Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/28/1984 • i)(), rr EDEN PRAIRIE C1S/1.`“/ ! 41. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA v Q / J TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1984 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM • COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Paul Redpath and George Tangen CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie; Assistant to the • City Manager Craig Dawson; City Attorney Roger • Pauly; Finance Director John Frane; Planning Director Chris Enger; Director of Community Services Robert Lambert; Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael INVOCATION: Paul Redpath PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS • II. MINUTES A. City_Council meeting held Tuesday, June 19, 1984 Page 1580 B. City Council meeting held Tuesday, July 10, 1984 Page 1586 III. CONSENT CALENDAR • A. ST. ANDREW CHURCH. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No.. 46-84, Zoning District Page 1596 Change—from Rural to Public, Approval of Supplement to Developer's Agreement for St. Andrew Church, and Adoption of Resolution No. 84-210, Approving Sunanary of Ordinance No. 46-84 and Ordering Publication of said Summary of St. Andrew Church Supplement, 1.2 acres for church expansion. Location: Northwest quadrant of Baker Road and Valley View Road. B. Approval of sublease with Hennepin County regarding leaf recycling Page I602 1. center -- - — C. A.p pointment of the Assistant to the City Manager to the Advisory. Page 1608 Committee toadadnister and monitor the feasibility study-for "Opt Out'-- - --- -- i D. Reitherman Lot Split Page 1609 E. Revocation_ and redcsignation of CSAH 39, Roberts Drive and Valley Page 1610 I View Roar] tResolution No. 84-217 F. Final Plat approval for forlyea 4th Addition (Resolution No. 84-220) page 1611 G. Set Public Hearing for e..sement vacation in reffer_Addition for 7:30 PM,_S1`caher 18, 1934 City Cnunril Agenda - 2 - Toes.,August 28, 1984 it, H. Set Public Hearing for easement vacations on Lot I, Block 2, Fairway f Woods 3rd Addition, for 7:30 PM, September 18, 1984 I. Final approval of Municipal Industrial Development Bonds`in the Page 1614 amount of $465,000.00 for Kinder Care (Resolution No. 84-197)-- J. Accept Warranty Deed for Carmel Park Page 1620 K. Resolution No. 84-221, ppointing Election Judges for the-_Primary Page 1623 Election IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS • A. TURNBULL. Request for Preliminary Plat of approximately 15.28 acres Page 1532 & into two lots for Rural housing development. Location: North of Loge 1626 Hwy. 169, cast of Dell Road. (Resolution No. 84-175 - Preliminary Plat) Continued from 7/17/84 Council Agenda. • B. MUIRFIELD by Tandem Corporation. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amend- Page 1628 rent from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for approximately 25 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review; with variances, and Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately 25 acres; Preliminary Plat of 36 acres into 119 single family lots; and Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Location: North side of Valley View Road, west of Park View Drive. j C. SHADY OAK RIDGE by Joseph Ruzic. Request for Comprehensive Guide Page 1655 Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density . Residential; Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5; and Preliminary Plat of 11.5 acres for 48 townhouse units. Location: . North of Rowland Road, west of Old Shady Oak Road. (Resolution . No. 84-212 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance No. 54-84 - Zoning from Rural to RM 6.5; and Resolution No. 84-213 - Preliminary Plat) D. TREANOR ADDITION by Guy K. Treanor. Request for Preliminary Plat Page 1671 • of 0.734 acres into two lots for residential development. Location: 16135 Valley View Road. (Resolution No. 84-214 - Preliminary Plat) E. Fall 1984 Special Assessment Hearing (Resolution No. 84-219) Page 1680 F. Renrest for Multi-family Housing Bonds_ in the amount of 56,000,ppD:oo Page 1681 for Lames Partnership (Resolution No. 84-225) --- G. Requestfor Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of Page 1693 1,6/5,000.00 for Reynolds Printing-(Resolution No. 84-223) i. H. Request for Multi-family Housing Bonds in the amount of $13,500,000.00 Page 1694 ;, for Chaser•rood (Resolution No. 84 195) request for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of Page 1712 I. P $2,750,000.00 for Portny (Resolution No. 34-194) ``. J. Fairway Woods 3rd Addition easement vacation (Resolution No. 84- Page 1726 192) ► Rri:_w,eud West 4th Addition Right-of-Wa-y and Easement Vacation Page 1727 (Resolution No. 84-185) 4 L. Lvrence 1st Addition Easement Vacation (Valley Pondl (Resolution No. 84-218) M. Valley Curve Easement Vacation (Resolution No. 84-183) Page 1730 N. Ordinance No. 53-84, amending Cif Code Section11.70, Subd. 3.A. Page 1731 & Subd. 5.E., regarding non-accessory signs, including violations and fines, appeals & variances, especially with respect to campaign signs V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 15319 - 15717 Page 1735 VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A. Development Commission - Recommendations on Municipal Industrial Page 1744 Development Bond Guidelines VII. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of member to the Human Rights & Services Commission for a term to expire 2%28/87 B. Appointment to the Minnetonka School District Advisory Council (indefinite term Vl.- ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 56-84, amending City Code Chapter Page 1746 9, Section 9.40, Firearms Regulations, and Adoption of Resolution No. ??2, outlining criteria to be used for issuance of Hunting Permits by the Public Safety Department IX. PL1ITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Appeal by David Brown on decision of Board of Appeals & Adjustments Page 1750 on his Lot Size Variance request X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. E,-ports of Council Members B. Report of City Manager C. Report of Director of Cor.:nunity Services 1. Proposed study of Lake Riley Page 1858 D. Report of Finance Director 1. Clerk's license List Page 1866 ( ,. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESOAY, JUNE 19, 1984 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDRDOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, Richard Anderson, Georgr: Bentley, Paul Redpath and George Tangen CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the Cit.; Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Rober' Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael INVOCATION; Mayor Wolfgang H, Penzel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL; Councilman Richard Anderson was absent, I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following item was added to the Agenda: VIII, A, 1, Rowland Road. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business as amended, Motion carried unanimously, II, MINUTES OF THE'CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1984 MOTION; Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 15, 1984, as published. Motion carried unani- mously, III. CONSENT CALENDAR A, Clerk's License List B. Accept bids on play structure at Staring Lake Park C. Final Plat approval fo'r Norseman 6th Addition (Resolution No. 84-143) D. Final Plat approval for Anderson Lakes Commercial Center (Resolution No. 84-146) E. Final Plat e roval for Bluffs East 2nd Addition (Resolution No,.84-147) F. Change Order #2, I.C. 51.308C i ti City Council Minutes .2. June I9, 1984 G. Set Public Hearing for July 17, 1984, to consider vacation of a utility easement in the James Refrigeration Mat H. Set Public Hearing for July 17, 1984, to consider vacation of a utility easement on LOT-2, Block 1 of LeParc • I. Approve_jans and specifications for Anderson Lakes Parkw y Improvement and authorize bids to be opened on July26, 1984, I.C. 52-035 (Resolution No. 84-149) J. drove cooperative agreement with Hennepin County for signal installation at Va11 y View Road and Baker Road and authorize execution of document ResoTution No, 84-151) K. Approve plans and specifications for signal installation as designed.by N.Nenneppin County DOT for intersection of Valley View Road at Baker Road tResolution No, 84-150) L. Final Plat approval for Feffer Addition (Resolution No. 84-156) M, Award contract for Carmel and vicinity improvements, I.C. 52-059 A & B (Resolution No, 84-152) N, Approve and authorize execution of agreement with the Chicago and North- western Transportation Company for crossing at Edenvale Boulevard eso ution No. 84-154T 0. Establish Polling Places and Precincts'for the,-City P, Receive 100 setition for Trunk Sewer and Water to serve property owned by liustad, and authorize the preparation of plans and specifications, I,C. ' 52-063 (Resolution No, 84-148) MOTION:: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve items A - P on the Con- sent Calendar with the Final Plat for Norseman 6th Addition (item "C") to be modified (east/west lot line is to be moved as per Staff recommendation.) Motion carried with Bentley abstaining on item "M". ' IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. City Code Amendment to Section 11.70 to regulate signs at Flying Cloud Air- port (continued from May 15, 1984) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to continue this item to the August 7, 1984, meeting of the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. B. Bryant Lake Office Tech Center Street and Utility Improvements, I.C. 52-053 (ResoTution No,84-91) - continued-from Junes, 1984 L;i! City Council Minutes .3- June 19, 1984 Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed the location and purpose of the project and noted no further word had been received from the property owners involved in the project. He recommended action be tabled until someone is ready to build on the property. There were no comments from the audience, MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to table action on this matter until the situation is resolved and to indicate to the property owners that no action will take place until all issues are resolved, Motion carried unanimously, C. Vacation of a ptility easement over Lot 8, Block 6, Round Lake Estates (Resolution No, 84-153) City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published, Director of Public Works Dietz,explained the location of the easements involved and the need for vacating them, There were no continents from the audience; MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tanaen, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No, 84-153, vacation of sanitary sewer easements on Lot 8, Block 6, Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition, Motion carried unanimously. V, PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 14147 - 14415 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos, 14147 - 14415, Roll call vote: 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 Gary Jeub Director of Community Services Lambert addressed his memorandum of June 13, 1984, in which Gary Jeub's request was addressed, Gary Jeub, 15071 Sumnerhill Drive, stated there is a 6" wide asphalt path on his property and he is concerned about his liability since children play -on this path, He noted that the Edenvale Homeowner's Association appears to he a phantom group at this time, He noted there never was an easement on his property. It was his opinion that the City has assumed some measure of responsibility by saying the path could be removed, I6z , City Council Minutes -4. June 19, 1984 Tangen asked what the status of the Edenvale Homeowner's Association is at this time, Lambert indicated he preferred not to comment on that matter. Tangen asked if the Homeowner's Association was responsible for this. Lambert said there is still an Association to which the homeowners pay an annual fee. Penzel said perhaps the City should clarify this with Equitable which is the company which owns the undeveloped Edenvale property. Penzel also noted that perhaps the City or Jeub could check with Zachman regarding the trail and find out why it was built. The ensuing discussion dealt with the responsibility for maintenance of trails in a safe and healthy manner in areas such as this, Jeub asked that he be reimbursed for the removal of the trail on his property. Tangen said he would like,to do so, but cannot do so because the City has no legal responsibility, City Attorney Pauly stated that the City would have to be found to have created or caused the problem in that it required the trail to be put in; there is no documentation to that fact. Tangen suggested Jeub go back to the Homeowner's Association and ask it for assistance in removing the pathway, MOTION; Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to instruct City Manager Jullie to write to the Edenvale Homeowner's Association stating that the City did not require a trail at this location, the trail was constructed by the developer as an access trail to the homeowner-owned outlot along rear lot lines at this location, and, therefore, the City contends it is the respon- sibilii:y of the Edenvale Homeowner's Association‘to reimburse Gary Jeub for the removal of the trail along his property line, Motion carried unanimously. VIII, REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A, Reports of Council Members 1, Rowland Road Tangen noted letters,which had been received from Bevery Rodberg, 6580 Rowland Road, and Dr. Roger Farber, 6525 Rowland Road (see attached.) These letters addressed the serious disrepair of Rowland Road and indicated the public safety hazard which has been created as a result. Tangen noted this road provides access to Bryant Lake Park as well as to the horse barns; it is used by bikers, joggers, and runners. Bentley said it appears it will be sometime before the County gets around to upgrading this road, He said besides being a hazard, the road is an embarrassment, He noted that the developer of Carmel Addition had given the City money for maintenance of the road; Bentley requested Staff be charged with providing an estimate as to what it would cost to make the roadway safe, Director of Public Works Dietz said some grading and patching was begun today, Redpath felt patching would not /ij s City Council Minutes -5- June 19, 1984 work and asked if the City could assess the County for repairs. The consensus was that the County could be assessed. Tangen said the County has put off development of the Park for another year; he requested Staff look into a more permanent temporary solution to the road problem. Bentley said he would like to see a feasibility study ordered. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to prepare a feasibility report on permanent improvements to Rowland Road and to authorize temporary repairs at this time which would make the Road ser- viceable, When the feasibility report is prepared, rural section road standards as well as other options should be examined. Motion carried unanimously, 2. Bentley - noted that a nice job had been done by the Public Works Department in repairing Preserve Boulevard, B, Report of City Manager City Manager Jullie stated the Metropolitan Council's Ways and Means Commit- tee had decided to take no action on the Lake Ann interceptor question. He said the City would be notified when there is further action on the issue. Penzel suggested a letter be sent to the subcommittee commending it for this action. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to instruct City Manager Jullie to send a letter to the subcommittee commending it for its action. Motion carried unanimously, C, Report of City Attorney 1, -Discussion on Campaign Signs City Attorney Pauly referred to his memorandum of June 14, 1984, in which the matter of campaign signs was addressed, He noted that revisions to Code were suggested beginning on the second page of the memorandum, • MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to direct City Attorney Pauly to redraft the section of the City Code which deals with campaign signs as per his memorandum of June 14, 1984; and to direct the City Clerk to draft a letter to be sent to all candidates on the ballot giving the rules and regulations of the City and the County. Motion carried unanimously. D. Report of Director of Community Services 1, Teen Cooperative Employment Service Director of Community Services Lambert referred to his memorandum of June 14, 1984, in which this matter was addressed, MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to implement the Teen Cooperative Employment Service as outlined in the memorandum of June 14, I984, Motion carried unanimously. iiGL 1. City Council Minutes -6- June 19, 1984 2. Information on Bike Trail Grant Applications • Director of Community Services Lambert spoke to his memorandum of June 14, 1984. which indicated the City's request for $2 million for bikeway construction via a grant from MnDOT had been deleted from the Mn00T budget for 1985. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to accept the report regarding the City'' Bike Trail Grant Application. Motion carried unanimously. IX. NEW BUSINESS There was none. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 10 VD . 1 l • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1984 7;30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, Richard Anderson, Georg(' Bentley, Paul Redpath and George Tangen CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the Cit. Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Robert ' Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugune A. Dietz. 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; ..VIII, A. Anderson - Stop Signs on Kingston Drive; VIII. C, I. MIDB's; VIII, C, 2. Settlement in the Preserve - Rolfes/Briant; and VIII, C. 3. Carlson condemnation - off-ramp I-494/Valley View Road. The following item was moved from the regular Agenda to the Consent Calendar: VIII. oo 1. Wdpile Ordinance became item III. C. and was referred to the Park, Recreation& Natural—Resources Commission for its review. !1OTION; Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II, t1INUTES A, Board of Review meeting held Tuesday, May 22, 1984 MOTION; Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Minutes of the Board of Review Meeting held Tuesday, May 22: 1984, as published, Motion carried unanimously. • B. Special City_Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 22, 19B4 ' MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 22, 1984. as published. Motion carried unanimously, / ?( City Council Minutes -2- July 10, 1984 Ill. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 40-84 EDENVALE 18TH ADDITION by Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9,5 for 3,20 acres and Adoption,of Resolution No, 84-157, approving • Development Plan subject to conditions, Location: Edenvale Boulevard at Birch Island Drive) C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 44-84 MIN-TEX PHASE- IV (Zoning Amendment for 6.3 acres for one industrial lot in I-2 Park Zoning District, approval of amended Developer's Agreement for Min-Tex Phase IV, and adoption of Resolution No, 84-160, approving Summary of Ordinance..No; 44-84 and ordering the publi- cation of said Summary of Min-Tex Phase IV. Location: southwest quadrant of W. 70th Street and Shady Oak Road) D, Approval of Master Agreement for'Southwest CrossincjOveral1 Development E. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 27-84, SOUTHWEST CROSSING (Zoning District cl'iange from Commercial Regional to Office, approval of Developer's Agreement, and adoption of Resolution No. 84-168, approving Summary of Ordinance No, 27-84 and ordering publication of said Summary) F, 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 36-84-PUD-6-84, SOUTHWEST CROSSING II. (Zoning District-nag from Rural to I-2 Park for Office/Industrial use; approval of Developer's Agreement for Southwest Crossing II and adoption of Resolution No, 84-174, approving Summary of Ordinance No. 36-84-PUD-6-84 and ordering publication of said Summary for Southwest Crossing II. Loca- tion: northwest quadrant of County Road 18 and Highway I.494) G. ' Request of J.R, 'Nord, Inc, H. Award contract for Homeward Hills Park Grading, 1; C. 51=374 (Resolution FJo, 'II4-155 I. ' Set Public Hearing for Vacation of easements in Shady Oak Industrial Park 511 -Addition for 7:30 p,m.�lugust 7, 1984 J. Parking Prohibition for Proposed Anderson Lakes Parkway, MSAS #107 from Mitchell Road to TH 169 (Resolution No. $4-169) K, Resolution No. 84_-171 callingfor a Public Hearing for Housing Revenue Bonds in the Amount of $2,750,000,00 for Eden Investments (Edenvale Apartments II) L, Woodpile Ordinance (formerly VIII. B. 1.) Referred to Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission for its review. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson„to adopt items A - L on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously, l'iG / City Council Minutes -3- July 10, 1984 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. LION'S TAP by Bert Noterman and Lynn Charlson. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial for 1.6 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 24.2 acres into three lots. Location: northwest quad- rant of Hinhway 169 and County Road 4. (Resolution No. B4-162 - Comprehen- sive Guide Plan Amendment and Resolution No. B4-163 - Preliminary Plat) City Manager Jullie indicated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified. Bert Noterman, proponent, and Rick Sathre, engineer representing the pro- ponents, addressed the proposal, Planning Director Enger stated this request had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meetings on May 7, 1984, and again on June 18, 19B4. The Commission voted (3-2-0) to approve the preliminary plat and the Guide Plan change subject to the recommendations included in the memo from Enger to the Commission dated June 7, 1984, with the exception of recommendation #2, Director of Community Services Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed the request at its Meeting on July 2, 1984, at which time it had voted to recommend approval as per the Planning Staff Report,, • Bentley asked about the impact of this proposal on the intersection of County Road 4 and TH 169, Director of Public Works Dietz explained how the intersection is proposed to he changed at some time in the future. Jullie suggested the Council include direction to Staff requesting Staff communicate with Hennepin County officials requesting the County Road 4 roadway be shifted as outlined by Dietz, Redpath said he felt it was a good idea to straighten out that intersection. Oke Martinson, 7312 Franklin Circle, said it would be a good idea to do something at that intersection. Sever Peterson, County Road 4 and TH 169, said he had spoken with 12 neigh- bors and they all agreed this is a good proposal. Penzel called attention to a letter which had been received from Edgar E. Hall in support of the request. (see attached.) MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 84-162, amending the Comprehensive Guide Plan. • 'Motion carried unanimously, MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 84-163, approving the preliminary plat of Lion's Tap for Bert Noterman and Lynn Charl- son, Motion carried with Anderson voting "no." 1� 7� City Council Minutes -4- July 10, 1984 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement and to request the City Manager to write to Hennepin County relative to the intersection of TH 169 and County Road 4, Motion carried with Anderson voting "no." MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to reconsider the previous motion. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION; Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to direct Staff to prepare a Sunnary Resolution taking into consideration the recommendations included in the Planning Staff Report dated June 7, 1984, eliminating #2 of the recommendations; and to instruct City Manager Jullie to write to Hennepin County relative to the intersection of TH 169 and County Road 4. Motion carried with Anderson voting "no." B. PRAIRIE KNOLL, by Hestia Homes, Inc; Request.for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning from Rural to R1.9,5, with variances, for 60 single family residential units and Preliminary Plat of 24 acres into 60 lots and outlots. Location: northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard (Ordinance No, 47-84-PUD-7-84 - rezoning and Resolution No, 84-167 - Preliminary Plat) City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified. Bryan Nowak, representing Hestia Homes; reviewed the request. Director of Plannign Enger stated this request had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at several meetings. At its June 18, 1984, meeting the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval subject to the recom- mendations included in the Staff Report of May 4, 1984, Director of Community Services Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed this request at its meeting on July 7, 1984, at which time it voted to recommend approval. The Commission also recommended approval of the sale of 2.44 acres of park property based on the fair market value of the property provided the developer agreed to a street assessment and that Outlot 0 be dedicated to the City, Bentley asked what experience the City has had in the past with selling park property, Lambert said this would be the first time that has occurred. Bentley indicated he was not in favor of selling park property, "Anderson asked if this proposal was compatible with the Purgatory Creek Study. Lambert said it was. Anderson asked how much traffic would be added to Valley View Road as a result of this development. Enger said each unit would generate approximately 10 trips per day for a total of 600 trips total. Enger noted this proposal is scheduled to be built over a period of three years at which time the connection of Edenvale Boulevard to the north would be made and would take some of the traffic off of Valley View Road, ji) 9 City Council Minutes -5- 10, 1984 Redpath asked the reason detached garages were included in the project. Nowak said it was the intent of the developer to break up the streetscape and to maximize the variety within the project. Tangen inquired as to whether or not additional right-of-way would be necessary when Valley View Road is upgraded. Director of Public Works Dietz said a 40' right-of-way has been requested on the north side of Valley View Road, Tangen asked if there would be basements included with these homes. Nowak said full or partial basements are included with each unit. Tangen noted the units appeared to be similar in style and asked what variations there were. Nowak said the developer is looking for archi- tectural continuity with,the variety coming via the types of garages, dormers, and trim colors. Tangen asked how small the smallest lot would be. Nowak said 7,000 sq, ft. Tangen asked if this was a new concept as far as zero lot lines are concerned. Enger said the Summer Woods project in Edenvale started out as a zero lot line concept but did not end up that way -- there are no developments like this in Eden Prairie at the present time. Tangen noted that the Council is looking at a new type of development which is different -- will the Council set a precedent by including this in a PUD and will there now be a flood of proposals before the City as a result of this? Enger said there is another similar type proposal before the Planning Commission now. He did not feel there would any great difference noted in developments where a zero lot line is used and those which have used the standard lot lines in the past. Penzel noted there had been a problem in that some of the adjacent property owners had not been notified of this evenings Hearing. He asked about the validity of tonight's Public Hearing. City Attorney Pauly said the notice had been published and copies of the notice had been mailed to those living within 350' of the proposed development, He added that failure to notify each property owner, when a "good faith" attempt has been made to do so, does not invalidate the Hearing. Enger stated that 352 property owners had been notified; the owners of 13 parcels had not been notified. Penzel asked about the sight distances from the road out of this development with Valley View Road, Enger said the minimum sight distances were met at the Ontario Boulevard - Valley View Road intersection. Redpath asked how the lot sizes in this development would compare with those in the Westover development and/or were there any projects in the metropolitan area which were comparable to the proposed. Nowak said there were none of which he was aware, David Bowers, 15800 Valley View Road. said he had some problems with the project as proposed, He stated that he was not in favor of the architecture -- in particular the pitch of the roofs and the fact that the garages were detached; he said this would not be compatible with the homes in the area which are on 12 acre lots, { e /5-90 City Council Minutes -6- July 10, 1984 Cedric Warren, 7324 Franklin Circle, indicated he had not been notified of tonight's hearing; his property abuts the project, He asked how the City could assume that the developer would design a hike/bike trail at the present time all that is in the area is a trail, He said he would not advise approval of the development. He related the problems he has had in his backyard due to drainage problems, Dietz said the City will check into the problem. 0ke Martinson, 7312 East Franklin Circle, said he is concerned -- he felt Eden Prairie deserves something better than this proposal. These are spec homes; these are cheap houses and will be the future slums, He expressed concern about where snow would be.put in the winter, Mary Sampson, 7308 Franklin Circle, said she would like to see the continuity of the area preserved; most of the people in the area live on i acre lots. She said this development will intrude on the wildlife, She also noted that the increased traffic on Valley View Road will add to the lead problem found in children; Steve Hanson, 15910 Valley View Road, said he was against the proposal because of the increased traffic on Valley View Road, Mike Pohlen; owner of the property, said he had turned down other projects which have been proposed for this property, but he liked this one. He asked the Council to support the proposal, Bowers asked for a review of the action taken by the Planning Commission. Bentley said this proposal cannot be compared to Westover as Westover was developed as cluster homes and he was not thrilled with the changes which were made there, He stated he would not vote in favor of this proposal as long as any sale of park property was involved, Redpath noted that the reason most of the lots in the area are 1 acre in area is due to the fact that they came to be before there was a City sewer system, Penzel expressed concern regarding the sale of park land and the policy it sets -- he said this must be answered from a principle standpoint, Tangen said he questionned the number of units which should be allowed in this type of development, Anderson expressed concern about the traffic on Valley View Road and the sale of park land necessary for the projecet, Bentley noted ,that the developer had provided transition areas within the project which would buffer adjacent residential units from the smaller lots and units, MOTION; Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley. to continue action on this request to the meeting of August 7, 1984. to allow the developer to revise the proposal subject to the comments expressed this evening, Motion carried unanimously, /69) City Council Minutes -7- July 10, 1984 C. ST. ANDREW CHURCH. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from low and medium density residential to church for 4.95 acres; zoning district change from Rural to Public for 1.2 acres; and site plan amend- ment for Church expansion for 3.75 acres. Location: northwest quadrant of Baker Road and Valley View Road. (Resolution No. 84-164 - comprehen- sive Guide Plan Change and Ordinance No. 46-84 - rezoning) City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and adjacent property owners had been notified. Pastor Rod Anderson, Harold Leiferman, and Fred Hoisington were present to address the proposal. Director of Planning Enger said the Planning Commission had reviewed this request at its June 18, 1984, meeting at which time it voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the June 8, 1984, Staff Report. There was no report from the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commis- sion. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 84-164, amending the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 46-84, rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to prepare an • amendment to the Developer's Agreement for St. Andrew Church as per Commis- sion and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. D. KURVERS ADDITION, by Franklin J. Kurvers. Request for zoning district change from Rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat of 2.0 acres into five single family residential lots. Location: east of Highway #101, north of Autumn Woods, south of Rymarland Camp. (Ordinance No. 47-84 - rezoning, Resolution No. 84-164 - preliminary plat) City Manager Jullie indicated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and adjacent property owners had been notified. Mel Kurvers was present to addressed the request. Planning Director Enger noted this item had been reviwed by the Planning Commission at is meeting on June 18, 1984, at which time it voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the June 8, 1984, Staff Report, There were no comments from the audience, City Council Minutes -8- July 10, 1984 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to give Ist Reading to Ordinance No. 47-84 - rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 84-165, approving the preliminary plat of Kurvers Addition for et al. Motion carried uanimously. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to prepare a Summary Resolution of Approval per Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 14416 - 14716 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 14416 - 14716. 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. LEE DATA. Request for review of Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding of no significant impact for expansion of Office portion by 72,000 sq. ft. Location: east of Flying Cloud Drive, south of West 70th Street, (Resolution No. 84-166) MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 84-166, finding the environmental assessment worksheet for Lee Data a private action, does not require an environmental impact statement. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ANO COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members Anderson - Stop Signs on Kingston Drive - Anderson stated the mid-block stop signs on Kingston Drive are unwarranted and a nuisance; he suggested they be removed. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to notify Kings Forest resi- dents that the stop signs on Kingston Drive will be on the August 7, 1984, City Council agenda at which time their removal will be discussed. Public Safety and the Engineering Oepartment were advised to review sight distances and make recommendations as to the safety of the signs. Motion carried unanimously. Tangen asked that a progress report be made on stops signs at Edenvale loulevard and Valley View Road. He said this should be a priority item. 1595. City Council Minutes -9- July 10, 1984 Redpath - suggested Dean Scheff be commended for following through with the landscaping plan which had been approved for CPT. He noted that CPT's grounds look very nice. Tangen - indicated the Council should be looking at the 9.5 zoning classi- fication and should develop some guidelines for Staff as to what should and should not be considered and/or allowed in this district. Enger said he thought this was a good idea; the goal of the 9.5 district was to provide affordable housing in Eden Prairie. B. Report of City Manager 1. Woodpile Ordinance - this item was moved to the Consent Calendar as item III. L. and was referred to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission for its review. C. Report of City Attorney 1. MIDB's City Attorney Pauly explained and reviewed recent Federal Legislation regarding Industrial Revenue Bonds and the effect this legislation will have on the City. 2. Settlement in The Preserve - Rolfes/Briant • City Attorney Pauly recommended the stipulation presented to the Council this evening be approved subject to the changes as outlined by Pauly. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the stipulation agreement between Rolfes/Briant as reviewed by City Attorney Pauly, subject to the changes as outlined by Pauly this evening. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Carlson condemnation - off-ramp I-494 and Valley View Road City Attorney Pauly noted the cost of the property which was condemned was $1.80 per square foot. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Anderson, to authorize Staff to proceed with a settlement in this condemnation proceeding. Roll call . vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. D.• Report of Director of Public Works 1. Award Contract for Flying Cloud Drive, I,C. 52-064 (Resolution No. 84-173) MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to award the contract for the improvements to Flying Cloud Drive to Opus Corporation. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. J9f City Council Minutes -10- July 10, 1984 IX. NEW BUSINESS • There was none. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adjourn the meeting at I0:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. • PAS ra • St. Andrew Lutheran Church CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ( HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 97-84 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 COOE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Public District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Public 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. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , entered into between St. Andrew Lutheran Church and the City of Eden Prairie, and that certain Owner's Supplement to Developer's Agreement, between Mr. and Mrs. David Moerer, husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie, dated as of which Agreement and Owner's Supplement are hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. 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 10th day of July, 1984, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 28th day of August, 1984. ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of • r5'96 . • . 1 • i Ev"ibit A • • • • • For Rezoning from Rural to Public 1. Zoning that part of Lots 31 and 32, Auditor's Subdivision Number 225 Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies northwesterly of the northwesterly right-of-way line of 100-foot highway easement described in Document No. 4725427 and lying southwesterly ( of the southwesterly right-of-way line of 50-foot highway easement as described in Document No. 4725427. • • • • • • • • • • • • Mir St. Andrew Lutheran Church (Revised) DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT • This Supplement to Developer's Agreement made and entered into as of this • day of , 1984, by and between St. Andrew Church, Developer of the property as described in the developer's agreement between St. Andrew Church and the City of Eden Prairie, dated May 31, 1979, and the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City;" WHEREAS, Owner has applied for Zoning District Change from Rural to Public for 1.2 acres, to be known as, "the property,"; WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend said agreement; and, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. • --The Developer's Agreement shall be and hereby is supplemented and amended in the following respects: A. Paragraph 1. shall be amended to read as follows: Owner shall develop the property in conformance with the revised material dated July 16_1984, reviewed and approved as amended by the City Council on July a),1984, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. B. Paragraphs 2. and 3. shall be deleted. C. There shall be added paragraphs 2 and 3 as follows: . 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Owner shall: A. Modify the landscape plan to provide for appropriate • screening of parking areas along Baker Road and St. Andrew Drive through berming and planting materials. Deciduous trees shall be a minimum of 2/ caliper • inches, coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six • • • / 91 -i • feet in height, and shrubs shall be a minimum of three feet in height. Berm height along Baker Road and St. Andrew Drive frontages shall be three feet in height and plantings shall be used to enhance screening. B. Submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plans. Grading and erosion control plans shall reflect snow fencing at the edge of the grading limits and show methods of protection of the trees to remain on the site during the grading process. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Owner shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above. C. Submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of lighting standards. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Owner shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above. • 3. St. Andrew Church agrees to all of the terms and conditions and accepts the obligations of "Developer" under the Developer's Agreement, as amended and supplemented herein. WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this Supplement to Developer's 1 Agreement the day and year first above written. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE• • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ' • • Carl J. Jullie, City Manager • • /09R St. Andrew Lutheran Church CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ' HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 84-210 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 97-84 AND OROERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 97-84 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 28th day of August, 1984; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 97-84, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a • body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 97-84 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by. paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 28, 1984. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: • John U. Frane, City • Clergy • /69OU • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 46-84 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, CDNTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: • Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located at Baker Road and 3f7- drew Drive, known as St. Andrew Lutheran Church expansion, from Rural District to Public, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance .shall take effect upon publication. • ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Wolfgang H. Penzel City Clerk Mayor • • PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , f984. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) (oo1 • . MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullic, City Manager /��, FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services 1�'� DATE: August 23, 1984 SUBJECT: Sub Lease With Hennepin County Regarding Leaf Recycling.Center Attached, for your review, is a copy of the proposed Lease Agreement Between the City of Eden Prairie and Hennepin County. The City has leased a portion of property along Spring Road from the Metropolitan Airports Commission for a riding arena and for a proposed leaf recycling center. This agreement is the sub lease to the County for the operation of the leaf recycling center. This sub lease uses the same language that was provided.in the lease agreement between MAC and the City of Eden Prairie regarding the terms of the lease, the liability, and requirements for fencing, compliance with airport laws, etc. Representatives of the County have reviewed this lease and have agreed to the terms. City staff requests the City Council to approve this lease agreement for signature,• at which time it will be forwarded to the County for their signature. Grading has already begun on the riding arena and the County will begin grading on their site as soon as this is approved by the County Board. County staff would like to have this leaf recycling center in operation this fall. • BL:md • ihU • LEASE This LEASE made and entered into this day of 1984, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter re • - ferred to as the "County" and the City of Eden Prairie, a body • politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, here- inafter referred to as the "City"; WHEREAS, the City has leased certain property from the Metropoli- tan Airports Commission, including the premises described below, and WHEREAS, the City wishes to sublease the premises described below • to the County to be used as a leaf recycling center, and WHEREAS, the County is desirous of instituting a leaf recycling • center on the premises described below, and WHEREAS, the County and the City are authorized by Minnesota Statute E471.59 to enter into agreements providing for the exercise of powers shared in common, • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises herein recited and of the covenants, conditions and agreements hereinafter set forth to be made, kept and performed by the County and the City, it is hereby agreed: • I, The City in consideration of the rents and covenants hereinafter mentioned, does hereby demise, lease and let unto the County, and the County does hereby hire and take from the City, the following described premises situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, Viz: The South 350 feet of the following described parcel: • The Southerly 400 feet of the Westerly 433 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, • Township 116, Range 22, excluding the right-of-way of Hennepin County Road No. 4 and the Northerly 350 feet of the Westerly 533 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28 Township 116N, Range 22W, excluding the right-of-way of Hennepin-_- County Road No. 4. •• II. The term of this Lease shall be on a year-to-year basis not to exceed a 3-year term, commencing May 1, 1984 with an option to renew for additional yearly periods at renta] rates to be determined at that time. Renewal will be based and contingent upon the City's renewal of its lease with the Metropolitan Airports Commission for the premises. A request for renewal must be submitted by the County at least 90 days 1o • prior to the expiration of the last year of the term of the agreement. This Lease may be terminated by either party upon a 90-day notice in writing to the other, prior to the expiration of any given year of the term of this agreement, and in the event of termination the County shall have 90 days within which to remove its personality, equipment and fixtures located or placed thereon and to restore the premises. • In the event that the County exercises its option to renew, the City shall have the right to reject such election and terminate this Lease effective as of the last day of the then current term, by giving written notice of such rejection and termination to the Director Department of Environment and Energy, at 320 Washington Avenue South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343, within thirty (30) days after actual receipt of the County's -notice of exercise. If the City does not give notice of rejection and termination within said thirty (30) day period, this Lease shall be deemed to be extended upon the terms and conditions agreed upon. ' III. As rent for the premises, the County shall pay to the City $250.00 annually in advance. IV. • The City and County agree that this Lease is being entered into and the premises may only be used for the following purposes to-wit: for the purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining a leaf recycling center and keeping on said premises stock piles of leaves, and other materials to be used in the leaf composting operation and . for ingress and egress to and over the leased premises. The right of ingress and egress shall be upon and along such course or route as is i. reasonably necessary and may be improved, graded and maintained by the County at such times and in such matter as may be reasonably necessary for the transportation of materials to and from the leaf recycling center upon notice to and approval by the City. The County will be responsible for paying for one-half the cost of the joint access road that will provide access to the leaf recycling center. V. Tbe.County shall: a) provide screening of the leaf recycling site through • berming along Ilennepin County Road No. 4 and the berming and grading plan are subject to the approval of the City; b) upon termination of this Lease, remove from the leased premises all materials placed by it thereon, and, at the option of the City, restore the leased premises to their original condition; • -2- 16U4 • a. ' • c) idemnify, save and hold harmless the City and all of its agents and employees of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, costs and expense of what- ever nature, including attorneys' fees, arising out of or by reason of the County's use of the leased premises provided for herein, or as a result of the City's execution of this agreement or any action taken as a result thereof; d) defend at its own sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced against the City for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatever nature which may arise as a result of the work performed or use of the leased premises by the County; e) adequately fence the premises to prevent unauthorized access to the airport operational areas and limit ac- cess to the leaf recycling center by means of a gate, cable or similar device, to prevent the unauthorized dumping of garbage and waste and to eliminate all unauthorized access to the premises; f) require compliance with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of United States of America, State of Min- nesota, or of agencies, departments or divisions of either, including but not limited to, FAA regulations and state zoning requirements in connection with any use of or improvements on the premises; g) prevent any use of the premises which would interfere with or be a hazard to the flight of aircraft over the property or to and from the airport or interfere with air navagation and communication facilities presently or in the future serving the airport; h) restrict the height of structures,• objects of natural growth and other objects on the premises to a height that will not constitute an obstruction as determined by the FAA; i) prohibit lights to be used or installed on the premises which will have a detrimental effect on control tower operations or otherwise affect night operations of the airport; j) keep the premises and improvements situated thereon free and clear of any and all liens in any way arising out of ± the use thereof by the County, and shall not sublet the :i. whole or any part of the premises or assign all or any part of its present interest in this Lease without first obtaining the written consent of the City, nor shall the County make use of the premises for any purpose other than r those expressly stated herein; 4 I —3— a 1(o0J • k) pay any and all taxes, assessments, license fees or other charges that may be legally levied, assessed or made during the term of this lease or any extension thereof by reason of the uses hereby permitted of the premises; • 1) refrain from creating any unreasonable noise, dust, or odor in the conduct of its operations on the leased premises and in the event of .a complaint by any owner of adjacent property that any unreasonable noise, dust or odor is being created or produced by such operation, will eliminate the same promptly. VI. The County and the City each binds itself, its successors, executors, administrators and assigns to the other in respect to all covenants of this Lease. VII. 'It is understood that this Lease and use of the premises is conditioned upon and shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Metropolitan Airports Commission as owner and operator of the public airport of which the subject premises constitute a part. The County agrees that the Metropolitan Airports Commission, shall at all times and through its agents and employees or contractors have a right of entry upon the premises, as may be necessary in the develop- ment, maintenance, operation and control of the airport, with the further right reserved to the Metropolitan Airports Commission to install and maintain under the premises such utility lines, conduits, pipes and facilities as may be necessary to the development of said "airport, provided the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall at its costs and expense repair any damages and restore any portion of the premises damaged by reason of such installation and maintenance. VIII. The County expressly agrees that this Lease, and the rights and privileges contained herein, is contingent upon the City's license agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which is incorporated herein by reference. The County agrees to indemnify, save and hold harmless the City from any and all liability which may result from said license of this Lease. In the event of the termina- tion of.this Lease for any reason whatsoever, the County shall, and hereby does waive any and claims of any character for damages or loss which it may sustain for any reason or cause whatsoever. • IX. The City agrees that, upon the performance of the covenants, f conditions and agreements contained herein, the County shall and may • • • -4 • - .' peacefully have, hold and enjoy the premises for the purposes and term stated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease this day of , 1984. Dated: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA By Wolfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor By • Carl J. Jullie, Manager COUNTY OF HENNEPIN By Chairman of its County Board • By • Associate County Administrator and County Engineer By Director, Department of : Environment and Energy • -5- 41 1:11Caa August 6, 1984 Mayor Wolfgang Penzel 7236 Ticonderoga Trail Eden Prairie, MN Dear Mayor Penzel: The City of Chaska recently received preliminary approval from MnDot of our application for funds under the "Metropolitan Transit Service Demon- stration Project". Final approval will be granted contingent upon the outcome of a feasibility study of transit options for our local area, which includes Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. This study is to be funded from monies available to Chaska through the "Opt Out" program. Should the three cities implement transit services after the feasibility, it is our understanding that Chaska would be reimbursed with "Opt Out" funds by Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. The City of Chaska is establishing an advisory committee to administer and monitor the feasibility study. I request that you designate a representa- tive from Eden Prairie/Chanhassen for the committee. The committees duties will consist of: • 1. Draft Request for Proposals. 2. Review Proposals. 3. Award Contract. 4. Monitor Consultant's progress. 5. Review Final Report. 6. Participate in final decision. There are many transit needs in our communities that are presently not being met. It is our hope that this feasibility study is the first step in providing better transportation alternatives in our area. Sincere y, Tracy D. Swanson '" Mayor, City of Chaska TDS:jai ?i ^u :u, ,r,'.=rn , . d _ TO: Mayor Penzel and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works DATE: August 23, 1984 SUBJECT: Reitherman Lot Split We have recently received an application for an administrative split of another lot in the Eden Heights subdivision. Attached for your information is a portion of Section 20 which shows the lot in question. The request is to split the center WO X 450' portion of Lot 5, Block 2 in half. The solid line on the attached drawing indicates the original lot dimensions in the subdivision. The dotted lines indicate all those parcels that have been split subsequent to the original plat of the property. I do not perceive any particular problems in the area, but over the past few years there have been a number of questions regarding lot splits in this particular area. Therefore, I have submitted you this information for your review. • • Unless directed otherwise. I will process an administrative subdivision of this property. EAD:sg • Iff) i • . • - •- • _ . { r r 1 : ?�9 - V EKES.,\ • 1 �:- -- ----- - �} --- N - v� ; ii .... j �MM 1 O . i fC - i- ' • ' ---= -----'- - -. CC to CC. -. 1 ----- -- ' d' -- - St1 -----szzr� :-.--- .--- F - - 1 P • 1 -' 6 trt co 0. +I r:, < 1 =' J 1 LS. c • `i #tc 1 J ♦- 17Z , 5:: _ .irr:f. J_ be . ror f. eft CSI �' '.a !f rf - - _____ _� I/O� _-I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South .V U i Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 `F': HENNEPIN D/ • n 935-3381 _J TiY 935-6433 • August 15, 1984 . Mr. Gene Dietz, P.E.• City Engineer City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Revocation and Redesignation of CSAH 39 Dear Mr. Dietz: As construction on new Valley View Road and the new I-494 interchange nears completion our two agencies should begin the turnback process for redesignating CSAH 39. To accomplish redesignation, we neea a resolution from the Eden Prairie City Council concurring with the following: -revocation of existing CSAH 39 and turnback to City jurisdiction. -designation of new Valley View Road as CSAH 39. -revocation of the existing MSAS designation on new Valley View Road. I've attached a sample resolution for your use. Please submit it or a similar one to the City Council for approval. Following action by the Council, return two (2) certified copies to me. • --The actual roadway jurisdiction exchange won't become effective until completion of new Valley View Road scheduled for 19E5. However, construction has severed continuity of old CSAH 39 and through traffic is switched to the new alignment. As an interim measure prior to the jurisdiction exchange, the County should handle snow and ice control on proposed CSAH 39 and Eden Prairie should assume these duties on existing CSAH 39 for the corning winter season. Please notify me if this proposal is acceptable. If you have any questions contact Douglas Mattson at this office. Sincerely, /1?)7 --'apr.l.d." D. W. Schmidt, P.E. Planning and Programming( t_ DWS/DBM:p1 Encl. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer Min .. _r,— : 7 :1: • ..., ,., n w t7 ^ , 't. N MTaNT l•� Gga ,.j. 6, qSO I TNO .Ou, R. vC Nill � 0 e LtY Li 1���\'� r III ' �+ P :a 3 ! gryOM \> > o`E��y•.LEES. �\\ !�1 •.701 T v •"' w�"6J a 'fl? ! toe ':l OW q • s; ` � f' a aq uo-�s ..J, . ...__- p u M G a^ C u I VIEW s le' La "( / `'q 0)/4' �� .w� t( . SC )0NER o•__�,,/ U VARD i % .L•=" 1 EX • So.,rn O w. role ST 1.--\---41 5 �` J_ t, o EVEN PRAIRIE 169 E ii „ .60S e 1146NNj7N \ SINGLE T eE / I� 1 ,7 1 \ r %%landi \ i{k1 i i \ EP Ni 4,1 , . I\� I cp* 4 4 , ----) La 1 pf 11 ali ••• a ; • - a y *Le 1,aT . LANE If 1 M 1: 1 * �� e-- •ML0 /( PROPOSED REDESIGNATION CSAH 39 1 >04.0* 46404 REVOCATION DESIGNATION ` /(pJo 1 Novombot,1982 I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 84-217 REVOCATION AND REDESIGNATION OF CSAH 39 WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has recently constructed a newly aligned Valley View Road between County State Aid Highway 60(Baker Road and I-494); and WHEREAS, by mutual agreement between the City of Eden Prairie and Hennepin County it has been understood that the County will assume maintenance responsibilities for the newly constructed Valley View Road and the City will assume maintenance responsibilities for Roberts Drive (formerly Valley View Road). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that Eden Prairie concurs with the revocation of a portion of present County State Aid Highway 39 (Roberts Drive, formerly Valley View Road) from a point on or near the north-south quarter line of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, the intersection of County State Aid Highway 39 and County State Aid Highway 60 (Baker Road), approximately 1435 feet south of the north quarter corner of said Section 10, thence easterly along Roberts Drive to a point approximately 1440 feet east and 240 feet south of the west quarter corner of Section 11, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, and there terminate, all within the City of Eden Prairie, as described within Commissioner of Transportation Order No. 65318 dated February 2, 1981, and that this roadway be returned to the City of Eden Prairie to be under their jurisdiction as a municipal street. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie concurs with designating as County State Aid Highway 39 the new alignment of Valley View Road beginning at a point approximately 1170 feet east and 180 feet south of the west quarter corner of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, which is the intersection of new Valley View Road and County State Aid Highway 60 (Mitchell Road) thence easterly along new Valley View Road to a point approximately 144D feet east and 240 feet south of the west quarter corner of Section II, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, and there terminate, all within the City of Eden Prairie, and that this roadway be returned to Hennepin County to be under the County's jurisdiction as a County State Aid Highway. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie requests that the Commissioner of Transportation revoke the Municipal State Aid Street designation of new Valley View Road concurrent with the designation of this roadway as County State Aid Highway 39. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said County State Aid Highway and Municipal State Aid Street designation revocation and said road jurisdictional exchange becomes effective upon completion of construction of the new Valley View Road alignment. ADOPTED BY THE Eden Prairie City Council on August 28, 1964. • John D. Franc, City Clerk Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor /61O6 August 28, 1984 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE •HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION R84-220 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF GONYEA 4TH ADDITION ' WHEREAS, the plat of Gonyea 4th Addition . 'has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for Gonyea 4th Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated 8/20/84. • B. 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. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.• ADOPTED by the City Council on August 28, 1984. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Franc, Clerk • ' • • • HAfi CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Penzel and City Council Members r THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician DATE: August 2D, 1984 • SUBJECT: GONYEA 4TH ADDITION PROPOSAL: The developer, Dennis Gonyea, has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Gonyea 4th Addition. The plat contains approximately 37 acres with the proposed division to consist of 31 single family residential lots and 5 outlots. Outlots A,B,D and E are to be rezoned and platted in the future in conformance with the approved PUD. Outlot C contains a pond and wetlands with dedication to the City intended. This plat is located north of T.H. 5 and east of Co. Rd. 4 in the North % of Section B. HISTORY: The Planned Unit Development was approved by the City Council on l April 15, 1980, per Resolution 80-43. t The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on March 27, 1984, per Resolution 84-53. Zoning to RI-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council on May 1, 1984, per Ordinance 23-84. A Development Plan dated March 19, 1984, was approved by the City Council on May 1, 1984, per Resolution 84-81. • Resolution 84-81 also summarizes specific conditions for approval of the plat. VARIANCES: All variance requests not described in Ordinance 23-84 or Resolution 84-81 must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities and streets will be installed throughout the •subdivision in conformance with City standards. . , PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication will comply to the requirements of the City Code. BONDING: Bonding will be in conformance with City Code requirements. /(9/2 Pg. 2, Final Plat Gonyea 4th Addition 8/20/84 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Gonyea 4th Addition subject to the requirements of this report, Resolution 84-81 and the following: 1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $670.00. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $4,680.00. 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $930.00. 4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements for streets, utilities, and drainage improvements. 5. Receipt of Warranty Deed for Outlot C or signed statement from the developer indicating future ownership responsibilities. 6. Approved entrance permits from Hennepin County for access to CSAH 4. DLO:sg cc: G. Sunde, P.E. Dennis Gonyea • • 161 Y • t'. • TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director DATE: August 23, 1984 RE: Final approval for Kinder Care, $465,000 - Resolution 84-197 ' The final resolution has been approved by the City Attorney's office. Resolution 84-197 is attached for your consideration. This transaction is not part of the City's M.I.D.B. cap. JDF:bw 8/23/84 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROJECT UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND THE ISSUANCE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE PROJECT (KINDER-CARE LEARNING CENTERS, INC. PROJECT) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: • 1. The Council has received a proposal from Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. , a Delaware corporation (the "Company") that the City undertake to finance a certain Project as herein described, pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes (the "Act"), through issuance by the City of its $465,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1984 (Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. Project) (the "Bonds"), to be purchased by RepublicBank Dallas, National Association (the "Bond Purchaser"). ;r 2. The Company desires to acquire certain real • estate and construct thereon a day-care and child learning center (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"). The Project as described above will provide employment to approximately 20 1 additional persons and will otherwise further the policies and purposes of the Act and the findings made in the preliminary resolution adopted by this Council on December 20, 1983 with respect to the Project are hereby ratified, affirmed and approved. 3. It is proposed that, pursuant to a Loan Agreement between the City and the Company (the "Loan Agreement"), the City loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company to finance the cost of the Project. The basic payments to be made by the Company under the Loan Agreement are fixed so as to produce revenue sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. It is further proposed that the City assign its rights to the basic payments and certain other rights under the Loan Agreement to First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A., in Montgomery, Alabama (the "Trustee") as security for payment of the Bonds under an Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture") and that the Company grant '6'S a mortgage and security interest in the Project to the Trustee pursuant to a Mortgage and Security Agreement (the "Mortgage") and to further secure the payment of the Bonds and the interest thereon, enter into a Guaranty Agreement between the Company and the Trustee (the "Guaranty"). 4. This Council by action taken on December 20, 1983 gave preliminary approval to the proposal and in June, 1984 the Energy and Economic Development Authority of the State of Minnesota gave approval to the Project as tending to further the purposes and policies of the Act. 5. Pursuant to the preliminary approval of the Council, forms of the following documents have been submitted to the Council for approval: (a) The Loan Agreement. (b) The Indenture. (c) The Mortgage. (not executed by the City) (d) The Guaranty. (not executed by the City) 6. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) the Project described in the Loan Agreement and Indenture referred to above constitutes a Project authorized by the Act; (b) the purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare by the acquisition, construction and equipping of a facility for use as a child day-care center; • (c) the Project is to be located within the City limits, at a site which is easily accessible to employees residing within the City and the surrounding communities; (d) the acquisition, construction and installation of the Project, the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the execution and delivery by the City of the Loan Agreement, and the Indenture, and the performance of all covenants and agreements of • • '(Dl1P the City contained in the Loan Agreement and Indenture and of all other acts and things required under the constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement, Indenture and Bonds valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act; • (e) it is desirable that the Company be authorized, in accordance with the provisions of Section 474.03 of the Act and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Loan Agreement, which terms and conditions the City determines to be necessary, desirable and proper, to complete E. the acquisition and installation of the Project by such means as shall be available to the Company J and in the manner determined by the Company, and wiwith or without advertisement for bids as required for the acquisition and installation of municipal facilities; 4 t (f) it is desirable that the Bonds be issued { by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture; (g) the basic payments under the Loan Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds issued under the Indenture when due, and the Loan Agreement, Mortgage and Indenture also provide that the Company is required to pay all expenses 3 - of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation., adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes • and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project Premises and payable during the term of the Mortgage, Loan Agreement and Indenture; i (h) under the provisions of Minnesota - Statutes, Section 474.10, and as provided in the c .. Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; t the City is not subject to any liability thereon; • • 140 • no holder of any Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the Bonds or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the interests y. of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall recite that the Bonds are issued without moral obligation on the part of the state or its political subdivisions, and that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof; and, the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation; no provision, covenant or agreement contained in the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Bonds, any Certificate executed by the City or any other documents executed by the City or any obligation herein or therein imposed upon the City, or the breach thereof, shall i constitute or give rise to impose upon the issuer or any of its officers, agents or employees, a pecuniary liability or a charge against the j, issuer's general credit or taxing powers; and (i) No public official of the City has either a direct or indirect financial interest in the Project nor will any public official either g directly or indirectly benefit financially from the Project. 7. Subject to the approval of the City Attorney, the forms of the Loan Agreement and Indenture and exhibits thereto are approved substantially in the form submitted. The Loan Agreement and Indenture are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager. Any other documents and certificates necessary to the trans- )' action described above shall be executed by the appropriate City officers. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided herein and in said Loan Agreement and Indenture. • i 4 IG,i2 8. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its Bonds, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture. The offer of the Bond Purchaser to purchase the . Bonds for $465,000 plus accrued interest to the date of delivery at the interest rate or rates specified in the Indenture is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee for authentication and delivery to the Bond Purchaser. 9. The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Bond Purchaser certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. 10. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the City officials authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said City officials are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the City. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence of the Mayor or Manager, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed by the Acting Mayor or the City Manager, respectively. Passed: August 28, 1984 Mayor Attest City Clerk • w " (SEAL) • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: August 23, 1984 • SUBJECT: Warranty Deed for Carmel Park As a condition for approval of the Carmel Subdivision north of Bryant Lake Park, Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. agreed to sell a parcel containing approximately 14 acres to the City of Eden Prairie for $20.000. Attached, for your review, is a copy of the warranty deed provided by Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. transferring that property to the City of Eden Prairie. The City Attorney is in the process of completing a title search on this property. Staff requests the City Council approve accepting the warranty deed for Carmel Park subject to the City Attorney's title opinion. BLmd • • S . Xifjiss 3 iibtnture,.trade this...........•.........Gth..... day of.._August.....................io84 between..__..Hans Iliujen homes, Inc I a corporation under the laws of the State of........Minnesota ,.•,,,,••,__.,,•_•••••, party of Sue first part,and City of Eden Prairie, a Municipal Corporation ! under the lows ofthe Slate o Minnesota party ofthe attend part, A Nlc4tM.1.YS�RX:{+r /.... ....... ._...... .......Pa y , tilitICSSel1), That the aid party of the first part,in consideration of the ono,of....._One•••,Dollar ..,..__ and other wood and valuoble consideration (a1.0 ) DOLLARS, • 1 to it in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,does f hereby Grant,Sartain,Sell,and Convey unto the said party of the second part,its surcessors and assigns. -f iR Forever,all the tract parcel...._of land lying and being in the County of...................._.... _. ._.__...____ and Stale of Minnesota.a,described as follows,!o•Ncit: tisaneP. l Tnet Dart of the Northwest (bertor of the lbrthoast(barter of Section 2, Township 116, ! Range 22. Hennepin County, Minnesota.described as beginning et the northeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 2 I degrees 15 minutes 29 seconds East along the eastllne of said Northwest Quarter of ,. Northeast(barter 814.24 foot;thence North 73 degrees 02 minutes West 179,10 feet; thence westerly 60.40 foot along a tangential curve concave to the south having a central i angle of 22 degrees and a radius of 157.30 foot;thence North 59 degrees 40 minutes 22 " seconds West and not tangent to last described curve, a distance of 185.03 feet;thence .North 60 degrees 16 minutes West 576.24 toot; thence North 22 degrees 12 minutes West • 109.40 foot thence North 89 degrees 44 minutes West 200.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees' 16 minutes East'305.64 feet to a point on the north line of weld Northwest Quarter of . Northeast (barter of Section 2 distant 1134.55 feet west Iron sold northeast corner of _ 1 Northwest(barter of Northeast Quarter of Section 2; thence North 87 degrees 57 minutes ' 1 26 seconds East 1134.55 foot along said north line of Northwest Quarter of Northeast • Quarter of Section 2 to the point of beginning. ; Subject to a public street easement over the most westerly 50 feet thereof. I two babe dab to Ojolb(file faint, Togcther with all the hereditarnents and appurtenances thereunto belonging.or in anywise appertaining.to the said party of the second part,its successors and assigns,For. 0 ever.And the said........._Hans Hagen"._Homes, Inc..,._.,.._•_„• ; 1 party of the first part,for itself and its successors,does corcnant with the said party of the strand part, its successors and assigns,that it is well seined in fee if the lands and premises a foresail,and has good right to sell and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid,and that the same are free from all • ineumbrances ..........___.._._..._. ....„. f • i 1 ' • t • ' And the above bargained and granted lands and premises, in the quiet and peaceable possession of the 7. . said party of the second part,its successors and assigns, against all persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof,subject to ineuh,branees,if any,hereinbefore mentioned, the said party of the first pp-Orin IVaNrpnt and Defend. . • /�� !II Zttitt;::o::p di.ltimt a. The said first party has caused these .• a presents to be executed in its corporate name by its..."_V ice„_,_,.._•• -. ., President and 74..aecreta ry............ ....and its corporate seat to be hereienlo a/fi,ted the day and year first above written. Hans Hlagen Homess..._Inc._._..__..... _.._._ By.e .2[.rC.Ge..lej..✓�.tc..31:1L'G[ps•)..._._„. jy._•"_Vice. President and Secretary 'tate of Sl'Tinncti , 1,, • Countyof...Ramsey j 1ota The foreeoinel instrument WEE arknolrledeed before me this......6.th day of....._]tugM§t...........................................19...84......1 • Patricia J. Froberg, Vice President and Secretary by OANE O/OITICIE OS AGENT. Cl MILLET OE AGLNII (OANE OF(WWII OE AGENT. OF OIIIEII OE AGLN} Hans Hagen Homes Inc ..._.................___......._.._....._.__ of........ .....IMAM[OF Cpk I0IAT1ON0N k[[XOWiADGINLI a...._........._...ntle.§Qxa'T..........._............_...__.................................._....: ,........eo,poratioll,on behalf of the corporation. r j MITE ` ATE OE ELECT Of INCOIIO[ATIONI 4.. . 1 kn1 r1 1lNl COUNT rSOII ... [... .................. 2! R4A15EY COUNTY � /.S/.ISG/NIAiD>[�!�01 klkf`DN/T�CING/AC/\NOWLCDLMkNi) H1•.mmh•E.n*TdNN O.E.TI,I910 .......// LCI! j..eeeN:.Z e.e) C ..........._...._._._._.._.. (TITLE OE IANII THIS INSTRUMENT,WAS DRAFTED BY HAnc ❑dgen Hmmes. Tnr_ a753 19orth Rirn St roc Ued . • _St. Paul, I ;t innrgot 5a5113 -i. i Tax statements for the property described herein should be sent to: ' City of Eden Prairie i 8950 Eden Prairie Road 1 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 . 1 I • • I 3 t / • , ir—, , b I i,, ♦ a O t X : b :az Z'V • �" ..Z. 4 I-. a cl y 4 b �W 7 v S ` o .C . b ! y ' f • .. tt c t o .5- .. I° y n V u c `, ° b a b Ir 1 O c ro (fib a }rt! 3 F o y o 1. \w I I t 1 i••` U O ° AO y N 1 t 3 o` 5t ee a v 11/Jy'/J� e` E 7T . r L.` - ..11 O t ! LI•r CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 't HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 84-221 ' • BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, that the following persons have agreed to serve as electrion judges and are appointed for the Primary Election to be held on September 11, 1984. i PRECINCT 1 KING OF GLORY LUTHERAN CHURCH i Cheryl Glisczinski 7152 Ticonderoga Trail 934-2195 K' Joanne Ronski 6630 Tartan Curve 934-4226 Dorothy Fitzgerald ' 7247 Green Ridge Drive 937-9742 '. Sue Keller 6721 Lochanburn Road 934-9482 f Harlan Fritz 8226 Tamarack Trail 937-2480 . Nancy Dowey 6971 Ticonderoga Trail 934-9565 ?. Tommy Thomas 17440 Duck Lake Trail 934-9205 PRECINCT 2 EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH ' Allene Hookom 16716 Prairie Lane 934-2550 Delores Klein 15701 N. Lund Road 934-9124 1 Roberta Bronson 6236 Eden Prairie Road 934-9070 Helen Haupt 15709 S. Lund Road 934-9127 Alfred Nelson 16300 Hilltop Road 937-8941 Dawn Busch 7455 Hames Way 937-2435 Bernie Ploumen 17040 S. Shore Lane 934-2391 PRECINCT 3 EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CHURCH Sue Lane 6961 Alpine Trail 937-1669 Mary upton 16163 Edenwood Drive 937-2738 I. Judy Baker 6785 Woodhill Trail 937-2153 Bill Jellison 9560 Highview Drive 934-0934 Joan Barth 16481 Hilltop Road 937-1929 Joyce Myre 15011 Summerhill Drive 937-2815 Bill McNeil 7341 Franklin Circle 937-2547 PRECINCT 4 CROSSTOWN BAPTIST CHURCH Doris Johnson 14315 Crown Drive 937-2287 Priscilla Bailey 6950 Mariann Drive 937-8885 Cheryl Bridge 7272 Gerard Drive 941-8104 Nikki„Anderson 6581 Manchester Lane 937-1273 Jan Anderson 659I Manchester Lane 937-1271 - Gladys Grannes 6990 Mariann Drive '937-8913 Lorraine Larson 8283 Mitchell Road • 937-2255 . PRECINCT 5 IMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH Shirley Jellison 9560 Highview Drive 934-0934 Evelyn Rogers 9100 Eden Prairie Road 937-2992 Bernice Holasek 10020 Dell Road 934-1185 Marie Wittenberg 9880 Crestwood Terrace 934-0961 Carolyn Nelson 16300 Hilltop Road 937-8941 Aurelia Rasinski 7682 Superior Terrace 937-8699 Patty Jones 9250 Eden Prairie Road 937-2347 II 1, -I Resolution No. 84-221 Page 2 (con't) PRECINCT 6 EDEN PRAIRIE METHODIST CHURCH Jinny Gibson 15737 Cedar Ridge Road / 937-1374 Virginia Gartner 15701 Cedar Ridge Road 937-1595 Mary Helfand 15476 Village Woods Drive 934-6704 Dorothy Schwartz 15051 Scenic Heights Road 937-2289 ! Betty Fritz 8226 Tamarack Trail 937-2480 Judy Miller 7835 Eden Court 937-8653 • Don Larson 8283 Mitchell Road 937-2255 i PRECINCT 7A New Testament Church Adeline Bramwell 14329 Fairway Drive 937-8987 i Rita Anderson 14312 Fairway Drive 937-8196 . Louise Doughty 13200 Roberts Drive 941-2337 Ruth Traaseth 14999 Scenic Heights Road 937-1006 Thomas Zalusky 635 Prairie Center Drive 941-9215 '" Jan Olson 9360 Cedar Forest Road 937-1949 Margaret Kruger 14311 Fairway Drive 937-8261 11 PRECINCT 7B HENNEPIN COUNTY VO-TECH I d Linda Jiran 8936 Darnel Road 941-4129 1. Alice Smith 8355 Mitchell Road 934-3711 Grace Carmody 8595 Mitchell Road 937-2651 1 Marilyn Lundeen 8381 Mitchell Road 937-9045 Ruth Olson 9051 E Staring Lane 937-1767 1 Elaine Jacques 9021 Riley Lake Road 934-0944 Viola McLain 14224 Chestnut Drive 937-1798 PRECINCT 8 EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Barb Vanderploeg 8735 Leeward Circle 941-5363 Marion Nesbitt 8701 Black Maple Drive • 941-2387 Sandy Schorr 11573 Carriage Court 2 941-0931 Sharon Buntin 9762 Linden Drive '941-9039 Nancy Little 9450 Aspen Circle 944-2437 }i} . Barbara Cail 9205 Talus Circle 941-5140 Mildred Clark 8779 Basswood Road 941-3269 I PRECINCT 9A PAX CHRISTI COMMUNITY CHURCH j Cheryl Hansen 9445 Aspen Circle 941-8690 Jim Rannow 16316 Lincoln Lane 937-8237 Darlene Wegner 10220 Amsden Way 941-7718 George-Ann Lillie 17120 Cedarcrest Drive 937-1027 Sharon Nolte 17131 Cedarcrest Drive 937-8348 Betty Schaitberger 12880 Pioneer Trail 941-1451 Lyle Johnston 8621 Basswood Road #18 944-9308 WOO _ Re5Dlution No. 84-221 Page 3 PRECINCT 9B PAX CHRISTI COMMUNITY CHURCH Jeanne Brandt 12300 Riverview Road ' 941-3316 Elanor Levine 9712 Mill Creek Drive 944-7636 Carol Hegge 10015 Pioneer Trail 941-2707 Carol Burnett 9940 Bennett Place 941-5654 Joy Brekke 10091 Homeward Hills Road 941-5654 Laurina Reiff 7024 Baker Road 937-8820 Pauline Johnston 8621 Basswood Road #18 944-9308 • COUNTING CENTER EDEN PRAIRIE CITY HALL Perry Forster 9505 Highview Drive 934-0938 Walter Thompson 11325 Westwind Drive #F 941-7549 ADOPTED BY the Eden Prairie City Council on this 28th day of August, 1984. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL • 142S . OPTION AGREEMENT This Agreement is dated August , 1984, and is entered into by and between , (hereinafter referred to as i ' "Owner", and City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"). For valuable consideration, Owner and City covenant and agree as follows: 4 1. Owner for himself and his successors and assigns, does j covenant with City, its successors and assigns, that he is well seized in fee of the lands lying and being in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota described as follows to-wit: (hereinafter referred to as the "Property") . 9 2. Owner hereby grants and conveys to City an option to obtain a permanent easement for roadway and utility construction and maintenance purposes over the Property. This option shall be exercised in the following manner and subject to the following conditions: a. City may exercise this option at a time to be determined at City's sole discretion, but this option shall terminate upon the expiration of 50 years from the date hereof. b. City shall notify owners by certified mail of its intent- to exercise the option. Owner shall then convey the easement to City within thirty days of mailing of said notice. 3. This option shall run with the Property and bind Owner, his ,uccessors and assigns. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1984, by Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1984. 0 Notary Public • • • s_. !bal. . • August 23, 1984 • To the Mayor and Members of the Eden Prairie City Council. • Please accept the attached petition as evidence of the neighbors opposition to the increased density proposed for Muirfield. • • • • _ • -T • • I6a7 • • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL'. TO DENY THE REQUEST BY TAMDEN CORPORATION TO BUILD THE PRO- POSED MUIRFIELD PROJECT OF 36 ACRES OF THE ALFRED PAVELKA PROPERTY, LOCATED NORTH OF VALLEY VIEW ROAD. WE HOPE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER CAREFULLY THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, THE FACT THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE PROJECT, AND LASTLY THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM SUCH A HIGH DENSITY PROJECT WILL CREATE ON VALLEY VIEW ROAD. • 9 ' �i2',11ebly7/0? azevie,,,i../.4,1 e • e,-4'1..k 1,, 7/06Pez-46A.eaCa.......„ 94 )(' ' / ed.zeg V,,,D(42 . Pa lPOv i .ilV. 04,,,,,..„4, ,�S • 7/0 6' 4w1 U K.u., -71 13 (36io. . 4 1/01 $.k v-aitk,-1 .) .42, ?I 0 3 4°C -UY- ?g,4446.,., ?(i( AAA(het,'1.48,,,t Cza , .43--,/ 7/1 1 Pakk, (/. .1 `• ''A.2.-. X o,)-- / -hJ $Ob,sdu`(4,si a,�C.a4 c �/ N , II C744..4 4-. uCJ�c�..› ieo qt so. SMo2E' LAND'' 1bca.m. C0.p°,� » 7 10 ? )0 v,�o w L 3 7 .x.4.4hAe.../..tdh,,-te, i, a n /gOU? Sc. SI ore IQ4 - fi1 / iro 77 .Sep.Siteu !"")"-- 7 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE REQUEST BY TAMDEN CORPORATION TO BUILD THE PRO- POSED MUIRFIELD PROJECT OF 36 ACRES OF THE ALFRED PAVELKA .1 F PROPERTY, LOCATED NORTH OF VALLEY VIEW ROAD. WE HOPE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER CAREFULLY THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, 1 THE FACT THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE PROJECT, AND LASTLY THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM SUCH A HIGH DENSITY PROJECT WILL CREATE ON VALLEY VIEW ROAD. glit,/( :.:Ire:;_,,,e___) 7/-5-7.ieelf e&e..c;-z7-' ,,cal G./20,i, 7/6. 7 .�rL� I 04. 7/ 7/ TiGoo derpya %✓. 7171 "fnNUE�DA —TIP Ls \ / qt DIna q a%/ 7� I CA f '4"'"" ' 7/6 6 i.. aczirc'at (1PA,u....i. 7/38' %u;�� 3: �i 1 de o//') C e- °`'r)-- 1I087a 77617( --7"• . / �faGr T�r. (c � 7- R::6- -� I9, I r7 { Alil IAZA .1 v) SIAQQ:to 10-3 4LcL1 .frC ( "7/44- .707 -.., ai,tj.eJ/T l r-cr• C, Cplkivt.,)�1�. 7 0 K 7 T' cat'?--vz - • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE REQUEST BY TAMDEN CORPORATION TO BUILD THE PRO- POSED MUIRFIELD PROJECT OF 36 ACRES OF THE ALFRED PAVELKA PROPERTY, LOCATED NORTH OF VALLEY VIEW ROAD. WE HOPE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER CAREFULLY THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, THE FACT THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE PROJECT, AND LASTLY THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM SUCH A HIGH DENSITY PROJECT WILL CREATE ON VALLEY VIEW ROAD. .tilger l' & Z,teu,�- l�c�'. ; met6�r�,es. /�'aoy IJuQ� iheto /'icP., F�„�?4av1,c.e, (n.Q,�u.4. JJPadO Minot?1,,,Uvt. 9 . d U L IT a b v vd`i vuoco/FR,. .�'.vwu.e.. ��l,, r% , �d P �"� /8a a y 0/jai Grin A1a�/rrylpi.,,t) all7 �„/.��. r ,6 - c,. . /62)1 � a vjy'2/ l ►0( • • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PETITION THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY T}U REQUEST BY TAMDEN CORPORATION TO BUILD THE PRO- POSED MUIRFIELD PROJECT OF 36 ACRES OF THE ALFRED PAVELKA PROPERTY, LOCATED NORTH OF VALLEY VIEW ROAD. WE HOPE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER CAREFULLY THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, THE FACT THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE PROJECT, AND LASTLY THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM SUCH A HIGH DENSITY PROJECT WILL CREATE ON VALLEY VIEW ROAD. T -t I ice 7/S/3 l c��d ft a n. z.. • • ..• • • • • • i6.3 a MEMORANDUM • • TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager DATE: August 24, 1984 SUBJECT: Muirfield Development Proposal by Tandem Corporation At its July 23, 1984, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the Muirfield request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change, and Preliminary Plat. A motion was made for approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and the Commission reached a 3-3 vote. Under Minnesota State Statutes 462.355, Subdivisions 2 and 3, the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment must be approved by a majority of all of the members of the Planning Commission prior to adoption by a majority of the members of the City Council. Since the Comprehensive Guide Plan request did not achieve a majority vote recommending approval, the Planning Commission took no further action on the more specific development requests of Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change and Preliminary Plat. Since the motion for approval did not carry, it seems realistic that the proponent would require the entire Planning Commission present at some future meeting to hope to achieve the necessary four votes for approval. The developer has elected to proceed to the City Council to make his presentation and, to gain some direction from the Council prior to returning to the Planning Commission for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment (if still being requested) and the specific recommendations on the Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change and Preliminary Plat. Of the members present at the Planning Commission meeting, only half could be convinced that the proponent had substantiated the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. The City Council may also wish to consider whether, or not, the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment request has been substantiated prior to referral of the item back to the Commission. 4 June 14, 1984 1. Er. William Bearman, Chairman : Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ''. Dear Mr. Bearman: t On June 6, 1984, Tandem Corporation presented a plan for 1 developing 36 acres of the Pavelka property, north of Valley View Road. This was a preliminary plan and was presented at an informal neighborhood meeting. I object to the proposal on the following basis: 1) The adjoining areas of Hidden Ponds, Sterling Feild and Apple Groves have large open areas in the form of parks V2 ponds. The Tandem proposal , provides for no green areas or open spaces and thus fails to comply with the pattern set by ad- joining neighborhoods. This 36 acre development is large enough to provide its own space. 2) Tandem blamed a high water table for the need P for constructing 61 small homes on 5000 sq. ft. lots in the southwest 13 acres. This is an area of plastic soils and the water table is only a • ; perched or trapped level. The storm sewer system all ready in place on Valley View Road can be used to provide drainage to elevation 889.1. There is plenty of earth available on the site to raise the low area to an elevation suitable for building conventional homes. 3) The large number of family units on the proposed site puts undo pressure on the adjoining neighbor- hoods in the form of traffic on Valley View Road, overcrowding of the parks and schools, and public . safety requirements. I request that your staff be instructed to require the Pavelka property be developed along the lines of Hidden Ponds and Sterling 1provided. 13,500 sq. ft.. guidelines and that open areas be Sincerely • Jack T1cCreery ( 7109 Park View Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55344 10/ - ® 0 MEMO . TO: Planning Commission ' FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner • THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: July 20, 1984 PROJECT: Muirfield Residential Planned Unit Development APPLICANT: Dellwood Associates FEE OWNER: Alfred and Rose Pavelka REQUEST: 1.' Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Low and Medium Density Residential on 25.77 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 36 acres with lot size variances. i 3. Preliminary Plat of 36 acres into 115 single family lots. 4. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.54 acres. 5. Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 25.77 acres. 6. Review of Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Background This is a continued item from the July 10, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission 5 • reviewed a development plan from the proponent involving 119 single family lots on approximately 36 acres of land. The Commission returned the development plans to the proponent for revisions based upon recommendations in the Staff Report and to allow the proponent to .- formulate a substantiation for the • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to ' permit an increase in density from 2.5 to approximately 3.2 units per acre. IG 35 0 Muirfield July .J, :.,4 • • Comprehensive Guide Plan Substantiation ' The proponents narrative dated July 17, 1984, identifies potential reasons for rhinginq the Comprehensive Guide Plan including housing variety, housing allurdability, transition in lot sizes, and benefits to the City from courtyard homes. Overall Site Plan Changes The overall concept plan for Muirfield has not changed substantially. The total number of units has been reduced from 119 to 115 with a corresponding density change from 3.29 to 3.18 units per acre. There have been some changes in the density and lot sizes within the proposed zero lot line area and the overall 9.5 zoning district. The overall density of the area proposed for R1-9.5 zoning has In'en reduced to 3.48 units per acre based upon 25.77 acres of land which includes approximately .56 acres of land to be dedicated for park purposes. The density of the zero lot line area has been reduced from 4.19 units to 3.66 units per acre. This represents a reduction in units from 61 to 55. lul. •.ides in the proposed R1-13.5 zoning district have been reduced with the addition of two lots and moving Boyd Avenue to the north. The previous Staff Report indicated that the lots adjacent to Sterling Fields and Hidden Ponds subdivision should remain the size proposed and not be reduced as a result of plan revisions for proper transitions within the project. Street frontages along the south side of Boyd Avenue have been increased to an average of 80 to 85 feet. This will allow for more buildable area between setbacks and homes of comparable size to the proposed R1-13.5 zoning across the street. Zero Lot Line Site Plan Changes The average lot size in the proposed zero lot line concept area has been increased from approximately 8,200 square feet to almost 9,000 square feet. There is a range in lot sizes from 7,000 to 12,200 square feet. 27 of the 55 lots are below the 9,500 square foot minimum requirement for R1-9.5 zoning. Since the last Planning Commission meeting, Staff has discussed with the proponent that the minimum lot size should be 9,500 square feet for lots along the north and west side of Muirfield Lane adjacent to the standard R1-9.5 lots. This would include lots 1 through 14, Block 2, with the exception of Lot 2. Lot 2 would be buffered from the standard R1-9.5 lot by Lot 1 which is proposed at 9,500 square feet. Staff also discussed with the proponent that lots 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9, Block 4, and Lots 10, 11 and 13, Block 3, should also be a 9,500 square foot minimum. Attachment A graphically depicts were the 9,500 square foot minimum lots should occur. This should provide a transition between the standard R1-9.5 lots and smaller R1-9.5 lots, and also a transition from Valley View Road to the smaller R1-9.5 lots. 166 Muirfield 3 July 20, 1984 Lot Sizes Proposed R1-9.5 Zone Lot Sizes Number of Lots '97500+ square feet 64 9,000 to 9,500 square feet 7 8,000 to 9,000 square feet 8 7,000 to 8,000 square feet 12 Total 91 The above chart illustrates the number and size of lot for the proposed R1-9.5 zoning district. 64 of 91 lots greater than 9,500 square feet. 27 lots are 9,500 square feet or less. Street frontages have been increased to provide more spacing between driveways for on-street parking. The proponent has noted areas on the site plan where parking could occur. Street frontages in the proposed zero lot line concept area are a minimum of 55 feet with an overall average of approximately 70 feet. Staff has discussed with the proponent a change to Lot 19, Block 2. This lot is proposed to have frontage off of a cul-de-sac. This frontage is only 35 feet and provides minimal parking area between lots 19 and 18. The lot line for Lot 19, should be relocated 35 feet to the southwest and increase the street frontages along the cul-de-sac accordingly. This is also shown on attachment A. Front yard setbacks in the proposed zero lot line area have been increased to 30 feet which will provide additional room for parking which should not interfere with proposed sidewalks. This will also provide additional green area between the units and the street. There will be no sideyard setback variances in the proposed zero lot line concept area. Setbacks between units will range from 15 to 50 feet with a 25 to 30 feet average. The increase in setbacks between units means there will be more fencing provided. Fencing will not, however, extend between the entire length between the units. The courtyard between the sideyards will be created by a combination of plantings and fencing. Staff believes that this will be more visually pleasing than having a fence running the entire length between the building. Landscaping for the proposed zero line concept area will include sodding and plantings for the entire lot. The proponent has indicated an additional tree would be planted in the front yard. Staff would recommend that the landscaping across the rear yards of the zero lot line area abutting the standard R1-9.5 zone to be increased to provide a more opaque buffer. The proponent should- submit a revised landscape plan for review. Architecture Included in this weeks submittal are three unit types proposed by the proponent. There are three elevations proposed for each unit. Staff believes that there is no appreciable difference between the Oakwood and Evergreen units. This'means that only two different unit types are proposed. Staff believes that this is too much similarity over a 55 lot area. Staff would suggest that either the total number of lots in the zero line concept area be reduced or the proponent should develop two /631 I 0 4 • i Muirfield 4 July 20, 1984 I additional and different unit types. Staff has discussed this with the proponent. a: Additional unit types might include a unit with a side loaded garage or a rambler.' unit. The proponent should submit an overall development plan which keys specific unit types to lots in compliance with the City policy of no two units alike, side by side, opposite, or directly across from each other for the entire project. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the Planning Commission feels that the proponent has made a substantial arguement for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Low Density Residential to Low and Medium Density Residential and Staff would recommend that approval be based on plans dated June 8, 1984, revised July 17, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 7, 1984, and July 20, 1984, and subject to the following: ' , 1. Prior to Council review, the proponent shall: 3 A. The number of proposed R1-13.5 lots adjacent to Sterling Fields in Hidden Ponds Park, shall be as proposed in the original concept ; plan. B. Lot 1 and Lots 3 through 14, Block 1; and Lots I, 4, 5, 6, and 9, Block 4; and Lots 10, 11, and 13, Block 3, shall be 9,500 square feet or greater in size. C. The proponent shall develop and submit four different building unit types for 'review. 1 D. Provide additional plantings along the west and northern borders of the zero lot line concept area abutting the standard R1-9.5 lots to provide a more opaque screening. I E. All decks shall meet minimum side yard setback requirements for RI- 1 9.5 zoning. F. A sidewalk should be provided along Loralee Lane from Valley View gi Road to Southshore Lane. J i G. Revise the preliminary plat to provide ten-foot drainage utility t easements between lot lines. . 1 H,. The proponent shall provide an overall development plan keying I specific unit types to lots in compliance with the City policy with . no two alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally across from each other for the entire site. •2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed erosion control, grading and drainage, and utility • plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Provide detailed erosion control and grading and drainage plans for review by the Watershed District. 0 • Muirfield 5 July 20, 1984 • 3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Notify the City and Watershed at least 48 hours in advance of grading. • 1439 • : STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission . FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: July 7, 1984 PROJECT: Muirfield Residential Planned Unit Development APPLICANT: Dellwood Associates FEE OWNER: Alfred and Rose Pavelka . ' REQUEST: 1). Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Low and Medium Density Residential; 2). Planned Unit Development District Review on 36 acres with lot size, setback, frontage, and density variances; 3). Preliminary Plat of 36 acres into 119 single family lots; 4). Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.54 acres; 5). Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 25.21 acres; and, 6). Review of Environmental Assessment Worksheet. r a, rIAJ is !gam /. Background v <. /fir` sill.0: The Comprehensive Guide Plan ident- -,�1y=£ �, 2 ifies this site for a Low Density ���� j 1 ,41,10 Residential land use for up to 2.5 (��, ail , :- units per acre. The Guide Plan also s 1:�!""4/�r ` '18 depicts surrounding future land uses .:�ilg+�i� :�J as Low Density Residential. 4�},,, n=�` us e Adjacent single family homes border r 1�� F the northern and western boudaries Z v'- •11� . } of the site, with half-acre minimum , IC lot sizes in the Sterling Fields 1 subdivision and 13,500 square foot minimum lot sizes in the Hidden Ponds development to the north and — west of the site. To the east of Ili.. ... -' the site is the 16-acre Pavelka 4 R1-13.5 -� homestead, a park, and elementary x school/park site. To the south of J uA �- : `,�. this site, across Valley View Road, W PROPOSED SITE '� the Commission previously approved fthe Apple Groves Planned Unit s Development, which involved a ! f combination of low density and s�, 'rcnci_ ..r_ i medium density residential uses. �. 1 R1-9.5 zoning with 12,000 square . . ♦ I{1.J, mmt aee djt sizes was approved AREA LOCATION MAP immediately adjacent to Valley View '1 Road. NU'I45i . _ 1 rtV/� . nru /(,N11 0 Muirfield 2 July G, lgh1 The site is relatively level to gently rolling agricultural land ranging in elevations from approximately 900 in the southeast corner of the site to 930 in the northeast corner of the site. There is some existing natural vegetation on the site consisting primarily of box elder along Valley View Road. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is required for a project of this size. Environmental Quality Board rules state that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet is mandatory for residential projects involving 100 or more unattached units in a 3rd Class City. The Comprehensive Guide Plan identifies a Low Density Residential land use for this site for up to 2.5 units per acre meaning a total of 90 units would be possible without a request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. The proponent intends to develop 36 acres of land for 119 single family homes at an overall gross density of 3.29 units per acre. The development plan of the proponent shows 23 R1-13.5 lots on 10.54 acres, 35 standard R1-9.5 lots on 10.65 acres, and 61 zero lot line and smaller R1-9.5 lots on 14.56 acres. The overall density of the land area proposed for R1-9.5 zoning based on 25.21 acres of land is 3.8 units per acre. (Ordinance allows 3.5) Overall Site Plan The proponent intends to provide a variety of housing types and lot sizes on this site, ranging from small R1-9.5 lots arranged in a zero lot line concept to large R1-13.5 lots. The development plan involves a transition from large lots to small lots in a northwest to southeast manner across the site. Large R1-13.5 lots are proposed adjacent to R1-13:5 lots in Hidden Ponds subdivision and R1-22 lots in the Sterling Fields Addition to the north of the site. To transition between the R1- 13.5 lots and the small zero lot line lots, the developer proposes a ring of standard R1-9.5 lots between the low and high density areas on site. The transition in lot sizes between the R1-13.5 zone and R1-9.5 zone is accomplished on opposite sides of Loralee Lane and Boyd Avenue. When different zoning districts are on opposite sides of the street, there will be different side yard setbacks, street frontages, and unit sizes. Along the north side of Boyd Avenue, street frontages average in excess of 90 feet, but average closer to 70 feet on the south side. Some street frontages are only 60 feet. Narrow street frontages, even with R1-9.5 setbacks, do not leave enough buildable area within setbacks to allow for a variety of unit types to occur. Staff believes that transition between zoning districts should occur across the rear lot lines, which allows adjoining backyard spaces to be used collectively as an open space buffer. This would suggest that R1-13.5 zoning should occur on the both sides of Boyd Avenue and Loralee Lane. The lots provided adjacent to Sterling Fields and Hidden Ponds should remain the size proposed and not be reduced as a result of plan revisions for proper transitions within the project. A second alternative would be to provide larger street frontages within the standard R1-9.5 zone which correspond more closely with street frontages in the R1-13.5 zone. An example of this occurs along Loralee Lane where street frontages are equal to, if not significantly larger than, the R1-13.5 lots across the street. The transition between the standard R1-9.5 lots and the smaller zero lot line lots occurs across the rear lot lines. However, the site plan is very tight along this I(L1 Muirfield 3 July 6, 1984 edge and would benefit from fewer lots along the west and north sides of Muirfield Lane. This would provide rear lot widths of a more comparable size. . Site Plan/Zero Lot Line Concept The proponent intends to develop 61 zero lot line homes on 14.56 acres of land at a gross density of 4.19 units per acre. This is somewhat similar to densities approved for the Centex development which involved a combination of small single family lots and small cluster lots. There are, however, some basic differences in the Centex site plan which makes the appearance of the cluster homes less dense when viewed from the street. The primary difference is that the cluster home concept, in many situations, would have the length of the lot facing the street, providing a greater spacing between the units. This also allows for a mixture of front and side loaded garages which adds variety to the streetscape. ,The Muirfield concept proposes smaller lots in a linear fashion on both sides of Muirfield Lane with all units and garages facing the street. The use of a curvilinear street pattern helps to break up the linear appearance of the streetscape. Street frontages vary between 35 to 100 feet in width. Approximately one-third of the street frontages are less than 55 feet in width, which is the minimum street frontage requirement for R1-9.5 zoning. Using a 55-foot minimum street frontage would help loosen up the site plan by providing for greater space separation between the units. Variances In addition to lot width, frontage, and side yard setback variances in the zero lot line area, the proponent is requesting a front yard building setback variance to 25 feet for all lots in the R1-9.5 zone. The proponent has not demonstrated a particular hardship justifying the variance. Staff believes that the front yard setback should be a minimum of 30 feet. This is especially important in areas where public sidewalks are proposed across the front of the lots. Staff has observed the situations occuring in the Centex development where parked cars have blocked the sidewalk because of inadequate space in which to park vehicles. Architecture The Muirfield concept plan proposes three types of single family lots designed to meet slightly different economic and life style requirements. The current City policy requires the proponent to provide an overall development plan keying specific unit types with lots within proposed R1-9.5 zoning districts with no two units the same directly across, adjacent to or, diagonally across from .each other. The development plan has not been prepared for the standard R1-9.5 lots. Four basic unit types ranging in size from 938 to 1,338 square feet of finished space on two or three levels are proposed for the zero lot line lots. The homes will range in price from S77,000 to S98,000. The homes will be constructed of redwood siding with a light gray stain. Each of the four basic models proposed have the garage fronts facing the street. Between each of the units, a six-foot high redwood privacy fence will be constructed to create a courtyard. Units will be constructed with minimum zero lot line setbacks of 15 feet and three feet or a total minimum side yard between buildings of 18 feet. Total minimum side yards between / 411 0 Muirfield 4 July 6, 1984 units in R1-13.5 zoning is 25 feet. For R1-9.5 zoning it is 15 feet. The unit types proposed appear to be very similar in front elevation with similar roof lines and two car garages facing the street. Staff suggests that the proponent develop additional alternative building elevations which might include different roof pitches and side loaded garages. Staff believes that with the additional building elevations, it will be easy to comply with the City policy of no two units alike side by side, directly across, or diagonally across from each other. The exclusive use of redwood siding in this project is desirable. It can provide continuity through color and materials similar to a townhouse project. The bright redwood color, and fencing between the units is a very strong statement. The developer proposes a light gray stain to subdue the strong red appearance of the siding. Shrub materials are proposed in front of the redwood fences to soften its hard appearance, and to break up the "wall of redwood", as viewed from the street. In addition, one shade tree will be planted in front of each household. Staff believes that the site plan would benefit from additional shade and coniferous plantings to soften the overall predominance of redwood in the project. Utilities Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by connection to existing utilities in Valley View Road. Water lines will be connected to existing dead end lines in Boyd Avenue, Loralee Lane and Southshore Lane to provide a loop neccesary for better fire protection. Storm water run-off will sheet drain across the lots into catch basins within the proposed street system. The proposed storm sewer system will connect to an existing storm sewer line within Valley View Road. Additional catch basins will be needed in the northeast corner of the site along Boyd Lane. Final location of these catch basins will be determined by the City Engineer. Preliminary Plat Two outlets are proposed on this site, both labelled as Outlot A. Outlot A in the extreme southeast corner of the site has no apparent purpose and should be combined with Lots 12 and 13. Out lot A in the northeast corner of the site is proposed for a totlot and a trail connection to the adjacent neighborhood park. The developer proposes to dedicate this outlot to the City. Pedestrian Systems The proponent is providing sidewalks throughout the project which will connect into an existing sidewalk along Valley View Road. There should be a sidewalk along one side of Loralee Lane from Southshore Lane to Valley View Road. Street Systems The proposed Muirfield street plan provides connections to four existing streets: Valley View Road, Boyd Avenue, Loralee Lane, and Southshore Drive. The Muirfield street pattern has many intersections and a curving street pattern, which not only provides for a pleasing streetscape, but also attempts to discourage the through traffic into Hidden Ponds or the Sterling Fields Additions. Some of the curves along the street should be smoothed out somewhat to make snow plowing easier for the 160 • 0 0 Muirfield 5 July 6, 1984 City maintenance vehicles. The proposed islands on Muirfield Lane should be removed. All streets will be public, with 50 feet of right-of-way, and 28-foot pavement with curb and gutter. The intersections of the proposed street system with Valley View Road are designed to line up with the previously approved plat of Apple Groves to the south of Valley View Road. Decks The proponent intends to provide decking as an optional item with each unit. According to the site plan, decking would be constructed also on a zero lot line basis. Since decks are structures according to the zoning ordinance, they must meet side yard setbacks of ten feet. In addition, since it is City policy to require a , five-foot drainage and utility easement along side lot lines, the placement of decking would be a structural encroachment, which is not allowed. Since the preliminary grading plan shows drainage between the units, there must be some form of a swale to allow water to drain away from the units. This typically is provided within the drainage and utility easements. Since the units and decks are proposed to be constructed on a zero lot line basis with three feet of setback on one side and a minimum of 15 feet on the other side, one way of providing a drainage utility easement would be for three feet on one side and seven feet on the other side. Placement of a deck three feet away from the proposed drainage utility easement would mean compliance with the 10-foot sideyard setback requirement for R1-9.5 zoning. Landscape Plans The landscape plan will provide a minimum of one shade tree per lot, plus foundation plantings in front of the units. Additional shade and deciduous plantings are proposed across the rear of the lots to create a private space within the side yards. Because of the narrow depth of the lots and proximity of units to the rear lot lines and units within the adjacent standard R1-9.5 lots, Staff would suggest that a buffer be provided as a transitional element. This could take the form of additional plantings, berming, fencing, or any combination thereof. This buffer concept should also be applied to the rear yard spaces for lots on the interior of Muirfield Drive. Homeowners' Association The proposed Homeowners' Association will function as an architectural control committee in reviewing and approving any additions, or modifications, to individual homes. Enforcement of the covenants and maintenance of lots and home exteriors will be handled by the Association. Muirfield homeowners will maintain the exterior of their homes, lots, and driveways. The Homeowners' Association will have conditions which restrict the parking of outdoor recreational vehicles or the construction of outside animal kennels. Parking Staff expects that parking will be a problem within the zero lot line concept area for a number of reasons, which include a density of 4.19 units per acre, lack of storage space within the units, and minimal street frontage between driveways. /buy . ® • Muirfield 6 July 6, 1984 • Staff has observed parking problems in the Centex development, which was developed . at a similar gross density. Comparatively speaking, nearly all of the Centex units have two-car garages and full basements. In addition, there is considerably more • street frontage between driveways in which vehicles may be parked. In addition, some street widths were increased in order to provide for on-street parking. Still, there is a problem with the provision of overflow parking in the Centex development. Commission previously reviewed the Prairie Knoll project, also a zero lot line concept. Units in that project had half-basements and where three-bedroom units were proposed an additional parking space was provided on-site. Prairie Knoll's overall gross density was 3.5 units per acre. Comparatively speaking, the Muirfield concept has unit types with two-car garages but without basements. In addition, street frontages are small and spacing between driveways is minimal. Staff recommends that the proponent develop a plan for providing for overflow parking in the zero lot line concept area. Conclusions If the Commission feels that a substantial argument has been made for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan, R1-9.5 lots, and lots smaller than R1-9.5, then Staff would recommend the following revisions: 1. R1-9.5 lots across from R1-13.5 lots should have an average street frontage of 80-85 feet. 2. Street frontages for zero lot line lots should be a minimum of r 55 feet. 3. Reduce the density of the proposed R1-9.5 area to under 3.5 dwelling units per acre. 4. Decrease density and increase street frontage.in the zero lot line area. 5. Provide additional unit types and elevations for the zero lot line area. 6. Front yard setbacks in the proposed R1-9.5 zone should be 30 feet. 7. Provide additional shade and coniferous trees along Muirfield Lane. 8. Provide a landscape buffer between standard R1-9.5 lots and smaller zero lot line lots. 9. The preliminary plat should be revised to indicate a ten-foot drainage a. utility easement between lot lines in the zero lot line concept area. 10. Decks will be required to meet the minimum sideyard setback requirements for R1-9.5 zoning. Decks shall also not encroach into any drainage utility easements. 11. The proponent should develop a plan for providing for overflow parking within the zero lot line concept area. // / o/ Muirfield 7 July 6, 1984 12. Provide an overall development plan keying specific unit types with lots within proposed R1-9.5 zoning districts with no two units the same directly • across, adjacent to or, diagonally across from each other. i 13. Provide additional unit types in the smallest 6+ area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend any of the following alternatives to the Planning Commission: 1. The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development District Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 subject to the recommendations as outlined in this Staff Report. 2. The Planning Commission could request that the development plans be returned to the proponent for revisions based on staff recommendations. 3. The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the request of the proponent based upon issues as identified in the Staff Report. • • • Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 23, 1984 • • • • • E. MUIRFIELD by Tandem Corporation. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment "' from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for approximately 25 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review, ., with variances, and Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately • 11.0 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 for approximately 25 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 36 acres into 119 single family lots. Location: North side of Valley View Road, west of Park View Lane. A continued public hearing. • Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, reviewed the changes made in the plan since the July 9, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. III Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the revised plans. 1(o[1? } Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 23, 1984 Chairman Beaman stated that, based on the changes to the plan, he still did not see any justification for a Planned Unit Development in terms of a trade-off to the City for providing greater flexibility to the developer for design or density. He stated that he also felt the developer had not provided any compelling reasons for a change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan for density beyond 2.5 units per acre. Torjesen stated that he agreed. Ms. Joan Meyers, 6930 Boyd Avenue, stated she was concerned about the staging of the development. She stated that she did not feel the higher density was appropriate for this site. Ms. Meyers also expressed concern regarding a homeowners' association and maintenance responsbilities for the property. Mr. Putnam stated that a homeowners' association would be established for the area and the Rutland's past experience with such associations had been good. The association, he stated, tended to be conscientious and responsible in terms of maintaining high property values for their projects. Mr. Jack McCreery, 7109 Parkview Lane, stated that he had not been as concerned with the development of Apple Groves to the south as a buffer had been provided between the multi-family area and the single family area. Me stated that he did not feel the buffer provided within the Muirfield project was adequate. Mr. McCreery also questioned whether there would be a precedent set for the property to the east to have higher density development if this development were approved with higher density. Ms. Judy Peterson, 7157 Ticonderoga, expressed concern for the amount of traffic this would generate onto Valley View Road. She stated that she felt this road was already overburdened with traffic congestion. Gartner noted that South Shore Lane was "disjointed" in its alignment and • _. suggested that City Staff try to avoid situation such as this in the future to aide in finding street addresses within the community. Johannes stated that he had no major objections to the project; however, he, too, felt that justification for the proposed Guide Plan change had not been provided. Mr. Rotter, representing Rutland Construction, builders for the higher density portion of the project, stated that he did not feel these units would work on larger lots. By having smaller lots, he stated that his company had found that they were able to put more quality. into the structures. Ms. Maureen Brady, 18216 Valley View Road, stated that. she• did not agree with proponents regarding the type of people who would buy the units. For example, she stated that she felt that "empty-nesters" would not want to locate next to an active park area, which would be the case for this project. Mr. Darrell Westby, 7107 Parkview Lane, stated that higher density housing was available in other parts of the conmunity, and in close proximity to this property. He stated that he did not feel it should be located on this property, too. lID Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 23, 1984 Gartner stated that she felt it had been the City's intent all along not to allow the Guide Plan to change to a higher density along the north side of Valley View Road. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 The Commission discussed various motions regarding the project. These included denial of the proposed Guide Plan change based upon the previous discussion of the meeting, approval of the Guide Plan change, subject to modifications as listed in the Staff Report, and continuation. Planner Enger stated that, according to the City Attorney, according to State Statute, a negative recommendation on the Comprehensive Guide Plan by the Planning Commission could preclude the City Council from reviewing the proposal. The Commissioners agreed that it was not their intention to preclude any Council review of this item. They concurred that the Council should review the project, along with Commission comments and that it was their intent to retain their position as a recommending body to the Council, with the Council acting as the final authority in such matters. Gartner stated that the project represented small lot, expensive housing, 410 not available to low or moderate income families. She stated that, if this criteria had been met, perhaps a Guide Plan change could have been justified. Torjesen suggested that the Commission structure into their motion the opportunity for the proponents to appeal the action of the Planning - Commission to the Council, wherein the Council could, if they disagreed with the Commission, return the item to the Commission with their comments for other action. MOTION 2: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council that the request of Tandem Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for 25 acres of the project known as Muirfield be denied, but, in order for this question to be reviewed by the City Council, and for that reason_ only, the action of the Commission be one of recommending approval at_this time. Motion failed--2-4-0 (Torjesen and Marhula in favor) • (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, Johannes, Schuck against) Mr. Putnam stated that proponents would prefer to be forwarded to the 4,4 Council, instead of continued at the Planning Commission any longer. ltq_1 r _ Planning Commission Minutes 11 July 23, 1984 ^'1 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for 25 acres for the Muirfield Addition, based on revised written materials and plans dated July 17, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of July 6, and July 20, 1984. Motion failed--3-3-0 (Johannes, Schuck, and Marhula in favor) (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, and Torjesen against) • r_. • . • /6so • • s . • B. MUIRFIELD by Tandem Corporation. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for approixmately 25 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, and Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately 11.0 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 for approximately 25 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 36 acres into 119 single family lots Location: North side of Valley View Road, west of Park View Lane. A public •' hearing. Mr. Richard Putnam, Tandem Corporation, presented slides depicting the surrounding site features and site characteristics. He reviewed the location of community facilities in the area and the traffic circulation patterns that would service this neighborhood. Mr. Putnam pointed out that the water table in the northeast corner of the site was not perched. Mr. Putnam also presented the slides of a project similar to the multiple area. The multiple units were proposed to be located in the southeast portion of the project, and were proposed to be split-level units. Mr. Ken Adolf, Schoell and Madsen, engineers for the proponent, reviewed the it Si Planning Commission Minutes 3 July g, 1984 storm sewer system proposed for the project. Mr. Adolf pointed out that it would tie into the system existing within Valley View Road. He also reviewed the sanitary sewer and water connections proposed for the site. Mr. Putnam reviewed the proposed zero lot line R1-9.5 District. He stated that each of the units proposed for this zero lot line area would have three separate elevations and a variety of colors available in order to provide a good mixture of unit types within this vicinity. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report for this project dated July 6, 1984. Planner Enger stated that, in general, the City would consider a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change under one or more of the following circumstances: 1) If the Guide Plan Change proposed would provide a transition between land uses; 2) If the Guide Plan Change would provide for protection or conservation of peculiar site characteristics; or, 3) If the Guide Plan Change would provide for a variety of housing, particularly for low to moderate income households. He stated that it was Staff's opinion that this project did not meet all of these criteria. Planner Enger added that the proponent had not persuaded Staff that there was a reason for exceeding the allowable 3.5 units per acre with the R1-9.5 area, nor that the project would be enhanced by the additional density. Planner Enger pointed out that the densities of the existing developments to the north and west were less than two units per acre, whereas the Muirfield overall development was proposing 3.19 units per acre. He added that one of Staff's major concerns with this project was the transition provided between the R1-9.5 area and the larger lot R1-13.5 area, which took place across the street from each other. Planner Enger stated that this was a rather abrupt transition method used by the proponent. Gartner stated that she saw no reason or argument given in favor of the Guide Plan Change proposed by the proponents. Torjeson stated that he agreed with Gartner. Marhula stated that he was in general agreement with the overall plan, however, he was concerned about the proponents exceeding the 2.5 units per acre allowed for this property. Chairman Bearman stated that, as a rule, the City would consider a Planned Unit Development District for a project if the City would be receiving something in trade, such as a conservation area or a preservation of a natural feature. He asked proponents their reasons for the request of the Planned Unit Development and what the City would be receiving in return for granting of the Planned Unit Development with its flexibility. Mr. Putnam responded that the assessments for the property were extensive and that the property would be difficult to develop with these assessments at the 2.5 units per acre, or less. Chairman Bearman reiterated his question regarding what the City would receive in return for granting of the 3 Planned Unit Development. Mr. Putnam responded that the development by • Rutland Homes to the southeast, which would include the townhouse area would provide a very nice project for the City. He stated that there were no A parks or other amenities being proposed within the development and that it was considered by the proponent to be unnecessary to provide these.amenities i6sa Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 9, 1984 due to the fact that there were so many City amenities within such close proximity to the property. • Torjeson stated that the project to the south, while having received a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change for higher density, had provided a rather sufficient buffer between the higher density and the lower density homes on the north side of Valley View Road. Berming and larger lot single family homes had been located at the periphery of the project to provide a transition. He stated that he did not see such a transition provided within this project. Mr. Edward Farr, 17971 Evanston, stated that he had several concerns and considerations regarding the project. He stated that he would prefer the lesser density for the project; that he would prefer only one of the two roads which met the northern boundary of the project be connected through the project; that construction traffic be routed only to the property from Valley View Road as opposed to entering from either of the two roads at the north boundary of the project; and he expressed concern that these rolling hills within this area would be cut down and graded flat as opposed to left in a natural state by the higher density. Mr. Warren Meyer, 6980 Loralee Lane, stated that he agreed with Mr. Farr regarding his concerns about the project. He further expressed concern regarding the connection of one or both of the roads at the northern edge of the property through the project due to potential traffic which would result from the new homes within this vicinity. Mr. Meyer also stated concern for the amount of traffic already existing on Valley View Road. Mr. Bud Rotter, Rutland Construction, stated that there were many positive features about his portion of the development. He stated that there would be four off-street parking spaces per unit, the units would range in size from 938 square feet to 1,670 square feet, and that each unit would have ample storage space. Mr. Rotter stated that he felt the allowance for smaller lots offered the developers an opportunity to 'put quality back into the homes as opposed to putting more money into the lot purchase itself. Mr. Bob Thurk, 6991 8oyd Avenue, stated that he would prefer the area be built as R1-13.5 instead of R1-9.5. He stated that he wanted to be certain • that this project would not add assessment costs to the existing residential homes to the north. Ms. Maureen 8rady, 18216 Valley View Road, stated that she felt the majority of ..the neighbors in this area were against the higher density. She , stated that she felt there was a good possibility of putting too.gieat a burden on Prairie View Elementary School. Chairman Bearman stated that he was concerned that proponents were requesting a Planned Unit Development for this project without providing the City a "trade off" such as open space or other amenities which were generally considered a requirement of Planned Unit Development .projects. • • Chairman Dearman questioned whether the City was losing its focus regarding the purpose of R1-9.5 zoning districts and the Planned Unit Development process with a project such as this. • • 653 • Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 9, 1984 Planner Enger stated that the Planned Unit Development process was intended to provide the ability for a plan to accomplish better site design and livability to a project which, under strict interpretation of the zoning • districts, would not be as well designed, or save natural features. He added that control was available within the R1-9.5 district for architectural variety. Marhula stated that he felt there were some good features about the plan. He stated that, overall, the project would be within the Low Density Residential Guide Plan densities. Marhula suggested that, in view of the fact that the proponent was requesting a Planned Unit Development, the City should provide as much control over the project as was felt necessary to provide a good development for the overall community. MOTION: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public hearing to the July 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent time to make revisions to the project according to the Staff Report of July 6, 1984, keeping in mind that the project should be within the 2.5 units per acre Guide Plan density for Low Density Residential development, unless there is a very compelling case for something other than 2.5 units per acre. • • Motion carried--5-0-0 c • 0 • • • /6sy CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #84-213 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SHADY OAK RIDGE FOR JOSEPH RUZIC • BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 4 That the preliminary plat of Shady Oak Ridge, for Joseph Ruzic, dated May 5, 1984, .consisting of 11.5 acres for 48 townhouse units, 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 • , 1984. • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • • ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk • • C'JJ • 6401 Shay Road RE: Ruzic Proposal Eden PrairiekMN 55344 AUK 1984 July 31, 1984 . Members of City Council 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Gentlemen: We are informed that the Eden Prairie Planning Commission has recommended a request by the developer of property owned by Joe Ruzic, which lies across the road from our residence, to change the Guide Plan to permit a medium-density housing development. We are opposed to this proposed change in density. The present Guide Plan designates the Ruzic property for low-density hous- ing, thus limiting development to no more than 2.5 residential units per acre. . . While we are aware that the proposal recommended by the Planning Commission only calls for 3.1 units per acre, we strongly feel that the original limit of 2.5 • should not be changed, for the following reasons: 1. our own quality of life would be diminished by having nine housing • units in plain view across the road from our single-family residence; and, ' 2. it would set a dangerous precedent to permit one land-owner/developer in a low-density area to exceed the limit of 2.5 units per acre, because • all the other land-owners/developers in the surrounding area would press to e have their limits raised, too. We note that the units planned for the high hill an the Ruzic property ' would fall within the present low-density limit. It is the units planned for the present swamp area which create the desire for a change in the Guide Plan. • This, plus the uncertainty about disturbances to the natural drainage pattern through that swamp and into ours, and the need for stable subsoil on which to place footings and foundations for structures to hold nine units, leads us to seriously question the wisdom of approving the request for any building on the present swamp area. While we would rather not have any multiple housing in our neighborhood, the units planned for the high hill are vastly more acceptable than those planned for the swamp. •We.have lived and paid taxes in Eden Prairie nearly 20 years. We want to • continue to enjoy the serenity and beauty of our neighborhood which originally attracted us to Eden Prairie. Other recent decisions by the Council regarding sewer and water extensions to the Carmel development have already diminshed our enjoyment of our property. In the interest of not having our'neighborhood deteriorate still further, my wife and I earnestly hope that you will vote against changing the Guide Plan to permit medium-density housing on the Ruzic property, and thus continue to maintain the present low-density limit for that property and the other property in the surrounding area. Sincerely, • • Wayne A. Kinion MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services 4 DATE: August 16, 1984 SUBJECT: Development Proposal Summary Reports for August 20, 1984 Meeting SHADY DAK RIDGE TOWNHOUSES . Attached, for your review, are two Planning Staff Reports dated June 8, 1984 and July 20, 1984, as well as the proposal submitted by Ron Krueger and Associates for a 36 unit townhouse proposal titled Shady Oad Ridge. This proposal is located just north of Rowland Road on the west side of Old Shady Oak Road. There arc two issues relating to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commis- sion; the first being the grading plan for this townhouse development on this wooded slope. The second issue being access for these residents to the neighborhood park. • The revised plat has reduced the number of townhouses from 48 to 36, and has sub- stantially reduced the amount of grading required to develop this site. The City has required a tree inventory that helped define the construction limits and sub- stantially reduced the amount of maples and oaks that would be lost with this develop- ment. • . Although, the site is less than 1,500 feet from Carmel Neighborhood Park, until the property north of this sub division 'is developed the only access to Carmel Park will he along Rowland Road and through the Carmel Subdivision. This access will put the park slightly more than one-half Mile away from the subdivision. When the property to the north of the subdivision is developed the access to the park will be north on Old Shady Oak Road and westerly to the east end of the park..-.This access will put the park within one-fourth of a mile from this subdivision. Bryant Lake Regional Park is also directly across Rowland Road from this subdivision; 'therefore, the site will be adequately served by public park and open space. The Community Sery ices Department recommend approval of the revised subdivision as per the July 20, 1984 Planning Staff Report. I`: F • • • 14(1 • - 0 0 STAFF REPORT TD: Planning Commission i • FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior ITIF7D-UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: July 2D, 1984 PROJECT: Shady Dak Ridge Townhouses APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Joe Ruzic REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential , to Medium Residential (RM-6.5). 2. Preliminary Plat of 11.5 acres into one lot or 36 townhomes. • 3. Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5. IBackground This is a continued item from the June --_� �N June 18, mm11 . 1984 Planning Qoission , meeting.- At :that meeting the Planning Commission reviewed a "`��� request from the proponent involving r 48_townhome units on 11.5 acres of PROPOSED SITE land at an overall density of 4.17 units per acre. The Planning t ';'t) Commission recommended that the development plans be returned to the 1 " proponent for revisions based upon Ithe recommendations identified in F SigI ILY it the June 8, 1984 Staff Report. That • E 4 Staff Report suggested alternative COMM-00 RCIAL ways of developing the property' i. which involved either a Planned Unit Development approach which would i involve additional acreage of land • .� owned by Mr. Ruzic, or to revise the specific site plan request according kllh to the following development guide- .lines which included: 1, 81-27 jr PU8 \,. ( r, rifri. AREA LOCATtO ! MAP11, . ' 1, i. y,. ' 'Vr,., t••M� 'iif . . ' ♦ 3 0 Shady Oak Ridge 2 July 20, 1984 1. Overall site grading should be minimized to save the majority of trees of t twelve-inch diameter or greater. 2. Provide appropriate access to the site which minimize traffic movement conflicts and site vision problems along Old Shady Oak Road. 3. Site units on the property to retain a majority of trees of twelve-inch diameter or greater. 4. Road grades on proposed Shady Oak Road should be less than the maximum eight percent road grade requirement. 5. Provide a definitive housing profile which indicates the type and size of units proposed and includes building elevations for unit types. 6. Provide an overall site development program which would include a landscape plan, signage and lighting programs, and a recreational/amenity. Site Plan Revisions The development plan of the proponent has changed in total number of units and type of access provided. The present development plan of the proponent involves 36 units on 11.5 acres of land at an overall density of 3.1 units per acre. This is approximately one unit less per acre than the original proposed density. Units are still located on both sides of Shady Oak Ridge Road which is now proposed as a cul- de-sac rather than a through street. Spacing between units has been increased from ,a minimum of 25 feet at the closest points to 35 feet. This additional spacing coupled with less units on site helps loosen up the site plan.' The spacing between the units, if heavily landscaped, can serve as a visual means of breaking up of the view of the garage fronts and parking areas from Shady Oak Ridge Road. The proponent has indicated potential areas for off-street parking. Staff believes that these proposed parking areas will not be necessary since two car garages are provided and the minimum setback between garages and the street frontage is 25 feet. Staff feels that the street frontage along the proposed landscaped areas between the units will provide areas for on-street parking. Grading The amount of grading work proposed on site has been reduced substantially from the original submittal. This has been achieved by proposing Shady Oak Ridge Road as a cul-de-sac rather than a through street and by the removal of twelve units primarily in the southeast portion of the project. The 2/1 slope to the south of the cul-de- sac will need slope stabilization. Staff recommends that the proponent submit a reforestation for review. Commission will recall that the original grading plan had a 3/1 slope on the southern portion of the site which extended to areas beyond the development proposal. Tightening of the grade to 2/1 slope reduces the extent of grading on site to within the proposed development limits. Road grades have been reduced to a maximum of eight percent. A landing pad area of approximately 80 feet in length with a maximum grade of two percent is proposed near the intersection of Shady Oak Ridge Road and Old Shady Oak Road. , Architecture Of the 36 townhome units proposed, 24 will be walkout units, eight will be slab-on f Q . 0 Shady Oak Ridge 3 July 20, 1984 grade units, and four will be tuckunder units. The townhouse units will consist of two-story, two and three bedroom units. Unit sizes are proposed to be 1,400 square feet of finished area for a two-bedroom unit and 1,580 feet of finished floor area for the three-bedroom unit. There is also the potential to finish off a 750 square foot recreational room. All buildings will be of wood frame construction with rough cedar siding, stained in earth tone colors. The proponent has submitted one building elevation for review. Staff would expect that in a development of this size with different unit types that building elevations would vary somewhat. Staff believes that to add variety to the project, that the proponent should submit additional building elevations for review. Building elevations should differ in terms of roof lines and elevations. Utilities Sewer and water lines are not immediately available to this site. The nearest point of connection would be approximately 170 feet north of the site where an eight-inch sewer and water lines will be extended to serve the Carmel project. Storm water runoff from proposed Shady Oak Ridge Road will drain into a number of catch basins which will connect to a storm sewer pipe which runs in an easterly direction under Old Shady Oak Road into an existing ditch system. Landscaping The initial tree inventory provided by the proponent indicated that 74 maple and eleven oak trees of twelve-inch diameter or more will be lost due to construction. The construction limits defined by the new site and grading plan will result in the loss of two oak trees and approximately 30 to 40 maple trees of twelve-inch diameter or greater. In addition, the reduced grading limits will also save a greater portion of shrub or smaller vegetation on site. Staff expects that with the additional trees saved that the units will not be very visible from Shady Oak Road. The proponent has submitted a landscape plan which provides for landscaping between the units to break up the view of the parking areas along Shady Oak Ridge Road. Access Access to this site will be by private road off of Shady Oak Road. Staff believes that a private road is preferrable to a public road in this development since it allows buildings to be located closer to the roadway and involves less grading work overall on site. The smallest building setback is 25 feet from the street. Buildings would be set back a minimum of 41 feet from the back-of the curb if a public street with 50 feet of right-of-way was proposed. Reduced road grades to a maximum of eight percent and a level landing pad of approximately 80 feet in length at the bottom of proposed Shady Oak Ridge Road should minimize potential traffic hazards at this intersection. Conclusions Site impacts have been reduced substantially through a reduction in density from 4.17 to 3.13 units per acre, and a revised site and grading plan which minimizes the extent of grading and tree loss on site. Road grades have been reduced through the use of a cul-de-sac rather than a through street with a maximum road grade of eight I(0(00 e • Shady Oak Ridge 4 July 20, 1984 percent. The total number of twelve-inch diameter trees to be lost due to construction has been reduced to approximately 35 to 45 trees or twice as many trees I saved over the original submittal. RECOMMENDATIONS • If the Commission feels that the revised development plans represent a substantial enough improvement to justify a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density to Medium Density Residential at an overall density of 3.13 units per acre, then Staff would recommend that approval be based on the plans dated April 4, 1984, revised July 19, 1984, subject to the Staff Reports dated June 8, 1984, and July 20, 1984, and subject to the following: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Provide additional building elevations for review and comment. • B. Provide an overall signage and street lighting plan for review. C. Provide a recreational/amenities program for review. 2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall: • A. Provide detailed grading, storm water runoff, and erosion control plans to the Watershed District for review. +B. Provide detailed erosion control, grading, and storm water runoff plans to the City Engineer for review. C. Provide detailed utility plans for¢review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. • B. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. c I . . • . STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 8, 1984 PROJECT: Shady Oak Ridge Townhouses APPLICANT & FEE OWNER: Joe Ruzic REQUEST: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, Zoning from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and Preliminary Plat of 11.5 acres into one lot for 48 townhomes. Background {` The Comprehensive Guide Plan identi- fies a Low Density Residential land use for this site for up to 2.5 • units per acre. The Guide Plan depicts surrounding future land uses • as primarily Low Density Residential to the north of the site, Medium Density Residential to the east of the site, and Low Density Residen- tial..and park land uses to the south • of the site across Rowland Road. The 11.5-acre site is characterized by extreme grade changes, with a ridge line running through the central portion of the site in a north/south direction. From a high point elevation of 960 along this ridge, the property slopes steeply to the west and east. There is a • relatively level area in the extreme ' northeast corner of the site. There is a significant amount of natural , vegetation on the site, consisting primarily of maple and oak. Provisions of Chapter 11 relative to steep slopes will apply on this site since slopes are in excess of 12% . and there is an elevation greater than 30 feet on the parcel. i 1 L ILg • Shady Oak Ridge 2 June 8, 1984 The existing flood plain elevation has not been identified; however, Staff expects that the land area in the extreme north corner of the site would be subject to flood elevations since it is a relatively low and marshy area. Site Plan The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts a Low Density Residential land use for this site for up 2.5 units per acre. The proponent has submitted a site plan with 48 townhome units at a density of 4.17 units per acre. The units will be clustered primarily near the top of the natural ridge line running through the site on either side of Shady Oak Ridge Road. Shady Oak Ridge Road is proposed as a private street. As much as 25 feet of cut will be necessary in various locations to construct this road. • The use of the private roadway allows for buildings to be located closer to the curb than would be possible with a public street with a 28-foot road surface and eleven feet of right-of-way on either side of the curbs. A public road through this site would require considerably more cut on either side of proposed Shady Oak Ridge Road. The proximity of the garages and parking spaces to Shady Oak Ridge Road can create a • cluttered curb appearance, with cars parked close to the street. In some situations this minimum setback between building and curb is 20 feet. The space separation between buildings is minimal. Buildings appear as a long and linear mass. The close proximity of buildings to each other and the private road suggests that the site plan may be too tight. Architecture • Of the 48 townhome units proposed, 24 will be walk-out units, thirteen will be slab- on grade units, and eleven will be tuck-under units. The proponent has submitted a conceptual floor plan and building elevation for a two-story, three-bedroom unit. Staff would expect that in a project of this size, that there would be a number of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units available. All buildings will be of wood-frame construction, with rough cedar siding stained in earth-tone colors. Grading A considerable amount of cut and fill work will be necessary in order to accommodate the development proposal as submitted. As much as 25 feet of cut is necessary to minimize road grades. Even with this extensive amount of cut, road grades will exceed the maximum allowable ordinance requirement of 8%. Road grades—will vary between 8-10% along Shady Oak Ridge Road. Grading is not confined to the specific site request and extends to the property owned by Mr. Ruzic to ,the south. Without the benefit of an overall development plan for the remaining acreage under Mr. Ruzic's ownership, Staff cannot assess the impacts of off-site grading. Road grades along Shady Oak Ridge Drive could be reduced to within Ordinance requirements; However, Staff would expect that substantially more land alteration i" would be required with a minimum of 35 feet of cut overall and substantially more tree loss. The relationship between cut and road grades is obvious and suggests that perhaps Shady Oak Ridge Road may not be in the best location. The proponent has provided a site section showing the extent of cut required for this proposal and for a standard single family land use. The proponent contends • • Shady Oak Ridge 3 • June 8, 1984 that a single family land use would require considerably more grading and tree loss. Landscaping The proponent has not submitted a landscape plan at this time, but does fully intend to retain the greatest percentage of trees on site as possible to screen the units from Shady Oak Road. Since the tree inventory is only partially complete at this time, Staff can only speculate as to the appearance of the project from Shady Oak Road. Although the proponent has provided a tree inventory indicating the type and size of existing vegetation which will be lost due to construction, it does not identify the extent of existing vegetation which will remain. It cannot be determined if the extent of tree loss represents a portion, or all, of the best trees on site. The tree inventory based on 1968 data, does not reflect current tree coverage. A recent Staff field survey indicates that the entire site is wooded. The tree inventory supplied by the proponent indicates that 74 maple, and 11 oak trees of 12-inch diameter or more will be lost due to construction. An additional 29 trees of 12 inch diameter or greater consisting of cedar, poplar, cottonwood, and birch will also be lost. Utilities Sewer and water lines are not immediately available to this site. The nearest point of connection would be 170 feet north of the property where 8-inch sewer and water lines will be extended to serve the Carmel project. Sewer and water lines are proposed to be stubbed at Shady Oak Ridge Road. These sewer and water lines should • be extended to the southern property line to accommodate future development. However, without the benefit of an overall development plan for the property to the south, Staff cannot properly evaluate whether or not this is the appropriate • location for the extension of sewer and water. No storm sewer plan has been provided. It appears from the grading plan that the majority of storm water run-off will sheet drain over land to either side of proposed Shady Oak Ridge Road. Access Access to this site will be by private road off of Shady Oak Road. The southern alignment of Shady Oak Ridge Road will be at the intersection of Old Shady Oak Road and Rowland Road. This alignment will be a problem for two reasons: first, site lines to the west along Rowland Road will be restricted by steep—slopes and heavy vegetation; Second, steep grades along Shady Oak Ridge Road will be a problem to negotiate during wet or icy conditions. • Lighting The proponent has indicated that there will be street lighting installed every 200 feet along the private street with exterior lighting on the outside of each unit. The proponent should provide details of the lighting plan for review. Recreational Amenities The proponent has not identified the extent of proposed recreational amenities at Shady Oak Ridge 4 June 8, 1984 this time. Typically townhome projects, depending upon the size, will offer a number of amenities to the homeowners, which might include a pedestrian walkway, totlot, tennis courts, and swimming pool. The proponent should provide a recreational amenities program for review. Conclusions The Staff Report raises concerns relative to grading, road grades, tree loss, and access. Considering the extent of site impacts, the Commission must decide if a legitimate argument has been made to support a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential at an overall density of 4.17 units per acre. Steep natural slopes and extensive tree coverage on site are an opportunity and a liability at the same time. It raises the questions of how development of this site could occur in a manner which would allow the least amount of site impact. One approach would be to modify the development plans along the following guidelines: 1. Overall site grading should be minimized to save the majority of trees of twelve inches in diameter, or greater. 2. Appropriate access into the site should be provided which minimizes traffic j movement conflicts and site vision problems along Old Shady Oak Road. {. 3. Units on the site should be relocated to retain the majority of trees of twelve inches in diameter, or greater. 4. Road grades on proposed Shady Oak Ridge Road should be less than the maximum 8% road grade requirement. {; 5.. _. A definitive housing profile should be provided, which indicates the type and size of units proposed and includes building elevations of all unit types. 6. M overall site development program should be provided,which would include a landscape plan, signage and lighting program, and a recreational/amenity program. Another approach to land development would be to examine land uses on a larger scale, since planning on a site specific basis is unable to produce buildable areas without substantial alterations to the site. Perhaps this site can be planned with adjacent properties, collectively utilizing buildable areas and preserving open 1. space in larger and more usable areas to preserve the unique natural resources of the site. The Planned Unit Development approach could be utilized since the proponent owns an additional six acres of land to the south of this site. A Planned Unit Development approach would not be necessarily limited to property under the proponents ownership, but could be combined with adjacent land owners as well. • I D. SHADY OAK RIDGE, by Joseph Ruzic. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5; and Preliminary Plat of 11.5 acres for 48 townhouse units. Location: North of Rowland Road, west of Dld Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing. Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the changes to the project from the Planning Commission meeting July 18, 1984. He pointed out that the number of units had been reduced from 48 to 36 and that the units had been spread out to save more trees where possible. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report for the revised plans. Chairman Bearman asked how long the proposed private cul-de-sac would be. Mr. Krueger responded that it would be approximately 900-1,000 feet in length. Torjesen stated that he felt that private streets should be judged the same as public streets as to safety, etc. He stated that he felt the 500 ft. maximum length of cul-de-sac for public streets should apply to this private street, as well. • Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the cul-de-sac length was justified in that many more trees would be saved and that, as designed,. it would have - less impact upon the steep slopes within the property. Torjesen stated that this area was designated for 2.5 units per acre according the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He asked what justification proponents had for a greater density. Mr. Krueger stated that the proposal was for 3.1 units per acre. He pointed out that the units would likely not be visible from Shady Oak Road due to the amount of trees on the site which would remain after development. He stated that 2.5 units per acre would allow approximately 28 units for the entire site. --- •• Torjesen expressed concern for the impact that this site would have on adjacent similar properties to if allowed to be developed' at 3.1 units per acre. He stated that these areas, too, were guided for 2.5 units per acre, and questioned whether the City would be setting a precedent for the development of the area by allowing this site to be 3.1 units per acre. Torjesen stated that he felt there should be better justification provided for the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Low Density Vdr Residential to Medium Density Residential. Johannes asked why the property had not been proposed as single family residential. Mr. Ruzic stated that this had been reviewed originally; Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 23, 1984 however, the result would be to lose many more trees and to require much more cutting of the slopes in the area. Preservation of the natural features with a single family detached development would be extremely difficult. Mrs. Wayne Kinion, 6401 Shady Oak Road, stated that her property was located to the east of this site. She stated that she had several concerns, including: 1) Two four-unit structures would be located directly across from her home and the developer had provided no buffering of the property; 2) The eight units across from her home would be accessing Shady Oak Road at the same point as her driveway, possibly causing traffic and access problems; 3) The cul-de-sac allowed only one access for emergency vehicles to the units within this project; and 4) How and when would sanitary sewer and water be impacting her property due to this project being built. Mr. Krueger 'stated that sewer and water were already available to the Ruzic site. He stated that they would be petitioning for the public improvements for that property, only. Mrs. Kinion questioned the drainage on the site, also. Staff stated that the storm water drainage had been reviewed by the Engineering Department Staff and would be reviewed again when the final utility plans were prepared for the property. Torjesen stated that he felt Mrs. Kinion had a valid point regarding screening of the multi-family use from her rural land to the east and suggested that proponents provide some method of screening in this area. e Planner Enger stated that adjustment of the two northerly four-unit structures to be oriented in an east-west direction, instead •of north-south direction, would provide less visual impact on the Kinion property. •- MOTION 1: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 • MOTION 2: • Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Joe Ruzic for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for Shady Oak Ridge for 11.5 acres, based on revised plans dated July 19, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of June 8, and July 20, 1984, and with the following added conditions: 1) Developer shall amend the site plan to reflect an east-west orientation of the northerly two four-unit structures and provide screening of these two structures from the rural property to the east; 2) Developer shall provide covenants dealing with exterior maintenance of the structures and private road; and, 3) Developer shall provide detailed information regarding trees to be removed and, during r) construction, shall fence the construction limits and replace any significant trees lost within 25 ft. of the construction limits which are lost with construction. I(0(o'1 • i. Planning Commission Minutes 8 • July 23, 1984 • Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen against) Torjesen stated that he was against the density change for the site. '+ MOTION 3: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Joe Ruzic for Zoning District Change from • Rural to RM-6.5 for 11.5 acres for the Shady Oak Ridge townhouse project, based on revised plans dated July 19, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of June 8, and July 20, 1984, with the following added conditions: 1) Developer shall amend the site plan to reflect an east-west orientation of the northerly two four-unit structures and provide screening • of these two structures from the rural property to the east; 2) Developer shall provide covenants dealing with exterior maintenance of the structure • and private ' road; and 3) Developer shall provide detailed information regarding trees to be removed and, during construction, shall fence the construction limits and replace any significant trees lost within 25 ft. of • the construction limits which are lost with construction. • Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City j Council approval of the request of Joe Ruzic for Preliminary Plat of 11.5 acres for townhouse units, to be known as Shady Oak Ridge, based on revised . plans dated July 19, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of.June 8, and'July 20, 1984, with the following added condition: 1) Developer shall amend the site plan to reflect an east-west orientation of the northerly two four-unit structures and provide screening of these two • - structures from the rural property to the east; 2) Developer shall provide • covenants dealing with exterior maintenance of the structures and private road; and, 3) Developer shall provide detailed information retarding trees to be removed and, during construction, shall fence the construction limits • and replace any significant trees lost within 25 ft. of the construction limits which are lost with construction. Motion carried--6-0-0 • 4: • 6tlD • • Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 18, 1984 Motion carried--6-0-0 (Gartner left at 12:00 a.m.) F. SHAOY OAK RIOGE, by Joseph Ruzic. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; Zoning Oistrict Change from Rural to RM-6.5; and Preliminary Plat of 11.5 acres for 48 townhouse units. Location: North of Rowland Road, west of Old Shady Oak Road. A public hearing. • Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of June 8, 1984, pointing out the areas of concern to the Planning Commission. Chairman Bearman stated that he did not feel single family units on this site would be appropriate, however he had no objection to a multi-family use. Marhula stated that he felt clustering of the units would be an appropriate way to develop the property. He stated that he was concerned, however, about the density of overall site. Marhula added that he felt adjoining properties should be reviewed as to the impact of the deveiopment of this site upon the future uses of the surrounding sites. Torjeson stated that he was nut opposed to the proposed use of this site; however, he felt the density should remain at 2.5 units per acre. Hallett stated that he felt the difference between 2.5 units per acre and 4.1 units per acre as proposed by Mr. Ruzic was significant. He added that he, too, was interested in the effect upon adjoining properties. Chairman Bearman suggested that proponent review the possibilities of developing the site as single family units within the R1-44 Oistrict. He reiterated that he felt the townhouse units would be an appropriate use for such a site. Mr. Krueger stated that, even with removal of a portion of the units, the impact upon the required slope would be the same for the road through the site. The current slope for the road was 3/1, and would not change with the number of units for the site. Mr. Krueger added that development of the site in any-way-would require approximately the same amount of grading as well. He aiso stated that moving the units further north of the site would not be beneficial,-. and that it would require removal of additional trees. • ` Mr. Len Uherka, 6301 Shady Oak Road, asked about utility access and availability to this site. Mr. Krueger pointed out that utilities were available at the north end of the site. The Commission discussed with Mr. Ruzic the possibility and potential for adding • his six-acre piece to the south of this property to the overall proposal to provide addtional acreage for spreading of the units across the site. Marhula stated that he felt the units along the southeast portion of the site were • 61,9 • • Planning Commission Minutes 10 • June 18, 1984 somewhat tight as shown. Marhula also questioned the access at the south end of the site as to its safety at its intersection with Shady Oak Road. • Chairman Bearman asked if a homeowners' association would be developed in order to • maintain the private road and other common facilities within the site. Mr. Ruzic responded that there would be a homeowners' association for such purposes. • The Commission concurred that a tree inventory of this site would aid in • determination of the number of units which would be appropriate for this site and asked proponent to provide such an inventory to Staff at their earliest opportunity. MOTION: • Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to continue the public hearing to the July 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent opportunity to revise the request per the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 8, 1984. Motion carried--5-0-0 • • • * . • • • • 100 • • • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #84-214 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF GUY TREANOR • BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Guy Treanor, dated July 16, 1984, consisting of 0.734 acres into two lots for residential development, 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 1984. • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • ATTEST: • • John D. Frane, City Clerk • •0 • • . a. • EL a 4ollsy. ef2ev,v5i4m,,,, Goliwt:(44ctivt.) i eck- : VCQ .,tej hliv T /�l,U"u — p c./iX4,w(01 21d.��Q 2 cQ 41 : v;,u Pg . 0.73 avv,o) 0 d -00-4 Z3SVgL a• , Uk� --ID �t�'�cr �2Qcv�cu?�s /2Qy,-,c. ,A 1,11 - Q/J O(n'kQ. 0- c 017/4 avvv (►1Lt t���1 (ZQ/Y1 U`�s t�n�� Gam. /� Uti'vcP,I e�✓���. .Cxt, /Yt�t,) crz^'w A iVi alms(), ,/41 Wer d o , -c e fit. d (JAIL) N oo. 1 co,di tQ .ate aNt4Pciz/?.ned a, .Pvo,t,e. -tAx . .3 c_Q_+04 6--tU,t,,, ... c,Qx -,s--Cc..) - ,, ,t-, 4,,,) , ,,I,25z_ 7'! (1,, j)cra eJ!t a142 airo•-ca_ vi.) "oictivvytS�� (frAtc-tAl. cvz. .) (24/47-&-. (Sae - (AA) 3207(n.. IAA. 4. ,,,,,,,,L,Les.a.t. „.„., 4, : ; v �tf GAA4 T//.ati�l�.x �,�A,SQ, 4.e..' 'v f. .�'ta,v2- a,k2., vyt, Mtn.. -1 a eek / -i �U '/ a« . O 0� -mod ' �?-10 e.12 C�at acP 4ec& Cv v -a-- n �} ,�& t2t �^: •G� wt z, . In n n/. e9 - r'. tn•_ a r' 1! . C n 0 _..�,, ./'- • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 1984 D. TREANDR ADDITION, by Guy K. Treanor. Request for Preliminary Plat of 0.734 acres into two lots for residential development. Location: 16135 Valley View Road. A public hearing. Mr. Guy Treanor explained his request for Preliminary Plat of property on Valley View Road. He reviewed the history of his previous request of over one year ago, as well, which had been denied by the City Council. Mr. Treanor had made the requested revisions in the plat, adding that the new lot would have a 95 ft. width and a 168 ft. depth. Sewer and water hook-ups were available in Valley View Road to service the lot. Mr. Treanor reviewed the lot sizes in the surrounding area, pointing out inconsistencies with the required dimensions of the zoning districts in the area in terms of lot area, lot depth, and lot width. Mr. Treanor presented two petitions: one presented from his previous request, stating opposition to the request; the other was one he circulated in the neighborhood regarding the revised plan wherein many of the neighbors who had been against the project previously had now signed in favor of the project this time. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the request. He stated that the major concern was regarding storm water run-off in this vicinity. He stated that there was a question raised regarding the percolation rate of the property if more of the ground was covered with impervious materials. If the ground could not hold the amount of water from a rainfall or from snow melt, the water would stand as a pond in the rear area of the lots. _. Hallett asked about the cost of installation drain pipe to handle such a project. Staff responded that a rough estimate would be approximately $6,500. Staff stated that the pipe would have to be installed across other properties, as well as Mr. Treanors. Therefore, a question would be raised as to who would benefit from the installation of the pipe, and, based on benefit, who would be responsible for payment for installation of the pipe. Torjesen asked what implications there would be for other lots such as Mr. Treanor's in the future--lots with larger acreage than the R1-22 or R1-13.5 requirements, along a road, more or less remnants from previous development. Staf.f responded that each case would have to be looked at individually to determine suitability for division. However, if other lots could meet the criteria that Mr. Treanor had met, it would be appropriate "to divide the property. Marhula asked if there had been any indication of the improvement schedule for Valley View Road. Staff responded that the City Council had determined that construction would take place in 1987. Mr. Mary Lahti, 16213 Valley View Road, stated that he was not in favor of the plat in that he felt the frontages for the lots concerned would be less that those of the area and these lots would appear congested compared to the• ?; Uo13 surrounding area. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: sM Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Guy Treanor for Preliminary Plat of 0.734 acres into two lots for residential development, based on plans dated July 16, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 10, 1984. Torjesen questioned whether it was in the best interest of the community to allow smaller frontages along Valley View Road. Staff responded that, in this case, it appeared that there would not be negative impact on the surrounding properties. Staff added that it is necessary for transition to be successful in situations such as this, also. Torjesen stated that it appeared as if this entire stretch of Valley View Road was headed in that direction, based on development patterns. Torjesen suggested that a policy be formed to deal with these matters uniformly as they would appear before the City for review. Hallett stated that he disagreed and that he felt each case should be looked at individually, based upon its own merits. Motion carried--4-1-0 (Torjesen against) Torjesen stated that he voted against as he felt that all of the properties along Valley View Road should be reviewed. He added`that he had no objection to the project, itself. • 7 • ti • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael 0. Franzen, Senior Planner TIT-ROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: August 10, 1984 PROJECT: Treanor Addition APPLICANT/ Guy Treanor t FEE OWNER: REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of approximately .74 acres into two lots. Background In September of 1982, the Planning uc_,!, rj ,nr �,. i •Commission reviewed a development _--___ _ request of the proponent involving g- 1.6 acres of land into three single 1_ family lots and rezoning from R1-22 �Y�i -� ` �� R to R1-13.5. The Commission denied F P the request for rezoning to R1-13.5 .. 77--4 - 1 PROPOSED SITE but approved the Preliminary Plat ` RI-4 tR-22 ,- , request since the proponent had ' {.. 80-29' received a variance request from the �- '� `bt� V 31c1-3-5- -�_-_—'•`" i. Board of Appeals to allow smaller 3-200---- , • 1 : i t�5 �`I-7�v lots in the R1-22 zone. The Treanor COM K�«-Mu,;,,,L t_RAI_ --- - � '-,a\I Addition final plat was approved by �1 , the City Council for a two lot '6 1 T L �.;R��.y r� -, 1-/` subdivision, with Lot 1 being ,, '-; "--i I approximately 32,000 square feet and ___-- 4-_-_F- _1 _ ' 'f _, Lot 2 being approximately 26,000 -�! •t -_T;--'- `' -1 _ 1_�'-a'. i1 q`i• f square feet. t ,_�,_ ,� - , L8-12 _' � ��� The proponent is submitting a ' c - ,r , preliminary plat to subdivide Lot 1, PUP a"� t f ! i' Block 1, Treanor Addition into two - - "�8-20 ; v`�,j . -•1:7I , fl lots in a manner similar to the c•co..ir PS �o--'\� ' preliminary plat previously sub- . ,,.\_ x�- _�\ r ;y�. J mitted for a Commission review in _`� Jf-'E; F / A4•h! s 1982. There is an existing house on 79-17 �� `- / the eastern half of this lot which J �5 1 �'- would now be located on Lot 2. RM k,5 1 PI( 1-2 ` ..7_7� �i - ^'-'74 Land Use AREA LOCATION MAP ! The property is currently zoned R1- 'nwroJ f 9�� NY:. c;�'�s 1 22 and is designated Low Density }� -•-„�- v ,/, '/ :\�� i J(o1S Treanor Addition 2 August 10, 1984 residential on the Comprehensive Guide Plan for up to 2.5 units per acre. The parcel has 190 feet of frontage on Valley View Road. The request of the proponent would divide the one lot into two lots with 40 feet of right-of-way conveyance for Valley View Road. There are a number of homes along Valley View Road with driveways directly accessing this street. This is not a good situation for a community collector road. Therefore, the owner, at the suggestion of Staff, is combining the driveways off the two lots at a point of good site visibility. Adjacent to the property to the south, are two lots, approximately 160 feet wide and 147 feet deep and 23,520 square feet in area. (See Attachment A). The lots to the east and west are 208 feet by 208 feet or 43,260 square feet in area. However, there are lots in the immediate area which are not 22,000 square feet. There are two lots, which are 104 feet by 208 feet (168 feet). This dimension would be reduced by 40 feet to 168 feet after right-of-way taking for road to be comparable. • Although the Estherhills Addition immediately across Valley View Road to the north is zoned R1-22, the majority of the lots are less than 19,000 square feet and the lots abutting Valley View Road are 17,672 square feet. Immediately to the northwest across Valley View Road is the Walnut Addition, which is zoned RI-13.5. The lots in the Walnut Addition along Valley View Road are 25,500 square feet, 16,800 square feet, and 13,780 square feet. Mr. Treanor is being required by the City to dedicate 40 feet of right-of-way along • Valley View Road. This reduces, on paper, his lot depth to 168 feet. The two lots proposed are 168.27 feet by 95 feet (15,985 square feet). Utilities Sewer and water service is available off of Valley View Road. There is an existing . sewer service stub to each of the proposed lots. • • Drainage The R1-22 Zoning Oistrict allowed early development of Eden Prairie's residential areas with minimal public improvements. Sanitary sewer and Water were not required. Many of the neighborhoods developed without hard-surfaced streets. Storm water was, in many cases, handled with front yard ditches and driveway culverts, rather than curb, gutter, and storm sewers. The lots were large enough to, in some cases, provide fora small amount of casual water on portions of the yards. The Treanor's lot request is part of a six lot area that currently provides temporary 'ponding of storm water in heavy rains. The area could fill with water up to"three feet deep before it reached an over flow elevation. This has probably not happened. before because of the sandy character of the soil. The new proposed lot illustrates a home elevation only four inches higher than the overflow of the back yard low area. The lot sizes created by the new division are consistent with the R1-13.5 Zoning District, which is predicated upon provision of complete public improvements including storm sewer. The Staff cannot guarantee that hack yard ponding in this area, with small lots, will not cause problems in the future. The solution, is to provide a storm sewer pipe to the west; however, the cost may not be acceptable to the proponent. • • • • Treanor Addition 3 August 10, 1984 • is Site Plan The subdivision of the property in two lots can be accomplished in a manner such that compliance with front, rear, and side yard setbacks of the R1-22 District can be met. STAFF RECDMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request for Preliminary Plat of approximately .74 acres into two lots based on plans dated July 16, 1984, and subject to the following: • 1. Assessments for lateral sewer and water would become effective for each lot platted that has not been previously paid. 2. Cash Park fee would be assessable at the time of issuance for proposed Lot 1. 3. Any damage to the asphalt bikeway along Valley View Road during construction would be assessed to the lot owner. • 4. Obtain lot size variances from Board of Appeals. 5. Common driveway access to both lots shall be by driveway centered or the common lot line. • • • • r . • • • • • • 101 1 i: \ si•i!ris 120 ID.; ( 4, !to 1 ( 7:: W.1,1ALvtb,•11p....r.t. ,t,.. ;47 4).4- ...,... (5-6?) t72-in. t C S T 1.1mF.. .R tri 04, L. , ••••93 ,...,: , ,li .,)2 1: -, s(>0 ,,.., ',,,f,e.43."?..z.c cl; 'e$4 ',I.% ' ;51) %.• n ::.6; •c I a, i \ A:0 0 •• . n . 4.)1.. 0/ 0 .1.......t4, .6.••••• 4,,0*t:i 47) ^..1 ... •C16 41 •4-. '.5'....4' .. l'iC5 '': ‘‘.41‘ - - .•;;;,...Z.;.1•1••• .1 5 ...t.,..: L.' ''.,7- \ • • , ... :, .,..z.e.,....(6.ss,,,,tfev,, , ..-_,.g_4_7_,, ,,,t 5(-iz.) r.,.: ,t,..7 • ,..i,(4z)`1.1 air 3..+4 ; •;,,, i.7 a 4_1 --i :)..01)" ' ''''', 7•('5 4'?Y-.-t----"57 19 -----'"' %I- i t ,,, A(40) 0 *0 sav6) a • . I;:!4..6_, . I e?.. .::, --! •tf,.."- . 1;11-‘)) P. Z '4 1(43) le*i fi " -!,-,---)E"..-,?,--8- 7 ci,411 7: ___,..n:;., • v zi- - I) v. M . 1(Gm)AD D.1.5.! ''S 4 '..7:-) „,.,122:;ir a.,' "---'1—--. --—- • i \ ...• ''F.9 1 4 •::',1...„.-- ..._$ .S..; 1 3't.) i - ''t'••9 IS' ,,..., V Z fz5)A ; - 1 "M) • 1 • 104) .;2 i3)1) ' ' % 2•4 lt.'— ----- . • . -.<- • '•‘',. i6 ti" 5,7Z•7rA ••' Z•I' tti,c11) ., 1 !... zt 62.) - I '." N. . C.1 14,1..1. i3,4.,‘ • ,0 414 7„, , ) 4 , ;- P ,...o 5 -, U'',,11,5• ;S:5 !C.,CZ:. I or'. i •.::ii) .4 VIE W-- -- ,_52,?.7 cc-,,y....___._ig.:4.......f49- --",.--:,-.1 it:..::• . . SITE J , , ;sk,5\'' \''. :4. I ‘._..). • .. .'% i —0' .71, ii", . • • ' i. - ,.....,, 7,. e"'i; I , , ...., (61.31Z40) i kr,11 ••• • 2,4 7••C i 1 ''• • I I i•,ir ..i. 1 ,!..' .,r, , . z:0 : 3 .7!..5:( / .... .... ... . .2 5(•<1 4/ • .^t: .. :1 . L . (i) h' ) •••• 2 02) .1 '( ) • 04) *:•'• • s•-,..y of.) :: - •, oi 1 , i, ,, . _ ,.,. • 1 ,.. .,.; • • 1.1 .0. ,.. 1:•.;.> 0 it. ..,:i•:,..., 15, cr: •:'...4,.....4.,... ' s" • •..-- . r • • --±'-------" •!.4;,;-.:.i.;- WESTGATE .3.;.;;;:::';:,„. ..:0-., v • ... i ,. . :". tli •,, .: . ::ii:, 1. .1: , . , : ;3$ .4,.. . it.N 4)00) I .t • . • tr. 07)... 1 n: .`. • „ -I - ••1 . •. ,,. 1 71- - - . ", (z.i) !li „Pi 7: •9 :•••'` 9/1/,,) '.;•. (2.7) -1 0.•:2-.4.E 5121 , . ..i. . I CI. ....:q.3,_ .,..1. r if..,.. ____ 11 _.. ‘:;5 11_7 41,...,-. el...j 0 8 \••(,,:k.) I -• •• 4•- .o. ." i • . •,.. ' 12 :• .....P 13 ::, , , I z . .. •• ... .** 3 . ••!. 2 4 ::::,:t 03)9 ... ;'. 6 64) '1'...e 20.5)- i.- \ ••:•• • i • ' (o) r: (LI) 1 (22/.-1 ''.:; -.141•:',4 . 1 .,-,•• . 1:4;'. '..`':4 /. /:1 ..‘ (PI) ..'. - .. ,i: 1 :4,:: '• „.s% .:,4•,... ....:.... . , '. ''''.. II tti I t - .';----------::-7-----T--j:v*g.-STGATE • • i::.'------- .-- . P" "12---7-:'cri':'.:';1" f.1 i t •-• i i . • . . . . 1 io ID ,•,:.v. • \ '• /4i i 7(34) - ! ...i. _ -64/- i • v t1:1. I i 1 . . • i 4' , 5 :t1 ' 6 a ,f,',1.,__.__.--7------. ": l I •• I 1 t , •, . . i I • I , ti•••/11 0 \ I, • I ill) I ..i•1 .....,,,.... (:$I) . • k3 4 ; (0). (54) %.. OS/•f•1 . ge..., CC .......• 0 IT 1 41 •- 1 i i a • •.i V... 9(37) - .It . N ..;,. 11 .• • ..'• I— .s':!i•."--"--'45---t-741,71-7•,•19• . •••••t•• .." 5•,.-: . 0'051 .."..::.. . '. • i 712 • .z`..,i, •c.--; • • i• ' .• : 141 '•• I!:7......i.:...;";:si..;:-.1. 64. ,.!;, '—• - •WESTGATE--- -• ---- ...-.r.-•'....z.'• i6 4 . '''''''."..'..7..'..."—.'.1.7.11f1:. •:s1::' •••• j 1,,,•• C)1,......,...... • 1 • . 14 \ •••I ''1‘‘ '.:•.'. • • E.` k:.) : 1 ' • 1 I ‘' v.... "f<.. t • .. • 1.4, 4-,—.) i . I 6. 10 7 •1 k X. t53z ••,, ., --'' • •`• . ' ' :tAN....? '07) •. (ia) i. 09) ' DO 1 (51/ - v i - •'•"1, ':. . \4 ! ;'; .:-...), I •.::,• T•;1' • . .. ... •. • ••• "i 11/')1 a nrir A-i-rPti.91,..,IlicsurMiwir A A i I I } • l 1 1 a 7 1 W 4• A • g r . \ .L , • C �. / ' • i : ; 1 N I J . . . s. • ..• . . . . _ � 1 r rVl O -� 1�1 1 . - af. A 1 .� Nf1YNV " XgL % %4.d, 1' -1 W 0 1 l 6o •t 4., _�•4164 1 o /• • 5 y • • ` 0 i •, 1 . / i _ _ • I - - . . 3 I. • • oN i • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 84-219 RESOLUTION APPROVING 1984 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections in the proposed assessments for the following improvements, to wit: (See Exhibit A attached) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such proposed assessments are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands in the final assessment rolls, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of years as shown on Exhibit A. Installments shall bear interest at the rates shown on Exhibit A, commencing January 1, 1985. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid on or before November 15, 1984. 3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes beginning in 1985. 4. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council to reimburse itself in the future for the portion of the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying additional assessments, on notice and hearing as provided for the 'assessments herein made, upon any properties abutting on the improvements but not herein assessed for the improvement when changed condition relating to such properties make such assessment feasible. 5. The assessment data of Resolution No. 84-180 is herein revised in accordance with Exhibit A attached hereto. -- ADOPTED BY THE Eden Prairie City Council on August 28, 1984. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Joyr D. Franc, City Clerk Pg. 1 of 5 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • RESOLUTION NO. 84-219 EXHIBIT A 1. 1.C. 51-356 Sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer Project Cost: $797,119.95 and street improvement on Edenvale Boulevard from Woodhill Trail to the City Share: $215,243.87 intersection of the Chicago & North- western Railroad. Net Assessment:$581,876.08 $581,876.08/60.275 acres = $9653.69/acre 17 years at 11% 04-116-22-41-0005 $ 29,887.73 04-116-22-41-0006 $126.781.91 04-116-22-41-0014 $ 78,474.85 04-116-22-42-0001 $ 94,374,47 04-116-22-42-0004 $ 71,070.47 4 09-116-22-12-0001 $106,190.59 09-116-22-13-0001 $ 31,258.65 09-116-22-13-0002 $ 43,837.41 I.C. 51-308A Street improvements on Valley View Road Project Cost: n/a from Highway 169 to approximately 1700' easterly. ($50/front foot) City Share: n/a ' $50.00/front foot Net Assessment:$ 83,664.00 ."r 17 years at 11% z . 12-116-22-31-0001 $ 35,500.00 12-116-22-32-0003 $ 48,164.00 • 3. I.C. 52-043 Sanitary'Sewer, and watermain and Project Cost: $ 54,668.22 �• - street improvements in the Rymarland Camp III.PIat. City Share: 0 • 07-116-22-32-0053 $ 10,620.44 Net Assessment:$ 54,668.22 07-116-22-32-0054 $ 10,620.44 07-116-22-32-0058 $ 10,620.44 5 years at 11% -07-116-22-32-0059 $ 10,620.44 07-116-22-32-0060 $ 10,620.46 Pg. 2 of 5 4. I.C. 52-048 Sanitary sewer, watermain, storm Project Cost: $466,172.95 sewer and street improvements in the LaVonne Industrial Park Plat. City Share: 0 Net Assessment $466,172.95 $466,172.95 $40,000.00 4 lots at $10,000@ T426,172.95 $886,792 = .48064 sq.ft. 5 years at 11% 03-116-22-23-0025 $ 10,000.00 03-116-22-23-0026 $ 10,000.00 03-116-22-23-0027 $ 10,000.00 03-116-22-23-0028 $ 99,861.47 03-116-22-23-0029 $ 69,819.65 03-116-22-23-0030 $ 79,373.01 03-116-22-22-0034 $ 83,296.15 03-116-22-23-0031 $ 93,822.67 03-116-22-23-0032 $ 10,000.00 5. I.C. 52-057 Signal light improvements at the inter- Project Cost: $ 28,160.32 section of Flying Cloud Drive and Shady Oak road. City Share: $ 2,105.40 Total assessable traffic = Net Assessment:$ 26,054.92 16,230 units (vehicles/day) Assessment/unit = 1.6054/unit 5 years at 11% 01-116-22-11-0012 L2, 81, Crosstown Ind. Pk. 2nd Addn. $ 154.11 01-116-22-11-0013 L3, 81, Crosstown Ind. Pk. 2nd Addn. $ 317.86 01-116-22-12-0007 L4, 81, Crosstown Ind. Pk. 2nd Addn. $ 101.14 01-116-22-12-0008 L5, 81, Crosstown Ind. Pk. 2nd Addn. $ 227.96 01-116-22-13-0004 Unplatted $ 126.82 01-116-22-I3-0005 Unplatted $ 16.05 01-116-22-13-0011 Tract C, RLS No. 946 $ 173.38 01-116-22-13-0018 Unplatted $ 94.72 01-116-22-13-0019 Unplatted $ 581.14 01-116-22-13-0020 Unplatted $ 166.96 01-116-22-13-0021 L1, 81, Crosstown Ind. Pk. $ 451.10 01-116-22-13-0022 L1, B2, Crosstown Ind. Pk. $ 197.46 01-116-22-13-0023 L1, B2, Crosstown Ind. Pk. $ 191.04 01-116-22-13-0028 Unplatted $ 558.66 01-116-22-13-0029 Tract A, RLS No. 946 $ 199.06 01-116-22-14-0001 Unplatted $ 915.05 01-116-22-14-0002 Unplatted $ 364.41 01-116-22-14-0003 Tract A, RLS No. 1304 $ 19.26 01-116-22-14-0004 Tract B, RLS No. 1304 $ 120.40 01-116-22-14-0005 Tract C, RLS No. 1304 $ 86.69 01-116-22-14-0006 L1, 81, Crosstown Ind. Pk. 2nd Addn. $ 235.99 /C- 10 Pg. 3 of 5 • 01-116-22-31-0001 Unplatted $ 32.11 01-116-22-31-0014 Unplatted $ 295.38* 01-116-22-34-0001 Unplatted $1,496.19 01-116-22-34-0002 Unplatted $ 123.61 _ 01-116-22-34-0003 Unplatted $ 131.64 01-116-22-34-0009 L2, 61, McKinley First Add. $ 229.57 01-116-22-34-0011 L1, 61, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. 3rd Add. $1,968.17 01-116-22-34-0012 L1, 61, McKinley First Add. $ 2 58.46 01-116-22-41-0003 Unplatted 346.6 58.46 01-116-22-41-0005 L1, 61, Claredon Park $ 01-116-22-41-0006 L2, 61, Claredon Park S 1B4.62 01-116-22-41-0007 L3, 61, Claredon Park $ 253.65 01-116-22-41-0008 L4, 61, Claredon Park $ 73.85 k. 01-116-22-41-0016 L5, 61, Claredon Park $ 266.49 01-116-22-41-0017 L6, 61, Claredon Park $ 173.38 01-116-22-41-0018 L7, 61, Claredon Park $ 166.96 01-116-22-41-0019 L8, 61, Claredon Park $ 41.74 01-116-22-41-0020 L1, 62, Claredon Park $ 117.19 k 01-116-22-42-0003 Unplatted $ 86.69 01-116-22-42-0004 Unplatted $2,359.87 01-116-22-42-0008 L2, 61, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. 4th Add. $ 534.58 y' 01-116-22-42-0009 L2, 61, ShadyOak Ind. Pk. 4th Add. $ 648.56 01-116-22-42-0010 Unplatted $ 496.05* 01-116-22-43-0004 L1, 61, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. 2nd Add. $ 370.84 01-116-22-43-0005 L2, 81, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. 2nd Add. $ 253.65 01-116-22-43-0008 L2, 81, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. 3rd Add. $ 696.72 01-116-22-43-0012 L3, 81, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. 2nd Add. $ 370.84 01-116-22-43-0013 L1, 61, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. 6th Add. $ 377.26 01-116-22-43-0014 L2, 81, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. 6th Add. $ 253.65 )' 01-116-22-44-0001 Unplatted $ 70.63 i 01-116-22-44-0002 Unplatted $ 112.37 %! 01-116-22-44-0003 Unplatted $ 131.64 01-116-22-44-0004 Unplatted $ 252.04 01-116-22-44-0009 Part of L2, 61, Washington Plaza $ 73.85 01-116-22-44-0010 Part of L2, 61, Washington Plaza $ 41.74 01-116-22-44-0012 L1, 61, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. $ 370.84 ?. 01-116-22-44-0013 L2, 61, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. $ 370.64 1 01-116-22-44-0014 L1, 62, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. S 247.22 j 01-116-22-44-0015 L2, 62, Shady Oak Ind. Pk. $ 611.64 g. 12-116-22-11-0002 Unplatted $ 163.56 12-116-22-11-0003 Unplatted $ 154.11 12-116-22-11-0011 L3, 62, Le Parc $ 183.01 12-116-22-11-0012 L1, 61, Le Parc $ 134.85 ,i 12-116-22-11-0013 L2, 61, Le Parc $ 218.33 12-116-22712-0003 L1, 62, Le Parc $ 518.53 12-116-22-12-0004 L2, 62, Le Parc $ 341.94 .s 12-116-22-12-0006 L1, 81 Shady Oak Ind. Pk. 5th Add. $1,476.93 , 12-116-22-21-0005 L1, 61, Lee Oata $1,719.34 12-116-22-32-0003 Unplatted $ 862.08 $26,054.92 ! *Deferred until rezoning or development. .; i . L 1.. • Pg. 4 of 5 (' 6. TRUNK SEWER AND WATER $2530.00/acre or $520/S.F. lot { 07-116-22-41-0001 $82,225.00 17 years at 11% • 25-116-22-33-0001 $10,954.90 17 years at 11% 25-116-22-33-0006 $18,062.35 17 years at 11% 25-116-22-21-0074 $12,862.52 17 years at 11% 25-116-22-34-0051 $62,094.51 17 years at 11% 25-116-22-34-0052 $45,287.00 17 years at 11% r: 25-116-22-43-0001 $13,788.50 17 years at 11% 25-116-22-43-0002 $39,872.80 17 years at 11% 25-116-22-44-0007 $74,129.00 17 years at 11% 26-116-22-44-OOD1 $17,204.00 17 years at 11% 35-116-22-13-0001 $45,919.50 17 years at 11% 35-116-22-14-0039 $ 6,249.10 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-11-0004 $ 4,554.00 17 years at 11% A. 36-116-22-12-0001 $131,813.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0002 $ 1,265.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0005 $ 1,518.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0006 $ 1,012.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0007 $ 1,265.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0008 $ 1,012.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0009 $ 1,265.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0020 $ 2,783.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0022 $ 2,783.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0023 $ 9,867.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0025 $13,915.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-13-0027 $ 253.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-14-0003 $66,033.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-21-0001 $47,564.00 17 years at 11% 36-116-22-21-0002 $44,275.00 17 years at 11% 7. LATERAL SEWER AND WATER 101116-22-33-0025 $ 7,400.00 17 years at 11% 8. TREE REMOVAL 01-116-22-24-0012 $ 560.00 1 year at 11% 03-116-22-14-0005 $ 200.00 1 year at 11% j. 03-116-22-42-0009 $ 120.00 1 year at 11% 03-116-22-43-0041 $ 90.00 1 year at 11% 03-116-22-43-0042 $ 90.00 1 year at 11% 03-116-22-44-0010 $ 30.00 1 year at 11% 03-116-22-44-0014 $ 30.00 1 year at 11% 04-116-22-22-0052 $ 485.00 1 year at 11% 04-116-22-44-0007 $ 40.00 1 year at 11% 05-116-22-21-0027 $ 90.00 1 year at 11% 05-116-22-21-0028 $ 30.00 • 1 year at 11% 06-116-22-32-0044 $ 150.00 1 year at 11% 07-116-22-14-0001 $ 160.00 1 year at 11% 09-116-22-22-0013 $ 650.00 1 year at 11% .:' 1 Pg. 5 of 5 11-116-22-11-0019 $ 480.00 1 year at 11% 11-116-22-31-0001 S 200.00 1 year at 11% 11-116-22-41-0002 S 260.00 1 year at 11% 12-116-22-34-0004 $ 295.00 1 year at 11% 14-116-22-24-0005 S 100.00 1 year at 11% 14-116-22-43-0001 S 220.00 1 year at 11% 16-116-22-34-0047 $ 150.00 1 year at 11% 21-116-22-12-0003 $ 340.00 1 year at 11% 23-116-22-42-0014 $ 650.00 1 year at 11% 23-116-22-42-0036 $ 240.00 1 year at 11% 23-116-22-42-0056 $ 400.00 1 year at 11% 24-116-22-34-0028 S 50.00 1 year at 11% 24-116-22-34-0034 $ 70.00 1 year at 11% 27-116-22-15-0003 $ 350.00 1 year at 11% 27-116-22-12-0006 $ 350.00 1 year at 11% • • C 1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director DATE: August 23, 1984 RE: Preliminary approval Multi-family Housing Bonds-Eames Apartment Project $6,000,000 - Resolution No. 84-225 • This project consists of 108 rental units and is located west of the Edenvale Golf Course and north of Valley View Road and is zoned RM 2.5. The Planning Commission will review a replot and site plan at its September 10th meeting. The bonds are expected to be a public offering with a guarantee. The hearing is a planning type hearing wherein the Council finds the project to be in con- formance with the housing section of the Guide Plan (like Edenvale Apts). Resolution No. 84-225 is included for your consideration. This transaction is not part of the City's "Cap". JDF:bw 8/23/84 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Application for Housing Revenue Bonds Under Chapter 426C, Minnesota Statutes 1. APPLICANT: • a. Business Name - Eames Apartments Limited Partnership b. Business Address - c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprie- E., torship, etc.) - limited partnership A d. State of Incorporation or organization - Minnesota +.i e. Authorized Representative - 1•lr. David Armes • f. Phone - (612) 222-1800 2. NAME(S) ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: General Partners: a. David Ames 220 West Minnehaha Parkway Minneapolis, Minnesota 55419 b. Tri-State Development Corp. No. 2 • • P. 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC: Real estate development Primarily multi-family rental and for sale units 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT a. Location and intended use: Eames Apartments will consist of a total of 108 • rental housing units, including 40 one-bedroom units and 68 two-bedroom units. .2.29 of the units will be specifically designed for occupancy by the physically handicapped. No less than 22 of the 108 units (20% of all units) will be rented to, or if vacant, held for rental by, persons of "low and moderate income" (that is, 80% of the HUD median income for the • statistical area in which the City is located). b. Present ownership of project site: • c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor: Architect: • Contractor: 5. ESTIMATED PROJECT FOR: Land $ Building d Equipment $ Other - Legal and Underwriting Estimate $ 252,500 (estimate) Debt Service Reserve Fund $ (estimate) TOTAL $ 6. BOND ISSUE - ( • a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $6,000,000 b. Proposed date of sale of bond - c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood Incorporated e. Name and address of suggested trustee - f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original purchaser - None at this time. g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - Integral to this proposed financing h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing - None. 1. 7. BUSINESS PROFILE OF APPLICANT a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? i. Before this project: None ii. During this project: construction workers After this project? p2 onsite resident managers/maintenance personnel c. Approximate annual sales - N/A • d. Length of time in business? • In Eden Prairie? N/A e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so where? N/A f. Are you engaged in international trade? No • j c q 2'' • 8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OR HOUSING . REVENUE BOND PROJECT(S): a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other housing or industrial development project(s) in which the Applicant is the owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a "related person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested industrial revenue development or housing bond financing. c. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before any other city for industrial development or housing revenue financing. d. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused industrial development or housing revenue financing. e. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant • has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in which final approval authorizing the financing has been denied. f. If Applicant has been denied industrial development or housing revenue financing in any other city _as identi- fied in (d) or (e), specify the reason(s) for the denial and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who have knowledge of the transaction. ,— -9. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF: a. Underwriter (If public offering) Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood Incorporated Suite 800 • 733 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 b. Private Placement Purchaser (If Private Placement) .. See (a), above c. Bond Counsel - Dorsey & Whitney 510 North Central Life Tower • 445 [Minnesota Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 4 • d. Corporate Counsel - e. Accoutant - 10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: a. Construction start - • b. Construction completion - FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The undersigned Applicant undertands that the approval or disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for revenue bond financing under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, or adoption of a program thereunder, does not expressly or by implication constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property included in this project. EAMES APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Applicant • By A general partner • 8/ /84 . Date is 11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT • • • • it`tL • • RESOLUTION NO. gy-ddr RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROGRAM, AND GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A DEVELOPMENT AND ITS FINANCING, UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE PROGRAM TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the Municipality), as follows: SECTION 1 • Recitals and Findings 1.1. By the provisions of the Act, the City is • authorized to plan, administer, issue and sell revenue bonds • or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one or more multifamily housing developments within its boundaries, which revenue bonds or obligations shall be payable solely from the revenues of the development. 1.2. The City has developed a housing plan and, after holding a public hearing thereon after notice published at least thirty days prior thereto, has adopted the housing plan and submitted it for review to the Metropolitan Council and has received its comments. 1.3. The Act provides that the City may plan, ad • - minister and make or purchase a loan or loans to finance one or more developments of the kinds described in Subdivisions • 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Section 462C.05 of the Act, upon adoption of a program setting forth the information required by Subdivision • 6 of Section 462C.05 of the Act, after a public hearing thereon, and upon approval by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency • (the Agency), as provided by Section 462C.01 of the Act, on the basis of the considerations stated in Section 462C.04 of the Act. • 1.4. This Council has received a proposal that the Municipality finance a portion or all of the cost of a proposed multifamily housing development under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the Act), consisting of the acquisition of land and the construction and equipping thereon of an apartment building containing approximately 108 rental housing units • together with parking and other functionally related and subordi- , nate facilities (the Development), to be located in the Munici- pality on the north side of Valley View Drive, between Edenvale Boulevard and Mitchell Street, adjacent to the Edenvale Golf Course. The developer and owner of the Development will be Eames Apartments Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the Developer). �r_v1 1.5. The City has caused to be prepared a program with respect to the Development and its financing (the Program). At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on August 28, 1984, in accordance with the Act and Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, on the proposal to undertake the Program and finance the Development, all parties who appeared at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal to undertake the Program and finance the Development, and interested persons were given the opportunity to submit written comments to the City Clerk before the time of the hearing. 1.6. The Developer has requested that the City issue its revenue bonds in one or more series pursuant to the authority of the Act in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $6,000,000, to finance all or a portion of the 1 costs of the Development, and to make the proceeds of the bonds available to the Developer for the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Development, subject to agreement by the Developer to pay promptly the principal of and interest on the bonds. 1.7. The City has been advised by the Developer . that conventional commercial financing is available to pay the capital costs of the Development only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the scope of the Project and the economic feasibility of operating the Development would be significantly affected, but with the aid of municipal financing the Development can be constructed as designed and its operation can be made more economically feasible. 1.8. This Council has been advised by representatives of the Developer and Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood Incorporated, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, that on the basis of information available to them and their discussions with the Developer and potential purchasers of tax-exempt bonds, the Bonds could be sold at favorable rates and terms to finance the Project. 1.9. The full faith and credit of the City will not be pledged to or responsible for the payment of the principal of, or premium or interest on the bonds. SECTION 2 2.1. On the basis of the information given the City to date, it appears that it would be desirable for the City to issue its revenue bonds under the provisions of the Act to finance the Development in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $6,00C,CGC. r Ia;it • • 2.2. It is determined to and its financingherebyre declaresd th the s present intent to have and this Council its the City issue its revenue bonds under theesent Act to finance the Development. Notwithstanding however, the adoption of this resolution the foregoing, to establish a legal obligation on the partr of f notdeemed e City or its City Council to issue or to cause the issuance City revenue bonds. All details of such revenue bond issue and the provisions for payment thereof shall be subject to review and approval of the Program by the Agency and may be subject to such further conditions as the City may specify. if issued, shall not constitute a charge, y The bonds, legal or equitable, upon anyo lien City,or encumbrance, the revenues specifically Property of the except and e bond, when, pledged to the payment thereof, nt each bond, when, as and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bond, in andu property thereon, is payable solely • payment thereof, and shall not constitute la debt y gof the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory 2.3• The Program is hereby approved, and in accordance • limitation. '. with Section 462C.04, Subdivision 2 of the Act, the City and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to cause the Program to be submitted to the Agency for review and Manager approval. The City Manager, other officers, employees and Cagentsy eof� City Municipality hereby authorized and directed to the the AgencyAenlwithare any preliminary information neededpforlthi p with purpose. 2.4. Pursuant to Subdivision 1 of Section 462C.07 of the Act, in the making of the loan to finance acquisition, construction and equipment of the Project and in the issuance '-of the bonds or other obligations of the City, the City may exercise, within its corporate limits, any of the powers the Agency may exercise under Chapter 462A, Minnesota Statutes, Statuouts.tt limitation under the provisions of Chapter 475, th Minnesota 2.5. The Developer has agreed and it is hereby determined that any and all direct and indirect costs incurred by the City in connection with the whether or not the Development iscarriedrrem and the completion, Development, or not the Program is approvedheg to c n dlwheth, whether or not the Cityby by the Agency, and whether resolution authorizes the issuance of the bonds,. will be paid by the Developer upon request. 1�`69 • Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 28th day of August, 1984. Mayor • Attest: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. • City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota { PROGRAM FOR A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C (Eames Apartments Limited Partnership Project 1. Eames Apartments Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership to be formed with David Ames and Tri-State Development Corp. No. 2 as its general partners and David Ames as its initial limited partner (the "Developer") intends to acquire approximately 6.75 acres of vacant land in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") and construct thereon a multifamily residential rental facility to. be occupied in part by persons and families of low and moderate income. The site is located on the north side of Valley View Road between Mitchell Street and Edenvale Boulevard, and borders the Edenvale Golf Course. A map of the site and legal description of the property are attached to this Program as Exhibits A and B, respectively. The development will contain approximately 108 housing units, at least 22 of which (20%) will be rented, or held for rental to, persons of "low and moderate income," under §103(b)(4) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code") and the Regulations thereunder. The development will contain approximately 40 one-bedroom units and 68 two-bedroom units. 2. Representatives of the Developer have requested that the City issue its housing revenue bonds under the Act in an aggre- gate principal amount not to exceed $6,000,000 to finance the acquisition of the site and the construction and equipping of the development and facilities functionally subordinate and related to the development, such as parking, community room and exercise area. 3. The City's Housing Plan, as amended, serves as a basis for the City's goal of providing a variety of housing stock throughout the City, for persons resident of the City, including persons of low and moderate income. The development to be financed by the Program will assist the City in certain problems addressed in the Housing Plan, including (a) increasing available housing stock, (b) providing decent, sanitary and affordable housing for persons of low and moderate income and their families, [Specify others]. 3. The development will be a "multifamily housing develop- ment" within the meaning of Subd. 5 of §462C.02 of the Act, under- taken pursuant to Subd. 2 of §462C.05 of the Act. The income limitations set forth in Subd. 2 of §462C.05 of the Act will apply to this development. In addition, as discussed in paragraph 1 1 • of this Program, at least 20% of the units will. be rented or available for rental to persons of low and moderate income; that is, with incomes not greater than 80% of the median family income as estimated by the United States department of housing and urban development for the statistical area in which the City is located, currently $26,800. 4. To finance the development, the City intends to issue its housing revenue bonds pursuant to the Act, in an aggregate principal amount of $6,000,000 (the Bonds). The City will lend the proceeds of the Bonds to the Developer pursuant to a revenue agreement in which the Developer agrees to make loan repayments sufficient to repay the Bonds. The Bonds will be a limited obli- gation of the City, payable solely from revenues derived from the revenue. agreement and pledged to the payment of the Bonds. • 'LL • • • • TO: Mayor & City Council • FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director DATE: August 24, 1984 RE: Preliminary approval M.I.D.B.'s - Reynolds Printing This one got a little crossways. The site is in the 100 acre Equitable P.U.D. which still needs site plan approval and platting. It is unknown when Equitable will apply for its approvals. The Council could hold and close the Public Hearing. If Reynolds • wishes to give the City 1% of the $1,650,000 (the deposit we must send to the state), he could bring the matter back to the Council before October 31st (the date by which the City must request its deposit to be returned). In any event the City should send the state 1% of the balance of bonds not authorized by tonight so that projects may be approved by the City in September and October. • JDF:bw 8/24/84 • • • TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Franca, Finance Director • DATE: August 23, 1984 RE: Housing Revenue Bonds - Eden Prairie I, Ltd.(The Marks of Eden Prairie) $13,500,000 - Resolution No. 84-195 This project which is located at the southwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Blvd is proposed for 252 apartments and will be heard by the Planning Commission on August 27th. The hearing is more of a planning type of hearing in that the Council finds the project to be in conformance with the housing section of the Guide • Plan; the same process and type of project as Edenvale Apartments. • The sale will be public with a guarantee by a financial institution. Resolution 84-195 is included for your consideration. Housing Bonds are not part of the City's "Cap". JDF:bw 8/23/84 • • 1. lct,a1 After some discussion, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 462C, MINNESOTA STATUTES; GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT, ADOPTING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE HOUSING PROGRAM FOR REVIEW BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. By the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the Act), the City is authorized to plan, administer, issue and sell revenue bonds or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one or more multifamily housing developments within its boundaries which revenue bonds • or obligations shall be payable solely from the revenues of the development. 1.02. The Act provides that, prior to issuing revenue bonds or obligations to finance a multifamily housing development, the City must develop a housing plan and, after • holding a public hearing thereon after notice published at least thirty days prior thereto, submit the housing plan for review to the regional development commission. 1.03. On February 2, 1982, after thirty days published notice, this Council adopted the City of Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Guide Plan and Housing Assistance Plan (which is within the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Guide Plan). The Comprehensive Guide Plan was approved by Metropolitan Council pursuant to Subdivision 1 of Section 402C.04 of the Act on March 11, 1982. • 1.04. The Act further provides that the City may plan, administer and make or purchase a loan or loans to • finance one or more developments of the kinds described in Subdivisions 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Section 462C.05 of the Act upon adoption of a program setting forth the information required by Subdivision 6 of Section 462C.05 of the Act after a public hearing thereon and upon approval by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency as provided by Section 462C.01 of the Act on the basis of the considerations stated in Section 462C.04 of the Act. • -2- • 1.05. Eden Prairie I, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership (the Partnership), has advised this Council of its desire to acquire certain land located at the northwest corner of Franlow Road and Preserve Boulevard in the City and to construct and equip thereon a 252-unit rental apartment building together with parking and related facilities (the Project). Total development and financing costs are presently estimated by the Partnership to be approximately $13,725,000. 1.06. Representatives of the Partnership have requested that the City issue its revenue bonds in one or more series (the Bonds) pursuant to the authority of the Act in such aggregate principal amount as may be necessary to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Project and make the proceeds of the Bonds available to the Partnership for the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project, subject to agreement by the Partnership to pay promptly the principal of and interest on the Bonds. 1.07. The City has been advised by the Partnership that conventional commercial financing is available to pay the capital costs of the Project only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the scope of the Project and the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly affected, but with the aid of municipal financing the Project can be constructed as designed and its operation can be made more economically feasible. 1.08. The Council has been advised by representatives • of Juran and Moody, Inc. , of St. Paul, Minnesota, that on the basis of information available to them and their discussions -with the Partnership and potential purchasers of tax-exempt bonds, the Bonds could be sold at favorable rates and terms to finance the Project. 1.09. The full faith and credit of the City will not be pledged to or responsible for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. 1.10. A publi 'c hearing, duly noticed, was held at 7:30 p.m. on August c21C 1984, in accordance with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue of 1954, as amended, on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project through the issuance of Bonds and, in accordance with Subdivision 5 of Section 462C.05 of the Act, on the proposal to adopt a program for multifamily housing development. • -3- • • Section 2. Approvals: Authorization and Hearing. • 2.01. The action of the City Finance Director/Clerk in causing notice of public hearing (in substantially the form of Exhibit A hereto) to be published in the Minneapolis Star/Tribune and in the Eden Prairie News at least once not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days before the date on which a public hearing was held by this Council is hereby approved and ratified. 2.02. Preliminary approval of the Project is hereby given by the City and the issuance of the Bonds for such purpose in the amount of $13,500,000 is approved. The Bonds • shall not be issued until the multifamily housing program described below has been reviewed and approved as provided by the Act and until the City, the Partnership and the Underwriter have agreed upon the details of the Bonds and the provisions for their payment. The principal of, premium, if any, and interest on each Bond, when, as and if issued, shall be payable solely from the revenues of the Project and the property pledged to the payment thereof and shall not constitute a debt of the City. The City Attorney and other officers of the City • are authorized in cooperation with Dorsey & Whitney, as bond counsel, to initiate preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the financing of the Project setting forth the detailed terms of the Bonds, the security therefor and provisions for payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest thereon in compliance with state and federal statutes and regulations. 2.03. The program for multifamily housing development --(attached as Exhibit B), is hereby adopted by the City pursuant to Subdivision 5 of Section 462C.05 of the Act. 2.04. The Mayor, City Manager, City Finance Director/ Clerk and other officers and employees of the City are hereby authorized to submit the program, accompanied by the Housing Plan, to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment and to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for review and approval pursuant to Subdivision 1 and 2 of Section 462C.04 of the Act. • 2.05. Pursuant to Subdivision 1 of Section 462C.07 of • the Act, in the making of the loan to finance acquisition, construction and equipment of the Project and in the issuance of the Bonds or other obligations of the City, the City may exercise, within its corporate limits, any of the powers the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency may exercise under Chapter 462A, Minnesota Statutes, without limitation under the provisions of Chapter 475, Minnesota Statutes. • —4- 34: • 2.06. The Borrower has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Program is approved by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; whether or not the Project is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bonds and all operative instruments are executed. 2.07. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will r4 issue the Bonds as requested by the Borrower. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds or should the City, the Borrower and any other parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the 1 documents required for the transaction. • 2.08. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the condition that within twelve months of the r . date of adoption of this Resolution the City and the Borrower shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the Bonds, the operative documents and of the other instruments and'proceedings relating to the Bonds and their issuance and sale. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth above, or any extension thereof, and the Bonds are not sold within such time, this Resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. • Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this &(st day of August, 1984. Mayor Attest: City Finance Director/Clerk 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: -5- • ILa EXHIBIT B PROGRAM FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT UNDER CHAPTER 462C - EDEN PRAIRIE I, LTD. PROJECT Eden Prairie I, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership (the Borrower) intends to acquire and purchase certain land located at Franlow Road and Preserve Boulevard in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City), for the purpose of constructing thereon a 252-unit rental apartment building (the Project). Unit size composition of the Project will be as follows: 174 one-bedroom units and 78 two-bedroom units. Consistent with the housing needs of the City described in the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan (the Comprehensive Plan), the Project will enable the City to meet its two housing goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan: encourage a variety of housing types and prices through innovative architectural and land use and encourage low income housing throughout the City. The Plan Elements chapter of the housing section of the Comprehensive Plan calls for continued cooperation between the public sector and private industry to insure the production of modest cost housing for middle income households. The Project will be designed to be affordable by persons and families with adjusted gross income not in excess of the limits set forth in Section 462C.03, Subdivision 2, 4 Minnesota Statutes and by other persons and families to the extent necessary to further a policy of economic integration. • -At least 51 units in the Project will be held for occupancy by families or individuals with adjusted gross income not in excess of 80 percent of the median family income estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Minneapolis-St. Paul standard metropolitan statistical area and at least 139 units in the Project will be held for occupancy by families or individuals whose adjusted gross income does not exceed 66 times the gross rental for the applicable dwelling unit, provided such gross rental shall not exceed 120 percent of the Fair Market Rents for the • geographical area in which the Project is located as determined and adjusted from time to time by HUD. The remainder of the • units in the Project will be occupied by individuals and families without regard to income limits. The authorization of revenue bonds to finance the Project will make the Project feasible. -8- • • It is anticipated that housing development revenue bonds of the City will be issued and sold pursuant to Section 462.07, Minnesota Statutes, for the purpose of providing construction and long-term financing for the Project, in the aggregate principal amount of approximately $13,500,000, which is the amount presently estimated to be necessary to pay a portion of total development and financing costs. • • • Sv • • • • • • t J -9- 1100 1 ••' CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing • 1. APPLICANT: a. Business Name - Eden Prairie I, Ltd. b. Business Address - 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1515 . Denver, Colorado 80203 • O. Business Form (corporation. partnership, sole proprietor • ship, etc.) - • • Limited Partnership • 1 d. State of Incorporation or organization - Texas e. Authorized Representative - Richard 0. Campbell' Z. Phone - (303) 832-4522 • 2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: a. .Trammell S. Crow, 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 3200 • Dallas, Texas 75201 • i D. Michael Crow, 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 510 ti Dallas, Texas 75201 • b. Dennis H. Alberts, 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 3200 Dallas; Texas 75201 Charles M. Holbrook, 433 E. Las Colinas, Suite 750 (, c. Irving, Texas 75039 . Richard 0. Campbell, 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1515 Denver, Colorado 80203 James Engel, 433 E. Las Colinas, Suite 750 • Irving, Texas 75039 -1- j • . • not .• i. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC: • • • Real Estate Development • • • $ DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT • • a. Location and intended uses Franlo Road and Preserve Blvd. Construction of 252 apartment unite b. Present ownership of Project sites Norman B. Dyer a. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractors Arrhite _ Oarp. 1414 Tw,Turtle Creek V Dallas, 79C 7521$`1175i er-Hansen.Ttpcp Pellieen 011son Inc.., 74008 14itche.:.. .:..': Rd., Eden Prairie, Mi.553L4...General Contractgri these :• CraQany, 1120 Lincoln St., Suite 1515, Denver, OD_80203 ' • ' Land I. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: . 5 1,512,000 'Construction Contracts 9,S19,340 Equipment Acquisition and installation* Architectural and Engineering 136.584 Legal 37,500 Interest during Construction Bond Reserve l,000,�inc� ��� Contingencies S78,7 0 r _ Loan Peas 8', 50 Other 302,500 Overhead 33,500 • • 220,752 • TOta1 $ 13,724,926 • s • *Heating and air conditioning should be included as building costs !' 'Indicate the kind of equipment to be acquired hers. • • • ( • • • • • • ild —2— • • • ,• �, , • 7 i • *B. BOND ISSUE - Juran & Moody will• complete 16 • a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $13,500,000 A ' b. Proposed date of sale of bond - October 1, 1984 G. Lenytb of bond issue and proposed maturities — • See Schedule d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds — Juran B Moody, Inc. • •. iame'aad address of suggested trustee - First Trust Company of Saint Paul I. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original . purchaser - See Attachment g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - The interim and permanent financing will be included in the bond issue. • h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing • in addition to bond financing - • • • None T. BUSINESS PROFILE - a Axe you located in the City of Eden Prairie? • • �. No .b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? • 1. Before this project: None • -3- 110 • • ii. After this project? ' Approximately 10 c. Approximate annual sales - $100 million d. Length.of time in business over 5 years • in Eden Prairie This is the first prnjprt in the Eden Prairie area e. Do you have plants in other locations? It so, where? • Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Denver • • t. Are you engaged in international trade? • • No 8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S): ;. a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial development project(s) in-which the Applicant is the • . owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a "releated person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)( of the Internal Revenue Code. None • • • • • • • -4- 110 • ,•L • • (, • b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested industrial revenue development financing. This is the applicant's first project of this nature, although closely related entities and parties to the applicant have done extensive financing of this type. c. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has befor. = any other city for industrial development revenue financ • • See 8B • d. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused industrial development revenue financing. . 1 • None • . • e. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in whic final approval authorizing the financing has been denied • • None - • • • -5- • foS • •�ti l C: • S. 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. • • None • • 9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF: • • a. Underwriter (If public offering) Duran & Moody Inc. 400 North Robert Street Suite 800 • St: Paul, Minnesota 55101 b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement) N/A s • f. If lender will not commit until City has .. passed its preliminary resolution approving the project, submit a letter from proposed lender that it has an interest in the offering subject to appropriate City approval and approval of the Commissioner of Securities. • N/A • • • • _g_ , • 11U(10 ' :�., ' I. 1 (. . • • b. Bond Counsel - Lane Endorf • Dorsey & Whitney 2200 First Bank Place • Minneapolis, MN 55402 c. . Corporate Counsel - Montgomery Little" Young Campbell McGrew P.C. • 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1500 Denver, Colorado 80203 d. Accountant - ' Rodney R. Germeroth 1120 Lincoln Street • Suite 1515 • Denver, Colorado 80203 •10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: a. Construction start - September 15, 1984 • b. .Construction completion - July 15, 1985 • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or • disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial . _ Development bond financing does not expressly or impliedly constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or other rult ''! or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property included in this project. Eden Prairie I, Ltd. • Applicant . -../. . • By • Date • . -7- • • .. • n 1 • Eden Prairie ADDENDUM 8. b. Cities of Midland, Texas Cities of Odessa, Texas Cities of Austin, Texas Cities of Mesquite, Texas Cities of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma • Counties of Denton, Texas Counties of Baxer, Texas Counties of Tarrant, Texas State of Texas Housing Authority 1 IV V PROFILE OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA PROJECT The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Blvd. in Hennepin County, Minnesota. It is very near the Eden Prairie Shopping Center. This parcel consists of 12.5 acres of land, with a proposed use of 20.2 units per acre, or 252 total units. • The proposed mix and size of the units is as follows: * 68 - 1BR 1B units at 600 sq. ft. * 82 - 1BR 1B units at 735 sq. ft. * 24 - 1BR 1B w/Den units at 874 sq. ft. * 46 - 2BR 2B units at 878 sq. ft. * 32 - 2BR 2B units at 1,000 sq. ft. with an average unit size of 772 sq. ft. Development is scheduled to commence September 15, 1984 with a completion date set for July 15, 1985 • • • THE CBASEWOOD COMPANY THE MARKS OF EDEN PRAIRIE '''''''', ... 252 UNITS • EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA PROJECT SUMMARY 3j GENERAL DESCRIPTION Acreage 12.5 Acres Number of Units 252 Density (Units/Acre) 20.2 ' Approximate Unit Size (S.F.) One Bedroom 600/735 One Bedroom/Den $74 Two Bedroom 878/1,000 • AMENITIES Fireplaces Approximately 50% of Units ,p Washer/Dryer Connections - Approximately 75% of Units Swimming Pool Yes • Laundry Facilities Yes. Recreation Building Yes CONSTRUCTION !M1: Land Cost • $2.78/sq. ft. • Hard Construction Costs $40.00/sq. ft. . Construction Overhead 5Z of Hard Costs PRO-FORMA CASH FLOW Current Rents . $.70/sq. ft. • Current Expenses $2.80/sq. ft. Other Income $25.00/unit/month Vacancy Factor 5Z Inflation 8Z/yr. for Income and Expenses DEBT REQUIREXENTS Amount $13,500,000 Term 12 years - 27 year Amortization 3 years interest only •• Rata 9.375% Bond Rate - 8►yt (6 yr• initial maturity) Servitor Fee - 1/8% Other FNMA Fee • - 3/4% Construction Completion guaranteed • by General Partner NOTE: The above information is based on preliminary estimates and is subject to revision. 1110 • • • THE CHASEWOOD COMPANY THE MARKS OF EDEN PRAIRIE 252 UNITS EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA UNIT SUMMARY TYPE QUANTITY DESCRIPTION AREA TOTAL • A-1 68 1BR 1B 600 s/f 40,800 s/f A-2 82 1BR 1B 735 s/f 60,270 s/f A-1D 24 1BR 1B Den 874 s/f 20,976 s/f B-1 46 2BR 2B 878 s/f 40,388 s/f B-2 32 2BR 2B 1,000 s/f 32,000 s/f TOTAL 252 194,434 s/f TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 252 AVERAGE UNIT SIZE 772 sq. ft. NOTE: All dimensions are approximate. • SITE DATA LAND AREA 12.5 Acres DENSITY 20.2 Units/Acre LOCATION Franiow Road and Preserve Blvd. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE START September 15, 1984 •• COMPLETION July 15, 1985 • • NOTE: The above information is based on preliminary estimates and is subject to revision. • IO • • • • TO: Mayor and City Council • FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director DATE: August 23, 1984 RE: Preliminary Approval M.I.D.B. - Portnoy Project - $2,750,000 • Resolution No. 84-194 • This project located east of 169 and Valley View Road has been approved by the Planning Commission and will be before the Council • on September 4th. The proposal is for 50,000 square feet of office and showroom to be leased to others. This project would come out of the "Cap". Resolution No. 84-194 is included for your consideration. • JDF/bw 8/23/84 , • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing 1. APPLICANT: a. Business Name - Gerald Portnoy and • Barbara Portnoy b. Business Address - 7632 Washington Ave. So. Eden Prairie, MN 55399 c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor- ship, etc.) - Sole Proprietorship d. State of Incorporation or organization - N/A '. e. Authorized Representative - Gerald Portnoy • • f. Phone - 612/941-2236 • 2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: a. Same as 1 a & b b. c. • -1 • - • 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, LTC: { `Real Estate Development 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT . 50,000 square feet - High Tech Office and Office Showroom. erlSy • a. Location and intended use: es of 169 and44Valley View Road.• b. Present ownership of project site: Option with Ross A. and Pauline Peterson • c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general .contractor: du'Monceaux Larkin & Associates, Architects Ron Krueger & Associates, Engineer 5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: Land $ 300,000 • Construction Contracts 2,020,000 Equipment Acquisition and installation* Architectural and Engineering Legal 430,000 Interest during Constructio • ""-Bond Reserve Contingencies - Loan Fees !" Other • Total $ 2,750,000 • *Beating and air conditioning should be included as building costs. Indicate the kind of equipment to be acquired here. • • • • • • -2- • • 6. BOND ISSUE - a. Amount of proposed bond issue - A 2,750,000 b. Proposed date of sale of bond - October 1, 1984 • c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - • Maximum 30 years fully amortizing d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - - Not yet available e. Name and address of suggested trustee - N/A f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original . purchaser - N/A g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - None sought -h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing - N/A 7. BUSINESS PROFILE - • Building'being developed for lease a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? • . b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? • ( i. Before this project: -3- I'l15 • ' ( . ii. After this project? • • c. Approximate annual sales - d. Length of time in business in Eden Prairie e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? • f. Are you engaged in international trade? • 8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S): NONE a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial development project(s) in which the Applicant is the ' owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a "re]eated person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)(G) of the Internal Revenue Code. • • • • -4- 1'llL • • • 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- I11 11 • ( (• 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. NONE • • 2,. 9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF: j a. Underwriter (If public offering) • NONE b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement) Not available yet • i. If lender will not commit until City has passed its preliminary resolution approving • • the project, submit a letter from proposed • lender that it has an interest in the offering subject to appropriate City approval and approval of the Commissioner of Securities. -6- ' n a • • • • b. Bond Counsel - Trudy J. Halle.- Briggs And Morgan c. Corporate Counsel - Stephen J. Davis • d. .Accountant - Klane, Gillman & Schechter • 10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: • a. Construction start - • October, 1984 b. Construction completion - April, 1985 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: -- The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development bond financing does not expressly or impliedly constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property included in this project. i,aelge;‘tlszi_____ pplicant . TM. By • rrn Date -7- 1'11°1 . • • RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT • PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT 4 AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION 1. FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT TO THE ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT (PORTNOY PROJECT) , WHEREAS, (a) The purpose of Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, known as the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act (the "Act") as found and determined by the r , legislature is to promote the welfare of the state by the • active attraction and encouragement and development of economi- cally sound industry and commerce to prevent so far as possible • the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; (b) Factors necessitating the active promotion and development of economically sound industry and commerce are • the increasing concentration of population in the metropolitan areas and the rapidly rising increase in the amount and cost of governmental services required to meet the needs of the increased population and the need for development of land use which will provide an adequate tax base to finance these increased costs and access to employment opportunities for such population; • (c) The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie (the "City") has received from Gerald Portnoy and Barbara Portnoy (the "Company") a proposal that the City assist in financing a Project hereinafter described, through the issuance of a Revenue Bond or Bonds or a Revenue Note or Notes hereinafter referred to in this resolution as "Revenue Bonds" pursuant to the Act; (d) The City desires to facilitate the selec- tive development of the community, retain and improve the tax base and help to provide the range of services and employment opportunities required by the population; and the Project will • }190 • assist the City in achieving those objectives. The Project will help to increase assessed valuation of the City and help maintain a positive relationship between assessed valuation and debt and enhance the image and reputation of the community; (e) The Company is currently engaged in the business of owning and developing real estate. The Project to be financed by the Revenue Bonds is an approximately 50,000 sq. ft. hi-tech office and office showroom facility to be located east of Highway 169 and south of Valley View Road (County Road 39) in Eden Prairie and consists of the acquisition of land and the construction of buildings and improvements thereon and the installation of equipment therein to be initially owned and operated by the Company, and will result in the employment of additional persons to work within the new facilities; . (f) The City has been advised by representa- 3. tives of Company that conventional, commercial financing to pay • the capital cost of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced, but Company has also advised this Council that with j the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing a. cost, the Project is economically more feasible; (g) A public hearing on the Project was held on , 1984, after notice was published, and materials made available for public inspection, all as required by Minnesota Statutes,Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b at which public hearing all those appearing who so desired to speak were heard; (h) No public official of the City has either a -• direct or indirect financial interest in the Project nor will 'i. any public official either directly or indirectly benefit financially from the Project. 4 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Council hereby gives preliminary approval to the proposal of Company that the City undertake the Project pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act (Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes), consisting of the acqui- sition, construction and equipping of facilities within the City pursuant to Company's specifications suitable for the operations described above to be initially owned and operated A • 1 11 by the Company and pursuant to a revenue agreement between the City and Company upon such terms and conditions with provisions for revision from time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and revenues sufficient to pay, when due, the principal of and interest on the Revenue Bonds in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $2,750,000 to be issued pursuant to the Act to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project; and said agreement may also provide for the entire interest of Company therein to be mortgaged to the purchaser of the Revenue Bonds; and the City hereby undertakes preliminarily to issue its Revenue Bonds in accordance with such terms and conditions; 2. On the basis of information available to this Council it appears, and the Council hereby finds, that the Project constitutes properties, real and personal, used or useful in connection with one or more revenue producing enterprises engaged in any business within the meaning of Subdivision la of Section 474.02 of the Act; that the Project furthers the purposes stated in Section 474.01, Minnesota Statutes; that the availability of the financing under the Act and willingness of the City to furnish such financing will be a substantial inducement to Company to undertake the Project, and that the effect of the Project, if undertaken, will be to encourage the development of economically sound industry and commerce, to assist in the prevention of the emergence of blighted and marginal land, to help prevent chronic unemployment, to help the City retain and improve the tax base and to provide the range of service and employment opportunities required by the population, to help prevent the movement of talented and educated persons out of the state and to areas within the State where their services may not be as effectively used, to promote more intensive development and use of land within the City and eventually to increase the tax base of the community; 3. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City subject to the approval of the Project by the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority or such other state officer having authority to grant approval (the "Authority"), and subject to final approval by this Council, Company, and the purchaser of the Revenue Bonds as to the ulti- mate details of the financing of the Project; 4. I_n accordance with Subdivision 7a of Section 474.01 Minnesota Statutes, the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Authority requesting its approval, and other officers, �19.a employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to '/ provide the Authority with such preliminary information as •it •4' may require; 5. Company has agreed and it is hereby determined that any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the financing of the Project whether or not the Project is carried to completion and whether or not approved by the Authority will be paid by Company; 6. Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, acting as bond counsel, is authorized to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents relating to the Project, to consult with the City Attorney, Company and the purchaser of the Revenue Bonds as to the maturities, interest rates and other terms and provisions of the Revenue Bonds and as to the covenants and other provisions of the necessary documents and to submit such documents to the Council for final approval; 7. Nothing in this resolution or in the documents pre- pared pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any municipal funds on the Project other than the revenues derived from the Project or otherwise granted to the City for this purpose. The Revenue Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City except the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. The holder of the Revenue Bonds shall never have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the outstanding principal on the Revenue Bonds or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City. The Revenue Bonds shall recite in . substance that the Revenue Bonds, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof. The Revenue Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or • statutory limitation; 8. It is further found, determined and declared that it is the present intent of the City Council to authorize the issuance and sale of the Revenue Bonds but the City reserves the right in its sole discretion to withdrawn this preliminary approval of the Project if at any time the City Council deter- mines that the public interest and the purposes of the Act will not be served by the Project; • 9. This resolution is subject to the condition that no • shall later than December 31, 1984 the City and the Company, ta have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of a revenue agreement, the Revenue Bonds and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Revenue Bonds, and their issuance and sale and closing on the purchase of the Revenue Bonds shall have occurred. If such agreement does not • take place within that time or any extension thereof and the Revenue Bonds are not sold within such time, this resolution shall expire and be.of no further force or effect; and 10. This appoval is contingent upon receipt by the City from the Company of $27,500 which will be deposited by the City with the Authority on or before August 2' . 1984 in order to preserve the issuance authority of the City with respect to the Revenue Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Such deposit shall be returned to the Company when and if the Authority returns such deposit to the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this day of August, 1984. • Mayor Attest: City Clerk • • • • • 1, iqati CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 84-192 VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOT 2, BLOCK 2 FAIRWAY WOOD 3RD ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has a certain drainage and utility easement described as follows: That part of the drainage and utility easement dedicated in the plat of Fairway Wood 3rd Addition, over that part of Lot 2, Block 2 Fairway Wood 3rd Addition, according to the plat thereof, on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the following described line and its southerly and northerly extensions. Commencing at the southeasterly corner of said Lot 2; thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 22 seconds West, 136.57 feet along the southerly line of said Lot 2 to the point of beginning; thence northwesterly along a line to a point in the northerly line of said Lot 2, distant 111.91 feet southwesterly from the corner of said Lot 2, and there terminating. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 28, 1984, after due notice was published and posted as required by law: WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said easement is not necessary and has no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFDRE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as _follows: 1. Said drainage and utility easement as above described is hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 28, 1984. ATTEST: Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor. SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • fah • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESDLUTION 84-185 1 VACATIDN OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY IN RIDGEWDOD WEST • WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain drainage and utility easements and right-of-way described as follows: All drainage and utility easements on Lots 28 through 44, inclusive, Block 1 and on Lots I through 5, inclusive, Block 3, as shown on the recorded plat of Ridgewood West; and • • All of Shiloh Court adjoining Lots 31 through 43, inclusive, Black I, Ridgewood West, which lies northerly of the northwesterly right- of-way line of Wellington Drive, all as shown on the plat of Ridgewood West on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 28, 1984, after due notice was published and posted as required by law. WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said easements and right-of- way are not necessary and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said drainage and utility easements and right-of-way as above described is hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.651. ' ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 28, 1984. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk August 28, 1984 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ' HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 84-218 • RESOLUTION TERMINATING CERTAIN EASEMENT AGREEMENTS OVER A PART OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, LORENCE FIRST ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has easement rights over a part of Lot 1, Block 3, Lorence First Addition; WHEREAS, due to changes in configuration of the building sites in the Lorence First Addition, certain easements as held by the City of Eden Prairie are no longer necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that certain easements as described on the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby released and extinguished. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 28, 1984. • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • • John D. Frane, Clerk /gag • Hansen Thorp Pel I i nen Olson Inc. Consulting Engineers • Land Surveyors • Site Planners 7406Mnchetr Road.Eden Praise,Mn.55344 612/9346163 • • • • Portion of Drainage and Utility Easement to be Vacated That part of Lot 1, Block 3, LORENCE FIRST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said lot; thence North 61 degrees 37 minutes-30 seconds East, along the southeasterly line of said lot, a distance of 235.40 feet; thence North 28 degrees 22 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 97.03 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 28 degrees 22 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 37.97 feet; thence North 59 degrees 46 • minutes 32 seconds West a distance of 29.98 feet; thence South 42 degrees 10 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 65.45 feet to said point of beginning. • • EXHIBIT "A" h2q • • August 28, 1984 • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 84-183 RESOLUTION TERMINATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER PORTIONS OF THE VALLEY CURVE SUBDIVISIONS . WHEREAS, by•Document No. 4774094, as recorded on February 25, 1983, in the Office of the County Recorder for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the City of Eden Prairie acquired certain rights to real estate; WHEREAS, said Document contains provisions for drainage and utility easements on the real property described in the Document; WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has determined that the easements as conveyed in these documents are no longer necessary. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that the provisions for drainage and utility easements described in Document • No. 4774094 are hereby terminated and rendered null and void. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 28, 1984. • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THROUGH: CARL JULLIE, CITY MANAGER i'-=`, FROM: ROGER A. PAULY, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: CAMPAIGN SIGNS DATE: JULY 20, 1984 I am submitting a draft of an Ordinance amending City Code Section 11.70 relating to campaign signs in accordance with the recommendations contained in my earlier memorandum to you of y : June 14, 1984. The words which have lines drawn through them are contained in the present sections of the Code and will be stricken; whereas, the words in brackets are new. 113! ORDINANCE NO. 53-84 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.70 SUBD. 3.A. and SUBD. 5.E. 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. Eden Prairie City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 3.A.1. is hereby amended to read: A. Prohibitions. 1. Non-accessory signs are prohibited in all districts, except in areas where Section 11.71 permits adver- tising signs, and-shall-be subject to the same conditions imposed ;k by Section 11.71 upon advertising signs, [and except as other- wise expressly permitted in this Section 11.70.] Section 2. Eden Prairie City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 5.E. is hereby amended to read: E. Violations and Fines. If the Chief Building Official or his deputy shall find that any sign regulated by this Section is prohibited as to size, location, content, type, number, height or method of construction, or is unsafe, insecure, or a menace to the public, or if any sign [for which a permit is required] has been constructed or erected without a permit [having] first being [been] granted to the installer of said sign, or to the owner of the property upon which said sign has been erected, or is improperly maintained, or is in violation . : of any other provisions of thisSection, he shall give written notice of such violation to the owner [of such property] or [the] l 2/l fi • permittee thereof. If the permittee or owner [of such property] fails to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the provisions set forth in this Section within 30 days following receipt of said notice, 1. Such sign shall be deemed to be a nuisance, and may be abated by the City by proceedings taken under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and the cost of abatement, including admin- istration expenses, may be levied as a special assessment against the property upon which the sign is located; and/or, 2. It is unlawful for any permittee or owner to violate the provisions of this Section. Each period of 30 days within which the sign is not removed or altered shall be deemed to constitute another violation of this Section. No additional licenses shall be granted to anyone in violation of the terms of this Section, or to anyone responsible for the continuance of the violation, until such violation is either corrected or satis- factory arrangements, in the opinion of the Chief Building Inspector, have been made towards the correction of said violation. The Inspector may also withhold building permits for any construc- tion related to a sign maintained in violation of this Section. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated 160.27, the Chief Building Official, or his deputy, shall have the power to remove and destroy signs placed on street right-of-way with no such notice of violation required. 3. Appeals and Variances. A permit applicant or permit holder may appeal any order or determination made by the -2- VI32 . is Chief Building Official or his deputy pursuant to this Section,or a permit applicant or permit holder may request a variance from the literal terms of this Section by filing a notice of appeal or application for variance with the City Clerk-Treasurer requesting a hearing before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. 4, The Board shall hear and decide appeals and applications for variances in the following cases: (a) Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the administrative officer in the enforcement of this Section. 1 (b) Requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Section shall be granted only in instances where their strict enforcement would cause unique hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property or proposal under consideration. (4. With respect to campaign signs, as defined in Subd. 3.H. herein, the written notice of violation required by Subd. S.E. herein may be given to the person or committee who prepares, disseminates, issues, posts, installs or owns the sign, or the person or committee who causes the preparation, dissemination, issuance, posting or installation of the sign, or the. owner or occupant of the premises on which such sign is displayed. If such person, committee, owner or occupant fails to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the provisions set forth in this Section within 30 days following receipt of said notice, then such failure is deemed unlawful and such person, -3- J133 committee, owner or occupant shall be subject to the same liabilities and penalties as are permittees and owners under Subd. 5.E.1. and 2.] Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. 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 1984, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1984. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1984. -4- • ►icy • 0. AUGUST 28,1984 . 1` 15283 VOID OUT CHECK 58.00- 1' *9 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE CO INSURANCE • 764.41 1:,.-0 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN INSURANCE 11893.72 ?; 15321 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC INSURANCE 4856.15 • 4 15322 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC INSURANCE 1917.88 15323 NORWEST BANK OF HOPKINS PAYROLL 950.00 dJ 15324 PIZZA HUT EXPENSES-TEEN WORK PROGRAM 39.G3 . 15325 NORTHCO LTD AUGUST 84 RENT 3390.23 15326 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC AUGUST 84 RENT 3694.02 15327 JILLIAN HARPER REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 7.00 15328 CHAD ROTHSCHILD REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 10.00 15329 L & L DISTRIBUTING ICE CREAM CONES-ROUNO LAKE PARK 20.78 1533D INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 342.70 15331 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 179.54 15332 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 723.86 15333 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 5807.61 15334 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE • 84.28 15335 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 3095.67 15336 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 5017.83 15337 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 3195.03 a. 15338 PRIOR.WINE CO WINE 924.63 15339 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 737.14 15340 MARK VII SALES WINE 423.75 15341 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 8/3/84 18446.62 15342 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 8/3/84 9424.61 15343 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 8/3/84 13011.26 l 4 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO PAYROLL 8/3/84 114.00 1aa45 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 8/3/84 35.00 15346 GREAT WEST LIFE INSURANCE CO PAYROLL 8/3/84 4116.0E 15347 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 8/3/84 110.75 15348 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG DUES 651.D0 15349 MARY BETH CAMERON REFUND-GOLF CLASSES 33.00 15350 `PETTY CASH EXPENSES-PLAYGROUND PROGRAMS 61.06 15351 PENNY OLSON REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 25.00 15352 JENNIFER MICHAELS REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 13.00 15353 MEGAN BOWEN REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 31.50 15354 STEPHANIE KRUEGER REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 25.00 ' 15355 AMY PETERSON REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 9.00 15356 QUALITY FITNESS INSTRUCTOR-HYDROSTATIC WEIGHING/FEES PAID 85.50 15357 PER A PAYROLL 8/3/84 14747.56 15358 RIVERS EDGE EXPENSES-TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 75.00 15359 DANA GIEBS PACKET DELIVERY ' 78.00 15360 STACEY LEE REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 9.00 15361 NANCY SCHAEFFER REFUNO-PRE NATAL CLASSES 25.00 15362 KRIS LEAK. REFUNO-PRE NATAL CLASSES • 25.00 15363 SUSAN SALZL REFUND-PRE NATAL CLASSES 19.00 15364 ERICA EDSTROM REFUND-BASIC RESCUE/SWIMMING CLASSES 22.00 15365 MOLLY BANBURY REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES . 19.50 15366 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 506.23 15367. CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 650.81 1,. 168 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 34.81 1 i9 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 947.52 15370 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 657.77 15371 *JOHNSON LROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 5.53 15372 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 2969.10 11500224 ' r')3S I 15373 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 4780.0G 15374 USPCA OUES-POLICE OEPT 16.00 15375 DALE ARDNT JUNE. CUSTODIAL SERVICE 200.00 • 1f i KAREN WHITE REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 10.00 15_.1 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 7569.0E 15378 CITY CLUB OISTRIBUTING CO BEER 10891.41 ;a;. 15379 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIXES 594.4E 15380 OAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 5479.40 15381 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER - 9113.8E '` 15382 GRIGGS BEER DIST INC BEER 3480.8', 15383 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 284.00 15384 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO MIXES 827.6`-' 15385 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO MIXES 166.65 15386 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 9816.0E 15387 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 15388 RALPH KRATOCHVIL INSTRUCTOR/EXERCISE CLASSES/FEES PAID 8.O? 15389 PREMIER RENT A CAR CAR RENTAL FOR TEEN WORK PROGRAM 621.92 15390 MINNESDTA DEPT OF AOMIN BOOKS-POLICE OEPT 142.05 15391 LEANN KINNEY REFUNO-SWIMMING CLASSES 13.00 15392 COLETTE MEYER REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 1.00 15393 WENDY BURNS CARLSON INSTRUCTOR-SKATING CLASSES/FEES PAID 119.60 15394 JEFF DUNFORD TENNIS & RACQUETBALL INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 330.0C 15395 SETH CANDLAND REFUNO-SWIMMING CLASSES 12.00 15396 AMANDA FALKUM REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 4.00 15397 CUSTOM SURFACING STARING LAKE BIKE/HIKE TRAIL 29214.41 15398 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC ROCK 2557.15 15399 NORWEST BANK MPLS NA BONO PAYMENT 1862592.11 1540D ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 3817.2 1 1 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE 1029.2, 19402 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 1832.5, 15403 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 2087.0, 15404 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 367.5E 15405 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 355.53 15406 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 2229.3E 15407 'OANA GIBBS AUGUST PACKET DELIVERY 52.0: 15408 7 COUNTY JOINT PURCHASING DUES-FIRE DEPT 20.O. 15409 ALLEN COUNTY K-9 CORP CONFERENCE-CANINE UNIT 195.00 15410 PETER BLACK WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 67.50 15411 JIM BOWSER WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 48.1C 15412 SCOTT BREYFOGLE WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WDRK PROGRAM 123.52 15413 BILL DOLNY WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 30.00 15414 KEVIN FISCHER WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 80.77 15415 BETH GILOERHUS WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 33.20 15416 LAURIE GILK WAGES-TEEN VDLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM " 71.10 15417 DEBBIE H'EGGE WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 30.80 f 15418 DOUG HENRY WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 86.17 15419 WENDY HOWELL WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WDRK PROGRAM 171.90 15420 ANNETTE JORGENSEN WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 41.60 15421 MIKE LANGER WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 44.80 15422 ANDREW LAWYER WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 103.50 15423 TAMMY LAWYER WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 91.3', 15424 TOM LESLIE WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 48.10 1P425 SHARI LINDSEY WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 41.20 26 BETH LUOMA WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 45.60 196198938 a136 - 15427 HOLLY MARTIN WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 48.00 15428 JENNIE MOE WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 44.80 •'+ 15A/9 SEAN MUNSON WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 31.20 • ,J 1. J SHELLY OLSON WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 57.20 4 15431 WILLIAM RAMIREZ WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 11.20 15432 CRAIG ROGERS WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 24.60 15433 SHERRI SCHMITT WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 140.4U 15434 KRIS SCHWARTZ WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 63.20 r,. 15435 CHRISTINE SIEG WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 50.80 15436 JOHN SOLON WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 67.60 15437 JAY STEVENSON WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 77.85 15438 CHRIS TIEIIEYER WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 94.50 15439 CHRIS THOMAS WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 89.10 • 15440 MIKE TUSHIE WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 104.80 15441 SRIDHAR VENKATA WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 90.60 15442 MIKE VORLICEK WAGES-TEEN VOLUNTEER WORK PROGRAM 77.85 15443 BROWN & CRIS INC SERVICE-CARMEL ADDITION 49405.65 15444 BARBER CONST CO SERVICE-EDENVALE BLVD 58372.78 15445 FIRST ST BANK OF SPRING LAKE PK SERVICE-EDENVALE BLVD 36649.23 15446 FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING SERVICE-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK 40553.13 15447 G & L CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-RYMARLAND CAMP 3RD ADDITION 1917.62 15448 HENNEN CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-MEADOW PARK 6000.00 • 15449 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 17700.88 1545D ORFEI & SONS INC SERVICE-LORENCE 1ST & 2ND ADDITIONS 16341.3? 15451 SHAFER CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 34509D.9s k; 15452 SHAFER CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 8530.36 15453 A & H WELDING & MFG CO STEEL PLATE-WATER DEPT 60.00 I"54 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 254.99 ' ` 1_ .,5 ALL STEEL PRODUCTS CO INC CULVERT FOR CANINE UNIT/PIPE 380.00 15456 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO MOPS/DUSTERS-LIQUOR STORE 8.85 15457 AMI PRODUCTS INC CRIMPING MACHINE-STREET GARAGE 1357.50 + s;' 15458 ANDREBERG-LUND PRINTING CO BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE DEPT 210.00 15459 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC WARNING SIGNS/REGULATION SIGNS 1070.90 15460.,AMERICAN RED CROSS 5 SETS OF SAILING MODULE-COMMUNITY SERVICE 25.00 15461 AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 10D.4? 15462 ANNANDALE SOD SERVICE SOD-PRAIRIE EAST DRAINAGE DITCH 1456.35 - 15463 APACHE PAPER CO OF MN TOWELS-CITY HALL 128.40 15464 ARA TRANSPORTATION BUS SERVICE-SUMMER PROGRAMS • 82.80 ' ; 15465 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTDP 6362.87 15466 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 1631.21 15467 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 103.80 15468 AVR INC CEMENT-DRAINAGE CONTROL 571.99 15469 BALDWIN SUPPLY CO 4 BELTS-WATER DEPT 156.24 1547D B R W INC -SERVICE-EDEN ROAD/ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY/ 41038.33 -SHADY OAK ROAD & FLYING CLOUD DRIVE/ VALLEY VIEW ROAD/PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 15471 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON MAY & JUNE 84 IMPOUND SERVICE 730.00 15472 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH CO LATCII-COMMUNITY SERVICES 1D.40 15473 LOIS 80ETTCHER MINUTES FOR PARK & REC COMMISSION MEETINGS 93.00 15474 BOUSTEAD ELECTRIC & MFG CO BELTS-WATER DEPT 51.4R 15475 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE-LORENCE ADDN/PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 1394.70 15476 LES BRIDGER EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 2.50 ( 77 BRDWN PHOTO FILM & FILM PROCESSING-PLANNING/ASSESSING 136 40 .).178 BRUNSON INSTRUMENT CO EQUIPMENT RENTAL-ENGINEERING DEPT 190.00 63924379 19 3') 15479 BDYER FORD TRUCKS INC POWER STEERING/TACH DRIVE-EQUIPMENT MAINT 69.5P 15480 BSN CORP TENNIS NETS-PARK DEPT 338.20 15481 BUILDERS ENGINEERING CO PLAY STRUCTURE-BLUFFS WEST #2 PARK 4277.00 1 2 J E BURKE CO 2 SWING SETS-BLUFFS WEST #1 PARK 1096.94 15,183 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC CARD TRAYS-POLICE DEPT 29.70 15464 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 484.1E 15485 MET CENTER EXPENSES-SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM 93.50 15486 STEPHEN CALHOON MILEAGE 18.00 15487 CAMP INDIAN CHIEF REFUND-BUILDING DEPT 97.00 1548E CARDOX CORPORATION CARBON DIOXIDE-WATER OEPT 1215.83 15489 CARLSON REFRIGERATION CO REPAIR COOLER DOORS-LIQUOR STORES 1374.15 15490 CENTEX HOMES REFUND-BUILDING DEPT 1910.3E 15491 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER -WRENCH/BEARINGS/BATTERY/MUFFLER/OIL 1197.27 -FILTERS/AIR FILTERS/BRAKE PARTS/MIRRORS/ -PAINT/OIL SEAL/GREASE FUN/HOSE/EXHAUST -ADAPTER/EXHAUST PIPE/SOCKET/CLAMPS/FUSES/ THERMOSTAT/FLASHERS 15492 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO ADS-SEAL COATING/SANITARY SWR DEPT STATION 154.98 15493 CHEMLAWN LAWN CARE-P/S BUILDING 361.00 15494 CHICAGO SUN-TIMES EMPLOYMENT AD-PLANNING DEPT 297.7E k 15495 CLEAN SWEEP INC SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER & STARING LAKE PK 311.52 15496 CLEVELAND COTTON PRODUCTS SHOP TOWELS-STREET GARAGE 170.97 15497 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSIDN SER INC SEAL/DRUM/BRAKE SHOES-EQUIPMENT MAINT 301.94 15498 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC HYDRAULIC HOSES-WATER & PARK DEPT 124.0C 15499 CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC AIR PACKS/GAUGE/WASHER-FIRE DEPT 166.0E 15500 COPY EQUIPMENT INC TAPE-PARK PLANNING 41.3E 15501 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 108.93 I"02 COUNTRYSIDE AUTO PARTS & SALES REPAIR MANIFOLO & CARBURATOR-EQUIP MAINT 60.00 13 CPT CORP DISK DRIVE/SOUND HOOD-POLICE DEPT 815.25 15504 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO OESK SIGN-PARK PLANNING 14.54 15505 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC STARTER-PARK MAINTENANCE 90.9E 4 15506 CUTLER MAGNER CO QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 7153.07 ? 15507 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-P/S BLDG/BLEACH-WTR DEPT 47.52 15508 DATED BOOKS BOOK-STREET DEPT 66.15 15509 DAVIS WATER EQUIPMENT CO REGULATOR-WATER DEPT 453.00 15510 CRAIG W DAWSON EXPENSES 12.50 15511 DEPARTMENT OF PROP TAXATION POSTAGE-VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATIDNS 15.98 15512 EUGENE DIETZ JULY 84 EXPENSES 176.50 '' 15513 DONOHUE & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 484.01 15514 DOYLE LOCK CO KEYS-P/S BUILDING 47.89 15515 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 6.93 15516 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -SUPPLIES-SUMMER PROGRAMS/COMMUNITY CENTER 437.87 ROUND LAKE PARK CONCESSION STANO 15517 P E R A . PAYROLL 8/17/84 15190.7', 15518 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK PAYROLL 8/17/84 37.50 15519 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 8/17/84 35.00 15520 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY CO PAYROLL 8/17/84 114.00 15521 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 8/17/B4 18844.83 15522 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 8/17/84 9664.76 15523 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 8/17/84 13161.0E 15524 UNITED WAY OF MPLS PAYROLL 8/17/84 109.70 15525 GREAT-WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 8/17/84 4116.00 1 / 26 JOY EASTMAN EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 5.00 t 1_.,27 EAU CLAIRE COUNTY WITHHOLDING FROM EMPLOYEE PER COURT ORDER 1.00 a 8540214 Ji 1'13`/ 15528 EDEN PRAIRIE BODY SHOP SQUAD CAR REPAIRS 318.D6 15529 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT SCHOOL-F IRE DEPT 360.OU y' 15530 PETTY CASH-PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 44.32 1 1 EDEN PRAIRIE TRANSMISSION REPAIR TRANSMISSION-POLICE DEPT 693.40 1532 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS JULY 84 TRASH SERVICE 29D.O0 15533 CITY OF EDINA JULY TESTS-WATER DEPT • 109.00 15534 ELECTRIC-AIRE CORP FAN-COMMUNITY CENTER 18.86 15535 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS BLOCK/CULVERTS-PRESERVE 1647.75 15536 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEMS INC WIRE RADIOS FOR NEW SQUAD CARS 2493.77 15537 EMPIRE-CROWN AUTO INC TRUCK CLEANING SUPPLIES/WIRING-WATER DEPT 18.03 15538 ESS BRDTHERS & SONS INC MANHOLE RINGS-DRAINAGE DEPT 110.00 15539 JULIE EVERT EXPENSES-COMMUNITY SERVICES 7.41 15540 FAIRVIEW COMMUNITY HOSPITALS TEST-POLICE DEPT 31.00 15541 FINANCE MANAGER LABELS-VOTER INFORMATION 5 15542 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES -VOLLEYBALL COURT-STARING LAKE PARK/REPAIR 28529..45 r`4 11 FENCE-ROUND LAKE PARK 15543 FIRE INSTRUCTOS ASSN OF MN BOOKS-FIRE DEPT • 44.95 ?' 15544 FITNESS STORE WEIGHTLIFTING BELTS-POLICE DEPT 70.95 ; 1 15545 FLAIIERTY EQUIPMENT CORP REPAIR ELECTRICAL PARTS-FIRE DEPT 161.69 15546 FRANZ ENG REPRODUCTIONS INC MATTE DRAFTING FILM-ENGINEERING DEPT • 26.80 15547 G & K SERVICES SERVICE-JACKETS CLEANED/TOWELS 79.50 15548 GARDNER HARDWARE CO REPAIR LOCK-P/W BUILDING 22.55 15549 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR & PARTS 330.86 15550 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO REPAIR WASHER & DRYER-POLICE DEPT 70.60 ,- 15551 GLIDDEEN PAINT PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 145.63 15552 GRAPHIC CONTROLS CORP CHART INK PENS-WATER DEPT 120.20 15553 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 69.05 sl 1«54 JACK HACKING DUES-POLICE DEPT 75.25 1. .i5 HALLBERG MARINE INC OAR LOCKS-PARK MAINTENANCE 21.00 15556 HANCE SALES & SERVICE TRIMMER LINE-PARK MAINTENANCE 48.9 15557 KARIN HARRIS INSTRUCTOR/EXERCISE CLASSES/FEES PAID 371.20 15558 HAUENSTEIN & BURMEISTER INC WINDOW FRAME/FLOOR STOP-SENIOR CENTER 483.0J 15559 LISA K HAWKEE MILEAGE 12.27 . 15560 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT JUNE 84 BOOKING FEE 383.5? i''. 15561 D-C HEY CO INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR-CITY HALL 83.2' 15562 HOPKINS DODGE SALES INC AIR CONDITIONER PARTS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 220.7? 15563 HOPKINS PARTS CO AXLE SEAL/BEARINGS 91.8^ 15564 HORIZON AGENCY INC UMBRELLA LIABILITY INSURANCE 4000.0) 15565 LEE HYATT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 162.50 15566 IMPERIAL INC TOWELS-WATER DEPT • 97.21 15567 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 JULY B4 CUSTODIAL SERVICE-CITY HALL 911.26 I 15568 INDUSTRIAL SALES & SERVICE MATTING-DOG OBEDIENCE CLASSES 183.60 15569 IBM CORP OFFICE SUPPLIES 114.00 15570 INTL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOC BOOK-POLICE DEPT 64.25 15571 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 133.0U 15572 GARY ISAACS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 205.50 . 15573 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES • 32.19 15574 JAK OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 36.71 `;r. 15575 DOROTHY JACK SON INSTRUCTOR/DOG OBEDIENCE II/FEES PAID 150.00 i. 15576 JOHNSON/REILAND CONST INC REFUND-BUILDING DEPT 490.Oa 15577 CARL JULLIE EXPENSES 158.50 15578. JLISTUS LUMBER CO LUMBER-P/S BUILDING 248.4t. ll '79 KARULF HARDWARE INC -CORKS/PAINT/BATTERIES/PADLOCKS/GLOVES/ 1245.00 t., -PIPE/FLANGES/BOLTS & NUTS/ELECTRICAL WIRE -SHOVEL/V-BELTS/HOSES/SAFETY GOGGLES/ • 2022005 039 • -CONCRETE MIX/PAINT THINNER/PAINT BRUSHES/ -HOSE FITTINGS/GREASE GUN/TROWEL/ROPE/TAPE -MAILBOXES/NAILS/BUG SPRAY/PLIERS/HOOKS/ SCREWS 15580 KAMAN BEARING & SUPPLY CORP V-BELTS-WATER DEPT 80.82 15581 KLEVE HTG & AIR COND INC REPAIR AIR CONDITIONER-CITY HALL 40.00 15582 KOFFLER SALES CORP NON-SKID FLOORING-COMMUNITY CENTER 690.3, 15583 KOHLER MIX SPECIALTIES CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-ROUND LAKE PARK 234.O( 15584 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC SWIM SUITS/T-SHIRTS-ROUND LAKE BEACH 239.40 15585 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER ROPE/MALL/SUMP PUMP/PLIER/JACK/PAINT 348.6 155B6 REBECCA KRAGH INSTRUCTOR/SAILING CLASSES/FEES PAID 342.0 15567 LAKE STATE EQUIPMENT CO LINE-WATER OEPT 149.10 0 15588 RDBERT LAMBERT EXPENSES 15589 LANCE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 81 9;' 1559D LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD JUNE 84 LEGAL SERVICE 10955.17 15591 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD JULY 84 LEGAL SERVICE 14340.8„ 15592 LEEF BROS INC DUSTMOPS/RUGS/COVERALLS 550.10 , 15593 ROGER A LIND HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 45.00 15594 LOGIS JULY 84 SERVICE 3920 0-• ;; 15595 TERRY LOVAASEN SCUBA INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 248.0� 15596 LYMAN LUMBER CO LUMBER-STREET DEPT 66.46 4. 15597 MARKS EDEN PRAIRIE STANDARD REPAIR TIRE-SQUAD CAR 8.50 15598 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING SERVICE 320.00 ; i 15599 BARBARA MATTSON INSTRUCTOR/SWIMMING CLASSES/FEES PAID 84.50 a 15600 MAYON PLASTICS INC PLASTIC SHEETS-WATER OEPT 7.6' 15601 MCFARLANES INC CONCRETE-PARK MAINTENANCE 48.0C 15602 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE OEPT 117.24 '03 METRO ALARM INC SECURITY SYSTEM-P/W BUILDING 42.00 .-..04 METRO FDNE COMM INC AUGUST 84 PAGER RENTAL FEE 77.7? 15605 METRO PRINTING INC FORMS-FINANCE & POLICE DEPT 342.0,' 15606 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL CDMM SEPTEMBER 84 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE 58910.7/ 15607 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM JULY 84 SAC CHARGES 111D78.0(` 15608 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM SERVICE 137045.Oo °: 15609.. GARY MEYER TELEPHONE FOR FIRE STATION ill 68.8', '. 15610 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP 349•7' 15611 CHRIS MILLER INSTRUCTOR/SWIMMMING CLASSES/FEES PAID 84.50 15612 MILLER/DAVIS CO FORMS-ASSESSING DEPT 21.2`., 15613 MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO EMPLOYMENT AOS-PLANNING DEPT 326.41' 15614 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 31.90 15615 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP AUGUST 84 PAGER RENTAL-WATER DEPT 39.2 . I5616 MN DEPT OF P/S CRT RENTAL-POLICE DEPT 40.DC 15617 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 18D0.55 15618 MINNESOTA ICE ARENA MANAGERS ASSO DUES-COMMUNITY CENTER 50.00 15619 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC SOFTBALL REGISTRATION FEES 85.00 15620 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORES 20.4t', 1562I MINNESOTA TREE INC TREES WATER DEPT 195.01 r 15622 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CD-OP SERVICE 36.2, 15623 MIN ETONKA COMMMUNITY SERVICES CITYS SHARE OF MNTKA COMMUNITY SERVICES 110.0(, 15624 MODERN TIRE CO SHOCKS 19.9` _: 15625 MOTOR PARTS SERVICE INC EXHAUST PIPE 21.O. 1562G MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR 63.9: 1; 15627 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO WASHER/BEARING/STARTER/WHEEL & TIRE ASSY 582.9, i28 MURR PLUMBING INC REFUND-PLBG PERMIT 67.50 34443193 • 0 4( • 15629 NCNB FINANCIAL SERVICES INC LANDSCAPE MATERIAL-STARING LAKE PARK 31O.OU 15630 NEWSPAPERS INC EMPLOYMENT AD-PLANNING DEPT 145.00 1F NORTHERN STATES PDIJER CO SERVICE 37887.59 15u..L NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 4.78 15633 NOTT CO PADDING FOR CANINE CARS 384.18 15634 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 2922.75 15635 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 1267.42 15636 OCHS BRICK & TILE CO CEMENT-PARK MAINTENANCE & STREET DEPT 144.70 ,Le 15637 15637 STEVE OLSTAD MILEAGE 4.23 15638 PACKAGING SALES CHARLTON-GARRETT SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 417.70 15639 CHARLES J PAPPAS DUES-COMMUNITY CENTER 58,75 15640 CLIFFORD G PATTERSON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 262.50 15541 W G PEARSON INC SAND 40.92 15642 PENNSYLVANIA OIL CO OIL-STREET DEPT 214.15 15643 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 172.25 15644 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO CONCESSION'STAND SUPPLIES-ROUND LAKE PARK 373.00 15645 CONNIE PETERS SCHOOL-COMMUNITY CENTER 66.00 15646 PHOTOS INC PRINTS-PLANNING DEPT 67.50 15647 PNEUMATIC CONTROLS INC FILTER FRAMES/STARTER PARTS-COMMUNITY CTR 290.72 15648 POMMER MFG CO INC TROPHIES-SOFTBALL/TENNIS/FEES PAID 245.00 15649 POWER SYSTEMS HOSES-PARK MAINTENANCE 9.84 15650 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC REPAIR LIGHT FIXTURE-ROUND LAKE SHELTER 358.00 15651 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN LAWN MOWER PARTS/RECOIL STARTER 63.88 15652 PRENTICE-HALL INC .BDDK-MANAGER 34.16 15653 PRIOR LAKE AGGRETATE INC SAND 9.24 15654 PUMP & METER SERVICE INC REPAIR PUMP-STREET GARAGE 67.50 15655 R & R SPECIALTIES INC SHARPEN ZAMBONI BLADES-COMMUNITY CENTER 119.70 1 5 RAOIO SHACK TELEPHONE-ELECTION/WALKI TAKIE-WATER DEPT 119.85 1567 REEDS SALES & SERVICE SPRINGS-PARK MAINTENANCE 4.60 15658 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-LIQUOR STDRE 1O97.1C 15659 STEVE RICHARDS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 237.50 15660 STANLEY A RIEGERT CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 196.04 15661 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSDC INC -SERVICE-ARBON GLEN/LAVONNE IND PARK/ 12987.13 -FLYING CLOUD DRIVE/NORSEi•1AN IND PARK/ PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 15662 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CD MUDFLAPS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 165.44 15663 ROGERS SERVICE CO STARTER/REPAIR ALTERNATORS-SQUAD CARS 310.8: 15664 ST CROIX RECREATION CO PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT-BLUFFS WEST PARK 4500.00 15665 ST REGIS CORP LUMBER-STARING LAKE PARK 2263.30 15666 WAYNE R SANDERS EXPENSES 90.80 15667 DON SARLES EXPENSES-ICE CREAM SOCIAL 28.75 15668 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RESTROO;S-PARKS DEPT 1902.43 15669 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO WEEDWACKER-SEWER DEPT/SHIRTS-SUMMER PROG 321.00 15670 SHAKOPEE FORD INC BODY REPAIR & PARTS-POLICE DEPT 2331.89 15671 SHAKOPEE MARINE SERVICE 2 OARLOCKS-PARK MAINTENANCE 18.50 15672 SHOW QUALITY PET PRODUCTS INC SUPPLIES-CANINE UNIT 87.50 • 15673 STEVEN R SINELL SEPTEMBER 84 EXPENSES 187.00 15674 W GORDON SMITH CO , -WASHER FLUID/FUSES/BEARINGS/SWITCHES/OIL 3545.62 -ANTIFREEZE/MUFFLER CLAMPS/PROTECTIVE EDGE V-BELT/REGUALR GAS S3273.0O 15675 SMOKE EATER SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT 30.00 • Ir`76 SNAP PRINT-WEST PRINTING-ELECTION & POLICE DEPT 217.70 /7 SNYDERS DRUG STORES INC SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 35.64 15678 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC JULY 84 LEGAL ADS 855.34 7747549 11gI 15679 GUY SPEAKER CO INC PENS-WATER DEPT 39.90 15680 SPECIALTY SCREENING SQUAD CAR DECALS-POLICE DEPT 3P2.50 15r'' CRAIG STANTON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 15, _ STATE TREASURER RENEWAL OF OPERATORS CERTIFICATE-WATER DPT 125.001 00 15683 STEEL PRODUCTS CLOTHING RACK-POLICE DEPT 15684 DON STREICHER GUNS BRASS BRUSHES/GUN OIL/MOUTHPIECES-POLICE 78.90 15685 STS CONSULTANTS LTD SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 77D.80 ;V 15686 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC PUMP TANK-RESEARCH ROAD 4D.00 �.` 15687 TENNESSEE CHEMICAL CO FERRI FLDC-WATER DEPT 4251.88 15688 BOB THOMPSON INSTRUCTOR/SAILING CLASSES/FEES PAID 125.00 15689 TRACY OIL CO INC UNLEADED GAS 8320.00 15690 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS SUPPLIES-SUMMER PROGRAMS 78.12 15691 TURF SUPPLY CO FERTILIZER-STARING LAKE PARK 75.00 15692 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 8.06 15693 TWIN CITY TESTING INC TESTS 351.00 15694 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE/FIRE & ANIMAL WARDEN 3479.70 15695 UNITED LABORATORIES INC HAND SOAP-WATER DEPT 112.15 15696 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 35.00 15697 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EYE EXAM FOR POLICE DOG 10.00 15698 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC BOLTS & NUTS-STREET GARAGE 187.95 15699 UPTON ADVERTISING ADS-LIQUOR STORES 225.00 15700 VAN WATERS & RDGERS CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 483.08 15701 VAUGHNS INC ELECTION SUPPLIES 69.00 15702 VESSCO INC REPAIR EQUIPMENT-WATER DEPT 87.50 • 15703 VIDEOTRONIX INC BULK TAPE ERASER-POLICE DEPT 70.00 15704 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-COMMUNITY CENTER 141.59 15705 WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP CO ALTERNATOR/SLUOGE REMOVAL RAKE ARM 2109.17 7 17 1,' 5 KEITH WALTERS SOFTBALL DFFICIAL/FEES PAID 15../7 WATER PRODUCTS CO OA1ATORS/OUTSIDE 1/2" METER/TOP READERS/3/4"SE 97 SECTIONS/ADAPTERS/ 17D3 - VALVE/CURB BOXES/BLADES 15708 WATERITE INC GRATE COVER-COMMUNITY CENTER 460 51 6.51 15709 WEED KING WEED CUTTING 15710 .•WEST WELD CLAMPS-STREET GARAGE 187.55 15711 WESTBURNE SUPPLY INC REGULATOR-COMMUNITY CENTER 19.61 3219.6 15712 WESTERN CHEMICAL CO CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 24 .00 15713 XEROX CORP 15714 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 1ST AID SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE 11.95 15715 ZIEGLER INC -SWITCH/FILTER/MOTOR/CYLINDER REPAIRED- 4052•82 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 15716 TIRE36.75 15717 DIANEER& JERRYSERVICE NEEDHAMCO INSTRUCTORS/DOGEPAIR FLATEO EDIENCETI/FEESEPAIDE 150.00 3192425 S3275689.27 i48 _-, • t • August 28, 1984 Cash Disbursements by fund number • • 10 GENERAL 274811.98 12 CERTIFICATE DEBT FUND 40252.95 • IS L/S PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL 60981. 12 17 L/S PRESERVE 41482.69 30 CASH PARK FEES 400.00 31 PARK ACOUIST d DEVELOP 43176.27 33 UTILITY BOND FUND 40601.89 36 P/S d PA/ BOND FUND 248.48 £' 4' UTILITY DEBT FUND 84186.50 • 4. UTILITY DEBT FUND ARB 164494.70 48 82 G 0 DEBT FUND-P/S d P/ 155364.50 51 IMPROV CONST FUND 195785.27 52 IMPROVE DEBT FUND 54.00 • SS IMPROV DEBT FUND ARB 210862.53 73 WATER FUND 40081 . 82 77 SEWER FUND 171684.48 81 TRUST d ESCROW FUND - 491.46 86 PARK PROGRAMS-CONTRIBUTIO 46.26 90 TAX INCREMENT CONST FUND 405460.44 91 TAX INCREMENT DEBT FUND 1345221.93 • $3275689.27 • 17u3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council f 'n. FROM: Development Commission SUBJECT: Guidelines for Issuing MIDB's DATE: August 21, 1984 BACKGROUND: Recent Federal and State legislation have created new restrictions for jurisdictions wishing to issue municipal industrial development bonds. An act of the 1984 Minnesota Legislature specified an intricate system of issuers, conditions for issuing bonds, and criteria to be used to evaluate MIDB applications. Regardless of the wisdom of these pieces of legislation, the City will be limited to issuing some $9 million of MIDB's annually. Given this limited availability of economic development assistance, the City should develop some guidelines against which competing applications for MIDB's can be evaluated. State law identifies 19 criteria for evaluation; however, these criteria apply only applications eligible to use bonding available in the general "pool" after July 31 each year. The City can have its own criteria for the $9 million annual MIDB entitlement. PROPOSED CITY GUIDELINES: For several months the Development Commission has reviewed the progress toward the goals and objectives stated in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Generally, good progress is being made to achieve a diverse, balanced, livable, high-quality community. Any MIDB application must have a use which is consistent with these goals of the City. Based upon this review of the direction of the City, the Development Commission recommends that the following policy guidelines be adopted by the City Council to evaluate MIDB.applications: 1. There will be a favorable ratio of anticipated payroll to the cost of the project. • 2. The number of jobs to be created is at least 0.1 per cent of the number of employees in the firm. 3. The number of jobs created is at least two for each $100,000 issued. 4. Uses benefiting from MIDB financing must be consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 5. M1DB's will be approved only for those sites which already have the proper zoning. �nLl� Mayor and City Council - 2 - August 21, 1984 6. Preference for MIDB approvals will be given to small businesses (as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce). • . 7. It would be desirable to have the amount of bonding per applicant be $500,000 to $1,000,000. / 1' 8. Public bond issues should have a credit enhancement device providing additional security for bondholders. 9. Closing on the MIDB's authorized under the City's "cap" must occur by August 1 each year. Development Commission members wished to include a prohibition on MIOB's for retail a. i uses but could not determine a clear definition for retail in this context. Applications should be evaluated in relation to the number of these guidelines which :'s are met. The Council may also wish to weight the various criteria; e.g., the number of , jobs created may be more important than MIOB's providing additional bond security. 4 It is doubtful that many applications will fulfill each criterion. TIMING Of APPROVALS: The Development Commission suggests that MIOB applications be allowed to accumulate j! for a period of time at the beginning of the year and be approved after comparative iluation. This plan envisions that MIDB applications begin to be approved or denied on or about March 15 each year. After that date, applications would be • evaluated individually and essentially on a first-come, first-served basis. This process allows the City Council to be judicious in its early discretionary use of MIDB's. After March 15, projects could be approved to expedite use of the City's annual MIDB allocation; however, they would still need to be consistent with community . goals as reflected in the guidelines. 4. Bond closing should occur before August 1 each year so that the City may participate in the pool of unused MIDB's available beginning August 1. a ANNUAL REVIEW: The Development Commission further recommends that these guidelines be reviewed by . the Commission and the Council annually. The Council's authority to issue MIDB's should be flexible in order to respond to changes in the general or local economy and to new conditions and needs within Eden Prairie. I. CURRENT REVIEW: The City Council may wish to comment on these guidelines and note items which should added to or deleted from consideration. It may be wise for staff to review these guidelines for consistency and completeness as well as to identify issues relating to MIDB's of which Commission members were unaware. CWD:jp IriLtS • ORDINANCE NO. 56-84 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9, SECTION 9.40, ENTITLED "FIREARMS REGULA- TION," AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND 9.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 9.40, Subd. 2, shall be and is amended by adding subparagraphs C and D as follows: C. "Shotgun shotshell" means ashell firgs.jn a shotgun containing_multiple shot,. .i. D. "Shotgun slug" means asheli_fi-ed ink b shotgun_containing_one slug. hall. or other single projectile. Section 2. City Code Section 9.40, Subd. 3.D., shall be and is amended to read as follows: 4�-`. D. Permits for the discharge of firearms or dangerous weapons shall be issued only for [shotguns] shotgun shotshells, bows and arrows, and B-B guns, except that permits may be issued for rifles, handguns, shotgun slugs, and other dangerous weapons for target shooting only, and only in very well defined and closely supervised areas and as otherwise permitted in this section. Section 3. City Code Chapter 9.40, Subd. 3, shall be and is amended by adding subparagraph F as follows: 1 F. Permits may be issued for the discharge of shotgun slugs in an area- Commencingat the intersection_of Trunk Highway 169-212 with the westerly border of the City: then sasterlY along Trunk Highway 169-212 to Riverview Roads Mien easterly along Riverview Road to the East line of Section 34, Township 116, Range22; then South along said_.East lisle to the Minnesota River; then westerly along the Minnesota River to the westerly border of the City; then along the ` westerly border of the City to the_"Joint__..of beginning--in accordance with the following: 1. Permits for the discharge ofshotga slugs shall not at ally time exceed 15 each for that part of the area best and that_part of the area East ofa line becrinninQ at the intersection of Indian Road with Trunk Highway 169-212 extending southerly alon3 Indian Road to a point where Indian_ Roa-d-turns westerly and then South to the Minnesota River, a [ ] indicates deleted language. indicates new language. �.7..,!c, • 2. Permits for discharging shotgun slugs shall be limited to those times permitted for hunting deer by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 3. Issuance of a permit hereunder shall be conditioned upon the following: (a) The holder of such permit shall not discharge a shotgun slug within 1200 feet from any building, Highway 169-212, or Riverview Road. (b) The land on which any holder of • a permit may discharge a shotgun slug within the area bordering on Highway 169-212 shall be posted with signs prohibiting hunting without permission of the owner situated not greater than feet from each other. 4. Permits shall be issued only in accordance with Subparagraph E hereof; provided, that if any provision contained in this subparagraph is inconsistent with any pro- vision contained in subparagraph E, the provisions of this subparagraph shall control. 5. Repeated violations of the provisions of this subparagraph F or any permit issued hereunder on any property within the area may result in the cancellation of all permits for the discharge of shotgun slugs on such property and the denial of applications for permits for the discharge of shotgun slugs upon that property. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Pro- visions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. '9 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 , 1984, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1984. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED IN the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1984. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION No. 84-222 WHEREAS, a citizens' committee was appointed to study and make recommendations concerning the issuance of permits to discharge firearms in connection with hunting activities and the committee las made certain recommendations; and, WHEREAS, some of the recommendations are or will be incorporated in City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.40, and others more appropriately considered by resolution of this Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in connection with the issuance by the Public Safety Department, in its discretion, ie of permits to discharge firearms as authorized by Section 9.40 a` of the City Code, the following criteria shall be considered by the Department of Public Safety: 1. No permits shall be issued for the discharge of firearms on Mitchell Lake or property contiguous thereto after 1984. • 2. Permits for the discharge of shotgun shotshells and bows and arrows only, on or within the flood plain of `:` Purgatory Creek lying between State Highway No. 5 on the North and County Road 1 on the South, may be issued subject to the e „.. following: a) No shotgun shot shell shall be discharged #' between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and the legal shooting time of the day following from September 29 through October 20. b) No more than ten (10) permits shall be issued for each of two areas. "a c) No more than five (5) permits shall be issued for the discharge of bows and arrows. d) Hunting (for which permits for the discharge of bows and arrows are given) shall be from designated tree stands. e) Issuance of any permit shall be on condi- ( tion that the holder may discharge a shot- gun shot shell or bow and arrow only on land posted with signs around its entire perimeter prohibiting hunting without permission of the owner and situated not more than feet from each other. ICU`? • • • f) The discharge of such firearms may be only in areas approved by the Department of Public Safety. g) Upon completion of Technology Drive, no permits shall be issued for the discharge of shotgun shot shells or bows and arrows in area. 3. Permits for the discharge of firearms or dangerous weapons for that area known as Appleside Orchard described as follows: • shall be subject to the following provisions: A signature card must be turned in to the Department of Public Safety indicating authorized signatures for shooting permits and all authorized • shooting must be done within fenced area of orchard. The owners of Appleside shall post the remaining 40 acres outside the fence with "NO HUNTING" signs. Shooting permits within the fenced area shall be limited to eight (8). ADOPTED by the City Council on • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • • • • it . ra Brown Variance Request #84-19 CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENTS 8 . Memorandum dated August 15, 1984 Final Order for Variance Request #84-19 Board of Appeals & Adjustment Packet for April 12, 1984 meeting Board of Appeals & Adjustment packet for June 14, 1984 meeting Board of Appeals & Adjustment minutes April 12, 1984 w'( May 10, 1984 June 14, 1984 • Accident Survey for Eden Prairie Road Letter dated June 14, 1984 from Sorenson & Sorenson ti_ Memorandum from Roger Pauly dated May 1, 1984 Letter dated April 10, 1984 from Dean Edstrom Letter dated April 12, 1984 from Ralph R. Nielson Letter dated March 27, 1984 from Minnesota Historical Society Letter dated March 15, 1984 from David L. Brown Benshoof and Associates proposed driveway analysis I'),D MEMORANDUM • TO: Eden Prairie City Council FROM: Steve Ourham, Assistant Planner HOUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager • DATE: August 15, 1984 SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST #84-19, BY DAVIO BROWN FOR LOT SIZE VARIANCE IN A RURAL OISTRICT. To briefly summarize variance request #84-19, Mr. Brown applied for a variance on March 14, 1984, for his property located at 10190 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The variance request was to permit construction of a single family residence on 3.2 acres zoned rural. The required lot size is ten acres. The matter came on for hearing before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments on April 12, , . May 10, and June 14, 1984. Based on the summary of evidence, findings, and order, attached to the final order, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denied variance request #84-19. In particular, the denial motion was based on the following: 1. The area in which the Brown parcel is situated is a high risk area in terms of traffic safety factors. i` 2. The size of the variance is unreasonable. 1 , 3. There is alternative useage of the land. Mr. Brown has requested the Council to review the Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision of denial for his variance. In preparation for the Engust ineering, 198d hearing, the attached memorandums were prepared by the Building, 9 Assessing Departments. These memorandums reflect each Department's opinion of the 2 , site and its buildability and safety aspects. Eugene Dietz, Director of Public Works, reviewed the sight distance_ analysis for the proposed driveway as prepared by Benshooy. f aa Associates. He has concluded that the distances available are adequate. The proposed driveway appears to be in the best location for the parcel and in conjunction with the advisory speeds and what would be considered a comfortable speed to a reasonable driver has a better than adequate sight distance, with a sight distance for the legal speed limit just about "bare minimum": Steve January i2,t1984,etherestimatedd market an imvalue isated r$12,000. This for value pispbased AS of eanassy on the assumption that the highest and best use of the 3.2-acre subject is an 1 unbuildable lot with future possible use. If the lot were buildable under current . l zoning regulations indicated, value would be between $20,000 and S3D,000 based on recent sales activity of unimproved land suitable for single family residential use. -1 • • Memorandum • August 15, 1984 ( Page Two • Wayne Sanders, of the Building Department, has indicated that the soils are suitable for a building site. In regard to the neccessary septic system, the percolation test was positive and no problem anticipated. The Planning Department has determined, according to present Code and zoning restrictions, that the 3.2-acre site does not meet the ten-acre minimum lot size for a rural district. Therefore, a building permit could not be issued unless a variance is granted. Mr. Brown, at this time, has not submitted information indicating that the subject parcel has no other use than a single family residence. Public Safety prepared an accident survey repo ,rrt for 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984. In this four year period, two VEItUrItIre on Eden Prairie Road near the subject parcel. On December 12, 1981, an accident occured at 10100 Eden Prairie Road, (Nielson preperty), and on May 5, 1982, an accident occured at 10133 Eden Prairie Road, (Estrom property). In both accidents there was no personal injury. • • • • • • 005) • 77. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Department FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works DATE: August 13, 1984 • RE: Proposed David Brown Driveway Eden Prairie Road North of TH 169 At your request, I have reviewed the_sight _distance analysis for the above refer- enced location as prepared by Benshoof and Associates. Although I cannot exactly duplicate the figures used in the report, the sight distance standards ac cpPri- fied in the report appear_tQ bg_of__adequate_lendt-h, which would lead to the conclu- sion that tie diistances available are adequate. Benshoof used a 25 mph speed limit in the area, even though the speed limits on urban streets (without special dispen- sation from the Commissioner of Transportation) is 30 mph. However, the distance available would still be adequate based on the sources of information available to me. Although the "legal" speed limit is 30 mph in this area, the northbound approach has an advisory speed sign of 15 mph attached to the curve ahead sign. The southbound curve ahead sign does not include an advisory plate at this time. Having driven the road in preparation for this memorandum, I will order a 15 mphadvisory_plate for that location as well. The advisory plate does not affect the "legal" spee 1 imit, but•does warn the driver that a special traffic situation lies ahead. My opinion .is that the most comfortable speed through the area is less than 20 mph -- hence the 15 mph advisory plate. I discussed this matter with Hennepin County Staff, since they are perhaps the most stringent enforcer of sight lines in our area. They have a "bare minimum" requirement of a minimum distance of IQ times the posted � de speed.limit: In a-ifi-situation, 10 times --10 mpfiWo'ul/!result in a 300 foot distance forrn Prairie Road. However, when an advisory speed is posted, they would perhaps split the difference between the legal limit and the advisory speed to arrive at an adequate minimum. In this instance, approximately 23 mph or 230 feet. An additional factor which should be pointed out is that the County permits a drive- way to any parcel of property unless they determine to acquire access control. With j this thought in mind, they search for the safest location to site the driveway and then either allow it or purchase the access rights. It would appear that the proposed driveway is at about the optimum location. In summary, the proposed driveway appears to be in the best location for the parcel and in conjunction with the advisory speeds and what would be considered a comfortable speed to a reasonable drive, has a better than adequate sight distance, with a sight distance for the legal speed limit just about "bare minimum." EAD:km • • NI MO • 4 P. 10: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner . • 1•Rpy. Steve Sinell, Assessor PATE: August 2, 1984 RE: BROWN VARIANCE REQUEST 84-19, P.I.D. #29-116-22430005 REAL ESTATE TAX BASIS January 2, 1984 Estimated Market Value - $12,000 - Property Type (2) January 2, 1983 Estimated Market Value - S 9,300 - Property Type (2) 1984 Real Estate Tax payable - $ 398.16 . Valuation Basis -.The January 2, 1984, Estimated Market Value of $12,000, is based On the assumption that the highest and best use of the 3.2 acre subject is an unhuildable lot with future possible use. If the lot were buildable under current 'zoning regulations indicated, value would be between $20,000 and $30,000 based on recent sales activity of unimproved land suitable for single family residential use. Purchased March, 1975 for $ 5,000.OD by Benjamin Bingold, Sr. Purchased March, 1977 for $17,000.00 by David Louis Brown. • Historical Estimated Market Values • January 2, 1982 - $ 8,500.00 January 2, 1981 - $ 8,000.00 • January 2, 1980 - $ 8,000.0D • • • January 2, 1979 - $ 8,000.00 ' January 2, 1978 - $ 9,600.00 January 2, 1977 - $ 9,600.00 January 2, 1976 - $ 9,600.00 January 2, 1975 - $ 9,600.00 January 2, 1974 - $ 9,600.0D January 2, 1973 - $ 9,600.0D • • I py) Date: August 16, 1984 rg Memo To: Planning Dept OP From: Wayne R. Sanders, Dept of Inspections Subject: Building Site for Brown Variance #84-19 The land under consideration for Variance #84-19 appears to present no 3; problems for construction of a home. According to tests submitted to this department the site appears suitable for a private sewage system. • • • • • n9) '/e/with N. line of E%2 of S.W4 c f%•E,%a of Sec.29 4. • _ ' / `\em - Length of Driveway = 222 '' • • / ` • - Vertical distance shoo/der of / i //' road to garage floor= 2/.O / 1 - Grade of Driveway = 9. 467, . /�/ /. - Total Area _ 148,750 Jq, Ff • r i'/ 3.4/5 Acres `y0 / , -Area exclusive of Road / .` ,' \' I •• •*-- 139,715 Sq. Ff. VS i/ /. ,,gyp/s rt 3.207 Acres / 0 2 - Drive io be bituminous with �, a a At" cruohed /'ock base S i %,`�'' /, wood ,/ `s� - Graded .,areas to be re-Sodded q .o �, + .- _ • t //• ' /I ° -' / ' 1 d 7� P�ro�pose` ,/, • / o •S low ! 4 t �2' �7,/-I C , / o �,.- Propo3ed 12' Culver}' / •+ �t+v./It5.6 J 421.7 . ' /..'" 1 q, PROPOSED i r'• \ �. 9 ,SEPTIC TANK / / / •L.0 A 1•y� , t • / �Rp-Ra \ N per /� O/1114114.5 / / 7 / , ,0` ` / /\�' ZO~Twin%/ram,-+}`7 v' ` Ft_239 is 0'... • X / n )(0. T . • " Inv.=IIJ0 / / /...�,eb / ` . �� G= 7°II't5 �Perc rtstul . .1/ h - L= 30,o '0.5 M.P.I. /; ////11 ��Q Q fr {� .ep Hole,dry at Bf „/ . 90 11 • .IS j 0 1 cohlf , • • ' v/ 0 La Q` ( a f a � 44 M r F , o' '' 33 !!! r.,„..4'7. • v�-�v.4.....______ SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS f W ..c. 1( �i'_ �- 115 , • f • ..,._...... ..,-:_-'---_--+--^---�^--•-t^>r•.�--•-��•►:-�-_^---ate_, .. ,, ,,...._�_-:_„ .r.w_-L ei:•r "? •_ •_ Ri�y+raLv+kM}wB�++ei�'.w.asrld+ • • • WATER.'TIGHT MOUSE SEWER • - �± 1 NKD CLpAU �Ty ` . o 4 / . • _ / [ DtSTR Bex rev' 33, I \a r t '1.1 ih4 I y�� v, • \ C I r �.\,�.-. ,` \ Iliip 1,4 ?\4. �` Il1 �\ . , j. Jam- ,`-' � T ll 3"TO 4"LAYER OF `- _I •NAY OR STRON „"r_ !,_ „, 'y1•F-1"F,1fA11C'1LL [OVFI:tD,.'iTH RED ��-rr; �..-+;0�- _ ADd�E Ti0f6 ROSIN F:tFiR y�.'^t�_t _�_, Y . AT(FAST 2"J S so" ' CA" SO C'•12" OF ROCK ABOVE p1PE' S% . CLEA1:ROCK S/AI' TO 2 Ve DIA. A DRAIT7 FIELD AND SEPTIC TANK DETAIL (NO SCALE) • • • SHEET 2 0F2 SHEETS _._ . . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE VARIANCE #_84'19 • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS ! ,' FINAL ORDER • t RE: Petition of ' David L. Brown ` 1 • t ADDRESS: Northwest corner_ fQ_IS 169 & Fden_Erairia Rnad VARIANCE REQUEST:—To permit construction of a single family residence '; upon an existing_3_2_acre RurraLznnesl-1ot. _ The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular (special) meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (YES x NO _). 2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration, • and granting such variance does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning and platting Code. • 3. Variance Request #84-19 is herein Granted _, Denied x_ 4. Conditions to the granting_-___, Denial X_, of said variance + are as follows: -511-PJAf.HED --— --— 5. This variance shall be revoked within 15 days after notice of ' failure to meet the required conditions has been given. 6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the City Clerk. 7. This order shall be effective June 14,_1984_—; however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alterations permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant • to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one • • year from the effective date hereof. 1 8. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review. N. BOARD OF APPEALS AND r'.D,1IIS T!;ENTS 7 BY: __.�I', - _,✓-yL_. _ n5 0 DATED: ___r1.- / _1. -__ ---- SUMMERY OF EVIDENCE, FINDINGS, AND ORDER • .,. RE: DAVID BROWN .REQUEST FOR VARIANCE NO. 84-19 Variance request number 84-19 by David Brown to permit construction of a single-family residence upon'an existing 39 3.2-acre parcel in the Rural District, notwithstanding the : requirements of City Code Chapter 11, Sec. 11.10, requiring 4 a minimum parcel size of 5 acres. The matter came on for hearing before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on April 12, May 10, and June 14, 1984. Mr. Brown appeared at the hearing on April 12 and May 10, 1984, and with his attorney, Hugh Bishop, on June 14, 1984. A summary of the evidence introduced at the hearing, the findings, and final order follow: i Summary of Evidence -. Mr. Brown applied for the'variance on March 14, 1984, for his property located at 10190 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Hg Minnesota. The Brown property is presently situated in the Rural District. With his application, Mr. Brown submitted photographs of his parcel, a well log pertaining to a well ; j on property adjoining the Brown parcel and situated northerly and easterly thereof, consisting of approximately 4.4 acres ("the Nielsen parcel") , a survey of the Brown parcel, a diagram showing the location of the proposed dwelling and driveway with topographical data and elevations of the proposed dwelling. The Brown parcel is irregular in shape. It is bordered on its easterly line by Eden Prairie Road and on its southerly line by Highway 169-212: Its westerly line commences approxi- mately 176 feet West of the intersection of its southerly • line with the westerly right of way of Eden Prairie Road and extends generally North to its intersection with the • • northerly line of the Brown parcel. Its northerly line is • approximately 550 feet North of the northerly line of 169-212. j : The Brown parcel consists of approximately 3.2 acres. During the course of the hearing, evidence introduced included a letter to Jean Johnson from the Minnesota Historical Society, . dated March 27, 1984, indicating that the Brown parcel does not appear to be within an area of known prehistoric burial mound groups along the Minnesota River bluffs. i". The Brown parcel is situated in the Rural District in ,.. which the City has, since October 14, 1969, required a minimum of 5 acres for the building of a single-family dwelling. In 1982, the City amended the Code to require 10 acres, with the provision that the 5-acre minimum size applies to any parcel existing prior to July 6, 1982. These provisions were adopted by the City to implement goals and objectives to . insure.a safe, pleasant, and economical environment, to preserve agricultural and open lands, to promote public health, safety, and welfare, to foster harmonious land uses and promote stability, to prevent excessive density and • -2- overcrowding, to promote safe traffic systems, to protect 1 property values,, to safeguard and enhance natural amenities such as hills and woods, and to prevent premature urban development until installation of streets and utilities. 1 1 The 3.2-acre Brown parcel constitutes only 64 percent of a minimum 5-acre parcel. The Brown parcel abuts a 19-acre vacant tract of land and a 4.4-acre parcel which contains one single-family residence. The soils in the area are salida and consist of relatively fine sandy material which, if disturbed, easily erode. The Brown parcel is part of the Minnesota River bluff area, which is of significant aesthetic . .and scenic value. • While it was claimed that location of a septic system in existing soils could result in the leaching of fluids from the system into adjoining property, no evidence of such potential occurrence has been submitted. City sewer and water is not available to the site at the present time. Elevations vary from a maximum of approximately 820 feet in the northwesterly portion of the Brown parcel to approximately 770 feet in the southeasterly part of the Brown parcel. The variations in elevation occur over a distance of approxi- mately 340 feet and represent an overall grade of approximately 14.7 percent. ' The driveway proposed would be approximately 250 feet long and have a grade of one percent from its intersection with -3- • i !�' • • Eden Prairie Road a distance of approximately 30 feet, and 'd • thereafter, the grade would increase to 10.4 percent until it reached a distance of approximately 20 feet from the proposed garage at which point the grade would be approxi- mately one percent. It would also have a turn-around near Eden Prairie Road. Available sight distances at the inter- section of the driveway with Eden Prairie Road are 360 feet to the left and 325 feet to the right, the latter being at the point of intersection of Eden Prairie Road with Trunk Highway 169-212. A percolation test was conducted on the property showing a result of .5 M.P.I. A history of the 'ownership of the Brown parcel and the Nielsen parcel, previously commonly owned by Brown's and Nielsen's predecessor in title, is attached. Although Brown received record title to his parcel in 1980, he contracted with Benjamin A. Gingo3.d, Sr., for the purchase of the parcel in 1977. Findings • 1. M.S. Section 462.351 contains a finding by the legis- lature that municipalities are faced with problems in insuring safe,-pleasant, and economical environments and in preserving agricultural and open lands, and, in general, promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, and that such problems can be mitigated by proper municipal planning to assist in development. -4- /'76a 2. To ameliorate those problems, the City has adopted a zoning code (Chapter 11 of the City Code and a predecessor, il Ordinance 135). Purposes and objectives of the Zoning Code include, among others: to foster harmonious land uses, to promote stability of existing land uses, to prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with struc- tures, to promote safe traffic systems, to protect and enhance real property values, and to safeguard and enhance the appearance of the City's natural amenities, such as hills and woods. The specific purposes of the Rural District in which the Brown parcel is located are to prevent premature urban development until the installation of drainage works, streets, and utilities. Granting of variance number 84-19 • would not be within the spirit and interest of the Code. i 3. Eden Prairie Road is a steep rural-type road, having "a--grade of 13 percent in the area of its intersection with the proposed driveway for the Brown parcel, which, together I • with the steepness of the proposed driveway (for the most part, ' 10.4 percent), would result in a high degree of risk to the safety of persons and property in the movement of traffic upon Eden Prairie Road, as well as the proposed driveway. • 4.-• The variance requested from the minimum parcel size standard of 5 acres to 3.2 acres, the size of the Brown parcel, is too great and is unreasonable. `• 5. The Brown parcel may be used for purposes other than construction and use of a single-family dwelling. -5- / 6. On the date of the adoption of the 5-acre minimum parcel size for construction of a single-family dwelling in the Rural District by the City of Eden Prairie on October 14, 1969, a parcel, consisting of approximately 4.4 acres, known as the Nielsen parcel, was owned by Benjamin Gingold, Jr., who at the • same time was a vendee under a contract for deed between himself jf and Mildred K. Graves, former owner of both the Brown and Nielsen parcels. Because of the common ownership of interests in both parcels subsequent to October 14, 1969, and the sub- sequent divestiture of the interests in these parcels to separate persons, any hardship. imposed by the 5-acre minimum parcel size requirement, as applied to the Brown parcel, was created by the then owner of these parcels and not by virtue of the adoption of the 5-acre minimum lot size requirement by the City. Therefore, the hardship is not involuntary. Order Based upon the foregoing findings and reasons, the request for variance number 84-19 is denied. • -6- • SU[^1ARY OF DOCUYMNTS DAVm BIB[;N RL 2UFST FOR VARIANCE • JUNE 14, 1984 • Brown Parcel • •Nielson Parcel 1967 (Aug. 29) . - -----CWNER-GRAVES------ r; " (Oct..25) ---C. for D. GRAVES 1U G1NGOLD, JR.--------- " (Oct. 25) W.D. Graves to Gingold, Jr. 196E (Oct. 1) Q.C.D. Graves to Gingold, Jr. ( . 4) -Mort. Gingold, Jr. & Wf. . to Eberhardt 1969 (Feb. 21) Mort. #3765031 Gingold, Jr. & Wf. to Eberhardt (Oct. 14) -----E.P. 5-Acre Ord. Effective --------- (Nov. 21) Asgnnt. Mort. (3765031 "` Eberhardt to TCF 1970 (Sept. 1) • Mort. Gingold, Jr. & Wf. to 'Marquette Bank 1972 (Sept. 20) Sheriff's sale 'brt #3765031 • • (Dec. 27) Assilpinnt C. for D. Gingold, Jr. & Wf. to Benjamin A. Gingold • 1973 (Mar. 26) Ctf. of Redet-tion TCF to +` Marquette Bank (Sept. 13) Q.C.D. 'IC1' to Marquette Bank 1974 (May Notice Cancellation June) C. for D. Graves to Gingold, Jr. (undated, but see copy--ltrs. • . Bert Gross May 28, - June 27, 1974) C. for D. Hcniningsen (fornerly Graves) to Benjamin A. Gingold (undated, but see Gross ltrs.) !"CGS • . Brown• Parcel Nielson Parcel . 1975 (Mar. 3) W.D. Henningsen (formerly v Graves) to Benjamin A. Gingold, Sr. • W.D. Marquette Bank to 1977 (Feb. 18) Nielson 1980 *(Jul. 25) • W.D. Gingold, Sr. to Brown * ApParently Brown entered into contract for caed with Gingold, Sr. prior to this date. • • • • , 4. 1.166 -2- • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST f 84-19 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments will meet at the following time and place: . 7:30 P.M. Thursday, April 112 19 84 At the Eden Prairie School Board Room, Administration Bld_ • • • 9100 School Rd., 55344 • • to review and consider the variance request f 84-19 submitted by David L. Brown {or property located atjlorlhwest-coiner of US l69 & Eden Prairie Road, legally described as__a_ttacbed• — The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter ll,.S_estinn_11.03, Subd. 2, to permit construction of a sin le family_j esidence_upnn_an-- existing 3.2 acre Rural zoned lot. Written or oral comments relating to this variance request will be heard at,.this u,eeting. Said variance application is on file for public review at the Planning Department at Eden Prairie City Hall. • City of Eden Prairie PlIBL1SH: 3-2II-II4_____.__-- PLANING UEPARIi;LNT U A c1t .41 41 41 rJ C) . t0N11 •1 NJJ41 r+ 3 C)U)P)••1 CJ r0 0 C 3 J U•4.c: 1 0.i 0 Cr 4-3 U 0 0 rt1 44 J pm u)4.1 w 0•r 44 444 0 $ 0 t'co 4J\0 0 . • 0.r: 0 v •-. VJ 0 a•/ • E+tJ O c°, •.4J N.-1 2-4t • • 1 .. . J� r3�V` NCI H o,rJ C\ro+J .c N c 0 ri 0 O.0 44 • O11J 4' -C (;11 0 , • C C: 11 N iJ .y••t 0 O 0•r1 0•r1 N 0 G O I) .�C.". i) rJO N . ) .IJ C. 0 V)O ,0 U••./ C)11•C r1 C)..-10 tP U Q .' Cl .0 ro • • y RIU O 00 4-3 N;J N #. 0 4 W to 4-4N a0+ 0 4 • •• «1C) Oto 0 v • IA .0 r .0 0 i 1 1,--, O •. OJJv•0CrJ r',°s\�wr\,co t )J mw"�° v`D 11 0 2 043404.I43IIUCN rl O 13 3(a.0•rl u 11 ,.. kV u• lnmtn0 X. o n, 04 O Orv•0 .- , ° Or. N Va C O ° sr • -104J �ro ��� •i•cr0t ?•0o • •0- w.-1 0 r1 C w i N•1t \O 43 w C)43 v1 ••t• . _. 0 00rlN In C)x 04' . • .. • ( .0 04i.- W 0U°) 0 • IJ ri a 0 >.O E: . .. - O W� N 11 N C N • O C 4-1 0L1 inN UPI 0 • ▪,4 O'7wro 00 O • ' t :#It C In•.1 0 J.c iJ , 04.0 rJ .c ,J v o [ C0 O 1 J 44 vJ•. ••• C . ++ . NwO 0r4(nJ43•r•-. •.1 w N A , 1^(4 N O 11.: N O 0 ' •• 041U : 'tO t ; R .V) 0 rt N\C: C 1: i•I •r Nx 11 0 N • • 0 JJ W 0U tJ.G 0 fT • • 4 •%1 1 C) •fi 7 w rJ 4) C) tP(n C • O 0 IA iJ 1. •1• •'1 • 1•4 4 0 N 4-3 .. 0 0 C. - �, [t 4J 1J 27 1,1 Gl Ju rC1 • ?,. 01 N•.t C H w U ro•O.0 iJ C) r: 0' J'v.l 0 O O 1 •r% in tl..I w Cl •• C) 0113 'UOA ;� tq 4) .44 N 0 •r W• • , W 1tN 0 :: .I o NIH • + 1 h • • 41 • • a Cr 0 .1:H 0 11 . rS Jl I.),f: C)41 0 N C)Jl 1.:: f t . . O rJ r' 11 f, 11 4: N•ri . .0 1.1 .r: rlO••44IrJY1•rirJO ! 1 i 0 E•1ff U r O, 0 ilh ., k 1,1 G. f7 t 1 Y' »fir 'RiRi�•....-�v.�...rA n, f4.I.4..I4I. +n'� ,�...r•z T-T+t 5-7NAB/�`�f1 ,.y. •/r'it/' N. /irrn of L..;S:Of ;U.%y of.5.E,%¢of✓ec.I I L ` o . e0 - Length o f Driveway = 1L2 /// - Vertical diestance shoo/der of road to 9aroage floor= 2 1.0, ' // :/ / • - Grade of Driveway = 9. 46 1 / - Tofal Area = 148,750 jq, Ff / - 3.445 .Acres t �� , • - -Area exclUSive of Road '{ \ 0 r'~ 159,715 S q. Ff. / ,� \��, ,p •��� 5.207 Acre s it � ' i \.' s� - Drive to be bituminous with /�• .'� e 4 a ,a" crvahed /bck bane i. /%(`•- / w,p ' / - Graded 'areas to be re- -.I", N 7"-...../R7s- ;: tp.-21 i , / • J.1.6 0 ,/✓. /\E23.Ci ' 'r /ice: .- i. ,r°/\ ell Proposed 12M Culvera-- ,.•.,. • , / , / i . xt... 1 / 21.7• / i r^ f iftip • ',II*" 267-ry nE/, .93 o1)"••••... . • // /'/• /9045PQ is /OC f'/ �tU. p-. M,T z. lc- V" L, �fi :M` k/ - ;' • Q h.I� O o`r 4 O 111 1 a i 3; I 14 AN' Nn. 1 •(1-Q1''«-r•r.M -r -^a y^h"^^"" ..w::.+:.'e a "F mow ''',w • • a, - • _ .,. ,i.. .,...._ .,....... • r (` 1.•... ,.: ; tl n f • i., , • O (v�ST itx1ATION { 1 '' . • , i i t f r .? • • — _ .•sm,(J i v :ter • • • • I1�II!I ! v r _. • r—�i•w..„...`^—.11 . .•' 1` 1— ! 1 1 y }i /..-�,..!r• 11.r . .I .ri ..u_1. ;-,, 1I i�:.i1 1 `1, I , 11 ' .l -:.,'1 II - ! A P , :) ;;i1.1.;i111 I; , , il. II+I'►11.1, I •, 1 Y I 1 ll tlI• I'tl;jJll;li� 1� ;, 1 I i) I) I (. 1 P l j ' 1 I !1:iIIj�+��i lli I ' 11ItilI Il 1ii11 II • ¢ ft� s,o,yy �I.,&&�il �ik itA'di 10ka ; , ` r /1 J • 1 •� � ' +� �1• , f • e • .''• ` + r.n t• ,,,1nu ,:,. .>11, ! _ I1l ri;r It ti i.U:.t.rlj•11 1 tR 11•: -ll ,1 rya• ! 4 ; l L•• ( L .t/`'', C• �(. ♦ T � w • _•� .t jj ( 1 }ice- _, � •sr '�� t L •N i..:. . t ,,. � � N a r •! . 2. o' J..J-,,.,\ ,";m`-., -F-,t .:� y in-•t •••D. ... t-i, ..t.1 i �'.T r : rrid• `, - ` .,i ... 1- I`� _-_- 1 _`—c's-' ,♦ • , `,mot ♦ - — (`.' • S -, l • < ,f �'� Q a • fa i • • :•• ` t ...• , . . **'->- / -..--5,•.• '.. :I" t , ' ;,'' •- ••'• • r . .:.::'-..... ./7:, ....'. 7 :. •.,..f.;...•.:%:,,•••!..:..?„.t) : • ...I . , • .-L.'• • *.',"..,,-•4..-.•.• , .. . . ....",'e ,, .. ..;•.,:;, • . •I •...N:1,,' ,,,. :::).:„,:',.,..;::,•::.•:::...tr, : , *•' ..., . '-'70'..s.• .1'.:".•'''''.'1 • k,...?‘,..,-N.1.,.....s.;,,::::':.:::. :.:---:',-;77-''., .,' ",- .'. ' ... .' .. . .. ;-'•: 42.4a,.../ ). ,:> ':—....--:::7,'..-;-..,. .....-:.:::(• 'V: ,:' . • .'': /,: ••• . . - . ,. ••N v . . 0'.k ,,•..f • •v:7••.' . ••. ,."- ' .. i.' ..i, :.,,.....-.!'..-....., )\1\ .. ,,,. , /.' . • ': .-.'.-4--.',„). ...,...„:. • . . ... . . , . '''' . .2/fl/. . \.. - • ' • '•• I : . ?••:;.*1.7 :••••,J.•:-,i7'...•-, ! ; ' . i •• .., , ;..j.;._\•• .'...:‘:-., ; .-....,'. ... i . .:..;-.....".•••-. J. .s.•:7.0 .A, • .1 , i :., • .-...k.z.....;.;.,..-:-.........14.1 . . s'.'k •••••:;:.:.• .':': : •'• ‘c,•''4: ) .: I . ' ). ). ' ••••• *:.:_••:••.•••••. • • ' ''' •'.: '•'11' : . ...' ,.,,..._:.• ..::'•.:‘‘‘••`,.-••1•••,.._•:r i..1:'•-... 1: : . • • •: .•.it`;'•:'•%•••%•••••,•••..* , : .‘ '''• .,' $g:•: , - ):•,•''...0,1) .--Z....7'•:',"4•:'-'7/ -'!:'.. .• ••••• : •'• : •••••:;^•T.Z.ri. 1 ' . • ‘f : :117.!..'2.:;':•‘•:,.S. ' .'' \"••••:77'• . ii .• ••••••••••••.:",.2 ' '4,.••:•••* •:'....... \••! ' '''• i ...., „ .., -1....,...,'14...',:,r.:, ' .. , _ ...-:..i•4...• '• , 'iT.,_____----_____------•-..--7 '. 77- \ I r l''-:2 'I,:','• •,•t'...,:(:"ii. f.:: .i.,:••-...,.'....r.','..:• \. .,.,i-i',...,...., .„-,,, ' .1.7-3.‘ 74.y;;:" si,/:/:.:..t ili )A: ,. '..'' :1 ' i.7'.':...,..'.'4....''•:.•„4::,‘NI,...t.:.' ....,',:::: ..•••,: . . :,) ..' :1::yfi I(;;',,t';',./A---4 : , -; ..,::. z',-•-..ti.,-:;,... ,..:-.,-, -...,•-.7.. -7'.....,..,.z..:..',,..',.....?,, :. .: ( •..• -...- „,,, ( ./.-.1-..,-Ti..( .:-,-.._, , ...., . ..t.':•,',;[.:.. ' .,?...: /':-../.".: . .-... .....,:. ;.' ..''' 1'''. -''' : •-"' • :0- . 1 : . ••••.:--• ••.'"I':::12..." ,,..7 ,si:"::::::,:•e:"•;s:, q.,:: - ,,' ,0. . -!, , • r,•'\ .'• ' ' p„....• '„•-.-•• •:-•-7!.....-....:..,...;:!, '.: •• ., .44-.:: : '.. -'.- . . '\ ` .il :,.-,,,,,,, i; .;-•-:,--:--'•••-:;,P";;" , i.t.•&•••••.:•,,,,..:.;-!,`....•.•-•• , .• '' '- :-') - "'' .:."' 1 I , i-.. • , . , . , , , .• y ;.p..,. . : r..',;,• .....t.l. ;;;;;;...„..,..:.,_...) )1. ii e I i„.,..,.._.. . ..... ,,.,, . ,.,, „. . ., •'..,..'-.2. hr, .""i't',:' ,--.,, , .,../ :....?:;4:lip i?. -, ''.::, :;:‘,..N•:,-=''. ...-- • • ..,,.... "...j..'. . ' '''-• • . . ,;::':•:.:. ••,-,?.. •-, :-.',` • - ''';"7/. 1 ,6;. t..s" • ! ^.'',';')F!.......?..ri' ." ' ;,,t.','::.;-,......t.,,., % ,..z'.:'-`;.;•..:%...:..:. --\.:-.:\ - \ ••••\..:, ... ' .47:. ....;:".,' <.- - .•:•'.,' -. , '..."1....., • , . !,/),-.f..-7 •°. - ' •--' ' - ' c 1„,... (p ) )i * ..?,,,,,,, .....„ • ,.; ,...t,„..„..,...., ,,...1 , '-'•--• ,-- ,,?-h'"C.,. "',..^ i•••'..4,.:.',.!•,::.' . :;'4:;;;;:ik,Cee".--;11. L'. l' .:1 •-'2,: ••• - - - .....:1-if,A;.. . -4-- ;-bt-.-.'1:f‘' . I)\ \ , - '''.4' ''.7‘;.:t:";1 •='''.•.'•:;.i...::•---'''.-'..."-...' -:-•`-•,. . -1,-'-' :;•• : - 2,,:.1.;;. .4, • ,,,, • \ ;. •/ •,-:-i,.......,;,..e I._:.•..'.'"'- ...:::...--.-7777.777"-----...:,,.-'44........e1.::', ' ..!V.:: .A „'',1,7x....____,j i',i 1 '.l'i'.(1-:71 : 1, . . .:,.,. - ,. ,..,.z.,,•,..„,....o__ . !...i..... s//.(-- . m .; .14:." 1!;;!..!: I."' ..,..".1"..'";'.... : •• ' .. ----- ' . 0 • I, -• f-1 ',". . t,:•*.r.;/r;-....A"1-',,...z....:,..4itat,,••••."*.. .m.' • 1,,,, . t..a., • ... ', ....—,/z, i•'i ' ?':..: •A -_ • • -if--..W.•••:.•...N •:-..•(..41.4,,i. /,-',, . ,- ! ---- ,' t . ff,.,1, . -....04".^.•••• ' .1• ' •./:.r ;. ii, k..,—,-,,47. i • .e.:7-i: e •- • ; :,.. : I, -.„...;,/,' .-0 . ..t••:):* • •- - / i . , . . , , •••... . • " '•"__J•''''',.' -. :-•:-•-•: , t P,,i. ).'..s ,'•Iki..,:i .".1.( - • • i'...,;...... 1L,..,.-----,---,-))1 7_i• /1:7 ,-,.,...,.:.•_. ,i',••• ••.-,,,./.1.:. . 1,..,". Pk ,.- 1.: •;::.., 1 • ,,,,.. ?,. , .. .. . liz-4)-c, ( • ,c /ill I; ....• ii,.;.4., :.. (.,..! !.;•.,.„: . , ii, .!..•:,‘. 1, ,,,,,i.•, . ..i,,-, . - .: - ..,k . . / ci(../, 'i/,` -+ .- ' . ..:: • .re 7/. , 11 i I q -•••'‘ ''. ! '! i••. .N,&'.1 .. --- .,/; / !.... ••„•,.. 1.. . . .1.• 1,•,,.. T • • . '-/-7•,.'•,-:,:-L::.---- . :. _, ,..., r.; ,f , „,,,,1 . . ...; ,. •,: . ' •:„,--t-- '••; ill ' -.'"••• • *i .... ..' • '-'''' I 1 - ----- 1,1 1 ..st. -, : - ,,••••••g ••.. ,Ni, ;., t-----:.. _.•/"I• ; .. .z-..:,, ••,,. • y„. , .., N.,x•.....\:! • -...4,,:.•! , .•..., •• • .N., •••‘• • .„ . '*, :. -,•',\\, •.•7 ,•"' •:•,..Z .:..-.`-''. -.... ' /1'j 1)'.',. I s '•..“— 7.N,,'..-.,. : :• I ; r••••:,' •!'• , i / //./*', 4: 1; I. " ) • • 't 1 , • .•.: '4 I k' r / l )%• / A''''„:,....-',•,.!;;:,.....-../ // l,i/.‘,. • • f T J'y)� �C:�:.�_ /r")',�`� MON,CiN AY WI r..O1l1ll ,II' /l;I 'I `.' 1 1CI`1��� MINNETONKA•MiNNESOTA 5:7/.1 . t` �111:,./ I. [ L r }Illl1'1,INk7 I. IIIOINL(nflle CO., I1 0•1052 JOD NUMBER STANDARD SYMDOLS i J2 IIi,'I?- SEC/1VVP:RN �- _ --- "o" Denotes 11.. ID pipe with plastic plug it Davirl Ib'r•ran 1 CLIENT bearing State Registration No.9235,set. I LEGAL DESCRIPTION: "e" Denotes Iron monument found. I Sec reverse side "+". Denotes cross chiseled In concrete surface. . "992x5"Denotes existing spot elevation measured '• at the point marked by'•x".in this case, 902.5 feet above moan sea level. 1 1. 1 2/q,L DATE SURVEYED 1tt —3/1..11r I ONE DRAFTED J"902x, Denotes proposed spot elevation at the ro 60 SCALE IN FEET PiiR INCH point marked by"x". 5 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: none "'—>"Denotes proposed direction of storm water runoff. jj I. FIRST FLOOR t. TOP OF FOUNDATION CERTIFICATION 7 GARAGE FLOOR LOWEST FLOOR I hereby certify that this plan,survey,report ' SANITARY SEWER or specification was prepared by mo and that I BENCt-ItiMARI<ELEVATION am a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Prefea- el Mennt E to lest under the Laws o Eat n `�/ 2 of BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: Minnesota. x.a('X I �� • 5u isc/ /1.rlxr,(Minn.Reg.No./WSS ' treecz ._-• ......fine c.J ir-t 5.r•r•.r NW. iVes/ o{E%2 of Slv%y of SE%a of Sec.29,T.!!6,R.22 verger of/•rl ol6wi,01 ' 1. 54/4ofSta49 /..... l I 11 i 1 I I ••• 559.99•- �i ' f{i PI 1,:- u.l'2s'sc"w. it 1 \ I 1 fl: Ir,'., O,V \ \ • npry I. f .... . \ \ N\\.' ` ,',.,'-- ›. } : , 1.21 f i r •G \ • •'�t I \ 1 i, r.. .1 1 , :,s\ 4i i 7 t' 11 yrs - '' D 6' " n y . �10 /;f' P g 0 0 . i N h1R)E •�{ e�� .. •� C1TY Or EUE11 rR I b s AIM nQJu,lr, eels • • • BOARD or APPEALS l A,' t4 • '` Cf. or. PUBLIC REGAR01UG VARIANCE G UEST ' • • •1 CERi1: ' • , '•. ., and Adjustments ,. pn L'O1,• Gourd of nrpeals TO 1!iQ i 1T ..•. liEkC6Y G1VE11 that the •l1QllCE lS pjace� r! following time and . . . will meet at the o � . ' .. . . P.M. • ]:30 June•1�19gg_.. Thursday,.--� Room At the Eden Prairie School Administration Guilding, G10o School Rd•, 55344 • submitted by ' ' .- request •v BA 1. •. ' ro erty loca'Ged at_� tbuest--crner to revie+t and consider•the variancfor.p P • . David L• Brown ------"'`�. escrabed-.a -a-ttash f US 169 & Ed�nPr ''� o"`�- variance from_C tJLCflsle:-Chapt.� . ' request is fora ence uPon- � The r�4 Subd. 2, to permit 'construction of a si � � e J�yT�z'l'g3A-and--- ' 3,2 acre Rural zonedned 10160-d .frin�L • existing �._---�' p, 198A meetings. -- the May ' +•egvest will he heard to this variance public review• -1;+itt.cn or oral cc,nrrcnts relating licotion is on file for • Said vt+rinnce Grp this meeting' City lull. • • at at f.den Prairie et the Planning Department Prairie _ • • City of Eden „�tlt'•Ci:T p11;�L1S11:. t • �,�'•_�Q,-19It1_—•-�^ • f114} '` V • • • i ' C r: tr ;'; .J1 jl y r O • , • N N J) :1 y J1 a1 t m • .i • U N 0 c3 N C - '• • r•. i N to W••{ C1 '11 0 • .G 's 'U U•r• .i. • P.JJ act tiaJ ..-t U U U U O O N • r0.r. Ur• o ' N N 43 W C1 .11 W 4.1 C ,C v 0 s CI lrco 41\O N ' o r. r.sr r.4-) a) C .. , [-1 y1 0 tD C.H •.11 111•.1 r 1 . N1.P1 X C0\ri 'CI 44 C C .. . \ t� • 01jaC . . CC Sa NaJ aJ•rt UO `: p•,4 o•rt to o G o to • •rt C Z'U 0 0 to ; 41C 0tr)03 'O • U•rt aI 41,C r-.1 0•r1 . . . 0trUC430 Xt'3 to N C•.1 :7 S. to J1 VI ' . [AU0 041 C.1 i •: 0 43 a N Ya )Q74 4O1 Cam. . • • • to0O 0 O v m .c e1 0 ra _r \$ •• 0 yla 'O C 0 • 0 41 r;v N .y a)S �'�S • • aINN \el.0 41 4111GS43r, 3 ON0la . . 0 RS,C r3 41 44 11 0 -i U a • 0 0 J 0 aL a) O rn.0o 0o a)RS.cW4-1 a to . •rt 0 a .r:•rt 44 41 - - , • • 41 0) Cl In U ; •O tT V RI • .: , • • • W•0 0 IO p w, Coro .wJ1 o or: ►• • . , vCO .0 •rt043 • r... ... ' • \0 W J1 N •N N 1t . .i•rl.r O \ U ?.0 O V RS\ W r-t C).-t 0 W '' N la \ 41 W U ♦J N . 0 0 41 r.N 0 U,C U aJ , ): y \r3'Ua1 0 0 . c C1 41 r, C) �UO Sn C 1 t o c.0 NU` J1.o r<d) 0 N • . .. . Q1 N•rt o,C r3 0 0 0 43 r3 U o 41 tt) !n 4) 0 0) , A•-i OR1w rr33 0 OO " 1 J1 tJ 0 o•.4 o U.0 41 • p, c a r. J1c W a1 0 N C 43 \43 .. 1 w' 0 NwOO.-ivcJl ' uJ � N11 • ' rI r•,It,NOtJ 0000 • 41 01 riN r 1J l: ,C • , • .. 0.0 \tt O Cl N31 . .t. N 43 41 r. o ::.r. J1 0 • • • ; • �. h N U J1.0 0 111 •7.. W 44 0 a1 N iT to 0 • . • 0 0 W y..0 •.a •rt • ': H .0 0 N a1 •. U 0 C �' 1 aa rn R+W : .r. U 41.rt • H 4.1 G) r3'U.0 aJ C) C CJ , to 31 .41 N 0 •r W I r ..—o Nut 1 • QW N IN o w I C) •uJ\0 t : :f [1. 11 0 CI..CI 0 r, .!• i A coI .t. o 41 • Q al tot: J i r3 N CI J1 r: CI a:r3 r: 11 l: tJ t: to•rt p1 1: rJ O••t 4J rr ut•ri r) O ��� re 1a F t rt; 0 r. 0 O. - .U•.1.1 P. . • • e • March 15, 1984 Board of Appeals and Adjustments 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Board Members: . In 1977 I purchased the property on Highway 169 and Eden Prairie Road with the intention of someday building on it. At the time of purchase, i understood that my property was a buildable lot and that a former owner had obtained a building permit but did not use it. . I am aware that since that time there have been zoning changes. Over •the years my property has.appreciated considerably in value. I have also paid taxes and maintained this property. To take away the usability which I am proposing would take away the value and cause considerable hardship to the owner. 'Taxes and maintenance would be an ongoing burden. At this time I am asking your consideration of this issue and ';`r . permission to obtain a variance and building permit. Sincerely, David L. Brown s? 5050 Manitou Road • . Tonka Bay, MN 55331 . Phone 474-1043 DLB:an Reference: Property at 10190 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie. 't)'1(D - 5 - NI e m�ted s gn. \The *mood Towihouse sign i the`NN rner. • b emoved �•ithin 30•-d8ys. • E. Variance Request No.84-19, submitted by David Brown. Request to permit construction of a single family residence upon an existing 3.2 acre Rural zoned lot. BACKGROUND • Mr. Brown's request is to build upon a 3.2 acre Rural zoned lot which he has owned since 1977. • As requested by the Metropolitan Council to control development in Rural areas where municipal services are not available, the City in 1982 instigated a 10 acre minimum lot size for the Rural District. The intent of the 10 acre lot size is to limit random development, localize services required, and to protect the public's health, welfare and safety. According to the Rural District in City Code, lots under 5 acres in'size are not entitled to building permits. If d hardship exists, a property ' owner's recourse is to apply for a variance and demonstrate such a hardship and ' that the lot has no other reasonable use. Mr. Brown's 3.2 acre lot is a 60% variance from the minimumlot size of 10 Acres. The lot abuts a 19 acre vacant tract of land and a 7 acre ' lot whichf,as 1 single family residence which was constructed prior to the 10 acre requirement. The 3.2 acre lot existed in 1968 according to tax assessment records. In conjunction with the variance request, Mr. Brown has submitted the • following: -lot survey with topography, house placement, and tree stand locations. • -proposed grades for driveway and house excavation. -house elevations. -proposed location of new well and septic systems. -photos of the lot and drive access point. • • • • • '7 � .J,;,; -6- LOT CHARACTERISTICS The Salida soils in this area are easily eroded if disturbed. If prompt stabilization of disturbed soils is not done,gullies would develop quickly. Erosion from the house excavation and drive construction could travel to Eden Prairie Road and down to US 169. Immediate cover of disturbed areas with staked sod will be important. • The steep bluff portion of the southern part of the lot has aesthetic and scenic value to the Minnesota River Wildlife Refuge located south of US 169. • `3. • In the Comprehensive Plan developed by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Natural Resources local planning has been requested .; in order to preserve and protect the bluff areas. The City in adopting the Comprehensive Plan, requests that preservation easements be drafted meeting with approval of City and State agencies which can be filed on the property to meet this objective. . . The State Historical Society has reviewed the property location and proposed home construction. Their findings are-outlined in a letter dated '1- ) . March 27 and indicate that there are indian mounds just north of this site but not on this 3.2 acre lot. The legal description of Brown's property goes to the centerline of Eden • .,j' Prairie Road. Old descriptions such as this are usually amended to depict road areas as right of ways in plats, but no plat has been prepared . (. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT l • , The proposed driveway construction occurs on slopes over 12%(approximately 11 17%), and spans an elevation difference of 30 feet,so steep slope ground review ` '' will be required. An alternative would be for the owner to have his engineer . reevaluate the grades and locations to determine if modifications would bring the site development below these requirements. Steep.Slope ground review will entail review by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources 41 Commission, Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. T. The proposed well and septic have not been measured from the systems located t on the'lot to the north. This item must be submitted to the City Building Department and meet the State Code regulations. City sewer and water is . . not available to the site and could be 10+ years from extension. The proposed driveway is depicted at the property line. Code requires drives to he a minimum of 3 feet from the property line and their extension to the road surface cannot cross the property line at the road surface. To meet this code requirement the driveway will have to be moved. the drive will be hardsurfaced with asphalt. The City Engineer has reviewed the sight lines of the drive in relationship to traffic. He did not find a better location for the driveway than is depicted. 1 7 1`/ • -7- • FINDINGS • a. The lot size variance requested is 68% below Code minimum. • q. Property has highly erodable and steep slopes. • • c. Property.is very visible from the Minnesota River Valley Refuge. d. Owner has not indicated the distance between his proposed well and septic to the systems to the north. e. Owner has not demonstrated that the lot has no other reasonable use. • f. The driveway location is too close to the property line. • • • • • If the Board chooses to approve the variance, the following conditions • are recommended: . 1. Prior to building permit application, the Owner: • • _a. File protective covenants on the property. Said covenants to meet with the approval of the DNR, US Fish and Wildlife, and City. b. Apply for and receive approval to develop upon steep slopes. ``— c. Building Department review and accept detailed septic and UUU well plans. d. Driveway to readjusted to meet code. 2. Immediately after site grading that staked sod be installed as depicted • on the site plan. • • • i Appeals and Adjustments MINUTES- 4 - April 12. 1984 / tticF'0 t.. ' i D. Request 884-17, submitted by Viking Press for property located at 7000 Washington Avenue South. The request is for a variance from e City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subd. 2, to permit a floor • area ratio coverage of 32% (Code maximum is 30%). Daryl Fortier, representing Viking Press, addressed the proposal. ,, • The reason for the request is for expansion of their operation. The purchase of new, state-of-the-art web presses will require I . an increase in the size of the existing facility. He stated that parking on site has been more than adequate. , • Sandvick noted that 2% over the 30% maximum is a small margin. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request - 184-17, submitted by Viking Press with the following ' . . : , findings: • l .. 1) If in the future, City Staff determines additional ,l •t :«, parking stalls are needed, owner agrees to construct . • ,.. - the needed number of parking stalls. • Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. • E. Request n84-18, submitted by Mr. Wally Hustad for property located t' • at 10220 Co. Rd. 18. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subd. 3, to permit a temporary real • • estate sign for the Bluffs East residential area to be located 70 feet from an existing residential structure (100 feet minimum required) and 7 feet from the right-of-way of Co. Rd. 18 (10 foot minimum required). - 'a: MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to continue Variance Request f84-11, submitted by Mr. Wally Hustad with the following findings: h • } 1) Due to the absense of the proponent, the variance will be continued until the next meeting, May 10, 1984. 2) The City of Eden Prairie should enforce the Code ' as needed on the illegal signs. • • Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ' • 1 F. Request #84-19, submitted by David L. Brown for property located at the Northwest corner of US 169 & Eden Prairie Road. The request is 1 for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subd. 2, - ,' to permit construction of a single family residence upon an existing 3.2 acre Rural zoned lot. Mr. David Brown, proponent, reviewed his request with the Board, He proposes to construct a single family home on a 3.2 acre lot. In 1982, • . . :J. l)`1,3 / r 7"--,7- i,of Appeals and Adjustments • •• - 5 - April 12, 1984 the City instigated a 10 acre minimum lot size for the Rural District and this lot is undersized. Dickey inquired if the property was on a contingency or full ownership basis. Brown stated that he has full ownership of the property. It was purchased in 1977. Krueger noted that the City had a 5 acre minimum lot size at the time of purchase. Loren Wuttke, 16860 Flying Cloud Drive, the former Norberg estate, ' had questions on surveying done on his lot. Don Sorensen, attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Dean Edstrom, pointed out that the land in question is actually not a lot. It is a parcel that was subdivided or divided. The original acquisition was in 1977, ' . but the deed was paid off in 1980. Ralph Nielson, 10100 Eden Prairie Road, read a letter opposing con- . struction of the house. He owns 4.5 acres and has lived at his •present address 11+ years. Mrs. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, read a petition signed by residents: Dean Edstrom, Karen Edstrom, Patty Nielson, Ralph Nielson, Jack Provo, Claudia Bearman, Bill Bearman, Donna Knight and Richard Knight. They feel that granting the request, would be ` .i inconsistent with the purposes of the ordinance. It would create • pressures for unfettered development of the southwest portion of ,, Eden Prairie contrary to the best interests of the City as a whole. Sources of water for existing residents would also be endangered. - 'f Property values would be reduced. Edstrom expressed concern of 1 _. the inherent danger of constructing another driveway on the curve " ; and slope of Eden Prairie Road. There could also be overcrowding for the septic and water systems in Eden Prairie if more people are allowed to build in the area. Sorensen stated that Dean Edstrom had prepared written information i" pertaining to the request. Edstrom was unable to attend the meeting, . .te but Sorensen reviewed the concerns. (The information had been forgotten.) r Sorensen displayed a half section map of the area.' .Me pointed out that there is a 90' elevation drop in a distance of 400' on Eden Prairie Road. The road is a distinct safety hazard. The insta- • bility of the soil was noted. In the studies done, the soils show a very high percolation rate which increases the probability of pollution in wells, lakes and streams. These considerations of ' ' public health and safety demand attention. • Sorensen inquired if an attorney rendered a title opinion for Brown in 1977 which stated that the use of land was controlled by local ordinances. Brown stated that a title was written, • but he was not certain of the land usage statement. Ill; /of Appeals and Adjustments 6 - April 12, 1984 Sorensen noted that an existence of a tract, parcel or division of land doesn't connote that there is a buildable situation. Ne question- • ed the City's authority to grant a building permit as it is contrary to the use of the ordinance. Krueger suggested that Brown table his request and guidelines can be obtained from the City Attorney. Dickey added that Brown has a right to do something with his property. • Sandvick stated that Brown needed legal opinions of his title and did not bring them. Brown inquired as to what his options were. Krueger stated that he • • could table his request until next month. The Staff could be directed to formulate findings and check with the City Attorney. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to table Variance Request #84-19, submitted by David L. Brown until the next meeting, May 10, 1984 so'. further information and advice from the • City of Eden Prairie and the City Attorney can be ob- tained. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS . . • `'` None . • IV. NEW BUISNESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at . 9:05 PM. Motion carried unanimously. • •11• `/. is • • 3 • lyC o d. 8 &sig.n ertehiuen en s30t e1ud a)f bss iapgnend r miinlctoeeg p lir ya tteehdre cSt J d corn ne N orner b remove in o the ' e m ted s gn. `The S ervood Tow house sign i the NW rner b en ved r i thin 30-d ys. • c7lf/ ,.7Eino fo //1L ,C-o,Prc'D E. Variance Request No. 84-19, submitted by David 8rown. Request to permit construction of a single family residence upon an existing 3.2 acre Rural zoned lot. • . BACKGROUND Mr. Brown's request is to build upon a 3.2 acre Rural zoned lot which he has owned since 1977. • As requested by the Metropolitan Council to control development in Rural areas where municipal services are not available, the City in 1982 instigated a 10 acre minimum lot size for the Rural District. The intent of the 10 acre • lot size is to limit random development, localize services required, and to protect the public's health, welfare and safety. According to the Rural District in City Code, lots under 5 acres • i in•size are not entitled to building permits. If a hardship exists, a property owner's recourse is to apply for a variance and demonstrate such a hardship and • that the lot has no other reasonable use. • • Mr. Brown's 3.2 acre lot is a 60% variance from the minimumlot size of 10.acres. The lot abuts a 19 acre vacant'tract of land and a 7 acre • lot whichNas 1 single family residence which was constructed prior to the 10 acre requirement. The 3.2 acre lot existed in 1968 according to tax assessment records. • In conjunction with the variance request, Mr. 8rown has submitted the • following: • • -lot survey with topography, house placement, and tree stand locations. -proposed grades for driveway and house excavation. -house elevations. -proposed location of new well and septic systems. • -photos of the lot and drive access point. }/'iJ:, • • -6- LOT CHARACTERISTICS The Salida soils in this area are easily eroded if disturbed. If prompt stabilization of disturbed soils is not done,gullies would develop quickly. . ,i• . Erosion from the house excavation and drive construction could travel to , Eden Prairie Road and down to US 169. Immediate cover of disturbed areas with staked sod will be important. ~ The steep bluff portion of the southern part of the lot has aesthetic and f. scenic value to the Minnesota River Wildlife Refuge located south of US 169. • In the Comprehensive Plan developed by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Natural Resources local planning has been requested in order to preserve and protect the bluff areas. The City in adopting the Comprehensive Plan, requests that preservation easements be drafted .! meeting with approval of City and State agencies which can be filed on ` ; the property to meet this objective. • 1 The State Historical Society has reviewed the property location and ' ' proposed home construction. Their findings are.outlined in a letter dated v) . March 27 and indicate that there are indian mounds just north of this site but not on this 3.2 acre lot. The legal description of Brown's property goes to the centerline of Eden Prairie Road. Old descriptions such as this are usually amended to depict • road areas as right of ways in plats, but no: plat has been prepared . , PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT The proposed driveway construction occurs on slopes over 12%(approximately 17%), and spans an elevation difference of 30 feet,so steep slope ground review 1 will be required. An alternative would be for the owner to have his engineer reevaluate the grades and locations to determine if modifications would bring the site development below these requirements. Steep.Slope ground ., review will entail review by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources 1 4; Commission, Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. Ir'l • The proposed well and septic have not been measured from the systems located ", on the'lot to the north. This item must be submitted to the City Building Department and meet the State Code regulations. City sewer and water is . not available to the site and could be 10+ years from extension. : f 4 t The proposed driveway is depicted at the property line. Code requires drives f_ to be a minimum of 3 feet from the property line and their extension to the ',;i. road surface cannot cross the property line at the road surface. To meet this code requirement the driveway will have to be moved. The drive will be hardsurfaced with asphalt. The City Engineer has reviewed the sight lines of the drive in relationship • to traffic. He did not find a better location for the driveway than is ;. depicted. • • • ar 3J,h• -7- • FINDINGS a. The lot size variance requested is 68% below Code minimum. ¢. Property has highly erodable and steep slopes. c. Property.is very visible from the Minnesota River Valley Refuge. d. Owner has not indicated the distance between his proposed well and septic to the systems to the north. e. Owner has not demonstrated that the lot has no other reasonable use. f. The driveway location is too close to the property line. ,r • • If the Board chooses to approve the variance, the following conditions are recommended: I. Prior to building permit application, the Owner: a. File protective covenants on the property. Said covenants to meet with the approval of the DNR, US Fish and Wildlife, and City. • / b. Apply for and receive approval to develop upon steep slopes. .1!,1C--1 .`... c. Building Department review and accept detailed septic and well plans. d. Driveway to readjusted to meet code. • 2. Immediately after site grading that staked sod be installed as depicted on the site plan. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - May 10, 1984 Johnson added that she has spoken to representatives from Eden Bluff and Autumn Ridge. If approval is granted and criteria met, • subdivision names could be attached to the extension. Johnson recommended that Sherwood Townhouse and.Mill Creek signs be removed as they refer to projects that have been completed. MOTION: lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request 1184-18 ` with the following findings: 1) A 3' variance from Co. Rd. 18 is not that great a variance and does not appear to interfere with traffic. 2) Hustad does own the residence of the 30' variance ,r in question. 3) The type of sign proposed (central useage) would _ have an impact on eliminating sign proliferation in that area. 4) As per sign Code that the sign be allowed for no more than 2 years. 5) Extensions to the sign of similar material and the overall size shall not exceed 100 sq. ft. and not to interfere with traffic sight lines. • 6) Only one (sign as requested) be permitted in the SW corner of Co. Rd. 18 & Co. Rd. 1. The Eden Bluff sign be incorporated into the permitted sign. The signs in the NW corner be removed. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. C. Request 1184-19, submitted by David L. Brown for property located at the Northwest corner of U 59 & Eden Prairie Road. The request is—for a variance from City Code`Ch< ter 11, Section 11.03, Subd. 2, to permit construction of a single family residence upon an existing 3.2 acre Rural zoned lot. .Hugh Bishop, attorney for the proponent, asked for a continuation of the variance request until next month. Bishop has been recently retained by the applicant and desires time to review the information. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to continue Variance Request #84-19, submitted by David L. Brown until the next meeting, June 14, 1984. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. lynch asked for clarification in terms of contin- uations of requests. Johnson stated that she is unaware of a l imi t. ) ((r Foard of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - June 14, 1984 B. Request t84-19, submitted by David L. Brown for_property._located at northwest corner of US 169 A Eden Prairie Road. The request is_ for a variance_fram City Code cpte 11 Section 11.03, Subd 2, to permit construction of a single family residence upon an existing 3.2 acre aural zoned lot. Continued from the April 12, 1984 and the Pjay_1O, 1984 meetings. ' Hugh Bishop, attorney representing David L. Brown, presented the proposal to the Board. The first issue addressed was that of the driveway. Jim Benshoof of Benshoof & Associates was introduced. Their firm deals with traffic engineering and planning consult- ation. The driveway area was measured and analyzed. It was re- • '. commended that there should be a turn-around constructed at the bottom of the driveway near the street to provide a space for a vehicle to turn around. This would avoid backing out on Eden Prairie.Road. A profile of the driveway was displayed. There is a landing area available on the property. The grade on the main portion of the driveway is 1D.4%. This is within all applicable . driveway grades. The Institute of Transportation Engineering allows grades up to 15%. With the profile provision, grading, and a turn-around, it is felt that this would provide safe design i construction. A chart was displayed depicting site distances • that provide necessary safety: Sight Distance to Left Sight Distance to Right Available 360' Available 325' MN DOT 340' MN DOT .285' =t, ITE Standard 250' ITE Standard 195' The standards are based on 25 MPH speed. Sandvick inquired what the stopping distance would be coming down the driveway. Benshoof stated that it would be in relation to the ... speed. He was confident one could stop under normal circumstances. Sandvick expressed concern over Minnesota weather and its effect on stopping. Bishop stated that a percolation test of the soil was submitted to Y1 the Building Inspector and it met with his approval. ' Bishop reviewed what the record title was when Brown purchased the parcel in 1977. Brown commented that he was told at that time by ... the City it was possible to get a building permit: . Bishop stated that on June 14, 1984, documents were received from 1 Mr. Sorensen's office, through Mr. Pauly. The documents stated • that on October 25, 1967, Mr. Gingold,Jr. signed a contract for 1: deed with Graves for the purchase of land which included the Nielson, Brown and other parcels. On the same date he received a warranty deed for the Nielson parcel. According to the unrecorded contract •;. for deed (unknown to Brown previously) he was the equitable owner of 'Ail the parcel. It was a voluntary conveyance, but the conveyance was made before the ordinance was imposed. When Gingold,Jr. lost his r- . 11,' 1. ,ard of Appeals and Adjustments 3 - June 14, 1984 contract, he split it into two parts. On January 21, 1969, he lost • part to the bank and part to the Graves. Bishop referred to the letter from Sorensen. _ The placement of the mortoaee and the amount of the property subject to the property were voluntary acts of Gingolb,Jr. However, the voluntary act occurred before the 5 acre limitation. Every zoning variance application is considered on its own terms. Unlike others, these actions were done prior to the ord- inance. Graves and Gingold never applied to the City for a division of the land. Up to this time, there were no restrictions to the j . property regarding divisions. Equitably, 3.2 acres should be given a grandfather right. • Dickey inquired if any neighbors had tried to buy the land. Brown replied that he had not been approached. Bishop referred to the nature of the mortgage. The mortgage had a provision that the land subject to the mortgage could be bought back, however Gingold did not exercise that option. In 1974, Gingold signed a new contract for deed. The source of Browns title goes to Gingold,Sr. ) and then back to the Graves. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, stated that this request amounts to a rezoning, not a variance. There is a significant change in the requirements imposed by the ordinance. Edstrom reviewed the policies of the City Code. He addressed the area of private wells and the • potential danger of the proposed driveway on Eden Prairie Road. - Edstrom felt and didtnotat the reflectntheeering accidentsdy of the that haveroad was occurred. . mis- leading Sandvick questioned if the line of sight would be hindered in the , winter months coming out of the driveway. Edstrom replied that it • depends on the height of the snow and the height of the car. The a road gets narrower in the winter and it would cut off some of the sight lines. Edstrom asked Brown if Gingold, Sr. discussed the history of the parcel when it was purchased. Brown stated that Gingold, Sr. said he did own more property in the area. Krueger asked what process a steep slope ground permit would follow. Johnson pointed out that if the Board were to approve this variance, a steep slope ground permit would have to be submitted for the Planning Commission,the Park and Recreation Commission and the City 1. Council review. Dickey asked if the property was legally divided or platted.ard Rogere Pauly, city attorney, stated that there is no issue with reo parcels the subdivision. The subdivision ordinance did not apply with 21 acres or greater at the time the Brown parcel was divided. Mrs. David Brown conenented that it is their sole intent to build on the property. She was brought up in Eden Prairie and enjoyed the quality of life and the schooling. They have two pre-school children. '2' .., • • • d o, Appeals and Adjustments June 14, 1984 - 4 - fe 16200 Hilltop Road, stated that he and his wih John Hansen,eredpurchased to considered buying the land at one time. However, Subse- the land and subdivided it. In 1974, Gingold sold the property ao property fur a ngt n tuth uSt.bs Paul Ken Christenson. Christenson obtained a building permit. through Christenson traded the p p through Castle Realty, .Brown bought the land and it remained in tine going for it except objection of old's name because everwwas holing the contract. Hanson felt that the property h some neighbors. provided.Pauly inquired if the percolation test inforfationswas plans Johnson stated that it is uest n the Advance ng ineer submitted with the req Appeals to consider granting Pauly reviewed the power of the Board offAppealsc are: of variances. The reasons for granting a i 1) Strict enforcement of the Code would mean undue hardship. M unique to the individual property, 2) Because of circumstances itycC from the Chapter 11 of the City Code astgor'thosewhat resultingnsidered proper variances. It provide • is within the authority of the size, shape or dimensions of the site. The size, which is the issue in this instance, says that variances may be grantedad to nlysihen. The a only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. a) Undue hardship is defined as a situation where the property can not be put to a reasonable use if used • under conditions allowed by the official controls. • li ht.of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property Thep 9 and not created by owner. c) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality• • for the first Pauly stated that the ammendment tos the oe ordimorenance eiinwas69,lfortthe ing rest, csion. n parcels itua toio se 5 are less than 5 acres priorrr a restriction. In situations where parcelsdeny the request to the adoption of the ordinance the Board may variance if: the City of 1) Brown had not been deprived through adoption by s onable use for the parcel is to build a house the 5 acre requirement, of all reasonable uses of his land. Ifn the only reasonable n you would deprive and the enforcement it for residential use trovisionwould deprive the owner • fallreasonable of the5 s. If you find the parcel can be used of all uses.ble purpose, there is no constitutional for some other compulsion to grant aavariance, or ` if i/ ". - 5 - 1 June 14, 1984 d of App� +ls and Adjustments `, 2) Brown or his predecessor owned the.Brown parcel in common with one or more parcels on or after October 14, 1969, the date of•the adoption by the City of the 5 acre minimum lot ( sire, which together constitited 5 or more acres and there-. after conyeyed such other parcel or parcels. The fact that Brown purchased his parcel in 1977 does not require a con- clusion that the hardship was self-induced unless he or his predecessor owned and disposed of an adjacent parcel or. • parcels described above. Two cases are cited in a memo to the Board dated May 1, 1984. The Brown case differs in that there was common ownership of the Brown and Nielson parcels in August 1967. In October 1967, Gingold, • Jr. entered into a contract for deed with Graves covering both the Brown and Nielson parcels (approximately 4.4 acres). The contract for deed was unrecorded. On the same day, Graves ; followed up with a quit claim deed relating to the Nielson parcel. In 1968, Gingold placed a first mortgage on the • property to Eberhardt Company. A second mortgage to Eberhardt was placed in February 1969. During this time, Gingold had a contract right to purchase the Brown parcel. The mortgage -creates an equitable interest in the Nielson property in favor of Eberhardt at the time it was signed. In September • 1972, the Nielson parcel was sold by the Sheriff pursuant to a mortgage foreclosure. In December 1972, there was an unrecorded assignment of the contract for deed by Gingold, Jr. to Gingold, Sr. Gingold, Jr. did not redeem from the • mortgage foreclosure. The mortgage foreclosure in 1972 effectively conveyed the title to Twin City Federal after the proprtiop period hade Marquettexpired arch Bankland)it wasssoldntoy, , the property passed to the N .lson. .... The key things to consider are what happened prior to October 1969 regarding the contract for deed and the mortgage. Consider • - ation must be given regarding actions entered into by Gingold, Jr. in purchasing the Brown and Nielson parcels by contract for deed and mortgaging the Nielson parcel. This was prior to the adoption of the 5 acre limitation on October 14, 1969. Gingold failed to pay off the contract and mortgage. It must be decided whether this constitutes a voluntary or involuntary 5; conveyance or hardship. ` # 3) The proposed use of the Brown parcel for construction of a dwelling would create a significant and substantial condition detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the public such as: potential contamination of wells, road or other safety considerations. Sorensen commented on the potential hazard of Eden Prairie Road and pointed out that this is a substantial variance. Sorensen stated that Brown is bound by the action of his predecessors. )790 • i of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - June 14, 19B4 Mrs. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, commented on the dangers of waiting fora school bus on Eden Prairie Road. Lynch inquired if the City had a record of the previous building permit. Johnson rep,ied that none was found in the Building files. Lynch expressed concern on how the property was taxed and if it was platted. Edstrom consnented that the primary principal is the common ownership. • Lynch had concern on how the property came to be and the change of title. How could the City change the ordinance and not deal with pieces of property. There is a reasonable amount of hazard involved in the road access. The issue of voluntary caused hardship is diff- icult for him to assess. i. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to deny Variance Request #B4-19, : y submitted by David L. Brown. He stated in support of I. the motion that: • 1) The area in which the Brown parcel is situated is a high risk area in terms of safety factors. 2) The size of the variance is unreasonable. ' ' 3) There is useage of the land. We'are not denying Brown use of the land at this time. • DISCUSSION: Krueger added that with the steep slopes, driveway, 30% elevation on Eden Prairie Road, and previous accident history, it is a dangerous situation. • Dickey stated that he had seen some of the school bus accidents in the.area and was involved in one with a child. It would concern him greatly if a school bus • couldn't stop on the proposed Eden Prairie Road location. Dickey seconded the motion. Lynch voted nay. Motion , • • carried 3:1. The Staff was requested to prepare findings in connection ?: with the motion and for submission to the Board. C. Request #84-28, submitted by James Brennan for property-located at' 7194 Tartan Curve, legally described as Lot 5 Block 8, Hidden Ponds Second Addition. The request is for a variance from City tode, Chapter it Section 11 03 Suhd. 2, to permit the construction of a porch within 7 feet of the side lot line. (Code requires a 10 foot minimum.-) James Brennan, 7194 Tartan Curve, reviewed the request with the Board. His request is to replace the existing deck with a three season porch. Brennan is the second owner of the house and a building permit was granted prior to his buying the home. Plans are to replace the deck, not enlarge it. Krueger asked if he were planning to build a three season porch. Brennan replied yes, then he would put the deck on the back of the house. 00 I • ifs:;;:•:- ACCIDENT SURVEY FOR EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD LOCATION: South of Pioneer Trail, north of Highway 169 YEARS: 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 _ : ,.. to O tto O 4% O ! O 4 O 0 0 � CK&NNASSIN O 4{ 19200 ; + 'co.,int .. :.,_.. ,.,- .r- rni: . . 1 0 n�P "11//1, 'III' ~� tl.1 �'. _`• t �1 ,. .Ill III w • dig .I�;I Ii 1 to i!r', I' 18400 it 1; ; elleillf 1 11: ` • •, 17600 \ ` 1( 1 � ./ �1111* t '+Y _'IC OD 1'1 11:Ytp Rat �R 4 W 14P'NO __%`� • II •' 16000 Ili:. 91 y 1`/ J 3 fi, 'sir JI ;I : .a_ i-- -1 II _ 15200 , it) . . ,i,,,,../-._...,,,H.4,6 1 1. ,glrylIt , 1 3' . 1..I T '�-Y 14400 1,P` y Vr L4Y . 1 'f1 �I ` n si n 4. :lit' 1 C \. f j. Ic; l A' I VI 1 r .C.` r:,: r 11,.:,1111. ,1 �i ,1.r5 , ai= IC C 01 Illy 1 1 1 00 1 0) 1 1 1 H N Y C X- N .( -.—W-) NCO VI 9 —Cr %D V�I w C m C W N - D° 0' C OI 19 . .•; Cu 9 ,c ' ya t GO • r 0 0 00•L 00 CD a. 0) O1K0 n 10 0) 2 7 • > > 7 0 • n • 0 N 0 - 0) 0) -O -O --O--V - y to 9 as ~ '3 01 01 %D 01 10 01 Z --1-1\ --1--1-. -.\-. .. r-• 9 9 m 9 9 -11 9 m-1 In 9 °-.-.� m m -•(o mmmm • 2 --2 - 32 H\ \\A A A A • N m RI'Vm m G. G. V G.-V G. G.C.9 G.G.• -t • 9 • • CD CD w 10 re \ m \0, \ N 0 0 ; 0 0 E £S 'V-•'V V -V-v-• -O-v-< •C N 0 N 0 001 0) 0 • m m A F0) AN 9 9 G. 9 9 0' Os d 9 G.9 ID m 0 0 -9 • - A A 01 IDGam.GA. G.G. -• - • rji;.'', CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO A t. •.0•.k x- .k.k.k .k .0.0•.t.k > • O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 N V1 11V 1J 1J -- OJ--• rn 0 Ill VI N 01 VO - w V Q1 CO I.D 1.4-.a' W 1.3 N t0 N VI 1.0 Z t V1V.t CO k VI w C3 CO A • - 0 .o m m 1 • < X x X X x X x Oy 0 rn f y�il,.` v rn . A e.! In • O • n r • X X X X X z L. C D N N in -. L y I - N p N C pN N 4-4, f,. N m ....,. O \ j 0 0 -. 0 140` � ; r � o`�o • ..0 . .0c cocoD C o\.mo+C via •.. . U.,tO - �a r c , . . •.L1 A N.r V N.�tp •-• N -�-•7 -�•C N 6D 9 CM'1 Q N 7 - A .••`0 V1 V k O C •C N W O R 00 V CO 0 C r• c m m 9. M • °v 3 'r d , < 0D co r s £ •v -a RI z vn•v m •.. X X X Z v I- -. � } • • •Z O O R O•�C O R O • K 2 O r ♦ 1 7 • • ry ry 7 R • R 7 R • N -Di �� •- r(D (D •O N O.n •1 1 R 0••� •� W 'I • '� d �D CD CD , 2 ... •••• -O -i -1 -1 -I \ '.\ -I � • ,, \-i . ,,, m-s -s •I .tr•� •I 01 m m m L • ry 0. ...ry d.�y d. fD N (DD Ix R - 7 7 3 • ] 7 . \ -70 . \0 -. 70 w •pm ma m7 C) a n - 'V'D m ., .. , -, O. 0.• a m ., ., n -1 -1 a of 0 (D 0 0/•C . •< CI lb 0�. L Y 7 •D 7 '1 • S • C -• n-- 7 .. • ' rt • • • -�.'O 'O 0 V-1 70 A< �• `C -•-� ro i • ID •1 .1 7 9 •1 a a. (D • 0 N n '... • • Cu• p. R -. A 7, 70 70 70 - - •• •• . 0.-1 -1 -1 Z —.D raa O.as • -•� A 0- a . •( . •I • co a .•• CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO OD CO n to to ww www w ww to toto D 00 00 000 0 00 0 0 0 to D.O. Vt V1 w w w w T7 N 2- m - • -. rw CT La 1.0 CO L71 0 .C'0 ♦71 N CO ~• V CO0 CON t COv 0 41•- I IVt Z , a O N C ,4 o - J 10 V1 O Vl C 1 co m 73 •0 73 0 . •O m 1 xx x xx x x < 0 n m -O m x • an 0 z • D .. r N t- XXX x z 1. C 73 < N Z an C.. 0 N 73 ✓ I') 0 t 0 O —z 0 to in co> I- c. v.3. r rr W n — D S • — V. tv It —o 0 -1 CD . c C c I OW 1 1 I V -1 C' It 1 1 0 > C O 1 < r, 'V tD tO N• N— 1 . 7 < — 9 CT N CO D . 1 x C(D -3 0 tD rt O c < O — I I N • Os? C — C m m Q' cr C O <•s -I , O •< to OD N x (1 z -co to z z -o m x m z RI t r O 0 0 0 O — a S a 0 a- 0 D C 7 0 0 7 7 O CD•< Or7 O N n to O CD N N w 0 7 • D O 7 ' --I-I 5 � -' -am -1 -,o. � -1 O Z0 73 O. Cu D a m • --' % .. 7 ;-1•m 1 -1 0- Os o. -o mto- C t9 �m C\7 \ \ '' \v 7,3 770- O m m ma-o a 00 c a a ^• a• •1 7 00 CD \N wt. 2-o 't 3 D O 7 2-, —, 'O -O 77 .o—_. .< —0 ' 0 nOa d w W r , 0. o • Osc -t -t na oCD r n ma a a72 • 77 a a S .• CO CO CO CO CO 07 CO Co CO CO f7 t N N N N N N N N N N > o O tco oo 0 V rr w O to UI m IV ro AL 1.., tD t�D ti)V�i 0 W .OV Z 0. vl 07 0 V VI r V C t.l C• m i • 1 73 4 i • 77 -C3 x x x x a o ci m -o m . N to z • D r x x x x x x z L C < z C- — — — -• C 1'Jt'i m C -t7 Z o N co CoO3Co> '4t- t- 2 .1 > X A t IGI C NN(D 0 On 0 11 1 lc tic C a, Iil,11 n < I r1 37 N N——10 t.I N 7 "< 9 -a Co 7 -1 73 N-0 0 NJ N0 .. Vt Co�1 C O-C 0 O - A -1 C m t 0 0- 0 3 1+ = C a, .< 0 0 -1 COCr -I { 1 n 0 � 1 to Co -_0- z m z n n x n ii z z tO z z Z r •O 0 0. 0 O 0{ n 0 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 ID 0 - 7 7 C c -C C c 7 7 Co 7 7 7 f1 3O ID 7 0 0 0 • • N0 0 ID O. 0 fa 0 i ID 'V K K -73 -<-< CO - 0 -Im 01. act- 0.0. 3 Z 0 1• a� v \W 73 mm0 3 0 0 •• m- 0. acvm c c 9 C 3 0 0 , CO 7 7 7 ID V D 7 - -1 '<� A �, --I Cl. ,a 0 d 'w001 cn I • -t 73� •ID A -I •7 O. A -4 O N E a a n Co OD Co Co Co Co Co Co Co n N O O_ 0 O O 0 0 0 N OW t`;w0 t00 0 0 m Os t N V1 N Oto W C to N 1.17 OD 41 N Co tO 3 Co m 73 -0 aD O -V Lb 77 -< xx x x 0 D Lb m 1.0 m 73 N 0 2 D X X X ) C x r z C 73 '. -C 2 • [- N N " . C •tf', 1 lemP2 • . • SORENSEN & SORENSEN • • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 912 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST f�j 120 SOUTH SIXTH STREET -1 MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 1612)332.5519 Donald).Sorensen Herold I.Sorensen(Dec 1976) June 4, 1984 Messrs. Roger A. Pauly and Joseph Nilan Lang, Pauly & Gregerson, Ltd. 4108 I.D.S. Center Eighty South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55402 Re: Eden Prairie Board Of Appeals Request No. 84-19 . :Applicant: David L. Brown Dear Messrs. Pauly and Nilan: - I have obtained copies of a number of documents in regard to the above-captioned matter. These documents clearly show that the record title and the beneficial ownership of the now Brown, Neilson and Provo parcels were in one large tract at the time of the adoption of Ordinance 135 and that that tract - amply complied with the provisions of Ordinance 135. The items which I am enclosing are as follows: a) A Contract For Deed dated October 25, 1967, by and between Mildred K. Graves, as Vendor, and Benjamin A. Gingold, Jr., as Vendee. (Please note the payment provisions and the selection release provisions. To me, it is apparent that the manner of sale was elected by those parties to serve their respective interests and the need for security and conformed to the provisions of the then existing ordinance as to lot size. At the time of the adoption of Ordinance 135 those parties were well able to comply with the new ordinance. In fact, the record title to the Provo property which was transferred after the adoption of Ordinance 135, reveals a combination transfer ; of two smaller parcels by Ms. Graves and Mr. . Gingold, Jr., to the Provos to achieve the then . five (5) acre miniumum). b) A letter from Bert M. Gross of Shanedling, Phillips, Gross & Aaron, P.A., the attorneys for Mildred K. Graves who by remarriage was then known as Mildred Hemmingsen, to Benjamin A. Gingold, Jr. transmitting • an Assignment Of Contract For Deed to the now Brown .I)9g • . 3 • Messrs. Pauly and Milan • June 4, 1984 • Page Two parcel to Mr. Gingold's father, Benjamin A. Gingold, together with a copy of the said assignment which is dated December 27, 1972. (This assignment is clearly in contravention of Ordinance 135 and was done at a time when Benjamin A. Gingold, Jr. owned adjacent land --- the Neilson parcel --- which . together complied with the ordinance. This was a voluntary act on the part of Mr. Gingold, Jr. We can presuppose, and there is some corrabora- tion, that this may have been done to ease the financial pressures that Mr. Gingold, Jr. was then experiencing. If, however, this was the case, the City and its citizens should not be expected to bear the brunt of his efforts to segregate and save his assets. el A letter from Mr. Gross to Ms. Hemmingsen dated January 23, 1973 transmitting a copy of the said assignment. di A partially completed Cancellation Of Contract For Deed, which by inference was drafted sometime in November, 1973. • e) A letter from Mr. Gross to Ms. Hemmingsen dated r May 28, 1974 regarding a new Contract For Deed covering' what is now the Brown parcel between Ms. H. Hemmingsen and Mr. Gingold, Sr. and the cancella- tion of Mr. Gingold, Jr.'s interest. f) A signed but undated and non-acknowledged Contract For Deed between Ms. Hemmingsen and her then hus- band and Benjamin A. Gingold, Sr. in regard to the now Brown parcel. g) A letter from Mr. Gross to Mr. Gingold, Sr. dated June 27, 1974 regarding the said new Contract For Deed. • I trust that these items are of assistance to you in analyzing this matter. I believe these documents verify the status of this property in accordance with our earlier discussions. Previously, you had commented that the fact that. there had been a mortgage foreclosure on the parcel which Mr. Gingold, . Jr. owned in fee differentiated this matter from the situation which existed in the Declering v. Johnson case. If I understand the thrust of that comment, the basis for differentiation lies 1 °C) Messrs. Pauly and Nilan June 4, 1984 • Page Three in the fact that a mortgage foreclosure is an involuntary action which resulted in a parcelization of the property. My response was that the placement.of the mortgage and the amount of the property that was subject to that mortgage were voluntary acts of Mr. Gingold, Jr. The $200.00 monthly payments he made to Ms. Graves/Hemmingsen from November 25, 1967 through at least February, 1973 totalled at least $12,800.00 which was far more than was necessary to secure the release of the now Brown parcel from Ms. Graves/Hemmingsen, not to mention the proceeds he received from the Provo sale. In addition, he chose which of his obligations he would pay. All of these actions were volun- tary. • If a mortgage foreclosure is a sufficient basis to cause the City to ignore the plain language of its ordinance, it is easy to project a scenario which would render the ordinance meaningless. I could buy a 10 acre or greater area parcel, ?; obtain private mortgages on one acre or smaller portions of that parcel, default on the mortgages and thus create a number of less than 10 acre parcels. I would have the monies from the proceeds of the mortgages and my.mortgagees would have title to their properties in sizes less than the ordinance allows. It is also significant that neither Ms. Graves/Hemming- sen, nor Mr. Gingold, Jr. nor Mr. Gingold, Sr. ever applied to ' the City for a division of this land. The original purchase was of the entire tract. I doubt that there was any contempla- tion at the time of the original sale nor at the time Ordinance • 135 was passed of subdividing this land. The only actions which were taken prior to the adoption of Ordinance 135 were private actions, absent any governmental approval or knowledge, for pur • - pose other than land division. Should you have any comments or questions, please contact me. Yours very truly, SORENSEN & SORENSEN SErL By '% n . .ram' Donald J. Sorensen • DJS:jks • Enclosures cc: Mr. Dean Edstrom 1730 • • • • Q:tobar 30, 1072 • Sdr. nenjaa+ia n• uiiu old, Jr. t:rthitec s, Inc. • 140u :o:u ay aneapoiis, Minnesota 55402 your :,eh: 1 a.4 enclosi+.7 a.: ..ssiyn.:ent of. contract for &Jew: to yaur fuL.:er eov,rincj t..e parcel of real estate we i.l'ei/io.%sly t.jS:::ls:ii:ti. iou anu nrlys '3ir,!a thie: uoca...eut uuu return it to ma for filing. Very truly yours, • pert M. Gross enc. • I:i..i d v i Fenn N'1,Ss n1 ---Ye,_ .V.Nir C.,.. t.d.Ti..,.i,Up_—I Mad.and entered info ow _ 25.th... day of._-..October • J9t97 by as set irnt, ' • i • 19 ? ,by and letrwn .---..__ NILURt�..6...fiRAYE3. a_.alnEle _roc on -.---..._' • part 7._...of the pit part and_- BEItJAVIN A. GINGOLD.,,..Jr..__,._,___....._ ` i • . t _ ___ y .$itntSLtd3 That Ilse said part Y..of the first part in consideration of the covenants and agree• • meats of said NAYof the second(art,hereinafter contained,hereby sell 9 and at!rce I to convey i. unto said part y of the second part,hie heir9 and assign.,by a..............Warratlty..._._....__.... Deed,a000mpanied by an abstract evidencing good title in part-.......of the first part at the date hereof, . .._. . or by.an owner's duplkate certificate of title,upon the prompt and full performance by said part y-- t of the second part,of his..........part of this agreement,the tract...of land,lying and being in tits County of .._.._..Hennepin..............and State of Minnesota,described as follow.,to-wit: • The East Half of the Southwest Quarter o the Southeast Quarter a of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22, EXCEPT •''- ....WA N '�dv `x • part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter • of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22 lying North of the right-of-way ,..,,I;1•• of U. S. Highway No. 169-212 and South and East of the center line of Eden Heights Road. t - • And said party......of the second part,in consideration of the pran oes,hereby agrees_.to pay said part y_of the first part,at._.Residence...of first_party.._.. 1 wand for the purchase price of said premises,the sum of Twenty-one._Thousand and no/100 -...=_21,000.00- ---,,.r•. _. - ---Dinars, I.manner and a2 sinus following,to-wit• ......_... — j See Attachment for terms. • •• • • ' ... and a reee_ae follows to pay,brlore penalty attache,thereto, Said aced_.an of the etrend part year bother covenant-8 a 8 e pens • • all tear,due and payable in she Year Iv.6Q and in subsequent yolk and+11. I aHetrmenj heea.vinrn or hrrna hnr ! slap that any buildings and yop,00emenls oow on said land.or which shell hereafter be erected,placed.o,mode thereon, shell cool be removed therd,om.but shell be and remain the ptopeny of the pertY_—of ebe Bat pall until ten.non. I %y: Y « n;and ar.._hill_.__....own e.rrn,e,to beep the build- jogs+hill laidd perfullm see all libmo site Dart_—_of n. + and De or companies,s,to be swayed by etc I :cop on putmisn at all Y.mt.Mewed in some reliable insurance company ran. D ��' • past Y—.1 the tut Dan..pimt ___Insurable_..Int.Sreo t..._—_._.._-..__..__.._._._._._..-_........Dieu, and,psin.t IC.s by wind.lmrn for at lent the sum o....._. -- _ • __..Insurable Intereot..... _.___.__•_..-._..._...._.._.__._...npn.n, p r• 1•+• r•* _..h8r heirs g e and in..._ of lose,should that be my,m. Lk to and 1.Y.- oft bill t,. -- ' plus Over and shove the amount then owing s•,d pare y.. of the brat part, ..her ..heir.,oe togas,the Wiener intura'hall appear,and w /hall be,aid over to the said r n_. . of the• d Part a... - ail to Da ierm dorunt,lb the Me,y at the fire'Den politico nf u m id +u t{WOW old the mood pb1Y..- t r m 1 , • to be psid by n,d tart y.. tome d by butt a t ...and•hall br loatbn,th Dar 1 d furjnm,hnrenr,.. may l r•Y t't ' it able,with:.testae ILuron,as an additional amount due het p L Y..,undo Ihb gemuet. in the payment of prindpd or Pieced due hereunder,or of any pent thereof,to be by i :#. • r' Bet shdutd drlruh b.made he __.fatl to pal the suer or assessments upon aid hod monitions upon acid , ;I d part-Y.-r10 paid,m yould----- a,rnt or renditions hmetn eonained,to he by aid tam Or of theo eo.rt 7_,sgof(ho h' optio°,by written noon. 'wound p party__ to 14,101111rt ma t.-b r.- said second kept or performdd,theyen said part,-_of the bra Pr era thereunder br second P+r{Y-- and all tidbit,title and inurta...Suited all p•rmrnte mode mike and tteemnaee0. t made opon the peemnm,and ' aeet,r<this contract care and te.minatr,and aft fogy or.m,.n. laid amend pereunder h llt belong to o[tauld p _ liquidated damage.for broach of ibis eona>d by '.. par undo shall otice to said pea— wi b<the is statute in ouch ease made sad provided, aiv .of tong to be paid horounds,.nor any w n by 1 partY-.-.�raid noun to b.in sec repent of coy sat.m gum >�of any breath thneol,*boll in { Neither the eeumtep of the therf.pbta to declare thin.omen(furleitsd by mr 1 =p t the Neither of the lint part i defaults aubreque stir maturmt.and no 'i. i this contact bemuse o of mean and failure to .:i.. 1:1 any manner rent thel tight a i thetas oo den to signedt Feather.allot cc cc ice law.the default therein.poeibed.said put..Y.-of the sermnd part hereby sonedcnl', estens,rm of tim<sh+l1 be ease union cr,denced by duly Monument.� mLl to wrr.ndm to__.--bET.-•-p moose..upon thde period saowrdnd part. by li ynd pray Y dimrt. el said Dan.-F--of the being Dart,quietly unit etch default.said part._Y._of the second SIOn of,upon d cooly part thncef,it being understood that partof told pro-- d part__--ire- -.te has pmusuon of said premium. • • • 3t f6 Sllutuallp agtttb,By and between the parties hereto,that the time o/payment stinti he an . - esaenlial part of fhi+contract;and that nib the covenants/endeAwra ande herein asst'gtu of contained ere al eo ira are with • rtite the land and bind the hein,executors,administrators. • Metro. • 3n Qeellinonp Entire!. She pa haste hove hereunto set their hands the day and tear Pet ' ease Witten. • f V!�..J. r I .bnralesmeof It 1. . / 4 t 4.-.! f • I. I i Otate of 1limtt5ota, ! County o/.......Hennepin..._...__........_. !1 . October i9 61 r be/err mr, 1 25th ..dnyo/.._..._.. .._..._ . .. r y a.cd : • or said County,pe sonalt appe •• On thL_..-HptarY publig_ .... within and/ • a Mildred S. Craves and Benjamin A. Cingoldr Jr. • '• to me known to he the perrop .,drecnbed In,and who treenefed the/ongoing. erurnen�nd aeknar'I' edged that t.tide.,e eeuted the same ae ......their_.....Jree i nt and dad. f ]giEE..A.at • notary PebRa,........__........Hemnepi.,n.........._Caunty,.Ifinn. Jay emramiaian ezfiret.jiov ember,.4 ,19b9 • t .-^... t , la i ;Pa 'Y t S t. 9 to ItZ y O „, lc'. I tb 11 i ! 1St ` 1 itQ w 414.7 gA ''�Q g I W ' i '! j !4 a 5 vl e ' ,� a 1 , , 1st: ha is koq ai (( ° i !if f ; i1 b i I ;i b C o° ¢ m 1 ju V t 1 '' . 7 'i I�� 1 $a ! IQa ! .1i ii. 42 g1 i ! ' j 1t 1 rc 4 1 F 1 t t i �.•[d y e� , I t•.Y a l.• e, a . 1 e t ° j� j 1 14 1 a� t'c d� m' w o , , 1 , V~ o": a u acre _. _. , .�"'++:,:w'gn `.. �- t:try __. $ 5,000.00 Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars, cash, paid to party of the First Fart who, upon the rece,pt thereof, shall convey _. to Second Party by Warranty Deed that poartion of the above ...... premises described as follows: r: That part of the Last Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the West line of the East Half of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 486 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof: thence Southerly along the West line of said East Half a distance of 162 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southwest uarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 200.04 feet; DAME/1- ' -,' .6i.Z, Yv,;� 3Mat L--•Cd:Y.'Chia'bUratI 3IK)4fa°.•47,h7 4f.i: --Y- -xai# 3fkA �e,' degrees, vr.v+.v _,. . thence Southeasterly deflecting to the left Qa 19 minutes 'Q :aeons to the center line of Eden Heights • Road; thence Easterly and Northerly along said center line to an intersection with a line drawn Easterly from the point of beginning .. and parallel with the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the • Southeast Quarter; thence West along last said parallel line to the i point of beginning. =16.000.00 Sixteen Thousand and no/100 Dollars, with interestble in at the the rate of Five (5%) p installments of Two Hundred $200.00) Dollars, or more, commencing on the 25th day of November, 1967, end on the l 25th day of each month thereafter. such payments to be k{, applied first to the payment of interest on the unpaid i principal and thereafter to the reduction of principal until principal and interest are fully paid, except that • final payment, if not sooner paid, shall be due and payable , in full on the 25th day of November, 1975. It is further agreed that the Second party may select from the premises covered by this Contract for Deed and first described above parcels of land containing one acre or more payiog First Party therefor the sum of One Thousand Six Hundred ($1,600.C)) Dollars for each one acre thus selected, provided that when such selections are made there then exists • no defaults in the terms and conditions of this Contract for Deed on the part of Second Party Lg�rantyfDeeddor deeds thoson e of said sums First parcelsthus selected Party shall convey by by Second Party. Such payment for such parcels shall be made at the date of the execution of such deeds and shall be in addition to any in- stallments of principal and interest theretofore or thereafter owing, but shall be credited upon the unpaid principal balance of said Contract for Deed for said premises. Abstracts for parcels thus selected and conveyed shall be furnished izt the expense of Second Party. % , It is further agreed that construction, building and improvements, in- , eluding cootswhof sdoesyherebypagreesto save and done hold tharmlesssFirst e of aryd Party, Party from and against any and all c]nime, leases and actions to which First Party may be made subject nor shall Second Party permit or suffer said premises to be made subject to mechanic liens ordi cumbran the ces of ev fu nany A. nature without the written consent of First Party, construction or improvements are made or commenced by Second Party, he shall at hie expense post said premises protecting First Party against • any such liens or incumbrances as made and provided in the Statutes of this State. Any breach on the part of Second Party of the covenants and provisions herein contained shall be deemed grounds for the foreclosure and censelw lation of said Contract for Deed, and in each an eventuality Firot Party 1. I' ) • may at her option declare the total principal sum, including interest, immediately due and payable without notice. ' ;Pirst Party hereby agrees to join in the executionrequired l tints, without cost or expense to First Party, as may Village of Eden Prairie to effect the platting or subdivision of the premises described within this agreement and during its existence. • II i v I ' • • ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT FOR DEED BETWEEN MILDRED K. GRAVES AND BENJAMIN A. GINGOLD, JR. DATED OCTOBER 25, 1967 RELATING TO THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 22, EXCEPT PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QU'TOWNSHIP TER OF6THE t SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, RANGE 22 LYING NORTH OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 169-212 AND SOUTH AND EAST OP THE CENTER LINE 0P EDEN HEIGHTS ROAD. 1. Mildred K. Graves shall forthwith and without delay procure from 'y Edwin W. Norberg and his spouse, if any, a quit claim deed to all of that part of the premises described in said contract for deed which lies West of the fence shown on a survey of the said premises, which • fence is also on the practical location of the West line of the E } of the S.W. } of S.E. } (using concrete monument set as S. 3 corner of the section by W.P.A. remonumentation). 2. If the said Mildred K. Graves cannot procure such quit claim deed on or before November 25, 1967, the said land lying West of the said fence line shall be excluded from said contract for deed, and in such case the contract price shall be reduced by the sum of 4500•OC• Exit Kittxci K. :Envie than Rau The parties hereto by endorsement • subjoined hereto may extend the saID PERIOD OF TE1tE for the procure- • ment of said quit claim deed. 3. This addendum has been executed contemporaneously with the execution of the said contract for deed and forms a part thereof. Datet October 25, 1967. )i .. Mildred K. Graves � ` !�1 � �.I11kIL�1� ,�,Tr Benjw inA. Dingo ci,'Jr. • 5'.-'�•er.1. .e•s s..r,n r.r er.e^ .r.°. Form No.Sb aMn...aw.ryr.`G..:,':;':�:�"er,...nun • .h + • Rhoy all �1n GYt!c.c d rrs't»t5,T,at_spi p. .1__A.._�_G_ o_d t._J_.__ . and Arlys,_t1,,_-G_I ngold,-hush and...and...wife..—_ — —__.._.__...._-_`-----.pa,G.....iesof Ma fine Imre,in ro.uidrralion a/-One..Do.11er..and-.other_.good..and...valuable_consideraLion anon,,, • them.,__/n hand µnil by-._1Senjin.A._GSngold_. _ tn,r•t.....-Y.....of the wrood part,dieS-hereby NU.assign and hamster unto said µ rt...y--_-of flu,awed t part,.,_b.is_heirs................_...and assigns,the_..-•CndCC_---'s interest in that certain rw,Unrt 75th......_..__.__.__,lar o Octohex..-_...__,19.._6.7-,suede br data!t¢___.. J J__.. J_-__.--_-.-_._ ;,,. ——l4i ldred..li....Craves,..a...single_woman.,-____ — ,a.vendor, , a to ---_.Nenjamxn..A._Gin9old..-.Jr.--.---- ..n a.scndt.. and recorded in the office of thellrgates of Leeds in and fan ins County of-.idC et..!t_0.pL.f7• _..._ Slate of.Ilirrur.ola,in Lark__._.._.-.a/ - tntrr___..____..for ftrc `i.'. tote and rwnzy.surt of the trnrl_-o/land in said County and Stale,described ore follows,foa il: That part of the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the • Southeast 1/9 of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/9 of the Southeast 1/4; thence North along said West line to a point 648 feet South of the Northwest corner of said . East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence East parallel with the North line of said South- west 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, a distance of 200.04 feet; - thence Southeasterly deflecting to the right 68°10' to • the center line of Eden Heights Road; thence Southerly . • along said center line to the South line of said South- ' • west 1/9 of the Southeast 1/4; thence West to the point - of beginning. Subject to road easement for Eden Heights Road and ' Highway easement for State Highway No. 169-212. • ,nlfcrl In all the a..monis of said u.,ign r in said ronlrnrt ronlaincd,nar^^lrsate-sue-_ -f ' Said part... e$,o f Site fret part hereby covenant--that there remains unpaid under said contract fir sum of....._.._.___.......__._.__._.__._...._.-._--_._.-- --__-__ ..-.-._._station, with interest thereon frost t¢.-----..---- _-..dayaf__._..-__..__-.-_.---_-_-,19..___-, and Mai..t.....he.y..IaBC...good right to sell,transfer and assign said contract. r 33n Trstin:our lZli,crrol,The said parl........ies.._..._.....qj tier fret part ha.VC.....Lrrnuito set...-their.. t.and_s__tdt. Z.7...tt1..-_..--._.day of_.t )_ ..l)e_ce!yie+.••.",.J_ ,9..7Lr-f /n Frescoes oft n'\ ( 1 N�'Yt DNISB Sniin /ligoll Jr. 7 . ..._.. . Ar ys M. Gin old � . • t?01 . fptate of ifliitiitgota, }... Cody of. -.e.nw r,rr+1 --•- ],, Ig-72_.Le % On thin 2•t__y!5. _ ..dny of—'N¢ =L.( ..._. , ore toe. personalty a wove l a ..NotaryL.Public_.__._..___----wrifhin and foe said County,per J 77 ionjatnin..A.._Gingold,...Jr.._.and Arlys-td.•-Gingold,-husband•and-wife] --- ' '"•'- ---�!_—�_ and who eieerataf the farryruinir instrument, to t to MC Loosen to he the penons...__..deurib+d its, I�}r����/jI/'/�_/fq_rre rod decd. - nekonnfolged that....L-le-._y_.e.reewted the wane n..i,^'-' ' I�j Notary rubUa_—_..-Ng.nP.pR,R_.__...._.__.__County,.11inn. Ay commission expires_ --- LEnl M.CROSS ,t r %9 aat:9l MUolt-wr•IntSa711 K(a.i 1 ntnntvot county . Ntat. w,C00,1.en Tyco ue.7.197) •,,,•r..,.,,.,/N.•.r....NN.N.N ' _ ins 9,a•eT.•N.r.S:S!!rg ty 9Mnotay.yea,»,reTt)A.M.PA ma kV fa. s s.M.:c-.r.:t Ceck ALdy • (lino t.er,i.tos.s:J:3i42 :'f,�'. • • • if . 1 0 hj. 1 a 1 . I c u uOa•b 1rol Z I o , t ::. I o !! a3 � g 0 , a ,i U:Cdl o 1 a1a c ) � 5 y i � t '[ " ow . x ,, rI L. I O> T7' SI 01 8 Va �j ` y ° 4i ft f em .a La p .a t y c a c fa o y c o g t `,. c n O a t 0 4 d o • 1 J 4 1 w if:i .al I i~ ,T • u O a o C %___ • 0t , • vb34u . January 23, 1973 ' Mrs. Mildred ue. minysen •• :standard Spring Company 410 - luth :venue Borth • • Hopkins, Minnesota 1 Dear sirs. Beimyifl en: ' in accordance with your recent discussion with Benjamin • Gingolu, Jr„ I az enclosing a copy of the assignment of his interest in a portion of the contract for deed • of uctouer .45, 1967, to his father. z:. So far as we can tell, the contract itself has not been • recorded. Be would like to record a copy and if you can send ma an executed copy of the contract, I would very much appreciate it. We will record the contract and mein return it to you after it has been returned to us by the tiet,nepiu County iteyistur of Deeds. Tna►u; you for your cooperation ill this natter. • Very truly yours, Bert M. Gross • ` • ���•, •one. • ` d . cc: s4r, Benjamin Gingold, Jr. V . ' ''' . • I`l A • ,.•.,m.•..-a...=: r'-yw. Form No.60-Ala 14."n-.0 :;::: :7;!1 Y '= • I. Benjamin A. Gingold, Jr. . 1 �,10U aft }(sttebo t2 ItftlD That de fault has been made in the conditions of that certain CO. _ tract elated the ..._-25" des y a J.. Octobers,.__.__....,1 _.47..,whsPa ..._ $ Y Mildred H Gravest asinglewomatl_ ___.._.___.___.._..,,..___.__.-_ I 1 as vendor...sold and agreed to convey to Ben3amlrt A. Gingolds. Jr- ...__.__. .....__._. n —_—_ _ __.._._..._._ as vendee ..the tract_...of land lying in the Hennepin _._...._..,Slated Minnesota,described so follows.to-wit. ,.. County oJ.._. P J i, 1 i The East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22, EXCEPT part of the East _ _ i Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of 1 Section 29, Township 116, Range 22, lying North of the right-of- ;Q • . 1 way of U.S. Highway No. 169-212 and South and East of the center line of Eden Heights Road • • that the mortgage regtstratian tax on said contrast in the cum of d ...._.___..... ........was paid to the `i;. Treasurer of.. ... ..._..... _ ..County,Afinnesota,on the__......__.day oJ._.. ..._.. _........• .... 18...........•ae evidenced by said Treasurers Receipt Ab.._..__._..__._.._...._._._...;that the condition-_of said ' contrast in which said default has been made......_.__.__---...ae follow,to-wit. Failure to make monthly payments of $200per month from and . I after April 1, 1973, in the total amount of $1400.00. . i • thirty (30) I and that said contract uiii be cancelled and ternvinated.._ ...days ; iafter the service of this notice upon you unless prior thereto you comply with said eo,uiitian.._of said . • . I contract so in default aryl pay the costs of service of this notice and attorneys'fete in the amount of I S—_.._—actually expended ar incurred by the undersigned. . I • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE &tate of Tinnegotd, es• e County ol.- ._................. .._._._�_..� r I be nog duly ; sworn,on oath sow that o the. .._...__.._._..._..—..__..day oJ...._......_._._..._...__ 18. hs • t served the foregoing nonce upon _._..._: ,the person to whom it is directed,.._ ._ t i .........._.........................................___......_...._..----- _-...__.....by handing band leaving with.. •__ .� i a tn.s and correct copy thereof. t • ISubscribed and sworn!o b</ore me lhie. ........._ ..........._........ ......day of...__.._................. _.,19......._ .._. _..._._. .__......_......__._._..._....._._..... Notary Publio ' ....County,Minn. ' . IIly cammfotion expire_ ._ ..._._._............................. 19 y ! RETURN OF SERVICE BY SHERIFF • 1 �c tdtc 01 jGnntsota, , County of 1 hereby certify and return that on the_..._ ._. .._ .....day of.. ......................_.__..,19 ___, 1 screed the u-ithin nitre on the person....to whom it is directed.vit.:____.....__..._........___.................. ._ 1 byhanding to and Irac•nog with _......____._..._._..._.�_._.___...._........ ........_ a trot and correct copy thereof. + j''J Sheriff of County, . _. I Ry __ I . ) . Arpury., .._......--_._...—...._...,.• .nuo•u-s ws.y.N.w-.lnvsd.ua. . • . • • a• — — •- .------------------.----- • • * • • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ON OCCUPANT 1 btatc of Sflioncoota .......... ...,. % - . -- ...-------____-. ,being duly sums On oath sap;that on the day ot ,JP ,he went union the land and premise.,described in the within notice/or the purpose of serving said notice on the per. - • • son _in possession thereof;that on said day and/or prior thereto said premises were and have Leen, • Ilon•.1.0.••90.14 a•mooted.eall It blomon br mbeml ........._ ...,, .,.. Ilt monolob Mob oreno.6.4 Nor oadel . _____ .-......----..... ....-. .... ....._...-.... ......--....- . _ . • -......-...... . .,.. !' • Subscribed and sworn to before me Ohio..-.-..... _-----.-day a/ - . . • •-. • , . . . Xotary Public --. • ' -- County.Minn. Sty commission expires. AFFIDAVIT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE • • state of I1intic5ota, 1 .... • , . o,..4,af - l' k - ....„.— -. being duly morn.on oath'aye;that he - _person who eigned the uithin notice Ise time more than thirty day,have elapsed Ante lb.Sin la • Of said notice on - --to whom it a directed;that mid ss- ha ... not complied with the terms of said notice;that the default est forth in cold notice still con- tinues;that the overdue payments of principal and interest under said contract in eaid notice described have not been pad,or any part thereof.Further affinnt with not save that he"WITS this a!Pao.*for the purpose of terminating said-contract and recording mid notice,the proof.of the woke thereof,and . the proof of foilure to comply with the terms thereof. • Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of •19 '...-.-- -. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY Xotary Public ... (Hamel .......-.. - .....County,Atinn. .:- - lAddreml • I- . . 1 : .....-- , • ,?:' lai f •• ••""'"% . 7..„: , i . z... • 0 I .1 1.5 t ! 1 :I} . . .. .. , •SI`•-• ! ! :o•••• ..3t ' ,„„ 4• 1 ., . "4, ""'5' E.4 tri I: 7r i .,%=,..4 . .. ( 1 a 6 0<I ..... '14 a t h. .•I '..7..r.. . i 1 r.1 . I 1 4 % ;..F.z ; ;,. i'. I A' ti:I 1 i ,1'‘'. -: . t a ... 8 .2 I 1 'It 0 ..4 , i Ia VI',-1•= .. , ' : o d . • 1-s et .s CI lio,43."0 1 t4' . . . . 1.;'.:.:,;.'..... Form No,S•I•M u w.f.,.c 0,t•..t:',_u.j • (T1JIS filarff Mee, -bode and entered into th!'....................__._..................day o/..................... ........___ ........, • 1y..:.. ,by and between ililureu..aseatwing nen ant:..Les..liet:ditagsena..,1ter...iusband ..._ i' partamin...A.....G.in g-old..._....,.__ iee.oftdfrrlpart.del ._...Den j -- f t Y .of the second part, _ t ^ i IRIiInr Sclab, That the said part io aJ the first part in consideration of the covenants and agree- ` manta of said part y of the second part,.tit hereinafter ...Y of the second pa rt hereinafter contained,hereby sell and agree....to convey unto said partheirs g by a and aasi err, cassia , .. - - -- y, a j Deed.accompanied by an abstract evidencing goad title in partl0s..of the first part at the date hereof, ' or by an owner's da^p'tieote certificate of title,upon the prompt and full performance by said pert Y_ of the second part.U 'it'.....--.-part of this agreement,the tract_....of land,lying and being in the . enwupin ICount of ....................__..............and Stale aJ Minnesota,described as folioed,to-wit: :,.... Treat part of the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the `i> Southeast 1/4 of section 29, Township 116, Range 22, I described as follows: beginning at thee Southwest cor- • tier of said Last 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the South- e east 1/4; thence Worth along said hest line to a point • 64b feet South of tits adrthwest corner of said East 1/2 _ ] of the houtawest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence East . parallel with the north line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, a distance of 200.U4 feet; thence , , Southeasterly deflecting to the right 68'10e to the • censer line of ..den weights Road; thence Southerly along 1 saiu center line to the South line of said Southwest 1/4 • I of the boutneast 1/4; thence Nest to the point of beginning. Subject to road easeu.ent for Eden heights Road and ,. I uighway ease,aesst for State Highway ido. 169-212. r`;;, . • • i ,Sad said part Y..of the st'epnet part,inconsideration of the premises,hereby agree s.to pay said 1 part 1e Sof the first part,at `cheerier vli Si ilinuusdta ... _ Five Thousand i as and for the pnmehase prin of sod rose_des,fill cum of .. - . - -an, -_-__"_'---- ------------- ---- --- - .Dollars, j �.', 1 ..__.. _.. ... In manner and t firers folta,rinit to•arit - - -•- - ---' "' 7�01i 00 'co. Loa 1st way of July, 1574, and $100 on the 1st day of each and every month thereafter until fully paid. Each 4• ;' payident shall include interest at the rate of eight percent • (it%) per annuar on unpaid principal balances remaining out- ; stanuiny fro. time to title. • ' i . I • • Said pert.—.Y._of the second part tur(hrp eorrnam._8 and agree!.as follows:to pay,before penalty htathet thereto, ;;; , all taus due and payable in the sear 19........,and in suh.eoucnt years,and all special•nets meets hernelure or hereafter Ijlevied. ......__.._....._._...._._.__..—.._.- � l,.. I —.........._.._........._.......sae thereon,I do that any build is d provements now on sad land,or which shall buntline ibe 9erected,pieced,or m I shalt eat be rem d tl t o ,but shall be and remain the property of thei �.of she hr.t part until this I tevti shall be fully psrlonned by the pan Y...of cue second part,and at_ ..tt elm.._....own e.penae�to lees.the b ld. n s id remises at all times insured in some reliable insurauae company or companies,to be sppro.ed by the part_--at We Pitt part.•tainh Iota by fire for as tests she sum ot___......._..... -•--- Dollars • t 1 and oa s t loss b 'dstonn be al lead the •sum ol .._..__-._-......._...____------------__ _. _ _ _ ._..-.___..._....Milan, tnoir 1 a a leer.and,in eau. t 1 s dmuld there I. any wr- p1 pl all to 1, s tsar ttl first part. ... their um It p s d psi11 t... of the ti ss rat . hs n on sv,nt,q,<b 1 nee - nba . dal I - 11is t .hall appear.and to shaft be ti.,d he to a said part Y..sit the J rill a.. t a /1r depend with the partlea ofel f that I- s of J .but b Id tt uudp t ....Y lad to pay en,inn ii i! , to be paid 1•y u,J Nil..Y_under the sinns hereof,saws may In a d by foot pint lees d shall he forthwith pay. whit,yid,interets thereon,•as an addaiunal ann,unl due first roan-_..._under thit sonn.ti. • But should default be made in the payment of principal or interest due hereunder,or of any . second patt..y._paid,or should._....lad....._....._fail to pay the tales or lssoaments upon said land,premiums upon said • i. Insurance.or to perform any or"either of the eovenants,agreements,terms or conditions herein contained,to be by said Isecond part y kept r performed.the said part.jog.of the first part may,at._tlloiC-.option,by written ones declare this contract cancelled and terminated,and all rights,title and interest acquired thereunder by said second part.._,shall thereupon cease and terminate,and all improvements made upon the premises,and all payments made i hereunder shall belong to laid parL.ldlof the first pars as liquidated damages for breach of this contract by said second I par_y.,said notice to be in accoraance with the statute in such case made end peovided. Neither the retention of the lime of payment of any sum or sums of money to be paid hereunder,nor any waiver by itthe part...ies of the firer part..tneir...rights to declare this contract forfeited by reason of any breach thereof,stall in any manner affect the eight of said part_.iuo to cancel this contract because of defaults subsequently maturing,and no extension of time shall be valid unto"evidenced by duly signed instrument Further,oiler service of notice and failure to remove,within the period allowed by law,the default therein specified,said part.._y..of the second part hereby stecrteally agree...,upon demand of said parrjgp_of the first part,quietly and p lily to surrender to.._.. o thero..__....p saes. fion of said premises,and every part thereof,it being understood that until such default,said party...._of the second • paat__j0___,.to have possession of said premises. ' ia.. r�. 3t ft illutuaiip Affrrtb,By and between the parties herdo,that the time of payment shall be an estentkd part of this contract;and that all the covenants and agreements herein contained shall run with • the land and bind the heirs,executors,administrators,saaeuors and assigns of the respective parties hereto . 3n trtettmonp MUtol. The parties hereto have hereunto art their hands the day and year first oboes written. '..:,ii IA Presence of •• Mildred 1leatminysenj ii. .Ir.ingsen 1t/j (. • DeWjaou n A. Gi Diug, state of Slinnts'ota, County of...........sae nnepi n_............_.........._�..... Onthis.— ..._.. ... ._...........,.. _day of ...__..._.. ............_.............19_... .,be fore me, a.. _. ......._..._.liotary Public _.... within and for said CO.nty,personally appeared Mildred nu,wtinysen an.l Les llemuinysen, her husi.ard; and benjasain A. Ginyold • to sae known to be the person.....described in,and,u•ho executed the foregoing instrument,and acknoret•• edged that the Y.executed£la same aa.......tile it ,,,....._free act and eked. • '., , • THIS INSTRUMEroT WAS DRAFTED BY .... ,I. Shanecilinya Pbillips,.Gross i_aaron to w.i Aolar Publics uennupits , 909 Far o,ra._; llochahics uduk.Llcy, 9 Courtly,titian. rlittneapolise ilinnesota lade'^tl .11y commission expires ...__...........,19• (�ill I t e+✓` c g ,, i Il1Il'l' I _••` a till 1 i I I.�o R C u q qN C` A i t i� q~ I I I q� l A ! ^• -; t I I t S 8 I° ° .9 i rt S` It 4.; : (Yi l 1 O u 1•g° °j a S' K ° a a a ° E'�i't'q I ." ! «C �`el a� a q {° IV 1 I • V +mac x • e I , � a 7. 1 H .. a !U a i I x 1 i I ! j � I 1 1 I' t its a t o I ! ((i r o i p- • ty(1 I I � k �d �� 1� ! it ° "Ct VI ' V I � � lI V~iYoivdo W 1st l WV rya.*' ry..A�� • • iv34u May 28, 1974 • �S'� ::i1...r•::.. i:3+S'il:c�6t-Il .::+`�, L taattar.: ::/aii:; Cor..i:ai, 41a - lath ,venue .iortil Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 1:.J:'i.ti11J5011: • Ih colarlctio.: with the matter ea diccuase.: recently on the- telee.oi e, I- a:.1 euclosi1.y two co'ies of a Cc4ltrnct fur :ioc, covarin4 a portion o_ L. lal.0 you utiiunlly ayrcoo to cull to ilia; son, panjwin .'. olc: Jr. • You :I::.. yr•.:T. .:L'iL.dl.1 Hl:'±:i1C: f.7.'.+it both copie3 L'r t:IC` • co:,trr.;;t .uu r.•t:lrn it to uo. I will oLtain Dr. Gingold's si;l.ate c 71:.1 el:nu you a fully :•:c:lted cra.s. I it also ....i.aO:iilly a .ieti':t. to CaitiLi.it%i.1n of Contract for Deed u:.ion will t•:r.:lil.it,: t::e oriyiu.;l contract Letaee;: your- soli anu i,i. iiingolo, Jr. You :i.ou1.. sly': and return t.:is t:UCu....:nt to Very truly yours, • ,:::r t M. Cross • ent--. cc: uanjal..ia A. Gingold • 1��U • • • + ' S. ' • 46346 June 27, 1974 • U } i Gingold r, benam n 825 South bth Street , '• . ' Minneapolis, Minnesota Dear yr. Ginyold: . , I am sure that ben has explained to you the situation . regarding the Contract for Deed with Mildred Graves , neMLIinysen. Mrs. aemrinrsen has canceled the Contract • for Deed she had with ben, but she is agreeable to entering into a contract with you covering the property • , in question. • ' 1 I am enclosing two copies of the contract, both of which have been si3nea by ifrs. •hen,aainysen and her husband. . I . would appreciate your signing both copies on the reverse'side . and returning them to me. You should also begin making - - ' • •. payments of 5100 on the 1st day of each month to Mrs. -. uemminysen in order to,protect your interest in this property. Her auuress is Mrs. Mildred Bemmingsen, Box 285, Minneapolis, . .. Minnesota, 55440. • If you have any 'questions, don't hesitate to get in.touch • with me. ' • Very truly yours, , ' Bert M. Gross . •' • btn4/k ' • • enc. • . . t . • MEMORANDUM • TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS THROUGH: CHRIS ENGER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING • FROM: ROGER A. PAULY, CITY ATTORNEY DATE: MAY 1, 1989 • ; SUBJECT: REQUEST BY DAVID BROWN FOR LOT SIZE VARIANCE IN RURAL : DISTRICT i David Brown has requested a variance from the parcel size f • requirements for a single family dwelling in the rural district imposed by the zoning regulations contained in Chapter 11 of the City Code. We have been requested to review Mr. Brown's application • for the variance. It is our understanding that the Brown parcel • consists of 3.2 acres and is situated in the rural district. Chapter 11, Sec. 11.10, Subd. 2 of the City Code, authorizes the following permitted uses: . "A. Agriculture, accessory and related uses. B. Public facilities and services. . C. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures without platting on parcels of not less than 10 acres. • D. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures without platting on parcels of five or more acres, but less than ten acres, as of a July 6, 1982." The requirement that single family dwellings in the rural district be situated on parcels of not less than five acres was first imposed • , "rMO TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals ge Two - May 1, 1984 in the City upon adoption of Ordinance 135 on October 14, 1969. This feature was incorporated in the present City Code upon codi- fication of the City's ordinances in 1982. Prior to the adoption • of Ordinance 135 on October 14, 1969, there was no minimum lot size required for the building of a dwelling on the Brown parcel. Attached hereto, entitled Appendix 1, is a summary of the history of the ownership of the Brown and certain surrounding parcels obtained from the Hennepin County Records Department. The summary does not include any information relative to unrecorded interests, if any, concerning these parcels. The powers of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments are found in M.S. S462.357, Subd. 6 and City Code Chaps. 2 and 11. Subd. 6 authorizes the Board, "(2) To hear requests for variances from the +' ' literal provisions of the ordinance in instances • where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the • individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated • . { that such actions will be in keeping with the • spirit and intent of the ordinance. 'Undue hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot • be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the ' . landowner is due to circumstances unique to his r property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential • character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if rea- sonable use for the property exists under the terms • of the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjust- . meats or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board br govern- ing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a. two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the "i' case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties." l MEMO TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals Page Three - May 1, 1984 . Chapter 2, Sec. 2.11, Subd. 2, authorizes the Board • "to hear requests for adjustments (variances) • from the literal provisions of the City Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circum- stances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the pro- . visions, and may not in the case of zoning regulations permit as a variance any use that is not permitted. . . " Chapter 11, Sec. 11.76, Subd. 1, provides, Subd. 1. Purposes and Authorization. • A. In order to prevent or to lessen such �. • practical difficulties and unnecessary physical N • hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this Section as would result from a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of certain ( of the regulations, the Board of Appeals and • Adjustments is impowered to grant variances. 71 B. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from geographic, topographic or s •• other physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; •or from population densities, street locations, or traffic conditions in the ' immediate vicinity. { C. Cost to the applicant of strict or literal � compliance with a regulation shall not be the sole '. reason for granting a variance. D.. The power to grant variances does not • extend to use regulations. In applying those rules to the instant case, several princi- ples must be considered. Constitutional considerations. • V The application, of a zoning ordinance (here Section 11.10, 1 Subd. 2.D.) to the owner of specific property may be invalid if :Al it• iesults in an unconstitutional taking of his property, U.S. CONST. amend. V; Minn. COAST. art. 1 §7; Krahl v. Nine-Mile Watershed District, 283 N.W.2d 538 (1979); }loinw y v. City of Pipe^tone, 2t9 1?1/ MEMO TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals age Four - May 1, 1984 • N.W.2d 28 (1978); Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535, 253 N.W.2d .272 (1977); McQuillin, Mun. Corp. (3rd Add.), Section 24.45. The rule enunciated by the Minnesota Supreme Court is stated in Czech at 253 N.W.2d 274 as follows: . "For there to be an unconstitutional taking a landowner must demonstrate that he has been deprived, through governmental action or in- ` Ai action, of all the reasonable uses of his land. ', . C.F. Lytle Co. v. Clark, 491 F.2d 834, 838 (10 • Cir. 1974); County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 203 N.W.2d 323 (1972); see, generally, Freeman, Give and Take: Distributing Local ' {' Environmental Control Through Land-Use Regulation, ; 60 Minn.L.Rev. 833." • In quoting the rule with approval in Krahl, the court reiterated that the burden of proof is upon the landowner when it said at 283 N.W.2d 543, "In the instant case, Krahl has not met his burden of showing that he can make no reasonable use of the land." A While it is clear that in order to prevail, the landowner has the burden and must show that the questioned governmental action deprives him of all reasonable use of his land, it is not so clear of what that showing must consist. In Krahl, the most recent case, the court held the landowner did •not meet the burden of proof.- That case involved property situ- `" ated within the Nine-Mile•Creek Watershed District. Krahl purchased the property on a contract for deed from a party who was purchasing • it from a previous owner, also on a contract for deed, dated July, 1959. In 1961 the Minnesota Water Resources Board prescribed the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District overall plan, which regulated encroachment into the flood plain of Nine-Mile Creek. In 1970 Krahl appeared before the watershed district managers with several plans for development which required filling the flood plain in excess of 20 percent permitted by the plan. He was denied a permit. In its - opinion, the Court concluded that the denial of the permit did not constitute a taking of Krahl's property for which compensation must be paid. In concluding that Krahl did not meet his burden of proof, the Court stated at 203 N.W.2d 543, -i; ". . . the watershed district has persuasively argued that a number of reasonable uses remain for the land: for example, the district asserts that the land could be used agriculturally; to MEMO TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals Page Five - May 1, 1984 meet open-space requirements of the zoning code; as a density credit area; for golf driving ranges, • parking lots, recreation uses, set-back areas; or for any other use which would not impede the flow of surface waters. Accordingly, Krahl's claim must fail." . . Curiously, however, the court, in what seems to be an afterthought, gave the following cautionary advice, "It must be emphasized that we are very concerned with governmental action which significantly inter- feres with an individual's use of his property. This court, therefore, in future cases will not • : .t. hesitate to award a landholder damages where, con- trary to the instant action, an unconstitutional H. taking is shown." • 1The cautionary advice of the court seems to suggest the possi- bility that a court could award damages to a landowner who makes the ! -equired showing. This does not appear to be the thoughtful, reasoned Attitude of the court as indicated in Holaway v. City of Pi.pestone, 269 N.W.2d 28 (1978), and McShane v. City of Faribault, 292 N.W.2d • 253 (1980), in both of which cases the landowners sought inverse condemnation because of the imposition of zoning ordinances against their properties. In Holaway, the court rejected inverse condemna- 5 tion as an appropriate remedy, holding ,instead that if the ordinance is improper, it should be declared invalid and its enforcement enjoined. Despite the League of Minnesota Cities'position that no right of inverse condemnation exists where injunction is available, the court refused to so hold, stating that a zoning ordinance can E, so interfere with an owner's use of his land as to constitute a taking where inverse condemnation would lie. In McShane, the court again concluded that inverse condemnation was not the appropriate remedy, but that an injunction would provide such a remedy. The court stated • that only where the taking or damage is irreversible would an injunction 4: against enforcement not provide an adequate remedy. • '" It must be noted, however, that in none of these cases did the Court consider the applicability, or the merits, of claims based t upon, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1988. These provisions permit the bringing of claims against any person for actions which deprive 3 an individual of hiu federal rights under color of state or municipal y statutes or ordinances for damages and attorneys' fees. ..i. • 1 aO . . • MEMO TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals • Page Six - May 1, 1984 In Czech the court reached a conclusion opposite that in Xrahl. Czech involved an attempt by the landowner to have land adjacent to his mobile home park rezoned for expansion of the park. The rezoning was denied. On appeal of the ensuing legal action, the Supreme Court held the City's failure to grant the rezoning was an unconstitutional taking of his property. The holding was based upon the conclusion that the general charac- teristics of the property, including the high water table and general nature of the terrain, virtually rendered the property useless for any use other than a mobile home park, and a finding that the public health, safety, and welfare would not be endangered by such a development on the property. In County of Freeborn, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's denial of the County's request for an injunction against landowner, without prejudice to the latter's right to petition for rezoning of his land on the ground that it is not suitable for use for the residential purposes for which it was zoned. In that case the land was being used in a nonconforming manner for the outdoor storage and repair of equipment. ,: Thus, while the rule placing the burden of proof on the land- ''( owner to demonstrate that he has been deprived of all reasonable uses of his land is clear, the application of that rule is dependent upon the facts in each specific case. In addition to the facts relating to the suitability of a parcel of land for any of the uses permitted by Section 11.10 evidence of valuation of the land for-general tax purposes and special assessments as well as other evidence may be appropriate for consideration. • Is the Hardship Voluntary. Common Ownership of Adjacent Parcels: A further consideration is whether the Brown parcel was owned on October 14, 1969 (the date of the adoption of the five-acre requirement) or thereafter in common with another adjacent parcel or parcels which together constituted five or more acres. If Mr. (: Brown or his predecessor in title owned an adjacent parcel or parcels on October 14, 1969 (the date the five-acre requirement was first adopted) or thereafter which when combined with the present Broom parcel would constitute five or more acres, and subsequently : 4 conveyed the other parcel, he would not be entitled as a matter of right to a variance on the ground that the restriction deprived him of all uses of his property, because he, or his predecessor, by the is act of conveying the other parcel, would have caused his own loss or deprivation. When a person brings such a hardship upon himself, • he is not entitled to relief. Dedcrinq v. Johnson, 239 N.W.2d 913 . "EMO TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals , age Seven - May 1, 1984 ' (1976); Olson v. City of Hopkins, 178 N.W.2d 719 (1970); In Re Grace Building Co., Inc. , 392 A.2d 888 (1978) . This rule was . applied against the contention that strict enforcement of an ordi- nance requiring a minimal lot size would deprive the owner of his property without due process of law in violation of the 14th Amend- ment of the United States Constitution. Board of Zoning Appeals vs. Waskelo, 168 N.E.2d 72 (1960) . In that case the Indiana Supreme Court stated that the owners' hardship was self-created and not the result of any invalid application of the terms of the zoning ordinance to their property. Purchase of Parcel After Five-Acre Restriction Adopted: The mere fact that Brown purchased the parcel in 1977, eight . years after the adoption of the 5-acre restriction and even if he had knowledge of it does not require a conclusion that the hardship was self-induced. In Mister v. City of Minneapolis, 133 N.W.2d 500 (Minn. 1965), the court stated, "We tend to the view that knowledge of the restric- • ; y tion does not in itself create an estoppel if the ordinance has at the time of its adoption deprived the property of all practical use. There is no •. 'logical reason why one who purchases with notice of such an ordinance but has sufficient vision and initiative to believe that the property is illegally zoned should not have the same standing he would have enjoyed had he been the owner at the time the ordinance was adopted." Public Health, Safety and Welfare. If the construction on the Brown parcel of a dwelling would create a significant and substantial health, safety or welfare condition causing damage to the public, such a condition would constitute proper grounds for denial of a variance. See Czech, ( supra, where the court stated that the evidence compels a finding that public health, safety and welfare will not be endangered by 1 the proposed development on the property. In this regard I note a number of concerns expressed in the i. staff report of the Planning Department regarding soils, driveway grades, well and septic systems and other matters. The Board in A' its review of this matter should require adequate information from . Mr. Brown and carefully evaluate these concerns to determine their effect, if any, upon public health, •safety and welfare. 1 f 2-2. MEMO TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals , Page Eight - May 1, 1964 ORDER AND FINDINGS • Upon consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing on this matter, the Board should make its final written order reflecting the action taken and should indicate in its Order written findings on which such action is based. CONCLUSION 1. Mr. Brown. is not entitled to a variance from the 5-acre minimum parcel size requirement in the rural zone as a matter of right, but may be under proper circumstances. 2. The Board may deny the request for a variance if • • (a) Mr. Brown has not been deprived through adoption by the City of the 5-acre requirement of all rea- sonable uses of his land. The burden of showing r, . that he has been so deprived is upon Mr. Brown, or it (b) Mr. Brown or his predecessor owned the Brown t parcel in common with one or more parcels on or after October 14, 1969, which together con- ' stituted 5 or more acres and thereafter conveyed , • such other parcel or parcels. The mere fact that Mr. Brown purchased his parcel in 1977 after • adoption of the 5-acre restriction does not require a conclusion that the hardship was self-induced unless he or his predecessor owned and disposed of an adjacent parcel or parcels described above, or (c) The proposed use of the Brown parcel for con- • struction of a dwelling would create a signifi- cant and substantial condition detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the public. • 3. The Board should seek and review information and determine the facts relative to the foregoing. • 4. The Board's action should reflect a written•order supported by its written findings. APPENDIX I • • The East half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22, consists in pertinent t. part of the Brown, Nielson, and Provo parcels identified on the diagram on APP.I-4. • GRAVES COMMON OWNERSHIP OF NEILSON BROWN PARCELS • The East half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22, was acquired from the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation ("FFMC") by Sylvester M. Graves and Mildred K. Graves, by means of a Limited Warranty Deed dated January 28, 1947, in which the FFMC retained. certain mineral ( ihts. (Document No. 2560000) This property was then conveyed by Quitclaim Deed to Mayme B. Guntle dated May 9., 1949. Mayme B. Guntle then conveyed the•property back to Mildred K. Graves ("Graves") in & Quitclaim Deed dated May 10, 1949. (Document Nos. 2560001 and • 2560002) The FFMC subsequently quitclaimed its interest in the mineral rights it had reserved to Graves in a deed dated May 22, 1952. (Document No. 2773248) With the exception of the property lying South and East of Eden Heights Road, Graves held title to the East half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter until the North 4-1/2 acres were conveyed to Robert J. O'Connor ("O'Connor") by means of a Warranty Deed dated February 26, 1966. (Document No. 3594083) O'Connor by cans of a Warranty Deed dated August 29, 1967, conveyed the North • APP. I-1 • 1i #. gd9 . k . 4-1/2 acres back to Graves. (Document No. 3684835) Although he had no recorded interest-in the rest of the East half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter, O'Connor also gave a Quitclaim Deed dated August 29, 1967, to Graves, quitclaiming any interest he may 1 have had in the rest of that property. (Document No. 3684836) , .. Therefore, as of August 29, 1967, Graves owned all of the East half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter, with • • the exception of the property lying South and East of Eden Heights Road which is not relevant to our inquiry herein. • NIELSON PARCEL . ~ As to the "Nielson parcel", on October 25, 1967, a Warranty ( :d was executed by which Graves conveyed that parcel to Benjamin A. Gingold, Jr. ("Gingold, Jr:") (Document No. 3684837). A . Quitclaim Deed dated October 1, 1968, from Graves to Gingold, Jr. corrected a defect in the Warranty Deed which had been issued in 1967 (Document No. 3741616) . Gingold, Jr. gave a mortgage dated • January 21, 1969, to the Eberhardt Company (Document No. 3765031) , which assigned it to Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association ("TCF") on .November 21, 1969 (Document No. 3805885) . Gingold, Jr. :' also gave a mortgage to Marquette National Bank on September 1, 1970 (Document No. 3845897). TCF foreclosed on its mortgage and Marquette National Bank redeemed (Document Nos. 3971867, 4004364, •'::1 4006339, 4067084). Marquette National conveyed title to Ralph R. ,ielson ("Nielson") by means of a Warranty Deed dated February 18, ,s 1977 (Document No. 4269105). APP. I-2 Ins:, • • • BROWN PARCEL As to the "Brown parcel", Graves conveyed title to this property to Eenjamin A. Gingold, Sr. ("Gingold, Sr.") by a Warranty Deed dated March 3, 1975. (Document No. 4130603) Gingold, Sr. subsequently conveyed it to David L. Brown ("Brown") by a Warranty Deed dated July 25, 1980. (Document No. 4581080) NORBERG-WUTTKE PARCEL The West half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter is not relevant to our inquiry herein because it was owned by Edwin Norberg from 1946 until conveyed to Loren Wuttke by means of a Personal Representative Deed in 1983. ( Attached hereto as APP. I-5 is a chart depicting the history • of all pertinent parcels from 1960 to the present. • • • • • APP. 1-3. r)3a :.' .1.... ;V-y r4a/11t t•••1•• . '.,rh•,�•� rr •, •1 • ••:; •.• •A .•, •1 • •1• �• fir•` •.. �•,•r' •A • • !• • �. � . I .. Jf.•••. • • r9 •j{ t.•..` �tia ! • _ -L i• •v•,L ia !S,• 1 .tc t • .31 • o .0 i A•�, •.. •I. , $1',i. •F . , r.•, •• 'vA • i•:'` � y4 yi.:- •J.'. ydo�n a t • dcr c 4, y.. ti> • ..�sf•00 �J r. .! L •� t . , : -0, 1: _ •,` '• ''' j, .i�'••r �C • �•, .K ,` • a•. •,•`..4 v ••`,. •1..,'C l''1C. .:.•• . .r 1 ' _ O f- \•,• •� ,.r .t: • iL;i• i" V�, i• 16 tDi� �-- 1111111u 't.:..11It11.11�' .t11.1.i 111 .l1f••• ••.4 : 11.tkn,'uut•`!• J11 t • 1,1:1.1., ..,, .Irl1• 1. 1 i • • • NIELS N PROVO WUTTKE BROWN 1984 ._--83 Provo Wuttke Brown Nielsen (12-20-83) 82 a w r • Norberg " s 810 a a a . Brown a 60 (8-13-80) a 79 " Gingold, Sr. " M 78 " a Nielsen • • 77 " (2-18-77) a " a Mar. Nat. Bk. a 76 " 75 w Gingold, Sr. (3-4-75 • ) 74 « Graves Mar. Nat. Bk. " (2-11-74) " " a TCF Provo (6-28-72) 71 " a TCF (9-20-72) Gingold, Jr. 7 • (6-28-72) a Gingold, Jr. Graves a 70 a " " " • , 70 69 _ •a a a a Gingold, Jr. a 68 QCD (10-21-68) 67 " • a Gingold, Jr. Graves (8-29-67) [(8-QCD ND (10-25-67) QCD , O'Connor] 1(8-29-67) QCD O'Connor] • O'Connor (3-4-67) 65 " " Groaves Graves " " a a 65 • n „ N " 64 a a N „ 63 • a • a Graves Graves •61 " " a Graves 61 60 Norberg TPP. I-S i 1 . 10133 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 k • April 10, 1984 City of Eden Prairie ` Administrative Offices • 8950 Eden Prairie Road . Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Mayor and City Council Board of Appeals and Adjustments City Manager • • City Attorney • Gentlemen: . . . I am writing with reference to a •pending request for a variance as submitted' by David L. Brown with respect t' to a 3.2 acre parcel located at the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Highway 169 in Eden Prairie. The application is scheduled to come before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments on Thursday, % , April 12, 1984. I oppose the variance requested and will oppose any petition for rezoning that the applicant may submit. Since I ' have a previous engagement to be out of town on the evening of the hearing, I am writing this letter to set forth my position in the matter. I have retained Mr. Donald Sorensen, Attorney at Law, to represent me at the hearing in connection with this j#' matter. • First, as most of you know, I have strenuously opposed f s; the granting of variances and rezonings with respect to parcels . of less than 5 acres in situations where city sewer and water facilities were not available. Similarly, I have been concerned about the necessity to maintain the effectiveness and enforce- ability of the City's ordinances and provisions of the City CodeI. relating to zoning by avoiding actions which would call into question the standards set forth in the City's ordinances or 4 Code or the City's application of those standards. • There is no question that. the zoning provisions of the Edon Prairie City Code apply to the property in question 1 1 F City of Eden Prairie f April 10, 1984 Page 2 • and that under the Code the parcel is zoned as a "rural" property. The purposes of the zoning provisions of the City Code are stated as follows: SECTION 11.01. OBJECTIVES. This Chapter is • adopted to protect and to promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare, and specifically to achieve the following objectives: (1) to assist in the implementation of the City Comprehensive Guide Plan as amended; (2) to foster a harmonious, convenient workable relationship among land uses; • (3) to promote the stability of existing land • uses that conform with the Guide Plan and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intru- sions; ' 'r (4) to insure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes which are most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole; • (5) to prevent excessive population densities . and over-crowding of the land with structures; • (6) to promote a safe, effective traffic circula- tion system; (7) to foster the provision of adequate off- street parking and off-street truck-loading facilities; (B) to facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities. and institutions; (9) to provide human and physical resources of • sufficient giiantit:y and quality to sustain needed public services and facilities; (10) to protect and enhance real property values; and, • • City of Eden Prairie .1:':::, y April 10, 1984 Page 3 , (11) to safeguard and enhance the appearance of fi. the City, including natural amenities of hills, woods, lakes, and ponds. With respect to parcels in the rural zone, the Code establishes particular purposes and uses as follows: • SEC. 11.10. R - RURAL DISTRICT. SubcL 1. Purposes. The purposes of the R-Rural District are to: • (1) Prevent premature urban development of certain lands which eventually will be appropriate • for urban uses, until the installation of drainage ;. works, streets, utilities and community facilities . and the ability to objectively determine and project appropriate land use patterns makes orderly develop- ment possible; - ';'; (2) Permit the conduct of certain agricultural pursuits on land in the City; (3) Ensure adequate light, air, and privacy for each dwelling unit, and to provide adequate • separation between dwellings and facilities for housing animals. • Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. • ' A. Agriculture, accessory and related - uses. B. Public facilities and services. C. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures without platting on parcels of • not less than 10 acres. D. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures without platting on parcels of S. five or more acres, but less than ten acres, as of July 6, 1982. • It is also pertinent to note the general purposes for which municipal planning, including.:.oning ordinances, ,arc ,authorized. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351 provides as follows: I City of Eden Prairie April 10, 1984 Page 4 ' ?' The legislature finds that municipalities are faced ' with mounting problems in providing means of guiding future development of land so as to insure a safer, more pleasant and more economicalo environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public activities, to preserve agricultural and other Up`, open lands, and to promote the public health, ' safety, and general welfare. Municipalities can prepare for anticipated changes and by such prepara- • tions bring about significant savings in both private and public expenditures. Municipal planning, by providing public guides to future municipal action, enables other public and private agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the municipality's plans. Municipal planning will assist in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens more effectively, iw 11 make the provision of public services less . costly, and will achieve a more secure tax base. It is the purpose of sections 462.351 to 462.364 to ( provide municipalities, in a single body of law, with unifrm adequatelyary conductingand andaimplementpingcmunicipal planning. The grant of a variance or rezoning with respect to the parcel in question would contravene the basic provisions and purposes of the zoning provisions of the City Code in several 1' respects. The principal objections are set forth below. I. INAPPLICABILITY OF THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE The parcel in question is 3.2 acres in size. The applicant requests a variance which would permit the construction of a residential dwelling on the parcel. Under the City Code a • variance is not a proper procedure to permit the construction of a dwelling on a parcel of such size in the rural zone. This is because the size limitation, whether 5 acres or 10 acres, as the case may be, is contained in the permitted use description in the provisions of Section 11.10 of the Code, which use is not subject to change by the variance procedure. The definition of "variance" • in Section 11.02(52) of the Code is as follows: , 52. "Variance" - A modification or variation of the provisions of this Chapter a, applied to a specific piece of property, except that_modificat.iou in the allowable usuq within a d ,t.iicl _.h,1l] not be considered vt i<��ic c • , --- --- a l.'l _- • City of Eden Prairie April 10, 1984 `' Page 5 Moreover, Section 11.76 of the Code relating to the jurisdiction ' of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments states as follows: • SEC. 11.76. VARIANCES. Subd. 1. Purposes and Authorization. • A. In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this Section as would result from a strict or literal 4. interpretation and enforcement of certain of the regulations, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments is impowered to grant variances. . • • B. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, • or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from geographic, topographic or . other physical conditions on the site or in the . immediate vicinity; or from population densities, street locations, or traffic conditions in the ' immediate vicinity. C. Cost to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be - the sole reason for granting a variance. D. The power to grant variances does not extend to use regulations. Section 2.11 of the City Code relating to the organization and duties of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals contains yet a • third statement of this limitation on the power of the Board. The general statutory authority for a Board of Appeals and Adjustments to make determinations with respect to variances is provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.354, Subd. 2, and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 6, as follows: The governing body of any municipality adopting or having in effect a zoning ordinance or an official `,_; map shall provide by ordinance for a board of appeals and adjustments. The board shall have the ;l powers set forth in section 4.62.357, subdivision 6 and section 462.359, subdivision 4. Except as otherwisse provided by charter, the governing body may provide alternatively that there be a separate 17 23j City of Eden Prairie • April 10, 1904 - Page 6 board of appeals and adjustments or that the governing body or the planning commission or a committee of the planning conunission serve as the • board of appeals and adjustments, and it may provide an appropriate name for the board. The board may be given such other duties as the governing body . may direct. In any municipality where the council does not serve as the board, the governing body may, except t; as otherwise provided by charter, provide that the decisions of the board on matters within its juris- diction are final subject to judicial review or are final subject to appeal to the council and the i a right of later judicial review or are advisory to , the council. . . . In any municipality in which : 'd: the planning agency does not act as the board of ;` • adjustments and appeals, the board shall make no ' decision on an appeal or petition until the planning " : agency, if there is one, or a representative autho- . ,t, rized by it has had reasonable opportunity, not to f exceed 60 days, to review and report to the board of adjustments and appeals upon the appeal or • petition. * * * Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may t; be taken by any affected person upon compliance with f: any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning y, • ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has (: the following powers with respect to the zoning -` ordinance: • i (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative '.'4. officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal • - provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual proncity under con::ideration, and to 9_1..rnit such v,u i tnc•_es only when it i demonstrated that._ such action:: 4i1.i he in keeping with thesprit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" a:; used in connection with theA. granting of a variance means the property in question , II • City of Eden Prairie April 10, 1984 Page 7 • • '':' : _ cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under .. conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the • essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. . . . The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. . . . The board or governing body • f.. as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to •protect adjacent properties. . • Thus, our initial objection to.this proceeding is based .upon the foregoing provisions which clearly state that the power to grant variances does not extend to use regulations. To grant ` y. ( . the requested variance would constitute a variance in the use regulations for the rural district and would thereby be improper. Thus, it is quite clear that the power of the Board s does not extend to permit a variance with respect to the request made in this instance. Accordingly, .the appropriate procedure which the appli- • cant would be required to pursue in order to construct a dwelling , on the parcel in question is an application for rezoning rather ; ;t. than the variance procedure. As I have stated earlier, I would oppose a petition for rezoning of the parcel to any residential zoning classification as well. There are several reasons why no change, either by way of variance or zoning, should be permitted. These reasons are set forth in the remaining sections of this letter. II. APPLICANT HAS NO LEGAL, RIGHT TO A VARIANCE OR REZONING £t. The owner of the property has no grandfather or other rights vhich would override the zoning provisions of the City • • Code. The present owner acquired the parcel in 1980. Ordinance No. 135 which set forth the 5 acre minimum requirement for parcels in the rural ::one was adopted in November, 1969. It is settled law that a purchaser is deemed to have knowledge of applicable zoning ordinances in effect at the time that he acquires the • i , , City of Eden Prairie April 10, 1904 • Page 8 property. The fact that a purchaser may not have known of the ordinance, or misunderstood its applicability, or was misled with • respect thereto, has no bearing on the applicability of the ordinance or the rights of the municipality or the adjacent owners to enforce the ordinance. State v. Modern Box Makers, Inc., 217 Minn. 41, 13 N.W.2d 731 (1944); State ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseville, 244 Minn. 343, 70 N.W.2d 404 (1955). The history of the parcel in question also demonstrates 'the lack of any equitable or grandfather rights in the purchaser. We understand that the land of which the parcel forms a part was originally a 23-acre tract beneficially owned by one individual. • The overall property was large enough on which to construct a single family residence in a rural district under the zoning y(; ordinance. The beneficial ownership of the principal parcel in the larger property, on which a house had been erected by Mr. Benjamin Gingold, was sold separately in 1973. The parcel in question was sold separately to the present owner in 1980. Neither the separate sale of the principal parcel in 1973 nor ` the subsequent separate sale of the parcel in question in 1980 could create any special rights in the purchaser under the zoning ,i: ordinance then in effect. Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 288 Minn. 25, 178 N.W.2d 719 (1970). Rather, the fact that a parcel was in common ownership with abutting property at the time of theA. adoption of a restrictive zoning ordinance affirmatively defeats any claim of right or hardship with respect to such parcel. Dederinw. Johnson, 307 Minn. 327, 239 N.W.2d 913 (1976). See also Vetter v. Zoning Board of ppeal of Attleboro, 116 N.E.2d • ,'; 277 (Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. 1953); Raia v. Board of Appeals of North 'f! Reading, 347 N.E.2d 694 (App. Ct. Mass. 1976). Hj- • Even if the purchaser misunderstood or was misled with , , - respect to the applicability of Ordinance No. 135 or the City Code or the availability of a building permit, no estoppel or equitable arguments will overcome the fundamental rights of the City and adjacent owners to enforce the provisions and purposes of the Ordinance and City Code. Kies v. City of .St:. Pnul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 N.W.2d 363 (1953); Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn.. 221, 12b N.W.2d 846 (1964); Jasaka Conpany v. City of St. Paul, 309 N.W.2d 40 (1981). Furthermore, even if the owner had expended significant funds on the property, or paid more than the property was worth i • in view of the zoning provisions in effect on the date of purchase, • no relief for the owner is warranted under the law. State ex Eel . Howard v. Village of Roseville, supra; Newcomb v. Teske, 22-, Flinn. 223, 30 N.W.2d 3'.�°1 (19 8); 1°)cCavie V . Dal.uca,233 Min. 372, , •46 N.W.2d 873 (1951). Sep; al no 1.?yu.;_.v. C)t_y t_St_._ Paul_, 1. supra; Raja v. l.oard of Appeals of: Nc,rLh Kead.i 1tr :npra. 1t'; - . City of Eden Prairie April 10, 1984 • Page 9 • • III. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The City must also, of course, consider the impact on it and its residents of permitting growth contrary to the City • Code in rural areas. Such growth in southwest Eden Prairie would (1) operate contrary to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, (2) would operate contrary to the policies of the Metropolitan .Council which discourage development in areas not served by • water and sewer facilities, (3) would tend to develop areas of ; . the city at the expense of areas already serviced by such ,, facilities, (4) would make it more likely residents in such areas would demand that such facilities be installed, roads be improved and schools be constructed at great expense to the city and its a residents, and (5) would make more likely pollution problems as a'consequence of the proximity of private septic facilities to wells in the porous soil that is typical of the area. These f are some of the relevant considerations of health, safety, order, convenience and general welfare which form the basis of the purposes of the Rural District designation in the City Code ` and which form the basis for the enforcement thereof and the • denial of non-conforming uses on property covered thereby.• The application must be judged in terms of the specific criteria set forth in the enabling legislation and City Code in order for any variance to be proper. It is our position that under these criteria, the grant of the variance would be grossly ' , improper. i . • Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 6, which sets forth the powers of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments specifically provides that variances mayi2e granted only where the strict enforcement of the literal_provisions oi the ordinance "could cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual l?ipperty under consideration" and "oni _when it ): is demonstrated that such action will be—inkeep�nq with the . D-ir.lt: and intent of the ordinance." 4! It is appropriate here to refer you again to the purposes of the zoning provisions of our City Code, contained in Section 11.01 of the Code, to the particular purposes and uses permitted for parcels in the rural zone, contained in Section 11.10 of the Code, and to the general purposes for _ . • which princip;11 planning is authorized, contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351. Each of these provisions are set forth on pages 2-4 of this letter. Your attention is particularly • directed to the underlined portion, of tho::e provisions. • t . f City of Eden Prairie • April 10, 1984 . Page 10 In effect, there are three principal criteria required to be met under the Code and state statue tinoe order tosh gtherant satis- a variance. The burden is on the applicant faction of each of these conditions. We do not believe the applicant can sustain his position with respect to any of these criteria. The criteria, and pertinent considerations related to each of them, are as follows: 1. Strict interpretation or enforcement t ofwould result in an undue hardship, a compliance cannot be the sole reason to grant a . variance. ` This test needs to be measured in terms of the intent of.the ordinance. Here, refusing the variance would effectuate the very purposes of the ordinance as set forth in Sections 11.01 and 11.10 of the City Code. Any hardship created to the applicant would be consistent with, rather than inconsistent • with, the intents and purposes of the Code and the Ci.ty's • Comprehensive Guide Plan. A . Whatever hardship the applicant may incur is'self created. The 5 acre minimum size requirement- of the ordinance was in effect at the time the applicant purchased the property. - • It is well settled that ignorance of an ordinance or its provi- sions does not create any special right to relief from those provisions. In fact, the grant of a variance in this case would very likely create a windfall through the he significaantiaant ppre-.n ciation of the value of the property• such a case would completely reverse and debase the, variance '. standards of the Code. {; 2. There are circumstances unique to the individual property which create a practical ° difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. • • There' are no unique circumstances which apply to the property in question. The property is not of an unusual con- figuration or terrain as in many variance requests. The fact that the parcel falls far short of the basic minimum requirements . of the Code is neither the type of unique circumstance contem- plated by the ot:divancc nor is it unique to this property. The Code at,ract.icaln tdiff.icultyis case sor physical tlhhardshi:p. Tlter the ar.e Code, not1 several other parcel:; even in the immediate area which would no doubt apply for similar variances if this one is granted. There i r_.i; • City of Eden Prairie April 10, 1984 ' Page 11 is nothing different about this parcel which distinguishes it from all other surrounding undeveloped land, all of which is being held subject to the same restrictions in the Code that apply to this parcel. `. Enforcement of the Code would not deprive the applicant of the use of his land in any arbitrary manner. Other developed parcels in the area, at the time they were developed, complied ' , with the 5" acre standard of Ordinance No. 135 or with the standards imposed by the ordinances in effect at the time those properties were developed. In fact, the grant of a variance in this case would constitute a special privilege because all other owners had to comply with the minimum size requirements under Ordinance No. 135 or,prior ordinances. In many cases, this necessitated the acquisition of sufficient acreage to enable the construction of a home. • It would also constitute a special privilege vis-a-vis i holders of large tractstoftunde elo edd landginnthefaaeaa anonce could reasonably arg p to the applicant, they should be entitled to divide their properties into parcels of less than 5 acres as well. 3. Any variance granted must be in keeping ,. _ with the spirit and intent of the provisions of the Code and consistent with the objectives of the zoning Chapter in the Code. • In this case, the spirit and intent of the zoning provisions of the City Code are set forth in the objectives of the zoning provisions in Section 11.01 and Section 11.10 of the City Code quoted above. The proposed variance would do violence to those purposes in the following manner: "'a , 1. It, and similar requests for variances agwhich ain in - have been made in the past and would certainly the future,growth disrupt Est]etso southwest sectoreinl�annarca n the ot suited increasing for present development under the Comprehensive Guide flan. 2 It would be inconsistent with and destabilize existing land uses in the area. 3. It would be inconsistent with present rplans ed rofd the community for the extension of water, and :school services. . 1.0(-j. • r City of Eden Prairie April 10, 1984 Page 12 4. The location of a private driveway access on the steep curve of Eden Prairie Road would make even more dangerous that already very accident prone roadway. This would be particu- larly true in the winter when the hill where the driveway could be located is rendered exceedingly dangerous by the presence of compacted snow and ice. No sight line distance is enough in such conditions. 5. It would have a negative impact on existing real property values by an adverse impact on residences in the vicinity. First, septic facilities established by the applicant and by potential similar applicants could have a harmful effect on the well water currently used by all of the residents of the area. Secondly, development of this and similar acreage could have a generally adverse effect on groundwater, wells and springs in 7 the porous soil of the area. 6. It would represent an intrusion into a naturally rural, wooded and grassland area of the community. 7. It would generate premature urban development * •of the southwestern area of the community prior to the installa- tion of adequate water, sewer, drainage, streets, utilities ' and other facilities and be totally inconsistent with the orderly development of the community as a whole. _ 8. This type of development would make necessary on 1. a much more immediate time schedule water and sewer facilities*, E. and improved roads, schools and other facilities for the south- west area of Eden Prairie. , 9. It would tend to discourage the conduct of agri- cultural pursuits in the southwestern area of Eden Prairie. It is also pertinent in this connection to consider the impact of the policies of the Metropolitan Council on this matter. The tract in question is outside the metropolitan urban service area. It is doubtful that urban sewage facilities,will be extended to the arca in the near future. The Metropolitan Council has made .clear that it expects municipalities to cooperate in discouraging 'unwarranted development of areas outside the urban service arcs. The acts of the legislature establishing and empowering the Metropolitan Council should be taken into account 4 by the City in any determination which would have a negative impact on the policies of the Metropolitan Council. ! • The City must also be aware that in the event, a petition �4. for variance or rezoning is allowed in this: instance, doubt could , ; • u City of Eden Prairie • April 10, 1984 Wage 13 r be cast .upon the City's willingness to enforce the zoning provi- sions of the Code with respect to other parcels in the rural zone which do not comply with the City Code. We understand that there ; A. are between 10 and 15 such parcels in the City, including several in the immediate neighborhood of the parcel in question and in the sensitive bluff area of the southerly portion of the City. While it is our position that no failure on the part of the City to enforce the provisions of the Code should have any impact on 'the enforceability of the Code in other instances, it would certainly not be wise policy to invite attack by failing to give effect to the Code. IV. REMEDIES FOR ADJACENT LANDOWNERS The grant of a variance and issuance of a building • permit by the City under these circumstances would be void and i could be contested by adjacent landowners. As stated in Lowry " v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 42 N.W.2d 553 (1950), "A building permit issued in violation of a'zoning ordinance by an official lacking power to alter or vary the ordinance is void, and a zoning regulation may be enforced notwithstanding the fact that the permittee may have commenced building operations . . . . Tie reason given for the rule by the authorities is that both the granting of a permit and the varying of a zoning restriction involves the exercise of governmental power, which cannot be ,. exercised by an officer upon whom it has not been conferred or set at naught by the action of a property owner proceeding in defiance thereof ' A private property owner injured by the violation, as here, is entitled to injunctive relief." As stated *in State ex rel. Howard, supra., "The principles governing the situation are well established. Generally, it is held that, where a permit has been issued by an authorized officer under a mistake of fact and contrary to zoning ordinances, it confers no privilege on the person to whom it is issued and even though the latter may have taken some action thereunder with the incurment of expenses, it may, nevertheless, be revoked." V. POSITION OF THE CITY • • In view of the foregoing discussion, we believe that the position the City of laden Prairie should take in this matter is one which upholds the validity of the City Cede and does not place a burden of enforcement of the City Code on residents of ' the City. The burden to contest the position of the City should be placed on the person who disputes the validity of the City Code, not on those who seek to enforce it. I ,;! City of Eden Prairie April 10, 1984 Page 14 . The position which the City of Eden Prairie'should • adopt in this matter is based on the facts that (1) there is no language in the zoning provisions of the City Code which entitle the applicant to secure a variance or building permit since the parcel does not comply with the minimum required by the Code, and (2) nothing in the Code provides for or suggests the existence of any grandfather rights which would apply to purchasers of a parcel of.less than 5 acres in size subsequent to the effec- ' •tiveness of Ordinance No. 135. As stated above, there are no grandfather or other equitable rights recognized in the law which would apply in these circumstances. Moreover, it is our position that no prior action of the City staff which may have been inconsistent with the Ordinance overrides the applicability of the Code or the right of the City or its residents to enforce it. If the City, through some fear of litigation or other- . wise, fails to enforce the Code, the consequences would be both unfortunate and incongruous. First, it would require residents ', opposing a variance or building permit to sue the City to enforce their rights. Second, as you may be aware, an injunction action normally requires the posting of a bond which could be both sizable and expensive, a burden which should not be placed on residents seeking to enforce the City Code. Finally, it would . leave the position of the City in the action ambiguous at best. o- , What would the City do? Remain passive in the action because .it had no firm view of the law on the matter? It would seem incongruous for the City to take action and then not defend that action in court. But, it would be equally incongruous for the City to take , ;i<. an active role in seeking to defeat the applicability of its own ; Code when the requirements of the Code are clear. These incredible results would be due to a failure on the part of the City to "v,: determine its course of action solely on the basis of well j. supported legal considerations. .4 .i Allow me to summarize our views in this' matter. First, the variance procedure is inappropriate under the law for the . request being made. A request for rezoning is the only applicable procedure under.t.he City Code and state law. Second, it is our position that the zoning provisions of the City Code ought to be . enforced by the City in terms of the plain words and policies contained therein. Th.i rd, the grant of a variance or rezoning in this cane would do violence to the policies of health, safety and welfare underlying the zoning provisions of the City Code and would he impropch• under the provisions of Minnesota law relating lj to variances. Fourth, the practical effects on the City and on • nearby re:;.identn of a grant of a variance or rezoning would be . City of Eden Prairie r April 10, 1984 �_ • Page 15 . harmful. Fifth, as set forth above, under the law no prior inconsistent activity on the part of the staff of the City can HFn have any bearing on the applicability of the Code. Sixth, if the applicant for the permit intends to assert some constitutional or other equitable right which he alleges should make the Code inapplicable, he should be required to establish that right • • through a mandamus action commenced by himself. Seventh, perhaps most important, the City should not put Eden Prairie 'residents in the position of having to enforce the provisions of the City Code. Enforcement of the City Code is the business • of the City administration, and it should not abdicate that . • responsibility or burden to its residents. Finally, we believe it is the responsibility of the City to make a conclusion with respect to this matter on the basis of the law applicable, not based on determinations of what its past notsupportedve in been, not in terms of assertions by the applicant law, not due to "trade-offs" with the.applicant, and not in terms of tactical or expense considerations with respect to any . litigation which may ensue. (. • if you have any questionsfeeiafreegto this contact me r or our.position in the matter, please Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter. . Very t yours, .......... Zrelt.. .. . Dean R. Edstrom DRE/lb cc: Dr. and Mrs. Ralph R. Nielson Mr. and Mrs. Jack Provo Mr. and Mrs. Richard Knight In 1f - MI•" Ralph R. Nielson ' ' 10100 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 . • April 12, 84 City of Eden Prairie: • . • 'For eleven years, we have resided at 10100 Eden Prairie Road. A bluff property overlooking the Minnesota River and its valley. When first shown this parcel, it was presented for its unob- . structed and picturesque view southward. This panorama was extolled as one of the most magnificent in the Twin City area. The possibility of congestion was denied by our realtor. The ' federal government had restricted building in the valley pending its becoming a game preserve. We were also informed that rural • zoning obviated parcel division and subsequent residential building. Since that time, we have learned that historically, this immediate { ian re of t '; anda is slopef real ordinances ofhic thes presentance.indicatedtheseovalues. past, Past city planners have moved to insure by statute, the ecologic the wildr life, the ivegetationity fand ethe ereal a. Avalue ofll of iexisti protects to existing • properties. a. Those of us who presently reside here arenaa are of fntthese uncluttered facts. We respect and honor th_m. We enjoy the . life style it all allows. • ese Now, in r eamwhich do our ar i immediate area not fulfill the requirements ofhthe present on properties t city code. There are people represented who seek home sites and people who , seek n profit by the sale of these plats. It is trna pe tocie ' that local government does not more closely gu its existing laws. If the rep+ltors who deny these restrictions, • or the prospective buyer who is ignornnt of them, are, as a result, financially burdened, then the just cause of it must be traced to an inadequate communication between city planners and land merchants. -cont. 1• . 1 ctilly/ • n.i^ L have never met thWepresent onlyowners to protecteourselvee in thisr.' them no ill will. of each of us. matter, as is the right • A move now to subvert or deny previous local authority, must be construed as a very positive move toward residential congestion. • There are innumerable building sites available in Eden Prairie. Why then this move to bluff sites? It is the view and the picturesque nature of it. Those euof tus who ohoosres .d ihere eretwen those provoked by it, and it prompted • homes. If buildings are now erected upon parcels south ftoseveexisting, then who can deny the possibility of a later, greater From the present code requirement to one—of three acres, or one, or even to lot parcelling. And if a sub-community springs up before us and all around us, then what of the value of our present a .. investment? ' We therefore cannot favour a proposed or utured tvarheiancomce tof existing code. It denies our expectations past city planners who must have shared our dream. Sincerely, • • .•• - . ,,91,,Q„C.2..,(.._ • • • Yo PETITION To the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of Eden Prairie The undersigned residents of Eden Prairie wish to advise you that they oppose the application by David L. Brown 4' for a zoning variance from the minimum requirements imposed by Section 11.10 of the Eden Prairie City Code. We feel that . the grant of such a variance would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Ordinance, would create pressures for unfettered development of the southwestern portion of Eden Prairie contrary . to the best interests of the City as a whole, would endanger sources of water for existing residents and would reduce existing ''' property values. We urge you to deny the application. . .d." sC c l� -friL /1/33 ,�.-?- gt- e(f' - • . 6.,,,, G' (odafrie , /0/33 i �'n �i-e� , ( A.) . . /moo LA24- - �4-Q- �,,- • (-coi! ,,,,,✓ ("), . ps2 \-)\:, lotAsti . . 10o40 Exe,-, -tid.acts , . . .. ...:_p ,. •. . ci-A,,,e-- g fe"---i( /©offer �/iLiki �.� ��� fit,,z.,",,L_.),.\\.c./ .a_ /vo�s e a 1etIEGY 9i£!r0/V ���(J��� 111 -C A 81('''. 0-4-2,°91r):("1 , • . ; a , • • `!to .. • _ MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY ti FOUNDED IN 1849 fun Snelling flulury Center,5l.Pau1,M1IN55Ill • (612)726•1171 ..; `#}�'. March 27, 1984 Ms. Jean Johnson • City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343I *;f Dear Jean: Pursuant to your request of 21 March, I have reconstructed the relationship of known prehistoric burial mound groups along the Minnesota River bluffs to the 3.2 acre proposed building site defined in your r: submittal. This parcel in the SEA of Section 29, T116N, R22W is located in the vicinity of recorded site 21 HE 20, a group of 53 burial mounds along the bluff top. I have enclosed an index map depicting the locations of all known mound groups in Eden Prairie as closely as I can reconstruct - their locations to serve a general reference for this 0nreview bandstoipprovide baseline data for future consideration (Figure 1). may be seen that the current proposed development in the SEA, Section 29 is located in the immediate vicinity of site 21 HE 20, a group of 53 burial mounds, recorded in 1882. In an effort to more accurately define the relationship of the - development parcel to 21 HE 20, I resealed the map of the mound group as published in N.H. Winchell's Aborigines of Minnesota in 1911 to conform to the 1"=200' scale of the plat map you provided. By overlaying the ;,. Winchell map on the plat using physiographic features visible on the . . photogrammetric plat, an approximation of the relationship of the mound group to the development has been possible (Figure 2). Although I would only be confident of this paper reconstruction within ± ca. 1/2" (100'), it appears that the actual construction site as depicted at l"=60' (Figure 3) is located several hundred feet away from the limits of the mound group. All construction appears to be planned approximately 50 feet"downslope from the bluff top location of the mounds. The northwest corner of the 3.2 acre parcel appears to approach the edge of the mound group, however. If this lot corner reaches the top of the river bluff, protective measures may be in order. I hope that these data are of assistance in your consideration of the proposed undertaking. I have forwarded copies to Dr. Christy noo Caine, State Archaeologist and Earl Sargent of the Minnesota Indian • Jean Johnson Page 2 March 27, 1984 • Affairs Intertribal Board for consideration under the auspices of Minnesota Statute 307.08 for the protection of unplatted burial grounds. Any decisions regarding treatment of this site under the burial laws are, of course,.theirs. I hope the enclosed information aids in the review process. If I may be of any further service, please let me know. • Sincerely, 1 LQReVQ.) Leslie D. Peterson Trunk Highway Archaeologist Minnesota Historical Society LDP:lt cc: Dr. Christy Hohman-Caine c/o Chippewa National Forest // Cass Lake, Minnesota 56633 5 (218) 335-2226 Mr. Earl Sargent Minnesota Indian Affairs Intertribal Board • 1819 Bemidji Avenue • Bemidji, Minnesota 56601 - (ere)1-55- • -to • 0 \'...".7j • _ ! \ a• . it . ��.. . l y • • • • Ft •. �,A !' .. N�.+. t •: .• _4 . ,... s—• • i '' j' is �' ill wJ• ' J.s • ` q• ; •i - i •./., _ - �►' 9•.:4 - A. > J]} -Y/ f a• 0 'a. • • _..' t r 5.. -•+- •^ ' few %�'i I 1► � • �• G • �'3 �.� •: ; 1'i_.�.,•L.•r� ' �., �♦fir\t\\\ z �:it'! •' •� -.f .f,. s..,4:Q• :,,:t<.:: „,••::..:...•.,..;x,..• ;...:1,..:'.1.:... ..•, / I if tJ t'II i:r• ,:1. • 1': !• ti C.O. /.• '' 1/40 1•Y + 1..y '[ • . . •t• �, v) a•te_• V,• ti�,�,t..,..,;`.j• •�.�(+\ ,• -;�, • �. • • :tl !. •;��, '.�� . ,�:•-.i . ,•i � `�.• . j�: is . .. .. . . . • --- — 4. i . • .• • i Line lo.vrallel with Al./he of 5%2 of 6:11/.;?1 of 5.E.. of Sor.29 . t :... ..-200 04--- , • a ' . N.89'43'45"E. a . $.1. • / \413 - Lefte7 0, Driveway :-. i . . /// - Vertical ell.5 lance shouk,' 4 rood to .9 crag e floor.- / // ' - Grade of Driveway Q.0/ / /I / •- Total Area = 148,750 6o. t . . / ,/ .,., t .3.445 Acr- . 11) i / / • -Area excluzive of Road % • / 0 . /. , '5\ • • / ' / ‘ , ; / ,11.°A• `,.- ,r • // // ' k0 0'1 3.207 Act- ".. .. / // ,,,;,/,/ / ...-,r, ..1 7 Drive io be bituminocts . • cra.ohec/ Pock bo.: •4,... . ." / / v",,,to _ d 0, Gra e -areas to be re ...4.,...r-- -,.. ........„,, ........- , •. i ,,,, . ...,-........ ,,,. - z'',/ Fr".‘i y3•C I ' % \ "'. Top of 2:1„.....,4 . .-/, / /,/..A, ' .‘. . .51ope MB -/ ,Pro-ose• 1 ... i ''''.- . . \,•. ,D;., dint< rfz.' '';... 'se i:i__ ,,0 el(• I4 N • .›N / \al j I . . PrO90$ed 124 CUIVerV •// / 1.. • l , s4t, ••••-...,‘ ... ),./.11 :•-4 ,,, .' f / /..1 /"`tV; \ \:.;....,\>...... s\ 1,... \ • Proposed ,../ / / t y/R1,-•Rap, ;....%' ,..1 ?,r,-\\ • Drain reld ..• /. /. ci 1,, / /_/,;‘• C- - V-c7a., • , -. •- . ..,7 •• .,,, / \ ,a14"••... • - • ///. /,/ . ../...! ,O;171/-IT. s.s. • ' . • R=239.15 ": ....._.........,„.7/ - to oy// • • 1,7,ro r = ho.... 7.115. ,/. / t, 1/' \ ‹) L,r- 30•00 .. . ------t • '•• / ' ••.° ••' -6 o(51\ -"-tjr - ;/ koe •• , so .7 (4- •. . ! ' / * 7 • N . '*. . 3: • . --•., •''./. ., -•'?!`— 4, . .. . y, , ;/:..*,,. . ,,...: : 4).4..,,.., • 44 • 4; . • h 4) .• iii • • Q•b •s • . •Si ' . • . • / CI 41 . • ' • 1- Q • . I"—60 ,. , . • c,) 14, 0., • . .‘ . . . ... • • I. .... r... ' • ' • • • tsl 33 •. a -. /-•Rvtoo9.itG ,,,. r:,,i. ) ,'• 1 ' ,,--- f•-•••_=.17C..17.-- "•--..--'•' .1.-Z" ••••, -• ••• ---- • .••,,ry \ )1 1 `/ Lg' l_-t 4 fir\ __:, r. — '., . 3( q '',,,,‘, 1 . 11 t'ly/- 11. , . '0 ' ' 44 1ui 1 'rj,.,_,...„., , , , .„, , , ., ) , op . 't t ' . ilf ' ...:_ , ▪ /;' P fir.,_,_,.:-_,._, 1, 0, J/, . f.O W` I •• k •• f. 1---1 ' ,eso, ', . N 13 m ,l l i t• \s` '1 i' _ ▪ L. \. /�// t z ,., 5 + O r,� V, yr__ -,'j Y N 77.. 4 .. • _ ; rJ .O i 2 - ) ..sirs'-"' i ,}, y jpr • • M l� A V 1 1 r 1% o 1rJ C -`/, O 1i 9 _.�,c` *4. •I m .�� e ,, . ,..!.T.:•:..3.- !(1-,(',1.. -),( c'l r ' ' .i .',;/11 CI . ,.'i•?C, ./ • '),'')4‘,.\.y..\SC_-•••... ,u•. c.-.) , 0 0 • c3" ( 0 : Ir--•d ,•, r�f,y O 441 41+1M '1 • S :: ter, qN. ,v,9 y , d f 1, N •"� -tv„9 ^�,/ �' 1 \�.r •s .o��, A i‘ „is,. 's \•r r, " ^ � ^ March 15, 1984 ` ' . ' � Board of Appeals and Adjustments 8950 ueep prairie Road sdep Prairie, mm sss«x , Dear avnra members: . ^ ' In 1977 z purchased the property on Highway 169 and oaep Prairie Road with the intention of someday building on it. At the time of purchase, z understood that my property was a buildable lot / and that u former owner had obtained u building permit but did not use it, z an aware that since that time there have been zoning nuuoqno. Over,the years my property has.appreciated considerably in ^ / v*lv� z have also paid taxes and maintained this property. \ To take away the usability which z am proposing vvoza take away the value and cause considerable hardship to the owner. 'Taxes and maintenance would be an ongoing burden. At this time z am asking your consideration of this issue and eozmiuoivu to obtain a variance and building permit, Sincerely, David L. Brown 5050 xauitou Road , Tznxa Bay, *w sszzl � Phone *71-1013 ozB'ao ' Reference: Property at lozVo sacn Prairie Road, Eden Prairie. . � /v�1 � � �� MINNUONNA Y NNO NIONWAY rOW \'/ AIDV�.NCE INNot+INO a INOINarNINO CO. 5e051 JOB NUMBER STANDARD S'fMBOLS 9 16 SECITWPIRN „O Denotes 112•ID pipe with Plastic plug r� David Drown CLIENT bearing State Registration No.9235,set. • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 'ip Denotes Iron monument found. See reverse side w» Denotes cross chiseled In concrete surface. '1B2x5"Denotes existing spot elevation measured at the point marked by"u',in this case, 1 9825 tool above mean sea Isvel. 5/9/Be DrainLield information added 7/12/ DATE SURVEYED DATE DRAFTED !982 Sx"Denotes proposed soot elevation at lM SCALE IN FEET PER INCH point marked by"x". »--÷"Denotes proposed direction of storm water PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: none mnr9t • FIRST FLOOR - I . TOP OF FOUNDATION CERTIFICATION GARAGE FLOOR • LOWEST FLOOR t hereby certify that this plan.survey,report SANITARY SEWER or specification was prepared by me and that I ' BENCHMARK ELEVATION - • am a duty Registered Land Surveyor and Pmtas' i maunder the Laws of the State of -:' BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: Minnesota. .2fl�J yw„o/ Rwkor.Minn.Rag.No.,o:. lVrS/me me Ch afSW%I of$£4 or5(c.29,T.„G,R.22 SA%9 er 9.29 el w/•r I =x'.. - ...559.99..• i N.1 4a'9C'W.- N DI ; a Ili Z • \jie We \ \ .' f- \ 1 W \ c 9f,. 4 = \, � 4 ' iT�Cszoy \' r- .. \' 1.... •.�S �6. \j.. `- e \ •,a c Q N o Via\ • `a s \\ , P ‘.4,;2.,,,/ 1",'i l° f'sfrFy S• \ Z ID\~~�• e, nt\Rbtib y•.n � 1 F r a• 3 aa' •'' i N H �,see;';`,,;— Hl ,N4r., o ` L 7\ v e R A D D °t) 4. 1 4. 3 i� o r•D1 '/ l tS i uRr " .9ti :rzi Qb�N /�\ Ja6R " r 4 E i I DO u •uy i :;o�'aoa Gbt< e, p I. us A t)4),tN 4 1,(r 'i t `` . N n b IN 3.o n;o to ' Q ,�, d i 1 Q T V 0'� l' N e 4 FIRST FLOOR •v TOP OF FOUNDATION CERTIFICATION GARAGE FLOOR LOWEST FLOOR I hereby certify that this plan,survey,report ____ __SANITARY SEWER or specification was prepared by me and that I _BENCHMARK ELEVATION am.a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Proles- slonai Engineer under the Laws of the State o tIPTION: Minnesota. 1,1A.o. Ja es H.Parker,Minn.Reg. No.923' • • t o 0 Ny c2 myy; iL .4o zo xa. 0 1 ' •f/L y4}1j1 rf'k m pnxw ,-6it i P ny$3.il M 1t /, yl' 4 A A n :I %'N 1 i.lit, ;; t 1 5m i A f {i y+� r �' i {err h{ rr � _ 9 n ir i if t�tt r' ' O Z Nr Es �,•S �111..it -,z; ' w n ,k-lk:t%: /11-::::::;:-'--":1,1' . - D ou m a a b ---t4 ' r .E n . r 5 • • rf !t-) i • 1 •1,` !. a •. q .,(i�� ,' . 1%. .: , • f J 1.• 1' 'LL 1 014 v 1 r e t1 r r' ` • _i-. 1 . + 1 '•, N,LZ:- i . :'e t Jµ. _t.?1-77 ^ 1. . .,, '� _, ! wI 5i I_.Ii.... '1 :.....r.+. ....a�Mru.. (• .. ,1117' I• l.. �i1,1• ••; 1 ;Ililiil1 _..y. "'0 1 I II ! 11 ,;t�(11(1ir 1'j'r1,. ,1' Vili!..1 .:I1l.,.l. . . .. .L.!=~ ___ .. ..__^— -- s kHd lo,Ny Ito tt.o.to rh 041.141 Wua 1.4} ^ 1 • l( S • • .,_, ..-.-_,..-__-••-1-.�.T,—,-- -:<-• ---••._MAR"_.. .'77 i.: . ` . . '•'n•' t••,••• . •;•.(... ..y.T,•'K1-'�•'�^_'.'R-' ' _. . . .....-- • . .;7•1<ip4-74:,./41".°,/,•P ‘, . _.4-r- -›--„, ,--- . . • • •.•• / -•••• AISSIO . ' Y','":%--1- '•'(/ : •2 0 0_, :,,-...\::: . Top of 2:!...,,,_.,.( ... /2 ei /_..., A ,„ ,..,--- .•,,, ,., - 4... .7 -,- `N.,.....• • Slope . _?...4.:‹ 7°,P7 0 t ••,:•,„ . Ao - ..: , • ,\ /' 31`' I%in-g 0 ,i, 0 IA • •sn,z, . A e / • • -..- % ... . pc,opo•$.4 la. cuive, • r- Ii- •-x /tn' .,i . , / • ‘ ,., . 'Ns • -Th liouse Shifted elioratEn' // I SERTIC TANK IS Nt . . -.-, OEM_ i \ V)- ........4\\, e. .- /R?7RAr .;*\ 4\ .\ • % .1 PROPOSED DRAIN Fp. 7 Ixt.u4.5 - i A A s '' .• '. Turnaround 0,: k.I.,s, 0 ,, ' • ... / Approximately t •--_, ,• N•-... i , 4-:C/... — NIT Tot 2 ' ....„. 10' By 20' '' C` . ,,q I • '----. .)1Y"%1C,- V V, /V---\'. . ' • PLAN 1 1% 120 1 1, • 1 - - 10.4% c, 4, 110 . > • tU •-•• 1.2.1 1% 1010 -- ''..."1111 0+30 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+25 2+50 . t • Station PROFILE . ............m Immo, j "e• vi 41 1 • DAVID BROWN .-0... EDEN PRAIRIE •Ati, 1 PLAN AND PROFILE FOR NONE SITE I PROPOSED DRIVEWAY BENSI1001:AND ASSOCIATES / iiir • • r SIGHT DISTANCE TO LEFT , - • Available - 360 Feet MnDOT Standard - 340 Feet ITE Standard - 250 Feet • / o a 0 ce w c 1' a itIN 4c c w SIGHT DISTANCE TO RIGHT Available - 325 Feet 1 . MnDOT Standard - 285 Feet ITE Standard - 195 Feet 1 MnDOT Standard - Minnesota Department Of 1 • -Transportation, Road Design Manual 1982. iTE"Standard - Guidelines For Driveway Design —7iif tocaTon, Institute Of Transportation Engineers 1974. ' Methodology. Utilized - 25 Miles Per Hour Road '. Tpeed. HeTght1lf Grivcrs Eye 3.5 Feet, 10 Feet Rack From Roadway. Height Of Viewed Object Is 4 feet. :,. T.H. 169 i I. 1 DAVID BROWN • EDEN PRAIRIE SIGHT DISTANCES AT ' l HOME SITE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY OENSI IOOF AND ASSOCIATES ' ,rrM\•��I,I.r,l AnN�r.��,rvillM,:r.flNi,At,:,W�fA 1AN1ti '(�j ] • MEMORANDUM • T0: Mayor and City Council 11rRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: August 23, 1984 • SUBJECT: Proposed Lake Riley Improvement Project • In June of 1984, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency suggested to the Riley/ Purgatory Creek Watershed District that the District might wish to consider the possibility of a biomanipulation program for Lake Riley. It was noted that there might be federal funding available through the Clean Water Act for this project. The Board of Managers of the District did not take any formal action on the request and felt that this information should be brought to the attention of the City of Chanhassen and the City of Eden Prairie. • A preliminary study costing approximately $15,000 would be necessary to prepare applications to be submitted to the Federal Government in conjunction with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for funding of a biomanipulation program under the Clean Water Act. Possible overall costs of this project exclusive of the initial preparatory work would range anywhere from $75,000 to $150,000. Federal funding is based on 50/50 fi cost sharing. The Watershed District staff has recommended to the Managers of the District that 'the District fund $5,000 of the study; Eden Prairie and Chanhassen each fund $5,000 to cover the cost of the preliminary work. Identical funding proposals could then be submitted to the Federal Government on a 50/50 basis with the three local sponsor- ing agencies to share equally at 50°a of the total cost of the program. Biomanipulation is the process the City went through on Round Lake. This process worked extremely well to clean up the algae problem at Round Lake; however, Round Lake is much smaller than Riley Lake and does not have a creek running into and out of the lake. The Lake Riley project poses many questions on how successful the biomanipulation of one lake at the end of a chain of lakes would be without improving the lakes upsteam. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended approval of the $5,000 to prepare the preliminary study; however, the Commission suggested that perhaps another review of the final cost of the project should be anaylzed depending on how much work is required upstream in the City of Chanhassen. BL:md • . • , M.,,� AUG•� 1984 .. C Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed' District rt 8950 EDEN PRAIRIE RD .., • EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344 • August. 8, 1984 • Mr. Carl J. Jullie City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Carl: k' Please find enclosed for your information correspondence recently received by the Watershed District from the City of Chanhassen pertaining to the proposed biomanipulation project for Lake Riley. The managers have asked that the City of Eden Prairie advise me what interests it might have in participating in this project. If possible, I would appreciate.hearing from you before September 5, 1984 in order that I may advise the managers accordingly at their regular meeting in September. Please call if you have any questions regarding the Watershed District's consideration of this proposed project. Very truly yours, _ Ni2"// . Frederick S. Richards Attorney for the District FSR/ts Enclosure 4225s • J i '3 • C1TY ® F k:1-114.7 iro � C 690 COULTER DRIVE•P.O.BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317. \tt...e (612)937-1900 July 24, 1984 Mr. Frederick Richards, Attorney Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • Dear Mr. Richards: On July 23rd the Chanhassen City Council reviewed the concept of *, biomanipulation of Lake Riley as noted in your letter of June 21 and more specifically in your memo of May 15. Because the ( Council is aware of and concerned about the lake quality of Lake Riley, they were very receptive to the proposal. The "preliminary work" referred to in your memo is actually viewed by the City as a feasibility study that would include com- pilation of old and new lake data, recommendation of a management .prggram and an estimate of implementation costs. This study would represent a useful tool to the City even if the implemen- tation never occurs. With this in mind, the City of Chanhassen is prepared to pledge • up to $5,000 for the preparation of this report under the terms of joint participation outlined in your memo to the District of May 15. Please keep me apprised of the Watershed District's action concerning this matter and whether an agreement on the financial participation of all parties is workable as shown. Should you have any questions concerning Chanhassen's position in this matter, please let me know. Sincerely, William Monk City Engineer WM:k • • Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed .District ---0)4 'A 8950 EDEN PRAIRIE RD. ,,,-„", • EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 55344 June 21, 1984 Carl Jullie, City Manager Don Ashworth, City Manager City of Eden Prairie City of Chanhassen 8950 Eden Prairie Road 690 Coulter Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Carl and Don: At the last meeting of the Board of Managers of the Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District, the managers discussed the inquiry made to the Board about the possibility of a biomanipula- tion program for Lake Riley. This inquiry was initiated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, noting that federal funds through the Clean Water Act might be available for undertaking this project. In that regard, I am enclosing my memorandum submitted to the Board of Managers of the District outlining the basis upon which that progrm was suggested by representatives of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Board, at its June 6th meeting, did not take any formal action on this request. Rather, the managers felt that this information should be brought to the attention of each municipality wherein Lake Riley is situated to ascertain whether or not these municipalities might have an interest in this program and, if so, upon what basis--both financially and in participating in the sponsorship of the program. If your city does have any interest, I would appreciate your comments in order that I might submit these to the managers at the July meeting of the Board of Managers. I look forward to hearing from each of you. Very truly yours, Frederick S. Richards Attorney for the District FSR/dpd Enclosure cc: Board of Managers Mr. Robert Obermeyer 1 r' r MEMORANDUM TO: Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District Board of Managers . FROM: FSRichards H. DATE: May 15, 1984 RE: Lake Riley Improvement Project It has been proposed that the watershed district consider '' making application to the federal government through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for funding of a project involving Lake Riley. Generally, the project as suggested by representatives of i the PCA would be a biomanipulation program. This program basically " 4' is one that is similar to one that has been done in Hyland Lake in ' 1 the city of Bloomington. It would deal with the situation of fish . in Lake Riley and would necessitate control of rough fish and A. restocking of the lake with game fish. H. The program would require preliminary work to be done by local sponsoring agencies. This would be at a cost of anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000. Once this preliminary work were done, f; funding would be applied for under the Clean Water Funding : 4 sponsored by the federal government. Possible overall costs of 'the project exclusive of initial preparatory work would range anywhere from $75,000 to $150,000. Federal funding is based upon a 50/50 cost sharing. "¢ The watershed district staff has reviewed these proposals and would suggest to the managers that the District fund the first $5,000 of the preliminary study with a request made to the cities 1 of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie to share on an equal 50/50 basis the cost between $5,000 and $15,000. The watershed district could then agree to pick up any costs in excess of $15,000. a. Identical funding proposals could then be submitted to the r. federal government on a 50/50 basis with the three local sponsoring agencies to share equally at 50% of the cost for the program. ' • The best information to date indicates that completion of the prelimimary analysis of this program with an application submitted by November, 1984 would have it considered for funding iE62 -2- during 1985. There might be upwards of $2 million to $2.5 million for the fiscal year 1985 funding. However, the initial application must be submitted by November of 1984 to qualify for this 1985 funding. A final consideration for the managers to consider in reviewing this program would be the possibility of requesting the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to provide at no cost to either local sponsoring agencies or federal funding agencies the game fish to stock Lake Riley once the rough fish are controlled as part of this overall project program. FSR/dpd/1979q `l�' t 1 0i June 6, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Obermeyer also reported that he had contacted the city of Minnetonka about the status of apparent discarding of refuse in the are of West 62nd Street in the cities of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. The District's engineer reported that Minnetonka is presently undertaking a clean-up of this area in order to properly dispose of refuse materials illegally deposited in this area. C-7---7-------- . • Lake Rilty - Proposed Project Messrs. Richards and Obermeyer reported that they had received inquiries from representatives from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency inquiring whether or not the District may have an interest in participating in a biomanipulation program for Lake Riley. The District's staff informed the managers that preliminary studies costing up to $15,000 would be necessary to prepare applications to be submitted to the federal government in conjunction with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for funding of a biomanipulation program under the Clean Water Act. General discussion following during which the managers expressed a number of reservations about participation in this program without full municipal approval and cooperation. Some managers likewise expressed a concern about how proposals such as this have been initiated by persons other than local sponsoring agencies or homeowners associations surrounding the lake. Another concern expressed by the managers was the apparent expenditure of these federal funds given the current deficits of the federal government. Other viewpoints expressed by the managers noted that Lake Riley has been and continues to be a great concern to a number of local residents pertaining to its fish population and the extensive use of this lake by the public. Mr. Obermeyer commented that the . Metropolitan Council had undertaken extensive studies on Lake Riley and has suggested through these reports the need to undertake further programs to insure future public use of Lake Riley. Following a thorough discussion on this proposed program, the managers commented about the need to advise the cities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen about the inquiry from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding the possibility of participation in a .fish restocking plan such as was undertaken in Hyland Lake in the city of Bloomington. Following recognition by the managers to bring this matter to the attention of these municipalities, it was moved by Fiskness, seconded by Peterson, that the District advise these municipalities of this inquiry in order to ascertain whether or not these municipalities may have any level of interest in pursuing this proposed program further and, if so, upon what basis those municipalities may wish to work with the watershed district in a program of this type. Upon vote the motion carried. , • June 6, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Rahr arrived at the meeting at this point. 1983 Audit ReQort The managers continued their review of the District's 1983 audit report. They did note that the reference to the Minnesota Watershed Resources Board should be to its executive director rather than Mr. Wyberg inasmuch as Mr. Mel Sinn now serves in that capacity for the Water Resources Board. Following review of that audit report noting the need to distribute it as required by law, it was moved by Fiskness, seconded by Cardinal, that that report be accepted as submitted and distributed as required by the Minnesota Watershed Act. Upon vote the motion carried. 509 Surface Water Management and Planning The managers discussed current' 509 surface water planning activities. Mr. Sault commented that the Minnesota Water Resource Board appears to be prepared to act shortly on the request for expansion of this watershed district to include the Bluff Creek watershed. The managers noted that there appears nothing further to be done by the Board at this time other than to await an order of the Minnesota Water Resources Board on this particular matter. The managers discussed the matters to be dealt with at the special meeting to be scheduled in July. These included various policy statements regarding erosion control measures, sedimentation basin maintenance, dredging policies and weed harvesting proposals. Following discussion on these subjects, the staff was instructed to prepare for this special meeting. Mr. Peterson commented that he continues to attend regional meetings of 509 planning groups to coordinate metropolitan area watershed district activities on surface water management planning. Scheduling of. Regular and Special Meetings Noting that the next regularly scheduled meeting will occur on a holiday, it was moved by Fiskness, seconded by Rahr, that the next regular meeting of the Board of Managers for this District be rescheduled to be held on July 5, 1984. Upon vote the motion carried. Thereafter, noting the need to hold a special meeting on surface water management planning, it was moved by Cardinal, seconded by Fiskness, that a special meeting be scheduled for July . 17, 1984. Upon vote the motion carried. Chairman Sault noted that both of these meetings for July will be held in the Eden Prairie School Administrative Offices as this location continues to serve as the official meeting place for the watershed district. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST August 28, 1984 CONTRACTOR MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) GAS FITTER rt Descon Associates, Inc. Abel Heating, Inc. C. 0. Held Company D & D Electric, Inc. ' Future Building Systems; Inc. Giesen Construction, Inc. Hoyt Construction Co., Inc. HEATING & VENTILATING MTS Systems Corporation New Designs Abel Heating, Inc. Morcon Construction, Inc. All Season Comfort, Inc. C. H. Robinson Company D & D Electric, Inc. J. 8. Swedenborg Construction Kumar Mechanical, Inc. Sam P. Wallace Company • CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILYj KENNEL LICENSE Erdmann Companies, Inc. Dennis Kopfmann Darrel & Sally Olson (see attached) Ordeen Splittstoser Const. ( Triple R Construction ;.. SOLICITOR • PLUMBING Janet Barrett Jeremiah (landscaping) Austin Diversified Products Conner Plumbing (Multi-Purpose Cleaner) •Plumbing Service Center (six solicitors) Star Plumbing S teinkraus Plumbing Walsh Plumbing WATER SOFTNER Surge Soft Water These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the license activity. Ok.1u Pat Solie, Licensing • TO: Mayor and Council FRDM: Pat Solie DATE: August 23, 1984 RE: Kennel license for Darrel & Sally Olson of 156D8 Park Terrace Dr. The Olsons are requesting permission for a kennel license on their property which is less than an acre. Letters have been sent to their surrounding neighbors, animal control has had no complaints and the Olsons have been told they cannot replace a dog should it die. I have received three phone calls from various neighbors in response to my letters. They are unhappy with the dog situation at the Olson's, and have been advised to attend the council meeting or write a letter voicing their concerns. • ill r � • August 22, 1984 Pat Solie Licensing Clerk City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Kennel license for Darrell and Sally Olson Dear Ms. Solie, I will be unable to attend the council meeting on Tuesday, August 28th. Would you please read this letter into the minutes of the meeting. If a kennel license will keep the Olson's dogs on their property, then I am for it. Their tan dog has spread my garbage (awaiting pickup) across my yard several times. It is not a pleasant experience to have to pick up almost week old garbage first thing in the morning; not pleasant at all. If their having a kennel license means that the dogs are going to bark all the time then I am against it. I enjoy the summer breezes and keep my windows open • most days and nights. Dogs barking mean that an enjoyable summer evening gets ruined. So I am both for it, and against it. Regardless of the council's decision, I hope the Olson's will consider these two problems in keeping our neighborhood beautiful, clean and quiet. • Si ely, ruce C. Perkins 15633 Park Terrace Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 I 23 August 1984 15625 Park Terrace Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • To: Eden Prairie City Council Dear Council Members, Concerning Darrel and Sally Olson's application for a Private Kennel License, we wish to recommend that you NOT issue a license for the following reasons: A. The proven inability of the Olsons to contain their dogs within their yard. B. The nuisance created by the Olson's dogs spilling waste cans in the neighborhood. C. The frequent extended barking for no apparent reason by the Olson's dogs. Therefore, we feel that issueing a Private Kennel License to the Olsons would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood. Res ectfully yo�aa{s, / - cd.Cu41, Dwight and Nancy Dolliver r,, 3 j : �