City Council - 02/07/1978 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
'APPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1978 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel , Billy Bye, Joan Meyers,
Dave Osterholt and Sidney Pauly
COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney
Ross Thorfinnson; Planner Chris Enger; a
• City Engineer Carl Jullie; Director of
Community Services Bob Lambert; and Joyce
Provo, Recording Secretary
INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
4 The following items were requested to be added under the "Reports
of Council Members" category:
A. Discussion on Chemical Waste meetings scheduled for February 13
and February 20, 1978. (See item VIII. A.2)
B. Award banquet to present plaques and certificates to past
commission/board members. (See item VIII . A.3)
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the agenda as amended
and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approve plans and specifications and order advertisement for bids
for Country Vista improvements, I .C. 51-311, and for Nygren Estates
improvements, I .C. 51-316 Resolution No. 78-26
B. Final plat for Maple Leaf Acres 3rd Addition (Resolution No. 78-31 )
C. Set March 7, 1978 as the Public Hearing date for COR investment,
request for rezoning from Planned Study to Community Commercial and
RM 6.5 and preliminary plat approval of 4 commercial lots and +
approximately 23 duplex lots.
D. Final plat approval for High Point 4th Addition (Resolution No. 78-20)
E. Final plat approval for Garrison Forest 2nd Addition (Resolution
No. 78-28 4
F. Registered Land Survey for division of Lots 2 and 3, High Point
3rd Addition
i
Council Minutes - 2 - Tues. , February 7, 1978
II . CONSENT CALENDAR (continued)
G. Clerk' s License List dated February 7, 1978
H. Payment of Claims Nos . 8569 - 8370
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve items A - H on the
Consent Calendar. Roll Call Vote: Bye, Meyers, Osterholt, Pauly and
Penzel voted "aye" . Motion carried unanimously.
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 3,
1978
Pg. 1, item II, in the motion change to read "Osterholt moved,
seconded by Meyers" .
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the minutes
of the Council meeting held January 3, 1978, as amended and published.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 10,
1978
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve the minutes
of the Special Council meeting held January 10, 1978, as published.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 17,
1978
Pg. 3, 3rd para. , 3rd line, strike "which".
Pg. 4, 3rd para. , change Bye's vote from "aye" to "nay" .
Pg. 5, 9th para. , strike "Meyers" and insert "Pauly" .
Pg. 8, 8th para. , 3rd line, after "good" insert "job" .
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of
the Council meeting held January 17, 1978, as amended and published.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 31 , 1978
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve the Special
Council meeting minutes of January 31 , 1978, as published. Motion carried
unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Edengate by Gerald B. Pautz & Pautz-Franklin Realty Company. Request
for PUD Development Plan approval , preliminary plat, and rezoning from
Rural to RM 6.5 for townhouses.
City Engineer Jullie spoke to his memo dated February 3, 1978, and answered
questions of Council members .
3 ��
Council Minutes - 3 - Tues . ,February 7, 1978
A. Edengate (continued)
Mayor Penzel requested that the memo from City *Engineer Jullie dated
February 3, 1978, and the communication from Brad Askland, Jerry Catt,
James Follese and Glenn: Keller dated February 6, 1978, be made part
of the record. (attached as part of minutes)
Howard Dahlgren, Dahlgren b Associates, responded to communication
from four residents and commented that these questions have all been asked
and answered before. Mr. Dahlgren explained the developer is willing to
accept almost five times the assessment, and the only other alternative the
developer would have is to go with the 198 units back to court and point
out what they have done to make this a reasonable proposal .
Osterholt questioned who the owner is of record of the access parcel
and if the proponent would be willing to acquire that parcel .
Dahlgren stated he did not know who owns the parcel , and he has not made
an attempt to buy it because they do not need it for the project.
Jerry Catt, 186C4 Duck Lake Trail , explained he picked up a letter from
the City Assessor's office from Edina Builders, stating that the parcel
was sold to Jerry Pautz, and that the parcel is under litigation by a
restraining order. Mr. Catt further stated he cannot understand how a
transaction can take place because there is a restraining order on the access
parcel .
Mr. Dorsey, legal counsel for the developer, stated that half the property
spoken to above is in the development, and half Mr. Pautz does not
own. Dorsey further commented that Mr. Pautz does not own the access
part of the parcel .
Osterholt explained that apparently some of the property that is proposed
for development is also involved in the restraining order. Dorsey responded
he is aware of no litigation regarding the development site.
Recess was called for the purpose of researching who owns the access parcel .
After the recess, Mr. Dorsey stated he has not seen the legal documents,
but talked to Mr. Pautz during the recess period and Pautz is purchasing
the 7.3 acres north of the creek, and the other is owned by either Mr. or
Mrs. Krahl . Dorsey further commented he would not know if the whole area
is covered by a temporary restraining order.
Jullie reported that the legal description in the documents presented
by Jerry Catt includes that part of parcel 4219, Section 6, lying
northerly of the Creek and that this portion was part of the Edengate
proposal .
Penzel questioned the proper action for the Council to take on this
matter. City Attorney Thorfinnson explained if the City would grant or deny
the proposal it would be done on faith when the developer comes in and says
he owns the property, he in fact owns the property.
Penzel further questioned if the City Council approves the proposal and finds
that the proponent does not own the roperty, where would it leave the CJ ty.
Thorfinnson responded the-City'Count�l could rescind approval of the project.
Robert Kennedy, 18360 Ginavale Lane, questioned if it were not possible that
the proponent did not own the property back in 1974. l-�
Council Minutes - 4 Tues. ,February 7, 1978
A. Edengate (continued) "
Thc►r•finnson replied the record indicates a contract for deed from the
the►, owners, Edina Builders. The q i ti ga ti on at the present time is between
the husband and wife, there is no ligitation as to the contract to
purchase. The only doubt that appears is which one, the husband or wife,
is Uoing to end up owning the property.
A
Brad Askland, 18219 Ginavale Lane, spoke to the petition against the
Edengate proposal which is signed by 106 residents in the development
area. He stated the plan as it stands is pretty shortsighted and
reiterated the objections expressed in letter dated February 6, 1978
(attached as part of minutes) .
Pauly explained that we all know this case was in court which was for a '
less desirable project with a greater density and rental units. The
neighborhood did have a rare opportunity to participate in that court
decision and had an opportunity to join with the City in the litigation,
and yet there was absolutely nothing coming from the residents as far as the
case was concerned, Pauly commented.
Mr. Askland explained he has only lived in the area for about a year and
that is why he did not participate.
Osterholt stated that a number of inquiries were made by residents but
they were advised it was not necessary that they participate.
Bob Kruell, member of the original Steering Committee, stated they were
asked if they would care to participate in the court proceedings by
retaining their own attorney. Prior to this project a peti'tion was passed
authorizing sewer, water and streets and in their opinion when this petition
was passed the Edengate project was dead. Kruell further stated they w re not
enthusiastic about spending money for an attorney and asked if they courd
participate on behalf of the City; however, they were not called upon to
testify.
Thorfinnson responded that Mr.Kruell did contact him and said he would
be available to testify. Mr. Thorfinnson at that time told Mr. Kruell
if the City was not successful in moving for denial , he would contact him;
however, the City was successful . -
Os terhoit commented the City Council is under certain restrictions because
of the court action that was taken. After looking at the entire development,
the City does have a substantial park area, a reduction in the number
of units, and a larger buffer.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers, to close the Public Hearinq
and adopt the is t Reading of Ordinance No. 77-37, rezoning 38 .2 acres for
Edengate by Gerald B. Pautz & Pa utz-Franklin Realty from Rural to RM 6.5
for 176 units as per plan dated January 17, 1978, with the 2nd Reading to
Ordinance No. 77-37 to be scheduled for the March 7, 1978 Council meeting.
Osterholt, Meyers, Pauly and Penzel voted "aye", Bye voted "nay". Motion
carried.
Council Minutes - 5 - Tues . ,February 7, 1978
A. Edengate (continued)
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to instruct the City Attorney
to draft a rezoning agreement to include: 1) encroachments in the flood—
plain be in conformance with requirements of the Watershed District,
2) if there is any additional land cost for right-of-way for access to the
site, the cost be borne by the developers, 3) cost of street lighting
be assumed by the developer, 4) no alternate access be given to the
site if we can't resolve the right-of-way acquisition, 5) developers
to construct and furnish common area amenities within each phase as unit
construction proceeds,with all common area facilities to be finished in I
final form at time of final phase building permit application, 6) trails
along west side of Dell Road to be same as Maple Leaf Acres 3rd,
7) staging to 4 years (44 units per year) , 8) Dell Road should be
constructed as per memo of February 3, 1978, 9) units to be of various earth
tone colors in natural wood siding with varied coordinating roof colors ,
10) cash park fee will be collected at building permit time, 11 ) 74.3 acres
density transfer land to be dedicated to the City, 12) landscaping,
buffering and lighting plans to be submitted to staff for review before
the 2nd Reading, 13) additional rear yard land be conveyed to adjacent
single family lots along Tartan Curve as desired by lot owners, 14) additional
guest parking be provided throughout site, 15) provide screened recreational
vehicle parking area for 10 - 15 vehicles or homeowners agree to restrict
outside parking, 16) plans to be approved by the Riley-Purgatory Creek
Watershed District before 2nd Reading and any additional requirements be
made part of the rezoning agreement, and 17) construction to begin withTn
18 months or property reverts back to Rural with concept use of single family
detached residential. Osterholt, Pauly, Meyers and Penzel voted "aye
Bye voted "nay" . Motion carried.
Dahlgren commented the proponent agrees to all conditions with the
exception of the cash park fee.
Bye stated his reason for voting no is because it is up to the Council to
consider the proposal made� and what we have adopted is what the City
wants and the developer does not agree to.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers, to adopt Resolution No.
77-134, approving the preliminary plat for Edengate by Gerald B. Pautz &
Pautz-Franklin Realty Company. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Nestlebrook by Mr. & Mrs. Lunzer. Request to rezone from Rural to RM 6.5
for 3 lots and to R1-13.5 for 6 lots; and preliminary plat approval
on the 5 acre site for the 6 single family lots and 3 duplex lots.
Mr. Adolf Tessness, representing Mr. & Mrs. Lunzer, spoke to the
proposal and answered questions of Council members.
City Planner Enger spoke to the action taken by the Planning Commission
on December 12, 1977, whereby the Planning Commission recommended
unanimous approval , to the communication from the Minnesota Department
of Transportation dated January 18, 1978, and to the Watershed District's
letter dated January 5, 1978. Enger also spoke to the concerns expressed
by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission at their meeting
held February 6, 1978.
Council Minutes - 6 - Tues. ,February 7, 1978
yy3
B. Nestlebrook by Mr. & Mrs. Lunzer (continued)
Loren Irvine, Vice President of Jarip Corporation, stated his
corporation has .no objection to this proposal .
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Osterholt, to close the Public Hearing
and give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 78-07, rezoning 6 single family
lots from Rural to R1-13.5 for the Nestlebrook project by Mr. & Mrs.
Lunzer. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to give a Ist Reading to
Ordinance No. 78-03, rezoning the 3 duplex lots from Rural to RM 6. 5
for the Nestlebrook project by Mr. & Mrs. Lunzer. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Osterholt, to direct the City Attorney
to draft a rezoning agreement for the Nestlebrook project as per Staff
recommendations on page 4 of report dated December 2, 1977, that the cash
park fee and park dedication be made part of the agreement, and that
construction begin within 24 months or the property reverts back to
Rural . Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No. 78-25,
approving the preliminary plat for Nestlebrook, contingent that rear
lot lines in block 2 be platted out of the floodplain. Motion carried
unanimously.
'SPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
o reports.
VI . APPOINTMENTS
A. Building Code Board of Appeals - Appointment of 1 member for a three
year term commencing March 1 , 1978
Osterholt placed the name of Bruce Brill into nomination.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Bye, that nominations be closed
and that a unanimous ballot be cast to reappoint Bruce Brill to-
the Building Code Board of Appeals for a three year term commencing
March 1 , 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Board of Appeals & Adjustments - Appointment of 1 -member for a three
year term commencing March 1 , 1973
Pauly. .placed the name of Richard Lynch into nomination.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, that nominations be closed
and that a unanimous ballot be cast to reappoint Richard Lynch to the
Board of Appeals & Adjustments for a three year commencing March 1 ,
1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Development Commission - Appointment of two members for three year terms
commencing March 1 , 1978
Penzel placed the names of Jerry Kingrey and Roy Terwilliger into
nomination.
�/DO
Council Minutes - 7 - Tues . ,February 7, 1978
C. Development Commission (continued)
of MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Bye, that nominations be closed
and that a unanimous ballot be cast'to appoint Jerry Kingrey and reappoint
Roy Terwilliger to the Development Commission for three year terms
commencing March 1 , 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Historical & Cultural Commission - Appointment of two members for three
year terms commencing March 1, 1978
Osterholt placed the name of Jeanette Harrington into nomination.
Penzel placed the name of Mary Upton into nomination.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Osterholt, that nominations be closed
and that a unanimous ballot be cast to appoint Jeanette Harrington and
Mary Upton to the Historical and Cultural Commission for three year terms
commencing March 1 , 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
x
E. Human Rights Commission - Appointment of two members for three year terms
w commencing March 1 , 1978
Osterholt placed the names of Pat Wakely and Lorraine Maenke into
nomination.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Bye, that nominations be closed
and that a unanimous ballot be cast to appoint Pat Wakely and reappoint
Lorraine Maenke to the Human Rights sitCommission for three year terms
commencing March 1 , 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
F. Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission - Appointment of two
members for three year terms commencing March 1 , 1978
Osterholt placed the names of Robert Johnson and Dave Anderson into
nomination.
Penzel placed the name of Jeanette Mika into nomination.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, that nominations be closed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Upton tabulation of ballots, the following two people received the highest
number of votes: Robert Johnson and Dave Anderson.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Bye, that a unanimous ballot be cast
to appoint Robert Johnson and Dave Anderson to the Parks, Recreation &
Natural Resources CommAssion for three year terms commencing March 1 , 1978.
Motion carried unanimously.
G. Planning Commission - Appointment of two members for three year terms
c0nmenci ng March 1 , 1978
Penzel placed the names of Norma Schee and Rod Sundstrom into nomination.
Ca
my placed the names of Mathew Levitt and Fred Baumann into nomination.
_ -
M
Council Minutes - 8 - Tues . ,February 7, 1978
G. Planning Commission (continued)
Upon tabulation of ballots, the following two people received the highest
number of votes: Rod Sundstrom and. Matthew Levitt.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Bye, that a unanimous ballot be
cast to reappoint Rod Sundstrom and appoint Mathew Levitt to the* Planning
Commission for three year terms commencing March I , - 1978. Motion carried
unanimously.
VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 77-33, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for
Garrison Forest 2nd Addition and rezoning agreement
MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve the 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 77-33, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for Garrison
Forest 2nd Addition . Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Bye, to approve the rezoning agreement
for Garrison Forest 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Bye, to continue the Council meeting past the
11 :30 PM scheduled adjournment time. Motion carried unanimously.
VIII .REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members_
1. Councilwoman Pauly reported on the #212 Task Force Lobby' Luncheon.
2. Mayor Penzel spoke to the upcoming meeting scheduled for February 20,
1978, to be conducted by the Advisory Committee on Chemical Waste,
and also the bus tour scheduled for Monday, February 13, 1978.
3. Mayor Penzel spoke to the Awards Banquet as a means for honoring
the people who have served on Board and Commission .
General discussior, took p ace as to tie place, time and who,other
than past commission or board members receiving awards, will be
invited to attend.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Pauly, to set March 28, 1978,
as the date to hold the Awards Banquet. Motion carried unanimously.
Time, place, and people to be invited to attend the banquet
to be discussed at the February 21, 1978 Council meeting.
B. Report of City Attorney
1. Discussion on Joint Zoning Board for the Metropolitan Airports
Commission
City Attorney Thorfinnson spoke to his memo dated February 6, 1978,
and answered questions of Council members.
�p�
Council Minutes - 9 - Tues. ,February 7, 1978
1. Discussion on Joint Zoning Board for the Metropolitan Airports
Commission continued
41 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Bye, that Staff pursue the
legal alternatives as to the Joint Zoning Board for the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and report back to the Council on February 21, 1978.
Motion carried unanimously_
City Attorney Thorfinnson also reported to the Council that the Krahl
case is being appealei to the Supreme Court and to the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District, and also spoke to the motion before the District
Court to dismiss the Dorenkemper case on the basis of failure to comply ,€
with the Statute of Limitation_
C. Report of City Manager
1. Receive and award bids for 2 Satellite Stations and an addition to the
main facility for the Fire Department
City Manager Ulstad requested that this item be continued to March 21,
1978.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to continua receiving and awarding
bids for 2 Satellite Stations and an addition to the main facility for
the Fire Department to the March 21, 1978 Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Discussion on Guide Plan
Council requested that the Commissions be allowed to review the
Guide Plan at their leisure and that the Council set a meeting
around the first meeting in March with the Staff and Consultant.
Council to decide on a specific date at the February 21st Council
meeting.
D. Report of Director of Community Services
1 . Consideration of. Bublitz appraisal
Director of Community Services Robert Lambert referred to memo dated
January 20, 1978, from Sandra Werts.
No action taken.
E. Report of City Engineer
1. 1978 Engineering Services Agreement
City Engineer Jul l i e spoke to his memo dated February 3, 1973, and
answered questions of Council members.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to adopt City Engineer -
Jullie's recommendation for 1978 Engineering Services
with Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Inc. and Rieke Carroll Muller
Associates. Roll Call Vote: Meyers, Bye, Osterholt, Pauly and
Penzel voted "aye' . Motion carried unanimously.
yam
counc i i it I I1U Ley - i ues . ,r eoruary / , 19/6
2. Petition for Utilities for AMOCO site on TH 169, I .C. 51-320
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers, to adopt Resolution
No . 78-29, receiving petition apd ordering feasibility report
on improvements (I . C. 51-320). - Motion carried unanimously.
3. Petition for street improvements on Lotus View Drive, I .C.
51-321
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Osterholt, to adopt Resolution
No. 78-30, receiving petition and ordering feasibility report
on improvements , I. C. 51-311 , including that the right-of-way
for public street construction must be dedicated by the adjoining
property owners . Motion carried unanimously.
4. Street lighting policy
City Engineer Jullie spoke to his memo dated February 3, 1978,
and answered questions of Council members.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Option A
in City Engineer Jullie' s memo dated February 3, 1978, as the
City' s street lighting policy. Motion carried unanimously.
F. Report of Finance Director
1. Agreement for refunding bonds
General discussion took place regarding the fees to the Ehlers
and Piper firms . Bob Ehlers,and Bill Fahey, Ehlers & Associates,
and Rod Pakonen, Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, answered questions of
Council members .
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to authorize the Mayor and
City Manager to enter into a contract with Ehlers & Associates and
Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood firms to conduct the water and sewer bond
refunding proposal for a maximum fee of $75,000 total to both firms.
Osterholt stated he would like to see the fees broken down. Mr.
Ehlers explained it is difficult for Mr. Frane to do this because he
has not been through this before, and that the figures will be made
known to the Council by the bonding consultants.
MOTION TO CALL PREVIOUS QUESTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye,
to call the previous question. Motion carried unanimously.
VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: Bye, Meyers and Penzel voted "aye",
Osterholt and Pauly voted "nay Motion carried.
MOTION: Meyers moved, seconded by Bye, to instruct City Staff to
come back at the February 21, 1978 Council meeting with a complete
request regarding the refunding of the 429 improvements bonds as outlined _
in the January 13th proposal, explaining the need and process , and also with
additional cost breakdown for only water and sewer bonds from memo of
February 3, 1978, so the Council can put a top dollar limit at that time.
Meyers, Bye, Pauly and Penzel"voted "aye" , Osterholt voted "nay" . Motion
carried.
yoy
Council Minutes - 11 - Tues. ,February 7, 1978.
2. Consideration of proposals for telephone system for City Hall
Finance Director Frane spoke to his memo dated February 3, 1978.
f.
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to continue with
the Northwestern Bell System under the 60-month electronic plan.
Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Pauly and Bye voted "aye", Meyers
and Penzel voted "nay". Motion carried.
Dick Fyten, Vice President of Electronic Design Company, spoke
to the advantages of buying equipment from their company rather
than leasing equipment from another company, and also outlined
the savings the City would make in buying rather than leasing.
Osterholt stated he felt the City should purchase equipment
that is built in the United States.
Penzel explained he was not for the purchase of non-native equipment,
but for the tax dollar savings in Eden Prairie.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. City Manager's Salary
MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Bye, to set the City Manager's
salary at $35,000 retrocative to January 1 , 1978. Roll Call Vote:
Osterholt, Bye, Meyers, Pauly and Penzel voted"aye". Motion
carried.
,DJOURNMENT
10TION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Bye, to adjourn the meeting at
: 20 AM. Motion carried unanimously.
yo5
MEMO
TO: Mayor Fenzel and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Roqer Ulstad, City Manager
FROM: Carl Jullie, City Engineer
DATE: February 3, 1978
SUBJECT: Edengate Project
Dell Road Construction and
Cost Sharina
We have reviewed some fairly detailed cost estimates for the construction of
Dell Road from Duck Lake Trail through the Edengate project, as prepared by
Mr. Frank Berg from Consulting Engineers Diversified, Inc. The estimated
cost for common fill , subgrade corrections, creek crossing culverts, ag-
gregate base and a 28' wide bituminous surface from Duck Lake Trail to
the southerly entrance to Edengate is $130,000, plus $12,500 for right-
of-way acquisition. The cost for cor.:non fill, subgrade correction and
drainage culverts from south entrance to the north property line of Eden-
gate is $85,000, plus an additional $36,000 for the aggregate base and 28'
zurfacing. This gives a tctal estimated cost of g264=0:�0 fcr
1 grading and Stage 1 surfacing of bell Road '!=rom Duck Lake Trail to the
^th line of Edengate. These estimates assume that borrow material is
3ilable from the Edengate site.
total amount of front footage along the proposed Dell Road alignment
thin the Edengate project is 3,760 feat. Using an assessment rate of
3.00 per foot, this assessment cost would be $105,280, assuming the road
were located in typically good soil conditions.
We believe that a reasonable settlement of the Dell Road assessment ques-
tion could be reached along the following lines:
1 . The City will initiate an MSA public improvement program to acquire
right-of-way and construct Dell Road from Duck take Trail to
the north line of Edengate at an estimated cast of $264,000.
Borrow material from the Edengate project shall be made avail-
able to the City.
2. The requirement for a temporary access to Duck lake Road will
he deleted, but the developer must make some provision for
emergency access to Harrogate Drive.
3. The developer shall agree in the Rezoning Agrecinent to accept
an assessment of $190,000 over a 5 year period.
- 2
4. The City could levy some assessment ($I5,000+') to the undevel-
oped parcel between the south line of Edengate and Duck take
Trail .
5. The City would renew its intentions to open Dell Road from Duck
Lake Trail south to Valley View Road and Valley View Road east
to County Rd. 4 within three to five years. This would ad-
dress the concerns expressed over increased traffic on Duck
Lake Trail .
We will be prepared to discuss further details of this proposal at the
Council 's pleasure on Tuesday evening.
r
j
CJJ_kh i
g
i
yo
K
February 6, 1978
i
k
TO: The Honorable Wolfgang Penzel, Mayor
Members, City Council ;
City of Eden Prairie
FROM: Brad Askland
Jerry Catt
James Follese -
Glenn Keller
RE: Edengate Project
This letter is intended to speak.in opposition to the proposed
Edengate development.
The Edengate Project has been the subject of discussion on the
agendas of the City Council, Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission and City Planning Commission, as well as various public
Guide Plan meetings and local home owners meetings. The project
- has failed to gain the support of the neighborhood and local area
residents who would be most directly affected by the development and
its attendant consequences. "
'he following information is intended to serve as an outline of
uotb concerns and objections apropos the .Council`s consideration of
Edengate at its scheduled Public Hearing February 7, 1978.
1. At the present time a major land use consideration of the
Edengate Project area is the subject of pending action by both
the City of Eden Prairie,- Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission and the Metropolitan Parks Foundation.
At its regularly scheduled meeting on September 19, 1977 the
PRNRC approved a recommendation directing their staff to proceed
with necessary steps to seek funding for the acquisition of both
the Edengate and Markum properties. On December 20th, 1977 the
City Council directed the PRNRC to hold public hearings on this
matter. A public hearing is presently scheduled for Monday,
March 6, 1978 to discuss this recommendation and seek general
public input. -
It seems inappropriate for the Council to consider any positive
action on the project until such an alternative has been thoroughly
pursued. The potential public use of the Purgatory Creek area
as a community natural resource and as recommended by . the
Purgatory Creek Study has received strong support from community
residents.
We would recommend that no positive action be taken concerning
acceptance of the Edengate Project prior to full and complete
pursuit of the acquisition steps tq implement the Purgatory Creek
Plan as approved by PRNRC at their! September 19, 1977 meeting.
The impact of the loss of this designated preserve land will
not be fully known until development in the northwest sector of
Eden Prairie has been completed. However, at that time it will
be too late. This is the time to maintain the high priority for
designated preserve areas which has drawn new residents to our
community.
2. Problems related to development of the Edengate Project remain
substantial. While the developer has responded with compliance
to several requests by the City Council the following represent
those considered most critical and unanswered by either the city
or the developer:
a. Traffic
Current plans for final routing and attendant costs of
- the proposed Dell Road Parkway have as yet to be completed.
It does not seem prudent to approve a high density development
until plans have been, completed for the additional traffic
from the project. -
The best understanding we have of current traffic and
roadway plans is that the City of Eden Prairie, with funds
from the developer, will construct a section of parkway from
the northeast entrance of the project to Duck Lake Trail
within three to five years and that completion of the
parkway to connect with 101 at its northern intersection is
not scheduled until 1990.
Dumping an additional daily traffic burden of 250 to 300
more automobiles on Duck Lake Trail is not in the best interest
of the safety of present residents and their children.
Increased traffic from Hidden Ponds and Maple Leaf additions
are already placing maximum usage on Duck Lake Trail. Building
a go-nowhere 760 foot parkway to service the access needs of this proposed development does not represent good planning.
b. According to information from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development private ownership and maintenance of the
streets within the project places an unreasonable financial
and management burden on the Association, as well as creating
related problems such .as parking, policing and emergency
vehicle access. To quote N.U.D. Area Director, Thomas T. Feeney,
in his letter of November 4, 1977 to the Eden Prairie Townhouse
Company concering Edengate, "Failure to obtain public streets
could be cause for rejection of your proposal."
d
According to Mr. Dahlgren's letter of January 13, 1978
to the Mayor and City Coudcil, he stated that "All streets, }
parking areas, and utilities are the economic responsibility
of the association snow plowing and maintenance of the
streets, other than the parkway, is pai.i for by the association."
This would seem to preclude H.U.D. approval of the project.
C. It is not clear at this time if the development plans are in
compliance with requirements of the Riley-Purgatory Creek
Watershed. District. According to their letter to Mr. Putnam,
dated September 8, 1977, the three roadway crossings of
Purgatory Creek within a 1200 foot area will necessitate
bridges to minimize the increase in flood level upstream of
the entry road to the development and upstream of the proposed
parkway.
If the bridges have not been put in the development plan they
should be and should fulfill the specifications of the Watershed
District. The cost of said bridges should be known and also
who is expected to assume that cost.
It would be helpful to know the response of the developer to
the Watershed District's concerns for the construction of
settling ponds and adequate storm sewer systems within the
project.
d. Inrfr. Putnam's recommendation for this project, he stated that
borings should be taken along the N/S Parkway to determine if
this road could be built in the current alignment. Only two
borings were taken, by the developer, and do not constitute
adequate analysis for approval of construction. Mr. Putnam
suggested that the developer should pay extra costs if the road
must be re-aligned. The developer wishes to pay a one time fee
for this roadway, no matter what future costs occur because of
it. We feel that the developer should have to pay extra
ordinary costs for construction of the Parkway.
3. Finally, we want to express our objection to the approval of this
project because of the precedent it would set for future developments.
This case may be used by the court in the future to determine the way
in which Eden Prairie follows its guide plans. We believe that the
city should be consistent with the plans and not ].et a developer or the
court decide how they shall plan and carry out plans. Acceptance of
this project leaves little ground for the denial of similar projects
seeking approval for major townhouse complexes in predominently single
family residential areas. In particular, we are concerned that
supposedly protected open space areas would be most vulnerable.
We believe the city has an opportunity to set its own priorities
.at this time. _
Z//40
This letter is offered in behalf of the interests of many homeowners
in the northwest sector of Eden Prair4.e who have attended numerous
Council, Commission and Guide Plan meetings over the past couple of
years. Public sentiment concerning the Ede,ngate Project remains over—
whelmingly in opposition. It is our feeling that a viable option is
available to the city in the possible acquisition of the property.
The Council's action can effectively preserve a highly designated
priority area as a natural resource for our community and its future
residents. If that resource is not protected at this time, it cannot
be regained.
1
We believe the project should be denied.
Sincerely,
Brad Askland _
Jerry Catt
Jim Follese
Glenn Keller