HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/04/1983 AGENDA
EIEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TULI.Y, WISER 4, 1983 7:31 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Welf,ang Fenzel, 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; iirector
of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Karen Michael
INVOCATION: Councilman Geerse Bentley
•
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
RILL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELP TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1983 Page 2155
III. CONSENT CALENDAR e S t
A. Request for extension of 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 82-16 and approval of Page 2171
iveloper's Agreement for Bryant Lake Condominiums by Metram Properties
B. Set Public Hearing for street vacations in Ridgewood West Plat 3 for
November 1, 1983 at 7:31 PM
C. Request from Hockey Association (HAEP) Page 2171
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 46-83, Cable T.V. Rate Changes Page 2144
& 2173
E. Final approval for Municipal industrial Development Bonds in the amount Page 2174
of $3,785,000.16 for City West Business Center (Resolution No. 83-240)
F. Clerk's License List Page 21B7
G. Receive pet_i_tion for signal installation at Flying Cloud Drive and Shady Page 2188
/ak Road and authorize preparation of a feasibility report, I.C.
52-®57711esol ut i on No. 83-243)
H. Final plat approval for Ridgewood West Plat 3 (Resolution No. 83-244) Page 2191
I. Final plat approval for Riley Estates (Resolution No. 83-245) Page 2194
J. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 45-83, Zoning from Regional Commercial to Page 2196
Regional Commercial Service and Resolution No. 83-249, Approving Site
Flan for Montessori School. Location: 'County Road 61 and Market Place
Drive.
•
- 2 - Tues.,October 4, 1983
City Council Agenda
IV. PU8LIC HEARINGS
A. 1983 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING (Resolution No. 83-208) Continued from
September 20, 1983
B. PRESERVE MANOR HOMES by Quality Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide Page 2098
e 2029
P an Amendment from Church to Medium Density Residential, Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment, Planned Unit Development District Review
and Zoning District Change from Rural to Rm-2.5, and Preliminary Plat
for four 8-plex condominium buildings, 32 units, on 4.0 acres.(Resolution Location:
Northeast quadrant of Center Way and Anderson Lakes Parkway.
No. 83-225 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 83-226 -
POD 4-83 - Zoning; and
Concept
minarytPlat)inance No.Continued4from September 20, Resolution983 No.
•
C. APPLE GRDVES by Northwest Properties_ Request for Comprehensive Guide Page '2099
Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential,
Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District
Review for mixed residential land use:and Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5.
R1-9.5, with variances, and RM-6.5, with variances, Preliminary Platting
of 40.91 acres for 162 attached and detached single family units, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: South of Valley
View Road and West of Lorence Addition. (Resolution No. 83-242 -
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 83-234 - PUD Concept;
Ordinance No. 47-83 - PUD District Zoning; Resolution No. 83-235 -
Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 83-236 - Environmental Assessment Work-
,sheet Negative Declaration) •
D. MAPLE HILLS Chari_s. Request for Zoning District change from Rural to Page 2129
R1-13.5 for single family detached land use and Preliminary Plat of 5.3
acres for eleven (11) lots. Location: 18811 Duck Lake Trail. (Ordinance
No. 48-83 - Zoning; Resolution No 83-237 - Preliminary Plat)
E. LILLIAN_ 8ECKMAN. Request for Preliminary Mat of 4.5 acres into three Page 2136
TTsingle family detached lots. Location: 124D0 Gerard Drive.
(Resolution No. 83-238 - Preliminary Plat)
F. PRAIRIE WASH ADDITION by Ricky Ites. Request for Zoning District Change Page 2143
from Rural to Commercial Regional Service for a car wash/office land use
and Preliminary Plat of 1.56 acres for one lot. Location: East of
Prairie Center Drive and South of Valley View Road. (Ordinance No.
49-83 - Zoning; Resolution No. 83-239 - Preliminary Plat)
G. CASTLEMOOR OFFICE PARK by Tudor Oaks/ABI0 Holdin s. Request for Zoning Page 215C
from Rural to Regional Commercial Service on approximately 3.5 acres
for an office and banking facility. Location: Highway 169 and Castlemoor
Drive. (Ordinance No. 50-83 - Zoning)
H. REQUEST FOR MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT_80NDS IN THE AMOUNT OF Page 215E
5481,000 00 8Y L. DEAN LUKE AND DIANE J. LUKE, La PEPINIERE MONTESSORI
SCHOOL, INC. TResolution No. 83-240)
�/'', �- >
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,October 4, 1983
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 9861 - 10081 Page 2170
REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS l I, .-
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS .4c/ )1
� �
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
1. 1984 City Budget (Resolution No. 83-248
C. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Award contract for Rainbow Drive Sanitar S r Extension I.C. 52-
054 Resolution No. 83r246
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT.
i
,irii()
It
•
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, I983 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, Richard Anderson, Georci
Bentley, Paul 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, City Forester Stu
Fox, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael
INVOCATION: Councilman Paul Redpath
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: all members were present
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were added to the Agenda: IX. B. 1. BFI's request regard-
ing the Landfill, IX. B. 2. Staffing for the Planning Department, IX. D. 1.
( Change Order #2, Lavonne Industrial Park and IX. D. 2. Rainbow Drive Utilities.
The following items were moved from the regular agenda to the Consent Calendar:
III. N. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 35-83, Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 orof
High Trail Estates 2nd Addition for Countryside Investments, Inc,, Approval
Developer's Agreement for High Trail Estates 2nd Addition, and Adoption of
Resolution No. 83-2D7, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 35-83, and Ordering
the Publication of Said Summary of High Trail Estates 2nd Addition - formerly
VIII. A., III. 0. Final Plat approval for High Trail Estates 2nd Addition
(Resolution No. 83-212) - formerly VIII. B, III. P. 2nd Reading of Ordinance
No. 41-83, Zoning from Rural to R1-9.5 for Timber Creek by B-T Land, Approval
of Developer's Agreement for Timber Creek, and Adoption of Resolution No. 83-229.
Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 41-83, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary
for Timber Creek - formerly VIII. C., III. Q. Request from NSP for conversion
off' street lights to high pressure sodium - formerly VII. A.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda and Other
Items of Business as amended and published, Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 6, I983
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Minutes of
the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 6, 1983, as published.
Motion carried with Bentley abstaining,
•
City Council Minutes -2- September 20, 1983
B. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 13, 1983
Page 2, para. 9, line 2: change "complaints" to "inquiries"
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes
of the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 13, 1983,
as amended and published. Motion carried with Tangen abstaining,
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Request to accept bids for mechanical and electrical work at Cummins-
Grill Homestead
B. Request to prepare plans and specifications and secure quotes for
exterior restoration work on the Cummins-Grill Homestead
C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 37-83, amending City Code Section 11.70,
'Subd. 2., 6., to redefine directional signs for churches and to adopt a
definition for directional signs for schools and publicly owned land
"Or buildings
D. Clerk's License List
E. Final Plat approval for Creekview Estates 2nd Addition (Resolution No. 83-222)
F. Final approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount
of $500,000.D0 for Cotton-Hagen (Resolution No, 83-230)
•
G. Change Order Number 1, Lorence 1st and•2nd Addition Improvements, I.C.
52-032
H. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 38-83, Zoning from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 for
Ridgewood West 2nd/Westover by Centex Corporation, Approval of Developer's
Agreement, Adoption of Resolution No. 83-217 Approving Summary of Ordinance
No. 38-83, and Ordering the Publication of said Summaryof Ridgewood West
2nd/Westover. 83 lots at Cumberland Road and Mitchell Road.
I. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 43-83, Zoning from Rural to Highway Commercial
and Adoption of Resolution No. 83-218, Approving Site Plan for Burger King
Restaurant. County Road 4 and Highway 5.
•
J. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 42-83, Zoning Amendment to 1-2 for E. W. Sween,
Approval of Developer's Agreement Amendment, and Adoption of Resolution
No. 83-219, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 43-83 and Ordering Publication
of Said Summary. South of State Highway 5 at Fuller Road,
K. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 40-83, Zoning from Rural to Commerical Regional
Service and Adoption of Resolution No. 83-220, Approving Site Plan for
Menard's Shopping Center. East of existing Menard's Building; adjacent to
Plaza Drive.
•
2v5�
City Council Minutes -3- September 20, 1983
L. Preliminary Plat approval for TARGET. (Resolution No. 83-224)
M. Round Lake Park Irrigation Extension.
N. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 35-83, Zoning from Rural to R1-I3.5 for High
Trail Estates 2nd Addition for Countryside Investments, Inc., Approval
of Developer's Agreement for High Trail Estates 2nd Addition, and Adoption
of Resolution No. 83-207, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 35-83, and
Ordering the Publication of Said Summary of High Trail Estates 2nd
Addition. 21 lots at 6451 Duck Lake Road. (Continued from 9/6/83) -
formerly VIII. A.
0. Final Plat approval for High Trail Estates 2nd Addition (Resolution No.
83-212) (Continued form 9/6/83) - formerly VIII, B.
P. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 41-83, Zoning from Rural to R1-9.5 for Timber
Creek by B-T Land, Approval of Developer's Agreement for Timber Creek,
and Adoption of Resolution No. 83-229, Approving Summary of Ordinance
No. 41-83, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary for Timber Creek.
158 lots at County Road 4 and Duck Lake Trail. - formerly VIII. C.
Q. Request from NSP for conversion of street lights to high pressure sodium
- formerly VII. A,
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt items A - Q on the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
( IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY FEASIBILITY REPORT, I.C, 52-932 (Resolution No.
83-223) Continued from July 19, 1983
City Manager Jullie noted this item was continued from the July 19, 1983,
meeting and said meetings had been held with property owners to discuss
specific points of concern.
Director of Public Works Dietz presented an update on the discussions
which had been held with property owners within the project area.
Dietz said the questions which had been addressed were as follows:
1) in regard to the alignment of the roadway through the Northrup King
property: an alignment has been tentatively selected. Changes will be
made, as necessary, during the final design process; 2) in regard to
traffic capacity and whether or not there would be enough lanes: the
consultant had reviewed this and found that the three-lane segment on
the eastern end should probably be increased to four-lanes. A two-
lane segment for the remainder to the west will be adequate for the
land uses in the Guide Plan; 3) in regard to the timing: the revised
assessment rolls will show a benefit to the Centex property (developer
has concurred.) The assessment roll has been revised to reflect 50
acres of the Centex project to be benefited at $500/acre; 4) in
regard to the Norwest Bank property and the cost per acre to develop:
City Council Minutes -4- September 20, 1983
this has been discussed by Director of Planning Enger and Norwest Bank
representatives and appears to be resolved, It has been demonstrated
that without the road the property would not be developable; 5) in
regard to the bridge: this issue was raised by City Staff as linking
the Staring Lake area to the Purgatory Creek floodplain area has long
been a goal of the City. It has been determined that a pipe for the
storm water would cost $20,000 and a pedestrian underpass $75,000. Of
the total $95,000, $20,000 would be assessed to the district via the
assessment rolls and the remainder would be paid by the City. A bridge
would cost approximately $180,000 ($20,000 assessed, balance to the City);
6) in regard to when the district would be assessed: the tentative time-
table is as follows: the project would be designed during the coming
winter months, bids would be opened in early to mid-summer, construction
would be completed during the summer of 1985, the project would be assessed
in the fall of 1985 with the 1st payment payable with the 1986 taxes. This
will allow property owners time to work on plans for their individual
properties,
Bentley asked about the source of funds for the City's share of the
bridge. Dietz said he thought this might come from State Aid funds --
there will be further information on this forthcoming with the capital
improvement program information. Penzel said the City must be concerned
about the aesthetic impact in this area as well as the economics relative
to the bridge issue. Redpath concurred. Anderson said he also felt
strongly about the impact of the bridge on the pedestrian users. Penzel
suggested that both a bridge and culvert alternates be bid and the decision
be made when awarding the project.
Dave Sellegren, attorney with the Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, Lindgren, Ltd.
firm, and representing Norwest 8ank, Bloomington, said his client opposes
the project because it is not feasible as this area is currently planned
and zoned. In general terms the improvements are a good idea. He said
various alternates have been discussed with Staff and none of these will
work. He noted that the annual burden even over a 17 year assessment period
makes it totally unfeasible. Soil conditions are very bad. There are over
$100,000 worth of assessments all ready being levied against the property;
the land cannot bear any more assessments.
Penzel asked how many acres the bank has. Director of Planning Enger said
there are 38 acres which are zoned Rural; of this 8 - 10 acres are without
significant soil correction and are buildable. 8entley asked how developable
the property is without the roadway. Enger indicated it was not developable.
The City feels there are many options open to this property. The perception
of the problem is that the value of the land is less than what the bank has
into the land. Enger said although it is a tough problem, not building the
road is not a solution. He felt the issue had been resolved in discussions
with bank representatives from Sellegren's office.
Bentley asked what the $100,000 in unpaid assessments included, Dietz said
he thought that was for trunk sewer and water assessments.
Penzel asked if this property was not a part of a larger POD. Enger said
it had been -- there is a conceptual availability for 380 residential
units on the property.
ao67
City Council Minutes -5- September 20, 1983
Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, was present representing Northrup
King. Also present was Ed Ressler of Northrup King. Putnam said they
had reservations about the project when it was first proposed. He indi-
cated he had met with the consultants regarding the project. He said
the problem is to now come up with a marketable set of land uses for
190 acres and he feels they can do all this within the time frame as
proposed. Putnam said Northrup King realizes it could build the portion
of the road within its property cheaper than what is proposed by the
City, but it realizes the remainder of the road would probably not be
built if that were to happen.
Dietz noted that the actual costs for the project would be somewhat
higher since the feasibility report presumed that the City would finance
the construction costs for only one year. Since the construction will
begin in 1984 and not be assessed until fall of 1985, the interim finan-
cing will be slightly higher. Waiting until summer of 1984 to begin the
work will minimize the interim financing costs as much as possible.
•
Bentley said he anticipates guide plan amendments will be requested by
adjacent property owners. He said he felt the City Council should not be
inflexible when that time comes.
Anderson asked if Putnam's statement about Northrup King's ability to
build the road cheaper was true. Dietz said it was because the poor soil
conditions, for the most part, do not lie within the Northrup King area.
The City charges 9% for administrative,and legal fees. The City does,
however, provide financing over a 17 years period which is not available
•
if done independently. More time is spent by the City on engineering also.
The City also has to pay for interim financing which this year was 10%.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No, 83-223, ordering improvements and preparation
of plans and specifications for I.C. 52-035, Motion carried unanimously.
B. REQUEST FROM SCOTT AND STEPHANIE FELDMANN for Council review of Board
of Appeals & Adjustments decision on Variance No. 83-23 (Continued from
September 6, 1983)
City Manager Jullie indicated an agreement had been reached on the
terms of the administrative land division which would eliminate the
need for a variance, No further prqblems are anticipated.
City Attorney Pauly suggested the Council close the Public Hearing
and table the matter until the City is sure the matter is resolved.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing
and to table the matter, Motion carried unanimously,
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to develop
an amendment to the City Code which would eliminate the present driveway
setback requirement and substitute the following: "The edge of a driveway
in the single family residential district shall not be closer than 3 feet
to a side lot line and shall not cross the extension of a property line to
the curb line." Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -6- September 20, 1983
C. PRESERVE MANOR HOMES by Quality Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment from Church to Medium Density Residential, Planned Unit
Development Amendment and District Review, Zoning District Change from
Rural to RM 2,5, and Preliminary Plat for four 8-plex condominium buildings.
32 units, on 4,0 acres. Location: northeast quadrant of Center Way and
Anderson Lakes Parkway. (Resolution No. 83-225 - Guide Plan Amendment;
Resolution No. 83-226 - PUD Amendment; Ordinance No. 44-83 - Zoning; and
Resolution No. 83-227 - Preliminary Plat)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published
and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
Randy Weestrand, Quality Homes, and Miles Lindberg, BRW, were present
and addressed the proposal, Ken Weestrand, President and Chairman of
the Board of Quality Homes was also present.
Director of Planning Enger said this request had been reviewed by the
Planning Commission at its August 29, 1983, meeting at which time it voted
to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the August
26, 1983, Staff Report. Enger said he had received a call from Bob Dunbar,
Preserve Homeowner's Association, stating the Association was not in favor
of the southerly access to the development. An easement to cross the
pathway which is owned by the Homeowner's Association would have to be
granted so this might be a moot point.
This request was not reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
. Commission,
Bentley inquired as to•the selling prices and what type of siding would
be used on the exterior. Weestrand said a two-bedroom unit with one bath
and about 950 square feet would sell for $65,000 - $67,000; the largest
unit, three bedrooms with 1 3/4 baths would sell for $79,000 - $81,000.
The siding will be aluminum with a 30-year guarantee on the paint.
Anderson asked about the shutters. Weestrand said they are now looking
into putting shutters on the rear of the building as well as the front.
Penzel raised concerns about the problems which might be encountered in
winter time with the grade at the Center Way access, Enger said this is
an argument for connecting the road through on the south. Bentley noted
the second entrance would pose a double problem -- not only a visibility
problem, but also a problem with pedestrian traffic on the pathway.
Neil Haggard, 11160 Anderson Lakes Parkway, asked what the distance would
be between the Prairie Lake condominiums and the proposed development.
Enger said about 80'. Haggard asked what the height of the roof line
would be on the northeastern-most unit, Lindberg said it would be 24'.
Haggard then asked how this would relate to the condominiums to the east.
Lindberg said this would be about to the middle of the third floor of
those condominiums. Haggard inquired as to whether or not the berm
separating the two developments would be raised. Enger indicated plans
show the berm to be lowered by 2' and will be about 2' higher than what
is now there (the berm was scheduled to be 4' higher than existing berm.)
City Council Minutes -7- September 20, 1983
Haggard asked if the drainage problems which exist will be worsened
once the berm is raised. He noted there is now a slough on the west
side of the Prairie Lakes Condominium complex.
Kathleen Krueger, 11160 Anderson Lakes Parkway, expressed concern about
the trees being removed on the west side of the building. She also ex-
pressed concern about the density on the lot; she felt there was a
'squeezed in" look. Enger said there would be a density of 13 units
per acre.
John A. Peterson, 11160 Anderson Lakes Parkway, noted that the indivi-
duals who live on the 2nd and 3rd floors of 11160 will lose some sunlight.
He said their solar easements are going to be infringed upon and this
should be taken into consideration. Penzel asked the City Attorney about
unwritten easements. City Attorney Pauly said he did not think there
was any established rule in the law which would give rule to this type of
easement and the rights of the adjoining landowner, Penzel suggested
perhaps the grades could be adjusted.
Doris McKinnis, 11160 Anderson Lakes Parkway, indicated there is a run-
off problem due to the slough on the west side of the property. She
said she would like to ask the City Council to not adopt the resolution
and to table the issue instead. She said she questioned the amount of
study which had been done for this site and would like to see a church
here and felt one could be supported, If the Council should decide this
will not be a church site, then she requested the Council to consider
fewer units on the site, McKinnis also indicated the church site was
• meant to break-up the multiple uses which front on Anderson Lakes Park-
way, Redpath said he felt the cost of the property was too high to
warrant its use for a church site. Bentley said The Preserve has done
nothing to market this property as a church site. Weestrand said he
was purchasing the property from the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church
for the book value plus carrying costs,
Krueger said because Prairie Lutheran Church cannot support a church on
this site does not mean a church should not be built here.
Haggard said the Prairie Lakes Condominium and this site are "berm rich."
Dietz said the berms will help to divert water and can be used effectively.
Enger concurred,
Anderson said he wished some background regarding this site. Penzel
said that plans should be flexible. Bentley said it is not a question
of densities in this area; the problem that has occured and continues
to occur is that the amenities which were promised to the homeowners
of The Preserve and which reflect the plans presented to the City have
been altered. The church site does provide a break in the high density
development. He felt there was a legitimate argument against the guide
plan change for this parcel,
City Council Minutes -8- September 20, 1983
Jim Van Horn, 8940 Neill Lake Road, said he felt the proposal was a good
one but in the wrong place. He would like to see a church in this location.
Bentley said he felt a site had to be looked at on its own merits. He
said he was uncomfortable with changing the use on this site; this site
was marketed as a significant amenity in The Preserve area. Anderson
said he was concerned about the rights of the land owners vs. the rights
of the property owners; he also felt this was a substantial amenity to
the homeowners in The Preserve. Anderson said he would like to see the
church attempt to market this to another church and he wondered if this
had been done. Penzel asked the City Attorney about the Council's obli-
gation to restrict a property owner to sell to a certain type of use.
City Attorney Pauly said he did not think there was any restriction a
City could impose on an owner of property regarding to whom that property
could be sold. The Council does have the right to amend the guide plan.
Redpath noted The Preserve will only be developed to about one half its
proposed density. This was to have been the multiple area of The Preserve
and that should be considered. Tangen said since the density of The
Preserve is less perhaps some of the proposed amenities might be lost.
He said he could not support the objection that this should be kept as
a church site and as a result would support the request.
Penzel said he would suggest the Public Hearing be continued for 30 days
and that the proponents get together with some of the most immediate
neighbors to work out problems which will benefit all. Bentley said
he hoped that some of the questions could then be answered.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to continue the Public
Hearing to the meeting of the City Council to be held on October 4, 1983.
Tangen said he felt the developer should be given the option of whether
or not this was a viable alternative. Ken Weestrand said he had hoped
• for a decision this evening. Penzel said the decision may be against
the request and in that event the same proposal could not come before
the Council for a year. Weestrand said the project was contingent on
receiving the approval of the City Council.
Tangen said the Council should clarify what the issues are which need
to be resolved -- aesthetics, berms, land usage, etc. Penzel said once
the issues are resolved the land usq issue may be mitigated. Tangen
asked who would have the confrontation. Penzel indicated the developer
might meet with the neighbors to resolve the plan and make the necessary
modifications at that time, Tangen suggested a member of the Planning
Staff be at that meeting.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously,
City Council Minutes -9- September 20, 1983
D. MDNTESSORI SCHOOL by Ryan Development/Hustad Development. Request for
Zoning from Regional Commercial to Regional Commercial Service and
t Preliminary Plat of 0.75 acre for day care facility. Location: County
Road 60 and Market Place Drive. (Ordinance No. 45-83 - zoning and
Resolution No. 83-228 - preliminary plat)
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and notices had been mailed to property owners within the
project vicinity.
Bob Ryan, Ryan Development, addressed the proposal.
Director of Planning Enger said this item had been reviewed by the
Planning Commission at its meeting on August 22. 1983, at which time
it voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included
in the August 19, 1983, Planning Staff Report.
Penzel asked where the children would come from. Ryan said this is a
new idea -- to locate this type of day care facility near places of work
rather than in a neighborhood.
Bentley said he would like to see a provision that this use be limited to
only that of a day care facility. He indicated he had heard of a day
care center which was also used as a tanning salon. City Attorney Pauly
said a restrictive covenant would be the vehicle for restricting the use,
Tangen said he would not like the wording to be too restrictive.
There were no comments from the audience,
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson. to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No, 45-83. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No,
83-228, approving the preliminary plat of Montessori School for Ryan
Construction. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to
prepare a Summary Resolution with the recommendations included in the
Staff Report and to prepare the appropriate restrictions regarding the
use of the facility prior to the 2nd Reading of the Ordinance. Motion
carried unanimously,
E. 1983 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING (Resolution No, 83-208)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing was published
and affected property owners were notified. He said once the City Council
approves the assessment rate, the property owner has until November 15th
to pay the assessment with no interest. A property owner has the right
of appeal -- this must be filed via a written objection at the time of
the hearing and within 20 days after the adoption of the assessment
anyone may appeal an assessment to the District Court pursuant to the
Minnesota Statutes by serving notice of appeal on the City Clerk.
1a3
City Council Minutes -10- September 20, 1983
He also noted that senior citizens or those who are disabled may
qualify for a deferment of special assessments.
Stu Fox, City Forester, was present to answer questions. Jullie noted
Engineering Staff was also available to answer questions.
City Attorney Pauly said notice of appeal could be filed within 30
days, not 20 days, following approval of the assessment by the Council.
Gary Phleger, attorney, noted that all the notices sent out indicated
the 20-day appeal period. Pauly said he was not prepared to indicate
the City's options, but felt that the Hearing could go on this evening.
It was determined to go ahead with the hearing this evening and
to hear those who were present; the hearing will then be continued
to the October 4, 1983, meeting and new notices will be sent out.
1. I.C. 51-308A, 51-340A & 51-398
A letter regarding this had been received from Menard's.
2. I.C. 51-308C & 51-340A & 51-308B
No questions were asked.
3. I.C. 51-326
No questions were asked.
4. I.C. 51-335
Christine Druker, representing Gerald O'Brien, 9975 Valley View
Road, said they had no objection to the total assessment but in
the method in which this was divided among the property owners.
She indicated a disproportionate basis was being placed on O'Brien.
Penzel said she should get together with Oirector of Public Works
Dietz prior to the October 4th meeting of the City Council.
A letter from Gerald V. O'Brien was filed.
A letter from Donald J. Sorensen on behalf of Gerald A. and Barbara
A. Portnoy was made a part of the record.
Sorensen requested on the part of those who will be testifying
that the notices regarding the continued hearing be sent out as soon
as possible so that witnesses might be available on the date selected.
5. I.C. 52-005
Calvin Anderson, 7214 Topview, said he does not object to the
assessment but does not approve of the quality of workmanship for
the job which was done. He asked that the assessments be delayed
until the project is fixed.
Director of Public Works Dietz said this will be done in the very
near future. The question of liability was discussed and will be
looked into.
City Council Minutes -11- September 20, 1983
6. I.C. 52-010
There were no questions.
7. I.C. 52-015
Gary Phleger, attorney for John Busse, said Bury Carlson was the
benefited property as well as Franklin Bank. He questioned the
manner in which the storm sewer was assessed -- on a linear foot
basis while the lateral storm and water were assessed by the acre.
8. I.C. 52-025
There were no questions.
9. I.C. 52-030
Dr. John Allenberg said he was planning to develop this property;
when he bought the property he was not planning on these additional
• costs, It was suggested he check with Staff of the Engineering
Department as to the questions pertaining to his assessment.
10. I.C. 52-032
There were no questions.
11. I.C. 52-037
{ There were no questions.
•
12. I.C. 52-039
The concensus was to spread the assessments for the biketrail on
the three lots which are still unsold which would, in effect, place
the assessment on the petitioner.
13. I.C. 52-042
There were no questions.
14. Supplementals
Paul Enblom, 10610 Valley View Road, spoke in behalf of his mother-
in-law regarding her trunk sewer and water assessment. It was
determined an adjustment will be made in the assessment for water.
A letter from Donald J. Sorensen on behalf of Gerald A. and Barbara
A, Portnoy was made a part of the record.
2.065
City Council Minutes -12- September 20, 1983
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to continue the Public
Hearing and to instruct Staff to address appeals received and to report
back to the Council on October 4, 1983.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue the Council Meeting beyond
the 11:30 p.m. time limit. Motion carried unanimously.
F. CABLE T.V. RATE CHANGE (Resolution No. 83-231 - accepting Findings of
Southwest Suburban Cable Commission and Ordinance No. 46-83 - rate changes)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this hearing was published.
Peter Lillie, 17120 Cedar Crest Drive, stated his unhappiness with the
cable company and the fact that residents in the area in which he lives
had been promised service this year and see no indication where that is
going to happen in the near future. Gary Mizga, Minnesota Cablesystems
Southwest, said Lillie lives in an area which had not been in the original
service area. The cable company has run into various problems which have
created setbacks in its scheduled cable installation to this area.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to suggest City Manager Jullie
contact Ralph Campbell, to see that this matter is resolved as expediently
as possible. Motion carried unanimously.
• Redpath noted he and City Manager Jullie are members of the Southwest
Cable Commission and had, in that capacity, thoroughly reviewed the
. proposed Resolution and Ordinance regarding the cable tv rate change.
City Attorney Pauly noted the following exhibits which were made a part
of the record: Affidavit of Published Notice of Hearing; Affidavit
of Minnesota Cablesystems as to publication of Hearing on cable channels;
Abstract of Southwest Suburban Cable Commission hearing on August 17, 1983;
Resolution of August 24, 1983, and Findings of Facts and Recommendations
including: I) memorandum - Campbell to Commission, dated August 11, 1983,
re: Rate Increase Ordinance Criteria Report, 2) memorandum - Campbell to
Commission, dated August 11, 1983, re: Financial Analysis of Rate Increase
Proposal; 3) Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Report on Technical Evalu-
ation Minnesota Cablesystems-Southwest - Cooper Associates, Inc., dated
June 8, 1983; 4) Analysis of the Pending Rate Increase Proposal of Minne-
sota Cablesystems-Southwest prepared by CTIC Associates, dated August 9,
1983; Minnesota Cablesystems Schedule of delivery of Minnesota Cablesystems-
Southwest's Rate Adjustment Proposal; Minnesota Cablesystems-Southwest's
reponse to SWSCC's chart entitled "Areas of Noncompliance with Ordinance
and Offering"; Minnesota Cablesystems-Southwest's Rate Adjustment Proposal,
dated June 24, 1983, with errata letter dated July 18, 1983.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. 83-231, accepting the findings of Southwest
Suburban Cable Commission, Motion carried unanimously,
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to give 1st Reading to
Ordinance No. 46-83. Motion carried unanimously.
2666
City Council Minutes -13- September 20, 1983
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 9650 - 9860
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Payment of
Claims Nos. 9650 - 9860. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath,
Tangen and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
There were no reports.
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from NSP for conversion of street lights to high pressure sodium
Moved to Consent Calendar as item III. Q.
VIII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 35-83, Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for High
'frail Estates 2nd Addition for Countryside Investments, Inc., Approval
of Developer's Agreement for High Trail Estates 2nd Addition, and Adoption
of Resolution No.83-207, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 35-83 and
Ordering the Publication of Said Summary of High Trail Estates 2nd
Addition. 21 lots at 6451 Duck Lake Road. (Continued from 9/6/83)
Moved to Consent Calendar as item III. N.
B. Final Prat approval for High Trail Estates 2nd Addition (Resolution No.
83-212)
Moved to Consent Calendar as item III. 0.
C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 41-83, Zoning from Rural to R1-9.5 for Timber
Creek by 8-T Land, Approval of Developer's Agreement for Timber Creek,
and Adoption of Resolution No. 83-229, Approving Summary of Ordinance
No. 41-83, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary for Timber Creek.
158 lots at County Road 4 and Duck Lake Trail.
Moved to Consent Calendar as item III. P.
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
Redpath reported on the Red Cross Oasis program for battered women.
Penzel noted an article in the recent Minnesota Cities magazine in which
t was reported that the Dayton Planning Commission members are required
to take a six-hour course in land use planning. Staff was instructed to
look into this and to report back with the specifics.
City Council Minutes -14- September 20, 1983
B. Report of City Manager
1. BFI's request regarding the Landfill
City Manager Jullie said Staff from the landfill had discussed
with him the possibility of filling in their stage 2 area.
The concensus was that more information was required and no
decision would be made without a formal written/graphic proposal
as to what was to be done. At the same time a proposal should be
submitted regarding their intent to put in a park in the Homeward
Hills area.
Bentley said the Council should make it known that as long as there
are other proposals under consideration for an additional landfill
in the City, the Council should not approve further expansion of the
present landfill. He indicated he will not vote in favor of an
expansion until the conditions change.
Jullie noted he has been attending meetings at the Metropolitan Council
relative to the landfill site situation,
2. Staffing for the Planning Department
City Manager Jullie outlined the need for an additional full-time
clerical person in the Planning Department.
( . MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the addition
of a full-time clerical person for the Planning Department. Motion
carried unanimously.
C. Report of City Attorney
There was no report.
D. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Change Order #2, Lavonne Industrial Park
City Attorney Pauly indicated a 100% petition had been filed but
that does not preclude the owner, from appealing. Director of Public
Works noted an assessment agreement had not been reached.
•
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve Change Order
#2 for Lavonne Industrial Park. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Rainbow Drive Utilities
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution
No. 83-232, receiving 100% petition, ordering improvements and preparation
of plans and specifications for public improvements, I.C. 52-054.
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -15- September 20, 1983
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution
No. 83-233, approving plans and specifications and ordering advertise-
ment for bids. Motion carried unanimously.
X. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
XI. ADJOURNMENT •
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tangen, to adjourn the meeting at 12:18 a.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
is
•
•
(
2069
•
1IEIR-l11 PItOt'E.1r(�IES co. (SEP 1 z�1983
September 9, 1983 '
THE HONORABLE WOLFGANG PENZEL
THE CITY COUNCIL
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
RE: BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS
Honorable Sir:
We are presently between the first and second reading of the Development I.
/ Agree;ient for the above proposed project. As you know, at the time we
file the plat we must dedicate a substantial portion of our prooertyy to i
the City for oark land. Before we do so, we must be certain that we have
a viable project and we are presently concerned with the substantial
costs of getting access to our property before the proposed Crosstown
Highway is completed. '
We are presently evaluating all of these circumstances, and we would,
therefore, like to request a one year extension of the plat approval.
V truly yours,
V. ernardi
Pre ident
cc: Chris Enger
f
79111\IetmBuulourd..ti,iltc:415 :sr. Cdluu.'Ilunc.utu554:Sb �1% I+a5.4111
•
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM '
•
T0: The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Robert Lambert, Community Services Director
�A/ •
FROM: Charles Pappas, Community Center Manager(-O/
DATE: September 12, 1983•
SUBJECT: Hockey Association of Eden Prairie Holiday Tournament
Attached to this memo is a copy of the HASP request for their Annual Holiday
Hockey Tournament.
•
Friday, Dec. 30, 1983 and Saturday, Dec. 31, 1983, evening Open Skate •
' sessions will remain intact following the tournament.
Staff requests the cancellation of the afternoon skating seasons on Saturday .
Dec. 31, 1983 and Sunday, January 1, 1984.
Format of the tournament operation will be the same as last year.
Staff requests the approval of the request for the HASP Holiday Invitational
Tournament.
•
•
•
•
•
•
aUq� -
war
•
eirm)(_ )
haep •
•
•
•
• • September 8, 1983
• •
•
•
Mr. Charles Pappas -
Eden Prairie Community Center
•
16700 Valley View Rd.
Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344
,
Chuck,
School has started and its time to start finalizing plans for
the.11th Annual Eden Prairie; Holiday Hockey Tournament. This
letter wiil confirm previous conversations regarding the dates
(.. and times we would like to have which are follows:
Monday December 26, 1983 5:30 PM - 10:15 PM
Tuesday " 27, " • "
-Wednesday " 28, "
Thursday " 29, " "
Friday " 30. " 8:45 AM - 6:30 PM
Saturday " 31, "
Sunday January 1, .1984 7:00 AM - 9:45 PM
I Hope these dates and times will be okay with you and the
City Council.
•
• Thanks again for all your help.
•
David E. Anderson
Tournament Chairman
•
I.
•
•
•
a��2 •
•
SEP 2 31983 Cablesystems
j
10210 Crosstown Circle
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
612-941-9820
September 22, 1983
Mr. Carl Jullie
City Manager
Eden Prairie City Hall
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Jullie:
As per your request, here is the design/construction schedule
for the Cedarcrest Drive area of Eden Prairie.
Design has been underway and should be completed by Friday,
September 23. A bill of materials for construction is formulated
and will be sent out by September 23.
The underground cable has been ordered, and upon delivery
(about three weeks) we should be able to begin to perform the
underground work necessary to serve Mr. Lillie's area.
The electronics needed are ordered as well, however, a ninety-
day delivery schedule is not unusual from our supplier, Jerrold
Electronics.
Of course, most aerial work can commence with or without frost
in the ground. If the underground work can be completed before
the frost sets in, the rest of the construction should easily
be completed, enabling the Cedarcrest Drive area to receive
cable before spring. However, due to the lateness of a July
1 commencement date on this project, an early freeze, heavy
snow or excess rain could postpone the completion of the process
until winter's end.
I am available to meet with you and Mr. Lillie to view the
design for this area at your convenience. Please contact me
with any questions.
;lards,
/ 0111
Ga y L.1Mizga
Exec. Vice President &
Regional Manager
cc: Ralph Campbell
Peter Lillie
Mike Stark
Jim Crawford aO73
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director
DATE: September 29, 1983
RE: Final approval of $3,785,000 M.;D.B.'s - City West
Business Center - Resolution No. 83-241
The project was authorized on August 16, 1983 for $8,844,000;
this is a partial approval of the amount authorized by the
Council. The City Attorney's office has reviewed the documents.
The resolution will be in the Mayor's signature file.
JDF;bw
9/29/83
201 U
•
RESOLUTION NO. 0j-v,e/
RESOLUTION RELATING TO A $3,785,000 COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE (CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROJECT); AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
THEREOF PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota (the City), as follows:
Section 1. Definitions.
1.01. In this Resolution the following terms have the
following respective meanings unless the context hereof or use
herein clearly requires otherwise:
Act: the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development
Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended;
Assignment of Rents: the Assignment of Rents and
Leases to be executed by the Partnership to the Lender;
Building: the approximately 83,492 square foot
office/warehouse building and related facilities and
improvements to be constructed on the Land by the Partnership
in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement;
. Buy and Sell Agreement: the Buy and Sell Agreement
among the Lender, the Partnership and the Permanent Lender;
City: the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, its •
successors and assigns;
Construction Loan Agreement: the Construction Loan
Agreement among the City, Lender and Partnership;
Holder: the Lender or any other person to whom the
Note has been assigned;
Land: the real estate described in Exhibit A to the
Mortgage;
Lender: First National Bank of Minneapolis, a
national banking association, its successors and assigns;
Loan Agreement: the Loan Agreement to be executed by
and between the City and the Partnership;
Loan Assignment: the Assignment of Loan Agreement, to
be executed by the City in favor of the Lender;
•
l Mortgage: the Mortgage and Security Agreement,
between the Partnership, as mortgagor, and the Lender, as
mortgagee;
Note: the Commercial Development Revenue Note (City
West Business Center Development Company Project) in the total
authorized principal amount of $3,785,000, to be issued by the
City pursuant to this Resolution;
Partnership: City West Business Center Development
Company, a Minnesota limited partnership, its successors and
assigns, which may assume its obligations in accordance with
the Loan Agreement;
Permanent Lender: Northwestern National Life Insurance
Company, its successors and assigns;
Project: the Land and the Building, as they may at
any time exist;
Project Costs: those costs defined as Project Costs
in Section 1.01 of the Loan Agreement; and
Resolution: this resolution of the City authorizing
the issuance of the Note.
Section 2. Authorization and Sale.
2.01. Authorization. The City is authorized by the
Act to issue revenue bonds and loan the proceeds thereof to
business enterprises to finance the acquisition, construction
and equipping of "projects" as defined in the Act, and to make
all contracts, execute all instruments and do all things
necessary or convenient in the exercise of such authority.
2.02. Preliminary City Approval. By preliminary
resolution adopted by the Council on August 16, 1983, this
Council approved the sale of a revenue note or notes pursuant
to the Act and the loan of the proceeds to the Partnership for
the acquisition of land and construction of 2 office/warehouse
facilities. The Partnership now proposes to proceed with
phase I of the total development, as specified in said
preliminary resolution.
2.03. Receipt of Documents. Pursuant to the above,
there have been prepared and presented to this Council copies
of the following documents, which are now, or shall be, placed
on file in the office of the City Clerk:
•
(a) Assignment of Rents;
(b) Loan Agreement;
(c) Loan Assignment;
(d) Mortgage;
(e) Construction Loan Agreement; and
(f) Note.
2.04. Findings of Fact. It is hereby found and
determined that:
(a) There is no litigation of any nature now pending
or to the best of the City's knowledge, threatened against the
City, seeking to restrain or enjoin the issuance, sale,
execution or delivery of the Note or any of the documents
referred to in Section 2.03, or questioning the authority or
proceedings pursuant to which the Note is being issued, the
validity of the Note or any of said documents, or the power of
the City to assist in financing the Project as defined in said
documents.
(b) Neither the existence of the City nor the right
• of the present officials of the City to their respective
offices is being contested.
(c) To the best of the City's knowledge, the
execution and delivery of the documents referred to in Section
2.03 will not conflict with or constitute a breach of any
resolution, ordinance, agreement or other instrument to which
the City is subject or is a party or by which it is bound;
provided that this finding is made solely for the purpose
of estopping the City from denying the validity of the
Loan Agreement, the Construction Loan Agreement or the
Bond by reason of the existence of any facts contrary to
this finding.
Section 3. Authorizations. The documents referred to
in Section 2.03 hereof are hereby approved. The Mayor and City
Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Loan
Agreement, Loan Assignment and Construction Loan Agreement on
behalf of the City, together with the Note in substantially the
form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and such other
certifications, documents or instruments as bond counsel or
counsel for the Lender shall require, subject to the approval
of the City Attorney. Execution of any instrument or document
by one or more appropriate officers of the City shall
constitute, and shall be deemed the conclusive evidence of, the
approval and authorization by the City and the Council of the
instrument or document so executed.
•
Section 4. The Note.
4.01. Form and Authorized Amount. The Note shall he
issued substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a part hereof, with such appropriate
variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or
required by this Resolution, in the total authorized principal
amount of $3,785,000. The terms of the Note are set forth
therein, and such terms, including but not limited to
provisions as to interest rate, dates and amounts of payment of
principal and interest and prepayment privileges, are
incorporated by reference herein.
4.02. Execution. The Note shall be executed on
behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City
Manager, and shall be sealed with its corporate seal. In case
any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall
cease to be such officer before the delivery thereof, such
signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all
purposes.
4.03. Mutilated, Lost and Destroyed Note. In case
the Note shall become mutilated or be destroyed or lost, the
City shall cause to be executed and delivered a new note of
like outstanding principal amount and tenor in exchange and
substitution for and upon cancellation of the mutilated note,
or in lieu of and in substitution for such note destroyed or
lost, upon the Holder's paying the reasonable expenses and
charges of the City in connection therewith, and, in case the
Note is destroyed or lost, upon filing with the City evidence
•
satisfactory to it of such loss or destruction.
4.04. Assignment and Exchange. The Note may be
assigned by the Holder, from time to time, by endorsement
ethereon or by xchange, all upon rthe terms ate eset n forth instrument, surrendered or for
in the Note.
4.05. Delivery and Use of Proceeds. Prior to
delivery of the Note, the documents referred to in Section 2.03
hereof shall be completed and executed in form and substance as
approved by the City Attorney and an original, executed
counterpart of each such document shall be delivered to the
Lender. The City shall thereupon deliver to the Lender the
Note, together with a copy, duly certified by the City Clerk,
of this Resolution and such closing certificates as are
required by bond counsel.
Upon delivery of the Note and the above items to the
Lender, he City,
proceedsthe of theder Notehtolthen behalf of Partnershiptin paymentdisburse the
and
•
•
reimbursement of Project Costs pursuant to the provisions of
the Loan Agreement and the Construction Loan Agreement.
Section 5. Limitations of the City's Obligations.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Note or any other
. document referred to in Section 2.03 hereof, the Note shall not
constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory limitation and shall not be payable
from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged
to the payment thereof; the City shall not be subject to any
liability thereon, no holder of such Note shall ever have the
right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to
pay the Note or the interest thereon or to enforce payment
thereof against any property of the City and the Note shall not
constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable,
upon any property of the City. The agreement of the City to
perform the covenants and other provisions contained in this
Resolution or the Note, or the other documents listed in
Section 2.03 hereof shall be subject at all times to the
availability of revenues furnished by the Partnership
sufficient to pay all costs of such performance, and the City
shall never be subject to any personal or pecuniary liability.
• Adopted: October 4, 1983.
Mayor
Attest: _
City Clerk
•
2019
•
•
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
i.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Commercial Development Revenue Note
(City West Business Center Development Company Project)
$3,785,000
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, The CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,
MINNESOTA, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of
the State of Minnesota (the City), hereby promises to pay to
the order of FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS, a national
banking association, or assign (the Holder), at its principal
office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or at such other place as the
Holder may designate in writing, solely from the source and in
the manner hereinafter provided, the principal sum of THREE
MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
(S3,785,000), together with interest on the unpaid principal
• • balance thereof at the annual rate set forth below, in any coin
or currency which at the time or times of payment is legal
tender for the payment of public or private debts in the United
States of America. This Note is payable in installments due as
follows:
•
(a) From and after the date hereof until the
Assignment Date (as hereinafter defined), the City shall pay
interest only on the outstanding principal balance hereof,
computed at the initial rate of
percent ( %) per annum. Said interest rate shall
thereafter be adjusted on each January , April , July
and October to an annual rate equal to ninety-two percent
(92%) of the most recent weekly average certificate of deposit
rate (resale 90 day), as compiled b$1 the Federal Reserve Bank
and reported in the Wall Street Journal, of 10 weekly reporting
member banks in New York City. Interest shall accrue from and
after the date hereof and payments of accrued interest shall be
due on the first day of each and every month, and on the
Assignment Date.
(b) On the first day of the month following the
Assignment Date, the City shall pay interest only on the
outstanding principal balance, ,:omputed at the rate of ten
percent (10%) per annum.
(c) Commencing on the date which is the first day of
t the second month following the Assignment Date (the
Amortization Date) and continuing on the first day of each
month thereafter until the payment payable pursuant to
paragraph (d) hereof is due, the principal balance hereof,
together with interest thereon, shall be due and payable in
monthly installments, each in the amountmln of
Dollars ) (said
payment being calculated on an assumed 30 year amortization
with interest at the rate of 10% per annum).
(d) Payment of the entire unpaid principal balance
hereof, together with all accrued but unpaid interest thereon,
and all other indebtedness due hereunder, shall be due on
September 1, 2013.
All interest hereon shall be computed on the basis of
the actual number of days elapsed and on the assumption that
each month contains thirty (30) days. All payments hereunder
shall be applied first to interest due on the unpaid principal
balance and the balance to reduction of principal.• .
As used herein the term "Assignment Date" shall mean
the date on which Northwestern National Life Insurance Company,
or its permitted assigns, becomes the holder hereof. If the
Assignment Date has not occurred on or before 1984,
the entire unpaid principal balance hereof together with
interest accrued thereon shall, at the option of the Holder,
become due and payable immediately upon demand.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event at any
time of a Determination of Taxability, as defined in Section
4.07 of that certain Loan Agreement of even date herewith (the
Loan Agreement) between City West Business Center Development
Company, a Minnesota limited partnership (the Partnership), and
the City, the rate of interest hereon shall be automatically
increased, effective as of the Date of Taxability, as defined
in Section 4.07 of the Loan Agreement, to twelve percent (12%)
per annum (the "increased permanent interest rate") and the
payments required under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) above shall
be increased accordingly. If the Date of Taxability is deemed
to have occurred prior to the Assignment Date, the interest
rate on the Note shall, for the period prior to the Assignment
Date, be increased to two percent (2%) over the prime rate of
interest charged by First National Bank of Minneapolis, which
annual rate (the "increased interim interest rate") will change
when and as such prime rate shall change, and the payments
required pursuant to paragraph (a) hereof shall be increased
accordingly. In the event of such Determination of Taxability,
the City shall, within thirty (30) days after such
a0 ►
•
Determination of Taxability, pay to the appropriate Holder(s)
the difference between (i) the amounts actually paid hereunder
between the Date of Taxability and the effective date of the
rate increase(s) and (ii) the amounts which would have been
paid during such period(s) if the increased permanent interest
rate and increased interim interest rate, as the case may be,
had been in effect, together with any interest and penalties
incurred by the Holder(s) hereof as a result of such
Determination of Taxability.
At the option of the City, the outstanding principal
balance of this Note may be prepaid, in whole or in part,
without penalty, on any monthly payment date upon ten (10) days
written notice to the Holder. Any partial prepayment shall be
applied to final principal installments due hereunder and shall
not reduce the amount of the monthly installments otherwise
payable.
At the option of the Holder, this Note shall be
purchased, upon surrender hereof to the City or its designee,
on 1, 1994 at a price equal to the outstanding
principal balance thereof plus accrued interest, provided the
Holder has given not less than 90 days written notice to the
City and Partnership of its intention to exercise this option.
The proceeds of this Note are to be disbursed in part
pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain •i
Construction Loan Agreement of even date herewith (the
"Construction Loan Agreement") by and among the City, the
Partnership and First National Bank of Minneapolis. Provisions
to the contrary, if any, contained in this Note
notwithstanding, the Construction Loan Agreement shall no
longer constitute a part of this Note from and after the date
on which Northwestern National Life Insurance Company, or its
permitted assigns, becomes the Holder hereof, and no defenses,
offsets or counterclaims available to the Partnership arising
out of said Construction Loan Agreement shall be valid or
effective as against the indebtedness evidenced by this Note or
against Northwestern National Life Insurance Company or its
successors or assigns, all of such defenses, offsets and
counterclaims being then waived by the Partnership insofar as
said indebtedness and Northwestern National Life Insurance
Company and its successors and assigns are concerned.
This Note constitutes an issue in the total authorized
face amount of $3,785,000, or so much thereof as may be
advanced hereunder. This Note is issued by the City pursuant
to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as
amended (the Act), for the purpose of providing funds for a
Project, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.02,
i2U�2
Subdivision la, consisting of acquisition of certain real
estate and construction and equipping of improvements thereon,
and paying necessary expenses incidental thereto, such funds to
be loaned by the City to the Partnership pursuant to a
Resolution, adopted October 4, 1983, by the City (the
Resolution), the Loan Agreement and the Construction Loan
Agreement, thereby assisting activities in the public interest
and for the public welfare of the City of Eden Prairie.
This Note is secured by a Mortgage and Security
Agreement and Future Financing Statement, of even date
herewith, between the Partnership, as Mortgagor, and the
Holder, as Mortgagee (the Mortgage), and by an Assignment of
Rents and Leases, of even date herewith, from the Partnership
to the Holder (the Assignment).
All of the agreements, conditions, covenants,
provisions and stipulations contained in the Mortgage, the Loan •
Agreement, the Construction Loan Agreement, the Assignment and
any other loan or security document collateral hereto are
hereby made a part of this Note to the same extent and with the
same force and effect as if they were fully set forth herein.
Time is of the essence hereof. In the event of any default in
the payment of any principal, interest or other indebtedness
due hereunder, or if an Event of Default (as defined in the
Mortgage, the Loan Agreement, the Construction Loan Agreement,
the Assignment or any other loan or security document
. collateral hereto) occurs, then the Holder may at its right and
option declare immediately due and payable the principal
balance of this Note and interest accrued thereon to the date
of declaration, together with any attorneys' fees incurred by
the Holder in collecting or enforcing payment thereof, whether
suit be brought or not, and all other sums due hereunder or
under the Mortgage, the Assignment, the Construction Loan
Agreement or the Loan Agreement, anything to the contrary
therein notwithstanding, and payment thereof may be enforced
and recovered in whole or in part, at any time by one or more
of the remedies provided in the Mortgage, in the Note, in the
Assignment, in the Construction Loan Agreement or in the Loan
Agreement. The Holder may extend the time of payment of
interest and/or principal of this Note, without notice to or
consent of any party liable hereon, and without releasing such
party.
The City, for itself its successors and assigns,
hereby waives demand, presentment, notice of nonpayment,
protest, notice of protest, notice of dishonor, and diligence
in collection and agrees that without any notice the Holder
hereof may take and/or release additional security herefor, or
the Holder hereof may from time to time release any part or
parts of the property and interests subject to said Mortgage
i with or without consideration, and that in any such case the
•
City shall continue liable to pay the unpaid balance of the
indebtedness evidenced hereby as so additionally secured,
extended, renewed or modified and notwithstanding any such
release, subject to the limitations of the City's liability as
set forth herein; provided that no material modification in the
terms of this Note shall be effective without the written
consent of the City.
This Note and the interest thereon shall never
constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any
constitutional provision or statutory limitation and shall
never constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability of the
City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers.
This Note, together with interest hereon and any premiums,
taxes, penalties, late charges or other amounts payable
hereunder, however designated, does not constitute a charge,
lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of
the City, except revenues under the Loan Agreement, and the
agreement of the City to perform or cause the performance of
the covenants and other provisions herein referred to shall be
limited at all times to the availability of revenues from the
Loan Agreement, the Assignment or the Mortgage, sufficient to
pay all costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof.
No Holder of any Note shall ever have the right to compel any
• exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Note or
interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any
property of the City. The provisions of this paragraph shall,
for all purposes of this Note, be controlling and by given full
force and effect, anything else to the contrary in this Note
notwithstanding.
The remedies of the Holder, as provided herein and in
the documents hereinabove referenced, shall be cumulative and
concurrent, and may be pursued singly, successively or
together, at the sole discretion of the Holder, and may be
exercised as often as occasion therefor shall occur. The
failure to exercise any such right or remedy shall in no event
be construed as a waiver or release thereof.
The Holder may, in its discretion, waive any default
hereunder and its consequences and rescind any declaration of
acceleration of principal; provided, however, that no action or
inaction by the Holder shall be deemed a waiver of any of the
Holder's rights or remedies unless the Holder specifically
agrees in writing that such action or inaction will constitute
a waiver of its rights or remedies. Any waiver shall only
apply to the particular instance for which it was agreed. No
delay in exercising and no failure in exercising any right or
av cU •
•
remedy hereunder or afforded by law shall be a waiver of or
preclude the exercise of any right or remedy hereunder or
provided by law whether on such occasion or any future
occasion, nor shall such delay be construed as a waiver of any
default or acquiescence therein. The exercise or the beginning
of the exercise of one right or remedy shall not be deemed a
waiver of the right to exercise at the same time or thereafter
any other right or remedy.
As provided in the Resolution of the City authorizing
the issuance of this Note, this Note is transferable upon the
books of the City at the office of the City Clerk by the Holder
hereof in person or by its attorney duly authorized in writing,
upon presentation hereof together with a written instrument of -
transfer satisfactory to the City Clerk, duly executed by the
Holder or its duly authorized attorney. Upon such transfer the
City Clerk will note the date of registration and the name and
address of the new registered Holder in the registration blank
appearing below. The City may deem and treat the party in
whose name this Note is last registered upon the books of the
' City, with such registration noted on this Note, as the
absolute owner hereof, whether or not overdue, for the purposes
of receiving payment of or on account of the principal balance,
prepayment premiums or interest and for all other purposes, and
all such payments so made to the registered Holder or upon its
order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the
liability of the City upon this Note to the extent of the sum
or sums so paid, and the City shall not be affected by any
notice to the contrary.
It is intended that this Note is made with reference
to and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all
conditions, acts and things required to exist, happen and be
performed precedent to or in the issuance of this Note do
exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due
form as required by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Note to
be duly executed by its authorized officers and its corporate
seal to be hereunto affixed, all on October _, 1983.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
By
• Mayor
Attest
(SEAL) City Manager
4v,/r
j PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
The ownership of the unpaid principal balance of this
Note and the interest accruing thereon is registered on the
books of the City of Eden Prairie in the name of the Holder
last noted below:
Date of Name of Signature of
Registration Registered Owner City Clerk
October , 1983 First National Bank
of Minneapolis
•
•
2() �0_._..__
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
October 4, 1983
CONTRACTDR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) HEATING & VENTILATING
Rodin's Quality Concrete Larson-Mac Company, Inc.
Dale G. Svennes Construction Midwest Heating & Ventilating
Owens Services Corporation
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY)
GAS FITTER
Better Built Decks & Gazebos
Jeff Brett Construction Co. Larson-Mac Company, Inc.
Fleetwood Homes, Inc.
Paul Heins Construction MECHANICAL GAMES
Jefferson Carpentry, Inc.
Kee Construction, Inc. Sears
Keymen Construction, Inc. •
Partners 4, Design, Inc.
PLUMBING
Edina Plumbing
Olson Plumbing Co.
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible
for the licensed activity.
•
(—)Ctit-P4
Pat Solie, Licensing
I .:
211R?_
October 4, 1983
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-243
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND ORDERING
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR SIGNAL INSTALLATION •
AT FLYING CLOUD DRIVE AND SHADY OAK ROAD
WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make
the following improvements;
I.C. 52-057, Signal installation, at Flying Cloud Drive
and Shady Oak Road
and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvements, pursuant to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer
for study and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and
•
presented to the City Council with all convenient speed advising
the Council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment
and feasibility of the proposed improvements.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on October 4, 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
•
John D. Frane, Clerk
•
•
•
a0g
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
\ PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
To The Eden Prairie City Council:
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City
Council to consider making the following described improvements(s):
(General Location)
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer •
Street Paving
-
XX Other Signal Lights at Shady Oak Road/Flying Cloud Drive Into,
section.
Street Address or Other
:;�begal Description of Names of Petitioners
-r,''.` fS II:eropertj to be Served (MustBe Property Owners) /`1
/O rl5 rr-YI.�G CC.c.ue OR�,1E Lf r DATA L:o'R2oent,,,,..) _
t/-%:',-? ;/-iliv.;;-,,, ..9._. ---)iflT-1 -
( ô)r ,./f.(l fi�LL_ ity ,�2 , �>,,z�1�iry ? r��.� " /. /
h-�o) 6..7 0 ' C3.e.�-.,(f .� %?-, ..1... L o rt.—... ( 'C:1,
/ f
CS7) C__ O V--32-<;__.";.- (L. \,y1
f r ç41C
/7-7:-,.. _-._----,-.7--i,, e,-....- •..• --•-.-;---.
J ) R/ r 6.CS-.cAar7 �ite t stirs .,.,_ �.,Gh% 4.
t/••i c
8) /el S/ e L t-a-� ,- -,..c fr u.A. P i t i.4V_4.{y 1 i::cYr; 6/-,i
(For City Use)
Date Received -5-[p/e,,.bw/q,,[9/3
. Project No. C.,rt-o S'
Council Consideration ��- /9a
0q0d9 ?uj`. 1 of L
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
•
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
To The Eden Prairie City Council:
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City
Council to consider making the following described improvements(s):
(General Location)
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer •
Street Paving
-
Other •
Street Address or Other Names of Petitioners
Legal Description of
^� Property to be Served r (Must Be Property Owners) ,{/
7/ in/'L� (.F4 l7a-14 l /f dz v� �/r�LC.� _ /QF►�..(,.1(.GG??Z.G`.
6 .4
.3 63z-it/.. ( / ,-. .•C l�-„I it/ A^i'� ,' Itel..":•�'
/o y.
6.0& (c'G
al 62.,. CIA/ '--L.6422 i :
(2 ) G',75- N4A1i Iltj,n p\d Ca! 4ert SY'7 °01 ` 7,4 /_ u /
(0/ (7.222 544 i 6/4 Zr. Aid_ ' i o
5v i • I ir.'7'h Sf K(•1a<I17 Ai/ .S/-* ' / Z
47.�� S1:'fe r C4 2D 4pr .S 6, ,s Le �;•Y"/r`, (%'•.J.
�( y^ j �/ /,r,.f. ` _ -, I Imo., /- /. .. /,
• r0/25 (errrfr-n. i C.rvrie i. �( ►1 /i/fltw ,- / / /-'L'y' "t��
/aG1 610/ slocly �G4i r o(• u'(� ���
IY
• (For City Use)
[�
Date Received .�reMaenlyl98j
Project No.
Council Consideration
'()Qi) 1,cir 7,rd ,�
October 4, 1983
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
•
RESOLUTION NO. 83-244
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT
OF RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT THREE
WHEREAS, the plat of Ridgewood West Plat Three has been sub-
mitted 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 ordin-
ances 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 Ridgewood West Plat Three is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
Report on this plat dated September 29, 1983.
• B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
. this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- • ;
( trar of Titles for their use as required by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named .
plat.
D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute
the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com-
pliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on October 4, 1983.
IF-ol1gong H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: • SEAL
•
John D. Frane, Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Penzel and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: David L. Olson c.c/eP
Engineering Technician
DATE: September 29, 1983
SUBJECT: RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT THREE
PROPOSAL:
The developer, Centex Homes Midwest, Inc., is requesting City Council
approval of the final plat of Ridgewood West Plat Three, a medium
density single family residential plat. The plat contains 85 lots
and is a replat of part of Block 5 and all of Block 6, Ridgewood
West located in the North )5 of Section 22.
. ,HISTORY:
Zoning to RI-9.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council
on September 20, 1983, per Ordinance 38-83.
Approval of the Ridgewood West Two Planned Unit Development and
ammending the Guide Plan was approved by the City Council on July 6,
1982, per Resolution 82-165 and 82-168.
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on August 2,
1983, per Resolution 83-132.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed
on September 20, 1983.
The final plat of Ridgewood West was approved by the City Council on
March 20, 1979, per Resolution 79-58.
VARIANCES:
Variances to be allowed are described within the Developer's Agreement.
All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: •
Municipal utilities and streets will be installed throughout the
development in conformance with City Standards.
All outlots shown on the plat, except Outlot M, will contain access
drives to the cluster units. The outlots and driveways will be owned
and maintained by the Homeowner Association.
Ownership and maintenance responsibilities for walkways to be installed
are explained in the Developer's Agreement.
2092,
Pg. 2 Final Plat of Ridgewood West Plat Three
PARK DEDICATION:
Outlot M is to be used as a totlot. Development requirements and
maintenance responsibilities are described in the Developer's
Agreement. Ownership will be by the Homeowners Association.
All other requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING:
The requirements for bonding are covered in the Developer's Agreement.
RECDMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Ridgewood West Plat Three
subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's
Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of fee for Engineering in the amount of 51,70D.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $4,518.
3. Vacation of underlying drainage and utility easements
and right-of-way by the City Council.
4. Satisfaction of Bonding Requirements.
•
( DLO:sg
October 4, 1983
• CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. R83-245
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT
OF RILEY ESTATES
WHEREAS, the plat of Riley Estates
has been sub-
mitted 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 ordin-
ances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
Approval Request for Riley Estates is approved
•
A. Plato w
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
Report on this plat dated September 28, 1983.
•
•
•
• B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
trrar ofsTitlesnfor theirin the fuseeasfrequired the �byeMSAstr f462.358 Deed r,dSubd./or Regis-.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named
plat.
D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute _
the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com-
pliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on October 4, 1983.
Wo gang H. Penzel, Mayor
•
SEAL
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, C erk
ao
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Penzel and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl Jutlie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: David L. Olson, Engineering Technician Z/ve4
DATE: September 28, 1983
SUBJECT: RILEY ESTATES
PROPOSAL:
The owners, Len Swedlund and Rita Lukes, are requesting City Council
approval of the final plat of Riley Estates, a detached single family
residential division located south of Riley Lake Road on the north
side of Riley Lake in the South z of Section 19. The plat consists
of 14 acres being divided into 3 lots, each containing approximately
4.6 acres.
.HISTORY:
Zoning of the property is presently Rural.
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on August 2,
c 1983, per Resolution 83-158.
A Developer's Agreement will not be executed for this subdivision.
VARIANCES:
Variances necessary to accomodate this division were approved by
the Board of Appeals and Adjustments on July 14, 1983.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
No municipal utility installations or roadway improvements will be
made as a result of this division.
PARK DEDICATION:
Payment of the cash park fee will be required prior to building permit
issuance.
BONDING:
No bonding will be required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Riley Estates subject to the
requirements of this report and the following:
1. Receipt of Engineering fee in the amount of $90.00.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $903.60.
DLO:sg
a1U95
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 45-83
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 BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
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 Regional Commercial District and be placed in the Regional
Commercial Service District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Regional Commercial District and shall be included
hereafter in the Regional Commercial Service District, and the legal descriptions of
land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1,
Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
( Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the day of , 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
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-249
A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
OF CO
UNCIL
DEVELOPMENT
ON 0.75 ACRES, TOTALLING 6,D00 SQ. FT.
BE IT RESOLVED that the proposal for a 6,000 sq. ft. day care facility on 0.75 acres
for Ryan Development and Hustad Development for a Montessori School, located at
County Road #60 and Market Place Drive, is herein approved subject to the following
specific conditions:
1. The site plan dated August 15, 1983, and attached hereto shall apply.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, developer/owner shall:
A. Meet with the Engineering Department with regard to water, sanitary
and storm sewer.
B. Receive approval from the Watershed District.
C. Submit a letter to the City from the property owner to the south,
stating approval for off-site grading on that property owner's
parcel.
D. Present a signage plan consistent with City Code.
E.. Meet with the Fire Marshall regarding fire safety requirements.
F. Pay the Cash Park Fee.
ADOPTED by the City Council on . 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John 0. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-226
A RESCLUTION APPROVING PRESERVE MANOR HOMES
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 Preserve Manor Homes PUD Concept is considered a proper
amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on
Quality Homes' request for PUD Concept approval for Preserve Manor Homes and
recommended approval of the PUD Concept to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on October 4, 1983;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Preserve Manor Homes PUD Concept, 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 Concept approval as outlined in
( the application materials dated August 8, 1983.
•
3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning
Commission dated August 29, 1983.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of
, 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-242
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive
Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review
and comment; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal of Northwest Properties for development of Apple
Groves for mixed residential uses requires the amendment of the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: approximately 11
acres located south of Valley View Road and west of the Lorence Addition, be
modified from Low to Medium Density Residential.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of
, 1983.
•
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
SEAL
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
•
RESOLUTION NO. 83-234
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLE GROVES
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 Apple Groves PUD Concept is considered a proper amendment to
the Comprehensive Guide Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on
Northwest Properties' request for PUD Concept approval for Apple Groves and
recommended approval of the PUD Concept to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on October 4, 1983;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Apple Groves PUD Concept, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
and legally described as outlined in-Exhibit A, attached hereto and
�- made a part hereof.
• 2. Thathet the revisedty Council applicati noes grant materialspUD dated Sept temberoval as outlined in
19, 1983
3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning
Commission dated September 26, 1983.
AOOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this _ day of
, 1983.
•
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
•
•
A100
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #83-235
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF APPLE GROVES FOR
NORTHWEST PROPERTIES
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Apple Groves for Northwest Properties, dated September
19. 1983, of 40.91 acres for 162 attached and detached and cluster single family
residential lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hatt, 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
•
•
42101
CITY OF EDFN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-236
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE AMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WOkIR Q APPLE UIRE AN ENVIRONMENTALSTATEMENTRIVATE ACTION, OES
NOT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on September
26, 1983 to consider the Apple Groves proposal of Northwest Properties; and,
WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 40.91 acres of land
located south of Valley View Road and west of the Lorence Addition, in Eden Prairie;
and,
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
the Apple Groves proposal of Northwest Properties and did recommend approval of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding the project of no significant impact;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for the Apple
Groves proposal of Northwest Properties, because the project is not a major action,
does not have significant environmental effects, and is not of more than local
significance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be
officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council.
•
ADOPTED this day of , 1983.
•
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
/l�� 'O2
Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 22, 1983
1 ,
B. APPLE GROVES, by Northwest Properties. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development
Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review for
a mixed residential land use, Zoning from Rural to R1 13.5,
R1-9.5, and RM-6.5, Preliminary Platting of 40.91 acres for
F 181 attached and detached single family units, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: South
of Valley View Road and West of Lorence Addition. A public
hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 22, 1983
Mr. Hani Hayek, Northwest Properties, presented the requested
development proposal, explaining site features and its relationship
to the surrounding land uses.
• Staff reviewed the report evaluating the request, pointing out that
the most important issue was that of the proposed Comprehensive
Guide Plan change. Staff showed that the area was well served by
public facilities, including the schools, Connity Center, fire
station, library, and community and neighborhood parks.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked if the question of transportation
would be different for the north and south portions of the property
due to the bisection of the property by the railroad tracks. Staff
stated that the north portion of the property would be accessing
Valley View Road via its own access; the south portion of the
property would be accessing the thoroughfares via the adjacent
residential streets.
Hallett asked about the location of the existing homestead on the
property. Staff responded that it was located in the southwest
portion of the property, south of the railroad tracks.
Marhula asked if proponent would be developing and building on the
property. Mr. Hayek responded that he would be responsible for the
utilities and streets, but that others would be constructing the
units. David Williams would be constructing the cluster homes to
the south, in the S100,000 range; the single family homes to the
west would be sold to individual builders and would be valued from
S140-150,000; the townhouses would be built by others, as well, in
the $60-70,000 range.
Johannes asked about the phasing of the development. Mr. Hayek
stated that the cluster homes south of the railroad tracks would
begin this Fall, while the single family residential to the west
would be started in Spring, 1984. As for the townhomss, he expected
they would not begin until Fall, 1984, or Spring, 1985.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked how residents of this project would
access Highway #5. Staff stated that it would be directly via
Valley View Road or, for the south portion of the site, through the
existing residential areas to the east, then to Valley View Road.
Marhula stated that the property to the east had recently been
before the Commission requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan change.
He stated that he felt it was justified due to the physical
constraints on the property including a pond, railroad tracks, and
Valley View Road right-of-way. He questioned whether there were any
such constraints on this property. Staff stated that there were not
the same constraints; however, the property, as proposed, was
suggesting a self-contained townhouse area, which was not dependent
upon the surrounding areas.
Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that the Commission had received a
letter from the Scotts, residents of the area, stating concern
POLI
Planning Commission Minutes
5 August 22, 1983
regarding traffic and stating concern for the impact on the
\ surrounding multiple res
idential
Park. which would be
caused by
Michelle Nixon, 18105 Valley View Road, stated that she had not been
concerned with the proposed development tto the eaastirst andquhad
had
understood the constraints on the property, justifying
for multiple residential. However, she did not feel the constraints
were the same for this development. Ms. Nixon expressed concern nffor
the amount of traffic which would result from the intensity
lfe already
problem because ofment on his thearea. She stated that
high school, community
traffictr was herRody a p
concern and forththeound impact activities. Ms.
uponnthelso stated
existing
residential homes valued at $150,000. ,
Dick Thon, 7550 Atherton. stated that he had received
fonotificition
that the Commission would be reviewing a proposal
multiple residential units to the south of this property at its next
meeting. He questioned how much residential development would be
allowed in this area designated for low density development.
Lonnie Grey, 7780 Heritage Road, expressed concern for additional
traffic caused by such a development, suggesting that a traffic
study may be warranted. Ms. Grey
statedntt hataRouen tLakelPaakt ark was
as
being used to its capacity and
additional residential units beyond single family.
Jack McCreary, 7109 Park View, stated that the land north of this
develoent statedpm
mthat ehest
did anota feellarge there lot inwas gle fan�adequateotransitiont. n
• provided between the proposed
Road s and the antee singles family
a ilythhomes
to the north of Valley
• transition
ito-ten foot be desirable
berm would for this aaid indtransition that an
eight-to-ten foot landscaped berm would aid in transition between
these two areas.
Jack Wiley, 17266 Round Lake Road, stated that he represented
approximately 50 residents of the Round Lake Estates area. followinged
met andn discussed) tdidpnotect feelnthereiwashbenefittto the City by the
ddctron: 1) They
addition of multiple residential to this area of the comnunityp andf
they were concerned about becoming 2)anraffic apartm nta mcityr if
development of this type was allowed;
theconcern at this time for
residential development would only increase addition the problem of traffic
congestion in the area; 3) They were concerned about the impact of
hiher iensitY residential
were alread
ty overeusedn•ities of the area,
whch, in theiropinion,
4' Joan Brinkman, 18117 Valley View Road, questioned as
how 40- ft. tall
ale
evergreens could be transplanted effectively, proposed
develpe .homesoinrtheSS140-150,000erangee when hthe elots r iwere slocated would construct
he also qustiond in such
• al 05
Planning Commission Minutes
6 August 22, 1983
close proximity to the townhouses with such little buffering between
the uses. Ms. Brinkman added that it was difficult to accept such a
change when they had made an investment in their homes based on the
fact that the property around them would be low density residential.
She questioned whether the City would allow a "dominoe effect" to
take place with multiple residential in this area,
r a,pcon5ideringreathat
at
the land to the east was approved
as
proposed for multiple, and the land to the south was being proposed
for multiple residential development.
Eugene Peterson, 7443 Homes Way, stated that he felt the developer
should show some need for developing the property as multiple
residential. He stated that he felt the total amount of multiple
was too large. Mr. Peterson emphasized concern for the traffic, as
well, because of the schools and other community facilities in the
area.
Mr. Hayek responded to several of the comments from the residents.
He
viewtaofdtheapt ropt oseds and ire
xisting tsingle famn ily residentialfunits.
They had consulted with a tree surgeon regarding the transplanting
of the evergreen trees and had been told that, while not Additional
plantingstask, it could be accomplished, if done properly.
plantings would be used, as well.
Mr. Hayek stated that discussions had been held with the developers
of the land to the south regarding connection of the two
developments. It was the desire of Northwest Properties not to
connect the two developments.
• Hallett asked whether the road system in the area would be capable
of handling the traffic resulting from such a development. Planner
• Enger responded that Valley View Road was currently a two-lane road,
traffic be a
e road. Heso inted that the
i the area was not due the existing residential
developments. In actuality, the traffic was a result of the high
school, Community Center, and Round Lake Park activities. These
were intense uses, and would continue to be intense uses. He
stated that the addition of residents in this area, even multiple
residential development, would be imperceptible as far as what is
already taking place in the area. People in the area would likely
walk to such facilities, not drive, and therefore, not add to the
traffic problems.
Planner Enger suggested that the Community Services Department
should look at the scheduling of events in the area and alternatives
to programming of the events to alleviate the traffic problems in
the area.
Regarding the multiple residential in this, area of the community,
Staff stated that the mix in the Preserve had proven very successful
and that the values of the single and multiple family units in that
area were high, by comparison. There were not many multiple
residential units in the northwest area of the community, yet
Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 22, 1983
area had an abundance of public amenities, which could support
multiple residential development.
Hallett stated that he felt the site was well buffered from the
• existing uses. With single family on the west, multiple family to
the east, cluster homes south of the railroad tracks and Valley View
Road to the north, he stated that he felt the proponent had provided
a well-planned site. He added that he felt additional buffering was
necessary to transition to the land to the north of Valley View
Road, and that the amount of townhouse units could be reduced.
Hallett also emphasized a need for affordable housing and a variety
of housing types within the community, and stated that he felt this
proposal succeeded in meeting those needs for this northwest portion
of the community.
Hallett also stated concern for not allowing a continuation of
multiple residential throughout this entire area.
Schuck stated that he concurred with Hallett, especially as
concerned the provision of economic opportunity for the community.
Marhula stated that there were many amenities in the area, which
lent themselves toward support of multiple residential development.
He stated that he felt the cluster home development proposed south
of the tracks was workable. However, he expressed concern for the
• townhouse area. He stated that he felt he could not support the
townhouse area as proposed, adding that he did not feel there had
been adequate justification shown for this change at this density.
Marhula stated that he felt strongly that the transition be improved
. between the existing uses to the west and the townhouses, as well as
between the proposed single family and townhouse units. He added
that he did not feel two lots in depth was sufficient to make the
transition.
Kris Williams, 7370 Names Way, also expressed concern for too much
multiple residential in the area, considering the area was planned
•for low density.
Johannes stated that, while he understood the concerns of the
residents for too much multiple residential in the area, he felt
that the proponent has prepared a good proposal with a good attempt
at buffering. He stated that the proposal met the City's needs for
economic opportunity and variety of housing types. Johannes stated
that he was unsure whether the mix proposed, with the amount of
townhouses, was appropriate.
Marhula stated that the City had studinr; the need for multiple
residential in the community several years ago, finding that the
City had a greater need than had been met. It had been City policy
to support multiple residential proposals, where appropriate, over
the past several years, but this proposal needed revision.
Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he felt the proponent had made
aiO'1
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 22, 1983
ti a serious attempt at providing a transition between the uses. He
added that he felt that, although the City, too, needed to be
flexible and open to change, change must be justified, and he did
not feel the proposal provided adequate justification for the amount
of townhouses shown.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to close the public
hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the proposed Guide Plan change from low
density residential to medium density residential for the proposed
townhouse and cluster home areas of the Apple Groves proposal by
Northwest Properties, based on plans dated July 29, July 30, and
August 3, 1983, and written materials dated July 29, August 16, and
August 18, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report of August 19, 1983.
( Motion carried--3-2-0 (Acting Chairman Torjesen and Marhula against)
• Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that, prior to review of the
remainder of the proposal, he would prefer to see greater detail
provided for the transition areas proposed, especially since it had
been such an important issue during the discussion. The other
• members of the Commission concurred.
The Commission also concurred that the density of the townhouses
should be reduced in order to provide adequate space for transitions
• to the north and west.
Mr. Hayek stated that he would work with Staff to amend the plan as
requested.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to continue the
public hearings and meetings on the Planned Unit Development
District Review, Zoning District Change, Preliminary Plat, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet, pending additional detailed
information regarding transitions between differing uses, and
responsive to suggestions made at this meeting.
Motion carried--5-0-0
•
• a 101
7/05 P-111 -
,e, tip 5c3Kj
.c " / / l l 83
i` I,i,a,,, h N 55 311 Y
i
XJ l
41,at,t;,.j 7,,,,,,,,itite. 11,,,,,,,,:7, ..„,„ 8,--- .---e-7,11-4-12—€ ,
( ficet..„„tiz., 4$0( ..A---c--e—° 12- 4----. 6'11'16 j
At ''"J O'":tt APtit'‘gig*
I /1744:4-.....e A.... 1
4 46!..2 rfe- 0-17 '2- ;
_66., th, c,„,,,z,, ,i„,,,,,,....,42./..4 +co...it ! _
jj_ ,r,. _,,,(2.,i t& A.—Jel-tia , ,
ise„ ,,,,,,,..,,,,2 i ,4,..
. 76. fg„---:- -f----x-, ------
c7.4,...1r,
y .
""ems,,
210 i
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District
l a .w 8950 COUNTY ROAD .4
• • EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55343
I
September 14, 1983
Mr. Chris Enger
City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Apple Groves Development
Dear Mr. Enger:
The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory
Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to
the District for the Apple Groves Development. The following policies and
criteria of the Watershed District are applicable for this project:
1. In accordance with Section E(2) of the District's Revised Rules
and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit will be
required for this project. Accompanying the permit application,
a detailed erosion control plan outlining how sediment is to be
controlled both during and after construction must be submitted
• to the District for review and approval.
2. A grading plan showing both existing and proposed contours must
be submitted to the District for review and approval.
3. A detailed storm sewer plan must be submitted to the District
for review and approval.
4. The District notes that homes are to be constructed adjacent
to 2 stormwater detention basins located on the site. In
accordance with District criteria, basement floor elevations
or points where water could enter the structure must be set
at a minimum of 2 feet above the calculated 10D-year frequency
flood elevation of the basin.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development at an early
date. If you have any questions concerning the District's comments, please
call us at 920-0655.
\ ncerely
RCO/gbs Rorier•t . Obermeyer
c: Mr. Fred Richards BARR ENGINEERING CO,
Mr. Fritz Rahr Engineers for the District
2110
.
R. I (filled In by Meltoniez
.
•
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: Written comments should address the accuracy
cu a Investigation completeness
t�iroeoftth an VW Information, potential Impacts that may
nsible
ing the •
EIS. Such tonts llowingt be submitted to notice of the EAW'smailoability Governmentin h Unit Monitor. Contact the
EQ day 2e period ends.
EQB 1612/I96-39851 or the RGU to find out when the 30 day comment
INSTRUCTIONS: Guidelines for assisting In completion of this worksheet may be obtained
from EUB. Provide all information which Is reasonably accessible. Attach additional
sheets if necessary. EWLAIV ALL ANSWERS.
1 Project Name Apple Groves
2 Proposer Northwest Properties 3 Rcu City of Eden Prairie
Contact Person Hani Hayek Contact Person Chris Enger
Address 6566 France Ave. S. #1001 Address 8950 Eden Prairie Road
Edina, MN 55435 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Phone
922-1954 phone 937-2262
•
4 -oject Location:Ell NEI/g I/4 Section 7 Township 116 Range 22
a. County Name Hennepin City/Township Name Eden Prairie
b. Attach each of the following to the LAW:
•
• 1• a county map showing the general area of the project. •
2. a capyttesl of USGS 71/2 minute, 1:24,000 scale map or other maps and
•
diagrams ar aerial photos which clearly Indicate the specific boun-
daries end topography of the project site. .
3. a site plan showing the location of significant features such as pro-
posed structures, roods, extent of flood plain, wetlands. wells, etc.
4. •an existing land use map, end If mailable, a zoning map of the tared-
Late ere..
5 •Describe the proposed project (what will be dons and how long It will take).
Development of 41 acres of farmland into 162 single and multiple family units. The
development time frame for completion is 24-36 months from the time of Council approval.
•
. 21I1
6 Reason for EAW preparation: 40 ac, or more of residential 1£00 Rule 0 3.038 R1B
7 Estimated construction cost $1,000,000.00
1 Total project area (acres) 41 ac. or length (miles)
9 Number of residential units 162 or tanmerclel, Industrial,or Instltu-
tlonel square footage
1,0 Number of proposed perking spaces 324 •
11 list all known local, state and federal permits/approvals/funding required:
level of Government T1ne of Application Status
Federal:
State: EAW Submitted
Local: Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District Submitted
Metropolitan Council Guide'Plan Change Submitted
City of Eden Prairie Land Use Submitted
• 12 Is the proposed project Inconsis n with any:
a, adopted lend use ordinances? 131:0Bottafit'
17.: Ni��Yas;
b• adopted comprehensive lend use plsns? NYC.
C. local, stets or federal resource management plans?
If yes, explain:.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan designages Low Density Residential The proposal is for
Medium.Density Residential development ..... • .
( y Describe current and recent pest land use and development „ • ..... ._. '
•J on and near the site. •
The site is bordered by single family housing on the east and west. Multiple family
residential units are.proposed to the south and approved to the east. '
•
•14 Approximately whet percent of the site Is In each of the following categories?
(Percont.eges should total 100% before and after construction)
•
Before After Before After
Forest/Wooded 10 f 10 f Urban vacant 100% 0 %
Brush 1 f 0 f Wetland (types 3-81 0% 0 5
Grassland 5 S 90% impervious Surface 1 S 20 5
Cropland 84 f 0 f Other(Speclfy) f =
1 5 Show the type and location of soils on the site map. Gtve the SCS soil classifl-
cetlon types, if known.
16 Does the site contain peat soils, steep slopes, sinkholes, shallow limestone ,.. ,
g1 formations, abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards? g]ttp C.3Yes
Explain: .. .,,, ...:.,.::.;::?
117 Whet is the approximate depth (in feet) to:
a. groundwater 5 min. 71/2 avg. b. bedrock220 min.laevg•
18 Does any part of the project area Involve:
a. Shoreland zoning district? lXNo C]Yes
b. Delineated 100-year flood plain? '1EX No Q(as
c. State or federally designated river lend use district? . ]No M Yes
identify water body and applicable state classIficatlon(s):
2112
•
linDescribe any physical alteration (e.g. dikes, excavation, fill, stream diversion)
of any drainage system, lake, stream, end/or wetland. Estimate quantity of
materiel to be dredged end Indicate where spoils will be deposited.
Not applicable
20 Will the project require en appropriation of ground or surface water? G., iA L,.;1
Explain (indicate quantity end source):
2 1 Will the project affect: tea C Yea
a. surface water quality (on or off the site)? DYo CnYes
b. groundwater quality (on or off the site)? tr�No Yes
C. groundwater levels In any wells (on or off the site)? 1r..:tuo C::3.,.`,
Explain both during and after construction Including any discharges
expected.
•
•
•
22 What type of waste water treatment rill be used? '
XX municipal individual (on-slte) other
Describe type of treatment system and amount treated in gallons/day. Show local-
-Hon of non-municipal systems on a site map and the results of percolation test
If warranted. Indicate If pre-treatment measures Oil be used. •
•
47,600 gallons/day . •
•
23 Describe and indicate on a site map the provisions to control erosion and stoma-
water run-off. Include size end location of any retention basins, end discharge
point(s). An existing storm water pond and an additional•pond is proposed on 'site. These
retention areas will tie into the existing Eden Prairie storm water system.
24 will the project generate: . •jp Yes:.
a. d dust?pollution? • �Tes�
b. not s • :-"µoC%,9Yes,
c. noose) •d. odors? No(�Y�Ye9;
Explain both during and alter construction, identify distances
to nglse sensitive land uses and quantity and type of air pollutants.
During site development and home construction, equipment emissions will add gases and
particulants to the air from grading and construction traffic. After construction is
completed, normal air quality will return. If necessary, watering will be required
to contain dust. •
Noise: scraper 80-155 DBA 64-100 @ 250 ft.
bulldozer 8B-105 DBA 73-90 @ 250 ft.
25 Describe the type end amount of solid waste and/or hazardous waste that will be
generated end the method end location of disposal:
324 tons/year of solid wastes
Solid wastes will be disposed of at a landfill site.
3
2II?l
2L Will the project Involve:
V a. fish or wildlife habitat? 07.....1R0 Yea:
b. a rare, endangered, tM ��.No lYee.
setencM or special concern species?
(animals end/or plants) jb yry y®=?
C. movement of any resident or migratory animals? • i•,+�..,++No .....,.f s>
Explain(Identify species and describe Impact):
•
•
Do any historical, archaeological or architectural resources 13 ;
27NO 1�Yes:
exist on or near the project site? ..,,.:..:::.................>::.,:
Explain (show resources on a site map and describe impact):
• . 6Wo QYes.
28 Intl the project cause the Impairment or destruction of: No Yes`
v a. designated park or recreation areas? •
Qko Q Yes
b. prime or unique farmlands? Yes.:
•
c. ecologically sensitive areas? fee Ho.:{Q
Yes;
• d. scenic views end vistas? No....
.y
s. other unique resources (specify)? -
Explain: •
84% is currently cultivated in cash crops •
•
29 What roads will receive increased traffic? (For each road indicate the Current
( average daily traffic (ADT) and increase In ADT contributed by the project.)
•Lorence Way and Valley View Road.
829 ADT Valley View Road •
30 Are adequate energy sources and utilities now available to service yyE
the project?It not, what additional utilities will be required? .
Summary of Issues .
List the Issues as Identified by 'yes" answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitt- .
gative measures for these Issues.
12B-Change Comprehensive•Guide Plan .
•
• '24 A, B, C, D,--During Construction Only ,
28B--No mitigative value . •
•
CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
I hereby certify that the Information contained In this document Is true and correct
to the best of my knowledge end feet Noses of the completed LAW have been made
evallable to all points on the official LOB distribution list. '
Signature Date 4
211 g
SHAKOI EI! QUADRANGLE I
• I MINIII:SOTA UNITED STATES
7.5 ► 11ITF SLRICS(TOPOGRAPHIC) DEPARTMENT Of THE INTERIOR
$I•/,WI.MINNETONKA I:•OUADIIANOIIE
93 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
1--c —. - ----- 3a _ .463
wtc. _ T♦,
'eJ•, f) • .••r p•'1 •
_� ' eM777^.�P ` :.'... n�.l• . ,
r.I • ,,t i ('' ....r.....a.... I tt s 1�
`1 • • (1 1;
•:.
rs/, No Rnund g ...Ckig.
y,..
ei -J !.i. 'M • • •
I , �'J " .r• . fit •,
y�• ^FC)7 • 1 .t ? Mitchell•• 1 / ' ---•��-..sue��,,......—.� a elm. .
;/ • • _7u t! V
1 •1 I /: Utnk.tJ .•� .1 1 4 I • " e c' .r>y ;
•
.. s•i• 4lY\• • 1 • 1 t'-% 1r \ \ 6 I_... t;3,=+EDEtiN PRAT
•
•
-*-•i. i:.--_ ()4.,:::........ t . ! '....\\•....."...'; '....4T (..gii No i..: s,,,"• ..r..1,,! :,.: :
.......;.- :17/. ,1. •,
) > %• 1• C• C •.•6•• •� I .ems ••
Lakr 1 Riley I • :1!• -ox t▪ •% //i`u,
1 ..,�'� ,� ' . ' I I • • �II 1 `
11 ( I. . IIV / • ,
.1,' ' it ' `•••` • 2.4) 1 ' i�'•� , •
. f�
•
• •
f
1 • •
• %e ,h• I! .,..I •�1•11 l••.•\ .1,,,,,FP,.. . V .� fi'� 1 Iv•.li'''.
* ... •ii. .a •; • k•}. •
�., a •'i--•=•'_ ,,.. �..al W.•w-4 ," ; ,
1.
•
• r,• ` - • I :1..-�. 11• 'Irk `.
• /' i;:-:"
{ I gin',1. / . _ . .
•11.1 ,/ ''� /// ati•— "• • :... ' t-" 1 ...,..!.-...: i � I/_ ...ram-__
., . •.1..- -..-. _rT•-Y .A/ .•4 •! `� {{ 7 1.
•
, •..1+ ; , C • •.,
•••••,..1 all :NI . ,, .....-,-,.-•
...•
.. ‘.k..) ,. /01 v/..?
/ 1. 6-1 i'22t :44 '‘;.,•• `,
♦.•fQ� -1 I t" 7O7 o1•
; =ell .. ••}
j 1 —•-i a S.I 1 'tee 1
Y 1 ;y J 140.22 1 •..? -RR _..•. 1'i- L'
• va 1 .:0,...2411.. .. ,.. .......:...,...7...., ,
..1
. . .
.. 4... .. , , .0,,
. .1
. :,.... • .....,.
........., . . • .t. .
... n..o. „..e,..,'. .,
•L �r�� J 11 } Y)•
, iI
1 Y
y ,•••••••• i •.'4.%. ,
�. sos•�• 1\ •.
.'.
. ' .
-, ....
. . .z.
'' -,=',/•' ' •• .: •'•',{ )', .••! 1 .
' • • .,
•
._,-.. • .,, .
011 •••,.•; • •• 4•••• • • :': • •.., •
• •.-... . .,• ••••: ... :-:-::, -;—-- •
•
*.:•-••••::.--:—.•-•• --;:—..- ••••--.'''''--'.''',-,,. 1.''', ,.. •
• • .!.." PAULSeN AVDITiON
k
..,...,....,;„ ....::...:. 7 ).,...,.:, \ ".'..*:: ..... • •• •
."1-...\.• •••'• .. ArrLectiPove
r....-...-..: i'.....,..:.-...r., -,.......,.... ,,Iitr ..,:;:::..8.-:,...
...:,-1.•, . .. .;...,; ...---„,,.,: .. .. ..f•',;. •''..
:.•....,f \• ..,•2..i•'.,..):1':' :;;;C.'.'. ' .' . .• •
;.'.•:''k; "•s) ‘•...'c.'..!' '..2i. '. !:,/.."........,
....',.'.•:.:;.„n•'••::...."_:•••.'. ,;.. :,''V):.(:•-). :.:!, . .
- - •
) ,' '. -4,:2 '•,-: 'f') 5 :' .A.. • . _ .--.----1----
•, Y, t.'\ ..: ? 6 '•;,5;.\ •:•1.7•1`.:0',' 1.\,_ ------ ci..), 1 ,-- vir-v\i.+' . • -.f• '... •
;-k-f,s..../.;...i:,...,..:. .. ::,•:,.,•, ,,_ ‘•;,..?....,-::41..;,..,..... •
•:..,'"....:. .p.•.(..•'1.)s..,'.;,;;•; ...•,.1.-•1,1i•4'.-,:.;...:.::.t,::,.'')...A••7\.;,:`.'',,".i..I;•'%':''.s,,i.,1t•••
gA, 1t-,•. 1
\..1s xgai. t
— 4
,
._ -._ .9 .: :. ..,..., .:. B-— - .-;•.' • ss\ ••\ 1 E....49 . ..,., .
. • •
( :.:,.. st. - Vi.3—,,,11,.-.::., ,...):::. :-..m.,,,t,A . • - _\
_ ,:,
. :,'il.::: *-, • v•l%•;'' . • . WI t " '5 1 ).,6) 11,::• ,..-N/ r
•... ....... - it 00. .60000,44i- 1 t:.7-7 1 a •_L *4,•-,.• s: "_,. ...,.,e4 .'v
1
: • ,I iii.,.... ".. ti- • -•)- \• , '
- - , 9 i- „, eb,4917,.14 III\111.14 •• -.' --' fil,j, , -.. .'"),11:-.
• SW 2 •„. .--t-)C-'' „( _11.1,<D" II .\/.41413me•e" .•;47 ?'iir„,,N-.-
, - •,,,- --- .;-, : 1 !I •,4•••._\, \ , \ •• 1 .
, • \ •• - / II Ill '--•• •°(•_,•1 <\#! <)11 3
:1 st•_-- D s ;,..;>,.',./*.11 •-- ,: , ,., ,i„.„..-;,, , ,,, ,,, , .
.1. • ''Ap / • . \t t 7' 0 'a,,-•' '..‘,„ . \`..0\••fr,,7--..N.•\io\•44011 4,00;1
Ili a) I V/. '.‘: ;1,y.P......;:r4,' .„. .',i,. )( ,. ,.;.e:... -;,4). *t',g, g ,11
12 a II:11. ' '• ,'-(0 - f. .;,"c. \ 9•,/,'-•'-`, 0 0 ., ii
i.110/
1110 ....---_,-- * . . \ ‘,,.. ;,•;;.--v . \ • • # '..-.-.:•-im
g -...::------..--%—,4,0 •,,,../181.,,,,/P •• '„-../ • . \ .„, 0 in
c NUM di 7.-, 44/ )1. Frir - 4.7—••,•• ;00# 7., ( *. al,ii,r4
• — la
1 LI II
Pe"ME22(1:•ii.Milliallign' illitiliWBEGIMENNOMESOMBiiid
. ,a• '
• • -' # '•• '.-. .
14C4TIC*4
• I ' . MAP
,/./• biLc.12-ESeNT
4, .voctel j sx ho Stilt. .
9 I 11 ..
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: September 23, 1983
PROJECT: Apple Groves
LOCATION: South of Valley View Road and West of Lorence Addition
APPLICANT: Northwest Properties
FEE OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Richard Bren
•
ORIGINAL •
REQUEST: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Planned Unit Development Concept
Review District Review for a mixed residential 9land useand RM 6�5g
District change from Rural to R1-13.5,
Preliminary Plat of 40.91 acre for 181 units, and Environmental
Assessment Worksheet Review
CURRENT
R UQ CS : Planned Unit Development Concept for Mixed Residential land uses,
Planned Unit Development District Review and Rezoning to R1-9.5,
with variances, RM-6.5, with variances, and R1-13.5 Districts;
Preliminary Plat of 40.91 acres for 162 units; and Environmental
Assessment Worksheet Review
•
Background
The Planning Commission has previously recommended approval of the Comprehensive
Guide Plan change for conceptually allowing some medium density residential land use
in this area of the City. However, the Planning Commission returned the Planned
Unit Development and more specific portions of the proposal to the developer in
order to modify the exact plan to reduce densities and increase transition between
existing uses.
Site Plan
The current plan is identical to the original south of the railroad tracks. The
concept of the cluster homes and free-standing R1-9.5 single family homes remains
unaltered, as the the Planning Commission had no overwhelming problems with this
concept in this area. The 26 single family homes buffering the project on the west
11 acres have bean retained as originally proposed. The area of major change is the
eastern two-thirds of the property occuring north of the railroad tracks and south
of Valley View Road, which was originally proposed as 98 townhouse units. The
proponent has revised the plan to reduce the number of townhouse units from 98 to
65, and has incorporated 14 single family homes to be in the R1-9.5 District
2111
Apple Groves Staff Report 2 September 23, 1983
adjacent to Valley View Road. This general change appears to have been a very
positive move, but will need some additional specific changes in order to make it
work properly.
Approximate Breakdown of Acreages and Densities
26 R1-13.5 Single Family Lots on 11 acres 2.36 Units/acre
14 R1-9.5 Single Family Lots on 5.2 acres 2.69 Units/Acre
65 RM-6.5 Townhouses on 13 acres 5.00 Units/Acre
105 Total Units North of Railroad on 29 acres 3.62 Units/Acre
57 R1-9.5 Single Family Lots on 12 acres 4.70 Units/Acre
162 Total Units on 40.91 acres 3.96 Units/Acre
Townhouse Site Plan
Since the looped street for the townhouse area is to be maintained as a private
street, because of the excessive of use of driveways onto the street. The three
single family homes proposed to be served from the private street are put in the
position of having to belong to a townhouse association to share in the maintenance
of a private road. Planning Staff would suggest one of the two following
alternatives:
13 Convert approximately 300 feet of the private road coming in from
the northeast corner to a public cul-de-sac to serve the three
single family homes and begin the private townhouse drive from the
end of the public cul-de-sac.
2) Remove the three single family lots that are served by the private
road and spread townhouse units out further within the project to
utilize the area vacated by the three single family homes. This
would provide private road access for only townhouse units and free
up additional space between townhouse units within the project.
In either event, there will have to be a detailed landscape and grading buffer
worked out between the single family areas and the ends of the townhouse units
occurring on the northern boundary of the townhouse area. This detailed buffer may
be worked out prior to the Council review of this item.
Utilities
More specific review of the storm sewer system proposed for the area north of the
tracks indicates the proponent is planning for in-street drainage for distances
greater than 600 feet. Catch basins should be placed at no more than 600 foot
intervals and will have to be added to the storm sewer system of the plat north of
the tracks within the'public street. The Paulsen Addition, currently under review
by the City, which lies adjacent, and directly to the west of this property, has a
`7IIq
Apple Groves Staff Report
3 September 23, 1933
large, low, wet area lying about at the center point of this property's western
boundary. That area drains toward this property. Prior to second reading by the
Council, the developer must coordinate storm sewer planning efforts with the
. developer to the west and provide for an outflow for the western low land area as a
part of this project's storm sewer system.
Development Plan
The following modifications are necessary to the plan for small lots and cluster
homes south of the railroad tracks:
1. Although Lorence Way is denoted as 32 ft. in width, it is not drawn as such
on the plan. In order to accomplish a 32 ft. wide road, which will allow
parking along one side, and a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk, and proper
space for utility installation, the right-of-way must be increased from 50
ft. to 60 ft.
2. The cluster home drawing shows typical minimum building setbacks on one of
the clusters off Williams Lane; however, several of the lots do not meet the
rear yard setback shown in the typical minimum cluster. All of these
setback deficiencies must be corrected prior to second reading of the zoning
ordinance by the City Council.
( 3. An additional building type has been submitted to the City, bringing the
total number of different homes planned to five. The developer has also
submitted an additional building elevation for one of the homes, and plans
to have two building elevations for each of the five building types. These
plans should be completed prior to review by the Council.
4. Within the courtyards in the cluster area, no more than two of the same
building type may be built on any specific court, and those two units shall
not be adjacent to each other. In addition, if two units of the same type
are built within the same court, they may not have the same building
elevation. The individual single family lots must not be of the same
building type as any other unit within two lots along the same side of the
street.
5. Proponent has submitted a spectrum of building colors for the homes lying
south of the railroad tracks. All homes must be constructed within this
color spectrum.
ust b
6. western of t clstr area
lineuasea throughns platted and
The treete
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept,
Rezoning and Planned Unit Development District Review, and Preliminary Platting for
mixed residential land use for 152 total units, with the following variances, and
subject to the following conditions:
919n
Apple Groves Staff Report 4 September 23, 1983
Variances:
R1-9.5 Cluster Units for: Side Yard Setback
Minimum Lot Size
Maximum Density
RM-6.5 Townhouse Units for: Side Yard Setback (Common Wall)
Minimum Lot Size
Reconmended conditions:
1. Storm sewer plans must be modified as required by the City Engineering
Department, including catch basin spacing at no more than 600 foot intervals
and provision of a storm sewer outflow for the low land area occurring to
the west of this project.
2. Sanitary sewer must be sized through this project according to the City
Engineering Department recommendations to accommodate sewer flows to occur
west of this property.
3. The private lane occuring in the townhouse area in the northeast corner of
the property must be either changed to a public cul-de-sac for the first 300
feet from its intersection with Valley View Road, or, the three single
•
• family lots lying on the south side of this private lane should be
eliminated and townhouse units spread into this area (not increasing the
number of units).
4. Detailed buffer plans for the area between the northern ends of the
townhouse units and the single family area planned to the north must be
provided prior to the Council review.
5. The right-of-way of Lorence Way must be increased to 60 ft.
6. Lorence Way, at the west end, must be constructed as a through street to the
property's southern boundary.
7. Additional elevations for the five building types submitted for the cluster
homes must be submitted to the City prior to second reading of the zoning
ordinance by the City Council. Development of the area south of the
railroad tracks must as follows: No more than two of a single building type
within a cluster, each of a different elevation, and not adjacent to each
other; and, lots that are free-standing must not have the same building type
within two lots on the same side of the street.
8. All setback deficiencies within the area south of the tracks not in
conformance with the typical minimum building setbacks illustrated in the
plans, must be corrected prior to final plat.
9. Pay the required Cash Park Fee. •
10. Receive Watershed District approval.
11. Proponent shall submit detailed landscaping plans for the cluster homes and
. i ,
•
•
Apple Groves Staff Report 5 September 23, 1983
•
townhouses prior to the second reading of the zoning district change by the
Council. Privacy fencing and landscaping for the cluster units shall be
subject to final approval of the Director of Planning.
• 12. regarding water,submit sanitary,aanddstormrsewern to priorthe to final plat.
Department
13. Proponent shall revise the site plan to include double car driveways for the
cluster homes.
•
•
•
•
212y
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Sullivan, Assistant City Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 19, 1983
PROJECT: Apple Groves
LOCATION: South of Valley View Road and West of Lorence Addition
APPLICANT
FFEE OWNER: Northwest Properties
REQUESTS: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
2. Planned Unit Development Concept and District Review for a
mixed residential land use
3. Zoning District change from Rural to R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and
RM-6.5
• 4. Preliminary Plat of 40.91 acres for 181 units
5. Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review
Background
The zoning is Rural; the Guide Plan depicts the parcel for low density residential.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared and reviewed by Staff for
the development.
Planned Unit Development Proposal
The development proposal is for a mixed residential land use. The project is to
consist of three phases:
Phase I Location: South of Railroad
Zoning: R1-9.5
Units: 57 total--37 cluster homes, 20 single family
detached
Phase II Location: North of Railroad,, west of townhomes
Zoning: R1-13.5
Units: 26 single family detached
Phase III Location: North of Railroad, east of R1-13.5 lots
Zoning: RM-6.5
Units: 98 townhome units
TOTAL UNITS 181
212 ?
•
Apple Groves Staff Report 2 August 19, 1983
Land Use
,The proponent requests a Guide Plan change from low density residential to medium
density residential. The gross density proposed is 4.4 units per acre. The
following facts may help support a Comprehensive Guide Plan change:
1. Valley View Road has the capacity to handle the additional traffic
from the north section of the parcel.
2. Utility capacities are adequate.
3. The proponent has agreed to place heavy landscaping, with berming,
along Valley View Road, visually screening the site from the
potential low density residential to the north.
4. A dense double row of evergreen trees exists between the proposed
R1-13.5 single family detached units and the townhomes.
5. Strict design standards and homeowners' association requirements
will be implemented.
The proposal should be reviewed against the following:
1. Does the City benefit from additional multiple housing?
2. Does the plan offer a good transition to other land uses?
3. Does the plan provide a variety of architectural types?
4.* Does the plan provide a variety of economic opportunity?
5. Does the plan provide for a wide variety of life style?
6. Is the City "framework" of services adequate in this area to support
additional units?
Existing Site Character
The site is bordered to the north by a large rural parcel and Valley View Road and
to the east by Lorence Addition manor homes. To the northwest a single family
detached development exists. A railroad line bisects the proposed site in an east-
west direction, leaving one-third of the parcel south and two-thirds of the parcel
north of the tracks.
A house and barn exist within the southwest corner of the site. These structures
will be lost with development.
The north portion of the site is basically flat, with drainage flowing to an
existing pond located on the east boundary. This area is in crops or meadow
grasses. A double row of 15-20 ft. evergreen trees are located in the western
portion of the northern part of the site. The south section is also flat, with
drainage running off-site to the east. A ten foot ridge exists within the southwest
corner. Oak, basswood, and pines are located around the homestead. The remaining
21211
Apple Groves Staff Report 3 August 19, 1983
portion of the south area is in crops or meadow grasses.
The soils are conducive for development.
' Ordinance Requirements
R1-13.5 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
All lots meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, front, side, and
rear yard setbacks, with the exception of Lot 3, Block 3, which does not
meet the width requirement.
Minimum lot size: 13,500 sq. ft.
Maximum lot size: 31,600 sq. ft.
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, of the R1-13.5 lots both have two street frontages,
with townhouse units along an additional frontage, a less than ideal single
family lot situation.
R1-9.5 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED (TRADITIONAL LOTS)
All single family detached lots meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot
depth, front, side, and rear yard setbacks, except the following:
Lot Size: Lot 4, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 3
Lot Depth: Lot 5, Block 1 and Lot 11 Block 3
Front Yard: Lot 3, Block 3
Side Yard: The proposal indicates 10 ft. side yard setbacks. This is
in conformance with the Code if the proposed homes all have
double garages. It does not conform with Code if the homes
have a single garage.
Minimum Lot Size: 7,350 sq. ft.
Maximum Lot Size: 11,250 sq. ft.
R1-9.5 CLUSTER HOMES
Oue to the nature of cluster homes, variances are needed for minimum lot
size, lot width, lot depth, front, side, and rear yard setbacks. The
proposal is for setbacks similar to other approved developments:
25 ft. setback from public roads
20 ft. setback from private drive
5 and 10 ft. side yard setbacks
20 ft. rear yard setbacks
Minimum Lot Size: 5,050 sq. ft.
Maximum Lot Size: 11,250 sq. ft.
The City Code limits the Floor Area Ratio in this zone to 15% for a single
story home and 25% for a multiple story home. Therefore, on a 5,050 square
2125
Apple Groves Staff Report 4 August 19, 1983
foot lot, the largest home that would be allowed would be a 1,262 sq. ft.
home.
The preliminary plat for the R1-9.5 area shows a mixture of the single
family detached lots and clusterd lots. All R1-9.5 units are under a common
homeowners' association and services, such as snow removal, will be
administered the same for the clustered as well as the single family lots.
RM-6.5 TOWNHOMES
The townhomes meet minimum lot size, lot depth, width, front, side, and rear
yard setbacks requirements. The height of the structures meets Code
requirements. No Floor Area Ratio or site area per dwelling unit
information has been provided.
•
Parking
The parking arrangement for the townhomes should be double driveways for each unit.
Parking is also provided off Bren Lane. In the cluster homes, parking will be
provided within the court area and on the adjacent streets. William Lane and
Lorence Way should be 32 ft. wide to accommodate on-street parking.
{ Landscaping
•
A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted for the property. A detailed
landscape plan will be submitted prior to City Council review.
None of the evergreen trees in the existing double row will be lost with
development. The proposal transplants a portion of the existing evergreens
throughout • the site. A majority of these trees will be placed along Valley View
Road, south of the railroad tracks and among the townhomes.
The existing trees located adjacent to the existing home and barn will be lost with
development. The quantity and type of trees have not been submitted. An inventory
of trees that are lost and saved with the development should be included with the
detailed landscape plan.
The cluster homes will be landscaped with development. Detailed landscape plans for
the court homes will be submitted prior to City Council review. The intent of the
planting design would be to accomplish screening of the parking areas, provide
privacy between units, continuity among the cluster homes, and provide an overall
established presence to the development.
Design components such as landscaping, lighting, building types, facade treatments,
signage, color schemes, and consolidation of mail boxes provides the continuity and
design harmony that make the R1-9.5 small lot, cluster development approach
feasible. A strong homeowners' association is imperative to regulate and administer
restrictive covenants, allowing a cooperative living arrangement. Additional
information regarding these development components is necessary.
Site Plan
Access to the north parcel is from Valley View Road. A temporary cul-de-sac has
212E
•
Apple Groves Staff Report
5 August 19, 1983
been provided along the west boundary, eventually connecting to a future.
development. Bren Lane loops through the townhomes. The site plan indicates that
37 driveways, 30 ft. wide, and four parking lots tie into the loop road. This is
not acceptable on a public street because of snow storage and plowing problems.
Staff recommends that Bren Lane be revised to be a private road.
Access to the south parcel links to existing Lorence Way. A road extension
connecting to the vacant south property is proposed. The William Lane cul-de-sac
abuts the south property line and should be designed as a temporary cul-de-sac,
eventually tying to the adjacent property. This adjacent undeveloped parcel has
been submitted to the City for development review. The plans for the adjacent south
property do not reflect the road extensions of this proposal. Coordination among
the the two developers is imperative.
The site requires little grading, thus maintaining its flat character.
Water and sanitary sewer to the north parcel will tie to existing mains along Valley
View Road. Storm water is contained by catch basin;; located in the adjacent
streets, then outletting to a proposed pond. Water and sanitary sewer to the south
parcel ties to existing mains off Lorence Way. Storm water is contained by catch
basins located in the streets and is piped to an existing 21 inch storm water line
located east of the property.
Architectural elevations for the Phase I single family detached homes have been
provided. The "Yellowstone" unit does not match the architectural scheme of the
other three units. No unit within a cluster may be the same. No units directly
across, diagonally across, or within two lots on either side shall be the same.
Additional unit types will be necessary. Architectural sections for the townhouse
units were also submitted. These units have a contemporary style in lieu of the
traditional scheme of the proposed R1-9.5 units.
An eight foot bituminous trail runs along the south side of Valley View Road. Staff
would recommend the addition of a five foot wide concrete sidewalk along the west
side of Liv Lane and along the north side of Lorence Way, tying to the existing
sidewalk to the east.
Parks
Round Lake Park is within a quarter-mile of the site. Facilities include athletic
fields, a beach, picnic areas, trails, tennis courts, and shelter buildings. The
Comnunity Center is also located within a quarter-mile of the site. Facilities
include racquetball courts, a pool, fitness and meeting rooms.
The proponent shall be responsible for the Cash Park Fee requirement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Planning Commission feels that the Guide Plan change is acceptable, Staff
recommends approval of the requests for Apple Groves„ subject to the following:
1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall:
a. Submit information regarding the design components for the cluster
units, i.e. building materials, signage, facade treatment, color
2121
Apple Groves Staff Report
6 August 19, 1983
schemes, privacy fencing, consolidation of mail boxes, etc.
b. eis to ethe site so
streets the R1-9.5 area are at a
Rv
c. Delete the "Yellowstone" home from the housing spectrum and submit
additional housing types.
d. Revise the site plan, changing the William Lane cul-de-sac to a
temporary cul-de-sac.
e. Meet with the developers of the adjacent south parcel to coordinate
development efforts.
f. Change Bren Lane to a private road maintained by the homeowners'
association.
g. Submit Floor Area Ratio and site area per dwelling unit information
for the townhouse units.
h. Revise the site plan, placing a five foot wide concrete sidewalk
along the north side of Lorence Way and the west side of Liv Lane.
i. Indicate that all townhome units will have a double driveways.
•
j.
Submit a detailed landscape plan which:
1. Places berms and dense evergrerr plantings along Valley View
Road, containing the proposed site.
2. Screens parking within the clustered lots, provides privacy
between the clustered units, and provides continuity to the
R1-9.5 development.
3. Indicates existing plan material that is to be lost and
saved with development.
4. Locates evergreen trees to be transplanted throughout the
site.
2. Prior to final plat, the proponent shall:
a. Receive Watershed District approval.
b. Submit detailed information to the Engineering Department regarding
water, storm and sanitary sewer.
c. Meet with the Fire Marshall regarding fire safety requirements.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall pay the required Cash
Park Fee.
2127
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #83-237
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
EEHPRELIMINARYRPLAT OF MAPLE HILL FOR
TBE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Maple Hill for the Charis Partnership, dated September
23, 1983, of 5.3 acres for 11 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 24 •
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Sullivan, Assistant City Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: September 9, 1983
PROJECT: Maple Hill
LOCATION: 18811 Duck Lake Trail
APPLICANT: William Bonner
FEE OWNER: Charis Partnership
REQUESTS: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5
2. Preliminary Plat of 5.3 acres into nine (9) lots
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this site as low density residential. The
underlying zoning is Rural.
Existing Site Character
The parcel is bordered to the north, east, and west by R1-13.5 single family
detached homes. The Dellwood subdivision lies to the north and was approved far R1-
9.5 and R1-13.5 residential development. Purgatory Creek and a portion of
floodplain are located within the northwest corner of the property. The floodplain
elevation is 890.
A home and garage exist within the south portion of the parcel. The homestead is
proposed to be platted as a lot within the subdivision. An architectural
revitalization of the home exterior and interior is proposed.
A majority of the site slopes at 5-15% grades from the southeast to Purgatory Creek,
located in the northwest portion of the property.
Maples are located along the east property line. Willows, maples, and basswood
exist along Purgatory Creek. A mass planting of 6-8 foot high pines is located
along the west property line, and within the northeast corner of the site. A
majority of the plant material will be saved with the exception of the pines in the
northeast corner and some maples along the east property line. The plant material
will be lost with the grading of the house pads.
The Hennepin County Soil Survey indicates Heyder and Borrow Pit soils covering the
213°
Maple Hill Staff Report 2 September 9, 1933
site. The Borrow Pit soils are located within the Purgatory Creak fleodplain. The
Heyder soils cover a majority of the parcel. Soils of this group having slopes of
2-12% present moderate limitations for urban development. Limitations are severe
where slopes are more than 12%.
Ordinance Requirements
All lots meet or exceed the minimum lot size, lot depth, front yard setback, side
yard setback, and rear yard setback requirements. Lots 4 and 6 do not meet the
minimum frontage on a street right-of-way of 55 feet.
The gross density is 1.7 units per acre.
Purgatory Creek is classified as General Development Waters, placing the property
within the confines of the Shoreland Ordinance. The project meets Shoreland
Drdinance requirements for minimum width at building line, minimum width at Ordinary
High Water Mark and minimum lot size. The minimum setback from the Ordinary High
Water Mark is 100 feet, thus making Lot 9 undevelopable as proposed.
Site Plan
Access to the parcel is off Duck Lake Trail. The proposed cul-de-sac length is
approximately 360 feet.
l A minimum amount of grading is proposed. The site will maintain its current
topographical character. The proposed grading plan indicates no grading within the
lots for house pads. No grading will take place within the floodplain.
The proposed slope of the road is 8% over a distance of 250 feet. A 60 foot landing
pad at a 3% slope is proposed tying into Duck Lake Trail. The steep grade and its
length, w4 11 make the road difficult to drive into during severe winter conditions.
Water, sanitary and storm sewer are to be placed within the street right-of-way.
Both water and sanitary sewer will tie to existing mains along Duck Lake Trail.
Storm water will be collected by a catch basin in the street and then outlet to
Purgatory Creek. Sump catch basins will most likely be required.
SUMMARY
The proposed preliminary plat indicates lots 4 and 6 will require a variance for the
required 55 foot minimum street frontage. Lot 9 is undevelopable as proposed
according to the required 100 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Staff
would recommend that Lot 9 be deleted. This would provide the necesssary frontage
for Lot 6. Lot lines for Lots 7 and 8 would shift to the north. (See Figure 01).
Lot 4 will need a variance to maintain its proposed 30 foot street frontage. The
house will be set within the existing woods, and would not visually conflict with
the adjacent lots.
•
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Maple Hill development for zoning from
Rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat subject to the following:
1. Prior to City Council, proponent shall:
219)1
Maple Hill Staff Report 3 September 9, 1983
a. Revise the site plan, deleting Lot 9 and providing the necessary
frontage for Lot 6.
b. Provide detailed soils information.
2. Prior to final plat, proponent shall submit detailed plans to the
Engineering Department regarding water, sanitary and storm sewer.
3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall:
a. Receive a variance from the Board of Appeals for Lot 4 to allow the
proposed 30 foot frontage along the street right-of-way.
b. Receive Watershed District approval.
c. Pay the required Cash Park Fee.
.
•
2152-
[.:1-D1
1• • / .- Ij_______2_,I o I- •• •
--=-ter `-`�--_ ' r ,., '. r
�.
\.<,i s 1 :: i
r : +\ l r
1 \ ..),r\ .\r„. t,. ..., 8
'�,4'
R 22 ( ); '
1 I I r }
$ ' MULTI-FA LY ;: r {
p 6� ' OPEN SP. CE A ° r ' l
� i _ v .77 37 , . ! 147 I •
RM-65 f' ^`'. PUB •
ai 1,%, �� / �� •-r
01
to IN
• �J ����rr Y, / v G h
j , _.. ,(e`' littill•' •
NI '
•
R 07 , . 87 i
7 t ��1• 1 b] Fn3E
79-25 .10 • divoll . 'I 1..
RI-135borax al 1 • �' 1.
1-13. e I v. , r-,
1 • ,1 "ice I��I RI13.5
, .:. . S vs
#07-ork...,.. ''' :-.-
1 ltiR1C
LVLMUI w.
2, f MA1 N�1LL AGO
• �F ; ��
►► ... :
Inorf h I
q"3 1 .1,p
•
^
� ..;,..,...:....1-:..._1__T --
v, r 1
it11 j. I rrn,1'
( ,>�\/ _
`\ 1 t Jr�,,i 5 I
," , ({
,; ,
Tt r1, 13V f ,;1 r t
• yt.,a , It -^
1g.n
,n A•nN • 1 .1�r1,
�
t 1$ i.; ,, h. w F' ��
04
., i! G< \ _5--�.. may; //
rr ‘ 1. P\l fa
J
•
*td
\ .;�1 _./ ltm4 CI 1A6z1 3 Kite ;
, l i
\/
I\ `t�< 1"IIR.�! i i
i
1
rIckuEE i \\\\ ot
1.k& ‘-k1L-1.. l
no e,c i k.t. . norm.• '
',lad
MEMORANDUM
.TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: September 14, 1983
SUBJECT: Community Services Supplementary Report to September 9, 1983
Planning Staff Report for Maple Hill
•
The zoning and preliminary request for Maple Hill is for 9 lots on S.3 acres. The
Parks, Recreation and Natrual Resources Commission should review this proposal and
make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Purgatory Creek Conservancy
Area.
The Purgatory Creek Study states that "The total area to be preserved and managed is
divided into two distinct parts: conservancy area and transition zone." The report
goes on to define the conservancy area: "In reality the limits of the conservancy
area are flexible - adapting to specific site conditions, (landscape form and features).
Topographic configurations may allow for depth of the conservancy area sections to be
only 50' on one side while the other side of the area may require 300' to achieve the
desired objective." •
The transition zone lies behind the conservancy area (further away from the creek).
Development in the transition zone will be subjected to additional evaluation by the
Planning Commission. Criteria for evaluation will include the impact of the proposal
upon the system.
It will be the responsibility of the developer to illustrate to the City the potential
impact of the proposed use on the natural system.
The map included in the Purgatory Creek Study that defines the conservancy area indicates
that approximately half of lot 7, nearly all of lot 8, all of lot 9, and a small portion
of lots 1 6 2 are within the conservancy area as defined by this map.
The City has taken into consideration the scale of the map included in the Purgatory
Creek Study when determining the conservancy area. City staff have generally looked
at the tops of ridge lines or natural vegetation barriers that generally follow the
conservancy area line as defined by the Purgatory Creek Study. The conservancy area
line cuts across several contours on the study map, but generally follows the 910
contour. The Community Services Staff can see no specific rationale for this line
other than a general distance setback from the creek corridor.
The Community Services Staff would recommend that the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission recommend approval of Maple Hill Development Proposal as per the
Planning Staff Report which would require that the development he subject to the
Shoreland Management Ordinance setback of 100' from the normal ordinary high water
mark, which would eliminate lot 9 and allow for some adjustment of other lot lines to
eliminate some of the variance requirements.
BL:md .
211
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #83-238
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LILLIAN BECKMAN
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Lillian Beckman, dated May 27, 1983, of 4.5 acres for
three (3) 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
September 21, 1983
Members of the Eden Prairie Planning Commission
and Eden Prairie City Council:
We wish to express our concerns regarding the platting of land
for Mrs. Lillian Beckman, 12900 Gerard Drive. While we
can understand the view of the planning office that future
development must be considered, we find it very disturbing -
to find our parcel included in any development considerations.
Please be advised of the following:
1. We have no plans to develop our land now or in the
future.
2. Any projected land development (dotted lot lines) were
done without our approval.
3. This is at least the fourth time in the thirteen years
that we have lived in Eden Prairie that "plans" for
our land have been proposed without consulting us or
requesting our approval.
Our position is simple: we purchased the particular piece
of land that we did, and we built as we did to provide a
single residence for our family. Nothing has changed.
Yours truly,
Mr. and Mrs. Larry L. Ranson
13008 Gerard Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
is
213 _
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Sullivan, Assistant City Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Oirector of Planning
DATE: September 9, 1983
PROJECT: Lillian Beckman Plat
LOCATION: 12400 Gerard Drive
APPLICANT • •
FEE OWNER: Lillian Beckman
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of 4.51 acres into three lots
Background
The Guide Plan designates this property as low density residential. The underlying
( ing is R1-22.
Existing Site Character '
The parcel is bordered to the east and west by two five-acre R1-22 lots. North of
the parcel is the Nine Mile Creek floodplain. The northwest corner of the property
is within the floodplain. Topview 2nd Addition, an established R1-22 subdivision,
lies to the southeast.
A home and garage exist on the central portion of the parcel. The homestead is to
be platted into two one-half acres lots and a three and one-half acre lot for the
existing home. The driveway to the home is currently located on the adjacent
western property.
The southern section of the parcel is characterized by 5-8% slopes. A ridge line,
with 20-35% slopes, lies north of proposed Lots A and B and east of the existing
home.
Lot C is covered with an assortment of oak, maple, and basswood trees. No
development is currently proposed within Lot C. Proposed Lots A and B are covered
with a mature sumac stand, with oak trees located along the north property line.
The oak trees will not be disturbed with the development of the proposed lots.
Soils are conducive for development.
,inance Requirements
All lots meet Code requirements. Gross density is 1.17 units per acre.
z1 .
•
Lillian Beckman Staff Report 2 September 9, 1983
site Plan
Access to all parcels is off Gerard Drive.
A'minimum amount of grading is proposed. Grading will occur in Lots A and B as
homes are built. The site will maintain the current topographical character.
Water and sanitary sewer will tie to the existing mains along Gerard Drive. Storm
water will run overland to the floodplain to the north.
Staff has reviewed the future development potential for the proposed property,
including the two adjacent five-acre parcels. Lot F, the easterly parcel, includes
the three adjacent lots located off Gordon Drive. (See Figure #1) The property
owner has reviewed the proposal and feels that their parcel could better develop
independently from the Lillian Beckman parcel, because of steep grades. Lot H, the
parcel to the west, currently supports a single family home. The owner of the
parcel currently does not wish to develop, but wants to maintain the potential for
future subdivision. It appears that a cooperative arrangement between Lot H and the
Lillian Beckman parcel would provide an efficient platting of the two properties �.
into smaller single family lots. The necessary width is available to run a road
between the two existing homes, placing a cul-de-sac within the north central
portion of Lot C. The development of the westerly parcel would include an area for
tying a trail to an approved trail located in Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition. (Sec
'igure #2)
RECO"S•1ENDATIONS
The Planning Staff recommends the approval of the Lillian Beckman preliminary plat,
subject to the following:
1. Prior to final plat, proponent shall:
a. Receive Watershed District approval.
b. Submit detailed plans to the Engineering Department with regard to
water, storm and sanitary sewer.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, pay the required Cash Park Fee.
•
•
Ell 1 ,.. \\A \ ,
H:liiisit .- 1 i
•
r" ::. i .f �:, ,.w.'! '•" ^ ''er _.�. �1 — Lei
1 art, u.
-ice )\ u� �,�'^ .7 U Cot
,„, ,,,,\i ,A
(.____)///----\
41.! %�j HO
•
k I'
Q ; •%
. •• ....e ..•-•'•' „.....:::;.:.-- • \.\\\ t• h
, / et.....•.-..f ..- ,.'a,:_iia 6
w I
r.• lia.r„..)
y�
(tt .'ram-m �' �,,\1
''\
L✓ Ql '� .t'L` 1. 1 I I 1
, Ili r• 4- .,,i:,,--a.T.f i .
/�' . T..
T--
• .-..... , • ; . .\y.,... v . 2 a
Cr CO
‘,..,..tip_T„:s l''''' qj:.1.3.1:','.1.14-111—:1).1-1 14 1 1. 111/clr'1,1-17D is<2 (1'1(f‘j
44-'181‘3, 4711
"-- —j'' ''',„.••''1(1,7 a P
i:':
CO
I(
iTL - - , nI , �i . �1 /..
� f ✓
e—
i:
�, n 1•,. o,s4`•Y r ^ mil• ' N N N Y
1 .ti' 1 I. "• ,-4S.;- sp- �\\'.,•, cr — cr C.
._L-��.., 1 �,�- t L• .
psir �, 7,! f
. .f ` /
•
..". e
� ,,.�.
�,\�Ns.
r' •
Y / .1 . . 11411111111 -44%")) 1
r
I / ) i
[ g 1 It IL. / •i /
l
leOMMINS i IMMOIll". •�-� •II i
'' � 1§/� .
I•1 / 7 • .
1 , - -- • s
Ui
/ ,:.;. �._.
I..:,,L.... .L...L ........ ...._._.. ........
l •
De
• r ~ •�._ 2
�. \ ..•��_.. «�./� / , - • . —ten..
1--b— --- .........4_,... ....._.
....„.... .....„
21 a l 1
1
•
• r+r• aar• •r• • •a■a•a•• wama.ar• 0w".12#• .......• ..MNOW. •art,
FIN. . /
Jrs I .
•Irma•.• Irma.._• _m_• •
• /
-1. I
•
. •
.A.
.P14p\ erfoimmi 0•0..111•11P• ••••11
? 1 ,• \ k
• • --Pi
0 1 k . • q .4. •
. el
( _.-
I . / • •••••••••••• •wo•••..... • \
1 1 / . / * \,
>1. , ,
•
/ \ i•••• ° 9. •
•
:1111241/. i •
. g ,.........._ , _
• ..-• a- i . ...
• -8 . ._
• ..-. • . -
100.• . ,i. II i . .
....
i ...._,
.
, ..
u
21y L. a 0`
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #83-239
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE PRAIRIE WASH
ADDITION FOR RICKY ITES
•
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: ."
That the preliminary plat of the Prairie Wash Addition, for Rickey Ites, dated
August 15, 1983, of 1.56 acres for a car wash/office building, 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
•
21u3
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Sullivan, Assistant City Planner
HOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: September 9, 1983
PROJECT: Prairie Wash Addition
LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road
APPLICANT: Rickey Ites
FEE OWNER: Walter Carpenter
REQUESTS: 1. Zoning District change from Rural to Commercial Regional
Service
2. Preliminary Plat of 1.56 acres for a Car wash/Office/ ,
Caretaker's Apartment
Background
The Guide Plan depicts this site as regional commercial; the underlying zoning is
Rural.
The property is within the Major Center Area, which designates the site and
immediate area for regional commercial development, with related office and service
uses.
Existing Site Character
The site is bordered to the south by the N.S.P. transmission lines and the Minnesota
Tree property. North is the newly constructed Valley View Road, east and west of
the property, the land is vacant. Platting of this parcel will effectively create
three parcels, all similar in size, along the south side of Valley View Road, within
the Minnesota Tree property.
The parcel is basically flat, sloping to the south. Storm water runs to an existing
drainage ditch, which lies along the south property line.
The property has been rough graded as part of the Northwest Bank development. No
vegetation exists on the site.
Since the property has been filled, and is part of a larger, low, intermittently wet
area, detailed soil borings will be necessary prior to construction.
lidLI
•
Prairie Wash Addition Staff Report 2 September 9, 1983
Jrdinance Requirements
The project meets, or exceeds, the City Code requirements for minimum lot size, lot
width, lot depth, front yard setback, side yard setback, rear yard setback, and
• maximum height of structure.
The Floor Area Ratio is 0.26, which is less than the maximum allowable of 0.30
according to Code.
The parking requirement is based on:
Use Amount of Square Footage Spaces
Office 8,200 sq. ft @ 5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. 41
Apartment 670 sq. ft. @ 2 spaces per unit • 2
TOTAL 43
The proponent has planned 48 spaces. Staff and the proponent have agreed that this
non-prime office space may not need the five spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. as required.
Because of this additional parking proposed, Staff feels that 43 spaces would
accommodate the office, caretaker, and area for car drying uses.
Landscaping
The proposed car wash operation is planned for eight stacked bays, allowing sixteen
cars to be washed at one time. It includes four vacuum units with trash cans on the
east side of the building. This area is also the waiting area for up to 24 cars.
Parking is provided on the west and south sides of the building. The landscape plan
submitted is not adequate to screen the parking, stacking, and vacuum areas. The
joint access drive along the east property line provides no landscaped areas for
screening parking from westbound Valley View Road. The ten foot green space along
the west parking lot does not provide the screening required by City Code. Staff
reco,nnends the following: (See Figure #1)
1. The 20 ft. wide green space along Valley View Road be landscaped
with evergreen plat material and a three-foot high berm.
2. The two parking stalls located within the northwest corner of the
west parking lot be deleted and replaced with a landscaped island of
evergreen plant material.
3. The three parking stalls located within the northeast corner of the
south parking lot be deleted and replaced with a landscaped island.
4. Additional plant material be, included along the west property line,
providing screening of the parking lot.
5. The existing 10-15 ft. green space located north of the building be
widened by six feet, and landscaped, providing screening to the
stacking and vacuuming area.
2itIc
•
orairie Wash Addition Staff Report 3 September 9, 1983
6. The center island width be increased by four feet and extended to
the building, with additional landscaping.
Because there is an abundance of asphalt on the site, heavy landscaping of the
limited green spaces, to adequately screen the parking areas, will be necessary.
Snow for the entire lot, as proposed, should be plowed to the south. The additional
green space recommended would reduce the proposed parking to 43 spaces, and provide
space for additional landscaping and snow storage.
Rooftop mechnical equipment is to be screened by a parapet wall. However, prior to
building permit issuance, the developer must submit information, which illustrates
the 18 inch wall will adequately screen the mechanical units.
The parking lot lighting is proposed as four wall pack units and two free-standing
overhead lights. Wall pack lighting of the parking and waiting areas will not be
allowed. Overhead lights, directed down, with cut-off luminars, should be utilized
to light the parking and waiting areas. The site plan does not indicate the
location for the overhead lights.
Site Plan
A two-story building is proposed. The ground floor would be a car wash, with the
econd floor proposed as office space and a caretaker's quarters. The exterior
aterials are brick, cedar, and glass. The garage doors are a brown, painted steel.
The garage doors face the east and west, orienting the narrow end of the building to
Valley View Road. The vacuum units are large, red, and accompanied by trash cans.
Staff suggests that the vacuum units and trash cans be placed within brick •
enclosures, matching the building, limiting visual clutter. Code requires trash
areas to be enclosed and mechnical equipment to be screened.
•
Auto access to the site is from Valley View Road. A median break would provide full
access to the proposed site and the parcels to the east and west through easements
across this parcel.
A right-in, right-out access is proposed along the west property line. An easement
agreement between the car wash and adjacent undeveloped parcels is necessary. The
construction of the primary access drive and right-in, right-out access will be
completed as a part of the car wash project.
A minimum amount of additional grading is proposed. Grades of 2% or less are
proposed across a majority of the property. A 33% slope and retaining wall are
proposed north of the drainage ditch along the south property line.
Storm water runs from the north to the south to the existing drainage ditch. One
catch basin is proposed along the east property line, which also outlets to the
drainage ditch. Water and sanitary sewer service will tie to existing mains located
along Valley View Road.
An eight foot bituminous path is located on the south side of Valley View Road.
•
RECOY?IENDAT1OlS
Staff recommends approval for the zoning district change from Rural to C-Regional
•
Prairie Wash Addition Staff Report 4 September 9. 1983
service, and the preliminary plat of 1.56 acres for a car wash/office/caretaker's
apartment. subject to the following:
1. Prior to City Council, the proponent shall:
a. Revise the site plan per the recommendations depicted by Figure #1
of the Staff Report.
b. Submit a parking lot lighting plan, adding overhead lights, which
are down-lighting with cut-off luminars.
c. Revise the site plan to place the vacuum units and trash cans within
contained, brick enclosures.
2. Prior to final plat, proponent shall:
a. Submit detailed plans to the Engineering Department regarding water.
sanitary and storm sewer.
b. Receive Watershed District approval.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:
( a. Obtain an easement agreement from the adjacent properties for the
construction and use of mutual access drives.
b. Submit a landscape/screening plan to the Director of Planning for
review and approval.
c. Pay the required Cash Park Fee.
d. Submit a signage plan, consistent with Code requirements.
• l
21t4
i'/L r/2•CrP.a ccurci.)
.'" - -- __ 3o'Aw5 (ow LNvs
—...._::)-
y. " L asu
�ylk*i'xlrY .li -. -
r.-„r-
o f '
M
-.12•E8.11t4 , go•crP !
1.
Pi6424Ag
( . Ott tuc ,
1
....... \ •1 i -
,•-.-�-.. e
•
ill �: - -- ..'. i I
l .\ 1 I 1 ,.
c_. A.i5 ,,,,:. ‘,... rn
i
r� _ • t
. N:''‘....; :. :' 2. ' , , ,
, . i ,i,
. .,. .....
. ........„.._ .i.
,, ..... .. ......... .: • _•_:_ ••
.,.:„,.:,, .
. ,,„
. •...
. .....,..,...„
• �. .;
/8•Cd; :.c r. .0 •.1
; iGvi
P 11\ d Y\1.6k k4. �� �
row ...
nor ••• ;
•
Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 22, 1983
C. CASTLEMOOR OFFICE PARK, by Tudor Oaks/ABIO Holdings.
Request for Zoning from Rural to Regional Commercial Service
on approximately 3.5 acres for an office and banking
facility. Location: Highway #169 and Castlemoor Drive. A
• public meeting.
Mr. Michael Kontac, Tudor Oaks, presented the plans for the office
and banking facility proposed, and its relationship to the
surrounding area. Mr. Kontac explained the relationship of this
property to the adjacent, City-owned property in terms of sharing
parking areas.
Staff reviewed the report evaluating the request. Of concern was
the access situation as it affected circulation of traffic on the
site and to and from the site. Staff presented an alternative plan
for access, which provided full access to Highway #169.
•
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked if the changes to the access
situation were significant enough to postpone action on this item to
the next meeting pending revisions by proponent. Staff stated that
it was a situation which could easily be resolved by Staff and the
proponent.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to
• the City Council approval of the request of Tudor Oaks/Abio Holdings
for zoning from Rural to Regional Commercial Service of
approximately 3.5 acres for an office and banking facility, based on
plans dated July 28, 1983, and subject to the recomnendations of the
. Staff Report of August 19, 1983.
• Motion carried--5-0-0
2150
•
/r Minnesota
p Department of Transportation
��"` District 5
�. 71•••• e 2055 No. Lilac Drive
y'OF TRr' Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422.
August 25, 1983 (512)S4537h1
Mr. Chris Enger
Director of Planning
Eden Prairie City Hall
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
S.P. 2744 T.H. 169
Plat review of Tudor Oaks Condominiums 4
located in the southwest quadrant of Schooner Boulevard {
and T11 169/212 in Lot 1, Block 1, Castle Ridge
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 550.02 and 505.03 flats and Surveys. We find the plat
acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments:
i
— Abio Holdings has submitted a request for an entrance approximately 100'
south of the proposed entrance. Their entrance would fit the controlled
access opening and is acceptable to us with certain conditions. Abio
Holdings also indicated they would request an entrance as shown on this
proposed plat and if approved, they would withdraw their request for the
other entrance.
We have studied the proposed entrance to TH 169/212 and we feel it would be
possible to allow this entrance with certain conditions. First the proposed
entrance requires a change in access con4rol and the cost of this would have
to be borne by the developers. A left turn lane for northbound traffic
would have to be constructed in the median at the existing opening. A
southbound right turn lane would have to be provided for the entrance. For
your information, I have enclosed a preliminary plan indicating these
improvements.
— As you know, we are presently developing preliminary plans to widen the
highway south of the existing four lane section. At this time, it is too
early to determine if additional right of way will be needed. Therefore,
before the development plan is finalized, we suggest that the project
manager, Craig Robinson, be contacted so that it can be coordinated with
the proposed highway widening. He can be reached at 545-3761 ext. 216.
An FquulOpportunity Employer I
't,o
-trcl .
•
•
Mr. Chris Enger
August 25, 1983
Page 2
If you have any other questions in regard to this review, please contact Evan
Green at 545-3761 ext. 119. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sinc rely i
•
h l 'i1,1t _
W. M. Craw.ferd, P.E. .
District Engineer
cc: Gerald Isaacs, Metropolitan Council
Mike Reiter, Hennepin County
Michael A. Kontak, ABIO Holdings •
WMC:bn
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Sullivan, Assistant City Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 19, 1983
PROJECT: Castlemoor Office Park
LOCATION: Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive
APPLICANT
& FEE OWNER: Tudor Oaks Condominium Project
REQUEST: Zoning District change from Rural to Regional Commercial Service for
approximately 3.5 acres
Background
The current zoning is Rural. The Guide Plan is not at a scale to designate land use
for this small parcel. Commercial designations are indicated north, south, and east
of the site, with public and high density to the west.
The area to be zoned consists of two adjacent lots, with the north parcel owned by
the proponent and the south parcel owned by the City of Eden Prairie. The City has
considered developing this south property for a liquor store, although definite
plans have not been made.
Existing Site Character
The site is bordered to the west by Castle Ridge Retirement Complex, to the east by
Highway #169, to the north by Prairie Center Drive, and to the south by a wooded
homestead property.
The site slopes at approximately a 10% grade from the south to the north, draining
to a ditch section along Highway #169.
The majority of the site is in meadow grasses, with a grouping of trees located on
the south portion of the City property. These trees will not be destroyed with the
development of the bank/office building.
No soils information has been submitted.
Ordinance Requirements •
The project meets or exceeds the City Code requirements for minimum lot size, lot
width, lot depth, side yard setback, rear yard setback, height of structure, and
Floor Area Ratio.
•
•
The proposal uses the corner lot provision of the Code, placing parking within one-
half of the front yard setback from Highway #169. The drive-through canopy should
oe revised, placing it outside of the 35 ft. front yard setback.
Following is the proposed site development information for the bank/office parcel:
Total Site Area: 2 acres
87,120 sq. ft.
Gross Building Area: 25,200 sq. ft.
Bank 3,940 sq. ft.
Office 21,260 sq. ft.
Floor Area Ratio 0.28
Parking Spaces Required 136
The bank/office site provides parking for 50 cars, far short of the Code
requirement. The proponent wishes to negotiate a joint parking agreement with the
City to provide parking and access on the south parcel, servicing both lots. This
joint agreement is necessary for the development of the bank/office building.
The parking, loading, and mechanical areas will need to be screened from Castlemoor
Drive, Prairie Center Drive, and Highway #169. Sight lines from the existing Castle
Ridge Retirement Complex should also be screened from the parking, loading, and
mechanical areas. The rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened in an
architecturally integral manner.
Site Plan •
Auto access is proposed off Highway #169 and off Castlemoor Drive. Access to
Castlemoor Drive is provided from a right-in/right-out intersection on Prairie
Center Drive. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has advised Staff that the
Highway #169 access could possibly tie into an existing median cut and a left-turn
lane could be installed within the existing island. This would provide a full
intersection with east and west-bound turn lanes. The submitted plans do not
indicate the access drive alignment to the existing median break within Highway
#169. It appears that the access drive is 20 to 30 ft. north of the intersection.
The proposed grading follows the existing character of the parcel, sloping from the
north to the south at 5-10% slopes. The site plan shows cross slopes of 8-10%
across the parking lot.
The development will tie into existing utilities located adjacent to the existing
streets. The proposed locations for each service to the property are not indicated
on the site plan.
The proposal is for a three-story building, with the exterior materials comprised of
face brick and glazing.
A five foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed on the south side of Prairie Center
Drive, and an eight foot bituminous trail is proposed on the north side.
215U
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following:
1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall:
a. Revise the site plan, providing less slope across the parking lot.
b. Provide soils information.
c. Revise the site plan, placing the drive-through structure outside of
the front yard setback.
d. Meet with the City regarding the joint parking and access need for
the development of the bank/office parcel.
e. Revise the site plan, showing the median alignment relationship to
the Highway #169 access.
f. Add to the site plan the location of the utility services for water,
storm, and sanitary sewer.
• g. Meet with the Engineering Department regarding water, storm sewer,
and sanitary sewer.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: •
( a. Meet with the Fire Marshall regarding fire safety.
b. Submit a detailed landscape/screening plan, screening all parking,
loading, and mechanical areas from the adjacent public roads and the
adjacent retirement complex.
c.• Provide the detailed information for screening of the rooftop
mechanical equipment in an architecturally integral manner. � .
d. Receive Watershed District approval.
e. Pay the required Cash Park Fee.
•
•
•
•
2155'
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director
DATE: September 29, 1983
RE: M.I.D.B.'s - Luke Project (La Pepiniere School)
Resolution No. 83-240 - $481,600
L. Dean Luke and Diane J. Luke propose to construct a 6,000
square foot facility to be leased for use as a school. The
school would employ 23 persons. A second reading of the
ordinance zoning this property is on tonights's agenda.
Resolution No. 83-240 is attached for your consideration.
JDF:bw
9/29/83
•
2150
RESOLUTION NO. 0
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT AND
ITS FINANCING UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
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 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 acquisition of land and the construction and
equipping thereon of an approximately 6,000 square foot
facility to be located in the Municipality at the intersection
of Market Place Drive and Valley View Road, 7455 Market Place
Drive (the Project), to be owned by L. Dean Luke and Diane J.
Luke, individuals residing in the Municipality (the Borrowers),
and leased by the Borrowers to La Pepiniere Montessori School,
Inc., a Minnesota corporation, for use as a Montessori School.
1.2. At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on October 4,
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, Hennepin County and the School
District in which the Project is located and would provide
21'51
increased opportunities for employment for residents of the
Municipality and surrounding area.
(d) This Council has been advised by representatives
of the Borrowers 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 Borrowers 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 or useful in connection with a revenue
producing enterprise, such as that of the Borrowers, and the
issuance of the bonds by the Municipality would be a
substantial inducement to the Borrowers 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 $481,600.
2.2. Preliminary approval is hereby given to 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 Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority and may be subject to such further
conditions as the Municipality may specify. The revenue bonds,
215
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 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 Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority, with attachments, is hereby approved,
and the Mayor and City Finance Director/Clerk are authorized to
execute said documents on behalf of the Municipality.
2.4. In accordance with Section 474.10, Subdivision 7a, of the
Act, the Mayor and City Finance Director/Clerk are hereby
authorized and directed to cause the Application to be
submitted to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development
Authority for approval of the Project. The Mayor, City Finance
Director/Clerk, City Attorney and other officers, employees and
agents of the Municipality are hereby authorized and directed
to provide the Authority 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 Authority.
/ SECTION 3
1 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 Borrowers. The lease rentals, installment sale
payments, loan payments or other amounts payable by the
Borrowers 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 adoption of this resolution does not constitute a
guarantee or a firm commitment that the Municipality will issue
the bonds as requested by the Borrowers. The Municipality
retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from the
participation, and accordingly not issue the bonds, should the
Municipality at any time prior to the issuance thereof
determine that it is in the best interest of the Municipality
not to issue the bonds or should the parties to the transaction
be unable to reach agreement as to the structuring of the
financing or as to the terms and conditions of any of the
documents required for the transaction.
2159
•
3.3. All commitments of the Municipality expressed herein are
subject to the condition that within twelve months from the
date of adoption of this resolution the Municipality and the
Borrowers 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 sale. •
3.4. 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 force and effect.
3.5. The Borrowers have 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 Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority, and
whether or not the Municipality by resolution authorizes the
issuance of the bonds, will be paid by the Borrowers upon
request.
•
• 3.6. The Mayor and City Finance Director/Clerk are directed,
if the bonds are issued and sold, thereafter to comply with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivisions
8 and 11.
Adopted this 4th day of October, 1983.
Mayor
Attest:
City 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:
21L()
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for •
Industrial Development Bond Project Financing.
`,. APPLICANT:
a. Business Name - L. Dean and Diane J. Luke
b. Business Address - 10450 Whitetail Crossing
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole propretor-
. ship, etc.) -
Joint Ownership
d. State of Incorporation or organization -
•
• Minnesota
e. Authorized Representative -
L. Dean Luke
f: Phone - •
2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKBOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS:
a. L. Dean and Diane J. Luke
•
b.
•
•
c.
-1-
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL
' PRODUCTS, ETC:
La Pepiniere Montessori Centers are schools specializing in..the care and
' education of infants & young children. Montessori Eden Prairie would be the
Sole lessee in the building. La Pepiniere Montessori Centers presently
i rate 20 child care educational facilities in the Twin Cities area. Dean and
L .ne Luke will be joint owners of the project. Mr. Dean Luke is employed.by'
Quality Park Products & has been employed there for 18 years. The Lukes have'
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT been residents of Eden Prairie for 11 years.
1.
i
a. Location and intended use: Bryant Lake Center, Eden Prairie,
•Minnesota. The building will be used to house a Montessori school.
b. Present ownership of project site: Eden Prairie Lane Company II
c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general
contractor: General Contractor/Developer: Ryan Development, Inc.,
7460 Market Place .Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Architect:
Pope Associates, Inc., 533 St. Clair Avenue, St. Paul, MN, 55102.
Engineer: Ron Krueger Assoc., 8140 Flying Cloud DriverEden
• Prairie, MN 55344.
5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: $ 45,000
Land
Construction Contracts 471tA50 .
Equipment Acquisition and installation* Included
r Architectural and Engineering Included
% Legal 24.000
Interest during Construction
Bond Reserve
Contingencies • 32,150
Loan Fees 10,500
Other '
' Total $ 535,500
*Heating and air conditioning should be included as building costs.
' Indicate the kind of equipment to be acquired here.
Gas, forced air/vac units, roof mounted. _
-2- ,
2i0-
6. BOND ISSUE -
a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $481,600
( I 1
a
b. Proposed date of sale of bond - Dec. 15, 1983 i 1
c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities -
15 years based upon a 25 year amortization schedule.
d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds -
i) First Federal Savings & Loan of Grand Rapids ($401,600)
first mortgage bond.
• ii) Ryan Development, Inc. ($80,000 secpnd mortgage bond)
e. Name and address of suggested trustee -
n/a
I. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original
• purchaser -
n/a
g. Describe any interim financing sought or available -
Construction financing to be provided by First National
Bank of Minneapolis.
h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing
• ' in addition to bond financing -
• Will be in the form of equity contribution.
7. BUSINESS PROFILE -
a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie?
• No •
*b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
1. Before this project: 0
-9-
• ,
ii. After this project? 23•
•
c. Approximate annual sales — $3 million
•
d. Length of time in, business 17 years
in Eden Prairie 0
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where?
See attached list.
•
I. Are you engaged in international trade?
No
•
•
3. OT"t1ER 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 103(b)(6)
of the Internal Revenue Code. -
Montessori Schools are not involved in any other industrial
development projects. .
Mr. Luke is not involved in any other industrial development •
projects.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested
industrial revenue development financing.
None
•
•
c. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before
any other city for industrial development revenue financing.
None
•
'd. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused
industrial development revenue .financing.
None
•
•
e. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant
has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in which .
final approval authorizing the financing has been denied.
•
None
•
•
•
_5_
21LS
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.
n/a •
• 1
•
•
•
9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF:
•
•
a. Underwriter (If public offering) h/a
•
b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement)
•
First Federal Savings & Loan of Grand Rapids, Minnesota.` ' •
•• i. If lender•will mot com it 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 Lppropriate City
approval and approval of the Commissioner
of Securities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
21 t/b
r
b.' Bond Counsel - Dorsey & Whitney
2200 1st Bank Place East
Minneapolis, MN 55402
C. Corporate Counsel - Dorsey & Windhorst
l 2200 First Bank Place East
Minneapolis, MN 55402
d. Accountant - Lowell, D. Peterzen
550 Midland Bank Building
• 401 Second Avenue South
• Minneapolis, MN 55401
• 10. TEAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
s. Construction start - September 30, 1983
•
b. Construction completion - December 15, 1983 •
i FOR TUBTTR INFORMATION CONTACT: _
The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or
• disapproval by the City of does prairie.re forlIndustriale.•
Development bond financing recision
constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provr iune
or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or
•
or ordinance of the City f Eden rad irie.n or
s parry other law
applicable to the property
• Ap licant
L. Dean hnd Diane J. Luke
•
. •
ate
-7-
•
2I .
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 October 4, 1983
Development Authority
480 Cedar St., Rm. 100 Hanover Bldg.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 1
The governing body of The City 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 i
required by Minn. Stat. 5474.01, Subd. 7a. i
,
We have entered into preliminary discussions with: I
4
4
Firm L. Dean Luke and Diane J. Luke (Borrowers)
Address 40450 Whitetail Crossing
Organization
City' P.{ien Prairie State Minnesota State of Iiiddt4l0 t}635N Minnesota . ;v
Attorney Mr. G. Larry Griffith, Dorsey & Whitney
¢.
( Address 2200 First Bank Place East, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Name of Project La Pepiniere Montessori School, Inc. Project
This firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): not applicable
i
The funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to (general ,
nature of project): finance the acquisition of land located in the City and the
construction and equipment thereon of a facility to be leased by the Borrowers to I
La Pepiniere Montessori School, Inc. for use as a Montessori School I
It will be located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota
1
The total bond issue will be approximately $481,600 , to be applied toward payment 1
of costs now estimated as follows: 1
Acquisition, reconstruction, improvement,
betterment, or extension of project S 45,000
Construction Costs 423,850
Equipment Acquisition and Installation Included
Fees: Architectural, engineering, inspec-
tion, fiscal, legal, administration, or
printing 24,000
''terest accrual during construction
itial bond reserve
Contingencies 32.150
Bond discount •
Other in,5nn
• 21a
It is presently estimated that construction will begin on or about September 30
19 , and will be completed on or about December 15 , 1983. When completed, there
wi e approximately 21 new jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of approxi-
mat 'v S 182,000 , based upon currently prevailing wages. (If applicable) There are
existing jobs provided by business.
The tentative term of the financing is 15 years, commencing December 15 , 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
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. 5474.01, 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 the City of Eden Prairig 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 sionature line. Thank you.)
•
Wolfgang Penzel
Mayor's same Signature
SA v Finance Director/Clerk
Title: Signature a.
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 .
2 (,9 MEEDA 070183
XT' •R 4,1983 • 20.00
9350 HELD OUTN CHECK 90.00
220.00-
9861 GLADWININ CTYS CHIEFS OF DOLICE NOTARYEBONO POLICE OEPT •
144.00
9862 INSURANCE & 80ND5 SOFTBALL & FOOTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID 233140
98639864 ED GREGORYANODERHUSLAND-EOENDALE RESIDENCE SITE 00
LANCEIO A EO WINE 10.78131 . 8
9865 OLDLIOR PEORIA CO LIQUOR 1313.82
9866 COMPANYHEREWHOLESALE INC WINE 363.2699
9867 JOHNSON BROTHERS WINE 215.23
9868 EAGLER WINE CO WINE 3215.23
9869 IRIGGSOCOOPERT& COPKG LIQUOR 3394.98
9870 It
OGRIGGS OOER & S INC LIQUOR 761.606 i
9871 EO PHILLIPSI & SONS WINE 1621. 0 i
9872 TWIN AL WIRV CO PAYROLL 9/16/83 9231.130
9873 OMSL RESERVEO BANK PAYROLL 9/16/83 23 .
9874 COMMISSIONERS OF REVENUE PACKET OELIVERY 108.000
987500
OANA GFS PAYROLL 9/16/83 65.00
9877 M NA LIFE STATETERRETE PAYROLL 9/16/83 1
987 MINNESOTA RETIREMENTUAN PAYROLL 9/16/83 3007.00. 0
9878 GREAT WESTA LIFE ASSURANCE PAYROLL 9/16/83 71.50
9879 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 9/16/83 14962.20
98809881 SUBURBAN NATIONAL RANK PAYROLL 9/16/83 20.00 9
°2 PER A .00
9Fa2 HOPKINSN SOCIETY AST FOR INDUSTRIAL • 1983EPRE-SDROTLFEE DEPT 1.02
HOPKINS POSTMASTER •
10.75
0
98 VOID OUT CHECK MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 9.00
9885 JENNIFER
OEPARTMENTLON OF P/S REFUND-BATON &•DANCE CLASSES
98869887 CARLSON REFUNO-YOGA 24.00.00.
JOE HUNT REFUNO-BATON & DANCE CLASSES 9.00
9888 SNA ETERS REFUNO-EXERCISE CLASSES 6.00
98899890 SUSAN EHPAL REFUND-CIDER MAKING CLASSES 11.500
9891 DEAN AHHPA REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES 711.50
2 AMERICAN
ZACHMANPHONE SERVICE AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 7'8.00
9892 AMERICAN BELLA SERVICE 175.00
9894 AMERICAN SCIENTIFICN BANK 154.83
9894 AMERICAN PRODUCTS LAB SUPPLIES/SULFURIC ACID-WATER DENT g0.00
98953
EARLO F ANDERSENRI & ASSOCIATES INC 4THSTRE QUARTER ET SALARM SYSTEM-SENIOR CITIZENS 392.6100
9896 ARMOR ATEDRITY INC BLACKTOP 38.50
9897 ASSOCIATED ASPHALTL INC SERVICE-GRILL HOUSE .40
9898 ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS INC REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES NOLOGY ORIVE/ 41669.00
9900 LINDA TURIN
9900 BENNETT RINGROSE WOLSFELD JARVIS 9
-CITY OAK HFEASIBILITY/
ANOERSON LAKE PARKWAY/PRAIRIE CENTER ORIVE 3.00
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 42.00
9902 ANITA BITMZER 4.500
9902 BLOOM A NGTON LOCKSMITH COMPANY REFUND SWIMMINGLCLASSES 2 .5
99034 CHUCK BORGMAN FEE-WATER OEPT 20.15
5
9904 CHUCK FORO TN FUEL INJECTION PUMP-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 519.6E
°)06 BOYER ENGINEERINGNG TRUCKS INC 33519.6:
990707 BRAIN OR TESTING INC 1983IOUMPDTRUCKE BLVD 598.C'
BUSINESSE URND INC 1 CHAIR-PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG 165.I
9908 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 34.1'
99D99910 CAPITO BAR SUPPLY RAOI0 REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1590.0
1 CAPITOL CORPORATION
ELECTRONICS INC CAROOX CO2-WATER DEPT 98.V
9912 CAROOXA
9912 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS GREASE-PARK MAINTENANCE
•----- -- n INS
•
9913 LINDA CLCW REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 8.00
9914 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC HOSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 16.87
CONCRETE LIFTING INC SERVICE-BITTERSWEET & VALLEY VIEW ROAD 576.80
9y.6 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CD NOTARY STAMP-POLICE DEPT , 36.10
9917 CAROLINE CUMMINGS REFUNO-SWIMMING CLASSES 31.00
9918 PATTI CUMMINGS REFUND-FITNESS CLASSES 25.00
•
9919 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 1723.06 a
9920 DALCO
CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 168.99 `
1
9921 ALBERT DAY SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 168.00.00 d
9922 SHELLY DIERS REFUND-POST NATAL CLASSES
9923 DIRECT SAFETY COMPANY LIFTING EQUIPMENT & SAFETY CASE-WATER DEPT 564.880 4
9924 BRIAN DRESCHER REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 8.00
9925 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 44.37
9926 DORHOLT PRINTING/STATIONERY INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 3.00
9927 JOAN DUFFY REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 3 2 .00
9928 JOY EASTMAN EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER .6
9929 ECONOMICS LABORATORY INC PAPER-COMMUNITY CENTER 140.006
7 i
9930 CITY OF EDINA AUGUST TESTS 0. 0
9931 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEMS INC ELECTRICAL PARTS-SQUAD CARS
9932 CHRIS FAZENZIN REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 74 13.003. 0
9933 FEED-RITE CONTROLS INC SULFATE-WATER DEPT
9934 FLOYD SECURITY SECURITY SYSTEM-L/S P V M 6 289.1709. 7
9935 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY AUDIT SERVICE 53.75
9936 MARY FRITCHMAN MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT
9937 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR & PARTS-RADIO SYSTEM 390.87
9938 GUNNAR ELECTRIC COMPANY INC FUSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 10.17
^'39 HANCE SALES & SERVICE 2 WEED TRIMMERS-PARK MAINTENANCE 439.90
C
;0 HARMON GLASS WINDSHIELD-PARK MAINTENANCE 58.73
9941 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHEIFS OF POLICE SCHOOL-POLICE OEPT 285.00
9942 SHERIFFS DEPT-HENNEPIN CTY JULY BOOKING FEES/RADIO RENTAL-POLICE DEPT 814.31
9943 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER AUGUST EQUIPMENT RENTAL-FORESTRY DEPT 200.00
9944 SANDRA HICKLIN REFUNO-MEMBERSHIP TO COMMUNITY CENTER 10.750
9945 HOIGAARDS REPAIR TARPS-FIRE DEPT
9946 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS-COMMUNITY CENTER 217.30
9947 HONEYWELL ALARM SYSTEM-L/S PRESERVE 295.6
9948 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #272 AUGUST CUSTODIAL SERVICE 1358.00
9949 INTERDESIGN SERVICE-P/S & P/W BUILDING 3085.74
9950 JOE JEPPESEN REPAIR ZAMBONI MACHINE 57.20
9951 BRIGID JOHNSON REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 7.00
9952 JEAN JOHNSON EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 11.75
9953 LINDSEY JOHNSON REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 13.50
9954 KEVIN M KOHLS SOFTBALL & FOOTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 252.00
9955 LAKE STATE EQUIPMENT CO STARTER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 2O8.00
9956 M E LANE INC AUTO & WORKMANS COMP INSURANCE 1488 .Or O
9957 LEEF BORS INC COVERALLS-WATER DEPT 449.5u
4 .50
9958 TERRY LOVAASEN SCUBA INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 449. 0
9959 LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY LUMBER-COMMUNITY CENTER
9960 MACDONALD & MACK PARTNERSHIP SERVICE-CUMMINGS-GRILL HOUSE 2252.0'
9961 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC 6 GUTTER BROOMS FOR SWEEPERS 453.0,
9962 MANPOWER INC TEMPORARY HELP-PLANNING DEPT 124.4'; ' !
9963 PIELER MARON REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 11.2',
'964 ROBERT N MARTZ OCTOBER EXPENSES 283.5',
)65 MERIT/JULIAN GRAPHICS FORMS-BUILDING DEPT 363.2(
9966 METRO ALARM INC 4TH QUARTER ALARM SYSTEM-CITY GARAGE 48.C(
3920427
2111
•
9! METRO FONE CNGMNICATIONS INCPAGER-ANIMAL 216.00 7BROCHURE-COMMUNITY SERVICES 3188.OD
9 METRO METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPA -YEARLY INSPECTIDN OF FIRE EXTINGUISHER- � 15.50
LIQUOR STORE5
9970 MIDLAND PRODUCTS COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 3155.55
9971 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION BLACKTOP 10.00
9972 MINNEAPOLIS AREA CHAPTER BOOKS
-COMMUNITY CENTER 841.549
9973 MINNESOTAO S SERVICE 1725.84
9974 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY2367.91
9975 MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND INC -FLANGE/WASHERS/BALL ELTS/PINS/HEX NS/HEX NUT-PARK 125.92
9976 MINNESOTA TYRO INC MAINTENANCE
TREES-WATER DEPT 227.85
9978
KIMBERLEY MUIRMU 997 MINNESOTAINC REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 13.OD 9979 MURPHY PLUMBING & HEATING CD PIPE-WATER
RMDIPTG 6
6.6CLASSES 16.6
9980 MARY LOU MYKKANEN 9982 NRPA BOOK-COMMUNITY SERVICES 20.00 9982 NODLAND ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-DELLWDOD 566.49SERVICE 28221.3D
9983 NORTHERN STATES POWER SERVICE 302.6D
9984 NORTHWESTERN BELL SAND-PARK MAINTENANCE 18.40
9985 OCHS BRICK & TILE CO EQUIPMENT REPAIR-WATER DEPT 43.2D
9986 PATCO COMPANY EQUIPMENT
REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES 25.00 '
9987 PEPS COL POP_COMMUNITY CENTER 47.50 l',
9988
PEPSICOLA BOTTLINGCD TOWELS-COMMUNITY CENTER .66.00
9989 PINK SUPPLY CORPORATION
RPORATIDN rPOSTAGE METER RENTAL/SERVICE-CITY HALL 170.87
. PITNEYJUSTIN POPES REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 5.25
POPE REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 10.00
99923 STEVEN POPES EQUIPMENT PARTS-PARK MAINTENANCE 2.32
9993 POWER SYSTEMS 231.36 )
9994 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC CEOMMUNITYER ECMENTS CENTER/REPLACERCIRCUIT BREAKER-
BRILL HOUSE
9995 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING OFFICE SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER95.22
9996 HECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC REPAIR HOCKEY &APE SOFTBALLLDER OFFICIAL/FEESANNING PAID DEPT 630.00 a
9997 CHUCK PUFAHLI REFUND-BUILDING DEPT 15.00 i
9998 RICKOCK RABENORTNE EXPENSES-CANINE UNIT 37.48
1000 EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 6.50 i
10001 MARY ROBERTSREIC REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 3.00 '
10001 CAROLYN REICHOW 61.47
10002 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA CASH REGISTER PAPER & RIBBONS-L/S 7.207 a
10003 RIDGE DOOR SALES COMPANY OF MINNE GARAGE DOOR ROLLERS-FIRE STATION 8.20
10004 RDAD RESCUE INC LIGHT FOR RESCUE TRUCK 0.5
301
10005 ROBBINSDALE FARM SUPPLY INC DOG FDOD-CANINE UNIT . 0
10D06 COLEEN ROWLAND REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 103.00
10007 ST PAUL POLICE PISTOL CLUB INC AMMUNITION-POLICE OEPT 30D.D0
10D08 ST REGIS CORPORATION LUMBER-WATER DEPT 76.D0 d
10009 SAILOR NEWSPAPERS EMPLOYMENT AD-COMMUNITY CENTER 418.DO
10010 SCHMIDT READY-MIX INC CONCRETE-COMMUNITY CENTER 21.
10011 ERIKA SCHNAPP REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 13.72 00
10012 SEELYE PLASTICS INC PLASTIC-COMMUNITY CENTER 261.62
'')13 SHAKOPEE FORD INC BODY REPAIR/CABLE-SQUAD CARS 56.92 '
.014 8EN SKINNER MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT 356.50
10015 W E NEAL SLATE CD PANEL-BUILDING DEPT 9 . 5
10016 SON OF A PRINTER INC PRINTING-PDLICE DEPT 1
4539252
2112-
• i
10017 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING INC EMPLOYMENT AD-COMMUNITY CENTER 10.15
1 '8 CRAIG STANTON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 96.00
1 9 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET REPAIR SQUAD CARS .302.99
10020 CARRIE TIETZ MINUTES-PARK & REC COMMISSION 36.75
10021 KATHY TODD REFUND-PRE-NATAL CLASSES 20.00
10022 TOWN & COUNTRY PEST CONTROL CO SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER 75.00
10023 ANDREW TRENO REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 11.00
10024 TURNER EXCAVATING COMPANY BLACK DIRT-P/S BUILDING 727.50
10025 TWIN CITY FENCE COMPANY 2 BACKSTOPS-RED ROCK & STARING LAKE PARK 2116.00
10026 U Z ENGINEERED PRODUCTS COTTER PINS/SCRE'WS/NUTS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 57.19
10027 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 60.58
10028 VAN WATERS & ROGERS CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 457.05
10029 NANCY VEIGEL REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 15.00
10030 VESSCO INC LIME SHAKER PARTS-WATER DEPT 551.40
10031 KRISTI VETTER REFUND-FITNESS CLASSES 25.00
10032 VIKING LABORATORIES INCORPORATED CHLORINE TABLETS-COMMUNITY CENTER 25.09
10033 DAVID A WALLER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 108.03
10034 JULIE WANQUIST EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 5.00
10035 WARNING LITES OF MINENSTOA INC WARNING FLASHERS-VALLEY VIEW ROAD 44.90
10036 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY -PIPE-PARK MAINTENANCE/CLAMPS/SAWBLADES- 588.38
WATER DEPT
10037 WEED KING WEED CUTTING-PARK DEPT 128.00
10038 JOE WIETHDFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID ' 84.00
10039 'XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 1599.49
1004D ALBERT YERICH REFUND-FITNESS CLASSES 17.00
10041 YOU AND ME BABY BOOKS-PRE-NATAL CLASSES 49.50
! 142 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY CHEMICALS-STREET DEPT 76.80
`...J43 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING INC -SERVICE-TECHNOLOGY DRIVE/PRAIRIE CENTER 4480.75
DRIVE
10044 DAVIN BAKER REFUND-EXERCISE 13.50
10045 SHEILA FLEISHER REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES 21.00
10046 CYNTHIA SCHOLLE REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES 13.00
10047 CHEMLAWN LAWN TREATMENT-CITY HALL 92.20
10048 METRO FONE COMMUNICATIONS INC OCTOBER PAGER RENTAL 89.52
10049 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC 1 DESK-P/W BUILDING 345.81
10050 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO CUTTING TORCH-CITY GARAGE 318.50
10051 SANDRA WERTS SEPTEMBER MILEAGE 36.90
10052 CHRISTY NICHOLS REFUND-KIDS KORNER 13.5C
10053 DENIS BILLMYER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 24.00
10054 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY LEGAL ADS 67.20
10055 OOUG EPSTEIN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID 72.00
10056 JACK HACKING EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 59.37
10057 BOB LAMBERT OCTDER EXPENSES 169.25
10058 PATRICK PEREZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID 120.0J
10059 WILLIE PEREZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 48.0:
10060 POMMER MFG CO INC TROPHIES-TENNIS & SOFTBALL 205.0C
10061 JIM PUFAHL SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 96.00
10062 PAUL ROGERS PLOW & DISC-DUCK LAKE 100.0
10063 STEVEN R SINELL EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 18.5':
10064 ED SORENSEN EXPENSES 49.91
10065 VOID OUT CHECK 0.0
)066 PETTY CASH POSTAGE-CITY HALL 9.55
10067 COPIMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE-CITY WEST/PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 3773.8:
10068 LANDCO EQUIPMENT INC FILTERS-FORESTRY DEPT 37.0'
17562.12
21'1
•
'9 CHARLES PAPPAS AUGUST & SEPTEMBER MILEAGE 197.75
1w.,/0 PATRICK PEREZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 24.00
10071 WILLIE PEREZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 5924.00
4.00
10072 HERTZ 1983 CAR-MANAGER 5900.00
10073 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO WINE 94.89
95
10074 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 134.45
10075 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR
10076 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 24.7785g2 .
10077 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING WINE 1786..64
85
1979
10078 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR7
10079 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 821.37
10080 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE
10081 CROSSTOWN PRINTING 100 COMMUNITY PROFILES PRINTED-PLANNING 138.75
.17464.70 • S495975.58
•
•
. •
•
•
•
•
2114
•
•
•
October 4. 1983
Cash Disbursements by Fund Number
10, GENERAL 99615.44 •
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT .40256.40
12 CERTIFICATE DEBT FUND 25.00 •
IS. L/5 PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL 15465.69
17 L15 PRESERVE 10301.00
31• PARK ACOUIST & DEVELOP 5484. 00 •
36 P/S & P/W BOND FUND 4324.O0
44 UTILITY DEBT FUND
-51 IMPROV CONST FUND 4976.28 •
52 IMPROVE DEBT FUND 25.00
• 57 ROAD IMPROV CONST FD 7161.44
WATER FUND 28474.62
1 SEWER FUND 112.47 •
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 1.25.00
87 COMMUNITY DEVELOP BLOCK G 235252.06
90 TAX INCREMENT CONST FUND 443 46. 13 •
1495975.55
•
•
•
Z1'15