HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 07/13/1976_TO RN pRANE
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1976
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL STAFF:
7:30 PM, CITY HALL
Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Billy Bye, Sidney
Pauly, Joan Meyers and Tim Pierce,
City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney
Harlan Perbix; Planner Dick 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. 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 Went of The Preserve Center on the East/West Parkway.
(Continued from 7/6/76)
B. I.C. 51-293, Bituminous surfacino on Eden Prairie Road from
Coonty_Road No. 1 to approirnate1y BOO feet north of T.H. 169-212.
l'Pasolutich tle. 1159
Page 2719
Page 2722
III. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 287, Linden Pond, rezoning from Page 2724
Rural to R1-13.-5.
IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Neill Lakelpartments The Preserve, request for modification of Page 2738
Development Plan for 84 units. The site is located on Neill Lake
Road across from the High Point single family area. (Continued
from 6/22/76).
B. Setting of a Public Hearing redesignating Planned Study in
Southwestern Eden _Prairie that has reverted to I-General.
C. Request by Darkonwald/Dr. Belvedere for the operation of a dental
clinic in the single residence located at 8480 Franlo Road.
(Communication dated July 7, iggy--
D. Request from Pix!rtem to consider changes of rezoning agreement
dated May 21, 1976.
Page 2759
Page 2760
Page 2768
V. REPORTS OF orricips, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS.
A. Reports of Council members.
Council Agenda - 2 - Tuesday, July 13, 1976
B. Report of City Manager
1. Condon/Naegele Rezoning Agreement. (Dated July 8, 1976) Page 2771
C. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Eden Prairie Equestrian Center Lease.
2. Swimming Pool - consideration of joint venture with School
District.
D. Report of Planning Director
1. Recommendation from Human Rights Commission regarding the Page 2777
committee Studying Community Based Services Board (CBSB),
on the Board's objectives and membership.
2. Crosstown extension from Shady Oak Road to 1-494. Consideration Page 2783
of access to Beach Road and Cooley Road.
E. Report of City Engineer
1. Consider bids received on 7/9/76 for Mitchell Lake MD
Improvements, I.C. 51-289. (Resolution No. 1160)
2. Receive feasibility report for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, Page 2785
and watermain improvements to service property in the
vicinity of West 78th Street, T.H. 169 and Eden Road,
I.C. 51-284. (Resolution No. 1161)
3. Receive feasibility report for street improvements in the Page 2786
Westgag-TEasIrkildition, I.C. 51-292. (Resolution No. 1165)
4. Approve Plans and Specifications and order advertisement for Page 2787
bids for street improvements on Preserve Boulevard and
overlay on Anderson Lakes Parkway, I.C. 51-282. (Resolution
No. 1162)
5. Final plat approval for Edenvale 12 Addition (Resolution No.
•
1163), and Linden Pond Addition (Resolution No. 1164).
6. Recommendation on Valley View Road alignment west of County
Road 4.
F. Report of Finance Director
1. Draft contract for IBM Punch Card Voting System.
2. Bids for Steelman Rouse.
3, payment of Claims Nos. 1853 - 2013.
4. Precinct Polling Places
(. A/4 0
pEw Busixss. t4a14....
ADJOURNMENT. -
Law
Page 2788 &
2789
Page 2791
Page 2793
Page 2797
July 9, 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. Ulstad:
Attached you will find further information regarding the above project
by our legal counsel which we endorse and request that it be circulated
to the Council members prior to the Council meeting on Tuesday.
July 13th.
Very truly yours,
THWPaESERVE
ohn H. Gerty;
Vice Preside,nt
CARTER Fa, GERTZ, INC.
JI-IG /end
Attachments
A Total Environment Community — 8920 Frani° Rd., Eden Prairie, Minn. 55343— 1612)941-2001
211Iq
WALTED 14 BAKER
WILLIAM G BALE
CHARLES A DASSFORD JR
RICHARD J AUNT)
GEORGE C. MASTOR
ROSIBIT w MATTSON
wATHE 0L40K1
JAMES II A-BoHAN
JACK A DOSSERCi
ALONZO 0 SINAI)
STEVEN J TDAHER
01-0.8976
Of/ices MASTOR and MATTSON, Ltd.
315 PEAVEY BUILDING
730 SECOND AVENUE 5/01./714
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55401
TELEPHONE 330-5045 AREA CIE
July 8, 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:
Following the Council meeting on Tuesday, July 6, the
developer undertook to investigate certain aspects of the above
project so that it and the Council could be more fully informed
when the matter came on for consideration again on Tuesday,
July 13. Specifically, the developer considered and herewith
delivers to you and the City Council additional information
concerning the following general topics.
1. Real estate tax implications.
2. Publicschool costs.
3. Contract for fire protection.
4. Residential housing implications.
5. Marketing of apartments.
6. Status of Windslope.
Real Estate Tax Implications
Attached to this letter you will find a Memorandum with its
own attachments which summarize the three tax situations. The
first situation is what the various governmental divisions
realize upon the land in its present undeveloped state. This
total is $1,913.33. The second situation assumes this project
does not receive the benefit of M.S.A. 273.13. The third situa-
tion assumes the application of M.S.A. 273.13. The estimated
2_7 ds0
Mr. Ulstad Page Two July 8, 1976
real estate taxes which would be paid by this project was figured
on the capitalization process by Robert Martz, an employee of the
City of Eden of Eden Prairie, and a copy of his worksheet entitled
"Income and Expense Analysis--Income Grid" is attached for your
reference. The allocation among the various governmental sub-
divisions was taken from the current real estate tax statement by
these law offices in determining how the estimated real estate
taxes would be shared. The developer feels that these estimates
demonstrate that it is better for both the City of Eden Prairie
and the developer if the land is improved rather than left
unimproved. The cash income received by the City of Eden Prairie
and by other governmental subdivisions is substantially higher
than is received when the land is left in its present undeveloped
condition.
Public School Costs
Information concerning public school costs and the tax
impact on the school district of East-West Parkway Apartments as
a 221-D-3 project and Neill Lake Apartments as a 221-D-4 project
were obtained from Mr. Merle Gamin of the Eden Prairie school
district and the assumption of pupil ratio per apartment unit was
obtained by Landtech Management Company, a company that manages
4200 apartment units in the Twin City area which includes two
221-0-3 market-rate projects. The pupil rate per apartment unit
used is .35 [preschool age children have been excluded in the
computation]. Attached you will find a photocopy of a calculation
made by Mr. Gamm dated July 7, 1976 relative to the foregoing
two apartment projects which estimates that the Neill Lake Apart-
ment project would have a positive tax impact on the school
district by th-e amount of $3,622.32 and that East-West Parkway
Apartments would have a negative tax impact on the school district
in the amount of $4,415.38. Taken together, the two apartment
projects substantially pay their own way.
Contract for Fire Protection
The idea has been explored that a contract between the
developer and the City of Eden Prairie providing for the payment
of fire protection on a per trip or per call basis might be
entered into in order to insure that the municipality does not
incur unusual expense for this project which would exceed the
$5,025.16 which is its anticipated share of the tax revenues if
this profi ect is approved as a 221-D-3 project. The developer
understands that in past years municipalities have contracted
for the supplying of fire protection to projects and such a
contract in this case on a per call basis might be a way of
alleviating any potential deficiency to the City of Eden Prairie.
27 I
Mr. Ulstad
Page Three July 8, 1976
Residential Housing Implications
This project consists of 129 units; homes for 129 families.
It is the developer's opinion and position that these 129 Eden
Prairie families are in part necessary for the support of Eden
Prairie facilities, such as the large Homart Shopping Center in
The Preserve, and are important to the growth of Eden Prarie as a
suburb. These families would probably work and spend their money
in the Eden Prairie area and this is the type of incentive that
the developer feels the City Council should initiate where the
situation permits. The slightly reduced rental rates which
result because of the reduction in real estate taxes would be
an advantage to residents of the City of Eden Prairie. In other
words, these advantages are not leaving the City of Eden Prairie
to be used elsewhere but are helping the City of Eden Prairie by
attracting residents who (we must assume) would work and spend
their income in the area.
Marketing of Apartments
As our letter to you of July 2 emphasized on page five, the
rental rates for this project as a 221-0-3 project would not
compete with the Neill Lake Apartments projects and, accordingly,
buyers who are interested in these projects feel that one project
would not in fact compete against the other project for tenants.
For example, the three-bedroom apartment rent for East-West
Parkway Apartments is $305 as a 221.-0-3 project whereas the
three-bedroom apartment rent for Neill Lake Apartments is $415.
All rents for Neill Lake Apartments are substantially higher
than East-West Parkway Apartments. This is a very important
marketing consideration from the point of view of inducing a
buyer to invest the necessary equity funds and undertake the
construction and renting out of these apartment projects. If
East-West Parkway Apartments must be constructed as 221-D-4
apartments, the rent structure is so close to Neill Lake Apart-
ments that The Preserve will be unable to find a person who will
undertake the construction of both apartments at this time.
What this will mean is that The Preserve will have to digest one
project of high income apartments before a second project of high
income apartments can be started and, most importantly, financing
for one project will be lost through the passage of time.
Status of Windslope
A written report of the status of Windslope will be
distributed to the Council members on Tuesday, July 13. The
meeting held July 8 determined simply that an accurate status
report involved further meetings and conferences on Monday and
Tuesday, July 12 and 13, in order to accurately report the status '
of this project to the City Council. We apologize for not having
A-7:1171
MASTOR AND MATTSON,,JyTD.
William G. Bale
Mr. Ulstad Page Four July 8, 1976
more information available to you at this time but the project
is too complex in terms of the various parties involved to
accurately report to you at this time.
When the City of Eden Prairie adopted Resolution No. 360A
approving the concept development plan for The Preserve on
August 17, 1970, it approved the proposed concept plan set forth
in The Preserve's application to the City Council as being
consistent with the City's comprehensive guide plan with the
following exception and addition which we quote.
b) The Concept Plan be amended to incorporate a specific
and workable statement of intent by the applicants to
the effect that they will actively and persistently
pursue an objective of incorporating into their
residential developments significant numbers of
housing units of cost or rental that can be afforded
by persons of low or moderate income.
The City of Eden Prairie by the foregoing Resolution specifically
directed The Preserve to actively and persistently pursue an
objective of incorporating housing at rental rates that can be
afforded by persons of low or moderate income. It appears to the
developer that the foregoing policy statement and instruction by
the City of Eden Prairie is being specifically carried out by the
developer by proposing the East-West Parkway Apartments in its .
present form and by requesting that the City Council vote a
resolution approving and applauding HUD's qualification of the
project as a 221-D-3 project. By so doing, you are permitting
The Preserve to provide rental units for persons of moderate
income while at the same time not participating further in direct
subsidized rents from the federal government. The developer
feels that it has placed before the City Council the very type of
rental housing contemplated by the City Council on August 17, 1970
and we would urge this City Council to recognize the policy then
established and the instructions then given to The Preserve and
formally approve East-West Parkway Apartments for this site and
as a 221-D-3 project.
Respectfully submitted,
gpo
Enclosures
al')
MEMORANDUM
TO; William G. Bale
FROM: James B. Protean
DATE: July 9, 1976
RE: East-West Parkway Apartments (The Preserve 01-0.8976)
Pursuant to your request, I have prepared the table which follows
based upon the appraised market valuation for East-West Parkway Apartments
as provided by Bob Martz of the City of Eden Prairie.
This table presents the real estate tax situation on a current
basis, assuming the project is built under 221-0-4, and the same assumption
using 221-0-3 as implemented by M.S.A. 8273.13, subd. 17.
(1)
Current Situation
Land Only
Market Value $47,100
(2)Y
221-D-4
Land 40%
Improvements 402
(3)Y
221-0-3
Land 402
Improvements 202
(M.B.A. §273.13,
subd. 17)
School District
County
Municipality
Watershed
Other Taxing Districts
$1,020.67
572.70
246.49
74.07
$36,934.22
20,702.39
8,919.88
461.72
2,218.43
$20,807.50
11,663.03
5,025.16
260.12
1,249.79
Total
$1,913.33
$69,236.64
$39 005.60
x From current tax statement (copy attached)
y Based on estimated market value of $1,600,000 for improvements
and $232,200 for land with applications of the following mill
rates (see attached breakdown)
School District 50.396 Watershed .630
County 28.248 Other Taxing
Municipality 12.171 Districts 3.027
Total 94.472
z Included with other taxing districts
ru t C./
12. LESS State Paid Homestead Credit 13. TOTAL GENERAL TAX In. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS F'fir1C9.1 Irterest TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE REAL ESTATE TAX PAYABLE IN 1976 Make Checks payable to: FINANCE DIVISION HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIRECTOR Office Hours - 8 to 5 • Monday•Priday. Phone 348-3011 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 MOM OR ADIATMED MAN PISTON 6 1 Pint Ratio TIC RatioSTIKT SATO MFAM M AGM ' CkRTER INC 8920 FRANLO ROAD EDEN 'PRAIRIE NA '13 nntof RI ACOITIOM SEWN Ca lOT I') ITT TOTONto. ON NOCK • , U..) • lafkr.4 5015 ZSTIMATE0 MARKET VALUE FOR STATE TAX CREDIT FILING PURPOSES ONLY SECTION A INCOME ADJUSTED HOMESTEAD CREDIT •II you qualify for this credit use the amounts listed below to cornpleie form M.I NC Minnesota Income Adiusteci Homestead and Freeze Credit Return. See fnstruclions on bock. I. QUALIFYING TAX AMOUNT Limited to dwelling and one acre of adIoining land (120 acres if form) 2. STATE PAID HOMESTEAD CREDIT 3. Na delinquent Tones UNLESS Sec a checked ILIMITED MARKET VALUE ASSESSED VALUATION School District Tao Mom 9) reduced by State Paid Agricultutal Credo in the amount of SECTION C GROSS TA3..DIT, MOTION 6. ... 7. (...CounTY ',TOur4rnio Or City cf) Other -Taxing DIstncts IN TOTAL GROSS TAX If you are o Senior Ctizen at surviving spoctse, of o Senior C:,nL•n QL,Olify,19 foe tills Zrefi;t4.4. \ the amount listed below to complele tC,...t .I 1-1C\ eik...........i Minnesota Income Adjusted horn ' tesTa-rtman.ci Free,. Credit RetUtP.. (See InStrLetr+0.0 A. BASE YEAR BASE YEAR TAX SOnned to dwelling and one acre adjoining land S. CURRENT YEAR TAX SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL I0tFOI:IN,A7ION I I SECTION ft SENIOR CITIZENS SPF.CIA, PROPERTY TAX FREEZE CREDIT.
INCOME AM Ewan; Anni.xbib
ncamg GRID
.V.,/ \"-
No. of
Units
Room
Count
?er Unit
Actual
Rent
Per Unit
Adi•
Rent
Per Unit commas
Total.
Monthly
Adj. Rent
Total Monthly Adj. Rent
Total Annual Adj. Rent
Gross Multiplier
ANNUAL STPENSES
Using G. R. N. Estimated Value
of Property
CAPITALIZATION PROCESS
I. ANNUAL GROSS
2. Vacancies & Credit . .,
of Annual Gross •.* !•173.,,,
3. EFFECTIVE GROSS • . . . 44- a a',
Operating Charges: 4. Management ,c % . . . $
Electric 5. GROW INCOME . . . ,.. ss.i/r4"
Water 6. Annual Expanse 0,1•ris. 4 / a i 0 0
Fuel 7. ANNUAL NET Vial, toio 117771-S
Rubbish ... 8. Return on Land
14isc 9. Returse-on.81.441.—/ 1., % 4 .;,,,AL.,
Mice 10. INCOME TO BIM. - or
Rise ... t LAND RESIDUAL $ Y.i'vrOa-4.
Plaint nance: 11. CAPITALIZATION
Building Improvements . • . • $ A. Rate of Return
Janitor ... $ B. Amenortization
, Misc $ C. Taxea
Reserve for Replacements D. Total Cap Rate
Building Components
I 12. Capitalized Value Bldg. or
Mice Land _ W.4.421!'
Resident Manager: 13. Land Value . . . 73„.01', tt *4 i• ....', eat,
_;11 ..11 ..,_.--..L........ 14. Capitalized Value of
Property $01/11_14....,..s.
4
0 Mr57o
t M - EY. CeN
Fixed Charges:
Taxes
Insurance
Other ...
, Total Annual Expense ,, . . .
J .P — .' ", re- 0 ,A• ' 1,,ce7.2)
I „,.' -"•••1., li - -. /5.; '', 4---- 43 "77.-!. 4- a
7 7- ..-
- :..._:,49,9::::7,7,i_.........e,a..;. 1 M .4 - ff .1,0 ";,'4;A:14.1n4 i' A'); ''''4; .... . . .! :, y c_ c......7 /:. p7 11. ;_i . . 1_ . lj 1:.1 . _, 1.. li_ ,' :, i_LLI ) .i I, ' I 7 4,`.,X;r_r___i .. ,.g.f._ ' ',°."2,; L/4 f-:,i,-,4.1, , i:::.-7,4..1, cw' ,Z,;c:////17,ric (.. i.( ) 1 ;317/ .:_ -T 7=T -:-,..iell•-., ,....;-..._.==._.,e. 1.:..-..... : z .4.1...=---.7. 1 . 7-iel:- ;;';"•11/ : - I .. 7ti.f 19,./ CS kli,.Fr.: , ; / .- A 9.4-*:1 ; V - li.:1 : _i 1 . 1 11' - ill .. f r : . 1:,-- -- II-Ji.. I,- ii 2 .. 1 : ! 6 -, ,P., l_j_r t i : I ti ! : 1 . 1/ ! I 1 • P9 - ; ,1,oc, .i.-r..fil-ei _....... _°: 00 ,1?,0 il • • ---;:i /, 1- 1 ,••,, .111-- _ „••'' ..,,•• , 4-0 -1- : r— . 1 Ve /4z.:"'' +!: &,ij ' Fil .0tf•A•be'(.1)( .f)_ __ I Vr.c.6 ' 5v5 I i i , , . . ' . i ! , ! ::44,--//ea oh" li,..je,,a4'74.,..P.4.7-.>,/crz- 5,zt.o. . 1..t. : 1 iirl , I— v i79,..," ye...4 • ' '.. . ".." g , .4,r,,22---, e._ .;/Ls-:,,-,-,.-nr,' (..?2/41/41:15.!,X77-ite:.:,14ii 4me d r')/e. -II( ex _'if""-_ 71 P , if f I - H''-'-"" L ....;fil'"- I! S,1.7. Z._ :;•‘!!,•-•,-...,-.7-PJ Y4;44,44 AV jr-i--, 4.'4_ /4_ 4.-r, fai4!c -55-,,... r: ..•:_l_.Z._.„..."7 , .7 . G. V.j.,..-_,-,_-......i._.....,-/p_44-.* _ 71- ,,x-Ilf) . ' i ! i • i I; 1, I L . I ' I ! ' ' ' 1 . ! , , ;. I IL" , ' ' ' . . . t! • ; - • i !. :- 1 • - - , 1 '. ! ' ' - - -11' - I , 1 ' ' .. 1 V.* _ "---2.,,,z?,:,.2.4 ?/7Zte./..i. X 47..2.1_ 4 I I . , -, .r if.-..71/.?)-: -. .-,' -.. i; ! . .f7 4 ,(1:74 0 rk . lx. 47. ,?,i) 7 x .4, 1 :.,:T__ i_....-::_' 1_ ,,e- ...:./.,,,,..7 .. __-_r)...7 i •(/-5Y4!`? :y 4/7 ...) - /44 ," '' 7 • i, ip,„,,,f4.1,:i • '.. .,4,-,',/-51:1 /i.,?`" 1,1. "-/.. . . ' , 11 1 1 , _A_ 7:".!;f ?, 3,...,„e ei.1 74.ai / _2, i _,-. 4oz...,)c, 1 . ??!,,•41-,J pc' .ri'. '01.-- '! '.-1)-1- i-! 1:- 11 I ':-:,-,,,/,c.' : ?LAT 7i42 :1)(' f?''.)1*-- 14 d 4;? i'..1. _. 1. ti . . I . . n li • -.• . • , :-;.'"ti --•-n-4 ...' '' : ' ..... ° ;„: gill : 1 ....7.; /-Ay.:' ii, .6-'.‹,7,1 .., i - ..... t. ---- - I I. ' , .:( II ' - 4, I • le: . , ' I -1- ...g. 4,'<e,.,:-.-€.0-,,,,,...,Ty--___p-e..744-c-, •1_ 1,-..,1 ., 4v.ce-tr. 4 ,. -r_ 4 p„.4_Li_, , , v„,,, 1 _ „ • • ,,,.,„0,. . :6-7,4 LI_ . /Y,;>1 • I : .;,, , /3,?:.. ti,s9 . /5,-./e,....,<;,-,,.... 1_1:_: I . k L',: ,I,L.,t,;< "L.:,1„. .,:p_,' ; i i 1 . , 1 ,2ji-li/i ' i ;7_,',-`1711 1, : ,,..,44::;,li -i If;',,..;i:_,! 1 /.:..j.: ,fi44.4/ 4-4,-(./.:,).114,,h_fk_e'...,.),/-r56.) ` ' ! i' ' ' ' 7 : ' -1' ' -,_...- -..Li' _ _ /6. ._, -:..ce-v,zet I_ 7;c4-e/,,r,-/%7--; 4 '.',_7.! ;r7:-1 i-- 1; -- ; /6/.::!-7, ;•,.7.11 ;I•,.! !,,7i-. „ . ....-,-,v;71I , , .r4(fiir_ !' 1 6s1.,-7 : j.2-2: .--1, '7. :.7-."-;-/.7C..___4-...-77;yii.4.-',.,--Erp; 4::::/-9.-'2, P.,4-,7/17n..:r -,.--.. c ,,,( ./;-'4..,.E/ fP-V,4p7 i _, 4775":77 ,...:2;.;:s."7 , _; ,.:14'. 7,:.: ;711 I, .,/,7.7.-:.(..' ig. , L ,,/ / 7 x . 4 ,e) , 7 . I 1! ! . ii ! • • ! !! ; ..,,,,.,pe>2.,--__. 7,.:,,,-,::!.g.: ,, ,,,,,/,7„).,.! _ _o - • 1, . . !! i • ;.; , ! • • - , i' • ! I .. .11_ ii_,..-__I Id ;_j_l_Lir .. Jj_ . -1__ .. 1 :_t ._. ._i 1 _ 1 . o !, „ _ . „. , ,..._. ,..1 7., , , i_ , r__..: !.._ n , .. ._ ,-, .- ( Z,,, 4" s A-'-:°.?.(E: ) -• ((-).7. ,,4..x1;_-4A1- I 1)'.1 i1 I Li + ._ '7.'r.'_, : rP.. i: : P.!/..4-:Y4 ..-7/'-z7:1. n-°- :! ._ .•::../2... /59 x_ _ Li,. . 7 .L.,: i !! , . ; , • 1 li ; f , -0- 1, -c- • ..,,, ,.2 c,...... 7 , , /-,..1, -° - ;• .. r - I , , .... ,.., , „ . . i' n , • ' '' " L ' ,-. ' • • ' 1 .' - , . . ( .., /,_ :f...,7, / g ,...,,,,,, _ ....,/,. .. . 1 : , • • it ,.i. •.,-- .-`,-., - •.5 r':,:i"!7:.'...':' ...._ • .!'-''' --- • ,rs ,/ ,,,,- ,,c, i . il , I n 1 : , , ;/",---:---. , r -'., I, , _ . , .,,..,,,_,...,...., c • __ .,..„,.., " , 4 ' 7-"-- ' - ., -IL' 0:11:4;1. fli-f !-Ii. 'e.;44...1.-.....2!-J.7.4__7,21.ci,7.-.7.7, '.' .i.Y; _,-- r.g.4:-!-..L , • 7 , - r !!.t. ,- ,,j , . !',. ,__ , ,_ _ , ; .t. - r' :-.- ' • - — . - i!...._ ! : sr"7, /
July 13, 1976
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 115°
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS ON
EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD
I.C. 51-293
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 23rd day of
June, 1976, fixed the 13th day of July, 1976, as the date for a public
hearing on the following proposed improvements:
I C 51-293 Bituminous surfacing
on Eden Prairie Road from County
Road No. 1 to approximately BOO feet
north of Trunk Hwy. 169-212
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 13th day of July,
1976:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
1. Such Improvement as set out in Council Resolution of June 23,
1976, and as above indicated is hereby ordered. •
2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this
project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifica-
tiiins for the making of such improvement and to supervise
construction of the work by the City maintenance crew.
ADOPTED by the city council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
WIZ?,
Mr. Marty Jessen
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Jessen -
This letter confirms my conversation with you on the
1st and 6th days of July concerning the re-surfacing
of Eden Prairie Road (Project I.C. 51-293).
Mr. Charlson, owner of land on both the East and
West sides of Eden Prairie Road, concurs with the
re-surfacing - and as expeditiously as possible.
ENF/b
July 6, 1976
ArIg3.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY , MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 4 287
Outlot S, Edenvale 3rd
Addition LD-74-2-23
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING
ORDINANCE NUMBER 135
The Council of the City of Eden Prairie does ordain as follows:
Section 4. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended by adding to
Section 4,Township 116, Range 22, as follows:
Legally described as : Outlot S of Edenvale Third (3rd ) Addition.
The Council of the City of Eden Prairie grants the zoning of R1-13.5
from Rural.
First reading at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of
Eden Prairie the 25th day of February, 1975, and the final reading ,
adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the Council of
said City the day of , 19 76 .
ATTEST:
John D. Franc, City Clerk
Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor
SEAL
!A 11 14
RE ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into in triplicate this day of
July, 1976, by and between EDENVALE INC., a Minnesota corporation, herein-
. after referred to as "Owner", and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal
corporation of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "City",
WHEREAS, Owner has requested the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie
to change the zoning of a tract of land from Rural to R1-13.5 for an area
to be known as Linden Pond and Edenvale 12th Addition . Said tract of land
consists of approximately 11.8 acres and is legally described as:
Outlot S, Edenvale Third (3rd ) Addition
and
WHEREAS , It is believed that rezoning of said area to R1-13.5 will be
in he public's interest, welfare and convenience of the people of the City
of Eden Prairie; and
WHEREAS, Owner agrees to develop the aforementioned property as 27
single family detached lots in conformance with the attached exhibits ,
( Exhibit A Planning Commission Minutes dated January 27, 1975, Exhibit B
December 5, 1974 staff report, Exhibit C January 22, 1975 staff report ,
Exhibit D Engineering staff report of July 8, 1976 on final plat ).
NOW THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration
of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie adopting an ordinance
changing the zoning from Rural to R1-13.5, and of the mutural benefits to
each of the parties hereto, the parties, their respective successors and
assigns, to hereby covennnt and agree to follow the conditions of this
Rezoning Agreement.
The City and Developer also agree :
1. That the property owners shall comply with all applicable rules,
regulations, ordinances and laws of the City of Eden Prairie .
2-V.S
-2-
2. That the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and
enforceable against Owner, its successors and assigns, and all
subsequent owners, their respective heirs, successors and assigns,
of the property herein described.
3. 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.
4. That if Owner fails to procure a building permit in accordance
with this Agreement within eighteen (18 ) months from the date
hereof, Owner will not oppose a rezoning of said property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this agreement have caused their
presents to he executed the day and year aforesaid.
CITY OF EDEN PARIRIE, a Municipal
Corporation of the State of Minnesota
BY:
Its Mayor
(SEAL)
Its Manager
EDNEVALE INC.
BY:
Its President
(SEAL)
Its Secretary
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
_ . by the Mayor and by
the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a
municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf
of the corporation.
day of
Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1976 , by and
the President and Secretary of Edenvale, Inc., a corporation under the laws
of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires:
-.3-
Jan. 27 , 11.975
.1.1anr.I ng Commiss i on lvi in u t e s
A)07-1 1A
- - • • -- D-.7..inden_Pond; by Edenvale Inc., requesting rezoning to
R
M
6
.
5
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
• lamilyarea, preliminary plat approval, (for 28 • single fa
m
i
l
y
l
o
t
s
o
n
1
1
.
8
a
c
.
,
• and. 80 multiple units on 8.2 acres), and approval on Outl
o
t
R
l
y
i
n
g
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
• the E.-Ingle family area. The site is lOcated in Edenvale's north
w
e
s
t
a
r
e
a
.
.
Mr. Peterson said the area in the center of the single fam
i
l
y
a
r
e
a
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
.
open space. He stated the lots have a minimum of 85' fro
n
t
a
g
e
a
n
d
1 lot has been eliminated from the original plan.
'Sorensen ashed what setbacks the project would have. Th
e
p
l
a
n
n
e
r
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
h
i
m
t
o
• the setbacl;s recommended in the staffrreport. Mr. Peterso
n
s
a
i
d
t
h
e
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
tcquestiag 25' setbacks, for some lots.
136e.rger noted that the 2 stz_ilf reports contained conflicting
z
o
n
i
n
g
s
-
-
.
-
R
M
6
.
5
&
Til-l3.5 The planner said that deciding upon a zoning c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
difficult 1t -.nur.e of the inicicqoocies of the Zoning Ordinance. Peter
s
o
n
s
t
a
t
e
d
that Mr. Pilots is no..., recom:Deriding RIA 6.5 zoning..
Sorensen as;•cd if w.rii -:nces would be requested. Petersen felt the. Pill) zoning
• •could lake caie of any varia.nces.
Meyers zolhed if rdenvale agreed to the. 6 ' asphalt paths
S
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
pclerson responded that they proliose crushed limestone f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
paths ber:7_,Io.e they are less- expe.hsive to build and easier to constru
c
t
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
.
The planrwr a(jlood that linic..sione paths are loss expensi
v
e
,
b
u
t
f
e
l
t
t
h
e
y
w
o
u
l
d
.not erase nn) puiposes, I.e. bihers would prefer using roads Instead O
f
limestone pdths. • hoi ion:
inn ;or )nosed, Sohee .1.econ,iod, to applove the rezoning to-R1-
1
3
.
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
g
l
e
family urea , pi el plat approval for 27 lots, and approval of outlot R north
of the single fnmily area b:Ised upon the Jan. 22, 1975 sta
f
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
.'correction to R1.-13.5 zoning at the bottom of the second page. The m
o
t
i
o
n
'carried unanimously. .•
STAFF REPORT
TO:
THROUGH:
THROUGH:
DATE:
PROJECT:
DEVELOPER::
REQUEST:
FROM:
Planning Commission
11 'I bit -3
Robert Fleinrich, City Manager
Dick Putnam
December 5, 1979
Linden Pond
Edenvale Inc.
Preliminary plat approval and rezoning from PUD 70-04 to
RM 6.5 for 28 single family lots on 11.8 acres.
HD approval on the multiple housing concept on 8.2 acres
Chris Enger
SITE SETTING
The site is located in the north central portion of Edenvale, being bounded
on the south by Woodhill Trail , on the west by Edenvale Boulevard
and on the east by Woodland Drive. Edenvale Boulevard and Woodland
Drive will have to be extended to this project.
CHANGE OF CHARACTER
In the Edenvale PUD 70-04 this entire area is designated as MI , or
multiple housing, with an overall density of 5.8 units/acre. Edenvale
is asking for a density on the single family site of 2.37 units/acre and
a concept approval for a multiple density on the northern site. Tie lots
range in size from 9,100 to over 13,500 sq. ft. with the majority of the
lots hoing within the 13,500 category.
Character of Ill:: Southern Site
The southern 11.8 acres of land can briefly be described as an area of
sharply wiling meadow surrounded on the L east , south, and west by
cliTrx for est vegetation. This vegetation is mature oak woods. The site
rangrt:s from a high of 934.7 directly in the middle of the site to around
900' lo‘vard the northern portion of the site.
tFJN t4-'01''f•irT JON .
With odlitional building of the 28 single family _homes In this particular
area iihnost the entire site would be exiting onto Woodland Drive toward
the south to Fdr_tvnale Boulevard. This road is currently of a poor grade
construction type in width and quality and should be improved in conjunction
with this project.
.(7
Staff Report-Linden Pond
-2 - Dec. 5, 1974
As Mr. Peterson states Woodland Drive and Edenvale Boulevard should
be extended toward the north either at the time of construction on
the northern site or if the need warrants before that time. Widths
of road right-of-way and width as well as culde-sac radiuses Should
meet with the approval of the City engineer's report.
SUITABILITY FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
Because of the site character, of the open meadow with perimeter woods,
the site is probably best suited for a type of development which allows
clustering in the open spaces to preserve a majority of the woods.
However, with sensitive lot lay-out,settino of individual homes,
and sensitive grading, a high quality residential project can take good
advantage of the amenities of the site.
Under Zoning Ordinance 135 front yard setbacks from the road right-of-way
are required to be 30 feet. Edenvale is requesting a flexibility in front
yard setbacks from between 25-30 feet. The reason for this would be
to preserve much of the woods as possible. It is apparent by looking at
the northwestern corner and southwestern cul-de-sac, by the-way the homes
have been pushed into the woods , that a setback flexibility between 25-30
feet in these wooded areas would help to preserve more of the woods.
TRAMWAY AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM
Edenvale is designating aspart of their overall trail concept a trail along the
northern portion-of the single family site which would collect pedestrian.
and bicycle traffic horn both the multiple site to the north and the single
family site toile south. The system would ultimately lead to activity
areas such as churches and the dedicated school / park site. In order to
make his system function more productively and to take advantage of
the common open space ,noted as outlot A , the following things should
be i ncl uded;
1. Provision for an outlot and trail leading to the center
open space be provided of sufficient width to allow
buffering treatment from the homes.
2. Since paella will not walk a great deal of distance
north in order to go south a system of feeder trails
to the primary path should be developed.
One of these feeder trail s should occur on the north
side of Woodhill Trail running east and west across
the bottom of the single family project. It should
cross Woodhill Drive and feed into the primary path-
way at a future time in the development to the east.
9:)30
Staff Report-*: inden Pond
-3- Dec. 5, 1979
3. An outlot between two of the
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
m
o
s
t
l
o
t
s
to allow access up to the prim
a
r
y
p
a
t
h
.
4. The feeder trails which are of
a
s
h
o
r
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
run through the neighborhood
m
a
y
b
e
o
f
a
l
i
m
e
s
t
o
n
e
mate.rial.
However, feeder trails running
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
h
o
u
s
e
s
and connecting to the primary
t
r
a
i
l
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
o
f
a
herd surface material. In addi
t
i
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
t
r
a
i
l
should bc no less than 6 feet
i
n
w
i
d
t
h
a
n
d
o
f
a
herd surface material so that t
h
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
i
s
d
u
r
a
b
l
e
and maintainable as well as tr
a
v
e
l
a
b
l
e
.
These outlets, trails, and ope
n
s
p
a
c
e
s
,
shadd
be constructed by the develop
e
r
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
the homeowner's association,
5. The public should have right o
f
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
o
a
l
l
o
f
these ballweye and pathway
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
GRA DiNC
The most significant amount o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
o
i
n
t
mid-way from the cul-de-sac d
r
i
v
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
b
e
n
d
a
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
cul-de-sac. At the center poi
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
c
u
t
o
f
a
b
o
u
t
1
2
f
e
e
t
w
i
l
l
be required to lay in the road and make
b
u
i
l
d
a
b
l
e
s
i
t
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
area is in the open meadow.
T
h
e
h
o
m
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
w
o
o
d
s
off the northwest corner of th
e
b
e
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
b
o
u
t
1
0
f
e
e
t
of fill to make the lots builda
b
l
e
.
T
h
e
t
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
d
r
o
p
s
o
f
f
v
e
r
y
s
h
a
r
p
l
y
at this point and the filling a
n
d
c
u
t
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
w
o
o
d
s
w
i
l
l
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
woods to a point half-way ba
c
k
o
n
t
h
e
l
o
t
.
T
h
e
3
h
o
u
s
e
s
b
u
i
l
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
this particular corner should
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
w
a
l
k
o
u
t
s
a
s
t
h
i
s
m
a
k
e
s
t
h
e
most sense.
The cul-dee sac will require a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
5
f
o
o
t
o
f
c
u
t
a
r
i
d
t
h
i
s
s
o
i
l
w
i
l
l
be pushed off to the side to make buildabl
e
l
o
t
s
.
T
h
e
a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
w
o
o
d
s
where the cul-de-sac is locate
d
w
i
l
l
o
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
b
e
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
u
t
h
o
u
s
e
s
should be ahle to be placed b
a
c
k
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
w
o
o
d
s
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
w
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
c
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
of the woods.
All of thr areas where cutting
o
f
f
i
l
l
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
e
w
o
o
d
s
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
o
r
building in the woods is req
u
i
r
e
d
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
l
y
d
o
n
e
i
f
a
v
e
r
y
c
a
r
e
-
ful bull ling and grading approac
h
i
s
t
a
k
e
n
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
.
,919
••n•
Staff Report-Linden Pond
As much as possible vegetation should be preserved,to help retain a
natural transition area from the single family area directly to the south
of Woodhill Trail, on the lots fronting onto Woodhill Trail.
SITE CHARACTER or THE NORTHERN AREA
About 1/3 of the area In the northern site is taken out by a small pond.
All of the topography toward the east of this area sbpes up from 894 to
a high point of 944' . The significant vegefation in this a-ea occurs in the
southeastern corner. A very substantial mass of hardwood forest occurs
In this area. The remaining vegetation is of a lower quality; elm, poplar,
and cottonwood.
The variation in topography of this northern site and its relationship to the
pond and vegetation will require a very innovative and sensitive design
If multiple construction is to be considered for this area. It is hard to
argue the point that this area Is well suited to any specific high density
without being able to see the quality of design or detail with which the
site will be treated.
After visiting the site it seems apparent that no clear line of distinction
will occur naturally between the single family area to the south and the
proposed multiple area to the north. It is therefore very important that
at the time of submission of a specific site plan or rezoning of this area,
that the developer demonstrate a suitable buffering and transition technique
for the higher der n sity multiple construCtion. Since the multiple area will be
very visible bon) the single family area it is also very important that the
design of the ;ntiliiple building not be of a traditional block 3 story walk -up
type of constinct inn. Rut iher something which would be more compatible
in .uchitectural flavor and may be comparable to the Shadow Green type of
Although rdenvale is not sure what the, market will hear in this northern area
ither condominium or 01)3i -1111:Mt type construction . Also , in the site plan
submittcr3 for the multiple area no parking areas are proposed and therefore
it would seam that the developer is suggesting underground parking. This idea should be encourened as the site can probably not be treated well
with a significant amount of at-grade perking,
SUMMARY
The planning commission has several alternatives to consider regarding the
Linden Pond project :
I. Approve the project as submitted.
2. Deny the project.
9-'133
Staff Report- Linden Pond
3. Approve the project with the following recommendations
and changes :
a. that the setbacks required by Edenvale only be
applied to the lots surrounding the cul-de-sac
In the woods, and the 4 lots rounding the
northwest corner of the cul-de-sac street, and
the two lots occuring In the woods directly west
of Woodland Drive.
On the sizes of lots proposed by Edenvale, and the
location of buildings depicted upon the submitted
site plan, the proposed side yard and corner lot
setbacks do not appear to be necessary except In
the wooded areas described.
b. That a more complete trail system be worked out
according to -the guidelines outlined In this
staff report.
c. that a homeowner's association , or similar
functioning body, be established In order to
maintain the common open spaces , outlots,
and trails.
d. that aienvale be required to work out a minimum
yiading solution with the City staff similar to
the procedure followed In Suncrest Townhomes,
e. th2 lecemmendations of the City engineer's report
be adopted.
1. that the request for rek:oning of the single family
area to PM 6.5 be chanced to 13.5 as the lot
sizes and densities more closely fit the larger
lot definitions.
g. that the multiple site depicted toward the north
be approved in concept only , and the densities
be based upon the quality and sensitivity of
the future plan.
h. that at the time of construction of the homes in
the single family area of Woodhill Drive be
finished toward the south to better facilitate
a quality southern access as was promised by
the developer.
2-'73q
Staff Report-Linden Pond -6- Dec. 5, 1974
1. that at the time the volume of traffic warrants,
or at least at the time of construction of the
multiple site, Woodland Drive should be
extended to the north to met Edenvale Boulevard
and Birch Island Road to give a northern
access point.
The Planning Staff would recommend alternative 3 If all contingencies
are met.
DP/I me
2.13c
•( I-6 Lit
STAFF REPORT UP-DATE
TO:
THROUGH:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
PROJECT:
DEVELOPER:
Planning Commission
Dick Putnam, Planning Director "Ve
John Frane, Acting City Manager
Chris Enger, Landscape Architect
January 22, 1975
Linden Pond
Eden Land Corporation
SUBJECT: Staff Planning Report Up-date to the December 5, 1974
Staff Planning Report
REVISIONS
&Ire the December 5, 1974 Staff Planning Report, Edenvale has worked
with the Planning Staff to accomplish a better internal path system.
These revisic.ms are shown on a drawing, which is dated 12-16-74 ,
entitled "Linden Pond" . The revisions provide for a 6 foot pathway
occuring Within the 30 foot Edenvale outlot which would run north to
south through the center of the single family area. The path would cross
Woodhill Trail on the south and ultimately lead to the school/park site.
On the north it would connect with the proposed pathway which bisects
the single family outlot ( F), and the proposed higher density outlot ( R ) .
The addition of the pathway outlot required that Edenvale cut their
number of lots from 28 to 27, thus providing more room for the pathway.
RECOMMI:N1).ATIC)NS RFCARDING THE PATHWAY SYSTEM
1. Where the pathway will cross F.c3envale Boulevard , Woodhill Trail ,
sand Woodhill Drive, the at-grade crossing should he accentuated
through differences in textural surfacing , inclusion of appropriate
landscape elements at both ends of the crossing, and some type
of illurnieatory lighting.
2. The pathway should be at least 6 feet in width , and should be of
a hard surface meterial such as asphalt. All trails which have
recently been approved within developments by the Planning
Commir:sion, with the exception of trails in Ederivale, have been
constructed with asphalt.
The llike.way/Bikeway Task Force Report, which was approved
by the Planning Commission, points out the need for an asphalt
or concrete surface for trails of primary use in urban areas.
91 3
Staff Report Up-date,LindeePond -2- Jan. 22, 1975
In addition to this a trail guide recently published by the
Minnesota State Planning Agency has this to say about
bicycle pathways ;
In the design of the bicycle path surface the total .
structure must be taken into account. The sub-grade
pavement base and wearing course are all important
to the durability of the path. Asphalt and portland
cement are the smoothest and most long lasting surfaces.
Gravel, stone, and limestone, are popular choices
particularly for recreational types -of bike paths.
Dirt and turf are the surfaces for informal types of
paths. The cost of these surfaces are directly related
to their permanency .
Of the possible choices asphalt is recommended.
Asphalt provides smoothness, durability, and ease of
maintenance. If the initial cost of asphalt makes the
construction of a pathway too expensive it is possible
to lay a gravel or stone path which can be surfaced
later. The asphalt base may be placed first as a
temporary measure and /then within 2-3 years,a wearing
course may be added. It is stressed that this type of
stage development must be completed to assure a quality
bike path. "
In the Bikeway's Feasibility Report ,recently published by Hennepin
County Public Works, no other surface other than asphalt is even
consiciered as a Ira il surface.
In 11011 of the Planning Commission's epproval of the standards of the
IlikeweyMkee.ey Teek Force Peport , and in. addition to the suggestions
listed by both :ate and and county agencies, it is the Planning staff's
rciculoi,cndation, a ft or extensive research into the question, that the
pathways within this project be constructed of an asphalt or concrete
sin fa co.
3. Tnt -down cwhs for pathways should be provided any time a pathway
cweees -giode with the toad.
4. Pether lean a pathway configuration running north/south in such
a way as sequested on the revised drawing the Planning staff
would recoil -111mnd that the jog be taken out of the north/south
pathway by adding to Outlot A from Outlat B.
The Planning staff woutd recommend approval of the project for
iezoning to PM 6,5 and preliminary plat approval contingent upon
recommi ,ndations in the revised plan listed in this report,as well
as the reconueenciations listed in the Deceinber 5, 1979 Staff
Planning rrport, and the recommendations listed in the City Engineer's
1Report dated December 9, 1974.
"Y)3c1
RIDGEWOOD THE PRESERVE
BACKGROUN D
;1,73 7
VILLAGE OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
' ORDINANCE NO. 166 •
Preferred Developers.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 135
The Council of the Village of Eden Prairie does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Appendix A of Ordinance No. 135 is amended by adding to Section
24, Township 116, Range 22 the following:
24-2
Higbpoint. Block 1, Lots 2 and 3.
RM 2.5
First read at a regular maeting of the Council of the Village of Eden
Prairie this 29th day of February, 1972 and finally read, adopted and orde
r
e
d
published at a regular meeting of the Council of said Village on the 14th
day of :larch, 19 -'2.
Paul R. Redpath, Mayor pf the
Village of Eden Prairid
ATTEST:
TY). SEAL
Edna M. Hot mg ren, 0
Village Clerk
V:3
Ctiuncil Minutes
January 25, 1972
Page Five
Dr.--Fref,n-rcr'1-43;e.,.y,119;_)ers_Coriporat!on.,..)Recip_est for R11 2.5 Zoning..
Set-ttearinum .te.
A raotio-ri-irrado by hr. Nesbitt to set February 8; 1972 as a hearing
date for The :'Preserve request for RM 2.5 zoning. Mrs. Payers seconded.
All voted ayd... Motion carried.
I Council Minutes
'February 3, 1972
Page 2
B.C.P:eforred nevelorrrs.Core)on.. Rert_i_test for Residential Multiole
RIVI 2.5 Zoning_. Qr. Preserv) Public }tearing. The Manager identified
the general locatiorthir -16:oning request and reviewed the Planning
Commission's consideration of the proposal at the Commission's October
19th , November 16th, and jantry 18th meeting. At its meeting on
1 January 10th the Commission had recommended - to the Council that the
1. request for RM 2.5 zoning on Parcel 6 and 7 of The Preserve be approved
and that the Council incorporate the final project design perameters
I set forth in a :L-Intrary ifith Staffort into any rezoning action the
Council might take. The Comml!::51c ,n had also requested that the final
site building designs be revler.vee' by the Planning Commission prior to
any building permits being issued.
Representatives of Preferred Developers Corporation presented a
number of drawings and photographs identifying their proposed
development of the property. The project consisted of 205
apartment units situated in attachc-d building groupings containing
5 units each. The proposal also included accessory garage and
1 surface parking, a recreational vehicle storage area, and four
' children's play areas. The applicants noted that the existing
weeded slopes acljao,t-it t.,:t
boundaries but were to be retained by grouping the buildings
into thEN.. opcn land on the easterri portions of the site.
Mrs. Meye:rs ex-pressed her conet•3:n regarding the intense develop-
ment on the east:2rn portion of the site and asked if it might not be
possible to rcduce the proposed number of units from 205 to 175.
Mr. Joseph J. Stras:Igis, Fxceutiv:.: Vice President of Preferred
Deve.lopors, replied that reduction in the project scale of the
magnitude suggested by Mrs. Meyers would produce a project
that could not be economically justified. Mrs. Meyers also
asked for a 'review of the relationship between the on and off site
recreational spaces. The Village Manager noted that all the
residential development within large scale planned unit deVelop-
meets such er: The Prusenre would have access to public and
private parks and open spaces which are made possible in part by
clustering the dwelling units in those portions of the over all site
areas where development would riot. adversalyaffect important terrain,
foliage, or marsh land areas. ;
Mr. Nesbitt moved that the Council approve the request of Preferred
Developers Corporation for RM 2.5 zoning on Parcel 6 and 7, The
Preserve on the basis of the findings and recommendations of the
Planning Commission as set forth in their minutes of January 25th.
Mr. Redpath seconded. On roll call, Messers Nesbitt and Redpath
voted aye. Mr. Mc Cu'loch and Mrs. Meyers voted no. Motion
failed.
Mr. Mc Culloch said that he felt the project should be returned to the
Planning Commission for additional consideration. He asked that
they specifically consider the 7th item mentioned in the January 18th
Staff Report. Mrs. Meyers moved that the Council's consideration of the
Preferred Developers Corporation request be continued to its meeting on
February 29th. Mr. McCulloch seconded. All voted aye. Motion
carried.
Council Meeting i
February 29, 1972
Page Two
-He____Prefeerel Develeeers Co:reit ereatioee) Request for Residential
letultiple terce Freerierve_... Public Hearing
arn ) I
Mr. Lee Tehreca arei ir. Pill leeener, repreeenting • The Preece
and Ereferteri Daveleeers Corpc'eation preeented a revised develop-
ment and elle plens reeeeeted by the Council at the February
Eth Pnblic reeeeirice. Mr.Eiceneet reviewed the amended site
pion notieretha ravel of two of the N.:tide -Ices or ton of the
units end ;emu -eel of 20 parking etells which opened epaces
beteeeen eeil provided enlareed teieces for on site .
recreatioriel spaces. The creeeell density of 13.26 units per
acre and a <ter:Dined building, ereeacee, driveway, open parking
and recreetionte vehicle ritoreee era land coverage of 25.4%
was SUITallediZOd.
Mr. McCulloch questioned how the units were to be assessed.
The Manager stated that it woeld be valued as any other
homestead in Eden Prairie. iie also stated about the timetable
for completion of the praject. Mr. Stangis of Preferred Developers
stated that ft would probably be a 2 year project but they would .
hope to finish in I year depending upon the progress of occupancy i
Mrs. Meyers said she felt that The Preserve and Preferred Devel
opers Corporation has made sensitive reply to the concerns she
explained at the February 8th hearing.
1
Council Minutes
March 14, 1972
Page Five --
C. .referred.Developers Corayatiomi RM 2.5 Zoning. *arcels 6 & 7.
The Pre5e:e.). Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166.
A motion was made by Mrs. Meyers to adopt the second reading of Ordinance
No. 166. fr. Liel,sundeJ. AI! votcd cye. Motioa carried.
Council Minutes -7- 'November 26, 1974
VI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS: (Coot'd.)
C. Report of City Engineer (Cont'd.)
2.) Registcred Land Survey of Ridgewood project by
Preferred Developers Corp. in The Preserve.
Mr. Jullie presented to Council.
Mrs.—Meyers asked Mr. John Schnobrich if the developer
planned to sell the split off portion.
Mr. Schnobrich said they had no plans to do so at this
time.
Meyers moved to approve the Registered Land Survey of
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Highpoint Addition. McCulloch
seconded. Motion carried unanimously. •
ATIA
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 19, 1971
7:30, P.M. , Village .Hall
Members present were Jim Brown, Ralph Nesbitt (chairman pro tern) Herbert
Fosnocht, Joan Meyers and Norma Schee. Also present was George C. Hite,
Village Manager.
I. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 1971
The Minu1es of October 5, 1971 were approved without correction.
PIAITIONS,REQUrsTs AND COMMUNICATIONS
?referred Developers Corporation. Request for Development Sti5e
Approval & Rezoning , Parcels 6 and 7. The Preserve. Preferred
Developers presented their proposal for constructing 205 condominium
apartment units on approximately 19.5 acres of land situated adjacent
to Neill Lake. The units would be located in a series of five unit buildings.
Preliminary site and building plans were reviewed with the Commission. The
proposal including parking facilities for approximately 910 cars and a
special urea for parking recreational vehicles.
pro sentative s of the Preserve described how the proposal related to
the PUD concept plan noting particularily the pedestrain linkages.
The Commission received the proposal for consirkration and asked that
a staff review and recommendation be prepared.
;:411/:')'
TO:
FROM:
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, INC,
SITE PLANNERS
6440 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA 55343
TELEPHONE (612) 941-1660
George C. Hite
Fred L. Hoisington, Planner
' Eden Prairie
TITLE: The Preserve
JOB # 71-159
DATE: November 11, 1971
SUBJECT: P.D.C. - Development Style Approval
, Preserve Lots 6 and 7
I have reviewed the site plans with Lee Johnson and Bill Bonner,
and I understand that they have taken our suggestions back to
the architect for modifications. I will report our findings only.
briefly Once many of the problems may be resolved before you
receive this memo.
1. The development seriously encroaches on the slope and the trees
that exist there requiring substantially more retaining wall
than depicted or considerable fill down the slope. Either
lowering or moving the units easterly will minimize the problem.
2. Access to the recreation building is not defined and could be
difficult.
3. Garages are too far from the endmost units.
4. Drainzge should be 2way from the garages or ice will be a
problem.
5. The site is substantially occupied by structures, parking areas
and the generally severe westerly slope. There should be some
provision for usable open space or play area if 80 elementary
age children are to reside in the development:
SUM/ARV:
The site seems to he rather over developed and the result will be a
loss of the most significant site amenities (the slope and trees).
Furthermore, it appears that the lack of usable open space is a
critical factor if the resident profile depicted is correct. Mr.
QuaniAeck's findings with regard to the buildings. are attached.
l m
f
.16
Planning & Zoning Minutes
November 16, 1971
Page 2 .
%o , . Preferred 1.-Vvelop.ors C;orporz -,tion. Pserr.iest for Develooment Stacie r{
.AprJroval & R:.7.oning. Parcc:ls 6 and 'L._ The PrcLserve.
The Village Manager presented a start' report based on an analysis of
the 205 unit condorniniumtownhouse project which had been presented
to the Commission at its meeting on October 19th. The report .
commented that the proposal gei .ierally conformed to the approved PUD
Concept plan for The Preserve in terms of the type and number of units
but that it ilid not adequately respond to the concept of preservation of
important site ai,-ienities. The report then identified a number of
specil'ic a;-ecs v.:hcre the proposal would necessitate substantial site
alterations. The report also indicated that the developer should provide
soi:Je on-site :ec.reation space for children under 10 years of age.
The report recommended that the project be referred back to the applicant
for their consideration of the items cited in the staff report.
Bill Bonner,eTTosenting•The Preserve, indicated that they had asked
thz-ir ercliit.:.ct to review the items covared in the staff report and that
a meeting to review the revised presentation had been set for later
in the week.
2'1 K •
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: November 16, 1971
PROJECT: PDC 205 Unit Condominium Proposal
APPLICANT: Preferred Developers Corporation
LOCATION: ForceIs 6 and 7, Stage 1, The Preserve.
Along Fran lo Road, South of Old Saunders Farm
REQUEST: PM - 2.5 Zoning
REFER TO: 'Application booklet Doted Oqteber 39, 1971
COMMi NT: The proposed development of the site for 205 condominium
to%nliouses generally conforms to the approved POD concept
plan for The Preserve in terms of the type and number of
units. It (lees not, however, adequately respond to, the
equally impoilent POD coecept cif site amenity conservation.
The development seriously encroaches on the slope and
the trees that exist there requiring substantially more
retaining wall than depicted or considerable fill down the
slope. Either lowering or moving the units easterly will
minimize the problem.
Accees to the recreation building is not defined and could
be difficult.
Garages ere too far free .; Ene endmost units.
.Dratraige should be away 'from the garages or ice will be a
problem.
The site is substantially occupied by structures, parking
areas and the generally revere westerly slope. There should
be some provInion for usable open spec or play area if
80 element;' age children are to reside in the development.
Building maesine. The acceptance of the extensive building
facade is contingent upon the use of modulating building planes
establisher] a veried pat'‘ern of light and shadow. Variations,
modifying this pattern, should be subject to review. (Com-
promises will inevitably occurr when contractors work to
reduce costs by eliminating the ins and outs in the building
facade.
RECOMMENDATION:
The site seams to be rather over developed and the result
will be a loss of the most significant site amenities (the
slope and trees). Furthermore, it appears that the lack
of tu;able open space is a critical factor if the resident
profile depleted is correct. •
The project should be subjected to additional study by the
appliteutts site designers with specific reference to the
items noted above.
rDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMi.SSION
Monday, February 28. 1972 7:30 P.M., Village Hall
Members present were: Acting Chairman Herb Fosnocht, Ralph Nesbitt,
Nozma Schee, Wayne Brown, Pat Casey. Also present were George C.
Hite, Village Manager and Dick Putnam, Planning Assistant.
I.P] IONS, proursTs AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. Preferred,Deyelopers Corporation. Rezoning for 195 Condominium
Apartments. The Preserve. The Village Manager reported that following
its public hearing on the request, the Village Council had referred the
proposal back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration.
He noted that the Council had asked that the Commission specifically
consider the seven design parameters noted in the Commission's January
18th Minutes as well as a review of the overall project density to
determine whether or not more useable open spaces might be established
within the development area.
Mr. Lee Johnson and Mr. Bill Bonner, representing The Preserve and the
applicant, presented a revised development plan dated February 28th. •
The Plan provided for 195 condominium apartment units and a revised site
plan. Mr. Johnson reviewed each of the seven items identified lathe
Cc ,in;.-,ission's January lath Minutes. He indicated that they felt that they
had eM ctivcfly r e spc,nd E:c3 to each of them. Mr. Bonner reviewed the
ued sitc olen nc)ting poticularily that the removal of two of the
1 ,::ildingsor ir.n o f ti,a had rceinced the requiled parking by 20 etchls
considrzrable readjustment of the site plan in the
southern hell of the pi -eject area. He said the building locations had been
adjusted so it the spaces between the buildings had been increased
pioticulLrily at locations where a view - of the lake might be obtained from
the site access roacis and where children's play areas were poposed. Mr.
Fonner also submitted site design entails for landf-caping, trail systems,
and the recrc,.:::lionnl vehicle stc;';?ge arca . A statistical summery of the
dc 'rloe.nt 1-..!opcsal was submitted indicating an overall density of
11 3.26 units per acre and a combined building, garage, driveway, open
puking, and Jecreational vehicle storage area land coverage of 25.4%.
The Commission asked a number of questions about the revised proposal
p:Aliculerily with respect to pedestrian systems and the use of open
spc:ces and recreational facilities.
Mrs. Schee moved that the Commission advise the Council that it has
rcviewA the Items noted in the Council's referral and recommends to the
Council that the 12m 2.5 zoning request on Parcel 6 and 7, The Preserve
be approved based on the applicants submission dated February 28, 1972.
Mr. Brown seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
•••
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF PLANNING REPORT
DATE: January 18, 1972
APPLICANT: Preferred Developers Corporation
PROJECT: 205 Unit Condominium Apartments
LOCATION: Parcels 6 and 7, The Preserve
East Side of Neill Lake
REQUEST: RM 2.5 Zoning
REFER TO: Application Booklet Dated October 19, 1971
Planning Report Dated November 16, 1971
Commission Minutes of October 19 and November 16, 1971
COMMENT: On November 16th the Commission directed that the proposal
be referred back to the applicant for additional Site plan
review. The specific items to be given further study were
listed in the November 16th Planning Report.
A icvised site plan dated December 30, 1971 has been
submitted. This revision ciectivaly resolved the most
serious ;q0bhlm a 5;.,.;oc:at&d -
an encicac:nt onio the v.c:e.:7cd st
or Neill Lake side of the
Sons aticmlit Los hcen ir ,:de in the December 35th site
plan to depict the ci,':,,.,cflopers irtentions with gsid to
the otLer site cons,ideiations r.oted in the Noveml..er 16th
Prroc 1-.1,2ort. It would aoar that in each instance
en ac.cc.,t this sollon is poEsible. The detailirig of
F. would prob-1 .-)ly be best prepared and
Ic.view'A at the tire building perina application documents
are in y -a -ocess.
:COhfM -L.N DAT) 0 N:
It is sucicer•-ied that the Commission recommend to the
Village Council that the iequest of Preferred Developers
Corporation for RM 2.5 zoning on Parcels 6 and 7 be
approved. The recommendation would be on the basis of
a finrli:ig that the request conforms to The Preserve PUD
Concept Plan and would otherwise serve to achieve the
purposes and objectives of the Village's Comprehensive
planning program and specifically the Zoning Ordinance
component of that Plan.
Preferred Developers
Page 2
The development of the site subsequent to a /21v1 2.5 .
zoning should be accomplished within the following
design parameters:
1. The number of dwelling units on the site should
not exceed 205 and should be of the type
depicted in the PDC October 19, 1971 application
booklet.
2. The construction site plan should possess the
principle elements of the PDC site plan dated
December 30, 1971 and specifically the elements
of that site plan that serve to protect and otherwise
preserve the wooded slope along the westerly or
Neill Lake side of the site.
3. The construction site plan should place thb
building clusters in a manner that will require
minimal site alteration and produce maximum
variation in building elevations and setbacks
and maximum exposure to the internal and external
site environmental amenities.
4. The final site plan should incorporate a developed
play facility for preschool and lower elementary age
children for each building group cluster. These
spbccs should be visually closely associated with
each cluster and adequately protected from vehicular
areas.
5. Vehicular storage and movement areas should be
finally designed so that they are both functional
arid attractive. Parking lots should be subject to
extensive landscape treatment and garages should be
designed so that they are as unobtrusive as possible.
6. The final site plan should incorporate paved walkway
systems connecting each building cluster with The
Preserve pedestrian system. The segments of The
Preserve pedestrian system that are situated within
or adjacent to the PDC site should be developed
concurrently with the site.
7. All building plans should be prepared by a registered •
architect. The developer should also employ a
registered landscape architect to design an overall
site plan and all site improvements exclusive of
utilities.
P.lanning cox —ission Mir.utes
'January 16, 1972
?age 3
Ill.7‘. i:COM .1%1, NIDil 'Pi 0 ")-4 ?OtTS
4e.".." P CJ f .rt: Corp. Re .z.Gninc, .Tor 205 Condommium Aoariments.
The ?,rerve.
The Viflçe Yanc.;:er presen'-ed e planning report dated January 18 in which
he rev:ev,:ei the chi.nges that had been mac:e in the applicant's site plan
and conc1odee. by recc ,mr,-,ending that the reaoning request be approved.
The plan ror; set forth a series o recommended design parameters
v•-er. Fe.c .4 the developer should conlerm to in the event the
to be C:n•&7,1ec; and bulit-Lng pe.-:rm:t applications requested.
'N'r. rev:ie.-wed the status of the proje.ct
staff
•:j th..e
;r, ,: he
. n c , Cou;:cil
.7- y..F.rcal 6 and 7
s
CC,F,C0;74:
CT,C7. F:nd p ..,:poses
s 074 . inc .;
".• ar.y
••:•: • ;-• ••• • r sior,
carr;ed
75-0
HAROLD C, CANT 4.01•40,07,/
• 17t4R• vo.RA,RS•GIC • 1•7714.7/
AAAAA O. GRA,
'RANA f nn •n./r, JR.
/0,07
•7•Nei.• .407 rono•
1../S•71.1. mt/777
C.1 717., 0.C.InC,70,1
CC/wARD .0. CA,
W01171, •Nr.1
R .17 /I•ER•N
RIC•4•71. S.,,ov•,./
CURT, Cs.
woc•Ap7/ A./1,0,mo.
17 ,./C7 C. ,./7 n,, 7,1.1
C. 51,77.7, no.
c
CR•10 1..,00 n 7 00 •R
AV.0 7. 077,4777
GRAY. PLANT, MOOTY 64 ANDERSON
LAW OrrIGES
700 NDANOKE !WILDING
MINNLAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
1E1.71 •11,47 10.,E1 33 .:7 -1:15.0t
July 8, 1976
COWIN C. CANTEN7 010
1.1.07.e• O. SHANNON
714.7/7.,
....2,441. UROCAL
0•77 n C/17. r.R n1••••...
...C.H.C1- R. e n107 1..40 14 /.
AsOREW C.
P/CRARCI
• r4.1../10e.
STC0,11071../.0 n770.•
Jcr rrtc• nE ,Ls
Nr()LI.C.
7,1•71A,./
el.117...50 74
J
€
777. 1.../AweS
..1C0SCPRI O. 170770 ,,I
ri..12AISe1,7 A. NOSTON
• O.M.SNA,L
7,7 900 ,1•41,1,11.
711,71•7n11...007Sent
AL, 1...1"6.07.../.1C,
EDWARD CALL AHAN, SR.
Eden Prairie City Council
Eden Prairie City Mall
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Re: The Preserve's request to change its PUD
plan to permit the construction of rental
apartments on the Ridgewood Condominium site.
Dear City Council Members:
This firm represents Thomas Bach who resides at 9051 Neill
Lake Koad, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343, in the Highpoint area.
- Mr. Bach is the semi-official spokesman for a group of Bighpoint
residents who oppose The Preserve's revised plan of development
of the subject Neill Lake site for rental apartment purposes.
The purpose of this letter is to set forth for your
consideration the arguments which lead to the conclusion that
The Preserve's request for a change of its PUD plan so as to
allow the construction of a rental apartment project adjacent to
Neill Lake on the Ridgewood Condominium site should be denied.
Facts
By its Resolution 43601\ adopted August 17, 1970, the Eden .
Prairie City Council approved The Preserve's PUP plan. Pursuant
to that plan, the site presently in controversy was assigned a
land usc of "owner-Occupied attached." See Planned Unit
Development Procedures, Book 11, p. 16. On February 29, 1972,
the City Connell gave the entire Eidgewood tract its present
zoning status of RN 2.5. As the minutes of that meeting and of
the Planning Commission weting of February 28, 1972, reveal,
approval of the RN 2.5 zoning regOest was based upon a careful
reviw of building plans showing proposed 5-unit, single-family
condoinium cluster-- Uncl,:.r this plan, which is still in effect,
the conoominiums wore to h a ve staggered rooflinos, Staggered and
varied facades, and open spaces between clusters sufficient to
Eden Prairie City Council
July 8, 1976
Page Two
allow a view of Neill Lake from access roads. See Planning
Commission Minutes, February 28, 1972.
The original proposal offered by The Preserve in its attempt
to get RN 2.5 zoning was rejected by the Planning Commission
because of its poor planning of open space, and the Commission
made its acceptance of the condominiums contingent upon "the use
of modulating building plans establishing a varied pattern of
light and shadow." See Planning Report, November 16, 1971.
Now The Preserve seeks to change this carefully-consiaered
and long-standing land use plan. It proposes the construction of
a rental apartment building instead of owner-occupied condomin-
iums on the southern section of the Ridgewood Condominium tract.
Furthermore, the proposed design plans submitted by The Preserve
show a single building with only one break in its roofline and an
unbroken facade. The proposed apartment project is a massive,
three-story, elevator-served building with interior corridors
quite different from the approved existing plan. See Planning
Commission Staff Report, May 20, 1976.
Argument
The Preserve's request for approval of its existing PUD plan
to permit construction of a rental apartment project on the Neill
Lake site should be denied as it would result in the juxtaposi-
tion of incompatible land uses to the overall detriment of the
entire community.
The location of large apartment projects immediately
adjacent to single-family homes is rarely a wise planning device.
As the Supreme Court of Minnesota has stated:
That the construction of apartment buildings, however
attractively planned, is likely to affect adversely
surrounding residential dwellings is not only supported in
the record but to some extent is a matter of judicial
notice. The attitude of this court is reflected in State ex
rel. Twin City Bldg. & Investment CO. v. Houghton, 117=7
1, 19, 1/4 N.. 885, 176 11.Vi. 159, 162, 8 A.L.R. 585, and in
State ex re l. Berry v. Houghton, 164 Minn. 146, 149, 204
N.n ,;. 569, 570, 54 A.L.R. 1012, affirmed, 273 U.S. 671, 47
S.Ct. 474, 71 L.Ed. 832, where we said:
1 [T]he construction of . . . apartments or other like
buildings in a territory of individual homes
2'151
Eden Prairie City Council
July 8, 1976
Page Three
depreciates very much the values in the whole
territory.'
The United States Supreme Court cited the latter case
in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47
S.CT7-114, 71 f.Ee. 30-3, end went on to observe (272 U.S.
394, 47 S.Ct. 120, 71 L.W. 313):
'* * * With particular reference to apartment
houses, it is pointed out that the development of
detached house sections is greatly retarded by the
coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes
resulted in destroying the entire section for private
house purposes; that in such sections very often the
apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in
order to take advantage of the open spaces and
attractive surroundings created by the residential
character of the district. . . . [Title residential
character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a
place of detached residences are utterly destroyed.
Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a
different environment would be not only entirely
unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to
being nuisances.' Filister v. City of Minneapolis, 270
Minn-. 53, 133 N.W.2a AU, 504-05 (1964), cert. den'd
382 U.S. 14, 86 S.Ct. 47, 15 L.Ed.2d 10.
In the Filister case, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the
City of MinneepoTiT decision not to change a single-family
zoning ordinace so as to allow construction of apartments, even
though the site in dispute contained swampy areas that the Court
admitted mieht make its use for single-family homes economically
unfeasible for the developer.
The Minnesota Supreme Court, in Westling v. City of St.
Louis Park, 2e4 351, 170 N.W.2d 2T (1969), again expressed
its i'otilill011055 of the undesirability of juxtaposing rental
apartments and single-family homes when the City of St. Louis
Park denied a developer the special permit needed to build an
apartment roplcx on a plat of partially swampy land which was
not amenable to eingle-femily development. There, the Court held
that the denial of the permit was legal and that the devaluation
of property values for the' surrounding homes was a valid reason
for denying it.
Or,
Eden Prairie City Council
July 8, 1976
Page Four
Although the proposed apartment project involved in
Westling would not have increased the denisty on the site, the
Court upheld the defendant City's decision, based upon its
decision in Filister v. City of Minneapolis, supra, saying:
"There, our decision turned on the adverse effect which the
proposed use would have on adjacent property." Id, 170
N.W.2d at 221.
The adverse affect of apartment projects derives from a
number of differences between owner-occupied and rental housing.
As an owner of his own unit, a condominium owner assumes the
responsibilities and benefits of home ownership. For example, he
is responsible for finding financing and paying property taxes,
has the security of long-term ownership, and under the
"Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions," see
Document No. 1031312, Article III, f,2, VC, has the right to
govern his community by voting in The Preserve Association. In
contrast, turnover in an apartment project is more rapid, and an
apartment dweller has no vote making him a participant in local
decision-making. Noreover, apartment projects, especially one
such as that proposed by The Pre7erve with its large and
monolithic scale, depress property values of surrounding
residential properties as recognized by the Minnesota Supreme
Court.
Instead of building apartment projects and single-family
homes in close proximity, modern planning techniques attempt to
create gradual transitions from rental to owner-occupied housing.
As a planner of a community, The Preserve has acknowledged that
the differences between apartment projects and single-family
neighborhoods make transition Zones ahd buffers desirable.
In the initial maferial The Preserve submitted to the City
Council in connection with its request for PUD plan approval, The
Preserve asserted that it should be granted the right to
construct a large PUB development because as a single-developer
it could "assure appropriate transition between differing land
uses through careful design of the total environment." See PUD
Procedures, nook I, p. 13. This was established as one of its
design objectives, and a Design Committee was Organized to
oversee develent and to prevent the construction of "sectors
Of barrock-like apartments..." See "Framework for Physical
Development," p. 9.
Eden Prairie City Council
July 8, 1976
Page Five
Thus, as The Preserve itself recognizes, where higher
density is desirable, but single-family homes are located on
adjacent property, a transition type of housing such as clustered
condominiums should he used to separate the higher density uses
from the single-family homes. The existing plan for the
Ridgewood Condominium site employs just such a technique. This
plan, approved by the Council in 1972, calls for clustered
condominiums, a housing type which The Preserve refers to as
"Multiplex." As described in The Preserve's publication,
"Framework for Physical Development" at p. 12, the purpose of a
"Multiplex" development is to "provide a transition between high
and low densities." The Preserve's proposal to build an
apartment project directly across the street from an expensive
single-family area runs counter to good land use planning and
threatens to undermine single-family property values in the
Highpoint area.
Eden Prairie's Ordinance No. 135, gl, Subdiv. 1.2, sets
forth the variable.; the Council is to employ in making a decision
such as that which is presented by the instant request of The
- Preserve. Under this ordinance, it is the Council's function to
develop harmonious relationships among land uses (l. 2(b)) so
that the use of any given tract is of maximum benefit to the
welfare of the city as a whole (g1.2(d)); this requires that the
Council attemnt to promote stability (§1.2(c)), to maximize real
property valuel; (gl.2(j)), and to encourage attractive
appearances (g1.2(k)). 'thus, the Council must consider the
advantoges and disadvantages of each proposal and balance the
equities. The Preserve agrees that any decision concerning
chanyon in land use "should be made on the basis of minimizing
possible impacts en all involved." See 1976 Status Report, p. 3.
It is our position that here the community's interest in
compatible land uses clearly outweighs the developer's economic
interests and that the community welfare will be maximized by
rejecting The Preserve's proposed change of land use.
The Preserve claims that the planned use of the Ridgewood
tract, i.e., a site for condominiums, is economically unfeasible.
However, The preserve has presented no data supporting this
claim; all tha'c the Council knows is that The Preserve has been
presented with whet The Preserve views as an attractive offer for
the sale of the subject site to another developer for purposes of
rental apartment conetruetion. Even it we accept for purposes of
argueent that it is economically unfeasible to construct
condominiums on the subject site, The Preserve has not submitted
ee.
Eden Prairie City Council
July 8, 1976
Page Six
any evidence to the City Council concerning the economic
feasibility of other alternatives, such as the construction of
single-family homes, which would be compatible with the Highpoint
area's single-family use. Thus, even if the subject change to
The Preserve's approved PUD plan is denied, the consequent
economic disadvantage to The Preserve is uncertain and unproven.
Counterbalancing The Preserve's economic interests are the
Highpoint residents' concern for their neighborhood. In contrast
to the vagueness ot ahe Preserve's claims of economic damage, the
letters of June 8, 1976, from Thomas Bach and Bertram Hudson to
the Planning Commission reveal a well-known fact that the
Minnesota Supreme Court has judicially noticed -e apartment
projects drastically depress the property values of nearby
single-family hoses. Furthermore, the residents of the Highpoint
neighborhood cannot help but feel emotionally shocked and
distressed when they learn that a proposal has been made to
change fundamentally the character of their community,
particularly when they had been led to believe that the subject
site would be developed for owner-occupied condominiums.
It is clear that in balancing the equities of this situation
the neighboring home owners stand to lose such more than does The
Preserve. Furthermore, the economic interests of developers
cannot be treated as all-important when the issue is wise land
use planning. Uncontrolled development based solely on what is
most econrekical for a developer at any given moment has proven to
produce highly undesirable results and has necessitated the
advent of community control through the exercise of land use
planning powers. Yet at the City Council meeting of June 22,
1976, The Preserve's representative, Donald Hess, argued that
market conditions should dictate development. This is an
unacceptable position. In light of the objectives of land use
13171 naing imPoed by Ordinance 135, S2; economic harm to a
developer in not enough of a reason, by itself, to justify
chefe;ino a carefelly-considered plan of land uses. For example,
in Filistor v. City of Minneapolis, supra, the Minnesota Supreme
Court af;r:11777 -17not developer conTa -Nrive no benefit from a
piece of bw,11:Ty land as long as it was soiled for single-family
Neverlhelees, the Court refused to order a zoning change
since the juxtapoeition of apartments and single-family homes
would be w!en more detrimental.
Eden Prairie City Council
July 8, 1076
Page Seven
Furthermore, when the City Council is performing the
equitable function of balancing competing interests, it should
consider the past representations and reliance of the parties.
Here, Highpoint residents inquired of the planned use of the
Ridgewood Condominium tract and were informed by The Preserve
representatives that condominiums would be built on the site,
consistent with the existing POD plan. Even as recently as June
of 1975, by which time The Preserve knew condominiums were not
economically attractive to developers, The Preserve representa-
tives told prospective purchasers that the land would be used for
a compatible housing type such as single-family homes. This
information was crucial to many families who decided to buy
property in the Highpoint neighborhood. See letters of Thomas
Bach and Bertram Hudson, supra.
Real property law seeks to protect the expectations of
purchasers of property such as the flighpoint residents. For
example, If a developer makes a legally-enforceable promise not
to construct aparti2ents in the development area, a property owner
benefited by such a covenant can sue to prevent the construction
of apartnent buildinqs. Although The Preserve made no formal
restrictive covenant with Highpoint residents, legal and
equitable consideration protect the Highpoint residents who have
relied on the POD plan and The Preserve's repeated
assurances that the land would be developed for owner-occupied
condominiums or single-family detached residents.
The Supreme Court of Ninnesota has held that the reliance of
surrounding property owners prevents a developer from building
apartments in a single-family neighborhood even when this renders
the land valueless to the developer. In Filister v. City of
Oinneapolis, supra, the tract of land was zoned for single-family
EET-i -:Tv ,:1-5-,37-17 realised this zoning use was economically
unfeasible because of the swempy condition of part of the tract
hut failed to express its desire to change the use classifica-
tion, until after people bought and built homes in reliance on
the future develooment of the developer's tract for single-family
homes. ;lien a developer fails to notify others of a potential
change in use, it has the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that the relief [it seeks) would not result
in any substantial detriment to neighboring property improved in
reliance on" the eersting planned use. Id., 133 N.11.2d at 505.
The Court said that the depressing effect -of an apartment
building en the prop ,.!rty values of adjacent single-family homes
was a "su ,.)stantial detriment"; therefore, the developer who had
2,7e;' )
Eden Prairie City Council
July 8, 1976
Page Eight
failed to publicize its intentions could not change the land use.
Thus, in making its decision, the Council should give effect
to the reliance of Highpoint homeowners on the existing plan to
use the subject site for condominiums or for some other
compatible housing use. Moreover, The Preserve's objections to
the existing plan are unconvincing from an equitable point of
view since The Preserve itself drew up the plan which it now
seeks to change and upon which Highpoint homeowners relied in
buying their property.
Summary
To summarize our position, the City Council must reject The
Preserve's proposal to change the approved use of the subject
site from owner-occupied condominiums to rental apartments. The
design of the proposed building would create a glaring contrast
with the adjacent single-family homes and would be directly
contrary to the Council's earlier requirements of staggered roof
and facade surfaces and of open space arranged to allow views of
- Neill Lake from the adjacent roadway. The juxtaposition of an
apartment project and a single-family home neighborhood would be
detrimental to the general welfare of the community, because the
homeowners' damages under such a proposal would exceed the
developer's unproven economic disadvantage if required to comply
with its existing land use plan or to develop the subject site in
some other non- objectionable manner. The Council should act so
as to uphold the expectations of the purchasers of property in
the Highpoint neighborhood that the subject site would be
developed in a form compatible with its surroundings. Good land
use planning requires no less.
Very truly yours,
JSC:cad
( j hn S. Crouch
cc: Harlan Perbix
27:X
The ,..lresern
July 9, 1976
Mr. Roger Mated
City Manager
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
RE; Neill Lake Apartments
Dear Mr. Ulstad;
Attached you will find further information regarding the above project
by our legal counsel which we endorse and request that it be circulated
to the Council members prior to the Council meeting on Tuesday.
July 13th.
CARTER & GERTZ, INC.
JIIG /cm?
Attachments
2 -7 1,57i;
A Total Environment Community — 8920 Frank> Rd., Eden Prairie, Mina. 55343 (812) 041-2001
WALTER M RAKE.
WILE IAN C" TRA
CHARLES A C305$ ono, do
RICHARD .1 DUNN
GEORGE C NIA5TOR
RODE.", w RATIEDN
WAYNE 14 NJNN
JANT 5 !A ',IONIAN
JACK A tx051,
ALONZO 0 El PAN
STEVEN J lirnMEN
01-0.897G
,..enwO/fices MASTOR and MATTSON, Ltd.
31S PEAVEY RUILRINIO
730 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 7300040 AREA 4M7
July 8, 1976
Mr. Roger Ulstad
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55343
Re: Neill Lake Apartments
Dear Mr. Ulstad:
On Tuesday, July 13, the City Council for the City of
Eden Prairie is again considering the above project and the request
of the developer, The Preserve, to have its 84-unit apartment
project approved as a substitute for the 105-unit condominium
project approved for the site several years ago. This is a matter
Where several residents of High Point in The PreServe are making
the claim, which The Preserve denies, that an employee of The
Preserve represented to them that only condominium units of the
type built by Preferred Developers, Inc. would be constructed on
the Neill Lakei Apartment site.
This is not a matter for rezoning property, this property
being presently zoned RM2.5. The 84-unit apartment project in all
respects complies with the zoning requirements applicable to R142.5.
In other words, there is no part of the project which The Preserve
believes nerds to he modified by a variance or to have special
treatment in order to fit within the zoning ordinance of the City
of Eden Prairie. Consequently, this is not a matter where The
Preserve is attempting to construct a project outside of the
present zoning; rather, it is an attempt by The Preserve to obtain,
in effect, approval of a more moderate building project. As noted,
the apartment units are being reduced from 105 to 84. This
necessarily reduces the traffic count. The Planning Commission
has receMmcgd this plan, finding it much superior to the
initially proposed condominium project- Accordingly, it is The
Preserve's position that, having complied with all zoning require-
ments of the City of Eden Prairie, it is entiLled as a matter of
law to have this project_ approved. We know of no reason why the
project should not be approved.
William G. Irafe
Mr. Ulstad
Page Two July 8, 1976
The Preserve wishes to emphasize one fact about this project
which, standing alone, makes it eminently more reasonable as a
project for The Preserve than any previously approved condominium
project. That fact is that HUD has analyzed the market for
apartment units of this type in the area of The Preserve and has
concluded that the project is financially feasible and is willing
to insure this project. The Preserve is in possession of a
conditional commitment for this project issued by HUD dated June 1,
1976 which provide;; that HUD will insure the mortgage placed upon
the project by a mortgagee. Pursuant to this conditional commit-
ment by HUD, The Preserve paid $38,218.00 and has been issued a
40-year, 7 1/2 per cent GNMA commitment for $1,910,900.00 which
commitment requiree a two-year takeout. This commitment was
issued under the GNMA Project 231 program which expired June 30,
1976. As a contrast to the foregoing project, which has been
determined to be financially feasible and which has the advantage
of a financing comitment for its construction, certain residents
of High Point would suggest that the Preferred Developers, Inc.
project be continued in the manner and form in which it was a
failure along the edge of Neill Lake. The design of the buildings
and the economics of that project speak for themselves. The First
National Bank of Minneapolis has taken a deed in lieu of fore-
closure and thereby removed the owner from that project and there
has yet to be e single closing of a condominium unit to a single
buyer. That project consists of 35 units. The Preserve under-
stands that on that small project the total economic loss will be
approximately $500,000. Obviously, no one is interested in
continuing a project which has demonstrated itself to be a
complete failure as to design, financing and sales potential.
Furthermore, there is no financing available for condominium
units of the type built by Preferred Developers, Inc.
With respect to the concern of some residents of High Point
that parking of recreational vehicles might be allowed in the
area of the project, the developer is willing to contract with
the tenanta, with the City of Eden Prairie and with any other party
in a form which is legally binding upon it that all tenant leases
will prohibit the parking of recreational vehicles on the project
site, and such provision will be enforced by the developer. As a
matter of fact, The Preserve has under consideration at this time
the possibility of temporarily allocating as a general parking
area a tract of land for recreational vehicles so that the same
may be removed from the public streets and driveways by those
persons who might be interested in doing so.
}'or all of the foregoing reasons, The Preserve respectfully
requests that the Council take action to approve of the 84-unit
apartment project for Neill Lake Apartments.
gPo
Unapproved
Planning Conission Minutes
June 28, 1976
C. PILnned Study in .,.oull,t,eslcin Eden_Prairie,
The comlid ,:nicm hriefhr dinconn ,d the Planned Study District and the general location
of the pcoperty in question. They asbed the staff to compile the exact legals
for the property iovolvcd.
Motion:
Lynch ttoved, Sundstrom neconded, lo reconmend the City Council reinstate the property
in Planned Study for 1 year or lint ii the completion of the guide plan update which
ever Cul.CS final
iT)
dadsenwald real estate, inc.
industrial and commercial
Minneapolis Industrial Park
2415 Annapolis Lane
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
(612) 5511911
July 7, 1976
Mr. Roger Ulstad, City Manager, Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie City Hall
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Dear Mr. Ulstad:
darkenwald
REAL ESTATE
1CID
Regarding the Darkenwald/Dr. Belvedere request for the operation
of a dental clinic in the single residence located at 8480
Franlo Road. Eden Prairie: We were on the Planning Commission
Agenda on June 28th, 1976, and we are now rescheduled to come
before the Planning Commission again on July 12.
Would you give consideration to scheduling our request at your
Council Meeting dated July 13.
I realize this request may present some hardship. but Dr. Belvedere
and I would bery grateful if this could be accomplished.
Thank you very much.
Vey truly -yours,
C 74 it/064, ?A.- t"-'12-2
dilbert M. Darkenwald, S.I.R.
/President
GMD:emj
INDIVIDUAL MEMDER6Ille • 70DIETY Di 'noun IRIAL REALTORS
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 28, 1976
B. Ddrkenwald /Dr. llelvedere Request, request for the operati
o
n
o
f
a
d
e
n
t
a
l
c
l
i
n
i
c
in an existing single fanily home at 8480 Franlo Road.
Mr. Darkcnwald informed the commission the home in ques
t
i
o
n
i
s
a
c
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
t
1
2
y
e
a
r
s
ago and past rentals have Juoved unsat S sfac.1 ory. He outlined the floor layout , bituminous surface parking in the front, future parking in the rear & the handicapped
parking on the lower level. He stated the neighbors he ha
s
t
a
l
k
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
n
o
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
to the use, hut 14r. hest erhaus expressed a concern about t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
o
n
t
o
h
i
s
l
o
t
.
Darkenwald felt proper grading and curbing would drain the water to Franlo Road.
Mr. Inger slated iis. Westerhaus called the city hall and expressed a concern relative
to the inadequate coispool at 8480 Franlo Road_ Darkenwal
d
a
g
r
e
e
d
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
were cnmaiter(.d w.ith the cer soe1 when large families were renting the house, but he did not believe a dental office would use as much water and it
w
o
u
l
d
o
n
l
y
b
e
o
p
e
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
office Piours.
Mr. HI ad rI atod mater and :;rwer may he possible if the area residents desire it.
Mr. Da Id. oiima id t -1 he t,00ld like city mat or and sewer.
Scrent-; n u -' -id «no ern that the city cannot legally authori .re or contract a direct viol at i ri of the :-did the city needs to conip/ele the MCA ordinance- where such 11;.n,.it ien nre tin 1,0 ,ove n ed. tic was not in favor of the layout as it shined finiit ard iii ni , and in do(piat:e ::‘citliacks. He suuested the legal impli- cily
Pit a an 1. 'to:a inrore:it on On ,prehlenis rind the amount of water a al wool d
%Ir. faith , ;i.4o0 al o 17.ead, st at id he has no reaction yet to the plan as he has not en ii.
bc•si .iran i f hr 0“111:11 off ice aotd regoest si grage. Dark enwald replied yes.
Sor,nsrn t.1:.ted his ,•n ,a(-c);Is are the propused setbacks, the legality, the cesspool
sy.stem, w,iter dra;ra ,e, siplage, and pail. i
Dotinn:
to cunt i noe the it em to the duly 12th agenda and hsve the (o,mis.bon's fO tIlITiS “nswered at that t inie . The mot ion carried unanimously.
a_-714)1
• • ."•:.S1 _ • •. ' • .:;! 0" L , ";-.. •",.• 1 9 e.:;- • cvp,v, .17112=44. 11 • . . . 7-Ntr'r• I ril/rts, sioo-r • : • 7 7 . ai-d0 aki.g 7.7 t • syse9/s.::5,- I I -4c:704V •1 1
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
Planning Commission
Dick Putnam, Planning Director
Jun 23, 1976
Paul Belvedere D.D.S.
Dental Office in residential home
Frani° Road in the MCA
MCA PLAN
The site for the Belvedere office would be in the Major Center Area along
Frani° Road. Some development has occurred to the west, Preserve Area F,
with the i'den Prairie Clinic currently under construction and the majority
of the grading completed on the Preserve site.
Existing single fomily homes surround the Belvedere site , except directly
across the street the D.V. Anderson site is vacant.
The !ICA plan illustrated a change from the residential character today
to aa office,,:egional-service-commercial, or high density housing area because
of the pro\imity to the ]'den Prairie Shopping Center , access to the •
Ring Rmd , and limitcd site area.
A critical cone(or;-, discussed in the RCA Plan is the ability to transition
ri,,mn the existing Tesidential character to its changed land use
sccn in the MCA Plan.
ITrotecting the quAity of life" of the existing residents during the change,
yet Alining. an vvol(dion of properties that may involve interim uses. This
is ;H:,!,t In 1‘.0 ways, since existing owners may have difficulty in selling
their pA;.:.cls to the ullii:ate uer, i.e. a MPL or Celco , yet do not desire
to live in the arca (ar do Hot ant to r(lIt their property for single family use.
t-nch out 105, medical buildings, etc., might be corapati-
hillS at ii such time ..s the ultimate -ioning&development is completed.
The M(:A cnvisioncd to be a very long term development sponscred jointly
th- City of hd‘n Prairie ::11(.1 private enterprise . Both groups must
cooper:,1c to rate Oa project successful in a very competitive metropolitan market.
The inierim land w-ri of tm.operties , within the MCA, will be critical to
this succe!-- parti,ularly For the small land owner,
,
Staff Report-Belvedere office -2- June 23, 1976
EXISTING CITY ORDINANCES
The proposed use would fall under the Office District even though the property
is currently zoned Rural and used for a single family detached home, As a
guide the Office District requires setbacks from the front 35 feet, side yard
setback 20 feet, ( SO foot total ), and rear yard setback of 20 feet. Mini-
mum square feet of an office site would be 20,000 square feet and would require
S parking spaces per 1,000 square feet gross floor area. Normally the City
does not allow parking within the setback requirements in a normal office
' District.
Within the MCA the City has not used a rigid setback approach, but rather
the performance of the screening buffering from adjacent uses or streets.
The building proposed would have approximately 2700 square feet and would
provide 14 prking spaces, which does meet the requirements of the City Ordin-
ance. The plan however does encroach within the required 35 foot front
yard setback by placing 6 parking spaces within that area Parking on the
Sonfltedee of the site is within the minimum 20 foot required setback and provides
only S foot setback from the property lines of adjacent developed single family
lot ,, However, the home on that lot is located more than 100 feet back from
Franlo Road.
The parking plan attempts to preserve as many of the existing shade trees
curreotly in the front yard as possible to retain some
of the character of the lot . Nineteen ( 19 ) future parking
stalls are proposed on the west or rear of the building. This would require
some greding to fill the back part of the property as it slopes quite steeply
to the rear of the lot. The rear of the lot is heavily wooded as are the
north and south bon nie r en adjacent to the existing single family homes. The
site h'oold be mill buffered by the existing vegetation if it is retained.
The plan 0 i.e ii a proposed future 30 foot easement shared by this property
ty.w..r 1 the adjae(ra property owner to the north for a road extension that may
connect with lie Arca f Plan of the Preserve. This is speculative and could be
Ii.)] ii hitb ihe plan as propoSed.
The pr,nosed site plan mnild violate the front yard setback requirements and
ieeild
It provide a high fl,or(!(, of screening for the parking spaces in the front
of the luilding. llic propo;writ mny investigate niternative location of the
o r) log tils !.0inn of ,...16k11 may he in the roar of the building on the existing
lsso so IS to novo thy ic hi irea slightly back from Franlo Road, Recognizing
thin ns an interim solwion for a five year renewable period, the scale and
ri,iii;riiocnts for 5crecning and buffering should he slightly less than one might
ex i eel fora pc.ch,anent office use. Still the intent of the ordinance should be
Iii) t.
Staff Report-Belvedere office
-3- June 23, 1976
ALTERNAllUS
A. The Planning Commission may recommend Dr. Belvedere enter into an
agreemynt with the City of Eden Prairie to allow the interim use of
the existing single family home as a medical / dental office for
fivi, years at which time the neighborhood , the City, and ()ismer
may determine if an extension should be Rranted or
the rezoning of the property to a permanent commercial office lan
d
use. The agreement would be patterned after that used for Suburban
National Pant interim nohile hank location on the Uomart site. The
agreement would specify the terms and conditions upon which the interim
use is granted.
B. The Manning Co:.mission may recommend Dr. Belvedere that his individua
l
parcel be tanied Office consistent with the conditions and requireme
n
t
s
of Ordinauce 135 Office District. The zoning to Office would he
exclosively for this 3/4acre site and not for adjacent properties.
C. The Planning Civil scion may initiate a rezoning petition for
Jr. Belvedere parcel and other adjacent parcels to Office District
consistent with the MCA Plan. Such an action would involve other lan
d
-
os-nc vs and would require further site and land use planning as well a
s
corsultattyn with other owners.
_17, The PlannIng Cmmission could recoNmend to the City Council that the
office use as an interim or permanent Office District is inappeopriate
for this site ( for specific reasons to be determined by the Commis
s
i
o
n
)
,
and the use shinld be residential at this point in time irregardless o
f
Udid ontlir ,ed in the MCA Report.
.STA1T
It is ey npiaion that the City of Nen Prairie must accommodate the n
e
e
d
f
o
r
alotilerly tillS ii iii hotisat Poral or non-commereinl uses and the ultimate use
of thc t.ithin the MCA. This transition may he a determining factor
in the 0,.erahl sue.'tss of the !,,CA as a joint public/ private large - scale
deveH ynt. On p;.y,0 73 of tic' MCA Report the introduction to the plan
1.maid Pse to 1 liii stat(.t::
"rhe in is an articulate convrmlisc of the existing conditions;
fe,t ,Twelopmetit; and physical econrmic-social constraints
a:CterinR. on art.a.
lhe Plan is .sire than a map appropriate at a given tithe, rather it indicates
antici!,ated or desired patterns of ilevelopment. The :Plan also includes
sudcm:mts indicating hhdt steps need to be taten to assure developme
n
t
i hi n the ',!CA to achieve the physical , social , and economic plan
ohjectives. Ile P1 ,,n rei) identify strntegies or specific action programs
chinch poblic neencies can adopt to assist in implementation of the Plan .
eos;wtinuis :tad ohjoctives.
Conrclwnsive p1;n1s are produced by conditions tiattitudes which
are constantly changing. The Plan needs to be constantly reviewed
to that they ro:Toud well to the changes as they did with the
original set of circumstances."
Staff Report-Dr. Belvedere -4- 4 June 23, 1976
The MCA Report clearly stated some plans and strategies that should be
followed in the development of the MCA. Policy 8 on page 70
stresses the importance of "containment or grouping of regional commercial
activities as well as community commercial activities to more efficiently
serve these facilities while being a focal point of the community". The
intent was to consoli date the City's major services to the MCA , rather
than spreading them along the automobile routes in the community. Also in
Policy 20, page 72, the City made a commitment " . . . to develop a compre-
hensive develeolient ordillalice relying heavily upon the performance standards
established speci fic crit 0 ri a to which development must conform in the MCA".
Policy 19, page 71, further defines the methods of implementing development
in the MCA where it states , " a modified set of pud procedures should be
utilized in processi»g al 1 developments within the MCA. These procedures
and requirements would be specifically tailored for the MCA and would not
he applicable to other sectors of the City".
Clearly, in Ow planning staff's opinion, the City must make reasonable judge-
ments and must exercise all available means to allow for the orderly and
economic development of the MCA. The City must not lose sight of the main
objective of the MCA which is much more than anyone land use or parking lot,
but rather a concentration of meaningful services for the City and region in
one area of the City of Eden Prairie that will produce a critical mass necessary
to truly make this a downtown that the City can be proud of.
.Given the overall object ive of the MCA, it is the staff's opinion that Alternative
A is the most logical method available to the City in implementing reasonable
interim ties nt this t i ace
The City of Hen Prairie wi ll develop a 11/41CA Ordinance which will
include definite exit eri a and procedures for interim uses within the MCA .
Twiny, no most accommodate the needs of property owners , new business and
service or n •mni: at ions that wish to locale in Eden Prairie in a manner that will
lew an elderly chanlle,
If the Pl;mning aryees with the staff's and city attorney's conclusion,
Mr. Peibix will deaft cc egrctment similar to that used for Suburban National
i tito fie concerni of the commi ss ion 4
DP: j
9224119
PAUL C. BELVEDERE, D. D. S.
•0trnormat Matoncm. Corm
SUM 815
EDINA. MOIMUIDOTA 56439
June 16, 1976
Re: Dental Office in Residential House.
Gentlemen:
I request your consideration of the accectance of a Residential
Dental Clinic on the property at 6480 Pranlo Road, Eden Prairie.
My intention is to maintain the esthetic placement of trees
and green area that will halo lend itself to the residential
air of the surrounding homes. Consequently, the treatment
of the Frani() side of the building will remain as is.
A preliminary study and projected construction drawinrs
accompany this letter.
respectfully request the consideration of your commitee
for the auprov-1 of tnis work.
Sincerely ydurs,
Paul C. Belvede e, D.D.S.
aic,7
HICM•EL DOMERTV men,mm,r
W.01,0 F PLOMLlt gIOW•
FRANC,. 0.1301-LEP
J. C. F000
IRVING
1.6.14,06 0 ...10 n10 • 14
TMEOPmm PM, L PHOI I
FRANK CLAFFM,M54
Pit PCF nom,
JOHN mANmArOm0
PENA,' m Wit SOM. JR
ANOFMW MC011
TIMOIrmv mAl IOWAN
JOSE 0,1 riNkf
NENI0 O. LAW,
CUP (NI SI wAPI !Cm
JANES A v., MCNMCPM
THOMAS(IOIIIIIC HI
O OT M LAT ,mvE
OVPION 4 NOS,.
°ALAN mOmP.s
BRUCE c k.ON
J. LAWPFMC NIG1N "'Ur
PICHAPO A. WI MO.
J Omne G. N005C.i,
WILLIAM J COSOP , r
DOHERTY,RUMBLE & BUTLER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3750 05 TOWER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELL r tinNe. (012)340 5550
SAINT PAUL OFFICE
1500 FIM57 NATIONAL BANK HUMPING
5AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
',LS:PHONE (012)291 -9333
VANCE N. OPPERMAN
JOSEPH H. HERMAN, JP.
RICHARD IS PETERSON
RONALD A. HAMAN5FF
ROBERT J. SEHNIT
C.ROBERT @LAME
JAMES E. SENA'?
DAVID 0. MARTIN
STEPHEN T REFITS.,
wtTLIAN J. HARD'S
GEORGE L. NA,
NOWERT L. 12AVIn5oN
DEAN R. CDSTRON
RICHARD J. JOHNSON
LLOTO G. KEPPLC
TIMOTHY ft MANN
ALAN 1.
JONATHAN P. bOOLL
OF COUNSEL
DANIEL W. O'BRIEN
wRis Fab DiFsLCT CmAL NUMFIER
340-5579
July 8, 1976
Mr. Roger Ulstead
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Re: Re-zoning Agreement dated the 21st day of May, 1976,
entered into by and between The Pillsbury Company as
"Owner", Pemtom, Inc. as "Developer" and the City of
Eden Prairie
Dear Mr. UlsteLd:
The purpose of this letter is to reduce to writing the problems
that we have encountered since the execution and delivery of the above-
described Re-Zoning Agreement nod the solutions to those problems that
we discussed in Harlan Perbix's office on Thursday morning, July 8,
1976.
Paragraid) 2 (]rage 2) - Mini-Park identified as PUB on the
Planned Unit DevolcIpment Plan
This paragraph provides that the mini-park identified as PUB
on the plan be dedicated to the City at the time of platting for use SS
park and playground purposes; that the Owner grade and seed the park at
its expense to permit informal field game recreation space; and that
the maintenance of the mini-park ho the responsibility and expense of
home owners' assneliitions to be subsequently created. We have been advised
by the HA, VA and tTlmAC that they wili not approve a prolect wherein
the. home faa)er's association must maintain public lands at its expense.
We havo been advised that there are no exceptions to this ruling. It is
DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER
Mr. Roger Ulstead -2- July 8, 1976
impossible for Pemtom, or for that matter, for any developer to proceed
on a project in this day and age without FHA, VA and FHLMAC approval and
financing. This is of even greater importance since the passage of the
conventional mortgage loan exception to our usury statute. Paragraph 1
on page 4 of the Re-zoning Agreement provides that to the extent any of
the provisions contained therein are contrary to the rules and regulations
of FHA, VA or VIILMAC that such rules and regulations prevail.
In light of the above information, we attempted at our meeting
to devise a plan that would achieve the objectives of the Owner, the
Developer, the City and the governmental agencies. We agreed that the
most acceptable plan would be to have the townhouse association retain
fee title of the mini-park; hove the Owner and the Developer grant unto
the City an open-space easemenl and covenant providing that no structure
can be erected or pieced on the mini-park area unless plans and specifi-
cations for such structures be presented to the City and written approval
of such improvement be obtained from the City. The easement would
reserve unto the Developer and Owner the right to construct such recre-
ationnl and service structures, improvements and facilities which would
not unreasonably interfere with utility services of the City and would
be ncce3sary and appropriate to the full enjoyment of the area by the
association residents. In addition to the granting of the open -space
easement and covenant, the Developer and the Owner would grant unto the
City an extension of the trail extending from the south along Mitchell
Lake in the arve identified as the townhouse section so that there would
be a logical extension of the trail system through the mini -park to the
public road. I have-received an informal opinion from FHA, VA and
FHLKAC that this plan would be acceptable and in accordance with their
rules and regulations. After official approval of this plan from the
City, I will seek formal approval from those governmental agencies.
Paragraph 3 - Scenic Easement
This paragraph provides that a scenic easement no less than 75
feet from the 875 Soot elevation must be granted to the City by the
Develope , and the Owner to insure no urban encroachment along Mitchell
Lake in tin area identified as the townhouse section. The six foot wide
trail would be constructed n.iithin the 75 foot scenic easement area.
In devising the seenie easement located no lens than 75 feet
from the 875 lobt elevation, the City and the Developer intended that
there he no constrict ion within 75 foot from the shoreline of Mitchell
Lake. The elevation of 875 feet was an arbitrary number and does not
end must likely will not equal the water level line. In fact, 872 feet
will lw the mis-controll 1 OA::itaUM water level when the watershed plan
Is completed. The water levol is presently at an elevation of 869 feet.
The problem with designating an arbitrary elevation like 875 feet is
;4-1 6 g
DOHERTY, BUMBLE E. BUTLER
Mr. Roger Ulstead
July 8, 1976
that it will create great title problems in the future. It will be
necessary to have a survey made for each unit to determine that individual
units do not encroach upon the scenic easement which is designated as
no less than 75 feet from the 875 foot elevation. This will cause great
expense which ultimately will be passed on to the consumer.
Once again, to achieve the ultimate objectives of the Owner,
the Developer and the City, and to obviate needless expense, we all
agreed at our meeting that the Developer and Owner would grant unto
the City an open-space easement on all association common lands including
the 75 foot scenic easement along Mitchell Lake in the area identified
as the townhouse section. As in the case of the mini-park open-space
easement and covenant, no structure could be built on the common area
without first obtaining the consent of the City. In addition, the
scenic easement would provide that no vegetation or trees could be cut
or removed for a distance of 75 feet from the elevation of 872 feet
(which is the man-controlled maximum water level) without first obtaining
the written consent of the City. The remaining terms of Paragraph 3
relating to the specification of the trail and the obligation to main-
tain the trail shall remain as presently set forth in the Re-zoning
Agreement.
If you or the members of the City Council have any problems
or questions, I would be more than happy to meet with you once again
to resolve such problems and questions. I am confident that I will be
able to ohtain FHA, VA and PHLMAC approval of the Re-zoning Agreement
as above amended. I will also be more than happy to prepare a draft
amendment to the Re-zoning Agreement for submission to Harlan Perbix.
I thank both you and Harlan Perbix for your understanding
and cooperation.
Yours truly,
RLD/jkr
cc: Harlan Perbix, Esq.
Mr. Daniel Herbst
Mr. James Hill
2-00
whP/lh
7/8/76
RE-:LONTNC ACREEMEITT
THJS AiiLb, nOct ac,d entrxed into in tri:dicate, this day
of , by and b2tvnen cnfr:.!--.1:!'!ECELE REALTY COMBMIY,
a ninre:ota pn:troyship, 1:rcinafter called '0 ,:qners ', and the crry 09 mr7,71
c tt3ceni corporrtien of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter
'
, Cuk.ry. %J.:Ye r Led the City Connell of the City of Eden
:bane the zoi71.^_k. .)1-. a tract of land frcsa
rinA r;lv: C 7.mlal Service a ,id for an area consist:As
0 : • 5 in act:on:lance tth irn Planneo Unit Developnent
plan, nnd wnen crnct of land is leolly
'-oyth on ko)....,;:it is attached hereto and
he );(.)f. k•'1 ,707, ,•• y- ) ; and
:,,:ther agree n. n rw.rt c.4 said request to lay out,
Proper-my in ac:::.:1-3c.o. with the content plan
74;1171 4oc ,,,ore ?resented to cne. City, consisting of three
1 t17; on-Nnegele rmi C.;:n2any, 1) A Planned Unit
7) ',:ovircnrAent:q ANsansmant, and 3) :::v.,:.0.cmentai Data Reviced
3, 1);5, each or ,.?hich how) been prepared by ,Irauer
t a t,!27. •7 rated . 397: ;1,1 17 ,Ar [53Cd to ',Ian,
C, D, yr! ' rind nrn aLeached hereto and wade
n 11.,fuol .; Jr.,1
Lhe City Couy.:11 believes Liner the rezoning of the Property
to C dcirral 'Service and 1Witic will be in the public interest and
7
whp/jh
7/8 /76
consistent with the wAfare and convenience of the people of the City;
and
at tts regular mctiht;; of February 3, 1976, the City Council
passed e (lotion adopt-UT Penolution No. 1,036 zrantiag PUD Concept approval
for the l'tor'=rty, ;;C ,0 111:t a first readins to Ordinance No. 317 approving the
rezoningo the prorhr'.:y to C Regional Service, and directing the City
Atorney Co .'reit a -cn
) !;:rcer.ent uitheet:eth, that for and it-. consideration
01 the City Council z ,d.tating an Ordinance cn n cF, the zoning of the Property
fret: Iddustr,a1 Co C service, and 01 tho cAttual benefits of each
of
het , oIto lrties, their rehoective successors and assigns,
hareby cr!vC.1 -,C.rti. attt: a -rco en follows:
1. (sctors egroo ho t:cv.+ap the Proper :..y in accordance with the plans
.otr.,,..! to tile wo ,ch are made a oar hereof, subject to the
follodtn
A.:.;1 n ,:!.. t1..,1oss al n plicetion for a building permit for
c.;:p.truct n s',1e within tho .'co7*rty is nale within
iwo yeaty", ' of the fin:..1 ;f,)ti.oit of the ordinance
re'rtninh t11.t. City CI -c 1 1_ nay oaview its action
ei hcv.: ,r ...n erty to ,:a.ltert.C:c whothcr the concept and
d0yelooroLt1 !,ioos of the Owners. :e -c still consistent vd111.
(levoie , .t1! C of thL Cjt. 'o 1112 CVOilL that they
on- not, retain L oi C R.cgional
Cot tin' Oweon: he toqu1rd ro
:rod dove.lopt t a 1
.1,.,
1,11 1ee (.11„.
oi
'itst upon the i..,o:lanco. of La2 buildinz
or which cerrAtly crtist on the
ratst be 1::tioved and wo ofhars nInced
C .
oe 1 r
1 1na That ti n ' i.O.lowilv; guidelines be
ior tvL11. c z.ite develoocl place for the Property:
(i) To use a con,blnatica of plant materials of
diffcrot hctlhts zn:12rminy in careen the auto
stora;t.e ar,as Vi6161(.t :eon
whp/jh
7/8/76
(ii) To Include within the parking lot and new and
usod car sto!:,.;-,‘, areas canopy trees to reduce
tLe 3:-.,-kat of the pi-xic1.n3 areas (mininura 2';!1"
cal I pro. Or!::4!
(111) To prDvi.,d Lal•lt:cape Coca CC along the access
Oc ..J0 Llnit •:' II soften tha road enbanliaent. Planting
.7 ,!)rub roteriAl rdorw the road shall be
licy of oho z.nd should be
rod „,, a cialk..bitcu prto:t 1.0 DC' built and
do Citynlur!.; .:s..vana Lake.
a rthpjdtt tci
h.. '
by I...-,cane
(iv) f o ;;c!, plena buii,lings close
to LI., 'oei_ween then and the
fr ..c2 nre located
' o ric•u t,,,1 ;he L.:my. The land-
-, - 'o ;L11 ,7 colnentrate on
views with ao eiir.ctive plant and
.n_r1
(v) 7.r.f ;.:ky is cluvoloDr,1 ct three sites
!ntr Os pnoc7c.n...ly contemplated, the
to rcreening zwors tOil ove to be
(vi) an-i v-cent to proposed extension of
S n dt,1 s t't. '-0 throu:i..n l!ronorty Okined by the
ace ,!ua;.c or effective
5cr.,1!..•!,,!•„
rca!!!:nt,.:11,1!_. ladd:cc.,.: Orel CO screen
age COO 0 Li. 0000 000SeAoonor
1•11‘.?: on of (.‘a -t-ti,.:c.)L"!..-.,
! !ecr.v5l.17.
•! !!.., ! ;
(i) t-o en c.!‘!!:nion of Almoner
t!n: 0.0- Loot road and 'Valley View
on Oh: 0 orty in the concept
p3,•i at no Oust to the City in
th... plac of dila ilrc.‘parcy.
-3-
;2.1
vhpfjh
7/8/7G
(ii) Thu land, cm the Property and adjacent property
ovaed by C•"anerd, needed for the 1-494 freeway ramps
and ccliecvd:vaistributor road, is to be conveyed by
x•.',•'tlent to fThe C3ty nt discretion at a
r:;!.(; ,•,, ,r(`=L$1:1'1:'. L 'It Va1LrntiC.
r.ti nesip.n t,hall ha generally Co rot
!: F.shm:Ls leo 0.• .,-,:adrs„ boo to the
I ocrd tI, ef: the !,,!d.ing and the :/..LL1 ,01.-i 7,11 ,:c of their n?pearaace,
hr :!c!: c);.terior ipot..n.-i.r.1 uiiJ ba required.
ihal I he s.c.dtLian system con-
s ,. rt.!' COLlar.c: t.i P.:, the various
0,a I, , : : r : r • , area::.
(1, •.. One joint ::•').1'.••n ,.I excec!5 feet
• I s ton.
1.1 I Ii.ve only ' Lest i0113 on the
oti:dy signs on
tht. !)y to.le crir o t4 er th an
,
_
' ..... irectiooI eins
•d. city
!. i anci 1 rCIina4a, incled
too , . lt:A13 ia accordance
‘.:•,..t.dri :7.: .1, hereof..
• IrLor to
•
coil9tructiOn. - --.
. • I.ti i
• . , 1.hd Ci.ty, tihicht
;dins: ; istent h •y: the project.
, !',' 0..........tll , Li sJd Le LUr! ) •Jedicat:T.nr; the
1:0H, •Gtcir ovnt •
•
cue-hif (two
frOS1 7,0n:11 9,:friL",.!L.Cr OE the
acc:.,ds to be in
'L ,"!1 ' srdsdurc.rctil:0,1'.); the C:tty rngineering
. That rsr,ti be given to the
•
II 110 said s Le which
such manner that
it !,,-; ,-.; h:.t!.ttral as 0o:;r.:.',1c through contours
ondln: to the Ctty 5a1:17.
L. That the sc.:vac eat:et:tents, floodplain
add .1', a dedie.itod to thd City of Eden Prairie
-4-
whpijh
7/8/76
for public 1,1.1rposes, and that the Cr.Tners pay to the
City $1,260 acre cc!,,h park fee for the amount of
acrea.;.e he ,?n tti,der private °marsIi?? with credit to be
g ivil •'nonfloodplain'' 1%:).,1 to be dedicated at
the rate of ;I.:et value as iissc.tssed tor tax
2. Tnat all se,nit:.wy son.,e).:, water main a:r1 storm sewer facilities,
cuocrete curb end ii r nn,1bicirious sur.F.oc:'nr:„ whether to be public or
private, :;11..,11 be to City Standard:, by a Registered Professional
Civ41 red t.tin..,ii:teJ Le the City Ens;:,..i.ir for approval, Ti iners,
through f;ilall provide for coi -z•tent daily inspection of all
streei.: cod t.:.9n, both public an..1 private. Asbuilt drawings
with nervic..: an1 cLIVe io on reproducable loylizr and certificates of
Cu ; ot soeeiticatiow: 'all also ha delivernd to the
•r, ••;1!;0 rir;27.-!o to ICI o.1.,1 for City Engineering
rid cl;:-17...nit City requirements.
3. City and ?ro, 2.1,;ree:
- t:i:; .1 nil a !)olicablc rules,
City of LIden
Ihnt •ma of this Agrc::',.•-..et chall be binding
succes9ors
.1111 :-.ubequunt 1.110,ir respective
an.1 C3 signs, oi txo property herein
C. "1:he.t. c,:.py of 0115 A•::.7 , :..rnent chall be
.,;..:r ,r of cr.c rho P,c,,,istrar
!t and State of
I/. That the n,ccxt at •+.,.-,rapt.s 1 D (1) and
1 .1 •,,,;.21e.tval.-d shall be
credits against tho
the ;and the Owners'
ailjeceat. SC;1100L1Cr
1:
UITNEES ale parties to this Abreemant have caused their
presents to be wa-cutei the dny and year aforesaid,
CITY (A ,' EMN P.tUal.g, a municipal
co ,poration of the State of Minnesota
BY:
Wolitan :%.:11:sel, Mayor
and By:
p. Frnne, City CFar .i;
Ca;V:,1!-T.:ALC:7,14.] 1 ,11:ALTY COMZVINI
a:
acknow1 ,4 ,, an this day of
• 1-rnne,
coaL:n .on tr lews of the•::.tate of
r.in7..(.!:.,L.1,on 1J...L u, du:z!cicn.
notary 20:al.:,
w.:ta acknowledad 1,o:jore me this day of
•,,,• , a partner of Condon-
niy G.); ,,::4y, a :::r,:iesoLa partnerrhin, on behalf of the partnership.
whp/jh
7/8/7G
Not!icy
-6-
UNAPPROVED
EDEN PEAIRIE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall
June 15, 1976
Call to order: 7:40 p.m.
Members Absent: Michael Dardis, Joe Hays, Doug Meyer, Duane Pidcock,
Jim Simchuck, Iounell Teslow, Mari Eragseth, Rosemary
nysinvr, Lorraine Maenke, Sue Ellingson.
Staff Eemher Present: Dick Putnam
Mambers Tbsent: Billy Bye, Eleanor real, Daphne Krause, Julie Palmer.
D. CG:nnity F.,n ted Services Board
1. Pidc ,ck itported on meetings of the advisory board to the
led services boaid which met on May 4th 6 17th.
2. A motion w.ls EAe that objectives and meMbership outlined
in Y), 17, )976 p,eting of the Committee studying CBS'S
be :ipp,(...ed by the HRC and forwarded to C.C. for consideration
aloi,g-vii!h the h-,H,S of individuals that have identified
ini,y4•!:t to Leceme dt Large rep, to the board.
1!,Dbion by P;1(oek Seconded by Maenke. Passed.
TO Mayor Fenzel and City Council June 30, 1976
From the Human Rights Commission
Ordinance 289 Subd. 5 D.2. Community Based Services Board whose purpose is
to assist all Supervised Residential Programs or Social Rehabilitation
Programs by providing a conduit for resolving problems and integrating
the homes into the community. Such Hoard shall be created by the City
Council.
The sucgested objectives and memuership for the CBSB were formulated by a
sub-committee 4 of the Human Rights Commissionfand unanimously adopted by
the full comsission at its June meeting. All those involved believe that
such a board has teemendous potential and willimake a significant contribution
to the city -nd its citizens. Since there is no known precedent for such
a Board, the coroittee and the Commission feel that it should have all possible
leeway to determine its own internal organization and to define its role as
dictated by exeerience. Participants also feel strongly that a relatively large
board is neccveary to carry out the recommended functions and to assure input
from a broad base within. the community.
A report from to Center for Urban and Regional Affairs of the University of
rianeota entitjed "Conity-Based Residential Fmcilities in the Twinpities
!:ctropol:ta %.F0,1 Lacation ond Cossunity Response" raises some important
quert.lons atout resi .,onnilities of various governmental levels and community
n1,a .;-s in r.-rd to le,sidenti1 care facilities. Representatiues from the
South Rcnn::ia area ::urn Aiebts Commissions ore meeting in an attempt to '
foss on thc:4c T,estons and to devise,where possible, means to deal with them
on an ars%-v.ic berid. Come of th'Jve questions concern: how to avoid
initial cc::rnnty resistance, how to determine need for facilities within the
erea and how toiletruline where facilities should be located.
Toe followio citizens, who volunteered to verve on the sub -committee, are
inter,.rted in vsrving as at-larte r e presentatives on the Board;
F,rbl‘rc
Liz
Ciiiy r.eeella
Jean Isniereon
Crolios Ihti
6316 St. John's Dr.
9011 High Point Circle
8751 Bentwood Dr.
9110 Fox Run Circle
16213 Valley View Rd.
l it S P: e--c-a/zie- LI. •",.. 772-k 11f=Z
2 Té
Community Based Services Board
Objectives:
1. Evaluate city ordinances and proceedures inorder to accommodate
city group home experience.
2. Review all applications for group homes to determine conformance
with the requirements or Ordinance #289 and prepare a report which details
how each home meats City ordihances and State l a w provisions.
3. Oversee the relationship between facilities and their neighborhood
environment. Sug(-st and encourage communication between group homes and
the cmmunity and initiate if necessary.
4. Entab?i:h liaison with State and appropriate community groups that
provide services for group home residents or are involved in their regulation.
Act as a mediator to resolve problems or misunderstandings between homes
and neii.;hbors or State agencies.
5. Work with the State and County nE;encies involved with deinstitutionali-
zvtion policies to give E6en Pn.:drie decision makers correct and advance
knowlyte of rrcwrLms or re4-ulat'.ons.
6. :ntain up-to-d:,te inventory of home locations and of possible
nreT:s ruturc h6me locations that may be available.
7. imr1ment nei:hborhood and community wide education
pruEr:x to :Amhla citiaen:; to tatter understand the needs end capabilities
of hc,e ssiets and enble 1,c,12 ,:, home residents to better understand
:vYl ,:bie to thm. within te City.
F. J-rovid, a r(rum for all citi7ns to express ideas concerning the
co-r ;ey turd rvi rca cu accart. T.is is not only A problem solving oppor-
t ..ini, t oao cl a be "ctructive" dialo,7ue in which new ideas might .
"
, t bc-Lter rod core e:ficieht City/relit,lous/school/
can be utilized by :Lrctip home residents. The
LrouI home ridents will provide v?iable services
to
1C. ;.ct e,01 .,,ter of Lroup Fnd foster homes to mximime their
t(1-1 euit2 s betA, r econmAc efficincl prcp.;iM
cvi cc or ros Dun: e :en ci es (D:1.;:tr.,,ct 287, Or.; or-
o;,; a, various tyes of !?;roup homes z:re estoblished)
jun
C !•.;our
C. e
ty 1.dr ,.•Ct(,,r
E. Cc-th CC,!AC:i.1
Cli IIC nrc,
IC. ICc lose Liver,
?A. ol Cii riot ;`7..?
MINUTES
SECOND MEETING OF COMMITTEE STUDYING COMMUNITY BASED
SERVICES BOARD ( CBSB )
Monday, May 17, 1976
Members Attending:
--
J. Palmer
B. O'Grady
S. Naill
L. Rettcrath
D. Pideock
J. Anderson
S. Sakulla
D. Putnam
7:30-10:00 PM Preserve Center
Agenda
1. Review minutes of May 4, 1976 Meeting.
2. Review May 13, 1976 Memo from D. Putnam.
3. Establish scope and formation of committee
recommendations.
4. Formulate committee recommendations.
1. The minutes of the May 4th meeting were approved to be a correct summary
of the ideas expressed.
2. The committee concurred that the 5- 13-76 memo from D. PutnaM expressed
many of the ideas expressed by the Human Rights Commission, City
Council and committee members. It was agreed to use the memo as a
work paper and modify the Role and Make-up of the SBSB.
3. The committee agreed. to confine their recommendations to the broad
definition of the CBS8 role and to recommend organizations or groups
for CliR !k2mbership.
A. CRSB Mii!]fIVES:
1- Continueevaination of city ordinances and procedures in order
to accommodate city group homes' experience.
2 . Maintain an up-to-date inventory of home locations, and possible .
areas for home locations that may he available.
3 . Oversee the relationshipbetvxen facilities and its neighborhood
environment . Suggest and encourage communication between group
home..: and the co ,,munity and initiate if necessary.
4 The hoard would review all applications for group homes in .
conforwance with the requirements of Ordinance # 289 and prepare
a report vhich details how each home meets City ordinances and
State Law provisions.
. Establish liaison With State and appropriate community groups
that pre Ode -.ervicco, for group home residents Or are involved
in their regulation. The board may act as a mediator to resolve
problems or misunderstondings between homes and neighbors or
Stale agencies.
2-0
CBS13 2nd Meeting Minutes -2- May 17, 1976
6. Design and implement neighborhood and community wide education
programs to enable citizens to better understand the needs and
capabilities of group home residents and enable group home
residents to better understand opportunities available to them
within the City .
7. Work with the State and County agencies involved with deinstitu-
tionizatioe policies to give Eden Prairie decision makers correct
and advanced knowledge of new programs or regulations.
8. Provide a forum for all citizens to express ideas concerning
the community based services concept. This is not only a
problem solving opportunity, but can also be a "constructive "
dialogue in w h ich new ideas might be suggested.
9. Design ways that better and more efficient city/religious/-
school/civic organizations services can be utilized by group
home residents. The reverse is also true • that group home
residents will provide valuablsdrvices to other organi/ations.
10. Act as a coordinator of all group and foster homes to maximize
their communication enabling better economic efficiency and
program ceopetibility.
CIISFI MEMBERSHIP
Representatives from the following groups are suggested as the
initial board bake-ep. The committee feels that the broad knowledge
of the groups represented will be important to the board's effective-
ness.
1. Eden Prairie Public Safety Department.
2. Spocialiv.ed group home service or resource agencies, i.e.,
District 787 end Opportunity Workehop. ( other representatives
could be added as varied types of homes are developed in the
C ommunity ).
3. Eden Prairie Ministerial Association.
4. Eden Prairie City staff.
S. fleman Riehls Commission.
6. At large reprcsentatives,
7. Eden Prairie Immunity Education Director
8. South Hehnvpin Hunan Services Council.
9. Civic orgni .::!lion, i.e., JC, Lions, Rotary.
10. Scpresentative Prom cech group home.
1]. Eden Prairie School District.
CBSB 2nd Meeting Minutes -3- May 17, 1976
C. The committee suggested that the following committee members
would be very interested in participating in the CBSB as
at large representatives:
Barbara. O'Grady
Carol Lahti
Sandy Sakulla
Jean Anderson
Elizabeth Retterath
SUMARY
The committee agreed that the CBSB would more fully define its role as an
advisory board to the Human Rights Commission and City Council. All
committee members believcd the potential of such a board was tremendous
and will provide a significant contribution to the city and its citizens.
DP:jj
Planning, Commission Minutes -2--
Unapproved
June 28 • 1976
• . •
IV. REPORTS AND RECC1ILNDATIONS.
A. CI osst owl; fxt,ns i on, from Shady Oak Road to 1-494. Consideration of access
to lit:71ch/Cooley -Rui,d. Discussion of staff report and Hennepin County response.
Mr. Don Speelman, Henne.pin County Public Works Department, stated the county is seekiii., the City's approval of the revised plan and the right to proceed with the
acquisition of 141 ,1 of-:way. He slated :.linnetonka has given such approvals already.
The cos.t of the project is est imated to he 4 million dollars and construction is
not expected until 1980.
Beaman expressed concern that if the present estimate is 4 million, and construction
is not eq,ected until 1980, the figure could go much higher.
Sundst on expres,,cd corn ern regarding the stoplights.
Mr. Spec) man said the acces-, of Beach Road and the Crosstown appears to be the most v.,0 aabi e 91 an , bat it could be modified in the future if necessary.
Lynch cinprcssed enrern al ,00t the on grade erm.sins and stoplights. He did not
feel the IcVisN1 pian was a ,orkabl e desi go and preferred Alternate A in the staff
report .
Spe ,elr:;01 info] ;;ed the co'n7!;ission the school hoard had requested Beach road's access be Si gin) 1 I cd hod 1 he Metro Coon i 1 has classi fiord the road as a minor arterial with
grade crrasings.
Soren ,on asked f the 4 i on est i sate included the cost of the bridge over 494.
Speelrrol rc!To ded
Sorew.rn cvres!.ed cencern ;:tiolit the safe stopping distance between the proposed stop] 1;11 5. SpN.11.,:m rraTended I ho, (lad wi 11 have advance warning signs and the
di st an , 1 , of i00 fect i ,,1;•y;;;1 .
Mot i on :
tearm..11 ;ovcd, Tum c,cood(,d, to re( ommend to the City Council Alternate A of
the Hay :0, 19/5, st if yet oft I....jib no access for Beach Road o the Crosstown,inst cad all ereat•;,c cc:-.- to Lem h Road via connection of Beach Road east to Rowland Road
throoi); hr y.011 1,;;kc Lark, or co»Dect i on Sest across 494 to Baker Road, C.S.A.11.860.
Sot cn!.,(11 (1.1fl'd Cminty to consider that the $ 250,000 figure for the bridge
const ruct ion over 491 boy not be adequate.
Vote: "(he ;notion imrri Pci unanimously.
:2 7 `",-3
Minutes - Parks, Roc. and
Page Five
Natural Re SOUTCes Commission Unapproved
'June 29, 1976
7. 3m v1,t(-ns on
Jeesen re7!11(3ted r. bllstad, 3ity 3a5ager, to lake presentation in the absence
of hr. Putnam, Planning D5r(eL.or. Ullstad spOke to the Staff Report, informing
e aat E(nne: An County hcs submitted the Orosstown layout for
spi.roval. :aid the Ihian,olag C .,:dssion has reviewed the question on three
ocaesions, with final approval of Stnff Bert Alternotive A. Ullstad gave back-
routs:: 5.11 .Thrsti on on the layout, and said is ,,,cess is provided on Boach Road,
it ..nould c!7anF.e and use and would not provide good continuity.
Fbna'ing disouseed, vith Ullstad cTlaining that we have to go through the
,:;ooty, for Pny additions have to be canpleted before the highway is coleted.
fLit tJ.at sinae b. S. 494 cr:ated that intersection, they should asslaie
or the res - ihi)ity to carry t: rt traffic. Ullstad said it -,:as only be-
a ::re:::n is V,e:•e, aril that if T'..icn Prairie had been rep .esented be-
Iror'e It as f,1,.ed, C0Hc h .:ye r.ed tha Podcral (1.::vern:,est to create thlis
rorr arc
jessen that the ar,cf Te)t the overFess idea is the bast and Safest
for eoot ,!,uity aod 1.uric,ses. A read running through Bryant !Ake
Park -dsnd mar discussed as a way of brt.aking the
ti or of V c ability of 1.c, --eat tarts to one nryaot 1_81:e, as uell as resi-
dents of .7.ayaet T:•.e uould be bettor able to utiliLe nor: lu nity and school dis-
trict r(snrces.
7. 3ren7Ity .,::n eel (lont0).
1i0T1 ten !!.:6 at we reeca7 and first of the Alternatives of the
Staff :H,trt, Alt. A-62, on the bnsis It mould better nerve the people
of m: fn and I•oeennthle accc.!.,.s to Bryant Lake Park.
ii canard, mac mon carried
;MI
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
July 23, 1976
RESOLUTION NO. 1161
RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING
FOR HEARING ON PNWD= (I.C. 51-284)
WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City
Council on :July 13, 1976, recommending the following improvements to wit:
I.C. 51-284, Sanitary sewer, Storm sewer and
watermain improvements to service property
in the vicinity of W. 78th St., T.H. 169 and
Eden RoA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements
in accordance with the report and the assessment of
property abutting or within said boundaries for all
or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant
to M.S.A. Beet. 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated
total cost of the improvements as shown.
2. A public hearirw: shall be held on such proposed improvement
on the 3rd day of August, 1976, at the Eden Prairie City
Mali at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The City Clerk shall give pub-
lihed and' mail.ed notice of such hearing on the improvements
an required by law.
• 0.•
ADOPTGD by the Mon Prairie City Council on
Wolfgang H. Pcnzel, Mayor
ion-1:T
• SEAL
Join I r,nw,
July 13, 1976
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1165
RESOLUTPN RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING
FOR HEARING ON PROJECT I.C. 51-292
WHERMAF, a report has beer; given by the City Engineer to
t
h
e
City Council on :July 13, 197(, recommending the following
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
to wit,
,•22„ Street improvements in the Westgate
(east) Addition
NOW, TPIAEFORE, IN IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements
in aceordance with the report and the ast,errment of
property abutting or within said boundaries for all
or a poition of the cost of the improvement pursuant
to E.S.A. Sect. 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated
total cost of the improvements as shown.
2. A public hearing shell he held on such proposed improveme
n
t
on the 3rd dov of August, 1976, at the Eden Prairie City
Dell aL 7:30 0'(.1ccb P.M. The City Clod): shall give pub-
lished and Mailsd notice of such heAring on the improve-
nwnts ar required by law.
ADOPIED by the Ed,n Prairie City Council on
Wolfgang H. Pensel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Prime, Cl k
2•,%,
July 13, 1976
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPJB COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION no. 1162
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND
sync1P:Lc/21.'1ms AND ORDERING AMER-
TisEmENT FoR BrDs ON rnoJEcT I.C. 51 -282
WHEREAS, the City Pinriincer, through Suburban Eng. Co., has
prepa,,,3 p1w ono speeifications for the foil awing improvement;
I.C. 51-'R2, Street improvements on Preserve
heojeyrd and waasing surface overlay on
faiderbc,n liates Parkway
and has presentua such plans and specifications to the Council for approval:
WOW. TUPWORE IT ITSOLVED BY TUC CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UDEN PRATniE:
I. Such plans and spci f ications , a copy of which is attached hereto
and made a part hereof, are hereby approved.
Thu City dun. shall prcpare and cauce to he inserted in the
nn a in tie Cornd -cnction fqilletin an advertisement
for hid s liven the wking or such imp‘ovcwent under such approved
plans and specittions. The advertisement shall be published
for . , 1 rputdfy tha work to ha dono, sh;)11 state
the ;. Li is will be ciprica at ) 0: 00 o'clock A.M. on Thursday,
Auqnst h, 1976, Ofla considcrad by the Council at 7:30 o'clock
P.M. Of, Tuesday, Ancwit 10, 1975, in the Council Chaqibers of
the City 001.1 , and thst no bids will be considered unless sealed
and fil.cd with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit,
eashie's (herd:, bid hand or certitied chock payable to the City
for Si (psrcont) or the ,Amount of such bid.
AW)MED by tin Erhai Prairie city council on
Wolf<pn9 B. Penncl, Mayor
liT S EA T.
Johi, P .bc, Clad'
;'0
July 13, 1976
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1163
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT
OF EDENVALE I2TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Fdenvale 12th 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 thero.nder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects Consistent with the City plan and
the regulations and rerluirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and Ordin-
ances of the City of kAun Frairic.
NOW, THEREF(iRF, BE IT RESOLVED HY THE CITY COUNCIL or THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Flat Apptoval Request for Eder:vale 12th Addition is approved
upon ce,pliance with the reccanendation of the City Engineees
Report on this plat dated July 8, 1976.
8, Variance is herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. s.
Subi. I waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the
approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final
plat Ls in said Eugineer's Report.
That the City Clerk in hereby directed to file a certified copy of
p ,,,olnLion in the office of the Register of Deed and/or
or Titles for their use as required by NSA 462.358,
subd. 3.
b. iii lie city Clerk is hateby directed to supply a certified copy
of this Tee,) it to the owners and subdividers fo the above named
p 1 ,ut
E. V:,A IT. Yi'or and City Manaaer are hereby authorized to Execute
the certificate of ,n1”oval on behalf of the City Council upon
co:yNo1 c,. wilh the 1-,.P:r.yoiug provisions.
hy lu Cdi n Plairie City Council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel,Mayor
SEAL
John I). 1.'t ('It 1'1;
July 13, 1976
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1164
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT
OF LINDEN POND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Linden Pond 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 respect: 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 Linden Pond Addition is approved
upon compliance with the recominendation of the City Engineer's
Report on this plat dated July 8, 1976.
B. Variance is herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8.
Suld. 1 waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the
apluoval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final
plat as drserilrd in said Engineer's Report—
C. That th ,:. City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy
cf this Resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or
L,gistrar of Titles for their use as required by NSA 462.358,
Subl. 3.
D. That the City Clerh is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this L: eqlution to the c.i,eets And suldividers of the above
ra ced
Eh unit. the M::yor and City !17:neger are hereby authorized to Execute
the c--rtifl.- ate of zaireval on Lhalf of the city Council upon
efoplihh ,-c vith the fi.regoing piovisions.
11,c Trailio City Cooacil on
Wolfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor
A Ei SEAL
john D. Franc:, clerk
:27 1,9
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Carl Jullie, City Engineer
July 8, 1976
Edenvale 12th Addition and
Linden Pond Addition
PROPOSAL: Edenvale, Inc. is requesting City Council approval of the
Final Plats of "Edcnvale 12th Addition" and "Linden Pond". Edenvale
12th Addition is a single family residential plat (R1-13.5) consist-
ing of 5 lots fronting on Woodhill Trail. Linden Pond consists of
22 sinylc family residential lots (R1-13.5). Both additions replat
Outlet S, Edenvale 3rd Addition and are located North of Woodhill
Trail between Edenvale Boulevard and Woodhill Drive.
HISTORY: The Preliminary Plat was approved on February 25, 1975, per
Council Resolution #951.
The second reading of Ordinance #287, rezoning the property to RA-13.5,
is scheduled for July 13, 1976. The First reading was approved on
February 25,1975.
The Final Plats now submitted for approval conform with the approved
Preliminary Plat.
VARIANCES: Vaeiance from City Ordinance #93, Sec. 8, Subd. 1, waiving the
six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the Prelimi-
nary Plat and filing of the Final Plat is required for both plats.
A variance from the side-yard setback requirements of Ordinance #135
should he allowed for both pLits as follows:
5' on 1 story garages
10' on l story houses
15' on 2 or greater story houses
20' on sideyard for houses built on corner lots
A variance from the front setback requirement of Ordinance #135 should
be allev, for Lots I and 2, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 9, Block 2,
Linden Pond Addition. This setback should be 25'.
A varL:nce from the minimum lot size requirement of Ordinance #135
should be allowed for both plats.
- 2 -
UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer,
concrete curb and gutter, and bituminous surfacing have been installed
on Woodiall Trail serving Edenvale 12th Addition.
Utilities and streets will be installed throughout Linden Pond Addition
in accordance with City Ltandards. A 20' utility easement is necessary
along the common line of Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, to accomodate both
sewer and wnter. Completion of Edenvale Boulevard from Woodhill Trail
to Birch Island Road should be required in accordance with City stand-
ards, as part of the approval of Linden Pond Addition.
PARE DEDICATION: Outlot A, Edenvale 12th Addition and Outlots A, B and C,
Linden Pond Addition will be used for park and trailway purposes. The
Homeowners Association for these plats shall agree that all trailways
and grecnways will be maintained by said Homeowners Association with
right of public use. These facilities will be constructed by the de- :
veloper.
BONDING; No bonding will be required for Edenvale 12th Addition.
A performance bond or letter of credit approved by the City Attorney
shall be posted for an amount approved by the City Engineer to cover
the cost of installing sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, concrete
curb and gutte,r, bituminous streets, street signs, first year costs
for street 1 4 ghtirg, and the trai3way and park system.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Edenvale 12th Addition and Linden
Pond Addition subject to the requirements of this report and the
followirg:
1. Execution of the Developer's Agreements.
2. Receipt of fee for City Engineering services in the amount
of $660.
3. Second reading of Ordinance #287, rezoning the property.
4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
CJJ:kh
. (I
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Carl Jullie, City Engineer
July 9, 1976
Staff Recommendation
Valley View Road Alignment Weit of Co. Rd. 4
At the joint City Council/School Board meeting on June 15, 1976, the Council
requested the Staff to prepare a recommendation concerning the alignment of
future Valley View Road west of Co. Rd. 4, as it affects the Round Lake
School/Park site. Three alternate routes (Direct, North and South) were
discussed in some detail at the joint meeting. Cost estimates and cost shar-
ing possibilities were given for each route.
It is recommended herein that the "Direct" route is the most feasible alter-
nate. The North route would be our second choice. The South route has
several disadvantages.
Factors that we considered in this matter are listed as follows:
1. The Direct route is the least costly.
2. The Direct route is clearly indicated on the City's Comprehensive
Guide Plan and will provide good continuity for the City's only
east-west collector street between T.H. 5 and Townline Road.
3. The South route may be very objectionable to residents within the
Kirk Meadows Addition, especially those who may have relied upon
the Guide Plan alignment when considering purchase of a home
within that neighborhood.
4. The South route has the highest cost.
5. The South route would almost totally disrupt the existing City park
development, causing a loss of $20,000 to $30,00 invested to date
in improvements.
6. The South route would require a lengthy and extensive environmental
assessment and certain permits because of the Federal LAWCON funds.
7. The South route will severely restrict the utilitzation of a sub-
stantial portion of the south shore of Round Lake.
8. The North route is less desirable than the Direct route because of
its higher cost and the discontinuity at Co. Rd. 4.
4..979a
- 2 -
If City MSA funds are not available in the near future for the project,
the school district can apply its total share of the ultimate project and
build to complete standards a portion of the direct route and utilize
same as an access to the school site. Then, at some future time, the
City could use its MSA funds to complete the road, including any required
pedestrian overpass/underpass at no further cost to the school district.
The City's current SSA street construction priority listing would pre-
clude City participation in the project with NSA funds for several years.
CJJ:kh
GP 770 if
DRAFT'
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF
VOTING EQUIPMENT
The City of Eden Prairie hereby agrees to purchase the following equipment
F.O.B. Berkeley, California.
50 III A Votomatics with self contained booths
6 Votomatic Demonstrators
4 Ballot Transfer Cases
1 Manual Crimper
1 Ballot Assembly Aid
1 Portable Punch
2 Precinct Ballot Counters
The City will pay to the seller 20% of the purchase price within 30 days of
delivery with the following to be paid within 30 days of January 1, 1976.
The seller, Computer Election Systems, 25 W. 651 Towpath Court, Wheaton,
Illinois, anrf .cs to deliver to the City of Eden Prairie the above equipment,
at a cost of $16,613.00 on or before August 16, 1976 and to provide the
following services:
(Jsa year ...arranty on all materials and workmanship.
Provide stiporviion ad training for persons operating the
coun ,.ss on tIe eldtion 9/11/76 arid he present during the
coesting on 9/14/76.
Nave repteseNtatives of the Company available for consultation
doring -riobiAlthTht Oc ,utions.
Provide othr :lervicc ,s as specified in the letter attached.
This con17,0 is coniingent upon the approval by the Slate of Minnesota
of the use of the Precinct Ballot COuuter.
July 1, 1976
City of Eden Prairie
Com-,utor r.lecLion Syr.O.ms
Name
City Clerk
Title
t-4