Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 05/07/1996
AGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1996 6:30 PM, CITY CENTER Heritage Rooms II & IV COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMBERS: Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Conrad Skonieczny, Kathie Case, Jane Hession, James Wilson, Betty McMahon, James Mason, and John Katzung, Student Youth Representative STAFF LIAISON: John Gertz, Historical Preservation Specialist A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER B. INTRODUCTIONS C. PRESENTATION/STATUS OF WORK PLAN 1. Review of the 1996 Work Plan 2. Current Projects a) Local Designations b) Oak Point Archaeology Program c) Historic Site Market and Recognition Program D. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL INPUT 1. Expand the Role of the HPC in Cultural Resource Management E. CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT MISSION STATEMENT 66 The Eden Prairie_Heritage Preservation Commission is an advisory group acting to preserve Eden Prairie's past and foster its heritage. EDEN PRAIRIE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1996 WORK SCHEDULE .......... .... ................ . ............................... �.. ..................:..:...........................:::w:::::v:..•:;....::::::nv:::::::.....•:w::::.�::.:...;..;......... N .�iGi�$�{:;:'+' �::}}:ii:•rJ:!:i'{::..�i•,:r�i:�ii.'•�•:'.::''.;:��v+::n::•::::::::::::::::�•i:•ii;{•i:•i:::in�iiiii Local Designations This will be an ongoing,high priority project.Approximately 4-5 sites will be recommended for designation. Historic Preservation Planning Guide Drafted in 1995,this planning guide should be completed in June. Heritage Site Recognition Program The Commission will oversee the program throughout 1996. Tasks will include: • HPC open house program in February to introduce the program to the community. • Processing of site applications. 4 evaluations • recommendations Grants One CLG(Certified Local Government)grant project will continue in 1996 and end July 31. A second grant will be applied for January 31. Both grants are local history education projects done jointly with Eden Prairie schools. Collaborations with Eden Prairei Historical Society These collaborations will occur as appropriate. Joint projects such as Sunbonnet Day and Cummins-Grill Christmas will continue. New projects this year may include:planning for History Museum,interaction with schools,and new programs. Community Events Continued involvement in community events will include sponsoring the 17th Annual Sunbonnet Day September 15, 1996. The HPC will be hosting an open house event February 25, 1996,and will also be a participant in the statewide Minnesota Archaeology Week by hosting History Underfoot:Archeology for Kids,May 5, 1996 at the Staring Lake Outdoor Center. Subcommittee The Historic Sites Committee will continue the ongoing restoration and development work a the J. R. Cummins site. The HPC oversees the committee and will continue to assist the committee in 1996 with the construction of an interpretive kiosk and other site improvements. Professional Development All HPC members should attend the SHPO(State Historic Preservation Office)annual workshop and conference. Participation is a requirement for maintaining CLG status. This year the Commission will attend the meetings at the Lumber Baron's Hotel, Stillwater,MN April 25-26, 1996. Annual Reports The SHPO annual report will be done in October 1996. The City Council annual report will be done in December 1996. k V EDEN PRAIRIE HPC GOALS • , Preserve Heritage OBJECTIVES: 1) Seek historic designation for identified historical sites and structures. 2) Establish criteria and incentive for owners of historic properties to benefit from historic preservation. • Plaque programs • Celebrate historic homes • Public promotions 3 Develop preservation policies that guide the city in planning and land use regulation. • Create links within the city to become a significant part of the city's development process. 4) Do comprehensive preservation planning. • Identify and/or publicize our heritage and appropriate cultural resources including diversity and threats. 5) Pursue other grants for preservation. • PRESERVE HERITAGE FIVE YEAR PLAN • 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 OBJECTIVE J F M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 04 Q1 Q2 03 Q4 Q1 Q2 ,Q3 04 1) Seek historic designation for identified historical sites and v v v v v structures. 2) Establish criteria and incentive for owners of historic properties to benefit from historic preservation. • Plaque programs • • Celebrate historic homes • Public promotions 3) Develop preservation policies that guide the city in planning and land use regulation. • • Create links within the city to become a significant part of the city's development - process 4) Do comprehensive preservation planning. • Identify and/or publicize our heritage and appropriate cultural resources including •--v v v v v diversity and threats 5) Pursue other grants for preservation. V= Review Objective • • 1 Promote Heritage OBJECTIVES: 1) Continue important/key link to EP Historical Society. 2) Develop educational material and opportunities as a • resource for EP. •Youth Historian program • Create scholarships 3) Offer public presentations to groups. 4) Develop public relations programs. • Get information about Heritage Preservation Commission activities in newspapers 5) Sponsor and participate in Sun Bonnet Day and Heritage Preservation Week. 6) Select, develop, and install site markings and interpretation. • 7) Professional development for all HPC members. •Annual conference/workshops • • PROMOTE HERITAGE Five Year Plan • 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 • OBJECTIVE JFMAMJJASOND 01 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 01 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1) Continue important/key link to EP Historical Society. 2) Develop educational material and opportunities as a resource for EP. o a a a • Youth Historian program Brochure Scholarship Advertise Grant • Create scholarships 3) Offer public presentations to groups. 4) Develop public relations program. • Get information about Heritage Newspaper _ Preservation Commission activities in newspapers 5) Sponsor and participate in Sun Bonnet Day and Heritage o 0 0 • Preservation Week. Investigate/Decide/Implement 6) Select, develop, and install site markings and interpretation. v v v v v 7) Professional development for all HPC members. 0 0 Q o 0 • •Annual conference/workshops • V= Review Objective AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thorflnnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson ROLL CALL PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING "SENIOR AWARENESS WEEK" MAY 11 THROUGH MAY 17, 1996 I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1996 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1996 C. COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1996 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT HUB by Southwest Metro Transit Commission. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 8.5 acres; Adoption of a Site Plan Review on 8.5 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Southwest Metro Transit Hub by Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Location: South of Highway 5, north of Technology Drive and west of Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change and Resolution for Site Plan Review) City Council Agenda Tuesday, May 7, 1996 Page Two C. WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION by City of Eden Prairie. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 18.9 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the 1-5 District; and Adoption of a Site Plan Review on 18.9 acres. Location: Southeast corner of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment and Resolution for Site Plan Review) D. BEST BUY PARKING by Best Buy Company. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 28.5 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 0.7 acres; Adoption of a Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Best Buy Parking by Best Buy Company. Location: 10555 Northgate Parkway. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change and Resolution for Site Plan Review) E. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER by Opus Corporation. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District and PUD District Review on 15.6 acres; Adoption of a Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Flying Cloud Business Center by Opus Corporation. Location: 6509 Flying Cloud Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and PUD District Review and Resolution for Site Plan Review) F. PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING MAY 21, 1996 AS MARGE McPEAK DAY IN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE G. APPROVE BID TO INSTALL RUBBERIZED FLOORING IN COMMUNITY CENTER LOBBY H. REQUEST TO APPROVE BID FOR MILLER PARK SHELTER I. APPROVAL OF EASEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND MTS J. AUTHORIZATION OF PURCHASE OF OUTLOT B FROM MTS K. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1996 STREET SEALCOAT, I.C. 96-5410 L. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1996 STREET STRIPING, I.C. 96-5411 City Council Agenda Tuesday, May 7, 1996 Page Three M. AWARD CONTRACT FOR DRUM VIBRATORY COMPACTOR, I.C. 96-5416 N. APPROVE PETERSON VS. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT O. RELEASE OF LAND - PERTAINING TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS WITH MASON HOMES, INC. P. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION AND AUTHORIZE BIDS TO BE RECEIVED, I.C. 96-5350 Q. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT WITH BEARPATH REGARDING SEWER AND WATER ACCESS CHARGES V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. J.IFET000H CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS by Lifetouch, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 109 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.22 acres, Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to Office on 9.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.6 acres and Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 2 lots. Location: Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change and PUD District Review, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) B. EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH by Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Public on 12.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 12.18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 12.18 acres and Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres into one lot and road right-of-way. Location: Pioneer Trail and County Road 4. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change, Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) City Council Agenda Tuesday, May 7, 1996 Page Four C. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 38.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 38.5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 38.5 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY. 169. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 and PUD District Review , Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Resolution for Preliminary Plat) VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY & PROCEDURES MANUAL VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS X. APPOINTMENTS A. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION - One appointment to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission to fill an unexpired term through March 31, 1998 XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES 1. POLICY ON SMOKING ON COMMUNITY CENTER PROPERTY City Council Agenda Tuesday, May 7, 1996 Page Five 2. REQUEST FROM GIRLS SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION TO ACCEPT DONATION OF SCOREBOARDS FOR BALLFIELDS AT MILLER PARK • 3. REQUEST TO APPOINT DEB CAMPBELL POTTER, ARTS COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON, AS THE COMMISSION LIAISON TO THE STARING ARTS BOARD D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT ill a Cl f o� PROCLAMATION City of Eden Prairie Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the increasing number of senior citizens in Eden Prairie bring many opportunities and challenges for all components of our City -- families, businesses, and government; and WHEREAS, every segment of our society is influenced by the needs, resources and expertise of our older citizens; and WHEREAS, our Eden Prairie seniors play a pivotal role in formal and informal education, sharing years of accumulated experience and wisdom which will impact our future; and WHEREAS, the community wishes to celebrate and acknowledge the contributions and accomplishments of the older adults in our community and recognize the organizations that serve older adults; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jean L. Harris, Mayor of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim May 11 through May 17, 1996 to be "SENIOR AWARENESS WEEK" In the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on this 7th•day of May, 1996. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have affixed the seal of the City of Eden Prairie. • Jean L. Harris, Mayor on behalf of Council members: Ron Case Patricia Pidcock Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. Nancy Tyra-Lukens lip UNAPPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS CAMPAIGN ISSUES TUESDAY,APRIL 16, 1996 6:00 PM, TRAINING ROOM 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Ronald Case, Patricia Pidcock, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger,Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson and Council Recorder Jan Nelson ROLL CALL All members were present. Councilmember Pidcock arrived late. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. IL CAMPAIGN ISSUES Case was concerned about multiple signs on one location, signs on county property and the proliferation of signs shortly before election day. He would prefer that Staff be empowered to take the signs on the right-of-way immediately if they are in violation of the code, rather than following the process of notifying the campaign director which can extend the time the signs are in violation for five days or more. Councilmember Pidcock arrived at 7:35 PM. Thorfinnson thought the problem is a function of enforcement, especially right before the election. Pidcock thought we need a penalty. Tyra-Lukens noted that we are not dealing with professionals at the local level. These are volunteer workers who may not know what the rules are. Johnson suggested that we offer a class to the campaign workers to help train them. City Attorney Pauly reviewed the broader issues of discriminating against freedom of speech by limiting the time political signs can be displayed and the number of signs. Tyra-Lukens asked about the concept of designated spots in the City where candidates could put up signs. Pauly said there would be a problem with the content neutral issue unless we lumped all types of signs in one area. Pauly noted that the trend is to liberalize sign policies. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP April 16, 1996 Page 2 Councilmembers discussed concerns regarding the three-day warning policy to the campaign director. Johnson said shortening the three-day period would make it more difficult for Staff. She said since September of 1994 we have not observed the three-day notice period for right- of-way violations and have enforced the ordinance on a complaint basis or on a flagrant violation. Pauly said we could deal with the violations at the end of the campaign by providing that it would constitute an offense in the last few days of the campaign . Thorfinnson said he thought most of the problems are caused by a lack of knowledge and that we should focus on making attendance at classes a requirement for filing. Johnson said we give them a written outline now, and we might want to distribute a pictorial example of proper placement. Case was concerned that, as the City grows, the number of candidates running in each election will increase and the problems dealing with campaign signs will also grow. He wanted to lessen the labor-intensive process that goes on by identifying the two or three things that are most obnoxious and permit Staff to take the signs in those situations. Harris was concerned about the cases where people were measuring placement and reporting signs that were only two inches off the limit. Thorfinnson thought that is where we are headed if we create a lot of regulation. He thought the answer might be to focus on perpetual violators. Pidcock was concerned about incidents of"dirty tricks," such as moving another candidate's signs. Enger asked where we are at regarding signs on private property. Pauly said we can take them only if they are in the right of way. We could give three-day notice for those on private property and further limit the notice provision under certain circumstances, such as during the last three days of campaign. Case was concerned that the procedure to call the campaign does not work, and some signs are put up without asking the owner. Pidcock noted they are supposed to have permission from the property owner. Case would like to have us do a better job of picking up signs on the right of way and thought we should just plan for someone to staff the sign enforcement for the last three days of the campaign. We should have a place to store them and have a $10.00 fee to get them back. Enger was concerned that we have a limited number of people to pick up signs and we have to have evidence such as pictures or measurements that prove the signs were in violation. He thought we could devote staff time at the end of the campaign to a dedicated effort towards education and enforcement. He also thought we don't have an obligation to give the signs back. Johnson noted that we have given them back in the past. Harris said she would like to go ahead with the education program and think about dealing with the flagrant violators. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP April 16, 1996 Page 3 Case was okay with focusing more intense efforts during the last few days. III. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT Harris adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. 3 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,APRIL 16, 1996 7:30 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Ronald Case, Patricia Pidcock, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Julie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert,Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly,and Council Recorder Jan Nelson ROLL CALL Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM, following the meeting of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority. All members were present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Jullie added the Eden Prairie Optimist Club to the Clerk's License Application List for a temporary license for the sale of beer April 27 and 28, 1996, at a softball tournament. Harris added item XI.A.1. Letter from National Kidney Foundation. Pauly changed paragraph 1 , page 23 of item H, Shoreland Ordinances. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the agenda as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. H. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,APRIL 2, 1996 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, April 2, 1996, as published. Motion carried with Pidcock and Thorfinnson abstaining. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. RESOLUTION 96-59 GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE TANAGER CREEK PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF$15,045,985 I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 2 C. QUEST TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NATURAL AND SCENIC GRANT PROPOSAL D. APPROVE BIDS FOR RUBBERIZED FLOORING FOR RINK#1 AT EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER E. DATA METALCRAFT EXPANSION by Gene O'Brien. Request for Withdrawal of Data Metalcraft Proposal F. ROGER'S HOMESTEAD by Paul Thorp. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 15-96 for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.9 acres; and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Roger's Homestead by Paul Thorp. Location: Duck Lake Road and Duck Lake Trail. (Ordinance 15-96 for Zoning District Change) G. SOUTHWEST CROSSING HOTEL by BTO Development Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 14-96-PUD-4-96 for Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to Commercial Regional Service on 7.25 acres and Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.25 acres; Adoption of a Site Plan Review on 7.25 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Southwest Crossing Hotel by BTO Development Corporation. Location: Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance 14-96-PUD-4-96 for Zoning District Change and Planned Unit Development District Review and Resolution 96-60 for Site Plan Review) IL SHORELAND ORDINANCES 2nd Reading of Ordinance 16-96 amendment to City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.02 entitled Definitions and 11.50 entitled Shoreland Management; and 2nd Reading of Ordinance 17-96 amendment to City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.60 entitled Regulation of Lake Waters Generally I. RESOLUTION 96-61 ESTABLISHING A NEW MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET J. RESOLUTION 96-62 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF VIKING DRIVE WEST 2ND ADDITION(located at the southwest corner of Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive) K. RESOLUTION 96-63 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF ROGERS HOMESTEAD (located at the southeast corner of Duck Lake Road and Duck Lake Trail) L. RESOLUTION 96-64 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF CHASE POINT 3RD ADDITION(located at the northwest corner of City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road) M. RESOLUTION 96-65 APPROVING CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR CSAH 62/TH 101/DELL ROAD INTERSECTION,I.C. 52-103 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 3 N. RESOLUTION 96-66 APPROVING CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR FLOODPLAIN/WETLAND MITIGATION SITE: TH 212 RAMP EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT. LC 93-5301 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve amended item A, items B-G, amended item H, and items I-N of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. BEST BUY PARKING by Best Buy Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 0.7 acres and PUD District Review on 28.5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 28.5 acres into one lot, and Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres. Location: 10555 Northgate Parkway. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change and PUD District Review and Resolution 96-67 for Preliminary Plat) Jullie said this project involves the construction of 143 new parking stalls and a drive- aisle on the site, bringing the total parking to 1,076 units. Chris Johnson, representing Best Buy, reviewed the project. Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the project on March 25, 1996, and recommended approval on a 7-0 vote, per the recommendations of the Staff Report of March 22, 1996. The project was not reviewed by the Parks,Recreation&Natural Resources Commission. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing;to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 0.7 acres, and PUD District Review on 28.5 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-67 for Preliminary Plat approval of 28.5 acres into 1 lot; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of March 22, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. B. IMPACT MARKETING DEVELOPMENT by Keith Waters. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Hennepin County to Office on 6.02 acres, Preliminary Plat of 6.02 acres into 2 lots and Site Plan Review on 6.02 acres. Location: Baker Road and Hwy 62. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office,Resolution 96-68 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change and Resolution 96-69 for Preliminary Plat) Jullie said this project involves the proposed construction of two office buildings on property owned by Hennepin County, located west of Baker Road and south of the Crosstown Highway. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 4 Keith Waters, the proponent, reviewed the proposal. Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at the March 11, 1996 meeting, and unanimously recommended approval of the request, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of March 8, 1996, and with the addition of item 3.E. which restricts the lighting used in the project. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation&Natural Resources Commission reviewed the project at the March 18, 1996 meeting and recommended approval of the request, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of March 8 and March 13. The Parks Commission commended the developer for an excellent job of developing on a difficult site and preserving the major amenities. Case asked where the runoff from the parking lot will go. Alan Gray said the drainage will go into the existing pond which will function as a NURP pond. Mary Whiteside, 6269 St. Johns Drive, was concerned about the lighting, signs that will be put up for the project, and the additional traffic generated by the project. Enger said the residents'concerns about lighting is being addressed with the additional item added to the Staff Report recommendations by the Planning Commission when they voted approval. Waters said they will hold the height of the lighting to below 20 feet. Whiteside asked if the lights will be on all night. Waters said they may need some lights on all night from a public safety standpoint. Enger said there is no requirement by the City to maintain lighting for 24 hours per day. Whiteside said she would like to have some from a safety standpoint. Waters said they could set up an arrangement to leave a percentage of the lights on all night. Whiteside repeated her concern about the traffic impact, especially on Baker Road. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres;to adopt Resolution 96-68 for Preliminary Plat of 6.02 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way; to adopt Resolution 96-69 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Hennepin County to Office on 6.02 acres; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of March 8 and 13, 1996, the additional recommendation of the Planning Commission restricting the lighting fixtures used in the project, and the condition that proponent will work with Staff to determine a percentage of the lights to be left on at night. Motion carried unanimously. C. PROPOSED SURFACE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE FOR DUCK LAKE Lambert said this Public Hearing is required by the Department of Natural Resources If CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 5 prior to their review of the Draft Ordinance for Surface Management of Duck Lake. Upon Council approval of the Ordinance, Staff will then request authorization to proceed with construction of the public access to Duck Lake. The access will include a two to three car parking lot and a pedestrian ramp from the parking lot down to the slope at the lakeshore. We will also immediately submit an application for an aeration system from the DNR. Lambert said the Parks Commission reviewed the proposal at their March 18, 1996 meeting and recommended approval on a unanimous vote. Harris asked if we would use the aeration system on an "as-needed" basis. Lambert replied we do not anticipate having to use it every year. Harris asked to what extent the chemical treatment of lawns contributes to fish kill in the lakes. Lambert said this is probably the biggest problem on metro lakes. Dietz said the Environmental & Waste Commission is reviewing an ordinance that would prohibit the use of phosphorous fertilizers in Eden Prairie. Tyra-Lukens asked how long the aerators would run during a severe winter such as this one. Lambert said we operated aerators at Round Lake, Mitchell Lake and Red Rock Lake this winter. They were turned on the first week of January and run until there was open water. He said we have run the system at Red Rock Lake every year, and the system at Mitchell Lake has run the last two years. Harris asked how often we restock the lakes. Lambert said it depends on the lake. The DNR will monitor the lakes and will restock depending on the fish kills. Case asked how loud the aerators are during operation. Lambert said the loudest one was at Round Lake this year because it has a larger motor than the other lakes. Duck Lake would have an aerator with a 7-1/2 h.p. motor like the ones at Mitchell and Red Rock. Harris asked if the introduction of non-motorized water craft introduce the possibility of millfoil. Lambert replied if boats have been to other lakes there is always the possibility of millfoil. Pidcock asked about the residents who live on the lake and use motorized watercraft. Lambert said at the Parks Commission nobody had seen any except for electric motors. Enrique Baltierra, 6732 Sunburst Drive, asked about the exact location of the proposed access. Lambert said it is located in the center of the land that the City owns on the north side of the lake. Baltierra then said they did not know Duck Lake Trail would be a very heavy traffic area when they purchased their property, and it has turned out to have a much higher level of traffic and noise pollution than they expected. He was concerned that increased use of the lake will cause more litter along the lakeshore, and the parking provided will not be sufficient. He asked the 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 6 Council to not approve the project so that the traffic and usage of the lake does not increase. Tom Lindquist, 16750 Baywood Terrace, thought the solution to the litter problem is for people to be conscientious and do volunteer cleanup. He thought the project will improve the safety issue of kids fishing along the road. Rod Fisher, 16820 South Shore Lane, said the only motors he has seen are the ones on the boats applying the pesticides. He was concerned with the increased use of jet skis. He thought a change to a more defined access area would be a step in the right direction. Harris asked if jet skis would be prohibited. Lambert said they would be prohibited under the "no motors" prohibition. Ron Hilk, 16770 Baywood Terrace, was concerned about the small area that people will have from which to fish and about the extreme fish kill that occurred this winter. Doug Morriston, 16650 Baywood Terrace, opposed the ordinance because of the noise problem, the eyesore caused by the fencing around the aerator, the hazard of open water on the lake and the location of the fishing dock in a congested area. He presented a petition from nine property owners who opposed the project. The following residents indicated their support of the project: Sue Orton, 16760 South Shore Lane,John Kosewick, 6503 Bay Drive;Darren Cattnach, 16731 Prairie Lane;Tom Sands, 16729 Baywood Terrace,Jody Manning, 16960 South Shore Lake, and John Orton, 16760 South Shore Lake. Rose Hilk, 16770 Baywood Terrace, asked how much open water there would be when the aerator is in use and how it would be managed. Lambert said the amount of open water will depend upon the temperature and winds, but generally will be about 50-200 feet across. The City will post signs around the system and will put up an orange fence around the area of open water with "Thin Ice" signs, as required by State law. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Thorfinnson asked Lambert to review the costs involved for the project. Lambert said the City has estimated the cost of constructing the access and installing electrical service will be less than $10,000. They will put in parallel parking for 2-3 cars off Duck Lake Trail and construct a short asphalt path to the lake. The DNR provides the aeration system at no charge, and we can apply for a fishing pier. The aerator costs about $1,000-$1500 to operate during the winter months. �G' CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 7 Pidcock asked if we anticipate there will be years when we will not operate the aerator. Lambert replied Duck Lake has gone two or three years without a fish kill. We will begin monitoring in mid November for the oxygen level and make a decision to turn the system on. Pidcock supports the project because it gives access to the lake for those kids who don't live on a lake. Case said he was in favor of anything we can do to make the lakes accessible and safe. Tyra-Lukens supports the plan to save the fish and protect our natural resources for all people in the City. She was concerned about the safety issue, and this gives us an opportunity for a safe fishing site. She thought the aerator will be used as needed, and the noise factor will not be as much of a concern because it won't be running during the summer months. She asked if there will be trash collection at the site. Lambert replied we will have trash barrels at our access site. Harris saw this as another resource in the City, and we try to manage resources for all our citizens. She thought there will be some margin of safety with the project. She thought we need to refocus our attention throughout the City in terms of the littering problem. Thorfinnson asked if we would go ahead with the fishing pier without the grant for it because he viewed the pier as a very important part of the project. Lambert said the pier would cost$15,000- $20,000 without the grant. We will certainly apply for the grant, and we will probably receive one eventually. The DNR will try to begin stocking the lake this year as there probably are not many fish left. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance amending City Code, Chapter 9, prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles and motorized water craft on Duck Lake, and approving the expenditure of funds not to exceed $10,000 to develop the public access and electrical facilities necessary to accommodate the aeration system on Duck Lake. Motion carried unanimously. D. LAKEVIEW OFFICE by Dana Larson,Roubal and Associates. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.79 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.74 acres into 2 lots and Site Plan Review on 2.79 acres. Location: West 78th Street. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and Resolution 96-70 for Preliminary Plat) Jullie said this project involves the construction of a one-story, 16,000 square foot office building, on property to the south of West 78th Street and adjacent to the Cabriole Center development. Peter Beck and GriffDavenport, representing proponent, reviewed the proposal and the variances that will be required. 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 8 Enger said the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request at its March 11, 1996 meeting on a 4-1 vote (Schlampp opposed), subject to the March 8, 1996 Staff Report. He reviewed the variances required, including a shoreland variance for the 130 foot setback, and the zero lot line setback for the parking. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation&Natural Resources Commission reviewed the project on March 18, 1996, and recommended denial on a unanimous vote, citing the project should be located further from the lake by moving the building to the north, even though the repositioning would remove a considerable number of oak trees. Connie Wetmore, 8040 Ensign,was concerned about preserving the preservation area around Anderson Lakes, the impact on wildlife, taking additional space for the parking lot when there is extensive parking in the area that goes unused, granting the variances when there is no evidence of undue hardship, and the project altering the essential character of the area. Jay Wetmore, 8040 Ensign Road, said the proposed construction will impact his property because the dripline of his trees is within the construction area proposed for the project. He used drawings to illustrate how the construction of the building may adversely impact the trees and the surrounding area. He was concerned about the proposed plantings'impact on wildlife in the area Myrna Sampson, 8048 Ensign, was concerned about habitat preservation. She suggested the under-office parking be eliminated and the building be moved back to exist within the 200 foot shoreline ordinance. Mary Jean Carr, 8100 Ensign Road, was concerned about the impact on the environment,that the 1985 drought level was used to determine shoreland rather than an average level, possible erosion caused by the footings, and the loss of additional acres of wetland. Harris asked if we have methods to protect the Wetmores' trees from the construction,if there are wetlands on this site, and the issue of safety of construction on the slope. Lambert said the proponent will keep any trees designated for saving and will stay out of the drip lines in order to save the trees. He said deep cuts will require installing some walls to protect the trees, and fence or erosion control must be used to protect trees on the neighbors property. He said there are no wetlands proposed to be removed. Enger said the points made by Mr. Wetmore regarding problems with the slope during construction are valid, and he thought proponent would have to take some measures to save the trees they have designated. Davenport said their site planner has said it is possible to construct the building on the slope although it will involve some shoring for the footing system. The vegetation is very much a part of the over-all design. He noted the parking setback is not one that requires a variance. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 9 Case asked if, since proponent owns the land and the large parking lot, they could build on the parking lot area. Davenport said, while they do own the parking lot, there is a lifetime easement to Cabriole Center;however, they are addressing the issue of shared parking. Pidcock asked how many jobs will be brought in. Davenport said they have about 50 employees today and plan to increase to 60 in a year or so. Pidcock noted the proposal will add significantly to the tax base. She thought this firm will do an outstanding job of landscaping and of constructing a project be proud of. While the neighborhood has valid concerns, she did not think they should override the benefits of this project to the community. Harris thought it was a unique architectural design and she liked it a lot. There is no addition to the hard-surfaced area, and there is no change in the visual impact from this development. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Wetmore did not think the construction method had not been addressed. Harris said it would be addressed in the Developer's Agreement. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.79 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-70 for Preliminary Plat approval of 5.74 acres into 2 lots; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and the condition that proponent take the precautions necessary to keep construction away from the drip line of the trees. Motion carried 4-1,with Case opposed. E. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER by Opus Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District on 15.6 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.6 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 15.6 acres; and Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres. Location: 6509 Flying Cloud Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review and Resolution 96-71 for Planned Unit Development Concept Review) Jullie said this project involves the construction of a single story, 204,000 square foot industrial building on approximately 15.6 acres located along Flying Cloud Drive,just north of Shady Oak Road. Jim Neyer, representing Opus Corporation, reviewed the proposal. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 10 Enger said the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project on a 5-0 vote at its March 11, 1996 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of March 8, 1996. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission also recommended approval on a unanimous vote at its meeting on March 18, 1996, subject to the recommendations of the supplemental Staff Report of March 13, 1996, with an additional recommendation to have the City Attorney determine what the City can do to initiate a change in the state law that prohibits us from collecting park fees for projects over five acres. There were no comments from the audience. Tyra-Lukens asked about the agreement to reduce the wall sign in order to increase the monument sign. Enger said the wall sign square footage is based on a percentage of the elevation of the building, and this project could have about 80 square feet of wall signage. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District on 15.6 acres, and PUD District Review on 15.6 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-71 for PUD Concept Review on 15.6 acres; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Case asked where the tennis and volleyball courts would be. Neyer said that concept came up with Metro Systems directly to the south of them; however, the Parks Commission decided they were less interested in that than other conditions. They will make a voluntary payment of some amount in lieu of the recreation facilities. Neyer said they would like to request an early grading permit if the Council votes approval of the project. Pidcock asked if they had taken into account getting public transit into their building. Neyer said there is a Park-and-Ride at Flying Cloud and Shady Oak Road. Pidcock suggested they discuss the issue of public transit with the transit agency before 2nd Reading. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to grant an early grading permit prior to 2nd Reading at the proponent's risk. Motion carried unanimously. F. BEARPATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for PUD Concept Amendment Review on 15 acres,PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres. Location: Bearpath Trail and Dell Road. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 11 (Resolution 96-72 for PUD Concept Amendment and Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment) John Vogelbacher, representing Bearpath, reviewed the request for a front yard setback waiver from 30 to 20 feet for side-loaded garages for lots on Breckenridge Lane and Bearpath Trail. Enger said the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request on a 5-0 vote at the March 11, 1996, meeting because they believe the waiver was to accommodate larger houses, and it was a disservice to those existing residents that have built within current City setbacks. There were no comments from the audience. Harris asked if the homes have back decks. Vogelbacher said they typically have decks, and the setback would be 40 feet including decks. Case asked if there is a plan that would be arranged so the garage would come out to the road. Vogelbacher said all of the units included in this waiver request have the orientation as outlined in his review of the project. Harris asked what that does to the sight lines along the street. Vogelbacher said the homes would all have a 20 foot setback, but the homes all have a different style. Tyra-Lukens asked who is on the architectural review committee. Vogelbacher said there are four members on the committee. Tyra-Lukens noted there was no opposition from the neighborhood tonight, yet the Planning Commission minutes indicate several residents spoke against the project. Vogelbacher said there was some opposition at the January 8, 1996 meeting, but they held a neighborhood meeting to address those concerns. One resident spoke in favor of the request at the second Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Harris was more concerned about the issues of safety than the reasons for opposing the variance. She thought this would be a minor variance. Case thought it was a question of what is the hardship. Pidcock was not comfortable with the 20 foot setback. Vogelbacher noted this is a 60 foot right-of-way. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 12 Harris asked if this would pose a difficulty for us if, for some reason, the City had to take over the project. Dietz said he did not think it would as we do not push snow back that far. Case was concerned children would leave a garage and go right out onto the street. He thought they could change the house style. Pidcock suggested they could make the house smaller. Thorfinnson said he did not have a problem with the variance request. Tyra-Lukens said she has difficulty seeing what the hardship is, other than they want to protect their planned architectural style. Case was concerned this would set a precedent, and he thought it would be important to stipulate why this is a unique situation if we agree to grant the setback waiver. He thought the placement of the garage is important, and the style is consistent with the neighborhood. Tyra-Lukens was also concerned about precedent and how we would be able to deny a similar request. Case noted any other requests would have to go through the variance process. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres and PUD District Review; to adopt Resolution 96-72 for PUD Concept Amendment Review on 15 acres; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Pidcock asked how many houses are involved in the request. Vogelbacher said there are five acres of villas and townhouses, and this request covers 13 villa units and 16 townhome lots. Pidcock suggested the motion be amended to stipulate the number of lots or the acreage involved. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to amend the motion to include the specific lot numbers to be included in the waiver. Motion carried unanimously. VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED: Motion carried unanimously. G. WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION by City of Eden Prairie. Request for PUD Concept Review and PUD District Review on 18.9 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 District on 18.9 acres and Site Plan Review on 18.9 acres. Location: Southeast corner of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road. (Resolution 96-73 for PUD Concept Review,Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 13 Gary Tushie, architect for the project, reviewed the plans for expansion of the City's Water Treatment Plant to meet the projected demand through build-out of the City (2010). In addition, the project involves removal of the existing sludge lagoons and provision of an administrative area which will include a public education area, together with other facilities needed for operation of the plant. A new wetland area will be created as a focus for public education to promote water protection and conservation. There were no comments from the audience. Harris asked about the area that will be used for education. Dietz said the lower half of the rotunda will be used for public education space. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to extend the meeting for 20 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Dietz reviewed the change in the design and the budget for the project. He reviewed the schedule for the construction, and noted the new expansion part of the facility will be put on stand-by power rates. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the Public Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 District on 18.9 acres and PUD District Review on 18.9 acres; and to adopt Resolution 96-73 for PUD Concept Review on 18.9 acres. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote,with Case,Pidcock, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye." VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. 1ST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.05 OF THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW THE ISSUANCE OF MORE THAN ONE LIQUOR LICENSE TO AN INDIVIDUAL Julie said Staff is recommending approval of an amendment to the City Code which would remove the prohibition of more than one liquor license being issued to an individual. The City Attorney's office has reviewed this matter and has recommended amendments to City Code, Section 4.05, as described in the letter of April 2, 1996, from the City Attorney. Pidcock asked what safeguards we have against one person monopolizing the liquor licenses in the City. Pauly said there are no provisions that would limit the number / CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 14 of licenses held by an individual. He said this request change is necessary because one company is acquiring two restaurants in the city. Harris noted the Council would have to make the decision to okay license requests and would have to maintain vigilance to make sure there was not a monopoly. Pidcock asked if there was a way to set a maximum number of licenses. Case suggested we approve the ordinance tonight and refer the issue of limiting options to staff for further review. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance amending City Code, Sections 4.05 and 4.99, as recommended in the Staff Report of April 16, 1996, and to refer the issue of limiting options for future liquor licenses to Staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS X. APPOINTMENTS A. HUMAN RIGHTS & DIVERSITY COMMISSION - Appointment of one member to fill an unexpired term to 3/31/97 Thorfinnson nominated Vladimar Kozyrev. Pidcock seconded the nomination. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close the nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot for Vladimar Kozyrev to fill the unexpired term on the Human Rights&Diversity Commission. Motion carried unanimously. XL REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Letter from National Kidney Foundation Harris said she received a letter from the National Kidney Foundation that described their "Cars for Life" program. The program tows away and recycles old and/or abandoned cars. She asked Staff to check out the details of the program, and suggested the local newspaper could help to publicize the program. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 15 C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION& FACILITIES 1. Policy on Donations As the Council requested at the March 19, 1996 meeting, Lambert said Staff has worked with the City Attorney's office to prepare a recommendation relating to procedures to be followed when gifts are offered to the City of Eden Prairie. The essential elements of the policy would include a written proposal from the donor, documentation of a recordable title, representations about conformance with environmental laws, staff review, and recommendations regarding any obligations which might be assumed by the City upon acceptance of the gift, an environmental survey in the case of real property, a review by an appropriate advisory commission, and if deemed appropriate by the Council, gifts shall be accepted by Resolution of the Council adopted by two-thirds vote of the members. Lambert said the Parks Commission reviewed the policy and recommended approval. Harris questioned the requirement for a 2/3 vote of the Council. Pauly said the statutory requirement is for a 2/3 vote, which translates to a 4/5 vote on a five-person Council. Pidcock thought the policy is cumbersome. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to receive and approve the proposed policy on donations, as outlined in the Staff report of April 16, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 1. Approve Award of Contract for Professional Services for Parks/Public Works Facility Dietz said Staff interviewed consultants to do the design work on the Public Works facility. They are recommending Kodet Architecture Firm, Ltd., be awarded the contract for a fee of$230,000 which is 8% of the project's cost. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Pidcock, to accept the Staff Report of April 16, 1996, recommending the award of contract for professional services for the Parks/Public Works Facility. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 16, 1996 Page 16 F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 11:25 PM. -mac UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1996 7:00 p.m. CITY CENTER COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP Training Room, 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Ron Case, Nancy Tyra-Lukens, and Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Human Resources and Community Services Natalie Swaggert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Bob Lambert, Police Chief Jim Clark, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Engineer Al Gray, Director of Assessing and MIS Steve Sinell, Director of Finance John Frane, Director of Inspections Kevin Schmeig, City Planner Don Uram, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting began at 7:10 p.m. H. WORKSHOP ON DEVELOPING GUIDELINES AND ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Carl Jullie introduced Elizabeth Craig, the facilitator for the workshop that evening. Craig outlined the agenda for the workshop: Strategic Planning Overview of Assumptions Emerging and Critical Issues Identify other business Adjournment Craig reviewed the mission statements for the City which included meeting goals. She explained that they would endeavor to determine the top five assumptions and critical issues that the City would need to deal with to determine guiding principles leading toward making decisions. She commented that assumptions could be viewed as guiding principles for purposes of discussion. The following critical assumptions had been identified by staff prior to the workshop: * Transportation issues: - Increased congestion - Funding unchanged * Perception of too much growth CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP April 23, 1996 Page 2 * City is maturing, maintenance of infrastructure and less growth * Citizens more active in City decisions as in-filling occurs * Development of Vacant Property * Perceived loss/gain of quality of life * Pressure for rationalization of Public Safety, Transportation, Utilities, Communications, and Education issues * Affordable housing * Scarce financial resources * Reduce taxes, cut expenses, improve productivity * Identify new funding sources * Meet needs of special interest groups * Reduced Federal, State and County funds - unfunded mandates * Expectations for levels of service * Increased oversight by outside agencies will require more time per project * Scott County, Carver County and Eden Prairie will continue to grow * Need for expanded health and social services * Eden Prairie Center will become vibrant * "Electronic" City Hall * Airport will be expanded * Property tax system may change * Some citizens want to "shut out the world" * Staff, administration and City Council will change * Long range planning is necessary with the School District * 20% of the population will demand 80% of City resources * Residents will change * The perception of government as untrustworthy will grow in the next ten years given the existing political climate, as it is increasingly suspicious of government and it's agencies (general perception by the public that things are worse when in reality they are not). * Demographics of the City will change; citizens will expect more and/or different services * Expanded day-care/recreational programs during the summer Critical issues were identified as follows: * Transportation - Highway 212 Bus - Congestion - I-494 - Toll Roads Road Maintenance * Housing - Affordable life-style housing a CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP April23, 1996 Page 3 In-filling projects - Impacts - Schools Taxes Transportation * Sense of Community - Level of City services Recreation - Look of the City - History, Preservation The Arts * Balance of Special Interest Group desires * MUSA Expansion * Development of remaining land and concern for existing residents * Keeping tax levy down * Targeting resources, eliminating duplication * Renewal of Cable TV Franchise * Balancing Met Council/Legislative expectations with desires of residents * Communication with and education of residents on critical issues * Involvement in social services; at what cost and what level Craig requested workshop participants to rank the top five critical issues and critical assumptions in the order of their importance. The top five critical issues were: 1. Transportation 2. Development of Remaining Land 3. Keeping the Tax Levy Down 4. Balance Special Interest Groups and their Desires 5. Housing The top five critical assumptions were: 1. Citizens expect high levels of service but have less desire to pay for them. 2. Reduce taxes, cut expenses, improve productivity 3. Scarce financial resources. 4. 20% of the population will demand 80% of the resources 5. City maturing; rising maintenance of infrastructure, declining growth Craig requested the workshop participants to break into five groups to discuss the selected critical issues and assumptions. The following were points selected by the groups for the five critical issues. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP April23, 1996 Page 4 Housing * Fiscal - Minimize impacts - Protect "real" property * Altruistic/Social Diversity reflective of metropolitan area - What is best for community/best for neighborhood Affordable housing to meet demands * Reorganize differences; separate housing types * Environmental/least impact * Infrastructure/planned impact Balancing Special Interest Groups * Keep the best interest of the entire City above any special interest request. * Maintain a balanced collection of available services based on overall community input. * Any request for expanded services should be supported by a referendum or other means to avoid increasing taxes without public support. Transportation Issues * Final build out of roadways * Toll Roads * Modes of transportation * Commuter needs and expectations Principles * Neighborhoods should be connected as much as possible * Keep Eden Prairie handicapped accessible * Emphasis on safety, air quality, and noise mitigation * Provide maintenance that extends life cycle of roadways, even though it might cost more initially, the long range benefit would outweigh the initial expenditure Development of Remaining Land and Existing Resources * Decisions must be consistent and good for all * Get development that pays the bills * Keep tax levy down * Any new services need to be self-supporting * Keep expanding the tax base * Reduce rate of growth in expenditures * Maintain or reduce amount of tax levy, debt, or services The "Pay as You Go"philosophy appeared to be a big line item, along with what was best CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP April23, 1996 Page 5 overall for the community. Balance of jobs with the housing in the community rather than a regional basis was discussed. The goal was to create an umbrella of guiding principles that would guide decisions for all issues. Choose what is best for the community should be one of these umbrella issues. It was decided to have staff work with these ideas and have another workshop session to refine them rather than continue. Some items which were highlighted were affordable housing for the elderly and disabled and that would meet the needs of a diverse and expanding population. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of incorporating new terminology into the issues and assumptions which would be more easily understood by everyone. 7ullie stated that staff would present a schedule to Council on the May 7th agenda. III. ADJOURNMENT The workshop adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 5 EP CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: cecrt rrdl-lLs SECTION_ CONSENT CALENDAR 5-7-96. A)EPARTMIV PT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO- Finance - Pat Solie CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST IV.A • • THESE LICENSES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT HEADS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LICENSED ACTIVITY. CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM. ) GAS FITTER Cutting Edge Construction, Inc. B. E. Mechanical Donahue Construction, 'Inc. Bredahl Plumbing E 2 Construction Neil Heating & Air Conditioning Elder Jones,Inc. Facili Tech Nestar Incorporated HEATING & VENTILATING Randahl Construction, Inc. S & W Plastics, Inc. - B E. Mechanical Southridge Construction - J & R Refrigeration Neil Heating & Air Conditioning Nielsen' s Equipment & Design PLUMBING Northwest Construction Services St. Marie Sheet Metal , Inc. Jave' s Professional Plumbing O'Brien Plumbing & Heating Doug's Plumbing • PRIVATE KENNEL Groth Sewer & Water Hopkins Plumbing & Heating Co. Jeanne Koch (8875 Twin Lakes MacDonald Plumbing Company Crossing) Mike' s Plumbing - O'Brien Plumbing, Heating & Sheet Metal TEMPORARY BEER Olberg Construction Plumbing Service Center Eden Prairie Lions Club (July 4th - Corn Feed 8-3 & Octoberfest 10-6) UTILITY INSTALLER TEMPORARY LIQUOR Quickway Excavating 8th Air Force Historical Society SCAVENGER •• Minnesota Chapter (Planes of Fame) on 5-11-96. McKinley Sewer Service & Supply, Inc. Eden Prairie LionsClub (Schooner Days on 5-31,6-1 & 6-2) GAMBLING Eden Prairie Lions Club (Schooner Days) Bingo Action/Direction: 5-7-96 page 1 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 5-7-96 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. TV j 8 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT HUB Scott Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser and PUD District Review on 8.5 acres; • Adopt the Resolution approving Site Plan Review on 8.5 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Zoning District Change and PUD District Review 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT HUB CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 13-96-PUD-3-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter,the "land")is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development C-Reg-Ser Zoning District 13-96-PUD-3-96 (hereinafter "PUD-3-96-C- Reg-Ser"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 7, 1996, entered into between Southwest Metro Transit Commission, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter"Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-3- 96-C-Reg-Ser, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-3-96-C-Reg-Ser is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-3-96-C-Reg-Ser designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-3-96-C-Reg-Ser are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-3-96-C-Reg-Ser is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-3-96-C-Reg-Ser and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. 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 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of February, 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 7th day of May, 1996. ATTEST: John D. Franc, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on 3 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT HUB CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 13-96-PUD-3-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located south of Highway 5, north of Technology Drive and west of Prairie Center Drive from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 8.5 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Franc /s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) Southwest Metro Transit Hub Exhibit A Legal Description Parcel 236 S.P.2762 (212=260) 902 All of Tract A described below: Tract A. That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15,Township 116 North,Range 22 West, Hennepin County,Minnesota, lying southerly of the southerly right of way line of Trunk Highway No.212 as now located and established,northerly of the northerly right of way line of New Technology Drive and southwesterly of the southwesterly right of way line of Prairie Center Drive; excepting therefrom Technology Drive as located prior to January 1, 1990; containing 12.38 acres,more or less,together with all hereditaments,and appurtenances belonging thereto. Parcel 224A S.P.2701 (5=121) 901 All of Tract A described below: Tract A. That part of the West one-half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15,Township 116 North,Range 22 West, Hennepin County,Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said West one-half of Northeast Quarter;thence running North along the East line of said West one-half of Northeast Quarter 978.25 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described;thence deflecting to the left 48 degrees 45 minutes 21 seconds and running Northwesterly 83.44 feet;thence deflecting to the left 20 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds and running Northwesterly 297.47 feet;thence deflecting to the right 3 degrees 06 minutes and 30 seconds and running Northwesterly 215.32 feet;thence deflecting to the right 11 degrees 50 minutes 40 seconds and running Northwesterly 60.13 feet;thence deflecting to the left 13 degrees 57 minutes 50 seconds and running Northwesterly 100.66 feet;thence deflecting to the right 16 degrees 18 minutes 10 seconds and running Northwesterly 506.65 feet;thence deflecting to the right 46 degrees 56 minutes 30 seconds and running Northwesterly 269.27 feet;thence deflecting to the right 7 degrees 45 minutes and running Northerly to the Southerly right of way line of State Trunk Highway No.5;thence Northeasterly along said Southerly right of way line to the East line of said West one-half of the Northeast Quarter;thence South along said East line to the point of beginning;the title thereto being registered as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 658063; containing 20.70 acres,more or less, of which 1.50 acres are encumbered by an easement for Technology Drive. S SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT HUB CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT HUB BY SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION WHEREAS, Southwest Metro Transit Commission has applied for Site Plan approval of Southwest Metro Transit Hub on 8.5 acres for construction of a transit hub, a 10,100 sq. ft. Transit Hub building, an express station, and a 479 space park and ride lot located south of Highway 5, north of Technology Drive and west of Prairie Center Drive to be zoned C-Reg-Ser by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on February 20, 1996; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its January 22, 1996,Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its February 20, 1996, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to Southwest Metro Transit Commission for the construction of a transit hub, based on plans dated February 13, 1996, between Southwest Metro Transit Commission, and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 7, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT HUB THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of May 7, 1996,by Southwest Metro Transit Commission, a public corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Public Open Space to Regional Commercial On 8.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review On 22 acres, Planned Unit Development District On 22 acres, Zoning District Change From Rural To Commercial Regional Service on 8.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 8.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 22 Acres Into One Lot for construction of a Transit Hub , all on 22 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota,more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. 96-33 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Resolution No. 96-34 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance No. 13-96-PUD-3-96 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 8.5 acres,Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No. 96-35 for Preliminary Plat. Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS:Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated February 13, 1996,reviewed and approved by the City Council on February 20, 1996, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of streets and utilities for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. Upon approval by the City Engineer,Developer agrees to implement the approved street and utility plans prior to building permit issuance. 4. FINAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Property,Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a final grading plan for the Property. The final grading plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm 7 ponds, storm water detention areas and storm sewers. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading plan. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. The Erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures. All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 5. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity,type, and size of plant materials as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved irrigation plan concurrent with construction and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 7. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance,the Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved exterior materials and colors plan concurrent with building construction on the Property and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT: Developer acknowledges that the City has approved development plans only for Phase I of the Transit Hub site, as depicted in Exhibit B. Prior to any development or construction on the remainder of the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, Developer shall be required to submit detailed development plans in accordance with the submittal requirement of the City, and obtain approval of those plans by the Planning Commission and City Council. Developer also acknowledges that any future non-public uses for the remainder of the property will be subject to cash park fees. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 5-7-96 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. ._v C DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION Scott Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 District and PUD District Review on 18.9 acres; • Adopt the Resolution approving Site Plan Review on 18.9 acres; Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Zoning District Change and PUD District Review 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 1 WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 18-96-PUD-5-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter,the "land")is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be amended within the I-5 Zoning District 18-96-PUD-5-96 (hereinafter "PUD-5-96-I-5"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 7, 1996, entered into by the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-5-96-I-5, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following fmdings: A. PUD-5-96-I-5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-5-96-I-5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-5-96-I-5 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-5-96-I-5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,and hereby is amended within the I-5 District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 5-96-I-5,and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. 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. 2 Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of April, 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 7th day of May, 1996. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on 5 WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 18-96-PUD-5-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING WITHIN A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance amends the zoning of land located at the Southeast corner of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road within the I-5 Zoning District and PUD District Review on 18.9 acres. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) Exhibit A Water Treatment Plant Expansion Legal Description: The West 637.5 feet of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 22 lying north of Technology Drive and south of Trunk Highway 5. WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION BY CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, City of Eden Prairie has applied for Site Plan approval of the Water Treatment Plant Expansion on 18.9 acres for expansion of the water treatment plant by 123,810 sq. ft. for a total of 222,310 sq. ft. located southeast corner of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road to be zoned within the I-5 District by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on April 16, 1996; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its March 25, 1996,Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its April 16, 1996, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to City of Eden Prairie for the construction of the expansion of the existing Water Treatment Plant, based on plans dated April 9, 1996. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 7, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk tP EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 5-7-96 SECTION: 2ND READING �� ITEM NO. IV D. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger BEST BUY PARKING Scott Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 and PUD District Review on 28.5 acres; • Adopt the Resolution approving Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement. Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Zoning District Change and PUD District Review 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement I BEST BUY PARKING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 19-96-PUD-6-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter,the "land")is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development I-2 Zoning District 19-96-PUD-6-96(hereinafter"PUD-6-96-I-2"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 7, 1996, entered into between Best Buy Company, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-6-96-I-2, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-6-96-I-2 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-6-96-I-2 designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-6-96-I-2 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-6-96-I-2 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-6-96-I-2 and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. 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 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of April, 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 7th day of May, 1996. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on BEST BUY PARKING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 19-96-PUD-6-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at 10555 Northgate Parkway from Rural to I-2 on 0.7 acres and PUD District Review on 28.5 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) Best Buy Parking Expansion Exhibit A Legal Description PUD District Review, Site Plan Review, and Rezoning from Rural to I-2 That part of West 70th Street as dedicated on the recorded plat of LEE DATA and now to be vacated which lies easterly of the easterly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 212 and lying westerly of a line drawn southerly at a right angle to the northerly line of said plat from a point on said northerly line distant 160.00 feet westerly from the northeast corner of said plat. Preliminary Plat Lot 1 , Block 1 , and Outlet A, All in LEE DATA, according to the recorded plat thereof. That part of West 70th Street as dedicated on the recorded plat of LEE DATA and now to be vacated which lies easterly of the easterly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 212 and lying westerly of a line drawn southerly at a right angle to the northerly line of said plat from a point on said northerly line distant 160.00 feet westerly from the northeast corner of said plat. S BEST BUY PARKING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR BEST BUY PARKING BY BEST BUY COMPANY WHEREAS, Best Buy Company has applied for Site Plan approval of Best Buy Parking on 0.7 acres for construction of 143 new parking stalls and a drive aisle located at 10555 Northgate Parkway to be zoned I-2 by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on April 16, 1996; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its March 25, 1996,Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its April 16, 1996, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to Best Buy Parking for the construction of new parking stalls and drive aisle,based on plans dated April 9, 1996,between Best Buy Company,and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 7, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BEST BUY PARKING EXPANSION THIS SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1996, by Best Buy Company, a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development District Review on 28.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 0.7 acres, Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.5 acres into one lot, all situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and; WHEREAS,the parties desire to amend the Developer's Agreement between Best Buy Company, Inc. and the City of Eden Prairie for Best Buy Corporate Headquarters Expansion, dated December 6, 1994, (hereinafter the"Developer's Agreement") for that portion of the Property legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and depicted as the "Amended Area" in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change,Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No. 96-67 for Preliminary Plat, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Amended Area as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Amended Area of the property in conformance with the materials reviewed and approved by the City Council on November 15, 1994, and in conformance with the materials dated April 9, 1996, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 16, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. FINAL EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. The Erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures. All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. 7 4. GRADING IN THE WOODED AREAS ON SITE: Prior to grading within any of the wooded areas on the property, Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's approval of a plan depicting the construction grading limits on the property. Prior to the issuance of the land alteration permit, Developer shall place a construction fence at the limits of the proposed grading as shown on Exhibit B. Developer shall notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading so that the construction limit fence may be field inspected and approved by the City Engineer and City Forester. 5. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, said retaining walls, as approved by the Chief Building Official, concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. TREE LOSS-TREE REPLACEMENT: Tree loss is calculated at 78 inches. Tree replacement required is 78 inches. Developer has submitted to the City Forester and has received the City Forester's approval of a tree replacement plan for 78 inches. Said plan shall include replacement trees of a 3 inch diameter minimum size for a shade tree and a seven foot minimum height for conifer trees. Developer agrees to implement or cause to be implemented the tree replacement plan for 78 caliper inches concurrent with grading and site improvements. 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. In addition, the landscaping plan shall include the new locations of all proposed plant material to be relocated, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150%of the cost of said improvements as required by City code. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. SITE LIGHTING: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of site lighting. All pole lighting shall consist of downcast shoebox fixtures which match in type and height to the existing shoebox fixtures on the property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer shall implement the approved lighting plan concurrent with building construction. 9. REAFFIRMING CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT: Developer agrees to and reaffirms all terms and conditions and accepts the obligation of"Developer" under the Developer's Agreement dated December 6, 1994, except as inconsistent with or amended by this Supplement. q BEST BUY PARKING EXPANSION OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN BEST BUY COMPANY AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1996, by and between Apertus Technologies Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as "City": For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No._ , approving the Planned Unit Development District Review and changing the zoning of the Property owned by Owner from the Rural District to the I-2 District, Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No. 96-67 for Preliminary Plat, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1996, by and between Best Buy Company, a Minnesota Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Best Buy Company fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the City's reconsideration and rescission of the Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Change, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat identified above,thus restoring the existing status of the property before this project was approved. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property. 3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. 10 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 5-7-96 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. E~ DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER Scott Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District and PUD District Review on 15.6 acres; • Adopt the Resolution approving Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement. Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and PUD District Review 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 20-96-PUD-7-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter,the"land")is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be amended within the I-5 Zoning District 20-96-PUD-7-96 (hereinafter "PUD-7-96-I-5"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 7, 1996, entered into by the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-7-96-I-5, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-7-96-I-5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-7-96-I-5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-7-96-I-5 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-7-96-I-5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is amended within the I-5 District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 7-96-I-5, and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. 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 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of April, 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 7th day of May, 1996. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 20-96-PUD-7-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING WITHIN A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance amends the zoning of land located at 6509 Flying Cloud Drive within the I-5 Zoning District and PUD District Review on 15.6 acres. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) LI • . PROPOSED 'PROPERY DESCRIPTION • • ,.. . - . . . That part of the following described property . . • , . That part-Of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of the , - • Southeast Quarter lying southeasterly of the'centerline of Flying , • Cloud Drive. . • AND. . . . , • That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter lying Southeasterly of the centerline of Flying Cloud Drive. .. All in Section I, ,Township 116 North, Range 22 West, Hennepin County,'Minnesota.. , • , -• - . - • • • . ,.. ..... lying southerly and westerly of a line described as commencing at the southeast corner of said North Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence northerly along• the east line of said North Half • • of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 514.21 feet to the 'point of beginning of the line to be. described:: thence southwesterly, deflecting to the left 128 degrees 26 minutes 44 seconds a . ' distance of 212. 15 feet; thence westerly deflecting to the, right 40 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds a distance of 737.42 feet; thence northerly, • . ' deflecting to the right 90 degrees .00 minutes 00 seconds .a distance Of 362.59- feet; thence northwesterly, 'deflecting to the left 31 degrees• 05 • minutes 29 seconds a distance of 208.73 feet to the centerline of • Flying Cloud Drive and said line there terminating. ! . • v.) 5-' . . • • • . - . ri- . • ›, • . . - . • • . . . . . .., . . . • . . . • , - - . . , • • . . , • • • - . . . . -, . . . . . . . ' . . - . - -- FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER BY OPUS CORPORATION WHEREAS, Opus Corporation has applied for Site Plan approval of Flying Cloud Business Center on 15.6 acres for construction of a single story, 204,000 sq. ft. industrial building located at 6509 Flying Cloud Drive to be zoned within the I-5 Zoning District by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on April 16, 1996; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its March 11, 1996,Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its April 16, 1996, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to Flying Cloud Business Center for the construction of a single story,204,000 sq. ft. industrial building, based on plans dated April 9, 1996,between Opus Corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 7, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of May 7, 1996, by Opus Northwest, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as "City:" - WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 15.6 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 District on 15.6 acres, and Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres for construction of a 204,000 sq. ft. building, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. 96-71 for PUD Concept, Ordinance No. 20-96-PUD-7-96 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials submitted by Developer and revised and dated April 9, 1996,reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 16, 1996, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon and development of the Property in accordance with this Developer's Agreement. Upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Developer, its successors and assigns shall maintain the Property in accordance with this Developer's Agreement. This obligation to maintain, however, shall bind Developer, its successors and assigns only during their respective periods of ownership of the Property. Developer agrees to record this Developer's Agreement at the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar of Titles' office prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the Property. 3. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of streets and utilities for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. Upon approval by the City Engineer,Developer agrees to implement the approved street and utility plans prior to building permit issuance. 4. FINAL GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and drainage plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and storm sewers. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. The Erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures. All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. 5. GRADING IN THE WOODED AREAS ON SITE: Prior to grading within any of the wooded areas on the property, Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's approval of a plan depicting the construction grading limits on the property. Prior to the issuance of the land alteration permit,Developer shall place a construction fence at the limits of the proposed grading as shown on Exhibit B. Developer shall notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading so that the construction limit fence may be field inspected and approved by the City Engineer and City Forester. 6. PRETREATMENT PONDS: Prior to grading permit issuance for the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans and design information for all storm water quality facilities to be constructed; and receive City Engineer's approval of said plans. Developer shall implement the approved storm water quality facility plan concurrent with building construction. Upon completion of the building construction, and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Developer shall verify the original design volume of the treatment pond to ensure that pond size has not diminished because of sedimentation/erosion and to restore original volume if sedimentation/erosion has occurred. 7. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by City of a building permit for the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to implement the approved retaining wall plan concurrent with the building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance,the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of the cost of said improvements as required by City code. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 9. TREE LOSS-TREE REPLACEMENT: There are 424 caliper inches of significant trees on the property. Tree loss is calculated at 72 caliper inches. Tree replacement required is 16 inches. Developer has submitted to the City Forester and has received the City Forester's approval of a tree replacement plan for 16 caliper inches. Said plan includes replacement trees of a 3 inch diameter minimum size for a shade tree and a seven foot minimum height for conifer trees. Upon approval by the City Forester, Developer agrees to implement or cause to be implemented the tree replacement plan concurrent with building construction. 10. IRRIGATION PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved irrigation plan concurrent with construction and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 11. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Developer has submitted to the City Planner, and has received the City Planner's approval of a plan for exterior building materials and colors for the Property. If these materials and colors are changed, the Developer shall, prior to building permit issuance, submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting the exterior materials and colors to be used for the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to construct, or implement, the approved exterior materials and colors plan concurrent with building construction on the Property and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 9 12. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer has submitted to the City Planner, and received the City Planner's approval of a plan for screening of rooftop mechanical equipment on the Property. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, per City Code requirements. Developer shall implement the approved plan concurrent with building construction. If, after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by the City Planner, in his sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until all such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 13. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each and every sign to be located on the property, Developer shall file an application with the City Planner for a sign permit. Said application shall include complete description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location, manner of construction, and other such information as necessary to inform the City of the kind, size, material construction, and location of any such sign, consistent with the sign plan shown on Exhibit B and in accordance with the requirements of City code, Section 11.70, Subdivision 5a. 14. SITE LIGHTING: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a site lighting plan. All lighting shall consist of downcast shoebox fixtures. All pole mounted fixtures shall not exceed 30 feet in height. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer shall implement the approved lighting plan concurrent with building construction. 15. TRASH ENCLOSURES: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submitted to the City Planner, and obtained City Planner's approval of a plan for the design of outside trash enclosures for the property. Said trash enclosures shall be constructed with materials similar to the building, and heavy duty steel gates that completely screen the interior of the enclosure. Developer shall implement the trash enclosure plan concurrent with building construction. 16. PROOF OF PARKING SPACES: Developer and City acknowledge that the two hundred thirty- five(235)proof of parking spaces proposed for the Property, depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, are not required to be constructed at this time. However, said spaces may be required to be constructed in the future, if it is determined by City, in its sole discretion,that it is necessary. At such time as City Manager, in his sole discretion,may determine that it is necessary for all, or a portion of, said two hundred thirty-five (235) proof of parking spaces to be constructed in order to accommodate the building use, the following shall occur: A. City Manager shall notify Developer in writing of the need to construct all, or a portion, of said two hundred thirty-five (235)proof of parking spaces. /0 B. Within six(6)months, weather permitting, of receipt of written notice from City Manager, Developer agrees to have completed construction of all, or a portion of, said two hundred thirty-five (235) spaces, as determined by City Manager, in the location as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 17. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the I-5 Zoning District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD-7-96; A. Waiver from the maximum monument sign size requirement of 80 square feet, to permit a 160 square foot monument sign for the building, the design of which shall be approved by the City Planner. In exchange for this waiver, the Developer agrees to reduce the overall wall sign area permitted by code by 80 square feet. /1 FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN OPUS NORTHWEST,L.L.C. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of - , 1996, by and between Physical Electronics Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as "City": For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Resolution No. 96-71, approving the Planned Unit Development Concept on 15.6 acres, Ordinance No. , approving the Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 District on 15.6 acres, and Resolution No. , for Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1996, by and between Opus Northwest, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Opus Northwest L.L.C., fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the City's reconsideration and rescission of the Planned Unit Development Concept, Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Amendment, and Site Plan Review, identified above,thus restoring the existing status of the property before this project was approved. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property. 3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. ben) ry PROCLAMATION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has been extremely well served by the Eden Prairie Community Library; and WHEREAS, the librarian, Marge McPeak, has provided excellent management and leadership of this facility over the past twelve years; and WHEREAS, in addition to her library duties, Marge McPeak has been very involved in community service activities including the Eden Prairie Family Center, the Chamber of Commerce and the Rotary Club; and WHEREAS, it is widely acknowledged throughout Eden Prairie that Marge McPeak is not only a very capable administrator, but she is also a truly caring citizen; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the City of Eden Prairie to honor and thank Marge McPeak as she retires from a distinguished career of public service. NOW, THEREFORE, I do hereby proclaim Tuesday, May 21, 1996, as Marge McPeak Day in the City of Eden Prairie. This proclamation shall be presented to Marge McPeak with our best wishes for a long and happy retirement. MARGE McPEAK DAY Hereby Proclaimed This 7th Day of May, 1996 Jean L. Harris, Mayor EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 05/07/96 SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO.-1G- DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Center Rubber Flooring Bid Proposal Recreation and Facilities Elyce Kastigar Flooring Project: The Community Center will complete the lower lobby flooring project during 1996. The lobby carpet will be replaced with rubber flooring. Recommendation: The initial bids due on April 2 were rejected and went to rebid on April 23. Staff recommends approval of the bid from Acoustics Associates for the lower lobby for a total of$31,300. Refer to the attached bid request proposals. Bids for the Lower Lobby are as follows: COMPANY LOWER LOBBY 1. Acoustics Associates $31,300 2. Becker Arena $31,500 3. Arena Systems $31,704 The add alternates will be proposed for Capital Outlay in the 1997 budget. Funding: The lower lobby project will be funded from money budgeted under Community Center Capital Outlay. Attachment: bid proposal, Acoustics Associates bid proposal, Becker Arena bid proposal, Arena Systems 1 Acc 1 1u,....� I1�U L one ABC Ivy � ACOUSTICS • Minneapolis.MN 554 Demountable Partitions Acoustical Sound Panels ASSOCIATES I N C 16121544-894 Cbalkboards/Tukboards FAX:16121544-2��: Eden Prarie Community Center April 3, 1996 16700 Valley View Road Eden Prarie, MN 55346 Attn: Elyce Kastigar Re: Eden Prarie Rubber Flooring Bid Dear Elyce: Regarding the above project, we offer the following summary of our proposal submitted on 4/2/96 at Eden Prarie Community Center: Base Bid: $ 39,980.00 Lower Lobby: Nora /VS / 10 year warrenty. $ 31,300.00-•** Rink #1: Tuflex Standard Colors. $ 8,680.00 We include removal of existing flooring and floor prep as required. Add Alternate $ 2,900.00 Furnish Tuflex as above in Rink 1, Team Rooms 1 & 2 and Restrooms. Demo and prep included. Add Alternate #1 $ 2,700.00 Furnish Nora as above in Womens Locker Room and the Hallway at Lower Lobby. Demo of existing flooring and prep included. Add Alternate #2 $ 680.00 Furnish Nora as above in Mens Locker Room entryway. Demo of existing flooring and prep included. Add Alternate #3 $ 8,900.00 Furnish Nora as above in Pool Walkway to Rink #2. demo of existing flooring and prep included. Please call to discuss at your convenience. Sincerely, John J. Baker 2 r�ti . Acoustical Ceilings PROPOSAL •A • 1250 Zane Ave.NorthAccessFlo ring ooring • L �.COUSTICS . - MInneapolis.M:11422 Demountable Partitions ASSOCIATES • Acoustical Sound Panels 1612114141901 r FAX:16121 SIa•292292E Chalkboards?ackboards To: EOe - , t'I `e Wit Crfe Date: y '2-.(GI icy C 1ba ( glib "t vtev,-) lob Name:E..P.. COA41.4. C.-is •• CD ?c' 1 ee l cCW c k(►� 3 lob Location: Plans and Specifications by: • Architect: k1- 1J C, triN S j 160-Z Addenda: We propose to furnish the following materials for the above job in accordance with terms and conditions below and on the reverse side of this proposal. Labor and equipment for installation is included unless specifically stated to the contrary: VA)e-op)co.fLoo (\,� )4T (vie Lz c72p)L * intro at) 7fri 9 SO ADO f{uc?ct,JI-TL' 29co iq-pt:J •H-c,tZ-fNn 1-zI k ( 210 o (}Op evC,cerzrim-rt -*Z $ cc'o AD n Lfl ) ce 413 6100 for the sum of S FOB Delivery • On all flooring work, purchaser certifies the subsurface(s) to be properly cured, hardened, moisture protected, and prepared per specified or generally accepted manufacturers standards for the performance set out In this proposal.Acoustics Associates,Inc.will not be held responsible or liable for any defects of finished product due to Improper or Incorrect substrate preparedness. This proposal is subject to acceptance within 30 days. TERMS Net cash payment for 90%of value of materials delivered on lob.and labor for Installing materials in lob,during previous 10 day period.Shall be due 10th of following month Balance net cash 10 days after completion. All taxes now or hereafter levied by any Federal.State or local authority.upon sale of foregoing materials.are not included in the price and shall be paid by purchaser unless specifically stated otherwise In this proposal. ACCEPTED:BY ACOUSTICS ASSOCIATES,INC. By Title 11 ,rZ� By � � �.J' Date ' Customer Order No. ohn J. Baker April 22, 1996 Ms. Elyce Kastigar City of Eden Prairie Community Center 16700 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Pear Ms. Kastigar, Per your request for proposals for the replacement of the protective flooring at the Eden Prairie Community Center below please find our bids. 1.) Rubber flooring for lower lobby area per specifications to include: All removal and disposal of existing floor covering and cove base Complete floor preparation Complete installation of new floor covering Complete installation of new cove base NORAMENT 992S (Ten year warranty) $ 31,500.00 --� Add Alternate #1 - Womens locker room hallway NORAMENT 992S (Ten year warranty) $ 1,917.00 Add Alternate #2 - Mens locker room hallway NORAMENT 992S (Ten year warranty) $ 546.00 Add Alternate #3 - Pool walkway to Rink #2 NORAMENT 992S (Ten year warranty) $ 8,207.00 Note: Above pricing does not include color #1499 Cranberry in Norament 992S, if this is the color choice, please add 20% to above prices. 5448 Cottonwood Ln. S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 612/440-8655 BECKER 800/234-5522 FAX: 612/440-8656 ARENA PRODUCTS,INC. All prices include Minnesota state sales tax, freight to the job site, unloading of materials at the jobsite and complete disposal of removed floor coverings, etc. 100% performance bond is included in price. Prices do not include permit fees if required. Meeting installation time line is based on manufacturers availability of products. If you have any questions regarding the above proposal please call. Regards, Becker.Arena Products, Inc. ,�zLe./J` --`__,____�__ James Becker . S _ 4N) SySTBS l * Er April 22,1996 Community Center Manager Eden Prairie Community Center 16700 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Subject: Bid Request for Flooring I am pleased to offer you the following pricing as per your request: Product Bid: Nora Flooring-Norament 992S Lower Lobby $31,704.00 —* Add Alternat One $ 2,306.00 Add Alternate Two $ 576.00 Add Alternate Three $ 8,214.00 If you have any further questions please advise. Sincerely, /d'i Gene Krieger 420 E. County Road D, St. Paul, MN 551 17 . 612-490-3044 . 800-328-6808 . 800-944-7930 • Fax: 612-490-5357 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar May 7, 1996 ITEM NO. Ti 11 . DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Recreation and Facilities ' Recommendation to approve Miller Park Shelter Bids BACKGROUND: Earlier this year the City Council authorized staff to advertise for the construction of the Miller Park Shelter. The total project will include construction of the park shelter, parking lot, hockey rink, skating rink and site lighting. The total estimated project cost was $236,000. The total estimated cost for construction of the building was $188,000. The $188,000 estimated cost did not include any site preparation for building. The soils report recommended soils correction for the building site,therefore staff requested that soils correction for the building pad be added to the building construction project bid to ensure that the contractor for the building is also responsible for the soil correction under the building. That added approximately $5,000 to the building cost. The City received five bids ranging from $237,500 to a low base bid of$213,286. In order to get closer to the cost estimate, staff is recommending proceeding with the project with Alternates#1, #3, #5 and #6 omitted from the project. Accepting these alternates changes the bid range from $222,289 to a low bid of$187,363, by C. M. Construction In discussing this proposal with the apparent low bidder, C. M. Construction,they checked their sub- contractors' quotes and found that they made an error on their calculations for the Alternate #6 deduction. They did not figure retaining metal soffits and facia. They indicated that was "about a $7,000 difference in their bid." Due to their error in figuring their alternate, staff is recommending disqualifying C. M. Construction's bid. RECOMMENDATION: City Staff recommend awarding the construction of Miller Park Shelter to American Liberty who submitted a low bid of$194,486 after omitting portions of the project identified as Alternate #1, Alternate#3, Alternate#5, and Alternate#6. BOB:Millrbid MILLER PARK SHELTER BID TABULATION DELANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS Bids Due: April 30, 1996 10:00 A.M. Commision No. 9602 i I ' Bidder Base Bid Alt. No. Alt. No. 2 Alt. No.0 Alt. No. I Alt No.(;) Alt. No. 6 Addenda Bid Bond Completion Substitution Patio/Fire Skate Tile Wall Bench WOW Guard Painting Shingle R . Mikkelson-Wulff Specialty Constr. 'Z 'V Ooo �)0, 10 / 1��c7 �)6O ZI099 cz:0 Gloao Thor Construction '/ 16'6D :/114 1-frzioV t 1 f)-1i �t" 1 I r / c/1 /I P2 2 e) I ''J ;American Liberty r kl % >100 WO �1cx , �) o a� bXe l C`). �Q� �/$� „) C.M. Construction "G. ''10% 5-1515. all Jam'L;J \I'I�OJ i a� -1 1113. 1"'i.( b 1 / /�0 R.W. Construction GEH Construction 2.V1) "✓�� i►%�0 ��)0C'b Fo0 --o.r; vjfJL '� (of o7/6 so(,) yj-11().,- 611-zclei-PiIt-v DATE: 05/07/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: V./- SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Easement between City of Eden Prairie and MTS Eugene A. Dietz Requested Action: Motion to approve an easement agreement between the City of Eden Prairie and MTS and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. This document will create a joint-use driveway facility for MTS and the new Water Treatment Plant access to Technology Drive. Background: During the design process for the Water Treatment Plant, it was recognized that the City will lose full access for the Water Plant facility due to the TH 212 construction. Through a • negotiated process with our neighbor to the east, MTS, the project includes reconstruction of the existing westerly MTS driveway to accommodate ingress and egress for both MTS and the city Water Treatment Plant operation. The easement area covers the joint use driveway for approximately 250 feet and will be built to accommodate truck traffic generated by both MTS and the City. MTS has been very cooperative in this effort and the end result is a combined driveway that will be beneficial to both parties. Staff recommends approval of the Cross-Access Agreement. Financial Issues: The cost of the reconstruction of the driveway will be included in the construction contract for the Water Treatment Plant expansion. CROSS EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS CROSS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made as of the day of 1996 by and between City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("City"), and MTS Systems Corporation, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("MTS"). RECITALS: A. City is the owner of ("City Land"). B. MTS is the owner of Lots J. and 2, Block 1, Technology Campus 2nd Addition ("MTS Land"). C. The parties desire to grant and create cross easements described hereafter with respect to those parts of the City Land and the MTS Land described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the "Easement Area") for the benefit of, and appurtenant to, the City Land and MTS Land. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby grant the following easements: 1. City grants to MTS, its agents, employees, and invitees and creates an easement underground, on, over, and across that part of the City Land situated within the Easement Area. The easement is for(i)right-of-way and vehicular and pedestrian gavel; (ii)construction,reconstruction,repair and maintenance of water, sanitary and storm sewer pipes, lines and fittings, telephone, electric, and gas lines, pipes, and cables and other lines, cables and conduits for the transmission of voice and electronically transmitted data ("Private Utilities") and (iii) for the construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lights and signs. 2. MTS hereby grants to City, its agents, employees, and invitees and creates an easement underground,over,and across.that part of MTS Land situated within the Easement Area. The easement is for (i)right-of-way and vehicular and pedestrian travel; (ii) construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of water, sanitary and storm sewer pipes, lines and fittings, telephone, electric, and gas lines, pipes, and cables and other lines, cables and conduits for the transmission of voice and - elec#ronica lly transmitted data ("Private Utilities")and (iii) for the construction. reconstruction, repair and maintenance of streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,lights and signs. MTS further grants to City and the public the right to construct, reconstruct, maintain and- repair public water, sanitary and storm sewer lines and pipes underground, on, over and across the Easement Area ("Public Utilities). L0:60 95. 02 adU Z00-d LID'-! 899-d NOS6 29389 Allied JNd1 £IL06Z8Z I9 3. The easements shall be perpetual and shall be for the mutual benefit of the parties, their successors and assigns, and their agents, employees, and invitees and shall be appurtenant to the City Land and MTS Land owned by the respective grantees. 4. City shall construct,reconstruct,repair,resurface and maintain (and construct and maintain lighting, curbs and gutters for) the travelled portion of the Easement Area. City shall also construct,repair and maintain the Public Utilities within the Easement Area. S. Either party may remove snow and ice or apply sand or other material to eliminate slippery conditions on the traveled portion of the Easement Area at such time or times as a party wishes. 6. The party desiring to utilize the easement area for installation of any Private Utility for its use shall have the responsibility and obligation of constructing, replacing,repairing and maintaining the same. The party shall also be responsible for restoring the surface of the Easement Area including, but not limited to, travelled portions thereof, curbs, gutters, and landscaped areas to the condition in which it existed prior to such construction, replacement, repair or maintenance. 7. Each party shall be responsible for maintaining the surface of the Easement Area owned by it and not occupied by the traveled portion of the Easement Area and the curbs and gutters constructed therein. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By Jean Harris, Mayor By Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 1996 by Jean Harris and Carl I Jnllie,she Mayor and City Manager,respectively, of the City of-Eden Ririe. • Notary Public 80:60 96. 0£ ddd £17-1 '999-d N0Sd393219 erintid 9N1d1 £I2.06Z$ZI9 MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF ) This i n srument was acknowledged before me on , 1996 by , the of MTS Systems Corporation, a Minnesota corporation. Notary Public C:\wp514spepeasemeamme LI 80:60 96. 02 Zldtl 1700-d £Zb-11 999-d NOSe993ei9 A1nFid 9NU1 £'2,063 3Zt9 DATE: 05/07/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO:-f/1 SECTION: Consent Calendar .L�! DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Authorization of Purchase of Outlot B from MTS Eugene A. Dietz Requested Action: Motion to approve acquisition of Outlot B from MTS. Background: As noted in the previous agenda item, the City of Eden Prairie and MTS have agreed upon a common driveway access point that will serve both MTS and the Water Treatment Plant site. A rather unusual lot line configuration along the common boundary of the Water Treatment Plant site and MTS resulted in the platting of a small outlot (Outlot B) of approximately 1/4 acre during the platting of Technology Campus (the MTS property). Since this new driveway facility ' will sever this small outlot from the rest of the MTS property and because ownership of this parcel is highly desirable for the Water Plant expansion project, staff has negotiated a purchase agreement with MTS to acquire the parcel. Financial Issues: The proposed purchase price is $25,000. This computes to approximately $2.60 per square foot and is a competitive price for the property. Since the parcel is rather small and we were attempting to negotiate several issues with MTS, staff did not obtain an appraisal for the property. However, several small parcels to improve Technology Drive west of Mitchell Road were acquired by MnDOT in 1995 at an appraised price of$2.95 per square foot. This appears to be very good evidence that a purchase price of$2.60 is a fair value for the property. MTS did not ask for "top dollar" for the property, since they recognized that the parcel has limited use for them. The cost of this acquisition would be paid for as part of the Water Treatment Plant expansion project. Staff recommends approval of the acquisition. Form No.9-M-WARRANTY DEED Minnesota Uniform Conveyancing Blanks(1978) Corporation or Partnership to Corporation or Partnership No delinquent taxes and transfer entered;Certificate of Real Estate Value( )filed( )not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. , 19 County Auditor by Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON:$ Date: , 19 (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, MTS Systems,Sorporation , a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ,Grantor,hereby conveys and warrants to the City of Eden Prairie , Grantee, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ,real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota,described as follows: Outlot B,Technology Campus Addition (if more space is needed,continue on hack) together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. • Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here By Its Officer of MTS Systems Corportation By STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Its ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by and the Officer of MTS Systems Corporation and of MTS Systems Corporation ,a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ,on behalf of the corporation NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL(OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should he sent to(Include name and address of Grantee): THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY(NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Eden Prairie Engineering Department 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 DATE: 05/07/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO Jj , k SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Summary of Bids - I.C. 96-5410 Mary Krause Recommended Action: Award of I.C. 96-5410, 1996 Street Sealcoating to ASTECH Corporation, in the amount of $209,809.26. Overview: Sealed bids were received at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, April 18, 1996 for Street Sealcoating. Three bids were received and are tabulated as follows: Contractor Bid Amount ASTECH Corporation $209,809.26 Allied Blacktop Co. $215,181.16 Bituminous Roadways $239,056.35 Financial Issues: The 1996 budget for sealcoating under budget number 570-50-4439 is $225,000. The bid amount of$209,809.26 falls within this budget. t CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement: LC. 96-5410 - 1996 Street Sealcoat bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of Contract to ASTECH CORPORATION as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract with ASTECH Corporation in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $209,809.26 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 7, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk DATE: 05/07/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO:J L SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Summary of Bids - I.C. 96-5411 Mary Krause Recommended Action: Award of I.C. 96-5411, 1996 City Street Striping to Precision Pavement Marking, Inc., in the amount of$32,886.25. Overview: Sealed bids were received at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, April 18, 1996 for the 1996 City Street Striping. Three bids were received and are tabulated as follows: Contractor Bid Amount Precision Pavement Marking, Inc. $32,886.25 AAA Striping Service Company $40,680.00 Twin City Striping $46,787.50 Financial Issues: The 1996 City Street Striping budget amount is$32,000.00 under budget number 585-4440-50. Striping of City Streets is a necessary maintenance responsibility of the City and must be performed. The overall 1996 Public Works budget will remain within the approved totals. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement: I.C. 96-5411 - 1996 City Street Striping bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of Contract to PRECISION PAVEMENT MARKING, INC. as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract with Precision Pavement Marking, Inc. in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of$32,886.25 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 7, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk DATE: 05/07/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: IV, M SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: rrEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 96-5416 Engineering Divisi t Award of Bid for Vibratory Compactor Eugene A. Dietz y Recommended Action: Motion to award bid to Hayden-Murphy Equipment Company for a Dynapac model #CC122 vibratory compactor in the amount of$23,290.49. Background/Critical Issues: The City received four bids for this piece of equipment on April 25, 1996 as follows: • St. Joseph Equipment, Inc. $19,800.00 • Hayden-Murphy Equipment Co. $23,290.49 • Ziegler, Inc. $23,450.00 • Aspen Equipment Co. $26,060.00 Staff is recommending that the award be made to the second low bidder due to the following facts: 1. St. Joseph Equipment, Inc. was not responsive to the bid in a very crucial area -- the warranty period. The specifications clearly require a 12-month "bumper to bumper" warranty plus a three-year drive train warranty. The bid as received limits the warranty to 12 months or 1,000 hours. 2. St. Joseph Equipment, Inc. specified in their bid a 30-day delivery SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY. The second low bid specified a 7-10 day delivery from dealer stock. 3. Although not part of the bid, the low bidder admitted that he had neglected sales tax on his bid and would not be able to sell the machine for the price quoted anyway. Since this was a minor bid process, no bid bonds were secured for the process and we would be unable to require the bidder to accept the price. 4. Staff believes that the second low bid represents a superior machine that has the following features unavailable on the low bid compactor: a. A poly (plastic material) water tank. Low bid has a painted steel water tank that is subject to corrosion. b. The spray bar of the second low bid is field maintainable without tools. The low bid would likely require a mechanic to make a field trip to do something as simple as unclog a spray nozzle. c. Finally, the operator station is set up to provide day-long convenience and is highly preferred by staff. For the reasons noted above, staff fully endorses the award of the compactor to Hayden-Murphy Equipment Company. Fmancial Issues: The purchase of this piece of equipment comes from the Equipment Enterprise Fund. The actual cost is substantially below the estimated budget of approximately $40,000. The balance between the bid amount and the budget amount will be retained in the fund. DATE: 05/07/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: 1V_ N SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Approve Peterson vs. City of Eden Prairie Settlement Agreement Alan D. Gray Recommended Action: Approve the proposed settlement agreement between Peterson and the City of Eden Prairie as outlined in the attached April 19, 1996 letter from City Attorney, Richard F. Rosow. Overview: In 1995, the Peterson's who reside at 9575 Franlo Road, brought suit against the City claiming damages from storm water run-off directed onto their property from adjoining developments approved by the City. A wetland area located mostly on the Peterson property and partially on property adjacent to the south of Peterson's is the natural low spot in a small watershed of approximately 16 acres. The drainage from this small 16-acre watershed has been directed to this wetland complex on the Peterson property properly since the glaciers retreated approximately ten thousand years ago. Peterson's have claimed, however, that run-off from adjacent residential developments to their property now results in more water impoundment and generally higher water levels throughout the year. Primary Issues: It is extremely difficult to determine to what extent the Peterson property has actually been affected by adjacent development. Studies show that the wetland on the Peterson property dates back at least 20 years. However, the Peterson property is currently zoned rural, has never been through a formal development process and there is no drainage easement dedicated over the wetland complex. In these type of issues there is always room to debate the technical facts. Financial Issues: In the proposed settlement the Peterson's will receive $18,500, a portion of which will be paid by the City and a portion by the LMC Trust as outlined in the attached memo by Richard F. Rosow. The Peterson's will convey to the City of Eden Prairie a drainage easement as described in the attached settlement agreement. The City will then excavate a pond in accordance with the agreed upon plan within the wetland and place the excavated material as fill in a designated area on the Peterson's property. The cost for pond construction and easement may be funded from the Storm Water Utility Fund. LANG, PAULY, GREGERSON & ROSOW, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIRST BANK PLACE 1600 IBM PARK BUILDING 650 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402-4337 TELEPHONE: (612) 338-0755 FAX: (612) 349-6718 ROBERT L LANG EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE ROGER A.PAULY • SUTIE 370 DAVID H.GREGERSON' 250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE RICHARD F.ROSOW EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 55344 MARK 1.JOHNSON TELEPHONE:(612)829.7355 JOSEPH A.NILAN' FAX:(612)829-0713 TODD A.SATILER JENNIF R M.INZ REPLY TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE GERAWT D.POWELL MICHELLE L.ROGNLIEN 'Also Admitted m Wiscamm April 19, 1996 Bradley J. Gunn, Esq. Leonard, Street and Deinard Suite 2300, 150 South Fifh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Peterson vs. City of Eden Prairie Our File No.: 1613.149 Dear Mr. Gunn: This letter will summarize the terms of the tentative settlement we have with respect to the above-referenced matter. Subject to City Council approval, the terms are as follows: 1. The Petersons grant a drainage easement over approximately 0.45 acres, as depicted on the enclosed attachment depicting the easement area and the pond. As I informed you in my March 26 letter, we need the Petersons' neighbor's permission to construct the pond on a portion of their property. 2. The City would excavate a pond in the manner depicted on the attached map by excavating approximately 600 cubic yards with contours as indicated. The excavated material would be placed on the Peterson property in the approximate location shown and shaped to drain. 3. Trees and brush located within the pond area would be removed by the City as part of excavation of the pond. 4. As a result of constructing the pond, the City would not install a pump as previously discussed. 5. The property is currently zoned rural, and your client wants the option of subdividing the property into two lots. Rezoning to R1-22 and subdivision of the property into two lots is supported by staff under current City Code, policies and regulations. This zoning requires 22,000 square feet minimum lots. Staff • , LANG, PAULY, GREGERSON & ROSOW, LTD. Bradley J. Gunn, Esq. April 19, 1996 Page 2 contemplates a division so that the Peterson house could be situated on a lot with exactly 22,000 square feet and the remainder of the property allocated to the other lot. Neither staff recommendation or settlement of this matter is an assurance that the rezoning.or subdivision would be approved. Such actions require a public hearing and consideration by the Council following the public hearing. As a practical matter the longer your clients wait to make such a request, the more risk there is that changed circumstances will impact the proposals and negate the rationale and basis for staff's support. 6. Petersons would need to provide a driveway easement over the lot on which their house is situated in order to provide access to the other lot. 7. The minimum floor elevation for a residence on the undeveloped lot would be 854.0 feet. The City anticipates that fill would be required for a building pad on that lot. 8. Damages in the amount of$18,500 would be paid to the Petersons. I have contacted City staff to place approval of this matter on the Council's agenda for May 7, 1996. Pursuant to our conversation, I understand that you will advise that arbitration office that we have a tentative settlement and that the arbitration currently scheduled should be cancelled. If you have any questions, please advise. Also, I specifically confirm to you that the City Code currently does not require a setback from the drainage and utility easement provided for in this settlement. Very truly yours, LANG, PA Y, GREGE ON & ROSOW, LTD. By 142-14J Richar F. Rosow RFR/hjb Enclosures cc: Alan Gray Todd Sattler 3 APR 19 '96. 10:09 TO:RIC ROSOW FROM:CITY OF E.P.—ENG DIU T 320 P.02 • FRANLO RD. i • R/W . N1'2S'45'W -- -- - 81.92-- .... t --- ---112.13-.. .^- t 1 t I i IZ 7 • l ; / TLAND I 1- — 1 )1+I "i I HOUSE I z I to I oi BASEMENT 1 m C a I EL£V.=STITZ j a O N {, ii i /:((1:1\1 , --' ...... / .5'.t 1 /�%Q�f OUT BUILD. _ _ DRAINAGE EASEMENT= 1 0.45 ACRES a . '--(". ___.....-.DAsR:s41.- I ., ^'vI7 s 1.2e'a6"E amp oen*_- ---195.05--- D. PETERSON 9575 FRANLO RD. 7,- 0Z SCALE itt= 4Oft Lj DATE: 05/07/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO:Jj7g SECTION: Consent Calendar J�l/ DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Release of Land - Pertaining to Special Assessment Agreements with Mason Jeffrey Johnson Homes, Inc. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the two Release of Land documents and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute same. Background: The City recorded these two special assessment agreements in 1989 and their purpose was to define the developers share of construction costs for the upgrading of Mitchell Road and Staring Lake Parkway, adjacent to the Boulder Pointe development. Staff had been requested by First Security Title to process a Release of a Special Assessment Agreement, as they have a continuing affect on the clearance of title of the affected properties. I RELEASE OF LAND This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and is dated as of FACTS 1. Certain Agreements Regarding Special Assessments("Agreement")dated May 24, 1989, were executed by and between the City, and Robert H. Mason, Inc., a Minnesota corporation which Agreements were filed as Document Nos. 5540403 and 5540405 with the Hennepin County Recorder on June 5, 1989. The Agreement related to the property described therein as: Lots 1 through 30, Block 1; Lots 1 through 10, Block 2; Lots 1 through 21, Block 3; Outlots C, D, F and G, Boulder Pointe Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. The special assessments contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 3. To evidence the fact that the special assessments have been levied and the time for appeal has expired, the City is executing this Release of Land. THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases the Property described above from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreements Regarding Special Assessments dated May 24, 1989 filed with the Registrar of Titles as Document Nos. 5540403 and 5540405 on June 5, 1989. This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE A Municipal Corporation BY: BY: Jean L. Harris • Carl J. Jullie Its Mayor Z Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss HENNEPIN COUNTY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1996, by Jean L. Harris and Carl J. Jullie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 nico 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard nomin Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Telephone(612)939-8200•Fax(612)939-8244 • ‘ , March 6, 1996 Mr. Jeff Johnson Engineering Department City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Agreement for Municipal Sanitary Sewer to Serve 17136 Town Line Road Dear Jeff: • On February 26, 1996, the Minnetonka City Council approved Resolution No. 96-20 authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign an agreement with the City of Eden Prairie to provide municipal sanitary sewer to serve 17136 Town Line Road. Enclosed are two copies of the agreement which have been signed by the Mayor and City Manager, and also, two certified copies of the resolution. Please return one copy to me once it has been executed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 1Nl" ael L. Johnson Assistant City Engineer MLJ/ h P Enclosures MMOIN AGREEMENT 3 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 26th day of February , 1996, by and between the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ("Eden Prairie") and the CITY OF MINNETONKA ("Minnetonka"), both being municipal corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The boundaries of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka abut in certain areas. Eden Prairie has existing sanitary sewer facilities capable of serving the property in Minnetonka. it appears to the respective parties that it is reasonable and feasible and in the public interest for Eden Prairie to permit a connection to its sanitary sewer facilities for the property located at 17136 Town Line Road, within the corporate limits of Minnetonka. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1 . Eden Prairie shall permit a connection to its sanitary sewer for the home located at 17136 Town Line Road, within the corporate limits of Minnetonka_ 2. Minnetonka will pay to Eden Prairie a connection charge for sanitary sewer of $820. 3. Not later than April 1 , 1996, Minnetonka shall remit, in a lump sum payment, the total amount due Eden Prairie for the connection charge. 4. Minnetonka shall be responsible for maintenance of the sanitary sewer connection. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CITY OF MINNETONKA By By Jean L. Harris, Mayor K en J nderson, Mayor By By 41 (fl1 C,M Carl J. Jullie, City Manager David M. Childs, City Manager S Doi] .4,- O � O .1, Elizabeth L. Norton, being the duly appointed City Clerk of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Minnetonka City Council at a regular meeting held on the Q ? ay of .4(d 1996. G�1 ELIZ TH L. NORTON, CIT CLERK Date: ` *),h,C/L 5) /9% (SEAL) • the city offices are located at 14600 minnetonka boulevard minnetonka, minnesota 55345-1597 office: (612)-939-8200 fax:(612)-939-8244 ti• RESOLUTION NO. 96-20 Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Sign an Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie to Provide Municipal Sanitary Sewer to Serve 17136 Townline Road BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 . The City of Minnetonka has requested that the City of Eden Prairie provide municipal sanitary sewer to serve 17136 Townline Road. Section 2. Council Action. 2.01 . The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute an agreement with the City of Eden Prairie to provide municipal sanitary sewer to serve 17136 Townline Road. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota on this 26th day • of February, 1996. KAREN J. AINt ERON, MAYOR ATTEST: -I 0e ›q6%4%9-yv ElizaKtn L. Norton, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 96-20 Page two Action on this resolution: Motion for adoption: Allendnrf Seconded by: Callison Voted in favor of: Koblic, Tauer, Allendorf, Thomas, Callison, Anderson Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Sc-hneidpr Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota at a duly authorized meeting held on the 26th day of February, 1996. Elizabet4SV. Norton, City Clerk DATE: 05/07/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: vp SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Divis' Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Eugene A. Die Z Project No. 96-5350 Recommended Action: Motion to approve plans and specifications and authorize bids to be received for the Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project. Background: Planning Commission, Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the City Council have all unanimously approved the concept plans approximately one year ago and more recently the final site plan, building elevations and various details of the proposed expansion of the plant from 18MGD to 28MGD. This step in the process is to formalize the approval for the actual contract documents from which contractors will bid the project. The bid opening date is tentatively set for June 26, 1996, but may be adjusted somewhat in order to accommodate advertising needs, etc. The contract documents are available for review in the Engineering Office. They will not be available at the meeting, since they include approximately 240 plan sheets and specification books over 2 inches thick. Financial Issues: At this time, the project appears to be within the $22,000,000 budget established for the improvements, with the exception of the standby power generator and the roof replacement over the original plant. As discussed at the April 16, 1996 council meeting, both of these items will be taken as alternate bids and will be evaluated with the bidding results. At the time of award of contract(in July)the consultant and staff will provide an itemized analysis of the project costs and the source of funding -- such as NSP dollars for the engine generator. The City will need to sell bonds to finance this project. Based on the cash flow analysis, the bond sale will not be required until 1997. However, the Finance Director will monitor market conditions and vary the sale date to obtain the most favorable interest rates. DATE: 05/07/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: /.(� SECTION: Consent Calendar -'-V �( DEPARTMENT: 2 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Divisi ' Special Assessment Agreement with Bearpath Development Corporation Eugene A. Dietz • Recommended Action: Adopt motion authorizing Mayor and City Manager to execute an agreement between Bearpath Development Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie to specially assess city sewer access and water access charges (SAC and WAC). Background: The proposed clubhouse at the Bearpath Golf and Country Club has been the subject of considerable discussion among the owners, the City and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) regarding estimated water flow for the facility. MCES uses a standard formula approach to evaluate the waste water flow that is generated from all facilities within their service district. Utilizing that information, the City collects SAC's for MCES and applies our own rates to the same figures to determine City charges for SAC and WAC. • The Bearpath Corporation contends that the MCES formulas predict a significantly higher water usage for their facility than is likely to occur. As a result of these discussions, the attached letter from MCES and the proposed agreement between the City and Bearpath Corporation provides a mechanism to evaluate water use at the clubhouse facility over a five-year period and make adjustments if appropriate. In general, the agreement provides that the City will be responsible to monitor daily water flows at the facility (all extra costs to be paid for by the owner) and report this information to MCES. At the conclusion of the study and based on the recorded data, MCES will evaluate the data and will consider a possible reduction in their fees if appropriate. On the other hand, if the flows exceed the estimated figures, Bearpath would be subject to additional fees. In a manner consistent with the MCES approach, the special assessment agreement provides a similar City response based on the results of the study. In the interim, Bearpath has requested that the fees be specially assessed against the property over a five-year period at 8% interest. Financial Issues: The terms of the agreement specify that all extra costs to perform the study will be at the expense of the Bearpath Corporation. Presently, the MCES determination results in fees collected by the City of over $165,000. If Bearpath is correct and there is a 25% error in the formula, for example, the City would potentially reimburse the owner over $40,000. Staff will be available to answer additional questions on this subject at the Council meeting of May 7, 1996. AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 1996 between the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation ( "City" ) , and Bearpath Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, Bearpath Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, and Bearpath Golf and Country Club, Inc . , a Minnesota corporation (Bearpath Development Corporation, Bearpath Limited Partnership and Bearpath Golf and Country Club, Inc . , collectively referred to as the "Owners " ) . A. Owners hold legal and equitable title to the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, located in Hennepin County Minnesota, which property is the subject of this Agreement and is hereafter referred to as the " Property" . B. Owners desire to construct a golf course club house and a tennis court/pool facility ( "Club" ) on the Property in such a manner that will require certain public water and sanitary sewer improvements (the "Improvements" ) that will require payment by the Owners of certain connection fees to the City including, but not limited to, Sewer Availability Charge ( "SAC" ) and Water Availability Charge ( "WAC" ) . The SAC fees include both a City SAC fee and a Metropolitan Council, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ( "Council" ) SAC fee collected by City and paid to the Council . C . The connection fees are based on the number of SAC units determined by the Council . One (1) SAC unit equals 274 gallons of maximum potential daily waste water flow volume . The Council has determined the number of SAC units attributable to the Club is 54 . D . Owners have paid 49 of the Council SAC fees at a 1995 rate of $850 . 00 per SAC unit, and will pay an additional 5 Council SAC fees at a 1996 rate of $900 . 00 per SAC unit, or a total of $46, 150 . 00 . Owners will be charged City SAC and WAC fees as follows : (1) 44 units (attributable to the golf club house only) at 1995 rates of $3 , 190 . 00 per SAC unit ($140 , 360 . 00) . (2 ) 10 units (attributable to the tennis court/pool facility only) at 1996 rates of $3 , 490 . 00 per SAC unit ( $34, 900 . 00 ) . lilL (3 ) Total City SAC and WAC fees equal $175, 260 . 00 . E. The parties hereto desire to enter into an Agreement concerning a possible recalculation of the SAC units by the Council and the financing of the City SAC and WAC fees, all of which will inure to the benefit of the Property . • AGREEMENTS IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1 . Owners consent, and City agrees, to levy the City SAC and WAC connection fees in the amount of $175, 260 . 00 against the Property as a special assessment . Owners agree that the assessment may be levied by City in November, 1996, or at any time thereafter, shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum and shall be payable in annual installments over a period of five (5) years . The first installment will be payable with the general ad valorem real property taxes on the property payable in 1997 and will include interest from December 6, 1995 (the date the permit was first issued for the golf club house) . 2 . Prior to opening the Club for service, Owners shall, at their cost, install meters approved by the City which shall record the daily amount of City water supplied to and used at the Club ( "water use data" ) . City shall " read" the meter and shall provide the water use data from the meters to the Council for a period of five (5) years, commencing with the opening of the Club for service . The parties anticipate that the Council will utilize the Club water use data and other data to determine whether the Council should change its criteria for calculation of SAC units for golf and country clubs, and to recalculate the SAC units assigned to the Club. In the event the Council recalculates the SAC units assigned to the Club the following shall apply: (a) If the number of SAC units , as recalculated ( "recalculated SAC units" ) , exceeds 54, Owners shall pay upon demand additional Council SAC and City SAC and WAC fees to the City, based upon the number of units exceeding 54 units at the prevailing rates for both City and Council . 3 (b) If (i) the number of recalculated SAC units is less than 41 SAC units, and (ii) the Council returns to City some portion of the Council SAC fees for the Club ( "refunded Council SAC fees" ) , City shall credit or reimburse to Owners, A. the refunded Council SAC fees, B. an amount determined by multiplying the difference between 54 and the number of recalculated SAC units times $3 , 190 . 00, and C . that portion of interest paid or accrued (as to the amount determined pursuant to clause B . hereof) in accordance with an assessment made pursuant to this agreement . In any event , if the Council determines not to refund or reimburse to City any of the Council SAC fees paid by City to the Council for the Club, irrespective that the recalculated SAC units is fewer than 41 , City shall have no obligation to credit or reimburse Owners for any Council or City SAC or WAC charges . 3 . Owners shall reimburse City for all costs of labor, equipment and materials, associated with reading, implementing and maintaining the meter (s) , as determined by the Director of Public Works, that exceeds customary costs for quarterly reading of standard water meters . 4 . City' s assessment records for the Property will show the assessments as "pending assessments " until levied. 5 . Owners hereby petition the Council of the City to assess the City connection fees against the Property, waive notice of any hearing thereon and waive notice of any assessment hearing to be held at which the assessment is to be considered by the City Council and thereafter approved and levied . 6 . Owners concur that the benefit to the Property by virtue of the Improvements exceeds the amount of the assessments to be levied against the Property. Owners waive all rights they have by virtue of Minnesota Statutes §429 . 081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of the assessments, the procedures used by the City in making the assessments and hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability related to or arising out of the levying of the assessments . 1/ OWNERS : CITY: BEARPATH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A Minnesota Limited Partnership By BEARPATH DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, CORPORATION, A Minnesota Municipal Its General Partner Corporation By By John Hankinson Jean L. Harris Its President Its Mayor By Carl J. Jullie Its Manager BEARPATH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A Minnesota Corporation By John Hankinson Its President BEARPATH GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC . , A Minnesota Corporation By John Hankinson Its President S ' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) • This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1996, by John Hankinson, as President of Bearpath Development Corporation, General Partner of Bearpath Limited Partnership . Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1996, by John Hankinson, as President of Bearpath Development Corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1996, by John Hankinson, as President of Bearpath Golf and Country Club, Inc . Notary Public (0 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1996, by Jean L. • Harris and Carl J. Jullie, the Mayor and Manager, respectively, of the City of Eden Prairie. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Roger A. Pauly Lang, Pauly, Gregerson & Rosow, Ltd. 250 Prairie Center Drive Suite 370 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: (612) 829-7355 C:\wp51\rap\ep\bearpath\special.as EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 5-7-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. V. f • DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger LIFETOUCH CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to Office on 9.6 acres and PUD District Review on 16.22 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 109 acres. Background: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project at the April l lth meeting. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 2. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 8, 1996 4. Staff Report dated April 5, 1996 I LIFETOUCH CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LIFETOUCH CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS BY LIFETOUCH, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Lifetouch Corporate Headquarters for Lifetouch, Inc. dated April 30, 1996, consisting of 16.22 acres into 2 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 7th day of May, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk :2 LIFETOUCH CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF LIFETOUCH CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FOR LIFETOUCH, INC. WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development(PUD)Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS,the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Lifetouch Corporate Headquarters PUD Concept by Lifetouch, Inc. and considered their request for approval for development(and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on May 7, 1996; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Lifetouch Corporate Headquarters, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated April 30, 1996. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated April 8, 1996. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 7th day of May, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Lifetouch Corporate Headquarters Exhibit A Legal Description Lot 1, Block 3, Golden Strip Second Addition, According to the Recorded Plat Thereof, Hennepin County,Minnesota. _/ P)ar.,r Apr; ) $, 199(0 Pen e_ I 1 C. LIFETOUCH CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS by Lifetouch, Inc. Request for PUD Concept Review on 109 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.22 acres, Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to Office on 9.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.6 acres and Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 2 lots. Location: Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive. Ted Koenicke representing Lifetouch reviewed the history of the business which is taking school pictures. He stated they also do church directories have a retail side of - their operation through J.C. Penny Corporation. They are an international corporation. They are an employee-owned company with annual sales over $5 million. The proposed site is ideal because eleven percent of their employees live in Eden Prairie and it is located close to their present location in Bloomington, which they intend to retain. Marshall Levin, Pope Associates, Architect,reviewed Phase I of the plans and gave a general overview of possible proposals which might incur Phases II and III of the development. He noted that additional phases will be resubmitted for approval at a later time. The proposed Corporate Headquarters building will be located in the northwest corner of the site. PLANNING COMMISL, JN MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 12 Habicht inquired about the depth of the site from Smetana Lane and Evan responded that it was between 350-400 feet deep, but it was not all buildable area. The area which is buildable is very narrow. He reviewed the site plans and showed building renderings and sight lines. He discussed the exterior finish which will be used on the building and showed samples of the brick and glass. Kardell inquired if the walkout dock area was screened from the lake and Levin responded it was screened from both sides. Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated staff recommended approval of the project. He briefly reviewed the plans for the proposed parking deck. The Public Hearing was opened. Connie Wetmore, 8049 Ensign Road, Bloomington, stated she was concerned about the setback from Smetana Lake and inquired how far it was. Even responded that the setback from the lake was 100 feet, and the setback from Smetana Drive was 200 feet. Wetmore noted that there was an overabundance of parking spaces in the area and cautioned that the parking not be overdone on this site. Wissner commented that the building height, hardsurface coverage and setback waivers were addressed, and she supported the project. Ismail inquired that since the building was designated for office use would there be any production done in the building. Koenicke responded that the product development work would be done at the facility in Bloomington and this building would be primarily offices with some research possibly being done on the premises. He noted that they had held a neighborhood meeting and the people seemed to be comfortable with the project after touring their facility and hearing about their plans. Habicht commented he believed the project was a good one and he was comfortable with Phase I but nothing more than that. He injured if the other phases of development would require City review and Franzen responded that was correct, noting that the Phase I segment was for the 9.6 acre parcel only, and that was all the Development Agreement would cover. MOTION: Sandstad moved, Clinton seconded,to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Sandstad moved, Clinton seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Lifetouch for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 109 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 9.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to Office on 9.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 2 lots, based on plans dated April 5, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 5, 1996. Motion carried 7-0. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael. D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: April 5, 1996 PROJECT: Lifetouch LOCATION: Viking Drive APPLICANT: Lifetouch OWNER: Lifetouch REQUEST: 1. PUD Concept Review on 109 acres 2. PUD District Review on 9.6 acres 3. Site Plan Review on 9.6 acres 4. Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 2 lots 5. Zoning District Change From Commercial Regional to on 9.6 acres. 1 / •\ v II �Q / ? . I?ECHNCLCs'l1 EcHLo 1 o:iE PAP, I PAPK \ TECHNOL. TH AD _ ; .-.-i SO A`41 # 8Iii .a.f:;.c.) ;.:: : ell . • \ IU J 'y" �Ii1 ADDITION a eiN ._ •7' /- \:-N----1 • ' A QRIYE "-- LEONA ROAD ' j 78 THPiii* S — _-(p ST. We .111ri / ;5: :'1 .♦ '�'tifiI i` LAKES �: ir `,` iNESS LAKE : :•:•:•:•: POP, S •:: Staff Report Lifetouch April 5, 1996 BACKGROUND This piece of property is Site 8 and 10 of the 1984 Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development . This site was approved for 3 , 5- story buildings totaling 609,000 sq. ft. The Planned Unit Development was approved for 1.6 million square feet of commercial, office, and industrial uses. The Planned Unit Development was modified in 1987 to shift density to the west end of the property to accommodate taller and larger office buildings. As a tradeoff, smaller and shorter buildings were approved on the east end so that more of the natural features could be preserved. The site plan was amended in 1987 for a 10 and 14 story building totaling 609,000 sq. ft. SITE PLAN The site plans shows 2 lots. Each lot meets the acreage and dimensional requirements of the Office zoning district. The Base area ratio permitted is .30. The floor area permitted is .50. The base area ratio is .05 and the floor area ratio is .31. Parking required is a ratio of 4.2 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of building .Parking requirements are met for phase one. SHORE LAND ORDINANCE The shoreland area is defined as 1000 feet from the normal ordinary high water level. The 30 foot maximum building height, 30% impervious surface, and structure setback requirements apply. Since the site plan exceeds these requirements, planned unit development waivers are required. These waivers are reasonable and consistent with other waivers granted for the 1987 planned unit development. Southwest Crossing is 80 feet to the top of the penthouse. Impervious surface is 65%. The city has granted impervious waivers in shoreland areas provided the stormwater is treated and parking is screened from the lake. Stormwater will flow into a pond to the east of this site before discharge into Smetana Lake. The required setback from the lake is 200 feet. The proposed setback is 100 feet. The setback waiver should only be granted if the site plan is changed to reduce the height of the parking deck (phase 2-3) and its visual impact on the lake. Reasons to consider the setback waiver are: 1. The average planned unit development setback is 210 feet. 2 q Staff Report Lifetouch April 5, 1996 2. The 1987 plan had setbacks closer to the lake on the west end and greater setbacks on the east end in order to save more trees on the east end. Reasons to not consider the setback waiver are: 1. The 7 story parking deck is inconsistent with the 1984 and 1987 plans . 2. The parking deck is taller than the adjoining office buildings. 3. The parking deck is visually intrusive on the lake. 4. Parking decks are not visually pleasing. Staff and Lifetouch met with the DNR several months ago to discuss the shoreland waivers. The DNR was comfortable the waivers but it was based on a two building plan with a shorter parking deck,and most of the deck was behind the building and not visible from the lake. Staff does not believe the DNR will support the current plan. The staff would recommend concept approval of phase 2-3 based on the following conditions: 1. The parking deck shall not be visible from the lake. Berming and heavy landscaping should be used. 2. Maximum height of the parking deck shall not exceed 3 stories adjacent to the shore impact zone. 3. The parking deck may be taller if the building screens the view of the deck from the lake. 4. The deck should be architecturally compatible with the main building. (brick) ARCHITECTURE Detailed plan approval is requested for phase one only. The building meets the 75%face brick and glass requirement. Buildings are also required to be compatible in terms colors,textures and construction details. An exterior materials board should be submitted for review and approval by the City Council. 3 )0 Staff Report Lifetouch April 5, 1996 The Office building 45 feet high. The maximum height permitted in the Office district is 30 feet. This is a planned unit development waiver. The height waiver is consistent with the 1984 plan and less than the 1987 approval. All rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened a wall. LANDSCAPING The amount of landscaping required is based on a caliper inch requirement according to building square footage, forestation of the 100 foot shore impact zone between the building and the lake (mitigation for the shoreland setback waiver), and screening of parking areas. The landscape plan meets city code requirements. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water is available in Viking Drive. Stormwater will be treated in an existing pond to the east of this site. TRAFFIC As part of the 1984 Planned Unit Development a traffic study was prepared. As each site develops, staff compares trip generation to the master traffic study. The traffic generated by this proposal is consistent with both planned unit developments. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS There should be a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk constructed along Viking. Due to the location of the light poles,the sidewalk may encroach on private property. If so, an easement should be granted to the city. The berms may have to be reduced somewhat and screening of parking may be less, but it would be a reasonable tradeoff. There should also be a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk connection from the building to the proposed sidewalk along Viking Drive. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat shows two lots which meet the dimensional and square footage requirements of the Office Zoning District. A 100 foot lot width and 10,000 square feet is required. 4 I Staff Report Lifetouch April 5, 1996 RETAINING WALLS A retaining wall is proposed. These walls should be of masonry construction and similar in color and design to the walls on the Mariott and Century Bank sites. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review,Rezoning from Commercial Regional to Office, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Review ,based on plans dated April 5,1996 and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated April 5, 1996, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review,the proponent shall: A. Submit an exterior materials board. 2.. Prior to final plat approval,the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to Building Permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. B. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. C. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 4. The following planned unit development waivers are granted:: A. Building height from 30 feet to 45 feet. B. Impervious surface from 30% to 60%. C. Building setback from 200 feet to 100 feet. 5 Staff Report Lifetouch April 5, 1996 D. Zero lot line setback to parking. 6. Phase two and three will require a zoning amendment and a site plan review with the Planning Commission and City Council prior to building permit issuance. 6 i3 MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities FROM Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources DATE: April 10, 1996 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to the April 5, 1996 Planning Staff Report for Lifetouch BACKGROUND: The parcel of land in for review is part of the 1984 Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development. The site that is being submitted was previously approved for three, five story buildings. The usage of this land was designed as commercial, office and industrial sites. In 1987, the PUD was modified to include taller, larger office buildings, but not to exceed the approved 609,000 square feet of building. ISSUES: Natural Resources/Tree Preservation Currently,the site does not require the removal of any significant trees as defined by City ordinance. The site has been used for several years for storage of excess fill that was excavated from other parts of the original PUD. Therefore, no mitigation is required for removal of significant trees. The project has a rather extensive amount of landscaping proposed. This is to meet the City ordinance for screening of parking lots, as well as some restoration of the slopes facing Smetana Lake. This is part of the original agreement with Vantage Corporation that some restoration of the slopes would be done to provide some natural barriers between the buildings and the shoreline of Smetana Lake. The plant schedule shows a total of 460 caliper inches of trees being planted on the site. Coniferous material includes Black Hills spruce and Colorado spruce. Deciduous trees to be planted include green ash,basswood, swamp white oak, redmond linden, river birch, black ash, and silver maple. In addition,there is an extensive amount of foundation and landscape decorative planting that includes flowering shrubs. The staff feels that the landscaping plan that has been submitted is suitable for the site and will accomplish the desired effect of revegetating the slope between the buildings and the pathway along Smetana Lake. 1 I`l NURP Pond The project drainage is to take all of the storm water from the building and parking lot areas and channel in via a storm drainage to an existingNURP pond in the southeastern corner of the property. There is actually a two-tier NURP pond that would settle out the solids prior to entry into Smetana Lake. The developer would be required to meet all City and Watershed District regulations regarding proper grading and erosion control techniques prior to issuance of a grading permit for the site. Sidewalks and Trails The site currently has an eight-foot bituminous trail that was build by Vantage Corporation. The developer, as part of the submission, is willing to give the City a proper easement document covering the trail for public use. This document would clear up any questions as to usage or maintenance of the trail in the future. In addition, the staff is recommending that a five-foot concrete trail be constructed along the northerly side of Viking Drive. The reason for proposing this is to provide for safe pedestrian travel during times when the lake trail is covered with snow. The proposed five-foot wide concrete sidewalk would be constructed at the back side of the curb along Viking Drive and would have to meander around some of the existing light poles in order to be installed. The installation of this sidewalk would be timed to be completed at the completion of phase two and three. Until the additional office buildings are completed, there is a very small need for this sidewalk to be constructed. In addition, an easement would be necessary at the time of construction wherever the sidewalk meandered outside of the right-of-way for Viking Drive. RECOMMENDATION: This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 8, 1996 meeting and received a unanimous vote of approval. The staff would recommend approval of this project subject to the staff report dated April 5, 1996 (by the City Planner) and this supplemental staff report. SAF:mdd Touch.memo/Stuart96 2 15 Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission April 15, 1996 Brown was concerned about recommending cash park fees in case the property is sold in the future for residential. Fox replied it would be for a subdivision, and they would take up the issue at that time. Koenig was concerned about the configurations of the NURP pond. Fox replied the NURP pond is sized for the entire acreage on the site. It's planned to take off the runoff on the whole site. The only runoff at this time will be the parking lot. Brown expressed concern that there was no variance request for the building height of 38 feet when the maximum height is 30 feet on public zoning. Fox stated that more than likely it will be addressed as a variance request MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Koenig to accept the plan as per the Staff recommendations for the Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church's new building. Motion carried 7-0. B. Lifetouch Corporate Headquarters Marshall Levin, representing Pope Association Inc., reviewed the development proposal for the new corporate headquarters of Lifetouch. This is a four story building from the lakeside elevation. It's primarily a brick and glass building with the upper story being made out of an exterior insulation system to give a different texture at the top. Lifetouch is a photography company that employs 4000 employees, and 11 percent of them live in Eden Prairie. They have chosen Eden Prairie as their world headquarters. The project is a three phase plan in terms of a site plan. Phase I is the 32,800 square foot building. Phase II will take place in about four or five years which will need an additional 167,000 square feet of building. The third parcel will be Phase III of the project. The building is being viewed as a formal structure with a formal entrance. There are significant reformations of the slope down to the water in the back. Fox reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission. Currently, the site does not require the removal of any significant trees as defined by City ordinance. The site has been used for several years for storage of excess fill that was excavated from other parts of the original PUD. Therefore, no mitigation is required for removal of significant trees. 3 IC, Unapproved Minutes Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission April 15, 1996 Fox explained the background as to why the project has a rather extensive amount of landscaping proposed. The plant schedule shows a total of 460 caliper inches of trees being planted on the site. Coniferous material include Black Hills spruce and Colorado spruce. Deciduous trees to be planted include green ash, basswood, swamp white oak, redmond linden, river birch, black ash and silver maple. There is an extensive amount of foundation and landscape decorative planting that includes flowering shrubs. Staff believes the landscaping plan submitted is suitable for the site and will accomplish the desired effect. The NURP pond is to the east and is a two stage pond that was created. All the drainage from this particular site would be channeled into that NURP pond and would make its way into Smetana Lake. There is an eight-foot bituminous trail that was originally built by Vantage and for some reason there was not an easement given to the site. The developer has come up with the appropriate documentation and the City will give the site a permanent trail easement for people to walk as well as for the site to be maintained as a public easement point. Staff recommended that at the time of Phase II a five foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed along Viking Drive to handle pedestrian traffic. It would also have to meander around some of the existing light poles in order to be installed. This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 8, 1996 and received unanimous approval. Staff does recommend approval of this project. Brown was concerned about the DNR accepting the plan based on Phase I and II. Fox responded that part of it is because the parking deck and the site from Smetana Lake would have to be modified. Levin noted that this has to do with how much or any of the parking ramp should be visible from the lake. The original plan was approved for two buildings, one being a 10 story and the other one a 14 story building. They didn't need that extensive development for this site and that's why they want three buildings. Kracum expressed concern about the DNR being comfortable with a 100 foot setback instead of the required 200 foot setback. Fox stated that Staff is comfortable with the 100 foot setback and explained why. Koenig asked if the Smetana Lake improvement project fits in the CIP with Mile Creek Centennial Lake. Lambert noted the DNR has denied the requests for the improvement project on Smetana Lake as requested. The DNR decided that the value of the wetland being created is not a valuable as 4 f'1 Unapproved Minutes Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission April 15, 1996 the wetland being lost. Staff is still supporting the Watershed District to put in an outlet control structure to control the elevation for the lake and manage it more for flood control. That is still in the review process. Bowman was concerned about the setback, and the comment in the Staff Report indicating that the seven story parking deck is not consistent with any plans. He commented that there is reason here not to consider the setback waiver. This means the parking lot is taller than the adjoining office building. He wants to make sure that if they accept the lesser setback in lieu of tightening up the parking structure, the Commission remembers it later on during the next phase. Koenig expressed concern about the two-tier NURP pond by the billboard having a lot of sedimentation in it already. Fox replied that the NURP ponds need to be cleaned out based on how much sedimentation takes place in them. It depends on how much solid comes out of the adjacent street and parking lot. He noted that the original NURP ponds were sized for the entire project and the entire site was not developed. Discussion ensued regarding the condition in the Staff Report stating that the proposed setback is 100 feet, and the setback waiver should only be granted if this site plan is changed to reduce the height of the parking deck on Phase II and III. It was noted that the Commission basically will not be responsible for the height of the parking deck in Phase II and III. Hilgeman commented she's not happy with all the waivers but understands that these decisions were made a long time ago and the tradeoffs were substantial on both sides. She supported the project. MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Jacobson to approve the Lifetouch Corporate Headquarters as per the Staff recommendations. Motion carried 7-0. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. 1996 Work Planjcontinued from April 1. 1996) The Commission was referred to a memo dated April 4, 1996, from Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities. Lambert noted that this Work Plan can be either modified or approved as per the way it's written. Some things have already been initiated. There is a Council Workshop in the next couple of months that's going to be addressing 5 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 5-7-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. v.6 . DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 12.18 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change on 12.18 acres. Background: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project at the April l lth meeting. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 2. Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change 3. Planning.Commission Minutes dated April 8, 1996 4. Staff Report dated April 5, 1996 EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BY EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church for Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church dated April 30, 1996, consisting of 12.18 acres into one lot, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 7th day of May, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 2 EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan("Plan"); and, WHEREAS,the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the proposal of Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church by Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church for construction of a church requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: 12.18 acres from Low Density Residential to Public all located at Pioneer Trail and County Road 4. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 7th day of May, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Ssi o". Ri n.►kes R pr i I 2, I99G, P& Q 9 B. EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH by Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Public on 12.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 12.18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 12.18 acres and Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres into one lot and road right-of-way. Location: Pioneer Trail and County Road 4. Becky Linnen, Chair of the Building Committee for the Church stated that they were a small neighborhood church and wished to remain located within a neighborhood if possible. After looking for a suitable site throughout Eden Prairie,they chose this site because it offered them the greatest number of features they were looking for. They concurred with the staff report and had no concerns that needed to be addressed at this time. Gary Tushie, Tushie-Montgomery Architects, reviewed the site plans and building plans. He described the screening around the parking lot and briefly described the possibility of two future additions which were allowed for, but not definitely proposed for any specific time in the future. He showed building renderings and discussed the sight lines from adjacent properties. Linnen stated they intend to request a waiver from the park dedication fee requirement when the project is reviewed by the City Council. -I PLANNING COMMIS,._JN MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 10 Wissner commented she supported the proposal, and it was very attractive in appearance. Ismail inquired about the distance from the church to the nearest single family residence and Franzen responded it was approximately 440 feet. Tushie stated they had no objections to the staff report. Kardell inquired how many members belonged to the church and Linnen responded they presently have 193 members. Wissner inquired when the single family homes would be constructed and Linnen responded that they don't know when or if they will be built. It depends on the growth of the congregation. Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated staff recommended approval of the requests. • Foote asked if the Fire Marshal had reviewed the plans regarding the one access to the property and Franzen responded that he had approved, noting that if necessary the fire trucks would go cross-country to get to hydrants or whatever necessary in the event of an emergency. Sandstad commented the Fire Marshal had requested more hydrants. The Public Hearing was opened. Richard Smith, 9087 Palmetto Drive, stated he had no issues with the proposal and supported and welcomed the church into the community. Larry Lemon, 8947 Eden Prairie Road, inquired where his driveway would gain access since when County Road 4 was upgraded his driveway would no longer have access. Plans show his driveway connecting to Azalea Drive. They will have to work out a cross-access easement with the church or something but it will need resolution so he has access to his home. Franzen responded he would have the Engineering Depai tuient contact him to resolve this issue. Linnen stated the Church was very willing for him to access their driveway if he so desired. Al Krause, President of the Eden Hills Property Association, stated they have some concerns about the undeveloped part of the lot and wish to receive ample notice of any development plans. Kardell responded that they would receive any notices for development within 500'of their property, which is the standard notification area for the City of Eden Prairie when projects are submitted for development review and approval. Fraen noted that there will be a Development Agreement drawn between the City and the Church which will be signed by the Mayor and Church members which gives approval only to this part of the project. They will have to get another approval for any further development proposed on the property. • Sandstad inquired what the Church intended to do with the part of the site that has always been a pumpkin patch and Linnen responded that they were talking about planting pumpkins there and having a fall festival of some sort, but they had not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 11 definitely decided. Bob Walton, Coral Lane, stated he welcomed the project but requested clarification regarding Azalea Drive and the residential development. Tushie reviewed the plans and described the lighting which will be installed in the parking lot of the new church. Linnen noted that the lights are on timers and do not remain on all night long, which is what they have done at their present facility and intend to continue the practice with this building as well. Foote commented that it was a well thought-out floor plan. Habicht stated it appeared to be an excellent project and he inquired if there was a precedent regarding waiving the park dedication fee for churches. Franzen responded that it was often done, and the City would collect a park dedication fee per unit on the residential property when and if it is constructed. MOTION: Wissner moved, Foote seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Wissner moved, Foote seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Public on 12.18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 12.18 acres, Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres into one lot,and Site Plan Review on 12.18 acres based on plans dated April 5, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 5, 1996. Motion carried 7-0. (0 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael. D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: April 5, 1996 PROJECT: Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church LOCATION: County Road 4 and County Road 1 APPLICANT: Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church OWNER: Wheaton College REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Low Density Residential to Public on 12.18 acres 2. Zoning District Change From Rural to Public on 12.18 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres into 1 lots and road right of way. 3. Site Plan Review on 12.18 acres 1 L-/ I V- — gilt Cm •--- 4r4 !V:Ir ir 73 laill 1 i • 1 gjit 'i ti offlo 7 1 1 1 _4 r il res.Ts: r 0-11100 . -TT it, it x pite r ‘11111v4lk . ri • . : LN. I. r iy• DR ESsEN -Or all illilli".1" all . rig _. -:. tit 111111.il 1*. 't*11 111 • t -.4-, E/4 /? .... 0 D.1 I o -n .:;.. GouLD .1.k °1 IIII I I 1111 1110A i ttkc) . . :---- fil I'OP ( Ps* il r.. • A • •:.::. -r---- • • • rn- 4 ,-----.---. I b R. , , ,1 s , i 1 1 to IR • MEAD VALE DFL _. • . U CI . •. s . r---- • ho N ..:1 Olt 41 ivivim-, . _ . .... .. ..... I t . 1W441 - 1 •losiii, ... vt .... I . jo . .... ::.. c:›41 •• ... •••• • -----••-: , • , 0 le ,x-c:' .:. • ;'7 1.11,!./.:..:..*:'..• ••••.. : •.:.: J. .0 ':: 0 •: Or ....:.*::.:.:. .:::::.:.."..:. 0 .... RIDGf- i-• Nag:•:.•:: :"....:• *la%..:. tai itor _.A• !*** __.... .... .....-.....i....: ... .. •.•....i.. V.':::4:..:.:....::: •••••••••.•::-..:•••••• &;•.• • ...... ...,-- 4t.---C-011_,•l '...."-N„ ......... .........sec.......••.. -• ..•.-.•.•. ..•...:.:::.:....::.:.:1....::1.:11.11...:1:.•:.-:.•::.::::::::::;T:.:.:..... -;.:..... . ........ CO. RD. 4 -4 4 fl. i* \ .•:•::::•• ''.••••::-.':::•:•:.:-..%%*•*:•*:.;.: :•:•::::*:'.....:'....'....•• • •:::::'**::%. MITCHELL p, .............. ....... -------' ROMA)F.Ft PO it4T E WEST • .. ........... .......................................• .. • ............•.•••••• i 1:4 HOMES f,UHRISE - --I rn 21 ,:. •.:.:.. :•.**.•:•..*:•:•.- ....*:............. St ...............::.... .:..•:.:..:::.Z.••/ :....%...::::•;:.':';':':•::: il•..p, . ‘ .: ..i. ... .... . .... • •• •• -••••••••• .. .•.•.*.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• -• %.:**.•..•:•:•:**.*::.•".•..*..:.:".•:••••• 41 e .. .:::.*:::..:::::::::.:• ..:::::..:....:::.:*:.::.. 4pc:Y 4411.5. .......•.•.*.•. ..*:':' •••••%:....%%****.**:' .. .*:•::.':'7.*:•.2.•:•..•..•:-.:;::: f----------k:•abh•_ ::::'...:::.1. ..... -:r.• ......••• %:%:*7:::••••• C.;4'4 't'. ritgrAll nk 44.„, .......• ....... lxiv . / . 1 \ %.4. y •::!. . ,:. l'. /. DE• 7 -ri Staff Report Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church April 5, 1996 BACKGROUND: There have been two other projects proposed for this site. The first one was the Pioneer Ridge Addition for 25 single family lots. The second was a Rottlund proposal for 43 single family lots. Both projects were withdrawn by the proponents. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE: Churches are not pre-designated on the Comprehensive Guide Plan.. Churches are evaluated based on city code, size, and impacts on surrounding areas. Small churches, similar to the current proposal, are considered neighborhood churches. Regional churches, such as Wooddale Baptist, are more appropriately located near commercial areas and highways. Reasons to consider the land use change from residential to public are: 1. This is a small neighborhood church. 2. The church is located at the intersection of 2 county roads. 3. The church building is 440 feet away from the family homes to the north and east. 4. Parking areas can be screened from the adjoining residential areas. SITE PLAN: The site plans show a 21,050 square foot church with an 8,000 square foot expansion. The building meets public setback requirements. Parking meets city code. The future subdivision results in a plan where the church parking does not meet the required 25 foot setback from the right of way line. The future plan should be revised to meet this requirement. Azalea Drive is part of the City's plan for a local road connection between Mitchell Road and County Road 4. Azalea Drive would serve potentially 50 homes. The conversion of this site to Church reduces the number of future homes to 25. Palmetto Road to the east will have a full access on Pioneer Trail. Azalea Drive can also connect to Mitchell Road. The church does not generate A.M. or P. M. Peak hour traffic. For these reasons the road is not needed. Since the approval of this project is limited to the plan as proposed, any additional church 2 9 Staff Report Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church April 5, 1996 expansion beyond the current proposal will require a review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council and public hearings. Church building and or parking lot expansion will encroach closer to existing and future residential neighborhoods. Screening of parking areas will be required. Staff is comfortable with a church use of the site based on the following conditions: 1. Azalea Drive could would be built concurrent with the residential development of the site. 2. The parking lot must be screened from the adjoining residential uses. 3. The future residential area will require a guide plan change to residential. 4. The lots on the north side of Azalea Drive should be a minimum of 22,000 square feet since the adjoining lots are at least 22,000 square feet. The other lots may be 13,500 square feet since the adjoining lots to the east are 13,500 square feet. ARCHITECTURE: The building will be constructed of face brick and glass meeting the 75%brick and glass requirement of the public zoning district. The building is 38 feet tall. For pitched roof buildings,building height is determined by the midpoint of the average highest height, which in this case is 26 feet. The maximum height permitted in the public zoning district is 30 feet. LANDSCAPING: The landscaping required is based on a caliper inch requirement according to building square footage,tree replacement, and screening of parking areas from the adjoining residential areas. There are 60 inches of tree loss ( 1 tree). Tree replacement is 79 inches. The plan meets the caliper inch and tree replacement requirements. Screening of parking areas is based on site lines. The site lines show that screening must rely exclusively on plant materials for screening. Since there are gaps between the plantings and it will take some time for the trees to mature,the berm on the north and east sides should be raised 4 feet to accomplish screening. It is not possible to construct a berm to screen the parking lot from the existing home on County Road 4 due to the pond. Along and outside of the future road right of way for Azalea Drive there is room to plant 3 Jo Staff Report Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church April 5, 1996 conifers. Since the proposed berms should be raised, some of the trees on the berm could be relocated to this area. UTILITIES: Utilities are available in adjoining streets. Additional fire hydrants are required by the Fire Marshal. A treatment pond is shown on the plan. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS: When the County Roads are upgraded,the County will build an eight foot wide trail along both roads. The church site plan shows a sidewalk connection to the trail along County Road 4 which will be built concurrent with the construction of the trail by the County. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential To Public,Rezoning from Rural to Public,Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Review ,based on plans dated April 5,1996 and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated April 5,1996 , and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall: A. Revise the landscape plan to show conifers along Azalea Drive and raise beams to screen parking from the residential areas to the north and east. 2.. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to Building Permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. B. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. 4 �I Staff Report Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church April 5, 1996 C. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. D. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. 4. The site plan for the future residential area must be revised to shift the road to the east so that the parking areas can meet the required 25 foot front yard setback from the right of way line. 5. Any expansion of the church and parking beyond the current plan will require a review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5 la MEMORANDUM TO: Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert,Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources s� FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources DATE: April 9, 1996 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to the April 5, 1996 Planning Staff Report for Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church BACKGROUND: This proposed development is located on the corners of Eden Prairie Road and Pioneer Trail. This area has had two other projects proposed on it in the past two years. The first was a single family development for 25 homes. The second was a townhome project. Both projects were withdrawn by the proponents. The proposed plan is to relocate Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church from its current site on Leona Road and Flying Cloud Drive to this piece of property. The project would be to build a 21,050 square feet church with room for additional future expansion. ISSUES: Natural Resources/Tree Preservation The site currently has several trees on it; however, only one is considered significant as defined by City ordinance. The tree is a large cottonwood tree that will be lost due to the site grading work. Between the mitigation for the lost cottonwood tree and requirements of the screening/landscaping ordinance, a total of 168 caliper inches of trees is to be planted. They include Blackhills and Colorado spruce, white pine, river birch, northern pin oak, little leaf linden, and quaking aspen. Additional ornamental trees include crab apples and shrubs such as hydrangea and spirea. In addition, the recommendation has been made by the staff to work with the neighbors on the north side of the entrance driveway to provide screening, as well as access to the church entrance road when Eden Prairie Road is upgraded. NURP Pond A NURP pond is scheduled for construction along Eden Prairie Road and to be bounded by the entrance road and the parking lot. This pond will have to be evaluated by the Engineering '3 Department to see if it is of suitable size to handle the storm water runoff from the site. Prior to construction, the developer will need a grading permit from the City Engineering Department and Watershed District and comply with all Watershed District rules in terms of erosion fencing. Sidewalks/Trails Originally, when this site was proposed to be single family homes, an eight foot wide trail was proposed on the north side of Azalea Trail. The road is not being built as part of this plan and will probably never be extended. However, the staff are recommending that a six foot wide sidewalk be constructed concurrent with the project to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Eden Prairie Road to their parking lot. The future eight foot wide bituminous trails along Pioneer Trail and Eden Prairie Road will be constructed at the time these road are improved. RECOMMENDATION: This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 8, 1996 meeting and received a unanimous vote of approval. In addition, the issue of cash park fees was brought up and this project would be exempt from paying cash park fees as per the City code. The staff would recommend approval of this project subject to the staff report dated April 5, 1996 and this supplemental staff report. SAF:mdd Church/Stuart96 Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission April 15, 1996 A. Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church Becky Lennon,representing Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church, reviewed the proposal for the relocation of the church from the current site on Leona Road and Flying Cloud Drive to Eden Prairie Road and Pioneer Trail. The grading plan, site plan, elevation plan, and landscaping plan were reviewed. The site plan shows a 21,050 square foot building with a walk-out on two sides. The proposal is to surround the parking area to screen it with six foot berms topped with a variety of flowering crab and blue spruce, and a variety of bushes and trees on the property. Fox reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission. It was noted there is only one large cottonwood that will be impacted with the grading. That's 100 percent tree loss and ends up being mitigated with the landscaping and the screening. A variety of coniferous material as well as some of the more common deciduous trees will be planted. The NURP pond that's scheduled to be constructed will be along Eden Prairie Road which will be north of the low area of the wetlands which is currently on the corner of Eden Prairie Road and Pioneer Trail. It will have to be approved suitable to handle the runoff from this site. The Engineering Department is investigating it now. The NURP pond will handle the runoff from the parking lot and the driveway areas. It has to be sized appropriately to handle the entire site. Originally, when this site was proposed to be single family homes, an eight foot wide trail was proposed on the north side of Azalea Trail. The road is not being built as part of this plan and will probably never be extended. However, the Staff are recommending that a six foot wide sidewalk be constructed concurrent with the project to accommodate pedestrian traffic from Eden Prairie Road to their parking lot. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the April 8, 1996 meeting and received a unanimous vote of approval. In addition, the project would be exempt from paying cash park fees as per the City code because this is a church. Wilson asked what will happen to the existing church site on Leona Road. Lennon replied the site will become commercial property with 30,000 square feet of retail. 2 Unapproved Minutes Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission April 15, 1996 Brown was concerned about recommending cash park fees in case the property is sold in the future for residential. Fox replied it would be for a subdivision, and they would take up the issue at that time. Koenig was concerned about the configurations of the NURP pond. Fox replied the NURP pond is sized for the entire acreage on the site. It's planned to take off the runoff on the whole site. The only runoff at this time will be the parking lot. Brown expressed concern that there was no variance request for the building height of 38 feet when the maximum height is 30 feet on public zoning. Fox stated that more than likely it will be addressed as a variance request MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Koenig to accept the plan as per the Staff recommendations for the Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church's new building. Motion carried 7-0. B. Lifetouch Corporate Headquarters Marshall Levin, representing Pope Association Inc., reviewed the development proposal for the new corporate headquarters of Lifetouch. This is a four story building from the lakeside elevation. It's primarily a brick and glass building with the upper story being made out of an exterior insulation system to give a different texture at the top. Lifetouch is a photography company that employs 4000 employees, and 11 percent of them live in Eden Prairie. They have chosen Eden Prairie as their world headquarters. The project is a three phase plan in terms of a site plan. Phase I is the 32,800 square foot building. Phase II will take place in about four or five years which will need an additional 167,000 square feet of building. The third parcel will be Phase III of the project. The building is being viewed as a formal structure with a formal entrance. There are significant reformations of the slope down to the water in the back. Fox reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission. Currently, the site does not require the removal of any significant trees as defined by City ordinance. The site has been used for several years for storage of excess fill that was excavated from other parts of the original PUD. Therefore, no mitigation is required for removal of significant trees. 3 '6 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 5-7-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. v,C DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 and PUD District Review on 38.5 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 38.5 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 88.5 acres. Background: • DEVELOPMENT REQUEST Pulte Homes is buying the 88.5 acre site in two phases from Douglas Skanse. The request is for a Guide Plan Change and Planned Unit Development approval for 692 units on the entire property. Rezoning for phase one (southern half-420 units)is requested only. There is an alternate Planned Unit Development Concept plan for phase two(northern half- 574 housing units and 653,000 sq. Ft. of office). The Planning Coinniision recommended approval of the entire project(phase 1 and 2) for 692 units. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the alternate Planned Unit Development plan and Guide Plan Change to High Density Residential- Office(northern half)based on density and traffic impacts. The first plan reviewed by the Planning Commission was 788 units. • TRAFFIC IS APPROXIMATELY 50% LESS THAN THE GUIDE PLAN The traffic generated by the Pulte development plan is 4,498 daily trips. The Guide Plan would allow either 491 housing units and 722,000 sq.ft. of office with 10,323 daily trips or 740 housing units and 522,000 sq.ft. of office with 9,469 daily trips. r Detailed traffic studies looked at P.M.peak hour traffic and A.M. peak hour traffic. Residents were concerned with morning rush hour traffic. The traffic study indicates that during rush hour only one time did all of the cars not clear the intersection. At full development this will change to five times within one hour. The revised site plan approved by the Planning Commission locates more of the units towards the south end of the property which means more of the traffic will use the VoTech entrance which can handle more traffic than the Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection. The traffic study recommends a signal at Columbine Road, and the widening of Anderson Lakes Parkway for turn lanes. This should be completed concurrent with Phase 1 and the developer should be required to contribute a proportionate share of the cost. 70% OF THE TOTAL UNITS MEET THE AFFORDABILITY OWNERSHIP GOAL OF THE LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES ACT FOR HOMES LESS THAN $115,000.00 BERMING AND LANDSCAPING COMPLETELY SCREENS BUILDINGS FROM STARING LAKE PARKWAY AND ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY. VIEWS FROM 169 ARE 50% SCREENED • THE DENSITY OF THIS PROJECT IS 7.8 UNITS PER ACRE. This compares with Hartford(8 units per acre), Summerfield(11 units per acre) and Jamestown Villas(11 units per acre) The site plan shows a gradual change in density from 3 units per acre on the west end to 16 units per acre adjacent to Highway 169. The 3 unit per acre density on the west end is less than Boulder Pointe townhouses(3.66 units per acre). • THIS PROJECT IS 60 PERCENT OPEN SPACE The Boulder Pointe townhouses are 60 percent open space. The Centex cluster homes are 60 percent open space. A typical single family neighborhood is 70 percent open space. An office development is 30 percent open space. • NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUE-ENVIRONMENT The neighborhood believes this project will have an environmental impact. This project has zero percent tree loss,no wetland fill,meets the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance,preserves the 75 feet required adjacent to Purgatory Creek and does not grade on any of the designated bluff area. The project will have a treatment pond whereas all surrounding single family areas do not. This project will comply with the City erosion control ordinances. • NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN-TRAFFIC The neighborhood believes that this development will overcrowd the road system and create a traffic hazard with the school Not including this project, the City will grow by an additional 20,000 people which will use roads in the area. The traffic projections for this project are half of the total daily trips if the project was developed for office and multiple family as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. An access to Staring Lake Parkway was deleted in the revised plan to eliminated traffic conflicts with the school. • SCHOOLS The neighborhood believes that this project will overcrowd the school system. The attached letter from Merle Gamm of the Eden Prairie School District indicates that this project will not have an impact on school capacity. • NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN-PARKS AND RECREATION The neighborhood believes that this project should provide park and recreation facilities so as not to overcrowd Staring Lake. The plan has been revised to include a 4-acre park that will include a tennis court,volleyball court, basketball court and playground structures for pre-school children built to City standards and dedicated to the City. The park area was located above the NURP pond on the west end to provide more open space in relationship to the adjoining neighborhood. • NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN-QUALITY OF LIFE The neighborhood believes that this project will negatively impact the quality of life in Eden Prairie. The city will grow by another 20,000 people. The Eden Prairie school system,park system and road system are designed based upon an end population of 65,000. The current population is 45,000. • NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN-REAL ESTATE VALUES The neighborhood is concerned about the potential for high turnover in the townhouse development which would lead to a rental use of the property. Assessing statistics indicate that in 1995 there was a 4.7 percent turnover in single family, 6.3 percent turnover in townhouses and 5.7 percent turnover in condos. Atherton townhouses on Mitchell Road are 20 years old and out of the total 86 units, 5 percent or 4 units are not homestead. • NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN-TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE AREA Using census data,at 2.2 people per household, a total of 1,522 people would be possible. Statistical information provided by Pulte Homes indicates that the population would be closer to 1,200. The school district believes that approximately 30 percent of the total residents would be children. The statistics provided by Pulte indicate about half as many children. NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS THE GUIDE PLAN FOR HOUSING AND OFFICE AS THE USE OF THE SITE RATHER THAN ALL RESIDENTIAL The Guide plan would allow as many housing units as the Pulte proposal and 522,000 sq. Ft. office. Traffic would be 50%higher than an all residential use as proposed by Pulte. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 2. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 3. Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 22, 1996, April 8, 1996, and March 25, 1996 5. Staff Report dated April 19, 1996, April 6, 1996,March 22, 1996 6. Correspondence 7. Neighborhood Comments ,...„..._, ...\, . • Parins AI _ ,,,,,,?.. • .----- icertre+ k Nie :,•./..„-_ . alir le-tl: .-.---_, .-------,-;- -', ". C") (.• 1 ' c'7) r.s. , 0 \---- ••-•; Cb.• ,,,.)..--.,-‘. .'$-r-g-',(''. 0 4 •, ci,..y.:), ..,....„.,-..- 3 0 6 0 \........... C.... 06'1' Cji-c) r) OP .) 0 0 Comm ? li...• ' =4;;;.• 711 ,.):'-•• -;.;:.., • fs;.. -..,,: •.> .).23 ir44q,::: :*•fiL- ) /..... ,. 1 ,.... ..,. ,/ • ... ..-- _ ----- ---1........._ ..- . 1/(r .--.-. .,,,..., ....,,=. ::.---- ,... .„,:;7:. .r-T:::_:;:-.7--,ie.", . 1--- - ; - ...• ..- ,.., ...- •,., ..1-• ,00., ,----'7'. -•' 0, • .; / , •- ' /..,;,;..°,, ,-,‘:'",,,''' 1 } ',..., .,"..„,-;,If,,,, // / 0 Aiy. .,,,• •••411" -- 7"*.N..,,,-. . ...1 All „ ,,/ 1 : , \ i 0 // ar ,___--i--__ im‘t‘ /1„,' / ••••",/' /,f''' .• „., ,./ ,.., 1/ // ,,, ,„. ,,, d i -• / j /) ,f , ,,,, //1 f/ .„,' ,,, ,;,/ ,../ 01" / 1 1 I / , .• ., 1 „. gl I! ' r 1 I 1 1. Pe( o / ///, // /., j-, „ . t, • „ ,, , I,. -i, tz ,-; / / , ." / . , ,, .... •II It, i E. ./Q / / 7 ,.' ,„,,' //..•-• /41,, '' ,-," , , ../ ,,' / ,,' " / i , . .• -04• /Ij 11- //, , ,, / 7, /1/ / . / i- ,' / , 0, ‘,. / / / ,...- f :lite,, !r / /hi I ,k. / / / / kt,, ' I '.. / i- 1 ' • /1 / . i •••//.• / ( / . , . I' '.1i I /I//I I I/1 I / /1 / ' / „ /,,•'' ,''''. / P. „ / . 1 • „. / 0 ' 1 J„.....-- ' ' • ,/ / ,/ r , / /• e 71 71 i„' . .„,'":/ i .' ,.) : /2.(/. r 4/ ',//, r , -7,--___-_-,>1: • j/ / // /ir i ‘ • . .. / .. ) . , i I/ f ( --•-•:-------.------i------\ \ \'',\\'\ Is\ , , /,\ ',. / 1 \ '\\•' '''' \ \' \ '. N .. • I l , • .iv;•;,,-7-1,:f.:........:........ • cb •.. . •,. , , (11 „e., , f \ \ _ _ . .... .36 PI \ .... . 1 . rilli 'it ' \ ' \ • \ \ ' \ ' , .7.... ...\\....1 t . \ •, 45... . 4\ \ STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES BY PULTE MASTER BUILDERS BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Staring Lake Townhomes for Pulte Master Builders dated April 30, 1996, consisting of 38.5 acres into 394 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 7th day of May, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk G STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES FOR PULTE MASTER BUILDERS WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development(PUD)Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS,the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Staring Lake Townhomes PUD Concept by Pulte Master Builders and considered their request for approval for development(and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on May 7, 1996; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Staring Lake Townhomes, being in Hennepin County,Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated April 30, 1996. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated April 22, 1996. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 7th day of May, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 7 STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES Exhibit A Legal Description Research Farm 2nd Addition, Outlot E, and Research Farm 3rd Addition, Outlots B and C. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan("Plan"); and, WHEREAS,the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the proposal of Staring Lake Townhomes by Pulte Master Builders for construction of 692 units requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: 88.5 acres from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office all located at Anderson Lakes Parkway and Hwy. 169. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 7th day of May, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk O) UNAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton,Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell,Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner; Elinda Bahley, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-APRIL 8, 1996 MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Habicht to approve the Minutes of the April 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres,Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planning Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site Plan Review on 44 acres,Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY 169. A continued public hearing. Franzen indicated the first time this project came to the Planning Commission was March 25 and that meeting was more for informational purposes and to listen to the issues from the neighborhood. Although the Staff Report was prepared for action,the Planning Commission decided to continue the project for two weeks and directed the developer to make some changes which included setback and landscaping changes along the sites perimeter. The neighborhood would be given an opportunity to come back with the six issues they wanted to have addressed at the next meeting. 1 1Q At the meeting on April 8 residents spoke regarding the six major items. The Planning Commission said they were not happy with the project yet and directed the developer to look at 10 to 30 percent reduction in total units. Along with that,the Planning Commission said that the developer, Staff and the neighborhood representatives would meet a couple of times to further go over the issues and to look at alternative multiple family plans. The first meeting on April 11 was more a discussion of the issues. At the follow-up meeting,the developer presented a revised plan, and spent half the time going over what the changes are and the other half hearing from the neighborhood. At the end of the meeting the neighborhood indicated they thought the Guide Plan for the property was the preferred land use for the property. Subsequent to that meeting,the Staff met with the developer again to make sure that the changes were made, and those changes are listed on Page 1 and 2 of the Staff Report. Franzen introduced Tom Stanke of Pulte Master Builders. Stanke reviewed the changes made to the development pursuant to those requested by Staff,the Planning Commission and the neighborhood representatives. The number of homes now proposed are 692, down from 788 which is a 12 percent reduction. The open space is at 40 percent. Ron Bastyr reviewed the site plan indicating they changed the configurations of the homes to direct traffic to the Vo-tech intersection. The new plan showed club homes and the previous plan showed court homes. The old plan showed the setbacks were 35 feet along Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lakes Parkway, and 50 feet on US Highway 169. The plan is 100 foot setback minimum on all three roads. This has given the opportunity to put a substantial amount of berming. At 100 feet,the berms are generally from eight feet tall up to as much as 20 feet tall. The NURP pond is a one-cell pond and it could change to a two-cell pond if the Watershed District prefers that. There is an area near the NURP pond designated for a flat park area. They are not going into the ravine and taking out trees. The tree loss on the site has been reduced to zero. A green vinyl chained link fence will be put in at a height that would deter children and adults from going over the top of the fence into the natural bluff area. The cost will be incurred by the developer and put in by the developer. There will be a five foot sidewalk along Columbine as well as a black top trail along Columbine within the village homes. There is a five foot sidewalk proposed on the main roadway of the club home area. Wissner asked about the signage for the development. Bestyr showed on the map where the permanent and secondary signage will be. Clinton was concerned about the spacing between the homes. Bestyr indicated the spacing within the club homes are 25 feet apart. The court homes are 75 feet because the 2 II driveways are between the homes. The village homes are approximately 75 feet apart. Franzen explained that the reason they bent Columbine Road was because the intersection at the south end were operating at a level of service A so it would handle more traffic. They tried to put less units up in the north end because this was operating at a level of service D. Staff believes that if this plan is approved they would not see the stress on the intersection than they would have seen if the plan had gone forward in its original form. Staff recommended lowering the berms along Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lake Parkway to allow some view of the units from the parkways, and it's more integral to the community as people drive by. Reference was made to the last page of the Staff Report indicating a traffic chart. Staff recommended approval of the project based on the revised plans. The Public Hearing was opened. A resident residing at 8925 Ferndale Lane,indicated he is opposed to townhomes being built at such a high density. He expressed concern about the traffic conditions on US Highway 169 because he uses it. He does not agree with Staff that they don't expect any traffic problems with a high density like this. He believes there will be traffic jams at both ends of this property. He was concerned that this high density will have an impact on the school and on Staring Lake. Chester Baker, residing at 8918 Pine Bluff Court reaffirmed his opposition to this project. If this project fails,he intends to notify the City every time there is an accident on Anderson Lakes Parkway,US Highway 169,US Highway 212, Staring Lake Parkway and Columbine Road as a result of increased traffic. He intends to notify the City of his concerns every time the referendum for increased spending on the school district is presented due to exceeding the school's capacity. He intends to notify the City every time someone uses his property as a short cut because of this development. He intends to notify the City of any negative effects of this development as long as he is a resident. Karen Tinucci, 9187 Victoria Drive, commented the idea of affordable housing is wonderful but this project is too big of a scale. She expressed concern about the traffic issues and the parking situation. She asked if there will be a parking lot. Franzen replied it is under consideration at this point. They will be looking for input from the Parks Commission as to whether it's necessary to have it at that location. Tinucci expressed concern about the safety of the children as a result of so many cars parking along Staring Lake Parkway. She was also concerned about the environment surrounding Staring Lake. This project is getting rushed through and she urged the Planning Commission not to approve this until there is a better plan. Tom Ashford, 8938 Pine Bluff Court, was concerned about whether the City took into consideration that a daycare is going up. Franzen replied the traffic study takes into 3 is consideration any projects that are built today, any projects that are under construction, and any future undeveloped land based upon how the property is guided. Ashford was concerned about what will happen if the zoning changes. Franzen stated that if the desire is for another land use,they have to evaluate if the traffic conditions are going to be more on the road system and can't handle it as it is now, and that's a reason for not approving the project. Ashford believes that moving the project from one end to another will not make a difference as to which entrance or exit a resident will use. Gino Levine, 13999 Wellington Drive,believes there is a better way to build low income housing. They should spread the low income housing all around the community,not in one neighborhood, so they can become part of Eden Prairie. It's not right to build all the low income housing to be segregated from everyone else. This is not cultural diversity in his opinion. Paul Olson 8899 Flesher Circle,expressed concern about the deviation from the guide plan and the traffic congestion. He was concerned that no one has discussed the option of plan B,that the option still exists that this could go to even higher density of multiple family homes in addition to office space. He was also concerned about the park area being put where they understood it to be natural prairie grass. He believes the park may not be in the right location. Foote commented that he shares some of the concerns that Paul Olson has in regard to the phasing of the project. He asked if the plan was to buy the entire property. Stanke affirmed it is the plan which is why they presented the entire parcel. The phasing of the project is because of the cost. Wissner inquired when the park area would be started. Stanke stated that because the NURP pond would be required in the first phase,the park would be done at the same time as the NURP pond. Larry Berger, 8780 Flesher Circle, commented he wants to preserve the integrity of the area and the pond. He was concerned about there not being a choice of location for people wishing to buy affordable housing. He was also concerned about the safety of the children because of the additional traffic. A resident commented about the City's plan of 30 percent affordable housing. She asked if there are any projects coming up,what the plan is. She would like to see affordable housing somewhere else,not this project having it all. Franzen noted the goal is for 30 percent affordable housing on all housing projects regardless of its location. The resident suggested the City prepare a comprehensive plan that truly accomplishes this goal. Kardell commented that as a result of legislation,the City is required to develop an action plan. One of the goals in the plan is the 30 percent number, and the plan is being developed now by the City. It does identify a number of strategies that effect the 4 neighborhood. It shows 30 percent of all new residential subdivisions proposals ideally will have housing components that are affordable homes at the price of$115,000 or less. Mr. Riley, 8956 Garland Court, stated this project is too large and the City is trying to solve the problem of providing affordable housing in one shot. Dale Gardner, 8967 Victoria Drive, expressed concern about the size of the project,not the affordable housing issue. He noted that he asked investors from the company he works for if they would invest in a project of this size. The investors said no because a project this size is too hard to control. The larger the project, the more things that can go wrong not only in the development construction, but also the sales. The key to a successful project is to make it blend in comfortably with the neighborhood and the community. The fact that this is the first time a project of this size is happening in Eden Prairie sends a bad signal. He was also concerned that if office did go up, the people that bought their homes prior to that would have then be mislead. The park area should be more towards the center of the project and filled with things that everyone can use. He opposes to the fence because it's not attractive and it was a cheap shortcut for the developer. Mr. Swenson, 8942 Garland Court, asked if there are any other townhomes currently planned for the near future in Eden Prairie. Stanke stated this is the only subdivision they are working on at this time. Swenson noted that he heard on the radio in the last few weeks, and in the Sunday newspaper,that Pulte advertised these townhomes to be coming soon in Eden Prairie. It's irresponsible advertising these townhomes when they don't have the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. A resident residing at 8971 Ferndale Lane,was concerned about emergency vehicles accessibility into the site. Franzen indicated that the streets are 28 feet wide and can accommodate a hook and ladder. Amy Horn, residing on Garland Court, expressed concern about the environment surrounding Staring Lake. She was concerned about bicycles,rollerblading, and the dangers they impose to the walkers and children. They have seen four loons on the lake for the last three days, and she was concerned about their environment. She also opposes to the size of this project. Grant Warfield, 8991 Ferndale Lane, noted that he did his own study and found there to be 130 homes around Staring Lake, and on another corridor a block away from the lake his count was 300 homes. He believes this area has enough homes and opposes to the project. Tim Jackson, 8872 Pine Bluff Court, was concerned about the need for a four lane road on the north end of the project turning into the main road. 5 iq Foote commented about the citizens group meeting he attended. He thought that at the first meeting they were going look at alternative family housing plans for the site. When he got there, it wasn't the case. A lot of the neighborhood out there still wanted commercial or some mixture. He believes this plan is significantly better than the first plan,both in density and in layout. Kardell commented she has supported multiple family housing from the beginning. This is an improved plan and she supported it. She was concerned about supporting Alternative 2 at this point. She believes the plan is highly consistent with the density of the surrounding neighborhood from the townhomes by Boulder Point over towards the apartments. The density issue is a non-issue in her opinion. Regarding the traffic issues, she invited residents to visit other areas in Eden Prairie because there is traffic all over. She supports the park and would like to get the NURP pond built to a scale that is appropriate to best serve this site. She concurred with Staff that the berming is too high. Foote stated he doesn't believe there will be many children living in this development so it's not an issue for him. He doesn't believe there will be any additional traffic problems here versus an industrial warehouse type situation. He was concerned because this project does not address mainstream housing which is families with children. He supported the plan. Wissner commented that she visited another Pulte site similar to this in Woodbury. The demographics were people in their 40's, 50's and 60's who were looking to retire. She noted that this is not low income housing, but affordable housing. She discussed a letter from the principal of Eden Lake School stating that their teachers make $25,000 a year, and that seven teachers have moved into Eden Prairie. He commented that it's nice to have teachers living and working in Eden Prairie. She does not see this development as a separate entity at all. She sees it in a positive way which would enable many people to live in Eden Prairie. She opposed to Alternative 2. Sandstad stated he supports the project as it stands. He was very pleased to see this because it has taken many years to get a significant amount of affordable housing in the City. He opposed to Alternative 2. He approved a concept of 88 acres but he would like to see a more well formed pedestrian trail from the rear of the project near Columbine over to the park. He wants a defined pedestrian route that will serve everybody. Ismail commented he is not comfortable with the project as it stands. There is a need to discuss the issues more and listen to the opinions of the residents. He believes they are rushing into this a little bit, and he could not support the plan. Habicht believes the project has come a long way from when it was first presented. He agreed with the Commissioners to reject Alternative 2. A commercial or industrial use will have more impact on the traffic than this use will. He shares the concerns for Staring Lake but it is a regional resource. He is in favor of a park rather than grass land. He likes 6 /�s the flow of the project from west to east as they move closer to US Highway 169. That's where the larger densities are. He gave his approval for Alternative 1. Clinton did not support Alternative 2. He was concerned about the commercial or industrial on the north end because it would be more of an impact. He commented that his company is in a 500,000 square foot building with 1500 employees, and they generate a lot of traffic. He would like to see something other than office building. He supported the concept of having single family affordable homes. He supported the project as it stands. Karen Tinucci of Eden Prairie did not agree with Commissioner Foote's comment that this project would not effect children and thinks they should not approve it. Foote commented that he lives 200 feet away from the Summerfield development. He rides his bike through there all the time and he does not see children there. He sees no reason why this project would attract children. The resident stated this project is very close to the school and the water slide. She believes there will be a lot of single parents in this development who can not afford the higher priced homes. Ms. Tinucci did not agree with Commissioner Kardell's comment that she is not in favor of a parking lot in that area. She also believes there was poor planning regarding Oak Pointe. She feels this whole project is just being pushed through. Ken Clinton and Kardell both indicated when they reviewed the school plans that they felt parking was inadequate, it's not the City's position to force a developer to correct the school district's error. Sandstad commented that the school district needs to hear her concerns about the poor planning about Oak Pointe. They are the decision makers. They can add parking there now if they want to. They can not force the adjacent property owners to give up real estate because the school district didn't plan it right in the first place. The resident urged the Planning Commission not to approve this plan,but to let the residents and the developer keep working at it. Stanke commented that the question was asked at the end of the meeting with the neighbors about what they wanted, and it was very clear that they wanted the existing medium,low,high density, and office. Chester Baker wanted it made clear that his citizens group is not opposed to affordable housing, that the words "low income"never came into play. He feels his group has been misrepresented. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. 7 /� MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Pulte Master Builders for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density,Medium Density,and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to RM- 6.5 and RM-2.5 on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 88.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 88.5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 88.5 acres into 692 lots, and EAW review based on revised plans dated April 19, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1996 amended that the motion is only to support Alternative 1, items 4 and 5 which refer to Alternative 2 would be struck from the recommendations,and also to add the recommendation regarding the Planning Commission's suggestion that there be a more defined trail through the court and club home neighborhood to the park to be accessed through those neighborhoods to be better defined. Motion carried 6-1. Ismail voted no. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS Foote noted that last Tuesday the City Council approved the Bearpath variance request. He does not believe the City Council gave it all the thought they should have. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS None. VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen noted there is currently only one meeting in May. He reviewed the projects scheduled for May 13. Habicht asked about the Flint Ridge project and Franzen indicated it was withdrawn by the developer. The City and the neighbors are still meeting to discuss alternatives for the realignment of Purgatory Road. Wissner urged all residents to read the Eden Prairie News to keep informed about what's going on in the City because every item that is scheduled for the meetings are listed. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Foote to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. 8 11 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Katherine Kardell, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chair Kardell called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW COMMISSIONER Franzen administered the oath of office to BillHabicht whose term of service on the Planning Commission began on April 1, 1996. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clinton moved, Foote seconded,to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Foote noted that on Page 2, third paragraph, he wished to have the word "affordable" included prefacing housing. MOTION: Wissner moved, Ismail seconded,to approve the Minutes of the March 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Motion carried 6-0. Habicht abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres, Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres, Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY.. 169. Franzen introduced Tom Stanke of Pulte Master Builders. Stanke reviewed the changes they have made to the development in response to those requested by staff and the Planning Commission. He stated that a two-cell NURP pond would remove more phosphorus and will fit into the same area as the single cell NURP pond, and /� PLANNING COMMIS ,ION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 3 Paul Olson, 8899 Flesher Circle, stated that the residents of the area had formed a citizens group to address their concerns with the proposal, which included environmental, traffic, parks and recreational areas, school impacts, quality of life issues and the integrity of the Planning process itself. They have some goals and objectives they would like to see achieved. There were six citizens who each intended to address one of these major areas of concern. Ann Pitzer, 8820 Flesher Circle, reviewed the EAW which was submitted by the developer and stated they found numerous inconsistencies throughout the document. There was information that phosphorus distress was already present in Staring Lake which was degenerating and a limited recreational resource. The lake is very important to residents, and there is a structure built behind Flagship Athletic Club which will improve the lake quality but it will take a long time to be effective. She discussed the problems that will affect the lake and they need to develop a specific plan of action. She had discussed the project with the DNR and asked them to do what they could to improve the quality and they felt that it was a concern. She noted that the Watershed District also had some concerns about the project, and it had not been determined whether the land in Section 9 was designated as a bluff area, and whether a 30'setback would be needed from that area. This needed to be determined before the project was approved by the City. She was also concerned about wildlife in the area as there are thousands of animals that will be impacted by the proposed development. She was very concerned about the eco-system becoming out of balance in the area. Mike Quinn, 8900 Flesher Circle, stated he had a video to show the Planning Commission which would illustrate the traffic which presently exists in the area,but since technical difficulties were present, the Commission requested that perhaps he could present his information later on. Karen Sell, 8796 Flesher Circle, read a letter signed by many of the residents in the area which detailed many of their concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed development on Staring Lake Park and the surrounding area. She described the aesthetic value of Staring Lake and the Park and noted that a brochure distributed by the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce boasted the fact that most developments include large open green spaces and trails and the proposed development does not have either of those features. The residents are concerned about 2,000 additional residents moving into an area which already has traffic problems and where there are inadequate trails and sidewalks to provide for walking, biking, rollerblading, or whatever and a development which provides no place for small children to play. She was concerned if the project were to be approved without the City requiring these amenities from the developer that the taxpayers would be required to provide them later on when problems arose. She also spoke about the possibility of having large numbers of dogs present within the development, and inquired about an exercise area for them, or whether the public park would be used in this manner. She was concerned about cleanup enforcement and how this would be accomplished. I PLANNING COMMIS.._JN MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 4 The citizens were concerned about makeshift trails being created through the park to facilitate residents of the development getting to the park because no trails were being provided. The parking lot at Staring Lake Park is already overcrowded as are the playgrounds and sledding hills, and these areas will need to be expanded for safety. The park will become busier and there will be more accidents because there will be more people using it, and they will need to hire a person to deal with this. She noted that funds from the Cash Park Fee should be allocated to Staring Lake Park to cover the costs of these improvements which will be needed. Deb Dow, 14382 Starwood Circle,discussed the school concerns and the potential for overcrowding with more students being in the area than the school can handle. She noted that Cedar Ridge was operating at close to maximum capacity now, without additional residents, and there was already a subsidized housing project planned for this same area. They had presented their concerns to the School Board at their latest meeting and believed the letter received by the Planning Commission reflected some of their concerns, but did not address the full ramifications of what would occur should the project be approved. Regardless of whether Cedar Ridge can handle the additional students, eventually they funnel into the Middle School and then the High School,which are already operating at capacity levels. She believed some type of long range planning was needed which had not been done with this project. Mike Quinn discussed the traffic concerns of the residents and noted that the projected numbers of trips from the proposed development appeared to be quite high. He noted that Anderson Lakes Parkway has been designated as an accident reduction area. There is a day care center being built in the area which will add to the traffic level with parents dropping off and picking up children. The area is already a high density residential area and the numbers of existing units are very high. They believe the intersection of Staring Lake Parkway and the development access would be a very dangerous one. They are also concerned about the addition of traffic from the Hennepin Technical College, which would filter through this way as a means of avoiding Highway 169. The residents also have concerns about safety with the large numbers ofpeople who walk,bike, and play along the roadway. He discussed the t- ball congestion which occurs during baseball season, and noted it creates a large trip generation problem in the area. The Oak Point pool will only add to this congesting. He requested the Planning Commission to look at the present traffic levels before making a decision on the project. Clark Hussey, 8867 Flesher Circle,discussed the quality of life concerns raised by the residents and the potential impacts on nature, wildlife and the overall aesthetic atmosphere of Eden Prairie. He was concerned that the wildlife would be forced out into neighborhoods by the development. Traffic problems in this area exist, particularly in the winter. The Oak Point pool and other development in the area will only exacerbate these difficulties. They are concerned about the safety of children who live and play in the area because of these things. Steve Swanson, 14183 McCoy Court, discussed the integrity of the planning process 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 5 itself, and noted there were many important inconsistencies within the EAW which should be corrected. He discussed the Comprehensive Plan and its relevance to the present and the type of City the residents want to have. The density and traffic figures projected when the plan was written may not be applicable today. He noted that the traffic study was done the day after an ice storm which may have skewed the figures, since freezing rain fell on January 15th and many drivers may have stayed off the roads because of this. He believed that the Oak Point pool will significantly impact the traffic study figures, and believed that should be taken into account. There are numerous specifics wrong in the EAW which should be corrected. There is a potential archeological site contained within this area which is not reflected in the EAW and should be addressed. The DNR expressed concern over these issues, and were in the process of communicating their concerns to the City staff. He noted that there had not been any signage posted on the property to alert residents that a development was proposed for the property, and this was a project which would affect all residents of the area. He requested that a more timely notification of residents be considered, since projects like this one take months to prepare and staff is certainly aware that something is happening. Paul Olson stated the residents would like to be partners with the City and the developer in the resolution of these issues. They had questions regarding where the process falls apart so that these inconsistencies can be found. They have a major concern regarding the size of the proposed development and its impact upon Staring Lake Park. Chet Baker, 8919 Pine Bluff Court, agreed with the issues raised by the citizens group. The visual impact on the residents of the hillside area by the proposed development of the entire 88 acre site would be visible from his property. The EAW finds that there are no adverse visual impacts for any current residents, which he disagreed with. He asked how the City and the developer plan to address this issue as he believes there will be significant adverse impacts on his and the other hillside area residents property. He believed the setback from Staring Lake Parkway should be 300 feet and noted he was opposed to this development as proposed. He believed the density should be reduced and the units redistributed on the property. Maurizio Gramigni, 8940 Hilloway Road, stated he would like to see the project moved to another area of the City as he believed it was too intense for the area in which it was proposed. Jody O'Connor, 8270 Mitchell Road, stated she was supportive of the proposed. project because Pulte homes will be built on one level and will be ideal for handicapped people who cannot live in homes with multi-levels. She was concerned about the lack of affordable housing in Eden Prairie and believed the proposed development was a good compromise between the higher priced homes and affordable housing. She stated that the citizens have to compromise because the new residents will be taxpayers also, and are entitled to live in Eden Prairie. She did not believe this development would cause overcrowding in Eden Prairie schools,and while the traffic 9' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 6 might increase in the area, it might just as well increase no matter what is built on the property. She noted that a property owner is entitled to develop their property and this proposal will provide affordable housing for people who wish to live in Eden Prairie but heretofore have been unable to do so because of the lack of available housing. Richard Smith, 9087 Palmetto Drive, commented he had never seen or heard of a proposal with so many units in such a small area in all the communities he has lived in from Washington,D.C. to California. He was concerned that overbuilding would cause housing values to drop for existing homes in the vicinity. Jan Pitzer, 8820 Flesher Circle, stated that there are 258 parking slots at Staring Lake Park and he-counted the homes in the immediate vicinity of Staring Lake Park and found there were 320 homes immediately adjacent to the park. The proposed development would triple the number of homes located within walking distance of Staring Lake Park. He noted that people will undoubtedly continue to drive to Staring Lake Park as they have been doing, and the parking will be inadequate to accommodate all the people in the vicinity who may wish to use the park. Lora Dockery 8899 Flesher Circle, stated affordability was not the issue, but the density was of great concern to the residents. Steve Bennett, 14631 Queens Trail, stated his daughter was handicapped, and used a wheelchair,and was afraid to cross the street because of the high volume of traffic coming down the hill. He would applaud handicapped-accessible housing in Eden Prairie, but was concerned that there was no provision by the developer for people to use the lakes, trails, etc. Adelaide Foxworth, 8816 Saratoga Lane, stated she would like people to have some type of affordable housing but she was concerned about the impact such a great number of people moving into the community would have on the neighborhoods because Eden Prairie was a place people wanted to live, and she was concerned that it might become a place where they did not. Ken Foxworth, 8816 Saratoga Lane, stated they moved to Eden Prairie to enjoy the wildlife and ambiance of the City as well as the safety. He would like to stay here and another high density development is not necessary for this site. Dale Gardner, 8967 Victoria Drive, commented that the property was going to be developed by someone into something but he believed this project was too large for the site and should be reduced because if approved as proposed it will adversely impact the City. Wissner commented that she believed the Commission needed some time to get some of the questions raised by the residents answered. She questioned whether there was a compromise that could be reached between the developer and the residents. Paul 22 PLANNING COMMISoiON MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 7 Olson stated that their goal was not to stop the project but to work with the developer to achieve a project that was something that would not be so great an impact on the area and to reduce the density. Clinton stated it appeared that the questions must be answered before any recommendation could be made to the City Council. He inquired if the citizen would be willing to work with the developer to achieve a plan that would be acceptable to both. He thought affordable housing was a significant issue in the entire western portion of the metro area. He did not support the density as proposed, but would support some single family housing on a single level if that was proposed. He commented anything that is built on this site will have a visual impact on adjacent property, and he lives in this neighborhood,but he cannot support or deny a project because of that. He believed a proposal of cluster hoes or cottage homes would be acceptable. • Kardell stated that if the project was sent back to the developer and the neighborhood, there should be focus on alternative multi-family plans,not office or industrial. Foote stated he felt the density should be reduced and some affordable single family housing included. Discussion ensued regarding the type of compromise that would be acceptable. Wissner thought perhaps a workshop or two between the developer, staff,representatives of the citizens group, and perhaps a representative from the Planning Commission and City Council should be included could arrive at some compromises which would make the project acceptable. Paul Olson stated this was what they had in mind, and they were more than willing to do this. Sandstad commented the project had potential but it needed a lot of work and more time should be given to reaching a compromise. He stated he would not support any project with unknown future phasing, and would require seeing the entire proposal at the front end. He believed that the density should be reduced from that proposed initially and the park should be buffered from the development. He believed the errors in the EAW should be corrected and the issues of pedestrian safety at the school should be addressed. Sight lines and building renderings should be presented so that the Commission and citizens can get an idea of what will be constructed on the particularlythose fromHighwayandboth StaringLakeParkway views 169 o and Anderson Lakes Parkway. Habicht stated he believed that the project was a nice one as far as that type of project went, but there were alternatives available to the developer. Land is expensive and factors into the design of projects, which can require higher densities to make developments financially feasible. He was concerned about the negative reaction from the citizens apparently regarding any development on the property. He did not feel that the density per acre was too high,but thought the housing should be reconfigured on the site to provide the least amount of impact on the surrounding areas. He did not believe he could support the project as it was today, but he encouraged a compromise be reached, noting something worse could be proposed in the future. Ismail agreed with the other Commissioners. Not much that was presented was acceptable to the citizens, and he thought the project should be continued to see if a 23 PLANNING COMMISaiON MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 8 compromise could be worked out between them and the developer. He asked that the points raised by the citizens be submitted to the City in writing, and Olson responded they intend to do this. Kardell asked if the proponent was agreeable to working with the citizens to determine if a compromise could be worked out, and Stanke responded they would welcome that opportunity. He noted that they had notified beyond the City's 500' notification requirement for their neighborhood meeting held in March,and only nine people were there. They welcome the opportunity to address the concerns of the citizens and will work hard to do so, and hope to be before the Planning Commission in two weeks. Kardell commented she believed the density needed to be reduced but realized that it still had to be an economically viable project. She thought possible combinations of other types of housing could be included which would lower the density but still provide for affordable housing on the property. It could be reconfigured to provide for a better variation. She concurred with the workshop idea as long as a sincere effort was made by everyone concerned to reach a compromise. Franzen stated that there were two points of view regarding this development; one was a community impact and one was a localized impact. If everything was built as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan without this project there would only be 1,500 less people in Eden Prairie using the parks, schools and facilities. The City will still grow by 18,000 more people. The Guide Plan takes this into account and schools, parks and roads are planned based on population. This project by itself will not overcrowd schools, parks and roads. There can be a lot of things done to fix the project and one of those is the slope which could be used to buffer the visual impact. Also,mixing housing types could be used to reduce impacts and still create a viable project economically. He believed the process of negotiation needed to be structured more than it is. If the density has to be reduced in half in order to get approval for the project the developer will most likely not proceed with the project. If a compromise is going to be reached then a decision needs to be made regarding what density would be acceptable, perhaps some percentage. Sandstad commented he would like to see a 10% reduction in density along the periphery of the project,particularly along Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lake Parkway. Perhaps an area near the intersection could be left for an office or commercial use which would also make the project more economically viable. Foote stated he would like to see more 4-plex or 6-plex units incorporated into the plan, as the 12-plexes were too large. He thought the density should be reduced by 12-15%. Wissner stated she did not know what percentage the density should be reduced,but she would like to see more affordable housing. Discussion ensued regarding the percentage versus cost and the price ranges which would result from lowering ay PLANNING COMMIS,..ON MINUTES April 8, 1996 Page 9 densities. Ismail commented he thought that 600 units would be a reasonable level but he did not have the figures but it was a starting point. Habicht stated he liked the mix of building types but the area on the west end of the project was the most sensitive as well as the center. He thought perhaps the density needed to be reduced throughout the project. Clinton commented that 30%reduction in density came to 548 units which was close to the 600 figure proposed earlier. Kardell stated that she felt the density should be reduced in the range of 15%with the units along Staring Lake Parkway which have the greatest impact. She liked the mix of housing types and felt the density should be in the range of 650-700 units overall which would keep affordability and some green space possible. MOTION: Clinton moved, Ismail seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Clinton moved, Ismail seconded, to continue the Staring Lake Townhomes by Pulte Master Builders request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres,Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres, Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review for two weeks until the April 22, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0. APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Katherine Kardell, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chair Kardell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION:Wissner moved, Foote seconded,to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Wissner moved, Sandstad seconded, to approve the Minutes of the March 11, 1996 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres, Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres, Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY.. 169. Franzen introduced Tom Stanke of Pulte Master Builders. Stanke reviewed the project and noted they have targeted three different types of needs within this development. One type is the Village Home which is a 12-unit building in the shape of an"L". There are four different floor plans within this housing type, and all units will have garages located underneath which are accessed from the rear. The second type is the Court Home which has 8 units per building. Two units will have single car garages and six will have double car garages. The third type is the Club Home which has been most successful with retired persons or empty-nesters, and meets a need for single level living, which is in high demand in this age group. Stanke reviewed the demographic information on prospective buyers for homes in this project. PLANNING COMMISSJLJN MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 2 Stanke described the overall site plan with the Club Homes being located closest to the existing residential property to the west. They have increased the density as the project expands to the east toward Highway 169. They have created color packages for each unit and laid them out so that the development will be less monotonous with similarly colored buildings immediately adjacent to each other. They believe they are providing a community which will keep people in Eden Prairie and give them the lifestyle they are looking for. Clinton inquired about the options available and Stanke responded there are only two structural options available with the porch addition, but there are other options which can be selected such as fireplaces, cabinets, etc. Foote asked if the developers had considered including some affordable single family housing in the project and Stanke responded that the project had been developed with a different market in mind, similar to that at Hartford Place and they have 155 people on a waiting list who want to purchase housing of this type. Franzen gave the staff report and noted that staff recommended approval of the requests subject to the requirements listed in the staff report. Clinton inquired if the traffic figures included the traffic from surrounding areas,and Franzen responded it did, but they had not included school bus traffic in the figures. Sandstad inquired if the office development were to be constructed if it would require construction of a parking ramp. Franzen responded it would if it were all one-story. He noted that staff believed this development was less intense and would generate approximately 50%less traffic than the previously proposed office use. The development standards for this project are similar to other developments of similar intensity. Kardell requested density figures on a product by product basis and Franzen responded that the four-unit buildings had a density ratio of 5 units per acre, the 8- unit buildings had a density of 10 units per acre,the 12-unit buildings had a density of 16 units per acre, and the overall density of the project averaged out to 8.9 units per acre. Kardell inquired about the timing for the project and the southern access point. Stanke commented they met with the Hennepin Technical College people and talked about the road alignment into their property which will help with the traffic on Columbine Road when it is fully constructed. They propose to create a model home complex which will include one of each type of product, and they will commence selling all three types at once. Sandstad inquired about a statement on page 8 in the EAW which sounded like it was minimizing the quality of the lake. He commented he had seen a large number of fish come out of the lake which would contradict the statement that it was not a quality fishing resource. Franzen stated that the EAW was required to be submitted to a number of agencies and they have to submit comments regarding its accuracy. The Metropolitan Council did not have a problem with the EAW but were looking at the traffic impacts from the proposed development. Sandstad commented that Item#13 stated that there would be no abandoned wells,but then they describe how they would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 3 cap a well if it were discovered. Page 12 discusses the total phosphorus inflow into Staring Lake and he was concerned if the NURP pond would be adequate to handle this. Franzen commented that the pond was sized according to the amount of water which will drain into the site and this includes water from adjacent areas. The DNR or Corps of Engineers would tell staff if more ponds are needed. Schlampp commented that phosphorus will not be stopped by the NURP pond but will continue into Staring Lake. He assumed the phosphorus would be less than it was when the land was being used for agricultural purposes and large amounts of fertilizer were used. Wissner inquired who would be responsible for maintenance of the NURP pond and Franzen responded that it would be an outlot dedicated to the City, which would be responsible for its maintenance. Wissner inquired why the school bus traffic was not included in the traffic projections. Franzen responded that it included people who had the school as their destination by dropping off or picking up children. Wissner commented she did not like the access onto Staring Lake Parkway and felt it should be eliminated. Franzen discussed the traffic flow on the site and noted there would be about 10% of the traffic exiting onto this roadway during the morning rush hour. The Public Hearing was opened. Paul Olson, 8899 Flesher Circle, was concerned about the impact of putting a development with this density into this neighborhood and its effect on the quality of life for those residents already there. There is a traffic problem on Staring Lake Parkway now and he was concerned about what the impact on the park will be as this development contains no open space or land for park purposes. He was concerned about the impact of phosphorus on the wildlife and vegetation and he inquired what the total value of the project would be when it was completed. Stanke responded that he could not address the phosphorus issue but he would ask the landscape architect. He was not at liberty to discuss what they paid for the property but the approximate value of the completed development could be calculated by applying the sale prices to the number of units. Chester Baker, 8918 Pine Bluff Court, inquired why the proponents had requested such a high density development when Pinebrook has been built by Centex Homes and there are numerous quads and duplexes on Mitchell Road. He felt that the development was in opposition to the things that have been prized by those who live in this neighborhood. He had lived in a townhouse development by the high school and it had many units for sale all the time. Gene Kopyar, 8937 Hilloway Road, stated he represented the Boulder Pointe Townhome Association, and submitted a petition in opposition to the proposed development containing 58 signatures. He believed this area was saturated with high density residential units presently. As this development will have an association which PLANNING COMMIS.,_JN MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 4 will be responsible for the roadways and the enforcement of the restrictive covenants, he was concerned about the development having adequate funding to maintain the development adequately. Many similar developments have experienced problems in finding funds for maintenance and he was concerned about the development falling into disrepair and adversely impacting property values for adjacent properties in the area. Stanke responded that the FHA and VA reviews and comments on the covenants prior to closing for prospective home buyers. They also leave the projects they develop with a large reserve fund for maintenance purposes when it is completed. Kopyar inquired what criteria staff used when making a recommendation to the Commission and Council. Franzen responded that staff adhered to the criteria contained in the City Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan when making recommendations to the boards and commissions, as well as the City Council. Sight lines and peak period trip generation figures must meet requirements set forth in these documents. The access point is about halfway between the school access points and meets City standards for intersection location. The safety issue is reviewed by both the Police and Fire departments and they have not had a problem with this project. Gary Bongard, 8946 Garland Court,was concerned about the safety issue and felt the project would be an eyesore because there was no area allocated for a playground or open space or significant buffering from adjacent properties. Locating the highest density units closest to Highway 169 presented a safety problem for residents with children. Stanke stated that there is a total area of 88.5 acres which contains 1.5 acres of wetland, 1.5 acres for the NURP pond, 3.1 acres of woodland and 3.5% will be green space. Franzen stated that the Park and Recreation staff had recommended a cash park fee instead of a land dedication because there were not that many families with children which would utilize a playground area. He noted the traffic levels on Highway 169 are expected to decrease when County Road 18 is completed. There will be a signal installed at the Fountain Place and Highway 169 intersection which will also help improve traffic conditions on Highway 169. Jan Pitzer, 8820 Flesher Circle, stated he felt that the numbers of children which would live in this development were not accurate, and the lots did not meet minimum standards for size and there were waivers required for all the dimensions. Franzen noted that this was standard in Planned Unit Developments. Pitzer commented that he believed staff recommended approval because this was a better plan than the plan which had been previously approved, but he was not happy with the proponent's proposal. Franzen commented there were always changes in the market, but the Comprehensive Plan is not based on the market. The City does not change the Comprehensive Plan based on development requests but rather on the City's vision for how the City should be developed regarding its long range goals. This includes performance standards which are contained in the Ordinance. Bob Bowes, 8636 Langley Court, was concerned about traffic and believed the density was too intense for Eden Prairie. He was opposed to the project, and commented the City should buy some of the land for a buffer or for parkland. Clinton responded that he was unwilling to raise taxes to purchase more land for park 29 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 5 purposes. Bowes inquired why the Cash Park Fee money could not be used for this purpose. He thought the density should be distributed more evenly throughout Eden Prairie and not just located in this one spot. He requested that the developer build single family homes. Stanke commented that the majority of homes in Eden Prairie are single family homes, and this development will address a need for more affordable housing, for which their research has indicated there is both a need and a desire. Sandstad stated that this project will create a market for first-time homeowners in Eden Prairie,which has been difficult for first time homeowners to achieve because the cost of houses in Eden Prairie are too high. He believed more lower cost housing was needed in Eden Prairie. Ron Bastyr stated that there was a 75 foot setback from Highway 169 which would be both bermed and heavily planted, and there would be berms and plantings of both trees and shrubs along both Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway. There was a 35 foot setback from both Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway,and over 4800 caliper inches of trees would be planted overall. There are also berms and plantings between the various housing types within the development itself. Franzen discussed the elevations and sight lines and indicated that the berms would not be as high or provide as much screening as some people might think there should be because of the elevation of Highway 169 and surrounding topography. Wissner commented she was surprised at how much high density residential housing there really was on Anderson Lakes Parkway because it is so well screened and buffered from the roadway, and she felt Eden Prairie had done an excellent job in designing it because the berming and landscaping create a feeling of open space. Paul Olson stated there was a significant traffic problem on Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway today, and this project would only exacerbate those problems. Karen Sell, 8796 Flesher Circle, stated she was concerned about traffic and believed the trip projections made by the developer were too low. She did not see how a traffic signal at Columbine Road would help traffic, but felt it would act as a giant roadblock. Franzen commented that signals will provide openings for traffic flow and let people get through safer. Signals are installed to provide safety and control but do not reduce traffic levels. Sell was concerned about the impact of the project on Staring Lake Park and how close the buildings would be to the outdoor center, wetlands and other facilities, and how it would affect park usage. She inquired if these units would have direct access to the park and Bastyr responded that the development would be connected to the two public trails along Columbine,but there will not be a direct connection from the project into the park. Sell stated she was opposed to the project. Marna Reilly, 8956 Garland Court, stated she did not believe this project was appropriate for this area and she believed that it was a threat to the wildlife and the 3� PLANNING COMMIS _JN MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 6 environment. There are few places that have the peace and quiet that this neighborhood has and she felt that this project would be a disruption to that. She was concerned about safety, traffic, and noise pollution, and requested that the proposal be denied. Chris Henkenius, 8812 Flesher Circle, stated she was opposed to the project. Mary Valensky, 14359 Starwood, stated she was also opposed to the project. Mike and Dixie Quinn, 8900 Flesher Circle, stated they were opposed to the project. Stanke stated that concerning the issue of single family housing versus the proposed housing types, they are constructing housing which is intended to meet a specific market which has been unmet in Eden Prairie. Foote commented that if they constructed single family homes on the land they would be sold faster than they could be built. He believed that some single family housing could be incorporated into the project and the developer would still have a viable proposal to present to the City. Franzen discussed the types of housing through the community and where they were located. He noted that the Metropolitan Council has asked that the metropolitan communities adopt the Livable Communities Act. Grant Warfield, 8991 Ferndale Lane, commented he felt that people who spoke looked at Staring Lake Park as if it were an extension of their back yards, and he believed the community was worth more than the project represented. Diana Johnson, 8788 Flesher Circle,inquired what the status of the project was at the present time. Stanke responded that they are under a contract to purchase the property subject to approval of the project by the City and closing will not occur until they have obtained that approval. Franzen reviewed the process by which a proposal is reviewed and approved by the City, and noted that upon approval a development contract is entered into between the City and the developer which sets forth the requirements of approval. Larry Berger, 8780 Flesher Circle, stated he was concerned about the density of the project and the impact it would have on the quality of life. He inquired what taxes would the City receive from the project. Deb Dow, 14382 Starwood Circle, stated she was concerned about the impact all the new residents with children would have on the schools,because the school district had just had referendums to construct additions to existing schools. She was concerned about current overcrowding in the schools, and inquired if the City intended to construct another school to educate the increased population from this development. Franzen responded that the school district reviews the demographic information every l PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 7 year and makes the decisions regarding school capacities and staff has not heard anything from the school district regarding the impacts of this project. Mickey Gaylor, 8934 Columbine Road, stated they have a scenic easement across their property as do their neighbors, and she felt it was unfair that they were required to place a scenic easement on their property but none was being required of the developer. She was also concerned about the density and felt careful consideration should be given to how the project was going to be managed once it was completed. Franzen commented that scenic easements were usually required to protect wetlands or trees. Karen Tanner, 14366 Starwood Circle, stated that her planting and landscaping had to be kept out of the scenic easement across her property because it was Oak Savannah, and she inquired why this developer was being allowed to build right up to this area. She also commented that the school district was not always accurate in determining school needs, and she was tired of having referendums every few years. Michael Luvratovich, 8933 Hilloway Road, stated that there is a noise problem from Flying Cloud Airport and this development is going to be constructed less than 3/4 mile from the end of the runway. A light airplane crashed in this area last summer, and he was concerned about the safety of having a housing development located in this area. The Public Hearing was closed. Ismail commented he was not comfortable with the development as proposed and believed there were too many variables in the proposal. He felt the density was too high and should be reduced; the developer would still have a viable project. Stanke commented that when they designed the project they attempted to create a development that was aesthetically pleasing and did not know if the density could be reduced. Sandstad stated he had concerns about the effects of the density on the surrounding area. He believed there were several buildings that were placed too close to Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway and they cannot be adequately screened or buffered from the roadways. He believed greater separation distance was needed in these areas. He also believed there should be some sort of protection constructed between the development and the parkland in the southwest corner. Stanke commented they would consider doing this. Sandstad stated he was concerned about the traffic and strategies for traffic management within the development. Wissner stated she concurred with Sandstad, and requested that something in writing be obtained from the school district stating that this project will not adversely impact the schools in the area. She was not comfortable with the exit onto Staring Lake Parkway and believed some redesign was needed to manage the traffic internally so 32 PLANNING COMMISs.JN MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 8 that it did not exit at that point. She inquired about snow removal and storage on the site and Bastyr responded that there was ample room for snow storage at the ends of the private drives and other green space located throughout the project. Wissner commented she did not think families with children would be likely to buy these units, but believed there were significant issues that needed to be addressed before the project could move forward. Schlampp commented that he felt the project was nicely done and had good amenities. He believed the setbacks should be increased from Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway. Clinton stated that Eden Prairie will always have traffic problems because of the way in which it has been laid out, and he did not believe traffic from this project would have that significant an impact. He believed that the density should be reduced. He did not like the idea of Hennepin Tech viewing Columbine Road as another freeway when the connection is made, and he felt this should be reviewed. He thought the impact of this development should not be underestimated and he was uncomfortable with it as it was presently proposed. Kardell stated that she concurred with the comments made by her colleagues, and noted that she supported multi-family housing on the site. However, greater setbacks and transition was needed between the project and Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway. She believed that the southwest property line should be fenced or protected in some way. A traffic study should be done which takes school traffic into account and the issue of traffic from Hennepin Technical College cutting through should be addressed. She did not have a problem with the private road access to Staring Lake Parkway,because the more access available the better internal traffic circulation would be. She believed that more affordable single family housing would be good, but there was also a need for the proposed type of housing. She requested staff to determine whether the NURP pond should be a single cell or a double cell. MOTION: Clinton moved, Sandstad seconded, to continue the Staring Lake Townhomes by Pulte Master Builders request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres,Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres, Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review to allow the developer to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. Motion carried 7-0. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen DATE: April 19 , 1996 SUBJECT: Staring Lake Townhouses DEVELOPER: Pulse Master Builders OWNER: Douglas Skanse LOCATION: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY 169 REQUEST : 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,High Density Residential and Office to Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 Acres 2. Zoning District Change From Rural To RM 6.5 and RM 2.5 on 38.5 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 88.5 acres 4. Planned Unit Development District Review On 38.5 acres. 5. Site Plan Review on 38.5 acres 6. Preliminary Plat of 38.5 acres into 394 lots. 7. EAW review. sq •a-4-rs1:7-b 1 r -: i •' '''''. ()'' •:..ss . ... :., .2- II TWO . . • (..) . ./..:-‘ . ..: - FOUNTAiN 4 r.- c•-; F `•••: • i . \ i*Ilik ......-.....n.„1- 1 PLACE AF1ARTMENTS .0..•• ....7 abp• .. ;„ . i 1.3 9 A 81.VD Ai • ..:.• ft •... r •141 • . CO ittop . . I o '\__4114 .) . 0 0 • • .... r,• g .1 ••..1 :. . .... • -... is "11 • , - - - . - poR UP • . x 9 kir 13 -• Al r&tP*11 154 ' *0 It k 7. • .. i.,.. \olio,..s2 •:...-• 111610 .ff -- ..,..... .„ ,. ..••• ,..,. t Z e.• •". al 111. 7?at .. . /$ wr 4 jig ) OAK POINT kNOER INTERMEDIATE isSONINIEr :J.) Atili 1W ‘, \ 4 rid at Avis ( ip411 ,..... .c ..,<- c ji, CT 141,, if.: / scsom • . 4: . • • • •.• • • • . • .. . ,.,... , , dor • • • • • R 9A• • • . . • • •• 21 c . V* pi . e ..... or . •J -k • • •• • • . —:-.• \ ‘:ry • • • . • .• • • .... %..• ..., • akfah..41/ . . ) .. :. .. . • _ . . !=-: a'la...A ri 5 . i:. A • :-: le" • • . cr..t.) ;•,w 7Z Mill W •4". , • . NJ .2: • I • 4, ‘4°< •. . • • • . . .... ..,.. ... 1 • • • • • • 1 . 1, .. .. .. . • • . • ‘ . • • • ITIDARNI1E111:41‘R.OADII" e ""' • . . , \ a ) • • • . •• D. :.. A . \ , . •• . . • • . . • . • 1 , • i • • • • • • II le . \ • . ••• .•...• 1 • ea • • • . . • .•:: . r i::i: : , . . • . . •. ••••••• . . . . . , ••:.::::•:•:•• •• :•: :•• . , lifect .•.,r.:.41:: •:::: •::•. , li LI ,4ii, :.• •:::::•::: :.::: . ....• , \-------- ... . ...... ..... . .. .. :::. :-.-:•: :: ::•: :.::• , . . . . . . te.•:•. :•.• •••: .• 1 .:....i..•...:: : •::.:• ••• I ) I • 1 •- FA. ouRT 3F• cn •. • h.:.: •:• :: " to I VII . . •••••• . . / * 11111A111111 • • • • . . / • .• .•::::: :•4 i ..-'' .....-- F I-i- t_ I 2;1 IR .7"=Rivr "I:- ILI. Staff Report Staring Lake Townhouses April 19, 1996 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the April 8,1996 meeting. The Planning Commission suggested that the neighborhood, developer, and City staff meet to discuss issues and to review plan changes to the multiple family plan for the property. There was a meeting on April 11th and 16th. At the second meeting the developer presented a revised plan for 692 units with increase setbacks around the perimeter, large berming, heavy landscaping and a 4 acre park with tennis court, volleyball court, basketball court and playground equipment for preschool children. The neighborhood indicated on April 16th that they prefer the Comprehensive Guide Plan as a land use for the property. REVISED CONCEPT PLAN The Planning Commission previously recommended a 10 to 30% reduction in total housing units on the property. At the first neighborhood meeting, residents indicated there should be more open space on the property, additional recreational facilities, more trails and sidewalks, preserve the shore impact zone, do not develop on the bluff, and reduce the views into the project. The developer has made the following site plan revisions based on the imput listed above: 1. A reduction in total units from 788 to 692 (12%). 2. Increased setbacks on Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lakes Parkway from 70 feet to 120 feet. This allows an 8 to 15' high berm along Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway. 3. The building setback from Highway 169 has been increased from 50 to 110 feet. An 8 foot high berm will be constructed along Highway 169. 4. Open space has been increased from 55 to 60%. 5. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail will be constructed along Columbine Road. In addition, there are numerous sidewalks throughout the project. 6. A 4 acre park will be constructed with a tennis court,volleyball court, basketball court, and preschool playground equipment. This land will be dedicated to the City. 7. The NURP pond has been moved to meet the 75 foot shore impact zone. Staff Report Staring Lake Townhouses April 19, 1996 8. The grading has been revised to eliminate grading in the bluff impact zone. 9. The plan includes a NURP pond. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN INTENSITY Residents have expressed concern about land use statistics in the prior Staff Reports, specifically that the Guide Plan densities and intensity of Office are higher than what the Zoning Ordinance would allow. The statistics indicated in both reports for a range of 491 - 740 units for housing and 522,000 - 718,000 sq. ft: of Office are based upon the zoning code which is less than the guide plan. A land use plan could be either 491 housing units and 718,000 sq. ft. of Office or 740 units and 522,000 square feet of office. The zoning code is more representative of what has been built on land elsewhere in Eden Prairie for multiple family housing and office. The Guide Plan does allow up to 40 units per acre for housing(17.4 was used in the report) and a .50 floor area ratio (.30 was used in the report). ALTERNATIVE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT- OFFICE AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL The owner of the property requested a Comprehensive Guide Plan change from a combination of low, medium and high density residential and office to either all high density residential or office. The April 6th Staff Report said that on 50 acres in the alternative phase II, there could be either 870 housing units or 653,000 to 1,089,000 sq. ft. of office. The staff has revised the amount of office to a .3 base area ratio to be consistent with the average base area ratio approved for other projects or 653,000 sq. ft. In addition, the unit count changes if 30% of the units are affordable (261) and if the remaining 18 acres are developed at 17.4 units/acre(313)to 574 total units. Combining the Pulte southern half with the northern half preferred by the owner would result in either a plan with 994 multiple family units or 420 units and 653,000 sq. ft. of office. TRAFFIC The reduction in number of units reduces daily traffic by 528 trips and PM peak hour traffic by 52.8 trips. In addition, the density has been shifted towards the southern portion of the property. This will change the trip distribution which would benefit the Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway 169 intersection. Currently, Hennepin Vo-Tech entrance on 169 operates at level of service A and therefore can support additional traffic. 3,i Staff Report Staring Lake Townhouses April 19, 1996 Traffic counts were taken on April 16th and 17th in the A. M. Peak hour. A.M. queues(cars waiting at the signal) are 20 for both left turn lanes(10 in each lane) at Anderson Lakes and 169. Only once did cars not clear the intersection in one cycle of the traffic signal. The queue length will increase to 30 cars at full development in both left turn lanes(15 in each lane). This means that 5 times during the peak hour vehicles would not clear on the first signal. This analysis was based on the first plan. It is expected that queue lengths and time delays at full development will be less at full development with the revised concept plan since more of the units are now located closer to the Vo Tech intersection. It is important that the improvements to the Hennepin Vo-Tech access, Columbine Road, Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection, be completed concurrent with the construction of the units in Phase I. Therefore, the widening of the road and the signal improvements would be in place prior to the full development of the property. All of the required road improvements are listed in the traffic study. CONCLUSION The staff recommends approval of the revised development plan for the following reasons: 1. The project provides for affordable housing. 2. The density has been reduced. 3. Traffic is less than the guide plan and Alternative Two. 4. Traffic is less than the previous plan. 5. Traffic generation can be accommodated by road and signal improvements. 6. Setbacks around the site perimeter are 3 times greater than required by City code. 7. The project provides 60% open space. 8. The project provides large berming and perimeter plantings which screens view of the proposed project. The berms are too high along Staring Lakes Parkway and Anderson Lakes Parkway. Site lines show that the buildings are not visible. Staff recommends that the berms be lowered to get a partial view of the buildings. The berms along 169 in most cases only allows the roofs to be visible. In other locations buildings can be seen. 9. The project provides for internal recreation facilities. 3� Staff Report Staring Lake Townhouses April 19, 1996 10. There is 0%tree loss. 11. There is no wetland fill. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Office to Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Office, Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review,Zoning District Change from Rural to RM 6.5 and RM 2.5, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review and EAW, based on plans dated April 19,1996 and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated April 19, 1996 , and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. The fee is paid on a per unit basis. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. The following waivers from city code are granted as part of the Planned Unit Development District review in the RM 6.5 and RM 2.5 Zoning district: A. Waiver from the minimum lot size of 6500 sq. Ft. to 5,000 sq. Ft. in the RM 6.5 District. B. Waiver from the minimum lot size of 30,000 Sq. Ft. to 5,000 sq. Ft. in the RM 2.5 4 Staff Report Staring Lake Townhouses April 19, 1996 Zoning District. C. Waiver to allow less than the 75%facebrick and glass requirement in the RM 2.5 district . 4. The Planned Unit Development Concept is approved for Alternative Two based on the following conditions: A. 420 units of housing on the southern half and on the northern half a 100 foot buffer zone with berming and heavy landscaping which blocks site lines if developed as office for 653,000 sq. ft. Or a maximum 574 units of which at least 30% are affordable ownership. B. Performance standards of the City Code. C. Road improvements to support the increased density. 5. The northern of Alternative Two will require Planned Unit Development specific plan approval, site plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 6. Phase 2 of Alternative One will require rezoning and site plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council. 7. Road improvements identified in the traffic studies shall be constructed concurrent with phase one. LbG GUIDE PLAN PULTE 4/8 PULTE 4/22 PULTE 4/8 PULTE 4/22 Plan I Plan II Plan II Plan II Units Traffic Units Traffic Units Traffic Units Traffic Units Traffic (Daily Trips) (Daily Trips) (Daily Trips) (Daily Trips) (Daily Trips) 491 + 10,323 788 5,026 692 4,498 1,290 . 8,227 994 6,421 722,000 office or or or 1,089,000 9,980 420 units + 8,665 sq.ft. office 653,000 740 + 9,469 sq.ft. office 522,000 , office,,,1 BENSHOOF & ASSOC . INC . TEL No . 612 832 9564 Apr 18 ,96 16 :03 P .02 1SYBENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE,SUITE 500/EDINA,MN 55439/(612)832-9858 1 FAX(612)832-9564 A nl IS 1996 REFERT0�f0IlE;�_ pa.t�+ MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Franzen, City of Eden Prairie a FROM: Jon Micheal ertj _. RE: Response to Traffic Items Regarding the Proposed Staring Lake(Pulse Homes)Development This memo responses to the two traffic items regarding the proposed Staring Lake development: • Modifications to Site Trip Generation Comparison(Table 1)to reflect the density changes for the City Comprehensive Plan • Response to questions queuing and delays for the eastbound approach at the TH 169 and Anderson L Parkway intersection Each of these items is addressed next. Site Trip Generation Comparison Changes to Table 1 were made to account for the allowable land use densities for the low and high residential uses. The low density residential was lowered from 5.0 to 2.5 units per acre. The high density residential was lowered from 20.0 to 17.4 units per acre. These density changes and the associated trip generation were revised. The attached Table 1 reflects these revisions and results in a slight three to four percent reduction in the trip generation for the City Comprehensive Plan. No changes to density or trip generation were made to the proposed Pulte Homes Plan. Eastbound Anderson Lakes Parkway Queuing and Delays Questions were raised regarding the impact of the proposed Staring Lake Development on the Anderson Lakes Parkway eastbound approach at TH 169. Specifically,information regarding traffic queues and delays was requested. The following items are presented to further clarify and quantify the traffic queues and delays for the Anderson Lakes Parkway eastbound approach to TH 169. ua BENSHOOF & ASSOC . INC . TEL No . 612 832 9564 Apr 18 ,96 16 :04 P .03 :1 `' Mr. Franzen -2- April 18, 1996 • Existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic queues were collected and observed on April 16 and 17, 1996. The existing queues are summarized in the following table. EXISTING NUMBER OF VEHICLES QUEUED ON EASTBOUND ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY AT TH 169 • AM Peak Hour _ PM Peak Hour Vehicle Two Left Thru/Migbt Two Left - Thru/Right Queue, Lana Lane Lanes Lane --� Minimum 7 2 0 2 Avecagc 20 8 6 10 Maximum 21 25 12 27 During the a.m. and p.m. peak hour observations only once were the traffic queues to long to clear in one cycle of the traffic signal. This occurred during the maximum queue for the p.m. peak hour. • The existing available storage space for the traffic queues on eastbound Anderson Lakes Parkway between the TH 169 and Columbine Road intersections is 700 feet (32 vehicles) for the two left turn lanes and 500 feet (23 vehicles)for the through/right turn lane. • As noted in the traffic study report, future traffic growth is expected on eastbound Anderson Lakes due to the background growth of other traffic as well as the proposed Staring Lake Development. Due to this traffic growth increases in traffic queues and delays are expected. • Based on the future traffic forecasts for the 1999 post development condition, the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic queues were estimated for eastbound Anderson Lakes Parkway at the TH 169 intersection. The future traffic queues are presented in the table below. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF VEHICLES QUEUED ON EASTBOUND ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY AT TH 169 FOR THE 1999 POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vehicle Two Left Thru/Right Two Left Thru/Right Queues Lanes Lane Lana Lane Average 30 10 9 12 90th Percentile 37 16 _ 16 19 Storage Space _ 32 23 32 23 As noted in the above table, the existing available queue storage space will be exceed for the left turn lanes during portions of the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the a.m. peak hour queues would be expected to extend west of Columbine Road for ten percent of the a.m. peak hour. This a.m. peak condition queuing would approximately correlate to five times when vehicles would not clear on the first traffic signal cycle at the TH 169 intersection. q3 BENSHOOF & ASSOC . INC . TEL No . 612 832 9564 Apr 18 ,96 16 :04 P .04 Mr.Franzen -3- April 18, 1996 • As noted above, the traffic queues on eastbound Anderson Lakes Parkway are expected to back up through the Columbine Road intersection during portions of the a.m. peak hour. This condition is expected to result in: 1. Additional traffic from the proposed Staring Lake Development using the Hennepin Technical College access to and from TH 169 2. Minor traffic difficulties for the left and through movements on Columbine Road at the Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection 3. Potential traffic signal warrants being meet sooner than expected at the Columbine Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection. • Minor increases in traffic delays are expected at the TH 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection. The intersection's level of service is expected to operate within acceptable standards during both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. The average vehicle delay for entire intersection in 1999 with and without the proposed development is expected to increase by eight and three seconds in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. This correlates to a 10 to 20 percent increase in these overall traffic delays. Overall,traffic queues and delays are expected to increase for the Anderson Lakes Parkway eastbound approach to TH 169. No significant traffic problems are expected due to these queue and delay increases. to z Co 0 0 m TABLE 1 Qo SITE TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON u) 0 n. H CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN n %Land Use I Acres I Density I Site I Daily Trips I AM Peak Trips 1 PM Peak Trips' Low/Medium Residential 15 : 2.5- 10 unitshcre 38-150 waits 224-973 17-77 21-95 -1 Medium/High Residential 20 10-17.4 nnits/acre 203-348 waits 1300-2262 102-178 , 126-219 P z 'sigh Residential or Office 15 17.4 vnits/aare cc 261 units cr 1697-2332 133-321 164-306 0 0.3 FAR 196,020 sq.1 Office 40 03 FAR i 522.720 sq.R 4756 675 , 612 UN Total Trips Based on Comp Plan) 7977-10323 927-1251 923.1232 ,I" rn " 'The am peak hour residential trips are less and office hips are used as compared to the pm peak hour kips. ►v'' CO w IV PROPOSED PULTL HOMES PLAN Lao cri cn 'Lead Use I Acres I Density Size I ,Dam Trips AM Peak Trips I PM Peak Trial A 0 v lc1ub Hanes 29 -6 uaits/acre 180 units 1074, 82 ' 102; IcourtHomes j -25 --10 units/ac a 248 u� 1612 139 ^ 161 00 Carriage Mews -22 -16 units/acre 360 units 2340 202 234 M. °l — ,-. e rn Wetland and Green Space -14 — --- 0 0 0, �,, .. 7o 0 Total Trips Based on Pelts Plan 5026; 423 497 as ""The am peak hour residential hips are 15 percent less than the pm peak hour trips. o STAFF REPORT TO Planning Commission FROM Michael D. Franzen DATE April 6 , 1996 SUBJECT Staring Lake Townhouses DEVELOPER Pulte Master Builders OWNER Douglas Skanse LOCATION Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY 169 • REQUEST : 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,High Density Residential and Office to Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 Acres 2. Zoning District Change From Rural To RM 6.5 and RM 2.5 on 38.5 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 88.5 acres 4. Planned Unit Development District Review On 38.5 acres. 5. Site Plan Review on 38.5 acres 6. Preliminary Plat of 38.5 acres into 394 lots. • 7. EAW review. - - E.I.rrs --.). I TWO . ---------1.------- I .! a 1.c.' YS . .•- .\.\v7.:/, ,/..,i li&r,ki*• Illk.,. Q .0,0 uF,OLiKAPr .AA.„iRN,T -...• %* I--I I c ik . PLACE . : 139 . s.. tPt.y.i ° Ni - -.4:..-... .... -....„..-- - ..- .a• . :.-.•-: ••.1 - • POR UP , RI :11 641iC":41 1111. It 23 ..i.. 47telitt 4_,14- bik .. . • 1 "ii....4° . .1 tr A 0 Al IVAtAtA4 ' # cotift 4t41:4461,4> . 1141. ,......_,.. 2,,,,.. -- ..,.. cc , riott-.4 .. ...1m.. z.7 . 1,, . .,.:... , .....c..... 4,7 •-• Illikb . "' OM W till° omit # .44"Pr4fil4. il OAK POINT - z I l' Algal 11% lb NDERSDNIIPAIP 1 at w4is pin / iNTERMEDIATE • N s-•)*• R ii. .411 , 404.00, i SCHOOL . • ... . • • . . . .. • IN . . . • • • . "rj 111 1111111• 4 • • • . / R•A• • • . • • •• 2tc. lir* gal — PP --,•••; ...\ • • •• • 0 aill III .3c . . • • . • 7.. .- . . • ....• - 40 w4111 411111 I .: :••• .. 4 • •• 1 4 ' • . ' : ' .., . :_ ,.... • ..; .-...% . . . •• •• 6‘ 4 • . . • . lift ::.. ., ...:. • • . ....,.. ,.. .... rim lashas • . . . 01, DARNEL ROAD • . , 0 • • 6. • • ......'" 0 te \ • • . • • I "--/ I % • • • / % / . • . • . •• . % • D / . / i ‘ / • ;TT',ip 1•*;.:. • %. • •6 • • s•:%.1..,-,..,... I . . • ,, • • • • • . • .• • • • ...411P. ...j N • a • • . •. r : .::::. .: , . . , • . • . if. 4 • • . . • • 41MIM••••• : :• • • :•:•: 1 111±.11111111 • •......... ..... •.•. 1 •:•:•• :•:4•••• : • •. • •:•••• 1 101 P .:::::,,:•::::: : :.1:* :::: : i ••.0.E:::4.: : ::::i: :::*::: i ::- -::::.::: : ::.:.:. :*•.:• / 4k ..."::...-:-:.: : ::::•:: :.- :• 1 •ac ...1.4, :::•• ..:••: : ::::: •?::. 1111111 , t.d. te.::-: : -•: : ••.. • -•: i FI%-.. .• •.• .•. . ..... . . I :..: :•. .:1 : .::::: :: I • - :::•:: . •••• I c;) / • •. . .. . .•. co ..,joo..:..••*- • • •. • . : . / .• , III , . "1117411bi. 'III , ..... , ............ qi 1 i BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the March 25,1996 meeting. The Planning Commission directed the developer provide additional information, increase setbacks, add more berms and plant material along Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway: 1. Evaluate the traffic impacts of closing the private road access to Staring Lakes Parkway. Evaluate the traffic impacts of closing the access to the Vo-Tech. Evaluate the traffic impacts on the school. The additional traffic information states that the closing both the private drive access to Staring Lake Parkway and Vo-tech access will direct more traffic to the Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection and cause more conjestion and traffic delays. Staff recommends that access to Anderson Lakes Parkway and the Vo-Tech must be maintained for traffic distribution and emergency vehicle access. Closing the access to Staring Lake Parkway will not have a significant traffic on the other two intersections. The school bus trips were included in the original traffic study. Peak period for bus activity and school start and end times do not correlate to peak hour residential traffic. 2. Have the school district review the site plan and comment on traffic impacts and school capacity. The school district would like the access Staring Lakes Parkway closed. The School District does not anticipate space problems for children. 3. Evaluate a single versus two nurp pond system for phosphorous removal.. The attached letter indicates that a two pond system will remove more phosphorous than a single pond system. The two pond cell will fit in the same location. 4. Have a wildlife biologist review wildlife impacts. The letter from the wildlife biologist states that the information on fishery habitat and rare and endangered species was obtained from the Department of Natural Resources. There is some value as a fish habitat. The database is 3 years old and will be updated this summer. 5. Evaluate the amount of open space according to city code. The city code requires 1000 square feet of group usable open space per unit for the 4 unit buildings and 600 square feet of group usable open space per unit for the 8 and 12 unit 7U buildings or a total of 14.77 acres. The plan provides 20.6 acres. 6. Revise the site plan to increase setbacks along Staring Lakes Parkway and Anderson Lakes Parkway, increase berm height and add more landscaping. The site plan has been revised to increase the building setback from 35 feet to 70 feet, and larger berms and more landscaping has been added. Plant material quantity is greater than Pinebrook and is more diverse than Fairfield. 7. Place a fence adjacent to city park property. The developer will construct a fence if required by the City Council. 8. Evaluate if scenic easements are necessary. Scenic easements are usually required to protect wetlands, creeks, lakes, vegetation and steep slopes. The site contains one wetland and an easement will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Office to Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Office, Planned Unit Development Concept Review,Planned Unit Development District Review,Zoning District Change from Rural to RM 6.5 and RM 2.5, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review and EAW, based on plans dated March 22,1996 and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated March 22, 1996 , and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. The fee is paid on a per unit basis. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. Lf9 C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. The following waivers from city code are granted as part of the Planned Unit Development District review in the RM 6.5 and RM 2.5 Zoning district: A. Waiver from the minimum lot size of 6500 sq. Ft. to 5,000 sq. Ft. in the RM 6.5 District. B. Waiver from the minimum lot size of 30,000 Sq. Ft. to 5,000 sq. Ft. in the RM 2.5 Zoning District. C. Waiver to allow less than.the 75% facebrick and glass requirement in the RM 2.5 district . • 4. The Planned Unit Development Concept is approved for Alternative Two based on the following conditions: A. Provision of a 100 foot buffer zone with berming and heavy landscaping which blocks site lines. B. Connect the private road to Staring Lakes Parkway. Extend Columbine Road to Anderson Lakes Parkway. C. Performance standards of the City Code. D. Road improvements to support the increased density. E. 420 units on the south half and land use for office or housing on the north half 5. Planned Unit Development specific plan approval, site plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning for Alternative Two will require a review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 6. Phase 2 of Alternative One will require rezoning and site plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5a STAFF REPORT TO Planning Commission FROM Michael D. Franzen DATE March 22, 1996 SUBJECT Staring Lake Townhouses DEVELOPER Pulte Master Builders OWNER Douglas Skanse LOCATION Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY 169 REQUEST : 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,High Density Residential and Office to Medium Density Residential,High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 Acres 2. Zoning District Change From Rural To RM 6.5 and RM 2.5 on 38.5 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 88.5 acres 4. Planned Unit Development District Review On 38.5 acres. 5. Site Plan Review on 38.5 acres 6. Preliminary Plat of 38.5 acres into 394 lots. 7. EAW review. 4, 1 . . c..) '. ,..,.: ...,..;• • Fol.;KrAiN 4 .,,•• .11.i: b..-- (e, a 0 . 'd. Ilk 0#11 RACE r._ Oa, 1R3.9L.4.S.00 I s.... APARTMENTS r,44 F41: . C/) . • IA •••/ b• 44. • ._1,4 ..) 0 4 . • .•ik -;::' "-. ......, tti%. .41P4AP • ' . is 4 - .• KM UPI NE . 7 X 1.911 it;gull%glf .. at ES .- Li., a railak. 4 ,.• .3, girltkid •_ •-, a NZ: 14 i 4.‘ • 0 1-, •.. 0 Di Opi a„ 4,', .. grAVP4PA 0 Ma • 6/ ..,,, Zi) 7 \ la1 2 era • ..., _. • 7, E., . , „.., ..,..,.. , ....., OAK POINT / INTERMEDIATE ••"c--.....%z.:k••t?. ,:e, • ..: I •..:.(•..•.•".,"aer e4.) . , SCHOOL • : . • •. • • .•...•f• • 'k NDi,r...E) CRr•S p°I z! Aa""cs iIl.I‘i,.lpic.l• R9A • • • • • • • i1 i I ivl4WIIgA I IP% rPgirafriilf lmI iNiaEE dft. „.- . II 4 • •• • • ••, • • • •• • • e:.. ..' •°ea .:e.) di III • 4. , 014/1 all .>. • 4 • • • %..• (,.., 9141,2 • s. 1 .• a • • fr.° • • a !•• i.:, • :•.: r*, • i:1 I" ::::: Agli # a‘W 0 ft • •• 111 1111115k111 • . • • • • 2 .:.•< 0 •• • ' 6• • . . ...., , . . .._._. - id DARNEL R•AD I • • • . "'t •• : j 111 . . . . . • . , . . • • • ... • - , • • , •. 1 , • • • • , \ • • . ••• /• •• / \ . P. tj 14 • STOF. ;A:i,E p, .... , i . • ,. . . N. • • • I . • • • • • 4 • • • • • • • • • a • N • . ••• • • ,. ... r ::: : , 1 • „ . • • • •• • • a . INO =.. ... .••• : .•: : :::: :: .:• I ..:47.... .::••• . .. • :• :•:• i a • :::::::':::: ::::... i::.:: % ;::::.;.*:::.::•&..: . i' :.: :;: :: 1 W :::.:7•::: ::.: :•:: ; .::::.: i \------ .:: . . . :: :: :::: •::::• , 1 - ..::.• :••: •.• • • •:•:• i 3K 41'.•::: .:::: •.::.: ..•: 1 1 Cki F gOU T H.:•. :::: ::::: :.: i ... t I 1- I I •. . . . • :..:: :: I I STII .,_,„k cil: / CO . : :. -• •••: / •. .. • I .•:• • •• :' / *4 ,- :::::::::• -- 62-- t iX 111"111111 ..... _- V; Frif V oRivE-111111111 •••• hi • 1 1 BACKGROUND This sited is Guided: 14 acres-Low-Medium Density Residential 19.5 acres-Medium-High Density Residential 15 acres-High Density Residential-Office 40 acres- Office The site as currently guided would allow a range of 491 to 740 units and 522,000 to 718,000 sq. ft. of office. The entire site is zoned rural. There is an approved Planned Unit Development Concept on this site for the Douglas Corporate Headquarters. This was a 320,000 sq. ft. headquarters building and a future 261,000 sq. ft. expansion approved by the City Council in 1985. The City did not rezone the property to industrial or change the guide plan since detailed development plans were not available for review. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE The proposed Guide Plan changes are: 1. A change from Low Density-Medium Density Residential to Medium Density Residential adjacent to Purgatory Creek on 14 acres. 2. A change from Office to Medium-High Density residential in the southeast one half of the property adjacent to Highway 169 on 25 acres. 3. A change from Office to Office-High Density Residential for the northeast one half of the property adjacent to Highway 169 on approximately 15 acres. The 19.5 acres of Medium-High Density Residential and 15 acres of Office-High Density Residential in approximately the center of the site will not change. Reasons to consider the guide plan change are as follows. 1. A total of 600 of the 788 units will meet the requirements of the Liveable Communities Act for ownership housing less than $115,000.00 per unit. 2. Traffic will be 40-47% less daily trips and 60% less peak hour trips if the entire property is developed as proposed. 3. The density of the project at 8.9 units per acre is compatible with the surrounding uses. High density residential is to the north, commercial and industrial to the east, Vo-Tech School to the south, and Oak Point School and open space to the west. 4. An all residential use of the property would be a less intense development than'if the property developed according to to the guide plan. If the site developed according to the guide plan a total of 491 - 740 units and 522,000 - 718,000 sq. Ft. of office would be possible. The current proposal is 788 units. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Pulte Master Builders is proposing to purchase the property in two phases. Pulte Master Builders and the current property owner are asking for approval of two alternative concept plans. One is all residential, the other is medium density residential on the southern half and high density residential and office on the northern half. If Pulte does not purchase phase two, the owner would like the flexibility to market the property for office or housing on the northern half. Alternative one: 788 Multiple Family 30, 12-unit buildings (360 total units) 26, 8-unit buildings(208 total units) 45, 4-unit buildings(220 total units). Alternative two: 420 Multiple family Units on the south half and 870 multiple units or 653,000- 1,089,000 sq. ft. of office ALTERNATIVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ONE- ALL MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING The 788 unit plan is at a density of 8.9 units per acre. None of the lots meet the dimensional and square footage requirements for multiple family housing and planned unit development waivers ares required. The waivers are typical in townhouse projects because some of the land is placed into common space. The units meet setbacks to public roads. Setbacks on private roads are 25 ft. with no sidewalk and 30 ft. with a sidewalk. These dimensions allow a car to parked outside without interferring with the private road or pedestrians walking on the sidewalk. Parking required is one garage space, one open space, and .25 guests spaces per unit. The site plan meets the parking requirements. There is no off street parking in the courthome area. Parking will be permitted on one side of the road with the other side posted as a fire lane. The private road is 28 feet wide, which is wide enough for emergency vehicles. Other private drives with no parking are 26 feet wide. Since only the southern half of Columbine Road will be constructed at this time, the Fire Marshall is requiring an emergency vehicle access from HWY 169. The existing driveway may be used provided it is upgraded to handle emergency vehicles. ALTERNATIVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-OFFICE AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL No site plan has been prepared for the north half of this alternative. The southern half is the same number of units as shown in the southern half of Alternative One(420). On the northern half there could be either 870 units or 653,000 - 1,089,000 sq. ft. of office. Staff is concerned about the higher intensity, traffic impacts, and providing a physical transition to the housing areas in the southern half. The office-high density residential land use concept coincides with the owners desire to amend the guide plan on the northern half to office-high density residential. Approval of alternative two would be specific on the southern half for 420 units and land use only on the northern half. The approval of a specfic planned unit development plan for the north half will be based on: 1. Provision of a 100 foot buffer zone with berming and heavy landscaping which blocks site lines. 2. Connect the private road to Staring Lakes Parkway. Extend Columbine Road to Anderson Lakes Parkway. 3. Performance standards of the City Code. 4. Road improvements to support the increased density. SITE PLAN-ALTERNATIVE ONE The site plan shows 788 units at a density of 8.9 units per acre. This density is typical for townhouse projects and is comparable to Hartford Place(8 units per acre) and Summerfield(11 units per acre) and Pinebrook(11 units per acre). If the site developed according to the guide plan guide plan a total of 491 - 740 units and 522,000 - 718,000 square feet of office would be possible. The Guide Plan densities represent the theoretical maximums possible. It is the performance standards of the city code and site plan review that determine the actual densities that can be built. These performance standards were discussed early in the review process with the developer. Specifically staff was concerned about a lack of open space, too many units close together, architectural diversity, and enough landscaping to help break up the views of the buildings. We ask the developer to work on the following: 1. Plan different building orientations to the streets. 2. Include at least three different building types. 3. Use curverd streets and cul de sacs to reduce the number of units facing the main streets. 4. Create an architectural diversity plan with at least six different color shemes. 5. Add more and larger plant material. 6. Transition density from 4-unit, one story buildings on the west to 12-unit,two story buildings adjacent to Highway 169.. The current site plan meets these standards. ARCHITECTURE- ALTERNATIVE ONE There are three different building types, 12-unit, 8-unit, and 4-unit. Since there are 788 units, it is important to have an architectural diversity plan so all units do not look the same. Although it is common in townhouse projects for units to look alike, it works best when the number of units is small, such as Atherton Townhouses,Boulder Pointe, or Mitchell Lake. Large projects such as Summerfield do not work as successfully when colors alike. Summerfield was 188 units Pulte Homes has developed 6 different color schemes and have designated colors on a site plan. Since the color spectrum is wide, the project should look more diverse than Summerfield. A Planned Unit Development Waiver is requested to allow less than 75%facebrick on the 12 unit buildings. This waiver has been granted for other townhouse projects at a similar density because of the size of the buildings and provided the buildings are part of an architectural diversity plan. This waiver has not been granted for apartments. GRADING- ALTERNATIVE ONE The site is relativley level. There are 187 inches of significant trees along the south property line that will be lost due to construction. Tree replacement is 187 caliper inches. LANDSCAPING- ALTERNATIVE ONE The amount of landscaping required is based on a caliper inch requirement according to building square footage, tree replacement, screening of parking areas, open space, and transition in densities.The caliper inch requirement is 2280 inches. Tree replacement is 187 caliper inches. The amount of caliper inches required for sreening of parking areas depends on what is necessary to 5� achieve 75% opacity year round. To meet the open space requirement there must be enough plant material to create adequate open space to offset the closeness of the buildings and to break up the view of the building mass. The amount of caliper inches required for transition is based on the degree of difference in density . The ampount of caliper inches needed to meet screening, open space and transition requirements is 2400 inches. The landscape plan meets the requirements as listed above. TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVE ONE The traffic study compares traffic generated by the existing guide plan to alternative one. Traffic generated by the existing guide plan is 8449-10661 Daily trips, 963-1277 A.M. Peak hour trips, and 968-1225 P.M. Peak hour trips. Traffic generated by Alternative One is 5026 Daily trips, 423 A. M. Peak hour trips, and 497 Peak hour trips. A signal is recommended at Anderson Lakes Parkway and Columbine Road. TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVE TWO Daily traffic is 8477 - 9177 trips,A.M. peak hour traffic is 824-1084 trips, and P. M. peak hour traffic is 914-1004 trips. If Alternative two is built the traffic study recommends widening Anderson Lakes Parkway on the west and east sides of Highway 169 and a signal at Columbine Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway. GUIDE PLAN ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC ONE TWO DAILY TRIPS 8449-10,661 5026 8477-9177 A.M. PEAK 963-1277 423 824-1084 • P.M. PEAK 968-1225 497 914-1004 EAW State Law requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be prepared since the total number of units exceeds the threshold of 375 multiple family units. Two environmental issues are traffic and water quality. The traffic study shows less impact than the existing guide plan and a storm water quality pond is part of the plan. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS An eight foot wide bituminous trail and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk are shown on Columbine Road. A five foot wide sidewalk is shown along one side of the private road connecting Columbine Road and Staring Lakes Parkway. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Office to Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Office, Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM 6.5 and RM 2.5, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review and EAW, based on plans dated March 22,1996 and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated March 22, 1996 , and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. The fee is paid on a per unit basis. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. The following waivers from city code are granted as part of the Planned Unit Development District review in the RM 6.5 and RM 2.5 Zoning district: A. Waiver from the minimum lot size of 6500 sq. Ft. to 5,000 sq. Ft. in the RM 6.5 District. B. Waiver from the minimum lot size of 30,000 Sq. Ft. to 5,000 sq. Ft. in the RM 2.5 Zoning District. C. Waiver to allow less than the 75% facebrick and glass requirement in the RM 2.5 district . 4. The Planned Unit Development Concept is approved for Alternative Two based on the following conditions: A. Provision of a 100 foot buffer zone with berming and heavy landscaping which blocks site lines. B. Connect the private road to Staring Lakes Parkway. Extend Columbine Road to Anderson Lakes Parkway. C. Performance standards of the City Code. D. Road improvements to support the increased density. E. 420 units on the south half and land use for office or housing on the north half. 5. Planned Unit Development specific plan approval, site plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning for Alternative Two will require a review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 6. Phase 2 of Alternative One will require rezoning and site plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council. 59 4,1?. OF MINNFSOTq Minnesota Department of Natural Resources m � r ' ' o; 500 Lafayette Road F 5 St.Paul,Minnesota 55155-40_. �OFNAT.LTS April 8, 1996 Michael Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-4485 • Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Staring Lake Townhomes Dear Mr. Franzen: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)has reviewed the above-referenced document and provides the following comments for your consideration. • Generally, it is good practice to concentrate development of a site on what was agricultural land where resource impacts are minimized. However, it appears that in this project there has been little effort to balance protection of sensitive areas with the increased overall densities proposed, particularly in relation to the siting of the stormwater pond. Most of the shoreland district is proposed to be used for the stormwater runoff pond. It appears that most of the trees right along the creek are to be retained, but the majority of the shoreland district is substantially altered to accommodate the pond. At a minimum, disturbance should be avoided within the shore impact zone,which would be within 75 feet of the creek(since a 150 foot setback is required for multiple family housing in Eden Prairie's ordinance). Exhibit G clearly shows that grading is proposed within the shoreland impact zone. Item 11 of the EAW minimizes the value of the site for wildlife. However,the western portion of the site is considered to be part of an important natural/wildlife corridor. The city and DNR Information:612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 • TTY:612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer +" Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a`Who Values Diversity a Minimum of 10%Post-Consumer Waste . GO Page 2 April 8, 1996 watershed district are working on a project to enhance wildlife and recreational values in the large wetland between the site in question and Highway 5 (basin#27-997W),Purgatory Creek and Staring Lake. Work has been coordinated within the DNR as well as the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Considering these efforts and the larger regional picture, it is inconsistent to leave only a token strip along the creek protected. The fmal project design should reflect use of a buffer strip which will protect the water quality of Purgatory Creek. The EAW notes in Item 12 that the existing tile system will not be used. In other situations where farm drain systems are abandoned,water often becomes a problem and the government ends up retrofitting expensive(and environmentally damaging) drainage systems. The EAW provides no assurance that this problem will not develop on this site. In Item 14 the EAW discusses the floodplain,but does not mention the shoreland district. A 300 foot strip adjacent Purgatory Creek(or the extent of the floodplain,whichever is further) is shoreland district. Also, it appears that an approximately 500 foot wide swath along the southwest portion of the site is within the 1,000 foot shoreland district for Staring Lake. While we have not fully evaluated all aspects of the project, it is clear that block 9 would not be buildable since it eliminates a bluff. Also,there is a bluff that runs along the property border;the top of the bluff will have to be located to verify that the 30 foot structure setbacks from the bluff line are met and that the bluff impact zone is not greatly altered. It is also not clear that the city requirements for open space have been met. Item 26c indicates that there are no park or recreation areas in the project area. However, there is a nature center just across Purgatory Creek from the site. Also,most of the land riparian to Staring Lake is park land(apparently,the shaded areas shown on exhibit A). Also,there is a trail that runs between Staring Lake and the site. Staring Lake is deep enough to support a fishery, although at this time it is not a high value fishery resource. It has no public access, is not aerated and experiences periodic winter kill due to low dissolved oxygen levels. We expect that a demand for a recreational fishery on the lake will eventually develop,but full development of the land in the sub-basin could result in a further decline in water quality,thereby precluding any likelihood of creating and sustaining a fishery. While we believe the concerns expressed above are substantial and should be addressed, it appears that with modifications the project's environmental design would be improve. For further information on addressing these concerns please contact Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss at 772-7914. We do not believe that an Environmental Impact Statement on the project is required . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and response to comments. Minnesota Rules,part 4410.1700 subparts 4& 5, require you send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. If you I ,/ District 272 / 7 / , ik Telephone: (612)975-7000 FAX: (612)975-7020 �i,,� �iisilm.�� TDD 975-7004 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS April 4, 1996 Michael Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Plute Residential Development Between Vocational School and Anderson Lakes Parkway East of Oak Point Dear Mike; You asked the school district to research the impact of the proposed development upon the school district. You were particularly concerned about the following two questions: 1. Does the school district have enough space in its existing facilities to provide for the additional children that may come from this development? 2. Will the potential increase in traffic on Staring Lake Parkway be potentially hazardous to the students and/or operation of Oak Point Intermediate School? Mike, the first issue we will address deals with availability of space. The district's historical data shows that we could anticipate approximately one-third of a child from each of the housing units being planned in the Plute addition. That means we would anticipate up to 260 children from ages 0 through 18, or approximately 14 children per grade level. We understand that the estimates from the developer are lower than our historical experience. In either case, it is the school district's responsibility to provide educational space and facilities for children moving into the community. It should be noted, however, that the school district uses a great deal of data to make its enrollment projections. The potential growth of this addition would fall within the assumptions used in our projections. As a result, we do not anticipate that the additional children will present a new and/or unexpected space problem. t eZ * Eden Prairie Schools•8100 School Road• Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2292 recycled paper Mike Franzen April 4, 1996 Page 2 The second question deals with potential traffic hazards on Staring Lake Parkway. Since receiving your request for information, we have had the opportunity to meet with officials of the City and have learned that the originally proposed exit onto Staring Lake Parkway has been eliminated. As a result, there does not appear to be any significant change in traffic patterns on or around Staring Lake Parkway. Sincerely, Merle Gamm Executive Director of Business Services MG/11 pc: Bill Gaslin Arnette Bell Rose Linden Woody Franklin HEDLUND ENGINEERING lnc. m a 9 P.02 .44 T j� .116001 j 4.J i N IJ.0 4200 West Old Shakopee Road.Suite 230 ENGINEERING INC. Bloomi(61)881 3`344n•FAx(612)$811913 April 4, 1996 Randall C. Hedlund HEDLUND • 9201 E. Bloomington Freeway Bloomington, MN 55420 Re: Pulte Homes of.Minnesota, Inc. Staring Lake and Anderson Lakes Parkway Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Mr, Hedlund, We investigated the phosphorous and sediment removal efficiency of the proposed stormwater management pond'for the Pulte Homes project. Using the information shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan dated February 9, 1996, we calculated dead storage available for the pond.to be 7.1 acre-feet between elevation 814 and 821. Using the Ponduet 2.0 program with a total drainage area of 77.4 acres, an impervious portion equal to 50 percent of the drainage area, and the 7.1 acre-ft dead storage, the proposed pond has an estimated phosphorous removal efficiency of 60.7 percent. The estimated sediment removal efficiency is 99 percent. We also investigated the division of the pond into two cells of roughly equal size. Because the divider itself occupies some area, the division reduces the dead storage to a total of 6.6 acre-feet. As shown on the enclosed worksheets, the two-cell systeni has an estimated phosphorous removal efficiency of 70,5 percent. This removal efficiency is higher than that shown for the one-cell system and is expected due to the "plug flow" nature of the multi-cell system. Detention basins are capable of providing very effective removal of pollutants in urban runoff. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) indicated that when basins are adequately sized, particulate removals in excess of 90 percent(TSS, lead) can be obtained. Pollutants with significant soluble fractions show lower reductions--bn the order of 65 percent for total phosphorous and approximately SO percent for BOl7, COD, T1N, Copper, and Zinc. The attached Figure No, 1 shows the range of expected removal efficiencies for NURP basins. • If you have any questions or require additional information, please give me a call. Sincerely, SUNDE ENGI EERING, INC. • Tli•herD Brian H. Mundst . enclosures 34_0,APR.p4,y96 14:14 HEDLUND ENGINEERIN.IG . Inc• E,, if•z/ :=, r,Wit, • • • • rr. -•n y,-, . •`~•r—r,•+-�..•. •- .. • %. --.-- ...�,_'`_. '`�`, J . rI•/� , , 1 It ) / i • / 1 +l / I I 11 / T / r , ,., ////// / `, S r // / ' /�'' /fir • 11 1I t /o ,J / / • I.• (fill / N / / //r~/i�, •• rI + / r 11 _,II t / / lit, ' 1 I• '�'/ 1 /( l j / /// r 1 /1 / / 1 1 1I / / ' / I l if 1 11 l dir / , . .. • • a r , ,i."..0:—.-, / / I . ,�' i' ' r 4 I',I 1 / I r) / f J/ f, , /// % ; / Id Il I ; 1 //%," 1 �// / 1 0,', •, /1/ / 1 i l i i /1 1 i 1i (/ i Ii/ / 1` " ii ; illr' I ( l ` irr1 7 )' ti lr { III % \ ` k I \I-........--.\-.......c \.\c‘‘,..‘‘..\.‘it.\ .,s.\ ‘.. \ f ,. ) . ` GS APR.04, '96 14: 14 HEDLUND ENGINEERING P.5/$. C4-24-i.ito r6l:.:i,rt•I -Kurt :�unae tn$1rteer-ingr Inc. TO d000'r..3 P.03 • • • -r- r"- r yr • • i /' / // 1 t I II j )I 1 / / ,/� '- `%//r///�� { 1 / 1 ,rr' .• // / t t/ , / 7/'1/ / /// l {I ! � / r 1_/ / j /, / /,. /• / j /Ij11Ilt %// e 17 I / / .,. • ir / -.11/ / / /' r l' • /� I i / / - III•1 II + 4 ~ i/ / i l j, • �► / / / j . / I I / e . ' ) 1 / J % • 1 k 1 � j 1 1 I / J ��/ , f/ /i / . • , / ', , � 1 .1 ( ' r Irr ► �'/ • / / / I 1 \, % I i I f r 1 j 1 �/r ( 1 // I / j \, 1 , i III f ( I r� < l %� j ) % 1 1 l ` i 1 I \� '\� 1. I + 0� : i t 1 I ' \ �, . \. 1 0, %,\` % fit )� , \ \ • $ * \ ` \ ?. \ \ \ ` , \ , e4_ APR. 4,196"14:14rHEDLUND:uCGINEERINGrig. Inc. 7U E.1,139 R•04 t • PONDNE'Y 2.0 Detention Pond Network Analysis • W. Walker October 1988 • Press ALT-C for Graphs TITLE--* HEDLUND ENGINEERING PROJECT - INPUT VRRZAELES. . . . UNITS DATE: 04/01/96 case labels 1 POND ' watershed area acres 77.4 • runoff coefficient - • 0.53 pond surface area acres 1.6662 pond mean depth feet 4.3 upstream pond p load lbs/yr 0 • x upstream pond outflow ac-ft/yr 0 , OUTPUT VARIABLES 1 outflow p load lbc/yr 102.55 1 outflow volume ac-ft/yr 147.68 . outflow p oona ppb 255.49 pond removal Is . 60.697 I . total removal % 60.694 f ASSUMED EXPORT FACTORS period length yrs 0.5 period precipitation - inches 21.6 runoff total p ppb 650 • runoff ortho p/total p - 0.3 ; relative decay rate - 1 . unit runoff in/yr 22.896 unit export lbe/ac-y 3.371 POND WATER BUDGETS t runoff ac-ft/yr . 147.68 # upstream pond ac-ft/yr 0 1 t total inflow ao-ft/yr 147.66 • i �j • outflow ac-ft/yr 147.68 t • • POND PHOSPHORUS BUDGETS t runoff lbs/yr 260.92 I I upstream pond lbe/yr 0 total inflow lbe/yr 260.92 net sedimentation lbs/yr 158.37 i outflow lbs/yr 102.55 HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS pond volume acre-ft 7,1217 vlawmo pond volume acre-ft 8.5463 • relative volume inches 2.0833 residence time years 0.0482 residence time days , 17.602 overflow rate ft/yr 89.167 inflow phoe cone ppb 650.03 . outflow phoe cons ppb 255,49 p reaction rates - 3.9292 1-rp - 0.393 . G/ 04-1 APR. 4, '96._14:14, HEDLUND.ENG I NEERI NGi i g, Inc. TO P.,3/B j F.05 • !� U I ;§ . it M;;11 1 w 1 i ! xf ii 1 C I I r is P I If i 5114 0 11 tHi; 1 I 11 i Iiiii i i 111 !!3.11 i II • • t w 1 IF III """"' " 11) !!!!! . x 1 1 1 I 1 • f'if . { 1 Ix M 1 f 1 11 S 1 1 Ali !s!!! i F I t • Je f 1 1 x x 5:5) 9i3 I I li . % :3 !? : . A I1 .'I " 1 I IiIA t b111 iitli I .ilIi1iIIiII1ii1i .IiI1ili 6 Figure I TYPICAL WET DETENTION POND PERFORMANCE cs ru .63 S' SPOC?E0 1000s _ �n m • OfCYGOM DEUAxo .t-_ r� t7 r TOTAL rHOSrfORUI - ,Z 'Z bessoLv£0 rs*OsrsFo*u! 'fnl tetT**TI N ThhOGEN --1 ,z • K. 1.0404L MT*O4C0 r LEAD • • - • _ IN 8 0 20 40 40 40 iv* iso tl M . -o 2 a APR.04, '96 14:14 HEDLUND ENGINEERING P.1/9 e4-04-139E 01:40R4 FROM Sunda Engineering, Inc. TO Eladb439 P.07 PONDNST 2.0 Detention Pond Network Analyeiw W. Walker October 1988 Preee ALT-0 for Orephe TITLE--> HEDLUND ENGINEERING PROJECT INPUT VARIABLES. . . . UNITS DAM 04/03./96 case label* POND 1 POND 2 watershed area acres 77.4 0 runoff coefficient - 0.53 0.53 pond surface area acres 0.7327 0.9021 pond mean depth feet 3.95 4.11 upstream pond p load lba/yr 0 131.45 . upstream pond outflow ac-ft/yr o 147 .68 OUTPUT VARIABLES outflow p load ibe/yr 12 1.45 76.915 outflow volume ac-ft/yr 147.68 147,68 outflow p cone ppb 327.49 191.62 pond removal t 49.619 41.489 total removal t 49.616_ . 70.52 ASSUMED EXPORT FACTORS period length yre 0.5 0.5 period precipitation inches 21.6 21.6 • runoff total p ppb 650 650 runoff ortho p/total p - 0,3 0.3 relative decay rate - 1 1 unit runoff in/yr 22.896 22.896 unit export lbe/ac-y 3.371 3.371 POND WATER'BUDGETS runoff ac-ft/yr 147.68 0 upstream pond ac-ft/yr 0 147 .68 total inflow ac..ft/yr 147.68 147.68 outflow ac-ft/yr 147.68 147.68 POND PHOSPHORUS BUDGETS runoff lb*/yr 260.9z 0 upstream pond ibe/yr 0 131,45 , total inflow lbe/yr 260.92 131 .45 net sedimentation lbe/yr 129.47 54.538 outflow lbs/yr 131.45 76.915 HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS pond volume acre-ft 2.8942 3.7076 vlawmo pond volume acre-ft 8.5463 0 relative volume inches 0.8466 #DIV/01 residence time year* 0.0196 0.0251 residence time days 7.1531 9.1637 overflow rate ft/yr 201.55 163.71 inflow phoe cones ppb 650.03 327.49 outflow phos cone ppb 327.49 191.62 p reaction rate - 1.9549 1.2118 • 1-rp - 0.5038 0.5851 . /0 • r _ . 1. r .. • • 7C-t SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES " � Wetland Services •' Wildlife / Vegetation Studies III • April 3, 1996 Mr.Michael Franzen ; ._ City Planner 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 _ ` s RE: Staring Lake Townhouse EAW;T.H..169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway • :: ` r NE 1/4,Section 22,T 116N,R22W,Eden Prairie,Hennepin County,Minnesota ,; 1 Dear Mr.Franzen: This letter is intended to provide additional information for the responses to Question 11 of the Staring • Lake EAW,This question asks'for a description of fish and wildlife resources'on or near the site and a • discussion of how they would be affected by the project In addition,this question addresses whether or , not there are any state-listed endangered,threatened,or special,concern species and other sensitive. ecological resources'on or near the site: • The description of fisheries habitat was based upon conversations with personnel at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(DNR). An employee in the DNR Division of Waters stated that the, ' ' lake would have low fishery habitat value due to its shallow water depth and low secchi disk-readings -_ • However,additional information from the DNR Division of Fisheries indicated that it may have some value for fish habitat The DNR has given Staring Lake a centrarchid rating,which means it contains bass _-% and panfish. ' i c< As stated in the EAW,no increase to existing nutrient runoff is expected from the proposed development; by project be pre-treated in wet sediment basins prior to discharge into and all runoff created the roect will Purgatory Creek which eventually flows into Staring Lake . ‘ k.�; r' Included in the EAW is a letter from the DNR stating that based upon a search of their database,-there are , no known occurrences of rare species or natural features within a one-mile radius of the site. As '1. _ r, discussed in the letter,the'database is updated,continually. Updates to the Minnesota list of rare,, ' threatened,and endangered species are made by legislative action,and the most up-to-date list is ; ' ' scheduled to be released this summer. Although the current list has been'in use for about 3 years -.4 ' • r searches'of the database include changes which will be made to the upcoming list. a ' c / / �J , • I' t as • '24000 Highway 7 Suite 125 • Shorewood,MN 55331 '' r } (612)474-0500(Office) • (612)474-0547(Fax) - f r '- ,,- �, '- 1 ' Ifyou have questions or require additional information regarding the questions SER,answered m the , T\ , W EAplease do not hesitate to call , t - Sincerely, r s y . > ; ' SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES c •�`jq -' - ✓ ., h - 1. j: \ ,. l_ y �.r (-AY, " , I ,� - [c. f ti '� , �4/ 1,,. y (' ;,, � ` fly J )J ' 2 Anne Ludvik - /--' _ , t c _ 1. D ( .r i Water ResOurces Specialist cc: Ron Bastyr _ s , -0 �� �� T )y "r`, =Y 1 } 1 �� Z.,ti i/ �- _ .r � C, < ' 1. w"J r- �. �- ' ), /. ( - I (.. \ _ ( ^,� _'� I - �' v '-N' „ I _ , ( ` \�-'_V ;'_ a Yr ,; ,` ( L ' ^� 7 ,V •J ,` a• t , -. ` I l'v, .' (`' 'I', 4 -I , ., L ' ✓ 1 `,� ( V -s'-� �_-,_� `,j 7:: �. /l s- `` ,v ' - r(1 ) '`;I s?' j'\= 4 ,i '.1- ' /) ' i ' 1 2- y .y' i Ci' � ` , k , � '� -ate y �. 1, c � ( tk 6_' J i-', - � ( ,�/bbb } r):A�� Ic.� ) -�c.) �. _,l, ,�1�.i, `1.:= � I �1 � 7.C1 Xu-( I � � �r" l - t y ` �, � �� ' C S)` it ( � � / °( � � � � • - �lY / , f- �' , 1, , o ,-� rrt. 1 V 'r -�� }` `=r. ` - �(j 1 �'- 1 . ;{` ' r�,_� --2 , t -r �,, � • '� , - -••i 1 r• I. _ -_/ �, S V A I L- ( U l ( �_., �/ vL T. • /. - < 1 4 y it j ' , a 1 f l ' k e, / '' ram L / , ' . a ‘ ' Cl � / i , , \`. 1, ti -r BENSHOOF & ASSOC . INC . TEL No . 612 832 9564 Apr 02 ,96 10 :49 t' .U2 • iciFBENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE.SUITE 500/EDINA. MN 55439/(612)832-9858/FAX(612)832-9564 April 2, 1996 REFER TO FILE; MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Franzen, City of Eden Prairie FROM: Jon Nlicheal WertjesellW127 RE: Response to Questions Raised by Planning Commission for Proposed Staring Lake Development This memo is to present a response to the traffic questions raise the Planning Commission regarding the proposed Staring Lake development. The proposed development site(former Douglas Corporation site)is bounded by TH 169 to the east, Staring Lake Parkway to the west, Anderson Lakes Parkway to the north, and the Hennepin Technical College to the south. This memo responds to the following four questions: 1. • Does the traffic study dated February 14, 1996 account for bus traffic to and from the schools along Staring Lake Parkway? 2. What are the traffic implications of not having access to Staring Lake Parkway? 3. What are the traffic implications of not having access to the Hennepin Technical College(HTC) access roadway? 4. What are the traffic implications of not having access to both Staring Lake Parkway and the-Hennepin Technical College(HTC)access roadway? Each of these questions is addressed next followed by the overall conclusions. • School Bus Traffic The Eden Prairie School system has two facilities located along Staring Lake Parkway, Eden Lake Elementary School and Oak Point Middle School. From discussions with School District staff, the following information was obtained for each of the schools as indicated in Table 1. 33 BENSHOOF & ASSOC . INC . TEL No . 612 832 9564 Apr 02 ,96 10 :49 P .03 Mr.Franzen -2- April 2, 1996 TABLE 1 SCHOOL INFORMATION • School Eden Lake Elementary l Oak Point Middle Start Time 9:30 a.m. 7:50 a.m. End Time 3:50 E m. 2:20 p.m. Student Population Area School District's SE corner Entire School District Number of Buses 16 27 Bus Distribution 16 cast on Anderson Lakes 7 south on Staring Lake 12 west on Anderson Lakes 8 cast on Anderson Lakes The proposed residential development will add approximately 650 daily trips and 65 peak hour trips on Staring Lake Parkway between Anderson Lakes Parkway and the proposed site access roadway. These peak hour trips will be predominantly outbound in the a.m. peak hour(7:00-8:00 a.m.)and tnbound in the p.m. peak hour(4:30-5:30 p.m.). The existing school bus trips are included in the February 14th traffic forecasts because these forecasts were based on the existing traffic on the roadway system. As indicated in Table 1, the peak periods for bus activity, school start and end times,do not correlate to the residential peak hour traffic periods with the exception of the start time for Oak Point Middle school. The 27 buses entering and exiting the site are not expected to be significantly impacted by the additional 65 development trips added to Staring Lake Parkway. No access to Staring Lake Parkway If no access is provided to Staring Lake Parkway, then the following changes and traffic implications are expected: • Access for the development would be reduced from three locations to two locations. This access reduction would be most significant for the club homes located along the private driveway. Also, emergency vehicle access would be reduced. • The 600 daily trips which arc expected to use the development's private driveway to Staring Lake Parkway would instead use the proposed Columbine Road to Anderson Lakes Parkway. • This shift in traffic would result in 150 additional daily trips on Anderson Lakes Parkway and an increase in the turning movements at the Anderson Lakes Parkway and Columbine Road intersection. • Minor increases in traffic delays arc expected at the Columbine Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection. This intersection's level of service is expected to operate within acceptable standards. No access to the Hennepin Technical College(RTC) access roadway If no access is provided to HTC access roadway,then the following changes and traffic implications are expected: BENSHOOF & ASSOC . INC . TEL No . 612 832 9564 Apr 02 ,96 10 :50 P .04 Mr. Franzen -3- April 2, 1996 • Access for the development would be reduced from three locations to two locations. This access reduction would be most significant for the homes located along the southern part of the site as well as trips to and from the south on TH 169. Also, emergency vehicle access would be reduced. • The proposed development's remaining major street system (Columbine Road/private roadway loop between Anderson Lakes and Staring Lake Parkways)would become either a public or private roadway system. • Access for HTC would be reduced to and from the City.s existing and proposed TH 169 frontage road system(Columbine Road). Trips to and from HTC to the major center area would have only one option,TH 169. • The 950 daily trips which are expected to use proposed Columbine Road south to the HTC access would instead use the Columbine Road to Anderson Lakes Parkway (800 trips) and the private roadway to Staring Lake Parkway (150 trips). Under this scenario, the proposed Columbine Road just south of Anderson Lakes Parkway is expected to increase from 3,300 daily trips to 4,100 daily trips. • This shift in traffic would result in a seven to eight percent increase (from 14,750 to 15,850 daily trips) in the 1999 daily traffic forecasts on Anderson Lakes Parkway between the TH 169 and Columbine Road. • Intersection turning movements would increase at the Anderson Lakes Parkway and Columbine Road intersection, Anderson Lakes Parkway and TH 169 intersection, and the Staring Lake Parkway and private access roadway intersection. Increases in traffic delays are expected at all three intersections. . These intersections' levels of service are expected to operate within acceptable standards. No access to both Staring Lake Parkway and the HTC access roadway If no access is provided to both Staring Lake Parkway and the HTC access roadway, then the following changes and traffic implications are expected: • Access for the development would be reduced from three locations to one location. This access reduction would be significant and result in a large cul- de-sac serving the 788 residential units. • Emergency vehicle access would required two access options be provided to a development in the event that one access is blocked. • Access for HTC would be reduced to and from the City's existingand proposed TH 169 frontage road system(Columbine Road). Trips to and HTC to the major center area would have only one option, TH 169. • The 1550 daily trips which are expected to use Columbine Road south to the HTC access and Staring Lake Parkway would instead use the only access via the proposed Columbine Road to Anderson Lakes Parkway. Under this scenario, the proposed Columbine Road just south of Anderson Lakes Parkway is expected to increase from 3,300 daily trips to 5,000 daily trips. -1S BENSHOOF 8 ASSOC . INC . TEL No . 612 832 9564 Apr 02 ,96 10 :51 P .05 Mr. Franzen -4- April 2, 1996 • Similar to the above HTC access closure question, the shift in traffic would result in an seven to tight percent increase Morn 14,750 to 15,850 daily trips) in the 1999 daily traffic forecasts on Anderson Lakes Parkway between the TH 169 and Columbine Road. • Intersection turning movements would increase at the Anderson Lakes Parkway and Columbine Road intersection and Anderson Lakes Parkway and TH 169 intersection. Increases in traffic delays.are expected at these two intersections. These intersections' levels of service are expected to operate within acceptable standards. Overall Conclusions Based on the above traffic analyses, the following overall traffic conclusions are as follows: - • The traffic study dated February 14, 1996 does account for bus traffic to and from the schools along Staring Lake Parkway. No adverse impacts are expected for the school buses or the development trips. • The proposed development without access to Staring Lake Parkway,Hennepin Technical College access roadway, or both would compromise the access needs for the development as well as adjacent areas, and would add more trips to Anderson Lakes Parkway. Removal of one or both of these proposed site access locations arc not recommended. (p QPP� NT .y United States Department of the InteriorNommmommm N1rWw rammes h II i ir g a= 111 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Niummimmumm ems, mommommem Twin Cities Field Office o� Ill �4RCH 3 NISI‘ 4101 East 80th Street Bloomington,Minnesota 55425.1665 IN REPLY REFER TO FWS/AFWE-TCFO n (. Mr. Michael Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Franzen: • This responds to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Starring Lake, a residential development to be constructed on 90 acres adjacent to SH 169, Anderson Lakes Parkway., and Starring Lake Parkway. The location of the project is the NE1/4 of Section 22, T116N, R22W in Hennepin County. The proposed development is for 788 residential units to be constructed primarily on existing cropland. It will also include a NURP stormwater pond at the west end of the development. The wetland delineated at the southeast corner of the proposed development will not be directly impacted by the project. We recommend that a buffer strip at least 25 feet of natural vegetation be maintained to protect the function of this wetland. No mowing should be allowed within the buffer area. At the west end next to Purgatory Creek, a NURP stormwater storage pond has been proposed. We recommend that the more than 200 feet of sloped ground east of the pond be planted to a tallgrass prairie grass mixture of big bluestem and Indian grass. This restored prairie should not be chemically treated and mowed only once a year during the later summer after seed production. This sloped buffer area will help to protect the storm water pond, Purgatory Creek, and Starring Lake from sedimentation. In addition, we recommend the planting of another 10 feet of trees along the west edge of the stormwater pond to further protect Purgatory Creek. Tree species should include floodplain species, such as silver maple, eastern cottonwood, and green ash, that can tolerate periodic inundation from Purgatory Creek. Because of the location and type of activity proposed, this project is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. This precludes the need for further action on this project as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. However, if the project is modified or new information becomes available which indicates that listed species may be affected, consultation with this office should be reinitiated. Sincerely, • Ly n M. Lewis Field Office Supervisor -7/7 14 MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY March 22, 1996 Mr. Michael Franzen City Planner 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Franzen: Re: Staring Lake at T.H. 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway S/2 NE/4 S22, T116, R22, Eden Prairie, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 96-1233 Thank you for providing this office a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above-referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given to the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act and through the process outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1600. The response to question 26a may be premature. Please see our letter of 29 January 1996 to Mr. Mike DeRuyter (copy attached). Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Sec- tion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Pro- cedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency. Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at 612-296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, (—D''"-A\/\'"' " &%1D BrittaLBloombergeputy State Historic Preservation Officer BLB:dmb cc: Mike DeRuyter, Svoboda Associates V. 345 KELLOGG BOULEVARD WEST/SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55102-1906/TELEPHONE:612-296-6126 MAR-22-96 FRI 12 :033 PM WINCO LANDSCAPE 612 433 2998 P. 02 Sheetl . KEY 'COMMON NAME 'SIZE 1-QTY. TOTAL CAL IN._, A SUMMIT 12.5"BB 1264 •322.5 . B FLOWERING CRAB f 1.25"#10 CONT. 211 263.75 C FIREDANCE MAPLE 12.5"BB w, 51 . 127.5 D� GREENSPIRE LINDEN 12.5"�8 901 _225 E •PATMORE ASH _ 2.5"BB 60I 150 F RIVER BIRCH CLUMP 10'BB 271 67.5 GBLACK HILLS SPRUCE 'EBB 104 i 260 G BLACK HILLS SPRUCE $'BB 39: 130 G BLACK HILLS SPRUCE _ 10'MM 70! _ 292 rG BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 12'MM 27T 135 H COLORADO SPRUCE j8'BB 98; w 245 H COLORADO SPRUCE 18'BB ! 48' 16_0 H COLORADO SPRUCE 110'MM ! 78 325 H_ ,COLORADO SPRUCE 12'MM 27 j_ 135 ' ,I NORWAY PINE 18'BB 21 62.5 I NORWAY PINE • 18'BB 1 311 103 I NORWAY PINE !10'MM 207 84 I NORWAY PINE 12'MM 1 i r 55 J NORTHWOODSMAPLE 12.5"BB 89 j 222.5 K -IMPERIAL LOCUST - ^_J2"BB 561 112 L GREENSPIRE LINDEN_ '2"BB . 32[ 64 M PATMORE ASH ' _ 4"BB 1251 500 N PIN OAK 3"BB 501 150 O •AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE —13"BB 50 �u Y 150 rP IAUTUM BRILL. SERVICEBERRY 6'BB 1 30! 45 • Q AMUR MAPLE CLUMP 18'BB 1 501 100 R SKYLINE LOCUST 4"BB —. 201 80 S _„REDMOND LINDEN 14"BB , 60 . 200 _T IGREENSPIRE LINDEN 14"BB I - 751 300 T'TOTAL PROPOSED CALIPER INCHES ON SITE 5058.25 Is TOTAL SQ_F_T. BUILDING SURFACE 729,686 •SQ. FT. DIVIDED BY 320/REQUIRED CAL. IN 2280 I . 1•CAL. INCHES PROVIDED ON ORIGINAL PLAN. ; 2467 I I. ADDITIONAL REQUIRED CALIPER INCHES I _—_2400 ' REPLACEMENT TREE CALIPER INCHES I 1 '*TOTAL REQUIRED CAL. INCHES-�- --- I . 87 5054 • • • Rage 1 SFBENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE,SUITE 500/EDINA, MN 55439/(612)832-9858/FAX(612)832-9564 March 14, 1996 REFER TO FILE: 96-04 MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Franzen and Al Gray,� City of Eden Prairie FROM: Jon Micheal Wertees \ ,`` RE: Traffic Study for Proposed Pulte/Comp Plan Development This memo is to present a summary of the traffic study analyses and recommendations for the proposed combined Pulte/Comp Plan development. The proposed development site (former Douglas Corporation site)is bounded by TH 169 to the east, Staring Lake Parkway to the west, Anderson Lakes Parkway to the north, and the Hennepin Technical College to the south. The purpose of this study is to identify the traffic implications of a two phase development which would included both Pulte and Comp Plan land uses. For this traffic study, the phase 1 site plan area would be the identified Pulte development and phase 2 area would be the estimated Comp Plan development. This memo includes the following five pages: Conclusions and Recommendations, Tables 1 &2,Figure 1, Figure 2, and Table 3. For the Conclusions and Recommendations, I have asterisked the two bullet points which are different from the previous February 14 report(Pulte develops the entire site). If you have any questions about the this traffic study, please contact me. • Benshoof&Associates,Inc. 7301 Ohms Lane Suite 500 Edina, MN 55439 TABLE 1 SITE TRIP GENERATION PHASE 1 AREA (ONE HALF OF PROPOSED PULTE HOMES PLAN) Land Use I Acres I Density 1 Size ( Daily Trips I PM Peak Trips Club Homes —15 -y6 units/acre 92 units 548 52 Court Homes —11 —10 units/acre 112 units 725 72 Carriage Homes —13 —16 units/acre 216 units 1404 140 Total Trips Based on Pulte Plan 2677 264 PHASE 2 AREA (ONE HALF OF CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) Land Use I Acres I Density I Size I Daily Trips I PM Peak Trips Low/Medium Residential 7.5 10 units/acre 75 units 443 41 Medium/High Residential 10 10 units/acre 200 units 1300 126 Office 7.5 0.3 FAR. 98,010 sq.ft. . 1382 183 Office 20 0.3 FAR 261,360 sg ft. 2901 377 Total Trips Based on Comp Plan 6026 727 Total Trips Based on Combined Pulte/Comp Plan Development 8703 991 O TABLE 2 1 a " TRIP DISTRIBUTION V`�l (� Direction Residential Office,4 1.4 ��' Percentage Percentage North TH 169 60 35 South TH 169 g 15 (L12, East Anderson Lakes Parkway 10 15 P West Anderson Lakes Parkway _ 17 — 20,(Q' ‘ West Staring Lake Parkway 3 10 North Columbine Road 2 5 _ Total 100 100 l 1 • '�,�^�/ - \ Sl IILE LA rc t�'/ s ... ..... W \ , , ,.• t kr,�K TIL 7,500/8950/10,6001 �i CHESTNUT A. j SARREL zVAti 4. lc a 34,500/31,800/36,000 `�i' I PRAIRIE p 4 . SNANN'JI CT. C TQVER "CrM1 �• C / A(/ti� 1B i�l• �� :— LA_CARMIDY r'9 DR. / ►A �, S.`Z LQ S<O� �'S•RR. �,,,� —� VCSTR! e4-4 !:-'i n ; CT. .-c QM L 01. TOM !' VT, 'DT CT e Q�. 'pp > 44 �.., ' cgs EN LA K CI `Pc.ittsQ Y1EA CT. f�" L .' y A na na/5,700 ,L. .lit R-��Cults • .,,, l Q4 _- ---- -- A. 5�., • �_a C Ai. -`7,400/8,850J9,950 CO' t • 1 Pa • h VATEO-OP RD1 IPRCSCRVL BLVD. _' ` at'...4 12,35012,800/3,3501 __ C0,000/11,95&16,450 LJ Ina1nal12501 _ i+ Staring PRiNCETON.. TyE " Q na/na/1750 , Loam Lake HENNEPIN Al SKIP CT. TECHNICAL , Daum COLLEGE a 2,000/23,900/24,900 J4I ' ra d at r 0 TR. Ad 6 -.-----s.-- /N...........*".' Flying Cloud Airport j69 KEY 1993 EXISTING VOLUMES N 171999 WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT SCALE - 1999 WITH PULTE/COMP PLAN XX/XX/XX DEVELOPMENT 0 2000' i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE 1 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED EXISTING AND PULTE/COMP PLAN FUTURE DAILY BENSHOOF 8 ASSOCIATES,INC. DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES TRANSPORTATIONENOINEERSANDPLANNER8 2,? i„ Z °' P $ pi m o 2 D¢ a* Hi E-' 1, I l.' 79/ ANDERSON LAKES PKWY Ly t_ 110/120/120 E-- 527/574/827 4-- 238/269/301 42/46/46 -•--t W 21/23/163 198/216/438 r 47/51/51 429/468/497 —i 247/269/355 —•* 0/0/64 --4, 910 [ 1 I I 40II- won Ne ,, R 1 : r PORCLP3NE —• 4.4 ?` i' u....", .7 qME L. TO, J t o `. a l - s cr 4. a�. 41 >gall, <4 i'# Ito EN t �EK /S' 4.0 EY cl•ip h. ' g 44it 47 COLS Yt.1 la > OERSON C3T1i ,'I g.u ICIOR(--- IC'. opc C.A `C ti Mtcl• LA,rr�� `b4jC. K 4, '�'CS Q� q.--0 0_ m R!! E' h VATCR-DPI R9 v^, i ILPRESERVI 91.V0. x OS tr N 14' hi 1 , J SMStaring PR1NCf7pa , fin Q Lake HENNEPIN RISKY' ET. TECHNICAL + , !wow COLLEG $ r j;E TN° 10 el ro �' 1lE06. - 4 •r a'II 4' ix I �a a � 0. VO-TECH ACCESS �. d ,e/ 114 ') 25/27/60—•t 0/0/0---> 13/14/80 1 69 1 tri E g i KEY 1996 EXISTING VOLUMES N 1999 WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT SCALE 1999 WITH PULTE/COMP PLAN XX/XXIXX DEVELOPMENT 0 2000' J FIGURE 2 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED EXISTING AND PULTE/COMP PLAN FUTURE P.M. PEAK WBENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATIONENOINEERSANDPLANNERS HOUR VOLUMES TABLE 3 P.M.PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1999 1999 Traffic 1996 Without With Intersection Control Existing Developments Developments TH 169&Anderson Lakes C D D Parkway Signal 24.4 28.2 34.7 TH 169&Henn.Tech. A A B College Access Signal 5.0 5.3 7.0 Anderson Lakes Parkway& Stop Sign/ A A B Columbine Road Future Signal F=SB left F=SB left 10.1 Traffic signal capacity analysis results are presented as a Level of Service A through F designation followed by a number denoting the average vehicle delay in seconds for the entire intersection. Level of service D is the identified acceptable threshold established for this Metropolitan area. For example, "C, 24.4"indicates level of service C and an average vehicle delay of 24.4 seconds for the intersection. For the Columbine Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection, which is stop sign controlled, the level of service is A for all approaches except the southbound left turn movement which is at level of service F (F=SB left). A traffic signal would be warranted at the Anderson Lakes Parkway and Columbine Road intersection with the combined Pulte/Comp Plan development. Benshoof&Associates,Inc. 7301 Ohms Lane Suite 500 Edina, MN 55439 xq 7 March, 1996 To: Mike Franzan From: Ron Bastyr Mike Following are responses to staff comments on the Staring Lake project. Item 1 -According to Douglas Corp., Chris Enger said no additional concept required. Item 2 -By Benshoof Item 4 - See attached comments by Pulte Homes Item 6- See attached comments by Pulte Homes Item 7-Neighborhood meeting set for March 13 Item 9 - We are working with state to get temporary access. We would request that Columbine not be completed in total until second phase. - Curb coming into Anderson Lakes Pkwy shown to be 90 degrees. - One side of street in club home area shown as fire lane. - radius on corners in Village Home area increased per fire marshall Item 13 - One sidewalk shown in club home area-unit setback increased to 30 feet on sidewalk side of street. - Sidewalk&trail along Columbine shown on plan Item 14 - Retaining walls as shown on plan are being held to a maximum of 4 feet. •---• • • •-•- . _.----. ----..--. ----::--.:•-••--- . .. ...-. _._ .... __. .... ...__ --....... •--• 3 0 i . 78th sriznET .....!-Li-_-:—•••!_i"-.....,-.7.7--_---,-----\ Ir.-7-r .._ .. .. 7.--- ,..... ) _ t 7-7---••C\ -----. 11'-''‘ • :....7. 1s.,•`‘15/!::i.„,...s.;;..l - . :.‘ -f?,.;.-.. a..7..,• -71:::7.-7=—4):•.77 r-- _ 868., . , • "\.`\-i 3 t:.-••:-L.'''7. si.!,.....i. .3,5:7,XP,.:41:7•.:5:-84;198 8.,:.0..-....2—.....:,...,,.4.,. ; .,...7.7::.:1•-......i.c.i;".7....7;-.C.;;;;:,..4t..-,..::::...„.....,:ii ...,7.: ‘‘ /./ \ I I • 7 cL;,...:q;?7,..-.-.. .,.!..;;.;, 11; I. r • , 1,.,,. i,..-.......7 _......-•e:: •••••:1:c-'• -•• , .*.ny,-1—.::::-,•.%::-•:.1;7•74.-- r.z4.(1:•:, " 4" .'• ,-V.,:s•-:•-ft- -14•1*: - 5i,. f . ::••1.:1: ••' .. -411:4,1.3%_,P.14i'ff>,z4 ----_-_-_—:---'.' '- • %., ... • : 3-,.,( 1 • - *j•W.".. :,...le:..Tet•-•-;,,::'4, -"••••••--- . ,..t. •••.-----. -1.4.1., /.7C.•:.:::•.•1,800.. ‘7,:::......--....•-•:-.,-,, .4 '• • i ••• -. . . . -.- it VI)-:'ittif.11 iix.,;,....-.,:-,:•,";i1•:. ..41:1...4.•::-.7.1....t..?,.•;--i'Sirrf,i •. .• -.•"' • ...) . ..- • .eG ' . . ••...c:: . "•'•-• :CA..6\•*/;•;•:-•!"•'..---'-..„..,--- • - •._ . --• ' 00 ..•:-.." - —.=:s-V.SE-'"='!c•-••-•'3 •.— • /all --"/ .4,:71••••.TrolL - -. . " • • \ 1 i ? ., , ' k i . X : •• • r. i .fA,14 / / ,......" 1 1 i...4g7` •-• . ,• ..k. .; 6. -, • ..... 0 . --op, ..,4-4411t .4 ‘ %, • s.. ...,s,;:, 1.4_4 .. ---- II- , , „.... ' ' ...V:• .., id rsiry . 1177 A•kh....• , . .. .. I •,-• ''' . • • .I • .. I ...._....A. •;26,. j " **7!(.2-1. r- --- - - • i,-.,4,.f/./ /—** a' V.WY;k7.... 1/ :-" --/ ' ..\. " -• -::• "•":7: .' "..1•••- • . /. 4 , \ ,, . , ,,,. 7 ..i•„Sr . i • -• . '' - 1 ..' ...'..• • . •.!..1 . '• • I ! ; grA .\k AI,.., i1,4 .: .:.7.!.• 4.i;" ,...,--•:.- .r-' , , '.• k k _,,,,x.‘ ,.1 4--'41 `1.iktt. e•1 ,ji/ ./ , : .., ..r.• / '.:•.I.1 • 4-1,..j-:•,, .:e., -:,..•,!;.. • ;•'." . ' / \*-• \ \ 'MA \Aik.....„.,‘ ,....„,:r.:.-:.," . --F,..,.. .4, , :, , .--7.,...„... .. .1- ----- k ‘'• ‘• .. 11.10v ,• r, .::• ••••:•L'••1..3•:!i•,„„— ./ 4.1,, -. /...4%rti'. / /,/./.. .4111111 • • '. \ . \Ily A :•\% •'‘'IS....:a. ,-- , .• ,.,. Ay,7,..,:,•-,,, ..• / ., — . :.-\•......\.\‘.......\\ ..4k• .'••,. • - -.•:::....1.7 ---.:- .E,.,::::•: '. 7.- ••-.4%,..),/,7/;." / \ • . -...„... , ..‘, , i ... ..•.,',•tl• s - ‘ ' 1 t\ ' ' •'4 'I, \ :..i'j • "----:--::.:- •••1'•••• j.'''.' • •••• • ' ,/ . .. ...\ .1.'..‹. • ...• ...• / / ....--fy• I•9 • .. • s•‘ ',..••"...••:.••• \ -• *!.•)••. \., „‘,•• s • r ,•..• "• 1 •• . \..,s-\ s •.„ .. . • . 0.;@,•:,•:•.• ,siz.:--..........--.....-- -//: '••. • • /•. /r• .... ., .„ X•„.••. '.,. ‘ \ • .• &A:I.,.......:.2 .•'..:-.••••-•— .. . --:...:'. • .•• • . -...-.7:•../.• r: •••• .:-... . '• \ \• •• . • ' •. '•••••.''':••-• "7:.%•:I."-•••-•-• •. •• • •", / /,..•• •:•" 1;/...f.:-1•,..•••". A./ .• ..•••;.7'•. *•,. -\\\ \\.: •••-', .. -..•-. -p..........:.-;,. ::::•-•.:74• %. •.. • -. .......z. • /// b4st*:%-".•••••4‘i • - / • r• i• --, .1_ \\ '•\\\"..*- 6o- .: •••• • - ___„igir;/ ''1 I.0:-/N--: - !v.; :/' \-- \ ,...' , ••--:::-.. - .,, , . /I .. -./.. "A'. -, /• ' -- *--'..t.7.:, - • - •\- -s.''- - - -`- -N ' ,-.',1,1' . - •• ' ,./ i ,,.., / \ s• \\V\ ---.. -•-—- .N,, ,rt•-•_:,.1.:11 •. ,• -/eP/' ,f4, :: , \'•‘\-.\&11\ ,.oa••-•!_:;p..;:9.:''..'s,i 4.:.t.:..1::1.;--.11/*. - /1/ - \'°•,', / , .3,.\\_. \ ...,vow. ,,.„,4,,c,rp.....,..r.:_...i ,\:•-• • • •: , ...),1-./'' 7;),...7 it. , w ,...„• 4 ..-: _ _ .4 ,,.. /A • A•••••:,V , •...1......, ‘ . .4..•,NVO•r,?!..f.l.f t:..7 ;‘...,.., ••••*.../ / , ,./ ' : f.. 1. • • , .. \ ...•. • .....6.4,41;:‘,“ .ig ' i, ..• • ...\ \ V • . tik: • r I .fel • • ( •7;'.: 4re2, i'• •_'`; .k "ON... • :':•.7.:111. • •••91., )i i ,1',A ,_ ,•"•_' • ...=.. ..-.Y.1.1! \ '.i.4l• i:—/.141•?1 • - t••:."4 •:•••:-;;•: VOW, /„' • ( 177,P,14,.;C. '••- ) ... " ,•*. : 1,.....,,:i.... i es...,,..•:-.-•:•••••..xt,•-•i..:•:.:nri...rf.•6.442.1.........\, ,:, Qi.t..... .....,.. ......,„ ,i,. .V: 1!..)• '0' • •- 77-.V.A.,.-4' N')„, svp • .. --s4"-":-.:::-..----- -iii•--nimmoligr:--4,-- i .. •••• A 1 ,i _lc_ • /- ..._.., . Zi• ..?. r. •,,- A • ---• ..-....------ .-....—z -- ---...„ lit . ,•-•-...:=---j,_ --m-=—____ ___---7.• - -• - : • \ , i • • . . . -- 1 17 E3 \‘‘ • . • • • . • N ,• . W6 �\ l lrecons,. . . • / ilittk\ .':.:. \'',. \• 1,4k ' ' A N . 690 ilik, zd....,..,f. .. . - - .LL - . L.. , vi2:*. 1 . i, f{'a) � • 1 \� • '\ •`�. •" `r_ ifs 1• \.,' ' \ ........ . � OG �I /+ c ono t+Gy/ e �`a f WIMP WM/ OM \ •.. ,A \ 88 1 I i ., ` . Iy,. �,n\ • % w, % -. •.I ��,o _ \ '\ \ ( .. A.s\ ',. I.. .4:1tVoro ..:!:. . (:‘,.,/ '471 .' //// I;a 1::.;.//ei'._,.(1.''...f'd f••;.,'° .1.6•1"64-.• • .. ":•• e � • \\,„ aA S • ) rtj 1 it drp `_ /•II' . / A H , ,• 16 I • EnD.•ain•Coniro)\Aa ,,/• ' 150 b�rnnmlamed 171,7 ly. �\ \ I f ca73l�vc)i \\._,/.• Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corporation March 4, 1996 Mr. Mike Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Mr. Franzen: In response to your letter of February 20, 1996 regarding Staring Lake, I would like to respond to Item#6 Architectural Diversity. We have three different products proposed for the site with various layouts available per building pad on our one-level Club Homes. Additionally, the Court Home product will have instances where the roof lines will be broken due to grade differentials on the site. The Village Home product is separated by Columbine Road which is a barrier that will stop the eye from including all three product series together. Additionally, we have a minimum of six (6) color packages in Courts and Village Homes that will eliminate the monotonous appearance that other builders present on their multifamily products. In our Club Home we offer not only six (6) color packages, but six (6) brick colors to increase the number of packages to thirty-six (36)! With these variations in the structure of the buildings, as well as the color changes, we are confident the community has adequate architectural diversity. Respectfully, PULTE HOMES OF ESOTA CORP. 1 " Th d J. Standke Presi i t P.c.: O.C. Ron Bastyr F:\FILES\ADM\DSTERLAND-LOI\S L-DI V RS.DOC A 1355 Mendota Heights Road., Suite 300, Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112 °•• ^••� Phone: (612) 452-5200 • Fax: (612) 452-5727 • License #0001371 Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corporation March 4, 1996 The Honorable Dr. Jean Harris and City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Mayor and City Council: _ We are requesting permission to receive a grading permit an,'set an informational trailer on the Staring Lake site after pre-plat is received. In working with the City staff on this property, we feel this request—has merit in order to efficiently move the process along. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, PULTE HOMES OF I SOTA CORP. . /f TIio a . Standke Pr i nt P.c.: O.C. Ron Bastyr F:'FILES\ADM\DSTEN.AND-LOIFSTLK-REQ.DOC 29 la 1355 Mendota Heights Road., Suite 300, Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112 Phone: (612) 452-5200 • Fax: (612) 452-5727 • License #0001371 ItMetropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future March 13, 1996 Mr. Michael D. Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: City of Eden Prairie Staring Lake TownhnuL.ses Plan Amendment Metropolitan Council District 4 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 16230-3 Dear Mr. Franzen: The Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the Staring Lake Townhouses plan amendment received on February 23, 1996. The plan amendment proposes to reguide 88 acres of land within the MUSA from high density housing and office to high density housing for the construction of 788 townhouses. Eden Prairie has established Livable-Community goals to provide.-additional units of affordable aDu life-cycle housing_as well as to increase overall community residential density:. The proposed development will make progress toward meeting the city's negotiated goals as the 788 townhomes will provide for life-cycle housing(diversity)in the community;seventy-seven percent or.608 of the units are-considered affordable and priced less than $115,000. The project density of 8.9 units/acre, however, is slightly less than the 10 unit/acre community goal. Council transportation staff agrees with the plan amendment conclusions that the change in land use from residential and office to strictly residential will cause fewer peak hour trips and should result in less potential traffic impact on Flying Cloud Drive(TH 169). Given Eden Prairie's relatively high ratio of jobs-per-household it is anticipated that a higher than average share of the vehicle trips generated by the project will be dispersed within the city. The Council is also reviewing the Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)for this project. The EAW states that the western border of the project site lies within the 100-year floodplain of Purgatory Creek. The project proposes to construct approximately one-half of a 1.5 acre stormwater treatment basin serving the 88-acre site within the floodplain boundaries. The EAW also states that no soil material will be added to the area during this excavation and that no reduction in floodplain capacity is anticipated. Council staff recommends that the stormwater basin be relocated outside of Purgatory Creek floodplain to reduce the risk of over-bank floodwater intrusion into the stormwater treatment basin which would result in increased repair and maintenance costs for the basin. . We..have determined that the.proposed amendment, has, no potential..impact:upon, any..of:_the. metropolitan.system plans._$ecause..the proposed amendment appears;unlikely,to.affect policies and. plans in other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council will waive further qV 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer March 13 , 1996 Page 2 Michael D. Franzen review and comment on this amendment. Therefore, the city may place the amendment into effect immediately. The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information submission form will be appended to the city's plan in the Council's files. This concludes the Council's review. Sincerel ...."1-411111111111rida Thomas C. McElveeen Deputy Director, Housing, Development & Implementation cc: Julius C. Smith, Metropolitan Council District 4 Lynda Voge, Audrey Dougherty, Carl Ohm, Jim Larsen, Bob Davis, Council Staff Ruth Ann Sobnosky, MnDOT of Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corporation February 29, 1996 Dear Neighbor: Please be advised we will conduct a meeting on Wednesday. March 13. 1996 in the Heritage Room I at City Hall. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.. The purpose of the meeting is to acquaint you with our development plans for the property on the West side of Route 169 and South of Anderson Lakes Parkway. We hope to see you there. Sincerely, PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA CORPORATION STill/1 e Presid P.c.: City of Eden Prairie Planning Department F:FILES\ADM\DSTEAHOA-MISCWEIGSTLK.DOC A 1355 Mendota Heights Road., Suite 300, Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112 ........... Phone: (612) 452-5200 • Fax: (612) 452-5727 • License #0001371 �' • INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed minor comprehensive plan amendment. Minor amendments include, but are not limited to: 1. Changes to the future land use plan where the affected area is small or where the proposed future land use will result in minor changes in metropolitan service demand. 2. Changes (land trades or additions) in the urban service area involving less than 40 acres. 3. Minor changes to plan goals and policies that do not change the overall thrust of the comprehensive plan. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff report was prepared for the Planning Commission or City Council, please attach it as well. Communities submitting regular plan amendments may wish to enter this form or a reasonable facsimile into their word processing menu for ease in preparation of the form. Send plan amendments to: John Rutford, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council,Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul,MN 55101-1634 I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Sponsoring governmental unit City of Eden Prairie Name of local contact person Michael D. Franzen Address 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Telephone 949-8487 Name of Preparer(if different from contact person) Date of Preparation February 13, 1996 B. Name of Amendment Staring Lake Townhouses Description/Summary: 788 townhouses. C. Please attach the following: 1. Five copies of the proposed amendment. 2. A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change. 3. The current plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendment. 4. The proposed plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendment. D. What is the official local status of the proposed amendment? (Check one or more as appropriate.) 3 Acted upon by planning commission(if applicable) on Approved by governing body,contingent upon Metropolitan Council review. Considered, but not approved by governing body on X Other E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts,watershed districts, etc.)affected by the change have been sent copies of the plan amendment, if any, and the date(s) copies were sent to them. School District 172 H. LAND USE A. Describe the following, as appropriate: 1. Size of affected area in acres 88 2. Existing land use(s)Rural -guided high density and office 3. Proposed land use(high density) 4. Number and type of residential dwelling units involved 788 5. Proposed density 8.9 du/acre 6. Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings III. METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE A. Population, Household and Employment Forecasts Will the proposed amendment affect the city's population, household or employment forecasts for 2000, or any additional local staging contained in the original plan? X No/Not Applicable Yes. Describe effect. B. Changes to Urban Service Area Boundary Will the proposed amendment require a change to the boundary of the community's urban service area? X No/Not Applicable Yes. Under I.C., a map should be attached to show the proposed change. C. Changes to Timing and Staging of Urban Service Area qL Will the proposed amendment require a change to the timing and staging of development within the urban service area? X No/Not Applicable Yes. Under I.C., a map should be attached to show the proposed change. D. 1. Will the proposed amendment result in a change in the projected sewer flows for the community? X No/Not Applicable Yes. Indicate the expected change. Total Year 2000/2010 flow for community based on existing plan million gallons/day Total 2000/2010 flow for community based on plan amendment _million gallons/day 2. If your community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor, indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment. 3. Will flows be diverted from one interceptor service area to another? X No/Not Applicable Yes. Indicate the change and volumes (mgd.) involved. E. Transportation 1. Will the proposed amendment result in an increase in trip generation for the affected area? X No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect. 2. Does the proposed amendment contain any changes to the functional classification of roadways? X No. Yes. Describe which roadways F. Aviation Will the proposed amendment affect the function of a metropolitan airport or the compatibility of land uses with aircraft noise? X No/Not Applicable Yes. Describe effect. G. Recreation Open Space Will the proposed amendment have an impact on existing or future federal, state or regional recreational facilities? X No/Not Applicable Yes. Describe effect. H. Housing Will the proposed amendment affect the community's ability or intent to achieve the long-term goals for low-and moderate-income and modest-cost housing opportunities contained in the existing plan? x No/Not Applicable Yes. Describe effect. Water Resources 1. Does the plan amendment affect a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protected wetland? If yes, describe type of wetland affected and show location on a map. Yes X No 2. Will the wetland be protected? Yes. Describe How. N/A No. Describe why not. 3. Will the plan amendment result in runoff which affects the quality of any surface water body? If yes, identify which ones. x Yes. Staring Lake.. No. 4. Will the water body be protected? X Yes. Describe how. Stormwater treated to NURP standards —No. Explain why not. IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Official Controls Will the proposed amendment require a change to zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls? X No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect. 07 _ _ CITY OF MINNETONNA ...-------,— ----- 010.„ COF ' / —7/sit 1\ — i3_, . • ....._ c., r it iIn tt. .,-.% li'', i4:c —Ar,• �- ` 01 ,.., fzIIIIPP,PP'" , tl"gP. 4 lb , . ... , :rs,.._ ...de 0 Ap. .... . . 1 0 am i.flF11A1 �.' it �^ ,I,II x II `� 1 RM � ,46, etip, . \ ® i4. -1 1 II 9 •_;., e ;I Ftr ® —� ,t AO � ..-r-•,._____ <• \.---.1 0 Milk : 041111' i _ _------yr Alir 'JO p rEr Lair \ I 141 40°111 lc '-.44 ,.,RD , , 1 C:11)Cit; " ''''' 7 . .. A f 1-4 4 Ii \ ` Illari�D oM ....+.''''Ntlimpl jilliir \ f ' 4,4 \.... ( , _........„: toil‘k RM F NE V?�� *`"- _ .ems k F. ,.,*,, '•' :('''',''i:'. r-...„..,....„). ___ �►!'^�� I LAND USE MAP — \\ `• Approved by City Counclk 10-OS RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC SHORELAND MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS Q -low Density 0-2.0 Dwelling Unit./Am. - P -Pt101k Open Sp0oe/POrkIFbodptata NE-Natural Environment waiters a NB Medium D.nolty 2.5-10 Dwelling Units,Awe ♦ -clxrt m Wall. /c. .t.ry RD-age ..Development Wad RMr Pre-Existing P.U.D.Medium Residential To Be Retained CS/F-City Eavvlp..,FNe Station GD-Gonna Ow.bpmerU waiters 11. RH-Riga Doalty to-.o D0w1ng Untts,A.n E -EMmantary San. ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SC -Spas Coo.. 1mm Interstate Free.. NORTN Cj 0 -Ounce 0 -Quest herb/Open Spade/N O.A 5800 W pr Arbrtata Ell Id -Industrial SE/VT-Seeoneery/Vo.Ua..Saaeal N NC-Nergn0orle0d commercial C.I.Arterials N. �nT" II CC-cm.munxy Commercial HC - Iawpn Cannry agegw Wee. RC-Regional Conxnerebt O N. --- Yam 2000 M.trdpdtrerl Urban Serval Ana IM.U.S.AJ GUIDE PLAN — CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIEEIC aill At JP ! N LASES ?PAR KJk( 4 Nw-! 1(D9 Minnesota Department of Transportation It3'''o.,w„I Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 April 19, 1996 Mike Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mithcell Road Eden Prairie MN 55344 • Dear Mike Franzen: SUBJECT: Staring Lake Environmental Review EAW96-005 Southwest Quadrant of TH 169&Anderson Lakes Parkway Eden Prairie, Hennepin County CS 2744 The Metropolitan Division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT)has reviewed the Staring Lake Environmental Assessment Worksheet. and has the following comments. • The proposed plan re-directs several acres of drainage away from Trunk Highway 169 and away from two existing wetlands. The change in drainage will require the approval of the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District. Reduced run-off to perched wetlands may cause them to be drained and may require a Wetlands Conservation Act permit. Questions may be directed to Bonnie Peterson of our Hydraulics Section at 797-3054. • Other comments regarding the plat,site develop and traffic issues will be covered in a separate letter. This letter represents only the comments of the Metro Division of Mn/DOT. Any environmental issues identified by other Mn/DOT divisions will be forwarded to you by a separate letter. Please contact me at 582-1387,if you have any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, 6/1 16- e Cyrus Knutson Transportation Planner c: Gerald Larson,MN/DOT Environmental Coordinator An equal opportunity employer 9(3 O�P4ET OF +r, - United States Department of the Interior Mil mommm `ram==` {IW- w rg immimmommi No FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Twin Cities Field Office ®nimii 411c ° 4101 East 80th Street Bloomington,Minnesota 55425-1665 IN REPLY REFER TO. FWS/AFWE-TCFO tog 2 J 19 Mr. Michael Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Franzen: This responds to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Starring Lake, a residential development to be constructed on 90 acres adjacent to SH 169, Anderson Lakes Parkway, and Starring Lake Parkway. The location of the project is the NE1/4 of Section 22, T116N, R22W in Hennepin County. The proposed development is for 788 residential units to be constructed primarily on existing cropland. It will also include a NURP stormwater pond at the west end of the development. The wetland delineated at the southeast corner of the proposed development will not be directly impacted by the project. We recommend that a buffer strip at least 25 feet of natural vegetation be maintained to protect the function of this wetland. No mowing should, be allowed within the buffer area. At the west end next to Purgatory Creek, a NURP stormwater storage pond has been proposed. We recommend that the more than 200 feet of sloped ground east of the pond be planted to a tallgrass prairie grass mixture of big bluestem and Indian grass. This restored prairie should not be chemically treated and mowed only once a year during the later summer after seed production. This sloped buffer area will help to protect the storm water pond., Purgatory Creek, and Starring Lake from sedimentation. In addition, we recommend the planting of another 10 feet of trees along the west edge of the stormwater pond to further protect Purgatory Creek. Tree species should include floodplain species, such as silver maple, eastern cottonwood; and green ash, that ran tolerate periodic inundation from Purgatory Creek. Because of the location and type of activity proposed, this project is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. This precludes the need for further action on this project as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. However, if the project is modified or new information becomes available which indicates that listed species may be affected, consultation with this office should be reinitiated. , Sincerely, ,�jlLc., � '� :ur4a Lynn M • ��l Lewis Field Office Supervisor i aU Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future March 13, 1996 Mr. Michael Franzen, City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Staring Lake Townhomes Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Metropolitan Council District 4 Dear Mr. Franzen: The Suring Lake Townhomes EAW' assesses the proposed development of 788 townhomes on 88 acres of land. The property is located within the MUSA immediately southwest of the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Flying Cloud Drive. The site which is designated high density residential and office development in the current plan would be reguided to high density residential and occupied entirely by the residential townhomes. Council staff has reviewed the EAW and finds it complete and accurate. Council transportation staff agrees with the EAW conclusions that the change in land use from residential and office to strictly residential will cause fewer peak hour trips and should result in less potential impact on Flying Cloud Drive (TH 169), With Eden Prairie's higher than average ratio of jobs-per- household it-is anticipated that a"relatively high share of the vehicle trips will be dispersed`.ithin the city. '' . Council environmental staff has one recommendation regarding the stormwater basin. The EAW states that the western border of the project site lies within the 100-year floodplain of Purgatory Creek. The project proposes to construct approximately one-half of a 1.5-acre stormwater treatment basin serving the 90-acre site within the floodplain boundaries. The EAW also states that no soil material will be added to the area during this excavation and that no reduction in floodplain capacity is anticipated. Council staff recommends that the stormwater basin be relocated outside of Purgatory Creek floodplain to reduce the risk of over-bank floodwater intrusion into the stormwater treatment basin which would result in increased repair and maintenance costs for the basin. This concludes the review of the EAW and no further action will be taken by the Council. If you have any questions please contact Carl Ohm, Transportation Planning at 229-2719 or Jim Larsen, Environmental Services at 291-6404. Sincerely, �i► Thomas C. McElveen, Deputy Director r • Housing, Development & Implementation _ - • . — cc: Julius C.Smith,Metropolitan Council District 4 - ' " ' .. . ..... Linda Voge, Carl Ohm, Jim Larsen, Bob Davis, Metropolitan Council Staff - ' Ruth Sobnosky, MnDOT I0/ 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer x:> +. Via;,+,,, 4 :. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS pas A. ,�' ' ..�. ,:,;',.. ,;,;::.:+ it ..,i• ..„. :•','+::%.% ','..„:,,,,...:i. +:::'%.%%.„, �.,,.•+'. '• ',;•,++^,','tt,,,;t,,;a:,kai.+.',�tt,+,;•,•„�„ +,�•,''.',',,:..+'. ^,».i...,,,.,•,• ,.•::..•.i,'v.:.i,;t +. iii; ».\�'+3.',^ +•t•.++ii,:,zw•,� •,•,+.u.,+,+,+.•i;i�',•,>>!".'`a.•,+i,.�+.+.',� +^,'''+ '+.•+.kx,+�'.'',++� .',.•, +: I 2 _______-, )0-14- . - pls - -/-6• Ple.l 'I).- / • a @ i eLCL/}mt,t. /'1 NAME ADDRESS PHONE# 1• _ (1. r 0, . ailiC.:(.�' ( q3I, 4.:(a_v_ 6\c..,..., I'� KcP 1p ( a / , e.. -i * ., -). liI, 5a f tc-f-,u.ki i 1 ' gi'37- 5 '77 3 ` 4' n,,1 + - (1 -6 I(I&z it 7 - d33 r II (0 . ri.L7 0A,4,4 N 7W 4.6A i , 1 435�3 ' ( q .3 u-agg y 4/...6 9cfs1, GI Vg 9.347- 7i0 q f" ate ' . �"me/ i/s 7 /( 9'/9-/Zy i 1°‘ r 11 at, it, I2• . i, f ;t5 s67 67 /.sa ..e,/i •93.E won l3 ; ��f,'„ / -- z 2 , -C 4 3/ /.-!i '' e A ?3'I-o4/0/ Gu"%. aCit v GE/i b �l 7(c kit�vz� - q 75-9 a v / /S �*.ev-a 0 /'-// S3 CQv4lo z A- 73•7-oyv9' IP z-i_2: A7.1. - 5/ ‘faJe /-c,6 9775--- -z05/ gici.C, Tle., 1,,9/1( CA 1-r:,' , S3i-1-=71714 _- Y 1 _ E �v C379 ,7. . / y TT i ,-, F710 Fi s (-, 9y9- r// , t',- ' 4,(1,0. / . '' • /1-1:-c 2,-- 451&•0;0 , . 1 _ 14L183 f116 _ 99-ac187 0251 ` ,,a94,7 kfAiW.1h A) f, le, Q4 37 !a� PETITION AGAINST MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY& HWY. 169/212 The following residents strongly urge the Eden Prairie Planning Commission and Council members to reject the proposal for a high-density townhome project at the corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway 169/212 on the basis that: 1. The encompassing neighborhoods are already saturated with existing apartments and townhomes. 2. The projected number of units is huge--almost 800—and will add at least that many new vehicles to the daily traffic of 169/212, a stretch of highway notorious for accidents. In addition, this increase in vehicles will escalate congestion on other adjacent roads such as Mitchell Road, which already has its rush hour bottlenecks. 3. Nearby Starring Lake, its walkways and parks comprise one of Eden Prairie's most beautiful areas. We would encourage the members to select instead an environmentally-responsible development plan that considers the long-range conservation of that area. 4. The increase of vehicles and population could present safety/traffic complications for Oak Point School and its children. 5. With Flying Cloud Airport nearby, noise is already an issue for our residents. Why further complicate this controversy with yet one more populated neighborhood situated under existing take-off and landing patterns? A.. - ..,..4.74" -)11-ci360-•--04 ?I 7 I cA....,..t.---C7 0-0-...-1/41- , �, 42..,,7c4/ - ,9.3 (1462-r 1 -ileC t Zt-,, A Cam` 7 - -�6Ps63 )7-02-e.____.,,eee ?1 s� 7t.Q.d.,�.8-6 014241, ...e-de, af 5-C. ,15,94.4-4,../ 4-75 • 7/ ii' , , , , , g)./-3/ � It , c 9 t ,, 1 i, . / 1 ,i/ ----t-r- s 9 —22—t Gov., eptait_ el— L6 kill itA.L. L1 (3-,6- 14.4L7 , r11 I 1 . . 4L) C.,LC f, ..t.._ !I ri C C /It- Citi.S`-1-- rci- .4‘ . ' i 3 ci 60cif20-, q2_ , ••'C Ci-i � 2UF jC� 1 y\i„\t, .`e:N /Awl i‘ . Jfrfirami ilLit,e, P3y iildiA'd_ leo?• eiez-., ,A-0-'44- -i, 711/-eie— p_, EeLiait-cA,,„ 91,,,ti, 31-,01i,KA, S930 kh /h), (9;-efi z„7_/,:s, 7,„tel.,_;,4 (-- „ ef9G/G/ gIodn/g40 -z-e.,� ../P Ap - Y 7441 AtaiP,-y iil ,/ - g /v1,~,e zi-f-Fe- d'' ' • 6t) - ??7 „,,46..f„ Cf)ac-e- g f a /}//mali . y'^ ra ow41 SL 1/de. Y) S . \T 976-7 -'1-,- , 7-42-e- .1-7/7--e)1 ",4 4 , '''''t--- al - -9'4-ef-12;/ - c_40,,,,-a&e.ytom 9 ei,"2 6a,domd_6 . ,L,,, A..„)..z, .16.--cts2_c_ R, tse).„ ..04:1v. g‘cr _ ..t.to,d,...0 lc*, qke,,_, 69A.a_t,--, (*),0--zieL-Gegy/4-nr. 79(7 oac/a ctAt ,e.e,,, Ael,,ja._- ./1 -,__)).,(tatti_ ,12 ,7,7,,qt,- 'tit,' 617/4- i,(A‘ ' ''14,ti ; ifriixt c,11 Ediri wrida 2,6, rat , ' Vic,.,-, , 3'1 c g jhi ,Zi - 11,7MA X92140 SO1 /Jac/1AI 61' - =&irt- " Cti-L-LL kl1/41/ 0\_5 f T cipriluov\JD & t ,?, R"?83 0(2A, • Ai.) , szi.t.a..,L. .1/ ”a_574de—iz--le i& )5,„____ o, -S-i-bi--bi, t ri'f H i L Cu c.J rlr A 6 L-'P. 1 t(s • rerv, 4._ V, ); 3•-•• iS11 -f I{ .LL J J 4-y /2-0 t do, ntu . /V 137 /V. 6 0• me &X-e-t- /-/P--(--a-j 0 r0 :mot A -k' fiA,‘ 'W-L-1- /vt--)44 Y9e) v /7/owe 7 ie S`t d 9 KCt tUwt tg.1,1)&„ob -(-1([0,1, ko-d 5c3L-i-q-- ,PoNA i)c c69`rsc jit9t *eP? 1-1) S--e7e3 t- rd4A- Le hi, 6 ,0 8'9p3 547 itte--€/fat; 6` kL-W-L4-4-T 8 P.111.,v,`au\v+7 Rf Q-O graoco 4-0 WC ( ©W4Y fet 5c3c1-7 /-1///evoll A,61 CC3f7 ` weee 1-/e 5 7 y7 l0(D April 29, 1996 Lisa Eckberg 8934 Pine Bluff Court Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Michael Franzen, City Planner 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN Dear Mr. Franzen, On Tuesday, May 7, 1996 you will meet with the city council to hear about the Staring Lake Townhomes project proposed by Pulte Builders. I have many objections to this project. -The density of the project is too high. No other project in Eden Prairie exceeds 200 homes. This project is greater than three times the size of anything previously attempted. -Such a large project will greatly increase the traffic on highway 169 and Staring Lake Parkway. Traffic on these roads is already heavy. -The project is right next to Staring Lake Park. Staring Lake Park is a jewel. So many homes right next to the park would increase the noise, threaten the wildlife, affect the water purity, increase the traffic past the park, and greatly increase the usage of the park. My husband and I just recently moved to this area. One of the selling points was beautiful Staring Lake park, which is just a few minutes away from our home. I fear that the parks natural beauty will be harmed by the close proximity of such a huge development. The increase in use by people living near by will make a visit to the park as relaxing as a nice walk down the aisles of Cub food on a Saturday afternoon. Looking out our windows from our bluff onto the project will be as appealing as viewing a parking lot. Please consider the impact of this immense development. I suggest several changes. The size must be scaled down to a maximum of 300 homes. More internal recreation facilities must be added. A buffer of trees and open land must separate the development from the park. Please advise the council to vote no on the Pulte development proposal or at least require far more changes, such as the ones mentioned above. Sincerely, CVt-( "---‘-'6. Lisa Eckberg 906-9447 131 April 19, 199n EDEN PRAIRIE CITY HALL Attn: Community Development Department c/o Mr. Mike Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Katherine Kardell, Randy Foote, Kenneth Clinton, Mary Jane Wissner, Ismail Ismail, Bill Habicht, and Douglas Sandstad I am writing this from a perspective of being a resident and school district employee of Eden Prairie for the past thirty-four years and a Planning Commission member for eleven years. This letter is in reference to the Pulte Housing Development that is presently being discussed. I really feel that we need housing in the $70,000 - $85,000 price range. We presently pay our new teachers in this district around $25,000 a year to start. If we want our young educators to live and work in a community, then we must provide affordable housing. The Pulte Development has just completed a smaller project by Anderson Lakes Parkway. Seven teachers from the Eden Prairie District, with three being from Eden Lake Elementary, have moved into that development. Teachers that can live and work in the same community provide excellent role models for children in and out of school settings. The site appears to be a good site for that type of development with roads on two sides,Vo-Tech on another, and a lake surrounding it. If too many units are dropped, we will end up with another place that moderate income people cannot afford. Over the years there have been many sensitive issues such as this, but the city has made the right decisions...such as Briarhill, Prairie Meadows, the Fraser homes and the CPT building where you presently hold your meetings. All of these projects were opposed by neighbors. Decisions need to be made as to what is best for all of Eden Prairie. Good Luck! Sincerely, N Bob Hallett 17051 Valley Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 937-1453 cc: The Honorable Mayor Jean Harris IU0 APR 19 '96 10:13 GLEN LAKE ANIMAL HOSPITAL P.1 GLEN LAKE ANIMAL HOSPITAL 14805 Excelsior Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55345-5799 Telephone: (612)935-1232 +VI it/I <o Ne tore_ /-td , .o rtv-r 44'00" `.74 : Age s � - 4,0‘.4" e9,4 AA-t a0,�� sue%/ .�, law //4 ed0-00-Poe -7-4pp( frtosae.goe-ele-rs .0.441We: YA12 512e 71)> te- >"'"gt- Ygf•e /11. fa4,40,.,,,,,,t /he. dieioe-e-5ays ./1 t efr z SaadS iCwr,Y-e-0, 4f,colef elffiirGre-- nta141-41 heePfret 674214- ?XI 31--e-Allwdir Ale .0101-4, - Vif' 04° S116904, 111/S4 7/Ce-Se e‘stoWel6Wit-S e7e) Ag, e-)0 401-01/ dee/ilea_ /W-e-1911-1- f//0/041, #0,6,/totce.4,,teo(„ 7f, eige. " uyt t, ems. -,-77, 044 - "0,- irpe-e- ate` u/•t I r. • kle4 ' rejl. 0,02:1, 14.4c. f �. MA/. ri - - 2710 Date: April 19, 1996 To: Eden Prairie City Manager,Board of Education, Park Board and Planning Commission From: Karen S. Tinucci,EP Resident tom` Re: Pulte 788 Unit Townhouse Proposal The purpose of this memo is to document recent conversations I had with City Planners regarding my concerns with the Pulte proposal for development of the Douglas property at the corner of Anderson Lakes Pkwy and Hwy 169/212. Of all my expressed viewpoints, I remain most concerned with three areas: • The number of residents that could be located within one 88 acre parcel of the city, and especially the location of any residential area so close to Hwy 169/212. • The lack of thought given to acquiring a portion of the Douglas property for additional parking to service Oak Point and the new school and community pool. • The seemingly rushed manner in which this proposal is being pushed ahead for approval in lieu of fully addressing raised concerns and working toward a plan that could make it a win-win situation for all. Eden Prairie is gravely in need of affordable non-rental housing, and I think the Douglas property is a wonderful site, with its proximity to downtown Eden Prairie, Staring Lake, freeway access, and the new school and community pool at Oak Point. However, the magnitude of the number of residents that would occupy the units in the proposed development (recently reduced from 788 to 692 units) blows my mind! Depending on whether you look at the present EP population or its expected growth to 65,000 people, approximately 1 out of every 32 to 43 residents would live within this 88 acre parcel. Furthermore, as much as we need this type of housing, I feel the community needs to be socially responsible in ensuring we don't allow "affordable" housing in locations we wouldn't put our own homes. Therefore, I feel strongly, that the proposed high density housing not be placed between Columbine and Hwy 169/212. West of Columbine would be appropriate, with commercial/retail use buffering the property between them and the highway. I also find it extremely disheartening that the city and school district have chosen to ignore the need for additional parking at Oak Point, especially in lieu of the new school and community pool opening in a few months. I attend monthly Soccer Club board meetings at Oak Point on a Monday evening and find that between the gym usage (i.e. volleyball league play) and other meeting room usage, the present parking lot is completely full and cars are parked all along the curb. Add usage of the pool, and cars will be parked for a great length along Staring Lake Pkwy. Kids will be kids, and all it takes is one child to step out from behind a parked car at the wrong time. Both the city and the school board should be proactive in acquiring additional parking facilities for Oak Point usage! If this /10 proposal passes without a portion of the property set aside for parking development, then we've lost our chance of ever expanding the parking facilities at Oak Point (unless we sacrifice a ball field)! Lastly, I'd like to voice my concern as to the seemingly rushed manner in which this proposal is being pushed ahead to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. One of the City Planners voiced his stress in saying "I just want to see this proposal either voted up or down, and put to rest." While I can appreciate the long hours the City Planners,Pulte Company, and many area residents have spent in trying to come to agreement in how this parcel of land should be developed, time needs to be taken to ensure we have fully addressed all issues. I don't want to see this project voted down. I want to see us all continuing to work together to present a proposal to the Planning Commission and City Council that respects and addresses the needs of its future residents, that is respectful of the environment, allows the City to meet its needs (more affordable non-rental housing and additional Qak Point parking), and allows Pulte to make a reasonable profit for its efforts. I truly hope the Planning Commission will send this proposal back for further work! III April 18, 1996 To the Eden Prairie Planning Office and the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned residents of Pine Bluff Court, wish to register our opposition to the proposed 788 unit Pulte Master Builders' develop- ment. We are of the consensus that this project, in its present form, is of a size and magnitude which is unacceptable. We are concerned with the potential impacts associated with a development of this size in- cluding, but not limited to: 1) Effect on the Staring Lake/Park ecosystem. 2) Increased traffic on Anderson Lakes Parkway, Staring Lake Parkway, Highway 169/212, and Columbine Road. 3) Effect on the Eden Prairie school system which is already nearing capacity. 4) The three-phase construction proposal which could actually result in even higher densities at project completion. 5) Oversaturation of the local areas with further multi-family dwellings. 6) Lack of recreational areas within the proposed development which could greatly increase the burden on Staring Lake Park. 7) Lack of adequate berming and unsatisfactory layout of units which would create a significant visual impact for Pine Bluff Court residents. We wish to have these concerns noted and addressed by the City Planning Office, City Planning Commission, and the City Council. Sincerely, Chester & Connie Baker 8918 Pine Bluff Court Eden Prairie, MN 55347 BA April 18, 1996 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: 788 Proposed Townhomes Situated at the Southwest Corner of Highway 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway Dear Commissioners: As residents of Starrwood Circle for the past six years,we want to express our objection to the proposed townhome construction project. When we chose to build our family home here seven years ago,we knew housing would soon fill the empty countryside. But still there was that special sanctuary—Staring Lake which promised to stay safe in the midst of construction. Also safe was the area designated"future home of Douglas Corporation." Naturally as homeowners,we welcomed a corporate development. Other Eden Prairie corporations had attractive home offices that harmonized with the countryside. And quite frankly,the employees spend their time at the site when families are usually occupied with work or school themselves. Thus,weekends and evenings remain free of intrusion by the corporate dweller. Please consider what this development could mean to the character and integrity of the Staring Lake area. Consider also your charge as part of the Planning Commission to meet the needs of the city and its long standing taxpayers. Yes,we need to meet our quota for affordable housing,but at such density and in only one such area? There are alternatives and I feel confident that solutions can be found. Thank you. cerely, Barb and Bill Ward 14390 Starrwood Circle Eden Prairie,MN 55347-1744 :bjw 113 :,/_./71.-..._..7 , i( c4i---. . Col",..) f.,(...a.".:u..z 13,4--, Ce-2,1..L;J,6,,. , Tea 6,e6,, � 6--- 70-(76c-e- �, 5j6L-66, o---i-)4V -- /6 7z.„. c„(_e_„-------1-3------:------ W.)&g_7,,e„/ ,/, ._. %.4 , ,,,oc.) a„,/gt,o iti-fA) & , ,v .,e )4 (x,.e,j._. t,?z __....,/_,62,,,,,t_)__---- ii- e,,,, 4, yi/..„) ) / V44., .: . . e&, Zte.. . .IA- . 1 jos— ,tezt 1 AL z ,A4w.:.;,,tf, ., ,, . ,::0 ,71*:: , ; ...... . . ! 8/..,. .mo...:e ; , ,6'6-e7„r_ : 7-: ./ .. . ... ,,: :,, ..:.,,i„i,,,: :„" .a,..•,:.: ._:7....:1., :,„:„.. .,.,.: • ,,,..,:„.,.:T,.,,,'.. ,.. - --'I /A. '..fry,,,: . , ---.''''c . ::- . '''' cit,, -. ..- IN y- t8- - `N 0.2 tjr,6 Ecc12. ).. Pt( o_Lit_t_t• I (Le , p-e5 CD Post--� a (n (16 e eA ekonedkA.,* v-t);vec--k- • U.) e_ \ \kcit.0 cL•kv o r c_ 1 a lit-) L.\n O s y c,L,,A_L eLoA b c. CeJ /LQ CckTvL, o cJ (C) 0 cum kY 115' April 18, 1996 To: Eden Prairie Planning Commission From: Lyle and Pat Hanson 14171 McCoy Ct Eden Prairie,MN 55347 RE: High Density Townhome Development Near Staring Lake Park The amount of units planned for this development is ridiculous. The detrimental effects are too numerous to mention. Can some sort of common sense be used here, or is MONEY the only thing that matters any more. I do not want this development in my neighborhood as it is proposed. Lyle Hanson //6 Steven J. Swanson and Ruth Ann Swanson 14183 McCoy Court Eden Prairie, MN 55347 April 18, 1996 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Commissioners : We are writing to express our opposition to the proposal to build 788 town homes at Hwy 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. We are opposed to the development for the following key reasons: 1 . While the average density per acre is reasonable based on other recent projects, the project represents a large number of contiguous acres . The result is a concentration of population that could approach 3% of all the people in town. That is too many people in too small of an area. 2 . Another indication of the huge scope of the proposal is that Pulte has never done a project this large, and in fact has to do the project in two phases . It is not appropriate for the developer to expect the city to change its guide plan based on speculation regarding phase 2 of the project. No project should ever be approved under such a cloud of uncertainty. 3. A hallmark attribute of our community is inclusiveness in our public organizations, public resources and in our historical approach to residential development. Superficially this project may seem attractive due to the high ratio of "affordable" units . However, the Commission should look beyond this easy answer and refuse to engage in social engineering that results in dictating that a high and disproportionate number of "affordable" homes be developed in any area of the city. Instead the Commission should continue to champion inclusive development and ensure affordable homes are developed not only on this site but throughout the city. 4 . The developer needs a change to the guide plan to accommodate this project . The guide plan has already been changed to its current form (with proper deliberation and without the pressure of a pending proposal ) to reflect the fully developed targeted population of 65, 000 . In addition, many current property owners bought their property in reliance on the guide plan, and indeed the current owner of the site bought the property with full knowledge of the guide plan. It is not appropriate to make such a significant change to the guide plan considering the established base of reliance on the guide plan in its current form. Please consider the negative aspects of these points on both current area residents and on the potential residents of this too large, high/medium density development, and do not endorse this project. Sinc, ,drop/' St0011F /<;) eve S on Ru h Ann Swan on i!1 FROM : TeleView/Campbell PHONE NO. : 612 975 054P Apr. 19 1996 09:15AM P01 Mr. and Mrs. Robert M. Campbell 15560 Edgewood Court Eden Prairie, Mn.55346 Mr. Mike Franzen City of Eden Prairie Planning Office Dear Mr. Franzen: My wife and I have been residents of Eden Prairie for the past ten years. We have seen many changes and some improvements in that time. While observing the Planning Commission televised session concerning the Pulte Staring Lake Townhouse Development we have become increasingly concerned by the massive scope of this project. Although our family lives in a different section of the city we are often involved in soccer at Flying Cloud Fields, we attend activities at Staring Lake Park, and we are members of Pax Christi. We also have three children in the Eden Prairie School District all of whom will attend Oak Point. As we understand this will be by far the largest housing project ever built in Eden Prairie, we are extremely concerned about the impact this will have on the traffic, the resulting safety issues near Oak Point Intermediate School, as well as the exponential growth of useage of Staring Lake Park. It would seem to us that the only prudent decision would be to drastically reduce the size and scope of this project or to seek a totally different type of development of that parcel of land that would not carry as many negatives. At the very least we recommend that the citizens and taxpayers of Eden Prairie should have all the facts concerning this massive development so that the long- term effects on the city as a whole can be addressed. We would like to make it very clear that we are strongly opposed to the Pulte Staring Lake Townhouse Project at anywhere near the size that has been proposed. s truly, 11-4-A-4--1;)14 Robert and Tamara Camp II Copy; Planning Commissioners Mayor Jean L. Harris City Council Members it DATE: APRIL 18, 1996 TO: EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CONCERNE TIZENS GROUP REPRESENTATIVES Paul Olson 949-8956 Steve Swans."Pe" 949-2987 Chet Baker( 934-2890 RE: PULTE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING INTEGRITY Introduction The group we represent has specific questions and concerns regarding Environment, Traffic, Schools, Park and Recreation,Quality, and Real Estate that are being addressed in a separate document. While researching these specific questions and concerns we have become alarmed at the quality of the planning process and related reporting for this proposed project. The purpose of this document is to express concerns we identified by reviewing the planning process,the 3/22/96 staff report and the EAW. We expect to get our concerns addressed and questions answered before any action is taken by the Planning Commission to re-guide the site in question or approve the proposed plan. We fmd it incredible that the city planning staff recommends approval of changes to the Comprehensive Guide Plan to accommodate a proposal from Pulte for the Staring Lake townhouses that would ultimately be home to one of every thirty-seven residents of Eden Prairie. The failure of the 3/22/96 staff report to the Planning Commission to emphasize the size of the proposed Staring Lake townhouses project is astounding to the point that it calls into serious question the quality of the analysis given this project,the credibility of the staff(due to presenting a project of this magnitude in such a fantastically low key fashion), and the general integrity of the planning process itself. This is compounded by a number of errors, inconsistencies and oversights in the related Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW) and the failure of the 3/22 staff report to take exception to and report these shortcomings in their report to the Planning Commission. Overshadowing the entire proposal is the uncertainty related to Pulte's plan to do the proposed project in two phases,with a wide variation of outcomes represented in the three different alternatives described for the second phase. Macro Issues with the March 22. 1996 Staff Report As far as we could determine,the proposed Pulte project at Anderson Lakes Parkway and Hwy 169 is for the largest number of townhouse units ever in any development in Eden Prairie. Using the Planning Staffs guideline of 2.2 people per unit(per Mike Franzen) the ultimate population could range from 1,734 (788 units per Pulte Alternative 1)to 2,838 (1,270 units per Pulte Alternative 2). A frame of reference for this is that it 1 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM '/q represents from 2.7%to 4.4% of the targeted fully developed population of Eden Prairie (65,000). This can alternatively be stated that ultimately from 1 out of every 23 to 1 out of every 37 people in all of Eden Prairie will live on this 88.5 acre site. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS PROJECT IN THE 3/22/96 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Innocuously, in the body of the Architecture section of the 3/22 Staff Report, another townhouse development(Summerfield) with 188 units was described by the staff as a "large"project. If that is so,what is the appropriate adjective for a project, over four times as large,with at least 788 units representing 2.7% of the entire population of our town? We propose the following suggestions: huge, colossal, gigantic, enormous, immense,mammoth. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS PROJECT IN THE 3/22/96 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Because of the size of the proposed project, state law required that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)be prepared. The EAW contains numerous errors, inconsistencies and oversights. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THESE ERRORS, INCONSISTENCIES AND OVERSIGHTS IN THE 3/22/96 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHY DID THE STAFF ACCEPT SUCH AN OBVIOUSLY FLAWED EAW AND ON WHAT BASIS CAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACCEPT A REPORT FROM THE STAFF THAT FAILS TO POINT OUT AND CRITICIZE THE FLAWED EAW? The 3/22 staff report does note that multiple alternatives are possible for phase 2 of the Pulte proposal, however the majority of the discussion focuses on the first alternative that results in 788 units. THE 3/22 STAFF REPORT DOES NOT EMPHASIZE THE UNCERTAINTY RELATED TO PHASE 2. THE EAW ONLY ADDRESSES THE 788 UNIT ALTERNATIVE, MAKES NO MENTION OF THE 2 PHASED APPROACH IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT(DESPITE EXHIBITS E AND F IN APPENDIX 1 CLEARLY SHOWING THE PROJECT IN TWO PHASES). The EAW answers definitively NO to question 30a"Are future stages of this development planned or likely?", and NO to question 30b"Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project?", and NO to question 30c"Is another development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots?". WHY WAS THIS SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTY NOT MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT? WHY DID THE EAW FAIL TO NOTE AND DISCUSS THIS UNCERTAINTY? WHAT IS THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE FAILURE TO FULLY DISCUSS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE UNCERTAINTIES RELATED TO THE PHASED APPROACH? 2 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM 1,20 In reviewing the detail challenges described in this memorandum to the 3/22 staff report and the related EAW,the Planning Commission should note that there is a pattern to the errors, inconsistencies and oversights that favors the point of view of the developer. THE EXTENT AND OVERALL DIRECTION OF THESE ISSUES CHALLENGE OUR BELIEF IN COINCIDENCE. IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIFIC ISSUES,WHAT IS THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE OVERALL PATTERN OF THE ERRORS, INCONSISTENCIES AND OVERSIGHTS? Stealth Development? Local law requires the holding of public hearings for development and requires that invitations to such hearing be mailed to every property owner within 500 feet of the proposed development. It appears that the city staffs attitude is that this is the maximum effort required as opposed to representing a minimum standard. This site is adjacent to Oak Point Middle School which serves every 5th and 6th grade student in the city. This site is adjacent to Starring Lake and Staring Lake Park which is widely used by residents from throughout the city for a wide variety of recreational purposes. Both the school and park are within 500 feet of the site. Our point of view is that the entire community (viewed as constructive owners of these two city assets) should have been actively informed of this potential development and related hearings. Clearly the development of this site is of significant importance to more of the citizens of Eden Prairie than merely the property owners within 500 feet. WHY WAS NO ADDITIONAL EFFORT MADE TO MAKE THE LOCAL COMMUNITY,AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE, AWARE OF THIS ENORMOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL? For years property buyers in the area have relied on the Comprehensive Guide Plan in acquiring their property. They have also seen the Douglas Corporation signs on this site and have taken comfort in the knowledge of the strong stance the city has taken with its corporate "residents"to make them visually and behaviorally compatible with the community. Then suddenly, with absolutely minimum prior warning, and no visible signage on the site itself,Pulte presents this gigantic proposal (the results of months of work)to the Planning Commission and the City Planning Staff recommends approval of the Guide Plan changes. THIS IS DEVELOPMENT BY AMBUSH AND SHOULD HAVE NO PLACE IN EDEN PRAIRIE. DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENDORSE THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR FOR THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR GUIDE PLAN CHANGES RELATED TO SUCH A MAMMOTH PROPOSAL? IF SO,WHY DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENDORSE IT? IF NOT, WHAT HAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION DONE TO EXPRESS ITS VIEW POINT TO THE PLANNING STAFF? FURTHER,WHY DID DISCUSSIONS WITH PULTE GET TO SUCH A FINAL STAGE WHEN THEIR PROPOSAL REQUIRED CHANGES TO THE GUIDE PLAN FOR 54 OF THE 88.5 ACRES UNDER CONSIDERATION? DOES THIS BEHAVIOR BY THE STAFF 3 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM /01 INDICATE THAT THE GUIDE PLAN IS NO LONGER VALID? IF NO LONGER VALID,WHY HASN'T A NEW GUIDE PLAN BEEN DONE TO PROVIDE THE STAFF WITH A KEY TOOL THEY NEED TO DO THEIR JOB? IF STILL VALID,WHY ISN'T THE STAFF MORE AGGRESSIVELY SUPPORTING ADHERENCE TO THE PLAN? Comments on Planning Staff's Four Reasons to Consider Guide Plan Changes The following are the quoted specific reasons cited by the Planning Staff for considering the Guide Plan changes followed by our related specific commentary and questions. expect the Planning Commission to respond not on(v to the specific questions. but also to the general nature of each point raised. Reason 1 - "A total of 600 of the 788 units will meet the requirements of the Livable Communities Act for ownership housing less than$115,000.00 per unit". The above statement is made in the 3/22 Staff Report without any additional explanation. A discussion with Mike Franzen of the City Planning Department revealed that 30%of future residential development in Eden Prairie would be affordable (defined as having a final closing price below$115,000). Based on a unit count of 788 (per Pulte Alternative 1),the required"affordable"number of units would be 237. Using the staffs estimate of 600"affordable"units,this means that 363 "excess"affordable units will be in this development. This will allow 1,210 residential units to be built in other developments in Eden Prairie without the need for a single additional affordable unit to be developed. In a city that prides itself on inclusion in all aspects of its public entities and activities, it is surprising to find the city planning staff so strongly in favor of segregation when it comes to determining within which part of the city affordable housing will be developed. The history of development of Eden Prairie is one of blended neighborhoods with a variety of affordability, low concentrations at specific levels of affordability, and smooth transitions across levels of affordability. Affordable housing is an appropriate community goal. In fact in 1995, according to data from the Eden Prairie Assessing Office, of the 1,279 home sales in Eden Prairie 244 (19%)were $100,000 or less and 428 (33%)were for$125,000 or less. Why are we abandoning this legacy of inclusion in order to accommodate this huge development that will segregate a significant and disproportionate number of owners of affordable housing in a single site along Highway 169? 4 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM i9a Reason 2 -"Traffic will be 40 -47 % less daily trips and 60%peak hour trips if the entire property is developed as proposed." (We did not have adequate time to analyze peak hour trips; comments will be limited to daily trips. Also,these continents reflect the development size data discussed in the "Reason 4"comments below.) The Staff report is inaccurate. The best Pulte alternative compared to the minimum Guide Plan alternative results in only 24%less trips(rather than the stated 40%). Also, on page 6 of the 3/22 Staff Report the daily trips for Pulte Alternative 2 are stated to be. from 8,477 to 9,177. This statement is incorrect. There really are two Pulte Alternative 2's. We refer to the mixed residential/office alternative 2A and the 100%residential • alternative 2B. Daily traffic for Alternative 2A ranges from 8,666 to 12,630 and for Alternative 2B is 8,365. The correct daily traffic for Pulte Alternative 2 in total is from 8,365 to 12,630. This is a significantly different picture than that presented in the 3/22 Staff Report. The percentages in Reason 2 above over-simplify a variety of possible traffic outcomes based on two different guide plan possibilities, sombilmeiimpoireer and three different Pulte alternatives. The following table presents the widely varied potential traffic alternatives. It shows that at minimum levels the Pulte 1 plan generates less trips than per the guide plan or the two reasonable contemporary concepts,but both guide plan trip levels and both reasonable contemporary concepts are better than either Pulte 2A or 2B. At maximum levels,trip levels per both guide plan alternatives and one reasonable contemporary concept are greater than per two of the Pulte alternatives,but only guide plan alternative 2 is greater than Pulte 2A. (As another frame of reference,had the site developed per the Douglas Corporation concept plan only 581,000 square feet of office would have been developed, generating only 5,281 daily trips.) The table shows that the traffic information in the 3/22 Staff Study was presented in an over-simplified manner. Any development project,but especially one of a magnitude such that an EAW is required,deserves proper scrutiny and analysis. Why didn't the staff present a more thorough discussion of the traffic implications? How well served are the members of the Planning Commission, and in turn the members of the City Council, by such over simplified and less than accurate information? What is the Planning Commissions view of the scrutiny and analysis given to traffic considerations? 5 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM ' } Traffic per Guide Plan Compared to Pulte Proposals - Residential trips are 6.5 per unit. - Office trips are 1 per each 110 square feet. - Guide plan and"reasonable contemporary"units and sq. ft. are per"Reason 4" below. Minimum Maximum Development Residential Residential Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Alternative Trips Trips Office Trips Office Trips Total Trips Total Trips Guide Plan 1 3,192 4,810 4,752 7,920 7,944 12,730 Guide Plan 2 1,495 3,114 6,534 10,890 8,029 14,004 Reas.Cont. 2,022 3,380 4,752 4,752 6,774 8,132 Reas.Cont.2 1,242 2,308 6,534 6,534 7,776 8,842 Pulte 1 5,122 5,122 0 0 5,122 5,122 Pulte 2A 2,730. 2,730 5,936 9,900 8,666 12,630 Pulte 2B 8,385 8,385 0 0 8,385 8,385 In addition,the staff"Reason 2" statement(which is based on the Site Trip Generation Comparison in the EAW Appendix 4,Table 1) is misstated. Using the data from the EAW table the correct arithmetic is 40 to 5 %less daily trips. Unfortunately there is also an arithmetic error in the EAW table and the total number of daily trips should be stated as 5,122 not the 5,026 in the EAW table and used by the city. Correcting for both of these errors (and ignoring for the moment the issues we have raised above regarding the traffic information)the calculation per the staff should have stated "39- 52% less daily trips". While these are small errors,they relate to a huge project that will have a significant impact on the city and residents. Why weren't these errors identified in the review process? Reason 3 - "The density of the project at 8.9 units per acre is compatible with the surrounding uses. High density residential is to the north, commercial and industrial to the east, Vo-Tech School to the south and Oak Point School and open space to the west." The table below presents a simplified diagram of the site and the adjacent and nearby land. It does this in the fashion of a tic-tac-toe game with the site as the middle square and an indication of the land uses in each of the surrounding 8 squares. This presents a more thorough view of the surrounding land uses than the simplified presentation in the 3/22 Staff Report(and also more thorough than the land use section of the EAW). The 3/22 Staff Report only addresses the north, east, south and west squares. The southeast, southwest, northwest and northeast squares are NOT addressed. For any project, such an over-simplification could fail to note meaningful potential conflicts with existing land use. For a project of this colossal magnitude,why is there such an over- simplification in the staff report and why is it acceptable to the Planning Commission? 6 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM l 2 q Land Uses Adjacent and Nearby Proposed Site Single Family Multi-family Single Family Oak Point Middle School Commercial Commercial(day care) Single Family Proposed Commercial Staring Lake and Park Site Staring Lake and Park Hennepin Commercial Technical College • North- The presence of high density residential to the north is a significant factor. While in general it may seem logical that high/medium density should be compatible with high density, if the city is seeking blended development, at a minimum a question should be raised regarding whether additional high and medium density in this same general area is appropriate or not. Why does the 3/22 staff report fail to discuss general density issues when the proposed project, potentially representing 2.7% to 4.4% of the population of the entire city,includes high density residential and adjacent/nearby property already includes high density residential? • West- The most gross over-simplification in the 3/22 Staff Report is referring to Staring Lake and Staring Lake Park as "open space". An open field may be adequately described as "open space"but it is most definitely NOT an appropriate description for a natural asset in which the city has made a significant investment and on which the citizens of the city rely on so heavily for recreation. This statement is misleading in its gross understatement. This lake and park is one of the precious resources of the entire community and our planning staff refers to it as OPEN SPACE without any additional clarification. There is no discussion of the many questions in the EAW that deal with water resources, fish, wildlife and other environmental matters. There is no discussion of the fact that the development around the lake has generally been low density(which has helped preserve some of the natural setting of the park and lake)and whether future development around the lake should maintain the same visual density. The number of potential issues and concerns regarding this lake and park are huge and yet the staff dismisses it out of hand. Why does the Planning Commission, for such an immense project, accept a report from the staff that so grossly fails to note such a significant adjacent public resource with its many related issues? Why did the staff fail to EVEN MENTION what the nature of the "open space" is? Also not noted by the staff are the single family homes to the west of the site (in the EAW see Appendix 1 Exhibit A and Exhibit D). 7 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM I2 S Because they are not noted,there is no discussion of whether or not there is an appropriate transition from the medium/high density proposed for the site and these single family homes. Why is it acceptable for the staff report for such a huge project to not discuss transition between different housing densities? The staff notes that Oak Point School is to the west, but again fails to point out that the second community pool is nearing completion at the school and so makes no mention of potential traffic and parking issues related to this pool. Why is this not noted in the staff report? • Southwest- Staring Lake and Staring Lake Park are to the southwest of the site. All the related comments in"west"above apply here. Why does the Planning Commission, for such an immense project accept a report from the staff that so grossly fails to note such a significant adjacent public resource with its many related issues? Why did the staff fail to EVEN MENTION what the nature of the "open space" is? • Northwest-The staff also ignores the single family homes in this area. There is no discussion of the appropriateness of the transition from high/medium density to single family. Why is it acceptable for the staff report for such a gigantic project to not discuss transition between different housing densities? There is no discussion of the commanding view many of these homes have of the site and the significantly different visual impacts of various different development on the site. There is no discussion that many of these homeowners are constrained in the use of their property by scenic easements and whether any development of this site should consider similar easements regarding the grassland on the site's northwest edge and the bluff areas near Purgatory Creek. Why did the staff fail to comment on these scenic impact issues related to this enormous project? Does land in a town named Eden Prairie have to have trees on it to be considered scenic? Reason 4 - "An all residential use of the property would be a less intense development than if the property developed according to the guide plan. If the site developed according to the guide plan a total of 491 - 740 units and 522,000 -718,000 sq. ft. of office would be possible. The current proposal is 788 units." The above statement from the 3/22 Staff Report is inaccurate. While it is possible(using the staff's assumptions in their 3/22 report)to have a maximum of 740 residential units and 522,000 sq. feet of office, it is not possible to have 491 residential units and 718,000 sq. feet of office because it would require the 15 acres that is dual-guided to be developed as BOTH residential AND office. Why did the city staff not more carefully and accurately assess and report the size of this gigantic proposed project? What is the Planning Commission's view point of such an invalid comparison in a report related to a proposed project that is this enormous? 8 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM '01 The following table presents a more accurate comparison of development per the guide plan, "reasonable contemporary " development concepts and the Pulte proposals. This table points out that the statement that the Pulte proposal is "less intense"is not a statement of fact as the staff report would have you believe. Rather, it is at best a matter of opinion whether it is more intense or not. Further, it could be argued that a development per guide plan of 230 residential units plus 718,740 square feet of office(or several other of the other min/max guide plan or min/max reasonable contemporary combinations)may very well be less intense than any of the three Pulte alternatives. Why did the staff present as fact a statement regarding density that is more accurately portrayed as a matter of opinion? What is the Planning Commission's view of such an analytical extrapolation rather than a more full presentation of alternatives in connection with a project as immense as this one? Development per Guide Plan Compared to Pulte Proposals - Guide Plan units and squar feet per acre are per Mike Franzen - "Reasonable contemporary units are based on recent townhouse developments. - Pulte units and square feet are per 3/22/96 Staff Report Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Development Residential Office Residential Residential Office Office Square Alternative Acres Acres Units 'Units Square Feet Feet Guide Plan 1 48.5 40.0 491 740 522,720 871,200 Guide Plan 2 33.5 55.0 230 479 718,740 1,197,900 Reas.Cont. 1 48.5 40.0 311 520 522,720 522,720 Reas.Cont.2 33.5 55.0 191 355 718,740 718,740 Pulte 1 88.5 0.0 788 788 0 0 Pulte 2A 47.2 41.3 420 420 653,000 1,089,000 Pulte 2B 88.5 0.0 1,290 1,290 0 0 • Because 15 acres of the site are dual-guided(high density residential Qr office),two alternatives are possible. Because Pulte has three alternative development plans,the minimums and maximums can be stated several ways. In addition,recent townhouse developments have had densities from 8 to 11 units per acre, which is the source of the"reasonable contemporary"alternatives presented above. Finally,the concept plan that Douglas had submitted for their facility would have had only 581,000 square feet of office (approximately 50%of the density per the guide plan) and provided for significant buffers to the west of their facility to protect the lake,park and creek. This variety of alternatives points out that the simplistic min/max comparison in the staff report is inappropriate. This is a critical issue; why was it not more fully developed in the staff report considering the huge size of the proposed project? 9 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM ' q The Staring Lake Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)- February 15. 1996 There are numerous errors omissions and inconsistencies in the EAW. We expect answers to these questions as well. Item 6 Description. Item 7 Project Magnitude Data-The EAW only addresses "Alternative Planned Unit Development One -All Multiple Family Housing" (Alternative One) comprised of 788 units (420 units in phase one on the south half and 368 units in phase two on the north half). If there are other EAW's for"Alternative Planned Unit Development- Office and High Density Residential"comprised of 420 units on the south half of the site (phase one) and(in phase two) 870 units on the north half(Alternative 2B), or 420 units on the south half and from 653,000 to 1,089,000 square feet of office on the north half(Alternative 2A)they were not provided to us. • Do these other EAW's exist? • If so we want the opportunity to.review them. • If they do not exist,we want to know why they were not done considering the significant uncertainty regarding phase two and the substantial differences represented by the three alternatives for phase two? • Also if they do not exist,why did the staff accept that no other EAW's were done? Item 9 Land Use - • In discussing the"compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby (emphasis supplied) land uses",why doesn't the EAW point out that adjacent and nearby land to the west and southwest is Staring Lake and Staring Lake Park? • Why doesn't the EAW discuss the possible conflict of stressing of the lake and park facilities with the tremendous increase in local population represented by the residents of from 788 to 1,290 units? • Why does the EAW not point out the nearby concentration of multi-family to the north and discuss the possible conflict represented by further increasing the population density in this general area? • Why does the EAW not point out the nearby single family developments to the west,northwest and northeast of the project(some of which were in the 1,000 foot area that was included in the invitation to the public hearing) and point out the potential transition conflict that a huge 788 unit development might cause? • Why did the city staff not note the failure of the EAW to address nearby land uses and force the EAW to be properly responsive to Item 9? • Why did the city staff not challenge the fact that the EAW did not note that the land adjacent and nearby to the west was Staring Lake and Staring Lake Park and challenge the EAW document as not properly discussing possible conflicts with this important city resource? 10 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM 'n Y Item 11 a Fish, Wildlife,and Ecologically Sensitive Resources- First the bold statement"Wildlife use of the site's agricultural habitat is minimal". The next sentence is "During the growing season crop fields may (emphasis supplied)provide temporary cover and food for species such as (emphasis supplied) deer, raccoon, squirrels, songbirds, and small mammals." • Which of the contributing firms is the author of this section, and what is their general expertise and specific site knowledge on which their representations are based? • Is cover and food provided or not? Is it provided on more than a temporary basis or not? Is this the appropriate list of species or not? These are local species, is there significance to any migratory species? • Why did the city staff accept such weakly worded and poorly supported representations? The EAW also states"Staring Lake within Staring Lake Park lies to the west and supports a small population of wildlife species." • What is the basis and supporting data for the representation of the wildlife population as "small"? The next sentences state"Their use of this site,however, is likely limited(emphasis supplied)to fringe areas along the agricultural field in the southwest corner. The development of this agricultural field is not anticipated (emphasis supplied)to have a significant affect on wildlife populations within the adjacent park." • Is their use limited to the described area or not? • Will the development have a significant impact or not? • Which of the contributing firms is the author of this section, and what is their general expertise and specific site knowledge on which their representations are based? • Why did the city staff accept such weakly worded and poorly supported representations? • Why did the EAW fail to comment on the wildlife implications of the brush/grassland area on the west end of the site on the hillside between the woodland along Purgatory Creek and the cropped area on the top of the hill(as shown in the aerial photograph exhibit D in Appendix 1)? • Why did the city staff not note that the EAW failed to address this portion of the site and require additional information be added to the EAW? • Why did the city staff not challenge the overall implication of the representations in Item 11 that as long as the wildlife population is already small there is no need to be concerned about any further impact due to development? 11 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM /21p The EAW states"Staring Lake to the west has some fisheries habitat, however, the lake is shallow and presumably(emphasis supplied) does not represent a significant fishery resource." • Which of the contributing firms is the author of this section, and what is their general expertise and specific site knowledge on which this representations is based? • Why does the EAW present a presumption rather than facts? • Why did the city staff accept such a weakly worded and poorly supported representation? Refer to attached Exhibits PI-1 that shows both specific summer catches from the lake and a large number winter fishing enthusiasts on the lake. Item 1 lb Fish, Wildlife. and Ecologically Sensitive Resources - The EAW states"The development will not(emphasis supplied) encroach on or otherwise impact the park area to the west." This statement is not consistent with the statement made in item 11 a(albeit weakly supported)that development of the site "...is not anticipated to have a significant affect ..."on wildlife in the park. • Why did the city staff not challenge this inconsistency? Further,the question in l lb definitively states that there are NO endangered, threatened, or special concern species on or near the site. However the letter from the MN DNR equally definitively states that"The MCBS survey work for rare and endangered animals and plants is less comprehensive; it is therefore possible that occurrences of these features exist in the project area for which we have no records. Because there has not been an on-site survey of the biological resources of the project area, it is possible that ecologically significant features exist for which we have no record." Refer to attached Exhibit PI-2, a copy of the letter from the DNR from Appendix 3 of the EAW. • Which of the contributing firms is the author of this section, and on what basis can they definitively answer NO to the question and then refer to a data base as their support when the DNR itself notes that the database is incomplete both in general and specifically so for the site in question? • Why did the city staff accept such an imperfect representation by the author of the EAW? representation? Item 15 Water Surface Use-The EAW definitively states that there will be NO change in the number or type of watercraft on any water body due to the project. At best this question is not answerable. It seems likely that a development with from 788 to 1,290 units within one mile of a lake would result in at least one more boat using the lake, however we can't make that statement. Unfortunately the author of this section of the EAW felt no similar constraint. • We expect some authoritative assessment be made of the potential impact of the development on the watercraft use on Staring Lake. • Why did the city staff not challenge the unsupported NO answer in the EAW? 12 MEM0418.DOC • 4/18/96 6:30 PM /30 Item 18b Water Quality- Surface Water Runoff-The EAW indicates that Staring Lake is generally graded as"D"and so is"severely impaired" and of"limited possible recreational use". However, this lake is actually highly used for recreation(primarily fishing, but also boating, water-skiing, canoeing, sailboarding). • If the lake is as bad as the EAW says,why is it not posted as such to warn possible users? • Why isn't the city prohibiting use to limit additional damage? • What are the city's plans for improving the water quality in this key city resource? • Why is any additional development around the lake being considered that could have any remote additional negative impact on the water quality? Item 22 Traffic -The EAW states that"No significant increases in traffic congestion are expected on the adjacent roadway system". Appendix 4 to the EAW presents the traffic study analysis. This traffic analysis which supports the statement in the EAW is flawed. The"current" conditions are based on 1993 average daily traffic volumes per the city and MN/DOT. • • The use of three year old data would in general be of dubious quality. In this case, considering the huge size of the proposed development(788 units) and the development in the general area in the past three years,why wasn't a new and genuinely current determination of daily traffic volumes made? The P.M. peak traffic information in the EAW is based on information collected on a single day January 16, 1996 and then compared with data collected on two days in January 1992. • Considering the huge size of the proposed development,why is such a limited source of data considered adequate to make a definitive conclusion that peak volumes had decreased 10.8%? • Is a January week night appropriately representative of traffic volumes throughout the year? • What is the statistical validity of such a sample and the conclusion drawn from it? The EAW states that"...existing TH 169 traffic volumes have recently decreased ...". We obtained information from MNDOT that places more recent traffic volumes north of the site at 36,500 (an increase of 5.8%from the count in the EAW) and volumes south of the site at 30,000 (an increase of 15.4%from the count in the EAW). • Why does the EAW say volumes have gone down when MNDOT indicates volumes are increasing? • What is the credibility of the remaining information in the traffic portion of the EAW if the author is not even directionally correct regarding daily trips? In Table 2 of the traffic analysis,the EAW forecasts that only 8%of the trip distribution is to the south. The remaining 92% of trip distribution is divided into 5 other categories, but all five categories are to the north of the site. However,the traffic study also 13 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM I l estimates that 20% of the trips will involve use of the"Vo-Tech"exit at the south end of the project. • Why are these two points not consistent? • Are they not consistent because the traffic at the north end of the development will be so congested that 12% of the trips to/from the north will use the south exit to avoid the congestion? • Why was this inconsistency not challenged? Item 26 Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: Item 26a Archaeological. historical or architectural resources?- The EAW says definitively NO. An attached letter from the MN Historical Society says that there is a good probability of unreported archaeological properties. See Exhibit PI-3. • Why did the staff accept-this no answer? Item 26c Designated parks,recreation areas,or trails? Incredibly the EAW says NO when its own many exhibits show this to be in error. See Exhibit PI-4 from the EAW Appendix 1, Exhibit A. • Why did the staff accept this incredible answer? • What additional information and discussion is necessary, due to this substantial error in the EAW,to assess and describe the potential stress on the lake and park facilities due to the development of this immense project? Item 26d Scenic views or vistas? Incredibly the EAW stated NO. See Exhibit PI-5 (the proposed site viewed from the Staring Lake Park amphitheater-buildings on the site will be clearly visible from this highly used area of Staring Lake Park during the day and the lights from 788 units will have a significant impact at night), PI 6 (a view across the grassland and up the hill on the northwest side of the site from Purgatory creek, and the same hillside from the south exit at Oak Point School-the proposed plan puts buildings below the crest of this hill and opposite the exit from Oak Point School) for just two of the scenic views. • Why did the staff accept this answer? Item 27 Will the project create adverse visual impacts? Incredibly the EAW stated NO. See Exhibit PI-5 (the proposed site viewed from the Staring Lake Park amphitheater-buildings on the site will be clearly visible from this highly used area of Staring Lake Park during the day and the lights from 788 units will have a significant impact at night). The single family homes to the northwest of the site have a commanding view of the site. The day and night impacts will be significantly greater than those from the amphitheater, and could vary widely depending on the nature and intensity of the development of the site. These are property owners that are • 14 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM f r7 constrained in the use of their own property by scenic easements that benefit the rest of the community. • How can anyone who has seen this site say NO? Was this question answered in an office based on paper? • Why did the staff accept this answer? Item 31 Other Potential Environmental Impacts - We were not surprised that for this item that the EAW indicated"None identified". Based on the information elsewhere in the EAW we are confident that contributors to the EAW did not expend a significant amount of effort to look for other potential environmental impacts, and we are uncertain as to whether any would have been listed and discussed had they been incidentally identified. • What is the Planning Commission's estimate of the diligence with which other potential environmental impacts were sought,and what is their confidence that such items would have been listed and discussed if found? Finally, there are other questions in the EAW that were too technical for us to analyze (e.g. water run-off and quality, air emissions, dust/odor/noise analysis). Based on the errors, inconsistencies and oversights in the areas we were able to understand,we are highly skeptical of the quality of the information in the technical areas. • What does the Planning Commission intend to do in order to validate the information in the technical areas of the EAW? 15 MEM0418.DOC 4/18/96 6:30 PM r&rl Pr-I . . • ---• - --.•• .. •• ,.....•:. _...--,...., • _•, _..,..... .I --""...1,- . s. i ...•. . ......'.•Z- . ..., . • 4....- ..- • ...;‘'. . • v. ... ,. • ,".. . . • - a. . • .0 . - in; .• 3/4 • ' I ,."*...ii I - .11 410 --'• 1 • ,.../ .Ipp , , n e" . 1t'. ;•.'.. ' , i gp, >. ....-....3 Ill ,e....-.4..;• AA a e c4; ' -..tAi NIP i • 7:.. ,• ......- . 'it. 701,...'JP• 4 A.(.. ). IP IPIL - , 1 ‘ 41! ' ' \ ' I.. • - r. e. , „. . . , 4 ,-_41,,. 44.4 4 .4,...,0.... 44,, . .• -75 I- . -\ b•el -1,4;4 . .. •••,.. 7),. t N.•••.444.1 I ', i N ......-. : 111.‘: 1,. 4 i ' •, .'/".',...-1_,,i.4.,': ./. . :Nt 1 i i . - . 4,, ,• • ., • . - - i •-•!. :•.r •- - - :A , - ' --.." . •,n;. '• .,.•,.... ... .ti ,.. 4 • . -11 r. •i ks ,..- ,. . - - ,- 1,5 r'', f.e 01.V:•,-)...,7i,.. ...,•-• z.L!.4,4-7:V1;41,•••.• 'V,?.'"!-..,4..ttit". .- .-' %, .: ,. .- .• •--. • -,L...:',7•i'•-t r"..ii••rrft'4, ,,,:.•••-,, • • ,••,K •,t%• , •.. .• •• 1" - .:;)_V.Lik‘' -1,-",":-r i': ,-.• 1' .i. . ... . --.7 - ,.. ':42..i-: ?-,z-'''-''''':'''''''.--. • . ..- - - ' . ..,,,,i4;-,-?=?-••=1-.=,..,:'-;•:. -. . . . ',;AV...,..4,54•,:::•.--, . . ' ,. re 44;,4,t,4-,..,•;, •. , ' • , '-' ,e;f,i•,-..= ' ' ' • , . lIy i,-„*.;.........t.2." ' ' At, ,;,..,; ...,, „4,'",.7,.,:,;:.,:,.:4,.. ..o - - '-', '',1'....:S,f....,,t.:=-$14,;„.1, ,:;,:;,-,,...:`,..i'..`"'..:4,ti:•:--,-:.'..:;::;:;,...- 4: t.,.. 2.,P;::•!..ke:',..-,. :,•:., " ''''4'-;-..t7';;,W-'-**.t&I&Z--:''''i' . :,, -.),'::';:'t..7r,'.',. ..::,.,4;-:-,;siwz..."--4 .'tieAri, --f---.-:,..r,.. ,:.:- '1i4. " -:"'..11• - " ' -4-A'q,...1,-..:14i,...;÷'.' . . '......::$;.-:, ''', 1 ,t1,FAI(4,,, --••.' 1 --- ,,.., .. . _ .._-....... — ,.. ........_. .• It/ ex c► ;64- P2 . e.coF MUVIy r9 '�k Minnesota Department f atural Resources v rn m W -O U M 0 5(H)Lafayette Road � � St. Paul.Minnesota 55155-400 OFNANaP� January 30, 1996 Mike DeRuyter Soils Specialist Svoboda Ecological Resources 24000 Highway 7, Suite 125 Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Undecided Project, Hennepin County,T116N, R22W, Section 22 Dear Mr. DeRuyter. The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the above referenced project. Based on this review, there are no known occurrences of rare species or natural features in the area searched. The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage Program and the Nongame Wildlife Program, units within the Section of Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources. It is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, plant communities, and other natural features, and is used in fostering better understanding and protection of these rare features. The information in the database is drawn from many parts of Minnesota, and is constantly being updated, but it is not based on a comprehensive survey of the state. Therefore,there are currently many significant natural features present in the state which are not represented by the database. We are in the process of addressing this • via the Minnesota County Biological Survey(MCBS),a county-by-county inventory of rare natural features,which is now underway. Because survey work is in progress for Hennepin County,our information about natural communities judged to be significant by our program is quite good for that county. The MCBS survey work for rare and endangered animals and plants is less comprehensive; it is therefore possible that occurrences of these features exist in the project area for which we have no records. Because there has not been an on-site survey of the biological resources of the project area,it is possible that ecologically significant features exist for which we have no record_ r • /635- • 1NR Information: I-XIH)-766-6000 • 1TY:6I_-'_96-54):4. 1-)WO-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer sIV Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Valu,S.Diversity ` Minintunt of 101 Post-Ctxtsuntcr Waste xlib,'t r.l - 1/4 MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY • January 29, 1996 Mr. Mike DeRuyter Svoboda Ecological Resources 2400 Highway 7, Suite 125 Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Mr. DeRuyter: Re: New development at T.H. 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway S/2 NE/4 S22, T116, R22, Eden Prairie, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 96-1233 Thank you for contacting our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above referenced project. We believe that there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties may be present in the west one half of the project area. Therefore, we recommend that a survey of this portion of the project area be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of any properties which are identified. For your information, we have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys. If the project area can be documented as previously disturbed or previously surveyed, we will re-evaluate the need for survey. Previously disturbed areas are those where the naturally occurring post-glacial soils and sediments have been recently removed. Any previous survey work must meet contemporary stand- ards. We also note that the site is located in proximity to a property known as the "Northrup King Research Farm". This property is included in our statewide inventory, but has not been evaluated for historical significance. If this project involves federal funding, permits, or licenses, a Section 106 review will be necessary, and a determination will need to be made as to whether this property falls into the area of potential effect for the project. Evaluation may be necessary. If you have any questions on our comments, please contact our Review and Compliance Section at 612-296-5462. Sincerely, Dennis Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs and Compliance Officer DAG:dmb Enclosure: List of Consultants • ...- VP... . ..,.,• nn.,... ..... \tr....... .C....... i..... 1�.. . r-c n.... ��..... ...... T... ............ .... ..... _._ 1i pj _ Lf Air � �v ' W. 494 _ IIII . 0494 _ 2121 y.—�, ��_ _____ Aili4H 411-1,----7---- ,;kv----_ ____ 0 \ • 11_____----1 -b11114--- -4---- - ;r,___ i --- --_____ _-- R nd �„. (� ;1 1 ,,ems 494 46 1 ille filL' i - 7---' :--."P Z V i 1111110ii""" I ..11, , _ _ ...„... ,, ,,, , 0,,,_...._.,,,,, ,... ___,____,‘,...s.._.„...:...•,:::,:, s.c:z:v'•`';, Anderson Lakes Pkwyi `,i. a . /�212 t - 11 v -.-....-s.:_.•_-.•_.` ' Red Rock•Lake • Andersori vii 111'"7,. CMcCo Lake16 A�, 1 _ .-, .„ oridl ft- P". Itpi .0e • '111111 ..12-:**-:-.'N .:1' 6410::'72:At.:.4-...'-: �� , i, Staring Lake. Pioneer Tr _ s, ,' ,;,..,;.;.•,,;.:. t. �/ n. v� ..r,,,; M,.- :�. ` , �o SITE 111 , .. a --� T . fffn. „ , Flying Cloud �7� Im Ow to • iv 1._ --__________.2 ......... --. / .._ i . t 1 11111111N ../ (-'--/ ._..- A . , I.. _ . il ..., .... •• .. . ,, ,vvt...,„:.........0,.:!. . 1 .....1 4.1...,,:,...er...,n•lehlrl.e. : 4161111114 1141.11/11111.hi*MI6 41 "i Grass Lake:•:1',,4,,... _ re �g4► tom•.... .- Bliie L•ake,;.•. ••.:• • _ z • 1 iiclhar,Lika_: t • I ''1None Qc41inty Rid 82. Minneapolis/Saint Paul[MN/WI] �` I ___ ,N Map data Copyright Etak,Inc., 1984-1995.All rights reserved. ��� L Microsoft Automap Streets Copyright 0 and(p) 1988-1995 Microsoft Corporation STARING LAKE • t:YNIRIT A 1'3/) , h P. &I,N.4 L11- P_.r-C iE .''rW i1 I � , • • 7_17,4451.- • • • • • yl �y '.rKr. PP 5 5 {d PE 'r• x ,, • • ` cam ' 4 ,, s E y.: �rV r tj • • x A� • ' a +; • • . ' r Y* • 7;+ efr pi- 6 Sa "- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • STOP — •es� • 139 To the Eden Prairie Planning Commission We, the undersigned, as residents of the Staring Lake area, wish to voice our concern/opposition to the Pulte Builders/Staring Lake Townhome development. Our concerns include: 1) The high density of the development-788 units. 2)Increased traffic flow on Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lakes Parkway. 3)Effect on existing property values. 4)Being forced to accept `mandated affordable housing"when one such development already exists(the Centex/Pinebrook development). No prior notice was given to area residents that informed us of this possibility. Staring Lake/Anderson Lakes Parkway area already has four major apartment complexes(Eden Place, Fountain Place, Parkway, and Burning Tree West) also. 5)Effect on the Staring Lake Park area. 6)Effect on wildlife in the Staring Lake area. 7)Light pollution(affecting mostly residents of the hillside area to the north). 8)Noise pollution. 9)Possible increase in crime due to increased density. 10) Security of private wooded lots. As residents of this area,we feel that our voices need to be heard in any proposed developments of this magnitude. This petition will be turned in to the Planning Commission on Friday, March 22nd, 1996 to inform them of our concerns prior to the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, March 25th, 1996. NO NAME ADDRESS PHONE# C am . ! &%u'-_ aLvvz Ea)4 c t.$, 9N-2N -7— 4i. ' >h C 613 41.-3cf � w � b � ►� C c;i3c&a9� 1�(� L M��` - 93i 5 mac' �r (fl i7) 919 /7 /s/7f 927.APG9 40/t .0 /e,yt / /rc3 � /37-1 nob ,• /� yid', 93 7 Q37-5-3Vs • se( ' �a .�� y37- ,f9-3 ./A 9d7// ' J J�AA .� N rm akin moo(3 J ; l� 9 3440 / of K,� J&. JI .r a1 e e 9' r 1�.�/ Urjj� 9d ,- 7 9L � r cbQI e,‘: lcc(•c r Ci(. q 3L(—`{- 'Purl . /6 (oO £J as i- r- C° r. G3 y-u9aS S-S'IF 44-0,6e Prr- ce3 0Q a . 43 y 8s7/ Deb -t-70�1 1�w j4.3-Z " '1 T3-7- 033 e 0,7 .4' ,� C - 93 7 ,4P/Mma I I I I En 1!Mita=INN s -7( ( — . 1 APP,-@8-96 MON 14 PM ___ P. 01 U1U4 2 L we6 l rry x'iauner,Alike k4ran2en, Find.c,press• s concerns and opposition. --Mike Franz, 949-8485, TES IS AN INVESTMENT IN YOUR NEIG$EOROOD.DO SOMETTIING. DO SOME-TE[NG. THANK YOU, � `4 -rill . f " 0,4% �Er3' t Imo '►' �► .r���+I'f�. li . :A„:::,:y. . LT:ir..W; owl.," -3.7n/r... 'p.m av: • f:: : '*r : • � • k a.. •� 1 y 11411 ig f .'y am Iø _ . • "`le . �'• // C:GI1fyl • .: id J ST-ARIt • _ "" a, 1..AKt - osy,t� 1111111 0 Ho ... Er- AAA-( C k-J r A, -A P-trs ,D�. r a v E.,D -SN A r REAAJ2 w AA/rT 're) G-iS - J? re1/4 q O Pp¢s/ 1,v/N.-1 Dr T+-1E ^),"36 p a)se i c0-a nJ4 b 1 ek-56-N 4,9-. s f &vY 44 ' 'LIJ' q 9/212 z-E,iz 02g.€c -4-it E 4.0 FT 111%-&-K.T'r--, 1 ,I-(� i-,A � tPIrN.16-c4 we mE ED i- 'P i 0u)k,3 (S VK /wwi..T 7:-:4V4 /Lam(' LA'{..l CV-S• . t • w 0i4-1.. N 'r- . r 0 P g„ T s i nt G c-t ,l-.44-► 4-( (A00 ers a ,..s APP P/A-`r-r�.y slAx(b LO--- ( MT CLct Slrg, /legs) S ' g in 0 i 6-AA) LAI • tbEr`1 14c 2( t, , )' n/ 6-53`r7 .SAY Ai< 7B3 - 7ca3Z . N� ,eve. ?fee ?34r - 1 2y7 April 17, 1996 To. The Eden Prairie Planning Commission and The Eden Prairie City Council 1te: The Staring Lake Townhouse Project We wanted to put our thoughts on paper prior to.your next review of the Staring Lake Townhouse development. We have been involved with the citizens group concerned with the size and environmental impacts of this project from the first public hearings. You have heard many questions, issues and concerns raised. Now that we have spent an enormous amount of time researching this development, we have come to the following conclusion: City planners thought this was a"politically feasible"site for such a project. I heard this term bandied about several times when I was in the planning office. Apparently it was thought that this parcel of land was far enough from other housing that such a huge project would go unnoticed. Now that we have learned more about the Liveable Communities Act, we feel there is real merit in it. But in trying to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of this Act, Eden Prairie should be trying to spread affordable housing throughout its new construction projects. We think you would find far less opposition to this than you think, at least from citizens. Builders may not think they can sell expensive homes across the street from less expensive oncs, but our experience in subdivisions in the Chicago area belies that belief. And look at the Lake Minnetonka area! There arc$300,000, $400,000 and even$500,000 new homes built on lots next to older homes of far less value. We think economic integration has worked well there. In sum, we believe the plan for the Staring Lake Townhouse project is overzealous in size and "political feasibility". Going back to the city's original guide plan makes sense to us. A three-zoned plan for this property makes sense,and so does gradual development. If nothing else, it seems awfully risky to gb into a project four times (or maybe more!)the size of anything else in Eden Prairie without more than the usual research and review. Affordable housing is right and necessary in Eden Prairie. It seems appropriate for a portion of this site. But the city cannot solve all its needs in one place. We ask you to go back to the drawing board on this project,and consider what is right for 1-..;den Prairie,current residents, Staring Lake,park users and future residents of the area around Staring Lake. 'I tr you, /, &i& _„ A :./61'"... aul S. Olson &Laura Dockery 8899 3~lesher Circle T;den Prairie 111 March 31,1996 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: 788 Proposed Townhouses Situated on the Southwest Corner of Hwy.169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway Dear Commissioners Ken Clinton,Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail,Katherine Karl,Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp and Mary Jane Wissner: We attended the planning commission meeting on Monday evening, March 25,where the above-referenced proposed townhouse development was discussed. After hearing the information presented at that meeting, we have some thoughts we would hie to share with you for your consideration when making your decision about the scope of this development. DENSITY From the information we heard at the meeting,this is the biggest townhouse development that has ever been built in the city of Eden Prairie. It will have a far-reaching impact on the surrounding neighborhood as well as the city as a whole. There is no track record for a project of this size for you to use as a guide. Therefore,we ask that you carefully consider all of the possible negative consequences that could result,because there is no turning back once the project is built. Our main concern about the project is the high number of units concentrated in the 88 acre area,not the overall concept. There should be greater setbacks from the surrounding streets;more open, green space; and more room for parking within the development. We are wondering where people will be able to park if owners have people visiting them, especially in sizable numbers. We are concerned that the impact on traffic at an already busy intersection is greater than the numbers presented at the meeting. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN It is our understanding that the city's comprehensive plan was drawn up almost 30 years ago. It no longer seems relevant because it was conceived when double the density was envisioned for Eden Prairie. In addition,there were basically no established neighborhoods to be affected in the surrounding area, only open space. It is hard to understand how this comprehensive plan can still be a guiding force,when so many changes have occurred in the proposed development area since the inception of the comprehensive plan. Ng Page 2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING We agree that Eden Prairie should have a reasonable amount of affordable housing and that some of it is appropriate in this proposed development. However,it would be in the best interest of the city as a whole, and in the interest of fairness, if the affordable housing was spread out in a few areas of the city rather than concentrating such a disproportionate number of units in this 88 acres. TWO-STAGE DEVELOPMENT This development is being proposed in two stages. We were wondering what happens if the builder doesn't continue with the second stage. Does the builder have any obligations about the second stage? - We thank you for taking the time to read about and consider our concerns. We again want to remind you of the great responsibility you have in setting precedent in deciding the scope of the largest townhouse project ever built in Eden Prairie. We know you will carefully consider its impact on the park, school,traffic,neighborhood, environment, safety, entire city of Eden Prairie, and on fairness. Sincerely, Micki and Ron Gamer 8934 Hllloway Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 citypI.doc i9 U)--ThNj 0_,(1 0-_ L-4._ey- _k_ s_ O (J,9-0,_ /JO b g 7 - vv4,o ut„,j, ---i-b----L- Lryy . ciltdoy)-- OTh) \. gQ_ v1A-- -----/- ----/-, 0- 1 LI ci c}--7--- k_ 1.1 '9 S' -CK--(/ - Ck.• Q__61-)(dt. L,t_60_,Q 5 c''-j'- 6- -. • ' --\-d, )7Y -0-x-__;.a_ • CA,. 5---) ),n r. ,-“2,._ 0,-Q.___ _tt, . ..)---e_O ) 3 0-6-n , 1 _ , „1.,6N--- ,t. . -2_. 6., I-k-e-• .-D , , m if.) /1'-eL- I t--- • °i•---")----Q-- fr7 y ic_-_,,L.j:A 0_0, cy.„...J - U9-A----Uk,_ d•--N-Q Kr cz_trii,L_Q.._ec P k_sz__-0—,__9_ , "Z• .,,k., v L, 0..!ZD g). L-X----- --A•-<--. lec--7:_,1'2 ) c---Z-----7\---e.-C.-4- ir' C,Q,---C ) - ,/, k,,,--C. k_.--64-- --C---1' , 0 eoc..si_c, 0 rruin.v.n.vcfLc m i I nnanldrhL rex.a i G=549=0339 -1 o:PLA-6INKV,cOMMTS51061 at:EDEN PRAIRIE Page 2 of 3 l uesday,March 19,1996 3:25:52 PM FAX , Date 03/19/96 Number of pages including cover sheet TO: EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING FROM: GILBERT H. GEHLE COLILi IISSION Gilbert H. Gehle EDEN PRAIRIE CITY OFFICES 8852 Flesher Circle Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55347 Phone 949-0246 Phone Fax Phone Fax Phone 949-8392 CC: REMARKS: El Urgent ❑ For your review El ReplyASAP ❑ Please Comment GENTLEMEN: I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULED MAR. 25, 1995. THIS MEETING IS TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 780 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AREA NEAR STARING LAKE AND HWY 212. THE MEETING IS SCHEDULED DURING A TIME WHEN MOST OF THE RESIDENTS WILL BE OUT OF TOWN OR UNABLE TO ATTEND DUE TO SPRING BREAK IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. I URGE YOU TO CONTINUE THE MEETINGS ON THIS SUBJECT SO THAT MORE PEOPLE MIGHT ATTEND. MOST PEOPLE IN THIS AREA ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE DOUGLAS CORP SIGNS ARE STILL UP. APPARENTLY THERE WAS A ZONING CHANGE NO ONE IS AWARE OF EXCEPT YOUR DEPARTMENT AND THE DEVELOPER. I KNOW MOST PEOPLE IN THE STARING LAKE AREA WOULD BE OPPOSED TO SUCH A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT DUE TO CROWDING OF THE PARK, SCHOOLS,ROADS, AND REDUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES. I WOULD URGE YOU TO MAKE A MORE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF UPCOMING HEARINGS ON THIS DEVELOPMENT SO A FAIR ASSESSMENT OF THE AREA RESIDENTS CAN BE MADE! / `9 Community Planners Eden Prairie City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Hello, I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed 788 townhomes considered for the SW corner of 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. I do not live adjacent to this property, but frequently use Staring Lake Park. I am very concerned over the impact-this huge development will have on the area, especially the park region. This will require rezoning of the area from rural, to medium or high density population. There are so few park regions left for the wildlife and human enjoyment, that we need to set aside these regions for natural settings. This project will have a permanent negative effect. I often see wildlife in the area. The only safe zone for continued life in the region will be the park, which is not enough from an environmental standpoint. In addition, this region is already heavily populated by a number of high density dwellings...Foutainplace, Eden Place, Pinebrook, Windsong, Parkway, Burning Tree, Chestnut, Atherton, to name just a few. This is already too much for the area. There are also concerns over adjacent school safety, traffic and related problems. Everyone I have spoke with, whether or not they live in the region, is opposed to this development. We all feel that a better location could be chosen that would have a less negative and permanent affect on one of the few remaining park and rural sites left in this city. Once this region is developed, it's gone for good! Please consider the wishes of the majority of Eden Prairie residents. This is our city and we feel we should be able to be involved in a decision of this magnitude. I would appreciate you sharing this information with all those involved as I will be unable to attend the meeting. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Jim Berg jLJ R. H. WILLIAMS SALES, INC. 9061 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (612)941-6182 March 14, 1996 Mike Franzen Senior Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Mike: _ _ I attended a presentation last evening by Tom Standke of Pulte Builders, regarding their Starring Lake Townhomes proposal. I only have two comments.First,our experience with plantings along 169 is that the wind and salt from the road wreaks havoc on the trees,especially the fir trees.They'll be dead in no time.Keep that in mind when determining what will go on the berm. My major concern had to do with the safety aspects of the close proximity of the townhomes with Highway #169. It was indicated to the audience at the presentation that Pulte's demographic projections for these units would predict that they would not have many children.However,this stretch of road,with its high speed traffic,will be very close to a residential/play area. I don't think there's a similar situation in Eden Prairie with residences that are as close to a high speed,high traffic thoroughfare. I would strongly suggest that the City require Pulte to build a fence(in addition to the 4 foot berm)along #169/212 to keep small kids and pets from wandering onto this very busy highway. If some barrier isn't established to protect the innocents,we will have a tragedy someday out on this dangerous highway. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ,' Robert K. Williams : w CITY RESPONSE ' ,..* T NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTSi.„* ::.,:,, ka,''; ti.::•::•:{'.+yam. ;•,::,v.,.;.,•:::: :+.v,,:,.,::*:,,•.,:.:„*W2titii<:.+;.:,•;::::.:.,..1...:n„ ,',.^'':;:i;:i.........\*:;:'' +,:.:.:•+,..:,... ,:,:: .:.,\, *,v.,+,+;++'•.:..., + ..++.\.. •.•„, 1SO MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael Franzen, City Planner DATE: April 30, 1996 SUBJECT: Response to Letter From Area Residents Concerning Pulte Proposed Development Dated April 18, 1996 1. Too many people in one location. The 1990 census data indicates that a multiple family unit would typically have 2.2 people per household. This means 1522 people. Pulte homes household data would be 1050 people. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this site for up to 740 housing units and using 2.2 people per household would result in 1,628 people and Pulte data would be 1110 people. 2. The Staff Report is inaccurate with regards to traffic. The traffic study has been amended to use City code maximums for office and residential developments so that the amount of traffic generated would be consistent with what has been approved for other projects in the community. In addition, the City evaluates traffic based upon the amount of development that the site can support consistent with City codes and ordinances. City staff must use the worse case scenario because it represents what a property owner is legally entitled to develop as a maximum density or a maximum square footage of Office development. The April 19, 1996 Staff Report shows a revised traffic generation based upon a City code application for density and Office development which is less than what was reported in the previous traffic studies. The chart still shows that the Pulte development for all housing generates less traffic than the other land use alternatives. 3. To say that the density of the project at 8.9 units per acre is compatible with surrounding land uses is a simple analysis in the Staff Report for a project of this colossal magnitude. The analysis in the Staff Report is based upon prior experience with similar density • projects in similar locations. The statement of compatible land uses would also apply, even if the land uses in the northeast, northwest and southwest were included in the project description. /5( . 4. Why does the March 22 Staff Report fail to discuss general density issues when the proposed project potentially is representing 2.7 to 4.7% of the entire City, includes High Density Residential adjacent project that already includes high density residential. Medium Density Residential is up to 10 units per acre. High Density Residential is anything between 10 to 17.4 units per acre. This is not a high density project by city code definition. 5. The March 22 Staff Report refers to Summerfield with 188 units described as a , large project. If that is so,what is the appropriate adjective for a project over four times as large. The reference in the March 22 Staff Report is described in relationship to a small project of 50 units. The Staff Report could be revised to say that this is the largest townhouse project in the community, but this would not affect the staff recommendation for approval. 6. The EAW contains numerous errors. On what basis can the Planning Commission accept a report from staff that fails to point out and criticize the flaw of the EAW. The April 17, 1996 letter to the Planning Commission indicates what sections of the EAW would be amended based upon neighborhood comments. 7. How come the EAW does not speak of the alternative Phase 2 plan if Pulte does not elect to proceed with the project. The Planning Commission recommended denial of alternative two . The EAW is based on the 692 unit plan. 8. Why was no additional effort made to the local community and the City as a whole to be aware of this enormous development proposal? State law requires that public hearing notices be sent out to those residents within 500 feet of the property. In addition, the law requires that the project be posted in the local newspaper(Eden Prairie News) at least ten days prior to the public hearing. These two items have been complied with. In addition, this project has been reviewed at a neighborhood meeting, two public hearings at the Planning Commission, and a representative group met with the City staff and the developer on two other separate occasions. The residents also have appeared at the City Council expressing their view points. The City ordinance does not require a developer to post future development signs on the property. 16492, 9. Is the Comprehensive Guide Plan no longer valid? The Comprehensive Guide Plan is an acceptable use of the property. Over the years the City Council has approved changes to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, but only when it is an alternative that was equal to or better than the property as currently guided. The Staff Report indicates the reasons for approving the guide plan change which include affordable housing, a revised site plan with less density, less traffic than the Guide Plan and the other alternatives, traffic can be accommodated by road and signal improvements, the project is 60% open space, setbacks are three times that required by City code, the project provides for internal recreational facilities, no tree loss and there is no wetland fill. 10. Why is Staff in favor of supporting more than 30% of the affordable units in this location. The City's goal is for 30% affordable housing in all residential projects. This is not a requirement. It also helps balance housing and employment. 11. The most oversimplification of the March 22 Staff Report refers to Staring Lake and Staring Lake Park as open space. The open space designation in the Staff Report refers to the designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The Park area to the west should have been officially called Public Open Space/Park/Flood Plain. This is the designation on the official colored version of the Guide Plan map. The reference is made only as the use of the property and is not a description or an opinion of whether or not it is a natural asset to the City or a park which the City relies heavily on for recreation. 12. There is no discussion of the fact that the development around the Lake has generally been Low Density which has helped preserve some of the natural setting of the park and lake. The single family home in the Starwood Addition, Centex Westover, and Starview Terrace on the west side of Starring Lake are more visually imposing upon the Lake. There is no natural vegetation between these structures and the Lake. The trees on the Vo-Tech property, as well as the proposed berming on Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway makes a much smaller visual impact on the Lake than the surrounding single family neighborhoods. 13. Why does the Staff Report not speak to an appropriate transition from the Medium High Density proposed for this site and these single family homes? At the first public hearing, the staff indicated that the density on the west end of the project was approximately five units per acre. The nearest single family home was 1,000 feet away. The density for the west end of this project because of the fewer units and open space is approximately three units per acre. This is less dense than the Boulder /53 Pointe Townhouses which is developed at 3.66 units per acre. Large setbacks, open space, park, berming and landscaping create the transition. 14. Why does the Staff Report fail to mention the impact of traffic on the school and community pool? The traffic study does indicate the impacts of this proposed project on the school and takes into account traffic going to the school from faculty and parents and school bus traffic. If the community pool is used by the general residents in the evening and the weekends, it is not during the peak hour traffic periods on the road. 15. Why does the Planning Commission for such an immense project accept a report from staff that so grossly fails to note such a significant adjacent public resource. The April 17 Staff Report on changes to the EAW indicates there is a City Park to the west of this site. 16. Why does the Staff Report not discuss transition between different housing densities towards the single family homes to the northwest? The public hearing comments by City staff indicate the nearest single family home is 1,000 feet away with views through existing vegetation. For the most part, these homes would have no view of the project during summer leaf-on conditions. The plan was revised to put a 4 acre park on the west end, lower the density from 5 to 3 units per acre, raise berms so that buildings would not be visible and a doubling of the landscaping. 17. Why is no scenic easement proposed on the grass area adjacent to Purgatory Creek? Because of the desire of the neighborhood for park and recreational facilities on-site, located near the school, the park area was located along the slope area. Since the slope is not a bluff, it is not required by city code to be preserved. This slope area will be regraded so that recreational facilities can be accommodated. This slope is not as steep as the Victoria Drive neighborhood west of Staring Lake which has been built on with single family homes. 18. Why did the staff fail to comment on scenic impact issues related to this project? If this approach was applied to the surrounding single family areas in the Starwood Addition, and Starview Addition on Staring Lake, then both of those sites should not have been developed for single family. Those homes are built on comparable slopes. 19. An all-residential use of the property would be less intense to development than if the property was built according to the Guide Plan. The March 22 Staff Report is inaccurate. Kt/ This is a correct statement. While the residents would prefer that the Guide Plan interpreted towards the least intense use of the property, the City must allow the property owner to develop the property in terms of the Zoning Code maximums if they meet all of the City's requirements. The least dense residential option of the neighborhood with an office development will generate more traffic than the Pulte project and will have approximately one-half as much open space. 20. Why did the staff report present as fact a statement regarding density that is more portrayed as a matter of opinion. The staff report does not portray this as an opinion. If the property is zoned for multiple family use and the developer meets the City requirements and addresses the impacts of the surrounding uses, then the City is obligated to approve the project. 21. Why was it not more fully developed in the staff report considering the huge size of the project that there are other variations of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The staff agrees that there are other alternatives, however, based upon the statistics and the memo from the neighborhood dated 4-18-96, all of these alternatives create greater traffic impacts than the Pulte project. On this basis, it was not necessary to discuss other alternatives. 22. There are numerous errors and omissions and inconsistencies in the EAW. These items have been addressed in the April 17, 1996 memo. 23. Why doesn't the EAW mention Alternative 2 for more housing units and Office. The Planning Commission denied alternative two. 24. Why did the City staff accept such weekly worded and poorly supported representations about wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources. The wildlife section was put together by a certified wildlife biologist based upon comments from the Department of Natural Resources. The DNR has supplied a letter analyzing the project and the project has been revised to take their items in to consideration, including the following changes: 1. There is no development in the shore impact zone. 2. There is no development on the bluff 3. The 75 foot wide shore impact zone will be used as the wildlife corridor. 25. What is the basis and supporting data for representation of wildlife population as small. This information is based upon an analysis by a certified wildlife biologist and in conjunction with representatives from the Department of Natural Resources. 26. Why did the City staff not challenge the overall implication of the representations in Item 11 as long as the wildlife population is already small, there is no need to be concerned about any further impact due to development. Every development where land has been converted from natural or agricultural purposes displaces wildlife. The City did a natural resource study 3 years ago which identified sites to preserve which would also support wildlife. This site was not chosen for preservation or purchase. 27. Why did the City staff accept such a weekly worded and poorly supported representation that Staring Lake has some fishery habitat, however, the Lake is shallow and presumably does not represent a significant fishery resource. This information was supplied by a certified wildlife biologist is based on a conversation with the Department of Natural Resource. 28. Why did the City staff accept such an imperfect representation by the author of the EAW regarding an impact on the wildlife in the park. The City staff relies upon the judgement of the Department of Natural Resources. The plan meets the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources. 29. What is the impact of watercraft use on Staring Lake? Staring Lake is open for recreational use by anyone in the State of Minnesota. The City has outboard motor size restrictions. 30. What is the City's plan for improving the water quality of this key resource. The City requires a treatment pond which cleans water, pollutants, and sediments before discharge into Staring Lake. This is the only project in the area immediately surrounding the lake basin that has a treatment pond. 31. The use of 3 year old data from Minnesota Highway Department traffic volumes 169 is inadequate and why isn't new traffic information included? The traffic study uses the 1993 average daily traffic data as a base and projects the amount of traffic expected to be used on the road based upon background traffic and full development of the city. 32. What is the statistical validity of a sample of traffic counts taken during January. The developer completed a second analysis on April 16 and April 17 to determine the AM peak hour impacts. Currently, all traffic gets through the intersection during the peak hour on one signal change with the exception of one time. That will change to approximately 5 within one hour based upon new development. 33. Why does the EAW say the volumes have went down when MnDOT says the volumes are increasing. With road improvements to County Road 18, the projected maximum number on 169 will be less than without the improvements. It is true that traffic is increasing on 169, but will not reach the levels originally forecast without the County Road 18 improvement. 34. What is the correct directional distribution of daily traffic from the site? The traffic distribution in Table 2 is correct. Eight percent of the traffic distribution will be to the south. 35. Are there any archeological sites on the property? The City retained the services of Tellus Consultants to do an archeological survey of the area which determined there were no archeological significant things on the property. 36. Why did the EAW not indicate that were park areas in the facilities. This has been amended per the April 17, 1996 report. 37. Why did the EAW not indicate scenic views or vistas. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not designate scenic views or vistas in this vicinity. All of the land around the lake basin including the Centex residential areas, Starwood, and the homes off of Victoria are all on slopes facing the lake which could have been designated as scenic views, but were not. 38. Will the project create adverse visual impacts. The plan has been revised to create large berming around the perimeter of the project so that no views of the project would be visible from Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lakes Parkway. Only the top portion of the roof would be visible from Highway 169. The 4 acre park has been added on the upside of the slope and the NURP pond along the western portion of the property to create more open space. There will be plantings below the park area and plantings above the area to provide screening. The amount of the lighting in this project will be no different than any other single family neighborhood. 1 6/ 39. What is the Planning Commission's estimate of the diligence with which other potential environmental impacts were sought and what is their confidence that such items would have been listed and discussed if found. Staff believes the most significant environmental issues are traffic and water quality. These items are addressed. 40. What does the Planning Commission intend to do in order to validate the information in the technical areas of the EAW. The EAW is revised based upon the April 17, 1996 memo regarding changes to the EAW. M:\jan\mike\memos\sfarques. ! 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner SUBJECT: Changes to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet DATE: April 17, 1996 The following sections of the EAW will be amended as indicated below: 12. Physical Impacts On Water Resources. There is an existing wetland on the property on the southeast corner. No grading or filling or direct discharge of water is proposed into this wetland area. There is an existing drain tile system which drains water from the site into Purgatory Creek. This drainage system will be replaced by catch basins and storm sewer pipes. The City ordinance requires all properties to have positive drainage away from the buildings through overland swales to the nearest catch basin system. All water collected will be drained off the property towards a pretreatment pond designed to meet the requirements for capacity and phosphorus removal. Water exiting the pond will be released to Purgatory Creek which flows into Staring Lake. 14. Water Related Land Use Management Districts. The Shoreland Ordinance affects this property. The Shoreland Ordinance defines an area of 300 feet back from the creek and an area of 1,000 feet back from the high water mark of Staring Lake as a Shoreland area. There are no structures proposed within the shoreland area. Within this shoreland area there is a shoreland impact zone which is defined as 75 feet back from either the lake or the creek. There is no grading or construction within this zone. There is a bluff area identified next to the proposed NURP pond. The grading around the NURP pond has been changed to eliminate the grading on the bluff. The land area adjacent to Purgatory Creek is 100 year flood plain. No building is proposed within the flood plain area. Approximately .75 acres of a 1.5 acre NURP pond will be excavated within the flood plain boundaries. No material will be deposited to the surrounding area during excavation, therefore,there will be no reduction in flood plain capacity. / U 17. Erosion and Sedimentation. Erosion and sedimentation control practices will comply with those prescribed as"best management practices"by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,the Riley Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District, and the City of Eden Prairie. This will include the development of temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control plans. Measures to be constructed and serviceable prior to commencement of any construction activities will include siltation fencing, sedimentation basins,or temporary sediment traps, storm water inland protection, and temporary diversions. Exposed areas that are disturbed will have temporary cover applied in an appropriate number of days based upon the slope of the area as prescribed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District,and the City of Eden Prairie. Temporary cover may include the application of straw or hay mulch which will be anchored which will include cover loss. Stock piles shall not be located within 100 feet of any water body of the State of Minnesota. Final stabilization will include measures such as exposed areas with permanent cover and maintenance of any storm water control measures that are found to be applicable to the site plan. 18. Water Quality Surface Water Runoff. The City's ordinance requires that a storm water quality pond(NURP pond) will be required. This pond will be designed to remove up to 70%phosphorus. 26. Are there any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site. There are no archeological,historic or architectural resources on site. The Minnesota Historical Society indicates that there may be unreported archeological properties present in the west one-half of the property. The City retained the services of an independent archeological consultant in 1994. This group completed an analysis of archeological, historical, or architectural resources throughout the community. The nearest such resource is the Staring Lake Center on the north side of Staring Lake. Staring Lake Park is a community park that is adjacent and southwest of the property. Since the park is a community park designed to serve an end population of 65,000 people in Eden Prairie,this project by itself will not have a significant impact on park usage. g:\jen\mike\memos\eew SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner SUBJECT: City Staff Response to Concern Citizen Group Representatives Regarding the Staring Lake Townhouse Proposal (Letter dated April 15, 1996) DATE: April 17, 1996 1. ENVIRONMENT The City's zoning code has regulations for environmental protection. These include a Tree Ordinance, Shoreland Ordinance, Storm Water Quality Facilities, and Site Erosion and Sediment Control. The Tree Ordinance requires that the developer prepare a tree inventory of all trees greater than 12 inches in diameter on the property. The ordinance requires the developer to replace a percentage of the trees lost due to construction. The average residential tree loss for all projects since the enactment of the ordinance in 1990 is 30%. On this site there are 500 inches of significant trees over 12 inches in diameter. A total of 0 inches will be lost due to construction or construction practices. The Shoreland Area is 300 feet back from the center line of Purgatory Creek and 1,000 feet back from the high water mark of Staring Lake. Since this is a multiple family project, the building setback required is 150 feet from the creek and 150 feet from the high water mark of Staring Lake. The nearest townhouse is 500 feet from Purgatory Creek and 700 feet from Staring Lake. The Shoreland Ordinance does not allow any grading within 75 feet of the high water mark of the lake or 75 feet of the center line of Purgatory Creek. The grading plan has been revised to move the NURP pond to the 75 foot setback. The Shoreland Ordinance also defines a bluff area as having a slope greater than 30%for a distance of at least 50 feet and a vertical rise of 50 feet. There is a small area of approximately 5,000 sq. ft. on the slope by the NURP pond. The NURP pond will be redesigned to eliminate grading on this portion of the bluff. The slope on the Hennepin County property, west of the Staring Lake Townhouses does not meet the definition of a bluff and no bluff setback is required. The storm water quality facilities ordinance was adopted in May of 1994. This ordinance requires that the storm water leaving any project site be channeled through a treatment pond called a NURP pond. The purpose of the pond is to filter out sediments and pollutants. The Planning Commission indicated that a single cell NURP pond was not 1WO adequate enough for phosphorus removal and recommended a two-cell pond. The plan includes a two-cell NURP pond. All of the surrounding residential areas do not have treatment ponds since these projects were approved prior to 1994. The quality of the water leaving the Staring Lake Townhouse project is cleaner than the water runoff from the surrounding areas. The site erosion and sedimentation control ordinance was also adopted in 1994. This ordinance requires hay bales and silt fencing to keep dirt and debris on the property, temporary sedimentation ponds to capture sediment before discharge into any adjoining lake, streams, or wetlands and requires restoration of the disturbed areas with mulching or vegetative cover. The DNR indicated that the western portion of the site is considered to be part of an important natural wildlife corridor, and makes reference to the project to enhance wildlife and recreational values of a large wetland which is located generally south of Highway 5 and north of Fountain Place Apartments. The wildlife corridor is identified on the City's comprehensive plan in green is the creek corridor abutting but not on this site. The shore impact zone(which will not be disturbed)provides a 75 foot wildlife corridor. The 75 foot buffer strip will be left intact to protect the water quality of Purgatory Creek as recommended by the DNR. Item 12 in the EAW refers to abandoned farm drain systems creating water problems. The City code and Engineering standards require positive drainage from all areas on this townhouse site directed into storm sewer systems to a NURP pond before discharge into Purgatory Creek. There will not be standing water problems on this property. Item 14 of the EAW will be revised to mention the shoreland ordinance and its potential impacts on the property. Item 26 of the EAW will be modified to indicate the nearest recreation areas adjacent to the property. One of the reasons there are deer, geese and other animals on the Northrup King property is that it is a food source. There are other natural food choices in the area. The improvement project for the wetland area to the north of Fountain Place will provide an appropriate habitat for some of these animals. Displacement of the geese closer to the open area around the airport could create a safety hazard. This would be true of any other undeveloped land in Eden Prairie where wildlife is displaced. Wildlife has already been displaced from the areas from the west and north of this site by other projects that have been previously approved by the City. The City retained the services of the Tellus Consultants group to do an archeological study of the entire City to identify potentially significant sites. The survey does not `G I indicate any significant archeological items on this property. 2. TRAFFIC School bus traffic and traffic to the school was included in the AM traffic calculations. Even though Oak Point School lets out at 2:20 PM, this is not during either the AM or PM peak hours. Projected traffic is based upon the comprehensive plan. It includes both existing and proposed facilities. The traffic study includes traffic from the approved Columbine Townhouse project. It should be pointed out that this property was previously planned for 3 acres of office which would have generated more traffic. The Mall renovation will increase traffic, but not beyond the City's expectations for traffic. The Mall was approved for a plan in excess of 1 million sq. ft. of building. Currently, there is only 750,000 sq. ft. of building. The additional building construction is included in traffic forecasts. Eden Prairie will grow by an additional 20,000 people. Even if this project was not built, there would be increased traffic on 169 by expected population growth of the City. Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway are designed based upon traffic projections for the City. The roads and the intersections have the capacity to handle the current level of traffic. If additional traffic is generated by new projects constructed in the area, or elsewhere in the community, the City will require additional road and signal improvements be made. A signal will be required at the intersection of Columbine Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway. There will also be intersection improvements. In 1997, there will be a signal installed at Fountain Place and Highway 169. The revided site plan puts more of the multiple family units towards the south end of the project which means more of the traffic will use the intersection at the Vo-Tech which is level of service A. This will reduce traffic at the Anderson Lakes Parkway/169 intersection. There is an existing parking problem at Oak Point School. It may be possible to relocate one of the NURP ponds to another location on the property, providing room for a small parking area. This will have to be studied in greater detail to determine the extent of grading impacts, and the construction costs of doing such an activity. 3. SCHOOLS The attached letter from Merle Gamm, Eden Prairie School District, indicates that this project will not have an impact on school capacity. 4. PARKS AND RECREATION The project has been revised to include a 4 acre park. This park area will be dedicated to the City. The developer will be required to build a tennis court, volley ball courts, basketball courts and playground structures for preschool children. In addition, the developer will build an 8 foot wide bituminous trail and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along Columbine Road. The plan also includes numerous sidewalks within the project.ts. The Staring Lake Townhouse project is 60% open space. The Boulder Pointe Townhouse project is 58% open space. A 40 acre portion of the Centex Westover area is 70% open space. A 17 acre portion of the Centex cluster area is 60% open space. The City's open space requirement is approximately 14 acres. This project has 22 acres. This project will have some impact on the use of the future pool at Oak Point. The City will grow by 20,000 additional residents will also use this pool and the community center pool. The Parks Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the expenditure of money for City park project and City improvements. 5. QUALITY OF LIFE This project by itself will have some impact on the quality of life in Eden Prairie. The City will grow by another 20,000 people. Eden Prairie's school system, park system and road system are designed based upon an end population of 65,000 people. The current population is 45,000. 6. REAL ESTATE VALUES Resales of single family homes, townhouses and condos from January, 1995 to December, 1995 indicate that there was a 4.7%turnover in single family homes, a 6.3%turnover in townhouses and a 5.7%turnover in condos. The resales are based upon the total number of existing units of single family and multiple family. In addition, the Atherton Townhouses on Mitchell Road are 20 years old. Of the total 86 units, 5% or 4 units are non-homestead. Distributing affordable housing throughout the community is a policy decision of the City • Council. The value of a piece of property is determined by the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the zoning ordinance. These documents indicate how many housing units can be built on a piece of property or the amount of square footage of office, commercial or industrial development. Based on the intensity of development allowable, the owner would determine a value based upon an assessment of land sales for comparable areas in the community . The cost of land can also impacted by the owners desire to obtain a reasonable rate of return on the property. The staff believes that the value of the land land is more determined by what is possible to be built rather than the owner's expectation. /4) MEMORANDUM TO: Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks,Recreation and Facilities Gece FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources DATE: April 30, 1996 SUBJECT: Staring Lake Townhomes BACKGROUND: This project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission on three separate dates,the last being April 22, 1996. At two of the previous Planning Commission meetings,the project was forwarded to a separate group for two meetings, which involved neighborhood residents, members of the City Council and Planning Commission, as well as City staff and representatives from the developer. The purpose of these two non-public meetings was to try to iron out a number of concerns that the neighborhood had regarding such issues as density and the mixture of residential and commercial office on this site as indicated by the Comprehensive Guide Plan. After these meetings the project was reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting on April 22, 1996 and received a 6-1 vote of approval as recommended in the staff report dated April 19, 1996 by Michael D. Franzen. The recommendations were for Items 1, 2, and 3 and the clearest outlines for those recommendations are found in the May 7, 1996 memorandum to the Eden Prairie City Council from Chris Enger and Mike Franzen. A copy of this memo is attached for your review. This memo gives the clearest indication of the various items that were discussed in regard to density, traffic, miscellaneous environmental issues, as well as the concerns with the neighborhood park and school. This project is located on 88.5 acres of land formerly known as the Northrup King Research Farm and currently owned by Douglas Corporation, Douglas Skanse. The request by the developer is to change the Guide Plan to allow development of 692 units of residential housing on this property. This would include multiple unit housing anywhere from four units to eight units to 12 units per building. NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES: Tree Loss Based on the plans submitted by the developer and field checked by the staff, there is a total of 32 significant trees yielding a total of 592 diameter inches as defined by City ordinance. The grading 1 plan that has also been reviewed indicates that only seven significant trees would be removed yielding a loss of 84 diameter inches of significant trees. This results in a loss of 14% of the significant trees, and by ordinance, mitigation is required for a total of 16 caliper inches of tree material. A rough landscaping plan has been submitted by the developer and this lists a total of 5,054 caliper inches of trees that would be planted on the entire site. The plan that is submitted for the Commission's review only shows the location of approximately one-half or about 2,500 caliper inches of landscape material. This material is shown in the vicinity of the NURP pond, the park area, and the berms located along Staring Lake Parkway, Anderson Lakes Parkway, and Flying Cloud Drive. The landscape material that has been selected is both deciduous and coniferous and ranges in size from 2'/2 inches balled and burlapped to 12 foot high machine moved stock. In addition, because of the Screening and Landscaping Ordinance, a variety of heights and diameter sizes are required due to the multi story nature of these buildings. The other remaining 2,500 caliper inches would be used to landscape areas between buildings in the common areas and to enhance areas along roadways and to screen the ends of buildings from various driveways and road intersections. NURP Pond: The project has a large NURP pond to handle the storm water runoff from the site. Currently, 72 acres of the site drain into Staring Lake and 16.5 acres drains toward Trunk Highway 169. The NURP pond that is proposed on an outlot in the northwesterly corner of the property is located adjacent to Purgatory Creek. The pond is sized appropriately to handle the storm water runoff from this site and to treat the water prior to it entering Purgatory Creek and Staring Lake. An evaluation of the water quality and surface water runoff is included in the environmental assessment work sheet that was submitted to the City dated April 26, 1996. Based on the information in the EAW, the water quality for Staring Lake will not be significantly impacted by this development. The NURP pond will remove up to 70% of the phosphates from site runoff, as well as providing a location to filter out solid particulates prior to the water being drained into Purgatory Creek and eventuallyStaringLake. g rY The developer will be required to meet the erosion control measures as established by the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District and follow all preventive and restorative measures as outlined by the Watershed District. Final review of the NURP pond sizing configuration needs to be approved by the City Engineering Department. Sidewalks and Trails This project will have one north/south pubic street—Columbine Road, as well as a number of side streets that will be private. The staff is recommending that an eight foot trail be installed concurrent with the construction on the east side of Columbine Road, and that a five foot wide concrete sidewalk be installed concurrent with development on the west side of Columbine Road. 2 /65 The project has a number of private sidewalks that will interconnect the 12 unit buildings on the most easterly portion of the project. The staff is recommending that the most westerly loop road have a five foot wide concrete sidewalk along the southerly and westerly side. In addition, the staff is recommending that two side spurs of five foot wide sidewalks connect from the roadway to the designated City park at the northwestern side of the site. The exact location for these two five-foot wide connections would have to be selected and earmarked prior to drafting of the Developer's Agreement. The intent for these sidewalks would be to enable pedestrian traffic a convenient location in which to either enter the park from the south or the north. In addition,the staff would recommend a trail system within the park; however, this will be covered in a later portion of the memo. Existing trails along Staring Lake Parkway should be maintained during the construction and landscaping of the proposed berms. This is also true of the berms along Anderson Lakes Parkway, which are currently used for foot traffic going to and from Oak Point Intermediate School. OTHER PARK AND NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES: Development of the Mini Park Pulte Homes has indicated they are willing to develop a 4-acre mini park to accommodate some of the immediate recreational needs of those living in this housing development. The staff would recommend that some of the following guidelines be used in the process of developing that park. Currently,the general plan has an incorrect orientation for some of the amenities shown; namely, the tennis courts which should be a north/south orientation. Staff would recommend that the final plan for the mini park be completed with input from the Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director and Park Planner. Some of the criteria that should be used in development of this mini park are as follows: • The maximum lateral drainage on this site should be 2Y2%rather than the 4% as proposed. • A ten-foot wide combination trail and service road be installed by the developer from the Staring Lake Parkway trail and connect to the five-foot wide sidewalk connections from the interior housing unit connection. This ten foot wide trail would also enable users and park maintenance equipment to access the various park amenities. • The totlot be developed specifically to age 2-5. The play equipment should be suitable for these ages and the layout of the apparatus be done in such a manner as to ensure proper safety spacing based on current City guidelines. • To ensure the developer and the City have the same level and quality of a play structure in mind,the developer should allow City staff to plan this area and utilitze a $50,000 budgt for the playstructure itself. This does not include site work or surface under the playstructure. • The hard surface basketball court can be located immediately adjacent to the tennis court area and should be large enough to incorporate full court play, as well as an additional side basket for an eight-foot high rim for younger youth. • The staff would recommend a four foot high black vinyl chain link fence be extended from the southern boundary to the northerly connection with the bike trail to ensure that young children, as well as volleyballs, basketballs, and other miscellaneous park equipment does not roll down the hill into the NURP pond. This safety feature is very important to the overall design of this mini park due to its' configuration and contour. 3 /6,6 • Other specific safety items such as the surfacing under the playground, the drainage of the area general,the seed mixture for turf establishment, and the sand and various site amenities, including backboards and tennis nets should all be thoroughly discussed with the parks, recreation and facility's staff prior to actual construction of the mini park area. Cash Park Fees At the current time,the cash park fees collected for residential development is $1,200 per unit. With the developer proposing to build the four acre mini park and give the land to the City,the staff is recommending that the developer pay one-half of the value of the cash park fees at the time of the building permit. This would mean that instead of paying $1,200 per unit for all 692 units that the cash park fees collected at the time of building permit issuance for each unit would be $600 per unit, if all units were constructed in 1996. Affect of the development on Staring Lake Park Currently, Staring Lake Park is designed as a community park. According to the Comprehensive Park Plan, a community park is sited adjacent to significant natural resources such as lakes, scenic wooded areas,bluffs and creeks and are designed to serve the entire community. The City currently has four community parks(Round Lake Park, Staring Lake Park, Miller Park, and Riley Lake Park). The fifth community park that has little or no development is Birch Island Park. The current usage of Staring Lake Park, although heavy at times in certain areas of the park, certainly has not exceeded the capability of serving the City at large. This park, as well as the other community parks, was designed to serve a population of nearly 70,000 people. The one amenity that may get overused with development of these 692 units is the eight-foot bituminous trail that currently loops around Staring Lake. There are times when this trail is heavily used and over the last couple years the staff has received inquiries as to whether or not the City is planning to separate pedestrian and wheeled users(i.e., in-line skaters and bicyclists). The staff has long discussed the possibility and in the case of continuous heavy use on the trail system at Staring Lake a second parallel trail would need to be developed to handle traffic. An alternative to a second trail is widening the existing trail to a width to accommodate increased traffic due to park users. The overall plan for expanding the trail system at Staring Lake Park is not only dependent on the usership from adjacent areas,but also on people from throughout the community who use our trail system on a regular basis. This evaluation and upgrade will come sometime in the future and at that time the issue will be brought back to the Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Wildlife Issues At the Planning Commission several neighbors raised issues as to what would happen to the wildlife that use the area that is being proposed for houses. Currently,this area is either used as agricultural land or is rough grass land areas. Certainly, if the area is used as grass land, it does have the capability of supporting small mammals such as mice,pocket gophers, woodchucks, and some other small mammals. Any larger mammals, such as raccoons and deer, seem to use the area when there is crop present. The overall wildlife value of the property currently is very low due to the lack of trees and shrubs for protection and food over the entire site on a year round basis. 4 /49/ RECOMMENDATION: The staff would recommend approval of the revised development plan as per the April 19, 1996 Planning Staff report and with the following additional conditions: 1. That the developer install.a four-acre mini park as per staff recommendations in this memborandum at the time of development of the first phase of the project. 2. That the sidewalks on the side collector streets be constructed according to the recommendations within this staff report and join the park area in two locations between the four unit buildings. 3. That the developer pay cash park fees on all units at the rate of one-half of the current years' fees at the time of the building permit. SAF:mdd TownhomeJStuart96 5 / � epDATE: dmen CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MAY 7, 1996 prairie SECTION: DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. FINANCE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VI CHECKS NO 40289 THRII 40775 Action/Direction: MAY 7 , i 996VI 40289 FIRE EMS CENTER TRAINING-FIRE DEPT. 800.00 40290 MGIA MN CHAPTER TRAINING-POLICE DEPT. 210.00 40291 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC APRIL RENT LIQUOR STORE II. 5076.00 40292 SUNBUSTERS EVEVATOR MAINTENANCE-FACILITIES. 540.00 40293 THE WINE CO WINE. 477. 14 40294 BELLBOY LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES. 647.50 40295 PAUSTIS AND SONS CO WINE. 1824.63 40296 BETTY BJORKMAN REFUND-TAI CHI CHIN CLASS. 25.00 40297 LORRAINE DILLING REFUND-WIS TRIP. 55.00 40298 LYNNE DOROFF REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21 .50 40299 ROSIE DUBOSE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 28.00 40300 DEBORAH ESSINK REFUND-WILDERNESS HEALTH. 5.00 40301 MARGE FALLON REFUND-WIS TRIP. 55.00 40302 MARIE FOX REFUND-SELF DEFENSE. 50.00 40303 LYNETTE JONES REFUND-JAZZ CLASS. 28.00 40304 KAREN KLEIN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 28.00 -•0305 CINDY LARSON REFUND-GYMNASTICS. 28.00 40306 VONNIE LOWMAN REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 8.00 40307 PAT LUDDEN REFUND-WIS TRIP. 55.00 40308 CARRIE LUENBERG REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 42.50 40309 JOANNE MANLOVE REFUND-TAI CHI CHIH. 25.00 40310 KATHY PEACOCK REFUND-TAI CHI CHIN. 25.00 40311 KEVIN ROQUETTE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 22.00 40312 KAY ROSHEIM REFUND-GYMNASTICS CLASS. 28.00 40313 GIANNA SAMARGIS REFUND-GYMNASTICS CLASS. 28.00 40314 MARY THOMPSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.50 40315 MARY THOMPSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.50 40316 BARRY TRENT REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 49.00 40317 PAULA VAN DE LAARSCHOT REFUND-DANCE CLASS. 28.00 4031E VICTORIA VAN DRIESSCHE REFUND-IN LINE SKATING. 36.00 40319 MARY WATTS REFUND-WIS TRIP. 55.00 40320 KATHY WOOD REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 28.00 40321 SUSAN WYNNE REFUND-PRESCHOOL CAMP. 20.00 40322 AARP 55 ALIVE DEFENSIVE DRIVING CLASS-SR CENTER. 232.00 40323 JOHN CONLEY REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 240.75 40324 LYNDELL FREY REIMBURSEMENT FOR HOLIDAY HUNT SUPPLIES. 231 . 14 40325 BEARPATH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REFUND FEE VACATION. 200.00 40326 GEORGE F ESBENSON REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES-MN STATE FIRE 305.64 CONFERENCE. 40327 MN CTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC TRAINING - POLICE DEPT. 25.00 40328 MOTOR AGE TRAINING TRAINING MANUALS-FLEET SERVICES. 145.40 40329 NATL LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES. 2116.00 40330 PEACE OFFICERS STANDARDS AND LICENSE RENEWAL FEES. 150.00 40331 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION-FLEET SERVICES. 9.00 40332 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND EXCISE TAX- 1967.77 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT. 40333 SISINNI MEETING EXPENSES-CITY HALL. 307. 99 40334 CATHERINE SKARET REIMBURSEMENT-MILEAGE FINANCE DEPT. 29. 68 40335 WALDOR PUMP AND EQUIPMENT LIFT STATION REPAIR-UTILITIES. 261 . 60 40336 WEST SUBURBAN COLUMBUS CREDIT UNI PAYROLL 4-12-96. 750.00 1736924 MAY 7, 1996 VI 40337 US POSTMASTER POSTAGE-OUTDDOR CENTER BROCHURE. 147.20 40338 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. 4440.59 40339 VOID 0.00 40340 LAURIE RYAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 56.00 40341 THE SPORT IN ME YOUTH RECREATION-PUBLICATION. 4. 95 40342 CIRCUS PIZZA SUMMER YOUTH SPECIAL TRIP. 57.00 40343 CIRCUS PIZZA SUMMER YOUTH SPECIAL TRIP. 57.00 40344 APCO MAMBERSHIP DUES-POLICE DEPT. 62. 00 40345 TWIN CITIES ARMA CONFERENCE EXPENSE-ADMINISTRATION. 125.00 40346 JOHN BENIK REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAINING EXPENSES. 101 .00 40347 CUMMINS DIESEL ENGINE REPAIR-FLEET SERVICES. 728.41 40348 GARY DIETHLEM SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 275.00 40349 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL THIRD QRT 1995 HUMAN RIGHTS AND SERVICE 2500.00 GRANT. 40350 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40351 CAROL HALVERSON SPEAKER-SR CENTER. 50.00 40352 HECKLER AND KOCH TRAINING-POLICE DEPT. 295.00 40353 LITHIC CASTING LAB SUPPLIES-HISTORICAL DEPT. 257.20 40354 TRIA MANN REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES-ADAPTIVE REC. 57. 15 40355 GARRETT SMELTZER MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER. 48.44 40356 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSI SECOND QRT CONTRIBUTION. 6661 . 97 40357 PHILIP D VONN REFUND EQUIPMENT RENTAL-FACILITIES. 30.00 40358 MN HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONFERENCE EXPENSE-HISTORICAL DEPT. 35.00 40359 LAURIE HELLING TUITION REIMBURSEMENT-PARK AND RECREATION. 890.95 40360 ALLEN LARSON TUITION REIMBURSEMENT-FIRE DEPT. 263. 89 40361 COLIN SCHMIDT TUITION REIMBURSEMENT-ASSESSING. 488.05 40362 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT PAYROLL 3-29-96. 49.37 40363 CARVER COUNTY COMM SOCIAL SV PAYROLL 3-19-96. 276. 93 40364 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT PAYROLL 3-19-96. 90.00 40365 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 3-29-96. 400.00 40366 GREAT-WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY PAYROLL 3-29-96. 8320.50 40367 HENN CTY SUPPORT AND COLLECTION PAYROLL 3-29-96. 10.00 40368 HENN CTY SUPPORT AND COLLECTION S PAYROLL 3-29-96. 275.08 40369 HENN CTY SUPPORT AND COLLECTION PAYROLL 3-29-96. 240.46 40370 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST PAYROLL 3-29-96. 4184.22 40371 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 3-29-96. 227.42 40372 MN MUTUAL LIFE PAYROLL 3-29-96. 1772.50 40373 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 3-29-96. 262.00 40374 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 3-29-96. 35.00 40375 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOC PAYROLL 3-29-96. 43526.46 40376 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOC PAYROLL 3-29-96. 127.50 40377 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 3-29-96. 189.00 40378 JOHN D CONLEY REIMBURSEMENT-TRAINING POLICE DEPT. 15.00 40379 GINA MARIAS PIZZA Q-TIP AWARD-HUMAN RESOURCES. 25. 00 40380 NORTHERN STATES POWER SERVICE. 10085.30 40381 US WEST CELLULAR SERVICE/SERVICE. 1150.50 40382 NORWEST BANKS MN N A PAYROLL 4-12-96. 87512.23 40383 ASLA DUES-FACILITIES. 253.00 40384 JACK CHRISTIANSEN SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 127.50 40385 BARBARA CROSS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-FACILITIES. 91 .98 17687875 MAY 7, 1996 VI 40386 LARRY A DOIG REIMBURSEMENT TRAINING EXPENSE-FIRE DEPT. 43.03 40387 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DRIVERS LICENSE CHECKS-SAFETY DEPT. 207.00 40388 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTARY FEE-POLICE DEPT. 40.00 100.00 SERVICES/FIRE DEPT/STREET 3044.62 DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE. )7CE TRAINING-INSPECTIONS. 210.00 40392 JENNIFER HARLOW MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-YOUTH RECREATION. 52. 64 40393 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-PARKS AND 65.24 RECREATION DEPT. 40394 CARL JULLIE 50.00 40394 CARL JULLIE REIMBURSEMENT ROTARY DUES AND MEETING 97.50 EXPENSES. 40395 BOB LAMBERT REIMBURSEMENT FOR ROTARY DUES AND MEETING 147.50 EXPENSE. 40396 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY LICENSE TABS-FLEET SERVICES. 8.00 40397 ANNE MOENING MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-YOUTH RECREATION. 31 . 64 40398 NINE ONE ONE MAGAZINE SUBCRIPTION-POLICE DEPT. 40.50 40399 BELLBOY LIQUOR. 1909.71 40400 EAGLE WINE COMPANY LIQUOR/WINE. 1842. 63 40401 GRIGGS COOPER AND CO LIQUOR/WINE. 22262.84 40402 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR/WINE. 37980.02 40403 PAUSTIS AND SONS CO WINE. 476.00 40403 PAUSTIS WINE. 1227.75 40404 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS LIQUOR/WINE. 25605.45 40405 PRIOR WINE CO LIQUOR/WINE. 6650.83 40406 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS WINE/LIQUOR. 11563.53 40407 VINTAGE ONE WINES INC WINE. 80.00 40408 THE WINE COMPANY WINE. 532.75 40409 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE. 2992.32 40410 BELLBOY BEER. 439. 59 40411 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 12188.70 40412 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER. 24678. 95 40413 LEHMANN FARMS MIX. 92.50 40414 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING CO BEER. 11857. 15 40415 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX. 1041 .40 40416 PAUSTIS AND SONS CO BEER. 21 .80 40417 PEPSI COLA CO MIX. 457. 15 40418 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO BEER. 23854. 10 40419 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING DEFENSIVE DRIVING CLASS-SR CENTER. 256.00 40420 ASSOC OF CERTIFIED FRAUD EXAMINER TRAINING-POLICE DEPT. 295.00 40421 IAN ISSEN REIMBURSEMENT CERTIFICATION FEE-UTILITIES. 23.00 40422 ELYCE KASTIGAR MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER. 138.32 40423 BILL LEMPESIS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-LIQUOR STORE II. 180.88 40424 JOHN LUNN MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-LIQUOR STORE II. 65. 52 40425 MN DEPT OF HEALTH CERTIFICATION FEE-UTILITIES. 46.00 40426 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE. 32535.80 40427 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH-CITY HALL. 57.37 40428 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. 87.89 40429 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO DISABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR MAY. 2277.32 22785594 MAY 7 , 1996 VI 40430 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT PAYROLL 4-12-96. 49.37 40431 CARVER COUNTY COMMUNITY SOCIAL SV PAYROLL 4-12-96. 276. 93 40432 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT PAYROLL 4-12-96. 90.00 40433 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 4-12-96. 350.00 40434 GREAT WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY PAYROLL 4-12-96. 8195. 90 40435 HEALTHPARTNERS HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR MAY. 27508. 61 40436 HENN CTY SUPPORT AND COLLECTION PAYROLL 4-12-96. 10.00 40437 HENN CTY SUPPORT AND COLLECTION PAYROLL 4-12-96. 240.46 40438 HENN CTY SUPPORT AND COLLECTION S PAYROLL 4-12-96. 275.08 40439 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST PAYROLL 4-12-96. 4209.22 40440 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40441 MEDICA CHOICE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR MAY. 52932.25 40442 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 4-12-96. 227.42 40443 MN MUTUAL LIFE PAYROLL 4-12-96. 1772. 50 40444 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 4-12-96. 262.00 40445 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 4-12-96. 35.00 40446 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO PAYROLL 4-12-96. 3857. 13 40447 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOC PERA LIFE INSURANCE FOR THE MONTH OF MAY. 249.00 40448 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOC PAYROLL 4-12-96. 43186.44 40449 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 4-12-96. 189.00 40450 JENNIFER BAHR REIMBURSEMENT UNIFORM EXPENSE-POLICE DEPT. 89. 97 40451 JENNIFER ANDREEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 3.50 40452 MARGRET ASTRY REFUND-YOUTH GOLF. 36.00 40453 JULIE BILLISON REFUND-GYMNASTICS CLASS. 28.00 40454 HARRY BLOOMQUIST REFUND-HOUSE SELLING CLASS. 2.00 40455 GINA BORDEN REFUND-GYMNASTICS CLASS. 28.00 40456 PAULINE BORUCKI REFUND-DANCE CLASS. 22.00 40457 HELEN BROOKE REFUND-GOLF LESSONS. 32.00 40458 SHELLY BROWN REFUND-FUN AND FITNESS. - 17.86 40459 JAN CURTICE REFUND-LLAMA RANCH. 42.00 40460 BOB ELMQUIST REFUND-RETIREMENT PLAN. 4.00 40461 SANDRA EWEL REFUND-GYMNASTICS CLASS. 28.00 40462 KEN GROVER REFUND-HOUSE SELLING CLASS. 2.00 40463 ROBERT HANSON-EMERSON REFUND-TENNIS. 25.00 40464 MARY HART REFUND-WATERCOLOR CAMP. 45.00 40465 JANET HENRIKSEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 52.50 40466 KIM JACKSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 28.00 40467 CAROL JACOBSON REFUND-GYMNASTICS CLASS. 28.00 40468 KIM JACKSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 28.00 40479 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC TRAINING EXPENSE-POLICE DEPT. 25.00 40469 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40470 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40471 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40472 CHERYL MCCARTHY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 28.00 40473 STEPHANIE MCGOVERN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 18.00 40474 JUDY NEIDERT REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.50 40475 JOAN OLSON REFUND-SKATING LESSONS. 16.00 40476 EWA PECZASKA REFUND-SELF DEFENSE. 25.00 40477 DURANDA RINDEN REFUND-BACKPACKING CLASS. 3.00 40478 CHRIS HANSON INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICE-FEES PAID. 100.00 14469764 MAY 7, 1996 VI 40480 OPTIMIST CLUB OF EDEN PRAIRIE TOURNAMENT FEES-FEES PAID. 2228.08 40481 WILD BIRD UNLIMITED SUPPLIES-OUTDOOR CENTER. 150.00 40482 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40483 TERRY KUCERA REIMBURSEMENT FOR MILEAGE MEETING EXPENSE- 56.02 COMMUNICATIONS. 40484 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40485 CHICAGO TITLE CO CDGB LAND ACQUISITION-COLUMBINE TOWNHOUSE 142125.00 PROJECT. 40486 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER PRESSURE WASHER RENTAL-FACILITIES. 70. 99 40487 RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING CO CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 223.92 40488 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING PAINTING OF BAKER ROAD RESERVOIR. 3916.50 40489 AMERICAN RED CROSS SUPPLIES-AQUATICS COMMUNITY CENTER. 298.21 40490 ALLMAX PROFESSIONAL SOLUTIONS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-UTILITIES. 250.00 40491 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC PUBLICATIONS-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 904.00 40492 AMERI-DATA SOFTWARE-FACILITIES. 244. 95 40493 M AMUNDSON SUPPLIES-YOUTH RECREATION. 169.20 40494 ANCHOR PRINTING PRINTING EXPENSE-ADAPTIVE REC. 231 .00 40495 DON ANDERSON JR SERVICE-HOCKEY OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 1650.00 40496 DON ANDERSON II SERVICE-HOCKEY OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 237.20 40497 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC INC SUPPLIES-STREET MAINTENANCE. 600.32 40498 ANDERSONS GARDEN SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 24. 17 40499 AQUA CITY PLUMBING TESTING OF BACK FLOW PREVENTORS. 563. 75 40500 AQUA ENGINEERING INC SUPPLIES-STRET MAINTENANCE. 84. 15 40501 ASPEN REACH EQUIPMENT SANDER-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 2151 .30 40502 ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS INC REHAB WORK SUMMIT DRIVE-COMMUNITY 258.50 DEVELOPMENT. 40503 ATLAS FOUNDATION CO LOG SKIDDER RENTAL-PARKS. 1917.00 40504 JEFF BARTZ SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL- 891 .00 FEES PAID. 40505 BATTERIES PLUS BATTERIES-FLEET SERVICES. 119.26 40506 BAUER BUILT INC SUPPLIES-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 405.33 40507 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC GLASS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 232. 62 40508 BELLBOY CORPORATION SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 991 .03 40509 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE FOR PULTE 3243.42 HOMES. 40510 BERWALD ROOFING INC REPAIR TO ROOF-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 364.00 40511 BFI'TIRE RECYCLERS OF MN CAGE RENTAL FOR TIRES-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 30.00 40512 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE. 625.30 40513 DAVE BLACK SERVICE-HOCKEY OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 75.00 40514 BLACK & VEATCH WPT DESIGN. 246200. 71 40515 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES-POLICE DEPT. 309.00 40516 BLOOMINGTON LOCK & SAFE CO PARTS AND REPAIRS-UTILITIES. 988.91 40517 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION BLUE STEM LAKE DRAINAGE. 93.00 40518 B & S TOOLS TOOLS-UTILITIES. 705.46 40519 BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSO PUBLICATION-FACILITIES. 89.00 40520 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER BRAKES-FLEET SERVICES. 176.27 40521 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC SHELVING-UTILITIES. 495.86 40522 WILLIAM CAMPBELL AND ASSOCIATES APPRAISAL VACANT PETERSON LAND. 950.00 40523 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS MAINTENANCE-POLICE DEPT. 2415.75 40523 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS MAINTENANCE-POLICE DEPT. 53.81 41780899 MAY 7, 1996 VI 40524 CARGILL INCORPORATED DEICCING SALT-STREET MAINTENANCE. 214.46 40525 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS SOFTWARE-STRET MAINTENANCE. 3910.00 40526 CASH REGISTER SERVICE AND SALES REPAIRS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 88.00 40527 CDP IMAGING SYSTEMS SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 207. 61 40528 CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORTS SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 1 .45 9529 JAKE CHRISTIANSEN SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 42.50 0530 JIM CHR:STY SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 70.00 .0531 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SVC INC PARTS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 117. 92 40532 CO2 SERVICES CO2-COMMUNITY CENTER. 35.00 40533 THE COLOR CENTER PAINT SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 723. 16 40534 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS SAFETY SUPPLIES-SAFETY DEPT. 761 . 17 40535 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC JOINTSEALER-STREET MAINTENANCE. 11968. 98 40536 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC SUPPLIES-SAFETY DEPT. 282.05 40537 CONCEPT MICRO IMAGING MICROFILMING-ENGINEERING DEPT. 78. 68 40538 COPY EQUIPMENT INC SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT. 154.56 40539 CON WAY CENTRAL EXPRESS FREIGHT EXPENSE-UTILITIES. 82. 79 40540 CREATIVE CONCEPTS SUPPLIES-HUMAN RESOURCES. 1292.89 40541 CROWN PLASTIC SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 264.00 40542 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC LAB SUPPLIES-UTILTIIES. 30. 50 40543 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC SHOP SUPPLIES-FLEET SERVICES. 144.85 40544 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40545 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-UTILITIES. 16552. 64 40546 DALCO MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-FACILITIES. 142. 22 40547 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO FIRE DEPT SUPPLIES. 798.57 40548 TARGET SUPPLIES-HUMAN RESOURCES. 143. 62 40549 TARGET SUPPLIES-HUMAN RESOURCES. 57.45 40550 PATTY CASH PETTY CASH-CITY HALL. 67. 79 40551 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT. 36.04 40552 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40553 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND EXCISE TAX- 2616.46 PARK AND RECREATION DEPT. 40554 THE DARTNELL CORPORATION PUBLICATIONS-UTILITIES. 72.59 40555 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SVCS INC RADIO-FLEET SERVICES. 105. 97 40556 DECORATIVE DESIGNS PLANT MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR MAY-CITY 365.85 CENTER. 40557 DECISION RESOURCES LTD EDEN PRAIRIE TELEPHONE SURVEY. 7500.00 40558 DEM CON LANDFILL INC WASTE DISPOSAL-STREET DEPT/PARK 83.00 MAINTENANCE. 40559 DELEGARD TOOL CO SHOP SUPPLIES-FLEET SERVICES. 108.34 40560 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO VALVES-UTILITIES. 175. 76 40561 DESIGNS 13Y NORVELL INC SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 47.04 40562 DIRECT SAFETY CO GLOVES-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 433.21 40563 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHLORINE-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 1896.00 40564 DYNA SYSTEMS SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 427. 71 40565 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY COPIER USAGE-HUMAN RESOURCES. 407.07 40566 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION DIV PEST ELIMINATION-FIRE STATIONS. 186.40 40567 EDEN PRAIRIE APPLIANCE REPAIRS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 67.27 40568 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES. 354.42 40569 EDEN PRAIRIE FORD REPAIRS AND SUPPLIES-FLEET SERVICES. 202.49 40570 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 USE OF GYM-ADAPTIVE REC. 6.00 5332448 MAY 7, 1996 VI 40571 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 TRANSPORTATION/GYM USE-YOUTH RECREATION. 2810. 55 40572 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 1ST QRT 1996 SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD 2500.00 FUNDING. 40573 CITY OF EDINA WATER TESTING-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 270.00 40574 CITY OF EDINA RENTAL OF GUN RANGE-POLICE DEPT. 1980.00 40575 EKLUNDS TREE & BRUSH DISPOSAL BRUSH DISPOSAL-PARKS. 60.00 40576 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC SAFETY SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 507.02 40577 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 631 .61 40578 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC DELIVERY CHARGES-CITY HALL. 9.31 40579 FAUVER REPAIRS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 1768.00 40580 FERRELLGAS PROPANE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 110.49 40581 FIBROCOM SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 398. 99 40582 FIDELITY PRODUCTS CO SUPPLIES-BLDG INSPECTION. 138.40 40583 FIDELITY PRODUCTS CO SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 225.34 40584 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY REBUILD WATER PUMP. 1072.06 40585 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL CANINE MAINTENANCE-POLICE DEPT. 511 .36 40586 THE GLIDDEN COMPANY SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 393.03 40587 FRONT LINE PLUS FIRE & RESCUE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 1796.84 40588 GARDNER HARDWARE CO SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 153. 73 40589 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG INC REPAIRS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 184.00 40590 GE CAPITAL COPIER-SR CENTER. 134. 75 40591 GE SUPPLY FARTS-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 118.41 40592 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT/UTILITIES. 628. 12 40593 GLENROSE FLORAL ANF GIFT SHOP SUPPLIES-HUMAN RESOURCES. 106.28 40594 THE GLIDDEN COMPANY PAINTING SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 412. 99 40595 TIM GLOMSKI SERVICE-HOCKEY OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 850.00 40596 GOLD COUNTRY UNIFORM EXPENSE-POLICE/INSPECTIONS. 725.20 40597 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC SERVICE-UTILITIES. 99. 75 40598 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SVC TIRES-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 419.44 40599 W W GRAINGER INC SUPPLIES-UTILITIES/FLEET MAINTENANCE. 424. 19 40600 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC SERVICE-RIVERVIEW ROAD/BIRCH ISLAND ACRES/ 15529.00 RILEY LAKE RD/COLUMBINE MEDCOM EXTENSIONS/ SURVEY OF FORMER POLICE STATION. 40601 HARMON GLASS COMPANY WINDSHIELDS-PARK MAINTENANCE. 844.44 40602 HACH COMPANY SUPPLIES-WATER PLANT. 118.25 40603 HEAVENLY HAM MEETING EXPENSE-FIRE DEPT. 22.00 40604 JOHN HENDERSON SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 127.50 40605 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER WASTE MGMT FEE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 12.26 40606 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS TITLE RECORDING-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 119.50 40607 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER PROPERTY OWNERS LISTS-COMMUNITY 127.50 DEVELOPMENT. 40608 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF BOOKING FEES-POLICE DEPT. 817.77 40609 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING-FIRE DEPT. 490. 90 40610 D C HEY COMPANY INC MAINTENANCE CONTRACT-FIRE DEPT/ 109. 17 INSPECTIONS. 40611 LARRY G HILLARD SERVICE-GYM SUPERVISOR-FEES PAID. 100.00 40612 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40613 TOM HOLMES SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL- 562.00 FEES PAID. 40614 HONEYWELL INC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-UTILITIES. 1998.00 4041815 MAY 7, 1996 VI 40615 HOSP SUPPLY SCIENTIFIC PROD LAB SUPPLIES-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 239.91 40616 HORIZON GRAPHICS INC COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER-COMMUNITY 3308. 91 INFORMATION. 40617 ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERICA MEMBERSHIP DUES SKATING DIRECTOR 59570. 50.00 40618 ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERICA PUBLICATIONS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 750.94 40619 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF MEMBERSHIP DUES-INSPECTION DEPT. 195.00 40620 JANEX SAFETY GRID FOR LOCKER ROOM/MAINTENANCE 2152. 14 SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 40621 JUSTUS LUMBER CO CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TEMP OFFICE PLANT 535. 77 OPERATIONS SUPERVISIOR. 40622 KENS FRESH MEATS MEETING EXPENSE-FIRE DEPT. 69.24 40623 LISA KLOCKZEIM SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 648.00 40624 STEVE KUDEBEH SERVICE-HOCKEY OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 800.00 40625 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 42.51 40626 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR REPAIR DOORS FIRE STATION 1/EATON BLDG/ 200.05 PUBLIC WORKS. 40627 LAKE REGION VENDING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 3389.81 4062E LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD PROSECUTION FOR MARCH-POLICE DEPT. 10320.00 40629 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD SERVICES-TEMAN LAND/FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT/ 4083. 61 CENTRUM. 40630 LIGHTNIN-TRIDENT PROCESS INC SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 852.84 40631 LIONS TAP MEETING EXPENSE-FIRE DEPT. 63.58 40632 LIQUID CARBONIC WATER TREATMENT-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 675.84 40633 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES WORKSHOP-CITY HALL. 55.00 40634 LOCATOR AND MONITOR SALES BATTERY CHARGER-UTILITIES. 42. 92 40635 LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC TRANSCRIBER-POLICE DEPT. 266.25 40636 LOGIS JANUARY FEBRUARY AND MARCH SERVICE. 90709.48 40637 LYONS SAFETY FIRST AID SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 169. 68 40638 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC SUPPLIES-FLEET SERVICES. 28.20 40639 MAUSEN COMPANY GLOVES-UTILITIES. 81 . 15 40640 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING-POLICE DEPT. 721 .45 40641 MCNEILUS STEEL INC SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 256.32 40642 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY BASE PEGS-PARK MAINTENANCE. 148.04 40643 METRO SALES INC SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 253. 91 40644 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER S SEWER SERVICE FOR MAY. 207811 .00 40645 MICROBILT PHONE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT-UTILITIES. 60.00 40646 MID-AMERICA POWER DRIVES SHOP TOOLS-FLEET SERVICES. 325.28 40647 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO STEEL FLOOR SECTIONS. 461 .96 40648 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP TACK-STREET DEPT. 21 .30 40649 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 150.00 40650 MIDWEST TELETRON INC HEADSET REPAIR-POLICE DEPT. 33.00 40651 MINNCOMM PAGING SERVICE-UTILITIES/INSPECTIONS. 102.46 40652 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 1060.79 40653 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION MATERIAL TESTING-ENGINEERING DEPT. 86.27 40654 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY RECHARGEING DRY CHEMICAL-FIRE DEPT. 17.28 40655 MN COUNTIES INS TRUST DRUG TESTING-SAFETY DEPT. 230.00 40656 MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE SUPPLIES-OUTDOOR CENTER. 10.70 40657 MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOA TRAINING-FIRE DEPT. 385.00 40658 MN GFOA DUES-FINANCE. 15.00 40659 MN POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS ASSO MEMBERSHIP DUES-POLICE DEPT. 15.00 33189559 MAY 7, 1996 VI 40660 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN UNPIRE HATS-ORGANIZED RECREATION. 208.00 40661 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS AD-HUMAN RESOURCES. 5.50 40662 MINNESOTA UC FUND MN UC FUND. 1506.37 40663 MOORE MEDICAL CORP SUPPLIES-FIR DEPT. 224.40 40664 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 97. 14 40665 WM MUELLER & SONS INC GRAVEL-STREET DEPT/PARK MANTENANCE. 1716.53 40666 MUNICIPAL TOY COMPANY INC SUPPLIES FOR EGG HUNT-YOUTH RECREATION. 95.00 40667 MENARDS SUPPLES-PARK MAINTENANCE/FIRE DEPT/ 182. 61 • UTILITIES/STREET MAINTNENACE/FACILITIES. 40668 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES. 3282.00 40669 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIAT PUBLICATIONS-FIRE DEPT. 66. 15 40670 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 1092.85 40671 NEWMECH SERVICE-UTILITIES. 235.50 40672 NFPA PUBLICATIONS-INSPECTIONS. 115.40 40673 NORTHERN GLASS AND GLAZING INC GLASS TOPS-POLICE DEPT. 189. 61 40674 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN PUBLICATION-AQUATICS COMMUNITY CENTER. 10.00 40675 OLSEN CHAIN & CAFLE CO INC TOOLS-UTILITIES. 151 .82 40676 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40677 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 40678 PACE ANALYTICAL SAMPLE TESTING-UTILITIES. 184.00 40679 PACE ANALYTICAL TESTING-UTILITIES. 184.00 40680 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 294.89 40681 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER TESTING-SAFETY DEPT. 399.50 40682 G C PETERSON MACHINERY CO SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 59.50 40683 PHYSIC CONTROL CORP SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 373. 13 40684 PPC PUBLICATIONS-FINANCE DEPT. 193.00 40685 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC REPAIRS WELL 7 11 12/ROUND LAKE/FIR STAT 1862.35 1/PUBLIC WORKS. 40686 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE/FLEET 161 .81 MAINTENANCE/FACILITIES. 40687 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN SUPPLIES-FACILITIES. 58. 60 40688 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING EXPENSE-COMMUNITY SERVICES/YOUTH 999.45 PROGRAM. 40689 US POSTMASTER POSTAGE-MAY 1996 SR CENTER NEWSLETTER. 221 .36 40690 PRAIRIE VIEW FRAMING PLAQUE-POLICE DEPT. 293. 94 40691 PRINTERS SERVICE INC ICE KNIFE SHARP-COMMUNITY CENTER. 90.00 40692 POWERTEX SPORTSWEAR INC UNIFORMS-ORGANIZED REC. 254.46 40693 THE PROMOTION GROUP UNIFORM EXPENSE-SAFETY DEPT. 68.55 40694 THE PROMOTION GROUP UNIFORM EXPENSE-SAFETY DEPT. 205. 76 40695 PSQ BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS INC MAINTENANCE-FIRE STATION. 80.00 40696 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS EMERGENCY REPAIRS-UTILITIES. 4633.69 40697 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL-WATER PLANT/STORAGE. 584.00 40698 REAL GEM PLAQUES FOR AWARDS BANQUET. 484.58 40699 RESOLVE FACILITATION-POLICE DEPT. 150.00 40700 RICMAR INDUSTRIES REPELLANT-PARK MAINTENANCE. 201 .29 40701 RITZ CAMERA FILM AND FILM DEVELOPING. 67.38 40702 ROLLINS OIL CO FUEL-FLEET SERVICES. 8071 . 60 40703 PAUL RYAN SERVICE-HOCKEY OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 925.00 40704 SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION MACHINE SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 313. 64 40705 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC SUPPLIES-YOUTH RECREATION. 636.30 3123066 MAY 7, 1996 VI 40706 SANCO INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-FACILITES. 670.58 40707 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC CAR WASH SOAP-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 644.86 40708 SEARS GIFT CERTIFICATE-SAFETY DEPT. 50.43 40709 . 0.00 40710 SHANKENS CIGAR INSIDER PUBLICATION-LIQUOR STORE III. 60.00 40711 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES SR OUTREACH 1ST QRT 1996. 3575.00 40712 SHIELY COMPANY GRAVEL ROCK-STREET MAINTNEANCE. 330.25 40713 SIR SPEEDY PRINTING PRINTING-STARING LAKE PROGRAM. 390.23 40714 PETER N SMITH SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 288.00 40715 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION TOOLS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 302.36 40716 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS ADS-ENGINEERING. 369. 90 40717 SOUTH SIDE SEWER INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE III. 70.00 40718 DORADUS CORPORATION 0.00 40719 SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY PAINT-UTILITIES. 96.87 40720 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT TRANSPORATION-SR CENTER/YOUTH RECREATION. 290.00 40721 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES. 463.25 40722 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC LEGAL ADVERTISING-CITY HALL. 1285.08 40723 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS. 0.00 40724 SPS COMPANIES SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 249. 76 40725 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC DELL ROAD SOUTH PROJECT/SCENIC HEIGHTS RD. 995.04 40726 STATE SUPPLY CO FAUCET-UTILITIES. 270. 65 40727 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT/CITY HALL. 1065. 74 40728 STANDARD FUSEE CORP 30 MINUTE WIRE HOLDERS-POLICE DEPT. 1724.20 40729 STANDARD SPRING REAR SPRINGS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 820. 69 40730 STANDARD REPAIRS-FLEET SERVICE. 1135.05 40731 STAR TRIBUNE SERVICE-CITY HALL/PAPERS FOR RESALE 132. 70 LIQUOR STORE III. 40732 THE STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO CHEMICALS-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 997.32 40733 SUPERIOR FORD INC AUTOMOBILE-FLEET SERVICES. 14645.00 40734 SULLIVANS UTILITY SERVICES INC REPAIR SEWER LINE-UTILITIES. 170.00 40735 SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICE PUMPED HOLDING TANK-PARK MAINTENANCE. 95.00 40736 SYSTEMS CONTROL SERVICES INC REPAIRS WELL I. 391 . 94 40737 TARGET STORES FILM-POLICE DEPT/FRAMES-ADAPTIVE REC. 751 .56 40738 TECHNIQUE PUBLICATION-CITY HALL. 24. 95 40739 TENNANT PARTS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 174. 71 40740 THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP TOOL KIT-UTILITIES. 285.00 40741 TKDA & ASSOC INC SERVICE-ENTRANCE RD MODIFICATIONS. 97. 16 40742 TNEMEC CORPORATION INC SUPPLIES-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 2572.77 40743 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY CO2-UTILITIES. 25.04 40744 TOWN AND COUNTRY DODGE PARTS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 182.02 40745 TRAUT WELLS WATER LEVEL MONITORS-WATER TREATMENT 5310.00 FACILITY. 40746 TRI STATE PUMP AND CONTROL INC ADJUST PUMP-UTILITIES. 168.00 40747 TRI STATE PUMP AND CONTROL PULL AND ADJUST PUMP-UTILITIES. 468.00 40748 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO CHEMICALS-FIRE DEPT/UTILITIES. 2427.95 40749 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO CHEMICALS-UTILITIES/FIRE DEPT. 252.32 40750 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC SHOP STOCK-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 1592.06 40751 UNIFORM UNILIMITED UNIFORMS-INSPECTIONS/POLICE DEPT. 228.05 40752 UNITED LABORATORIES SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 249.36 40753 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 4638885 MAY 7, 1996 VI 40754 UNRUH MOTOR COMPANY INC VEHICLES-FLEET SERVICES. 35052.00 40755 VALLEY-RICH COMPANY INC EMERGENCY REPAIRS WATERLINE-UTILITES. 1836.50 40756 VAN WATERS AND ROGERS INC CHEMICALS-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 1550.00 40757 . SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 116.62 40758 VESSCO INC SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 618. 11 40759 VIKING SAFETY PRODUCTS RACK-FIRE DEPT. 32. 62 40760 VWR CORPORATION LAB SUPPLIES-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 356.54 40761 VOSS LIGHTING LIGHTING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 152. 72 40762 WARNING LITES OF MN SAFETY TRAINING-HUMAN RESOURCES. 600.00 40763 WARNING LITES OF MN SAFETY VESTS-STREET MAINTENANCE. 101 .00 40764 WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE WASTE DISPOSAL LIQUOR STORE I. 99. 75 40765 WATERPRO SUPPLIES-UTILITIES/PARK MAINTENANCE. 10178. 18 40766 WATER SPECIALTY OF MN-INC CHEMICALS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 429. 67 40767 WEST WELD SHOP SUPPLIES-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 532.73 40768 WAYTEK INC SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 28.24 40769 JOEL WESTACOTT VIDEO SERVICES-CITY HALL. 644.88 40770 YALE INC REPAIRS AND PARTS COMPRESSOR-WATER PLANT. 2230. 68 40771 MIKE YEAGER SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 70.00 40772 X-ERGON SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 372.33 40773 GERALD 0 ZAHN SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 612.00 40774 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID SUPPLIES-UTILITIES/STREETS. 228.34 40775 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY SHOP SUPPLIES-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 504. 14 5634705 . $1544215.34 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions May 7, 1996 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Fire Fire Department Policy & Procedures Resolution Requested Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Fire Department Policy & Procedures Manual. Background: Approximately five years ago, the Eden Prairie Fire Department began a process to write a new policies and procedures manual. This process included the creation of an internal committee, which was representative of the entire Fire Department. This committee researched and wrote policy/procedures with input from other department members as well as external resources. Further, the department contracted a consultant, Ms. LaVell Gold, to assist with the process. The manual has been reviewed by Human Resources staff and League of Minnesota Cities staff. At this time, the department requests City Council approval to implement this manual, with the understanding that the content will change to meet new mandates and law changes as well as required procedural changes. The City Manager shall approve all future changes. The "summary" section of the manual is attached. Information Supplied By: James G. Clark Chief of Police (April 18, 1996) RESOLUTION NO. EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY & PROCEDURES 2_ Eden Prairie Fire Department Policies and Procedures Manual Summary of Chapter 2 : Personnel Policies to be submitted to City of Eden Prairie City Council as a Resolution • City of Eden Prairie Resolution No. xxx.xx Effective Date: 6/8/95 Eden Prairie Fire Department Revision Date: 6/8/95 Mission Statement The mission of the Eden Prairie Fire Department is to reduce the loss of life and property by providing fire suppression, emergency rescue services, and fire/safety education to the general public. Vision Statement It is our vision to be known as an innovative and progressive fire department. We are dedicated to the delivery of effective fire suppression, rescue services and quality fire/safety education to the public. We strive to offer the best available education and training to our members. We are committed to providing an environment which fosters teamwork among members. We desire to have an atmosphere of open communication which promotes the health and welfare of individual members. Customers We consider the following groups of people to be the customers of the Eden Prairie Fire Department: External Customers • Homeowners • Emergency participants • City of Eden Prairie • State of Minnesota • Government agencies • Industries and businesses • Other fire departments Internal Customers • Members of fire department(firefighters and officers) • Staff personnel Eden Prairie Fire Department POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL Page: 1 of 10 City of Eden Prairie Resolution No. xxx.xx Effective Date: 6/8/95 Eden Prairie Fire Department Revision Date: 6/8/95 C. Membership Eligibility Verification The Eden Prairie Fire Department will comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. D. Membership Eligibility All applicants for membership and all on-going members in the Eden Prairie Fire Department shall meet the membership eligibility requirements. E. Membership Verification • The Eden Prairie Fire Department provides membership verification and information through its Administration. Information is provided within the guidelines of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act M.S. 13.43. F. Membership of Relatives The Eden Prairie-Fire Department does not restrict membership of more than one member of an immediate family. However, such membership must not create or be perceived as creating a conflict of interest. In order to prevent any such conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest, a member may not directly supervise, take part in decisions to hire, retain, promote, demote, evaluate performance of a member of his/her immediate family. G. Position Posting Any available position in the Eden Prairie Fire Department is posted in all stations. H. Performance Review Process- The Eden Prairie Fire Department provides an annual performance review process for all members based on the primary responsibilities/duties listed on each member's position description. I. Member Status Categories Eden Prairie Fire Department has established member status categories to aid in determining availability and benefits. Eden Prairie Fire Department POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL Page: 3 of 10 City of Eden Prairie Resolution No. xxx.xx Effective Date: 6/8/95 Eden Prairie Fire Department Revision Date: 6/8/95 Article 6 Insurance Benefits While functioning in the capacity of an Eden Prairie firefighter, members are covered by the City of Eden Prairie's liability insurance, Minnesota workers compensation insurance, and the Relief Association insurance plans. Disability and life insurance benefits may also be available through various state, federal, and private agencies. Article 7 General Benefits A. Member Assistance General Need A confidential assessment and referral service is provided through the City of Eden Prairie to assist members and their dependents in solving personal problems. Through the Employee Assistance Program(EAP), members and their dependents have access to certified social service counselors 24 hours a day. Critical Incident Stress A Critical Incident Stress Debriefing group session led by a team of specially trained mental health professionals and peer counselors is provided to any Eden Prairie Fire Department member. B. Professional Licenses and Memberships The Eden Prairie Fire Department may require members to obtain and maintain job required licenses and/or memberships in professional organizations. Upon approval of the Fire Chief, these licenses and memberships will be paid by the EPFD. C. Educational Costs Reimbursement Approved costs and tuition for educational requests are paid by the Eden Prairie Fire Department. • • • Eden Prairie Fire Department POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL Page: 5 of 10 City of Eden Prairie Resolution No. xxx.xx Effective Date: 6/8/95 Eden Prairie Fire Department Revision Date: 6/8/95 B. Drug and Alcohol Testing All members of the Eden Prairie Fire Department are expected and required to respond to fire department functions in appropriate mental and physical condition. All members will follow the drug and alcohol testing policy of the City of Eden Prairie which conforms to the requirements of state law as set forth in Minnesota State Statutes Section 181.950- 181.957 and the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988. C. Smoking Policy Smoking is prohibited within all City buildings, on fire department vehicles, on the fireground or during any training activity. See Section 8.20 Smoking Policy in City of Eden Prairie Personnel . Policy D. Uniform/ Dress Code Requirements A member's attire should always be appropriate for the public service environment. E. Use of Vehicles and Seat Belt Access to Fire Department owned vehicles shall be controlled at the Fire Chief level and restricted to official Fire Department business and incidental uses which occur in the course of Fire Department business. It is the policy of the Eden Prairie Fire Department to require its members to comply with the Minnesota State Law requiring the use of seat belts. Article 10 Safety and Health A. Employee Right to Know The Eden Prairie Fire Department will comply with the Minnesota Employee Right to Know Act of 1983, M.S. 182.65-182.675. It is the responsibility of supervisors to inform and properly train members working with hazardous substances„ harmful physical agents and infectious agents required in their jobs. "An employee acting in good faith has the right to refuse to work under conditions which the employee reasonably believes present an imminent danger or death or serious physical harm to the employee." B. Employee Safety The Eden Prairie Fire Department is committed to providing as safe and healthy work environment as possible for all of its members. Members are required to comply with all safety policies and procedures. C. Injury Reporting: Line-of-Duty In order to comply with reporting requirements of the state, all work related injuries along with the circumstances surrounding the occurrence, must be reported to the Assistant Chief for Safety/ Health or his/her designee within 24 hours of the occurrence or by the next work day. Eden Prairie Fire Department POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL Page: 7 of 10 City of Eden Prairie Resolution No. xxx.xx Effective Date: 6/8/95 Eden Prairie Fire Department Revision Date: 6/8/95 C. Special Meetings Special meetings can be called for the department . Special meetings can only be held after a 24 hour notice is given to the complete membership. D. Professional Association Meetings The Fire Chief appoints representatives to various professional associations. E. Committees The Fire Chief is responsible for any final implementation decision, based on the committee's recommendations. The permanent committees of the Eden Prairie Fire Department are: Building Finance Policy Truck Uniform F. Task Forces An Eden Prairie Fire Department task force addresses short term, specific concerns or issues. Article 12 Complaint Resolution It is the policy of the Eden Prairie Fire Department, insofar as possible, to solve matters before serious problems develop. Complaints shall be handled in a prompt,just, open, and expeditious manner in accordance with these procedures. Article 13 Progressive Discipline In order to promote the common good and welfare of the Eden Prairie Fire Department and its members, the EPFD has established rules of conduct generally accepted in industry. It is the ., policy of the Eden Prairie Fire Department to administer discipline without discrimination. Disciplinary action may range from verbal or written warnings to suspension or to immediate discharge depending on the act and the circumstances. Eden Prairie Fire Department POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL Page: 9 of 10 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 5/7/96 SECTION: Reports of Officers ITEM NO. XI. Cl DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Outdoor Smoking on Community Center Property Recreation and Facilities Robert A. Lambert City staff are receiving an increasing number of complaints from Community Center users regarding the policy of allowing people to smoke at the entry of the Community Center. Residents refer to the poor image we are giving young children as they walk into the Center through a "haze of smoke" from adults and "sometimes individuals as young as 13 years old" smoking at the front doors of the Community Center. Others complain about the unsightly mess of cigarette butts strewn everywhere except in the ashtray provided. Staff at the Community Center also note that high school students utilize the Community Center as a convenient "wind break" for smoking off school property. Staff recognize that if the City attempted to pass an ordinance that would that would provide a penalty for smoking in an unlawful smoking area, and if the Director designated the area within 150 feet of the Community Center as a smoke free area, individuals would be forced to move to the parking lot to smoke a cigarette. This would undoubtedly cause some hard feelings on the part of parents who utilize the building. It would also place the Community Center staff in a difficult situation asking people to move 150 feet away from the building to smoke a cigarette;however, the Community Center was developed to provide a healthy, wholesome recreational facility for families and children in the community. One might question the mixed message a child may be receiving when they are typically passing groups of mainly adults smoking at the entry to the building. I have requested our City Attorney to answer several questions regarding the City's ability to designate a smoke free area adjacent to this building. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the response from Jennifer Inz and Ric Rosow. REQUEST: At this time, City staff request both the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the City Council to review the question on whether or not the City wants to initiate action to restrict smoking on the property adjacent to the Community Center, or if there is any other action you would request the City staff take to address this issue. This request will be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission at their April 15 meeting. The City Council will review the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission at the May 7 Council meeting. BL:mdd- Smoke/Bob96 1 MEMORANDUM • TO: Bob Lambert FROM: Jennifer Inz and Ric Rosow DATE: March 21, 1996 RE: Outdoor smnking on Community Center property QUESTION: You have asked us for an opinion on whether the City, through its Director of Parks and Recreation, can restrict tobacco smoking in specific outdoor areas on City-owned property (outside the doors of the Community Center). If so, is an amendment to City Code required? OPINION: The City can restrict/prohibit tobacco smoking on Community Center property. An amendment to City Code is not necessary for implementation of new restrictions but will be required for enforcement. ANALYSIS: The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Minn. Stat. §144.413 et seq., regulates smoking in public places. Public places, however, are defined as "enclosed, indoor area[s]...." No restriction is placed on smoking in outdoor areas. There is no provision in this statute which creates an absolute right to smoke outdoors, however, and given that the property in question (the Community Center and its adjoining grounds) is owned by the City, there is nothing in state statute which prevents the City from adopting rules governing its use. The Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources may establish that certain outdoor areas are to be smoke-free by posting signs to that effect in the area so designated. The authority to do this comes from City Ordinance Section 2.30, subd. 6, which creates the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department and designates the Director of Parks,et aL,as the head of this department. The Department, and thus-the Director, has jurisidiction over-the Community Center, and, therefore, has the power to restrict/regulate smoking on its grounds. However, absent an additional ordinance which provides for a penalty, there is no enforcement mechanism. 1 2 There is a state statute on "unlawful smoking" which states that: A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person intentionally smokes in a building, area, or common carrier in which 'no smoking' notices have been prominently posted, or when requested not to by the operator of the common carrier. Minn. Stat. §609.681 (1989). Unfortunately, there have been no cases interpreting the use of the word "area" in this law, and it is unlikely, given the context in which it appears, that "area" would be interpreted as including outdoor spaces. The City would have to establish its own enforcement provisions, and the authority to do that can be found in the City's general authority over "general welfare" found in Minn. Stat. §412.221, subd. 32. That provision states in part: The council shall have power to provide for the government and good order of the city, the suppression of vice and immorality, the prevention of crime...and the promotion of health, safety, order, convenience, and the general welfare by such ordinances not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States or of this state as it shall deem expedient. The City should therefore enact an ordinance which makes it a violation of City Code to smoke tobacco in any area of City-owned park property (which would include the Community Center)that has been posted as a "no smoking area". This would fill in'the gap created by the state statute but would not impermissibly interfere with the state regulatory scheme. A suggested ordinance amendment is attached. 2 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 9.04 ENTITLED "RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC PARKS" BY ADDING SECTION 9.04, SUBD.4 AI TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATION OF TOBACCO USE IN CITY PARKS, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99 WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 9.04 is amended by adding Section 9.04, subd. 4 AI to read as follows: "SECTION 9.04 RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC PARKS..." AI. Smoke, chew, or otherwise ingest a tobacco-related product as defined in Section 5.35, subd. 2.C., in an area which has been declared to be a non-smoking area by the Director, and which has been sign-posted accordingly. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. -FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of 1996. City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1996. INZJEN EP\PARASUMEND.904 LI Unapproved Minutes Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission April 15, 1996 at the Community Center. Staff believes the City should display the banner and has considered other Eden Prairie users of the Community Center who have potential to obtain championship banners. The main groups include Eden Prairie High School Hockey and Swim Teams, Hockey Association, Figure Skating Club, and Foxjet Swim Club. Discussion ensued regarding the guidelines required in order to display the banners. Hilgeman asked if a limit could be put on the amount of years a banner can be displayed. Lambert indicated that when the wall fills up the oldest banner will most likely be removed. Jacobson was concerned about where the Little League would display a banner if they won a championship. Lambert suggested in a future building that would serve that sport in Miller Park. MOTION: Wilson moved, seconded by Brown to accept the Staff recommendations for banners at the Community Center. Motion carried 7- 0-0. B. Policy on Smoking on Community Center Property Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated April 9, 1996 from Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities; and a memo dated March 21, 1995 from Jennifer Inz and Ric Rosow. Lambert indicated this is a request to both the Parks Commission and the City Council to review the question on whether or not the City wants to initiate action to restrict smoking on the property adjacent to the Community Center. Staff has received many call from people suggesting the City is not presenting the right image. The people do not like entering the Community Center through a haze of smoke, and feel it's not a healthful image for children. There are also many people who would be offended if smoking was prohibited completely. Hilgeman commented that a policy to prohibit smoking would not be possible because there would be problems trying to enforce it. Children are very educated about the dangers of smoking and are not going to feel any different by seeing a bunch of people smoking. Wilson suggested a designated area for smoking toward the back entrance. Lambert stated he does not want to put up signs that they can't enforce, and make up rules that they don't intend to enforce. 7 5 Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission April 15, 1996 Hilgeman was concerned about how many people would be respectful enough to go to the back and smoke. She suggested one small sign to refrain from smoking at the front door and smoke at the back door. Jacobson suggested using large ashtrays because the ones presently there get full too quickly. MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Koenig to attempt no smoking by the Community Center entrance by posting a sign that Staff will develop that asks people to smoke at a designated smoking area at the back entrance. Motion carried 6-0-1 with one abstention by Kracum. C. Policy on Donations Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated April 16, 1996, from Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities. Lambert reviewed the guidelines as outlined in the memo indicating that it makes sense to have a policy that Staff can tell the donors what the process is. The City has to get things in writing when given gifts and be aware of any strings attached. Staff believes there should be more of a process to follow. Hilgeman asked if any substantial gifts have been given to the City as a result of the "Excellence Through Giving"gift book. Lambert indicated there were several groups that requested the book and used it, but believes the City would have received the gifts without the book. Staff recommended the City have a written policy regarding donations that the Parks Commission review. This would then be sent to the City Council. MOTION: Bowman moved, seconded by Brown for approval of the recommendations per the Staff Report for a written policy on donations. Motion carried 7-0. VIII. Reports of Manager of Parks and Natural Resources A. Arbor Day Proclamation Fox indicated this was an FYI item. 8 (U EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 5/7/96 SECTION: ITEM NO. [( 2- DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request from Girl's Softball Association to Accept Recreation and Facilities Donation of Scoreboards for Ballfields at Miller Park Robert A. Lambert BACKGROUND: Representatives from the Girl's Softball Association have received a commitment from Super America Corporation to purchase scoreboards for four youth softball fields and four baseball fields at Miller Park with the condition that the City pay for the installation of the scoreboards and allow Super America to attach advertising plaques to the scoreboards for a ten-year period. All of the fields have been wired for scoreboards; therefore, the installation costs are limited to the purchase and installation of the I-beams that would be required to hold the scoreboards and making the electrical connections necessary for operation. The estimated cost for installation is $9,100. Attached to this memo is a photo of the scoreboards depicting the size of the proposed advertising panel on seven of the smaller size scoreboards, as well as the large scoreboard that would be installed at the regulation baseball field. Existing City policy does not allow advertising within City parks. Over the years, staff have received suggestions that the City sell advertising space on outfield fences in various City parks, or display advertising signs at concession areas, etc. City staff have consistently opposed any advertising within the park system. The City has allowed limited advertising displays at the Community Center on the scoreboards and the ice resurfacing machines, which were purchased by the advertisers. RECOMMENDATION: City staff recognize that many scoreboards in municipal parks do display some advertising from the corporation who helped purchase the scoreboards. Staff believe that the amount of advertising space requested is reasonable and would be acceptable provided the background of the advertising panel is of the same color as the rest of the scoreboard. Staff are recommending blue scoreboards in order to remain consistent with the existing color scheme of facilities within Miller Park. Staff would recommend replacing all of the white outside the logo with a blue to match the scoreboard, and moving the logo to the right side of the scoreboard on the smaller sign, and to the bottom of the scoreboard on the larger sign. Staff would further recommend replacing the white background with blue on the larger sign and putting the words "SUPER AMERICA" in white letters. Staff would also recommend the City Council approve the acceptance of the scoreboards with the proposed advertising changes and the conditions that the donation include the cost of installation. BL:mdd Score/Bob96 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities FROM: Stuart A. Fox,anager of Parks and Natural Resources DATE: April 29, 1996 SUBJECT: Estimated Cost Breakdown for Scoreboard Installation at Miller Park BACKGROUND: The staff in its discussion with the various associations has often been asked if the City has made arrangements for installation of scoreboards at Miller Park. The answer has been that the City put in some initial items during the primary phase of development at Miller Park to accommodate scoreboards. The work that done was to trench in signal wire and power wire. Basically, these wires are laying in the ground to the designated site of the scoreboards. The reason for doing this was to enable the City to install wire underneath various blacktop plaza areas that would be difficult to trench at some future date. In prior discussions with baseball, softball, and soccer association members, the question has been raised as to what the City would provide in terms of"matching" donations by associations related to scoreboard installation. Since the initial wiring was done with a particular scoreboard in mind, the staff has been supplying the various associations with the specifications of the scoreboard type. With these conversations the staff has indicated that if a donation were to be made to the City for these particular scoreboards, the City would provide for the installation of the scoreboards at the predetermined locations. These discussions in the past did not include any discussions as to sponsorship logos or sponsorship panels, but simply the scoreboard itself. COST BREAKDOWN FOR SCOREBOARD INSTALLATION: The staff has received verbal cost estimates in regards to the installation of eight scoreboards as indicated by the Softball Association. These scoreboards are similar to those that were originally specified for each field. The installation would include purchasing of steel I-beams as specified by the scoreboard manufacturer, installation of concrete footings, and associated electrical work to complete the scoreboard and power connections as required by the manufacturer. The breakdown for each of these is as follows: Steel I-beam $3,500 materials plus tax Concrete Footings 1,800 material, labor/tax Electrical Connections 4,800 material, labor/tax $9,100 The total cost of$9,100 is approximately$1,150 per scoreboard. These costs are based on the City purchasing the I-beams,having a contractor excavate the footing holes, with the City installing the I-beams and pouring the concrete footings. The electrical work would have to be contracted out, which would include an electrical disconnect switch for safety compliance and wiring of the step down transformer to convert the 480 volt source power to 120 usable by the scoreboard. In addition, some miscellaneous electrical connections would be necessary to connect the scoreboard sender unit to the cable wires running to the scoreboard from the third base dugout area. These cost estimates are based on current market conditions and could change significantly is there is a cost increase to steel or concrete. SAF:mdd ScoreB/Stuart96 • 1 11996 AcUSA April 29, 1996 • D/��,QR 1I- ♦ Mayor Jean Harris and faTp\'\\I L Eden Prairie City Council EDEN ESOTARAIRIE' 8080 Mitchell Road MINNESOTA 18-UNDER FASTPITCH SOFTBALL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS Eden Prairie, MN 55344 1996 Dear Mayor Harris and Council: ASA•USA As you may know, Eden Prairie will host the 1996 ASA•USA 18-and- Under Girls Fastpitch National Championships Aug. 7-11, at Miller 18&Under Girls Fastpitch Park. This exciting event will draw 76 teams from across the country and thousands of spectators to Eden Prairie from across the Upper National Championships Midwest, giving all of us the chance to show off our great city and our wonderful new park Eden Prairie,MN As Tournament Director, one of my goals was that the tournament August 7-11, 1996 leave a positive legacy-both for the participants and fans,but also for the community and the youngsters and their families who will enjoy the park in the future. Perhaps the most visible legacy I hoped to leave behind as a lasting memory of the tournament were scoreboards in- stalled on all of the baseball and softball fields at Miller Park With your permission, I believe we have done just that. Therefore... On behalf of the Eden Prairie Girls Athletic Association (EPGAA) and its National Tournament Organizing Committee, I request the follow- ing: That the Parks Commission and City Council accept the dona- tion of approximately$21,455 from SuperAmerica, Inc., of Blooming- ton, Minn.,through the EPGAA, as payment in full for eight electronic scoreboards and all accompanying hardware to be installed at Miller Park in Eden Prairie during the spring/summer of 1996 with the following stipulations: 1. That the City of Eden Prairie install the scoreboards at an estimated cost of$9,100; and 2. That SuperAmerica be granted advertising rights on the boards for a period of 10 years from the date of installation. The eight boards will be installed on baseball/softball fields 1-3, pin- wheel fields 4-7, and the baseball-only field on the south side of Miller 7335 Scot Terrace Park. Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Tel/Fax 612.942.5209 , Attached to this request are color mock-ups of the scoreboards with preliminary advertis- ing copy in place. The boards are designed to accommodate professionally produced advertising in a relatively modest space. After discussions with city staff, plans are for the board backgrounds to be blue. The SuperAmerica logo's primary colors are red and blue. The EPGAA is proud to play a part in equipping Miller Park with these scoreboards, pri- marily as a convenience for spectators who want to keep track of a game's progress. The boards will play an important part in this year's National Tournament, as well as future local tournaments. Before I close, I must recognize the efforts of Mr.Joe Brady, an Eden Prairie resident and one of the members of our organizing committee, who played an instrumental role in securing SA's involvement. Thanks, too, to Bob Lambert, Stu Fox, Bob Lanzi and Laurie Helling of the city staff, and Dan Carlson, Greg Weber and Molly Koivumaki of the Police Department, for their ongoing assistance in planning this tournament. Their assistance has been invaluable. I will be in attendance at the May 6 Parks Commission meeting and the May 7 City Council meeting if you have further questions. Or you can call me in the meantime at 853-8549 (days) or 942-5209 (evenings). Thanks very much for your consideration. Sincerely, v jAr/L, James R. Bayer Tournament Director c: Steve Fritzke, EPGAA President Joe Brady Bob Lambert Stu Fox Bob Lanzi 5 4/24/96 AIMSA2 BA.____ • •LL• STRI• •KE O•UT • GUEST •• ••••••• HOME SUPE.E.c.A, • • • • • • • • •• • •••• • . •• •• • •• • • • •• • •• ••••• •• •• eeverStop. •• .... . ••... INNING • •••• DAKTFIONICS -i Nig ii y 14 MILLER FIELD Eden Prairie, MN It . El - -.4::, ;'''' DAKTRONICS BA-518 BASEBALL SCOREBOARD INC. AIM ELEE T OIIIES, Ilic. 6 4/24/96 AIMSA1 KUPERAMERIC . SUPERAMERICAO SUPS BALL STRIKE OT H E • • • GUEST • •• • • • • • • • • • • • HOME • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • •••• • • ••• . . S •.•• • •• • • • • •• • INNING • •••• DAKTRONICS MILLER FIELD x...z Eden Prairie, MN 1:11) DAKTRONICS BA-624L BASEBALL SCOREBOARD INC. F1iiT1 ELEEIEDili[S, iilE. 7 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 5/7/96 SECTION: Director of Parks,Recreation and Facilities ITEM NO..41.C� DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request to Appoint Deb Campbell Potter, Arts Recreation and Facilities Commission Chairperson, as the Commission Liaison to the Staring Arts Laurie Helling , Board REQUEST: Staff requests approval from the City Council to appoint Deb Campbell Potter, Arts Commission Chairperson, as the Commission liaison to the Eden Prairie Staring Arts Board. In addition, staff requests that Deb Campbell Potter be able to attend the monthly Staring Arts Board dinner meeting and be reimbursed by the City for the meeting expense of the meal. There is a meeting expense account in the Arts Division budget, which can fund the monthly meal expense. BACKGROUND: On Tuesday, April 16, 1996, the Eden Prairie Arts Commission unanimously nominated Deb Campbell Potter, Arts Commission Chairperson,to serve as the Commission liaison to the Eden Prairie Staring Arts Board. As the liaison to the Staring Arts Board, Deb Campbell Potter will be responsible for attending the monthlymeetingon behalf of the Arts Commission and the Cityof Eden Prairie. The next StaringArts board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 30, 1996, at Bent Creek Golf Club beginning with a meal at 6:00 p.m. followed by a Board meeting,which usually continues until approximately 8:00 p.m. The Staring Arts Board appointed Basil Wissner to be the Staring Arts Board liaison to the Eden Prairie Arts Commission. Mr. Wissner has attended the past two Arts Commission meetings,which are scheduled the third Tuesday of each month from 7:15 to 9:00 p.m. CLOSING COMMENTS: The Arts Commission hopes to develop a cooperative relationship with the Staring Arts Board with the goal of determining the art's needs of Eden Prairie residents and enforce the development and offerings of programs and facilities to meet these needs. Thank you for your consideration of this request. LH:mdd • 1