Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 07/06/1976
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Billy Bye, Sidney Pauly, Joan Meyers and Tim Pierce • COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney • Harlan Perbix; Planner Oick Putnam; Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services Marty Jessen; Engineer Carl Jullie; Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS. II. MINUTES A. Minutes of the Joint City Council/School Board Meeting held Tuesday, Page 2625 June 15, 1976. B. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 22, 1976. Page 2649 ,/ .. PUBLIC HEARINGS • A. East/West Parkway Apartments, The Preserve request to rezone Page 2658 approximately 9 acre site to RM 2.5 for 129 rental apartments. The site is West of The Preserve Center on the East/West Parkway. (continued from 6/22/76). B. I. C. 51-291, Proposed bituminous paving on Birch Island Road from Page 2668 County Road 67 to 1/4 mile south thereof. (Resolution No. 1152) • IV. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 319, rezoning from RM 6.5 to RI-13.5, Page 2669 Edenvale 11th, for approximately 22 lots on 6 acres, and final plat approval. (Resolution No. 1153) B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 315, rezoning the Minnesota Protective Page 2673 Life approximately 5.9 acre site from existing zoning to Office District. (continued from 6/22/76) C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 317, approving the rezoning to C-Regional Page 2675 Service for 4 auto dealerships and public areas for Condon/Naegele Realty. (continued from 6/1/76) • 0. Resolution No. 1157, granting approval for Municipal Industrial Revenue Page 2691 ( Bonds for Minnesota Protective Life. Council Agenda - 2 - Tuesday, July 6, 1976 f '. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Communication from Jerry Carnes concerning purchase of land at Page 2697 Bryant Lake. (Communication dated June 8, 1976) VI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members. B. Report of City Manager. C. Report of Director of Community Services 1. 1977 LAWCON Grant Program. Page 2696 2. Proposed purchase of the Michael Zylka property at Page 2699 Staring Lake. 3. Specifications for the Bikeway/Hikeway on County Road 4. D. Report of City Engineer 1. Final plat approval for Red Rock Hills 2nd Addition. Page 2701 (Resolution No. 1154) 2. Receive petition letter from Rauenborst Corp. regarding the Pane 2704 OPUS II project. 3. Resolution vacating temporary construction easement described 6eln° Page 2705 under easement #11 (9230) 13, I.C. 51-261. (Resolution No. 1155) 4. Receive petition for sewer and water service connection at Page 2709 15209 Scenic Heights Road (Resolution No. 1156) 5. Status report: Ray Welter, Jr., for a permit pursuant to Page 2713 the Floodplain Ordinance. E. Report of Finance Director 1. Steelman House Bid Page 2717 2. Clerk's License List. Page 2716 VII. NEW BUSINESS VII I. ADJOURNMENT. Unapproved JOINT COUNCIL AND SCHOOL BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Wolf Penzel, Joan Meyers, Tim Pierce, School Board Chairman Paul Enblom, Betty Anderson, Geneva Middleton, Al Upton, Loren Irvine, Charles Komschlies • STAFF PRESENT: Superintendent Robert Fallon, Paul Schee, Merle Gamm, City Manager, Roger Ulstad, Marty Jessen I. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Penzel. II. As moved Meyers seconded Anderson that the agenda be accepted as published. Motion carried unanimously. III. Forest Hills Landscaping. Dr. Fallon reported that Bob Coppess had • appeared at a recent School Board Meeting to discuss his concern about the birm to be constructed in front of the parking lot at the school. Inasmuch as the birm was actually on property jointly used by the City and the District, and the City has assumed responsibility for construction and maintenance, Dr. Fallon felt this matter should be brought before the joint group. • Jessen said that the original site plan anticiapted a birm of greater height then had actuallybeen constructed. He talked to Mr. Coppess a couple of years ago and some improvements have been made and was under the opinion that Mr. Coppess was satisfied with the birm as constructed. He • also indicated that he, Chris Enger, Bob Hallett, and Ray Mitchell had met to discuss improvements necessary for Forest Hills this summer including landscaping in this area. it was agreed that this was saitifectory information about this item and that the City Staff would take care of the problem with Mr. Coppers. IV. Overview of School District Needs & Plans. Dr. Fallon presented • information projecting enrollment in Elementary, Middle and Senior High School age brackets and the critical points at which new school are needed over the next ten years or so (see attachments). He also discussed the concept of a High School Campus at the Round Lake site beginning with one core school and sports facilities and adding • ultimatley three additional student cores. Dr. Fallon explained how this concept fits Into the current school capital improvement programming for a $10 million Bond Issue to start the High School at the Round Lake site, , r !D -2- Minutes-Joint Council and School Board Tuesday, June 15/76 improve Central Middle School and make a cape:ity improvement to Prairie View Elementary School. No action was taken on this item as it was for informational purposes only. V. Valley View Road thru Round Lake Site. Jessen presented information relative to the cost of three options reviewed by the staffs of the District and the City as well as summary statements as to the feeling of each of the staff (see attachments). General discussion took place and questions were answered regarding the cost estimates and provision for underpasses or overpasses on any of the routes, etc. Jessen indicated that non of the cost estimates given included a grade separated crossing with the railroad tracks "rest of the park; that there was an opportunity for underpasses or overpasses in the cost given at $83-$100 per lineal foot but that no specific information had been developed at this point; and that there was a need for underpasses or overpasses to link the severed parcels no matter where the alignment took place so as to provide safe access to the area from the Co. Road 4 bikeway or to and from facilities on either side of the road. The City Council suggested that the staff develop a specific recommendation of cost for the road and related structures such as overpasses and underpasses so that the Council could make a recommendation as to the alignment and design preferred and then review it with the School Board at a subsequent joint meeting of July 20th. VI. Jessen presented information as to the community use of the swimming pool • including projected capacity needed, community use, sport facilities necessary, etc. (see attachments) Ray Keller, School Board Architect presented cost options for the different kinds of pools and structures considered including: 1. Standard school tank 2. Standard school tank with community use 3. Standard school tank with wading pool and diving pool 4. Olymic pool 5. Standard construction type or geodesic dome construction type Jessen then spoke to his viewpoint of other community facilities that ought to be included in the community center and the importance of orienting the pool as the first part of this community center toward the park use as opposed to in internal erientation toward the school. He then reported on options for • a joint venture and suggested that he and the School District staff felt that "Apple Valley model" might be a reasonable approach to follow wherein the -3.. Minutes-Joint Council and School Board Tuesday, June 15/76 School District and City shared the cost of construction with the City to operate and maintain it because of more flexibility provided as far as charging of fees, etc. It was agreed that this matter would be discussed more fully with the building committee of the School District and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission of the City so that a firm recommendation could be forthcoming • shortly. • VII. Report on Communicatin with Moody s Investor Representative. Ulstad repor ted that they were unable to conduct a complete tour as planned because of time problems encountered by Jackson Phillips, the Mooly's • Investor Representative. Mr. Phillips had to return to New York early because of a pending law suit in the case of New York City's Bonding Program. Mr. Phillips was given information concerning Eden Prairie and it's growth and a quick airplane tour of the community showing new development activity as well as the landscape of the community. Dr. Fallon said that he felt Mr. Phillips indicated that per capital debt is not as important a constraint as had previously been indicated, and that he felt rather optimistic about the City's and School Districts bonding capacity. VIII. The next meeting_. it was agreed that the next joint meeting of the Council and School Board would occur on Tuesday, July 20, 3976 at a location to be determined by the School Board. IX. Adjournment Moved Pierce, seconded Irvine that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA Joint Meeting of: Eden Prairie City Council Eden Prairie School Board Tuesday, June 15, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL I. Call to Order II. Approval of Agenda ' III. Forest Hills Landscaping • IV. Overview of School District Needs & Plans V. Valley View Road thru Round Lake Site VI. Swimming Pool A. Design & Construction B. Operations and Maintenance VII. Report on Communication with Moody's Investors Representatives . J7S • pe.et day,..... /� �� p Oc>. C'.1i19/ y� 4 /74e-f-- / June 15, 1976 THE NEEDS A. There'are two major need areas: (1) Central Middle School cannot serve Its present 653 students • because: (a) The portable classrooms should be phased out as soon as possible. They were not meant to be "permanent" facilities. They do not meet code provisions for modern permanent facilities. Recommendations to eliminate the portable classrooms have been strongly made by two citizen committees and staff working in Central. These facilities do not have adequate space nor is their heat-ventilation control adequate. (b) There are space shortages and limitations: science, gymnasium, home economics, music--vocal and Instrumental (plus very poor ventilation and heat control) and the absence of an auditorium. PRESENT NEED = LEARNING FACILITIES FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL (2) The projected elementary school population will completely saturate the two existing schools in the fall of 1978 if we continue to grow at 7% per year (which is a conservative projection and founded upon the growth experience of the past three years). This Is based upon the population projections and the accompanying analysis: • (a) Prairie View Learning spaces are not available in Prairie View for the "special programs" of art, music, reading (Snoopy's Doghouse), or special education. The last three of these presently occupy four re ular classrooms. With the addition of Art to the program, five regular classrooms will he so utilized, leaving a total of 19 classrooms 10 serve a student population of 475 to 570 in grades 1-5, depending upon whether there are 25 or 30 children in each of the 19 classrooms. There are also two kindergarten rooms which could serve another 100 children. Realistically, Prairie View can serve about 620 children in K-5 undo• lee above circumstances...which includes the dual use of the cafeteria-gym fediIity. Page 2 Prairie Views current population is 510 with 95 children in kindergarten, Thus, it can take 98 more children before reaching maximum capacity in grades 1-5 and five more children before reaching capacity in kindergarten. • (b) Forest Hills To provide a total district elementary population perspective, Forest Hills will also be presented in this same matrix. Forest Hills has 24 regular classrooms in addition to separate rooms for art, music, special education, gym, cafeteria, and instrumental music, They also have three rooms for kinder- garten, Using the same basic standards as for Prairie View above, we find that the 24 classrooms can serve a total population of 600 to 720, in grades 1-5, depending upon whether there are 25 or 30 students in the classes, The three kinder- garten rooms can serve another 150 children. Realistically, Forest Hills can serve about 798 children. Forest Hillsr current population is 663, which includes 121 in kindergarten, Thus, it can take 106 more children before reaching maximum capacity in grades I-5 and 29 more children before reaching capacity in kindergarten. Cc) Total District Elementary Schools A composite view of the district shows that we can take 204 more children in grades 1-5 and 24 more children in kinder- garten before reaching MAXIMUM CAPACITY. This means that we reach capacity after we grow 21%. The elementary schools have been growing at approximately 7-10% per year, If this moderate rate continues, we have reached capacity in 1978 (fall classes), I. 1978 NEED: LEARNING FACILITIES FOR ELEMENTARY PUPILS I. B. There are other need ares: (1) The school district administration is presently scattered throughout the high school building and Forest Hills Elementary. These offices are generally located in areas that could be used for additional student learning areas. • 2630 a a Q � it a VI g r1:1\-). e((:/,\.f3q „,....4 ___ ii \,.‘ ,0„... ,ov w° A , vt,k 1 1.- T. - vk z i , 1 lys, VI Ni ig It ....., n .... rr J ''� , \ „.., ____, , .-f\'\,,,,„<, \\%\k:' ,.. , /..,, 9.43 3 A a d . a L re '' t j' T.P_I IlHir- i _i‘ ,-- Li__ i I _� I 1 a I 1 ► �.! i >,�-. 1 i �. 1 VP 4iI 4u f 1! I °Ack I 1 4 CO CO ;7it'------r*r.411 !I ____L 1 r. 1 I t. t , , I r rLai I I �°=� s o ( q �'S ii j 1 -4 y. 1— — . TY 1 Z ii f 2u d I i I _02 ,11 11 ' il 1 . • i \ i t Ns L , 43_ . 1 , ! ti. 1 i , , -.: , \ i .,-4. , ii-L, . m_____49.. , r.1._ . p,: _Li t , , , , ____ „:4i,s, I . ... 1,11-111 • Myw v( I ' _to .. — V 4- 161 I- LH. + ;z Jv In ! j21.6 • r p.-• l I ° ' 1 1 I I I 1*r Mk t ' 1 a Fi _ 1 8 a 2 a O pp P 41 N p N CoN 0 t.tr y Cross,&1t,dod yra3anl� is The School Staff favors the South Route for the following reasons: • I. Provides maximum usable space for School/Park users. 2. Permits free flow of School/Park users from one activity/facility to another. The City Staff favors the Direct Route for the following reasons: I. Shortest/least cost. 2. Opportunity for "connection" between activities North & South of the road can still occur using "bridges" above or below the road. 3. Provides best continuity for Valley View Road as East/West Collector Street to relieve traffic on Duck Lake Trail and provide alternative to Highway 5. • 2G3) • VALLEY VIEW ROAD OPTIONS Route Distance (lineal feet) Cost Estimate 83-100 ft. Direct 3,750 $311,250 - 375,000 • North 4,750 $394,250 - 475,000 South 5,3,00 $439,900 - 530,000 • COST SHARING Route Schooll City Direct $105,000 $206,250 - 270,000 North $133,000 $261,250 - 342,000 • South $148,400 $291,500 -'381,600 lAssumes $28/ft. assessment to School even though South Route road is all one City land and North Route road is all on School land. • • • • • • • • • • • aVju 4.: O r. 'I d, O ~ N • O14 a° O 1• p i. O O Co CD CD ..+ O .y O p C0 O C.N 'p 0 co 0 m 'a 01 m O N m h Tr OD . E it I `1 ^ • > IIiI n n LO O X XO CVO co • 101 Otll al O N • 00{l0 '�` {f� 101ONN NOHH• I II too W co co X X X ;a in U. to co Y 04 0 .Li Y m x w 0 • a 0 a) E N �' N 0 0) ti h O 00 O .^9j h A r+ `O h C' •Cf 711 ry .-y j� r"l0 .-. N • . ZU II N Hv. OD "� X X O Li" o co co W r. F U . . A: a a o U O ,04 a 'SUM,I- ' -: CPI{Cti 1 : Cy n1PIC tom! 6t9. t' l ; P. J11 : ,260 ih V0,37741 ✓ yo )ge: I, I2, coo Fp , /59,15ca Fry trs1'. cosy: .0 t 851 TO 2.24 Pi1LUCi).).cl4'lot 2(3 MIWCA3 nieN. ti, (Co 4 ,344* - saum : 6.11, n'i7 OT3 2P2,8eo41'3 esr c C: $1.16 TO t.i 1✓11uao: 41.pi Iv 1. Mn..uov `i•!;.'-le ,-7/)/7 .-5 -'4,i7:F/'/\c (e v.k ) ;:`_"" i 15,goo A0 vowaia: 224 Oco Fri E:j. Cowl" : 756,16) To O eb7l•Jco mum 6' 6`5T CCSr' 4 ,9Qo W 47I0)800 C i1C.3-) i . qD. ••t.-ram! =�A`L('+��/CC�L',+. y.4// OiT�') '' j• . AP7 : 1'1 j eoo 41. vcwM .: 182,clo eq. C;6 : 4qaoyero 161,Lo'!, • I.4t 1IN,-N'Y: J;ti!MPI(0 PCOL 6TUPT z 8ce : CeTis-1.=-'r. I ....., ..........._. : rivirt',7 -1-.P.4-f4- : '1;2492 •-•4!) 67,,, ,,tvre O. :t.if,JAnvz5g...t.cogz sb• 4 ) CIPAcfrff.c,) fo 47/z--?2.r.c0.= I."-.1:,5 I.. % 61'..2.1.- 1 6c4ri(e2, I'!..1 1.,..-!).5 i) I I C? Tft.:7 Ai,•:5; .9.1 ;4;1 1 1,) ' l;'?::, 7‘''.f:•,.*Ift '1.'''''• ,7;. '':'. ..i k. '',.)‘f.1 t'- ;" czi-,-;S: , ,... , 1.1• 4:1.-f-t M iti,LPS4: it r-411,1fZtp....fr, B , • r....rt. .. teio 1 . . -I-3, , 75 ze4 / i ; t, ,1 0"lii,:,70 t i I 1 "- I ' ( '-•- ' 1 ' i C.:,=) 1;:t.,f,) I., ,,,,, I I•'.# 1 i I I i 1 1. 01)1f0/.., /163/1 1, c.priz-s-i I : I Zoo r:a W, C1;11.5 1. 1"; 6109 f.1 ip t-114-1 ceo ".3&) -:;)-1(1 it 1/01-()IP5' 6/.0 C4 ., 51.co 1,7641)4co 7.10/5,,&CO • N, •••,, ; aeyst ciito 7ao 0,(00 • 4"-se'31.-^,a".4i'll, 174V1H4'ilisiL . 1)1Z ?et.' ::..1„ 0ITs'( )... to OW.M.,:.:L) '-:: Igo 1,1",01-.1124- '07.'CL: te--1...`:n J ccrry (;) (6 - I 6.1•r.s.,..,0 ,,,;.; r-..::::-... ii,,...i.::...-,...1. : 1, -5;,.,,,,.. 1.,! 0.4.......c.1-60(?) i5.3 il/FRzWit)= ,,,,,t1.. i t”:"._,..) ,:-.‘,1 r,,,,,,• i ...-.7-'.iho t; . I 1 f:::....s— •,.,....4..1. . i , I i 6:.,• ,:.)r.,-,t..--..,.iti..-..: t-kv.::::, ,f-tr..:Ak) .4..1 I--iai. "-T, rilt.F.::,;::::..-::0.S. 'Fr. 1 1 I ture,...emercu..,-..ax-w-• •..-..... "''`'''''' ' I • ; 1J TO ..---N f.111',-.--o VT.' 1, it3, l t3z . _ ...,,,...„. , ,..,1..I' • 4 1.) 1.e.si; 11-, 4 I if 4,1-.1..0 I 't ! . i . [ ,P.4,31 6 , •oxol L- cppo.o 2 A fl+Jiro 'r 'G: t,2w f v009' lei✓ - &Pco ! : !.2 E,"C�26k: 11s&o 4 To/AL A /I,3(a 0 [ 'P&L. 153.DG;', vouzil8; ebb 00 flMA rg-sr r?� .r : i8,50- 1 OsT1m ccsT: I,636-,tloo - i 500 • w VpcOr. NI-1,0,: 103154 o - !.-1)7S 0 T01� , 539, 10 5;4 4P0 Eal-Dl:Uko; ac4O 41. ►D (z2L o=ftcU 1 : 81 E. ��IM Mfr11r1(/tivi .3.&V r° eP+: WO 4 191,-,+ Vo! ME: Six 111 cycco to,f 'Moo tP . Co-t : lS.50 rc `161.co R ;. r^r: ,")(73,c To 4hg3)cco • CQ�tj1:t�: 6-S, Ta 14,500 TVTpL c..T.r 1;t4 �. :O7as,`CEO P4'67)500 Opird t. : (,L6-►tic TA*. • Amu A: 6351 VW/ I I, G-f-✓.�AMA ‘,4ru'.5o '10 457.00 56:.,qco Tr) t 9,boo Fre�'= 61,,coo -to /01,ob0 7l71. c ra jl),' "ram ; i &o4,i;bo ept-Iw-PAG.- 1,!cof, : 4 ; (tiM CCMMVv (e) 0-co .i PEA i i L c� -'cam atiA40,w17-f w/M . I71600 roir-L. PPM -'] csr r;'NWE: 18.S0 -ro 51.co/r EST. cc : u 86o,ca 7>7.:c9f3,cco F:.aPij?Na: 89,000 TO q3,8Gb MN. &Fr M-pM : i q o,xo f4i,o?eoo • —."_." NOTE, 25 yards is the minimum Pivot,for American Drawing be: .:n 7'lanes. 6'lanes with Gutters at sides of pool are desirable records,alit meets bnrrschnlvstc and krtercollev. ' pool width e.-lrpto of G'also most general wave action in swimming meets or v. pare rea.iremmts. (Pout should he 75'•-1 1/2'• Iae119 rear..:,-'.:l Strictly emrpntilive pools See lighting standards and diving bar. long to allow for electronic tinning panels at on, should her^r'taws. on other Pages of this caries for add•: • end.) Min.widen ad 25 yard pool is 36'16'tans) menu for competition peals. 50 meters(1(11—0 1/2'9 is minimum for world or 42'(7'lanes). With outside lanes,min,widths {PIN A.)records. Add 3 1/2"for electronic r are 38'or 45'. 60'width 18 lanes)is desirable. • timing devices. $ r-6"•OUT S•OF I.ANEW ON BOTH root.DECK ,KVr1.7COMMENOU) S.OES OE ADD) T'MINIMUM ' •_6 erAB OARS * roDEGEREANND DECK O rtccescseo C. • I ME.17R ROARD 1 • _ ..-�_ -.-..T'--- � ' L_ —_.J _. —— ————— 1 —-- arAUOVE•. • ..- —'.. I` LEVEL tS:EC .. _ =_-_ .--- PAGE FOR r• . • 20'RECOMMENDFO 5'____ tto"MK TILE LANE M41eKING9 r- ..__..._.- _,.,__r �_ tl0"MIN.wIDTHI O a METER r0OARD —...� =— _—__. — --•— -.�__.-=-- ——— —— �-• ..- ---IMETER BOARD ....... ._ rWA7I5OEANE T_.... DINU:-R:i 1 — — j • ....\•••••••••••-,*- 4 b • `--v-0 - } I l -� • PLAN MIN.t.LNGTH IAMERICAN RECORDSI • ~.11 /"-='"'—"r SEC STANDARDS VON DIVING •• FACILI/1LS ON ANOTHER PAGE OE THIS SERIES • tl- / -----.__ — --�r�N•ATeR LEVEL 2•_6-' 4•_0'•33N1A.A VI .. 27-6"16114,1N.C.A.A.1 • .PITCH NOT OVER I'IN 12' • LONGlTt/D!NA L GECTfON 25 YAb1PL) POOL • Swimming pnol capacity requirements vary from one locality to another: check local regulations. The f:. tueg7esled by the American Public Health Association. NON.ti:wIMMERS FORMULA ZONE"A" Of.nIVATSON Uivinq area defined by 10'radius from diving board or piatlorm. _____. ..._.__. 12 divers per board;2—3 in water,the rest on shore. • Or allow 300 sq.h.of pool water sslrlace per board. ZONE"6" Swimming area;24 sq.ft.per swimmer. Based on volume diyslaced bs .. cw.MlacRfs swimmer(4•r5 square of average ht.l and adjusteTd by the number of sa using pool at one time.{2/3 total swimmers). ZONE"C" Non swimmer area. 10 sq.In.'pee person. Based on volume displaced!. • ...zoNf`.y'.. • (1:2 area allowed per summed and DIVLuea adjusted by Wombat rot using oat. . (in some pools with tinge number of ron•swasme.s,figere may be as h • t—_ rommao,A' Man.pool, 12 A No.diving boards+Area Zone-B"a Area Zone"C" capacity or platforms 24 10 - PUBLIC SWIMMING POOL CAPACITY • ^ - iI3 . . . ., P ! ., - • ..„.......,,,,., . ' ... •:,','.0 ......s.,..\ /* 0 r ''',V I/ . •4. p / \ I , . ..\\‘‘‘‘,.\\............ 11/4 i Is A i \ t \ Ik. ..,. ..1 4/ \. \ k•..›..........,::.4:-.46.0.4.404.0....0...aakerebs#40,4440 1 3 1 .. r . 1 1 . , A="4'NA...... .. ........ ... ...................43,40 to . . . , S 26 41 q 6 i .. . . J • tn... ,.., •,..,., ... ,......„,..., . , .--. • •,., . ...)./. 77 / i 6 DIAL . , 0.1 •e ........ i t,'6.?, \'' i•, .t., \ * .420 ti W14 V ',,,5, &al X 151 :,::• 0; \\.....?.3 • :, 1. . 1-.:%,_,...0;:t ( c -S\\ C , f: Wt011ett, ,‘ t ., \\\t.....,b...............w.'1,V.W..,,e.....,..,_,...„.„,... e •• :1..4,4 ...., . , ,..V . te,- . cy \_........ ......1.t I • :? , 1 , r•,:i\WIYILMW•41•M,.. • ;Ls :.,.. • 500~11,e0+50#.‘, ..... • 1 .....• . ;.; I 4 , , . ...,...• s.. , ! •'i . ..• . .• , • . . ... ,.. (I . .............11 . /...--;''..;/`•re:--if , /,, ,,...•,........#1,...;.,-34„,.....0 t,„ei le-6!) , ":„id).Fr ,61•IS • c 1. _A . . . : . .„ i . ..,:_ .,..... ‘S . , . . . ... ...'' •.,, .. . ,..,. .. ...„., , . ...:‘1 • • • 1, <1.4\ 0.0.1/: ..:'. • eit \ . i i 0 A ./ • ' iii f ...,..:". • \ ...) 4 . i 1::•oci4i• t'l ,.^..i 4 ••••1•., tk .!:.'..\Ali / 1 .1•1 4,4.e. ,...11 :1/74.11, , ..'"-Eil.)4, ..:„.,.. lo., ,., ,4 •I. i 4.....,....,. 40,4 • t* 0." : —‘ .•;.‘/ ' ',i".4..1.)A1 .0.. .414 .44: . • iIt.‘. A 0••••••.. •''''. i • . '7\fr::,, ......:.....'......04 ...,..,---: 1,„.„„ ,a , ‘,. .. • i„, ,,.., .:-...„.....„,,,,..._—....—...,........4, r;;h1NSWatiblAit '411.91S9,49104V4ittlf,,,‘„ , •.', ••• . :• ,,.;, . ,., •• ..i . ,:. i ,......4. .• . '.1 r...:...v..... t...... .. . d, .., . •,. . t •: .. ,.., . ... t — :, , ...-:...4..,..:,.......1.,— . . :.. . . . /. ,-r--,-_:_*I/ 4 :„......-1._-_L,....-i.-- . i.f.....7....4,;....- 9446 10. • is IMPLEMENTATION 1. The City's opportunities for sharing capital costs on the swimming facility are limited to 3: a. Proceeds from a successful Liquor Store. b. Allocating Community Development/Revenue Sharing funds if potential changes in spending limitations are enacted. • c. A successful G.O. Bond Issue. 2. We've looked at the Apple Valley example and find it generally reasonable. It provides that: . The School District constructs the facility as part of a larger contract -- the School. . The City operates and maintains -- so that fees and charges can be assessed. . Cost sharing of both capital and operating costs occurs. . Time is allocated on a formula basis. • • • is THE COMMUNITY CF,NTER 1. The pool is but one part of what we visualize as the facilities needed for the "Round Iake Community Center". Other components might be: .Ice Arena • .Fieldhouse (as distinguished from gym) • • ,Auditorium , • .Social Spaces .Senior Citizen Center .Amphitheater Picnicking 2, The Community Center facilities need to orient into the School but more importantly out to the park. If the leisure use of these facilities is to be maximized the relationship to the park and other community facilities must be strengthened. These uses will be much lass structured than the School Day uses and as such will need to be facilitated thru the design process. 3. The school educational specs speak to community use of the educational facilities. Provision for these other Community Center facilities should be made now. 4. The School has "budgeted" $800,000 for a swimming facility and have asked that the City participate in constructing a "community pool." An Olympic size Community Pool would cost approximately $1.8-2.2 million. A 25 yd. Community Pool would cost from $1,15-1.4 million. 5. The Olympic Pool is the best from a long range Community Pool standpoint, but because of the substantial City investment required and the negative vote on the Bond Issue of 1975 it is not recommended. 6. The 25 yd. Community Pool will reach capacity in 1980 if the assumptions made are accurate. The need for additional swimming facilities must be recognized and planning directed toward meeting this anticipated deficiency. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NNE 22, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel Billy Bye Joan Meyers Tim Pierce Sidney Pauly COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad City Attorney Harlan Perbtx City Planner Dick Putnam City Engineer Carl Jullie Director of Community Services Marty Jessen Finance Director John Frane Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary' INVOCATION - Dr. Gary Peterson, Immanuel Lutheran Church • ROLL CALL: Pauly, Meyers and Penzel present; Bye and Pierce absent. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were requested to be added to the Council agenda under the "New Business" category: A. Request for administrative lot subdivision within the Edenvale Recreational Center. B. Request from Ray Welter, Jr. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, to approve the agenda with the inclusion of the 2 aforementioned items. Motion carried unanimously. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of the Board of Review meeting held Thursday, May 27, 1976. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the minutes of the Board of Review held Thursday, May 27, 1976 as published. Motion carried unanimously. B. Minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Council meeting held Tuesday, June 1, 1976. Pg. 2, strike para. 7 in its entirety, and insert in lieu thereof: "Gil Darkenwald, 11803 Franlo Road, questioned what the assessment will be against the parcel owned by Mr. Grobe and who is going to be assessed in the area. Jullie responded approximately 650 front feet at a proposed rate of$23.00 per front foot for a total estimated assessment of$14,950.00 for the Grobe parcel. Council Minutes - 2 - Tuesday, June 22, 1976 B. Minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Council meeting held Tuesday, June 1, 1976 (cont'd) This would be a five year assessment at 8% interest subject to Council approval at a special assessment hearing. The proposed assessment for the project is on the 'Front Foot' basis, rather than an'area assessment'," Pg. 4, para. 1, 1st line, after "acres" insert "for roadway ramps". Pg. 5, pars. 3, 1st line, strike "County Road 18" and insert "East-West Parkway from County Road 18". MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the minutes of the June 1, 1976 Council meeting as corrected and published. Motion carried unanimously. C. Minutes of the Continued Board of Review Meeting held Tuesday, June 8, 1976. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the minutes from the continued Board of Review meeting held Tuesday, June 8, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. D. Minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Council meeting held Tuesday, June 8, 1976. Pg. 5, para. 5, 5th line, after "to" insert "nearly". MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the minutes of the June 8, 1976 Council meeting as corrected and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. East/West Parkway Apartments, The Preserve, request to rezone approximately • 9 acre site to RM 2.5 for 129 rental apartments. The site Is west of The Preserve Center on the East/West Parkway. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to continue this item to the July G, 1976 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. County Road 4 Bikeway/Htkeway Mayor Penzel outlined the procedures for Public Hearings. Director of Community Services Jessen stated that he has tried to contact as many of the affected property owners as possible and noted the letter sent to these same property owners on June 11, 1976. Jessen further recommended that the trail be constructed within the existing County Road right-of-way and outlined same by graphic Illustrations. Council Minutes - 3 - Tuesday, June 22, 1976 B. County Road 4 Bikeway/Hikeway (continued) The following persons had contacted Mr. Jessen during the week, either by • phone or letter: Chester Harms, 6345 Eden Prairie Road, did not oppose location of the Bikeway/Hikeway within the road right-of-way. Herb Nutter, 8681 Eden Prairie Road, stated his objection to the Bikeway/Hikeway on the east side of County Road 4 in southerly stretch. Harry Rogers, 9100 Eden Prairie Road, noted his support for the trail • on either the east or west side of the road. Grant Sutliff, 7070 Eden Prairie Road, appeared before the Council representing both himself and his mother-in-law, Frieda Kocourek, 7080 Eden Prairie Road, suggesting that the bikeway/hikeway go behind his property rather than in the road right-of-way. Mr. Sutliff's other concerns included potential water problems, hazard in getting in and out of driveways, devaluation of property, and questioned if the City would provide berming and landscaping to provide privacy. • • Penzel questioned the push button crossing on County Road 5 for pedestrians and requested that this matter be looked into as soon as possible. • MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to close the Public Hearing and direct the staff to proceed utilizing the alignment presented by Mr. Jessen on the west side of County Road 4 south of Scenic Heights Road. Motion carried unanimously. The Council requested staff to pursue the possibility of going behind Mr. Sutliff's property. III. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 315, rezoning the Minnesota Protective Life approximately 5.9 acre site from the existing zoning to Office District. City Manager Ulstad stated that the rezoning agreements had been signed and requested that the Council grant the issuance of a preliminary grading permit to Minnesota Protective Life. Due to the tack of sufficient Council members to act on the 2nd reading of Ordinance No. 315, Mr. Ulstad requested that this 2nd reading be continued to the July 6, 1976 Council meeting. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to continue the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 315 to July 6, 1976, and authorize the City to issue a preliminary grading permit. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 4 - Tuesday, June 22, 1976 B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance N o. 332, relating to and establishing subdivision regulations for the platting and subdivinq of land and amending Ordinance No. 93, Section 11`Suldivision I, relating to parks, playgrounds, open space, storm water holding areas or ponds. • MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 332 with the exception of amending Subd. 1, last sentence to read: "Commercial/Office/Industrial Use". Motion carried unanimously. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Neill Lake Apartments, The Preserve, request for modification of Development Plan for 84 units_The site is located on Neill Lake Road across from the High Point single family area. City Planner Putnam discussed the Planning Commission meeting held Monday, June 21, 1976. Unapproved minutes from the Planning Commission meeting were distributed to Council members. Don Hess, The Preserve, and Mr. Moe, Moe Architects, outlined the proposed project and answered questions of Council members. • City Attorney Perbix stated it would be illegal for the Council to make a decision based on owner-occupied vs. rental property, as this would be discriminatory. Pauly stated that many of the homeowners were told that the subject property would be owner-occupied. Penzel questioned the reason The Preserve is presenting the rental approach rather than the original owner-occupied. Mr. Hess stated that it is just a situation dealing with the market. Meyers questioned the 1 garage per unit situation and if The Preserve plans to install a bikeway along Neill Lake Road. Mr. Mess replied there are facilities in the area for people to use for storage off-site. He further stated that The Preserve would see that a bikeway is installed along Neill Lake Road. Tom Bach, 9015 Neill Lake Road, read from a prepared statement reiterating the opposition from a number of residents of The Preserve who own single family residences adjacent to the tract of land which is proposed for apartment development. He requested that this matter be continued until a future Council meeting so the proponents could more fully develop and present their arguments in written form to the Council and to the City Attorney. Mary Anderson, 10561 Lake Fall Drive, presented a letter dated June 21, 1976 in opposition to the Neill Lake Apartments. (Letter attached) Jim Mars, 10700 lake Fall Drive, John Bergan, 8705 Bentwood Drive, and Mr. LeBlanc, 10680 Lake Fall Drive, also expressed their opposition to the aforementioned proposal. Council Minutes - 5 - Tuesday, June 22, 1976 MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to continue the Preserve's request for modification of Development Plan for 84 units for the Neill Lake Apartments until July 13, 1976. Further direct the City Attorney to draft necessary resolutions for approval or denial. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request from Bernard Hamilton for property at northeast corner of Mitchell Road and Research Road. • City Manager Ulstad explained that Mr. Hamilton appeared before the Board of Appeals & Adjustments on May 20, 1976 and his request for waivers were denied. Mr. Hamilton chose to pursue his request for a variance of the front and side yard setbacks of the required feet. He again appeared before the Board of Appeals & Adjustments on June 17, 1976, and the Board chose not to repeal their previous aecision of May 20. City Attorney Perbix stated that our ordinances provide that the Council may review actions of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments, or a person may appeal a decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments. Bernard Hamilton, 9870 Franlo Road, spoke to his request and answered questions of Council members. • Jim Wedlund, Chairman of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments, explained that the Board did not vote again on this same issue on June 17th because they had turned the same item down on May 20, 1976. He also expressed his concern that Mr. Hamilton could not continue on any longer without receiving a firm decision from the Council. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, that the Council authorize the staff to issue a building permit for Bernard Hamilton for the 1 acre lot at the corner of Research Road and Mitchell Road, and since a hardship does not exist, and since the character of the existing development to the north and west of his property are large lot single family, that Mr. Hamilton comply with the setback requirements for rural zoning. Meyers and Penzel voted "aye", Pauly voted "nay". Motion carried. V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports by Council members. 1. Councilwoman Meyers reported on the CATV meeting held Thursday, June 17, 1976. 2. Mayor Penzel announced that the Suburban National Bank now has a Drive-In Bank. 3. Councilwoman Pauly explained that the Planning Commission requested the Council to direct the staff to initiate the development sign program. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, to direct the staff to initiate the development sign program. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 6 - Tuesday, June 22, 1976 B. Report of City Manager No Report. C. Report of Planning Director 1; 1. Crosstown Extension from Shady Oak Road to I-494. Consideration of access to Beach Road and Cooley Road. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to continue this item to the July 13, 1976 Council meeting. D. Report of City Engineer • 1. Resolution No. 1150, restricting parking on Mitchell Road at Scenic Heights Road. City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 1150 and answered questions of Council members. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No. 1150, restricting parking on Mitchell Road at Scenic Heights Road. Motion carried unanimously. • 2. Receivf_petition for bituminous surfacing on Eden Prairie Road, I.C. 51-293. (Resolution No. 1151). City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 1151 and answered questions of Council members. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No. 1151 and set a Public Hearing for this improvement for July 13, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Change Order No. 1, Preserve Area F & G, I.C. 51-274. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve Change Order No. 1 for the Preserve Area F & G, I.C. 51-274. Motion carried unanimously. • E. Report of Director of Community Services 1. 1977 LAWCON Grant Program Director of Community Services Jessen explained that at the last regularly scheduled Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission a quorum was not present to take any action on the 1977 LAWCON Grant Program. He further requested that this matter be continued until the July 6, 1976 Council meeting as by this time the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission would have met and would have a • • recommendation to the Council. The Council agreed with this request. Council Minutes - 7 - Tuesday, June 22, 1976 2. Lake Riley Operations (Letter of understanding for the Schaitberger property . Director of Community Services Jessen spoke to his previous memo dated May 7, 1976 recommending approval of a lease agreement between the City and Schaitberger's for operations at Lake Riley fir the 1976 season. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the lease agreement for the operations at Lake Riley for 1976 based on the terms of the May 7, 1976 memo from Director of Community Services Jessen,with a change in item 4 to read "that all resident boating at Lake Riley will be at the same rates as for Bryant Lake Park". Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to continue the Council meeting to 11:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. F. Report of Finance Director 1. Mechanical Voting Machines Finance Director Frane noted that he had attempted to contact people involved in the last two elections and comments received in almost all cases were very favorable. He further noted that he had met with interested parties on Thursday, June 17, 1976, at City Hall for a demonstration and question and answer meeting. Favorable comments were also received at this meeting. Frane outlined the financing alternatives available for the purchase of the IBM Punch Card Voting System. Ed Lellbach, CES Company, answered questions of Council members regarding the. IBM Punch Card Voting System. Virginia Gartner and Perry Forster, political leaders in the community, were also present and took part in discussion regarding mechanical voting machines. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to direct the staff to draft a purchase agreement with CES Company for the purchase of 50 polling units and 2 computer counters, specifying the educational services provided by CES, the maintenance services provided by CES, replacement parts available, and supervision of the counting by CES on election night. Further that the contract be brought back before the Council for final approval. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Clerk's License List MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the Clerk's License List dated June 22, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Payment of Claims Nos. 1689 - 1852. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 1689 - 1852. Roll Call Vote: Meyers, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers to continue the meeting past 11:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. LAuncit Minutes - t3 - tuescay, June ec, i9,o VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for administrative lot subdivision within the Edenvale Recreational Center. City Manager Ulstad spoke to the request from Edenvale to permit an administrative subdivision within the Edenvale Recreation Center. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Penzel, to grant approval for an administrative land division in the Edenvale Recreational Center subdivision as requested by Edenvale with the understanding that in order for the next division to occur, platting of the property will be required and accompanied by a property owners association outlining the responsibilities of the association relating to open space, street maintenance, and any additional responsibilities the City may require. Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Meyers voted "nay". Motion carried. B. Request from Ray Welter, Jr. City Manager Ulstad explained that Ray Welter, Jr. wished to appeal the Board of Appeals & Adjustments decision to the Council. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to continue the request of Ray Welter, Jr., to the July 6, 1976 Council meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to adjourn the meeting at 11:59 PM. Motion carried unanimously. June 21, 1976 Dear Council Member: I purchased my home at 10561 Lake Fall Drive in December of 1973. I inquired as to the land use of the surrounding property, including the site of the proposed Neill L:.kn Apartments, and was assured by The Preserve that the Edon Prairie City Council had approved the site in question for owner occupied units. I realize the zoning is the same - multiple dwelling - for owner occupied condominiums and rental apartments -- BUT -- the difference in the use of each, is very drasticLI I do not know if you were or were not a member of the Eden • Prairie City Council that voted to approve the use of this site for owner occupied units. The point as I see it, is this; the developer conceived the beat land use as owner occupied, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission and City Council concurred and approved for owner occupied use, and I, as a homeowner believed the sito to be used for owner occupancy. Now, I find it difficult to understand how this same Eden Prairie governing body can possibly consider voting for such a drastic change in use, after some of us "pioneers" have invested our money on the basis of these promises or assurance.,. • Sometimes some of the most desirable property in a project is not developed at the outset and this may be possible in this case. The site in question is beautiful/L It is on a hill overlool:ing Neill Lake with a long row of beautiful large old troon. From the cake of beauty, I cannot think of anything much less desirable than a long structure resembling a barracks. If you can spare a fcei minutes of time, please drive out to The Preserve and get out of your car and look over the property whore the building is proposed. You will be rewarded with a breathtaking view. To be sure. I am looking for growth in Tho Preserve. However, I do not feel that rental property on this site is a stable method to achieve the desirable growth. The question that I ask you to ask of yourself, is thin: "Would I want this to be happening to me?" I believe your answer would have to be, "No". I ask for your "No" vote on Tuesday. Juno 22nd. Yours very truly, 1 :: • Nary Ann Anderson 10561 Lake Fall Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 • South Hennepin Human Services Council 6401 France Avenue South • Edina,Minnesota 55435 Phone 920-1194 Serving: Bloomington • Eden Prairie Edina Richfield June 22, 1976 • Mr. Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor City of Eden Prairie ' 8950 Eden Prairie Road • Eden Prairie, Minn. 55343 • Dear Mayor Penzel: At its June 16, 1976 Board Meeting, the South Hennepin Human Services Council • reviewed the East/West Parkway Apartment's request to develop 129 rental apartments in the Preserve. The S1111SC wishes to commend the City of Eden Prairie for their efforts in meeting their 1975 Housing Assistance Plan goals. Eden Prairie has provided leadership and demonstrated great concern in the area of subsidized housing for low and moderate income families, and will hopefully continue this positive stance as the City continues to develop in future years. The SHiISC, however, does feel that the current proposal, at this time, may constitute an excessive concentration of subsidized housing and may have some pp negative ramifications if approved. The issue of excessive concentration in k° the Preserve, is itself a valid reason for a careful consideration of this r; proposal. Although the Preserve's philosophy has consistently been to provide a positive living environment for persons from a variety of backgrounds and income groups, the current proposal could result in a "tipping" of the char- s• acter of the Preserve to the extent that it loses its heterogeneous flavor. The SIIIISC also considered the impact of the current proposal on certain support services that would need to be generated. These services would probably in- elude day care, social services, financial services, recreation, transportation, etc. Although significant progress has been, and is being made, to provide services to meet the unique needs of the residents of Briarhill, and the antici- pated needs of the residents of Windslope, additional pressure on such services may constitute an excessive burden on their development, at this time. Our recent survey of the status of subsidized housing in Edina. Bloomington, and Richfield indicates significant progress in the entire South Hennepin area. Although we concur that the current reservations regarding this proposed pro- ject are valid, we nonetheless encourage Eden Prairie to maintain its leader- ship role in this regard, in the future. Sincerely, • • Phillip J. Hiveness Executive Director PJR:jh n(r Is 'yes July 2, 1976 Mr. Roger Ulstad City Manager CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 RE: East West Parkway Apartments Dear Mr. Mated: With this letter we deliver to you a letter of even date prepared by our legal counsel regarding the above project. We wish you to know that The Preserve endorses this letter, and we request that you circulate it to the Council members prior to its next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 6th. We will be at that meeting to discuss the contents of the letter in more detail and answer any questions asked.• Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very trul urs, Tli P SERVE 1/777_e=4 ohn H. Gertz Vice President CARTER & GERTZ, INC.. JUG/call Attachment A Total Environment Community—8920 Franca Rd.,Eden Prairie,Minn. 55343—(812)941•2001 .,)I WALTER M.BAKER WILLIAM G.PALE ,('aw0//,ces MASTOR and MATTSON, Ltd. CHARLES A.BASSTORD.JR, 316 PEAVEY 6VILDINO • R IG HARP J ODNN GEORGE C.MASTOR T30 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH ROBERT W.MATTSON MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 66402 WAYNE H.OLSON TELEPHONE 330.66413 AREA PIE JACK A ROSBERG ALONEO B.SERNN STEVEN J.TIMMER July 2, 1976 Mr. Roger Ulstad City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55343 • Re: East-West Parkway Apartments Dear Mr. Ulstad: The purpose of this letter is to provide, from the developer's point-of-view, facts and reasoning why the East-West Parkway Apartments should be approved for construction as a HUD 221-D-3 apartment project at The Preserve, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. At the outset, we wish to request that the City Council at its meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 6, consider only the question whether it will permit any multiple-family structure to be constructed on the property which is the subject of our rezoning application as a HUD 221-D-3 project. The reason we wish the consideration to be so limited is that the City Planning Commission did not pass upon the adequacy of the plans and specifications and the project as a whole but decided to not recommend the project as a HUD 221-D-3 project on the basis that• in its opinion this is a "subsidized" project for low and moderate income families and, because of the relationship of this project to Windslope la HUD Section 8, 100 per cent subsidized rent project of 168 units) and its location to Fraser School, a concentration of "subsidized" or "no real estate tax" properties resulted which constituted poor planning within The Preserve PUD. By the Council limiting its decision at this time to the single issue of whether a HUD 221-D-3 project is "subsidized" and whether it should be permitted in the area proposed, and decision will allow the developer to return to the Planning Commission for consideration of the plans and specifications and revisions that may be necessary. Before proceeding' further, an explanation or definition of the three types of federal projects involved is probably in order. • Mr. Ulstad July 2, 1976 Page Two • (A) A Section 8 project is one where the federal government supplements the rent paid by the tenant to the • owner, and the rent in fact paid by the tenant is based upon the income of the tenant. The amount of rents to be charged by the owner and the amount of subsidy to be paid by the government is established by the government. In the case of Windslope, (a Section 8 project) all 168 units are Section 8 units, and the mortgage amount to be committed by MHFA is $3,809,946.00. (B) A 221-D-4 project is one where the rents proposed are approved by HUD and the project is deemed feasible by HUD market standards. There is no federal assistance to tenants or to the owner nor is there any control by HUD as to the cash that may be taken from the project by the owner. The mortgage is insured by HUD. (C) A 221-D-3 project is distinguished from a 221-D-4 project principally in that it is authorized under a federal statute for the making of mortgage loans to provide housing • for low and moderate income persons. In fact, there is no • federal financial assistance to either the tenants or the owner. The only financial assistance in this type of project arises under M.S.A. 273.17, subd. 17, which provides that a 221-D-3 project shall, for 15 years from the date of completion of the original construction, or for the original term of the loan, be assessed at 20 per cent of the market value thereof. This results in an indirect subsidy in that HUD anticipates the real estate tax savings and as a conse- quence regulates somewhat lower rents because of the • decreased cash flow for the payment of real estate taxes. In addition, HUD requires that the owner may only receive a return on his equity investment of 6 per cent per annum. These two factors [limited cash flow to the owner and reduced cash flow for the payment of real estate taxes] results in the reduction of the scheduled rents. In this • type of project any person, regardless of income, may rent • an apartment. There is no federally imposed or state imposed requirement that any number of tenants must be of a certain income level or must be of a certain work type or must consist of a certain mix of adults and children. In effect, this type of project is a market rate project reduced only by the anticipated savings in real estate tax payments and limitation on return to the owner. With the foregoing as an explanation of the type of projects involved, the following is an effort to fairly state the facts with regard to the East-West Parkway Apartments and Windslope Mr. Ulstad July 2, 1976 Page Three • Apartments before introducing in the final portion of this letter the considerations which the developer feels should pursuade the City Council to authorize a HUD 221-D-3 project. The facts then, as the developer understands them, are as follows: • (A) Both Windslope Apartments and East-West Parkway Apartm€a,_s (provided the latter is approved by the City Ccuncil as a HUD 221-D-3 project) would pay 50 per cent of real estate taxes under M.S.A. 273.17, subd. 17. (B) Both Windslope Apartments and East-West Parkway Apartments cannot receive final HUD approval and cannot receive final mortgage loan commitments until the comple- tion of the Federal Environmental Impact Statement for The Preserve. (C) The option agreement between The Preserve and MAIA Corporation for Windslope Apartments terminated June 30, 1976. This option agreement was originally • executed April 24, 1972, and has been extended four times by letter extension by The Preserve for the benefit of MAIA • Corporation. A meeting is scheduled on July 8, 1976, at • 10 a.m. in the law offices of Mastor & Mattson, Ltd. with the attorney for MAIA Corporation, The Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation and MAIA Corporation for the purpose of determining whether the project is still feasible, whether terms of the option agreement need to be modified in order to reflect the lapse of four years and whether any additional terms and conditions must be inserted in order to thereafter enter into a legally binding option agreement. The Preserve considers itself morally bound to attempt to go forward with this project but as a legal • matter, all obligations have terminated. (D) The East-West Parkway Apartments was initially contemplated as a HUD 221-D-4 project. An application was filed with HUD anticipating that type of project. There- after, a purchase agreement was entered into for the sale of the project on certain terms and conditions with one A. Bernardi who, in the purchase agreement, reserved the right to modify the project to a 221-D-3 project, if HUD approval could be obtained. The buyer was successful in obtaining HUD approval and as a consequence the conditional commitment on East-West Parkway Apartments was issued by HUD on June 1, 1976, providing for a maximum insurable mortgage of $2,445,000.00 for a Section 221-D-3 project. Mr. Ulstad July 2, 1976 Page Four (E) The conditional commitment issued by HUD expires. October 1, 1976, unless prior to that date the developer has completed and filed a full set of plans and specifica- tions and paid the required fee. (F) The developer has paid architect fees of $1,500.00 and HUD fees and mortgage broker fees as of this date of $9,436.00 in order to obtain the HUD conditional commitment dated June 1, 1976. (G) The developer has paid $48,900.00 and has been • issued a 40-year, 7 1/2 per cent GNMA commitment for $2,445,000.00 which commitment requires a 2 year takeout. In the event of cancellation of the commitment, the developer losses 1/8th of the fee each 90 days commencing with the date the commitment was purchased, June 21, 1976. The commitment was purchased under GNMA Program 23A which expired June 30, 1976. In the event that this project is not approved for construction and the commitment is cancelled, there are no other mortgage funds known to the developer with which to fund the HUD conditional commit- ment. As far as the developer is aware, for the fore- seeable future only federally insured mortgages funded by federally insured programs such as the one which expired June 30, 1976, will provide the financial means for construction of projects of this type. (H) The following schedule is a comparison of the rent schedules projected for Windslope, Neill Lake Apart- ments and East-West Parkway Apartments, the rents for this latter project scheduled in three columns to show the rates proposed initially by the developer for a 221-D-4 project, the rates approved by HUD for a 221-D-4 project and the • rates approved for this project as a 221-D-3 project. • • ��O�OJ • • Mr. Ulstad July 2, 1976 Page Five Eff. 1-bed 2-bed 2-bed 3-bed Windslope ---- $233 $295 $310 $375 Neill Lake $205 260 335 345 415 East-West [221-D-4 proposed by Developer] 180 205 245 260 300 East-West [221-D-4 approved by HUD] 200 250 325 330 370 East-West [221-D-3 approved by HUD] 175 210 275 275 305 (I) There are no apartments for rent in The Preserve at this time. (J) Construction of the project as a HUD 221-D-3 does mean that the normal sac charges will have to be paid which will assist in the payment of municipal sewer and water. (K) The lowest priced single-family detached dwelling in The Preserve now sells at a base price of $48,000.00, this being a 1,200 square foot house without air condition- ing. Usually, with extras added by buyer, the lowest actual sale price is an average of $53,000.0C. The developer would like to advance the following considerations to encourage the City Council to authorize by motion the construction of the East-West Parkway Apartments as a HUD Section 221-D-3 project. The Preserve presently has a buyer who has committed to take the project as a HUD 221-D-3 project, cause the same to be constructed and thereby provide rental housing units in The Preserve. The developer is not in the position to force the buyer to proceed with the project as a 221-D-4 project. The Preserve critically needs apartment units for moderate income families in order to efficiently develop the commercial area Mr. Ulstad July 2, 1976 Page Six • within the PUD of The Preserve. Even the lowest priced single- family detached dwellings in The Preserve are too expensive for • the average sales person or clerical staff or even skilled technicians who will be associated with the medical facility now under construction at The Preserve. From the foregoing schedule, one can see that the monthly rental payments for even the efficiency unit in the HUD 221 D-3 project requires (assuming 25 per cent of one's gross income applied to housing) a monthly • gross check of $700. This, obviously, is not low income housing. • And it is also obvious that any subsidy, however claimed or calcu- lated, is nominal and indirect. As a reply to the argument that the City of Eden Prairie and the school district are losing tax dollars in the event that • this project is approved as a 221-D-3 project, the following are contra arguments, namely: (A) This project can only be built with government insured financing, the commitment has been purchased, a buyer is ready to proceed and under these circumstances at • least 50 per cent of the real estate taxes are paid to the City of Eden Prairie and all normal sac charges are paid for the payment of municipal sewer and water. ($) The Preserve, by keeping the Windslope project viable by extending its option agreement over the past four years and continuing to consider itself morally bound to proceed with a project that has been tremendously delayed, has permitted the City of Eden Prairie to receive credit for 168 Section 8 units which permits the City of Eden Prairie to demonstrate that its percentage of subsidized housing is adequate and to receive federal grants because of the same. Of course, The Preserve is not altruistic in attempting to close this transaction with MAIA Corporation but at the same time it has certainly lost money holding the property off the market and has paid real estate taxes in an effort to reserve this property for the Section 8 program. This is a consideration which the developer feels the City of Eden Prairie should consider in determining what sacrifices or encouragements the City of Eden Prairie • is willing to give the developer so to permit it to develop land efficiently and continue with the project at The Preserve. (C) Apartments are critically needed in order to efficiently market and sell the commercial property within • The Preserve PUD. Of course, sales of the commercial property would result in increased tax revenues to the Mr. Ulstad July 2, 1976 Page Seven • City of Eden Prairie and as a consequence any loss of tax income on the East-West Parkway Apartment project might be easily offset by tax revenues generated from commercial property. In view of the fact that the lowest single- family dwelling in The Preserve sells for $48,000.00, and using a real estate standard of rental of 1 per cent per month of the market value of property, the cheapest housing in The Preserve would rent for $480.00 a month plus all utilities and maintenance. This is for a 1,200 square foot home. Obviously, even if homes were rented, this would not reach a broad spectrum of the moderate income families who will, necessarily be employed in the commercial area of The Preserve. • (D) The 50 per cent tax break does not last forever; it is limited to 15 years or the term of the mortgage. (E) The only financing available within the foreseeable future is government insured financing and the only money which was known to The Preserve at any time during the life of this proposed project has been the GNMA Project 23A • program which expired June 30 of this year. In the event this project is not constructed, the developer, regardless of the conditional commitment letter issued by HUD, knows of no source of money at a rate which would make the project viable. You will note that the interest rate under the GNMA program is 7 1/2 per cent and the amortization schedule is over 40 years. In summary, the developer feels that the need for apartments in The Preserve, the fact that this apartment project will make substantial payments to the City for the water and sewer systems and will pay 50 per cent of the real estate taxes, the fact that it provides a real need for moderate income families at the rental rates proposed, the fact that the only financially viable mortgage financing available was under the GNMA Program 23A which expired June 30, 1976, [and as a consequence, is no longer available for a different type of project], the fact that The Preserve has shown its good faith in continually maintaining the Windslope property for the Section 8 program thereby permitting the City of Eden Prairie to qualify for federal funds for other projects, and the fact that there is no significant Or direct subsidy to tenants or developers under a HUD 221-D-3 project, [the only subsidy being that contemplated and permitted by a completely different government and statutory provision, namely M.S.A 273.17, subd. 17] all support the developer's position in this case that the Council should pass a resolution approving East-West Parkway Apartments as a HUD 221-D-3 project and refer Mr. Ulstad July 2, 1976 Page Eight the same to the Planning Commission for approval of plans and specifications in connection therewith. Respectfully submitted, MA TOR AND MATTSON LTD. Ageni tt- lliam G. Bale Counsel for The Preserve July 6, 1976 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 1152 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS ON BIRCH ISLAND ROAD I.C. 51-291 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 8th day of • June, 1975, fixed the 5th day of July, 1976, as the date for a public hearing on the following proposed improvements: • I.C. 51-291, Bituminous paving on Birch Island Road from Co. Road 67 to 1/4/ mile south thereof. WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the making of this improvement were given ten days' published notice of the Council hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing was held and property owners heard on the 6th day of July, 1976: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CIYT COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such Improvement as set out in Council Resolution of June 8, 1976, and as above indicated is hereby ordered. 2. Tie City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement, with the assistance of Rieke, Carroll, Muller Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers. ADOPTED by the City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Franc, Clerk —____----- whp/jh 6/2/76 ORDINANCE NO. 319 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Appendix A of Section 4, Township 116, Range 22 is amended as follows: All of the lots and blocks located in Edenvale Eleventh Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota shall be and hereby are removed from R.M. 6.5 and shall be included hereafter in R.I. 13.5. Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Rezoning Agreement dated July 1, 1976, entered into between Edenvale, Inc., a Minnesota corporation and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City relating to such (Regional Commercial) C-Reg District and Public District. Section 3. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this _day of , 1976 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1976. ATTEST: Mayor, Wolfgang Penzel John D. Franc, City Clerk Published in the on the day of , 1976. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Fenzel and Members of the City Council • THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: June 22, 1976 SUBJECT: Edenvale 11th Addition PROPOSAL: Edenvale, Inc., is requesting City Council approval of the Final Plat of Edenvale llth Addition. This is a 22-lot single family residential plat (R1-1.3.5) located west of the intersection of Edenvale Boulevard and Woodhill trail in the south 1/2 of Sec- tion 4. HISTORY: The Preliminary Plat was approved on March 4, 1976, per Coun- cil Resolution NO. 1100. The final reading of Ordinance No. 319, zoning the property to R1-13.5 is scheduled for July 6, 1976. The first reading was approved on March 4, 1976. The final plat now submitted for approval conforms with the approved preliminary plat. rr i' VARIANCES: Variance from the side-yard requirements of Ordinance No. 135 should be allowed as follows: 5' minimum sidcyard with 15' minimum between homes A variance from the minimum lot size and the maximum of 2 units per 1 ` acre will also be required. u'1'I.LITItS IMP STREETS: Municipal sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer,concrete curb curb & gutter and bituminous surfacing will be installed throughout the development in accordance with City standards. The street inns Woodhill Court must be changed to Woodhill Trail. PARK DEDICATION: A hood will be required of Edenvale, Inc., for the construction of a "recreation area" providing game field space at least 250' x 300'. A tot lot, bikeway and play area will be con- strucLed as part of Edenvale 11th Addition. 200 - 2 - BONDING: A performance bond or letter of credit in the amount of $5,000 • will be required for the construction of a "recreation area." A performance bond or letter of credit for an amount approved by the City Engineer shall be posted to cover the cost of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, streets, street signs and first year costs for street lighting. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Edenvale 11th Addition subject to the requirements of this report and the follow- ing: 1. Execution of the "Developer's Agreement." 2. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. 3. Receipt of fee fox City Engineering services in the amount of $660. 4. Approval of the second reading of Ordinance No. 319, re- zoning the property. CJJ:kh July 6, 1976 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 1153 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF EDENVALE 11TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Edenvale 11th Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie oOrdinance ode and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings hC e been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat Approval Request for Edenvale 11th Addition is approved compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's �, .. Report on this plat dated June 22, 1976. kk B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds and/or Registrar of Titles for their use as required by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above.named plat. • 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 • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST; SEAL 1 1 John D. Frane, C]crk WHP/azd 6/28/76 ORDINANCE NO. 315 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 135. The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie ordains as follows: Section 1. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended by adding the following: "Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Leona Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof; and All that part of the West 1 of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the Center line of County Road No. 2 and the center line of State Highway No. 169; thence Northeasterly along said center line of said County Road No. 2 and the extension thereof to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 330 feet West at right angles from the East line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said section; thence North along said parallel line to the North line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence West along said North line to the center line of State Highway No. 5; thence South along the center line to a point 193.5 feet South at right angles from the North line of said Section 14; thence continuing South on the center lines of State Highways Nos. 5, 169 and 212 to the point of beginning. All of which land is sit•.uated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota. which property shall be and hereby is removed from rural zone and shall be included hereafter in the Office District (OFC) zone." Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain rezoning agreement dated June 22 , 1976, entered into between MINNESOTA PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO., a corporation, and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City relating to such Office District (OFC) . Section 3. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 23rd day of March , 1976 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1976. Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk Published in the Eden Prairie News on , 1976. • whp/es 6/1/76 Condon-Naegle ORDINANCE NO. 317 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Appendix A of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, Township 116, Range 22, is amended asfollows: That part of the following tracts and parcels of land described as follows: All that part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 116, Range 22 lying North of Interstate 494 and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Northwest 1/4, 640 feet Westerly of the Northeast corner of. said Northwest 1/4; thence Southeasterly at an angle of 76 degrees 50 minutes as measured from East to South from said North line a distance of 640 feet; thence deflect to the Left 22 degrees 15 minutes to the North line of Interstate 494 and there terminating. All that part of Lot 1, Auditors Subdivision No. 335 lying • Northerly of Interstate 494. The Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 116, Range 22. That part of the West half of the Southwest 1/4 (W 1/2 SW 1/4) of Section 12, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, lying Southerly of County Road No. 39 and Westerly of a line running from a point on the South line of said Southwest 1/4 distant 980 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof to a point on the Southerly line of said County Road No. 39 and passing through a point 650 feet East at right angles from a point on the West line of said Southwest 1/4 distant 1110.71 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof except highway right of way: • which lies Easterly of the Westerly right of way line of • Schooner Boulevard and Southerly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 116, Range 22 distant.640 feet West of the Northeast corner of said Northwest 1/4; 2G,75� Ordinance No. Condon-Nacgle thence Southeasterly at an angle of 76 degrees 50 minutes as measured from East to South from said North line a distance of 640 feet, said point being the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect to the right 78 degrees 30 minutes a distance of 100 feet; ,Y thence deflect right 36 degrees a distance of 179.04 feet; thence deflect right 12 degrees 15 minutes 22 seconds a distance of 230 feet; thence deflect left 18 degrees 30 minutes a distance of 350 feet; thence deflect right 31 degrees 03 minutes 36 seconds a distance of 337.29 feet; thence Westerly along the arc of a tangen- tial curve, concave to the South, having a radius of 430.75 feet a distance of 259.82 feet; thence Westerly along the arc of a L` reverse curve concave to the North, having a radius of 300.27 feet a distance of 345.89 feet; thence Northwesterly tangent to said curve a distance of 138.48 feet; thence Westerly along the arc of a tangential curve concave to the South, having a radius of 400.00 feet a distance of 444.63 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent. to said curve to Schooner Boulevard and there terminating. shall be and hereby is removed from the Rural and 1-5 zone and shall be included hereafter in the (Regional Commercial) C-Reg District. r. Section 2. Appendix A of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, Township 116, Range 22, is amended as follows: That part of the following tracts and parcels of land described as folluws: All that part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 116, Range 22 lying North of Interstate 494 and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Northwest 1/4, 640 feet Westerly of the Northeast • corner of said Northwest 1/4; thence Southeasterly at an angle of 76 degrees 50 minutes as measured from East to South from said North line a distance of 640 feet; thence deflect to the left 22 degrees 15 minutes to the North line of Interstate 494 and there terminating. . All that part of Lot 1, Auditors Subdivision No. 335 lying , Northerly of Interstate 494. The Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 116, Range 22. That part of the West half of the Southwest 1/4 (W 1/2 SW 1/4) of Section 12, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, lying Southerly of County Road No. 39 and Westerly of a line running from a point on the South line of said Southwest 1/4 distant 980 feet -2- • .6'I G Ordinance No. Condon-Naegele East of the Southwest corner thereof to a point on the Southerly line of said County Road No. 39 and passing through a point 650 feet East at right angles from a point on the West line of said Southwest 1/4 distant 1110.71 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof except highway right of way. which lies Easterly of the Westerly right of way line of Schooner Boulevard and Northerly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 116, Range 22 distant 640 feet West of the Northeast corner of said Northwest 1/4; thence Southeasterly at an angle of 76 degrees 50 minutes as measured from East to South from said North line a distance of 640 feet, said point being the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect to the right 78 degrees 30 minutes a distance of 100 feet; thence deflect right 36 degrees a distance of 179.04 feet; thence deflect right 12 degrees 15 minutes 22 seconds a distance of 230 feet; thence deflect left 18 degrees 30 minutes a distance of 350 feet; thence deflect right 31 degrees 03 minutes 36 seconds a distance of 337.29 feet; thence Westerly along the arc of a tangential curve, concave to the South, having a radius of 430.75 feet a distance of 259.82 feet; thence Westerly along the arc of a reverse curve concave to the North, having a radius of 300.27 feet a distance of 345.89 feet; thence Northwesterly tangent to said curve a distance of 138.48 feet; thence Westerly along the arc of a tangential curve concave to the South, having a radius of 400.00 feet a distance of 444.63 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to said curve to Schooner Boulevard and there terminating. • which property shall he and hereby is removed from Rural and I-5 zone and shall be included hereafter in the Public zone district. Section 3. The above described property shall be subject tothe terms and conditions of that certain rezoning agreement dated ,1976, entered into between Condon-Naegele Realty Company, a Minnesota Partner- ship, and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulation.. of the City relating to such (Regional Commercial) C-Reg District and Public District. -3- a4- .1 Ordinance No. • Condon-Naegeie Section 4. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this day of ,1976 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of ,1976. Mayor, Wolfgang Penzel ATTEST; John D. Frane, City Clerk Published in the on the day of ,1976. -4- 26'13 +/ .v ♦ 1 • p E - Z O N I N G AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into in triplicate, this day of , 1976, by and between CONDON-NAEGELE REALTY COMPANY, a Minnesota partnership, hereinafter called "Owners", and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation of the State of ' Minnesota, hereinafter called "City". WI TNES S ETII: WHEREAS, Owners have requested the City Council' of the City of Eden Prairie ("City Council") to change the zoning of a tract of land from Industrial Park 1-5 to C Regional Service and Public for an area consisting of approximately 48 +/- acres in accordance with its Planned Unit Development concept plan and developmental plan, and which tract of land is legally described as more fully set forth on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof ("Property") ; and WHEREAS, the Owners further agreed as a part of said request to lay out, plat, develop and maintain the Property in accordance with the concept plan and development plan heretofore presented to the City, consisting of three documents and entitled: Condon-laegele Realty Company, 1) A Planned Unit Development; 2) Environmental Assessment, and 3). Supplemental Data Revised Plan, dated December 8, 1975, each of which have been prepared by Brauer & Associates, and which are marked Exhibits B, C, and D, and are attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the rezoning of the Pro- perty to C Regiona] Service and Public will be in the public interest and consistent with the welfare and convenience of the people of the City; and //}} ``jj J.�v 7_I 7/1/76 • WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of February 3, 1976, the City Council passed a motion adopting Resolution No. 1,086 granting PUB Concept approval for the Property, giving a first reading to Ordinance No. 317 approving the rezoning of the Property to C Regional Service, and directing the City Attorney to draft a rezoning agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, This Agreement witnesseth, that for and in con- sideration of the City Council adopting an Ordinance changing the zoning of the Property from Industrial to C Regional Service, and of the mutual benefits of each of the parties hereto, the parties, their respective successors and assigns, do hereby covenant and agree as follows: • 1. Owners agree to develop the Property in accordance with the plans submitted to the City and which are made a part hereof, subject to the following conditions: A. Tim9 Limit. Unless application for a building permit for construction on a site within the Property is made within two years from the date of the final adoption of the ordinance rezoning the Property, the City Council may review its action of rezoning the Property to determine whether the concept and develop- mental plans of the Owners are still consistent with the development plans of the City. In the event that they are not, the Property will retain the zoning of C Regional Service, but the Owners will be required to submit new PUD concept and developmental plans. B. A.ivcrtisinq Signs. That upon the issuance of a building permit, advertising signs which currently • exist on the subject Property must be removed. C. SS+.e and Landscaping Plan. That the following guidelines be used for the specific site development plans for the Property: (i) To use a combination of plant materials of different heights to screen the auto • storage areas visible from I-494. • 26 O - 2 - V• 7/1/76 (ii) To include within the parking lot and new and used car storage areas canopy trees to reduce the visual impact of the parking areas (minimum 21/2" calipre trees). (iii) To provide a landscape treatment along the access roads that will soften the road embankment. Planting of trees and shrub material along the road shall be the responsibility of the Owners, and should be integrated with a walk-bike path to be built and maintained by the City along Smetana Lake. (iv) The revised site plans illustrate buildings close to the freeway with no parking between them and the freeway. New and/or used•car sales are located between buildings oriented to the freeway. The landscaping and partial screening should concentrate on these parking area views with an effective plant and land form screen. (v) If the Property is developed as two or three sites instead of the four as presently contemplated, the landscaping and screening areas will have to be increased to cover the contemplated increase in size of parking and sales areas. (vi) Site one located adjacent to the proposed extension of Schooner Boulevard through property owned by the Owners must provide adequate setback for effective screening, and • a reasonable landscape area to screen the parking, storage and sales area from Schooner Boulevard through the use of earthforms, plant- ings or architectural screenwalls. D. Right-of-way Dedication. (i) The right-of-way for an extension of Schooner Boulevard, the East-west access road and Valley View Road extension shown on the Property in the concept plan shall be dedicated at no cost to the City in the plat of the Property. (ii) The land, on the Property and adjacent property owned by Owners, needed for the 1-494 freeway ramps and collector/distributor road, is to be convened by separate agreement to the City at its discretion. E. Building Design. Building design shall be generally as 9‘,W1 - 3 - /f Lf lb set forth in the original submission of the Owners. Due to the location of the building and the importance of their appearance, brick or similar quality exterior • material will be required. F. Pedestrian Paths. There shall be a pedestrian • system constructed at the owners expense connecting the various dealership sales and showroom areas. G. Identification Signs. One joint pylon will be permitted to service all sites. Each individual building will have only identifications on the building. There shall be no other free standing signs on the Property occupied by the car dealerships other than site internal directional signs. The size, setback and materials for the site internal directional signs should conform with the City sign ordinance. H. Grading and drainage plans. Grading and drainage, including run-off during construction, shall be done in accordance with the plans on file herein and made a part hereof. I. Floodplain Encroachment. Prior to commencing con- struction of roads and installation of utilities, detailed grading and drainage plans shall be furnished to the City, which plans are to be consistent with the intent of the project. J. Access Roads. Owners will, in addition to dedicating the land, construct at their own cost and expense, one-half (two lanes) of Schooner Boulevard from the North perimeter of the property to the East-West access road, said half to be in accordance with the standards determined by the City Engineering Department for said road. K. New Construction Plantings. That treatment be given to • the North side of the access road to be built on said site which access road is in or near the floodplain, in such manner that it be made to look as natural as possible through contours and/or plantings acceptable to the City staff. 2. That all sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer facilities, concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing, whether to be public or private, shall be designed to City Standards by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The Owners, through their engineer, shall provide for com- petent daily inspection of all street and utility construction, both d.(o '• - 4 public and private. Asbuilt drawings with service and valve ties on reproducable mylar and certificates of completion and compliance with ' specifications shall also be delivered to the City Engineer. The`$wners • also agree to pay all fees for City Engineering and administrative services consistent with current City requirements. 3. CITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS AGREE: A.That the owners shal] comply with all applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and laws of the City of Eden Prairie. B.That the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, their successors and assigns, and all subsequent owners, their respective heirs, successors and assigns, of the property herein described. C.That an executed copy of this Agreement shall be recorded with the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. D.That the Owners' agreement at paragraphs 1 D (i) and 1 J herein with respect to Schooner Boulevard shall be re- flected in adequate and reasonable credits against the assessments levied upon the Property and the Owners' adjacent property for Schooner Boulevard. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused their presents to be executed the day and year aforesaid. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesot.= By Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor And By John D. Frane, City Clerk CONDON-NAEGELE REALTY COMPANY By • Partner . g au3 - 5 - • , .., ry 1y• • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. • • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1976, by Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor and John D. Frane, Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the la)vs of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. • Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1976 by a partner o - Condon-Naegele Realty Company, a Minnesota partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public • • • • Zig - 6 - r • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 28, 1976 C. Condon/Naegele Realty, discussion of revised site plan for commercial develop- ment along 1-494 and south of Smetana Lake. Mr. Enger referred the commission to the revised development plan contained in the 6-24-76 memo from the planner. He felt the revised plan'was better than the original as it requires less grading, less floodplain encroachment, and only 2 possible auto • dealership sites. Mr. Ulstad informed the commission the state is in the process of a design study for approval by the Federal Highway Department, and then the city must begin with right- of-way acquisition for the ramps. He believed if condemnation was necessary for the 5 acres controlled by CNR the cost would be excessive to the City and landowners, ( approximately $ 2.00-7.50 / sq. ft. ). Sorensen did not believe the cost of comdemnation would not be that high,•instead it would be closer or under $2.00 / sq. ft. Pauly felt condemnation prices frequently are higher than market price. Lynch felt the degree cf grading was necessitated by the auto dealership use and that office or hi-rise would require less grading. Fir. Ulstad tep]ied that the material must he removed to construct Schooner Boulevard and the rasps. With the 40 foot cut rca.uired by the rasps and Schooner Boulevard, Fosnocht did not feel the additional gr::iline was objc•ciitmable. `dot run: hynch moved, Beaman seconded, to retomnend the Council deny the revised CNR develop- ment plan ( contained in the staff memo of 6-24-76 ), because there are other types of deve]epic nt to he accnrp]'itied on this property which would not cuase the cut to be extended into the c:stcrly part of the property. Discussion hcareese qu.-•,t rimed if the issue of right-of -way acquisition should also be addressed. Sorcn,cti felt the revised pinn,with less floodplain encroachment and less grading on the eastern 40% of Lice ;-ite,is a better plan. However, he stated he is in favor of denying the iequost as it contains unnecessary grading and felt it can be developed without any floodplain iceroachment with uses more adaptable to the site. He believed the unique luiedforms o; the MCA should he protected and did not feel this was a reasonable tradeoff or sufficient improvement to the plan. He stated he realizes the • city's road climaitnnruts and obligations to ceedjoini6g landowners. in the MCA, but believes tic city also has commitments to the Smetana lake people, the Guide Plan, and • the Purgatory Creek Study. He hoped CNR would recognize these concerns on this parti- ular land use and would cooperate to facilitate other uses. • • v4,of`S • MEMO TO: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Dick Putnam , Planning Director • • SUBJECT: REVISED PROPOSED CNR DEVELOPME NT PLAN DATE: June 24, 1976 • • GRADING 1. Sites 1 & 2 require major alteration for development and roadway construction. • 2. Site 3 (eastern end) requires moderate grading for small commercial/office. 3. Grading should result in sites with reasonable relationships to adjacent streets and freeways. 4. Grading will encourage multi story buildings for better site utilization • • FLOODPLAIN • 1. Encroachment into Smetana Lake/9 Mile Creek should be restricted as to amount and visual impact. 2. Sites 1 & 2 should only allow minimum encroachment into the floodplain along existing toe of slope. 3. Site 3 should not require filling encroachment into Smetana Lake for smaller site commercial office development. LAND USE • I. The site 1, 2, & 3 should be arhiciapted for non residential M.C.A. development. 2. That sites 1 & 2 will permit large ':re 2standina commercial developments requiring freeway usability ar.9 reasonably large sites. 3. Site 3 would be appropriate for smaller scale office/restaurant commercial developments as I or 2 separate sites. 4. That site 3 may develop a building type that extends over the floodplain on elevated piers to increase usable site area. • • a �g� . • -2- 5. That auto dealerships are appropriate reg-ser commercial landuses possible on sites I & 2 if they meet the conceptual site develop- ment guidelines outlinedin the Bruaer CNR Plan with the following additions: a. Auto display areas be designed to help buffer or soften views into the site from Schooner Blvd. and I-494 while providing a useful attractive product display area. b. That the buildings be sited to maximize their visability and thereby reduce the views into the automobile storage/ inventory areas. This would also apply to non auto dealership business thereby screening their parking. c. That parking lots or auto sales areas be landscaped in a manner consistent with other MCA developments. d. That two dealerships seem necessary to provide the minimum cluster and development the "outdoor auto showroom". • 6. That individual site developme$plans would be received by the City staff and approved by the Planning Commission prior to building permits. Comparisions of site development standards. Copy of conceptual revised site plan. DP:md -•- G 1.ti*a:�',V �F l oMw1;- .dJa l�e-"�lU= -- hi G GlV q�� •. G?x�c' 1' i I�f I. © ... .4 FA.tt wx.1.11 40,7 - 3yG12:y 1,w14,p,cY,c,c4 I © coo 4F1+ •park nb 4.1-4G..s.. NWFjuutv. c IG'..- 6-IT G v"G, at,. /G2,ce0 44-i nT'— 3.-1 rwt-�_f_17,,.26;irk_ . .__ ------ -------- --- gogo cc�� • 4"ncrze. 41 � C.�-raves-szaz-a ._ 0 I h1J1);-1)6 (d},caa lii- .•b FA.t— 1 0Abri - ..- ---'---- - - I�Ax(u:Vtr. G l c 520}-�vttt'uq 15G,chi '�(� ��oo GF Farke''i ..___. .._.. _ - eY- /• / .a,. 4 � b„'.`-3 env p`,fie.. . _ •67 u z`t ego Y t+Lv ...... ;oo Z4-1/oc f o _ .. . . .. ._ ... .G' s . . ,cz>D;lid, tc4 '1 ... _ - & ,t 410 7 _. . _. • 1) -=- - —i/1n.- C'r•iILC- '.•tTE- ,5".`ia.}/fir sM) mg„ l'✓,I !,[I}" .b 0.1, 2°�.71,0 tt. •..6 rAr•-• }A,&.4,..l 7% 2 .' toh) \ \.... q al.. 1291,1, .I4. 26cf ape,. }-e i.4.4 1A J C l��p - - tt • • 24 Z i , 1 , 3 • 1 �/ '/fit e r • �^ t. i Y , • Y 1 11 ]VE „1 __ l ! Ff ��_ F,N • ' I ! 1 ' Il 1 11 .t...1.1 t -•>,.A i . i..'s.:,:' .1`i „ / , ! \I il �S,. (. � . �1 r�� .l// / , ' f . � '- e ''.,t -'. i; ,!-•-,,,,,y( ,,-/, , a ,,,..o•-..V/4.:,-.:. '04 C ' ,' I f • � �, i Ajsxz it r• 4dw� i . v F.i t l, ., • ~f {.i /;./f' ,,.•-i6"-,...,-------::::;-----:', 7-,•'*.f''.',. . 4 i 1 ] }q s�1; i / Cu _$' :Zi 1 \/ a • { ' 1 \• I c • �t At�•x fI l� fr ,i 9 • .1. « 1 ( b t ice ti\'• 7/, • �, . • \ rl i �/•' //11 I/ f/7-', „ :i'' •�/,' /1 r ,.. , ,4,...sk, . ,..., . Ty..,-' ieji••1 ‘' 1 . f , ''I j % / 'v /mac I ,,I , -. .. /j ill^,'Y1 1 , `j r i \\ KAt yi \- ,,, 1` .\ , j ./ "/, (W IN 1 //A,. liti, 1 / 1 :L(1_. r /JA. I /l ( ... -�f.. 1 .n ,--- ,1 ,.. f• i /r+ i. .i .... ........ _,-,„ •, /,, 77—'4> ''-:-••::::, -- !:i -.,----_____ ‘ ,,,, ----____:,:l.,_...,....-:::.,..„.L..,:, - . .,,...st ,... , ,i/,,/ ,, /), ,,,,, 1, ___ _ ___...7._--....._7,............,..„,_______ , ,, f 1 ' ‘ ' ' file. :___Tf:-:,t;, ' /7 /-,) 0,3_ , 1 , ,;•• , ; - -',-.._-, 9".1''124.7.4 .,°. .....44....irte_cts...ig., .,' V / 1, /I k I 't >' /A-, 1, ' 1,-...!.), i i' ?",' ' /...: : , ///)",/ • \ l' '' , ,,,kk.--- -': ,i i. ...:7_,,,,i _______ ____.,:......::___.: „c il, ,/,7,,,,,, , ,, i ,/,/ ' : / i/ik !b„ 2,, ,I 'Z\,',. - `c.,,, ' p, 1 / , i-- . ,-, : .1% , ' ---- .,/ ,:„..- .,/, .,,z17:,..- ,„,"( rkh, , ,,, ,,,, •.,- -- ,,:_ ,•;,.. i, / 41::2:6V- k A.,, ef1, -J,,_____--_, ,, , ,, ,.. / , ,,, ccv „, ,__. .., 1 ,,, ,, __,-2:„....e ,/ ,-, .. ( ,.. I 1 1 , Ill 4 . -411 •-_.;.-::-1 4,S.N t4Z •••• 7.- ,,,: II i : • • 1 t' * I4. 4 • ° 11{-- -- ,,, A (.., , . ...f I ..,; i[k.-4 ) 1 ' /t1 i ')// 11 -1-y .1,,, / ? I' , ,.,,i „-,--_,„: , , i f-rs--- v. .41— ;-, ,, ///,', ,-.11- ..!... : , 1 '--IN , , ' / / •: _ ii;1 I ' ' // 'LP.) .\,,,,,,'? /4;5l// it 'i j. (' 111.'„':7--- -/-•;:-// '/'7 ,.. 4 /4' i ,/ • -; 1, itT\--,-. I i;.,''4.--,;, k,,, 'f. , t ..:%'," i ji ; k,'il .• 7.......,‘ :, k, i - f.) ;;', ( , i 1 • „ I •,.:::,,, f7:., ' .-4 r : i -II ...4..4.4 c.:,, (.. I.Ji,1 1,0-1_77..r, i \ ,i, .1-1 x____..-...77,-• j ;d\L„...7.±P.,•• • s,..z..-/,,, 171';1; . 7 i •.• 6 ....1 !. • ,/ : 1'1 i' .1. ''1 ' ) . . . - .. ,: , 1.. (--....,1 ,• , . 4 '.•1. / . I\•••-•0.4! • All. '. • I ! i*- . ' ; 1 •I 34 C / . i ii ' 1 • '• . 1 4.... ,•;' ' 11.2,42; •7.."':-..,:•---'‘. k 1: ' 4 I • It...... t t 7? • • * . X i 1 (S 3: ' *".• : • \\ --.1 • ' . t , • . ir • 4Z1070 ":"4 . ' " r. • . , vs :.,6,, • .t.7.i. 7------------.P.t. , -%'•.'..i., '\14.tlo.f-....„......6•0 47.00 ti..0 , \ . . , : \ . . •- , C. ••• --i.',:i',.c.'.'1.5 ,/.; 2,-„=. . ....:.'045-ra,'• — . fr.,•,::. I" tO ;,-,:...!-L',•::‘,...‘..;..---,-,-- • .. . , . .. ...--- ... . ...--." . \,......:- N• . < .•..' ' ' .\ "•' ------.721•7,1)4.'a c',vp,',,E. \ , ... ' S '40 ESC:77a-4 'A' \P40 _ :..e."__:A -•-.. ,,...r.,,,-.,:-; . .....ve-,ier-•....,K.z.. 1:1,-Vfliws ' , .. '. li'' . %OD :— . L •••• : - • . ! q-::::::: 10 • ,,,•.: ..:,: - : .. . . • . .. ..... ,.... , i , : \ , . - , , • : ., ........1-,. ... . • . . .. - - : - i. - : .1::-. •::. ..... i .- . . irl---'...-".--", ' 1"),./ : ., • ' 1 ' . • . . :. • : • • . •1•..-..: I .. I . _ 7. ''rt,,..,_:".' ' \ • \ .' .-1. ', . ,, ,',.1. .. 1. . • •, . i ' I \ : , : • . . .1.,t,. ....."1. \ `',': `r.,::: j 1 \ :.:I 1•:: I. .1.. : .. . N.... 1 ,...-1-,--...._ . - .S‘i ..1 . ' .\........ 1.............-...- .-.-: ..„...,...,•..--i-'' \ -••••••••"`''--\ ' ':1 • V -i f 1 ' : k.. . •••,.......,...... -sc\s I\...—4- .1......--, \ •- • .•• -; • • ; •• • ' . .., \•••••I;. k., . I \:••••-..._ _. ;.... . -";'•.7.1:.d,1- ; \ ..i‘ - . - Ls;) —......„ i .... , ; . •. . . .‘• —1 • • i . 1 . . - \ .. ... . • • - — .,. — •• - • • • A -. .,\ ,,,. . . , . . ,........____ . . . .:•.... t.__•:__.• il..'.L..:.:. . *t .. \—,._.6„4 . . . .. _. . , . . . . . .. . . . Z(pqe9 A .,. ... .... ...._ ._ .... . • i TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Roger. Ulstad, City Manager FROM: John Frane, Finance Director ),7 • DATE: July 2, 1976 F RE: Request by Minnesota Protective Life for issuance of Municipal Industrial Revenue Bonds. t' We have reviewed the request by Minnesota Protective Life against the city's guidelines for the issuance of these bonds. They are requesting 2.5 million, our standard is at least $500000. We have received financial information from them which indicates their earnings before taxes to be more than sufficient to cover the anticipated debt retirement. Their "Best" rating, which is the "Moody" rating for insurance companies is A (Excellent) in a range • of A+, A, B+, B, C and have agreed to reimburse the city for costs we would incur in connection with the sale. We recommend the city council adopt Resolution No. 1157 giving approval to Minnesota Protective Life's request. • gOkl0) WO, 1151 Councilmember offered the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Councilmember • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE A PROJECT ON BEHALF OF MINNESOTA PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, REQUESTING APPROVAL BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND AUTHORIZING TILE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Policy and Purpose. 1.01. For the purpose of promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound commerce, preserving end developing a tax base adequate to finance necessary public services, and encouraging employment oppor- tunities for the citizens of the City, the City is authorized by the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended, to acquire and lease real and personal property for use by a revenue-producing enterprise, or to loan funds directly to the enterprise to be used for such acquisition, said funds to be raised through the issuance of revenue bonds of the City. 1.02. Minnesota Protective Life Insurance Company, • referred to herein as the Company, desires to undertake a Project in the City, at a total cost presently estimated at approximately $2,500,000, said Project to consist of the acquisition of real estate and construction thereon of a 75,000 square foot office building, and desires to finance the cost from funds raised by the sale of revenue bonds of the City. 1.03. The Project would increase the level of economic activity in the City, would provide additional employment oppor- tunities, would increase the tax base, and would enhance the reputation of the City as a desirable location for other suit- able businesses. 1.04. The City is advised by representatives of the Company that conventional commercial financing of the capital cost of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such a cost that the rapacity of the Project to achieve the above purposes would ho reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing, and the resulting lower borrowing cost, the Project is significantly more feasible. • / ()a, • The City is further advised by the Company that approval of revenue bond financing would be a significant inducement to the commencement of construction of the Project by the Company. 1.05. Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, investment bankers, have advised that • on the basis of information submitted to them and their dis- cussions with representatives of the Company and potential buyers of the bonds, revenue bonds of the City could in their opinion be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms in • the amount required to pay the cost of the Project. Section 2. Authorization. 2.01. Subject to approval of the Project by the Com- missioner of Economic Development of the State of Minnesota, and subject to the mutual agreements of the City, the Company and the purchaser of the bonds as to the details of an indenture, lease or loan agreement, and other documents necessary to evidence and effect the financing of the Project and the issuance of the bonds, • the Project described in Section 1 is approved and authorized and the issuance of revenue bonds of the City in the amount of $2,500,000 is authorized to finance the costs of the Project. '2.02. The Mayor is authorized and directed to submit the Project for approval by the Commissioner of Economic Development • as tending to further the purposes and policies of the Municipal Industrial Development Act, and to cause such information concerning the Project to be submitted to the Commissioner as he shall require • for this purpose. 2.03. The City Attorney is authorized to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents relating to the Pro • - ject, and to consult with the Company and the purchaser of the • bonds as to the maturities, interest rates and other terms and provisions of the bonds and the covenants and other provisions of the necessary documents and to submit such documents to the Council for final approval. 2.04. Nothing in this resolution or in the documents, prepared pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any funds on the Project other than the revenues thereof or the pro- ceeds of the bonds or other funds granted to the City for this purpose. The bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encum- brance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City except the Project and the revenue pledged to the payment thereof nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. No bond- holder shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the • taxing power of the City to pay any such bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the Project. Each bond shall recite in substance that the bond, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenue pledged to the payment thereof. No bond issued here- under shall constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. • 2.05. In anticipation of the approval by the Com- • missioner of Economic Development and the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the Project, and in order that completion of the Project will not be unduly delayed when approved, the Company is hereby authorized to make such expenditures and advances toward payment of costs of the Project as it considers necessary, in- cluding the use of interim, short-term financing, subject to reimbursement from the proceeds of the revenue bonds when delivered but otherwise without liability on the part of the City. Adopted by the Council this day of July, 1976. Approved: • Mayor Attest: City Clerk Upon call of the roll, the following Councilmembers voted in favor: and the following were opposed: whereupon said motion was declared carried and the resolution duly adopted. • • • 9.6914 • / • ( ) 441'�' I11i;4.1•,F1.nN:u:nN, Mnr.o..ltY, GAurtor.I, AND C)J,SOX ATT(RNP:YS AT 1.AW • WAIo,It.I.mn. 4040 I n S eli STE I7 JAnrx I.tInor man,ro.;a1 1. 0,A1m1 t':.::1.Itt.r, Hnneer.l.Yl...w.+o.+n ont.o•1:•r„ • C,,,w1,:>:S.14.i.,,,,. NISNEA1.01.IN•,\11NNIF;SOfA ix-,103 I•li.nri1oS,, 031,-7IJI Of euaA'rvxl. .Iu„u ll.(, A % CODE lIt IY,aurt Alwa.s,a .L,tlev 11.nil i,rv1 An mm,tn , CAIM.F. Ao tteoS:1111,srl.A,v �. 1 M.. li 11:1,7 I 1- �, June 8, 1976 1 ,, , .,,ro. pry('^/ • • r, 1 \ t` • .IA.I',C.IliP.1 - , • .....J .Iw„rx A.II., • fi lm:mntm cx \,.\,lai.n:. . • • Mr. Harold M. Jessen, Jr. . • City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, MirnIc:sota 553�13 Re: Tract F, Registered Land Survey No. . 1421, Files of the Registrar of . Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota Dear Mr. Jessen: You will recall that at a recent City Council rooting with Mr. Gerald G. Carnes, we discussed the acquisition of the above captioned property by the City of Eden Prairie for park purposes a d you stated at that time to submit an offer to you.' As attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Carnes, we offer this property to the City at $4500.00 an acre and are prepared to forward to you a legal description containing the pro- per ecrca p at any tirrr there is an acceptance. We would appreciate it if you would present this offer to the proper authorities as soon a: possit,le. a:r Mr. Carnes would like to know the final disposition of this • approxinete rive acre tract. Should you have any further questions please contact me. I am forwarding herewith a copy of this Registered Land Survey which depicts this laiu1. • Very truly yours, • For • BESi'k, 1'I..JNAGAN, T•",PTP,NEY, • 'ARROLL AND 01SON . JDD:ry:: • Inclo;auy. . cc: ((•r;)1d G. Cm'11cs G, '7 • MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council • FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services M.J • THROUGH: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager DATE: July 1, 1976 • SUBJECT: 1977 LAWCON GRANT APPLICATION On Tuesday, June 29th, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission • took action recommending that Eden Prairie's 1977 LAWCON Grant Application include: • A. Acciuisition • - 1. Bren property at Bryant Lake 2. Miller property at Mitchell Lake 3. Kucher/Traver property along Purgatory Creek • B. Development 1. Round Lake Park Since then I have communicated with the State Planning Agency about the possibility • of amending the previous 1972-73 LAWCON Grant and have been advised that they would • look favorably on a request including : 1. Amendment to add Parcel 8, and delete Parcel 1. • 2. Amendment to increase the Federal Grant $62,482 to cover increased cost. I would suggest that this be done inasmuch as the ]iklchood of purchasing Parcel 1, owned by Mr. Binardi is not good at this time. We are thousands of dollars apart as to our estimates of value, and I believe we nay acquire it through dedication at the development of the rest of Binardi's property. We can always resubmit an application later, if necessary. This eliminates 1 of the 3 acquisitions suggested by the commission. Facts on the 3 remaining projects are as follows: estimated cost 1. Miller property acquisition , 73.68 acres $400,000-500,000 2. }:ucher/Deaver property acquisition ,55 ac. $220,000 3. Round Lake Park Development $200,000 (2 lighted softball fields,41ighlnd tennis courts, I lighted baseball field, pathways, parking, and landscaping, a youth spurts complex) RE C O't 1EN DAT I ON S k.r. 1. An amendment to the 1912-73 LAWCON Grant Contract No. LW 604 be requested as discussed earlier in this memo. 2. An application for 1977 LAWCON Funds be filed for the 3 projects listed above. Mliij' • t; • • MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services • THROUGH: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager DATE: July 1, 1976 E' SUBJECT: Zylka Land Purchase On Tuesday, June 29, 1976, the Parks , Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended the purchase of the Zylka property as proposed on the attached report for the following reasons: 1. It is a continuation of implementing the contractual commitment made by Eden Prairie with the Federal and State Governments to acquire the land around Staring Lake and for which LAWCON and State Natural Resource Funding have.been received. 2. While the purchase price is higher than the appraised value , the appraiser's report is over 1 year old,and the appraiser has indicated that he feels the proposed price of $ 7,500 / acre is within an "acceptable range" for a public purchase of this property. • MJ:jj • MEMO TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council • THRU: Roger Ulstad, City Manager • • FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services M, • J. SUBJECT: Proposed Purchase of the Michael Zyika Property at Staring Lake • DATE: June 24, 1976 • The purchase of the Zylka property was approved as part of the 1975 IJtWCON Grant which Eden Prairie received. The property was appraised by an independent real estate appraiser and he submitted to us a value of $6,000 per acre for the approximately 15 acres which we wish to acquire straddling the creek. Mr. Zylka is of the opinion that the property has a value of $9,000 per acre. After an extended period of negotiation the following terms are suggested for your consideration: I. The purchase price be $7,500 per acre. 2. A total of approximately 15.1 acres to be acquired. 3. The City must pass a resolution of condemnation for the City to survey the property at it's expense. 4. The seller to pay all taxes and assessments due and payable in 1976. The City to assume this responsibility in subsequent years. 5. Payment schedule to be $23,250 at the time of closing with the balance (approximately $90,000) to be deposited in an interest • hearing trust fund account and to he payable in four equal installments from 1977 through 1980. The interest to be paid to Mr. Zylka will be at the rate of 6'/ per year. • Tie Comprehensive Cuide Plan indicates commercial, industrial or multiple residential uses with the balance of the property to be acquired for public pnr1. purposes. I've indicated to Mr. Zylka that as of today this is the only official plan which the City has to indicate future land uses on this property, and he has asked that the City Council reaffirm these proposed uses for the property at this time. • SUMMAIZY AND 11ECOMMLNDATlONS • i would recommend that the property in question be acquired under the terms and conditions listed above. Attached is a copy of the map indicating the approximate property to be purchased. • July 6, 1976 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. 1154 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAN OF RED ROCK HILLS 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the Plat of Red Rock Hills 2nd Addition has been submitted in the manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordin— ances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat Approval Request for Red Rock Hills 2nd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's Report on thi.s plat dated June 30, 1976. B. Variance is herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8, Steel. 1 waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the • approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said Engineer's Report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis— trar of Titles for their use as required by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3. • D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon c:o:npliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on � . Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • ATTEST: SEAL • John Franc, Clerk • it ): nn �L' • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO; Mayor Fenzel and Members of the City Council • THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: June 30, 1976 SUBJECT: Red Rock Hills 2nd Addition PROPOSAL: The Developer, John C. Houston, is requesting City Council approval of the Final Plat of Red Rock Hills 2nd Addition, located west of Red Rock Road and south of Scenic Heights Road. This involves the replotting of Outlots A and B, Red Rock Hills 1st , Addition into 26 single family residential lots (R1-13.5). Out- ' lots C. U and E will he platted as the third addition at a later date. • HISTORY: The Red Rock Hills P.U.D. was approved by the City Council on March ]i, 1975, per Resolution #941-13. The Preliminary Plat was • approved through Resolution 941-A on March 11, 1975. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City Council on May 27, 1975, per Ordinance #284. The Final Plat now submitted for approval conforms with the approved Preliminary Plat. VARIANCES: A variance from Ordinance No, 93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1 waiving the six month m.:x.imum time elapse between the Preliminary Plat approval date and filing of the Final Plat will be required. UTILITIES AND SPREE'S: Utilities and streets serving the 2nd Addition are b ing installed by the City. The affected property will be asac:aerd for the utilities and streeis. No utilities will be in- stalled on the remainder of the site until development of the third • addition. TANK DEDICATION: 'rho requirements for park dedicaiton have been satisfied through the approval of Red hock Bills lot Addition. Outlot A will lie dedicated for trail or bikeway purposes and is consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat. BONGING: Bonding for the installation of the trail, street signs and first year costs tor street lights will he required. Sanitary ()J;)- - 2 - sewer, watermain, storm sewer and streets are being installed by the City, therefore bonding for these utilities will not be required. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the Final Plat of Red Rock Hills ', 2nd Addition, subject to the requirements of this report and the following: 1. Receipt of fee for City Engineering Services in the amount of $780. • 2. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. C ' CJJ:kh • • • . `,IUel 8 1976 RAUELIHOPST CORP®RATI®IiI , June 7, 1976 Mr, Roger Ulstad, City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Ulstad: The Rauenhorst Corporation hereby petitions the City of Eden Prairie to install sewer, water and storm sewer lines adequate to service development contemplated on the neneteen acres of the OPUS 2 project located in Eden Prairie. In addition, we would appreciate being granted a one year extension on • the PUD (PUD-74-06) zoning granted for this property by the City Council in July of 1974. The initial rezoning of this property was for a two year period. I shall forward to you under separate cover, information describing the location and extent of sewer, water and storm sewer we desire to have installed. Because of the unique location of this property in relation to the remainder of Eden Prairie and because it appears more logical to have the City of Minnetonka provide this service, we request that a joint powers arrange- ment be entered into by the two communities for purposes of extending these utilities through Minnetonka into Eden Prairie. Please advise me of the process and procedure that we have to follow to have these requests implemented by your community. Sincerely, Robert A. Worthington, A.I.P `_ Director of Planning and Governmental Affairs • cc: Carsten Leikvold Don Asmus Enc. RAW:ms SUI1L flLO.NOHTIIWC:TEHN FINANCIAL CENTER.7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH,MINNEAPOUS,MINNESOTA 55431(812)830-4444 July 6, 1976 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. 1155 RESOLUTION VACATING TEMPORARY EASE- MENT ON GELCO PROPERTY, I.C. 51-261 WHEREAS, the City of. Eden Prairie received and recorded certain permanent and temporary easements for sanitary sewer purposes from the Gelco Corporation in an easement document dated July 25, 1975, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and WHEREAS, the construction of said sanitary sewer has been completed and there is no longer a need for said temporary construc- tion easements, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie herein vacates the temporary easements described in attached Exhibit A. ADOPTED by the City City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John P. Frane, Cle,rk_.__� • • 27O qiiN 3f15cntnrr, Alae this........_..._,.._ ...��J_.......... da o,....... L S '' y J tA,..... 7S ,Rhearn.-Mace„COX porati.on._..a ltiunr„s,o a.,.corporation.._._.--_..,..-__--,._.._- "` • i rexernomtirm;xndr.ethetiaabwf.11,aStntexrfx...............-...._........._.............._...,_..............,party H n!the first rare,and • ' 1.. _City..a1...L•'d cn...P.raix.Ee.....a roan is ipa.l...torporata.on_..._..........._.._.'_.' r • mtl f7iD18HmR nndrr Ilw lwrr of the State oJ...MinnCSC.ta................ """'""... '....'-'.."_pw�.,•,.u.. par!!/of the...nil pert. ........_-.......... .._.._.._._....._..._......_.......t, S'. • frrllfitrs;vrll), That tie wad party nJ the pa part, to ten.irleratiaa of the ium of , One Do.l.lar„_und.other..dtod._and,valuahle_.cans,i.deration to it in hand paid by the said art "=nendetf,e duns hrrrbr Crane,lies party of the second part,lie receipt rrl e,rof is hrrrby part,its rbdfrnt, -Third assigns,1'arrrer,xilythsfixa:hxr.>.erner ktuoe ain],and Connry �eM�:d>lnto the.ard party of the second ifs nrraewuty ... nmiD... / Atmlix[[vJ].L[irr'jhaRxllhA£IIIC7i$)aj..._ �./ ^��r� mslnelatl A 25 foot permanent easement and a 60 foot temporary r o y tnen • for sanitary sewer purposes over, underandacrossthefollowingndescribed property: That part of Government Lot 6, Section 13, Township 116, North Range 22, West• of the 5th principal Meridian, lying South of the Center line of is No. 494 Except that part described as follow State ftthtn;„_ at a pont in Southerly right-of-way line of State Highway No.85gwhich�point isf11 frethVa._-; of the intersection of the Fast line of said Government Lot 6 and the Souther" right-of-way line of said State Highway, measured along said Southerly right- of-t:ay line, thence West along said Southerly right-of-way line, a distance V of 250 fact; thence South in a straight line to a point in a line drawn ,`N parallel with and 250 feet South of said Southerly right-of-way line which point is 264.7 feet West of the East tine of said Government Lot 6, measure,: N along said parallel line, thence East along said parallel line to a point therein which is 34.7 feet West of the East line of said Government Lot 6, measured along said parallel line; thence North in a straight line to a pr',; .r:of beg;nning; Also Except that part described as follows; Corm encing at.U,- j intersection of the Southerly line of Slate Highway No. 5 with the (test l.:nr• �o M of C,.a,i m:,ent Lot 4/7; thence West a distance of 11 sfeet measured along r-;,; ,,�Sr,uther11. line; thence Southerly a distance of 250'feet to a point 14.7 ftr;.'' withI7esL of the Nest lino of Government Lot d7; thence South on a line parallel and 14.7 feet West of the LEst line of Government Lot #7 to the South,:)y, line of Covernment. Lot 46; thenee Easterly along said Southerly line of nee :n','..t Let 11.6 to the West: lino/ of Government point of ('Ccncenc,•sent. Lot #7; thence North to tee Said pr•osanrnt easement being 12.50 feet to the left and 12.5 feet to the right of the following described line, and raid temporary construction enscnv.at. being 30.00 feet to the left and 30,00 feet to the right of the following described line. Said line described as follows: Comnenei ng at the intersection of the West line of Government Lot 6 and the Southerly right-of--way line of .^,tate highway No. 5, thence Southerly on an assemcd bed!log of south 0 degrees, 0 minutes West along the West line of said (nvt:rnncnt Lot 6 a distance of 613.62 feet to the actual point of Leg i cn inq of the lino to he described; thence North 47 degrees 12 minute: 43 ;eeonds t,,•;t a distance of.63.25 feet, thence South 62 degrees 41 minutes 75 r:ecn1145 1:,:,t a distance of 307.13 feet., thence North 86 degrees 43 minutes, ' 45 seconds East a distance of 293.07 feet and there terminating. Also a 25 foot permanent 'casement being 12.50 feet to the loft and 12.50 feet to the right of the fn)]owi dq described line, and a 40 foot temporary row I!ncl is,n r•e,..,.:,.r•nt being 20.00 fret to the left and 20.00 feet to the right of the following described 1ine. Said line described as follows: cesa•-,•nt•ieq at the terminus of the last described easement line thence North • 37 (1 1;.,e,s. 43 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 682.32 feet, thence South ft3 de,nres 07 n:ir rto5 00 seconds East a distance of 117.28 feet, thence Soot!) • 51 do:;;'cc:: 31 r;:inutes 33 ,seconds East a distance of 169.89 feet to the East I line of the above describes) property and th.+e terminating. . ; a.br •'a"'9 r1 __ -- C-1l'_.._ is l 'i lJ . . r:.0.., ...,1„..„..„- ,,:; .f,;_,-;;;;Ic.ci !:,;.c•F-...br.4-.7' !I.:J.; pc,T.6 ',..',1'4 uf i j-•_,,•,.!,4• , . . . :,•I' :11:FOrlfr,r ;-_, .•'•C'-'0"-j7. .7.:114 fl ..i!ZI;: , ', 4-'1: .17 i?i.1"1:;, Le•*.,C ,,,r....." ,.\* 1-1;!.TO''' ,,io *i•,"(••:S.,,k4 T...f:P4, t-1 ....!,. -1,i'.0,-" !:".. II A e..;..;. -.....:,.-:1 • ,i.-.., ,„ ,, . ....Le,.'t••Nt3".:.ri:;-11(,:' .tc.., :ir,e.,,r.,q.... ',.`,L.k. f; :_rtRri..1.i' e; 0.;.„ 4..,E.,.:11,-;? /:.'1:-C,c'. , ,•,..,,,,,i3,:-.-4 Li: ,.:r: !...);(•., f f11!,,,-.i• !II: 4.r.,-., 7,,!,•••....; ,v-...;:........,:y..e.,.,; ...,-,.f.;-..c.!,.•••:);; j 4:Tr? . .. . . . . • , . ., . I 1 ., . •e,)../-•0-,- fii, to I icv,,,';):: ,;"s.,-.;1 y r''- ').•!:•-:.• !!'.11!;!.; 7 71;:' ).1&1C....!1-00r1 i 1• •.,?f r.rt-,-..r ,(*.L. r.,.--..1c..:1,;..1;.{. 1-,-. 1,..4i,.-,,o- .1..,-) 11.r:j: f,.tl l'.!:7 ..;r,4.;; 5pri. ;•„;;2•?”,, 1---,,I. ;7;1 ;•...,.-_,• ! I I:1'11 ...,1, C .ro.i.:' T'):1 'If DI CIA'','' 7r"':.,- 1:-:I:' ri;:',; f) ,C, 1.:%",; I-CL..i`r..71.,. •,, _ . . . . . . i• i,c,'g. 72 -•orNr•.bc:.,.;,,,::),1.•f. ,.....1:,7..n(r;;,. ...,..,E .;',:t 7:-:•,,-.;)...4,•-..,-..-q7 i.-_-,? 4-_-jf, i ki;!: .4...1.,,,c -1....-.,.. .,. ,• • i ,,. . . . . . . ! '• . ... . ., ,. ,' '21-_,,,,c,t16.,,•;'-±-,:7.,•_ f, ji.-,,rs,17.. :-.1-.;. is.,,.1._ •:\,.---0.7 C.,::, ;,-.. *.;. ..,4.,,. I:,,I‘17--(.., .i-,'C.;:;11)3rV I 7:Ia. . .. ., C.I.I"17 w.-...a i-. r. ,;,,, ,"...,;;(.(, :.... _,..% ',.,, r. 1-1.'';',:.:.: yl,-..,:ii p,‘,..,,c“.,. '7 f,.;;.•.,' ...,:. „.r.;!.., • i t"-;'Cr'-1--3 f1,..,:: 0 'rrci•-`•::",-•'; ;•-,:. ..-::i.: ...1-'-f•' :.-.!',.•-••:•••7•,-- 'ern.'1:P f?..7. .C.iri•'•g`::.,:, ••7i.i ..4i:,••'... • ; ' '•i'..4...1.;Y:, 1....:i C. :-: C '.,,.r..-.1" rf, ;',...> ,,0'.,-,..),.;)",'-,..! ',j-nr;:•"%,-; MO-/-4-...::.:':;.1 C,i('''''''''':.'''' 5': ...!-',.1r c.• . :.:1) r,;:•.,.,.,-,r ';;.:.-.:;;-. :•:)r. (2 -.5.4 r.".1-.i.:-.,',..:--. 01 ,,,.1'. ,. ....::;(I ;.."..• i71'6 :...,7.If i 1.....o..,;.•;,. n 4, ••,;•;111,0.4 i-y.,-..!- .: );'• ,,,,•; r:.•,7,, :,-, • . ,1,•-•f-..i. . .'..-",':,:-/.. ;,....,i':-... Er;(W 9 '71.1'.• 0.'-:•.:. .".? `-' C';. :I nt-...i,c-.IT , 5..,!,,,...:,:_e -,,,,,-1.,,, . .11,-.F nt p-4-lc-. I:,:?,: ..j.. •,(••• i„:• cli(o:-..- ....,: : r!..4.• :.... ...i', s,. ). tKic.,-..y.,,... •,-....• ;3!..;4 3.r.!".--•-.,''. ,r..'2-,I;1") , .t.. :. ..., :.,, ,...r. i.i;- 4.0. ;;',7..',":.(“."..,.'•"''0. 1,-,-,I. t, 4':.rj •• . ..' , . .. - 1'rr‘.,..- ;:.1,,.,..;:-...,1T.,,s:.ii :I. 7,'.....,,,• ..:;,..,,c; s,..,,..;',.... ..i."(.: '... ' .4'..•"'.3.•.,•")..;),: . .) "i',:•'.;I pr.!'..1. '';''f)3 ,-..: :.• 1 :.. :f-': .' ,"1.,j 'C•''.,, .*,:".0.!: 1 ) ci,:::. ••.'.!,-.!;1". C•.7" 1:.y.' . . • f':‘ i': .j.1,:', !,f: ,: '-V.- ' 1 Y• '..:". '' ' ': '71:; 1 .7•'.•.;-$.2,..."... ".., • ;-,'!" ! Is:r, - .-! ..,-c.,•-.1i.. :-.,:" .,:)_1 -?,..,,.-i.,-.. 7- -; .•-• ;.,, •-• ...-c„.••,, -:,,,, .,,:-,• •,? i,..c.•:••7 ,.,, .,;.-.::,.- . . , . .. . . ..-,71.4. (,. .c,i ,-.. ,..,:i.,,,,......-.. •c, . • . , • • ..;., , •..: :-.;;;,.',.!:,:•si r.I'S Fi-il ',CC CCll; 71.7.'r.4:•.'i.::;? S'.:( 1,1"; .0-. , ,1 ;3: .(-,' • . ; . • - .• , ...ovt St.re,:e1.. .f.,!-!t,r')...t.1 I2x,f., C Exempt ::; .. ;,';, nat ,5. 3 : • I . • .i...(•) 3 ..,11'ss nut fa'..ft 's.Z.1 II): ;'-_,•aint. To,,,sethe,with nil l)e 71.-rerlitn I»en!s and appurtenances there- , 1 ir'Ito be?,..r,:i w,•,1 vr i a.o IQ i I CI CC o pp.,!CCI,Ii n 1, In the raid pa ri y of the 5CCVn Al part,its tu eer,ssors onti Forever. • ! '; . . I .,,,,,,,•• '' ?!.!1's '.) • \ i-r;c5,1inirlar k:':I h.t SIcrtnt. T said first py h artas caused • pi,At"OS lo br(.1 CC i 7: 210 eorpwrat e IC(1:lir by its. 1.fii.C" ! ' • ((:\s, y 1Yr-sitter: ar:l its . „ . . and its corporal')Oral to br, 11,!!)e le rzl o 111 .1..:! I he(1 a y and year first above written, 1 .. (eld 0_,4 , GET,c6 CONI'ORATION . ........ Ay ' \4r• i',,,.,..,,,,,,-e,,f .0 By ... . ............. ^Ct6.2.4.C.1 ) ; • • Its IR<e- President ( /.. . .. .... .... ... ' :-.." ' \\, -' " . • : .. . . .\/ '' \/ -T) -... -- I ',Z727 • r, .a/' STATE OF MIh'NESOTA ) YAAAMJ.AAAAAAAAA AAAAAIAAA,llA Al AAAAAK rrA } BETTY L.HUSSMAIV ) ss. r� ~ . . ruauc•....A,,.c.wrA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) f;F /if.NNEPIN COUNiY �/c` h 'v r:mnnussnn Apues Apr.27.iRtOr On this day of clue", , 19 7.5,klowvv rrywot's•rill verrYflrryr,Yg before me, a Notary Public�within and fir said County, personally appeared sa ti ( SFr to me personally Widwn, who, being each by me duly sworn /er did say that they are respectively the %.,, President and the of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf said corporation by authority of its ]Board of and said - and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said.corporation. This instrument was drafted by Pcrbi;:, Harvey & Simons, P.A. P. 0. Bo% 190 17 Tenth Avenue South Hopkins, idinoesota 55343 • • • • 9-737• • • MEMO TO: Mayor Fenzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: July 1, 1976 SUBJECT: Petition for a Utility connection 15209 Scenic ❑eights Road Mr. Douglas Schmidt, the property owner at 15209 Scenic Heights Road, has submitted the attached petition requesting the City to install sewer and water services for his residence. The lateral sewer and water stubs are inp]ace about 85' southwesterly from the house. These were installed by the City in 1975 together with the Scenic Heights area improvements (I.C. 51-262). • Mr. Schmidt claims that the City's contractor may have cut through his old drain field line when the laterals were installed. However, his private :,ewage dirpeeal system has continued to operate until the devel- oper to the south (John Houston) proceeded to regrade his property in conjunction with the Red Rock Hills project. Apparently, Mr. Schmidt's drain field is partially located on Mr. Houston's property and the filling none by t•tr. Houston has blocked the overflow from the drain field to the extent that during heavy rains, storm drainage water enters the drain field cystcm, backing up into Mr. Schmidt's basement rather than flowing through the drain field. We don't believe that the City has any direct liability in• this matter. However, it does seem reasonable for the City to receive Mr. Sclvnidt's 100% petition and order the improvements, subject to the conditions of said petition. CJJ:kh .21U July 6, 1976 • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 1156 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING, ORDERING THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITY SERVICES FOR 15209 SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD, PROJECT MIS 76-9-05 WHEREAS, a 100% petition, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been received from Mr. Douglas Schmidt requesting the following improvement: MIS 7G-9-05, City sewer and water hookups for 15209 Scenic Heights Road, and WHEREAS, said petitioner is the owner of all real property proposed to be assessed for the improvement and a public hearing therefore is not required per MSA 429.031, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends that the project is feasible and that the lowest responsible bidder for the work is Southwest Plumbing Co. at $710. NOW, THEREFORE, REiT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council, 1. Pursuant to MSA 429.011 to 429.111, Project MIS 76-9-05 is hereby ordered. 2. S nthwest Plumbing Co. is hereby authorized to install • said ::ewer and water hookups at their quoted price of $710. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on • Wolfgang H. Penzol, Mayor ATFEIT: SEAL John D. Franc, Clerk a.-710 • • • June 18, 1976 To the City of Fx3cn Prairie c/o Carl Jullie, City Engineer We, the undersigned owners of the property at 15209 Scenic Heights Road, herein petition the City of Eden Prairie to install a city sanitary sewer connection and water service to the existing house on said prop- erty- We understand the cost of said sewer and water services to be as follows: SEWER AND OtFFS1DE WATER $600.00 for 85'44" C1SP sewer connection from exist. service to house. Also, 85'4" of 1" copper water connection from curb stop to house. included in this price are filling the septic tank and permits reou i t<rd. . $350.00 M,rt,opolitan Waste Control Commission system i.ccess charge $950.00 Total .•an. sower hookup and outside water 1 NOIDE.' r.i2 $110.00 for inside snter connetion including wot C'r I:r.'t or and Irlrmi IS • $100.00 for water system access charge $210.00 - total weter inside connection 'i'i rl'AL $1,1(.0.00 Total s,.wer cod %,;At-r Fr ,:rri,. • ,.id and ,rgr,,c` . '1 s- d cost. of $1,160.00 shah he nn,•i:1 8% .interest and tL:,t 1-:ymr i,t:: i'.ri 1 :, •,•- r':, _'" r 1977 and payable in :11 estate taxes. psi[4%It•J 3S tt,14. '•= b\M ra. u CAN q k..4 za coi d i .pairs S • :1 ��� V / We further agree to waive our rights to an improvement hearing and special a sessment hearing for these improvements and also herein grant to the City of Eden Prairie and its employees and contractor the right to enter upon said property for the purpose of constructing said sewer and water connections. eased upon the foregoing, we herein request the City to proceed immed- iately with said improvements. • 00.4.415441_,N41634:4-11 Douglas Vhmidt 4.6-aoy„Too/jet tor 712pi /%e(,s-s. ��,z s�ivQ 0-.�t.4e /5 t li'A�. -4ef l' a 4 _ • I. r1 • • a1 r2 • MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services M,j THROUGH: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager DATE: July 2, 1976 SUBJECT: Welter Request for Building Permit Along Purgatory Creek Two major items affect and are affected by the Welter request: 1. Ordinance No. 276, Floodplain Ordinance 2. The Purgatory Creek Open Space Corridor Study 771E FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE • • Ordinance 276 calls for the dedication of an easement of no less than 50 feet • for "hydraulic efficiency". Mr. Welter has agreed to this provision . It also require; that no structure be built within 100 feet of the creek and the proposed home cr.',:pliet with this provision. Because of the elevation difference between the cruel: and the proposed home site this 100 foot minimur. "no building zone" is viewed as adequate. • 711E CREEK STUDY Deco mendations on this section of the creek include: 1. Hiking trail adjacent to the creek. 2. Other trails, associated with residential development along "rim". 3. Bicycle and other vehicles excluded. 4. Primitive, less refined, fewer points of access. 5. Setbacks should be strictly enforced. 'fhe aroposed home location, while not meeting the letter of the study fit is right on the edge of the Conservancy Zone ), does address the intent providing no further encr.wchmcnt occult. It is believed that the Floodplain Ordinance easement requirement will provide for seat• of the rrnagement goals stated in the creek study-but not all. It should be understood that some management will be required and performed by Mr. Vteller including removal of diseased trees, erosion control, etc., and he has stated his intent to do this. Ml:j j • Dear Council Members and Other Interested Parties: On Tuesday, July 6, 1976, the Eden Prairie City Council • will consider my application for a permit to build a single family dwelling on an unplatted five acre parcel within the Flood Plain as defined in City Ordinance No. 276. I would like to take this opportunity to express to the members of the City Council and other interested parties that it is my avowed intention, if this permit is granted, to do nothing to violate either the letter or the spirit of the standards set forth in Ordinance Flo. 276. Above all, it is my desire to do • everything within my power to keep the area surrounding the proposed building site in its natural undisturbed state. Evidence of this desire can be found in my prior efforts to prevent the sewer interceptor from being installed along the Purgatory Creek channel. I am also willing to grant to the City of Eden Prairie the perpetual easement required as a condition for a permit as set out in Section 5 (b) 1 of City Ordinance 276. I can only urge each one of you to make on on-site visual inspection of the proposed site prior to the July 6 hearing, and after having made such an inspection, I can assure you that you will be satisfied the issuance of the permit and the construction of a home on the site will do nothing to adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare as provided in the Flood Plain Ordinance. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Si 71y, 21„,j41 R / Welter, r. 79 Tolnyhono : /4.4: — .5282 Jun," Y , “.176 • Mr. '1 ry 1.. , . r. o , :13,1 •re!,wty or, :;,:rth 6o of '.:ouraty :toad ,0 and :11r r A4 r;—: , al.:1ut ,ic.wn one noil ' .; ' ,',••• 4.t..r, 4,-04 g et' +,.'!,e tmstAl. lor • cf •cc 7 , I/sr r !! r• th of Ittr'''.lf.a. the • ;. t: (,1 v‘st 2 1re.4•.os Of I 17 tn•i Is of . ' .! r'.;• ;..1 ....fp:J. 4. wee ; ; r, ',.3 • • r; lt 10 -1.rillto -,! . • • . - ro.: • , -rrt I,R3 1171 t rC•1".1•. he rqt,..*: gth-own are 1. .3, •, •;:.• 3;1 r .t. ioTth w 1.r.to boy'.r.,5 nut".T.,7, rIIr r one Ir 1 41 C'• An ',V .7,,•1 l'•(••7 I IA fr.: minty'eel 1!' ;; ; '1,!1 ••• rr Frecrod .3 • :179 ; Arti rAp.2. ',1•1,h a 6? , 1:-"7 V I ro,i. fqot, r c. t,.a tirr. t':o trar.,; •,,-.:1 would e..4f.) A. . . • r..,.1 fr_e:.f.'..,,i.•:5..1 ...1.7...."C!.; .rst 4.• 1. ,,,..., 1,t -. r.-e.., , ...S rr._.. 4,--4....I.r;k/..4 Tio 0) Y7..a 1 t FIV-i.' 0.;,..,- n.,,,....., .:-,4r-, cA:1 "'' ,„., Or. ..fr- VSfuwd A ter , '0;•I e''.. oen,..c.e• c.Av...., r.,..,5 7 1,..---- ;',-•'11 I -I. „ II .•i' - C (_4...r..,:c..A:.••A)C&r.'c N,.•..,,G,, r••t,; 6. ...'..., 1 l'.-.•t t I . i ''' 1 ,;•; . ( ,.,e.^,,e,,:. ;,,,,,.J., r.1,6•1. •IS . . I . I ... .1...' 4 ... ! Y. CC.4., :... ..•,..CI .e.. 4 4 4..,(.l .. .. . t •(;) .. . :;, ... " . C. t •. . ,,I ... . ..• I . ,. . /. 1 r —•,..A 1 4.,0 4!'',iv,: d i.....,c,.,•.',,`...'*•.::: C. ,i.t:I/-1(,, 7--— „ 4 . /-Ei_d/AT il),i . . ._. /'/ -'71.", o . 7 ,."...,, •‘, . ' . . 1 -77'1- 1 1••••/•;,-... 1, ..• .-... ,-, ' :II ';"....-,Tti ,•,,- \--r,- ,,tee ,..,,,.,:•...) 1 1, -.-„,, 1 ' ' • .. ,.,. / 1 .• •., v,„ „ ,..- i. ;,; .`,..".7 il,kJ../'I.:,t . . , /. '2; " I V!. - - ;0-. 0,r 'Nr'.' ,'-• ” ""s", , .., 'k‘,.....c.., p c it. ';'....k t.4.,,.. e>r. A ,jt" t......... 7 1 ,e,, , c- - . , ,,,.7,' : ;.+ ". . . ,k . „..,T...‘.: '". A...,,'.• 'I 1 cl. 0 q.,,(^) . ,,,,J — .. i 411 TO: Roger Ulstad FROM: John Frane \' DATE: June 29, 1976• RE: Sale of Steelman House The Immanuel Lutheran Church steering committee should be in a position to bid on the house in time for the July 13th meeting. We should change the bid date from the 6th to the 13th, An k•_ ad for the sale has been placed in the Eden Prairie Community News. `L--)1'7 • CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST i ' - i•, . July 6, 1976 CONTRACTOR (Mulit-family & Comm_) • Loeffel-Engstrand Company . PLUMBING r: Erickson Plumbing & Heating Inc. • . I These licenses have been approved by the department head responsible for the licensed activity. .V.14/../...K.',4 OWAAtiAl....,,JY. .4-,.._ / . . Rebeccauernemoc Q n, Deputy Clrrk • E