Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 01/13/2025Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Monday, January 13, 2025 City Center Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTENDEES Planning Commission Members: John Kirk, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank Sherwood, Charles Weber, Phou Sivilay, Trisha Duncan City Staff: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources MEETING AGENDA I. Call the Meeting to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Minutes A. Planning Commission Meeting held November 18, 2024 IV. Public Hearings and Meetings A. Nexus Innovation Center II (2024-11) • Preliminary Plat dividing one lot into two lots on 14.35 acres • Site Plan Review on 14.35 acres B. Code Amendment – Office Use in Public Zoning (2024-04CA) • Amendment to Chapter 11, section 11.07 Permitted Uses Table – Special Districts V. Planners Reports VI. Members’ Reports VII. Adjournment Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Monday, January 13, 2025 City Center Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTENDEES Planning Commission Members: John Kirk, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank Sherwood, Charles Weber, Phou Sivilay, Trisha Duncan City Staff: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources MEETING AGENDA I. Call the Meeting to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. IV. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Move to approve the following Planning Commission minutes: A. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated November 18, 2024 V. Public Hearing A. Nexus Innovation Center II (2024-11) • Preliminary Plat dividing one lot into two lots on 14.35 acres • Site Plan Review on 14.35 acres The applicant is requesting approval to build two industrial buildings on the property located at 6131 Blue Circle Drive as opposed to the single building previously approved on this site. Building 1 is proposed at 92,224 square feet and building 2 at 82,006 square feet. The site is 14.35 acres and was previously occupied by American Family Insurance. The property is in the far northeast corner of the City between the west bound on-ramp to Highway 62 from Highway 212 and the northern city limits. The proposed buildings are in the middle of the site with parking surrounding each building. The front of the buildings will face the highway and the back of the building (loading docks) will face Blue and Yellow Planning Commission Annotated Agenda January 13, 2025 Page 2 Circle Drives. The northern edge of the property is the corporate limit between Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. The property is guided Industrial Flex Tech and zoned Flex Service. The applicant is also requesting approval of a preliminary plat to create separate lots for each building. No waivers are requested. MOTION 1: Move to close public hearing. MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval for Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review on 14.35 acres as represented in the January 13, 2025 staff report. B. Code Amendment – Office Use in Public Zoning (2024-04CA) • Amendment to Chapter 11, section 11.07 Permitted Uses Table – Special Districts The city is proposing a zoning code text amendment that would allow offices in former office buildings currently used for schools. MOTION 1: Move to close public hearing. MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval for Chapter 11, section 11.07 Code Amendment as represented in the January 13, 2025 staff report. VI. Planners Reports VII. Members Reports VIII. Adjournment MOTION: Move to adjourn the City Council meeting. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2024 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Trisha Duncan, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote, Charles Weber; Phou Sivilay CITY STAFF: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Commission member Weber was absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Duncan to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Taylor to approve the minutes of September 9, 2024. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MARSHALL GARDENS (2024-10)) Request for: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 8.69 acres and from Low Density Residential to Parks and Open Space on 12.95 acres • Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Review on 32.11 acres • Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 7.21 acres, Rural to RM-2.5 on 8.69 acres, and Rural to Parks and Open Space on 12.95 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 18, 2024 Page 2 • Preliminary Plat of 32.11 acres into 16 lots, four outlots, and right of way • Site Plan Review on 32.11 acres The applicant, Cody Dietrich of Lake West Development, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He introduced colleague Kelsey Thompson and Lake West owner Curt Fretham. The property was located west of Flying Cloud Airport and had been owned by the Marshall family for 70 years. It sits on the bluffs overlooking the Minnesota River to the south. This was designated by the Comprehensive Plan as an infill site, calling for increased density to provide housing. The applicant wishes to convert part of the site to medium density. The higher density would be kept away from the existing homes to the north. The applicant began to work with staff a year ago, attended two City Council workshops, held two neighborhood meetings and submitted the application in August. If approved, construction would start in summer of 2025. The northwest corner (Outlot A) would be a community garden first available to the residents of the development, then to the wider community. Outlots B and C on the northwest side would be additional stormwater ponds. 15 villa homes would run across the width of the development, with 60-foot lots and single-level dwellings. On the south side, the project would provide a townhome feel (Stacked Townhome Flats), with four separate buildings on top of an underground garage to provide 100 units. There would be a pool, fire pits and other amenities. On the west side of the property there would be a garden shed and a dog run. The bluff area would be deeded to the City, and the development provides 60 percent of the site as open green space and preserved bluff area. During the neighborhood meeting, neighbors had expressed concern with the proposed connection of Crestwood Terrace through the development to LaForet Drive and Dell Road. Others had commented on the separation between the single family homes and the neighborhood to the north. Dietrich provided drawings showing a 90-foot separation between the proposed and existing homes, along with tree plantings for screening and buffering. The community garden offered 250 plots of various areas and accenting raised planter beds. It would be owned and administered by the HOA through a non-profit and a board. Dietrich displayed several renderings of the proposed development and explained the sustainable elements such as EV charging, stormwater improvements, and solar panels on the rooves. He displayed the unit and villa floorplans and the locations of the elevators. Farr asked for and received confirmation the flats and the villas would be all of the same color and that the units above the parking garage would be a wood- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 18, 2024 Page 3 frame, rather than concrete, structure. He asked for the reason the backyards were not color-coded as the rest of the open space, and Dietrich explained the backyards could not be counted in the open space calculation. Therefore, the 60 percent of open space could not include those backyards. Farr asked for and received confirmation there were two trash rooms in the basement of the flat building, requiring residents to take an elevator. He added this was outside the purview of the commission. Duncan requested clarification on the buffer area configurations between the villa homes and the existing neighborhood. She also asked for and received confirmation the buffer areas in the development there were existing trees that might be removed. Pieper asked if east side villa units 13, 14, and 15 could be flipped with the community garden. Dietrich replied the result would be a long and narrow garden, not feasible from a design perspective. This was a consequence of having a road through the development. He explained the noise-reduction efforts of the design. Farr asked if twin homes were considered to match the house widths of the surrounding neighborhoods and increase the space between the twin homes. He noted there would be Comprehensive Plan and zoning issues with this change. Dietrich replied this had not been considered. Fretham replied the design was geared toward single-family homes. The final result was the most popular compromise, as they had considered a development entirely of single-family homes as well. Barnhart added the property was guided for low-density residential, and in review staff saw the benefits of a mixed-use development while keeping single-family homes to the north. Taylor asked for and received confirmation there were only two entrances to the garage for the flats, on the east and west. Dietrich added the garage was completely open across the building. It would hold 200 stalls, plus 50 outside for guests. The pool would only be for the HOA residents. Duncan asked for and received confirmation staff followed the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan from the beginning of this design which guided the site for low-density residential. Kirk added in Eden Prairie the bluff was sacred, and this development as presented protected it. Sivilay asked for and received confirmation the square footage of the foundation was 1,700 to 1,800 square feet per unit and 3,475 square feet per loft. The villas would start at $1.2 million, and the condos would start at $900,000.00 to 1.3 million. Barnhart presented the staff report. This development needed a number of approvals: a Comprehensive Plan amendment; a zoning change from rural to the low- and middle-density sections and the parks and green space section instead of a straight, flat, uniform zoning; and a PUD with waivers to allow a unique infill PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 18, 2024 Page 4 development and to preserve the community garden area. There were no waivers for density, setback, or height. This was a good example of the PUD flexibility in applying the zoning regulations to a property. He listed again the sustainable features of the application and its compliance with Eden Prairie’s affordability housing goals. The parking met City code. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Kirk asked for and received confirmation from Kelsey Thompson that the original owners of the farm made the community garden a condition of the sale. Thompson explained this was also a result of researching a community-social benefit. There was a great demand in Eden Prairie for community gardens. Grote asked how many would be individual plots versus a garden club. Thompson replied their site plan would allow for combining plots as residents chose. Grote asked for and received confirmation a water spigot would be provided. Taylor asked for and received confirmation the plots would be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. Farr asked for and received confirmation there was no buffering or screening requirement with a single-family home next to another. Schulze gave the results of the traffic study. It looked at several surrounding intersections, both at build condition and trip generation. A single-family dwelling generally generated six-10 trips per day; a multi-family building generally generated six to seven trips per unit per day. There were expecting no operational issues from the traffic study. The study concluded 700-900 trips per day, 50 each in the morning and evening peak hours. An access to the south (Dell Road) to Flying Cloud Drive was provided for the benefit of the potential new residents. Farr asked for the construction sequencing of the road improvements versus the development itself. Schulze replied they would be simultaneous. The culvert along Dell Road would begin first in 2025, while the flats were being constructed. Farr stated he anticipated questions from neighbors north of the project and asked if the road there could accommodate new commuters. Schulze replied they would, as this development would still generate lower traffic than the total load of those roads. Sherwood asked what the connection to Flying Cloud Drive would look like. Schulze replied it would resemble Dell Road north of Crestwood Terrace, a thirty-foot wide collector road with a trail, completed at the end of 2026. Duncan asked for and received confirmation there were similar developments near the bluffs but Barnhart did not have specifics about the multi-family building. Kirk suggested Hennepin Village as an example of this. Grote asked for and received confirmation there were 3.6 homes per acre in this development, but PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 18, 2024 Page 5 was denser at the southern end (7-8 units per acres). Barnhart explained the density calculation. Pieper opened the public Hearing Mark and Beth Reese, residents at 9744 LaForet Drive, stated they had sent a letter, which Barnhart replied he received. As residents for 22 years, their primary concern was the amount of possible traffic with this development. 175 cars traveled from Crestwood Drive to Canopy Trail per day. The exit flow from the townhome, the most densely populated, would exit north through Canopy Trail, impacting their neighborhood. He expected ten times the current amount of traffic, and expressed concern for existing families and children along the streets. They also objected to having to look at two houses across from them with 20-foot setbacks without trees. They requested the development be shifted 30 feet to the west or even eliminate one of the 1.3 million homes. They also objected to the fee for the community gardens. They requested Canopy Trail be closed. Ted Mellby, resident of 1181 Germaine Terrace and a former attorney, questioned the definition of a “wavier,” calling it a “variance” and questioning its legality. He read from the staff report: “None of the outlots including the community garden may be developed without platting” and suggested the commission remove the final two words. He also requested an archeological study done to find historically significant artifacts or features along the river bluffs, as he understood this to be a prerequisite. He also suggested the commission check this development against a copy of the airport safety zone map. Becky Somerville, resident of 9735 LaForet Drive, opposed opening Canopy Trail, as her family had already experienced a car-pedestrian accident. She doubted the new residents would use Dell Road instead of the smaller residential roads. She feared the increase in traffic. Her son expressed concern at the 900-trip figure. Richard Koppy, resident of 9872 Crestwood Terrace and a former city engineer, was concerned that Eden Prairie was not pulling together a cohesive plan with the development of farms and the connection of trails and pedestrian crossings. He described the message “when the farm is developed” as an answer to his question. He also expressed concern about traffic and speeds on Dell Road. He suggested a traffic roundabout at Crestwood Terrace and Dell Road. He asked when the trail, which was not part of this development application, would be completed, as there was nothing yet proposed by the City. He also did not see the traffic produced by the community gardens as part of the traffic study. He stated he had tried to find an example of a community garden in Eden Prairie as a reference but could not find one. He also asked what the fee for the garden would be used for, and how it would look in the winter. He commended the development plan but wished to see more integration. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 18, 2024 Page 6 Robert Duerr, resident of 9688 Geisler Road, echoed Grote’s question about the actual density of the south side of the development. He questioned why the natural buffer had not been extended all the way across the length of the development, and also the affordability of the condos. He expressed concern about traffic going through neighborhoods instead of along the back of the development as planned. He urged that profit not be the driving factor. Gupreet Vig, resident of 9727 Geisler Road, stated his concerns were addressed by previous speakers. He added he attended the two neighborhood meetings and appreciated the hard work that went into this project, but questioned the actual effect of the community garden. He wished the Planning Commission to get answers from the developer how this non-profit development would actually work with the garden, leasing, and other essential questions. Ryan Devin, resident of 9839 Crestwood Terrace, expressed his strong concern about traffic with so many children in the neighborhood, and with the conversation of a dirt road to a paved one, increasing both traffic and speeds. He advocated a wider study of the neighborhood environment be done. He also doubted the community gardens would be a success due to rodents and other pests. He also worried about parking, including with the dog park—parking was scarce during sports events. Einad Ahmad, resident of 9751 LaForet Drive, expressed concern about noise from this development, as he already heard noise from Flying Cloud Drive. This development was a surprise and he worried about increased traffic. Andrew Grabiel, resident of 9888 Crestwood Terrace, stated the aerial view did not capture the impact of the three-story buildings on the site. He asked the commission to please consider impact of traffic, as this neighborhood was not walkable to major amenities, and encourage the traffic to indeed use Dell Road. Barbara Hamilton-Sustad, resident of 9711 Geisler Road, stated she had bought her home six months ago and knew nothing of this development, but from talking with neighbors, found the proposal more aggressive than discussed last year. She added the rendering was deceptively creating more space between buildings than there would be. Many ash trees were dead or dying and would soon be removed, so residents would be staring at bare buildings. She agreed the situation could be worse but did it need to be this big. She pleaded for the commission to consider the impact of traffic on the children. She asked that something done across the whole north line because with this development the aesthetic would change. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Duncan to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 18, 2024 Page 7 Kirk explained the commission members were volunteers. Being the senior member on the commission, two things he had learned: City staff spent a lot of time and resources doing its due diligence, and the owner of the property had a right to sell, as the neighbors had rights to speak and seek changes, and a good balance was ideal. The commission’s job was to find a compromise and a balance and take this to a vote, though tonight’s vote was not final—the City Council would subsequently hold a public hearing, listen to residents’ concerns, and take the final vote. There were a lot of factors to be taken into consideration, and the best solution may not please everyone. Farr noted two recurring concerns: traffic and lack of detail in the garden plan. He appreciated the question of what the garden would look like in the winter. He suggested the commission could offer comments to the applicant regarding the garden to result in a more detailed concept. He suggested a proof-of-parking plan. Regarding traffic, he stated the streets in Eden Prairie were overdesigned and had more than enough capacity for cars. The new residents of this development would become the new neighbors of the current residents, and he warned against this becoming an adversarial situation. Dietrich added the construction of the community garden would be in phases broken into four quadrants, and until that time it would remain an open green space, with additional trees planted to make it more pleasing, as referenced in their memo to staff. The garden would be operated by the non-profit, and there would be an initiation fee plus a multi-year lease structure, and the leasees would be responsible for the gardens, otherwise the owners would be notified their garden was in violation. The garden space would have fencing around it, be tilled at the start of the year, then cleaned up in autumn and tilled at end of year. There would be 30 or 40 public parking spots for that garden. The dog run would be private and administered by the HOA. Thompson added she was working with a Master Gardener at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum on best practices and planned to plant more climate- resilient plants. There were backup plans if the community garden was not in demand. During the winter, the space would hold snow. Dietrich added there would also be perimeter plantings, avoiding the utility easements, of course. The residents would be free to either plant vegetables or flowers. The City was not interested in acquiring the land. The garden could be tweaked to suit the needs of the community. Duncan stated she had not seen that memo in the commissioner’ packet, and Barnhart stated he had received it but warned the commission against exceeding its purview in getting into these HOA level details; staff would work with the City Council on certain matters. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 18, 2024 Page 8 Farr encouraged the developer to show more creativity with the community garden design. The layout was very efficient but somewhat sterile, and it needed a guided principle plan and input from a landscape architect, and more trees. Taylor asked if there were other options to the garden. Dietrich replied there would be three to five more homes and green space. Sherwood suggested the applicant remove the garden, move the villas to the west, rework the plan, and move the whole concept to the south. Sivilay noted with a move south the development could tear into the bluff trees. Taylor observed a shift to the west reduced the size of the garden. Farr suggested trading the green space at Crestwood Terrace for the backyard at units 13, 14, and 15. Dietrich replied the resulting front setback would trigger more waiver requirements. Barnhart counseled the commission to identify the major concerns for the City Council, not redesign the development at the dais. Duncan asked for and received clarification the garden space was needed to balance the waivers. Kirk asked for and received clarification such waivers on an infill project were not unusual. Thompson stated what set this development proposal apart from the others proposed at this site was the green space that could be enjoyed not only by the residents but by the larger community. Farr asked Schulze to comment on the road through the development. Schulze replied it followed City specifications and the Comprehensive Plan, and it was always the preference to make any road accessible rather than terminating in a dead end. Parking would be allowed along the side of the road. Discussion followed on the connection to Dell Road. Farr stated he interpreted the applicant’s plans for the garage as allowing two-way traffic, and Dietrich confirmed this. He added he expected residents to be mostly empty-nesters. Farr also addressed the consolidation of projects: the private application was before the commission tonight, whereas the public improvements did not usually come before the Planning Commission. Private development could trigger public improvements, but they often occurred separately. Taylor asked for and received confirmation the snow removal on Crestwood would be the City’s responsibility, being a public road, whereas all other removal would be the responsibilities of the HOAs. Schulze confirmed the project had snow storage areas. Duncan asked for what was and was not allowed regarding the proximity of the airport. Barnhart replied the development was located far enough from the airport that noise would be the only issue. There will be a notification to that effect in the Development Agreement. Pieper asked what would happen if the gardens did not work out and the applicant wished to build more homes instead. The lor would need to be replatted, but Barnhart stated he did not see that as a development PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 18, 2024 Page 9 option, and he encouraged the applicant to get all questions answered before final approval. Kirk stated for the current neighborhood residents that, as random as some of these points may have seemed to be, this was a healthy and appropriate discussion. Every development was a balance, and the owner of the property needed to get a fair deal, as this was their retirement money, and every developer needed a threshold of units to pay for the development, as well as to make a certain profit. He commended this development, which focused on ensuring the bluffs would be protected. Farr stated he found this to be an exciting architectural opportunity that veered away from conventional three story structures. He commended the gable design and character depth, and appreciated the thought that went into this. This would be a successful project. Pieper echoed Farr’s comments. He added he disagreed with the through road but supported the project. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Farr to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 8.69 acres and from Low Density Residential to Parks & Open Space on 12.95 acres; and Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Review on 32.11 acres; Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 7.21 acres, Rural to RM-2.5 on 8.69 acres, and Rural to Parks and Open Space on 12.95 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.21 acres, Preliminary Plat of 32.11 acres into 16 lots, four outlots, and right of way; Site Plan Review on 32.11 acres, as represented in the November 18, 2024 staff report subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion carried 7-1 (Grote). PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS Farr announced Eden Prairie resident Mark Weber wrote an in-depth historical article in the Eden Prairie Local News how Eden Prairie accumulated its open space over the decades and invited commissioners to read it. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Sherwood to adjourn. Motion carried 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. Project Site City of Minnetonka Planning Commission Agenda Cover Memo Date: January 13, 2025 Location: 6131 Blue Circle Drive Subject: Nexus Innovation Center II From: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner Applicant: Endeavor Development Review period expires: April 9, 2025 ITEM DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval to build two industrial buildings on a 14.35-acre property located at 6131 Blue Circle Drive. The property was previously occupied by American Family Insurance. The property is in the far northeast corner of the City between the west bound on ramp to Highway 62 from Highway 212 and the northern city limits. On July 16, 2024, the City Council approved a Site Plan for one building that was 185,733 square feet on the property. Now the applicant is proposing a 92,224 square foot building and a second building that would be 82,006 square feet. The two buildings together are a total of 174,230 square feet, which is smaller than the original single building. Given the changes to the site plan and the addition of a preliminary plat, the project must go through the approval process again. REQUESTED ACTIONS • Preliminary Plat dividing one lot into two lots on 14.35 acres • Site Plan Review on 14.35 acres BACKGROUND ZONING The current zoning of the property is Industrial (I-2). On July 16, 2024, the City Council approved the rezoning of the property. The I-2 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, where it is guided Industrial Flex Tech . The applicant has indicated that they have a prospective tenant for building 1 but no specific tenant for building 2. At this time, the applicant anticipates that each of the buildings will include some office and warehousing space similar to the previously approved plan. Office and warehouse uses are permitted in the I-2 Zoning District. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center II Page 2 SITE PLAN The properties to the north are located in the City of Minnetonka in the area known the Opus Business Park. The business park has a mix of uses including the Opus Light Rail Station, residential, office, industrial, and commercial. The property to the east is occupied by a systems engineering company in Eden Prairie, the property to the west is a vacant wooded lot in Eden Prairie and the land to the south is Highways 62 and 212. The Site Plan is similar to the previously approved plan for the single building. Access to the site, the orientation and placement of the buildings, the location of the loading docks and parking, and the surface stormwater management areas are all generally similar to the previously approved site plan shown below. Previously Approved Proposed New Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center II Page 3 The new proposal is different from the approved site plan in that they are proposing parking between the two buildings including some fenced secured parking for building 1. The plan also includes some underground stormwater chambers north of proposed building 2 and between the two buildings. PRELIMINARY PLAT The new proposal includes a preliminary plat subdividing the existing lot into two lots. The property line runs between the two buildings. The two lots meet the minimum standards for lots within the I-2 Zoning District, including building and parking setbacks. Given the location of the property line, the owners of each lot will have to enter into a shared access agreement to use the drive lane between the buildings to access the parking on their individual lots. PARKING The number of parking stalls is based on speculative uses within each of the two buildings. The applicant assumes 30,000 square feet of office and 77,000 square feet of warehouse space for building 1. This requires 189 parking stalls. The plan includes 171 stalls plus 28 “Proof of Parking” stalls for a total of 199 stalls. The applicant assumes 22,322 square feet of office space and 60,684 square feet of warehouse space for building 2. This requires 141 parking stalls. The plan includes 134 parking stalls plus 13 “Proof of Parking” stalls for a total of 147 stalls. A potential user for building 1 has a need for secure parking of vehicles. As shown on the plans, a section of the parking lot on the northeast corner of building 1 is fenced and gated, but the parking stalls can be used as employee parking with a key fob. This area should be used for secure parking of vehicles only and may not be used for outdoor Proposed Preliminary Plat Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center II Page 4 storage. In the event that this potential user does not occupy the space, the fenced in area should be remove to avoid the use of the area for outside storage. The “Proof of Parking” Plan, submitted by the applicant, for building 1 includes 9 future parking stalls at the southwest corner of the building and 18 parallel parking stalls across from the loading docks. The parking for building 2 includes 9 parallel parking stalls across from the loading docks and 4 parking stalls in the parking lot island at the northeast corner of the building. If the number of parking stalls required by the mix of uses in either building exceeds 171 for building 1 or 134 for building 2, the owner will be required through the Development Agreement to contact the City to discuss implementing the “Proof of Parking” Plan. Even though the site plan for each building includes more parking stalls with the “Proof of Parking” than required for the proposed mix of office and warehouse space, the introduction of other uses will be limited by the number of parking stalls because all other uses require more parking than warehouse. For example, keeping the office space for each building constant and adding manufacturing, the number of proposed parking stalls would allow for the possibility of only 5% manufacturing in each building with the remaining space being warehouse space. FENCING MATERIAL The applicant is proposing to surround the secure parking area with a 7 foot high black chain link fence with tan screening fabric. The applicant has been advised that this proposal is inconsistent with the City’s Design Guidelines. Unrelated to this issue, in September 2024, the Council asked staff to work on an ordinance amendment to Chapter 9 regarding fence material in response to resident concerns with appropriate fencing materials in a neighborhood. On January 7, 2025, the City Council approved the 1st reading of an ordinance regulating fencing material, including a prohibition of chain link with slats, tarps, and plastic mesh. The ordinance amendment is expected to be in place by the end of January. The proposed fencing material for this project does not comply with the Chapter 9 ordinance amendment. The plan must be adjusted to meet the requirements of the ordinance amendment. As staff has discussed with the applicant, based on the design guidelines, there are other fencing materials such as wood, aluminum, metal, composite, and precast concrete. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIALS The building architecture and materials proposed on the two new buildings are the same as the previously approved single building. The applicant breaks up the long facades with recesses and projections, changes in building material and colors, and the placement of windows. The main entrances to the building are emphasized through the use of mostly glass at the first level and above the entry, cultured stone and canopies/sun shades. Although the buildings are only one story, the building articulation and design makes the buildings appear to be two stories. The south façade of each building includes windows along the first level with portions having similar windows above the first level, which provides light into the building and gives the appearance of two stories. The east and west facades have articulation similar to the south façade except that the entire façade does not have windows at the first level. The clerestory windows add light into warehouse. The building articulation complies with City Code. The Industrial Zoning District requires 75% of each façade to consist of two contrasting yet complimentary class I materials with one color variation. The class I material on the buildings include architectural precast with scoring, glass, and cultured stone. The colors of the class I material include light tan, medium tan, dark bronze and limestone. Each façade on the buildings complies with and exceeds the building material requirements. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center II Page 5 TREE REPLACEMENT The proposed plan includes saving the same mature trees at the perimeter of the site as was shown on the previously approved plan. The removal of the significant and heritage trees on the overall site results in a tree replacement requirement of 1,080 caliper inches. The applicant will meet the tree replacement through the payment in lieu option for tree replacement. LANDSCAPE PLAN City Code requires single story buildings over 20 feet tall to be considered two (2) stories for purposes of calculating the landscaping requirements. Like the original proposal, each of the proposed buildings are over 20 feet tall. The building 1 requires 576 caliper inches of landscaping and the building 2 requires 513 caliper inches of landscaping. The proposed plan for building 1 includes 579 caliper inches and the proposed plan for building 2includes 542 caliper inches for a total of 1, 121 caliper inches. The plans for both buildings, comply with the requirements and the excess caliper inches can be applied toward tree replacement. Proposed Building 1 Proposed Building 2 Previously Approved Building Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center II Page 6 The landscaping is robust and includes trees, shrubs, and perennials. The plan provides a buffer along the east property line, trees and shrubs along Blue Circle and Yellow Circle Drive to screen the loading areas, foundation plantings to add interest at the base of the buildings, and trees to enhance the existing plantings along the highway. The City of Minnetonka has a policy that all deciduous trees must be at least 10 feet from public trails and evergreen trees must be at least 15 feet from public trails. The deciduous and evergreen trees proposed along the trail should be adjusted to meet this request from Minnetonka. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS There is an existing trail on the north side of the property stretching from the easterly driveway onto Yellow Circle Drive to the east property line. This trail connects to a broader trail system that extends to the east and goes north into the Opus Business Park. The applicant is proposing to provide a new trail connection in almost the same location as the existing trail. The City of Minnetonka has developed an Opus Area Placemaking + Urban Design Guide which includes a trail along the north property line. The proposed trail is consistent with the Opus Area Placemaking + Urban Design Guide. TRAFFIC STUDY The proposed project consists of a 92,224 square foot warehouse and office building and a 62,006 square foot office and warehouse building with access from Blue Circle Drive and Yellow Circle Drive in Minnetonka. The project is adjacent to the Opus Business Park area of Minnetonka, which has an Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) administered by the City of Minnetonka that was started in 2020. This AUAR includes scenarios for modifying some of the streets and intersections in the area to accommodate current and future development in the Opus Business Park. The proposed development was analyzed for transportation and traffic impacts based on the identified uses and based on these future street modifications. Trip generation was estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. Though the current building is vacant, it is important to compare the existing total daily trips (if it were to be fully utilized as an office) and the proposed total daily trips. Existing (assumed) total daily trips is 2,121, while the proposed total daily trips is 850. The proposed development will have approximately 60% less total daily trips than the current building. Essentially all trips are expected to circulate on streets within the Opus Business Park and eventually connect to Highway 169 and Bren Road to the east or Highway 62 and Shady Oak Road to the west. The traffic study concluded that all intersections in their 2024 configuration can accommodate the additional traffic from this development and still operate at acceptable levels. The traffic study projected 2040 trip generation and distribution and concluded that all intersections would operate acceptably if the modifications identified in the AUAR are made. Pursuant to City Code 11.24. Subd. 10, all office and industrial developments and redevelopments require a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. For this development, the developer must complete a checklist of TDM strategies that they will commit to implement. Completion of the checklist will be covered in the Development Agreement. DRAINAGE/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Based on the provided geotechnical data, the soils on site are clayey soils belonging to Hydrologic Soil Group D with some areas of poorly graded sand. Two underground infiltration chamber systems are proposed north of building 2 and in between Buildings 1 and 2 to take advantage of areas of sandy soils. Additional stormwater management is provided by one pond proposed on the east side of the site and a smaller one is proposed on the south side of the site. The location of the ponds is the same as shown on the previously approved plan. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center II Page 7 LIGHTING The Photometric Plan includes wall pack lighting around each of the buildings with new pole lighting at each driveway to Blue Circle Drive. These fixtures provide lighting for the main entrances to the building, the parking areas, the driveways and for the loading dock areas. The Lighting Plan complies with City Code. SIGNS The site plan shows a new monument sign at the Yellow Circle entrance onto Lot 1 and a new monument sign near the easternmost driveway to Lot 2. The monument sign for Lot 2 does not meet the setback requirements. Prior to installing any of the signs, the signs must comply with all of the City of Eden Prairie sign requirements and the signs require approval through a separate permit. UTILITIES The land on the north side of the subject property is located in the City of Minnetonka. The right-of-way for Yellow Circle Drive and Blue Circle Drive and the improvements within the right-of-way are owned by the City of Minnetonka. The property is served by the City of Minnetonka sanitary sewer and water. In 1977, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie entered into a Joint Powers Agreement for “sanitary and storm sewer and water facilities and street improvements” for the Eden Prairie properties located in Opus. Under the agreement: (1) Minnetonka constructed these facilities and assessed Eden Prairie; (2) Minnetonka is responsible for the maintenance of the sewer and water improvements; and (3) Minnetonka reads meters and charges Eden Prairie properties directly for sewer and water services. Any increase in utility usage may necessitate utility improvements, which would be Minnetonka’s responsibility under the agreement. Since the proposed buildings do not have specific users defined, it is challenging to anticipate utility usage. Therefore, Minnetonka requests the establishment of a new Joint Powers Agreement to clearly define future cost responsibilities. The new agreement should include provisions for 6101 and 6131 Blue Circle Drive as well as the parcel to the west. SUSTAINABILITY The applicant is proposing to incorporate the same sustainable features and practices as the previously approved plan. They include: • Participate in the Energy Design Assistance Program • Incorporate EV charging. A minimum of 2% of parking spaces will accommodate EV charging stations or to an EV ready standard. The Site Plan includes 7 EV parking stalls for building 1 and 3 EV parking stalls for building 2. • Design the building so it can support future installation of solar panels • Use efficient appliances and fixtures • Use Low VOC materials • Use sustainable landscape design principles including diversity in plant species, disease and drought resistant plants and native species • Waste disposal – tenants will recycle The Building Sustainability Standards do not apply to this project because it is not a PUD. MINNETONKA REVIEW Copies of the plans were submitted to the City of Minnetonka. Their comments were incorporated into the conditions below. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center II Page 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following requests: • Site Plan Review on 14.35 acres • Preliminary Plat to subdivide one lot into two lots on 14.35 acres This is based on plans submitted on December 11, 2024 and the following conditions: 1. Prior to the 1st reading by the City Council, the applicant must: A. Revise the plans to reflect screening materials more consistent with the design guidelines. B. Change the project name on all of the sheets to Nexus II to avoid confusion with the earlier project at the entitlements stage. C. Revise the Landscape Plan so all deciduous trees along the proposed trail are located at least 10 feet from the public trail and the evergreen trees are located at least 15 feet from the proposed public trail as required by the City of Minnetonka. D. All of the hydrants labeled as relocate existing hydrant should be replaced with a new hydrant rather than reusing the existing hydrants as requested by the City of Minnetonka. E. On the North Façade of each building, the material calculations must include the addition of the percentage of the metal dock doors and other doors as a Class II building material. F. Building height is measured to the top of the parapet. It should be measured from the average grade plane along each façade. Show the average grade plane. G. Move the proposed hydrant in the Lot 1 loading dock area to the island to the west and show the watermain connection. H. Provide utility easements over all existing utility lines as requested by the City of Minnetonka. The developer must coordinate the utility easements with the City of Minnetonka. I. Extend the proposed sanitary sewer and water service to the west property line for future connection, along with associated easements for future public or private connections or extensions. J. Revise the location of the monument sign for Lot 2 so it meets the setback from the property line. K. Move trees back where snow storage areas are proposed. L. Add a paragraph to the Narrative about shared access and shared utilities. M. Revise the title of sheet C-003.2 to Proof of Parking. N. Provide an exhibit showing truck turning movements to ensure there is adequate fire apparatus access between the buildings. O. Provide an Opticom emitter or knox key switch for fire access on gated side. P. The long green spaces around the secured parking and along the parallel stalls between the buildings should not be counted toward landscape islands. Remove those areas from the calculation. Only count the islands at the end of the parking rows. The striped area at the north end of the parallel stalls should have curb around it. Q. Revise the Site Plan by providing dimensions for the parallel parking stalls. R. The Stormwater Report must demonstrate compliance with City stormwater quality requirements. Namely, the proposed annual discharge of volume, TP, and TSS must not exceed the annual discharge under existing conditions. Please summarize in the narrative and provide calculations (existing and proposed MIDS or P8 model outputs) in appendix. S. The area of impervious listed in the SWMP conflicts with earlier summaries of impervious surface in report. Check for consistency. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center II Page 9 T. All BMPs must have a soil boring located within their footprint that extends a minimum 5 feet below the proposed bottom elevation of the BMP. There is no boring located within the underground chambers. A boring in this location must be provided. 2. Prior to release of the final plat, the applicant must: A. Provide a Cross Access and Utility Easement document over the private driveways, parking areas, and infrastructure located on the Property that provides cross access and utility access between Lots 1 and 2 of the Property. B. Provide a Trail Easement document for review and approval by the Minnetonka City Engineer. The document shall be filed with the final plat. C. Pay connection fees to the City of Minnetonka. D. Provide copies of legal documents, either in Association format or private covenant and agreement format to be approved by the City that shall address the following: • Describe the long term private maintenance or replacement agreement for the retaining walls. • Insertion of language in the documents that relinquishes the City of Eden Prairie from maintenance or replacement of the retaining walls. 3. Prior to land alteration permit issuance, the applicant must: A. Obtain permits and approvals from other agencies as needed. B. Obtain City approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the property. C. Submit detailed utility and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. D. Obtain and provide documentation of Watershed District approval. E. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. F. Provide a construction grading limits and tree protection plan for review and approval by the City. G. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City. H. Install fencing at the construction grading limits and tree protection areas as shown on the approved plans. I. Submit and receive written approval of an executed landscape agreement. J. Submit a landscaping letter of credit or escrow equivalent to 150% of the cost of the landscaping. K. Obtain written approval of a Wrecking Permit for the removal of buildings on the property. L. Make a cash payment for Tree Replacement as provided by City Code. M. Obtain a building permit for retaining wall construction from the City for any retaining walls greater than four feet in height. N. Submit a land alteration bond, letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to 125% of the cost of the land alteration. O. Provide proof that the Inspection and Maintenance Agreement for Private Stormwater Facilities has been recorded. 4. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the applicant must: A. Provide proof that the Cross Access and Utility Easement has been recorded. B. Provide proof that a Trail Easement has been recorded. C. Provide a checklist of TDM strategies and provide financial security equal to the cost of implementing the 1st two years of the plan. 5. Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the applicant must: A. Construct the retaining wall(s) in accordance with the terms of the permit and terms and conditions of Exhibit C. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center II Page 10 B. Complete implementation of the lighting plan in Exhibit B. C. Complete construction of mechanical equipment screening. D. Install EV charging stations or EV ready parking stalls as shown on the plans. E. Complete implementation of the approved exterior materials and colors plan. Memorandum TO: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Kronbeck, PLA, ASLA DATE: December 10, 2024 SUBJECT: Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat Review – Nexus Innovation Center, Eden Prairie ____________________________________________________________ Endeavor Development (“Endeavor”) is requesting Nexus Innovation Center be considered for Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat Review. The proposed redevelopment will demolish the existing office campus on site and construct two (2) new industrial buildings, one 92,224 SF and the other 82,006 SF. The project land area is 14.35 acres. Comprehensive Guide Plan Designation The 14.35-acre site has a 2040 Land Use designation of Industrial Flex Tech. Therefore, no Land Use designation change is being requested. Zoning Classification Currently, the property is zoned I-2 Park which is consistent with the uses being proposed. Proposed Development Overview Endeavor is proposing to demolish the three (3) existing, out-of-date office buildings and parking structure on site in order to proceed with the construction of two (2) new industrial buildings, one 92,224 SF and the other 82,006 SF. The existing parcel will be divided into two parcels, a lot for each building. Proposed Lot 1 will be 8.07 acres and Lot 2 will be 6.28 acres. Endeavor is seeking to replace the functionally obsolete office buildings with modern industrial facilities that will meet the needs of today’s employers. The proposed buildings will retain and create jobs in the City of Eden Prairie, while also increasing the tax base. Lot 1 is required 189 parking stalls. 171 parking stalls are provided and there is a potential for 28 future proof of parking stalls to be provided for a total of 199 parking stalls on Lot 1. Lot 2 is required 137 parking stalls. 134 parking stalls are provided and there is a potential of 13 future proof of parking stalls to be provided for a total of 147 parking stalls on Lot 2. Page 2 Sustainable Features Endeavor proposes to incorporate the following Sustainable Features Analysis checklist items: - #1 - Participate in the Energy Design Assistance Program - #4 - EV Charging – 2% of parking spaces will accommodate EV charging stations or be built to an EV-ready standard. - #5 - Solar-ready Construction – the buildings will be built so that it is feasible to add rooftop solar in the future. - - #6 – Efficient appliances/fixtures – Tenant buildouts will utilize Energy Star appliances and WaterSense certified fixtures in design. - #7 – Low VOC Materials – Tenant buildouts will use low-VOC paints, adhesives, sealants, flooring, and carpet in construction. - #8 – Waste disposal – Tenants will provide recycling service, pairing recycling bins with trash bins and labeling the bins. Summary of Landscaping and Tree Replacement We have strived to preserve as many existing trees as possible as part of the proposed site layout and grading design. Approximately 54% of existing caliper inches on site are to be preserved. Special consideration was taken to preserve as many trees as possible along the Highway right of way and disturbance is to be minimized near the existing steep slope on the west side of the property. Overall, the mature character of the existing trees on site will be preserved and supplemented with new plantings to ensure the long term overstory vegetation on the site. We have integrated sustainable design principles into our landscape design, such as diversity in plant species, disease, and drought resistant native and naturalized plant material, along with the reduction of stormwater run-off through the use of water efficient irrigation. A mix of overstory, evergreen and ornamental trees, shrubs and perennials are designed throughout the site to create a vibrant display of color and foliage. Overstory trees are placed throughout to complement the height of the buildings. The shrubs and perennials are placed throughout the development adding interest, along with softening the transition from buildings and parking areas to the adjacent roadways. Plantings have also been used to frame and focus views, while softening the proposed parking areas and screening of the loading areas. Utilities: Stormwater Treatment Requirements: Current drainage patterns show the eastern half of the site drains to an existing pond through storm sewer in Blue Circle Drive and the west half of the site drains to MnDOT TH 62 Right of Way along the southern boundary of the property with an abundance of underlying clay soils. There exists a small pocket of sandy soils buried 10ft deep in the proposed northern truck dock area. A reduced sized underground infiltration area will be located over the sandy area to promote volume reduction to the extent possible. The remainder of the site, which is underlain by silty clayey soil, will drain to a wet pond (MN Stormwater Manual Design Level 3) to meet the 60% Phosphorous and 90% Total Suspended Solids Removal efficiencies for water quality and provide rate control attenuation of flows offsite to be less than the existing conditions today. Page 3 Watermain: The existing site is served by City of Minnetonka Utilities due to Highway 62 isolating the site from Eden Prairie utilities. The project will connect to Existing 12” DIP Watermain located south of Blue Circle Drive. Watermain will be run throughout the site to provide hydrant coverage as required. Additionally, the building will be protected with a fire sprinkler system. Sanitary Sewer: The existing 8” sanitary sewer on site will be utilized to the extent possible and drains east down Blue Circle Drive. Dry Utilities: Electric, gas, telephone, and fiber optics are present along Blue Circle Drive and are expected to be sufficient for the proposed use. Architecture: The project will consist of two separate buildings on adjacent sites. At its tallest point, the larger building will be approx. 40’ high at the corners with slightly lower parapets towards the middle and back of the building. At its tallest point, the smaller building will be approx. 37’ high at the corners with slightly lower parapets towards the middle and back of the building. Both buildings will have a similar architectural design. The proposed architectural design consists primarily of architectural precast concrete wall panels with vertical and horizontal reveals and finished in shades of neutral warm gray and beige colors. The main building façades are articulated with horizontal and vertical offsets in plane and varying building and parapet heights. Clerestory glass, aluminum window frames and darker wall accent paint are used to emulate a double row of windows along the front and side elevations to give the building a two-story appearance. A cultured stone veneer is used intermittently along the main facades to enhance visual interest and add texture to the buildings’ appearance. The main entries located at the building corners have higher proportions of glass and aluminum storefront glazing framing systems along with metal prefinished aluminum sunshades to emphasize and highlight entrance locations. The overall appearance of the project will be very similar to another project by the developer, the Arbor Lakes Business Park in Maple Grove. As the project is planned as a speculative shell, no exterior rooftop mechanical units are currently included in the project scope. A sight line study of potential future units has been included in the submittal to confirm that units wouldn’t be visible from the property lines. As units are added in the future, sight lines will be re-reviewed to confirm that they aren’t visible from the property lines and if needed, screening will be incorporated to hide them from view. YELLOW CIRCLE DRIVE HIGHWAY 6 2 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRIVE HIGHWAY 6 2 92,224 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING 1 82,006 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING 2 G TOTAL PARKING STALLS: 1 7 1 TOTAL PARKING STALLS: 134 LOT 1 LOT 2 13,800 S.F. SECURED PARKING WUNDERLICH-MALEC ENGINEERING INC. (OFFICE) PULSE PRODUCTS (OFFICE) ELECTRO-SENSORS (OFFICE) ZUHRAH SHRINE CENTER (FRATERNAL ORG.) AMERICAN PADMOINT SYSTEMS (OFFICE) UNDEVELOPED BOVEDA INC. (OFFICE / RETAIL) M W WIRE WORKS INC. (OFFICE) UNITED HEALTHCARE (OFFICE) FOSS SWIM SCHOOL (OFFICE) CITY OF MINNETONKA BOUNDARY LINE (NORTH OF ROAD CENTERLINE) CITY OF MINNETONKA BOUNDARY LINE (NORTH OF ROAD CENTERLINE) FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ C O V E R . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 3 : 1 6 A M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 0 SCALE IN FEET 50'100'200' N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 5 - 2 4 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 WA T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S 6- 2 0 - 2 4 TW O B U I L D I N G C I T Y S U B M I T T A L 7- 2 8 - 2 4 CI T Y S U B M I T T A L 11 - 1 - 2 4 BI D S E T 11 - 1 7 - 2 4 1 2 - 9 - 2 4 1- 7 - 2 5 C I T Y / W A T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S C-001 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E BI D S E T NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K CO V E R S H E E T www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 MK, DMS TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. DEVELOPER Endeavor Development 200 Southdale Center #190 Edina, Minnesota 55435 Phone: 952-210-5870 Contact: Josh Budish CONSULTANT Alliant Engineering, Inc. Marquette Avenue South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612.758.3080 Fax: 612.758.3099 ENGINEER Dan Sjoblom, PE License No. 54821 Email: dsjoblom@alliant-inc.com SURVEYOR Dan Ekrem, PLS License No. 57366 Email: dekrem@alliant-inc.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA License No. 26222 Email: mkronbeck@alliant-inc.com VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE N NEXUS AT OPUS PARK EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA CONTACT LIST SHEET INDEX COVER SHEETC-001 SHEET TITLENO. SITE PLANC-003 DETAIL SHEET 1C-009 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L-004 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY GRADING PLANC-004 EROSION CONTROL PLANC-005 C-006 EROSION CONTROL AND STORMWATER DETAILSC-007 UTILITY PLANC-008 TREE PRESERVATION L-001 LANDSCAPE PLAN L-003 EROSION CONTROL NOTES (SWPPP) L-002 TREE INVENTORY DEMOLITION PLAN C-002 AND REMOVAL PLAN PROJECT LOCATION H W Y 1 6 9 HW Y 1 6 9 CROSSTOWN H W Y ( H W Y 6 2 ) CROSSTOWN H W Y (H W Y 6 2 ) HW Y 2 1 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P-001 EXISTINGN CONDITIONS 250FT EXTENT MNDOT PEDESTRIAN RAMP DETAILS C-010 SNOW STORAGE PLAN C-003.1 SITE - PROOF OF PARKING C-003.2 PRELIMINARY PLATC-001.1 FINAL PLAT FINAL PLAT PLAN 60832 (NALST) S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=86 9 .9 3 L=431.0 0 Δ=28°2 3'11" C .Br g=S88°22'03"E C=42 6 .6 0 N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg=S64°13'11"E C=295.64 YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 92,224 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING 1 82,006 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING 2 G TOTAL PARKING STALL S : 1 7 1 TOTAL PARKING STALL S : 1 3 4 LOT 1 LOT 2 13,800 S.F. SECURED PARKING 15 8 8 9 10 10 12 12 5 12 5 10 20 12 12 12 11 11 5 12 8 STOP STOP STOP 15 18 21 PARKING STALLS* 2011 9 P A R K I N G S T A L L S * 6 16 7 PARKING STALLS* MK TLM, MLS Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ S I T E . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 4 : 4 4 A M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 5 - 2 4 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 WA T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S 6- 2 0 - 2 4 TW O B U I L D I N G C I T Y S U B M I T T A L 7- 2 8 - 2 4 CI T Y S U B M I T T A L 11 - 1 - 2 4 BI D S E T 11 - 1 7 - 2 4 1 2 - 9 - 2 4 1- 7 - 2 5 C I T Y / W A T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S C-003 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E BI D S E T NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K SI T E P L A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. SITE NOTES: SITE LEGEND: SITE DATA: RLS# RLS 18612 RLS# RLS *86** S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48" W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=8 6 9 .9 3 L=431.0 0 Δ=28°2 3'11" C .Br g=S88°2 2'0 3"E C=4 26 .6 0 N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg=S64°13'11"E C=295.64 YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 92,224 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING 1 82,006 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING 2 G TOTAL PARKING STAL L S : 1 7 1 TOTAL PARKING STAL L S : 1 3 4 LOT 1 LOT 2 13,800 S.F. SECURED PARKING S4 ° 3 4 ' 4 0 . 2 5 " W 2 0 5 . 2 2 ' S85° 25' 19.75"E 135. 6 6 ' S4 ° 3 5 ' 0 9 . 0 6 " W 2 8 0 . 9 2 ' MK TLM, MLS Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 4 : 1 1 A M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 5 - 2 4 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 WA T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S 6- 2 0 - 2 4 TW O B U I L D I N G C I T Y S U B M I T T A L 7- 2 8 - 2 4 CI T Y S U B M I T T A L 11 - 1 - 2 4 BI D S E T 11 - 1 7 - 2 4 1 2 - 9 - 2 4 1- 7 - 2 5 C I T Y / W A T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S C-001.1 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E BI D S E T NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. SITE LEGEND: DATA: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION NEXUS PRELIMINARY PLAT 52 (X) 100 (MAG SET) 40232 948.152 WATER PUMP 947.91 948.93 Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ D E M O L I T I O N . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 4 : 3 5 A M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 N W S E CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 5 - 2 4 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 WA T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S 6- 2 0 - 2 4 TW O B U I L D I N G C I T Y S U B M I T T A L 7- 2 8 - 2 4 CI T Y S U B M I T T A L 11 - 1 - 2 4 BI D S E T 11 - 1 7 - 2 4 1 2 - 9 - 2 4 1- 7 - 2 5 C I T Y / W A T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S C-002 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E BI D S E T NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K DE M O L I T I O N P L A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 MK, DMS TLM, MLS, DMS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. LEGEND: DEMOLITION NOTES: FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. DECK 134'-9 1/2" A PT-01 B C D E F PT-01 PT-02 AFS-1 OVER ENTRY MC-1 AFS-1 SV-01 FLASH-1, TYP. PT-03 AFS-1, 5'-0" X 5'-0" PT-02 PT-02 PT-03 PT-01 SV-01 PT-02 SV-01 PT-01PT-03SV-01 PT-02 PT-03 MA X . 4 0 ' - 0 " 7' HM DOOR, PAINT TO MATCH PT-03, TYP. 7' HM DOOR, PAINT TO MATCH PT-03 FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. DECK 134'-9 1/2" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PT-01 AFS-1 MC-1 FLASH-1, TYP. SCORE ACCENT FLASH-1, TYP. FLASH-1, TYP. PT-02 PT-03 AFS-1 AT OFFICES PT-01 FLASH-1, TYP. PT-01 PT-01 PT-02 SV-01PT-02 SV-01 PT-02 PT-03 PT-01 SV-1 PT-03 AFS-1 AT OFFICES 40 SF SIGN PT-02 SCORE ACCENT AFS-1 OVER ENTRY AFS-1 MC-1 SV-01 MC-1AFS-1 AT ENTRY 7' HM DOOR, PAINT TO MATCH PT-03, TYP. 1 ENTRY DOOR IN AS-1 40 SF SIGN FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. DECK 134'-9 1/2" 2345678 PT-02 PT-01 FLASH-1, TYP. 12'X14' DRIVE-IN TRUCK WELLS 9'X10' DOCK DOORS PT-01 AFS-1, 2'-0" X 4'-0" CLERESTORY PT-02 PT-02 7' HM DOOR, PAINT TO MATCH PT-03, TYP. PT-01 12'X14' DRIVE-IN DOOR 12'X14' DRIVE-IN DOOR9'X10' KNOCK-OUT PANEL 9'X10' DOCK DOORS 1 AFS-1, 5'-0" X 5'-0" FENCE-1 FENCE-1 ON GATE 9'X10' KNOCK-OUT PANEL 7' - 0 " 16'X16' DRIVE-IN DOOR 40 SF SIGN40 SF SIGN EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH KEY MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH COLOR SAMPLE MC - 1 FLASH - 1 METAL CANOPY CAP FLASHING ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAMES AFS-1 KAWNEER OR EQUAL MATTE DARK BRONZE MAPES OR EQUAL MATTE DARK BRONZE - MATTE LIGHT TAN (TBD) PT-01 PAINTED PRE-CAST SHERWIN WILLIAMS LOXON XP LIGHT TAN (TBD) PT-02 PAINTED PRE-CAST SHERWIN WILLIAMS LOXON XP MED. TAN (TBD) PT-03 PAINTED PRE-CAST SHERWIN WILLIAMS LOXON XP DARK BRONZE (TBD) SV-01 STONE VENEER - - LIMESTONE EXTERIOR FINISH PERCENTAGES EAST FACADE : GLASS 8% STONE 9% METAL DOORS (CLASS II MATERIAL) 2% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 81% SOUTH FACADE : GLASS 20% STONE 6% METAL DOORS (CLASS II MATERIAL) 0.4% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 73.6% WEST FACADE : GLASS 11% STONE 9% METAL DOORS (CLASS II MATERIAL) 0.4% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 79.6% NORTH FACADE : GLASS 1% METAL DOORS (CLASS II MATERIAL) 11% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 88% * GLASS, STONE & ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST ARE CONSIDERED CLASS I MATERIALS IN CHAPTER 11 SECTION 11.46 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, SUBD.5. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. *ENDEAVOR IS INTERPRETING ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST TO INCLUDE PRECAST PANELS WITH FORM CAST REVEALS AND PAINT. FENCE - 1 CHAIN LINK WITH TAN PRIVACY SCREEN FABRIC - MATTE TAN (TBD) 7' - 0 " FENCE-1 FENCE-1 ON GATE FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" T.O. DECK 134'-9 1/2" ABCDEF PT-01 AFS-1 MC-1 PT-01 FLASH-1, TYP. SCORE ACCENT AFS-1 FLASH-1, TYP.FLASH-1, TYP. PT-02 AFS-1 AT OFFICES PT-01 PT-03 PT-02PT-03 PT-02 SV-01PT-03 SV-01 PT-01 PT-02 SV-01 12' X 14'-10" DRIVE- IN DOOR 7' HM DOOR, PAINT TO MATCH PT-03, TYP. FENCE-1 7' - 0 " D E S I G N G R O U P ISSUES & REVISIONS COMMISSION NO: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET 767 N. EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 190 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 651.642.9200 WWW.POPEDESIGN.COM POPE DESIGN GROUP NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE DATE 10/28/2024 1:07:27 PM Autodesk Docs://25221-24144_Endeavor Development & HM Cragg TI/25221-24144_Endeavor HM Cragg_R23.rvt A3.10 BUILDING 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BM BW 25221-24144 ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT NEXUS SHELL BUILDINGS EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.10 4 WEST BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.10 3 SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.10 1 NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION CITY SUBMITTAL 10-28-24 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.10 2 EAST BUILDING ELEVATION ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT NEXUS SHELL BUILDINGS EDEN PRAIRIE, MN FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 130'-9 1/2" A PT-01 B C D E F PT-01 PT-02 AFS-1 OVER ENTRY MC-1 AT ENTRY AFS-1 SV-01 FLASH-1, TYP. PT-03 AFS-1 PT-02 PT-02 PT-03 PT-01 SV-01 PT-02 SV-01 PT-01PT-03 SV-01 PT-02 PT-03 MA X . 3 6 ' - 8 " 7' HM DOOR, PAINT TO MATCH PT-03 FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 130'-9 1/2" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PT-02 AFS-1 OVER ENTRY MC-1 AT ENTRY SV-01 FLASH-1, TYP. SCORE ACCENT AFS-1 ENTRY FLASH-1, TYP. FLASH-1, TYP. PT-02 PT-01 AFS-1 AT OFFICES PT-01 40 SF SIGN PT-01 PT-02 PT-03 PT-01 AFS-1 PT-02 PT-03 PT-02 PT-03 PT-02PT-03 SV-1 PT-01 AFS-1 2 A4.20 AFS-1 OVER ENTRY MC-1 AT ENTRY SCORE ACCENT AFS-1 ENTRY 7' HM DOOR, PAINT TO MATCH PT-03 40 SF SIGN FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 130'-9 1/2" A BCDEF PT-01 AFS-1 OVER ENTRY MC-1 AT ENTRY PT-01 FLASH-1, TYP. SCORE ACCENT AFS-1 ENTRY FLASH-1, TYP.FLASH-1, TYP. PT-02 AFS-1 AT OFFICES PT-01PT-03 PT-02PT-03 PT-02 SV-01PT-03 SV-01 PT-01 PT-02 SV-01 7' HM DOOR, PAINT TO MATCH PT-03 FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 130'-9 1/2" 1234567 PT-02 PT-01 FLASH-1, TYP. 12'X14' DRIVE-IN BAY & OVERHEAD DOOR 9'X10' DOCK DOOR, TYP. PT-01 AFS-1, 1'10"X4' CLERESTORY PT-02 PT-02 7' HM DOOR, TYP PT-01 2 A4.20 9'-0" X 10'-0" KNOCKOUT PANEL 9'-0" X 10'-0" KNOCKOUT PANEL 12'X14' DRIVE-IN BAY & OVERHEAD DOOR 9'-0" X 10'-0" KNOCKOUT PANEL 9'-0" X 10'-0" KNOCKOUT PANEL 40 SF SIGN 40 SF SIGN EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH KEY MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH COLOR SAMPLE MC - 1 FLASH - 1 METAL CANOPY CAP FLASHING ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAMES AFS-1 KAWNEER OR EQUAL MATTE DARK BRONZE MAPES OR EQUAL MATTE DARK BRONZE - MATTE LIGHT TAN (TBD) PT-01 PAINTED PRE-CAST SHERWIN WILLIAMS LOXON XP LIGHT TAN (TBD) PT-02 PAINTED PRE-CAST SHERWIN WILLIAMS LOXON XP MED. TAN (TBD) PT-03 PAINTED PRE-CAST SHERWIN WILLIAMS LOXON XP DARK BRONZE (TBD) SV-01 STONE VENEER - - LIMESTONE EXTERIOR FINISH PERCENTAGES EAST FACADE : GLASS 8% STONE 9.8% METAL DOORS (CLASS II MATERIAL) 0.5% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 81.7% SOUTH FACADE : GLASS 21.5% STONE 10.5% METAL DOORS (CLASS II MATERIAL) 0.4% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 67.6% WEST FACADE : GLASS 8% STONE 9.8% METAL DOORS (CLASS II MATERIAL) 0.5% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 81.7% NORTH FACADE : GLASS 1% METAL DOORS (CLASS II MATERIAL) 6% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 93% * GLASS, STONE & ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST ARE CONSIDERED CLASS I MATERIALS IN CHAPTER 11 SECTION 11.46 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, SUBD.5. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. *ENDEAVOR IS INTERPRETING ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST TO INCLUDE PRECAST PANELS WITH FORM CAST REVEALS AND PAINT. D E S I G N G R O U P ISSUES & REVISIONS COMMISSION NO: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET 767 N. EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 190 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 651.642.9200 WWW.POPEDESIGN.COM POPE DESIGN GROUP NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE DATE 10/28/2024 1:06:25 PM Autodesk Docs://25221-24144_Endeavor Development & HM Cragg TI/25221-24040A_Endeavor Spec Building_R23.rvt A3.20 BUILDING 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Checker Author 25221-24040 ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT SPEC BUILDING EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.20 4 WEST BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.20 3 SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.20 2 EAST BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.20 1 NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION CITY SUBMITTAL 10-28-24 ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT NEXUS SHELL BUILDINGS EDEN PRAIRIE, MN G YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 92,224 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING 1 82,006 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING 2 G TOTAL PARKING STALL S : 1 7 1 TOTAL PARKING STALL S : 1 3 4 LOT 1 LOT 2 13,800 S.F. SECURED PARKING S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=86 9.9 3 L=431.0 0 Δ=28°23'11" C .Br g=S8 8°22'0 3"E C=426.6 0 Δ N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg =S64°13'11"E C=295.64Δ FFE: 942.00 FFE: 942.00 MK TLM, MLS Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ G R A D I N G . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 5 : 2 5 A M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 20 40 80 N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 5 - 2 4 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 WA T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S 6- 2 0 - 2 4 TW O B U I L D I N G C I T Y S U B M I T T A L 7- 2 8 - 2 4 CI T Y S U B M I T T A L 11 - 1 - 2 4 BI D S E T 11 - 1 7 - 2 4 1 2 - 9 - 2 4 1- 7 - 2 5 C I T Y / W A T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S C-004 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E BI D S E T NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K GR A D I N G P L A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 MK, DMS TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. LEGEND: GRADING NOTES: FFE: 942.00 FFE: 942.00 G YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 13,800 S.F. SECURED PARKING 5 - WBP 3 - DNS 6 - WLC 5 - WBP 6 - AWS 6 - WLC 3 - DNS 3 - GGS 5 - WBP 5 - RO 2 - BH 1 - AB 1 - AB 3 - AP 3 - AP 1 - AB 1 - AB 3 - AP 1 - CH 3 - AP 1 - SW 1 - RB 1 - RB 1 - SW 5 - AP 1 - CH 1 - SW 1 - SW 5 - BF 1 - RB 1 - SW 1 - RB 1 - BF 1 - BH 1 - SW 3 - BF 2 - RB 3 - BF 3 - BH 1 - RB 3 - AP 3 - BF 2 - CH 2 - CH 2 - CH 1 - RB1 - RB 3 - BF 2 - SW3 - AP 1 - RB 3 - BH 1 - SW 1 - RB 3 - BF 3 - AP 3 - DNS 5 - PPR 5 - PPR 6 - LDN 3 - MFG 7 - AWS 5 - MFG 3 - MFG 5 - MFG 4 - DNS 6 - LDN 9 - GGD 4 - TGA 5 - LDN 9 - GGD 4 - TGA 8 - GGD 5 - LDN 5 - TGA6 - IBC 5 - BH 5 - BF 3 - BH 10 - TGA1 - AB 1 - AB 5 - BH 10 - TGA 2 - AB 3 - AP 3 - AP 3 - AP 1 - RO 4 - GLS 2 - RB 2 - RB 2 - SW 1 - HL 1 - HL 1 - HL 5 - BH BIKE RACKS BIKE RACKS LANDSCAPE EDGING, SEE NOTES DARK BROWN DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH IN PLANTING BEDS, TYP. SEE NOTES 1.5-2" DIA. MULTICOLOR RIVER ROCK OVER FILTER FABRIC 4" DEPTH MIN. 1 - BH 1 - BF 1 - BH 3 - BF 1 - BH 2 - BH 1 - AB 4 - CH 6 - BH 1 - BH 1 - BH 2 - BH 1 - NF 1 - NF 6 - NF 1 - NF 42 - TGA 3 - HL 3 - AP 1 - RO 1 - RO 1 - RO 3 - AP 3 - AP 5 - BH 6 - BF 6 - BF 3 - IBC 3 - GLS 6 - TGA 6 - LDN 8 - GGD 9 - GGS 6 - AFS 3 - GOJ 3 - MFG 4 - GGS 8 - BBH 4 - WBP 8 - PPR 8 - GOJ 7 - WBP 3 - MFG 3 - DNS 4 - AFS 3 - DNS 3 - BBH 5 - GGS 3 - MFG 4 - LDN 5 - GGS 4 - LDN 3 - MFG 4 - GGS 5 - LDN 5 - BBH 7 - BBH 7 - DNS 9 - AWS 7 - PPR 7 - WBP 7 - PPR 5 - LDN 5 - GGS 3 - MFG 3 - AWS 7 - WBP 3 - AWS 3 - MFG 6 - DNS 3 - BBH 3 - DNS 6 - WLC 4 - DNS 3 - MFG 3 - PPR 6 - AWS 3 - PPR 6 - BBH 5 - GGS 6 - LDN 6 - GGS 5 - MFG 3 - BBH 6 - GOJ 3 - BBH 3 - MFG 6 - PPR 3 - MFG 3 - GOJ 6 - BBH 3 - GOJ 3 - MFG 6 - PPR 3 - BBH 3 - GLS 1 - RO 3 - BMJ 2 - AB 2 - HL 3 - GLS 3 - GLS 3 - GLS 3 - GLS 3 - GLS 4 - AB 5 - NPA 3 - HL 3 - BMJ 3 - BMJ 3 - BMJ 3 - BMJ 3 - BMJ 11 - GLS 4 - GLS 3 - BMJ 3 - GLS 5 - GGD 7 - GOJ 7 - PPR 5 - GLS 5 - GGD 8 - GOJ 6 - PPR 4 - TGA 4 - TGA 3 - BMJ 4 - BMJ 6 - IBC 6 - AWS 5 - NPA 6 - BMJ 8 - IBC 6 - AWS 5 - NPA 6 - BMJ 8 - IBC 5 - AWS 5 - NPA 3 - BMJ 4 - IBC 5 - NPA 5 - TGA 3 - TGA 15 - GOJ 3 - PPR PROPOSED BUILDING 1 PROPOSED BUILDING 2 Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA 26222 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ L A N D S C A P E . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Ma r k K r o n b e c k o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 3: 1 5 : 0 1 P M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 20 40 80 N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 5 - 2 4 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 WA T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S 6- 2 0 - 2 4 TW O B U I L D I N G C I T Y S U B M I T T A L 7- 2 8 - 2 4 CI T Y S U B M I T T A L 11 - 1 - 2 4 BI D S E T 11 - 1 7 - 2 4 1 2 - 9 - 2 4 1- 7 - 2 5 C I T Y / W A T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S L-003 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E BI D S E T NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K LA N D S C A P E P L A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: 4000129 Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA 26222 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 92,224 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDIN G 1 82,006 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING 2 G TOTAL PARKING STALL S : 1 7 1 TOTAL PARKING STALL S : 1 3 4 LOT 1 LOT 2 13,800 S.F. SECURED PARKING 60832 (NALST) S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=86 9.9 3 L=431.0 0 Δ=28°23'11" C .Br g=S88°2 2'0 3"E N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg =S64°13'11"E C=295.64 Δ MK TLM, MLS Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ S I T E - P R O O F O F P A R K I N G . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 5 : 1 3 A M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 5 - 2 4 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 WA T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S 6- 2 0 - 2 4 TW O B U I L D I N G C I T Y S U B M I T T A L 7- 2 8 - 2 4 CI T Y S U B M I T T A L 11 - 1 - 2 4 BI D S E T 11 - 1 7 - 2 4 1 2 - 9 - 2 4 1- 7 - 2 5 C I T Y / W A T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S C-003.2 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E BI D S E T NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K SI T E - F U T U R E P A R K I N G www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. SITE LEGEND: PARKING DATA: Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ D E T A I L S . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 8 : 2 0 A M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 5 - 2 4 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 WA T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S 6- 2 0 - 2 4 TW O B U I L D I N G C I T Y S U B M I T T A L 7- 2 8 - 2 4 CI T Y S U B M I T T A L 11 - 1 - 2 4 BI D S E T 11 - 1 7 - 2 4 1 2 - 9 - 2 4 1- 7 - 2 5 C I T Y / W A T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S L-004 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E BI D S E T NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K LA N D S C A P E D E T A I L S www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: 4000129 Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA 26222 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. L-004 4 MULCH AT SIDEWALK NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NOTES FOR COLOR AND TYPE OF MULCH. CONCRETE SIDEWALK 2" M I N . MULCH TO BE LEVEL AT SIDEWALK MULCH SEE NOTES 4" T Y P . PLANTING SOIL DEPTH VARIES SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI OR EQUAL L-004 5 MULCH AT SOD NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NOTES FOR COLOR AND TYPE OF MULCH. SOD 2" M I N . POLY EDGING MULCH SEE NOTES 4" T Y P . PLANTING SOIL DEPTH VARIES SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI OR EQUAL 12" SPIKE MULCH TO BE LEVEL WITH FINISHED GRADE PERENNIAL PLANTING NOT TO SCALEL-004 3 EQUAL SPACING PERENNIALS (TYP.), PLANT IN STAGGERED ROWS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE PLAN MIN. 3"-4" DEPTH HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC, SEE NOTES FOR TYPE & COLOR. MIN. 12" PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED, SEE NOTES. UNDISTURBED AND UNCOMPACTED SUBGRADE L-004 2 SHRUB PLANTING NOT TO SCALE PROVIDE MULCH, DO NOT BURY STEMS OR TRUNK. SEE NOTES FOR TYPE AND DEPTH REQUIRED. UNDISTURBED AND UNCOMPACTED SUBGRADE PRUNE DEAD AND BROKEN BRANCHES ROOT BALL SHOULD SIT DIRECTLY ON TOP OF UNDISTURBED SOIL. BACKFILL WITH TOPSOIL FROM HOLE AND WATER THOROUGHLY. PROVIDE PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED IN NOTES. PROVIDE FILTER FABRIC, MIRAFI OR EQUAL PLANT TOP OF ROOT BALL 1-2" ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE. PREPARE PLANTING AREA 3X THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL L-004 1 TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.TREE STAKING IS OPTIONAL. 2.DO NOT PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. 3.FOR TREES IN CONTAINERS, REMOVE CONTAINER PRIOR TO PLANTING. FOR BARE ROOT TREES, PLACE TREE IN MIDDLE OF PLANTING HOLE, SPREAD ROOTS OUT RADIALLY FROM THE TRUNK AROUND THE PREPARED HOLE. PREPARE PLANTING AREA 3X THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL OR PER PLAN IF PLANTED IN A BIORETENTION OR LARGER PLANTING AREA PLACE ROOTBALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL EXPOSE TRUNK FLARE, DO NOT PILE MULCH AGAINST TREE TRUNK MULCH RING, DIAMETER PER PLAN OR LANDSCAPE NOTES. PLACE MULCH SO NOT IN CONTACT WITH BASE OF TREE. COMPLETELY REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL TWINE, ROPE AND BASKETS. DISPOSE INTO PROPER LOCATION. TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT THE ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. PLANTING SOIL, BACKFILL PLACED IN 6" LIFTS GUYING PLAN SOD UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL ROOTBALL PRUNE DEAD AND BROKEN BRANCHES 16" POLY STRAP, 40 MIL. 1-1/2" WIDE 1 FLAG PER WIRE 3-GUY CABLES, DOUBLE STRAND, 14 GA. WIRES AT 120° SPACING, SEE GUYING PLAN 18" MIN.MACHINE EDGE V-DITCH AROUND ALL TREES IN SODDED AREAS 2"X2"X24" WOODEN STAKE AT AN ANGLE LANDSCAPE NOTES SEEDING NOTES LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE © DERO "HITCH" BIKE RACK - SURFACE MOUNT NOT TO SCALEL-004 6 YELLOW CIRCLE DR I V E BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE STATE HI G H W A Y N O . 6 2 STATE H I G H W A Y N O . 6 2 S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=869 .93 L=431.00 Δ=2 8°2 3'11" C.Br g=S 8 8°2 2'0 3"E C=426 .6 0 N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg=S64°13'11"E C=295.64 N1 ° 2 7 ' 1 5 " W 4 8 3 . 1 4 REMOVE (Tag 1804) 13" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1830) 31" White Oak Tag 182926" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1828) 19" Horse Chestnut REMOVE (Tag 1826) 11" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1825) 10" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1823) 15" Black Pine REMOVE (Tag 1822) 9" White Pine REMOVE (Tag 1820) 17" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1821) 8" Eastern Red Cedar REMOVE (Tag 1819) 12" Black Pine REMOVE (Tag 1816) 8" Eastern Red Cedar REMOVE (Tag 1817) 17" Douglas FirREMOVE (Tag 1818) 17" Colorado Blue SpruceREMOVE (Tag 1815) 25" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1788) 30" Bur Oak REMOVE (Tag 1785) 35" Norway Maple REMOVE (Tag 1784) 15" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1783) 16" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1782) 22" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1781) 40" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1780) 14" Honeylocust REMOVE (Tag 1786) 16" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1778) 17" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1779) 18" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1792) 0" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1794) 9" Scotch PineREMOVE (Tag 1795) 13" Douglas Fir REMOVE (Tag 1796) 23" Douglas Fir REMOVE (Tag 1798) 22" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1799) 12" Eastern Red Cedar REMOVE (Tag 1800) 13" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1802) 41" Black Locust REMOVE (Tag 1801) 25" Flowering Crab REMOVE (Tag 1793) 10" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1787) 12" Boxelder REMOVE (Tag 1771) 16" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1772) 12" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1773) 16" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1774) 26" Northern Red OakREMOVE (Tag 1776) 24" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1775) 47" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1777) 24" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1847) 29" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1848) 18" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1849) 12" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1905) 17" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1906) 17" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1907) 18" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1762) 17" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1761) 14" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1760) 17" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1858) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1857) 28" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1856) 31" Bur Oak REMOVE (Tag 1854) 15" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1853) 16" Colorado Blue SpruceREMOVE (Tag 1855) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1851) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1850) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1852) 11" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1831 17" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1832 15" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1833 19" Northern Red Oak Tag 1834 15" Colorado Blue SpruceTag 1835 13" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1836 11" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1837) 19" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 183813" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1928) 13" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1929) 22" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1954) 10" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1953) 9" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1952) 10" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1951) 13" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1950) 15" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1949) 9" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1948) 15" White Spruce Tag 195830" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1957) 15" Basswood Tag 196015" Basswood Tag 1961 23" White Oak Tag 196221" White Oak Tag 196522" White Oak Tag 196324" White Oak Tag 196414" White Oak Tag 196723" White Oak Tag 196826" Northern Red Oak Tag 1966 17" White Oak Tag 197016" White Oak Tag 197126" White Oak Tag 197622" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1955) 15" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1956) 17" Basswood Tag 1959 21" White Oak Tag 197219" Northern Red OakTag 197519" Northern Red Oak Tag 197447" Northern Red Oak Tag 197312" White Oak Tag 1977 24" Northern Red Oak Tag 196923" Northern Red Oak Tag 197826" Northern Red Oak Tag 197925" White Oak Tag 198022" White Oak Tag 1981 22" Northern Red Oak Tag 198326" White Oak Tag 198431" Northern Red Oak Tag 1943 14" White OakTag 194418" White OakTag 194517" White Oak Tag 194629" Northern Red Oak Tag 1947 27" Northern Red Oak Tag 1989 26" Northern Red Oak Tag 199017" White Oak Tag 198719" White Oak Tag 198523" Northern Red Oak Tag 198618" Silver Maple Tag 1988 17" White Oak Tag 1982 17" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1701) 26" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1702) 25" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1704) 13" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1703) 28" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1705) 13" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1706) 13" White SpruceREMOVE (Tag 1707) 9" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1708) 23" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1709) 13" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1718) 25" Flowering Crab Tag 1719 22" Green Ash Tag 1720 25" Green Ash Tag 1723 24" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1717) 40" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1716) 23" Green Ash Tag 1715 25" Green Ash Tag 1714 27" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1712) 16" Flowering Crab Tag 1713 38" Flowering Crab REMOVE (Tag 1711) 20" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1710) 10" White Spruce Tag 1722 15" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1724) 18" Green Ash Tag 1725 18" Green Ash Tag 172612" Green Ash Tag 172716" Green Ash Tag 1728 16" White Spruce Tag 1729 13" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1770) 23" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1769) 15" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1768) 20" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1767) 14" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1766) 26" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1765) 21" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1764) 24" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1763) 19" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1735) 34" Silver Maple Tag 173447" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1733) 10" White Spruce Tag 1732 25" Silver Maple Tag 173036" Basswood Tag 1731 36" Eastern Cottonwood Tag 1736 23" Northern Red OakTag 1737 17" Boxelder REMOVE (Tag 1738) 31" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1742) 13" Colorado Blue SpruceREMOVE (Tag 1743) 12" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1741) 16" White Spruce Tag 173934" Northern Red Oak Tag 174026" Northern Red Oak Tag 174429" Northern Red Oak Tag 174524" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1746) 33" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1747) 41" Northern Red Oak Tag 1749 22" Northern Red OakTag 1748 14" Black Cherry REMOVE (Tag 1750) 41" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1751) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1752) 11" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1753) 8" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1754) 18" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1755) 22" Green Ash Tag 1756 15" Black Cherry REMOVE (Tag 1757) 20" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1758) 18" Green AshREMOVE (Tag 1759) 21" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1859) 18" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1860) 19" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 186116" Northern Red Oak Tag 1862 29" Northern Red Oak Tag 186325" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1864) 30" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1865) 13" Red Pine Tag 186614" Red Pine Tag 186712" Red Pine Tag 186811" Red PineTag 186939" Northern Red Oak Tag 187226" Northern Red Oak Tag 1871 33" Northern Red Oak Tag 1874 24" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1870) 28" Northern Red Oak Tag 18758" Red Pine Tag 18769" Red Pine Tag 1877 9" Red Pine Tag 18789" Red Pine Tag 187911" Red PineTag 18809" Red Pine Tag 188110" Red Pine REMOVE (Tag 1883) 10" Red Pine Tag 188226" Boxelder Tag 188415" Northern Red Oak Tag 188510" Red Pine Tag 188612" Red Pine Tag 1887 17" Northern Red Oak Tag 188915" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 188814" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 189015" Colorado Blue SpruceTag 189112" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 189214" Northern Red Oak Tag 189312" Red Pine Tag 1894 10" Red Pine Tag 1895 12" Red Pine Tag 1896 11" Red PineTag 1897 12" Red Pine Tag 1898 11" Red PineTag 189911" Red Pine Tag 1900 11" Red Pine Tag 1901 18" Basswood Tag 190215" BasswoodTag 190314" Basswood Tag 190418" BasswoodTag 190812" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1909 15" Colorado Blue SpruceTag 191012" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 191110" Colorado Blue SpruceTag 191214" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 191316" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1914 18" American Elm Tag 1915 16" American Elm Tag 191620" Black Willow Tag 191717" Black Willow Tag 191819" Black Willow Tag 191930" Black Willow Tag 192014" Boxelder Tag 192130" White Oak Tag 192624" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1846) 9" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1844) 15" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1843) 13" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1842) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1841) 14" Green Ash Tag 192735" White Oak Tag 1922 12" Northern Red Oak Tag 1923 12" Northern Red Oak Tag 1924 29" Northern Red Oak Tag 1925 21" Silver Maple Tag 1930 13" Black Cherry Tag 193113" White Oak Tag 193718" White Oak Tag 193225" White Oak Tag 193317" White Oak Tag 193430" White Oak Tag 193518" White Oak Tag 1936 24" Northern Red Oak Tag 194225" Northern Red Oak Tag 194124" Northern Red Oak Tag 194019" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1939) 27" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1938) 26" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1839) 19" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1840) 16" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1808) 32" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1809) 20" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1806) 24" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1805) 30" White Oak Tag 181032" Eastern Cottonwood Tag 181117" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1812) 19" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1814) 29" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1813) 25" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1803) 20" Sugar Maple REMOVE (Tag 1797) 20" Red Pine REMOVE (Tag 1791) 13" Eastern Red Cedar REMOVE (Tag 1790) 17" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1789) 30" Douglas Fir Tag 1721 23" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1824) 13" Red Pine REMOVE (Tag 1845) 12" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1873 22" White Oak STATE H I G H W A Y N O . 6 2 STATE HI G H W A Y N O . 6 2 YELLOW CIRCLE DR I V E BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE 26222 TLM, MLS Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ T R E E - I N V . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 7 : 0 6 A M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 N W S E CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 5 - 2 4 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 WA T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S 6- 2 0 - 2 4 TW O B U I L D I N G C I T Y S U B M I T T A L 7- 2 8 - 2 4 CI T Y S U B M I T T A L 11 - 1 - 2 4 BI D S E T 11 - 1 7 - 2 4 1 2 - 9 - 2 4 1- 7 - 2 5 C I T Y / W A T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S L-001 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E BI D S E T NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K TR E E P R E S E R V A T I O N A N D R E M O V A L PL A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: 4000129 Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. LEGEND: MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ T R E E - I N V . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 7 : 1 0 A M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 5 - 2 4 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 WA T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S 6- 2 0 - 2 4 TW O B U I L D I N G C I T Y S U B M I T T A L 7- 2 8 - 2 4 CI T Y S U B M I T T A L 11 - 1 - 2 4 BI D S E T 11 - 1 7 - 2 4 1 2 - 9 - 2 4 1- 7 - 2 5 C I T Y / W A T E R S H E D C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S L-002 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E BI D S E T NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K TR E E I N V E N T O R Y www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: 4000129 Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA 26222 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. TREE REPLACEMENT | G X E Lot 1, Block 1, American Family Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Torrens Property - Certificate of Title No. 715407) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LEGEND 1.This survey and the property description shown here on are based upon information found in the commitment for title insurance prepared by First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services, file no. NCS-1206596-MPLS, dated January 22, 2024. 2.The orientation of this bearing system is based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System NAD83(86 adj.). 3.All distances are in feet. 4.The locations of existing utilities on or serving the property are depicted based on Gopher State One Call Ticket No. 240641244, 240641245, 240640864 & 240640865, available city maps, records and observed evidence locations. Lacking excavation, underground utility locations may not be exact. Verify critical utilities prior to construction or design. 5.Land area of property is 624,864 sq. ft. or 14.345 acres. 6.Bench Mark 1: MNDOT benchmark "SHADY OAK MNDT" located in Edina, .01 mile east along Londonderry Road from the junction of Bren Road West and Trunk Highway 169, then 0.4 mile south along Lincoln Drive, 138.0 feet east of the centerline of Lincoln Drive, 178.0 feet north of the entrance to Edina West Condominiums, 1.0 foot west of a witness point and has an elevation of 938.079 feet (NAVD88). 7. Bench Mark 2: Local Benchmark is a TNH lcoated on the S intersection of Yellow Circle Dr and Blue Circle Dr and has an elevation of 954.44 feet (NAVD88). NOTES www.alliant-inc.com Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR REVIEW ONLY PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA. Dan Ekrem, PLS___________________________________________________ Print Name ____________________________________________________________ Signature 57366____________________________________________________________ Date License Number Fi l e L o c a t i o n : X: \ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ o l d \ E C O N _ r e s t o r e d . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 3 : 3 2 A M  6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 1 2 40 0 0 1 2 9 3/ 1 1 / 2 0 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 6- 5 - 2 4 En d e a v o r D e v e l o p m e n t EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 1 FOR REVIEW NO T E S YELLOW CIRCLE D R I V E BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE STATE HI G H W A Y N O . 6 2 STATE H I G H W A Y N O . 6 2 S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=8 6 9 .9 3 L=431.00 Δ=28°2 3'11" C.B r g=S88°22'0 3 "E C=4 26 .60 Δ N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg=S64°13'11"E C=295.64Δ N1 ° 2 7 ' 1 5 " W 4 8 3 . 1 4 96 0 97 0 98 8 958 954 946 940 942 950 94 6 94 2 932 928 926 92 4 9 2 8 930 9 3 0 932 9 3 4 94 4 95 2 950 94 6 94 0 938 936 934 930 9 4 0 93 6 934 934 93 4 938 942 936 944 948 944 946 958 954 95 0 9 4 0 93 2 www.alliant-inc.com Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR REVIEW ONLY PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 SCALE IN FEET 20 40 80 N I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA. Dan Ekrem, PLS___________________________________________________ Print Name ____________________________________________________________ Signature 57366____________________________________________________________ Date License Number Fi l e L o c a t i o n : X: \ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ o l d \ E C O N _ r e s t o r e d . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 3 : 3 8 A M  6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 2 2 40 0 0 1 2 9 3/ 1 1 / 2 0 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 6- 5 - 2 4 En d e a v o r D e v e l o p m e n t 1" = 4 0 ' EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 2 FOR REVIEW NOT TO SCALE DETAIL N S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R =8 6 9 .93 L=4 31.0 0 Δ=28°2 3'11" C.B r g=S8 8°2 2'0 3"E C=4 2 6 .60 N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg=S64°13'11"E C=295.64 N1 ° 2 7 ' 1 5 " W 4 8 3 . 1 4 96 097 0 98 8 958 954 946 940 942 950 94 6 942 932 928 926 92 4 9 2 8 930 9 3 0 932 9 3 4 94 4 95 2 950 94 6 94 0 938 936 934 930 9 4 0 93 6 934 934 93 4 938 942 936 944 948 944 946 958 954 9 5 0 9 4 0 93 2 Fi l e L o c a t i o n : X: \ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ E C O N _ 2 5 0 f t . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Da n S j o b l o m o n Ja n u a r y 7 , 2 0 2 5 a t 11 : 2 3 : 5 8 A M  6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E ED E N P R A I R I E , M N 3 2 40 0 0 1 2 9 3/ 1 1 / 2 0 2 4 CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L CI T Y R E S U B M I T T A L 6- 1 2 - 2 4 6- 5 - 2 4 En d e a v o r D e v e l o p m e n t 1" = 4 0 ' EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S -2 5 0 F T 3 www.alliant-inc.com Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR REVIEW ONLY PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 N Nov. 18, 2024 Beth Novak-Krebs City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55 RE: Nexus Innovation Center, 6131 Blue Circle Drive Dear Beth, Minnetonka planning, engineering, and public works staff have had an opportunity to review the plans for the Nexus Innovation Center proposal. We have the following comments and questions for your consideration. Comments • Utilities: In 1977, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie entered into a Joint Powers Agreement for “sanitary and storm sewer and water facilities and street improvements” for the Eden Prairie properties located in Opus. Under the agreement: (1) Minnetonka constructed these facilities and assessed Eden Prairie; (2) Minnetonka is responsible for the maintenance of the sewer and water improvements; and (3) Minnetonka reads meters and charges Eden Prairie properties directly for sewer and water services. Any increase in utility usage may necessitate utility improvements, which would be Minnetonka's responsibility under the agreement. Since the proposed buildings do not have specific users defined, it is challenging to anticipate utility usage. Therefore, Minnetonka requests the establishment of a new Joint Powers Agreement to clearly define future cost responsibilities. This new agreement should include provisions for 6101 and 6131 Blue Circle Drive, as well as the unaddressed parcel to the west. Further, Minnetonka staff requests the following conditions: • Utility easements over all existing utility lines. • Extension of the proposed sanitary sewer and water service to the west property line for future connection, along with a associated easements for future public or private connections or extensions. • Replacement of all removed hydrants with new hydrants; current plans call for their removal and relocation. • Landscaping plantings within drainage and utility easements to be limited to minor shrubbery; overstory and conifer trees are not permissible for maintenance purposes. • Trail: The replacement of the existing trail along Blue Circle Drive is consistent with Minnetonka’s Opus Area Placemakeing + Urban Design Implementation Guide. While staff appreciates the intent of tree replacement along the trail, by Minnetonka policy deciduous trees must be located at least 10 feet from public trails and evergreens must be at least 15 feet. Staff requests a condition to that effect. • Traffic: The Opus area has undergone significant land use changes in recent years. Specifically, over 1900 residential units have been approved/constructed since 2018. Minnetonka understands that the WSB traffic study conducted for the previous proposal for the site assumes that warehouse/office use would have little to no impact on the functionality of the Opus roadway system. However, Minnetonka is concerned that introducing large warehouse space will alter the type and timing of traffic through Opus and may affect new residences. While Opus has always had light industrial users, warehouse/office of this size is a departure from anticipated development in the Minnetonka Comprehensive Plan and Opus AUAR. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Nexus Innovation Center proposal. Please let us me know if you’d like to discuss the items contained in this letter. Regards, Susan Thomas, AICP Assistant City Planner City of Minnetonka NEXUS AT OPUS PARK January 13th Planning Commission 6131 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE, MN ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT About Us 2023 Top Six Developer in Minneapolis - St. Paul by Square Footage •Endeavor Development is a locally based real estate development company that was founded in 2020. •Endeavor has developed over 3 million square feet of finished space in 3 states. 2022 Top Ten Developer in Minneapolis - St. Paul by Square Footage Minneapolis-St.Paul Des Moines Milwaukee Minnesota Arbor Lakes Buildings 3 -8,Maple Grove Highview 610 Business Center,Brooklyn Park I-94 Logistics Center, Rogers Nathan Lane Business Center,Plymouth Pilot Knob Business Center, Mendota Heights Blu Dot Global Distribution Center,Otsego Yankee Doodle Business Center,Eagan Zachary Distribution Center,Maple Grove Iowa I-35 Distribution Center,Ankeny I-80 Distribution Center,Altoona Wisconsin I-94 Business Center,Mt.Pleasant ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Project Highlights •The property is the former office campus for American Family Insurance. •The applicant previously rezoned the site to I-2 Industrial Park to support a single 185,733 SF speculative business center. •The Applicant (Endeavor) is now proposing a revised site plan with two (2) buildings totaling 174,230 square feet, one a 92,224 square foot build-to-suit for HM Cragg, a locally based provider of backup power solutions, and the other an 82,006 square foot speculative building. ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Existing Property City of Edina City of Minnetonka City of Eden Prairie I-2 Current Zoning Obsolete 3-Building Office Campus Minnetonka Utilities Sanitary & Water Proposed Redevelopment ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Site Plan Development boasts robust landscaping plan with the conservation of perimeter trees. Sustainable Strategies •Utilization of existing onsite materials •Infrastructure for EV vehicles and solar panels •Low VOC materials and Energy Star Appliances •Xcel EDA Program Ample parking expandable as needed to suit user requirements. ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Elevations – Building 1 (HM Cragg) Exterior Material Finish Key Painted Precast Stone Veneer Metal Canopy & Window Frames ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Elevations – Building 2 - Speculative Exterior Material Finish Key Painted Precast Stone Veneer Metal Canopy & Window Frames ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Rendering ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Character – Images Exterior ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Character Images - Interior ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Conclusion •The Applicant (Endeavor) is requesting site plan and preliminary plat approval. •Endeavor’s redevelopment will revitalize an underutilized and obsolete office campus and bring jobs and tax base back to a prominent site that serves as a gateway into the city of Eden Prairie. Questions Planning Commission Memo Date: January 13, 2025 Subject: Code Amendment - Office use in Public zoning From: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner ITEM DESCRIPTION A zoning ordinance amendment that would allow office and medical office uses in buildings zoned public and used for schools. REQUESTED ACTIONS • Amendment to Chapter 11, section 11.07 Permitted Uses Table – Special Districts BACKGROUND The proposed ordinance allows office and medical office uses as an accessory (or secondary use) in a building originally constructed for office use and repurposed for schools. Office uses are deemed acceptable in these situations for the following reasons: 1) the office use is accessory in nature and is not the primary use; 2) the property was developed in a manner that supports office uses, including building and site design supporting stable traffic and parking impacts; and 3) allows flexibility to support local community needs and investment. The former UNFI three story office building at 11840 Valley View Rd was recently purchased by the Eden Prairie School District. The District requested that the property be re-guided and rezoned to Public to support its use for school purposes. The Public district primarily supports the use of property for public and quasi-public uses and does not currently allow for private office uses. The District intends to use the majority of the building for school and educational instruction purposes. The property was attractive to the District because its size allows for the ability to expand into the space as the needs of the District expand. The District proposes to use a portion of the building as lease space for private office uses. This requires an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ____-2025 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.07 RELATING TO PERMITTED USES IN SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAINS PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.07, Subsection D, is amended as follows: A. To add the following new row to the table, in its proper alphabetical location: Offices and Medical Office A3 B. To add the following new footnote at the end of the subsection: 3 Office uses are only permitted in former office buildings that are adaptively reused for school uses. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation” and Section 11.99 entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance will become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the ___ day of _________________, 2025, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the _____ day of _______________, 2025. _________________________________ _________________________________ David Teigland City Clerk Ronald A. Case, Mayor Published in the Sun Sailor on the ____ day of ______________, 2025.