HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 11/23/1976JOHN FRANE
E1EN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUFS1AY, M.VCIIIE 23, 197i,
CdUNCIL MEMBERS:
CUNCIL STAFF: ,
7:30 PM, CITY HALL
Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Billy Bye, Sidney Pauly,
Joan Meyers and Tim Pierce
City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Harlan
Perbix; Planner Dick Putnam; Finance Director
John Frane; Director of Community Services
Marty Jessen; Engineer Carl Jullie; Joyce
Provo, Recor4ing Secretary
INVOCATION
PLE2GE )F aLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF-A.GENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF
II. MINUTES
A. Minutcs of the Retularly Schedulte Ctuncil Meeting held Tuesday,
OctWter 26, 1976.
B. Minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Council Meetinf, held Tuesday,
November 2, 1976.
C. Minutes of the Canvassin ,: :.3.7ard hel ,! Thursdri, Neveml!er 4 1976.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 3272
Page 3280
Page 3287
A. Fetz Construction request to rezone approximately 1/2 acre from
Rural to Office for use as an office and warehouse. The site is
located at 8555 Flying Cloud DrAve (old Phoenix Station).
(Ordinance No. 350)
B. Poolside Apartments, The Preserve, 84 unit apartment and double Page 3290
bungalow lots located south of Anderson Lakes Parkway and northwest
of hill Lake Road in The Preserve, rFquest for PUD Development'
Stage, rezoning to P.m 2.5 and RM 6.5 ar c! priiminary plat approval.
(Ordinance No. 351 and Resolution No. 1211)
C. Vacation of drainage andutilitv over Lot 17, Block 1,. Page 3315
Cluck Lake Estates (Resolution No. 1212
IV. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Ordinance No. 352,,repealinq Ordinance No. 158, which is the ordinance Page 3317 licensing and renulatinq the sale of intoxicating liquor by certain
clubs within the Villace of Eden Prairie.
V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS & CORIISSIMS
A. Reports of Council members.
Page 32e8
council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,November 23, 1976
B. Report of City Manager
1. Report on Vo-Tech Model Home. Page 3318
2. Subdrban Public Health Nursing . Service. Page 3319
C. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Receive appraisal on the Cedar Hills Golf & Ski area. Page 3323 1
2. Recommendation from the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Page 3324
Commission on the Metropolitan Parks ) and Open Space 5-year
Capital Improvement Program.
3. Receive Kucher/Deaver appraisals. Page 3326
4. Recommendation of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Page 3328
Commission on the Raze property.
O. Report of Planning Director
1. Land Development Procedures: PUD Procedures, Zoning Procedures
and Platting Procedures.
2. Setback Variances. Page 3369
E. Report of City Engineer
1. Status report on Chanhassen's request to connect to the Eden Page 3372
Prairie Duck Lake-1 Trunk Sewer.
2. Resolutions for cooperative agreements with the State of
Minnesota covering roadway construction, signalization and right-
of-way dedication for T.H. 169 improvements, I.C. 51-266.
a. Resolution No. 1213, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Page 3373
execute coc;erative construction agreement No. 58346 with the
State of Minnesota for roadway construction on TH 169 from
1-494 to 1/4 mile south of Schooner Blvd. (Ring Road).
b. Resolution re. 1214, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager Page 3400
to execute coouerative avreement No. 57926 with the State
of Minnesota for a traffic signal installation on T.H. 169
at the northerly Eden Prairie Center entrance.
c. Resolution Po. 1215, dedicating easements and right-of-way - Page 3405
acquired by the City tor 1. H. 169 improvements, I.C. 51-266
for street and highway purposes.
F. Report of Finance Director
1. Payment of Claims Nos. 2937 - 3087.
2. Clerk's License List.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT.
Page 3406
Page 3409
Page 3331
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
(
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1976
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT:
INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
7:30 PM, CITY HALL
Mayor Wolfgang Penzel
Billy Bye
Joan Meyers
Tim Pierce
Sidney Pauly
City Manager Roger Ulstad
City Attorney Harlan Perbix
City Engineer Carl Jullie
Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary
Chief Building Inspector Wayne Sanders
ROLL CALL: All members present.
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 clarification of Dutch Elm Disease Implementation
Policies.
B. Appointment of a Youth Member to the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission.
C. Appointments to the governing body for the Cultural Center.
D. November and December issues of HAPPENINGS newsletter.
E. Communication dated October 21, 1976 from Mr. Cedric Warren and
Mr. Vernon Beck.
F. Request from The Preserve for the Council to set a Public Hearing
for Poolside Apartments.
•
NOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the agenda as amended
and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting held Tuesday. September 28, 1976.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the minutes of the
Council meeting dated September 28, 1976 as published. Motion carried
unanimously.
Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,October 26, 1976
B. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting held Tuesday, October 5, 1976.
Pg. 2, 4th para., strike "be recognized in opposition" and insert in lieu
thereof "speak".
Pg. 3, 4th para., 2nd line, strike "water being pumped up to the sewage", and
Insert in lieu thereof "sewage being pumped up into the lateral sewer
main via a lift station"; para. 7th para., 2nd line, strike "Ponds"
and insert "Oaks".
Pg. 5, 3rd para., 1st line, strike "State Law" and insert "Ordinance".
Pg. 6, 2nd para., 2nd line, strike "constitutes" and insert "requires".
Pg. 8, 1st para., 5th line, strike "the project" and insert "certain parts
of the project by the City"; 5th para., 2nd line, after "Two",
Insert ", and direct staff to resolve the street name, eliminating the mid-
block change and the house numbering system."; and in the 6th para.,
4th line, strike "Roy" and insert "Ray".
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the minutes of the Council
meeting held October 5, 1976 as amended and published. Motion carried
unanimously.
III. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Fetz Construction to set a Public Hearing for rezoning their
property at 8855 Flying Cloud Drive.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to communication from Fetz Construction, Inc.
dated October 4, 1976, requesting a Public Hearing be set for their
rezoning request.
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Bye, to set November 23, 1976 as the
Public Hearing date for the rezoning request for Fetz Construction, Inc.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Request from John Suback to set a Public Hearing for consideration of his
liquor license.
City Manager Ulstad explained that Mr. Suback's application is completed
and on file. Further that the Public Safety Department has reviewed the
application and has submitted a report to the Council for review.
Council members requested additional, information be provided on the
backgrounds of the two applicants prior to the setting of this Public
Hearing.
Councilwoman Meyers stated she would like to see the entire file.
NOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to continue the request of
John Suback for consideration of his liquor license to the November 2nd
Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 346, establishing a governing body for the
Cultural Center.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the 2nd reading of
Ordinance No. 346, establishing a governing body for the Cultural Center.
Motion carried unanimously.
32-13
Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,October 26, 1976
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 346, establishing a governing body for the
Cultural Center. (Continued)
Mayor Penzel recommended the following members to serve on the Historical
and Cultural Commission: Helen Anderson, Councilwoman Sidney Pauly, and.
Allene Hookom through the end of 1976, Lynn Flavin and Jan Sultzman through
the end of 1977, and Carol Hone and Albert Picha through the end of 1978.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to confirm the appointments
recommended by Mayor Penzel. Motion carried unanimously.
General discussion took place on how appointments are made to various boards
and commissions. Bye expressed his opinion that the general method of open
selection of oommission members is something less than open. He was very
concerned that commission members become verified very quickly without any
real open questions.
Penzel explained that in the past we have solicited residents to volunteer
If they were interested in serving on any particular board or commission.
It was the consensus of the Council to interview persons interested in
becoming a member of a board or commission.
Mayor Penzel requested that staff provide the Council with a list of all boards
and commissions along with the date their terms expire,and that the candidates
winning election as Councilpersons and Mayor take part in the interviews.
Further that publicity appear in the HAPPENINGS newsletter soliciting interested
persons to submit their name as to what board or commission they are interested
In serving on.
V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council members.
No reports.
B. Report of City Manager
I. Request to employ auditor for 1976 audit.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to memo from Finance Director Frane dated 10/19/76
recommending retaining George M. Hansen Company as the auditing
firm to conduct the 1976 audit for the City of Eden Prairie.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to retain the George
M. Hansen Company to conduct the 1976 audit for the City of
Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously.
" 2. Discussion of November 2nd Council meeting.
City Manager Ulstad questioned if the Council would gtill like to
hold their Council meeting on November 2nd as this is the same date
as the General Election is to be held.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to hold the regularly
scheduled Council meeting on November 2nd. Meyers, Pierce, Pauly
and Penzel voted "aye", Bye voted "nay". Motion carried.
6211/
Council Minutes - 4 - Tues.,October 26, 1976
3. Review of 5-year capital improvement program for Eden Prairie Fire
Department.
City Manager Ulstad explained that the Eden Prairie Fire Department,
through Public Safety Director Hacking, did submit a 5-year capital
improvement program for upgrading the operation of the Fire Department.
Mr. Ulstad stated that he had met with the Fire Department relative to
their capital improvement program and they had expressed their
desire to appear before the Council to discuss the details.
Public Safety Director Hacking noted that the Fire Department has
strong concerns about the Fire Department being able to continue the
good service they have been able to provide the City.
Fire Chief Ray Mitchell, along with Assistant Fire Chief Gene Jacobson,
appeared before the Council and Chief Mitchell distributed and outlined
the material for improved fire protection in the City of Eden Prairie.
After answering questions of Council members, Chief Mitchell asked for
some direction from the Council.
Meyers suggested that the Fire Department prepare a news release for Council
approval to go out into the papers and possibly a city-wide mailing with
the HAPPENINGS newsletter as to what the Fire Department is requesting
and why.
Chief Mitchell felt approval of what the Fire Department is requesting
should be left up to the voters in the form of a bond referendum. Bye
stated he would like to get the Fire Department's proposal to the voters
as quickly as possible.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to solicit from the Public Safety
Department a final proposal along with figures from our Finance Director
as to methods of financing, costs,and all other pertinent data, plus
other staff input, submitting same to the Council for their consideration.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chief Mitchell requested permission to show slides of WAFTA. Due to the
time and length of the agenda, Council members asked that these slides
be shown at another time.
4, Request to advertise for bids for 4 intermediate size police vehicles.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to the request from the Public Safety Department
for the Council to authorize advertisement for bids for 4 intermediate size
police vehicles.
MOTION: Pauly Moved, seconded by Bye, to authorize the Public
Safety Department to advertise for bids for 4 intermediate size police
to be received November 8, and awarded November 9. Motion carried
unanimously.
=Da
Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.,October 26, 1976
5. Hennepin County Emergency Communications Agreement
City Manager Ulstad spoke to memo from Lt. Keith Wall dated October
20, 1976 with the recommended changes to Resolution No. 1141.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to amend Resolution No.
1141, the Hennepin County Emergency Communications Agreement,
naming Hennepin County as the participant and the Sheriff as a designated
director. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Report of City Attorney
1. Appeal from Roger Sandvick regarding action taken by Board of Appeals
& Adjustments
City Manager Ulstad spoke to the communication from City Attorney Perbix
dated October 22 pertaining to the definition of a block.
Mr. Sandvick stated his appreciation for the legal opinion and recommended
that this opinion become a permanent part of Ordinance No. 135. He
explained that his understanding is that the remaining 3 lots will require
a setback to the already existing homes, taking the average of those
setbacks. City Attorney Perbix agreed with this interpretation. •
•
Mr. Sandvick further emphasized the reason for the problem is that the
land drops off significantly and is really not conducive to a normal
building site. He requested that requirements be spelled out when another
person wants to build a home on one of these lots.
William Ekoff,builder and owner, explained that the remaining lots do
drop off rather rapidly and with all the trees, there is no way that these
lots can be filled to make them buildable.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, that the records show the action
of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments as to Lot 1, Block 3, Kings Forest' •
Addition to Stevens Heights, stands as null and void as the City Attorney's
opinion stated that no variance is needed, and authorize the Building
Inspector to grant a building permit to Ken Nelson. Motion carried
unanimously.
Penzel requested that a copy of the City Attorney's legal opinion be forwarded
to the Board of Appeals & Adjustments as an addendum to their records.
D. Report of Planning Director
1. Presentation on Convenant Living Centers
Planner Dick Putnam gave a slide presentation on the Convenant Living
Centers and answered questions of Council members.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to direct the staff to draft
a resolution for consideration at the Council meeting to be held
November 2nd in support of the concept of Convenant Living Centers.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to continue the Council meeting past
11:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
3 2,1 6,
Council Minutes - 6 - Tues.,October 26, 1976
E. Report of Director of Community Services
City Manager Ulstad explained that Mr. Jessen has negotiated a price for the
Leo Lund property somewhere between $10,500 - $11,000, opposed to the $18,000
originally proposed based on the appraisal.
Meyers requested that a total figure be secured based on the assessments
outstanding, 1976 taxes, and number of years property is delinquent.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to negotiate with Leo Lund to purchase
his property at a price not to exceed $11,000. Motion carried unanimously.
F. Report of City Engineer
1. City of Chanhassen request to connect to the Eden Prairie Duck Lake-1
Trunk Sewer
City Manager Ulstad spoke to communication from Russell H. Larson,
Chanhassen City Attorney, dated October 19, 1976, requesting time to appear
before the Council regarding permission for Chanhassen to connect to the
Eden Prairie Duck Lake-1 Trunk Sewer.
Russell Larson, Attorney for Chanhassen, and Al Klingelhutz, Mayor of
Chanhassen, appeared before the Council and answered questions. Mayor
Klingelhutz requested that a definite figure not be set for Chanhassen
to connect to the Eden Prairie Duck Lake-1 Trunk Sewer, but that the
.Eden Prairie City Council set a minimum figure for Chanhassen to negotiate
and come up with a reasonable figure.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, that the City Council reaffirm their
action of October 12 regarding the Chanhassen Trunk Sewer Connection
to the Eden Prairie Duck Lake-1 Trunk Sewer, and direct the .staff of Eden
Prairie and Chanhassen to meet and negotiate an acceptable figure to be
considered by the Eden Prairie City Council as soon as possible. Motion
carried unanimously.
2. Receive feasibility report for utility and street improvements in
Forest Knolls 2nd Addition, I.C. 51-294. (Resolution No. 1192)
City Engineer Jullie spoke to Resolution No. 1192 and petition received
from Don Peterson and Wilbur Gjersvik.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to adopt Resolution No. 1192,
receiving the feasibility report on Project I.C. 51-294, ordering the
improvements and preparation of plans and specifications subject to
receipt of a 100% petition by the property owners and their wives,
waiving their public hearing rights. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Right-of-entry agreement with The Preserve for construction of Preserve
Boulevard, I.C. 51-282.
City Engineer Jullie recommend approval of the right-of-entry agreement .
in lieu of the actual right-of-way documents.
32.11
Council Minutes - 7 - Tues.,October 26, 1976
3. Right-of-entry agreement with The Preserve for construction of Preserve
Boulevard, I.C. 51-282. (Continued)
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the right-of-entry
agreement deleting items 6 and 7, and authorize Mayor and City Manager to
sign same. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Accept sanitary sewer and watermain in the Edenvale 11th Addition for
City ownership and maintenance.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to accept sanitary sewer and watermain
in the Edenvale 11th Addition for City ownership and maintenance.
5. Receive petition and set public hearing date of 12/7/76 for vacation of
drainage and utility easement over Lot 17, Block 1, Duck Lake Estates.
City Engineer Jullie recommended approval of Resolution No. 1208A,
ordering hearing for vacation of utility easement on Lot 17, Block 1,
Duck Lake Estates.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to adopt Resolution No. 1208A,
ordering hearing for vacation of utility easement on Lot 17, Block 1,
Duck Lake Estates. Motion carried unanimously.
•
Meyers requested the staff investigate if the land division is officially
recorded and send this information to the Council in the "For Your
Information" packet.
6. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 348, changing the street name in the
Westgate (east) Addition.
City Engineer Jullie recommended approval of the 1st Reading of
Ordinance No. 348.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 348, changing the street names in the easterly portion
of the Westgate Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
G. Report of Finance Director
I. Payment of Claims Nos. 2730 - 2837
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve Payment of
Claims Nos. 2730 - 2837 with the exception of 2757. Bye, Pierce,
Pauly, Meyers and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried.
2. Clerk's License List
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the Clerk's
License List dated October 26, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
32111
Council Minutes - 8 - Tues.,October 26, 1976
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of clarification of Dutch Elm Disease Implementation
Policies.
Meyers explained that since notices and news items have appeared in the
papers, she has encountered some resentment from people. She requested
that some firm policies be drafted and brought back to the Council for
consideration by the November 9th Council meeting. City Manager Ulstad
stated that Director of Community Services Jessen is in the process
of drafting these policies and will have them back to the Council as soon
as he has completed same.
B. Appointment of a Youth Member to the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission
Continued until the November 2nd Council meeting.
C. Appointments to the governing body for the Cultural Center.
This item was taken care of under Item IV. A.
D. November and December issues of HAPPENINGS newsletter.
The following items were requested to be added to the ibvember and
December issues of the HAPPENINGS newsletter: I) Asking for
volunteers to submit their names if they wish to serve on
Boards or Commissions which have vacancies; and 2) Include the
outcome of the election as to the State Legislators in our District
and also County Commissioner, along with local elections.
E. Communication dated October 21, 1976 from Mr. Cedric Warren and Mr.
Vernon Beck
Mr. Cedric Warren, 7324 Franklin Cricle, and Mr. Vernon J. Seck,
16519 Baywood Lane, appeared before the Council and expressed their
desire to own and operate an Off-Sale Liquor Store in the Prairie
Village Mall.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to refer this matter to the City
Attorney and Director of Community Services Jessen for a report as to
whether it would be feasible to have an off-sale liquor store in the
community. Motion carried unanimously.
F. Request from The Preserve for the Council to set a Public Hearing for
Poolside Apartments.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Penzel, to set November 23 as the
Public Hearing date for Poolside Apartments. Motion carried unanimously.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 PM.
Motion carried unanimously.
32,19
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1976
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT:
7:30 PM, CITY HALL
Mayor Wolfgang Penzel
Billy Bye
Joan Meyers
Tim Pierce
Sidney Pauly
City Manager Roger Ulstad
City Attorney Harlan Perbix
Recording Secretary Joyce Provo
Director of Community Services Marty Jessen
INVOCATION: Councilman Tim Pierce
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Bye, Meyers, Pierce and Penzel'present; Pauly absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were requested to be added to the agenda:
Under IV. A. add Invitation for municipal officials.
Under V. add Discussion of letter from County Administrator Stanley
Cowle regarding the Lower Minnesota River Wildlife and Recreation Area,
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the agenda as amended
and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Request for Public Hearing for liquor license for John Suback.
(Continued from October 26, 1976 Council meeting)
City Manager Ulstad requested this item be continued to the November 9th
Council meeting as the report the Council requested is not completed.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to continue the request. for
a Public Hearing for the liquor license for John Suback to the
November 9th Council,meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
III. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 1207, supporting the concept of Convenant Living Centers.
General discussion took place among Council members and amendments
to Revolution No. 1207 were requested to be incorporated into the resolution.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to adopt Resolution No. 1207
as amended, supporting the concept of the Life Care Retirement Living
Center proposed by Convenant Living Center Minnesota Incorporated.
Motion carried unanimously. (Resolution No. 1207 as amended attached
as part of the minutes)
Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,November 2, 1976
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 348, changing the street name in the
West ate east) Addition.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No 348, changing the street name in the Westgate (east)
Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council members.
1. Report of Councilman Pierce
Pierce explained that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission has questioned why we are going outside the levy limits
for dutch elm disease control when the State will do something anyway.
The Commission feels this might be a dual tax. He further requested
the staff draft a memo explaining to the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission the action of the Council.
Director of Community Services Jessen explained that the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission did receive a copy of the Task
Force Report and were advised the Council was going to take action on this
program. If the Commission wanted to provide some input, that was the
time. At that time they received and filed the report.
Penzel requested staff prepare a "For Your InforMation" item outlining
the various considerations the Council took which lead to the Council
decision, and if the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
wishes to meet with the Council they can so request.
2. Report of Mayor Penzel
Penzel spoke to the communication received from Robert W. Martin,
Hennepin County Assessor, dated November 1, 1976, inviting the City
Council to attend the Annual County Seat Instructional Meeting to
be held November 10, 1976, 9:30 AM, Hennepin County Government Center.
B. Report of City Manager
I. Summary of Municipal Liquor Report
City Manager Ulstad spoke to memo from Director of Community Services
Jessen dated October 29, 1976 which the Council requested at their
meeting held October 26, 1976. He explained that in September
the Council was informed by staff it was not the time for our City
to consider going into municipal liquor, and that if conditions in the
City change it could be reconsidered in six months time.
Meyers asked when the recommendation might change. Ulstad replied when
the City has sufficient funds without borrowing o which is difficult for the
City to anticipate.
3n 1
Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,November 2, 1976
I. Summary of Municipal Liquor Report (continued)
Meyers questioned what we would need. Ulstad replied we should have
$100,000, and that Mr. Jessen has suggested a minimum of $80,000 - $85,000.
In addition we need some operating capital.
Meyers further asked if there should be some surplus by the end of the
1977 budget, cculd the City consider going into an operation in 1978.
Ulstad replied in the affirmative.
Meyers directed a question to Mr. Perbix if the City reaches 10,000 in
population and we have not gone into municipal off-sale liquor, do we still
have to have an election? Perbix answered in the affirmative.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to accept and file the reports
from Director of Community Services Jessen dated May 28, September 24, and
October 29, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Legal opinion from City Attorney on authorization to issue private
off-sale liquor license.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to accept and file the legal
opinion from City Attorney Perbix dated October 28, 1976 on Municipal
Off-Sale Liquor Licenses.
C. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Raze Property - Consideration of purchase. (12,99 total acreage)
Director of Community Services Jessen spoke to the Raze property and
stated he has been in contact with the realtor. The property owner is
asking for approximately $150,000 for 5 acres and the house. We have
indicated the City might consider somewhere in the range of $130,000 -
$140,000 for the house, including the entire 12.99 acres. Jgssen questioned
if the Council wishes to proceed with an investigation to complete the
acquisition at Staring Lake?
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to send this item to the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission for their review and recommendation,
and especially their consideration of options in lieu of purchasing, le.,
a scenic easement' for corridor purposes. Further direct Mr. Jessen to
let property owner know that we have sent this item to the Parks, Recreation
& Natural Resources Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Nine-Mile Creek Improvement
Director of Community Services Jessen explained that Howard Kaerwerlms
contacted him about deeding 1.3 acres of his land to the City and at the
same time would like to make a contribution of $1,000 to begin development
of a wildlife habitat. Mr. Jessen further stated that he has brought this
to the attention of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and they may
apply matching funds.
370.
Council Minutes - 4 - Tues.,November 2, 1976
2. Nine-Mile Creek Improvement. (continued)
Pierce noted that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
has recommended approval of this proposal.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the recommendation
of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission regarding the
acceptance of land from Howard Kaerwer along with their $1,000
contribution, add the conceptual development plan of a wildlife habitat.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. Report of City Engineer
1. Consideration of bids for traffic control and regulatory control
signs.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to memo from City Engineer Jullie dated
November 1, 1976 regarding bids for traffic signs, noting that we have
received one bid by the allotted time and that the bid is below the
estimate. Recommended Council award the bid to Eal..1 F. Anderson & Associates, Inc.
of Minneapolis.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to accept the bid of Earl F.
Anderson & Associates, Inc. of Minneapolis in the amount of $18,310.87 for
street sign project I.C. 51-296, and authorize the Mayor and City Manager
to sign the contract documents. Motion carried unanimously.
E. Report of Finance Director
1. Clerk's License List
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the Clerk's License
List dated November 2, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of letter from County Administrator Stanley Cowle regarding
the Lower Minnesota River Wildlife and Recreation Area.
Meyers expressed her concern with the paragraph on the 2nd page of memo
to Commissioner Thomas Ticen whereby Mr. Cowie states "there does not
appear to be any urgent need for the County Board to pass a resolution
at this time." She felt the Council should press for the County Board
to pass a resolution now.
Bye explained that we should wait until after January as the make-up of the County
Board will be significantly changed.
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to urge the City Manager to
contact County Administrator Stanley Cowle to let him know we will be
back in January to give him our reaction to his letter and that we intend
to follow through at that time. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Penzel reminded Council members that the Guide Plan meetings have been changed
to Tuesday, November 16, and Thursday, November 18.
3X63
Council Minutes 5 Tues.,November 2, 1976
C. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, Pierce and Penni, to send
a floral arrangement in expression of the Council's sympathy in memory
of Anna Mae Redpath. Motion carried unanimously.
•
D. City Manager Ulstad explained that a cheese shop is opening in the Prairie
Village Mall and the license for one year is $200.00. He suggested
this particular license be pro-rated for one month. Council agreed to
this request.
E. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to set the Canvassing Board
meeting for 7:00 PM, Thursday, November 4th, at the City Hall. Motion
carried unanimously.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Bye, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. Motion
carried unanimously.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION I 1207
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CONCEPT OF THE
LIFE CARE RETIREMENT LIVING CENTER PROPOSED
BY COVENANT LIVING CENTER MINNESOTA INCOR-
PORATED
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie is familiar with the concept of
life care retirement living sponsored by the Covenant Living Centers-
Minnesota Incorporated, a non-profit Minnesota corporation, and
WHEREAS, said city is aware the site selected for said housing
and health care project is located within Eden Prairie's Major Center
Area ( MCA), a regional diversified center, and
WHEREAS, said regional diversified center ( MCA ), has been reviewed
and approved by the Metropolitan Council to be consistent with the Metro-
politan Development Framework Chapter and other chapters of the Metropolitan
Development Guide, and
WHEREAS, said city has planned for a wide range of services to be
provided within the Major Center Area including health care and specialty
housing which will complement the commercial, office and service land uses
existing and planned, and
WHEREAS, said city has planned for the specialty housing needs of
the community by adopting policies and ordinances encouraging housing for
low and moderate income families, elderly, handicapped, retarded and other
group housing needs, and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has implemented said housing plans
by approving low and moderate income housing developments of Briarhill and
Windslope and the Muriel Humphrey Residences for retarded individuals, and
WHEREAS, said city believes that a full range of housing opportunities
is important to the development of the city, and
WHEREAS, said city has viewed a presentation of the Covenant Living
Center health care concept which will cooperate with the Eden Prairie
Health Center and believes the elderly residents will receive high quality
health services, and
WHEREAS, representatives of Covenant Living Centers, Minnesota, Incor-
porated, have made presentations to many groups including : Eden Prairie
Planning & Zoning and Human Rights Commissions, South Hennepin Human Services
Council and the Eden Prairie Ministerial Association, and
3xes
Resolution it 1207
page 2
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Eden Prairie supports the concept of the Covenant Living Centers, Minnesota,
Incorporated, a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to develop a life
care retirement community located in the Eden Prairie Major Center Area
for the following reasons:
a. That the proposed area is an excellent location
for such a housing project due to the proximity
to high quality urban services such as:shopping,
entertainment, medical facilities, social services,
transit and other housing areas.
b. That the site's location across the street from
the Eden Prairie Health Center and the Eden Prairie
Shopping Center will provide access to those services.
c. That the proposed site is adjacent to a major open
space/ future recreation area of Purgatory Creek.
d. That the project will provide further diversity of
Eden Prairie's housing opportunities.
e. That the proposed retirement concept will be a
benefit to elderly residents and those residents
will contribute to the City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of
November , 1976.
SEAL
32%
1 341 1,848
839 1,061
500
783
1
1 2
1
1
977
549
2,877
1,832
1
3
1
1
1
1
1,528
42-717 -
533
717
618
1,868
169
257
183 609
741
1,102
743
2,586
707
868 749 2,324
270 417
499
1,186
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
November 4, 1976
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Penzel at 7:00 p.m.
Present were: Billy Bye, Joan Meyers, Sidney Pauly, Wolfgang Penzel
CANVASS OF CITY ELECTION RETURNS - November 2, 1976.
A motion was made by Billy Bye and seconded by Sidney Pauly to certify
the election returns as presented by the election judges.
Pct. I Pct. II Pct. III TOTAL
Registered Voters at 7:00 a.m.
Registered at the Polls
Registered Absentee
1,565
2,049
1,626
5,240
266
434
375
1,075
2 7 14
23
TOTAL
Voted Absentee
Voted at Polls
TOTAL
1,833 2,490
38 66
1409
1,939
1 447
2,015 6,338
5
1,628
159
4976
1,683 5,135
For Mayor:
On Ballot
Wolfgang H. (Wolf) Penzel
Paul R. Redpath
Write-ins
Betty MdMenemy
Dave Osterholt
David Flannery
Ray Mitchell
Rod Kesti
John F. Nelson
City Council: (two to be elected)
On Ballot
Fred G. Baumann
Leon J. Kruse
David W. Osterholt
Sidney Pauly
Elizabeth A. Retterath
Write-ins
Woligang H. Penzel
Paul Redpath
Ted Smith
Roger Boerger
Claire Kispert
.. .
2,421 3,364 2 793 , , 8,578
-
32r1
Atkil
an Gebhard
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
Engineer for the District
r _
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District
8950 COUNTY ROAD 4 4
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 5$343
October 6, 1976
Mr. Richard Putnam
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Re: Fetz Construction, Inc. Property
Dear Mr. Putnam
The engineering advisors to the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District
have reviewed the development proposal for Fetz Construction, Inc. as sub-
mitted to the Watershed District. A grading and land alteration permit must
be obtained from the District for this project. This permit should be obtained
after the development has been approved by the City Council, but before land
alteration can begin on the project. Plans detailing how erosion will be con-
trolled during project construction must accompany the permit application.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development. If you
have any questions about our commente, please contact us.
Sincerely,
AG/sb
cc: Mr. Frederick Richards
Mr. Conrad Fiskness
12BZ
Planning Commission Minutes
approved
Sept. 27, 1976
• B. Fetz Construction, request to rezone approximately .5 acres
from Rural to Office for use as an office and warehouse. The
site is located at 8855 Flying Cloud Drive (old Phoenix station).
The planner referred the commission to the plans submitted by Fetz •
letter of opposition from Mr. Peterson, Edenvale Incorporated.
• approved
Planning Commission Minutes
Sept. 27, 1976
Tony Christenson , Tett Const., stated they are requesting rezoning
to use the existing building ( some remodeling ), for a construction/
corporate office with outside storage of vehicles and materials at
the rear of the site.
Bearman inquired what would be stored outside. Mr. Christenson
replied scaffolding and trucks.
Lynch asked how high the proposed fence around the site would be.
Christenson replied six feet.
The planner stated many requests are received on this site and
all inquirers are made aware of the Guide Plan amendment(U.S. 169 .
Mini-Sector Study), for this site and the Zoning Ordinance require-
ments. He said the staff finds this request inconsistent with
City plans, the Guide'Plan and surrounding'uses.
Motion:
Lynch moved, Sundstrom seconded, to recommend denial of the Petz -
Construction Company request to rezone from Rural to Office the
hacre site East of U.S. 169, (old Phoenix station site), as it is
inconsistent with the U.S. 169 Mini-Sector Study and Ordinance 135.
The motion carried 4:0:1 with Bearman abs.taining.
3w1c,
Edeic L a04404ft eita&iff-
7770 ,511Aciiel1 Road • am gtaitie, .5i1inresota 55343 • 6(2/941-5300
September 27, 1976
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is written to you regarding the request by Vets Construction
Company to rezone a 1/2 acre parcel on TH0169 from rural to office zone.
The proposed use of the property as a construction office and warehouse
with outside storage of construction materials in my opinion does not
conform to the requested office zoning and more logically should be in a
n
industrial zoned area. We as owners of the surrounding property must be
concerned with the future effect on adjacent property of such a proposed
u
s
e
.
In my opinion this use will expose the entire backside of this property
t
o
an unattractive outside storage area and will negatively effect the use
o
f
the property.
The potential problems in traffic flow to and from the site when the
traffic divider is installed on TH0169 should be planned for. We feel
that a right in right out only traffic flow for this site might be inade
q
u
a
t
e
.
If so, this site will need further access which can be obtained only fr
o
m
our adjacent property.
Anticipating these problems, we previously contacted the former owners
a
n
d
offered to jointly•plan a use of the property which would provide the
necessary traffic flow and would not negatively affect the adjacent land.
We are still willing to negotiate a land trade or some other settlement
to the benefit of all owners in the area; however, we must oepose this
proposed use as presented.
Yours truly,
ED LAND CO/Afr.Ppys
01W/sr
i(Atli At
3.19
approved
.inning Commission Minute -3- Oct. 25, 1976
C. Poolside Apartments, 84 unit apartment and double bungalow lots locat
e
d
south of Anderson Lakes. Parkway and northwest of Neill Lake Road in The
Preserve. Request for PUD Development Stage, rezoning to RN 2.5 and RN 6.5
and preliminary plat approval.
Doug Moe, architect, presented a site model to demonstrate the changes
m
a
d
e
t
o
the building location and site plan. Discussion followed between mmube
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
commission and Mr..Moe concerning specific elements of the project , suc
h
a
s
:
parking, access, landscaping , buffer treatment and the visible impact o
f
t
h
e
3 story structure.
The planner presented the staff report analysing the project. Discussi
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
the commission , audience and proponent followed regarding the staff rep
o
r
t
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
-
dations.
( on Bergen, 8705 Bentwood Drive, questioned how the project could be c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
since it was denied less than a year ago. The planner explained this pro
j
e
c
t
may have a similar building to the previous Neill lake Apartments, but it
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
on a different site and hence is not the same project.
Motion 1:
Lynch moved, Schee seconded, to close the public hearing on the Poolside A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
project. The motion carried unanimously.
Motion 2:
Lynch moved, Sundstrom seconded, to recommend approval of the rezoning r
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
r
o
m
Rural to RM 2.5 based upon the modified plan as illustrated by the model
a
n
d
t
h
e
recommendations of the October 19, 1976 staff report adding #5:
S. Parking requirements modified to 2.25 spaces/unit.
Also recommend approval of the 1.6 acre rezoning to RN 6.5 as per the modified
site plan. And further recommend approval of the preliminary plat reque
s
t
:
T
h
e
motion carried unanimously.
3191
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
Planning Commission
Dick Putnam , Planning Director
October 19, 1976
Poolsidc Apartments
The Preserve
Zoning from Rural to RM 2.5 for 6.39 acres, and RM 6.5
for 1.6 acres.
South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, .east of Preserve Pool
A. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
1. Ownership
Today the property is optioned to Mr. A. Bernardi with the joint planning
and initial development by The Preserve.
2. Developer
The developer of the project will be Mr. Bernardi with The Preserve providing
the initial development services along with the architect Doug Moe. The
intent is to use Land Tech Incorporated as a manager of the project.
The developers involved all have a great deal of experience in large scale
development projects.
3. Fiscal Economic
The financing of the project will be through the use of the HUD 221 04 Multiple
Family Financing Program. The program may be compared with normal FBA Heme.
Loans in that it provides security for the mortgage.
4. Development Method
The apartment project of 84 units would be owned by Mr. Bernardi and the units
constructed with FHA financing . The project would then be managed by
Land Tech for the owner as a rental apartment project. Conversion to condo-
miniums could occur at a later date and would not be prohibited by the
financing method.
The 1.6 ± acres along Neill Lake Road developed as double bungalow units
would be owned by The Preserve and sold to a multiple family builder to
construct the three double home units.
Both projects would be members of The Preserve Homeowner's Association and
as such would be subject to their rules4 assessments.
The following sketch taken from The Preserve application brochure represents
the location of the site and its relationship to The Preserve Center and
adjacent housing projects.
-
p -
A (‘
•
.•".'"- 71— n-!"
J /1
' tas;:'.=,...• , ,
. iii,ot • c,....„.\ --...,
. ,-....7A r, L r'''!,-...1 .;.'.... \ .. •. .1 n ...4 4.4;4•,..\-
,i . ‘.... • , .... 4.i-
• • f"..v.••n • Is • <4.;'-',1=,:o...
\ .
n \'• i 1
1
i
•••+:-:•-•;7-/. ,;p 9.3 .c.0% CC.. 1 .
• k n N
"4".4.m,,,A%oftri!,
v,
"•:.'
":")
Staff Report-Poolside Apt. -2- Oct. 19, 1976
S. Development Timing
The proposal would anticipate construction in the Spring of 1977 with unit
occupancy beginning in late 1977. • • Timing for the double bungalow lots
is somewhat undefined • but may occur during 1977 as well.
6. Critical Public Decisions
Since the site is well served by roads and utilities ,,the major public
decisions necessary to begin construction would be the rezoning of the
property and platting to define the double bungalow lots from the apartment
site.
The Preserve Environmental Impact Statement was approved by HUD and was
just approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. Therefore,
the way has been cleared for processing of projects in The Preserve with
full environmental review completed.
B. PLAN AREA MENTICATION :
1. Location
Staff Report-Poolside Apts. -3- Oct. 19, 1976
2. Regional Realtionships
The need for multitple family hosuing in The Preserve is briefly discussed
in the October 19, 1976 memo , ' The Preserve Housing Concept ' ,
where multiple family housing for a variety of incomes, was envisioned in
The Preserve from the onset. Today, no rental units are built and The Preserve
is requesting approval of the Poolside 84 unit project to fulfill this
commitment to a variety of housing types and income levels responding
to market demand within Eden Prairie.
Recent employment increases in the Major Center-Area with Minnesota Protective
Life, Gelco and the future Pillsbury project, demonstrate the present . .
and future need for multiple family housing in this segment of the community.
3. Existing Land Use & Transportation Systems
As illustrated on the site plan for The Poolside Apartments, transportation
to the site for the apartment units would be strictly from Anderson Lakes
Parkway with two entrances to the project. Access to the double bungalow
units would be from Neill Lake Road. The project is well served with
links to the Preserve pathway system and the Activity Center. •
The existing land is vacant with multiple family land uses shown for the
site on the original Preserve Development Concept. The plan for stage
one around The Preserve Activity Center called for a range from 8-18
units/acre on this site because of the close relationship.with the
Center.
The following two graphics represent the original Preserve Stage One Land
Use and the Preserve Center Facilities illustrating this site as housing
in close relationship to the Preserve.Center.
---•-:-- •-• : ." ---- —*•.-7.--?j •-•:;= . ....,::=--
.. • , ,..,•-•.A.,--6,--,6 -,•-;:•\.• ----;i:N/,..':.1.s.:,--srs-\ ,N,„, %/, ,,, ,,/ , . ----Jr•---=-::::::-.. ./ tt,,,! ...,
II: g „..! ..;- \ • .,\
„ r.., ‘ e.....,-2...i n +, 1
..i v. I 6 . 0,,,,: , 4 n-,i;N - !
.' n , \\•••.__ _.../., CO .--.
---- •.-. I
M
• W
i: is.“
N
...
Staff Report-Poolside Apat. -4- Oct. 19, 1976
Revisionsto the Preserve Conept Plan have maintained this site as a multiple
family apartment site through the evolution of The Preserve Center and
school / park location to the north.
C. PLAN PROJECT AREA ANALYSIS
1. Environmental Analysis
The major feature of the Poolside site is the large hill rangirg from
887 feet sloping toward the pool at approximately the 850' elevation.
The site has no trees existing and has been used as a farm fielo in
the past. Soils for development are excellent with no drainage or
ground water problem. The property has been vacant for a number of years
with no use.
The staff's review of the site concludes that no significant features nor
wildlife habitat would be destroyed through development of the site to.urban
uses. In fact, if significant trees and other vegetation are incorporated
into the plan, the site may provide a more diverse visual and wildlife
area than currently exists.
D. PLAN PROPOSAL
1. Development Objectives •
The objectives as stated in letters from Mr. Hess of The Preserve for pro-
viding a broad range of rental housing opportunities available to high ,
medium and low income families is the over-riding objective for this project.
The 1)4 Program, as Mr. Hess pointed out, strives to provide housing for the
middle income families ranging from $10,000-20,000 / year. This project
in conjunction with other multiple family developments , such as the
proposed East/West Parkijay Apartments, the Windslope apartments and the
Basswood Apartments , would provide the full spectrum of rental housing
opportunities from low income through luxury apartments.
A second objective of this site proposal is to consolidate the higher density
multiple family projects around The Preserve Activity Center. The Center
includes high quality recreational facilities with future neighbor-
hood commercial services. Location of these multiple
family sites in close proximity to these amenities makes a great deal of
sense and is consistent with The Preserve and City plans.
A third objective is to respect the site's character and Utilize a building
style that would enhance the site
•
Staff Report-Poolside Apt. -S- Oct. 19, 1976
2. Site Plan Analysis
a. Grading
. .
The plan would utilize the natural drop to the west of the site for con-
struction of the building allowing entrance to the underground garage
from either end.
The top of the bill would be cut down to provide for parking so as to
buffer that from the double bungalow lots and view from Anderson Lakes
Parkway.
b. Utilities and Drainage
Utilities would be readily available to the site without any further,exten-
slops.
Drainage from the parking areas & the building would be handled through
existing storm water systems with the landscaped court and planted berm
areas draining to existing roadways or drainage swale existing today.
c. Circulation
Access to the guest and outside parking would be from an entrance opposite
Basswood Drive . . The west garage parking entrance would be from the
existing entrance to The Preserve Offices , approximately SOO feet west of
Basswood's intersection.
Fire access around the building should be satisfactory to the City Fire
Marshall allowing emergency vehicle access at reasonable locations.
d. Landscaping
A detailed landscape plan should be provided to the staff for review including
significant shrub and tree plantings within the berm and landscape court areas
& canopy trees and shrub plantings adjacent to the parking area.'
e. Amenities
The totlot location would serve the medium density housingwell , but would
have little relation with the apartment complex. Relocation of the
totlot near the landscaped court and trailways may be appropriate.
The landscaped court area would provide quite a broad space for passive
or informal recreation :witivities for the residents. At this time no
definite plans arc available on the court treatment.
The location of the Poolside Apartments , adjacent to The Preserve Center,
with its wide aray of amenities would provide the high quality services desir-
able in apartment living. Pool aide and other multiple family
projects, will increase the use and ability to financially support
those amenities.
Figure 3
V-7.7.75
Staff Report-Poolside Apartments -6 - Oct. 19, 1976
3. Architectural Design Review
a. Building Relationship .to Site
•
The location of the building providing a interior court focusing on The
Preserve Pool area ideally fits the sloping site with
orientation towards the amenities. The units toward Anderson Lakes
Parkway and parking areas are setback and well buffered
from the parking and road No units are within 300 feet of any
other existing or proposed development when measured from the major
orientations of the units. This does not include the distance from
the end of the south building to the existing Ridgewood Condominiums
which is approximately 75 feet from building end to building end.
However, no major orientation of the units are on the building end.
b. Alternate Building Design
The design of the units with underground parking and three story elevator,
double-loaded corridor units dictate, to a great degree, the structural
size and mass of the proposed building. The proposed plan breaks the two
buildings with a 9 foot grade change at the central entrance area thereby
dividing the building into two separate wings. Underground parking reduces
site coverage for parking, drives and garages, however, it does increase
the height of the structure when viewed from the end.
The building as proposed would be of masonry veneer over a wood frame with
masonry screening walls for the balconies. If the building were to have a
different roof line, as illustrated in Figure 3 , of a contemporary shed
roof, or a pitched roof, the elevation of the building would be increased
up to20 feet. The option of a flat roof building with screening for
mechanical equipment and elevator towers would keep the lowest profile
of any of the architectural styles.
An added feature is the balcony andnmsonrywalls which provide depth to
the normal flat sided building. The view from the units on the south end
of the southern building might be improved by reorienting the balcony walls
to refocus the views onto the court and pool area rather than the Ridgewood
Condominiums.
The double loaded corridor design with elevator service provides a high
quality rental apartment unit which minimizes the building and parking
coverage of the site . The use of brick veneer will add to this high
quality appearance when combined with the balcony screen walls proposed.
Staff Report-Poolside Apt. -7- Oct. 19, 1976
4. Buildin_Ofass
The building proposed , ( a 'v' shape), would have wings of between 230-*
2S0 feet long joined by a lobby area. The structures would be three
stories on top of the underground garages and would be under 40 feet in
height. The building design and site layout will minimize the amount of
building seen from any direction. If the building were in one straight
line , 500-600 feet along Anderson Lakes Parkway its impact would
be far greater than the current proposed plan. When viewed from the
Preserve Pool area , the Anderson Lakes Parkway and the
double bungalow lots the building will present only one facade with at
most . 300 feet visible. In the staff's opinion this does not seem to
be unreasonable and accommodates the building mass concern.
An important consideration is the intent of the original Preserve Plan
which proposed locating structures with major physical size around The
Preserve Activity Center and school/park site. For example, the elementary
school, church, commercial center, Preserve recreation building and apartment
units of Basswoods, Windslope, East/West and Poolside sites all occur
adjacent to open spaces and / or the Preserve Center. This was the :
concept The Preserve was approved under and seems to be.reasonable. The
other approach would be to disperse major structures such as apartments
schools, churches, etc., throughout The Preserve mixing them in the
single family and townhouse areas . The Preserve did not begin with that
concept nor does it wish to follow such a
/h.4„44,--6 0,41N A
31 .2•2"." \'••• ;.13 ',I. 12 j i ff \ C
d r.erjt
I 66\
,.....,4„).1-2.—;;; •
' \ r
41, I"p4611Wr..11•. • 47 \
INTal;PIMITTE114
, .
•
a 7'3.1 C.:‘ ssf"-"Tis
?Inv P •es
r4 e
eden prairie cater
Staff Report-Poolside Apt. -g- Oct. 19, 1976
4. Housing Profile
Listed in the Voolside Brochure is a breakdown of the housing units and
their square footage. The units proposed , three-quarters of which are
1 and 2 bedroom units, are fairly large and provide a generous floor
area.
The rental rances from $250-450 / month would be for those with
incomes between $ 10,000-20,000 , or upper middle to high income levels.
The housing unit.; and rental market would be somewhat similar to the Shadow
Green and Chestnut apartments existing in the city which have very few •
vacancies .
5. Double Bungalow Lots
The double bungalow lots proposed would be a logical housing type at the
intersection of Neill Lake Road and East/West Parkway. The units backing onto the apartment area , and adjacent to the original
Ridgewood Condominiums , form a reasonable transitional use from single
family homes in the Highpoint area. It is expected that three , possibly
four, double bungalow lots would be available with frontage , depth and
setbacks consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance.
E. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The planninp, staff would recommend approval of the Poolside Apartment
project for 84 units as a suitable development stage application
implementing the objectives of The Preserve POD 70-03.
2. That the rezoning of the 6.39 acre site from Rural to RN 2.5 for
the construction of 84 units of the Poolside Apartment plan as
depicted in the 9-76 brochure be approved.
3. The planning staff recommends rezoning of 1.6 acres along Neill
Lake Road to 1114 6.5 for the construction of double bungalow homes
which meet the size and setback requirements specified in Ord. 135.
4. The planning staff would recommend, based on the engineer's report,
the preliminary plat dividing the site between the apartment and
double bungalow sites be approved.
DP :jj
•70,tyji
STAFF REPORT
TO: City Council and Advisory Commissions
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
DATE: October 18, 1976
SUBJECT: PRESERVE HOUSING CONCEPT
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document the concept plan, forces and changes
that have affected the development of The Preserve's housing plans.
The source of the data is from Eden Prairie City files for The Preserve,
PUD 70-03, full copies of all reference materials may be reviewed in the
Planning Department's files. The specific documents include:
a. Application Carter-Gertz Incorporated & Minneapolis
Gas Company for The Preserve PUD. Book 1 and graphic
Book 2.
b. Official city actions such as resolutions and meeting
minutes.
c. Correspondence included in the file.
d. Newspaper reports from Eden Prairie Sun and Minneapolis
Star and Tribune.
INTRODUCTION
During 1967-68 the City of Eden Prairie developed a comprehensive guide plan
which incorporated land use concepts which influenced The Preserve develop-
ment:
The Village divided into several 'communities' by
establishing ' activity center' around schools,
parks and coMmercial developments which are identi-
fiable focal points for community life and activity.
4. .Significant natural resources and amenities should be
preserved to the greatest extent possible through
both public and private means.
6. Every development public or private must be carefully
and skillfully designed. Interesting urban spaces
simply do not happen they are thoughtfully and deliber-
ately created.
"1,1 0 JJ'
Staff Report-Preserve !Raising Concept -2- Oct. 18, 1976
4. Planned Unit Developments, ( PUD ), procedures for
zoning and development should be encouraged as soon
as possible and applied generally throughout the
Village.
10. Zoning should not be grantbd far in advance of logical
development demand. Such a practice will inevitably
lead to a repeat of the extensive unzoning job that
now exists in Eden Prairie. "
The City, in its 1968 Guide Plan, stressed the importance of comprehensive :
land planning and the "new approach pud" which would have major impact upon
the character of Eden Prairie's development through the mid-1970s.
Those that have followed the progress of The Preserve for the last six
years would understand the changes which have happened concerning land use,
circulation systems and market demand for housing and commercial property.
The planned unit development was conceived as a flexible process and as the
Council stated in Resolution 4360A, approving The Preserve PUD:
It The Village Council has concluded that the concept plan
proposal as set forth in the application is generally
in accord with the purposes and provisions of the
Village's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Guide Plan;
AND WHEREAS, The Village Council is of the opinion that
the proposed concept plan can serve as a positive and
effective guideline in reviewing subsequent zoning and
development requests within The Preserve project area;"
The Preserve concept has been a dynamic process allowing flexibility for
public and private decisions to respond to changing needs and conditions.
For example, the Anderson Lakes Park which originally was approved in The
Preserve Concept as a more intensive use, lakeshore park including the
raising of Anderson Lakes water elevation and development of recreational
facilities." The plan was changed in 1972 to reflect the objectives of
the City's nature center, wildlife preserve. Likewise, the original
150 acres of commercial .land in The Preserve was enlarged to over 300
acres to accommodate the location of the Eden Prairie Shopping Center
and peripheral commercial.
33 01
Staff Report-Preserve Dousing Concept -3- Oct.. 18, 1976
PRESERVE CONCEPT APPROVAL 1970
The Preserve PUD application was the third application to be received by ,
the City of Eden Prairie in 1970. It was the largest and most comprehensive
project proposed. The City review process lasted for over eight months
and involved numerous meetings with city commissions and neighborhood
groups. Six neighborhood meetings were held in March and April in 1970
with all of the surrounding property owners invited. From those meetings
came a list of questions from the existing residents concerning The Preserve
development . Following the neighborhood meetings the developer proceeded
to review their project during a four month period with the Village Planning
Commission, Park Recreation Commission and Human Rights Commission.
On August 17, 1970 the Village Council conducted a public hearing con- .
cerning The Preserve PUD application. At that hearing the Council approved
Resolution ft 360A where the City set forth the general conditions of
approval for The Preserve PUD:
Now Therefore Be it Resolved , by the Village Council of
the Village of Eden Prairie the Concept Plan for The
Preserve as set forth and heretofore describe in documents
be approved and included in the Village's Comprehensive
Guide Plan with the following exceptions and additions:
a. The portion of the proposal described as the
'Herman Property' on Co. Rd. I be excluded from
the approved plan.
b. The cone* plan be amended to incorporate a
specific and workable statement of intent by the
applicant to the effect that they will actively
and persistently pursue an objective of incor-
porating into their residential development signi-
ficant numbers of housing units of costs or rental
that can be afforded by persons of low or moderate
incomes.
Adopted by the Council of the Village of Eden Prairie on the 17th day of
August, 1970."
The Preserve's original . development plan emphasized preservation of the
natural landscape quality,concentrated development by using a variety of
housing types, tie the development together with a pedestrian system and
focus higher density housing around the "activity center" at Sander's
Homestead and around the regional center. It is important that the Council
added item B, previously stated, requiring the developers to "actively
and persistently pursue . . . housing units of a cost or rental that could
be afforded by persons of low or moderate income". For the Village Council
to specifically include that objective for the development points out the
importance of the housing issue to Eden Prairie and the Metropolitan Area.
1:3;0
. Staff Report-Preserv'C 'Housing'Concept -4-:. Oct. 18, 1976•
The question of providing housing for all income levels was to be a continuing
issue with The Preserve development through late 1970 and 1971, when public
pressure was brought to bear on the developers. .
" The developers of the Preserve remain cautious about
including low income housing in their planned Eden
Prairie housing development after meeting last week
with representatives of the Greater Metropolitan
Federation. "
" The low income housing situation is immense and we are
not about to make a big mistake in The Preserve", said
George Carter of Carter & Gertz.
( Sun Newspaper , January 14, 1971 )
Public interest groups, representing local andmetropolitan organizations,
expressed concern about the development objectives of The Preserve's plan.
The League of Women Voters • in a December 17, 1970 Press Release , entitled
'Minnegasco plans for The Preserve', stated:
" The League of Women Voters of Bloomington, Crystal,
New Hope, Deephaven,Edina, Excelsior, Golden Valley,
Minnapolis, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Richfield,
Robinsdale and Wayzata are represented here today
to urge the Minneapolis Gas Company to include
provision for low and moderate income people in its
plan for The Preserve in Eden Prairie. "
The concern for the issue of housing for a wide range of people in The
Preserve was carried as far as a protest staged on November 19, 1970 in
front of the Minnegasco Office on the Nicollet Mall. Members of the
Greater Minneapolis Housing Federation . asked for signatures of those who
would support the concept of mixed housing in the Development. The issue
was a "hot one" and many citizen groups were invorved with the City of Eden
Prairie and The Preserve. An article on November 19, 1970 in the Sun
Newspaper quotes Reverend Robert K.Hudnut , President of the Greater
Minneapolis Housing Federation in which he accused Minnegasco of
"corporate irresponsibility", saying it had failed to reply "responsively"
to an Eden Prairie Village Council letter asking about its plans for a .
broad range of Housing". An article in the November 26, 1970 Sun
Newspaper quotes Mrs. Robert Stanton, Chairman of the Federation's
'Housing Committee:
" We want to try to keep this a consumer movement between
Minnegasco and the people . . . "
However, in same article, Eden Prairie Mayor Dave Osterholt stated:
" I am satisfied that they ( The Preserve developers ) will
do what they said they would do. I think it is unfair to
critize the Gas Company or the developers. "
The mayor pointed-out that the Village Council adopted and the developers
accepted what has been called the "Bloomington Statement" calling essen-
tially for housing of all segments of the population.
•
Staff Report-Preserve Housing Concept -5- Oct. 18, 1976
A letter from Mr. Paul W. Kramer, President of Minneapolis Gas Company
to Sonja Anderson, Chairman oftheEden Prairie League of Women Voters,
June 4, 1970 summarized 3 basic goals of The Preserve:
" 1. To build a complete residential community with the
widest possible range of housing types and occupancy
costs.
2. To protect the land and preserve the natural character
of the land wherever possible.
3. To create a superior living environment for the families
who will occupy The Preserve. "
HOUSING TASK FORCE OF EDEN PRAIRIE
A citizen task force was appointed by the City Council "to investigate
the housing situation in the Metropolitan Area and recommend a housing.
program that would provide for proper and orderly residential growth
in the community " . ( Housing Task Force Introduction )
The task force listened to a number of experts in a variety of fields
involved in housing and ccmmunity development. After a year of consider-
ation , the conclusions reached by the Housing Task Force reaffirmed
goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and amplified upon the need for a
variety of housing opportunities within the Village.
In August of 1972 two subsidized housing projects , one in Edenvale and
one in The Preserve, were presented to the City Council for PUD and zoning
approval. An article on August 23, 1972 in theMinneapolisi Star quotes
Eden Prairie Mayor Paul Redpath:
" We feel strongly that there is a need for this kind
of housing. . . .
Our housing is 440,000 and up and we do not even
have space for the bulk of our teachers. "
The article continued:
Officials of Eden Prairie, a fast developing suburb
of 8,000 and the Greater Metropolitan Federation, a
human rights group have pressured dlivelopers of the two
planned communities to make good on agreements made
two years ago to provide a broad range of housing."
Mayor Redpath illustrated the City leadership in encouraging the developers to
seek a housing diversity, referring to the City's original PUD approval of
Edenvale and The Preserve , he stated:
"We are calling in those commitments now. "
3364(
:;tafr Neport-Prescrve housing Concept 6 Oct. 18, 1976
OTUER HOUSING PLANS
The Preserve Concept application booklet A ( text ) exhibit A.4(b) Resi-
dential Development Program stated the*nOgnimal goals for specific housing .
types in the PUD: 4
1970 PROJECTIONS
Approved by Units Existing
Housing Type Total Units % of Total Oct.1,'76
by Oct.1, '76
owner occupied detached
single family
owner occupied attached
townhouse, condominium
rental attached
(townhouse)
rental garden
apartments
rental elevator
apartments
1275
• 29
• 364 (28 %) 211 •
675 15
511 (39.4%) 113
475
1 1
0 ( 0 %)
• 1225 28 279 (21.5%)
750 17 • 144 (11.1%) 40
Total' . 4400
100% 1298 (100%)
324
The Preserve Residential Concept did include a variety of housing types and
costs as illustrated by the 1970 projections. Today, the approved units
represent those units zoned-totalling 1298 dwelling units, As of October
1, 1976 324 dwelling units were actually completed or under construction.
The original 1970 POD expected a balanced growth between single family
and apartment units , thereby providing the diversity in housing opportun-
ities from the beginhing. As the table illustrates unit type variety has
been achieved with the units approved, however, units constructed represents
an entirely different 'picture. Today 100 t of the units in The Preserve
are owner occupied ( maybe some rentals ) and 65% are $50,000 and up single
family homes. The majority of the remaining 35% are expensive $45,000
and up townhemes with only the Ridgewood Condominiums available for under
$40,000 .
A comparison between the original Preserve POD housing plan intent compared
with the performance, perhaps is the best summary statement for this report.
Clearly the ability of The Preserve to provide a broad spectrum of
housing opportunities is greatly dependent upon governmental agencies,
market demand and financial conditiens. All of these variables are
basically beyond the control of the developer:ro achieve success in
developing an individual project all three of the factors must be positive
within the proper timo frame. The lack of rental multiple family housing'
and housing for low end/or moderate income families in ,The Preserve is a
casualty of the development process and not attributable to anyone factor.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- Oct. 14, 1976
IV. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
A. Poolside Apartments, 84 unit apartment and double bungalow lots located
south of Anderson Lakes Parkway and northwest of Neill Lake Road in
The Preserve. Request for PUD Development Stage, rezoning to RM 2.5 and
RN 6.5 and preliminary plat approval.
The planner referred the commission to the brochure and informed them thetuilding plan ,
is essentially the same as the Neill Lake Apartments , except it is located
on a different site.
Don Hess, The Preserve, outlined the location of the site and trails around the
site. He stated the PUD approval is for 7-15 units/acre and they are proposing
approximately 13 units / acre.
Mr. Moe, architect for the project, showed a model of the building and discussed
the layout, topography, angled balconies, and parking of 211 spaces / unit.
Pauly asked for the total length of the building. Mr. Moe responded 250 feet.
Bearman asked if 1 parking stall s in' was mandatory. Moe was unsure if that
had been determined .
Sorensen asked the staff to address the adequacy of overflow parking for the
project since no parking is allowed on the East/West Parkway.
Lynch questioned the type of units being considered for the proposed RM 6.5 site.
Mr. Hess replied ,possibly 3 double bungalow units.
Sorensen questioned the safety of locating the totlot across the parking lot.
Moe responded they would research alternate locations for the totlot.
Sorensen asked for the lineal distance between the building and the Ridgewood
garages. Moe estimated 40-50 feet.
Tom Bach,90S1 Neill Lake Road, stated the project is the same as the Neill Lake
Apartments project which was recently denied, has adverse impacts upon the
Highpoint area, there is no assurance the buffer will be built, and since the
residents have not had sufficient time to have their attorney review the proposal
that it be continued until late November. He added that because the project is
similar to the Neill Lake project it should not have been approved to be reconsi-
dered in less than one year's time.
Bob Carlson,9061 Neill Lake Road, expressed disapproval of the request and felt
the changes submitted do not warrant reconsideration of the project.
John Retterath,9011 Highpoint, expressed concern that the proposed double bungalow
lots have sufficient setbacks and adequate buffering.
Mrs. Retterath asked if the project would be a 221D4Program. Larry Peterson, The
Preserve, replied they are applying for such approval.
Motion 1:
Beaman moved, Lynch seconded, to continue the Poolside project to the October
25th meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
Motion 2:
Lynch moved, Boatman seconded, to direct the staff to prepare a staff report for
the following meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
WINDSLOPE SEC. 8
(168 UNITS)
1 $ 9,600.00
2 11,000.00
3 12,400.00
4 13,800.00
5 14,700.00
6 15,500.00
n•••n•n••.
EAST-WEST PARKWAY
(129 UNITS
.1• S 9,216.00
2 10,896.00
3 13,586.00
4 15,456.00
POOLSIDE
• (84 UNITS).
$11,040.00 .
13,680.00
• 17,280.00
17,760.00
21,130.00
MARKET1:, - pkOPOSED APARTMENT PROJECTS
THE PRESEUE
I PROJECT MARKET
PERSONS
INCOME GROUPS
LOW MOD. L.MIDDLE U.MIDDLE HIGH
p - 9050 4701-14050 7801-18300 10351-23300 13501-up
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District
8950 COUNTY ROAD 1:4
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55343
November 3, 1976
Ht. Richard Putnam
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Re: Poolside Apartments - The Preserve
Dear Mr. Putnam:
The engineering advisors to the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District
have reviewed the information relative to the Poolside Apartments as submitted
to the Watershed District. A grading and land alteration permit must be
obtained from the Watershed District for this development. This permit
should be obtained after the development has been approved by the City
Council, but before building permits are issued. Plans detailing how erosion
will be controlled during project construction should accompany the permit
application.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development. If you
have any questions about the District's involvement in this development,
please contact us.
Sincerely,
PL
Allan Gebhard
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
Engineer for the District
AG/11c
c: Hr. Conrad Fiskness
Mr. Frederick Richards
Mr. Don Hess
3 ?.4)1
84 units of rental apartments
1. Land bevelopst application filed and filing fee & deposit paid
Copy of application forwarded to Watershed District Yes
2. Processig Schedule:
Yes
10/14/76
CITY OP EMI PRAIRIE
CRECK idST FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED
LAND DWELOP•4NTS
DATE: 30 /19/76
DEVEVE'hE n a: Poolside Apartments
L.D. NO. 76-Z-16, P-11
LOCAE: Strati) of Anderson Lakes Parkway & west of Neill Lake Road (The Preserve)
Ii.I). OR tlxvious
zo:utIc
RES.
The Preserve
ENGINEJ.:E/Pti,!;:.;FR: Douglas A. Moe
DOCU'IMT:: SOLMITTED FOR PINIEW: Development Concept
The developer is requesting rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval for
a. Planning & Zoning Commission Preliminary
b. Park s Recreation Commission
C. Ihmlan Rights Commission •
3. Tyl ,t) of
d. Planning Commission Public Hrg.
c.. City Council consideration,
f. watershed District
i,ovolop:dent Rental Apartments
10/25/76
, . .ment or impact statement required pet Environmental
• impi,et polity atd. of 1973:
No
A. Access to adjoining properties O.X.
B. TYPe
Private
driveways, no
parking
Loading to Col de sacs
(not over 1000')
minor residential •
Cul de sacs
Roadway (Back to Back of Curb)
24 *
Post no pmping signs
50
28.
100 78 (no island)
120 98 (with island)
Required
5. Present Zoning Rural
6. Proposed Zonil,g RN 6.5 and NM 2.5
The original Preserve PUB indicatea
Consistent. with approved P.U.D. or 'Comp Plan? 7-15 units per acre for the site.
List vax,iances required & setbacks that apply:
None requested
7. Project Area 6.39 acres Density 13.15 units per acre
8. Public open space and/or cash dedication Cash dedication as required by Park Dot.
Private open space 4.8 acres
Trail systems e sidewalks None shown in proposal
Range of lot sizes N.A.
9.* Preliminary Building Plans Submitted
10. *Representative Soil Borings Not submitted - required at bldg. permit stage
11. Street System
Thru Residential (collectors)
b, Cu) de s,les
over )000 60
32
4 Main entrance road should be 28' wide minimum. Entrance road should also
be at 90' to Anderson Lakes Parkway.
.3310
- 3 -
ESA 70 44
.Parkway 100 28 divided
Fire WDad • 12
Pathways 12 6
Street grades-max. 7.5%, min. .5%
Concrete curb t gutter required,
Deep strength asphalt design All required
C. Cheek City's comprehensive street system.
Developer builds 1/2 of parkways at his cost, & R/W dedication
'Pending assessment for Anderson Lakes Parkway overlay.
D. Street Names - try to conform with existing in the area. Avoid additional
names on cul do sacs having eight or less lots.
Check list of existing street names. N. A. •
E. Private parking lots--86-12 cone C&G and full depth asph. design
Required
P. Street Signs-Developer or City installs Stop sign required at Parkway intersectionl
12. Parking: (Se.. Ord. fi141) O.K.
13. Utility Systems:
A. Sanitary Sewer
Existing
1. Service Detail
Plumbing inspector to review
2. Service to adjoining property O.K.
B. Watemmdn: Existing
1. Check Service Design (20 psi at highest fixture)
O.K.
2. Hydrant location-Fire Inspector Fire inspector to review
3. Valving Final plans required
4. Compliance with fire code
S. Service to adjent property
Fire Inspector to review
O .K.
'3311.
- 4 -
C. Storm Sewer & Grading No. prelim. ,plans submitted - required proposed berms
along Parkway MuSt -nOt'obsir'act .laght disUincë
1. Sediment control plan Required
2. Skimming & grit control for commercial parking lots N.A.
3. Positive outlet for drainage ponds
gaiired
4. Avoid excessive grading and tree removal Re(ilire.4
5. Arrows showing drainage Requizzi_
Accomodate drainage from adjacent properties _Rewired
6. Denote drainage area for individual inlets and projected high water
for ponds
7. Keep drainage in gutters, not in center of street Required
8. Sod drainage swales and steep slopes
9. Flood plain encroachment Upne
Required
10. Watershed District approval
11. DR approval
Recruired
D. Natural Gas & Telephone Underground required
E. Electric (underground) Required
14. Street Lights & On-Site Lighting Plan Required
15. Preliminary plat to be submitted to MID or Henn. Co. if abutting a
• . State or county Hwy.
. N.A. .
16. List special assessments levied and pending Levied: #5858, trunk sew/water
All 072.54; #6438: Neill Lake Storm, $8,695: Pending: Anderson Lakes
Parkway , $4,747.72
• 17. Re-son ifiq auyecoent required Required
Develo0(l'a A0reeiownt required
Title Mu:tract for Attorney's review
97tp-
onald L. Hess, Jr., A.SrL.A.
Vice President of Architecture & Planing
•
Theresirvc
September 24, 1976
Mr. Roger Ulstad, City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55343
RE: Rezoning Lot 1, Block 1, Highpoint
Dear Mr. Ulstad:
The Preserve expresses its desire to rezone and replat the above men-
tioned property from Agricultural to 1) R.M. 2.5 for the purpose of
constructing 84 (d-4) units of rental apartments on the westerly 6.39
acres and 2) to R.M. 6.5 on the remaining portion of the site for the
purpose of constructing medium density housing.
The attached development concept plan is submitted as a basis for zoning
application.
•
Based upon our discussion last week with Mr. Putnam, it is my understanding
that if certain confidences are met that the project will receive a public
hearing before the planning commission October 11th, and before the Council
October 26th, or November 9th, depending upon progress before the planning
commission.
Please call if I can be of any assistance in answering questions or pro-
viding additional information to you, the staff, or others during the re-
view process.
DLH/j1
Enclosures
cc: John Gertz
Ken Person
Larry Peterson
Dick Putnam
Mayor Penzel
ATotalEnvironmentCommunity-8920FranloRd.,EdenPrairie,Minn.55343-1612)941.4031
NOVEMBER 23, 1976
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ND. 1211
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF POOLSIDE APARTMENTS L13-76-2-16, P-11
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie.
Minnesota, as follows:
The Preliminary plat of Poolside Apartments located in and a replat of
Let 1, Block 1, Highpoint and as shown on the "Site Plan" dated 9/76
as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1 of Highpoint, Section 24,
Township 116, Range 22.
Subject to the terms of the Rezoning Agreement to be executed between the
developer, The Preserve, and the City of Eden Prairie,
AND, is found to meet the purposes and objectives or is in con-
vormance with the provisions of Eden Prairie Ordinance No. 93 (Subdivision
Ordinance) and all amendments thereto.
ADOPTED by the City Council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk .
3o1
Nov. 23, 1976
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 1212
RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN
EASEMENTS IN DUCK LAKE ESTATES
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has a drainage and utility
easement over the following described land;
Six feet right and left of a line com-
mencing at the northeast corner of Lot
17, Block 1, Duck Lake Estates; thence
South 12 ° 33' 38" west a distance of ten
feet to the actual point of beginning;
thence continuing South 120 33 38" West
a distance of 145 feet, more or less, to
the shoreline of Duck Lake and there ter-
minating
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Nov. 23, 1976, as required
by law, and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that said easement is not neces-
sary and that it would be in the public interest that this easement be
vacated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council
as follows:
1. The above described drainage and utility easement is
hereby vacated.
2. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared
by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion
of the proceedings and shall be recorded in accordance
with M.S.A. 117.19.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
'
MEMO
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City.Manager
PROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
DATE: November 18, 1976
SUBJECT: Land Division
DUCK LAKE ESTATES
The City Council requested further information regarding a land division
which occurred in 1973 involving a shift of the lot line between Lots 17
and 18, Block 1,. Duck Lake Estates.
We checked with Hennepin County and determined that the division was made
through the administrative procedure of Ordinance No. 161. The staff ap-
proved the division by letter to Hennepin County and the County actually
completed the division on August 21, 1973.
CJJ:kh
39A
WHP/azd
11/8/76
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.a52.
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AN ORDINANCE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 158 entitled "An Ordinance Licensing
and Regulating the Sale of Intoxicating Liquor by Certain Clubs
Within the Village of Eden Prairie" is hereby repealed.
Section 2. This ordinance becomes effective from and after
its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie this day of 1976,
and finally read, adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of
, 1976.
Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Franc, City Clerk
Published in the Eden Prairie News on the
day of , 1976.
3311
DATE: Novemeber 15, 1976
mEMO TO: Roger Ulstad - City Manager
FROM: Wayne R. Sanders, Building Official
SUBJECT: Additional space for city offices
On November 10, 1976, I contacted Bob Mason, building contractor to
get an approximate price of a new City office building. He said that
on a simple building of approximately 1400 square feet we could expect
a cost of $25.00 to $30.00 per square foot.
In speaking of $25.00 to $30.00 per square foot, I am referring to a
rectangular shaped building approximately 28 feet wide and 50 feet long.
In the conversation we spoke of a men's and women's toilet on the main
floor and same toilet facilities roughed in on the lower level. Also
mentioned were some partitions on the main floor for offices.
Using these figures we could expect the cost to be as follows
let Floor: 1400 sq ft x $25.00 =$35,000
Bob Mason said $35,000 to $40,000.
Because there is no exact plan to give a price on, I can only say it
would be a wood structure of the above mentioned size. A brick front
for instance may or may not be included in this price. The price of
$35,000 to $40,000 would include a full basement which would be set-up
with a walk out level with windows across the rear of the building. If
the lower lev el were finished we could expect to spend $12.00 to $15.00
per square foot. If there were 1200 square feet of usable space on the
lower level, the cost would be as follows:
Lower Level: 1200 sq ft x $12.00 = $14,400
This would allow ample partitions for offices on the lower level.
33IZ
HOUSE A-4 BARCELONA HOUSE 8-4 EISON HOUSE C-4 SARATOGA HOUSE 0-4 RIIY7VT"'4 19,500 17,900 19,100 19.900 780 716 764 796 20,280 18,616 19,864 20,696 1,014 930.80 993.20 1,034.80 I. PRICE II. + 4% MINNESOTA saps TAX III. AGGREGATE TOTAL .7•) BASE OFFER + 4% SALES TAX z2> IV. CASHIER'S OR CERTIFIED CHECK EQUAL TO 57. OF AGGREGATED TOTAL THIS FCFM !,.UST 87. SUiMIIILD FOR ccrsIPER4T1oN NC LAILR TNAN 3:00 P , 12/2/76 PROPOSAL F010c STUDENT BUILT HOUSES SUBURBAN HENNEPIN VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT DISTRICT 287 1820 North Xenium Lnae Minnenrolis, MN 55441 NORTH CAMPUS SOUTH CAMPUS PURcHAsING • BUYER'S NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP BUYER'S SIGNATURE TELEPHONE NO. HOME OFFICE -5--
INFORMATION TO POTENTIAL NOME BUYERS
House C-4 (Saratoga) features:
1350 square feet.
3 bedrooms.
Rough Cedar siding.
1 1/2 baths.
Vaulted ceiling in living room with beams.
Fireplare.
Dining room.
Flush interior doors.
Strip hardwood floors in master bedroom:
Parquet flooring in dining room.
Cedar shingles.
1 bedroom with finished hardwood flooring.
House D-4 (Ridgevicw) features:
1232 square feet.
3 bedrooms.
Rough cedar siding.
1 3/4 baths.
22' x 28' attached garage.
Panel interior doors.
Strip hardwood floors in master bedroom.
Parquet flooring in dining room.
Cedar shingles.
1 bedroom with finished hardwood flooring.
The following items are not included.
Furnace and ductwork.
Foundation.
Basement plumbing and electric.
Floor covering.
Kitchen range.
Light fixtures (except recessed).
Moving costs.
Ceramic tile in bathrooms.
Bathroom mirror.
Basement stairs.
-2-
.3,ArtB
TO: Peger lasted, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bytty Johnson
SUBJECT: Community Public Health Services
DAIT: November 19, 1976
Peunepin County's Office of Planning and Development held a meeting PP
UednencL,y, November 17, to review the preliminary Hennepin County plan
for proviion of coemunity health services, as set forth in the 1975 Minnesota
Community Health Services Act. The public hearing on the plan will be
held let the south suburban area on Tuesday, November 30 at 7:30 at the
Seuthdale Yegional Library, 7001 York Ave. S. Following an overview presen-
tation of the preliminary plan, testimony will be invited from individuals
Cod representatives of organizations or community and municipal agencies.
Call theLy who wore notified of the August diecussion session here at Eden'
Prairie City Dail have also been notified of this public hearing.) The
guidelines for teetimony, if the Council wishes to make an official statement,
are attachcd. Also included is a copy of the preliminary plan summary. The
full plen is available for review at all Hennepin County Branch Libraries,
including the Eden Prairie branch on County Road 4. After the hearings,
changes, if necessary, will be made in the plan and it will be submitted to
the Hennepin County Board for approval on December 21.. It then Goes to the
State Board of Health for their approval and the subsidy funds are expected to
be available by the end of January in amounte reflecting retroactivity to
January 1.
Subsidy funds will flow 1) directly to municipalities with Boards of Health
now providing service (Minneapolis, Bloomington and Edina); 2) to municipalites
in joint powers agreements With combined population of 65,000 that are providing
service through joint Board of Health; and 3) indirectly through the coentv-
wide plan, in which the county will contract for or provide health services.
Wunicipalities may choose their vendor for various services (public health
nursing, sanitarian, etc.),and this implies standards to judge the various
potential vendors. These have not yet been developed (or finalized) by the .
County or the State Department of Health. For instance the county public
health nursing task force is in the process of setting recommended standards
in that area. The realities of implementation have not yet been worked out.
There is concern about a possible "patchwork" of providers, especially in
the public health nursing service. The County Planning Department feels
sure that the state will require availability of a basic service level throughout
the county.
RFC01/4"Wer;TION. Per several reasons, it is recommended that Eden Prairie
inform Suburban Public Health Nursing Service of its intent to be part of
SPHNS for the year 1977.
IWAS:,flq: 1) It is not practical, or probably legal, for Eden Prairie to
develop its own individual plan for provision of community health services --
the community does not have a board of health or an administrative health .iepart-
ment it in unclear junt how much money Eden Prairie could actually receive.
2) The only way to make u:.ie of Bloomington's health services would be to
negotiate a joint p,wers aorecment and establish a joint board of health with
Bloondngton. 3) Initial crotacts with Methodist Hospital for public health
services in Eden brairie have been mado, but a final decision along that line '
is premature now. 4) It is not well ,defined now just what Hennepin County's
plan will be able to provide in the way of funding and assistance to SPHNS,
nor is it. clear what services NPH/6 will be able to maintain and add in 1977.
-2- Community Public Health Services, Nov. 19, 1976
At the end of a year's time, it should be possible to make a more intelligent
decision about the best way to provide community health services in Eden
Prairie: joint 'powers with Bloomington, contract with Methodist Hospital,
stay with Suburban Public Health Nursing, or another alternative that is
not kneel: now. It will be much better known how the Community Health Act
provision S are going to be carried.
Further recorriendarion: To encourage the Board of the Suburban Public Health
Nursing Service to re-organise and re-orient its thinking about provision of
services in the remaining communities of Hennepin County within its contract
area. (For instance, if Richfield contracts with Bloomington for its health
services -- as it seems very likely they will --, this will eliminate both
Edina and Richfield from SPHNS service area. The Well-Child Clinic has been
in Richfield -- if it is moved to the western central suburban area, it may
be serving us much better than formerly.)
•
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY ABOUT THE
PRELIMINARY HENNEPIN COUNTY-WIDE COMMUNITY HEALT
H
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
P
L
A
N
0 All persons who wish to testify are requested
t
o
n
o
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development
(
O
P
D
)
by telephone or mail in advance of the meeting. C
a
l
l
o
r
write to Barb Kelley at the Office of Planning and
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
-
ment, Hennepin County Government Center, 348-742
3
.
P
l
e
a
s
e
Indicate at which public meeting testimony will b
e
g
i
v
e
n
.
9 Testimony will be scheduled according to the chrono
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
order of notification/registration received. Tho
s
e
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
In giving testimony may also register at the publ
i
c
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
.
• All persons will be requested to state, at the beg
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
'
their testimony, their name and address and, if a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
the name and address of the agency or group repre
s
e
n
t
e
d
.
• • Persons presenting individual viewpoints will be re
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
to limit their comments to five minutes. Persons
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
-
ing an organization or agency will be requested t
o
l
i
m
i
t
their coments to 10 minutes.
• Where possible, efforts should be made to coordinat
e
t
e
s
t
i
m
o
n
y
in order to avoid repetition and duplicative rema
r
k
s
.
$ A written copy of testimony is requested from
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
representing an organization or community agency.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FACTS AND FEATURES ABOUT THE
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ACT AND THE PRELIMINARY
COUNTY-WIDE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES PLAN
1. The Comunity Health Services Act makes $1.9 million available to Hennepin
County and its municipalities. Approximately $1.6 million represents "new
money", and $300,000 is to replace some direct state grants and services
that are being discontinued.
2. Minneapolis, Bloomington and Edina may directly qualify for Community Health
subsidies totaling $1.27 million providing that each submits a plan that is
reviewed and approved by the County Board.
3. Hennepin County government and other municipalities will qualify for an
additional $671,650 in subsidy funds providing that: (a) a County Board
of Health is established, and (b) a community health subsidy plan is submitted
to the state.
4. If a County-wide plan (such as the preliminary plan presented) is not sub-
mitted, a total of $570,000 of "new money" and $100,000 of "replacement
money" for state grants and services will be lost to County government and
the 43 municipalitias not qualifying for a direct share.
5. Final approval of a Community Health Services Plan, such as the one submitted
for preliminary approval, would not require any increase in County or munici-
pal property taxes since current levels of program expenditures serve as
the basis for entitlement. In fact, such a plan will actually provide
property tax relief because approximately 45% of the subsidy funds will be
used to support existing programs funded out of County and municipal levies.
6. Establishment of a County Board of Health does not eliminate existing munici-
pal Boards of Health or Health Departments. One year after the establishment
of a County Board of Health, all municipalities of the third class would
lose the authority to maintain Boards of Health. (This provision would
affect the following third class municipalities that have legally constituted
Boards of Health: .Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenfield, Greenwood, Maple Grove,
Osseo, St. Anthony and Wayzata).
7. The preliminary Cormuriity Health Services Plan relies heavily upon contracting
with municipal and other community health agencies for the direct delivery of
services. According to the plan, the County's role would continue to be
primarily one of service planning and coordination, with the additional costs
of staff necessary for these purposes being provided out of subsidy funds.
8. Approval of this preliminary plan will enable staff and the Advisory Committee
and Task Forces to continue the planning process so a final plan can be
submitted to the County Board for approval in December in order to avoid delays
in cash flow and possible loss of funds.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services/1
Cedar Hills Golf and Ski Appraisal
November 19, 1976
The appraiser employed for this purpose has completed his work and we
will be in receipt of the appraisal for the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission meeting Monday, November 22. I will have their
recommendation on this matter for the Council meeting on Tuesday.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services /11j .
Revised Metro Parks & Open Space 5-Year Capital Improvement
Program
November 19, 1976
Attached is a copy of the memo to the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission regarding the above item. The Parks, Recreation
and Natural Resources Commission will consider this at their meeting
on Monday, November 22 and I will have their recommendation for the
Council meeting on Tuesday evening.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services A 1
Revised Metropolitan Council Capital Improvement Program
For Parks and Open Space
November 19, 1976
Attached is an excerpt from the Metro Open Space Commission CIP showing
those projects which are in Eden Prairie and their relative priority
as against all other metropolitan projects.. I've also included trail
corridor acquisition and development excerpts totalling $7.4 million
dollars. This money is included in the CIP but not allocated for
specific projects. Eden Prairie may consider proposing projects for
this fund such as Purgatory Creek acquisition and development, Minnesota
River Bluff acquisition and development or other regional trail corridors.
The items on the top half of the sheet include all of the things which
were submitted to the Metropolitan Council last year and were included
in their 1975 Capital Improvement Program which was not funded by the
State Legislature. In August of this year we resubmitted items for
Bryant Lake, Anderson Lakes, and Lake Riley with the understanding that
the City is not committed to proceeding with Riley at this time. The
Metropolitan Council has included Lake Riley in their program and have
indicated that should Eden Prairie not wish to proceed with a regional
park at Lake Riley they will authorize some other implementing agency
to do so. The only item eliminated from our August request is the
purchase of the 8 lots and 6 homes along Timber Trail in the Anderson
Lakes Park area. I've indicated to the Metropolitan Council people that
we feel no urgency to proceed there and that a change in land use is -
very unlikely. Should one of the owners in this area decide to sell,
we can request a special appropriation from the Metro Council for"in-
holding"acquisition of this nature.
A public hearing is being held on December 9, 1976 before the Metro
Council on the CP. Comments will be received at that time and a
implementation stategy will be developed after the meeting with a
legislative proposal made in the 1977 session.
RECOMMENDATION
I would suggest that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
recommend to the City Council a position to be presented to the Metropolitan
Council at the hearing on December 9 supporting the Capital Improvement
Program for Regional Parks as it relates to sites within Eden Prairie.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Marty Jessen, Director of Community Servicesiqj
Kucher/Deaver Properties
November 19, 1976
Attached is a copy of the memo to the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission regarding the above item. The Commission will
consider this at their meeting on Monday evening, November 22 and
I will have their recommendation for the Council meeting on Tuesday
evening.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Servicesiqj
SUBJECT: Kucher/Deaver Properties
DATE: November 19, 1976
The appraisals as ordered for these parcels have been received and
the following land values have been assigned by the appraiser.
Kucher Parcel $4,600 per acre
Deaver Parcel
$4,400 per acre for a parcel
40 acres and under. $4,000
per acre for a larger parcel.
I've discussed the appraisals with the landowners and report the
following:
1. Kucher Properties. They are willing to sell land to the City
at a price of $5,000 per acre with a two year option through
1978.
2. Deaver Parcel. Mr. Deaver does not wish to divide his 150
acre tract. He has expressed a willingness to sell the entire
150 acres to the City at a price of $4,000 per acre with the
understaning that the City would only have to pay $450,000
and he would contribute/donate the balance to the City, which
makes for a net affect of $3,000 per acre.
I will discuss this matter further with you at the meeting November 22nd
including implications for funding etc.
-M1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services/O.
The Raze Property
November 19, 1976
Attached is a copy of the memo to the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission regarding the above item. The Commission will
consider this at their meeting on Monday, November 22 and I will have
their recommendation for the Council meeting on Tuesday evening.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Raze Property
DATE: November 19, 1976
The attached map shows the location of the Raze property which has
been included in the Staring Lake Park boundaries. The land is
currently for sale and we have discussed the possibility of City
acquisition with the realtor. The City Council has referred this
matter to you for specific recommendation relative to whether or
not the City should proceed with some form of acquisition, either
fee title or easement, at the time.
This fall with the acquisition of the Grill and Zylka parcels, the
City has completed the acquisitions at Staring Lake with the
exception of the Raze property and the Morley property. In the case.
of the Morley property a purchase agreement of some long standing
exists which gives the City right of purchase. The park plan for
Staring Lake calls for the acquisition of 10-12 acres of the Raze
property leaving the house and 1-3 acres in private ownership. The
realtor fcr Mr. Raze has advised that they wish to sell the entire
parcel, if at all possible.
No funding is currently available for this parcel. However, previous
LAWCON Grants have been used to acquire all the other land in the
Staring Lake Park and I aM quite confident that 1978 LAWCON funding
could be secured for this parcel. I am also of the opinion that the
Watershed District may be interested in assisting in this acquisition
inasmuch as a substantial portion of the property is flood line lands.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I would suggest that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission recommend to the City Council that a "no cost option"
be secured on the Raze property while an appraisal is completed and
negotiations begun in an effort to acquire an option for this parcel
through 1977.
r•-•n STARING LAKE PARK VILLAGE OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -2- Nov. 8, 1976
IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Land Development Procedures
I. PUD Procedures
2. Zoning Procedures
3. Platting Procedures
The planner stated he feels the procedur
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
o
f
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
n
o
w
and can be reviewed if necessary after t
h
e
G
u
i
d
e
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
H
e
s
a
i
d
t
h
e
d
r
a
f
t
procedures attempt to make the review process more workable and readable
.
Sorensen asked if the City Attorney had
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
t
h
e
d
r
a
f
t
s
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
n
e
r
r
e
p
l
i
e
d
the attorney has had some preliminary res
p
o
n
s
e
s
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
i
n
detail when the council considers the it
e
m
s
.
Schee inquired if the procedures need be officially adopted, o
r
i
f
t
h
e
y
c
o
u
l
d
be accepted as procedures.
Sorensen felt they should be adopted by
a
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
r
m
o
r
e
l
e
g
a
l
f
o
r
m
a
s
t
h
e
y
define the obligations of the city and d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
.
Bearman questioned if a ,public hearing
f
o
r
m
a
t
should be included. Discussion followed regarding the necessity and valu
e
o
f
a
f
o
r
m
a
t
Sundstrom suggested I changes on the foll
o
w
i
n
g
p
a
g
e
s
:
P.3,D."Optional Submission of Concept an
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
g
e
P
l
a
n
s
"
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
clarified. P.5,I.& A. suggest it read PUD Concept
a
n
d
/
o
r
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
g
e
.
.
.
Motion:
Beannan moved, Schee seconded, to recommend to t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
approving the 3 draft procedures ( PUD,
Z
o
n
i
n
g
,
P
l
a
t
t
i
n
g
)
,
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
-
tions made by the commission this evenin
g
.
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dick Putnam, Planning Director
DATE: November 12, 1976
SUBJECT: Land Development Procedures
a. PIM Procedures
b. Zoning Procedures
C . Preliminary Platting Procedures
The attached draft procedures for Planned Unit Developments, Zoning and
Preliminary Platting were prepared by the city staff in response to the
Council's directive to develop a PUD ordinance. Updating of the 1968
Guide Plan will result in recommendtions concerning the city's development
procedures which may require revisions to existing city ordinances and
procedures. Such recommendations may be expected by mid to late 1977 . .
The draft procedures have been reviewed by the various city departments
and discussEd with developers currently building in the city. The general
consensus is that the draft procedures are reasonable and provide a needed
guide to the city development process. It was pointed-out at the meeting
with the developers that the draft procedures follow closely "how things
are done today". Since the source of the information in the draft proce-
dures are existing city ordinances and administrative procedures the similar-
ity is not surprising.
The Planning Commission reviewed the draft procedures and recommended the
City Council consider adopting the PUD, Zoning and Preliminary Plat Procedures
to serve at least through the Guide Plan Update. The Planning Commission
suggested the City Attorney review the procedures to insure proper legal
language and format.
DP:jj
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES
'draft
Outline
Page
1
Introduction
2 PUD Requirements Procedures
2 A. Size
2 B. Definition
3 C. Application
3 D. Optional Submission of'Concept
and Development Stage Plans.
3 E. 'Staff Review
4 F. Referral to the Planning Commission.
• 4 G. Planning Commission Review
4 H. City Council Review.
5 I. PUD Concept and Development Plan
Presentation , Public Hearing Format
5
Submission Requirements
A. General Requirements of PIP' Concept
and Development Stage Plans.
6
1. Specific Plan Requirements.
7
8
8
9
9
10
Plan Proposal
PUD Development Stage Plan-Submission
Requirements •
A. Project Identification.
B. Plan Area Identification.
C. Plan-Project Area Analysis,
D. Plan Proposal,
Re6".2,
INTRODUCTION
Eden Prairie has utilized the PUD affectively since 1970
to implement the Comprehensive Guide Plan of 1968, Zoning
Ordinance ft135, Subdivision Ordinance #93 and other city
policies. The PUD in an Eden Prairie context provides the
opportunity for a creative relationship of a variety of land
uses in harmony with its natural site. To accomplish this,
the city provides in Section 11, Ordinance 135, that the
• . . "Council shall adopt , and may amend specific pro-
cedures and requirements for submission and approval of
PUD proposals".
Eden Prairie adopted PUD Procedures on April 6, 1971 as a
guideline to the PUD process. No formal changes to these
procedures have heen adopted by the City Council todate,
However, modifications to the April 6, 1971 procedures have
been added to keep the "process current".
The following is an outline of Eden Prairie's 1976 PUD Procedures:
SECTION 11, ORDINANCE n135
Purpwie
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) provision of
the ordinance is to allow variation from the
provisions of this ordiannce including setbacks,
height, lot area, width and depth, yard's, etc.,
in order to:
a. Encourage more creative design and devel-
opment of land.
b. Promote variety in the physical development
pattern of the Village.
C. Concentrate open Space in more usable areas
or to preserve unique natural resources of
the site.
d. Preserve and provide a more desirable envir-
onmCnt than would be possible under strict —
interpretation of. the Zoning Ordinance or
Subdivision Regulations.
A. Size
The minimum size . for PUD proposals is 25 acres, except in
the MCA (Major Center Area ) where that size is reduced.
11. Definition
1. PUD Concept Stage
The Concept Stage Plan provides the vehicle by which
the proponent may submit a plan to the city illustrating
the basic intent and general nature of the overall devel-
opment without incurring substantial cost involved in
detailed design. 'the NUO Loncept elan.
for public discussions regarding the impacts of alternative
plans. Approval of the Concept Plan is not intended . to be
the final decision on development of the area, rather the
concept - plan may change over the years as the plan is imple-
mented.
2. PUD Development Stage Plan
The Development Stage Plan provides the specific plans
which the proponent and the city will rely upon for the
project's implementation. The City Council in approving
the Development Stnge Plan will pass an ordinance rezoning
the property to the appropriate zoning district and will
take into consideration the previously approved PUD Concept
Stage
2.
C. flpplieltions
Applications for approval of a PUD Concept Stage and/or
Development Stage shall be filed at the office of the
Planning Director. A non-refundable application fee
of $200.00 as established by the City Council to defray
administrative costs shall accompany each application.
A deposit established by the Planning Director shall
accompany the application. The deposit or a portion
thereof, will he refunded after final City Council
action on the proposal if the total sum is greater than
the administrative review cost, which may include, but
not be limited to:
1. consultant fees assisting in City review.
2. city staff time expended in specific develop-
ment review,
3. mailing, legal notices and other administrative
costs,
4. any other reasonable costs incurred by the City
in review of the proposal.
Full payment by the proponent of all fees and cost for City
review must be paid prior to further consideration of subse-
quent development stages.
Each application shall contain the required information
for PUD Concept or additional information and submissions
as may 'be prescribed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant shall provide a letter authorizing the city to erect one
or More "Land bevelopment Signs" which identifies the site as proposed
for development. The signs will remain until the city has completed
action upon the applicant's request at which time the city will remove
the signs. The applicant does not assume responsibility for the signs
in case of vandalism or theft and only grants permission to the city
for their erection .
D. Optional Submission of Concept and Development Stage Plans.
The proponent may, at his option, submit Development Stage
plans for the proposed PUD simultaneously with the submissi
o
n
of the Concept Plan. In such case, the proponent shall comply
with all thy provisions of the city applicable to submission
of the Development Stage Plan. The Planning Commission and
Council shall consider such plans simultaneously and shall
grant or deny Development Stage Plan approval in accordance
with the Concept Plan approved.
E. Staff Review
The City staff will review the PUD submission and prepare
a report for the City advisory commissions and City Council
reviewing the adequacy of the data submitted, conformance
of the PUD with established city, watershed, etc., policies,
PUD's technical design aspects and a staff recommendation
for City action. Such a staff report may he written before
the first Planning Commission meeting or after one or more
meetings depending upon the complexity of the project, issu
e
s
and public explanation necessary.
3.
?22f
F. Referral to the Planning Commission
Upon receipt of a completed application for approval of a
Concept Plan or Develnpment Plan, the Planning Director shall
refer. such application to the Planning Commission for consi-
deration at the firat regular meeting of such Commission .
which would allow for the necessary publication and legal
notice requirements. In no case shall the first Planning
Commission consideration be more than 30 days after receipt
of the application.
The first Planning Commission meeting considering the PUD
Concept and/or lievelopment Stage Plan shall be a Public
Hearing with notice published in the official newspaper of
the City prior to the day of the hearing. Notice of the
meeting 1:ill also be mailed to affected property owners
in the project area
G. Planning Commission Review
The Commission nay refer the POD to other City advisory
commissions or other appropriate governmental review agencies
at its discretion. The Commission shall review the POD
Plans and make a. _recommendation to the City Council within
GO days of its first consideration unless an extension is
agreed to by the proponent.
H. City Council Review
The City Council, upon receipt of the Planning Commission's
recommendation on the PUP application and written request from
the proponent, will set a public hearing to consider the Concept
and/or Development Stage application. Notice of the public
hearing will be published in the official newspaper of the
City at least 10 days prior to the day of the hearing. Notice
of the meeting will be mailed to affected property owners
before the day of the hearing.
The City Council after review of the POD request, advisory
commission recommendations, staff recommendations and public
comment, shall approve, deny, or recommend revisions or
reapplication of the Concept or Development Stage Plan.
In the event of a Concept Stage Plan , the Council shall
direct the City Attorney to draft a PUP Development Agree-
ment that statvs the conditions upon which thi;'PUD was
approved. The City Council shall pass a resolution approving
or denying the PUP Concept Stage Plan.
The City Council in approving the PUD Development Stage
Plan will direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance
amending Zoninn Ordinance 135 rezoning the specific site
to the appropriate zoning district. The City Council will
then direct the City Attorney to draft a Zoning Agreement
that states the terms and conditions agreed upon by the
proponent and City. Said Zoning Agreement shall be signed
by the City and proponents prior to the second reading of
the ordinance zoning the property.
)
I. POD Concept Stars and/or Development Stage Plan Presentation .
Presentations made to the Planning Commission and City
Council should be brief (15,20 minutes ) covering the
major features that influenced the proposed plan, a
clear description of what is proposed and an explanation
of City decisions requested. •
Visual aids such as: models, slides, air •photos, overhead
transparencies, large plan graphics will aid the decision
makers and interested citizens in understanding the proposed
plan. There is no substitute for visual communication in
explaining such complex issues and solutions involved in
land development decisions. Contact the Planning Director
fur availability of audio visual equipment.
• Public Hearin:, Per -at
Generally, the following is the Public Hearing Format used
by the City Commissions and Council.
1. Call the opening of the Public Hearing.
2. Proponent presentation ( I5-20 minutes ).
3. Commission and/or staff reports ( 10-15 minutes).
4. Council/commission review or questions. .
S. Public questions and comments:
6. Council/commission review and question proponents,
opponents, staff.
7. Council/commission close or continue the Public
Hearing and determine the necessary action.
SUBMISSION PEQUIRPMENTS:
Section 11.3, Ordinance #135
The City Council shall adopt, and may amend specific
procedures and require”,ent, roc submission an aplroval
of POD proposals.
A. Genera] Requirements of POD Concept and/or nevelorment
Stage Plan!::
I. One (1) copy of the completed land ...Develepment .
Application . form and applicationfee must be
filed with the Planning Director a minimum of
21 days before the first Planning Commission
meeting.
2. Thirty (30) copies of the application material
shall he filed with the Planning Director a
minimum of 14 days before the first meeting with
the Planning Commission.
S.
3: A presubmission conference with the City staff is
important to assist - the proponent in determining
the existing city policies, utilities and plans
affecting the proposed project.
41. The City has found that a presentation and discussion
of the proposed PUD Concept or Development Plan with
adjacent landowners is a positive step in the devel-
opment and review process. The city staff will
assi.:t the proponent in setting up such meetings
if desired by the proponent.
B. PUD Concept Stage-Submission Requirements
1. Project Identification:
a. Ownership . . . purchased from, 'purchased by,
nature of title, contract transfer schedule
associations or partnerships, etc. . . .
h. Developer. . . owners or partners, nature of
business, previous experience, nature and
extent of participation, other concurrent
ventures, long or short term involvement,
intentions, etc. . .
c. Fiscal, Economic . . . interim and long Wrm
capital sources of prospects,nature of parti-
cipation, if any . . .
d Development Method. . . tract or lot sale or
lease, actual construction, combination ,
responsibility of common areas and facilities. . .
e Development Timing. . . a "critical path" means
of description that includes pianning, approval,
construction sales and occupancy, etc., timing
through the initial .development period.
f Critical Public Decisions. . . highways, utilities,
parks,-airports, etc. . .
g. Additional Ceneral Project Information . .
2. Plan Area Identification
n. Identify_oundaries and boundary conditions.
b. Identia_Proiect Area and other major ownerships.
6.
3333
C. Regional - Relationships , as pertains to the Metro
- Development Guide.
d. Existing Land Use ahd OccuLancy.
c. Existing Trmiaportation.
f. Existing Zoninl,
g. Guide Plan or sector plan amendments.
h. General Analysis and conclusions. .
3. Plan-Ereiect Area Analysis
a. Topography, Slopes.
b. Soils. . . surface and generalized subsurface.
c. Vegetation . . . quality as well as location & type.
d. Water . . streams, lakes, marsh, ponds, drainage,
subsurface, floodplains, .
e. Photographic Analysis . . . photographs of the
site sufricient to convey its general visual
qualities and relationship to area.
f. General Natural Ecological Analisis and conclusions.
4. Plan Proposal;
a. Goals. . . specific concept plan goals to
be achieved.
b. Land Use. . . designations, area density Or
gross building area proposed. . .
C. Transportation. . . including designation of
arterials, collectors and major plan area
feeder streets, access points to arterials and
collectors, right-of-way widths, preliminary
profiles and typical cross-section proposals. .
d. Common Areas and Eacilitics. . plan designa-
Milt and 0 -escripion including ownership and
development responsibility, maintenance and
phasing.
7.
e. Utilities Schematic. . . indicating trunk and
lateral distribution scheme for water, sewer
and power, drainage patterns and schematic struc-
tural requirements. . .
f. Mass_Giladin_g. .-. plan designation of major
excavation or fill areas required to create
access or prepare sites for structures in
schematic form.
Community Facilities. . . Including parks, public
open space, schools, churches, and other public
or quasi facilities. . .
h. Development Phases. . . indicate area and nature
of initial development, and hest estimate of :
future stages of development in chronological
order. . .
Housing :jcipulation Profile. . . identification
of proposed housing inventory by type and cost.
Profile of project population by age groupings.
Land Use Profile. . . identification of various
uses and approximate size ( square foot ), etc.
k. Transit Impact Analysis. . .general determination
of the impact of the development upon existing
transit systems and needed transit improvements
to 'Support the plan.
Additional Information oz. documentation which helps
to illustrate the PUD Concept Stage Plan.
C. PUP Development Stage Plan - Submission Requirements:
Project Identification:
a. Ownership. . . purchased from, purchased by, nature
of title, contract transfer schedule, a.ssociations
or partnerships, etc.,..
b. Devcrloper, . . owners or partners, nature of business
previous experience, nature and extent of participatioa
other concurrent ventures, long or short term involve-
ment intention, etc....
c. Fiscal, Economic. . . interim and long term capital
sources of prospects, nature of participation , if
any. . .
d. Development Method. . . tract or lot sale or lease,
actual .construction, combination, responsibility
of common areas and facilities. . .
8.
o Development Timing. . . a "critical path" means of
. description that includes p/anning, approval,
construction, sales and occupancy, etc., timing through
the initial development period.
f. Critical Public Decisions. . . highways, utilities,
parks, airports, zoning, platting, environmental
review, etc. . .
g. Additioual General Project Information. . . as may be
necessary to explain the unique characteristics of the
project.
2. Plan Area Identification:
a Identify Boundaries and boundary conditions.
4 Identify Project Area and other major ownerships.,
c Regional Relationships. . . that may be influenced
or have had signficant impact upon the project.
d EXisting ,Land Use and Occupancy.
e. Existing Transportation Systems.. . . pedestrian,
auto, etc. . .
f. Existing Zoning.
g. Guide Plan and PUD Concent Stage •Plan Framework.
h. General Analysis and conclusions.
3. Plan-Project Area Analysis
a. Topomrathy. Slopes.
b. Soils. . . surface and subsurface conditions that
may affectconstruction.
c. Vegetation. . . quality as well as location.
d. Water. . . streams, lakes, marsh, ponds, drainage,
• subsurface, floodplains. .
c. Photapr:Thic Analysis. . . photographs of the site
sufficient to convey its general visual qualities
and relationship to area and proposed development.
f. General Natural licolorical Analysis and conclusions.
9,
4. plan PToTosal:
a. bevelopent Objectives. . . as they implement the
tonee .1t Plan's goals and specific project objectives.
h. Site Plan. . . depicting specific site layout with
roads, pathways, buildings, open space, landscaping,.
and other site design features.
Grading, . . completed illustrating to 2 foot contour
intervals the site alteration necessary to complete the
plan.
d. Utility Plan. . . which illustrates the easements,
and general sewer, water, and power services to
all uses.
Preliminary Architectural Drawius. . . normal
detail achieved during "design development phalise"
of architectural design process ( does not include
single family detached housing).
f. Legal Instruments for Plan Implementation.
homeowner's association documents, scenic ,
pathway, drainage, or other easements and
private documents, etc. . .
g • Housing or Land/Iluildin_g Use Profile. . . computations
of gross/loaSeable square footage , housing unit
breakdown to square foot, bedrooms, persons/unit,
parking requirements, etc. . .
h. Zonini, Classifications and/or Variation from City
Ordinances . . . listing of zoning district changes
needed, variances from City ordinance provisions,
etc. . .$.
Phasinp and Construction Schedule. . . explanation
of development time table including city review
through sales and occupancy.
j. Additional Information graphics or written
explanation that will aid in the understanding of
the project.
10 ,
33(43
ZONING SUMMARY
Outline
Page
1 Introduction
draTI
2 Zoning Process Outline:
2 A. Zoning Ordinance
2 B. Zoning Map
2 C. Initiation of Zoning Application
2 D. Applications
3 E. OPtional Submission of Zoning and POD •
or Preliminary Plat
3 F. Staff Review
3 G. Referral to Planning Commission
4 . H. Planning Commission Review
4 Y. City Council Review
4 Reapplication
4 K. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council
L. Public Presentation
6 Submission Requirements:
6 A. General Requirements
6 B. Specific Plan Requirements
7 C. Site Area Analysis
3•,14
•:.111.•:. •
INTRODUCTION
Eden Prairie's Zoning Ordinance #135, adopted in 1969, is
quite different from most City zoning codes. The ordinance
relys upon interpretation of most conditions of the ordinance,
For example, specific uses within each zone are not listed,
rather general descriptions of the objectives to be achieved
by land use is included. Ordinance #135 is an exclusive
zoning district concept differing from many which allow all
lesser uses within each higher zone. For example, within
commercial or industrial districts , residential uses are
not allowed.
Zoning in Eden Prairie is used . . . "to assist in the imple-
mentation of the City of Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide
Plan which this Ordinance is based . . . " Sectionl, Subd.
1.2 (2).
Unlike many communities Eden Prairie did not "pre-zone"
large areas to a specific use such as single family R1 or
Industrial, instead most undeveloped property was zoned to
the Rural District. The purpose of the Rural District
included permitting certain agricultural uses and. . .
." To prevent premature urban develop-
ment of certain lands which eventually
will he appropriate for urban uses
until the installation of drainage works,
streets, utilities and community facilities
and the ability to objectively determine
and project appropriate land use patterns
makes orderly development possible. '
Application to a specific urban zoning
district is timed to be in sequence with
piiblic utility services and construction
of the project. "
ZONIM; PROCESS OUTLINE
A. 70e'ing Ordinance
Ordinanre #13!, is the document in which the city's zoning
proei bs is di s, s ed in detail. Copies of : a) Ordinance
#1Z.5,b Appendi% A - legal descriptions of all property
zonrd, c) Ordinance #1.11 replaces Sections 12r,13 of
Ol(ti;'l,:I I flarlAng 6 Loading, d) Ordinance #201 replaces
Section 11 e) Ordinance f276 Floodplain Ordinance,
and f) Ordin:.hce 93 Subdivision Ordinance are reference
documents necessary to prepare a zoning application. Copies
may In obtained i -ront the City Hall .
B. Zoning Map
The City Luning .lap may be purchased from the City Hall.
The Zoning Map is periodically updated, that revision date
is shown on the lower edge of the map. For official zoning
district bound;:ries or most current zoning information , the
legal descriptions contained in Appendix A and subsequent.
zoning ordinances are the most accurate source.
C. Initiati ,A1 of Zoning Application (Subd. 19.2, Ord.#135)
An amendment to a zoning ordinance may
be initiated by the City Council the
Planning Commission or by petition of
affected owners"
A zoning ordinance change may also be
part of a PHD development stage appli-
ention. " (refer to POD Procedures,
dated
D. ±Tplications
Applications for 'approval of a Zoning district change shall be
filed at the (Thee of the Planning Director. A non-refundable
application foe of $200.00 as established by the City Council
to dcfrny adi:AnIstrative costs shall accompany each application.
A deposit established by the Planning Director shall accompany
the applicdtion. The desposit or portion thereof, will be
refunded after tinal City Council action on the proposal
if the total sum is greater than the administrative review
cost, which may include, hut not be limited to:
1. consultant fees assisting in City review.
2. City staff time expended in specific
development review.
2.
3 :Ai,
3. mailing, legal notices and other adminis-
trative costs.
4. any other reasonable costs incurred by
the city in review of the proposal.
Full payment by the proponent pf all fees and cost for city
review must by paid prior to further city consideration.
Each application shall contain the required information for
Zoning fistrict change or additional information and sub-
mishions as may be prescribed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant shall provide a letter authorizing the city to erect one
or more "1.;ald Development Signs" which iihietifies the site as proposed
for developliwat. The signs will remain until the city has completed
action up,a1 the applicant's request at which time the city will remove
the sign. l'he applicant does not assume responsibility for the signs
in case of vandalirm or theft and only grants permission to the city
for their erection.
E. pptional Submission of Zoning and PUD or Preliminary Plat
The proponent may, .at his option, submit PUD Concept Stage
and/or preliminary plat simultaneously with the submission
with all the provisions of the city applicable to submission
of each separate action. The Planning Commission and Council
shall consider such request simultaneously and shall grant or
deny the applicallons.
F. Staff Review
The city staff will review the zoning application and prepare
a report for the city advisory commissions and City Council
reviewing the adequacy of the data submitted, conformance
of the zoning with established city, watershed, etc., policies,
project's technical design aspects and a staff recommendation
for City action . Such a staff report may be Written before
the first Planning Commission meeting or after one or more
meetings depending upon the complexity of the project, issues
and public explanation necessary.
G. Referral to the Planninp„ Comm sion
Upon reeript of a complete zoning district change application,
the Planning Director shall refer such application to the
Planning Commission for c::onsidoration at the first regular
meeting of such colionission which would allow for the legal
publication and notice requirements. In no case shall the
first Planning Commission consideration be more than 30 days
after receipt of the application.
The first Planning Commission meeting considering the zoning
district change shall be a public he with notieepublished
in the official newspaper of the city prior to the day of
the hearing. Notice of the meeting will also be mailed to
affected property owners in the project areaat least 5 days
prior to the meeting.
3
M. Planning Commission Review
The Commis!.ion may icier the Zoning Application to oth
e
r
C
i
t
y
advisory coomissions or other appropriate governmental
r
e
v
i
e
w
agencies at its deseietion. The Commission shot/ review the
plans and malle a recou.mendation to the City Council wi
t
h
i
n
60 days of its fir..t consideration unless an extension
i
s
agreed to by the proponents.
1. City Council Review
The City Council upon receipt of the Planning Commission
'
s
recommendotieo on the zoning application and written req
u
e
s
t
from the proponent, vill set a public hearing to conside
r
the application. Notice of thepublic hearing will be published
in the official newspaper of the city at least 10 days p
r
i
o
r
to the day of the hearing. Notice of the meeting will be
mailed to affected property owners at least 10 days pri
o
r
t
o
the day of the public hearing.
TheCity Council after review of the zoning request, adv
i
s
o
r
y
commission recomMendations', staff recommendations and p
u
b
l
i
c
comment, may approve (by a 2/3 -two thirds-vote of coun
c
i
l
members), deny, or recommend revisions or reppplicatio
n
.
The city Council in approving a zoning district change will
direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amendi
n
g
Zoning Ordinance 131 rezoning the specific site to the
appropriate zoning district . The City Council will then
direct the City Attorney to draft a Zoning Agreement that
states the terms and conditions agreed upon by the prop
o
n
e
n
t
and city. Said Zoning Agreement shall be signed by the city
and proponents prior to the second reading of the ordin
a
n
c
e
zoning the property.
J. Rea_pp]) cat ion
No application for the same or substantially the same
c
h
a
n
g
e
shall be made within one (1) year from the date of City
Council denial.
K. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council
Some zoning plans will be required to prepare an Environ
m
e
n
t
a
l
. Assessmeni workshe,t an voquirod by the bimwsota Env i ronmental Quality
Connei 1 Rules and Rowilat ions ( Minn.Rog. MEQC 21 ) pursuant
to the Environmental Policy Act of 1973. The Planning Directo
r
will assist the proponent in such a determination as to
f
l
i
p
need for an Environmental Assessment.
4.
L. Public Presentation
Present ,,tions made to the Planning Commission and City Council
should he brief (10-20 minutes) covering the major features
that influenced the proposed plan, a clear description of
what is proposed and an explanation of city decisions requested.
Visual aids such as: models, slides, air photos, overhead
transparencies, large plan graphics will aid the decision
makers and interested citizens in understanding the proposed
plan. There is no substitute for visual communication in
explaining such complex issues and solutions involved in
land development decisions. Contact the Planning Director
for use of audio visual equipment.
Generally, the following is the Public Hearing Format used
by the City Commissions and Couttcil:
1. Call the opening of the Public Hearing.
2. Proponent presentation (15-20 minutes ).
3. Commission and/or staff reports (10-15 minutes).
4. Council/commission review or questions.
5. Public questions and comments.
6. Council/commission review and question proponents,
opponents, staff.
7. Council/commission close or continue the Public
Hearing and determine the necessary action.
5.
33til
SUBM):,S/ON REQUIREMENTS
A. Critcrn1 Re0nirements for Zoning District Change Plans:
1. One (I) copy of the completed Land Development
Application form and application fee must be filed
with the Planning Director a minimum of 21 days
before the first Planning Commission meeting..
2. Thirty (30) copies of the application material
shall he filed with the Planning Director a
minimum of 14 days before the first meeting with
the Planning Commission.
3. A prei.uhmission conference with the city staff is
important to assist the proponent in determining
the existing city policies, utilities and plans
affecting the proposed project.
4. The city has found that presentation and discussion
of a proposed zoning change with adjacent landowners
is a positive step in the development and review.
process. The city staff will assist the proponent
in setting up such meetings if desired by the
proponcnt.
B. SLecific Plan • Requirements
1. Ownership. . purchased from, purchased by, nature
of title, contract transfer schedule, associations
or partnerships, etc. . .
2. Developer. . . owners or partners, nature of business
previous experience, nature and extent of participa-
tion other concurrent ventures, long or short term
involvement intention, etc. . .
3. Fiscal, Economic. . . interim and long term capital
sources of prospects, nature of participation , if
any. . . •
4. DevelopmQnt Method. . . tract or lot sale or lease,
actual con:,truction , combination , responsibility
of common areas and facilities. . .
5. Identify Boundaries and boundary conditions.
6. Identify Project Area and other major ownerships.
2. Regional .P ,.,lationships that may be influenced
-6-1-e -b:f -sCiii-ei.:ant impact upon the project.
8. - Existing Land Use and Occupancy.
6.
Tran-To n tation Systems. . . pedestrian,
nuto, I. . .
• ;n-
ii plan Framework.
in7 , V: hlic Dec ,sions. . . highways, utilities,
ports, zoning, platting, environmental
.;•nural Project Information. . . as may .
• • ,n tu ,-plain the unique characteristics
of 1J.
L. S3 .t.e AI Analysis
Develop_mettt_Obiectiyes.—
Sit . . d:Ticting specific site layout with
buildings, open space, landscaping,
am- oth:,1 site design features.
I.
€
,u! • . rom-leted illustrating to 2 foot
€ r the site alteration necessary
tc, coi ,! plan.
4 . . . which illustrates the easements,
au:,a.ural s^.wer, water, and power services to
all ltn ,:;.
S. L:Y-hiteetural Drawings. . . normal
all •cF.Javed during design development phase"
nia
orqral design process ( does not include
ami'a detached housing ).
. 1 ,...rum(.1,ts /or Plan Implementation. .
1 ,w6cot,. vr. asso:Aation documents, scenic pathway,
dr!,--, or othe casements and private documents,
,,• Inn i ;ding Ilse Profile... computations
••:.:,,I ,,tota re footage, housing unit break -
f bedrooms, persons/unit parking
• , et.k. . .
7.
33'1
,
8. Zoning Classification and/or Variations from City
Ordinances listing of zoning district changes'
needed, variances from city ordinance provisions,
etc. . .
9. Phasing and Construction Schedule. . . explanation
of dvvelopment time table including city review
through sales and occupancy.
10. Additional Information . . . graphics or written
explanation that will aid in the understanding of .
the project.
8.
3351
PRELIMINARY -PLAT PROCEDURES
Outline
Page
1 Introduction
2 A. City Review Procedure
2 1. Review
2 2. Filing
2 3. Filing Fee
2b 4. Hearing
3 5. Report to Council. --
3 6. City Council Action
3 B. Data for Preliminary Plan
3 1. Identification & Description
4 2. Existing Conditions
. Subdivision Design Features
6 4. Other Information
6 C. Ordinance 1332-Park & Open Space
MS3
INTRODUCTION
The procedures and requirements for preliminary platting are
listed in Ordinance #93, adopted February 28, 1967. Modifi-
cations to Ordinance #93 have been made by the City Council .
by amendments or new ordinances while other administrative *
changes have streamlined procedures.
Preliminary plats are prepared by a registered engineer and
arc reviewed by the city and public. The preliminary plat
is as the name implies, it proceeds the final plat and allows
for changes to be made before the detailed engineering
design is determined.
A. p;t ' Review Procedure:
Procedure: Before subdividing any tract of land
the subdivider shall submit a preliminary plat of
the subdivision for approval of the Planning Com-
mission and City Council in the following manner:
Submission:
(I) IlevLL. The preliminary plat shall he submitted
to tie Planning Director who shall review same
to as..:rtain if said plat with the
regulations as herein set forth. If the Planning
Director finds the material sufficient and in
conforance, the plat shall be given a file
number and scheduled for the Planning Commission's
agenda.
(2) Fl in. thirty (30) copies of the proposed plat
shall Ue filed with the Planning Director. The
required filing fee shall be paid and any neces-
sary a:Tlications for variances from the provi-
sions of this ordinance and other applicable
city ordinances, shall be filed before the proposed
plat shall be considered officially filed.
The applicant shall provide a letter authorizing the city to e
r
e
c
t
one or soi'a "load 11;:.velopmeat Signs" which identifies the sit
e
a
s
proposed for development. The signs will remain until the cit
y
h
a
s
completed action upon the applicant's request at which time t
h
e
c
i
t
y
ui21 rere'e the sign(s). The applicant does not assume respon
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
for the signs in case of vandalism or theft and only grants p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
to the city for their erection.
(3) Filing Fee. The fee to be paid for filing an
application shall be twenty-five dollars ($25.00),
plus one dollar (51.00) for each lot or
-- dollars ( ) per acre on non-residential
property.
(4) unarm. Within thirty days (30) from the date of
filing, the Planning Director shall:
(a) Set a public hearing for the next regular
meeting of the Planning Commission. The
Pladning Commission shall conduct the
hearing nod report upon findings and make
recommendations to the City Council. Notice
O f said hearing :hall be published in the
official newspaper at least seven(7) days
prior to the hearing.
(b) Puler one (1) copy of the preliminary plat to
each member of the Planning Commission for
I heir examination and report. The City
Engineer and Planning Director shall provide
the Planning Commission a copy of their
report (a) at least P days prior to the hearing
2.
Cc) Public Hearing Format
Generally the following is the Public Hearing Format used by
'the City Commissions and Council. ,
1. Call the opening of the public hearing.
2. Proponent presentation ( 15-20 minutes ).
3. Commission and/or staff reports ( 10-15 minutes
4. Council/commission review or questions.
5. Public questions and comments.
6. Council/commission close or continue public
hearing and determine the necessary action.
2b.
(5) Report to Council. The Planning Commission shall
make a report to the City Council within 21 days
following the public hearing.
(6) City Council Action:
(a) The Council shall act upon the preliminary
plat within one hundred and twenty (120)
days of the date on which it was officially
H led . If the report of the Planning Com-
mission has not been received in time to
meet this requirement, the Council may act
on the preliminary plat without such report.
(b) If the preliminary plat is not approved by •
the City Council, the reasons for such action
shall be recorded in the proceedings of the
Council and transmitted to the applicant .
If the preliminary plat is approved, such a
approval shall not constitute final accep-
tance of the subdivision, but the general — acceptance of the layout. Subsequent approval
will be required of the engineering proposals
and other features and requirements as speci-
fied by this Ordinance to be indicated on the
final plat. The City Council may require
such revisions in the preliminary plat and final
—plat as it deems necessary for the health,
safety, general welfare and convenience of
the City of Eden Prairie.
(c) The City Council shall direct the City Attorney
to prepare a resolution stating the council's
action and reasons for approval or denial of
the preliminary plat application.
B. Data for Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat
shall be clearly and legibly drawn at a scale approved
by the City Engincier but not loss than 1=50 feet.
The preliminary plat of the proposed subdivision shall
contain or have attached thereto the following infor-
mation:
1 Idoutification and Description:
(a) Proposed name of subdivision, which name shall
not duplicate or he alike in pronunciation of the
name cf any plat theretofore ecorded in the
County.
(b) Legal description of property according to the
records in the office of the Register of Deeds.
3.
(c) Name and addresses of the owner, owner's
agent, subdivider, surveyor and designer
of the plat.
(d) Graphic -scale.
(c) North Point.
(f) Date of preparation.
2. Existing Conditions:
(a) Boundary line survey of proposed subdivision
clearly indicated.
(b) Existing zoning classifications.
(c) Total acreage.
(d) Shown on county half-section maps (1"=200'
scale) the location, widths, and names Of
proposed streets or other public ways, parks
and other public lands, easements, and sec-
tion and corporate lines within the preliminary
plat and to a distance one hundred (100')
feet beyond the boundary line.
(e) Location and size both public and private, of
existing sewers, water mains, culverts or other
underground facilities within the preliminary
plat area and to a distance of one hundred
(100') feet beyond. Such data as grades,
invert elevations , and locations of catch
basins, manholes, and hydrants shall also
be shown.
(f) Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or
subdivided land, within one hundred (100')
feet identifying by name and ownership.
(g). Topographic data, including contours at
' vertical intervals of not more than two
feet (2') , except where the horizaontal
. contour interval is one hundred feet (100')
or more , a one foot (1') vertical interval
shall be shown. Water courses, marshes,
wooded areas, rock outcrops, power transmission
policies and linos, and other significant
features shall also be shown.
(h) Two (2) copies of all proposed private covenants.
(i) At least two (2) soil borings shall be required
by the City Engineer.
At least two (2) percolation tests shall be
required by the City Engineer whore appropriate.
( j )
.1
4 .
,.6
3 . Subdivision Design Features:
(o) Layout of proposed streets, inelnding proposed
roads according to.City thoroughfare plans,
showing right-of-way widths and proposed names
of streets. The name of any street heretofore
used in the City or its environs shall not be
used unless the proposed street is an extension
of an already named street, in which event the
name shall he used. The City Engineer will review
street naming with applicant.
(b) Location of widths or proposed alleys, pedestrian
ways and utility easements.
(c) Typical cross-sections of proposed improvements
upon streets and alleys, together with an indica-
tion as to the method of disposing of the proposed
storm water runoff.
(d) Approximate center line gradients of proposed
streets and alleys.
(e) Location, size and approximate gradient of proposed
sewer lines and water mains.
(f) Layout, numbers and preliminary dimensions of lots
and blocks, and building setback lines.
(g) Areas, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian
ways and utility easements, intended to be dedicated
or reserved for public use, including the size of
such area or areas in acres.
(h) Whenever a lot proposed for platting is intended
or large enough for future platting, a tentative
plan for the future subdivision of the entire
tract shall be submitted to the Planning Commission.
(i) No plan will be approved for a subdivision which
covers an area subject to periodic flooding, or
which contains extremely poor drainage facilities
and which would mahe adequate drainage of the
streets and lots impossible, unless the subdivider
agrees to make improvements which will, in the
opinion of the City Engineer, make the area com-
pletely safe for occupancy, and provide adequate
street and lot drainage.
The City Flood Plain Zone and open space system plans
adopted by the Conneil will be used in evaluating the
plat and the plat's conformance with those ordinances
and plans shall be reported to the Planning Commission
and City Council by the Engineer and Planning Director.
s .
')
( j) The preliminary plat shall be in confor
m
a
n
c
e
with the PUD and/or Zoning Agreement for th
e
subject site. The Planning Director shall
provide the applicant with copies of any ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
stating conditions affecting the subject si
t
e
.
Such an agreement may provide for variances
o
r
specivl conditions for utilization of the s
i
t
e
.
4. Other Information:
(a) Statement of the proposed use of lots stati
n
g
type of buildings with number of proposed dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
units, type of business or industry so as t
o
reveal the effect of the development on tra
f
f
i
c
,
fire hazards or congestion of population.
(b) Water supply source.
(6 Provisions for sewage disposal, draina
g
e
a
n
d
flood control.
(d) Notation made as to the installation of curb
a
n
d
gutter, sidewalks, boulevard improvements ,
a
n
d
the location of street trees.
(e) Proposed protective covenants or deed restric
t
i
o
n
s
.
(f) Location of proposed street lights, and ease
m
e
n
t
s
,
and the utilities of electricity, gas and te
l
e
-
phone. All such utilities are to be underground.
C. Drdinance n :332, Park and Open .Space
Adopted June 8, 1976, Amending Section 11, O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
193 Relating to Parks, Playgrounds, Public O
p
e
n
Space, storm water holding areas or ponds.
Section 11 .
•
Subd. 1. Parks, Play!trounds. Public Open Space, Storm Water
holding Areas or Ponds.
The owner or owners of land being subdivided
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
commercial, industrial or other Uses, Or as
a
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
u
n
i
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
-
ment which inclndc .a resideLtial, commercial and industrial us
e
s
,
or any col...inatien thereof shall dedicate a
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
each proposed subdivision to the public for
p
u
b
l
i
c
u
s
e
a
s
p
a
r
k
s
,
playgrounds, public open space or storm wate
r
h
o
l
d
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
o
r
p
o
n
d
;
,
,
or at the city's option, the subdivider shal
l
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
a
n
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
amount iv cash based on the following Sehrd
a
l
e
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
h
e
r
e
b
y
determined to be the fair market value of t
h
e
u
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
l
a
n
d
.
Residential Units
Per Acre
Sin;,.le family no:ached
All othor rc...idential uses
Commercial/Office/lndu riot Ii': C's
pee per Unit
! 275
$ 200
6 . $1,200/acre
Subd,_2,._ That any money received hereunder shall be placed
in a special fund by the City and used only for the acquisition
of land for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces, storm water
holding areas or ponds, development of existing park and playground
sites, public open space and storm water holding areas or ponds
and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for
such public purposes.
Subd. .3., In ascertaining the amount of money and/or land
dedication required herein to be dedicated to the public for public
use, the City may take into consideration the open space; park,
recreational common areas and facilities which the subdivider has
provided for the exclusive use of the residents of the subdivision.
Subd. 4. Payments required by Subdivision I may, at the
Council's discretion, be deferred until such time as a building
permit is issued for the property involved.
7
9';' I
October 8, 1976
RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT POD PROCEDURES
3 :3',
)1 .:NVAI F. IN( '.
7760 Ali Read • Eden Prairie, Minn, 55343 • 612/941 -5300
October 5, 1976
Mr. Dick Putnam
Planning Director
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Dear Dick,
In respow.e to your request for written comments to your proposed
Draft Summaries of Eden Prairies Land Development Procedures, I submi
t
the following:
I compliment you on your soliciation of our input on this matter
and appreciate the opportunity to comment. I will be as specific
as possible to the outlines you prepared.
2. I feel that the basic POD procedure as written is good;
however, it should be an option of the land owner to use
PUD rather than zoning as a land development procedure and
this option doesn't exist in Eden Prairie because of the
procedures, variances needed and inadequacies of the Eden
Prairie zoning ordinances.
Dick Putnam
Page 2
October 5, 1976
3. One item which might make PUD more meaningful is making PUD
a zoning district committing land use at concept stage thus
eliminating the need to go through this step again at development
stage. This would also eliminate the need for a 4/5 vote after
much monetary commitment is already made based on conceptual
approval.
4. I think your procedure here is basically good with these two
weaknesses.
II. Zoning Summary
1. A general comment that the basic ordinance and process is quite
workable but where it breaks down is in the fact that the require-
ments are more specific than needed in project review and leas
specific than needed in development requirements and guidelines.
2. The ordinances for Residential Development are in my opinion
based on unrealistic requirements e.i. R1-22. I feel we need
2 or 3 zoning districts for single family such as R (13,500 SF lot),
R (10,000 SF lot) and R (8,000 SF lot).
3. The entire summary is fine up to the Site Area Analysis on page
7 and 8. The requirement of preliminary architectural drawings,
referred to is the same as in design development stage of PUD and
is more than should be needed for straight zoning. Zoning should
be available for properties where it is impractical to predict the
identification of end users and where adherence to specific zoning
standards assures the City of good development. The requirement
to go to the same detail as in PUD makes one or the other an
unnecessary function. Computation of gross leasable square
footage, number of bedrooms, persons per unit, parking layouts,
etc., belong in PUD, not conventional zoning. I would recommend
establishing realistic zoning standards as a requirement which can
only be varied by zoning variances or by PUD.
4. Standards should be realistic enough so that variances are rare
rather than common.
5. Phasing and construction schedule again belongs in PUD where these
things can he predicted and should not be a requirement for zoning.
This Whole section on page 7 and 8 sounds like it is written to
describe PUD.
DRP/sr
Yours truly,
goni"L4e1/rX
Donald R. Pe arson
Dick Putnam
Page 3
October 5, 1976
III. Preliminary Plat Procedures
1. This procedure is well outlined and is in my opinion not
unreasonable.
2. I feel that park dedication fees are unreasonably high. This
does not effect us in our PUD and really is to our benefit but
it seems unreasonably high. A requirement of $3,000.00 per
acre on 15 units per acre apartment land is ridiculous. This
concept of park land cash donation is reasonable only to a
certain point. When it exceeds $200.00 per single family unit
and say $500.00 per acre on commercial and multiple land; I
think it is unreasonable. Also the requirement of cash at .
Council's discretion should be allowed only if the cash require-
ment is reasonable. The concept of charging all newcomers to
the community whether residential or commercial for all park
acquisition cost is not fair. Let us existing residents pay our
fair share and if the programs are too high in cost we'll let
our elected representatives know about it. Lets not penalize
the new people for what we want but are unwilling to pay for.
These comments are made in a spirit of constructive suggestions and are not
made to criticize your work. I welcome this opportunity and hope that my
comments will help in making Eden Prairie more desirable.
i > - _ _ • L L a 7101 l4pr-11-1 ritrinnnioral:s, rn:nnasota - 55435 • £6123 831 •• - ' RrCHerro FulNAN PRAIRIE VILLACE. HAt 0 • ., EcEN PRAIRIE.mIt1:.E..50TA 55343 OCTOBER 4, 1976 THAI-KS. DICK, FOR TIE: cuoy OF THE 1" EL. IN 1316A. I RI E Plc.; _ I NZS 1.1FDRTUNATF_LY , I WILL BE A t 4tNDING TI-E URBAN LAND INSTITUTE rEET1t EN CICTERr':..6 At,* WILL BE LNABLE TO ATTEND YOUR PUBLIC FEARING. I AM 10ST CONCa7"17.ED -cur T.t. 7:-'7'0.-`.7) It-!!!7.;,! POD SIZE Cr. 25 ACRES. I E.T.L. I EvE THIS IS CONTRARY TO CI.A7.72.zAT : 1 Z7 5!"..-LL r EF! LENT . THESL: EASILY 111ITIATEE., LESS .r.7 A L. 0 nrs FAR O.X2 LIKELY 'it) rasuLT IN A SUCCESS- FU., CO!.PL.ETED, IfrT00VEC EZ•tv I FE-T!T ENT ..-77./AF-T-LE, 1210 SUCCESSFLL TC.IF.FICUSE DEVEU:PhlaITS OF A SMALLER SCALE ARL Cr.f.',,,PNIEw IN EX0"0117-, Mit !..724R1.1_ IS WITH 5 ACRES AND 41 -OWES, AND BRIC.4-ITON SQUARE IN 1'.,:zt BRraiTI-LIA, WITH L..2 ..".C.1,75 ,•••to 60 YC•_1 1,"..rsT HAvE 4 t -.1- • 17!•,!' F" , ,• 1.17 T:S IT IS Cd.:R. FE2._ING THAT jJ OF C F. P'-A:_!:ING AND CESIGN WITH VARIATIOHS F125.."1 MOT: r."-1: Y: E 1AT P5A0010 EvEN A SINCTLE AC5.-E DZVELOPTENT COLt_D BE THE SITE OF I;''0'; T.- , :AVE TO 130TH SITE CCNSTRAINTS AND PETCRI_Tii S CUR F'..121.1T , WC: E 1 C, ; . 7Y ERE:4 ME ENTIRE /1 P . EERY , cr:srsILL PF:civIr:.:E I' ...E.," _ ,T . - _ Al1 -:-Zo ECEN PRAIRIE. A.A..213 • TO EUILD, L1' •-• !; ) A.7 I'VE At-.0 COr •.„.rarrSITHIN . . 7:17 7 7 • CIFEIt011".E.E3 • 1...nr-,C1 CiTZw...:!c10111,52E11". • -: ;
PAGE m2 10/4/76 MR. RICHARD PUTNAM WE ARE ALSO CONCERNM WITH THE REQUIPEEENT THAT THE FEELIMINARE PLAT BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER. IN THE ',T, !E N4VE ALWAYS CAEEIED OUR CONCFE3T, PRELIMINARY SEETCHES ALL THE WAY THROVE 1 TO IE ! ! • ST! IT CCLPA TEE FREE OS ED DItSIaS, GRADES, UTILITY INVERTS, ETC. THIS iiCD U iITH A rucH CEEATER VEASURE C CONTROL OVER INTEGRATED DESIGN THAE :MED PAVE e'aTI EOSSIBLE IF WE'D HAVE PEEN REOUIRED TO TUN OVER OUR SKETCHES TO AN ENGINaER PEE."!ATLEELY. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF TOWNHOUSE AND MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING WHERE ARCHITECTUEE. L•IDSCAEE ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING DESIGN MUST BE CAREFULLY BALANCED AND co,r3ws,-;. EEECIEEINE, A DESICN EECEESSION4L IS ADEQUATE. AN UNDERSTANDING OF THF 11-r: 0E5104 PS'OCESS, EVOLVING FROM GENERAL CONCEPTS TO GRADUALLY MORE SPECIFIC 5O IC- POINTE LP AN ADDITICMAL ISSUE, QUITE OFTEN, VERY DETAILED BUILDING ILLLISTRAT/ctis ArE REQUIR:D CFFC2F THE SITE, OUOCET AND MARKETING CONSTRAINTS ARE FULLY KNEEN. TEE REOU/REEENT EE t-7H-_-; DETAIL TOO SorN IS COSTLY, AND FROM OUT EXPERIENCE, DESTRUCTIVE To ma cATIvE DEEEECEE:EIEE=ENT PEOCESS. AN LNDERSTANDING OF -NIS ShELED I-0.P THE rs.1E OF THri COLY4CIL IN RECOGNIZING THE IFPACTS OF THEIR ACTICM CN THE PRACTICE .6M) ECt-t-D71Ic: o, Ti-a DESIGN PROCESS. KIND REGARDS. -,0 ROBERT ENGSTRX4 PRESIDENT
approved
Planning Commission Minutes Oct. 14, 1976
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Land Development Procedures.
The planner suggested the Planning Commission consider adopting a public hearing
format, page 2 of Draft PUD Procedures, similar to the format presently used by
the Council.
Sorensen felt if too structured of a format is adopted, the commission might lose
the part of the government process which is ,public relations.
Commission members Lynch, Bearman.and Pauly felt the commission should investi-
gate adoption of a public hearing format to control lengthy discourse that is
not always germane .
i I:
- approved Planning Commission Minutes
-5- Oct. 25, 1976
3. Setback Report by Carl Jullie, City Engineer
The planner referred the commission to th
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
which are a consensus of the setbacks used on lots less than 13,500
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
.
Discussion -followed regarding-the -appropriateness of such a decision by the staff or commission.
Motion
Sc.bee moved, Lynch seconded, to forward a
c
o
p
y
o
f
t
h
e
m
e
m
o
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
n
d
a
s
k
tk_ council if they desire to have the Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
the subdivision standards suggested by t
h
e
c
i
t
y
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
T
h
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
4 :0:1 ( Sorensen abstained ).
3;69
TD: Dick Putnam
Wayne Sanders
Dave Olson
Roger Lasted
FROM: Carl Jullie
DATE: October 19, 1976
RE: Setbacks
For the sake of uniformity, the following setbacks will be recommended in
the case of a single family residential plat in a POD where setback variances
are requested by the developer:
5' Garage to side lot line,
10' 1 and 1 31 story house to side lot line,
15' 2 story house to side lot line,
30' Front of building to front lot line, except
25' on cul-de-sacs.
20' Rear of house to rear lot line,
20' Side yard setback for houses built on
corner lots, but not conflicting .with
30' setbacks on adjacent lots.
50' Minimum from any building line on MSA,
County and State highways.
Fireplaces and overhangs shall not be considered
as setback encroachments.
Accessory structures shall not be placed in the
front yard and shall be 5' minimum from side and
rear lot lines.
For subdivisions without variances, the standart setbacks listed in Ord.
#135 (copy attached) shall apply.
'3 3
leld 74 lie, eel neepereateakt -
1 *rd. ISA
kls 0.11 Arse ***nal width
the rnYenteny .1•10ef 101 V1IT
••,1111•11...41,1••1 and 1.11.. roe b.
lot len ete.h orar an • mho* or Inv.
wev shall 40..1 at mosl IN loot depth
II te*. an . no* ef 4 black 4 et.
Yr** 44.0 1.e0t1144 MINNA *
equal to **the leo O.* sttherl
Ot Ha* or oak n Arti 14. 4..
Wed* endItne dif11,11 TOO 04•141 the
larger ti the Iwo totutrentrois
el Powys. walls. lye*. not ever 6 led
le *lee rita• *may a* Ireed *rept
ne hexer ts•ol I** et *thee obis*.
Isevedond rol **f 11* or 11,111 pm.*
e‘en to a *tent pse leas I bey dub kr
*mot* where there will be tandem*
*IA troll.- • pi...three
2 Too.," pares clothe*1 water lathy
211.1 *les *Me •rd tY ameanas.
leamennostoo We., end eller ttrettures
ant thereby* ma.turtocal epp,rteneer.
eaten% etat fumy than IA'. al IN
;thane ereo maw be ereeted 44 Moe*
Of ent Moine Pun ZS le14* on additerh
lathe /*Benton hen ha *owned
24*4* 33 &penal ketsalrementh lemma
lac lied Load...en
Ito $em,* then mean el earth
mounds. wells tenets et*** *re-
deye% •• den. skrideents Metre 6 bet
se *net 10411.er 1..1h •••••• 414 41401.
11401Y 11011 • bully. anp of al Pali
IC bet on ...101 Hedge matenal must
be at lean 3 feet in height, and byes
mett be al least II lett oh hetiht at
loVittnIt
bt !enemas and tombraPere he
erlaneeth. outtatalned II an orderly eon
thbenby therneter
Co SCreentne ondyttnal Mb& etethlte
then be ereomp*Jed la 4 40e111 and
depah eamesiere yoth the bee see *woe
V 4 9 4 II 04 the etpea Veva* 00.4411.11 114 end
do Paths* ansas Met erreertedate more
Itelo 20 ears shall be krdsraced end
pleat* so Ihr penmeler and Ow***
She Ica le the estanl GI at lea0 te• al the
11.talserthred al*
Sad 14 Itemenemeal• - 226142
414 Landow
6* Serb* 41 CHI.Alreel Panora
fanboes
fuld IS eeelenathare thaadank •pplv tit
all An.nrth
Sutd 331 bee** Teethe*
0.1 attach bee*. ad the eaten al thee
*prawn ere arevenpamed by ea threes el
nese .braben. Matt. do. *sae. Way
otesoatoe 44414 elan or nast44 shall not N.
permit* Theo ....deal 14.19444 null be
ranee.* as ' r•feSart!' IMO Ow/ MI./.
:2 2
'01 2421149999 .922
; X
>
-T!' > > > > > > > > > >
17 1%41 * "...St! 24 081
E;vb
C13=2 2 2 414124140•assins
“1 3
KM 2 .$1231:8 EPAR;
A.
fglv,
21=X. n ta 2 .0 2 2
.1)1 .
5e;Ok?.
velvss7/1
ribibirM01,441 ez,lt,atvzL-atitetAz
DbAYAYWY0/11/
22222222242
212912‘1299•41e
22112112221422
2312 .12222414 '222
*feted or donate Iran+ IS **sin* IA
on the falterethe *donnas* Webltha•
bone
at Pm*. htheth shall be onthound en any
*ape.. Imp ol the trate * elosell the
elerabow Is Incaloe hose shall be co*
*44 444 * not le became obserbenable
dee le otteryntnettre basil freemen*.
onikwel 04 ornenstoy Ai I* 40W20
bee. the pm* *enure Pe* 121 apse
rank.* hem tsetlith hol *reed
the *Wet 41110 ph Table 1 leenth Tbe
wood some., level Mall 01. oneethred
both 4 semi level mover end ea an as.
swatted torte* band masherot. bate et
Woe. •40 P.n.! sow. 410o9061o0
penal spernotheoth pretretbrd be the
Ittnenion Wetter& Atthethoe* Mee.
sorement 401411 14 on.de own, the 110
*teeth of the scorer 101 .1
2•14.E1
04*0040,4 Freeeeney
ofsrks Per 1.••••4441 Weibel larvid
30 73
120
IVA 20
3O). IN ..
44- 122 .0
II.). 2.0 . .24
3.00 apa
0001$ 4,4
1030,044 20 400444 04 44004040 00 3
at anv bath eacer cane **Was poi
1,11104 beVi4k1 110 been el the pm
Meth.* slit on which Ihe epee** es
keeled
to Den sad Dort Nebel ae lap* pan,
On shall nee tor foamed *v peal
*a renrenottato* ether..*1 otoont per
ruler kno .4 401 two.- oas ot an
• oweattnentem el the 0601.1 par
Mies se pas* thrill*, Ince **be*
See ...a* *neer*. theta b. ea
plod le • ••••n 40101141414111 et Ye
444rfts Falreehant end el • meth an
49 20464. 3290t0*14e04 then be IN the
pew al ems*. thoelathe Seethe
Clan *abode* by tee Ilea* bates
Inas* ol WM, •11•11 be 64041 101 40
40444000004 44 01014* 49sit4 IN den
• ar acme Ops.te 410444 Pa I el a*
than clay le orrnotad
teethe 1.1 elate•r III lll0l1' .•
ke 7 of rivrt 1- t •
440044 m4 11w' 111,41 1 ..r, .!•
antn )0 winui. oe,o.no 1. •
yob, to to...* pre. •nno •
.1:,"1. In bnn.• •''
Colee but colh on nen•ol•ni
epenly
ler Otha.• 144, 401101 1 1 or
Cps. •1 •ny Irmf 11.• tl../1.•,, •
taste hone* ordo,o.l
the 411111* 11 the tn ,,,,, •••• • •
n *Med on nu.. roni
be *foment* to re •- •-
beelth. 0111911. ronlaro
ray3410110V In 1,101011v nt
It Glen. I:Lore. •bether tem r•
ed. *en at from tote
tempenlere preenes ann •'.
e.t.a In* 4t1.leI tilnin ,u .n•••
nee te ecyord
thorned... +tie I.* • n ••.•
et Monte. All valid c.ne 01111.,, • •
reuse Ill farts••• 411,411 I. 11111• •
• ranthielety en.kneto I.•
tally contained 0 2 wsea ...,••••••••,
1.1111nr0 ft( Weft p414141 111 1 1
1•11•11.. r0n1.4.04 aos uor.., 0 1 1....
1114114.1 1111111 1.1 /10.4.•1100 1,1 ,1/ 1.
parbhe thntury 0121 II lllll1'1'
• 111101•1./ tne•enhee 0l ihn 1.'•., •
Health Oebtron.t.no Th.
babe 414e1.e111110 III • .10,11
00111111111 •••n •n•• 011111 r•••nn• ••;.
11.11 1.0. per st1• 4010 pet 1,1•••.,
111•111•111.4411A a14m•0n
babel S 3 001.-ethear
I. roder to 911,4111 1,417121101
f/I•darnUnee •0•1 10.11
Volk* Caned on* mto.nn •• 1!". ••••••• .
opereler permoned tre te
Ilerh tonestatonon, end .1, ••• ;
mewed ea show adhere.... 10 101 -
ape bandana.. Serb
44 Iry 400nre4 In be mane .1,.11 I. ,
eel 4* so .4fl414. 1011 11 0
041004 opnn h• all p.311.01 n t•
evened at al there ss lea*. 1121110
web ontesevsk* ipso,/ 111411111.•
Atha be printed ht tie •4,11
49.0 waft The rests tnry•nvl tn
Arch onyetthealoorn 01 oevo•
be shooed awns 09 00 ...nee 0 , •....1 11..
fogl ValLthe. tordesv th. ..... 1.c. • :
&id 11•11010,1 0014eun.l..nr• 0111 ••••
4441101MasInt SlanlianIs I. ••n••.,
pokt theetenef or aerrabie
Fated SI Testy -1 -thaye
Thy proeedure 911017 tut* 101 •:
rhode the Vtllate In* Z
eta ......attone .1 bad,.
tielenn.e clim•11•111.• ••111 11•••n•
eiteentstebith.
14124 26 SPenel ltheeterat...
Sn4444,44.1104,01,4
In thetnett. Rural, /II 2 HI III 11101
14403 ler . and
the matenal1 thyphe.
tern. 1.4.4 pnitlyet. and •••••••••••:
•A•111111 yluthd ant* .
eltned booklthe 1410114111
Hee 44 he pnnrtnal .* 1. •
there Men thoweettarb,
thaw be nored 04 1,11101?
portneltedeathone kti • me
b. IR 04,44414* 0404* lI,,e I* o•*• •
and 111.0 all '
Pollee mea ote &sot.. I.lt1.1•••n •
ee0441 Ityth tn ity• ,
er ever deoll be toe.* •
Athlete en**. InAht.ne
1 1 ./40e t"•11.4 ,11 ( I.
fetele aed *than me
,14 .0 •••qmred 01. 0*021 11 1...
111,114044*,4. ••• • 0, •.
ke sale an deerroted leo*.ron. I, ,.
dneletred be** Or
seat ea awn Cammetrisi
•111.• ae•Upied by w...4 ,
0011 Pal renvotlyie a en..., •
el rethre lett Man al IN. 1,
Mae area ol Itt 0.9.111.0e
12ltelbel lon 11111 •1• 111 e
9114 111* .411 P• ,,,,, ••n •••• •.•
*00 *II of le. •.0111* .•
Mewl nelkt.A oh.
*Oen a* repo.*
that ...nab
Sad 7 **nal - Ina*
All us* and .111..1•10.voitu...1110,.•.•
the ltor.al HI 2 J.,. 141,1;
be . ...ottlan• .,•
.therneeowth prrparit Ot a r.r..i11.,
6.04 .0e buton.nr
•••,••••••It
(*se le.aserlv th.lt 1104411 ni
01104461141, 49 *ed. ett.tat G.
14 4144144 •
2 1 21.b44f myth
2 . berthas atypeys
• the tufa..4 h.... then
Y n
2JUL, (101-aal
RUSSELL H. LARSON
Chanhassen City Attorney
TS
RueisBX.T., XI.LARsoN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1900 FIRST NAT.ORAl •ANR RUII.CONG
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 85402
RUSSELL R. LARSON
CRAIG M. HERTZ
November 16, 1976
Mr. Carl J. Jullie, P.E.
Eden Prairie City Engineer
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 5543
ARCA CODE . Z92
CCCCC NONE 336•9666
Re: Chanhassen Connection to DL-1
Sanitary Sewer
DearMr. Jullie:
With respect to the cost to Chanhassen to connect its East Lotus
Lake sanitary sewer project to the Eden Prairie DL-1 trunk sewer,
the City Council has authorized me to offer Eden Prairie $65,000
for permission to make this connection, said amount to be payable
in equal annual installments of $4,333.00 for a period of fifteen
years without interest on the unpaid principal balance, with the
first installment to be paid December 10, 1976.
As is the case with most suburban communities facing the fiscal .
problems of providing municipal services, Chanhassen is compelled
to carefully estimate and monitor its cash flow to meet the demands
for these services as measured by actual and potential development.
For this reason, Chanhassen has made this offer in a manner which
amortizes this capital expenditure in an amount and over a period which
we anticipate will not impair its cash flow position.
We request that this matter be placed on the agenda for the Eden
Prairie Council meeting on November 23, 1976, at which time Chanhassen
representatives will be available to discuss this proposal. Please
advise this office whether time will be granted Chanhassen on the
November 23rd agenda.
RHL:mep
CC:
Roger Ulstad, Eden Prairie City Manager
Al Klingelhutz, Chanhassen Mayor
Donald W. Ashworth, Chanhassen Administrator
W. D. Schoell
Phil Chenoweth
Porm 21232A
58346
CITY O.: EDEN PRAIalE
RESOLUTION
No. 1213
BE IT RESOLVED that the City enter into an agreement with the State of
Minnesota, Department cf Highways for the following purposes, to-wit:
to provide or the City of Eden Prairie to construct, under a contract
a4arded by the City and in accordance with State plans, specifications
an1 special provisions dtsisnated as State frojects,No. 2744-25 and No.
2745-23 (T.11. 169=5), a four lane divided Trunk Nishway No. 169 roadway
facility with turn lanes and channelized approaches between a point
appronimatcly 0.34 of a mile southwest of Ring, Road and the south end of
flridge 1;o. 9733 over interstate Trunk Rishday No. 494 within the corporate
City limits; and in addition, to provide for payment by the State to the
City of the State's cost shares of the trunk highway improvement portion
of said city contract construction.
Mhk•Alle..te.
12 IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and 41erk be and they hereby are
authorized to execute such agreement. (Cooperative Construction
Agreement No. 58346)
CERTIFICATION
State of Minnesota
County of Uennenin
City of Eden Prairie
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy
of the resolution presented to and adopted by the COuncil of the City of
Eden Trairie • at a duly authorized meeting thereof held
on the day of 19 ,
as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession.
City Clerk
ROAD DEIGN MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTIZENT
COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT NO.
58346
Agreement between
The State of Minnesota
Departn:ent of Hihways, and
The Cilj of Prairie
Re: State cost pa ,:ticiration construction
by the City, under contract, upon, along and
adjacent to a portion of T.H. 169 within the
Corp. City limits
S.P. 2744-25 (T.H. 169=5)
S.P. 2745-23 (T.H. 169=5)
(State Funds)
AMOUNT ENCIL'.:,
$1,207,7 26.8u
EST. AN'T. RECEIVABT
(None)
THIS AC11=1E/IT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota,
Department of Highways, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of
Eden Prairie, IIinnezeta, acting by and through itz City Couucil, hereinafter
referred to as the "City".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS the State has prepared plans, specifications and special provisions for
the reconstruction, to a four lane divided roadway facility with turn lanes and
channelized approaches,. of Trunk Highway No. 169 between a point approximately
0.34 of a mile southwest of Ring Road and the south end of Bridge No. 9738 over
Interstate Trunk Highway No. 494 within the corporate City limits. Said State
plans, specifications and special provisions are designated State Projects No.
2744-25 and No. 2745-23 (T.H. 169=5); and
WHEREAS it has been mutually agreed that the City will acquire, at its own cost,
all rights of way, easements 'and any other rights and sanctions required in
5034 6
connection with the aforesaid Trunk, Highway No. 169 reconstruction and will le
t
a contract for the performance of said reconstruction, and that the State will
participate in the costs of said city contract reconstruction of Trunk Highway
No. 169 as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS Minnesota Statute 161.20 authorizes the Commissioner of Highways to make
arrangcacnts with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purpo
s
e
s
of conotructira, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system.
IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I - CONSTMICTIOW BY THE CITY
Section A. Contract Award and Construction
The City shall duly receive bids, award a contract to the lowest responsible bi
d
d
e
r
,
subject to concurrence in such award by the State, and cause the reconstruct
i
o
n
of the aforesaid portion of Trunk Highway No. 169 in accordance with the State
'
e
Don't and approved plans, specifications and special provisions therefor desig-
nated as State Projects No. 2744-25 and No. 2745-23 (T.H. 169=5). Said State
plans, specifications and special provisions which are on file in the office o
f
the City Engineer at Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and in the office of the Commis
s
i
o
n
e
r
of Highways at St. Paul, Minnesota, are made a part hereof by reference with
t
h
e
same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
Section B. Eirhta of Way, Easements, Construction Permits and Drainage Outlet Ririttn
The City shall, without cost or expense to the State, obtain all rights of w
a
y
,
easements, construction permits, drainage outlet rights and/or any other perm
i
t
s
and cane -tic= that may be required in connection with the said city contract con-
struction performed outside of the trunk highway rights of way and city stre
e
t
s
,
-2-
1
58346
and nholl promptly furnish the State with certified copies of such rights of way,
eaeeoentn, conotruction permits, drainage outlet rights and/Or other permits
and sanctions. It in hereby understood and agreed that the State shall not make
payment of any monieo to the City hereunder unless and until the State has cer-
tified, in the form of a "RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATE", that all necessary rights
of way hove been acquired for the said City contract construction of State Pro-
ject o No. 2744-25 and ro. 2745-23 (T.H. No. l69=5).
Section C. Documents to be Furnished to the State
The City shall, within 7 days of the opening of bids for said city contract con-
struction, promptly submit to the Director of Design and Right of Way Division of
the Department of highways a certified copy of the low bid received and an abstract
of all bids received together with the City's request for concurrence by the State
in the proposed award of a construction contract. The City shall not cake the
aforesaid construction contract award until the State advises the City in writing
of its concurrence therein.
Section P. Cancellation of Agreement
Each party to this agreement reserves the right to withdraw from and cancel this
agreement within 20 days from the opening of bids contemplated in Section A. above
in the event either or both parties consider any or all bids unsatisfactory; the
withdrawal from or cancellation of the agreement to be accomplished by either or
both partici; within 20 dayo of opening of bids by serving a written notice thereof
upon the other.
Section E. Direction, Supervision and Insnection of Construction
The city contract construction work contemplated herein shall be under the direction
of the City, and shall be under the supervision of a registered professional engineer.
-
58346
However, the State cost participation construction to be performed under said City
e'oratract shall be open to inspection by the District Engineer of the Minnesota
Department of Highways at Golden Valley or his duly authorized representatives
and must be approved by said District Engineer as satisfactory before any payment
is made by the State therefor. In addition, the City shall give the said District
Engineer five days prior notice of its intention to start the work to be performed
under said city contract.
Section F. Completion of Construction
The City shall cause the said city contract constructicl :1:o be started and completed
in accordance with the time schedule set forth in the special provisions. The com-
pletion period for said city contract construction may be extended by an exchange of
letters between the City Clerk or City Engineer and the District Engineer of the De-
partment of Highways at Golden Valley for unavoidable delays encountered by the City
in the performance thereof.
Section G. Plan Charpw and Extra Work
(Item 1.) No change in the plans for said city contract State cost participation
construction to be performed hereunder shall be Made unless such change or changes
in plans shall first be concurred in and consented to by the District Engineer of
the Minnesota Department Of Highways at Golden Valley.
(Item 2.) The State shall not participate in the cost of extra work performed in
accordance with State approved changes in plans unless the necessary State funds have
been requisitioned prior to the performance of such extra work.
-4-
. 58346
(Item 3.) All "Change Orders" and/or "Supplemental Agreements" entered into by the
City and its contractor for State cost participation construction work to be Per-
formed herounacr shall be submitted by the City to the aforesaid District Engineer
at Golden Valley or his authorized representative for written endorsement prior
to the perfeamance of any work provided for in ouch a change order or supplemental
agreement.
Section F. Co.2pliance with Taws, Ordinances and Regulations
It is understood and agreed that the City shall, in connection with the award of a
construction contract for the work set forth herein and the administration and per-
formance of said work, itself comply and cause its contractor to comply with all
Federal, State and local laws together with all ordinances and regulations applicabl ,:,
to said contract award and the work to be performed thereunder.
AETIC72 II - BASIS OP PAT BY THE STAT2
Section A. Construction Coots
Upon the satisfactory completion, in accordance with Article I hereof, of the said
reconstruction of that portion of Trunk Highway No. 169 from Engineer Station 352+22.04
( a point approximately 0.34 of a mile southwest of Bing Road)to Engineer Station
412+06.30 (at the south end of Bridge No. 9738 over Interstate Trunk Highway No. 494)
performed under said city contract and in accordance With State plans, specificatiel.n
and special provisions therefor designated as State Projects No. 2744-25 and No.
2745 -23 (T.H. 169=5), the ptate Shall pay to the City the percentages set forth
below under STATE OCIGT PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION of the costs of the construction
described thereunder as the State's fUll and complete share of the costs thereof.
EXcept as hereinafter set forth, said payment by the State hereunder of construction
work item costs hn11 be based on the final quantities of State cost participation
-5-
58346
construction work items performed multiplied by the appropriate unit prices con-
tained in the construction contract to be awarded by the city in accordance with
Article I hereof.
EXCEPTION: The State's cost participation in the city contract items designated
Item No. 2105.501 "Comalon Excavation", Item No. 2105.507 "Subgradc Excavation",
Item No. 2501.501 "Culvert Excavation, Class U" and Item No. 2575.501 "Roadside
Seeding" and marked in said State plans with the symbol (P) for plans quantity .
shall be based on the final payment quantities multiplied by the appropriate city
contract unit prices.
EXCEPTION: The State's cost participation in the city contract item designated
Item No. 104.613 "Haalsalvagedlatterial" shall be based on the prorate percentages,
set forth under the listings marked "100% STATE" in the preliminary construction
cost estimate elid division of costs form attached hereto, made a part hereof and
designated as "Schedule rf of the city contract lump sum unit price for said
"BaulSalvagedMaterial" item. Said attached "Schedule I" sets forth all of the
State cost participation items as listed in the plans and also shows, on the last
page of said form, the method and computation of the aforesaid prorate percentage
sharee of the "HaU1Salvagedllaterial" item.
It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all liquidated damages assessed
the Cityte contractor in connection with the work performed under said city contmet
shall inure to the City.
—6—
- 58346
STATE COST PARTICIPATION CONSTRUCTION
S.P. 2744-25
100 M-T.T7T State coat participation in the following construction work performed
under State Project No. 2744-25 (T.R. 169.5):
All clearing and grubbing;
All removals of pipe culverts, concrete pavement, trench pavement, manholes
and catch basins;
All calvage of pipe culvert;
Salvage of inplacc storm sewer casting located 30 feet right of Engineer Sta-
tion (T.H. 169 N.B.) 377+58;
Prorate 8.53 percent of "ibm1Salvagednaterial" item;
All common and subgrade excavation;
All granular an common borrcw;
All of the aggregate surfacing, Class 1 to be placed upon and along the South
Eden Road;
All sawing of concrete pavement;
All of the bituminous surfacing consisting of binder course, leveling course,
base course, patching, tack coat and wearing course;
All culvert excavation, Class U;
All pipe culverts and aprons;
All R.C. pipe sewer except the 48-inch R.C. Pipe Sewer, Class III which shall be
100 percent City cost;
All catch basins, Design A or P and Design C or G;
Reconstruct inplace Yanhole "A" located 38 feet right of Engineer Station
(T.R. 169 N.B.) 366+50 and inplace Manhole "P" located 30 feet right
of Engineer Station .(T.H. 169 N.B.) 377+58;
-7-
58346
All cantin;; asomblicc; •
aunt frame and ring castings;
All 4-inch concrete walls;
All concihte curb, Design BG and Benign 86 Special;
All commie redian;
All concrete handholeo, Type C cover and Type LB cover;
All 2-inch and 3-inch rigid metallic conduit;
All occdin,-,, nodding and associated items consisting of mulch, fertilizer,
mowing and weed spraying.
60 FilliCEKT State cost participation in the following construction work performed
under State Project No. 2744-25 (T.H. 169=5):
All of the aggregate surfacing, Class 1 to be placed upon the entrance left of
Engineer Station (T.H. 169 L°11 S.B.) 358+35;
All concrete curb and gutter, Design 8624.
•
S.P. 2745-23
100 PERCIZT State cost participation in the following construction work performed
under State Project No. 2745-23 (T.H. 169=5):
All clearing and grubbing;
All removals of pipe culverts, curb and gutter, curb, pipe sewers, manholes and
catch basins;
All removal of concrete pavement except that removed upon and along 78th Street
easterly of Engineer StationsW.B. 11+67,B.B. 11+58 which shall be 100
percent City cost;
All salvage of pipe sewer, pip' culvert and guard rail-plate beam;
-8-
-2A't I
58 346
Salvar:e of 4 inplace storm sewer castings located 65 feet right of Engineer
• Station (T.H. 169 N.B.) 394+49, 26 feet right of Engineer Station
(T.H. lt9 N.B.) 397+57, 11.5 feet right of Engineer Station (T.H. 169 .S.B.)
397455 an 9 feet right of Engineer Station (T.H. 169 N.B.) 409+68;
Procata 53.24 percent of "Haul SalvagedKaterial" item;
All of the com:,n cxcav: tioa, subgradc excavation, granular borrow and bituminous
surfacing consisting of binder course, base course, tack coat and wearing
. course except for the performance of the aforesaid items upon all of the
Trunk Edellway No. 169 entrances and the two 78th Street entrances, right
of E.B. Lngincer Station 11+09 and left of W.1). Engineer Station 11+04.5
which shall be 60 percent State cost and 40 percent City cost, and
except for the performance of the aforesaid items upon and along 78th
Street custerly of EngineerStationsLB. 11+67 . and E.B. 11+58 which shall
be 100 percent City cost;
All of the connon borrcw;
All of the aggregate sJIrfacing, Class 1 to be placed upon and along the North
Eden Road;
All bituminous patching and placement of leveling course;
All sawing of bituminous pavement surface;
All culvert excavation, Class U;
1.11 pipe culverts and aprons;
Al]. B.C. pipe sewer;
All manholes, Design A or F, catch basins, Design A or F and Design C or G;
All casting assotiblies;
-9-
58346
All 4-inch concrete walk except for the performance thereof in connection with the
constructicni of a traffic island right of Trunk Highway No. 169 N.B.
Eng:neer Station 394+23 which shall be 60 percent State coat and 40 per-
cent City cost;
All of the concrete onrb and gutter, Design L624 performed in connection with the
construction of median and traffic islands at the 78th-Street approach
to Trunk Highway No. 169;
All concrete curb, Dsign B10 and Design B6;
All concrete handholcn, Type C Cover and Typo LD Cover;
All 3-inch rigid metallic conduit;
All installation of traffic barriers Design 8319 and Design B0307;
All installation of anchorage asnemblies
All roadside seeding, application of mulch, roadside mowing and weed spraying;
All Loading and application of fnrtilizer except for thnt performed in connection
with the conntruction of the portion of 78th Street easterly of Engineer
Stations W.E. :7t.i67 and E.B. 11+50.
60 PERCT-,T State cost participation in the following construction work performed
under State Project No. 2745-23 (T.H. 169=5):
All of the connon excavation, subgrade excavation, granular borrow and bituminous
surfacing consisting of binder course, base course, tack coat and
wearing courne to .he performed upon all of the Trunk Highway No. 169
entrances and the two 78th Street entrances, right of E.B. Engineer
Station 11409 and left W.B. Engineer Station 11+04.5;
All of 4-inch concrete walk to be performed in connection with the construction
of a traffic ivlaild right of Trunk Highway No. 169 N.B. Engineer Sta-
tion 394+23;
—10-
58346
All concreto curb and gutter, Tesign 13624 to be performed
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
e
r
l
y
and westerly sides of Trunk Highway No. 169, along the n
o
r
t
h
e
r
l
y
a
n
d
southerly sides of 78th Street westerly of Engineer Stat
i
o
n
s
W
.
B
.
1
1
4
6
7
and E.R. 11i50, and ih connection with the construction of a traffic
inland right of Truel: Highway No. 169 N.B. Engineer Sta
t
i
o
n
3
9
4
+
2
3
.
.
Section r. Prorated Censtreetion. Costs
In additiod, said payment by the State shall include the
S
t
a
t
e
'
s
p
r
o
r
a
t
e
d
s
h
a
r
e
s
of the cost of Tics No. 2021.501 "Mobilization" and Item
N
o
.
2
0
5
1
.
5
0
1
"
M
a
i
n
-
tenance sod Restoration of Maul Roads" as set forth f, '
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
I
"
.
T
h
e
a
f
o
r
e
-
said items are considered construction items but are not
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
a
b
o
v
e
described State cost participation construction. Such ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
-
sents the State's proportionate share of the mobilizatio
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
restoration of haul roads costs incurred by the State in
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
f
o
r
e
-
said Slate's cost participation construction.
Section C. Constructi, Engineering Costs
Said payment by the State shall also include an amount equ
a
l
t
o
8
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
amount computed as the State's share of the aforesaid cons
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
s
t
s
,
a
s
t
h
e
State's proportionate share of construction engineering c
o
s
t
s
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
in connection with said State cost participation construc
t
i
o
n
.
Sectien b. Prorated Construction Engineering Costs
In addition, said payment .by the State shall include the State's prorated cost sha
r
e
s
of the costs of Item No. 2031.501 "Field Office, Type D"
a
n
d
I
t
e
m
N
o
.
2
0
3
1
.
5
0
3
"Field )aboratory, Type D" as set forth in said attached
"
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
I
"
.
T
h
e
F
i
e
l
d
Office and Field Laboratory items are considered engineer
i
n
g
i
t
e
m
s
b
u
t
a
r
e
n
o
t
included in the aforecaid 8 percent share of constructio
n
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
a
s
s
e
t
forth in Section C. above.
58346
/JT1Ci JTj
n1 (n A. of tate Cont Sharr
It is e. atcd, for accountirz purposes, that the payment by the State of its
shnre of the eoct of comAruction work to be performed by the City hereunder which
includea the Str;t2':3 share of the prorated items "Mobilization", "Maintenance and
Restonation", Office" end "Field Laboratory" plus the 8 percent construction
engineering cost nh?re, is the sum Of $1,207,726.80 Ps shown in the said attached
"SeheOule U. In the event it appears at any time that the amount to be paid by
the State to the City hereunder is about to exceed the said sum of $1,207,726.80
or a revired amount bro a d on contract unit prices because of increases in the
estimated quantitico of construction work items, the City shall promptly notify
the said District Engineer of the Minnesota Department of Highways at Golden Valley
thereof in or d er that the State ray encumber such additional funds as may be deemed
8 ,ecticr. hsaerc-iuc rq nun eioc by the City
The City shall keep Such records and accounts as shall enable the City upon invoicing
the State for a partial and/or final payment in accordance with Sections C. and D. of
this artiele to provide the State with the following:
(1) A formal invoice - one original typed copy stating the exact amount being in-
voiced and bearing the- original signature of an authorized City official, and
accompanied by four reproduced copies of the original invoice;
(2) A detailed hr Liog of the invoiced State coot participation contract construc-
tion work items, the quantities of those items performed, and the appropriate con-
tract unit prices for the raid invoiced construction work items. Said detailed
—32-
58346
listing r.11111 be submitted in quintuplicate and contain thereon a certification by
a re:.011:,illu City officil to the effect that all of the work represented in said
Invoice has been perfomel in accordance with the provisions of this agreement and
paid for by the City. One copy of said listing with certification thereon shall
bear the original signature of the certifying City official;
(3) Documentilion establishing that the City has made payment to its contractor
for the cost itcti,s represented in said invoice to the State. Such docuentation
may consist of copies of invoices to the City approved for payment and bearing a
warrant or Check number plus a copy of both sides of the endorsed and canceled
warrant or check; and/or copies of vouchers attesting to the expenditure or receipt
of funds for payment of the invoices to the City plus a copy of both sides of the
endorsed or canceled payment warrant or check.
It is understood that the City shall produce its records and accounts in connection
with this agreement for examination if so requested by duly authorized representa-
tives of the State.
Secticn C. Partial Payents by the State
Upon request of the City, a separate invoice request in accordance with Section B.
above shall be required for each partial payment, the State will make partial pav.
mcnts to the City for construction work performed under said city contract at such
times as 25 peicent, 50 peftent and 75 percent or more of the total estimated value
of the city contract construction work, based on the total amount of the city con-
tractor's bid, has been paid for by the City. Each .such partial payment shall be
an amount equal to 90 percent of the State's cost participation share of the city
contract work performed and paid for by the City plus an 8 percent construction
engineering cost share minus the total amount or any previous partial payment made
by the State to the City hereunder.
. -13-
58346
In th' 5VCflttht the Stat coot participation work under this agreement mu
s
t
b
e
curi.iC,,d at U end of the construction season until the following spring, the
Stat viii, upon request from the City, make a paetial payment to the City of t
h
e
SWe's cost share of work performed and not paid for under a previous partial
payment if the valve of the State's cost share thereof plus the 8 percent cons
t
r
u
c
-
tion wuincorin coot share is at least equal to 25 percent of the State's tot
a
l
estiL n ated coot rhare of $1,207,726.80. Said partial payment shall be an amount
equal to 90 percent of the State's cost participation share of all work perfor
m
,h1
and paid for by the City plus an 8 percent construction engineering cost shar
e
minun the total amount of any previous partial payment made by the State to t
h
e
City hereunder. Such request by the City for partial payment shall be made
i
n
accordance with the procedure set forth in Section B. above.
The retained 10 percent of the State cost share of completed work and constr
u
c
t
i
o
n
enginecring upon which either or both of the aforesaid partial payments in hnsc
d
will ba withheld until all of the State coot participation city contract constr
u
c
-
tion work has been satisfactorily completed and accepted by the State and the C
i
t
y
submits an invoice for final Payment.
Section D. Final Payment by the State
Final payment by the State to the City hereunder in accordance with Article II
hereof of the State's total cost participation amount less tne total amount o
f
any end all partial paymerits made by the State pursuant to Section C. above shal
l
be made upon the ervietafactory completion of all of the city contract constru
c
t
i
o
n
work, acceptance thereof by the State and invoicing of the State by the City in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Section B. above.
-14-
58346
F.! 'J .:: •!n Al
'ti on A,_
(ltul 1.) 1 ,1 contJidc!jr ,n of tho State's cost participation in the construction
of the ofern,aid stom scwor facilities under State Projec
t
s
V
o
.
2744-25 and No.
2745_23 (T.1:. 169_5) J, accordance with State clans, specifications and special
provisionn, the City n 6 to thorcafter properly maintain said storm sewer
facilities without cps or e::i.enuo to the State.
(Item 2.) It is also nniorstood that neither party to th
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
d
r
a
i
n
any additional areas in the storm sower facilities constr
u
c
t
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
a
i
d
C
i
t
y
contract that a:cc not included in the draina g e areas for which said storm sewer
facilities were designed without first obtaining permissi
o
n
t
o
d
o
s
o
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
party.
(Ita %.) Tho Oity shall, upon completion of said city c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
Thereafter properly mnintain the portions of 75th Street
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
h
a
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
E
d
e
n
Roads constructed under said city contract without cost
o
r
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
.
Section B. Claims
(Item 1.) The city indcmnifies, saves and holds harmless
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
a
l
l
o
f
i
t
s
agents and employees of and from any and all claims, deman
d
s
,
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
c
a
u
s
e
s
o
f
action of whatsoever nature or character arising out of or
b
y
r
e
a
s
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
contract construction,. associated construction engineerin
g
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
w
o
r
k
and services by the City hereunder, and furthsr agrees to
d
e
f
e
n
d
a
t
i
t
s
o
w
n
s
o
l
e
cost and expense any action or proceeding colTnenced for t
h
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
a
s
s
e
r
t
i
n
g
any claim of whatcever character arising as a result of said city contract con-
struction,associated construction engineering and mainten
a
n
c
e
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
by the City hereunder.
-15-
5034G
(Jtem 2.) It is hereby unlerstood and agreed that any and all employees of the
City and ell oti)er pereone o-ployed by the City in the performance of any eon-.
stra6tiou, cometrection en;;Incering and/or maintenance work or cervices required
or provided for hereunder by the City ehall not be considered employees of the
State and that any and all clums that may or might arise under the Workmen's
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so
engaged and an,y and all claims Made by any third parties as a consequence of any
act or omiesion on the part of said City employees while so engaged on any of the
construction, construction engineering and/or maintenance work or services to be
rendered herein by the City shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility
of the State.
Section C. Nondiecrimination
The provisions of lanneeota Statute 181.59 and of any applicable ordinance relating
to civil rights end discrimination shall be considered part of this agreempnt as
if fully set forth herein.
Section D. Anproval
More this agreement shall becane binding and effective, it shall be approved by
resolution of the City Council of the City and shall also receive the approval of
such State office= as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of
Highways or his authorisedrepresentative.
-16-
Sea)
BY
58346
tnnOF the parties have duly executed this agreement by their duly
( authorized ofaccrs and caused their respective seals to be hereunto affixed.
(City
By
City Clerk
Date
DEPAETTrM OP FITMAYS
STATE OF LIINEMOTA
Recommended for approval:
/
BY
Deputy Cormnissiener of Highweys
APtieg rgineer
Date
(Date of Agreement)
By
Approved:
District Engineer
Department of Aaministration
By
BY
Director - Design and
Right of Way Division
(Authorized Signature)
Date
Approved as to form and execution:
-17-
STATE OF,..1ESOTA DEPAR=I;T' AGREEXEs:7 NO. 5;A56 "Z=2CLE I" S.F. Nos. 2744-25 (T.H. 169=5). 2745-23 (T.H. 169=5). State Fur.,-; City of Edon Prairie Dote: Auouct "=;'). Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate and Eivsion of Costs 2etwoon the Stnte ani the City FRCjECT LOCATIONS: On T.H. 169 from a point 0.3+ miles scuthwoUt of Ring Road to the south end cf Eo:.Co? :ro. 97•8 7.m. “34 in Eden Trairie TYPE OF CONSTRUCT:ON: Grodinc, Bituminous surfacing, Ohanneliz,tion 0 Storm Sewer DIVISION OF PARTICIPAT1C;N: 1f.C.L Stote = All of the constractioa work item costs on the pro;ects ex,::e7t there licted - City . All of the 1-.:24 Curb F_4 Gutter on tc!e cceta e7.777, th:It porion o% on the 16) uhich in ur,:d ftr 71c:11-n cfn7trotion the portion on 78th St. frca Enzicer's Sta. (W.E. 11-,67) (N.D. 11+58) to the 2,..St sad all of the entrance construction work item costs on the projects including the island rt. of T.H. 169 Engineer's Sta. 394+23. 100 = All of the construction work item costs on 78th St. from Zn,,-;inecr's Sta. (W.S. 11+67) (N.B. 11+53) to the cost: phlo the :_,.tone ret7inin.7 w-111 ca ,.;he W2.7.1_ side of free 1-nineer's Sta. 383+39 to St.'.. 385,-64 pluz all of the municipally cwne.i utilities on the projects. SUX.:-:ARY STATE PORTION CITY PORTION 100% 6c% 407, S.P. 2744-25 S.F. 2745-23 Subtotals sn1,806.46 425,735.54 S1,037,542.00 S12,538.24 17,986.66 $30,524.90 516,155.39 45,951.28 $62,108.67 ;8,358.83 11,991.10 $20,39.93 Subtotals Mobilization (4.345848%) $1,068,066.93 46,416.5,3 S82,L56.60 3,583.44 Subtotals Plus 8% Engineering *Field Office, Type D (0.199913%) • *Field Laboratory, Type D (0.166594%) Graud Totals - State & City S1,114,483.46 89,155.61 1,856.66 $1,207,726.80 $86,040.04 172.00 143.34 586,355.38 • Not Subject to 8% Engineering
Lunp Acre Tree Acre Tree Lin. Ft. Sq.Y1. Sqad. Each Lin-rt. Each Each Each Lunp sum cu.Ye. (P) 0o.Yd. Cu.YO. Ton Ton Ton To Tom Coll:. Ton Ton (P) Cu.Yd. Lie.Lin.F Each )1..220.00 ..;00.00 0.4 05.00 66 900.00 0.4 45.00 6: 373 3.90 5164 15.00 123 110.00 1 3.50 34 190.00 52.00 105.00 340.00 8.53% 2.00 13.494 2.20 36,091 3.52 24,890 2.44 L„.10 232 29.82% 5 1.50 406 70.00 874 9.17 2,093 9.1? 478 9.17 16,500 37.50 69 0.42 5,236 70.00 107 16.37 1,333 5.75 5.50 30 9.05 44 16.05 78 32.30 4 912 556 :72M V2. 2'2' :73' 2124.521 2124.375 2124.5;9 322 21C4.f2-1 - 2-C3.501 2":',5-527 2125.51 301.6'2 2331.5-,4 2331.5'0 2334.512 2331.514 2331.518 2357.5)2 2561.5:14 2'61.508 411.608 2501.501 2501.511 2501.:41 2501.515 Unit Unit Pr:ce 10C% State 'hork item S.P. 2744-25 Miii:•enince and Restoration of haul Roads 9rithin.g Cle,ring 2e.e Pipe Culverts Reno,n Concrete Pavement Eenove Trench Pavenent .:ecove or Catch nasine LL:, C,Ivert ,e 5,1vare 'r'co end Valve Soul Lalv,c.e! Material Cennon :x,nv,iion Sut,,rede Ex:ovation Gron..lar -.lorrod ;CV) (L';) AF,7c7,te Sirficinr. Placed,01ass 1 Sawinn, Concrete Rovenent Situninoun Material for Mixture 0curre Mixture Levelinr Source Mixture BAse Courne !.ixtPre Bitunineus MiYture for Patching Bitunincur Maierill for Tack Coat Asphalt Conant Wearing Course Mixture Stone Retaining 'dell Culvert Ercavition,Class U 12" C.S. Pipe Culvert 24" R.C. Pipe Culvert 12" C.M. Pipe Aprons (P) . Plan Quantities 2itv SCCC, 52.00 72.co 29.02 26.9E8.00 72,'82.00 61,1E0.00 4,383.26 151,30:.00 ?.!'7.50 23.00 165.00 1,251.90 129.20 5.244.00
1007, State 120:; Cite Ctv ,tate Stoic :it, Cite 2 1 1,242 173 125 89 90 35 ..„ /-) 4,3E,3.50 e"'n 25:;1.:15 ". 21 2901.; 37 25 05 . ;P7 2,-4 25c.L.72. 2531.'--S1 2531.702 2531.502 2531.:03 565.632 565.832 565.635 Work :ten Unit S.P. 2744.23 15" .L.7.rona 7)4" P.:. Pin,. Anrcno L7' B.C. Pioa ,!rrirro, R.C. i5" 2.:. Pi7a Co,,r 15" P.C. :iro 2e,er, Class III 18" P.O. lino Co,,er 4.7:" R.:. Irina r.rrer 4:"7 P.C. Pine Class III 5" Water - Iron F" Water Y-%17 n 01rtfle l'ron 16" Water ;:rin - C-Ictile Iron 1" Co:.Ter •.:rer Fire ..tar Valve ani Box iro" Water Vrl,e ,,n2 Box in'-tall Bydrenn Install Ci:nt. Box Ad,fust Valve Bix Disocn,rert :7_7:er Service Connection CenatnIct 3nains, Design A or I' Constr,v_!t Cote: Zesign C or rrnnoleo Cnotin7 Ansertlies :nniell Castin,,s AO:;ust 2in, Castings 4" Concrete Concrete Curb 4 Gutter Design B 624 Concrete Curb, Des ical 36 Concrete Curb, Design 36 Special Concrete !!edien Concrete RanOnole (.:no C Cover) Concrete Hlniiole (Type SD Cover)' 2" Rigid Metallic Conduit Price Eoch Each 15,3.60 Loch Lin.Ft. '77.70 Lin.Ft. Lin.Ft. Lin.Ft. 14.90 Lin.Ft. Lin.Ft. Lin.Ft. Lln.Fi. 1.00 Lin. Ft. 26.30 Lin.Ft. !:.00 Anse-1l1 24,00 Aosenbly Bain Lach 1 1 1 Box Conn. Lin.Ft. Lin.Ft. Lin.rt. Each Lath E-ch So.Pt. Li,, .Ft. Li,,. 1't Lin.Ft. Sq.Yd. Enndhole Hanhole Lin.Ft. 13 .20 7.00 55 7:.00 75 12.4 179.00 30 93.00 4 2.91 16,978 r'.20 3.50 3,248 .55 2.418 9 200.00 8 303.00 14 5.00 1,801 7 0.8 4,345.00 5,925120 1,215.20 5.3",0.00 72.-0 55.7.0 4,970 348,00 15,44B,i6 11,368,00 11,031.90 1,4,• n) 4,220.00 9,005.00 20,874.00
S 7.00 49.00 1.7=8 0.79 165.CO 27).'7,0 6.00 5.00 :.00 643 3.5 175 /0,779 7 1 5.8 2.3 5 de. :7:21 WOrl: :tel Unit UnIt 5s3hs • 3" Rigid Y.,tnllic Ctuniuit Rcad5tdc f- ::-•terial, Type 7 € 1 0,-,f,rci,1 Fe,-tilizer, Analysis 10-20-20 Now'.n7, SprPying • W,cd Srrny Lin.Ft. (P) Acre 541.Yd. Tcn Ton Acre • Acre Pound F:nn Totals S611.605.,,6 500.S97.C7 5%5,155.7, 1007; State 5611.806.46 60); Stet. S12,538.24.- 40% City 0,558.83 inm% City 16,155.39
Work :tem S.?. :-7ointenance rad Reotoration of Haul Roads Clearin Grob'tint Sewers - Re7Q,e Ctntrote Pavement Pamove ger:-.11es and Catch Basins Culva.7e Colvnce Cu1vert Scivue c.il-Plate Beam Sal-m,e liv,_!ront Bal"a7.. Cas1in;s Salv4.-a Curl- Box and Valve Salvomei r.aterial Cc-,on Sxocvation l'.xcavotion Granular :orro., (CV) Ccmmcn Porno, (LV) A4/7rer-ate Surf:lc-ins Placed, Class I Bittoincus ::,terial for Mixture Binder Course gixture LeVIlingCcwzeo nxture Course '_,fture Bituminous ::ixture for ?etching 3x.qn7 Bituminous Pavement Surface Bituminous gterial for Tack Coat Aspalt Comer.t WenmirE., Courte Mixtore Cul7ert Ex,:o7Iti:1%,Class U 24" F..C. Fi:e Culvert 24." R.C. Pipe Apran Unit Unit Lam BUT tl,C.93000 Tree 45.00 Tree 45.00 2.)5 Lin.7t. Lin.Ft. 3.50 156 3.90 4,363 Eaoll 110.00 5 Lin.Ft. 4.20 12 Lin.Ft. 340 2:0 ilin.Ft. 1.20 125 Each 190.00 Each 52.00 4 Each 10:.00 Lump Sum 300.00 53.21-% (P) Cu.2. 2.00 10,535 (P) Cu.lw. 0.20 23,536 Cuad. 3.2 20,873 Cu.Yd. 2.44 547 Cu.Yd. 4.43 375 Ton 70.00 549 Ton 9.17 1,347 Ton 9.17 Ton 9.17 10.3F6 Tort 37.50 o; • , Lin.Ft. 1.15 Gallon 0.42 Ten 70.00 Ton 16.37 (P) Cn.Yd. 5.52 Lin.Ft. Elcn n3.60 212 ;4.:1 21C-./7,1 • Z12..523 IC-... '3 210:7.7 2331.' 5. 2331.-_10 2331.12 2.731.f14 233t.!13 331.613 2357.302 2361.5:7,4 2341.5-.)8 2501.501 257;1.311 2501.:15 15 8? 2,553 3.341 68.8 861 12 44 2 C:tv 99.5 3,,750.3o 55'2.20 2 3 22,8.00 5 8.41% '54.02 317 629 21,072.10 632.00 1,076 2.7-- 47,001.5 2,157.5,5 964 2,308 73,-35.' 5130I.25 9,2:-..9!: 1,'725.-o 20 37 38,470.00 1,401.0) 2.-90.03 55 112 12,:51.99 530.:3 1,227.0- F..?-' 3e3 630 S',.-f. ..=: 3.5'2.11 6,333.6:: :-.7.,,- 2,935.95 122 234 1,403.22 51.24 98.28 2.4 4.8 4,815.00 168.00 336.00 30 60 14,o30.:7 491.10 582.20 (4.30 3")7.=0 (9) = Plan quantitiea
ICS% State Work 'ton 77'5-2.3 Unit Unit Rrita' '.7" B.C. T.ira '5- P.C. Pira ?ite Z,,er 21" 7!.te 24" p.c. Se,er 5" - D,ctile IroA :ron 1" Co:.7,or W•ter 5.7e 5ox Hydr,nt Inntn:11 C.r 0ox ".:,drant • t Service Connection dcnbtr,ct De,..ign A or F Construct ins Design A or F Cora:tr.:et Catch 5aains Design C or 9 .Re:enstrnct Pc----.ract Catch Basins C,stinF Atsenblies lnstall D,stin7.7 • Concrete .@!...k Concrete Curb and Gutter, Design 8624 CcII:11•! Clrb, :)^Lign 910 Concrete Curb, Denign B6 Concrete Hanihcle :Tyne C Cover) Concrete Eanincle (Tyre LD Cover) 3" Rigid !:eta.:lic Conduit Install Traffic Barrier, Design 8319 Install Traffic Barrier, Design B8307 Lin.R.t. r1;".170 Lin. Fe. 1.5.90 Lin.Et. Lln.Ft. 7(,T) Lin. Ft. Asne-ttaly Each Each Each 21D.00 70.00 Cenn. Co Lin. Ft. Lin.Pt. Lin.Ft. Lin.E.. Lin.Ft. 1'5.00 Each 171).a) 53.c;0 Sq.Et. 0.91 Lin.Ft. &.20 Lin.Ft. 9.00 Hane_hcle 230.00 Vandhole 5,0.0D Lin-it. 7.00 Lin.Ft. 5.25 Lin.Ft. 2'aD.,."•11 3' 25:6.11 257,5..716 253.1.01 2931.:::07 565.632 565.632 565.'335 2554.511 2554.5.11 14-) 204 6 54 59 23 11,654 941 3,105 10 6 737 25 100 270 4,143 75 237 Lc 4 3 11 2 2.9 1.4 2 523 -3.S57•.s 474.06 4.266.0C 4,661.00 4,117.0 10,605.11, S245.70 2,272.20 17,409.00 270.00 2,0:2.00 1,EC").00 5.15;..CD 131.25 490.00 • 2,196.42
587, APPRCXIMA7E Unit Unit 100% Ettte lOn Pattc Stcce 3t-tc Work lie, S.?. P74C-7- :rct,11 AssemItlics 2777.5D1 Soe 5 f;5 • 2Y,7:.Y1 M-11c:1 :.!aterial, Type 7 iertii1;,er, Analysis 10-20411 W,c! Li::ture Etch (P) Acre Pond Sn.Yd. Ton Ten Acct. Atre Uonnd 3 ?.8 0.71 8,457 5.6 IQ 0.77 („TO 4.7 5.,20 1.9 4 S 793 0.03 Total $425,735.54 529,977.6 3,"5,951.2;:, (P) = Plan quantities 100% State 3,,25,735.54 60% State $ 17,9'36.66 0% City 411,991.10 100% City 45,951.28
58346 Work Item Unit Unit Price Prorata percentnge computation for item 1f74.613 Hlul Lump Sum S540..00 S.P. 2744-25 Stnte Portion 5=9.00* s :040.00 x 100 = City Portion 3101.40' .4._ 3340.00 x 100 = 29.82% S.P. 2745-23 State Portion 5131.00 i. 340.00 x 100 = 53.24% City Portion S23.60* s S340.00 x 100 8.41% • Cost amotints determined are based on plans quantities and estimated unit prices. -8-
P002ATA 7.77!S 202%501 Mcbilization Lump Sum .S.7..D,000-0O (Prcrata Percentage 4.345E,+6:) 0 Iwi- en , , L„, 00 fc- -,-- lo., ,,,,,,,... , 2.:-.3',.:7)3 Fie: d La'coratory, Type D . Each ;7,0,20.00 (7...-crata 2crcent-,7c 2C.5-.5:'1 Maintenance and Rc,stcration of Haul Roads perce:Itagn nre based on a'total cf 13L 2 Note: Maintenance and Pecteration of Haul Reads prorata b.?sed on materials fured by the contractor ar.d public hiays except State trunk Yobilizatien, Field Office and Field Laboratory prorata share based on the following co^lputations: M s (A - M - 0 - x 100 = P ' (Percentage for Mobilization) O s (A - 0 - L) x 100 = P (Percentage for Field Office) L s (A - 0 - L) x 100 =P (Percentage for Field Laboratory) A = Total Contract Amount M = Total MobilizatiCn Amount 0 = Total Field Office Amount L = Total Field Laboratory Amount P Prorata Percentage After the contract has been awarded, the Unit Bid Price will be used to compute a new prorata percentage for Mobilization, Field Office and Field Laboratory
CFSCI UTION
-
No. 1214
EL IT NFE:OtAk. LO7•t the City of Edon Prairir enter into on ogreo-
nont uith to !",tnte of ninnesote, Oepertment of Highways for the following
purpm to-u)1.:
To incts11 a treffic clonal with street lights at the inter-
section or Trunk Hichway Co. 169 aroi the North Entrance to
Homort Shopoino Center (1,CCO feet .south of West 78th Street),
in oc;:nrOonce uith Agreement No. 5792G, a copy of which was
before the Council.
DE IT FURTHER RECOLVED that the proper City officers are hereby
euthorizod to exocute such acreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf
of the City all of the contracture' obligations contained therein.
CERTIFICATION
State of Minnesota
County or Hennepin
City of Eden Prnirie
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and
correct cony of a resolution predented to ond odotrd by the Council of
the City of Edon Frairic.at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on
the day of 1975, as shown by the minutes of said
meeting in my possession.
City Clerk
( (City !.oal)
MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTMEt,T
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
AGREEMENT NO. 579',6
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGWAYS
AND
THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
FOR
Installation of a Traffic Control Signal on Trunk Highway No. 169 at the
North [ntrnc zj t ho;:.piny Center (1,000 feet soot') ur West 73th
Street)in Edon Prairie, Minnesota.
S.P. 2744-26
rrrprrc0 hy Tr2ffic Enninerrinn
INDLX FLJND
ESIIXAIID ANUUNT RECEIVAOLE
AMOUNT TO OE ENCUMSERED
City of Lrn prpirin 7:29,1 -411.10 None
THIS P.',:UL;I:NT merle and entered into by and between the State
( of Mion-ata, Deaartrynt of Highways, hereinafter referred to as the
"City", WIT%ESCETH:
Wh1flEA5, it is consdered mutually •desirabie to install a
traffic !Jirho) with street lights at the intersection of Trunk Highway
Co. 253 rii the North Entrance to homart Shopping Center (1,000 feet
south or 0%t. 75th Strect)in the City; and
WHERLAS, the City and State will share in the cost, mainten-
ance and operation Of the traffic signal with street lights as hereinafter
set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLCUS:
1. The State shall prepare the necessary plans, specifications
and prop:lei:1s and shall perform the engineering and inspection required
to co7plete the items of work hereinafter set forth. Such work as de-
snritcd imrsoietsiv etsve shell constitute l'Engineerino and Inspection"
and be SD referred to hereinafter.
2. The contract cost of the work or, if the work is not con-
tracted, the cost of all labor, materials, and equipment rental required
to complete the work, except the cost or providing the power supply to
the service pole or pad, shall constitute the actual "Construction Cont"
and shall hr on referred to hereinafter.
3. The Stote'shall install or cause the installation of an
actuated traffic signal with street, lights and overhead and pedestrian
indications on Trunk Highway r:o. 169 at the North Entrance to Homart
Shopping Cmiter (1,050 feet sout!, or Went 78th Street). Estimated Con-
struction Cost 775,nno. City's share one hundred percent.
57926 -
L. Upon completion of the work provided for in paragrap
h
3
hrecif the City shall pey to the Stnte the City's share
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
e
-
tinn Cot plur 6 perCent.pf such shore as the City's shore of the cast
of Engineerine end Insecetion.
5. The City shall install or cause the inotallation of an
adequate electricn1 power supply to the service pole or pad including
eny necessurv extensions of power lines, and upon comple
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
a
i
d
aignel with street light installation shall provide nece
s
s
a
r
y
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
power for its operetion at the cost end expense of the C
i
t
y
.
6. Upon completion of the work contemplated herein, the St
a
t
e
shall mointain and keep in repair the traffic signal, ex
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
r
e
l
a
m
p
-
ing, cleaning end pointing at its cost and expanse; and
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
maintein the street lights and relemp, clean and paint
t
h
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
a
t
i
t
s
cost and expanse.
7. Any and all persons en pad in the aforesaid work to b
e
.performed by the State shall not be considered employees of the City,
and any and all claims that may or might arise under t
h
e
W
o
r
k
m
e
n
'
s
C
o
m
-
peneetion Act of this Stete on behalf of sold employees while so engaged,
and any and all claims made by any third party as a co
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
act or emission on the pert of said employees while so e
n
g
a
g
e
d
o
n
a
n
y
of the uork contemplated herein shall not be the obligat
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
-
sibility of the City. .The State shall not be responsible under the
Workren's Compensation Act for any employees of the City.
8. All timinn of all traffic control signals provided for
herein shall be determined by the State, through its Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
o
f
Hiehwdye, end no changen shall be made therein except w
i
t
h
t
h
e
approval
or the state.
579P6
-2-
CITY OF ED:N PRAIRIE
AFTVED f To rtnm:
By
Mayor
Lity tf.','
(City Seal)
By
STATE Or MINNESOTA
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By
District E;Irror
Deputy Commissioner of HiOwavE
Dcpctrtment of Highw:Iyo
Dated:
Traffic ;.ngincor
Dpoortment of Highways
APPROVED:
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIGN:
APPROVED:
By
Ar!.intant
Dostrn 7r1L, r3r7ht of L ,ny
Derortemt pr Highw4s '
APPROVED AS TO FORM APD EXECUTIO%:
Dated:
LproiN1 JLflt i n ttoriTy tioncral
St .:1to nf rinnoLota
.57926
—3—
J.111 ;
Nov. 23, 1976
CITY OE EDEN PRAIRIE
iimmr N COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RT:som.trioN NO. 1215
DLMICTING EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
AC y.•;1.1"; BY THE CITY FOR T.H. 169 IM-
PRIE.NTS (LC. 51-266)
th.:, City of Eden Prairie and the Minnesota Highway
Department 1,avt., entied into an aureement for the improvement of Trunk
Highway 169 within the City of Eden Prairie, and;
WHLRET.S, Fai.. improvment is in accordance with plans prepared
by the Mit ,.:;ot repart.zont, said plans identified as S.P. 2745-
23, S.P. 2744-25, S.P. 2744-26, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has, in an earlier resolution
dated August 27, 1974, authorized the acquisition by the City of Eden
Prairie for the neccsary right of way for said project, and;
WHEREAS, the .city of Eden Prairie has acquired all the land and
easements for said project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the property described on
Attached Et:hinit A ic herewith declieat ,..d Cua: public street and highway
purposes.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie e!.ty Council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk •
November 19, 1976
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows:
09-10-76 2505 VOID CHECK
11-05-76 2937 POSTAMSTER Postage for newsletter
11-08-76 2938 CHERYL GLISCZINSKI Election services
2939 NYLA JENSEN Election services
2940 BERNADETTE PLOUMEN Election services
2941 LORETTA ELLISON Election services
2942 SHIRLEY JELLISON Election services
2943 MARGIE WOODHOUSE Election services
2944 DOROTHY FITZGERALD Election services
2945 EVELYN ROSERS Election services
2946 PATRICIA ARLT Election services
2947 ROSEMARY DYSINGER Election services
2948 GRETCHEN SHAW Election services
2949 SUZANNE LANE Election services
2950 JOAN CEBULLA Election services
2951 VOID CHECK
2952 JOANNE VOAS Election services
2953 MARY UPTON Election services
2954 CAROLYN LYNGDAL Election services
2955 SHARON LYNCH Election services
2956 JO ANN CARLIN Election services
2957 DORIS JOHNSON Election services
2958 SUSAN KULIGOWSKI Election services
2959 GENEVIEVE GIBSON Election services
2960 MARILYN MACMILLAN Election services
2961 SALLY BROWN Election services
2962 SANDRA BROWN Election services
2963 MILDRED CLARK Election services
2964 VIRGINIA SCHMITZ Election services
2965 VIRGINIA GARTNER Election services
2966 DOROTHY PENNIE Election services
2967 EDNA HOLMGREN Election services
2968 JERRY ZAHN Football official
2969 JEANNE MARTINSON Election services
2970 MARV HARTMAN CONSTRUCTION Refund on overpayment of permit
2971 ROBERT MARTZ October expenses
2972 POSTMASTER Postage for utility -bills
11-15-76 2973 DIANNE HANSOM Reimbursement for purchase of coffee
maker
2974 INSTY -PRINTS Service-Public Safety dept.
2975 POSTMASTER Postage for newsletter
2976 INSTY -PRINTS Service-Public Safety dept.
11-16-76 2977 GLEN LAKE BAKERY Refreshments for Guide Plan meeting
2978 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES REITREMENT Employees withheld and employer
ASSOC. contributions 11-12 payroll
2979 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Taxes withheld 11-12 payroll
2980 UNITED WAY Donations withheld 11-12 payroll
(3.33
224.85
33.19
33.19
33.19
33.19
34.31
39.31
32.63
32.63
32.63
32.63
34.88
34.88
34.
21.38
34.
34.88
35.44
35.44
41.00
37.69
42.69
36.00
22.50
14.06
36.56
36.56
36.00
21.94
36.56
51.00
34.88
35.00
103.75 1:
42.25
39.99
17.30
23.90
8.45
15.66
4,429.99
5,046.68
25.46
November 1 ,;, i9/6
71, 1 INTW.Al 31101.. HUM OF
0P:8 Ete'11ei HIS Dues withhold for November 95.,e
25e7 MEW.,e HAN Ie61E CONTROL
October reserve chiroes l6,6 2 ;."
ANOLese'': 1 1 AGRECAM CO. Sand-Public Works dept. E4:
Aw.;;:;, Ce1ML:1MRE SYSTEMS BreathIesting unit-Public Safety
RED.:Y R:NTS Equipment Rental
:',WY;“ TL Polygraph exam-Public Safety
51)0 2.. SIN100.0AN APVERTISER Employment ad-Public Safety dept.
180700 AMNULANUE Supplies-Fire dept. 101.:
29',V A000! 1W WATER WORKS ASSOC. Books-Water dept.
29 ,:0 EARL F. IL:',1ERSEN & ASSOC. Signs-Public Works dept.
2991 A 6 H UELD:NO, CO. Services-Public Safety dept. and
equipment maint.
2997 ASTLEF0NO EQUIPMENT CO. Equipment parts .. •
2993 UILLIAM I;YL November services
2994 EITis ROADWAYS, INC. Asphalt-Pirch Island Rd. 5,00ee
2995 BRAUN UGLIEERING Services-Mitchell Lake-Pemtom,
School Paving, Preserve Blvd.,
and Preserve Area F Div.
2 9 96 BLOOM:W .0N LOCKSMITH CO. Keys-Public Safety dept.
2557 BRONH 9((000 Services-Public Safety dept.
2998 C0900YM CASSOLA Guitar instructions-Rue. dept.
2929 CARLSON 1-PACTOR Supplies-Prairie View School Imp.
LUbeiSHiNG Cu. Bid ad
3001 CARLSON STORE FISTUNE CO. Sign holders for election
3002 JAMES CLARK Expenses
3:300 GILT . LDiMA Water sampfts
3004 CAR8ILL SALT Salt (21,
3005 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO. Plate for engraving services-Puhlic
Safety dept.
3006 COMPUTER ELECTION SYSTEMS, INC. Election supplies
3007 COPY ECTJIMENT CO. Supplies-Planning dept.
3001 CUTLER-MAGGER Quicklime-Water dept.
I ,162.
6.17
Services-Bond issue 2,271.
Supplies4ublic Safety dept.
Services
Food services-Calico Ball 490.;!.
Cleaning supplies-Water dept.
Supolies-Community services dept. 37.51
Legal ads for October 145.01
Services on Sale and issuance of
bonds 13,1375.2e
Survey land-Prairie View School
Improvement 600.0:1
3059 DORSEY-MANQUART-WINDHORST-
WEST I HALL/WAY
3010 DOYLE LOCK CO.
3011 DONHOLT PRINTING
3012 NELANIO'S KITCHEN
3013 01000
3514 CM-TIMERS
3E10t FEIN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY NEWS
30:c EHLERS AND ASSOCIATtS, INC.
3017 EARTH SERVICES, INC.
3018 CHRIS EA8009 Mileage
3015 EDEN rvAmIL sowL Fuel for equipment
3070 EINST l'IONAL BANK Bond payoznt
3071 FIRISTONL s'mrs Tires
302? CEFU-RI'M :MTROLS, INC. Polyphosphate- Water dept.
3073 GeY'S ANT() SUReLY Equipment parts
3074 CtENROSI CLONAL Services '
3075 ro COCN(AZ Refund on overpayment of special
assLs,ment
6P-0
1,757.L
5,03311. 2
33.1::
31.20
811,j,.7e
Novelatl 16, 1916
11-1(7-76 C)N: C':;•:.r!IC1TIM3, INC.
3(•'
30::9
;;; :;!,
3031
Radio repairs-Fire drpt.
Prisoner; hoard-Public Safety dupt.
Mileage
Expenses
Services-Schooner Blvd. 2,157.H
Supplies-Puidic Weri,s dept.and
Chiparve!;tor and personnel for
Tree descAsc
3038 M:SIRk:' 3 511/01 0, INC. Withlr eouip.-Public Safety dept.
3033 ,:•,3:=5 0; Sodium Silicaflonride-Vater dept.
3034 J/li October services
30,>5 Mileage
303C, couw Food service during election
3037 3,85 ., 1;,' ARE Supplies
3038 PTM LES1T.k Excercise instructions-Rec. dept.
3039 LLLF B83., INC. Rug and Rag.
30.10 JOAN Mt -PS, November service
3041 MINUESOTA ARTS Karate instructions-Rec. dept.
3042 MINNESOTA ITCREATIO8 & PARK
ASSOC. M.R.P.A. Conference-Sandy Werts
3013 MINNESOTA -iPEE, INC. Tree debre pick up-Tree desease
3044 1;1JR0831111 ,N ANIMAL PATROL October services
3045 MINNEAPOLIS STAR Employment ads-Public Safety dept.
(ft,pc.
3046 roTv.(tA, INC. Fire monitor battery-Fire dent.
3047 PkIAN Services-Reforestation program
3048 N=OTA ELECTF1C CO. S2rvico-Pi1y Laka Park
3049 METrf .:AlT:N FIRE EY,TM;(INISHER Recharge units
3050 MUY,PALL SWIFT PW.LICATIOPI Supplies-Assessing dept.
3051 kETOPOL11i% WASTE CONTROL
COMISSIU Sewer service charge-December
3052 MEDICAL OXY:'!-N Oxygen-Fire dept.
3053 1)I33E01 A',:ri!ALT CORP. Asphalt-Birch Island Rd.
3054 rODON TIPE CO. Repair service
3055 NORT8ESTLU NATIONAL BANK Bond payments
3056 HkTi4RN 01 IS POWLR Service •
3057 DELL Service
3000 clr:v PAOIT November services
3059 1.,."I_ICA31; P1:1;ZEL November services
3050 TIM PIPCE November services
3061 080050N' Milcage-Fire Dept.
r,k0 F1LMSLU -3 Service-Planning dept.
1E0:P3S TRANSPORT Services-Prairie View School Imp.
3064 F=NS Chipper knives-Tree decease
3007 slroNs AND
Ti (DilIJIN IC: N
3065 Purs:
3061 U. G. FLAN
A. IMP:,
411(A RIVKL-CA)L-NU1FR ASSOC.
3070 JUDY SUET
30/1 C) APS. NOINCK fam CO.
7012 !,MINBAN ENGIVERING, INC.
4'2."
197
6.0:
13,155.E.
144.1
338.6:
66.:.
1,571.'7'3
60.;
60.00
70.53
7.'30
43.7:
177. on
Services 6,554.33
Employees pop 110.63
Sand-Public works dept. and Birch
Island Rd. 604.13
Supplies-innineering dept. 14.5U
Services-Miichell Lake-Pemtom, Westgate
Last Add., Minn Protective Life 14,324.1
Calligraphy services 64.00
Eenipment oqrts 31.97
Services-Woodland & Martin Dr. 907.17
11-10-76 3073
3074
3015
3076
3077
3078
3079
C09N SMITN CO.
PAM IIECMIDICS
WILLY VIEW F/MILY ROLLLN
DIIGOX PADEN CO.
MIER PRODUGIS CO.
ZIEGLER, INC.
0. L. CONTRACTING, INC.
NO4LM0 19, 1976
Feel and enqipment parts 258./1 0
Recorder-Public Safety dept, 89.33
Skating instructions-Rec. dept. 144.00
Office supplies 38.94
Meters-Water dept. 5,12.01
Equipment parts 298.20
Contract-Estimate No. 7, Preserve
Area F Div. 11,113.0?
3080
3031
3032
3033
3034
3085
3086
3087
MINNESOTA VALLEY SURFACING CO. Contract-Est. No. 5A, Woodland
and Martin Dr. 2,102.07
M. G. ASTLEFOM CO., INC. Contract-Est. No. 2, Preserve Blvd.61,C29.54
NONTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO. Contract-Est. No. 1, Mn.
Protective Life .20,Si.3.
RIEGGER ROADWAYS, INC. Contract-Est. No. 4, School Rd.
Paving 6,530.51
NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO. Contract-Est. No. 2, Mitchell Lake
Pemtom 197,967.15
NORTHWEST BITUMINOUS, INC. Contract-Est. No. 1, Westgate East
addition 740129
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Identification card for municipal
liquor store 5.00
ROGER ULSTAD
Expenses
20.93
$15.;
CITY OF ELEN PRAIBIE
LICE= APPLICATION LIST
November 23, 1976
rONTEA , (1 & 2 Family),
Quality
Tbe
Gerald (1:-,Uler Cielstruction
Reviei Construction
& Coml.)
Mary Hartin Comstruction, Inc.
Twins Leaming Co.
Van HelYob:.5
McCoy:eh Construction Co., Inc.
Hasse Construction
Trard-Pon 1P::11ein
Custom Plumbing
People's Plumbing & Heating
LeVahn Brotners Pluibing
BEATINC
LeVahn Brothers Plumbing
SOLICITORS
Catherine Chiema - Free Lane Intnrior
DCO.VWr
Kay NiCholson - Avon
TEMPOR7yRY FOOD LICENEE
Eden Prairie Merchants Associaion
rom ESTABLISHMENT TYPE B
My Cheese Shop(Prairie Village Mall)
Food ,,takAi.!':,-nt 70 ..,e A
Pennyo Supexmarket
VENDING M'sCHINES
Pennys Supermarket
3.2 BEER OFF sALE
Pennys Supermarket
These liconse5 have been approved by the department head responsible
for the licensed activity.
Rebecca 6,,y .;1 ,:.m.Jon, Dcruty clerk