City Council - 11/23/1976 i.
TUE`AjA , 140VENIBER 23, 1976 7 : 30 PM, CITY HALL
..OUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel `
t' Billy Bye
Joan Meyers
Tim Pierce
Sidney Pauly
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger U1 s tad
City Attorney Harlan Perbi x
Director of Community Services Marty Jessen
Planning Director Dick Putnam
Recording Secretary Joyce Provo
INVOCATION: Pastor James Barth, Immanuel Lutheran Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following 41tems were requested to be added to the agenda under the
"New Business" category:
A. Discussion of traffic circulation and parking at the facility at
north-east corner of Highway y5 and Baker and Mi tchel l Roads .
B. Receive two Outlots from Hustad Development Corporation. i
C. Review of the Windslope Project.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers , to approve the agenda as amended
and published. Motion carried unanimously .
II . MINUTES
a
A. Minutes of the Regularl_y Scheduled Council h"eetznq held Tuesday, October 26, 1976.
Pg . 3, 5th para. , lst line, after "to" insert "individually" . }
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the Council
meeting held Tuesday, October 26, 1976, as amended and published. Motion carried
unanimously.
B. Minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Council Meeting held Tuesday, November 2,
1976-
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the minutes of the Council
meeting held Tuesday, November 2, 19761 as published. Meyers , Pierce, Bye and
Penzel voted "aye" , Pauly "abstained". Motion carried.
C. Minutes of the Canvassing Board held Thursday, November 4, 1976.
MOTION: Meyers moved seconded b Bye , to approve the minutes of the Canvassing
Y Y Y PP
Board held Thursday, November 4, 1976. Meyers, Bye, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye",
Pierce "abstained". Motion carried.
(.1} L_IC IIF AR? It;GS
3
A. Fetz Construction, request to rezone approximately 112 acre from Rural to
Office for use as an office and warehouse. The site is located at 8555 Flyitir
Cl oud Dri ve 01 d Phoeni x Sta tion .
City Manager Ulstad explained that an affidavit is on file which calls for
this Public Hearinq, and the proponents are present to present their proposal
to the Counci 1,
Mr. Fetz stated that their request was turned down by the Planning Commission
but they had requested to appear before the Council to receive a decision
by the Counci 1 . Mr. Fetz and Tony Christenson, Fetz Construction, spoke to
their request and answered questions of Council members .
Pauly noted that one of the concerns of the Planning Commission was outside
storage, and questioned if there have been any changes in the proposal
regarding same.
Mr. Fetz stated that basically they do riot need any outside storage and
that everything could be stored inside. They plan on fencing the back area
with a 6 foot privacy fence. Also they do not need the use of two driveways ,
one would ale sufficient.
"Fenzel questioned what kind of screening would there be in addition to the
foot fence. Fetz replied they would put in some curbs and shrubs to the
ront and north side of the building.
Planner Putnam outlined the reasons why the Planning Commission and staff
recommended denial of the Fetz proposal . specifically because it is inconsistent
with the U.S. 169 11i n i -Sector Study and Ordinance No. 135.
HOT'LON: Eve roved, seconded by Meyers, to close the Public Hearing and deny
the request of Fetz Construction to rezone ,approximately 112 acre from Rural
to Office for use as an office and warehous as this request is
inconsistent with the U.S. 169 Mini-Sector Study and Ordinance No.
135. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Poolside Apartments, The Preserve, 84 unit apartment and double bungalow
7o_t.s located south of Anderson Lakes Parkway and northwest of Neill Lake
Road in The Preserve, request for PUD Development Stage, rezoning to RM 2. 5
and R(1 6. 5 and preliminary plat approval .
City Manager Ulstad explained that an affidavit is on file calling for this
Public Hearing and that the Planning Commission has heard the presentation.
Don F',ess , The Preserve, and Doug Moe, architect, spoke to the proposal
and outlined same with graphic illustrations and a site yodel . Following
their presentation, t;r. Hess and Mr. Moe answered questions of Council
members .
Planning Director Putnam outlined the proposal the Planning Commission
considered and specifically spoke to the Commission' s recommendations made
at their meeting held October 25, 1976, and to the Staff Report dated
October 19, 1976.
Larry Peterson, The Preserve, explained that the renter would receive one
underground parking space in the rate of the rent.
:f
b. Vuul s i de A.pa rtinents , The Preserve (continued)
Meyers noted that the Engineer' s report and Staff report indicates The Preserve P
has not presented a landscaping plan. Mr. Moe explained that the landscaping
budget will be in the vicinity of $20,000.00.
Penzel questioned the distance between the proposed apartment units and
Ni ghpoint lot lines. Mr. Hess replied approximately 450 feet.
Penzel questioned if The Preserve could see an opportunity for taking over the double
bungalow portion of the site. Mr. Peterson replied that they have not considered this
as The Preserve feels this type of development of double bungalow lots would
be very salable.
Meyers asked i f, because of the visibility of the park i nq lot, The Preserve
would consider planting a few trees in the parking lot itself to break up the
monotony. Mr. Moe replied they would certainly consider it, but as of right
now they have not really faced up to that particular question. Putnam added
that when the Planning Commission reviewed the modified plan the Commission
had in mind that there would be plantings similar to Homart 's where trees
were brought into the parking lot.
Meyers explained that because of the heighth of the parking lot that internal
lighting fixtures in the parking lot should have some restrictions on heighth and
intensity so adjacent property owners are not looking at lighting fixtures and expose(;
to illumination in their homes. Mr. Hess explained that shields can be provided.
Jim Mars, 10700 Lake Fall Drive, stated that as the project moves away from
\ the residential area he becomes less hesitate about the project. He is concerned
about the size as it is t+•:ice the size of the Ridgewood Condominiums. Also
questioned if there %-.ould be an assurance of a buffering zone.
John Crouch, legal counsel for Tom Bach who resides at 9051 Neill Lake Road,
spoke to his communication directed to the Council dated November 20, 1976.
(Communication attached as part of minutes) .
John Rettera th, 9011 Hi ghpoi nt Circle, questioned the price range from the
original concept.
Tom Bach, 9051 Neill Lake Road, stated that if this project is built it will
have a substantial impact 'on the single family detached residential area,
and requested that The Preserve build transitional type housing.
Meyers questioned the management guidelines. Mr. Hess replied that Landtech
is going to try and run a tight ship, but as yet Landtech has made no definite
coani tment.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Meyers , to close the Public Hearing and
adopt Resolution No. 1211 , approving the preliminary plat of Poolside Apartments .
Further to adopt reconriendations cited by the Planning Commission in their
minutes dated October 25,and that 4 double bungalow lots totalling a maximum
of 8 units be approved on the 1 . 6f acre site along Neill Lake Road subject to
C size and setback requirements as specified in Zoning Ordinance No . 135. Also
add the requirement that shielding of lights in the parking lot be provided as
visual screening for adjacent property owners) and that plantings of trees be
integrated in the parking lot and butter treatment between the double bungalow
lots and the apartment site be required. Motion carried unanimously. `
E . Pcr�lside Apartments , The Preserve (continued )
Although Pauly voted in favor of the aforementioned motion, she expressed
i reservations about the project mainly due to the size. However, she felt
caught in a corner as the City had made a previous commitment.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to approve the 1st Reading of
Ordinance No. 351 , rezoning the 6. 39 acre site to RM 2.5, and 1 .6± acre site
to RM 6. 5 for the construction of 84 apartment units and the maximum of 8 double i
bungalow units . Further direct the City Attorney to draft a rezoning
agreement before the 2nd reading, including recommendations of the Staff and N
Planning Commission, with th., stipulation that access to the underground parking
garage from the Anderson Lal- rarkway may be restricted in the future to right in -
right out; and the Planning fission review a completed landscaping plan and
ccmp'i eted internal site plan ?ore the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 351 .
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Vacation of drainage and uti 1 i ty easement over Lot 17, Block 1 , Duck Lake
Estates Resolution No. 1212)._
City Engineer Jul 1 i e spoke to his memo dated November 18, 1976, and
recommended adoption of Resolution No. 1212.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to adopt Resolution No. 1212, vacating
certain easements in Duck Lake Estates:. Further direct staff not to release
Resolution to Hennepin County until we have received documents which cover the
new easements. Motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Ord nance_No. _352,_ repealing_ Ordinance Nc 3,_whi_ch is the ordinance
lice.nsinq and renu_lating the sale of into i a liquor by certain clubs
within the Village of Eden Prairie.
MOTION: Meyers n;oved, seconded by Pi erce approve the 1st Reading of
Ordinance No. 352, repealing Ordinance No. .8, which is the ordinance
licensing and regulating the sale of intox-: :_:,ting liquor by certain
clubs within the Village of Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously.
V . RE_P_ORTS OF_ OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Re orts of Council members
1. Pauly spoke of the ,joint meeting held for the Planning Commission and
Parks , Recreation & Natural Resources Commission held Monday, 11/22/76,
specifically pertaining to Purgatory Creek . She explained this was a
preliminary meeting and there will be another meeting in January. y
The upshot of the meeting was to prioritize what segments of the Creek
should be looked at, funding, and to study the ramifications of private
ownership.
2. Meyers reported on the Board of Appeals & Adjustments meeting held
Thursday, November 18. As a result of the aforementioned meeting, Meyers
made the following motion:
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to direct staff to draw up
some guidelines for the Inspection Department and Board of Appeals &
Adjustments on setback applications tor rural zoned residential
building parcels and under what conditions City initiated rezoning should be
recommended. Motion carried unaniinously. '
i.
i
a
P,, of Council rlEmbers (continued)
3. Penzel stated that it was his intent to meet with City Manager
Ulstad on Friday of this week, and if Council members have any concerns
to let him kno►v.
Penzel reported that he had been invited to attend a meeting
on Transcendental Meditation.
B. Report of City Manager
1
1. Report on Vo-Tech *Model dome
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Penzel , to receive and file report
dated November 15, 1976 on additional space for City offices. Motion
carried unanimously.
2. Suburban Public Health !`pursing Service*
City Manager Ulstad spoke to memo from Betty Johnson dated November 19
and to meeting held on November 17th by Hennepin County's Office of
Plannin.y and Development. As a result of the meeting, Mr. Ulstad
suggested at least at this point to continue with the services that
are being proposed by Subdrbar� Public Health Nursing Service. He explained that
there will be a Public Hearing held Tuesday, November 30, 7 :30 PM, at the Southdalc
Regional Library for the south suburban area.
Ulstad rurther explained that the Suburban Public Health Nursing
Service would like an idea of intent of suburbs at the present time.
It was the consensus of Councilman Pierce, Betty Johnson and Mr. Ulstad
to continue with the same type of services for 1977 as in 1976.
Penzel stated he would urge staff to recommend a choice between
Methodist Hospital or a Joint Pa;;ers Agreement rather than continuing
with the present plan as he feels the services we are receiving have
been minimal .
Meyers felt the draft County plan provides a lot of money for administration,
coordination, and dissemination and not for provision of services .
Pierce stated he was reassured this was not the
case , and from his exposure on the South Hennepin Human Services Council
it appears that for the dollars spent at this particular time we will
end up getting more services with SPHNS. Some
other arrangements in the future might be desirable.
MOT 1ON: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to continue a decision on
this matter until the December 7th meeting, and instruct staff to
investigate the dollar figures between our existing service and purchase
of services from Bloomington in the form of a Joint Powers Agreement.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. 1 � , �rt r ; f �'r �a��r�r�it Services
1 . Recei_�_c_ ;. r-: isa 1 on the Cedar Hills Golf & Ski area.
Director of Community Services Jessen explained that an appraisal has
been received for the Cedar Hills Golf & Ski facility in the amount of
$1 ,200,OOC for 300 acres , which includes improvements to the land
for golf and ski but excludes all equipment.
Jessen noted that the Parks , Recreation & Natural Resources Commission k
took no action on this proposal but requested further information. f
t
• z
No action necessary.
2. Recom^e^dction from the Parks , Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
on the N.e_tropolitan Parks , and Open Space 5- ear Capital Improvement x
Program.
Director of Community Services Jessen spoke to his memo dated
November 19, 1976 and action taken by the Parks , Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission at their meeting held Monday, November 22,
spec if ' a 1 ly noting that the Metropolitan Council - has included
Lake Ri ey in their program.
MOTION: tteyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to direct staff to draw y
up a resolution to be submitted to the Council on December 7 , and to
contact people around Lake Riley as to the disposition of this
proposal . notion carried unanimously.
3. K Receive ocher/Deaver appraisals .
Director of Community Services Jessen spoke to the action taken at
the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meeting held
(ionday, November 22, 1976, recommending to the Council that the City
enter into an option agreement for Kocher property at $4,600 per acre
assuming specials , and that an agreement be prepared with Deaver on
a Contract for Deed basis to be executed by December 31 , 1977 at
$3,000 per acre as presented.
MOTION': Pauly moved, seconded by Pierce, to direct staff to draw
up more specific proposals for the December 7th Council meeting and
attempt to secure a realistic figure on the Kucher property.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Recommendation of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
on the Raze p _9 erty.
Director of Community Services Jessen spoke to his memo dated November 19,
1976 to the Parks , Recreation & Natural Resources Commission on the
Raze property.
MOTIOrN: Meyers moved', seconded by Pauly, to direct staff to proceed
with securing an appraisal on the Raze property along with a "no
cost option" . Motion carried unanimously.
i
t;OT1:01';: i1k.yers moved , seconded by Pierce, to cr,ntiw_;c past 11 :0D P .M. Motion carriers
nanimously.
D. Report of Planning Director
1. Land Development Procedures: PUD Procedures, Zoning Procedures
and Platting Procedures.
D
Planning Director Putnam explained that the Planning Commission
has recommended approval of the PUD Development Procedures as
distributed to Council members.
City Attorney Perbix stated that the PUD Procedures would require
a Public Hearing. He further expressed his opinion that the
PUD Procedures should be incorporated into Ordinance No. 135 , and
the other procedures take the form of a resolution.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to request each
Councilperson to contact the City Manager with their particular i
concerns by the end of December, and that the Land Development
Procedures and Setback Variances as revised be brought back to the
Councilpthe 3rd meeting in January. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Setback Variances .
The Council received the report on Setback Variances from City Enoineer Jul l ie
dated October 19, 1976. Action on this item included. in the above motion. a
P
t E. Re Fort of Ci y Eliveer
1. Status report on Chanhassen' s request to connect to the Eden Prairie
Duck Lake-1 Trunk:_ 5e+�.,ei: ---_._._-- �_._.
City Manager Ulstad spoke to communication received from Fussell
Larson, Chanhassen ' s City Attorney, dated November 16, 1976 , offering
Eden Prairie $65, 000 for permission to connect to the Eden Prairie
Duck Lake-1 Trunk. Set-:er, said amount to be payable in equal annual
installments of $4,333.0D for a period of fifteen years without interest
on the unpaid principal balance, witn the first installment to be paid
DecemDber 10, 1976. Council members felt the figure totally unacceptable j
when it includes no interest on the unpaid balance.
Mr. Larson noted their other alternative would be condemnation of Eden
Prairie.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to instruct Mr. Larson to bring '
back to Chanhassen z.he Council 's offer of being agreeable to accept
$65,000 for trunk sewer payment for Chanhassen to connect to the Eden
Prairie Duck Lake-1 Trunk Sewer in equal annual installments for 15 years
with interest on the unpaid principal balance at 6%. Motion carried
unanimously_
' a
a
E. R(!,, ort cif City Engineer (continued)
2. Resolutions for cooperative agreements with the State of Minnesota
covering roadway construction, signal i zation and right-of-way dedication
for T. N. 169 improvements , I. C. 51-266.
The followingresolutions were passed with the stipulation that they r
- .
be withheld from the Highway Department until everything has been worked `
out to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
a. MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pierce, to adopt Resolution Ne.
1213, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute cooperative f
construction agreement No. 58346 with the State of Minnesota for
roadway construction on TH 169 from I-494 to 1/4 mile south of Schooner
Blvd. (Ring Road) . Motion carried unanimously .
b. NOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No .
1214, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute cooperative
agreement No. 57926 with the State of Minnesota for a traffic signal
installation on T. H. 169 at the northerly Eden Prairie Center entrance.
Notion carried unanimously.
i
c. MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No. 1215,
dedicating easements and right-of-way acquired by the City for T.H.
169 imprcvements, I . C. 51-265 for street and highway purposes. Motion
carried unanimously.
/ F. Pep ort of Finance Director
1 . Payment of Claims_Nos . 2981 - 3087.
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve Payment of
Clams Nos . 2981 - 3087. Roll Cali Vote: Pierce, Pauly, Meyers
and P nzel voted "aye" . Motion carried unanimously.
`r 2. Clerk ' s License List
MOTION: f Meyers moved, seconded Pierce, to approve the Clerk's License
List dated November 23, 1976. Motion carried unanimously.
Concerns were expressed by Council members regarding the licensing
of solicitors in Eden Prairie and a suggestion was made to include
an article in the "HAPPEN T NGS" pertaining to same .
VI . NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of traffic circulation and parking at the facility at
north a s t corner of High,.-.,ay �*5 and Baker and Mitchell Roads .
Meyers expressed her concern about cars parking on Baker and Mitchell Roads
and the driveway entrance into McDonald's. She feels the parki ng Jaci l iti es
are totally inadequate.
l
I
t A. Ui<< ,—. , ir, circul ti,-,n andpz�ri_ng at tic- lacili_,y at northeast
corner ��! f; 5 anu Ba{ er• and hkitcl�el f itoads.- continued)
�. City Engineer Jullie explained that McDonald's is going to be providing
f more parking north of the road for overflow parking and that the narrow
winding road will be 23 feet wide next spring_ Also the access to Highway
#5 will be revised. Jullie further stated that he would check: and see if
the road can be widened with gravel temporarily for the winter.
Meyers questioned if there would be "no parking" signs posted on Baker and
Mitchell Roads. Jullie replied if there is a problem "no
parking" signs will be posted.
r
B. Receive two Outlots from Hustad Development Corporation
MOTION: Pierce roved , seconded by Meyers, to accept deeds to Outlot A
in Prairie East 2nd Addition, and Outlot B in Prairie East. Motion carried
unanimously. •
C. Review of the Windslope Project.
Planner Put m brought the Council up-to-date on the Windslope project,
specificall,7speaking to the requested change by the developer and The
- Preserve from the original plan as to parking on Anderson Lakes Parkway
and Preserve Boulevard.
Putnam further explained that the people taking the project over will be
National Housing Management and their management plan will be brought
before the Council when it is completed- Heyers suggested that this
management plan be submitted to the Human. Rights Commission also.
V I I . ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Pierce moved, seconded by Pauly, to adjourn the meeting at 11 :35 PM.
Motion carried unanimously.
M
1
,
a
t
P
M
G RAY. PLANT, MOOTY 6[ A r.i L7E F
eLr o. eANTbee , rwvi) LAW OFFICES VDWrN c
.NPT w, •.AVCH•.1GCIr+CIH E[:) LI NU L rT S.AFAr♦:ON K
.JOHN W. Tw1EL A,
rNAN MLIN D. GwAf
r PAr.A IN. PLANT,JR. 30 JErrfa
0 ROANOrLE BUILDING NOEL w.v LL[w
JOHN W, MOOT• a w,II frOO•C
.. AN01R8ON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 OANIQL sa,'SNU LNAN
MOCITI fM•CHA EL
w GUNtirN:.H\I.
^Nnnr
PVS:4ELL ✓
. bL?,1JCTT TCLIEPMONE (1512) 339.9501 "#C"A
Wr G.SLLDFN
rACH PD AMQOPC•_r w,
CLINTON A SC1.I,r. rI, _
E I.WA4O J. G.ALL LHL N,Jri. �7Ef>M CN JA.9N OCR
r+Ci tlC RT L.►.CLLANO
JCrF p[r J.FETES
J.••EB 9. SI-Ow.c— November 20 , 1976
*'RCDLI
K RMARI
L.HRT R, -ENNEHAN WILLI-- L..KILLICM HIP'HAgb 14, FLI N'
KgigTEN G.NELSON
wtC"^LL P, SL)LI.-AN
JONN R, JAN
GL J05Er!H O.PTIS D. r'ORr•LU"D O ON t
PICNAPD A. BOV+re Ar.
C L12Ad W.NL7N W, Q qT pN
DRUCE D. OqL• .',i G
J OHN O•f'fC SHINE
C.ETEVEra WILSC'N
w.7000 ►+A AGART
JO,�N S. CROU=H
p wUN L. EOr5EN
CRAIG L.WOLL-0
C AVID T, pCN NETI
OF COUNSEL
ALr L. 6CRGERUO
� COWAIG J. CALLAI.AN,SR,
Eden Prairie City Council
Eden Prairie City Hall
8950 County Road 4
Eden Prairie , Minnesota 55343
O
Re : The Preserve ' s Request to Rezone
6 . 39 Acres from Rural to R . M. 2 . 5 for
Its Poolside Apartment Project and to
Rezone 1. 6 Acres from Rural to R.M.
6 . 5 for Its Double Bungalow Project
u. Dear Citv Council Members :
This firm represents Thomas Bach w-ho resides at 9051
Neill Lake Road , Eden Prairie, Minnesota , in the Highpoint
area.
The purpose of this letter is to set forth for your
consideration the arguments which lead to the conclusion that
The Preserve ' s above-captioned request for rezoning should be
denied by the City Council .
Ps you will recall , the City Council , at its meeting of
July 27 , 1976 , denied The Preserve ' s request to change its PUD
plan to permit the construction of an 84-'unit apartment building
on the Ridgewood Condominium site . The Preserve is now requesting
the subject rezoning so as to accommodate the construction on the
subject 6 . 39-acre site of substantially the same 84-unit apartment
building. Although the issues presented by the instant request
for rezoning are not identical to the .issues presented- by The
Prc.scrv-e ' s previous request to change_ its PUD plan for the Ridge- I
wood Condominium site, many of the issues are the same, and the
conclusion that The Preserve ' s request to change the PUD plan for
the Ridgewood Condominium site was inappropriate should obtain
equally to The Preserve ' s instant request for rezoning.
k
Eden Prairie City Council
Page Two a
November 20 , 1976
s
[S
The Staff Report in this matter prepared by Dick Putnam and
dated October 19 , 1976., among other things, states that the ori-
ginal Preserve DevelopL,;ent Concept for the subject site provided
for a range of from 8 to 18 dwelling units per acreland that the
subject Poolside Apartment project would fulfill The Preserve' s
commitment "to a variety of house typ*es and income levels respondent
to market demands in Eden Prairie" . Assuming, as a given , the fact j
that The Preserve has comfni tted itself to *the development of a
"variety of housing types and income levels" within Eden Prairie,
such a finding, of course, is not determinative of the question
of whetherAthe rezoning of the subject site to R.M. 2 . 5 to accommo-
date the contemplated 84-unit apartment building is appropriate
as being consistent with The Preserve ' s and the City Council ' s
corrond-Lment to the com•nunity , that all rezoning shall be consistent
with the Goal of developing harmonious relationships among land
uses and promoting stability of property values . 2 It is our position
( that , for the following reasons , the instant rezoning request
` . should be denied because it permits a development v:hich is not har-
monious v.ith an adjacent land use and is nct consistent with the
goal of promoting stability of property values .
1 It should be noted , however, that the City of Eden Prairie
Checklist for Reviewing Proposed Land Developments in this matter
dated October 19 , 1976 , stated that the original Preserve PUD
indicated that the subject site was planned for the development
of 7 to 15 dwelling units per acre.
2 Subd . 1 . 2 of Section 1 of the City' s Ordinance No, 135 provides,
in part , that " the zoning ordinance is adapted in order to achieve
the following objectives : . . . b) to foster a harmonious , convenient ,
workable relationship among land uses . c) to promote the stability of
existing land uses that conform with the Guide Plan and to protect
them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions. . j )
to protect and enhance real property values.
I
t
Eden Prairie City Council
Page Three
November 20 , 1976
' s
To the southeast the proposed 84-unit apartment building
site is separate3 from the Hidhpoint residential neighborhood only
by the 1 . 6-acre site which The Preserve proposes to be rezoned to
R.M. G . 5 to permit the development of three or four double bung.-zloi:-
buildings . The Preserve 's proposal for said 1 .6-acre site is an
apparent attempt to ameliorate the adverse irnpact of the proposed t
84-unit apartment building on the adjacent _9ighpoint single family
residential neighborhood . However, the creation of the double
bungalow site as a buffer zone is inadequate to protect the
Highpoint neighborhood from the harmful intrusion of the proposed I
apartrent *ildir.g and represents mere tokenism, rather- than thoughtful
land use planning and is not consistent with developing harmonious ;
relationships among land uses . Moreover , as acknowledged in para-
graph. A. S . of Dick Putnam' s Staff Report dated October 19 , 1976 , the
timing of the creation of the buffer " is somewhat undefined , but may
occur during 1977
a The fact that the proposed rezonin,4 to accornirno%ate the contem-
plated 84-unit apart-meat building is inappropriate, in that it fails
to provide for adeouate transitional land use of the lands I_vina,
between The Preserve Center an_a the I'zghnoi nt, single family residential.
neighborhood , is directly supported by the City Counc i 1 ' s determination ,
at its J-uly 27 , 1976 , meeting that The Preserve ' s proposal to revise
its PUD to perrr,it the construction of substantially the same 84-unit
apartment building on the Ridgewood Condominium site, which lies
immediately to the south of the subject 6 . 39-acre site , ,,as not
acceptable. Simplv stated , if the use of the Ridgewood Condominium �
site for an 84-unit apartment building was inappropriate , there f !
car, be no other conclusion than that the subject 6 . 39-acre site
is an inappropriate location for said apartment building , as well. 1
As the Minutes of the July 27 , 1976 , City Council meeting `
reflect , the Council concluded that a major factor in denying The
Preserve ' s plan to construct the 84-unit apartment building on the
Ridgewood Condominium site was that the proposal would not provide
for a gradual change from a Eingle family residential land use to I
a higher density land use, and that a single nionol.i Chic apartment built:-,,
ing was not harmonious with the adjacent Ilighpoint single fancily i
residential neighborhood . For example , the Minutes of the July 27 , '
1976 , City Council mecL-ing state that Counci lmember Pierce stated
that "his reason for being opposed to the Neill Lake Apartments
Project is that it is against the City ' s plan as far as the gradual
change from single family homes to higher density" , and Councilrnember `
Pauly stated that at the time of the approval of the original PUp h
"the Council felt that they were trying to create
9
Eden Prairie City Council
Page Four
November 20 , 1976
something that was sensitive and' acceptable to single family Y
residents . She does not feel one big apartment building is
sensitive to single family residents " . The Council ' s decision to
deny The Preserve ' s requested PUD change to permit the constr»ction
of the F4-unit apartment building on the Ridgewood Condominium
site was mandated by applicable decisional law, which also requires z
the Council to deny The Preserve 's instant request.
a
t
As the Supreme Court df Minnesota has stated :
4
That the construction of apartment buildings , however
attractively planned , is likely to affect adversely
surrounding residential dwellings is not only supported in
the record but to some extent is a matter of judicial
notice . The attitude of this court is reflected in State ex
rel . Twin City Bldg . & Investment Co . v . Houghton , 144 :Zinn .
T2,. 19 , 74 N.tv . 885 , 176 N .W. 159 , 162 , 8 R—LL. R.-585, and in
r State ex rel . Berry v. Hou-ghton , 164 Minn . 146, 149 , 204
N.W. 569 , 57U , 54 A.L. R. 1012, affirmed , 273 U. S. 671 , 47
S. Ct . 474 , 71 L. Ed . 832, where we said :
' [T) he construction of _ apartments or other like
buildings in- a territory of individual homes
depreciates very much the values in the whole
territory. '
The United States Supreme Court . cited the latter case
in Village of Euclid v . Ambler Realty Co. , 272 U. S. 365 , 47
S. Ct . T 12L. E-J.M, an3—went on to observe ( 272 U.S.
394 , 47 S . Ct . 120 , 71 L. Ed . 313 )
With particular reference to apartment
houses , it is pointed out that the development of
detached house sections is greatly retarded by the
coming of apartment houses , which has sometimes
resulted in destroying the entire section for private
house purposes ; that in such sections very often the
apartment house is a mere parasite , constructed in
order to take advantage of the open spaces and
attractive surroundings created by the residential
character of the district . . . . [T) he residential
character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a
place of detached residences are utterly destroyed .
i
3
Eden Prairie City Council
Page Five 4
November 20, 1976
Under these circumstances , apartment houses, which in a
different environment would be not only entirely
unobjectionable but highly desirable , come very near to
being nuisances . ' Filister v . City of Minneapolis , 270
Minn . 53, 133 N. W - 2U__M 5TR=Z_T_T?7-6 ) , cer . aen ' d
382 U. S. 14 , 86 S . Ct . 47 , 15 L. Ed . 2d 10.
In the Filister case , the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the
City of Minneaapolisr decision not to 'change a single-family
zoning ordinate so as to allow construction of apartments, even
though the site in dispute contained swampy areas that the Court
admitted might make its use for single-family homes economically
unfeasible for the developer .
The Minnesota Supreme Court , n tvestling v . City of St .
Louis Park , 284 Zvinn . 351 , 170 N.W. 2d—Mg ( 1969 , again expressed
ire awareness of the undesirability of juxtaposing rental
apartments and single family homes when the City of St . Louis
Park denied a developer the special permit needed to build an
apartment complex on a plat of partially swampy land which was
- not amenable to single-family development . !,here , the Court held
that the denial of the permit was legal and that the devaluation _
of property values for the surrounding hornes was a valid reason
for denying A .
Al though the proposed apartment project involved in
t,estl ing would not have increased the deni.sty on the' site , the
Court upheld the defendant City ' s decision , based upon its
decision in Filister v . City of I•,inneapolis , supra, saying :
"There , our decision turned on the adverse effect which the
proposed use would have on adjacent property . " Id , 170
N. W. 2d at 221 .
Instead of builOing apartment projects and single-family
homes in close proximity , modern planning techniques attempt to
create gradual transitions from rental to owner-occupied housing .
As a planner of a community, The Preserve has acknowledged that
the differences between apartment projects and single-family
neighborhood, make transition zones and buffers desirable .
1,
t
Eden Prairie City Council
Page Six
November 20 , 1976
In the initial material The Preserve submitted to the City
Council in connection with its r. eauest for PUD plan approval , The
Preserve asserted that it shculd be granted the right to
construct a large PUD development because as a single-developer 3
it could "assure appropriate transition between differing land
uses through careful design of the total environment . " See PUD
Procedures , Book 1, p. 13. This was established as one of its
design objectives , :and a Design Committee was organized to
oversee development and to prevent the construction of "sectors
of barrack-like apartments . " See " Framework for Physical
Development#" p. 9.
Thus , as The Preserve itself recognizes , where higher density
is desirable, but single-family homes are located on adjacent
property, a transition type of housing such as clustered condominiums
should be used to separate the higher density uses from the single-
family homes, and the instant proposal to create a double bungalow
site as a buffer between the apartment site and the highpoint }}�
neighborhood is simply inadequate to create the required transitional I
land use.
In conclusion, the juxtaposition of an 84-unit apartment
building into a single-family neighborhood would unnecessarily
destroy the Highpoint single-family residential values . Good
land ise planning and concern for the public welfare of Eden
Prairie residents require that the City Council deny The Preserve' s 4
proposal to rezone the subject site to permit the construction of
the 84-unit apartment building adjacent to the Highpoint single-
family neighborhood.
Very ?truly yours .-
,,,,_.John,.John S _ Crouch
JSC :c fk
cc: Mr. Thomas G, Bach
f