Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 09/18/1979
• EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL • COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath • COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger; Finance Director John Frane; Director of Community Services Sob Lambert; Engineer Carl Jullie; and Joyce Provo, Recording • Secretary INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESIXIY, AUGUST 21, 1979 Page 2686 III. CONSENT CALENDAR • A. Request to set a Public Hearing for Nemec Knolls for October 16, 1979 Page 2703 B. Request to set a Public Hearing for Shady Oak Industrial Park 3rd & Page 2704 5th Additions for October 16, 1979 I C. Request to set a Public Hearing for Mile West Office Building for Page 2705 f October 16, 1979 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Schoenfelder PUD, request by G. P. Schoenfelder for Planned Unit Page 1985 • Development concept approval for 46.3 acres zoned Regional-Commercial and Rural fur uses of Commercial, Office and multiple residential u oses (Resolution No. 79-129) Continued Public Hearing from u y 17, 1979 B. Independent Millwork by Darkenwald Real Estates, request for PUD Page 2706 Concept approval of 8.30 acres for commercial and rezoning from Rural to Commercial for one lot. Located north of W. 78th Street, south of • the Presbyterian Church and Leona Road residential area, and east Eden Prairie Auto Body Shop (Resolution No. 79-138 - PUD, and Ordinance • No. 79-27 ' rezoning) Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 1979 C. Public Hearing for 1979 Special Assessments (Resolution No. 79-174, Page 2707 approving the 1979 special assessment rolls) D. Overlook Place by Hustad Development Corporaticn & Zachman Homes, Inc. Page 2708 Request to rezone from Rural to RM 6.5, 6.2.acres and preliminary plat 26 lots for 13 duplexes. Located north of Co. Rd 1 and east of Yorkshire Point (Ordinance No. 79-32 and Resolution No. 79-167) E. Shady Oak Industrial Park 4th Addition by Richard W. Anderson. Request Page 2737 to rezone from 1-5 to 1-2, 13 acres and preliminary plat 2 industrial lots. Located north and across Shady Oak Road from Shady Oak Industrial Park 2nd. (Ordinance No. 79-33 and Resolution No. 79-168) • Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,September 18, 1979 F. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval in the Page 2747 • amount of $1.500,000.00 for Eden Prairie Partners (Res,No, 79,173) G. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval in the Page 2759 amount of S650,OOO,OO for Eden Prairie Mini-Storage (Res,No, 79-171L H. Request for Municipal'Industrial Development Bond approval in the Page 2772 '. amount of $3,375,000,00 for Anderson Lakes Limited (Ies,No, 79-172) V. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS • VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request by Edengate for a one-year extension to their developer's Page 2797 agreement VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS • A.Ordinance No. 79-34, amending the Firearm's Ordinance (Ordinance No. Page 2738 337), revising hunting zones B.2nd Reading of Ordinance Nc. 79-29, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 Page 2792 • for Cardinal Creek Phase 2 by Western Construction Company and developer's agreement VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS • A. Reports of Council Members 4 B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney 1. Ordinance regulating the moving of buildings into or within Page 2802 Eden Prairie • D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement/Round Lake Park (ballfields) Page 2820 • 2. Comprehensive Park Plan Page 2826 E. Report of City Engineer 1. Discussion on Crosstown extension Page 2936 F. Report of Finance Director 1. Proposal from Fox, McCue & Murphy to conduct 1475 Audit Page 2937 2. Payment of Claims Nes. 5625 - 5748 Page 2839 IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Liqquor Store Lease Proposal by BarMil Search X. ADJUUR MLN►, MEMORANDUM . - • TO: Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager PRCgl: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services " DATE: . • September 12, 1979 SUBJECT: Special Meeting With The School Board Concerning Park Bond Referendum The Park Bond Referendum Committee has requested to meet jointly with the School Board and the City Council to discuss the proposed Park Bond Referendum, which may include facilities that could be located on school district property, those facilities being an indoor swimming pool and ice arena. T have talked to representatives of the School District who have suggested meeting either here at 6:30 September 18th, one hour prior to the regular Council meeting, or to have a special meeting on September 25th, the following Tuesday. I indicated the City Council was having a special meeting on September 13th and I would ask the City Council to set the date and time. . r will get back to the school officials on the 14th for confirmation. a The Park Bond Referendum Committee is requesting that the Council and r: School Board consider "concept approval" on the location of the proposed facilities. 4 • BL:md UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL ( TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger; Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; Finance Director John Frane; City Engineer Carl Jullie; and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION: Councilman Paul Redpath • - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following changes were made to the agenda: Item III. D. Consider bids for temporary signals on T.H. 169 and Co. Rd. 1 and Vo-Tech entrance was removed from the Consent Calendar to the City Engineer's Report (VIII. E.3.); and discussion on Airport Matters was added as item IX. A. IL. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1979 Pg. 2, para. 2nd from bottom of page, last line, strike "ordinance" and insert in lieu thereof "ordinances"; Pg. 4, 5th para., 2nd line, strike "minuet" and insert in lieu.thereof "minute"; Pg. 6, 5th para., 1st line, strike "requested" and insert in lieu thereof "requesting", and Pg. 12, 4th para., 1st line, after "grounds" insert "he feels". MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, July 17, 1979, as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List (Correction made as follows: "Sidign" to "Design") B. Request to set Public Hearing for Shady Oak Industrial Park 4th Addition for September 18, 1979 C. Request to set Public Hearing for Overlook Place by Hustad Development Corporation for September 18, 1979 D. Consider bids for temporary signals on T.H. 169 and Co. Rd. 1 and Vo-Tech entrance - This item was moved to the City Engineer's Report (VIII. E. 3.) E. Receive petition and order sewer and water extension on Atherton Way, I.C. 51-351, Change Order No. 1 (Resolution No. 79-155) City Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,August 21, 1979 F. Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed 1979 special assessment rolls and setting hearing date for September 18, 1979 (Resolution No. 79-157) G. Community Development Block Grant VI Program, Execution of New Joint Cooperation Agreement for Continued Participation H. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-25, rezoning .8 acre from Rural to R1-13.5 for 1 existing house and 1 additional building lot, Shea rezoning I. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-26, rezoning 1.36 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 1 existing home and 2 additional lots, Sunset Crest by Audrey Buss MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve items A, B, C, E, F, G, H and I on the Consent Calendar. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval in the amount of $3,500,000.00 for Ryan Construction Company (Resolution No. 79-152) Jim Ryan, Ryan Construction Company, summarized their application and spoke to his letter dated August 17, 1979 (attached as part of minutes). Osterholt questioned if Ryan Construction Company has applied for revenue • bonds in other communities and if where? Mr. Ryan responded the only one they t as a developer applied for was a shopping center in Coon Rapids which is now under construction and where revenue bonds were approved. Ryan further commented Coon Rapids is the only community they have applied for revenue bonds as a developer, the other projects they were involved in were just as a design builder or a builder. Edstrom asked if the $70,000 contribution on the intersection is part of the !1 base on which the rental is calculated, or is that being paid by the developer and outside the base. Ryan replied the $70,000 they would pay is in the form of an assessment. They would take the full brunt of that assessment, and that assessment is transferred directly to the tenants. The leases are what is called "pure net leases", the tenants pay taxes, maintenance, insurance and assessments. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 79-152, approving the request for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $3,500,000.00 for Ryan Construction Company, with the addition of the following language to the resolution in paragraph 6, 5th line, after the word "should" insert "the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the bonds, or should the parties be unable to reach agreement as to the structuring of the financing or as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction, then the City has the right to withdraw from the participation." Redpath, Edstrom and Pauly voted "aye", Osterholt and Penzel voted "nay". Motion carried. Council instructed staff to examine the pros and cons of the adopted guide lines, and what might or might not be included, and to bring the report back to the Council as to what is being done elsewhere in that area and what the advantages and disadvantages of their approach would be, :16Ltd . City Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,August 21, 1979 B. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval in the amount of $650,000.00 for Big G Imports/Galarneault (Resolution No. 79-153) Richard Anderson summarized the application and answered questions of Council members. Redpath asked if anybody is going to build in Shady Oak Industrial Park without Municipal Industrial Development Bonds? Mr. Anderson replied he believes that will be about 5 buildings that will be non-industrial revenue bonds, and approximately 5 at this time that are with revenue bonds. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 79-153, approving Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $650,000.00 for Big G Imports/Galarneault. Edstrom, Redpath and Pauly voted "aye", Osterholt and Penzel voted "nay". Motion carried. C. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval in the amount of $8,000,000.00 for Cooperative Power Association (Resolution No. 79-151) Steve Jacobs, bond counsel with Dain, Kalman & Quail, summarized the application and answered questions of Council members. Mr. Jacobs requested a change on page 5 of the resolution, paragraph 3.06, 6th line, after "Halladay," insert "and/or Chapman & Cutler". Council members concurred with the change as requested. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and • adopt Resolution No. 79-151, approving Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $8,000,000.00 for Cooperative Power Association. Edstrom, • " Redpath, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Osterholt voted "nay". Motion carried. • D. .Bluff's West 3rd & 4th by Hustad Development Corporation. Request for PUD concept approval, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5, RM 6.5 and RM 2.5, preliminary plat approval for approximately 640 units on 16B.5 acres, and approval of EAW, finding no significant impact. Located north of Bluff's West Second Addition and east of Homeward Hills Road (Resolution No. 79-94 - PUD, Ordinance No. 79-14 - rezoning, Resolution No. 79-96 - preliminary plat) Continued from July 17, 1979 Edstrom explained since he found his law firm does a small amount of work for Hustad Development Corporation, even though he is not involved, Edstrom felt he should abstain from voting on this proposal. Dick Putnam, Hustad Development Corporation, spoke to the revised plan which consists of rezoning only Bluff's West 3rd from Rural to R1-13.5 and to preliminary plat 166 single family homes on 84 acres. City Planner Enger explained this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the August 13th meeting and was recommended to the City Council for approval on a 5 - 0 vote, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 7th and subject to the material that had been submitted for preliminary plat and rezoning, which Mr. Enger spoke to in detail. Osterholt commented when the City receives land dedicated for park and finds out it is going to be used for storm drainage, we shouldn't be giving density trade- off for that land. Penzel further asked wouldn't the requirement for park dedication be over and above the storm drainage requirements rather than being made part and parcel of. • City Council Minutes - 4 - Tues.,August 21, 1979 . D. Bluff's West 3rd & 4th (continued) Enger replied it all depends on the question of whether or not the City wants to give the storm area credit for density transfer, because the proponent in this case is meeting the requirements for park and open space through the cash park fee and in the 2nd Addition through the cash park fee as well. Above and beyond that the proponents have made available the 15 acre area largely for park and open space through a density transfer. The question seems to be the density transfer was allowed for park space in the 2nd Addition and, in fact, the 2nd Addition was a little higher in density than this addition because it was density allowed for the bluff area as well. With this 3rd Addition what is being conveyed is the lower area of the park which would be the inundation area and we are able to use part of that for overflow soccer fields for example, i.e., instead of 2 soccer fields we will put in 3 soccer fields and once every hundred years one of the soccer fields will flood for 3 days. The storm water area is still open space, it is not necessarily a park area. Enger feels this is a valid concept if the proposal is a good subdivision. Sally Brown, Chairwoman of the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission, defined the motions of the Commission from meeting held May 15, 1979, at the request of Councilman Osterholt, i.e., Zone."A" stipulated nothing, and Zone "B" stipulates 1 house for 3 acres. Osterholt asked if there were any areas in this proposal which would be included in the "A" or "B" zones? Enger replied in the negative. Ms. Brown commented the Commission understood there were no areas in the "A" and "B" zones when they saw the revised plan, however, the Commission still has questions and concerns about the density of 2.5 being lined up right next to the "B" zone. Osterholt thought it would make more sense for the City to cooperate with the Metropolitan Airports Commission and have certain lands dedicated rather than asking6that public funds be expended. Ms. Brown questioned the percentage of variances requested for Bluff's 2nd and 3rd Additions. Enger responded the final form for Bluff's West 2nd Addition is a 244 lot plat which consists of 65% of the lots under 13.5, 50% of the frontages are 85 feet or larger, 14% of the frontages are 80 - 85 feet, 25% of the frontages are 68 to 80 feet, 5% of the frontages are less thatn 68 feet and 4% of the frontages are less than 68 feet but are on cul-de-sac lots. In comparison the 3rd Addition has proposed 50% of the lots requiring the side yard setback variances and the proponents have listed in their proposal the percentage of frontage of lots is similar to the 2nd Addition. Dick Putnam and Jim Ostenson, Hustad Development Corporation, responded to further questions raised by Sally Brown. Ms. Brown questioned the recommendation for having notices through brochures and signs for people purchasing the property, as to what would happen when people are purchasing the property the 2nd or 3rd time around. City Attorney Pauly replied possibly such information could be filed with the title. However, Pauly stated he would look into this matter and report back to the Council. Penzel reiterated the concern he expressed two years ago when Bluff's West 1st was approved regarding a continuous street with 3 different names, which he was assured wasn't going to happen. At the present time we still have one continuous street with 3 different names. Penzel requested resolution of this situation. 9LYi City Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.,August 21, 1979 D, Bluff's West 3rd & 4th (continued) Pauly stated she has reservations about this project. Concurs with Sally Brown's analysis it is awfully close to the "B" zone and for a high density area with a lot of variances we are getting in return basically a water storage area. Penzel also stated he shares Ms. Brown's concerns about the proximity to the "B" zone. Believes basically it is a vast improvement over the previous plan. However, he would like to see 1) the bond requirements as far as trails and tot lots are concerned, 2) a re-examination of the water storage that is proposed to the northerly 16 acre parcel to make it more concise and less harmful to the park as proposed, and 3) a concerted effort to revise the preliminary plat to the point of reducing the rather substantial request for variances that are presently before the Council. Osterholt asked Mr. Putnam is the developer is willing to do some of the things that are being requested. Putnam replied they cannot do so with the present plat. Osterholt recommended the Council meet with the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission to receive their input regarding the "A" and "B" zones before any final • action is taken on this project. Putnam stated in lieu of the points raised by the Council this evening, the proponents would like to request their item be continued to the next Council meeting of September 4th. ! Penzel asked if there are any concerns the individual Council members might have that haven't been addressed, to make them known so they might be included and responded to prior to the next consideration of this proposal. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, that the Council hold a joint meeting with the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission on September 4, 1979 at 6:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to continue the Bluff's West 3rd Addition Public Hearing to the September 4, 1979 Council meeting. Redpath, Osterholt, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Edstrom "abstained". Motion carried. V. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A. Highway #212 Advisory Commission Councilwoman Pauly, member of the Highway #212 Advisory Commission, introduced other members ofthe Commission present in the audience - Virginia Gartner and Haakon Nyhammer. Pauly explained Don Peterson is the other member, however, he is out of town. Pauly also introduced the representatives from Mn/DOT - Susanne Pelly, Highway #23 Planner, and Bob Paine, Highway #212 Project Engineer. Pauly distributed information which she explained in detail (attached as part of minutes). Bob Paine passed out a map of the major roadway showing the trend of what could happen and spoke to same (attached as part of minutes). General discussion took place and Mr. Paine answered specific questions directed to him by the Council and members of the audience. City Council Minutes - 6 - Tues.,August 21, 1979 A. Highway #212 Advisory Commission (continued) Jerry Kingrey, 14311 Holly Road, asked if there is a possibility of expediting the acquisition of right-of-way without regard to when the freeway will actually be built. Paine stated right-of-way could be bought in about 1984; however, the first thing before buying right-of-way is to know where Highway 212 is going to go. Then an Environmental Impact Statement must be filed that has to be approved in Washington, and it also has to be approved by the State's Environmental Quality Board before acquisition of right-of-way can take place. Mr. Kingrey suggested the Highway Department be advised there may be quite a difference of opinion in the preliminary planning as to whether the high school sports fild should be relocated in an area outside the right-of-way, which would then be the middle school. If the high school sports field is affected, it should be relocated to the high school. Mike Eames, 17345 West 78th Street, commented the purchase of the land is vikually impossible according to what the newspapers tell us as the State is out of money; however, Highway #212 is a federal highway and not a state highway. Eames asked if federal monies were also short. Paine replied it is still a state highway even though it is funded by federal funds. The state has to furnish 20% of the dollars and there is no state money to match the federal funds at this time. Bill Gilk, 15212 Scenic Heights Road, stated given the length of time and the seriousness of the traffic situation, wouldn't there be the possibility of hay- trig four lanes, as the section with four lanes going by Flying Cloud is 4 uncongrested compared to the 2 lanes. Paine replied anything that would add lanes to the roadway for which the State would have to buy right-of-way, would have to go through the same process as for new Highway #212, i.e., public involvement, an Environmental Impact Statement, approval by Washington and the Environmental Quality Board. Pauly added if there are any community organizations or individuals that would like to have coffee parties, the members of the Task Force and representatives from Mn/DOT would be willing to meet with them. Paine commented what Mn/DOT is looking for after all the facts are on the table and the citizens, Council and City Staff know what is going on, would be a decision by the City on which 1, or which 2, they would like studied more. This would be more detailed studies which will be part of the Environmental Impact Statement, VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &COMMUNICATIONS A. Preserve Center 2nd Addition, request by The Preserve to preliminary plat 5 acres for 6 duplex lots (12 units). Located south of Anderson Lakes Parkway on either side of Preserve Boulevard extended. Penzel questioned what is supposed to become of the strip of land west of the proposed extension of Preserve Boulevard? Lee Johnson, The Preserve, stated nothing will be done with the site at the pre- sent time. If he is able to purchase some land from Edenvale so there would not be any variances, then it would be a potential building site. MOTION; Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt t0 approve the Preserve Center 2nd Addition by the Preserve to preliminary plat 5 acres for 6 duplex lots., Motion carried unanimously, • (./0 City Council Minutes - 1 - Tues.,August 21, 1979 • B. Request by Mr. Gil Darkenwald to move the continued Public Hearing date for Independent Millwork from September 18, 1919 tO September 41 1979 City Attorney Pauly explained legally the City cannot move a public hearing back. Penzel further commented because of State Statutes the public needs to be informed, and the public was informed this Public Hearing was continued to the 2nd meeting in September. No action necessary. VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-15, establishing a Code of Ethics for Officials of the City of Eden Prairie MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-15, establishing a Code of Ethics for Officials of the City of Eden Prairie. Pauly, Edstrom and Penzel voted "aye", Osterholt and Redpath voted "nay". Motion carried. VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members No reports. B. Report of City Manager 1. Establishment of date to meet with South Hennepin Human Services Council MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to set September 4, 1979 as the date to meet with the South Hennepin Human Services Council. Motion carried unanimously. C. Report of City Attorney 1. Progress report on the house moved into Hidden Ponds City Attorney Pauly summarized memorandum dated August 13, 1979 which was sent to some of the neighboring residents, Bev Cronk, 18895 Pheasant Circle, spoke to information submitted to the City Council regarding the drafting of an ordinance pertaining to the moving of a home into a neighborhood and requested the Council consider adopting such an ordinance. (Attached as part of minutes) Mayor Penzel referred to memo from Chief Building Inspector Walter Johnson as to what the owner of the home, which was moved into Hidden Ponds, has agreed to do. Redpath suggested licensing, bonding or setting fees for house movers • which could perhaps be incorporated into the ordinance. 111 MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to draft an ordinance including as many of the concerns possible of Mrs. Crank's letter,including the Board of Appeals & Adjustments approach, and refer same to the Planning Commission fcr review and recommendation, and then to the City Council for consideration. Motion carried unanimously, 1�•it City Council Minutes - 8 - Tues.,August 21, 1979 1. Progress report on the house moved into Hidden Ponds (continued) Dick Mahaffey, 18975 Valley View Road, requested the house be secured as it presents a very dangerous and tempting situation. Mahaffey suggested the City could also check on an ordinance to protect the safety and welfare of the people in the community. Penzel stated two weeks ago the Council requested Mr. Johnson take all necesary action to secure the house, and asked why this hasn't been done. Ulstad replied the house has not been secured and that he did talk with the owner about a week ago and the owner has been informed to get the house corrected and secured. Edstrom suggested staff and the Public Safety Department look into the possibility of prosecution; however, he commented he is less enthusiastic about the City taking action to secure the house because the City vsow}d M i6 i" then be takingpy6 responsibility in terms of liability. MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Redpath, to instruct staff to take all possible legal measures to secure the house moved into Hidden Ponds. Motion carried unanimously. Carol Ellison, 18925 Pheasant Circle, asked how long it would ta'e to go to the Planning Commission and when would it be back to the Council. City Attorney Pauly replied it could possibly be on the Planning Commission September 10th, and to the City Council on September 18th Penzel asked that Staff make sure the Public Safety Department is aware no I permits are issued for moving homes into Eden Prairie with the exception of the Vo-Tech home which has been approved. Councilwoman Pauly commented she does not like to see the City into some- thing that really should be done through covenants. Mrs. Ellison felt she does not have any say in the covenants because they came in after she purchased her home. Mrs. Cronk explained in Mrs. Ellison's case and some others the covenants are not effective, thus an overall City ordinance would be much more effective. D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Wetland Restrictions Director of Community Services Lambert spoke to his memo dated August 17, and the request of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission that Council authorize staff to study the concern on the restrictions on filling of wetlands to provide recommendations on local ordinances designed to protect these small marshes and ponds. Council concurred with the request of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission with the understanding the recommendations be brought back to the Council for consideration. • City Council Minutes - 9 - Tues„August 21, 1979 2, Topview Mini-Park Director of Community Services Lambert explained Mr. Ulstad met with the present owner of the Topview site, Mr. Tom Miller, and he is asking $40,000 for the two lots. Lambert spoke to his memo dated August 17, 1979 and the staff recommendation that the City acquire Lots 14 and 15 on Gerard Drive for the price of $40,000, to be funded through cash park fees. Further that staff recommends the development costs for this mini-park be included in the proposed bond referendum, and if the bond referendum passes the cash park fees could be reimbursed. The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission recommends securing an option at this point for about six months, including the acquisition in the bond referendum, and then if the bond referendum did fail bringing it back to the Council for consideration of acquisition at that time. The Commission felt it would be more appropriate to use funds through the referendum than through the cash park fees. Tom Miller, owner of the property under consideration, commented he would like to see something resolved and it is not feasible for him to wait any longer. John Reedy, 7262 Gordon Drive, spoke in favor of the two lots being purchased from Mr. Miller for a mini-park, Reedy did not feel the City should wait for the bond referendum to be passed before purchasing the property. Osterholt questioned if there is any possibility for a neighborhood park that can serve both Topview and the Cardinal Creek area? Mr. Reedy St stated he believes the people in the Topview neighborhood wish to be served by a mini-park from a small drawing radius, and at this time he sees a • lack of available alternatives. Lambert further reiterated he has talked to a lot of people from Topview and tried to approach them with future park sites outside Topview, and they feel strongly about wanting a mini-park within the area. Redpath asked if the bond referendum passed, is there a way the cash park fee could be paid back, and if the referendum fails that it could be assessed to the benefitted property owners? City Attorney Pauly stated he would look into the question raised by Councilman Redpath. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to authorize staff to negotiate with Mr. Miller two potential agreements: 1) an outright purchase, and 2) an option, and that this item be returned to the Council on September 4th with a recommendation, Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue the Council meeting past the 11:30 PM scheduled adjournment time. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Award bid for Preserve multi-use court MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Penzel, to award the bid to Bituminous Roadways in the amount of $7,750 for a multi-use court at the Preserve Neighborhood Park as per staff recommendation. Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Penzel, Edstrom, Pauly and Redpath voted "aye", Motion carried unanimously. • 203 City Council Minutes - 10 - Tues.,August 21, 1979 4. Riverview Springs Penzel spoke to the request of Mr. Fransen that some measures be taken to alleviate the problems which have caused damage to his property. Director of Community Services Lambert spoke to his memo dated August 17, 1979 and referred to the criminal activities on Riverview Road submitted by the Public Safety Department. Lambert stated it is the Staff's recommendation that Riverview Springs be closed to see if this does alleviate the problems faced by the residents in that area. General discussion took place regarding the pros and cons of closing Riverview Springs. Council requested that the area be saturated by the Public Safety Depart- ment for a week or two to see if that will alleviate the,problems which have occurred. E. Report of City Engineer 1. Petition to amend floodplain elevation along Purgatory Creek south of T.H. 5 (Resolution No. 79-156) City Engineer Jullie spoke to his memo dated August 17, 1979, and answered questions of Council members. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pauly, to refer this item to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission and the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Petition from Ban-Con, Inc„ regarding setback for Neill Lake Condominiums MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Penzel, to continue this item to the September 4th Council meeting to review the decision of the Board 6f Appeals & Adjustments. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consider bids for temporary signals on T.H. 169 and Co. Rd. 1 and Vo-Tech entrance • MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to award the bids for temporary signals on T.H. 169 and Co. Rd, 1 and Vo-Tech entrance to the lowest responsible bidders as follows: land widening and channelization to Minnesota Valley Surfacing Company in the amount of $51,334.40 and for signal installation in the amount of $34,825.00 to Berg & Tjepkes Electric Company, Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Edstrom, Pauly, Redpath and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to provide funds out of the Unappropriated Surplus of the General Fund for these improvements. Motion carried unanimously. F. Report of Finance Director 1. Payment of Claims Nos. 5267 - 5471 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 5267 - 5471. Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Edstrom, Pauly, Redpath and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. • Council Minutes - 11 - Tues.,August 21, 1979 • 2. Request to set a Public Hearing for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval for Eden Prairie Partners in the amount of $1,500,000.00 for September 18, 1979 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to set September 18, 1979 as the Public Hearing Date to consider the request from Eden Prairie Partners for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $1,500,000,00. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request to set a Public Hearing_for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval for Eden Prairie Mini-Storage in the amount of $65D,000.00 for September 18, 1979 • MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to set September 18, 1979 as the Public Hearing Date to consider the request from Eden Prairie Mini- Storage for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $650,000.00. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Request to set a Public Hearing for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval for Anderson Lakes Limited in the amount of $3,375,000.00 for September 18, 1979 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to set September 18, 1979 as the Public Hearing Date to consider the request from Anderson Lakes Limited for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $3,375,000.00 Motion carried unanimously. IX. NEW BUSINESS Edstrom requested an item be added to the Joint Meeting with the Flying • Cloud Advisory Commission regarding the follow-up on the 2nd resolution that was adopted when the Council approved the airport expansion plan regarding restricting jet traffic, and to see if the Anoka County Airport situation is going to have an affect on Eden Prairie. X. ADJOURNMENT • MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adjourn the Council meeting at • 12:20 AM. Motion carried unanimously. Qrr - 3111111�pp3 • wT MU:A • wrwyrl constriction company -. ,�r Y OP MINNESOTA INCORPORATED ,t� , `� August 17, 1979 Mr. Roger Ulstad City Manager City of Eden Prairie • • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Mn. 55343 • • re: Super Valu Center Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Roger; On Tuesday, August 21, the mayor and city council will be making a decision on revenue bond financing which is critical to our proceeding with the Super Valu Center. We have all lived with the project for well over.a year. I be- lieve the time spent with your staff, the planning department and city council ' has been productive from both our standpoints. The net result we have achieved 4 is a good, workable balance for the center, Eden Prairie and the adjacent residential neighbors. Also in doing so, we will be providing funds for a much needed traffic improvement at County Road 18 and Anderson Lake Parkway. r � I • Unfortunately, because of the City of Bloomington's involvement, resolving the intersection traffic improvement turned out to be a long, drawn out and expensive process for us both. The delay in potential solution created the following dilemma for us: 1.) A $70,000 contribution would have to be commited by us to pay for Eden Prairie's share of the improvements. 2.) The Bloomington delay would cost us an additional $100,000 because of construction inflation costs of nearly 1% per month. The total delay now will cost closer to 5200,000. 3.) More dramatic than the inflation, the economy changed and the resulting increase in interest rates would mean an additional lh to 2% on our permanent mortgage. The combination made our project economically unfeasible for our tenants so in January we contacted John D. Frane, your finance director, to discuss revenue bond financing. Under the conditipns it was the only way our project could proceed. Our shopping center is unique in that we have two firm leases which take 100% of the space. Both leases are long term and commit us to 25 year terms ! and longer. The rents paid are generated on a formula basis which simply takes the total costs X the rental constant which is based on interest paid t r the mortgage. The full benefit of the reduced rates created by revenue bondn in passed to our two tenants to help bear the financial burdens discussed above. HOME OFFICE•RYAN BUILDING.HIBBING,MINNESOTA 55746-TELEPHONE 218263 6888 µINNEAPOLIS OFFICE:7401 MCI R0 BOULEVAHD,SUITE 500 ONE CORPCENIER..EDINA.MINNESOTA 55435-1CLEPHONE 612835 7990 ,J L a li • • Jar. Roger Ulsted August 17, 1979 Page 2 Roger, I would appreciate your passing these comments on to the mayor and city council prior to the meeting, to help them more fully understand our dilemma. We hope, based on these conditions and the financial merits of our project pointed out in our revenue bond application, to seek their approval. Very truly yours, RYAN CONSTRUCPI MP ! R. Ryan -ice President JRR/jw • • • I ' Proposal presented to the mayor and city council members of Eden Prairie, Minnesota on August 21. 1979. Concerned home owners of Eden Prairie would like to recommend that the Eden Prairie City Council make a motion to adopt a city ordinance in regards to neighborhood approval of all move in houses. • • A. If the house is more than 10 years old, it MAY NOT be moved into the city • B. If the house is less than 10 years old, it MAY be moved into the city if; _ 1. Written approval is obtained from a. all six property owners nearest the said • property or, b. all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the said property lines Whichever is greater. 2. Must be at least 1100 square feet above grade 3. Must have a double attached garage 4. Must conform to surrounding homes 5 Must pass city inspection and conform to all present city codes and ordinances • C. If the proposed house is presently located in the city and is less than 10 years old, the house may be moved to a different location within the city but the above neighborhood and city approval must still be obtained. D. If the proposed house is presently located in the city and is more than 10 years old, the house may be moved to a different location within the city but the above neighborhood and city approval' must still be obtained. Concerned home owner. � • ar,.,.=..fi Beverly tA. Cronk 18895 Pheasant Circle Eden Prairie. MN. 55344 a c. • 212 ADVISORY COMMISSION INTERIM PRESENTATION TO CITY AND SCHOOL EDEN PRAIRIE AUG 21 and SEPT. 6, 1979 PART I Need for 212 - No build is an option 1. Need for 212 in Eden Prairie A. Accident rate in EP on 5 and 169 handled by EP police 467 from January 1977 - March 1979, 27 mo. 9 fatalities 52 from January 1979 - March 1979 B. Public Safety time and cost Average 3 hrs/ accident not counting court time and paper work - up to 150 hours on one accident - - Possibly one full time officer equivalent on 5/169 C. Trucks and traffic snarls 32,000 vehicles/day on 5/169 in 1976 2. Need for 212 outstate A. West Central Minnesota (212 area only) produces approximately 25% of state's agricultural products. 34% of trips at South Dakota border in Twin Cities. B. In 1970, Highways.12, 7, 212, 19 considered - population, • employment, freight, trip volume and building costs considered [ with 212 chosen by state for up-grading. "�. C. Regional railroads have been and will be abondoned in area • forcing freight onto trucks. • PART II - Eden Prairie Routes - pros and cons so far- • 1. Unique System D • A. Cons 1. Wetlands - School Pond, Red Rock Lake wetlands, CPT pond 2. Affect Scenic Heights neighborhood 3. Affect Middle School • 4. Complicated intersection with 494 B. Pros • 1. Corridor has mostly been kept open - what we have relied on for 11 years 2. Probably lowest land acquisition costs 3. Frees the largest stretch of Highway 5 for local use 4. Probably least loss of tax revenue • 5. Keeps the 5/212 junction at the MCA 2. Highway 5/Residential A. Cons 1. Removes neighborhood and tax base 2. Takes High School track and football field even though replaced 3. Near Middle School 4. Forces City to put in better road system in Mitchell Road to replace 5. • Page 2 B. Pros 1. Avoids H.S. pond, CPT pond and Red Rock 2. Less bridging than Industrial or System D 3. Cheaper 5/212 interchange 3. Highway 5/Industrial A. Cons 1. Enormous potential loss of tax revenue and Jobs if firms do not relocate in Eden Prairie 2. High acquisition costs 3. Affects School Road neighborhood 4. City will need complementary road system B. Pros . 1. Saves neighborhood (doesn't want to be saved for this) 2. Saves H.S. pond, CPT pond and Red Rock 3. Less impact on School than Residential or System D 4. Highway 5/Mitchell A. Cons • 1. High land acquisition cost and loss of tax revenue along Hwy 5 2. Severe impact on Immanuel Lutheran Church, Prairie Village Mall, • Round Lake Estates, Luther Way and Heritage Park - all built • with Unique System D "official". 3. Difficult top at Kerber's hill- wetlands at Mitchell Lake and floodplain, wetlands at Rice Marsh Lake • 4. Removes Highway 5 for local use B. Pros I. In place ROW 2. Saves HS pond, neighborhood, no effect on Middle School 5. North Riley Cut Off A. Cons 1. Wetlands near Rice Marsh Lake and 2 ponds 2. not where anticipated B. Pros 1. Avoids Riley Lake and County 1 neighborhoods 2. Shorter and Straighter 3. Closer to 5 - relieves it more - probably better for our internal road system - Dell Road etc. 6. In Place 212 A. Cons 1. Tying 212 into 494 - destroy Lake Eden - need 40 acres in MCA 2. 7 wetlands, 2 parks in Eden Prairie 3. Removes 169 from local use 4. Can only use 1 mile of existing road way 5. Grade problems for trucks to climb hill 6. Present road so close to floodplain, sometimes in floodplain, . new land must be built in bluff - very sensitive 7. Will not take pressure off of 5 (see chart) a 7j U •Page 3 T. Comparative Construction cost in Eden Prairie 1. Unique System D 43 mil add 5 if bridge HS pond 2. Hwy 5/Residential 40 mil 3. Hwy 5 Industrial 45 mil 4. Hwy 5 Mitchell 38 mil 5. In place 212 Note - construction savings would probably be negated by land acquisition costs of Mitchell and Residential PART III - Effect on Chanhassen 212 could enter Chanhassen either North or South of Riley Lake • 1. Southern route favored as it casues less severance of community and farms 2. Bulk of citizens could get onto 212 faster with Northern route • • • • • 1U f • 1 \ I E 17 1 ‘ •-• z I INF! T.K. 41 i \• i0,000 13,000 u. t 17.0001 Ylfir 1 i , .10 ...,.., t 't , . A p 1% i s . 1 4 ., , - U. § ef 1 OA, C I 1 , i N g .. 1 -1 IN tO I / A l' il 4: i 0 1*„ : '", c4., t* *1 i < 1 1 m/' 23 ea to is% •i ti r 51 I;1. 8 0 - tg IF. • o •1; g *. I a 1; & t•= a ..on sq o 46. t u) °°•9 a .. _ .. .. • • • • • t• September 11, 1979 • LUD'LIICA TS CO. 9449 Creek Knoll Road/Eden Prairie,Minnesota/53343 DISTRIBUTORS OF APPROVED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS / QUALITY CHEMICALS Roger K. Ulstad City Manager 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, Minnesota 44,44 Dear Sir; We etch to have the Council set a public hearing date for the project of Nemec Knolls. ank you, • Donald .:. Nemec DEN/dn • • • • • • .2768 • • eehaon a6„ 6 9600 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 66343 TELEPHONE 161319446E03 • September 13, 1979 • Mr. Robert Ulstad. Mayor and The City Council City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Shady Oak Industrial Park, 3rd Addition and 5th Addition Gentlemen: The Planning Commission recently took action on Shady Oak Industrial Park, 3rd and 5th Additions rezoning, therefore, I would respectfully request the City Council to set a Public Hearing at their earliest • convenience. - . Yours very truly,dteed20140.4"Richard W. Anderson • /mt - • I • -----) STREETER iANDRUS 17717 HIGHWAY 7, MINNETONKA,MINNESOTA 65243, PHONE 16121 476.6261 • • REALTORS f September 12,"1979 • i 1 Eden Prairie City Council i 8950 Eden Prairie'Rd. Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 9 RE: Mile West Project 4 This is to request that the City Council set a public hearing for the purpose of rezoning the Mile West Project for office d . use. 1 1 1 I A ,,; Sincerely, 1 Bud Andrus yY A 3 c BA/11 • 1 . • i I I i 1 t j r i (lt it 27p; COMMERCIAL/INOuSTRIAL DIVISION i. Individual Membership.Society oI Industrtal Realtors•Cendmd Commercial 8 Investment Membership•Natusnal Association l of Realtors•Mneapolis Commercul Mullple Lourg Some*•Independent fee Appraisers Asx+uauon t: in • darkenwald real estate,inc. Indunriat and Commercial inneapolis industrial Park [415 Annapolis Lane Minneapolis,Minnesota 55441 1612)553.1911 darkenwald REAL ESTATE September 10, 1979 ' , ID Mr. Chris Enger• Planning Director . Eden Prairie City Office 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 • Re: Independent Millwork's Request for P.U.D. Concept Approval of 8.30 acres for Commercial and Rezoning from Rural to Commercial for One Lot. Dear Mr. Enger: • Mr. Fitzsimmons who was requesting the rezoning for the racquetball club has withdrawn his request for rezoning at this time because of the time of the year. At the last meeting there were requests for additional information which pertained to the Fitzsimmons' building. They were namely better landscaping plans for racquetball club, better screening for racquetball club and storm sewer run-off. Since this building will not be built at this time, it will not be necessary to furnish this information. At our meeting on September 18, we will be represented by Bruce Knutson, the architect on the request for P.U.D. Concept Approval of 8.30 acres • only. incerely, •in•/42,44/t_eae52.----) G. M. Darkenwald, S.I.R. GMD:sah cc: Mr. Bruce Knutson Mr. Bill Enright INDIVIDUAL MCMUtRSMIP,SOCICT V OF INDUST RIAI•REALTORS Sept. 18, 1979 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING 1979 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections in the proposed assessments for the following improvements, to wit: (See Exhibit A attached) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such proposed assessments are hereby accepted and shall con- stitute the special assessment against the lands in the final assessment rolls, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be bbnefitted by the improve- ment in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual install- • ments extending over a period of years as shown on Exhibit A, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1980. Subsequent installments shall bear interest at the rate of 6.86 percent per annum. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid on or before November 15, 1979. 3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk l k i11 1 1 ill ' 1 development ;' • -,corparetiIon j • e • I 1 . /I • July 16, 1979 I City of Eden Prairie c 8950 Eden Prairie loci i' Eden prairie, :In. 55344 i .- le: Development of 6./ acres Overlo.k Place fi - Background / The G. acre are taus first .:paroved as an Inceu trial/office Park — 1' " PUD in 1974. The plan was approved for 120,CsiO 1. ft. of office/ industrial and 26 townhouse units on <6 acres.. rig. 1 is a copy • -' of the PUD plan. 1' I, o In 1976 the city anproved a change in the Pti by rezoning approximately 7 acres to R1-13.5 for small lot (5400-12,Oi•( sq. ft.) single family. homes. The homes were to be factory built and so]d-for under $50,000 during 1978. :,ix factory built homes were constructed with the remainder of the lots (19) sold to Zadnman Homes, Inc. kit Hart Custom Homes. A condition of approval waS that "11. Owner grees ... not to plat remaining acreage in the HustLd Office PUD area ' to • similar sized small lots" - source: Develo;.pers Agreement, 3 ntember ........ 12, 1978. This application proposes to complete the Office Ff . Request 1. Rezoning from 1-2 Pk to 1H. 6.5 :•ultifanil;; •)i::trict of Ordinance 135. i 2. Preliminary Plat a-:roval for Overlook i'l,ce - a 4 unit a family rmme t;roj ct ay Zachman Homes, Inc. x•en :T iri!•. 4 3. Ch-n,~'e the Office Park PUD to residents*.1 :.4,1 puilie -,ark. i t 1 12750 PIONEER TRA!!,EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55343(612)941-4383 i -il • ;, ,. . /f/ ..„: • . t • -. • 'if. I.i ( \ , 0/7 ' 1 • '•- . • ,/,,;•1 ' ... ..':-:.;11..-- - ......,Ma.. 1:'' i• tit/ •• • /,,,f \ • el'17 • ... -. `;.,., -, (---\ ) aftwow ames.,-, i,. ///r • ' t;"(;4( ,./ er 1441. . ., - 7, ,,‘ '-'•- ''•• , ;..:. • 7 4, •-`1•- , _i• ,f., , _4i,„.," •(..%,,,,,,c-,44.,,, -a* ct. . ,./)7.i d, ..%'••- ,4_2.k..L..:;:..= . ,'.. - '.,.)/ .. -. , .0'.41',2:'••I•>:/ (,'."(..,4.‘1----:-- ":.K/4c;;.,4,,.,'c5..,..'.;21..4 49::&4.k!3 4f14,:,i'.'i.:i1*,..?•,,,A''c-''••'•••-" 4 A,*'.,..•.•7••.:..44...10.Aa,. '"'':t"Ai, '•tA....i-i, ..• owAi"..._..: .,1-'' ,y/,e,t .,, ,::,-,.:,-it k,,Vv.m.r"•:'.- . ,,, .'''- .".....* ' '','',,"‘ LV....0.' ' -.- ' •tr.!'-'k'N.11.;',,r. ' /P. 0 ....,,,-,..„ •Nr.... " -•••, -''''''.-. •••.,,,._••$,A, 4.. , ' fp ip. „„ • ,::.:..., . ci i ...,i4-. ,,,.,.., -t. ,.,1 , '; ,•./,..1(f,;-,,.7.71p. .4, ,.,... ....,04 ,&\ \ *t-: .• ; ik • 4..,....... . ,. ,, ..._,,3, , 4..... ,,_,..- _ , t, -,,,.,;,, \, 4 .0 . .....," .1:O..S. ..÷113119' 1, --,..<4' 4) . IP. "". wt.'tu.: 4111,„,10%•,' 'IN' .4.1614 V 1 1 , ...:, :. &ILO u11111. ' . ,eled AX6.0;.• ..eiloit•, q .. . • "•,% ''''i:0• -.91# .rtr:•,•,, ,., 1.,.... ,..,- )„t. . .Alla't• ''''s.,t 6 11, .. . ' . tic ' ,,i ''''' . • 7 ..,,' ' N4111 - ''" ' - , t ,•,.• . lit-.--,ti....-= '-1° ..7 -' • • , ; •/ il 410.,.,J ,.s ..L,.- 11Gc....• 'to w i . ...., , .. :A.. • 6, ..- _,......• .......„..----•••• , ,, . , 1 •. '-,:- 0,,,..,Ir..,._ ilit ODIdert.‘ . 1".".... Wro,1% .• .'" - • 11 Atit • i , . • _ t ..././ "" -- concept plan • ti cigvelopment L a corporation 1-1.9.1.:1) • v:/09 . . . • • Ownership/Use The property is owned by Roth Hustad and is currently used as the offices of Rusted Real estate, Hustad Development Corporation and a State Fats Insurance agency. Area (, The Yorkshire Point small lot home development is adjacent to the sites west boundary, Co. Rd. #1 to the south, 5 single family and 4 double lots along Creek Knoll Road east of site and public :lark north of site. County Road #1 will be realigned with this section of street becoming a local city street after the construction now scheduled for 1981. Site Improvements • Sanitary sewer and water was extended to serve this site in 1978 with the Yorkshire development. Public street, storm sewer and lateral water and sewer would be constructed by Hustad Development Corporation and dedicated to the City of Eden Prairie. - Site Features The 6.2 acre site is basicly an open field with oak and some elm along the slopes an the north and east sides. The soils are sandy with little slope except along the north and east boundaries. The site is within the "C Zone" of Flying Cloud Airport and is not under the approved paths for any runway. Site Constraints 4 The 6.2 acres is the last piece of this 26 acre area. Bordered by small lot single, and a combination of one and two family lots the site suggests a complementary residential building type. The park (tot lot) along Purgatory Creek and the scenic views over the creek valley provide a good setting for family housing. The proximity to shopping and major road systems Co. Rd. #1 and 169) offer good access to auto and transite service. Proposed Site Plan • The plan proposes 28 units of two family homes on 6.2 acres at 4.5 units/acre. Zachman Homes, Inc wall construct 26 units of a Twin Bane further explained in the attached plans. The existing home will be remodeled into a two family home consistent with the Zachman units. • • ;t) I0 • • The Twin dome:. will se priced in the mi.—$50,dOC rcn a including: l.EC sn: ft. 2 car tuck under • c64 ft. finisned living arcc . • 432 si. ft.. unfinished exransiun sr,ce 1776 sq. ft. tot l The builder believes ten mrket for these units will he young families and those eli-i,l' for rJ.S—VA financir.;:. The alran provides double home lots that :wet for +i: 6.5 requirements ;.tulti—f:nnil.y housin,, 'i'the currPut ,1 t finsneIn;' provides about i $10uu downneymcnt minimum with VA rreviuin:; no downpayment. • The units will -provide quality ownership housin.: for.those that might not :qualify for other housing available in the area. Summary Acres 6.1 Units 28 Density 4.6 du/ac • ' . Size/dble lot 13,000 sq. ft. minimum Ilnimum lot dim. 150' x 90' Set backs front 30' side 10' one side-25' total • • rear 20' FA? .t, multi story maximum Structure hei,;ht 30'mininwn • Off street parkin; 56 zerage spaced 54 3 pier unit :wtcice. • TO total Approval cf the Overlook Place plat will allow c ustruction of the project durin: the fall of 1979 with homes wilt ov+•r the winter. If the -:ro j'ct is e pnrove:' thr current office u:;e. :•.11 be relocated into ••v:dlabl' office o'ecr in the arce. ..'e lopk fnri:ar,: t. disci .irr, toe• Overle.* Pl:c. dsvelooment with the comnin3ions and city council over the next weeks. • Thank you f.jr y.•ir con::ider:;lion. • ;' tn.... • i:ust'.. v.lu,.:,.�i, t;or,oz '.iuc� • �'71 • . , • a • , i I f - ii . 1 1 11 1 is , • , Lilt IR I y : i N • II I . l = gk El' rF ' . 11111 tulli' iiluIi1t a aawo 000 a Q®9. $ I , Yi IOC • "tl �� �� ,',` \ I ii 4 4 il\ .It 0."''''- I C-11. 00irr, -_,I,..fr".---,:--',. N',, 1 !!I , ".„ !., ", 'N , , , ,,, . x.,11:1_, _ _ , 1 4, ijr\ * ., .4.61 ,...., , ,,, � �'� �:'� i ��� �© .r,� :11111:111. p qii �A 1 ! ''.'--, i\ i;i',', ,...._-,_ - ,.------.., i. ,,,, ; 00 _ L . (.._.:: \''..:'. ;,....._ I" ''At4 N . �', 1 1 t 1 i I� k i ��/ \ jam` 2.� 1 ,t:'TL - - ' i 5 �1,1i lid'�; f�(( f�;'-_ ` -��i� 1 1 ' 1 W .rL. -1 W 7 .,t v, o -1. .-_ , . . . .. E •s ._ . , , . . .. . S. . • • ass F . . _ . . 33 . V v 1af • •Y O #,,,j_____ A F 10 . ..e____-"1"- i 'i.,- ___t . II -ice jam. ! I _ } ......_.2-____.----,-.0003,P,'" /r ...... ......._ „.,....._ ,,.._,.. 4, , -,-,...,,,..,...,- , _-,, ,. .‘ I l/: ,, y�, / /i,/'' ,f/, . '�0w �`ri/ 0. 1 ���,III (� /i/� ��',���, '�rikII! I*'� a; ,. „ii,. , o4,„„ .r `tm0 a n,� l ,ti ; r4 � s � �ll 11, �' ��,�I 1 ' , , t gi .I �. 1 .ill � ; 11 � -j ( 1 �1 - a W .4„ 0 1 . rr. 2 1 13 • • k• . ' •: et l• i s•3 - - • 1 sil 3i 4 E • „, . •,, •4 .-:.., . i I at' ,o• 13 1 _____z___--.7__:—,.—.-..• ..---- .„0, --- \...1(.._ 1:f , •> IN a o ------- ----------- .4,-- --%-"..... \, V s,i .. • 1 -::-.--- °. - - I - 4• -lir- ____/----------- VI •• -----— -7:- giv r 44 : ...."-------,----- ;.LE .............111M61011 .0 ".........---- ( III . •‘ )i )::', ,/ 7- —----00 ,...---am, iisi; •, ,.. • _ --'-----, , . ),;// /7----.14AVik jagraiiv 1 II ../,' --,- \,\ li-,.• i ";: _____ i"\--... ..,.... (( 1 1.11- . ' II. )) '...44•'?',, 4 ;;:: .4kik. v 1.6 ; . 11_1 111 1 i i - ;III : ....m... / i ' • ' \ 1 1 ritt:. ,m t a II i'i i 1 _ . ,••,‘ --,,,,...: • ..., . • . . i , •I , ii k I N' / / I .,/ . _ . /. ..1 .....,_i_ .L-'- •.• 2 t ., cr-' 1 // 1 ,'/ . ..,„ ,,, ) V.--,‘,'"7,-1--- .)-- U -, - 4-- ----I ''s 1 ' III , r r 6 4 ,, ' I : , ;‘‘..t '•"' ' . • • V.?; •!.: . I.!! •.• ' • • . a •j y7y7( • 2 .. 1 Illi . ei0iii1 s, 1 i' I I pK : .,, fill . • Ivty <yi I i Li _a= iY 104 .'3} L. r� i'',.�'1� L. i> mo' AI I f E� •, ):' r-...w---- - 1-7--mosii.AVAr-134 v c (( , IL(it ,,,/; ,A - , 1 -T , 1:1 li,/,,t/ 0,,‘ftrei. 31411111 s.. 1�1 ; ` !lilt' i '';'tz ' 1' i ' &Ilk: . ° Illif ' ... ithl,ii , 46414 , :. — ' / )/1 ' - ' '1' H 1 401161111411 Ihii tila illy -1'1L'i : • „ ,,,, -.. . •,\, N.,,, 40, . mogul 1 it . ( ) ii 1 I \•.''.. \,\1Y\' • • fillifklibillelb MI 4 • ,, , 417,„,, I, . . , Iil.- I , � l , , /// , 1 ., . , ,/ \ , ... ,;. s-, , ii, / ),, ),),,,t)1 ),,..,it_„_,L___,,--1;,:c. - .1 ... ` i(I ' h - !, \`' i ç) -1- t, ; I a} 1I H 2 1 1714J . • ' , • •. ��=fit '. a C. q Minnesota : Depart nu•�it of Transportation ` District 5 2055 No. Lilac Drive of I Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 trtzt 545•37fa September 4, 1979 Mr. Chris Enger City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 In Reply Refer To: 315 SP 2744 T.H. 169 Plat review of Overlook Place located in the N.W. Quadrant of T.H. 169 RangeKnoll22 Road in Sections 26 and 27, p• 118, 1 in City of Eden Prairie j Hennepin County Dear Mr. Eager: ) We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with 3 ts . We plat acceptable forufurther•development Owith aconsideration d s find of thh following comments: - As you know, we are currently preparing detailed plans for a project to reconstruct the intersection of CSAR 1 and T.H. 169. This project will have little affect on the proposed plat. Some modifications will be necessary at the eastern most lot along the north side of CSAH 1. A portion of inplace CSAH 1 will be obliterated, a ditch constructed and a connection from new CSAH 1 to the existing roadway willythatewcconll be structed just west of that lot. The only right required for the proposed project will be a slope easement on the existing CSAH 1 right of way, as far west as from the west lin ne ofce lotare 13t and a triangular shaped piece of property the intersection of CSAH 1 and Creek Knoll Road. contact IfoyouDha have eianany Design En questions er, in regard C. Ellis,this atproject, 545-3761 ext. 177. Engineer, - Our District Hydraulics Engineer noted that a permit will be required from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. - This plat should be submitted to the Hennepin County Department of will Transportation for review if this has not alreadybeen done. They have to approve any new entrances to CSAH 1. - After the plat is finalized our District Land Surveyor, Mr. Keith Slater, would like to obtain a copy for updating our base naps. • An Equd Oppr.rn,nit) E,nple)cr •k__:;-® 2'I I • • Mr. Chris Enger September 4, 1979 Page 2 If you have any questions in iegard to the above comments, please contact our District Layout, Research and Development Engineer Mr. J. S. Katz at 545-3761 ext. 150. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, W. M. Crawfor , P.E. District Engineer cc: Charles Weaver • Metropolitan Council Gary Backer Hennepin County Surveyor's Office 6 • • • 2.1 • t • CC:..:SS:O:: iZ:2a:S . sproved 1 DAY, AUGUST 27, 1979 7:30 F:, CITY FALL CO:•'.ISSICII ME1(3E.RS PR:SENT: Chairman 'illiam Seaman, George Bentley Matthew Levitt, hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Liz Retterath and Oke Martinson COMISSI0N STAFF PRESET: ' Chris Eager, Direutor of Planning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL • I. APPROVAL CF AGENDA ) TION: Retterath moved to approve the Agenda as published, with the modification -of: Consideration of II. APPROVAL CF 1INUTES OF AUGUST )3. 1979 to be done after IV. f1LPORTS AND R:.CC4.1•.'rAl1AEtO S. Gartner seconded, Lotion carried unanimously. III. YEk3ERS REPORTS • None. IV. FEFGRTS An-) '`10:__'.?DATIO::S p. OVE 1C : FI.J,,CE, request by Eustad Development Corp. and Zschman homes to rezone from Rural to F: 6.5 and preliminary plot 28 lots for 14 duplexes. A continued public hearing. The Planner surmarized the action of the Planning Commission from the former meeting, explaining the concerns expressed and the proponents' efforts to meet these cdhcerns. • Ms. Dick Putnam, hunted Development Corp.,. explained the request end its relationship to the York hire Taint development and Greek!ood develop:..ent. They wore in agreeront -with the staff report su-7estion no. 9, and if this • project were a-proved, rusted would submit a s5. le family rropenal for the project to the east niter the drainage problem is solved pith the city. hr. Rick 3aythre, 1::io:bs-Enutscn Associates, Inc., presented the proposed changes to the cul-de-sac tree, explaining that by narrowing hive-ways crown to nine feet et the curb line, they can create green space at curb line. he responded to Staff concerns about the proposed units fronting onto County Road 1, explaining that Eustad would leave these 4 units in Outlot A until County Road I is realigned. Er. Steve Ryan, Zsch_an homes, responded to.questions of the apr,c:+ranee of the units and the variety of styles that would be incorporated. Le e,:pinincd that 4 styles would be used, and the variety of ways the styles would be used 11 could aeco:rlish 9 different aipearances. Putnam_ c:Tiinici the :u, ritcrnstives rociblc. on the .:�r..at:uct:on of ^ t;t lot- dro•ring 2 units from the cul-do-c-c -rea builcik: the tot lot to city stancards in thr.t area, or conotict the tot lot as prev'.ourly pre;,:cd. 2 111 approved • Planning Oo mi sion lanutes - 2 - Aug. 27, 1979 OVLRLOi'f: PIAOM . a . . .a continued public hearing (continued) • The Planner explained the staff recommendations of the staff report, noting no. 2 and the importance of dropping unit 1 on Figure 1 because of the severity of land alterations necessary to accomodate the double unit. He explained further that no definite decision has been made about the park yet, end that the neighbors to the east have been promised a tot lot for several years. The cash perk fee monies could be used by the city to construct a tot lot for Yorkshire Point and Overlook Place, and a tot lot for the Oreekwood area. There was discussion on the variety of styles of homes proposed, and what sakes • - then marketable. 3yan explained how the styles could be used to achieve a variety • of house styles, and how there are design constraints involved in building 00,000 homes. 3etterath questioned the size of the units. Ryan responded 8644 main floor per unit. Gartner asked what ages the tot lot serves. The Planner explained that the tot lot is the stuucture itself, and serves small children anywhere up to the age of 9 and sometimes over. br. Jillian Terriquez, 9533 'loodridge Drive, expressed the following concerns: • He felt that absentee landlords was a strong possibility here, and that the buildings would tend to deteriorate under such conditions; he questioned What would happen to the single fenily hones that would lie at the bottom of the 30 degree slope and subsequent erosion problems; he felt the area was racre suited for single family hones because of the large oak trees etc.; and was also concerned with the density and the need for acre services for that density. '_here was discussion on density of the project, with the Planer referrine to the staff report figures of 3.2 units per acre as the proposed density. 2ss. Koschiaska, 9379 freer nod give, inquired whether the residents of Yor.:rhire Point had been notified of the public heoring; -nd also whether there Would be any covenants between the proponents and residents as far as rsintenance etc.. ilenner expleiacd that the rr.ili e lists used for notification yore cosy.sled fire • Looesteaded property information, and that notices were sent to residents that L-d filed for homestead, which was about two to six residents. Pysn resonded tc the question on covenantsby e.:plaininf that ncne has been -.arced upon at t.is tire, and that they have not ogrced to buy the property. Eoschinska inquired whether the City prohibits rental property. The Planner res- ponied that there is no ordinance prohibiting people from renting their house, either single far_ily or multiple housing. He added that duplexes are looked upon as twin hones. Eoschinska expressed concerns about the proposed park and who would r.^intsin it; . end also questioned the cost of homes that would not be appropriate es walk outs. 0 • 2111 cpprcved Plannin- ._..passion i:inutes - 3 - Aur. 27, 1979 A. C':E LC)02: PIXIE n continued rvblic hearing (continued) 3:oschinska, speakinr.. for wany of the Crecktrood residents, expressed the • viewpoint of the residents: the lack of co ea nication between Eust„Ra PlqL themselves and the neighbors' declared refusal to accent this state of affairs in • the future; end listed previous concerns expressed regarding their opinion of the proposed development. Chairman 3earman suggested the residents beet with the proponent to tall: out their grievances-and to try to cone to an understanding. • .hr. Roland l eteraon, 9507 :reel rood ::rive, expressed concern with the u.2resolu- tion of the perk situation for racy years. Levitt responded that we are looking • at a•potential of 2 parks, a tot lot taken out of Overlook Place, and-a-Zity . • - - park in the six acre triangle. He asked how much of the city park was usable for active play? The Planner explained that very little could be used as active play area such as ballfields, and there is no land to buy for such use, and pointed cut•the 32 acre park dedicated by the Hustad Developers and trail along Homeward Hills Road. Retterath, in response to the concern of the residents that the units :Auld be rental, pointed out that they would have to rent at 0550 and up, and that would cut down considerably the chance that they would be rentals. • Terrieuez esl:ed whether the houses could be built as condininiuns or town houses to solve the marketing p oblen. Putnnm explained that one of the re-sons that Zschaan is proposing that the units be marketed on a "for sale" basis is that they + 4 are assuniaz that they will sell the same as townhouses. Peterson ^uestioned t,$y the cost is c intained at the proposed level, as the he-es �. , '_n 3reek;rood are rare expensive. Ryan responded there are two reasons: the r..erket for er ensive twin hones is not subst_ntial, and they have been building • modest cost housing and do not plan to change. Putnam explcined that the pro:-inity • to the airport zone an' Eighway 169 eliminates building expcnrive single family he-c.a. i:oachinska ouestioned whether this was bast use for the land and rezucstcd that Eustad furnish the names of residents of Yorkshire Point before t'.e :auncil pub- lic hearing so they can also be :ratified. Futzam a;;reced to furnish the naa.cs, explaining that many people wore in the _roce-es of purchasing and ,ould presently be living in another cc'::unity. • Yr. Emmett Strrk, 93.,8 :rcekwood Drive, was opposed to the traffic that tr_tld be generated in this area beccvse of the serious i.'_ :a:r 169 cre•cirz ._ro^le': and • questioned that it be a:Pro:cd. before the irolesed i.__zvcmont.ta':c pince. 'ass. Diane It-ors, 9539 :reela.00d Drive , pointed out that if this develc::-ent is • being used as a transition between :'orkshire Point and ;reelaaood, the fact that • the Yori:shire Foint homes also cost about 50,-00 didn't bear that out. • Levitt inquired v:.ether anyb,dy was :resent from Yorkshire point, and also :::ether • • a lend develops ent sign hes been i osted. There were no _orlahire i oint residents • • present, and iutnan reo:onCed that a sign had been losted. • • ':err inn inforaed t:c •cc i cnae that the Irv.;oral •'i]'_ b- rev;.ve:1 by ',l.c .ecr<• tion eni .. _ ;a ?c:.,farces 7o:_-insion and '-u•,•mate: t'cy :opal tr _ •r:: reictcd ctcsticne to that • • • 2?20 • • • • approved Flaming Co-:issicn i:inatcs - 4- At;. 27, 1979 )A. ;' ioo.: PLACE continued hearing (continued) . 2is. Pat ':alouist, 9500 ::oodridge Drive, opposed the added traffic that would occur from the development, in addition to the already established 50 miles per hour limit on County Road 1. POTION: Bentley roved to close the public hcaring on Overlook Place. Retterath • seconded, action carried unanimously. I:CTICW: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council the approval of the re- coning from Rural to M: 6.5 -s ran. the oriZinrl glans dated July 16, 1979; modifications of the site plan for Outlet A (Cutlet A Detail Ilan dated August 8/27/79 and sketch- plan presented by Eustad tonit of Outiot A proposed tot lot revision • also dated 8/27/79); Hennepin County Department of Transportation letter dated 8/2/79; Iinnesota Department.of Transportation letter dated August 9, 1979; and staff report of August 9, 1979 with the following additions: (il.) Request City to install tot lot in north portion of area with cash park fees generated from this project, 12.) Notification of residents of Yorkshire Point prior to City Council public hearing, (13.) Reouest proponent provide varied styles of structures to submit to the City Council before Council public hearing. Gartner seconded, notion carried, 6-1, Retterath voing "nay". Torjesen asked for a point of clarification on whether this plot approved the 4 units indicated Ps Cutlot A, •,ith continency that they not be built until the realignment of County Bond 1. The Planner responded aff'rmative. LCTI0:1: Bentley moved to recor:end to the City Council approval of the p•relirin••ry plat anted July 16, 1979, with modifications and additions previously stated in ab_ve .TTICN, specifically that this prelimin ry plat designate Outlet A and con- tain the contingency that the units not be built until the realignment of County Road 1 has been completed. Gartner seconded, notion carried 6-1, ?.ctterath voting "nay" 4 B. EIDDEN GILT, request by Zachman homes for IUD Concept approval of single family attached and detached on approximately 125 acres. A continued public hearing. The Planner explained that this re ucst was continued, and briefly `iscuased the communization received from the city of :arretonke and from Hennepin :panty ::epart:aent of Transportation. He also surm•,rized the redo:rendetions :f the Staff report. Ia. Don Hess explained that it is their intention to come back to the next meeting, and presented a letter of invitation to the Planning Co:mission for a tour of various homes built by Zaclnen in :den prairie. Le expressed concern with the traffic situation relating to Hiataay 101 and its relationc±ip to Phase 1 of their proie_t. How much capacity presently csits? Hess explained the points that they were not in a,ree:.ent with of tie Staff report, which were:nos. 4 and 5 (they heed ori7ina:ly :parsed their project •:ith these suggestions, but -as ^rc -ed bcz-n-e ti.ev td s;,t a-nt to c!rczt cc •elep:.,nt of the 1-.nd to tc ':•: ,t); no. 6 (t.ey :id net f:,vor traffic :L-:u•'. t .air cvc' :t); ideal? n of o•:11,. lots at ti.c so 1l °_' ... .y in _°cn p_^irie" (Le felt l-n .. in n: a t: �l bcr-lr .ould .iti,%to • ?.c zip ?.c Wily cf travelers aloe.i: .ay 101), :Yu .•pre in •c:.c^•.1 r_'':c:zcnt •hire t c re-:-in`cr cf the recc::_(n: tins, • 1')21 • •approved ,AUNDAY, AUGUST 13, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, George Bentley, Matthew Levitt, Hakon Torjesen, and Virginia Gartner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Oke Martinson and Liz Retterath COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary D. OVERLOOK PLACE, request by Hustad Development Corp. and Zachman Homes to rezone from Rural to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 28 lots for 14 14 duplexes. A public hearing. • Mr. Dick Putnam, Hustad Development_Corp, summarized the proposal, • and stated agreement with the staff report reconaiendations, except dropping of lots as suggested because it would reduce the size of the project and cause economic problems. He explained that in working with Mr. Steve Ryan and Mr. Zachman, they have suggested narrowing . the drive-ways down to 18 to 20' and adding an island in the center of the cul-de-sac of 30 to 40' in diameter and a minimum of 35' between drive-ways. Referring to concern with placement of fill, they have moved the unit 35', and they withhold the two units in the southeast corner from development, recognizing the County realignment problem of County Road 1. • • The Planner explained the proposal in terms of land use for this area according to the Guide Plan, This property is a"fill-in" piece as a transition use,and duplex land use proposed in this area is reasonable, He explained further that one of the problems.with duplexes around the City is the drive-ways, and that our Ordinance does not provide for con.n n lot lines and a waiver would have to be granted for common party lines. . r Bentley inquired what the finance stipulations were for separation od duplexe•: drive-ways. Mr.Steve Ryan, Zachman Homes, explained the F.H.A. does n,+t.a1" • connected drive-ways. Levitt inquired whether this proposal completed the "triangular" piece of land in the area, and also asked about the park. Putnam responded that it would be complete except for the area to the right, and that they will be building the tot lot within the next two weeks. • • Levitt inquired further whether the duplex area would be proper transition from the single family area of Creekwood. The Planner explained that the York- shire Point development to the west contained very small lots, and that the duplex lots will be larger, with the impact of appearing as a transition. Putnam explained that they would be willing to initiate change in zoning for the area to the east to single family zoning. Mr. Charles McCormick, 9449 Woodridge Drive, questioned the density of the project, and expressed favcr for the development of single family homes in the area to the west of Creekwood. He objected to the buildinq of the I' proposed hoaxes because of the correlation in price between Yorkshire Point and proposed homes. Mrs. Nemec, 9449 Creek Knoll Rd., inquired whether the land designated for • the park belonged to the City. The Planner responded affirmative. j 2122- • Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - August 13, 1979 D. OVERLOOK PLACE, public hearing (continued) MOTION: Bentley moved to continue the public hearing on Overlook Place to the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1979, and that we also allow • the proponent to schedule a public hearing before the City Council; direct the Staff and proponent to work out cul-de-sac problems (specifically drive-way entrances, size of cul-de-sacs, use of island, and other matters discussed) Torjesen seconded, motion carried 5-0. E. . PRESERVE CENTER 2ND ADDITION PLAT, request to preliminary plat 5 acres zoned RM 6.5 for 7 duplex lots. A public hearing. . . .The Planner explained that this project and the Preserve Center Re-plat • project as part of the extension of Preserve Boulevard. Mr. James Hill, Planning and Engineering consultant for James R. Hill, Inc. briefly explained the proposal and its background, and that the setbacks • ' required can be met. MOTION: Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on Preserve Center 2nd Addition preliminary plat. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat for the Preserve Center 2nd Addition Plat dated 7/18/79 . . per the staff report of August 7, 1979. Gartner seconded, motion carrieda -0. • . PETITIONS AND REQUESTS , A. HIDDEN GLEN, request by Zachman homes for PUD Concept approval of single family attached and detached on approximately 125 acres. A public hearing. • Mr. Don Hess presented the request by Zachman Homes through the use of. overlays and additional commentation on each aspect of the proposal. • Bentley inquired what total density'was being proposed, and also whether there was potential platting into the'flood plain. Hess responded 2 units per acre, and the platting was not meant to infringe into the flood plain. Levitt asked whether the proposal depended upon the upgrading of Co. Rd. 62 • and Highway 101. Hess responded that the subdivision can stand on its own merits, and they are making no assumptions on the roads. Bearman directed the Planner to investigate flood plain encroachment and situation of tree cover on the site. Bearman, referring to the Yorkshire Point development, inquired whether the same type of situation would exist in the proposed development. Mr. Steve Ryan, Zachman Homes, responded the lot sizes are 72' by 125' and that they are significantly larger than Yorkshire Point lots, but still without garages. Mrs. Sandy Collins, 6641 Tartan Curve, inquired the size of the mini-park and what it will contain. Hess responded 2-3 acres, and that a coninittment will be made to City policy and City guidelines will be followed. • • • ?72 3 • STAFF REPORT MEMO: TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director DATE: August 9, 1979 • APPLICANT: .Zachman Homes and Hustad Development Corporation FEE OWNER: Ruth Hustad REQUEST: Rezoning from RM 6.5 and preliminary platting for 14 duplex buildings on 28 individual lots and waiver of the sideyard setback requirement for the common party lot line. PROJECT LOCATION: East of Highway 169, north of County Rd. 1, west of Creek Knoll Road, and east of Yorkshire Point small lot single family. The site is 6.2 acres surrounding the existing Hustad office building, • which is a converted home. BACKGROUND The site proposed for duplexes is part of the total 26 acre triangular shaped area, which was approved as an Office Industrial and Multiple Planned Unit Develop- ment. The entire 26 acre area was not and is not under the complete ownership of the Hustad Development Corporation. It appears as if approximately 19 acres was under the ownership of the Hustad Development Corporation. The Office, Industrial, Multiple. Planned Unit Development was discarded with the request for Creeksigp Heights, now known as Yorkshire Point, 27 lot moderate income housing proposal. The overall land use concept of the triangular shaped area has changed to Industrial toward the west of Yorkshire Point, and medium density residential for the remainder of the site, the northern flood plain and slope area having been dedicated to the City for park use. The 1979 Guide Plan Update illustrates the area proposed for duplexes currently as . low density residential. LAND USE The small lot single family area to the west of this currently proposed project was appproved for 27 lots. The area immediately to the east of this area was approved in 1976 for a subdivision of 9 lots called Creekwood single family and double bung- alow proposal. In that approval, which has not been final platted because of drain- age problems today, the developer was limited to 4 double bungalows and 5 single family lots, which would be a total of 13 units. If we add the 13 units approved in 1976 to the 27 units approved in Yorkshire Point to the 28 units currently pro- ® posed as duplexes, we reach a total of 68 units on approximately 19 acres under the control of Hustad or previously dedicated as park by the Hustad Development Corporation. This yieldsdensity of approximately 3.6 units per acre. • l 2 i1 • • • MEMO-Overlook Place, by Zachman & Hustad Pg. 2 • August 9, 1979 ( Although this is inconsistent with both the original Planned Unit Development on the site and the 1979 Guide Plan Update, the approval of Yorkshire Point, small lot single family and Creekwood single family, double bungalow proposal to the east has provided a land use framework in the area. Although it would be inconsis- tent to place large lot single family use up against the small lots of Yorkshire Point, utilizing duplexes as a transitional land use to single family is a good concept, SITE PLAN Platting of duplexes in a similar fashion to single family homes can cause some- --- • technical problems. The fact that there are two attached homes on a smaller sized lot than one single family hone of course decreases substantially the amount of yard area per unit owned by each side. The type of unit proposed by Zachman is a tuck-under unit which would include two center double car garages. This poses a problem on a 90' frontage, and especially on cul-de-sacs, by placing twice as much driveway area out at the curb line and creating a visual impact from the street of a rather large drive-way area in front of the unit. The proponent has illustrated on the straight-a-way of the cul-de-sac, a 40' minimum setback from the right-of-way j line to allow additional parking area within the drive-way and to allow additional space for the drive-ways to taper down, so that they can be significantly separated • • at the curb line. This will provide for a small 15' tapering to 8' lawn area between • the two drive-ways, which will help to cut down on the massive amount of blacktop visually perceived. In addition, the extra setback from the street should require less on-street parking need in the area, and will provide a more spacious visual appearance for the neighborhood. Therefore, the 40' minimum setback for the new units on the straight portion of the cul-de-sac should be adhered to in the final building program. Figure 1 of the staff report illustrates the 40' minimum dimen- • sion. Figure 1 also illustrates the elimination of one building on the end of the cul-de-sac to bring the total amount of buildings fronting onto • the cul-de-sac to three. This will increase the frontages per lot, and will also increase the lot sizes and provide more parking, snow storage and lawn area on the cul-de-sac. If the 4 lots were left on the end of the cul-de-sac as proposed by the developer, there would be virtually no place to store snow at the curb line, since the drive- ways would be virtually side to side. Figure 1 also illustrates the cul-de-sac dimension proposed by the developer. The developer is proposing an 120' diameter on the right-of-way . The City standard is 100'. The developer is also proposing 100' diameter of road surface, City's standard is 75'. The reason this is being proposed as it is, is that 4 lots would not fit, with double drive-ways on a standard City cul-de-sac. Although a 100' of hard surfaced area for a cul-de-sac is substantial, the Staff would recommend that the 100' diameter cul-de-sac be retained and that one lot be dropped from the 4 lot configuration to allow additional frontage as previously explained. On Figure 1 the lots numbered No. 1 and No. 2 illustrate units which are platted • on the severe side slope. The unit type itself does not lend itself to this type of siting and will require substantial alteration of the hill in order to fit the building. • • 271 .... —_ % : ,\J 1X . -.7.. ippA----_,....,......_:,. .. .., \ \•\ .c ii,.. .0 444<, .-.77:, . `' \\I li -, ) ; . , '.... iii/*\ . s\ \ . 1:-e/.• . / _ZIP*7•: -••-' ie 404ratt\ '0. \ ... Ali&:,11 rr.„, 1,4,.., ;,,„-, ,\ \\II i V .1111111 ..0 I t ,...iiab.'-- ' iN., (1 . . . . . . \)?,41- — 1111111VAir°P.1, ,i , " ' :, ,. I A, if 1 nj 1 \if" ,w A (? . /ice. I :o • {_—i�---): >- / ' `�{{ ' • COL :- 4,11444, • JT$� �ii �. • j/ ' \ 1. Al.,„6,/ t t 1)l f e XI TI G *O. RD.' C 4 %--:" . _t---y—�. f'"'\ lam.- L-•--_- - - - `�`.;- :-�-� f-v-4-r- 77(i? 1 ,..,A;,...,........ , ,r-$90--.,.. I tit t • 9 fir , I , . .'? 7 . . . .• i'. ,,?/- ;*. Ic' '' , .1 i • .' FIG. 1! ‘tj 1*=1©o' II er i 172L ' !ji MEMO-Overlook Place, Zachman & Hustad Pg. 3 August 9, 1979 • TRANSPORTATION Figure 1 illustrates the proposed realignment of County Road one, which is currently slated for 1981. •You can see from Figure 1 that lots one and two illustrate 4 double drive-ways entering County Road 1 right at the intersection of the realignment. The County has very substantial concern about this arrange- ment and the State is currently reviewing the proposal, as well. The Planning staff would suggest that unit no. 1 be completely eliminated, since it falls off considerably down the steep slope, and would require very lengthy common drive-way with unit two, in order to bring both units and all four drive-ways to a common access point, which would be acceptable at existing County Road 1. The Planning staff would further recommend that unit no.2 not be issued a building permit until the realignment of County Road 1 is completed and an access permit has been granted by the County. PARKS MD TRAILS Since the density proposed in the area is already considerably higher than that suggested by the Guide Plan, the area park previously dedicated as a part of Yorkshire Point will be treated as general open space area for the entire residential • area being proposed by Hustad. The cash park fee, which was waived for Yorkshire Point because of the proposal as a moderate income project, should be charged at the time of building permit issuance on this project. As in the Yorkshire Point, the developer should grade in along the northern boundary of the County Road 1 right-of-way,at least the 8' flat shelf area for a future City trail. Also as part of Yorkshire Point, an 8' wide asphalt trail was required leading from Yorkshire Point down to the lower open space area. As a part of this proposal, the 8' wide asphalt trail could be provided toward the end of the cul-de-sac between two lots to connect with the Yorkshire Point trail. A tot lot will be built as a part of the Yorkshire Point request, and will serve this area as well. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Overlook Place and rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 subject to compliance with the following items: 1. One lot of the four on the cul-de-sac should be dropped, in order to provide adequate frontage for drive-way space, snow storage and on street parking. . • 2. The unit designated as unit 1 on Figure 1 of the Staff report should be dropped because of problems with access to County Road 1 and the severity of land alterations necessary to accomodate the double unit. 3. The unit shown as no. 2 in Figure 1 of the Staff report should not be issued a building permit prior to the completion of the realignment of County Road 1 and approval of an access permit from the County. As a part of this, the two double drive-ways should be combined at the street line in order to consolidate access. 4. A waiver should be given to allow cannon party walls. As a part of this, Y12i MEMO-Overlook Place, by Zachman b Hustad Pg. 4 August 9, 1979 a party wall agreement must be submitted to and reviewed by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 5. A minimum setback for the new units to be placed along the straight-a-way of the cul-de-sac should be 40'. • 6. The cash park fee is Applicable to this project. 7. An 8' wide trail within a 20'- wide outlot area should be constructed • • from the northern end of the cul-de-sac to lead to the blackxop trail north of the project into the Purgatory Creek area and tot lot to be built as part of Yorkshire Point. • 8. As with Yorkshire Point, a minimum 8' wide trail preparation should be made within the right-of-way of County Road 1 by the developer at the time of overall grading. 9. As a part of approval of this project, the developer should enter into a development and rezoning agreement with the City that would require that the project to the east of this, which is platted as 9 lots, would be built as entirely single family. In this way, the entire residential part • of•the area would transition from the Yorkshire Point small lot single lot single family project to the Overlook Place larger lot duplex to the Creek- wood single family project to the east. 10. All grading plans must be reviewed and•approved for sedimentation and erosion control by the Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District prior to grading permit issuance. • • CE:ds • 2127 eq Minnesota Department of Transportation • District Five (4,>\ 5801 Duluth Street oR Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 August 9, 1979 (0123 s45•3761 • Mr. Carl Jullie City Engineer of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: S.P. 2744-30 (T.H. 1691 At C.S.A.H. 1 in Eden Prairie Dear Mr. Jullie: • I have recently received a copy of the preliminary plat layout for the area'on the north side of C.S.A.H. 1 and west of Creek Knoll Road. Attached is a copy of a portion of one of the sheets on which we have sketched our proposed construction of new C.S.A.H.. 1 in the area of the plat. 1 We will be constructing a ditch in front of the easternmost lot of the plat and I have attached copies of preliminary cross sections showing the ditch. Some modifications will be necessary by the consultant in order to make the plat fit the proposed construction of C.S.A.H. 1. The preliminary plat is currently undergoing the review process in the district but I feel that you should have the.attached information so that you are aware of the problem. Some discussion will be necessary with the consultant to resolve the difficulty. Sincerely, 14 G. C. Ellis, P.E. District Final Design Engineer Attachments . GCE:mt • An ty+ud Opluutunity Entployrr • C t ,lig-.1-is - - ♦�' 4. •,.,ram IN Bpi ( .7^..• " a.ret•%►: _;-•w:.'., 'N;l•% . 1411111.11 1J! H i j . 01, irk J A 4 0 if I%.l'‘ ..I', i• 1 t 1 f ,$ � : - r' ' :: , kiwi ''LW, 11111111%1 ' ii`f --=•+•-•'°sr= fL ._,. c- \,___Ar , .100pp. /1111111 ,41 , i. ' /:\/al' I. s.''''''''..1 40.: 4. ,,,......- - .-. .-4a------- t ' t: f'� Jill ;` t� 1 1. • n i ii \ '' s itot , e •• ..-' 1.-:-------"/".----• C---( • toi':\ pD • 0 g , X 1.1- 0 in p. Thc—.17\ -110 .41111111.41.----------------.------- t }U 4 sY �..; • • •$ .• . O .+ • • a.i d`v•• 1..• 1. • .. .• 713O , • 7yDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ; 320 Washington Av. South �� Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 � '`=`�' HENNEPIN _IL.. 935-3381 W044 August 2, 1979 • Mr Chris Enger Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie MN 55344 Dear Mr Enger • RE Proposed Plat - "Overlook Place by Zachman and Hustad" • CSAH 1 Approximately 250 ft West of Creek Knoll • Section 26/27, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No 755 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above • plat and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions: - Since Mn/DOT's TH 169/212 and CSAH 1 intersection project will realign CSAH 1, Hennepin County requires no additional right of way on this portion of CSAH 1. - Because Mn/DOT's proposal places the connection from existing CSAH 1 to proposed CSAH 1 opposite Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, we recommend not developing these lots until completion of the realignment project. All new access or revision to existing access requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit. See our Traffic Division for entrance permit forms. - Since this plat is within Mn/DOT's TH 169/212 and CSAH 1 intersection revision project, it must receive Mn/DOT approval. - All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. See our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal opportunity employer 21 I • Overlook Place by Zachman•and Hustad i Page 2 - The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely te,411 ames M Hold, PE 'Chief, Planning and Programing J144/LDW:bg cc McCombs-Knutson I 4 :•r • • • • • 7-7R7. . 4. 2::',:. .41,:'s -1t5..4", •,, ' '.:•:•::: i 1 ,„,. , •,....ti 7.•,.•,, V•••:•1::::::::::: ::::1;1 i•,,44,:,* . . '':..:.• . z ie„ ,,.,,, Oc'' ''''‘ .....,•,,..A.....i., .4 ,i,,i.„_ _,...4.,, • .....4.!.:t `,ram`► f 1 S gk p� d ei8 z > Q C'3 - biilli •. < 2 1` ' isq s'l • g I w d. -EMI 111 ' °a*1 ;t i; MOM Il)mi. r . o iCI +S+Fx �� ji J� .1'�' W .a., i - !,,,. ,,,,,,-; EI . frigt f4i C ,''a cti �ft^S (i� i.. � �es_s♦ , . rr.�_► lt i• (,....1 2 CC s+ct:11....."-1=1"°-.;y 3 j 'a 411111 1t ICC0 C 1 ., I ht+i.. s L V A �� i• , 1 , b 1 W CO 111 , , , it* HI , cc i 1 . limn • Is ei u{i n s� _ s.v F a- E . ,.. :j 4a ,`il Va 2n W� as 4. ''' e 1 ' 614.1 ‘ A" N.', r, ?7%Ji {CIA c> f. • m . i a \ i r. v •t O < e0 t _� � z i , i g it—larbl N. G.) it m ! v immommommi ___ I am . � c i CS� xa xn ez I oo a — m e = : 0 . , 0 , _ � s rr, O ( .Ii to fl JI L x i , i il to -14-�--- o 1, I m r 0 ez xfill I N. a 7' O a 000 ` �1 x 4a xn �e 3� I 0 r %< W OO . 0 i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.79-167 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OVERLOOK PLACE BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Overlook Place dated Aug. 23, 1979 , a copy of which is attached hereto and amended as follows: is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the —day of 19 . Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL z?3W • September 13, 1979 TO: The Members of the City Council, Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Sirs: • This letter is written as a result of a concern of the Creekwood Homeowners Association whose members are residents of the Creekwood area of Eden Prairie. Our area lies in close proximity to the proposed Overlook Place development to be considered by the City Council on Sept. 18th. The homeowners association has reviewed and discussed this development and has come to the conclusion that the question of proper construction transition between the varying developments lying next to.Overlook Place has not received. adequateand proper consideration. The concerns related to this transition questions are as follows: 1. Is Overlook Place a proper transition considering that it is sandwiched between single family developments (ie Yorkshire Point on the west and Creekwood on the east?). 2. Have proper safeguards been placed on Overlook Place development to insure that similar building facades do not lie in close proximity to each other such as the City Council placed on the Hipps Homes development at its March 1979 meeting? 3. What is the proper type of development for the lots along Creek Knoll Road, commonly called Creekwood 3rd Addition, which is located between Overlook Place and Creekwood? If agreement can be reached for proper development and transition of Overlook Place, we would like to have the City Council place certain restrictive covenants on the development of the nine lots in Creekwood 3rd Addition. Our purpose for suggesting that such covenants be placed on this area is to further insure the continuing objective of proper construction transition of the proposed area. Suggested restrictive covenants are no less than what the Creekwood developer (Hustad) has apparently done in other areas, they are the following: 1. Single family homes. 2. Minimum square footage 1700 sq.ft. living space. 3. 2 car attached garage. 4. No variance on City lot size 13,500 sq . ft. 5. On-site construction of homes(as compared to pre-fab,pre-constructed segments, etc). 6. Architectural diversity in exterior design similar to the existing Creekwood single family residences. 2135 page 2 Sept. 13, 1979 • Proper land use and proper area to area transition in the types of construction in the various areas of Eden Prairie is a mutual goal of all parties concerned. Proper goals and guide plans have been developed and it is imperative that these existing thoughts need to be continually considered and exceptions to them be done only after substantial consideration. Thank you for giving us your consideration. �l • ' 1134, Minnesota J :? Department of Transportation / District 5 �/ 2055 No. Lilac Drive op Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 September 4, 1979 (612)5453761 Mr. Chris Enger Planning Director City of Eden Prairie • • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 In Reply Refer To: 315 SP 2763 T.H. 169/212 Plat review of Shady Oak Industrial Park located in the Southeast Quadrant of T.H. 169 and Shady Oak Road in Section 1, Township.116, Range 22 in Eden Prairie, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Eager: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments: — It is anticipated this development would generate approximately 5400 daily vehicle trips. The interchange at TH 169/212 with Shady Oak Road should adequately handle these trips with minor revisions such E as additional lanes on cross street and signalization. Because Shady Oak Road is a county road we suggest the plat be reviewed by the Hennepin County Department of Transportation if this has not already been done. . — Our District Hydraulics Engineer noted in his review of the plat that a permit will be needed from the Mine Mile Creek Watershed District. If you have any questions in regard to the above comments, please contact our District Layout, Research and Development Engineer, Mr. J. S. Katz at 545-3761 extension 150. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sine J( j / j47....., f W.'+M. Crawf , P. A • District Engineer cc: Charles Weaver Metropolitan Council Cary Backer Mcnnepin County Surveyor's Office An Egiu:)°ppm hut)•C ;plover 4'c-o ,11.. l • STAFF REPORT • MEMO: TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning 3 DATE: August 1.0, 1979 APPLICANT: Richard Anderson FEE OWNERS: Melvin Astleford, Herbert Mason, Donald Hagen and • Archie Carter REQUEST: . Rezoning from I-5 to I-2 Industrial Park and preliminary plat for 2 industrial lots on 13 acres. LOCATION: Northeast of future Shady Oak Road and south of existing Physical Electronics in the Smetana Lake area of the City PROJECT NAME: Shady Oak Industrial Park, 4th Addition BACKGOUND The 1979 Comprehensive Guide Plan Update shows this area as industrial. The existing zoning on the property is I-5, which requires a 5 acre minimum lot size and a 75' minimum front yard setback. The site is on the location of a previously mined gravel pit area and is surrounded on the north and west side by existing industrial development. The property is currently proposed to be divided into 2 parcels, one 7 acres in size, and a second 7.55 acres in size. The properties will have on their common boundary, a 30' wide easement for ingress and egress for the property to the north known as Perkin/Elmer Addition. This Addition was purchased from Richard Anderson by Physical Electronics to facilitate expansion of their existing facility. Initial development plans by Richard Anderson illustrated 5 lots with a public • road stubbing to the south side of the Perkin/Elmer Addition, which also serves the 5 lots. Mr. Anderson did not wish to incur additional front yard setbacks required by a public road and the expense of public road construction. The second step was to modify the proposal to 4 lots, with a cul-de-sac serving the back two lots, and an easement between the back two lots for ingress and egress to the Perkin/Elmer Addition. The latest and most current proposal he is now pursuing is to merely have two lots, with a common usage of ingress and egress along the common lot line through the Perkin/Elmer Addition. It is currently contemplated that a company called Parker-Hannifin will begin con- struction this Fall on the 7 acre piece of Block 1, Lot 1. No variances are applied for with the exception of construction of common truck loading area and drive-way area on the lot line. The Staff would request that prior to consideration by the City Council, the development plan specially referring to Parker- Hannifin and Crown Plastics be developed and submitted and reviewed by the Planning and Building Departments to determine if any problems existed. • ? • • Staff Report-Richard Anderson Shady Oak 4th - 2 - Aug. 10. 1979 In the information submitted by the developer is a letter from Roland Webber, President of Physical Electronics, dictating That the arrange- r meet made by Richard Anderson made for ingress and egress to the southern portion of the Perkin/Elmer property is acceptable to Physical Electronics. Please note that Physical Electronics does have access to Flying Cloud Drive from the north and west. RIENDATIONS • The Planning Staff would recommend approval of rezoning from I-5 to I-2 and preliminary plat approval for I lots, subject to: 1. A detailed development plan being supplied prior to review by the City Council. 2. Since .• Shady.Oak Road-is not currently in place, occupancy permit for Parker- Hannifin and Crown Plastics should not be issued prior to sewer and water utilities being in place and connected and Shady Oak Road being in drivable condition to the west and southeast. 3. The cash park fee shall be applicable to this project. 4. The owner warrants that all provisions of Ordinance 135 shall be adhered to through the construction and development process of the buildings. • 5. Recommendations of City Engineering Department. j `6. Review and approval by Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. I • CE:ds • • • • 110 • • 2139 • • • • «« t , - "•• t S.J rr t, •• / • •-•... •• —. 1-i • / n.�7.; ` ./ •r!� < �•�i r•r. �' ,,,1. ft••. \ .../-L"` p fi r. J .' _. .yv` `; C .( t i/ 41 2 • .s 4TA DN: c N kr-e-'7=1 f .. :id I • ff • ::,44.114,I.s.. j ..........4N(• .1; • \• \. ,; .:••••••r.„,... .;. I , • . - •-c.: 4 •L_ • 14s`�«"W,, `• � •� ••' •J• , , �r . • ` 'fir • • ''''. i i l':*•;7 (I ; N: 'A . :...,. , , J t II �i' / I• / • '1►t J. i �______- (1 • .6 1i ( • . n•t •Ii tY A. ♦ • I `) `\ / q.1.-.. .N.-.-, ^4" - ....- i� ^' s 1--)IE. 0 . - ^w `! 4.0 •r _ y �.• V\ .S...S'. s', %4••.1 4'•••• •, •• • •*. . tii, 1 . ‘;°r./ ';'.i 4...".•W• 1. • \ ` •..h. -\•''... n `,Isir (\ - , �� •$ _r•+• 1 , , �j � � �I •am' :woo c.....1 s\ -------.)04 ----- .,117-,'•0.4k• • 4-•„,'` - :14. ,i?'-: t"P",'.' 4 /) i i •-.; \\..... >. . ‘,..-....„.. (.1. . .:- : . '.„N....,...is '.-..,i ..‘ -411.1F;:...... ; ''.1,.-4 Th... .al .e. I-- --i--,,z- .- . . .=. 1*.,-.N--\c,k,e,' , ‘. , -a, , ,--.-:-..,-----‘_..; . 3 1. " \\..je-- -Th uc . \ i\ ( I , 1 • !! • t • k% S �' - 1. '..i .)' ' I lit° • I , ' • •---;:-:' .. "-I ' . , .. .-,t?.•.--- : % t.'..l 1F l {,•' Ji ` ? 1:f . •f STHi_ST.F ,_ /. \ ' 11ler :r :+l_ % 1 `, '� li --Iti I , ..:1,�o IC 1 i �r , ••. /717 li • ...--- / 3 • ..._.....-....i- f / . , I , i 1 . , I ‘‘. / .. .1' ///. L---...., 1 ........... . 4, i .......s...:7._+.....,._......._..._______. . i ! . 1/41 i , 1 .. I/ , f , • I .. 1 .•• , 1 , J4 i L • "-: ' ,....._ ----\ . , \ . _/ ,* • 8 4 1 11%0, / _-3‘ , T / O -i ....- i I/ r.. -------ii I ....... ak/41 1.1F I I f (, 1 L S i., . "Th, '• 69".S -.-._'...•._'" "\, •I 0 I 0 1 . I : t 0 . ii Irao. am_ 1 C.. 1. , ik s i ID, „ ••• _ —--.... •,a.....%:.:=7.'"'":73;i0S—E700olt 11 ri-,,, ,__Iir {27ii, i u 4 ,,I, ORIGINAL bkrELOPMEI1T PLAN I , I! . .. i .! , • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES approved '1ONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL f'!Y•4ISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, George Bentley, Matthew Levitt, Hakon Torjesen, and Virginia Gartner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Oke Martinson and Liz Retterath COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: . Chris Enger, Director of Planning • • Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL • I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION: Torjesen moved to approve Agenda as"published, with the freedom of consideration of item IV. F. GONYEA PUO after item IV. B. LEPARC, if the proponent was present, because of the large number of residents that were present for the project. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0. 8. SHADY OAK PUD, REZONING ANO PLATTING, request by Richard Anderson for Vab Concept approval of approximately 100 acres of industrial uses; rezoning from Rural and I-5 to 1-2 Park for Shady Oak Industrial Park; Shady Oak • Industrial Park 3rd Addition; Shady Oak Industrial Park 4th Addition;•Shady Oak Industrial Park 5th Addition; preliminary platting of the industrial additions; and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. A public hearing. • Mr. Richard Anderson briefly summarized the proposal, explaining that the project contained approximately 100 acres of land, including 5 additions, with the fourth addition located in the northerly portion of the propery, which is presently zoned I-5. Two buildings are planned for this addition, Parker Hannifin and Crown Plastics. He is requesting rezoning from I-5 to I-2 because of the 53' • front yard setback required in the 1-2 zoning district. The request would also be for a conmon drive-way. Bearman inquired whether the proponent was requesting outside storage for the 4th Addition. Anderson responded negative. He explained that he is asking y for outside storage for the Shady Oak Industrial Park, and Shady Oak Industrial • Park 3rd Addition, which are sites surrounded by trees and which cannot be seen • too readily. It is also the intent to put up an eight foot fence. • • • • 21g3 • • approved Planning Commission Minutes - 11 - August 13, 1979 B. SHADY OAK PUD,REZONING,AND PLATTING. . . .public hearing (continued) Tor.esen inquired about the appropriateness of requesting access through an easement. The Planner explained that Physical Electronics does have access out and they favor another access out at some point. Torjesen inquired further whether it was the intent of this being used as the parcel access? Anderson responded negative, just where overflow access is needed. Mr. Wayne Field asked for a clarification of what was being••considered •- 1. tonight. Anderson responded that we are dealing with about 19 buildings of approximately 60,000 sq. ft. in size. The 5th Addition is contiguous to the Wayne Field property, and access is 70th Street. • The Planner explained that the LeParc project has just been reviewed; and will be sharing development of the storm sewer system with the Shady Oak Industrial Park. He noted that this area is very visible from Highway 169, and that further screening should be addressed for the southern site; parking area side yard setbacks are not shown on the plan and should also be addressed; and asked the Planning Commission to consider whether there was any merit to 20' green strip between buildings. • • Anderson responded that trees screen the western side and behind the site; 4 " there was no visibility from Highway 169; and noted high assessments for the area Mr. Dave Field, Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc., inquired about the status of the continuation of Shady Oak Road to Valley View Road. The Planner explained that the contract has been let north of 70th Street, and is presently owned by Kohlrusch (purchased from Swendseen). Torjesen noted soil problems on the Kohlrusch property. Mr. Herliev Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, explained that Shady Oak Road will be tied in with the bridge through a direct connection. Mr. Gregg Demonceau, Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc., stated that they were present • for the PUD consideration. He located their property to the west of the southern part of the proposal. He felt elevations between their properties were very steep. He expressed concern with adequate buffering between the properties because they have quite a "blatant" vision into the project.' Torjesen suggested Mr. Anderson present a more complete view of the entire PUD. The Planner noted that he had no problem with the 4th Addition of Shady Dak Industrial Park, because it contained no request for outside storage. Torjesen asked whether any member of the community present tonight had any concern with the 4th Addition. Demonceau responded negative, Rembrandt Enter- prises Inc. were concerned with the 5th Addition. • 7,4 approved 'Planning Commission Minutes - 12 - August 13. 1979 'j B. SHADY OAK PUD, REZONING AND PLATTING public hearing (continued) • MOTION: Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on Shady Oak Fourth Addition. Bentley seconded, motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Torjesen moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the request for rezoning from I-5 to I-2 for Shady Oak Industrial Park 4th Addition as per the staff report of 8/10/79. Bentley seconded, motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Torjesen moved to recommend approval to the City Council for pre- • •l1minary plat approval of 2 lots for•Shady Oak•Industrial Park 4th Addition as. ...,..... . per the staff report of August 10, 1979. Bentley seconded, motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Torjesen moved to continue public hearing on Shady Oak Industrial Park PUD and requested that Mr. Anderson present a comprehensive picture of this project at the next Commission meeting of 8/27/79. Bentley seconded, motion carried 4-0. Mr. Anderson stated that he was not prepared to discuss the P.U.D this evening. VI. OLD BUSINESS None. VII: NEW BUSINESS None. VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. • •IX, ADJOURNMENT MOTION Bentley moved to adjourn at 2:30 A.M., seconded by Tprjesen. Motion carried unanimously. • • (: • • alga) • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPItI COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.79-10 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK 4TH ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Shady Oak Industrial Park 4th Addition , • dated July 27, 1979 , a copy of which is attached hereto and amended as follows: • • • • x .. • is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie • Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the —day of 19 • �lolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL C . • fir TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John Frane DATE: September 13, 1979 RE: MIDB'S for Eden Prairie Partners - $1,500,000 Bryan Zubert and Malcolm Reed propose to construct three buildings totaling 74,000 square feet of office/warehouse facility on the "Helle" property. The estimated cost of the project is $1,597,000. It is anticipated that the applicants development company would occupy 5-8,000 square feet, Fabri-Tek would occupy 47,000 sq. ft., and the balance of the project would be leased to four other firms. The property is zoned I-P which is correct for the intended use. Resolution 479-173 is attached for your consideration. t • i,,ri . • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing 1. APPLICANT: a. Business Name • - f Eden Prairie Partners b. Business Address - 6311 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 340 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 c. Business Form - . Partnership d. State of Incorporation or organization - Minnesota e. Authorized Representative - Malcolm D. Reid .f. Phone - (612) 544-2102. 43 • • 2. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: a. Brian M. Zubert 5320 Elmridge Circle Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 b. Malcolm D. Reid 25 Fairhope Ave. Tonka Bay, Minnesota 55331 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC. Malcolm D. Reid is an attorney and an electrical engineer. He has been involved in the real estate field throughout his career as an attorney in the capacities of attorney, owner, contractor and developer. Attached as Exhibit A-1 is a copy of Malcolm D. Reid's resume. Attached as Exhibit A-2 is a copy of Malcolm D. Reid's financial statement. Brian M. Zubert has been a real estate developer, owner and contractor since 1961. Brian M. Zubert presently owns and manages the apartment buildings which he has built and an office building. Attached as Exhibit B-1 is a copy of Brian M. Zubert's resume. Attached as Exhibit 8-2 is a copy of Brian M. Zubert's financial statement. • ir Malcolm D. Reid and Brian M. Zubert are partners in a company by the name of Arvada Development Corporation. Arvada Develop- ment Corporation is presently building a 20,000 square foot office building on Highway 7 in the City of Minnetonka. Both Brian M. Zubert and Malcolm D. Reid will be part owners of the completed office building. 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT • a. Location and intended use: Location: construction of an office-warehouse complex consisting of three buildings totaling approximately 74,000 square feet in size on a 5.7 acre site located west of the intersection of Washington Avenue South and Valley View Road, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Norseman Industrial Park 3rd Addition. Intended use: Office, warehouse and service uses with the following proposed tenants: (1) Arvada Development Corporation, (2) Fabri-Tek, Incorporated, (3) Honeywell, Inc., (4) Realty World, Inc., (5) Art-Sign Materials Co. and IL (6) Manufacturers Maintenance, Inc. b. Present ownership of project site: Herleiv Belle (Brian M. Zubert and Malcolm D. Reid have an option to purchase the site) c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor: Architect: Radloff & Associates, Inc. Wesley Temple Building, Suite 206 123 East Grant St. Minneapolis, Minnesota • Engineer: Gerald Paulson • Minnetonka, Minnesota • General Contractor: Arvada Development Corporation 6311 Wayzata Boulevard • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 f -2- • 17�t`� • 5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: Land $ 305,746.00 Building (7,400 sq. ft.) 1,536,254.00 Equipment Included Other 55,000.00 Total $1,897,000.00 6. BOND ISSUE a. Amount of proposed bond issue - Tax exempt mortgage in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000. b. Proposed date of sale of bond - October 1, 1979 or sooner. c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - The tax exempt mortgage will be for a term of 25 to 30 years and will be provided by a single financial institution. d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - The tax exempt mortgage will be provided by a single � _. • financial institution managed through Northland Mortgage Company. e. Name and address of suggested trustee - • Not Applicable. f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original purchaser - Northland Mortgage Company has assured the applicant that the institution will provide said tax exempt mortgage. g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - Interim financing will be provided by the mortgagee as part of the tax exempt mortgage. h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing - Any additional capital required over the mortgage amount will be supplied by the applicant. -3- • 7. BUSINESS PROFILE - If a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No. Malcolm D. Reid's office is at 6311 Wayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Brian Zubert's office is also at 6311 Wayzata Boulevard. b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? i. Before this project: None ii. After this Project: Projected employment - 180 c. Approximate annual sales - unknown. d. Length of time in business - Brian M. Zubert has been a builder, developer, owner and property manager since 1962. Malcolm D. Reid has been an 'attorney since 1969, an engineer since 1965, and involved in the real estate development, ownership, management and building fields since 1969. in Eden Prairie - not applicable. ite. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? See attached financial statements (Exhibits A-2 and B-2) for listing of other properties of Malcolm D. Reid and Brian M. Zubert. f. Are you engaged in international trade? No. • 8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: a. List the names and locations of other industrial development projects in which the Applicant is the owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a "related person" within the meaning of Section 103(b) (6) of the Internal Revenue Code. Brian M. Zubert is the owner of an office building at 6311 Wayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota. • Brian M. Zubert and Malcolm D. Reid are partners in a partnership which owns an office building at 15612 Highway 7, Minnetonka, Minnesota. Both Brian M. Zubert and Malcolm D. Reid own other rental residential properties. -4- • I b. List all cities in which the applicant has requested industrial revenue development financing. None.. c. Detail the status of any request the applicant has before any other city for industrial development revenue financing. None. d. List any city in which the applicant has been refused industrial development revenue financing. None. e. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in which final approval authorizing the financing has been denied. None. f. If applicant has been denied industrial development revenue financing in any other city as identified in (d) or (e), specify the reason for the denial and the 'name of appropriate city officials who have knowledge of the transaction. Not applicable. 9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF: a. Mortgage Broker: Northland Mortgage Company 6600 France Avenue South Edina, Minnesota 55435 b. Private Placement Purchaser (if private placement) Occidental Life Insurance Co. 1150 South Olive Street Los Angeles, California 90015 i. If lender will not commit until City has passed its preliminary resolution approving the project,.submit a letter from proposed lender that it has an interest in the offering subject to appropriate City approval and approval of the Commissioner of Securities. Lender will not commit until City has passed its preliminary resolution approving the project. Attached as Exhibit C is a letter from the lender. I -5- «:1r . • • • c. Bond Counsel - Mackall, Crounse & Moore First National Bank Building • • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 • d. Partnership Counsel - Malcolm D. Reid 6311 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 340 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 e. Accountant - Roger Ocel • Thorsen, Campbell, Rolando & Lehne 5353 Gamble Drive Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: a. Construction start - November 1, 1979 • b. Construction completion - March 30, 1980 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Malcolm D. Reid • 6311 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 340 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 •Telephone: (612) 544-2102 • The undersigned applicant understands that the approval or disapproval by the City of,Eden Prairie for Industrial Development bond financing does not expressly or impliedly constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property included in this project. • • EDEN PRAIRI PARTNERS • By r , By a co m D. Ref , artner Applicant 0 Date: August 1, 1979 -6- • `. • 11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT a. Property is zoned - Z Z PQr k b. Present zoning is (is not) correct for the intended use. • c. Zoning application received on for which is correct for the intended use. d. Variances required - f� C�y� er -7- • RESOLUTION NO. 7I-/73 J� RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF'AGREEMENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (this "Council") of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: SECTION 1 Recitals and Findings 1.1 This Council called a public hearing on a proposal pre- sented to it that the City undertake a project pursuant to the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the "Act") consisting of the acquisition of land in the City, the construction of an office-warehouse complex thereon consisting of three buildings totaling approximately 74,000 square feet in size, and the purchase of equipment therefor (the "Project"). Under the proposal, a partnership formed under • the laws of the State of Minnesota and consisting of Messrs. Brian M. Zubert and Malcolm D. Reid (the "Partnership") will enter into a loan agreement (the "Loan Agreement") with the City whereby the City agrees to issue and sell its $1,500,000 Industrial Develop- ment Revenue Bond in the form of a single debt instrument (the "Bond") to partially finance the Project and to loan the proceeds of such sale to the Partnership which agrees to construct the Project. The Loan Agreement will require the Partnership to pay amounts sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bond. The Bond will be issued and sold to an institutional investor, as a tax exempt mortgage financing, and will be .secured by a mort- gage and other encumbrances on the Project. The Partnership will retain title to and ownership of the Project and will lease the Project to various business enterprises under lease terms sufficient to provide for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bond. The interest of the Partnership in the lease and the interest of the City in the Loan Agreement will be assigned to the holder of the Bond as additional security for the Bond. The Bond will be issued and sold in accordance with the Act and will provide that the Bond is payable solely from amounts received by the City pursuant to the Loan Agreement and other property pledged to its payment. The Bond will not be a general obligation of the City or be payable from any other property or funds of the City. 'yyz • • 1.2 At a public hearing, duly called, noticed and held on , 19 , in accordance with the Act, all parties desiring to appear were•afforded an opportunity to be heard. Based on such public hearing and on such other facts and circumstances as this Council deems relevant, this Council hereby finds, determines and declares as follows; (a) The purpose of the Act as found and determined by the state legislature is to promote the welfare of the state by the • active attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce to prevent so far as possible the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment. Factors necessitating the active promotion and development of economically sound industry and commerce are the increasing concentration of population in the metropolitan areas, the rapidly rising increase in the amount and cost of governmental services required to meet the needs of the increased population and the need for development of land use which will provide an adequate tax base to finance these increased costs and access to employment • opportunities for such population. (b) The welfare of the residents of the state requires the active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts; the encouragement of employment opportunities for citizens of the state and the City; and the development of industry to use available " resources of the City, in order to retain the benefit of its exist- ing investment in educational and public service facilities. •'�. , (c) The Project would further the foregoing purposes • of the Act as contemplated by and described in Section 474.01 of the Act. • (d) The City is authorized by the Act to issue its industrial development revenue bonds to finance capital projects consisting of properties used or useful in connection.with a revenue producing enterprise. (e) This Council has been advised by Northland Mortgage Company, agent for the Partnership (the "Agent") that conventional, commercial financing to partially finance the cost of the Project is available on such a limited basis and at such high interest rates that the economic feasibility of operating. the Project would be significantly reduced. However, with the aid of a municipal borrower, and its resulting lower borrowing cost, the economic feasibility of the Project would be substantially increased and • that the issuance of the Bond by the City would be a significant inducement to the Partnership to construct the Project in the City. ) 1 • -2- • (f) The existence of the Project would add to the tax base of the City and of the county and school district in which the Project 'is located and would provide increased employment opportu- nities for residences of the City and the surrounding area. SECTION 2 Preliminary Approval of Project 2.1 On the basis of information provided to this Council, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue the Bond in accordance with the Act, in an amount- not to exceed • $1,500,000, in order to partially finance the cost of the.Project. 2.2 The Project is hereby given preliminary approval and the issuance of the Bond by the City in the foregoing amount is also hereby approved, subject to approval of the Project by the Commission- er of Securities, Minnesota Department of Commerce (the "Commissioner"); the fulfillment of such other conditions as the City may require with respect to the issuance of the Bond in connection with the Project; and the mutual agreement of this Council, the Partnership and the purchaser of the Bond as to the structuring of the financing and as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. 2.3 Nothing in this resolution or in the documents prepared pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any funds of the City on the Project other than the revenues derived therefrom or otherwise granted to the City for this purpose. The Bond shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City, except the Project and the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. No holder of the Bond shall have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the outstanding principal of or interest on the Bond, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the • City except the Project. The Bond shall recite on its face that the principal of and interest on the Bond is payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof. The Bond shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 2.4 The forms of Memorandum of Agreement between the City and the Partnership and the Application for Approval of Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Project by the City to the Commissioner, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, substantially in the forms presented herewith, are hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said documents on behalf 0 of the City and, in accordance with Section 474.01, Subdivision 7a of the Act, are hereby authorized and directed to cause said • -3- • • Application to be submitted to the Commissioner for approval of the Project. The Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to provide the Commissioner with any preliminary information the Commissioner may need for this purpose. • 2.5 Mackall, Crounse & Moore, acting as bond counsel, is authorized to assist in the preparation and review of all documents relating to the Project; to consult with the City•Attorney, the Partnership and the purchaser of the Bond as to the maturity, interest rate and other terms and provisions of the Bond and as to the covenants and other provisions of the operative documents; and .to submit such documents to this Council 'for final approval. SECTION 3 • General • 3.1 The Partnership has agreed to pay any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved by the Commissioner; whether or not the Project is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bond or operative instruments are executed. 3.2 The Partnership is hereby authorized to enter into such contracts as may be necessary for the construction of the Project by any means available to it and in the manner it determines without advertisement for bids as may be required for the con- struction or acquisition of other municipal facilities. • 3.3 The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue and sell the Bond as requested by the Partnership. The City retains the right in its reasonable discretion to withdraw from participation, and accordingly not issue the Bond, should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bond or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement 'as to the structur- ing of the financing or as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this day of September, 1979. • Mayor Attest: 41 City Clerk -4- :,'7 r • • TO: Mayor and Council • FROM: John Frane DATE: September 13, 1979 RE: MIDB'S for Eden Prairie Mini Storage - $650,000 William Dahl and Eldon Siehl are requesting the City to authorize I. R. Bonds to construct a mini-storage facility consisting of six buildings containing 35,000 square feet to be rented to the general public. The facility has an estimate cost of $805,000 and is located in Edenvale Industrial Park 2nd on Converse Way off Martin Drive. The zoning is 1-2 *Park which is correct for the intended use. Resolution #79-171 is attached •r for your consideration. • ,2'6) • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing 1. APPLICANT: a. Business Name - William W. Dahl and Eldon R. Siehl • b. Business Address - 14500 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor- ship, etc.) - Partnership to be organized. d. State of Incorporation or organization - Minnesota e. Authorized Representative - William W. Dahl • f. • Phone - (612) 937-8300 • ' 2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: a. William W. Dahl 6704 Apache Road • Edina, Minnesota 55435 • • b• Eldon R. Siehl 6105 Eden Prairie Road Edina, Minnesota 55436 c. -1- • . 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC: Project involves the construction of six mini-storage • warehouse buildings approximately 35,400 square feet to be rented to the general public. • • 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT • . a. Location and intended use: Lot 1, Block 1, Edenvale Industrial Park 2nd Addition located on Commerce Way off of Martin Drive, Eden Prairie, • Minnesota. b. Present ownership of project site: Edenvale, Inc. c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor: J. B. Swedenborg Construction, Inc. Edenwest Professional Building • Suite 101-B 7525 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 • . 5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: Land $ 150,000 • Building $ 532,100 Equipment $ 70 • - Other $ 122,608 Total $ 804.708 • r -2- 461 • 8. BOND ISSUE - a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $650,000 • • b. Proposed date of sale of bond - October 1, 1979 • c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - 25-year level term with 15-year call option d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - The Midway National Bank of St. Paul 1578 University Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 e. Name and address of suggested trustee - • N/A f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original • • purchaser - • . None p * • g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - The Midway National Bank of St. Paul will provide both interim and permanent financing. h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing - None. Additional capital required in excess of the mortgage amount to be provided by the applicants. 7. BUSINESS PROFILE - • • a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No. • b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? • • i. Before this project: None. ® • -3- 27G2 • • ii. After this project? pour. c. Approximate annual sales - $126,000 d. Length of time in business Mt_ Wahl hag hoox, in +hs, commercial construction business. for 25 years and Mr. Siehi has been in the optical business for 25 years_ in Eden Prairie Mr. Dahl is presently constxurfing an r•nwria- minium units in Eden Prairie_ O. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? No. ' • • f. Are you engaged in international trade? No. • 0 .. CI OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S): • a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial development project(s) in which the Applicant is the owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a "releated person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. None • • • -4- ' b. List all cities in which .the Applicant has requested industrial revenue development financing. • None c. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before any other city for industrial development revenue financing.... None • • d. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused * industrial development revenue financing. :•t x`• None • 4e. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant has acquired preliminary. approval to proceed but in which final approval authorizing the financing has been denied. None • • _5_ • f. If Applicant has been denied industrial development revenue financing in any other city as identified in (d) or (e), specify the reason(s) for the denial and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who have knowledge of the transaction. None • • • 9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF: a. Underwriter (If public offering) N/A • • • - b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement) } The Midway National Bank of St. Paul 1578 University Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 i. If lender will not commit until City has passed its preliminary resolution approving the project, submit a letter from proposed lender that it has an interest in the offering subject to appropriate City approval and approval of the Commissioner of Securities. • See attached letter from The Midway National Bank of St. Paul. • • • • -6- • ;27L.,) r , • b. Bond Counsel - Mackall, Crounse & Moore 1000 First National Bank Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 c. Corporate Counsel - None d. Accountant - None • 10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: _ . . a. Construction start - October 1, 1979 b. Construction completion - February 1, 1980 • • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development bond financing does not expressly or impliedly constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property included in this project. 41441;44, 0../.41/4/ Applicant • • Applicant August 15, 1979 41 Date -7- �'/:;n • • 11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY.THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT a. •Property is zoned - =2- u r b. Present zoning� (isnot) correct for the intended use. c. Zoning application received on for which is correct for the inters a use. d. Variances required - a r t g44ry-P nner • • • • • • • -8- ir / RESOLUTION NO. 7/ / 7 RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (this "Council") of • the City-of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the ''City"), as-follows: • SECTION 1 Recitals and Findings 1.1 This Council called a public hearing on a proposal pre- sented to it that the City undertake a project pursuant to the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the "Act") consisting of the acquisition of land in the City, the construction of six (6) mini-storage warehouse buildings thereon and the purchase of equipment therefor (the "Project"). Under the proposal, a partnership to be formed under IL the laws of the State of Minnesota and consisting of Messrs. William Warren Dahl and Eldon R. Siehl (the "Partnership") will enter into a loan agreement (the "Loan Agreement") with the City whereby the City agrees to issue and sell its $650,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bond in the form of a single debt instrument (the "Bond") to partially finance the Project and to loan the proceeds of such sale to the Partnership which agrees to construct the Project. Tht Loan Agreement will require the Partnership to pay amounts sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bond. The Bond will be issued and sold to an institutional invest- or, as a tax exempt mortgage financing, and will be secured by a mortgage and other encumbrances on the Project. The Partnership will retain title to and ownership of the Project and will lease the Project to various business enterprises under lease terms sufficient to provide for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bond. The interest of the Partnership in the lease and the interest of the City in the Loan Agreement will be assigned to the holder of the Bond as additional security for the Bond. The Bond will be issued and sold in accordance with the Act and will provide that the Bond is payable solely from amounts received by the City pursuant to the Loan Agreement and other property pledged to its payment. The Bond will not be a general obligation of the City or be payable from any other property or funds of the City. 2)>7 1.2 At a public hearing, duly called, noticed and held on , 1979, in accordance with the Act, all parties desiring to appear were afforded an opportunity to be heard. Based on such'public hearing and on such other facts and circumstances as this Council deems relevant, this Council hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: (a) The purpose of the Act as found and determined by the state legislature is to promote the welfare of the state by the active attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce to prevent so far as possible the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic _, unemployment. Factors necessitating the-active promotion and development of economically sound industry and commerce are the increasing concentration of population in the metropolitan areas, the rapidly rising increase in the amount and cost of governmental services required to meet the needs of the increased population and the need for development of land use which will provide an adequate tax base to finance these increased costs and access to employment opportunities for such population. (b) The welfare of the residents of the state requires the active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts; the encouragement of employment opportunities for citizens of the state and the City; and the development of industry to use available resources of the City, in order to retain the benefit of its exist- ing investment in educational and public service facilities. (c) The Project would further the foregoing purposes of the Act as contemplated by and described in Section 474.01 of the Act. (d) The City is authorized by the Act to issue its industrial development revenue bonds to finance capital projects consisting of properties used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise. • • (e) This Council has been advised by The Midway National Bank of St. Paul that conventional, commercial financing to partially finance the cost of the Project is available on such a limited basis and at such high interest rates that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced. However, with the aid of a municipal borrower, and its resulting lower borrowing cost, the economic feasibility of the Project would be substantially increased and that the issuance of the Bond by the City would be a significant inducement to the Partnership to construct the Project in the City. C -2- )( (f) The existence of the Project would add to the tax ,IF base of the City and of the county and school district in which the Project is located and would provide increased employment opportu- nities for residences of the City and the surrounding area. SECTION 2 Preliminary Approval of Project 2.1 On the basis of information provided to this Council, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue - the Bond in accordance with the Act, in an amount not to exceed $650,000, in order to partially finance the cost of-the Project. •••- 2.2 The Project is hereby given preliminary approval and the issuance of the Bond by the City in the foregoing amount is also hereby approved, subject to approval of the Project by the Commission- er of Securities, Minnesota Department of Commerce (the "Commissioner"); the fulfillment of such other conditions as the City may require with respect to the issuance of the Bond in connection with the Project; and the mutual agreement of this Council, the Partnership and the purchaser of the Bond as to the structuring of the financing and as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. 2.3 Nothing in this resolution or in the documents prepared .pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any funds of the 7-1 City on the Project other than the revenues derived therefrom or otherwise granted to the City for this purpose. The Bond shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon -- any property or funds of the City, except the Project and the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. No holder of the Bond shall have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the outstanding principal of or interest on the Bond, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the Project. The Bond shall recite on its face that the principal of and interest on the Bond is payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof. The Bond shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 2.4 The forms of Memorandum of Agreement between the City and the Partnership and the Application for Approval of Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Project by the City to the Commissioner, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, substantially in the, forms presented herewith, are hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said documents on behalf of the City and, in accordance with Section 474.01, Subdivision 7a of the Act, are hereby authorized and directed to cause said ( -3- Application to be submitted to the Commissioner for approval of the Project. The Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to provide the Commissioner with any preliminary information the Commissioner may need for this purpose. 2.5 Mackall, Crounse & Moore, acting as bond counsel, is authorized to assist in the preparation and review of all documents relating to the Project; to consult with the City Attorney, the Partnership and the purchaser of the Bond as to the maturity, interest rate and other terms and provisions of the Bond and as to the covenants and other provisions of the operative documents; and to submit such documents to this Council for final approval. SECTION 3 General • 3.1 The Partnership has agreed to pay any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not . the Project is approved by the Commissioner; whether or not the Project is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bond or operative instruments are executed. 3.2 The Partnership is hereby authorized to enter into such contracts as may be necessary for the construction of the •Project by any means available to it and in the manner it determines without advertisement for bids as may be required for the con- struction or acquisition_of other municipal facilities. . .. . . .. 3.3 The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue and sell the Bond as requested by the Partnership. The City retains the right in its reasonable discretion to withdraw from participation, and accordingly not issue the Bond, should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bond or should the parties • to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the structur- ing of the financing or as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this day of , 1979. • Mayor Attest: • City Clerk . -4- ,,i7f S TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John Frane DATE: September 13, 1979 RE: .MIDB'S - Anderson Lakes Limited.-.$3,575,000_ ., __.__ ___ _ James Sutherlin, James Emison and Leonard Jaskowiak proposed to construct a 47,000 net leasable square foot office facility on the "Bachman-Anderson" parcel north of Anderson Lakes. The project has an estimated cost of $3,575,000. Mr. Sutherlin is a major stockholder in Bachman-Anderson which intends to occupy 17,000 square feet. Mr. Emison and Mr. Jaskowiak are • the owners of Western Petroleum Company which intends to occupy 10,000 square feet. The balance of the project would be leased to others. The property is zoned OFFICE which is correct for the intended use. Resolution #79-172 is attached for your consideration. • 77; . .1 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing 1. APPLICANT: • a. Business Name - Anderson Lakes, Ltd. b. Business Address - c/o James E. Sutherlin One Apple Tree Square Bloomington, MN 55420 c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor- • ship, etc.) - a general partnership d. State of Incorporation or organization - Minnesota e. Authorized Representative - James E. Sutherlin f. Phone - 853-8510 • 2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: James E. Sutherlin • a. 27720 Island View Road • Excelsior, MN 55331 James W. Emison • b. 18702 Heathcote Drive Wdyzata, MN 55391 • Leonard G. Jaskowiak 2451 Francis t c" South St. Paul, MN 55075 -1- '. • ,- 1 • • • 3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC: Applicant was formed for the purpose of acquiring land and developing, constructing and operating a multi-tenant office building (the Project). Mr. Sutherlin is a major shareholder in Bachman na- Anderson, insurance commercial full lineal insurance, agency i specializingalein property aproimately 17,000 sq. Ft. in the Project. business, who will initially lease approximately Messrs. Emison and Jaskowiak are co-or•:ners of Western Petroleum Company, a wholesale distributor of0r refined dtpetn tee pprrjducts, who will initially lease approximately • - v r ._.4., DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : A 55,000 gross sq. ft. multi-tenant office building to be owned by applicant and Teased tot Ban man - Anderson,- Inc., Western Petroleum.-- Company, and other professional-type enants. a. Locationaad intended use: The Project will be located at 78th Street, West of County Road 18 on the North Shore of Anderson Lakes and will serve as an office facility for corporate headquarters of the aforementioned firms and other professional firms. b. Present ownership of project site: James E.•Sutherlin, as Vendee under a contract for deed. c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general contractor: Architect: Pope Associates, Inc. 533 St. Clair Ave. St. Paul, MN 55102 Gen. Contractor: Kraus-Anderson of St. Paul, Co. 200 Grand Ave. . St. Paul, fill 55102 5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR: Land $ 500 000 Building $ 2 700 000 Equipment • $ 0 Other (const. est. & misc. $ 375,000 fin. costs) • Total $ c2L nnn -2- 2)74 • r • • 6. BOND ISSUE - a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $3,375,000 • b. Proposed date of sale of bond = October 1979 c. Length of bond issue and proposed-maturities.- 30 years, _... . , amortized monthly in equal installments with call provision at the end of 15 years: • d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - The bonds (note) will be purchased by one or more institutional mortgage lenders to be determined. • e. Name and address of suggested trustee - Not applicable f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original purchaser - None in existence at this time. g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - To be provided by institutional mortgage lenders • h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in addition to bond financing - None 7. BUSINESS PROFILE rroleum Company (WP)'only, since on applies tother o htenantsehave�not beenAdeter- ) and Wes mined as yet. a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No • -b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? N/A • i. Before this project: N/A • .l -3- • ii. After this project? BA - 45 • WP - 20 • a. Approximate annual sales - BAllion WP - $ 5 mi50 llion d. Length of time in business BA - since 194_7�� WP - since 1969 in Eden Prairie N/A e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? • WP - has several retail „service Insurance Service Agency) in Dulhout uth, PIN ta BA - has a subsidiary (' • S. Are you engaged in international trade? No 8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S): a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial development project(s) in which the Applicant is the • owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities ilities or rsab)(g) "releated person" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. None • • • • —q_ • b.1 List all cities in which the Applicant has requested / industrial revenue development financing. • NONE nj c. / Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before any other city for industrial development revenue financing. NONE - 1 44 }'' d. ist any city in which the Applicant has been refused . industrial development revenue financing.. • • NONE ' "N has ist any city (and the project name) where the Applicant acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in which final approval authorizing the financing has been denied. NONE . i. If Applicant has been denied industrial development ft revenue financing in any other city as identified in (d) or (e), specify the reason(s) for the denial and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who have knowledge of the transaction. NONE dC 9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF: • Agent or Mortgage Broker: a. 1X1I1DIMEMXIX'XYAYXXbldXktJJ(ICX1>jr)( Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Ekstrom, Inc. 414 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement) One or more institutional mortgage lenders to be determined. If lender will not commit until city has passed its preliminary resolution approving the project, submit a letter from proposed • lender that it has an interest in the offering subject to appropriate city approval and approval of the commissioner of Securities. Non applicable . • • • • ( -s- x7?/ b. Bond Counsel - Oorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay 2300 First National Bank Building Minneapolis, t4N• 55480 c. Corporate Counsel - Barnett, Ratelle, Hennessy, Vander Vort, Stasel & Herzog 4624 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402. d. Accountant - Not determined at this time. 10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: a. Construction start - September, 1979 b. Construction completion - September, 1980 • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:• i • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Sutherlin The undersigned applicant understands that the approval or disapproval by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development Revenue Bond financing does not expressly or impliedly constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any zoning, building, or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie or any other law applicable to the property included in this project. • Anderson Lakes, Limited Applicant times, • other in, A General—Partner August 15, 1979 bate • ! .. • - 2MO • • • i' 11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT a. Property is zoned - opF1Ge • b. Present zoning is) (is not) correct for the intended use. c. Zoning application received on for which is correct for the intended use. d. Variances required - CAVPk\f‘1\ • City Piaaa • • • • • `• • • -8- 47 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 79-172 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A PROJECT THEREUNDER; AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION BY THE CITY TO THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: IL Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Legislature of the State of Minnesota in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act), has found and declared that the welfare of the State requires active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment; has authorized municipalities to issue revenue bonds to finance, in whole or in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement and betterment of projects, including any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise engaged in any business; and has authorized municipalities to enter into "revenue agreements", as defined in the Act, with any puson, firm, or public or private corporation or federal or state governmental subdivision or agency (the Contracting Party) providing for the payment by the Contracting Party of amounts sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal and interest on the revenue bonds. 1.02. It has been proposed that the City issue its revenue bonds, pursuant to the authority of the Act, in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate principal -3- 2 e) iI After all persons who wished to do so had stated their views on the proposal, the Mayor declared the hearing to be closed. °1 After some discussion, Councilmember introduced the following resolution and (after it had been read in full) (after the reading of the resolution was dispensed with by unanimous consent)- moved its- adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A PROJECT THEREUNDER; AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION BY THE CITY TO THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Legislature of the State of Minnesota in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act), has found and declared that the welfare of the State requires active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment; has authorized municipalities to issue revenue bonds to finance, in whole or in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement and betterment of projects, including any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise engaged in any business; and has authorized municipalities to enter into "revenue agreements", as defined in the Act, with any person, firm, or public or private corporation or federal or state governmental subdivision or agency (the Contracting Party) providing for the payment by the Contracting Party of amounts sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal and interest on the revenue bonds. 1.02. It has been proposed that the City issue its revenue bonds, pursuant to the authority of the Act, in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate principal I/ -3- ? IAA . amount $3,375,000, or such lesser amount as may be necessary, to finance costs of acquisition of land within the City and construction thereon of one or more buildings (the Project) to be owned and operated by Anderson Lakes, Ltd., a Minnesota general partnership (the Partnership), and leased to one or more entities engaged in business for use as office facilities; and to make the proceeds of such sale available to the Partnership. The Partnership will agree to- pay the City amounts sufficient to pay promptly the principal of and interest on the revenue bonds, and will agree to cause the Project to be constructed. The Project is presently estimated to cost approximately $3,575,000. 1.03. The City has been advised that conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the scope of the Project or the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing costs, the Project can be constructed as designed and its operation is economically more feasible. Section 2. Public Hearing. 2.01. As required by Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b, of the Act, this Council, pursuant to a motion passed on August 21, 1979, called and held a public hearing on • the proposal to undertake and finance the Project. Notice of the time and place of the hearing, and stating the general nature of the Project and an estimate of the principal amount of bonds to be issued to finance the Project, was published at least once not less than fifteen days nor more than thirty days prior to the date fixed for the hearing, in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation of the City. A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, was available for public inspection following the publication of such notice at the place and times set forth in the notice. • 2.02. All parties who appeared at the public hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal to 'undertake and finance the Project. This Council has heard and considered the views expressed at the public hearing and the information submitted to the City by the Partnership. -4- ) )d I Section 3. Approvals and Authorizations. 3.01. On the basis of information given the City to date, and the views expressed at the public hearing, it is found and determined that the Project furthers the purposes stated in Section 474.01 of the Act, and that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenue bonds under the provisions of the Act to finance costs of the Project in an amount not to exceed $3,375,000 (the Bonds). 3.02. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the issuance of the Bonds for such purpose approved. The Bonds shall not be issued until the Project has been approved by the Commissioner of Securities, as provided by the Act, and until the City and the Partnership have agreed upon the details of the Bonds and provisions for their payment. 3.03. If the Bonds are issued and sold, the City will enter into a lease, mortgage, direct or installment sale contract, loan agreement, take or pay or similar agreement, secured or unsecured, satisfying the • requirements of the Act (the Revenue Agreement) with the Partnership. The amounts payable by the Partnership to the City under the Revenue Agreement will he sufficient to pay the principal, interest and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds as and when the same shall become due and payable. 3.04. The Partnership has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved by the Commissioner of Securities; whether or not the Project is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bonds or Revenue Agreement and all other operative instruments are executed. 3.05. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the Bonds as requested by the Partnership. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds or should the City, Partnership and any other parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. ) -5- 3.06. In accordance with the Act, the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities for her approval of the Project. The Mayor, City Clerk, City Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City, in conjunction with Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay, Bond Counsel to the City, are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with any preliminary information she may need • for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may he appropriate to the Project. 3.07. The City will comply with, or cause 'to be complied with, all of the provisions of the Act, including Section 474.01, Subdivision 8, thereof, in the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the Project. Section 4. Special Obligations. In all events, it is understood, however, that the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City except the Project, if it becomes the property of the City, and from the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City. • Section 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall he effective immediately upon its final adoption. PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, this 18th •day of September, 1979. Wolfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk • -5- .2 SEp i 41$79 O• CONNOR 6. HANNAN g 1.c.J,0•cow NOP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,iai p(NNf YLVANIA AV(.N.W. /NLOt w1cR w,THOYAf WASH,NOTOR.D.C.LOOOP JOLA.W THIRTY-EIGHTH iIOOR.l D3 TOWCR /L0(1185'STOO ICHAtTHOHA 1• R[LLCP It SO SOUTH EIGHTH STREIT PATRICR J.GCONNOR-- ORCHARD C.Y000IP[ RICNARD L,POfT LI...T. • P.RisWAM OI MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55402 JOHN J.ALPHA ROAEM J CM PACORlON.J A. N.ROP[AT«ALPCR• S.fA[Ow[ JOf CPH C.O,LLOH PRANK J WAL2 N.12I3.1-3800 TNOMAS H.OUINN. R.OOPSLY ARIO R O. • J.SHCADOUGLAS M.Mc kW (TLCi 29-0f O. DAVIO R.MCLINCOTT• CMARL[S D.RIOT[CLAN TELCCOPICR all 3.,-3130012SSI oRt..AnctyCRARD * owos• A/LLIAN R.MCO PANN LIP P.HOCHDCRO• RTC▪ HA SApt H.WH~rams TNOMAS P. IC!• *CRT 11LM.WH.LIN OAVIO SURLINOAMI•� OOUOLAS M.CARNIVAL• RENT L.SO$M PAl CO OK LA CI P.sonLC• JONM J•fOMMERV,44[ yApgip�,fPA,N MARTIN H.SE LIP SR• Host S.Post ro• A.FOWENPT[IN ,P,.276-SNDA SUITE SSO.ONS PAPA CR,AN P. CHA• SM P.FOWLER TNOYAS P.JOLLY• CNARMIA T.MRCP* t[LC,I tC3l0 DRVAy C•• ,S,! PARRY J.CUTLCR• TRONAS N.SM • .COLORADO S00O2 MICMAEL J.CON40N• TMOMA.R•RTON.A Y i30315T3-T137 DONALD S.ARSDUP• •.ONR A.A.,RTO N•JP. LA1NR[NCC A.JD••tf• ROPCRT A.virtu Alff[L• CAROL M,PAPA• WKuwM C.[ACT LP,•-.fTo1 September 14, 1979 OSEPM C.PATnsON• CHARLES W.CARRICO.• LOCAL I R GORDON A.SAYER. I.JAV.SP IAaS*• M[OAT. AMAM I,.P[PLOW 01113-1f Tfi BY MESSENGER O.GDONftL VRCDO THOMPSON•0• JOMN M.HOLLOMAN■• •ROT RIR..0,roma .NR Members of the City Council City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Attention: Roger Ulstad, City Administrator Honorable Mayor and Council Members: • e On behalf of our clients, the Eden Prairie Townhouse Company (a partnership of Gerald B. Pautz and Pautz-Franklin Realty Company), and on behalf of Catco, Inc. and Edina Building, Inc., we respectfully request a twelve-month extension of the Rezoning Agreement relating to the property north of Duck Lake Trail and west of the Dell Road Parkway under construction. The expiration of the Rezoning Agreement is October 6, 1979. We request the extension of the Rezoning Agreement because financing arrangements have not been completed sufficiently to allow construction to begin. We will have a letter or authoriza- tion from Catco, Inc. and Edina Building, Inc. at your Tuesday, September 18, City Council meeting, authorizing us as. representatives of the Eden Prairie Townhouse Company to request this extension of the Rezoning Agreement on behalf of Catco, Inc. and Edina Building, Inc. Thank you for your past consideration of this project and consideration of our current request for a time extension. • Very truly yours, /,� • /)t p1/ —J• ames R. Dorsey l / i JRD/dj �i� MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and•City Council FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services 04L • DATE: September 12, 1979 • SUBJECT: Firearms Ordinance • Attached is a copy of a memo from Keith Wall, Public Safety Department, concerning a proposed revision for our Firearms Ordinance. The existing ordinance allows - hunting (with a shooting permit) south of the line along County Road 1 running westerly to County Road 4, then west of County Road 4 and south of State Highway 5, with a small exception of a swampy area north of Highway 5 and west of Heritage Park. There are two major areas of concern west of County Road 4 and south of Highway S. These areas include Mitchell Lake and Rice Marsh Lake. As the eastern shore • of Mitchell Lake is developed more and more residents are voicing their concerns with hunting on this lake. There is a petition presently being circulated in the Timber Lakes area requesting the City to eliminate hunting around Mitchell • Lake. The other problem area is Rice Marsh Lake. This lake is located on the western f ' " boundary of Eden Prairie. Approximatley half of the lake is located in the City of Chanhassen and half in Eden Prairie. The City of Chanhassen does not allow hunting on their half of the lake mainly because there are apartments located within about a block of the lake. Chanhassen residents complain that hunters enter on the Eden Prairie side with an Eden Prairie shooting permit and then move over to the Chanhassen side to hunt. It is difficult, if not impossible, for either Eden Prairie or Chanhassen officials to prohibit these violations as long as it is legal for people to hunt on the Eden Prairie side of the lake. • It is Public Safetytsrecommendation that the legal hunting zone be changed to • include an area west of County Road 4 and south of the Chicago/Northwestern Railroad Tracks. This would eliminate hunting on Mitchell Lake, Rice Marsh Lake, and Riley Lake. It would also eliminate hunting on approximately 16 small pot holes or sloughs and hundreds of acres of fields and woods. • The City Council has requested the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resouces Commission to review this request and make a recommendation for the September 18th meeting. • Community Services staff comments: Staff concurs with the Public Safety concerns regarding hunting on Mitchell Lake and Rice Marsh Lake. Mitchell Lake is presently too developed to allow hunting without annoying a great many people and possibily causing danger to a few. Staff feels the City should attempt to cooperate with the City of Chanhassen to eliminate existing problems on Rice Marsh Lake. Therefore, the Community Services staff also recommends eliminating hunting on Rice Marsh Lake and Mitchell Lake. i•4R -2- Staff is somewhat concerned with eliminating hunting in this entire area at this point. It is obvious that eventually there will be no hunting anywhere within the City of Eden Prairie. However, at this point, the area south of State Highway $ and west of the railroad tracks is mainly farmland, woods and There is an abundance of pheasants and ducks in this area and it may be preinature to close this enire area to hunting because of•the problems caused on two of the lakes. Staff feels that it would be just as easy to regulate hunting on two of the lakes as it would be to regulate the entire area and suggests the Commission consider just eliminating hunting on Rice Marsh Lake and Mitchell Lake at this time. • • • • • • • • August 23. 1979 • • • 910: Roger Ulstad FROM: Teith Mall / w ACT: Firearms Ordinance • Since 197E When our firearms ordinance was revised and shooting zones were acetified, there have been increasing concerns expressed by citizens about the tone south of Highway 5 and west of County Road 4. Several residents • ssvacad Mitchell Lake have proposed the circulation of a petition to prohibit shooting in their area and we have received similar complaints from our Lassen neighbors regarding the Rice Marsh Lake area. There has been considerable new construction near Mitchell Lake and as a result bikers i mini-bikers have increased near the lake. It would be our recommendation that this zone bef•changed to include an area vast of County 4 and south of the Chicago/Northwestern railroad tracks. • • • • • • • • • • �r",.) 1-7( I g- I z latim 1 m lc/ Info It. I 1 1 1 1 I 10 1 I I pi, i 1 sima...toorts A '''' • 1,—. . .:4•, ,__ n t•—?--- i — i t - . 1 ., ; i Lk Ya -il PO'—'" - • • '— _ ,.. -1 „14,44 fa* ...0 I ... ZI'lliLm'. )-,-- 41'# ••• • 1 '• "?it-_ - °' I 111111111,4 1 ,1 _ fr• • '4.46 IC' f-- • !ilk 2 2•••.,4 to SI -- , t• / 4. . , ,-. - . ,,,,,,,,h,-.4. \ )110116„. ..r /\/ , , 4. .o,jr i : to \ i,1 ,'1.:. , r ..., 1:.. .,, ,.....,. I Lt._ ......... . ";V.;t t' . % "'A • - . i/ i I p_,,,i1 ,_ •:<.......c-4„ -„,.... , a, • ,-.., 4 \ , C., „, , ; /I, '1.A.,--,—rt'9"''". • ' . .. 4 , .. . t,....,....1- . . II- A ( i -li •.• 0,1om...4 t N.- ' ,,,,,:fiN,:,,„ t ;f ,•4•.Y.:X 1, 44.. . .ti f / ••••..,,-jta Or l'' '-/ l' • -, t. ,, k , 7:1,tts. I, S % . .:417, - ...' : i r .i. i il , "t . 4 AT. 1) ,.: H ... , . - " \ ; ( ,.. ,‘ i1, ... , •c: 1,0p. tp-t-4k zils4z *41 .. - ..).......„3„,---- , ', • ::!::; ' • t -.--,-,,N..-1•---7, / 4); 'WI'.".4t t •. "? )1/4- \ay." '' v / ttre. . - -,.. r ' •..I.,_ . er, , . ciin ,s 1 ...:— ,- -1: ? • ... 1, .4,...4\ • : _ .f,.; ,/ t`i•S A 11%-i..1 it , 4.t.-3 V \ V,' ct re N --,e ' C ..„.......1_..t...!,, al%b .„.....k tilfe...s, ..-0.,-?' • .s, it,;.•Alli.:c _,..„,...• ,.....1.4..........•,.....1 7 1 ....41,.... ------ -r•-•\ -7-7,7:-,-.:\„. .v. i ' '-...•--- ... .t" I.. ........ \.1 1..., . • i„..z.., .. II .1: s:1 f' tr- '.t.a.' —;, j c. j x I 0 .1 •Th—T—r—m , 0-r- ,--,---i- 02 r--7.- ,, ;,ii • DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1979 by and between Western Construction Company, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as•"Owner", and by the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to change the zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximatly 30 acres,,situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereafter referred to as "the property", and . WHEREAS, Owner desires to plat and develop the property into 28 lots for single family residences. HOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Mayor and Council of the City adopting Ordinance No. 79-29, Owner covenants and agrees to construction .. upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Owner shall plat and develop the property in conformance with the material dated July 23, 1979, reviewed and approved by the City Council on September 4, 1979, and attached hereto • as Exhibit B. subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. Owner covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Owner at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C attached thereto and made a part hereof. Developer's Agreement-Cardinal Creek Phase 2 page 2 3. Owner shall convey by Warranty Deed that part of the property below the area outlined in green on Exhibit B, to the City immediately upon filing of the plat and prior to issuance of any building permits. Owner shall not grade or permit or cause to . occur any construction within the Nine Mile Creek floodplain. 4. Owner shall construct concurrent with street and utility construction a Sidewalk 5 feet wide and 5 inches deep of conctete,with let down curb and gutter within the right-of- - way and south of the driving surface of the E/W street as depicted in red on Exhibit B. S. Owner shall remove all diseased trees on the property at time of street and utility construction. . • • • • • 2713 • Developer's Agreement-Cardinal Creek 2 page 3 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota BY: Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • BY: Roger K. Ulstad, Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoinginstrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1979 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Roger K. Ulstad,the City anager of the City of Eden Prairie, A municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public Western Construction Compa , Inc. a Minnesota corporation r w / r BY:Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1979 by the of Western Consturction, Inc. • Notary Public 41 2 7•4f • • • .- That portion of the East Half (1) of the Southeast Quarter (SEA) of Section 3, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly and Southerly of the existing centerline of Nine Mile Creek. • EXHIBIT A . black :-i.---Y:- • : �demmae:cteel. L•' :_.j (:: I t. 2 `;�'; •ems„ \ ' \ t . raper Jt ~ 4 • .l:'• .•\•'-. - I- •. /.0 _,,Cr'..\.\\.?:....I' - '''''....:.,....r.. .....;....X....: .2),,i.- ... '. .:•:.. ...j......:::,:•;.N... ..--• # 1 . , \•\`- •.'-il . ...'.....!.1:..-:.... .....':-....- -7. ;-.\). .. ':.::.:4:41.iii.1. ti.6.::. ‘v,,.>, • I ‘N j I I 1 ri':( tO '' ,//' ' ----- N/ 1 I -.mac:`► `5'\ c i ,'�. •i V i.:•.r. \::.t,. I: ,A 7,1 A 20 . e. /A / s''." _......-5 - 1 \'e-C4 . • 1 1 : 4/ A...*::- ::;:.:11..t..V.::1, i'l it- wr.rr . . 1• , \ ;: .I': .%: .::': :1.:,,.r . ;;I: 0*-t(t7,.-*::::;'' .‘ :•E itat " A., -‘;',%: ( .41...;!. ..! . . ',.,\:.:..w.::.::.!.s.2.;tirli: - . ..a. . \i: \,.‘ - i ,, . !\;,•-•.,. .. :.. ..A•Ljy, . ,. .10.6.1- \. \ \eill\\ . •'• •••t ;.,: :- -7....-...::2..: i. / pouf lake 14 . \ t • '\ .\ . • , \•' (•• \. 13- , ' EXHIBIT B July 23, 1979 3 �: ��._::.\.' . .. '1i` 1b . •t.. �,� ' 1'��� ,�!!/\l proposed plat plan ... . °. `r r t"rt"+1 knta•-rn rrh'••:t; :,c DEVELOPER ' S AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C • page 1 of 3 I. Owner shall submit a development plan prior to approval of the final plat which shall show proposed grading, storm water drainage areas and direction of flow, preliminary utility plans, ponding area and flood plain high water levels for 100 year • storm and minimum floor elevations for all lots. Approval of . . _. . the final plat shall be subject to approval of the development plan by the City Engineer. • II. . Owner shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for j eview and approval. Owner shall follow all rules and recaimendations of said Watershed District. III. Owner shall pay cash park fees as to all of the property required • by any ordinance in effect as of the date of the issuance of each building permit for construction on the property. Presently, the amount of cash park fee applicable to the property is $ 3Z5 per tot . The amount to be paid by Owner shall be increased or decreased to the extent that City ordinances are amended or supplemented to require a greater or lesser amount as of the date of the issuance of any building permit for construction on the property. • IV. Prior to the dedication, transfer or conveyance of any real property or interest therein to the City as provided herein, Owner shall deliver to the City an opinion addressed to the City by an Attorney, and in a form , acceptable to City, as to • the condition of the title of such property or in lieu of a • title opinion, a title insurance policy. insuring the condition of the property or interest therein in the City. The condition of the title of any real property or any interest therein to be dedicated, transferred or conveyed as may be provided herein by • Owner to City shall vest in City good and marketable title, therein free and clear of any mortgages, liens, encumbrances, or assessments. er ? of1- _L V. A11 sanitary sewer. watermain and storm sewer facilities. streets curb, gutter, sidewalks and other public utiiities('fmmrovements') to be dedicated to the City shall be designed in compliance with City standards by a registered professional engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. All private improvements shall conform to the City's building code requirements. The Owner, through his engineer, shall provide for competent daily inspection during the construction of all improvements. As-built drawings with service and valve ties.on reproduceable mylar shall be delivered . to the City Engineer within 60 days of completion thereof. Prior to final plat approval, or issuance of building permits, if no final plat is required, the Owner shall: A. Submit a performance bond or letter of credit which guarantees completion of all improvements to be dedicated to the City as determined by the City Engineer. The amount of the bond or letter of credit shall be 125% of the estimated construction cost of said improve- ments. The bond or letter of credit shall be in such form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the City Engineer. The Owner's registered engineer shall make and submit for approval to the City Engineer a written estimate of said costs. • Said bond or letter of credit shall specify that said improvements shall be completed and acceptable to the • • City Engineer not later than a date to be specified by the City Engineer and that said improvements shall be fully guaranteed against any defects in materials or workmanship for a period of two years following said completion and acceptance date. Acceptance of improvements by City shall be subject to recommendations of the City Engineer and to receipt by the City of the Owner's warranty, guarantying such improvements against any defect or defects therein for a period of at least two years, together with a bond or letter of credit in the amount of 25% of the costs for such improvements in such form as shall be acceptable to and containing such further terms as shall be required by the City. • S. In lieu of the provisions of subparagraph V.A. above, Owner may submit a 100% petition signed by all fee owners of the property, requesting the City to install the improvements to be dedicated to the City. Upon • approval by the City Council, the City may cause said improvements to be made and special assessments for all costs for said improvements will be levied on the property. except any thereof which shall be dedicated to the public,over a five year period. Prior to the award of any contract by the City for the construction of any improvements, Owrner ner shall have entered into a contract for rough g p9 in the improvements to a finished subgrade elevation. Contractor's performance of the rough grading work shall be secured by a bond orletter of credit which shall guarantee completion of the rough grading as determined by the City Engineer. The amount of the bond or letter of credit shall be 125% of the cost of such rough grading and shall be in such form and contain such further terms as may be required by the City Engineer. • • • page 3 of S Exhibit C C. Submit to the City Engineer a development plane elevations, existing contours, proposed grading, • streets, sewer, water and storm sewer preliminary align- ment and grades, minimum floor elevations on each lot, drainage ponds, high water elevations, and arrows show- ing direction of suhface drainage, locations of trails, etc. D. Pay to City fees for first"year street lighting (public streets) engineering review , and street signs. • VI. Owner shall file this Agreement withith wRRegih ster erpofoDeedssor Registrar of Titles and supply the Agreement with information as to Document Number and date and time of filing duly certified thereon within 60 days from the . date of this Agreement. .VII. If Owner fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof and provide proof of i; , 4 filing in accordance with item VI. hereof, Owner for itself , :.o its successors,rs and assigns shall not oppose rezoning of said property to VIII. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns. of the property herein described. IX. eere andpcleartof and mortgages, liens and fee othertitle encumbrances, • except: . • • • J1;) • • • jmj Cardinal Creek Phase 2 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 79-29 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING ' ORDINANCE 135 • THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS .FOLLOWS: • Section 1. Appendix A of Ordinance 135 is amended as follows: The following described property, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, • shall be and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-13.5 District. Section 2. The above described .property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of ,1979, between Western Construction Company, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances , rules and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie relating to the R1-13.5 District. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at'a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4 day of September , 1979, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _day of , 1979. ATTEST: Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL • • )cu/ • • That portion of the East Half (0) of the Southeast Quarter (5E1) of Section 3, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Westerly and Southhrly of the existing centerline of Nine Mile Creek. EXHIBIT A 'Jr • MEMO 1 • TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager • 1i FROM: Roger A. Pauly, City Attorney DATE: September 6, 1979 RE: Ordinance Regulating the Moving of Buildings 1. Enclosed is a draft of an ordinance amending Ordinance is 176, regulating the moving of buildings which I have prepared at the request of the City Council. The major changes are that when an applicant requests a permit to move a building to a location. .. _ within the.City, the application will be referred to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments which will hold a public bearing on the application and after which the Board will make the determination whether a permit should be granted or denied. The revision also provides for giving notice to the public through publication in a newspaper and contemplates the mailing of notice to residents of the • area to which the building is to be moved. Please note that Section 4 must be completed to define who shall receive mailed notice. Presumably, that class should include those residing within a certain number of feet of the location to which the building is to be moved. For example, all persons residing within 500 feet. Certain editorial and other relatively minor changes in the present Ordinance 176 have also been made. 2. The revised ordinance is submitted with the understanding that the revisions constitute only an attempt at an interim solution to the problems recently raised concerning the moving of buildings in the City. That is because the Minnesota Legislature, in 1979, enacted :' Minnesota Statutes 221.81, which became effective August 1, 1979. Section 221.81 purports to regulate movers of buildings by requiring a State license from the Public Service Commission. It provides that the Department of Transportation shall promulgate rules establishing ® bonding and insuring requirements. Finally, it provides that no license to move buildings, bond or insurance coverage shall be required by a political subdivision other than the license, bond and insurance coverage issued or required by the Commission or Department. It goes on to provide that a political subdivision may require a permit which reasonably regulates the hours, routing, movement, parking or speed limit for a building mover operating on streets within the jurisdiction of.the political subdivision. 'In checking with the Public Service Commission and the Department of Transporta- tion, which have jurisdiction over building movers, I am advised that, to date, no licenses have been issued by the Public Service Commission, nor have rules been 'promulgated by the Department of Transportation. Consequently, the City is in somewhat of a state of limbo as to what insurance and bonding requirements may be imposed, if any. It should be noted that the City Ordinance purports to regulate not only building movers, but the owners of buildings to be moved. To • the extent that the ordinance regulates owners of buildings, it would probably be valid despite the provisions of the newly-enacted Minnesota Statute. To the extent that the provisions of the ordinance are preempted by the Minnesota Statute, those provisions may be unenforceable. In conclusion, it must be anticipated that the ordinance will require further revision upon implementation of the State Statute by the adoption of appropriate regulations by the Public Service Commission and the Department of Transportation. • Dail, 9oro FNNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA REV. f ORDINANCE NO. REV.NVt.I. ,"1,...4$ A j � p ANNLORRDINANC AMENDING E�REGULATING THE,MOVING OF BUILDINGSADOPTED JULY 25. 972 AND k•' . ilift " he City Council of the City of Eden Prairie does hereby ordain as follows: t Section 1. Ordinance No. 176, adopted July 25, 1972, and entitled 'An Ordinance Regulating the Moving of Buildings and Providing a Penalty" is amended to read: 'Section 1. Permit Required. No person shall move, remove, raise or hold up any building within the limits of the City of • Eden Prairie ( City"), (except the movement of any building through the City from and to points outside the City, on or over streets or roads other than those of the City), without first obtaining a permit from the City. Person as used herein shall include, but not be limited to, the owner and mover of any such building. Section 2. Application. A person seeking issuance of a P permit hereunder shall file an application for such permit with { ' " the City's Building Official in writing, upon forms provided by • • • the Building Official. The application shall include the address t and legal description of the land on which the building is situated, and if•within the City, to which it is proposed to be moved, the route, including identification of streets or roads over which it is to be moved, the distance, the proposed date of movement, the status of any outstanding taxes and such other information as the City shall require for the determination to be made hereunder. The application shall not be accepted for filing unless accompanied by the following: . (a) Evidence that all real estate taxes and special assess- ments against the building and land from which it is to be removed. are paid in full. (b) A written statement, bill of sale or other written ' ) evidence that the applicant is entitled to move the building. (c) Written evidence of arrangements with all public utility companies whose wires, lamps or poles are required to be removed, for the removal thereof by the applicant. .1•;.:f1 (d) A liability insurance policy or certificate of f such insurance issued by an insurance company authorized to do { business in the State of Minnesota. The policy shall insure the 1 applicant and the City as an insured in the sum of at least $ for injury to one person, and $ for one accident, 1 and at least $ property damage, and the policy shall be ; kept in effect until after the building has been moved. i•. (e) A cash deposit in the sum of $ as an indemnity for any damage which the City may sustain by reason of damage or injury to any highway, street or alley, sidewalk, fire- , hydrant or other property of the City, which may be caused by or incidental to the movement of the building in the City, and for any expense incurred by the City pursuant to Section 7 hereof. (f) Payment of a fee in the amount of $50.00 for the permit. (g) If the building is.to be located within the City after its movement, a survey by a licensed surveyor of the land to which the building is to be moved, including the location of the building in relation to the boundaries of the land. • Section 3. Duties of the Building Official. (a) inspection. Upon receipt of the application accompafied by the fee, deposit, certificate of insurance, • statement and information required by Section 2 hereof, the Building Official shall review the application and make such • investigation as he shall deem appropriate. He shall also obtain • the recommendations of the Director of Public Safety and City Engineer with respect to the streets and roads on which the 3. building may be moved to assure the greatest degree of safety to ' persons and property and to minimize congestion on public streets. Upon completion of his review and investigation, the Building r Official shall . 111 • (i) in those instances in which applicant requests moving a building to a location other than within the City, either deny issuance of a permit if he finds any of the matters set forth in Section 5 hereof, or if he does not so find, authorize issuance of a permit or A��j . 2 . • (ii) in all other instances, make his report to - • the Board of Appeals and Adjustments ("Board"). Section 4. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - Public Nearing. • (a) The Board shall hold a public hearing on whether a permit shall be issued not later than days after the application.has been accepted for filing. Notice, including the time, date, place and purpose of the hearing shall be given by • • publication in a newspaper and by mailing to at least 10 dais prior to the date of the hearing. Failure to give mailed notice or any defect in the notice shall not invalidate the hearing or any proceedings taken thereat. (b) Not later than days after conclusion of the hearing the Board shall either deny issuance of a permit if it finds any of the matters set forth in Section 5 herein or if it does not so find,.authorize issuance of a permit. Section 5. Denial of a Permit. Issuance of a permit shall • • be denied upon a finding of any one of the following: (1) applicant has not complied with any requirement imposed pursuant to Section 2 hereof; (2) persons or property in the City would be endangered by movement of the building, because it is too large or for any other reason; • (.3) the building'is in such state of deterioration or • disrepair or is otherwise so structurally unsafe that it would constitute a danger to persons or property in the City; (4) the building is structurally unsafe or unfit for the purpose for which moved, if the location to which the building is to be moved is in the City; • (51 the equipment for moving the building is unsafe and persons or property would be endangered by its uses FI (61 the building or its use would not be in compliance rwith zoning, building or other ordinances of the City, if the location to which the building is to be moved is in the City; -3- ='i)v (7) if the location to which the building is to be moved is in the City, the building is in substantial variance with either the established or the expected pattern of building develop- ment within the neighborhood to which the building is to be moved. • Comparative age, bulk, architectural style and quality of construc- tion of both the building to be moved and the buildings existing in the neighborhood shall be considered in determining whether a building is in substantial variance. S. -Section 6. Duties of Permit Holder. Persons receiving a permit from the City pursuant to this ordinance shall: (a) Use Designated Streets. . Move the building over those streets only, which are designated for such uie in the permit. (b) Notify of Revised Moving Time. Notify the Building Official in writing of any desired change in the date or times of moving the building from that indicated in the application and conduct moving operations only'on the date and at the times designated in the application or approved in writing by the Building • r ,, Official. • (c) Notify of Damage. Notify the Building Official in writing of damage caused to property belonging to the City or any public utility within 24 hours after the damage or injury has • occusred. (d) Display Lights. Cause red lights to be displayed during the night time on each side of the building; while situated on a public street, in such manner as to warn the public of an obstruction, and at all times erect and maintain barricades across such streets as shall be necessary and in such manner as to • protect the public from damage or injury by reason of the presence, _ 'movement or removal of the building. Warning lights with open flames shall not be used. • (a) Street Occupancy Period. Remove the building from any City street not later than two days after the building first • occupies a City street, unless an extension is granted by the Buidling Official. • (f) Comply with Governing Law. Comply with the • Building Code, the Fire Zone Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance and all other ordinances and laws. (g) Pay Expense of Officer. Pay the expense of any traffic officer ordered by the City Manager to accompany the movement of the building to protect the public from injury. (h) Clear Old Premises. Remove all rubbish and materials and fill all excavations to existing grade at the original building site, if within,the City, so that the premises are left in a safe and sanitary condition. All foundation structures shall.be.. ._ removed to a depth of 18 inches below the finished grade of the earth. (i) Remove Service Connections. Cause any sewer lines to be plugged with a concrete stopper, and the water to be shut off if the original building is within the City. The holder of the permit shall notify gas, electric and other utilities to remove their services. (j) Completion of Remodeling. If the building is relocated in the City, complete within 90 days after removal, all remodeling, additions or repairs as indicated in the application, in any document filed in support thereof, or in any building permit issued in connec- tion therewith. Section 7. Liability to City. (a) Holders of Permits Liable for Amounts Exceeding Deposit. The holder or holders of a permit shall be liable jointly • and severally for any expenses; damages, or costs paid or incurred by the City as a result of the issuance of a permit or the taking or failure to take any action by the holder or holders of the permit •or the City hereunder. (b) Retention of Cash Deposit. The City may take or cause to be taken any of the following actions and may retain so much of the cash deposit necessary to reimburse itself for any costs or expenses incurred as a result thereofi .g L117 �. (i) If the City in its sole discretion determines • • that the premises from which, or to which the building is to be, moved, if within the City, or the movement of the building through or within the City is unsafe or constitutes any other unsafe condition, the City in its sole discretion may, but shall not be required to, take or cause such action to be taken to eliminate such of unsafe condition or conditions as it shall deem appropriate. (ii) If the premises from which the building has been removed are within the City and such premises are left in an I unsafe or unsanitary condition or the provisions of this Ordinance with respect to such premises have not been complied with, the City may, but shall not be required, in its sole discretion to take or cause such action to be taken to remedy such unsafe or unsanitary condition and to place the premises in such condition as to be in compliance with this Ordinance. Section'8. Fees and Deposits. t: (1) Return upon Bon-Issuance. Upon denial of a . permit, there shall be returned to the applicant all deposits, f bonds and insurance policies or certificates therefore. The fee filed with the application for the permit shall not be returned. (2) Return upon Allowance for Expenses. Upon completion of the moving of a building pursuant to a permit, the amount which the applicant has deposited in conjunction with the filing of the application shall be returned to him, less all amounts which any • holder of a permit shall or may become liable to the City and which the City may retain pursuant to Section 7(a) hereof. The permit fee paid upon filing of the application shall not be.returned. Section 9. Appeal to Council. Any person to whom a permit has been denied may appeal to the City Council. Such person shall . submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk in writing, not later than days after the date of such denial and the matter shall be heard by the Council at a regular or special meeting to be held within days after filing of the notice of appeal. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the action of the Building Official or Board, whichever has denied issuance of a permit. -6- Section 10. Penalty. Any person violating or failing to comply with any provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $500, or be imprisoned not • exceeding 90 days. Each day such violation is committed or ;. permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable hereunder. Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its approval as required by law. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1979, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular .meting of the City Council of said City on the day of i • H , 1979. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • (SEAL) ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk ) Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1979. • 2(/J • • • COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Seaman , Martinson, Levitt, Gartner, Bentley, Torjesen • Unapproved • Planning Commission Minutes ' -6- Sept..10, 1979 H. House Moving Ordinance Beverly Cronk,18895 Pheasant Circle, submitted for the commission review Ordinance information from 3 other cities and items they would like to see included in an Eden Prairie Ordinance (both dated 9-10-79 and attached) The Planner referred the Commission to the draft ordinance, 9-5-79, prepared by the City Attorney. The Planning Commission made the following suggestions to the ordinance: -a permit & criteria should apply to houses or structures being moved through Eden Prairie to another city. -public safety department should be notified 24 hours in advance -bonds should be posted whether the structure is being moved within, into, or throug'a the City. -ordinance should include more criteria related to safety of unit, surrounding properties, residents of the neighborhood. -strict age as to structures which can be moved in will prohibit movement of barns, sheds, garages, etc., -besides notices being mailed& notice in paper,the City could erect a sign on the property informing the neighborhood. -neighbors , like the mover, should have an appeal process to the City Council. C .Ellison, 18925 Pheasant Circle, requested that the ordinance include • neighborhood input and veto power , not review by the Board of Appeals. -'t Unapproved • Planning Commission Minutes -7- Sept. 10, 1979 H. House Moving Ordinance, continued • Ken Foote , 19085 Homestead Circle, felt the language on page 3, regarding ' failure to give notice would not invalidate the hearing, was too weak. The Planner replied that the intent is to prevent invalidating a hearing if a person out of the total mailing claims not to have received notice, not to allow the City an out from mailing notices. Charles Rockler,19060 Deerfield Tr., did not feel the draft ordinance reflected items contained in other city ordinances regarding moving of houses. Mrs. Cronk stated the residents would like to see that houses being moved into a neighborhood conform to the neighborhood's character, house size_and style. Torjesen asked which other city's ordinance the residents feel is working the best. Mrs. Crank replied Minnetonfa's . Richard Fisher,18830 Partridge Circle, asked that the ordinance protect the property owners in the area'and that the City should seek to 'build neighborhoods' not'move-in neighborhoods'. Al Larsen, 7170 Tartan Curve, felt the ordinance should have a remedy section so as to ease enforcement,and that it does not currently provide for protection for children since a moved house constitutes an attractive nuisance. Gene Schroedermeier,7130 Green RidgeRd,askedif permits are still being reviewed by the City. The Planner responded permits are not being approved until the ordinance is resolved. Jeff Hulting , 18825 Partridge Circle , remarked that the house moved into Hidden Ponds blocked the street for 3-4 hours making many homes unaccessible if an emergency had occurred. Motion Egli'moved, Martinson seconded, to resolve the following: 1. Be it resolved that the Planning Commission views the preliminary draft ordinance as inadequate, and 2. City should draft a strict ordinance,and • 3. Ordinance adopted should include neighborhood participation in permit process short of allowing absolute veto power,and 4. Ordinance should include items contained in these minutes ,and 5. Existing ordinance, including penalties and provisions should be strictly enforced. Motion carried unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS Chairman Bearman referred the commission members to the Disclosure ordinance and resoluttion in the packet for the commission's information. VI. NEW BUSINESS none VII. PLANNER'S REPORT 1. The Planner presented a black Tribune paper holder with black letters on one side and silver letters on the other side. The Commission voiced their pre- ference fortheblack on black. VIII. ADJOURNN 4 : Bentiey moved, Martinson seconded to adjourn at 2:00 AM. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted,' Jean Johnson -'a/ • C. • Proposal presented to the mayor and city c Eden Prairie, Minnesota on August 21, 1979vunc1l members of • • ' Concerned home owners of Eden Prairie would like to recommend that the Eden Prairie City. Council make a motion to adopt a • pity ordinance in regards to neighborhood approval of all move in houses. A. If the house is more than 10 years old, it MAY NOT be moved into the city • . B. It the house is less than 10 years old, it MAY be moved into the city if; _ 1. Written approval is obtained from a. all six property owners nearest the said property or, • b. all property owners within a 500 toot radius of the said property lines Whichever is greater. • • Q. Must be at least 110E square feet above grade j 3. Must have a double attached garage 1 • 4. • Must conform to surrounding homes . ' 5. Must pe Pass city inspection and conform to all present city codes and ordinances e • C. If the proposed house is presently located in the city and is less than 10 years old, the house may be moved to a different location within the city but the above neighborhood and.city approval must still be obtained. D. If the proposed house is presently located in the • city and is more than 10 years old, the house may • be moved to a different location within the city• but the above neighborhood and city approval must still be obtained. Concerned � r, YFId fi� �, 1 �1 .V/Ei 188 Y 'R. Cronk 9S Pheasant Circle 1. ii 'I 9-io-7? 1 Eden Prairie, tit, 5534 II • 1.t3 • • 1-fo-79 2 • • • . . DANCES NOW IN EFFECT IN OTHER CITIES BURNSVILLE Power Of VETO • No house over 10 years old allowed. ,APPROVAL.of the six nearest-resident-property owners before-approved. •• ••• • MINNETONKA Power of VETO APPROVAL of at least 75% of resident owners of land within 500 feet of property lines before approved. BROOKLYN PARK Public Meeting of resident owners within a radius of 350 feet from property lines. Residents must be notified of this meeting. Planning Commission makes the filiMeelsion considering all merits. S. • • • • • • • 10 • • . • . • 21 H • Amendments presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie 9/18/79. The following are ammendments to the proposed Ordinance No. 176 generated by City Attorney Roger Pauly. The letter associated indicates whether replacement or adendum . is intended. 41P PAGE 1 (replacement) Section 1. Permit Required. No person shall move, remove, raise or hold up any building within the limits of the City of `b Eden Prairie without first obtaining a permit from the City. Person as used herein shall include, the owner and mover of any such building. (a) Exception, State and County- House Moving Routes. The State of Minnesota and Hennepin County have-designated certain roads as house moving routes to expedite the safe movement of buildings from point of origin to final destination. Hennepin County has designated certain County highways to serve as I connecting links between State designated routes. It is determined that moving buildings along designated State and County routes shall not require a City permit pursuant to Ordinance No. 176 if it meets the following provisions: • 1. The building being moved is routed through the City along the County or State routes. 2. The State of Minnesota or Hennepin County has issued a building moving permit. 3. If either the origin or destination of the building being moved is not within the City of Eden Prairie. 4. If the building is moved in and out of the City of Eden Prairie within 7 days. 111 5. If the building is in transit only between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. • PAGE 2 (adendum)` Section ). Duties of the Building Official. (b) Upon receipt of the application, the Building Official must post the land intent 30 days prior to the public hearing. (1i) after inspection of the building and posting of the land, the building official shall make his report to the City Council•for the Public Hearing. PAGE 3 (replacement) Section 4. City Council Public, Hearing. • (a) The applicant shall submit photographs taken from two (2) or more angles of the structure to be moved and photos of the lot on which the structure is to be located together with photos of adjacent lots and structures. (b) The City Council may take it upon themselves to-deny the permit without further action. (e) If the City Council does not deny the permit, :-c o''the written approval of at least 751 of the owners of the land within a radius of 500 feet of the land upon which the building or structure is to be located must be secured before the permit can be approved. PAGE 4 (adendum) • Section 5. Denial of a Permit. (7) Comparative age.(no more than 10 years older than existing structures) • • j'/6 'PAGE 5 (adendum) Section 6. Duties of Permit Holder. (k) Take all precautions and be responsible for safety measures surrounding the structure from the time of arrival until it is secure on the foundation. This is to include secure locking of all doors and windows, fencing surrounding the entire building, making sure the building is stable in its temporary position, and any other safety measures possible to assure the safety of the surrounding neighbors. • PAGE 6 (replacement) Section 9. Appeal to City Council. Any person to whom a permit has been denied may appeal to the City Council. Such person shall submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk in writting, not later than days after the date of such denial. • A second public hearing must be held within days of the appeal in exactly the same manner as stated in Section 4 of this ordinance. • Presented to the Mayor and City Council me r`•5 eAoa...� t o utJ 75.6-v.ix2ee.e)A.,* auto 4 , alioa-. � 7/3o �,� , .�y� 46 . /.P7 Z-/474 euv, c't- . 2c 11 MEMO DATE: 20 August 1979 TO: Mayor and City Council TERU: Roger Ulstad, City Manager PROM: Walter Johnson; Building Official SUBJECT: Bow other municipalities handle house moving permits. 1. Bloomington• Building official has a pre-moving inspection, Post $2000.00 bond. 2. Edina Planning Concision reviews the'existing home and the site it is to be moved into and they make the decision. 3. Brooklyn Park • variance Commision reviews the existing home and new site location, reports to Planning C ;esion who reviews it and they report to the Council. People in the area where home is to be moved in are notified, they then can appear at the council meeting. 4. St. Louis Park Two inspectors from the building department review the request and make the decision. 5. Maple Grove -Inspected by Building Official and he makes decision. 6. Robbinsdale Inspected by Building Official and he makes decision. I would like to suggest to the Council that perhaps an existing coaunision or a new odd man connnision be used to review all moving permits. • 11 2817 • • ) BIJRNSVILLE: To move a structure into town; it can not be older than 10 years, have to get approval of the six closest residences. Appear before the Planning Commission, if approved, appear before the council for approval. If in effectthas stopped any moving of structures into Burnsville. MINNETONKA: • Neve to get approval of 75% of all residences within a 500' radius, appear be- fore th council for approval with photographs of all sides of residence. • • • • • • • 2 • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services aiL DATE: September 11, 1979 SUBJECT: Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement School District/ Round Lake Park (Ballfields) • In 1977, the City received a LAWCON and LCMR Grant far development of Round Lake Park. The City has not been able to proceed with that development project due to delays caused in closing out the 1968 LAWCON/ LCMR Grant that dealt with acquisition of the property. In 1968, the City and the School District entered into an agreement to purchase land north of Round Lake that was to be divided sometime in the future when the High School site was determined. The City's portion would be attached to Round Lake Park and the School's portion would be the future High School site. The exact division of the property was finally determined in 1978 when the school determined the location of the High School. The northern property line between the school and the City property was drawn directly through a portion of the area planned for redevelopment with 1977 LAWCON/LCMR Grant money. The existing property line now runs directly through a softball field and a baseball field. The baseball field will be used by the High School team for their home field. All of the facilities in the park will be used by the school for their physical education programs and for their inter scholastic sports teams. The City will be developing facilities on school property and managing these facilities. This Joint Powers Agreement spells out who is responsible for insurance, maintenance and improvements, etc. Also, how the facility will be programmed and used. Staff recommends the City enter into this Joint Powers Agreement. BL:md 9/6/79 ad ROUND LAKE PARK (BALLPIELDS) AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota, Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called "City") and Independent School District No. 272, a Public School Corporation, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter called "District") have previously executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 28, 1969, (attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference), a Joint Powers Agreement dated May 9, 1972 (attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference) and a Joint Resolution dated September 16, 1976 (attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference) all relative to the acquisition development programming and maintenance of school and park sites in the vicinity of Round Lake in the City of Eden Prairie; and, WHEREAS, District has, pursuant to the provisions of Exhibits A, B, and C, conveyed to the City by quit claim deed (attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference) a parcel of property fof development into a public park and recreational area; and, WHEREAS, it has been brought to the attention of the parties • that two baseball fields proposed for the park-recreation site are partially located upon land retained by the District pursuant to . the provisions of Exhibits A, B, and C; and, • 7Y?1 t WHEREAS, the parties have been informed that final approval of financial assistance for which the City has applied for the development of the site under Title 16 U.S. Code Section 4601, the Land and Water Conservation Act, has been withheld pending elimination of the ball fields, movement Of the ball fields so that they are wholly on City property, or execution of an agreement - between the parties assuring public asscess_.to and_use.of the base- . ball fields as presently planned and located; and, • AREAS, movement of the baseball fields is not possible as • because of the previously planned allocation of City parkland; and, WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire that the ball fields in question be operated as they are presently planned to be located and not be abandoned. • Now, therefore, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1) That the Joint Powers Agreement dated May 9, 1972, and • attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B is hereby amended by the parties in the following respect: • • a) The City may, at its own expense, erect and construct, maintain and manage two (2) ballfields on the following described district on the property at Round Lake Site: • • That part of the North half of Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: • Commencing at the East Quarter corner of said Section 8; thence on an assumed bearing of West along the South line of said North half of Section 8 a distance of 1666.07 feet; thence continuing on a bearing of West along said South line of the North half of Section 8 a distance of 2309.74 feet to the Southwest corner.of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8; thence North 2 degrees 45 minutes 21 seconds West along the West line • of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8 a distance of 654.29 feet; thence South 55 degrees 37 minutes 52 • seconds East 184.26 feet to a tanential curve concave to the North having a radius of 560.00 feet a central angle of 54 degrees 00 minutes 00 sticonds and an arc length of 527.79 feet; thence Easterly along a reverse curve concave to the South having a radius of 1010.00 feet a central angle of 38 degrees.'00 minutes 00 seconds and an arc of 669.86.feet to the Lest line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8; thence North 2 degrees 27 minutes 52 minutes 52 seconds West along said West line of the '• Northeast Quarter Section 8 a distance of 507.55 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence continuing 350.0 feet along the last described line; thence Easterly 1050.0 feet on a line parallel with the South line of the North half of Section 8; thence Southerly 350.0 feet on a line parallel with the West right-of-way line of C.S.A.FI. 4 according to the recorded plat thereof, thence Westerly to the point of beginning. b) Title to said property shall remain in the District and the City shall acquire no interest in the land by the erection, construction, maintenance or management of said ball fields. • c) Liability: Liability Insurance. Each party shall be solely responsible for any loss, damage or injury to any person or property arising out of the use of the two ballfields described in section 1 a) of this document, by any person or persons under its jurisdiction or authorization; and each party shall hold the other harmless from • and defend it against any claim, demand or cause of action initiated to recover the amount of any-such loss, damage-or claim for-which- it.-- is responsible pursuant to this agreement. Each party shall carry at its own expense comprehensive liability insurance covering its potential liability under this section with personal injury limits of • not less than one Hundred Thousand ($100,000) Dollars per person and Three Hundred Thousand ($300,000) Dollars per occurrence and property damage limits of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars per occurrence and Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars aggregate, or such other limits . as may from time to time be required under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 466.04 and any amendments thereto. d) Maintenance: The City shall be responsible for regular • mowing of the two ballfields located partially on City property and partially on school property. Furthermore, any additional maintenance • required for specific games or events i.e. additional mowing, turf care, lining of fields, watering, etc. shall be the responsibility of the party requiring the additional maintenance. The City and District agree that the cost of jointly planned major repairs or improvements shall be shared equally. e) The City and the District shall•name representatives for the purpose of coordinating joint use of the facilities and matters of detail in carrying out this agreement. Each party will conduct its own programs to the extent it wishes to do so. having due regard for the fact that educational purposes nust be first on all school properties. • • 2) Except as specifically amended herein the Joint Powers • Agreement by the City and District dated May 9, 1972, and attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference remains in full force and effect. Dated: • City of Eden Prairie Independent School District No. 272 • by: by • Its Mayor Its Chairman t °i by: by .Its Clerk Its Clerk • • by: Its Manager • • 2 XC. • • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services —P-44.. DATE: September 31, 1979 • SUBJECT: Comprehensive Park Plan ' The legislature in 1976 recognized the need for coordinated planning in the metropolitan area and passed the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. This act-reouires--- --- that all general purpose units of local government prepare comprehensive plans for submittal to the Metropolitan Council. In December of 1978, the Metropolitan Council Parks and Open Space Division drafted a local Comprehensive Plan Handbook on recreation open space. This handbook outlines how the Council will review local recreation plans. This handbook included two major sections that should be considered when developing a comprehensive park plan. 1. Consistency with regional recreation open space system planning. This section deals with the local Comprehensive Park Plan and how • it compares with the regional recreation system plan. The Council will review if the local municipality has taken steps to insure 1 + `' preservation of future regional park sites or regional trail ways It will also check to see if local trails are linking with regional trails and if regional parks will be used as part of a local park ' system. The Metropolitan Council wants to insure that local communities are aware that regional parks and park reserves are "not developed to provide the following recreation functions; tot lots, • court games, crafts, playground apparatus, neighborhood recreation centers, athletic fields, and swimming pools." 2. Adequacy of local recreation open space system. The Metropolitan Council staff will comment on the adequacy of the local recreation open space system plan as a basis for Metropolitan Council reviews • of LAWCON and LCMR park grant applications. Basically, Council staff will comment on whether the local comprehensive plan is adequate for creating a.local recreation open space system that meets the local recreation needs of the community. Under this section, the Council will review the following: a. If the plan is comprehensive in plans for development of facilities that will serve all segements of the population. b. What attention the plan pays to the present and future recreation needs. The plan should contain goals, objective • • policies, standards and programs that will satisfy existing and foreseen local recreation needs through 1990. c. The plan should be action oriented to provide direction for decision making including an implementation program describing the devises to he.used which will insure continuity and adaptability to changes in leisure behavior patterns and . desires of the community residents. • • -a- d. Flexible, the plan should include a method of periodic evaluation # and revision. The plan should include, but be limited to -System goals policies objectives and standards • -Description oj4 the community -Identification of local recreation needs -Inventory of recreation resources • -Recreation open space system recommendations -Implementation program • • The Comprehensive Park Plan for the City of Eden Prairie has followed the guide- lines suggested by the Metropolitan Council and has taken into consideration the regional park system as well as neighboring park systems and trails. The Five Year Capital Improvement Program for the park system is tied directly to the Comprehensive Park Plan. Therefore, the park plan and the capital improvement program must be updated on an annual basis. The initial capital improvement program attached to the Comprehensive Park Plan included a somewhat conservative acquisition and development program and revenues estimated at $110,000 a year from cash park fees, $30,000 a year from the liquor store.revenue beginning in 1980, and $90,000 a year for capital improvement from the general fund. This capital improvement program showed a deficit of $375,000 at the end of 5 years. As a result of this information a Park Bond Referendum Committee was formed to gather public input on community needs in the area of . parks and recreation, and to gather support for a referendum. t4 Attached to this memo is a Five Year Capital Improvement Program that indicates approximately $110,000 a year revenue from cash park fees, approximately $30,000 :., a year from the general fund (this is about the maximum amount that has been r budgeted for capital improvements within the park system in recent years) and • approximately $30,000 a year generated from the liquor store beginning in 1980, and showing a zero deficit. The affect of this program is delaying acquisition on most sites a year tr two, and puts off development of facilities on nearly all sites (other than grading and seeding) until the mid 1980's. This information will be on the City Council Agenda on September 18th. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Park Plan and requests the City Council to approve or revise the Capital Improvement Program as submitted. • BL:md • • • 247 • • • N O N I III 0Q CL oir a 0 WI 113 eVyn• r 1.1 Y, i. . G T m~ 1- t RI L 4' m vb 01 pi�pa a � I 0. y y�, 6'O.S1 Y 6 N .. - r O q Wy4 00&' i 1..� 1i0C0.0 ACC C v-v-tJ S .. "y'f Cyr q0 OSCNOL .0 rt TT}-0 41 6 N 0 0 0 O.0..0 t '0.t:O>> .0 i� ilJ+1 4.1C001....,N 9 L O N 41 r O.0 O.0 !'S'2 O m 0.0 co--- 1-�� T • E yy0p.,0p C 0•.- CAC mT gY 7 -rTS O.0 0/I.p iaiO . O mt L4-.0 EE+/�S. m W WCfII C — OLLi�0).0 C.CS. .- 0r--..--2 u 0 3•- m +-r'0 �O NNN N pmatta N 03:m.0007 0m al Lt. 17 111 s.. O�T,1 y 24.,2tm2"mv St Id W �,.,am ++ trip a oOtNYN7C 106 O1 oQ3 tan--.1-+',-m gip/-+m �'i7 it y- .- .CT U .32 fH'0 O NTY ppl�ot Y N C J NEE . Y0 m C Z" 2 03 0.4-4-m 4' 0 0 IS•� 0 . .. i-� 40 S. 23Y W S. in RS 0C13Y 0 'D la J i-0�T•1ip m CC'i 5,. VC .CDS.U. -- 0 4'>•0 Y C 0 C> m C. S. 00 46 i Y m Y C C 01 Is 1� 3 pp,V t)m 3 O.Y y'0 Rif II >5 p0�> S. p3 p0r S. 01 p Is. 0 NI-SCOW C C1-JS 6'411 Li S t/1 ^ QNE C45 a. / t., 0. RI Q �.o mN a1 T 01 a 1 o.o u• m;• N_w �� w a.o tiff ei4- � a.c um; aiw o+.a=r ..- 4'!� t L yy rp Vs SS 4 d ~ wT r rW • - N M 4.2 M T • • • 2raa • • N . N 0 C t O uu 4 r L r IC m Yr I v.•o m I - • o& t q F S , CC Ilt r• V Ldi C 40 IJ Ir.• y��R11 Qr�• .76yi I 4) — 0 r6 W▪ CyO C . • d. y�y11 N V B. t ra _O ... Lpp C Y 0 • CI N 1O O • f ii Li CI 0�N ...I • 40 1. CD LA O , ` 1 • r • • • 1 h=9 - • in w M 01 CMnt O r N N el 01 1+! 1.0 rr • 1 L a. c I V O 00.•11 00 .0 P.. , _ 1.4 II-AC VI t 0 311. r r . 1 :oO. yr 0 e, Op r C W O• W yy ✓▪+1 V 'L i t .0 IO ^N V 01 N to b N d r 40 0/7 '� 01 01. 0 w CID .+ a .0+1 W "ayy) 10 C ID C ID _v.- I"' L i .- CC7 .0- Sep3 1V0 n i �p VI C Ir0 V C spy Of Od O OE .8 Y r E 'O Q O_ 4- M_a \ r i+ 10 _ .-r LL i 10 10 .•7 0 in O. v V V VI 7 i� S O U 0�1 in 10 r C 47 A M a-1 ,C r >I RI 01 V V r VI 7 VI 13 V 7 O/O1 01 01 U.W VI r C i� V/ 11 10 E C O Y O rAto L 0, d.. 0.0 N 01 L ii V •O 01 VI > 7 Nt..+ i a C.+ V.CC 7 LT 0 Vi 0 COi Q • o �Eg 3 O 01...40 Q 01 U.r O. 0 01 01 Cf C' 7 L 01 .11 i�Q t C. V/ Ur- S. _C RI P 01 V/2 N Y 01 CI a i V V CI N O 6 V 01 G CI,. • AC 4.I. w 7 01 N Y C V-.0 n VI C 01 co pp r E!I VI O1 VIr.0 q Y O. Y•O I-•S. IO V+4 Id d 0 00 Y RI 10 _+I C I...•O V/ ,. a S. 6 0/ a C1 s O1 C. . a I. t9«+ V7 i.i'O 9 7�C O W I to W r 11-V/ 11F C VI V- 110 V- 01 4- IF 01 C 0. 7 0 I C O W O_Y 0 rg 11H 01 0 0 0+1 O Oi., v rC.0VI 1 S. C•0 i r- i C i I O.0 i- I. L. I. I.> VI m Q CO Li O/r C1 07 IO 01 7 01•- t.0 /0 01 01 01 CO r .. W xi EE1- as a c3 gt+-, .4 E Ea •E En i0 s..��� =..▪ ..+ z.+ EcE % = ) =. a z =..I z =-I Mt• a=» Jt3U • L o u ID A 10 CO_ M N Q a 4 n M a "� Al W [O N • E a � as W Npp NnQn N 11O SOtOO NYtp O 1 I.NN A • •y 9 W r u mt N L4 ►r 3 ' r • O� Q V • r N C C w J•• � O ,I �p,[y ^b Q Ill 6 O W co CO h 4 1ffN VW 10 n O Q O I- OI O COCON t0 O O •r O%0 N CA N 10 .-/M..$.� tO Q N Q$0 tO 01 M 4•:y .+.+ N .+ N N N 44 .. y i.l .r WY v yyyy��� e r W 1 . N j 9 .3 CC .1t W L Y 4 t 0.. MI YYr N ILI CC .1t y 4y 4 Y iO..O. C S. N a I QyI Cy7 H N CC tI3 5 .0 Q G. 0'C O G. ..113 IC Ir IC L L ' Iy/�� Z NOG. Y CY Q W Q X ti tiY W 9VI411 N /OiW G. Y 0. K W g sCI- Yci to O.. s6 J J J GQ. i.-�Y W 0.9ILIN J <T J Q Q O r ti 1.1 CQps• K 442 O H N W C L.W 01 ♦+ C 6 'Vr.W>I O C O S. @ 113 i IfK W O n 44 ZCC G A 0 -0 2 'L_C--0 N CC _9Y V—_0.>7 r 30,it Y. KNO�g d' K m D: Q J O.ZG'K O. SJ1-S.E D:i W h 1 • • .01 C► L . r L a tlA . W ad 10 C c • eV M.-1 m en tD N N N H I}O ct f�f�at O ve Olct Cal In O CO lb,.-I at m.-.n'ct CV in ct tD.r U)•-I v)`c�"jy•-1 m C A CO 44 M 44 S. 44 44. N N 1 44 tO et 4.4 y VI CC .--1 o IC .- g 0 • N U. C v- A 41* O U/ O Y r F AO t- A a) O ate) 10 CC L L. YYJ go.0 -NY C O 8 Cr C.i Y C.i sIL N Q1JJL N R pY 16J N N .--4 Vf 1C>i 0! CI C/Y N Y J r-10 J Y Ci Y 4)44.1-- W N L. r- Y C,.-Y S. q N J C C,Y 13 C) O CC 0 0 C).- .0 J.-U 13.J 01.-. 10 0..J C,J 3 C I-- N Nr = J N 08 C 4.C N J aC .3C C1 10>3 I us V C C $ >3..-.0 C IC L >3 N 4 r 0 W N COf0J01 C ACCU LNL 10N CI OCIN 10*AZ QhQ- L C 7-'-C 1C Li 7 n OMC Ur 1C S.11 ENC 4J V 0 4 0 3 V LaCC2 J OC$CCL'CN03031n4',IE0'49 h'-vt7 ' 1r":\ • r • t 4 1, Y El d 01 01 011A••.NOLe)01 01 111 CO 404,0 Olt L.-117 N CO••.N N•-• •r.+0 L. 10 r yyi iV .. a C 7 661• V CI or U I. 0 W N I. V -It in gWg H C 1100 >1 O. 01.-<11 N V 10 S. -. Q M W V C 4- C 0 0)I L •0 a V/C N 01 GGt333 N W 0 E > a•C > •O U 0. VI it N� I•-Z VI V-.0 VI V 0) O.In 41 L.0 0 0) 10 4.1 Vf 0 B -It Cl • C 1-• 0 41 0 C V 3 N In O 0..0.0. C VI 4,1 N 0)•r Cl 0)♦.Cl Z U 10 0)Y L O. .0 41 0).- I.-01r 4.1 US 41 a/r N o O••• • >1 C L 0 C O.0 0) L 01 V 7 _� 0).1.)V1 S.V)N C.).-I VI _Y•.- 7 • 0) 0)4-S.. 0 r 4- 0 Cr V1 0 Vs U 2NO .0 02 1->1Y 4-0 a 300 0U N241 In VI ••- Y ••0 W•-• C..)Y V) C L 0) 0 C .0 .0 C E V.•-••- 0) O d 1.112CO 0•r 701n 0Zr 41 I. Y V 0 0) L 10 r••- .•-0Y 0. WV1UQ 013 1-4.) • 0•>IO.0 L V) C OG) UL0.41002.0 ri.0 01, <C .0 IO V) 0 0).0 U 0 41 .O 0 .0 L �0 3 U. Os 2 L Z.0-I Igie In •In W 0 .0 V) E .0>1 In 4.1 V O. 014.1 g�0.0 Cr• .O >1 0)C • 1 V1 NJ_ C•.- C 0 .0 144.1 t1.1 O 7 V E E 01 01•V 4.' CCU •la CS I 1.10 a).0 Ur.r 0) .N.0 >•- .0)4- 00V V 77s. !o U J W O E . •r4 U 30••-V 0) 2� cc2U Lai Lai 000U 2NO 1 W_I-r• ♦+•In 1.1•r L t C TV V >> 09 IL W>J 3 7 0) •0) 3 001.0 .- i�•O U J Q 0•L In.0 0).0 41 Y i • V1 J S V) U U 0)1.1 U 01 S. 7 0/ 0/ j IMAIM QOQ 01N01E CLIn •)01O U.C.0 If O S 4: 4-, 1.. .0 0 0U C In 0. 0 4-,4• t2.)GO2=Z V) 0.0 0141 C IC 0 S.V lc c 0 C C ±•4141 >1 -NE 4, 10 a)•C Vlrr In 1110 000 C I- 1-V 3 7••�- 0.0;AO.0) .0 V>1 >=Q••• 40 (1) 0 E 0.•r V 01 3 0)r• I-CO 3 D.0 In U•.- C 7 0 C VIC.0 Oo C 4/ x 0 0)Cr O Y •-ro a) • a_w2O V 10 c •0 41 U.0 rno Lr• L OlI IC 2QO 04•4 a) ) L +1aa LC .O44d ro 1•- 0 0 O.V•r O. 10 U 0.r y+ 0.7 V 0) 1,01 N N CO 0.•1•n O U •J • .0 a- C U•r i.0 i, 0.r C N N I. N••1.1 Q 0 0 IC L V) V) C 0) V 0).0•r-y1 V V) L U Z O 1 0) O N V 0).0 01 7.r O N C )0 J•-•Spp -041 C41•0 0)V 41•r 0.7 0 10 0 .0 Q I-UO .C•r V 00)U0..0 U L Z N O 01 Y1 C >1 Y Cr t C IC U O .CO V 0. • U O]N>C•) •01.-- L 0).O L 4.1 4.. C'd.0...•.. C I- C C 10 Ia Y A 0).r 0•r .0 O.10 0) ® Q •QIL C UC 3 10rn V W Q 1-O 0 0 0) 0•r 4- 10 01 L.•- W C W Z ••••.r V.0.0 0 V >r 0) .0••- Y UCWZ 1.1•r 1.1 >Y CC 7 C CIS 4- C L la LU QCC WO >1 p>^• •N aro 0' >13 •r 0. ea N J I- 41 V L V)O. •0) 0)C r 01 VI VI 4:5 Z Q O S tuns XI 1O 0) 0)•0r Ca C.O 1- 0 r 4-4-•.> S. • IO S. N 10 NC tit 1-W C 1-C 0) V) 41 41 0>110 C 0 41 0. 0) I-Q O L.00) 10 L.0 •r0)3 VO. 3UI41 41 h C>-0. O.41.0.0> 0.G••- • .0 41 a)+- V .-al UI V in ID 0.I- 1- to VI 41 C V) 0. 0 0. .o 0 W Q Q 013 •.) IO0. -V O.O OU O 9•rC W OC t- U- wZ L .-U 0 41 d 41.0 1 O.V1 .0 = U C 41 01 II (gyp)) 0 (0 0 0) •.-.0 Z.0 C 0) 4.1 col. 0 0) L 0) 41.- 0) V Vf)CZ 0) N 0141 0 C C O V 4.11.1.0r 0W/0 In1•-O•-• OILL.0L 7•rV 0)UI r• G 0.UI•r > i > Q I1.C> L.r 74.0) 00)•r.0 > 00 Y 010 C•r C0 C Z W C 0) 10414-.0 L. 041 0p41 > 0) S. .0 S. VI 0: 10 ea-1‘0 CCe 0 Las .0 1- Z C 00)•r 1-•r 0).C .0 0 L00)V L LIOV Q 0 Q V1 I-C 4- 0 0 I-4.S. 3 0.VI V I- O. 2 C U.S W 0. U.J W 'I• w b S S S S S 8 a • '^ g o 8 M N 40 N N N 8 8 8 8 8 § if 8 y8 • j �1y t y S s g s s :e. » b e '^ : II M IM c Q Q w 8 3 8 S s I 8 § 8 88 8 § 8 1 3 Si « R R IC R R R 3 N N pp• pp pNp • ~ O O O 1 .1F. • 1 • 8 1 f §. § 8 8� yI� 1 1 M M c M R N RMI g 1 • - 4. » OP1 w • 8 eaC▪I § § ea in PI*ag 8 N » » ra44 " $ "48• 8 § . 8 § 8 8 " '�' i 0 ■y �Q{ y� y y�• e ..i 2 f C N N 0 h N r N § g8 § § § di R o .R e X °' § g § 8 8 8 g 8 R a "' 0g w n • » gi 8 1 A M M w § B 8 § § § 8 8 8 8 0 D. » M N » a ii 8 § 8 I 1 R M N I N w I 1 A •' • Bw M al w y II • "o+ a • i _ . 3 S E .. W la o I I S i 0 S 40 W W rl h M 4 VI 0 1: O N M N IV / b N 4 4 4 • 2 73 111 • • M O O O qO 1 I V O N 1.1 Z CO N i $ $ § s $ § $ $ $ » N O O O O O M M CO pQ M W. r1 r1 CO • 9 I w. $ $ $ $ $ p. i e 4 111 U . i 4 S M M ti M M "33 I O 3 * $ $ I $ s 3 » M E $ $ . - § § $ i s . § N jV ' M I i Ii • � . x p $• . / CVa M W N • � 2g Y '1 6 6 > '8 -ill ill.a • • 21?.., • MEMO TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager FROM: 'Carl Jullie, City Engineer DATE: September 14, 1979 SUBJECT: Crosstown Highway and Townline Road On September 10, Mayor Penzel and I met at the Hennepin County Public Works building with the County Staff and the Mayor and other officials from the City of Minnetonka to further discuss the status of the Cross- town Highway and Townline Road improvements and the County's proposed five year Capital Improvements Program. At the conclusion of this meeting, Minnetonka requested Eden Prairie's support at the September 26 County Board optionseining lieu of requestingeletin alltogethe that the rotheyCrrosstown ander TownelineRoa following . projects from their Capital Improvements Program: n the 1. Retain and fund the h the s project costs n ($12.5 million) for d nlline Road cfts iboth from County funds. 2. Retain the Crosstown project only, deleting Townline Road and fund the $7.5 million cost from County funds. • 3. Put both projects back into the C.I.P. without designating funding but indicating that construction would be dependent upon Federal Aid Urban or interstate Substitution monies. The Council may with to review this matter and give direction to the Mayor and Staff as to the City's position at the September 26 County Board ' meeting. CJJ:kh • SEPA 12 1979 FOX, MCCUE& MURPHY COTTONED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 7E01 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA E5344 JOHN E.PDX.C.I.A. TELEPHONE WILLIAM M.MCCUE.C.P A. MI II E44-E1E4 JAMES S.MURPHY.C.P.A. September 11, 1979 Mr. Roger K. Ulstad City Manager City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Ulstad: We appreciate the opportunity to submit our proposal to serve as the independent auditors for the City of Eden Prairie for the 1979 fiscal year audit. The audit would again be staffed by Bill McCue and John Fox. Having performed the examination last year, both Bill and John are familiar with the engagement. The estimated fee for the engagement would be $6,900. This represents a $900 increase over this prior year fee. Approxi- mately $400 of this increase results from the increased reporting standards requited under Chapter 787 of the 1978 Minnesota laws. Several additional combined financial statements will be required in the report. In addition, the full accrual method of accounting will be required for certain funds which have been utilizing the modified accrual basis of accounting. • Preliminary audit work would be completed prior to December 31, 1979, while year-end work would be coordinated with the closing schedule of the City. We would expect to meet with the City Council at the completion of the audit. In addition, we would be available for any other meet- ings that you, Mr. Frane, or the City Council might desire. `'61 Mr. Roger K. Ulstad September 11, 1979 Page Two In our prior year proposal, we noted that the main strength of our firm will be to provide quality service at a fair fee for our clients. It's still our main strength: • Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Very truly yours, /ln • • .13E September 18, 1979 8 )ETE OF MINNESOTA Y OF EDEN PRAIRIE NTY OF HENNEPIN The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows: 5307 VOID OUT CHECK 25.50'• 5457 VDID OUT CHECK 5.00' 5458. .VOID OUT CHECK 5.00 5625 MINNESOTA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SECURITY Unemployment compensation 48.99 5626 'MINNESOTA DEPART OF PUBLIC SAFETY Register a motor vehicle 6.50 • 5627' ''CITY OF NORTH'ST. PAUL'---. -" • ' Munici-Pals-banquet .-16.1,10, 5628 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR ' Liquor . 402.33 5629 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO. Wine 203.40 5630 MIDWEST WINE CO., Wine 222.66' 5631 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 734.39 5632 ED. PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 1,297.51 5633 OLD PEORIA COMPANY INC. Wine 922.02 5634 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA .August deduction 94.02 5635 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE August State tax 12,411.73' 5636 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Payroll 8/31/79 9,430.:,: 5637 PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL ASSOCIATED September rent 1,869.13 ; 5638 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSN. Payroll 8/31/79 . 7,170.35. ¶639 THOMAS A. & GALE M. MILLER Purchase of Topview Park 500.00 �40 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO. Wine 536.31 5641 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 715:34 5642 OLD PEORIA COMPANY INC. . Wine 596.86 5643 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 636.87 5644 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 9559.30 5645 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR Liquor 1,512.45 5646 POSTMASTER Mailing Sept/Oct. Happenings 428.07 5647 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER Fees for Water, Gas or Liquid storage 15.00 5648 SANDRA STEPHENS Wall Hangings-council chambers 630.00j 5649 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference-Engineering Dept 45.00 5650 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference-Engineering Dept 45.0C' 5651 ADVANCE AMBULANCE & EQUIPMENT First Aid Supplies 67.01 5652 ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY Seal Coat of Eden Prairie Road 52.711.67 5653 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. Interest 242.73 5654 AMERICAN POP CORN COMPANY Pop Corn-Park Dept. 48.25 5655 EARL F. ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Signs 72.00 5656 M.G. ASTLEFORD CO., INC. • Shady Oak Industrial Park 173.358.5C 5657 BLUMBERG PHOTO SOUND CO. Tape Recorder-Fire Dept. 22.50. 5658 RAE 8LY Mileage 30.00 5659 8ROWN.& CRIS, INC. High Trails Estates Utilities 131.992.9E:, 5660 BROWN & CRIS, INC. Trunk Highway 5, W. 78th St. & 181.988.67' Mitchell Road t93.27 5661 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE Supplies-Water Dept. 2.527 5662 CAPITOL ELECTRONICS, INC. Parts-Public Safety P 2.52 63 CASH REGISTER SALES, INC. Equip repair-Liquor Store .952 V664 CHANHASSEN AUTO PARTS, INC. Supplies-Street Dept. 192.6 . 5665 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY Ads-Improvement projects 33.3D 5666 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE, INC. Supplies-Park Dept. 7 .7., 5667 COPY EQUIPMENT INC. Supplies 73.71 5669 5668 CCUTLER-MAGNERROWN RUBBER SCOMPANYTAMP CO� QuicklimeDesk s 2,880.41 ' Yl 1 Page.two ' September 18, 1979 i/0 WARD F. DAHLBERG Mileage 13.20 5671 OECATUR ELECTRONICS, INC. Equipment repair-Public safety 56.79 5672 DORHOLT PRINTING & STATIONERY INC. Supplies _511.55 5673 EDEN PRAIRIE BOOY SHOP Repair of Dodge truck 462.00 5674 EOEN PRAIRIE NEWS Ads 867.60 5675 EOEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT #272 Transportation-Park dept. 348.07 5676 EOEN PRAIRIE SANITATION CO. August Service 22.50 5677 CHRIS ENGER August expense 100.00 5678 FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC. Ferric Sulfate 1,693.50 5679 FIRE CHIEF MAGAZINE Subscription-Fire Oept. 15.00 . 5680 JOHN HENRY FOSTER COMPANY Supplies-Water Oept. 507.40 5681. ;.G.L. CONTRACTING, INC. Repair leak Co. Rd. 4 & State Hwy. 5 1,283.58 5682 THE DALE GREEN CO. Supplies 46.50 5683 GROSS INOUSTRIAL SERVICES Towels-Park Oept 30.80 5684 JACK HACKING Expenses 7.85 5685 HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIRECTOR Welding Gas 453.12 j 5686 HOPKINS PARTS COMPANY Parts-Street Dept 172.85 . 5687 IMPERIAL, INC. Locks-Water Oept 94.71 '' 5688 INGRAM EXCAVATING Eden Prairie Stables 1,45.0000 5689 INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOC Membership dues 5690 MRS. ELAINE M. JACQUES Bryant Lake Trails-hay bales 140.00 5691 ELIZABETH G. JOHNSON Sept/Oct. Happenings 150.00 5692 CARL JULLIE MAMA-DPW Mtg 4.50 ' 5693 KARULF HARDWARE INC. Supplies 251.98 :. J94 KEYS WELL DRILLING CO. Repair Deep Well Lineshaft Turbine 14,663.00 ; Pump 5695 KLEVE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING INC. Repair Furance-Bldg. maintenance 465.760 5696 KRAEMER'S HARDWARE Supplies 65. 6: 5697 ROBERT A. LAMBERT Mileage 0 5698 LANDCO EQUIPMENT INC. Equipment 115.25. .52. 5699 LEEF BROS. INC. Service 4 5700 LONG LAKE FORO TRACTOR Parts mower-Park Oept. 38.63 5701 LOWELL'S AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALISTS Body putty for trucks-Park Dept. 22.40 5702 MARKS STANOARO SERVICE Gas for vehicle-Public works 40.311 5703 MASON PUBLISHING COMPANY Subscription-Public safety 24.001 5704 MATT'S AUTO SERVICE, INC. Towing Service 82.50' 5705 MARCIA MCINTOSH Sept/Oct. Happenings 25.00 5706 MCLE00 CO-OP, POWER ASSN. Poles-Park Oept. 72.00, 5707 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIPMENT CO., INC. Oxygen-Fire Dept. 33.35! 5708 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Sewer services-October 18,094.55'. 5709 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION Blacktop 1.493.22: 5710 MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE CO. Ads 234.00, 5711 MINNESOTA BLUEPRINT Supplies-Engineering dept. 18.40 5712 MINN MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES Dues 25.00,. 5713 YDIO OUT CHECK . 0 .0 5714 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC. Team registration 51 51 5715 MINNESOTA TORO, INC. 94. Blades-Park dept. 44.355. 35.89 89' 5716 MODERN TIRE COMPANY Supplies 1 717 MUNICIPAL & PRIVATE SERVICES. INC. Service 05.45. 18 DENNIS NESBITT Mileage 719 NOOLANO ASSOCIATES, INC. Lake Trail Estates 37.580.0: 5720 NORTHERN CONTRACTING, INC. Round Lake Area Utilities 91.038.1 5721 NORTHERN CONTRACTING COMPANY Storm Sewer & Street Improvements 55.257.54' 5722 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Service 2.648.61 5723 NORTHWESTERN BELL Service 1.836.5r 5724 NORTHWESTERN NATL BANK OF MPLS. Bond Payment 169,890.1, Page three September 18, 1979 5725 NORTHWESTERN PRINTING Printing supplies 5.25 5726 OXBORO LUMBER COMPANY Reroofing City Hall 623.65 5727 OXFORD CHEMICALS INC. Supplies-Street maintenance 58.11 5728 W.G. PEARSON, INC. Sand-Park Dept. 7.91 5729 PENNY'S 425 •• Supplies-Park Dept. 158.50 5730 RAPID COPY, INC. Liquor I.D. Cards 10.4C S731 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC., INC. Service-Norseman Industrial Park 2nd 34,408.67 _ Additions, Round Lake Utilities Phase II, . Shady Oak Industrial Park, Round Lake Estates 2nd additions, Eden Prairie Lake Trail Estates, High Trails Sewer b Water, • Valley View Road, Hustad DeveltpMent,• Staking-Mitchell Lake Estates 5732 ROBERTS DRUG Supplies-Park Dept. 13.86 5733 PAUL ROGERS Discing Grill Farm-Park Dept. 141.75 5734 •SHAKOPEE BAKERY EMS Meeting 2.07 5735 ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY Supplies 102.27 5736 STEWART SANDWICHES Sandwiches-Bryant Lake Concession 291.7E 5737 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET CO. Parts-Equipment Maintenance 8.60 5738 TRW CUSTOMER SERVICE DIV. Supplies 6.0C -: 5739 TRI-STATE TREE SERVICE, INC. Hauling Trees MOO 5740 UNITED STORES Cooking Gear-Park Dept. 129.35 5741 • VAN'S DIRECT Supplies-Park Dept. 14.33 7742 WAHL & WAHL INC. File trays-Engineering 112.5C .,743 ,:.WALDOR PUMP & EQUIPMENT CO., Pump-Sewer Dept .40 `,44 ' RIVER WARREN AGGREGATES INC. Rock-Street Maintenance 573.07 WESCO Lighting-Senior Citizen Center 216.0C 46 - BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING Tests-Redrock Road ......._Ct15.38 47 C. WAYNE ERICKSON INC. Hipp-Mitchell Heights 4th Addition 56,325.65 5748 HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION Board of prisoners 653.50 • TOTAL �1��084