HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 07/27/1976 JOHN FRANE
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Billy Bye, Sidney Pauly,
Joan Meyers and Tim Pierce
COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Harlan
Perbix; Planner 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. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held Tuesday, July 6, 1976. Page 2798
B. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held Tuesday, July 13, 1976. Page 2815
1II. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 337, regulating hunting and trapping Page 2835
in Eden Prairie.
B. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 336. establishing license fees for Page 2843
mechanical amusement devices and amusements centers, amending
Ordinance No. 280.
IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Mrs. Newell J. Lieb]er to discuss the Dutch Eln Page 2844
Disease problem in Eden Prairie.
B. Neill Lake Apartments, The Preserve, request for modification of Page 2845
Dev_e]opment Plan for 84 units. The site is located on Neil] Lake
across from the High Point single family area. (continued from
July 13, 1976)
V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council members.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Condon/Naegele Realty Rezoning Agreement. Page 2855
2. Progress Report on Shoreline_Management.
City Council - 2 - Tues.,July 27, 1976 ,
r
C. Report of City Attorney
1. Acquisition of the Michael �v1ka property by condemnat ion or Page 2856
purchase.
D. Report of Planning Director
1. Crosstown Extension from Shad Oak Road to I-494. Consideration
of access to Beach Road and Cooley Road. cont nued from
July 13, 1976)
E. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Consideration of option for the Miller Brothers property at Page 2858
Mitchell Lake.
2. Consideration of the purchase of the Grill property at Staring Page 2861
Lake.
3. Eden Prairie Equestrian Center lease.
4. Reforestation Program for replacing diseased trees. Page 2864
F.* Report of Finance Director
1. Approval of contract with Ehlers & Associates.
2. Chan in date for sale of im rovements bonds a amount of
3 000 000.00 from Au ust 0 976 to 19 6.
St-,of
3. Accept Audit Report.
4. Clerk's License list. Page 2866
5. moment of Claims Nos. 2014 - 2146. Page 2867
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel
Billy Bye
Joan Meyers
Tim Pierce
Sidney Pauly
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad
City Attorney Harlan Perbix
City Engineer Carl Juliie
City Planner Dick Putnam
Director of Community Services Marty Jessen
Finance Director John Frans
Recording Secretary Joyce Provo
INVOCATION - Father Levanski, St. Hubert`s Catholic Church, Chanhassen
ROLL CALL: All members present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the agenda as
published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Joint City Council/School Board Meeting held Tuesday,
June 15, 1976.
Correct the work "birm" throughout the minutes to "berm".
Page 1, para. 4, line 4, strike 'opinion" and insert "impression"; in the
same para., 6th line, after "Hills" Insert "park".
Page 2, 3rd para., 3rd line, strike "non" and Insert "none".
Page 3, 4th para., 1st line, strike "capital" and Insert "capita".
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the minutes of
the Joint City Council/School Board meeting held Tuesday, Tune 15, 1976
as corrected and published. Meyers, Pierce, Byc and Penzel voted "aye",
Pauly "abstained". Motion carried.
.279 i
,T F
Council Minutes - 2 - Tuesday, July 6, 1976
B. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held Tuesday, Tune 22, 1976
Pg. 3, before the 1st motion on the page, add a new para. to read:
"Art Miller, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, asked how the bikeway/hikeway
would. affect his property. Mr. Jessen assured him that the bikeway/hikeway
would be located in the road right-of-way."
Pg. 5, before para. 6, add a sentence to read: "Pauly spoke in favor
of the variance noting that it would fit in with the existing neighborhood
and future development"; and in the lst line of para. 6, strike "Pauly"
and insert "Penzel".
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, to approve the minutes
of the Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 22, 1976 as corrected and
published. Meyers, Penzel, Pauly and Bye voted "aye", Pierce "abstained".
Motion carried.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. EastA'est Parkway Apartments, The Preserve, request to rezone approximately
9 acre site to RM 2.5 for 129 rental apartments. The site is West of The
Preserve Center on the East/West Parkway.
William Bale, 315 Peavey Building, legal counsel for The Preserve,
spoke to his letter dated July 3, 1976 requesting approval of the East/
West Parkway Apartments as a HUD 221-D-3 project, and answered
questions of Council members. (Letter dated July 3, 1976 attached)
Ken Person, Minnegasco, also spoke in favor of the East/West Parkway
Apartments.
City Planner Putnam outlined the Planning Commission's reasons for
recommending denial of this project.
Penzel questioned who the principals were in this project. •Mr. Bale
replied that Benardi would be the buyer, Northland Mortgage would handle
the financing, The Preserve would be the seller, and the manager of the
project after it is build would be Landtech.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, to continue the public
hearing for the East/West Apartments to July 13, 1976 and request a
report back from The Preserve as to the outcome of their discussions
with Windsiope developers. Motion carried unanimously.
B. I. C. 51-291, Proposed bituminous paving on Birch Island Road from
County Road 67 to 1/4 mile south thereof.
City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 1152 noting that the total
cost of the project would be $11,800.00, which breaks down to $5.60
per assessable foot.
z-7 99
Council Minutes - 3 - Tuesday, July 6, 1976
i
3
B. I.C. 51-291 Pro posed bituminous vin on Birch Island Road from 1
County Road 67 to 1/4 mile south thereof. (continued)
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to close the Public Hearing
and adopt Resolution No. 1152, ordering improvements on Birch Island
Road, I.C. 51-291, with a correction in the first paragraph, 2nd line,
to read the "6th day of July, 1976" rather than the 15th day of July".
Motion carried unanimously.
N.OREIINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading-of Ordinance No. 319 rezoning from RM 6.5 to R1-13.5
Edenvale llth for approximately 22 lots on 6 acres, and final plat
approve 1.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to Ordinance No. 319 and recommended
approval of the 2nd reading. He further noted that the rezoning agreements
have been signed.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the 2nd reading
of Ordinance No. 319. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to adopt Resolution No. 1153,
approving final plat of Edenvale Ilth Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 315 rezoning the Minnesota Protective
Life approximately 5 9 acre site from existing zoning to Office District.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to Ordinance No. 315 and recommended approval
of the 2nd reading. Mr. Ulstad called the Council's attention to the scale
model of the Minnesota Protective Life project.
Stan Koehler, 11518 Leona Road, appeared bef re the Co�ng1 an4
questioned how the property owners wouia �e assure air rights would
be protected as promised. Penzel assured him that clauses regarding
their concerns would be outlined in the developers agreement.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the 2nd reading
of Ordinance No. ng of
e developers
based on the June 310,15 a1976 brochure.nd to prove the
hMotioni carried unanimously.
agreement
unanimously
Mr. Kophlpr alsn asked if there would he some protpctinn as far as children
are concerned from the construction site. Dan Soppes, representing
the architects for the project, responded that typically on a construction
site there would be a construction fence, and perhaps it could be arranged
to have the fence
stated he would talk at the contractor permanent and make the necessary arrangements`
Meyers directed the City's Inspection Department to make sure there is some
secure fencing around the site before the heavy construction begins.
i
Council Minutes - 4 - Tuesday, July 6, 1976
C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No 317 approving the rezoning to C-Regional
Service for 4 auto dealerships and public areas for Condon/Naegele
Realty.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to Ordinance No. 317, explaining that the
staff did some work on the original layout that was submitted by the
proponent. He further stated that the staff did review with the Planning
Commission and Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission the
consideration of reduction of the 4 auto dealerships to 2 on the property
on the west, and the property nearest to the sewer easement be used
for something other than auto dealerships. Ulstad noted this was a
suggestion strictly by our staff and not a proposal by the proponents
themselves. However, the proponents are aware of what we are proposing.
Don Brauer, consultant for Condon/Naegele Realty, made himself
available for questions and displayed a revised grading plan to the Council
noting that the Planning Commission and Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission turned down the revised plan as well as the original
plan.
City Manager Ulstad explained that the City is going to have to acquire
the land for the rights-of-way for the ramp and Schooner Boulevard and
that Condon/Naegele Realty has tentatively agreed to sell the rights-of-way
for the value we presently have on the books in our Assessor's office at
approximately $14,000 to $15,000 an acre. This would include
about 5 to 5 1/2 acres.
Bye questioned if we did not have any development, would we have to acquire
the land from the same people. Ulstad responded to the affirmative.
Bye further questioned what the cost would be if we went to condemnation.
Ulstad responded in and around the vicinity you would find anywhere from
$2.00 a square foot to $3.00 - $3.25 per square foot. At $3.00 a square
foot it would amount to approximately $125,000 an acre; at $2.00 a square
foot ti would be appracimately $86,000 an acre
MrS. Claudia Bearman, 9955 Valley View Road, spoke to opposition to the
Condon/Naegele proposal and presented petitions requesting dental
(Petitions on file at City Hall)
Bob Hanson, 6932 Rosemary Road, appeared before the Council and
made the following three points: 1) Transportation is badly needed in the
Major Center Area, 2) Environmental impact has been overplayed, and
3) Development is needed in the Major Center Area. He further noted that
we do have to have auto dealerships somewhere in the area, however, requested
that some time .limit be put on development so it cannot sit around for a
number of years.
ago�
Council Minutes - S - Tuesday, July 6, 1976
C.2nd Reading of Ordinance No 317 approving the rezoning to C-Recilonal
Service for 4 auto dealerships and public areas for Condon/Naegele
Realty (continued)
Roy Terwilliger, Secretary of the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce,
spoke to the Chamber's position on the Major Center Area as outlined
In letter dated July i, 1976 from Steven 7lnnel, President of the Eden
Prairie Chamber of Commerce. (Letter attached)
Charlotte Enbiom, 10610 Valley View Road, spoke In opposition to the
Condon/Naegele Realty proposal and stated that the proponents took a real
risk In investing In this property, having full knowledge they would have a
difficult time utilizing this property.
Penzel stated he felt the alternative proposal'is more viable and far
more reasonable than the original agreement.
Tom Bartel, Eden Prairie News, questioned If the rezoning agreement would
come before the Council at a public meeting. Penzel answered In the
affirmative.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt the 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 317 and that publication of the ordinance be withheld
until the reflected changes be included In the rezoning agreement as put
forth in the letter from staff dated June 24, 1976. Further that Plan "B"
as presented be used In lieu of Plan "A". Roll Call Vote: Pierce, Pauly,
Bye and Penzel voted "aye", Meyers voted "nay". Motion carried.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Pauly, that the rezoning agreement
be returned to the City Council no later than 30 days from this date.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. Resolution No 1157 granting approval for Municipal Industrial Revenue
Bonds for Minnesota Protective Life.
Al Yoki, Secretary-Treasurer for Minnesota Protective Life, requested Council
approval of Resolution No. 1157
City Attorney Perbix explained that the City would have no obligation. Our sole
responsibility by statute Is that of being landowner subject to a mortgage.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to adopt Resolution No. 1157,
granting approval for Municipal Industrial Revenue Bonds for Minnesota
Protective Life. Motion carried unanimously.
V. PETITIONS REOUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
2BGZ
Council Minutes - 6 - Tuesday, July b, laio
A. Communication from Terry Carnes concerning purchase of land at Bryant
Lake.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to communication from James Olson, legal
counsel for Jerry Carnes, dated June 8, 1976.
Pauly questioned what the advantage would be in having these additional
five acres since Bryant Lake Park Is already a large park. Director
of Community Services Jessen replied the major advantage Is that it would
buffer the adjoining property and would provide us to use the flat property
for intensive recreation.
Pauly stated she could not see an additional five acres on the park as being
that necessary, and would rather see expensive homes built there.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to receive and file the
communication from James Olson, legal counsel for Jerry Carnes, dated
June 8, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
VI.REPORTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
Pauly reported on the Planning Commission held June 28, 1976.
Penzel suggested the Council members drive by OPUS II.
B. Report of City Manager
Ulstad explained that notices have been sent on the Crosstown Extension
Public Hearing to be held July 13, 1976.
Ulstad discussed the warning sirens In general.
C.Report of Director of Community Services
1. 1977 LAWCON Grant Program i
Director of Community Services Jessen spoke to his memo dated July 1,
1976 and answered questions of Council members.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to adopt Resolution
No.1167 , approving the 1977 LAWCON Grant Application. Motion
carried unanimously.
2. Proposed purchase of the Michael Zylka property at Staring Lake. I
Director of Community Services Jessen spoke to his memos dated I
June 24, 1976 and July 1, 1976. i
i
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, that staff proceed with
the purchase of the Michael Zylka property at Staring Lake as per Mr.
Jessen's memo dated June 24, 1976, Motion carried unanimously, f
Council Minutes - 7 - Tuesday, July 6, 1976
C.Report of Director of Community Services (continued)
3. Specifications for the Bikeway/Hikeway on County Road 9.
Director of Community Services Jessen requested approval of the
Specifications for the bikeway/hikeway as the specifications must be
into the Highway Department by the loth of July. When the specifications
are approved we can advertise for bids.
Mr. Jessen further explained that he is still trying to work out a
solution as to Mr. Sutliff's concern as per the Council's request.
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the
specifications for the bikeway/hi.keway. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Report of City Engineer
1. Final plat approval for Red Rock Hills 2nd Addition.
City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 1154 and recommended
approval subject to his report dated June 30, 1976.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve Resolution
No. 1154 subject to City Engineer's report dated 6/30/76.
2. Receive petition letter from Rauenhorst Corp. regarding the OPUS II
proi ect.
City Engineer jullie spoke to the letter from Rauenhorst Corporation
dated June 7, 1976.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to grant a one-year
extension to August, 1977 for PUD 79-06. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to direct staff to investigate
the establishment of a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Minnetonka
to extend utilities through Minnetonka Into Eden Prairie. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Resolution vacating temporary construction easement described under
easement #11 (9230) 13, I.C. 51-261.
City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 1155 and recommended
approval of same.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No.
il'SS, vacating temporary easement on Gelco Property, I.C. 51-261.
Motion carried unanimously.
i
aZU�
Council Minutes - 8 - Tuesday, July S, 1976
4. Receive petition for sewer and water service connection at 15209
Scenic Heights Road.
City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 1156 and his memo
dated July 1, 1976 recommending approval of same.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution
No. 1156, receiving 100% petition waiving the Public Hearing,
ordering the installation of utility services for 15209 Scenic Heights
Road, Project MIS 76-9-05. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Status report: Ray Welter, Jr., for a permit pursuant to the floodplaln
ordinance.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to the request by Ray Welter, Jr.
explaining that the City would Issue Mr. Welter a building'permit based
on the staff report dated July 2, 1976 and Mr-. Welter's letter.
E. Report of Finance Director
1. Steelman House Bid.
City Manager Ulstad requested the Council change the bid date for the
Steelman House from July 6th to July 13, 1976.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to extend the bid
considerations from July 6, 1976 to July 13, 1976 on the Steelman House.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Clerk's License List
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the Clerk's License
List dated July 6, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
None
VIII. AD:aURNMENT
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to adjourn the meeting at 11:09 PM.
Motion carried unanimously.
i
WALTCIT M.OA"ER
WILLIAN O.UO L ,Caw O//sees MASTOR and MATTSON, Ltd. {1
G NARLEU A.tAy!tr ORO,JR, 9
RIGNARD J GUNN Jlp REAYEV OUILpINO ]+
GEORGE C.MAjTOR T30 FECONp AVENUE SOUTH
ROO ERT W.NATTF..ON N,NNEA„OLIG.MINNESOTA 55402
WA-N.OIL ,1
TELEANONE 31P•OOAO AREA 612
JACK A.RCI,.lILNG
ALONIO O
STCVEN J.IIMMLR
July 2, 1976
Mr. Roger Ulstad
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55343
Re: East-West Parkway Apartments
Dear Mr. Ulstad:
The purpose of this letter is to provide, from the developer's
point-of-view, facts and reasoning why the East-West earkway
Apartments should be approved for construction as a HUD 221-D-3
apartment project ac The rr(,_sc:rve, i dcn Prairie, }Minnesota.
At the outset, we wish to request that tha City Council at
its mee-t.inq sche.lulcd for Tuesday, July 6, co.;sider only the
question whether it will permit any multiple-family structure to
be constructed on the property which is the subject of our
rezoning application as a HUD 221-D-3 project. The reason we
wish the consideration to be so limited is that the City Planning
Commission did not pass upon the adequacy of the plans and
specifications and the project as a whole but decided to not
recommend the project as a IIUD 221-D--3 project on the basis that
in its opinion tii:i.s+ is a "subsidized" project for low and moderate
income families and, because of the relationship of this project
to Windsiope (a 111JD Section 8, 100 per cent subsidized rent
project of 168 units) and .its location to Fraser School, a
concentration of 'subsidized" or. "no real estate tax" properties
resulted which con::tituted poor planning within The Preserve PUD.
By the Council- limiting its: decision at this time to the single
issue of whet-lier a I1UD 221-D-3 project is "subsidized" and
whether it should Llc permitted in the area proposed, and derision
will allow the dcvoloper to return to the Planning Commission
for consideration of they plans and specifications and revisions
that way he necessary.
Before proceeding further, an explanation or definition of
the three: types of federal p.xojects involved is probably in order.
d�((XJ�7 nr JI
Mr. Ulstad
July 2, 1976
Page Two
(A) A Section 8 project is one where the federal
government supplements the rent paid by the tenant to the
owner, and the rent in fact paid by the tenant is based
upon the income of the tenant. The amount of rents to be
charged by the owner and the amount of subsidy-to be paid
by the government is established by the government. In
the case of Windslope, (a Section 8 project) all 168 units
are Section 8 units, and the mortgage amount to be
committed by M11FA is $3,809,946.00.
(II) A 221-D-4 project is one where the rents proposed
are approved by HUD and the project is deemed feasible by
HUD market standards. There is no federal assistance to
tenants or to the owner nor is there any control by HUb as
to the cash that may be taken from the project by the owner.
The mortgage is insured by HUD.
(C) A 221-D-3 project is distinguished from a 221-D-4
project principally in that it is authorized under a federal
statute for the making of mortgage loans to provi.de housing
for low and moderate income persons. In fact, there is no
federal financial assistance to either the tenants or the
owner. The only financial assistance. in this type of
project arises under M.S.A. 273.17, subd. 17, which provides
that a 221-D-3 project shall, for 13 years from the date of
completion of. the original construction, or for the original
term of the loan, be assessed at 20 per cent of the market
value thereof. This results in an indirect subsidy in that
HUD antics-pates, the real estate tax savings and as a conse-
quence regulates somewhat lower rents because of the
decreased cash flow for the payment of real estate taxes.
In addition, HUD requires that the owner may only receive a
return on his equity investment of G per cent per annum.
These twc factors [limited cash flow to the owner and
reduced cash floe+ for the payment of real estate taxes]
results in the reduction of the scheduled rents. In this
type of project any person, regardless of income, may rent
an apariapent. There is no federally imposed or state
imposed requireinont that any number of tenants must be of a
certain income level or must be of a certain work type or
must consist of a certain mix of adults and children. In
effect, this type of project is a market rate project
reduced only by the anticipated savings in real estate tax
payments and limitation on return to the owner.
With the foregoing as an explanation of the.type of projects
involved, the following is an effort to fairly state the facts
with regard to the East-West Parkway Apartments and Windslope
Mr. Ulstad
July 2, 1976
Page Three
Apartments before introducing in the final portion of this letter
the considerations which the developer feels should pursuade the
City Council to authorize a }IUD 221-D-3 project. The facts
then, as the developer understands them, are as follows:
(A) Both hindslope Apartments and East-Nest Parkway
Apartments (pi.-ovided the latter is approved by the City
Council as a HUD 221-D-3 project) would pay 50 per cent of
real estate taxes under M.S.A. 273.17, subd. 17.
(B) Both Windslope Apartments and East-West Parkway
Apartments cannot receive final HUD approval and cannot
receive final mortgage loan commitments until the comple-
tion of the Federal Environmental Impact Statement for The
Preserve.
(C) The option agreement between The Preserve and
MAIA Corporation for Windslope Apartments terminated
June 30, 1976. This option agreement was originally
executed April 24, 1972, and has been extended four times
by letter extension by The Preserve for the benefit of MAIA
Corporation. A meeting is scheduled on July 8, 1976, at
10 a.m. in the lair o%fices of Mastoi• & Mattson, Ltd. with
the attorney for !dAIA Corporation, The Greater Minneapolis
Metropolit�:n Housing Corporation and MAIA Corporation for
the purpose of determining whether the project is still
feasible, whether terms of the option agreement need to be
modified in order to reflect the lapse of four years and
whether any additional terns and conditions must be inserted
in order to thereafter enter into a legally binding option
agreement. The Preserve considers itself morally bound to
attempt to go forward with this project but as a legal
matter, all obligations have terminated.
(D) The East-West Parkway Apartments was initially
contemplated as a HUD 221-D-4 project. An application was
filed with HUD anticipating that type: of project. There-
after, a purchase agreement was entered into for the sale
Of the project on certain terms and conditions with one
A. Bernardi who, in the purchase agreement, reserved the
right to modify the project to a 221-D-3 project, if IIUD
approval could be obtained. The buyer was successful in
obtaining ]IUD approval and as a consequence the conditional
commitment on LiAst-West Parkway Apartments was issued by
HOD on Juno 1, 1976, providing for a maximum insurable
mortgage of $2,445,000.00 for a Section 221-D-3 project.
Zy
Mr. Ulstad
July 2, 1976
i Page Four
(E) The conditional commitment issued by HUD expires.
Octpber 1, 1976, unless prior to that date the developer
has completed and filed a full set of plans and specifica-
tions and paid the required fee.
(F) The developer has paid architect fees of $1,500.00
and IIUD fees and mortgage broker fees as of this date of
$9,436.00 in order to obtain the HUD conditional commitment
dated.June 1, 1976.
(G) The developer has paid $48,900.00 and has been
issued a 40-year, 7 1/2 per cent GNMA commitment for
$2,445,000.00 which commitment requires a 2 year takeout.
In the event of cancellation of the commitment, the
developer losses 1/8th of the fee each 90 days commencing
with the date the commitment was purchased, June 21, 1976.
The commitment was purchased under GN.*SA Program 23A which
expired June 30, 1976. in the event that this project is
not approved for construction and the commitment is
cancelled, there are no other mortgage funds known to the
developer with which to fund the HUD conditional commit-
ment. As far as the developer is aware, for the fore-
seeable future only federally insured mortgages funded by
federally insured programs such as the one which expired
June 30, 1976, will provide the financial means for
construction of projects of this type.
(H) The following schedule is a comparison of the
rent schedules projected for Windslope, Neill Lake Apart-
ments and East-West Parkway Apartments, the rents for this
latter project scheduled in three columns to show the rates
proposed initially by the developer for a 221-D-4 project,
the rates approved by HUD for a 221-D-4 project and the
rates approved for this project as a 221-D-3 project.
i
i
• 1
Mr. Ulstad
July 2, 1976
Page Five
Fff. 1.-bed 2-bed 2-bed 3-bcd
Windslope ---- $233 $295 $310 $375
Neill Lake $205 260 335 345 415
East-West
[221-D-4
proposed by
Developer) 180 205 245 260 300
East-West
[221-D-4
approved
by HUD) 200 250 325 330 370
East-West
[221-D-3
approved
by HUD] 175 210 275 275 305
(1) There are no apartments for rent in The Preserve
at this time.
(J) Construction of the project as a HUD 221-D-3 does
mean that the normal. sac charges will have to be paid which
will assist in the payment of municipal sewer and water.
(K) The lowest priced single-family detached dwelling
in The Preserve now sells at a base price of $48,000.00,
this being a 1,200 square foot house without air condition-
ing. Usually, with extras added by buyer, the lowest actual
sale price is an average of $53,000.00.
The developer would like to advance the following
considerations to encourage the City Council to authorize by
motion the construction of the L••ast--West Parkway Apartments as a
HUD Section 221-D-3 project.
The Preserve presently has a buyer who has committed to
take the project as a HUD 221-D-3 project, cause the same to be
constructed and thereby provide rental housing units in The
Preserve. The devel.opor is not in the position to force the
buyer to proceed with the project as a 221-D-4 project. The
Preserve critically needs apartment units for moderate income
families in order to efficiently develop the commercial. area
Mr. Ulstad
July 2, 1976
Page Six
within the PUD of The Preserve. Even the lowest priced single-
family detached d.aellings in The Preserve are too expensive for
the average sales person or clerical staff or even skilled
technicians who will be associatcO with the medical facility now
under construction at The Preserve. From the foregoing schedule,
one can sec that the monthly rental payments for even the
efficiency unit in the HUD 221 D-3 project requires (assuming
25 per cent of one's gross income applied to housing) a monthly
gross check, of . 700. This, obviously, is not low income housing.
And it is also obvious that any subsidy, however claimed or calcu-
lated, is nominal and indirect.
As a reply to the argument that the City of Eden Prairie
and the school district are losing tax dollars in the event that
this project is approved as a 221-D-3 project, the following are
contra arguments, namely:
(A) This project can only be built with government
insured financing, the: commitment has been purchased, w
buyer is ready to proceed and antler these circumstances at
lease 50 per cert of the real estate taxes are paid to the
City of Eden Prairie and all normal sac charges are paid
for the payment of municipal sewer and water.
(B) The Preserve, by keeping the Windslope project
viable by extending its option agreement over the past four
years and continuing to consider itself morally bound to
proceed with a project that has been tremendously delayed,
has permitted the City of Eden Prairie to receive credit
for 168 Section 8 units which permits the City of Eden
Prairie to demonstrate that its percentage of subsidized
housing is adequate and to receive federal. grants because
of the same. Of course, The Preserve is not altruistic in
attempting to close this transaction with KNIA Corporation
but at the same time it has certainly lost money holding
the property off the market and has paid real estate taxes
in an effort to reserve this property for the Section 8
program. 'Phi^ is a consideration which the developer feels
the City of ?.den Prairie should consider in determining
what sacrifices or encouragemenb, the City of Eden Prairie
is %.:i.11ing to give: the developer so to permit it to develop
land effi-c.icrttly and continue with the project at The
Prca.crec�.
(C) Apart-ments are critically needed in order to
efficiently market and sell the commercial property within
The Preserve INTO. Of course, sales of the commercial
proport.y would rosult in increased tax revenues to the
'2'm .�
i
' a
1
Mr. Ulstad
July 2, 1976
Page Seven
City of Eden Prairie and as a consequence any loss of tax
income on the East-West Parkway Apartment project might be
easily offset by tax revenues generated from commercial
property. In view of the fact that the lowest single-
family dwelling in The: Preserve sells for $48,000.00, and
using a real estate standard of rental of 1 per cent per
month of the market value of property, the cheapest housing
in The Preserve would rent for $480.00 a month plus all
utilities and maintenance. This is for a 1,200 square foot
home. Obviously, even if homes were rented, this would not
reach a broad spectrum of the moderate income families who
will necessarily be employed in the commercial area of
The Preserve.
(D) The 50 per cent tax break does not last forever;
it is limited to 15 years or the term of the mortgage.
(P•.) The only financing available within the foreseeable
future .is government insured financing and the only money
which was known to The Preserve at any time during the life
of this proposed project has been the GNMA Project 23A
program which expired June 30 of this year.. In the event
this project is not constructed, the developer, regardless
of the conditional commitment letter issued by IIUD, knows
of no source of money at a rate which would make the project
viable. You will note that the interest rate under the
GNMA program is 7 1/2 per cent and the amortization schedule
is over 40 years.
in summary, the developer feels that the need for apartments
in The Preserve, the fact that this apartment project will make
substantial payments to the City for the water and sewer systems
and will pay 50 per cent of the real estate taxes, the fact that
it provides a real need for moderate income families at the
rental rates proposed, the fact that the only financially viable
mortgage financing available was under the GN;•tA Program 23A
which e%pircd June 30, 1976, [and as a consequence, is no longer
available for a different type of project), the fact that The
Preserve has shown its good faith in continually maintaining the
Winuslopo property for the Section 8 program thereby permitting
the City of Eden Prairie to qualify for federal funds for other
projects, and the fact that there is no significant or direct
subsidy to tonants or developers under a HUD 221-D-3 project,
[the only subsidy being that contemplated and permitted by a
comI,lciely different government and statutory provision, namely
M.S.A 273.17, subd. 171 all support the developer's position in
this; caso that the Council should pass a resolution approving
Ea::L-West Parkway Apartments as a HUD 221-D-3 project and refer
Mr. Ulstad
July.2, 1976
Page Right
the same to the Planning Commission for approval of plans and
specifications in connection therewith.
Respectfully submitted,
MA TORR�fAND MATTSON LTD.
lliam G. Bale
Counsel for The Preserve
a8l�
EDE N Pf2/�11+l F_M l l\l t`1�ti�l�TA M rN aevr m,Wrn nrol lwrr4.Ga lrary
' p 1976
e-1 U 1/ 1 V
h%hwr C7mt�e va
�;® � � RaY Tawtllpa,E,aa.rT
l� � �� Ydarlaa,YaF.rw!NeaA
CFlAPdIE:iC=E7(3F — CiCE hAbbi�aq'T--
qtb Mr'*f vrlrl.hx.
c
Rabat H—'One O.W—
BOX 185 ✓d� hGm•.w,wu.hr..
Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55M � I n
Telephone:(512)831.5097 a
July 1, 1976 V
The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel
Mayor, City of Eden Prairie
8950 County Road 4
Eden Prairie, MN 55343
Dear Wolfgang:
The Eden Prairie Chamber of C.omnerce has considered the status of the
Major Center Area (MCA). The following statement sets forth our position.
There are two factors that are necessary for the MCA to become a viable
economic entity benefiting the community:
A. Completion of an overall transportation system which will
improve access to the Center.
B. Attraction of complementary business development within the MCA.
The Chamber is concerned that if an adequate transportation system for the
MCA is not constructed soon, the economic viability of businesses will be
impaired.
The Chamber urges a concerted effort to develop the transportation system
and facilitate compatible usage of the surrounding land. We strongly urge
the City Council, Commissions and staff to work with developers and land
owners to resolve differences and move forward to achieve these goals.
Sincerely,
Steven Zinne) I
President
SZ:jr
N r
Where The BEST Begins 1 i(
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1976 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel
Billy Bye
Joan Meyers
Tim Pierce
Sidney Pauly
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad
City Attorney Harlan Perbtx
City Engineer Carl Jullie
Director of Community Services Marty Jessen
City Planner Dick Putnam
Finance Director John Frane
INVOCATION - Reverend Wes Brooks, Eden Prairie Assemblies of God Church
ROLL CALL: All members present. (Bye arrived at meeting at 7:45 PM)
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were requested to be added to the agenda under the "New
Business" category:
A. Discussion of.a moratorium on lakeshore development.
B. Report on Dutch Elm Disease Program.
C. Response to the citizen concerned about traffic on Highway 5 and West
78th Street.
D.Consideration of August 3 1976 for presentation of the Human Rights
Award.
E. Approval of signage program for the Edenvale Recreational Center area.
F. Resolution to set date for sale of improvement bonds to August 10 1976.
G.Letter from Mr. Lloyd Cherne.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the agenda as
corrected and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. PU13LIC HEARINGS
Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,July 13, 1976
A. East/West Parkway Apartments The Preserve request to rezone approximately
9 acre site to RM,2.5 for 129 rental apartments.
Mr. William Bale, 315 Peavey Building, legal counsel for The Preserve,
spoke to his communications dated 7/8/76 and 7/9/76 on the East/West Pkwy.Apts.,
and communication dated July 13, 1976 on the status of the Windslope project,
(See attached). Mr. Bale answered questions of Council members.
Rosemary Dysinger, 15613 Lund Drive, questioned Mr. Bale's mention of$5,000
to the City and asked what would happen as far as taxes to schools. Mr. Bale
replied that If East/West Apartments were approved by the City Council as a
221-D-3 project, it would have a negative impact on the School District of
$4,415.38 a year. Neill Lake Apartments would have a positive impact on the
School District of$3,622.32. The two together would mean a negative impact of
approximately $800.00.
The following residents of The Preserve spoke in opposition to the East/West
Parkway Apartments: Robert Cz7lson, 9061 Neill Lake Road, Michael
Sankey,10745 Fieldcrest Road, John Bergin, 8705 Bentwood Drive,
Barb Skogland, 10740 Fieldcrest Road, and Jim Mars, 10700 Lake Fall Drive.
The consensus of The Preserve residents present seemed to be that The'Preserve
management was not living up to what they had promised, particularly the
promise that there would be no rental apartments in The Preserve.
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Penzel, to deny the request of The
Preserve to rezone the East/West Apartments, a 221-D-3 project, for the following
reasons: 1) Recommendation of the Planning Commission at their meeting held
May 24, 1976, and 2) Letter from Phil Riviness of the South Hennepin Human
Services Council dated June 22, 1976. Pauly, Penzel, Meyers and Pierce voted
"aye", Bye voted "nay". Motion carried.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the East/West Apartments
project based on HUD 221-D-4 financing and that the matter go back to the
Planning Commission for their recommendation. Motion failed unanimously.
(It was the consensus of the Council to vote down the motion as The Preserve
had not requested the East/West Apartments to be classified as a 221-D-4 project).
B. I. C. 51-293, Bituminous Surfacing on Eden Prairie Road from County Road 1 to
approximately 800 feet north of T.H. 169-212
City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolutton No. 1159 and recommended approval
of same. An assessment would be levied at a rate of$1.00 per abutting foot over
a three year period at 81Y, interest, or the total may be paid in full. Mr. Jullie
noted that his recommendation includes a larger area than originally petitioned
for by residents on the south end of Eden Prairie Road. (Petition on file at
City Hall, along with a letter from Edward Frank representing himself and
Mr. Charlson dated July 7, 1976, in favor of improvement as stated above).
Mr. Knutson, 9800 Eden Pra Iris Read, not on any petition, spoke in favor of the
Improvement. j�e I
t
Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,July 13, 1976 '
L
B. I.C. 51-293, Bituminous Surfacing on Eden Prairie Road from County Road I to
approximately 800 feet north of T.H. 169-212. (continued)
Leon Kruse, 9250 Eden Prairie Road, and Floyd Sable, 9580 Eden Prairie Road,
spoke In opposition to this Improvement and presented a signed petition from
some of the affected property owners. (Petition on file at City Hall)
Jack Provo, 10040 Eden Prairie Road, spoke In favor of the Improvement, particularly
on the south end of Eden Prairie Road.
MOTION: Meyers moved to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No.
1159, ordering improvements on Eden Prairie Road, I.C. 51-293, with the costs for
the materials to be assessed against abutting property owners and the City's
contribution being the work force to do the actual construction. Further that
30 MPH signs be posted on Eden Prairie Road. Pierce, Bye and Meyers voted "aye",
Pauly and Pen.zel voted "nay". Motion carried.
III. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No 287 Linden Pond rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5.
•City Manager Ulstad spoke to Crdlnance No. 287 and recommended approval
of the 2nd reading.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the 2nd reading of
Ordinance No. 287. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Neill Lake Apartments The Preserve request for modification of Development
Plan for 84 units,
William Bale, 315 Peavey Building, legal counsel for The Preserve, spoke in
favor of The Preserve's request to have its 84-unit apartment project approved
as a substitute for the 105 unit condominium project approved for the site several
years ago. (Letter from Mr. Bale, dated July 8, 1976, explaining In detail
his request is on file at City Hall).
Tom Bach, 9051 Neill Lake Road, presented a petition signed by 65% of the
residents of High Point In The Preserve, in opposition to the request by The
Preserve to develop the Neill Lake site for rental apartment use. (Petition on
file at City Hall)
Dave Helmer, 9101 Neill Lake Road, stated his purchase agreement to sell his
home depends on the Council's not rezoning the property as requested by The
Preserve.
John Crouch,•legal counsel for Tom Bach, spoke to his letter dated July 8, 1976
in opposition to The Preserve's request to change Its PUD plan to permit the
construction of rental apartments on the Ridgewood Condominium site. (Letter
on file at City Hall)
Council Minutes - 4 - Tues.,July 13, 1976
A. Neill Lake Apartments The Preserve, equest for modification of Development
Plan for 84 units. (continued)
Ed Ginsbach, Edina Realty, spoke on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Dave Olson who will
purchase a home in The Preserve contingent on the Council's denying this request
of The Preserve. They are not opposed to owner-occupied dwellings across the
street from where they plan to buy. Originally they were told there would be nothing
but owner-occupied homes in the High Point area.
Robert Carlson, 9061 Neill Lake Road, John Bergan, 8705 Bentwood Drive, and
Jim Mars, 10700 Lake Fall Drive, also spoke in opposition to the request by The
Preserve.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to continue the request of The
Preserve for modification of Development Plan for 84 units, Neill Lake Apartments,
to July 27, 1976, until the City Attorney has had a chance to read in detail
the letters from the legal counsel for the proponent and opponents and further
define what rights the property owners have under these situations, and what legal
ramifications can the City expect if the project is approved or turned down from
the proponent or opponents. Pierce, Meyers, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye",
Bye voted "nay". Motion carried.
B. Setting of a Public Hparing_LgL(tes!g_natin9Planned °iudv in Southwestern Eden
Prairie that has reverted to I-General.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to set August 3, 1976 as the
Public Hearing date for redesignating Planned Study in Southwestern Eden
Prairie that has reverted to I-General. Motion carried unanimously.
C. RegueGt by Darkenwald/Dr Belvedere for the operation of a dental clinic in the
single residence located at 8480 Franlo Road.
City Planner Putnam spoke to the Planning Commission's recommendations at
their meeting held July 12, 1976.
City Attorney Perbix noted that no place in Ordinance No. 135 does it state that a
residence can be used for a dental office. We have discussed the creation of an
interim zone for transitional type uses. We have to accommodate these types
of uses when we have about 1,200 acres in the MCA which will develop over a long
period of time. We should provide transitional type uses. The City's problem
is one of control.
Pauly explained that Dr. Belvedere would use his Eden Prairie office as a satellite
office as he has a Southdale office. He would have a staff of only two, and would i
commit to being a single dentist.
1
City Planner'Putnam stated that ) r. Belvedere is buying the property for an investment
and he might be acceptable to any interim use ordinance we might have.
,J 7, ��
Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.,July 13, 1976
C.Request by Darkenwald/Dr. Belvedere for the operation of a dental clinic In the
single residence located at 8480 Pranlo Road.(continued)
Gil Darkenwald, 11803 Franlo Road, explained that the house would remain
the same. There will be no expensive remodeling - the expensive item would
be the equipment Property owners In the immediate vicinity are in favor
of this request as the house has been vacant for 12 months and would be better
maintained with Dr. Belvedere officing In the home.
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Bye, that the City allow the interim use
of the existing single home at 8480 Franco Road and that Dr. Belvedere commit
to a one man dental office for five years in conformance with the June 15, 1976
site plan, with the elimination of parking stalls 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, with
future parking in the rear, and staff report dated June 23, 1976. That Dr. Belvedere
agree to conform with any Major Center Area Ordinance that the City might
adopt In the next five years pertaining to interim use. Further that the onsite
sewer system and site drainage must meet all City requirements and not create
sanitary or drainage problems, and that no occupancy will be allowed if problems
are experienced. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Request from Pemtom to consider changes of rezoning agreement dated May 21, 1976.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to communication from Robert L. Davidson, legal
counsel for Parntom, requesting changes in the rezoning agreement between Pemtom
and the City of Eden Prairie dated May 21, 1976.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to accept the changes in the
rezoning agreement with Pemtom as per communication from Robert L. Davidson,
legal counsel for Pemtom, dated July 8, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Resorts of Council members.
Pauly reported on Planning Commission meeting held July 12, 1976.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Condon Naegele Rezoning Agreement.
Several changes were requested to be included in the draft rezoning agreement
with Condon/Naegele Realty dated July 1, 1976.
City Manager Ulstad explained that the reason for bringing the draft copy of the
rezoning agreement before the Council was to make sure everything was included
before negotiating with the proponents.
Council requested City Manager Ulstad negotiate the amended rezoning agreement
with the proponents and bring the signed agreement back to the Council for final
approval.
a'I 19
Council Minutes ' 6 -
Tues.,July 13, 1976 t
MOTION: pierce moved, secon"ed by '_'ye, to contiaae the 1-2etir,y until 12:0G AM. iibtion
carried unanimously.
C.Report of T)irector of Community 8ervtces_
1. Eden Prairie Equestrian Center Lease
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pauly, to grant a 2-week extension
for consideration of the Eden Prairie Equestrian Center Lease.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Swimming Pool . consideration of joint venture with School District.
City Manager Ulstad recommended that the School District should provide
and set an amount of the bond issue for the type of swimming pool that is
a community type pool, and the City would work out a maintenance agreement
with the School District.
D. Report of Planning Director
1. Recommendation from Human Ri hts Commission re ag rdina the committee Studying
Community Based Services Boar CB on the Boards objectives a�
membership.
Planning Director Putnam spoke to the recoiarendat'ions of the Human
Rights Commission regarding the setting up of the Community Based
Services Board.
Rosemary Dysinger, Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, introduced
two of the persons who volunteered to serve on the Board as at-large
representatives: Liz Retterath, 9011 High Point Circle,and Sandy
Sakella, 8751 Bentwood Drive.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, that the Council accept
the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission regarding the
Community Based Services Board as outlined in May 17, 1976 minutes,
and establish.membership and at-large membership with the people
who have agreed to serve on the Board as outlined in May 17, 1976
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Crosstown extension from Shady Oak Road to I-494. Consideration
of access to Beach Road and Cooley Road,
City Planner Putnam spoke to Planning Commission's recommendations in
minutes dated June 28, 1976.
Herb Klossner, Hennepin County Public Works Department, explained that in
Resolution No. 892 that was passed by the City Council of Eden Prairie
in Fall of 1974 indicated that they had approved the layout subject to
certain conditions, which the Courtly has responded to.
,�rz�
Council Minutes - 7 - Tues.,July 13, 1976
2. Crosstown extension from Shady Oak Road to I.494 (continued)
Jullie Larson, 6505 Rowland Road, stated that she and her husband are
stuck with high taxes because the City will not change zoning.
Fred Saxe, 6751 Beach Road, explained that he felt isolated and that school
busses will not come down the road in bad weather. He further stated
that he does not wish to be closed off from Eden Prairie and that he is
opposed to the whole extension, but would like to have a better access
than a grade crossing.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, that the Council adjust its
approval of the Beach Road access to the Crosstown given previously and
substitute for It the Alternative A in the staff report dated May 20, 1976,
with no access from Beach Road to the Crosstown, and to include
recommended agreements 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, thus eliminating 2, as outlined
In letter dated August 9, 1974. Further that staff work with the County for
sources of funding for construction of a bridge over 494.
Klossner replied that the County has done what the City has asked and that
sources of funding are nil. Further he stated that if the City Council takes
this type of a stand, he does not see any chance for construction as it puts
the County in the middle of a dispute between Minnetonka and Eden Prairie.
If this dispute cannot be resolved, the Crosstown Extension will go no-
where.
City Manager Ulstad suggested the staff of Eden Prairie work with the
staff of Minnetonka and come back to the Council with a report within
a couple of weeks.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to table the previous motion until the
July 27, 1976 Council meeting for further information to be gathered by the
Eden Prairie staff and the staff of Minnetonka. Pierce, Bye, Pauly and Penzel
voted "aye", Meyers voted "nay". Motion carried.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to continue the Council meeting until all
Items on the agenda have been completed. Motion carried unanimously.
E. Report of City Engineer
1. Consider bids received on 7/9/76 for Mitchell Lake PITD Improvements,
I. C. 51-289.
Cite Manager Ulstad recommended the Council accept the low bid from
Northern Contracting in the amount of$562,069.00.
MOTION:-.Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to adopt Resolution No. 1160,
awarding the low bid for Mitchell Lake PUD Improvements, T.C. 51-289,
to Northern Contracting subject to the City receiving a letter of commitment
from Pemto:n that they will proceed with residential construction. Motion carried
unanimously.
Council Minutes - 8 - Tues.,July 13, 1976
2. Receive feasibility report for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain
Improvements to service property in the vicinity of West 78th Street, T.H. 169
and Eden Road, I.C. 51-284.
Dave Husby, RCM Associates, outlined the Feasibility Report dated
July, 1976, and answered questions of Council members.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, to adopt Resolution No.
1161, receiving report and calling for a public hearing to be held August 3,
1976 for I. C. 51-284. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Receive feasibility report for street Improvements in the Westgate (East)
Addition, I.C. 51-292.
Dave Husby, RCM Associates, outlined the Feasibility Report dated
July, 1976.
Glen Shaw, representing owners of Blocks 5 and 6, stated they would
rather leave the blocks as they are. The feasibility costs would be spread
over the existing lots.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce. to adopt Resolution No.
1165, receiving feasibility report and calling for a Public Hearing for
August 3, 1976 for Project T.C. 51-292. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Approve Plans.and Specifications and order advertisement for bids for
street improvements on Preserve Boulevard and overlay on Anderson Lakes
Parkway, I.C. 51-282.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No. 1162,
approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids on
Project I.C. 51-282. Motion carried unanimously.
S. Final Plat approval for Edenvale 12 Addition and Linden Pond Addition.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to adopt Resolution No.
1163, approving Final Plat of Edenvale 12th Addition. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, to adopt Resolution No. 1164,
approving Final Plat of Linden Pond Addition amending City Engineer's memo
dated July 8, 1976, 2nd page, to read "Edenvale Boulevard from Woodhill j
Trail should be rough graded and seal coated". Motion carried unanimously.
1
.I
i
Council Minutes - 9 - Tues.,July 13, 1976 ?
6. Recommendation on Valley View Road alignment west of County Road 4.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Penzel, to adopt the Staff
Recommendations dated July 9, 1976 on Valley View Road Alignment
West of County Road 4. Motion cairted unanimously. `
F. Report of Finance Director
1. Draft contract for IBM Punch Card Voting System.
Finance Director Frans outlined the draft agreement for the purchase of
voting equipment and spoke to communication received frccm Edgar Lellbach,
Area Manager, CES Company dated July 1, 1976.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the draft
agreement for the purchase of voting equipment with the understanding
that CES will train personnel to trouble shout at the November 2nd
election. Further insert In Mr. Leiibach's letter dated July 1. 1976 under
item 1, at the end of line 1, "City Staff, citizens,". Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Bids for Steelman House
City-Manager Uistad explained that one bid had been received for the
home at 8410 Flying Cloud Drive from Paul Redpath in the amount of$50.00.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to accept the high bid of
$50.00 for the home at 8410 Flying Cloud Drive, and authorize it5sale.
Further direct City Attorney to prepare. necessary documents for the Mayor
to sign. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Redpath thanked the Council on behalf of the Tri Nguyen family for the use
of this home during the past year, and introduced Mr. Tri Nguyen to the Council.
3. Payment of Claims Nos. 1853 - 2013.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve Payment of Claims
Nos. 1853 - 2013. Roll Cali Vote: Bye, Meyers, Pauly, Pierce and Penzei
voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
4. Precinct Pollinu Places
Finance Director Frans spoke to Resolution No. 1158 designating precinct polling
places.
MOTION: $ye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve Resolution No. 1158
designating precinct polling places in Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. '
Frans explained that a mailing will be sent out to all registered voters informing
them of the precinct polling places.r� rr��
rlfcf.J
Council Minutes _1Q - Tues.,July 13, 1976
VI. NEW BUSINESS i
i
A. Discussion of a moratorium on lakeshore development.
Meyers stated that we are going to have a Shoreline Management Act and
suggested that the Council consider placing a moratorium of six months on
lakeshore development before adopting a Shoreline *Management Act.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to instruct the staff to research
and draw up a Shoreline Management Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Reoort on Dutch £l.m Disease Program.
Meyers asked what seems to be the problem with our Tree Disease Program.
Director of Community Services Jessen explained that due to the bad publicity
the City has received.there is a negative attitude of people toward our Tree
Disease Program. He further explained that we have ordered some equipment
to treat the healthy dutch elm trees, and are planning to make this equipment
available to homeowners free-of-charge. Also that we will be getting some
money back from the State for our efforts in this area.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to Instruct the staff to develop a
specific recommendation for replacing diseased trees and receive publicity
on same. Motlun carried unanimously.
C.Response to the citizen concerned about traffic on Highway 5 and West 78th
Street.
Meyers spoke to communication received from Willard Moline refering to the
hazardous traffic problem on Highway 5 and West 78th Street. City Engineer
Jullie explained that he has met out on the site with Mr. Moline and Ernie Echols
and has sent a plan to the Highway Department regarding striping and other ways
to make this area safer.
D.Consideration of August 3 ]976 for presentation of the Human Rights Award.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Pauly, that presentation of the Human
Rights Award be made on August 3, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
E. Approval of.sionage program for the Edenvale Recreational Center area.
City Manager Ulstad explained that Edenvale had presented their signage program
for the Edenvale Recreational Center area to the Planning Commission on July 12.
City Planner I'utnam outlined the signage program and the recommendations of
the Planning Commission.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the signage program for
the Edenvale Recreational Center area. Pierce, Bye, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye",
Meyers voted "nay". Melton carried.
nr,�t!
i
Council Minutes - 11 - Tues.,July 13, 1975
F. Resolution to set date for sale of imurovement bonds to Auctust 10. 1976.
MOTION: Pierce moved,seconded by Bye, to adopt a Resolution setting
August 10, 1976 as the date for the sale of Improvement Bonds.In the amount
$3,000,DOD.00. Motion carried unanimously.
G.Letter from Mr. Lloyd Cherne.
City Engineer Jullie spoke to communication received from Lloyd G. Cherne
dated July 9, 1976.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Penzei, to authorize the City to purchase right-of-
way acquisition and permanent slope easement on Lloyd Cherne's land framing
T.H. 169 in the amount of$12,104.00 as per communication dated July 9, 1976.
Motion carried unanimously.
VII. ADJOURNMENT.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to adjourn the meeting at 1:10 AM. Motion
carried unanimously.
a�a:;
WAITER M.BAKER
WILLIAM G.BALE Azw011ices MASTOR and MATTSON, Ltd.
CHARLES A.DASSFORD,JP,
RICHARD J GUNN ,IS PEAVEY BUILDINO
OEORC.L" C.MASTOP T]O SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
ROSE-W MATTSON MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA S54OP
WAVNC H.OIGON
TCLCPHONE 3:14•6846 AREA BI2
JAMES D._IUMAN
JACK A.POSSERG
ALONZO U. EIIA.
STCVEN J.TIMMER
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Roger. Ulstad, City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
FROM: William G. Bale
DATE: July 13, 1976
RE: Status of Windslope
The following status report is based upon my meetings with
MAIA Corporation, the attorney for MAIA Corporation, McGough
Construction Company and The Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan
Housing Corporation.
Windslope appears to be a viable project which will be
constructed provided construction can be commenced before the
winter of 1976-77. It is anticipated that the environmental
impact statement will be cleared through HUD prior to
September 1, 1976 and that MHFA will close the project
sometime in September of 1976.
Accordingly, from everything I have been told, it appears
that this project should commence construction in the fall of
1976, and if construction is not then commenced, there is a
reasonable likelihood that the project will be abandoned due
to continuing cost increases. The possibility of a change of
site has been explored for this project and it appears that
due to the costs involved in changing the site, such a change
is not feasible.
In conclusion, the City Council should assume, when
considering the request of The Preserve with respect to
East-West Parkway Apartments and Neill Lake Apartments, that
Windslope will be constructed at the present site.
WGB:gpo
wwu[a Fl.n..^rN
Xbw0//ices MASTOR and MATTSON, Ltd.
C MARLCS A.Nn'..".1OR O,JR,
RIC NANO J.(:VNN JIG PEAVEY pVILO1N0
G[oR0[L F1I!'.IVR •»O—oNO AV CNVE GOVTN
R011 rnT W.RnTT50N MINNCAPO L15,NINNr.SOT-GGAOP
WAY—If 0-111 TCL—ONC 33-0-0 ARC^GIZ
J"1Ar:.R Vf>rr Ff All - '
JACII.A.IlOSVI,NG
ALON zo n.T•c unN
sTtvrn J n""1n '
01-0.8976 July 8, 1976
Mr. Roger Ulstad
City Nana<;er
City of Edon Prairie
8950 lido, Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, 14N 55343
Re: Last-lost Parkway Apartments
Dear Mr. Ulstad:
Following the Council meeting on Tuesday, Jnly 6, the
developer undertook to investigate certain aspects of the above
project so that it and the Council could be more fully informed
vhen the mnttcr came on for consideration again on Tuesday,
July 13. Spcic:ificr,lly, the developer considered and herewith
drlivers to ,you and the City Cov.ncil additional information
concerning the following general topics.
1. Real estate tax implications.
2. Public school costs.
3. Contract for fire protection.
4. Rcsi.dential housing implications.
5. Marketing of apartments.
6. Status of P;indslope.
h•. a.l Pst:it.e Tax lmnl:c,itions
Attached to this letter you will find a Memorandum with its
own attacInt"'nts Which sununarize the thrue tax situations. The
first sitoatio_1 is what the various gov-_rnment.al divisions
realize upon tho lama in its pi:esent undeveloped state. This
total .i.s $1,91.3.33. The second situation assume*s th•is project
door not receive Cho )-no f i t of 14.S.A. 273.13. The third situa-
tion assumes the application of M.S.A. 273.13. 'The estimated
Mr. Ulstad Page Two July 8, 1976
real estate taxes which would be paid by this project- was figured
t 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.
i
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 Gamm 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-D-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. Gdnnq 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 the 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 prohactioii on a per trip or per call basis might be
entered into in order to insure that the municipality does not
iuc.ur unusual expense for this project which would exceed the.
$5,025.16 which is ii-s anticipated share of the tax revenues if
this project is approved as a 221-D-3 project. The developer
underctandr. that in past years muni.cipal.ities 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.
Mr. Ulatad 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
i result because cf 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-D-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 throe-bedr,xxa apartment rent for East-West
Parkway Apartments is $305 as a 221-D-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 221-0-4
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 th- Council members on Tuesday, July 13. The
meeting held July 8 determined simply that an accurate statue
report involved further meotings 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
zza9
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 tnat 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 l7, 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,
MASTOR AND AIA/TTSON, TD.
//w/illiam G. IIale
gPo
Enclosures ..
���� 4'
H E H 0 R A N D U H
TO: William G. Bale
FROM: James B. Proman
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-D-4; and the same assumption
using 221-D-3 as implemented by M.S.A. 6273.13, subd. 17.
(I)x (2)y (3)y
Current Situation 221-D-4 221-D-3
Land Only Land 40% Land 40%
Market Value $47,100 Improvements 40% Improvements 20%
(M.S.A. 1273.13,
subd. 17)
School District $1,020.67 $36,934.22 $20,807.50
County 572.10 20,702.39 11,663.03
Municipality 246.49 8,919.88 5,025.16
Watershed z 461.72 260.3.2
Other Taxing Districts 74.07 2,23.8.43 1,244.i9
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
limaicipality 12.171 Districts 3.027
Total 94.472
z Included with other taxing districts
E o c p 8
in cc,n�
7 6^i -.{ > m
10,
L • Q n fi 77 m m ,
y v '
3 = T a a) O Dy�
:Y 0^1 r;:_
T. z k R o _ „ Z ?,• fn
8
> _ A a R Figs z n
CA 10
• g > t
CA
rn n.o" a, n y:s o y nrt z
< i = t� Qi.1\ 55 C X O y
.� v a
7
m
O
r �
rl i m
0
-4 t'l
:'
p °N
V- M
�, _ 2 > r n u N O Y 6•A na C Cl� D F
3 �
vo
� ' _ � n Nip. •� •.:aft' r� n
rn n 7 v
N
7
tr, n, n
An
co
1..
1
t
.iu: w. ''w.F.��`' .,a:.�.+ °�ati';»'t..�'c•L'�"' ( . ..r.C�. ..Y''Yx��ry,'�'s;�+ :.y�`•r'rC?�yw�.r+�iar`",
IMIZ GRID
Room Actual Adj. Total
No. of Count Rent Rent
Unite er Unit Per Unit Per Unit COhE4fBtTSSL Rent
y
Total Monthly Adj. Rent Using G. R. M. Estimated Value
Total Annual Adj. Rent of Property
Gross Multiplier _
ANNUAL EXPENSES CAPITALIZATION MAP=
Fixed Charges: �
Taxes .. 1. ANNUAL GROSS . .
Insurance . . . . . • 2. Vacancies&Credit . - i
Other a.�"%of Annual Gross .�p /_.n
3. EFP'L'C'i'IVE GROSS . A , r"
Operating Charges: 4. Management ;L_% . $ 1Y534
i Electric . . . . . . . . . . 5. GROSS INCOME A . $1.4/Ys
1 Water . . . . . . . . . . 6. Annual Expense >-Y . .$ /3 S o d
Fuel T. ANMIAL NET IhC01J r sV4 J�GYP-'
Rubbish•. . . . . . . . . . 8. Return on Land —er--
Misc. . . . . . . . . . . 9• Return_vn-
14isc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. 1NC=TO DLDG. - or
Mac. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,40 RESIDUAL. . . . . . $
Maintenance: 11. CAPITALIZATION
Building Improvements $ A. Rate of Return_
Janitor $ D. Asmsortization
Misc. . . . . . . . . . . $ C. Taxes
Reserve for Replacements D. Total Cap Rate L/
Building Components 12. Capitalized Value DIU. Or
Misc. Land . . . . .
Resident Manager: 13. Land Value .1. .. ,� / Lrr.f Jf�
. $ 14. Capitalized/Value of r
Total Annual ExpensC` $ Property
/' ��^' _ t r':• 9 i7 ,� .°./D .� irn/%'e%l — °S73Gs.�y1't..
2Y3�
f
• y"{I-ter r a��,-^(� `� ��� C � .:�. o,.
it
b21,
,I I
IX
—AM 7-1
IIt z \ Iv
-c�d � �1\ I C{ �•�.�, 1i:, k���u I_y\� .`�„tit R: _1- 4 Q': i
w
P A,.LJ
ol
Vol
N1. r'
ILI
km
rs
IT fo
H, l', T•' �� liY� 'j.. ..1 :` \ 1�� y� U''��\ �' �of
41 C �l
A83q
MEMO TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services -i
SUBJECT: Firearms Ordnance
DATE: July 23, 1976
Attached is a copy of the original Firearms Ordinance No. 337. Also,
enclosed is a copy of the unapproved minutes dated July 19, 197E
for Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission regarding the
Firearms Ordinance.
The Commission took the following action in regard to this ordinance:
"MOTION: Helmer moved to accept the Ordiance as amended,
with recommendations to the Council after further discussion of
boundaries. Choiniere seconded, the motion carried, with Garens
abstaining. (Pierce arrived too late to vote on above motion)
The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources will discuss the boundaries
at their next meeting August 2, 1976.
MJ:md
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE .1J ra 7 1
J
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
I OR DINANC E NO. 33 7
AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE POSSESSION OF AND DISCHARGE
OF FIREARMS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, AND
FOR THE GENERAL HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE AND
PROVIDING PENALITIES FOR VIOLATION
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby found and declared that inasmuch as
the City of Eden Prairie is a developing community wherein the land uses
are becoming more intense thus reducing the amount of open land available
for the discharge of firearms and hunting that it has become necessary
to regulate the poceasion of and discharge of firearms to certain areas in
the community in which it will not pose a hazard to the safety of others
for this regulation.
Section 2. I`ef_r.i?ion. Terms used in this Ordinance shall have the following meanings
as it applies to this Ordinance:
7
a. Deadly Weanons shall include the following: all firearms;
all instruments used
to expel on high velocity any pellets of any kind including but
not limited to b•b guns and air rifles; slingshots; sandpumps;
metal knuckles; and daggers and knives.
b. Discharge of firearms. Any shooting wheather it be for hunting
game, target practice or otherwise.
Section 3. Pocession and carrying of firearms. Pursuant to State Statute a permit for
the pocession and carrying of handguns will be required within Eden Prairie.
Section 4. Permit required for discharge of firearms. Any person desiring to fire or
discharge any firearm or use any weapon as herein before defined within
the City of Eden Prairie must first secure a permit to do so from the City.
Subdivision A. Areas where permitted. A permit to discharge firearms
will be granted only in those areas defined as follows: that part of Eden
Prairie lying south of State Highway 5 and west of Co. Road 4 and that
part of Cden Prairie lying south of Co. Road 1 from Co. Road 4 east to
Co. Road 18.
Subdivision B. In order to secure a permit to discharge firearms an
application shall be filed in writing on forms provided by the City and
accompanied by a fee of$2.00. These applications shall. be individual.
for all persons over 18 years of age or for a family of children under 18
hunting with their parents. The permit application shall include at least
the following information: a, type of firearm to be discharged b. period
for which such permit is desired. c. location of the propery on which the
discharge of the firearm will occur. d. type of facilities to be used. d.
the signature of the land owner on whose proerty the hunting will occur.
f. such other information as made be deemed necessary by the City in order
to pass upon such application. ag3�
No fee shall be required for a landowner or his immediate family to discharge
1 a firearm on property owned by himself. However, a permit for said dis-
charge is required under the terms and conditions of this Ordinance.
Subdivision C. Permits for the discharge of firearms shall be Issued
only for shotguns and b.b guns except that permits may be issued for rifles
and handguns for target shooting only, and only in very well defined and
closely supervised areas.
Subdivision D. The Eden Prairie Department of Public Safety will review
all applications for permits based on the following criteria :
a. Permit shall have been signed by the landowner on whose
property the hunting will occur.
b. The permit application shall be for a contiguous parcel of
property of at least 90 acres and far enough removed from
ajoining buildings and roads so that to not cause a hazard.
c. In no case shall a permit be issued for hunting on any
property within 500 feet from a building or main road.
Section S.~ Lawful defense of person, property or family. Nothing herein shall be
construed to prohibit any fireing of a gun, pistol or other weapon when
done in lawful defense of person, property or family or in the necessary
defense of enforcement of laws.
Section 6. Penalty. Any person violating provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty
of misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of
not more that $300.00 or imprisionment but not more than 90 days.
Section 7. Repeals. Ordinance No. 120 of the City of Eden Prairie is hereby repealed.
Section S. Partial invalidity. If any portion of this Ordinance is felt to be invalid
or unforceful to any person or circumstance the application of such portion
to persons or circumstances other than those to which it shall be held in-
valid or unenforceful shall not be affected thereby and all other provisions
here as in all other respects shall remain valid and in enforceable.
Section 9. Effective date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its
passage and publication.
First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of Eden Prairie this
day of 1976, and finally read and adopted an order published
at a regular meeting of said City Council on the of I097.
Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Flinutes - Parks, Bee. and r.atural Page Three
Resources Cor.udssion Unapproved July 19, 1976
1. g2unci?r:on Pierce (contt
by,the Council: it was decided that there was a need for a eommity
ewimning pool, rind it was reeatmended to the School Board that if they
agreed with This, they offer the vol rs a chance to vote on the whole
Issue rather tir-.a the City and School district offering separate questions.
He oontin sd V at t}:e City vould work eith them on xaievon=ce. Jessen
said t'.-a r.eoo;l ect-ion 4.^1:en by the Council i.as an apprornl of a positive
step for trey dir;s:so rep: di.cs, %MeS would be to FarcL Ira l.igr.son collars
for of tre:-s and p:ovlding tra3s to replace these Laing
to to cc-It flour. F.o aided Vmt the City is re-irbsrsed 5Z from Who State,
and the ronay received tack 1<ould be put in the reforestation prolzem
ale?.g vl-n i-on:,y allocated by the Coin-oil in the budget :ram last year.
2. S^!?oni roard(his5�;: I''dd�:c'`3i1
Absent
3• 9! i" bi3 40iGr on- ITPA Yseting
Anderson spoke to the recent Minnesota Park and Recreation Association
zeeting, at vUeb a nanbar of the 143tro Council spoke on finding. He
stid tl?o ch-uiSa of a ahssis has been from acquisition of Ltd to develop-
ra=t, althrna;h tLc,- have not totally d&••oppad the idea of requisition of
1aDd. He wliDd that the priorities are closeness and high density areas.
Jess=lt co; sLtud that bsccase t:ey are Sanding development projects, this
is t?ie basis for w,ich Ira r^_m r.see application for Round Lake de:elor, -.nt.
He added that sines this vas vster based dt:velolvient, the reaction by the
lratro Council vas favorable. He explained that the Five Year Capital.L.-
provanent Plan, trhieh PR& 1R Commission and Coimoil approved, did not get
eonsidcrc^d bat is boing taken up again. Fe stressed the inportenee of
approving a new Capital Improvement Program very soon.
An3eraon, referring to the action tJ:en by the Counoil becauso of sore
residentd objection.to Riley as a ro,3iorsl yark, felt that we needed
to taRo sore sixang action, as far as funding goes.
Jessen added that under vorrent wordir_g, we will net get 1•:3tro funding for
Lake Riley, wvlit r--y row b:corso a will park. He said the 2W plus ecres
of rtrk land are at stake, that might have been farded eornplotaly by X-ztro
funding. He added that the Metro Council has the right to say there is still
a need for a regionaa park avid ask us to re-consider.
B. Fe.kt ort.9 of Staff
1. �irc^�r.:s Ordin<vtae
Jessen spoke to comments by Publio Safety Department that fees are too low
Mitn<tes - Parks, Roc. and Page Four
Natural Rcrources Cotmission Unapproved duly 19, 1976
and tbey suggest a slightly bigher fee schedule and also a.schedule for non-
residents.
Kittgrey expressed his concern with the definition of °drr�dly weapons", and
was oploeF.,d to going as frr as including b.b Cans and sling shots in that
definition. Garen felt t;:at boas& arrows s!tould be incl-Oded.
It was gcncr:11y agrees that there %:as no diffc Tracer ;*en the ir.-- •set of the
b.b 6i n :rd a`'r rifles ficl: :: ing on the age and parpose of the child kEing it.,
rnd that tti:. n is a nsed for control.
R TIG14 l;ir. cy ilo-v•d to rcNi.so 33ction 2. A- Dea�cilv_'n'V.=;mpg to incl1) hunting
typo b.b g,;s, asr riil,�s, and br,;nrd arrows. Moiniere seconded, notion
cam.A, with !;3a:rscn r:bc: .ir ng.
Anderson w s eot:c3rr,.d frith °potion 4. B.
zed did rot c.arce with the biva,—e r es of the lsnd defined, bat
felt there w::ro tto otl.er Exeas whore lmrtting should be perr4tt3d. (near Kerber
property Fed a portion vest of 494- Valley View to Mitchell Road.)
Gexcrs coizented that be felt the only way to have control is to have no hunting
its the City, :sad he felt that this is ubat ua eventually Ware coining to.
Choiri ^o pointed out tYat the bi gest problem is that non-residents come in
ct!d do net l:`�Sf that you cr i*,ot i:aut in certain r-reas. He added that the encroach-
ta;rit of o,'ings is to grc:t in f:ons exeas to allow the risk of boun3aries
that era too close.
Ecicz ran a;kod vt at the fer•1t ng of the Public Safety Departneat Las ragrrding a
corplet n e b=. Jesse responded that tbay did not feel this was varrarsted at
this time.
AS1dUi on agra!:i ::'ith Choinicre t»»'tat not-residents pose the biggest problemo arl
that tiro 8i;;ns f;.rbidding hunting without psrrdts bo posted. with the responsibility
of posting falling on people allowing hunting on their land.
C!toitacre eot.•c•^n�c3 that as lolig as the Public CafetY people feel it is a safe Fro-
g^r:;n, it is a h^althy ;l_i:y^, :•.tid it is recreation and part of the t;:tole picture.
Ho felt that the rablic °_Scty pcaple had good r,.nss in the way they outlined the
program.
Tote B:rtel, reprr:sontativa of the Men Prairie CoLzunity Pews, asked ubat the pro-
sent rostrictio_s wore. Garens said that shot guns only wore permitted.
Anderson aaded that, at t" present time, a person could hunt deer vith a shot gun
and a slug with no permit.
WTIONt C-arms moved to not allov hunting, outside of the river bottom, within the
City. The(lotion died for lack of a seoond.
YAnutes — Parks, Rec. and Page Five
Natural Resources Coranission Unapproved July 19, 1976
1. Fircaxz^_s Crdlsurce can td)
Helmer voiced his support for the opinion of the Public Safety people,
and felt that they uxmld know the difficult areas to police, and where
the problem areas are.
IWAIONs Helmar marcd to Fipprove the Ordinance as rec*_—.-4ndcd, with the
revision of definition of firearms. Garens s000nded. G rens withdre-a his
second.
10 IONs Choiniero moved to rr; nd Section /f. C. to co-;ly ,:3.th t2:s St-ate
r;:;mlr.tiens relative to D':R :c;ui.rencnta .for per—Its for pc. Eons ' Aor 16
y -rs of Garers seconded, notion carried rtnanL ously.
)UT101's C';%Aniere Waved to aiaend Section 4. D. to read that per=.ns under
16 of:,;a are cor.Ply3!ig With p.R, if t;� are to be oansistct with State regu-
lations. rpd.rson seconded, ration carried unanin_ausly.
1SDTION: CLoiricre !.owed that vsdcr Section /;. F, a person be entitled to
hunt on any of the areas from uhich he reosived perrission, regardless of
bow r.rev lendowasrs he has rcoeived pewits from. Kingrc;y seconded.
Kinprey witli&rew his second.
There was discussion of larlorner regulation of &ro.
Choiricre wiiW8r(,v his 1.'otion.
A)TIOR: Hel..ar roved to r.>.p.-ove the rircarn Ordln=ee•ss reeo=vc nied, with
the rx+ nc-ents. Yin;,rey saoon•3e3. lies Motion uas dnfeated, loth a vote oft
%irn rey — "eye" Gare220 —"nay" Mckelson — abst:_,in
Erickson - "aye" Anderson —"nay"
HeIzncr — "aye" Choiniarc—"ray"
Ch_nging, of fees wore discussed, and rust rsrabcrs felt the preewt. policy was
at,;recable.
14)TIONt Choireiere roved to include areas west of 494, north by Valley View Rd.
to Ylitchall Road and youth by HiLln.ay 5, e.nd Hihnway 5 up to Pwtnd L Ie Estates,
north to Hori.tage Park Pstates. 1-lotion ditl for lack of a sopud.
xingrey cxtresscd his opl»sition to changing boundaries until us have talked
with Public Safety people.
1DiIONs G-rcns mved to add to Section 4. F — that all areas to be bunted by
permit are to be posted "tr nting by permit only" by pu pies issuing the pesrdssion. ;
Notion died for lack of a second.
I)TIOHt Anderson moved to table and send back to the Committee, and bring back
to the PR& 14R Cormi.asion. 146tion died for lack of a ascend.
Jesson suggested that the Ordinance will be considered at first reading by the
Council, and that Public Safety representatives could be available at the next
PR& NR meeting to answer questions.
Pierce arrived at 9t10 P.M..
Mimatcs - Parks, Roe. and Page Six
Natural Resources Co=ission Unapproved July 19, 1976
1. I^lr_,,rrng Ordinirc cont1
}d)TIONt He1=r r:oved to accept the Ordinsnoe as antadod, with reeors+en-
drtions to the Council after further discussion of boundaries. Choiniers
seconded, the notion carried with C-x=s abstAning. (Pierce arrived too
late to vote on abcve rotion3
2. C,nefue_r.�i;ioJ2 of Aac)iso 0�1 i.ttes .^.rJe. Pion^rty
Jecsen s ol:e to )S-no of July 16, 1976,r.ncorni�k; the garebaso, and asked
for qv�,stiong.
G-sc.ns q',: .'fo;:.:3 v.ieth,:r trine vas a discrepancy or figures, because the
r,:,,. _cal ras for "3Es,1;0J, with the owners asking v550,000,
!:d t1:3 Gift' : ;Ang to pay C"d,75,OM. Jessen e;:plaincd that therm is 12%.
i:rfl!:-*lot on Y-7 tr-;iness typo land vllues. He added that tho Cityts only
t-a the 5,000, and that tl:e Important point is the terms
of payr-.-,t, rntl:ur than dollar arnuats.
tiYTTDN:Carans tovod to recoxaend to the Council the Staff recommendations
of July 16. 1976, regarding the purchase of the la ler Bros. Property.
Kin grey seconded, Potion carried. with Pierce abstaining.
1 e1.�ar expressed his opinion that he wc.tl.d rather see wney going into
dcralc:�:c;nt rat*har t;::n F•tr C^•ssd of lard. Jcs^vn explained that we h%vo
an application in for fo,di.3 prese+.tlp, end the $5,000 is the only
co;:itt :crt tl;o City will b3 7 al-ing at this tir..a. He also refc:;rad to
r^r.at^an e,:volol: art cash park fees to be used here.
g. Cam;^s;rjr .,t,i.on of F.,;o?;, a of C,73.1 P*o rt
Jensoa spv):o to ?•:e,ro of July 16, 1976 regarding the proposad purchase and
P_:p;PIn-A t.h:t uo have flrnding from the 1976 LAl:MN grant and unencumbered
fu;-.Is in the 1,.,rk oaLd fsn3.
WTIOkt Chairiiere moved to accept recorrnendations of Kem:r of July 16, 1976,
regarding purc:rase of Grill Property. Caren seconded, rotion carried with
Pic~ce aLstai.ning.
a.
Josson spAe to status report, and pointed out location of Area H,
located sw of Ring Rwote and wont of Highway 169, with regional cam-?reial
and service :toning. He explairod that according to the plan, there was
encroaehmc,•nt of oight acres on flood plain. He added that the Preserve
has fulfilled their open space conxAttnents with the 55 acres on Anderson
Lake. and the 22 ac.e school/park on this particular plan. He referred
to the Fresorvo PUD approved plan, Major Centsr Plan, and Purgatory Creek
Study for,bnckground information for present status of the plea.
Kitgrey thanked Jossen for the report and asked what the necessary action
was at this time. Jessen responded that no action was required.
a�Ua
wtw/aza
6/15/76
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.334_
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING LICENSE FEES
FOR MECHANICAL AMUSEMENT DEVICES AND
AMUSEMENT CENTERS AND AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 280.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS: i
Section 1. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 280 is hereby amended
i
by deleting the contents thereof and substituting therefor the
following:
"$25.00 per machine as described in Section
1.A. (1) , 1.A. (2) and (3) of Ordinance No. 300.
$1,500.00 for an Amusement Center, plus $5.00
per machine in excess of ten (10) machines
operated within such Amusement Center, as (!
defined in Ordinance No. 300."
' f
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of
Eden Prairie, this day of 1976, and finally read, j
adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the Council !
of said City on the day of 1976.
I
Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
(E EAL)
John D.• Frane, City Clerk
JUL 197
7m, Y4,
, � 1
lao
,trJ'3s�3
whp/es
MEMORANDUM
FROM: W. Harlan Perbix
TO: Mayor and City Council
RE: Neill Lake Apartments
DATE: July 23, 1976
At the meeting of July 13, 1976, a motion was made continuing the
matter until July 27, 1976 for the following reasons:
1. To give the City attorney a chance to read in detail the letters
from legal counsel for the proponent and opponents.
2. To define the rights the property owners have under this situation.
3. To determine what ramifications the City can expect if the project
is approved or turned down.
The Preserve is a planned unit development consisting of approximately
1100 acres and which residential area is ultimately to be comprised of
approximately 50% in multiple residences, 25% in single family detached
residences, and 25% in condominiums (see concept plan approval Resolution
#360A). Thereafter on or about October 1971, pursuant to that concept plan,
Preferred Developers, Inc., made application for rezoning to RM 2.5 for the
purpose of constructing condominiums. It is my understanding that this was
a P.U.D. application within the larger Preserve P.U.D. This matter was
originally submitted to the City's planning staff for a report and subsequently
to the Planning Commission for study and consideration.
-1-
Ultimately the project was recommended by the Planning Commission
to the Council for approval, subject to a series of recommendations and
concerns. The City Council re-referred the proposal to the Planning
Commission for additional consideration on or about February 8, 1972.
This matter, after reconsideration by the Planning Commission was before
the Council on February 29, 1972, at which time an ordinance granting re-
zoning the area to RM 2.5 was adopted. The record makes it clear that
approval was based on the plan of the applicant as revised. An examination
of the minutes would indicate that great consideration was given to the
particular site, the layout of the buildings, parking, storage of recreational
vehicles, spacing of buildings and other factors (see Staff Report dated
January 18, 1972).
Thereafter pursuant to that approved plan, a number of townhouses were
built. More recently, based on the statement by The Preserve that the town-
houses had not sold and are now in fact in the hands of the mortgage company,
The Preserve has now applied for a change in the approved plan from that of
a townhouse development to an 84-unit apartment building to occupy that
portion of the property not utilized by townhouses. The Planning Commission
has recommended approval of the proposed change as being satisfactory to it
on the site, and meeting the criteria of the City ordinances, rules and
comprehensive plan as it understands it.
The questions before the Council are:
1. Now that the property has been rezoned, does the City Council
lose its right to determine the type of unit built on the property so long
as the plan complies with existing City ordinances?
-2-
e28V�O
2. What are the rights of neighboring property owners who might
have built or purchased single family detached residences in reliance on
the pre-existing plan?
3. What ramifications can the City expect: (a) if the project is
approved; and (b) if the project is turned down?
Both Counsel for the proponent and opponents of the project have
submitted their memorandum and/or citations on behalf of their respective
positions. it is generally the position of the proponent, The Preserve,
that the property has been zoned RM 2.5; that the 84-unit project in all
respects complies with the applicable ordinances of the City; and that they
therefore are entitled, upon application for a building permits to construct
the 84-unit apartment building.
The opponents argue generally that a rental apartment adjacent to
single family residential area will have an adverse effect on the single
family residences which adjoin the proposed site.
Each member of the Council has been furnished copies of the respective
correspondence so I will not go through that in detail. .It is fair to state
that there has been no case in Minnesota quite like the case and facts
presented before us.
It would seem that the very narrow question presented to us is whether
or not, when rezoning is done based upon a P.U.D., a proponent can then
discard the approved plan and assume the position that it can make use of
.the Zone so long as the use is a permitted one under the RM 2.5 zone'. I
thiuk not. If it were otherwiseq P.U.D. procedures would be meaningless.
-3-
asv�
It is my opinion that the Council does have the right to change the
plan. Under the P.U.D. procedures that the Council informally follows
(See Section 11, Proposed P.U.D. Ordinance):
"Any change or amendment of an approved final plan shall require
that an application be filed for an amendment in the same manner
as for the initial P.U.D. permit, such application for amendment
shall be administered and evaluated in all respects, the same as
an application for an initial P.U.D. permit."
It is therefore my conclusion that the same procedures for an
amendment to a P.U.D. are the same as an original application. The
same valid reasons for approval or denial must be made as in an initial
application. The Council should make findings that the project does or
does not comply with the existing concepts in ordinances and objectives
of the City, and based upon those reasons, approve or deny the proposed
application.
The second question presented to me: "What are the rights of
neighboring property owners opposing a matter of this type?" In Minnetonka
Congregation of Jehovah4 Witnesses vs Svee, 26 N.W.2d 306 (1976) the
Supreme Court spoke to this question:
Similarly, the second ground advanced for denial, namely that
this type of development would be inconsistent with the surrounding
R-1 land use,' is so vague that it prompts little consideration at this
stage of the proceedings. Suffice it to say that the controlling
ordinance specifically provides for churches. Moreover, while we do
NOT hold that the property owners adjacent to the proposed use do not'
have the right to object and to be heard, the GENERAL objections of
the opponents of the application are not competent evidence to support
such a finding. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there was no
attempt made, either by the opponents or the council to suggest or to
impose conditions which would insure proper landscaping, setbacks,
or ingress and egress."
-4-
I
The Supreme Court specifically noted when making this statement
that the Council's decision in this case took into account the strength
of the neighborhood opposition. It also noted that the entire Council is
up for re-election in that year. What the Supreme Court, in my opinion,
is stating is that the objections pwithout more detailed evidence to
substantiate those objections,are not by themselves a sufficient basis for
the conclusion that the traffic will be increased or create hazards without
some other expert testimony. The Court in this same case cited the Zvlka
vs City of Crystal, 167 N.W.2d 49 (1969) as follows:
"(A)u arbitrary denial may be found by a reviewing court when the
evidence presented at the hearing before the municipal governing
body and the reviewing court establishes that the requested use
is compatible with the basic use authorized within the particular
zone and does not endanger the public health or safety or the
general welfare of the area affected or the community as a whole."
This standard of review has been consistently followed by the Supreme
Court in numerous cases.
Lastly, What ramifications can the City expect upon its action in this
matter, that is, either approval or denial?
Either of the parties, that is to state, the applicants or the
neighboring property owners, have a cause of action against the City for
its action in the District Court in the State of Minnesota based on the
City Council's action.
WHP/es W.M.P.
_g_
GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY & ANOERSON
NAwoLD O.cwNT NDeTIB T)) LAW OFFICES aowIN O.CAw►cNTLw
NLN RT w.NAV L R9T0 ea(w LiiPL O) LINDLLY f.Iw A,B ON
A
•"ANRLIN U,O 1,1
l ONN w NIaL
rRANR W.PLwNt, R, 300 ROANORE BUILDING MOLL P.MYLLLw
J ONN w MOOTr JL IrRCT R.•RDORL
RaNNaTN M RaoN
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNE90Tq 55402 DANILL N.fNyLMAN
M LLVIN w.MOOVT
NICNAaL R.CYNNIN ONAN
wYffaLLM TELCPNONE(D IY)]3D•0501 A...A' C.fLLOLN
C L,N TON w.BGINRO[D[R wCN ARD A,MOONL,JN.
lAMLe N,LANDa
oBL
eDWARD J,CALLA»AN,JR, fTL►MLN J.BNYDLR
eRT L.»..LLANo Jul ww of f.elNONao» y 22, 1976 ocrrnar 1.eeT of
ARRT R » rR LOCM GR J,OCRMAwT
RIC NARO N EI LNANT LION
M ICMALL P,BYL—A. RRIfTe"=cc Lf ON
O M"TIf D./ JO JAMLf
N—ARD A.BOWMAN JOSLPN D.BOLTON
DRYGL O.ORu .. II—ABLTN W.NORTON
G..—B.w lDNN D.Ncf NANa
JONN f.CwO _ w.TPDD NAODAnT
CRA10 L.VOLLMAR BRIAN L.BOTf LN
o Avlo T.BCNNL TTALI —
orcouNfLL i
mw•^ J L P RCAUA»
Eden Prairie City Council ••••^•
Eden Prairie City Hall
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 letter is intended to supplement our letter of July 8,
1976, to the City Council in the above-captioned matter. Among
other things, this letter will establish, in response to the
question raised by the City Council and by the City Attorney at
the City Council's meeting of July 13, 1976, that the Council is
required to treat The Preserve's subject request for a change in
The Preserve's Plan Unit Development as the equivalent of the
rezoning of the subject site.
The City Council's decision in this matter is controlled by
the standards set forth in the applicable Eden Prairie
ordinances. Pursuant to Ordinances No. 135, §11.3:
The . (City) Council shall adopt and may amend specific
procedures and requirements for submission and approval of
Planned Unit Development proposals.
The City of Eden Prairie's official publication titled RPUD
Procedures," which was promulgated pursuant to Ordinance No. 135,
§11.3, provides on Page 5, Paragraph 8, that the decision whether
or, not to change a PUD development plan should be governed by:
the responsiveness (of the proposed change) to the approved
Concept Plan and to the objectives and purposes of the City
zoning ordinances and comprehensive guide plan.
�$`aU
Eden Prairie City Council
July 22, 1976
Page Two
The objectives and purposes of the City zoning ordinances
are to develop harmonious relationships among land uses, to
promote stability, and to maximize property values. See
Ordinance No. 135, S1, Subd. 1.2. See also, our letter to the
City Council of July 8, 1976, p. 5. Similarly, under The
Preserve's Concept Plan only compatible housing types are to be
located in proximity to one another. Thus, Ordinance No. 135
requires that the City Council review fully every proposal to
alter a PUD and to make a complete independent judgment as to the
planning wisdom of the proposed change. The fact that the
general zoning classification will not be affected does not
relieve the Council of its responsibility, imposed by Ordinance
No. 135 and the "PUD Procedures," to monitor all PUD development
plan changes.
The requirement of full Council review of PUD changes is in
keeping with well-accepted land use planning principles. When
'the original PUD development plan is submitted, the inter-
relations between different housing types is reviewed with great
care and detail. PUD status and approval of the development plan
is granted only if the specific land uses are harmonious.
For example, in the instant case, the record clearly shows
that the approval of the PUD plan and the rezoning of the subject
site to the RM 2.5 zone was conditioned on the use of staggered
facades and small clustered units which gave the buildings a
semblance of single-family dwellings and made the Ridgewood
development compatible with the Highpoint neighborhood. In their
rejection of The Preserve's original development plan for the
Ridgewood site, the Planning Commission stated:
The acceptance of the extensive building facade is
contingent upon the use of modulating building plans
establishing a varied pattern of light and shadow. See,
Planning Report, November 16, 1971.
On January 18, 1972, the Planning Commission identified seven
other items which concerned it, and at the Planning Commission
meeting of February 28, 1972, a representative of The Preserve
stated that:
(The Preserve] had effectively responded to each of
the seven items. . . . The building locations had been
adjusted so that the spaces between the buildings had been
increased particularly at locations where a view of the lake
21;f .
Eden Prairie City Council
July 22, 1976
Page Three
might be obtained from the site access roads. See Eden
Prairie Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 1972.
Finally on February 29, 1972, the City Council approved the
development plan containing the detailed features it had
requested. A member of the Council explained that The Preserve
had made a "sensitive reply" to their concerns. See Eden Prairie
City Council Meeting Minutes of February 29, 1972. Clearly, when
the Council approved the rezoning of the subject site to RM 2.5,
the Council's decision was conditioned on, and justified by, the
specific plan for development of the subject site for owner-
occupied condominiums, with staggered facades, and grouped in
small clusters. If the Council were now to approve The
Preserve's request to change its PUD without the exercise by the
Council of its critical powers of discretionary review, such an
action would be in abrogation of the Council's obligations,
imposed by applicable legal principles,to treat The Preserve's
-subject request as the equivalent to a rezoning of the subject
site.
The following cases support the proposition that The
Preserve's request to change its PUD plan is equivalent to a
request to rezone the subject site.
In Millbrae Assn for Residential Survival v. Cit of
Millbrae, 262 a pp. a p r. , the
courT -said:
Although the creation of fa PUD] district allows for greater
flexibility and diversification in the location of
structures and other site qualities and their uses, once
these elements are delineated in the general plan they
constitute materiai and in ispensi e attribut-e-s-7—FTFe
district itself Accordingly'
ccor ing y, any substantial change or
a era ion in Ehe . characteristics o e alstrict and
its configuration amount o a rezoning of the is ric .
(Emphasis added.)
In Gray v. Trustees, Monclova Township, 38 Ohio St.2d 310,
131 N.E. the court recognized that legally the
approved PUD plan becomes the actual zoning, and the developer is
restricted to the specific land uses indicated in that plan, and
stated, in part, that:
once approved by the board and filed with the county
recorder, the specific development plans disclosed on the
a zsz
Eden Prairie City Council
July 22, 1976
Page Four
(PUD) plat become part of the township's zoning regulations.
. Approval by the township trustees of an application to
amend a previously approved PUD plat is equivalent to
legislative rezoning, even though there is no change in the
nominal zoning.
Therefore, with respect to PUD land use plans, an overall
zoning classification such as RM 2.5 in the instant case, is only
"nominal." See Gray, supra (131 N.E.2d at 373. Moreover, no
change in PUD land uses can be made until the City Council
reviews its compatibility with surrounding uses and approves the
change. See Gray, supra,(where zoning authorities granted a PUD
developer the right-'o add suites for transient business firm
members and guests to a neighborhood clubhouse, but the court
invalidated the action after finding that the business suites
were not an appropriate land use in the setting and that the
alteration in use restrictions did not reasonably serve the
-public welfare). See also, Frankland v. City of Lake Oswego, 267
Ore. 452, 517 P.2d 10 197 c ange rom staggered garden
apartments to a "monolithic, large grey rectangular" apartment
building with five stories); Millbrae Ass'n for Residential
Survival v. City of Millbrae, supra (construction ot three high
rise apartment uz ngs insTea3 oothe seven six-story buildings
shown in PUD plan).
As the cases quoted above establish, a council decision to
allow a change in a PUD plan is the equivalent of rezoning the
site. In deciding whether and how to rezone, a zoning authority
has a great deal of discretion, and a court will void the zoning
decision only in extreme situations. As the Ohio Supreme Court
said recently:
the legislative action of the [City Council) in amending the
1966 (PUD) plat comes into court with a presumption of
validity. Gray v. Trustees, Monclova Township, supra 313
N.E.2d at 373.
Of course, a decision to reject a proposal to amend existing
zoning is also presumed to be valid. Town of Hialeah Gardens v
Hebraica Community Center, 309 So.2d 2T2=, on a Supreme
Court, 97 ); Board of `upervisors of Fairfax County v. Williams,
216 Va. 49, 21
In the event that the Council denies The Preserve's subject
request to approve a change to its PUD land use plan, in any
action brought by The Preserve to set aside the Council's
Eden Prairie City Council
July 22, 1976
Page Five
decision The Preserve would have to "produce evidence which
clearly demonstrates that the [Council's action) is not
reasonably related to public health, welfare, safety or morals."
Gray v. Trustees, Monclova Township, supra, 313 N.E.2d at 373.
In the letter of July 8, 1976, submitted by William G. Bale
on behalf of The Preserve, the point is made that "The Preserve
paid $38,218.00 and has been issued a . GNMA commitment."
Any implication in said statement that The Preserve would stand
to lose the $38.218.00 commitment fee in the event that the
Council denied The Preserve's instant request would appear to be
incorrect. According to a Mr. Stahler of the GNMA office in
Chicago, the GNMA committment can be bought back at any time by
the proposed lender filing a Form 589, and The Preserve would
lose only 1/4 of 1% of its $38,218 deposit. Therefore, instead
of losing $38,218 as The Preserve implies, it would be able to
recover all of the commitment fee except $95.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that the subject
premises are zoned RM 2.5, within which rental apartments are a
permitted land use, The Preserve's instant request is the
equivalent to a request for rezoning of the subject site. Given
the fact that juxtaposition of a rental apartment complex into a
single-family neighborhood would unnecessarily destroy the value
of the Highpoint homes, good land use planning and concern for
the public welfare of the Eden Prairie citizenry requires that
The Preserve's proposal to build an apartment complex adjacent to
the Highpoint neighborhood be denied.
Very truly yours,
GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY & ANDERSON
b C^*"
ohn S. Crouch
JSC/caj
July 27, 1976
City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As you know, Condon-Naegele Realty Company owns certain
real estate east of Highway No. 169 and north of Interstate
No. 494. In connection with our application to zone approximately
66 acres of that real estate, we have submitted development
plans showing approximately 32 acres reserved for public use.
it is our intention to donate to the City those 32 acres. The
only conditions of the donation are as follows:
1. That the timing of the actual delivery of title be at
the discretion of Condon-Naegele Realty Company, but
no later than the issuance of building permits; and
2. That Condon-Naegele Realty Company be given a credit for
that land -ncluded in the 32 acres which is not in the
floodplain and would be suitable for development,
at the rate of current market value as assessed for
tax purposes, against the park fee due the city under
your ordinance in connection with the zoning application
referred to above.
If the foregoing letter of intent is acceptable to the ^tty,
please execute the copy of this letter where provided below —ad
return to the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
Condon-Naegele Realty Company
By
Partner
Accepted this day of
July, 1976.
City of Eden Prairie
By
Its _
.�GSS
July 27, 1976
City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to inform the Council of the
intentions of Condon-Naegele Realty Company (the "Partnership")
and Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company of the Twin Cities, Inc.
(the "Company") with respect to certain matters involving a parcel
of real estate owned by the Partnership which is east of Highway
No. 169 and Interstate No. 494 in Eden Prairie.
As you are aware, the Company leases six (6) locations
from the Partnership for outdoor advertising signs. Two
(2) of these locations are on a 66 acre parcel of the real estate
which is currently the subject of an application to rezone to
C Regional Service. The Re-zoning Agreement between the City and
the Partnership, dated July 27, 1976, requires, at Paragraph 1 B,
the removal of those two (2) signs. The Re-zoning Agreement further
provides at Paragraph 1 D(ii) that the City will purchase certain
portions of the real estate from the Partnership, when, and as
needed, for freeway ramps and collector/distributor road.
The Company has agreed with the Partnership to remove the
two (2) signs when required and to enter into certain agreements
with the Partnership to enable it to sell such portions of the
property to the City at a price equivalent to its present market
valuation for tax purposes, on the condition that the City issues
permits to the Company for the erection and maintenance of
advertising signs on four (4) locations on the Partnership's
remaining property, as shown on the map to be presented with this
letter. The result would be that the Company would have four
(4) locations on the Partnership's property rather than six (6)
as at present.
,17
OJT 1
City Council Page 2 July 27, 1976
If the foregoing letter of intent is acceptable to the City,
please execute the copy of this letter where provided below and
return to the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
Condon-Naegele Realty Company
By . . . . . .
Partner
Accepted this day of
July, 1976.
City of Eden Prairie
By
Its
is
RE - 2 Oi7I NG AG REEIIEN T
THIS AGME_IMIT, Made and entered into in triplicate, this
27th day of July, 1976, by and between CONDOR-N1,EG.`.'.LE REALTY
C0I4PA4'l, a Minnesota partnership, hereinafter called "Owners",
and the CITY OF EVEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation of the
State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "City".
WI TNESSETH:
W11BREAS, Owners have requested the City Council of the City
of Eden Prairie ("City Council") to change the zoning of a tract
of land fron Industrial Park I-5 to C Regional Service and Public
for an area consisting of approzinately 66 acres in accordance
with its Planned Unit Development concept plan and develop:aental
plan, and which tract of land is legally described as more fully
set forth on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and nade a part
hereof ("Property"); and
t7tl-_p. As, Owners further agree as a part of said request to
lay out, plat, develop, and maintain the Property in accordance
with the revised development plan dated June 24, 1976, prepared
by the Eden Prairie City staff; this June 240 1976 plan is based
upon t1le City of Eden Prairie's policies, ordinances and procedures
set forth in the MCA Plan Report July , 1973, and Floodplain
Ordinance f276, and 'Zoning ordinance #135; and the revised June
24, 1976, Plau is based upon the documents prepared by Brauer &
Associates entitled; 1). Condon/Inegele Realty c orapany T Planned
Unit Develop nent; 2). Environriental. Assessment; and 3).
Supple:aental Data Revised Plan dated DF:cember 8, 1975 which are
a�55 G..
marked Exhibits B, C, D, E and F and are attached hereto and made
k.
a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the rezoning of the
Property �o C Regional Service and Public will be in the public
interest and consistent with the welfare and convenience of the
people of the City; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of February 31 1976, the
City Council passed a :notion adopting Resolution No. 1036
granting PUD Concept approval for the Property, giving a first
reading to ordinance No. 31'1 approvinq the rezoning of he
Property to C Regional service, and directing the City Ittorney
to draft a rezoning agreenent,
. NO',), T11%PTFORE, This Agreement witnesseth, that for and in
consideration of the City Council adopting an Ordinance changing
the zoning of the Property fron Industrial to C Regional Service
and Public, and of the mutual bene.its to each of the parties
hereto, the parties, their respective successors and assigns, do
hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. Owners agree to develop the Property in accordance with
the revised plan dated June 24, 1976 and attached hereto as Exhibit
su))nitted to the City subjecL to the following conuitions:
A. Time Limit. Unless application for a building
permit for construction on a site within the Property
is :jade wit'iin two years fron t'ie date of tite final
adoption of the ordinance rezoning the Property,
the City Council nay review its action of rezoning
the Property to determine u'Aether the concept and
developmental plans of the owners are still ccn-
sistent with the developient plans of the City.
In the event that they are not, the Property will
retain the zoning of C agional Service but tie
Owners will be roquired to submit new PUD concept
and developmental plans.
-2-
2 gss'D
B. Advertising Signs. That upon the iss+lance o£ a building
permit for a site oil the Property as set out on rxhibit
A, any outdoor advertising sign -hich then exists on
said site must be removed.
C. Site and Landscapinq Plan. That the following guidelines
'be used for file specific site development plans for the
Property:
(i) To use a combination of visual screens to buffer
the auto storage areas visible from I-494.
(ii) To include within the parking lot and
new and used car storage areas canopy trees
to re:luce the visual impact of the parking
areas.
(iii) To provide a landscape treatment along the access
roads that will soften the road embankment.
Planting of trees and shrub material along the
road shall be the responsibility of the owners,
and should be integrated with a walk-bike path
to be built and maintained by the City along
Smetana Lake. The intent of the landscaping
is to visually screen and soften the vier of
the auto storage and parking areas as.viewed
from across Smetana Lake.
(iv) Exhibit E illustrates buildings located close
to I-494 on sites 1 and 2 so as to provide
a partial screen of the auto storage and/or
parking for the commercial sites.
If auto dealerships are developed on sites 1
and 2, the site design should emphasize views
fron I-494 at new and/or used car display areas.
The intent is to provide highly visible areas
where selected automobiles will be displaved in
a special setting apart from the total auto-
mobile inventory. These display areas are
intended to provide a partial screen or visual
transition between the parking and/or auto
storage/inventory as viewed frog I-494.
(v) Exhibit E illustrates site 3 for use as an
office or freestanding regional service
commercial sit The site would be restricted
frora use as an auto dealership because of
-3-
size, shape and relationship to Smetana
Lake and the wooded ravine on the east
side of the site. Buildings should
orient towards Smetana Lake and/or the
eastern ravine which may require special
construction design allowing cantilever-
ing the building over the slope and flood-
plain in order to take advantage of the
site's unique character. Parking should
be between I-494 and the building/s with
a partial landscaped buffer to soften
parking area views from I-494.
(vi) Site 1 as illustrated on Exhibit E
provides for automobile display area/s
along Schooner Boulevard in order to
encourage display of selected new or used
automobiles in a special setting apart
from the total automobile inventory. The
display areas also provide a useful visual
buffer from the parking and/or auto storage
areas as viewed from Schooner Boulevard.
The remaining buff er/setbacks along Schooner
Boulevard should be of adequate dimension to
permit landscaping consistent with City
Ordinances.
(vii) Exhibit E illustrates an Owner constructed
access street between Smetana Lake and
sites 1 and 2. The street shall be built
to City standards and dedicated to the City.
The street will provide the total access needs
for sites 1, 2 and 3. As the street will be
completely for the use of 3 sites, reduced
screening and/or setback requirements will be
appropriate between sites l and 2 and the
street.
D. Right-of-bray Dedication.
(i) The right-of-way for an extension of Schooner
Boulevard, the East-West access road and
Valley View Road extension shown on the
Property in the revised site plan shall be
dedicated at no cost to the City in the plat
of the Property, as shown on Exhibit E.
(ii) The land, on the Property and adjacent
property owned by owners, needed for the
I-494 freeway ramps and collector/distributor
road, is to be purchased by the City, when,
and as needed.
-4..
a ass
E. Building Design. Building design shall be generally
as set forth in the original submission of the
Owners. Due to the location of the building and
the importance of their appearance, brick or similar
quality exterior material will be required.
F. Pedestrian System. Development of 3 C-Regional
Commercial sites should provide for pedestrian/bike
pathway connecting the parcels to each other and
Schooner Boulevard. The walk/bike system shall be
constructed by the Owners.
The location of the pathway shall be determined by
the City and Owner so as to best serve the land uses
and the City's needs for non-motorized transportation
systems.
G. Identification Sig�n�s.
Sites 1 and 2 Auto-
bile Dealerships-
The signage plan as specified in Exhibit E1 will
permit one (1) pylon 24 feet in height above the grade
level of I-494 to identify both sites from I-494. Also,
each building would be allowed wall mounted signage as
shown in Exhibits B, C and D. One joint sign at the
intersection of Schooner Boulevard and the access street
may identify the business on the three sites. Such sign
shall he oriented to Schooner Boulevard traffic and should
be primarily a directional purpose. All other provisions
of the City Sign Ordinance shall apply thereby restricting
use of balloons, banners, flashing signs, etc.
If sites 3 and 1 and 2 are developed other than
automobile dealerships, these sites shall be subject
to the provisions of the City Sign Ordinance and the
intent of the CNR Plan Exhibit.
H. Grading and Drainage Plans. Grading and drainage,
including run-off during construction, shall be done
in accordance with the plans on file herein and made
a part hereof and meeting the requirements of Nine-
Mile Watershed District.
I. Floodplain Encroachment. Prior to connencing
construction of roads and installation of utilities,
detailed grading and drainage plans shall be
furnished to the City, which plans are to be consistent
with the intent of the project.
J. Access Roads. Owners will, in addition to dedicating the
land, construct at their own cost and expense, one-half
(two lanes) of Schooner Boulevard from the North perimeter
of the Property to Che East-West access road, said half
to.be in accordance with the standards determined by
the City Engineering Department for said road.
-5-
a�ss-�Z..
K. New Construction Plantings. That treatment be
given to the North side of the access road to be
built on said site which access road is in or
near.the flood plain, in such manner that it be
made to look as natural as possible through
contours and/or landscaping of a size and type
to partially screen the auto storage/parking
areas of sites 1 and 2 when viewed from across
Smetana Lake.
2. That all sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer
facilities, concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing,
whether to be public or private, shall be designed to City
Standards by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer and
submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The Owners,
through their engineer, shall provide for competent daily inspection
of all street and utility construction, both public and private.
Asbuilt drawings with service and valve ties on reproducable
mylar and certificates of completion and compliance with
specifications shall also be delivered to the City Engineer. The
Owners also agree to pay all fees for City Engineering and
administrative services consistent with current City requirements.
3. City and Property Owners agree:
A. That the Owners shall comply with all
applicable rules, regulations, ordinances
and laws of the City of Eden Prairie.
B. That the provisions of this Agreement
shall be binding upon and enforceable
against Owners, their successors and
assigns, and all subsequent owners, their
respective heirs, successors and assigns,
of the property herein described.
-6-
afss r}
C. That an executed copy of this Agreement shall be
recorded with the Register of Deeds or the Regis-
trar of Titles for the Countv of Hennepin and
State of Minnesota.
D. That the Owners' agreement at paragraphs 1 D
(i) and 1 J herein with respect to Schooner
Boulevard shall be reflected in adequate and
reasonable credits against the assessments levied
upon the Property and the owners' adjacent property
for Schooner Boulevard.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused
their presents to be executed the day and year aforesaid.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal
corporation of the State of 14innesota
By:
Wolfgang Penze , ?Iayor
and By:
Joan D. Frane, City Clerk
CO3DON-NAEGELE REALTY C011PA11Y
By:
Partner
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COU4TY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrlLnent was acknowledged before me this day
of , 1976, by C•1olfganq Penzel, :layor and John D. Frane,
Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the
laws of: t.ie State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
STA_•^: OF IlI INESOTA)
ss.
COUNTY OF 11E:1:1rPIf•1)
The foregoing instr=nent was acknowledged before no this day
of , 1976, by , a partner of
Condon-11acclele Rc11ty Co-ir-iny, a Minnesota partnership, on behalf of
the partnership.
Notary Public
-7-
agu- �
WHP/azd 7/22/76
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.//69
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
PARK LANDS EITHER BY PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN.
WHEREAS, It has been necessary for the City of Eden Prairie,
a:
ennepin County, Minnesota, to acquire
a municipal corporation, H
from time to time, lands for the use of park sites because of
the rapid growth in the population of the City and the ever-
increasing number of people therein, and
WHEREAS, The City has completed a comprehensive plan for
the city which plan designates certain areas as being the logical
and appropriate areas to develop as park lands, and
WHEREAS, The tracts, pieces and parcels of land as set forth
on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof are
necessary for the development of the park plan of the City,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie, a municipal corporation, Hennepin County, Minnesota, has
determined that it is necessary for reasons hereinbefore set forth
that the City acquire said property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Attorneys, Perbix,
Harvey, Simons & Thorfinnson, P.A., Hopkins, Minnesota, are
hereby empowered and directed to proceed to acquire the same by
purchase or condemnation under the right of eminent domain
according to the laws of this state, and that such proceedings
WHP/azd 7/22/76
be commenced, and that said attorneys be, and they hereby are,
authorized and directed on behalf of the City to sign a petition
directed to the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota,
praying for the acquisition of said lands and the appointment of
Commissioners to appraise the same.
ADOPTED by the City of Eden Prairie this day of ,
1976.
Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frans, City Clerk
- 2 -
20
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Service4d
SUBJECT: Consideration of the purchase of the Miller Bros.
Property at Mitchell Lake
DATE: July 23, 1976
Attached is a copy of the memo dated July 16, 1976, On July 19, 1976
the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission took the following
action regarding the proposed Miller Bros. Acquisition.
"MOTION: Garens moved to recommend to the Council the Staff
recommendations of July 16, 1976, regarding the purchase of the
Miller Bros. Property. Kingrey seconded, motion carried, with
Pierce abstaining."
2 GAG
MEMO TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Consideration of Purchase of the Miller Brothers Property
at Mitchell Lake
DATE: July 36, 1976
BAO(GROUND INI ORMATION_
Acquisition of approximately 35-40 acres of land owned by the Miller
Brothers at Mitchell Lake has been contemplated by the City since 1968
for a small scale community park and neigborhood park and playground
purposes. In the process of discussing this matter with the Miller
Brothers we have been advised that they would prefer to sell the entire
73.68 acre parcel which they own at Mitchell Lake to the City rather
than severing off the lakeshore and continuing to hold the balance of the
property.
Applications for grant assistance have been made from time to time for
purchasing this parcel�hcwever, funding has never been approved because
of other higher priority parcels both within Eden Prairie and, of course,
throughout the state. We are again making application for 1977 LAWCON
Funds for acquisition of the Miller Brothers Property.
The entire 73.68 acres was appraised by an independent real estate appraiser
and he has assigned a market value of $368,400 as of January 1976. This
value is based on :
38.80 acres of field land at $4,100 per acre equals $159,100.
34.88 acres of lakeshore parcels at $6,000 per acre equals
$209,300.
The Miller Brothers have asked for a price of$550,000 for the land in
question.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above and the negotiations which have oecured on this matter,
I would recommend that the City embark on the following course of action:
Miller Brothers (cont) -2-
1. Secure an option to acquire the Miller Brothers Parcel through
December 30, 1978.
2. Pay $5,000 down as earnest money for the option.
3. The purchase price at the end of the option time would be
$475,000 plus an increase to reflect actual taxes paid in 1977
and 1978.
4. When exercising the option a Contract for Deed for purchase
of the propety would be entered into with payments to occur
generally as follows:
At time of closing $120,000
Four equal annual payments Approximately $93,750with interest
(1979, 1980, 1981 6 1982) to be paid at the rate of 6% on the
unpaid balance
The terms of this proposal are advantageous to the City in that they
provide for us a 2a year time frame in which to generate the necessary
financing to acquire this property. The acreage involved in this
recommendation exceeds that earlier proposed. Good public recreation
use of the entire site is possible, however, should the City wish to
sell off portions of the land at a later date we will be able to do
so while still maintaining a lo)xer per acre price on the balance. Financing
for part of the purchase price will come from the Pemtom Cash Park Fees
over the next three year period. Per:tom anticipates construction which
would generate for the City approximately $60,000 in Park Fees. This
money would than be used as our"local share" in application for grant
assistance in this purchase.
MJ:md
a�bU
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services�J
SUBJECT: Consideration of purchase of Grill Property at Staring Lake
DATE: July 23, 2976
Attached is a copy of the memo dated July 16, 1976. On July 39, 1976
the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission took the following
action regarding the proposed Grill Acquisition.
"MOTION: Choiniere moved to accept recommendations of Memo
of July 16, 1976, regarding purchase of Grill Property. Garens
seconded, motion carried with Pierce abstaining.
MJ:md
28��
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services ,
SUBJECT: Consideration of purchase of the Grill Property at
Staring Lake
DATE: July 16, 1976
BACKGROUND IN17ORMAT)ON
The 1968 Park Bond I.-,sue proposal included acquisition of land around
Staring Lake for community park purposes. Since then efforts have been
made to secure outside funding to assist in financing the acquisition of
all of this land including the Grill Property.
In 1975 Fden Prairie was programmed for fiscal year 1976 LAWCON
Grant Assistance for the Grill Property, the last lakeshore property at
Staring Lake to be funded. The amount of the grant is 509E of the
appraised value for this parcel or$145,000. ($290,000 Appraised Value)
We have previously discussed with Mr. Crill the purchase of different
sized partial taking of his property but the grant for 1976 was predicated
on the acquisition of spprcximatcly 40 c+cres which constitutes all of the
land owned by Grill on the `,omestead parcel".
RECOMMENDATION
I would recommend that the City acquire the Grill Property under the
following general terms and conditions:
1, Price $320,000 for the approximate 90 acres and improvements
(this represents a price of approximately $8,000 per acre which
compares rather favorably to the over $9,000 per acre previously
paid in condemnation on the Blesi Property).
2. Terms of payment. $160,000 in cash at the time of closing and
four payments of $40,000 each over the next four years to be
made on August 1 and to be paid with interest at 6% on the unpaid
balance.
3. Mrs. Grill has requested, and 1 would suggest that we provide
lifetime occupancy for her at the homestead under a lease
arrangement.
Grill Property (cont.) -2-
Financing for this purchase is available currently within the Park Bond
Fund. Monies for the local share have been earmarked and encumbered
prior to our estimating that the Park Bond Fund had an unemcumbered
balance of approximately $100,000 for using as the local share in the
1977 grant application. This purchase will constitute the last parcel
to be acquired to surround Staring Lake as represented in the 1968
community park plan and will then leave us with only one additional
parcel to aquire at the outlet of Purgatory Creek under 169.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote No. 1
Parcel i 1 ai ataring Lake is owned by the Morley Estate and the City has
a Purchase Agreement to acquire it, but has not yet completed the
acquisition pending the final notification of heirs etc. for beneficiaries
to the Estate.
43
MEMO TO: Mayor and Members of City Council !`
THRU: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services
FROM: -Chris Enger C.161
SUBJECT: Reforestation Program
DATE: July 23, 1976
In reply to the Council's wish to take a positive approach to the problem of the
loss of large numbers of Oak and Elm Trees in Eden Prairie by offering replace-
ment trees to homeowners who loose trees to Oak Wilt and Dutch Elm Disease, the
staff would suggest the following program.
By matching $4,000 we hope to be subsidized by the State for our removal program
with approximately $3,900 from the City General Fund, we estimate that we would
be able to obtain the species, number, and size of trees shown below from one of
the metropolitan areas half dozen large shade tree suppliers.
COMMON NAMIi CONDITION CALIPER 6" AVERAGE EST. UNIT QUANITY TOTAL
above ground 11f121 RANGE COST
Marshall's Rare root 1"-211" 12'-14' $16.00 90 $1,440
Seedless Ash
Pyramidal Have root 1 3/41!-2+' 10'-12' $16.00 8o $1,280
American Linden
Norway Maple Bare root 2"-211„ 12'-14' $17.75 90 $1,597.50
Sugar Maple Bare root 2"-21" 12'-14' $17.75 80 $1,420
Red Maple Bare root 2"-2y' 12'-14' $17.75 80 $1,420
Skyline lloncy- Bare root 11:"-111" 8'-10, $17.25 80 $1,380
locust
TOTALS 5o0 $8,537.50
The total amount figured by using the multiple of all single unit costs is estimated
from current industry prices at $8,537.50. It is reasonable to assume the reduction
of this total to under $7,900 through bidding process.
The species of trees listed were picked because of there moderate to fast rate of
growth, hardiness, disease resistance, and compatibility to existing vegetation.
We would suggest replacing on a one to one basis all trees removed this year due to
the disease around residential areas with trees from this list. Trees down in rural
areas, not surrounding homesteads would be replaced with sapling stock of the same
varieties.
Reforestation (cont. Page 2)
We estimate from the number of trees removed around residential areas so far
this year, that there will be approximately 500 removed by this fall.
You will notice that the suggested replacement trees are bare root, which gives
you a substantial cost savings. I£ they were ordered for this fall, the trees
would comeout of cold storage and would have to be planted by the owner immediately.
Therefore, distribution of trees would probably work most efficiently if delivery
from the nursery were taken at a central location, such as City liall or Round
Lake Park, and the people entitled to replacement trees would pick them up the same
day. The City should not be responsbile for supplying another tree if the first
one does not grow or dies.
Recommendation:
1. The City Council appropriate at least $3,900 toward the current years
reforestation program.
2. The City Council direct the staff to accept bids for numbers, species,
and sizes of trees shown, and to purchase same for distribution from a
central location about mid-October 1976.
CE:md
�aGS
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
July 23, 1976
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 Fami_iy)
Q. A. Collins Inc.
Vern Reynolds Construction Co.
Enberg, Inc.
Harris Construction Co,
CONTRACTOR (Multi-family & Commercial)
Kraus-Anderson of Minneapolis, Inc.
Rainbow Mechanical Inc.
First National Bank of Minneapolis
PLUMBING
June Plumbing & Heating
Thcse licenses have been approved by the department head responsible
for the licensed activity.
�cbecca Quernemoen, Deputy Clerk
July 23, 1976
STATE OF MINNESOIA
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows:
07-09-76 1952 VOID OUT CHECK (530.34)
07-09-76 2014 INSTY PRINTS Services-Public Safety dept. 6.65
2015 RIVER EXCURSIONS Boat trip fees-Rec. Program 2.50
2016 POSTMASTER Postage for newsletter 241.94
07-12-76 2017 JEAN JOHNSON Supplies for guide plan seminar 15.00
2018 GLEN LAKE BAKERY Dounuts for guide plan seminar 18.00
07-13-76 2019 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES REITREMENT Employees withheld and employer y ;.
ASSOC. contribution 7-9 payroll 4,254.99
2020 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Withheld tax deposit 7-9 payroll 4,842.87
2021 UNITED WAY Withheld donations 7-9 payroll 25.46
2022 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPER-
ATING ENGINEERS Dues withheld 7-9 payroll 81.00
07-15-76 2023 STATE OF MINNESOTA 2nd quarter state income taxes withheld 3.11
2024 STATE OF MINNESOTA 2nd quarter F.I.C.A. report 15,553.17
2025 UNIVERSITY THEATRE Tickets to showboat-Teen work prog. 80.00
2026 RIVER EXCURSIONS Trip to Josiah Snelling-Rec. program 23.50
07-19-76 2027 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL
COMiMISSION Reserve report for June 14,206.50
2028 VOID CHECK
2029 X EDGEWATER EAST MOTEL t�" Lodging for Crime Prevention Officers
Assoc. quarterly meeting 34.75
07-21-76 2030 VALLEYFAIR Tickets to Valleyfair-Teen work prog.
and Rec. program 573.60
0i-23-76 2031 ALLSTATE SALES CORP. Equipment parts 4.14
2032 X ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO. °/1"' Equipment parts & Truck trans. repair 498.23
2033 ANDERSON AGGREGATE CO. Sand-Round Lake beach 45.76
2034 x AQUATROL CORP. ro„ Repair electrical panel-Water plant 234.45
2035 WILLIAM BYE July service 60.00
2036 BESTOS PRODUCTS CO. Equipment for new squad car 15.25
2037 SCOTT BENDER Refund gymnastics fee 10.00
2038 JOOI BENDER Refund gymnastics fee 10.00
2039 JULIE BURMAI4 Refund gymnastics fee 10.00
2040 x BROWN PHOTO ' ' J Services-Public Safety dept. 28.00
2041 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. Rock-Park dept. 19.90
2042 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS Chain saw parts 61.30
2043 CORMUNITY ASSOCIATION
INSTITUTE Membership-Richard Putnam 36.35
2044 PATTY CRONIN Refund swimming lesson fee 12.00
2045 CUTLER-MAGNER CO. Quicklime-Water dept. 904.55
2046 CHANHASSEN AUTO PARTS Equipment parts & garage supplies 182.24
2047 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC Lab supplies-Water dept. 49.55
2048 DANIELS STUDIO Pictures-Public Safety dept.
(Officer of the year) 46.00
2049 MIKE DIEDE Refund tennis 'Fees 8.00
2050 V DDRHOLT PRINTING P. ,: P « Services-March, April & May 750.06
2051 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS Gasoline 2,000.93
2052 WESLEY LA FORTUNE Refund tennis fees 8.00
2053 GOLD MEDAL BEVERAGE CO. Pop for beach concession stands 477.10
2054 GARRISON HOUSE MOVERS Refund on house deposit 5DO•00
July 23, 1976
07-23-76 2055 GREGG NELSON TRAVEL, INC. Ticket for Richard Putnam 182.00
2056 GROUP HEALTH PLAN Employees insurance 333.32
,.v
2057 GLIDDEN-DURKEE Paint- Park dept. maint. 54.74
2058 JODIE GELLING Reimbursement for postage paid 3.58
2059 HENNEPIN COUNTY Supplies-Public Works dept. and 96.59
Park Maint.
2060 HONEYWELL Maintenance agreement-Water plant 979.00
2061 JACK HACKING Expenses and reimbursement for 0
.7
supplies 49 49. 0
2062 CHERYL HOWARD Life guard services 7 50
2063 DAVE HOWARD Life guard services 8 00
2064 MARLYS HARTWIG Refund tennis fees
2065 HENNEPIN COUNTY VO-TECH Food services-Guide plan meeting 13.50
2066 X HOPKINS DODGE, INC. d• Equipment parts 82.66
2067 HOPKINS PLBG. Chlorinator No.l supply line repair 19.50.
2068 IAAO PUBLICATIONS Book-Assessing d«,.;:t. 8.50
2069 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF 75.00
BUILDING OFFICIALS Dues-Bldg. dept.
2070 JONES CHEMICALS, INC. Chlorine-Water dept. 189.10
2071 MARK JACQUES Mileage-Tree inspection 11.95
2072 ELIZABETH JOHNSON June services 232.000
2073 JUHL PACIFIC Refund sign permit paid twice 1.7 3
2074 JO-ANN FABRICS Supplies-Calico ball .
2075 ROBERT KERN June & July mileage 61.37
2076 BILL KAEHN Band for teen center 75.Q0
.2077 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION „0 1,312.72
SYSTEM ,,"'June services
LDE
65.40
2078 X LONG LAKE ENGINE REBU1RS Equipment repair service
2079 LOWELL LUND Expenses for State Fire school 30.58
2080 MARVIN LAHTI Expenses for State Fire School 76•50
2081 ROBERT LISTIAK Expenses for State Fire School 322266
2082 LANIE LUCHANSKY Refund swimming fees 6.00
2083 M. E. LANE, INC. Insurance-Outboard boat & motor 8400
2084 LINHOFF Film-Park Planning 25. 5
2085 LEEF BROS., INC. Rags & rugs 2.40
.OD
1
2086 JOAN MEYERS July services 10.DO
2087 LORI MCMAHON Refund gymnastics fee 10.00
00
2088 LISE MORTON Refund gymnastics fee
2089 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL
COMMISSION Sewer service charge for August 13,176.90
2090 MAYVIEW RADIO e.- Desk mikes-Garage & Public Safety 173.00
90
2091 K MODERN TIRE CO.904' �"" Tires & service
22
2092 Y�METROPOLITAN ANIMAL PATROL g08.25
SERVICES, INC. June services
2093 MINNEAPOLIS STAR Employment ad-Utility dept. 62.4
2094 MEDICAL OXYGEN Oxygen-Fire dept. 19.50
2095 JHANA MAYER Refund fee for playground trip
25
2096 3M BUSINESS PRODUCTS Copy machine-Public Safety dept. 67.00
2097 MIDAS MUFFLER Equipment parts 11 50
00
2098 x MILLER DAVIS CO. "'a forms-Assessing dept.
2099 MINNESOTA FIRE INC. Recharge extinguishers-Fire dept. 37.80
1
2100 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. Asphalt-Public Works 118.83
2101 NIMLO* Subscription
25
2102 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK Bond payment 164,388.00
2103 NORTIIERN STATES POWER Service 2,123.97
2104 CHRIS NELSON Refund playground trip fee 1.25
2105 X NORTHERN CONTRACTING CO.' Service-Equipment maint. dept. 36•00
*National Assoc. of Min. Law Officers
July 23, 1976
07-23-76 2106 NORTHERN STATES POWER Services 1,306.61
2107 NORTHWESTERN BELL Services 1,184.44
2108 SIDNEY PAULY July services 60.00
2109 WOLFGANG PENZEL July services 80.00
2110 TIM PIERCE July services 60.00
2111 RICHARD PUTNAM June expenses 110.20
2112 W. G. PEARSON Rock-Public Works 364.15
2113 PAKO FILM SHOPS Picturesfor Moody's 307.40
2114 PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. Employees pop 122.10
2115 STANLEY A. RIEGERT Fire school expenses 46.70
2116 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC. Services-Mitchell Lake-Pemtom,
Westgate E. Add., Beach Rd. & Cir.,
and Preserve Area F. Div. 5,303.25
211 2117 STEWART SANDWICHES Food for concessions 38.08
2118 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES Portable restrooms 610.25
2119 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET Truck - Parks 5,780.27
2120 ERIC SVOR Refund gymnastics fee 10.00
2121 ANDREA SVOR Refund gymnastics fee 10.00
2122 DONNA STANLEY p S✓.r June services 97.50
2123 SULLIVAN SEPTIC SERVICE Repair service-Water dept. 266.00
2124 STATE OF MINNESOTA Service-Th169 139.49
2125 W. GORDON SMITH CO. Fuel 54.89
2126 VERNON STEPPE Fire school expenses 52.30
2127 GERALD M. SCHWANKL Fire school expenses 80.00
-2128 ST. REGIS PAPER CO. Supplies-Drainage control 313.34
2129 CATHERINE TURNER Refund gymnastics fee 10.00
2130 BOB TYSON Expenses 9.88
2131 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS Supplies-Rec program 282.7E
2132 U. S. HOME SECURITY SYSTEMS Door viewers-Public Safety dept. 3.40
2133 A. WEISMAN CO. Food for concessions 100.64
2134 BRANDON WARNER Refund playground trip fee 1.25
2135 BECKY WEDLUND Reimbursement for supplies for
playgrounds 4.91
2136 DEAN WESTMAN Mileage and picnic supplies for
Teen work program 37.56
2137 WALDOR PUMP Repair pump-Water dept.-Sr"o__ 20.00
2138 WATER PRODUCTS CO. Meters for resale-Water dept. 525.00
2139 XEROX CORPORATION Service-City Hall 144.62
2140 ZIEGLER, INC. Supplies-Equip. Maint. 242.79
2141 RIEGGER ROADWAYS, INC. Contract-School Rd. Paving 14,708.61
2142 BROWN & CHRIS CONSTRUCTION Contract-Red Rock 2nd 39,346.11
2143 G. L. CONTRACTING, INC. Contract-Preserve Area F Div. 57,931.10
2144 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO. Contract-Lochanburn Area 14,286.52
2145 STATE OF MINNESOTA 2nd quarter building permit
surcharge report 2,304.24
2146 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Services-Guide Plan 3,215.74
TOTAL 380,480.15
2 g69