Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/18/1979 .4h APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL _ TUESUAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COU14CIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel , Dean Edstrom, Dave Osterholt, Sidney Pauly and Paul Redpath COU14CIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ul stad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planning Director Chris Enger; Director of Community Services Bob Lambert; Finance Director John Frane; City Engineer Carl Jullie; and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary ' INVOCATION: City Manager Roger U1 stad PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS { The following items were moved to the Consent Calendar: VI . A. Request by Eaengate for a one-year extension to their developer' s agreement; VII. B. 2nd Reacinc_of Ordinance No. 79-29, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for Cardinal Creek Phase 2 b_y Western Construction Company and developer' s agreement;. VIII . F. 1. Proposal from Fox, McCue & Murphy to conduct 1979 Audit; and V111 . F. 2. Payment of Claims Nos. 5625 - 5749 & 5760. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve the agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. HINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 21 , 1979 Pg. 8, 4th para. , 3rd line, strike "would" and insert in lieu thereof "might" , and in the 4th line strike "then" and in the same line strike "the" and insert in 1 i eu thereof "some" . MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, August 21 , 1979, as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. III . C014SE14T CALENUAR A. Request to set a Public Hearing for Nemec Knolls for October 16, 1979 B. Request to set a Public Hearing for Shams Oak Industrial Park 3rd & 5th Adaition for October 16, 1979 C. Request to set a Public Hearing for Mile west Office Building for October 16, 1979 D. Request by Eden ate for a one-year extension to their developer's- agreement formerly item VI . A. E. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No 79-29, rezoning from Rural to R1-13. 5 for Cardinal CreekPhase ? by Western Construction Company- and deve o ` formerly item VII . B. Council Minutes - 2 - Tues. ,September 18, 1979 F. Proposal from Fox, McCue & Murphy to conduct the 1979 Audit (formerly item VIII . F. 1 , n G. Payment of Claims Nos. 5625 - 5749 & 5760 (formerly item VIII . F. 2) MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Penzel , to approve items A - G on the Consent Calenar. Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Penzel , Edstrom, Osterholt & Y. Pauly voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Schoenfelder PUD, request by G. P. Schoenfelder for Planned Unit Development 'P concept approval for 46.3 acres zoned Regional -Commercial and Rural for uses of Commercial , Office and multiple residential purposes. Resolution No. 79-129T Continued Public Hearing from July 17, 1979 City Manager Ulstad suggested the Council consider continuing this Public Hearing to the 2nd meeting in November as the proponent has not returned with additional information as requested. City Planner Enger explained he had a conversation with Dick Knutson, McCombs- Knutson, representing the proponent last Friday and he assured Mr. Enger they would be forwarding a letter requesting a continuation for 60 days, which as of this date has not been received. Prior to that discussion staff had no overtures toward a Planning Commission meetinq from them at all . Penzel stated based on the lengthy delay we have to assume they are going to revise their proposal rather substantially. From a procedural standpoint we would be in effect neglecting to have this matter reviewed by the Planning Commission and Penzel commented he doesn't believe we would be well advised to neglect the formal review process we have required. Osterholt asked if the proponent was advised it was the staff's recommendation to continue this matter. Enger replied it was more in the form of that was what their request was going to be. Staff instructed that the request be in a letter form and the Council could either take action on that request or take some other action. Staff did not advise the proponent there would be a staff recommendation in favor of continuing this item for 60 days. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and deny Resolution No. 79-129, the Schoenfelder PUD request for Planned Unit Development concept approval , and advise the proponent to reapply in the customary manner. Motion carried unanimously. B. Independent Millwork by Darkenwald Real Estate, request for PUD Concept approval of 8.3O acres for commercial and rezoning from Rural to Commercial for one lot. Located north of W. 7 th Street, south of the Presbyterian Church and Leona Road residential area , and east of Eden Prairie Auto Body Shop. (Resolution No. 79-138 - PUD, and Ordinance No. 79-27 - rezoning) Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 1979 Ulstad explained the proponent for the racquetball club has withdrawn at this point in time. However, Mr. Darkenwald or his representative would like to make a presentation before the Council for concept approval , including information as to the storni sewer measures that will be taken on the site. Council Minutes - 3 - Tues. ,September 18, 1979 B. Independent Millwork by Darkenwald Real Estate (continued) Bruce Knutson, architect for the proponent, outlined the request for PUD Concept approval of 8.30 acres, stating they feel the overall concept is valid and they would like to proceed with concept approval at this time. The proposal would include their own storm sewer system which Knutson detailed to the Council . Enger explained this is the identical planned unit development concept plan which the Council reviewed about eight weeks ago, and this plan was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission at the July 9th meeting and subsequently at the July 23rd meeting. At that time there was also a request for preliminary plat and rezoning of the racquetball parcel . Now those two requests have been 1 dropped. The recommendations regarding the PUD overall concept at the time the Planning Commission reviewed this before, were that the general commercial uses were in conformance with the Major Center Area plan and the comprehensive Guide Plan. The Planning Commission felt there was a pedestrian system which was illustrated connecting all of the uses and also a sidewalk along the north side of W. 78th Street, but that an additional sidewalk along one of the right-of-way boundaries of Titus Road would be an improvement to the pedestrian system. Enger further commented one thing the Planning Commission did mention about the motel site on the western side of the site, they felt a motel use would be a proper land use but the development plan as shown the Planning Commission did not feel was the best development method for that site. There is somewhat of a wooded knoll and there does appear to be room on the site to do something a little bit different, perhaps retaining some of the existing vegetation. The rest of the recommendations of the Planning Commission were really pertaining to more detailed information that would, be required prior to rezoning on the racquetball club site, and they recommended approval of the PUD with the exception that the motel on the western side of the property on that specific development plan not be approved although the land use would be proper. General discussion took place regarding the relocation of Titus Road and the three accesses into the project. Gil Darkenwald answered questions of Council members regarding the possibility of multiple uses for the property under consideration. Osterholt stated until we have some specifics on the development that is going in on the site he would not be in favor of approval . r MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to close the Public Hearing and deny Resolution No. 79-138, the request for PUD concept approval for Independent Millwork by Darkenwald Real Estate on 8.30 acres, and that the request for rezoning be withdrawn at the request of the proponent. Motion carried unanimously. C. Public Hearing for 1979 Special Assessment (Resolution No. 79-174, approving The 1979 special assessment rolls) f City Engineer Jullie spoke to the proposed assessment roll as outlined in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 79-174: 1. I. C. 51-315 - Utility and Street Improvements in Lake Trail Estates No questions asked. Council Minutes - 4 - Tues. ,September 18, 1979 C. Public Hearing for 1979 Special Assessments (continued) 2. I . C. 51-319 - Street Im rovements in Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition W. 74th Street Penzel referred to communication received from Frank Walz, legal counsel for Condor Corporation and Oak Grove properties, objecting to the proposed assessment as his clients do not believe that the street improvements benefit their property in any way. (Communication from Mr. Walz attached as part of minutes) . `. Osterholt requested that staff respond to the letter and show where the benefit is. Jullie responded the improvement abutts Condor's parcel and during his last conversation with the Condor people they indicated a desire to have driveway access to this road. Penzel added when the Condor proposal was before the Council some years ago it was always anticipated that their western most building would have access to W. 74th Street. Herliev Helle objected to the one year delay of construction which has "y resulted in additional holding costs of his property prior to sale. Jullie replied when the City got into the construction phase we did discover a problem of right-of-way and had to proceed to negotiate with the Condor property owners to acquire a strip. Therefore work did cease while negotiating the right-of-way and the project had to be delayed and the con- ^q tractor relieved from his completion deadline. However, in checking back through the Feasibility Report estimates are very close to actual costs. (Letter from Mr. Helle attached as part of minutes) Pauly asked if there was validity in Mr. Helle' s statement that the City didn't properly carry forth condemnation. Jullie replied the City negotiated rather than going through condemnation and came up with what was felt a very reasonable price. In fact, the same price Mr. Helle is marketing his property for. City Attorney Pauly commented on letter received from Mr. Walz and suggested the Council may not want to take any action on this matter until the October 2nd Council meeting, thus allowing Mr. Pauly and City Engineer Jullie to analyze the benefit charge ratio a little bit further and possibly present something more to the Council by way of support at that time. Council concurred to continue consideration of I. C. 51 -319 to the October 2nd Council meeting. 3. I.C. 51-321 - Utility and Street Improvement on Lotus View Drive No questions asked. 4. I. C. 51-329 - Utility and Street Improvements in Crosstown Industrial Park 1st and 2nd Addition Dick Anderson questioned why not a 17 year spread rather than a 5 year spread on assessments. Jullie responded it has been the City's policy when it is only one land owner or developer involved, that we go with a five year term. If there are multiple ownerships and not all petitioning, we then use the 17 year assessment. Ulstad further stated that was the policy recommended by the bond consultant. Council Minutes - 5 - Tues. ,September 18, 1979 C. Public Hearing for 1979 Special Assessments (continued) IL 5. I . C. 51-332 Sanitary Sewer Extension for Super Yalu headquarters site and adjacent ro erties No questions asked. 6. I . C. 51-334 - Drainage and Street Improvements on Singletree Lane Walter Ball explained he owns property to the south of Singletree Road and Standard Oil/Amoco isn't draining their surface water through the storm sewer, but are draining their surface water across Mr. Ball 's property. Mr. Ball feels Standard Oil/Amoco should put an underground pipe connecting to the storm sewer and requested that the hearing on this particular improvement project be continued until the situation is straightened out. Jullie replied the City has requested Standard Oil/Amoco to consider installing short lengths of storm sewer pipe, and` the last time Mr. Jullie talked to Amoco they assured him they would cooperate in finding a solution that would be satisfactory to everyone involved. Penzei requested that the City receive in writing Amoco's commitment to resolve the drainage problem. Redpath asked if the City could install the pipe and assess Amoco for same. Jullie replied the problem there is going in on private property; however, if Amoco would like the City to install the pipe and assess them { we could do that. Council continued consideration of this assessment to the October 2nd Council meeting, thus allowing staff time to pass on the City's concerns to Amoco. Suppl ernenta i s City Engineer Jullie spoke to the supplementals, explaining we are going through the assessment process on the diseased trees and up until the final time the assessments are certified to the County, we can delete from the list any site wherein the owners have either taken steps on their own or otherwise contracted to have them removed. Thus, these assessments could be cut back as property owners continue their own removal process. MOTION: Redpa th moved, seconded by Pauly, to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 79-174, approving the 1979 Special Assessments; however, continuing the Public Hearing with respect to items 2 and 6 to the October 2, 1979 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. D Overlook Place by Hustad Development Corporation & Zachman Homes , Inc. Request to rezone from Rural to acres an re imz nar at 26 lots for 13 duplexes. Located north of Co. Rd.I I and east of Yorkshire Point (Ordinance No. 79-3�F and Resolution No. 79-167) (' Edstrom explained on August 21st he stated, because he discovered the law firm ` of which he is associated with did some work for Hustad Development Corporation, that it would be best for him to abstain from voting, although the matters did i not relate to the question before the Council and he has not been involved with any ^ratters in the law firm dealing with Hustad. Since that time the conflict has been resolved by the removal of any Hustad business by his law firm. Considering that the conflict has now been removed, Edstrom stated he will now vote on matters in the future that Hustad may bring before the Council . Council Minutes - 6 Tues. ,September 18, 1979 z . D. Overlook Place by Hustad Development Corporation & Zachman Homes (continued) Dick Putnam, Hustad Development Corporation, introduced Jim Ostenson of Hustad Development Corporation, Rick Sathre of McCombs-Knutson Architects , Jim Zachman, President of Zachman Homes, and John Anderson of Zachman Homes . Putnam presented the proposal before the Council . Rick Sathre, McCombs-Knutson, s oke to the three changes on the site plan from the one originally submitted: 1� setback of units and parking on site, 2) pulling the driveways back to change the configuration, and 3) adding of a tot lot. Sathre stated the proponents are trying to create flexibility in the design. John Anderson, Zachman Homes, displayed illustrations on the design of the units proposed. y City Planner Enger spoke to the recommendation for approval to the City Council by the Planning Commission as outlined in the August 13th and August 27th minutes . Enger commented since the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal on August 27th the area labeled park on the northwestern side of the cul-de-sac has been added to the plan. m ' S Penzel called to the Council 's attention the communication received from Stewart Loper, 9506 Woodridge Circle, in opposition to the Overlook proposal by Hustad Development Corporation. (Attached as part of minutes) Osterholt stated he could not see the need for double units between two single family areas , and he doesn' t see anything unique about the site that wouldn' t lend itself to single family homes. Osterholt commented the proponents might not get as many units, but it certainly would be a desirable site for single family homes. Also Osterholt would like to see single family abutting single family. Osterholt questioned if the site is suitable for 1.3.5 single family lots. Enger replied in the affirmative. Putnam explained someplace in this rather large part of Eden Prairie they have been trying to provide for some uses other than single family. Putnam stated the proponents' intent here is to provide something a little bit different and a little bit less costly. Whether Hustad would be willing to come in with a plat similar to 61uff' s West 1st or 2nd Addition has not been considered at this point. Putnam commented they don't know of a better site suited for what is a multiple family type use. At this point they would not like to do single family; however, if they are forced to that is something they would have to consider. Director of Community Services Lambert stated the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission considered this proposal on September 17th for about 2 1/2 hours. There are some controversies with the park issue with the Creekwood neighbors. The Parks , Recreation & Natural Resources Commission recommended approval to the Council contingent on the Planning Staff Report of August 9th with the exception of number 7, and added that the developer dedicate the lot for the mini-park in lieu of the pathway down the hill . Lambert spoke to further recommendations of the Commission as outlined in minutes of September 17tt John Kelly, 9576 Yorkshire Lane, commented this is the first meeting the York- shire people have been notified of a public hearing on Overlook Place and they would like the Council to take this item and refer it back to the Parks , Council Minutes - 7 - Tues. ,September 18, 1979 x D. _Overlook Place by Hustad Development Corporation & Zachman Homes (continued) Recreation & Natural Resources Commission so they can become involved in the process. Mr. Kelly spoke in favor of a mini-park below the hill which could be used for some of the older children as well as the tot age, and suggested a contingency agreement be attached if Hustad does build double houses stating they would have to owner approved, owner owned, and owner occupied for a period of five years. This way there would not be any rental problems, the owner would have to live in the house -and the realtor could not purchase up the block after he has built it and rent it out to just anyone. Kelly commented the Yorkshire people have been unable to talk to Mr. Zachman about some of the concern- as they have always been referred to somebody else. The development of single owned homes would be beneficial to the Yorkshire people and Mr. Kelly stated they would be more comfortable with a development of that type. Penzel replied to the matter of notices stating the City mails out notices of public hearings based on the homestead records at the City Hall . The reason why many of the residents did not receive a notice when this was before the Planning Commission was because they had not registered their home. City Attorney Pauly responded to the suggestion that a provision be included in the agreement that units could not be rented out for a period of five years. Pauly commented that is a restriction that goes beyond the use of the property and he doesn't believe the City has that kind of authority to impose that kind of restriction on that property. Penzel suggested Mr. Kelly turn his additional concerns over to Mr. Enger and Mr. Jullie to address and take whatever action is possible. Osterholt suggested that the developer and City► Planner meet and address some of the concerns raised, and that a transition�i lot area, that would be somewhat less than 13,500 and somewhat more than 5,400 square feet, be considered as an alternate before the Planning Commission. Edstrom suggested the developer make an effort to contact the people in Creek- wood and Yorkshire that are affected and meet with them on an informational basis to respond to their concerns. Betsy Mueller, Yorkshire Point, asked if she could be informed more in advance of a meeting than at the last minute. Greg McCormick, 9449 Woodridge Drive in Creekwood, stated he felt the land known as Overlook would lend itself far better to single family dwellings. He feels it is more consistent with the larger lot sizes with the original guide plan, which prevailed in Eden Prairie when he moved here five years ago. i Torn Myers, 9539 Creekwood Drive, commented he would like consideration to be given to the 9 lots on Creek Knoll Road and requested that the Planning Commission also review those. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to continue the Public Hearing for Overlook Place to the November 6th Council meeting, and refer same back to the Planning Conunission and the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission for review of a single family type use and discussion of the lots along Creek Knoll Road as part of the overall concept, and instruct staff to renotify the affected neighborhoods of the Public Hearings. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 8 - Tues. ,September 18, 1979 E. Shady Oak Industrial Park 4th Addition by Richard W. Anderson. Request to rezone from I-5 to I-2, 13 acres and preliminary plat 2 industrial lots . Located north and across Shady Oak Road from Shady Oak Industrial Park 2nd. (Ordinance No. 79-33 and Resolution No. 79-168) Richard Anderson spoke to the proposal and answered questions of Council members. a City Planner Enger explained this proposal was reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting on August 13th and the Commission recommended approval to the City Council on a unanimous vote as outlined in minutes . MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 79-32, rezoning Shady Industrial Park 4th Addition from I-5 to I-2. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pauly moved, secondea by Osterholt, to adopt Resolution No. 79-168, ;approving the preliminary plat for Shady Oak Industrial Park, and direct Staff to draft a developer's agreement including the recommendations of the Commissions and Staff Report. Motion carried unanimously. F. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval in the amount of $1 ,500,000.00 for Eden Prairie Partners Res. No. 79-173 Jerry Knoben, Northland mortgage Company, summarized the application and answered questions of Council members. Penzel questioned why the proponents are proposing to place this as a mortgage rather than as bonds to be sold on the market. Knoben replied the interest rates are historically high and today to do this project with coventional financing the rates would be 10 3/4 to 11%. Penzel asked if it is not possible to place MIDB's on the public market rather than finding institutional lenders for same. Knoben replied the rate is the same, LL> so there is no advantage to do it either way. Penzel added it would be an advantage to public participation in the proceeds and he feels that is what the whole law was set up to provide. Penzel further questioned the present financial condition of Fabri-Tek. Mr. Mickelson, President of Fabri-Te K , replied generally Fabri-Tek has had some financial problems. They are all under renegotiation and they are optimistic this will be completed prior to the year end. They are in a fast improving mode at the present time. Scott Thorpe, architect for the project, spoke to the design of the buildings proposed. Edstrom recommended a change in Resolution No. 79-173, section 3.3, 4th line, by striking "reasonable" and inserting in lieu thereof "sole". Council concurred with this change. Mary Ingber, bond counsel , commiented historically up to '73 and '74 most revenue bonds were sold through underwriting houses. In 1973-74 they started using private placement and found going through the underwriting houses to be a more 1 expensive route than to have a private placement with one or two lending institutions . Malcolm Reid, one of the owners of the buildings , stated he investigated the public offering of these bonds and found out the project would not be financially feasible with that process. Reid commented the person who would be reaping the benefit would in this case be- the tenant because without doing this through the private offerinq of the bonds. the protect .lust isn`t. possible. , x i Council i+linutes - 9 - Tues. ,September 18, 1979 7 P. Request for MIDB's for Eden Prairie Partners (continued) Edstrom questioned why the project wouldn't be feasible through the public offering. Reid replied the additional cost of the public offering is such that it makes the project infeasible for the owner. Edstrom stated he has some concerns in view of the things that have been discussed, i .e. , the relatively uncertainly that the tenants will stay in this facility for a very long period of time in comparison to the 25 - 30 year period of the bonds. Penzel expressed concern regarding the lease/financial situation. Osterholt explained he has been on record opposed to the sale of MIDB's where the offerings are made privately and not through the public syndication of the bonds. Mr. Reid requested that consideration of this proposal be continued the October 2, 1979 Council meeting. 140TION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pauly, to continue consideration of Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for Eden Prairie Partners to the October 2, 1979 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. G. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval in the amount of 650,000.00 for Eden prairie Mini-Storage Res. No. 79-171 ;. David Erickson, Project Manager for Swedenborg Construction Company, described the six individual proposed buildings for Eden Prairie Mini-Storage. Edstrom questioned how long the lease terms will be on the individual components. Mr. William Dahl , Eden Prairie Mini-Storage, explained the units will be used mainly for manufacture representatives and basically with the history of other mini-storage units they will probably rent for a period of one year. Also people who are moving in and out of apartments can !went for 30, 60 or 90 days depending. Edstrom recommended a change in Resolution No. 79-171 , section 3.3 , 4th line, by striking "reasonable" and inserting in lieu thereof "sole". Council members concurred with this change. Osterholt asked for a definition of what "other" included in the estimated project cost. Mary Ingber, bond counsel , read from figures submitted in the application to the Commissioner of Securities. 1 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to close the Pubiic Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 79-171 , approving the request for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $650,000.00 for Eden Prairie Mini-Storage. No "ayes" ; Redpath, Osterholt, Edstrom, Pauly and Penzel voted "nay". Motion failed. H. Re guest for Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval in the amount of '3, 5,0 0. U for Anderson Lakes Limited Resolution No. 79-172 Dick Riley, President of Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Ekstrom, Inc. , whose firm is the underwriting firm involved in the financing of this transaction, introduced Mr. Sutherlin, President of one of the firms which will be one of the two major users of this facility. Mr. .rtothnrl i n rloc'r 4 hn.a ♦1... •• _ s_ _ . Tues. ,September 18, 1979 Council Minutes- N. Request for Hunici al Industrial Develo vent Bond approval in the amount of 3,375,000.00 for Anderson Lakes Limited Resolution No. 79-172 Continued Riley explained their firm is an underwriting firm and a mortgage placement firm. Discussed the placement of this financing with the company and determined that private placement was the appropriate way to do it for a number of reasons , the prime ones being, this is an office building type of facility, these are two privately held companies not publicly held like Fabri-Tek, and } they desire to have the debt placed privately because of that. Riley stated it is their judgement in the marketing of these bonds, based on other experiences with similar project% that this would be the best way and fastest way - which is important this time of the year as they are trying to get under construction as quickly as they can. It would take more time and more expense to do the public offering. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Nearing and adopt Resolution No. 79-172, granting Municipal Industrial Development Bond approval in the amount of $3,375,000.00 for Anderson Lakes Limited. Motion carried unanimously. V. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS No reports . VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request by Edengate for a one-year extension to their developer's agreement. This item was moved the Consent Calendar (item III. D. ) VII. URDINA14CES & RESOLUTIONS A. Ordinance No. 79-34, amending the Firearm's Ordinance (Ordinance No. 337) , revising hunting zones Osterholt suggested no changes be made this year, and when it is considered that it be done far before the hunting seasons. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue consideration of Ordinance No. 79-34 and instruct staff to bring the issue back the first part of next year in the form of a Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Osterholt asked how many permits are issued to people living within Eden Prairie and how many who live out of Eden Prairie. Ulstad replied about 70 permits were issued to people living in Eden Prairie, and about 150 - 160 to people living outside of. Eden Prairie. Council directed the Public Safety Department to try and enforce the trespassing laws. B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 79-29 rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for Cardinal Creek Phase 2 bX Western Construction Company and developer's agreement This item vas moved to the Consent Calendar (item III . E. ) Council Minutes - 11 - Tues. ,September 18, 1979 VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. Councilman Paul Redpath referred to letter from Michael Bosanko, member of the Metropolitan Parks & Open Space Commission, and updated the Council on Cable TV. B. Report of City Manager No report. C. Report of City Attorney 1. Ordinance regulating the moving of buildings into or within Eden Prairie Vern Skallerud., 7350 Green Ridge Drive, spoke to and presented a petition to the Council with approximately 500 signatures consisting of 24 pages (Page 1 of the petition is attached as part of minutes and complete petition is on file at City Hall ) . General discussion took place regarding the 75% written approval by owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building would be located. 15 Along with Mr. Skallerud the following spoke in support of the petition: Richard Fischer, 18830 Partridge Circle, Bev Cronk, 18895 Pheasant Circle, Jeff Hulting , 18825 Partridqe Circle, Karen Ellison, 18925 Pheasant Circle, Mr. Schroedermeier, 7130 Green Ridge Drive, and John Jansson, 19130 Homestead Circle. City Attorney Pauly explained Mrs. Cronk called him after the meeting of the Planning Commission and indicated that a number of persons in her neighborhood and others are quite interested in a provision in the ordinance which would require some kind of vote or total by surrounding residents . Pauly's response to her was if the Council felt this is a provision which you would like to incorporate in the ordinance, that he would advise the Council . Pauly stated he does have some concerns about a permit being issued on the basis of, in effect, a vote of residents and had some difficulty in defier- mining where the proper objective criteria would be in making that issue subject to that kind of approval . If it is the Council 's desire to go in that direction, Pauly asked that he have some time to research the problem and come back with an appropriate opinion. Pauly also spoke to the information received from other communities. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Osterholt, to refer the ordinance regulating the moving of buildings into or within Eden Prairie to the October 2nd Council meeting, and referring same to the City Attorney for consideration of the following changes: 1) fencing and safety on the site, 2) Planning Commission recortunendations with exception of 7 , 3) appeal process to the City Council , 4) notices to abutting property owners, 5) signs to be located on the property, 6) the viability of veto power by property owners , and that the City Attorney review factional information from adjoining communities. Motion carried unanimiously. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Edstrom, to continue the Council meeting past the 11 :30 PM scheduled adjournment time. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - /,Z - Tues. ,September 18, 1979 ty D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement/Round Lake Park (ballfields) Director of Community Services Lambert requested that this item be continued to :r the October 2nd Council meeting as the liability language has to be rechecked. Council concurred with Mr. Lambert's request. 7 2. Comprehensive Park Plan MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt the Comprehensive Park Plan. Motion carried unanimously. E. Report of City Engineer _a 1. Discussion on Crosstown extension Mayor Penzel referred to memo from Carl Jullie, City Engineer, and the upcoming meeting before the Hennepin County Board of Commissioner's on September 26th. Penzel asked for Council concurrence on statement he will make before the board at that time (item 3 in memo). Council members concurred with Mr. Penzel 's statement as outlined in memo dated September 14, 1979 as follows: "Put both projects (Crosstown Highway and Townline Road) back into the Capital Improvement Program without designating funding but indicating that construction would be dependent • upon Federal Aid Urban or interstate substitution monies". F. Report of Finance Director 1. Proposal from Fox McCue & Murphy to conduct 1979 Audit ' This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (item III. F. ) 2. Payment of Claims Nos. 5625 - 5749 & 5760 This item was moved to the Consent Calendar (item III . G. ) IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Liquor Store Lease Proposal by BarMil Search Corporation Larry Mikan, BarMil Search Corporation, appeared before the Council and presented the proposal for the City tolease property for a liquor store. Council felt the location proposed would be a logical location but the lease is too long and the price is not feasible. Council requested the proponents to come back with a more feasible proposal . X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to adjourn the meeting at 12:29 AM. Motion carried unanimously. �. x O' CONNOR !Sa HANNAN .SEP 18 w J.acoMNOM ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 000 If,cot W.TMOMAS 1010 ►ENNSYLVANIA AV C.N.W. J .,.WALTCwi TMOMAS A.KC.LLCR IS THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR, 10S TOWER WASMINOTON.O.G.20006 MICMACL [•MC Out R C 60 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET (RON)706-0700i w ICMAwD L.POST __. KCNNCTH a NC i,JR. wO/CRT J.CMwilTIAM so",JR. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOQTA 55402 PATRICIL J.eCOMMOR CM♦RL[f /. FACORE WILLIAM T.NAM MAN+ /RANK L2 : COWARO W. OROOKC JAMCS R.DOwS CT JOMN J. FLYMN ANDR[W J•fMEA (a 12)341-360Q M.ROdCRT MALPCR+. DOUDLA/ M.MCMILLAN Jose E.DI LLOM CHARLCS D.wCITC TELEX 2O-05016 TMOMA/ M.QUINN WILLIAM R.MC 0 M A NN MOWARO 0.FELON:N WALTCP C•PARKIN! TELECOPIER 012 341-3000(2s6) DAVID R.MCLINCOFF- KCNT [.RIC M[r OCLA.NCev W.DAVIa- JAM[S OTIS RCrCR RICMARD 0- MOROAN JOMM J.SOMMCRVILLC PMILIP R.MOCHSCRO- JAMCf A.RU■[N STCIN DNA P^SEO OC L.A CASTELLANA,6 DAVID 6URLINOAMC- TOUOLA V. VAK[RIGS• NAN-v /, /OWLCR DOYOLA3 M.CARNIVAL• J CRCMIA.J.KCAANCY MADPRIO 1,SPAIN MARTIN M.OERLINEPR• T[RCMCt P. ISOYL[+ TMOMA! w.lN[RAN 276-762� GRCOOA♦ A.KCARINS- MOM S. FOSTCII• JONN A,/U RT0 N,JR. /RI AN P. ►MC LAN.' MOR[RT A./RUNIO TELEX 23OOR VI E•• SUITE 1100 SECUPlITY LIFE BUILDING TMOMA/ R.JOLLr• FRCOCRICK W.MORRIS 1010 OLCNARM PLACC /ARRY J.CUTL[R- WILLIAM C.FLYNN MICMA[L J. CONLON- MAMDOLPM J.MAY CR OCNVCR.COL.ORADO 00202 DONALO S. AR/OUR. (303) 573-7737 PCTCw C.KS6691.1• CAROL N.►ARK. WILLIAM C•KCLLY(191/-1/70) JOf CPMR. PATTISON• 'e September 18, 1979 CMARL[s W. gARRISON- LOCAL COVN![L.. 00RDON K. OAYCR• P.JAVI[R FA/RCoAT• RO/CRT J.sTCCLC- CHRISTIMA. W.FLtPS- MICMACL C.VCVC- MARTNA 004ODY PATTCR/ON. JAMES N.NOLT- City Council DF""N'[L City of Eden Prairie JOHN N.NOLLOMAN'W• 8950 Eden Prairie Road •NOTMCM/Cw0F/.IMNCfoTA"a ` Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Re Notice of Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments - Street Improvements - Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition Gentlemen: We represent Condor Corporation and Oak Grove Properties. We have received the Notice of Public Hearing to consider the proposed assessments recited above. Please be advised that our clients object to the proposed assessment against Condor Corporation for the improvements to 74th Avenue, which we understand to be in the amount of $34, 955.62. Our clients do not believe that the street improvements benefit 4:heir property in any way. The entire benefit will be conferrVd upon the property lying north and west of 74t1i Avenue. Yours v truly, Frank J. TJalz FJW:emw 1 ro .. A TO: Eden Prairie City Council & Staff FROM: Herleiv Helle :Y tl RE : Proposed Assessment of 74th Street, Improvement Contract #51-319 According to figures given me in regard to the above improvements, there are at least two things which should be pointed out to the Council : 1. I had been given a credit of $10, 800 . 00 and Condor Cor- poration (Oak Grove Property) has been given a payment of $10 , 800 . 00 . 1 presume that this reflects the property donations made by each of us to the City for the right of way . This equal credit for property donation ignores the fact that I gave a 40 ' wide right. of way and Condor provided only 27 . Therefore, an adjustment should be made in that figure to provide an increase in credit for me. 2 . The project in this case was delayed from final comple- tion due to problems which the City had in obtaining necessary title to the southern half 'of 74th street. This delay was caused by a combination of Condor ' s unwillingness to convey property to the City and the City' s inability to properly carry forward condemnation proceedings. As nearly as I can tell from the figures provided, this has caused additional costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 , 000. 00. This delay was not due to uncontrolable factors such as weather, shortage of materials , etc . , but was rather caused by the conduct of some of the parties involved. Therefore, it seems that any benefit which accrued to me and my property accrued at the time the original project was proposed to be completed and I should not be further penalized by having to pay increased costs due to delays caused by other parties . I request that the Council take the above into consideration and make an equitable adjustment in the assessment. STEWART C. LOPER 9506 WO ODRIM-F CIRCLE EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 f ti September 14, 1979 Mayor Wolfgang Penzel 7236 Ticonderoga Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mayor Penzel : I understand that the proposed plan for the development of Overlook Place by Hustad Development Company and Zachman Homes will be heard by the Eden Prairie City Council on Sep- tember 18, 1979. I will be unable to attend that meeting, but I am concerned about some aspects of the proposed use and development of that property. My questions are as fol- lows . 1 . Does the proposed use fit within the "transitional" use designated by the Guide Plan for the development of Eden Prairie? I understand the term "transition" used in the context of land development to signify a "process of change" . Look- ing at the proposed Overlook Place development, it would seem that the transition should be from the more dense, low cost , single family dwellings of the Yorkshire Point area to the relatively less dense more moderately priced homes of the Creekwood area. It does not, to me , seem appropriate to make a transition between the single family dwellings in Yorkshire Point and the single family dwellings in Creekwood by inter- posing a development of multi-family or duplex dwellings . f' In addition, the development proposal as submitted to the Planning Commission provides for only one architectual style or plan for all of the structures on all of the lots in the plat. This , too, does not seem to me to be "transi- tional" , since both the existing developments , Yorkshire Point and Creekwood, have architectual diversity. I understand that the Planning Commission recommended that the developers consider additional architectual styles for use in the pro- posed area. I feel that in keeping with the Guide Plan, numerous architectual styles should be incorporated, and that if the Council decides to approve the use as proposed, that the developer be required to submit enough architectual plans to assure that similar plans will not be constructed next to each other. I feel that this must be a requirement of the proposed use and that all unit plans should be submitted. to the Planning Commission for approval prior to final appro- val of the use plan by the Council. Mayor Wolfgang Penzel September 14, 1979 Page Two 2. Have the developers provided adequate recreational ' areas for use of residents in the proposed development and adjacent areas? I understand that the proposed development area includes plans for a "tot lot" and also that land adjacent to the pond at the intersection of Highway 169 and Creek Knoll Road will be used as park area or left undeveloped. It appears to me, however, that neither of these areas is sufficient in terms of the needs of the people living north of County Road l and east of the junction of County Road l and U. S . 169 . Tot lots are fine for children of 5 or 6, but they are not of much use to children who are 9 and 10. Those children are playing softball, soccer, touch football, etc. , and really need and deserve an open field area in which to play. The area next to the creel: is not large enough for open field activity and it presents some dangers in terms of the pond. Other parks proposed for Eden Prairie are all situated on the other side of a busy thoroughfare with the attendant danger, to the safety of the youngsters. In my view, therefore, the proposal pending before the Council should not be approved without substantial modifica- tion to conform the proposal to the Guide Plan and to provide adequate recreational facilities for the citizens of the area. Respectfully submitted, Lee-- Stewart C. Loper SCL: slb r PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 1R , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the �� 4� City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 . relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirementsa G A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval ae securing the written approval of .at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building is to be ' located . t We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned NAvF STTE"ET ADrIRES =rtjF Z ,17 01 / 71i.5 -7 c IL ..__( z -� ------------ PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 1R , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirementst A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a. securing the written approval of at least . ' 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building is to be located . ? We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned , NAME STREET ADDRESS f cam- Ss 'e/ M SS l?' �C) �e O tis /' f" L to mor— VA Ile �f ­1_4 i aa'4 kt� � Q z ,;Illy PETITION presented to the !Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 18 , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the � Y City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176, relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirements, A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval as securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which 7 the building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned ' NAF? WESEET ADDRESS 01 411—' r; PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of t�. Widen Prairie. September 11 , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirements A. Public Hearing _ 1. Neighborhood approval a. securing 'Che written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned ►Ar.g STRFIFT Anr?ESS Liz�e� za Tie ;t ;�a '7,1, a �75 13 � cc n r c, cxlt C,c es.a. J tz-z'�Xe U r 6 PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 19 , 1979 1 We the home owners of 7-den Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirements t A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval K . a. securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building Is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not wove them in. Petition here undersigned ; z , ct-nn-f Le ay-) DLm Z-A AlAmi, &Zzi� P 1 /7 ,j Z At ,1 c 1 f P�'TITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 19 , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirements& i A . Public Hearing _ 1. Neighborhood approval a. securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 5,00 feet of land upon which the building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned 31 _ ••ANC S"EFT AnroEsg k r'/ (e c/6 ��� �ofer,4 wft-, CV, ` D 4 4 Alp � 2 r� /G' a G d , _ D lv d IK a PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September lfl . 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings * to contain the following requirements: ` A A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a. securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which 8r Vie building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities • not move them in. Petition here undersigned NAME STREET ADDRESS S _e 4:�� 37 . - , 6G I,- 1�3, 111 elf 9300 1 PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 18 , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176, relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirements a kr A. Public Searing 1. Neighborhood approval a, securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of" the owners of land within a radius of. 500 feet of land upon which the building i s , to be located . { We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned NA!r►E STREET ADDRESS . i S 41�Z SA ri b 11 L L L i t C_ I-e, E� ie4 e-,c.� 5 //ZZ-1- ezRe-L67 l ti' 5 ,� , 71 ► N I • PnE ITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of 'den Prairie. September IA- , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirements A . Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval as securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building Is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. 7 }� Petition here undersigned ,e A �, STREET©DPRESS ,A C'lf/Cf G!� ti, il Lw V - 01, t ' r /`2//O z-4-- 7� n c �. �`✓c . P � ^ `, 'ta r / ,�,.;,,,R ,j4 • PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 1R , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176, relating to the '. moving of buildings * to contain the following requirementsc rtt A. Public Hearing x 1. Neighborhood approval a. securing the written approval of .at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which- the building is to be' located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned 4 NA. 722 f S e t I )1 ✓ 4, r < Al I LIA- c-'el 1"la'd CLt--(,,tA ir , a /D -17270 r 1.. r �1- D 2 PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie, September la , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176, relating to the M ; moving of buildings , to contain the following requirementse A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval ae securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building 1s to be located . 'r We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities not move them in. Petition here undersigned N YE SIRE%-"r ADDRESS Lama 77 4 �-- La c� G 3 3 4 C ve e k tli e,.,., 1a,--r— £ 8a' Pr'TITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 1R� 2979 ° We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings, to contain the following requirements: A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a, securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500' feet of land upon which the building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage " our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned NA?4F STREET ADnRESS ` i --�� b �-- �;n etiLo/ 0 16762 CC PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September IR , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirements : A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a* securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building Is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned NAME STREET ADDRESS • <R'z- , �'" /c. c��.�- c9-�,,t �G SJ i� G �m--�-� •.�� ,C��S , �.•. - U �d 0 %ram-l�- cr�t,l 124 -T oil 1011 AA- f 7z 7 ACe4e IZ4 c� ��� PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September V3 , 1979 r . We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 1769 relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirements, A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a. securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - .not move them in. Petition here undersigned NAYS r ,1/ S T REE'T ADDRESS � C of —7 .�,�•-..t., .� �„—Y � � � f ����� ��,Y � ✓Vic..—�� � a 4 �,.�-'►'�--..--�''�,• 4 � .3" eta �- W CIL • OS ,,�..c.a,o �'t,�.,c�.C. r' PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September IR , 1979 { We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No . 176, relating to the moving of buildings, to contain the following requirements: A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a, securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to guild communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned NAME t d��` :' '--�. STREET ADDRESS Lee. F f I c.ire•t :1 l 7. 7 11 t C-G-z r Alt or •r /�� i- �/L , .t'_�..�'-r -" - .•�.�1.7 /"' Q.4.J: ,mot l '/ �L G PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September V3 , 19?9 We the home o eje'rs of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176, relating to the moving of buildingse to contain the following requirementsc .F . A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a, securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which rs the building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. r' Petition here undersigned NAME STRETr ADDRESS A f �' d �r ` 7 f PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie, September 1%3 , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 1760 relating_ to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirements: A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval ae securing the written approval of .at least a` 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building is to be' located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities not move them in. Petition here undersigned nr 7, NAYS STREET ADrRESS 44 Aa�, �J �Z �C � L tt 2 c1 c,i�ru D I'IE fiF r E c.b G6 r a ! 7% Rog el ell t q i/ 3 4-v �fz-S" fi. Pi-ErITICN presented to the Mayor and City Council members of ,}E Eden Prairie. September 18 , 1979 We the home owners of Tden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirementst A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval 4. a. securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which s . the '.Yullding is to be located. We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them tn. Petition here undersigned la l I ~ Ur 4 (S 0 Cie I r u�� /G IV , Le zs, z -""42L 4 nAA taw-- 6 e , PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie . September lg , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildingst to contain the following requirementst A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a, securing the written approval of .at least _. ?5 percent of the owners of land within - a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building to to be' located. We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage _ our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned ,b s NAME STRE=-T ADPR ESS MA J 6 Tar Ta •ry -r 9 _ f. F } PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 1$3 , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirementst , A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a* securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within ­ a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to 'build communities - not move them tn. Petition here undersigned STREET A'DrRM ,< 17 6 .53 E.P. 6 iso c dv- ),Aa cA-e-� C-,A- \�N-AAKM-*' laq 4WV 1 Ih2Zqd A ri - r PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 1R . 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176, relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirementsc A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a. securing the written approval of at least 75 percent -of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. k Petition here undersigned NAME STREE'P ArMESS cy I �► a p . � v PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie . September 18 , 1979 u We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings , to contain the following requirementst A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a* securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to -encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned NAME STREET ADr)RESS So `- , Q.. 12 87yo 414-4 '' �� �c�-LLT�•Ni e..t1 RV E. -26 Z, Z.2J 6 �g � .3 a PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 1R , 1979 We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176 , relating to the moving of buildings # to contain the following requirementsr A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a. securing the written approval of at least ,q 75 percent of the owners of land within a radius of 500 feet of land upon which the building Is to be located . We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned NMOE z STREET ADDRESS y G *� /fir-- r PETITION presented to the Mayor and City Council members of Eden Prairie. September 18 . 1979 ' We the home owners of Eden Prairie hereby request that the City Council revise City Ordinance No. 176, relating to the moving of buildingst to contain the following requirements: A. Public Hearing 1. Neighborhood approval a. securing the written approval of at least 75 percent of' the owners of land within a radius of, 500 feet of land upon which the building 1 s - to be located. We the home owners of Eden Prairie are trying to encourage our City to build communities - not move them in. Petition here undersigned NAME STREET ADDRESS 1 —(-(I a DfA n O 1. 4K-76 1 .,�kntak_kw Lo 43a C4.A_��!9: 3