amount by
which the assessed value has increased or decreased from the
assessed value of January 2, 1980, and also to certify the
proportion which any such increase or decrease bears to the
total assessed value for the real property in the Tax Incre-
ment Districts for that year and also to remit to the City
of Eden Prairie each year, commencing on the date indicated
in the Financing Plan for the Tax Increment District, that
proportion of all taxes paid that year on real property in
- 4 -
2O
•
•
•
ter_
•
the Tax Increment District which the captured assessed value
bears to the total current assessed value, all pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76.
•
•
• • Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
•
I-
I r
- 5 -
2 c5
•
•
September 10, 1981
Eden Prairie City Council
' City Hall •
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Rezoning request for Overlook Place
Ordinance #81-17
Resolution #81-175
Gentlemen:
We take this opportunity to correct the record
and to address certain issues raised at the September 1,
1981 City Council hearing on the above-captioned matter.
First, we neglected to request that our letter of
August 27, 1981 be spread upon the record of the public
hearing before the City Council. We regret that oversight
and request that said letter be made a part of the official
proceedings, as it expresses the opinion of the residents of
Creekwood whose names were appended to that letter.
From time to time throughout the hearing procedure,
both before the City Council and the Planning Commission,
the Hustad Development Corporation in the persons of Mr. Hustad
and Mr. Putnam alleged that the opposition of Creekwood
residents prompted Hustad Development to deviate from the
plat and development of Overlook Place as proposed at the time
Yorkshire Point was submitted for plat approval. Hustad would
have the council believe that the proposal for duplex develop-
ment currently under consideration is a direct result of
Creekwood residents objection to the proposals made concerning
the development of Overlook Place at the time Yorkshire Point
was platted. We think the record is clear that at the time
Yorkshire Point was platted, Hustad represented that Overlook
Place would be developed as a transition, in terms of structures,
lot sizes, and population density between Yorkshire Point and
Creekwood. A review of the record reveals that Creekwood
residents did not object to the proposed Yorkshire Point, nor
did they complain at the hearings in 1977 of proposed develop-
ment of land now encompassing Overlook Place.
9 Ain S f,
•
L4
•
Eden Prairie City Council
September 10, 1981
Page 2
From the hearing on September 1, it is clear
that the city planner insists on including the area of
land previously conveyed to the City of Eden Prairie through
which Purgatory creek runs in calculating the population
density in the proposed Overlook Place. We feel it is
inappropriate to consider that piece of land in considering
. the population density inasmuch as that land is not part of
this plat; it is in the flood plain of Purgatory Creek and
subject to control by the watershed district; and the land
is unbuildable. In addition, Mr. Lambert has expressed the
opinion on numerous occassions that the area is not suited
for park development or improvement, and it is virtually
unusable by the residents of Yorkshire Point and Creekwood
as a recreational area. It should not, therefore, be
considered in figuring population density of Overlook Place.
At the September 1, 1981 meeting, Councilman
Redpath commented that he saw no transition difficulty
with the proposed Overlook Place development and sited
duplex housing situated among single family units in the •
Dewey Hill area of Edina. Of course, the residents of
Creekwood would have substantially fewer objections to
the proposed plat in terms of transition and density if the
plat contemplated the mixture of single family and duplex
lots on lot sizes which meet Edina's minimum square foot
requirements.
Councilman Tangen suggested that it would be
prudent to approve the proposed plat of Overlook Place simply
to assure the council that it will not have to deal with
subsequent proposals in subsequent years. We respectfully
suggest that the appropriate way to discourage repeated
applications by the same individuals for essentially identical
plans is to adhere to the policies stated in the guide plan
for Eden Prairie and to follow the position of the City Council
as stated from time to time in previous years.
In substance, we feel that the proposal currently
before the council for the development of Overlook Place is
not an appropriate transition between Yorkshire Point and
Creekwood in terms of land use, structures, and in terms of
the proposed population which will be inserted in that area.
Very truly yours,
CREEKWOOD RESIDENTS
ift
. . .. . „ .
, .
-___
1 .40.( ' ' •"."1 n..' 0,.._-_(1 i't . .
• 7(":"-- ' i . .., ...k.oex..v7f2-91"----- .
t e? i-R .ecti-e-aS/2-1----, 94%FS C_(.teek.v.Im Zen-,
• . i ----). . .
, i 1.4.--:--"•;C-4::?-;,--.2"-t-Cci..— . ,.-- / •
4,,s-"4.-gc. •• 6.7.1.0/,,427..•2i.c,4-.. , , .'
• • - ' .9 9 R 0 C./......t_i__ (.."....•-t-e,ce..... Q-4,. (c.4_2/;',2/./ ./ •
5O41 aj'cc.6..c.eL,tj, _,
1.1 qq,eii eci_de,,,,e-ri-ee4y,.4_,)
I . .
. , i . •L,...... !,_.,.....:( I 4.010....l
6_1,, i .,-,-„, 9 ?, cc, c.;L.1 Li,:
.9 4.1 3;-,,.... 4..4...4_1_,..4 -u-1. 4.9-4- .
) J, • . ..
tr)7-3cg-Ctal&-4-07,- O .
•
, . .
i • /2 .
.1'1
,s
, .
1 j s
72z//6 e,---,e 1 bv tic.(e P, .
,P ZA24 Oe.
7//9 ,d,..d1.4.19.z. 4,
1 .
. !
I
• Ft.5-39 ecah t.c...,,...,e LI. 2.0(0SC-) • :::-....
IUD ¢ '��m�, �•
9s23 C � a - •
•
•
•
,,
i�
Ia
••
•
•
•
•
•
20450
�1
I'
,may Leonard tt Betty Uherka
6301 Shady Oak Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota .55344
September 4, 1981
Eden Prairie City Office •
8950. .Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Your Honor; Mr. Mayor, Mr. Edger, Members of the City Council, and Friends,
We are a family whose members have resided on this homestead-just south of
Crosstown Highway #62, and are located on the "island" between the two Shady Oak
Roads. Leonard was born on this property and our farm has been in the family for
5 generations. We and our ancestors have paid taxes throughout all these past •
years, and have contributed by our efforts to the preservation of this land,
just as have many other former residents, whose occupation was agriculture in this area.
We, together with our children, have strived to be instrumental in preserving its
beauty in a manner whereby it could be, and has been enjoyed by many others.as well.
But as we all know-time brings changes-which we are told are called-"Progress."
On August 4th, 1969, the "New" Shady Oak Road construction was begun on our property.
Because of this traumatic experience, we were left with fragmented land, of which
road construction absorbed 7 of our acres-which were not on any outer edge, but rather which cut through the center of our farm, extending north to south, and also a second
road-which extends east and west-adjoining the old and the new Shady Oak Roads-
thus leaving us with "four fragments"-as a remainder of our homestead. The Highway
Department excercised its privilege of condemning the seven acres of our land-for
their proposed use, disregarding any consideration for us whatsoever. Needless
•
to say, this resulted in the termination of our varied truck gardening-mainly that
of raspberries, strawberries and other.
We have not enjoyed having been left much lower than the road, but again have
had to adjust to the changes, while the neighboring community has enjoyed the
convenience and the improved safety of these roads, while we absorbed the inadequate
compensation from the County Highway Department.
Later on, the Gustafson Associates presented a very complimentary plan to
Eden Prairie, to develop the area across the new Shady Oak Road - (the present ADI)
but even then, the plan was unmercifully "attacked and opposed" by certain
neighborhood areas, by its citizens.
We have attended numerous meetings, have consulted with authorities, regarding
the guide plan, throughout these past years, and were informed that our land lends
itself to a category other than residential, for development, since the road and
its height have now detracted from it.
We were advised that it is far more suitable for commercial development, and that
it would be within our legal rights to apply for a variance were it necessary,
since the drastic road changes occurred. %
ti
2(i66
( Continued)
page 2
•
Directly to the north and east lies the large Opus Development, and lying directly
east of our property, are the 35 acres owned by Honeywell-and the access to
Highways #169, 212, and 18.
We of course are not knowlegeable as to what "use" or plans Honeywell will be
requesting, but we sincerely believe that whatever final approvals will be decided
upon, pertaining to the adjacent property east of us, and the remaining "island"
•
owners, that they would all be complimentary one with the other-as well as with
any'Of the other surrounding area.
.We have faith in our City Officials, that they will give these matters their
utmost practical and economic consideration.
'We do not oppose residential zoning as such, but realize the need for wise judgement.
It is not our responsibility to accommodate those of neighboring opposition,
with the 'original country side landscape or view", nor are we obligated to absorb
that cost any longer. -
We suggest that the residents of Eden Prairie that find it difficult to
adjust to these inevitable changes-might then consider purchasing any or all of
the surrounding tracts of land of which they dissaprove of its proper development-then.
also become its taxpayer, and thus make it possible for their continued enjoyment,
within this neighborhood. :•
Due to our present circumstances, and physical changes of our land, we are
now compelled to sell our property--regretfully—with an attempt to continue our
residency in Eden Prairie.
Ac".1.1e111"d,,, •.
4,
•
•
2a?
.
1
LARKIN', HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDOREN, LTD. ROSE*•.,.1..owIN cN Rliro:�iw��DICT:EN
JACA,.OAL• "'CMS K.SCCK '
I ATTORNEYS AT LAW D.RENNET..LINDORCN RIGNAITO I.OIAMONn
ANDREW W.DANIELSON JONN R.SCATT.D •
WENDELL R.ANDERSON JOS S.SWIER2EWS011
1600 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER *DIALS N.•RICUCLL M ICNAELL.MAROULICS
OSERT S.wN.TLOCR L.STERN
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH MULLIGAN THOMAS J.•L•NN
ROSEN J.NDNNC SSi• RODERICK I.MACRCNTIE
MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 56*31 RONALO R•LETCHCR MICHAEL D.SCNWART:
C.i•MCHSON •ORICST O.NOwLIN
' TELEPHONE 10131 836-3800 NDWARO J.DRISCOLL .CU1...
JAMES P.NII.fT MICHAEL J CKM•N
INCERE N. LLEA •C.CURTIN
SOLOMON NIEL A.QUINLAN
4324 105 C[M[R II01 CONNCC TIC UT AVENUE,M.W. JOSERN w• •NON+ JEROME M.KAMNKD
NINNEADOLIS•HINNESOTA SSA02 WAfNINOTON,D.C.20036 0•W0 C.•[LL[AOSCN T0001.PP CCMAN
JOHN D.,ULLNiw CAT..T"ONION
TELEPHONE IS121 11311•3500 TELEPHONE I toll 223-113SS NONERT C.SOTLE JOSEPH T.NOLEN
wvC• •..DREW J.MITCNELL
ROSERT •T.HONTAOUC.J0..
•
M.STROTNER
• O.REICHOOTT
S.MODELL
• RICMMO A.,ORSC..L[w Or COUNSEL
INDA M nSNCR JOSEPH,.•O .,
r..OM•1 P.STOLTM•N LINN J.viSCS,0,411
•
September 9, 1981
Mr. Roger A. Pauly
Eden Prairie City Attorney
4108 IDS Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
le: Anderson Development, Inc.
City West Proposal
Dear Mr. Pauly:
This letter is in response to the legal questions concerning •
environmental reviews and guide plan amendments raised at the
September 1, 1981 City Council hearing on City West.
I. Environmental Review Process.
A. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Requirement.
The Environmental Quality Board's (EQB) environmental review program
rules, (6 MCAR §3.021 et sue.) require that an EAW be prepared for
projects of the scope and size of City West. Such an EAW has been s
prepared. City staff, after thorough review, correctly concludes
that City West does not require an EIS. s'
B. The EQB's proposed environmental review program rules do not i
apply. §'
Mr. Herman claims that the proposed draft environmental review rules
being circulated by the EQB are applicable. The EQB has not held
hearings on these proposed rules. There is no assurance, in fact
little likelihood, that the rules will be adopted as currently
proposed. Furthermore, even if adopted, the new rules would not•
apply to City West. 6 MCAR S3.021(B) provides, in 2-0t3
LARKIN. 1iOFITMAN, DALY Sc LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Roger A. Pauly
September 9, 1981
. Page Two
•
. These rules shall apply to actions for which environmental
review has not been initiated prior to the effective date
, of these rules. For any action for which environmental
review has been initiated by submission of a citizens
petition, environmental assessment worksheet, environmental
impact statement preparation notice, or environmental impact
statement to the Environmental Quality Board prior to the
effective date of these rules, all governmental approvals
that may be required for that action shall be acted upon in
accord with the prior rules.
No one knows at this time what the effective date of these new rules
will be, and this will not be known until sometime after hearings
are held.
C. The possible Honeywell facility is not a "related action"
to City West.
It has been suggested that City West and the possible Honeywell facility
oe treated as "related actions" as that term is defined in 6 MCAR 53.025
(E) (1) . This suggestion is inconsistent with the EQB rule cited for the
simple reason that the possible Honeywell facility does not constitute
an "action" as defined in the EQB rules, and therefore cannot be a
"related action". There is presently no indication that the Honeywell
development is planned and no proposal has been submitted to the City
which would indicate that development of the Honeywell site will occur
at the same time as City West. The mere fact that Honeywell owns the
property adjacent to City West on which it may construct a facility is
not sufficient to constitute an "action" which can be said to be "re-
lated" to City West.
D. An indirect source permit for City West will be required.
The fact that an indirect source permit from the Pollution Control
Agency (PCA) is required has no impact or bearing on how Eden Prairie
resolves the land use issues raised by City West. PCA regulations
specifically make the indirect source permit a precondition to "con-
struction", not local government approvel. (See APC 19(b)). This
indirect source permit will be applied for and obtained by the developer
subsequent to concept plan approval and prior to commencement of con-
struction or, the City West site, all in conformance with state law and
the PCA rules and regulations found at 6 MCAR 54 (APC 19) .
2.069
LARKIN. HOFFMAN, DALY 8c LINDGREN. LTD.
Mr. Roger A. Pauly
September 9, 1981
' Page Three
II. The Guide Plan Amendment Process.
• Minnesota Statutes §473.864 and §473.858, Subd. 3, provide that
comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the City's
. governing body following action by the Planning Commission, but
not finally approved or adopted until reviewed by the Metropolitan
Council. Therefore, the Eden Prairie Council should act on the
City West Planned Unit Development concept plan at this time and,
if it is approved, forward to the Metropolitan Council for its
review the amendment required to bring the City's Guide Plan into
conformance with the PUD approval. The Guide Plan Amendment should
then be adopted at a subsequent meeting of the Council, pursuant to
Minn. Stat. §462.355, Subd. 3, following the Metropolitan Council's
review.
There is no provision of state law which requires the Council to re-
submit the proposed Guide Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission has held the required public hearing on the
proposed Amendment, at which the issue was fully considered, and has
completed its review and made its recommendation to the Council as
required by statute. Nothing in the statute requires further review
by the Planning Commission and the Council is free to adopt the
proposed amendment following Metro Council review.
Very
truly yours,
Ropert L.�nd
. k3��
Peter K. Beck, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Attorneys for Anderson Development, Inc.
cc: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel/
Councilman George Bentley
Councilman Dean Edstrom
Councilman Paul Redpath
Councilman George Tangen
City Manager Carl J. Jullie
Planning Director Chris Enger
City Engineer Eugene A. Dietz
W10
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes -1- t4, 1981
MEMBERS ABSENT: Retterath
C. MEADOWS 2ND REZONING LOTS 1-8, BLOCK 1, by Central Investment
Corporation. Request to rezone 8 lots from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5
Located at 7508-7578 Bittersweet Drive. A public meeting.
Bearman stated that the Planning Commission has received letters from residents
which should be made part of the minutes; 8/24/81-Lawler, 8/19/81 and 8/18/81-
Conrad, Thorstenson, 8/17/81-Cram, 8/18/81-Neitge.
The Planner stated Mr. Herb Mason of M.B. Hagen was present to give the presentation.
Mason, representing Central Investment Corp., reviewed the request.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/13/81.
Marhula asked what has been built on the lots on the cul-de-sac located west of
the request in the 3rd Addition. Mason replied 3 single family homes and 1 under
construction.
Marhula asked if Bittersweet Drive extends to the next plat through lot 7. The
Planner replied yes.
Norman Cram, 7586 Bittersweet Drive, stated that he was opposed to placing duplexes
on these lots because of traffic congestion and stated that of the existing duplexes,
only 2 are owner occupied and feels that when they are rented, they are not kept up
• as well.
Mr. Yanda, 7528 Bittersweet Drive, stated he is opposed to rezoning this for
multiple. He stated that the first owners on the cul-de-sac were in agreement that
these lots would be used for single family homes.
Spencer Conrad, 15518 Garfield Cir., stated he also was in agreement that the lots
would not be rezoned and stated his concern for the up-keep of the rented duplexes
and stated he felt they were too dense.
Ralph Hoffman, fee owner for some of the lots, stated that he feels the lots would
sell much easier if they were rezoned for duplexes.
MOTION
Gartner moved to recommend denial of the Meadows 2nd Rezoning Lots 1-8, Block 1
as an unprecidental spot zoning. Sutliff seconded. Motion carried 6-0.
201
•
, STAFF REPORT
•
•
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 12, 1981
PROJECT: MEADOWS 2ND ADDITION
REZONING LOTS 1-8, BLOCK 1
LOCATION: 7508-7578 Bittersweet Drive
REQUEST: Rezoning from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5
•
BACKGROUND •
In October of 1977, Dirlam Properties received approval for 102 duplex
units and 19 single family. The 121 units were on 55 acres (20 acres
of which is open space), 2.18 units/acre.(Project then called Valewoods)
A combination of duplex and single family was planned with the duplexes
near Valley View Road and adjacent to the railroad, and the single family on cul-de-sac
backing onto the open space. See figure 1 -Existing lots.
Todate approximately 94 duplexes and B single family homes are constructed.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
South, across Bittersweet are duplexes, to the north is open space then
more duplexes, to the east are duplexes and open space, and to the west is a
cul-de-sac with 8 single family lots(part of Meadows 2nd), and further west are
the 1/2+ acre lots of Westgate single family.
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
All lots would meet the minimum size of 13,000 sq..ft. One lot was platted
88 feet wide, 2' less than the 90', requirement.
If duplexes upon these 8 lots were approved, the overall density would
change from 2.18 units/acre to 2.35 units/acre.
UTILITIES
In place water service is for single family home usage. The individual
• lot stubs would have to be removed and replaced if duplexes are to be
served. These alterations will be paid for by the developer or lot owners.
2.012
•
Staff Report-Meadows 2nd Add. page 2
ADVANTAGES OF REZONING TO RM 6.5
1. Neighborhood would build-out and sell sooner. Sale of single family lots
• across from built duplexes is difficut.
2. Would place duplexes across from duplexes.
•
•
•
DISADVANTAGES OF REZONING TO RM 6.5
1• Would reduce the total number of single family previously approved.
2. Alters approved plan which others have based decisions upon.
3. If single family lots are slow to sell because of duplexes, this could
make a bad situation worse.
4. Could set a precident for spot zoning.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff feels that the following alternates are acceptable;
1. Rezoning of lots 1-7 (all facing duplex across Bittersweet) to
duplex and retain lot 8 on the single family cul-de-sac as single
family. This would retain 2 cul-de-sac areas as single family, one
of which abuts Westgate single family, and permit duplex construction
across from existing duplexes.
Items of Approval if Some or All Rezoned RM 6.5
1. Cash park fee applicab e to residential multiple apply.
2. Lots be platted down center prior to construction and common walls
be constructed on this line.
3. Builder commit to not constructing similar units adjacent to each
other, i.e.. variations in floor plans, exteriors. garage locations.
etc.
-or-
2. Denial of the request as an unprecidental spot zoning.
JJ:ss
a.Ci?3
. .
- •Z "
t' IS •.
____
' r$I't: q:1-.'12 --- •-:---.:t'"".".:-.". ::••"-'
_
/ /
_
• • • 1.• jaxv_ . ,_— - -
--;i4
• 4- 3 _::;B-15 ,-_-_- __ ---.----,.. . • - -- -,
_.
.:. ..--'- ,
, 843-R1 Z2,--1- C-7677-^f. , '. ;.:.::. ,.'. ....1 ,• ---- ::- 1 ' "11,-.
.44 •(.5777772:11,..-7--7/ ,,,-' .4-1:
1...td_...„7".
i-4- '.•.',::*i'••r3) -' \ --k4are
1" " -
...IS:. i.
* —
.__ • &-, - •,.1',._ C- ..A, Aps< ,e :
(....X ,0' s 3,01 I 1
L_-_-1-iy,i,',..dati i 1 I 1 i )q ,- , •. ,..<'•:F•
kr:41.7 If 8-12 8-19,145 . ''. ' ,i_...„,. 1p-T.1,3---
- -J3_ 7-,_.g PUB RS. Reverts ' :4ZV. Ia*j I
ia.1. tya--1 73_20 1, To R1-2 2 ao,. ,..,, i',.,:.: .,› 9-5 1 siii":1
111;13 CI• . C-COLt'I mg- -.1Tolizi' . .....,v, _,I or' .,
tf......53
N . i- --....__ ,J-L. . CVOr S /';`.`• ,; ;',c
••1‘,...44LI.:__.9„..Ec..Neir_4,15601:6=-St-l!''
-- ..:-•',...-----..?;:24 • _ •:iA______2-7, .
14.51, . .fa-V*-2;_qPi I42p790( ?itri7 r.'..' agt
EXISTING LOTS
__ r I)CI •
''. ._...e.....-.• ....... ...... ........ i .14..
7.. . t*:: p4 •7.:...,*,..7 4.c 4-:::,,..:::.-_-__A.i,: : _. ; .
3;' a•_s
---‘3- —II- :- . ..„---,--%-- -.-' ':.':: ',,: :- -, : •
.8.127Rtt'9.:4-1- I 91-8014.`';'n :Z.i!'1.'• :';••:.,A . 1:7 n,L_-•.: \• :,-_.: ":1
, • ,„if •
--1!7 A r' ' ,• 1.:',",:.7"-A;4'-.);! "....r!":.:.:::::,. ,---- i - , • ' ,....- -,..,- -,„,,,,,..,„ ,... . •.....,.„,, s........:' ,,,,:ir.t...,•,:•A. :x:•:..:..i.----i/i 611 - r- r-,
FpPU „" .... - ,,. 1,-.7-......,,..?:: ,,:::::;,.... , •
., 074"q() ." -.i." ,:..:.,.;„.:: :.-. ii• 9-
B791 • --4-fik:-2.2 _ , -: :::, +.:,.151:<'-‘, :',.•... .:;'. i-, •
-----r-T-2 --xr- - ,:.'->C&X‘ •,.....V.:::: 4
• -,= i L__. ,' ....r% .....s. I i i --- . . .
ii0.-,.., L- r_.,.._,,..,.y.,...7.• .-- • • • ....9(Z<;. -. :;;;A:,,,::::::**--. 4, 1, - . --.. .- -
11--I3'5. ffPUB .1 P.S. 8R-eiv9grts145 4
.410
>stl'A".• ,.". . :',.. 14 'It ' 1.1 c:',i4 141.1IHrt.g---- •:,
11, ..._-.-
s'• ". •7 si 1...:::-,;'-!.: 9_5
1-2 `Rk
•••4,-‘ *S.•‘-i ,. .* -CEti
everts ,4 )c,.4•&OA ?
------—-•--—7-----:-.37.,\•,-) To I-GEN,_2__1* .3 ‘ . p.s ,. __I44 . I - -
_ . 4.,...... 1-444 /17)) 'IL-L.7r . ./
.,,,.. k._
------.-rri-c-,., 7 F:: :Iszr_i:.;117- .'" 7-v
)., i:4• "•i-.-1-8.169:--IV:4 Vs 0 - ii---27, 4 -N /g177 NIL
___.., • ,...1 -,.., , . . ... 17.
PROPOSED LOTS
I
M SINGLE FAMILY 267q i,i;iiig;i,,:i: DUPLEX MMO Meadows M,
.1
•
August 18, 1981
•
City of Eden Prairie. •
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 •
Attention: Planning Commission
Regarding: Rezoning of.Lots 1 - 8, Block 1 Meadows 2nd Addition •
Dear Sirs:
I have received today your notice of meeting and request for my presence and
comments.
I am in complete favor of this rezoning. In my opinion, this should be viewed
by the commission as a resolution to a mistake rather than a rezoning.
I hope the people seeking this rezoning are granted their wishes.
Yours truly,
. t
•
ST NEITG
•
HIPP'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
3111 PENN AVENUE NORTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
SEPTEM•IBER 8, 1981
MR. CHRIS ENGER, CITY PLANNER •
CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICES
8950 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
I ..
DEAR R. ENGER AND THE CITY COUNCIL:
tt -
HIPP'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE LOTS 1-8 OF
• BLOCK 1, MEADOWS SECOND ADDITION, EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AND HAS
MADE AN OFFER TO PURCHASE CONTINGENT UPON THE REZONING OF THESE
LOTS TO TWIN HOMES.
THE TWIN HOMES WE INTEND TO BUILD HAVE VERY FAVORABLE CURB APPEAL,
SIMILAR IN DESIGN TO HIPP'S FOURTH ADDITION. ALL WILL HAVE TWO CAR
GARAGES WHICH SHOULD ALLEVIATE OFF STREET PARKING AND, THEREFORE, I :'
SHOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC PROBLEM.
WE FEEL THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE FACT THAT OUR LAST 42 SALES
HAVE BEEN OWN1;RI OCCUPIED. THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FEW CHILDREN, CON-
SEQUE1TLY THE RATIO OF PEOPLE PER UNIT HAS BEEN LOW.
• APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WILL ENABLE THESE SAME TYPES OF BUYERS TO
PURCHASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
SINCERELY,
AL.12/2
2016
SEP 9 1981
C
C
l Gnt1 Investment orporation
C
921-24TH AVENUE N.E. MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55418 PHONE 781.6565
•
September 8, 1981
• J.H.HAUER
City Council
Eden Prairie City Offices
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Gentlemen:
•
Re: The Meadows 2nd Addition
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 of Block 1
Petition to re-zone to doubles from single family.
In the first part of 1978, our Corporation and First Market Properties, Inc. joint ven-
tured in the construction and sales of single family pre-cut Dynamic Hares. In June,
1978, we purchased Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8 of Block 1, for land inventory without being a-
ware that the vast majority of this development was zoned double residency. By the first
part of 1979, it was obvious to our venture that the future of single family residences,
in view of limited financing, was extremely curtailed. As a result, the decision was
made to sell off the remaining land inventory consisting of these lots. Since that time,
d^spite concentrated efforts thru the sales force of MB Hagen Realty, Multiple Listing,
1 broker, Ken Jacobson, we have not received an offer at any price for any lot to be
used as single family. This in spite of a current tax valuation of $22,000.00 as a
single family lot. Mr. Jacobson has been successful in obtaining offers from Hipp
Construction Co. of $22,000.00 a lot if they are re-zoned doubles.
Since June, 1978, this corporation has paid over $28,500.00 interest on its investment
in its four lots, plus taxes. With current interest exceeding $900.00 a mrmth and
current lot taxes of over $780.00 per lot, the investment in this land inventory has •
became a financial disaster.
The concept of single family development is ideal, but in our present economy and high
cost of land it is not feasible. This situation shows no change of getting better in
the future especially in this case with the direct influence of constructed doubles
right across the street from the lots in question. If anything it may get worse, to the
point where even doubles may not be enough density to support the economics of construe- .
tion and financing.
Central Investment Corporation is favorable to Lot 8 remaining single family. The single
family lots on the Cul De Sacs appear to compliment themselves and form a continuity.
The "Branch" of Block 1, being the lots in consideration, logically should be doubles .
across the street f cm constructed doubles.
Central Investment Corporation beseeches you to favorably consider this petition.
Sincerely,
. ENT CORPORATION
JJM/jo Z� �J f Maeder, Vice-President
SEP 9 1211
September 4, 1981
Eden Prairie City Council
City Hall
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Sirs:
We are writing in regard to the proposed rezoning of
g i ..
eight lots from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for duplex unit
construction.
We, the resident taxpayers of this area, are totally
opposed to this proposed change. {
As we explained at the City Planning Commission hearing
several weeks ago, where they denied this motion, we
were told when we bought our house that this rezoning
would never happen. Our greatest concern is for the i .-
safety of our neighborhood. The congestion is, at times, li
an unsafe situation.
We certainly hope that some investment firm will not sway
the thinking of our City Council to the detriment of the
resident taxpayers.
Sincerely
L4 -
Ir. Mrs. Norman A. Cram
7586 Bittersweet Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
f
3
,
F
G
August 17, 1981 T {
• • .. City, of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie Planning Commission j
Eden Prairie City Hall
• ' 8950 Eden Prairie Road .
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ;
Sirs:
We are writing in reference to the proposed rezoning of
eight lots from R1-13.5 to RM6.5 for duplex unit construction.
•
We are totally opposed to any such change in the zoning for
this area. As residents of a single family dwelling on
Bittersweet Drive, we were always lead to believe that this
would never happen. I only hope that some investment and
construction corporation doesn't sway the thinking of the
city. I seriously question whether or not they have our
best interests in mind. I am certain they don't.
E
Bittersweet Drive is so congested now with cars, trucks and ;
other assorted vehicles that it is almost impossible for us
to use it. With further construction of multi-family housing i
on the other side of the street, I feel the problem will only
become more impossible and fear for the safety of our community
in the case of an emergency, like that of a fire. We, the
resident taxpayers, hope that you strongly consider these
problems and leave this area zoned as it is. s
I know I speak for the majority of the residents who are living .
in the single-family dwellings when i say that we are vehemently
opposed to this proposed change.
Sincerely, /40 2/getv.,,,...c____,_ !
A4- A.- '
Mr. and Mrs. Norman A. Cram 1
7586 Bittersweet Drive •
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
. 2.019
•
• /r, /f8'/
fr
• . 6...a
/VE er,44. 6?//3i- a
�,.
• . • � % - .6-
• r/
•
. ,,ram,n,�,x,e •
c 4,7
. ./� .a 70,04. 1
-77#"`",
• . 1
• • /OW. •
• Y
. • 47,?‘ .-- -7-,te-7/- Alz•-etta„,,, .
.4)4/.1.-7_i 4,4 I. e-t, ', -11-6/_- ‘4412." .
,i 4i °t
.,tz eta- -ter .a�o a ..
::‘,:croilizep.e-cpoLialu-4121V ' .
•
.. .=•44,,,,y1,77, .
. kle _rt_ia. ' .AA.44611-d, -
•
:. .44-t- 4"--- --Z-1Y-.6"thy‘
•
• .1.44...te, /44,414-411 ..
. 4.1-17rg/ash94d4, . -,
•
• . . • ,
. I •
•
•
•
Mr. & Mrs. Robert W. Thorstenson
• 15528 Garfield Circle
• Eden Prairie, MN 55344
•
•
•
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Offices
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Gentlemen: •
I am writing in reference to the attached notice of a Public Hearing.
When my husband and I purchased our lot at 15528 Garfield Circle, we were
told that the entire northwest section of Bittersweet Drive to the north-
east section of Garfield Circle was zoned for single family homes.
I feel that if this land was rezoned, there would be a worse traffic problem
than we already have and I feel that it may bring the value of our property
down.
I hope you will read this and understand that we wish to keep this section
of land zoned as it currently stands.
Thank you. is
Sincerely,
Mrs. Robert W. Thorstenson
•
24
X.LZ:)e,.;„?;/?' La'f,:• /viL
/. a/4•22-G IG G. �l"i7 LJ,c.- L ''4s'; •
J u , i° /.k/L i'L 5.5,'1./.5/
iA �-� "� ,.�/ f ;It i ,-,.�G ti do/yec Jlam// _4, t'1_
4/-.:2ez'...;-7 , ` 0 �'/- /3. Aft/G,5
/ ..4,,..,_.¢. ,Zt,ekteiya-:/t4- ... ,
4 F 'le
4.e /�;...G' t ,c_. z.;,, 4. . 9?ti,1':�c4u-Ti .e..:-x_ iC.'.,-G,.- tG�l, /.....t �_
LY E 2-e �n t / �� /G_� - f-9,pi,etar,.{_4/1..,:-/.!
J ,CLzuGci- f / C ,.
,�2,CL1�'.���'c. Cf'„<..s- � �A c ue:JGii4f16
./Y'Ll.ii. .A.,9, 7111,1.),4, -cArt--rt/c436 Ay-,g-
ji
aoz-deo,,,. .., x,d,.dc,ft ett)1, ,iji ././-" ,./ 4?:.,...z-"rz.)... __LI....e•-• er...".-.4:), 1
/";'' r e leli-(.4-w...--1,- 1.-
V r. ''',/ . ' ., r. it.ei ,:r e,-,?t. ,A4.-... .-- - ,
,, J.. •,-7;',,,,,,,,://.4'7“: ::<:- 4 Z.- ,t,..4,,/ •
.14. ✓ c�- .,•t yJ j
/J L LC G
i
42
( 7'-/a'° ,/„4`'� ,i ���i(a-I Q. of ��! i'iG .
, ,v
/ ,
. ' - /1 I //e170 .,11,e-:,,,ii 1,7::ir,/9 --- 614- 4211,
./-ee-i.o./614z.z-e_it-"-ea,. 4-4 „ i
:mac5-V7u ii,.." .. tic itife.,,i1 , , ,
•
.e-,t, • .4';
hr,,e/41:7r, 5./..e/ 1 u'- /-ff i
eZ6/4,421.11a,^443/ /tee.77a'44;1 /76‘1442 et
,ii.
Vic'/�
•
,,--i-z-,t,...1.-c.•--/ ' /
744 • - ,
, ,,,,,,„4,7,-,--,,,;:--
kcad;ir—‘x/
g , ,
.iii,,,x.-,z, •-"-tad-.
J„,. _ /
, ,(:,4.: -,c".2_4_,-
1//: /2 e ,,,,,,,(_,,,,,,,,,..,„ d',.. ..,,,,,-6
9e, ,e G,L i.r,,:c, e-3..0
ix„... t G. j 2/'l-1L/v
oriltd
Unapprove•
Planning Commission Minutes -1- Au.us 24, 1981
MEMBERS ABSENT: Retterath
B. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Request
for Planned Unit Development approval of 42 acres as industrial)
preliminary platting of 4 industrial lots, and rezoning of 42
. acres from Rural to I-2 Park. A public hearing.
The.Pl.anner stated that this has been revised to provide access to the land-locked
western property. He also stated Mr. Michael Niemeyer and Jan Heinig were present
to give the presentation.
Niemeyer, Westwood Planning & Engineering, representing ADI, stated that the
buildings have been moved more easterly to provide a road leading to the land-
' locked property. He stated ADI will pay their share of the cost of the road and
stated he felt that the project is less dense than originally proposed.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/I3/81 and stated he felt that I-2
zone is appropriate with the amount of open space shown and with the additional
ROW on the western portion of the site. He stated that setbacks can be made to
meet ordinance requirements.
Bearman stated his concern for the density of the project.
Sutliff asked if the proposal is in conformance with the Shoreland Management
Ordinance. The Planner replied yes.
Susie Hummel, 6262 St. John's Drive, was concerned with the amount of open space
and asked if there will be a road between 2 buildings on lot 4. Neimeyer replied
that it will be an emergency exit point.
Bearman asked the amount of right-of-way on Co.Rd.67. Heinig replied 33' which
would be enough for expansion of Co. Rd. 67.
John Shardlow, Howard Dahlgren Assoc., representing Franklin National Bank,
reviewed his letter dated 8/24/81.
Joann Irvine, 18930 Lotus View Drive, stated she was concerned with the location
for sewer and water. Heinig replied that water will cone from Baker Road through
the Franklin National Bank land and stated storm water will remain the same.
The sanitary sewer will come from a metro interceptor which ADI will connect with,
which is expected to be located in the road right-of-way.
Torjesen asked'if variances are necessary. The Planner replied no because shifting
the buildings to conform to the I-2 zone will not require any.
Joann Irvine asked if the sewer could be brought up through the ADI property. The
Planner replied it will go up the center of the project in the road right-of-way.
MOTION 1
artner moved to close the public hearing on Westwood Industrial Park. Hallett
seconded, motion carried 6-0.
20%S
Unapprove.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- Augus '81
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Westwood PUD as
per the plans dated 5/20/81-revised 8/3/81 as per the staff report of 8/23/81.
the Hennepin County Department of Transportation letter of 8/19/81, the HGA
letter dated 7/3I/81, and the 8/7/81 letter from John Shardlow, Howard Dahlgren
Assoc., representing Franklin National Bank. Torjesen seconded, motion carried
6-0. •
, MOTION 3
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Westwood rezoning
from Rural to I-2 Park as per the plans dated 5/20/81-revised 8/3/81, as per the
staff report of 8/13/81, and the same additions as listed in motion 2. Hallett
seconded, motion carried 5-1. Bearman voted no because he felt the project is
too dense.
MOTION 4
al; rtner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat .
dated 5/20/81-revised 8/3/81 as per the staff report of 8/13/81 and the same
additions as listed in motion 2. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 5-1. Bearman
voted no.
•
MOTION 5
Gartner moved to recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
dated 5/81 to the City Council. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-1. Beaman
voted no.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -1- June 8, 1981
MEMBERS ABSENT: Retterath, Gartner, Hallett
D. WESTW00D INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Re-
quest for approval of a PUD, rezoning from Rural and I-2 Park
to I-5 Park with setback variances, preliminary plat, and an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet upon 42 acres. Located
•
south of Co. Rd. 67 and west of St. John's Woods. A public
hearing.
The•Planner suggested continuance for a staff report because of significant problems
with the proposal and needed revisions. He also stated that Mr. Michael Niemeyer and
Jan Heinig, HGA Architects, Inc. were present to give the presentation.
Niemeyer stated they are representing ADI, and reviewed the site location, grading,
vegetation, utilities, sanitary sewer system, and gave a slide presentation of the
site.
The Planner stated that his slides were similar to the ones shown. He stated
that he felt it was important to review the perspective plan. He also stated
that the Guide Plan designates this land as Industrial, and that he felt that the
access is important.
Heinig stated that most of the vegetation is southwest of the location for the
grading to occur.
The Planner stated that in 1971 the City granted a gravelling permit to Bury-Carlson
and stated that the intent was to preserve the land east of it which should not be
changed.
Bearman asked if all slopes had been returned to a 3:1 grade. The Planner replied
there is a natural slope which is 2:1 but stated that the engineers feel the grading
ordinance has been met.
Bearman asked'how long the cul-de-sac will be if nothing goes through? Heinig
replied 750'. •
Bearman stated that when the proponent returns, he would like the following to be
addressed: sanitary sewer, lot lines, grading limitations, and would like to see
C. the buildings back for rezoning and the possibility of seeing a working model.
Torjesen stated that he felt it is important to see the topographic relationship • i.
of the land to other land around the site, what has been done to the site, what
will be done, and stated that a more comprehensive plan should be completed.
Levitt stated that he would like an idea of timing.
Bearman asked the proponent if continuing the proposal to July 13th would allow
them adequate time to address these items. Niemeyer replied yes. 1
John Shardlow, Howard Dahlgren Associates, stated that he has been working for 1
Franklin National Bank of Minneapolis, and stated that they own the land to the
southwest of the site and need access roads.
John Palm, 6389 St. John's Drive, stated that he is in the St. John's Wood Assoc.,
and felt that ADI should respect the morraine. 1
2Cf 7
•
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- June B, 1981
Audrey Standberg, 6380 St. John's Drive, President of St. John's Wood Assoc.,
agreed with Mr. Palm.
•
•Susie Hummel, 6263 St. John's Drive, asked what a PUD is, and if the de:eloper plans to
sell the land. Bearman explained PUD, and Anderson stated that they will lease the
land.
• 'i rd•Dahlberg, 6319 St. John's Drive, stated that he would like the morraine to
remain. •
Mr. Freedman, 6367 St. John's Drive, stated that he also would like the morraine
to remain, but was concerned with the land to the south.
Peter Stalland, 6317 St. John's Drive, asked if the gravel permit is a conditional
use permit. The Planner replied yes. Stalland then stated that he was also concerned
with the easement.
Mrs. Wyman, 14001 W. 62nd St., stated that she felt that something should be put in
writing to perserve the hill.
MOTION
Levitt moved to continue Westwood Industrial Park to July 13, 1981. Torjesen
seconded, motion carried 4-0.
approved
Manning Corenission Minutes July 13, 1981
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gartner
C. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Request
for approval of a PUD, rezoning from Rural and I-2 Park to I-5
Park with setback variances, preliminary plat, and an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. Located south of Co. Rd. 67 and west of St.
John's Woods. A continued public hearing.
Levitt stated that he would not be participating in this project discussion.
The Planner stated that the item has been continued from June 8, 1981, there is a
new topographic model, revised plans, stated that he has met with John Shardlow
representing Franklin National Bank and the proponents, but that nothing has been
(•. worked out regarding access for the Bank's property. He then stated that Mr.
Michael Niemeyer, of HGA, was present to give a presentation. He also stated that
staff does not recommend approval.
Neimeyer stated that at the meeting that the road connection was discussed, ADI
has resisted the connection because of the cost. He then reviewed the surrounding
land owners, suggestions for alternatvies for the Bank's access; having access off
of Birch Island Road, or having the road adjacent to the railroad.
The Planner stated that the City has worked with Bury-Carlson (bank property) for
approximately 10 years and stated that they were aware of the access problems. He
stated that access along the railroad tracks would be poor. He also stated that
since the project is not ill a form for recommendations, and the nature of the changes.
there was no staff report.
20'fl
•
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 13, 1981
Retterath asked about the landscaping for the model. Jan Heinig, landscape architect
for HGA, reviewed•the landscaping. Niemeyer stated that because of the complexity
of the todography of the site, they chose not to put landscaping on the model.
Heinig stated that they are trying to save as many trees as possible.
Torjesen stated that there were many concerns raised on June 8, and than'Ced the
proponent for addressing them, but stated that he felt that the access problem
. should be decided.
Torjesen asked if a representative from Franklin National Bank was present. Mr.
• John'Shardlow was and submitted a letter dated June 9, 1981.
Susie Hummel, 6362 St. John's Drive, was concerned about the traffic.
•
John Hummel., 6362 St. John's Drive, stated that he would like to see the trees
and hill saved.
MOTION 1
Tor—jesen moved to close the public hearing on Westwood Industrial Park. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Levitt abstained.
MOTION 2
Torjesen moved to commend the developer and staff but further stated that since
no adequate access is provided for the land locked parcel lying SW and since
there is no further loom for negotiation from the proponent, recommended denial.
Retterath seconded.
Scott Anderson, ADI, then stated that they would negotiate.
DISCUSSION
Retterath asked if Franklin National 8ank is willing to negotiate. John Shardlow
stated that he was unable to answer but stated that they agree with City Staff's
recommendations.
Torjesen moved to amend the motion deferring the project to August 10, 1981.
Retterath seconded.
•
The Planner stated that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City
Council.
Retterath withdrew her second on the amended motion because the public hearing
t had already been closed, but retained the original motion.
Amended motion failed for lack of a second. Original motion carried, 4-1-1. Hallett
voted no and Levitt abstained.
•
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
' DATE: ' August 13, 1981
SUBJECT: WESTWOOD REVISED
'APPLICANT: Richard W. Anderson
FEE OWNER: Bury & Carlson, Inc.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development approval of 42 acres
as industrial, preliminary platting of 4 in-
dustrial lots, and rezoning of 42 acres from
1-2 Park and Rural to I-5 Park with frontyard
setback variances.
PROJECT LOCATION: In the north central part of the community,
south of Crosstown 62, and west of Baker
Road and St. John's Woods.
REFER TO: Initial submission booklet and material dated
May 20, 1981 and revised plans dated Aug. 3, 1981.
BACKGROUND
The western 25% of the property is zoned I-2 Park (Industrial), the southwest
corner is zoned floodplain, and the balance of the site is zoned Rural.
The 1979 Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this area as Industrial, but
depicts the eastern portion of the site (the oak wooded morraine) as
open space.
FIRST SUBMISSION
/he Planning Commission had previously reviewed a plan submitted by the
developer dated June 30, 1981 at their July 13, 1981 meeting. The public
hearing on the preliminary plat was closed at that time and the Planning
Commission voted 4-1-I(Levitt abstained and Hallett voted no) to deny
the request for rezoning and preliminary platting, because the developer
had refused to provide for a proper road system which would not land lock
property to the southwest.
ADI has since modified their position and have applied for PUD, zoning and
platting again with a revised plan.
REVISED PLAN 8/3/81
The revision to the 6/30/B1 plan occurs on Lot 4, in the northwest corner
of the site. The proponent has revised the site plan on this lot to
provide for 30' of ROW for a second industrial road. This road would not
only serve as a secondary way out for Westwood Industrial Park traffic, but
would also greatly improve the access to the western properties and provide
access to the western piece (owned by The Franklin National Bank).
20g0
•
•
Staff Report-Westwood Ind. Pk. Revised page 2
Staff would suggest that the developer be allowed the I-2 zoning, rather
than I-5. This will allow a 50' frontyard setback and on a corner lot,
parking within 1 of the frontyard setback (25') on the east and west sides
' of Lot 4. •
The southern entrance to this western road for building 6 on Lot 4, is shown
..as having a 17% grade from the parking lot down to the road; this is un-
acceptable and must be modified.
The relationship between the western border of Lot 4 and the road ROW should
be basically 'at grade', with a 4' high berm rising between the road and
the parking lot. In order to accomplish this, the grade at the west end
of Lot 4 will have to be lowered to match the road. Additional room for
spreading the grade out at the west end of building 6 can be obtained by
moving the building easterly (where more room is available).
' The developer shall dedicate the ROW for all roads on the property to the
City at the time of final plat. The developer shall not object to 'fair
share' • assessments levied in order to construct this road.
TRANSPORTATION
Access points to Co. Rd. 62 shall be approved by Hennepin County, and all
improvements required by the County shall be the developer's responsibility.
Right-of-way as required shall be dedicated.
OPEN SPACE
The wooded morraine occuring on the eastern portion of the property, which
is shown as a proposed scenic easement on the preliminary plat dated 6/30/81,
shall be: platted as an outlot, excluded from the industrial zoning and
either conveyed in title to the City or a scenic easement given. NO
CONSTRUCTION other than restoration or grading will be allowed within this
area.
FLOODPLAIN
The proposal,6/30/81,shows no encroachment in the floodplain of Nine-Mile
Creek. The utility plan shows three outfalls from the storm sewer system
into the floodplain which will drain the entire subdivision. No sedimen-
tation pond is planned. The project must be reviewed and approved by the
Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District.
However, lot lines should not extend into the floodplain. The floodplain
shall be platted as an outlot, industrial zoning, and given in title to
the City or a scenic easement given.
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Nine-Mile Creek is designated as a General Development Water. Shoreland
for a creek is within 300' of the creek.
Setback from the creek is 150'. Impervious surface within the Shoreland
area is 30%.
This proposal is consistent with the Shoreland Management Ordinance. 1
Staff Report-Westwood Revised page 3
PARKS
he cash park fee would be applicable, and paid at time of building permit.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Me Planning Staff would recommend approval of the PUD, preliminary plat,
' and rezoning of June 30, 1981, as amended 8/3/81, subject to the following:
1. Floodplain and morraine to be platted as outlots, excluded from
Industrial zoning, and dedicated to the City or a scenic easement given.
2. Industrial property to be zoned would go to the 1-2 Park rather than
• the I-5 category.
3. Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District to review and approve plans.
4. Hennepin County Highway Dept. to review and approve plans.
5. Plans dated 8/3/81 for Lot 4, to be modified to allow parking areas
on the western border to be at grade with the road, and space provided
to allow at least a four foot high berm (slopes no more than 3:1).
6. All parking and'loading areas are to be 'screened according to Ord. 178.
7. All mechanical equipment to be screened with material architectural
integral to the materials of the buildings.
8. NO CONSTRUCTION, other than approved restoration is to occur within
the morraine outlot. A snow fence shall be erected at the western
edge of the outlot prior to any construction on the property.
Developer shall provide an irreoccuable letter of credit, or a cash
escrow in the amount of $10,000 prior to any construction of grading
on the property, which will be forfeited to the City if any removal of
major vegetation occurs in this eastern outlot. Judgement of proper
compliance shall be the sole determination of the City.
9. Cash park fee is applicable and shall be paid prior to building permit
issuance.
10. All grading on the site shall be in conformance with the approved plan
and shall be restored as required by the Watershed District.
11. lots containing more than one structure are not designed in accordance
with the ordinance, if splitting is contemplated. Therefore the pro-
ponent shall agree not to apply for variances or divisions to allow them
to occur.
12. Developer must agree to dedicate all ROW as depicted on the plans dated
6/30/81 and 8/3/81.
13. Developer must agree to accept 'fair share' assessments for the western
road.
CE:ss 2091
Tuesday Sept. 8th 1981
•
•
,den Prairie City Council
City of Eden Prairie Minnesota 553+
Gentlemen:
•
Subject; Request of Richard Anderson to develop an
• Industrial Park.
•
•
to the east of the project and also a member rs of
f that
Asa
homeowner
1 re
the Saint John's Wood Homeowners Assn. I respectfully requestt
council give consideration favorably to the following:
We know from personal experience property dividing lines are very
hard
maintain. Therefore
s that your
council
require el well definedsubstantial ferequesting
cebetweenth �propeyto be
improved and the established moraine
We request that this fence be be completed eduandoinbp position
tioedbefore any
grading, development of grading, erstarte andW that
futher request that be approved by the propeeit7'p
the fence be maintained in sound orderuntil the entire project is
completed
This line rembykyicontractor prevent
in the developmenthofmtheiproject.
for my purpose by any
We make this request to•Bupport the postion of your planning group
who have indicated the need for such protection.
• ur� /
sVeryTrul���
ohn R Palm
6389 Saint Johns Drive
Eden Prairie Minnesota 5534+
205
•
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION •'`'"
320 Washington Av. South '
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 `` `''
HENNEPIN •
935-3381 August 19, 1981
•
.Mr. Chris Enger
' Director of Planning
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
' Dear t.lr. Enger:
RE Proposed Plat - "Westwood Industrial Park"
County Road 67 Approximately 700 ft. West of CSAH 60 - South Side of CP 67
Section 3, Township 116, Range 22
Hennepin County Plat No. 931R
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:
-For future improvements to County Road 67 the developer should dedicate an
additional 7 ft. of right of way, making the right of way 40 ft. from the center
of CSAII 67.
-Although the proposed easterly access meets minimum sight distance requirements
to the driver's right, Hennepin County recommends moving this access easterly to
the crest of the hill, approximately 300 ft., or westerly to gain a safer sight
distance to the east.
-Although the proposed westerly access is below the recommended spacing for inter-
sections from railroad tracks, Hennepin County will approve this access if this
access will serve the existing development near the railroad tracks along with
Westwood Industrial Park.
-Any new access to a county road, revision to an existing access, or a change in
land use requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit. See our Traffic
Division for entrance permit forms.
-A11 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 landscaping. See our
Maintenance Division for utility permit forms.
-The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County
right of way.
Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt.
• Sincerely,
fly.
Janes M. Wold, P.E. HENNEPIN COUNTY
Chief, Planning and Progranning
aG9q an equal opportunity employer
i�mV/I.IA4 ni
•
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
IMCD'IMORAT ED
CONSULTING PLANNERS
ONE G R O V E L A N D TERRACE
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55.03
24 August 1981
Eden Prairie Panning Commission
Eden Prairie City Offices
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
RE: Revised Anderson Development Company Proposal
Honorable Chair and Members:
As you will recall, the last Anderson proposal was denied due to its
failure to provide a solution to the problems of providing access to
the Franklin National Bank property, or improving access to the
existing industrial buildiryssouth of County Road 67 and east of the
Chicago-Northwestern Railroad. Subsequently, we learned from the City
staff that Anderson had proposed an alternative plan which provided
for said access and we visited the City offices and have reviewed it.
Undoubtedly, the specific details of the Anderson proposal have been
described in your staff report. Briefly, Mr. Anderson agrees to
dedicate right-of-way along his western property line (see existing
private road on the attached exhibit). The proposed solution
addresses the problem of the dangerous existing intersection of this
private road, County Road 67, and the Chicago-Northwestern Railroad,
by moving the intersection of the proposed road approximately 140 feet
east of the railroad tracks.
Let me say at the outset that, if this proposed intersection is
reviewed and deemed acceptable by Hennepin County and the City of Eden
Prairie, it would acceptably solve Franklin National Bank's access
problem. Therefore, please find attached a copy of a petition for
public improvement, and a letter to the City Council.
After reviewing the Anderson proposal, we visited each of the businesses
which currently gain access from the private gravel road. I believe
it is safe to say that we found a concensus of opinion on a number of
issues. Everyone agreed that the time to both determine and implement
the solution to this access problem, is at the time of construction of
the proposed Anderson Planned Unit Development.
•
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie Page 2
However, as you will undoubtedly learn at tonight's public hearing,
several of these owners have needs and concerns which are not
satisfied by this proposed design. Although our base map does not
include all of the buildings which exist along this strip, please
refer to the attached exhibit, where they are listed and approximately
located.
We understand from discussion with Mrs. Wyman, one of the owners of
Wyco, Inc., their principal concern centers around the fact that they
own and operate a huge crane. They don't feel the design of the
proposed intersection provides for safe stacking and turning movements.
JoAnn Irving owns property which I believe is contiguous to the •
Elfering property. She requests that sanitary sewer and water be
included with this improvement.
We have also discussed this matter briefly with John Busse of the
Busse Company. We understand that Mr. Busse had considerable
discussion with both his realtor and the City of Eden Prairie, at the
time of his land purchase, regarding the matter of permanent access
to his property. Mr. Busse states that he was assured, at that time,
that the permanent access would go out through the Bury-Carlson
property. He understood that the size of his property would then be
increased as the area currently occupied by the private road would be
freed up for use. He has been in contact with the City and has been
urged to attend tonight's meeting.
In conclusion, we believe the problems which we have addressed
throughout these proceedings, related to the provision of adequate
access to the Franklin National Bank property, are solved by the
revised Anderson Development Company PUD plans. As outlined above,
there are remaining concerns regarding the design of this industrial
road as it runs north of the Franklin National Bank property. However,
we have heard nothing but agreement that the time to plan and build
the street and permanent utilities is along with the Anderson Planned
Unit Development. We urge the Planning Commission to consider this
proposal in light of your Comprehensive Plan. Please support us in
our effort to abandon the dangerous intersection of the private road
and County Road 67, and provide a safe, efficient, and permanent •
industrial road to serve these properties.
Respectfully submitted,
John
Principal Planner
enclosures cc: Thomas Allen, President
Franklin National Bank
2a94
eAr/s afar.
•
HGA
MEMO TO: ADI - Commission Number 740.001.00
MEMO BY: Jan Heinig
DATED: 17 August 1981
'SUBJECT: Proposed road along west property line
,A meeting with the affected neighbors was held on Thursday, August 13 at Johnson
Produce. Present were the property owners: Mr. and Mrs. Busse of Busse
Contracting, Mrs. Wyman from Wy-Co., Inc., Mr. Johnson of Johnson Produce; Jan
Heinig represented HGA. Ms. Irving and Mr. Elferding of Jarip Properties were not
reached, but had beep talked with earlier about the project and were sent a plan
and explanatory letter.
The following notes cover the advantages and concerns discussed at the meeting.
Concerns
1. Cost to each property owner has not been estimated. A high cost would affect
the owners' feelings on timing of an improved road.
2. The proposed road shows (3) access points from thj ADI project and the
adjacent owners are worried about extra traffic. The industrial park's main
entrance points will be to the center cul-de-sac agd the western accesses
requested by the city should receive little use.
3. The amount of land taken for the actual road with curb and gutter was a
concern. The proposed road being half on ADI's property will encompass
approximately 10 feet less of the adjacent properties than at present.
Advantages
1. As mentioned, half of the roadway will run on Anderson's property, decreasing
the paved area necessary for each owner.
2. The proposed road would curve to the east where it joins County Road #67.
This would give a greater distance from the R.R. tracks than at present. The
grade of the road would also be more gradual, providing a safer, more visible
entrance.
3. Cost as mentioned earlier would be shared by Anderson Development, Inc., thus
taking the full burden of the eventual road and underground utilities off the
adjacent owners.
4. ,Water service and a complete storm water system would be installed beneath the
new road, benefitting the properties. At present, storm run-off is sometimes
a problem.
5. Maintenance of the road surface, utilities, snow removal, etc., would be taken
care of by the city.
6. Property values would normally rise with an improved public road accessing the
properties.
la
2011
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
INC O11PO10IC0
CONSULTING PLANNERS
• O N E G R O V E L A N O T C R R A C C
MINNCAPOLIS•MINNCSOTA 554O3
&It•317.Sus
•
7 August 1981
To: All property owners south of County Road 67 along the east
side of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad, in Eden Prairie.
Dear Property Owners:
We are consultants to Franklin National Bank which owns the approx-
imately 30 acre parcel to the south of your properties. Over the
past two years, we have been discussing with the City of Eden Prairie
•
and other property owners the problem of how to service this
property with roads. We have also discussed the necessity of pro-
viding your properties with a safe, permanent access road which
intersects with County Road 67, a safer distance from the Chicago
Northwestern Railroad. Throughout these discussions, we have always
understood that solutions to these problems would be determined when
the Bury-Carlson Property developed.
Anderson Development Inc. has recently submitted plans for the develop-
ment of an industrial park on the Bury-Carlson property. These
plans included neither a provision for access to the Franklin National
property, nor a solution to your access problem. Citing these problems
and others, the Planning Commission voted to deny the Anderson proposal.
On August 24th, a revised Anderson proposal will be considered by the
Planning Commission. As part of this request, Anderson has agreed to
dedicate right of way along his western and northwestern boundaries
for the future construction of a road. From discussions with the City
Planning Director, we understand that they have agreed to accept future
assessments for this improvement. We believe that this is a major
improvement in the Anderson proposal and plan to support it.
However, we continue to feel very strongly that the time to solve the
problems with your access onto County Road 67 and the provision of
adequate access to the Franklin National Bank property is now. As 5.
this area continues to develop, County Road 67 will carry increasing
traffic loads and your access problems can only get worse.
Attached for your consideration is a copy of a petition for the
improvement of this road. We believe that both the Planning Commission
and City Council should consider this improvement at the same time
as the Anderson proposal and that their plans should not be approved
without a strong committment on the part of the city to solve these
road problems.
2(A8
•
•
•
}
If you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance,
please contact me. Enclosed is a self-addressed, stamped envelop.
If you agree with our position and want to see a permanent solution
to this access road problem, please sign this petition form, return
it to me, and I will deliver it to the city.
•
. Very Sincerely Yours,
John W. dlow
Principal Planner
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
JWS/rd
cc; Tom Allen, President
Franklin National Bank I `'
i . :
.099
•
. .
' 1
7-HE aysse co.
•i t, 1
..
.'i.,,it •-i,
, ., .
• < '
I •-
FRANKLIN ...) 0 •
NATIONAL BANK ,-/,•• s'
, ., / • .
fi'14 1 D//:(
tte-puvrit44
Eden Prairie, Minn. EL-Fe:Kin/6, •• •,i... ),\,..„40....-
.,,-,:r.z.,
40/1CTAVC•rsua lAs i/../i,•, \- •
• A j.-44
_v... ...... •
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. wl• 11
c 0 14/e. -"loci/714C\ N:
,- - , ••
Land Planning Consultants jo..N. ,I: ' !4 Airfrills .t4V0 -
Mpls, Minn. Pp.4,004.0: ta, '..: s:'•,‘. • 70 ; . ri.•.'1°'•••••V
/le • • 1
• 100 200 400 c.:1 ::::) /! i • IRIP0171c tAl—
/,,,.-1'.
{
N
;1 fAto644N4---iy-'--`-
' ,/ l .\\.•\`; 4f/7 /
,"
, -z .-gyukriwy ,,,
/' .""
-,-- s ,, '.7 t .
./,' -:...-44.-.eut.w..%xim.A)=•\•-<..,. .
.0 ---‘ - ---'''4"','\• • ` • •
,
\
i.- -,,,.\%,- l si/ ••••,•4 •,,.', .,
• 4 _1,,01.1 ••-_,--, I y 1
1 IS19040f.thL, /.A' ;Fa'''\ -'''''%-..•-•-'-ill."-j'-)Ill I :fir/ 1.
z;,,e 10k..N4.s.,.•._,:,..fi,,:_rt•,-,--:-e,=,,A, - itc,- ......,.','
f ,
,L,c,_;;;V;;,'•.1. fr-oro<AD ',
_-,11„:::--• ,, .,
• / `, ;-!--z-;,--,:',4-,,,*t-4-
/
/
,::.
/
• i,f.f'-_•-..::''.•,s\..,,Isx‘oe.:-,.-..0.1. .",„-.4r.„-....•,.•:•,..,‘ ,..,,•-,..: ..1.:
,',' 0.17. A‘r%'..-""),•!.',itt,',.;,--2- •
/,';--- ../t '-, ''pl•tIV - . 1,,.
• ,,, • ... , '- \\ ,,..#9.i. , :,, ,:i.,.,,,?,f,;,;,,..
i - --.-=., lao -4- ".....,4,,, ,
°ID s '2/A - 0../::\: 4!--, (.4;4,1-44',•e I •
tRIVACE frAV • -•-?,-....- '7,,V--.• /-- ' .:-...--, .-- -it
t.:1),•I.! ,--Mrsi ."/'-‘.77 +',;11."41
1-6 '--- ft'- :-..1:1-`,'Pf--i.- , 141 e 4,
4: ' SY —— - •- '' •• •f • ,M'''•
V4Pit it•If 1 i• : :-..S.-7 ;' •V7';
" • . ii:',:1• ti'llik.ii-- d•:-;...-1
14' , hit441:-ELTAMILy'
J , ••,..4.4.,,, : . • ., . ,L•,-. .;.-:•
/04rtr-7--F_ i ... , , .,--,,,--W7IVE.441IAL
, „ . , , . : ...„..,
. c,. .14, W..-: /..,..,...i....r.,:. ..:-.-
/
..... itv, • ,
'i
,.,„, , :.,‘,,,,„ „...,..,,....„.......,..., .
,,,.,„ ,„ ,P...,'---"tk • ;-.-
1 1 .
i 1
2100
•
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
Iwcoeroe.rco
CONSULTING PLANNERS
ONE O R O V E L A N O TERRACE
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 58403
•
•I1•311-353A
5 August 1981
' - Eden Prairie City Council
' Eden Prairie'City Offices
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Honorable Mayor and Council:
We are consultants to Franklin National Bank, which owns a ± 30
acre parcel of land south of County Road 67 and east of the Chicago
and Northwestern Railroad (see attached exhibit). Over the last
two years we have attended a number of meetings between the city
staff and the owners of the two undeveloped properties east of the
bank's parcel. These meetings were held at the request of the city
staff and their objective was to coordinate the joint planning of
streets to service these properties. We understand from discussions
with Chris Enger that, in fact, staff has been attempting to coordi-
nate the planning of these three parcels for many years prior to our
involvement.
Throughout the course of these meetings and our planning for this
property, two city transportation planning issues have always been at
the fore front. Both of these are graphically illustrated on the
preliminary concept exhibit attached.
The first of these two issues involves the city's desire to route a
residential collector street across the south central portion of the
bank's property. The location for this street connection with the
adjacent property to the east has been coordinated with the engineers •
who are planning this property for medium density residential develop-
ment.
The second of these two issues, involves the need to provide industrial •
access to the Franklin National Bank property, through the Bury-Carlson
property (currently proposed for the development of an industrial park
by Anderson Development Company). Much of the bank's land is zoned
industrial and since it would be undesirable to route industrial traffic
onto a residential collector, this traffic must be routed north to 1
County Road 67 and thence to I-494. When this issue was discussed with
the Bury-Carlson representatives, they stated that they were attempting
to sell their property to a single user, and therefore, couldn't commit
to a location for a street connection until they knew the specific needs
of this user. Certainly this was understandable, however, it should be
clearly noted that at no time was the concept of developing their property
a10i
without providing acceptable access to the Franklin National
property suggested or discussed. The bank learned of this pro-
posal only upon receiving legal notice of the public hearing and
inspecting the plans at City Hall.
We met with Mr. Anderson's design consultants, from Hammel-Green &
Abrahamson Inc., and Chris Enger, to discuss Franklin National Bank's
access concerns. We met with them both prior to and following their
recent public hearings before the Planning Commission.
As the Council is aware, the Anderson Industrial Planned Unit Develop-
ment was continued at the initial planning commission meeting. The
commission cited numerous problems in voting to continue the Anderson
proposal, including the need to provide a solution to the problem
of access to the Franklin National Bank property.
Prior to the second planning commission meeting, Mr. Anderson sub-
mitted a letter which emphatically refused to dedicate right-of-way
or construct a road to provide access to the bank property. He further
stated the excessive cost of this road as his reason for so refusing.
After some discussion the Planning Commission voted to deny Mr.
Anderson's request for development approval.
Also in attendance at this meeting were some of the owners of the in-
dustrial buildings located between the bank's property and County Road
67. These buildings are located in the area labelled "Existing In-
dustrial" on the attached exhibit.
These buildings currently gain their access via the private road shown
along their eastern boundaries. This private road intersects with
County Road 67 right next to the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad
crossing. This intersection is far too close from a public safety
perspective, to be improved to provide permanent access to these
buildings and collect the industrial traffic from the bank property
when it develops. A spokesman for these owners stated that they also
expected this permanent access problem to be solved when the Bury-
Carlson property developed.
The reason for giving all of this background information is that we
feel it is essential for you to understand Franklin National Bank's
position in submitting the attached petition for local improvements.
We understand from discussion with city staff that Mr. Anderson's
current proposal is to dedicate a right-of-way along his western
boundary and in the northwestern corner (to allow the intersection
with County Road 67 to move ± 150 feet east of the Railroad crossing).
We further understand that he has agreed to accept future access-
ments for this improvement.
On behalf of Franklin National Bank, we'd like to express our strong
endorsement of this solution to this access problem. Not only will
this plan provide a secondary access and egress for the proposed
Anderson Industrial Development, and provide appropriate access to
the Franklin National Bank property, but it will also, provide a
21O2.
•
•
•
{
permanent solution to the problem of access to the existing indus-
trial development between the bank property and County Road 67,
along the railroad tracks. As previously noted, these buildings
are currently serviced by a private gravel road, (see attached
exhibit) which intersects with County Road 67 dangerously close
to the Chicago Northwestern Railroad crossing. Current sight dis-
• • tance onto County Road 67 is very poor and existing grades pro-
hibit the safe stacking of on-turning traffic.
One of the fundamental principles of City Planning and Develop-
ment is that such development should be consistent with a compre-
hensive plan. One of the key benefits of developing according to
a comprehensive plan is that the community facilities (streets and
utilities, etc.) needed to service an entire area, at full develop-
ment, are anticipated as individual parcels develop. Consequently,
when the area is fully developed, all of the essential public ser-
vice systems are properly sized and logically and compatibly inte-
grated. The cost of constructing the portions of a city's public work
systems which run through or along a given property is an unavoidable
development expense, and not an unfair or excessive burden as has been
suggested.
Attached for your consideration is a petition for the construction of
a 38' industrial road, with concrete curb and gutter. We understand
from discussions with city staff, that this road would intersect with
County Road 67 approximately 150' east of the Chicago Northwestern
Railroad crossing and from thence run south along the western boundary
of the proposed Anderson Development, to connect with the existing
30' of platted right-of-way. Franklin National Bank would request
that this street improvement be extended to include the improvement
of the existing gravel crossing of Nine Mile Creek. The bank realizes •
that it will be solely responsible for the cost of this portion of
the improvement.
The construction pf this industrial road, as proposed, will insure
the provision of an efficient street system to service this area
of Eden Prairie in the future. In addition, this improvement will have
three immediate and significant benefits: 1) it will provide a second
means of access and egress to the Anderson Industrial Development,
2) it will provide a properly designed road to ensure the efficient
development of the Franklin National Bank property, and 3) it will
provide a safe and permanent solution to the problem of providing
access to the existing industrial development located south and east
of the intersection of County Road 67 and the Chicago Northwestern
Railroad.
Respectfully submitted,' f, // _ 3
'ZE
Jo W. Shardlow
Principal Planner
cc: Tom Allen, President
Franklin National Bank 2.103
THE Gust(co.
p;.
r/ I, 1 l"
\+.',
F ' is
( •.
• FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK ( 0 •
`,
E,F-EA,,,,, ., „.;:.ter,,,,;',�iO..• VAt p
Eden Prairie, Minn. �,COMSTAVC-rish� -
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. WY-to irk, �'/fiktOTINI�,t` ►�
Land Planning Consultants .1okNSonl :0` h /*`1f i
Mpls„ Minn �-
P D
, ` • • ,/0 i-r"1---
/M •
o WO 200 400 %': \c . ` , I • INVOlgc W-
,c: i
T1=71 N , P - • .
,
/ \4RAvr-t-
,
-,'
1 F N4-� i-
/ r
; / r; .
/ �57INy, �o
' 4 C ZtA,'<\*-.\
t „�_
/%\(<<,M1/,,. ._��-)tr--,.� i MAD.D�,t.. 4
I \,ni \ /i _ `� �IU
/,. \;\„ ( V ao 4.t r'Fi�l� 1
• ( is ^,\t,,\\1\i\.\,\� �J�� v) ; t, i i '.
• ,', . ice,-(/'i '' 9";t `"y,G , �/' / %%r.
•
exi Told t•. ul4/44/1/II-.,,t„II0:r:.f.r,.:'i:f...!,l.i_t
��I Op` ' ':"=' i
° , 5
rr/ 1
!,iii
1 ,,,i„,,, f..,:i....__..,
. ,.1 ,,,,..r...___.7.7c .. ,_.•
1 1
1 1 '
2104
. a
•
CITY OF LI) N PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
100% PETITION Fok I/ Al. LMPkOVI.:MENTS
TO THE 1 DEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL;
• The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real y property described
below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed
with making the following described improvements;
. (General Location)
Sanitary Sewer east of Chicago and Northwestern RR,
•
Watermain south of County Road 67, intersecting
Storm Sewer with County Road 67 approximately 150'
X Street Paving east of RR crossing, thence south be-
Other tween properties to meet existing 30'
platted'r.o.w.
Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive any
public hearing to be held on said improvements, and further state and
agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially as-
sessed against the property described below in accordance with the
City's special assessment policies. We further understand that the
preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is .
Street Address or other Legal Names and addresses of Petitioners
Description of Property to be Served (Must be owners of record)
•
Tract C registered Franklin National Bank of �f
Land survey No. 1095 Minneapolis 67tez;/, P
(For City Use)
Date Received
Project No. _
2io5
HGA
•
•
Hammel Green and Abrahamson Inc.Architects&Engineers 2675 University Ave.,St.Paul,Minnesota 55114 612/646 7501
.31.July 1981
•
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
ATTEN: Carl Jullie
Chris Enger
RE: Westwood Business Park
Gentlemen:
On behalf of ADI and myself, I want to thank you for meeting with us last
Thursday. Per that discussion, we have revised lots 3 and 4 of the proposed
development submitted in June.
These revisions are based on the considerations discussed at that meeting
on the 23rd which included Richard and Scott Anderson, yourselves and me.
Following is a listing of the items discussed as I had noted them:
1. The City is not in a position to approve a zoning which will land
lock a parcel. Therefore, two options were discussed showing access to
the bank's property southwest across Nine Mile Creek. Option one was
an easement along the westerly edge of Westwood. Option two was an
easement from Westwood's cul-de-sac to the west property line meeting
the north corner of the bank's parcel. Option one was selected
to be developed. It provided an opportunity to upgrade access to
existing properties on the west, it minimized the loss of salable
land from Westwood, and it would allow a back door emergency access
to Westwood through the parking areas of lots 3 and 4.
2. Side yards on lot 4 could be reduced; reference parking to 17'
on the west, 50' on the north, 25' on the east, and the buildings
would have to be at least 50' from property lines.
3. The proposed easement would be 60' wide, 30' to be taken from
ADI's Westwood. The roadway would be 34' wide centered on the
property line with a 5' wide level shoulder allowing 13' for earth
sculpturing in the R.O.W. The intersection of this easement with
County Road 67 would be centered 140' from the easterly edge of the
railroad R.O.W. We have had conversations with Hennepin County which
suggest this is acceptable.
2106
•
HGA
31 July 1981
Page Two
4. Reduction of required parking will not be considered at this time.
. 5. AOI will pay cash for their share (50%) of the roadway at the
time of its construction. Estimated length 725'.
6. The City will advise and coordinate adjoining property e.,mers to
the south and west so they execute their portion of the easement
and agree to pay for their portion of the construction costs.
Please advise if these notes are not consistent with your recollections.
The accompanying revision drawing accommodates all the issues above and
if agreeable to you, we will so modify the documents submitted earlier.
With the resolution of this access issue, we believe the concerns of the
Planning Corcanission have been met and hope that City staff can submit a
supporting report. We, therefore, anticipate approval of the preliminary
platting and rezoning request and the ability to move this project forward
to completion.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation.
C. M. Niemeyer, AIAAAbttlr--.
Vice President HGA
cc: Richard Anderson
Ed Vogt
Enclosure
CMN/kn
•
•
•
2109
•„
•
AD!
A.,,HARD W. ANDERSON, INC.
DEVELOPER
•
• • July 10, 1981
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Attention: Chris Enger
- 1
Re: Westwood Business Park
Dear Chris:
The Franklin National Bank has demanded that ADI construct a
600-foot road costing over $1,000,000 through the Nine Mile
Creek flood plain area, to the bank's property at the south-
west corner of Westwood Park.
ADI absolutely refuses to do so for the following reasons:
•
1) Our 42 acre site has only one natural amenity, namely
the Nine Mile Creek, and said amenity will be removed when a
road and bridge is constructed through it. The natural
greenery will also be destroyed (Please refer to the site plan
and notice that over six acres of land in the southwest
corner are being retained in total).
2) The Westwood land is costing $25,000 per acre. ADI
valued the Bank's 30 acres at $7,500 per acre, because a
major portion is swamp and flood plain land. The million
dollar investment in a road and bridge is not warranted to
service a $200,000 parcel of land. Further, $1,000,000 par-
cel of land would simply not warrant a $1,000,000 investment
in a street to service "someone on the other side of the
mountain."
•
Continued-
•
9995 W.69th St. Phone(612)944.6b03
Eden Prairie,MN 55344 2.Itf
Page - 2 - July 10, 1981
( 444,000 square feet of buildings will be constructed in
Westwood at a value of $15,500,000. ADI will forgo the
opportunity, if it is compelled to construct a road for the
benefit of a third party. ff
Yours very truly,•
• -.RICHARD W. ANDERSON, INC. (ADI)
•
By ll/
President
RWA/tm
cc: Hamel Green & Abrahamson {.
P.S. Even if the bank will pay the million dollar cost, we
are not interested in desecrating the sole beauty spot of
our property with a road and bridge. We offer our
industrial customers something more than brick and mortar.
•
•
•
ZIU9
f_._
,., Chicago, Milwaukee,St. Paul
and Pacific Railroad Company
221 - Third Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Phone; 612/349-4288
July 10, 1981
' File: 273 - E.
I+ir. Chris Enger - City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
• 8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Mr. Enger:
I am writing you in regard to the proposal before the Eden Prairie Planning
Commission concerning the proposed connection between Kurtz Lane and Edenvale
Blvd., which if approved would require changing an existing private crossing
into a public road. We have not been officially notified of this proposal,
but we feel that we should make our feelings known while the matter still is
in its preliminary stages.
In view of public safety and the safety of our employees, it is our desire,
along with both State and Federal governments, to minimize the number of "at-
grade" crossings whenever possible.
The granting of new public "at grade" crossings comes under the jurisdiction
of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and their authorization will be
required. If the Railroad objects to this corssing, a public hearing would
then be required.
If this crossing is ordered the City will then have to acquire a permanent ease-
ment for the roadway from the Railroad. The initial cost of the crossing would
then be born by the City, including all the grading, the drainage, the crossing
surface, the necessary upgrading of the track structure and any signalization re-
quired. This would be much the same procedure as required in the case with Valley
View Road except that no crossing will be closed as Duck Lake Road was.
Since we have not received a print showing this proposal (I understand one is now
being sent) I am not sure of the exact alignment of this proposed crossing, however,
after inspection of the site, it was noted that there is not good visibility in
any of the quadrants which make this crossing undesirable for the amount of traffic
proposed. I must admit that some tree cutting and grading and the installation
of automatic warning signals with gates would improve this safety hazard. How-
ever, it is the opinion of the Railroad that the above measures will have to be
undertaken if a crossing is to be installed.
Because we like to limit the number of public grade crossings, and because this
( crossing will present a safety problem, we hope that an alternative access route
serving the proposed development can be found.
(Continuation)
t
2110
•
Mr. Chris Enger July 10, 81 File: 273 - E. Page 2
I will appreciate it if you will keep me advised on the progress in this
matter and if any cost estimates are needed, we will be happy to provide
them to you. I am interested in any plans for assessments associated with
this project.
•Thank you for your consideration of our concerns regarding this proposal.
S.J. McCanna
p vision Manager
DJI/np
CC: G. II. Mentjes - Chgo. - Room 898
Gene F. Bennett - Attorney - 1st National Bank Bldg.
Gene Dietz - City Engineer - Eden Prairie
•
•
•
2111
•
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
INCORPONATCO
CONSULTING PLANNERS
ONE OROVCLAND TERRACE
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA SS4O3
•
1113.377-3536
. 9 July 1981
• Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Eden Prairie City Offices
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission:
As you may recall from the last meeting at which the
proposed Anderson Industrial Planned Unit Development was
considered, we are consultants to Franklin National Bank,
which owns the 30 ± acre parcel just south and west of the
subject property (see the attached exhibit). As I
•
mentioned at that meeting, we have attended a number of
meetings over the last year and a half on behalf of the
Bank to discuss (1) the City's intent to route a
residential collector street across the southern half of
the Bank's property and, (2) the need to provide access
through the Bury-Carlson property to the portion of the
Bank's property which will develop industrial.
During the course of those meetings, the Bury-Carlson
representatives stated that they were attempting to sell
the entire parcel to a single user. Therefore, they were
unable to commit to the exact alignment of a public street
through their property, or the exact location of the
connection into .the Franklin National Bank parcel.
However, it was our understanding throughout those
discussions that access would be provided in a reasonable
location, to be determined after the specific users'
site development needs were assessed. From discussions
with the City Staff, throughout the period, we believe
this to be the City's understanding as well.
To understand the Bank's position in this matter, the
Planning Commission must understand that the Bank's Charter
prohibits it from acting as a land developer. The Bank
ended up with this property due to a default on a loan and
can only market it in its raw, undeveloped form, to recoup
its investment. I can assure you that the bank is actively
2112
Eden Prairie Planning Commission 9 July 1981
City of Eden Prairie Page 2
, attempting to do so, but, has been unsuccessful to date,
due primarily to current interest rates.
• With this background in mind, please refer to the attached
. ••' exhibit. Represented on this reduced exhibit is a rough
concept for the development of the Franklin National Bank
' property. Certainly one of the key features shown is the
'proposed residential collector across the southern half of
the Bank parcel. As you know, this parcel is shown on the
City's Comprehensive Plan and we have, therefore,
considered it as a given in our planning efforts on this
parcel. We have shown this collector entering the Bank
parcel at the existing private road crossing adjacent to
the Bury property, and exiting at a point which has been
tentatively agreed upon with McCombs-Knutson, Inc., in
their preliminary planning on the proposed Centurion Homes
Development.
This concept calls for access into the industrial section
of the Bank property to be gained through the Bury-Carlson
property and for all of the industrial traffic to be
channeled north to County Road 67 and thence to I-494.
There is no industrial access proposed onto the
residential collector. This interface between land uses
would be bermed, screened, and landscaped, as needed, to
make this transition as effective as possible.
It should also be noted on this exhibit that two 42 inch
culverts are currently in place beneath the existing gravel
farm road crossing at the north end of the property. From
discussion with Bob Obermeyer of Barr Engineering, the
Watershed District engineer, we understand that these
culverts are sufficiently sized to accommodate the 100
year flood, and that in fact, this road crossing isn't
even inundated during such a flood. We would expect that
some demucking and sub-base preparation would be required
to construct this crossing, however, it would not require
bridging.
In conclusion, we believe that a refinement of the attached
concept is the best way for the Franklin National Bank
property to be developed. It provides for the residential .
collector called for in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It
also provides for a reasonable transition between high
1
Eden Prairie Planning Commission 9 July 1981
City of Eden Prairie Page 3
quality residential and intensive industrial land uses.
Let there be no question about the fact that Franklin
National Bank intends to sell its property for development
according to its industrial zoning, with the modifications
. noted above. To provide for this development, a street
connection through the proposed Anderson Industrial Planned
Unit Development will be required. We will be in
attendance at Monday's meeting to answer any questions
which you may have about the Franklin National Bank's
property.
Sincerely,
ohn W. Shardlow
Principal Planner
enclosure
•
211q
'/ I ;I
•)•' `
I •.
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK `,.%�'
..
den Prairie, Minn. . > , ,��°': ,Y�TE
• Howard Dahlgren Assoc. 1• . thrtt4C,•\
. Land Planning Consultants /' Wt�,y l;,,L;�,I, _
Mpls, Minn. /rI. ,``\\t r, ,1�•� - ra4EP
o 1o0 200 400 ! ; \t (>.• ; ; WVVkWW(AL i
.ci ..:)
•, i:--. FxI 1U4j .FYi i
-\ a -..�= \\ t
\ \� fin\ r
l�` ! � > 'PFot'oSE.D
/r•- � / 1 i
,•''i' N`Q\. ell �,
I 'f . � Y
4 ' -w /1/t/I/ll111 0" ..Uy; % •
• PMA4
lNwh}'R`:L. 'II.. hi1• LE.FAMILY
f �
x1 t tlr,
✓ ` `"
,1 1. •` i \ •. •cin
�, •
•
11
2115
-- • .
. . .
,..-• . ..,-
..
• .
•
...AP-
. ."..^, ., .
• '1 4:
( S.
• 1 -.) . •
• 4.f,/• „.
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK ,
/. ,:, 1 ,'•
. •• I, .
. ' 4.•\\C\‘: 41‘6. FAI*11,44
Eden Prairie, Minn.
. . • • ,tki ..:;-:
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. . ifi..ext6-11Nit, 'NIP-
- .- ,...
Land Planning Consultants Mpls., na ,c.. i ..) `(.i./ -k -c-',.r
1)4,1/!41•4V,
;
- 1,,. ,,I, v
o 100 00 400 I • \1 I' 1 VOAFIA
L
n= •\crws,yr.4_ ,-,„ ..:, 60.,,
$e1
t.1,/ ;`•:\\ \ ‘t tr.i 1 . 1
,
. ...Emb-rit-44 4 ii. lc
/ii' 41%**CVI•VE St(1."C) ‘
t
.PI .....'N ... -...----101--/M,.• • ' •
, , ,
,. ‘ \
,
_.-..„... ,
4 if
( . It4D0h1T4M- I Zy,_ej,iis,?:4,.-ri;;_----.4-:2•,:,IV,Ii\
/-• ',I:1;e %1-11•\.c‘i_..:3:4-.,.4•, ilii,„‘ ,c1:;
1,1%'JA‘r 7 IV-S.---4-7.-if'-`.-,1;t.:(-, It',\\s\'-"!,-%- l./. I fgorohES, '
-`‘`,4./,-,..:-...-:-*-----tr----", , t'..V.s--;:;.;f:'). -t \ ,_" A.....-„F_:.-.1--..-...;-. --,i1..:-.7---- • „ ..-
• i % ',$;:c.i'-","----'sz? ------'" ....„1:01::, IAEA,.DEW2t- .
i \,111,01/I,..-",::::•••:::'C.,'1,,,,.-1C7 -sigril:;.- ..."....
1 ‘I,I I,i ).--,,,v.'', s,t,r,r,x‘,,L..,-,.,...•-•s ,
1 r ) •‘L-',t:n ‘\,t.l'...•s'.A4-•t'1•7'0,?..l'e..,..-"14"7--.7.---' ' -r-V-- 121V{111.4.
•
if;//,": : \k\‘' :'''',1(-k.\49:0vt:N\'', :7: ;: '-..-
. •
,i'.;f2.1-i: 1 tN\ ,;‘\:., •-'T-Vts,‘ ,.,.P:-.1„--s•t?./.?::.,-f!,
,,„/".%:-.▪....,1)/..':-...--.X- -.0`) 4 A- - -:: ?1;': ' •:':-- 2 '•, s-',.---1./•,•,' --iv‘yy<1(.. -.-;.'!:,/,'',.' '-;',;',;,- " - i
• •„ _—.--.7-.;;''140 4- -.., . -,i„!,.?.;-,-•.- •
•o'- 'eni,---- ,40. i, e, -,,.------ •',...., •;,:\,_::..I.L___ ;
Ex:yr:144 ",!,.t,- _ ',/ki/P111111V11\!1- cc"".. , '--- \`‘';) --';',--;::' ' ""•-•• 7
rgivtirE,cow _.• :•17-..--,-.T...-,17,,,,0"..., .-.'-- --',7:771.,,.‘...-.,--.‘,,,,-Z-,,f,•,:,
:;:.'•1:,-7:•.! ,_—) .‘i . l ,,.',.,•-.,77),',,',',..'
,....7,
r
1. ."....._:4,. ,:5.7,1 ..f",:.‘,.;t.'"i":::;;;;r.A! ;-:•: li:',.;,;•,4.:,
f,x1,-ilt4f ' . --..-1 r•,;',.-7:.tNii,-rti44."., .:',. .:. 2;,„,
4
,..: • ...,...,,,44LE.Lnkmii..,y ---..
4....,..t_i, : :,-- ,.,;•.:....:..
iVENTIAL
,e4t-
• ;Iii'i: '' ....:_1:..A...' ...!, . ,.q ..-;--. ,,- ; .
XL' :, '. •.) •-ir...--<•',-.-. ‘7.-'_- ---....
1 , ," . . :.-:
7q1 - ----. .
( , 1 —I 'ti
,e , - : . .......---,—. . .-
. 1 .
. .
. .
...
)..re
_. .._ .
. . ..
•
r,"
i .1 t
,b
.( e.
•
•
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK � %o• ,
• Aden Prairie •
, Minn. b:;:.„`•
�10-: .Y,,TE
7,1 :• j.
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. i{,. ►f? ,x j'�;,,
•
Land Planning Consultants % lApuy' 1�►, ; _
pgorabP
Mpls, Minn. �f `'•k 0
\ .•
t% ;
/P, ^
0 100 100 400 i,. � \`;'; , /./� tNVOIgf li L
i
, ,: 0I IbTINCr 10A�t:
,,. i
• �Vt.Wr Nor �F, if i
•1 ~\ \11. r. I . • i
'�U 'Tl t4 '
• tNW'7 WI I.k _ 11:•, # c., ,
L:- ,
r n 11\�y,6�:.� -rt- III �- t T,
•
ato r I 11ldl d u ri� i\'c�,t6�P��1
�: _
•
cu r•44 .!'y :/1rI!/1ani111111v,+I <ae74;�_- +� ' '�
P1 Ir ;,`f,
mtNTltd _� : �� 3 t�.'� Sri',
\ ERibTW4
""
;- • i�'�,� ,',• • hINiLE-;FAMIL{(
o
` �t✓h1D�.NTIfsL
• ,�,G Wit. ` 1 -' 4'
'If 1 I 1 t.,`j,.....,•
I 1
t t
2111
•
.r--
.1•
. , if
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK ,• `'/
.
EXIhTIt44
Eden Prairie, Minn. ;;;;; 4ro- 1VATt
Howard Dahigren Assoc. A` xtT- , \�
Land Planning Consultants r Wpuy- j •/-
P /. „ , r,, .
. Mpls., Minn. ,,, ,,,\ i 1 pforoh617
o ,00 ZOO goo �•\ \T • ' !;/i INUUhlg IAL.
,/ : .� EX114TIN4`•., _ is 47�RI`
rtn=i===1 N v U '� \4RA 7"'A
•
•' ;_;�EXI5TtN4' •;4 ' .
�Z.CutVEX,,:0�/Vzc1C)"
ExthTIV.14 ,,, \ ,b'1J\‘N 4 l''' '.... . .."
IC! .'sit,‘,LL!1\._,:Z./,' r,,I 10100 , ';,
�� ,,.__ =_ r, I ..
. ,tn ^s•� ,, ,1,--- •,,;
, \,,,s5,1\•, ,fi'==; �,kF.-,.,` r u I'' MAP.
'trr r i��d I i I,r , • �•G;.�"'lG> 1t t1A),1uJ__� �
'! ,iw'O,s1vA, sty\�� ,- !l �. _
fti '
TTtyTIAt t l; ' •�,' t:XIyTW¢
I 11t ..
hINiLE'FAhIIL�(i 4
i,'`/'`fit { ". EStVENTI,NL
r c„;.4itiz,•"4,. 1 .... .;__^
,
.
I I
2.►►Y
•
r t^
"sat'
! 11 ,
• F i'
r• % o
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK `.-7,'
44
Eden Prairie, Minn. ; •E"'"`"
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. '% iIyTlNkl\ •
. Land Planning Consultants i,, WpuyT js �
P ., /`•
a\ ,,r' i oh D
MIs Minn. ;P, ` i ��: - "P
p 100 200 400 % \t •.` %;j/' I INVUhSgW-
� / F �STINy`v �'AR3=
1-.[L=r" 9 N
I pici.14":govpi\‘'"-, ‘,N4,4,-4,,„,c'''''';1:,--T
,,,„...,.........) ,,,,\ 1 5.:,,,/ . i
IxI,TIN4
.. itv4.xv0vAi7-rrfit..fi1Ih r t.../.)i,i,-/‘
fig/ S, ,. "_—! 0 ♦ \.\•
4 - : i- f
,;r.� iP.:G±_ti:..n�'i,i Ili � - 'l;il;.-,/.,i.-
,.I',,,-,1..,v1,-..:
,•
zEoPt.tMi,Ei3l')s
•' , V \Ili.' h,/,-=. `: ov
i!! /r 1 nl r II u i '- Y,.,--el oi4 1 '----
1',."-'-:::' s',\111/4\\*,,.,a...` \T-0/r.v--...:,-'1\t...,' 1-
EIU4TM4 �'�i-I.,._4:/JIII111UV } P'y / ,V2•• Y -
-iii
1:-.,, , '''.--")f s'it
• /
0" , `,/,� ti ? hINc�LE=t'AMtL y ^
/�'7 --{y "i:�h 117E NTI,+L
iii.1 +1, rr i y .=.
01
1 1
2119
•
-- r
(
( • r r ,,
', 1
•
Y,� ,.1.
:r
• i d.
a S.
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK• • �'•
i•f V lr 0 •
;•/
Eden Prairie, Minn. •,.; • 7' ,7.v�T£
%4''`�'
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. f - XjtiTINf,,��'••,
Land Planning Consultants ,7140uhTFl,.1/; _
Mpls, Minn. ,P ,, , 17:1 1 Pc.orob p
0 100 200 400 (5 .i ) i' . ‘r ' \ (-.,2 I, i.• INVOlgclAl--
illtr9N i.',Exi6-rips4s-...- ...,,, 1,.4.4z.v.
.fi . .iiwTIN4 '/, �,,
b." ._-4-cuWLR E -')�?
• \ r
fxt Tlt•llfi /i N, ` ,;ij `
lNwhTgl�r1- sir, , ,,f-. ,;1
y'
• + ice___ �_�' l\ ,\�-i.t
• ;/ to 5\.,-;,,=ram".; �;,• �' i 1 MER vEsi,E..
r ) •i.\t♦••l�Na I\ ), \:.I/`'r.,G� 1p\ /0Ri^„---- i
• �r.,,,\\\\\,\``.,�_ Y*\��\0-0�N`. 'i\•i. .�_�._ Tw�712u�1fit- ?.
A
. /ie".-''',"-•//, '::i•';.-‘il:>/e..,4._ ,..,,..„:.:::,.:.,„,• -,-, _ - ,
.. ,,,, __...:,.;,„,,,,,„, ‘„, -4-4" ::(' -/
y `'�
x1rMy���!i, //UI/IIIl1N�%4 -. 'k'..j!
5.
•
~ ' rPRwntaf f/rF
l •-w tN , fr. fir`• , ,,,/
►1 •! • -
, !,,I -/ i , . 'hINiirE.TAM1t.{(
� , �
..c ,t
461..f.:-T- e•s '',-1--d'H-N, • .1
! i
s t
z.iw
•
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK 1% •
, ,.
44
Eden Prairie, Minn. ``'''\�j; ?OVATE�,,�,,,�� o,• p�IVA7i PAP
�,.rr�Ft`r -
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. ��'""`
9 ��'%ExIhTINl��\"�•
Land Planning Consultants '�IIJWhT�,th
M ls, Minn. /4'• \\a ? p(�OhP
\t ;irLi=1 N ,A
o /oo 200 400 , ;� i1 {
INVf Vd tc. r.::,
Vk -
• • 'f.RD�fiI M4'�7d
i
;14./.4
• -`-LICI5T1N44 &n'
t
I �
— fr t .
14-' ; . " ' IME ..PtWt.
•%� . 11VII�1 ,
E5tliTIN4 %`!i %/1lI/l1I1nPo' / , , ;
!!IlII `^ :li ! r \I‘ am
•� P to: t , +4.-,,J 4
j
4' ''‘ ' :ki-V 4.' .-•--.*--4E.171VE.1•111,11..
� I,�/ jam,
2.121
•
•
•
1� c
. I'
i , '
. A ,
i•
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK F •
• . ,'e •
0/'0 �clarlru,
' . Eden Prairie, Minn. . <:� �-�.-: IVo,<E,
` .t' ,\
• • Howard Dahlgren Assoc. �t. xiyTIN :-
Land Planning Consultants ;' ItWWhT'JA41,j�j/;�`
/ '.,,,1`� �, /1-
Mpls Minn
%�• ;;;� �:; p�oPobEP
,r, it
0 100 200 400 / ; `e •., %'/i:I INPvhtg(AL
i I GR09hIN4--J`.'i
linz=r=1
N ,t i` A AI�"r
I L��
•mf' -- EAI4.TIN4 ,, 5
�'� • ==, t1 11tvgvhTglik+LJ � �, " \ � - 1 \I1
Y
, 1 "-•" ice_ 1% �f :
, j . ;',F. 0C, Wx- III \14V1
1\\15,.4.// .. 1,4--k, - 111 I MEP.
d 1 ca tl i�:\I J'.\ \�4i 6� �\U� 011
. 1 l
\\\\`\f titi< i'`;., v\\ FOR•_o bi I
Ii
PRIVA t4 ?.1.,.\,1,:.4i!i.'. 4144!I/IIIl11VJll e°'_y J,i:,.4-7_ 4: `
,7 7.1
c... .f
INWhjRlAl 1 ,r >ANAL
/1r -'sEhIvENTIf,L
ific
1 , 17 \...:\io.....,
•
1 1
212--
r r
• ,fir, ;
•• 1
, 1 1
ti,� ,_1.
i,
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK r`'�'
,`y, 0 ,•,
Eden Prairie, Minn. ,=;; ' ;w1Hf 1N4
.,7, G- WATE{CAAv
•
A' it
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. xIhTIN , •-
Land Planning Consultants WNhT>i;,1�4t ;
,/,;i_ i
Mpls, Minn. f ,,, .; 1
o goo 200 400 ; \� ; '� / INVUhTf W—
v IUI `� \4.A 1. i rAR I
N ���,1 c oo5hIN4--xf
, ✓'\;;i�� sir i
/� 1
XISTItJ4 ,; ; -,�
1 , l -_/, -,‘, 4 f,f
Z., �kj r 9, h. r r;
I,I'.-i. lC M'l}[�) a-r ^'i", Ill\ e✓".'' 1 q�,,
' ,,\ki!„),YY..M1; ..__t^`gal`•_--"r,'rf;, 1El) I
/ d 1,1 n11 I11 s r •/ y„w ����A1�1�. , l
:: 1 `l ..,:\\\,,�,\(.( \44 ,y,%:ORS
. �..� v�,.s`.\�.s�‘�." _F`\\�.\\0O%." ^,i. �w`_ hu l l_ 1
"4/er-7.,..:7; ‘, 11 VA't\,,.4....'‘NY":,,;\re.Y •;11 iZ-i-4,'a i
PRIVATE s .lI/U�11�?7g., ii-d4 ,--- .,Vf".9 L , e
,,,;..7,7,,,,.,,. y„.,,,,. ...... , .....,..e.,, ,,,
, ,
..: _.__ _„__,.,...c
1 r.i
EXIhTI144 ' - T,.-:....._.; ,,,,,:.._:;,,,,,,'1,,," , ''
A1`;T 4. 74,1- .. hNN1.LE-FAMIL4j
/fJ
,, . `, ' '��51DENTIAL
....
,!;,4,-1., _.-T_,,z, , : - • 1- ---
43, i ,... i, T-:s:__ ---‘,
. , I .,..._.„...... .
. , ,
,i7i v .
, 1
2123
( `
( y r '1`1 1
j
r •
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK ;:` %'o ,•
Eden Prairie, Minn. ,.N , ��"yr'
.44
Howard Dahigren Assoc. x._exjsiTIN4,,''\
Land Planning Consultants %TWOuhT I1.1 '1, -
Mpls Minn. °`l"."� -
,{l `1 o*EP
'.. PAP
/. •
o i:r°
/ �t I./;,, 1NVUh'ig IAL
tetw4` �'AKi�
4,.....,,II\.,\• \• .497 • ,
4'
a
FXt6TIt4l� �`` ‘ 1
4 1.4.--NA\LL '... ,-:*-// r`\VI: „;,
f F . 1 ^" \ __, ;,a,,,. Ill, .e.f :,/
r ''1" its'—'_—`__l_ n.,Nj /Il`s_'.' F''i 1 fotb6ED
, j 1 .'k%\\\ ‘l,.• ;44 ; N\a tLtO 1 a" l7lvr-ct1 v�y
i r/ ^�,,,,,, \,�, :..d .40.. y `
L
- \ 11 111„,,, om.\a , l C 1
/, -....- i, ),) . ..);,..so, .0.,,, s.::,i, /,',.2-../,.--, i
�•� /�` I
: iivE � � �/ll1/11111N1Ie° �_ ' ��:' ` e
PRA fvh :7t1:.:INi.- fa: •0 { • rj ' T '
I w •
'.:('I t- 4 4:.-1 ,--. -'gE171T7E_NTIAL
;_ , . " t hIN4LE=FAMIL{(�
,,.:
_.:
,/f.: .....1-1. 1.-.", . :_l --. ... I
y . -
1 1
21214
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION `;4
320 Washington Av. South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 ' " J
HENNEPIN___[NE
L 93E0-3381
'' June 10, 1981
•
Mr. Chris Enger
Director of Planning
• • City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eder Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Mr. Enger:
• RE Proposed Plat - 'Westwood Industrial Park"
County Road 67 Approximately 700 ft. west of CSAH 60 - So. Side of CR 67
Section 3, Township 116, Range 22
Hennepin County Plat No. 931
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:
-For future improvements to County Road 67 the developer should dedicate an
additional 7 ft. of right of way making the right of way 40 ft. from the
center of CR 67.
-Although the proposed access point does meet minimum sight distance require-
ment to the driver's right, Hennepin County recommends moving the proposed
access easterly approximately 300 ft., to the crest of the hill or westerly
to gain a safer sight distance to the east.
-Any new access to a county road requires an approved Hennepin County entrance
permit before beginning any construction. 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 landscaping. See our
Maintenance Division for utility permit forms.
-The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within
County right of way.
Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt.
S' cerely,
.. .P. aq
ames M. Wald, P.E. HENNEPIN COUNTY
Chief, Planning and Programming on equal opportunity employer
JFt�/LDW:pj 2125
•
•
/ •
• /0; May 12, 1981
•
y/;
•
Mr. Richard W. Anderson
ADI
9995 West 69th Street
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Sir:
Today we noticed a sign on the property on 62 Crosstown, west of
Baker Road. We, as your neighbor to the east (St. John's Homeowners
Association, P.O. Box 1403, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343), would like
to call to your attention a commitment that has been made by the
former owners of the property of which, as we understand, you now
are the owner. Bury Carlson, the former owners, when they desired
to mine for gravel, obtained permission for same from the City of
Eden Prairie with a proviso that they and future owners would main-
tain a moraine between their property and that of ours in the Home-
owners Association.
When the property came up for sale and Thorpe Brothers were designated
as the sales representatives, we called to Thorpe's attention the
fact that this moraine had been established. They acknowledged to
us that they were aware of same and that any representation they made
on the property, would reflect the establishment of this barrier.
We, in the spirit of cooperation, want to call this matter to your
attention, as well. If at any time there are questions concerning
our mutual relationship, please feel free to contact the association
at the above address.
Presdt �
CC: /Zoning Office of the City of Eden Prairie
Carl Julie, City Manager
'111. _.
C J" HILLSTROM&MARTINSON,Ltd.
SAWYERS
1330 SOO LINE BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402
ROSERT A.HILLSTROM 612.132 4063
•RADLEY J.MARTINSON
• •December 12, 1979
•
• City Engineer
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Dear Sir:
I represent the Homeowners' Association at St. John's Woods. It is their understanding
that the area immediately to the west of St. John's Woods townhouse development is
in the process of being developed or that development plans have been submitted to
the City for consideration. Certain commitments have been made to the townhouse
association with regard to maintaining the natural barrier between the St. John's Woods
property and the property scheduled for development. The Homeowners' Association
is deeply concerned about this development and that all the commitments made to
them be honored. I would therefore appreciate it if you would notify me and the
president of the Homeowners'Association of any upcoming planning commission hearings -
or other hearings in which input will be sought with respect to this development.
Yours truly,
Zo/r"--
adley . Martinson
BJM/c
cc: Mr. Ken Beiersdorf
Thorpe Realty
8085 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
President
St. John's Wood Homes Association
P. O. Box 1403 I
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
212-1
. 5/81
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL
b•NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHE:ET (EAW)
AND NOTICE 0F. FINDINGS
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
E.R.
•
•NOTE: ' ^lie purpose of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to provide
information on a project so that one can assess rapidly whether or not the
project requires an Environmental Impact Statement. Attach additional
' 'pages, charts, maps, etc, as needed to answer these questions. Your
• answers should be as specific as possible. Indicate which answers are
estimated.
I. SUMMARY
A. ACTIVITY FINDING BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (PERSON)
Negative Declaration (No EIS) EIS Preparation Notice (EIS Required)
B. ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION We5tW00d IndUstrialPerk
1. project name or title
2. Project proposer(s) Richard W. Anderson, Inc.
Address 9995 West 69th Street
Telephone Number and Area Code (612) . 944-6803
.3. Responsible Agency or Person City of Eden Prairie
Address 9850 Eden Prairie Road ' - '
. Person in Responsible Agency (Person) to contact for further information
on this EAw: Chris Enger ' • Telephone 937-2262
4. This EAW and other supporting documentation are available for public in-
spection and/or copying at: .Location City Hall
Telephone 937-2262 Hours Sam - 4clfpps
5. Reason for EAW Preparation •
XX Mandatory Category -cite (::)Petition Other
MEQC Rule n unbcr(s) (b)(CC)(dd)
Ind. development of 40+ acres part of which is within floodplain area. 'r
c. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Ind. development of 20,000 sq. ft.+part of which is within s
1. Project location a shoreland area.
s
county Hennepin City/Township name Eden Prairie 1
Township number 116 (North), Range Number 22 East o VD (circle one), 1
Section number(s) 3 Street address (if in city) or legal descriptions
NI; of the E 75 rods of the NW•quarter of Sec. 3, T116, R22.
1 _ 2127
2. Pe an4 scopeof proposed project:
Industrial development: 42 acres, 7 buildings to contain office & warehouse i
space. '
3. Estimated starting date (month/year) Fall, 1981
4. Estimated completion date (month/year) 1984
5. Estimated construction cost 7 million + 400,000 (street Imp.) (estimated)
. 6. List any federal funding involved and known permits or approvals needed
• from each unit of government and status of each:
Unit of Government Name or Type of Permit/Approval Status
' (federal, state, or Federal Funding
regional, local)
.City PUD, zoning, platting & EAW pending' •
Nine-Mile Creek
Watershed land alteration permit pending '
EQB Negative Declaration pending
' • D:N.R. E.R.W. pending 1
approvals are involved, will a federal EIS
7. If federal permits, funding or yES UNKNOWN .
be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act?—
11
II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION I
A. Include the following maps or drawings: . . i
• 1. A map showing the regional location of the project.
2. An original 81 x 11 section of a U.S.G.S. 71 minute, 1:24,000 scale map i
with the activity or project area boundaries and site layout delineated. y
Indicate quadrangle sheet name. (Original U.S.G.S. sheet must be main-
tamed by Responsible Agency; legible copies may be supplied to other
' EAW distribution points.)
3. A sketch map of the site showing location of structures and including x
significant natural features (water bodies, roads, etc).
4. Current photos of the site must be maintained by the Responsible Agency.
Photos need not be sent to other distribution points.
B. Present land use. i
1. Briefly describe the present use of the site and lands adjacent to the site. 9
90% of the site is an excavation site from which gravel has been removed. The
extreme SW corner contains a portion of Nine-Mile Creek. To the east are 142
townhouses, to the north Co. Rd. 67 (future Crosstown 62), to the south are
wooded unbuilt parcels, and to the west are industrial uses.
,
2. Indicate the approximate acreages of.the site that are:
a. Urban developed n acres f. Wetlands (Type III, IV, V) 0 acres
b. Urban vacant 11 acres g. Shoreland 4 acres 1
• c. Rural developed 0 acres h. Floodplain 7 acres
d. Rural vacant 31 acres i. CroplandePasture land 0 acres
a. Designated Recre- 4 acres j. Forested 6 acres
. . ation/Ouen Space
OP) - 2 - 2129
.._[1.•
t� I ▪ . ,T w 2 l • J ` L'� I� N II ,,II,` r
•
1 , , :ice; •: '' -N•i--••: `' 'I
'...• ) , ., fi
lr
( . 11 81 lurekn u
!a.''�...
0 • 1 A.J, I �. F.i: I / .+'.•r�--SC'—t—.s� �l,-F + "T.'
T. ',
I J • x ^1 ( �-j i s , , G .�• ir;r . "if n'F
V 1 '. • �Q � 4/ 1Yx/��{, 11{ • I.-0r I •i•
+ Q r is I �`. 7 •n'� • 1• i _ ■
Q o',.i.,, , ♦sK •U ( U j •,L1L_%;,y. 1S I r
�� • •�•• �, r✓Mln▪n• etola Lake Slut 0o• Icza 1;
s4••,+ ( ` 1 v P Q
t,, .i • �,1�� . s-aJe a tr,•-:,...) t
•
3
.. f n .��' 4. 1, • $•hadY Dln
✓I�„_ , L 4 l .ak• e 'j ' LEI` ' 1� : re -•ea
„•... 7c2-)1„0° 01 --',,,, I t I, - . . ,c/L -, i- /)
�e» 1 ,f.^ ` / �,-., ,,•cam, 7/1
0�1 • Cu• tr ey. ) - P t, 11 LS t t�n:. -0 ,
1• sere ��; ,Q , 'o • ' e •.
�aT.- J. 1 , •'�•n Cawe \/ C O Ar,� �` 1� �i �IT—_ �• .•.
, ,
__.se,----_-_ ...---L3. 7-7—/N ,- : .4 ,, - 0 , ., ,„,
---.H.
-, 1 , ,.,
, v, .
0•�$irrh lvland• �% . • Q.. r
:ix n Q�`� ( � J _,
.........]
II 1 p \;•,\
•
".. :,)1'2,-:—/\./ :' ;•(..i\:.T \' '.' ' \ N,-1\ \ \1 7' .4,', , '• ;4•3.%; 'j.•! :,:‘,, .,,, i''''s •
I 'a \ h11 • ` j,U
` • kr '•Y Q QIL• ,f .. A• 1 �\ SS.* • , F: '•O°11.1 ,'/•.•+�J.._t.1!APr ) .
.n` a..• .•• T i.ierN f 1 .\ ,1213 y ., `j l 'I:
\ r ,° l U l ,r v 1
♦. T S..l 0. cocoursr'••' .:(`>:, S !t' �` ��w� 1/,. -_l_..r.
♦. �_. I_w•_�• '.' •— •lv t �l-��•(+YAI{.•l�l11'a..1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
_....fit �«.'r 6, -« �. j 1?�_
•
21$I
I '
. _ .
. •
. .
•, .
• ,
• •
-r' ••.‘v''.:., •••: •;'.....iie4,,v,yrt... •,',: .. tir. -• ••• `AY' ••:'-...i',,..i- ...•;* "lradr•-• ••••
.1**.."...-•.. :IX, . •, '- s v. %.4 .., •,........s..." '', •• ' r....._,,,,_.....-.,,........,..„,3 ,,,,,.....F7j ,, 4-, „...
, .:-. - ?-4.'••A t'''‘ •••••4.s•• y.r..,;;;ar,,.a/. '74` i F-,------.--rr-,4;77.44.1..:4-- ,...-6 , ;1..
•: . •ri'.4 k', • ''.0. ot-, ,•-•rte:-'/;.• 2> t• i -{i-i :' ..'..:41 ,..,t:',.:.., __,;',1'-7.21;41;Jr,4 .‘,„
--,, A. . -, , ./•.,.•4 . ..t.,,,w...,-t• ,..0•• .. , .:- .•••. -,-;,--::;-N--z,-)8.0 r:'41 '‘' I.,' ,4..-
......1'^',•",;,,• A..f ' Ail"r''•";2,,":„.;,."' .1‘..,•741,1.-:•_„„)........---f."!:,....,-.4'.'• . I •,-,-,,,-..-,..•••of„„•••••,....p.x,rli..,,-op 4.-...A........4 r 415,,-.'. ,r.,,,d.'.•
-,'..sl t •••• ''''•1,'e- ,....,......e•--%, ..\..:-{" -7-• { ..--,..r 6,•-1.:,•f• • -I 1..."""21")'-$P-••••••••-:;,"&r•••• :.••••14••• -
. •.."4,,,,.....„.•;,,g.,.f..... ..?rst;: k•••_,••..r.-1.;:,.. 1.,,,.••/ ...4,;,,„,4 t,,,, k..er,....,....,.... ......_, .,..3....,..: :....,...., n.‘43.r...,„.
ii.:"*.•,-7‘. V,074,;':rZ,Z1....;:..01 '••....,... •;-;411--T4.-::••,,r.r.1:-',. _,-",„,;,;" ...
Af,--.:'N:'''\.;:•-?'"I'i•;\' %.1 ,,,,-!'"N• '' -,-ei. 4:.,•:-.•!.t•-3,•••7.zilv Pr I ' ---'%''';. --.CP--.
.'71- Z.....,1.443.II.t.f, ',,,..1A.,.,,.. '4 :‘,.1.r•::•.,'; - '1, ..,. ::•••••-‘1,a Tp!-.T..1{:-„,...- -.-•'7.•";')7,--4';?*
i•-•;,, 1.:4••••-T.0'--''. .."1.1 !" f, i ..•v,,,•,., •':•e'.. ..r-.7..."112,44.-•;:e41`itARI4Otcr!-Ift ..Y 1‘..', ?"r+.,
' 1"4...• '.i".1.. .. ..74..qt'7' .-"•• • 1,-•r,)r. 6....•...47,*'T• ..rt.." .Z.' • -••••• 1.""r-410.; • „• ,
.f.•••,' 4','!"!' .4"'"; ,,,,t, ',•0••• ,:.,...: ••rit, ko,-r)N.,..-.d f•'''7r. ••-:-.:..-'n:----....= It-,,, . -4- .-14tIt
' •.•1•'...v-• S• •\ i•'C'., -r• ..'-. "k713•.,'.:`',0('''Cro)r,•;%"-:;.;k• ','FiN, -`tyrt''•'. L..., ...,"1 ••__.„, iso.21.4.• ....,,,,..-4.%
.r ...%:,.4........). 1,, •• \ :, 4,t,,4.,•3 k. ,„,k•:,„„ :?i,,• ‘...,g,...., ,to,' , ' li ......;_.....r^..-4,4?Iv* ........ ...,.`2,074...,........Z....• •••••.„,,.,,.
rt'• ''' •0 4.....2,-,:t: -,...,s- ..... ...4,....... 4W• .?4 li:;,..,....,A.,.t.1..1.-,
l'ri) 4:-.1-44`..., :,......t....A.„,•;-.so. ../•:...pyr,•:','",,Af., ,,,,-:•,ii.1, ..":„..72,...,4.-'•-- -='•-•'•1-•7%., `:."0::..4:1" -`'''" • 4-Pl..,,' ',.... )'N" t
ivi....-;-• 7,,,,,, -•..,, •••: ,,ni-. to. •-•ork."1, •••`""•.,,'' ••,. . :.."•; •-11•..f.T -.,-•''..,,.4'-` '‘..*,•r•-,,''•-qt r
'.!..--? ..r.•-'''' s..-:!;;••••-•:-''''''.4;t•• -,„).A.,4 Iv ;:••••:.-•";' .14•••,4--Iti.to0-:•..:..,<.••--,rt:•:-A. ,. l•
.alt--.4,151k;i:y 4°*''2. ,,- Lt. -.-...e.sw 1:•,;,)--.:f.,.. ,-,..,v.-,v;4‘.....,;-.---v:h4r--;--..-• -..„'' -1 '?'1,1„,1r41' .
--1.,7 '.7'•l•1'.... •••s...N.14,.. e 4,;„„„..--;.. •-..:•• „:„.... .-...:,,3,-or.- ..„.......,;?"-. - • ••• • •. • ,.i
.a,-41'....-1 •---...""),J .1 nit*•P••4.f er:•••••:1•4.-...• ,.' .••••.‘,•••. 1 c 7.,•• '',..,„4.,....0%.,.41••••• '•":• ...r.n._•••••••-,•."•,,,,,••••1'
... .4.,41,.„, ,;.,„,. 4.„, ,,... 4„,„, ,,t„,•,.:,......; ,6,?•„,,,1;72.1„.....-1 j..., \• ..„, ,; .,. ,., •-er- vi......c.:...4•••.,...,:y;.;t: - .
...
'I'.4•-•'' '`'-''''..1:* •• .'• •-'' ...4 Pr.' '''''''N-rri 02 ri.=,-/-vIk' .-04e,'t--'' 4- "•-•••‘• -- •
(.'it , .1 7'..„' .'•• ,..- .4.. 4.4. i..1, ..,..,.. k-... 4:•. ----• -...--,:,...,,..- .•••• •••r, - ._•••• !...i • ..,
)4 P• ..!'i:zryift....1,.:,.......;SI:1,1 • •,. ,,'-',''..Z..'in,.-;•,/;. .1.1-I:„.47'41...,•y• ,....`,,,:ti`...i4.;•.•:.•:"1.7 f,... ••....Z;••044.::ar4.•••,•...?1,•4•:':..4 r..
t4 '"6.".•4'44'r-or'itk!.4. e-:.',1'r•rr!Je•'''''.-.i...iegb•c• i t to4 ( 1,i.,,:ji 4..c.,,t'N.,_•-•:,‘,..,.;;;, :.,,,.- .,,..4•• ,r,,,,,,Air:-:•71., . -..r,,,it
•• , ..,i ....,...1•4•:•••” •..-„,../:-. _ ,. ,:,•t:.t,,4 •‘s-",.. •• -t•41:.....*:21.-• .v..„, '- k-,.. )•,..;...;• -k.trt,riir.•.•e;-3,"....
7.ttry•- . .''1'-, ...,,,A, r-,.,...ta,1. • ..,. •-1 v.,-1 ru •• - ‘•,;••=4.,....• •::,••tk:-.,--.,,.$,..'•,.... .,.,.'•• .•.,•'-s-,
7.i....?.,..;•--;.1. i....... ...: ^.4 tt,- i.7-: • . ,,.....-.... • .... •••••• !..A.,..--- :...,-.4".-•
-,,,. ....-.1•„k - ....,, - •-•
r -- -,„••. -41!•'-`•:.--,‘..-A::•-•.4 r.1.... li.-,,"•.• 4-",„,,„; ,.,••,,,El ,..,..,,,,,,....-.j ,,,*\
•,,l,. i.• ,r : • A-•.:a,'• .').A i . ,'
'1...•' .1 . ' .1.'4•sJ - '4.1-%.1- 4 ' . ' s' ' ‘‘'' .5. e*
---c •- •._ .,4 \- . ‘..:_ir ,•-•.,4.7%.. ., s.„'•- --...:,,-,- >k. - -zz;.:::".r•r."4:, A-..'
r- ,.... i..•:•••"....- , ., ,•"—I 4‘••rl.: • •r.....„ ... . :1-
, 0,...r. '?;..:„....L.,i.: . . .‘*r, :"". ' ' • i '....44° c el, I-6.. .4-
... 3-- -t4 - ^' +- -x.., :.:!:•-•... ' -:...:$45___ ,„1..)..•,
v...:41...„1"..-c• 1.,.....t. ,..,-.-,rr t 4 I-,r.:,:• i.ry r•t_ • r ....... ....4., • , , ...„ ,..• ..4.. , , • -.0...,. , ..-
'•-tt .7-',.....:/.-.• •--4,6.046..0,/•••:•'..... 1.-4,•:-Iv,""',"•".":"-P4."4... .-7`: .'••0•••_.-.,,,f...; 1 k,t,r.t. ....v. , , . . -,....,,,,:icy.,,,,,r,,„1.
,..,
.•.---e•-,1••-•...• ,-,,.,.t•1.•,...`.,,.•4r••s„•A•••.d.,i....7
,7_\1,.•-1.•-.0•74,•1,-.•"-•,.-•*--4---....,.-;:.-.'.L.!-.,,,_*...t*,"-,..•0•.•.,7-..,--'•11,1;r1,.o.4‘-2 e;'b•1ft•:„;t„1,...r.,4.e...,.„v..--5,*1;,.,.s.36‘01,,,'/-,,r,.,.„.1,-)s1;":.ti;:•?.-......1:,4 a2t•1•••;k4--;•._,::•,':,•..•::••i.4-.t.•1 14'e1 f.''....,-`,•";..'•7-:•-r--.•, ,-4,••--•-'••c..•",,t:•.'-'.•..,v,:".."-4.:-.::....".-.a...."..••,,:).,',,•.-,.,•-i•.,,1‘A,•\,,1,.'I.t..•.-....4-)
t1P- : 2 1 ' : <) 1I\ N •..i.....,i...•.".k5...`-.%.,‘„,.0,-,,--'.-..
vi ,
- : .1.1k ,4;-••t1
;,4.."\,-...•,1.,4*'i,.'4,-4'.t..',,•,,,2..,..•-.,,.-.t..76...ft.-:'•,•"',.„••.•.,-N,"•',-•,•,,<P OP!",+,.&,-.,.-,.t1.,r,..",t.-..*1r-).4..:7..„4.•,.-;".-.',.,'"-"..'t,'•-
•;A•z•-•,---•••••---•-•.' -...;..„,.,,,....,.,...-••••.....-•-•••••-•••••,---71,11N47.1--t'a
• - • ..":444:,...„?,•-rrir--;r it..i2 - i.ty..,..404.7•4*I...•••.,.?4".4,............0.,•If-....,,,....;&.;•.! ,..4.0titityr, .„.,,,,,.
it .,N. .1.k,..C. „;.,..•'•',.5,„,.,,,..,, 1•‘ •44.6a. 3,6:.I•,4 .. :.,.. ..,_. 4, :..i.- , ••i....,•- ;,., .. :.•.,7,•••• ik. ,.,,...7.....7.,,,,,I.
,,.."..'".. .'"4.a •':•.•1 P"'"I''‘'''? :it::r r,,..1);•'krz...,,-,,..,,,•:,..„..k. - : 4 ., . . i„, t —, 7.„•-•
,,,.....,,_. . ,- .,.1.,• ..:,f 4, , , -:lel.. ...; A.-... ,,„,,1 c•r.- 4, :,e••,.-:. ',.V.7,,i."/".' ..',.triC •..*. •"'•• ,- -••:•:.:
-0 r, -4 ti,.•...•
-.' ••••• . ,••••• -• •-r,,,,..;,..-...........•-•c.,....o.0.1.-..,.,..;,., .,,..4,..• ,.k*,,, %-•• •A.4....:Ic•-ro-••,,... ...-• -..:- - - • .••••••
,.,Naro- • ......0.• ....,,,,,,,...• ..., ,.., .•-4,..r.-;.• '"• A...-..t'''., '.... . Nit:•*... • .. ... .."7...opt. ...c. P'',4,e,P, ••
•...47'7.4.• ' .. -4------• " '- ',....c "'"" ' '...?-'4. 7 f w.XV,
.'.4 ie j f, - •,.... .1„-,„•,,r.“•••••••••!‘ ,,,„,-,-,-....• ..;I*LI'...• t 1, % ,..„,......,...••_,,e.-- ......,• . , it It.-,•1•,•,
••••. :'':. '.4.A.tr'''.'"' :2. e'lty.24:i e;- ••••.:''•':'••-•••.:-:,• 7' '''.---orr-"-" :70" xl. '" . -47,-1., •••••e.,:.-'•
..,,„„ . ;.,r ". •,•;;J:l.r.•••.,•••./J,.;,, ;$4,,,A......,„„,::::A....i 1 T......,0............ - ,,,,,,,,,,aor
•••---''''''-^"ri"--it,,,e7 P.• -..•Z•'....^.4:-.Pf,T4.4 -'...•
.T 4.41411444••••••-.. 4•• -1.-• I P•P•••••••*••• ••••••11`...•'bi. ...44,....44•41•0•4•4 4:OP 4,,, 4•4,.._. 4 _._,...... ,
,Ii.......",7"......•- •......0..... .:ii..,,t..'':..!IC.,''''..."--'..•'''.....;.., %...-•.%'••1 '•,••J'„; iisi •I -1,.. N''',.:_„; ;,11'...._1"t:'•
"Ili ',•0..."i"..-:*•L'7 ',..:77.77,".. •.f.;•••:L7L•I.Nrr6.-7-.:-.--i...i e 4!--- .....7'....1.6%*".; ‘,.....:- ,. , .t:„-:,r, ,.•
:,'....:.:4.....-,.!'h..•.-.71,4.t......v....Zs- — '--1. • "-i-e....6...6 61.-r!Vsi.......,,• ....• •1.7•_/ ro, ••••dirt•'‘.7.:
...,.. ,",•-•,,-•;,.e.,,,......" ..,, ,, ...._.?(..414.. ....:,.i.,,t IP' .,•:-...?:4..:".?>-,',...z....-::......:c..'•"-.. A'‘'.
• ;.,..??..,,;;;,..e,r)^... ••;..47.6.i,:.. ' cc,,...:3,.:4: -.-•;•:.,will :•'-"...'1:' *i....i,,i;4 `,:;45%::••et....:i. 4 't k s...„,...%,..,.
'Ilt ,
'At> d• , et.:•:014';e:•_•• •a. fl ,..:'f V.',..:17.'...P.:, r "7.7.:, ,,t'•',„,Y^.:.. -ii....1-'.;,43,004'. • )..r'-,fr.1• :: •,^1.,,..:.'
k -.."4.. s," , --- ."7, ra.-.•;•.:7->:',",..1•C....".V•':?•-••••/•5 tc1 V'INI...;•! ,-.4.Z.:.,......• - k;',s: ••,1 '2. 'lc!'I.--7.
.',..„:.• -4 ..:. ..
[.,,..f..v,,„:••.4.%- •- •••••%••••,..... ••,--4. •••it•-....).••••••••,....,..o.....4.•4- .•-2....,•A,tr,„; ••••-•,r,„1,641, - ,,,, ...„7,,...,),p-,, ,, > ,"....:•110'. ••
. , N-.••••••,.- '•,;•"..?:;4,`.,'."--,'rt' .1...i.'' .7 .-;.4- a% •‘ , i rl '11•' '•i•••. ;• 'el'..' ••.. '''''/.r‘' Voi"k-'.,-
•-;7 -••••t1 .••‘.... ..„.--i,,,,,- ....'..,,-,-•••-...x •,„1.:;..-•:.,,,.„-•-•,,,•,•1*.,. , , z, ti.„......... • .. #.•,...,,•.:.,,, -- -.- .•
,cf-‘fr •,,,,,,_se- .-,+,'.,11N,,fk%!..f-1".'-' ,)?.,.../ -1,;•••••=1,-,4_,Cle.,,,__ .:-.,4:-." 1,t.',..-t,Iv‘ ‘.'••••;;;.;4,Vgrt 4.:-.-1.V•s••'-'-§,„. +`'‘...t.•
. .4.- -x-,4---•,„,•,...•.1.--- •••. ...i• ... ,_,_ -..e.........,•----72•••, -..1.•,......:,.. : • , .....t.---.:—.-04,„,--• '.4.'4,t,-.111 -•
..::;-• :1•'",i- ,••••••;' •••••••:1-•• •,"z41;. •3d4,4 rr '-‘••••• -;,-....` . '.-:,'" 4 .::•?.' .e‘i't:1•1 174,r* :::,1•:'11:11, ' 4:••••".,4 Fr...0,4 A
4 _
%•••1.:0041• "'. ::::r sy- •.: • Z•4-. ::—...,.' •: ..; : ..,A-.13;•.-....-. 1,.....!)..:::,4,71:i -':-.1.•••'- ^f':bz::. ::. ,•‘:; .
,., :,--- .--•- v,. ,... 4,A,....? .0-- • • ••••••••-:.$•• - 7:„. 4,• p.'"•-•• :4. ••t7•,•,•'*7' • .4 • .• '4:
tt"4"t?"7."! :'''': -., .`.-•:*• i'.%"`elk,...';: ::,1"•'': -1:t.l.' ... " ..l'''.:.•4',.,:N." .'...'.1. .s'77-7.. ..,.... . v..- ....4,,,..,.
1,,, ,--...:- „s. 9.;:i•0..'..el,- .,,.. •T .,... (41••:•:%•• • .r,....--. , '`....0 14 I' 0,•_••-•It Yr,lir.
V'' .. • .'.".; • ;.',,17,,h...•:.ii sos wt. . .v•v• it. grev..^1,... ... ,.....f.......,......4 f.,....Ja.a..4,kr, • ,,,••••,., c..
, . ..• I ......3.• •-...'• .4.• • = , i ,,, , ., 1%4,
11 :.. ..:....•' ..../ ..4.:•••.•—•,. ••• 4 .,I•••••••,...4.,•-• a..:... . 'tor ••.,..t •••:.IV.% .-.\-.. • ' ..( p-......f "A..., ,..,...
• •
g al.
-6
14
•
•
•
3. List names and sizes of lakes, rivers and streams on or near the site,
particularly lakes within 1,000 feet and rivers and streams within
300 feet.
Nine-Mile Creek passes through the southwest corner of the property.
C. Activity Description
1.• Describe the proposed activity, including staging of development (if any).
operational characteristics, and major types of equipment and/or pro-
' ceases to be used. Include data that would indicate the magnitude of
• • ' the proposed activity (e.g. rate of production, number of customers, tons
of raw materials, etc).
Buildings to be constructed one at a time, each allowing for 170-187 parking
spaces plus truck loading. 75% of the site has been disturbed in the last
few years and will be regraded. Prefabricated building panels will shorten
construction time. Auto traffic will be mostly employees and not a constant
flow during the day. There will be approximately six truck trips per building
per day.
•
' 1
2. Pill in the following where applicable:
a. Total project area 42 acres g. Size of marina and access - sq. ft.
or channel (water area)
Length -- miles h. Vehicular traffic trips
generated per day 2,834 ADT
b. Number of housing or (2.5 x pkg. space)
recreational units ""• i. Number of employees • 1t100
30 ft
c. Height of structures 26_ft. j. Water supply needed 50,000 gal/da
Source: •
d. Number of parking
spaces 1,134 k. Solid waste requiring
disposal 84 tons/yr
a. Amount of dredging N/A cu. yd.
1. Commercial, retail or
• f. Liquid wastes requir- industrial floor space 377,400 sq. ft.
ing treatment 50+000ga1/da
III. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
A. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY
1'. Will the project be built in an area with slopes currently
• exceeding 12%7 No X Yes
2. Are there other geologically unstable areas involved in the project,
such as fault zones, shrink-swell soils, peatlands, or sinkholes? X NO YES
9. If yes on 1 or 2, describe slope conditions or unstable area and any
measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impacts.
Some existing slopes exceed 1:1. Where future buildings are set into hill
on the site's east side, these slopes will be held back by earth retaining
walls. Proposed slopes will not exceed 2-1/2:1. Slopes over 3:1 will be
sodded. Poor soils in building areas, if encountered, will be removed and
rpnlaced with good bearing soils. it.a
• {
4. Indicate suitability of site soils for foundations, individual septic
systems, and ditching, if these are included in the project.
•
Majority of soils have excellent bearing capacity. Any pockets of poor
soils will be corrected during gnraaqdd�ing contract.c2ne are
on site would
' •5. accept septic
systems oftgradinghandvtilling wh.chiwill De done:
177,000cu. yd. grading140.000cu. yd. filling 75
What percent of the site will be so altered?
6. What will be the maximum finished slopes? 2-1/2:1%
7. What steps will be taken to minimize soil erosion during and
' after construction? Retaining walls with the backs into the east side hill
will be constructed when building construction commences. Sod and plantings
will be used to stabilize new and existing slopes. '
B. VEGETATION •
1. Approximately what percent of the site is in each of the following
vegetative types:
Woodland _4% Cropland/ n
Pasture
Brush or shrubs n% Harsh n
Grass or herbaceous in% other 76 % Abandoned gravel
(Specify) stripping, some weeds
2. How many acres of forest or woodland will be cleared, if any? 2 acres
3. Are there any rare or endangered plant species or areas of unique
•
botanical or biological significance on the site? (See DNit PTO publicatYEion
The Uncommon Ones.)
If yes, list the species or area and indicate any measures to be used
to reduce potential adverse impact.
•
}
C. FISH AND WILDLIFE
1. Are there any designated federal, state or local wildlife or fish manage-
ment areas or sanctuaries near or adjacent to the site? NO _.EYES
2. Are there any known rare or endangered species of fish and wildlife
on or near the site? (Sec DNR publication The Uncommon ,IL NO YES
Ones.)
3. Will the project alter or eliminate'wildlife or fish �.NO _xLyrs
habitat?
4. If yes on any of questions 1-3, list the area, species or habitat, and
indicate any measures to be used to reduce potential adverse impact on
them. Nine-Mile Creek is a local wildlife corridor and habitat.,
Buildings will be setback 550feet + from the creek bed, and
parking will be no closer than 350 feet. Construction of the
industrial park will disturb and relocate the birds and small
mammals now inhabitating the old gravel site. Retention of the j
wooded morraine and conservancy area around the creek will provide
wildlife habitat_ A _ 211W
D. HYDROLOGY •
1. Will the project include any of the following:
f If yes, describe type of work and mitigative measures
to reduce adverse impacts.
' a. Drainage or alteration of any lake, pond, marsh, NO YES
lowland or groundwater supply X
b. Shore protection works, dams, or dikes X
c. Dredging or filling operations ...1._
d. Channel modifications or diversions X _
e. Appropriation of ground and/or surface water .-,_,_ _j_
f. Other changes in the course, current or cross- •
section of water bodies on or near the site X ,•,r
•
•
2. What percent of the area will be converted to new impervious surface? 50 %
3. What measures will be taken to reduce the volume of surface water run-
off and/or treat it to reduce pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, etc.)?
Ponding in parking areas will occur when rainfall intensities exceed
3 inches per hour as determined by the pipe sizes chosen for the project.
Surface water disposal and pollutants control will be handled as required
,(. by the 9-Mile Creek Watershed Management Board.
• 4. Will there be encroachment into the regional (100 year) floodplain -
by new fill or structures? .
• If yes, does it conform to the local floodplain ordinance? NO X YES
5. What is the approximate minimum depth to groundwater on 10 feet
the site?
E . WATER QUALITY .
1. Will there be a discharge of process or cooling water, sanitary sewage
or other waste waters to any water body or to groundwater? X NO YES
If yes, specify the volume, the concentration of pollutants and the
water body receiving the effluent. ,
{
2. If discharge of waste water to the municipal treatment system is •
planned, identify any toxic, corrosive or unusual pollutants
in the wastewater.
N/A
3. Will any sludges be generated by the proposed project? X NO YES
If yes, specify the expected volume, chemical composition and method
of disposal. .
a
1)3S
•
4. What measures will be used to minimize tho volumes or impacts identified
in questions 1-3?
All waste water treatment will be taken via municipal sanitary system.
•
•
•
' S. If the project is or includes a landfill, attach information on soil profile,
. • .. ' depth to water table, and proposed depth of disposal.
N/A
• F. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
1. will the activity cause the emission of any gases and/or particulatea
into the atmosphere? NO X YES
•
If yes, specify the type and origin of these emissions, indicate any
emission control devices or measures to be used, and specify the approxi-
mate amounts for each emission (at the source) both with and without the
emission control measures or devices. Heavy equipment used tor site preparation
and building construction will produce emission of fumes and particulates.
Such emissions are expected to be dissipated as it reaches site boundaries.
If airborne dust becomes a problem, the site will be watered as needed.
2. Will noise or vibration be generated by construction and/or operation
of the project? NO X YES
If yes, describe the noise source(s)s specify decibel levels [dn(A)], and
duration (hrs/da) for each and any mitigative measures to reduce the
noise/vibration. Construction equipment will generate 60-100dBA during
the working hours of 7am - 6pm. •
•
3. If yes on 1 or 2, specify whether any areas sensitive to noise or
reduced air quality-(hospitals, elderly housing, wilderness, wildlife
areas, residential'developments, etc.) are in the affected area and give
distance from source. Areas to the north and west should not be disturbed
by site development. The townhouse development east of the site is behind
a wooded morraine which will offer a visual and noise barrier.
G. LAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION, ENERGY
1. Is any of the site suitable for agricultural or forestry roduction
or currently in such use? Xp NO YES
If yes, specify the acreage involved, type and volume of marketable crop
or wood produced and the quality of the land for such use.
•
( 2. Are there any known mineral or peat deposits on the site? NO X YES
If yes, 2;rci`y the typo of deposit and the acreage.
Swamp deposit - black peat, up to 1 acre possibly in SE corner of site.
1' below grade.
213(,
•
•
3. Will the project result in an increased energy demand? NO X YES
Complete the following as applicable,
•
a. Energy requirements (oil, electricity, gas, coal, solar, etc.)
Estimated Peak Demand
Annual (hourly or Daily) Anticipated Firm Contract or
Type' ' Requirement summer Winter Supplier Interruptible Basis?
Electric
NSP 2.000.000KWW 1000KW/hr 300 KW4br NSP firm
MN Gas 50,000 mcf/yr 1000cft 2000cft Minnegasco interruptible
•
b. Estimate the capacity of all proposed on—site fuel storage.
None
•
•
c. Estimate annual energy distribution fort
• space heating 40 ♦ lighting
20 •
air conditioning 25 ♦ processing 10 .
ventilation 5
•
d. Specify any major energy conservation systems and/or equipment
incorporated into this project.
3 easterly building will be semi-earth covered on 1 side.
e. What secondary energy use effects may result from this project '
(e.g. more or longer car trips, induced housing or businesses, etc)'?
The project will not necessarily produce longer car trips because Eden Prairie
has a work/live environment in which employees have the opportunity to live
and work in the same community.
U. OPEN SPItCE/RECREATION
1. Are there any designated federal, state, county or local recreation or
open space areas near the site (including wild and scenic rivers, trails,
lake accesses)? NO X YES
If yes, list areas by name and explain how each may be affected by the
project. Indicate any measures to be used to reduce adverse impacts.
Nine-Mile Creek travels through the southwest corner of the site. Development
will be setback 350+ feet from the Creek. All work will be reviewed by
Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District.
2431
f U. TRANSPORTATION proposed transportation systems
1. Will the project affect any existing or eor)? p to X YES
(highway, railroad, water, airport, will affected. ESr
If yes, specify which part(s) of thesystem(S) wi be affc speede . and
these, specify existing use and cap average indicate to howi they will be
Percentage of truckretctf(ec .lf highway): and congestion, percentage of truck traffic,
affected, nb the project ( (Aaccess requirements).
safety, increased traffic (ARYR),
ed
ll be west bound
andp80% wills will tbe�eastze obound and travel ;smi etto I-494ior Co. Rd. 60.
•
YES
2. Is mass transit available to the site? X-NO
3. What measures, including transit and paratransit services, are planned.to 1d
reduce adverse impacts?
None are planned at this time. Ride demand in this area does not meet
MTC guidelines.
J. PLANNING, LAND USE, COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Is the project consistent with local and/or regional comprehensive
No X YES
plans?
If not, explain:
Industrial development is according to the guide plan and protection
of the morraine will be required as outlined in previous conmittments.
If a zoning changepermit is necessary, in
or special use dicate existing
zoning and change requested.
Site is presently zoned I-2 Park and Rural. The Rural portion will be
rezoned I-2 Park.
a
2. Will the type or height of the project conflict with the character ofYthe
existing neighborhood?
If yes, explain and describe any measures to be used to reduce conflicts.
•
2.1
•
•
3. How many employees will move into the area to be near the project?
N/A
How much new housing will be needed? •
f 4. Will the project induce development nearby--either support services
• or similar developments?
If yes,explain type of development and specify any other counties and
municipalities affected.
'Minnetonka - future industrial zoning proposed to north of site across Co.
Rd. #67.
. Similar office/warehouse or supportive commercial services could be
induced. •
•
S.. Is there sufficient capacity in the following public services to handle
the project and any associated growth?
Amount required
public Service for project Sufficient capacity?
water 50,000 gal/da planned
wastewater treatment 50,000 gal/da planned •
sewer 840 feet planned
schools. •
-- pupils existing
solid waste disposal 8 ton/mo olannpd
I streets .2 miles planned
other (police, fire, etc) 1.2 officers/1000 planned
• If current major public facilities are not adequate, do existing local
plans call for expansion, or is expansion necessary strictly for this
one project and its associated impacts?
Expansion is not necessary strictly for this project, but is being
done according to scheduled improvements.
•
6. Is the project within a proposed or designated Critical Area or part
of a Related Actions EIS or other environmentally sensitive plan or
program reviewed by the EQC? X NO YES
If yes, specify which area or plan.
• •
•
7. Will the project involve the use, transportation, storage, release
or disposal of rotentially hazardous or toxic liquids, solids on
gaseous substances such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, poisions,
etc? X NO YES
If yes, please specify the substance and rate of usage and any measures
to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts from accidents.
2i39 •
•
•
•
8. When the project has served its useful life, will retirement of the
facility require special measures or plans? X NO YCS
( If yes, spocifys
•
K. HISTORIC RESOURCES •
•
1. Are there any structures on the site older than 50 years or on federal
or state historical registers? X NO YES
2. Have any arrowheads, pottery or other evidence of prehistoric or early
settlement been found on the site? X NO YES
• • !light any known archaeologic or paleontological sites be affected
by the activity? X NO YES
Area has been extensively mined.
3. List any site or structure identified in 1 and 2 and explain any
impact on them.•
•
•
f _
•
• L. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Describe any other major environmental effects which may not have been
identified in the previous sections.
.
•
•
III. OTHER lIITIGATIVE MEASURES
Briefly describe mitigative measures proposed to reduce or eliminate potential
adverse impacts that have not been described before.
•
•
•
2110
•
V. FINDINGS •
The project is a private ( ) governmental ( X.) action. The Responsible Agency
(Person), after consideration of the information in this EAW, and the factors
in Minn. Reg. MEQC 25, makes the following findings. .
1. The project is ( ) is not ( X ) a major action.
State reasons:
•
2. The project does (�) does not (j) have the potential for significant
• environmental effects.
State reasons: .
3. (For private actions only.) The project is ( ),is not ( ) of more than 4
local significance.
State Reasons: -
•
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND CERTIFICATION
NOTE: A Negative Declaration or EIS Preparation Notice is not officially filed
until the date of publication of the notice in the E.2 Monitor section of
the Minnesota State Register. Submittal of the EAW to the EQC constitutes
a request for publication of notice in the E2C Monitor.
•
A. i, the undersigned, am either the authorized representative of the Responsible
Agency or the Responsible Person identified below. Based on the above findings,
the Responsible Agency (Person) makes the following conclusions. (Complete
•
either 1 or 2). .
• 1. *** NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE
No EIS is needed on this project, because
otthe
project
tiisif not
tant
major action and/or does not have the po ea for
• environmental effects and/or, for private actions only, the
project is not of more than local significance.
•
•
• - 11 - Mt
•
2. EIS PREPARATION NOTICE
An EIS will be prepared on this project because the project is a
• major action and has the potential for significant environmental
effects. For private actions, the project is also of more than
local significance.
a. The N.EQC Rules provide that physical construction or operation of the
project must stop when an EIS is required. In special circumstances,
the MEQC ea:specifically authorize limited construction to begin or
,•continue. If you feel there are special circumstances in this
project, specify the extent of progress recommended and the reasons.
•
b. Date Draft EIS will be submitted:
(month) (day) (year)
(MEQC Rules require that the Draft EIS be submitted within 120 days
of publication of the EIS Preparation Notice in the EE Monitor. If
special circumstances prevent compliance with this time limit, a •
written request for extension explaining the reasons for the request
must be submitted to the EQC Chairman.)
•
C. The Draft EIS will be prepared by (list Responsible Agency(s) or
Person(s)):
•
. Signature
•
. Carl J. Jiillie. City Manager Title •
• Date
B. Attach an affidavit certifying the date that copies of this EAW were mailed
. •to all points on the official EQC distribution list, to the city and county
directly impacted, and to adjacent counties or municipalities likely to be
' directly impacted by the proposed action (refer to question III.J.d on page 9
of the EAW). The affidavit need be attached only to the copy of the EAW
which is sent to the EQC. ,
C. Billing procedures for E2C Monitor Publication
•
State agency . Attach to the EAW sent to the EQC a completed OSR 100
ONLY: form (State Register General Order Form--available at Central
Stores). For instructions, please contact your Agency's
Liaison Officer to the State Register or the Office of the
State Register--(612) 296-0239.
21u2 '
12 -
•
•
CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 81-187
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL
PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDING THE
• GUIDE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of Ordinance 135
• • provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas
located within the City, and
WHEREAS, the Westwood Industrial Park PUD is considered a proper
amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and
• WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing
on June 8, 1981 and considered Richard W. Anderson, Inc.'s request for
approval for industrial and open space uses and recommended approval of
the PUD Concept to the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on September 15,
1981.
NOW THEREFDRE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Westwood Industrial PUD, being in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD approval as out-
lined in the plan dated May 20, 1981 revised August 1B, 19B1.
3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the Planning
Commission dated July 13, 1981.
ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of
, 1981.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
2-143
•
•
•
•
•
The North ii of the East 75 rods of the Northwest
quarter of Section'3, Township 116, Range 22.
Subject to that part taken for highway purposes.
•
•
•
•
EXHIBIT A
2144
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE •
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESDTA
RESOLUTION NO. 81-188 •
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
• . • OF WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK !�
• BE IT RESOLVED-by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Westwood Industrial Park
dated 5/20/81-rev.8/18/81 , a copy of which is on file at the City Hall
• and amended as follows:
•
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
2 04
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 81-189
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK A PRIVATE
ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on
September 15, 1981 to consider the Westwood Industrial-Park proposal, and
WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 42 acres of
land in north central Eden Prairie, and
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing on the Westwood Industrial Park request and did recanmend
approval of the project and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
finding of no significant impact.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Eden Prairie City Council that
an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for Westwood Industrial
Park because the project is not a major action which does not have sig-
nificant environmental effects and is not more than of local significance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be
officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council.
ADOPTED, this day of , 1981.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: •
I :.
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
2.144
•
169sfwood
RICHARD M. FEERICK
6518 teeshrmnrgh Avenue
Eden Prance,Mannesula 55343
September 11, 1981
•
Mayor Wolf Penzel
• City Council Members: Dean Estrom,
• George Tangen, George Bentley and Paul Redpath
Eden Prairie City Hall
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Gentlemen:
This is to respond to the notification of industrial development on the property
north of my residence and to express several thoughts on the proposed development.
This development will set the tone and character for the area and condition what
further development proposals will be made for the land directly behind the
residences along the lower portion of Leesborough Avenue and the northern end of
Manchester Lane.
The thoughts and questions I would like to address on the proposed
development are as follows:
1. The building types, architecture, and expected client usage will relate
to the overall quality of the proposed development. Is this development
considered to be a high quality, medium quality or other classification
of development?
2. What type of financing is proposed for the development? Are the •
buildings to be owner occupied, or put up primarily for investment
purposes?
3. Are overall building and parking land coverage areas consistent with
a quality development?
4. What can be said about the record and credibility of the developer?
Are there any problem areas that should be considered relative to the
proponent's ability and commitment to honor any granted zoning actions and
related developer's agreements? What actions does the City propose to
take if problems arise?
5. Has the effect of this development on the adjacent property in back of
our residences been adequately considered? What type of buffering
residential development is possible, or is this ruled out of the
question by the proposed industrial development?
Mayor Wolf Penzel
City Council Members
September 11, 1981
Page Two
I have always supported reasonable development by professionals who conduct
themselves in an open, honest and cooperative manner with City authorities and
• the community at large. This remains my position. Thank you for the opportunity
• to submit my thoughts and concerns for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
/4/W4
chard . PeerI
RMP:1la
• 11�.
•
••
2:111"
•
• September 15, 1981
4.7
•
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.R81-191
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR•BRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS, VICINITY OF WEST 69TH
STREET AND WASHINGTON AVE., I.C. 52-004
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 4th day
of. August fixed the 15 day of September,1981 as the date, for a public
hearing on the following proposed improvements.
I.C. 52-004, Drainage improvements, vicinity
of West 69th Street and Washington Ave.
•
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be
assessed for the making of this improvement were given ten days published
notice of the Council hearing through two weekly publications of the
required notice and the hearing was held and property owners heard on the
day of •
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
( OF EDEN PRAIRIE: !`
1. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for
this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such improvement, with
the assistance of Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on
•
•
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
21q9
•
To; Mayor and City Council
From: John D. Franc, Finance Director
. • Dates September 11, 1981
•
Res Preliminary approval M,I.D.e.'s.- Town and Country
Claim Service - $306,000
Town and Country intends to construct a 3,800 square foot
office facility in the Lake Ridge Office Park. The total
project cost is estimated at $340,000. Town and Country
has 12 employees. This project will have a first mortgage
and a second mortgage. The property is zoned Office which is
correct. Resolution 81-179 is included for your consideration.
JDFsbw
9/11/81
•
2160
t •
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for
Industrial Development Bond Project Financing
1. APPLICANT: Town & Country Claim Service, Inc.
. a. Business Name - Same . _
b. Business Address - 4660 W. 77th Street
Edina, MN 55435
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor-
ship,
etc.) -
Corporation
d. State of Incorporation organization - Minnesota
( e. Authorized Representative - Mr. Jim Norris, President
f. Phone - 831-7080
2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCF;HOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS:
a. James D. Morris President, 40% Stockholder
b. Daniel A. Nelson Vice President,
20% Stockholder
c. Mace E. Plummer Vice President,
20% Stockholder
-1-
2151
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL
PRODUCTS, ETC:
This firm is engaged primarily in independent insurance
adjusters for all types of casualty and other insurance.
•
4. 'DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
a. Location and intended use: Lake Ridge Office Park,
Bryant Lake Center, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
Intended use: Corporate Headquarters for Town & Country
Claim Services Inc.
b. Present ownership of project site: Mr,. Wallace H. Busted
c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general
contractor: General Contractor:
Architect: En9inCer:
_aters, Cluts. and O'Brien sat1 re Derquist Ryan nrv-lopmerieInc.
2265 Edina Industrial 'Blvd. 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Box 59R
Edina, Minnesota 55435 tlayzata, MN 55391 Grand Rapids, MN 55744
5. F.ST1rtATlD r)to.tVC reatir FOR: tM 10,200..
ConsLand 306.700
Construct inn Cant rnr•t.s - —
Equipi:.a•nt %.,•,iui::iticrn and inr,tallntion•
Architectural and Engineering _included 1c 0 - ..
Legal _-.. .
inttcrest dur.t ncr Construction _...... ..-_ .._---
Bond Pe scr•ye - --3,255-'- — _
Continge,ir9cs --4 '-"-� -
Lean Fees - ---- •
Other -.-_-.__. .
Total S_3aa.,00O ......... -
•Pleating and air conditioning should be included as building costs.
indicate the kind of equipment to be acquired here.
a t: - -0.f n + ("a
• -2-
2152-
•
6. BOND ISSUE
•
•
( a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $306,000.00
•
• b. Proposed date of sale of bond - December 1981
•
c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities -
15 years based upon a 30-year amortization schedule.
d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds -
First Federal Savings & Loan of Grand Rapids - $255,000.00.-4.' rri
Ryan Development, Inc. .- $51,000.00 cr.,! �.t ; L• +•
e. Name and address of suggested trustee -
N/A
f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original
purchaser -
N/IL
g. Describe aiy interim financing sought or available -
Construction financing to be provided by First Bank of
Minneapolis.
h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing
in addition to bond financing -
Additional permanent financing will be in the form of
equity contribution.
•
7. BUSINESS PROFILE -
•
a: Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie?
No
N. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
i. Before this project: One (1) .
-3-
2153
•
ii. After this project? 12 at project
•
•
( c. Approximate annual sales - 6750,000 total billing
•
- d. Length of time in business 24 years
•
' in Eden Prairie None
•
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where?
•
No
•
f. Are you engaged in international trade?
No
8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S): j(
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
"releated person" within the meaning of Section 103(b) (6)
of the Internal Revenue Code.
None
•
•
-4-
•
zI
•
•
•
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 authorizing the financing has been denied.
None
•
-S-
2155
•
f. If Applicant has been denied industrial development
revenue financing in any other city as identified
in (d) ,or (e), specify the reason(s) for the denial
( and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who
have knowledge of,the transaction.
No
•
•
9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF:
•
•
a. Underwriter (If public offering) -
N/A
b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement)
First Federal Savings & Loan Association of
Grand Rapids.
i. If lender will not commit until City has
passed its preliminary resolution approving
the project, submit a letter from proposed
lender that it has ar. interest in the
offering subject to appropriate City
approval and approval of the Commissioner
of Securities.
•
•
• b. Bond Counsel - Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney &
Balladay
Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis,MN 55402
( c. Corporate Counsel - Brian Salem
1209 Geneva Avenue North
• St..Paul, MN 55119
d. Accountant. - Raymond D. Anderson, CPA
• 7625 Metro Boulevard
Edina, MN 55435
•
10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start - September 15, 1981
b. Construction completion - December, 1981
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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 requirement relating to any zoning, building, or other rule
or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law
applicable to the property included in this project.
Applicant
•
/..z /'/7
-7- 215,E
11. ZONING -• TO BE COMPLETED DY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,
CIV 1
�. a. Property is coned -
• b. Present zoning is) (is not) correct for the intended
use.
c. Zoning application received on
for • ' which is correct for the
intended use.
•
• d. Variances required -
•
y Planner „LLo4.'
v
•
•
•
•
-8-
•
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, Councilmember
•
• •introduced the following resolution and (after it had been
read in full) (after the reading of the resolution was
dispensed with by unanimous consent) moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 3 I-1 97
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZA-
TION AND ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS OF •
THE CITY UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES,
CHAPTER 474, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANC-
ING A PROJECT THEREUNDER; GIVING PRELIM-
INARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT AND AUTHOR-
IZING AN APPLICATION BY THE CITY TO THE
MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES
AND REAL ESTATE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the Council)
• of the City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(the City), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Legislature of the State of Minnesota
in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act),
has found and declared that the welfare of the State
requires active promotion, attraction, encouragement and
development of economically sound industry and commerce
through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible,
emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic
unemployment; has authorized municipalities to issue
revenue bonds to finance, in whole or in part, the cost of
the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement
and betterment of projects, including any properties, real
or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue
producing enterprise engaged in any business; and has
authorized municipalities to enter into "revenue
• agreements", as defined in the Act, with any person, firm,
or public or private corporation or federal or state
governmental subdivision or agency (the Contracting Party)
providing for the payment by the Contracting Party of
amounts sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of
principal of and interest on the revenue bonds.
•
2159
1.02. It has been proposed that the City issue
its revenue bonds, pursuant to the authority granted by
the Act, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed '-
$306,000, or such lesser amount as may be necessary, to
• finance costs of acquisition of land within the City and
construction and equipping thereon of one or more
buildings (the Project) to be owned and oPerated by Town &
• Country Claim Service, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the
• Corporation), to be used as corporate headquarters for the
Corporation; and to make the proceeds of such sale
available to the Corporation. The Corporation will agree
to pay the City amounts sufficient to pay promptly the
principal of and interest on the revenue bonds, and will - -
agree to cause the Project to be completed. The Project
is presently estimated to cost approximately $306,000.
1.03. The City has been advised that
• conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost
of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at
such high costs of borrowing that the scope of the Project
or the economic feasibility of operating the Project would
be significantly reduced, but that with the aid of
municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing
costs, the Project can be constructed as designed and its
operation is economically more feasible.
{ Section 2. Public Hearing.
2.01. As required by Section 474.01, Subdivision
7b, of the Act, this Council, pursuant to a motion passed
on , 1981, called and held a public hearing on
the proposal to undertake and finance the Project. Notice
of the time and place of the hearing, and stating the
general nature of the Project and an estimate of the
principal amount of bonds to be issued to finance the
Project, was published at least once not less than fifteen
(15) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date
fixed for the hearing, in the official newspaper of the
City and a newspaper of general circulation of the City.
A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota
Commissioner of Securities and Real Estate, together with
all attachments and exhibits thereto, was available for
public inspection following the publication of such notice
at the place and times set forth in the notice.
• 2.02. All parties who appeared at the public
hearing were given an opportunity to express their views
with respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the
Project. This Council has heard and considered the views
•
•
21L0 1
expressed at the public hearing and the information
submitted to the City by the Corporation.
Section 3. Approvals and Authorizations.
3.01. On the basis of information given the City
to date, and the views expressed at the public hearing, it
is found and determined that the Project furthers the
• purposes stated in Section 474.01 of the Act, and that it
would be in the best interest of the City to issue its
industrial development revenue bonds under the provisions
of the Act to finance costs of the Project in an amount
not to exceed $306;000 (the Bonds).
3.02. The Project is hereby given preliminary
approval by the City and the issuance of the Bonds for
such purpose approved. The Bonds shall not be issued
• until the Project has been approved by the Commissioner of
Securities and Real Estate, as provided by the Act, and
until the City and the Corporation have agreed upon the
•details of the Bonds and provisions for their payment.
3.03. If the Bonds are issued and sold, the City
will enter into a lease, mortgage, direct or installment
sale contract, loan agreement, take or pay or similar
agreement, secured or unsecured, satisfying the
requirements of the Act (the Revenue Agreement) with the
Corporation. The amounts payable by the Corporation to
the City under the Revenue Agreement will be sufficient to
pay the principal, interest and redemption premium, if
any, on the Bonds as and when the same shall become due
and payable.
3.04. The Corporation 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 Commissioner of Securities and Real
Estate; whether or not the Project is carried to
completion; and whether or not the Bonds or Revenue
Agreement and all other operative instruments are executed.
3.05. The adoption of this resolution does not
constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City
will issue the Bonds as requested by the Corporation. The
City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw
• from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds
should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof y.
determine that it is in the best interest of the City not
to issue the Bonds or should the City, Corporation and any
other parties to the transaction be unable to reach
• Z
9
210
agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the
documents required for the transaction.
3.06. In accordance with the Act, the Mayor and
City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to submit
the proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Commissioner
of Securities and Real Estate for her approval of the
Project. The Mayor, City Clerk, City Attorney and other
officers, employees and agents of the City, in conjunction
'with Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay,
Bond Counsel to the City, are hereby authorized to provide
• • the Commissioner with any preliminary information 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.
3.07.E The City will cause the Corporation to.
• • comply with all of the provisions of the Act, including
Section 474.01, Subdivision 8, thereof, in the issuance of
the Bonds and the financing of the Project.
3.08. All commitments of the City expressed
herein are subject to the condition that within twelve
months of the date of adoption of this resolution, the
City and the Corporation shall have agreed to mutually
acceptable terms and conditions of the Revenue Agreement,
the Bonds and of the other instruments and proceedings
relating to the Bonds and their issuance and sale. If the
events set forth herein do not take place within the time
set forth above, or any extension thereof, and the Bonds
are not sold within such time, this resolution shall
expire and be of no further effect.
Section 4. Special Obligations.
In all events, it is understood, however, that
the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or
encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the
City except the Project, if it becomes the property of the
City, and from the revenues received from the Project and
property pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not
constitute a debt of the City.
Section 5. Effective Date. •
• This resolution shall be effective immediately
upon its final adoption.
PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the City Council of
the City of Eden Prairie, this day of , 1981.
21C2
•
•
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Councilmember
and, upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
• favor thereof:
• and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and•
finally adopted. ('
•
•
•
•
•
•
ZiL3
• September 15, 1981
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE .
CO( -Y OF IIENNEPIN •
The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows:
8269 VOID OUT CHECK • $ (35,638.0.
8274 ' HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage 443.1 .
8275 IIiE CONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO. Liquor 1,401.2(
8276 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 4,766.6:
8277 MIDWEST WINE CO. Wine 88.82
8278' OLD PEORIA COMPANY, INC. Wine 5,037.4
8279 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Liquor 851.2.
8280 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 865.5'
8281 ED. PHILLIPS & SONS Liquor 1,872.6'•
8282 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING Wine 897.5:'
8283 VOID OUT CHECK
8284 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage 32.3'!
8285 JORDAHL CONSTRUCTION CO. Service-Eden Prairie Community Center 27,628.0.'
8286 EARL R. MORE & HELEN MORE Land-Historical Home 14,500.0
8287 PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL ASSOC. Rent-Liquor Store/Prairie Village Mall 2,063.5`
8288 THE BROTHERS Expense 63.5
8289 INTERNATIONAL ASSN. OF ARSON Fee-Fire Dept. 40.0('
8290 MENARDS Lumber-Liquor Store/Preserve 212.11
8291 ST. PAUL POLICE DEPT Seminar-Canine Unit 250.0('
8202 INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT Book-City Manager 12.5C
8t HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage-Utility bills 211.31
8294 U.S. POSTMASTER Postage-Public Safety 270.0,
8295 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING Liquor 1,072.9'
8296 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Wine 2,850.7,.
8297 ED. PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 4,075.2".
8298 SUPPLEE'S 7 HI ENTERPRISES Rent-Liquor Store/Preserve 2,914.0. .
8299 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 1,243.7. '
8300 MIDWEST WINE CD. Wine 1,164.5
8301 PAUSTIS & SONS Wine 114.2,
8302 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 4,185.5.
8303 OLD PEORIA COMPANY, INC: Liquor 2,989.1, .
8304 ACTION REDDY RENTS Equipment rental-Water Dept. 30.0, 1
8305 ADAMS SUPPLY CO. Sign posts-Street Dept. 183.7;
8306 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO. Service 8.4E
8307 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST Service 226.7
8308 EARL F. ANDERSEN & ASSOC. Frames-Players bench, street signs 1,975.;
8309 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT, INC. Blacktop 17,845.',
8310 ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS, INC. Drill well-Round Lake Park, Service-8920 Cty 6,490.!•
Road 18
8311 ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO., INC. Equipment repair & parts 7.6,
8312 AUTO LOCK Equipment repair & parts 35.0
8313 AUTO MACHINE & SUPPLY CO. Equipment repair & parts 41./1'
8314 D.S.N. CORP. Tennis nets-Middle School 601./
8315 BLACK & VEATCH • Service-Water Treatment Plant 5,454.(
P-'6 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING Service-Schooner Blvd., West 70th Street, Cty 2,275...
Road 1 of Bennett Place, Homeward Hills J4
Sunny Roads, Rymerland Christie Lane, Luther
Way, Tennis Courts Forest Hills Elementary School
8317 BUTCH'S BAR SUPPLY Supplies-Liquor Stores 193•',''
8318 BICYCLE FEDERATION Book-Community Services 22.0
21(,(4
1
•
Page two
September 15, 1981
8319 CASH REGISTER SALES, INC. Supplies-Liquor Store/Prairie Village Mall 294.1'
8320 'CHANHASSEN AUTO PARTS Equipment repairs & parts 944.0
8321 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal Ads 197.6,
8322 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SERVICE Equipment repair & parts 408.8
8323 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE Equipment repair & parts 5.9'
8324 'COLUMBIA.TRANSIT CORP Service-Senior Citizens Center 91.8,
8325 COMMISSIONER OF EMPLOYEE Fee-Payroll 82.41
8326. COMPUTER ELECTION SYSTEMS Supplies-Election 47.0,
8327 COPY EQUIPMENT INC. • Tape-Community Services, Supplies-Engineering 163.7:
8328 CROWN ^LIBBER STAMP CO. Engraved plates-City Hall 14.5'
8329 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY Quicklime-Water Dept. 2,884.0'
8330 ALBERT W. DAY Softball official 176.0'
8331' LINC DETER Instructor-Rec Dept. 60.7'
8332 E.UGENE DIETZ Expenses 150.0.
8333" DORHOLT PRINTING Office supplies 64.6'
8334 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Service 165.0'
8335 EDEN PRAIRIE SANITATION CO. Service 90.0,
8336 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT Bus service-Rec Dept, Custodial service 3,174.7'
8337 CITY OF EDINA Tests 64.0'
8338 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC. Grate-Street Dept. 54.0.
8339 FABRI-GRAPHICS Supplies-Rec Dept. 71.0
8340 FEED-RITE CONTROLS INC. Ferric Sulfate-Water Dept. 2,902.0
87" FLEET MAINTENANCE INC. Filter-Street Dept. 41.5,.
8... FLYING CLOUD OIL CO. Fuel-Street Dept. 3,387.0:
8343 FLYING CLOUD SANITARY LANDFILL Service-Forestry Dept. 109.0,
8344 FRANK'S NURSERY SALES, INC. Supplies-Community Service 39.6.
8345 FRONTIER LUMBER & HARDWARE Lumber-Park Dept. • 47.1
8346 G.L. CONTRACTING, INC. Service-Windwood Circle 372.6.
8347 JOHN A. GORDON Refund-Utility bill 6.7'
8348 R. L. GOULD & CD., INC. Equipment parts-Street Dept. 207.?
8349 GROSS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES Service 102.1,
8350 JEFF GULDEN Refund-Utility bill 23.4."
8351 JACK HACKING Expenses 29.2,`
8352 HENNEPIN COUNTY DIRECTOR Equipment rental-Forestry Dept. 3,903.3
8353 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 1 section copies-Engineering Dept. 126.5
8354 HENNEPIN CDUNTY TREASURER Oxygen-Street Dept. 52.8
8355 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES Service-Liquor Store/Preserve 249.0:
8356 HOPKINS DODGE SALES, INC. Equipment repairs & parts 100.0
8357 HOPKINS PARTS CO. Equipment parts 298.E.
8358 I A A 0 800k-Assessing Dept 6.0
B359 I B M Supplies-Water Dept. 34.2
8360 INGRAM EXCAVATING Haul Rock-Park Dept. 3,829.0
8361 INSTY-PRINTS Printing-Senior Citizens Center 98.',
8362 J & R RADIATOR CORP. Equipment repair & parts 35.0
8363 KARULF HARDWARE INC. 8atteries, circuit breaker, light switch, wire, 485.(
paint, concrete-Public Works, keys, padlocks,
screws, twine, chain, locks, tubing, plexaglass,
clamps, rods, blades, pipe-Park Dept., paint,
batteries, pipe, caulk, brush, corks, key rings,
mirror-Water Dept., bulbs, door bell-Liquor Store
8364 KLEVE FIEATING & AIR Equipment repair & parts 1,109.E
8365 KNOX Lumber-Community Services 33.7.
8366 VOID OUT CHECK
2.1,6.
Page three
September 15, 1981
1
8367 LANDCO EQUIPMENT, INC. Equipment parts-Park Dept. 33.0
8368 . LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD. Legal Service 8,208.5:
8369 LEEF BROTHERS INC. Service 162.2;
8370 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR Equipment parts-Park Dept. 76.5
8371 ' M M INDUSTRIES, INC. Powder car wash-Street Dept. 225.G;
8372 •MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC. Equipment parts-Street Dept. 439.0'
8373 MATT'S AUTO SERVICE, INC. Towing Service 70.0,
8374 METRO FONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Service 16.3'
8375: METIWD PRINTING INC • Forms-Community Services 10.0:
8376 METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSEL' Service 322.0;
8377 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL October Sewer Service 40,314.0
8378 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION Blacktop 270.3.
8379 MINNESDTA GAS COMPANY Service 33.11
8380 MINNESOTA M F 0 A Dues-Finance Dept. 10.00.
83B1 MRPA TEAM REGISTRATION Fee-Rec Dept. 56 Or'
8382 MINNESOTA TORO, INC. Equipment parts 11.3.
8383 MODERN TIRE CO. ' '" Equipment repair & parts-Street Dept. 604.1
8384 RICHARD MUNSON Refund-Utility bill 27.9c
8385 TOM NAPIER Wages-Teen Volunteer Program 18.0:-
83B6 N S P Service 890.' '
8367 N W BELL TELEPHONE Service 2,504.0
8388 N W NATIONAL BANK OF MPLS. Bond payment 175,60B.9
8389 NORTHWOOD GAS CO., INC. Service 15.0.
8( W.G. PEARSON, INC. Sand 64.7::
8391 PENN AUTO PLAZA AMC/JEEP Equipment repair & parts 61.7
8392 RALPH PEREZ Softball official 231.0c
8393 POMMER MFG. CO., INC. Supplies-Rec Dept. 65.2L,
8394 PREMIER RENT-A-CAR Car rental-Day Camp 142.1,
8395 CHUCK PUFAHL Softball official 264.0:
8396 REGISTER MEDIA, INC. Ads-Liquor Stores 59.0.`
8397 R C M Service-Schooner Blvd, Industrial Road 35,547.2E
Utilities, Valley View Road Pedestrain Bridges,
Valley View Road, Franlo Road & Preserve Blvd
. Utilities, Shady Oak Ext, 70th Street Improvements,
Cardinal Creek Estates, Norseman Ind. Park 4th
Addition, Meadow Park, Cardinal Creek Phase II,
• Rymarland Camp 2nd addition, Lake Idlewild Drainage
Sunset Trails Estates Utilities, Valley Place Offices
Improvements
8398 RIDGE DOOR SALES COMPANY Building repair-Fire Station 52•r''
8399 JOHN RONHOVDE Refund-Building Dept. 87.!,
84D0 ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY Posts-Public Works 629.ft
8401 WAYNE SANDERS Fee-Building Dept. 10.0.
8402 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC. Portable restrooms 658.6,
8403 KATHY SCHUMACIIER RN Tests 75.0
8404 SEELYE PLASTICS, INC. Pipe-Water Dept. 155.7
8405 SMILEY GLOTTER ASSOCIATES Service-Eden Prairie Community Center 1,377. '
8fin6 .W. GOROON SMITH CO. Fuel, oils & lubricants 197. .
t. .7 STANDARD SPRING COMPANY Equipment parts-Street Dept. 65.'0..
8408 SUBURBAN AUTD ELECTRIC, INC. Equipment repair & parts 48.e:
8409 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES, INC. Supplies-Liquor Store/Preserve 25.;"
8410 TARGET Supplies-Day Camp 38.1.
B411 LOWELL THONE Fee-Building Dept. 10.O0
21`l.
Page four •
Si( ember 15, 1981
8412 • TOWNS EDGE FORD, INC. Equipment repair & parts 42.5!'
8413 VOID OUT CHECK
8414 TRI-STATE TREE SERVICE, INC. Service-Forestry Dept. 700.0''
8415 ' TRAVIS ROCK & SAND Rock-Senior Center 409.L.
8416 •TWIN CITY TESTING Tests-Water Dept. 31.7:,
8417. TYPE HOUSE + DURAGRAPH Supplies-Community Service 9.7L'
8418 UNITED LABORATORIES Cleaning supplies-Water Dept. 85.4:
8419' UNITED STORES , Tarp-Day Camp 14.9:
84a VOID OUT CHECK
8421 VAN WATERS & ROGERS Chlorine-Water Dept. 334.3',
8422 VAUGHN'S Flag-Council Chambers 46.7'
8423 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY Wire; Lead seal press, ext kit-Water Dept. 2,138.9
8424 WEST WELD SUPPLY COMPANY Welding rods-Street Dept. 141.3
8425- WOODSMEN BUILDERS OF MINNESDTA Refund-Contractors license 15.0:
8426 ZIEGLER INC. Equipment repair & parts 28.17
8427- CHEMLAI•JN-FLOWER BULB OFFER Bulbs-Park Dept. 29.9:
8428 JACK HACKING Expenses 7.0r
8429 RAPID COPY, INCORPORATED ID Cards-City Hall 175.0 '
8430 ROBERTS DRUG Supplies-Rec Dept. 23.07
8431 UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIF. Oil-Street Dept. 786.0
8432 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Payroll 16,725.1:
8413 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Payroll 5,801.11 ;
8( , DON OMODT, HENNEPIN CTY SHERIFF Payroll _ 113.4:.
8435 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY Payroll 165.0'1
8436 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS Payroll 46.9i '
8437 INTERNATIONAL UNION Dues 300.0,
8438 PERA Payroll 11,282.1r.
8439 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. Rock 5,832.4::
8440 KRAEMER'S HOME CENTER Tarps, gas can-Water Dept. 117.9
8441 PAUL ROGERS Discing-Starring Lake 127.5:
8442 BEER WHOLESALERS Beer 5,746.21
8443 CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer 3,435.67 .
8444 COCA-COLA BOTTLING MIDWEST Mix 782.1. •
8445 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer 3,898.1:
8446 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CD. Beer 9,952.1
8447 GOLD MEDAL BEVERAGE CO. Mix 118.'2:
8448 KIRSCH DIST CO. Beer 429.9
8449 A. J. OGLE DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer 1,941.4'
8450 PEPSI COLA/7 UP BOTTLING CO. Mix 641.1'
8451 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO. Beer 10,917.1' '
8452 BROWN & CRIS, INC. Service-Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition 13,681.'1
8453 BROWN & CRIS, INC. Service-Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition 12,872.1,
8454 HENNEN CONSTRUCTION CO. Service-San. Sewer, Storm Sewer, Watermain 12,317.11
8455 KENKO, INC. Service-Luther Way & Meadow Lane, Round Lake 9,484.1.:
Park
8456 THOMAS MONTGOMERY CONST. Service-Bennett Place 84,308.:,
P"c7 NORTIIDALE CONSTRUCTION CO. Service-West 70th Street Utilities 7,315.0.
L..,8 PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS, INC. Service-Valley View Road Phase II 289,815.1'
8459 PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS, INC. Service-Valley View Road 27,612.,,
8460 BARCAROSSA & SONS, INC. Service-Water Treatment Plant Addition 120,996.
8461 EGAN-MCKAY Service-Anderson Lakes Parkway at T.H. 169 500.0
Page five
September 15, 1981
842 A & K CONSTRUCTION, INC. Service-Water Supply Wells 4, 5 & 6 22,057 1
8463 ASPHALT PAVING MATERIALS INC. Service-Eden Road 27,407.5 1
8464 'NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. Service 2,932.2'
8465 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING Legal ads 677.3.
TOTAL $1,093,873
•
•
•
•
•
•
2IC8
4.,
L.
1
•
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council .`
FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
• THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: ' September 11, 1981
• RE: ALPINE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION Extension Request •
•
On August 7, 1979 Mr. Gagner received approval of a preliminary plat,
(attached), and entered into an agreement part of which stated:
"V. If Owner fails to proceed in accordance with this
Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof and
provide proof of filing in accordance with item
VI hereof, no building permits shall be issued on
Block 1 and 2, described in Exhibit B."
The 24 months has lapsed and Mr. Gagner desires to request an extension
so that permits may be issued.
JJ:ss
•
2149
.. .
....:3 ..."::..;,`:....I •4 . .6•••• •". • 4 • .z...... ,
•, •4
\ . ‘.
•• :. •••• .... v: : •. •-.•••••'./ IN\ • ''. . •.• • ,' .• I. ••' ••: 1
•
•
. ,.,.. % . .. . •
.\\ . . .
c•
• ..-
• ,. 4 ••
•3• ••• t.,. f. x CA • ,
•••?: .. ; ' V \ ... • ." •
4‘'''' \ • f°
.. . . .. „.. k%, 4, ' \ • dt i
. .. ...
• . • : : .. VI\
i Itio •.) + • 4 •
iN\ .. . 4, • •
.. i• .. . 7-" '" „ \A \ .
• .
•
:.... ....... .,:;.'"'''', y.,i, :se • -1 kie);/". 2\\kr\''t"\. \',...t. -.
' - proposed homes
Acri/X' •S'l'.' 15 '.' 1.‘ -
' ....„, ..,.••• t .. •
i 74 i.
f • '. -'' .
/ / • . SIC:-...... ' 1.''' -...':.'4:!;;••Nb°.1‘c.\1.N':'
,,•• . ..- 1 _....
. „.) •• ......,,..., - .....,
•
.• -,.....,....:;\,,. 7„,.. _
•I li l• ..4.,(4,.;•,.... ..‘..„.: ...\,,,.. • Iskt_______;:___ .. ......_.....7,...
i [..._ ..,t,,,
r-...‘ , Ir.. ....,1/4„..
— /8' --,,..• \ .„,... • _E .,
----,--,.. , .„,--,f..,
I ; 1 .,..• , , . ,
,,,...... _..........„
s, — _-_,....-- -_,•,--\--,,,,N,; . , ,F,\.
...-1 i g I x ,. 2.•-„...., --- N.' ..i-
:
ro...1 ••
4) P
i'•4 I ' - •-7//'7/z l',?'!1,..4Z>'----.--.------'-'------'----7---.-------'`.-..—,...2'N•AV.'4,Nz‘\ ‘ • .
. .1
f e,"' • 'N 1. . . - ---..'''''• i• \N. i'l'' !"\
.L''''•::.
•• •
F.• .
. _ • . . X/ --7 '.-I.\:**1 ‘1 ° 7/(),i11/1/A,,,\P . 1 t. .
• •
n . .
1
II
. . ' • ,
--I
n .
II IIIII\.t “11‘l•VAV\ •V f- I •
A AA
il. !If I (
A .. "W . .!.. ..' ..:s : : . .g 7 ?a 2 - 1\. L,,- • :\_y f.... ' 1
•nr,
0 • ,.... \ \ . .1 • 1. s..„....,..-,,..<41,....„-„,-. ......,,,‘,., :
..1 . ......e.,„, . ...„... ., - •
. 1.<51.. --'•-••••••.1.• •
71)./f/z//‘•'• . I
z . ,
• .- • • ••• ) ,,',4%/ N'
0 /v„,-....h„ ••••
• , .. . : ..7 \ .; •_-,.........., ,,• ,•:, ,. , 0 „ .
,, .
•..i.: -
A /
; . ...._
. • ti' (it(' ............._
210
--- .
.
' E
Tim Gagner
6850 Alpine Trail
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 •
Home #937-1025
Work i933-2575
. ' September 9, 1981
City Council of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
ATTN: Jean Johnson
This is in reference to Item VI of the Developer's Agreement
entered into between the City and myself dated August 7, 1979.
Due to high interest rates and a slowdown in building and lot sales,
I would like to request a 24 month extension on the above mentioned
Developers Agreement. If the City Council can not give me the full
24 months, I could try to complete the development within 18 months.
Thank you for your concern in this matter and if you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Tim Gagner
TG/pl
217(
L
MEMO `: A'
t
( I,
TO: Mayor and City Council I
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
THROUGH: Carl Oullie, City Manager j
DATE: September 11, 1981 is
RE: City Services; Options for Development
The staff and the consultant architect have completed site evaluations'for
the location for City Services. 1
The sites which have been evaluated are:
1) A site et Co. Rd. 4 surrounding existing City Hall. 1
2) A site at Mitchell Road and TH 5, currently the location
of the Fire Station, Public Works, Public Safety, and
the Water Plant.
3) A site for the Public Safety 8uilding adjacent to the
West 78th St. Fire Station. ,
Early in the Sunnier the consultant architect presented these possible 1
( sites to the Council and the Mitchell Road site was selected to be I
studied further with some additional land. This became site option #4.
F
4) A site west of Mitchell Road and south of TH 5, for Public Safety/
City Hall.
The staff and the consultant architect have done more detailed site planning
work for the existing site at Mitchell Road, with additional land to be #;
acquired west of Mitchell Road.
This site plan would allow for expansion of the existing Public Works
function at their current location, moving the Park and Recreation garage
back to this site, construction of a new Public Safety building at the
same location they are now located at, and the construction or provision
for City Hall on the west side of Mitchell Road with Public Safety. 1
All City functions could be consolidated at the exact demographic and
geographic center of the Community. The location would allow the City to
build a good community image for these services.
Options for development of these facilities at the Mitchell Road site are i'
as follows:
a
•
f,
• C
/ 7.,1
Memo-City Services ''' page 2
7,
„
Option No. 1: A. Public Safety Building'(vith shooting range and
maintenance garage to be added in the future), and
shell only of the conference/classroom and exer-
cise room.
B. Park and Recreation and Public Works facilities as
in the revised program dated September 3, 19B1.
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $2,686,639.00
Option No. 2: A. Public Safety Building as programmed June 15, 19B1.
(with shooting range, additional maintenance garage,
and furnished exercise and conference roan)
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $1,693,746.00
Option No. 3: A. Public Safety Building with shooting range and
maintenance garage to be added in the future), and
shell only of the conference/classroom and exer-
cise room.
B. City Hall of 15,000 sq. ft.
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $2,529,746.00
Option No. 4: A. Public Safety Building Pith shooting range and
maintenance garage to be added in the future), and
shell only of the conference/classroom and exer-
cise room.
B. Park and Recreation and Public Works facilities as
in the revised program dated September 3, 19B1.
C. City Hall of 15,000 sq. ft.
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $4,186,206.00
COST ANALYSIS
Buiding Costs: These include general construction costs, all mechanical
and electrical work within the buildings, and fixed
equipment.
Site Development Costs related to grading, parking lots, and roadways and
Costs: other landscaping.
Furnishings: An estimated cost of the additional furnishings required
such as chairs, desks, tables, etc. - reuse of existing
furniture is assumed.
Land Costs: Costs related to the purchase of the two parcels-of
land west of Mitchell Road. Not included in these esti-
mates.
•
Memo-City Services `'
page 3 4;/
•
t Additional Pro= Approximately 20% of the building and site cost for site
ject Expenses: surveys, soil tests, architect's fees, attorney's fees,
printing, escalation, and a 5% building contingency.
Option No. 1 Public Safety $1,047,122.00
Park and Recreation 438,002.00
Public Works 375,515.00
Site Development 346,000.00
Furnishings 40,000.00
Additional Project Expenses 450,328.00
Total $2,686,639.00
Option No. 2 Public Safety $1,282,122.00
Site Development 96,000.00
Furnishings 40,000.00
Additional Project Expenses 275,624.00
Total $1,693,746.00
Option No. 3 Public Safety $1,047,122.00
City Hall 930,000.00
Site Development 131,000.00
Additional Project Expenses 421,624.00
Total $2,529,746.00
Option No. 4 Public Safety $1,047,122.D0
City Hall 930,000.00
Park and Recreation 438,002.00
Public Works 375,515.OD
Site Development 381,200.00
Furnishings 80,000:OD
Additional Project Expenses 634,367.00
Total $4,186,206.D0
The mills necessary for each option: 2 million - 1.429 mills
3 million - 2.143 mills
4 million - Z.858 mills
The effect on a 4100,0D0 home for each 2 million - $33/year
option: 3 million - $50/vear
4 million - $66/year
We will have a model and drawings of each option to present Tuesday night.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Staff would recommend Option 1 (Public Safety, Park 8 Recreation, and
Public Works) to the Council. We would suggest that you set bond issue
date of November 17, 1981 and instruct the staff and consultant architect
to prepare the appropriate material and program for sale of that bond issue.
CE:ss
1409 Willow sleet
Memorandum
Minneapolis.Minnesola 55403
612/871 7979 .+
w.l
Copies sent: Carl Jullie
�..k� Chris Enger
Bob Lambert
Gene Detz
Jack Hacking
)ierDesign Inc. DATE: Thursday,September 3, 1981
TO: Files
FROM: Robert Lambert,InterDesign Inc.
RE: Eden Prairie City Services
Meeting at Eden Prairie— Design Options for the Bond Election.
Present: Chris Enger,Bob Lambert (Eden Prairie);
Gene Iltz (Director of Public Works at Eden Prairie);and
Bob Lambert (InterDesign Inc.).
The Eden Prairie Council members reviewed a site plan and model of the Mitchell Road site.
The Public Safety Building and the City Hall were located west of Mitchell Road and the
Park and Recreation and Public Service structures located on the City-owned property east
of Mitchell Road. This site was approved as the project site. •
The consultants were asked to present options at the September 15 council meeting for
reducing the total project cost from$5,000,000 to less than$3,000,000.
The following options were discussed with the Eden Prairie staff. All are to cost under
$3,000,000:
Option 1. Public Safety Building with shooting range and maintenance garage to be
added in the future.
Scaled-down Park and Recreation and Public Works facilities.
Option 2: Public Safety Building only as programmed,June 15,1981.
Option 3: Public Safety Building as programmed June 15,1981,and a new City Hall.
The Park and Recreation and Public Works programs were reviewed and revised(see attached).
The consultants were asked to review the site development costs to find additional cost savings.
The following suggestions were made by the Eden Prairie staff:
— When Mitchell Road is lowered,there will be excess cut that could be used for
surcharging,berming,and filling where called for on the site development drawings.
— Parking can be reduced from the 154 spaces.
— The planting and walkways around the buildings can be reduced.
— The outside storage area grading and surfacing may be reduced.
4s $[
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT — EDEN PRAIRIE CITY.SERVICES
( SPACE SUMMARY REVISED SEPTEMBER 3,1981
WITH EDEN PRAIRIE STAFF
PAGE NAME AREA IN SOUARE FEET
1 ENCLOSED VEHICLE STORAGE GARAGE 4,865
2 MAINTENANCE GARAGE 3,135
3 TOOL CRIB 400
4 EOUIPMENT ROOM 100
5 BULK STORAGE
Omit
6 MENS LOCKER AND TOILET ROOM 300
7 WOMEN'S LOCKER AND TOILET ROOM 80
B CUSTODIAN 15
9 SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 110
10 GENERAL OFFICE 375
11 LUNCHROOM 250
12 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM 200
13 EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
14 EXTERIOR AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
NET SQUARE FEET
9,830
3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11=1,6305FX30% 2,119SF
1.2,12 = 8,200 SF x 5% = 8,810 SF
10,729 SF x $35 - $375,515
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER — PUBLIC WORKS
INTER DESIGN INC. DATE
i 2 oZ .L7
1
PARK AND RECREATION - EDEN PRAIRIE CITY SERVICES
SUMMARY OF SPACES REVISED SEPTEMBER 3,1981 WITH
EDEN PRAIRIE STAFF.
PAGE NAME AREA IN SQUARE FEET
1 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE 130
2 FORESTERS OFFICE (FUTURE) Omit
3 LUNCH/MEETING ROOM 150
4 MENS TOI LET AND LOCKER ROOM 100
6 WOMEN'S TOILET AND LOCKER ROOM 80
6 CUSTODIAN 15
7 SHOP.• 1,800
•
8 LARGE EQUIPMENT STORAGE 9,000
9 CHEMICAL STORAGE ROOM 100
10 GREENHOUSE (FUTURE) Omit
11 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM 200
12 PAINT STORAGE 100
13 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT STORAGE • 1,000
14 EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
16 EXTERIOR AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
NET SQUARE FEET 12,675
1,3,4,5,6,9,12.675 x 30%- 877
7,8,11,13 - 1,200 x 5% - 12,600
13,477 SF X S32.5 = S438,002.50
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER - PARK AND RECREATION PAGE
INTER DESIGN INC. DATE
•
September 15, 1981
•
CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. R81- 193
• RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND ORDERING.
FEASIBILITY REPQRT-MITCHELL/CPT/MTS
• ROADWAY, I.C. 52-01D
WHEREAS, a petition tas been received and it is proposed to make _.
the following improvements;
I.C. 52-010, Street and associated utility
improvements
•
and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the
Tr-
improvements, pursuant to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer
for study with the assistance of Bather Ringrose Wotsfeld
and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to
the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council
in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasi-
bility of the proposed improvements.
' ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on
• Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
•
•
211,3
VIS' 44,,,.:.9 M
I
aus z 5 isst
IVITS
r•
MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION
BOX 24012. MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55424
TELEPHONE 0724197.4000 TELEX a0.0521 MTSOYETIM ENPE
24 August 1981
•
City df Eden Prairie •
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Attention: Mr. Carl Jullie, City Manager
Reference: Proposed West 78th Street Extension
Attached are petitions signed by the owners of record for the west
approximately 55% of this project. Additional landowners affected by
the project are Carpenter Land Company (Walt Carpenter) and Feeder's
Inc. (Maclay Hyde).
Mr. Carpenter has indicated to us his agreement on the need for the
street but prefers not to make the investment at this time. Feeder's
Inc. is trying to sell their parcel and has indicated they feel any
progress on the road could become another obstacle to the sale.
( There may be economies of scale and an improvement in the efficiency
of utilization of materials by constructing this street concurrently
with the intersecting portion of Schooner Boulevard (Ring Road). Also,
we believe that the proposed West 78th Street Extension will, when
Schooner Boulevard is completed, serve to alleviate the traffic conges-
tion on Mitchell Road and on Highway 5 east of Mitchell Road. For
these reasons we are asking that the City proceed at once to order the
feasibility study for this project.
When the feasibility study is complete, and an exact location chosen,
the City can decide whether or not to build the through street at this
time. Should the City decide to defer the entire project, MTS and
Magnetic Controls could choose to construct the western end and the
Mitchell Road intersection to facilitate development of the P.U.D. con-
cept which you have approved. This would ensure that the through street
is ultimately constructed in a manner which will best serve the City'•s
overall traffic plans.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
MTS S tb ION
•
aul Strand
Assistant Treasurer
jl •
cc: Frank Kiesner
Magnetic Controls 21114
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
•
100% PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real property described
below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed
with making the following described improvements:
(General Location)
• • • X Sanitary Sewer Proposed West 78th Street (extension)
X Watermain and improvements, from existing
X Storni Sewer West 78th Street west to Mitchell
X Street Paving Road (N 1/2 Section 15)
Other
Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive any
public hearing to be held on said improvements, and further state and
agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially
assessed against the property described below in accordance with the
City's special assessment policies. We further understand that the
preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is approxi-
mately $1,250,000, and that, in the event that the feasibility study
determines that the cost will exceed said estimate, the undersigned
reserve the right to withdraw the petition.
Street Address or other Legal Names and Addresses of Petitioners
Description of Property to be Served (Must be owners of record))
Part of the North one-half of / x.a��f �I-,-.-!•Gvti./ {
Section 15, Township 116, Range 22 Kenneth E. Anderson
Irene W. Anderson
(For City Use) 11
Oate Received
Project No.
Council Consideration I
2115
•
CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA •
100S PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE EOEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real property described
below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed
• with making the following described improvements:
•
(General Location)
X Sanitary Sewer Proposed West 78th Street (extension)
X Watermain and improvements, from existing
X Storm Sewer West 78th Street west to Mitchell
X Street Paving Road (N 1/2 Section I5)
Other
Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive any
public hearing to be held on said improvements, and further state and
agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially
assessed against the property described below in accordance with the
City's special assessment policies We further understand tha
t the
preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is approxi-
mately S1,250,000, and that, in the event that the feasibility study
determines that the cost will exceed said estimate, the undersigned
reserve the right to withdraw the petition.
Street Address or other Legal Names and Addresses of Petitioners
Description of Property to be Served (Must be owners of record)
Part of the Northwest Ouarter of MTS Systems Corporation •
Section 15. Township 116. Range 22 bv: 411
M. L. Carpenter
Vice President and Treasurer
(For City Use)
Date Received
Project No.
Council Consideratioh
211(0
Sept. 15, 1981
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 1
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. RS1-195
• RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND ORDERING
FEASIBILITY REPORT -,STREET AND ASSOCIATED
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS- WWESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL
PARK, I.C. 52-025
WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make
the following improvements; {'
I.C. 52-015, Trunk watermain, lateral watermain, lateral
sanitary sewer, roadway along west line of development and the
interior cul-de-sac, in or adjacent to Westwood Industrial Park
and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvements, pursuant to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer
for study with the assistance of Rieke Carroll Muller Assoc., Inc.
and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to
the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council
in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasi-
bility of the proposed improvements.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on
• Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
2111 •
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
To The Eden Prairie City Council:
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City
Council to consider making the following described improvements(s):
• (General Location)
•X Sanitary Sewer South of County Road 67, East of the Chicago-
•
. X watermain Northwestern Railroad, between the existing
Storm Sewer industrial properties and the western
X . Street Paving edge of the proposed Anderson PUD
• Other
•
Street Address or Other
Legal Description of Names of Petitioners
property to be Served (Must Be Property Owners)
Tract C, Registered Land Frankl• Nagional Bank of Minnpapotis ! '
( 'urvey 1095 e
. H. Dahl, Vice President & Cashier
• 0
/39 -3 (e) E01J-7'' , /«..
1/1
•
•
(For City Use)
•
Date Received •
Project No. _
Council Consideration
2111
4L
•HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
VIColI oaMtD
CONSULTING PLANNERS
•
O N E G R O V E 1.A N D TERRACE
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 35403
• •I1P•377.35311
. geptember 1981
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
The owners of the existing industrial properties located
south of County Road 67 along the east side of the Chicago-
Northwestern Railroad and representatives of the Franklin
National Bank have reviewed Anderson Development Company's
revised PUD plans. These plans propose a permanent industrial
road between the above noted properties and provide for the
development of the 30+ acre parcel owned by.,the bank. We
understand from discussions with the City Planning Director
and Public Works Director, that this will be a 38 foot,,nine
ton, industrial road with concrete curb and gutter, within a
60 foot right-of-way.
This proposal has many positive aspects.•
1. It would eliminate the dangerous intersection of
the existing private road with County Road 67,
directly adjacent to the railroad crossing,
2. it provides acceptable access for the development
of the Franklin National Bank property, and
3. It provides a necessary second access and egress
for the Anderson development.
All of the affected property owners, desire public utilities and
agree that the time to both solve this access problem and
to determine the most efficient and cost effective sanitary 1
sewer and water systems to service this area, is now, along
with the City's review and approval of the Anderson development.
•
•
21'19
.
•
.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Eden Prairie Page 2 (j
However, several important concerns remain regarding the •
specific design of this road and these utilities. Specifically,
at least the following should be addressed in a feasibility
report:
1. The provision of adequate stacking, sight distance,
and turning movements for the large cranes and ! '
semi-tractor trailers which will need to use it.
• 2. The effect of the right-of-way location on the
use of the existing properties. Most notably,
the use of the Busse property would be severely . •
impacted by the right-of-way taking as shown on the
current Anderson plans. •
' 3. The most efficient and cost effective design to I
serve the entire area with public water and
sanitary sewer. (
1
4. Due to the unique ownership pattern and the nature i
of existing and planned land uses, the feasibility r
report should determine the most fair and equitable
means of determining benefit and spreading I
assessments.
Respectfully submitted,
1
Joh W. Shardlow . I
Principal Planner
The undersigned have read and are in agreement with the contents
f
of this letter:
/b 2
aG ' 1.
. 2120 •
__-- aspLemurr 1 , Ivor
ar
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. R81-196
RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION,
ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION
OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN AUTUMN WOODS,
PHASE I, I.C. 52-016A
•
BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: •
1. The owners of 100% of the real property abutting upon and
to be benefitted from the proposed improvements.
have petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements
and to assess the entire cost against their property.. ;'-
2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation
of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered
gnd the City Engineer, with the assistance of Rieke Carrr.,11 Mul-
ler Assoc., Inc. shall prepare plans and specifications for
said improvements in accordance with City standards and
advertise for bids thereon.
3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby
directed to publish a copy of this resolution once in the
official newspaper, and further a contract for construction
of said improvements shall not be approved by the City Council
prior to 30 days following publication of this resolution
in the City's official newspaper.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
1111
•
:Xr I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
•
100% PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS .
•
TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: • 1
The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real property described j .
'below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed
witr•making the following described improvements; .
• (General Location)
XSanitary Sewer,
xWatermain um. lA�ea�g m4s 'i .
.
_ X :.Storm:'Sewer .
. X Street:Paving
Other •
Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive any
public hearing to be held on said improvements, and further state and
agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially as-
sessed against the property described below in accordance with the
City's special assessment policies. We further understand that/the
preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is 94:OOV • •
•
Street Address or other Legal Names and addresses of Petitioners
Description of Property to be Served (Must be owners of record)
liars /-13 ,$cr Z•r 4v'lva f 1—P-e--'--+' �•�•-�••'
%Joup. 73 2 6 f/ia.w..-H,• Auk
• Ed;,, P.-a_irtel this, n SS34f
5i:c4S. Rys• vy
Richard S. Ryshay
Ystk, MNS5391
•
'Q-2(. 4
Mabel R. Moran •
7808 County Road #4
Eden Prairie, MN 44344 '
Guardians of Annie Picha. Inc. Ward.
(For City Use)
Date Received
•
Project No. .,Z� 1 s)- d4
Council Consideration •
?1U •
•