HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/16/1983 EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TPrcDAY, AUGUST 16, 1983 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Richard Anderson, George
Bentley, Paul Redpath and George Tangen
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie; City Attorney
Roger Pauly; Finance Director John Frane;
Planning Director Chris Enger; Director of
Community Services Robert Lambert; Director
of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretal-y Karen Michael
INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
•
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II: MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1983 Page 1660
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering publication of
proposed 1983 Special Assessment Rolls and setting a Public Hearing for
September 2D, 1983 at 7:30 PM (Resolution No. 83-1g4)
B. Receive feasibility report for Shady Oak Road improvements and set Public Page 1673
Hearing for October 4, 1983 at 7:30 PM, I.C. 52-026 (Resolution No. 83-195)
. C. Dellwood special assessment agreement Page 1674
D. Change Order No. 1, N.E. Quadrant of the MCA road improvements, I.C. Page 1677
51-308A-2 �a
E. Clerk's License List Page 1681
F. Award bids for Staring Lake Bike/Hike Trail Phase 1 Page 1682
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. TIMBER CREEK by B-T Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Page 1683
kept Amendment, Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 for 63 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 158 single family detached lots. Location: County
Road 4 and Duck Lake Trail. (Resolution No. B3-203 - PUD Concept;
Ordinance No. 41-83 - Zoning; and Resolution No. 83-204 - Preliminary
Plat)
B. MENARD'S. Request for Zoning from Rural to Commercial Regional Service Page 1702
and PreTTminary Plat of 1.6 acres for retail shopping center. Location:
East of existing Menard's building, adjacent to Plaza Drive. (Ordinance
No. 40-83 - Zoning; Resolution No. 83-202 - Preliminary Plat)
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,August 16, 1983
C. E. A. SWEEN. Request for Zoning District Amendment of 9.1 acres for a Page 1714
corporate office building. Location: South of State Highway 5 at Fuller
Road. (Ordinance No. 43-83 - Zoning District Amendment)
•
D. McKinley Lane Vacation (Resolution 83-198)
Page 1721
E. REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT'BONDS IN THEE AMOUNT OF Page 1722
$9,170,000.00 FOR THOMAS HOTEL COMPANY (Resolution N. $3-260)
F. REQUEST Pelt MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF Page 1729
$1,000,000.00 for E. A. SWEEN (Resolution No. B3-201)
A Q' ,s !
G. REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF Page 1742
$1,050,000.00 FOR CRC ASSOCIATES (Resolution No. B3-199)
is(G ol . /
H. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 6 (Resolutionn No.. 83-176)' � / Pag�' 1756
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 9019 - 9309 Page 1774
twl
VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS ✓ y
A. Development Commission - Resolution No. 83-192, Charging the Development Page 1782
Commission to prepare a plan for the design and implementation of an
Economic Development Program for the City of Eden Prairie
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Don Mosher, Fieldman from Senator Rudy Boschwitz's Office, requesting Page 1785
input from Council and Staff on Federal Funding or other Federal
programs
B. Request for approval of a Commercial Stable License Permit from Page 1786
Woodbear Stables, Inc., for a facility at 9630 Eden Prairie Road
C. Request from Scott and Stephanie Feldmann for Council review of Page 1792
Board of Appeals & Adjustments decision on Variance No. 83-23
VIII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 22-83, Zoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5, Pages 1575
and R1-22, Approval of Developer's Agreement for Hidden Glen, Adoption & 1816
of Resolution No. B3-167, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 22-83 and
Ordering the Publication of said Summary of Hidden Glen, Approval of
Special Assessment Agreement and Authorization of Hidden Glen Park
Acquisition. Location: 22.8 acres for 59 single family lots south
of Townline Road and east of Highway 101. (Continued from August 2, 1983)
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 26-B3, Zoning from Rural to I-2 Park,
Approval of Developer's Agreement PUD 7-83 for City West Business Center Page 1820
by Ryan Construction, and Adoption of Resolution No.83-181, Approving
Summary of Ordinance No. 26-B3, and Ordering the Publication of said
Summary for City West Business Center. Location: Approximately 14.05
acres at Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway.
C. Final Plat Approval for City West (Resolution No. 83-197) Page 1840
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,August 16, 1983
D. Resolution No. 83-191, commenting on the improvement of C.S.A.H. 18 Page 1842
as a Minor Arterial Roadway from I-494 south to Highway 13
. -
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Birch Island Park Expansion Page 1843
2. Lease Agreement for Camp for Retarded Citizens Page 1851
3. Hennepin County Park Reserve District Public Hearings Page 1863
' E. Report of Planning Director
F. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Award contract for Shady Oak Utilities, 1.C. 52-049 (Resolution No.
83-146)
X. NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT.
•
i� .
•
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
( EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY I9, I983 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, Richard Anderson, George
Bentley, Pauly Redpath and George Tangen
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Attorney Roger
Pauly, Planning Director Chris Enger, Director of
Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of
Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Sec-
retary Karen Michael
INVOCATION: Councilman George Bentley
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Councilman Paul Redpath was absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were added to the Agenda: III. J. 2nd Reading of Ordinance
No. 27-83 and Resolution No. 83-180 pertaining to Welsh Construction Offices and
III. K. Joint Resolution with Chaska and Chanhassen regarding Highway 5 and 212.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Agenda and Other
Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1983
Page 4, para. 2, line 8: change "building" to "interior".
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Minutes of the
City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 21, 1983, as amended and published.
Motion carried with Anderson abstaining.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 23-83, Zoning Amendment for RM 6.5, Approval
of Amendment to Developer's Agreement for Northmark 4th Addition and
Adoption of Resolution No. 83-166, Approving Summary of Ordinance No.
23-83, and Ordering the Publication of said Suimiary for Northmark 4th
Addition. Approximately 32 townhouse units north of Nesbitt Park and
west of Center Way.
16hU
City Council Minutes -2- July 19, 1983
C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 33-83, Deferment of Special Assessments
( for Senior Citizens and Handicapped and adoption of Resolution No.
83-177
D. Resolution No. 83-162, approval of overhead transfers
E. Award contract for Homeward Hills Roadway extension, I.C. 52-033
(Resolution No. 83-163)
F. Resolution approving an at-grade railroad crossing of the C & NW
Railway at Edenvale Boulevard (Resolution No. 83-165)
G. Final Plat approval for Bluff's East First Addition (Resolution No. 83-174)
H. Management and Restoration Reports on Bryant and Riley Lakes
I. Resolution No. 83-175, establishing "No Parking" zone at CSAH 1 east
and west of Riley Lake Road
J. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 27-83 and Resolution No. 83-180 pertaining
to Welsh Construction Offices •
K. Joint Resolution with Chaska and Chanhassen regarding Highways 5 and 212
(Resolution No. 83-193)
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve items A - K on. the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. (Bentley stated he would have
voted "no" on item B, but because this issue would receive four "yes" votes
if continued�he voted in favor so the proponent would not be further delayed.)
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER by Ryan Construction. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review, Planned Unit Development Amendment Approval, •
Zoning from Rural to I-2, Preliminary Plat approval of 14.05 acres into
two lots for office/service/storage uses, and denial of request for petition
for Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Location: northwest of Shady Oak
Road, west of 169/212. (Resolution No. 83-135 - PUD, Ordinance No. 26-83 -
zoning, Resolution No. B3-136 - preliminary plat, and Resolution No. 83-179 -
EAW) - continued from 6/21/83
City Manager Jullie noted this item was continued from June 21, 1983.
Al Schackman, Ryan Construction, addressed the request.
Planning Director Enger said the Planning Commission had re-reviewed this
proposal at it July 18, 1983, meeting at which time it voted to recommend
approval of the site plan exclusive of any land uses. The Commission voted
to recommend denial of the request for the petition for an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. Enger noted the Staff memorandum of July 15, 1983,
addressing the questions which had been raised by the City Council at its
June 21, 1983, meeting.
City Council Minutes -3- July 19, 1983
Penzel asked if sidewalks had been considered along Shady Oak Road.
Enger said Staff had been considering a sidewalk which will be built
concurrent with the upgrading of Shady Oak Road.
Bentley asked if Schackman had discussed plantings with the residents of
Golden Ridge. Schackman said that proposition had not been directed at
him; this had been discussed between ADI and the Golden Ridge residents.
Bentley said he was concerned because most of the foliage on Golden Ridge
is deciduous in nature and for six months of the year the trees are bare.
He wondered if it was possible to mitigate the impact by planting evergreens
on the hillside. Schackman said it would seem almost impossible, if not
impractical, to get the necessary equipment to the sites where the plantings
would provide the most benefit. He said he did not feel this could be done
in a satisfactory manner.
Anderson asked what types of trees are to be planted on the berm along Shady
Oak Road. Schackman said there will be 7 - 20' Colorado Blue Spruce trees,
18 - 15' Dundee junipers, 17 chokecherries, 29 dogwoods, 12 cottoneasters,
and 68 arrowwoods included in the first phase.
Penzel asked Scott Anderson, representing ADI, if he had attempted to contact
the Golden Ridge neighbors since the last Council meeting. He said he had not
but during the past two weeks they had been trying to complete the berm plant-
ings -- which were damaged in today's storm,
Duke Addicks, attorney for the Golden Ridge residents, said his clients are
accepting of the decision on the EAW. He said the efforts which have been
made as to the design of the buildings is superficial. He noted the major
issue of concern to his clients, and one which should be of major concern to
the City Council, is should the City allow this portion of the City to become
an industrial park. Addicks also reviewed the concerns regarding landscaping.
Penzel asked about the rationale behind the traffic lights at Rowland Road.
Enger said the proposal for the traffic light at Rowland Road was brought
about by the City's continued study of the amount of traffic expected from
development in the area and where access points might be along Shady Oak
Road. Enger said this had been reviewed by the City's traffic consultants
and Hennepin County and this was determined to be the best location; this
is something which will be brought before the Council in the near future,
Bentley said his initial reaction to this proposal was the same as that of
Addicks. After considerable discussion he felt the decision came down to
control of the uses in an 1-2 or high-tech office zone, He said he felt if
a high-tech office zone were available there probably would not be a problem,
Bentley said Addicks had mentioned the Guide Plan and how this proposal would
fit into what was proposed. It was his feeling that what is proposed is
closer to what had been viewed by the Guide Plan than to what might have been
intended in the 1982 PUD. Bentley expressed concern as to the impact 100%
office use might have on the area in view of the fact that that use might
be better built in the Major Center Area. He said he would support the
City Council Minutes -4- July 19, 1983
project as it is because he does not feel it is that much different from
what had been proposed. Tangen noted the Planning Commission had reviewed
the proposal and had agreed that all issues, except that'of land use, had
been resolved. He said the project has been improved since the time it first
came before the Council; he felt he could support the project even though he
does not think the City has the proper zoning classification for the use
proposed. Anderson said this is a new type of building and there is a
demand for buildings of this type; he felt this project would be an asset
to the community. Penzel said he had considered this proposal for a long
time and felt there had been a serious attempt to resolve the issues which
had been raised. He felt the plans of the City must change with the times.
It was Penzel's feeling that this proposal is consistent with the original
context of the Guide Plan and he said he would support the proposal.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. 83-135, approving the Planned Unit Development
Amendment of City West PUD for Ryan Construction. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to give 1st Reading to Ordinance
No. 26-83. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No. 83-136,
approving the preliminary plat for Ryan Construction/City West. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 83-179,
denying the request for petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for
City West Business Center Proposal by Ryan Construction; and to direct Staff
to prepare a Developer's Agreement per Commission and Staff recommendations;
and to work with residents of Golden Ridge to develop a planting plan for
this project -- on-site planting plan to be reviewed by City Staff. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. PLAZA DRIVE remnant vacation.
MOTIDN: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to table action on the Plaza
Drive remnant vacation to a date not certain, Motion carried unanimously.
C. COMMERCIAL STABLES ORDINANCE. (Ordinance No. 34-83 - Commercial Stable
Code - amending City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 by adding
thereto Subparagraph E which adds Commercial Stables as permitted uses in
certain portions of the Rural District and Section 11.02, 43, defining
Commercial Stables, redefining Section 11.02, Item 3, "Agriculture,"
"Stable-Commercial," and amending City Code Chapter 5 by adding thereto
Section 5.70 relating to the licensing and regulation of Commercial Stables,
and adopting by reference City Code Chapter 1, Section 5.01 through 5.11
and Sections 5.99 and 11.99 which, among other things, contain penalty
provisions)
//,C3
City Council Minutes -5- July 19, 1983
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published
and notices had been sent to twelve existing or anticipated stable operators.
Jullie also noted that he had met with Sally Brown to review the Ordinance
requirements; she had not contacted him with any suggested changes.
Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson was present to answer questions.
City Attorney Pauly statedthe definition had been revised to delete the
raising of horses for sale from the ordinance; this activity can only
continue as a non-conforming use.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 34-83. Motion carried unanimously.
D. HIGH TRAIL ESTATES 2ND ADDITION by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for
zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 10 acres for 21 single
family detached lots. Location: 6451 Duck Lake Road. (Ordinance No. 35-83 -
zoning and Resolution No. 83.168 • preliminary plat)
City Manager Jullie stated notice for the Public Hearing had been published
and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
Peter Knaebele and Al Gray, RCM, engineers for the proponent, addressed the
proposal.
Director of Planning Enger said the Planning Commission had reviewed this
proposal at its June 6, 1983, meeting at which time the Commission suggested
modifications and again at its June 27, 1983, meeting at which time the
revised plan was submitted. The Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval of the revised plan subject to the recommendations included in the
Staff Reports dated June 3, 1983, and June 24, 1983,
Director of Community Services Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission had voted to recommend approval of the proposal at its
meeting on July 18, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report.
Anderson asked how encroachment into the lowland area is to be accomplished.
Gray said it will be handled via the drainage easement which will be required
by the City,
Tangen inquired about the property to the north and asked if this would be
served by a cul-de-sac, Enger said this cul-de-sac is dictated by topo-
graphic features and would only serve the High Trail Estates Addition.
•
JoAnn Badenhop, 16950 North Manor Road, questioned the lot lines in regard
to her home which abuts the proposal,
George Carlson, 16171 South Hillcrest Court, said there is a lack of through
streets in Eden Prairie; he would like to see more access provided for people
who are not travelling in cars.
•
I�DGU
City Council Minutes -6- July 19, 1983
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing.
Motion carried unanimously. , •
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tangen, to give 1st Reading to Ordinance
No. 35-83. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No. 83-168,
approving the preliminary plat of High Trails Estates 2nd Addition for Country-
side Investment, Inc., and to direct Staff to prepare a summary resolution
taking into consideration the recommendations included in the Staff Report
as well as the comments made by the Council. Motion carried unanimously.
Penzel said he had a concern regarding the dumping of construction debris on
Countryside property. Arvid Schwartz, Countryside Investments, said he was
unaware that there was a problem; he noted that they had sold a couple of
the lots to which Penzel was referring but he would check into it.
E. CROSSROADS TOWNHOMES by Baton Corporation. Request for preliminary plat
of 5.0 acres for seven (7) townhouse buildings. Location: south of Pioneer
•
Trail across from Prairie East 6th Addition, (Resolution No. 83-169 - pre-
liminary plat)
City Manager Jul lie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published
and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified,
Richard Jedlicki, Baton Corporation, addressed the proposal; he especially
noted the parking provisions,
Director of Planning Enger said the reason for the request for a preliminary
plat, which had originally been reviewed as part of the Bluffs East PUD, was
for ease of financing. He noted the Planning Commission had reviewed this
at its June 27, 1983, meeting at which time it voted to recommend approval
subject to the recommendations included in the Staff Report dated June 24,
1983,
This request was not reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission.
Discussion ensued on the number of parking spaces. Jedlicki said there
would be 2.5:1 spaces provided with a provision for 3;1, if necessary.
He noted an option being offered buyers is a tandem garage provision.
Bentley asked if all the materials requested of the developer had been
provided to the City. Enger said not all materials had been received.
Susan Hustad, representing the developer, said a bond would be posted
by the contractor.
City Council Minutes -7- July 19, 1983
Bentley asked if the parking shown meets the requirements of the parking
ordinance. Enaer said it does not because one space (one of each of the
2.5) is "obstructed". The driveway space is counted as one half and an
additional one half space could be provided elsewhere. Enger noted how
the parking at Burning Tree apartments has worked -- that is the basis for
determing the number of spaces which are necessary for this project.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. 83-169, approving the preliminary plat of Cross-
roads Townhomes by Baton Corporation with the stipulation that there be pi
spaces per unit with the provision that the homeowner's association states
that additional parking will be provided (three stalls per unit),if necessary,
and that the bonding for storm sewer be completed prior to the granting of
building permits. Motion carried unanimously.
F. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER by Investment Services Group. Request for
Zoning from Rural to 1-2 Park of approximately 0.5 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 2.9 acres, including vacation of McKinley Lane right-of-way and
drainage easements for office/warehouse uses. Location: Flying Cloud
Drive and McKinley Lane. (Ordinance No, 36-83 - zoning and Resolution
83-170 - preliminary plat)
City Manager Jullie said official notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
Tony Feffer, Investment Services Group, spoke to the proposal.
Planning Director Enger said the Planning Commission had reviewed this •
proposal at its June 27, 1983, meeting at which time it voted to recommend
approval of the preliminary plat and rezoning and the vacation of McKinley
Lane right-of-way subject to the recommendations included in the Staff Report
of June 24, 1983.
This proposal was not reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission.
Bentley asked how the value of the property (McKinley Lane right-of-way)
would be determined. Enger said the City had asked Feffer to submit an
appraisal; the appraisal was for $28,000. Tangen asked if this seemed to
be within a range of other properties in the area. Jullie said City Assessor
Martz had checked the appraisal and found it to be reasonable.
Tangen asked if the loss of the oak tree on this property could be replaced
caliper inch for caliper inch. Enger said that could be done. •
MOTION: 8entley moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 36-83. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: 8entley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No. 83-170,
approving the preliminary plat of Flying Cloud Business Center for Invest-
ments Services Group and directing Staff to prepare a summary resolution.
Motion carried unanimously,
City Council Minutes -8- July 19, 1983
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to set August 16, 1983, as
the date for a Public Hearing on the vacation of McKinley Lane. Motion
carried unanimously.
G. ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY Feasiblility Report, I.C. 52.035.
City Manager Jullie stated that notice of this Public Hearing had been pub-
lished and mailed to property owners listed on the preliminary assessment
roll.
Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed the Feasibility Report noting the
cost of the City's portion of the improvement would be $306,657.
Penzel called attention to a letter of July 18, 1983, from Northrup King
Co. regarding the Feasibility Report. (See attached.)
Jullie noted work underway by Staff in regards to a Capital Improvement
program for the City. He said it might be appropriate for the Council to
continue consideration of this proposal until such time that the Council
has determined a priority listing of the needed road improvments within
the City.
George Carlson, 16171 South Hillcrest Court, said he would like to see
a shoulder provided on the roads so that bikers and runners have their
own space.
•
Ed Ressler, Northrup King Co., said they have hired Tandem Corp. to assist
them in developing their property. He spoke to the three issues addressed
in the letter referred to earlier. He said he would like to have the
Public Hearing continued,
Sherrill Kruetich, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., attorney rep-
resenting Norwest Bank of Bloomington, one of the landowners, spoke to
the types of soils and housing which might be built, She said an assess-
ment of this amount would make the land economically undevelopable, She
said her client would like to work with the City for their mutual benefit.
Bentley said this is a very important project for the City; and noted
this is important to the overall transportation system i.n the City,
Bentley added the comments heard tonight were worthy of note.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to continue the Public Hearing
to September 20, 1983. Motion carried unanimously.
H. REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$500,000.00 for Cotton/Hagen Partnership (Resolution No, 83-171)
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published,
Stan Johannes, Rothschild Financial Corporation, spoke to the requests
16611
City Council Minutes -9- July 19, 1983
There were no comments c,om the audience.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. 83-171, giving preliminary approval to a
proposed industrial development project. Motion carried unanimously.
I. REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,000,000.00 FOR BBS PARTNERSHIP (Resolution No. 83-172)
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published.
Brad Hoyt, representing BBS, spoke to the request.
There were no comments from the audience,
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt the revised draft of Resolution No. 83-172, determining to
proceed with a project and its financing under the Municipal Industrial
Development Act, referring the proposal to the Department of Commerce for
approval and authorizing preparation of necessary documents. Motion
. carried unanimously,
J. REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,500,000.00 FOR TRI-COR PROPERTIES (Resolution No. 83-1737--
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published.
Dick Riley, Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Yost Incorporated, spoke to
the request.
There were no comments from the audience,
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. B3.173, giving preliminary approval to a
project under the Municipal Industrial Oevelopment Act, referring the
proposal to the Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development for
approval and authorizing preparation of necessary documents, Motion
carried unanimously,
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 8487 - 8753
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Payment of Claims
Nos. 8487 - 8753. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Tangen and Penzel voted
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
There were no reports. •
•
IGdB :
City Council Minutes -10- July 19, 1983
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNJCATIONS
A. TARGET. Request for Site Plan Review for Retail Service Use. Location:
east of Highway 169, north of Prairie Center Drive,
Dick Brooks, real estate manager for Target, addressed the request. He
said that Target would accept the recommendations included in the July
15, 1983, Staff Report and recommended by the Planning Commission with
the exception of the brick exterior. Dale Hamilton, Suburban Engineer-
ing, discussed the site plan. Michael Moorman, architect, spoke to
the architectural objectives of Target. •
Planning Director Enger stated the Planning Commission had reviewed
this request at its meeting on July 18, 1983, at which time discussion
centered around how to most effectively deal with the truck maneuvering
area. The treatment of the loading area was of concern to the Commission.
Penzel stated his concern regarding the hardiness of the Austrian pine
trees which are to be planted as screening. He also inquired as to the
truck parking area which he would like to see further enclosed to provide
• "dark parking." Penzel explained the Council's position on brick buildings.
Bentley noted his concern regarding the building material. He said that
within the Major Center Area it would be beneficial if all construction
were of brick to provide a long term image which the City has tried to
convey. Moorman said Target has attempted to create a strong design
image throughout the country -- one which is easily recognized. He said
they have used exposed aggregate and that it is compatible with brick.
He said they felt aggregate to be a quality product -- as much so as brick.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to continue the meeting beyond the
11:30 p.m. time limit. Motion carried unanimously.
Enger said he felt the truck loading area will be adequately screened
but the maneuvering area would not be adequately screened. It was noted
by Brooks that the company policy would be to not park trucks in this
area. Enger said this would be a very difficult thing to enforce. Brooks
said Target would be liable to provide adequate screening.
Tangen said he had a problem with saying that brick was always required.
He said he finds the aggregate to be attractive and asked if Staff felt
this was quality material. Enger said the cast concrete aggregate panels
are better than the epoxy aggregate panels. He said he would be happy
to review this further with the Building Department. He noted that
exposed aggregate has some advantages. Bentley said he would like to
have Staff put together a study on different types of building materials
so the Council would have more of an idea as to what types of materials
might be permitted and under what conditions. Anderson said his concern
was that the City Council has held the line on brick for a number of years
and might now be going against what has been done in the past, Penzel
said he thought brick should be required because it would provide for
consistency; allowing aggregate panels would set a precedent; and the
Council should give consideration as to what the City's objective should
be.
/669
City Council Minutes -11- July 19, 1983
Tangen said he felt the Council should be open to new materials and
changes in technology. Penzel said it is a question of compatibility;
he asked City Attorney Pauly if this would hold up legally. Pauly
said "compatible" denotes a practical, utilitarian concept and also
can be aesthetic which then makes it more subjective.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the site plan
review subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and
the Staff Reports of July 15, 1983, and June 24, 1983; but allowing
the use of aggregate as the exterior material. Motion lost on a vote
of 1 - 3 (Tangen voted "aye.")
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the site plan
review subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and
the Staff Reports of July 15, 1983, and June 24, 19B3, calling for a
brick exterior, there be a provision for "no parking" in the truck
manuevering area, and the truck parking area will be adequately screened.
Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS •
•
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 22-83, Zoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5,
and R1-22, approval of Developer's Agreement for Hidden Glen, and Adoption
of Resolution No. 83-167, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 22-83 and
Ordering the Publication of said Summary for Hidden Glen. 22.8 acres
for 59 single family lots south of Townline Road and east of Highway 101.
� f
City Manager Jullie said he had discussed the Lochanburn connection
with Director of Public Safety Hacking and Hacking did not find it to
be an overriding concern; he felt Lochanburn should be regraded if the
connection is to be made,
Anderson said he would like to have trails through the area; it is difficult
to get from one place to another except by car. Penzel said he would like to
see a street connection rather than a trail connection for safety reasons.
George Carlson, 16171 South Hillcrest Court, spoke to the issue of having
streets connect neighborhoods; this is especially important to runners and
bike riders.
Dick Feerick, proponent, noted there is a connection to the park from
another part of the area. He spoke to the grades in the area of Lochan-
burn where the connection would be made.
Penzel asked if the City had any information regarding the park acquisition
costs as well as estimates for Dell Road. Enger said there were no figures
available yet for the Dell Road project; the Developer's Agreement takes
note of this. Director of Community Services Lambert said he had just
reviewed the appraisal with Feerick and details of it had yet to be worked
out; he felt purchase terms could be worked out. City Attorney Pauly noted
the terms of the Developer's Agreement as worded are not enforceable; it
would be best to hold action until the terms are agreed to,
City Council Minutes -12- July 19, 19B3
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Anderson, to have the Lochanburn connection
required in the final plat. •
Bonnie Riegert, 6611 Lochanburn Road, said she does not want to be isolated
but she sees no need for the connection. She felt that kids would find
their way to the park no matter if there was a connection or not.
Bentley said he did not see an overriding need for this connection. Tangen
noted that trails are not plowed in the winter which makes them unusable
for a number of months out of the year.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Bentley voting "no."
The concensus was to hold action on the Dell Road assessments issue and
the park acquisition costs subjectto the receipt of all the necessary
documents.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to authorize the proponent
to start grading while consideration of the rezoning issue and final plat
approval is continued to the August 2, 1983, meeting or at a sooner date
at the discretion of the Mayor. Motion carried unanimously.
•
B. Final Plat approval for Hidden Glen (Resolution no. 83-178)
Action on this item was included in the previous motion.
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
Penzel - reminded Council members of the breakfast meeting scheduled
for 7:30 a.m., Thursday, August 4, 1983, with Councilmen from Chanhassen
and Chaska and Highway Commissioner Braun to discuss TH 212, 5, and 169.
He noted that County Commissioners and Legislators had also been invited
to attend this meeting.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Custodial Services for the Public Safety Department
City Manager Jullie called attention to his memorandum of July 15,
1983, in which he addressed Public Safety Director Hacking's request.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tangen, to promote the part-time
custodial position to a full-time position as of August 1, 1983, as
outlined in City Manager Jullie's memorandum dated July 15, 1983.
Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -13- July 19, 1983
C. Report of City Attorney
City Attorney Pauly reported on the status of the Douglas grading permit.
Pauly noted the Supreme Court issued a decision on the open meeting law:
essentially they held that a conversation between less than a quorum
does not violate the open meeting law.
D. Report of Director of Community Services
1. 1984 LAWCON Grant
•
Director of Community Services Lambert addressed his memorandum of
July 7, 1984, in which he reported the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission had recommended the City Council apply for a
Lawcon grant for the purchase of the Hendrickson property for the
expansion of Riley Lake Park.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tangen, to authorize Staff to
•
proceed with the Lawcon grant application. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Edenvale Land Dedication Requirements
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Anderson, to accept the deed for
the Edenvale Park contingent on receipt of a letter from K. Schumacher
saying the taxes have been paid. Motion carried unanimously.
E. Report of Planning Director
There was no report.
F. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Award contract for Rymarland Camp 3rd Addition, I.C. 52.043 (Resolution
No. 83-164)
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No.
83-164, accepting the bid for the Rymarland Camp 3rd Addition project.
Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Tangen, and Penzel voted "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
X. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Penzel, to adjourn the meeting at 1:07 a.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
/OA_ .
•
•
August 16, 1983
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
i HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
•
t RESOLUTION NO. 83-195
RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND CALLING FOR A HEARING I.C. 52-026
WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the
City Council on August 16, 1983, recommending the following
improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-026, Roadway Improvements for Shady Oak Road '•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY
COUNCIL:
1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements •
in accordance with the report and the assessment of
property abutting or within said boundaries for all or
a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to
M.S.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated
total cost of the improvements as shown.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improve-
ment on the 4 day of October, 1983,at 7:30 P.M. at
the Eden Prairie City Hall. The City Clerk shall give
published and mailed notice of such hearing on the
improvements as required by law.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 16, 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
•
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
•
,67J
AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
s .
This is an agreement made .
this,,,__ day of — --'
19
among the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (the "City"), Dellwood Associates, a Minnesota General
Partnership, and TCF Development Corporation, a Minnesota corpora-
tion (the "Owners").
A. Whereas the Owners hofd, fee simple title to certain real
property situated in the City of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota, described on Exhibit "A" hereto and hereby
made a part hereof.
B. Whereas City levied against the property certain special
•
assessments as follows:
i. Levy No. 7028.
Principal and Interest 1978 through 1981
$34,173.48.
Balance 1982 through 1992 $49,696.52.
2. Levy No. 7973. j
Principal and Interest 1981 $28,764.71.
Balance 1982 through 1997 $188,235.29.
3. Levy No. 5623.
Principal and Interest 1978 through 1981
$2,561.47. .
palance 1982 through 1992 $3,331.80.
• Total assessments against the property amount to $307,763.27.
i C. Whereas the property has been forfeited to the State of
Minnesota for failure to pay taxes and the Owners have entered
•
into an agreement to purchase the property.
D. Whereas City intends to reassess the above-referenced
special assessments against the property in the fall of 1983 .end
whereas the assessments are for the installation-of trunk, sewer
and water, lateral Sewer and water and public roadway
(Dell Road). +.,.
•
' 1/ .
AGREEMENTS •
NOW THEREFORE it is hereby agreed as follows:
1. The Owners consent to the levying
of assessments in
the maximum amount of $307,763.27 for the improvements referred
'to in paragraph D above.
' 2. The Owners waive notice of the assessment hearing to be
held in the fall of 1983 at which hearing the assessments will be
considered by the City Council, thereafter approved and levied. .
3. The Owners concur that;the benefit to the property by
virtue of the improvements constructed by the City exceed the
amount of the special assessments to be levied against the property.
4. The Owners waive all rights they have by Minnesota Statute
Section 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of
the assessments, or the procedure used by the City in levying the
assessments and hereby release the City, its officers, agents and .
employees, from any
and all liability related to or arising out
of the levying of the assessments.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement
to be executed as of the day and year first stated.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By:
Its Mayor
•
BY: -
Its City Manager
•
• DELLWOOD ASSOCIATES
A Minnesota General Partnership.
I BY: Tandem Corporation
A t inner((► a Corporation
. BY, '1il1{�iln,.
is President
TCF evelopment Corporation
A Minnesota Corporation
BY:It^ s-8 gy t
------- .:::: -.,,,
(b:tL.1 p AlS1. 4.^'ty
• /ram . .
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) •
) Ss.
COUNTY OF IIENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
_day of , 19 _ , by
the Mayor and the City Manager of
City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf
of the corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
• ) ss.
COUNTY OF lY44rzt,,f4)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
ta' day of , 19 f3. , by Dellwood Associates, a
Minnesota General Partnership by Tandem Corporation by 4,µ./4
its �y�--_y� and-T/CF Development
�zh by _y a. its �l/ +u4,„/� -- .
Corporation of• �r2
partners on behalf of Dellwood Associates, a partnership.
u9uC•M.HgESTA Notary Pu lic
°vK4{ unty
ur cn mav�A r��co K J M z4O.I969
CONTRACT F:.END!'ENT NO. 1
TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR
( IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT IC 51-308A-2
PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE INTERCHANGE-AT 1494 •
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
July, 1983
BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFFLD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC.
7829 University Avenue Southeast
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
The City has decided to add the following work to the contract for this project:
•
SCHEDULE A .
(1494 INTERCHANGE)
ADDITIONS
Estimated Unit
Item IJo_
Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
•_--- ---- --- •
1. Remove Kennels L.S. 1 /4,700.00 $ 4,200.00
2. Seal Well Shaft L.S. T S 450.00 $ _ 450.00
TOTAL ADDITIONS SCHEDULE A $ 4,650.00
SCHEDULE B
(PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE AND W. 78TH STREET)
ADDITIONS •
Estimated Unit
Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
Item No. — pfli t -- •rice ----
1. — 12" PVC (12-14' Depth) L.F. 130 S 28.00 S 3,640.00
2. Remove Tower Footings L.S. 1 11,680.00 $ 1,680.00
3. Disconnect Water Service EACH 2 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00
4. Salvage and Install Hydrant EACH 1 $ 900.00 $ 900.00
5. F.f I Hydrant, 9'6" Bury EACH 1 11,500.OD $ 1,500.00
6. 6" EHCISP Sewer Service
L.F. 50 $ 15.00 S 750.00
7. 12" x 8" Pressure Tap EACH 1 $2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
8. 2" Thick Insulation Board S.F. 800 S 3.00 $ 2,400.00
9. Adjust Water Gate Valve EACH 3 $ 125.00 $ 375.00
TOTAL ADDITIONS SCHEDULE B $14,745.00
Page 1 of 3
• i
1677 ..
•
DELETIONS Estimated Unit
lies No. Item • Unit Quantity Price Amount
1. 8" PVC (12-14' Depth) L.F. 130 $ 22.00 $ 2,868.00
TOTAL DELETIONS SCHEDULE B $ 2,868.00
Original Contract Amount $3,782,476.29
Total Previous Change Orders 0.00
Total Additions Contract Amendment #1 $ 19,395.00
Subtotal b3,801,871.29
Total Deductions Contract Amendment #1 b 2 868.00
Contract Amount to Date $3,799,003.29
Description and Location of Work
The above itemized work is located on Prairie Center Drive and W. 78th Street at
' 1494.
Necess i t f or Amandrnent
Schedule A (Additions)
Item No. 1 - Dog kennel, protruding partially on new 1494 right-of-way, required
total removal and disposal per right-of-way acquisition agreement.
Item No. 2 - Abandoned well was discovered after start of construction, and lend �.
to be plugged in accorded with Minnesota Department of Health requirements.
•
Schedule B (Additions)
Item No. I - Revised grade required increasing the size of the proposed sewer
Iine.
liem No. 2 - Tower footings were not included in the NSP tower relocation contract
with City and must be removed and disposed of by roadway contractor.
Item No. 3 - 9 - Eater utility adjustments on W. 76th Street were inadvertently
deleted from plans prior io preparation of final construction documents.
Schedule B (Deletions)
Item No. 1 - Revised grade required increasing the size of the proposed sew,-
1 i ne.
Page 2 of 3
•
CONTRACTOR:
Shafer Contracting Company, Inc.
Title =1-.4-et_rgiy Date
ENGINEER, S
Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsield-Jarvis-Gardner, Inc. C c4 _ w
Title _/ $CtZccilr/j)// `c`7 )?4a .�_+ Date 7-a--S3 --
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: •
City Engineer Date
Faye 3 of 3
•
/G79
i.
EXHIBIT "A"
( a •
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. Section 6,
• Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Hinneeota, lylying e goeasterly of of a
line described as follows; Beginning at a point
said lorthcast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter distant 110.00 feet
cast from the northeast corner of Block 1, LOCHAhBURN; thence south, '
at a right angle to said north line, 200.00 feet; thence west, at
a right angle, 110.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Block 1;
thence southeasterly tot the
cnortnortheast
t1cornerf sof fdBlockkck 4, to the
thence southerly along 4 Quarter, and
south line of said 1artbcast Quarter of•-.the Southwest Q ,
said line there terminating. - ,--`
•
•
•
( •
•
s
•
•
•
/62C)
.
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
August 16, 1983
CONTRACTOR_(Multi-Family & Comm.) HEATING & VENTILATING
Kraus-Anderson of Minneapolis, Inc. B & C Heating & Air Conditioning
Thomas Sathre Remodeling Co. Alta Mechanical
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 Family) GAS FITTER
Buerman Homes and Realty, Inc. B & C Heating
Country View Builders, Inc.
Crocker Construction, Inc.
Envirotech Homes, Inc.
Sussel Corporation
VENDING
Coca Cola Bottling Co. •
•
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible
for the licensed activity.
Pat Sit-lie, Licensing
w
MEMORANDUM s
TO: Mayor and City Council
11IRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
FROM: Stephen Calhoon, P, L. 14.51f"j
DATE: August 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Staring Lake Park Trail Construction
On Tuesday, August 9, 1983, at 2:00 P.M., staff publicly read bids received for
construction of Phase I of the Staring Lake Park Bikeway/Ilikeway Trail System. As
directed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, the proposal form
indicated the asphalt paving to be an alternate item to the base bid of clearing,
excavation, and placement of the crushed rock base. The bids received are as.follows:
CONTRACTOR BASE BID BASE BID PLUS PAVING
Asphalt .Paving Materials $13,736 $26,901
H. L. Johnson Company 14,890 29,890
Ingram Excavation 15,897 29,897
Midwest Paving 18,330 33,080
Preferred Paving, Inc. 18,675 36,175
Barber Construction 18,790 34,345
Munn Blacktop 21,660 . 36,160
Bury and Carlson 23,210 37,160
Northwest 32,775 50,275
Ilardrivers, Inc. 34,060. • 47,060
Valley Paving 35,750 50,475
Staff has estimated the cost of paving performed by the City Public Works Department to
exceed that of the Contractor; therefore, staff suggests the base bid plus paving be
awarded to Asphalt Paving Materials. The estimated cost for this entire phase was $40,000.
Restoration costs are estimated at approximately $5,000; therefore, the total cost of
phase one will be approximately $32,000. Funds for this project are derived from the cash
park' fee fund.
BL:md .
•
•
/Gi,.
{
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-203
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TIMBER CREEK BY B-T LAND COMPANY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Timber Creek PUD is considered a proper amendment to the
Comprehensive Guide Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on B-T
Land Company request for PUD approval for Timber Creek and recommended approval of
the PUD Concept to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on August 16, 1983;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Timber Creek 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 outlined in the
revised application materials dated August 2, 1983.
3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission
dated July 25, 1963.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this — day of
, 1963.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
SEAL
/673
I
•
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ;83-204
•
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF TIMBER CREEK
FOR B-T LANO COMPANY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie.City Council as follows:
•
98 the 3eacresary plat of Timber Creek for B-T Land Company, dated August 2,
1983, of 63 acres for 158 single family residential lots, a copy of which is on file
at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden
Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein
approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the _________ day of
, 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
•
ATTEST: •
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
•
I(oBy � .
•
•
hUG 5 1983
C. J. Pierson
( 16716 Honeysuckle Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 -
j
August 4, 1983
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I am unable to attend these Public Hearings due to prior
evening committments but would like to make a statement
regarding the proposed plan for Timber Creek area.
This area greatly affects me as my backyard will almost
meet the area involved.
My first preference is for that land to remain rural, as
we purchased our home in Eden Prairie to get-away from
city limits. However, change is inevitable! I would like
to see forsight in this matter instead of/hindsight. 158
single family homes means approximately 237 more vehicles
on Eden Prairies roads trying to get to work in the morning.
The roads are extremely poor for traveling east in the
morning traffic. It personnaly takes me 40 minutes to 1
hour to travel 8 miles to work.
I would therefore strongly suggest plans be made for the
completion of Crosstown 62 connecting 494 or the widening
of County Road 5 to 4 lanes.
I feel the pr .orities lie in this area before development
of this size can really be considered.
C. J. ierson
II
61. . (::-) ' '
•
_:
r
/6 'S
•
MEMORANDUM , .
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FR0?1: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services• \6
DATE: July 29, 1983
SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report-to the Planning Staff Reports for
Timber Creek
The original PUD proposed dedicating all of the parkland as a density transfer,
plus paying the cash park fees. Since 1980, the code has changed from 2 units
per acre to 2.5 units per acre and the housing market has changed from a demand ,
for multi-family housing to a demand for small lot single family.
The Timber Creek proposal now calls for: f
a. 63.3 acres to be rezoned in phases I and II.
b. 63.3 acres times 2.5 units per acre equals 158 units.
c. Dedicating 8.5 acres for park in Outlot A as park dedication
for phase I and II (this exceeds,the 10% requirement).
d. The proponent will grade the 10' wide pad for a bike trail
adjacent to County Road 4.
e. The proponent will grade and clear the pathway leading to
the 8.5 acre neighborhood park and to the floodplain, and
. will provide the asphalt for those paths providing that the
City lays the asphalt with the City paver.
The Planning Staff Report referred to a'requirement for a road connection to the
undeveloped property to the left and a possible connection from that area to the
8.5 acre park. The Community Services Staff agree with the developer that any
future walkway casement to the park from the adjacent property should be provided
by the adjacent property.
Outlot B on the nap shows the original proposal to dedicate 6.1 acres of park
with phase ll; hawever this floodplain open space will not he dedicated, as the ded-
ication is not required due to the existing 2.5 units per acre requirement.
The proponent has indicated that he plans to continue operating under the existing ]
PUD and does plan on developing the north side of the creek according to the
existing PUD regarding dedication of the floodplain and the wooded hill; hut:ever, 1
he does not plan on developing this area until Crosstown is extended adjacent to
the site. !(
Community Services Staff recommend approval of phase I and II of the Timber Creek j'
Develnp'icnt Proposal with the terms outlined in this memo.
PL:md
• /01t
STAFF REPORT
•
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Sullivan, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: July 22, 1983
PROJECT: Timber Creek
LOCATION: County Road #4 and Duck Lake Trail
APPLICANT
& FEE OWNER: B-T Land
• REQUESTS: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment
• 2. Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances j.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 for
162 acres
4. Preliminary Plat of 158 single family detached lots
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts this area as low density residential and the
flood plain to the north as open space. A Planned Unit Development Concept was
approved for this property in 198D. In 1981, a revised development plan was
submitted to the City for review and approval, which planned the area now proposed
as small single family lots as townhouses. This plan was approved by the Planning
Commission, but was not submitted to the Council for the second reading (See Figure
#1).
The current proposal is for 156 single family lots to be zoned R1-9.5 and Ri-13.5
(See Figure #2). There will be two phases. Phase I is similar to the 1981
development plan with 69 large lots (R1-13.5) along Purgatory Creek. Also instead
of quadraminiums off Duck Lake Road, the current proposal is for 34 small single
family lots (R1-9.5) on the site in lieu of townhomes.
Land Use
The proposal maintains the two units per acre density approved with the initial
Planned Unit Development Concept. Outlot A, an 8.5 acre parcel, is to be conveyed
to the City as a density transfer with Phase 1. Outlot B, a 6.1 acre parcel. will
be conveyed to the City as a density transfer with Phase II.
As a component of the Planned Unit Development, the proponent requests variances for
11 of the proposed R1-13.5 lots and 36 of the R1-9.5 lots (See Figure #3). These
lots meet the required width and depth requirements, but not the minimum lot size.
160
Timber Creek Staff Report 2 July 22, 1983
Staff recommends approval of the variances regarding the proposed lots within the
R1-13.5 area of the development plan. These lots have the required width to support
a variety of housing styles and are not concentrated in one area in the plat. Staff
recoc vends approval for a variance for minimum lot size for the following R1-9.5
lots:
1. Block 10--Lots 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9
-close to the minimum 9,500 sq. ft. lot size
-frontage width is 5-10 ft. greater than the 55 ft. minimum
-elevation much higher than the abutting R1-13.5 lots
2. Block 1--Lots 9 and 10
Block 2--Lot 1
Block 8--Lot 1
-frontage width is much greater than 55 ft. minimum
-rear lots abut park land
• 4
Staff recommends the plat be revised for the following R1-9.5 lots where variances
are requested:
1. Block 3--Lots 2-5, 7, 8, 12-1B •
-majority of lots too small
-concentrated in one area
-consecutive minimum frontage width for Lots 2-8
-some lots are double fronted, backing up to Duck Lake Trail
-four lots back up to Lot 17
2. Block 9--Lots 1-13
-majority of lots too small
-concentrated in one area
-small lots backing up to small lots
-three small lots back up to Lots 12 and 13
3. Block 10--Lots 16 and 17
-lots are too small
-backing up to R1-13..5 lot
Lot 1, Block 4, and Lot 1, Block 5, do not meet the minimum lot width
requirement for corner lots.
Lot 5, Block 4, and Lots 2 and 3, Block 5, do not meet the minimum lot width
requirement.
Development Plan
The small lot size allowed in the R1-9.5 District warrants variety in architectural
treatment and housing type (split level, full basement, walkout). The proponent has
submitted several house plans for the proposed R1.9.5 areas. Staff has found that
only a limited number of these homes can he placed on the 55-60 ft. wide lots.
Timber Creek Staff Report 3 July 22, 1983
•
Additional house plans and a development plan, denoting the particular house plan(s)
for each lot should be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The housing types, within two homes on either side, directly across from, or
diagonally across from each other shall be different (See Figure #4 attached).
Grading plan revisions may be necessary to provide a variety with similar adjacent
housing types. The plat shall be revised to preclude repetitive 55 foot minimum
lots along a street frontage, i.e. Lots 2-8, Block 3.
Trans ortation
Access to the parcel would be from a road connection on Duck Lake Trail, County Road
#4, and from Chatham Woods.
The road configuration is primarily the same as the previous plan. The eastern most
cul-de-sac is currently proposed on the creek side of the loop road. Several
private drives, which were associated with the quadraminiums and townhomes have been
omitted and replaced with a short loop road and cul-de-sacs. All cul-de-sacs and
the extended "eyebrow" located in Phase II shall be designed per Engineering
Department requirements. This would include the omission of all cul-de-sac islands.
The access road off Duck Lake Trail, as it turns to the west through Phase II,
should be extended to the west property line. This will eventually provide a
connection to the adjoining neighborhood.
The proposal has a north access to the Chatham Woods development. Construction of a
short road section within the Chatham Woods development will be necessary. The
proponent should be responsible for the implementation of this off-site road.
No phasing plan for the proposed road system has been submitted.
A sidewalk is proposed along one side of the primary loop road. The sidewalk should
be continued on the park side along the revised westerly road extension to the west
property line. The preliminary plat should be revised providing a 20 ft. wide
parcel, located along the west property line, tying Outlot A to the westerly road
extension right-of-way. An eight foot wide bituminous path should be constructed
from the sidewalk to Outlot A. An additional trail area is to be dedicated to the
City between Lot 10, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2. An eight foot wide bituminous
path should be constructed from the sidewalk to Outlot A in this described area.
The proposal places an eight foot wide bitiminous path to the Purgatory Creek flood
plain between Lot 29, Block 5 and Lot 1, Block 7. This proposed trail is at a grade
too steep for safe bicycle riding. A bike trail exists along the north side of Duck
Lake Trail. An eight foot bituminous path exists along the west side of County Road =.
#4, which terminates at Duck Lake Trail. The continuation of the County Road #4
trail to the north is a link in the overall trail system. The proponent should
grade a ten foot wide pad, outside of the right-of-way, along County Road #4 to the
Creek. The City will construct the bituminous trail on this graded pad.
Grading
Amending the development plan to single family detached homes, in lieu of
quadraminiums and townhomes, results in significantly less grading than the
previously reviewed plan.
The scale of the grading plan makes it difficult to estimate slopes. It appears
Timber Creek Staff Report 4 July 22, 1983
that several of the proposed slopes are up to 40%. Grades within the roads range
from 2-6%. Erosion control is critical to the protection of the Purgatory Creek
area and all slope areas should be either sodded and staked or properly seeded and
mulched according to a sedimentation and erosion control plan to be compiled and
submitted for review and approval to the City. All areas on the site where existing
vegetation is disrupted must be completely restored immediately after grading.
Vegetation
The site is covered mainly with meadow and wetland grasses. Two significant tree
masses of basswood, maple, oak, and elm species are found within the south and west
portions of the site (See Figure #2 attached). A majority of these wooded areas
will be saved with development. The current proposal has less tree loss than the
previously reviewed plans.
Utilities
Water service to the parcel will tie off an existing main located off Duck Lake
Trail. Sanitary sewer is located within the proposed street right-of-way, tying to
a 60-inch line along Purgatory Creek. The storm water system outlets to the
Purgatory Creek floodplain. Preliminary review indicates a need for storm sewer
extension to the flood plain limit from the proposed outlets.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the Timber Creek proposal, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to Council, the proponent shall:
a. Revise the plat per Code for-the-lots-notiecomnendedfor.a,larn.e
b. Submit additional housing type drawings that fit on R1-8.5 lots.
c. Submit a development plan to the Planning Department for review and
approval placing/a-particuiar housing typeson each lot.
possible
d. The housing types, within two homes on either side, directly across
from, or diagonally across from each other, shall be different.
e. Revise--the--plat--for--bets-i-and-5;-Biock-4-and-tots-i=3;-Block-5;
meeti.mg-the-w$dth-requirements:
f. Submit erosion control information for review and approval by the
Engineering Department.
g. Submit a phasing plan for the road system.
h. Revise the plat, designing all cul-de-sacs without islands and per
City specifications.
west
i. Revise the plat, extending the road north of Outlot A to the west
property line. A five foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be placed
1
Timber Creek Staff Report 5 July 22, 1983
on the south side of this road extension to the west•property line.
J. RevPse--the--plet--providing--for--e-28-fit:-wide-eree-eiong-the-west
property--ltne--from--the-revised-road-extension-to-Outiot-A;--Also;
show--allowance--for--constructton--of-an-eight-foot-wide-bitnminons
path-from-the-west-reed-extension-to-Oatiot-A-within-th4s-area,
k. Revue--plans--te-show-construst4en-a#-an-eight-feet-w4de-b4tum#Reds
path-between-Let-30,-Blesk-1,-and-Let-1,-Blesk-2,-#rem-the--sidewalk
to-Outtot-A.
grading for
1. Revise plans to show construction-of an eight foot wide bituminous
path between Lot 29, Block 5, and Lot 1, Block 7, from the sidewalk j
to the phasing line. The slope of .the trail shall be revised to a
safe grade as determined by the City for biking purposes.
m. Revise plans to show grading of a ten foot wide pad outside the
right-of-way of County Road #q from Duck Lake Trail to the creek for
a city-constructed eight foot wide bituminous trail.
n. Revise--p;•ans--to--show-instaiiation-of-a-section-of-road-within-the
Chatham-Woods-develop,Went-14nking--the--adjacent-read-systems-te-the
proposed-nepth-assess. •
2. Prior to final plat, proponent shall:
a. Receive Watershed District approval.
b. Submit detailed utility and drainage plans to the City Engineering
Department for review and approval.
3. Pplop-to-bu#ld4ng--peem4t--4ssuanees--proponent--shell-pay-the-required-Cash
Bark-Fear
ADDITION:
Phase I shall terminate at the second northerly cul-de-sac until the looped road
to Chatham Woods is completed for safety purposes.
.t•
,
.., .-.
--....
, i,• , r" •.•.. _%...2_,: '' ," '1-I..: 6--.77:-.
..ktA-,----21.5P 1.-"zspt,....4. ., , ':".1.,_,-_-__.......4..-... .—..—.7. _-7.17-7_•; • -7-,-•
0-)1
-----.1, ?It'.-3 • • . C;-1
..?„..,.....—ci.--1.11,:,.,..,,..; ‘. ----__,_____, ,z„,4 ., , ,::• .,s_
L-TA E O.
• '.s'l Wi 7 .lt/ •' • VS\'': \• . .
I . ..) ',';kft:7 4"'•!, '''•'/ ,i' •,--.7.,,Jr,, , ', .1 •.
0 I; ': •: ijil '41.4..lig•/....,:" — L.: 7 I,.......•il ..)\e, 7. •::';
.\\: •w • i ..f: -,"... - — .„ - y., .,...
' i .1 (0 ' I ?• , / • 0) :
• . f. : \ '•k(C,,(.)' A 'fl '''.. 4 i- ' . t.:i 1.-us
. • . . 0.)i 1 ., • CC ;.• \‘',.• ...., ,
La i [1,/
„
'*. •
,,...._ \ IL, • n ._? ....,
...1. Ps •\ \
....11.k•Ss) .'-.. ' ' *-.r .- 1: i
• • •Av••'• Nk, ,,
fli
1 .
,;• • ‘\.•••••-/c.e.•::„....._,_ . -
...
‘. 0,„,,..-•-,1 iser • • I
Ipii, ...‘, ...a./I ,.----, C :•,2 i. 7•72 i
•wen
/_•:.-c111 i
i '..,,,,,, ' . -----.., • , .,
i • .
7 s • ..p ' • 1 ,
.---.,\./.\-,,2.
•,,,, --- \1
. , ,,c-:"•••• ,
. , , ,,„--:. . , , , - t..• (,, \As\,,-.-: . ,,,,„ i.l. .: I
l• „....,,,,,—\v.—, ... ,
:' -'•-•"
•
- i ''N, \\ ,.. , ‘`../ •i•
'-r\--'-.. ,':•'-cl„" ......... . i -. s ' , 4- , „,, ,, , .•
' \"--_,Y.•:',:*',"AV. ::- a r,,,,ct.'";\ i i i ,,,,,,,. . .. i
'A.° ;1-\\-7.- .. • 'V. . i ig - '‘
•
o
al.i. ! .1,rii,2,i‘:`,8,' frif .. \•, i - ,''',„ '
irs,14 ::,/if::,‘.t.. ",;,1.7,,,,:.1,'., :.,r, . ‘,:.:11%, k, ':.!'S,.•:„., 1.i
,-::.7 !I I 1 a i
. 5
:1 i,• I
$..ji i.::''/,•.*;nk$:- 7,., '.,\\C.5,..;\ • ' . 4 .• 11.
7
- i' UNI I i t i 1 5 1
.: ' .. 0: .::\Z PrI:. ''.2, 1 .:;.(7A••••••
.7p ,,..-_.,;(6,., ... . -1- .. .%,,,,..„,
.. ,..14, r.....)
fl-V-I____,J!.-;-.1.11.,'f,',%., ,'''.> .,..4...."'n_ '4.,/ 1 ,I• ....i
, ..._,_. ,..,,--r,7“ ,'1(9)1 A•s•• 'Al. .)...: '14'.:' ' ' ..1 1 • .1 i t ri
'' '‘ :,__1::..1:.P -cN'''S '- ' •77------il • -/ • , Ifli %•;
,=4/.•:.,A •,,,,,----. ,-(:-. : NA,- -;.k.,,, . \ ,.- .v
--, ...,--,i-)x..q.," \I_L`). ,--:-.:. • '0,,i.>1''.*.- _ .: .' .
. ,A,e.,-., . ..,./f. , .-,..# •. 1
. 4v-
\
• I
•
t .
. ....... :- , .., ,..
• i. , .k././..-..,i, -).1,:tt,. . ,,:: :.:.:
`c; „,•- ' S„,y,,',,,,/: ir.,-V,(:):ct,• ,,..
1.' 4 .T. ;, 1,`•;,7; .c...Y;,/,,' \ '‘.‘- ''r
- •I c "-lfzynv.:Vi
4 1
l' , ' • I = . " -, f
C3' ----'' -• .
,i7o II
. ....''''''1......• - ,, ,
II! •1'II.I,.I,:P.O. ii! 41) ..Y.,;•Irpt‘11:'111 1 ! . !'!:!..;
• . ..•-...•••••
.;;',ii'll'ell 1 01:!;Pli.r,':;:!::'!: '01
' $''011'4,1 1•.1,',. .:••• , 1,,.
ii",:!.•,H.,:',:,-,1 ,.!•,.,.,;..i,,,,I, ..;:
. ...r .... ...
1. *. Ort ri!
•"n *.... •°:.: •••• a
Oi•:i.li'•:,:).:• •,,!:. ••••::,u l•:': Z I-r--1
Y.;;• "•:: ::•• v: V
1 . .,•: •1•:,; :!I: ,i• 5111::i
r-.!y ..Y ,,,,, •• • .. .•
Y, •
t,, •.• .I-. •,• — • ,,,..,• . 1
,,• • • .•!,..,::••,.••••,•;;••,:... ••••. ..'.•'I '
4 ' I . U ii ti:: i.. ,::-:'...:!,..:'''::,. .;•!..:•••,"..1..!: • I
Ii 1 i Vi i i I ;••L• Fy'•44,.: . ,11••;;I.;-::••••I i:I
1 r •• ... •• I . .
a • • .F. 1„::- 1•,!.,, 0.-•;,::,
1 ; '
r5.:, 1:1:-. -•,•••z:o. 'iu .44:,.. „,,,, .
i,•-,?,,,•=,•,:.,•:•1:7, ,:.••• ;Pr? F..12,<1;=
,:,•
1 a r••L ••. •
——
14.. s.
• .
. ,
...... .14 .
( 14 . • :
i •
• C.,..`:.4 ..,
. )I
0 CAI • .. .'. . 0
. ' . • IP"6 8
• Os, S,
!
: 1 N .
,
.,
d
scPs
t% t •
,, ' . .• \ l .`-..,,... : '''. ' ' tt!3` %" I,/
1 tl
. 1 :,—,44,\N.N,. •. . s . C.)• 6.5 8 4 8
ce.T.I/
.... , . ....• -I"...-- '
- •, .
.1:4,. /\ • ' "'X t L.; : ; 121
r _ s / , ..", . ,
—•---"".. ' / % . •, „
%
.----' ...'s./.. \ . i .% - - 7 -
: .:' ov ,. ' 1 -----. .
7.111. 1„,_.....--i :
'
\i i
i “scz_ni w
...-- s............--i,, .. 1,, s 4 c -t . i ‘ , , \
, -•q.=,c 0.,- •
-----(o • 1 —I \ < . ••.
' '• :':.'',Ii‘•,,id:.::'\;\‘•-\\7_, . . i
, \ , ..._:.,.....,.. .i.,
\.._..-• , s -----M i «l,./ % S ) 1
,- -,. ,.......-- ,_,_ ,_ . _...
: ., —,....: / ,,. , -,,,,.. co 0,_..,
_,, , _
.., ,. ,. , , 0 It 0 •
'7'2//4N V.....J..; .7 •Z' P. ,...\-...„171___:_ V' - 0 0 0 ,••• .
: .N, c37\,.7 le \ , •s, A i 0 IIE I
I t.----ii--_c,i.o.. :.1 .--_-./-\ 7.,7, —
-,--\v----',.,-"•\,.1—._-,-- -,s.\ .-.....7
c.,.,431\,..-
.
.\.k
Z N\ .
•
[Fw'A1','Ui2i4LrsI'L§9uou1,.
EE4?i,]
• -1'! j2 1 - I. '- (".„.. '"•,- ? :,---rss
I .,..: :„'-..---,---,..,----, --••,..-•• ..- .--.—A - \ E.— , , ---,:.,/ ys. ,
''''...'",/.. / ' I I. 1--- ..‘ .;•"-..- • /''.-------'.7_,r,1-----:,. • L -• .1-'\IN*, •
•..-... .!:=K">-•1.1c7--.r,,,....,....,,...- ,,‘,:, "..,\, 1-1-----y„., k.i.i -s,' • .14;3--
-,...,:::.7...:;Sd."..",::!..•.,;,....a...‘C9 \,__. .... \ 1...:\ , I . V . . , \ .
't;:AJ S "..• e,-.........,/ ‘ , - -1, , :
I /,/('i \ . •A'Z'V 7' a' i ' ' 'I
Cr , '''' •c< /r ' Ci ‘ . !"? \ ; ';
' I ! , ',',./ / : '''' •-•'',- ..\,41.
1 f---" .1 C ,____T•iirl; ''' .„'"'• ;
j .
o • 4 i -__ —...---,_....:, - \.. „. .
1 ...... ..,,............... ,
.,„0,as.•• , , i
.......
....,.........:`... 7 . )
- i
1124(3 1
. ,
. •
.. . , • ! a tIr
Lt • • • I •
• • '
• I 1 . ', ty.:-..:4
' ' . • . - • '1., . ei)'1 ca
i4
1 i
0 t'l i
.. .. . • • . 1
\ •
, ' • • • • • •
•• •
44 44 4 ,. ' • \
„,..••.IN 0 .. . • .0.: • ;: 3
1
\ • r r .rio,6.4.4 . '-‘•. ..'•,..
• d , x
••..t •• •I ..*...'!.1...:.' !, :%,:'.'.....:..... \'•% .,
.: .>
C't s i\..... 0 (..
4 t
. ' 0. n' •
.i. TItsi\i i `` • 7 ..-",•. • r,l2 ri. • ,, ,....., 1
;'.' ' (4,1) J- 'tr,- • " 7
.-V .0
(r1
i. *s••• 't , .
lf.... I
SIX2'"
•
. .....• 71/.. . t• .i. ...•.- ..-- ••-• .% ' i: .• i
\ i ...rt
$::r.i
. - ' \ .1 •L • V.., . \ ss••• 'CI.1'17.
I. s......, .. .... 'It .• .11.;v.,si
...... is woe
•
...\ . ...:1 1 4._P•et',..7, \
/b. : Z• . "....._,.. ,.• i i. L Ni t L•\\cr..,Fr\t ). .11,..-.4
4 • '
,- ',---, - %--, ' • x\s. .., \ .•
• , . . , •,\ ‘1 \\ ; .,
Ii
... .-.'... . ss s•-- - I.
.; I ' . .,1-7:_7.... i I.
. 1 ' ..\,.\\•:\!:"24.:)"..;ep•-••‘-::3 1-b.'L. '-.st'..:`..,.n ..1`,;), 1 • 1
. \.
. .. 0 1 , 1.,;:).1,e.>I. I. I. . `,.. ,,.,. .• '2,...z.
..L_......) ... , . ,
",... "• i Wirt'. VI —
1eis
trh h_ At
oo . •••••........
0. n ,o.. . ,
00 2 11.., i .
t.
• •
• ;
k
' •.• '.'... •'' .' ' '.•' \X‘..et i.1' \ 'i
•-,/ Z. )A!_. • 1. •1 t. "• 16 2.‘;'•."...s.tNic 0 0 s : I • \
•
..... • / 7.N/c,'....;"' .. • •.I ' :31'-- ,•''' • '"ul go 4,. A \______ / 1
.... (...... ''' -r t.--- •! ... .2 \ • 101.14;9 i Ztj
.• ----• 9. L1,,V,-- . • \. 1.,..:-` 0.ri
... , ...: . - . ..., ,.\s. .I,
•CI.it IC 0 a/-
\' ..:::...' ••-•
'r .,, . . . ..,. ‘ ..„.:.,..‘,. ,.
......_, , ,..:
., ,,...., ,,e..... ,.,. • . , - . ..,..,,, , ,_ „: "....
. .,
• __, , .,..,,,_ • ,_,__. ,..,.. . ,, ,.. ,.. ,, ,,
,ca.''...., ',,,...\.--1N.,,,‘ ,......."/ _ ...e. t.... ........
2 .. ' \'VI;111Lt i " • : -.: ' ' ''... •2',. I
IT i...,4•1_,._ •.;.../.----- ,,... . . --;-... I T 44— •
-3. --- ,
, I , - ‘z...N -...1)
. . '
,- i.• • ,___ ,,d.„--i--.!......._.../„...: , . .
/ 1 . I ..„ • \ ,(\:- 0 \ - 1" • •
•. -.."-'•51,..'":::‘..":::\l'''..:"f=>•A'.. v '" - \* )• ;
... •• __•_.____:\--__-_ - 1,, ) . -_•-•....._ u-,,.. ,,,
c.)...1 i
i•
• ) . .)'
_ .
. ' //` s• \' '' ,. -/r-'' . 9- \. • 1 • t.). -4-\-0 4\ - ' ri) 6 (-2 i
, . t( : - ' • K` -i'''.410. • ../ IP a i--• >--0
cr • _1- ' i',/ .• - • ' — b..•••=i 1
. 1 f-- ----'''- -' # i 11.- '>•1.• '7
111., In B_ c
1--
. A • . ,y,,,-„;;..-..7.-: ... . ...., ., „.
.....-......."-- - r : ‘
lotl
......
•
{
` ,n
It • , I •
1 cI
• r.
1 cL
........�.r..�.�....«-.—�....� _ ... .. _.1... - --- - 7
1 J I 1 I t
LA I ) .,& 1,1-41 I . 1 1 .
.0, t i-4.4.-- . • • 1
(•
w�a//• 1 /I:
1'+ '
a 1 t,.•I.4:14 I 1
I ;
v .r_. ,
...... • . ,,,,....._____... ............)(.....41. ,
i
• .r �a..s c�1 ,...
." . `
'{
�i
x.. s77: ( 1j I
s ' 6)
s
Cil
t� ' `, :
i
1 ... .
1
i 1 ......i .„..1 ...,1 , .
L 1
i .
H.... ..._....... ...., •• ••••• ••11•••••••........i r
(09
•
N re , i; 1� i)Q:
1<C m i o. ro .\�▪ •.\ • _' r iiiii �4
t 0 ; N I Y P�t�e{ ,'� r
� •
° 11
: 1 j ...,..4,.. •.__ .. ,,, ...1
c0.- -_ ' ,` 1 -o v %?• ••••._ r• -S\.. i I • :�•'� -1:. Ra..:'a''n
OF ;\. . .r 7 \,...\ \ N 0 i !O
NN
•
, ' • ` aB orin
i 1 [E i, i, i ` t '.1.'tl�_.aZi4oi-*-\ •"u
— .` i � \\ k' ,a " % 1
4 --T . .]1,•.' I"":., i. is I. a \ \• _,;.1 1- -I.r- ♦'�
.,94 1. (2,":"-\\\‘ :----1\.,J ..'.5V7'N. I. i ' I. -F. ,,is . , 1,1-;
• Du =�y _ f/ ., , N - \ J s , . h,
• aom 11
Nt 7--s
v- .l `0. s Ok t,•
+' : I• �\ o ,i"u?
jis � . co i1 . .�'z ___ i . ,,,6J ,,,...",e.. ..-; k -......-Vt- ,.,..., .• , : Ac-__.---\/ •••` [JUED
••( o..t--_-.-...._:;:c--4",`4 n .‘ :"....- -.--*- .
,,, ..,._
1.
,•1I.-'N'/:,.,..•//--,,,\_:/.,."--_--'7-_'-',,-,-___,._.-„.„-_-._,I_,.._.-,.l:'-A-,N.....):.,,7-'-,-,,-\1,.-.`4"E-:-,;, r-",.,!,A-.r.:A-.,..',."',/.
/...-,,-,\- ,,,,-,- . \(„.-.\,,,:.\„/..:-- --
`� `~i. .: ,, `` •''w N`sue i - j. `\ � ,
d. ''.' n U7 I- .b. 1.
,.
_.-_,- ?__,,. ‘ ,-- . 1 0" . "
a2, ?. = o ��t9 a I
I Q Y %
•
y0 1. I I L.
:.\y,( m ; I,\♦- M.
In CO ....,....r al+" • ` t
I Q 1
I 1
1(°1L i. •
B-T LAND COMPANY
1055 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 •
1612)4738511
July 19, 1983
Mr. Chris Enger, City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55343
Re: Timber Creek Woods '
Dear Chris:
Please find enclosed the following supplemental information
for our Planned Unit Development amendment request and our Pre-
liminary Plat and Rezoning application:
1. Phasing Plan
'2. Grading Plan
3. Typical Housing Styles
4. Sample Declarations
5. PUD Variance Request
1. Phasing Plan
The Phasing Plan breaks the number of lots in each phase of
the project down by zoning district. in addition, it shows the
amount of Public Parkland, Public Open Space, and Public Right-of-
Ways
which will be dedicated with each phase. Approximately 30%
of the land platted in the first phase will be dedicated to the
public, where nearly 40% of the land platted in the second phase
will end up in the public domain. Outlet A, the City Park in the
southwest corner, will be dedicated with the first phase and
Outlot B, additional open space in the flood plain, will be
dedicated with the second phase to maintain a two unit/acre overall
platted density.
The Phasing Plan addresses the differences in vegetation
gains (losses) in our single-family proposal versus the approved
townhouse plan. The NW-SE diagonally shaded areas adjacent to
Outlot A indicated areas where more trees will remain than was
previously approved. By proposing single-family detached homes
instead of the townhomes, we are able to keep the buildings
closer to the street and save additional trees. The NE-SW diagonally
shaded area on Lots 20-23, Block 3, indicate an area where homes
•
will be placed and additional trees may be lost. These trees
•
will be removed only as is necessary to construct the home and
improve the building site. It is apparent that more existing
vegetation can be saved with the single-family proposal than with
the townhouse project. This is a deciduous hardwood forest of
mature oaks, elms and maples.
The Phasing Plan shows where the previously approved rear
lot lines have been adjusted along the creek valley. To the rear
of Lots 3,6,7,8,13,14,15,16, and 19, Block 5, the rear lot lines
have been adjusted to reflect a change in the cul-de-sac and
street alignment off County Road 4. Soil borings taken since our
1981 approval have located on old drainage-way which is now aligned
along the eastern lot lines of Lot 5, Block 4, and Lot 12, Block
5 instead of in the middle of the road as was previously designed
and approved. The N-S shaded areas are those which have been
moved further up hill away from the creek. The E-W shaded areas
are those which have been moved further downhill toward the creek.
It should be noted that the net adjustment has no significant
effect. Approximately the same amounts were added and subtracted.
2. Grading Plan •
This Grading Plan is a refinement of the plan approved in
1981, reflecting information gathered from seventeen additional
soil test holes. Previously, our approved plans contained more
substantial cuts and fills especially in the townhouse area with
several retaining walls to provide flat building sites. This is
no longer necessary in this area with the single-family detached
housing proposed. The land is reasonably well suited for this
type of development without large amounts of building site correc-
tions.
The R1-13.5 areas have not substantially changed since their
previous approvals other than in the area already discussed due
to the old drainage way.
3. Typical Housing Styles
These plans, which are submitted as being representative of
what will be built on the site, come from two builders who are
interested in the R1-9.5 site for Spring 1984 construction.
These homes are being built on 55-foot and 65-foot frontages at
several locations in the 'Metropolitan area now. Each typical
plan has at least three different front elevations and roof lines.
I feel it is important that the City recognize that our
development company remains committed to a project long after the
lot sale to an individual builder. In our development format, we
provide the builder with the land financing, the construction
financing and, in some cases, the permanent financing to help him
build and market his product. We are in each development from
beginning to end, either as the land owner or land financer. Our
land remains our security for the builder's financing. We have a
very real vested interest in maintaining the quality and integrity
of our developments since it directly effects the value of our
property and security. This is doubly true when there is a mix
of housing types; for instance, small lot single family which
flows into large lot single family. We have to maintain the
quality of the smaller lot product to protect and insure our own
2.
I�q�{
•
interest and investment in our larger lot product. I would think
the City would have a reasonable "comfort level" with a development
of this nature where the transition between housing types is
taking place internally within the same project.
4. Sample Declarations
The above discussion leads me directly into our sample covenants
and declarations which we have previously used in areas where we
carefully monitor the product and quality of our project. The
Declaration incorporates a small Homeowners Association which is
primarily responsible for maintaining entrance landscaping and
monuments. The final Homeowners documents will be forwarded for
your attorney's review as soon as they have been completed.
5. PUD Variance Reduest
The attached list represents the lots which meet the zoning
district frontage and depth requirements, however, do not conform
to the total area requirements. Quite simply the extra area
• needed for these lots to conform in total square footage is in
the public parkland and public open space of the site. The B.5
acres of Parkland in Outlot A and the 6.1 acres of Public Open
Space in Outlot B represents this additional square footage. �.
This 14.6 acres is property which we have bought and the City is
compensating us for via density transfers from this area to the
building areas.
We believe variances are justified and in order given the
amount of open space which this site is contributing to the
public, as long as the lots will adequately support the dwellings
we are proposing. In essence; the lot with less than 9,500
square feet (or 13,500 square feet, depending on the zoning district)
is acquiring its additional square footage from credits of public
parkland or open space. These lots, however, still have to
adequately support the residences we are proposing for them by
meeting the setback criteria set forth in our request.
This was the same principal used to arrive at the 116 townhouse
units previously approved for this area of the site. This con-
cept
when carried into the northern end of our site (which is
approved for 130 dwelling units) will purchase for the City the
entire flood plain and additional parkland when the northern
units are developed. As you will recall, there were other options
discussed in the past for acquiring these lands, but from a cash
flow standpoint this concept seemed to work out best for both B-T
Land Company and the City. In summary, we have not changed our
conceptual approach to this project, although we have voluntarily
reduced our density and changed our housing type.
3.
j(oce)
Both B-T Land Company and the City of Eden Prairie are
expecting a great deal from this site, .and i believe we are
working to that end. I want to again thank you and your staff
for your continued cooperation with us in this project.
Sincerely, ,.
B-T LAND COMPANY�J
G2t - -
Rick D. Murray
Vice President
RDM/sg
enclosure
L --
•
4. ,1w
VARIANCES
R1-13.5
Block 4', Lot 9
Block 5, Lots 4,5,10,16,17, & 18
Block 7, Lots 1,2, & 4 •
Block 8, Lot 14
R1-9.5
Block 1, Lots 9 & 10
Block 2, Lot 1
Block 3, Lots 2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,14,15,16,17, & 18
Block 8, Lot 1
Block 9, Lots 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13
Block 10, Lots 4,5,7,8,9,16 & 17
I1o�
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #83-202
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
MENARD'S SHOPPING CENTER
8E IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Menard's Shopping Center, dated July 20, 1983, of 1.6
acres for shopping center usage, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is
found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and
Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of
, 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel,Ri or
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
1'1ra_2
Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes
July 25, 1983
Members Present: Chairman Bearman, Gartner, Hallett, Johannes, Schuck, Torjesen
A. MENARD'S. Request for Zoning from Rural to Commercial
Regional Service and Preliminary Plat of 1.6 acres for a
retail shopping center. Location: East of existing
Menard's building, adjacent to Plaza Drive. A continued
public hearing.
Mary Prochaska, Menard's, reviewed the revised elevations,
preliminary plat, and landscape plan for the project based on
changes requested by the Planning Commission at the meeting of July
11, 1983, at which time this item had been continued.
Mr. Prochaska pointed out that the lighting was designed to be the
same as that for the use on the east side of Plaza Drive, and that
planters would be installed along the front of the building. 4.
Johannes asked why all store frontages were not treated in a similar
• fashion with the large glass windows. Mr. Prochaska responded that ;.
the smaller stores preferred to have large windows, whereas, larger
stores did not require the display space provided by such a feature.
a
Torjesen asked if the site had been designed to provide for adequate
drainage of the site. Mr. Prochaska stated that it had.
)
Regarding the roof line, Torjesen asked if the roof line wrapped
around to the rear of the building after it turned the corner to the
northeast. Mr. Prochaska stated that it did not.
Johannes asked if there was any separation planned between the
existing and proposed parking lots, and, further, if cross easements
would be required. Mr. Prochaska stated that the land was under one
ownership, therefore easements would not be necessary. He added
that this was also a reason for continuity of the parking lots and
that they would adjoin each other.
Torjesen inquired about the access to Outlot B to the southeast of
this site. Staff stated that discussions had been held regarding
the best access situation for this site. It was pointed out that
the direct access to Outlot B would not be on a curve. If it was,
it would create a dangerous situation for anyone entering or leaving
the site. Torjesen asked if the off-set of the driveways accessing
Plaza Drive would cause a problem. Planner Enger stated that, while
it would be preferable to have the driveways directly across from
each other, the best access for each lot was a greater priority in
this case. Therefore, the driveways were proposed at an off-set.
Torjesen asked if there would be a median in Plaza Drive. Staff
responded that there would not. Torjesen asked what the distance
between the two driveways would be. Staff responded that it would
be approximately 150 ft., adding that further consideration would be
0016
given to the matter.
Hallett asked if steps would be necessary to access the walkway in
front of the site. Staff stated that they would not.
Chairman Bearman stated that, at the previous meeting, there had
been discussion regarding signage of the site. He asked the
proponent if it was their intent to have signs for each use with
equal dimensions in terms of shapes of letters, sign width and
•
length, color, etc. Mr. Prochaska stated that this would not
necessarily be the case.
•
Chairman Bearman stated that, in his opinion, equal dimensions,
color, etc., would add to the continuity of the site.
Johannes asked what the signage plan was on the east side of Plaza
Drive. Staff responded that there would be only one free-standing
sign for that use, with no individual signs for the individual
tenants. However, this was part of a Planned Unit Development for
which this specific sign plan was requested by the developer. �.
•
Torjesen asked if there had been a signage plan
submitted wresponded
th the
thatexisting portion of the Menard's shopping center.
that the project was not a Planned Unit Development in the past, nor
had a signage plan been submitted. Signage was permitted in that
development according to City Code.
Torjesen expressed concern for the lack of information regarding
potential development on the surrounding lands in terms of how this
development would affect those future uses. He suggested that, as
far as signage, perhaps the City would consider an overall signage
plan for this entire quadrant of the City as had been done •for the
Major Center Area.
Gartner stated that she felt individual signs aided in
identificatdimensionaiion of controisvwouldsbeuses, but appropriateat forhe thisreed that perhaps
project.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and que
stions from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1: •
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to "
the City Council approval of the request of Menard's for Zoning from
Rural to Commercial Regional Service for a retail shopping center,
based on plans dated March 18, June 8, and June 9, 1983, the revised
plans of July 19, 20, and 22, 1983, and the letter from proponent
dated July 23, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated July 8, 1983, and including the following items:
ix-foot
a. A behindrtheot bermerm withathe9bermaza havingve, with a additionals wall
plantings in
• order to screen the loading area.
b. Additional landscaping along Plaza Drive to match the
landscape theme planned along the east side of Plaza Drive.
c. Grading to an 869 elevation along the north end of the
property line in order to have a higher area to landscape.
d. Three access points be aiiowed to the property, with one
access allowed to Outiot A.
on
e. Simtheilr site located gonf the ueast sideres to s ofed Plaza as hoDrive proposedse at the
entrances to Plaza Drive.
f. Extension of the sidewalk to the berm along Plaza Drive.
g. Six-foot long planters be located along the entire length of
the front of the structure, with breaks at the entrances to
the shops.
h. Roof lines shall be "jogged" to the maximum amount possible
to break up the mass of the building.
i. Sight lines provided by proponent shall be reviewed for
accuracy and corrected, if necessary, prior to Council
review.
j. Signage for the site shall conform to the City Code.
Motion carried--6-O-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Menard's for Preliminary
Plat of 1.6 acres for a retail shopping center, based on plans dated
March 18, June 8, and June 9, 1983, revised plans dated July 19, 20,
and 22, 1983, and the letter from proponent dated July 23, 1983,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 8,
1983.
Motion carried--6-O-0
1'/[1� A
•
•
C. MENARD'S. Request for Zoning from Rural to Commercial
Regional Service and Preliminary Plat of 1.6 acres for a
retail shopping center. Location: East of existing
a Menard's building, adjacent to Plaza Drive. A public
hearing.
Mary Prochaska, Menard's, presented the request to the Planning
Commission. He stated that the shopping center would be similar to
others which Menard's had built in other communities.
Staff reviewed recommendations of the Staff Report of July 8, 1983,
regarding the request.
Johannes stated that he felt the City had taken great care, along
with the developer, to make certain that the shopping center on the
east side of Plaza Drive would be an asset to the community in terms
of exterior appearance, in particular. He stated that he felt this
project did not meet the standards of the project east of Plaza
Drive, but that it could with amendment to the site plan and
landscaping plan.
Marhula asked Staff if there were any problems anticipated with
respect to the number of parking spaces provided on the site. Staff
stated that none were anticipated. Marhula added that he felt the
treatment of this proposal's parking lot, in terms of landscaping,
as well as treatment of the structure, should be similar to the
project east of Plaza Drive, i.e, the landscaped parking islands.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the back of the building, where
trucks would be unloading, could be treated differently, as well.
• (/03
•
Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 11, 1983
He asked Mr. Prochaska if the building tenants would require outside
storage like the current Menard's building. Mr. Prochaska stated
that none of them would. Chairman Bearman also questioned what the
•
sight lines would be like from Plaza Drive and Highway 5 from the
project. In particular, he expressed concern for sight lines from
the residential neighborhood existing to the north, Topview.
• It was suggested that the building could be in an "L" shape at the
north to screen the truck area. Mr. Prochaska stated that "L"
shaped centers would not work in this small area. Johannes
suggested that it could be simply an extension of a wall to screen
the truck area, rather than an extension of the entire building,
more to create an effect.
Torjesen stated that he was concerned for any use that would be
located to the north of the proposed mall. He asked Mr. Prochaska
if there were plans available indicating the use to the north. Mr.
Prochaska stated that there were none at this time.
•
Johannes stated that, while he felt the use for the site was
appropriate given the size and shape of the property, he, too, was
concerned for the affects of this project, as proposed, on the
surrounding area, since it was such a visible site within the
community.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula; to continue the
public hearing to allow proponent to revise the plans responsive to
concerns as discussed by the Commission.
Johannes stated that he felt the landscaping was'a key element to be
considered prior to return to the Commission. He stated that he
felt the plans needed to be considered with a sense of what has
happened and what will be happening in the surrounding area. He
suggested that plans be presented for the land to the north and that
sight lines be .considered from the north, east, and south, in
particular.
Marhula stated that he felt the proponent should consider a signage
plan, with emphasis on continuity and consistency for whatever uses
would eventually exist in the area.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt a key element would be the
handling of the truck area to screen it in the mast effective manner
possible.
Torjesen reiterated concern for the plans for the land to the north
in order that it be compatible with the surrounding uses.
Johannes also expressed concern for the pedestrian system in the
i')o I
. -
. . "
, . . .
. . . .
_ „„ ._• . , „
•
•
t
I
Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 11, 19E3
area and suggested that proponent consider better access for the
pedestrians, as well as adequate lighting for the pedestrian system.
Motion carried--6-0-0
•
• I
•.
•
•
••
•
•
•
11,1-
•
•
•
•
110.;
. . •
+ •
I •
r July 23, 1923
i
,
Ci rietcPi,er :t. E:ger '
nirector of Planning
Ci of Egan Prairie -
29,E0 L'cen Prairie read j
den Prairie, i�:i' i-534i4
=r: i.Ei:A%J 211OPPliiG C r?^_= ?Ai:sio:'. j
• Dear Chris:
i Enclosed please find 25 copies of the huildinc elevation plan for your
use. I have aedcd the east elevation showing a continuation of the glass
l store front. The east huilcling elevation gill be brick, the cane as the
j existir} .
I'd like to << .,•ess each poir.t of the Jul, 8, 1F23 staff report.
Iter 1s. '_ - I t the r_etino in :,-our office hetrreen the cif.,:', :'ov.r .
i ;',e cot .,rl :is o;inior.
c n,t .:._t.t,l.r�cor., e.rc :.e::a.r::'s, ic't ._
that fors .•.cec_t _,Dint: ce:'lc.. to ;..nee or, 'the •. _..t -ice of Pia::a ',rive
as long as t.;ey r;cre ,.'ithir. the s.ree. t. .. ,.oul' be four laces,.
:ten la. 2 - The plan has been revicecl to i 'irate tile 1r' setback.
Itcra lre. 3 - 're c_s-rce to i;,r te;ll the siee+a)i:, but '..c're r.ot aura
--
they C8^. .iE cor,rected to the ^i.Cr.,;:e.11: in front of tie center *•ithout
•
.cr, lb. - ra-rec to -crecn tr:c• aou'cl er::ro' a'it3 or the e"i:::".r,r
r t : rt( r.. Ye.) . _ or: lie- its or the r,h.orp5rr carter. The
.�.,;c-i isl to be tic c... ; chnco)..,•o ,ro'.rr, •.tsel a. t.!ted on the _ace is.
It,-, IC. - ...7 i:: ..
cur:act, ve .'ill alloyti.c- te;',n.-t. r:^o :c f l e:•ii i)i
, in t:,sir frr 'ic;. ctrri 'ot red' ..re a recta ,ler '.'ha:- niir.
.tom lc'. - "c . rce that accerr to Cui.)ot ' ma:: he t tugs t':•c e,'intrt-_ .
enc,r: ..ri - lot.
?r. - _ ec. .
tc.- rh. - ,Iv..... .._-,.is t ...... brrni cnn.a.ctcc'.
,C."_ - .?t.r: tr,r, .?, . Ittr:, . ,.- It, ru`.r•ot to
o:.. r,cc.:- ; ;.ins.
flO(1)
A777 IAP AAn nRlvF EAU CLAIRE,WI •54701 PHONE:(715)874-5911 TE.LEX:.260032
•
Christopher W. Enger
July 23, 1983
rage 2
Iten 3b. - Ye agree.
Iter 3c. - Plat has been confined to elininate the need for this.
Chris, u:e are not as);inf for approval of sorething that has not always
been discussed end anticipated by :.enard's. We have always anticipated
expanding the strip shopping center ue already have approved.
• Sincerely,
.ary ,roch::eka
Vicc—President/Taal Estate
).:engird, Inc.
cc: Stephen Sullivan, Assistant Planner
WP/kb
I ` ;
•
// In' _ G :RAL OFFICES
� .' L • T ��L I. /� �j L\J 0 ROUTE PHONE N7 SICB7�591 RC W16CONSIN LA?CI
June 25, 1983
Christopher Y. En er
Director of Planning _
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, I•:11 55344
RE: ADDITIONAL INFORL:ATION REGARDING EXPANSION OF I'.EI:ARD PLAZA.
Dear Chris:
The proposal as submitted will increase the parking spaces provided from i
370 to 440 spaces and will increase the square footage of buildings from
60, 960 sq. ft. to 82,960 sq. ft. The parking ratio will decrease from
6.1 cars per 1,000 sq. ft. to 5.3 cars per 1,000 sq. ft. or 1.3 cars
per 1,000 sq. ft. more than the 4 cars per 1,000 sq. ft. which the 1978
•
Busch, Inc. study verifies to be our need. (Please see our original
submittal in 1978.)
The shipping/receiving area at the back of the store will be screened '
by the screening fence around I•Ienard.'s outside storage lot and by
landscaping and rooftop RAC units will be screened the same as in the
past.
If you have any further questions, please call.
Sincere(
incere v,
;:,, v Prochaska
Pico-President/Real Estate - __f
::enard, Inc. _` ',. '
1•P/1:b
Irk)?
fi
• C JERAL OFFICES
`` „7 /I1 1 / 'P 11 L I ' a ROUTE NO 2 E•U CLAM( WISCONSIN 5.701
`�`�I,,')��(� -' (J�1 4���._7 0 RHONE. 17171 $74.5911
Menard, Inc. is requesting approval for Preliminary Platting
and Zoning for the expansion of Menard Plaza from 12,000 sq.
ft. to 34,600 sq. ft. Menard received approval previously
• for the construction of 12,000 sq. ft. of additional stores.
To date only 4,000 sq. ft. have been constructed. Since
the Factory Outlet Mall development was announced, we have
bad numerous inquiries about space for lease. It is our
desire at this time to expand the additional stores by
22,600 sq. ft. •
It is our intent to use the same exterior building materials
as have been used on the existing facility.
STAFF REPORT
•
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Sullivan, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: July 8, 1983
'PROJECT: Menard's Addition
LOCATION: East of the existing Menard's Building and adjacent to Plaza Drive
APPLICANT &
FEE OiJNERS: Menard's, Inc.
' REQUESTS: Zoning from Rural to Commercial Regional Servive and Preliminary
Plat of 1.6 acres for a retail shopping center use
•
Background
The Guide Plan depicts the proposed site and adjacent parcels as Regional
Commercial. The zoning is Rural.
The development of this regional commercial area began with the zoning and platting
of the Menard's Addition. This included the platting of 70 acres into two lots
(Menard's building and Crown Auto), Outlots A-F, and right-of-way for Schooner
Boulevard and Plaza Drive. In 19B3, Factory Outlet Centre was approved within
Outlots D and E and Plaza Drive was realigned to the west, leaving a narrow parcel
(Outlot B) adjacent to Menard's and west of Plaza Drive. The proponent wishes to
zone and plat 1.6 acres of Outlot B for a retail use.
Existing Site Character
The site is bordered to the east, by proposed Plaza Drive and the F. •ory Outlet
Centre, to the south, by Plaza Drive, to the west by the existing Me d's store,
and to the north by a vacant outlot.
The parcel was graded with the development of the initial Menard's project. It is
in meadow grasses and does not offer any significant vegetation or wildlife value.
The soils are conducive for development.
Ordinance Requirements
The project meets the City Code requirements for minimum lot size, lot width, lot
depth, rear yard setback, height of structure, and floor area ratio. The
southeastern access drive is placed on the property line, which does not provide for
the 1U ft. setback requirement.
The proposal adds 71 parking spaces to the existing 370 stalls. The additional
number of parking stalls meets the six stalls per 1,OOD sq. ft. parking ratio
1'710
Menard's Addition Staff Report 2 July 8, 1983
•
required with the initial Menard's development.
The site plan orients parking and loading areas towards Plaza Drive. It is
imperative that these areas be screened from Plaza Drive, State Highway #5, and the
northern Topview residential area. Staff feels a planting scheme similar to the one
approved for Factory Outlet Centre along Plaza Drive should be implemented for the
Menard's proposal. This would include berming with a mixed sizing of both evergreen
and deciduous overstory. Such an approach could unify the adjacent Regional
Cortnercial land uses, reinforcing mutual design components such as brick structures,
parking lot lighting, aligned access, landscaping, etc.
Information was not submitted depicting the screening of rooftop mechanical
equipment. Screening of these units shall be done in an architecturally integral
manner. The southern most units of the existing Menard's building shall be screened
in conjunction with this project. The treatment of the rooftop material shall be of
• a color and type that is not reflective or glaring. Utilizing the metal false
mansard material on the building for screening, such as Factory Outlet, would be
• acceptable.
The proponent has provided an elevation of the proposed retail addition. The front
is of brick, matching the existing Menard's store. Brick should be continued on the
northeast side adjacent to Plaza Drive.
An inspection by Staff of a similar Menard's retail center, located on Highway #13
in Burnsville, indicated individual store signage located on the metal facia (as •
portrayed in the submitted elevation) but of several letter types, colors, sizes,
and treatments. The letter style and color of all independent uses should be
similar.
Site Plan
Access to the parcel is proposed via three drives located off Plaza Drive. The
northeast drive should be removed, thus providing fewer intersections and
interruptions to auto circulation along Plaza Drive. This item was previously
agreed to by Menard's with the review of the Factory Outlet Centre. Plaza Drive is
to be a four-lane road and will be completed this Fall. The development of adjacent
Outlot B would require access from the proposed Menard's site. An easement for this
purpose will be required. The proponent has placed a sidewalk along Plaza Drive the
entire length of the site. The sidewalk along the front of the proposed structure
should be continued to the east connecting to this adjacent sidewalk. A sidewalk
should be constructed along the entire frontage of Plaza Drive for this new parcel.
A minimum amount of grading is proposed. Slopes range from 2-8% along the center
access drive. Water service, sanitary and storm sewer tie to existing mains located
within and adjacent to the site. The proposal indicates mutual utility connections
and not individual utility services to each store.
Summary
There are no strip shopping centers in Eden Prairie. The City has made a very
conscious effort to require enclosed malls. Prairie Village Mall, Preserve Center
•
Mall, and Eden Prairie Mall are all attractively done, enclosed malls. The strip
shopping center has problems inherent with it that the City has tried to avoid.
����
Menard's Addition Staff Report 3 July 8, 1983
Staff has visited the Menard's Center in Burnsville, and finds the problems of
tenant signage, normally associated with a strip center, plus additional problems
brought on by its discount nature. The center is similar to the one proposed here.
It has large glass windows on the fronts of the stores, which are utilized for
additional signage.
C.O.M.B. company is a tenant in that center and they have boxes and merchandise
stacked up against the windows. An additional problem of the Menard's Center
proposed here is that it will back the loading areas and back of the building up to
the side of the lot to the north of it. This will not only be difficult to screen,
but will have an adverse impact on anything of quality being developed to the north.
An alternative to this would be to design the addition in an "L" shape so that it
"turns the corner," screens the loading areas, and presents a finished side to Plaza
Drive and the northern lots.
The Planning Commission may wish to instruct the proponent to revise the plans to
conform with Eden Prairie's long-standing position on strip centers, and address the
problems brought about by facing the back of the building to the north on a corner
lot.
If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval of zoning from Rural to
Commercial Regional Service and the preliminary plat of the Menard's Addition, it
should be subject to the following:
1. Prior to City Council, proponent shall:
a. Revise the site plan by:
1. Removing the southern most access drive;
2. Providing for a 10 ft. setback from the parking lot to the
property line adjacent to Outlot B.
3. Placing a five foot wide by four inch thick concrete
sidewalk along Plaza Drive for the length of the site. The
sidewalk along the front of the building shall be extended,
tying to this adjacent sidewalk.
b. Provide detailed plans for review and approval of the rooftop
material and screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment. The
southern most units of the existing Menard's store shall be screened
in conjunction with this project.
c. Provide a signage program for review and approval which requires
similar letter type, size, and color for individual tenants.
d. Agree to provide access to Outlot B from the proposed Menard's
Addition site.
2. Prior to final plat, proponent shall:
a. Meet with the Engineering Department with regard to water, sanitary
and storm sewer. The utility plan shall be revised, tying
individual utilities to each proposed store.
Menard's Addition Staff Report 4 July 8, 1983
b. Receive Watershed District approval.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:
a. Submit a landscape/screening plan to the Planning Department for
review and approval, which screens all parking and loading areas
from the adjacent public roads and residential land uses. The
landscape plan shall reflect the approved grading and planting
scheme proposed along Plaza Drive in conjunction with the Factory
Outlet Centre development.
b. Pay the required Cash Park Fee.
c. Apply for a variance from the Board of Appeals for the setback on
• the lot line running through the building.
•
•
I ..
111
{
o�.+►+rso(9
Ik *, Minnesota
/ t a Department of Transportation
District 5
Fy " yew 2055 No. Lilac Drive •
roF•fikw Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422.
July 28, 1983 02)54 f url
•
•
Mr. Chris Enger
Director of Planning
Eden Prairie City Hall
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
S.P. 2701 T.H. 5
. Plat review of E. A. Sween Company plat
located in the southwest quadrant of TH 5 and
Fuller Road in the northeast quarter of the
northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 116,
Range 22 in the City of Eden Prairie,
Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Enger:
We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the plat
acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments:
— As you know, we are just beginning to develop preliminary plans to widen
TH 5 in this area. It is too early to determine exactly how these plans •
might affect this development. However, the proposed frontage road shown on
the plat would have to be detached approximately 300' south of TH 5 for safe
and efficient operation. If it is not detached, then the connection between
the frontage road and Ill 5 would have to be eliminated.
— Another option we are considering is to construct a full access intersection
at Fuller Road. This would essentially eliminate the need for a frontage
road and would also provide access to the north side of the highway.
— Additional right of way will be required from this property. If no frontage
road is constructed, it appears that an additional 20' of right of way will
be needed. There would also be a small amount necessary to realign Fuller
Road as it approaches TH 5.
— This property has a private road connecting the parking lot to CSAH 4. We
suggest this road be plotted as a public street and also be used to serve
the small parcel of land in the southeast quadrant of TH 5 and CSAH 4.
•
An Equal Opportunity Emplo)ar
•
Mr. Chris Enger
July 28, 1983
Page 2
•
•
We are very interested in coordinating the proposed E. A. Sween development with
our proposed plans for wideing TH 5. Please contact Evan Green, Project Manager
in regard to the TH 5 proposal or if you have any questions in regard to this
review. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,_
. l ) f.
W. M. Crawford, P.E. /
District Engineer !!!
cc: Gerald Isaacs
Metropolitan Council
Mike Reiter
•
Hennepin County Surveyors Office
WMC:bn
•
•
l'l6
STAFF REPORT
•
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Sullivan, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: July 22, 1983
PROJECT: E. A. Sween Corporate Headquarters
LOCATION: South of State Highway #5 at Fuller Road
APPLICANT
& FEE OWNER: E. A. Sween Company •
REQUEST: Zoning District Amendment of 9.1 acres for a corporate office
building
Background
A master development plan was submitted for the entire property in 1979 in order to
support a request for zoning to I-2 Park. The property was to develop in
conformance with Exhibit B according to the Stewart Sandwich Developer's Agreement
(See Figure #1 attached). The approved proposal phased the construction of five
buildings, one per year, from 1979 through 1983. A maintenance building was
constructed in 1979. A frontage road located north of the proposed buildings and
tying Fuller Road to County Road #4 was to be included with the development of the
site. The four additional buildings and frontage road were never completed due to
economic conditions and the restructuring of the existing E. A. Sween Company
facilities. The proponent now requests an amendment to the approved site plan which
proposes the following:
Deletion of the additional four proposed buildings
Deletion of the proposed frontage road
Addition of one office building
The Guide Plan depicts the property as industrial, which is in compliance with past
and proposed land uses.
Existing Site Character
The site is bordered on the north by State Highway #5, to the east by Fuller Road,
and to the south by an industrial site. County Road #4 and a vacant parcel are
located in the southeast quadrant of the Highway County Road #4 intersection, which
lies to the west of the property. A proposal for development of this vacant parcel
by the Burger King Company has been submitted to the City for review.
E. A. Sween Staff Report 2 July 22, 1983
•
The site slopes from the east to west draining to a wetland located in the north
central portion of the property. Tree masses of poplar, willow, elm, and boxelder
exist within the northwest and north central areas of the site. This vegetation
will be saved.
The soil conditions underlying the proposed office structure are conducive for
development. The wetland area in the north central portion of the parcel supports a
peaty muck soil type and offers limited development potential.
Ordinance Requirements
The project meets or exceeds the minimum City Code requirements for minimum lot
size, lot width, lot depth, front yard setback, side yard setback, rear yard
setback, floor area ratio, and height of structure.
The required number of stalls for the proposed office addition is 45. The required
number of stalls needed to accommodate the two existing buildings based on one-third
manufacturing, one-third warehouse, and one-third office is 130 spaces. The
proposal indicates 120 parking spaces, which is 55 spaces below City Code
requirements.
Screening of the central parking and loading areas is proposed by grading of 4-5
foot berms parallel to Highway #5. The screening of the northeast parking lot from
Fuller Road and Highway #5 is by a proposed five foot berm. Evaluation of the
preliminary landscape plan indicates adequate screening for both loading and parking
areas. An existing ten foot high berm north of the maintenance building will remain
and be linked to a proposed adjacent berm. A pond with a small duck island is
proposed within the existing wetland. The site will be sodded from the proposed
building to the pond, and wild grasses will be used from the pond westward to the
existing tree mass.
Site Plan
The proposed exterior finish for the corporate offices is to be a combination of
glazing and brick, identical to the adjoining building. It is to be a two-story
structure with 9,057 sq. ft. gross floor area.
The site will remain basically unchanged with the exception of the grading for the
berms, pond and building pad.
Storm drainage will run to the proposed ponding area, eventually tying to the storm
water system adjacent to Highway #5. Sanitary sewer is proposed to link to an
existing main off Highway #5 and Fuller Road. Water service will be from an
existing well located on-site.
An eight foot bituminous trail currently exists on the east side of County Road #4.
Transportation
Auto and semi-trailer traffic to the parcel is from Fuller Road and off a private
drive from County Road #4. The County requests that no access drives be placed any
further north than the existing private drive. The future development of the vacant
northwest parcel would need access from County Road #4 no further north than this
existing private drive. It may be necessary that a public road with a cul-de-sac be
•
!'11�1
E. A. Sween Staff Report 3 July 22, 1983
access •
locatevate
ve. This
d to the approximatepE. A. Sween alignment
parcel andttosanyifutureridevelopment could then
t provide
at the vacant
adjacent property.
The previous approval included a frontage road south of State Highway #5 tying
Fuller Road to County Road #4. The intent of this frontage road was to direct
traffic from Fuller Road to a controlled intersection. This would reduce the number
of left-turn movements across the east-bound lane of Highway #5 to Fuller Road. In
addition, it would reduce the number of left-turn' movements from Fuller Road across
Highway #5. Fuller Road ends in a cul-de-sac to the south and Highway #5 is its
only access point.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation is evaluating two alternatives for
resolution of the problems of the existing Fuller Road and State Highway #5
intersection.
One alternative would be the implementation of a frontage road on the south side of
Highway linking
Fuller
E.Road
A. Sween .County
plan Road
The advantages for approach
approachiare as
lar to
the previoio usly approved
follows:
1. It would provide a controlled access point at County Road #4 for
Fuller Road traffic, reducing cross traffic flow to Highway #5.
2. It would provide public road access to the vacant northwest parcel. •
The disadvantages are as follows:
1. There would be a need for 30 ft. additional right-of-way to the
south. This would place the road in the proposed E. A.Sween
Corporate Office Building front yard setback.
2. The costs would be high due to excessive soil modifications needed
in the wetland area located on the E. A. Sween property and adjacent
right-of-way.
3. It does not resolve access problems north of Highway #5.
4. It would intersect with Fuller Road only a short distance from
Highway #5.
The second alternative would be the improvement of the existing intersection at
Fuller Road and Highway #5. The advantages for this approach are as follows:
1. The inclusion of turn lanes on Fuller Road and improved Highway #5
resulting in improved traffic flow.
2. The inclusion of frontage roads on the north and south sides of
Highway #5 eliminates five private accesses.
3. Fuller Road would be realigned linking to Highway #5 at a 90 degree
angle.
4. Traffic flow north of Highway #5 would be improves with the
n7ri •
E. A. Sween Staff Report 4 July 22, 1983
inclusion of a road tying to the improved intersection.
The disadvantages for this approach are as follows:
1. It does not provide access to the vacant northwest parcel at the
corner of County Road #4 and Highway #5.
2. Left turning movement across improved Highway #5 will occur.
MNDOT is leaning toward the second alternative. If traffic flow warrants, lights at
the intersection could be installed. Whichever alternative is decided, it would be
constructed at the time Highway #5 is improved from a two-lane to a four-lane road.
A majority of the cost would be absorbed as a component of the improvement contract.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the Zoning District Amendment proposed by E. A. Sween,
subject to the following:
1. Prior to City Council, the proponent shall:
a. Meet with the City Engineering Department and MNDOT to determine the
alignment and treatment of the•west access road.
b. Redesign the site plan to include a total of 175 parking spaces.
c. Submit detailed drawings for the treatment of the rooftop mechanical
equipment. j
2. Prior to final plat, proponent shall:
a. Dedicate to the City the necessary right-of-way for the west access
road.
b. Meet with the City Engineering Department with regard to water,
sanitary and storm sewer.
c. Receive Watershed District approval.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:
a. Submit a final landscape plan for review and approval by the
Planning Department.
•
1/19
•
.- Z �..• 1r 1,1 ' Il
•1I i� a!f W c \:1
•
Z
co {
i�Il. Z
a W IO i
o c O,N
°,1 =V z — c . i .,oq -. O .< M` �O . • :- rn�
ll)
W ! i .G c 0fq i. r< •o _ = v
-i :3Ei Xr .00-_ . Z W z- w• -�
I (? z a .
11—
y i 'I 3.
• " I t I g, `,,' •
ti_1
J ,.:‘1
..., ,
. :T i�_ :I m -' —r'� _t. ,
I 1 - 1,1 ii--11—_i :-.!''''\/):" :::L--- •
•
/7i '
cI ft".' i lL`I' `7 • {'` c •
1.
if.
•
r..:-.,,...1,....,.......:,_;: .:
r `;
�: y^ •\ .� UI }f• y ; . : I,`
:� •''/ i7 ' i
August 15, 1983
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE •
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION R83-198
VACATION OF McKINLEY LANE
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has a certain right-of-way
described as follows:
McKinley Lane in its entirety.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 15, 1983, after due
notice was published and posted as required by
WHEREAS, it has been determined that good area planning requires
• that said right-of-way is not necessary and has no interest to the public,
therefore, should be vacated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council
as follows:
1. Said McKinley Lane is hereby vacated.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of
the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 15, 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
•
John D. Frane, Clerk
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director
DATE: August 11, 1983
RE: M.I.D.B.'s - Thomas Hotel Co., - $9,170,000 - Resolution No. 83-200 l'
This project was approved by the Council on July 6, 1983, however,
they did not receive final approval within the one year allowed
by the City and they are re-applying. Resolution No. 83-200 is
attached for your consideration.
JDF:bw
8/11/83
1722
•
•
•
;M-00424-01
This Application must be submitted in DUPLICATE
( STATE OF MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Application
For Approval of Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Project
To: Minnesota Energy and Economic Date August 16, 1983
Development Authority
480 Cedar St., Rm. 100 Hanover Bldg.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
The governing body of the City of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin , Minnesota,
iereoy applies to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Autnority of the State of
linnesota for approval of this community's proposed Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond issue as
-equired by Minn. Stat. S474.01, Subd. 7a.
•
4e have entered into preliminary discussions with:
Firm Thomas Hotel Company
. S
Address 4820 Highway 55
City Golden valley State MN State of Incorporation
Attorney Sidney Lorber, Esq., Leonard, Street & Deinard
,ddress 1200 Nati al—Cit5' Bank Building, 510 Marquette Avenue, Mpls., MN 55402
Name of Project P & L Investment Co. Project
;his firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): hotel development
'he funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to {general
lature of project): acquire land, acquire, construct and equip a first class
luxury hotel in the City
one-half (1/2) mile south or the intersection of nlgln-ay 169
t will be located in and Interstate 494 in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
.he total bond issue will be approximately S 9,170,000 , to be applied toward payment
.f costs now estimated as follows:
Acquisition, reconstruction, improvement,
betterment, or extension of project S 750,000
Construction Costs 5,420,000
Equipment Acquisition and Installation 1,29 3,000 •
Fees: Architectural, engineering, inspec-
tion, fiscal, legal, administration, or '
printing 177,0n0
'-r.s(. accrual during construction 630,000
. ;i al bond reserve --
Contingencies 250,000
9cond si s:oount Loan Fees 400,000
Other, Plisc. (interior design 100,000
consultant)
•
• ria
•
•
•
It is presently estimated that construction will begin on or about October 1, • ,
19 83 , and will be completed on or about December 31 , 1984 . When completed, there
ail/I"-e approximately 150 new jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of approxi-
mat\ , S 1,250,000 , based upon currently prevailing wages. (If applicable) There are
existing jobs proviced by business.
The tentative term of the financing is 30 years, commencing October , 19 83
the following exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated herein by
reference:
1. An opinion of bond counsel that the proposal constitutes a project under Minn.
Stat. 5474.02.
2. A copy of the city council resolution giving preliminary approval for the issuance
of its revenue bonds.
3. A comprehensive statement by the municipality indicating how the project satisfies
the public purpose of Minn. Stat. 5474.01.
4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or a letter confirming the feasibil-
ity of the project from a financial standpoint.
. 5. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority to the
effect that upon entering into the revenue agreement, the information required by
Minn. Stat. 5474.01, Subd. 8 will be submitted to the Minnesota Energy and Economic j
Development Authority. ;
6. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority that
the project does not include any property to be sold or affixed to or consumed in
the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing facility to
be rented or used as d permanent residence.
7. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority that
a public hearing was conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5474.01, Subd. 7b.
The statement shall-include the date, time and place of the meeting and that all
interested p;.rties were afforded an opportunity to express their views.
8. Copies of notices) as published which indicate the date(s) of publication and the
newspaper(s) in which the notice(s) were published.
9. Provide a plan for compliance of employment preference of economically disadvan-
taged or unemployed individuals. (See Mn. Laws 1983, Ch. 289, 113.)
or appointed
We, the undersigned, are duly electedfepresentat<ives of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it •
to a final conclusion.
Signed by: (Principal Officers or Representatives of issuing Authority; tyoe or print Mayor's
name on the line to the left of the sicnature line. Thank you.)
wolfcanq Penzel
Mayor's Name Signature
John D. Frane
tie:Finance Director-Clerx Signature
•
This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the Authority or the State of the
feasibility of the project or the terms of the revenue agreement to be executed• or the bonds to
3e i sued therefor.
Authorized Signature - Minnesota Energy and Economic Date of Approval
Development Authority
/7,2I/
Member introduced the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption: (�?
RESOLUTION NO. A J t
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A
PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVEL-
OPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE
MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZING
PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of
the City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the
"City") , as follows:
1. It is hereby found, determined and declared as
follows:
1.1. The welfare of the State of Minnesota (the
"State") requires active promotion, attraction, en-
couragement and development of economically sound in-
dustry and commerce through governmental acts to pre-
vent, so far as possible, emergence of blighted lands
and areas of chronic unemployment, and it is the policy
of the State to facilitate and encourage action by local
government units to prevent the economic deterioration
of such areas to the point where the process can be
reversed only by total redevelopment through the use of
local, state and federal funds derived from taxation,
with the attendant necessity of relocating displaced
persons and of duplicating public services in other
areas.
1.2. Technological change has caused a shift to a
significant degree in the area of opportunity for edu-
cated youth to processing, transporting, marketing,
service and other industries, and unless existing and
related industries are retained and new industries are
developed to use the available resources of the City, a
large part of the existing investment of the community
and of the State as a whole in educational and public
service facilities will be lost, and the movement of
talented, educated personnel of mature age to areas
where their services may be effectively used and com-
pensated and the lessening attraction of persons and
businesses from other areas for purposes of industry,
commerce and tourism will deprive the City and the State
of the economic and human resources needed as a base for
providing governmental services and facilities for the
remaining population.
- 1 - •
17d
1.3. The increase in the amount 'and cost of govern-
mental services requires the need for more intensive
development and use of land to provide an adequate tax
base to finance these costs.
1.4. Thomas Hotel Company (the "Company") , has
advised this City Council that it desires to acquire
land located one-half (1/2) mile south of the inter-
section of Highway 169 and Interstate 494 in the City,
acquire and construct a building thereon and acquire and
install equipment therefor (the "Project") to be
utilized as a first class hotel and related facilities.
1.5. The existence of the Project in the City will
contribute to more intensive development and use of land
to increase the tax base of the City and overlapping
taxing authorities and maintain and provide for an in-
crease in opportunities for employment for residents of
the City.
1.6. The City has been advised that conventional,
commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the
Project is available at such costs of borrowing that the
economic feasibility of operating the Project would be
significantly reduced, but that with the aid of munici-
pal financing and its resulting low borrowing cost the
Project is economically more feasible.
1.7. This Council has been advised by a representa-
tive of The Steinberg Financial Corporation, in Minne-
apolis, Minnesota, mortgage bankers, that on the basis
of information submitted to them and their discussions
with representatives of the Company and potential buyers
of tax-exempt bonds, industrial development revenue
bonds, notes or other obligations of the City could be
issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to
finance the Project.
1.8. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 474, to issue its revenue bonds, notes or other
obligations to finance the cost, in whole or in part, of
the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improve-
ment, betterment or extension of capital projects con-
sisting of properties used and useful in connection with
a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the
Company; the issuance of such bonds, notes or other
obligations by the City would be a substantial induce-
ment to the Company to construct its facility in the
City.
2. The notice of public hearing for the public hearing
held on this date was submitted for publication by Carl M.
- 2 -
112L
Juille, the City Manager of the City, which action was taken
in accordance with the authority granted the City Manager,
and which action is hereby ratified by the Council.
3. On the basis of information given the City to date,
it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City
to issue its commercial development revenue bonds, notes or
other obligations under the provisions of Minnesota Stat-
utes, Chapter 474, to finance the Project of the Company at
a cost presently estimated not to exceed $9,170,000.
4. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by
the City and the issuance of bonds, notes or other obliga-
tions for such purpose and in such amount is hereby ap-
proved, subject to approval of the Project by the Minnesota
Energy and Economic Development Authority (the "Authority")
and to the mutual agreement of this body, the Company and
the initial purchasers of the bonds, notes or other obliga-
tions as to the details of the bond issue and provisions for
their payment. In all events, it is understood, however,
that the bonds, notes or other obligations of the City shall
not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or
equitable, upon any property of the City except its interest
in the Project, and each bond, .note or other obligation
when, as and if issued shall recite in substance that the
bond, note or other obligation, including interest thereon,
is payable solely from the revenues received from the Proj-
ect and property pledged to the payment thereof and shall
not constitute a debt of the City.
5. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section
474.01, Subdivision 7a, the Mayor is hereby authorized and
directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the
Authority for approval of the Project. The Mayor, the
Finance Director-Clerk, the City Attorney and other offi-
cers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized
to provide the Authority with any preliminary information
needed for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized
to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents
as may be appropriate to the Project, if it is approved by
the Authority.
6. The Company has agreed to pay directly or through
the City any and all costs incurred by the City in connec-
tion with the Project, whether or not the Project is ap-
proved by the Authority, whether or not the Project is car-
ried to completion and whether or not the bonds, notes or
other obligations or the operative documents relating
thereto are executed.
7. The adoption of this resolution by the Council does
not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the
- 3 -
•
City will issue the bonds, notes or other obligations as
requested by the Company. The City retains the right in its
sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accord-
ingly not issue the bonds, notes or other obligations should
the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine
that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the
bonds, notes or other obligations or should the parties to
the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms
and conditions of any of the documents required for the
transaction.
8. All commitments of the City expressed herein are
subject to the condition that within twelve (12) months of
the date of adoption of this resolution, the City and the •
Company shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and
conditions of the revenue agreement, the bonds, notes or
other obligations and of the other instruments and proceed-
• ings relating thereto and to the issuance and sale of the
bonds, notes or other obligations. If the events set forth
herein do not take place within the time set forth above, or
any extension thereof, and the bonds, notes or other obliga-
tions are not sold within such time, this resolution shall
expire and be of no further effect.
Mayor
Attest:
Finance Director-Clerk
•
- 4 -
•
�r�q •
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director
DATE: August 11, 1983
RE: M.I.D.B.'s - E. A. Sween - $1,000,000 - Resolution No. 83-201
E. A. Sween Co. proposes to construct their corporate headquarters
at their site on T.H. 5 and County Road 4. They will be con-
solidating their staff, which at present occupies leased space
in Eden Prairie. Resolution No. 83-201 is attached for your
consideration.
•
JDF:bw
8/11/83
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, AMINNESOTA •
Application for
Industrial Development Bond Project Financing
1. APPLICANT:
a. Business Name - Thomas E. Sween
b. Business Address -
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship,
etc.) - N/A
d. State of Incorporation organization - N/A
e. Authorized Representative -
•
f. Telephone number - (612) 937-9440
2. NA:•SE(S) AND ADDRESSES) OF flAZOR STOCK:HOLDER(S) OR PRINCIPAL(S); N/A
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g•
-1-
•
•
•
GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL
PRODUCTS, ETC: E. A. Sween Company - manufacturer and
distributor of fast food.
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Construction of corporate headquarters
!1!
• i
a. Location and intended use: The building will be directly to
the north of the existing manufacturing building at 16101 West
78th Street, Eden Prairie.
b. Present ownership of project site; E. A. Sween Company
c. Names and addresses of architect, engineer and general
contractor: Architect - William C. Anderson with The Design
Partnership, Minneapolis, MN
Engineer - Craig Halverson E. A. Sween Company,
Eden Prairie, MN
+ General Contractor - M. A. Mortensen Company,
Minneapolis, MN
•
5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR:
Land $ -0-
Construction Contracts 682,305
Equipment Acquisition and installation* 168,673
Architectural and Engineering 50,250
Legal 30,000 •
Loan Fees (underwriter only) 23,750
Other • 10,000
TOTAL • $ •
•
113! _2_
'0. BOND ISSUE
a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $1,000,000
b. Proposed date of sale of bond - July-August, 1983
c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - 15 years
Amortization
d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - Underwriter
e. Name and address of suggested trustee - To be named later
f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original
purchaser - N/A
g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - N/A
h. Describe nature and amount- of any permanent financing
in addition. to bond financing - N/A
7. BUSINESS PROFI.LE • •
a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? yes
b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
i. Before this project?
ii. After this project?
-3-
.
1
c. Approximate annual sales - 1983 - $24,841,960 •
d. Length of time in business 26 years
in Eden Prairie 26 years
•
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where?
No
/•
f. Are you engaged in international trade?
•
No
( OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S):
None
a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial
development project(s) in which the Applicant is the
owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a
"related person" within the meaning of Section 103(b) (6)
of the Internal Revenue Code.
VP)? -4-
•
•
b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested
industrial development revenue financing. No others
•
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
-5-
1IYI
• •
{ 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.
Not applicable
•
•
9. NA ES AND ADDRESSES OF: •
a. Underwriter (If public offering) -
b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement)-
•
•
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 an interest in the
offering subject to appropriate City approval
of the Commissioner of Securities.
-6-
l`i3, i• .
•
•
•
b. Bond Counsel - . H.
Dorsey & Whitney
•
c. Corporate Counsel - Dorsey & Whitney
•
d. Accountant - Arthur Anderson
•
•
10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start - August 8, 1983
•
b. Construction completion - March 8, 1984
•
•
•
•
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or
disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development
revenue bond financing does not expressly or inpliedly constitute
any approval, variance, or waiver or any provision or requirement •
relating to any zoning, building or other rule or ordinance of the
City of Eden Prairie, or any other law a the property
included in this project. L J
Applicant
BY Lester W. Moore
Vice President Finance and Administration
E. A. SWEEN COMPANY
Date July 29, 1983
11 J/(0 —7—
( ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARThENT
a. Property is zoned - I - 2 Industrial Park District
•
b. Present zoning (is);SgxtSOU; correct for the intended
use.
c. Zoning application received on
for which is correct for the
intended use.
d. Variances required -
City Planner
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 67— p /
RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO PROCEED WITH A PROJECT
( AND ITS FINANCING UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT; REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR APPROVAL: AND
AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota (the Municipality), as follows:
SECTION 1
Recitals and Findings
1.1. This Council has received a proposal that the
Municipality finance a portion or all of the cost of a proposed
project under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the Act),
consisting of the construction and equipping thereon of a
facility to be located at 16101 West 78th Street in the
Municipality (the Project) by Thomas E. Sween, an individual
residing in Eden Prairie, Minnesota,to be leased by the
Borrower to E.A. Sween Company, a Minnesota corporation for use
as corporate headquarters.
1.2. At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on July 19,
1983, in accordance with the Act, on the proposal to undertake
and finance the Project, all parties who appeared at the
hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with
respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the Project.
Based on the public hearing and such other facts and
circumstances as this Council deems relevant, this Council
hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:
(a) The welfare of the State of Minnesota requires
active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of
economically sound industry and commerce through governmental
acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergence of blighted
lands and areas of chronic unemployment, and the State of
Minnesota has encouraged local government units to act to •
prevent such economic deterioration.
(b) The Project would further the general purposes
contemplated and described in Section 474.01 of the Act.
(c) The existence of the Project would add to the tax
base of the Municipality, the County and School District in
which the Project is located and would provide increased
opportunities for employment for residents of the Municipality
and surrounding area.
•
-4-
(d) This Council has been advised by representatives
of the Borrower, that conventional, commercial financing to pay
the cost of the Project is available only on a limited basis
and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic •
feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly •
reduced, but that with the aid of municipal borrowing, and its
resulting lower borrowing cost, the Project is economically
more feasible.
(e) This Council has also been advised by
representatives of the Borrower that on the basis of their •
discussions with potential buyers of tax-exempt bonds, revenue
bonds of the Municipality (which may be in the form of a
commercial development revenue note or notes) could be issued
and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the Project.
(f) The Municipality is authorized by the Act to
issue its revenue bonds to finance capital projects consisting
of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue
producing enterprise, such as that of the Borrower, and the
issuance of the bonds by the Municipality would be a
substantial inducement to the Borrower to acquire and construct
' the Project. •
SECTION 2
Determination to Proceed with
the Project and its Financing
2.1. On the basis of the information given the Municipality to
date, it appears that it would be desirable for the
Municipality to issue its revenue bonds under the provisions of
the Act to finance the Project in an aggregate principal amount
not to exceed $1,000,000.
2.2. It is hereby determined to proceed with the Project and
its financing and this Council hereby declares its present
intent to have the Municipality issue its revenue bonds under
the Act to finance the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
however, the adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed to
establish a legal obligation on the part of the Municipality or
its City Council to issue or to cause the issuance of such
revenue bonds. All details of such revenue bond issue and the
provisions for payment thereof shall be subject to final
approval of the Project by the Department of Commerce and may
be subject to such further conditions as the Municipality may
specify. The revenue bonds, if issued, shall not constitute a
charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any
property of the Municipality, except the Project, and each
bond, when, as and if issued, shall recite in substance that
-5-
1139
•
the bond, including interest thereon, is payable solely from
the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to
the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the
Municipality within the meaning of any constitutional or
statutory limitation.
2.3. The Application to the Department of Commerce, with
attachments, is hereby approved, and the Mayor and Finance
Director/Clerk are authorized to execute said documents in
behalf of the Municipality.
2.4. In accordance with Section 474.10, Subdivision 7a of the
Act, the Mayor and Finance Director/Clerk are hereby authorized
and directed to cause the Application to be submitted to the
Department of Commerce for approval of the Project. The Mayor,
Finance Director/Clerk, City Attorney and other officers,
employees and agents of the Municipality are hereby authorized
and directed to provide the Director with any preliminary
information needed for this purpose. The City Attorney is
authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of
documents as may be appropriate to the Project, if approved by
the Director.
SECTION 3
General •
3.1. If the bonds are issued and sold, the Municipality will
enter into a lease, sale or loan agreement or similar agreement
satisfying the requirements of the Act (the Revenue Agreement)
with the Borrower. The lease rentals, installment sale
payments, loan payments or other amounts payable by the
Borrower to the Municipality under the Revenue Agreement shall
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.
3.2. The Borrower has agreed and it is hereby determined that
any and all direct and indirect costs incurred by the
Municipality in connection with the Project, whether or not the
Project is carried to completion, and whether or not approved
by the Department of Commerce, and whether or not the
Municipality by resolution authorizes the issuance of the
bonds, will be paid by the Borrower upon request.
3.3. The Mayor and Finance Director/Clerk are directed, if the
bonds are issued and sold, thereafter to comply with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 8.
•
-6-
f - "
11 1-Il)
Adopted this day of July, 1983.
Mayor .
Attest:
Finance Director/Clerk
(SEAL)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was duly seconded by Member and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
•
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
_7_
i1u1
( •
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director
DATE: August 11, 1983
RE: M.I.D.B.'s - C.R.C. Associates - $1,050,000 - Resolution No. 83-199
C.R.C. Associates a partnership of Janis Hillis, Glen Peterson
and Michael Lundeby propose to construct an Office/Studio for
lease to Creative Resources Center, Inc. The partners own the
business. The location is at 6423 City West Parkway. The business
would employ about 30 persons. Resolution No. 83-199 is attached
for your consideration.
JDF:bw
8/11/83
riqa
i .
' •
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for
( Industrial Development Bond Project Financing
1. APPLICANT:
•
a'. Business Name - CRC Associates
b. Business Address - 6024 Blue Circle Drive
• Minnetonka, MN 55343
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor-
. • ship, etc.) - general partnership
•
d. _State of Incorporation or organization - Minnesota •
e. Authorized Representative -
•
Michael Lundeby •
• f. Phone -
933-0050
•
2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS:
•
•
a• James Hillis
5480 Maple Heights Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
b. Glenn Peterson
6650 Vernon Ave., #216 •
Edina, MN 55436 •
c. Michael Lundeby
3133 Irving Avenue South`
Minneapolis, MN 55405
-1- •
•
1 • 10
•
•
•
•
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL
PRODUCTS, ETC:
CRC Associates •- ownership of Project, real estate
Tenant - Creative Resources Center, Inc.--design and
execution of creative concepts for packaging,'
annual reports, brochures, etc.
4. DESCRIPTIO;T OF PROJECT
•
a. Location and intended use: •
' • 6423 City West Parkway, Eden Prairie, MN.
Lease to Creative Resource Center, Inc. for use as office and studio.
b. Present ownership of project site:
Anderson Development Inc.
10125 Crosstown Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general
• contractor:
Ryan Construction Co. . The Design Collective
7401 Metro Blvd. 2929 4th Avenue South
Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN
Edina, MN 55435 (independent architect)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: •
Land . $__185,000 •
Construction Contracts 770,000
Equipment Acquisition and installation* _ -0_
Architectural and Engineering 10,000
Legal • 26,500
Interest during Construction ' 26,000 •
Bond Reserve
Contingencies
Loan Fees
Other 36,750
• Total $1,054,250
•
*Heating and air conditioning should be included as building costs.
' Indicate the kind of equipment to be acquired here.
•
•
G. BOND ISSUE -
a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $1,050,000
b. Proposed date of sale of bond - September, 1983
•
•
c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - 30 years
serial bonds beginning 3-1-85 with mandatory purchase
by company on 3-1-94
d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds -
Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Yost Incorporated
e. Name and address of suggested trustee -
First National Bank of Minneapolis
120 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402
rf. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original
purchaser - None
g. Describe any interim financing sought or available -
None
• . h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing
in addition to bond financing - None
•
•
7. BUSINESS PROFILE -
a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No
•
•
. b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
•
i. Before this project: None •
-3-
rig
•
ii. After this project? 30
\ s •
c. Approximate annual sales - tenant: $1,600,000
d. Length of time in business tenant:: 3 years; applicant• now
•
•
in Eden Prairie none •
•
•
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where?
• Minnetonka •
•
•
•
f. Are you engaged in international trade? No �.
•
8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S):
•
a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial
development project(s) in which the Applicant is the •
• owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a
"releated person" within the meaning of Section 1O3(b)(6)
of the Internal Revenue Code.
none
•
•
•
•
•
-4-
• 1` 4.
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.
not applicable
•
•
•
( d. List any city in which the App]icant has been refused •
• industrial development revenue financing.
•
not applicable
•
•
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.
not applicable
•
-5-
17q1
•
• f. If Applicant has been denied industrial development
revenue financing in any other city as identified
in (d) or (c), specify the reason(s) for the denial
and the name(s) of appropriate city officialS who
have knowledge of the transaction.
not applicable
9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF:
•
a. Underwriter (If public offering)
Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Yost Incorporated
700 Lumber Exchange Building
Minneapolis, MN 55402
•
b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement)
•
' 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 an interest in the
offering subject to appropriate City •. .
approval and approval of the Commissioner
of Securities. . •
•
•
•
•
-6-
rya
•
(
b. Bond Counsel - Mark R. Johnson
'Lindquist & Vennum
4200 IDS Center, .
Minneapolis, MN 55402
c. Corporate Counsel -
David Miller
Faegre & Benson
2300 Multifoods Tower, 33 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
d. Accountant -
Schweitzer, Rubin, Gottlieb & Karon
1420 TCF Tower
Minneapolis, MN.55402
•
10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
•
•
a. Construction start - August, 1983
• b. Construction completion - January, 1984
•
•
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 ordinancb of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law
' applicable to the property included in this project.
• CRC Associates
A plicant
•
•
•
•
•
aulv 28, 1983
Date
• -7-
.
•
• /3q9
•
CM-00424-01
This Application must be submitted in DUPLICATE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Application
For Approval of Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Project
To: Minnesota Energy and Economic Date August , 1983
Development Authority
480 Cedar St., Rm. 100 Hanover Bldg.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
The governing body of Eden Prairie , County of Hennepin , Minnesota,
hereby applies to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority of the State of
Minnesota for approval of this community's proposed Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond issue as
required by Minn. Stat. 5474.01, Subd. 7a.
We have entered into preliminary discussions with:
firm CRC Associates
Address 6024 Blue Circle Drive
City Minnetonka State MN State of Incorporation MN
Attorney David Miller
•
Address 2300 Multifoods Tower, 33 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402
Name of Project CRC Associates Project
This firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): development and ownership of the
Project
The funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to (general
nature of project): purchase land and construct thereon an approximately 21,000 square foot
office/headquarters facility
It will be located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota
The total bond issue will be approximately S 1,050,000 , to be applied toward payment
of costs now estimated as follows:
Acquisition, reconstruction, improvement,
betterment, or extension of project $185,000
Construction Costs 770.000
Equipment Acquisition and Installation -0-
Fees: Architectural, engineering, inspec-
tion, fiscal, legal, administration, or
printing 36,500
terest accrual during construction 26,000
�itial bond reserve -0-
Contingencies -0-
Bond discount 36,750
Other
-0-
•
•
It is presently estimated that construction will begin on or about August
1983 , and will be completed on or about January , 1984 . When completed, there
wire approximately 5 new jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of approxi-
mately S75.000 , based upon currently prevailing wages. (If applicable) There are
existing jobs provided by business.
The tentative term of the financing is 30 years, commencing September , 19 83 .
The following exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated herein by
reference:
1. An opinion of bond counsel that the proposal constitutes a project under Minn.
Stat. 5474.02.
2. A copy of the city council resolution giving preliminary approval for the issuance •
of its revenue bonds.
3. A comprehensive statement by the municipality indicating how the project satisfies
the public purpose of Minn. Stat. S474.01.
4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or a letter confirming the feasibil-
ity of the project from a financial standpoint.
5. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority to the •
effect that upon entering into the revenue agreement, the information required by
Minn. Stat. S474.01, Subd. 8 will be submitted to the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority.
6. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority that
the project does not include any property to be sold or affixed to or consumed in
the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing facility to
be rented or used as a permanent residence. •
7. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority that
a public hearing was conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. S474.01, Subd. 7b.
The statement shall include the date, time and place of the meeting and that all
interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views.
8. Copies of notice(s) as published which indicate the date(s) of publication and the •
newspaper(s) in which the notice(s) were published.
9. Provide a plan for compliance of employment preference of economically disadvan-
taged or unemployed individuals. (See Mn. Laws 1983, Ch. 289, 113.)
•
We, the undersigned, are duly elected representatives of city of Eden Prairie , Minnesota
and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it
to a final conclusion.
Signed by: (Principal Officers or Representatives of Issuing Authority; type or print Mayor's
name on the line to the left of the signature line. Thank you.)
.Mayor's Name Signature
Title: Signature
This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the Authority or the State of the
feasibility of the project or the terms of the revenue agreement to be executed' or the bonds to
be issued therefor.
Date of Approval
Authorized Signature - Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority
I7r) I Mrrno n7nta�
f3-199
•
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
BY CRC ASSOCIATES UNDER THE MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND AUTHORIZING
SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE
MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
FOR APPROVAL THEREOF
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, as follows:
1. There has been presented to this Council a proposal by
CRC Associates, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Company")
that the City undertake and finance a project pursuant to the
Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 474 (the "Act") generally consisting of the
purchase of land and construction thereon of an approximately
21,000 square feet office-photo studio facility at 6423 City West
Parkway in the City for the Company (the "Project"). Under the
proposal, the Project facilities will be owned by the Company and
leased to Creative Resource Center, Inc., and the Company will
enter into a revenue agreement with the City upon such terms and
conditions as are necessary to produce income and revenues
sufficient to pay when due the principal of and the interest on up
to a maximum aggregate face amount of $1,050,000 Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds of the City to be issued pursuant to the
Act, to provide monies for the acquisition, construction and
installation of the Project; and the City will pledge its interest
in the revenue agreement to secure the bonds.
2. As required by the Act, this Council conducted a
public hearing on August 16, 1983 on the proposal to undertake and
finance the Project after publication in the official newspaper
and a newspaper of general circulation in the City of a notice
setting forth the time and place of hearing; stating the general
nature of the Project and the maximum principal amount of bonds or
other obligations to be issued to finance the Project; stating
that a draft copy of the proposed Application to the Minnesota
Energy and Economic Development Authority (the "Authority"),
together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available
for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk, in the City
Hall, at all times between the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.
each day except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays to and including
the day of hearing; and stating that all parties who appear at the
public hearing shall have an opportunity to express their views
with respect to the proposal. Said notice was in compliance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subd. 7b and Section 1O3(k) of
the Internal Revenue Code and certain temporary regulations
promulgated thereunder. Said publication of said notice is hereby
ratified and confirmed in all respects. The draft application to
the Authority together with all attachments and exhibits thereto,
was on file and available for public inspection at the place and
times set forth in the notice.
I'1'i
3. It is hereby found, determined and declared that the
Project furthers the purposes stated in Section 474.01 of the Act
in that the purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof will
be to promote the public welfare by the attraction, encouragement
and development of economically sound industry and commerce so as
to prevent, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted and
maryinal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; the retention
and development of industry to use the available resources of the
community, in order to retain the benefit of its existing invest-
ment in educational and public service facilities; by halting the
movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to other
areas and thus preserving the economic and human resources needed
as a base for providing governmental services and facilities; and
the more intensive development of land available in the area to
provide a more adequate tax base to finance the cost of govern-
mental services in the municipality, county and school district
where the Project is located.
4. The Company has entered into preliminary discussions
with Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Yost Incorporated, as under-
writer, and the underwriter has reported that the Project and the
sale of bonds therefor are feasible.
5. The Company 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 Authority;
whether or not the project is carried to completion; and whether
or not the bonds or operative instruments are executed.
6. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by
the City subject to approval of the Project by the Authority and
subject to final approval by this Council and by the purchasers of
any bonds to be issued as to the ultimate details of the Project
and as to the terms of the bonds.
7. In accordance with Section 474.01, Subd. 7 of the Act,
the Mayor, the City Clerk, and such other officers and representa-
tives of the City as may from time to time be designated are
hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the
Project to the Authority and request approval thereof, and the
Mayor, the City Clerk, and other officers, employees and agents of
the City are hereby authorized to provide the Authority with such
preliminary information as, it may require. The Company, Lindquist
& Vennum, as bond counsel, the City Clerk, the City Attorney, and
other City officials are also authorized to initiate the
preparation of a proposed loan agreement and such other documents
as may be necessary or appropriate to the Project so that, when
and if tee proposed Project is approved by the Authority and this
Council gives its final approval thereto, the Project may be
carried forward expeditiously.
I'15
8. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a
guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the bonds
as requested by the Company. The City retains the right in its
l sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not
issue the bonds should the City at any time prior to the issuance
thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not
to issue the bonds or should the parties to the transaction be
unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of
the documents required for the transaction.
9. 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 applicant 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.
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA) .v
) SS. •
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota do hereby
certify that the attached extract of Minutes of a meeting of the
City Council of the City held August 16, 1983, is a full, true and
correct transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to an
industrial development project to be undertaken pursuant to
Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, by the City and CRC Associates.
WITNESS My hand and seal officially as said City Clerk
this day of August, 1983.
•
City Clerk
(Seal)
t .
TO: Mayor and City Council •
FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director
DATE: August 11, 1983
RE: T.I.F. #6 - Resolution 83-176
The City Attorney will assist the Council with the necessary
findings concerning T.I.F. #6.
JDF:bw
8/11/83
1'2 51
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.83-176
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PROPOSED
TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO.6 AND THE ADOPTION OF A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Eden
Prairie,Minnesota(the"City"),as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. It has been proposed that the City establish an additional tax increment
district within Development District No.I and adopt a tax increment financing plan
relating thereto, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78,
inclusive,as amended.
1.02. This Council has caused to be prepared, and has investigated the facts
with respect thereto,a proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for a proposed Tax
Increment District No.6.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed
prior to the establishment of Tax Increment District No.6 and the adoption of the
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No.6, including,but not
limited to,consultations or the opportunity for consultations with Hennepin County
and the School Districts having taxing jurisdiction over the property proposed to be
included in Tax Increment District No.6, 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 necessary and in the best
interests of the City at this time to establish Tax Increment District No.6 and to
adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto.
Section 2. Findings Concerning Establishment of Tax Increment District
No.6.
2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that Tax Increment
District No.6 constitutes a "tax increment financing district," as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 9, and further constitutes an
"economic development district,"as defined in Minnesota Statutes,Section 273.73,
Subdivision 12.
2.02. The Council further finds, declares and determines that Tax Increment
District No.6 does not meet the requirements found in the definition of
redevelopment district or housing district, as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.73, Subdivisions 10 and 11, respectively, but is in the public interest,
thereby qualifying it as an economic development district.
Page-2-
2.03.The Council further finds, declares and determines that the develop-
ment presently occurring for which tax increments from Tax Increment District
No.6 will be used, in the opinion of the Council would not have occurred solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and,therefore,
the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary; that the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No.6 conforms to the general plan for
the development of the City as a whole; and will afford maximum opportunity,
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the
Development District by private enterprise.
2.04. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made
the above findings stated in Section 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting
facts for each determination in writing,attached hereto as Exhibit"A".
2.05. Under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78,
inclusive,as amended,Tax Increment District No.6 is hereby established in and for
the City. The property included in Tax Increment District No.6 shall be the
property described in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District
No..6,adopted in Section 3 hereof.
Section 3. Adoption of Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
District No.6.
3.01. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No.6 is
hereby approved and adopted in the form on file and of record in the Office of the
Finance Director-Clerk.
Section 4. Implementation of Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment District No.6.
4.01. The officers of the City,the City's financial advisor and the City's legal
counsel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with implementa-
tion of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No.6 and for
this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its
consideration all further plans,resolutions,documents and contracts necessary for
this purpose.
Section 5. Certificate of Assessed Value.
5.01. The County Auditor of Hennepin County (the "Auditor") is hereby
requested to certify the original assessed value of all real property as described in
the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No.6,as of
January 2, 1982, and each year hereafter to certify the amount by which the
assessed value has increased or decreased from the assessed value of January 2,
1982. Each year the Auditor shall also add to the original assessed value of Tax
Increment District No.6 an amount equal to the original assessed value for the
preceding year multiplied by the average percentage increase in the assessed
valuation of all property included in Tax Increment District No.6 during the five
years prior to certification of Tax Increment District No.6,and also to certify the
proportion which any such increase or decrease bears to the total assessed value for
!'151
Page-3-
the real property in Tax Increment District No.6 for that year and to remit to the ,t
City of Eden Prairie each year, commencing in 19Ur and ending in 199 at
proportion of all taxes paid that year on real property in Tax Increment District
No.6 which the captured assessed value bears to the total current assessed value,
all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Section 273.76,Subd.I,as amended.
• Mayor
Finance Director-Clerk
•
•
•
1759
•
EXHIBIT"A"TO RESOLUTIONS 83-176
Reasons and Facts Supporting Findings for
Establishment of Proposed Tax Increment
District No. 6 and the Adoption of a Tax
Increment Financing Plan Relating
Thereto.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
The City Council adopted Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment
Financing Plan for an Economic Development District on September 22, 1981.
Thereafter, on March 30, 1982, the City Council adopted Amended Development
District No.1 Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans for the City of Eden I
1
Prairie, Minnesota. The latter included Tax Increment District No.1 and Tax
Increment District No.2. On November 16, 1982 the City Council adopted Tax
Increment Financing Plan For Tax Increment District No.3. On March 14,1983 the
City Council adopted Tax Increment Financing Plan For Tax Increment District
No.4, On May 17, 1983 the City Council adopted Modified Development District
No.1. The latter included Tax increment District Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No.5 was also adopted on
May 17, 1983. Adoption of the Development District No.1 and Tax Increment
Financing Plan for an Economic Development District on September 22, 1981, was
preceded by a hearing thereon held on September 15,1981. At the hearing extensive
evidence in the form of documents, memoranda, reports and oral testimony was
introduced, all of which is set forth in minutes of the meeting of the City Council
held on September 15, 1981. The evidence introduced and as described in the
minutes of September 15, 1981, is made a part of the record In these proceedings.
Also made a part of the record in these proceedings are: a) the notice of the
August 16, 1983 public hearing;b) minutes of meetings of the City Council held on
1160
Page-2-
September 22, 1981, March 30, 1982, November 16, 1982, March 15, 1983 and May 17,
'
•
1983; c)letter from Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce dated September 18,1981;
d) minutes of meetings of the City's Planning Commission on March 29, 1982 and
May 9,1983;e)memorandum dated August 15,1983 by Eugene A.Dietz,Director of
Public Works, addressed to the Mayor and City Council; f)a letter dated July 14,
1983, addressed to Mr. John Lobben, Chairman of the Board, Eden Prairie School
District No.272; g) a letter dated July 14,1983 addressed to Mr.Norm Friederichs,
Chairman of the Board,Joint Independent School District No.287;h)a letter dated
July 14,1983 addressed to Mr.John Derus,Chairman of the Hennepin County Board
• of Commissioners; i) and a memorandum dated August 15, 1983 by Carl J. Jullie,
City Manager;and j)a memorandum dated August 15,1983 by Bob Martz.
Summary of portions of the evidence contained in the record relevant to the
findings contained in Section 2 of Resolution No. 83-176 follows. The project for
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No.6 is described as the
"Development Program" in the Modified Development Program for Development
District No.I including Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Districts
Within Development District No.1 dated May 17, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as
"Modified Development Program"). The geographic area of the Project is described
in the Development Program. Tax Increment District No.6 consists of one parcel
legally described as Lot I,Block 1,Menard 3rd Addition.
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works for the City has provided a
memorandum demonstrating that the parcel in Tax Increment District No.6 is
situated within the geographical area of the Project.
In his memorandum dated July 7, 1981, Chris Enger, Director of Planning of
the City, stated that the concept of a Ring Road in the major center area was
adopted in the City's first Comprehensive Guide Plan in 1968 which was further
refined in 1973 as part of the major center area planned unit development. Mr.
• 1 ) I
Page-3-
Enger noted that regional office and commercial development has been stifled by
the lack of good regional access. He also stated that if congestion can be reduced
and access improved in the major center area, rapid growth will result in the
traditionally established pattern of development following roads. If access cannot
be improved, growth will stagnate as more accessible commercial areas retain a
competitive advantage over the City. In a letter dated September 18, 1981,Eden
Prairie Chamber of Commerce stated that it views the project as necessary to the
growth and development of the City in general and of the major center area in
particular. In a letter dated September 14, 1981, Ron Wesley, Center Manager for
Homart Development Co., stated that since the opening of highway improvements
in November, 1979, consisting of Highway 169/212 south exit ramp from 1-494
westward, traffic movements have steadily increased. Also during this period of
time the Eden Prairie Center's occupancy levels,that is the number of merchants,
have also increased. At the public hearing conducted by the City Council on •
September 15, 1981, on the matter of Development District No.1 and Economic
Development District and Tax Increment Financing Plan, Robert Boblett, a real
estate expert, testified that he does not believe Eden Prairie is experiencing the
degree of development which should be expected and that can be ascribed to
troublesome egress and ingress. He believes the Project ought to be of relief to the
bottlenecking of access to the major center area and that it will open up the area
to development. He believes it will result in substantial construction velocity,all
of which will amount to appreciation of the value of the land which will increase
taxes. He stated that the Project will result in the preservation and enhancement
of the tax base in Eden Prairie; that in connection with jobs the Plan would be to
the City's benefit; and that the Plan would discourage commerce, industry or
manufacturing from moving their operations to another state. He stated the plan is
an economic good for the City. Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works, In a
Page-4-
(
memorandum dated August 15, 1983, stated that the parcel of property located
within Tax Increment District No.6 is partially occupied by a building now under
construction. The partially constructed building is not structurally substandard and
does not require substantial renovation or clearance. The parcel is not in a
condition having unusual terrain or soil deficiencies requiring substantial filling,
grading or other physical preparation for use and at least 80 percent of the total
acreage of the parcel does not have a fair market value which when added to the
estimated cost of preparing that land for development,excluding costs relating to
roads and local improvements, exceeds its anticipated fair market value after
completion of the preparation. He also states that the parcel does not consist of
air rights over a public street or highway or of rail yards,rail storage facilities or
railroad right-of-ways. Carl 3utlie, City Manager, in a memorandum dated
August 15, 1983, stated that while improvements in the Project have been
contemplated at least since the early 1970s and efforts have been made to conduct
the improvements through the local Improvement special assessment to benefited
lands procedure or through other private investment alternatives, accomplishing
this objective has met with only limited success with respect to a small part of the
project. The building of roads, bridges, underpasses and other major highway
Improvements has not historically been within the capability of private investment
and there is no indication in the light of present economic conditions that private
investment could in the reasonably foreseeable future cause the Improvements in
the Project to be made.
At its meeting on August 24, 1981, the Planning Commission found that the
Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the development of
the municipality as a whole; at its meeting on March 29, 1982, the Planning
Commission in reviewing the Amended Development District No.1. Program and
11
Page-5-
Tax Increment Financing Plans dated March 30,1982,found that the Plan conforms
to the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole;and at its
meeting on May 9, 1983 the Planning Commission in reviewing the proposed
"Modified Development Program"found that it conforms to the general plan for the
development of the municipality as a whole.
A memorandum by City Assessor,Bob Martz,*dated July 7,1981,reflects the
valuation for general ad valorem taxes of real property within the major center
area has been reduced in the following amounts for the following owners during the
following periods:
Sears Roebuck&Co.
1977-1980
• $4,471,000.00
Homart Shopping Center
1978-1980
$7,979,400.00
Powers Department Store
1977 and 1978
$4,720,000.00
By memorandum dated August 15,1983 Martz updated the July 7,1981 memorandum.
The Sears Roebuck & Co. valuation was not reduced any further for the period
1978-1983. The Homart Shopping Center valuation experienced an increase of
$301,300.00 applicable to years 1981 and 1982 but was reduced $627,050.00 for 1983,
resulting in a net reduction for the period 1981-1983 of $24,450.00. Powers
Department Stores experienced a net reduction of $1,300,000.00 for the period
1979-1983. A report from Jack Hacking dated September 8, 1981, to Carl Jullie
setting forth accident information in the major center area indicates that during
the period 1975-1981 a total of 680 accidents occurred in the area resulting in 274
injuries and 7 fatalities.
Based upon the evidence and the record the Council sets forth its further
specific reasons and facts supporting its findings as follows:
Page-6-
The Tax Increment Financing District No.6 contained in the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No.6 consists of one parcel legally
described as Lot I, Block 1, Menard 3rd Addition. (Tax Increment District No.6
hereinafter referred to as the "District"; Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment District No.6 hereinafter referred to as'the "Plan"; and the property
located within the District and identified above hereinafter referred to as the
"Parcel".)
II.
The Project described in the Plan is that set forth in Section I,Development
Program, In the Modified Development Program,dated May 17,1983 referred to in
the Plans. The project consists of public Improvements Including roads, grading,
curb and gutter, stcrm drainage, utilities, sidewalks, bituminous surfacing, traffic
signals, underpass and ramps, all as more fully described in the Development •
Program (the "Project"). The geographic area of the Project is described in the
Modified Development Program at pages I-A-I through I-A-4, the boundaries of
which are further delineated on a map at page I-B-1. The Parcel is wholly
contained within the geographic area of the Project.
III.
Construction of the Project will reduce traffic congestion and provide better
access to lands within the Project geographic area which will result in the
development of such lands, the construction of buildings thereon,the increase of
business and commerce and the increase in jobs as a result thereof,all of which will
contribute to economic growth and development in the City.
IV.
The District is, therefore, a tax increment financing district as defined by
Minnesota Statutes,Section 273.73,Subd.9.
Page-7-
.
V. *_
The Project, being one for the improvement of roads within its geographic
area, is not intended for occupancy by persons or families of low and moderate
income as defined in those acts and laws referred to in Minnesota Statutes Section
273.73,Subd.11,and is not a housing district as defined therein.
VI.
In the District there is one partially constructed building. The partially
constructed building is not structurally substandard and does not require renovation
or clearance.
VII.
The Parcel is not in a condition having unusual terrain or soil deficiencies
requiring substantial filling,grading or other physical preparation for use and least
80 percent of the Parcel does not have a fair market value which,when added to
the estimated cost of preparing the Parcel for•development excluding costs related
to roads and local improvements,if any,exceed their anticipated fair market value
after completion of such preparation.
VIII.
The Parcel does not consist of air rights over a public street, highway or
right-of-way.
IX.
The Parcel does not consist of used rail yards, rail storage facilities or
excessive or vacated railroad right-of-ways.
X.
The District is not a redevelopment district as defined in Minnesota Statutes
Section 273.73,Subd.10.
Page-8-
XI.
The Project,which will be financed in part from the tax increments from the
District, will (a) discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving
their operations to another state; (b)result in increased employment in the City;
and (c) result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City and is
therefore in the public interest.
XII.
The District is an economic development district within the meaning of
Minnesota Statutes Section 273.73,Subd.12.
XIII.
The Improvements in the Project have been contemplated since the early
1970s. While efforts were made to construct the improvements through the local
Improvements special assessment to benefited lands procedure or through other
private investment alternatives,doing so has met with only limited success as to a
small part of the Project. Furthermore,the building of roads,bridges,underpasses
and other major highway improvements has not historically been within the
capability of private investment. There is no indication in the light of present
economic conditions that private investment could in the reasonably foreseeable
future cause the improvements in the Project to be made. For these reasons the
use of tax increment financing for construction of the Project is deemed necessary.
. XIV.
The Project and the improvements within its geographic area have been
reviewed by the City's Planning Commission prior to the adoption of the Modified
Development Program and were found to conform to the City's general plan for its
development as a whole.
IciG1
Page-9-
XV.
The construction of the Project will reduce congestion and enhance access to
private lands within the Project's geographic area and will thereby encourage and
afford development of the lands within the Project's geographic area by private
enterprise.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager, Carl J. Julli
FROM: City Assessor, Bob Martz T
SUBJECT: Valuation for Homart Shopping Center, Sears Roebuck
& Company, Powers Department Store
DATE: August 15, 1983
The following updates my memorandum of July 7, 1981 regarding
valuation reductions for the above-referenced properties.
Sears Roebuck & Company experienced no further reduction
in valuation for years 1981,. 1982 and 1983. The Homart Shopping
Center experienced an increase in valuation of $301,300 applica- _
ble to tax years 1981 and 1982 but experienced a reduction of
$627,050 for 1983. This resulted in a net reduction for the
period 1981 through 1983 of $24,450. Powers Department Store
experienced an overall reduction for the period 1979 through
1963 of $1,300,000.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Carl Jullie,City Manager
FROM: Eugene A.Dietz,Director of Public-Works
DATE: August 15,1983
RE: Tax Increment District No.6
1, or persons on my staff, have inspected the parcels of property located
within Tax Increment District No.6,legally described as Lot 1,Block!,Menard 3rd
Addition(hereinafter"the parcel"). The inspections disclose the following:
1. In the District there is one partially constructed building. The partially
j constructed building is not structurally substandard and does not require substantial
renovation or clearance.
2. The parcel Is not in a condition having unusual terrain or soil
deficiencies requiring substantial filling, grading or other physical preparation for
use. At least 80 percent of the total acreage of the parcel does not have a fair
market value which, when added to the estimated cost of preparing that land for
'development excluding costs related to roads and local improvements, if any,
exceeds its anticipated fair market value after completion of such preparation.
3. The parcel does not consist of air rights over a public street,highway or
right-of-way.
4. The parcel does not consist of used rail yards, rail storage facilities or
excessive or vacated railroad right-of-ways.
1710
is
Page-2-
( 3. The parcels of property located within Tax Increment District No.6
- legally described as Lot I, Block 1, Menard 3rd Addition is by definition a
continguous geographic area. The Parcel is situated within the project described in
Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increments Districts Within Development
District No.1 which is by reference the Development Program described in
Modified Development Program for Development District No.I. Attached hereto
as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the boundary map of Modified Development Program for
Development District No.I on which is shown the location of the parcel.
Eugene ietz i
Director of Public Works
1111
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Carl Jullie,City Manager
DATE: August 15,1983
RE: Tax Increment District No.6
• Improvements in the Project area have been contemplated at least since the
early 1970s and efforts have been made to construct the improvements through
local improvement special assessments to benefited lands procedure or through
other private investment alternatives. Accomplishing this objective has met with
only limited success with respect to a small part of the project. The building of
roads, bridges, underpasses and other major highway Improvements has not
historically been within the capability of private Investment and there is no
Indication in the light of present economic conditions that private investment
could,in the reasonably foreseeable future,cause the improvements in the Project
to be made.
2 3.Jullie
y Manager
---
-
- -----: ,i
'• • -: - pi--
, . ..,
i• („14.,,\y% -4i1.41 -- .• . 1
-4--1-, •:—; -.&-:,.. -, -"L'''''''''''''-r--"" .--'.---Pe" ...' li -
1'• 2 - ' • "4 • , .4 .,
---(1. .„1.,., . • 4 l 1 - /-
Z/•! / : . 1
'-.'&-.7---1 ( ' ' . / \ • `.1 % \•-:
,..,•
1 ?
i . I •
1! , T.• - 1 :.
.• I' li----. ,i
r . ;-.
c.
• bi .:y
.•s, :•
..-
-' ---,-"----_,_ _
• pow VA If,-.: : -,,,
:.•,#,Z ..rstrigaik
I I 14k
ib
. '/,' -/ ../ i, ....N,
.
' • ,_..
'11------_
•P--...-:•••\ :
•\''''......,....-,', ' 4. :
/r--'/)14:.,4—_ >J.\'1'/i IC) ,r• /;
,• Nlr.."11--
--.--.1 - ,'<.' • • .
'
,::',',/ ‘,t•,, ' ;
racial
---- il .„;,„i•Liig:iii::::•:.. ',,/ ;it
- -- NI •-----.....y.,0, ... ,, -,
-.•••"le;•
— ---,--7A• t",,,,,,,,
' C -- WAY,4, 1.2.0 , V '••_. . _ ' ;........A : . :-----<' . "-'' ' ' ir e'--
4 A44 - 1‘61 1 "V• ''''. '..... ... , Ellis 1 ,' „ •,. , I, \ II •. • . 4....):
lilt
• 1 ‘1 1 44V444 • — .._i_a.
• .
1 • ,
il r°11*11:S.L;',;,1*
.
:-.-. r,„ .L..,:....
(-,,t,:.',14,
I
. -1 Lii•-p 1
I -
i
111 IT
\i... ./ ---/ ;
,
2 0) I ,."' . 1-i
1-L4 4.-=_-=:_-.-
-r-4-•
1 - -1---T--0 1-71— 1 \------- ...• =a,v\ ,: Z p .....-
'.f•4)
,,,•! , ,,, I,i'1",i 11 , ,
. .,;-,
,, 1 ,i,,..-. ......., f-411 .: /I-- ,., r• 7.will i -/: ':.,.,'/N> ".Z.:•;Tv.2 ---
''''' '' }.:- 's,\‘., ' '' 4./ •
4' A-ts
i.1.`,',.•,,, I
f A r
..._...._.4.-__.....,....1, .• •
•-\ - --lk ,-----.1c.v.....
•
AIM UST 16.1983
lc) VOID OUT CHECK 655.00-
B585 VOID OUT CHECK 12395.52-
B651 VOID OUT CHECK 107.00-
9019 SAILORS WORLD -3 SAILBOATS PURCHASED THRU DONATIONS-PARK 2515.00
DEPT
9020 PREMIER RENT-A-CAR CAR RENTAL-TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 465.33
9021 BEAVER MOUNTAIN-WATER SLIDE EXPENSES-TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 210..00
9022 WENDY BURNS CARLSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR-FEES PAID 146.30
9023 LINDA SNOW REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 15.00
9024 MARY ANDERSON REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES 9.00
9025 0 & P CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-MITCHELL LAKE ESTATES 2ND ADDN 12395.52
9026 LABELLES EQUIPMENT-RECREATION DEPT • 53.66
9027 LIGHTNING TRUCKING FREIGHT CHARGES-LIQUOR STORES 178.80
9026 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 3100.74
9029 PAUSTIS & SONS • WINE 51.50
9030 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 1154.51
9031 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 568.37
9032 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 3289.79
9033 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR • 1751.59
9034 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO WINE 839.09
9035 OLD PEORIA COMPANY INC LIQUOR 1512.05
9036 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERY 65.00
9037 NORWEST BANK OF HOPKINS PAYROLL • 655.00
o^1B BRAUER & ASSOCIATES CONCEPT PLAN FOR PURGATORY CREEK AREA 1000.00
l ) JOHN TIETZ & ASSOC INC CONCEPT PLAN FOR PURGATORY CREEK AREA 1000.00
904D SAUNDERS-THALDEN & ASSOC CONCEPT PLAN FOR PURGATORY CREEK AREA 1000.00
9041 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTERPRISES INC AUGUST RENT-LIQUOR STORE 3463.75
9042 NORMANDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE CDNFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT 35.00
9043 STATE OF MINNESOTA BIKE REGISTRATIONS-POLICE DEPT 36.00
9044 LISA STUCKI REFUND-DAY CAMP 17.00
9045 SHOW BIZ PIZZA EXPENSES-TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 1D2.99
9046 NORTHCO LTD AUGUST RENT-LIQUOR STORE 2710.89
9047 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 4417.81
904E TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 426.93
9049 OLD PEORIA COMPANY INC LIQUOR 1886.02
9050 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR 1D09.03
9051 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 3074.14
9052 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING WINE. 1076.99
9053 EAGLE WINE CO WINE • 79.04
9054 SANDY CAINE REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 18.00
9055 MARJORIE CALLAHAN REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 18.00
9056 SHEILA HELLER REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 18.00
9057 DOUG HORGEN REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES I 36.00
9058 TRAVIS KUSKE REFUND-DAY CAMP • 17.00
9059 MARY LEBENS REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 11.17
9060 RUTH MCCUBREY REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 18.00
9061 S TADAVARTHY REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 11.00
9062 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 5033.66
,' .,3 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO INC BEER 163.50
,4 CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 6041.71
9065 COCA-COLA BOTTLING MIDWEST INC MIXES 765.20
9066 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 5303.69
9067 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO 8EER 10231.4? `.
9068 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 174.45
9069 A J OGLE CO INC BEER 1020.95 j
BEER 668.15
9070 PEPSI-COIN BOTTLING CO � 272.95
' ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO MIXES ' ' o /"r ti 12646.50
AHTOPE DISTRIBUTING BEQUIPMENT RENTAL-HIDDEN OAKS '�• 7.00
9073 Z RENTALCSNINC FORMS-COMMUNITY CENTER/COMMUNITY SERVICES 460.00
9074 ACCUEASE SYSTEMSS INC POSTAGE-WATER & SEWER BILLS 266.50
9076 HOPKINS RESERVEESERVETR PAYROLL 8/5/B3 162B7.07
9076 FEDERAL BANK 0 1.8
9077 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 8/5/83 922281.5
0
9078 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 8/5/83 71.50
9079 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 8/5/83 108.00
9080 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY PAYROLL 8/5/83 2917.00
9081 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 8/5/83' 14427.03
9082 PERA PAYROLL 8/5/83 551.00UGUST DUES
9083 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING AUGIST SUPPLIES
9084 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC REFUND-SKATINGE 506.886.88
9085 DEMIAN AFFELDT490.30
9086 ALL STEEL PRODUCTS CO INC STEEL-PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING 90.30
9087 RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING CO INC MUZZLE-CANINE UNIT 00
9088 AMERICAN SELL PHONES-P/S BUILDING • 1548.
.05
9089 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO MOPS/DUSTERS-LIQUOR STORE 149.72
9090 AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 343.54
9091 AMERICAN STEEL & INDUSTRIAL SUPPL STEEL-PARK MAINTENANCE 265.83
9092 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC PARKSREGILATION NNSIGNS
GNUNTEER PROGRAM 265.83
9093 ARA TRANSPORTATION 7866.6250
9094 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP 83.42
9095 ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO INC REGULATOR-STREET DEPT 16 BECKY AXELSON MILEAGE-KIDS KORNER 11,2
4
,97 LINDA BAST REFUND-PRE-NATAL CLASSES ' 31 11.25.00
0
9098 BEACH BARBERS INC 'WEED CONTROL-RILEY LAKE BEACH
9099 THOMAS G 8LAZINA MILEAGE-BUILDING DEPT 11.001100
9100 SAM BLOOM IRON & METAL CO INC IRON FOR WELDING TABLE-STREET DEPT
9101 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON JUNE IMPOUND SERVICE 290.00ATER DEPT29 .00
9103 BOYERIFORDN RUCKSMITH COMPANY NSTALL DOOR_CYLINDER/CARBURATORWKIT/WHEEL HUB/BRAKE 748.06
9103 BOYER FORD TRUCKS SHOES
9104 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING _SERVICE-MITCHELLIROAD DA& TECHNOLOGY Y DRIVE/ 5444.85
• -PARKWAY/CARDINAL CREEK III/VALLEY VIEW
• -ROAD & PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE/HDMEWARD
HILLS ROAD 9105 BROWN PHOTO FILM-POLICE & FIRE DEPT 2425 25.1C
.1 0
9106 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC CRUSHED ROCK 432.0C
9107 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC INSTALL SHELVING-P/S BUILDING
670
9108 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC 2 CHAIRS-P/S 8LDG/5 CHAIRS-WATER DEPT 518.3`
9109 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 33.3'
9110 CAPITOL ELECTONICS INC PANEL-P/S BUILDING
9111 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER . _-6 OILNFILTER/2AKE LOADOLER/DISC EVELERS/FLOORBEARINGSCLEANER 2375.5
' -BATTERIES FOR TRAFFIC COUNTERS/BRAKE
-SHOES/WHEEL CYLINDERS/POWER STEERING
-FLUID/BRAKE FLUID/EXHAUST PARTS/BATTERIES
-FOR SQUAD CARS/2 TOOL CHESTS/COMPRESSOR •
CLUTCH/SPARK PLUGS/GAS FILTERS 315.U'!
9112 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY LEGAL ADS
B218172
I1nS 6
•
9113 CHEMSCAPE LAWN APPLICATIONS-P/S BUILDING & FIRE DEPT 138.00
9114 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SERVICE INC BRAKE DRUMS TURNED & SHOES RELINED 197.07
(( COMPUTER ELECTION SYSTEMS INC WARRANTY AGREEMEN,T.FOR ELECTION EQUIPMENT 306.00
9.,.6 CONCRETE LIFTING INC SERVICE 658.50
9117 CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC PRY BAR AND RESCUE TOOLS-FIRE DEPT 260.00
9118 COPY EQUIPMENT INC BLU-RAY -ENGINEERDINGT AIR 49.40
DEPT
9119 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO -DETENTION CENTER SIGNS-P/S BUILDING 216.47
NOTARY STAMP-FINANCE DEPT
9120 CAROLYN CUMMINGS MILEAGE-KIDS KORNER 11.25
9121 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 8868.88
9122 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER & POLICE DEPT . 486.45
9123 MICHAEL G DENT REFUND-DUES 42.75
9124 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RELOCATE POLICE CRT 43.50
9125 EUGENE DIETZ JULY EXPENSES 165.00
9126 DIVISION OF BOILER INSPECTION PRESSURE VESSEL INSPECTION FEES 550.00
00
9127 LARRY DOIG LICENSE FEE-STREET DEPT
912E DORHOLT PRINTING & STATIONERY INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 301.34
9129 DOYLE LOCK CO KEYS-P/W BUILDING 22.79
9130 EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC PROJECTOR FILM REEL-WATER DEPT 14.80
9131 JOY EASTMAN MILEAGE 28.93
9132 TOM EASTMAN SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 4.56
9133 MIKES EDEN PRAIRIE FLORAL FLOWERS-COMMUNITY SERVICES 158.5025.00
9134 EDEN PRAIRIE TRANSTRONICS JULY TRASH PICKUP
9135 CITY OF EDINA JULY TESTS-WATER DEPT 62.50
9136 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC -JACKET/PANTS/HIP BOOTS-PARK MAINTENANCE 145.05
0117 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEMS INC RADIO REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT 49.50
f 8 EMPIRE-CROWN/AUTO INC -HEADLIGHTS/FUSES/BULBS FOR SQUAD CARS 161.29
POLICE DEPT
9139 DOUG EPSTEIN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 156.00
9140 SUSIE ERICKSON REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 36.00
9141 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC SULFATE-WATER DEPT 3502.00
9142 LAUREN FLEGAL REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 16.00
9143 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC RAIN GAUGE-ENGINEERING DEPT • 25.29
9144 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY AUDIT 12203.26
9145 JOHN FRANE JULY EXPENSES 170.90
9146 ANN FREEMAN REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 19.00
9147 THELMA MORDOS FRICKE REFUND-PRE-NATAL CLASSES 11.00
9148 G & K SERVICES JACKETS/TDWELS if, 1688.5462.20
9149 G L CONTRAACTING INC SERVICE-WOODHILL TRAIL210.48
9150 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADID REPAIR-POLICE DEPT29.73
9151 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES
9152 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP • REPAIR FIRE PUMPERS-FIRE DEPT 74.96
9153 GLEN LAKE BAKERY INC EXPENSES-HIGHWAY 212 MEETING 14.10
9154 DALE GREEN CO SOD 23.20
9155 JIM GUTHLER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID • 12.00
9156 JACK HACKING EXPENSES 74.50
9157 HAYDEN-MURPHY EQUIPMENT CO HITCH-FORESTRY DEPT 60.00
9158 HEEBINK LUMBER & MILLWORK INC FORMICA COUNTER TOP-P/S BUILDING 148.40
9159 HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF PRISONERS 129.50
9160 SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT-HENN CTY REPLACE BATTERY-POLICE DEPT 26.00
"61 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OXYGEN-PARK MAINTENANCE 9.01
52 HOFFERS INC CRASH BARS TO ENTER WINDOWS-POLICE DEPT 203.00
3138760
119 6
9163 HYDROTEX GREASE-STREET OEPT 921.98
9164 IMPRESS COMPANIES BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE OEPT 412.46
145 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #272 -JULY CUSTODIAL SERVICE/BUS SERVICE- 1375.43
COMMUNITY SERVICE
9166 INTERDESIGN E.D.C. GRANT APPLICATION WORK 120.00
9167 IRON MOUNTAIN FORGE CO PARK BENCH FRAMES-PARK MAINTENANCE 860.35
9168 J & R RADIATOR CORP RADIATOR-STREET DEPT 115.75
9169 TRACY JACQUES FALL BROCHURE COVER DESIGN 30.00
9170 0 J JANSKI & ASSOCIATES INC APPRAISAL REPORT-HIDDEN GLEN 475.00
9171 JIMMY JINGLE COFFEE/PUNCH FOR OPEN HOUSE 130.00
9172 DARNELL J JOHNSON REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 12.00
9173 CARL JULLIE EXPENSES 69.50
9174 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY LUMBER-POLICE DEPT 90.53
9175 JASON KAPSNER REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 12.00
9176 KARULF HARDWARE INC -GLOVES/PADLOCKS/BATTERIES/TAPE/SPONGES/ 1455.71
-CUTTING BOARD/HAMMER/CHAIN/BULBS/ANT
-TRAPS/DOG BRUSH/TOWELS/HOOKS/CLEANER/
-SCREWS/SWITCH/CAR WAX/KEYS/PAINT THINNER/
-CONCRETE/DRILL BITS/SCRAPER/ENAMEL PAINT/
-CLOCK/GREASE GUN/BROOMS/PLIERS/
-SCREWDRIVERS/FITTINGS/MICRO-WAVE OVEN
FOR PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING
9177 ALLYSDN KEARNS REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 16.00
9178 PATRICK KEARNS REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 16.00
9179 TOM KEEFE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 180.00
9180 KELLY SERVICES INC TEMPORARY HELP-POLICE DEPT 183.38
9181 KOHLER MIX SPECIALTIES CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-ROUNO LAKE PARK 299.20
''''2 KOKESH ATHLETIC & GOLF SUPPLY SOFTBALL PLATES-PARK DEPT 98.97
3 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER TAPE/HOIST/VALVES/SHADES/DRILL BIT 201.44
9184 KROY INDUSTRIES INC OFFICE SIGNS-P/S BUILDING 347.88
9185 J KRIS KRYSTOFIAK MILEAGE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM 6.00
9186 LAKE STATE EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT REPAIR-STREET DEPT 104.42
9187 BOB LAMBERT AUGUST EXPENSES 165.00
9188 M E LANE INC INSURANCE 110904.00
9189 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD APRIL LEGAL SERVICES 11279.70
9190 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD LEGAL SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 563.75
9191 LEEF BROTHERS INC DUSTMOPS/RUGS/CDVERALLS 431.34
9192 LIEBERMAN ENTERPRISES INC ALBUMS-COMMUNITY CENTER 33.00
9193 LOWELLS AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALISTS • TOOLS-PM BUILOING 510.40
9194 LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY LUMBER-STREET DEPT 33.60
9195 DEBBIE LYNGDAL SUPPLIES-SUMMER PROGRAMS 9.19
9196 SHAWN MCNEILL HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 24.00
9197 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIPMENT CO INC OXYGEN-FIRE OEPT 102.24
9198 ROBERT MELLER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAIO 24.00
9199 METRO ALARM INC ALARM SYSTEM-P/W BUILDING 509.08
9200 METRO FONE COMMUNICATIONS INC AUGUST PAGERS RENTAL 89.52
9201 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIPMENT CO CHEMICALS-FIRE DEPT 127.10
9202 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL SEWER ACCESS PAYMENT 81620.00
9203 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION BLACKTOP 290.52
9204 MINNEAPOLIS AREA CHAPTER FILM RENTAL-COMMUNITY CENTER • 31.00
9205 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 58.90
9?06 MINNESOTA FIRE INC STRAPS FOR BREATHING TANKS-FIRE OEPT 71.56
' 17 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY SERVICE 43.39
__08 MINNESDTA TORO INC AXLE-PARK MAINTENANCE 7.52
21446281
ii'f
9209 MINNESOTA TREE INC SHRUBS-WATER DEPT • 78.00
XMOLLY MINTON REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 26.00
5� _ MODERN TIRE CO HEADLIGHT ALIGNMENT-POLICE DEPT. 9.00
9212 MOTOROLA INC RADIO EQUIPMENT-POLICE DEPT 732.00
9213 NORTHERN STATES POWER SERVICE
7007
9214 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1407006.4 6
9215 NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS N A BOND PAYMENT 9. 7
9216 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE SERVICE4333.082
9217 NORTHWESTERN NATL BANK OF MPLS SERVICE 6 60.00. 0
9216 CHARLES PAPPAS JULY MILEAGE 65.00
9219 PARK AUTO UPHOLSTERY REPAIR SQUAD CAR SEAT
9220 PETER J PATCHIN & ASSOCIATES INC APPRAISAL SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE ' 1190.00
9221 PATCO COMPANY TRAFFIC CONES-WATER DEPT 119.25
9222 DANA PEARSON SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 18.00
9223 W G PEARSON INC SAND-PARK MAINTENANCE 135.76
9224 PENNSYLVANIA OIL COMPANY OIL-STREET DEPT 1374.00
9225 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO -CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY 635.50
CENTER AND ROUND LAKE PARK 10.22
9226 PHOTO QUICK PRINTS-SUMMER FUND 10.22
9227 CONNIE L PETERS JULY MILEAGE
9228 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -REPAIR CIRCULATING PUMPS/REPAIR ICE RINK 347.50
LIGHTS-COMMUNITY CENTER j
9229 PREMIER RENT-A-CAR CAR RENTAL-TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 465.33
9230 THE PRESERVE FIRE HYDRANT-WATER DEPT 250.00 i
9231 R & R SPECIALTIES INC SHARPEN ZAMBONI BLADES-COMMUNITY CENTER 94.45
9232 RADIO SHACK SPEAKER-POLICE DEPT 14.95
1 DAVID RAQUET EXTRACTOR SET-STREET DEPT 35.75
�w4 ANDREA REUTER REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 16.00
9235 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOCIATES I -SERVICE-WESTWOOD IND PARK/AUTUMN WOODS/ 51441.94
-CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION/LAVONNE IND
-PARK/VALLEY VIEW ROAD/PRAIRIE CENTER DR/
-MEADOW PARK/HOMEWARD HILLS ROAD/ARBON
-GLEN/RYMARLAND CAMP 3RD ADDITION/MITCHELL
•
ROAD/COUNTY ROAD 67
9236 ROAD RESCUE INC FIRST AID SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 409.78349.78
9237 ROGERS WELL DRILLING WELL-STARING LAKE PARK 62.50
9236 ROOT-O-MATIC SEWER SERVICE SERVICE-CARNELIAN LANE 62.50
9239 SPS COMPANIES INC COPPER FLANGES-STREET DEPT 15.25
9240 JULIE SAGER JULY MILEAGE 48.00
9241 SAILOR NEWSPAPERS EMPLOYMENT AD-COMMUNITY CENTER 2151.83
9242 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RESTROOMS-PARK DEPT
9243 SAY ELECTRIC INCORPORATED FOR IREEDOOROCONTROL/WIREOING ADD RECEPTACLES 1142.46
9244 SCHMIDT READY-MIX INC CONCRETE STREET 162.94
9245 LARRY SCHOCH SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 166.00
9246 NATHANIEL SCHROEDL REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 21.00
9247 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO -SHOCWATERKS DEPT/CALERS-POLICE LCULATOR-ENGINEERINGI 773.05NETS-
DEPT
9246 MADELINE L SHULTZ LAND 40000.00
9249 SUSAN SMITH MILEAGE-KIDS KORNER 6.00
0950 W GORDON SMITH CO -SPARK PLUGS/FUEL/MUFFLER/EXHAUST PIPE/ 4460.14
-GREASE/GAS FILTER/FUEL PUMP/CYLINDER ASSY
-COIL/SHOCK ABSORBERS/BRAKE PARTS/ANTI-
FREEZE/HYDRAULIC FLUID
•
152428897 •
111 G 1
9zr. SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING INC iMPLOYMENT AD-COMMUNITY CENTER 45.00
234.00
92s CRAIG STANTON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
9253 STATE TREASURER 2ND QUARTER BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGE 14
67.90
9254 DON STREICHER GUNS INC DWI TEST KITS/AMMUNITION-PDLICE DEPT 716.806.80
PUMP TANK-RESEARCH ROAD 450.00
9255 SULLIVANSSUNDERLAND SERVICES INC REPAIR CONCESSION STAND EQUIP-ROUND LAKE
9257 WEAINTERNATIONAL INCI _MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR CASH REGISTERS- 195.00
9257 SWEDA INC COMMUNITY CENTER .9 11D
9258 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC KROY TAPE-PARK PLANNING AND POLICE DEPT 1 136
1.9
9259 CARRIE TIETZ MINUTES-PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION MTG 166.20
9260 TOMAHAWK LIVE TRAP CO 3 ANIMAL TRAPS-ANIMAL CONTROL 66. 0
FREIGHT CHARGES-WATER DEPT 66.77
9261 TRANSPORT CLEARINGSA SUPPLIES-DAY CAMP 14.387
92628
TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS TOOLS-PARK MAINTENANCE 323.40
9263 UZ ENGINEERED ROESCTS CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 23. 0
92645 UNITED LABORATORIESE INC SHOVELS/FIRE GRATE-DAY CAMP 121.97
9266 UNITED INDUSTRIALDU B.38
9266 VALLEY PROPANE INC FREIGHTICHARGES UNITY CENTER 24.00
926700
CRAIG
INCORPORATED SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID B766.632
926B VIKIN VICK
9269 VIKING BUSINESS INTERIORS INC SHELVES-P/W BUILDING
9270 VIKING LABORATORIES INCORPORATED SODA ASH/BICARBONATE OF SODA.-COMMUNITY-COMMUNITY CTR 445.45
9271 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIGHT BULBS-P/S BUILDING 9272 LAURIE WADE REFUND- 16.40
SKATING CLASSES 16
9273 WARMINGTON WOODCOCK & WILLIAMS IN SOUND 4 5SYSTEM
/8 EMEFOR
2O0OPEN
NOHOHOUSE
.00
SHORN/lODO FT 13081.04
9274 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY REMOTE WIRE-WATER DEPT 31.55
5 WATERITE INC VALVE-COMMUNITY CENTER 9276 PAUL WEIGENANT $OFTBALL:OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 31.55 9277 NICOLE WELTER REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 2.00
927E SANDY WERTS EXPENSES 20.471g2 . 7
9279 BENNETT RINGROSE WOLSFELD JARVIS SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 8B77
92B0 WARD DAHLBERG AUGUST EXPENSES 80.00
.00
9281 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS JULY TRASH PICKUP 4395.00
9282 LOGIS JULY CHARGES 14318.25
9283 ARKAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FINAL PAYMENT-P/S & P/W BUILDINGS 62140.037
00
9284 BARBAROSSA & SONS SERVICE-CITY WEST PARKWAY 193206.56
92B5 FICHE STATE BANK OF SPRING LAKE,P SERVICE-EDENVASERVICE-VALLEYE D ROAD/PRAIRIE CENTER DR 1728370.47
9286 IDWEST PAVN INC 57451.83
928700
MIDWESTNNK PAVING & RECYCLINGICSERVICE-CARDINAL ADDITION
92BB NORTHDALE EXCAVATINGO ONC SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE SW & W 78TH 44706.6217247
9289 CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-LAVONNE INDUSTRIAL PARK 76.62
9290 0O& P CONTRACTINGE CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-AUTUMN WOODS ADDITION 66776.82
9291 & P INC SERVICE-MITCHELL LAKE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION 2366.59
9292 0 & P CONTRACTING SERVICE-KILMER AVE & ATHERTON WAY 32562.0
9293 0 ORFEI P &CONTRACTING SERVICE-LORENCE 1ST & 2ND ADDITIONS 237495.4
92945 O & SONS295557.171
9295 PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS INC SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER&DRIVEHELL ROAD1593.9'
9296 SHAPER CONTRACTING CO INC SERVICE •
166.9
9297 XEROX CORPORATION FIRST AID CABINET-PARK MAINTENANCE 30.9:'
9299 ZEE AGENCYGL SERVICE NOTARY FEES-POLICE DEPT 130. :
930000 GLADWINIV EXPENSES-TEEN WORK PROGRAM
RIVER EDGE 25.0
9301 NANCY ASTERLING REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES 25.
9302 MARY ENDORF REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES
134101251
REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES 25.0D
93D3 SUSAN GLUCK REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES 25.00
94 GINGER HAHN 25.00
WENDY PRICE REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES 7.00
93U6 BEBE ST JAMES REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES 6006.91
93D7 CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 1020.95
9308 A J OGLE CO INC 272.95
93D9 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO 604.1.71-
9064 VOID OUT CHECK 1020.95-
9069 VOID OUT CHECK 272..95-
9D71 VOID OUT CHECK
4720 . S3259417.08
•
•
•
•
1110
i
I
August 16, 1983
10 GENERAL 287,022.68
12 CERTIFICATE DEBT FUND 27,641.50
15 LIQUOR STORE P V M 45,766.84
17 LIQUOR STORE PRESERVE 28,080.01
31 PARK ACQUIST1DN AND DEVELOPMENT • 10,357.18
33 UTILITY BOND FUND 4,941.22
36 P/S & P/W 8UILD1NG 80ND 27,624.66
44 UTILITY DE8T FUND 90,056.50
45 UTILITY DE8T FUND AR8 35,445.00
48 82 G 0 DE8T FUND-P/S & P/W 8UILDING 162,243.25
51 IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION 432,283.31
55 IMPROVEMENT DE8T FUND AR8 61,283.00
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION FUND 225,727.32
73 WATER FUND 31,246.94
77 SEWER FUND 46,704.8g
81 ESCROW & TRUST FUND 2,577.50
90 TAX INCREMENT 679,250.28
91 TAX INCREMENT DE8T FUND 1,061,165.00
TOTAL. $3,259,417.08
•
•
►rid1
RESOLUTION NO. 83-192
RESOLUTION CHARGING THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
TO PREPARE A PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie desires to achieve the Minnesota Star Cities
designation; and
WHEREAS, one of the initial requirements for such designation is that the City
Council establish an organization which will be charged, by resolution, with
designing and implementing an Economic Development Program for the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has created a Development Commission per Section 2.12 of
the City Code, whose express purposes include the direction to recommend to the
City Council policies and particular actions with respect to industrial, office,
and commercial attractions, development and expansion.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the
Development Commission is herein charged with designing and implementing an
Economic Development Program for the City, subject to Council review and approval;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Development Commission and the Eden Prairie
Chamber of Commerce work jointly as necessary and appropriate to achieve and
maintain the Minnesota Star Cities designation for the City of Eden Prairie.
AOOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this , day of
1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
•
Join D. Frane, City Clerk
1171
( UNAPPROVED •
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES
FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1983 7:30 AM, SUBURBAN NATIONAL
BANK BOARD ROOM
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Tim Pierce, Robert Hanson, Glenn
Keitel, Donald Opheim and Roy Terwilliger
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Kent Barker and Bill Behrenbrinker
COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Finance Director John Frane
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved by consensus.
II. MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING HELD FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1983
MOTION: Keitel moved, seconded by Hanson, to approve the minutes of the
July B, 1983, Development Commission meeting, as published. Motion carried
unanimously.
III. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
A. Establish schedule for completing elements of Minnesota Star Cities
designation
Pat Pelstring, Economic Development Coordinator for the City of
Coon Rapids, reviewed with the Commission Coon Rapids' policies and
procedures relating to development. He indicated they use 503,
T.I.F., and IDR financing either singularly or in combination in
order to fit the needs of the proponent. They favor owner occupied
projects. He indicated that it took them a year to get their Star
Cities "act" together.
Marge Friederichs presented the slide show from the Eden Prairie
Commerce & Industry Day.
A steering committee comprised of Carl Jullie, Al Lyng, Glen Keitel,
Tim Pierce and Marge Freiderichs was appointed to work on the Star
Cities checklist. A meeting was set for August 18t,, to begin work.
B. Draft Resolution for an Economic Development Program
The draft Resolution for an Economic Development Program for the City
was approved. Glenn Keitel indicated he would be available at the
August should bet ready to1u eethegtoolhseofommission a Developmentcated that tCorporati nI,e City
503
Program, T.I.F., and IDR's.
l
C. Report of Property Tax Comparisons - Don Opheim
Don Opheim indicated that his report was not completed and would be
presented at a future meeting.
1113
Development Commission Minutes - 2 - Fri.,August 5, 1983
D. Review draft of R.F.P. for industrial revenue bond reserve
system
The draft of the R.F.P. for a Reserve System for IDR Bonds was
approved.
IV. COMMERCIAL PERMITS, JUNE, 1983
The Commission received the Commercial Permits for June, 1983.
V. NEW BUSINESS
No "New Business"
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no "New Business", the meeting adjourned at 9:15 AM.
•
•
•
111u
RITE V.O0MINICI.N.MIX.CHAIRMAN
WILIMM l MMSYRONG.COON LAWTON CHAIR.RCA
NANNY LANOON NASSIIAMM.RANI. ERNEST R.PSALIIIG&R.C.
AMOY SOSCHWITL 1MNN. JOSIRH R RICAN,JR.OIL
ORNN G HATCH,UTM J.I/NNITT JOHNSTON.LA JIM TENN
JOHN TOWER T[N W SI
MAAAHWT WC 1I COLD
United A tate� {lt/J��R)A
�a}e
PLUSH 0 STAINS ONO NOWA00 UM dIb
( DONALO W RIIGLI.Jfl MN WNML PATWCR MOYNIHAN,N.r. COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET •
N OWYLL INO. J.JAMES[ROM NEAT WASHINGTON,O.C.20510
SLAM GORTON.WASH
ITENNN IOU.STAR DIRECTOR
WNW)N.IRENDON.NANORIIV OWN DI ICTOR
August 10, 1983
The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel
Mayor of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Mayor Penzel:
This is to confirm our meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August
16, at 9:15 p.m. (or soon thereafter).. I'm looking forward to
visiting with you and learning more about the Eden Prairie area
f and your local needs in the hope that Rudy can be of sane aid in
your dealings with the federal government.
Please give me a call at 612/221-0904 or 800/652-9771 (toll
free) if you have any questions prior to our meeting.
Sincerely,
Don Mosher
Projects Director
RB/qb
cc: Carl Jullie
•
MEMO •
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
Nancy Riley, Animal Control Officer
DATE: August 8, 1983
RE: WOODBEAR COMMERCIAL STABLE LICENSE APPLICATION
LOCATION: 9630 Eden Prairie Road
OWNER: William and Claudia Bearman
• The Commercial stable operation proposed will be upon a 11.6 acre
site. Presently the site is vacant. The Bearman's intend to
construct a 104x174 building for boarding equines. This stable
will include:
-31 box stalls for keeping equines, 12'x12's,10'x12's
-outdoor riding ring
-60'x140' inside arena for training and
exercising equines
-outside paddocks and alfalfa fields
The stable building will be constructed by Lester's.
Manure and bedding wastes will be distributed upon the adjoining
alfalfa fields as fertilizer and the manure not used as fertilizer
will be removed from the site.
The closest off-site residence is approximately 500 feet from the
proposed stable and paddock .
Fencing material for the outside paddock is penta treated wood
5+ feet high. Perimeter fencing will be woven wire.
Thirty-one equines are intended to be kept at the facility. Based
upon the 11.6 acre site the 2.6 equines/acre is below the maximum
permitted of 4 equines/acre.
As this facility is proposed, the adequacy of equine care, feeding,
etc., will be judged by the City Inspectors after the operation is
started. At least 2 inspections will be conducted during the first
year of operation.
We find the facility as proposed, will provide better than average
housing for equines and meets or exceeds the requirements in the City's
Commercial Stable Code.
•ITT(
CONINEJ CIA.S STABLE LICCLtea. APPLiCATION
DATE: Ph-JP 3•
LOCATION: _96 D c"-%'•'7 ,/� �//�O e
OWNER: (/.,)i/y%arn! rt. (4/e41e4 Je'4:47:'"e'4r-
LOT SIZE: l7 [1efe6
UPON ATTACHED SHEETS DESCRIBE THE FOLLOWING:
1. Proposed storage, handling and removal of manure and wastes.
• 2. Types and locations of fencing.
• 3. •Type of barn and shelter construction.
• 4. Type of operation(boarding, training, leasing, etc.), and
maximum number of equines to be kept.
5: Water source and distribution.'
6. =:Type of feed and bedding to be used.•
• 7. ' Any other information that you feel will contribute to the
•''City's review of.your license application.
ATTACH A SITE PLAN DEPICTING THE FOLLOWING:"
1. Barn, shelters, and fencing locations.
•
,2. Manure storage area. •
•3. Distance to surrounding residences, wells& bodies of water.
4. " Any other site information you feel would be useful In
the City's review.
L-
T leLabove sign Tnereby certifies that he is fanilar with the City's
Conruercial Stable Code and that the information supplied is correct.
ter.. Mile OttOP00,0Y0i Ut0fa0t$$$O$Seim uAcuoAttuunuuAswueeAunuuc; :l al[LOlQY/Aaala MOtttttt AAAtA,aA,
CITY USE .
Council meeting date 1-I(0-g-3
License approved Dened`--
•
1'1
•
wr
•
.443`
August t, 1983
Members of the City Council;
William J. Bearman and Claudia A. Bearman acting of behalf of Hood
Bear Stables, Inc. request the City Council to approve the 'hood Bear
Stables, Inc. as a boarding facility for equine animals. The property
is located at 9630 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Mn.
The following will be our mode of operation:
1. The property is 11.661 acres.
2. Indoor boarding facilities will be available for 31 horses. The
' box stalls will be 10' x 12' with bedding of shavings or straw.
3. The facility will contain a 60' x 140' indoor riding arena.
4. Outside exercise areas for horses will be 3 paddocks, 60' x 40'.
They will be of wood construction and penta treated. An outside
riding arena 180' x 80' will also be available. Fencing for this
area will also be of wood construction.
5. A professional trainer will be available for those requesting private
training for their horses.
6. A professional Equitation riding instructor will be available for
Saddle seat and Western riding lessons.
7. Storage of hay will be a 3 sided leanto attached to main building.
8. The building will be built by Lester's Inc.
9. Professional engineering plans are attached.
10..•The entire parcel will be fenced in by a wire mesh fencing. Due
to field corn that has already been planted we will not be able to
fence part of the parcel until the corn is harvested, sometime
in November.
11. Removal of bedding . Portions will be used to fertilize areas where
- we will be planting alfalfa and other types of grasses to feed the
animals. Remainder will be removed from the property.
We would greatly appreciate a favorable response to this request.
.Wit kin a regards,
y cecv(
•
eedWilliam J. eirman
/ Claudia A. Bearman
l lloodbear Stables, Inc.
177Y
•
i —ax r { , •04
- t •t�. • ( .e .•.� .I•. .
{ • a
;` i.'s
�
° ! r� 6 r '4ffT:
/ I r
}
I 1.•
• / I a
I_ 1i 1'1 ^
�Y. op
. :c't:
--- ;,I 4
•
r�
. _ . . I _a.. _-I
r I O i
`f • 6 Z
i
i S I "
. w •
�,_;•
( 1-'7,�o L4 ? "(o 0'-Q'`II.G-ffff `- • 1_--
j.
g,•noon n-o n..%iis-)',-1' 1 � :a 1 --— ———— :1 5,!
1 : : ,1. I y ...try, ..1 T:
1 r49.D I 'I.3 v 1 I'1�' Sfir4'.1CRt11 .Sc I S'jL.I1K I I
O. I it ' 'ti '..I• (N P I-L•,>�.Q--- r' L°'"-n''. N 1 .
. 4 .. ' UE if. j }a 1 t,. p., 1 1FFRAAA • ,1 1
t I I a .1 r 1. i oI
..�- I c Yr Ieo.1 ,, ss 1 1 .. u.- I
j I 1 I'
r---.--1
. I ' i Lam•' 6• 1 �.V
: .
• . . ,
•
. : .I ,..•
, ... 1 a.ol �••, J(
Ytk.. 1S -,,.• .. ,... . , ,::: . • ,
• • 1.. ..A•1 :. . , 0,.. • —
1 1 .
'I 1 I 0 fs .' ., ♦y� t r. �
L. I piF j A .: „ •
•
I ; r; i 3
I' I el.•• f 13 } .t.
1 1I (,of t y f ,; R} «
•
} II r • y
1 I I".
I ,
y i ' Jt. �) • 1 j Iiii •
jI I Ni'• II f — I *
IF
r < . Ir. I z,.a\ . 1 a
to z II 1 •
K. i? ' I •(� Q s ? 1
v-r -
i ° �• II ,
1 ' t : 1 I1 ` x
'• : -n j
• i al is ,11 1 �I 1
I �I I • I' I1
ii 1►l- ^ i •
I ,E`
P "� `
•
L l .;
l �� I ..� .t T.7�IL..`, 1 1 1L 1= j 1 ri I '
sl l l I; I•
I .tl:-a 11: 1 � , 1
r_
. .._
.-
__V . 14S•
.., ."." , ' 1-.1 '
14'- 1
". .Z.
..,•
ti
,. k co tolbr
••1,
\ • CY
e 0.
.. 4. R.L.S. NO.
t
:
$, ) :I 633 .... ,,
1,......7.4,. 4
7,, .1,•.=
11 6arn &IA ..; ').`.fl .: •,:.i..-:
:‘•,,, 1.06:e1:7 ''.." $....
... ..... _
'vl .,. ,...,,,..
Allioft-2.1.1. a,
::. .
6 do 473 t'
riding .r...
•.:,
::::::..:X:I::::::i:i:::•:.*?•:.:iiiii ,:if h IP \..
::::::::•:•:•:•:.:•:,.....:••.•:•:.:•:.:•...
WOODBEAR
STABLES lt .
. _
'' . • . .t'
,.,.. ?1•f .
(.. cous6e,
..... __
.z.b40 -- —n house --- ..
................
barn
.t• \-"' ,i
..„
......... -
........ . .
,.........
• ::::.::::::::,:i:'•,:i:ii;* 'a, . .,
41
"?. . .
30 - .".;• :
so t
r 10 if tou.ye,.
.
1 .,...
cithkANolize. .-'
- 0 . fr.....,,, :-. REGISTERED
...,
ilt_
() i,. 1. ,
, -..--
(i840) i
v.,
( e..
& .•. i .-.'
-• ..-------
-.— I
------ —ri'S------::: ::-:::ralfalfa.fields _••5 !: re,o, i--
•............. 111011/4)1 \11 1"=200'
ajZIZI possible manure storage
- sites lig 1 •X te .
. ,
•
•
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
•
DATE: August 10, 1983
. RE: FELDMANN'S APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION ON VARIANCE NO. 83-23
City Code, Chapter 2, allows review or appeal of Board of
Appeal's decisions-
Subd. 4. Review or Appeal. (1) The Council may
elect to review any decision of the Board, or a decision may
be appealed by the appellant or petitioner within forty-five
(45) days by filing with the City Clerk-Treasurer an appeal to
the Council from the decision of the Board. (2) The Council
shall at its next regular meeting after the filing of an
appeal from a decision of the Board of Adjustments and Ap-
peals, set a date for hearing therein which shall be not later
than sixty (60) days after the meeting. Review shall be made
upon the petition and all the files, documents and records of
the proceedings of the matter. The City Clerk-Treasurer shall
make a permanent record of the disposition of all appeals to
it from decisions from the Board of Adjustmen.ta and Appeals.
Attached for your information is the material that was submitted
to the Board of Appeals and the Board of Appeal's minutes on this
variance .
The earliest date for a public hearing would be Sept. 6, 1983.
Surrounding residents have been notified of the Council's
August 16th meeting.
JJ
•Memo - July 5, 1983 Agenda Page 6
F. RE UEST # 83-23, SUBMITTED BY SCOTT & STEPHANIE FELDMANN
•
City Code reads as follows: "Minimum distances between end of
driveway return and property line - 10 feet."
Feldmann's are requesting to place the drive within 1 foot of
the property line . •
The Certificate of Survey also depicts a driveway 10 feet from
the property line which is still negotiable for a vehicle and
the question of a hardship arises. On the other hand, a variance
from the 10 foot setback requirement in this neighborhood would
not be inconsistent with the neighborhood character.
•
•
is
I'1Ra ,�
18865 Pheasant Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
August 10, 1983
Members of the City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Request for Approval of Variance of 83-23
Dear Council Members:
Would you please review and approve our request for variance to the 10 foot
set-back requirement previously denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals and
Adjustments on July 14, 1983. The variance is requested for the following
reasons:
1) The house was designed and situated on the property with the driveway
located at the property line. This was clearly shown on the site
plan submitted and approved by the City. If the building permit had
been denied when submitted by the contractor, we would have redesigned
the house accordingly. In fact, this ordinance has never been previously
enforced, and in fact, the building inspectors told our neighbor,
Bruce Anderson of 18835 Pheasant Circle, when he constructed his house •
in 1982 that he could locate his driveway at the property line. It
appears the the inspectors had no knowledge of this ordinance as it
pertains to residential property.
2) The denial of this variance will create a safety hazard. It will be
difficult in snowy or icy conditions to back down the driveway and
turn at the same time. The elevation change from the garage slab to
the street is 3 feet. Please refer to Exhibit B.
3) The denial of this variance will locate the end of the driveway in
the center of the property frontage and detract from the visual
appearance of this property.
At the hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments, we were
given a submittal dated July 11, 1983 by David and Beverly Kronk. In that
submittal, the Kronk's suggested a property line change which would have
generated a net gain of 330 square feet of property to the Kronks. After the
hearing, we submitted two proposals for a property line change to the Kronk's,
the last of which was rejected on August 8, 1983. The July 11 submittal by the
Kronk's outlined five concerns to the granting of the variance:
1) Snow Removal - Due to the northwesterly winter winds, it is
reasonable to expect that the majority of snow would be piled on the
east side of our driveway. This would minimize drifting into the
City of Eden Prairie
August 10, 19B3
Page Two
driveway area. The only possible area that snow would be piled on
( the Kronk's property would be at the entrance to the driveway due to
the plowing of the cul-de-sac.
2) Drainage - The granting of the variance, which would allow our
driveway to begin at the property line, would in fact lessen the
drainage problems on to the Kronk's property. Water running straight
down the driveway will flow directly on to the cul-de-sac. If the
driveway is located 10 feet from the property line, it will increase
the drainage area towards the property line by 250 square feet.
Please refer to Exhibits D1 and D2.
3) Possible Property Damage - Based on the "Architectural Graphics
Standards, Sixth Addition," the minimum and maximum turning diameters
fall between 37 feet-8 inches and 49 feet-7 inches. Exhibit E shows
the minimum and maximum turning radius of large and small cars based
on this data. Without riding over the curb at the entrance to the
cul-de-sac, it would be virtually impossible to turn across the
property line without being in our driveway.
4) Parking - If the driveway is located per our request for variance on
the property line, it will be possible to park a mid-size car between
the driveways of Lot 1, Block 6 and Lot 2, Block 6 (see Exhibit F1).
If the driveway is set 10 feet from the property line, it will be
impossible to park a car between Lot 1, Block 6 and Lot 2, Block 6
and all vehicles will have to be parked between Lot 2, Block 6 and
Lot 3, Block 6 (see Exhibit F2).
5) Occupancy - This concern is of no relevance to the granting of the
variance.
Exhibit Cl is a site plan of Hidden Ponds I, Hidden Ponds II and Nygren Estates
which shows the properties in violation of this ordinance. The Zoning Board of
Appeals and Adjustments stated in the July 14 meeting that there had never been
a request for variance to the 10 foot setback ordinance. Selective enforcement
of this ordinance for the gain of one party at the expense of another was not
the intent of the ordinance. If the intent of the ordinance was to strictly
enforce the 10 foot setback, then all properties in violation should be sited
and corrected. If the intent of the ordinance was to provide a reasonable
control to residential driveways in Eden Prairie, then the variance should be
granted.
We appreciate your review and approval of our request for this variance.
Sincerely,
dr 1 14_6404:-.D4404
Feldman, Stephanie Durda Feldmann
Attachm-
cc: B. A. Their, PA
R. A. Pauly, PA
•
,18865 Pheasant Circle g3"'?-5
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 •
June 13, 1983
( Board of Appeals and Adjustments ' '
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
•
RE: Variance
Dear Board Members:
Would you please review and approve a request-fbr a variance to the 10 foot
driveway 11 setback" ordinance for our property at 18865 Pheasant Circle.
The legal of said property is: Lot 2, Block 6, Hidden Ponds
Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Attached and labeled Exhibit "A" is the Certificate of Survey which was
approved for a building permit by the City of Eden Prairie Building Department
. in January of 1983. This survey shows the driveway located 1 foot away from
the property line at the curb. No mention was made at that time of a 10 foot
setback requirement. In a casual conversation with our neighbor, Bruce Anderson
who built his house at 18835 Pheasant Circle in 1982, we were informed that
the Building Department told Bruce that he could locate his driveway on the
• property line.
Our house was situated on the site to maximize passive solar gain and the
garage was located to block the northwesterly winter winds. The house is
• designed to allay for visual control from the kitchen of a children's play
area in the southwest corner of the property.
Exhibit "B" illustrates haw the driveway would have to be located if the
10 foot setback is enforced. This will require a very sharp turn into the
driveway from the cul-de-sac and will make it very difficult, especially in
winter, to back out of the garage and into the street. A safety hazard will
he created if we mast turn while backing down the driveway on to the cul-de-sac.
For informational purposes, Exhibit "C" is a site plan of Hidden Ponds I,
Hidden Ponds II and Nygrcn Estates which shu s the properties in violation of
this ordinance. As the site plan indicates, the majority of the violations
occur on cul-de-sacs. Due to the minimal property frontages on cul-de-sacs,
it is practically ieco>sible to comply with the 10 foot setback ordinance -:-
without detracting from the function and appearance of the property. . •
We appreciate your review and approval of our request for a variance.
Sincerely,
40
��, - *tifi'ili•L° Wit., ' jvijtf•;:f.4C•-i',
._,----....„."7.1....-----
Sc ciclr,in Stephanie Durda Fe]clnsnn
/ott: l
11`%5
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
EXHIBIT "A"
FOR: Tee Cons/roc/ion
Lego/ Description: tot c", Block 6, N/dden Ponds Second Addition/ Hennepin
Courtly,Minneso%
m /
""-
a RCZE (92e.9)
y Y
h !
!!.. h 0 Denotes iron marker
y^t ebb MO Denotes ex s/ny elev.lk
192a1•
j_Ri•50
(-50.09
�\p �.� o
ro2A- �� 924.o�o poDeDsedn tebo sesspr
emrn1pf see edro/an%o
nv.9 e
1933.o Joposed/S'Foor a%rafM
1931.33 J proposed garage elevation
„93L33167.46 __ `�' (93051)
("a" •--/B 7d e2.0 : 7477.3 V'�a
•4 7 e
ci) h 93/5/9v o .,
it Dry/ 0 o 32.o `. w
96 o Proposed ro i
House ro �
43.99 Go.o 33 _ . (923.t7)
(n2s.ol)�D•, - /37.70 92v.oJ (923.0)
iir
/ ,s Oneinoge !u/rG/y Easement ....
V ,�
f e (922.1)
/ r/
4/ f ii c 2q 5,E
(Y23.7)s ..1 r _ d0•g3I
, e
/43,92 873.3o e . -922•s)t.115
f hereby certify that this survey,prepared by me or under my direct Super'
/lk vision,is a true and correct representation of the boundaries of the above
Hansen Nipdescribed land and of the location of all buildings,if any thereon,and all
Thorp Q visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land and that I am a duly
p (JI registered land surveyor under State of Minnesota Statutes Section 326.02
reliinen,Inc. to 326.16.
Conwrtina Ewan-t.and Surveyors-Sim Plumes / � �
U08 Mnuvrll Rd„Edon Nana,Mn.55344 6]a 8103 Date: Liteexcrp �'•IB3 '4'4'-.3/
13002 Spina Lake Rd.,Mlmetanle,Mn.M43 Y7e6W7t Registration No.
J 1'1 ', Job No. 82-154 Book- Page /4-7B Scale )•.9Q'
1=
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR: T de.. Consfrac/:on __- EXHIBIT "a"
Legal Deseripfion: Lot 2, 8/ock 6, Hidden Ponds Secona Nedi on, Hennepin
County,Minnesota
l
h
---------`-'439-1-4.5. % / .• ...170r.. , I.I..:..P L-I r15-<.-,--i&Ni!Fi....-;.e.,
----- t.+ 514A-`1 •'S 5t.i,t1 ITT ED (92a.9)
a'' / I.I.
h
L
s h O Denotes iron marker.
/ Cut. (927.6)Denotes exrslin9 elev.
A ( n2e i). ttits I Deno/es propo-d elev.
,- Deno/e.s so, .*>T•.,not
' 292) I 5/� - •,S.929:4) ,
t'. •,,, 1,.,..)•
p 2'•P /1'oposed men e
.Re 000 o Propos r,I)
co
\ . Air
•. (93a
nap) ie—ri-. �i: aced co
`��
7 k ,.;
Ntr
93r.s/9274) �0, y err
i
\
:10a\ 43.e9 ,\ '. :,,• 33.89_ • (9234'0
e"")\ /37,78 r914.01 (9?3.0)
1
f/ I�l.r . I A1- 1;f'\, '� '
//sDroino9e t f1/rG/y Easement • (922./)
/ _ 0 5,6
(423.7) 40.2
•
/43.92 s73'90'E' ..lvzzs)046
I hereby certify that this survey,prepared by me or under my direct super•i
it ells Vision, is a true and correct representation of the boundaries of the aba.
Hansen r described land and of the location of all buildings,if any thereon,end z
Thorp 8 visible encroachments, if any,from or on said land and that I am a
Pelllnen,Inc. • registered land surveyor under State of Minnesota Statutes Section 326.1..
to 320.16.
canwnna Enpn•on-Lsee Summ s-sail P4nnan �� ,771- _ i
7400 Ma ndi Rd.,tan PuwN.Mn.65344 934-6163 Date: ✓j'/'"
tun SPw Lao 11d.,Mimnar4 Mn.66343 636.6676 (llji/liYr/� �'�8� Registration No. ��G 7
' I. Job No. 82-156 Book- Page /4-78 Scale 1.280'
. -•• ,.
. .
•,..
. ..
. .
, .
-.
._
••
-.,
1-YJIILITT-e.
• .
. _.
•••-:ii: ."4”,„.. ' . I ==...._., ...........
, .
.,,,,,......_ ,-400,r,.-•••:,..";',?:•i' ,..;:, • f .
'4-.7- ...• ..:L,.. ,;%•;.1---t. • -• -.,-;:',..--.;:.;
- -.••;,..i.....f w..7...tr.;'.':,,,,,:';,.(:„,.7,...," .,. '.....,:i..1.'j').,1-:'''.'.'''''', ' , •
"NNIP."'
, ....,;;':9,;......;.cj ...,.,„•.:!..1‘...k.?;.,.....,,., _, ....,•.• -.......‹-:,,,,,-.::rs,...'..-, • :-
1
. ...
, . .
,...._
ai•;,s, ,,,: , ....-.. ...:;..e.•..•=i.a..•----,,•-: - .....k..,..• :,..--!:•;,....:,•- ,',1'...' •
(. .„.,t \\:.\;..,,,,,°-•••••`.N....,4*..., .-,?.3,..,,..„2.:•.-,.s,:\„•.;;;;,.....:=-..,......,:'• i
1
'-:.•.-,-,\ ,•:-......s`,,;',...;?,:-:•.;:.---:;‘,•::•:,..,.:..-;',.•-cv-legk•,• .•-i..§•,!•:.;.7•'::..!• . =
""'';IS\ ::1'0$:' ' 'i.''.!.".,,f. . -:;;;';'.:'V!\:,,.\.3...;/:!::•.•:':'"-t-....,,, .! .14.,1
''S'.7.4'il•::.'frf'i.'.. 'f • . • ''''''''''''''t,...- •• ..('...,'..it.....•-• -,. - =
41'..i.''''''' . tti •- ..° ..'.'"'..e.i'",..,,,,.....i:?.. . !.'.::....L'...-"4--'.-••A-- ' I"4.
t:50
;•'.!ia,... ...,.,,7111. . : ....,!....\:...:...;:...;_.,...........,,...:,•,::.i.,. ,,,,t,:-,...;t•As 2...,?:;;.:.
."-,.,..',%-_:. •.27,,,,b, • •=.••••••: •.,-,-...4•••••.,,•:,..\,•-,....• • .:..•.,...:,,• .......•
'•-j" -.1i. ./0,...:..,.-•,,,.6„....,.:• • , -- , ..:.;.,-.--;•-.._...„-• .--.. , ty,
:,...:c:i . (4 A,-,:i;,.•:,,,..,,,\•,..••••,..m• -4-,:-.: f•-.7''''.i14:1.A , -.' vp
•,•,;:.,... J. . . . .. ,;• .•••••7•„:,...!,-.--d.i............ tr,. ..,,.;,_, .•.,.....,,...:.a....,1-•--: -
. •if ....:." : - ,i-• if:2r.!...-.,..,...,-:. • • •••:. =•:,-
%...kz;4:: . .•••..-.7,,.'!... .,•••...,:li•,;;..•
;-- iik:•.! z••:.1:•-•:••
. , .4",,:, .;••
, =
; - .,.. .
• ,..,,,..,,,.....;.:„,....-"..: ..... - ! ;
• -!.. . . ,
,..,0.. -,,, •.... ,..,......... , 1... • ,
.. • p• ..)...,...,. ..,.,.... • ... , . ,
.....
...t.
. .. .
..:
. ... ''`....1.4 • -r, % ; I I Pe It 11.=A
1,....v
• ••;.•'•.:,a,,';'....".7'. \\ . '
. 0 gti61 III
, .-.
-..,.
•
• .., , . . . , .::, .
. , .-....;
..., ,•. I .-..
i,....•
•Y . , - .
. ...
.: .1.- • ''':'‘',.-..'''"''''''. , .,,''''',.-s, .._j..,....;,.,,t1'-:. -..,. „, ,,
i
.4;1:;.N..;.t...:.-..i• :',:7,.... --..,•,.., .‘,-.;.,..,1,,. .? .%
• ..
1 -
1 '.•f••.:.!•')::: ' 1 '' - t:' .\\ . .
, ,..._.
•
, .. .
"4"• -‘-"•••
.. -
1- •*t. . '. '•' ''. ,i• ' -..i'•;!,•111' .t .
. ,,• _
• ':,_\..,,..,„tri4 .. .),
xi
0. '.'t' '' ':'-;.:It!.,..,:"",,.,,:,:-..iI.-1,-,-:-•:;;1;".T. .., .,". •
1 .:. •
•Il i ! 2 . .,, A....., - .,,- , r., s ., .p, - ..)•I ,•,
;
ii A e rt, , .,., • .:..:1 ....-1. .t?. ..t... ._
... ...:-_,,..;::: ..... .. .. ..v ,..ii. . „ . , ..rr'' in- - . I
•R ta -
I .
rn
l 1"
. - .
.4:
rn
D4 •
-.-
.
.,
.,.-• -
—.... ___... ._..7--
. -
•
! ...
(
. '
•
. . -
. - •- -...:- . - . "... _
. . .
, - - -... • ,
EXHIBIT "C" ..
•
Property in violation of setback ordinance by street address.
18023 Valley View 7236 Ticonderoga Trail
18135 " 7234
18129 " " 7059
18123 " 7040 •
7143
7180 Park View Lane •
7107 7090 Green Ridge Road
7109 " " " 7095
7111 " " " 7115 " " "
7122 " " " 7230 " " "
7124 " " "
7126 19175 Pheasant Circle
7000 " " " 19190 "
19185 "
18028 South Shore Lane 19145 " "
18042 " " " 18920 " "
18056 " " " 18865 "
18070 " " 18835
18260 " " " 18860 "
7272 Tartan Curve 19150 Deerfield Trail
7270 19155 "
7280 " " 19145 " "
7284 18830 " "
7286 " 18870 " " •
7281 " " 18805 "
7279 "
7179 " "
19195 Homestead Circle
19110 "
7095 Quail Circle
7080 " "
18705 Partridge Circle
18710 " "
18735 "
•
pN �v-1111 tr a-
7....,
,\
Ito, /
,„,,_ ,
\ram, l'-....
\
,,,
, . . ..ilii7r I .
1 // ,
,,
1-„`` LoT 2- Pat-G�K- (o
"-------------________4„........ ,....------"\---------------"--------- -I:
_ pfi\INACot: PERGoN1I:%1Tlor`1, UP
VARia, ,E 1,7�•-f-Allt ALA. 1,16 E K ..
( 1.1I1,1. rin1,1 ;\i r 21vE'i M tv e cr- r,c.,
IY00
OcHIR.tT I2 •
sue„
. ....., 8 '46- ,.
4../:: 2,:\ p iN ra xaG
UtJ5 •
1
v
( / &/////////,‘
•
•
/ .-.:-
-21.-sc'.›-r z g3t-CC0K- lo I \ . ..,
_____\t_____,.... , •
PiItJ5, .1. -KII211104 iF
( VARIA•NcC I‘2 f 1Lcri L; Arfro<MPT1Y1
ZS e-Ar o Lcrr 2 $!,oc1 (o W ILI, t 1',`'I C..
--
1vI4R0 pl2orozlr`1 urn.- 26� , A2sP a2
• i*.i(II_.-
•
•
„,,. -K�IIi,I7+ 5
itivr c
I-11 N►MuM 'M2+Nirl(I �
\' iitip,..,: ��' .- - FbR �13-COriotz CAP' ,
�' \ PP
IA 5Tb1? iQ 1Y-0r1
6 i
/ , . . .
\\\
i
t‘iiiii \\ ........ ......
/ .
..,`. L.oT z .K G�
______\,.______/-------- :
TNTMi , -TORNII,i(o n1AM or 241-G`1 Gq
or4 1 15 r1A . TUIZNII4:. AFL%or Ci'PI, wart\ ..
AN N- 1'I244-I 51—1-v or to M,P,14, I1 Iy UN A4' r
'(b rti 01'-1-K., Mhx, TLC Ne:lo ►-iG{„ 1.0101
Gouge t%5 cXL=p
pi- 7-7c1-11 rf" t:• I ,
...... 8 ;
% % .
/&i.iiiii \ e i ,
/ \ ' --.
/ •
�` - Lor zK,
_-.... .....it..............
-.
_. PARKIN& LALIOrr F5r C,rlP111ON/',
IF VARI/\NCC I' &acc N7VP. DNS GAis .
V)cATt.7 "Q i\c_61,Ir To L T Z 1b1Xr.K.(D, t
1703
pHE �3
.. o<ftirr v-z '
4/ % (4
`-•.. A* •
/\,..., a•of
/ : i 1 ''• .
/ itiat \ .....:..,...,..
\ ' '
•
A' 'i 411112X.. . :
\ . .
L oT 2 �x G�.K (o
''' ''''''''\'' ''.. ----.-----'.. -- - -'
•_ PArKI kl Ca I.A`1Ct'T' ' cell pino
_ riNtexe' A 17.11(- NI -10 LO'13 RLz X1 rlom-1
I`tO1-1
ii
•
July 5, 1983
Mr. and Mrs. Scott Feldmann
18865 Pheasant Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 '.
Re: Variance Request •
Dear Feldmanns:
We have no objection to your request as the owners of the property
adjacent to your back lot, running on a line East to West (143.92').
Our concern for the property which borders yours, and your property
line would be:
.
Priority 1-4
1. Do they (Cronks) have enough room for removal of snow.
2. Do they have room for their mail box.
3. Do you have a good access or reversal to your proposed_
driveway.
4. Do you have any conflict with the Cronks in the removal
of your snow. .
We would like to clarify our position on our property line and
its markers. We have lived at 18860 Deerfield Trail since July
15th, 1977. Our property was surveyed in January of 1977. The
stakes that were set in 1977 have been the guide lines for all
of our trees and shrubs. We have placed all of our property with-
in these lines.
Your property was surveyed early in 1983 and the stake on the
S.E. point was set 28" onto our property which was surveyed in
1977; the original stake is in place. We would like to have an
understanding that you will honor the original survey stake, and
that the existing trees and shrubs are our property and our concern
for care and final disposition.
""eaely,
OL6git& .‘Allt- .
J n G. Skare Darlene J. Ska e
roperty Owner Property Owner
18860 Deerfield Trail 18860 Deerfield Trail
Iif:
David & Beverly Cronk
' 18895 Pheasant Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
July 11, 1983
t Board of Appeals and Adjustments r -
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 •
RE: Denial of variance request 83-23
Dear Board Members, •
Please review and deny a variance to the 10 foot driveway "setback"
ordinance requested by Scott and Stephanie Feldmann of 18865 Pheasant
Circle.
To eliminate the need for a variance to City Code, Chapter 11, Sec.
11.03. Subd. 3, H. , 7, which states that a driveway return must be
10 feet from the property line. Please consider and approve a •
• property line change as an alternative to granting the variance.
This change would be located between: •
David & Beverly Cronk Scott & Stephanie Feldmann
• 18895 Pheasant Circle 18865 Pheasant Circle
LOT 3 BLOCK 6 . LOT 2 BLOCK 6
HIDDEN PONDS SECOND ADDITION HIDDEEN PONDS SECOND ADDITION
Attached Vic' 1a-*wed EXHIBIT "A"
We art: proposing 'the following property line change. This will
give ,i- frame' on LOT 2 more than ample space for their driveway
to be straight and within the City Code.
This change will enable us, on LOT 3, to gain the property at
the back of our lot, thus having control of the sightline from
our home.
If this proposal is acceptable to the members of the or Appeals
and Adjustments, we are willing to pay all survey city filing costs.
We of course would alter our rock garden at the frtin-'C of our IBT arid•
expect the Feldmann's to remove the boulders, resulting from excavation,
from the back of their lot.
This change keeps both homes within the requirements of the City Codes.
We have no desire to make their driveway a safety hazard or to detract
from their front yard. •
We also appreciate the need to grant this type of variance where there
is no rational alternative.
We sincerely feel the proposed property line change would be a benefit
to both homeowners involved. •
•
Sincerely, �- /� /J•
David Cronk Beverl Cronk
cmmnr.qm.ENTS •
aC1(c
(, .:ONCERNS - if the variance is granted*
1. SNOW REMOVAL
the snow from their driveway would be piled on our property.
We cannot expect anyone to shovel all the snow to one side
of a driveway.
2. DRAINAGE (EXHIBITS "B" & "C")
please note the original plot plans of 'each home filed with
the city. Their plot plan does not show that the drainage
from their driveway will be directed onto our property. The
actual grade is quite steep. The proposed change would allow
the runoff to flow onto their property and then to the street.
Since the existing water table in our area is very near the
surface, correct grading and drainage is an absolute necessity.
3. POSSIBLE PROPERTY DAMAGE
• since the owners will enter their driveway from the west,
there is the probability of cutting the corner•and damaging
our lawn.
4. PARKING
since there is no other space available, the owners and their
visitors park in front of our property. This is compounded by •
•
their short driveway and space needed for their boat.
5. OCCUPANCY
Scott Feldmann, who works as a designer for T&E Construction,
has stated that it is their intent to occupy the home for two
years and then build again. This is a common practice for people
in the field, however, as six year residence of Hidden Ponds,
it leaves us in an unsettling position.
(
HISTORY►
In }arch and April, prior to occupancy, we approached our new
neighbors with a request to change the property line thus allowing
them ample room for their driveway. They stated that they were not
going to put a driveway in for some time and there would be plenty
of time to discuss it later.
APRIL 22, 1983
To make sure that proper procedures were followed, we informed
Wayne Sanders of the situation. (EXHIBIT "D") Wayne was extremely
helpful and tried to contact the contractor to inform him of our
position. The possibility and procedures for such a property line
change solution were orally discussed with Wayne at this time.
MAY 11, 1983 •
The gravel for the driveway was placed directly on the lot line at
.the 10 foot setback and over the lot line at the curb. (EXHIBIT "E")
• We talked to Feldmanns at that time and they still refused to discuss
the situation.
We then called Wayne Sanders who contacted the contractor informing
him again that they must have a variance before laying the driveway.
As a result, the rock was moved over 10 feet at the 10 foot setback
but only about 5 feet at the curb.
•
MAY 12, 1983
Chris Enger verified that the ordinance is measured at the curb line, •
and it is appropriate to request that the ordinance be complied with
since there is a reasonable alternative.
The possibility and procedures for such a property line change
solution were orally submitted and discussed with Wayne Sanders,
Chris Enger, Jean Johnson and Gene Deitz on this date.
•
•
•
RUg •
•
x,. * , •
•
•
•
hroposer,1 properfy line,
• I. •
' Th;s Wt.%
does not cross
S !"� I 640;n9 over the property
t a property Tine• one between 4-he
%,( \ curb and +he. Jo'
'`% .� \ Sef back.
•
/24
•
• L 0 T Z
(:) •
o it 9aro'en•
•
•
1
Ma .
U pr,` 7g.> •
EX
HIAIT "'A" \_/ /0
nl7s• .-3g 3' �� v �11" \
�� 1
': ' • 1 ; o �Z�.\ qsq3 I • mll
-\ c,1„. C/A.• i
i al 1�h i , ti 04 . •'.
02,53:,,:�, \\`O4 1 39/DV `� • /
D •
nrn , \6 hoe's Fas \ •p� /.' 4 9{p 7� R� `50„/
/ �4'%?{•\�, F k 41
I 1Or,. 0D1Q ;>I '. .
I Ir / Grk� e .
I Tt i ,I i �: ; vAtr/ \�4.1 o Denotes iron monument
• I i,, tOVi•al `k AA o Denotes Wood stoke
bl oQo )/,s y :oao.o Denotes existing elevation
• A (000.o) Denotes proposed elevation
I o" / I — Denotes chrect.on of surface drainage
924.o `j //,/ • Proposed top of foundotion elevation•930.0
• �4 • Proposed garage floor elevation • 929.5
/ .`,. ••.923.s Proposed lowest f/Dor elevation c 926.0
.5'7"9g ��, �� BM.,top of M.H.costing in Rheas ont Circle
�aE Cul-de-Sac,Elevation.410.05
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of
a survey of the boundaries of:
Lot 3, Block 6, HIDDEN PONDS SECOND ADDITION.
And of the location of all buildings, if any thereon, and all visible
encroachments, if any, from,or on said land. It also shows the location
•
of the stakes as set for a proposed building. As surveyed by me this
18th day of March, 1977. . •
et,.cr/?,v0 i4 tcrt 51,e-r-1 rrn q
. Thomas S. Bergquist
Land Surveyor, Minn. Reg. No. 7725
•
IciSIO
" Certificate of Survey
7. ,WR ri.l for
;:=' . .r/cCOMBS•KNUTSON ASSOCIATES. INC. 90156roin/t7nn
•
Fon: TCE. Consfruc/ion ___ __t_=•=-
Cego/ Oescrripfioni la 2, Block 6, Hidden Ponds Second Rddi/ion, Hennepin
Coun/y, Minnesofo -
i F.XNzAzT".C"
. / •
it, C/RCAF K •
• (V20.9)
_..
~ h
• s h o (b 0 Ocnoles iron marker*kemarker*• d (9t7.6)Denotes exislin9 elev.
h a 0
17315 j Denotes proposed der.
(970.5 (9tD.4) or-- Denotes Sur/oce dro.no e
(929.2) ,,- - d;5770' -•-. (929.4)
(.=50.03 9t4.o
o RrSO.00 I J Proposed basemen/0cm/ion
.,, - 13,....
9 CO
(93t.o IPo/Zsed/r'f/eor a/ere/.on
— �� , {93r.33 I Proposed 9oroge elevation
Ls3 8Z46 ^4_6_ r_ - .a(930.S1)
/ (92e.53) /j73 72.0 p. .73' '. •
l • ti
P 'e tiL
93l..S (9276)o Na o N O�.3..
5 y o
• Proposed eo
toRouse ti \\
• �,/43.69( S.of) `• /37.78 42v.o (s:3 0)
/ ,T°'°' °"
!Of day Cosemen/ ` pat.')
G l '// c
, I f/ r
/43.92 S)3'30'E- _-•/yn.$)111 •
•
•
I hereby certify that this survey,prepared by me or under my direct super
vision, s a true and correct representation of the boundaries of the Jrs.•
Hansen �/ described land and ul the location of all buildings,it any thereon and a!:
Thorp(� visible encroachments, if any,horn or on said land and that I am a du!,
(�1 (Jt repistwed land surveyor under Stale of Minnesota Statutes Section 3?ori.
Pelline nt Inc. to 326.16.
(A..Nlln.t f..r./Ws-LYd SVntt011-Sir.P4r.ratt
? 3 /ate
7enAuaa nnn„[n>nIN....Ltn.t53ee e344163 r(i/1r 7 /iA r.J/
Dale:_ L_1 Registration No.
t J:•37 S1+np tat.ne.u,.wwraa.Mn.LS3ea 933 La20 ;
('(I I Job No. 82415 nook- Ng,. . /4.78 $talc /"=30'
- . .
. . •
Dave & Bev Cronk
18895 Pheasant Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
April 22, 1983
934-3426
City of Eden Prairie •
Building Inspectors Office • •
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
•
Dear Sirs,
We are raking a formal request of the building inspector. We
request that he inform the builder and potential buyer of the
home being built at,
BIDDEN PONDS II
Pheasant Circle
Block 6
Lot 2
that there is a city ordinance that requires a driveway to be
10 feet from the lot line. •
We expect the city and the builder to comply with this ordinance.
We ask that they be informed as soon as possible as they are
planning to move in within 2 weeks.
•
gpotV Sincerely,
Bev Cronk
•
•
- .
••
•
•
. .
•
•
•
•
EXHIBIT "E"
•
•
• •
I
•
•
As -cir5f Placed rock,
ft As rock 1 s no'
• T I
•
j
--i
t_oT 2
Approved d in
utes nts - 6 - July 14, 1983
Board of Appeals an ALL MEMBERS PRESENT
F. Request #83-23, submitted by Scott & Stephanie Feldmann, for
property located at 18865 Pheasant Circle, Lot 2, Block 6,
Hi den Ponds Second Addition. The request is for a variance
from City Code, Chapter 11, Sec. 11.03? Subd. 3, H., 7, to
permit construction of a driveway within 1 foot of the property
line instead of the 10 feet between end of drivewa return and
property ine.
Scott Feldmann, property owner at 18865 Pheasant Circle,
presented his request. He stated that he is requesting a
1' setback for the driveway at the property line. The reason
for the variance request is to put in a straight driveway from
the garage to the cul-de-sac and to therefore avert a potentially
hazardous curve.
Feldmann displayed exhibits pertaining to his variance, including
the Certificate of Survey.
Krueger asked what the ordinance said about this request. Johnson
stated that it reads that the minimum distance between the end of
the driveway return and the property line be 10'.
Feldmann commented that they have found in excess of 50 violations
of that ordinance in Eden Prairie, most of which are on cul-de-sacs.
Beverly Cronk, 18895 Pheasant Circle, stated that her main concern
was that of the slope that exists. The water table is high and snow
will
drain
t impact on the area,
down
their
lot,
as a swaledoes added
existhat there will
not be a grea
t.
John Skare, 18860 Deerfield Trail, stated that his property is
dirtly cern is with the Cronks and
that they bhave room ehind dfor removal ofmas. His nsnow and for their mailbox.
David Cronk, 18695 Pheasant Circle, hasalso been piled
pineout
that
Feldmann
n thecr
are parked on their property. Dirt
be losing towhat sthey tfelt was ahfronte u portion est eofp their d would
ln due property.
Stephanie Feldmann, 18865 Pheasant Circle, noted that the damage
done to Cronks yard was minimal. They jan'tghave
ave or control
trolaoover
er ho
their builder excavates. They p
grass.
Anderson asked why Feldmann was not interested in a trade of land
with the Cronks. Feldmann responded that he felt that it was an
irrevelent issue. He cannot afford to incur the costs involved in
retitling, plat plans legal
tffees.
The
ahe site
prteeplan
was approved
by the City. They do not want
rty.
Anderson inquired if he was aware at the time the home was built
that the driveway would have to go in the center. Feldmann replied
no, his builder was not aware of the ordinance.
David Cronk stated that they would be willing to pay all expenses
I'(iy
Board of Appeals, and Adjustments - 7 - July 14, 1983
for a land division. Feldmann stated that he was not interested
in talking about property division. He designed the house to fit
the lot per the survey, and he shouldn',x be penalized to sell
property to achieve a safe condition on the driveway.•
Anderson stated that he had a problem approving the variance. There
are two or three available alternatives.
•
Sandvick ked together.as Beverly Cronk rreplied dthat they h s the the adtri t gotten
ed.
Dickey suggested that more thought be given to the situation and
return next month with the variance. Feldmann replied that he
wanted it dealt with now.
Sandvick asked if there was anything drawn up by Cronk's lawyer
that we should know about this evening regarding any variation
of the variance. Beverly Cronk stated that the sole reason for
the papers was to activate the Homeowner's Association of Hidden
Ponds.
• MOTION: Lynch made a motion to deny Variance Request
#83-23, submitted by Scott & Stephanie Feldmann
with the following findings:
1) Undue hIrdship unique to this parcel has
not been demonstrated.
2) Approval would not be in keeping with the
intent of the code, but would be disruptive
to immediate properties.
Anderson seconded the motion. Sandvick voted nay,
with Dickey abstaining. Motion carried. This re-
quest can be appealed to the City Council.
III. OLD BUSINESS
Dickey questioned damage done to the oak tree on the property of
Richard Hipp. Dickey talked to the City Forester and was told
damage had occurred. Johnson stated that it could be repaired by
trimming the crown and moving the dirt.
Johnson stated that Appleside had put up some signs. The process has
been started in taking the signs down. The code requires that we give
them a 30 day notice. The State Highway Department has given them a
60 day notice.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
None
V. ADJOURNMENT
Sandvick moved, seconded by Lynch, to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM.
Motion carried unanimously.
lkl��
MEMORANDUM
T0: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Mayor and City Council
•
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services ek—A
DATE: July 28, 1983
SUBJECT: Hidden Glen Park Acquisition .
The City Council approved the Hidden Glen Development Proposal subject to agreement
on paying for the construction of Dell Road and for acquisition of the proposed
park.
The City Council authorized an appraisal of the park site. The appraisal was
prepared by John Janski and Associates and submitted on July 14, 1983. The
appraisal determined that the 8.2 acres of highland has a value of $7,500 per acre
and the 4.2 acres of lowland has a value of approximately $2,000 per acre, for a
total value of $69,900 for the 12.4 acres..
The City also has the option of requiring dedication of land in lieu of collecting
park fees. The City may require up to 10% of the subject property at a location
determined by the City. The entire Development Proposal of Hidden Glen totals 104
acres; therefore, the City could require dedication of up to 10.4 acres. Assuming
that the City would designate the developable 8.2 acres as the neighborhood park
site, the City could require a dedication of land equal to 10a of each phase as
it is developed (for example there is 22 acres in the first phase, the City could
require the dedication of 2.2 acres of the park site with the first phase).
Using this formula, the City would obtain the 8.2 acre park site with the first
82 acres of development. The City would then collect cash park fees on the remain-
ing 22 acres of development. Figuring 2.5 units per acre, we would also get
$17,875 in cash park fees. The developer would then have the option of donating
the 4.2 acres of hillside and lowland for a tax write off, or could possibly force
the City to purchase that site due to the location of the park and Dell Road. If
the City then purchased that 4.2 acres at $2,000 per acre, the City would have .
obtained a 12.4 acre park site, plus would have approximately $9, 475 remaining
from cash park fees collected on the remaining acreage.
At 2.5 units per acre over 104 acres, the City could possibly collect $77,875 in
cash park fees that would go toward the purchase of this site, as well as paying
for assessments in development of the site. Cash park fees for this site will
also be collected on the 36 acre single family development to the south and the
additional property that will he developed to the northeast.
Based on the price the property owner has received for the first portion of the
site and for the options that he has on the remaining portions of the site, he
feels the 8.2 acres is worth between $9,000 and $10,000 per acre. The offer that
has been rude for the sale of the property is the following:
• 1. The City would purchase the 8.2 acres for a price of $80,000.
-2-
2. The owner would dedicate the 4.2 acres free of charge.
3. ilie owner would pay all assessments on Dell Road.
•
4. The developer would commit to $10,000 worth of grading on the park
prior to the final payment on the parkland. If the grading wasn't
completed by the date of that final payment, the price of the property
would be reduced by $10,000.
City Staff have reviewed the grading plans and have determined that the plan will
require approximately 20,000 yards of fill to be moved or removed from the site;
therefore, a minimum estimated cost for grading'this site is approximately $20,000.
The Community Services Staff recommends approval of the acquisition of this site;
terms being $30,000 down in 1983 and $25,000 to be paid on September 1, 1984 and
$25,000 to be paid on September 1, 1985. If grading has not been initiated by
September 1, 1985, the final payment would be reduced by $10,000.
•
•
Cash park fees would be collected on the entire site and funds for the acquisition
of the park would be from the cash park fee fund.
BL:md '
•
•
•
•
•
•
I t
•
rifir7
•
�.r...to l:.0. Mane,Contract. W11,11 Otter•.
/ s ii.r^r Solaro Copy
• PINK—Muyee a....py
COM/nod—Anent+e•a,
,PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Mion.w_...._. 19—
# •
RECEIVED OF of Eden Prairie •
ekes=of One.Hundred.and.No/100 ($..100..00.........) DOLLARS •
as sweat money and in part payment for the purchase of property as
lawn.Cash w h.—Maw arhlJr
situated in the
County of ...Hennepin ,Star of Minnesota,and legally described as follows,to-wit:
• Sec Exhibit I'A" Attached Hereto.
Including a8 garden hulls,plants,shrubs and trees,all storm sash.storm doors,detachable vestibules,screens,awnings,window
shades,blinds(including venetian blinds),certain rods,traverse rah,drapery rods,lighting Games and bulbs.plumbing •
Grunt,hot wawa tanks and hewing plant(with any homer,tanks,'stokers and other equipment used in connection there.
with),water snhrner and liquid gas tank and controls(il the property of seller),sump pump.televition antenna,inciner.
ator,built i r dishwasher,garbage disposal,ovens,c ak sop stoves and central au conditioning equipment,if any,used and
located on said monists and including also the following personal moister),
•
all of which property the undersigned has this day sold to the buyer for the sum of:
Eighty..Thouyand and No/100 _...._._......
• which the buyer agrees to pay in the blowing manner: •
Earnest money herein paid$100.00 and$39,900.00 soh,on . . .. ,the date of closing.
$40,000.00 with interest thereon at 8% per annum by contract for deed, a copy of '
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
•
•
•
Subject to pedotm+me by the burn she teller eam Memoir and delayer• contract for Stamm Deed
Ito be pined in br,pnte,M any/Cowie/Sae marketable title to said premise,subsea only to the following emotions(
O nvdd,nr and arming laws,urdinam,.,sum and Federal re bulr„not.
(b)Reu relat.ng 14 ate or impro.emenr of prem...wiihout educes.Innersole provision. •
(A)(harrry a d a'n:s easements whih do am engneral.or mineral go ntrhlme•
Stags re war•ime
t and ± ^n mprorem<mr.
I (e)Rich .1 tenants elnllos:(unless rpeohed,not w}err ,snmtnll
Aattetritooratalostetrezetexcatatencenowaarloanstreettiometiammeconcomtottornmeteetwesoressationextwerettetweemestamet
nxim thconeca melaexunixam taninc man esaa vmmuzs txtixcenomi xsolaae eicuxcommgc extmxime cinniwsxuauxinea,•Ws1a
w lull,pants s or numhomettead—sine which/
Neither the teller not the elle,,agent male any mptesemsl,.in o,warrant.wha,serrr gumming the amount of teal eatats mats
wbkh shall be d against the property subsequent to the date el purrha,e.
Seller covenants that hwddinas.if any,am entally within Ile t aedaen lines nl the P.M.",and sirens to remote all prnonai puperry
nor included herein and all deb."Irnm the pnsm,ee lot,n Pmesurn date.SFLLFR s1'ARR ANTS ALL APPLIANCES.lad'Cr LNG.AIR
CONDI'iIONING,WIRING AND PLUMBING USED AND LOCATED ON SAID 1'Rb.MI.4S ARE IN YROrLR WORKING ORDER
AT DATE Or CLOSING. • 11a11re0J rut CO I. •
The seller lwnhei salmis so deliret pmemion NSNaea:xrt.CO.II CACt for deed, provided that all snodinions of this
averment have beau tompl.ed with,Ilnleis others its spee.nrJ this sale trail be eland not or Solute 60 dart(rum she date hereof.
In the et ens Ihit prorrrry is dninned of subeannalty d,maf.ed her her or any other cause before she electing date.whit asreemrm shall
• krone nun and rod,at the par:loser's option.and all monies pa.J hereunder shall be relanded to him.
d .m llts buyer and feller aim mutually scree hat pro gaga adsyy nnot�•of fftt in.stem.and tier water,and.in the use of
income popes,.currentupera,mg sepenfn,.lall he made as of Lae date m oltue cl using
The seller•hall,w thin a rrawn,ble time abet amoral of 11„1 air err ,lu,ni.h anm abora nl Bale,or a Reoffered Progeny
Abut.. ailed o due to include motet,ranker...mine b,nlrulmet�and!late and ledrr.l nJgmenws and hen,'us buses shall be •
allowed 30 Jays ale,m,e,pt ihnenl h'I e.tn.,mrnm n(sa.J rise and i.e r ilnte it any nlfmns.ms nheretn,sad obesuom to be maje in
rring or d,emed rat le.arreJ.II+try vhenum,srs n1 made the seller.hall to shooed 1:0 daft to male gush Isle marketable Pending
e payments!maunder nu.,r,shall le n em potrunr.i.how um emmn d idle and within 10 days ahn w
the buys!the i e
l aamen..r er,tall perform this ate tmline r.,1,toms nrlen I,wu
• w
If said
r, s
.m rlrmhde and is nor ma theretole u,•uinn180 dal,,from the dare err..r nhpn.um thstn a sinus provided,this
gar t shall be null and mil.at mania m the buyer,41,4 nridier plurnral shall be liable(tit Jamasrs here do k,Ile ms
m rrariiwl.
All money.heerire Pad by the hum,shall le erlanded I1 the tiule r.said pro,tic 1<I..,,n,marlerable n.•k ate.node s,wh,n said nine,
and raid buyers soli d:oil,ins 1 Ihr, ir t sod 1 i l.•:a prr...l nl in J then and inaloe rawthe elk,may
teammate dos Anil o arts e , ,,r ell the pat nmade u ,.On.1010104 shall be warned by sad seller and raid a
slimeers,r sot ,troy ay�lrar.asnlnn,1lned flange..son ere bete.tithe essence legr,t 1 het 1',nt.ann shall not Jepnn nnhet parry of
the weld d rnlunnat the tirs,nr ivrh,rnun,e or thn ru.mran prnsded such 4011110 Hall not be Ium,nared n ature..d,and prosifeJ arrwn
to enforce tail.sle.,or Irernemame shall be wann•nim'within tit muushi steer sus I.uchr of ae,.00 shall stew
It is urdenh•d sod aimed Mat this sale is nu.le wlnrn to the a,•s•rurar 1,14 vs net nl said premiss in wrninr and Owl she umber
aitrsed,,.enc ism nu manner Whit or 1e.pmnMr on moony of ahn.Orenew..r•.eps to return or aµ,.unt lot she earnest moot,paid wider
thus run.
1/ TheJrWrry Mall ppnand manias akllknode at the office at: roam nennoveo ae nsr.r.eaotA"SO./Mali me aeAe,onap
` 1 she undo.ived.owner of she alert land,do hereby approve Or
•
.. ..... .. Atta
the alone ayrnaen and she rain thlabr caIn, I hereby tune to eu,chate the said properly fee the Mir and •
NA tilt
il•mud alnoae seem wnrd,sod soh".to all cwsduwa
U
........,.._ .... ... .....(SEAL) •
Seller ... .. ..... ......._._. Royer ..,. ..._....,.,.(SEAL)
(SEAL) J /•/
..,Seller ,a .... ... _. • )
Buss
TIItS IS A IIY:AIII.11h N11INC re IN'ilRA(T. Ip NOT II:Jialltvl((in,M'1'K c'fl'(lal"IENT AI'yy'1fe
•
•
Hut should default by nude in the payment of principal or interest due he,eunder co of any Part thereof.to be by
omond part)paid.or.hold second party fail to pay the lawn or IOAriillif
,s upon sail land,pennons neon.aid'moo,
ante,or to pi floret,any o tither of is ror.nantr.aerrn menu,terms Of sw,Aniw,a herein tuntatned,to be by said talent
party erpt or perfnnur,i,fhr laid parries of Me brat pot may.at_...t heir......_...........option by writtrn notice declare
the tnnlrart eanerllrd mil terminated,and all rumba,titk and infncsl acquire'(hereunder by said second party,shall therm
moon cease and teammate.and all Improvements node,son the prea,ses•sod all payments nude),meander shall belong to
` said pant et of the ft.,part a.'mutilated damages for breach of this taxman by said stead party,said unfit.to be in
accor,lancc with Ile statute at. itch ease mad pat-Anted.
and prded.
Frithee list extension of theline of payment of any suer or sun.of money to lit paid hereunder,noe any waiver by
Mc par..iefi of list first pan._their,....eights Io tee ste chi.mutual forfeited by rearm of any breach thereof,shall in
any nano',affect the right of.aid part..let in cancel this enntnu'on
to,of drlaultn subq uurnty naming. and no
eatension of tine shall ter sated mile..etidrncrd by duly sigund inu,uu,enl.Further,alter a mice of notice and failnre Ill
memo..,within the peeioht allow lhy law,the default therein terrified,,aid party of the second parthereby specifically agrees,
a .e
opoo demand of said part.ie6,,,of the brat part.quietly and peaceably to surrender to....i,t..................poae,sion of said prem-
iae,.and every part thereof,it bring understood that until oath default.said party of the second pan is to have possession
of said premises. '
31 itt filutuallr oalgtttb. no trod 1„7rrern the pl)Bear hereto,that the lime of yorfament altoil be an
rueydilt 1 part of ibis contract;nod that nil the covenants anal agreements herein run min is?"hen run with
the land deal bind the heirs,executors,adhliniafralorts•succesmrs and casign,of the ruleelire parties
hereto.
1.1'TE.T1.110.1T li'II?RROF,The swish ford hen
11
� of the feral purl ha Ve. hereunto.rrl their ,,,
• hands and mid termed ports line ennead these
\) lntarnls Is
be marmot sal i7a emrpmnlr rrnurr lit/its p
gn iEry
Mayor rhnzncxzNxMx City Manager.
and its eor}o al sr !to ter Arreanlo affixed.
ha I'vesenee of .. ....._ .„ . . ..
_
• ............. GI'[Y...9F..EDEN PRAIRIE ...... .........._.._. •
. ............._......_.__.......
H.
. • !1s NaY4C .......,yMotxnPaaak
galate of IFlinnegota, . _. ..._........._... _._.
County oJ. !ls.C1CY..Manage;....... ................._..._
\ h On thtie...................................................................day oJ................_..............................__....................._..,19............,before me,a
............................_..._........................,,..............._.__...._..........._......................,.,within and far said County,personally appeared
to ins known'to be the poison...described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
that he executed the.note os_.............................................free net and deed,
•
• Notary Public,. _...County,dlinn,
Rotate of 1iliitrtfota, '1ag .tfy tomynianon expires. ........... . ...._..........,19...__
J .
•
Corsly of..__...._.......... ......_ ............._.....
OnlAle................................_............_..__._...........day oJ....._........................._......._........_..._..................,19..._......,before safe,a .::
.....,within andfar said Count Y appeased
........_...._.........._._...,..... .__................_.....___.____............_..__._, y,peramaa!! a )coed .
...................................,............................_......_._................,.............and..._.,..,................._....._._....._..._..__..................._......................._._ '
to mere personally known,who,being each by me duly sworn................................_. ....-.....did say that they are
respectively the __._ ........_..President and the .. ......... .. .....of the corporation named in
the foerfoing ih.lnnoan!,and Mil flee seal adt.el to said instrument is the corporate seal of soil rorlaro•
s 1 fimr,and that said instrument was signed and am bed in behalf of said corporations by oNhorily of ifs
............. ... ................. . .. ... .._ ............_.._
• sad..... ........_.............................._........................_.aeknmulalged said inslrurnutt lobe the free net and deed of
said corporation. '
.b'otary!'addle, ........County,.illnn.
allyeonnnieson aptau 19.......
{it I ti Cc i :y t otI rE 9 . g
•
W ,4 , • . R 0.R - C .A
'Q v 1. i . . ' .
Y .t ; d ..4 � ! ' C
s g
•
14 u x t; } o ~ p I
VI R nod . 2 V . UIti • .tit I
1.yy . t l . .0 I •CI 1
1J a 7:: i
O,,1 V e V �.'• 1 6 ' C • Ire 1
8 , .zi ,. t .4 i t. w In f. : i
t its , },h w .
�~ oco c., `, 1 ti aV C x • t . c U -
__.ih1� . t ° 4i
______._.0
AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
This is an Agreement made this day of ,1983,between the
City of Eden Prairie,a Minnesota municipal corporation(the"City"),Joseph Dolejsi
and Tillie Antoinette Dolejsi, husband and wife(the "Owners"), and Derrick Land
Company(the"Developer").
A. The Owners hold fee title to certain real property situated in the City of
Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, which property is the
subject of this agreement(the"Property")and is described in Exhibit"A"attached
hereto and hereby made a part hereof.
B. The Developer desires to develop the Property in such a manner that will
require the extension of Dell Road and certain utilities connected therewith.
C. A Preliminary Plat/PUD Plan for the Property has been submitted to
City and approved. A portion of the Property described as"Hidden Glen"(Phase1)
Is to be developed first into 65 lots. The remainder of the Property will be
developed in two or more stages.
D. The development of the Property requires the extension of Dell Road
• Including final grading, paving, curb and gutter and the construction of utilities
Including storm sewer, and water and sanitary sewer where necessary(hereinafter
collectively referred to as the"Improvements").
E. City, Owners, and Developer desire to enter into an agreement
concerning the financing of the construction of the Improvements all of which will
Inure to the benefit of the Property. The PreliminaryPiat/PUD Plan dated
March 28, 1983 depicts the alignment of the proposed Dell Road through the
Property.
Page-2-
{
AGREEMENTS
IT IS HEREBY agreed as follows:
1. The Owners and Developer consent to the levying of assessments against
the Property for the construction of the Improvements. The Owners and Developer
shall dedicate the right-of-way necessary for the Improvements. Dell Road will be
constructed across the Property subsequent to the'development of Phase 1 and
contemporaneous with the second phase of development of the Property as depicted
on the Preliminary Plat/PUD Plan.
2. The cost to be assessed against the Property for the construction of the
Improvements will be the cost to construct a 32 foot wide collector street. City,
at its option, may increase the width and thickness of Dell Road and will assume
the cost for this additional width and thickness. The Owners and Developer,
however,will be responsible for preliminary grading of Dell Road in the alignment,
as chosen by City. City will grant Owners and Developer a credit up to$40,000.00 •
against the eventual assessment for subgrade correction made by Owners and
Developer in the alignment chosen by the City for the Improvements.
3. The assessments are to be levied when any portion of the Property is
improved with exception of Phase 1. The assessments will be levied against the
Property on all buildable acreage on a pro rata basis except that park dedicated
property and/or property purchased for park shall not be assessed. The acreage
assessment will be apportioned against the lots within Phase I by taking the total
assessment attributable on a per acre basis to Phase 1 and dividing that by the
number of lots platted.
4. The City's assessment records for.the Property will show the assessments
as"pending assessments".
5. •For purposes of payment of the assessments to be levied against Phase 1,
the City shall, upon filing of the plat for Phase 1, estimate the total project cost
/05
Page-3-
for completing the Improvements for which Owners and Developer are responsible
and apportion,as specified In paragraph 3,the assessments attributable to the lots
within Phase 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Estimated Assessments"). The Owners
and Developer shall be obligated to pay assessments attributable to lots in Phase I
as follows: Upon application for the first building permit in Phase 1 I/4,of the total
amount of the Estimated Assessments shall be paid; upon application for the 31st
building permit,1/2 of the total amount of the Estimated Assessments shall be paid;
and upon application for the 46th building permit, the remaining 1/4 of the
Estimated Assessments shall be paid. No reallocation of the assessments to Phase I
• shall be made when actual project costs are determined. City's determination of
the Estimated Assessments shall be binding upon all parties hereto. Upon
determination of the total project cost for completing the Improvements the
amount of the Estimated Assessments shall be .subtracted from the total project
cost and the difference, less the credit referred to in paragraph 2,shall be assessed
against the Property except for Phase I.
6. The Owners and the Developer consent to the levying of assessments
referred to in this agreement against the Property.
7. The Owners and Developer waive notice of any assessment hearing to be
held at which hearing or hearings the assessments are to be considered by the City
Council and thereafter approved and levied.
8. The Owners and Developer concur that the benefit to the Property by
virtue of the Improvements to be constructed exceed the amount of the Estimated
Assessments to be paid and the assessments to be levied against the Property. The
Owners and Developer waive all rights they have by virtue of Minnesota Statutes
Section 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of the Estimated
Assessments and the assessments,or the procedure used by the City in apportioning
/e/9
Page-4-
the Estimated Assessments and the assessments and hereby release the City, Its
officers, Its agents,and employees from any and all liability related to and arising
out of the imposition or the levying of the Estimated Assessments and the
assessments.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
A Minnesota Municipal Corporation
•
BY:
Wolfgang Penzel
Its Mayor
BY:
Carl J.Juilie
Its City Manager
• Joseph Dolejsi
Tillie Antoinette Dolejsi
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
A Minnesota Corporation
BY:
Its
BY:
Its
•
•
/8/9
Page-S-
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) •
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 19 _, by Wolfgang Fenzel, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie the City
Manager of City of Eden Prairie,a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of
the corporation. '
Notary Public
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) •
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
,.19_, by Joseph Dolejsi and Tillie Antoinette Dolejsi,husband and
wife.
•
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this — day of
, 19 , by
the of Derrick Land Company,a Minnesota
corporation,on behalf of the corporation.
{
Notary Public '
• /F/9 .
171� J\UG 101993
mum OF MINNGSOTA INCOIu111PM
'ORATLD
August 9, 1983
The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel
Mayor of Eden Prairie
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 •
re: City West Business Center -
Use Restrictions
Dear Mayor Penzel:
Through the course of the planning process and through the Planning
Commission and Council Review meetings we have attempted, and I believe
achieved, to design a project that would have the appearance of a first
class office development and also embody the elements of flexible space
use necessary for the small user and "high technology" user markets.
Constructive suggestions have come out of planning staff reviews and
•
Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The project as now
approved, demonstrates that divergent interests can work together to
create a product that responds to both the public and private interest
and needs.
The one most overriding concern expressed during the planning and zoning
process, has been that of limiting the use of the space in the
development from all those uses that would normally be acceptable in the
present I-2 zone.
As we have reviewed, there are many significant built-in impediments
that restrict the space from uses normally associated with heavier
industrial and warehousing buildings. Specifically those impediments
are:
1. The building configuration being oval in design with various and
numerous angles, recesses, and projections virtually precludes the
combining of bay spaces to make large efficient production or storage
areas.
HOME OFFICE RYAN BUR DING. PO BOX 96.RIBBING. MINNESOTA SS746-TELEPHONE 218763688B
MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE: 7401 METRO BOULEVARD. SUITE SOO ONE CORPORATE CENTER.EDINA. MINNESOTA SS43S
TELEPHONE 6T2m35•7990
lao
-2-
•
2. The buildings are designed specifically for 28 individual tenancies,
each with their own electrical and gas service and meters.
3. 'Bay sizes are 30' x 40' with a maximum depth of 80'. Normal
industrial bay spaces would he 50' x 200' or larger.
4. Bay spaces range in size from 1,500 square feet to 4,275 square
feet. Bay spaces for heavier manufacturing or warehousing would be
7,500 to 10,000 square feet and larger.
5. All bay spaces have drive in service doors as opposed to truck
docks which would be necessary for most heavy industrial uses.
6. Maximum clear height is 12'-21", too low for warehousing or heavy
manufacturing that would normally require 18' to 22' clear height.
7. The basic elements of design and configuration result in'a facility
cost that results in rent levels higher than that acceptable for
warehousing and manufacturing.
Additionally we have, working with the City Planning staff, developed a
specific list of prohibited objectionable uses that would not be
permitted tenancies in the project. Those uses are:
1. Any use which is described on the attached Exhibit 8 to the
Declaration of Restrictions or which produces toxic or obnoxious waste
or any other use which is hazardous to life, health, or property.
2. Any storage of toxic material or any other material either of which
is dangerous to life, health, or property.
3. Any retail sales, any food processing or baking, commercial
• printing, automotive, motorcycle, small engine, or other repair shops or
service centers, body shops, electroplating, cabinet shops, veterinary
or animal boarding facilities.
4. Any manufacturing or processing or products from raw materials.
•
5. The utilization for storage, assembly, fabrication or holding of
inventory, of more than 20 percent of the total space occupied by any
construction or construction contracting or subcontracting business
including, but not limited to, sheet metal, electrical, heating,
ventilating or air-conditioning, window, roofing, plastering, painting
or siding.
Additional guidelines have been suggested to further restrict the use of
space by establishing minimum and maximum percentages for office,
assembly and storage in each building. The May 20 Planning Commission
Staff Report suggested no less than 40% office and no more than 50% for
assembly and no more than 50% for storage. These ratios.become
/72I
-3-
(
extremely troublesome from the standpoint of acceptance by potential
mortgage lenders, potential investors and/or partners and from the
standpoint of marketing and possible future marketability of the
properties.
With these factors in mind, I would suggest that the forementioned
physical constraints on the use of space and the specific use exclusions
would be sufficient so that a percentage requirement of no less than 25%
of office and no more than 75% of assembly or no more than 75% of
storage space per project would be acceptable.
We look forward to your approval and proceeding to an early completion
of the project.
Respectfully submitted.
Sincerely,
•
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
•4114'2:711:#-4‘1,4,--......
Alan W. Schackman
Vice President
AIDS/wm5
cc: Carl Jullie
Chris Enger
CITY. OF EDEN PRAIRIE
{ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOW
ORDINANCE NO. 26-83
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE I'
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION I1.99
WHICH, AMDNG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESSOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the I-2 Park-Planned Unit
• Development 7-83 District (hereinafter "PUD 7-83").
•
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , 1983, entered
into between Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota and the City of Eden Prairie
(hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"), and that certain O,vner's Supplement entered
into between Anderson Development, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie, dated as of
, 1983. The Developer's Agreement and Owner's Supplement
{ contain the terms and conditions of PUD 7-83, and are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 7-83 is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the
City.
B. PUD 7-83 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of
the City Code, which are contained in PUD 7-83, are justified by the
design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 7-83 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that
its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete
unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and
hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the I-
2 Park-Planned Unit Development 7-83 District, and the legal descriptions of land in
each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B,
shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
/123
t Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication. •
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the day of , and finally read and
adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City
on the_ day of .
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of .
•
I i32y
. . . f xtt 1131T A
That part of the tthwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1• ,nd the Northwest '/4
of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin Co.-ty,
State of Minnesota, described as follows:.
Ca-mincing at a point on the south line of Section 36, Township
117, Range 22, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, distant 488.81
feet east of the southwest corner of said Section 36; thence South
• 7°13'25" East a distance of 2125.01 feet; thence North 82°46'35"
East a distance of 50 feet; thence South 7°13'25" East a distance
.of 248 feet; thence southeasterly 584 feet along a tangential
curve to the point of begining of land to be described, said
curve is concave to the east, having a radius of 1332.39 feet
and a central angle of 24°12'17"; thence southeasterly 791.43
feet along last described curve having central angle of'32°48116"
and a chord that bears South 47°49'50" East; thence north 25°
• • 46'02, East not tangent to said curve,a distance of 10 feet;
thence southeasterly 38.38 feet along a non-trngential curve. .
concave to the northeast, having a radius of 1372.39 feet, a
central angle of 1°36'08" and a chord that burs South 65°02'
East;thence North 68°39'30" East,not tangent to last described .
curve,a distance of 20.72 feet; thence North•19°51'A2"'•East a
distance of 253.34 feet; thence northerly 147.53 feet•along , •
• a tangential curve, concave to the crest, having radius of . •
190 feet and a central angle of 44°37'17"; thence North 24° ' . •
45'34" West tangent to last described curve a distance of
• 85.53 feat; thence northerly 71.33 feet along a tangential .
curve, concave to the east,having a radius of 320 feet,''
a central angle of 12°46'20" and a chord that bears Earth '
• 18°22'24" Vest; thence South 42°50'42" Vest,not tenrent to •
last described curve,a distance of 50 feet; thence north
50°05'32" rest a distance of 350 feet; thence North 14°08'
08" Vest a distance of 24 feet to the intersection with a
line that burs Borth 56°59'41" East from the point of •
• beginning; thence South 55°59'41" West a distance of 408.17 •
feet to the point of beginning. For the purpose of this
• description the south line of said Section 36 is assumed •
to have a bearing of North 83°27'23" East.
That part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4'and the Northwest
• 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, Township 116, Range 22. Henne:in
County, State of Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the south line of Section 36, Township
117, Range 22, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, distant
488.84 feet east of the southwest corner of said Section 36;
thence South 7°13'25° Easta distance of 2125.01feet;thence North
82°46'35" East a distance of 50 feet to the point of beginning
• , of land to be described; thence South 7°13'25" East a distance
• • of 248 feet; thence southeasterly 5E4 feet along a tangential
curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 1332.39 feet,'
. a central angle of 24°12'17" and a chord that bears South 19°
19'34" East; thence North 56°59'41" East. not tangent to said
. curve, a distance of 408.17 feet; thence North 14°08'08" Vest
'a distance of 276 feet; thence North 0°47'28" {lest a distance
of 190 feet; thence North 72°22'30" Vest a distance of 137
feet; thence North 1°52'30" West a distance of CO feet;
thence South C8'40'35" West a distance of 3G2.20 feet to
• NJ the point of beginning. For the purpose of this description
the south lino of said serr.inn 36 is acsir'd tn&h,vn.a
Ryan Construction
( + • 7/83
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT PUD-7-83
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of August 2nd , 1983 by
and between RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, a Minnesota corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City,"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City previously approved Planned Unit Development 81-21 for the
•City West Planned Unit Development by adoption of Resolution #81-226, which included
the property which is the subject of this developer's agreement, and which consisted
of more than 15 acres; and, •
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City to develop 14.05 acres of land for
1 zoning from Rural to I-2 Park, and preliminary plat for office/service/storage
facilities, located at Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway, situated in Hennepin
County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and •
made a part hereof, and hereinafter referred to as "the property," and;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration 'of the City adopting Ordinance u`'26-83 and
Resolution 83-136, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon,
develop-ant, and maintenance of said property as follows:
1. Developer shall plat and develop the property in conformance with
the plans dated July 14, 1983, reviewed and approved by the City
Council on July 19, 1983, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject
to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer
shall not develop, construct upon or maintain the property in any
other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. ' Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
•
Exhibit C. attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. The parties acknowledge that Developer and other persons having an
interest in the property, have executed and delivered to City
restrictions relating to use of the property set forth in that
certain document entitled Declarations of Restrictions and dated
• • Augu tind , 1983, by and between Ryan Construction Company of
• Minnesota, a Minnesota corporation, and City, which is attached
• hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D.
4. Developer shall be obligated to area-wide and front footage •
assessments for necessary improvements on Shady Oak Road.
5. In implementation of the Planned Unit Development, and as a variance
from certain requirements imposed by City Code Chapter 11, City
authorizes a variance to allow more than 50% office in the I-2
District, if parking is available according to City Code.
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents
• to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
•
.. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
•
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS. •
CO9NTY OF HENNEPIN)
•
•
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1983, by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor, and Carl J. Jullie, the
City Manager, of the City of Eden Prairie, A Minnesota municipal corporation, on
behalf of said coproration.
Notary Public
•
DWNER'S SUPPLEMENT
TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT' '
( BETWEEN
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA
AND THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of August 2 1983, by
and between Anderson Development, Inc. a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred
to,as "Owner," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Resolution #83-136
for a preliminary plat approval and Drdinance #26-83 changing the zoning of the
property owned by Owner from Rural to I-2 as more fully described in that certain
Developer's Agreement entered into as of August 2 , 1983, by and between
Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, a Minnesota corporation, and City, Demers
( gree with the City as follows: •
1. If Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, fails to proceed in
accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the.
date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to
Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner,
their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
3. If the Owner transfer such property, owners shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Richard W. Anderson, President
•
•
InsZ
•
City West Business Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE'' •
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-181
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 26-83 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 26-83 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of
, 1983;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 26-83, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
• text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the off ice
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 26-83 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on. , 19113.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
1
raa9
•
•
•
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
THIS AGREEMENT Made and entered into this 2nd day of August, 1983,
by and between Richard W. Anderson, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
"Anderson"), Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Ryan") and the City of Eden
Prairie (hereinafter referred to as "City").
• WITNESSETH :
WHEREAS, Anderson is the fee owner, of certain premises situate in
•
• the County•of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, more particularly described
• on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter
referred to as "Property"), and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have requested that the City consent
and approve of a plat of the Property to be called City West Business
Center and to consider favorably an Application for Re-Zoning therefor,
and
• WHEREAS, Ryan desires to acquire a portion of the Property to
• Construct two (2) buildings (hereinafter referred to as "Project") once
such platting and re-zoning has been concluded, and
• WHEREAS, the parties desire to provide for the preservation of the
values and amenities of the Property and the adjacent area and to
subject the Property to certain restrictions as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of•the mutual benefits to be
derived, each of the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. The Property of any part thereof may not be used for any of the
following:
A. Any use which is described on the attached Exhibit B or which
produces toxic or obnoxious waste or any other use which is
hazardous to life, health, or property.
I�3o
-2-
B. Any storage of toxic material or any other material either of
which is dangerous to life, health, or property.
C. Any retail sales, any food processing or baking, commercial
• printing, automotive, motorcycle, small engine, or other repair
shops or service centers, body shops, electroplating, cabinet
shops, veterinary or animal boarding facilities. •
D. Any manufacturing or processing or products from raw
materials.
E. The utilization for storage, assembly, fabrication or holding
• of inventory, of more'than 20 percent of the total space occupied •
by.any construction or construction contracting or subcontracting
•
business including, but not limited to, sheet metal, electrical,
heating, ventilating or air-conditioning, window, roofing, plas-
tering, painting-or siding.
F. No less than 25% of the project on the land shall be used for
office purposes. No more than 75% of the project shall be used
for assembly purposes and no more than 75% of the project shall'
be used for storage purposes.
• 2. The restrictions created hereby shall be perpetual and shall
• run with and bind the Property from and after the date hereof.
3. The restrictions shall benefit the present and future owners
• and mortgagees of the Property and the City. Any party benefitting from
any restriction may seek to enforce it by a proceeding at law or in
• equity against any person violating or attempting to violate the same,
either to restrain violation, to compel compliance or to recover
damages. Attorney's fees and costs of any such actions to restrain
violation or to recover damages as determined by the Court shall be
assessable against and payable by any persons violating the terms
contained herein.
4. The restrictions may not be alternated, modified or amended
without the prior written approval of the City.
5. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall bind the
parties hereto and their successors and assigns,
.3-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents
fir•
to be executed the day and year first above written.
RICHARD W. ANDERSON, INC.
�7 Its --
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC.
By!f�'O�L(�/ � 1�-.—
Its /Jr,
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
1
BY
Its Mayor - • •
By
I • Its Manager
.
j •
• i •
.
1139,
•
•
of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County.
State of Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the south line of Section 36, Township
117. Range 22, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota. distant 488.84
feet east of the southwest corner of said Section 36; thence South
• 7°13'25" East a distance of 2125.01 feet; thence North 82'46'35'
East a distance of 50 feet; thence South 7°13'25' East a distance
• •• •• of 248 feet; thence southeasterly 584 feet along a tangential
curve to the point of begining of land to be described; said
curve is concave to the east° having a radius of 1332.39 feet .
• and a central angle of 24'12'17"; thence southeasterly 791.48
feet along last described curve having central angle of 32'48'16'
and a chord that bears South 47°49'50" East; thence North 25
• • 46'02.East not tangent to said curve.a distance of 10 feet;
thence southeasterly 38.38 feet along a non-tangential curve,.
• concave to the northeast. having a radius of 1372.39 feet, a
• central angle of 1°36'08' and a chord that bears South'65'02'
• • East;thence North 68°39'30"East,not tangent.to last.described ....
"•" - . curve,a,distance of 20.72 feet; thence North 19'51'A2":•East.a :.--
distance of 253.34 feet; thence northerly 147.98.feet•along• '
• .a tangential curve, concave to the west. having a radius of. .: • '
'.190 feet and a central angle of 44°37'17"; thence North 24! 1
45'34' West tangent to last described curve.a.distance of
• •416.53 feet; thence northerly 71.33 feet along a tangential.. , ,
• .curve, concave to the east,having a radius of 320 feet:''' T.
a centrai.angie of 12°46'20" and a chord that bears`North .
• 18°22'24" West; thence South 42°50'42" West.not tangent to'. :
last described curve,a-distance of 50 feet; thence North
50°05'32" West a distance of 360 feet; thence North 14°08'
08"West a distance-of 24 feet to the intersection with a
line that bears North 56°59'41" East from the-point of . •
• • beginning; thence South 56°59'41" West a distance of 408.17
feet to the point of beginning. For the purpose of this . • ••
description the south line of said Section 36 is assumed
to have a bearing of North 88°27'23" East.
• That part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4.and the Northwest
County State Southwest 1/4 Section folloowi;116. Range 22. Hennepin
Commencing at a'point on the south line of Section 36, Township
117, Range 22. Hennepin County, State of Minnesota. distant
• 488.84 feet east of the southwest corner of said Section 36;
• thence South 7°13'25" Easta distance of 2125.01 feet;thence North
82°46'35" East a distance of 50 feet to the point of beginning
• of land to be described; thence South 7'13'25" East a distance .
of 248 feet; thence southeasterly 584 feet along a tangential
. • curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 1382.39 feet,'
• a central angle of 24°12'17" and a chord that.bears South 19°
, 19'34" East; thence North 56°59'41" East, not tangent to said
curve, a distance of 408.17 feet; thence North 14'08'08" West
a distance of 276 feet; thence North 0°47'28" West a distance
• •• of 190 feet; thence North 72'22'30" West a distance of 137
feet; thence North 1°52'30" West a distance of.80 feet;
•
• thence South 88°40'35" West a distance of 362.20 feet to
• • the point of beginning. For the purpose of this description
the south line of said Section 36 is assumed to'.havcv•a
bearing of North 88°27'23" East. •
EXHIBIT B
.sSl1"' • ' •
Performance Standards. uses which be-
1 cause of the nature of Chet, operation are accompanied by en
tact** of noise, vibration, dust, dirt, smoke, odor, noxious t
• guts. glare or wastes shall not be permitted. Tiles. Stan-
dard■ shall be considered 'excessive' when they either exceed
or deviate (roe the limitations set forth in the following
perfo,Aahoe specificationsr
A. Noise. Noise shall be measured on any prop-
erty 11M of the tract on which the operation le located.
Noise shall be ruffled so as not to become objectionable due
to intermittence, beat frequency, shrillness or intensity.
The sound pressure level shall be measured with a sound level .
meter and on an associated octave band analyzer, both of which
are manufactured according to current specifications pre-
. scribed by the American Standards Association. Measurement
shell be made using the flat nerwork of the sound level
At the property line, the sound preeaure level of noise radi •
-
ated from a fscflity shall not aceed the values given in the •
Following Steles
Osleve Band Frequency
(Cycles Per Second) Decibel Level
20- 75 6S
75- 150 • 60
150- 300 • SS
300- 600 46
600- 1,200 40
1,200- 2,400 34
2,400- 4,800 11
over 4,800 28
't Construction work that emits a noise audible at the property
line is allowed only during the hours of 7:00 o'clock A.M.
through 10,00 o'clock P.m., Monday through Saturday. Sundays
and Holidays are excluded. •
B. Vibration. No activity or operation shall •
•t any time cause earth vibrations perceptible beyond the
limits of the immediate site on which the operation is
located.
C. Dust and Dirt. Solid or liquid particles.
shall not be emitted at any point in concentrations exceeding
0.3 grains per cubic toot of the conveying gas or air. For
•measurement of the amount of particles in gases resulting from
combustion, standard corrections shall be applied to a stack
temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and 501 excess air.
D. Smoke. Measurement shall be at the point
• of emission. The 8ingelman Smoke Chart published by the
United States Bureau of Mines shall be used for the measure-
ment of smoke. Smoke not darker or more opaque than No. 1 of
said chart may be emitted, provided that smoke not darker or
core opaque than No. 2 of said chart may be emitted for
periods not longer than four minutes in any 30 minute period.
These provisions, applicable to visible grey smoke, shall also
apply to visible smoke of ♦ different color but with an equi-
s valent apparent opacity.
•
E. Odor. No activity or operation shell cause
at any time the discharge of toxic, noxious or odorous matter
beyond the limits of the immediate site where ft is located in
such concentrations as to be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, welfare, comfort or safety or cause injury to
property or business.
F. Glare. Glare, whether direct or reflected,
such as from spot lights or high temperature prose use, and as
differentiated from genetel illumination, shall not be visible
beyond the limits of the lsnediete site from which it origi- ..
• nets.
G. Bootee. All solid waste material, debris,
refuse o, gsrbene shall be kept within a compl•tele enclosed
bonding OF vfp.i fly OPntelhed in a'closed container designed
for such purpose. All liquid castes containing any organic Of
Witte matter shall be discharged either Into a public sanitary
In • manner prescribed by the City. The rate
•
of liquid waste discharge into the City sanitary sewerage eya-
tee shall not exceed 288 gallons pet site acre per hour
between the hours of 9:00 o'clock A.M. and noon. Use lur the dumping or storage above ground or under the surface ui chemi-
cal waste end other hs,srdous waste products will not be per-
. Bitted became* of the potanlisl hasaeds that say ha C d to
public health, safety and .altar• in ell Districts. -
1$3
•
•
•
•
•
•
Perfoesance Standards • Tests.
. A. By Owner. In order to assure compliance
with the performance standards set forth above, the Counell
may require the owner or operator of any permitted use to have
aide such rove atigatlons and torts ati say be royuited to shoe
adherence to the performance standards. Such ihvestigstion
and teats as are required to be node shall be carried out by
an independent testing organization as say be agreed upon by - .
all parties concerned, or ii there is failure to agree, by
such independent testing organization as may be selected by _.
the Council after 30 days notice. The costs incurred in her-
, • Ing such investigations and tests conducted shall be shared
equally by the owner or operator and the City, unless the in-
vestigation and tests disclose noncompliance with the perfor-
mance standards, in which event the entire investigation or
testing cost shall be paid by the owner or operator.
B. By City. The procedure above stated shall
not-preclude the City from making any testa and investigations
• It finds appropriate to determine compliance with these per..
Lenience standards.
Site Plans. The provisions of this Subdl-
vision shall apply to all zoning districts with the exception
of Sl single family. The site plan shall be prepared end
signed by a iundecape architect, or professional site planner
with.educational training or work experience in land analysis
• and site plan preparation. The specialized and complex as-
pacts of land analysis requires. the .expertise provided by the _
• .it. planning professional. The site planner must be an early
• participant in the development.process to provide accurate and
detailed analysis of the proposed developmentsite. The basic
• natural inventory date suet be used by the design team members
• to produce an appropriate site plan. The proposed site plan
shell Include the following provisioner ill Detailed natural
•
land analysis which documents existing physical features such
eat vegetation, soil types, slopes, hydrologic system, wild.-
lift, and geology. The existing physical features should tan •
presented as • composite at the use acute as the final site _
plan or included on the final alto plan sheets 1.7.1 Proposed
construction of all alterations of the sitar ill tract strue-
tate tilting and building klevationai rei iansade futures that
•
,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
riTS •
•
...City West 8usiness Center--Ryan Construction
The following is the full text of the City of Eden ,P.rairie Ordinance No. 26-83,
I which was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Eden Prairie on , 1983. Following the text of the
Ordinance, the Developer's Agreement, which is incorporated therein by Section 5 of
the Ordinance, is summarized.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 26-83,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING 8Y REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made •
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the I-2 Park-Planned Unit •
Development 7-83 District (hereinafter "PUD 7-83").
Section 3. The land shall be 'subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , 1983, entered
into between Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota and the City of Eden Prairie
(hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"), and that certain Owner's Supplern2nt entered
into between Anderson Development, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie, dated as of
, 1983. The Developer's Agreement and Owner's Supplement
contain the terms and conditions of PUD 7-83, and are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 7-83 is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the
City.
B. PUD 7-83 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of
the City Code, which are contained in PUD 7-83, are justified by the
design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 7-83 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that
its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete
unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and
nereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the I-
2 Park-Planned Unit Development 7-83 District, and the legal descriptions of land in
• 1/3G'
each district referred to in City Code Section 11.D3, subdivision 1, subparagraph B,
shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
•
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the. City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the day of _ , and finally read and
adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City
on the day of .
ATTEST:
•John D. Frane, City Clerk Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of .
r
•
11311
Sumnary of Developer's Agreement: City West Business Center by Ryan Construction
( Developer will develop the land as described in Exhibit A which is attached
to and incorporated in the Developer's Agreement. In addition, the Developer's
Agreement provides for:
1. Submission of plans regarding sewer, water, and drainage to Engineering
Department.
2. Execution of Declarations and Restrictions relating to use of'the property
set forth in that certain document entitled Declarations of Restrictions and
dated August 2nd, 1983, by and between Ryan Construction Company of
Minnesota, a Minnesota corporation, and City.
3. Developer to be obligated to area-wide and front footage assessments for
necessary improvements on Shady Oak Road.
4. In implementation of the Planned Unit Development, and as a variance from
certain requirements imposed by City Code Chapter 11, City authorizes a
variance to allow more than 50% office in the I-2 District, if parking is
available according to City Code.
5. Submission to the City Engineer of a development Plan for the land.
6. Submission to Watershed District of storm sewer construction plans.
Developer to follow the rules and regulations of said Watershed District.
7. Developer's warranty of title to the land.
8. Construction and maintenance of public improvements which are to be conveyed
to the City as well as preservation and restoration of areas surrounding
said improvements. Submission of a bond or letter of credit to ensure the
quality of said construction, maintenance, preservation, and restoration.
9. Rough grading to be performed by the Developer for improvements which the
City will construct pursuant to 100% petition of all owners of the land.
Submission of a bond or letter of credit for the rough grading.
10. Payment of first three (3) years' street lighting, engineering review, and
street signs costs.
11. Developer's comnitrnent not to oppose rezoning if Developer fails to proceed
in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months.
12. Application of the Developer's Agreement to transferees of the land.
•
13. City's remedies in the event that Developer violates the provisions of the
Developer's Agreement.
14. Notice to the City's cable franchise.
NOTICE: A printed copy of this ordinance is available for inspection by any person
during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk.
•
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Cogncil on , 1983.
John D. Frane, City Clerk Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
•
•
•
•
•
L,.
.• ii�9
•
•
•
•
TO: Mayor Penzel and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works ff
FROM: David L. Olson, Engineering Technician /�j`. . •
DATE: August 9, 1983 •
SUBJECT: CITY WEST - REVISED FINAL PLAT •
• Anderson Development, Inc., has requested City Council approval of
a revised final plat foriCity.West. A final plat originally approved
by the Council on October 5, 1982, has not been recorded with
• Hennepin County. Approval of this plat was subject to the requirements
of the Engineering report dated September 28, 1982.
The plat now submitted conforms with the plat approved in 1982 and
includes property line adjustments for recently approved projects
on Lot 9, Block 1 (C.R.C.) and Lot 12, Block 2 (City West Business
Center). The area east of City West Parkway now includes areas
obtained from Hennepin County and MN/DOT.
The revised plat is submitted to the City Council for approval to
authorize City officials to execute the plat which will actually
be filed. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the
final plat of City West subject to the requirements of the Engineering
Report dated September 28, 1982.
DLO:sg
•
y //11
August 16, 1983
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
t RESOLUTION NO. 83- 197
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL' PLAT
CITY WEST
WHEREAS, the plat of City West has been submitted
in the manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance
Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have
been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan
and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE: -
A. Plat Approval Request for City West
is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the
City Engineer's Report on this plat dated August 9, 19B3.
B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A.
waiving the six month maximum.time elapse between the
approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the
final plat as described in said Engineer's Report.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified
copy of this Resolution in the office of the Register of
required
Deed and/or Registrar of Titles for their use as re q
by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3.
D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the
above named plat.
E. That the Mayor and City Manager are herby authorized to Execute
the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council
upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 83-191
RESOLUTION COMMENTING ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF C.S.A.H. 18 AS
A MINOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY FROM I-494 SOUTH TO HIGHWAY 13
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has long supported Unique System 'D' as an appro-
priate method of servicing major transportation needs in the southwest area and County
Road 18 is a part of that system; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's Development Framework designates County Road
18 as a Minor Arterial and Eden Prairie's approved Comprehensive Guide Plan is in
conformance with this; and
WHEREAS, designation of County Road 18 by the Hennepin County Board as a Minor
Arterial with at grade intersections is consistent with the Development Framework
and Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Plan and is planned on the current County Road 18
alignment; and
WHEREAS, the current County Road 18 alignment physically precludes a Normandale
river crossing; and
WHEREAS, Eden Prairie does not oppose a river crossing; and
WHEREAS, environmental problems in both the Anderson Lakes Area and the Bluff/River
Bottoms Area can be mitigated by proper design and construction;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL as follows:
• j
1. Design of the contemplated improvement to C.S.A.H. 18 as a
Minor Arterial with at grade intersections will make it
possible to mitigate environmental problems through the
Anderson Lakes Area through careful design.
2. The western corridor designation for C.S.A.H. 18 dictates a
northern terminus for a proposed river crossing, however
other agency concerns and Environmental Review will dictate
the southern terminus and crossing alignment.
3. Eden Prairie does not oppose a river crossing with C.S.A.H.
18 as a Minor Arterial.
4. The City of Eden Prairie supports improvement of C.S.A.H. 18
on its current alignment south of I-494 as a Minor Arterial
with at grade intersections, given proper mitigation of
air, water, noise, and visual pollution and impact on wildlife.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this day of August, •
Wolfgang H. Penzel
ATTEST: Mayor of Eden Prairie
SEAL
John D. Frane, City C eri rk /clan
MEMORANDUM •
•
TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services i / '
DATE: August 9, 1983 •
SUBJECT: Birch Island Park Expansion
Attached to this memo are copies of two Quit Claim Deeds from Hennepin County to
.the City of Eden Prairie that result in the expansion of Birch Island Park from a
17 acre park to a 48 acre park. This expansion would include approximately 1600
feet of shoreline on the north shore of Birch Island Lake and it would include
• the day camp facilities located on the northeast shore of Birch Island Lake.
•
The County is transferring this parkland to the City under the condition that the
• day camp portion of the parkland shall be limited for use as a resident day or
outpost camping-recreation program for mentally retarded and developmently delayed
children and adults within Hennepin County, and other disadvantaged residents of
Ilennepin County. The agreement does not require or impose a guarantee that the
City operate, pay for or provide funds, material, labor or services in connection
with the operation of such a program.
•
In the event no person.or organization desires to operate and make available to such
persons such a recreation program as provided in clause (i) of the Quit Claim Deed
after reasonable efforts by the City to secure a person or organization to do so, or
in the event it shall be economically unfeasible for any person or organization to do so,
the principal use of the restricted land may be for general camping and recreation
services for residents of the City of Eden Prairie and disadvantaged residents of
Hennepin County.
This restriction is attached to the property to ensure that the City encourages the
Association for Retarded Citizens of Hennepin County to continue operating a day
camp at that location.
. The City has requested two deeds on this property in order that that restriction is
limited only to the day camp area. The deed for the remaining property simply has
a restriction that the property is used for a public trail and recreational purposes.
Also, attached to this memo is an April 1, 1983 memo from Don Risler, from Ilennepin
County, that outlines the delinquent assessments and current assessments on this
property. As of April of this year those totalled $19,858 for the portion of the
property that will be transferred to the.City of Eden Prairie.
The Community Services Department recommend that the City accept these deeds to this
property and pay for the acquisition costs (taxes and assessments) from the cash park
fee fund.
IH :md
I'l`la
:rT
..."'"?..Ymmw
DATE: April 1, 1983
TO: Sue Markham HENNEPIN1,4711�.� 1
( `'
i..... . FROM: Don Risler pro/ :1.
i
SUBJECT: Glen Lake Properties
Attached is the proposed quitclaim deed forwarded-from the County Attorney's
office with the added restrictions on assessments.
The tax situation is complicated by the necessity of calculating the portion
of one tax parcel's assessment attributable to the land leased to the state.
An informal tax division yielded a factor of 95% for the State-leased land.
Delinquent Assessments $12,046.84
• Interest, Penalties & Other 2,901.28
Costs on delinquencies
(calculated as of 5/19/83)
.Total Delinquent Costs • $14,948.12*
(. *The portion of the S14,948.12 attributable to the State-leased land is
$6,789.33. There are no assessments on this land in 1983 and beyond.
Total Current Assessments $ 1,942.25
(due in 1983)
Remaining Assessments $ 9,757.69 •
. (due in 1984 and beyond) ,
In summary, the total cost (past, present and future) including penalties,
interest and other costs calculated as of 5/19/83 on the three tax parcels
is,$26,648.06. Pulling out the $6,789.33 attributable to the land leased
to the State leaves $19,858.73 for the land proposed to be transferred to
Eden Prairie.
DR/mkg
Attachment
•
• pm IM KM 14-OMIT CLAWtHED Nbe,.0 UMW.Cwwwm..•W BMW wpm ...es
Camaua..a mm..umm
Y Camomile..IN S.oer.Nq
No delinquent tones end transfer entered:Certif irate ^
• (
Ce of heal Estate Value ( )filed ( )not required u • 7a •
rtificate -of Real Estate Value No. f •
. ,19 .
County Auditor
by
Deputy
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: S
Dale: :T9—
• (reserved for recording data) •
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, The County of H Corporate
. .a body politic an under the laws of
• ' .Minneaotn ,Grantor,hereby conveys and quitclaims to City of £den
2x.a irie ntr. ,Crantee,
a iaody—polio and cerpar/under the laws of Minnesota •real property in •
llenne Ti es County,Minnesota,described as follows:
•
• That part of the Northeast 1/4, Section 4, Township 116, Range 22, describe
as follows, beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northeast 1/4, thence
• South 868.4' along East line to its intersection with the centerline
of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacif ic'Railroad, thence Southwesterly
• along said centerline 580' to point A which is actual point of beginning,
thence continue along said centerline to a point which is 150' West at
right angles to the West line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4,
thence North parallel to and 150' West of said West line 920', thence
• • Easterly to point A, which is 'actual point of beginning excepting the
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
In mom(pm N Dan ,coming ea b.ekl
• together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto.
•
•
• Affix Used Tax Stamp here • By John Decor
• ) Its Chairman. County Board
By •
Hs Clerk. County Board
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) •
IL
•
COUNTY OF
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this_ day of ,19_,
by and
. the and
• of •a
under the laws of ,on behalf of the
. j _...... ... ... ..— _...------
i I NOTARIAL STASIS.OR SEAL(OR OTHER TITLE OR R ANK I
Roger A. Pauly SIGNATURE Or,L*,ONTAKIKO ACKN 0*LCOGNCNT
ILANG, PAULY t GREGERSON, LTD. i::11.4=e i•.:...41=HGmM,NNtooautnOMN.au
• • • 14106 IDS Center
`Minneapolis, MN 55402 •
iTumIS INOT RUMEN ova URA,TEDav*ANC AND A00A MD ,
.
•
• I •
•
• • 17Li.1
•
/ The use of the real property described herein shall be limited to the
�. following; r •
(i) For a resident, day or outpost camping-recreation program for
mentally retarded and developmentally delayed children and
adults within Hennepin County and other disadvantaged residents
of Hennepin County; provided, however, nothing herein shall
require or impose upon grantee the obligation to operate, pay
for or provide funds, material, labor or services in connection
with the operation of any such program.
(ii) In the event no person or organization desires to operate and
make available to such persons such a recreation program as
provided in clause (i) hereof after reasonable efforts by
grantee to secure a person or organization to do so or in the
event it shall be economically unfeasible for any person or
organization to do so, the principal use of the restricted
land may be for general camping and recreation services for
residents of the City of Eden Prairie and disadvantaged residents
of Hennepin County.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
l0
.. .
.....
•
. • .
. .
' .04 Pt I . • .1
t, I I , .-.- •
,,t,t4...7,•71..1 . .. . 1 r,T.4*.:
•
• .• ;wool 10441'
••••
• •
• . .....
I •
. •
• ii
. I % •
11F.V" • I • • •
t ,
. I . - J,F•
. I
,,,,. .•,.. -......„,„: .... .... •••
-"..,'" t •., .. .
• ./
---./''' i'. • •••, ,./ ••
• ../
• • ..\•••.•
—. . 1/4'• . • N 41
A• •
..!........i.. c.w 'Z' :... . . . • i... /l.
.V., • /moo)
• • ,•\'x'.. ,
•if. / .
,•••%..' .
• — '-:;11` :ti' ....... • :'f--- ,
' . • . iff'A ' ''•
. I •P'S',/ I `.,.• ...vt
"••/‘'
V.f.
400:e., • 0. 10.....,4:'/ 4A
..."-- .
•
0—• .
;,-...,...,..!..,;,.,-,,,•.• 1 ..,....., I; e • ,0 .'' „0 . 14.9 ...../.
. . • •-
.•,frit•:e e. -71, . .i 40.‘,•' ,A.• •
—•( ,e,,'• •?' oi,,,„4. , 4:, • . • ' • I ik42- ..t. /...
,...,—..44,-6 e' -„, •
4, , / , • i .t•,,,,F• ..•
.f;''.'4'1. •f .96.„,,,
•••• i i 1,4. 4:)s ‘" •
„.„) , :1 . . c",..,., .:<,. ,1 • .•
. •
„•- , z ,,e....
-/
% ‘. I ''• •
-"I 1 1 . • •
„. '/.•
..., /.,.. ...,, . •
•.),4)1 1 / ''://2/ \
•.......7 ' 4.,A‘
t•'44) 0 -
4 : • •
: '1.1 $ '• 1 g"
•-•--- 'i h • ,.• ,,. ›.,,,;,/ <
•‘i • , ,..." .,•_,.- • •
\,--,..179-,. . • .0" ;.'",,,,i7
He tux p al Co•nl r
'r i'lWr• 1 • re . .3,;,,,. ,,,,,•I c,„•%i
. .
' ..:..,•;.*:
.0.. ..."."'. 7t' : - '.ce!.^C';‘4-(e>..-- t.• • I k:toll . . ;
''.*r.,•••-2-:ik' --1
1.4 I
. ,..../i/:
..1.,.. .--- 4,1<--'•-•*. /-i:i
..........fv,,
----7 '-'-'1;..4...-.N \,' ---U11-----16-------"---- ------H
IN.M. ..- ' "% ' ' .. —--- -'----,--_ • go c t 10 10••,....wil 15)
, '' • - . Mut 0,i—
-i•-.."1"-•:.k.
• 1...• • •f F I AC( .• / .!I 4,' __.. . /a--- _
S;-.1-.;.'il-.ii... ..,:e .....e. _.f..71----.!e .
. . „„, ,,. ,„: ..": 44 il 4:••••• ••••sli cot •
•
' .
.• '. . .
" •', • • . •
• ' • '• ,
: .
. . ..... •• .
' .
. ..
• 1V4/1 . .
.. .
•
INa N.I0s1 M-OUIT CLAIM DUD Nbn.,.YUnll.n.C..w,.n.baaln5. nun:.
Corpe...b n.e/',.I n,.N W
• to tend :Ion a:IulMrNW •
'
No delinquent tames and transfer entered:Certificate
of(teal Estate Values( )filed I )not required
Certificate of Real Estate Value No.
,19 ..f ,
v County Auditor
. by
Deputy
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $
Date: +r1,9_
(reserved for recording data)
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, The County of Hennepin corporate
. ,a_body poli tic t nil/ under the laws of
M;TBnsota ,Grantor,hereby conveys and quitclaims to_ City of. Ldsn
.Cr2B1.us ate ,Grantee,
a body poll tic and Cornor/under the laws of—flinnftsotd ,real property in
• Jlenneyin County,Minnesota.described as follows:
' That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 116, Range 22,
• Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the right-of-way of the
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company and Westerly of
. • the center line of Birch Island Road; EXCEPT that part thereof described '
• • • as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter;
• thence east along the north line of said Northeast Quarter to the center .
line of Birch Island Road; thence southerly along said center line to a
• point distant 1000.00 feet south from the north line of said Northeast
\ • Quarter as measured at a right angle to said north line; thence westerly
to a point on the west line•of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of said section, distant 1000.00 feet south along said west line
( from the northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter; thence continue .along said line to the west line of said Northea:
of more WK.I.n,.d.d•conlNw on bark)
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto.
Affix Decil Tax Stamp Here By John Dents
f its Chairman, County Board
• By
Its Clerk. County Board
_
1 STATEOF MINNESOTA I
•Ia.
COUNTY OF .' '
•
a The foregoing was acknowledged before ine thb doy of ,19_•-,
by and .
the and —
of ,a
under the laws of • .on behalf of the ,•
NOr AR1AL sTAH,vs sc si.ton erase TInii oR asset
Roger A. Pauly a1GNATURR Or PIRRSON TAKING ACKNOw"LCOGYLNT
t.SOOm.nl,4,tk,I,d,wn,d,d..,db.d N NN MOnunwl Y.md
LANG, PAULY 6 GREGERSON, LTD. w„m mtln.�pd.R..e..na.adnu.ronm.u:
14100 IDS Center
[Minneapolis, MN 55402
e INSTRUMENT wAa nnAI TED a (NA
ME AME AND ADDRtaal:•ms
(
•
• • ' 1`1 U
. ' �
.( • • •• (Legal Description Continued) .40,,
•
•
Quarter: thence north along said west line to the point of beginning.
EXCEPT:
• That part of the Northeast 1/4, Section 4, Township 116, Range 22, .
described as follows, beginning at the Northeast corner of said
Northeast 1/4, thence South 868_.4' along East line to its intersection
with the centerline of Chicago-„Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad, thence Southwesterly along said centerline 580' to point A _
which is actual point of beginning, thence continue along said
centerline to a point which is 150' west at right angles to the
West line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, thence North
parallel to and 150' West of said West line 920', thence Easterly
to point A, which is actual point of beginning.
. The real property described herein shall be used for public trail and
• • recreational purposes.
•
(.
• i
• •• •
• i
.
Ily9
• _
•
• •
•. •
•
. / .
( ' i',i,;,11g 1 • . 1p.1
•
• . :oleo, '
. ....
I . • —
k..)
I .
I I
. • II .
N.:: ...,
:•1 kt, ..11 1 I‘L‘l\h.\\\11‘
•• .•'' _ ''.1-
...•
'i • I „. /—/
. /
I . /
..-'-'. .PC 1J 4_... . •....\/ .4;'••
• • //
• '"er / V/ • (Noe)
.% 'is • 2 ' '`e<.• A•t".5,'•
1--,——7.. 0.,,,-;tlf;`, ''•,.... :1—i-
:•,!•••.;••%••:•ei - .A- 14"....• r
..,.,,.‘-.,•,,,•,, /
svce A
., ,9° . .,.
...„ ... '....- , , _ • . i. • • . ,o
.:; ..,
, 4 .
- 14 ,•,, fq„ 0,20 • . " A:
:_•.,i eq. - ," 0,_ %...., . . '
• : , AI- ,.. •
,-..:.i-:....,;;Io l • 1 ....c. • 04
6> ,,... ,,. 0, .
i A
•,,
" , A • i • ' 'et..., . b.
• -I,(0... / •.• '." #.!1 .
''''.•li•# '
.. 1
' • Ne." /If .../ )../// '! I '
. re . / . /.. .
.
1 .0" '"y/
11 0 ' e . ' ,,
. / •-•••
oP
i ie , - 4...
A '"I• ::... q QS
„.•••-• I\ ir, / ,, ),.// ..
,./>........... O'‘
1 •I 1 e'Z- ;% 0'
•4 . .4- /
eer .'' ....) ' .
orA..., •
r,,'•„' \.
,......• ,.,- :...:,.• .1 .. ,e. ;i'e 1,iX Henna.p.n Cow.,y
...
i.,...1'..'...:,.. I
ii..er... Ar/ .-' -.e.P.-' .6'•',1.ce''''.
1 : • .
°/..---.
'
Vo • .'•...: ..A.10' ••- ' '
._, _______,Z .,,, j•%.,..1
.44,..c....n.,... .....11 •
6." .,i:•.!!.N --,_ 3'24.,.........- i we) t ...
...-.:_t_.,,,,,-d,..'0,,A. . ----,,,_ I •
.• .. ..,. W66:.II I-B4.1i PRc‘,./:HK17I.?1 M 7.47/0.76.1,
71—..1..-..,-,,6,,6,•1_,II/p4.c.o_lo_1c!0...$11 7.:.•7•A•m•s I_. , .h...a;'.4-4--C-o•—I
- ISLAND -.
------ —•.
)
IP' I \ —1 /" 1— ir691R
. . .
. .
.. •
. •
• .
17S0
. , .
. .. .-.
•
MEMORANDUM
( TO: Mayor and City Council '
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services Y
DATE: August 9, 1983
SUBJECT: Lease Agreement for Camp for Retarded Citizens at Birch Island Park
Hennepin County has proposed to transfer ownership of parkland on the north shore of
Birch Island Lake to the City of Eden Prairie subject to the City agreeing to allow
the continued operation of a day camp serving retarded citizens of Hennepin County
on the existing site.
Under State Law the City is required to advertise that property for lease and to take
. the high bid.
The Association for Retarded Citizens of Hennepin County, 'formerly known as MARC, has
. been operating that camp for many years and has developed the facility into a fine
year-round leisure service facility that provides camping opportunities for mentally
retarded citizens of Hennepin County. The City would expect that the only bid for
continued operation of this facility would come from the Association for Retarded
Citizens of Hennepin County.
•
City staff request the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the
City Council to review the language of the proposed lease agreement and provide staff
with a guideline on a minimum annual rent that would be acceptable, and what the
length of the lease shall be.
•
• • MARC has been using the facility rent free from the County since its inception.
Staff at the Association for Retarded Citizens have indicated that they have a difficult
time getting corporate donations to a facility with a short term lease. They are
requesting a long term lease. They have suggested 99 years. City staff would recommend
the lease agreement for a period of 20 years. The deed restriction will remain on the
land requiring the City to continue operation of a camp for retarded citizens; however,
at the end of 20 years the City would have an opportunity to review the operation of
the existing camp and determine if the lease should be extended. A 20 year lease is
also a fairly substantial length of time and should assist the Association for Retarded
Citizens to gain funding support for development of the facilities.
Staff have not forwarded this agreement for review by the Association for Retarded
Citizens, but have requested review of the City prior to forwarding this document.
Upon review and approval by the City of this language, staff would forward this doc-
ment for review by the Assoication for. Retarded Citizens, and if there are any sub-
stanial changes would bring this document back for Council approval.
If and when the City would accept the Quit Claim Deed from the County for the expansion
of Birch Island Park the City would then advertise for the lease of the camp site
to be continued under the terms of this agreement. Upon receiving bids, the City would
award the high bidding organization the lease of the camp site to operate a camp
for retarded citizens under the terms of this lease agreement.
BL:md 1161
•
LEASE
This Lease is made and entered into as of the day of
, 1983, by and between the City of Eden 'Prairie, a
municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Lessor" and Associ-
ation for Retarded Citizens of Hennepin County, a nonprofit corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred
to as "Lessee";
WHEREAS, Lessor is the owner of certain land situated on the
north shore of Birch Island Lake, adjacent and west, of Birch Island
Lake Park, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and made a part hereof, together with certain improvements thereon, on
, which site Lessee has operated the resident, day or outpost camping-
recreation program for mentally retarded and developmentally delayed
children and adults within Hennepin County and other disadvantaged
residents of Hennepin County for a number of years, all of which is
hereinafter referred to as "the premises"; and,
WHEREAS, the County of Hennepin under the laws of Minnesota,
conveyed and quit claimed to Lessor the premises by means of a quit
•
claim deed which restricts use of the property to a resident, day or
outpost camping-recreation program for mentally retarded and develop-
mentally delayed children and adults within Hennepin County and other
disadvantaged residents of Hennepin County;
WHEREAS, Lessee desires to lease the premises from Lessor upon
certain terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises herein recited
I "
and of the covenants, conditions and agreements hereinafter set forth
•
fi
be made, kept and performed by the parties hereto, the parties
mutually agree as follows:
•
I.
Lessor hereby leases to Lessee, and Lessee hereby leases from
Lessor, the premises, during the term, in consideration of the payment
•
of the rents by Lessee to Lessor and in accordance with all of the
covenants, terms, provisions and conditions hereof.
II. •
Lessee shall use the premises for the operation and conduct of
a resident, day or outpost camping-recreation program for mentally
retarded and developmentally delayed children and adults within
Hennepin County and other disadvantaged residents of Hennepin County.
If Lessee discontinues the operation of said program for any reason,
then this Lease is automatically terminated.
•
III.
Lessee's term of possession of the premises under the Lease
shall be for a period of years commencing on the day •
of , 1983, and terminating on the day of
, 19_
IV. •
As and for rent of the premises, Lessee shall pay to Lessor the
sum of dollars per year, payable on the day of
, 1983, and on each successive day of
for the subsequent • years.
r V.
` Lessee has inspected the premises. No representation, statement
or warranty, expressed or implied, has been made by or on behalf of
l7`�3 -2-
•
the Lessor as to the condition'bf the premises. The taking of the
( possession of the premises by Lessee shall be conclusive evidence
that Lessee accepts the same "as is." In no event shall Lessor be
liable for any defect in the premises.
VI.
1. Lessee shall keep and maintain the,premises and all improve-
ments in a safe, sanitary, and sightly condition, in good repair, and
shall restore and yield the same back to Lessor upon the termination
of this Lease in such condition and repair as shall exist at the
commencement of this Lease, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and if
such premises shall not be so kept by Lessee, Lessor may enter the
premises (without such entering causing or constituting termination of
the Lease, or an interference with the possession of said premises by
.lessee) and do all things necessary to•restore said premises to the
condition herein required, charging the cost and expense thereof to
Lessee and Lessee agrees to pay Lessor, in addition to the rent and
• .charges hereby reserved, all such costs and expenses. Lessor shall have
no duty or obligation to repair or rebuild any structure on the premises,
whether the repair be structural or otherwise.
2. Lessee covenants and agrees to keep said premises and
improvements situated thereon free and clear of any and all liens in
any way arising out of the use thereof by Lessee.
•
3. Lessor, its agents and employees shall have the right at
reasonable times to enter the premises for the purpose of inspecting
the same from time to time.
. VII.
Lessee shall not sublet the whole or any part of the premises or
assign all or any part of its present interest in this Lease without
first obtaining the written consent of Lessor to any such sublease or
.ssignment.
•
VIII.
In the event the premises, or any part thereof, shall be damaged
or destroyed by fire or other casualties, the same may be promptly
repaired or rebuilt by Lessor at its expense as soon as funds are
•
available, but Lessor shall not be obligated•to repair, rebuild, re-
store. or replace any fixture, equipment, display or other property
installed by Lessee or others pursuant to this Lease; provided, however,
•.that Lessor may elect at its sole option, not to repair or reconstruct
any or all buildings which are a part of the premises, and, upon
written notice of such election from Lessor to Lessee, the obligation
of Lessee to pay rent shall cease and this Lease shall thereupon
'erminate.
• • IX.
In the event that all or any portion of the premises shall be
taken by eminent domain proceedings,•or by purchase in anticipation
of such proceedings, the proceeds payable in connection therewith by
the condemnor shall be paid to the Lessor. •
X.
Lessee, for the duration of this Lease, and any extension or
renewal thereof, in the operation of its program, shall conform to
all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.
XI.
Lessor shall not be liable for any damages to any property or
person at any time that may occur in or upon the premises, other than
damages due to the negligence of Lessor, and Lessee covenants and
agrees that it will indemnify and hold the Lessor free and harmless
•
'of and from all claims of whatever kind or nature for damages by or
any person or property whomsoever or whatsodFer, other than as
shall be caused by the negligence of Lessor, but including any per-
sonal injury or injuries to any person or property alleged or claimed
to have been caused by any act of commission or omission of Lessee,
its agents or employees.
XII.
' Lessee shall assume all risks incident to or in connection with
the uses of the premises hereinunder and shall be solely responsible
for all accidents or injuries of whatever nature or kind to persons or
property caused by its operations on the premises and shall indemnify,
defend and save harmless Lessor, its authorized agents and representa-
tives, Irom any penalties for violation of any law, ordinance or regu-
( tion affecting its operations, and from any and all claims, suits,
losses, damages or injuries to persons or property of whatsoever kind
or nature arising directly or indirectly out'of such uses of the prem-
ises, or resulting from the carelessness, negligence or improper con-
duct of Lessee, or any of its agents or employees.
Lessor shall not be liable to Lessee for damage to property
of Lessee or any loss of revenues to Lessee resulting from Lessor's
acts, omission or neglect in respect to the premises.
XIII.
Lessee shall maintain in force during the entire term of this
Lease, general liability insurance in the names of Lessor and Lessee
for injuries to persons occurring in or on the premises; such insurance
j gall at all times be in the greater amount of, (1) $
for all personal injuries and deaths and property damage resulting from
any one accident or occurrence on a combined single-limit basis or (2)
•he maximum limit of coverage p±ovided by general liability insurance
carried by Lessor from time to time.
Such insurance shall be effective under a valid and enforceable policy
or policies, with terms acceptable to Lessor, issued by an insurer of
recognized responsibility approved by Lessor upon submission of the
policy or policies to Lessor at least ten (1,01 days prior to the effec-
tive date or any renewal date as the case may be.
XIV.
Lessee shall maintain in full force and effect during the entire
term of this Lease, a policy or policies of insurance insuring any
property .of Lessee situated on or about the premises against loss by
fire and other perils in the amount of full insurable value thereof.
Such policy or policies shall contain a provision whereby the insurer
waives any right of subrogation which it may have against Lessor. Such
policy or policies shall be upon terms acceptable to the Lessor and
issued by an insurer of recognized responsibility approved by the
Lessor upon submission of the policy or policies to the Lessor at least
ten (10) days prior to the effective date or any renewal date as the
case may be.
XV.
Duplicate memorandum copies of all insurance policies secured
by the Lessee shall be delivered to Lessor, together with satisfactory
evidence of payment of premiums thereon at least ten (10) days prior •
to the effective dates of such policies. All renewal policies to be
procured by the Lessee or copies thereof, together with satisfactory
( ::vidence of payment of premiwns thereon, shall be delivered to the
-,6-
5'7
j,sor at least thirty (30) days before the expiration date of the
licies then in force. ' •
•
/ XV .
Lessee shall be responsible for and shall pay all the taxes on
equipment, furnishings, fixtures and property placed on the premises,
if any, and shall pay promptly any and all utilities used by it on
the premises for the duration of the term of this Lease.
XVII.
This Lease is made upon the condition that if the Lessee shall
•neglect or fail to keep, observe and perform any of the covenants and
agreements contained in this Lease, which are to be kept, observed or
performed by it, or if the Lessee shall vacate said premises or aban-
don the same during the term of this Lease, then and in any of said
,ses the Lessor may immediately or at any time thereafter, and with-
out further notice or demand, enter into and upon said premises, or
any part thereof, and take absolute possession of the same fully and
absolutely, without such re-entry working a forfeiture of the rents to
be paid and the covenants to be performed by the Lessee for the full
term of this Lease, and may at :the Lessor's election lease or sublet
said premises, or any part thereof, on such terms and conditions and
for such rents and for such time, as the Lessor may elect, and after
crediting the rent actually collected by the Lessor from such reletting
on the rentals stipulated to be paid under this Lease by the Lessee
from time to time, collect from the Lessee any balance remaining due
from time to time on the rent reserved under this Lease, charging to
the Lessee such reasonable expenses as the Lessor may expend in putting
-7-
«he premises in tenantable condition. Or the Lessor may at its
election and upon written notice to the Lessee declare this Lease
forfeited and void, and may thereupon re-enter and take full and
absolute possession of said premises as the owner thereof, and free
from any right or claim of the Lessee, or any person or persons
claiming through or under the Lessee; and such election and re-entry
last mentioned shall be and constitute an absolute bar to any right
to enter by the Lessee upon the payment of all arrearages of rent and
costs after a dispossession under any suit or process for breach of
any of the covenants of this Lease, and the commencement by the Lessor
of any action to recover possession of said premises aforesaid shall
be deemed a sufficient notice of election of said Lessor to treat this
Lease as void and terminated, without the'written notice above specified.
XVIII.
In the event of the termination of this Lease by Lessor as
hereinbefore provided, hessee shall, and hereby waives any and all
claims of any character for damages or loss which it may sustain for
any reason or cause whatsoever.
XIX.
The failure of the Lessor at any time to require performance of
Lessee of any of the provisions hereof shall in no way affect the right
of Lessor thereafter to enforce the same, nor shall the waiver by •
Lessor of any breach of any of the provisions hereof be taken or held
to be a waiver of the provision itself.
XX.
i
( Lessor agrees to pay any and all installments for assessments
-8-
1259
',Ivied against the premises during the term of the Lease as they become
due and payable. Lessee agrees to pay any and all taxes on the premises
as they become due and payable.
XXI. '
Lessor reserves the right and Lessee specifically agrees to
permit, the construction of a trail over th&'northerly part of the
premises consisting of approximately a 20 foot wide corridor more par-
ticularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
XXII.
Time is declared to be of the essence of this Lease, and the
terms hereof shall inure to and be binding upon the parties and their
respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. This Lease
embodies the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the
.object matter hereof and shall not be amended or modified except in
writing signed by the parties. •
XXIII. •
All notices to be given to Lessor or Lessee shall be given in
writing and hand-delivered or by depositing in the United States mail,
certified, and postage prepaid; addressed to:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS
8950 Eden Prairie Road .OF.MENNEPIN COUNTY
Eden Prairie, MN 55433
• XXIV.
Lessee further covenants with Lessor that at the expiration of
the term of this Lease peaceable possession of the premises shall be
liven to the Lessor.
•
-9-
XXV. s• •
Lessee, upon performing the covenants, conditions and agree—
/ ments contained, shall and may peacefully have, hold and enjoy
the premises and privileges hereinafter granted.
- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Lease this day of , 1983.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, "Lessor"
By
By
ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS
OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, "Lessee"
C
( By.
By
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1983, by and
of the City of Eden Prairie.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
( COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1983, by
I sl
/
( .nd of Association for Retarded Citizens
•
of Hennepin County.
Notary Public
• .4
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: August 10, 1983 .
SUBJECT: Hennepin County Park Reserve District Public Hearing on Funding
of Regional Parks
The Board of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District is considering several possible
. actions relating to funding of regional park operations in Hennepin County. The act-
e a
ion the services inetheaCountykand perhaps invthe entirei metropolitan c affect on darea. The action regionalelivery of
Park wide tax levies.
may also affect County
..Because of the importance of this issue and potential impact of any action the Board
may take, the Board is seeking public input into its decision making processthrough
. • . a series of 7 public forums. The date of the first forum is Tuesday, September
at Lynnhurst Community Recreation Center.
Judith Anderson, Chair of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board of Commiss-
ioners,.has requested input from the City of Eden Prairie by the September 6 date.
Thanks to the forsight of early metropolitan decision makers, parks and recreation
• opportunities have played an important role in the vitality of the winrC Cities,
anpin
d
. specifically ltennepin County. The decisions now being layed by iarde.ff enpepi
•. County Park Reserve District could well have impact of that same magn
ance.
.The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has specifically raised two issues with the
Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board of Commissioners.
•First, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board reports that heavy peak-time use
of some of the regional facilities within its system by non-residents
stofiMinneapolis
.contributes significantly to overuse of those facilities, bringing
or-
ation of the park resources and high operational expenses.
. Second, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has expressed concern over w f what
teit
describes as a tax inequity resulting from Minneapolis residents tax support
g-
ional parks in the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board System and the ltennepin
County Park Reserve District System.
Specifically, the Board is taking public comment on four questions:
1. Are there sufficient and appropriate regional facilities, operating or
planned, to serve the recreation needs of the citizens of Hennepin
County?
2. Is there fairness in the current tax structure that provides operating
funds for the regional parks in Uennepin County?
3. If not, how should the current taxing structure be changed?
,z
•
4. What other methods should the Board consider to finance regional parks
in Hennepin County more appropriately? , ,
Attached to this memo is some information provided by the Park Reserve District
regarding the background of the regional park system in Hennepin County and the
use patterns of the Minneapolis parks and Hennepin County parks. Also, attached is
some background information on the financing of regional park operations and what
approaches are now being considered.
The operating budget for the Park Reserve District in 1983 was approximately 4.9
million dollars. The operating budget for the Minneapolis parks within the regional
park system for 1983 was approximately 4.6 million dollars. Approximately 44% of
the people using the regional parks in Minneapolis come from outside of Minneapolis,
and approximately 9% of the people using regional parks operated by Hennepin County
Park Reserve District are Minneapolis residents. Minneapolis residents are being
..taxed for 100% of the operation of the regional parks operated by the Minneapolis
Park Board, as well as their share of the regional parks operated by the Hennepin
County Park Reserve District. •
Minneapolis is facing the same question the City of Eden Prairie faced several years
ago "should the City pay for 100% of the operation of a park that has been designated
• a regional park, and where approximately half of the users are from outside of the
City?"
• The County has summarized 8 approaches for funding park operations within Hennepin
County. The County wide funding of operating costs for parks operated by different
agencies is a complex question. The City of Bloomington, the City of Minneapolis,
and the Park Reserve District each have different standards and procedures for oper-
• ating park systems; therefore, the costs for operating a specific park might vary
from agency to agency.
The majority of the users of the Minneapolis parks are Minneapolis residents. The
majority of the users of Bush Lake Park in Bloomington are Bloomington residents.
Perhaps the question should be asked "Has the percentage of non-resident use of
Minneapolis regional parks increased since they have been designated regional parks?"
Since 1974 many of the second tier suburbs have developed extensive park systems,
and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District has devleoped many highly used parks
outside of Minneapolis. It is reasonable to assume that these parks have reduced
some of the pressure on Minneapolis parks by non-resident users.
If the City Council supports assisting Minneapolis and Bloomington in operating costs
perhaps the fairest way would be to tax Hennepin County residents outside of Minne-
apolis based on their percent of use. Approximately 25% of the users of the Minne-
apolis park system are Hennepin County residents outside of Minneapolis.
City staff is requesting the Council to make a recommendation regarding suburbs being
taxed for operating funds that will assist the Minneapolis Park Board to operate
regional parks.
BL:md
Ackground '
What is the regional park system in Hennepin County?
Within the scope of the 1974 Metropolitan Parks Act, the Metropolitan Council
designated park facilities operated by the City of Bloomington, the Hennepin County
I
Park Reserve District and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board as components
of the Regional Recreation Open Space System.
In making this designation, the Metropolitan Council selected public areas
which, because of the character and development of their natural environment,
offer recreational opportunities that attract large numbers of people from the
metropolitan area.
The Metropolitan Council has the responsibility of developing an overall plan
for the Regional Park System. And, it obtains funds through bond sales or from
- the State Legislature to buy and develop parklands. The Council then grants
acquisition and development funds to the counties, cities and special park districts
which are designated as "implemetning agencies," to buy parkland and develop park
facilities,according to their Council-approved master plan.
To date, the Metropolitan Council has approved the sale of approximately
$120 million of bonds for acquisition and development grants for the regional park
sytem iri the metropolitan area.
It is the responsibility of each implementing agency to carry out the plans
ceveloped and approved by the Council. Each implementing agency is also responsi-
•
ble for funding the operation and maintenance of the regional facilities within its
jurisdiction.
The Hennepin County Park Reserve District's primary source of operating funds
is from a park tax levy on property within Hennepin County, under a mill rate
ceiling set by the legislature. Annually, the District submits an operating budget
to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for approval and levy of necessary
taxes. Currently, the District's mill rate ceiling is I mill. In 1983, the
a
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners approved a .666 mill tax rate, producing
tax levy of $4,942,637 for the Hennepin County Park Reserve District.
The primary source of operating funds for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation
Board is from several tax levies on property within the City of Minneapolis, each
with separate ceilings. Annually, the'proposed tax levy is submitted to the City
of Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation for final approval and setting of
the mill rate and tax levy. In 1983, the Board of Estimate and Taxation approved
a total mill rate of 4.359 mills, yielding a tax levy of $11,040,028. Of this total,
the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board estimates that $4,676,891 is budgeted for
the maintenance and operation of regional parks within its system.
4 12Ge-
•
•
•
'Jser origin
•
Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board
(--
Minneapolis
68%
First tier
suburbs , 5%
16% 4' Non-
15% metro
0 8% Other metro
• �ii•
Other
3% Henn.
Co.
Hennepin County Park Reserve District
Mpls.
Non-
First tier 9% metro
suburbs
12% 7%
10% '
Bloomington• 24%
Other metro
38%
Other Henn.Co.
•
•
Source: 1982 Metro Council Summer Uso Study Data
Use patterns very from season to season, therefore yearly average user origin
figures would differ from the sumner season figures shown. for exampic, the lakes
in Minneapolis attract high sumner use, where cross-country ski trails attract high
numbers of users to the park reserves during the winter. it,(,
•
How did the question of financing of regional park operations arise?
The relationship between the Hennepin County Park Reserve District and the
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board relative to the operation and funding of
regional parks in Hennepin County dates back to the passage of the 1974 Metro-
politan Parks Act which created the regional park system.
An initial effort was begun in 1976 to involve the Hennepin County Park
Reserve District in joint operations of the Central. Mississippi Riverfront Project.
That involvement never materialized.
In 1979, at a joint meeting of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board
and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, the two boards agreed to continue
their discussions. Two further meetings were held to discuss the District's
participation in cost sharing of the Central Mississippi Riverfront Project and
the Regional Chain of Lakes parks in Minneapolis.
In May, 1981, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board passed a resolution
requesting the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to appropriate funds to
Minneapolis in its 1982 budget in an amount "not less than the tax levied by the
Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County in the City of Minneapolis for regional
parks outside Minneapolis." (Approximately $1.5 million.) As an alternate, the
resolution proposed that the County Board join with the Minneapolis Park and Recrea-
tion Board in seeking legislative changes that would resolve the inequity.
In June, 1982, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District received a request
from the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board requesting that the District consider
a funding allocation to Minneapolis in an amount up to the equivalent of the tax
levy in Minneapolis for District parks.
In February, 1983, the Board of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District
acted to begin negotiation of a joint powers agreement between the District and the
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board in reference to operational funding of
regional parks in Minneapolis.
An agreement was drafted that 'established payment from the District's county-
wide park tax levy to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board for benefits derived
from regional parks administered by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.
The agreement was adopted in principle by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation
Board. The Board of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District rejected a motion
to adopt the agreement in principle.*
Subsequently, the District's Board continued discussion of the issue of funding
of regional park operations and agreed to seek public input through a series of
public forums.
•
( * The complete record of these and all actions taken by the two boards are public
documents. Minutes of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board arc avail-
able at District headquarters, 3800 County Road 24, Maple Plain, MN 55359.
Minutes of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board are available at Minneapolis
Park and Recreation Board headquarters, 310 South 4th Avenue, Minneapolis,
MN 55415
.
8 •
•
•
( hat approaches are being considered? -
In addition to the approach of direct funding to the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board from the Hennepin County Park Reserve District tax levy. several
other approaches have been raised for consideration. These include:
*A single countywide tax levy to support operating costs for all
regional parks in Hennepin County.
*Operation of one or more of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's
regional facilities by the Hennepin County Park Reserve District.
*Joint operation of one or more of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's
regional facilities by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and the
Hennepin County Park Reserve District.
• *Partial funding of regional park operations through a regional source
such as the Metropolitan Council.
*Creation of a Regional Park Authority to operate and maintain parks
within the regionai system.
441emovin9 the City of Minneapolis from the Hennepin County Park Reserve
District for taxing purposes.
( *Having the Park Reserve District provide services or facilities to
the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to assist in operations and
ma1ntenance.
*Merging the county/regional park components of:both systems into a one- or two-
county park operating authority.
This list does not limit the approaches that could be considered in addressing
this issue. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
. i� 0 9