HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 12/04/1979 1
JOHN D. FRANE
lit EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1979 i 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Pen-ol, Dean Edstrom, Dave
Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath
.
COUNCIL STAFF:,' )�jj ,✓'y City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney
jl` Roger Pauly; Planning Directir Chris Enger;
VV Finance Director John Frane; Director of
I. Community Services Bob Lambert; Engineer
Carl Jullie; and Joyce Provo, Recording
Secretary
INVOCATION l PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL
i
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, NOdEM3ER 6 L1979 Page 3470 -
III. CONSENT CALENDAR )``
1 )1'' A. Final plat approval for LeParc (Resolution No. 79-223) Page 3484' f
B. Setting hearing for vacating drainage and utility easements along Page 3485
West ine of Lot 2, Block 2, Sha�ak Industrial Park ,Rolution
( No. 79-224)
lE< .'IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 6399 - 6576 Page 3486
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hidden Glen PUD, request by 2achman Homes, Inc. Request for PU!) Page 3314 I.
concept approval for single family detached lots "( orhewithout
(t rages on approximately 125 acres. Located east of TH 101 and
south of Tuwnline Roa3-(Re-solution?Vo. 74-198) Continued
' from November 6, 1979
B. Creekview Estates by Heinen & Burnett. Request to rezone from Page 3291
r. Rural to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat 25.5 a:.res into 29 single
. . .famil,y,lots. Located at 9840 and 9940 Bennett Vi ice.(Ordinance
No '79-39 and Resolution No. 79-197) Continued from November
20, 1979
C. Willow Creek Farm by Vernon Geiger. Request to rezone 8 acres Pane 3490
from Rural to Ri-22. Located south of Willow Croek Road and West
of Flying Cloud+Drive. (Ordinance No. 79-42)
D. Prairie Village Professional b g1 e Enterprise:_ Re_ucs t for Page 3504
PUD Concept pu wal ara rezoning eom Ri-� t j)ffice and RN 2.5
for an office gilding an3an eld arfa:A , Located west 14,110i /
,L of Prairie Village Mall.' Resolution Po.-7921b-ard'Ctf`drrilnCe ‘;u•�, , -'"
No. 79-41)
- E Recuest for Municipal industrial Development Bond„pproval for Page 3526
4'` Douglas & Rov OlsonLEaule Drug ill the eruount of 'i?ilp 000.00.
.,a (Resolution No. 79-2211
J
•
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,December 4, 1979
F. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval for Page 3540
Coo erative Power Association in the amount of $8,000,000.00.
P Resolution No. 79-220)
�1 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 79-219, granting final approval for Municipal Page 3550
Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $3,000,000.00
for Menard, Inc.
44,
6. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-11t, providing regulations Page 3551
prohibiting the parking of vehicles and to authorize the designation
of areas where_parking is prohibited and the ordering and placing
of signs relative thereto.
•
C. Resolution No. 79-222, authorizing filing of application for grants Page 3558
to acquire parkland under the provision of the Federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act and the State Natural Resources Fund
II. 2nd Readin of Ordinance No. 79-22 rezoni Lot 11 Block 3 from Page 3560
I-2 Park to Rural, Yorkshire Point continued from July 17, 1979
VII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
�pr I. Reoort of City Attorney
L 1. Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Draft Ordinance Page 3564 i
C. 'Report of City Manager
J
1.` Receive and award bid for compressor for Fire Department Page 3567
(continued from November 20, 979)
D. Report of Planning Director
1. Sutton 1st Addition by Michael N. Sutton. Request to preliminary Page 3573
Oat 4.7 acres zoned R1-22 into 6 lots. Located west of
Aker Road and South of Theresa Place cul-de-sac. (Resolution
No. 79-217)
2. Report on Community Development Block Grant for 1980 Page 3594
E. Report of City_Engineer
1. Water Plant Expansion Plans Page 3596
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. ADJOURNMENT.
•
UNAPPROVEO MINUTES
EOEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
47 TUESOAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Dean Edstrom, Oave
Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath
i,
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney
Roger Pauly; Planning Oirector Chris Enger;
Oirector of Community Services Bob Lambert;
Finance Oirector John Frane; City Engineer
Carl Jullie; and Joyce Provo, Recording
Secretary
INVOCATION: Reverend William Bonner, Eden Prairie Community Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members present. (Redpath excused from meeting at 9:30 PM).
I. APPROVAL OF AGENOA ANO OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar and placed
under categories indicated: III. D. Receive petition for sewer and water
trunk extensions in the MRS-1 Service Area, I.C. 51-363(ResolutionNo.
79-206 moved to VIII. 0. 2.; III. J. Payment of Cla�nis Nos. 6052 - 6235
moved to VIII. F. 2.
The following items were added to the Consent Calendar: VII. A. Resolution
No. 79-179, agreement with Louis & Optimum Systems (continued from 10/2/79);
VII. B. Resolution No. 79-207, recomending the County Board approve the final
"911 Plan for Hennepin County" as submitted by HECO; VIII.C. 1. Authorization
to advertise for bids for compressor for Fire Oepartment; and VIII. E. 1.
Request to hire appraiser for Miller Park Parcel #2
One addition was made to the "New Business" category (IX): Public Service
Commission.
II. MINUTES
A. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 13, 1979
Item III, 2nd para., 3rd line, strike "previous City's" and insert in lieu
thereof "City's previous".
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the minutes of
the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 13, 1979,
as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, October 2 1979
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the minutes of
the Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday. October 2, 1979, as
published. Motion carried unanimously.
347U (` /
Council mimics - c -
C. cial City Council Meeting held Wednesday, October 10, 1979
MOTIDN: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the minutes of
the Special City Council Meeting held Wednesday, October 10, 1979, as
published. Motion carried unanimously.
III. CONSENT CALENOAR
A. Resolution No. 79-201, authorizing permit application to MWCC for sewer
at 6ryant Lake Stables, I.C. 51-357A
8. Receive 100% tition for improvements in Bryant Lake Estates, I.C.
51-361 Resolution No. 79-204)
Edstrom explained because his firm represents the potential purchaser
of Bryant Lake Estates he will abstain on this particular item.
C. Receive 100% petition for improvements in Village Woods II, I.C. 51-362
(Resolution No. 79-2D5)
•
D. Receive petition for sewer and water trunk extensions in the MRS-1 Service
Area, I.C. 51-363 (Resolution No. 79-206)
This item was moved to VII. D. 2,
E. Change Order No. 1, T.H. 5/W. 78th Street and Mitchell Road, I.C. 51-327
F. Final plat approval for Old Farm Addition (Resolution No. 79-202)
G. Final plat approval for Alpine Estates 2nd Addition (Resolution No. 79-203)
H. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-28, rezoning OLD FARM and approval of
developer's agreement
City Attorney Pauly spoke to changes to the developer's agreement
and the communication he received from Don Peterson of Dirlam Properties
consenting to those provisions. Pauly requested same be made part of
the developer's agreement which the Council concurred with.
I. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-31, rezoning from Rural to I-2 for LeParc
tv.Jay Kohlrusch and developer's agreement
J. Payment of Claims Nos. 6052_6235
This item was moved to VIII. F. 2.
K. Request to set Public Hearing for Sutton First for December 4, 1979
L. Request to set a Public Hearing for Douglas and Roy Dlson/Eagle Drug for MIDB
approval in the amount of 51200,000.00 for December 4, 1979
M. Rescheduling Public Hearinf for MID8 approval for Cooperative Power Association
in the amount ofI8,000,000.00 for December 4, 1979
N. Resolution No. 79-179, agreement with Logis & Optimum Systems (continued
from 10/22/779YFo rnrerly item VII. A,
0. Resolution No. 79-207,_recanmending the County Board approve the final"9l1
Plan for Hennepin Countf as submitted by HECO"--(formerly item VI1I,T,
P. Authorization to advertise for bids for compressor for Fire Department
(formerly item VIII. C.1.) a/YII
Council Minutes - 3 - Tues.,November 6, 1979
III. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued)
' Q. Request to hire appraiser for Miller Park Parcel #2 (formerly item VIII. E.1.)
l MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve items A - C, excluding
item D, approving E - I, excluding item J, approving K - Q. Roll Call Vote:
Redpath, Pauly, Osterholt and Penzel voted "aye"; Edstrom voted "aye" on items
indicated with the exception of item B where he "abstained" from voting.
Motion carried.
IV. KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR THERESA ELLIOTT AND ROGER FARBER (continued
from October 16, 1979)
City Manager Ulstad explained he reviewed both the Farber and Elliott sites,
and also visite!. with the Elliott's relative to some of the concerns that the
City had. Ulstad suggested the Council consider granting of the Farber license
with no stipulations, and approving the Elliott license subject to his sitting
down and working out conditions relative to their receiving a kennel license.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the kennel license
application for Farber's with no stipulations, and approval of the Elliott's
kennel license as per the City Manager's recommendation with a 6 month time
limit as to when the conditions stipulated are to be adhered to. Motion carried
unanimously.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Overlook Place by Hustad Development Corporation. Request to rezone 10 acres
from Rural to R1-13.5 and reliminar lat single family lots. Located
north of Pioneer Trai an east o or shire Place (Ordinance No. 79-32 and
Resolution No. 79-196) Continued from 9/18/79
Dick Putnam, Hustad Development Corporation, explained they had a proposal
in for double bungalow units on this site over a month ago, and at that point
it was recommended they go back to the Planning Commission with a revised
plan.
Rick Sathre, McCombs-Knutson, presented the revised plan on behalf of the
proponent stating the plan consists of 29 single family lots and transitions
from the smaller lot sizes up to the lot sizes found in Creekwood Estates.
City Planner Enger explained this item was considered at the October 22, 1979
Planning Commission meeting and the Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning and preliminary platting on a 3 - 1 vote, subject to items listed
in the Staff Report dated October 17th with the change that only lots 1 - 7,
Block 1, be allowed the garage as an option.
Pauly stated if she were going to approve this project she would do so only
if garages were included on all the lots.
Osterholt questioned if the Council were to approve normal lotting, which would
be about 20 lots, would it fit the situ Enger replied it could be done.
Wallace Hustad, Hustad Development Corporation, stated under normal lotting
they wouldn't do the project as the people who are interested in these lots
are not going to purchase 2 lots per acre.
Penzel asked what the difference in price would be. Hustad replied from 2 to 2.9 ':
density, it would be approximately $3,000 - $5,000 a lot.
3tt1a
Council Minutes - 4 - Tues.,November 6, 1979
A. Overlook Place (continued)
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing
on Overlook Place. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to give a 1st Reading to
Ordinance No. 79-32, rezoning approximately 10 acres from Rural to R1-13.5
for Overlook Place by Hustad Development Corporation.
AMENDMENT: Pauly asked if the mover would entertain an amendment that
the "no garage" provision not be allowed on the 7 western lots. The mover.
Councilman Redpath, and the seconder, Councilman Edstrom, agreed to accept
the amendment.
VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Redpath, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye",
Osterholt voted "nay". Motion carried. •
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-196,
approving the preliminary plat for 29 single family lots for Overlook Place
by Hustad Development Corporation, and directing staff to draft a developer's
agreement incorporating the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
October 17, 1979, with the exception that the "no garage" provision not be
allowed on any of the 29 lots. Redpath, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted
"aye", Osterholt voted "nay". Motion carried.
B. Creekview Estates by Heinen & Burnett. Request to rezone from Rural to
Ri-13.5 and preliminary plat 25.5 acres into 29 single family lots.
Located at 9840 and 9940 Bennett Place (Ordinance No. 79-39 and Resolution No.
79-197)
Steve Pellinen, Merila-Hansen, Inc., representing Larry Heinen and John
Burnett, spoke to the proposal and the revised plat consisting of 28 lots,
rather than the 29 lots originally proposed. Mr. Pellinen stated the
development depends on the extension of Bennett Place from Pioneer Trail.
City Planner Enger referred to the communication from Mr. Sutton regarding
the incorrect legal description for Creekview Estates, and explained he talked
to Mr. Heinen and Merila-Hansen Engineers and they did agree that their legal
description was in error. The drawing as depicted is actually correct according
to the County plat, and Mr. Enger has communicated that to Mr. Sutton. Thus
the situation has now been corrected.
City Planner Enger explained this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission
on September 10, 1979, and the Commission voted unanimously to recommend to
the Council approval of the rezoning from Rural and R1-22 to Ri-13.5 and approval
of the preliminary plat subject to the stipulations in the Staff Report dated
September 5, 1979,with the 4 additions made by the Planning Commission. Enger
noted the Engineering and Planning Department has reviewed the plan shown
tonight, and has recommended lot 1, block 1, which is under 13,500 and is
somewhat a difficult lot to build on, be combined with another lot.
City Engineer Jullie stated the intersection looks awkward to the north going
westbound on Creekview and going to turn right on Creekview Court, commenting
he would recommend about a 50 foot long perpendicular intersection before
starting another curve. Jullie thought perhaps it could be worked out with
some shifting in the right-of-way.
3q13
Council Minutes - 5 - Tues.,November 6, 1979
B. Creekview Estates (continued)
Penzel commented some changes would have to be made in the street names prior
to final platting.
Director of Community Services Lambert reported the Parks, Recreation &
Natural Resources Commission had a lengthy discussion about the location
of the north/south road and recommended the conservancy area be set at the 810
contour. Lambert also stated there was considerable discussion on the flood-
plain as to whether it should be owned or not. Lambert felt to be
consistent the Council ought to require the floodplain to be dedicated to the
City and the conservancy zone be a scenic easement and the cash park fee paid.
Communication from Mr. Sutton, 11341 Pioneer Trail, dated 9/17/79, was entered
into the record as part of the minutes,which rejects any development on his
property until something agreeable can be arranged with him.
Mr. Heinen stated he would be acceptable to having access on the other side
of Mr. Sutton and stated they are not endorsing the extension of Bennett Place
one way or the other. They have not petitioned for a road at this point nor
for Bennett Place to be extended, they are simply asking for zoning at this time.
Sally Brown, 10080 Bennett Place, commented they have tried for years to
have Bennett Place extended, but has one concern and that is an area of the
potential extension where there is a very steep slope Jullie responded the
grading and utility plan that the developer has submitted shows about a 7 1/2%
grade going down from Creekview Drive to the north to a low point and then
it starts up at about 3 1/2% grade to County Road 1. The City has used 7 1/2%
Las the maximum grade for streets, and there is also the Bennett Place access
in case the other access becomes clogged.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to continue the Creekview
Estates Public Hearing to the November 20th Council meeting, and direct
Staff to contact Mr. Sutton and Mr. Blossom to reach an understanding on the
extension of Bennett Place. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Menard Second Addition by Menard, Inc. Request to rezone from Rural to C-Req-
Ser and preliminary plat 1.06 acres for a Crown Auto Store with outside
storage_ Located north of TH 5 and west of the proposed Menard Store (Ordinance
No. 79-40 and Resolution No. 79-208)
Dan Johnson, Suburban Engineering, spoke to the proposal, which consists of a
Crown Auto Store containing about 1.06 acres. Mr. Johnson explained there will
be three accesses to the property - one off the private drive which is the
service road, and the other two are to be into the Menard building site itself.
A landscaping plan has also been given to the City Staff.
Planning Director Enger explained this item was considered and reviewed at the
9/24/79 Planning Commission and the Commission recommended approval to the
Council on a 4 - 2 vote subject to the items contained in the Staff Report
dated 9/20/79 and additions made by the Planning Commission.
Osterholt asked if the construction of the Crown Auto Store meets the City
ordinances. Enger replied in the negative as construction of the Store
would include metal skin on wood studs.
Penzel commented if it were the choice of the Council to support the
Manning Commission's recommendation to require the construction meet the City
ordinances, which would exclude the use of metal skin buildings, what alterna-
tives might Menard's consider? 34'1 /
Council Minutes - 6 - Tues.,November 6, 1979
C. Menard Second Addition by Menard, Inc. (continued)
Mary Prochaska, Menard, Inc., replied the first thing that comes to his
0. mind would be use of the rough sawn wood, which was approved on a portion of
the Menard's building.
Councilman Redpath was excused at this point in the meeting (9:25 PM).
Penzel stated it was his understanding the trees that were removed in error
are to be replaced by the placement of substantial size trees. Mr. Prochaska
explained,as he previously stated, they will replace those 1 for 1 that have
been removed in error.
Penzel questioned the screening of the properties on the north side of Valley
View Road a-d asked how the proponents stand on that position now? Prochaska
stated he would live up to any commitment they made regarding the screening.
Penzel asked that Mr. Ulstad check into the commitments made prior to a 2nd
Reading to the Ordinance regarding the landscaping for the two or three property
owners on the north side of Valley View Road.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to close the Public Hearing and
give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-40, rezoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser
for a Crown Auto Store in Menard's Second Addition, with the understanding
that all City Ordinances will be met by the developer. Motion carried
unanimously.
f MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adopt Resolution No. 79-208,
el approving the preliminary plat for Menard's Second Addition by Menard, Inc.,
and direct staff to draft a developer's agreement incorporating the recommenda-
tions of the Staff Report dated 9/20/79 and Planning Commission. Motion
carried unanimously.
Bob Nelson, Crown Auto Store, explained they are proposing an outside storage
area that is screened and enclosed to the rear or side of the building so they
can keep the used tires enclosed to prevent them from being thrown around.
Penzel suggested City Planner Enger review the outside storage and come back
to the Council with a report on that issue at the time of the 2nd Reading of
the Ordinance.
D. Hidden Glen PUD, request by Zachman Homes, Inc. Re uest for PUD concept approva1
-for—Stole-family detached lots (some without garages) on a proximately 125
acres. Located east of TH 101 and south of Townline Road (Resolution No. 79-198)
Edstrom explained he has a conflict on this matter as his law firm represents
the real estate broker, thus he will abstain from voting on this item.
Pauly stated her mother-in-law has half interest in the adjacent property to
the east; however, she does not consider it a conflict.
Don Hess, site planner on the project, spoke to the proposal as submitted
and displayed graphics pertaining to same. Hess offered for the Council's
direction that about 50 units out of 160 - 170 at any one given time might
have the option, if the person showed up wanting no garage, rather than trying
to set out one portion of the site where that is the only place it can happen.
Hess further explained every block will be designed to have a garage, so there
is no house placement coming forward that would deny a logical placement for
a garage to be attached. They are ta king about a "deferred garage" option
Council Minutes - 7 - Tues.,November 6, 1979
D. Hidden Glen PUD (continued)
rather than a "no garage" option.
CPlanning Director Enger explained this item was reviewed at the August 13th,
August 27th and the September 24th Planning Commission meetings. The motions
on September 24th centered around whether or not garages should be allowed
as options on various portions of the plan. Enger commented the plan presented
by the proponents this evening that shows the majority of the subdivison
with garages as an option was never considered at the Planning Commission.
In none of the Planning Commission minutes motions did they ever
consider increasing the number of lots that would allow garages as an option.
The recommendations of the Planning Commission on a 3 - 3 vote reflects the
vote on the garages, and not the endorsement of the subdivision, based on
the staff recommendations that the PUD be approved subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated 9/21/79.
Director of Community Services Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission reviewed this item October 1st and their main concerns
were the•two parks and the sidewalk. The Commission recommended approval
as long as the park was graded and seeded in the first phase development.
Pauly stated she would consider 30 homes without garages to be consistent with
the two proposals that have been approved so far.
Osterholt stated in looking at the kinds of income requirements, this project
is doing nothing for people with low income.
Osterholt asked what would be done to the areas where bad soils are shown.
City Engineer Jullie replied what could be required as part of the developer's
agreement is that the bad soils under the building pads be corrected as part
of their grading for their project, so someone doesn't get into a position of
owning a lot with serious soil conditions. Hess further commented FHA requires
that the bad soils be prepared.
Brenda Welch, 18810 Harrogate Drive, stated she would like to see garages on the
houses closest to them.
Don Werdick, Tartan Curve, explained he would like to see garages, and if there
are houses without garages to keep them away from the Lochanburn area. Werdick
also questioned the quality of construction that is going to be built, and If
the homes without garages would be salable in the secondary market.
James Zachman, Zachman Homes, Inc., explained the mortgages are salable
to Fanny Mae and Jenny Mae if they are insured by FHA, and FHA will insure a
house without a garage. Zachman noted he primarily builds for the first home
buyer market and the limitation as far as his being able to market his product
and the young families being able to buy the houses varies much with the
financing available. By having the flexibility to offer the homes with the
option of no garage at various points in time is going to be very significant •
in the proponents being able to sell and people being able to buy. The thirty
Mrs. Pauly mentioned is acceptable to Mr. Zachman; however, the proponents
want it to float within the area. Zachman stated they will all have garages
eventually, it is just a period of two to three years, and they will simply
gage the development so that in one point in time they will never have more than
30 homes that don't have garages.
Jullie commented he is fairly familiar with what Mr. Zachman has built in the
community today and he personally has not received any large amount of negative
complaints. 3ti7t®
Council Minutes - 8 - Tues.,November 6, 1979
D. Hidden Glen PUD (continued)
Pauly stated she wasn't thinking of 30 floating. She would be willing to
accept probably an area of no more than 30 homes without garages, and it should
be known where these will go.
Steve Ryan, Zachman Homes, Inc., spoke in favor of a floating situation whereby
each person would sign an agreement that goes along with the purchase
agreement, acknowledging they have reviewed the plan and accepted its provision
that they may end up with a neighbor that would not have a garage initially.
Dick Feerick, broker involved in the project, spoke in favor of the project
commenting that Mr. Zachman has spent alot of time on this proposal and has
worked with the neighbors in the area. Most of the neighbors seem to accept
the idea that some houses could be built without garages.
Penzel stated he would like to see the question of garages (how many and where),
and the question of Dell Road (the location and financing), resolved before the
Council takes any action on this proposal.
Pauly added the density should also be carefully looked at.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to continue the Public Hearing
for the Hidden Glen PUD to the December 4, 1979 Council meeting, to further
pursue recommendations from the Planning Commission and City Staff. Osterholt,
Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Edstrom "abstained". Motion carried.
E. Michelangelo PUD by Rembrandt Enterprises. Request for PUD Concept approval
for medium-high density residential on 36 acres located east of 169-212 and
north of Nine Mile Creek (Resolution No. 79-199)
Greg A. du'Monceaux, architect for Rembrandt Enterprises, spoke to the
proposal and answered questions of Council members.
City Planner Enger explained this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission
at their meetings held 9/10/79 and 9/24/79, and was recommended to the
City Council for approval on a 6 - 0 vote subject to the Staff Report dated
9/20/79. The Planning Commission has before it at its next meeting the
rezoning and preliminary plat on this project.
Director of Community Services Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission reviewed this item on October 1st and October 15, and
brought to the Council's attention the Commission's concerns. The Cammission
recommended to the City Council approval of the PUD as outlined in motion
adopted on October 15th.
Osterholt asked Mr. du'Monceau if they would be willing to make sone commitment
on the public open space, even though in a sense it is being used privately,as
he wants to make sure the open space stays for recreational purposes and is not
used for further building. du'Monceau replied he feels that could be worked
out.
/ Enger went over the possible public road system and its connections.
`- Penzel asked for a recommendation as how to solve the two parallel sections of
Flying Cloud Drive, one on each side of #169.
Penzel questioned how many years the total phasing would take. du'Monceaux
replied with the phasing they are talking about presently (four phases) they
are looking optimistically at a five year program. 3q11
Council Minutes - 9 - Tues.,November 6, 1979
E. Michelangelo PUD (continued)
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Pauly, to close the Public Hearing
and adopt Resolution No. 79-199, approving the Michelangelo PUD Concept
by Rembrandt Enterprises for medium-high density residential on 36 acres.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Osterholt, to continue the Council meeting past
the 11:30 PM scheduled adjournment time. Motion carried unanimously.
VI. REPORTS OF AOVISORY COMMISSIONS
No reports.
VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 79-179, agreement with Logis & Optimum Systems (continued
from 10/2/79)
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. N.)
B. Resolution No. 79-207, recommending the County Board approve the final "911
Plan for Hennepin County" as submitted by HECO
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. 0.)
VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOAROS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
1. Councilman Edstrom reviewed with the Council the meeting he recently
attended of the South Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Committee
• on the Comprehensive Study and will continue to keep the Council
up-to-date on future meetings.
2. Councilwoman Pain brought the Council up-to-date on the Highway #2L2
Task Force Advisory Committee meeting where the Corrrnittee met with
those agencies concerned with the environment, at which time they
went over the routes considered thus far along with 2 additional
alternatives that the Committee had not considered.
3. Mayor Penzel referred to communications received from the School
Board and the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce supporting the
upcoming Park Bond Referendum.
4. Councilman Edstrom requested the Council solicit dates from the
Commissions as to covenient dates to have a joint meeting.
B. Report of City Attorney
City Attorney Pauly stated he is working on the Parking Ordinance and hopes
to have it to the Council soon.
C. Report of City Manager
1. Authorization to advertise for bids for compressor for Fire Department
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. P.),
3y�B
Council Minutes - 10 - Tues.,November 6, 1979
D. Report of Planning Director
1. Valley Knolls 2nd, request to preliminary plat 4 acres zoned R1-13.5
C into 13 lots (Reno 1-Ution No. 79-206)
City Planner Enger reviewed the minutes of the 10/22/79 Planning
Commission meeting where the request was considered for preliminary
platting of 13 lots directly adjacent to Duck Lake Road north of Duck
Lake Trail, which includes a .82 acre tract of land owned by Mrs.
Miska. Enger stated Mrs. Miska came into his office late this afternoon
and signed the preliminary plat application showing 3 lots on her property,
so she has joined in this request for preliminary platting. The Planning
Conmission recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the
Staff Report of October 9, 1979, which suggested all the lots should be
platted to the 13.5 requirements or larger as required by ordinance.
Penzel asked if all lots were brought up to 13.5, how many would it
eliminate. Enger replied it would eliminate 1 lot.
Fred Haas, Mary Anderson Construction Company, spoke to the proposal
as submitted to the Council. At this time if the Council and Staff do
not feel this would be an appropriate replat, then Mr. Haas stated he
would like to recommend the possibility of going back to their original
platting of 1973 for approval of 10 lots. Haas commented he does not
have any interest in Mrs. Miska's property at this time.
Osterholt questioned the status of the assessment on the street improve-
•
ments and sewer and water. City Engineer Jullie replied the road is under
,_ construction based on 100% petition that has been submitted by Mr. Anderson
and the developer's on the other side. At this point there wouldn't be
any assessments to Mrs. Miska's property unless she would choose to hook
up to the sewer and water.
Glen Olson, 1700 67th Street West, expressed concern in the subdividing
of the 3 lots, as in order to do that Mrs. Miska will not have to move
her house but will have to move her garage. A concern of the residents is
the subdividing of those lots would mean removal of the large stand of oak
trees.
MOTION: Dsterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to continue this item
to the November 20th Council meeting, requesting additional staff input
in cooperation with the proponent as to alternatives on how this property
can be platted. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Receive petition for sewer and water trunk extensions in the MRS-1 Service
Area, I.C. 51-363 (Resolution No. 79-206) Formerly item III. D
City Engineer Jullie explained the petitioners are asking for the City
to start thinking about time and routing and so forth of the sewer line,
so 1, 2 or 3 years from now when development pressures may loom larger
in this service area that we would be more prepared to react to it.
Dsterholt commented rather than taking action on this matter tonight he
would like to have it deferred to a future meeting and that additional
information be provided by staff, i.e., where does it fall in the
master plan for the extension of trunk sewer and water (the timing),
some estimate on the part of staff on what we are looking at in terms of
financing to take on a project of this extent, and if there is any area
outside of the MUSA line. Council members concurred with Osterholt's
request. 3tnei
•
Council Minutes - 11 - Tues.,November 6, 1979
E. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Request to hire appraiser for Miller Park Parcel #2
This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (III. Q.).
2. Petition for Lowering Floodplain - Purgatory Creek and Proposal for
Land Planning Services
Director of Community Services Lambert spoke to his memo dated
October 26, 1979, which included the recommendation from the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission to deny the petition for
lowering the floodplain until such time as the upstream affect has been
properly determined and a land use study completed. The Commission had
some concerns about what affect lowering the floodplain would really have
on the land surrounding the immediate area - upstream and downstream.
The Commission did feel it made sense to do a study of this area prior to
lowering the floodplain; however, did have some concerns about the study
itself as outlined in memo.
Penzel stated he has some concern about the proposed assessment as he felt
the assessment should be limited to those petitioning for the study, rather
than establishing a blanket district, i.e., there are some properties with-
in the district that is being proposed which would in no way be benefitted
by this particular study. The ones that signed the petition also ought
to be the ones to sign an agreement that they would incur the cost of what
the study would be.
tv Lambert explained there has been some limited discussion on who should pay
for the study. There has been some preliminary discussion with staff on
the City's sharing a percentage of cost of the study; haven't talked
about any percentage of cost and who should pay. The Commission also
had some concern about putting the top end on the study as the way the
existing study is written up the study could go on to be quite expensive.
Pauly stated basically she believes the study is a good idea and is not
adverse to the City participating in the study.
Penzel commented the City ought to decide if there is a predetermined
consultant to do the work or if we should go out on bids. Lambert
added Larry VanMeter, member of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission, requested when the staff and Watershed District meet and
the parameters are outlined, that the study be bid.
Rick Sathre, McCombs-Knutson Associates, explained his firm has been hired
by Feeders, Inc. to represent them on the possibility of developing their
property and they have been involved in trying to do some preliminary
platting on Feeders land. What he had hoped would come out of the meeting
was to give the Council some facts and to have some kind of idea in his head
on how the City stands before the Watershed District meets tomorrow night.
Sathre further commented they had asked the Watershed District Managers to
talk about the floodplain area tomorrow night, and the Watershed District
would like to know what kinds of discussion the Council had before they
would talk about this item.
Penzel stated it is difficult to make a decision when the Council does not
have any kind of background information.
SVO
4
•
Council Minutes - 12 - Tues,,November 6, 1979
2. Petition for Lowering Floodplain - Purgatory Creek and Proposal for
Land Planning Services (continued)
Mac Hyde added he is involved with Feeders, Inc. and that this petition
is purely and simply a request to reduce the floodplain elevation and is
unrelated to any development proposal. The only reason for the request
is the 60" culvert was removed, which physically reduced the floodplain
elevation. Hyde added they didn't petition any study.
Ulstad added the study initiated from some of the property owners that signed
the petition: the City staff did not initiate the study of the floodplain
area. Staff was reacting to the property owners in the MCA of which a
number of them had signed the petition.
Calvin Anderson, 7214 Topview Drive, explained he has lived here for 70
years and one weekend there was a 9 inch rainfall and there never was water
in any part of what is being asked to be taken out of the floodplain.
Mr. Anderson felt 70 years of observation is worth more than any survey
and if the City waits for an expensive study, this would hold up development.
Paul Strand, MTS, commented they have recently acquired a fair amount of
land that is being discussed and for obvious reason have signed the
petition as there is no way lowering the floodplain can hurt them. Their
position, as stated by Mr. Strand, is one of support for the proposed
study and willingness to help fund the study. Feels that there is a strong
potential for increasing the aesthetic environment of the neighborhood.
Don Brauer, Brauer & Associates, explained over the years he has been
involved in what goes on in Eden Prairie. Over that period of time
various and sundry people on the City staff havetalked about problems in this
area that can't be resolved and asked if something comprehensive could be
put together - it was not a request. Some of the owners of the land around
the floodplain also came to him commenting there are sore public advantages
lying there that could be tied together with what the private people wanted
to do. At this point Brauer stated he told them he would put together an
outline of what ought to be done and what it ought to cost so they could
go around and talk to neighbors and see whether they would be willing to
spend that kind of money. Brauer explained if Brauer & Associates is
going to be involved they are only going to work for one client that is the
City because the public interest is paramount and what he is talking about
in tie proposal he made for the use of lowering the floodplain would be to
the benefit of the public. Brauer added he has put together a proposal
which he feels makes a lot of sense, whether Brauer & Associates is hired
to do the study or somebody else. Somebody had to have something in their
hands to go around and talk to people about, and Mr. Brauer stated
he provided the services to do that. Brauer added the conditions are,
however, it ought to be done for the City and the Watershed District and
the study should cost $60,000 to $70,000.
Osterholt felt more information should be provided by staff as the Council
has not been told what authority they have to lower the floodplain and
all the other ramifications that go with it.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to request more information
from Staff and continue this item to the November 20, 1979 Council meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
34't
•
Council Minutes - 13 - Tues.,November 6, 1979
F. Report of Finance Director
1. Setting of date for Canvassing Board to meet to canvass the results of
the Bond Referendum to be held November 15, 1979
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Edstrom, to set Friday, November 16,
1979, 5:00 PM, as the date and time for the Canvassing Board to
meet to canvass the results of the Bond Referendum. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Payment of Claims Nos. 6052 - 6235
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve Payment of
Claims Nos. 6052 - 6235. Roll Call Vote: 0sterholt, Edstrom and
Penzel voted "aye"; Pauly "abstained"; Redpath had been excused prior
to this vote. Motion carried.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
Mayor Penzel referred to communication received from Nancy Barsness, President
of the Determined Runestone Electric Assn. Members (DREAM),requesting to be informed
when Cooperative Power Association MIDB request is on the Council agenda. It was
agreed that an agenda be sent to Mrs. Barsness informing her organization that
this item will be on the December 4, 1979 Council agenda.
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to adjourn the Council meeting
at 12:55 AM. Motion carried unanimously.
•
•
34$9-
.:+ ... ::. :; , •, :•t.. rt^..)*.,: 3Y'),^•,rh A..b'�w•ow>:I:r:•M;p4.
' .. ...,•�•n J«h•.�v i�.Yr 1'r.Y'�1� . •1 Ai. G'.V.«�..:�:t..A'�,���"''.•� v�
• :den Prairie, Minnesota
• September 17, 1979
To: Creekview Estates Developer
Larry Heinen
I r.n writing this letter to you on the advice of Chris Unger, City
planner. .
I have given considerable thought to your proposal for deve1cpt.sent
• of Creekview Estates. I was at the City planner.A8:.meetiRg•on September 10,
1979. I was called on to give my opinion on the,utility loop through my :
property.
As you know, I have a very short fuse - so decided not to say any-'
thing other than, quota: I will see Chris about that: We had our die-
. cussion on Wednesday, September 12, at 4:00 p.m. J. Johnson, Assistant
• City Planner sat in.
My personal feeling is that`I do not want that loop. That would add
•
an extra 160 ft. of Sewer installation cost for me. An 8" Sewer will cost
between $12.00 and $15.00 at a depth of 6 ft.:-. Water hydrants are $650 •
each. Manholes are S600 each. The extra cost of the 160 ft.of road at
L 850.00 a foot, will add another $4,800. The loss of four cul-de-sac lots
at an estimated $2,000 each will add another $8,000.
I need Bennett Place only to my proposed road, which is approxi-
mately 250 ft. to the south edge. You need Bennett Place to Creokview
Road. Due to the fact that the road will end there
agreeand
seveho only
lyayyour
urd
proposed development, I see no reason why I r
utility assessment beyond my need. This io an extra 140 ft.
The approximate added costs are: '
•
Cul-de-sac Loss: $4,800
Road Cost ,000
- Sewer Loop 2,000
•
Loss of Sale on Lots
•
Bennett Place extension past my need: $3,500
Coat of Utilities (1/2) 2 500
Cost of Road (1/2) ,
Total added costa for your development 120,500 •
With these added coats, I will reject any development on my prop-
erty until something agreeable to me can be arranged.
I will entertain an offer from you on my property on an undevel-
{ •
opod per-lot basis.
•
` Sincerely, •
Michael N. Sutton •
141 nervier nn
3415. a
Edon prairie,, Minnesota
• lA
•
•
Dec. 4, 1979
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 79-223
• A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT
OF LE PARC I'
WHEREAS, the plat of LE PARC 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 LE PARC is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
Report on this plat dated November 14, 1979.
B. 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.
c. 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.
D. 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
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
DATE: November 14, 1979 '
SUBJECT: LE PARC
PROPOSAL: The developer, Jay C. Kohlrusch, is requesting City Council
approval of the final plat of Le Parc. This is an industrial (1-2
Park) development containing approximately 35 acres located north of
Valley View Road and west of Washington Avenue in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 12.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved on September 4, 1979, per
Council Resolution #79-16D.
Zoning to I-2 Park was finally read and approved by the Council on
November 6, 1979, per Ordinance NO. 79-31.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed
on November 6, 1979.
VARIANCES: Variances from City Ordinances must be processed through the
'Zoning Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: The requirements for the installation of utilities
and streets are covered in items 3, 4 and Exhibit C of the Developer's
Agreement.
Drainage and utility easements along the side (interior) property
lines shall be shown on the plat prior to release of the final plat.
An additional easement of 17 feet along County Road #39 will be filed
as a separate document upon filing of the final plat. This will
satisfy the requirements of item 4 of the Developer's Agreement.
PARK DEDICATIDN: The requirements for park dedication are covered in Exhibit C
of the Developer's Agreement.
340
•
- 2 -
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Le Parc, subject
to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the
following:
1. Receipt of fee for City Engineering services in the amount
of $700.00.
2. Receipt of cash deposit for street lighting in the amount
of $1180.80.
3. Satisfaction of bonding requirements
4. Warranty Deed for Outlot A.
CJJ:kh
•
•
•
•
•
MEMO
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roger Ulstad, City Manager
•
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer •
DATE: November 30, 1979
SUBJECT: Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements
Lot 2,-Block 2 Shady Oak Industrial Pahk
Mr. Richard Anderson has requested approval of an administrative land division •
in order to enlarge Lot 2, Block 2 of Shady Oak Industrial Park Addition, as
shown on the attached drawing. The additional land area (1.07 acres) will •
be taken from Lot 2, Block 1, Shady Oak Industrial Park Fourth Addition. The
remaining area of Lot 2, Block 1, will be about 4 acres, which meets. the
I-2 Park minimum lot size and therefor no variances are necessary. Adjustment
of the lot line, as requested, will require a vacation of the five foot drain-
age and utility easements adjacent to the original lot line and new easements
will be dedicated along the revised lot line.
It is recommended that the Council set the hearing date for January 8, 1980,
for vacation of the five foot easements along the westerly line of Lot 2, Block 2,
Shady Oak Industrial Park.
CJJ:kh
Attachment
•
•
34g
December 4, 1979
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
( RESOLUTION NO. 79-224
• RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING FOR
VACATING DRAINAGE & UTILITY
EASEMENTS, L2, 62, SHADY OAK
INOUSTRIAL PARK
WHEREAS, it is proposed to vacate certain drainage and utility
easements which are no longer needed and which are legally described as
follows: _.
5 feet on either side of the following described
line: Commencing at the NW corner of L2, 62,
Shady Oak Industrial Park, thence N 75v 21' 06"
E a distance of 430.48 feet and there terminating
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council
as follows:
th day
1. A public
1980, at the rEden ing sPrairie hall be City Hill ld on ht e 8 consider f nthevacation
of said easements.
2. The City Clerk shall give property legal notice of such
hearing as required by law (2 weeks published and posted
notice.)
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL '
John D. Frane, Clerk
t •
e
1M•W LoT LINE 35°�/" °. \II.C4
w
...3....:.....
r----- . i.,,. .....,..,.___;_.
, / 1- . w. f___
, _ trrukut.40,06. ----„,- --___ s.; ,
, , (
• / t y1
ri ►rrnz'n
TIP. l - - ..,'.
`" _ II'- ,ro i,
Lam _ .
cx `�—
oo
' , T OLD Lam- Pi-1•g`� .T.wD �" FT
/ / \ t...._ 2(37-943
c _ I-1 ,lit -`.
•
3+ • t.
'J \ fit'vw:: !
1 .UKPA( ),; /'--- t-r,;
t7:77;,, T ' E---\• 1.- 2. ''. • .-
( 3 ‘.....„,„\c---:-.4 •
•
0 ‘'( ---- -4'-
2 Tar •
•
• December 4, 1979
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
t .ARTY OF HENNEPIN
The following accounts were audited and allowed as follows:
6271 VOID OUT CHECK $ (6,675.50)
6373 VOID OUT CHECK (32.00)
6399 THOMAS A. MILLER Refund-Park Dept 28.95
6400 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Liquor 816.21
6401 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO. Wine 1,345.02
6402 MIDWEST WINE CO. Wine 424.62
6403 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 906.63
6404 FEDERAL RESERVE BANI' Payroll 11/9/79 9,203.91
6405 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING November dues 187.00
6406 PERA Payroll 11/9/79 7,433.83
6407 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE Insurance-November 362.00
6408 GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. Insurance-November 917.34
6409 BLUE CROSS INSURANCE Insurance-November 222.40
6410 HMO SERVICES Insurance-November 1,010.18
6411 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN Insurance-November 5,419.18
6412 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage 113.90
6413 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage 2.50
6414 PETTY CASH Expense-Special Election 49.91
6415 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS Conference-Planning Dept 35.00
6416 CASH REGISTER SALES, INC. Equipment rental-Liquor store 235.00
17 COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION October sales & use tax 1,679.71
.8 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE Liquor 682.27
6419 INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO. Wine 52.49
6420 MIDWEST WINE COMPANY Wine 88.40
6421 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 845.41
6422 'ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Liquor 943.03
6423 MINNESOTA DISTILLERS, INC. • Liquor 1,385.91
6424 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 947.35
6425 EAGLE WINE CO. Wine 622.20
6426 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., INC. Liquor 120.70
6427 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Motor vehicle registration 13.50
6428 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY I.D. Card-Liquor Store 5.00
6429 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Motor vehicle registration 1.50
6430 VOID OUT CHECK 33,900.00
6431 CREEK KNOLLS PARTNERSHIP Franlo Road Park site 862.23
6432 KNOX LUMBER Building Material75.68
6433 KNOX LUMBER Building Material
6434 EDEN PRAIRIE VOLUNTEER FIREMAN State Contribution-Retirement 20,116.41
6435 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK November Bonds 150.00
6436 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Payroll 11/23/79 10,2213.34
6437 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE November payrolls 7,828.48
6438 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS November deduction 62.68
6439 PERA Payroll 11/23/79 8,026.76
6440 VOID OUT CHECK
6441 VOID OUT CHECK 86.05
F'12 AKINS FIRE EQUIPMENT CO. 4-Fire nozzles 7 55.80
,_.3 ORRIN ALT Mileage
6444 AQUA ENGINEERING INC. Service-Park Dept 50.00
6445 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC. Heater-Street Dept 45.00
6446 VOID OUT CHECK
•
Page two
December 4, 1979
bg47 LOOE BAKER III Refund-Basketball 15.00
y{ 8 CURTIS M. BERGGUIST Fireman 574.00
449 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH COMPANY Repairs-Water Dept 41.00
6450 LANCE M. BRACE Fireman 356.00
6451 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING Service-Hwy 5 & Co. Rd. 4 106.20
6452 BRUCE P. 8REN Fireman 246.00
6453 BROWN & CRIS Riverview Road & Purgatory Creek 3,600.00
6454 MAXINE BRUECK Mileage 6.30
6455 DEBRA J. 8UCHNER Refund-Basketball 15.00
6456 RONALD BURKE Fireman 146.00
6457 DUANE J. CABLE Fireman 320.00
6458 STEVE CALHOON Mileage 43.20
6459 CAPITOL ELECTRONICS, INC. Parts & repairs-Public Safety 29.00
6460 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS Repair parts-Park Dept 17.74
6461 JAMES GOROON CLARK Fireman 506.00
6462 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE, INC. Exhaust system 126.93
6463 COPY EQUIPMENT INC. Supplies-Engineering Dept 45.22
6464 SPENCER L. CONRAD Fireman 310.00
6465 WALLACE CONRAD Fireman 196.00
6466 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO. Engraved Plates-Public Safety 48.08
6467 PATRICK STANLEY OADY Fireman 36.00
6468 LARRY ALAN DOIG Fireman 446.00
6469 DORHOLT PRINTING & STATIONERY INC. Office Supplies 378.43
6470 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL OISTRICT October custodial • 801.68
6471 EMMER OISTRIBUTION CENTER Supplies-Park Maintenance 14.56
6472 FAIRVIEW COMMUNITY HOSPITAL Test-Public Safety 25.00
Sti3 FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC. Ferric Sulfate 1,772.00
74 STEVEN P. GEIGER Expenses-Public Safety 10.00
6475 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Equipment-Fire Dept 123.63
6476 GOLF RIDGE, INC. Refund-Basketball 15.00
6477 KARIN GORI Calligraphy instructor 96.00
6478 GUNNAR ELECTRIC COMPANY INC. Repair Material-City Hall 82.50
6479 ROY GUZMAN Overpayment of food handlers license 204.36
6480 JOHN KENNETH HACKING Fireman 442.00
6481 FREDRICK KARL HAFFNER Fireman 550.00
6482 HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE OIRECTOR Equipment rental-tree removal 3,881.60
6483 HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE DIRECTOR Board of Prisoners 134.00
6484 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTER Refund-Basketball 15.00
6485 JOHN THOMAS HOBBS JR. Fireman - 490.00
6486 JOHN J. HOBBS Fireman 160.00
6487 KENNETH V. HOOGES, M.D. Employment exam 23.00
6488 JOYCE HOLTE Expenses 45.94
6489 I8M Typewriter 733.02
6490 GENE JACOBSON Expenses-Fire Dept 81.46
6491 GEORGIA JESSEN Minutes-Part Dept 72.25
6492 DUANE LEWIS JOHNSON Fireman 298.00
6493 GENE A. J0008SON Fireman 1,106.00
6494 RONALD 0. JOHNSON Fireman 482.00
6495 K C AUTO 80DY Equipment repair-Public Safety 124.00
6496 LABELLE'S DISTRIBUTING Calculator-Assessing 114.97
497 MARV LAHTI Fireman 410.00
)8 M.E. LANE, JR Fireman 358.00
6499 LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD. Legal service 6,934.15
6500 LAYNE MINNESOTA COMPANY Chemical feed repair parts 231.89
6501 JEFF LINOAIIL Refund-Basketball 15.00
6502 R08ERT P. LISTIAK Fireman 513.00
341
•
Page three
Drember 4, 1979
6503 LOGIS Service 1,184.03
6504 LOWELL D. LUND Fireman 820.00
6505 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. Equipment-Water Dept 7.73
6506 ROBERT N. MARTZ Expenses-Assessing Dept 111.75
6507 JAMES LEE MATSON Fireman 452.00
6508 TERRENCE FRANCIS MCKILLIP Fireman 204.00
6509 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIPMENT CO., INC. Oxygen-Public Safety 53.33
6510 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL Refund 893.26
6511 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL October SAC charges 112,340.25
6512 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION Blacktop 76.32
6513 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY Service 1,383.97
6514 MINNESOTA ASSOC. OF ASSESSING Membership dues 75.00
6515 MINNESOTA STATE PLANNING AGENCY Refund of grant-Park dept 50.00
6516 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP Service 21.45
6517 MARILYN MITCHELL Fireman 300.00
6518 RAY I. MITCHELL Fireman 1,590.00
6519 RAY MITCHELL Expenses-State Fire Conference 105.74
6520 THOMAS HAMILTON MONTGOMERY Fireman 545.00
6521 MOUND MEDICAL CLINIC, LTD. Employment exam 15.00
6522 MUNICIPAL & PRIVATE SERVICES, INC. October service 601.25
6523 MURPHY PLUMBING & HEATING CO. Pipe-Sewer Dept 8.73
6524 MY CHEESE SHOP Sandwiches-Election judges 110.79
6525 M. E. H. A. Dues-Building Dept 30.00 '
V26 BERNARD F. NEUMANN Fireman 302.00 '
L .7 NORTH STAR CHAPTER OF I.C.B.O. Dues-Building Dept 20.00
6528 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO Service 1,994.99 i
6529 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE Service 924.67
6530 CURTIS REED OBERLANDER Fireman 808.00
6531 VOID OUT CHECK
6532 t1ARTIN L. PAULSEN Fireman 396.00
6533 PHYSICAL ELECTRONICS Refund-Basketball 15.00
6534 DOUGLAS LEE PLEHAL Fireman 825.00
6535 POWER SYSTEMS Refund-Basketball 15.00
6536 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING, INC. Special election brochure 550.00
6537 JEROLD F. PRODOCHL Fireman 534.00
6538 RESEARCH INC. Refund-Basketball 15.00
6539 STANLEY A. RIEGERT Fireman 898.00
6540 RIEKE-CARROLL-t1ULLER ASSOC. Service-Franlo Road Sewer 269.30
6541 MICHAEL JOIN 4OGERS Fireman 372.00
6542 NORBERT HENRY ROGERS Fireman 837.00
6543 ROSEMOUNT EMPLOYEE CLUB Refund-Basketball 30.00
6544 CHARLES CLARENCE SCHAITBERGER Fireman 560.00
6545 HARVEY HERMAN SCHMIDT Fireman 238.00
6546 GERALD MATHEW SCHWANKL Fireman 938.00
6547 SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS, INC. Tree removal 1,833.00
6548 SHEDD BROWN INC. Supplies-Liquor Store 142.85
6549 STEVEN R. SINELL Expenses 19.00
6550 JOHN JOSCPH SKRANKA Fireman 606.00
Fc51 W. GORDON SttITH CO. Motor oil 354.70
32 EUGENE SPANDE Fireman 338.00
6553 MARKS STANDARD Gasoline-Public Safety 35.50
6554 ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY Culverts 94.70
6555 VERNON THOMAS STEPPE Fireman 556.00
6556 BURTON LEE SUTTON Fireman ' 684.00
3t
•
•
Page four
Dprember 4, 1979
6557 MARC LEWIS THIELMAN Fireman 362.00
6558 TRI-STATE TREE SERVICE, INC. Service-tree removal 6,245.00
6559 RICHARD WAYNE TURNER Firemen 414.00
6560 TWIN CITY PRICING & LABEL, INC. Supplies-Liquor Store 69.95
6561 ROGER ULSTAD December expenses 100.00
6562 WALL STREET JOURNAL Subscription 55.00
6563 RIVER WARREN AGGREGATES INC. Rock 490.73
6564 WATER PRODUCTS COMPANY Curb box-Water Dept 48.30
6565 STEVE WHITE Fireman 370.00 •
6566 XEROX CORPORATION Service & Supplies 1,335.73
6567 ZECO COMPANY _ Construction flashers 84.42
6568 VOID OUT CHECK
6569 ALLAN KERBER Crop damage-Sewer oroiec:t 328.00
6570 METRO PRINTING INC. Expenses-Happenings 677.00
6571 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE Postage 3.39
6572 THE EATON'S Supplies-Park Dept 50.00
6573 JOHN FRAME Expenses 113.20
6574 MINNESOTA FIRE INCORPORATED Supplies—Fire Dept 38.40
6575 NORTHRUP KING CO. Grass seed-Fire Dept 525.28
6576 SANDRA WERTS Expenses-November 38.74
4
TOTAL $287,083.54
•
3LIV
Summary Sheet for Commission Meeting November 26, 1979
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA •
MOTION: Torjesen moved, Bentley seconded to approved adenda as pre-
sented. Motion carried 5 - 0.
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 1979 MEETING.
Bearman moved, Levitt seconded to approve the minutes of the November
13, 1979 meeting. Motion carried 4 - 0 - 1.
III. MEMBERS REPORT
NONE
IV. PUBLIC HEARING OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR YEAR VI.
MOTION: Levitt moved, Gartner seconded to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5 - 0.
MOTION: Levitt moved, Bentley seconded that Commission recommend to
City Council continuance of the 1978 three year plan for 166 elderly
housing units through either rehabilitation of existing homes or the
development of new housing through the banking of Community Development
Block Grant fund money.
MOTION: Levitt moved,Torjesen seconded that Commission recommend to
the City Council consider a possible long range study into the area
of finding new ideas for a three year plan for the Community Develop-
ment Block Grant fund money. Motion carried 5 - 0.
V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS:
A. COR Investments Office, by COR Investments, Inc. Request to rezone
4 acres from Rural to Office. Located south of TH5 and west of SA
Station. A public hearing. To be contintued to Dec. 10-1979.
B. MICHELANGELO Gardens, by Rembrandt Enterprises. Request to rezone
36.6 acres from Rural to RM 2.5, preliminary plat approval for 7 lots
and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
MOTION: Gartner moved, Levitt seconded to continue t1ichelalgelo Gar-
dens public hearing to the December 10, 1979 meeting. Motion carried
5 - 0.
C. DISCUSSION OF Hidden Glen Proposal.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the PUD concept according to the staff report dated
September 21, 1979 with the addition of a seventh item which would read
that a feasibility study be done as to alignment of Dell Road. Notion
carried 5 - 0. -
MOTION: Gartner moved, Torjesen seconded to recommend to the City
Council that the Northern 42 lots of phase nne have a Sara^^ ^^'.'^n.
motion carried 3 - 2. (Gartner, Torjesen & Bentley voting aye) (Levitt. •
and Bearman voting nay).
3aBq4\
♦
l
•
WILLOW CREEK FARM
REZONING
( BY VERN GEIGER
10-5-1979
3490
Following are the Specific Plan Requirements for the proposal to subdivide
the property owned by Vernon C. Geiger at 7300 Flying Cloud Drive.
OWNERSHIP
The current owners are Vernon C. Geiger & Barbara A. Geiger. They have owned
and resided on this property for the past twenty-nine years. The ownership
will change when the zoning proposal we are requesting has been approved.
The Geigers need to sell their home and land the sale depends upon the
rezoning.
DEVELOPER
The new owner will be the developer of the property. At the time of our
initial request for a zoning change, the Geigers had entered into a purchase
agreement with David and Barbara Hornig that was contingent upon the successful
change of zoning that we're requesting. Mr. Hornig is a teacher and a builder.
Since 1976 he has custom built several dwellings. In this project he pl;•-ts
to move into the existing home and build four new homes on an average of one
per year. He would actively participate in the building of each home and oversee
the whole project. Because of the length of time it takes to get a decision on
a zoning change, that purchase agreement is no longer valid. At the present time,
along with Mr. Hornig we have several prospective buyers, all interested in
developing the property in the same way. So, the sale and the development of
the property depend on our ability to get the necessary rezoning.
DEVUOPMENT METHOD
The builder will have Parcel 04610 platted into four lots, one of which includes
the existing home, with a road entering from Flying Cloud Drive and ending in a
cul-de-sac. He will build one home at a time. Upon completion, the home will
be sold and another will be started. The builder will have responsibility for
the common areas and facilities. The property also includes Parcel #4620,
which contains 1.45 acres on Willow Creek Road, and Parcel #0510, a strip of
land connecting #4620 to the creek. One home would be built on this property.
BOUNDARIES
The subject property is bounded on the East by Flying Cloud Drive; to the
North by Willow Creek Road; to the south by vacant land and to the West by
Bryant Lake.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
To the North is an excellent, well planned residential area with homes in the
$100,000+ price range along the shores of Bryant Lake. To the South, the vacant
land has some rolling terrain similar to the subject property and some low,
swampy areas. Flying Cloud Drive, the East boundary, provides excellent
access to two major freeways--U. S. #169 and Interstate #494. The west boundary
is Bryant Lake. The shoreline in front of the subject property is very marshy--
thus does not provide good access to the lake.
PROJECT AREA
The project area is an irregularly shaped parcel of land containing about
eight-plus acres. It is currently divided into three parcels: Parcel #4610
containing 6.66 acres, Parcel #4620 containing 1.45 acres and Parcel #0510
a strip between #4620 and the creek. •
•
3491 page 1
•
OTHER MAJOR OWNERSHIPS
The other major ownerships would be the residents in the Willow Creek area
on the North, the owner of the vacant land on the South, and the State
maintenance building on the opposite side of Flying Cloud Drive.
REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Regional relationships that would be influenced by the development of the
subject property are the residents in the Willow Creek area. In platting and
developing this project the owners intend to conform to and abide by the
covenants of the Willow Creek Association.
EXISTING LAND USE AND OCCUPANCY
Currently there is a 21 story, stucco home--plus a summer house--existing
on the property. It has been used as a one—family home since it was built in
.1921.
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS. •
Flying Cloud Drive provides adequate automobile access to the property from
U. S. Highway#169 and from Interstate #494. There is no public transportation
system at present.
EXISTING ZONINGS
The subject property is zoned Rural--five acres required for residential •
development.
•
•
•
Page 2
41
SITE AREA ANALYSIS
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
(
The objective is to subdivide 6.6 acres into four. parcels. Two parcels
would be approximately two acres each, and the other two would be one-
plus acres each. The existing home is on one of the proposed two acre
sites. The separate parcel which contains 1.45 acres would have one
home built on it, so that a total of four new homes would be built.
This objective would achieve the highest and best use of the land, and
would conform to the covenants of the neighboring residential areas.
SITE PLAN
A complete site plan has not been platted, but the adjoining topographical
map gives a basic outline of the proposed subdivision.
GRADING
The terrain is rolling. There is an incline from Flying Cloud Drive up to
the existing home. A black top road with concrete cubb and gutter would
be necessary.
UTILITY PLAN
A gas line has been run from Willow Creek Road to the property. Public
Water has been run along Flying Cloud Drive and is accessible to the property.
Sanitary sewer is not currently available. The lines are located North of
( Willow Creek Road along U.S. Highway #169. The proponent is requesting
private sewer until the extension of city services are feasible. A dead
sewer pipe could be laid in at the time the road is built.
ZONING CLASSIFICATION
The zoning change requested is from the current Rural classification to R1-22.
The R1-22 classification is requested because of the inaccessibility of the
sewer at the present time.
PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
The development will take a maximum of four years. The plan is to build one
custom home and sell it, then build another, etc.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In summary we are petitioning for a zoning change from rural to R1-22 to
enable the Geigers to sell their property now. After marketing the property
for the past twelve months, we have learned that with the soaring inflation,
and the difficulty of obtaining financing, it has become virtually impossible
for a buyer to purchase and maintain this large home and acreage as the present
owner has in the past. The prospective buyers plan to live on the property,
but can purchase only if they can have the option of dividing the property
into a maximum of four lots as we have proposed.
Page 3
.1, IR \
f
h `
Ili- IK- 1
It. " Ik
y F
•I - Ip-
/_
I� �'
w
s
1111111
_—ee4/IIIIIIIH.. 1"r -1 ..:40$14•., _....4.-----, A,
o çqr
:// ( •> 72 ; ir( ( ,1 kN \ x
il tr4:4-N s .-6,,--1.
4p?it cb
\ t , °Is:,/ 0 : : il . IC mi.
,,-_ -:--1 4:It) A\ i \
)\ 44 (....., I tili, .,,,,;.. 0 , 1 ,
i.
t ik , ,,,ittp/tic ). i ! ,. i
Ca. V
4
0
, 0 :
,„ •„____ 4 ', e' ' , 71 •e •01 1
--__ Ik• 2 ) 1 , t' ,, . ' 4 -c) ii
______
_____
, •
1 . rat
sso—` 4 ‘.. Li$1:
=a=- * ✓c...4t/ *�,'
it
•co
: �A _7L
US 2,2 igg `—��
3491.1 '� Tf). .P..." A .i
I
• .
4 4"•
,.,,,- •-• --- pitT;;•-•••
•P's.• •'.• 4'.•- •
..1'".;.•"I'0111...41 .4k4 ,..'•:,,,-4;1 )41, i' 41,, ,•
t:, ,-".44'.!:" .-....,..,:',•• .-.., ,,•4,, •
\....,,,I•e"''ft.I ,.-.'"%t 4 4 :4'.;e. .r• ....... ,..:4 i.•‘•I ...,1-,.., ,.. 1 ••••?;I.'. , ,
k it,':`, . •'' , ...e•,.. i.gp g•ji..e.I; 1..•:•'‘.41'•i';1%'41,4N2.g.•:•%Kl'.144 ••• ..,11f ,, . 4,:
7_41;0-.•,....,t1;,,,,,,.•,..-:g c.1)1' ,,.,.,!,:, : 1.•.1..,;.•/,,,-;•.c '7711„,t....4,,, , ,,; ,..1. tr ."',;;%'.!:',..'It;.•
•: ' ''' :.''''''4'0„s ff. " 4."..••I d'..... 14 ii .:.+.:...,• :'',,;7.;/,',.. 41811..1.:.•'.:I.'",;7' • :t•.•:',::.p.; ;;•, 1.;t.:,,:,,i•
7.7.,'. >';:f,`; k,i.•''.V.'4•••,-.'",••;•-•-:',4`i. '-" 7s''• -LI '.1:••:l'. 7,:.'•'..,-,',i',:e•:•:'•';'•',,!1. 70i::!r•‘' ''4;t 1 k.;...-;c1,:i''';'''•
• i::';',:••es,,-..:4•efil4::::4" '.,;:,‘f.'-il'A:(.;. -\ .. ......:,'' .51,:• :j.-''.•/.!. ',••''.1;',;•,•':,'•-;.•i .,...,;,.f.... ..-..•,:kt:.; ,,...,:::..;•,:el•. :
-•;,::.;:, ..*.'?N• `;,.,';'•";.;', , '.1'..,,: Is6'e: ...:',...- , • -•'i'').‘,I .'*•(' ‘...'''',i'.':
/
...:-.,.:',..:4.,•f•••`..; 77.?,?**.",:j4,:.4,.,,,•,•#.,(18>V.;'1'..,!'4;,:"..:':-.2..:•;.•': •':'r:..r,' '-''..".i.•-•••i''',, ';'.••.. '.' 4,i1.•„-'1');:\',;:l‘-".;',1'1.•''..;3;i'ail,?4•,•,':';
\ \ I
.;dr.'.:•;'!:::..i.'....:: 1 :*..s'S,NkS-j.1...'",.;;,' : , ... .''t J:''Z.t• ' '?:•!•ih4:0,(...!..1.'1'•• -f-')1 :"‘• •:tr i:4:':I,!1 f.•1;•.•..f,•,-(!•-iyi.".•,`..-•. '1
d"• •• 'I,',',•c*: ...:'• ) 1..... -;.,-,,e/ei',•„ec7:'... ..'. ,.):1.,..„,•,P,-,:,, 1,')-•i:. ,i Le 17',.;....,:.1,:•••••••••• • ..
i '..,.;':;'...., s:::::.7:•.; .1'Sif:•7'''''...!'- .',' ,I...' . 'i' 4.'.11 • i-...••...•.,,',f:.:fl ..!c."'., n.' "i;•,,-...',-.;.ii'.-,',...1e,• fi-iz r.f:
-'.....:',7,!!7'.1,',.'..^:1. :_,.''`..'..Nsk.'>,;,!1;'•.:.',.:::•?L,..,- `., ,,'..!:‘,.1!..-;; ,',i!:;111-!:‘`'. ''';'.1,1%;-i ..4C'',e11,',;.;'... r•::.iitlf,!;!....1...1%;:". ..',..'..':''llgt..':.'i'.7.-'-'.,':,,..:.s'I',......,•.:t.
:„. ., '...;•;,:...?,,,:..:,'',..':N.,..1-.:ey,1),,./.',,;:i2).7ii,... ;'I,,,,?... :.,..'..!,,•;:',.;'; ,•ii.,,Pc,?,,.,,...:.,.,,.•h. '14. 1.,,,i,',...,..;:iit4i,j.!.:.!;',,pi '7,,A.,;''...,','.•;),'.;s7,.-,r7:7::..
/
...I.:::.s,4.,',.:.:f,'•,.:'•::.;',.i:\ktii,AC'..-,,,,1:'•.‘•1„ ii.,.., 1.I•,i4:;"-,.:)'•,...t•..".._, ‘2.:;'..;,':••,fi';„''!q!.,i.1'."-. .;....V.E.ti.....-fl'..,.:',',71::'.,i..;‘':''', '.::::::::::,. ..!::7
\ \
t.•.' " ' i ••- ' • 4-,"r0.•1 i•',' j / ••!' I•':. ' r.. ..,•,v.q. .,..,..\-.1 ••; ..,-tici• 1•• .- ;,•f• •:-..f•t,..t.%,...,•••:,-
-: ....,,"...';''..A.,-'..:::'-`!Cx04.•n2'..1:,.'7,1.,)', ,-,71,-.i4:-:::,,.if''''.•''-'„'"it ,.'"4;''.'i: t'"(.1 I . .tr.....kVici.:.:-.0%;.!:-
....i,,...,...•;.e.J.;7';.....',.,."...,. '...".'1AV.,i';',:ii.:`!1:.X;%.,'..';:''ll',. 54,%*iv .7 2....--Z--.4-.7Z---7..,'!' it' ''' -4,21:;%.. -r:r.'z'-',.•.,'...: :.:7 77'•''..?".:-';'•:-•;. -'..;..•.'
, .-.•.,. ,;',''',5'i I-:1:•-s 'c•,Ii,:,?,,,,:„.,,.:•,.....t;-tj .....,,,,,,,: • •1,../.• )•;4::-.• ;,-,..,- ,....1.--.?..,,.., ,,----,•'''..,t,i-i-i,i.ip.•/;•'P::...:•z:" '.,'.''.7•••!,`::::-...':;.••,...•
.'•;.-:•::'':''''.:',' :''•-.. ...-'•••••••;:...','...r:;,,:ii.i.?'"eti,•;/-':,;t;:.::,' , •:••:;..'••'...i.','•,'I'''..-7,:;., :•i;;".•,,:•:•;:•:,'4`..-TY.:2-3477:.t:',1-1'.•!•:,
/
-.•.•:,..-..:.',,,-.',...;•:!• :.•;•..,.:,•-•A ..-,;;;,. .,::!17•;',,,.!:;!.......4?.•:::•,,,.1..., •,` :','' :`'',`•!., ;:,i3O:',..frl"-:• ..':!:`,.. ,••••' '',;.4;'f,::;.'...:..---;-!::::. . - •
,
.1.•'''-'...;':.:::•.-';'.!7:,•::•;,.•':•,'..!--, ?./ f.,-•",*4''•Cr,•,.;.X', 7...4,:tti*:i.:'..';',.1;;.;; ..'.‘I'z','; 0.0. ...'-';1';;:5,.' ., 1;‘,...*'.,*.-:',...;.,:,';..
*.T-7-•'''':.".,''':*1.%7' '.*:.:[•*;';'..$`-:"'Of. . ..,z.N.:::'N.!,. '.s.:2'..-",-.:2,;i1:;',1:,',. ."'N ,•ti:......'..1.•,,';.,::`.. e.4.1.1`;1:40, ,'.-',"*... -.: .;'''..-',,:.' ''••'• '
•,,,,./•-.0.-...:re:,:',:-'.%*,*."•'•' !-; ''....4.•.,t•-,;,...)...•••:',...'....,,,,,...e....,,...i;,;•.....,,. ,;;,-,-,...;•;.!.r,.(11.-14,•_:...;"4;;.„:„•,,).:1t try'.7.'. ,'::::.,•.•,,,,...2•
• : •....*..-- -•••...• :e, 7•••-',' .."r. f'•••;:er...'''1;,.'"(IA--;."e'•'''.... i. ..11;,/....' '.“'!..- ..,: ;; •;•• ,I.:'.'•-•;,..•,.........:.;',:,-,...
,', ''';'',...,'•*:'....,'•::..!:-••*:','*.-:,..,crTr....i ., z..e. ' `.*.'."'• ' . ''!i9:71'.'1: '-'1!:•'''''' ';'• ' •''"''''.; ''':-•••"ff..'f 1•;;..;,'.
,..-,',:',.:..."'•,.7,',..,-,-*,.... - *:. '..;; `, ,',".!,.,/;-,r,',,z,, *...,i..‘A'Ar/.i.,1,..•:,...).:*;, ,d-44,.1,...,*., ,,,,-,c.Y.: :,,,...,,....v:
/
..,:,.: ..,,.....-i....:.....: .,:..,..........., ',....-:....i.:!z .)..c.;. :Ks....•:, ..,4',..!...1.?;-........... ).:*,,,A,. ,,IF: ...,-..•...i .: '::..,!:,.,
. .. .
'..i:;:,.......:, ,.?.„,..,,..• ., .. : ....,,.....,..-„,-1,:;;; ;;;,,,,y.p.1.,,!i..,,,,'..i.,:::::.i./,,...,if:I:::: ........;,,-'..,,;..-..?:,!,;.,s;:',
..),c\
,,...:'-f.:.:,,s._..•c‘.., .....:::, ...‘ ,.....-e,-,4e-,1.4,..1-.Li,rea,t ,,.:-.-.., .,..-- ,,,,......v,,,,,L. L. ,,,;, ,,,,..'-,-.!1 ;,1•• •••• !
•:,:•......,,1- .•.•-•••,:;;....2,...,:'I,"';"...,:.,....i.:,,,.:,•.:L: 1.;.4:•,...g: .,,,.:,. •...'...: • 4.,1 5..... 1....‘ ,::.,,, ' .._,I.•.1. P.,,,, 1-:::::,,•,..•.,vp.',•:1"•••••:It'::::',V.•).•
,•'‘-:'..•:•: I'''•:,'''.. -.):::..:I.: ',II...:.t II:•,,, ''.1/!:','.1;-: LY- rC7-'7 ".... .,•".':•,:I._,'‘,'I..•$,IT.';',[..k,..; L,,:.l;.•,.''-',,• i! • p , :;I:
.,'._.....•:'.:. ' . -‘i.:,..-• ...,:,'.. .y./..:,..t.-...,....ykitiqE.2,%,i-.v.i, 1,r:.- 4.4:."..:-*.'..;7.., I$.-.'•',:•':,. •,'?;')';';r ' '..1„!* ', .,...'.
-.•-,:' ';*, ;;,,.',.•:,:,...;:;,•,,. ,i;,,...,,2_,,.ei,.r. ,,r Ice., * ...:••..'' . " ' 1 . ...; /e. 4 '), 45._:1 i,*,/;•-•••.!.,'`'.. '•':1'I'?.'...7.:'-:'r*.:•.::- '
... ' ':•:•-•.`'... '.• 1,;:,....,'',?!. .'t:/-4,*-k ,-t.•;--7,-",%' ,. L.. ;,,!.•-;-,--77-77,"trit•t•' '"„•,i•Zii : ,,",i i',:f, •• '„.
...0.7
• "'.., . ... •?`-- •: .'. -''7,-.,7j•...„;,07 .:' •i •--1\t--> !,:,,._i:..,,L...,•-,.!/./,/14,-'r-.'"f' , :/=,, - ..*:,'-:' • .:"Fr.--...'-- 1 i',.,,,.,....•
• •• ••..-• :• :. '....,.... e• ••-•i.- ••:-,,, -••:'-,e::.2.,-•', , .•••-,.•--,•••i 1. ,.., •,•,-",.4'.-.4::1:••;,• 'NI,;:,.•-.:.-.,,:.•%'.c-.!,11 i - -........1
/
-,, _., ,•,•..:,.•;,:,: •.,,,ii;.,,,..... .7 .,, ,i,.?..„',,,:•;,•‘.!:ti ,...'..•,,:. .•• '-'vkf7Til,t,,,f;',-,-.):1. 7ii. ?..' '. i 1:.142• •... :.•-:.:.i..;'. .....,•::','!
1
-:: •,.-. .,•,.....--,,,,;,:.:,0;1.,8,'-"•..:', .;11.•,,,:'.f,.:•::.,... ....i.,:.!..,..--,...., ,.•:',..-.' ,:‘.1.',.__• ' ;! Pi,•.':..*:'...,".•;*1.;;•'...11.;
•-' s.,.%•-',./.•••':'•:''''"iz'f.,r*..... \ '•••'';.'"'*:'':.' .'1,-'ilep..(••s.,.e, J.,...."...,..• ..,.:-. 77'I.. -•::'.-.,:---2",,....It ., .*.,- ::...1--;;;••,•"*.`.0.:1.i•-,,, .:•:'...,•
;•...- .:,:. ,.':::::,,;.:.?.•;'=',. ...e.: -, F,77 - *...•*..•'..ifF:i"....• -,.:,...• --,,';''.1 -:f. ..--'...'.- *;. -'••r'';'•
-.‘i:},'•; ':.:.•:::.;,.., ,--.., •,..•:.,.... '.,-' ,„.. . 7'''.• ' ;..* .: ..::•-•-?../.:.4.:*•.:-?*•''-::•..%.i:ii d'--•:'. ',*'.•*.,t'''‘ '•c,-;:'.'.r.
::...47-.S ....', :...- ".:,..':.,1:7;:.;:-..-:. .i,‘,.f.11.--. .-.1..:1'..:;,•:;••,.',: ,"... '..4.:' :-'•!:1'..:"...t!,.0'..fi7is,.. i._ .'*-•''...';,::',:‘,,'::":i,.::11!':;.*:11'.7,1t41.•.;.',••';.7
\ /
_3,1....).7.-. : .,...,.-,-.-±-.:,..;:'..,-..",-..,.-...-:.,t,..:.:z.--..,...:.....Q,,,i.,:i....-„.-: .: ,...,.: d: ,.,. - .:-.,:,...z.,-.q.",, ;1,7,,:,:-:-...1.., i ri'...,'"''';',•"?-!` ,
7-;',...::-..,",'-'•.A.-‘,......?•-•,....-,*7-;;'',.....-.-,...17:•:- : v•;7'.....k,:,..: ;..-,•. ......:1....,.,..:'.;,";••$:,•.'..-7,-.7 N ' , ..-'';-'''"';;:<-% ••''••a 7,
--....--... -::,.,:::.:" ,•.:1 --.:.:.'.'"'......,.'....,...i-.-,,,' .. ..:. ,.-.•. .— pa,,,,,;;?-,1..,-,;s.,',.• ir.:.,.i,.. .•:._, . ,,,,i7..,—
4.
'‘A-.:r• 2''',i-.k,:-..;;;-;:.1....;.:.',':.2....:;••", . ; :,.,,;; •••i ' '•• "..•'''.; ::,', •,....i..:...,,,,..::-....77•.',1' I 1,1.• "',71,•.'::4/ .,',;:.'.'i(i. %,--•"!-•-:?....11,_.„.
-N•'•::;;':0;. ., '..:'?."-'::.•' .•- •,..::':.'—-•.`4.7....' :•:. 7-....--=':''''.;•il. . i••:'.%'"-. •••''''• ' i ,..,''-','.- ,!;. ..%,iiil. ..1 ;t,
%`.,i,.,-•:\11..4-. *,*.'.,-,:::,...', .4.:"..',•,-'..--...-- ,- .:.:• • ,— .,,k .•:••,4:-1-';',:sia 'I•••'.i.•7' .'......',-.;••1..•1• ,..''-••!, i 1' i•
-...- ./.':'.... '.'...".)'. ..`ir:::.t"C,s•,, ,1.'..:ft, :I.:.":.. ::Z.':: ::4.,..';'...;',..;i1:•,•-,cfi ; ,
k.'•:•••`‘&7K,"....,',,,•;',..,\''.::,..1-- -•'. ':--'::•••:•-',7"...•-• , ;•:•••"..' '• ••41:S14-•• i......'; ',IT(„' lit--:•-....-:‘.'"'•::•.'.i';';'.','•.•/:!.,:.'••.,:,,,,'.:::?• t•;; .
:•.,••<-,,,;••••,•-•••••=-•'.,...,-.;:,-.•:,,-.••;•.•;:...,;•,,,, ,,.•,, .• ,-. ',r.,,...', j, 'I.;•1,-"',;:••";.••::.;:r,•••••,••••••t; --;!”'','•.'••••.;-: • •Z••'••::i"'.?t '''''•" •': '
•••!''''' '••.'..,4'4'0'''":•::.:•.•:•‘.:-.:''..•••••••''.„ '';. •''•.1,• '•• , ....!';',... •:::.•.'",-/-•'•••;•:•,:' .•••'11•••; •••••••;:2'2.,•, ',•:•''f :•A,y, ,.....
:1-•?,,':....: . . t, ,.::•..,-, ..:',. -.•,.. ••:•:•.:....,4-j:: ',.-:,:.•:,:::li, ..''''.'fi' 1`...;..!. .:,•.• 1 ',*e...1*
.i.-1..!". •..,,,:i.,•::„..,:-i..;,,,-......4,::::1.,,,..,,', 0.:•::::,:-•".,,..,:!'...',..,•- .,..... ,,,•,, . f,•'..,..!...!;,......4.+N........4:......7.si-i'...4•'‘- ,:.-..• '• :'." I( 'Yr F.
:.•''.....,,....,....,,,se.,..... :-.;..;, ,.‘:n?.;•,,,,:::',.;:!;...,.i:. .,'..-', :. ..“.'• , Ni4=.4. r ..4-4. .) ,•• ,1,4,, -:',,,•1/4 . ' ••',..':-,,s r• "1- c'''• '
':';:.-,-;":•,. :..,!(...,,-;;;;'.;-....•....„':.......:,. -........., 7..,.;z..::::,-,?.• ::.;.., ': .• ,:.'.,..:'_••.1,!;•.`....1z;.'fl..;'.•.sit..., ••,iti•,„...-... .ri.'il.;:;.•,:......7.'..„.';;'.•C.%••:•.:ii. .-$:ti.;•
'...‘ T'' ' '‘C‘:..:: •2 ''':-..'.1. _ ..:•'.•:.:'...•. ....'•:•'7. ;i1i) . I' -/!-:.:.. i :.'•• . 14:1•:%-i.f;':.:"......•-‘• 1 •'...i...;'...;•: i.7",'.f. i.,;1.•, .. .'•...•'.'.: ik.'I..;
3 •
.::,.„......!:.;,•,,,,'..„..,......i. ..,..., . . .7-.". .,,, •, .,:•...•... .1., . .,l';.,-4 ,,,,,t,.,I i ....:4i4;‘ :; •:'.••,,‘;;04.... ..... 1:.;:: r...7•
- "-•--'5•—••' •••,•t'•''"-I.,-.'",,‘;••'. ••'.••.•.•.d.17-'..•-1: • 1,,.... ••-:....v..-,•••::','. 'i.."'•'..; A• •.,i,.,i•v,....00.,•::.-..., ... ,-,' it
_-:-....:,.:;;Tc.,..„::,:,..-.-i,,,,,,'.---.- --, ,,:•‘17,::::;:....,T:::--...,J.:,,,,,.. i• ,,.::...:•••:::' ; !i,,:-:•r-:-'.(1p.:: ::..i...':.!ti. ' '-.,--.,, ,..r;:-. s'..• ,:t.:
.- .:... ., ......'!'4'.-: ,.,...':.. ..'..`...--, ''.,1.. .i.;,. .,;,- ..;,.......i; :- .vs..',.;iiiii,•;::::',.::,..:7,:.../. ...'
,.,,-..:,.. .,...,.;, .i,,.'.. .4.:`',-;,..-.,;:•...:: ..,, :' ,1-...-!...'-...,.'..;,..J,,';.;.1,--',..., ,,,,:-,i'::•%•::4-ii.'.-,•...:!•,...s'w•. ,,.,;t4
i,:::,,.....;!.,:. *„...1.."''.., ..;•:,.- :••;‘..i•'.. ••••*-•:•:!/*:.,'.':-;":r.i•''::'t.i'..:.".i,..-,• ':-:' ?;•-'1• , ,.?ret,'7.7.-,f0.,,,. 1..,•,. .i.1, '..4v• fj, •.:..•
I
/ ,.;-.. .".,
...E:,!1.,7.,'•... ,...- ,,.. .'-;-....4:•...•!..:,:;.:"','::,:..1, ..:':..11':, '.'. ''''':""" i•v. )":'k' , 1....,,, .r.: J.‘1,1 , ‘. i....
' .• '"' ' -4.....,,.;.... . •1 1;,• fr„If.. ..,118 I, v.-1)V 1.:,...k•-• 4..1 5 •Ai...
--.7,..,:7;i:...!.•-.....,,n..=-1,...... .c:,..,!.. ,.....1,:i-,......:.....•7',.; .'‘.';••••:'//I:, ';,/,,-,'' '.. . r•-:': -, -...v..;F. t;',.k•i•.-i.„A• ....•.re!? e -',7• ,
•,-,:K . ,-.-. .;. .•..t,:**•::„?.-..':. :: . 'i:...'.:::. ,..A4'. 44. ) 11.4.i.i•/...'*.jr.1".::,•,e •,...•:,...1 ;.::`1.i"4,••,:,, , f . •••3.-
v‘v:',7.;'")''',::'i*".1:.•,.--,'''i;...d7`..,'•k-',;•:..!, . )1.:iii...k-,:,.! ...; ,.. t.•.,:i....-1• ../.4.4:‘•' '
Vt:',•‘' -:•'''.'1,',1 ;''''' '''••''' "'.-
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- November13, 1979
f g56/1/; (mac r-i-ner •
V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. Willow Creek Farm, By Vernon C. Geiger. Request to rezone approxi-
mately 6.6 acres from Rural to R1-22. Located west of Flying Cloud
Drive and south of Willow Creek Road. A public meeting.
Page Longeway, gave a brief presentation explaining that the Geigers
want to rezone their property in order to find a buyer for their
land. She stated that people are not interested in that much land
unless it can be split into a few different lots. She also stated
that there is no sewer on this land and that the residents on Willow
Creek are not willing to have it put in, therefore the cost of having
sewer and water put in Mr. Geigers land would be prohibitive.
Vernon Geiger stated that in order to keep this area residential
it is important to have it rezoned and that unless it is rezoned
it is too costly for one person. He also stated that he would
abide by all Willow Creek covenants regarding his land.
The Planner stated that the staff recommends approval subject to
Watershed District approval of grading and erosion
control, and that detailed site, gradina.and home locations be
submitted with the preliminary plat submission or prior to any
grading on the site.Owner notify City and Watershed District 48
hours prior to gracing. He also recommendsthat the owner pursue
the possibility of petitioning (along with other surrounding property
owners) for the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the site
prior to City Council review of the zoning request. That the pre-
liminary plat should meet all City ordinances. Also all lots platted
for home construction be subject to cash park fee payment at time
of building permit application.
Torjesen stated that he felt that the Planner had a good point,
and that he also feels that this land should be kept residential.
He then questioned, that approving zoning without a
plat is the Commission approving this number of lots or is it
possible that someone else might come with this type of zoning
and request half acre lots.
The Planner replied that this is possible unless the Commission
or City Counsil draws up a developers agreement stating that
this land should be kept to five lots. This agreement being
accepted by Mr Geiger.
Levitt inquired what are the frontages along Bryant Lake.
I1rs.Longeway replied 250 feet.
Levitt inquired what the requirements are for frontages onto a
lake for housing without sewer hook-up and if this project meets
those requirements.
The Planner answered that if the Shoreland Management ordinance
is applied strictly to this site it was possible to only construct
one home on the entire parcel.
MOTION: Bentley moved, Retterath seconded to recommend to the City
Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-22 for the approxi-
matley 6.6 acres of Willow Creek Farm per the staff report dated
11-9-79. :{ 4a
•
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 13, 1979
Tdrjesen state that he feels that the motion should also include
that the plat will be no more than 4 additional lots added to the
present 1.
(
Amendments to the motion were accepted by the mover and the seconder.
Motion carried 6 - 0.
B. COR Investment Office, by Cor Investments Inc. Request to rezone
4 acres from Rural to Office. Located south of TH 5 and west of
SA Station. A public meeting. This item was continued to the
November 26, 1979 meeting at the request of the proponent
C. Prairie Village Professional, by Eagle Enterprises. Request to
rezone 4.4 acres from RL-22 to Office and RM-2.5 for a small office
building and a 45 unit elderly apartment. Located north of TH 5
and west of Prairie Village Mall. A continued public hearing.
The Planner stated that there was a last minute meeting with the
Engineering staff, Planning staff and the Hennepin County Highway
Department on Friday,November 9. At this meeting the Hennepin County
HWY Dept. presented a concept of improvements for on County
Road 4. This would include a dedication.of an additional 10 feet
of R.O.W. from Prairie Village Mall along their eastern boundary.
The concept also proposed a median for a protected left turn lane
into the northern entrance of Prairie Village Mall. This would
make the existing main entrance a right-out only.
Mr. Norderhaus, representative from Eagle Enterprises Inc, gave a
( brief presentation explaining that he has revised his plan so that
the drive-up facility for the bank is now within the development
site and no longer utilizes one of the Prairie Village Mall exists.
He also explained the size and type of developments he is proposing
the parking lot sizes. He stated that he has talked to the residents which
are neighboring this site.
Levitt inquired if there isa requirment in section 8 Housing requiring
medical facilities to be within a certain proximity to the elderly
housing.
The Planner answered It is.a requirement of HUD to have an elderly
housing project close to not only medical facilities but also to
shopping, bussing, banking and recreational facilities.
Bearman inquired in allowing this development to have signage which
is not according to ordinance would this create problems with other
developers in the feature.
The Planner replied that the request for this signage program was
being considered under the PUD section of the sign ordinance and
that as such each signage program can be review on its own marits.
Therefore, he did not feel that it would necessarily set a precendent
for the feature.
Bearman inquired if in allowing this type of signage if they would
he creating something they have thus far tried to prevent.
The Planner replied that it would not because this is the last com-
mercial project on the northwest quadrant of this intersection.
3491
'STAFF REPORT
( TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Manning Director
DATE: November 8, 1979
PROJECT: WILLOW CREEK FARM
APPLICANT: • Geiger , Vernon C.
REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to R1-22 for future
platting of five lots
BACKGROUND: •
The property is zoned Rural and has been the homestead of the Geiger's
for 20+ years. The City's Guide Plan depicts the site as low density
residential.
Immediately north of the Geiger home is another home on 1.5 acres. Further
north and across Willow Creek Road is the Willow Creek area zoned R1-22 and
comprised of lots ranging from .8 to 1.5+ acres. To the west of the property
is Bryant Lake shoreland, approximately 400 feet. To the south of the property
is vacant land owned by K.R.S.I. and Bryant Lake floodplain. And to the east
( is Flying Cloud Drive.
________\ ifI,a ) _� p a r k J rrt-
If
<--' - Tr..",• ilir
�_1 j 1 11t�+ye.f
Rembrandt
i�j.
r
, \\• _ - ,_: \_\! .\-
:17-
I - -- 6R. . '-- ---- • fnli .
SITE CHARACTER
The site is heavily wooded with various trees. Some of the major tree types
are oak, elm, and various evergreens.
The topography of the site ranges from 850 to a high point where the existing
house sits at 904 feet . Severe grades.exist along the southern 1/3 of the
�:�„ ..1.... .6.. .. J.._..- r.___. nnr .- nen 21iu11 d
Staff Report-Willow Creek Farm Rezoning -2- Nov. 8, 1979
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
The future platting of the property depicted in the 10-5-79 material
outlines lot sizes which meet the ordinance minimum size requirement of 22,000
square feet.
The minimum lot frontage of the ordinance is 100 feet and is met by all lots
except the two lots fronting off of the cul-de-sac which have approximately
45 feet of frontage.
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Byrant Lake is classified as a Recreational Lake and the following criteria
in lot design apply for lots abutting lakeshore:
Lots with sewer
minimum lot size 20,000 sq.ft.
min.width at building line 90 feet
min. width at 0.H.W.M.* 90 feet
min.setback from 0.H.W.M. 100 feet
Two of the proposed lots abut Bryant Lake, the lot where the existing home is
situated and the lot to the south. The existing home meets the requirements and
the proposed lot could meet the requirements.
The lot to the north of the existing home.which fronts onto Willow Creek Road,
abuts the shoreland of Nine Mile Creek and is therefore subject to meeting the
Shoreland Management Ordinance requirements for General Development Waters.
SITE PLAN
The northern most and the two southern lots have grades exceeding 30%. It is
assumed that the homes will be built at or very close to the 30 foot front
setback line to minimize work and expense which would be involved if structures
are placed further down the slopes. At time of preliminary plat application,
the City staff will closely review the locations of structures in relation to
the slopes , lake, etc.
The cul-de-sac depicted off of Flying Cloud Drive to serve the existing home
and 2-3 other lots is approximately 300 feet in length. The grade of the
road is approximately 9%. City ordinance restricts street grades to 7',Z.
Prior to preliminary plat submission, the road grade should be redesigned
not to exceed 7'2% . One way this could be accomplished is by curving the driving
lane to the north. Such a realignment would also provide more flexibility in
developing a building pad upon the southeastern most lot. .
*Normal Ordinary High Water Mark '
Bryant Lake 100 yr.flood level-854
Nine Mile Creek flood level-854
3499
9
Staff Report-Willow Creek Farm Plat -3- Nov. 8, 1979
UTILITIES
Municipal water is available to the site and can be extended along with
construction of the cul-de-sac.
Sanitary sewer is 7501 feet'to the northeast. Extension of the sewer should
be investigated by Owner in conjunction with other landowners
prior to the Council's consideration of the rezoning request.
CASH PARK FEE •
After preliminary plat approval, any new building permit upon the property
would be subject to full cash park fee payment.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The rezoning from Rural to R1-22 is consistent with the Guide•Pian and surrounding
( land uses.
City sewer and water is either within pioximity or available to the site.
The detailed plat and home locations will be closely reviewed by the City staff
and subject to other agency review and approval prior to any building permit
issuance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Willow Creek Farm rezoning
from Rural to R1-22 contingent upon the following:
1. Subject to Watershed District approval of grading and erosion •
control plan. •
2. Detailed site, grading and home locations be submitted with
the preliminary plat submission or prior to any grading on the site.Owner
shall notify City and Watershed District 48 hours prior to grading.
3. Owner pursue the possibility of petitioning(along with other
surrounding property owners) for the extension of sanitary sewer
to serve the site prior to City Council review of the zoning request.
4. The preliminary plat should meet all City ordinances. •
5. All lots platted for home construction will be subject to cash
park fee payment at time of building permit application.
JJ:jj 3560
• •
MEMORANDUM •
( TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services •
DATE: November 15, 1979
SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List
PROJECT: Willow Creek Farm
PROPONENT: Vernon Geiger
REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to R1-22 for future platting of five lots _
LOCATION: West of Flying Cloud Drive, south of Nine Mile Creek, east of Bryant Lake
BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Report
CHECKLIST:
( 1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) No
Affect on park: •
2. Adjacent to public waters? Adjacent to floodplain of Nine Mile Creek and Bryant Lake
Affect on waters:
3. Adjacent to trails? No
Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) N/A
•
Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglime)
Width: Party Responsible for construction?
Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.)
Type of Development? (residential, commercial, industrial) Residential
Where will CASH PARK FEE go? (what neighborhood)
No
Need for a mini-park?
so'
-2-
( S. REFERENCE CHECK:
a. Major Center Area Study: N/A
b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: N/A •
c. Purgatory Creek Study: . N/A
•
d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: See Planning Staff Report page 2
e. Floodplain Ordinance: Three lots to the west are subject to the floodplain
ordinance.
•
f. Guide Plan: Low density residential
( .
g. Other: •
6. Existingor pendingassessments or taxes on proposedparkproperty: N/A
P P
7. CASH PARK FEE? Shall be paid at time of building permit "
8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or
against proposal:
9. Number of units in residential development? 5 lots
Number of acres in the project? 8+
Special recreation space requirements: No _
•
10. STAFF RECOMNOATIONS: Recommend approval as per Planning Staff report dated
November 8, 1979.
• •
V
• `Minutes--Parks, Recreation & unapproved November. 19, 1979
Natural Resources Commission -3-
ABSENT: none
and that bikes should be able to use the street. He noted that
pedestrians on bike trails face dangers also. He added that if more
traffic is expected, then it is reasonable to require wider trails,
or a trail and a sidewalk.
R. Anderson noted that a two-lane street with an on-off ramp to 62nd
will generate enough traffic so bikers would be in danger if they
were required to ride in the street. He asked if the City will make
-the trail connection for the portion of the trail not included in
the plan.
Lambert told him the City could contract to have it done at the same
time the rest of the trail is being ,:onstructed. He also noted that
•
there should be room to construct the trails within the right-of-way,
and that is easiest to do before other development is complete.
Tangen felt that an 8 foot trail would be more reasonable than a
sidewalk. With schools so close, and since the road will act as a
connector, he reasoned that older children will probably be using
the trail to get to school and the park, and most will use bikes.
He suggested that the City should require an 8 foot asphalt trail
on the west side of the road at this time, and require a five foot
sidewalk on the east side when that development occurs.
MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend that the Council approve the Valley
Knolls 2nd Addition proposal as revised in the staff memorandum of
November 15, 1979; to include an 8 foot asphalt trail-on the west side
of Duck Lake Road as far as Duck Lake Trail, with the City responsible
for the connecting segment of the trail. Kruell seconded, and the motion
passed unanimously.
c. Willow Creek Farm
Tangen asked where the Cash Park Fees from this development would be
used, since there is no neighborhood park serving the area.
Lambert explained that the funds would be used for Community Parks,
trails, etc.
Kruell was concerned that the topography of the property would require
extensive grading. •
Tangen pointed out that Recommendation P2 addressed that very concern.
He added that the development proposal seemed well planned and in
keeping with the present nature of the area.
MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend to the Council approval of the
Willow Creek Fann development proposal per the staff memorandum of
November 15, 1979. Tangen seconded the motion, which carried unani-
mously.
•
d. Prairie Village Proffessional
Lance Norderhaus briefly described the proposed professional building
and 45 unit building intended to house elderly residents. The developers
plan to comply with necessary conditions in order to qualify for
•
•
PRA I RIE VILLAGE. , PROFESSI ONAL ,
PLANNED UNIT DE•VELOPME' NT
I. PROPOSED USES AND AREA
Elderly Housing - 45 Units 2.958 acres
Professional Building - 13,880 gross floor• 1.531 acres
area
TOTAL AREA 4.489 acres
II. BUILDINGS
Elderly Housing - Three Storey, 45 One Bedroom Units
with recreation/party room. Exterior brick to match
Prairie Village Mall.
( Professional Building - One Storey, Multi-Tenant
with 13,880 9q. feet Gross Floor Area and 11,880
sq. feet of Gross Leasable Area. .
Tenants by letters of intent: Bank 3,000 sq.feet
Medical Clinic 2,400 sq.feet, Orthodontal Clinic
1,200 sq.feet. Exterior brick to match Prairie
Village Mall.
III. PARKING
Elderly Housil)g Note (1) 24 spaces
Professional Building Note (2) 75 spaces
TOTAL PARKING
99 spaces
(
•
(1) This exceeds normal,.parking criteria of 1/2
space per unit. Additional parking would be avail-
able at the Professional Building, if necessary,
with minimal to zero usage evenings and week ends
for additional visitor parking.
(2) Exceeds ordinance requirements by 16 parking
spaces.
IV. ACCESSIBILITY
1. Site will have access to Prairie Village Mall
and County Road 4 via shopping center service drives.
2. Present Highway.5 right in and-out at property
line will be modified per site plan.
3. A service drive will be extended west to Carnelian
Lane with•a reciprocal driveway easement with Christ
• Lutheran Church. This service drive is considered
necessary for the Elderly Housing project, and its
installation would be conditional on obtaining the
necessary approvals.
•
V. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Elderly Housing - Construction 1980
Occupancy 1981
Professional Building - Construction 1980
Occupancy 1980
4.
3%t�5
•
VI. SIGN CRITERIA
4• One - 20 foot pylon 50 'sq. feet "Suburban National Bank"
"' One - "Prairie Village Professional Building"
individual letters - south exterior wall
One - Yard Directory Sign at service drive
VII. GENERAL
The modification to the existing Highway 5 approach
has been submitted to the Highway Department for
their review.
As part of this development the fire lane/service drive
and County Road 4 approach would be modified per the
site plan. . .
Christ Lutheran Church is currently developing their
site plan and intend to incorporate the service drive
as part of their plan•at this stage of their develop-
meet. The installation and maintenance of this driveway
shall be our responsibility.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Elderly Housing project would •seem to fill
a community need. The professional services available
in the Professional Building will support this facility
as well as the surrounding community.
3 � •
1
F The drive-up Bank not only provides a customer con-
` venience, but is much more efficient. (i.e. One teller '•
•
at Eden Prairie Center Auto Bank conducts 33% more
transactions weekly than three tellers at the Prairie
Village Mall Branch.) The Bank needs a larger and
more efficient facility.
The plan as proposed expands and/or improves the
services available on site.
•
•
3L/�
� `
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 13, 1979
Torjesen state that he feels that the motion should also include
that the plat will be no more than 4 additional lots added to the
present 1.
Amendments to the motion were accepted by the mover and the seconder.
Motion carried 6 - 0.
B. COR Investment Office, by Cor Investments Inc. Request to rezone
4 acres from Rural to Office. Located south of TH 5 and west of
SA Station. A public meeting. This item was continued to the
November 26, 1979 meeting.at the request of the proponent
C. Prairie Village Professional, by Eagle Enterprises. Request to
rezone 4.4 acres from RI-22 to Office and RM-2.5 for a small office
building and a 45 unit elderly apartment. Located north of TH 5
and west of Prairie Village Mall. A continued public hearing.
The Planner stated that there was a last minute meeting with the
Engineering staff, Planning staff and the Hennepin County Highway
Department on Friday,November 9. At this meeting the Hennepin County
HWY Dept. presented a concept of improvements for on County
Road 4. This would include a dedication.of an additional 10 feet
of R.O.W. from Prairie Village Mall along their eastern boundary.
The concept also proposed a median for a protected left turn lane
into the northern entrance of Prairie Village Mall. This would
make the existing main entrance a right-out only.
Mr. Norderhaus, representative from Eagle Enterprises Inc, gave a
brief presentation explaining that he has revised his plan so that
the drive-up facility for the bank is now within the development
site and no longer utilizes one of the Prairie Village Mall exists.
He also explained the size and type of developments he is proposing
the parking lot sizes. He stated that he has talked to the resiaentsviich
are neighboring this site.
Levitt inquired if there isa requirment in section 8 Housing requiring
medical facilities to be within a certain proximity to the elderly
housing.
The Planner answered It is a requirement of HUD to have an elderly
housing project close to not only medical facilities but also to
shopping, bussing, banking and recreational facilities.
Bearman inquired in allowing this development to have signage which
is not according to ordinance would this create problems with other
developers in the feature.
The Planner replied that the request for this signage program was
being considered under the PUD section of the sign ordinance and
that as such each signage program can he review on its own marits.
Therefore, he did not feel that it would necessarily set a precendent
for the feature.
Dearman inquired if in allowing this type of signage if they would
be creating something they have thus far tried to prevent.
The Planner replied that it would not because this is the last com-
mercial project on the northwest quadrant of this intersection.
35U8
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 13, 1979
Torjesen inquired why this development is a zoning and not a pre-
liminary plat.
The Planner explained that the proponent owns the entire piece of
property and they intend to own and manage the both the elderly
housing project and the professional/bank building as well as the
Prairie Village Mall, therefore they do not wish to have a property
line down the middle.
Torjesen inquired when the area shown as future parking would be
developed and if the wooded area north of this would be left in
its natural state perminately.
•
Mr. Norderhaus replied that future parking was proposed for the
elderly housing in the event it would be necessary, and that no
further development was planned for north of this parking area. •
Bearman inquired if there were any type of landscaping plans to
show how this site was going to landscaped.
•
Norderhaus then gave a brief presentation showing the type of land-
scaping plans they have for this site and their relationship to
the residents neighboring this site.
The Planner.stated that the landscape plan presented at this time
is only a concept landscape plan and that a more detailed land-
scape plan is required before building permit issuance.
Jerry Beauvais, 7735 Meadow Lane, stated that the residents of
Meadow Lane area have all met with Mr. Norderhaus regarding the
privacy and security of their homes in relationship to this
development. He stated that Mr. Norderhaus has been very considerate
of their request and has taken all of them in to consideration
when doing the landscaping for his development.
Bentley inquired about the drainage and if there were any
plans for drainage.
Norderhaus replied that all the drainage would be taken to a private
storm sewer system that would flow toward highway 5.
Bentley asked Mr. Beauvias if they were experiencing any drainage
problems in the area currently.
Mr. Beauvais replied that there is no type of drainage problem.
The Planner gave a brief presentation on the meeting that the
Planning and Engineering staff had with the Hennepin County high-
way Department.
Commission then had a general discussion as to what the intersection
improvements would be, when they are to be constructed, how they
are to be paid for, and who would participate.
The Planner replied that Hennepin County has a tentative concept
and that the Planning and Engineering staff will be meeting during
the next week with the Hennepin County Highway Department and MnDot
to work further on the answers to these questions.
MOTION: Torjesen moved. Bentley seconded to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6 - 0.
MOTION: Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of
��A
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 13, 1979
thee rezoning from R1-22 to Office and RM-2.5 for small office
building and a 45 unit elderly apartment on 4.4 acres per the
47 staff report dated 11-8-79 provided that item 6 read "That the
developer understand that he maybe required to grant additional
right-of-way and improvements to County Road 4 as determined by
Hennepin County and other interested parties.
Bentley seconded provided that the following be amended. Item 2
read "that all signage be according to city ordinance with the
exception of the bank having a sign of up to 20 ft. and the land-
scaping be according to city ordinance. That item 4 have the addi-
tion that no cash park fee be required on the elderly housing. Also
that the parking lot lighting not exceed 20 ft. in height and that
' fixtures be of a cut off luminaire type restricting light to
the parking lot area only. And also include the letter from MnDOT
dated 1D-15-79 and the letter from the Hennepin County Highway Dept-
ment dated 10-3-79.
Amendment to the motion were accepted by the mover. Motion carried
6 - 0.
D. Gonyea, PUD. request for PUD concept approval for 37 acres for
duplexes, elderly housing, offices, and restaurant uses. A con-
tinued public hearing.
Howard Dahlgren, representative from Howard Dalgren Assocgave a brief
presentation explaining the changes he made on the plat. He explained
that they have now incorporated a lot for a 40 unit elderly housing
project in place of one of their office building sites. He also
explained that the original office building that was whom on highway
5 has been reduced from 18,000 sq. ft. to 14,000 sq. ft. and the
access road to it has been brought out to make an intersection on
highway 5 directly north of Fuller Road.
The Planner statedthat the staff recommends that the Commission
recommend approval of the request for PUD concept to the City Council
provided that the site shown as fast food Burger King restaurant be
converted to either office or avery• low trip generation restaurant
use. That this approval be subject toconformance with all city
ordinances and proper site plan review at time of zoning and pre-
liminary platting. That pedistrian system be incorporated within
the project including a five foot wide concrete side walk along
county Road 4 and a five foot wide concrete side walk along the
southern loop road from County Road 4 northeasterly to the single
family area. That adequate right-of-way area be reserved according
to Hennepin County requirements in order to allow improvement of the
intersection in the future. Cash park fee of 51400. per acre or
what ever fee isapplicableat time of building permit issuance be
required on this site. Modification of the pond subject to Dept
of Natural Resources approval. If the elderly housing site is not
to become an available gptioninthe future the concept must be modified
through a PUD amendment. All site plans submitted for preliminary
platting and zoning approval will be subject to preliminary archi-
tectual drawings, detailed site plan and all provisions of City
ordinances.
Bearman inquired whether a joint access had been worked out between
the eastern proposed office building and the Prairie Lawn and Gar-
den Center.
Dahlgren replied that although they have contacted Mr. Riegert of
the Prairie Lawn and Garden, he was not acceptable to joining the
access. Therefore, Mr. Dahlgren was proposing that the Gonyea
access intersect TH 5 directly north of Fuller Road.
•
• Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District
• ,. 8950 COUNTY ROAD ;4
EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55343
•
•
November 12, 1979
Mr. Chris Enger
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Prairie Village Professional Building
Dear Mr. Enger:
The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory
Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary plans for the Prairie
Village Professional Building in Eden Prairie. The following policies and
criteria of the Watershed District are applicable to this project.
1. In accordance with Section E(2) of the District's revised Rules
and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit application
must he submitted to the District for review and approval. Accompanying
this permit application, a detailed plan outlining how sediment
will be controlled from leaving the altered areas on the development
site both during and after construction must be submitted to the
•
District for review and approval.
2. A detailed storm sewer plan must be submitted to the District far
review and approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this developla nt at an early
date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please
contact us at 920-0655.
Sincerely,
NILICO
Robert C. Obermeyer
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
RCO/111 Engineers for the District
cc: Mr. Conrad Fiskness
Ms. Desyl Peterson
3511
•
• STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
APPLICANT: Eagle Enterprises Incorporated and
OWNER: Zaeco Incorporated
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development and zoning
approval for 12,289 sq.ft. of profes-
sional bank building and 45 units of
• elderly housing on 4.5 acres.
LOCATION: North of highway 5 directly west of
Prairie Village Mall.
DATE: November 9, 1979
BACKGROUND
The 1979 Comprehensive Guide Plan illustrates this area as Community/Com-
mercial. The existing zoning on this site is R1-22 single family residential.
The request for bank and professional building is consistent with the Com-
munity/Commercial designation of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the request
for 45 units of elderly housing is consistentwith and works toward City's
goals for 166 elderly units to be provided by 1981. The site for elderly
housing is ideal because of the access to churches on the west and northeast,
the very close proximity to professional services,and banking*as well as
complete convenient shoping. There is also close proxini ty to the Hennepin
County Library, a major community park, and regional bus service which stops
at the corner of County Road 4 and TH 5. These services clearly make this
site one of the best areas for elderly housing within the community.
The proponents have had meetings with the single family neighbors on the
north and have developed the plan with their participation.
The site for the elderly housing itself is approximately 2 acres and when the
area is added(which is shown as existing trees to remain as buffer space)to
the northern neighbors the total site area for elderly housing is approximateiy
three acres. This would make the density for the elderly housing 15 units per
acre which is consistent with our RM-2.5 zoning category which allows up to
17 units per acre.
ORDINANCE REQt11 REt•tENTS.
With regards to the professional building,there is a requirement for 8 spaces
per 1000 fora hank and 5 spaces per 1000 for office building. The amount of
parking spaces provide seems to be consistent with that requirement.
Professional building is of a one story brick construction which is con-
sistent with our ordinance requirement and the elderly housing project is to
be of a three story construction of matching brick which is also consistent
with the height and materials portions for ordinance.
Our parking ordinance does not specifically refer to elderly units.the RM-2.5
zone requires two spaces per dwelling unit with one enclosed.However, in checking
511
•
Eagle Enterprises Incorporated
• and Zaeco Incorporated -2- November 9, 1979
with M.H.F.A. and surrounding communities with experience regarding elderly
projects the parking requirement is very low and garages are not usually
provided. The M.H.F.A. parking requirement for elderly housing is one
parking space for ever four units, however the developer is providing
one parking space for every two units in this project and has room for expan-
sion as well as over flow parking capabilities into the office parking lot
during peak parking requirement times for the elderly which would be very low
parking requirement time for the office building. In addition the developer
is considering inclusion of some garages within the project within this
time.
SITE PLAN
The entire elderly housing project and professional building are separated
from the northern neighbors by over 100 feet and the existing trees on the
northern portion of the site will remain. The project is bordered on the west
by the anticipated Christ Lutheran Church and on the east by existing Prairie
Village Mall and is bordered on the south by TH 5. The developer is pro •
-
posing a service road to parellel the project on its southern side which will
provide major access from the shoping center on the east and the right-in/ •
right-out provided at that point. As you may recall when the Lake Trails
Estate plat was approved the zoning for the Christ Lutheran Church site was
made subject to further site plan review and a service road through that site
was contemplated at that time depending upon future land use on the Prairie
Village Mall site. Since more than half of this site is proposed as elderly
housing the staff feels that the continuation of this access on through the
Lake Trails site to connect with the full access with highway 5 and Carnelion •
Lane is important and the staff is currently working on with representatives
from Christ Lutheran Church to try and accomplish this secondary access.
Also as part of the Lake Trails Estate Plat there was a requirement for a
sidewalk to be placed by the developer along the southern part of the plat
which lead to the western property line of this site. The developer for this
site will be continuing the sidewalk through the site to give access to
Prairie Village Mall for the uses within this site and for uses further west. •
The original plan the Planning Commission reviewed has been modified to bring
the bank professional building completely onto this site and provide the
drive-up hank with its own approach and stacking lane system rather than
encroaching into the existing Prairie Village Mall parking lot area. The
Staff feels that thisisa much mom acceptable solution to the access for the
drive-up bank.
Detailed grading and storm sewer plans must be submitted to the City prior to buildin
permit issuance.
Landscaping and signage must conform to City ordinance and in addition land-
scaping in the concept of screening illustrated on the plan to buffer the
elderly housing project from the existing single family will be required.
As a part of the access from Prairie Village (fall to this site Planning
Commission will notice in the information provided by the proponent on an
overall site plan including Prairie Village Mall parking lot area that
the existing through lanes along the front of Prairie Village Mall will
be widened at the critical turning point to allow a freer flow of traffic.
In addition the access of Prairie Village Mall to County Road 4 will be
widened to allow a protected left turn lane for a smootheraccessto County
Road 4. As was mention in the Gonyea staff report Hennepin County is currently
35/3
Eagle Thterprises Incorporated
and Zaeco Incoporated -3- November 9, 1979
studying the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 4 and may require
additional right-of-way and or improvements to the driving service of
County Road 4. The Planning Staff feels that the approval of this project
*should be subject to the developers agreement to participate in those improve-
ments.
The recreational obligation of this site will be met by payment of a cash
park fee on the office portion of the site, however, the Planning Staff feels
that the Council and the Park and Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
should give consideration to not charging cash park fee on the Elderly Housing
in order to increase the possibility of this project as a fair market rate
project for low and moderate income elderly.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning staff would recommend to the Planning Commission that they recom-
mend approval of the request for Planned Unit Development and rezoning
from R1-22 to Office and RM-2.5 for 45 units of elderly housing and 12,289
sq. ft. office building bank with the following provisions:
1. That development be in conformance with the plan dated 11-7-79.
2. That all signage and landscaping be according to City ordinance.
3. That the 45 unit Elderly Housing project be constructed for a
fair market rent so that it is eligible to redeye- Section 8
existing rental subsidy money for low and moderate income elderly.
4. The cash park fee for the professional building be paid at
time of zoning permit issuance.
5. That improvements as outlined within the parking lot of Prairie
Village Mall occur in order to make access smoother for this
site.
6. Developer agree to additional right-of-ways and improvements
to County Road 4 as to be determined by Hennepin County.
*The Engineering and Planning Staff met with Hennepin; County on Friday,
November 9. Hennepin County Highway Department presented a concept of improve-
ments to occur on County Road 4. This would include a dedication of an addi-
tional 10 feet of R.O.W. from Prairie Village Mall along their eastern boundary.
The concept also proposed a median for a protected left turn lane into the
northern entrance of Prairie Village Mall. This would make the existing
main entrance a right-out only.
Hennepin County will be completing cost estimates within the next few weeks
so that the City may determine to what extent the developer should partici-
pate. Moving of the major entrance to the slopping center north,Hennepin
County feels is critical to continued traffic flow at this intersection.
CE:jo
•
3511/ •
, 1
1
iI 1
•
C
1 1
1
I
1
1
I
i i I
1
1 H
-- ---.--,- 1 I
- —
rL__ L---' 1
W t'INEPIN CO. SUGGESTS
B ,0 '/.NGE OF ACCESS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL 1 r 1
1
1 i GONYEA P.U.D.
1 ,
I
d
_ ---"Ir4 .4,„. ..,,,,,,,„. 4/ 8 tk,
e
e
I
e 3`�15� 1 •�
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 22,1979
ABSENT: Bearman, Martinson
MOTION: Bentley moved, Gartner seconded, to continue the Cor
( ) Investment Corp. public hearing to the November 12 meeting.
Motion carried Unanimously.
C. PRAIRIE VILLAGE PROFESSIONAL, by Eagle Enterprises. Request to
rezone 4.4 acres from R1-22 to Office and RI 2.5 for small office
building and a 45 unit elderly apartment. Located north of TH 5
and west of Prairie Village Mall. A public hearing.
Lance Norderhus gave a brief presentation on the proposed project
and stated that after talking to the Planner they know revisions
must be made.
The Planner explained that the arrangement of eliminating the
western preimeter road of existing Prairie Village Mall as a
second access to the Center by utilizing it as a bank drive-up was
a problem becaus of fire safety, elimination of parking and poor
approach for the bank. He explained that by revising the plan to
have the drive-up facility on either the north or south side of the
building.(on the west end) and moving the entire office building
west there would be more space provided for proper stacking of
cars approaching the drive-up bank, it would eliminate the problem
of fire safety, and the problem of parking.
Bentley inquired what was proposed for the northeast corner of the
project site.
t Norderhus replied, it is a wooded are and will be left open with
• not development at all. •
Bentley inquired what bank was this drive-up facility for.
Norderhus replied Suburban National.
MOTION: Bentley moved, Gartner seconded, to continue the Prairie
Village Professional public hearing to the November 12 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. SUTTON FIRST, by Michael Sutton. Request to preliminary plat 4
acres zone? R1-22 for 6 single family lots. Located west of Baker
Road and south of Theresa Place. A public hearing. '
Orlyn Miller, representing Mr. Sutton, gave a brief presentation
of the proposed project explaining the present zoning, and the
zoning he is requesting. It has come to his attention that the
culvert in this site which he thought was an outlet is actually an
inlet and service a portion of the ditch along County Road 4 near
this site which brings water into the site. There is also a part
of this development which is utilized by some of the surrounding
areas for water collection, although it is not a swamp and is
basically dry land. He explained that he has a grading plan which
he feels will solve this problem.
•
35 to
•
•
e q
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
District Five '
413 5801 Duluth Street
S•of is0 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
(612)545.3761
October 15, 1979
Mr. Chris Enger
Planning Director
City of Eden Prairie '
• 8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: S.P. 2701 T.H. 5 .
Review of Proposed Prairie Village
Professional Planned Unit Development
Located in the.Northwest Quadrant of
T.H. 5 and C.S.A.H. 4
Dear Mr. Enger:
The above referenced plat was reviewed some time ago as a part
of the Prairie Village Mall Shopping Center Plan. At that
time the developer did not have specific plans for this area.
Our main concern was direct access to T.H. 5. The developer
has complied with our recommendations of extending a service
drive westerly to Carnelian Lane.
.The proposed revisions to the entrance on T.H. 5 were reviewed
with the developer in our office. We suggested some minor
radius changes which the developer agreed to make. As long ar
there is no work on the highway right of way the developer will
not need a new entrance permit from us. •
Just west of the existing entrance the developer is proposing
to regrade the existing highway back slope. He will need a
permit from us before any of this work is allowed.
As you know, residential units are a very noise sensitive land
use. The developer and the City should be aware that the
Minnesota Department of Transportation will not provide any
type of noise abatement for new development adjacent to existing
highways. We suggest every effort be made in design of the area
with the proposed elderly housing, to lesser any impact this
might have on the proposed housing.
•
An Equal Opportunity Employer
•
•
Mr. Chris Enger
October 15, 1979
Page 2
If you have any questions in regard to the above comments
please feel free to call me at 545-3761 extension 119. •
Sincerely,
SA114-
an R.
letn14)"----s
Project Manager
cc: Mr. Lance Norderhus
Eagle Enterprises •
5100 Edina Boulevard .
Edina, Minnesota 55424
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ••'`"
( 1 320 Washington oAv.
55343 • ''
u Hopkins, Minnes �`'�'''.)
HENNEPIN
J L._ 935-3381
October 3, 1979 •
Mr Chris Enger
Planning Director
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie MN 55344
Dear Mr Enger
RE Proposed Plat - "Prairie Village Professional"
CSAH 4 West of Prairie Village Mall
Section 8, Township 116, Range 22
Hennepin County Plat No 775
Review and Recommendations
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County
review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat
and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions:
- Any revisions to the Prairie Village Mall access to CSAH 4 requires an
approved Hennepin County entrance permit. See our Traffic Division for
entrance permit forms.
- No private directional signs will be allowed on Hennepin County right-of- r
way.
- To avoid confusion, we recommend proposed striping be in accordance with
the "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices".
- All proposed construction within County right-of-way requires an approved
utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not
limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and land-
scaping. See our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms.
- The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within
County right-of-way.
Please direct any response or questions to Les Ueigelt.
Sincerely
,M. 04(
ames M Wold, PE
Chief, Planning and Programming
JMW/LDW:bg HENNEPIN COUNTY
cc Steenberg Construction Co.
Lance Norderhus 3613 an equal oppodunlly employer
•
•
, / 1090 EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER,EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 55343•TELEPHDNE 612/941-7100
ib Suburban National Bank
•
•
•
• August 17, 1979 •
Lance Norderhus
Eagle Enterprises •
5100 Edina Industrial Boulevard
Edina, MN. 55424
Dear Mr. Norderhus:
I am pleased to furnish you the following infor-
• oration on our Prairie Village Mall detached facility
and also our thoughts on our projections through 1985.
t • Our current hours for this facility are 9:00 A.M.
to 4:00 P.M. Monday through Thursday,.9:00 A.M. to •
• 7:30 P.M. on Friday and 9:00 A.M.-to 12:00 P.M: on
Saturday.
At the present time, our weekly customer count is
running between 1,000 to 1,260 people, .peak periods
being Fridays and Saturday.
We anticipate a customer count weekly to run 3,600
to 4,000 by the year 1985. This is based on the addi-
tion of an Auto Bank, the growth of Eden Prairie, and
our projected, growth pattern.
•
Lance, if we can be of further assistance to you
as you work on our proposed facility, please contact
me. .
Si'4K
Op,
Ala
Exec. Vice President
•
ADL:we
35a0
•
( MEMORANDUM.
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: November 15, 1979 •
SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List
PROJECT: Prairie Village Professional
PROPONENT: Eagle Enterprises,Inc. and Zaeco Inc.
REQUEST: PUD and zoning approval for 12,289 sq. ft. professional bank
building and 45 units of elderly housing on 4.5 acres.
LOCATION: North of Highway 5, West of Prairie Village Mall
BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Report dated November'q, 1474
CHECKLIST: •
No
1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional)
Affect on park:
2. Adjacent to public waters? No •
Affect on waters:
3. Adjacent to trails? Sidewalk along southern border
Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) Pedestrian
Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, nglime) Concrete
Width: 5' Party Responsible for construction? Developer
Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.) Dedicated
Type of Development? (residential, commercial, industrial)Rcsidentiai E Commercial
.( Where will CASII PARK FEET go? (what neighborhood) Round Lake
Need for a mini-park? No
30
•
•
•
•
_2_ •
5. REFERENCE CHECK: D
a. Major Center Area Study: N/A
b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: N/A
•
•
c. Purgatory Creek Study: N/A
•
d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: N/A
e. Floodplain Ordinance: N/A
f. Guide Plan: Application is consistant with the Guide Plan
g. Other:
6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: N/A
7. CASH PARK FEE? Should be paid on the professional building and waived on the
elderly housing units.
8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or
against proposal: Neighbors have been included in the planning process.
9. Number of units in residential development? 45
Number of acres in the project? 4.5 (3 in residential prof ect)
Special recreation space requirements: No
10. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:Recommend approval as per Planning Staff Report of
November 9, 1979.
•
brad-
•
14.
Minutes--Parks, Recreation & unapproved November 19, 1979
Natural Resources Commission -3-
ABSENT:none
and that bikes should be able to use the street. He noted that
pedestrians on bike trails face dangers also. He added that if more
traffic is expected, then it is reasonable to require wider trails,
or a trail and a sidewalk.
R. Anderson noted that a two-lane street with an on-off ramp to 62nd
will generate enough traffic so bikers would be in danger if they
were required to ride in the street. He asked if the City will make
•the trail connection for the portion of the trail not included in
the plan.
Lambert told him the City could contract to have it done at the same
time the rest of the trail is being .onstructed. He also noted that
there should be room to construct the trails within the right-of-way,
and that is easiest to do before other development is complete.
Tangen felt that an 8 foot trail would be more reasonable than a
sidewalk. With schools so close, and since the road will act as a
connector, he reasoned that older children will probably be using
the trail to get to school and the park, and most will use bikes.
He suggested that the City should require an 8 foot asphalt trail
on the west side of the road at this time, and require a five foot
sidewalk on the east side when that development occurs.
MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend that the Council approve the Valley
Knolls 2nd Addition proposal as revised in the staff memorandum of
November 15, 1979; to include an 8 foot asphalt trail-on the west side
of Duck Lake Road as far as Duck Lake Trail, with the City responsible
for the connecting segment of the trail. Kruell seconded, and the motion
passed unanimously.
c. Willow Creek Farm
Tangen asked where the Cash Park Fees from this development would be
used, since there is no neighborhood park serving the area.
Lambert explained that the funds would be used for Community Parks,
trails, etc.
Kruell was concerned that the topography of the property would require
extensive grading.
•
Tangen pointed out that Recommendation 02 addressed that very concern.
He added that the development proposal seemed well planned and in
keeping with the present nature of the area.
MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend to the Council approval of the
Willow Creek Farm development proposal per the staff memorandum of
November 15, 1979. Tangen seconded the motion, which carried unani-
mously.
•
d. Prairie Village Proffessional
Lance Norderhaus briefly described the proposed professional building
and 45 unit building intended to house elderly residents. The developers
plan to comply with necessary conditions in order to qualify for
A4.2�
•
•
Minutes--Parks, Recreation S unapproved November 19,'4=
Natural Resources Commission -4-
t Section 8 rental subsidy for low and moderate income elderly.
Lambert suggested that the developers may wish to consider a bike
trail parallel to Highway #5 which would go as far as the shopping
center, rather than through the proposed parking lots, as presently
planned.
Tangen questioned the planning staff recommendation not to charge •
•the Cash Park Fee on the 45 units of housing for the elderly. He
noted that the City presently spends considerable funds to benefit
the elderly. He was not convinced that waiving the Cash Park Fee
would benefit the residents - it may only benefit the developer.
Lambert explained that in order to make the project qualify for
Section 8 funds, the price must be kept at a certain level. Staff
was trying to reduce the total cost so the rental will be based at
• a lower rate.
Kruell asked for a financial analysis. If it could be shown that the
developer is also taking a cut in profit to make the project work,
then the City should waive the Cash Park Fee. The City should be
reluctant to do so, however, until this can be shown.
Tangen felt reluctant to set a precedent of this kind without more
information. He suggested that rather than waive the entire Cash Park
Fee, the commercial rate could be charged-resulting in less than half
the normal fee.
Dave Anderson asked if the use may change in the future, or if any of
units might be rented at market value at some point.
Norderhaus explained that restrictions prohibited this as long as
it is being subsidized.
R. Anderson expressed concern about unanswered questions, and stated
that he would like more information before making a decision. He asked
how waiving the Cash Park Fee would insure lower rent, and if a trail
could be built along Highway #5. He agreed with Tangen, that the
Commission would be setting a precedent, and should have all the
facts and information available.
MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend tabling this item until the next
meeting, when more information could be brought to the Commission.
Dave Anderson seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
A recess was called at 9:15.
2. Winter Outing Brochure
Sandy Werts presented her report and asked the Commissioners for comments
and/or suggestions on winter activities. She noted that she is trying
to organize a cross country ski race as a community event.
.304
LD-79-PUD-14
( Prairie Village Professional
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 79-218
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRAIRIE VILLAGE •
PROFESSIONAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
AMENDING THE 1968 GUIDE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of Ordinance 135
provided for the Planned Unit Development(PUD) of certain areas located
within the City, and
WHEREAS, the Prairie Village Professional PUD is considered a
proper amendment to the 1968 Comprehensive Guide Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did consider the PUD
Concept Plan for office and multiple residential units for the elderly
and recommended approval of the PUD to the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie did hold
a public hearing on December 4, 1979 to consider the PUD for Prairie
Village Professional.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota as follows:
1. The Prairie Village Professional PUD, being in the County
of Hennepin and the State of Minnesota and legally described
as outlined in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD approval for elderly
multiple units and an office building as recommended by the
Planning Commission at their November 12, 1979 meeting.
3. That the PUD meet the recommendations of the staff report
dated November 9, 1979.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of
1979.
ATTEST: Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
36 T
•
•
C
To: Mayor and Council
From: John Frane
Date: November 28, 1979
RE: M.I.D.B.'s Douglas and Roy Olson/Eagle Drug - $1,200,000
Eagle Drug is a cooperative purchasing organization of about sixty retail
drug stores. The Olsons who are members of the Eagle organization propose
to construct a distribution center to serve Eagle members. This building
will replace their present facility which is too small. Eagle estimates
their operation will initially occupy 50% of the 60,000 square foot building
and employ 27 persons. The total project cost is $1,450,000. Resolution
#79-221 is attached for your consideration.
G
(- � ..
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for
Industrial Development Bond Project Financing
1. APPLICANTS: Douglas J. Olson and Roy H. Olson
a. Business Name - Eagle Drug Building Partnership
•
•
b. Business Address - 1216 West 79th Street
Bloomington, Minnesota 55420
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor-
ship, etc.) - Partnership to be organized
d. State of fsaaxpaxa.±Azaxms' organization - Minnesota
e. Authorized Representative - Douglas Olson •
5121 Vernon Avenue South
Edina, Minnesota
f. Phone - 612/929-0034
•
2. NAIIE(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR SQ'•d f}MONW M PRINCIPALS:
a. Douglas J. Olson
5121 Vernon Avenue South
Edina, MN
b. Roy R. Olson
5121 Vernon Avenue South
Edina, MN •
c.
• -1-
352'1
•
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL
PRODUCTS, ETC:
Real estate investment in building to be 50% leased to and
occupied by Eagle Drugs, Inc., a drug wholesale firm. Remainder
of building will be leased to unrelated tenants on an interim
basis until Eagle Drugs, Inc. requires additional space.
Owners are shareholders of Eagle Drugs, Inc.
•
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
a. Location and intended'use:
Lot 6 I S,iA4 w 3,4. z.Jo. c�
70th Street and.-shady oad, both- be constiucted, and
• legally described as Oa3, Block'1, Shady.Oak Industrial Park,
3rd'Addn.
b. Present ownership of project site:
Astleford Group subject to Contract for Deed to Richard W.
Anderson, Inc.
c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general
contractor:
Steenberg Construction Co. - General Contractor
1371 Marshall Avenue
d St. Paul, MN 55104
John Hanley - Architect and Engineer
•
5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR:
Land $ 210,non
Building $ 1,100,000
Equipment $ -0-
Other (Financing fees, legal $ 140,000
fees, construction interest,
closing costs; and contin-
gency) •
Total $ 1,450,000
�---
i
> Jo9
C2 :).riNo-
/4t 000 -2-
3! 3?
•
•
Soh—
•
6. BOND ISSUE -
a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $1,200,000
b. Proposed date of sale of bond - December, 1979
c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - 30 years
•
d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - Institutional lender(s)
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 provided through bank
h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing
in addition to bond financing - None
7. BUSINESS PROFILE OF APPLICANT.
a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No
. b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie? None
i. Before this project: None
-g-
3529
—I
•
t.
ii. After this project? 1980 - 27
1981 - 35
1982 - 40
c. Approximate annual sales — 1979 - $10,000,000000
d. Length of time in business 45 years
in Eden Prairie • None
• i
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where?
Present office/warehouse is 1216 West 79th Street, Bloomington, MN 55420
• f. Are you engaged in international trade? No
(
8. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S):
a. List the name(s) and location(s) of other industrial
development project(s) in which the Applicant is the
owner or a "substantial user" of the facilities or a
"releated person" within the meaning of Section 103(b)(6)
of the Internal Revenue Code.
None •
•
•
—4—
3S3o
1
{
' b. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested I
industrial revenue development financing. 1
None '
0
c. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has before 1
any other city for industrial development revenue financing.
None
I
d. List any city 1n which the Applicant has been refused
industrial development revenue financing.
None
• i
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
-5- •
•
` •
•
•
• f. If Applicant has been denied industrial development
revenue financing in any other city as
sidene identified
in (d) or (e), specify the reasons) or
and the name(s) of appropriate city officials who
have knowledge of the transaction.
None
•
•
9. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF:
a. Underwriter (If public offering) NA
•
Agent
b. Private
riv a Placement
awce SenttrandandsEks (If private placement)
Dough414 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
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 pofotheate City
Commissioner
approval anddapproval
of Securities.
•
•
-6-
35'3a
•
•
1.
•
•
b. Bond Counsel - Mackall, Crounse & Moore
1000 1st National Bank Bldg.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Partnership Counsel - To be determined. •
d. Accountant - Casey & Casey
6600 France Avenue South
Edina, MN 55435
•
•
10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start - December, 1979
b. Construction completion - July, 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 impli dlyaon
constitute any approval, variance, or waiver of anny prr ooer cone
or requirement relating to any zoning, building,
or Eden
applicablece of to thehe City propertyfincludedainithisr any project. law
1 t,
App
• •
(/ d
By
7
. Date
-q-
3 533
•
• 11. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT___........-_..........._....
( -
a.' Property is zoned - 1 Z �m •
b. Present zoning (is not) correct for the intended
use.
• c. Zoning application received on•
for which is correct for the
intended use.
•
d. Variances required -
Oty Planner lLan,.a. „--,
•
•
•
•
-g-
.....i ..'".'.'
• �i 35�
_ r
•
RESOLUTION NO. 79'o202 I
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, Eagle Drug Building
Partnership, a partnership to be formed under the laws of the State
of Minnesota and consisting of Messrs. Douglas J. Olson, Roy H.
Olson and other shareholders of Eagle Drugs, Inc. (the "Partner •
-
ship") 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 Part-
nership 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 Eagle Drugs, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation, under lease terms sufficient to provide for the
payment of principal of and interest on the Bond. The interest of
the Partnership in the lease and the interest of the City in the
Loan Agreement will be assigned to the holder of the Bond as
additional security for the Bond. The Bond will be issued and sold
in accordance with the Act and will provide that the Bond is
payable solely from amounts received by the City pursuant to the
Loan Agreement and other property pledged to its payment. The Bond
will not be a general obligation of the City or be payable from any
other property or funds of the City.
-2-
3535 4
1.2 At a public hearing, duly called, noticed and held on
, 1979, •in accordance with the Act, all parties
desiring to appear were afforded an opportunity to be heard. Based
on such public hearing and on such other facts and circumstances as
this Council deems relevant, this Council hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
(a) The purpose of the Act as found and determined by
the state legislature is to promote the welfare of the state by the
active attraction, encouragement and development of economically
sound industry and commerce to prevent so far as possible the
emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic
unemployment. Factors necessitating the active promotion and
development of economically sound industry and commerce are the
increasing concentration of population in the metropolitan areas,
the rapidly rising increase in the amount and cost of governmental
services required to meet the needs of the increased population and
the need for development of land use which will provide an adequate
tax base to finance these increased costs and access to employment
opportunities for such population.
(b) The welfare of the residents of the state requires
the active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of
economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts;
the encouragement of employment opportunities for citizens of the
state and the City; and the development of industry to use avail-
able resources of the City, in order to retain the benefit of its
existing investment in educational and public service facilities.
(c) The Project would further the foregoing purposes of
the Act as contemplated by and described in Section 474.01 of the
Act.
(d) The City is authorized by the Act to issue its
industrial development revenue bonds to finance capital projects
consisting of properties used or useful in connection with a
revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the Project.
(e) This Council has been advised by Dougherty, Dawkins,
Strand & Ekstrom, Incorporated, agent for the Partnership (the
"Agent") that conventional, commercial financing to partially
finance the cost of the Project is available on such a limited
basis and at such high interest rates that the economic feasibility
of operating the Project would be significantly reduced. However,
with the aid of a municipal borrower, and its resulting lower
borrowing cost, the economic feasibility of the Project would be
substantially increased and that the issuance of the Bond by the
City would be a significant inducement to the Partnership to
construct the Project in the City.
•
-3-
353(0
(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
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 proponents of the Project have agreed to pay or cause
the Partnership 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 proponents of the Project, on behalf of the Partner-
ship, are 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 construction 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 sole discretion to withdraw from participation, and
accordingly not issue they 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 structuring of
the financing or as to the terms and conditions of any of the
documents required for the transaction.
3.4 The proponents of the Project acknowledge 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
constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will
-5-
� a
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.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, the _ day of — , 1979.
Mayor ---^
Attest: •
City Clerk
-6-
3634
•
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: November 28, 1979
RE: M.I.D.B.'s for Cooperative Power Association - $8,000,000
Cooperative Power Association intends to build a 100,000 square foot
office facility and communication facility on the property to the west
of Eaton/Char-Lynn at an estimated cost of $8,000,000. The facility
will employ about 150 persons. The Lands will be sold to Institutional
Investors on a private placement basis. The property is zoned 1-5 which
is correct for the intended use. Notices have been send to those persons who
have expressed an interest in this project. Resolution 79-220 is attached
for your consideration.
1>
• ,
35VO
i4
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
Application for
Industrial Development Bond Project Financing
1. Applicant:
a. Business Name - Cooperative Power Association
b. Business Address - 3316 West 66th Street, Edina, Minnesota 55435
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship,
etc.) - Association (Cooperative Association organized under
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 308)
d. State of Incorporation or organization - Minnesota
e. Authorized Representative - Charles
And
r ,General Managert
T. V.
f. Phone - 925-4556
2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS:
a. (Nineteen member electric cooperatives listed on attached
b. Exhibit A.)
c.
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS, ETC:
Producer of electric power, distributor of wholesale electric power
to member rural electric cooperatives.
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
a. Location and intended use: Association Headquarters and
Communications Center - State Highway No. 5 and Mitchell Road,
Eden Prairie
b. Present ownership of project site: Eaton Corporation.
c. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general
contractor: (proposed)
Brauer & Associates, Land Planner, 7901 Flying Cloud Drive,
Eden Prairie, 55344
BWBR Architects, 400 Sibley Street, St. Paul, 55101
'60f
•
5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR:
Land Acquisition and Site Development $1,575,000
Construction Contracts (Building) 5,100,000
Equipment Acquisition and Installation 590,000
Architectural and Engineering Fees 450,000
Legal Fees 35,000
Interest during Construction 75,000
Contingencies 50,000
Bond Discount 125,000
6. BOND ISSUE
a. Amount of proposed bond issue - $8,000,000.
b. Proposed date of sale of bond - November 1, 1979.
c. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities - 25 years;
term bond with sinking fund maturities with level debt service
commencing in 10th year.
d. Proposed original purchaser of bonds - Institutional Investors -
Private Placement.
e. Name and address of suggested trustee - N.A. - Purchaser's
request, if any.
f. Copy of any agreement between applicant and original purchaser -
Not Applicable.
g. Describe any interim financing sought or available - Not
Applicable.
h. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing in
addition to bond financing - Not Applicable.
7. BUSINESS PROFILE
a. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? No.
b. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
i. Before this project? - 0
ii. After this project? - 150
c. Approximate annual sales - $41,000,000 F.Y. 1978
$70,000,000 F.Y. 1979 (Estimate)
d. Length of time in business - 23 years
in Eden Prairie - 0 years
35i1�._2_
•
•
•
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where?
Yes. Underwood, North Dakota.
f. Are you engaged in international trade? No.
8. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF:
a. Underwriter/Private Placement Purchaser - Dain, Kalman & Quail,
Inc. arranging placement. •
i. Has preliminary financial analysis by underwriter or private
placement purchaser required by City policy been completed
and attached to this application? - Yes.
ii. Is underwriter's letter of intent to commit attached to this
application? (Applicable only if there is a public
offering).
(NOTE that application is incomplete if either of the above
is missing)
b. Bond Counsel - Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
c. Corporate Counsel - LeFevere, Lefler, Pearson, O'Brien & Draws,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
d. Accountant - Deloitte Haskins & Sells
9. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start - November 1, 1979
b. Construction completion - May 1, 1981
10. The undersigned applicant understands that the approval or disapproval
by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development bond financing
does not expressly or impliedly constitute any approval, variance, or
waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any zoning, building,
or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie, or any other
law applicable to the property included in this project.
COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOCIATION
Applicant
BY l L5�''�� �
Its General Managgear"615
Dat4e/r4 L "
,3rc13 —3—
•
•
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Vern Carlson, Assistant General Manager, Financial Group,
Cooperative Power Association - 925-4556
11. Zoning - to be completed by the City Planning Department.
a. Property is zoned - _ rat h
b. Present zoning is); (is not) correct for the intended use.
c. Zoning application received on for
which is correct for the intended use.
d. Variances required -
(64.:ARI Planner
5544-4-
•
•
•
EXHIBIT A
cI
A REVIEW OF
•
CPA'S 19 MEMBER SYSTEMS
kWh %of kWh
T'' Miles of Number of Purchased Increase
Line Consumers During 1978 over 1977
Agralite Cooperative,Benson
Ramon Millett,General Manager' 2,724 4,491 90,890,058 5.3%
BENCO Electric,Mankato
Donald Amundson,General Manager 1,894 6,337 I07,864,492 8.1
Brown County Rural Elect.Ass'n.,
Sleepy Eye
Leslie R.Schrupp,Jr.,General Manager 1,310 3,281 73,436,424 6.0
Dakota Electric Awn.,Farmington
Oscar Soderlund,General Manager I,804 26,363 452,937,692 14.8
Faribault County Coop.Elect.Ass'n.,Frost
Donald Amundson,General Manager 662 1,367 24,034,640 3.7
Federated Rural Electric Ass'n.Jackson
Marvin Johnson,General Manager 2,064 4,721 98,826,771 8.3
Goodhue County Coop.Electric Ass'n.,
Zumbrota
Cecil Noising,General Manager 1,010 3,402 65,468,418 3.6
Lake Region Co-op Electrical Ass'n.,
Pelican Rapids
Clarence I'eterson,General Manager 4,896 17,052 209,391,337 8.4
McLeod Coop.Power Ass'n.,Glencoe
Bernard Janowski,General Manager 1,710 5,046 98,388,560 5.1
Meeker Coop.Light&Power Ass'n.,
Litchfield
Duane Henkelman,General Manager' 1,604 5,847 103,638,384 6.5
Minnesota Valley Electric Coop.,Jordan
Francis Rcl,s'lkorn,General Manager 2,077 10,412 I69,989,208 0.0
Nobles Cooperative Electric,Worthington
Douglas Wallace,General Manager 2,075 4,774 87,325,598 5.0
Redwood Electric Cooperative,Clements •
Albert Lenntck,General Manager 1,193 2,475 50,602,888 0.7
Runestotie Electric Ass'n.,Alexandria
Vernon Jeada,General Manager' 2,560 8,269 119,822,008 8.0
South Central Electric Ass'n.,St.lames
LeRoy Nelson,General Manager 1,982 3,881 101,698,106 e.7
Stearns Coop.Electric Ass'n.,Meirose
Eugene Sullivan,General Manager 2,872 I2,12o 202,257,659 7.8
Steele Waseca Coop.Electric,Owatonna
Do laid Larson,General Manager 1,794 6,003 94,643,880 4.7
Todd•Wadena Electric Coop.,Wadena
Jun Brllgnwan,General Manager 1,860 5,499 96,616,833 9.2
•
Wells Electric Ass'n.,Wells •
William Moll,General Manager 258 608 11,305,605 3.2
Total 36,349 131,9,54 2,259a238061, 8.6%
' 'Assumed position January I.1979
4 T1116
•
RESOLUTION NO. 7?- .2o
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION
AND ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A PROJECT THERE-
UNDER; AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION BY
THE CITY TO THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF
SECURITIES
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Legislature of the State of Minnesota in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act) , has
found and declared that the welfare of the State requires
active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development
of economically sound industry and commerce through govern-
mental acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergence of
blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment; has
authorized municipalities to issue revenue bonds to finance,
in whole or in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, improvement and betterment of projects,
including any properties, real or personal, used or useful
in connection with a revenue producing enterprise engaged in
any business; and has authorized municipalities to enter into
"revenue agreements", as defined in the Act, with any person,
firm, or public or private corporation or federal or state
governmental subdivision or agency (the Contracting Party)
providing for the payment by the Contracting Party of amounts
sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal and
interest on the revenue bonds.
1.02. It has been proposed that the City issue its
revenue bonds, pursuant to the authority of the Act, in an
amount not exceeding the aggregate principal amount of
$8,000,000 or such lesser amount as may be necessary, to
finance costs of acquisition of land within the City and
constructing and equipping thereon one or more buildings
(the Project) to be used by Cooperative Power. Association,
a Minnesota corporation (the Association) , as a headquarters
and communications center in connection with its business of
•
354(n
production and distribution of wholesale electric power; and
to make the proceeds of such sale available to the Association.
The Association will agree to pay the City amounts sufficient
to pay promptly the principal of and interest on the revenue
bonds, and will agree to cause the Project to be constructed.
The Project is presently estimated to cost approximately
$8,000,000.
1.03. The City has been advised that conventional, commercial
financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is available
only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing
that the scope of the Project or the ecnomic feasibility of
operating the Project would be significantly reduced, but that
with the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low
borrowing costs, the Project can be constructed as designed and
its operation is economically more feasible.
Section 2. Public Hearing.
2.01. As required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01,
Subdivision 7B, this Council, pursuant to motions passed on
November 6, 1979, called and held a public hearing on the proposal
to undertake and finance the Project. Notice of the time and
place of the hearing, and stating the general nature of the
Project and an estimate of the principal amount of bonds to be
issued to finance the Project, was published at least once not
less than fifteen days nor more than thirty days prior to the date
fixed for the hearing, in the official newspaper of the City and
a newspaper of general circulation of the City. A draft copy of
the proposed application to the Minnesota Commissioner of
Securities, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto,
was available for public inspection following the publication of
such notice at the place and times set forth in the notice.
2.02. All parties who appeared at the public hearing were
given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the
proposal to undertake and finance the Project. This Council
has heard and considered the views expressed at the public hearing
and the information submitted to the City by the Association.
Section 3. Approvals and Authorizations.
3.01. On the basis of information given the City to date,
and the views expressed at the public hearing, it is found and
determined that the Project furthers the purposes stated in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, and that it would be in the
best interest of the City to issue its industrial development
revenue bonds under the provisions of the Act to finance costs
of the Project in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 (the Bonds).
{
3.02. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval
by the City and the issuance of the Bonds for such purpose
approved. The Bonds shall not be issued until the Project has
been approved by the Commissioner of Securities as provided by
the Act and until the City and the Association have agreed
upon the details of the Bonds and provisions for their payment.
3.03. If the Bonds are issued and sold, the City will
enter into a lease, mortgage, direct or installment sale con-
tract, loan agreement, take or pay or similar agreement, secured
or unsecured, satisfying the requirements of the Act (the Revenue
Agreement) with the Association. The amounts payable by the
Association to the City under the Revenue Agreement will be
sufficient to pay the principal, interest and redemption premium,
if any, on the Bonds as and when the same shall become due and
payable.
3.04. The Association has agreed to pay directly or
through the City any and all costs incurred by the City in
connection with the Project, whether or not the Project is
approved by the Commissioner of Securities; whether or not the
Project is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bonds
or Revenue Agreement and all other operative instruments are
executed.
3.05. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute
a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the
Bonds as requested by the Association. The City retains the
right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and
accordingly not issue the Bonds should the City at any time prior
to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest
of the City not to issue the Bonds or should the City, Associa-
tion and any other parties to the transaction be unable to reach
agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents
required for the transaction.
3.06. In accordance with the Act, the Mayor and Clerk
are hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the
Project to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities for her
approval of the Project. The Mayor, Clerk, City Attorney and other
officers, employees and agents of the City, in conjunction with
Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay and/or Chapman &
Cutler, of Chicago, Illinois as Bond Counsel to the City, are
hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with any preliminary
information she may need for this purpose, and the City Attorney
is authorized to initiate and assist in preparation of such documents
as may be appropriate to the Project.
3.07. The City will comply with all of the provisions of
the Act, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision
8, in the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the Project.
3,118
•
•
Section 4. Special Obligations.
In all events, it is understood, however, that the
Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal
or equitable, upon any property of the City except the Project,
if it becomes the property of the City, and from the revenues
received from the Project and property pledged to the payment
thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This resolution shall be effective immediately upon
its final adoption.
Section 6. Ratification.
Resolution 79-151 adopted by this Council on August 21,
1979, giving preliminary approval to the Project, and being
identical in substance and interest to this resolution, is
ratified and confirmed in all respects, it being the intent of
this Council to give preliminary approval to the Project as of
August 21, 1979, and it being further the intent of this Council
by the adoption of this resolution to correct a technical defect
in the publication of notice of the public hearing held in
conjunction with the adoption of Resolution 79-151.
PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the City Council of
the City of Eden Prairie, this 21st day of August, 1979.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
•
•
'.35q9
.....—..ram__� .._ .................l.. �. .—. .. .r—. w.... ......+..�, x.. ..ae.4. ...4.. .fV�. r Y...
To: Mayor and Council
From: John Frane
Date: November 28, 1979
RE: final M.I.D.B. approval-Menards
Resolution #79-219 has been reviewed and approved as to content and form
be the City Attorney's office. The resolution has not been included in
your packet, it is available at th City Hall at any time and it will be
in the Mayor's signature file at t,a: meeting.
55'SU
MEMORANDUM
TO Mayor and City Council
THROUGH Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM Roger A. Pauly, City Attorney
DATE November 28, 1979
RE Proposed Parking Ordinance
At the meeting of the City Council on November 20,
1979, the Council approved the proposed parking ordinance in
the form presented, except as follows: Section 2, Subdivi-
sion 1 (a) prohibiting parking on any street in any one
place for more than 30 minutes between 2:00 and 6:00 a. m. or
on any street for more than 12 hours, was stricken. The
reference to 1 1/2 inches in Section 2, Subdivision 1 (b)
was changed to two inches. The ordinance has been revised
accordingly. In reviewing these changes with the Department
of Public Safety, it has been called to my attention that the
striking of Section 2, Subdivision 1 (a) would permit certain
parking problems to continue; namely, the continuous
parking or "storage" of vehicles on public streets over an
extended period of time which tends to add to the problem
of vehicles in the street during snowplowing and maintenance
operations and the parking of trailer and recreational vehicles
C
Memorandum
November 28, 1979
Page 2
for extended periods of time on City streets. The latter
apparently has caused objections by residents from time to
time.
Accordingly, I have prepared for the Council's considera-
tion at the second reading a revised Section 2, Subdivision
1 (a) to prohibit the parking of any vehicle upon a public
street in any one place for a longer continuous period than
24 hours and a new subdivision 2 prohibiting the similar
parking of any trailer or recreational equipment. Section 1
relating to definitions has been modified to include
"trailer" and "recreational equipment". The latter is defined
in Minnesota Statutes as house trailers including telescope
or fold down, chassis mounted campers, house cars, motor
homes, tent trailers, slip in campers, converted buses and
converted vans.
35 - ".
st/o/1
Revised 11/28/79
RAP
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Ordinance No. 794115
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE
PARKING OF VEHICLES AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DESIGNATION
OF AREAS WHERE PARKING IS PROHIBITED AND THE ORDERING
AND PLACING OF SIGNS RELATIVE THERETO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordin-
ance, the terms "vehicle" and "trailer" shall have those
meanings as defined in Minnesota Statutes S169.01, and
"recreational equipment" shall have that meaning as defined
in Minnesota Statutes S168.011.
Section 2. Parking Regulations.
Subdivision 1. No person shall park any vehicle:
(a) On any public street in any one place for
a longer continuous period than 24 hours,
provided this subsection shall not apply to
a vehicle operated by a physician on an
emergency call.
(b) On any public street or alley in the City
of Eden Prairie, after a snowfall of at least
two inches (2"), until such street or alley
has been plowed and the snow removed to the
curb line.
(c) On any public street for the purpose of dis-
playing it for sale.
(d) In any area where temporary signs are posted
reading "No Parking - Police Order" as long as
such signs are in place and have been posted
at the order of the Director of Public Safety.
(e) In a platted residential district, except when
unloading or loading or rendering a service,
if the vehicle is:
3553
-2-
(i) Licensed with a commercial license
and rated at more than one ton
capacity; or
(ii) A commercial trailers or
(iii) Is designed, used or maintained for
the towing of other motor vehicles
or equipment.
(f) In any area affected by or the subject of
any sign erected pursuant to Section 3 of this
Ordinance, except emergency vehicles respond-
ing to calls for service.
(g) In any private driveway or on private property
without the direct or implied consent of the
owner or person in lawful possession of such
property.
(h) On a public street or alley or in any City park-
ing area or any shopping center parking lot or
any apartment building parking lot without
securing the ignition so that it may not then
be started by another. Provided, however, that
public road maintenance or public safety
emergency equipment, which by its nature is
difficult to restart, may be kept running if
the vehicle is secured and locked so as to
prevent access to its driving controls by the
public. If the ignition is secured by a key,
such person shall remove the key from the vehicle.
(i) On any parking lot within the City that does
not conform to the stall or position for park-
ing designated on the surface of the parking
area or in any area of any such parking lot
which has been designated or is used for a
lane for moving traffic so as to interfere
with the movement of traffic thereon.
Subdivision 2. No person shall park any trailer
or recreational equipment on a public street in
any one place for a longer continuous period than
24 hours.
350
-3-
Subdivision 3. No person shall park more than one
commercially licensed vehicle on or adjacent to a
lot in a platted residential district at any time,
except when loading or unloading or rendering a
service. The term "platted" as used in this Sec-
tion 2 shall include, in addition to lands within
duly recorded plats, lands within recorded regis-
tered land surveys and auditors' subdivisions.
Subdivision 4. The Director of Public Safety or
City Engineer may post signs at any entrance to a
private parking lot from a public street, which
shall designate one-way traffic for entrance or
exit, and the driver of any vehicle entering or
leaving any such lot shall comply with any such
sign.
Subdivision 5. This section shall not apply to
the driver of a school bus stopped for the purpose
of receiving or discharging any school child or
school children, provided the bus is equipped and
identified as provided in M. S. 5169.44 and is
displaying the flashing red lamps and stop arm
required thereon.
Section 3. No Parking Signs. Whenever the owner or per-
son, who is in lawful possession of property used for or
in connection with commercial or industrial purposes, is
required by ordinance, by the conditions precedent or appli-
cable to the issuance of a use or occupancy permit, or by
order of the State Fire Marshal, Fire Chief, or the Direc-
tor of Public Safety to maintain driveways, access lanes, or
other areas unobstructed by parked or stopped vehicles for
the purpose of insuring access or egress for police, fire and
emergency vehicles, the owner or person in lawful possession
of such property shall place or cause to be placed a sign or
signs and paint curbing yellow as follows:
3655'
•
-4-
(1) A sign or signs shall be placed at appropriate
locations under the supervision of the State
Fire Marshal, Fire Chief, or the Director of
Public Safety.
(2) Any such sign shall be placed in such a posi-
tion that it is visible to anyone attempting to
use the way, lane or area for parking, and shall
state: "No Stopping or Parking" or "No Parking -
Fire Lane - By Order of (name of authorized
person issuing order)".
(3) Any such sign shall be permanent and nonportable,
except when a temporary sign is approved by
written order of the State Fi^e Marshal, Fire
Chief, or the Director of Public Safety. Such
sign shall not be smaller than 18 inches by 12
inches and shall be white with red lettering.
(4) At the entrance to a business or an establish-
ment where any such sign has been placed as set
forth in this section, exception may be made for
persons who discharge passengers from their
vehicles at such an entrance.
(5) All curbing which borders on or is adjacent to any
such way, lane or area shall be painted yellow as
directed by the Fire Marshal, Fire Chief, or the
Director of Public Safety.
Section 4. Liability of Owner. In any prosecution charg-
ing a violation of this Ordinance, proof that the particular
vehicle described in the complaint was parked in violation of
this Ordinance, together with proof that the defendant named
in the complaint or citation was at the time of such parking
the registered owner of such vehicle, shall constitute prima
facie evidence that the registered owner of such vehicle was
the person who parked or placed such vehicle at the point
where such violation occurred.
3556
•
-5-
Section 5. Offenses. Failure to obey the above Parking
Regulations shall constitute a petty misdemeanor. Failure of
a property owner or person in lawful possession of property
to place or post and maintain such signs and yellow curbing
as described and authorized in Section 3 is a misdemeanor.
Section 6. Penalty. Any person violating Section 2 of
this Ordinance shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and
shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $100.00. Any per-
son violating Section 3 of this Ordinance shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed
C $500.00 or imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not
to exceed ninety (90) days, or both fine and imprisonment,
but in either case the costs of prosecution may be added.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Eden Prairie this day of , 1979 and
finally read, adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the Council of said City this day of
, 1979.
Wolfgang Fenzel - Mayor
ATTEST: •
John D. Frane - City Clerk
PUBLISHED in the on the day of
, 1979.
356.9
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 79-222
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AUTHORIZING FILING OF APPLICATION FOR
GRANTS TO ACQUIRE PARKLAND UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND ACT AND THE STATE NATURAL RESOURCES FUND
WHEREAS, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and-.the State Natural
Resources Fund provides for the making of grants to assist local public bodies
in the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation projects, and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie desires to acquire certain land known
as Miller Park on Mitchell Lake, which land is to be held and used for permanent
open space land, and
WHEREAS, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 P.L. 88-354 (1964) and
of the regulations promulgated pursuant to such Act by the Secretary of the
Interior and contained in 43 C. F. R. 17 effectuating that title, provides that
no person shall be discriminated against because of race, color or national
origin in the use of the land acquired and/or developed, and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the cost of acquiring the second portion of
this open space area shall be $150,000.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie
1. That an application be made to the Office of Local and Urban Affairs
of the State Planning Agency for a grant from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund as amended in 1965 for an amount presently estimated
to be $75,000 and the applicant will pay the balance of the cost from
other funds available to it.
2. That an application be made to the Office of Local and Urban Affairs
of the State Planning Agency for a grant from the Natural Resource
Fund (Minnesota Laws 1973, Chapter 7, Section 43, Subd. 2, Paragraph
G) for an amount presently estimated to be $37,500 and the applicant
will pay the balance of the costs from other funds available to it.
3. That the Director of Community Services, City of Eden Prairie is
hereby authorized and directed to execute and to file such applications
with the State of Minnesota Office of Land and Urban Affairs and the
State Planning Agency, and to provide additional information and to
furnish such documents as may he required by said Agency to execute
such contracts as are required by said Agency and to act as the
authorized correspondent of the Applicant.
4. That the proposed acquisition and development is in accordance with
the plans for the allocation of land for open space use, and that
should said grant be made, the applicant will acquire, develop and
retain said land for uses designated in said application and approved
by the Office of Local and Urban Affairs from the H.C.R.S.
•
35 7
•
S. That the United States of America and the State of Minnesota be, and
they hereby are, assured of full compliance by the Applicant with
the regulations of the Department of Interior, effectuating Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 4th day of December,
1979.
•
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, Clerk SEAL
•
•
{
MEMO
TO: City Council
FROM: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Planning Director
•
DATE: November 27, 1979
SUBJECT: REZONING FROM I-2 TO RURAL OF LOT lit BLOCK 3,
YORKSHIRE POINT ( Mr. LeRoy Peterson
Since July, 1979, Mr. Peterson's property has been marketed by various
real estate companies.
As far the Planning Staff knows, the property has not been sold and
is presently a vacant piece of property in front of Mr. Peterson's
home.
Mr. Peterson has been notified by letter of this item's continuation
to the Council's December 4, 1979 meeting.
Attached, for your information, are copies of the Council's previous
minutes on this rezoning.
JJ:jj
•
•
*final plat lot designations changed the
property description from Lot 1 to Lot 3
•
•
3560
•
•
{ • .
•
:ouncil Minutes - 4 - J ues.,June 19, 1979 •
•
•
•
C. Yorkshire Point, rezoning of Lot 1, Block 3, Yorkshire Point from I-2 Park
to Rural (Ordinance No. 79-22)
City Manager Ulstad explained at the time the Council considered zoning of Yorkshire
Pointjthe 2 lots of Mr. Peterson were addressed in the developer's agreement, 1 lot
which had the I-2 zoning. At the time the developer's agreement was approvea
it was agreed by the City and Mr. Peterson that within a six month period he would
begin construction of an industrial facility. Mr. Peterson has not done so at this
point and for that reason this has been brought to the Council in the form of
a Public Hearing for consideration of rezoning back to Rural.
Mr. Peterson spoke on his own behalf requesting the Council allow him to continue
with his present zoning of I-2 Park
City Attorney Pauly stated the developer's agreement very clearly states within six
months of the date of the agreement the owner will commence construction of an
industrial building, and the agreement was entered into on August 15, 1978. Mr.
Peterson is in violation of the agreement at this point.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to close the Public Hearing and
give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-22, rezoning Lot 1, Block 3, Yorkshire Point,
from I-2 Park to Rural. Motion carried unanimously.
Edstrom suggested if Mr. Peterson has any questions as to the interpretation of
the developer's agreement that he should consult with his attorney, then his attorney
might consult with City Attorney Pauly if he has questions regarding the
developer's agreement.
Council Minutes •- 13 - Tues.,July 17, 1979
2nd Readin _of OrtinanfP No. 7g-22, rezoning lot 1, Block 3, from 1-2 Park
v to Rura Yorkshire Point
Mr. Leroy Peterson stated before the Council he would like to keen the I-2me
zoning on his nroperty until at least the first of the year, as by that
he will either have to lose or develop the property.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to continue consideration of
the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-22 until the December. 41 1979 Council
meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
3 6toI
•
V
•••••, • AN,
ko 1 • : .....)
.0
I .A . ot,
- ..,e ..3.,
•
• •0 v.
wog! FirpoLiml .
, teMitilyfy fitivos. . ,;i, ,z,-
'''',0,,..4*.•411,tti
tr4i*f. 'c-
'r 1.1_ sttfattaW 12
' . io-Z• '-. is.-tellISA
4. I 31111
iett
.. .•
: .... • - • .
•
.....
'.................'s.......
, ,.... . •11 dildt gs. 8'" ".. —'llwr.LW , Ail hi- 1 4,11.171 9 : 10
411111114 . P.e.k. . .4...• - -
. ..
. . .. . . . .
• .
I \
\P. .
.• . 7 • .
• . , ..
•
' .. . ...
• •
• . ... ...
•
6 ‘•••‘• -,. •(
\ : --------. ..
.14:- ... '' -.-.
•
.
. . "..
PHomE.T\5E1.2RSON
•
\ • I 8 - .:• i • Rural •
. .
. - W
• S
• .
•c•
. -... -:. 2 • Cr ' .
...
0 . t
.• -• _...._
/ INDUSTRIAL .• >- :. 10
.
. .. .
•
•
• I I
• . LOT ::.1 . ' ' (SENM
: I-2 40730 R 12c:lo . _
7 PLATIAN807,06,4.)5.4..s. :
c,.06 37 6
. • v35.W . .
CO
c,8 '-- - •
. Cs-' c 183' ..-
.1f,.. ..
•
N7654-:.-.• . .• ...
. . ,
.'
•
£ULAblli/U 1 V1414
Lot 11, Block 3
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUTNY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 79-22
AN ORDINANCE RELATING 135
E TOONING AND AMENDING
ORD
ANCE
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, Lot11, Block 3,
Yorkshire Point, shall be and hereby is removed from the I-2
Park District and shall be included hereafter in the Rural District.
Section 2. 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 19 day of June ,1979, and
finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meet-
ing of the City Council of said City on the day of
1979. •
Wolfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor —
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of •
,1979.
3 Zto1
•
t9191 999-0799
LAW 0r.I.E9
LAND. PAULY a DREOEROON. LTD.
4109 1DI CENTER
MtNNEAPOLI91 MINNESOTA 99409
RORER?I.LAND
RDOCR A.►AULY
DAVID M.OREDER•ON
R.TROMA,BREENE.JR.
RICHARD J.ROROW
LAWRENCE J.EKOULUNO
MEMORANDUM
TO Mayor and City Council
THROUGH Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM City Attorney, Roger A. Pauly and Richard F. Rosow
DATE November 27, 1979
RE Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Draft Ordinance
The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("Commission") has
prepared, through the law office of Adrian Herbst, a draft
master ordinance for a joint cable communication system for
the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and
Richfield. A number of drafting sessions have been held
with attorneys representing various member municipalities
which have resulted in substantial changes in the format and
substance of the ordinance.
The ordinance as originally drafted was a joint ordinance
which provided for the administration and enforcement of the
ordinance through the Commission. The ordinance made the
Commission an integral part of the regulatory scheme and in
effect locked each municipality into the Commission for the
term of the ordinance. The ordinance, as originally drafted,
provided numerous provisions for hearings to resolve con-
flicts between municipalities as to proposed remedies or
options granted to the municipalities under the ordinance.
In some events, the hearings would be held by the Commission
and in other events by the State Cable Board. In either situa-
tion, one dissenting municipality could be required, by that
procedure, to submit to the wishes of the other four.
356q
Memorandum
November 27, 1979
Page 2
The ordinance is now being re-drafted so that, instead of
being a joint ordinance, each ordinance of the participating
municipalities will be a complete and separate document.
The ordinances will be identical in all respects, however.
All enforcement powers, administrative responsibilities and
other options granted to the City will be the responsibility
of each franchising City. However, the document will con-
tain a provision authorizing the City to assign its adminis-
trative and enforcement powers on a revocable basis to the
Commission. A default under one ordinance will be deemed
a default under all the ordinances.
Instead of the ordinance being the document which binds the
cities to a joint operation of the franchise, a joint powers
agreement will be entered into specifying the relationship
between the communities insofar as this franchise is concerned.
It is desirable to have the agreement between the cities
set forth in a separate joint powers agreement rather than
in the ordinance, since the successful franchisee is not a
party to the joint powers agreement. The franchisee will
accept the award of the franchise based upon only the ordin-
ance with full knowledge that each municipality may decide
to administer the franchise within its own boundaries itself,
rather than assigning such a responsibility to the Southwest
Commission. By specifying the nature of the joint operation
of the franchise in the joint powers agreement, the problem
of obtaining the franchisee's consent to any change in the
relationship among the various cities is avoided.
The ordinance will also be drafted to require the franchisee
to construct its lines within each municipality so that the
buy out provisions in the ordinance will be a meaningful
option for each and every municipality. Although it does
not seem possible to completely segregate each municipality's
lines from the others, the cost and service interruption
occasioned by a buy out or termination in one City would
thereby be minimized.
CONCLUSION: For a number of years, the communities have been
discussing whether to grant a joint cable vision franchise.
A decision has been reached that such a joint system would
35L
•
Memorandum
November 27, 1979
Page 3
be in the interests of all the municipalities involved. The
decision to jointly grant an operator franchise should be
embodied in a joint powers agreement rather than the franchise
ordinance itself. It should continue to be in the interest
of all the municipalities to administer the franchise in a
joint fashion, but by drafting the ordinance to allow each
municipality to stand on its own, a degree of flexibility
is obtained, not present in the original draft.
RAP/sjh
•
November 29, 1979
•
TO: Roger Ulstad
FROM: Jack Hacking
SUBJECT: Request approval to purchase one American Bristol air charging
system from Metropolitan Fire Equipment Company
Attached are bids from two companies for air charging systems.
1. Air Power Corporation- Ingersoll Rand Unit 14,744
Submitted by Walter Duykers and R. O. Kelley
2. Metropolitan Fire Equipment - American Bristol Unit 13,090
Submitted by Jeff Gale
Bidder Al was unable to furnish three items per specifications:
-tank fill water cooling system
r -fragmentation protection shield as required by OSHA
-two tank filling capacity
•
The specifications developed for use by the bidders were identical to those
used in recent purchases of air charging systems by the following communities:
Fridley, Bloomington, Burnsville, Minneapolis.
•
•
366 7
•
•
•
•
We are presently filling our tanks off a cascade system.
Problems with this type of system are
1. The tanks the firemen use are good for 30
minutes when filled to 2400 psi. Our present
system fills them to around 1850. This gives
us about 20 minutes under ideal conditions.
2. As air is taken from the cascade system the
1850 psi begins to drop, which also drops
the time limit from 20 minutes down.
✓ • 3. We have experienced problems with short time
limits of air on some fires. Example: MTS
and Char Lynn. Big buildings require alot
of walking to get to the fire. If it takes
a fireman 4 minutes to haul a hose into the
fire and four minutes to walk out, this leaves
him with 12 or less minutes of air to do the jab
hat he was sent in to do.
4. The 20 minutes that I have mentioned above is
under ideal conditions. When the fire starts
{ to work hard, he breathes faster and uses more
air. This results in using more air and the 20
minutes is reduced
5. The cascade system is a slow way to fill air
tanks. We have had fires where we have had to
send firemen back to the station in a police
car to get tanks filled and it takes time.
6. Very difficult to get air to fill the cascade
system on weekends and nights.
7. Like any work it is important to train with
smoke drills. We don't do this as much as we
should for fear of using the air and then having
a fire and becoming short on air. As a result
we do fall short in this training area.
•
35Gog
•
•
•
a
I checked with the following communities and they only received one bid;
Bloomington
Minneapolis
Burnsville
I talked with the Public Safety Director at Burnsville Mike Doumlin and he stated
that he tried very hard to find a second bidder and was unable to find anyone who
could provide this type of equipment.
It should be noted that this system is for BREATHING AIR ONLY. A regular
compressor can not be used for this type of air filling. Much of the cost
is in the filter system.
A regular compressor such as those used in garages or service stations can not
be used for this type of air charging.
We spend about 51200.00 per year to fill our present air cascade system.
The big draw back items are not being able to fill the tanks to full capacity,
hot enough air for proper training and having a slow filling system.
3599
,4 ocz ucpr:C(s iTA,
AIR&HYDRAULIC EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES r\
7631 UNIVERSITY AVE. PROLE E<S-SS31 S7.PAUL.MINN. 55114 / t '
... Eden Prairie Fire Departure t°�
7905 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • GATE November 2p
79
Attn: Jack flocking.
Director of Public Safety YOUR tNOUIRV __ - ._ __
Subj: Ingersoll-Rand Breathing Air Package OUOT.NO 79-416
Gentlemen:
DESCRIPTION PRICE
In accordance with your request for bid on Ereathing Air
'Pe el:ag;e, we are pleased to offer the following: '
One (1) Model Ii10T2BAP10, Type 30, Ingersoll-Rend, Total
protection Breathing Air Package, consisting of 4 stage
sircooled, single acting, air compressor complete pith V-
belt drive, totally enclosed I:eltguard, auto7^atic start
and stop control and 10 HP 3/60/230/460V, squirrel cane,
drip-proof induction r:•3tor. Also incluied is a replace-
able cartrid�,o-type air purifier ele: .ent and electronic
Contamination monitoring and shutdown syatci s. All vaunted
On a steel baseplate.
't.rther descriptive information and specifications are
shown on attached Form 1750 and Reference Page 9S28.00,
Sheet 106 of October 10. 1979.
Price FOB Campbellsville, KY each $ 12,440.0e)
(with transportation allowed cheapest way)
The above quoted package is designed to connect directly
to your presently otmed cascade storage and charging sys-
Item.
;errs are net 30 days.
1
Delivery can be obtained in epproxinately 4 weeks following
receipt of order.
Pe thank you for this request for quotation and trust that Ai)
7:e ray be favored with your highly valued order. If ye can l be of further service, please advice. ; G
Yours very truly, ;
I le
robert O. Kelly0 6r
111: :
S.les E iaeer 5e
>////
ROK:dt
encl. i
. FEL'ERAL AND STATE TAX NOT INCLUDED
•
I '.t11.r_—_._-. _. __IF '..NY liF'.7 __,^ -_. 1F
fI •...,. t.I r. •tif.t 1.-t f.l:.r(r. t{tfS.frr:S.S.I.C.'.f;4r..;.et':'-f: ti%Ono.rS A'" ,.T.•:,. :r,.I rJ'rC Ji,k: '.tr.
C A•r.:FL LA 11(.A CLAUSE — --- —''-_'._..
.. .. . . .. . . . ..... r.r r Ir..H. • ..I•.r
24,J(} AIR PJI.t R EC:1:.,'ErrTC:RP
•
•
T ,.-CT t"-g U,ICZ -�',�4 1;::e:�: �d TA. y. f•
AIR&HYDRAULIC EOUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES
:6:1 ;.;VEE'YITY AVE. P.O:cE 54557:a Si.PAUL.MINN. 55114
a
( Eden Prairie Fire Department
7905 Mitchell Road l_-
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 DATE November 8 1979
Attn: Jack Hocking, Director YOUR INQUIRY
Public Safety •
Subj: Addendum to Our Quote #79-416 DST NO 79-418
-'_ DESCRIPTION PRICE
x:_._.-_._ _',— _.__..__..� :.--
Gentlemen:
Per your request, we are pleased to quote on the following
iit storage tank to be used in conjunction with the breath
ng air package quoted on our subject quote. I
IlOne (1) 500 cu. in. Air Bottle with floor stand and fittings
I for 5000 psig discharge. i
+Price FOB Campbellsville, KY each $ 2,304.00
1 (transportation allowed cheapest way)
Terms are 30 days net
Delivery can be obtained in approximately 4 weeks following
I receipt of your order.
If we can be of further service, please advise.
ours very truly,
Air Power Equipment Corporation
4(; ,. Q1.)/ (.. ...- 7*
Robert 0. Kelly
V
Sales Engineer
ROK:dt
•
•
i
1
FEDERAL AND STATE TAX NOT INCLUDED JI
1 • -
1,tiVk R, ._.. —._-...._IROV 1t!Ctprl ORDMR AT FACTORY. Tt cS
.. r,,01 .,.1,. fV.`re../1 N.tfi:E 1%1111111•t1 Pt lulNSllil E F1R:IE l 1,5 CAL3El1 Dr 5!PI,,ESA:-:.FINIS C.It.'.IeH I At.i1:flE,!..t,O.n.t.'•,,R.ti
CACFIIATIUN ClAVSE
•, a„ .• •. i l Atli POi:ER EotIPME' T CUkP.
•
•
•
BID ENVELOPE SHALL BE MARKED "RESPIRATORY AIR CHARGING SYSTEM".
ALL BIDS MUST BE DELIVERED TO JACK HACKING`,' DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
SAFETY 7905 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 -BY.NOOIQ
ON NOVEMBER 153 1979.
THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY AND ALL BIDS, TO WAIVE
ANY INFORMALITIES IN BIDDING, AND TO ACCEPT ANY BIDS DEEMED IN THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY.
•
BID PRICE: $13,090.00
DELIVERY DATE: 60 - 90 days
COMPANY: • American Bristol
BY: Metropolitan Fire Equipment
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT: #4750 Dewpoint & N4600 CO Monitor $2,218.00
Additional High Pressure Receivers (440 Cu.}-
$1,200.00 each.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS• PLEASE CALL JACK HACKING AT 937-2700.
'35%
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
September 10, 1979
To: City Plann^r, 'Eden Prairie
Attn: Chris Engers
Re: Specific Plan Requirements.
I, Michael N. Sutton, Purchased the 4.7 A parcel of land from a
Robert L. Peterson of Phoenix, Arizona.
The property is located as per description - the East one half of
N/'+J quarter of Section 10 - Township 116, Zange 22, containing Lots 1 to
35 inclusive. The legal recorded description is as follows: Lots 1 and
2, Auditor's Subdivision Number 225, ;lennepin County, Minnesota.
I absorbed the mortgage held by Mr. Peterson from Midwest Federal
Savings and Loan Association.
I, as developer, will satisfy the mortgage or make other arrange-
ments with Midwest Federal to facilitate grading, utilities, and street
installation. I intend to personally finance the site improvements.
After site improvements are completed and final plot is filed, it is my
intention to build my own home on one lot and to market the rest of the
lots.
There is a single family dwelling and a two-car garage located on
the S.E. corner of the parcel. Wild hay has been harvested off the re-
mainder.
The parcel is mostly flat and open to the East, and a gentle
treed slope to the 'West. A street, Theresa Place, abuts on the NA
corner. Utilities are available at this point.
The adjoining properties to the West and North are low-density
single family dwellings with one-half acre lots or larger. The prop-
erty to the South is a 2.3 A parcel containing a single family dwelling.
County Road #60 (Baker Road) is to the East. The R1-22 zoning
should not generate enough traffic to cause a problem with the exten-
sion of Theresa Place.
The Public Decision being requested at this time is the approval
of the preliminary plot. /?
•
Michael N. Sutton
t 11341 Pioneer Trail
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
35-73
f
—.I
S
•
•
/
I ii / \ sL l/ /
/!ham 4 t J y _
_---- Ns \ //�
/ 4 .! /' 1,1- /�\ \\ I •
I ,I+ II+/ `I !
! � \ jL4'\N .J ; I
{
-I------ __i I L
I
-r...y...-w,...;._•'-------ito`uayR ad TO_i i.—_---Tf----I----i--
it> I m m C . 1
r ate $ > s ppll § aLit :k x£
>;' 3 Ii EOlw ac- iY B lit �y
Pz i $ 4 �• P •
t i ;0, m 441 1 i!rtilft: .1'; '4 ri
o -° ' t t w
i
Y
35?'!
I
1
•
:— a .
J
. -
I
..e:.• S oS -
I _ !'% iir
\� •\� /�/
•
\\ , 1�
1 . Ili- ,. , /\ 7 .#1,":„) •
I ......, /(..........‘
\ 1
' \\� \�` I I I . I
m IT1 I
11th
' u a. a a
• • - P 0 2 a OP • b'` Ft/ ti it qk it i .
•
/lilt 11 tt t 1 J% t 1
]t
•
•
•
•
•
( ..4
I.
/' -- -4'"' -- 1-- ::-girr .'`-. li-` --
1 ...„."1. ),--:--7....____ A-311E- 1 N\\ !
1 .. ... ... .."----; 1 _ ., 0:
t • \1. t\
I .,.W _ — a /, .N \
•• �i:I -
-_J ;
/ --�: I
I 1 L- i cn .\\
I • ; ; i --------1 o I
I 1 � 1 ; ! I 3
—L--=--- \ ' _ ` r • J i
` • i0 =$ I
GOtMts wVLc.µw�• t County Rdin°.i 9 t __
•
•
•
. m m t— •
y •
v •
D
1
' Q
1 . ,
•
Co -
•
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: 'Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: October 16, 1979 '
PROJECT: Sutton First • •
•
APPLICANT: Michael N. Sutton
REQUEST: Preliminary plat for 6 lots on 4.7 acres zoned R1-22 -
• LOCATION: 7012 Baker Road
-
BACKGROUND
t.
The property was zoned R1-22 in 1969 with the adoption of ORD 135. The
• area is depicted on the Guide Plan as low density residential.
, ....,;i:_.... . _s.:
11-51.,a1 ii at eis e.:
• game \.'•` \,• �`� �� "�`
Holly Road •r�J -
1 aviana Cardinal a ��� 'f ; t
Ibsen ; _' '' Creek Ph J
== \ - a.f -.
r �it w .•��1-1 ,R 2 `. C ` -*.-- :.' _r i \,-,..\\WA __
Afillillf
JflTi701- Do - __
•
,t,-%\: .,.,.7 ! .- /' y ITF 1_.10 6 Vp
F '
•j ,4
q` 'j‘GE '-ice d j 4\
14 - opview tflift.
4\ . '
EXISTING SITE CHARACTER
The site rises from Raker Road at the east side to the high point at the
• west side. •
Trees occur along the Southwest corner and the western edge. The remainder
of the site is an alfalfa field.
An existing home and detached garage is located on lot 4. The detached garage
appears very near or on the property's southern boundar. (see Figure 1)
• . 3511
•
Staff Report-Sutton First -2- Oct 16, 1979
ORDINANCE REQUIREIENTS
Minimum lot size 22,000 sq. ft. Setbacks
" lot deoth 180 ft. Front 30 ft.
" lot width 100 ft. • Sides 15:30 ft.
rear 25 ft.
The 6 lots proposed meet the.lot size requirement. Lot 2, and lots 4 & 5
(on cul-de-sac) do not meet the minimum frontage of 100 feet. Lots 1, 3
& 6 do not meet minimum depth of 180 feet. The garage existing on lot 4
does not meet the sideyard setback of 15 feet.
SITE PLAN
Homes placed on lots 1-3 will be placed upon a side hill and will require
swales around the sides to effectively carry run-off from the high point
west of the homes around the homes to the storm sewer proposed in Theresa
. Place (extended).
Homes placed on lots 5 & 6 will require fill to achieve positive drainage
from the front yards to the street.
UTILITIES
The utility schematic submitted by the developer depicts sewer and
water service for all the lots. The house existing on lot 4 is
approximately 5 feet lower than the cul-de-sac elevation. When the
need arises for lot 4 to connect to municipal services,an ejector
system, or some other system, will be necessary. The proponent should
review the utility and grading in detail with the City Engineering
Department prior to final plat submission.
•
TRANSPORTATION
Presently Theresa Place is a cul-de-sac approximately 600 feet in length.
The request is to extend the cul-de-sac another 300 feet looping it back
towards Baker Road, but stooping short 250 feet. This cul-de-sac, in
excess of 500 feet, is preferred to the alternative of looning it back to
Baker. as the County desires to minimize the number of access points on
Baker.
Theresa Place extended is depicted with a 50' ROM. Existing Theresa
Place has a 60' ROW. In order to achieve consistent road and utility easement
right-of-ways, the new portion of Theresa Place should be increased to 60 feet
of right-of-way.
CASH PARK FEE
Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 will be required to pay the cash nark fee at time of
building permit application. 3 g
•
•
I
. ' . - • ' •
•
.
•
L — .ram✓�..—. ..A.hAa° 1 f a /
1.
J/.,*-rem \sc' \.,it:,-r,, / .0. .( i
fi, .,, 7 i i \ /
I •
1 • of % � {C' . � ��- �1
' , I c-
I
t
) I I " 1, T-'
•
y i �!. i • \
71'
(la X X. e pC
....a. gggg
It o Z i•• 1R$^�4 * , phi` e
0 9Ai SisplAIIY..:Z —II ''' Ite 1 •tr
tlt
y ; a
'.- t .•
Y '
FIGURE 1 3511
•
foal
•
Staff Report-Sutton First -3- Oct. 16, 1979
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the plat based upon the
Findings and Conclusions and contingent upon the following:
1. That the plat be reviewed and approved by the Engi-
neering Department prior to final approval.
2. That Theresa Place ROW be increased to 60 feet, 28'
surface.
3. That lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and6 be subject to cash park
fee payment.
JJ/jo
3530
Cto et Yy
4J.�a.�t .►�ta .c tel a.Q au.dac . v �i�r d,;„„r, ,
a,;,el ik, r,,,t 7', ,Peucela++ "
, — VA`'"d Y.�ttt~t
Q ���/ ¢1? . .4,ta
.an ►
Elea, t,. ; li - ��S.c .�.�we s•. No.1 £1 o&it�..:/
��uptit weft tte exitsLA .Aa 4L ..�'ac c✓
•
&,.41 N.w. (AALAI .2+,vBy..14.9. No P. ..ifa.Apvti
,„zt .le Ao-oit ,Zeo a
,v.. , Or .
f J P. t .
( �. .�► a.. o1.dtd iO .' .�e g t�sc��,
�td,�.ac A-6. O�x T .
-tA4 .. ? ... - .wa•,�lJ.�u.�c .�Ta
✓u��
No. a ,,4,ra4 ��a
TAJAA,u, ..4?
- c..f.&„fax s 'f
No.G t.J era/ t axe JLt n. • -4 g 0.1 .t N.
�.o ch-th..el?
w;,PI /4.ide gu
353I
, .
. .
-,
tr-17'
l•
..4. / .
e 1 04A
i=
-i
v ibf g
o •4
't
•4
--I- ,
2Z.7"°°°.1...........................---'-‘
-7--
o
..,./
— .• ,•
• ...1.......! 4,,
, CaeN,
-h•
1/4 A I. ‘
N "
'1,
' "•'s. •
ft....NI) \
4?.....„. er.......
_
„ \ v,
'•• .2—
• S o
-4. F
0
•
— S>. . :
‘
4 -2 t,
... ...
....- .... - 3
- .. -s
- \ I . _ V.. '1 1
-:, . 1 0 ., -•,.
1 tC. 0
-. .
A ' e• \ . tit ,
.1.• "..--.....................„
c.‘ •. • f
..,
i
rb
6 i (.. .
3 • ... 7 +r-
e* ... _. ... ':;‘•••C
...., .5
-11CL
; t'-
....Y.,1%.. 4.<
41 _Sfal o t..
... ....
:Jr %...t
•J A.
NIS
35E2. 4....
.
- -::-:
.. ...
•
•
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ""
320 Washington Av. South = -
{1
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
HENNEPIN
935-3381
_IL
October 25, 1979
•
Mr Chris Enger
Planning Director
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Read
Eden Prairie MN 55344
Dear Mr Enger
RE Drainage for Sutton First Addition Proposal
After reviewing the developer's proposed grading plan, it appears
a ponding area is included to hold storm water. If this ponding •
area is not sufficient and Eden Prairie needs to install a closed
storm sewer system, Hennepin County will cost participate based on
the ratio of contributing flow. This follows our past cost parti-
cipation in similar situations. •
Direct any responses or questions to Jim Ault, Hydraulics Engineer.
Sincerely
•
/cTi,t.James M Wold, PE
Chief, Planning and Programming
JMW/LDW:bg
cc: Jim Ault
HENNEPIN COUNTY
3513 on equal opportunity employer
19 October 1979
6935 Mariann Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST BY MICHAEL SUTTON TO PRELIMINARY
PLAT 6 LOTS ON 4.7 ACRES ZONED R1-22 FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
TO: Eden Prairie Manning Commission
At least part of the proposed site for new homes may be subject to serious
water-drainage problems. On one occasion in the last ten years I personnally
observed that a good share of this site was inundated with water from melting
snow. (Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact year.) The area covered
by this "pond" extended from Baker Road to a point well west of the road.
There appears to be a natural sink in this area which is near the base of
a slope that descends in an easterly direction. The accumulation of water
undoubtedly resulted from the surface runoff and perhaps subsurface drainage
as well.
•
I suggest that the site developer be required to provide some form of
binding assurance that homes constructed in this area will not be subjected
to inordinate water damage in their basements. The opinion of an experienced
hydrologist might prove.most beneficial in this matter.
My interest in this matter is based on my observations of a home (in Forest
Hills) located a short distance north of the site under discussion. The
Forest Hills home is also at the base of a natural sink. Sussessive owners
of this home have implemented a series of costly measures (landscape modifi-
cations, tiling, etc.) in efforts to control their water problems. Certainly
there must be sons:_, precautions which the Planning Commission can take to
avoid recurrence of this type of situation.
After the new homes at the site are occupied, I will, of course, be obligated
to give a copy of this letter to the new owners. •
I regret that I cannot attend the October 22nd Planning Commission Meeting.
Ply job requires out-of-town travel from October 22 through the 25th.
Y irs truly,
hn D(B�ckmann .
l
•
3 {
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A"``^,
320 Washington Av. South •'
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
HENNEPIN
935-3381
October 17, 1979
Mr Chris Enger
Planning Director •
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie MN 55344
Dear Mr Enger 1
RE Proposed Plat - "Sutton First Addition"
CSAH 60 - 230 ft S Theresa Place
Section 10, Township 116, Range 22
Hennepin County Plat No 779
Review and Recommendations
•
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require
County review of proposed plat abutting County roads. We reviewed
the above plat and found it acceptable with consideration of these
conditions:
- For future improvements to CSAH 60, the developer should dedicate 1
an additional 17 ft of right-of-way making the right-of-way 50 ft
from the center of CSAH 60.
- All new access to the plat must be via Theresa Place.
- If the existing garage on Lot 4 is replaced, access to Lot 4 must
also be via Theresa Place.
- All proposed construction within County right-of-way requires an
approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This
includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction,
trail development, and landscaping. See our Maintenance Division
for utility permit forms.
- The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction
within County right-of-way.
Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt.
incerely
James M. Wold, PE
•
Chief, Planning and Programming
JMW/LDW:bg HENNEPIN COUNTY
85 on equal opportunity employer
35
(
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved
Monday, October 22, 1979 7.30 PM City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Liz Retterath, George Bentley, Matthew Levitt, Hakon
Torjesen, Virginia Gartner
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman William Bearman, Oke Martinson
STAFF PRESENT: . Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Jeanie Ohnsorg, Planning Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALIEGIANCF ---- ROtt IA1I
approved I .
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 22,1979
•
D. SUTTON FIRST, by Michael Sutton. Request to preliminary plat 4
acres zo-nWR1-22 for 6 single family lots. Located west of Baker
Road and south of Theresa Place. A public.hearing. •
Orlyn Miller, representing Mr. Sutton, gave a brief presentation
of the proposed project explaining the present zoning, and the
zoning he is requesting. It has come to his attention that the
culvert in this site which he thought was an outlet is actually an
inlet and service a portion of the ditch along County Road 4 near
this site which brings water into the site. There is also a part
of this development which is utilized by some of the surrounding
areas for water collection, although it is not a swamp and is
basically dry land. He explained that he has a grading plan which
he feels will solve this problem.
•
•
36B1,9
•
aNNi uveu
Planning Commission Minutes -4— ' October 22, 1979
• Planner stated that the existing Theresa Place R.O.W. is 60'
Front yard setbacks are taken from the R.O.W. In order for the
set backs and utility placements to be consistent there should
have 60' R.O.W. This request came from the Engineering Department.
Bentley inquired about lot sizes in term.of depth. If Theresa
Place R.O.W. is widened then lot 6 will lose footage and cause
it to fall under 22,000 sq. ft.
Planner replied that the lot lines could be slightly adjusted to
make the lots 22,000 sq. ft.
Levitt inquired what the zoning of the surrounding areas was.
The Planner replied R1-22. On the basis of the plat itself the
project meets the character of the surroundina area .
Levitt inquired whether the 50' radius on the cul-de-sac was
in compliance with the standard cul-de-sac.
The Planner replied that is the standard size for a cul-de-sac.
Levitt required whether it would be possible to have the cul-
de-sac made larger.
The Planner replied that the City Engineering department felt that
this was as large as a cul-de-sac needed to be.
•
( Gartner reported that Don Peterson had some concern' about a path
that goes behind his home which the children use to get to school.
Mr. Miller replied that they could accommodate the pathway.
The Planner stated that this matter should probably be brought
up with the Park and Recreation staff.
•
Richard Jocobs,6995 Mariann Drive stated that he has property west
• of Sutton first addition which is currently unsewered. He stated
that at the time of review on the Don Peterson proposal the City
assured him that future opportunities for sewer access would come
from the land currently under consideration as Sutton First.
Orlyn Miller, site planner fo Mr. Sutton, replied that a sewer
easement between the western lots could be granted to allow
for future sewer access. •
MOTION: Gartner moved, Bentley seconded to close the public hearing -
on Sutton First. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Gartner moved, Bentley seconded to recommend to ihe City
Council approval of the preliminary plat - dated 8-20-79 per the
staff report of 10-16-79, subject to Park and Recreation looking
into the possibility of a pathway, Engineering reviewing the
sewer problems out lot and checking the drainage, particularly.
on lc' 4 and 5. Motion carried unanimously.
•
350 k .
I.( yC a
?den Prairie, Minnesota
Septemb,:r 17, 1979
To: Cr,:ee:view mate tea Developer
Larry Heinen
I ::m writing this lctt'r to you on the advice of Chris rner, City
Planner.
I have given considerable thought to your pro.'o'al
ror dmvSept10
on
) .ent
of Creekview states. I was at the City Pn nthe'a.utilitymeeting
on loop through my
ember 10,
1979. I was called on to give myopinion
property.
As you know, I have a very short fuse - so decided not to say any-
thing other than, quote: I will see Chris about that. We had our dis-
cussion on ,ednesday, September 12, at 4:00 p.m. J. Johnson, Assistant
City Planner sat in.
My personal feeling is that'I do not want that loop. That would add
an extra 160 f . n
t
m
ll
between $12.00t and f$15.00 atsa depth oof 6sft.• Water h Sewer
Sewer ydrantsare i cost
$650
each. Manholes are $600 each. The extra cost of the 160 ft.of road at
a t an estimatedwill$2,000dea hther will$add00. The loss of four cul-de-sac lots
another 38,000
I need Bennett Place only to my proposed road, which is approxi-
mately 250 ft. to the south edge. You need Bennett Place to Creekview
• Road. Due to the fact that the road will end there and serve only your
proposed development, I see no reason why I should agree to the road and
utility assessment beyond my need. This is an extra 140 ft.
The approximate added costa are:
Cul-de-sac Loss: ,800
Road Cost $4,000
Sewer Loop
Loss of Sale on Lots 8,000
Bennett Place extension past my need:
Cost of Utilities (1/2) $3,�
Cost of Road (1/2) 2+
Total added costs for your development $20,500
with these added costs, I will reject any development on my prop-
erty until something agreeable to me can be arranged.
art on an undevel-
oped will entertain an offer from you on ay property
owed per-lot basin.
Sincerely,
Michael N. Sutton
11341 Pioneer Trail
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
354
•
MEMORANDUM
( TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: November 1S? 197B
SUBJECT: Development Proposal Check List
PROJECT: Sutton First
PROPONENT: Michael Sutton-
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for 6 lots on 4.7 acres zoned R1-22
•
LOCATION: 7012 Baker Road
. BACKGROUND: See Planning Staff Report •
CHECKLIST:
1. Adjacent to parks? (Neighborhood, Community, Regional) No
Affect on park:
2. Adjacent to public waters? No
Affect on waters:
3. Adjacent to trails? 10' trail easement from southwest corner of plat north
. to southwest corner of Lot 1, then along property line between Lot 1 $ 2
Type of trails: (bike, multi-use, transportation, etc.) Pedestrian
Construction: (asphalt, concrete, wood chips, aglime) Grass
Width: 1O' Party Responsible for construction? N/A
Landownership: (dedicated, density tradeoff, etc.) Easement
Type of Development? (residential, commercial, industrial) Residential
( Where will CASH PARK FEE go? (what neighborhood) Edenvale east or Forest Hills
Need for a mini-park? No
35gi
-2-
( S. REFERENCE CHECK:
a. Major Center Area Study: N/A
b. Neighborhood Facilities Study: The area is served by Forest Hills School Park
c. Purgatory Creek Study: .N/A
d. Shoreland Management Ordinance: N/A
e. Floodplain Ordinance: N/A
f. Guide Plan: Low density residential
g. Other: •
6. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on proposed park property: N/A
7. CASH PARK FEE? Fee shall be paid on Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, E 6
8. Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or
against proposal:
•
9. Number of units in residential development?
6
Number of acres in the project? 4.7 acres
N/A
Special recreation space requirements: —
10. STAFF REC0141f:NDATIONS: Recommend approval as per Planning Staff Report with the
following addition: 4. Developer dedicate a 10' trail easement between Lots 1 t 2
and southerly along westerly borders of Lot 2 to southwest corner of Subdivision
to give through pedestrian access to Forest Hills School.
•
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Monday, November 19, 1979 7:30 P.M., City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Steve
Fifield, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell, George Tangen,
Larry VanMeter
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None
COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: . Robert Lambert, Director of Community Services;
Sandy Werts, Recreation Supervisor; Steve Calhoun,
. City Park Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: • Michael Sutton, Lance Norderhaus, Dick Dahl, E.P. News
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Anderson at 7:30 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Additions: VI.D. Valley View Road - Fifield
VII.B. Elm Wood - R. Anderson
MOTION: Dave Anderson moved, and Fifield seconded, to approve the agenda as
published and ammended. The motion passed unanimously.
III. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15,•1979
Changes: Page 2, para.2: "should seek engineering study proposals rather . . "
para.8: "Watershed District Engineer approved . . ."
MOTION: Tangen moved to approve the minutes as revised and VanMeter seconded.
The motion passed with Dave Anderson abstaining.
IV. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
None
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Reports of Commissioners
None
B. Reports of Staff
1. Development Proposals
•
a. Sutton First
Lambert noted that the only recreational issue was the proposed trail
•
•
Minutes--Parks, Recreation & unapproved November 19, 19>:.
Natural Resources Commission -2-
Tangen asked who would be responsible for the maintenence of this
trail.
Lambert described the proposed pedestrian trail as a grassy pathway;
it is not the intention of the City to develop it in any manner, with
a possible exception of boundary markers of some type. The actual
maintenence will be shared by adjoining property owners.
R. Anderson questioned whether the walking distance via the trail would
•actually be the shortest route to school and park for the pedestrians.
After studying the map he was satisfied that it is. He stated that
the trail must be clearly marked, so that it remains trail property.
Tangen stated that this type of agreement must be spelled out in the
•
• developer's agreement.
Kruell questioned whether the developer intends to maintain the existing
home on lot 4, or if he plans to replace it.
Sutton indicated that the home will be maintained at this time, but
he ultimately hopes to build a new home on the lot. He asked the
Commission if he could expect a reduction in the Cash Park Fee if he
were to dedicate the trail property.
•
Kruell explained the position of the Commission regarding land donations
as per the ordinance, and he should not expect a reduction in fees.
( •
Tangen answered Sutton's concerns about meeting frontage requirements,
explaining that by using an easement rather than dedication, the lot
size does not change.
MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend to the Council approval of Sutton
First development proposal per the staff recommendation in the memorandum
of November 15, 1979, including a ten foot trail provision between lots
1 and 2, either by dedication (with the City being responsible for
trail maintenence), or by easement (with the adjacent homeowners
sharing responsibility for maintenence), and also to require that
the Cash Park Fee be applicable to all lots at the time the building
permit is issued. R. Anderson seconded the motion, which passed.
b. Valley Knolls 2nd
Lambert explained that the plat for this development proposal had been
approved several years ago, subject ito the upgrading of Duck Lake
Road. Since this has occurred, the landowners are ready to proceed.
He recommended, however, that the commission consider requiring a
walk or trail along both sides of the road.
Kruell agreed that an off-road trail will be needed, especially since
the Crosstown interchange will occur on Duck Lake Road. He questioned
whether a two-lane street with a 30 m.p.h. speed limit would be adequate
•
for traffic. He noted it certainly won't handle bike and pedestrian
traffic too, especially at rush hour peaks. He felt a 5 foot concrete
sidewalk would be inadequate.
Lambert explained that the five foot walk was intended for pedestrians,
a
( CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.79-217
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF SUTTON 1ST ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Sutton 1st Addition
dated ' August 20, 1979 , a copy of which is attached hereto and amended
as follows:
is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie
Zoning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein
approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of
19
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
John D. Frane, City Clerk
SEAL
•
_ T j
MEMO
{ T0: Human Rights and Services Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 21, 1979
•
RE: Year VI Program for Community Development Block Grant
•
As Commission members may recall, last year at this time, subsequent to citi-
zen, and Commissions input, the City Council adopted a general three year
Community Development and Housing.Assistance Plan and a one year action
plan for programming of Community Development Block Grant money coming
• to Eden Prairie from the Department of Housing and Urban Development through
Urban Hennepin County.
The three year goal adopted by the City was for participation in provision
of 166 low and moderate income elderly units.
The one year action plan for expenditure of 1978 funds recognized that there
was a need for completion of The Preserve neighborhood park, which was directly
beneficial to the low and moderate income families in the Windslope apart-
• ments. Therefore 512,500 was programmed for that purpose. Improvements at
the Senior Citizens Center were also identified as a need and $7,000 was
programmed for that purpose (being principally beneficial to the elderly).
The balance of the grant, approximately $45,000, was to be banked to be
.combined with the anticipated funds from 1979 and 1980 to be utilized to
leverage other available funding sources to provide the major'element of
the three year plan which was the provision of the 166 elderly housing
units.
Although 1980 is the sixth year block grants have been available, in 1978
H.U.D. required communities to adopt three year plans. Since our three
year plan was adopted in 1978, this year we are within the second year
of that three year plan.
The improvements at The Preserve and at the Senior Center that were pro-
grammed last year have been completed.
As part of the three year goal, the staff has been working very hard with
.developers to encourage elderly housing proposals. At this time we have one
. rezoning proposal for 45 units of elderly housing by Eagle Enterprises west
of Prairie Village Mall. We also have two other elderly projects which are
currently being formulated by developers at the same intersection. Although
we have discussed C.D.B.G. funding participation in these projects to help
offset the costs, the exact form and amount of participation in each pro-
ject, if necessary, has not been formulated.
The Planning Commission is currently conducting a Public Hearing for the
( purpose of gaining comments on how C.D.B.G. money should be utilized this
year.
The staff feels that Eden Prairie is proceeding well with goals adopted
last year and would recommend continuing this year again with the emphasis
on elderly housing. This of course can take the form of rehabilitation of
existing homes or participation in new structures or both.
•
Human Rights and
Service Commission -2- November 21, 1979
( Activities eligible for C.D.G.B. funding are limited to provision of eco-
nomic and housing opportunities for the benefit of low and moderate income
families, elderly people, handicapped and elimination of barriers to handi-
capped.
•
The Planning Commission has continued the Public Hearing from November 13
to November 26 at 7:30 in order to allow additional time for suggestions on •
the program.
The Commission may wish to recommend to the Council, continuation of the
1978 three year program for provision of 166 elderly units, utilizing this
years target funding of $72,000 in combination with $45,000 from 1978 as
• potential money for development incentive for provision of elderly units.
Any additions to the program would be welcome.
CE:jo
•
MEMO
TO: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: 'Roger Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
•
DATE: November 29, 1979
SUBJECT: Water Plant Expansion
I.C. 51-354
The City's water plant went into service in May, 1974, with an initial pro-
duction capacity of 4 million gallons per day. The projected ultimate cap-
acity of the plant is 18 MGD to be achievdd through staged expansion as
demand warrants. The plant is designed for softening, iron and manganese
removal',, flouridation and chlorination. Bypass piping was provided in the
initial plant design to divert raw water around the softening units for system
reliability in case of emergencies. Under extreme conditions, 2MGD of raw
water can be bypassed and blended with 4MGD of softened water prior to
filtration although this procedure is not recommended, except in emergencies.
because of adverse chemical reactions on the filters and within the distri-
bution systems. The deep wells supply raw water to the plant, each having
a capacity of 2MGD. The ground storage reservoir on Baker Road has a 2MG
capacity.
In December, 1974 there were 627 connections to the City's water system. In
December, 1978, the total was 2,515 and presently there are 3,260 connections.
Over the next several years it appears likely that new connections will be
added at the rate of 500-600 per year.
As shown on the attachment, the total gallons produced this year will be
534 million gallons or I.46 hiG per day on the average. However, during the
summer months of 1979, 1978 and 1977 the maximum day demand reached 4MG
and continued for 4-5 days. This is the maximum recommended operating
capacity of the plant. Until the plant capacity is expanded, it will prob-
ably be necessary to either bypass raw water or impose a sprinkling ban .
in order to meet these peak demand days.
A feasible expansion plan for the City's water plant would be the implementa-
tion of the State II improvements as described in the 1969 Black & Veatch
Consulting Engineer's report . The work would include the following:
4546
•
- 2 -
Water supply wells No. 4 & 5 392,000
and collector line
Water ;Plant site,work 17,000
Chemical &Filter building addition 495,000
Settling basins 544,000
Mechanical 89,000
Electrical & Instrumentation 251,000
10 MG storage reservoir 294,000
Lime sludge lagoon 94,000
Total estimated construction 2,176,000
Plus 10% contingencies 218,000
Subtotal 2,394,000
Plus 10% engineering 240,000
2,634,000
Plus inflation'factor of 20% 527,000
(Construction costs are Jan., 1979
prices per Black & Veatch) Bids
to be taken in latter 1980 3,161,000
Say 3,200,000
The City's financing plan for repayment of debt for trunk sewer and water
facilities, such as the proposed water plant expansion is based upon a
combination of special assessments (per acre rates and lateral benefit
rates), connection charges and user fees. Finance Director John Frane
is presently reviewing our sewer and water rate structure and will be
reporting to the Council in the near future on adjustments which will be
necessary.
At this point we would recomend that the Council receive this memo and
direct the staff to conduct interviews with 3-4 consulting engineering
companies and to report back to the Council within the next 6-8 weeks with
a recommendation for engineering services for this project.
CJJ:kh
•
s 7z IT
v c Pi, y .�
b
•
O O ✓ a• s• a by as ¢ r�7nyI
•
. T •...
.N+ (D a O• O r Y y
•
W A• W a N O N
b CI
pp
CO SO O 00 0 0 0 00 0 •, d
e
n •mS 0. n n as d n •
• d
.M N • • Y. • • • • •
•
•
Q W ✓ 01 - N W N a W 0 0 a
AP
0 (a
0 V . V V V Y Or02 Nac VN • g A C f 0 m A 0. O ...a Y
00 0 0 0
p 0 0 o
OO8 8 .8. p p 8 S 8 ppp OS NO S
•
1 db I II a bpaWa.1
a'
/ • A IA IA
• • • • 0 N N N • 1.11
✓ N ✓ Y ✓
W W CD V v Ia N N W a pVo 01 N• N
V .T Y a W O CO W Q CO d1 4N N •
N N V m Npp a W 411 V N W IA a
CS C1 O O S CI CI 0
S0 S0 0 0 •S O 8 8 8 O O' Of
a a a a a a a a a I a Al
• a w a a a a a a a a a
N N IA IA N N V. N V. N
v
IT 10 A V V V O
A N AI A O •O 01• lD
•p �p• > m a A g m 4Wi rail 4Wi1 m uWi
• S u pA r A fall p CI N 41 AA 01 N OpV• ✓
•
O O p S S S p O S O S S O V O O
A n a a a Ia Ia u a A a a
itw w a a a a a a a a a a
AIT la W W A a. a a a N IT ✓ N
a coO O IT W W 411 W In A W
• W• 4A m ••• N ••
A V V > 1.11
V W a V N m O0
. V
0 0 W lT r
•O O O 0 0 0 O O O O 0 O 0 1 V
0 o S S 0 S 0 S O 0 0 o OO S Q
a a . IV
w ao1 w m n as
tar n y a a
in IA
V. N • N • • . . • N' • N V.
V• IFO a W W m W
a O W at N1 •
•
WRj (Oyu A U06
N m v k' N 1.11
V ✓
V Oat lT •W Oo O SN Wp •S •SA •ppN Y
g Q O CI
O O O O O O O O O 4p
(`'rQJ S O O O
`� •" Q d W b a 6 W I a a a
on
� •� .pQ1 N N N
0 Q L. • N N •
N •
m
•
'5591_