HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/02/1979EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1979
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL STAFF:
7:30 PM, CITY HALL
Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave
Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath
City Manager Roger Ulstad, City Attorney
Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger;
Finance Director John Frane; Director of
Community Services Bob Lambert; Engineer
Carl Jullie; and Joyce Provo, Recording
Secretary
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1979
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Request to set Public Hearing for Michelangelo Gardens PUD for
November 6, 1979
B. Request to set Public Hearing for Hidden Glen POD for November 6
1979
O. Requast to set Public Hearing for Menard 2nd Addition (Crown Auto
Store)for November 6, 1979
O. Request to set Public Hearing for Creekview Estates for November
6 1979
E. Clerk's License List
ORDINANCE NI. 7,-34, REGULATING THE MOVING OF BUILDINGS INTO OR WITHIN
EDEN PRAIRIE
v . METRO PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION - REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE -
MAJOR POLICY ISSUES
Page 2842
Pag2 2862
Page 2863
Page 2864
Page 2865
Page 2866
Page 2867
Page 2893
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Bluff's West 3rd Addition by Hustad Development Corporation. Request Page 2910
to rezone from Rural to R1-13.5 and_preliminary plat 166 single family
homes on 64 acres. Located west of Homeward Hills Road, north of
Bluff's West 2na ana East of B.F.I. Landfill and "A" and "B" zones
of Flying Cloud Airport (Ordinance No. 79-14 - rezoning, and
Resolution No. 79-96 - preliminary plat) Continued Public Hearing
from September 4, 1979
B. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval in the
amount of $1,500,000.00 for Eden Prairie Partners (Resolution
No. 79-17S1 Continued from September 18, 1979
C. Publicyearirn for 1979 Special Assessments (Resolution No. 79-174) Page 2707
Continued from September 18, 1979
D. Request for Municipal Inoustrial Development Bond approval in the Page 2913
amount of 1,200,000.00 for Fred Falk & Robert Murray (Resolution
No. 79-176)
Page 2747
A( Council Agenda - 2 -
L
E. Certification of 1980 City Budget (Resolution No. 79-182)
VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
A. Park Bond Referendum Committee Report
VIII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-33, rezoning Shady Oak Industrial
Park 4th Addition to 1-2 and developer's agreement
B.)Resolution No. 79-178, granting final approval for Municipal
Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of17:250,000.00 for
Uniteo Properties/Northland Mortgage
C. Resolution No. 79-179, agreement with Logis and Optimum Systems,
Inc.
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
I. Authorization to hire codifier
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of birector of Conmunity Services
1. AmenIment to Joint Powers Agreement/Round Lake Park (ballfields)
Continued from 9/18/79
2. Hidden Ponds Park Status Page 2969
3. Historical & Cultural Commission recommendation on Grill House Page 2971
4. Accept bids for ir.-.9rovements at Bryant Lake Park Page 2973
1101‘,
I. Mn. PCA grant program for wastater treatment facilities in
the Rural Service Area
2. Final plat apprpval for Shady Oak Industrial 4th Addition
--(Resolution No. 79-180 -
3. Final _plat approval for Meadow Park (Resolution No. 79-181)
Page 2977
Page 2980
Page 2983
Pave
Page 29,3:)
4. Aftproval of Mitchell Heights Townhouses agreement
F. Report of Finance Director
1. payment of Claims Nos. 5750 - 5889
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT.
Tues.,October 2, 1979
Page 2933
Page 2937
Page 2938
Page 2947
Page 2961
Page 2964
Page 2860
Report of City Engineer
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1979
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT:
INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel
7:30 PM, CITY HALL
Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Dave
Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath
City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney
Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris
Enger; Director of Community Services
Bob Lambert; Finance Director John Frane;
City Engneer Carl Jullie; and Joyce Provo,
Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were moved from the regular agenda to the Consent Calendar:
VI. A. Petition from BanCon, Inc., regarding setback for Neill Lake Condominiums',
VII. A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-23, rezoning approximately 20 acres from
Rural to R1-13.5, Duck Lake Vista by Pierce & Associates, and developer's
agreement; VII. B. Repeal.of Resolution No. 79-103 and adoption of Resolution No.
79-162, final approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount
of 1650,000.00 for Ruben Anderegg; VIII. B. 2. Authorization for representation
in joint negotiations for a contract beginning January, 1980 (Local No. 49);
VIII. B. 3. South Hennepin Human Services Council; and VIII. F. I. Request to
set a Public Hearing for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval for Fred
Falk & Robert Murray in the amount of $1,200,000.00 for October 2, 1979.
The following items were added to the agenda under the "New Business" category:
I. Advertisement for sale of Milkovich House and 2, Discussion on additional
liquor facility.
MOTION: Osterholt moved seconded by Redpath, to approve the agenda as amended
and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1979
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the minutes of the
City Council meeting held Tuesday, August 7, 1979, as published. Motion carried
unanimously.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List (Northwest Cinema Corporation was removed at the
request ofi1a37EFTP-enzel and discussed under Council Members reports)
B. Set Public Hearing for rezoning Shady Oak Industrial Park (First) from 1-5 to
1-2 for October 16, 1979
C. Final plat approval for Shady Oak Industrial Park 2nd (Resolution No. 79-165)
D. Final plat approval for Bryant Lake View Estates (Resolution No. 79-166)
2;.*- .1‘!
Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,September 4, 1979
E. Petition from BanCon, Inc., regardina_setback for Neill Lake Condominiums -
referred to the Board of Appeals & Adjustments as per City Manager's
recommendation (formerly item VI. A.).
F. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-23, rezoning approximately 20 acres from Rural
to R1-13.5, Duck Lake Vista by Pierce & Associates, and developer's agreement
(formerly item VII. A.),
G. Repeal of Resolution No. 79-103 and adoption of Resolution No. 79-162, final
approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $550,000.00
for Ruben-Wderegg (formerly item VII. B.).
H. Authorization for representation in joint negotiations for a contract beginning
'Danuary, 1980 (Local No. 49 - Resolution No, 79-169 (formerly item VIII. B. 1.).
I. South Hennepin Human Services Council (Resolution No. 79-170) - (formerly
item VIII. B. 2.).
J. Request to set a Public Hearing for Municipal Industrial Development Bond
approval for Fred Falk & Robert Murray in the amount of $1,200,000.00 for
October 2, 1979 (formerly item VIII. F. 1.)
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve items A - J on the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Bluff's West 3rd Addition by Hustad Development Corporation. Request to rezone
from Rural to R1-13,5 and preliminary plat 166 single family homes on 84 acres.
Located west of Homeward Hills Road, north of Bluff's West 2nd and East of
B.F.I. Landfill and"A" and "B" zones of Flying Cloud Airport. (Ordinance No.
79-14 - rezoning and Resolution No. 79-96 - preliminary plat) Continued
Public Hearing from 8/21/79
City Manager Ulstad explained at the last regular Council meeting the Council
continued this item to this evening with the thought that the Council wanted to
visit with the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission and suggested the proponents
reevaluate the densities in the area and outline their requests for variances.
Dick Putnam, Hustad Development Corporation, outlined in detail the preliminary
plat dated 6/25/79 and distributed data showing the summary of lot sizes
in Bluff's West 3rd Addition (attached as part of minutes). Putnam commented
it is possible for them to eliminate a lot adjacent to the park on the eastern
side of the development so it would end up with 70-75-80 feet instead of 68 feet
which would not affect the plan, and it also makes the lots a little bit larger
and adds 5 to 10 feet between buildings.
City Planner Enger stated that by removing one or two lots in each of the areas
would considerably loosen up the amount of frontage for the remaining lots
and should drastically reduce the number of lots requiring side yard setback
variances.
Director of Conmiunity Services Lambert presented the water storage plan and
park plan.
Redpath asked for clarification as to whether the right-of-way of "S" Street
would remain 80 feet, if the 50 foot setbacks to it would be foregone, and
if in the future there might be a need for a wider road than currently
contemplated?
Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,September 4, 1979
A, Bluff's West 3rd Addition (continued)
Enger explained the right-of-way could remain 80 feet, the road itself as
contemplated would be 32 feet wide with curb and gutter. Staff had previously
suggested 50 foot setbacks from the right-of-way line. Now because the
volumes on the road will be drastically reduced, staff feels the 30 foot setback
called for in the ordinance will be adequate. Staff feels it would be years,
If ever, before the 32 foot road would have to be widened. There would be an
80 foot right-of-way if the occasion ever arose to widen the road.
Pauly felt that there could be a time when the road would need to be wider and
questioned removing the 50 foot setback requirement.
Osterholt asked what the ultimate plan is for the land that the landfill is
occupying? Jullie replied there was a PUD approval for the entire landfill
site to be developed as industrial, multiple residential and open space.
Jullie commented the developers should be prepared to put in the overflow
structure on Homeward Hills Road as part of their development proposal to insure
the control is there as they start in their improvement work, and it could
also be included in the developer's agreement.
Putnam added he does not see the overflow structure at Homeward Hills Road as
being a significant cost item, The 500 feet of pipe at $35,000 leading from
the 2nd Addition through the park is more of a concern than the overflow
structure.
Pauly noted the removal of some lots on the strip facing the park would loosen
up the area and asked if the developer had settled on a number of how many lots
would be removed. Enger replied they had not settled on a plan of which lot/lots
would come out where.
General discussion took place regarding the removal of lots, changing of setbacks
and the realignment of lots.
Redpath asked if the developer could live with the fact that they wouldn't develop
the northern two cul-de-sacs adjacent to the "A" and "B" zones until the City
could explore the possibility of the Metropolitan Airports Commission purchasing
these lots? Putnam replied that area would be the last of three phases.
Penzel stated he is bothered by the large remaining request for variances.
Suggested that whatever is necessary be done to reduce that number substantially.
Another cahcern that has been expressed repeatedly is the impact of the airport
on the plat, and various alternatives have been offered as to how that might
be treated. Penzel asked how the developer would feel about redesigning the
two northern cul-de-sacs, which would be adjacent to the airport zones, into
lesser density areas, i.e., 22,000 square foot minimums, in order to open
up space and not only respond to the question of aviation noise, but also
respond to the question of air crash safety.
Putnam replied the developer is not at this point feeling the fear of developing
in this part of town because of airplanes crashing into homes. If MAC is
interested in purchasing the property for clear space, the developer has no
control over that, At this point the proponents are operating under what they
understand the City, MAC and the State Aeronautical Board have said the ground
rules are, which stated development could not take place within a mile of the
airport. Putnam further commented if the developer is asked to put in two acre
lots and make it economically feasible with sewer and water, dedicating a park,
paying the cash park fee, the answer is "no", it doesn't make any sense.
Council Minutes - 4 - Tues.,September 4, 1979
A. Bluff's West 3rd Addition (continued)
Osterholt stated he would be in favor of continuing this public hearing until
the Council has a recommendation from the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory
Commission. Further that staff relay to the Advisory Commission the comment
made by Mr. Putnam that the developer would be willing to remove one lot from
the plat and possibly eliminating the point and readjusting the lot lines in
the whole plat.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to continue the Public Hearing
on Bluff's West 3rd Addition to the October 2nd Council meeting, and in the
interim request staff to 1) carry forward to the Metropolitan Airports
Commission their potential acquisition of property around the safety zones,
2) request the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission to meet at the
earliest opportunity to prepare a recommer.dation for the Council, 3) reconsider
50 foot setbacks as the road might be widened in the future, 4) review the
potential development to the west which included some industrial uses, 5) review
the drainage in the park the developer is going to put in and what the cost
will be, and 6)reexamine the degree of variances with the developer. Redpath,
Osterholt, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Edstrom "abstained" for reasons
stated at the beginning of the hearing on August 21, 1979.
B. Valley View Road West of Co. Rd. 4 and Dell Road Improvements, I.C. 51-325
(Resolution No. 79-163)
City Engineer Jullie spoke to the feasibility report, the total scope of the
improvement project, proposed costs, properties affected, and the phasing
schedule as outlined in memo dated August 31, 1979.
Penzel referred to communications received from Philip D. Whitman, Attorney
for the Jarip Corporation, and Geneva Middleton, 9411 Timber Trail, and asked
that same be entered into the records. (Attached as part of minutes)
Redpath asked what if anything can be done to help address the concerns
regarding the lump sum payment due 90 days after the "green acres" designation
is removed.
Jullie replied that was a concern raised by the property owners at a meeting
held a couple of weeks ago, and their expression was a great concern over the
fact that the "green acres" designation is lost on the parcel of ground.
The owners have only 90 days to reimburse the City for all the back payments,
including principle and interest. Jullie suggested the Council may be open to
a consideration of reassessing that past due balance over the remaining
term of the original levy. In most cases the "green acres" designation is
lost because the owners have decided it is time to subdivide or sell their
property and probably have lined up a purchaser who as part of his development
costs includes it in his financing package to pay off that debt. It might be
reasonable for the City to consider reassessing the remaining balance to help
soften that debt.
Paul Skjervold, attorney representing Alfred & Rose Pavelka, referred to letter
he sent on his client's behalf opposing the project (attached as part of
minutes).
The following residents spoke in opposition to the project: Mr. & Mrs.
Gliscinzki, 7152 Ticonderoga, Tom Tupper, 7178 Ticonderoga, Bob Cole, 7160
Park View Lane, Jim Swezcy, 18204 Valley View Road, Gene Romsos, 7138
Ticonderoga, Bruce Anderson, 18200 Valley View Road, Mrs. Nelson, 18129
Valley View Road, Mrs. Brady, 18216 Valley View Road, and Mr. McKewan, 16730
Baywood Terrace.
Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.,September 4, 1979
B. Valley View Road West of Co. Rd. 4 & Dell Road Improvements (continued)
Howard Harvey, Attorney for Anna Picha, requested to go on record in
opposition to the road improvement because it serves no benefit to Mrs. Picha's
property at all. Mrs. Picha's property faces #101 and she has all the
access she needs. Mr. Harvey asked if there is going to be any kind of a
deferment for people like Mrs. Picha as she is in a nursing home at the present
time and they have to plan her resources.
Jullie replied the City has for utilities determined that deferments are
possible and those decisions have been made at the assessment hearings when
final costs are in and recommendations are made in regard to deferments.
Penzel further commented although the property does front on an existing road
of some significance, he would tend to believe a second access would be highly
beneficial and would make it developable which would be a benefit in of itself.
Paul Ratwick, Attorney for the School District, expressed concern that there not
be any delay in the construction of the railroad bridge as they are very
much concerned with the safety of the students and faculty,
Steve Rude, Eden Prairie High School teacher and resident living at 6490
Undestad Street, spoke in opposition to the placement of Valley View Road
as it divides the best outdoor classroom they have - Round Lake, The Biology
Department uses the present lake by the high school for classes, and they
plan to use Round Lake when they move to the new high school.
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing and
adopt Resolution No. 79-163, ordering the preparation of plans and specifications
for Valley View Road & Dell Road (I.C. 51-325), instructing staff to undertake
any review regarding alternative approaches to the project the Council may
find suitable, and to review the possibility of two phases rather than three
as proposed. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Cardinal Creek Phase 2 by Western Construction Company, Inc. Request to rezone
from Rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat 30 acres into 28 single family lots,
Located east of Cardinal Creek, north of Topview Acres, and south and west of
Purgatory Creek (Ordinance No. 79-29 and Resolution No, 79-150
Billy Bye, Western Construction Company, spoke to the plan and the history of
the PULL The proponents have met with City staff and the advisory commissions
ana have received a favorable recommendation. Bye introduced Greg Gustafson,
one of the partners in the firm, Jim Bye, Cardinal Creek & Associates, and
Bruce Knutson and Lyle Folkestad, Bruce Knutson Architects, Inc.
Mr. Folkestad displayed graphics showing the neighborhood framework, site
framework, sections, illustrated site plan and proposed plat, proposed grading
ano proposed utilities.
Planning uirector Enger explained this proposal was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on July 23, 1979 and the Commission on a 4 - 1 vote recommended
approval to the City Council as outlined in minutes.
Director of Community Services Lambert outlined the action taken by the
Parks, Recreation & Oatural Resources Commission on August 6, 1979 and was also
recommended for approval to the Council contingent on the Planning Staff Report
and the Director of Community Services Report. Lambert displayed a map showing
the trail system which was the Commission's main concern.
Council Minutes - 6 - Tues.,September 4, 1979
C. Cardinal Creek Phase 2 (continued)
Osterholt suggested when the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
discusses trails that someone from the Public Safety Department or Mr. Lambert
should discuss the problems of having trails isolated. We either have to find
a way to patrol the trails or find more well traveled areas to put the trails.
General discussion took place regarding the road system. Penzel suggested the
Council might want to consider the recommendation for not allowing the cul-de-sac
to stop short of the subdivision line of Cardinal Creek 2.
Larry Hanson, 1300d Gerard Drive, and Arnold Beckman, 12900 Gerard Drive,
stated they were totally opposed to any extension of Gerard Drive to Cardinal
Creek 2.
John Reedy, 7262 Gordon Drive, commented in a series of meetings with the
Topview people on the Topview park site issue, the question of the Gerard
connection came up. The sentiment was extremely strong against any connection
with Cardinal Creek.
Barbara Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, spoke in favor of a trail entirely around
the dried lake bed.
Edstrom asked if the trail referred to by Mrs. Kaerwer would duplicate the
trails along the cul-de-sac. Lambert replied they would not, as the trails
along the cul-de-sac are hard surfaced trails for the children to u.se to get
to the school system. The trail talked about would be a wood chip trail in the
flood plain, mainly where the children could be in the flood plain, watch birds,
nature, etc. It would be a completely different kind of trail.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to close the Public Rearing and
give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-29, rezoning Cardinal Creek Phase 2 by
Western Construction Company, Inc. from Rural to R1-13.5. Motion carried
unanimously.
Osterholt commented there is a place somewhere along the lots that lie on the
east side of the road that is extended on the long cul-de-sac where a public
easement to the flood plain area could tie into a chip path. Osterholt requested
staff to work out the details where this path could be placed. Bye replied
that would be amenable to the proponents.
Howard Kaerwer stated basically he is interested in the flood plain being used,
and suggested a connection somewhere along one of the easterly lots from the
street down into the flood plain with a trail in the flood plain. Lambert
replied that would be workable.
Bob Haddorff, 12716 Gerard Drive, spoke in favor of a trail through Kaerwer's
as he has three children of elementary age and a trail through Kaerwer's lot
line into the suggested trailway towards Forest Hills would be an ideal
situation for his family.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 79-158,
approving thi2 preliminary plat for Cardinal Creek Phase 2 by Western Construction
Company, Inc., with the inclusion in the final plat of the easement along
lot lines of the lots on the easterly side of the long cul-de-sac down into
flood plain which will permit a connection to a trailway in the flood plain to
the Kaerwer's property. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Minutes - 7 - Tues.,September 4, 1979
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue the Council meeting past the
11:30 PM scheduled adjournment time. Motion carried unanimously.
D. LeParcly# Jay Kohlrusch. Request to rezone from Rural to 1-2 and preliminary
plat 35 acres for an industrial park and EAW approval. Located north of
Valley View Road and proposed Briarfield Estates, and south of Shady Oak
Industrial Park 2nd Addition. (Ordinance No. 79-31, rezoning,
Resolution No. 79-160 - preliminary plat. and Resolution No. 79-161 - EAW)
Wally Odell spoke on behalf of the Swendseen's, the fee owners,commenting
this is the last parcel of land they have remaining. The Swendseen's have
entered into a purchase agreement with Mr. Phillips of Jay Kohlrusch to sell
their remaining lands. Mr. Odell spoke to the proposal.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing
and give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-31, rezoning from Rural to 1-2
for LeParc by Jay Kohlrusch. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 79-160,
approving the preliminary plat of 35 acres for LeParc by Jay Kohlrusch. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 79-161,
finding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet on LeParc does not require an
Environmental Impact Statement. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct staff to draft
a developer's agreement incorporating the recommendations of the commissions
and staff. Motion carried unanimously.
E. Mitchell Heights by Ryco Development, Inc. Request for PUD Concept approval
and preliminary plat of 94 attached residential units on 15 acres zones
RM 2.5. Located east of Mitchell Road and north of Atherton Townhouses.
(Resolution No. 79-159)
Mr. Donald Gild, Ryco Development, Inc., spoke to the proposal. Bill Dolan,
Koehnlein, Lightowler, Johnson, Inc, displayed graphics with changes the
Planning Commission recommended and which the proponents have agreed to.
Mr. Dolan, along with Mr.Gild , answered questions of Council members.
City Planner [flyer explained this item was reviewed at the July 23 and August
13th Planning Commission, and was recommended for approval to the Council.
A recommendation was made by Staff and the commission that Phase 2 not proceed
until Anderson Lakes Parkway is ordered in.
Osterholt stated he would like to see a graphic on how the roads fit together.
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing and
approve the PUD Concept for Mitchell Heights by Ryco Development, Inc. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-159,
approving the preliminary plat for Mitchell Heights by Ryco Development, Inc.,
with the understanding the concern of Anderson Lakes Parkway be resolved.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct staff to draft a
developer's agreement incorporating the reconnendations of the commissions
and staff. Motion carried unanimously.
'Yid!
Council Minutes - 8 - Tues.,September 4, 1979
V. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
No reports.
VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Petition from BanCon, Inc., regarding setback for Neill Lake Condominiums
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. E.).
VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-23, rezoning approximately 20 acres from Rural
to R1-13.5, Duck Lake Vista by Pierce & Associates, and developer's agreement
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. F.).
B. Repeal of Resolution No. 79-103 and adoption of Resolution No. 79-162, final
approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of
$550,000.00 for Ruben Andere99
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. G.).
VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
I. Councilwoman Pauly explained she is going to appear before the
School Board on the Highway #2I2 alignment,
2. Councilman Redpath reported on two items: a) Cable TV and b) his
meeting with Cliff French of the Hennepin County Park Reserve
District
3. Mayor Penzel spoke to two items:
a) his request that Northwest Cinema be removed from the Clerk's
License List, and that staff be directed to check to make sure
the requirements of the license are met, and
b) the County's Planning Task Force which recommended that the Crosstown
not be delayed but dropped from the five-year capital improvement
plan. Penzel outlined Minnetonka's request that Eden Prairie support
them for the construction of the Crosstown and commented he felt there
would be benefit for Eden Prairie to have the road extended but
commented personally it would be better to have it on the plan rather
than on the construction schedule.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No.
79-177, supporting the City of Minnetonka's request to keep the Crosstown
extension to Highway #494 on the five-year capital improvement program.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Rep_ort of City Manager
I. Proposed Draft of 1980 Budget
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to receive the proposed draft
of the 1980 Budget and set Thursday, September 13, 8:00 PM, to review same.
Motion carried unanimously.
Council Minutes - 9- Tues.,September 4, 1979
2. Authorization for representation in Joint negotiations for a contract
beyinning January, 1980 Local No. 49 .17- Resolution No, 79-169
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III, H.)
3. South Hennepin Human Services Council (Resolution No. 79-170)
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. I.)
4. Discussion on revising hunting zones, amending Ordinance No. 337 -
Firearm's Ordinance
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to release to the press
action is being considered to reduce the hunting zones, with the exception
of the Eames property, and that this item be referred to the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission for a recommendation and back
to the Council on September 18th. Motion carried unanimously.
Mike Eames, 17345 W. 78th Street, asked if the Council would allow guests
to hunt on his property. Council had no objection to his request.
Mrs. Eames commented they have never had anybody hunt on their property
without permission.
5. Open House
City Manager Ulstad suggested the date of October 13th from 9:00 AM
to 12:00 Noon for an open house at City Hall and the Fire Stations,
Council members concurred with Mr, Ulstad's suggestion.
C. Report of City Attorney
1. Building moving ordinance
Pauly explained he is in the process of drafting an amendment to the building
moving ordinance and during the course of review and work in that area, he
found that the Legislature enacted a law during the last legislative session
which came into effect August 1st providing for licensing of building movers by 1
the State. Our ordinance is broad enough to include movers and also any person
who would own such a house. The State regulation provides that the State Law
is to be exclusive as to bonds, insurance coverage, etc., and leaves it up
to the City to permit regulation of hours, routes and movement, etc.
Pauly stated he talked to two people in the Attorney General's office who
represent the Public Service Commission and the Department of Transportation,
plus another individual from the department, as to whether or not they had
enacted any regulations to implement the State law. To-date they have not
even thought about it and they haven't even issued a license.
Pauly commented he will be submitting the amendment to the Planning Commission
and that when the State regulations are adopted we will have to review our
ordinance again, which may not be for several months.
D. Rcport of Director of Cummunity Services
I. Topview Park Purchase Agreement
City Manager Ulstad explained Mr. Miller was not willing to agree to an
option for 6 months which the Council directed Staff to pursue. Staff's
recamnendation is to enter into the Purchase Agreement for $40,000,
using Cash Park Fees for the acquisition of this parcel and including
Tit!)
Council Minutes - 10 - Tues.,September 4, 1979
I. Topview Park Purchase Agreement (continued)
development costs in the proposed Park Bond Referendum. Further that the
City Attorney review the legal question of including the acquisition costs
of this park within the bond referendum so the Cash Park Fee Fund could
be reimbursed if a bond referendum was successful.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to authorize Staff to
enter into a purchase agreement with Mr. Tom Miller in the amount of
$40,000 for his parcel to be used for the Topview Mini-Park. Roll
Call Vote: Osterholt, Edstrom, Pauly, Redpath and Penzel voted "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
E. Report of City Engineer
1. Consider bids for utility and street improvements for Chatham Wood,
I. C. 51-343 (Resolution No. 79-164)
City Engineer Jullie recommended awarding the bid to Nodland Assoc.
in the amount of $776,429.50, subject to receipt of written approval
from the actual fee owners that they understand these costs and will
accept the assessments.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No.
79-164, awarding the bid to Nodland Assoc. in the amount of $776,429.50
for utility and street improvements for Chatham Wood, I.C. 51-343,
subject to receipt of written approval from the actual fee owners that
they understand the costs and will accept the assessments. Roll Call Vote:
Osterholt, Edstrom, Pauly, Redpath and Penzel voted "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Status report on Dell Road, I.C. 51-326
City Engineer Jullie referred to his memo dated August 31st and communication
from BRW dated August 29th, recommending the Council direct staff to
renegotiate the alignment of Dell Road to avoid the soils problems..
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to direct staff to renegotiate
the alignment of Dell Road as outlined on page 2 of the letter from
Mr. Gardner of BRW dated August 29, 1979. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Status report on Crosstown extension
This item was covered under item VIII. A. 3. b).
F. Report of Finance Director
1. Request to set a Public Hearing for Municipal Industrial Development Bond
approval for Fred Falk & Robert Murray in the amount of $1,200,000.00 for
.9SA09.., 1979.
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. J.)
2. Payment of Claims Nos. 5472 - 5624
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve Payment of Claims
Nos. 5472 - 5624. Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Redpath, Edstrom and Penzel
voted "aye", Pauly "abstained". Motion carried.
Council Minutes - 11 - Tues.,September 4, 1979
IX. NEW BUSINESS
1. Advertisement for sale of Milkovich House
City Manager Ulstad referred to memo from Director of Community Services
Lambert requesting Council's permission to advertise for the sale and removal
of the Milkovich house in Anderson Lakes Park.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to authorize staff to advertise
for the sale and removal of the Milkovich house in Anderson Lakes Park
as per staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Discussion on additional liquor facility
City Manager Ulstad stated he has a letter from BarMil Search Corporation
requesting the City Council consider a 2nd liquor facility in Eden Prairie.
Ulstad requested that this item be continued to the September 18th Council
meeting and that a representative from BarMil Search Corporation be invited
to attend the meeting outlining their request.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue discussion on
an additional facility to September 18th at which time a representative
from BarMil Search Corporation be invited to make a presentation. Motion
carried unanimously.
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adjourn the Council meeting at
1:25 AM. Motion carried unanimously.
2 Ka
Sept. 5, 1979
Mayor Penzel
Council Members: Pauly, Osterholt, Redpath, Edstrom
As I am unable to attend the meeting tonight because of professional responsi-
bilities, I would ask that this letter be read.
The siting of the extension of Valley View Road concerns me for many reasons.
Public school buildings of any level should not be located on heavily traffiied
thoroughfares for the obvious reasons of health and safety of the students.
Many conditions have been agreed to, pedestrianwalkways, some form of signalling,
but lessons should be learned from surrounding districts, Eisenhower H.S. in
Hopkins and Edina East have been limited because of increasing traffic and re-
sulting expansion, noise and safety hazards.
it The advantages of constructing a high school next to a lake and wooded area, both
for visual aesthetics and for educational programs are lessened when berming,
plantings, and channeling of students onto two walkways are the first considera-
tion in determining landscaping or use.
The main advantage of this siting plan, we have been told, is the lessened cost of
a direct route. These lessened costs certainly have been increased by the condi-
tions agreed to: fencing, banning, landscaping, walkways, signalling, condemna-
tion of private lands, etc.
The main thrust for this road was the need to carry traffic on an east-west col-
lector road. With the finalization of 62nd Crosstown plans and the routing of that
road just a few blocks north which will solve many of the morning and evening,
east-west traffic problems, and the problems of extending this new road east or
west because of the problems with the railroad and existing development, it seems
that the extension would be build to serve mainly the school. The City doesn't
build roads to serve schools and when they were involved in the past as in Wallace
e
Pad, there were problems for the City and the school in use and limits.
Lastly, there is the problem of the protection of Round Lake and its surrounding
environment. The road will be dangerously close to our main and really only,
recreational resources. My concern is for the pollution that could occur during
construction, the continued noise, air and run off pollution caused by use and
any future expansion, and limit a tions in use by certain age children because of
traffic.
Please consider the priorities of the young people of Eden Prairie, their parents,
the environment and all of (is Who moved to Eden Prairie because of the chance to
be involved in planning .a community which considers those things more important
than asphhlt and concrete.
Sincerely,
'-fret -e•Vt
' Geneva Middleton
9411 Timber Trail
Eden Prairie, Mn.
PHILIP D. WHITMAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
220 =ACROSS ROAD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55422
TELEPHONE 545-4148
September 3, 1979
City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN. 55343
Gentlemen:
Re: Public Works Improvements
I.C. 51-325 in Section 7 and
Section 8 : T. 116, R. 22
The following comments relating to the proposed improvements are
made in response to the invitation therefor contained in the Notice
of Hearing on the above captioned improvements published by the
City of Eden Prairie.
These comments are made in behalf of Jarip Corporation as developer
and are limited to proposed construction in the development known
as Maple Leaf Acres. References to a Report or to the Report refer
to the City of Eden Prairie FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR VALLEY VIEW ROAD
EXTENSION, I. C. 51-325. For the purpose of convenience, reference
will also be made from time to time herein to PHASE A, PHASE B, and
so on through PHASE H. Such references are to Maple Leaf Acres
Phasing Plan filed with the City, a copy of which is attached to
Rezoning Agreement dated the 11th day of November, 1977, between the
City and Jarip Corporation.
FIRST COMMENT
The FEASIBILITY REPORT, Page 12, refers to the Construction of Valley
View Road in Maple Leaf Acres and that portion of Dell Road beginning
200 feet South of Duck Lake Trail and continuing South into the
Hidden Ponds Addition. Our concern here is limited to the portions
of such construction coming within the boundaries of Maple Leaf
Acres. This construction is included in PHASE TWO (see Page 12 of
of the Report). The PROJECT SCHEDULE shown in the Report following
the page containing the Notice of Hearing contemplates the awarding
of the contracts February 5, 1980, and completion of the improvement
October 1, 1980. Reference to the PHASING PLAN shows that the road
construction contemplated falls in PHASE G.
Maple Leaf Acres is being developed in an orderly manner in phases
conforming to recommendation of the City with a specific purpose
for the development in the alphabetical order of the PHASING PLAN.
With the exception of PHASE H, which is not included in the Report,
it will be observed that FEASi: G is the last area to be developed.
In the development of PHASE G, a substantial amount of earth must
be removed from the hill area in Block 1. Such excess dirt will be
moved from Block 1 for fill in PHASE D. The transfer of such earth
will be made through the use of scrapers which will be required to
cross Valley View Road and travel along Dell Road to PHASE D. The
operation of the scrapers across Valley View Road and along Dell
Road could be very detrimental to such road and should be done before
the roads are completed. It is therefore our recommendation that
To City Council, Eden Prairie, P. 2 September 3, 1979
the proposed improvement of Valley View Road and Dell Road, within
the boundaries of Maple Leaf Acres, be deferred one year to 1981.
SECOND =ENT
Phase 2 of the Report includes plans for drainage and utility con-
struction. With respect to the SANITARY SEWER PROJECT, shown on
FIGURE VI, attached to the Report, it appears that the portion
planned for construction in Maple Leaf Acres extends from the south
boundary line of Maple Leaf Acres along Dell Road to Valley View
Road and then along Valley View Road on each side of Dell Road. As
we read such Report, we find no reference to sanitary sewer work
proposed for Maple Leaf Acres Addition. The preliminary assessment
roll, shown in the Report, indicates an assessment estimated to be
$19,000, which would appear to be for the cost of the sanitary project
along Dell Road and Valley View Road in Maple Leaf Acres. The con-
struction of such proposed sanitary sewer mould serve no purpose in
so far as Maple Leaf Acres property is concerned, and no property
owners therein would be benefitted. Developer's position therefore
is that if such implied construction is to be completed, the cost
thereof must not be assessed against the property owners in Maple
Leaf Acres.
The developer of Maple Leaf Acres has already installed sanitary
sewer lines in the portion of Maple Leaf Acres lying west of Dell
Road and east of Hidden Ponds and will have such installation com-
pleted to Valley View Road by November 1, 1979. This installation
runs in a north-south direction through PHASE E of the Maple Leaf
Acres PHASING PLAN. When Block 1 of PEASE G is ready for development,
the sanitary sewer will be extended beyond Valley View Road to
service the property in Block 1. The developer will also be
installing a sanitary sewer line through PHASE D and PHASE F of the
PHASING PLAN, and PHASE G of the Maple Leaf Acres will be serviced by
such sanitary sewer line.
THIRD COIMNT
Phase 2 also includes proposals for construction for drainage pur-
poses. The proposed drainage facilities are discussed on Pages 8 and
9. Such discussion contains no reference to Maple Leaf Acres;
however, FIGURE V MAIMAGE, attached to the Report, indicates pro-
vision for storm sewer along Dell Road to Valley View Road and
then along Valley View Road on either side of Dell Road.
The existing storm sewer in Maple Leaf Acres has been installed by
the developer, and the developer desires to continue with that work
and therefore recommends that it be excluded from the proposal or
that its construction be negotiated with the developer.
To City Council, Eden Prairie, P. 3 September 3, 1979
FOURTH cm=
Another portion of Phase 2 is with respect to the installation of
certain watermains. The discussion is on P. 10, but refers to
Figure VII.to indicate the location of the proposed mains. Figure VII
shows a proposed watermain extending along Valley View Road from the
south border of Maple Leaf Acres to the west border thereof. Such
portion of the proposed watermain is unnecessary and serves no pur-
pose in so far as Maple Leaf Acres is concerned. What we have
previously said concerning the installation of the sanitary sewer
lines in Maple Leaf Acres applies as well to the proposed waternain.
Developer has installed watermain lines in Maple Leaf Acres and
proposes to continue with such installation along with the sanitary
sewer lines as presently scheduled. We note from the PRELIMINARY
ASS'Z3T-11,2;T ROLL that the assessment against Maple Leaf Acres property
affected by the proposed lateral watereain amounts to $42,700 plus.
On Page 15 of the Report, under the heading Lateral Sewer and :later
Assessments, it is stated "Where the cost of the facilities can be
directly related to benefits, such as in Maple Leaf Acres Addition,
the estimated project cost has been spread evenly over the bane-
fitted parcels." It is the position of developer that there is no
benefit to the Maple Leaf Acres property for the proposed extension
of the watermain along Valley View Road. Thus, the 4;42,700 of
proposed lateral watermain assessment and the $19,000 of proposed
lateral sewer assessment would be improper assessments against the
Maple Leaf Acres Addition.
FIFTH COM,'.MIT
On Page 16 of the Report, under the subject of Street Assessment, it
is stated that "A reduced rate of 20.98 is proposed for certain
properties in the Maple Leaf Addition * * * to reflect a credit for
work done by the developer to install a short piece of Dell Road and
a new connection to Duck Lake Trail." We question the accuracy of
this figure and suggest that the matter be reviewed with the City
and Hedlund Engineering Services, Inc.
The PRELIMINARY AS3ESS117141 ROLL indicates that Maple Leaf Acres
would have 4,625 feet subject to the street improvement assessment,
which, at e20.98, would amount to :597,032. January 24, 1979,
Hedlund 'engineering Services, Inc., informed Jarip Corporation, the
developer, of the breakdown of costs attributed to the Dell Road
portion of the Dell Road Improvement Construction, which included
grading and curb work for the new connection of Duck Lake Trail to
the east with Dell Road. The total amount thereof was :76,591. It
was the understanding of J arip Corporation that the total cost
of the improvement was estimated to be a!10,C00. Reducing that
amount by the amount of 06,591 would leave a balance of $63,4c9
rather than ::,97,032. I believe that there are other credits due
Jarip Corporation for additional work performed by it which would
further reduce the amunt of the street improvement assessment. This
appears to be something that should be further reviewed by the City,
Jarip Corporation, and Hedlund Engineering Services.
eelre,trulern .: : ‘ 71 ccs Jarip Corporation
PPU:DW
LAW OrrIcES Or
PAUL A.. SmamitvoLD
SUITE WOO °AIN TOWER
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
orr,EL 333-5/s03
ausmENCE 414.0009
August 29, 1979
MS. Kathy Hermann
Deputy City Clerk
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Proposed assessment of
Rose and Alfred Pavelka
Improvement Contract No. 51-325
Dear Ms. Hermann:
This letter is for the purpose of informing you that I
have been retained to represent Rose and Alfred Pavelka in regard
to the above. They have provided me with a copy of the Prelimi-
nary Assessment Roll.
From my discussion with the Pavelka's and my inspection of
their property, it would appear that the proposed assessments
far exceed the special benefits to the property measured by the
difference in market value before and after. Indeed, the so called
street improvements for which an assessment of some $65,000.00
is proposed, may well prove to be a damage rather than a benefit.
Please make this letter part of the record so as to show
the Pavelka's objection to the proposed assessments.
/19 y truly yours,
PAUL A. SKJE
PAS/vas
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Pavelka
Auuust 31, 1979
G1uffs West 3rd Addition
RCM Project !81032
Lot Size Smmitary
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 - 20,400
2 - 13,500
3 - 13,125
4 - 11,625
5 - 10,500
6 - 10,500
7 - 10,500
8 - 11,100
9 - 11,625
10 - 11,375
BLOCK .?
Lot 1 - 14,381
2 - 13,500
BLOCK 3
Lot 1 - 13,875
2 - 14,000
3 - 19,294
4 - 14,625
5 - 19,906
6 - 13,500
BLOCK 4
Lot 1 - 14,625
2 - 15,000
3 - 23,269
4 - 16,313
5 - 13,750
6 - 16,450
BLOCK 5
Lot 1 - 15,888
2 - 12,000
3 - 14,163
BLOCK 6
Lot 1 - 16,863
2 - 14,625
11 - 13,825
12 - 15,235
13 - 21,775
14 - 17,212
15 - 13,500
16 - 16,818
17 - 18,900
18 - 17,675
19 - 11,000
20 - 14,737
3 - 10,625
4 - 10,625
7 - 19,143
8 - 18,900
9 - 15,631
10 - 15,000
11 - 15,000
12 - 15,375
7 - 17,184
8 - 12,675
9 - )1,263
10 - 13,050
11 - 15,600
12 - 15,288
4 - 12,800
5 - 13,628
3 - 15,366
4 - 15,200
21 - 24,350
22 - 16,800
23 - 19,987
24 - 16,150
25 - 17,719
26 - 25,312
27 - 14,400
28 - 18.212
29 - 30,420
30 - 23,850
5 - 13,750
6 - 15,375
13 - 15,000
14 - 15,000
15 - 11,653
16 - 11,238
17 - 12,488
13 - 12,000
13 - 15,119
14 - 17,169
15 - 20,982
16 - 18,275
17 - 15,514
18 - 15,500
6 - 12,029
7 - 14,250
31 - 16,362
32 - 12,360
33 - 11,437
34 - 11,000
35 - 10,200
36- "
37 - I t
33 -
39 - If
40 -
19 - 12,000
20 - 12,000
21 - 12,000
22 - 12,000
23 - 12,000
74 - 16,875
19 - 15,500
20 - 15,500
21 - 15,750
22 - 17,250
73 - 17,500
24 - 16,750
41 - 10,350
42 - 11,700
43 - 10,200
44 - 10,500
45 - 10,500
46 - 10,570
47 - 10,920
48 - 14,400
49 - 13,500
50 - 19,635
25 - 16,250 31 - 17,738
26 - 21,900 32 - 20,100
27 - 26,250 33 - 16,594
28 - 16,981 34 - 15,174
29 - 12,000 35 - 13,500
30 - 13,581 36 - 16,875
BI .00K 7
Lot 1 - 16,803 5 - 9,600
2 - 9,000 6 - 9,330
3 - 9,779 7 - 9,219
4 - 9,540 8 - 8,500
9 - 8,043
10 -
11 11,5))o
1? - 10,656
13 - 11,509
14 - 13,500
15 - 15,593
16 - 17,038
BLOCK 4
Lot 1 - 16,000
3 - 12,600
5 - 18,120
7 - 17,690
2 - 16,419
4 - 13,000
6 - 12,000 - 27,056
BLOCK 9
Lot 1 - 14,641 6 - 14,013 11 - 10,600
2 - 14,687 7 - 12,400 12 - 10,150
3 - 10,500 8 - 11,000 13 - +0,745
4 - 11,813 9 - 10.080 14 - 10,920
5 - 11,664 10 - 10,000 15 - 12,962
SUMMARY
Lots Greater than 13,500 = 96
Lots Less than 13,500
Lots 20,000 or Larger
" 19,000
" 18,000 "
" 17,000 "
" 16,000 "
" 15,000 "
" 14,000 "
13,000 "
" 12,000 "
" 11,000 "
" 10,000
Lots Less than 10,000
= 70 11,10
= 11
= 5
= 5
= 10
= 16
= 22
= 14
= 17
= 17
16
= 25
. 8
dot
**
BLOCK 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Less than 10 Total
1 5 2 2 3 4 1 4 5 1 8 15 50
2 1 1 2 2 6
3 3 1 1 6 2 2 7 2 24
4 5 1 5 7 10 1 4 2 1 36
5 1 2 1 3 7
6 1 2 1 4
7 1 1 1 2 2 1 8 16
8 1 1 1 2 1 2 8
9 3 2 3 7 15
Total 11 5 5 10 16 22 14 17 17 16 25 8 166
** In Thousands
1
" errliorlcor/4-t
September 27, 1979
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Edon Prairie, Minnesota 55143 -
Attention: Mt. Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Gentlemen:
At the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, September 24, 1979,
concept approval was given to a planned unit development called
Michelangelo Gardens. This is a condominium project being
developed by Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc., who at this time requests
a date presentation to the City Council and a public hearing for
concept approval.
Sincerely,
REKBRAN'DT ENTERPRISES, INC.
)(,2411;41 779-4:424,
David T. Field
Real Estate Division
DTF/dl
cc: Mrs. Cheryl Zitzlsperger
F
REMBRANDT ENTERPRISES, INC. 3434 HERITAGE OWE • EDINA. MINNESOTA 55435 • (512) 920.9145
' )..
N, IN
05hald L. Hess, ar.
President
ra.n RIM
EP 21 V2t,79
September 26, 1979
Mr. Roger Ulstad
City Manager -
•City Offices
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
RE: HIDDEN GLEN CONCEPT APPROVAL
Dear Mr. Ulstad:
Please regard this letter in behalf of my client, Zachman
.Homes, Inc., as their formal request of the council to
establish a public hearing date of November 6, 1979 re-
garding P.U.D. Concept Stage Approval for Hidden Glen.
It_is also my client's intent, by this letter, to grant
to the City of Eden Prairie the right of access to the
property to install public notice signage upon the site.
Respectfully requested,
DLH :pmc
)
D fr7 enr,
7 Iila:d q!1 I D ] h7
401 Townes Road Wes/taw, MN 65391 473.0T11
THE LETTER REQUESTING A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR
MENARD 2ND ADDITION DID NOT ARRIVE ON FRIDAY. IT IS EXPECTED
TO ARRIVE ON MONDAY. THE PROPONENTS WISH TO HAVE A PUBLIC
HEARING SCHEDULED FOR NOV. 6, 1979.
p?Y6
MERILA-HANSEN, INC.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS
1601 — 67th Avenue North • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 • 612/550.2660
13907 Spring Lake Road • Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 • 612/938.5678
September 24, 1979
Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55343
Attn: Chris Enger, City Planner
Re: Creekview Estates Preliminary Plat
Dear Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council:
We 'respectfully request that the preliminary plat, CREEKVIEW
ESTATES, be placed on the November 6, 1979 City Council meeting
agenda for a public hearing and council approval. The owners/
developers are Mr. Larry Heinen and Mr. James Burnett.
Sincerely yours .,
stie/ T1184/
Steven Pellinen
SP:ml
Merila-Hansen, Inc.
cc: Mr. Larry Heinen
Mr. James Burnett
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
October 2, 1979
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.)
Cleary Agency, Inc.
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY)
0. Carlson Construction Co.
GAS FITTER
Gordon C. Carlson Co.
PLUMBING
Denny's Plumbing
Jim's Plumbing Service
Northern Plumbing Inc.
Northland Mechanical Contractors
RETAIL CANDY
PDQ Food Store
3.2 BEER OFF SALE
PDQ Food Store
These licenses have been approved by the department head responsible
for the licensed activity.
6 14, •‘gOillb
Cindy ante, Licensing Clerk .2W;(0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Roger A. Pauly, City Attorney
DATE: September 27, 1979
RE: Revisions of Proposed Amendments to Ordinance 176
1. Section 1, in its original form, excepted from
the permit requirement, the movement of buildings from and
to points outside the city on or over streets or roads other
than those of the city. Citizens have requested the exception
be revised to include additional criteria.
(a) That a permit has been issued by either the State
of Minnesota or Hennepin County. This has been incorporated
in the revision;
(b) That the building be moved within and out of the
city within seven days; and
(c) That the building be transported only between the
hours of 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.
No revision has been made with reference to (b) and (c) since
state law does not appear to permit such a condition. M.S.A.
§160, Subd. 2 provides in part:
"When a permit is granted by the commissioner
for the moving of buildings or structures
exclusively on trunk highways no other permit
shall be required from any political subdivision
of the state for the moving of such buildings or
structures on such trunk highways. When a permit
is granted by the county board or county
engineer for the moving of buildings or structures
exclusively on highways under the jurisdiction
of the county board no other permit shall be
required from any political subdivision for
moving such buildings or structures on such county
highways."
2. Section 2, has been amended in the following
respects:
(a) A new subdivision (h) requiring the submission
of photographs has been added.
(b) A new subdivision (i) in two alternate forms is
included. See memorandum concerning the validity of land
owner consent.
(c) Cash deposit in subdivision (e) has been revised
to $1,000 and the permit fee has been revised to $250.
3. Section 3(a)(i), contains exceptions.
4. Section 4(a) has been completed and revised to give
notice to land owners within 500 feet and provides for 30 days
posted notice.
5. To section 5(g) there has been added a provision
relating to buildings of ten years older than the oldest
surrounding buildings.
6. To section 6(b) there has been added notification to
the Department of Public Safety of a move at least 24 hours
prior to commencement.
7. Section 6(e) provides that a mover may not park a
building on a city street at any time during the moving
process.
8. There has been added section 6(k) to require
additional safety measures to be taken.
9. Section 9 has been revised to permit citizens to
petition the council which may elect to review a decision of
the board.
10. Section 10, Separability, is new.
Changes in the previous draft appear in larger print.
Attached are copies of M.S.S160.26 and Chapter 111, Laws
1979. In view of the adoption of the latter earlier this
year, further revision of Ordinance 176 is anticipated upon
adoption by the State Department of Transportation of
implementing rules and regulations.
Also attached is a memorandum dated September 26, 1979
containing the results of a survey of experiences in other
communities.
Finally, there is enclosed my memorandum regarding the
validity of a consent provision.
-2-
,Z,101
4kNNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
REV. REVISED 9/27/79
ORDINANCE NO. REV.
176, ADOPTED JULY 25, 1972
THE MOVING OF BUILDINGS AND
AMENDING ORUINANCE NO.
`•\.9-1,:.ss i.5. "AN ORDINANCE REGULATING
0 A PENALTY"
,4)
The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie does
ordain as follows:
hereby
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 Reauired.
(a) Except as provided in Section 1(b) hereafter,
no person shall move, remove, raise or hold up any b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
within the limits of the City of Eden Prairie ("City
"
)
,
without first obtaining a permit from the City. Per
s
o
n
a
s
used herein shall include, but not be limited to, th
e
o
w
n
e
r
and mover of any such building.
(b) No permit shall be required for the movement of
any building through the City under all of the follow
i
n
g
circumstances:
(i) The building is being moved from and
to points outside the City, (ii) the building is
being moved on or over streets or roads not
under the jurisdiction of the City, and (iii)
if the building is being moved on a state trunk
highway, a permit has been granted therefor by
the Minnesota Commissioner of Highways, or if the
building is being moved on a highway under the
jurisdiction of the Hennepin County Board, a permit
has been granted therefor by the Hennepin County
Board or County Engineer.
-1-
Section 2. Application. A person seeking issuance of a
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
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-
vents 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.
(d) A liability insurance policy or certificate of
such insurance issued by an insurance company authorized to do
business in the State of Minnesota. The policy shall insure the
applicant and the City as an insured in the sum of at least
$ 25,000 for injury to one person, and $50,000 for one accident,
and at least $25,000 property damage, and the policy shall be
kept in effect until after the building has been moved.
(e) A cash deposit in the sum of $ 1,000.00as an
S.
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.
-2-
(f) Payment of a fee in the amount of $250.00 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 la
n
d
:
to which the building is to be moved, including the location of
the building in relation to the boundaries of the land.
(h) If the building is to be located within the City, after its
movement, photographs of, (i) two or more views of the buildi
n
g
t
o
be moved, (ii) the lot on whim the building is to be
located, and (iii) the lands, and structures thereon,
adjacent to the lot on which the building is to be located.
(i) If the building is to be located within the City
after its movement,
Alternate 1:
The written approval of at least 75 percent
of the owners of land within a radius of 500
feet of the land upon which the building is to
be located.
Alternate 2:
The written approval of the owners of 4/5 of the
land adjoining the land upon which the building
is to be located and the land abutting and
immediately across any street upon which
the land to which the building is to be located
abuts.
Section 3. Duties of the Building Official.
(a) Inspection. Upon receipt of the application
accompanied 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
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
Official shall
(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, except Subdivision (f)
or (g), or if he does not so find, authorize issuance of
a permit or
(ii) in all other instances, make his report to
the Board of Appeals and Adjustments ("Board").
Section 4. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - Public
Bearing:
(a) In those instances in which applicant requests
the moving of a building to a location within the City, the
Board shall hold a public hearing on whether a permit shall
be issued not later than 60 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 the official newspaper of the city and by mailing to the
owners of real property situated within 500 feet of the land to
which the building is to be moved at least ten days prior to
the date of the hearing. Notice containing the same information
shall be posted on the property to which the building is to
be moved, not less than 30 days 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.
-4-
(b) Not later than 5 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:
(a) applicant has not complied with any requirement
imposed pursuant to Section 2 hereof;
(b) . persons or property in the City would be endangered
by movement of the building, because it is too large or for any
other reason;
(c) 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.koperty in the City;
• (d) 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;
(e) the equipment for moving the building is unsafe
and persons or property would be endangered by its use;
(f) the building or its use would not be in compliance
with zoning, building or other ordinances ofthe City, if
the location to which the building is to be moved is in the City;
(g) 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. If the building to be
moved is more than ten years older than the oldest building
-5-
Y/') 5
situated on the lands abutting the land to which the building
is to be moved, such fact shall be evidence that the building
to be moved is in substantial variance.
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 us t in the
Permit.
U4 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
Official and notify the Department of Public Safety at
least 24 hours prior to commencing movement of the building.
(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
occuxstd.
(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,
'novement or removal of the building. warning lights with open
flames shall not be used.
(e) No Parking. Not park the building on any
City street at anytime during the moving process.
-6-
34/fiti
(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 mov
e
m
e
n
t
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 build
i
n
g
site, if within, the City, so that the premises are left in a saf
e
and sanitary condition. All...foundation.structures, sh0,11
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
o
f
f
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 remodel
i
n
g
,
additions or repairs as indicated in the application, in any docum
e
n
t
filed in support thereof, or in any building permit issued in c
o
n
n
e
c
-
tion:herewith.
(k) Take all reasonable precautions to secure the
building and to reduce danger to any member of the public until
the building is set on its foundation and any remodeling,
additions or repairs, described in the application, have been
completed, including but not limited to, (i) locking all doors
and windows; (ii) providing sufficient support or bracing so
as to stabilize the building to prevent it or any part thereof
from sliding, slipping, falling or moving; and (iii) erecting and
maintaining a security fence or wall the base of which shall
-7-
be no higher than four (4) inches, and the top of which shall
be at least four (4) feet, above the surface of the ground
and which shall enclose the entire building.
' 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.
(lb) 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 thereof:
(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
unsafe condition or conditions as it shill deem appropriate.
(ii) If the premises from which the buildings has
been removed are within the City and such premises are left in an
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 bc -equired, in its sole discretion
to take or cause such action to .be .tiAen to remedy such unsafe or
unsanitary condition and to place the premises in such condition
as to be in compliance with this Ordinance.
/6)
Section'Et. Fees and Deposits.
(h) Return upon Non-Issuance. Upon denial of a
permit, there shall be returned to the applicant all deposits,
bonds and insurance policies or certificates therefore. The fee
filed with the application for the permit shall not be returned.
(b) Return upon Allowance for Expenses. Upon completion
of the moving of a building pursuant to .11 permit, the amount which
the applicant has deposited in conjunction wlth 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. Review or Appeal by the Council.
(a) The City Council may upon petition of a resident
of the City or upon its own motion, elect to review any
decision of the Building Official or the Board authorizing
or denying issuance of a permit; or the denial of a permit
may be appealed by the person who has made application therefor.
Election to review must be taken by the City Council by
resolution duly adopted, or an appeal must be made by the
applicant by filing notice thereof with the City Clerk, within
20 days from the date of denial of or authorization for
issuance of a permit.
(b) A hearing on the election to review or appeal shall
be heard by the Council no later than 30 days after the election
to review has been made or notice of appeal has been filed.
Review shall be made upon all of the files, documents and
records of the proceedings in the matter and the Council may
consider such additional evidence as it shall deem appropriate.
-9 " 2r71
The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the action of the
If Building Official or the Board, in accordance with the provisions
hereof and may make its action, subject to such conditions as
may be appropriate.
Section 10. Separability. Every section, provision, or
part of this ordinance is declared separable from every
other section, provision or part, and if any section, provision
or part hereof shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any
other section, provision or part hereof.
Section 11. 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 12. 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
meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of
, 1979.
Wolfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor
-11- r.t/A
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
, 1979.
§ 160.26 ROADS, GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subd. 2. Permit. Buildings or structures togethe
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
o
r
vellicles moving same of ti sire or weight exceeding the maximums specified In
chapter 369 and acts emendatory thereto shall not h
e
m
o
v
e
d
o
r
c
a
u
s
e
d
t
o
b
e
moved upon. across, or along any road or street withou
t
f
i
r
s
t
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
w
r
i
t
-
ten Permit from the road authority Including road
n
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
l
e
s
o
f
c
i
t
i
e
s
,
e
l
l
-
Inges, and boroughs having supervision over such
r
o
a
d
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
T
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
board as to highways under Its jurisdiction may auth
o
r
i
z
e
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
to issue the permits.
.. When a permit Is granted b2.1.11C-Qmmissionerf
o
r
t
h
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
O
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
or structures exclusively on trunk highways no other permit shall be required
from any political subdi7l3i -irtge state for the Moving of such buildings -
or structures on such trunk highways. When a
p
e
r
m
i
t
I
s
g
r
a
n
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
county boned or county engineer for the moving of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
e
x
-
clusively on highways under the jurisdiction of the
c
o
u
n
t
y
b
o
a
r
d
n
o
o
t
h
e
r
p
e
r
-
mit shall be required from any political subdivision fo
r
m
o
v
i
n
g
s
l
i
d
)
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
or structures on such county highways
Amended by Lows 1901, c. 748, 3; Lows 3973, C. 2
2
3
,
n
i
t
5
,
0 7.
• • !Sae main volume for teat of maxis. S to 5)
Approved AMII 20. 120I. . •
1961 Amendment. In aubd. '2. second ,..vIllsees" and "boroughs" Into the
Peresraph added. term 'cities' or the tmbetitutton of the
1973 Amendment. Lena 1973, C. 123, term '•etetutory eines - tor "villages"
cut; 5. f 7. Was a general authority per- and/or "boroughs."
'nutting the COODOOdOti00 of the terms
169.262 Recreational vehicle lanes -
•
Subdivision 3. The legislature determines that It i
s
I
n
t
h
e
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
public health, safety and welfare, to provide for the
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
reereationnl •rehiele lanes to proposal and existing public high
w
a
y
s
.
T
h
e
stnte Monolog agency sholl conduct n Misty:
• (1) to propose model stondords for the establishme
n
t
o
f
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
n
o
d
r
e
c
r
e
a
,
'Bona' .vehiele lanes on and Moog proposed and ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
i
l
d
i
e
b
i
g
h
w
n
y
s
,
a
n
d
(2) to determine methods.•other than the Use of hoo
d
s
,
f
o
r
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
i
-
cycle and recreatiomil vehicle lanes The results of
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
s
h
r
i
l
l
l
i
e
f
o
r
-
- worilial to the commissioner of tronsportotion no l
a
t
e
r
t
h
o
u
:
J
u
l
y
1
,
1
0
7
4
.
NO Inter than limitary 3, 1975, the commissioner of transportation shall
pronitilpite, lii the runnuer provided itt chapter 15,
model standards fur the es-
tablishment of recreatiminl vehicle butes on Mat along promoted end CS-
'slim; public highways. In the May undertaken by th
e
s
t
a
t
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
c
y
and is the proundgation 'of the model sbaubirds by the commissioner,
the model stmulards shall include but not be limited
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
(
a
)
c
r
i
-
teria for desirnbility of stich a lane In any given lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
(
b
)
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
maintenunce of such bitten, anti (c) the placement o
f
s
u
c
h
l
a
n
e
s
i
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
roods. The model slumlords shall govern state trunk
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
s
.
Solid. 2. Each county and municipality Inclading towns having statutory
city powers luny adopt the model stundurds to gove
r
n
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
s
u
n
d
e
r
I
t
s
j
u
-
risdiction and may adoptqlwro to local circumstances. ' Such local regul
a
t
i
o
n
s
shall be sitianitted to the commissioner of transpor
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
o
s
h
a
l
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
(Item within 60 days after receipt if he finds that
t
h
e
y
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
standards estoblished pursuant to this section. Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
shout qualify ,the submitting unit of government f
o
r
s
t
n
t
e
o
r
s
t
a
t
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
funding of recreational vehicialane projects undertak
e
n
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
s
u
c
h
7
e
1
;
•
ulations. .
•
Solid. 3. The following departments end agencies sha
l
l
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
-
ing the Information and adVice for the stildy• by the state Planning +Tem'
and .tlie promolgatiou of inoilel standards . and amendments thereto by the
commissioner of transportntion: the departments o
f
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
-
lion, economic development, natural resources, pub
l
i
c
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
p
l
a
n
-
Mug itgency, nad the state soil and water conservatio
n
b
o
a
r
d
.
T
h
e
c
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
-
er May cooperate with nod enter into agreements w
i
t
h
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
l
e
s
g
o
v
-
.
ernineut, any department of the state of Minnesota,
a
n
y
u
n
i
t
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
g
o
v
e
r
n
-
24
ROADS, GENERAL PROVISIONS § 160.26
160.22 Tress
Wes main volume for tort of oubdo. I to 71
Subd. El. Disposition of timber and wend.. 'Upon written notice of a de-
termination to cut nod remove the trees and hedges. the road Authority MoY
proceed to cut and remove the name. The timber And wood no cut and re-
moved shall belong to the abutting owners, and the road Authority shell cause
the wood and timber to he placed upon the abutting owner's property adja -
cent to the highway, doing Ito unnecessary damage to such property. In case
Ilte Abutting owner notifies the road •uthority that he does not want the
tintb.:r or wood, the road nuthority shall dispone of the wood and timber In
much inanner-as it deems proper.
[See main volume for tezt of sub& 91
Subd. 10. Exception; town roads. Trees, hedges and other shrttbs or
plants within the limits of any town road and not acquired Ity the town As
provided in millidiviaion 3, may be cut and removed without regard to the pro-
visions of soltdivisions 5 anti when they interfere with tiw mainteottnec or
reconstnwtion of the road or with the safety and convenience of the public:
provided Una the town gives written notice to tlw abutting owner of Its in-
tention to cut and remove 19 days before taking such net mut tlw abutting
owner dont not request a bearing during that fteriod. The notice shall nininlY
nrivise the abutting owner of his right to n Itenriog. It the abutting owner
region:1a a bearing within the time required the town shalt proceed in accord-
ance with subdivisions 5 nod G. mai this subdivinkin shall not apply. The
timber and wood cut punmant to this tailttlivIsi011 shall be disposed of in
necordnuce with subdivision 8.
Amended by, Laws 1977, c. 210, H 1; 2.
be liable to plaintiffs for actual damage
If they wilfully cut down tre00 on plain-
tiffs' property without Permission from
theta and. If trees were taken from
roadway itself, without permission front
village. beeper v. Hampton Hill.. Inc.,
1971. 290 Niinn. 143, 167 N.W.2d 765.
A town bas the authority to require
the removal of fences or trees within
road 'limits If the tmefulnees of the road
for public travel would he Impairs& Op.
37715-161. Nov. I. 1961.
160.23 Destruction of noxious weeds
Itoad nuthorities, including road atithoritien of cities shall eause all noxious
Wee& Olt their respective highways and streets to be cut doWit or otherwise
destroyed or entiliented HS 014191 SIS laIty 110 IWCVSSAlry ti) prevent the ripening
or scattering of seed end other propagating pails of such weeds.
.Antended by Laws 1973, e. 123, art. 9. 7.
1973 Amendment. laws 1973. c. 123, term "elites** or the substitution of the
art. 5. f 7, was It general atabotitY Per- • ternt 'Otattitory cities' toe "rniag ee-
sniffing the eensoliartlinn el the term. and/or '.'boroUghlt.”
-villages - and "boroughs" into the
160.25 Tunnels under highways
1. Construction and application complained Of wes mused by the live -
County would not be obligated to clean stock passing through and congregating
out an animal underpass constructed • tn the underpass. Op•Atty.O... 377A
under a county road where the condition S. June 15. 11(53-
1611.26 Moving buildings over highways
•Subdivislon I. To be moved without unnecessary Interference, Buildings
or Stitieturcr. moVed or caused to be moved upon, iterate:. or along nay road or
street, incinding city streets, shall be moved in such manner as not to WI.
neeessnrily interfere With, lirinlflge, or destroy any bridges, trees, hedges,
fences. telephone of electric )tower poles, ealdes, or any npourtenunee
upon the road or street. '
venous authorities having
liter powers granted to said
-xpend inoneytt from funds
opening, widening and itn. to and supervision of ouch
be determined by the sit,-
) public roads; 'Providt'd•
,rvision authority shall do-
be provided with an mic-
e board to municipalities.
wning machinery or equi1)-
1 (Mehra may Mane such
elities within such county
conditions as the county
cense.
(-1241(1).
haat'. I lot.
k•lorling rand nuthorlties
trnetion mut MainfenanCe
under their kiiporvisiont
agetsepor ti,lilfjej,I sidull-
laud districts mid piddle
iy owned lands theneof,
t and 31
tuthority itteinding rotili
I or 'way In esifies of
t.sI
or the substitution of the rarities" for -village,-
stricted
Hit or other chemicals
cola on windshields;
,ponnilde for the 011(10.
now and ire are prer-
it Koch pinoW 95 10(011
/HCIWIIyR Where vehicle
anion of the road au-
ninionn Conditions by
for free flaw of sand.
vintotiabie time.
nentlea by Laws 1973,
tit
57.
oration. €.o676.
• I 213 et Pf q.
Ii Cerporntiohs I 1700.
1977 Amendment. Revised the find
nentence of subd. 3 which formerly
read:
••If no appeal to taken or If Open AP-
peal the rood authority's determination
it sustained, the road authority may cut
and remove the trees and hedges."
Add. solo]. Ill.
2. Construction and application
Defendant, in developing golf course
and ntatutory ptiblic road across Main-
line' adjoining property In village would
23
1979 SESSION
Ch. 111
SCHOOL DISTRICTS—
S
A
L
E
O
F
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
CHAPTER 110
• S.F.No.719
(Coded)
An Act relating to ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
;
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
a
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
s
e
t
t
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
b
u
i
l
d
-
ings at auction; setttng cond
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
r
t
h
e
s
a
l
e
.
Be it enacted by the
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
:
Section 1.
123.141 Sale at auction
-
Notwithstanding Min
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
1
2
3
3
7
.
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
I
,
4
7
1
.
3
4
5
or any other law, th
e
b
o
a
r
d
o
f
u
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
o
r
o
f
a
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
f
o
r
vocational miticatio
n
m
a
y
.
i
n
l
i
e
u
o
f
a
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
b
i
d
s
,
s
e
l
l
I
D
p
u
b
l
i
c
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
to the highest respo
n
s
i
b
l
e
b
i
d
d
e
r
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
o
r
t
o
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
by a Se(7011(11Ary or post-secondary sc
h
o
o
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
o
r
c
l
a
s
s
a
s
a
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
s
s
i
g
n
-
it . m • .t A hoard shal
l
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
a
s
o
l
e
u
t
, least two weeks be
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
s n the official ne
w
s
p
a
p
e
r
o
f
the district, or in the cas
e
o
f
a
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
cen cc, in the officia
l
n
e
w
s
p
a
p
e
r
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.
a
n
d
m
a
y
,
a
t
its discretion, publi
s
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
o
t
i
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
p
a
p
e
r
o
r
e
l
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
.
A building may be w
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
n
f
r
o
m
s
a
l
e
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
a
l
e
unless Dui auction
h
o
s
b
e
e
n
a
n
n
o
u
n
c
e
d
t
o
b
e
w
i
t
h
o
n
t
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
.
I
f
t
h
e
s
a
l
e
i
s
made at public auction, a
d
u
l
y
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
a
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
-
duct the sole. The a
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
a
i
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
a
l
e
o
r
from any funds ava
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
b
o
a
r
d
w
h
i
r
l
%
a
r
e
n
o
t
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
o
r
encum
b
e
r
e
d
.
/
Sec. 2. This act is effective
t
h
e
d
a
y
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
f
i
n
a
l
e
n
a
c
t
m
e
n
t
.
Approved May 21, 19
7
9
.
BUILDING MOVERS—
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
CHAPTER 111
S.F.No.779
[Coded]
An Act relating to commerce; regul
a
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
o
v
e
r
s
;
a
m
e
n
d
i
n
g
M
i
n
n
e
-
sota Statutes 1928, C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
2
1
,
b
y
a
d
d
i
n
g
a
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
.
fte if enacted by the Legislature of T
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
:
Section 1, Minnesota Statute
s
1
9
7
8
,
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
2
2
1
,
I
s
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
adding a
section to rend:
al.81 Building move
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Subdivision I. Defin
i
t
i
o
n
.
"
'
W
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
o
v
e
r
"
m
e
a
n
s
a
n
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
.
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
or othir entity engaged in th
e
'
l
i
m
i
n
e
s
s
o
f
r
a
i
s
i
n
g
,
s
i
m
i
a
n
-Ong off the founvin-
(1031. .1 moving Andantes, exc
l
u
d
i
n
g
n
n
o
b
l
i
e
homes.
179
fn
Ch. 111
Mit LEGISLATURE
Subd. 2. License. All building movers operating in Miniseotn nh
a
l
l
h
a
licensed by the commission.
Subd. 3. License application. To obtain a license to operate as a building
mover au applicant shall file a petition with the rommission speci
f
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
name and address of its officers lend other information as the com
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
may reasonably require. The commission Alan /Mlle the license upon rem-pliancy by the applicant with bonding and insuring requirements net by rule of the department and payment of a fee. A license once granted Mal
l
C
U
D
•
thaw in fun force and effect, subject to annual renewal lees and co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
*
with bonding and insuring requirements, unless revoked or suspended.
Subd. 4. License revocation, suspension, dental. The commission, o
f
t
e
n
:mike and a hearing, may revoke, suspend or deny a license for:
(a) failure to pay application or renewal fees;
(b) failure to comply with bonding mid insuring requirements;
tel conduct of the appliennt or license holder which impairs usage of
p
u
b
l
i
c
highways, roads, streets, or utilities;
(d) conduet of the applicant' or license holders which endangers the
h
e
a
l
t
h
and safety of users of the public highways, roads. streets or utilities;
o
r
tel a course of conduct of the applicant or license holder which de
m
o
n
-
strates unsafe or hazardous operation of the business.
Solid. 5. Rules. The department shall promulgate rules establishing bond•
log and insuring requirements.
SLIM. 6. Local regulation, No license to move buildings, bond or insurance coverage shall be required by a political subdivision of the state ot
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
the license, bond and insurance coverage issued or required by the co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
or department. A mai dgt._j.nlision or the department may require a per-mit which reasonably regulates the hours, roiirlitruinvonent, parki
n
g
o
r
speed limit for a building mover operating n at to roads within limit. .4,14letioi_Lajtat.agilkijcal.AWallskti2Lor hizqys..within:
of _Ilig,..agaarr_rienL Neither the state nor a political subdivision may regulate rates charge by building movers.
Approved May 21, 1979.
ANOKA COUNTY—COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS--
REDISTRICTING
CHAPTER 112
S.F.No.871
[Not ,Codedj
An Act relating to Anoka County; permitting redistricting of eatainissloaer
districts to seven for the 1982 election.
Approved May 21, 1979.
180
MEMORANDUM
FROM: RFR
TO: RAP
DATE: September 26, 1979
RE: Eden Prairie - House Moving Ordinance - Survey of
Other Municipalities
1. EDINA. The Edina Ordinance provides that the building
inspector can refuse to issue a moving permit if the s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
to be moved is not substantially compatible with existi
n
g
o
r
expected development. The building inspector further
s
t
a
t
e
d
that Edina has not experienced very many moves under t
h
i
s
ordinance.
2. ST. LOUIS PARK. The building inspector in St. Louis Pa
r
k
determines whether the proposed structure to be moved is
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
with the neighborhood. The ordinance, however, does not
m
a
k
e
a
n
y
reference to this but is done on an ad hoc basis by the inspector.
St. Louis Park has experienced only one move this year.
3. HOPKINS. The Hopkins ordinance provides that the stru
c
t
u
r
e
to be moved must be completely brought up to Code and t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
site landscaped. There are about two moves per year in
H
o
p
k
i
n
s
,
but these are structures being moved within the City.
4. ROBBINSDALE. The Robbinsdale ordinance provides that th
e
structure to be moved be brought up to Code. Robbinsda
l
e
h
a
s
n
o
t
experienced very many moves under its ordinance.
S. MAPLE GROVE. In Maple Grove the City Council has
t
h
e
s
o
l
e
discretion of whether or not to approve a move. The b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
inspector makes a report to the Council as to whether
t
h
e
proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood
.
Uq
Memorandum
TO: RAP
September 26, 1979
Page Two
6. SHAKOPEE. Shakopee holds a public hearing prior to the move
and the applicant is required to inform the neighbors in the area
into which the structure is proposed to be moved. At the hearing,
color photos and floor plans must be presented, as well as
information regarding bringing the building into compliance with
Code. Council is empowered to make a determination of whether or
not to permit the. move. Shakopee experiences approximately one
move per year.
7. COON RAPIDS. In Coon Rapids, the building inspector determines
if the structure is compatible with the character of the neighbor-
hood into which it is proposed to be moved. The house must be
brought up to Code and energy requirements. The house, for
instance, must pass a complete air test on all plumbing systems
after it is moved in. This usually requires that the entire
plumbing system be replaced. The housing inspector makes a
recommendation to the Council, and the City Council is empowered
to approve or deny the request.
8. WAYZATA. Wayzata has experienced no moves recently and does
not have an ordinance covering this.
9. MINNETONKA. The Minnetonka ordinance provides that the
structure must meet all Code requirements. Further, an applicant
must secure the approval of 75% of the owners of land within
a radius of 500 feet of the site upon which the structure is to
be moved. The City has about six moves per year.
10. BURNSVILLE. The Burnsville ordinance requires that the
structure not be over ten years of age and be constructed in
compliance with all present codes and ordinances. Furthermore,
if the structure is to be located in an existing subdivision s
the applicant must obtain the approval of the six nearest
977S
Memorandum
TO: RAP
September 26, 1979
Page Three
resident property owners. No moves have taken .' place in the last six
years. They have had a few calls, but the ten year age restriction h
a
discouraged applications. This restriction, however, does not
apply to houses already existing in the City of Burnsville.
11. BROOKLYN PARA. In Brooklyn Park the structure must be
brought up to code. In addition, the Planning Commission receives
the application for approval and recommendation to the Citl
Council. The Planning Commission has the discretion to call a
public meeting of resident property owners within a radius. of
350 feet from the subject property for the owners review of the
proposed application. Brooklyn Park experiences one or two moves
per year. The inspector tells me that they have not turned down
any requests for moves mainly because the ordinancesexplaiAo
people at the time inquiry is made and this discourages most
people from even making an application.
CITIES NOT REQUIRING CONSENT
--TNumber of moves per year)
EDINA (Minimal)
ST. LOUIS PARK (1)
HOPKINS (2)
ROHEINSDALE (Minimal)
MAPLE GROVE (Minimal)
SHAKOPEE (1)
COON RAPIDS (Minimal)
WAYZATA (0)
CITIES REQUIRING CONSENT
(Number of moves per year)
MINNETONKA ( 4 to 6)
BURNSVILLE ( 0 )
BROOKLYN PARR ( 1 to 2)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Roger A. Pauly, City Attorney
DATE: September 27, 1979
RE: Validity of Requiring Consent of Neighboring
Property Owners.
FACTS
In connection with the amendment of Ordinance 176 regulating
the moving of buildings in the City, it has been urged that the
ordinance provide as a pre-requisite to an applicant's
obtaining a permit for the moving of a building to a location
within the City, that the consent of a stated number or
percentage of owners of property in the vicinity of the location
of the property to which the building is to be moved be obtained.
Such a provision might require, for example, the consent of
75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of,
or the owners of four-fifths of the land adjoining, the land
to wnich the building is to be moved.
ISSUE
Is the requirement of neighboring owners' consent as a
pre-requisite to the issuance of a permit for the movement of a
building a valid provision of an ordinance regulating such subject.
DISCUSSION
We have been unable to find any decision of the Minnesota
Supreme Court which has addressed itself to the specific issue.
The Court has, however, considered the legality of a consent
provision contained in Minnesota statutes relative to the
rezoning of land in certain cities. One such case was
State ex rd l Foster v. City of Minneapolis, 255 Minn. 249,
97 N.W.2d 273 (1959). In that case, Foster acquired land in
Minneapolis zoned commercial. Subsequently, Minneapolis rezoned
the land residential pursuant to the then existing M.S.S462.18
which provided as a pre-requisite to rezoning, the consent of
two-thirds of the owners of property situated within 100 feet
of the property to be rezoned. The Court held that the
rezoning of the property pursuant to such consent from
commercial to residential was invalid and ordered the issuance
of a building permit. In doing so, the Court stated:
"We are of the opinion that the consent clause
of S462.18, as a pre-requisite to the exercise
of the city council's legislative authority
to amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance,
constitutes an unlawful delegation of power
to impose restrictions on real property, and
renders this provision of the statute invalid.
It is well settled that a municipal corporation
may not condition restricted uses of property
upon the consent of private individuals such
as the owners of adjoining property; and that
it is an unreasonable exercise of police
power to rest control of property uses in the
hands of the owners of other property. . . .
* * *
". . . In the instant case the consent clause
in S462.18 does not merely set in force an
authorized power delegated to the council but
in substance grants to adjoining owners the
right to empower the council to act to impose
property restrictions where otherwise it
would have no such authority."
In speaking of the two-thirds vote required, the Court stated:
". . . Under the statute involved, no
standard is required or set forth under which
such power is to be exercised or placed in
motion. Whim or caprice may be the sole
2-17
motivating factor. We do not believe that
such an enactment is valid."
Subsequently, on petition for reargument, the Court
limited its conclusions to situations where:
1. At the time of owner's purchase of property it
was zoned "commercial";
2. Thereafter adjoining property owners . . . filed
a "written consent" to have it rezoned from
"commercial" to "residential" - a more restrictive
classification;
3. The City Council thereafter rezoned the property
"residential" pursuant to the "consent" of the
adjoining property owners; and
4. The property was thereby divested of all substantial
value. 97 N.W.2d at 276.
In a subsequent case, O'Brien v. City of St. Paul,
Minn. , 173 N.W.2d 462 (1969), involving M.S.S462.357,
Subd. 5, the successor to M.S.S462.18 which also contains a
two-thirds consent provision, the Minnesota Supreme Court
distinguished its holding in the Foster case from the facts
presented in O'Brien. In O'Brien, the owners of land sought to
have it rezoned from single or two-family residential to
apartment use. The St. Paul City Council adopted an ordinance
which permitted the rezoning as requested even though the
two-thirds consent of property owners had not been obtained.
The ordinance contained a waiver of the consent requirement.
'Plaintiffs who were surrounding land owners sought to have the
rezoning set aside. The lower court granted plaintiffs' request
917 9
for relief and on appeal the Supreme Court affirmed. In its
opinion the Supreme Court distinguished Foster on the ground
that the owners in that case attempted to impose a more
restrictive use of adjoining property, i.e., commercial to
residential, which was not contemplated by the statute and
which the surrounding land owners were clearly without power
to perform. The Court, in speaking of §462.357, Subd. 5, stated
that it does:
". . . not vest in adjoining property
owners the power to legislate or impose
restrictions but confer(s) the right to
waive restrictions which have already
been established by the city."
' Implicit in the holding is the principle that surrounding land
owners have an inherent right not to have the subject
property zoned to another classification.
In this respect, it has been said that "courts take the
position that ordinances making the use of property for particular
purposes dependent upon the consent of owners of property in
the vicinity are constitutional only where the use in question
is clearly within the police power as being inimical to the
public's health, safety, or general welfare or, in other words,
where the municipality has the power entirely to prohibit such
use if it so desires." 56 Am.Jur.2d, Municipal Corporations,
§371. For example, making the issuance of liquor licenses
dependent upon the consent of property owners in the neighborhood
where the liquor business is to be operated.
With respect to the statute relating to the property
owners consent in zoning matters, the Minnesota Attorney General
has stated that the consent provision is valid on its face
except as to situations comparable to Foster. In situations
other than Foster, rezoning may not be accomplished without
obtaining the necessary consents. Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-32,
Gr. #1, Dec. 22, 1962.
Applying the rationale of O'Brien, the threshold question
is whether the city has the inherent police power to absolutely
prohibit the movement of buildings to new locations within the
city. That police power must be based upon some reasonable
necessity relative to public health, safety or morals. If a
building to be moved to a location within the city meets all
of the usual building code requirements, except that the whole
building is moved to a location within the city rather than
constructed piece meal in that location and is otherwise similar
to what may be constructed under applicable ordinances, it is
difficult to find a rationale on which to conclude that the
city has an absolute power to prohibit.
Based upon the foregoing, it is, at the very least,
questionable whether the movement of a building to a location
within the city may be conditioned upon the consent of
surrounding property owners. Therefore, such a provision may
well be unenforceable if tested.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, inasmuch as the specific
issue relating to the consent of surrounding property owners
as a pre-requisite to the movement of a building to a location
within a municipality has not been addressed and decided by
the Minnesota Supreme Court, the council in its legislative
discretion may, if it chooses, adopt an ordinance containing such
a provision even though there is doubt as to its enforceability.
An example of the exercise of such legislative discretion is
the adoption by the Minnesota Legislature of S462.357, Subd. 5
subsequent to the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Foster
relative to that section's predecessor, S462.18 (1969) which
contained the consent provision.
CONCLUSION
The Minnesota Supreme Court has not passed upon the
precise question of the validity of surrounding land owners'
consent as a condition to granting a permit for the moving
of buildings. The court in Foster has disapproved that
mechanism with regard to zoning of land from commercial to
residential use. The holding in Foster was limited to the
facts of that case, on reargument, and in O'Brien, to situations
where the effect of the consent is to impose a restriction
rather than to waive a restriction already established. Waiver,
as applied to the instant question, presupposes the right of
the surrounding land owners to not have a building moved into
their midst. It is not at all clear that such a right exists.
Consequently, a consent provision in a building moving ordinance
may not stand up under challenge. Nevertheless, because the
question has not been clearly decided by the Supreme Court, the
city Council in its legislative discretion, may choose to adopt
such a provision, subject to judicial determination of its
enforceability.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Servicei —T4t__
September 7, 1979
Regional Recreation Open Space - Major Policy Issues
On October 2, 1979, representatives of the Metropolitan Park and Open Space
Commission will meet with the City Council to present a brief history of what
has happened to the regional park system since 1974, and will discuss the major
policy issues of an updated Regional Recreation Open Space Policy Plan.
The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission is seeking input from the publi
c
and the implementing agencies on a revised plan.
A copy of the Metropolitan Parts and Open Space Commission staff paper on the
policy issues is attached. This paper summarizes the background of the Recreat
i
o
n
Open Space Plan and the nine issues being discussed for revision in an updated
p
l
a
n
.
As Eden Prairie is an implementing agency for the Regional Recreation System, t
h
e
final decision on how these issues are addressed will have a significant affect
on the Eden Prairie Park System.
The purpose of this report is to provide the Commission *and Council *with Eden Prairie
staff comments on these nine issues.
1, SCOPE OF THE POLICY PLAN
To what extent should the policy Ian address local recreational facilities?
Since 1974, when the policy plan was adopted, the Metropolitan Council has acqui
r
e
d
m
o
r
e
responsibility in the area of local recreation facilites, primarily through grant
reviews and local comprehensive plan reviews.
Staff agrees that the impact of poor local facilties in the regional park system
may be substantial. If municipalities fail to provide adequate playgrounds and
play fields they may look to the regional park system to provide those local fac
i
l
i
t
e
s
.
Eden Prairie has just such a concern in the area of Anderson Lakes Park. Mien t
h
e
City began acquiring Anderson Lakes Park, in the early 70's, it was to be a
community park and was to include some active use play areas. The City began
acquiring this area with State and Federal grants and matching local funds and
a
l
s
o
acquired a portion of this area from the Preserve through a POD approval. In 19
7
4
uben this park wan included in the regional park system, the function of the pa
r
k
changed from a comrantity park to a regional park reserve. Active use play area
s
are not compatible to a park reserve. Although our plan calls for some open
grassy areas adjacent to Anderson Lakes Parkway that will most certainly be us
e
d
mainly by Eden Prairie residents, Anderson Lake Park Reserve is not a local
recreational facility.
*"Commission" and "Council" refer to the Parks and Open Space Commission and th
e
Metropolitan Council.
-2-
Staff agrees with numbers 1-4 of the suggestions relating to local recreational
facilities and would consider number S given more detail on the type of action
suggested to help municipalities carry out their plans.
2. DEFINITION OF THE REGIONAL PARK SYSTEM
This policy relates mainly to the three Statc parks that are located within the
7 county area. These three State parks are presently considered as part of the
regional park system and have substantial impact on the plans of the regional park
system. Staff agrees that the Metropolitan Council should ask the State Legislature
to require the Minnesota DNR to submit master plans to the Council for State Parks
in the metropolitan area, as well as the management plans it submits to the State
Planning Agency. These State parks arc as impor'ant to the regional park system
as arc the park systems within each of the municipalities within the metropolitan
area.
As the Metropolitan Council reviews the entire park system within the metropolitan
area including local and regional park systems and trails, the State parks and
their trail system should also be included in this review for coordination of the
entire park system serving the metropolitan area.
3. MASTER PLAN FOR REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE
This issue addresses three questions:
1. Should municipalities he encouraged to submit master_plans for regional
recreation open space under their jurisdiction directly to the Council? or
should counties in special _park districts prepare courity wide master plans
that include appropriate municipality owned facilities?
Staff feels that municipalities should be encouraged to submit master plans for
regional recreation open space under their jurisdiction directly to the Council.
Counties or park districts should be part of the reviewal process but should not be
the agency preparing the master plans.
2. Should the policy Ellin distinguish between master plan stages for
acquisition and development of regional recreation open space?
Staff feels that the policy that has actually been in practice should be adopted.
That is, implementing agencies have submitted separate acquisition stage and
development stage master plans. Acquisition stage plans have set boundaries and
extimated costs of acquiring parkland. Development stage plans have addressed
park capacity facilities and timing for development. They have been the basis
for development funding within a park.
Rationale for this recommendation is that acquisition often takes several years
to complete, and so many changes in adjacent land uses can occur over those years.
Development plans would invariably have to be changed a number of times during the
acquisition process.
.2b0A
-3-
3. What role should the Council play in developing joint master plan
dafercnces? _
Policy 13 in the Council's current policy plan requires that "there shall be one
coordinated master plan for each regional recreation open space site that involves
more than one implementing agency. This plan shall be approved by each of the
itvlementing agencies and shall identify the nature of each agencies responsibilities
for carrying out the compatible development and operation of the park." To date
only one joint master plan has been approved. The problem appears to be that
whenever there is a disagreement each agency holds its position causing a stalemate.
The City of Eden Prairie is very familiar with the problems of resolving joint
master plan differences. Staff feels that the Council should play a strong role
in helping to resolve these differences. This may he by calling meetings with
representatives of not only the staff but elected officials from each of the
agencies to discuss differences of opinion on joint master plans.
4. THE NUMBER OF IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES
Two questions regarding the number of implementing agencies should be addressed:
1. Should the Council and Commission limit the number of implementing
agencies? and
2. Should the Council cxplore ways to phase suburban communities out of
the implementation of regional park system projects and to transfer
that responsibility to the appropriate countl:kark authority? or )_Should
the present structure of implementing agencies be continued?
There are currently 11 implementing agencies invloved in the regional recreation
open space system. They arc: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington
Counties; Hennepin County Park Reserve District; Scott-Hennepin Joint Park Board;
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board; and the Cities of St. Paul, Bloomington and
Eden Prairie.
Most of these government units became implementing agencies because they had
jurisdiction over existing parks or potential park sites that were being considered
for regional recreation open space designation in 1974.
The policy plan adopted in 1974 incorporated the Minneapolis Park and Recreation
Board and the City of St. Paul as implementing agencies. In recognition of the
historical role in providing large urban parks that serve residents from throughout
the metropolitan area, Carver County was designated as an implementing agency for
Baylor, Lake Minnewashta and Lake Waeonia Regional Parks. Eden Prairie and Blooming-
ton were designated as implementing agencies too because they were already involved
in tho acquisition of the Anderson Lake Park Reserve area and Eden Prairie was also
acquiring Bryant Lake Regional Park.
Staff agrees that it seems reasonable that the Council and Commission consider
the in umber of implementing agencies involved in the Regional Recreation
oaen Space System. Although, many municipalities have park facilities that serve
people who don't he in their communities; few have facilities that serve the
on to the same degree as the units in a regional park system. Communities that
Itme parks that do provide regional service are already implementing ageniees.
-4-
It stands to reason that the fewer the implementing agencies, the more efficiently
and effectively the Council and Commission could carry out their administrative
role. Limiting these agencies will become even more important as the parks system
role changes more from acquimtion and development to operating and maintaining
these parklands.
The City of Eden Prairie is the implementing agency for Bryant Lake Regional
Park and is presently working on a Joint Master Plan for Anderson Lakes Regional
Park Reserve.
One of the unresolved issues relating to the Joint Master Plan of the Anderson
Lakes Park Reserve is the question of ownership and operation of Anderson Lakes
Park within the Eden Prairie boundaries. The City is reluctant to give up ownership
and operation of the park without a firm commitment that . park will developed
according to the plan approved by the City of Eden Prairie, which inludes the
development and operation of the Blacklock Nature Center.
The City would also want to be reimbursed all of the local funds used for matching
grants for initial acquisition of the park so that these funds can be used for
acquisition and development of community facilities.
The City has discussed the possibility of turning over the operation and ownership
of this park to Hennepin County Park Reserve District if the previous conditions
are met, and if a planning committee, including Eden Prairie residents, were formed
to review and approve all plans for development of this park reserve.
Bryant Lake Regional Park received $75,000 for development in 1979 and is scheduled
to receive $205,000 in 1930, $130,000 in 1981, $104,000 in 1982 and $295,000 in
1983. These funds will be used for development of the park and include the
following improvements: new roadway access and parking areas, new beach and new
boat launching area, construction of a beach house and picnic shelter and developement
of picnic facilities and the trail system.
As soon as a Joint Master Plan for Anderson Lakes Park Reserve is approved there
will be development funds scheduled for Anderson Lakes Park Reserve. To date the
City has been able to operate as the implementing agency for these two regional
park facilities; mainly because Anderson Lakes Park Reserve required only diseased
tree maintenance and Bryant Lake Park has been only operating at about 201, of it's
ultimate capacity. As these two regional park facilities are developed, the City
will have to increase it's park maintenance department significantly. (If a nature
center is developed and operated in Anderson Lakes Park Reserve by the City, the
City can anticipate approximately $100,000 per year for the operation of a nature
center alone.)
The City is going to have to begin gearing up for operation of these two parks or
consider turning these parks over to the Park Reseive District.
The obvious advantage for maintaining control and ownership of these regional parks
is that the City maintains local ownership and control of these two regional
facilities. The major disadvantage is that the City is using local tax dollars
for operation of a regional facility. If the facility were turned over to the
Park Reserve District, the facility would still be operated in much the same manner
and the local dollars could be used to operate and maintain City facilities. In 1979,
the City will spend over $40,000 for the operation and maintenance of Anderson Lake
and Bryant Lake Park. As these facilities are developed the City could expect this
firure to approach $200,000 per year if a nature center is developed at Anderson
Lakes Park. lime se figures include increased administrative costs, expansion of
•-)
maintenance staff, expansion of the programming staff at both facilities, increase
security on a year round basis at both facilities, and increased capital expenditures.
S. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR TI1E REGIONAL PARK SYSTEM
Should theliolicy plan address the issue of funding sources for operation and
maintenuce of ilLgional parks and the procedures for administration of funds?
Presently, the operation and maintenance costs of regional parks are financed
by the implementing agencies. The principal source of revenue, about 7M, is
local property tax revenues, the rest comes from fees paid by people using the
parks, and from grants, from CITA and from the State Dutch Elm Disease Abatement
Program.
As more of these regional parks bccome developed implementing agencies will be
requiring at least some support in the operation and maintenance of these facilities.
When that does take place, it will become very evident that the fewer the
implementing agencies the better. At this point, when implementing agencies are
requesting funds it is quite easy to justify the amount of funding required for
acquisition through the use of appraisals or for the development of facilities
through the competitive bid system. However, when -various agencies are requesting
funds for operation it will become very difficult to determine how much each
agency should be entitled. The quality of maintenance provided by each of the
existing implementing agencies varies greatly, in fact the quality of maintenance
required in each park within the agency varies greatly depending on the type of
park. It will be challenging, to say the least, for the Metropolitan Council to
develop an equitable system to provide funding to implementing agencies for
operation and maintenance of the regional park system.
6. REGIONAL PARK DISTRIBUTION
Should the_policy plan give aiority to developing regional parks most accessible
to the metropolitan residents, or to protecting "outstanding" natural resources with-
in the area?
It is important to note that most survey respondents said if they travel
to the regional parks they prefer not necessarily the one located nearest to their
residence. Most get there by car even when bus service to the park is available.
I believe priority should he given to protecting the outstanding natural resources
around the area. However, the outstanding natural resources shold be defined using
park demand/user studies, which seem to indicate that swimming facilities and
host launch areas arc the highest priority of the park users.
7. IMPLPMENT1NG THE REGIONAL PARK SYSTEM
How can the Council insu-v that imelementine agencies can acquire and develop the • •_ • "
reeicinal_Eick system that the Council determines is needed?
This (ple.ttion relates to the problem the Council has had in some areas in acquiring
designated regional parks due to the minticipalities withholding consent of the
acquisition. 'Ibe Council would like to have comments on any policies that might
help this problcm.
-8-
8. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PkOGRAM
Should the capit:11 improvement pruram for regional recreation oEn space adopted
by the Council include all_proiects and all sources of funds? or, Should it continue
to include only projects to be funded with regional park funds?
This question addresses the problem that the Council has with some implementing
agencies that are aquiring regional facilities with local funds or with other
funds such as grant programs. Some of these investments have been made before
a master plan was adopted by the Council. Also, investments have been used to
implement projects included in an approved master plan, but may not have been
programmed for funding through their Council's capital improvement program.
If any project is anticipated to be included in the regional recreation open space
system, it should be included in the capital improvement program no matter where
the source of funds arc generated.
9. CONVERSION OF PARKLAND
Two questions regarding use of undeveloped land required for regional parks should
be addressed. •
1. Should the procedure the Council has adopted governing interim use of
undeveloped regional parklands be incorporated in the Policy Plan?
2. Is Policy 18 in the current Policy Plan governing conversion of
undeveloped parklands adequate?
Policy 18 states that "the conversion of regional recreational open space areas
to other uses shall be allowed only when no reasonable alternative exists. When
such conversion is unavoidable, payment or replacement shall be determined by the
Council." From the requests received by the Council for use of regional
recreational open space it's obvious that many people preceive the regional open
space system as a convenient way to reserve open space land until a higher and
better use becomes apparent. Stronger language should be developed to insure
preservation of the regional parks.
13L3Ad
v97
. REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE
MAJOR POLICY ISSUES
A Staff Paper
August 1979
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building, Seventh and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Tel. 291-6464
Publication No. 11-79-088
)199
REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE
MAJOR POLICY ISSUES
A Staff Paper
This is a summary discussion of major issues that should be addressed by
the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission
as the Council revises its Recreation Open Space Policy Plan during the
fall of 1979.
The paper, prepared by the Council's parks and open space staff, presents
issues that the Commission and the Council's Physical Development Committee
have been discussing. These issues affect the Council's partnership with
the counties, municipalities and special park districts to provide a
regional recreation open space system.
The intent of this paper is to focus attention of the Commission, the Council,
local governments and the public on formulating changes to existing Council
policy. The issues discussed here, and others raised in response to this
paper, will be used to prepare an outline of the revised Recreation Open Space
Policy Plan.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Metropolitan Parks Act of 1974 directs that "the Metropolitan Council,
after consultation with the (Metropolitan Parks and Open Space) Commission,
municipalities, park districts, and counties in the Metropolitan Area, and
after appropriate public hearings, shall prepare and adopt a long-range system
policy plan for regional recreation open space as part of the Council's
Metropolitan Develdbment Guide." The law further directs that "at least every
four years, the Council shall engage in the comprehensive review of the policy
plan, development guide sections, comprehensive plans, capital improvement
programs, and other plans in substantial conformance with the requirements of
Subdivision 1 which have been adopted by the Council."
The current Recreation Open Space Policy Plan was adopted by the Metropolitan
Council in December 1974.. A decision was made to defer review of the policy
plan in 1978 (within the four-year time limit) to allow use of the demand/user
study information that was being collected at that time. This data will
influence the amount of regional recreation open space planned in the system,
Its distribution, and the timing for development of recreational facilities.
The 1974 state law authorized the Council to sell up to $40 million in bonds
to acquire and develop regional parklands. In addition, in 1977 and 1979,
the legislature appropriated a total of $54.3 million for regional parks,
trails and special recreation use facilities.
There arc currently 35 regional parks in the Metropolitan Area open to the
public. About 12,000 acres of parkland have been acquired since 1974, and
more than $13 million have been spent on park improvements since that time.
)100
The Council does not directly acquire property for regional parks. Rather,
It grants funds to the counties and some municipalities, the "implementing
agencies," to take title and develop the facilities. The Council's decisions
on parks and open space are based on its Recreation Open Space Policy Plan
and on how proposals for parks mesh with other regional system plans
(transportation, airports, sewers, etc.).
The Parks and Open Space Commission, established by the 1974 legislature,
advises and assists the Council in developing long-range plans for parks and
open space facilities in the Metropolitan Area. The Commission also advises
the Council on grant requests from county and municipal governments for federal
and state funds for park acquisition and development.
MAJOR ISSUES
The revised policy plan should clarify the interrelationships of the various
units and levels of government that are actors in the regional park system.
The staff has identified nine issues that should be addressed. Basically,
all nine raise questions about who is, and who should be responsible for
doing what, and when, in the regional park system. The nine issues are
listed and discussed below.
1. SCOPE OF THE POLICY PLAN
Towhat extent should the policy plan address local recreation facilities?
The Metropolitan Parks Act specifically directs the preparation of "a long-
range system policy plan for regional recreation open space." Regional, as
defined in the policy plan and in administration of the grants program, means
regional parks, regional park reserves, regional trail corridors, regional
special recreation,„use facilities, and historic parks designated by the
Council as part of the regional system. The policy plan also addresses local
recreational facilities briefly.
Since 1974, when the policy plan was adopted, the Council has acquired more
responsibility in the area of local recreation facilities, primarily through
grant reviews and local comprehensive plan reviews. The State Planning Agency
and the Council have agrced on a process for reviewing and ranking grant
applications from municipalities for Land And Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON)
and Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) grants. Under the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976, the Council must review local compre-
hensive plans, which include a park and recreation plan element.
Good local recreation systems are important. The impact of poor local
facilities on the regional park system would be substantial. If municipalities
failed to provide adequate playgrounds and playfields, the regional park system
would be pressured to provide such facilities.
2 •Xl (4
The functional difference between local and regional park systems must remain
clear. The Council should put somewhat greater emphasis on local recreation
In the revised policy plan. The Council should consider:
(1) Retaining Policy No. 1, which lists eight factors to be considered
In reviewing grant applications for local recreation open space
acquisition or development.
(2) Adding a policy that formalizes the current practice of reserving
federal and state grants for recreation only for local recreation
services, while regional services are funded from regional park funds.
(3) Adding a policy that addresses the current practice of reserving a
designated percentage of federal and state grant funds for municipal
recreation foreach of the Council's Development Framework policy areas.
(4) Adding a policy that encourages municipalities to require reasonable
land dedication for recreation in their subdivision ordinances.
(5) Adding a policy that the Council will, after reviewing local
comprehensive plans for park and recreation facilities, take action to
help municipalities carry out their plans. This could involve assessing
changes required in federal and state grant programs, assessing the
ability of municipalities to raise local revenue, and determining
the need for additional resources.
2. DEFINITION OF THE REGIONAL PARK SYSTEM
Should all similar public facilities still he included in the regional
park system? Or should the system include only public facilities provided
by the imple:n7ntinu auencies that are needed to fill the aap between
municipal facilities and state and federal facilities?
The Metropolitan Parks Act requires that "the policy plan shall identify
generally the areas that should be acquired by a public agency to provide a system
of regional recreation open space, comprising park district, county, and
municipal facilities, which, together with state facilities, reasonably will
meet the outdoor recreatLon needs of the people of the Metropolitan Area."
The current regional park system is functional in nature. Regardless of who
owns and operates the facility, if it provides certain kinds of recreation
opportunity, meets certain standards as to size, resource characteristics, etc.,
It Is indentificd as being a part of the regional recreation open space system.
Thus, the three state parks within the Metropolitan Area and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service activity in the Lower Minnesota River Valley are included in
the regional system. Their acreage is added to the total regional recreation
open space available in the Metropolitan Area. Out they are not subject to
the same classification system, management principles, and overall objectives
that govern the parks and park reserves owned and operated by the implementing
agencies (counties, municipalities and park districts).
3
The Council has very specific administrative responsibility in the regional
park system. The law provides that "the Metropolitan Council shall review,
with the advice of the Comnission, each master plan to determine whether it is
consistent with the Council's policy plan." The law further provides that
"the Metropolitan Council, with the advice of the Commission, may make grants
from any funds available to it for recreation open space purposes, to any
municipality, park district or county located wholly or partially in the
Metropolitan Area, to cover the cost, or any portion of the cost, of acquiring
or developing regional recreation open space in accordance with the policy
plan." However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota OUR are
not required to subm;t master plans to the Council for parks under their
jurisdiction that are part of the regional park system. And the Council cannot
make grants to either agency for purposes of acquiring or developing these
facilities.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Minnesota OUR actions that provide recreational
opportunity in the Metropolitan Area have a substantial impact on the Council's
plans for the regional park system. The concentration of state parks outside
the Metropolitan Area was a factor in the beginnings of the regional system.
The Hennepin County Park Reserve District was established in 1957 to provide
similar parks in Hennepin County. Sincethen;the counties, together with the
park reserve district and a few municipalities, have assumed primary
responsibility for providing regional recreation open space in this Area, with
regional administration provided by the Council and Commission.
There are two basic alternatives for addressing this issue. One would be to
retain the functional system approach, and ask the state legislature to require
the Minnesota OUR to submit master plans to the Council for state parks in the
Metropolitan Area, as well as the management plans it submits to the State
Planning Agency.
The second approach would be to remove state parks and federal units from
the regional park system. These complementary facilities would still be
considered in regional planning.
3. MASTER PLANS FOR REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE
Three questions regarding which agencies should prepare master plans for
regional recreation open space should be addressed.
(1) Should municipalities be encouraned to submit master plans for
regional recreation open space under their jurisdiction directly to
the Council? Or should counties and special nark districts prepare
countywide master plans that include appropriate menicipally-owned
facilities?
The 1974 Metropolitan Parks Act defines and directs the preparation of master
plans for regional recreation open space. By definition, a master plan is
"a plan describing the boundaries of specific parks or other regional
recreation open space and the nature of their development and use."
4 2g62)
The law directs that "each park district located wholly or partially within the
Metropolitan Area, and each county in the Metropolitan Area not wholly within
a park district, shall prepare, after consultation with all affected
municipalities, and submit to the Metropolitan Council, and from time to time
revise and resubmit to the Council, a master plan and annual budget for
acquisition and development of regional recreation open space located within
the district or county, consistent with the Council's policy plan."
This language would appear to require that the counties and the Hennepin County
Park Reserve District are primarily responsible for preparing master plans on
a countywide basis. While the language does not preclude municipalities from
submitting master plans, it appears that the counties are to play a coordinating
role with municipalities in this effort.
Master plan, as defined in the law, seems to define a county system plan rather
than a specific site development plan. If this interpretation were used, it
could be held that no funding can be approved for any park until that county-
wide master plan is complete, i.e. includes all designated regional recreation
open space within that county.
The Council's policy plan provides that muniiipalities can prepare master plans.
This is In recognition of the historical involvement of some municipalities
h In park sites identified as part of the regional system. Examples are the chain
• of lakes (Cedar, Lake of the Isles, Calhoun and Harriet) in Minneapolis and
Como Park in St. Paul. Plans from Minneapolis and St. Paul are now reviewed
• on their own merits, rather than in a countywide context.
(2) Should the policy plan distinguish between master plan stages for
acquisition and development of regional recreation open space?
The policy plan sags that a master plan should include the following items:
. The identification of boundaries for each specific park and the
delineation of parcels to be acquired and an acquisition schedule;
. A description of the nature of development and use of each specific
park;
. 'A description of the recreation needs and deficiencies each specific
park will meet;
. A statement identifying any conflicts with other existing or proposed
public projects;
. A description and timing of public services needed for proposed
development; and
. A description of the anticipated operational plan for each specific
park commensurate with the proposed development program.
s ;HA
In practice, the Council has received separate acquisition-stage and develop-
ment-stage master plans. Acquisition-stage plans have set boundaries and
estimated costs of acquiring parklands. Development-stage plans have addressed
park capacity, facilities and timing for development; they have been the basis
for development funding within a park.
(3) What role should the Council play in resolving joint master plan
differences?
Policy 13 in the Council's current policy plan requires that "there shall be
one coordinated master plan for each regional reclation open space site that
involves more than one implementing agency. This plan shall be approved by
each of the implementing agencies, and shall identify the nature of each agency's
responsibilities for carrying out the compatible development and operation of
the park."
To date, only one joint master plan has been approved. This is the plan for the
Keller-Phalen Regional Park, which has been operating for a long time. All
joint master plans for new parks are still under.debate. The problem appears
to be that when there is a disagreement, each agency holds its position, causing
a stalemate.
THE NUMBER OF IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES
Two questions regarding the number of implementing agencies should be addressed:
Should the Council and Commission limit the number of implementing
agericiM
(2) Should the Council explore ways to phase suburban communities out
of the 'Orplementation of regional park system projects, and CO
transfer that responsibility to the appropriate county park authority?
Or should be present structure of implementing agencies be continued?
There are currently 11 implementing agencies involved in the regional recreation
open space system. They are: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey and Washington
Counties; Hennepin County Park Reserve District; Scott-Hennepin Joint Park Board;
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board; and the cities of St. Paul, Bloomington
and Eden Prairie.
• Most of these government units became implementing agencies because they had .
.Jurisdiction over existing parks or potential park sites that were being
considered for regional recreation open space designation in 1974.
When the legislature passed the Metropolitan Parks Act in 1974, one catalyst
for establishment of a regional park system was the need for immediate action
ir to protect 12 land resources threatened by urban development. These sites were
411 located throughout the Metropolitan Area in every county except Carver. They
were being acquired by Anoka, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties,
Hennepin County Park Reserve District, and the cities of Bloomington and
Eden Prairie.
6 • • :),(=i 0-...)
(1)
The policy plan, adopted in 1974, incorporated the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board and the city of St. Paul as implementing agencies, in
recognition of their historical role in providing large urban parks that serve
residents from throughout the Metropolitan Area. Carver County was designated
as an implementing agency for Baylor, Lake Minnewashta and Lake Waconia
Regional Parks. Eden Prairie and Bloomington were designated as implementing
agencies too, because thcy were already involved in the acquisition of the
Anderson Lakes Park Reserve area, and Eden Prairie was also acquiring Bryant
Lake Regional Park.
Besides the 11 implementing agencies listed earlier, the city of Fridley has
become an implementing agency. Its role is limited to implementing a program
under only one of the five categories in the regional recreation open space
system -- the special recreation use category. The Interim Special Recreation Use
policy plan amendment adopted by the Council in 1977 said that municipalities
could be implementating agencies for special recreation use facilities of
regional significance.
Other municipalities have expressed interest in being designated as
implementing agencies for programs in theregional trails and special recreation use
categories. Lino Lakes and Hugo are interested in being designated the
implementing agency for part of the Otter-Bald Eagle Regional Park.
It seems reasonable that the Council and Commission should limit the number of
Implementing agencies involved in the regional recreation open space system.
Although many municipalities have park facilities that serve people who don't
live in their communities, few have facilities that serve the Region to the same
degree as the units in the regional park system. Communities with parks that do
provide regional service already are implementing agencies.
By not designating aditional implementing agencies, the Council and Commission
would be able to carry out their administrative role more efficiently and
effectively. Limiting the number of implementing agencies will become increasingly
important as the regional park system evolves from the acquisition and development
phase to operations and maintenance of parklands. It would also support the
premise that regional parks serve areas with populations greater than a municipality.
•
5. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR THE REGIONAL PARK SYSTEM
Should the policy plan address the issue of funding sources for oneration
and maintenance of regional parks, and the procedures for administration .
of func153
The existing policy plan concentrates on the acquisition of regional recreation
open space. Now that much of the land has been acquired and a number of the
facilities have been developed, the question becomes one of what policy should be
411 developed regarding park operation and maintenance.
0 Funds for acquisition and development of regional parks are provided to the
Implementing agencies through the Metropolitan Council from the state legislature.
But operation and maintenance of regional parks are financed by the implementing
agencies.
In 1978, the 11 implementing agencies spent nearly $14 million for operation and
maintenarce of regional parks. Their principal source of revenue, about 70
percent, is local property tax revenues. The rest of the money comes from
fees paid by people using the parks, and from grants, from the federal
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) and the state Dutch Elm Disease
abatement program.
The Council is committed to report to the legislature in 1981 regarding operation
and maintenance of the regional park system. This report should address current
funding levels, needed funding increases, and appropriate funding sources to
finance the future system. These funding sources could include user fees,
special taxes, or general tax revenue available either on the metropolitan or
state level. Raising and sharing regional or state revenues for park operations
would establish a new precedent in this state. It would also prompt discussion
on the structure of the government to deliver the services required.
6. REGIONAL PARK DISTRIBUTION
Should the policy plan give priority to developing regional parks most
accessible to Metronolitan Area residents, or to protecting "outstanding"
natural resources within the Area?
se ' The regional recreation open space system is based on two objectives. The first
Is to provide regional parks for needed outdoor recreation to the people of the
- Metropolitan Area, particularly through use of the outstanding water resources
available. The second is to create park reserves to protect the seven
significant landscape types in the Region (e.g. prairie, flood plain, big woods).
The current policy plan gives top priority toacquisition and development of land
in or near the fully developed part of the Region for recreation. It places
a lower priority on park reserves.
The relative importance of accessibility to a regional park verses the quality
of the park has been and continues to be an issue in creating a regional recreation
system. Preliminary results of the Council's regional park dtiMand/user study -
indicate that citizens strongly prefer picnic and swimming facilities together
with boating on large lakes with good water quality. Most survey respondents
said they travel to the regional park they prefer, not necessarily to the one
located nearest their residence. Most get there by car, even when bus service
to the park is available. lhe Council and Commission should consider these
factors, and other res?onses to the survey, in setting priorities for future
regional park investments.
3.
8
7. IMPLEMENTING THE REGIONAL PARK SYSTEM
How can the Council ensure that the implementing agencies can acquire
and develoP the regional park system that the Council determines is
needed?
Currently, local consent is required to acquire land for most of the regional
park sites. In some instances and for various reasons, municipalities have
withheld consent and thus stopped the acquisition of land identified as needed
for the regional park system. In some cases, this has resulted in substantial
reduction of recreational benefit, particularly where a park spans two or more
municipal boundaries and land has been acquired ir one municipality, but the other
municipality has withheld consent.
The Council should consider a policy that addresses this problem and provides
a fair and equitable solution.
8. THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Should the capital improvement program for regional recreation open space
adopted by the Council include all projects and all sources of funds?
Or should it continue to include only projects to be funded with regional
park funds?
0 The Metropolitan Parks Act requires that the Council prepare a capital improve-
ment program for the regional park system. To date, the Council has prepared
the program by considering the requests of the implementing agencies, together with
the systemwide perspective of the Commission and the parks and open space staff.
The product has become a capital improvement program for regional park dollars,
but not necessarily for the overall regional park system. This is because some
Implementing agencies are investing other capital funds in the parks that they
have either raised locally or received through other grant programs. Some of
these investments have been made before a master plan was adopted by the Council.
Other investments were used to implement projects included in an approved master
plan that were not programmed for funding through the Council's capital improve-
ment program.
9. CONVERSION OF PARKLAND
Two questions regarding use of undeveloped land acquired for regional parks
should be addressed.
(1) Should the procedure the Council has adopted governing the Interim
use of undeveloped regional parklands be incorporated in the policy
plan?
(2) Is Policy_18 in the current policy plan governing conversion of
undeveloped parklands adequate?
Land acquired for regional recreation open space purposes is being used In a
number of interim ways. Many of these are land holding techniques being used
by the implementing agencies while acquisition of the park is completed or
until funds for development arc available. The Council should consider
Incorporating its procedure governing interim uses of undeveloped parkland in the
policy plan.
Policy 18 states that "the conversion of regional recreation open space areas
to other uses shall be allowed only when no reasonable alternative exists. When
such conversion is unavoidable, payment. or replacement shall be determined by the
Council."
The intent of this policy is to allow conversion of parkland only for other
necessary public investment, e.g. highways, power lines, etc. In the face of
several current proposals from county and municipal governments to use parkland
for other than park purposes, the Council should reconsider whether Policy 18
is adequate. In July, Eagan requested that the Council approve installation of
a water reservoir in the Lebanon Hills Park Reserve in Dakota County. Hennepin
County's landfill siting study has identified the Baker and Crow-Hassan Park
Reserves as potential landfill sites, although the county has not asked the Council
to approve one of these sites for a landfill.
ario9
liastad
deve opment
corporation
September 27, 1979
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Mayor and City Council:
Our company has worked with the suggestions made by the City Council in an
effort to improve the plan. The revised plan responds to the suggestions
concerning the airport safety zones, number of variance lots and park area.
The Airport Advisory Commission reviewed the revised plan, as did the staff.
The changes to the Bluffs West 3rd Addition plan reduce the number of side
yard variances requested of 5 feet and 10 feet from 40% to 25% with all lots
10,000 square feet or larger. The east-west collector street remains an 80
foot right-of-way with a normal 30 foot setback.
The number of lots around the northern most cul-de-sac have been reduced from
7 to 6. Also, the northern loop street along the park has been moved south
100 feet to 150 feet, moving the lots further from the fly-over area. These
changes have enlarged the park and total site to 85 acres with a park dedication
of 19.1 acres rather than 16.5 acres.
We hope that these changes improve the proposed Bluffs West 3rd Addition
plat of 169 lots at a density of two units per acre. Hustad Development
Corporation requests that the City Council approve the rezoning from Rural
to R-13.5 and the preliminary plat for Bluffs West 3rd Addition.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
`;124,9r4:41
Wallace Hustad, President
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
12750 PIONEER TRAIL EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55343(612)941-4383
`‘,114
FLYING CLOUD ADVISORY CC:s 1 MISSION
MINUTES
The meeting of the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission was called to
order on Wednesday, Setpember 26, 1979 at 5:15 p.m. by Chairman
Sally Borwn.
Commission members present: Sally Brown, Tom Faranda, Claude
Schmidt, Bill Gilk and Les Lewis
Mr. Chris Enger represented the Eden Prairie City Staff
Others present: Dick Putnam ofBusted Development
After considerable discussion, the following resolution was adopted
regarding Bluffs West 3rd development:
I. Usage of this land for the proposed development
is inconsistent and incompatable with the airport
2. However, the project meets the compresentative guide
and is outside the "A" and "B" zones and the 1-65
contours
3. The benefits of purchasing the area east of the "B"
zone would be benefitial however, it is felt that costs
out-weigh the benefits; however, it is suggested that
the area be considered for park land
4. Develop a plan to notify prospective purchasers that an
airport is within mile and is in close proximity to
to the approach - departure tracks of the East-West
runways
The meeting was adjourned.
WHG:car
)
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
.DATE:
RE:
Mayor and City Council
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
September 27, 1979
Bluffg We'St -Third'Addition
Pursuant to the,Council's motion regarding the Bluff's West 3rd Addition
adopted at the September 4, 1979 meeting, the staff has discussed acqui-
sition of portions of the subdivision with the Flying Cloud AdvisoryCom-
mission.
During the week of September 10, I requested Claude Schmidt of M.A.C. to
investigate the desirability and possibility of M.A.C. purchase of stra-
tegic portions of the Bluffs West 3rd. This request was made in order to
have this infonnation.available for the September 26 meeting of the Flying
Cloud Advisory Commission.
Mr. Schmidt reported at the Advisory Comnission meeting that in order for
M.A.C. to purchase property outside of the legal A & B zones the price must
be right and there must be a willing seller. He also felt that unless
M.A.C. were to purchase the entire 3rd Addition there did not seem to be
enough cost/benefit relationship to warrant purchase of the northern lots.
The Commission felt that, strictly from an airport stand point, light
industrial or park would have been a more compatible land use than resi-
dential. They also felt that removing the northern tip of cul-de-sac lots
from east of the A & B zones would be beneficial, but purchase of those
few lots would be more expensive than the benefit derived.
They did-feel that the revised Bluffs 3rd showing additional open space
was an improvement.
The Engineering and Planning Staff have evaluated the 80!. R.O.W. and 50'
set back requirement for the central through road. Bluffs West 2nd and
3rd additions would generate approximately 3320 A.B.T. If the balance of
the area were developed as the previous 4th Addition had contemplated
(40 s.f. homes and 140 apartments) the total number of trips per day
would be 4700. This amount of traffic can be adequately handled in a 32'
wide road.
Mitchell road south of Scenic Heights road, by comparison is 32' wide with
a 60' R.O.W. with 30'set back requirements. It will carry approximately
6,000 A.D.T. in the futrue. This combination of road width, R.O.W. width
and set back puts the homes 44 feet from the road surface.
-2-
The Bluffs 3rd combination of 80' R.O.W., 32' wide street and suggest
e
d
5
0
'
set back would place the homes 74' from the road surface. If the R.O.W
.
were left the same and the set back reduced to 30' as required by ordin
a
n
c
e
the distance of homes from the street would be 54'. The staff feels thi
s
i
s
reasonable and consistent with minor neighborhood collectors.
B.F.I. has very general P.U.D. concept approved for Industrial Use west
o
f
this area. The original concept illustrated connection of ,a road through
from Homeward Hills to 169 with Industrial use on the north side and re
s
i
-
dential on the south side. At this point, it may not be advisable for
industrial traffic to access through a residential area.
The developer has slightly modified the plat to:
1. Increase the size of thenorthernlots.
2. Decrease the number of northern lots.
3. Pull the northern lots further south.
4. Contribute approximately an additional 3 acres
to open space.
5. Improve the road system in regards to grades.
6. Decrease the variance request for side yard set
backs from 42% to 25%.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon recommendations from the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission
a
n
d
the new revised Bluffs West 3rd Addition the staff would recommend app
r
o
v
a
l
of the perliminary plat and rezoning to R1-13.5 for 169 lots.
CE:jo
a
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: September 27, 1979
RE: MIDB'S Fred Falk and Robert Murray
Mr. Falk, the owner of Reliable Automotive a wholesale auto parts company,
intends to construct a 60,000 square foot office/warehouse building in
Shady Oak Industrial Park 2nd. The facility expected to cost $1,350,000
would be leased to Reliable Automotive which expects to employ 34 persons.
The bond would be privately placed with institutional investors. The
attached letter explains the business relationship between Mr. Falk and
Mr. Murray. The property is zoned 1-2 and is correct for the intended use.
Resolution #79-176 is attached for your consideration.
.:7q 113
LLOYD C. CL SON
DONALD A. WINKER
rftr.OtRICn L. INCIRDCIN
JAMES 11. HANNAH
0*001 OWL MAW 000
CLAY R, MOCIRP.
(DONOR r. SC OHIO
VA( H. HIGI.INS
LONERS D. 01ITHCS TAO
00000 WRY 0.014013005
E.CDRDE N. A. JOHNSON
P OOCH V. 50 0050(00
ANDREW D. CLARK
CRANK A. DVORAK
RORY,' 11, DISVOLD
MARVIN /HOLIER
FRAN, ...ICY.: ID
GOICAORY J. PlaLi.,9
MARTIN Y. AYDCLDT
TICHSCIUT G. LCC
J OHN 0, LUNDQUIST
JAMES T. rovENsoN
ERIC U. MAIDSON
HICHACL S, TROST
MACKALL, CROUNSE & MCIORE
LAW OFFICES
n 01:10 FIRST NATIONAL RANK PUILOINO
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA $5405
TGLrFN OHS 16121333-1341
TFL ux ,S-ONRA
August 28, 1979
OF COUNISCL
HENRY C. MACK•LL
THOMAS P. HELMET
1-MCOE.C“..!OINCIIFIFOH101 ,14 400
PI:141MT R. MOD. 01144 • :RS,
DONALD A, HOLMES 1.90.1-$9731
RIJOCNT MI.CRIJUNSC 11003.111741
Mr. John D. Franc
Finance Director
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: $1,200,000 City of Eden Prairie
Industrial Development Revenue Bond
(Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc.
Project)
Dear Mr. Franc:
This letter is intended to explain the relationship
between Messrs. Fred P. Falk and Robert Murray with respect to
the above-captioned Project.
Mr. Falk, the President of Reliable Automotive of
Minnesota, Inc., has agreed, subject to the approval of the
Eden Prairie City Council authorizing revenue bond financing
for the above-captioned Project, to acquire Mr. Murray's
interests in the land, construction contract, and related
Project assets thirteen months following completion of the
Project.
For income tax reasons, the asset acquisition
will be accomplished via the formation of a partnership in
order to acquire the land and construct the Project followed by
the aforementioned sale by Mr. Murray to Mr. Falk of the former's
interest in the partnership.
Other than providing technical advice and
assistance during the construction stage of the Project, Mr.
Murray will have no major involvement prior to his sale to
MACKALL, CROUNSE_& MOORE
By
Ma in C. In
MCI:dlm
MACKALL.CROUNSE St MOORE
Mr. John D. Franc August 28, 1979
Page Two
Mr. Palk. The lending institutions providing the financing
for the Project will consider only the credit of Mr. Falk and
Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc. Mr. Murray will have no
financial liability with respect to the Project insofar as
his interest therein will expire upon the sale to Mr. Falk.
I trust the above clearly explains the somewhat
complicated fact situation involved in this transaction. Please
call should you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for
Industrial Development Bond Project Financing
1. APPLICANT:
a. Business Name - Fred P. Falk and Robert Murray, Partners
b. Business Address _c/o Fred P. Falk, President
Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc.
2600 Cleveland Avenue South
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor-
ship, etc.) - Partnership
d. State of Incorporation or organization - Minnesota
e. Authorized Representative - Fred P. Falk
f. Phone - 612/6.36-0117 .
2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STIOMUOLDEMAXic PRINCIPALS:
a. Fred P. Falk
6409 Interlachen Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436
b. Robert Murray
7037 Valley View Road
.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435
C .
-1-
21I1
Land 3.9 acres 170,000 .
Building 60,000 square feet $ 1,100 000
Equipment -0-
Other - financing costs
80,000
/4;oao
e. •zS, 0, 3
0 Total
C "
' 0 .1 0$
-2-
)
$ 1,350,000
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL
PRODUCTS, ETC:
Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc. is a wholesale'
distributor of automotive parts.
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Construction of a 60,000 square foot
combination office warehouse building
on a 3.9 acre site located at the a. Location and intended use: proposed intersection of 69th Street
and Shady Oak Drive, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Shady Oak
Industrial Park, 2nd Addition. Entire building to be leased to
Applicant's wholly owned corporation, Reliable Automotive of Minnesota.',
b. Present ownership of project site: Inc. Richard W. Anderson, Inc. '
c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general
contractor: Design, engineering and construction to be done by:
Adolf son & Peterson, Incorporated
6701 West 23rd Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
5. ESTIMATED' PROJECT COST FOR:,
6. BOND ISSUE -
a. Amount of proposed bond issue - .$1,200,000
b. Proposed date of sale of bond - October, 1979
C. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities -
25 to 30 year term amortized monthly in equal installments
d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds -
Bond to be purchased by one or more institutional lenders
to be determined.
e. Name and address of suggested trustee - N/A
f. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original
purchaser - None
g. Describe any interim financing sought or available -
Construction financing to be obtained from institutional lender
to be determined.
h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing
in addition to bond financing - Equity funds to be provided
by Applicant.
7. BUSINESS PROFILE - (Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc.)
a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No
b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
I. Before this project: None
11
-4-
ii. After this project? 35
C. Approximate annual sales - $4,000,000
d. Length of time in business Six years in Minnesota; over
fifty years outside of Minnesota
in Eden Prairie None
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where?
Four affiliated corporations located in:
(1) Sioux City, Iowa
(2) Denver, Colorado
(3) Dallas, Texas
(4) Kansas City, Kansas
f. Are you engaged in international trade? N o
8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S):
1
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 •
-5-
• ;2.0o
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(s) for the denial
and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who
have knowledge of the transaction ,.
None
O. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF:
Agent and Mortgsge Broker:
a. lindurwritzmobbfx.zutokignoadMi*Bgac
The Highland Financial Group, Inc.
6100 Green Valley Drive
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55438
b. Private Placement Purchaser (If private placement)
Institutional lenders to be determined
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 Highland Financial Group, Inc.
-6-
b. Bond Counsel - Mackall, Crounse & Moore
1000 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
c. .Corporate Counsel - Stewart, Hatfield, Klass & Whicher
830 Frances building
Sioux City, Iowa 51101
d. Accountant - Sterling & Company
Suite 101, Prestige Square
607-14th Street
Sioux City, Iowa 51101
10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start - October 15, 1979
b. Construction completion - April 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_thisiAroject.
eC*-?re-'1t (Yk160
Robert Murray
45c Applicant
August 24, 1979
Date
-7-
11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CI
T
Y
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
a. ',Property is zoned -
b. Present zoning
use.
is not) correct for the intended
C. Zoning application received o
n
for which is correct for the
intended use.
d. Variances required -
City Planner
-8--
RESOLUTION NO. /
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 a 60,000 square foot combination
office-warehouse building thereon and the purchase of equipment
therefor (the "Project"). Under the proposal, a partnership to
be formed under the laws of the State of Minnesota and consisting
of Messrs. Fred P. Falk and Robert Murray (the "Partnership") will
enter into a loan agreement (the "Loan Agreement") with the City
whereby the City agrees to issue and sell its $1,200,000 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. 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 mortgage
and other encumbrances on the Project. The Partnership will retain
title to and ownership of the Project and will lease the Project to
Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc. (a corporation wholly owned
by and the president of which is Mr. Fred P. Falk) 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 Nassigned
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 Pond 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.
1.2 At a public hearing, duly called, noticed and held on
, 19 , in accordance with the Act, all parties
de-giring to appear were afforded an opportunity to be heard. B
a
s
e
d
on such public hearing and on such other facts and circumsta
n
c
e
s
a
s
this Council deems relevant, this Council hereby finds, deter
m
i
n
e
s
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 b
y
t
h
e
active attraction, encouragement and development of economicall
y
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 th
e
increasing concentration of population in the metropolitan are
a
s
,
the rapidly rising increase in the amount and cost of governme
n
t
a
l
services required to meet the needs of the increased populati
o
n
a
n
d
the need for development of land use which will provide an ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
tax base to finance these increased costs and access to emplo
y
m
e
n
t
opportunities for such population.
(b) The welfare of the residents of the state requires
the active promotion, attraction, encouragement and developmen
t
o
f
economically sound industry and commerce through governmental
a
c
t
s
;
the encouragement of employment opportunities for citizens of
t
h
e
state and the City; and the development of industry to use ava
i
l
a
b
l
e
resources of the City, in order to retain the benefit of its
e
x
i
s
t
-
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
t
h
e
Act.
(d) The City is authorized by the Act to issue its
industrial development revenue bonds to finance capital proje
c
t
s
consisting of properties used or useful in connection with a
revenue producing enterprise.
(e) This Council has been advised by The Highland
Financial Croup, Inc., agent for the Partnership (t,he "Agent
"
)
t
h
a
t
conventional, commercial financing to partially finance the
c
o
s
t
o
f
the Project is available on such a limited basis and at such h
i
g
h
interest rates that the economic feasibility of operating the
Project would be significantly reduced. However, with the aid
o
f
a
municipal borrower, and its resulting lower borrowing cost, th
e
economic feasibility of the Project would be substantially inc
r
e
a
s
e
d
and that the issuance of the Bond by the City would be a signi
f
i
c
a
n
t
inducement to the Partnership to construct the Project in the C
i
t
y
.
-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
$1,200,000, 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
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.
3.4 The Partnership acknowledges the current lack of public
access to the subject property. By Resolution No. 79-42 this
Council ordered public improvements and the preparation of plans
and specifications for said improvements following receipt of a
petition for such public improvements by the owners of 100% of the
subject property. The adoption of this resolution does not consti-
tute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will proceed
with the ordered public improvements nor does it prohibit or prevent
the City from any further action regarding such public improvements,
including abandonment of the project or the repeal of Resolution
No. 79-42.
-4-
JsY.) 1
-5-
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Uden Prairie,
Minnesota, this day of , 1979.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
RELIABLE AUTOMOTIVE INC.
The Honorable Mayor and Members Sept. 25, 1979
of the City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: $1,200,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Industrial Development Revenue Bond
(Reliable Automotive of Minnesota, Inc. Project)
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
This letter is intended to explain the relation-
ship between this company and Mr. Robert Murray with respect
to the above-captioned Project.
As you no doubt remember, Mr. Murray's original
request for revenue bond financing was denied by the Eden Prairie
City Council on Tuesday, July 17, 1979. Such request was for a
combination office-warehouse building to be constructed and
owned by Mr. Murray, however, the building was to be leased
to tenants unrelated to Mr. Murray.
At the time the Eden Prairie City Council was
considering Mr. Murray's application, I approached the law
firm of Mackall, Crounse & Moore and Marvin C. Ingber, a partner
in the firm, regarding the possibility of exploring revenue
bond financing of a combination office-warehouse facility for
this company to be located in Eden Prairie. We presently are
DALLAS, TEXAS / DENVER, COLORADO / ST PAUL, MINNESOTA / SIOUX CITY, IOWA
-2-
RELIABLE AUTOMOTIVE INC.
located in Roseville, Minnesota in rented space and desire
to relocate in a southwestern suburban community.
When Mr. Ingber indicated that Mr. Murray's
request for revenue bond financing had been denied and that
Mr. Murray had also decided not to proceed to build the facility
using conventional financing, Mr. Ingber suggested that I
contact Mr. Murray and determine whether this company could
acquire the land and/or construction contract options Mr. Murray
had negotiated. Because both the land option and construction
contract option were negotiated during the Spring of 1979,
prior to the escalating inflationary summer and fall months
of this year, this company has determined that acquisition of
these options would be a definite economic advantage in de-
ciding to move forward with this Project.
As a result of the foregoing, this company
has agreed, subject to approval by the Eden Prairie City
Council authorizing revenue bond financing for the Project,
to acquire Mr. Murray's interest in the land, construction
contract and related Project assets. Such acquisition would
occur thirteen months following completion of the Project.
For income tax reasons, our lawyers and accountants have pro-
posed that the asset acquisition be accomplished via the
DALLAS. TEXAS / DENVER, COLORADO / ST PAUL, MINNESOTA I SIOUX CITY. IOWA
.1410
-3-
RELIABLE AUTOMOTIVE INC.
formation of a partnership between Mr. Murray and the under-
signed (in order to acquire the land and construct the Project)
followed by the sale by Mr. Murray to the undersigned of the
former's interest in the partnership owning the Project. Other
than providing technical advice and assistance during the con-
struction stage, Mr. Murray will have no significant involvement
with the Project prior to the sale to the undersigned. The
lending institutions that will be providing the financing for
the Project will be considering only the credit of the under-
signed and this company. Mr. Murray will have no financial
liability with respect to the Project because his interest
therein will expire upon the sale to the undersigned.
As you may be aware, this company is a whole-
sale distributor of automotive parts. We are a family-owned
operation and have been in business for over fifty years and
have facilities located in four states. We have'been located
in Minnesota for the past six years. Moving from leased space
in Roseville to an owned building in Eden Prairie will result
in the creation of approximately 35 new jobs in your community.
In addition, due to the substantial distance of the move, I
would guess that a number of our employees would be looking
for permanent residence in your community rather than commute.
DALLAS, TEXAS / DENVER, COLORADO / ST PAUL, MINNESOTA / SIOUX CITY, IOWA
-4-
RELIABLE AUTOMOTIVE INC.
I trust the above thoroughly explains our
company involvement with Mr. Murray. in summary, his land
and construction contract options are an integral part of the
proposed transaction for obvious economic considerations.
Thirteen months following completion of the Project, Mr. Murray
will sell his interest in the Project to the undersigned and
will have no interest in the Project. His interim interest
in the Project is made necessary because of tax reasons out-
lined by our respective lawyers and accountants.
Please call should there be any questions.
Very truly yours,
RELIABLE AUTOMOTIVE OF MINNESOTA,
INC.
By_LI
Fr
FPF:gbf
cc Wolfgang H. Penzil, Mayor
Dean R. Edstrom, Councilmember
David W.Osterholt, Councilmember
Sydney Pauly, Councilmember
Paul R. Redpath, Councilmember
1/John D. Franc, Finance Director
DALLAS, TEXAS / DENVER, COLORADO / ST PAUL, MINNESOTA I SIOUX CITY IOWA
xi)),
REVENUE
Taxes
Other Agencies
Licenses
Permits & Fees
Recreation
Fines
Other Funds
Other
1980 BUDGET INFORMATION
EXPENDITUES
46% General Government
14 Public Safety
1 Public Works
21 Parks
2 Community Services 9
Reserve 5
11 Tree Disease 3
4 Benefits & Insurance 13
REV
24%
20
22
4
Fund Balance 1/1/79
Appropriated During 1979
$423,000
71,000
2,000
Addition from 1979 Operations 150 000
Applied to 1980 Proposed Budget 149,000
Estimated Balance 12/31/79 $353,000
JDF:bq
9/20/79
-Reim)
.2C4V.)
Mill Rate
General
Fire Relief
1968 G. O. Bonds
Certificates
Fire Bonds
Utility Bonds
Transportation Bonds
Total 16.281 17.110 16.696
12.869
13.531
.023
1.030
1.096
1.481 .755
.731
.901 .974
REV
7% t/7
0 1980 EDEN PRAIRIE BUDGET
ASSESSED VALUATIONS, TAX LEVIES AND MILL RATES
(Shown by year of tax collectibility)
Assessed Valuations
Real Property
Personal Property
.. Gross
Fiscal Disp. Contrib.
Fiscal Disp. Distrib.
Net Valuation
Tax Levies
General
Ftre Relief
1968 G. O. Bonds
Certificates
Fire Bonds
Utility Bonds
Transportation Bonds
992,820 1,109,770 1,094,071
1,898
79,455 89,884 72,004
114,217 61,920 150,009
59,923 94,006
69,523 79,897
103,806
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
BUDGET
RECOMMEND
1977
1978
1979
1980
78,482,821 85,384,840 98,087,490
3,235,793 3,563,496 _4,029,143
-61-,718-,-611- -88,948,336 1 -02c-116,633
(4,372,730) (7,496,265) (8,999,890)
449,854 563,826 937,432
77 146,060 82,015,897 94,054,175 • 110,226,000
Total 1,256,015 1,403,292 1,513,896
1,407,000
72,000
150,000
91,000
50,000
1,770,000
898,048 1,059,362 982,000 1,147,000
162,078
10,650
20,935
1,673
110,394
337
202,246
11,430
29,863
2,779
132,027
1,695
333,800
11,500
21,000
1,400
152,000
387,200
11,600
35,000
1,400
306,061 380,040 519,700 435,200
8,250
7,836
8,997
5,253
20,138
4,559
5,171
4,099
15,700
6,000
9,000
5,400
20,000
5,000
10,000
4,000
30,336 33,967 36,100 39,000
3,632
203,718
63,902
1,417
16,215
260,395
3,506
730
3,451 3,800
238,225 200,000
88,462 60,000
1,200
24,569 16,000
226,676 240,000
3,435 3,800
686 800
4,000
200,000
. 60,000
1,200
16,000
340,000
3,800
800
553,515 585,504 525,600 625,800
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN, MINNESOTA
REV
Vid th 7
1980 BUDGET
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
ACTUAL
ACTUAL BUDGET
REQUESTED
ADOPTED
1977
1978 1979
1980
1980
1,407,000
GENERAL FUND
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
Current
Less: Allowance for
Delinquent
Net:
Delinquent Taxes
Penalty and Interest
Total Taxes
REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES
Local Government Aid
,State Aid Street
Police Pension
Fixed Machinery Replacement
Homestead Credit
Other
942,000
808,339 4.8,530
31,481 44,958
58,223 65,874
50,000 50,000
892,000 1,357,000
33,000 40,000
57,000 50,000
Total Other Agencies
LICENSES
Liquor & Beer
Building Contractors
Food
Other
Total Licenses
PERMITS AND FEES
Dog Registration
Building
Plumbing & Heating
Other Building
Planning & Zoning
Engineering & Admin Fees
Other Fees
Impound Fees
Total Permits & Fees
*1980 Estimate $175,000
1980 Budget
Page 2
ACTUAL
ACTUAL BUDGET
REQUESTED
ADOPTED
1977
1978 1979
1980
1980
RECREATIONS FEES
Special Events
Playgrounds
Swimming & Admissions
Skilled Development
Rentals
Concessions
Organized Athletics
Teen Activities
Other
Human Services
1,200
2,081
6,169
13,119
3,869
2,241
9,623
738
3,934
1,909
1,554
4,778
18,549
4,753
3,172
11,038
392
5,425
1,500
4,500
8,000
22,000
4,200
3,300
15,000
800
5,000
2,800
5,500
8,500
22,000
4,200
3,800
20,100
800
-0-
2,400
Total Recreation Fees 42,974 51,570 64,300 70,100
COURT FINES 31,771 40,403 30,000 40,000
INVESTMENT EARNINGS 7,767 15,402 10,000 15,000
TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS
Park Bond 26,400 -0-
Federal Revenue
Sharing 77,718 68,048 90,000 130,000
State Aid 34,900
Utility Operating 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Fund Balance 18,750 149,000
Total From Other Funds 122,618 78,048 145,150 289,000
OTHER REVENUE
School Liasion 11,774 12,746 14,000 14,500
Miscellaneous 64,601 39,541 11,300 10,000
Total Other 76,375 52,287 25,300 24,500
HISTORICAL/CULTURAL 11,000
1978 ENCUMBRANCES • 85,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 2,069,471 2,296,583 2,349,150 3,070,600
o
,
0 0
A 7)(0
REV
A A?
Shady Oak
Industrial 4th
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 79-33
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 No. 135 is amended as
follows: the following described property,
as set forth in r.xhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof,
shall be and hereby is removed from the 1-5 Park District and
shall be included hereafter in the 1-2 Park 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
RICHARD W. ANDERSON, INC., a Minnesota corporation, and
the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part
hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances,
rules and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie relating to
the 1-2 Park 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 day of 6 , 1979,
and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of
, 1979.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Franc, City Clerk
Published in the Eden Prairie news on the day of
1979.
That part of the South 1/2 of the Norewest 1/4 of the Southe
a
s
t
1/4 and the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/5, all in Secti
o
n
1
,
Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, Describe
d
a
s
follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said South 1/2 of the
Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence westerly along
the north line of said South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of
the Southeast 1/4 to 'a point 190.00 feet easterly from the
northwest corner thereof; thence deflect left 145 degrees
.
15 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 450.00 feet; thence
deflect right degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds to the
northerly line of Shady Oak Road c .,s dedicated in the plat
of Shady Oak Industrial Park Second Addition, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota;
thence 'southeasterly along the northerly line of siad
.
Shady Oak. Road to the northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 2,
Shady Oak Industrial Park, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence northeasterly
along the north line of said Lot 2 to the southeast corner
of said south 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4
;
thence northerly along the east line of said South 1/2 of
the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 to the point of
beginning.
EXCEPT that part of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4
of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 116, Range
22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
commencing at the northeast corner of said South 1/2 of
the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4: thence westerly
along the north line of siad South 1/2 of the Northwest
1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 to a point 190.00 feet easterly
from the northwest corner to the point of beginning;
thence deflect left 145 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds a
distance of 161.93 feet; thence deflect left 124 degrees
45 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 92.30 feet to the
north line of said South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of
the Southeast 1/4; thence deflect left 90 degrees 00 ,
minutes no seconds a distance of 133.05 feet to the -
point of beginning.
• . :
EXCEPT that part of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4
of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township .116, Range
22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows;
commencing at the northeast corner of siad South 1/2 of
the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence westerly
along the north line of said South 1/2 of the Northwest
1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 to a point 190.00 feet easterly
from the northwest corner thereof; thence deflect 145
degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 352.64 feet
to the point of beginning; thence deflect right 55
degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 153.49 feet;
thence deflect left 140 degrees 46 minutes 23 seconds
a distance of 126.50 feet; thence deflect left 94
degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds a distance of 97.36 feet
to the point of beginning. -
OcIPA
9/26/79
Shady Oak Ind.Pk 4th Add
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of
, 1979 by and
between Richard W. Anderson, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred
to as "Owner", and by the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, herein-
after referred to as "City".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to change the zoning from 1-5 Park to
1-2 Park for approximately 14.5 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 two lots
for industrial uses.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Mayor and Council of the City adopting
II/ Ordinance No. 79-33, 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 27, 1979 reviewed and approved
by the City Council on September 18, 1979, and attached
hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifica-
tions 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 hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Owner shall plat the property to allow setbacks reqUired by City
Ordinances and not apply for any variances therefrom.
4. Owner agrees that occupancy of any building constructed on Lots
1 and 2 , Exhibit B, shall not be allowed until Shady Oak Road
from 69th Street to Flying Cloud Drive is completed with surface
suitable for driving and until sanitary sewer and water service
is in place and connected to the structures on said lots.
,Z )(10
REBECCA QUERNLMOEN )
NOTARY Milt — MINNESOM
31ft .... HENNEPIN COUNTY
Common Evart 0IC. 10, 1,112 ;1,9q1
0 Developer's Agreement-
Shady Oak 4th Addition
page 2
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, Its Mayor
BY:
Roger K. Ulstad, Its Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY CF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1979 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Roger K. Ulstad, the City Manager of
the City oF Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation.
OWNER,-
BY:
Richard W. Anderson, President
The foregoing instrument was acftolgredged before me e7/41day of
1979 by Richard W. Anderson theOltd(Ak,ki — of Richard W. Anderson, nc.,
on behalf of the corporation.
That part of the South 1/2 of the Norewest 1/4 of the Southeast
1/4 and the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/5, all in Section 1,
Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, Described as
follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said South 1/2 of the
Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence westerly along
the north line of said South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of
the Southeast 1/4 to 'a point 190.00 feet easterly from the
northwest corner thereof; thence deflect left 145 degrees
15 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 450.00 feet; thence
def1ect'right'94 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds to the
northerly line of Shady Oak Road as dedicated in the plat
of Shady Oak Industrial Park Second Addition, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota;
thence 'southeasterly along the northerly line of siad
Shady Oak Road to the northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 2,
Shady Oak Industrial Park, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence northeasterly
along the north line of said Lot 2 to the southeast corner
of said south 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4;
thence northerly along the east line of said South 1/2 of
the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 to the point of
beginning.
EXCEPT that part of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4
of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 116, Range
22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
commencing at the northeast corner of said South 1/2 of
the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence westerly
along the north line of siad South 1/2 of the Northwest
1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 to a point 190.00 feet easterly
from the northwest corner to the point of beginning;
thence deflect left 145 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds a
distance of 161.93 feet; thence deflect left 124 degrees
45 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 92.30 feet to the
north line of said South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of
the Southeast 1/4; thence deflect left 90 degrees 00 a.
minutes oo seconds a distance of 133.05 feet to the -
point of beginning.
EXCEPT that part of the South 1/2 .of the Northwest 1/4
of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 116, Range
22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows;
commencing at the northeast corner of siad South 1/2 of
the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence westerly
along the north line of said South 1/2 of the Northwest
1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 to a point 190.00 feet easterly
from the northwest corner thereof; thence deflect 145
degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 352.64 feet
to the point of beginning; thence deflect right 55
degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 153.49 feet;
thence deflect left 140 degrees 46 minutes 23 seconds
a distance of 126.50 feet; thence deflect left 94
degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds a distance of 97.36 feet
to the point of beginning. -
"EXHIBIT A" „,:g4
ii
\t70;
3.)
^, vrp, -:-.• ---• --,;-ep--•
\t-----,--,Z7' -------!,,N ''1,-:---c---'—
\-,4-'---__\i„,."4.?_-_:_-...-.:1.,a,:...„-- - N ) s:.,n_""--,-----.)\_...,:.:,,I.,,, 1 tiL l v,s,5i ---,,A,..---c-??1,:, - :"L -->,:-.,.. • ,`.,:-.. .7, ' _2 • N , . ...',.:=-;,t;e, ' -7---"N-z..."':.---„„ . ;- • 4.. .:,-=-. I 6 Wi. -7 ; \ •
\--::
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
EXHIBI T
page I of 3
I. Owner shall submit a development plan peior 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.
Owner shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer
plans to the Ntme
Watershed District for review and approval.
Owner shall follow all rules and recommendations of said
Watershed District.
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
010.PerCu:re:. 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.
•
2'itlif
Developer's Agmt Std, Form
page
page 2 of 3 Exhibit C
V. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities, streets
curb, gutter, sidewalks and other public utilities("improvements")
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 ho 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 ccmpleted 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.
B. 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 t over
a five year period. Prior to the award of any contract by the
City for the construction of any improvements, Owner shall have
entered into a contract for rough grading of streets included
in the improvements to a finished subgrade elevation. Contractor's
performance of the rough grading work shall be secured
by a bond orlettcr 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
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: September 26, 1979
RE: Final Approval MIDB'S for United Properties/Northland Mortgage
Attached for your consideration is Resolution #79-178, giving final
approval to the United Properties project. This document has been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
Resolution No. 79478
RESOLUTION RELATING TO A $2,250,000 COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE; AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE THEREOF PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES, CHAPTER 474
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Definitions
1.01. In this Resolution the following terms
have the following respective meanings unless the context
hereof or use herein clearly requires otherwise:
Act: the Minnesota Municipal Industrial
Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as
amended;
Assignment of Rents: the Assignment of Rents and
Leases to be executed by the Company to the Lender;
Buildings: the three (3) office/warehouse
buildings, to contain approximately 91,700 total
square feet of building area, and related facilities
and improvements constructed and to be constructed on
the Land by the Company;
City: the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, its
successors and assigns;
Commitment: the loan commitment made by the
Lender to the Company dated August, 1979;
Company: The Northland Company, a Minnesota
corporation, its successors and assigns, which may
assume its obligations in accordance with the Loan
Agreement;
Fixtures: those items defined as Fixtures in
Section 1-1 of the Mortgage;
Holder: the Lender or any person to whom the
Note has been assigned pursuant to Section 5.04 of
this Resolution;
Land: the real estate described in Exhibit A to
the Mortgage;
-2-
Lender: PBS Financial, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, its successor:; and assigns;
Loan Agreement: the Loan Agreement to be
executed by and between the City and the Company;
Loan Assignment: the Assignment of Loan
Agreement, to be executed by the City in favor of the
Lender;
Mortga2c: the Mortgage and Security Agreement,
between the Company, as mortgagor, and the Lender, as
mortgagee;
Note: the Commercial Development Revenue Note
(The Northland Company Project) in the principal
amount of $2,250,000, to be issued by the City
pursuant to this Resolution;
Project: the Land, the Buildings and the
Fixtures as they may at any time exist;
Project Costs: those costs defined as Project
Costs in Section 1.01 of the Loan Agreement; and
Resolution: this resolution of the City
authorizing the issuance of the Note.
Section 2. Findings. It is hereby found and
declared that:
(a) based upon the representations made to the
City by the Company as to the nature of the Project
and the anticipated use of the proceeds of the Note,
the real property and improvements described in the
Loan Agreement and the Mortgage constitute a Project
authorized by the Act;
(b) the purpose of the Project is, and the
effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare
by the attraction, encouragement and development of
economically sound industry and commerce so as to
prevent the emergence of or to rehabilitate, as far as
possible, blighted and marginal lands and areas of
chronic unemployment; to retain industry's use of the
available resources of the community in order to
sustain the benefit of its existing investment in
educational and public service facilities; to halt the
movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age
to other areas and thus to preserve the economic and
-3-
ATO
• human resources needed as a base for providing
governmental services and facilities; and by more
intensive development of land available in the
community, to provide an adequate and better balanced
tax base to finance the increase in the amount and
cost of governmental services;
(c) the Project when completed will add to the
tax base of the City, and will accordingly be of
direct benefit of the taxpayers of the City as well as
those of the County and School District in which the
City is located;
(d) the Project has been approved by the
Commissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota
as tending to further the purposes and policies of
the Act;
(e) the financing of the Project, the issuance
and sale of the Note, the execution and delivery of
the Loan Agreement and the Loan Assignment, and the
performance of all covenants and agreements of the
City contained in the Note, the Loan Agreement and the
Loan Assignment and of all other acts and things
required under its ordinances and the Constitution and
laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Loan
Agreement, the Loan Assignment and the Note valid and
binding obligations of the City in accordance with
their terms, are authorized by the Act;
(f) it is desirable that the Note in the
principal amount of $2,250,000, be issued by the City
upon the terms set forth herein, and that the City
assign its interest in the Loan Agreement and grant a
security interest therein to the Lender as security
for the payment of the principal of and interest and
prepayment premium, if any, on the Note;
(g) the loan payments contained in the Loan
Agreement are fixed and required to be revised from
time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and
revenue sufficient to provide for prompt payment of .4 ..
principal of and interest on the Note issued under
this Resolution when due, and the Loan Agreement also
provides that the Company is required to pay all
expenses of the operation and maintenance of the
Project including, but without limitation, adequate
insurance thereon and all taxes and special
assessments levied upon or with respect to the Land
and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement;
-4-
Aa)
(h) under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 474.10, and as provided in the Loan Agreement
and in the Mortgage, the Note is not to be payable
from nor charged upon any funds of the City other than
the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; the City
is not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of
the Note shall ever have the right to compel any
exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the
Note or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment
thereof against any property of the City; the Note
shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance,
legal or equitable, upon any property of the City; the
Note issued hereunder shall recite that the Note,
including interest thereon, is payable solely from the
revenue pledged to the payment thereof; and the Note
shall not constitute a debt of the City within the
meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation;
(i) the execution and delivery of the Loan
Agreement, the Loan Assignment and the Note will not
conflict with, or constitute on the part of the City a
breach of, or a default under, any existing agreement,
indenture, mortgage, lease or other instrument to
which the City is subject or is a party or by which it
is bound, provided that this finding is made solely
for the purpose of estopping the City from denying the
validity of the Note, the Loan Agreement or the Loan
Assignment by reason of the existence of any facts
contrary to this finding;
(j) no litigation is pending, or, to the best
knowledge of the members of this Council, threatened,
against the City questioning the organization or
boundaries of the City or the right of any officer of
the City to hold his or her office, or in any manner
questioning the right and power of the City to execute
and deliver the Note, or otherwise questioning the
validity of the Note or the execution, delivery or
validity of the Loan Agreement, or the Loan
Assignment, or questioning the appropriation of
revenues to payment of the Note or the right of the
City to loan the proceeds of the Note to the 'Company;
(k) all acts and things required under the
Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota to
make the Note, the Agreement and the Loan Assignment
the valid and binding obligations of the City in
accordance with their terms will have been done upon
adoption of this resolution and execution of the Loan
Agreement, the Loan Assignment and the Note provided
-5-
2J I
that this finding is made solely for the purpose of
estopping the City from denying the validity of the
Note, the Loan Agreement or the Loan Assignment by
reason of the existence of any facts contrary to this
finding; and
(1) the City is duly organized and existing
under the Constitution and the laws of the State of
Minnesota and is authorized to issue the Note in
accordance with the Act.
Section 3. Authorization and Sale
3.01. Authorization. The City is authorized by
the Act to issue revenue bonds and loan the proceeds
thereof to business enterprises to finance the
acquisition, construction and equipping of "projects" as
defined in the Act, and to make all contracts, execute all
instruments and do all things necessary or convenient in
the exercise of such authority.
3.02. Preliminary City Approval. By preliminary
resolution adopted by the Council on December 19, 1978,
this Council approved the sale of a revenue note pursuant
to the Act and the loan of the proceeds to the Company for
the acquisition of the Land and construction thereon of
the Project suitable and designed for use as
office/warehouse facilities and authorized the preparation
of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project.
3.03. Approval of Documents. Pursuant to the
above, there have been prepared and presented to this
Council copies of the following documents, all of which
are now, or shall be, placed on file in the office of the
Clerk:
Assignment of Rents;
Loan Agreement;
Loan Assignment; and
Mortgage.
The forms of the documents listed in (a) through (d) above
are approved, with such variations, insertions and
additions as are deemed appropriate by the parties and
approved by the City Attorney.
-6-
Section 4. Authorizations. Upon the completion
of the Loan Agreement and the Loan Assignment approved in
Section 3.03 hereof and the execution thereof by the
Company and the Lender, as the case may be, the Mayor and
the City Manager shall execute the same on behalf of the
City and shall execute the Note in substantially the form
referred to in paragraph 5.01 hereof on behalf of the
City, and shall execute such other certifications,
documents or instruments as bond counsel or counsel for
the Lender shall require, subject to the approval of the
City Attorney. All certifications, recitals and
representations therein shall constitute the certificates,
recitals and representations of the City. Execution of
any instrument or document by one or more appropriate
officers of the City shall constitute, and shall be deemed
the conclusive evidence of, the approval and authorization
by the City and the Council of the instrument or document
so executed.
Section 5. The Note
5.01. Form and Authorized Amount. The Note
shall be issued substantially in the form of that set
forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof,
with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions
as are permitted or required by this Resolution, in the
total principal amount of $2,250,000. The terms of the
Note are set forth therein, and such terms, including but
not limited to provisions as to interest rate, dates and
amount of payment of principal and interest and prepayment
privileges, are incorporated by reference herein.
5.02. Execution. The Note shall be executed on
behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the
City Manager, and shall be sealed with its corporate
seal. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on
the Note shall cease to be such officer before the
delivery thereof, such signature shall nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes.
5.03. Mutilated, Lost and Destroyed Note. In
case the Note shall become mutilated or be destrdyed or
lost, the City shall cause to be executed and delivered a
new note of like outstanding principal amount and tenor in
exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the
mutilated note, or in lieu of and in substitution for such
note destroyed or lost, upon the Holder's paying the
reasonable expenses and charges of the City in connection
therewith, and, in case the Note is destroyed or lost,
upon filing with the City evidence satisfactory to it of
such loss or destruction.
-7-
• .9.61q
5.04. Assignment. The Note may be assigned by
the !folder, from time to time, by endorsement thereon or
by separate written instrument: provided that notice of
any such assignment shall be given in writing to the City
and the Company in the manner provided in the Loan
Agreement.
5.05. Delivery and Use of Proceeds. Prior to
delivery of the Note, the documents referred to in Section
3.03 hereof shall be completed and executed in form and
substance as approved by the City Attorney and an
original, executed counterpart of each such document shall
be delivered to the Lender. The City shall thereupon
deliver to the Lender the Note, together with a copy, duly
certified by the Clerk, of this Resolution and such
closing certificates as are required by bond counsel.
Upon delivery of the Note and the above items to
the Lender, the Lender shall, on behalf of the City,
disburse the proceeds of the Note to the Company in
reimbursement of Project Costs pursuant to the provisions
of the Loan Agreement and the Commitment.
Section 6. Limitations of the City's
Obligations. Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Note, the Loan Agreement, the Loan Assignment or any other
document referred to in Section 3.03 hereof, the Note
shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning
of any constitutional or statutory limitation and shall
not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than
the revenue pledged to the payment thereof, the City shall
not be subject to any liability thereon, no holder of such
Note shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of
the taxing power of the City to pay the Note or the
interest thereon or to enforce payment thereof against any
property of the City and the Note shall not constitute a
charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any
property of the City. The agreement of the City to
perform the covenants and other provisions contained in
this Resolution or the Note, the Loan Agreement or the
Loan Assignment and the other documents listed in Section
3.03 hereof shall be subject at all times to the e
availability of revenues furnished by the Company
sufficient to pay all costs of such performance by the
enforcement thereof, and the City shall not be subject to
any personal or pecuniary liability thereon.
Adopted: , 1979.
Attest:
City Clerk
,2t;1 1
Mayor
-8 -
EXHIBIT A
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Commercial Development Revenue Note
(The Northland Company Project)
$2,250,000
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, The CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,
MINNESOTA, a municipal corporation and political
subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the "City"), hereby
promises to pay to the order of FBS FINANCIAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation, or assign (the "Holder"), at its
principal office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or at such
other place as the Holder may designate in writing, from
the source and in the manner hereinafter provided, the
principal sum of TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($2,250,000), or so much thereof as may be
advanced, together with interest on the unpaid principal
balance thereof from and after the date hereof at the rate
of eight and three-eighths percent (8.375%1 per annum, in
any coin or currency which at the time or times of payment
is legal tender for the payment of public or private debts
in the United States of America. This Note is payable in
installments due as follows:
(a) From and after the date hereof until the
Amortization Date, as defined in Section 3.01 of that
certain Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") of even date
herewith between The Northland Company, a Minnesota
corporation (the "Company") and the City, the City shall
pay interest only on the outstanding principal balance
hereof. Payments of accrued interest shall b4 due on the
first day of the month next succeeding the date hereof, on
the first day of each and every month thereafter to and
including the first day of the month prior to the
Amortization Date, and on the Amortization Date.
(b) Commencing on the date which is one month
subsequent to the Amortization Date and continuing on the
same day of each month thereafter until the date on which
217,5
the payment payable pursuant to paragraph (c) hereof is
due, the principal balance hereof, together with interest
11/
thereon, shall be due and payable in monthly installments,
each in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred
Forty-three and No/I00 Dollars ($17,943.00); provided,
however, that if only Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
($650,000) of the principal amount hereof is advanced,
then the amount of such monthly installments shall be the
sum of Five Thousand One Hundred Eighty-three and No/100
Dollars ($5,183.00).
(c) Payment of the entire unpaid principal
balance hereof, together with all accrued but unpaid
interest thereon, and all other indebtedness due
hereunder, shall be due on the date whi7h is fifteen (15)
years subsequent to the Amortization Date.
All interest hereon shall be computed on the
basis of the actual number of days elapsed and on the
assumptions that each month contains thirty (30) days and
each year contains three hundred sixty (360) days. All
payments hereunder shall be applied first to interest due
on the unpaid principal balance and the balance to
. reduction of principal.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a
Determination of Taxability, as defined in Section 4.08 of
the Loan Agreement, the rate of interest hereon shall be
automatically increased to ten and one-quarter percent
(10.25%) per annum, effective as of the Date of
Taxability, as defined in Section 4.08 of the Loan
Agreement. Further, in the event of such Determination of
Taxability, the monthly installment payments payable
pursuant to paragraph (b) hereof from and after the Date
of Taxability shall be increased to the sum of Twenty
Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-four and No/100 Dollars
($20,844.00), or if only $650,000 of the principal amount
hereof is advanced, to the sum of Five Thousand Nine
Hundred Seven and No/100 Dollars ($5,907.00), and the City
shall, within ninety (90) days thereafter, pay to the
appropriate Holder(s) the difference between (i) the
amounts actually paid hereunder from said Date of
.Taxability and (ii) the amounts which would have been paid
during such period if the increased interest rate had been
in effect.
Prior to the expiration of the first ten (10)
loan years, no principal payments other than the required
monthly installment payments above provided may be made,
except as follows:
-2-
(i) If, on or before the Amortization Date, not
less than ninety percent (90%) of the
rentable area in the Project (as defined in
the Loan Agreement) is occupied by tenants
under leases, but such leases provide for
actual gross annual rentals of less than the
Projected Rentals (as defined in the Loan
Agreement), then the City may, at its
option, on or before the Amortization Date,
prepay, without premium, a portion of the
principal balance hereof, equal to $7.50
multiplied by each dollar of difference
between the Projected Rentals and the then
actual total gross annual rentals of the
Project.
(ii) If, on or before the Amortization Date, less
than ninety percent (90%) of the rentable
area in the Project is occupied by tenants
under leases, and such leases provide for
actual total gross annual rentals less than
the Projected Rentals, then the City may, at
its option, on or before the Amortization
Date, prepay, without premium, a portion of
the principal balance hereof, equal to $7.50
multiplied by each dollar of difference
between the sum of $278,900 and the then
actual total gross annual rentals of the
Project.
Beginning with the eleventh (11th) loan year, the City may
prepay in full the unpaid principal balance of this Note,
together with all accrued interest hereon, upon payment to
the Holder of a premium equal to five percent (5%) of the
principal balance so prepaid. The rate at which such
prepayment premium is calculated shall thereafter decline
at the rate of one percent (1%) per loan year, to a
minimum of one percent (1%) during the fifteenth (15th)
loan year. No premium shall be payable upon payment
hereof in full at the end of the fifteenth (15th) loan
year. As used herein the term "loan year" shall mean a
year consisting of twelve (12) calendar months, the first
day of such first loan year being the Amortization Date.
Prepayment shall be permitted only upon at least thirty
(30) days' advance written notice to the Holder, and only
on a regularly scheduled installment payment date.
This Note constitutes an issue in the total
authorized face amount of $2,250,000, or so much thereof
as may be advanced. This Note is issued by the City
-3-
pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 474, as amended (the "Act"), for the purpose of providing funds for a Project, as defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 474.02, Subdivision la, consisting of
acquisition of certain real estate and construction and
equipping of improvements thereon, and paying necessary
expenses incidental thereto, such funds to be loaned by
the City to the Company pursuant to a Resolution,
adopted , 1979, by the City (the
"Resolution"), and the Loan Agreement, thereby assisting
activities in the public interest and for the public
welfare of the City of Eden Prairie.
This Note is secured by a Mortgage and Security
Agreement of even date herewith between the Company, as
Mortgagor, and the Holder, as Mortgagee (the "Mortgage"),
and by an Assignment of Rents and Leases of even date
herewith from the Company to the Holder (the "Assignment").
All of the agreements, conditions, covenants,
provisions and stipulations contained in the Mortgage,
Loan Agreement, Assignment and any other loan or security
document collateral hereto are hereby made a part of this
Note to the same extent and with the same force and effect
as if they were fully set forth herein. Time is of the
essence hereof. In the event of any default in the
payment of any principal, interest or other indebtedness
due hereunder, or if an Event of Default (as defined in
the Mortgage, Loan Agreement, Assignment or any other loan
or security document collateral hereto) occurs, then the
Holder may at its right and option declare immediately due and payable the principal balance of this Note and
interest accrued thereon to the date of declaration,
together with any attorneys' fees incurred by the Holder
in collecting or enforcing payment thereof, whether suit
be brought or not, and all other sums due hereunder or
under the Mortgage, Assignment or the Loan Agreement,
anything to the contrary therein notwithstanding, and
payment thereof may be enforced and recovered in whole or
in part, at any time by one or more of the remedies
provided in the Mortgage, in this Note, in the Assignment
or in the Loan Agreement. The Holder may extend the time
of payment of interest and/or principal of this Note,
without notice to or consent of any party liable hereon,
and without releasing such party.
The City, for itself its successors and assigns,
hereby waives demand, presentment, notice of nonpayment,
protest, notice of protest, notice of dishonor, and
diligence in collection and agrees that without any notice
-4-
)9-57
the Holder hereof may take and/or release additional
security herefor, or the Holder hereof may from time to
11 time release any part or parts of the property and
interests subject to said Mortgage with or without
consideration, and that in any such case the City shall
continue liable to pay the unpaid balance of the
indebtedness evidenced hereby as so additionally secured,
extended, renewed or modified and notwithstanding any such
release, subject to the limitations of the City's
liability as set forth herein.
This Note and the interest hereon shall never
constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory limitation, and shall never
constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability of the
City or a charge against its general credit or taxing
powers. This Note and the interest hereon are payable
solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof
pursuant to the Loan Agreement and secured by the
provisions of the Mortgage and the Assignment. No Holder
of this Note shall ever have the right to compel any
exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay this Note
or the interest hereon or to enforce payment thereof
• against any property of the City except revenues under the
Loan Agreement, and this Note does not constitute a
charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any
property of the City except revenues under the Loan
Agreement. The agreement of the City to perform or cause
the performance of the covenants and other provisions
herein referred to shall be subject at all times to the
availability of revenues from the Loan Agreement or other
funds furnished to the City in accordance with the
documents hereinabove referred to sufficient to pay all
costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof.
The remedies of the Holder, as provided herein
and in the documents hereinabove referenced, shall be
cumulative and concurrent, and may be pursued singly,
successively or together, at the sole discretion of the
Holder, and may be exercised as often as occasion therefor
shall occur. The failure to exercise any such right or
remedy shall in no event be construed as ,a waiver or
•ielease thereof.
The Holder may, in its discretion, waive any
default hereunder and its consequences and rescind any
declaration of acceleration of principal; provided,
however, that no action or inaction by the Holder shall be
deemed a waiver of any of the Holder's rights or remedies
unless the Holder specifically agrees in writing that such
-5-
-6-
2% 0
action or inaction will constitute a waiver of its rights
or remedies. Any waiver shall only apply to the • particular instance for which it was agreed. No delay in
exercising and no failure in exercising any right or
remedy hereunder or afforded by law shall be a waiver of
or preclude the exercise of any right or remedy hereunder
or provided by law whether on such occasion or any future
occasion, nor shall such delay be construed as a waiver of
any default or acquiescence therein. The exercise or the
beginning of the exercise of one right or remedy shall not
be deemed a waiver of the right to exercise at the same
time or thereafter any other right or remedy.
As provided in the Resolution, this Note may be
assigned by the Holder, from time to time, by an
endorsement hereon or by other writing; provided that
notice of such assignment shall be given in writing to the
City and the Company.
It is intended that this Note is made with
reference to and shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all
conditions, acts and things required to exist, happen and
be performed precedent to or in the issuance of this Note
do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular
and due form as required by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Note
to be duly executed by its authorized officers and its
corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all as of this
day of , 1979.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,
MINNESOTA
By
Mayor
(Seal)
Attest
City Manager
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: September 26, 1979
RE: Resolution #79-179
Optimum Systems Inc. is the firm which developed and maintains the
software (computer programs) for the LOGIS system. They are asking,
in conjuction with the purchase of our own computer, that each City
agree to protect the trade secrets of OSI by not letting anyone but
a member of LOGIS view the "operating manuals" of the system.
Resolution #79-179 is attached for your consideration.
'Ll! I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 79-179
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota is a member of Local
Government Information Systems (LOGIS), a joint powers organization
of local Minnesota government units formed pursuant to Minnesota
Statues, Section 471.59;
WHEREAS, LOGIS has entered into an agreement with Optimum Systems
Incorporated (OSI), a California corporation, effective as of August 23,
1978, and entitled "Local Government Management Information System
Agreement, Contract No. 2027" (hereinafter referred to as the "contract"),
whereunder LOGIS contracted to purchase from OSI certain items of computer
hardware and software which, if accepted by LOGIS under the contract,
will be employed by LOGIS for the benefit of its members, including the
City of Eden Prairie, in providing economical data processing services to
the members of LOGIS.
WHEREAS, under the terms of the contract, particularly Section 4.01(a)
thereof, each member of LOGIS is required to execute a written statement,
to be effective upon acceptance of the property under the contract, which
runs in favor of both LOGIS and OSI and which embodies the terms and
conditions of Paragraphs 4.01(c) thru 4.01(h) of the contract.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
AS FOLLOWS:
1. (4.01(c)) The City acknowledges and agrees throughout the
duration of the contract that, as between OSI and LOGIS, title and full
ownership rights to the GEMUNIS/3000 System and all components thereof
delivered to it remain with OS!. The City further acknowledges and agrees
that the GENUNIS/3000 System and all components thereof, inclusive of the
ideas and expression therein contained, are valuable tradesecrets and
proprietary information of OSI, whether or not any portion thereof is or
may be validly copyrighted or patented. The City covenants that it will
not make use of the GEMUNIS/3000 System, directly or indirectly, for the
benefit of any party which is not a member of LOGIS, or which has not
executed a written statement satisfactory to OSI under the contract
embodying the substance of the covenants hereof as required by Section
4.01(a) of the contract.
2. (4.01(d)) The GEMUNIS/3000 System and all information related
thereto, in whatever form imparted to LOGIS or the City by OSI in
connection with OSI's performance under the contract, will be deemed
confidential and proprietary to ODI, will be held in trust and confidence
by the City, and will be safeguarded by the City to the same extent that
the City safeguards its proprietary material, which in no event will be
less than that which a reasonably prudent governmental unit would exercise
under similar circumstances. To those ends, the City agrees to take
reasonable steps necessary to ensure that the GEMUNTS/3000 System and all
Information related thereto are not made available by the City or by any
of its agents, servants, and employees to any other person, firm, or entity,
except as permitted by the contract. The City further agrees to take
reasonable steps necessary to ensure that all those above-named individuals
having access to the GEMUNIS/3000 System will observe and perform the
obligations hereby undertaken by the City.
3. $4.01(e)) LOGIS may modify any computer program comprising the
GEMUNIS/3000 System. All such modifications will be deemed an amendment
to the license granted by the contract and subject to all of the terms
and conditions of said license, and, only for the purposes of such license,
those modifications will be deemed a part of the GEMUNIS/3000 as defined
in the contract.
4. (4.01(f)) The City will reproduce and include OSE's copyright
notice wherever it appears on copies, in whole or in part, on any form,
11/
including partial copies and modifications, of the computer programs and
other materials comprising the GEMUNIS/3000 System, inclusive of, but not
limited to, documents and the manuals delivered under the contract.
5. (4.01(g)) To the extent that the City modifies any document or
manual delivered to it relating to the GEMUNIS/3000 System pursuant to the
contract, or incorporates any information from a document of manual delivered
to it pursuant to the aforementioned license into a publication originating
with the City for dessemination by the City, then, and in such event, the
City will first comply with the provisions of Paragraph 4.01(f) of the
contract, as embodied in Paragraph 4 of this Resolution, and the City will
disseminate such document only to its agents, servants, or employees.
6. (4.01(h)) The City will indemnify and hold OSI harmless against
any losses, damages, costs, expenses, claims, or actions resulting form or
arising out of any use not aurthorized by the license granted in the contract
of the computer programs and/or materials comprising the GEMUNIS/3000 System
by the City, by any agent, servant, or employee of the City, or by any other
person who obtains access through the City to the computer programs and
materials licensed to the City.
7. The City makes the foregoing covenants, which run to the benefit
of LOGIS and to OSI, in fulfillment of the City's obligation under the
contract, and effective as of the date provided therein.
Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor
NTrane, City Clerk
'1V:4
AL ORDINANCE CODIFIERS, INC.
Jensen, Counsel
L
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CODIFIERS, INC.
•PCCIALISTS CM...1EN REVISION AND
ORDINAN“ COLNVICATION EXC./MEI,
POI MINNESOTR GOVENNMENTAt UNITS
7400 lyndale Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423
Area Code 612
869-2403
Mr. Roger Ulstad
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Roger:
Sc.? 2,00 rilS September 27, 1979
Enclosed is our Codification Proposal in duplicate. You will note
that an Addendum covers the work with the Zoning Ordinance.
Our notes made at the time we discussed codification about two years
ago indicate numerous "gaps" in present ordinances. We believe one of
the principal services we can perform for your City is to assist you
in these areas.
41 You will note that on the last page of the Codification Proposal there
appears a blank space for a date before which payment will not be due.
This is inserted so that if you wish to coordinate payment with tax
receipts you can do so. This might be of some help to you in the
event the project moves faster than we anticipate. Any reasonable
date that you may wish to insert will be acceptable to us.
In our discussion, I mentioned that the pre-draft and post-draft con-
ferences, in addition to the zoning portion, may take more than one
day which is the limitation in the Proposal. Due to your proximity to
our office we certainly aren't going to hold you to this limitation.
If need be for the sake of the end result we will take additional time
for these conferences.
We assume that the Council will make some decision next week so we
have inserted an expiration date of October 15. Hopefully, this will
be satisfactory with you. If the Proposal is accepted please have one
copy signed and returned to us.
Very truly yours,
REJ/ag
Ends.
CODIFICATION PROPOSAL
TO: THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE , MINNESOTA (City)
FROM: MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CODIFIERS, INC. (Codifier)
7400 Lyndale Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423
THE CODIFIER HEREBY PROPOSES to revise, rearrange and codify
the ordinances of the City with such additions and deletions as may
be necessary or desirable to provide a workable and current City
Code. This will be accomplished by working with such officers and
employees of the City as it may suggest. The Codifier must be fur-
nished a complete set of the City's ordinances and Code provisions,
if any.
UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROPOSAL, WORK WILL PROCEED, IN CHRONOLOGI-
CAL SEQUENCE, AS FOLLOWS:
The Codifier shall first study the City's present ordinances
and prepare a list of Code or Chapter topics, designation and se-
quence for consideration and approval. It will then review and
catalog all present Code and ordinance provisions, list and cate-
gorize such ordinances as the City is required by law to retain and
perpetuate, together with those which it would be desirable to re-
tain uncodified.
Codificr shall then hold a pre-draft conference in eedilin4A1
MAde4l0:- the Ci. This conference shall be limited to one day.
The purposes of conference will be to review the various top-
ics presently covered, to afford Codifier an opportunity to make
suggestions for updating and revising new material, and to suggest
new material that the City may wish to include. The result of this
conference should provide Codifier with a skeleton for subsequent
drafting.
Thereafter, each Chapter shall be drafted by Codifier, type-
written (double-spaced) on sheets approximately 8% x 13 inches in
size, and a copy forwarded to the City upon completion. Drafts
of individual Chapters may be forwarded, but not necessarily in
sequence. Drafts may be photocopies. •
After City staff members have been afforded sufficient time
for review and study of each Chapter and the draft as a whole, a
post-draft conference shall be held during which all final revi-
sions shall be considered. This conference shall also be limited
to one day and shall be held in QmikRicaboaRkkaxxx the City with
necessary City and Codifier staff members present. Such conference
shall not be a line-by-line consideration but deal with specific
problems only.
Complete review and substantive revision of Zoning and Subdi-
vision Ordinances are not included in this proposal. However, the
Codifier shall include specifically requested changes, but shall
not be required to participate in statutory hearings thereOn.
Codifier shall prepare a Foreword for the City Code with such
appropriate historical notes as may be mentioned therein. The text
of this Foreword shall also be submitted to the City for approval.
<2,J;;.;
-1-
THE COMPLETION, APPROVAL, ADOPTION AND PRINTING SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
Codifier shall prepare a complete topical Analysis and Sub-
Analysis. All ordinances and notices required by Minnesota Stat-
utes shall be prepared by the Codifier and furnished the City with
appropriate instructions relating thereto.
The City Code is now ready for informal approval by the City
Council. Formal adoption will follow printing and cannot, under
Minnesota Statutes, be given at this time, but the Council should
give its consideration and informal approval at this point and or-
der printing. Codifier shall type the entire final draft on
x 11 inch paper ready for offset printing. Codification is then
complete and the City Code is ready for printing. Codifier shall,
if requested by the City and as part of the post-draft conference,
confer with local printers or others whom the City may consider en-
gaging for the purpose of printing the City Code. Codifier shall
furnish such printing firms with some basic printing and layout
specifications and suggestions that it has found workable in other
cities.
The City shall provide the Codifier, without charge, two bound
copies of the Code when printing is completed.
THE TIME LAPSE, INTERIM ORDINANCES AND PAYMENT SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
Between the time that drafting is commenced and the draft is
delivered to the printer, time is considered of the essence and
neither the City nor the Codifier shall cause any unreasonable de-
lay. Such delay could cause the Code to become "stale" and could
hold up or discourage necessary legislation by the City. Accord-
ingly, the project should move forward expeditiously but not with-
out reasonable time being afforded both parties to complete their
part of the work then to be performed. Each party shall keep the
Other informed as to progress of its work.
Insofar as possible, the City shall not adopt ordinances be-
tween the time that Codifier has reviewed and cataloged the ordi-
nances and completion of the City Code. However, it is recognized
that certain ordinances will be of an essential nature and must be
adopted during that time. Copies of such interim ordinances will,
immediately upon adoption, be forwarded to Codifier and shall be
included in the City Code.
When codification is complete and the Code is ready for print-
ing, the Codifier shall be entitled to payment in full of the con-
tract price, unless a later date is herein stated.
AND, AFTER CODIFICATION:
To assure the Orderliness of inserting future legislation,
the COdifier shall confer with the City staff and furnish sugges-
tions as to form, substance and procedure for amending the City
Code by changing or adding new material.
The City may, at its option, use our maintenance services to
keep the City Code continuously revised and up -to-date in keeping
with Minnesota Statutes, opinions of the Attorney General and
Court decisions.
-2-
DATED: September 27, 1979
THE FOREGOING PROPOSAL is hereby
accepted by the City this
day of ,—I3---- .
dgetlylensen
Coon
The City Manager is hereby designated to
correspond with iodifier, receive drafts, and consider and approve
Code topics, designation, and sequence, and also approve the Fore-
word.
The contract price is $15,200.00 due on completion. Pro-
vided, that such contract price shall not be due before
This Proposal expires on October 15, 1979
unless ac-
cepted prior to such date.
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CODIFIERS, INC.
Mayor •
(Title)
-3-
ADDENDUM TO
CODIFICATION PROPOSAL
This Addendum to the Codification Proposal dated September 27,
1979, to the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, from MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE CODIFIERS, INC., amends such Proposal, as follows:
1. That substantive revisions of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be included.
2. That, in order to accomplish such revisions, Codifier
shall hold separate pre-draft and post-draft conferences relating
to such Zoning Ordinance with City staff members and such Planning
Commission and Council members as may be available therefor, and
assist with agreed changes.
3. That the contract price in the Codification Proposal
includes the additional services described in this Addendum and the
expiration date stated in the Proposal also applies to this Addendum.
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE CODIFIERS, INC.
DATED: September 27, 1979
THE FOREGOING ADDENDUM is hereby
accepted by the City this
day of ,19
Mayor
(Title)
MEMEORANDOM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
September 27, 1979
Hidden Ponds Park Status
One of the conditions of the rezoning agreement of May 24, 1974 between Ecklund
and Swedlund Development Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie was the
following:
"The City should proceed to acquire Blocks 13 and 14 with purchase
price to be somewhere in the $100,000 range provided the developer
meets the assumptions stated previously for paying all assessments
and construction of all roads to service the area."
In 1978, when the staff was reviewing neighborhood park alternatives for the
Hidden Ponds area Ecklund and Swedlund Development Corporation had entered into
a purchase agreement with the developer on the original park site, therefore
the staff looked to the southwest at the Camp Frontier site.
After a number of discussions with the owners of the Camp Frontier site staff
requested them to submit to the City a purchase agreement in February of 1979.
They did comply with this request and submitted a purchase agreement for the
sum of $168,000.
In June of 1979, staff requested the City Council for authorization to obtain
appraisals on the Camp Frontier site and on the original park site.
Mr. J. O. Janske appraised both sites and arrived at the following figures:
Camp Frontier site $125,000
12 acre portion of the 55,000
original park site
Staff felt that the original park site was the preferred park* site to serve Hidden
Ponds, mainly based on location, topography, vegetation, and future access. At
the July 17 Council meeting staff recommended to begin negotiating for an option
on the original park site, and to plan for a 2.5 to 3 acre mini park in the
Camp Frontier site when that area is developed. The mini park would then be
connected to the existing trail system which leads to the proposed neighborhood
park.
Council action at the July 17, 1979 meeting was as follows:
MOTION: Pauli moved, seconded by Osterholt, to direct staff to investigate
an option on the eastern most site. Motion carried unanimously.
On September 13, 1979 Dick Knutson, of McCoombs Knutson, discussed the City's
interest in ptirt7bising the Hidden Ponds park site with staff. Mr. Knutson indicated
that they are in the process of extending a purchase agreement with a developer
that intends to develop 30 single family homes on the approximate 15 acre parcel.
-2-
)
That purchase agreement is for $180,000, plus the buyer committing to rough
grading Dell Road and paying assessments for a 24' lane of Dell Road along
the length of the property.
Mr. Knutson indicated that this purchase agreement was entered into last year
and expired in August. They arc presently working on terms to extend it until
February of 1980.
The City does not have sufficient uncommitted cash park fee funds for considering
acquisition at this time, however this is the primary neighborhood park site
to serve Hidden Ponds area and it essential this area not be developed.
This park site is onc of two park sites included for acquisition in tbo proposed
park bond referendum.
Staff did not discuss terms for an option on this property after Mr. Knutson
indicated the terms that were being negotiated with the developer (nearly
3 times the amount of the July appraisal). Its obvious the City is going to
have a difficult time trying to acuclire that property for any amount close
to the appraised price. It should be noted that Ordinance 1t78-229 allows the
City 90 days to acquire any proposed park that is depicted in the Comprehensive
Plan from the time a developer submits a preliminary plat.
The purpose of this memorandum was to keep the Council informed of the status of the
Hidden Ponds Park site. Staff is not requesting any action at this time.
BL:md
.!PrIn
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources CorAission
Sandy Werts, Recreation Supervisor
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
September 29, 1979
Current Status of Historical/Cultural Center at Anderson
Lakes and Grill House at Staring Lake
The Brown house located in Anderson Lakes Park Reserve was designate
d
f
o
r
use as a Historical/Cultural Center in 1976 by the City Council. The
u
s
e
of this facility is considered interim because of its location in a R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Park. For this reason, the City should consider another location for
t
h
e
Historical/Cultural Center, preferably at a historical site.
The Comumnity Services Staff recommends that the City consider the Gr
i
l
l
h
o
u
s
e
at Staring Lake Park for a Historical/Cultural Center. The original
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
of the home was built in the 1880's, with an addition built in the ear
l
y
1900's. Before the Historical/Cultural Comnission could consider usi
n
g
t
h
i
s
building for its programs, it must be determined whether the building
i
s
structurally sound and in any condition to warrant investing money in
restoration.
At their meeting on September 17, 1979, the Historical/Cultural Commi
s
s
i
o
n
made the following recommendation:
MOTION: Upton moved that the City Council hire an architect with exp
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
in restoration of historical homes to review the Grill house and repo
r
t
b
a
c
k
o
n
the costs for updating and renovation. Anderson seconded, motion pass
e
d
unanimously.
At the Historical/Cultural Comalission two architects wee named who ha
v
e
h
a
d
background in the restoration area. They are Alexander Docker, who i
s
a
professor at the University of Minnesota, and has worked on older hom
e
s
i
n
the City and Robert flack, who worked with the National Park Service
establishing criteria for historical restoration, and has also consul
t
e
d
f
o
r
the Minnesota River Valley Restoration Project (Murphy Landing).
If the Grill house is found to be structurally sound then the staff wo
u
l
d
recoxmend that it be rented as a residence, while investigating and ap
p
l
y
i
n
g
for grant volvy to complete the project. If the building does not war
r
a
n
t
restoration, consideration should be given to razing the building.
-2.
In the interim, the Historical/Cultural Commisson plans to continue using
the Brown house at Anderson Lakes Park Reserve for their Center. Brown
and Chris Construction have moved their offices out of the buildings and
will have moved their equipment off the property by the end of October.
The Historical/Cultural Comnission wishes to rent a room in the building
for a one person office, to someone whose business would not interfere
with their programming, but would insure soue security to the building.
SW:md
.1 ...1 )0
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Roger K. Ulstad, City Manager
Robert Lambert, Director of Community Services 11211A'
September 27, 1978
Request to Approve Bid on Improvements at Bryant Lake Park
Earlier this year the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission,
the City Council, Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission and the
Metropolitan Council reviewed and approved plans for improvements in
Bryant Lake Park including grading of roadways, parking areas and outdoor
riding arenas at the Eden Prairie Stables.
These improvements were the City's commitments to the Metropolitan Council
in the improvement of Bryant Lake Park and to the Hennepin County Vo-Tech
in a lease agreement pertaining to the Eden Prairie Stables.
The Metropolitan Council provided $75,000 to the City of Eden Prairie for
these improvements and repair to the roof of the stables.
Three companies submitted bids for this project. The companies and their
bid offers are as follows:
West Suburban Contractors, Inc. $116,335
C. S. McGrossan, Inc. 77,705
W. J. Ebertz, Grading and Excavating
68,857.50
Staff recommends the Council award this contract to W. J. Ebertz, Grading
and Excavating.
81: tad
PROPOSAL FORM
PROJECT NO. 1
DRY/NT LAKE PARK IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 1
DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATE UNIT
QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
Clearing Grubl;ing
Remove. Concrete Wall
Salvage Pipe Culverts
Common Ev:avation
Salvaged Topsoil
Aggregate Base,
Class 5 Modified
Roadside Seeding
Seed
&Mulch Material, Type
Jute Fabric
Acres 1
Lump Sum 1
L.F. 165
Cu. Yd. 16,000
Cu. Yd. 5,400
Ton 2,000
Arco 8
Pound 1,000
1 ton 16
Sq. Yd. 5,200
18" CMP Culvert, 14 gauge L.F. 215
18" CMP Aprons Ea. 12
,ous Hay Bolos for Erosion Lump Sum 1
Control
TOTAL BID AMOUNT$ 73 7 cm—. 00
Acres
Lump Sum
L .F.
Cu. Yd.
Cu. Yd.
Ton
1
1
165
16,000
5,400
2,000
Clearing & Grubbing
---temove Concrete Wall
-plvage Pipe Culverts
on Excavation
lvaged Topsoil
regate Base,
CIVss 5 Modified
PROPOSAL FORM
• PROJECT NO. 1
BRYANT LAKE PARK IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 1
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
ESTIMATE
UNIT
QUANTITY
PRICE
AMOUNT
$ —
$ 5-oo 511',
/go $
/39 $
$
$
Roallside Seeding Arce 8 $ .34y7 -8
Seed Pound 1,000 $ /33 ; / 3 30 —
,
Mulch tlaterial, Type 1 ton 16 $ $ 3 oe)
Jute Fabric Sq. Yd. 5,200 $ ioo
-PP- 2-
18" CMP Culvert, 14 gauge L.P.
215 $ 1•4!0 0 $ 3.o/a --
18" CMP Aprons Ea. 12 $ zcaev.,$ e.oe -
neous May Bales for Erosion Jump Sum 1 $ /a50 $ i sa -
Control
'TOTAL BID AMOUNTS ift 8, 85-2
PROPOSAL FORM
PROJECT NO. 1
BRYANT LAKE PARK IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 1
DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATE
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE AMOUNT
Clearing & Grubbing
Remove Concrete Wall
Salvage Pipe Culverts
Common Excavation
Salvaged Topsoil
Aggregate Base,
Class 5 Modified
Roadside Seeding
Seed
411 Mulch Material, Type 1
Jute Fabric
Acres 1
Lump Sum 1
L.F. 165
Cu. Yd. 16,000
Cu. Yd. 5,400
Ton 2,000
Arco 8
Pound 1,000
ton 16
Sq. Yd. 5,200
18" CMP Culvert, 14 gauge L. F. 215
18" CMP Aprons Ea. 12
mous Hay Bales for Erosion Lump Sum 1
Control
TOTAL BID AMOUNTS //4/ 335:ein
MEMO
Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Carl Jullie, City Engineer
September .25, 1979
' Grant for Wastewater Treatment in
Rural Service Area
•
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Metro Waste Control Agency
have initiated a program to study alternative ways of collecting and treat-
ing sanitary wastewater from developed subdivisions which are in the Rural
Service Area (outside of the MUSA line.) We have two subdivisions which
fall into this category, Crestwood Terrace and Cedar Forest. It has been
made mandatory that all local units of governments which have jurisdiction
over such areas outside the MUSA line must participate in the study program.
A grant application procedure has been set up wherein the local governments
can receive a 90% grant to apply towards the study costs. The estimated
cost of such study would be $4-5,000 and the City's share would be 10% of
that amount.
The consulting firm of Kirkham, Michael and Assoc. prepared the initial,
preliminary study for the MWCC regarding this program and have asked that
they be retained by the City to prepare for us the overall Step I Facility
Plan program, including the completion of the grant application forms.
I have met with Mr. Lande and Mr. Toddie from the firm and reviewed their
proposed approach to this study. I believe they are well qualified to
prepare the study needed.
Recommend that the Council authorize thP consulting firm of Kirkham, Michael
and Assoc. to prepare the grant application for Step I Facility Plan for
wastewater treatment in the Rural Service Area and that, upon approval of
such grant, Kirkham, Michael and Assoc. be further authorized to proceed with
the actual Facility Plan Study at a feg to be determined through the grant
application process.
CJJ:kh
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
0
The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel .
Mayor, City of Eden Prairie
6932 Barberry Lane
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55334
Dear Mayor Penzel:
AUG 24 1979
It is unfortunate that Eden Prairie was not represented at the pre-
application conference for local government units that are to receive
grants for Step 1, wastewater treatment facilities planning from the U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) that was held on August 1, 1979 at the MPCA
offices in Roseville, Minnesota.
Enclosed find a grant application kit which includes a grant appli-
cation (EPA Form 5700-32), the September 27, 1978 Federal Register,
miscellaneous forms, a checklist of requirements, and other pertinent
grant information.
The deadline date for submittal of your application is October 29, 1979.
If we do not receive your application by the deadline date, we will
turn this matter over to our Compliance and Enforcement Section for
appropriate action.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (612)296-7205 or 296-7204.
@ erely, • c
OLL.L.
Duane L. Anderson, Supervisor
Construction Grants Unit
Facilities Section
Division of Water Quality
DLA/LLB:pah
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John D. Frane, Clerk, City of Eden Prairie
Pimm.(612)296-7205
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Regiona1Offices Duiuttfi bainetd Dotroll Lakes.' Marshall'Iluchester
LcluM Oppor1un.4 Employer
" A 73
KIRKHAM,
MICHAEL
AND ASSOCIATES OMAHA•MINNEAPOLIS•DES MOINES.ROCHESTER
ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS-PLANNERS
September 18, 1979
Mr. Carl Jullie
Director of Public Works
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Carl:
Bob Toddle and I wish to thank you for the opportunity of visiting with
us September 17th. We were pleased to outline for you the general intent
of the upcoming Facility Plans which Eden Prairie will be required to
develop as part of recent Minnesota Pollution Control Agency direction.
We would be most pleased to provide these Facility Planning services to
the City of Eden Prairie and by means of this letter would so indicate
our desire in working with the City.
Based on information provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
in the Application Kit for a Construction Grant, there are certain forms
which must be filled out and information provided to the Pollution Control
Agency by the City of Eden Prairie. Kirkham, Michael and Associates is
familiar with this process since we have done Facility Plans for communities
such as Little Falls, Appleton, Waseca and Rochester, Minnesota as well as
numerous other communities in the upper Midwest. The casts for filling out
the application form would be included as part of the overall Step I Facility
Plan program which would be done after approval of the application by the
Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
We thank you for your consideration on this project and look forward to
working with you on this Facility Plan.
Yours very truly,
KIRK, MICHAEL & ASSOCIATES 1 FAM
i n
Kii1Lade, P.E.
Ht
KOL/ma
enclosures
7601 Kentucky Ave. No., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 (612) 425-5777
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 79-180
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT
IN SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK FOURTH
ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Shady Oak Industrial Park Fourth Addition has,been sub-
mitted in the manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance
Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been
duly had thereunder, and
•
. WHEREAS, said plat is in-all respects consistent with the City plan and
the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordin-
ances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Plat Approval Request for Shady Oak Industrial Park Fourth Addition is-aporov
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
Report on this plat dated September 25, 1979.
B. Variance l's herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8,
Subd. 1 waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the
approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final
plat as described in said Engineer's Report.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis-
trar of Titles for thier use as required by MSA 462.358. Subd. 3.
D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named
plat.
E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute
the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com-
pliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on •
ATTEST:
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Penzel and Members of .the City Council
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Carl Jullie, City Engineer
Septcmber 25, 1979
SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK FOURTH ADDITION
PROPOSAL: The developer, Richard N. Anderson, Inc., is requesting final
plat approval of Shady Oak Industrial Park Fourth Addition. This plat
contains approximately 13 acres and is divided into 2 lots. The plat
is located northwest of and adjacent to Shady Oak Industrial Park.
HISTORY: The prliminary plat was aporoved on September 18, 1979, per
City Council Resolution #79-168.
Zoning to I-5 Park is scheduled for final reading by the City Council
on October 9, 1979.
The Development Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled
to be executed on October 2, 1979.
VARIANCES: Any variance requested must be processed through the Board
of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: The City has awarded contracts for the installation
of all public utilities and streets within the plat. The developer is
responsible for completing all site grading prior to the installation
of these utilities.
PARK DEDICATION: Requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING: No bonding will be required for this plat. Cash deposits have been
received covering the cost of street signs and street lighting.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Shady Oak Industrial
Park Fourth Addition, subject to the requirements of this report and
the following:
1. Final reading of Ordinance #79-33, rezoning the property to
1-5 Park.
2. Execution of the Developer's Agreement.
;1 /
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Penzel and Members of,the City Council
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Carl Jullie,.City Engineer
September 25, 1979
SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK FOURTH ADDITION
PROPOSAL: The developer, Richard W. Anderson, Inc., is requesting final
plat approval of Shady Oak Industrial Park Fourth Addition. This plat
contains approximately 13 acres and is divided into 2 lots. The plat
Is located northwest of and adjacent to Shady Oak Industrial Park.
HISTORY: The prliminary plat was apnroved on September 18, 1979, per
City Council Resolution #79-168.
Zoning to 1-5 Park is scheduled for final reading by the City Council
on October 9, 1979.
The Development Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled
to be executed on October 2, 1979.
VARIANCES: Any variance requested must be processed through the Board
of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: The City has awarded contracts for the installation
of all public utilities and streets within the plat. The developer is
responsible for completing all site grading prior to the installation
of these utilities.
PARK DEDICATION: Requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING: No bonding will be required for this plat. Cash deposits have been
received covering the cost of street signs and street lighting.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Shady Oak Industrial
Park Fourth Addition, subject to the requirements of this report and
the following:
1. Final reading of Ordinance #79-33, rezoning the property to
1-5 Park.
2. Execution of the Developer's Agreement.
F
111
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 79-191
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT
OF MEADOW PARK
WHEREAS, the plat of MEADOW PARK , has been sub-
mitted in the manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance
Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been
duly had thereunder, and
• • •
WHEREAS, said plat is in-all 'respects consistent with the City plan and
the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordin-
ances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Plat Approval Request for MEADOW PARK is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
, Report on this plat dated September 26 1979.
B. Variance fs herein granted from City Ordinance No. 93, Sec. 8,
Subd. 1 waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the
approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final
plat as described in said Engineer's Report.
. "
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis-
trar of Titles for thier use as required by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3.
D. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named
plat.
E. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute
the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com-
pliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
SEAL
o narrh—b—r—Z-TiFF--" •
ATTEST:
TO:
THROUGH:
From:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
Roger Ulstad, City Manager
Carl Jullie, City Engineer
September 26, 1979
MEADOW PARK
PROPOSAL: The developer, Spuds Incorporated, is requesting City
approval of the final plat of Meadow Park. This plat consist= of
4.1 single family residential lots and is located north of Sun—nybrook
Road, west of the proposed Neill Wood Addition and south of t=71-t- pro-
posed Lake Heights Addition in the south 1/2 of Section 23. ....-7.tlots
A,C,O, E, F and G will be combined with future additions and :lvided
at later dates. Outlot B will be dedicated to the City.
The developer has agreed through the Developer's Ae..eement thn,71 -1 no
building permits will be applied for until Homeward Hills Roar. and
Preserve Boulevard are constructed and in place. Building per—.its for
Cots 6 and 7, Block 1, will be further withheld until final e:-..11-Jication
of the right-of-way for Preserve Boulevard has occurred throu=r- the
platting of Neill Woods Addition.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council or .may 1,
1979, per Resolution #79-82
Zoning to RI-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City C.;:iz_uncil
on June 19, 1979, per Ordinance #89-11.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was ,,irxecuted on
June 19, 1979.
VARIANCES: Any variances requested must be processed th•otigh the =1:Lon1ng
Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: The requirements for the installation of oux=Olic
utilities and streets are contained in Exhibit C of the Devel=nper's
Agreement.
PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are coverec - in items
3, 4 and Exhibit C of the Developer's Agreement.
- 2 -
BONDING: The requirements for bonding are covered in Exhibit C of the
Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Meadow Park,
subject to the requirements of this report and the following:
1. Receipt of Warranty Deed for Outlot B (Refer to item 3,
Developer's Agreement.)
2. Receipt of.fee for City Engineering Services in the amount
of $1230.00.
3. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the amount
of $1180.00.
4. Satisfaction of Bonding Requirements.
CJJ:kh
September 27, 1979
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Eden Prairie,
8960 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Mayor and City Council:
Our company has worked with the suggestions made by the City Council in an
effort to improve the plan. The revised plan responds to the suggestions
concerning the airport safety zones, number of variance lots and park area.
The Airport Advisory Commission reviewed the revised plan, as did the staff.
The changes to the Bluffs West 3rd Addition plan reduce the number of side
yard variances requested of 5 feet and 10 feet from 40% to 25% with all lots
10,000 square feet or larger. The east-west collector street remains an 80
foot right-of-way with a normal 30 foot setback.
The number of lots around the northern most cul-de-sac have been reduced from
7 to 6. Also, the northern loop street along the park has been moved south
100 feet to 150 feet, moving the lots further from the fly-over area. These
changes have enlarged the park and total site to 85 acres with a park dedication
of 19.1 acres rather than 16.5 acres.
We hope that these changes improve the proposed Bluffs West 3rd Addition
plat of 169 lots at a density of two units per acre. Hustad Development
Corporation requests that the City Council approve the re-zoning from Rural
to R-13.5 and the preliminary plat for Bluffs West 3rd Addition.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Wallace Hustad, President
HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
1/4
12750 PIONEER TRAIL EDEN PRAIRIE MINNESOTA 55343 (612)941-4383
ans
mitcnen neignis
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of
1979
by and between Ryco Development Incorporated, a Minnesota Corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "Owner", and by the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,
a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City's.;
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS Owner has applied to City to amend PUD 72-03 relating to
approximately 15 acres zoned RM 2.5, 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 94
residential townhouse units.
NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the Mayor and Council of the City
adopting Resolution it 79-159,
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 August 6, 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 herein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth
in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Owner shall construct "A" Street with a driving surface of 24
feet wide with curb and gutter. "A" Street shall intersect at a
90 degree angle with Mitchell Raod.
2()
Developer's Agreement Mitchell Heights (townhouses)
4. Owner, prior to building permit issuance, shall submit to the
City Planning Department for review and approval, a detailed
Landscaping plan, including but not limited to, buffering of the
townhouses to be constructed from surrounding and adjacent land
uses and public road right-of-way.
5. Owner shall not apply for any building permits or be granted any
for Phase 2 until the road bed for Anderson Lakes Parkway east to
Mitchell Road is installed and usable for construction traffic.
No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the units to be located
in Phase 2 shall be issued occupancy permits or be occupied until
Anderson Lakes Parkway is completed from Mitchell Road east to the
properties eastern most access.
6. Owner shall submit to the City Engineering Department detailed
soil borings for Phase 2 prior to any building permit issuance.
7. Owner shall prohibit the storage or parking of recreational
vehicles upon the property, through restrictive covenants
approved by the City Attorney except in a completely screened area
approved by the City's Director of Planning for the keeping of
such vehicles.
8. Owner shall construct 7 totlot structures as depicted on Exhibit
B, equal to specifications of the Community Service Department.
9. Owner shall pay the assessed costs of that portion of Anderson
Lakes Parkway to be constructed abutting the property as follows:
Owner shall pay 15 of the cost thereof of that part of the parkway
abutting the property on only one side and shall pay the full cost
thereof of that part of the parkway abutting the property on both
sides thereof.
10. Concept PUD 72-03 is amended in accordance herewith.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
Roger K. Ulstad, Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTAi SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
by Robert Ryan
, 1979
the President and Lois I. Velasco
the Vice President
corporation.
of Ryco Development Incorporated on behalf of the
• ' •
Notar
RYCO DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED, a Minnesota
corporaAipn
Developer's Agreement-Mitchell Heights
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
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1979
by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor and Roger K. Ulstad, the City Manager of the City
of EdenPrairie, a municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
exnmcui.J.Jommsom 9, NOTARY PUDUCUM.100 Cowed* nAna.
Comml•Mon Wm* Av.. II, MO
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
r S.
.1
Tract A That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW 1/4
of SW I/4) of Section 15, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County,
Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner
of said NW 1/4 of SW 1/4; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 33 •
seconds East, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Northwest • •
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 734.00 feet; thence North 00 •
degrees 13 minutes 27 -seconds West a distance of 44.00 feet; thence '-
North 44 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 234.93
feet; thence North 00 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds West A *distance
of 84.95 feet; thence North 45 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds West
a distance of 311 feet, to the point of beginning; thence North 45 de-
grees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 130.00 feet; thence
North 45 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds West a distance of 252.04
feet; thence North 0 degrees 92 minutes 47 seconds West a distance
of 25$.35 feet, plus or minus, to the North line of said NW 1/4 of
SW 1/4; thence South 09 degrees 48 minutes 13 seconds West, along
said North line, a distance of 585.00 feet to the West line of said
NW 1/4 of SW 1/4; thence South 0 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds
East, along said West line, a distance of 579.62 feet, plus or minus, .
to the Northwesterly corner of Atherton 1st Addition, a plat on file in
the offices of Hennepin County; thence North 89 degrees 17 minutes
13 seconds East a distance of 33.00 feet; thence North 44 degrees
17 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 265.00 feet; thence North
89 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 55.00 feet;
thence South 45 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of
573.00 feet to the actual point of beginning and there terminating.
Tract 0 That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 and the North 1/2
of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 116,
Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Com-
mencing at the Southwest corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 33 seconds East, assumed
bearing, along the South line of said Northwest 1/9 of the Southwest
1/4 a distance of 734 feet; thence North 00 degrees 13 minutes 27
seconds West a distance of 44 feet; thence North 49 degrees 17 minutes
13 seconds East a distance of 234.93 feet; thence North 00 degrees 42
minutes 47 seconds West a distance of 84.45 feet; thence North 45 de-
grees 42 minutes 47 . seconds West a dist:vice of 311 feet; thence North
13 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds West a i distance of 233.79 feet; thence
North 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 56.79 feet.
to the point of beginning; thence South 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds
East a distance of 291.00 feet; thence a distance of 102.00 feet along a •
tangential curve concave to the southwest and having a radius of 316.50
feet; thence North 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, not tangent to
last described curve a distance of 260.00 feet; thence North a distance
of 142.50 feet; thence Easta distance.of 292.01 feet; thenceOn a curve,
concave to the Southwest, (having a central angle of 51 degrees 39 minutes
22 seconds, a radius of 910.73 feet, a chord distance of 792.36 feet, a
chord bearing of North 53 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds West), a distance
of 819.76 feet; thence on a curve, concave to the Northeast, (having a
central angle of 3 degrees 29 minutes 27 seconds, a radius. of 950.61 .
feet, a chord distance of 57.91 feet, a chord bearing of North 77 degrees
23 minutes 48 seconds West), a distance of 57.92 feet, plus or minus,
to the North line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 15; thence South 89
degrees 48 minutes 13 seconds West, along said north Line, a distance
of 140.35 feet; thence South 0 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds East a dis-
tance of 255.35 feet; thence South 45 degrees 42 minutes 47 seconds
East, a distance of 252.04 feet; thence South 45 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds West a distance of 130.00 feet to the actual point of beginning
and there terminating.
• EXHIBIT A. Mitchell Heights . . . . a cyg, e
.4 4 0 Eastern mos . access,
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT
page 1 of 3
Owner shall submit i 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.
Owner shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer
plans to the Riley- Rtrgaioly
Watershed District for review and approval.
Owner shall follow all rules and recommendations of said
Watershed District.
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
$450 pervnt . 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.
29%6 6
page 2 or 3 — Fxhibit C
V. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities, streets
curb, gutter, sidewalks and other public utilities('improvements")
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 cumpletion 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 recomendations
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.
B. 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, Owner shall have
entered into a contract for rough grading of streets included
in the improvements to a finished subgrade elevation. Contractor's
performance of the rough grading work shall be secured
by a bond or letter 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.
Developer's 'AgMt -bta; rum,
page 3 of 3 Exhibit C
C. Submit to the City Engineer a develo
p
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
s
h
o
w
i
n
g
existing contours, proposed grading, fi
n
i
s
h
e
d
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
streets, sewer, water and storm sewer p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
a
l
i
g
n
-
ment and grades, minimum floor elevatio
n
'
s
o
n
e
a
c
h
l
o
t
,
drainage ponds, high water elevations,
a
n
d
a
r
r
o
w
s
s
h
o
w
;
ing direction'of surface drainage, loca
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
r
a
i
l
s
,
etc.
D. Pay to City fees for first 4year street lighting (public
streets) engineering review , and street
s
i
g
n
s
.
VI. Owner shall file this Agreement wi
t
h
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
D
e
e
d
s
o
r
Registrar of Titles and supply the City
w
i
t
h
a
c
o
p
y
o
f
t
h
i
s
Agreement with information as to Docume
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
d
a
t
e
a
n
d
time of filing duly certified thereon w
i
t
h
i
n
6
0
d
a
y
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
date of this Agreement.
) VII. If Owner fails to proceed in a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
i
s
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
within 24 months of the date hereof an
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
o
f
o
f
filing in accordance with item VI. here
o
f
,
O
w
n
e
r
f
o
r
i
t
s
e
l
f
its successors, and assigns shall not o
p
p
o
s
e
r
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
o
f
s
a
i
d
property to Rural.
VIII. Provisions of this Agreement shall be b
i
n
d
i
n
g
u
p
o
n
a
n
d
enforceable against Owner, its successo
r
s
,
a
n
d
a
s
s
i
g
n
s
of the property herein described.
IX. Owner represents and warrants it owns
f
e
e
t
i
t
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
free and clear of mortgages, liens and
o
t
h
e
r
e
n
c
u
m
b
r
a
n
c
e
s
,
except:
gmt,G-
•
October 2, 1979
'TE OF MINNESOTA
L,'Y OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The following accounts here audited and allowed as follows:
5750 BEER WHOLESALERS, INC.
5751 BUTCH'S BAR SUPPLY
5752 DAVIDSEN DISTRIBUTING CO., INC.
5753 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
5754 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY
5755 GOLD MEDAL BEVERAGE COMPANY
5756 LEDING DISTRIBUTING CO., INC.
5757 PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY
5758 ROUILLARD BEVERAGE CO., INC.
5759 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
5760 NORTHERN CONTRACTING CO.
5761 MINNESOTA DISTILLERS, INC.
5762 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE
5763 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO.
5764 TWIN CITY WINE COMPANY
• 5765 KIWI KAI IMPORTS
5766 EAGLE DISTRIBUTING
GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC.
5/68 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COMPANY
5769 MIDWEST WINE COMPANY
5770 INTERNATIONAL UNION
5771 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
5772 P.E.R.A.
5773 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
5774 TREASURER, STATE OF MINNESOTA
5775 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
5776 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK
5777 CARL JULLIE
5778 CAPITAL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO
5779 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO.
5780 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE
5781 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC.
5782 MIDWEST WINE COMPANY
5783 OLD PEORIA COMPANY INC.
5784 TWIN CITY WINE COMPANY
5785 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO.
5786 GEORGE & CAROLYN MILKOVICN
5787 GOERGE & CAROLYN MILKOVICH
5788 ANOKA COUNTY COURT
5789 A & H WELDING & MEG. CO .
5790 EARL F. ANDERSEN & ASSOC.
21791 ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO., INC.
4192 BLOOMINGTON UMPIRE, ASSOC.
5793 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING
5794 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC.
5795 CENTURY FENCE COMPANY
5796 CITY OF EDINA
5797 COPY EQUIPMENT INC.
Beer
Beer
Beer
Beer
Beer
Mixes
Beer
Mixes
Beer
Beer
Replaced check
Liquor
Liquor
Wine
Wine
Wine
Wine
Liquor
Wine
Wine
Dues
Payroll 9/14/79
Payroll 9/14/79
Registration-Jean Johnson
Notary Public
August Sales & Use tax
MRPA Fall Conference Registration
APWA Congress meeting
Beer
Liquor
Liquor
Liquor
Wine
Wine
Wine
Wine
Purchase of house
Purchase of house
Transmit Bail Money
Supplies-street dept.
Signs
Supplies-street dept
Softball officials
Tests
Rock-Park Dept
Edenvale Park
Tests
Supplies-Park Dept
2,834.42 ;
376.68
52.00 :
2,845.11
3,234.20
79.25
2,158.10
229.20
1,053.53
4,337.90
5721-September 18, 1979 list
1,287.69
641.0?
974.45
139.03
34.25
763.24
1,216.83
978.30,
1,336.17
176.00
9,478.44
7,431.00
45.00
320.0C
33.1S
1,588.3(
1,085.1(
1,922.5''
195.0
141.0
11,434.6:
80,961.
50.e:
15.4,
1,048.1'
198.:
3,700.v
1,122.t.
70A1.
27..'
Page two
October 2, 1979
DALCO
5/99 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO.
5800 A.B. DICK PRODUCTS COMPANY
5801 DORHOLT PRINTING & STATIONERY
5802 DAVE MIMI
5803 EDEN PRAIRIE NEWS
5804 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 11272
5805 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO.
5806 EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS P. A.
5807 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
5808 FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC.
5809 FLAHERTY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
5810 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY
5811 FLOYD SECURITY
5812 FLYING CLOUD OIL COMPANY
5813 FORD TANK & PAINTING COMPANY
5814 JOHN FRAME
5815 FRONTIER LUMBER & HARDWARE
5816 FUTURE PUBLICATION INC.
5817 G.L. CONTRACTING, INC.
5818 STEVEN P. GEIGER
5819 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
5820 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY
5821 GROSS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
5V2 HARMON GLASS
113 ROGER MARRO
5824 HAYDEN-MURPHY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
5825 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS
5826 HI-Fl SOUND ELECTRONICS
5827 HOPKINS DODGE SALES, INC.
5828 HOWE CHEMICAL COMPANY
5829 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
5830 K C AUTO BODY
5831 KARULF HARDWARE INC.
5832 KIWI KAI IMPORTS
5833 LARRY KUSKE
5834 KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC.
5835 LANDCO EQUIPMENT, INC.
5836 LAYNE MINNESOTA COMPANY
5837 LOWELL'S AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALISTS
5838 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC.
5839 ROBERT N. MARTZ
5840 MAYVIEW RADIO
5841 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIPMENT
5842 MERIT PRINTING
5843 METRO PRINTING INC.
5844 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.
5845 METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR
5846 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION
147 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY
1118 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK
5849 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP
5850 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC
5851 NORTHERN CON1RACTING COMPANY
5852 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
Cleaner-Water Dept
Meters-Water Dept
Xerography Paper
Supplies
Mileage
Subscription-Public Safety
August gasoline charge
July Preventive Maintenance Service
Emergency Physician Service-Fire Dept
Supplies
Ferric Sulfate
Equipment repair-Fire Dept
Supplies-Sewer Dept
Quarterly Alarm Charge-Liquor Store
Diesel Fuel-Street Maintenance
Refinish Baker Road Reservoir
Expenses-October
Supplies
Hot Stamping-Park Dept
Repair Leak
Henn County Chiefs JUV Advisory Comm
Equipment Repair-Public Safety
3 Drawer Card Cabinet-City Hall
Service
Cutting Mirror-Park Dept
Supplies-Street Dept
Supplies
Tuition for EMT-Fire Dept
Council Chambers
Parts & Repair
Chemicals-Park Dept
Service
Equipment Repair
Supplies-Fire Dept
Beer
Refund of Building permit
New Radar Mounting-Public Safety
Supplies
Supplies-Water Dept
Paint-Park Dept
Hoist-Street Dept
Mileage
Equipment Repair-Fire & Public Works
Oxygen-Public Safety
Envelopes-Planning Dept
City Maps & Sept/Oct Happenings
Chemicals
Parts & Service-Water Dept
Blacktop
Service
Touch Football Registration
Service
Subscription-Fire Dept
Well Production Modification-Water Dept
Service
100.3? :
14,686.24 :
158.20
121.88
16.96
8.50
1,650.26
370.00
45.00
577.00
1,778.00
50.21
58.00
182.50
1,700.60
9,995.00
114.40
12.24
21.00
525.24
5.45
52.55
26.26
142.70
5.00
11.00
15.34
144.00
134.6?
175.57
60.00
65.31
141.80
82.95
26.50
10.00
35.51
7.80
447.0r.
5.4!,
5,121.2!,
139.30
287.95
14.61
298.50
830.00
218.20
226.53
166.50
100.31
120. Os
85.21:
1,983.n
6,721.17
297Y:
TOTAL
2 criq
age three
ttober 2, 1979
3853 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
3854 NORTHWESTERN BELL
3855 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO.
5856 STEVEN M. OLSTAD
5857 PENNY'S 025
5858 PEPSI COLA/7 UP BOTTLING
5859 PHOTO MILL
5860 POWER BRAKE EQUIPMENT CO.
5861 PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL MERCHANTS
5862 RADIO SHACK
5863 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES, INC.
5864 EARL SICKMANN
5865 SPECIALTY SCREENING
5866 MKS STANDARD SERVICE
5867 TERRA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES
5868 TOWN'S EDGE FORD, INC.
5869 ROGER ULSTAD
5870 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
5871 VAN WATERS & ROGERS
5872 RIVER WARREN AGGREGATES INC.
5873 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY
5874 SANDRA F. WERTS
5815 XEROX CORPORATION
5811 ZECO COMPANY
5877 ZIEGLER INC.
5878 DON BERNE
5879 ROBERT A. LAMBERT
5880 ROBERT N. MARTZ
5881 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT
5882 GUNNAR ELECTRIC COMPANY INC.
5883 M.E. LANE, INC.
5884 LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD.
5885 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIPMENT
5886 MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE CO
5887 LORNA THOMAS
5888 THOMAS & GALE MILLER
5889 BURY & CARLSON, INC.
Service
Service
Supplies-Tree Removal
Mileage
Supplies-Park Dept
Pop-City Hall & Park Dept
Poloriod Film-Assessing Dept
Supplies-Fire Dept
August Coupon Book-Liquor Store
Stero Adaptor
Portable restrooms-Park Dept
Snowdrifters Club-State Grant
Squad lettering & decals-Public Safety
Gas for vehicle-Public Works
Survey of E. P. Senior Citizens Center
Parts & Repairs
Expenses
Uniforms-Public Safety
Chlorine Liquid-Water Dept
Rock
Meter-Water Dept
Mileage & NRPA Conf. Regist-Park Dept
Services & Supplies
Amber Flashers-Street Dept
Equipment Supplies
Windows
Expenses
IAAO Conference
Custodial Service
Repairs-Water Dept
Notary Bonds
Legal fees
Service & Inspection of Fire Extinguisher
Ads
Mileage
Purchase of house(partial payment)
Golf Vista Addition
8.11
259.25
150.78
15.72
159.00
233.05
173.25
7.50
25.00
14.97
1,564.63
1,976.00
65.98
40.31
276.79
101.20
100.00
240.75
183.40
50.83
1,259.15
121.95
1,255.88
161.47
1,701.21
100.00
100.00
406.00
929.09'
594.
60.0
6,980.
91.
901.
2.7
30,828.35
10,000.00