HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 07/16/1996 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock,
Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and
Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Assistant City Manager Chris Enger,
Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities
Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works
Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly,
City Planner Mike Franzen, City Engineer
Al Gray, and Council Recorder Jan
Nelson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
AWARD CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO WOODLAKE/BFI FOR
SPRING COMMUNITY CLEAN-UP EVENT
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. OPEN PODIUM
III. MINUTES
A. COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1996
B. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION & SOCIAL
SERVICES BOARD MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1996
C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1996
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
City Council Agenda
Tuesday, July 16, 1996
Page Two
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density, High
Density and Office to Medium Density Residential on 18.93 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 18.93
acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 54.5 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 18.93 acres, Site Plan
Review on 18.93 acres, Preliminary Plat of 88.5 acres into 26 lots
and 2 outlots, 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, and
Resolution Finding the EAW does not Require an EIS) Continued
from 6/18/96
B. KOPESKY ADDITION by Wayne Kopesky. Request for Rezoning
from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.32 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.32
acres into 13 lots. Location: West 82nd Street. (Ordinance for
Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Resolution for Preliminary
Plat)
C. VACATION 96-06: VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS IN SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK FIFTH
ADDITION (Resolution)
VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. 1ST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE
CHAPTER 4 RELATING TO BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR
LICENSING AND REGULATION AND ADOPTING CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 4.99
VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
X. APPOINTMENTS
City Council Agenda
Tuesday, July 16, 1996
Page Three
Xl. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES
D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
1. Authorization to Enter into a Brokerage Agreement for
New Liquor Store Building with United Properties
E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
1. Award Contract for Water Treatment Plant Expansion, I.C.
94-5350
2. Set Public Meeting Date for TH 212 Toil Road
F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1996 7:00 p.m. CITY CENTER
COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP Heritage Room IV, 8080 Mitchell Road
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Ronald
Case, Patricia Pidcock, Ross Thorfinnson,
and Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl Jullie, Assistant City
Manager Chris Enger, HRA Manager David
Lindahl, and Recording Secretary Barbara
Anderson
CALL. TOO DER
The meeting began at 7:15 p.m.
II. PRESENTATION OF LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACTION PLAN
Lindahl stated the Livable Communities Action Plan was essentially the strategies
approved by the City Council to meet the Livable Communities housing goals, and this
will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council with any changes or revisions proposed by
the Councilmembers. Public housing has been stressed because of lawsuits won by people
who felt they were discriminated against. In the future to qualify for tax credits a certain
amount of public housing must be built. The City is not equipped to own or manage
public housing at this time, but should consider having it within the community.
Minneapolis is willing to own these units if Eden Prairie will have it within their
community.
Discussion ensued regarding affordable housing versus low income housing. Minimum
income levels needed to buy affordable housing were discussed. Affordable is a term
applied to housing within a certain price range by the Metropolitan Council but it becomes
difficult to establish exactly what that means. Possibly avoiding labels would be a way
around this problem. Mayor Harris commented that keeping housing affordable once it
has been constructed is a challenge. Lindahl stated most developers are very interested in
talking about this type of housing and most communities are vying for it as well. Enger
said Eden Prairie is behind in this type of housing projects and he was concerned that Eden
Prairie cannot be successful because of the political pressure put upon Eden Prairie to
adopt this type of housing and build it. Pidcock stated people put pressure on
councilmembers to keep things the same and fight change in order to retain their
perception of how the City should remain.
Lindahl said there were ways to accomplish the construction of affordable housing in a
win/win type environment. He believed if they could make a few apartment units
affordable to low income persons, it would not be obvious to the public at large, and
would still accomplish the City's goal of creating affordable housing within Eden Prairie.
They could start a rent reduction program which would not be as threatening to residents
as a new building being constructed. The apartments could be retrofitted by financial
I
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
June 25, 1996
Page 2
buying down with little or no fanfare. This could be done when apartments turn over, and
the turnover rate for apartments in Eden Prairie is between 8 and 10%. Lindahl said there
were a few sites left in Eden Prairie which would be good transition between single family
and other uses and also have good access to schools and services. Various sites where
habitat houses could be built were discussed. A proposal for the apple orchard property
was discussed and the results of the second neighborhood meeting were reviewed.
Housing on top of shopping centers or having more high density residential development
in the downtown area was discussed. This would facilitate the development of the
"walking community" concept and perhaps get it going. Enger commented there was a
developer who was interested in constructing luxury condominiums in the downtown area
which would put people living in this area. The transit hub should attract people to this
area as well. There has been talk about selling five acres on the transit hub site for
housing. There would be credit given to all three cities for the housing development if it
were built. They could possibly utilize TIF money to buy down the cost of the land, and
all three cities involved would receive credit for the housing units built even though it is
located within Eden Prairie. The other cities would receive recognition for doing the
construction partnership, and they have TIF money available. The low income portion of
the project would only be 20% or less because they don't want to put all the low income
housing on one site, but spread it throughout the community.
Lindahl commented the legislature had come close to passing a mandate requiring a certain
amount of low income housing but it did not pass. Discussion ensued regarding how the
issue of affordable housing should be handled with developers who proposed projects in
Eden Prairie which would allow Eden Prairie to attain its goals. Concern was expressed
that there is not that much developable land left in which to accomplish this goal of
affordable housing and this issue was not being pushed to reach the goal. Pidcock stated
the market is changing, and while there is a large demand in Eden Prairie at present for
single family residential, the population is changing and the need will be for smaller
houses and more consolidated types of properties. Many housing developers are building
condominiums rather than single family homes. This community offers residents the
opportunity to live here through all the cycles of their lives, and this should continue to
be balanced. Balancing the level of employment with the levels of housing was discussed,
and it was believed that achieving this goal would ultimately reduce traffic levels within
the City.
Lindahl stated the Livable Communities Action Plan would be placed on a Council agenda
in the near future, and Councilmembers could communicate any changes they wished to
make prior to that time.
Discussion ensued regarding the issue of the City of Minneapolis putting low income units
in outlying communities and the possibility of the legislature becoming involved in this.
Concern was expressed about having another municipality owning property within another
municipality and the potential problems which could arise from such a situation.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
June 25, 1996
Page 3
III. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
3
UNAPPROVED MINIITFS
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION& SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD)
TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1996 6:30 PM, CITY CENTER
Heritage Room IV
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Ronald Case, Patricia
Pidcock, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-
Lukens
HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION &
SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD
MEMBERS: Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., Patricia Pidcock,
Katherine Kardell, Munna Yasiri, Vicki Koenig,
Peg DuBord, and Mary Jane Wissner
COUNCIL/BOARD STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City
Manager Chris Enger, HRA Manager David
Lindahl, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson
ROLL CALL
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. Board Members Kardell, Koenig and
DuBord were absent.
Mayor Harris introduced Dick Feerick who gave a brief report about a cooperative effort to bring
about a partnership with an inner city neighborhood in Minneapolis. He said they are producing
a 160-page report for the Federal Transit Agency that describes the Job Fair program and other
partnership efforts. Harris noted that their program fits in to some extent with some of the items
the City Council is considering.
I. INTRODUCTIONS
Commission members and Councilmembers introduced themselves.
II. PRESENTATION/STATUS OF WORK PLAN
Lindahl reviewed the status of the Board's work plan. He said they are trying to make
the HOPE program more cost efficient, possibly by working volunteers into training roles
for the 1997 program. They have tabulated the results of the community survey but have
not yet finalized a report. They have changed the process for human service funding so
that human service providers will submit RFP's in response to needs in the community.
Lindahl said they would like to set up a volunteer resource pool to get the community
more involved. They had many volunteers respond to the HOPE program and could only
use a limited number of them.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING,TRANSPORTATION&SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 2
Lindahl said it has been hard to pinpoint the needs for transportation even though they
have money earmarked. They plan to do more work in this area.
They want to expand Family Self-Sufficiency to the whole community, not just to
Briarhill and Prairie Meadows. He said they could work with Metro HRA on this.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL INPUT
Tyra-Lukens noted the Community Needs and Resources Council discussed setting up a
volunteer resource pool that would address many needs in the community, not just human
service needs.
Thorfinnson said Plymouth has a volunteer coordinator on the City staff. He thought it
is important to be specific about the job, the time commitment and the over-all
commitment.
Enger said we may want to consider budgeting for a part-time volunteer coordinator.
Lindahl said they had Nancy Anderson from Plymouth come down and speak to us. They
have 50 volunteers in the city helping with jobs that run the gamut of city functions.
Case said the school district has a lot of experience managing volunteers and we may want
to call on their expertise.
Harris thought this would be a good way to build community and would help volunteers
learn how city government works.
Thorfinnson thought we could work with people outside of city groups, such as the Boy
Scouts, so that we don't limit it to just City Hall.
Wissner suggested a brainstorming session to come up with areas where we could use
volunteers.
Tyra-Lukens thought we should work with the United Way's pool of volunteers so that we
don't duplicate services. We could pass on names to them if volunteers did not match our
needs.
IV. CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION
Thorfinnson said they have suggested taking the transportation money and giving it to
PROP to use for a voucher system. The majority of the need is for transportation to
places it is hard to get to with Southwest Metro. Councilmembers and Board members
discussed whether giving the funds to PROP would be the best way to fill the need for
transportation. Harris was not sure everyone that needs transportation would access the
PROP resources. Lindahl noted there are some restrictions on how we use federal money
and any use of the$1700 would have to be approved by the City Council. Tyra-Lukens
2
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING,TRANSPORTATION&SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 3
said transportation might also be an issue the Volunteer Coordinator could work on.
Case would like to see some positive press on the HOPE program. Yasiri noted they have
talked about doing a video because it has been such a successful program. Thorfinnson
said they might want to have the cable company do a documentary.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
3
.L11--C
UNAPPROVED MINITTF_S
EDF.N PRAIRIE CITY COTTNCIl,
TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: 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, Director of Parks,
Recreation &Facilities Bob Lambert, Director of
Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger
Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
7ullie added item XI.E.1. Update on Hwy 212 Toll Road Proposal and deleted item
IV.F. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT WITH MARK
RADROTTRNE. Pidcock added item XI.A.1. Calls about Raccoons and asked that item
IV. B. RFSOL UTION 96-97 COMMENDING EDF.N PRAIRIE COMMUNITY
RAND ON THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND WISHING THEM WELL ON
THEIR MUSICAL TOUR be pulled from the Consent Calendar in order to give special
attention to the Community Band.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the Agenda as
published and amended. Motion carried unanimously.
II. OPEN PODITTM
RF_SOLUTION 96-97 COMMENDING EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY RAND ON
THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND WISHING THEM WET,T, ON THEIR
MUSICAL TOUR
Councilmember Pidcock read the resolution. Mayor Harris noted we are well served by
the Eden Prairie Community Band.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to adopt Resolution 96-97,
commending the Eden Prairie Community Band on their accomplishments and wishing
them well on their musical tour. Motion carried unanimously.
I
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 2
III. MINUTES
A. COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TITFSDAY, JUNE 18, 1996
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Minutes of
the Council/Staff workshop held Tuesday, June 18, 1996, as published. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUE4DAY, JUNE 1R, 1996
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the
Minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, June 18, 1996. Motion
carried unanimously.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
C. RESOLUTION 96-98 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF VILLAGE KNOLLS
4TH ADDITION (located east of Homeward Hills Road and west of Purgatory
Creek)
D. RESOLUTION 96-99 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF SUNNYBROOK
WOODS (located north of Sunnybronk Road and west of Homeward Hills
Road)
E. REQUEST FOR R.A.L..F. ACQUISITION OF BOLI.IG/JACQUES
PROPERTY (Resolution 96-100)
F. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT WITH MARK
RADBOTTRNF,
G. RESOLUTION 96-101 APPROVING AGREEMENT NO. 1 FOR
CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR CSAH 18 (South of
CSAH 1)
H. RESOLUTION 96-102 AITTIJORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACT AS
AITTHORIZING OFFICIAL TO EXECITTF. THE GRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRALRIF AND THE METROPOLITAN
REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve items A, C-E, G
and H, with item F deleted. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 3
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. TOM THiTMR GAS PUMPS by Mike Eiker. Request for Zoning District
Amendment in the Neighborhood Commercial District on 2 acres, Site Plan
Review on 2 acres for construction of an additional gas pump island. Location:
Southeast corner of Dell Road and Townline Road (Ordinance for Zoning
District Amendment)
Gus Tarr, real estate coordinator with Tom Thumb Food Markets, reviewed the
request to add additional gas pumps.
Enger said the Planning Comission reviewed the item at the June 10, 1996,
meeting and recommended approval on a 6-0 vote, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report of June 7, 1996.
Case felt there wasn't a lot of plant material around the area and asked if it would
be appropriate to recommend a few more trees, particularly along the Dell Road
corridor. He likes to see this kind of commercial development that provides
service to a residential neighborhood. Enger said we could look at the
recommendation for more trees prior to issuing the building permit.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public
Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment
in the Neighborhood Commercial District on 2 acres; and to direct Staff to prepare
a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations
and the recommendation to provide additional screening vegetation along Dell
Road. Motion carried unanimously.
B. MITCHELI. VILLAGE by Centex Homes. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 41 acres and Planned Unit Development District
Review on 19.65 acres, Zoning District Change and Site Plan Review on 19.65
acres, Preliminary Plat of 41 acres into 21 lots and 5 outlots and road right-of-way.
Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and Mitchell Road (Ordinance for PUD
District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution 96-103 for PUD
Concept Review, Resolution 96-104 for Preliminary Plat and Resolution 96-110
for Site Plan Review)
Dan Blake, representing Centex Homes, reviewed the proposal to build 123
ownership units, 25-30% of which are proposed to meet the goals of the Livable
Communities Act. He said the tree loss will be 67%; however, the trees on the
west side are in very poor condition, and they are proposing to replace trees in
accordance with the City ordinance.
Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the project at their June 10, 1996,
8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 4
meeting and recommended approval on a unanimous vote, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of June 7, 1996.
Lambert said the Parks, Recreation &Natural Resources Commission reviewed the
project at the June 17, 1996 meeting and recommended approval on a 3-1-1 vote,
with Bowman opposed because of the high tree loss. He said the discussion
focused on the tree loss, the wetlands and the future status of the outlots that
contain the wetlands. The existing property owner plans to donate the wetlands to
the City.
Pidcock was very uncomfortable with having the knoll cut down. She reviewed
some of the history of this property. She did not have a problem with the tree loss
because they are primarily cottonwood trees and they have a good replacement
plan.
Case asked if we are counting the trees in the dump area as significant ones. Blake
said they worked out with Staff that there are some trees that measure as significant
but don't count against the tree loss.
Case wanted the developer to seek advice from the Heritage Preservation
Commission on naming the roads, and to have John Gertz or the HPC check the
farm equipment on the site before it is destroyed.
Tyra-Lukens also wanted to have historical street names. She asked how we are
going to handle the signage because the project is divided by a major street. Blake
said they will have something at each of the three access points, but they don't
envision anything too large because there really isn't a main entrance. He said it
probably will feel like two neighborhoods.
Case asked if there will be only one homeowners association. Blake said there
probably will be only one.
Tyra-Lukens said one of the most attractive things is the natural feeling of the area
and asked if they are trying to preserve some of that feeling in the outlot area. She
asked if Outlot A is the NURP pond. Enger said it is. Blake reviewed the status
of the outlots.
Lloyd Ellingson, 14250 Chestnut Drive, objected to the design of the building
because it is the same as several developments elsewhere in Eden Prairie, Chaska
and Bloomington.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Case was also concerned the City doesn't turn into a Woodbury or other similar
community; however, the trade-off is we are trying to build homes in the $90,000
4
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 5
to $110,000 range to diversify our home stock. It is difficult to ask a developer
to come in with several new designs in that price range.
Pidcock would like to see the developer make some changes to the exterior to add
some architectural detail that will make them a little different.
Harris asked if they addressed what the knoll was. Blake said the top of the knoll
was always there at that elevation; however, it was filled in and leveled off to the
north and east of the knoll. Harris asked what material was used for the fill.
Blake said it is a wet clay mixture that is probably out of an excavation site. It was
probably placed there in the late 60's or early 70's.
Harris asked if it is possible to develop the project with the knoll in place. Blake
said it is not practical to get a road up to the knoll with any use of the land.
Pidcock asked if that meant there is no way they can build without taking the top
of the hill off. Blake said that it was filled in which made the top much larger.
He said they did a dozen soil borings and have old and new topographicals to show
when the fill occurred.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve 1st Reading of the
Ordinance for Zoning District Change from RM2.5 to RM6.5 on 19.65 acres, and
PUD District Review on 41 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-103 for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 41 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-104 for
Preliminary Plat Approval of 41 acres into 20 lots and 6 outlots; to adopt
Resolution 96-110 for Site Plan Review on 19.65 acres; and to direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
recommendations, and between first and second readings to contact the Heritage
Preservation Commission about the street names and the farm equipment and to
check the signage with the ordinance.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens,
to amend the motion to approve the project with the knoll preserved.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Motion defeated 2-3,
with Case, Harris and Thorfinnson opposed.
Case said he empathizes with what Councilmember Pidcock is talking about
concerning the issue of preserving the topography of the City; however, this
particular piece of property is very problematic. Pidcock said she is concerned
when she sees hills leveled because we will lose the ambiance of Eden Prairie.
Harris did not think this is meant to serve as a precedent for the future.
Pidcock was concerned the Parks Commission approved on a 3-1-1 vote, and she
was not sure there was enough discussion of the knoll issue. She wanted to send
a message that she feels very strongly that hills should not be altered. Tyra-Lukens
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 6
agreed, even though there are some constraints on this piece of property. She saw
the area around Staring Lake leveled for houses, yet there are parts of Eden Prairie
where knolls and other areas have been maintained in a beautiful setting.
However, she thought there were too many benefits from this project not to
approve it.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
C. HARTFORD AREA ONE RETAIL 1996 by Ryan Construction Company of
Minnesota. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 24.43
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 1.27 acres, Zoning District
Amendment in the Commercial Regional Service District on 1.27 acres, Site Plan
Review on 1.27 acres and Preliminary Plat of 4.43 acres into 2 lots. Location:
Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive (Ordinance for PUD District
Review and Zoning District Amendment, Resolution 96-105 for PUD Concept
Amendment and Resolution 96-106 for Preliminary Plat)
John Dietrich, RLK Associates working with Ryan Companies, reviewed the
proposal.
Enger asked if there will be sidewalks along the east and west. Dietrich said there
is no change from the current sidewalks that are south and north, adjacent to the
building.
Thorfinnson asked if we have any guarantees or if it could be stipulated in some
way that this will stay a single use building, because two tenants would probably
mean opening a door to the west and adding more sidewalks. Dietrich said the
plans presented to the users has been as one building. Enger thought this would
be a self-leveling thing, as there would have to be physical changes to the building
in order to have parking and accessibility from the west.
Case suggested stipulating that the entrance would always have to be from the
south.
Tyra-Lukens did not see this as a big problem.
Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the project at the June 10, 1996
meeting, and recommended on a 6-0 vote approval of the request, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of June 7, 1996. He said the project was not
reviewed by the Parks Commission.
Thorfinnson asked about the process used to determine the parking requirements.
Enger said it met the same standards as required by ordinance. Thorfinnson was
concerned it might develop into a parking situation like that at Bucca's.
There were no comments from the audience.
6
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 7
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; to
approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the
Commercial Regional Service District on 1.27 acres and PUD District Review on
1.27 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-105 for PUD Concept Review on 24.43 acres;
to adopt Resolution 96-106 for Preliminary Plat of 4.43 acres into 2 lots; and to
direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and
Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
Tyra-Lukens asked if the height of the building is the same as the PetsMart
building and if it is similar in architecture. Dietrich said it is about ten feet lower
in height.
D. PURGATORY CREEK FSTATES (1996)i by Barry and Brian Post. Request for
Preliminary Plat on 4.98 acres into 7 lots. Location: 12381 Sunnybrook Road
(Resolution 96-107 for Preliminary Plat)
Barry Post, proponent, reviewed the project.
Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on June 10, 1996, and
recommended approval of the request on a unanimous vote. He said this is similar
to the original proposal for the property, except that it now has much less negative
impact on the wetlands than was believed. This eliminates one of the major
objections the City had at that time.
Lambert said the Parks Commission reviewed the project at their June 17, 1996,
meeting and recommended approval on a 4-0 vote, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Reports of June 7 and June 12, 1996.
Tyra-Lukens was confused about the amount of wetland fill. It said 400 square
feet in one report and 1970 square feet in another. Post said this is a change in the
delineation because they are going by the new rules.
Case thought it would be possible to construct the one house without having to fill
the wetlands behind it. Post said it would require a retaining wall right behind the
house.
Pidcock questioned whether the 300-year old tree on the property could be saved.
Post said they have talked to consultants about it and are quite sure it will have to
go. Case asked if we got an opinion from the City Forester about the health of the
tree and its projected life. Lambert was not aware of a report on that particular
tree. Enger said we could have Stu Fox look at that tree prior to 2nd Reading.
Libby Hargrove, 12640 Sunnybrook Road, would like to have the oak tree remain
and have only five lots in the project; however, with the change in the wetland
ordinance and moving the line further back, opponents do not have a legal basis for
objection. She was concerned the improvements to Sunnybrook Road should have
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 8
been completed this year, and the City has not held up their share of the bargain.
Delays cause an increase in the costs, and she wanted to make sure this plan
includes sewer and water for Sunnybrook Road.
Jullie said we have been working with the Posts to properly align the sewer and
storm water lines. Post said they have to work out some details between now and
the final agreement, and they have not signed any papers on the easement. Julie
said we can include this as a condition of the developer's agreement.
Case asked if the easement would go down the center of the cul-de-sac. Post
showed the location of the sewer and storm water easements on the map.
Hargrove thought there will be a need for another NURP pond to the west of this
development. Post suggested she work with the Wersal property at the time that
is developed.
Lea Smith, Sunnybrook Road, said her property abuts the Post property, and she
is concerned about how the water will get down to the NURP pond on the south.
Post said there will be a pipe under the road to drain from the north to the south.
Smith was concerned about how the NURP pond would work in a wetland area,
as water does not filter out in a heavy rain. Post replied the Watershed District
wanted the NURP pond as close to the creek and wetland area as possible.
Smith was concerned other projects such as Mitchell Village can build without
filling in the floodplain and she thought this project should be able to do that too.
Post said they are filling 65% of what is allowed.
Smith asked when the trees have to be replaced. Enger said they will obtain a
bond prior to construction to guarantee that trees will be placed. They will hold
the bond for one year after the trees are placed, and they go out to inspect that they
are put in and that they grow.
Smith asked where the project is getting the water. Post said they are getting it
from north of the park if the road improvements are not completed in time.
Smith asked when they will start the project. Post said they have asked for an
early grading permit and would like to put some fill in the area where the house
pads will be so it can settle for a year. They would start construction next spring.
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Tyra-Lukens did not like the idea of a retaining wall behind someone's house in
order to preclude the need for wetland fill, but neither did she like the idea of
wetland fill. She asked if it would be possible to mitigate the fill on site behind lot
5. Post didn't know if we can do that, as that is the top of the interceptor. He
8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 9
doesn't know how far we can excavate in that area.
Case asked how much of the land south of the conservancy line is floodplain or
wetland. Ron Peterson, Peterson Environmental Consultants, reviewed the detailed
topographical and the corrected delineation on the site.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to adopt Resolution 96-107
for Preliminary Plat Approval on 4.98 acres into 7 lots; and to direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
recommendations.
Case has a philosophical problem with filling wetlands, and this project takes
everybody's wetlands to benefit a developer and one or two homeowners. It
doesn't feel like there is a hardship here, and the seven houses can be built without
filling wetlands if there is a retaining wall.
Harris noted this project meets all of the ordinances at this time, and we have
permitted this amount and greater amounts of fill in other parts of the City.
Tyra-Lukens asked if the pads could be moved forward and a variance granted for
setback. Post said they looked at moving the pads, but they would still have
wetland fill. This proposal does not require variances and meets the other
requirements.
Tyra-Lukens then asked if the footprint could be made a different shape or angled
so the wetland behind Lot 5 would not be affected. Thorfinnson noted we would
lose the mitigation, and the landowner could fill the property later. Case thought
we might get an environmentally sensitive property owner who would not fill in
the property later.
Harris noted the Watershed District has said this is acceptable, and they have
jurisdiction in this instance. Pauly said the Watershed District is the local
governmental unit that makes the determination. Case noted we will be the ones
to lose the wetlands.
Case asked that the Heritage Preservation Commission be allowed to photograph
the fieldstone foundation of the barn on the property.
Tyra-Lukens wanted to see something creative done with the building pads so that
we don't need to do wetland fill. If the fill is required, she wanted Staff to report
back on ways of wetland mitigation being done on City property on parks or open
lands.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 4-0-1, with Case abstaining.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to grant proponent an early
g
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 10
grading permit, prior to 2nd reading, at his own risk. Motion carried
unanimously.
E. EDEN PRAIRIE RETAIL (OFFICE DEPOT) by CSM Corporation. Request
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public to Regional Commercial,
Zoning District Change from Public to Commercial Regional Service, Site Plan
Review and Preliminary Plat on 4.47 acres. Location: Leona Road and Hwy 169
(Resolution 96-108 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Ordinance for
Zoning District Change, and Resolution 96-109 for Preliminary Plat)
David Karlan and Gary Tushie, representing proponent, reviewed the project.
Tyra-Lukens asked if we are approving the first proposal or the second. Enger said
the 2nd drawing is a slight revision of the first one. The proponent purchased a
small piece of property from the City and provides a parking easement to the City
for the land to the south and east of this. We have agreed to take the NURP pond
requirement down to Anderson Lakes because the NURP pond would be a potential
maintenance problem.
Tyra-Lukens asked why this involves a change in the square footage for the Office
Depot building and the retail building. Enger said the purchase of 2500 square feet
of land from the City gave them the 20% floor area ratio they needed.
Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the project at their June 24 meeting
and recommended approval on a 6-0 vote, per the recommendations of the Staff
Report of June 21, 1996. The Parks Commission did not review the proposal.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the Public
Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from
Public to Commercial Regional Services on 4.19 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-108
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public to Regional Commercial on
4.19 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-109 for Preliminary Plat Approval of 4.38
acres; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations, and based on the project as presented in
the revised drawing. Motion carried unanimously.
VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Pidcock 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
VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
l
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 11
IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION & SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD -
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACTION PLAN
Lindahl was available for questions.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to adopt the Livable Communities
Action Plan as developed by the Housing, Transportation and Social Services
Board, per the Staff Report of July 2, 1996. Motion carried unanimously.
X. APPOINTMENTS
XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
1. Calls about Raccoons
Pidcock said she has received calls from property owners along Hwy. 18
reporting that the large numbers of raccoons in the area are causing a health
problem. She asked Staff to investigate and get an action plan to take care
of the situation. Jullie said Staff will check into it.
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
1. Update on Negotiations for Renewal of Cable TV Franchise
Jullie reviewed the memorandum of June 4, 1996, about the cable franchise
renewal process. He said the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission has
reviewed this language and has recommended approval by its member
cities. He said we would set a Public Hearing for August 7, 1996, to
formally review the franchise renewal.
Tyra-Lukens asked what the renewal period will be. Jullie said it will be
15 years. Tyra-Lukens said she is concerned, given discussions regarding
telecommunications and the future, about tying us into a 15-year contract
without knowing where the City wants to go. Jullie said we will benefit
from the early renewal because Paragon is offering to rebuild their plant
and to provide fiber cable for a state-of-the-art system. He thought it
would blend in nicely with the telecommunications planning.
Tyra-Lukens asked how this addressed the right-of-way issues. We are
tying it to a specific fee system based on usage typical of 1996.
Pidcock noted some of the other providers may not pay anything for our
right of way, and she thought this puts us at a competitive edge.
li
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 2, 1996
Page 12
Harris noted this is a sizable financial investment for Paragon and allows
us to stay current with a state-of-the-art technology.
Tyra-Lukens wanted to make sure all the issues have been looked at.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to give preliminary
approval of the terms and conditions regarding the major issues involved
with the Cable T.V. franchise renewal with Paragon Cable, and to set a
Public Hearing for August 6, 1996. Motion carried unanimously.
C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES
D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
1. Update on Hwy 212 Toll Road Proposal
Relative to item V. E., Dietz said he thought the Watershed District would
take the Council's concerns into consideration if we communicated with
them prior to their approving a project.
Dietz said they have received communications from two sources that
indicate a draft agreement for the proposed toll road project should be
available on July 11th so we can begin to review it. MNDoT has scheduled
a public informational meeting for July 15th in Chanhassen from 4:00 to
9:00 p.m. He will check the calendars and set an informational public
meeting date here subsequent to the open house by MNDoT.
Pidcock asked how the public will be notified of the informational meeting.
Dietz said last time they took ads out in the newspaper before the meeting.
F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XII. QJHER BUSINESS
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Ig
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
—r ri SECTION: Consent Calendar 7-16-96
DEPARTMENT: 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.) Gasfitter
All Systems Roofing,Inc. Advantage Air, Inc.
Cottonwood Construction, Inc. Kluver Mechanical, Inc.
Huepenbecker Construction Larson Mechanical
Metal Specialties, Inc.
Heating& Ventilating
Plumbing
Advantage Air, Inc.
B J& M Plumbing& Heating, Inc. Kluver Mechanical, Inc.
Forcier Plumbing Larson Mechanical
Dennis Gezel Plumbing R&S Heating &Air Conditioning
Kluver Mechanical, Inc.
Private Kennel
Septic Systems
Keith Garroutte (9338 Overlook Tr.)
Don's Backhoe & Excavating
Utility Installer
Kluver Mechanical, Inc.
Action/Direction:
July 16, 1996 1
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 7-16-96
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO. WI
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 18.93 acres;
• Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 88.5 acres into 27 lots and 3 outlots;
• Adopt a Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density and High Density
and Office to Medium Density on 18.93 acres;
• Adopt a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 54.5 acres.
• Adopt a Resolution finding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Staring Lake Townhouses
a private action, does not require an Environmental Impact statement.
Background:
This is a continued item from the June 18, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Revised Development Plan
The current requests are different from the plan reviewed by the City Council on May 7, 1996 because the
project area has been reduced in size from 88.5 acres and 692 units to 54.5 acres and 448 units. The chart
on Page 4 is a comparison between the May 7, 1996 plan and the July 16, 1996 plan.
At the May 7, 1996 meeting,the City Council outlined the following items to be taken into consideration
as part of a revised plan for the property.
1. Lower the number of units.
The number of units has been reduced from 692 to 448.
2. Add an additional townhome product to enhance diversity.
The plan includes 20 units that will have a walkout.
3. Provide variants to building exteriors.
Each building type has two elevations. In addition,there will be at least 6 different color schemes
for each building type.
4. Accommodate a parking lot at the entrance to the Oak Point lower parking lot.
There is room between the NURP pond and Staring Lake Parkway for purchase by the school district
for construction of a parking lot. The intermediate school site has room for 40 additional parking
spaces.
5. Signalize the intersection at Fountain Place.
The current schedule for a signal at Fountain Place and HWY 169 is 1997.
6. Add two small tot lots and maybe a tennis court at the developers expense. Pay full cash park
fee.
Two tot lot areas are shown on the site plan. Full cash park fee is required.
7. Support the Planning Commission's rejection of Alternative Two.
Alternative Two has been withdrawn by the developer.
Future Actions For Planning Commission and City Council for Detailed Approval of Phase II:
1. Rezoning of 35.57 acres from Rural to RM-6.5.
2. Preliminary plat on 35.57 acres.
3. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential,Medium Density Residential,High
Density Residential and Office to Medium Density Residential on 35.57 acres.
The City Staff recommends approval of the July 16, 1996 plan based on the following conditions:
1. Perimeter berming and landscaping in Phase Two shall be installed concurrent with development of
Phase One.
2. The NURP pond shall be constructed with Phase One.
3. Columbine Road shall be constructed concurrent with Phase One.
4. A sidewalk and trail shall be constructed along Columbine Road.
5. Payment of cash park fee on a per unit basis.
6. Restore the slope above the NURP pond with a prairie grass mixture.
7. Provide a security to guarantee implementation of berming and landscaping.
8. Phase One is approved for 252 units, 18 (12 unit) buildings, 4 (8 unit) buildings and 1 (4 unit)
building.
9. 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 6,500 square feet to 5,000 square feet in the RM-6.5
District.
B. Waiver from the minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet 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.
10. Approval of construction plans for sewer,water, storm sewer and roads by the City Engineer.
11. Rezoning for Phase Two is based on the Planned Unit Development plan for number of units,
architecture,berming, and landscaping.
Supporting Reports:
1. Resolution for Preliminary Plat
2. Resolution for PUD Concept Review
3. Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
4. Resolution for EAW
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 22, 1996, April 8, 1996, and March 25, 1996
6. Staff Report dated April 19, 1996, April 6, 1996,March 22, 1996
7. Correspondence
8. Neighborhood Comments
COMPARISON BETWEEN MAY 7, 1996 PLAN AND JULY 16, 1996 PLAN
PLC' 5f'7/96 • ?Ell9r
Size 88.5 54.5
#of Units 692 448
#of 12 Units 28 buildings, 336 units, 18 buildings, 216 units, (30%)
(28.9%)
#of 8 Units 20 buildings, 160 units, 16 buildings, 128 units, (26.7%)
(20.6%)
#of 4 Units 49 buildings, 196 units, 26 buildings, 104 units, (43.3%)
(50.5%)
Density (54.5 gross acres) 7.9 units/acre 8.22 units/acre
% Open Space 60% 57%
Caliper Inches Unit 7.3 7.3
%Under $115,000 72% 76%
Park Requirement 4 acres + 50% cash park fee 1.5 acres + 100% cash park fee
Building Setbacks to Street(Average) 120 feet 70 feet
Berm Height 10 - 18 feet 6 - 18 feet
Tree Loss 0 0
i CiK:r11p1Nr�'■DSONrW11 wn-ih(�u>�+uw Y
i---,H
r i Ar■:1 NQ1DM10D,!LT]10EtiN,�iMA wtµ�tlu VaIIMI, l DNMTtZ ON6ITDIC OTN+rM WC YiE N'W War,•�bb!N MH L
�M �r�r "N! 'vioa3NNIM!'a Oran'1�nd
u W°-,„,1s�c�.. QNf7OWf w --s
r = „ — {7.1: ,M74. ■. I, ,mod WS MAPE ;�
! 1! I
! j r
j i ti kt1N9ltt1rlttYxtt �� 1 \\ \ 1
a j[ 7 N
IS i btSt,lts3tbbYYe^1tt li Ian ; 1 1
k 33�i t '■aa :'�MI ' ,
' I II• t I.,: %-411414111Wa&il ''''441110100411-007011e.' : ''k -." 4,, ,.q.. 4, de' _ ',, _ 1 I \
—
(Yi,YR..
. 110,To. .
404c,.
___...1. . .....0 . . 4A ?F. ?,
t 0!1 t I'' �► ♦ ;
s, ., ,,.. ,)\.)..,,,,,
,.i
+ i� o ,1Y> rat `,
..,..,, ,, .tv __.____.. ,,_,,,,,...,t'-'--_.-..,"_-7.11111g,-,; :Art.), , i,,,,,....-ir-,.,_0* .. V..--. 10‘ I•kp.04, ..._:r‘..ty,,,-._- , ti
00\
."71 ';'.iii-r:".4-12ni% ' `,11,‘'. ‘ 4‘', -0., -'41:.- tor_::-.. ...444.,.: ,,.' . , ' '‘AN\V.:41111.16,'>' 'ft' ' .
) ..1 '10111 ti 4.40*:. , sit -------„,4-4,,,„..,. • -, - einr lArto . ,,,,: "if 4 ' '!
11,1 11 1 , i 1, ',, ,,,. . , - ... . 1. 1
l'i ll ' lir
,t1 74, .,--7,, y iIt ' . , tt _....,..,... t.,... ...!. at� 1 !.!,'' tt 'II }4117i! 4, ! ,fit-.* S I. �`
gll
it,
1 �V7 / W7,: ,u,�,�Vitt- Iii I i ;jL x i.
�' Ami J
IIMIleri.'*IV"' 1:itar ! I.,
mmirs,„,
C IS n ! raw.;
w
Si.i,,CD,.
10M.
. � .: ._ -
Chmo . 4. ),>: :\>•...
.:� .
4111113. i 1 r'�' yW fit`.
.;_,...., 4,4. 0.49/) .„ ..
p ,.. .., "it
.. • o•.,,• ..
WM. I, 1
V �. F. ''• r�i,
wL 11E °ktirr ! 1141 i ' ilio 1,.
two
aC+1i •\ \ ftt• ��
rili. .r. ! ' _ El c,
} ,� - ggEl r r
■i i «5gji i
t ( I '
' 1 "'''',7;.A ;.- tag g gpgp �3( I ^3
( j ; : I i '
,`\ -gym .. li!€E � e
c'd 5WIN3314I`7N3 14-11Q3H SS:EI 56, ',90
.a12
.,1 I •'*Ri m,.""'""' ' Mr-dell'NM uI.gnaw au
- "Ye'rl053MN)�M dG Sktbs]l91i1 • N
a 1 ACT Nfl7O7N W
Y., �i ems stet
'. •
Ifn e ` 11 0
2 II. Is _ i .
it
i 0.: ii )N iPell ...., ,
Va d,i' — sfiil .cr uvurar 'S 1)
�, I �' Aita "' ���1 ,1"
lii
N' 1
,Ati
r 4t 1 1
11
r QJ
A m V !M ,l..r""
r
2 '1,:-"' er •
/ w
�.+ ' •
� .• -. .c-1 A1 ti 4N �� \ i
. ibei 1S .
./
.. r ,c1.3.):,\* 407 u.' \.:11111160 icaptrif .e.,../„1 , 0'44 Jo,\LI „11101IN e06#119‘....... ,
, / ,, •., 4: a em. '' 2 lir. \ '1 r'''''114.41*`. -\c'i
4415 1,,.2 4 4. ''',,. •W,
At. •,~'fit , ry `,
, lie
•� •far 1. ' . �'' f '1
f
411115 =In" i .
.111.11,11.1 pi 1
S lgI! I ' G a 1Cd I ,I _ coke i _ ,
0 1- i
416-- ti g g td011'.'. . E
,_, I ill
0.14.) 1 p i ..; , ,
! 00 Pi „I LEN ill i
111-77 \ ,
2 d t�
60:t'T 96, B0 lflt £0/20d t79S 9I d I ead N2113 A,1 I D 06286P6ZT9+
1ta rll wl WWII v...ry .t v ws+w L' 111 r—
"� ( w�±� - IWgltl�ll/ 10!wCM wwi ulwn WARM CRI
. r L E Q"`uI 4 'n � � ._ 7N!'MOWN*AI SMOM 2rAll W i
yy�yy..�.y�y M y.
L' I ___, 3�Y G Mom__W�M t....Jy Q �i -tr.
t t'`
•
•
�0 /E Qt r' ``Il 1of 1
,. . I Mil
r, dtz - sacl ,cr.�xorar 's •12 .`
y i1
iii,
1 1171611111°' .
w E6 11% : ..,1, .
it .- Z
x � D
•
0 Tall: kir * ...-. -----.
11
'... !' -114;tiliiikft--.4.:,..I°*
0 W r ./ ..0( „000,.,.
‘ 0
, . i r A .-f... . kk-:... ,. 5 / ' t 010- '
. . 4et. 'MPH ' ';. lj r'')C-) 1 ' ., 0, *: i'' ..
r I Vamp .Ni
: •... 4.,, ...). N, _, . ,,,, ‘,...
2 Lii 3 i i,6%4...7,.k.,44.. A .11 u, .l!!•t1 h7%•e•p„/,,ce4,,.,.0''..,Ai.1,.4 ^to'' —.7.7r N.ft...,.,1..,.J,.-ga47,
kil:.•
-,.,4,4,-.,.1,1-,, .4.*,-iit ..%.,\/.e.:f#s.- :*
4 r "Ilbd 1./ .•, ::... . ` vim,‘ :,,a-
•:.::.,,i,,,.,.,..,iSt. ;...-,\i\. fi.
. wpm „ Tot .. __••• rte._ _ , • Ihiss _ . •
Ull)
r�} '.� ��`"' � • � , sit 1, !!r �. I
c:: '
0/
.... �.•_# _ r_. 7-, At
MI \ \,� �`;►•+ -� `r;.�Cr' �'��� '• ' ;!; *-
it
Li If>Ns ' w 4 VIII
111--- mish. . i g $ !
milmillo p Tyr i ---\, I 4 40'.' • vek......----
mirk
a 1
if
M_____ `tli I I i BRA r 0.
,,,i, ,..•„„a • -nu I 1 t t..
f 1 IliCr --'' ' . I g
11611L. iEr .
NO111.•44 [ All VI\-- '' it 1
%la I p g
0 1 i
a+. i , 2 !..
PI 1 1,1 pili —MI ‘i . ,"A - If
ii ! I it 1 ( rit -1, . II,.
dip
ti 1, ...r* rl;.
1t e
1 I lf I ,
� k. 4Miod%
1/'S
. . .
. .
2«d
�11IYSl'Y7l ITGI.� r+
60:bZ 96, 80 inf. £0/E0d b9S d �
r .
. .. . 00, 9
' _-6u1 P t• - .
A 5
11 / �'.. -�--.--v__�I --- STARING �-I-�-,
tattu,...10,—.5 __3,........i. — ,71
itott:1;
,,,-...1,-, .-, .,..41 1,7,-,4-,, • AL. ,IA_ _0,, i :,..._NM
Aarm 1A.el0i—)I&h:.=.7a.n F- + •_,. t-Y ate; f` _r ; ro,ppR
A it
'ram""" 'ti , za -.-i __its ! E\ 0 �,a ' r."
- -, --414 ---.....Er,....„- foi i d
m..auras s�.u. is i-I.s.
Zv I. 1 a. _ w. '"'
k fr r•i -' .,tea y :�� �/~� _-;6- ��" rt.j `.I..~r� .qr 1
41F2 r r ** - 4 ".---. / ,
�� �- III
~
.otIr $1l r 1 -is !'! ) /t11 Ia * .tji -1,.
ze r I � 4 �' ate ��� ' L 1 BLOCK 1 e i
A. 1, t .44 --:� OF�IG�
:;mot;' ;1 �ri '�4 ��,� iii
rtiv�F 3
j — •' a`i/. `s - -c } ��� 34.00 A 'ES TO THE
1y;� '� �� + . .i'4-N.-
OWs �✓�T�C TER E OF 00LUMSINE III
rra.art-1.„ ,ratiq lie - k 4114
� nsr.r wr.._aua ..r.r..R
st1 -
NW'SaYNw-rrrr O/ ■wont W ii I r
s Mra..:a'i"`7 121 1# 'a }„+ � t. if �r'�� " M s i i
wti.ar�rur+.0 -ar...•r.yan� it i !"_ /i A Y: h --- i—
f
u..us a>o.4"1.3 rim . --..--) -- ''''k.
- S
"A \6 �rrr dr xs nrr 3 a;
tro
St. 1--- V_, ; ..,,,; . e. A 1 :•‘-k, N•
Ili
ik
+i' L !�,,p t -,ca- keil - hyT� 4 will,
.s. . Arl ,
. v _ fr Oh,'4—."—.
0f0 1' 1Z I
k4s
'4 lrr'ss,.1A•1„'•",•-4 c'..(•
- ii-\-0_v. '• h am\ tV
�ii1..
''',.\-"'••••'I.
-0+ -" ,'I lnlb!'y.ip13 w
M
1
TEAL e.Pares.s ^ -'--
- X1Q wit' M-of -i— r W J.l
r _--
1'.....� _- . 111 M ry.rwpry 97.' .ro.i-
w�Merl I e d0iii A '
�Y71�1 LI7 riu.lNi IM
CM,..lMtiwww -r �.
nti Z. a i• WM Mal= I
•
1it1
1 bigIa E -4-• ..„
, 1
■� - , --.. M '
1i ;It.s..
ui .
,ti bat/ .t, vza 's A f
0 y@1T.f•c rat M
0 ilt I/ �I I
94Z.:•,. .6- \.
ea ,o 1 \ Z
ti/ 1
J Ile
D ''' \ co
g
(11
I./%% w I- U Zi101,1! ,,Pi) I
:�-'1
. el. _ ria,-: ,_._
. i ) • Ike f'. ....''s -,:,1?› ,, \ 0
VI.° 1 ' iht ' .4+10
, t ., .,,,, ,..., ,,..,4,,,N,,,,,,N,,
)1, 10..- , 77--7) . 41.,,,4.4""»..„ N. \ . .i. ' ,,, 1
2. . , . IA i- ,
o ,� ' � i
,-t t ' „I-7 .. �4,0ry , i,ot -, a . +�it. APP,
'& N-7 .,,t ' ' I-7111:1 Irishbi , 4!-dar.) ''' it '*:' I#IN' er‘s19‘,.„,. --..
' 20 '',...,%,... ,..,, cq:::".:, '....%
-2. /7: 4k.- --,-,. or#4.1i, i itt.,,z. .1% ...c„.-). .•*4*.,.. ,.,c: 1 „. .
, / „ ,...., _. 64 li,..7„,...icalit ),,\Ns.„ ../(.„., ..„,iiit.../ , ..„,s7:,s, ? . I
4/4// 74 lielloith...1 pig [1/2.. .„* ......`,:akir. 4,4 A. \ , .,,,e,,
, . .. ,
....3 , \\ ,,...,
_. ,
....,..„ '., IbLIPlidil °lir -4,04, .
1 j1
CI) 5114,,,, • ---k •
riallidillkitiligli PI 1
, 4 1 __ r.,HAllistM * I g 1 i I �� AR„, . 3 �L s .
EE 1 I pRi i in Rho ��* is ... i
6so i i II fifer- ,_
60:b Z 96, 80 nnr £0.20d b9S 3I d I Hdd N3G3 Al I 9 '062861,6E 19+
„m11.1•1•111••••••
71} , { 1' ...„...... NU•f.N.,'WO..5 MP., Cb i D=AI 1!,44:71 L%
A 11.1 141 MOIDNIPPOIS AM NM ow ur.
s OrDe utopatl Y1111110P} I iE....I_ I I
. OWN/6 01111113100)0 PNINI41
,Ni.Y.COL)NNIT4 JO garrou anrhi Iv /x
IT! 1 . ,,,,,1 LAI.I•IAN , ,42r7:1P;F:ili1:-,:-;41 atin7oviii , .............
LI___,
tincl Elit i i i
. lk s_ . _
clill
5 li
'•'‘ I I
%AM IP Iii” '
.- k •-•-.-1. M. "--'
el i
114,..JI ,51c
r., 1
vo ea. - (
Ikn "'"`", 77,,-
. ,• •
) ff ffOr_ILIMAla 01
1
• 1 I r
11 i I
1 4141'1 1 i ...'. 1
E5
C°2>\
' I
'
'1 t
..\ ',.
'V
UJ M
,
lik m
0°
LJ uj -
laa. , "1111111i )—......_._.
/ ,-. -itiofr, ri
1 I . t — -___
—„,
' IP r ..
. , ,,,, , \
i,...„ ,,, ,t,„\
„ ‘ ,.. .... 4,
..—__.
cs ''"---,... p 4,v, 7,,,,,,s. ,..
;'1 i •i . ,-- , , , s 401*'''', N.„
,r •-f--
/ ,
,,
.•6.'„.'" , k .L ' -'',1
i ' . 'A'",t N ' .. ' •
, -,.:••.e ,_.. ,..-• ,
i/e ; ,.*—,, 1 , , , ,i Z 1,''',<—X1071ii/I j-: '-, , • \ '''''', 1 ' 'Ll V,1‹, ,,„_
....,i ..--r--.---,, fe 4 , `•N • i,,, ..; i , 'WI ., ' fi ' kif<11011111,.., • <Ar\.....;* 0
' s' i,t,-.\.r. ',, ,,,,,,,,,........7,..,,,S,c;.olitii-i,,,..... .7,7,7___,..-74-K., , la's:, .... or, \._, n'.•,----"- V.,,,., "'"-- - Al,:.,,,,,,. I
''''(e-- .' -, 0 :,\ <--, , will ,.0,,,' .1 *, - •:Pm -)1. s', „,-,- `,-• v.`,:, •lir.tv, I
) cr-,z.... • ... Atlii-.7,7—..._. _1, ''''-------- .. t, fr- - r, ta, f", ),NT. 1
,,,, ._ct.„ ..,, ,. ,iri 1- ,', 't ./Y.- -ik . . f • I
1 r );;CC„ ),k,,' ' ',•.'''' ''. I 4", ';'404-:'‘16144 ii• ) I'''. -Vis -r , \
gga
mil eleq,
>,,A. .
.
2
;
\ , .: , ............., ):. ,
....„ ,
....... ..._,.,
r+ .i -411 , 1,!!! i , It -ffio
,
i 1 i
111 i, I 1
gg I ill -1 1941 ''
.
II 1 iit -1 il IB
1
: E
1 I
t 1 \ / t i t 111 ' 2 1 / MI Wit II ii '
I I n m f i i IIi"I'
\
i
I ,rigig !gi,.1111 -N
\ 1 a 1!! s ilNilla q I. 1 gr-
1413
itt
I .cl I 0 5h1 I el33•415H3 CIN111G3H SS:2 T 96, 'BO'--nr
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 July 11,
1996, consisting of 88.5 acres into 27 lots and 3 outlots, 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 16th day of July, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
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 July 16, 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 July 11, 1996.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of July, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES
12
STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Research Farm 2nd Addition, Outlot E, and
Research Farm 3rd Addition, Outlots B and C.
l )
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 448 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: 18.93 acres from
Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium Density all located at Anderson
Lakes Parkway and Hwy. 169.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of July, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
�4
STARING LAKE TOWNHOUSES EAW
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR STARING LAKE TOWNHOUSES,A PRIVATE ACTION,DOES
NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS,the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on May 7, 1996 and July
16, 1996 to consider Pulte Master Builders proposal of Staring Lake Townhomes; and,
WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 54.5 acres of land located
south and west of Hwy. 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway; and,
WHEREAS,the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the
Staring Lake Townhouses,and did recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet finding the project of no significant impact; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council of Eden Prairie reviewed the Record of Decision for the
Staring Lake Townhomes on July 16, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota,that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for the Staring Lake
Townhouse proposal,because the project is not a major action, does not have significant
environmental effects,and is not of more than local significance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be officially
filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council.
ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
STARING LAKE TOWNHOUSES - CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Findings Regarding the Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board(EQB)
July 16, 1996
Project Description -
This project involves the construction of 448 townhouse units on approximately 54.5
acres.
II. Reason for Environmental Review-
Pursuant to Minnesota Rule, 4410:4300SUBP19,A.(4.) for more than 375 attached
multiple family units in a Second Class City. The rule designates the City of Eden Prairie
as the responsible governmental unit for the preparation and review of the environmental
document.
III. Environmental Review Process-
The EAW was prepared and sent to the EQB on March 26, 1996, and a public notice
appeared in the EQB monitor on March 11, 1996. Copies of the EAW were mailed to all
agencies and organizations in the EQB official EAW distribution list. The EAW was
available for public review at the Eden Prairie City Center. The 30 day public comment
period ended on April 10, 1996.
IV. Comments on the EAW-
During the public comment period,letters of comment were received from the following
agencies:
Minnesota Department of Transportation
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The letters of comment are attached. The following is a summary of the comments
received in responses to the comments.
A. Minnesota State Highway Department
1. The Minnesota Department of Transportation indicated that the proposed
plan directs several acres of drainage away from Trunk Highway 169 and
away from two existing wetlands. The change in drainage will require the
IC
approval of the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. Reduced runoff
to perched wetlands may cause them to be drained and may require a
wetlands conservation act permit.
Response: Water runoff to perch wetlands will be maintained.
2. MnDOT is concerned about noise impacts on the proposed buildings.
Response: The EAW includes a noise analysis and indicates that two
buildings near the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and 169 will
require construction that will provide an exterior to interior noise reduction
of 40 DBA. This will be accomplished with improved wall and roof
construction as well as windows with a STC of at least 35. In addition,the
buildings have been located from 50 to 120 feet back from Highway 169.
Berms and plant materials will be proposed for some outside noise
mitigation.
B. United State Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.
1. The Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that a 200 foot strip of land east of
the proposed pond be planted into a prairie grass mixture of big blue stem
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 slope buffer will help protect Purgatory pond, Purgatory
Creek and Staring Lake from sedimentation. In addition, it is
recommended the planting of another 10 feet of trees along the west edge
of the storm water pond to further protect Purgatory Creek.
Response: The plan has been revised to meet the requirements of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
C. Metropolitan Council
1. The Metropolitan Council recommends that the storm water basin be
located outside of the Purgatory Creek flood plain to reduce the risk of
lower bank flood water intrusion into the storm water treatment basin
which would result in increased repair and maintenance cost for the basin.
Response: The storm water treatment pond is located outside of the
Purgatory Creek flood plain and meets the Department of Natural
Resources 75 foot setback for protection of the shore impact zone.
/7
D. Department of Natural Resources
1. The Department of Natural Resources recommends no disturbance to the
shore impact zone.
Response: The plan has been revised to locate the storm water treatment
pond outside of the 75 foot setback area.
2. The western portion of the site is considered to be part of an important
natural wildlife corridor.
Response: The City will require that the westerly 500 feet of the property
adjacent to Purgatory Creek be dedicated to the City.
3. The EAW notes that the existing tile system will not be used.
Response: The City will require that positive drainage from all of the
townhouse units be directed towards catch basin systems, filtered through a
storm water treatment pond before discharge into Purgatory Creek.
4. Verify if there is a bluff on the property.
Response: There is a small segment of bluff, south and easterly of the
proposed storm water treatment pond. No grading will occur on the bluff.
The project will meet the 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff.
5. The EAW does not mention any adjacent recreation areas.
Response: The EAW has been amended to indicate Staring Lake Park is
adjacent to this site.
fU
To: Eden Prairie City Council
From: Paul Olson/Steve Swanson (representing Concerned Citizens)
Date: July 11, 1996
Subject: Staring Lake Townhomes - Revised Proposal
Thank you for your thoughtful assessment of our challenges to the proposed Pulte project at
Anderson Lakes Parkway and Hwy 169 prior to and during the May 7, 1996 City Council meeting.
We have reviewed the revised proposal, and though there are improvements, the revised proposal is
still flawed. Our comments are organized to correspond to the 7-Point outline offered by Ron Case
at the May 7, 1996 meeting and are presented in detail in the attached memo and schedules. That
information is summarized below:
1. The revised proposal develops 6.1 more residential acres than allowed per the Guide Plan
which generates 48 more units than if only the 48.5 residential acres per the Guide Plan are
developed.
2. The revised proposal includes a higher ratio of 8-unit buildings and a lower ratio of 4-unit
buildings resulting in 22 more units than under the ratios in the prior plan.
3. Four buildings are further down hill toward the conservation area above the nurp pond than in
the prior plan and six buildings are closer to Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lakes
Parkway (see attached Exhibit). In addition there has been a reduction in the perimeter
landscaping.
4. The developer did not add the fourth (more expensive) product they were requested to add.
5. No provision was made for adult recreation within the development.
Each of the above points considered alone may not be considered sufficiently significant to cause
you to oppose the proposal. However, in addition to assessing them individually it is important to
assess them in the aggregate. The developer has taken advantage of each opportunity to push the
limits of the proposal. This must not be accepted. The developer should.be required to either:
1. restore the perimeter setbacks of the prior plan and replace several of the 8-unit buildings with
4-unit buildings(with a'target of a 48 unit reduction).
2. limit the development to the 48.5 acres per the Guide Plan.
It would appear that alternative 1, above, is the easier alternative because it leaves much of the
revised proposal intact. However, the economics of developing less than the full site may require
the additional revenue/density per acre of the revised proposal and this alternative may not be
possible. In that case, the developer should be required to follow alternative 2, above, and be
limited to the revenue/density model of the revised proposal. This appears more difficult because it
would require moving the proposed location of Columbine and is less desirable because they would
most likely retain the perimeter setbacks of the revised plan.
If the developer is unwilling or unable to make either of these changes the proposal must be
rejected.
,f .
Revised Staring Lake Development Plan
vs.
7-point Outline from May 7, 1996 City Council Meeting
At the May 7, 1996 City Council meeting Ron Case articulated a 7-point outline that, with
some additional elements from the other council members, formed the basis for needed
changes to the then current plan. The following is an assessment of the new plan against
that 7-point outline.
1. The number of total units should be lowered. The number of units have been
lowered from 692 to 448. The composition of this decrease is as follows:
• Decreased the acreage of project from 88.5 to 54.6 acres.
• Increased density from 7.8 units per acre to 8.2 units per acre(this results in 22 more
units). The ratio of the 12-unit, 8-unit and 4-unit buildings has changed resulting in
1 more 12-unit building, 3 more 8-unit buildings and 4 fewer 4-unit buildings (this
is the primary cause of the 22 additional units).
• Units more closely encroach down the hillside toward the creek. Three full 4-unit
buildings and more than 1/2 of two other 4-unit buildings are located further down
the hillside and closer to the creek than in the prior plan. In particular, two of the
structures are within a few feet of the 200 foot line from the Nurp pond (rather than
an additional 30 feet as is the case along the park boundary, which is not consistent
with the Park Commission's wishes to keep the hillside in a natural state).
• Six 4-unit buildings encroach more closely to Anderson Lakes Parkway and to
Staring Lake Parkway than in the prior plan (and there has been a reduction in
perimeter landscape screening).
As guided, only 48.5 acres of this site should be available for residential development..
Using the 7.8 units per acre from the prior plan (a density presumed profitable to the
developer) only 378 units should be developed on 6.1 fewer acres than in the new plan.
The additional acres add 48 units to the project. The 378 units remains nearly twice as
large as any prior townhome development and there is no apparent compelling reason to
support re-guiding the site to allow an additional 6.1 acres of residential development.
Using the ratio of 12-, 8- and 4-unit buildings and the proposed density from the prior
plan, the gross extended revenue per acre from the sale of units would have been
approximately$769,000. Using the building ratio and density from the revised plan the
gross extended revenue per acre from the sale of units is approximately $795,000.
Based on the revised size of 54.6 acres, this revised format will generate approximately
$1,420,000 of additional gross revenue than the same 54.6 acres would have generated
under the old plan. The cost of this additional revenue will be borne by the new
residents of the development, the current area residents and the community as a whole
in the form of a larger neighborhood, closer encroachment on the hillside and creek,
smaller setbacks from Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway (as well as
7POINT02.DOC 7/11/96
0
less perimeter landscaping),and minimal interior recreation space. Absent a compelling
reason (and with the unwillingness to increase the diversity of the neighborhood with a
fourth product and with the minimalist approach to interior recreation space) the
developer should be held to the building ratio from the prior proposal,the perimeter and
conservation setbacks from the prior proposal,and also be held to the 48.5 acres per the
Guide Plan.
2. One additional product (a more expensive alternative) should be added to the
project. No additional(more expensive)product has been proposed by the developer.
3. Increase the cosmetic variations. Information in the plans we received did not allow
for an assessment of cosmetic variations. However, the failure to provide a fourth product
does nothing to relieve current variation limitations. Also the revised plan provides for
substantially less landscaping along Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway
which will exacerbate the situation of limited cosmetic variations. Additional information
is needed by the City Council and concerned citizens regarding any new, additional efforts
to increase cosmetic variations (including roof lines and materials for current residents with
overlooking views of the site).
4. Correct the insufficient parking situation in the area. It may be more an issue for
the City than for the developer, but the revised plan in no way addresses local parking
limitations. The city staff owes the City Council and the concerned local citizens an update.
5. Coordinate adding the signal at Fountain Place with the development of this site.
This is beyond the scope of the developer's plan, however the city staff owes the City
Council and the concerned local citizens an update.
6. Add 2 small recreation areas or tennis courts at developer expense to be located
more centrally in the development. Cash park fees should not be reduced for the
addition of these recreation spaces. Two tot lots have been added to the interior of the
development. No provision has been made for adult recreation within the development.
(Note that part of the cost of these tot lots may be the closer encroachment of the
development down the hillside toward the creek.) Insufficient information is available to us
to determine if the tot lots had an impact on cash park fees and the city staff owes the City
Council and the concerned local citizens an update regarding cash park fees.
7. Definitely reject any "Alternative 2". The new plan still carries clear labeling that it
represents "Phase 1 only". There is no indication of the intended use of the now blank 34
acre parcel along Highway 169. Information about any potential Phase 2 or other use of the
remaining 34 acres must be provided to the City Council and the concerned citizens. With
all constituencies being currently familiar with the details of the site, any portion of the site
not included in the residential development should be re-guided and re-zoned consistent
with its ultimate intended office/commercial use concurrent with any city council action
approving the(modified)new residential proposal.
7POINT02.DOC 7/11/96
2r
COMPARISON OF REVISED PLAN TO PRIOR PLAN
(and to Pro Forma Revised Plan)
Home No. of %of Units/ Total % of Price per Extended
Type Bldgs. Total Bldg. Units Total Unit Sales Value
REVISED PLAN-(54.6 acres)
Village 18 30.0% 12 216 48.2% 79,000 17,064,000
Court 16 26.7% 8 128 28.6% 100,000 12,800,000
Club 26 43.3% 4 104 23.2% 130,000 13,520,000
60 100.0% 448 100.0% 43,384,000
Sales value per acre 794,579
PRIOR PLAN-(88.5 acres)
Village 28 28.9% 12 336 48.6% 79,000 26,544,000
Court 20 20.6% 8 160 23.1% 100,000 16,000,000
Club 49 50.5% 4 196 28.3% 130,000 25,480,000
97 100.0% 692 100.0% 68,024,000
Sales value per acre 768,633
Pro Forma CURRENT PLAN using Prior Plan building ratios - (54.6 acres)
Village 17 28.3% 12 204 47.7% 79,000 16,116,000
Court 13 21.7% 8 104 24.3% 100,000 10,400,000
Club 30 50.0% 4 120 28.0% 130,000 15,600,000
60 100.0% 428 100.0% 42,116,000
Sales value per acre 771,355
PSALESO4.XLS 7/11/96
2
Analysis Of Units Per Revised Plan
CALCULATION OF UNIT REDUCTION
Units per prior plan 692
Units per revised plan 448
Reduction in units 244
COMPOSITION OF UNIT REDUCTION
Unit REDUCTION from fewer acres 264
Unit INCREASE from change in ratio of unit types 20
Other 0
Reduction in units 244
REVISED PLAN UNITS COMPARED TO
PROJECTION PER PRIOR PLAN AND
GUIDE PLAN
Units per revised plan 448
Projected units based on Guide Plan
residential acres and prior plan density 378
Excess units in revised plan 70
COMPOSITION OF EXCESS UNITS
Units from additional residential acres over
Guide Plan 48
Units from change in ratio of unit types 20
Other 2
Excess units in revised plan 70
PUNITS02.XLS 7/11/96
fills , livir;,, 62:::, ,‘s iit.1:- , .,'.
,, ,-,,,,N,,,,,„,:- ' ---' '..''''''''''' .------_________--------
I rai l'aii &* —' ,-- ) ,.------k
1 ..4r 741r-.9 • . '-,..,, ' -
. ,...00, / r. ----- ,_, ----_„, ,
., t), ,
.,
***,\ ir : ' 416"' - „
II
1 it
ti , 40 Aw___Lip_, , do ,
il .41.0,,symi, se „: . -..
II
1, iitehr in ,i11,1 400 /47.4‘
worpv..,
Iv 7 _ _ : /.
1,t•
7
/14W
. , , -------....„.....„„_______._
L,I), urd $ '4p - ;
A +.: . XII as J ',Iij/,s'lt,
/
4i4
L•ek, 4",..
740_",1011-1*., ..1_ l„.W\lJ\i,,,,r�'��� 1s.; - I\,\. a,0 w.
�� �A Imo*
)411,_‘/
\V*
\ (,.--'' r411a11il11ld1i1l1r..;i)1
. .., w ow \'• %Ube ' * I i pax* ,
: '4, ,r,An.%, --_,,, rata ); .
% "- V 1L,SLA4* /'-.. `L Pillillt
F � „ , • > :7-'''''''''' --‘ 41::—.1.11 -)c---
41.
!�%\ Q -414 �e o .L/ Ame :. i
-,, N.- t4Ns,4451 a 1 111-11341 1.1.1111111
will
4..
a� , " `'err, , .�i. .ipy,4-......AIL,
,�
.: ANI4 ea 1... 1 � 1. ` /
tog*ex,\ \ , <0,\ \ PAZ ..ih
a\. # ',
-. k \ r� k 1 t �`v , `.� - -.: ,C
Nit
413, o �� v
% �a° I c2419
1 °Fs \
1 \ 1
'y jj 1 f
�► a 13. �:
1 rN i 1 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
- May 7, 1996
Page 6
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 on 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)
Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Eden Prairie News
on April 25 and was mailed to 35 property owners.
Thomas Stanke and Ron Bestyr, representing Pulte Homes, reviewed the project
and the site plan. There will be 692 units in the development with three different
townhouse products offered: villa homes; court homes; and club homes. At this
time they are requesting rezoning for the southern half of the property with 420
units proposed. Bestyr reviewed the sight lines for the project, noting that there
will be substantial plantings on the berms which will change the sight lines.
Pidcock asked about the plantings on the berms. Bestyr said most of the trees will
be coniferous that will grow up to 40 feet in height, and there will be
machine-moved trees that are 10 - 18 feet tall when they are planted.
Pidcock asked what areas of the City have similar types of berms. Enger said the
•
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
- May 7, 1996
Page 7
Hartford project north of the Preserve is an example, as are Eden Place and
Fountain Place apartments.
Case asked if Pulte has experience in building models other than the court and club
styles. Stanke said they have built those two models in other areas, and they have
experience building single family homes. Case then asked if they have a more
expensive townhouse model. Stanke said their experience shows that their market
of retirees and empty nesters are willing to spend in the price range Pulte is
proposing for this development. Case asked Enger if there are townhomes on the
corner of County Road 4 and Pioneer Trail. Enger said those are twin homes at
$230,000 and up.
Tyra-Lukens asked if there are two roof types for each type of unit. Stanke said
there will be two roof variations as well as two siding variations.
Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their March 24,
April 8, and April 22, 1996, meetings and recommended approval of the request
at the April 22nd meeting on a 6-0 vote, per the revised plans of April 19 and the
recommendations of the Staff Report of April 19, 1996, with the exception that
items 4 and 5 referring to Alternative 2 would be struck from the recommendations
and with the additional recommendation that there be a more defined trail through
the court and club home neighborhood to provide access to the park. He noted the
project provides for affordable housing, and the traffic projections indicate less
traffic than the Guide Plan and Alternative 2 and also less than the original plan.
The setbacks are three times greater than required by code, and there is 60% open
space. Staff believes the berms are too high along Staring Lake Park and Anderson
Lakes Parkway and recommend that they be lowered. A waiver will be required
from the minimum lot size. Phase 2 will require rezoning for site plan review.
Lambert said the Parks Commission reviewed the project on May 6 and voted 6-0
for approval, subject to the following changes: Developer to remove the public
mini-park and make it optional to relocate within the complex; Developer to
maintain a 200-foot wide conservation area in a natural condition between the
NURP pond and any development; A sidewalk be built along the loop street to
provide safe pedestrian movement.
Tyra-Lukens asked about the staff recommendation to lower the berms. Enger
replied Staff feels the project would be more interesting if the berms were
undulating.
Tyra-Lukens asked Lambert the approximate cost to build a mini-park. Lambert
said it would be $150,000-$175,000 without the land.
Cage asked if it is typical that the developer would put in a tot lot or two. Lambert
said the City can require a mini-park with tot lot or playground equipment and a
tennis court when there are high density and medium density units and the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 7, 1996
Page 8
development is outside the service area of neighborhood parks. Case thought it
would be reasonable to ask the developer to put in a tot lot or two.
Tyra-Lukens asked if there was discussion regarding traffic along Columbine,
especially traffic from Hennepin Technical trying to avoid Hwy. 169. She asked
if the intersection at Hwy 169 was a higher grade than the one at Anderson Lakes
Parkway. Enger said the intersections would continue to operate at level service
D after this development is built with no further improvements. He said the signal
at the Hennepin Technical intersection operates at level service A and provides a
free-flowing condition, and the developer has changed the plans to orient more
units down to that signal. Columbine is an important connection north to Prairie
Center Drive in the future, and it will be important to signalize the intersection
with Fountain Place.
Thorfinnson suggested we could restrict some left turns onto Columbine at certain
times. Enger said we could look into that.
Dennis Davey, 8935 Pine Bluff Ct., said he has personal issues with the project
and is also the representative of a 200-member homeowners association. A survey
of his neighborhood showed that all of the participants were opposed to the
development. They have long term concerns about the private roadways and how
the homeowners association in the development will be able to plan for long term
maintenance of such things as parking areas. He was also concerned about traffic,
the additional load put on Staring Lake Park, and the common driveways.
Maurizio Gramigni, 8940 Hilloway Road, thought the development would
segregate the affordable housing in the City, and we should not concentrate low
income housing in one area. He asked about the plans for affordable housing in
the City. Harris noted that we have a plan for affordable housing and we do not
consider this low income housing, rather it is affordable housing and life cycle
housing. Gramigni asked for a copy of the plan for affordable housing, and then
asked the Council to prove Eden Prairie is not segregated by not approving this
plan.
Gene Kopyar, 8937 Hilloway Road, was concerned about long-term management
of the project. He presented a petition against the development. He said the
number one problem with homeowners associations today is inadequate cash flow,
and he was concerned that this association would encounter that problem. He was
also concerned about the impact of airport noise.
Steve Bennett, 14631 Queens Trail, questioned the projected number of children
per unit at .21, noting that there will be no recourse once the project is in place and
the projections are wrong.
Deb Dow, 14382 Stanwood Circle, distributed a petition from some property
owners. Her main concern was the impact the development will have on the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 7, 1996
Page 9
schools, particularly the impact on Cedar Ridge Elementray and the long-term
effects on schools and education in Eden Prairie. She was also concerned the
figures on the number of school-aged children are too low.
Robert Campbell, 15560 Edgewood Ct., thought it was outrageous that a project
of this scope is being dropped into this location.
Karen Tinucci, 9187 Victoria Drive, would like to see the project happen but not
at this magnitude. She thought the proponent could work with the Douglas
Corporation to subdivide and retain the commercial/retail development between
Columbine and Hwy. 169, while developing the rest as residential. She would like
to see some of the property used for parking at the new pool being built at the
Intermediate School.
Harris said that parking is not part of the current plan,but the Council may address
the issue. She noted the Planning Commission is appointed by the Council from
volunteers who serve on the boards and commissions. They represent the citizens
of the community, and they have contributed a great deal to the way Eden Prairie
is today.
Tinucci asked how many residential units could be put in the area between
Columbine and Staring Lake. Franzen replied there could be 740 units built in that
area.
Larry Berger, 8780 Flesher Cir., said the Metropolitan Council told him that the
affordable housing quotas are just suggestions. He thought we are not giving
people choices by forcing them to live in this large project, rather they should be
dispersed into the community. He was also concerned about safety issues.
Ann Pitzer, 8820 Flesher Cir., was concerned about the environmental impact,
especially the impact on the quality of water in Staring Lake. She thought Pulte
should be able to buy all the land in one purchase. She said we, as citizens, are
telling you this is not what we want.
Jody O'Connor, 8270 Mitchell Road, would like to see the project proceed. We
do need this type of housing, and that need is not going to go away. She thought
this was a very positive step towards developing this property. She thought the
units are too small for a large number of children in one unit. She noted that there
are no associations for many single family residential areas, and many of them
need maintenance or landscaping. There are not a lot of affordable lots in Eden
Prairie so we do not have a lot of options for placing affordable housing.
Jim Hokanson, 8979 Ferndale Lane, thought we should consider a mixed use for
this property by keeping a number of these units but adding a strip mall and office
building that won't put the same pressures on the City. He thought this is not
elderly housing, but it is possibly "empty-nester" property. He was frustrated at
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
- May 7, 1996
Page 10
the Planning Commission meetings, and he thought we must decide if it is good for
the community and then do it, otherwise don't.
Steve Swanson, 14183 McCoy Court, said the project is too large—it will be 3-1/2
times bigger than the biggest townhome development in the City. He was
concerned about who will live in these homes over the long term. He thought we
should be very cautious before we change the Guide Plan, and reguiding this
property will improperly favor this property owner. He noted there have been very
few exceptions to the commercial use of areas around Hwy. 169. He thought it
was not logical to develop the property from the south to the north and was
concerned about possible ulterior motives for developing the northern portion of
the property. He reviewed numbers that contradicted the traffic estimates
presented by staff. He thought there were errors in the EAW
Mary Ann McDonough, 8971 Garland Ct., said they have no information about
how this project fulfills the objectives and goals proposed by the City for
affordable housing. She thought we should wait on this project as she thought it
was a solution presented before the problem was defined. She was concerned
about the definition of affordable housing.
Harris noted we are not looking at this project as a solution to provide a spectrum
of housing in this community. The plan includes principles and criteria that guide
further development.
Paul Olson, 8899 Flesher Cir., presented figures on how this project could be one
that the opponents could be comfortable with and questioned that the developer
could not make a profit without building this many units.
Karen Sell, 8796 Flesher Cir., was concerned that the recommendations from the
DNR and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services were not included in the Parks
Commission packets. She questioned whether this is the proper placement of the
NURP pond. She was also concerned about the placement of the park in an area
that is environmentally sensitive according to the U.S. Interior Department. She
urged the developer to incorporate recreational areas into the project so that Staring
does not become the neighborhood park for the project.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Thorfinnson asked if there will be an association for each of the three types of
housing. Stanke said that was correct.
Thorfinnson asked if we are proposing to provide access to the park to people
outside the development and, if so, what kind of access. Lambert said that will
depend on what is approved. Staff recommended locating the park on top of the
hill, and the developer moved it down the hill. Staff had concerns about moving
it to the proposed location because of its proximity to the NURP pond. As
2�
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 7, 1996
Page 11
proposed, the access would come from a trail proposed to come off the loop street
trail. The trail would then connect to the Staring Lake Parkway trail.
Thorfinnson asked if Pulte would build the park and the City would maintain it.
Lambert said the proposal is that Pulte will build the park with 50% of cash park
fees, and the City would then own and maintain the park.
Thorfinnson asked if the Guide Plan would allow a maximum of 740 units on the
area west of Columbine. Enger said that is the maximum density that could be
allowed by the zoning ordinance and was based on the possibility of an apartment
project. Franzen reviewed the zoning designations on the property and the number
of units and square footage possible for the designations.
In reference to the concerns about affordable housing expressed, Thorfinnson said
the City did not seek out Pulte to develop the property as affordable housing. As
Chairperson of the Housing, Transportation and Social Services Board,
Thorfinnson said he is very involved in that group's dealing with our commitment
to affordable housing. He said the Council has approved some basic strategies that
will guide us in the process, and the Board is developing an action plan that will
guide us over the course of the next several years to the point where we will
encourage all developers to participate in the goal of 30% of the ownership housing
as affordable housing. He noted the definition of affordable housing was set by the
Met Council and is currently set at $115,000, a figure which is not low income
housing by any stretch of the imagination.
Thorfinnson said he toured the club homes Pulte built in Woodbury and noted there
was no one under 60 looking at those homes. He also noted that the townhomes
would be very crowded if there were more than one or two children in them. He
thought this is the time for such a project.
Thorfinnson was concerned about the placement of the NURP pond and the
placement of the park. He was not in favor of exchanging park fees for park land
and was not in favor of the ongoing maintenance of the park being done by the
City.
Pidcock thanked all of the people in the neighborhood who worked together on the
project review. She thought the project is market driven and helps to take care of
the needs of all of our residents. She was concerned that the governing structure
of the associations has been addressed satisfactorily. She noted it is not unusual
to have a residential area near major streets or roadways. She thought there is a
great need for one-level townhouses. She would like to'see some green space on
the east side of Columbine Road. She was offended by the term "kids in the
project" and thought this would be an area for people to live in dignity and peace.
Harris asked how many units there are in the Preserve. Enger replied there are
about 5000 residents in the Preserve in 2000 units.
29
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 7, 1996
Page 12
Harris asked when we will be done with the EAW. Franzen said the EAW has
been prepared and distributed to the 25 different agencies as required. We have
responses that have listed a number of questions and need to respond to those. The
questions were in regard to Purgatory Creek and the shoreline ordinance. The
U.S. Fish & Wildlife questioned the slope area. Harris asked if we are in the
process of addressing the issues but have not completed the EAW. Franzen said
that was correct.
Harris noted that the Preserve is a sizable development that is managed by an
association. She thought the density was similar to what one would see on a
traditional City block or in European cities. She thought it was the maximum
utilization of space.
Harris said the issue of the parks is shared by everybody; however, the City is
being built to accommodate 65,000-70,000 people and the schools have also
planned for those numbers. She wanted to see the issue of the "small city"
enclosed within the berms addressed and she also wanted to make sure all of the
concerns expressed in the EAW are addressed. She was concerned about the
"sameness," but thought changes in the roofs and colors would help. She would
like to have greater variety offered within the neighborhoods.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to extend the meeting to
12:00 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Tyra-Lukens said she is hearing a lot of comments from citizens that are
opposed to the project and she has talked to people in all part of the community.
She thought the density is not an issue but the extent of the project is an issue.
This is not scattered site housing, and this is not wise. She said it segregates
people to this area, and there is no sense of community designed into the plan.
Tyra-Lukens was concerned about increased traffic in an accident reduction
area. She had concerns about making Guide Plan changes for such a massive
project. She had problems that this is being proposed on the most expensive
land in Eden Prairie and she thought we should put some affordable housing on
less costly land so there can be more green space. She believes we are
sacrificing livability for affordability.
Case was sensitive to all the concerns expressed and he, too, believes there are
concerns with the project. He thought the project has become extremely tangled
with tangent issues. He is passionate about bringing new affordable housing
into Eden Prairie, and he would prefer to see the current plan worked on. He
thought it is essential to have it perceived by everybody as successful.
Case believed the following concerns need to be addressed: Lower the number
of units; Add one additional townhome product to enhance the diversity;
Provide variants to the exteriors; Accommodate some sort of parking lot at the
3V
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
- May 7, 1996
Page 13
entrance to the Oak Point lower parking lot; Signalize the intersection at
Fountain Place; Add two small tot lots and maybe a tennis court in the project
at the developer's expense. He was not comfortable with giving up the cash
park fees and supported the Planning Commission's rejection of Alternative 2.
Thorfinnson said the 200-foot conservation area would have to be part of what
happens and agreed that we need to look at the parking. He asked about the
staging of the project and if we are approving the whole project. Enger replied
we are approving the Guide Plan and PUD concept approval for the entire
proposal, and rezoning of the southern half of the property. The rezoning of
the northern portion would come back later this year.
Thorfinnson was concerned that the documents were not forwarded to the Parks
Commission as they should have been. Regarding the concerns expressed about
the process, he said the Planning Commission has a harder job than the Council
does because they have to wade through a lot of the development process before
it gets to the Council. The Commission is made up of hard working and honest
citizens; however, he knew there are concerns about the process and procedures
and we have been discussing the development process and where the citizens
can get involved in the process. He thought we may need some changes so
people feel more a part of the process and know when they can have input.
Harris suggested we continue the Public Hearing to a future date to give Staff
and the developer time to revise the project. Pidcock suggested continuing it to
June 4, 1996.
Case said he was confused about the zoning. He asked if the northern section
could end up with a higher density than we are considering now. Enger said the
request is for a zoning of the southern half of the property at this time with a
concept approval on the entire piece. He said the alternative would be to leave
the northern half as the Comprehensive Guide Plan shows it. They would have
to return to the Council for rezoning.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to reconsider the motion
to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
VOTE ON THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING: Motion
failed unanimously.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfmnson, to continue the Public
Hearing to June 4, 1996. Motion carried unanimously.
City Attorney Pauly said the clock is running on the EAW and we should
extend the EAW for an additional 30 days.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to extend the EAW by
30 days. Motion carried unanimously.
Harris advised staff and the developer to take due note of the Council's
concerns expressed tonight when they work on the revisions to the project.
,APPROVED 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
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- ROLL CALL
Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All members were present.
II. APPROYAL 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
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
/_.
•
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 �'�
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
C C
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
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
37
C
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
0
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.
'TI. 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
3�
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.
•
IL 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
yo
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.._ON 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 housirg project
planned for this same area. They had presented their concerns to the Sch...ol 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 of people 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
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 sign. age 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
PLANNING COMMISSIc
ON 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
PLANNING COMMISaiON 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
property,particularly those views from Highway 169 and both Staring Lake Parkway
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
4/5
PLANNING COMMISoiON 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 lfice 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
PLANNING COMMIS,,iON 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.
•
`1 7
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 COMMISSAJN 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 builcling,s 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 wellls�,nbut then they describe how they would
7 "l
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
5/
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.
Mama 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
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 bad 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
53
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
PLANNING COMMIS .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 multifamily 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 Dish ict 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: 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.
_ �O I I ,r•� J
•
V N.:
Gi
2 R.L.S.00,�
*Illi
PLACE _ o {
ju •
-r 0 . • ,
_fr l+AARTi�MTS •• J
., 404tipalp
,
POR UP ,
- `
-* IPAtitad"1114 *
• Op Itlilli qt4444+4. •
PPAPI ifill lih6
• *V 0 "41? - .:
lir/
SAFI ; ..A ... " 4Air,, . k• *< • s
..• LL.4.-
0 1-
s, \(0w.,4 � ‘P 1 ar "mil t-..
ray
164
,y,
ii, _
OAK POINT i
_ L.i.s.,jm ' ' /� Ito
111 al.
INTERMEDIATE � � CrCZ
111111
• • G*4' ( SCHOOL •.• • •.• h tili 00
e wg. el
R9A• is '
_ .. . . .. . 0 ...• ,a,w, ,
' 14
, N • .
.>" • • • . • I.; All a 44: API
. i- A. . ::•,: ?•14
< • .
• ,
. :-. u •
6` .{ r DARNEL ROAD
•
I
• •
�/ • •• • , ••
♦ •• r vs1 • . • • • •
\ • „ • • •.�
it 74:
i7 / Si .- IY
•
41. 1 I CURT
. • I a•. .• .• ::::.: •:. :i. /1 ID *II ./...l.•
t i y I ,• WHIN.•
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.
-1
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.
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.
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
(3Z
BENSHOOF & ASSOC . INC . TEL No . 612 8.52 95b4 Hpr its ,Vb lb :uo r . u4
S9BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
7301 OHMS LANE,SUITE 500/EDINA,MN 55439/(612)832-9858/FAX(812)832-9564
A i1-1 18 1996 REFER TO E1 a
1�;.
P yo-u
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Franzen, City of Eden Prairie
FROM: Jon Micheal�Vertj _.
RE; Response to Traffic Items Regarding the Proposed Staring Lake(Pulte
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 regarding queuing and delays for the eastbound approach at the
TH 169 and Anderson Lakes 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 A.nderson Lakes Parkway
eastbound approach to TH 169.
/41
BENSHOOF & ASSOC . INC . TEL No . 612 832 9564 Apr 18 ,96 1b :04 t' .US
Mr.Franzen -2- April 18, 1996
• Existing am. 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/Rigbt Ttiro Left Mini/Right
Queues Lance Lane Lanes Lane
Minimum 7 2 0 2
Average 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 througWright 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 Tbru/Right Two Left Thru/Right
Queues Lanes Lane Lanes Lane
Average 30 10 9 12
90th Percentile 37 _ 16 16 19
Storage Spoe 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.
BENSHUUF & HSSUC . 1NC . ILL No . b12 862 9564 Hpr 18 .96 1b:u4 1J . U4
Mr.Franzen 3- Apri118, 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.
•
colp
co
m
z
s
0
0
m
TABLE 1 4°
SITE TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON v)
v,
i o
n
no
CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN n
‘Iwnd Use 1 Acres 1 _ Density } Size I Daily Trips] AM Peak Trips 1 PM Peak Trips
(Lour/Medamm Residential 15 2.5- 10 units/acre , 38-150 umits , 224-973' 17-77 21-95
Medium/High Residential 20 10-17.4 units/acre 200-348 units 1300-2262 102-178 126-219' r
z
High Residential cc Office 15 17.4 units/sae or 261 units ar 1697-2332 133-3211 164-306 0
0.3 FAR 196,020 sett.
woe 40 0.3 FAR 522,720 s4 R , 4756 675 612
Total Trios Based on Comp Plan _ 7977-10323 927-1251 923.1232, 4,
rn
""The em peak hour residential trips are Mesa and otfloe hips are Increased as compered to ttte pm peak hour tripe. N
CC
u
PROPOSED PULT6 HOMES PLAN t
m
'Land Use L Acres I Density Size DaI y TrIp M ss A Pa psk Tri 1 PM Pak Trips A
r
-n
Club Hanes -29 -6 units/sae 180 units 1074 82 102
Court Hanes , -25 - -10 units/scre 248 units 1612, 139 161 a
Carriage Haynes -22 -16 madame 360 units 2340' 202 234' n. cr i
0o 0-
Wetland and Oran Space , -14 — --- 0 0 0
rz v
Total Trips Based on Pane Plan 50261 423 4971
z
""The am peak hour residential tripe are 15 percent leas than the pm peak hour trips. c
v
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.
... .....
ETS
.). I TNO I
.
,,,J
r c.1.7o .evs
.1...,
..
_A
u
2.. - •
1111ftillt .
0
. , AFOUN'ailti
A 4
(Ck
0,,
R.L.S.
aa.
1 1394 . eLvo
PLACE .
cr .....
. .ry
.J00-0 ,t
6 . :
,•,
/.V4 APARTIENTS 0":1,...'4. - i
0
. #\ ...... !Li 47C
S. :... .4* .
..... •
.... . •
. .
f. ,i 21 ....._
PORCUP N .
-.Fr.... .
••• ,
fp • .
!. Art .*- lib( . ••.; AtilFATAL---Nferill4 *
.5P-3
; ...
A Ittint Q °It+ .
-I,
•V 0 -4,-44, 6 '
• ,••• ‘ 5Z." 3
z • • WA ilS* -1
.•••, c . . ..
. ... .:4
... Ail OP 401P 10
,*.wWfAtirtii,t;
1
if 111-d
MFEDINTIAT E .,.....,:- .0 7
•••••• •:).N
. . . ••• :7 44 C AtilAi Sh
." 11 ----Firior .. .
ANDERS0N
tc, )
- / 0.ATKER
> 40. I,/
SCMOOL • • .9 • • •• • • *. C If& 4L: .
' lir
• . • I .11
• • • •
• • • O. O. • ..!;) "C' Ill :4
\ ROA• . .. , •
• • • . •7:4::-.
•
J C X 11_,,,,,Pw #11
wp
--1 x
• • • IP •• • • * . .
• • * 4LA., Lk
.,. 1 .. S. •
)
A • ;7*.• ,..; . ... • .
/ .....
....
/,•
•
LII tit ... Mir II. . %iZe" 1113%7 A
A. a :It -plit
•. z , • ,._ ._
„...„ni 2 I iliNshma • *
• ,
..D - .
. :1:-< F:: • 10,
, • • . . . ..
....
• . irig DARNEL ROAD
I . , • • • . Wir •
0 -1°.----• *
/ \ • . •
, / t . • ,
z
\ • . •
e • • 1.•'. De !...:4 •• .
e i • .
•
, • •• .
• • STORAGE
I .
. . • . • -s.
• p• --a
1 • * • a • . • • , • •
a .
•
..:: r ":::::.i::. l • . .
• •
1 • . • • •• if •
1 •• • •
• • : •. •:•: ::: • ...m....
••:.....S.:•:: :.::• .i: :::i• I • • •
••:•:•:•.•:•:••. •:•: . : .•.. :• 1 •
;:•:•••:•:•:•:: ::::: : • :: i.i. i
•:'...1 .:•.:4.1. ; ii:...i. ......• :iii i
\r„. ....... ... ....... .... . .. ' 2/L
'..•::.•••i•iii: .i.::i: i::•:: 1 1 141
:::i.• ••::.: •:.:::: .:::: i
Oa:,.. : •:::: :•. ::: •:::: I i • Willi --.
tr- k
.e.•::: • •:::: •.: .• • ••::• i
•:::::•• • :•: : •:: :: : •••• 1 F;
. :" :•:::: ::• .•.: ::. /
-•:•.- -." :•:: • • • :: ::
L * .......
. •: :•..:•:• • .::'
• •. -::•••::• •:• •: : / I . /
cr,
• 7 -. : • •'::• II
• .• . .. . to „..ka_::::..•-•-;'
..:... • •:: //
. .
• .•:• •• .• : /
•:• .•::::::::4 / II
• "
:::•.•:••
..„.
-.- I I I 1111 ill I I.1 1 11111 III
....•-....
- 1, r•in,1,.- ,
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. EvaIuate 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
•
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.
'71
•
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.
72,
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. •
cr.
E.krrs •
T .1 . i • -. ..., ...c
M
•
- u 4%
J
FOUNTAIN ak
-
R.L.s.co
1394 ......c
I 11110 is i r ..n.--‘-11PLACE 3
3f.-.: ' . ' _••
._ , ..tt•
F,4•11
11111111 • IA . . Co
... ki
es-
4 .....• N.._
..,.,_
.........
..„........,,„ ) .,„....
sf k I 1
Oath 16 iP • . - •' .
___ • -'. pm/ UP • • / . .. _ . LI •
a til lifitipq I\
44
tilnl t
i5w. )-31 Ai.kliiii;1111: It4.4,44.< .
1 pit:114:- -
WV
# AZ•4if. 91.
Da:
'6 1- kw 0 * .• s
7.• ,,,, - ar 04 #
R 2 r.' sell IP to*
• ** • - . w c ....I
, ..9•,1,N 4,1
ci,....
,..,1...,, „ ... .•
04. .
' A
OAK
igili a111%t
Sri4l
• 11111
•-• / INTERMEDIATE •
• • 09 • , •••• • • •) *A70 ( SCHOOL
• s• .
• • • •
. . .. •
• •
3.7
11011P 0 (
.. Q
•01
R•A• • •6 • • • ••
• • ii 411,1111111 Or!
-c •
• • • 2: 0191
• • " •
...."
•. . -,
..- • de. 4.11.iiiiir
., \ • • 6 • • •
,.....: • • JA St
• .
..I •
) 4• l'• .4 4 • eF A • r: rie, . , n:u ..: IPA_ sigh
i...L?te :;::: mmil Ng
.
• •. ., ,
< • :....,,, ..t r..
'2:.:c .0...
• • . •
...i. ....
4• • • 6‘ . rsil
. .
• •
i .
1, - . 4 • • .
NM
1 .....---N .
.•# --° \ . . •
• DARNEL R•AD
• % •
• % • • _ •• •• .•
•
\ • • • A i;. 1 • crr'NAGE
..,:,...
i • • • • •
• •
/
\
• •
,
• • •
• . • • •I .
V . .. •
a. a •
•
• • . • •
• • . . e• 0 •
•:*.:• \ • . • -
••:•:•::
••:: • •. :••:•.•• . .
•. •••••••• •••
•:i :::i:•::::. ....::.: :.:::. i:::......:::::: i::::..• .::::: I
::: .:: :.:: :i:.:.:• :i:::: i
:6):: ..:•:::: :•:•:• • •..::. f
•••:•. ...:::: •::.•:.• .:•.• .
en•: • • :••: :••: :•' :•:•' 1
• - ••::. •:.•:•: •. : I
::.•:. .::: :: :i .: : :: I
)
• : •: i 1
I .
_ (.1x.r:SHOGT
• :
•
gll
•• • •::.:::• ,
: •::::•••
• • • •• 4 • 101111
.•:•:•::.•
1111L:::•:_:• ...
--
1 1 l
A\_. - en" DRIVF
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
76
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
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.
fig
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.
yoF MINN4 .
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
m w
AtiyoJ 500 Lafayette Road
`` oFNP�Q`'' St.Paul.Minnesota 55155-40_.
•
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 ss111, Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Who Values Diversity 4,1 Minimum of!Q r Post-Consumer Waste
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 final 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
��/ District 272
/ % Telephone:(612)975-7000
FAX: (612)975-7020
, ,,,,>,,,: TDD 975-70'
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.
*• Eden Prairie Schools•8100 School Road• Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2292
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
04--0.13PR. 41i 96_14:14 KI DLUPuD,EEN cINEEr gi , Ir+c. iu �•?�8
8 a�_�o.ra9 PP.
SUNDE4200 West 01d Shakopee Road.Suite 230
ENGINEERING I N 55437-2967
(61)881 344 Bloomington. FAX(612)881-1913
•
April 4, 1996
Randall e. Hedlund •
HEDLUND •
9201 E. Bloomington Freeway
Bloomington, MN 55420 "
Re: Puke 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 pondlor the Pulte}toms 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 Ponduct 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 system 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—On the order of 65 percent
for total phosphorous and approximately 50 percent for BOA, 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.
•
• • T- tAZ
U�+r'
Brian H. Mundstock P.E. .
enclosures •
PPR.04, '96 14:14 HEDLUND ENGINEERING Lrtc. II 1 P•2! .-.'v r.JC.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• / /�
i, //�-// I It > I (
I ! 1 e/
' . ► ► l ' /
j r / ,• . i I/ // /
• / It) s , i / ' /
1 r :d i ',� f�/ri/I.
1
•
f
f •
j /� 2 i / 1 fr— -1 T "f i
I j� t i, i ;
21
' / ` %•�' j ; / `,
j / / //i , I
rd., 11f /F//
/ /
, ;�/ 1 Oj
c ► ajJ , i) if� /'/
7,
' 1
,, i./ 2 . I ' /'
' / / - , / I/ /f '
. Q , i , /�
11// // / ` jIfffj iti ' I
I
%
1 x i Ik 1I % %� �" , \.
I `--- _ -`\�; - ► ,1kr 1 CSC\�.*k 1,``�\,s�\�`c` `\�. t .
\ ` \\ \ ., \ . 1 1 : (, i-
r1
`4_44APR+04u196� 14: 14 tHUI :Dunce ENGINEERING tI s sneer tng► Inc. TO ooOD'4. P.03
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C w" r
�. w ` ���..T.".w..w \`-.. ....
r s.sl+�_ ~�� 1 _ "� 1 /
'r�- . -- 1 ` ' .., 1 ) /
#r/ / 'i/ 1 n / `> / / / 1 /
,//
►. iy/' i// / 1 1 t i / I ( / / �/
/ / / / 11 t / /
- 8,,e/0,,,,,:/e.
• ,
.' / / 11 ' ,..,
Ii. ' 111/ .// • /
. • I pr , / /
,...,
/ / / ' I/f
/�I // tI �-
."ili f i / ll/ 7(
• // . / / / • �yr �J
•1,I I i / 0 1 Iri el II I ,
' / ;i I / / i i/�i. / I I
/ %'1l •' i 0 ,�� ' / 1I
II / I / ', 1 I I r�J//;/J I
/ / i%/ : i' j / / , 1 f'.,...i / /
/ % ,'/ I
' i1 /l //f l i,j /'' // ( (t'_ :;I / /r / / �/
•
• / 1 iIiIeIi i /
/ t r / / I l /
/ k ILI
/ I ti / /
,// / %% i 1 1 1 1 1 ' k <•
14 41. %%,\% % 1 1 �\ i \
\C _ .-----..\ %. ..._...... -. _ fir, `�r\��\\‘`\`.. \'\`:\\`'\' j r
aN \
0
_0.4APR 044.196,i4 14rRHEEDLUSu NGpyEERING n8• Inc. 7J :&3 P.04
i . ,
`ONDNET 2.0 Detention Pond Network Analysis • .
. Welker October 1988 • Preee ALT-C for Graph*
TITLE--s HEDLUND ENGINEERING PROJECT
INPUT VARIABLES. . . . UNITS DATE: 04/01/96 •
case labels 1 POND .
watershed area aortae 77.4 •
runoff coefficient • 0.53 • •
pond surface area acres 1.6562
pond mean depth feet 4.3
upstream pond p load lbe/yr • 0
Upstream pond outflow ac-ft/yr . 0 ,
OUTPUT VARIABLES l .
outflow p load lbs/yr 102.55 1
outflow volume ac-ft/yr 147.68
outflow p cons ppb 255.49 I
i
pond removal V . 60.697 total removal t 60.694 �
ASSUMED EXPORT FACTORS
period length 'yrs 0.5
period precipitation . inchee 21.6
runoff total p ppb 650 I
runoff ortho p/total p - 0.3
relative decay rate - 1 i
unit runoff in/yr 22.896
unit export lbs/ae-y 3.371
POND WATER BUDGETS #
runoff ac-ft/yr . 147.68 :� }
upstream pond ao-ft/yr 0
total inflow ao-ft/yr 147.68 • y
outflow ac-ft/yr 147.68 1 .
POND PHOSPHORUS BUDGETS
runoff lbs/yr 260.92 i I
upstream pond lbs/yr 0 3
total inflow lbe/yr )260.92 #
` net sedimentation lbs/yr 158.37 i
outflow lbw/yr 102.55
•
HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
pond volume acre-ft 7,1217
viawmo pond volume acre-ft 8.5463 •
• relative volume inches 2.0833
residence time year• 0.0482 ( 1
reeidence 'time days , 17.602
overflow rate ft/yr 89.167
inflow phoe cone ppb 650.03 •
outflow phoe cone ppb 255.49
p reaction rata - 3.9292
1-rp - 0.393
•
e4—Z APR 9.A ._14:141 HEDLUND„RiGINEERINGAn3) Inc. TO P t3.<&j9 P.05
ri1 M@ I DII I II :MI 11
I 1 I 1 .1 •
lii "MI • Jj UUiUU R
r
II
! I ' d- ill
Iilli = iil . ¢i
I il I
lII
i ( HiltI IN f 1533
'
4
.
! . 1 I I
'1€ Hitt pp /jI Pi._!
a i .
1 1 ! 1 1
! ""III 9i -r.,.»
*
• K
1.111
K
M
Ij 1 1 1��--r.....�-ter-..! .
I I
I I
•
: Ili !MI
I
I • I I
4
1 li fi s e
fin sla, 51,3 1 . 'i la • 5 is s u
il iI " 1
II j6u11 j
= IkI III ar A
HI
111 l � o�ii
� 1 lli i 3jD11ij1Jj
yY
Yt
jJ1i •Ij
1 .Jif illjfJflI1A ',i l I
gd
viz_14 APR;04,.96_14: 14 HEDLUND.ENGINEERING ..
•
•
•
0
.
.
W t.' c: •V '•'. ,
2
•
w V , ,
•
0
Z .. r
o
r--{ O :,- ';..
1
,.4 .o '' ;�' o r
. • •,!.....
...
.„...., .
.,..,
.,.!,... .
J �..c•T.'.
4 :�.
0
V "'
0.>.
H
0
.
•
Ir
V . i I X
40
a i i V
w
a40, ticI O
5.. .
1
. .
• .
9l
TOTAL P.es
APR.04, '96 14:14 HEDLUND ENGINEERING Et�db P.1/6 F.07
e4-04-1396 01: P.l FROM Sunde Engineering, Inc. TO
PONDNST 2.0 Detention Pond Network Analyrie
Press ALT-0 for graphs
W. Walker ' October 1988 TITLE-, HEDLUND ENGINEERING PROJECT ,
UNIT$ DATEt 04/03./96
INPUT VARIABLES. . . . POND 1 POND 2
case labels 77.4 0
watershed area acres
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 lbe/yr 0 131.45
upstream pond outflow ac-ft/yr
0 147.68
OUTPUT VARIABLES 131.45 76.915
outflow p load lbd/yr
•
outflow volume ac-ft/yr 147.68 147.68
outflow p •cone ppb 327.49 191.62
pond removal 8 49.619 41.489
•
total removal at -
49.616. . 70.52
ASSUMED EXPORT FACTORS 0.5 0.5
period length yrs
period precipitation inches 21.6 21.6
runoff total p ppb 650 650
0.3
runoff ortho p/total p - 0.31 1
relative decay rate - 22.896 22.896
unit runoff in/yr
unit export lbe/ac-y 3.371 3.371
POND WhTER'BUDGETS 0
runoff ac-ft/yr 147.68
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 0
runoff lbe/yr 260.93
upstream pond lbs/yr 0 131.45
total inflow lbs/yr 260.92 131 .45
net sedimentation lbs/yr 129.47 54.538
outflow lbe/yr 131.45 76.915
HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
pond volume acre-ft 2.8942 3.7075
vlawmo pond volume acre-ft 8.5463 0
relative volume inches 0.8466 flDIV/01
residence time years 0.0196 0.0251
residence time days 7.1531 9.1637
overflow rata ft/yr 201.55 163.71
inflow phos cone 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
. q ,2.
•
/,� - SVOBODA:ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES -
II" Wetland Services ••` Wildlife I.•Vegetation Studies - •
s.
•
•
•
• April 3, 1996 . - _ .• , • i
Mr.Michael Franzen : - _ _ l .-
- - - •. • , City Planner
8080 Mitchell Road ., • ' ' 'I' 1 ' • " - •
Eden Prairie,Minnesota,55344 _ `'
,.
- -.RE: Staring Lake Townhouse EAW;T.H..169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway : • ` '
•NE 1/4,Section 22,T116N,R22W,Eden Prairie,Hennepin County,Minnesota• ' • ‘ • ,
-- -- _ Dear Mr.Franzen: _ , , : • •. , T (• / 1 ` .
- 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 resou•rces 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 Radish. - '2,_ (. • •. ' ; . •1 -. , _ _
. • ,._ As stated in the EAW,no increase to existing nutrient runoff is expected from the proposed development,••,
• and all runoff created by the project will be pre-treated in wet sediment basins prior to discharge into - ' . '
• - Purgatory Creek which,eventually flows into Staring Lake.. •% •- " •,; -. .>,;;_•.• .
-.r I
• `' • — • i ,•
••, . .,\ :• /,.' ,, ,J . )
Included in the EAW is a letter from thethat based up DNR stating on 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 - - . -
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-`•. • -•.
' - searches'of the database•include changes which will be made to the upcoming list. , ' `'', ' •
t, - t ' !, \ '•• I I : u♦ • •' tJ. , \1_ ;�
` _ • . .
,I
- -
•
• . . ' 24000 Highway 7 `•Suite 125 • Shorewood,MN 55331;
(612) 474-0500(Office) • (612) 474-0547 (Fax) - . -
•
/ -- •` - , - .- !r : - .'•�•/ •- -.-,•1:/
-'S .. • 1
• , . - .,. �.. •I ' •J.
•" ' l Ifyou have questions or re•quire additional information regarding the questions SER answered in the •.,..,--.,;. .,
's' EAWiplease do not he•sitate to call'��) •. • - •1 . ";_ i' •fi 1, - .-
- r f •/ 1 • • E �� 0 1 .,
Sincerely, - .., y -- V ' , • , . '
- 1 •SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES -• ' • r `' ^c ^' ' )• ,:
,� •
- : Anne Ludvik�' \ •- •• ', -, ` `' ,•' .)I ' IJ , i `j• )� t . • •-` - ., -'
•— r :Water,Resources Specialist— •v - • -I 1 '.� _ . '• '• •• / ' r: ; !'
.• •1 �,,_.tr , :�. • • TS'\ t _� _( • • • �'' •,> .•._`/"-r-r, 1 it S'. )` L/' ::r T: ,1 C.
- cc:• Ron Bastyr __ `. r' I �! , ' '- ,`-r- .r As.: ,- r , • .}t --): : y•/,\ 41` ", „r ' . •
If,-
yam' • • -/h _ ,1 ' ✓}/!/ 1 - ! _f A • !S5,J .-'• H~tl•1f, . •. • 1'
•
;.5 1. l . ( r- 1 11 % i-'• .'.,'� ' '.:'? lt,-, '�i: , ' �P t', • 7.. 'f _)
' r 1 • '- -J • -,\\ , \\ -4r..1j .,.ly '•S ,- rc- i r .(;./ \- .L., ' �'
v , ; ,f " Ir: ' j
, .1 - ` t'E ' _•I_ • - s • • •r 1,-...;,.- /' r I"`-,': •-4 - }"-Ve� t.Y.` ,"• , - ,,r ',Cr:
-, .. ; •
-
•
•
•
' �' r .,� • )/ i;, ' ' "`(' _ • - <}j...'1 i.'• 1. •. `� . ) 5,-i :••�:.
_ ` •• .f ` • ?' `I >c I '•- ••' •`\' .,1 ., \ /1 , '\'.. v'1 1' • `, /� 4.R( r-., 1. ,, -
_ tt
- ,f -; r' c` ♦ a'I% '^/ •' rp'/ 7° r�1: r•�` J %_', f • t ` •'ti` t ,;.
' J ~ • t . i t r
, , , P'r}•/� l. ' i • { k 1. r `t ./ - • 1'. , y f� /f
l' -1'• 'I "• .�- • ')• '• • • • 1 r. •A Y. ' i.
•
,•' .• i • ,,,- )_v : . ,),`•. E,•.; 1 (, •,, y i(= n. • J ` •*:!--:,.._t -,_l,) • a ° j •-c• tiI.J2i,t Y ..t
/ / , ✓: ! t-.,?• ,, .� - )' `., I') .`r.. s^', (.,-t• ,I r' ,.,`• .•.,.-
•�)- Y My' .. ._,L• - •,. V f! ,• L_ ' 4, • ' •-ts7 rJ_".[t/.'r!!' •.. `.1\ Y I -f ,-, \_
f J', lr.•.i..N
•`` ` d ( \. V ) 1 ,l ref; t G 1 ei.,: •• ( ,, / 5 "•S S - )^ '.
•
- -' '' ! ''•'• :-.." '?(.-.•':.--
?(. -` -'ar . 11 i.NA •�L L.' �.4� •v�.'-.•••.." Jr'r �.•'! •1 t Y.:D..• • �'f
- i• ./' �i �'`F! 1- `_Z ".••.•� �,..J, ' Vl_ 's'•`� �` 1' -` '-r '•' '- ,1 S • ct'j.'},� 5-.,,t�"'�``�':�'\)/.,,r,�, -
(. •r 1..t t. i• ' ' r \, ram , �; k, i 1 _ •`� , •. ,
• c ' ' �� • , c;; Grc•.,-' ' : \ ''• J! •/- /1 r �'1. •,,` �� • , • -•J ` ` t `( i
`'• •- 1 =i • �- -,. • Y."/..` •• _'•3 -._ .tr( / -. 7♦ .2-1 • <(f\ '• '•1/
•
•
1 ti▪ ,c -, •,•II J .i f'l./' ,•. • -1 :-, ,, P • '✓ '. -,- -e 1 _•. - �- -•'. ;-
•�• •G. I'` it / - .,i ,t- I .-�- , -•,•
-.�I4.+44vu4 V. ,S.,v�`. . .4... . .. . - -- - - - - - - . - -
•
IR? BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
7301 OHMS LANE.SUITE 500/EDINA. MN 55439/(812)832-9858/FAX(612)832-9584
REFER TO
Apnl2, 1996 • Ft18:.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Franzen, City of Eden Prairie
FROM: Jon Micheal Wertjeaeil.
RE: Response to Questions Raised by Planning Commission for Proposed
Staring Lake Development
This memo is to present a response to the traffic questions raised by 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(RTC) access roadway?
4. What arc 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 stafly the following information was obtained for each of the schools as
indicated in Table 1.
QS
tiENHUU1- 6 HSSUL . 1NL . ILL NO . 01L 00[ iD04 HNf: U4 , 0 1U •µ 7 t
Mr.Franzen -2- April 2, 1996
TABLE 1
SCHOOL INFORMATION
School Eden Lake Elementary Oak Point Middle
Start Time 9:30 a.m. 7:50 a.m.
End Time 3:50 Q m. 2:20 p.m.
Student Population Area School District's SE corner Entire School District
Number of Buses 16 27
Bus Distribution 16 east on Anderson Lakes 7 south on Staring Lake
12 wear on Anderson Laken
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 inbound 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 arc 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 are 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(HTC) access roadway
If no access is provided to HTC access roadway, then the following changes and traffic
implications are expected:
ctP
nt1,4 nuur 6 HJJUI. . 1IVL . ILL IYU V 1 L V1L JJV $ i i�+ vL �v
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 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 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.
DGivonuur o t1JJUl. . 114L . 1 1_1- • + ••• _ -
Mr.Franzen -4- April 2, 1996
• Similar to the above HTC access closure question, the shift in traffic would
result in an 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 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.
•
9$
�ENr OFr ■
TAxEmomi so
qv-y ., United States Department of the Interior ..Y D�i..
y �p Alter
' i.�A FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE iimmommom
-E��-
.:. Twin Cities Field Office o� MI
imomomme
�' II
4qc s9 4101 East 80th Street �
Bloomington.Minnesota 55425-1665 '
IN REPLY REFER To:
MS/AFWE.TCFO 'L1 (. .96
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,
• Lytn M. Lewis
Field Office Supervisor
99
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,
g/ Iritta L. Bloomberg
deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
BLB:dmb
cc: Mike DeRuyter, Svoboda Associates
•
•
/OCR
345 KELLOGG BOULEVARD WEST/SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55102-1906/TELEPHONE:612-296-6126
PIHh:-L�-7G r 1;'1 I t k90 r rl I 14,-u Lr I'1 ... L, 4r t 01 - '+JJ -+ �., . _ -.
- Sheetl .
KEY , -1COMMON NAME SIZE !QTY. TOTAL CAL. IN._
. A SUMMIT_ASH_ 12.5"BB 9 • 322.5 •
B FLOWERING CRAB j1.25"#10 CONT. 211 263.75
C FIREDANCE MAPLE 125"BB 5111• 127.5
D • GREENSPIRE LINDEN _ 12.5"BB • 901 225
E •PATMORE ASH _ 25"BB • 601 • 150
F RIVER BIRCH CLUMP 110'BB 27r— 67.5 '
G BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6'BB 1041 260
G BLACK HILLS SPRUCE._ !8' _ 39 i 130
G BLACK HILLS SPRUC 1B60'MM 701 _ 292
G BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 17MM 27T 135
H _ COLORADO SPRUCE 16'BB - 98: 245
,H COLORADO SPRUCE —181BB 1 4/V _ 160
H COLORADO SPRUCE 110'MM I 781• 325
p COLORADO SPRUCE . '17MM 27a� 135 '
I NORWAY PINE 18'BB '21 52.5
I NORWAY PINE • I8'BB I 31± 103
I NORWAY PINE 110'MM 207 84)
I NORWAY PINE 12'MM 11 i 55
J NORTHWOODSMAPLE I2.5"BB • 89'_ 222.5
K IIMPERIAL LOCUST ' 12"BB 566 112
L GREENSPIRE LINDEN i2"BB . 32! 64
• M PATMORE ASH 4"BB 1251 • 500
N PIN OAK 13"BB 1 ' WI 150
O 1AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE r3"BB 501 150 -
P AUTUM BRILL SERVICEBERRY ,6'BB I 30, 45
Q AMUR MAPLE CLUMP I8'BB I 50! 100
R SKYLINE LOCUST 4"BB 20' 80
S REDMOND LINDEN ,4"BB . 501. 200
-
T —_. LGREENSPIRE LINDEN 14"BB I • 751 300
. ------ ,----- I i
?'TOTAL PROPOSED CALIPER INCHES ON SITE i 5058.25 •
_ 'TOTAL SQ FT. BUILDING SURFACE 729,686
SQ. FT. D DIVIDED BY 320/REQUIRED CAL. IN 2280 ( •
}'CAL. INCHES PROVIDED ON ORIGINAL PLAN 2467 I
I' ADDITIONAL REQUIRED CALIPER INCHES I _2.400
1' REPLACEMENT TREE CALIPER lNCNES I _ _ 187
''TOTAL REQUIRED CAL. INCHES �• ! 5054
•
•
Rage 1
/0I .
•
1
SIFBENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
7301 OHMS LANE.SUITE 500/EDINA, MN 55439/(612)832-98:58/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 MicheafWert}� '
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 I Size I Daily Trips I PM Peak Trips
Club Homes —15 - —6 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 Puke Plan 2677 264
PHASE 2 AREA
(ONE HALF OF CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN)
Land Use I Acres I Density 1 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 sq.ft. 2901 377
Total Trips Based on Comp Plan 6026 727
Total Trips Based on Combined Puite/Comp Plan Development 8703 991
-- —-----
�O° TABLE 2
(�81" TRIP DISTRIBUTION .. .. _ .
'
19 � Direction Residential Office
* 37 I Percental;e Percentage
North TH 169 60 35
6P South TH 169 8 15
East Anderson Lakes Parkway 10 15
iil West Anderson Lakes Parkway 17 20
,, r 1( West Staring Lake Parkway 3 —
10
North Columbine Road 2 5
Total 100 100
. • • _
- e . .
•
...„ .
-'r' �� SIIKLC LA aac
•
. ,)„, ....,
•
L 4 1
T- '‘
� iii,„;!;r
i
cis" :' 7,500/8,950/10,600I '�, 3rLE„� �_
c�•cstNUT Da. — / I j
swan. s sr kj
lic3 4 [54,500/31,800/36,000 ,�a I y Tct.
Tcrrta u► �� 0 w OF. D 0 4
r to 4 e1
is LA•cANlalnr ► W. a 4'� (0, '�aa. ��
No yam t P�sY s ewe% s. �POmu'AT( °' F
���ft ;
cia41C'LMA�A�i``�tOh •
e CT.
91r �00 5 ��(� t4 4 gay(N tx T. -04 J6r CT. 1,4 L�" `.
~•'S Z• !�_.�i _ Lys 4'S'lIA A trams J oa a.
�.J (--\ na/na/5,700 ' R_�_'' '.r.: = e�
a o
°`• A• ST.,aa-to �� ` � � ti� `T,400/8,850Jy'9c�,950
C� Ct. LAte �� K 4�- "1
44 a—d w
an •
• Q vATCaFdttat
PRESCRVk
W� 2,350/2,800/3,350 Pi CO,000J11,950J16,450 �J
Staring na/na/1250 `-7
Pm1N:na 4yE f"
na/na/1750 r Ir. Lie
Lake HENNEPIN Timm cT.
TECHNICAL + mom
COLLEGE B s
26,0040/23,900/24,900
ir-if
uK
/17 a
iRAn. ,„4,c06.,:,•
•-•••-•—_--------`4:7. "------J1--------3 — it.:. a' ri
Flying Cloud '
Airport 69
KEY
1993 EXISTING VOLUMES N
WITHOUT DE SCALE
19991999 WITH PULTE/COMP PLAN
mom DEVELOPMENT nalMILT! it
Illk
0 2000'
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE 1
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
PROPOSED EXISTING AND
PULTE/COMP PLAN FUTURE DAILY
mBENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. DEVELOPMENT
TRANSPORTATIONENOINEERSANDPLANNERS VO LU M ES
- , 1Mg
O
m
laT .
00§
15&
T81111
t it
4J 4. L 79/86/86 ii.. ANDERSON LAKES PKWY. /4 L 110/120/120
4— 527/574/627
42/46/46 --t �— 21/23/163 198216/438 —f 47/51/51 '
429/468/497 --* 247/269/365 —9
0/0/64 30/33/49 Si,
41
ODTf N m
1
pz.
u P. AM IC", s PORCwI►4 —• < . f .
Ni vcsra Tar ....Ilk let e cT. .4
MC WA Ft� Li v CT, Y ty .."-C
40. $ a 44 k. 00 Di 1 t• .• v>Y Et It l .,
'-? h El
cis
CERSON OW' t (t'
C: k,4t u /.II
�• yt . C ci I, g . • {C
A. vL�j pc, "k <� '.K `1. q S �.!
V +
w —1
RII • • ♦ a vTCRPORtin
�� if Dmma�►RESERN ftva x
Q ahi J, J
> .•
Staring PRINcr7D a ir
all
us)
Lake HENNEPIN antis c
TECHNICAL + DRY
COLLEG >>5
r
T
61'7e\
ac
` d
VO-TECH ACCESS W I `. 1
L O/0/0
E-- 0
25/27/60 ,�
0/0/0--> �`
13/14/80 i i ,
1
�& KEY
°' 1996 EXISTING VOLUMES• F
•
i- 1999 WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT SCALE
1999 WITH PULTE/COMP PLANlini1-111 ti
x;�f�f DEVELOPMENT 0
2000'
FIGURE 2
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
PROPOSED EXISTING AND
PULTE/COMP PLAN FUTURE P.M. PEAK
cpBENSHOOF&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
/06
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.
r , /ô7
- .. . . ------ -•••--- --••---... ---•---•....... . .
----•:•L....---— ........7 7..•=.----•-•=-••• —..--. ...-.--
, 7811,s 11a: e T )
•
..o
.,,::....,--,e_:::...e.T.17::'==\ c"---7::• ......7.•••. 1,•.,*•'T•••0- •.''4 ......117.t...H.•1°--=it"' :''':"•2;:..• ,A741fi.j.:, ..;;....-----..........
- -•=-_-..Ck ,--------\\li'-'N • .s• --77. ... V•1141f.:t.-1 ':::.• .;,0._,.„--...,,,,..-.--...-744.Fik .,,,: z...- ,- •
:• {".44---Z*,0•1'•• '"*.-44:*-3---51-9,9 8-' ••,'IF.7::::%.-tvz.ii., !-7 /1,',-'-....-01-•..ri• s•
8611' ../ • ..\•ss •/ 3 ' %?•,•1St•IF, re4.;<.\;•''..Vii.;% • -.1-.••tx• • '. J.. 0,t....i ..
.../••••;*.X..". "....:Py ii*n•••••••.: i../...411:;'1 •.•:•11.7* •.•/ \ I I • / 4' I:T41/1 i.iP;:
•/ / i I : • 1,11,../..4.• .....:i •<E"?. .•••444,1•... 4... .........‹.,II. ; • .. ..".
• I I -4•% .. ' • WI,...Witer•"re-r
i• .1 il 1 I (X: 4 •• . •••••,\/.1;43;r•'.....i;:•• ................„.....••••"'''....- Ai . .
I1 1 . WA. I I s• • •••%/4/. 11....r..:..:••°-:••••'•• .;„;:•.. .....• • I '•
1.:9,4..ii.: yr:.f•i..,. I . _
4
.......„. ..,..„..„,..,,,.. r:„....
..... --;•#::..::----. —..c.---,::',.-Er.--;----r'
zi, ,,. . .........v..-..,....--
. -,,,,f• c.",,s...4..,..117,-,-_•* s„-ve,b• ,,:saz . I
ra— • „... .
,:•,, .
_... 4fitvonkir.:r..f.,.., ... _. .. .._,.,:il.....___Iff.r. ...74,.. s. , •.t.,.\..• ...-‘,..,.... ...,.• 7-4.1,, 1 _
i -•.::,,,
• la. -W.
11
•--4.4.-.0• . • i ‘ N *.%:111 •
A , • k‘..1,7 .•1,1
... .......,.,„ .,....
.e->-•-7.....--. --- • %. -, • oie. 6‘ > • k 1 . •
/ • ••9"ink PI i j'n:.• 77 '•• ''-1!• t ' ' q
A.,4 . % .•N ... ••-...,:::- ''0 -
.• / /, ...... iL.,-. -a , • \
•. ..%At% 1.1-1 .
0 ;fljg ; ••, \ • \ ;•
•••• • . .
7..• •,,. -.i..)
..C40':i2;710.1f 4
.•,Witar?itit •f /7 ,.ri'l.-:*:... .."-.,. • ..... • - *V:.
,- ,.., - •• • • Z.4:4, ...
*„,,. ry /i ...It,.....cy. -.,.
., . , /,,./...›---- ,..„?.„,..-.....'' ...... . ...... . ,.
,• , , ••••/, .....4 i , ... i•. ,.....4•••141,41• •
9 .l'-:14.7,-•• • • i :.•-- • -''''" .- 1 ,,, ,M• t 1, 4 •
. /; (f \ ; Lit,..!,1/, . ,/,'i: • . ....A... v• , ../.. :.-e,;_.. ..„.. „...". i ,....e.n.' -
1, lg . . 044 : .. . .r. .i,‘ •--. :, - , ..... • :::•
AIC: •'• IA. • .t. / .•. ... .•"..1 •a•• / t,..••••••1 .‘1.31
• I .t. e ., ;,.,... ,
,
• ( v . . -.A 1.r-A ...... ,.•..... , ' . '
... k k .. . .4.
., OA Ai, ., . 0 I.•-ei . / '''•i
• ...• •"v..: ... / 4,. .' 4 ., „ ., .. .., _.:....„...... ...., ,. ,.... ...,,,„...„..„, ...... •
k. \\ %,,i1Nir .0. •• ..;..',..4.Z.•'' .... ,' . • 4,..5P:ii ' j', ..6'.° V..- •
• \ ° N : •`..."4.• • :`, AV•'.,,,Ni..;;,'".... • :.•;-'i.,/,;;/,,,,//
• • •
......„,. ...„.. ...% . , •,, \ •• , .... •-....0,...,,,.: ;••••..•...e<,%; A,,,/.., ,•••
411. .. • . ...:•. ••:-Z4.6%.:. • ' r/r.f'V /1 ' ••
e•
. .4. • .....,. . .--:,-...-. ry ///, /-....... / ... ..
eir 4.
\•• ....,-: . ,...1., i '• *.\'It % -• .1-• .2:'..•"r"••" •••O.' ...•'.' • ••• . ; / / ,.0.
•1/4 • j (C..% •4 •••‘.. ••`. ,..4.1s.• •
.• ...
• •••• •-S• s' • s'% I.) • N•Z s'• ••• ••-....L.. .. .•••••i':• 4i. • . •••••:::..• /•• " •••". .• ..\• ..0..... ,..•• •. • • •••••• ..T, • '7'••••. .
‘••••%••\ s,..‘ .. **... ,. \ t ,e• I--,..••::-. -•...;•„fp.* • •• • •"4," / .• dr:re.r.•••t•-%. .0". . • ::*•1" :'. c•
r.-........ - - • ••• • / , , .- ,...h....,....,:-."., - - ii ...•
\\• \ • \ • .••-•'•••••"•-• :1'.51:-- • • • •• 1 i ' 01::ilf,•-•..e%c"i'-• • • r •
• •• \ \ • •% %•••••• "i2i•• .-- •••••:•• .. . . . . , ,..,... . .. •••••,„•-•
•-• \ \ ..\......•••.% • ......fts: 4,•",;ti• .N" ••••• •• - di /074.`"•••••'8'4'i • . / , r,
_ ., \ , . . :.•••.:,7 , .i.
' <\\X'...: t:-.1:'-' -7-'="7. *:,isair-. i ,li 1.4-A.--7•-• - /..:„ ._.:.c.... _
\ • •',.. - • .1.......M7-: '. - >."' ir . e • / /./ k,:i i
‘ ..\. .,, ...... .. .•••••:.......•rt„. :•.,i .. , .....; ,..,./..,•
• , ,•:•••• i••„;‘,. -ze a. %.;i;.: ,.. ,. .,:L._, ,,
..41 .
•• \%N‘ -0,-1,,':** p\'4.:4‘;:t' it5, :,,:l Altir/
•
\XL \• \\*.•117 e3*0-2121.:5 Y . • r i:. •••r•'W. •
.• / .,:• ,-..-/ ....•04,, • ;`.*".. ....:
7.-
-\ •\ *V..; A ...1,1,;"...::. t / „• :,/;/ • ' •C‘• •
% \•... • 41•.:2 i S591 • fr) • ....
.• ,,,,,v, w •
••I,..,Jii 1 t,..,
-\ \ \'• • • 43: . 4ALt . r I
,....\
" ••••••,, • - .7.7f,% `,-r .i, ....„ .,.7:70::
8-76.31 -.4k ! . ., % •,, — , ,
„.1 ‘ k., •7••••••--:-..-sr ••
,, i s.4,.4, - .,.,•••••• - •seht• .0.' •
..,:.....
ifilill) .ri ' ••NTa.'........,.'i• ...A.M.irr...t.' ki,k.„ 1:9
• 40"4"•Ald.• .;.....---„....._*4•7:::-.--/ a•-•,...••°• .4
r • •• tk• -.
....• 4. : .as.%:„'',; .
• ' 41r,__
---..--.'" . _......,. .
.a..
.. • Z%
▪ • ...------z.-- _ \ • 1
•II ▪ •r......0 • .
. ...
• .
. ..,
•
. ..
1 1 7 3
. . .
•
. • .
•
•
• ...
.. ...
•
•
. .
•
/Jot
•
.: A •
` . :
/ / L
• ( • / \/....,.. ; ti/ ' •''•*./..>".;----...1-:...----------- ---
+ ± .to ;` l' / ` '/i_�'
1'
//1-z--- —— . .1"..."--74.t.. i
,. ..""--..'"e r P ' I . 7 • : F.7 •
../. ---• ji„a: ' f ..' ; • ' : ' i •• ; \. .21 T. T
•
• ••••.-.../ if . ' . . * **. . \ I., ...1
1./9 ••• -.7...,. •-;\Q„...\\.
• i , ..i•lie . / %.\s. ....\.:....
' \'� \ i, \ - .k. .1.l. 7 di' , /. . •
. .0..... \ oS,....\
... . / . .. .., . / 0. /•
. �_�L :+.,s �M/• "`�./ >>./ d-a,.v ►w - Ser.
't ' :. Tn..* Ilk,
._ •o'. ab -- yo a \, . /.
-` \ . 1 PAR • • a c • -,vN-. /. • r-",�
•
/
.\... cult: ' 1 \ % •46.7LIOLOIS../I 40110" i'•3
I
M
- 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 SOTA CORP.
•
Thom . Standke
Presi t
•
P.c.: O.C.
Ron Bastyr
F:\FILESWDM\DSTEI\LAND-LOIISL-DIVRS.DOC
A 1355 Mendota Heights Road., Suite 300, Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112
'a.-~~~ 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 and'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 merit in order to
efficiently move the process along.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
PULTE HOMES OF SOTA CORP.
I
THo . Standke
Pr i nt
P.c.: O.C.
Ron Bastyr
F:\FILESIADMIDSTEINLAND-LOIISTLK-REQ.DOC
A 1355 Mendota Heights Road., Suite 300, Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112 IP •
.......-.. Phone: (612) 452-5200 • Fax: (612) 452-5727 • License #0001371 ��
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
NIMINIIMMENIIIIIIMINIIIMIIIMM
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 Townhouses 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 ansi
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 affordrble and priced less than $115,000. The project density of 8.9 units/acre,
however, is slightly less than the 10 unit/acre community goal.
Council transportation staff agrees with the plan amendment conclusions that the change in land use
from residential and office to strictly residential will cause fewer peak hour trips and should result
in less potential traffic impact on Flying aoud Drive(TH 169). Given Eden Prairie's relatively high
ratio of jobs-per-household it is anticipated that a higher than average share of the vehicle trips
generated by the project will be dispersed within the city.
The Council is also reviewing the Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)for this project. The
EAW states that the western border of the project site lies within the 100-year floodplain of
Purgatory Creek. The project proposes to construct approximately one-half of a 1.5 acre stormwater
treatment basin serving the 88-acre site within the floodplain boundaries. The EAW also states that
no soil material will be added to the area during this excavation and that no reduction in floodplain
capacity is anticipated. Council staff recommends that the stormwater basin be relocated outside of
Purgatory Creek floodplain to reduce the risk of over-bank floodwater intrusion into the stormwater
treatment basin which would result in increased repair and maintenance costs for the.basin.... . ..
•We..have determined that the.proposed. amendment..has. no potential.,impact.upon an3r.oLthe.
metropolitan.system plans._$ecause_the proposed amendment appears.unlikely:to.affect policies and:
plans in other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council will waive further
230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TIY 291-0904 Metro Info one 229-378(
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
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
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
Thm
2
Presid
•
P.c.: City of Eden Prairie Planning Department
F:\FILES ADM\DSTEINHOA-MISCINEIGSTLK.DOC
•
•
•
1355 Mendota Heights Road., Suite 300, Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112
�- .,. Phone: (612) 452-5200 • Fax: (61 ) 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.)
7 16
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
II. 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
//6
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. W tl 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 Natu.
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.
��YYYY�� CITY OF UNNfTC A .•vy�
'—(211 - L MN t—Tgiiht,./ 1;1 '-,,. -;•:.- e! .--'1 a
...,..„
, ,.
,,,,iii , t,... iiii,,,r
Li
•
as
\ Iiii .�,
V,p IZI \ 1.::N�•.. yob / \\
..t. 44\
.../ 0 oNjekip .-., .
(z.11611°:4151.3.7, 4,,EIL LK ..:,
\'..U11411,1 . 0 ..... 4 .:, ...,,
� I 1
+L P, .,
...X31 ... ‘..Apr fi 1411 ...".''".- ...._•-''''''.- \lib
E �,a i. ',„ ' Jifoi .i± • \ � G
c......, 1g ,RIA A
r C�• IA
.\ R°. am...
.--• " ail*
s111;111 .0111. ...-- — ‘...1 ' ., &--J __ _-
� ` iu
A., NE . A N5 . '.
in
gy r E
, ..,-,,,,4/-1 ....-,,,j 14414 z 1:1 "IP 4.
.'.- .1 ifk.-........ N,14.5 , 1,,- , i A..-•i.. ...
•
i kar/111, y y ,
.TI`C't;
•
.....---'--"'e........Ntamp. illW . Allillft,'' ,:-/:L....; \IL ...-.t2r *:‘.
( 1W___ , / . - -
Mil
•
41
S(Isue' ti•ME. T0. 1X4:• . r.. 0wiiiiik
.; ty !P{ ti cr Yam;
•t' ^t
I. LAND USE MAP
44.... City G.F Cl enoa IP-N/
RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC/GUASI PUBLIC SHORE/AND MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
O -tow D....Ny P-LI D..w..Ww..An. - P -rwllo Open S0000tPuL/Floodplolo NE-N...el tu.rw.w Wow..
.Nl.. Dm,.NF L w. u. NOS-,.D.. � ..A.. • - w G .'C..w.F RD-ww l .•NN •••nd • *W.ap.
.. D •P•
a RM-w .
RMr•••-t.wW..P.Da.Now.,.Mnd•..tlnd T.a.M.I.... CS/F...CRT t«.wurr.tow. GO-N...r D..wMwN w.w..
MI RN-mg*Dwms7 SO-u Owego,u.rwAw E -Iw....Iry fowl ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS
OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SC -Opens C...pw. •.mo ww,.ww fNwroyo NO
0 0 -NNw. O -Own.P.Nwap...SP..uM.0-0. :sat 110,M .ww
OM Id armor SE/YT-S•..s.ry.v...N...I frond — war AMrwN
INC-N.I fsM.MM C...«.IN O NC -itomoI.Como — C.ww.ttr.nd.
CC-c.o...NT C..•..W
RC-A.U.wnd G.......w —� Tor NW N.a.PndN.N Wins Union A.«IN,N,SJJ
GUIDE PLAN - CITY OF EDEN PRAIRI:
•
A NDEg/90N L-A E ?PsR Kc Jk(
1 Aw—f ►coo
,,%NE8°T,
_ t Minnesota Department of Transportation
i
g
14, ,l 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,
dii/ �
u�� 1, •
Cyrus Knutson
Transportation Planner
c: Gerald Larson,MN/DOT Environmental Coordinator
An equal opportunity employer 121
o�QPPt '' sm United States Department of the Interior iN
g FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE sommummumr
n Twin Cities Field Office •� In
�'44c 3 4101 East 80th Street
Bloomington.Minnesota 55425-1665
IN REPLY REFER TO:
FWS,AFWE.TCFO milr, =,96
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 taligrass 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,
Lyn':M. Lewis
Field Office Supervisor
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 Staring Lake Townhomes EAW assesses the proposed development of 788 townhun;as 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 lass potential impact on
Flying Cloud Drive (TH 169),. With,Eden Prairie's higher than average ratio of jcbs-per-
household if is.anticipated that a"relatively high share of the vehicle trips will be dispersed within
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,
Thomas C. McElveen,Deputy Director
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
173
230 East Fifth Street St.Paul.Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TIY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Nr• • > ;¢moo ^cenz•:z•,.
•
•„
N
$.••h•
::i, N,;.: • .s,.,,,,„ k
:,..:-..:.z.„1 :,‘:
„„„.
...., ,.
,k
t.....::: .,
..
03,
'Ii'
. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS .F
a
.,,,,..,, ..„....
,::::,...?x
<. ::.., 4...
,.
„„,..„0: :,..,„
„:„ .., 1
,..„,„„ ,„:„.,
4
• x
' � • � � Y
' � • 9 + v�`+ ` k � tixu; «......r a atiT- -,,
•-0h\4 \:4:$Yti Yk\'h } h. *„.: ^ >• s. iN
•
' ..... .._ ..w...... w v�w...w. . ... . .
/24
1 .)7)t Wr-ne,Area
ter. 1,4/Y1) - /41Alt/i9
dPi✓il G+ 55 3i-4
''D-AdtA) C}),(A/Yull-g
crnv • -tsb i/i;= /7)- Pc4;ulit
,tika, GVali 7211, 17 N,-,7s71�
1,2.5
U S S CRON1N
— .�•.'` .; �s�t \� . - DE 704 & DEC 704
p From the desk of John Kramber RM 2/c
-�- - = U.S.S. Cronin DE 704
. __ F� Reunion Treasurer
6305 Harriet Avenue
-•— 7 7 9 6 Richfield, MN 55423
(612)ASed/Y Mi. fak_ arzi �
4�a i 7`I v,
y1x lcc,t&. /
G.b1 e .,`e tie 1 '�-0 r lJr/► ha
rn
w cat Q S� GZ-
�'
ya 7 746 ao mps /On:,k2 es I
J
E1,-U✓L' C'''" r/1 C r/
(4//9,1 )..e.._Li A As
_i
ac,, 4 0 l? 4 5-0 Vn,[ has
,
id ,
rc) CeP� fol--- e
cGY/li?/
,.7,/
ca41 t--r-4-----/
vim-
-P'-- / o ,n c__ ra o-,her--
, Zile'
I2C,
1 117 Wcecome CL'ec e
Go!den Valet', Mn 55422
June 28, 1996
The Hononabte Vt. Jean L. Hatvz i s
CLty Counc,ie Membeius
CLty o i Eden Pna itz,ie
8080 Mitchett Road
Eden Pna.itzie, Mn 55344
Dean Dn. Hantris and Membetus o{j the City Coune.%e:
We wetz.e 6otucy to heait. Putte Homey wowed not be pne,senting p.ean4s ilon the
Stanu.ng Lake plan at your City Council meetting on June. 18th.
We have Lived in the ci-ty oil Golden Vattey ion th-Orty yeaazs, but, because
owt daughtetc teaches in the Eden Pita yr i.e Schoots and auto son--ill-taw .i s a4o
empeoyed ,in. Eden Pita itz.i..e, we have become very .inteieoted -i.n the Stafz,i.ng
Lake Community pnopo4ed by Pate Home's. We are patz ti.cufcvt- y .interested
.in the concept o{j one eevee townhomes. •
We hope that you mitt took with {yavon upon the nedL ign being pnopo6 ed
by Pate Home .
S.inc etcee y,
,,,t_e."
Van and J n Kad.ies ky
.1k
Lisa Goodwin-Toiler
765 Century Ave. S.W., #202
Hutchinson, MN 55350
(320) 587-1167
June 25, 1996
The Honorable Dr.Jean L. Harris
and City Coucil Members
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Dr.,Jean L. Harris,
I am writing this letter in support of Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corporation.
My husband, son, and myself are hoping to move to the Eden Prairie
community next Spring. We started looking at potential housing developers
early in April of this year. We were impressed with the design and quality of
the communities that Pulte Homes had developed in other communities that
we visited. Also, their housing developments were affordable for young
professional couples like ourselves who are just starting out.
Please take our interest and support in Pulte Homes into consideration when
you meet with their representatives with the redesign of their Land Plan.
Sincerely,
-
Lisa Goodwin-Toler
121
•
8 June 1996
Dr. Jean Harris , Mayor
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Staring Lake Townhomes by Pulte Master Builders
Dear Dr. Harris , Mayor:
We have been looking for an affordable one-level townhome
for several years .
We feel that the Hawthorne Club Home built by Pulte is
exactly what we have been looking for and will fulfill
our needs .
In our opinion Pulte builds the best quality townhome for
the value available today.
Hopefully, you and the City Council Members will vote
in favor of the Staring Lake Townhomes project in the
June 18, 1996 meeting.
Sincerel
ichard G. & Julia R. Walsh
18740 Clear View Court
Minnetonka, MN 55345
CC: Mr. Thomas Standke
Ms . Kathee Sheldon
12-9
day '� `"�. ti,�..6�
cam' �yo�� u.- �` �°`°P'�"�
May 3 1996
Mayor Jean L. Harris
City Hall
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Dear Mayor Harris ,
I attended a hearing on April 22, 1996 regarding the Pulte
proposal at Staring Lake.
It seems to me that this property would serve the community
better if the land along 169/212 would be developed into
commercial property. Who wants to live next to an active
highway. Housing should be set back of commercial area.
This would reduce the density of homes, place a buffer between
the highway and the residents . Place the proposed park in the
center of the project, easy accessable to all owners.
The commercial area would then be under the flight pattern
from flying cloud airport not over the residential area.
Runwy 36/18 lines up north side of highway 169/212 .
I have faith that the council will do what is best for the
comminity not just for eyes on more taxable property.
Si e el ,
o a and Joa ne Larsen
29X/
011
16i
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 aoud 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?
—73;-----; .
"iX �,Ge , _, .
:� 8y.
al°45- , . L A} `
�� 7 f
I ??51 ,i.Q,i ,l.C-f, .
a4. j2JZ5 8ss� �,6ad ./ t .
/./ • >i. g) / C z t-.- ; 04
V �VIA. (�I jIbAAA-e4M—
I,
$ ciao 6cci,eg,0q2-
III I' tAA7„ 1 7, , ,-,e - It e_c LIL
1 ,�:� !LC.(_t ���CC; I'LL Ciii.. "
--, * )11d- .1 .' lei •
?q,_ ,(-6c_it.- __. 4 ,mtAe-7,_ . , / . .At _ /Aige ,,,Mil,,t.t,
_ / jSQ f2j
s
/‘9
NAME ADDRESS PHONE#
f. _ litU c: ' falt(C I . I 43(014 40»,.(..0 cc:J (f yc ( 1
d k , ��t.,,-).(r)..., /11350 �.-f-c�.)Onr-1 Q'37- 520277
3 •" �. 001 + (4 -ocw iu3tz 1 1 q37- 033r
'1.`7 2A,►-,►Z ) ,4 7/.a.444 4 t 43 Sg ` ' q 3 u--agf r
f ',-.6r9V6ii„.,.. CI (14.6. " ca4,1_77/0
• 9 A a /13 7 47 // 9c/9-/2-9 i
Ib. \ iz , W ►i ti qy f-i-4/ /
il. /2.6 Age .i.rem...1 .556.7 ten 7 17.41,46a.vie.Zic .91,tgiekizto
l3 = y Z , ,4 • • .7LI1S3 eoit,n €1 A. i?3_ Oy
1 1-1 'a,-/. cr U-Cv W4h '17(c kQ t c c&. 975-9av5f
/5 c 0 /(// 9 Caro(o&2 Dr- 73.7-Oyvct
1t. u/<14A—I cl/t. 8/7' e l:,c.4 975-2zoy
r ' 11 1.
al 1a .�''��`�:y 4794, / /---77,6-
/Q. ---- ems'76 4: gve--,i.
?o. .1 / I
/,, ' fit•
. Q
, af
8gie -e, Q, 644 434-- q6
, 2,. r 14/S3 _ #9-ag7
— 41 m, kigg Ihit A) (, ,fin, gdk- 37
MZ6 i-- (?4(X ,6 C7t /FZ-5-./7
v27 / < /4 r 6 �.�1�i ( l..r 7. D�
b , 91 0?- jlr np(vjit) OoN l
I .111/4-kP/A-e.A2( 4",e/t_, er, 3 .
air. ok„:„.L.
g9 3o khdo we, e-kl,k)?L.t- ,1_..
..!� / 8 f-Y•7
I9/ k
L e .
*d-e-YIS tA )0(oz.& Us.piatick:ut:
• —. "
c_46rA:0?."1
• oyc �1 ya and_ev •
th\-ip -o.s2-t_ Fc/i4Q__ e
ter/ 7? 7 rden 41.4;;A,
-xia� aeuerL.
7
Edd i Adint
yezq Ze,--d,te,-7 .7 3-1 174g 316.ei ,zr - 4-e"-
/41/4° 73" 4c1 vbea4A 6ct
%-q-LJ\5 ttff eiA-04f4Dd' 1?'
yws_7420-42---el
trl y 14 r c. co e,47. QZ 6 L-1). M .
c q37 N. rlc,
0-0 cvo
r f�.,,
A7/4- 4- 4 C �yso y Rd , E_ •pVii •
-^ Bct ( KCd towe 121 S 53'41
P60.11)6i,A, e'Ptei-f *tile-41/ Nci-d 5c31-1-q-
A r R2,c. \ q(, ,t 5S Y-
�'efP1-2 fig" rc-s 3 a- rr1 /1L LaiNL C ft114
k9s'3 J
u1.24AL4, s a 1 (j' 0 0 5l7
& 8 '14,1,v,eav,9 riL
4i ,
P
g940 6(rlcecv R�
10 • / eel eto t((CC9UJ4yfet Ssa
3T37
CcC-7 � ,I
f
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, 6";-(54/4 ;E,
2c,to
Lisa Eckberg
906-9447
/#3(,
April 19, 1990
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,
Aee- 4-te_ef,41—
Bob Hallett
17051 Valley Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
937-1453
cc: The Honorable Mayor Jean Harris
APR 19 '96 10:13 GLEN LAKE ANIMAL HOSPITAL P.1
•
11? . , GLEN LAKE ANIMAL HOSPITAL
. 14805 Excelsior Blvd.
N. Minnetonka, MN 55345-5799
Telephone:(612)935-1232
• 4iX/ ./9 ."9910
C, off' - /9k -- 1
s
Ak .tee. :5 ! ?"Z/ r Z
f
edweee/7c /v-Ir.44-a4z-ner ?Atte,Ait,eo . -, .7-eio..e-a,c- -'140vot4- .
dot/a/mood ! .2.40,,, Ste, 6 i Aitse9x/< A'44t.
.7‘,t ... ...,,elk.,,,,,liatte sea470/ 440,..6e 74,-ee/4r_,
Lam �✓/ Jt-t oa%l� edvi:Piae-ssi , (.
}ke.:*,
--7X,,ty 4.4e frtOrae.144eti:vt-rs -44aecd.- -/i..e 5-12e to JD
deve4eAt v-‘te_ . /. 40-eee,c. lie `1/7-94c )4q;v..1
"0-to - v,cire,' ? ///eie-, ornirtxc.
Aa.(41X/ kepoet €.7420t- , .0e 3-r-i-ori--17 /die geare.oe'
,,ei- .- i-I v/;),. .
frai' slice-Ale-, friii:ri_. 7ese eogr.fe*-/e,s e z v. 4e !
iey,i--IL- 441.71) :yAg zed7r-ei,g_s_ dee/J.47a_ "frtdriki_ :
zee, a_ Ariel/ A7-01 -
f/0/0/40,t. ,
"..,,,. tze?
/ ate` -i-t ee-0-- et0W,I. ida .4 r ericae- .
t eoPet ,
• D... .• . . kletl. :
, • .0.61d-->
lees;41462 '.
(ss( Z ilii
1 r'`v'�, MA/.
't_f - Z71vq
Date: April 19, 1996
To: Eden Prairie City Manager,Board of Education,Park Board and Planning
Commission
From: Karen S. Tinucci, EP Resident 0
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 Puke 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
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 Oak 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!
1Lk,
.
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, /
cee114-C.2L hJ
Chester & Connie Baker
8918 Pine Bluff Court
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
I L/
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 Comer 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.
S' cerely,
Ahtf
Barb and Bill Ward
14390 Starrwood Circle
Eden Prairie,MN 55347-1744
:bjw
1112-
I v3
— IFr- `9ce
cf3C" Egle-AA- Pv ,
(; (L o e.x 5 s v L j
90 t—�► af1 qv
J+�- L
e eJ v e n,e vt`a( Tv-oc-rc_* .
U.) 2
w ` ` 1.CL u ,2 LcCJ
e C-Cze.A--s o n \V-1 a t.J ,
s Q\A O-O 1 5 y .(0
e co A o q.CJ\c, cLA c A/Lr
ctv '‘ v-8
<<� o .9 ak,c 5
4t l O P t u_C C
1I`
•
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 HansonA.74 l
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 ans.:er 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.
S ince-
Ste1SSq- on Ru h Ann Swan on
FROM : TeleUiew/Campbell PHONE NO. : 612 975 054E Apr. 19 1996 09:15AM
•
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.
Y s truly,
11A
Robert and Tamara Camp II
Copy; Planning Commissioners
Mayor Jean L. Harris
City Council Members
ILl/
DATE: APRIL 18, 1996
TO: EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CONCERNE a TIZENS GROUP REPRESENTATIVES
Paul Olson 2, 949-8956
Steve Swans.' 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 find 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 Staff's 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
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
Pulse 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
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 staff's 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 SH")ULD
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
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'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. _Wg
expect the Planning Commission to respond not onlyjo 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 15-1
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 comments 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, "
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. 1 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 53.% 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 I ')
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
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 staffs 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 15
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 squat 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
I
4/18/96 6:30 PM r
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
Item 11 a Fish, Wildlife,and EcoIogicaIIy 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 Div,(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 Dot 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
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 11 b 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 11 b 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 15°)
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 /100
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 ) (4°1
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 PQtential 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
E I-
- f^--'� I �� •��• `�, ,` *�.
i •
, • -
- i
is
.•,,�' e .J •f
' - ' •...ell'
-n i I•
4
1
_ _ _
...,„);-::, ,,,,..4._,,,, t. , , ,, N
;'bra+. . i .. gN-,.,
4t •. .
'..:1j �I�I .:: fax : - t.. •` ._ 1 i.i . - .
V. r:E'll�A°{, u �i -•;i=F%. J Y %t R' ��'^. +'ontl+",�y��...4.84 » f i 47:-.r ,•L 1.j7 ...-
•
-_I
&'
.r
•
jf '
• ct " --a_
,soE MWlyc�o
Minnesota Department f atural Resources
v rn
T W
� V
I ! o� 5(0 Lafayette Road
Fyn �Q`'' St.Paul.Minnesota 55I55-40Q
°FNA-rus
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._
1)NR In iftnts tiun:612-296-6157. 1-81N1-7664(KX) • ;TY:61_=296-5484. I-MtX)-657-3929
An[iglu!Opportunity(snsnloycr ??A ('anted.wt Recw•Icd Containing Cnaining a
Who Values Dtvcnity aer, Miniuwnt pf WS 1'.rst-Ctwtaunier Waste
Ex•
Li
.1Z
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.B. 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 identi ied. 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 A. Gimmestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
DAG:dmb
Enclosure: List of Consultants
� � E.�
494 -,
n . _� �. t,
�
/
c � ' •
, 494 (212'
F ft7:> _
.: _ ___ , ,
•inor--__ _ .x.._
iRow/en0.d
\ � rf. ,,—494
141,141, iit c3 •
-1—
.se ,
:.1
.,
.„,
„.„._„_......:....:,_._, .,.. _::..._..;_ . ,
. . . . .. _. ..... _.
. . . . .
........,::::.
.' den Prairi \�lop� _ _ }P >.
lr 4,464 .11) .
:` '_- Anderson Lakes Pkwyi 212) Ait -• r
Red Rock Lake ' And rs•on,
I •
/ 111 , . ( NV" fir !
,!;••• iik Aitipll-1. 1,, .
,vik
c.,_;_i , Ihisi win. i 406 ,,:_,..4.i....„....
.:..;.......4..
s 12,,,.:.'...; . ill .P" V/04/ „" %..''' '-
/Th,•:•;*,••••••..ies ., s
I l J .-_,
:.ti+ Staring Lake (;)r.----'%..\:'1
Pioneer Tr: __ '_ Sri...,�;:•.a.:rr;:. �/
1 )
11
•••'ttii"A ltl.• r/P0 1 ��A SITE
S _ •
'Y"
1 11111111i ljj - `'f- y,i • . f. —
\, \ •.._....
Flying Cloud •
meta _
•In. ,---• ----...."---7' ' •-----...1 i %I . Jo
to
Diaig.
lailigi
I ;�✓ `-
111-....
....4,1,..i.:,.;.:. ay.. righiritft4
'Ili: •
co;-.. Grras• 'Lakes. ;i< c '"
f .i. �r,^ti lkt-:Nur.: !- ram= '. lii^'•
r•,r i'?:.. ; ter- •
1
�i• fir•
1.:x
t• Y %liMf 4.+
v Yf •,••rwi
'Slue LakeR•. �-
/�' - ��/ .r;'1,Zi.:wr• j
.y'.ice r,'•...v•�.... •'F w.
! ' L i Fi�o .La
-' '*None
! ed_87 I Minneapolis/Saint Paul(MN/WI)
Map data Copyright.0 Etak,Inc.,1984-1995.All rights reserved.
I Ji Microsoft Automap Streets Cop right-0 and(p) 1988-1995 Microsoft Corporation
STARING LAKE
• I RYNIRIT A
M .
EX, , 6q- P..-t--G- _ .
. ,
, .
, ..„ , ....„ ..i.,,,,,
• ;y
.., ..„, .
, ..„••:, „ . ... . ,
• 1r• .
k d
�,-�
a
,.• 4,
ti
•
4•ti
;-9.e�(F.t
•yy}y�• am
! w, t
n^ i. ,L i •y :f i _
1 A
ft
}K
r •
f [ ,;
r..rt via '•i
;�{ ''Sri•. 4 1 ,
j s« {a y`7 •Q i
w: 3 :
•• �� �-
~ ,4" l .
. y !f
- _
k
a
• i ..f,
. ' ,• ' '
•
._4,
.-... .....a. :'.-''''''. ...- _fir}.l►L.L_ ,.�:+t• r'''w - ,.�•,�..'';. •�•�±.w .�.. - _ `• ...
.-•�= v:�_"..e+.r.'+l-.n.c �� '4#tom;i ^+t.•- ry. S -i -
;
J
1 k
1 ` _. ,�� ,r l,•' ',.�- �11. •y�r.jl :ram-.%,^._ •�
(
ja.'S• r i wad` e i '�'-.�•�5+-,�...t„� yr. }! �•._, j ,1
-�'''..'^ "�,,L,,-".'y__ STOP 1 .., ctR. t 1 ':�: r -,.-
.
- .. .- -•.i'fSr.^w7CwT"A C%G-'_;_,'::�L-.3'r> _...[ < L^R - __
4
.;
1
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.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE#
0 �,, . 1&S2u_ iRt% P„ . g9.Axik cl, t,$, q3q-2 9
Ph c. , .Y c13&-3ygp
1914 C In C- 9344 016
/L//6 4 , �ilAr'.
i-kr. L I� .C�� � � --- - 93/-5 Zf7
,► /i1�1 J `- -t` 9? 19 /7
A� A 4/77 /Y7 ot,eAr. 727:-P69
. ,4 . a- /� 7� 14. 9449•agg7
as pcii, 93 7- 5,3 5
cP,á0 .. - / & Jam. 937-S3 ys
9(f , ' , 937- 9
+ 89/6 P. B pay 9s
'� ' . z f i- ,�9. F .h.dia . 97//�1.
J ( .t IA c N / f! A (U.tliAn &i .403 Dl CA 9 .34-064'
ri),., f K itt `!).aQ it 8 9.9' �'lpAI(O e '(de_ 9(16-- 76 PZ_l'iii (,r;.7„ i (1.41J(' F V:`�l!:. rl. t((.1e6 ' 3V(ink,
::* el, r c: co t 10: . 1'74 -t- Ikck r Cir'• g3L1--14- (cool
. I/96 W '(oO =T k r- O i r• CI3 (-1-LIIOS
S112 PG,-. g Q# . M- Il,�6
4 (---e}' Gad / q3 6 w.,444), • 93 ci BSI/
DeD v r4'3 --,-- ,' UU 93-7- 033e
(7a.c-c.„.-...y.-....-.t-,_, 9.-1- Or..: ?j C.z 93 7-9 -d-`/
'- �--7 8412(=. %.r, -gw °lam---cIZ2-43
'I'31gt-e, ' ' . , el- g3ti'7[0(
iu�'t /h f�icm/t s fi ! 94/Q ZZ7d •
p&44,ai ,_s - 790 z -/I v(i .e-%.- ,_?7-6z7_?
�'yc Q 00 g9O?r wno y- qA7-G7?-73
r..
APR-08-96 MON 12 :46 PM __.
- �.O1u4 L uie I ';.y riauner, mike rranzen, and express• •z concerns and opposition.
-Mike Franz,. 949-8485.
TUB IS AN INVESTMENT IN YOUR NEIGEO3ORHOOD.DO SOMETHING.
DO SOM -TEONG.
THANE{YOU. ..,"�sriNliiii a, ,. �� `� fi
r,al...
fir. r,. r ,-e-raLtc i, e`In
1.1,o
viz i3
,,,t.
.. qf1;..., ,. ,,....,: 11 .
•
' : • k a• " t • l _ ',i1 i it�%,•
• / •,, . • ' Q`./ .. v
2:i
s .AC. C.
• ..:07'.N. 1 •• - - -
" : , . ,�
U
.. ;,:',
itt x• ��
..
y; .toji: i.....
• ; : , g
:,3 f 5ratzikla . .. e
w.
iti:!r,! . LAKE ..0 ... —
1
1
.‘::,.. i i_i1IlI1I
■ P110
--TO UJ Ho (-7-- AAA.-( Ccs,",c.-Jziu d .
A i - -A txr5 rDc.0-r- 0 V Etre i A r Pr A&)-4 w, n—
r G-i57-ci? ,A q D PPasi s-.vi•1 or rl-ce z ,eo•N36 pizOPoSe2 ,
76 i-.-.E chi i q? D F 40 Detre ffae! Z fi- -s f KM)T. 44 irctJ Y i(,94/
g., v£ .1.r Tf-(€ 4--C,az02et c. -Lg'tfg-c.oSyE•N-e#LTt-,
K E 1-44k s-1--
Ti-1 u iJ6 we NEE' I S ratio w tJ ua s s OK An.u,c."rk - rArwi,
1-1 Cr 5. . .1 • w oiti.: Ara—_• . 'a - m P ).c.r6 TO s I i G L.t P,4.►ti i -C
(Ao.1 er's a A P? P n it- -m.y s i 0.(/) LoTs (,vcj-v CL(A 57-41Z. /am
.
V5 / 0 MOiz &AN LN
• Eb£n.1 NeA, i2, t, in N '
. bog ?K 7 8 3 -- 7c)3 Z
V1 EQ4. PKE 9'3` - ' - 7
1
i
April 17, 1996
To. The Eden Prairie Planning Commission
and The Eden Prairic City Council
He: The Staring Lake Townhouse Project
Wc 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. 13ut in trying to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of this Act,
Eden Prairic should be trying to spread affordable housing throughout its new construction
projects. Wc 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 go into a project four times (or maybe more!)the size of
anything else in Palen 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 i den Prairie,current residents,
Staring Lake,park users and future residents ofthe area around Staring Lake.
•
Iyou,
A..
aul S. Olson &Laura Dockery
8899 F lesher Circle
Palen Prairie
1,,
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 Tcmail, 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 like 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.
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,
(7214 .1.? 1("-
Micki and Ron Gamer
8934 Hilloway Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
cayplaa.aoc
()_5-
i
1
V,' '
, ,)) ,L- 1 ZY\ ,
_ c--f'
1 ,,i . <-T
f- , ,
, ,1 . ) i , ,7i , Y
: P % N). ,,07 , j!,,c, j
•f_.A I --7i i (5(3 . c,uc)'
r..2 . 'J 1 .' D.—
,4)) — .c::: L,
. 0._ 4 ,
,-_,.
.......N ..' . _ ,, cl._
, cl, ,/ „) ,, _,
,, _.,„ ),
,„:, -, „, ,,, ) 5 . -f, _ ))-f a ti
,. -, i
; 4
4 .*j ,1 Q .. u_,? -J/ . °
. .,} ,)L, `J iQ cs. ' <)J .___ '61 1
1 , '.) Y i %'
--) ) '; 1 ) c. . ,1 ti — ,
-) ''- b.. _ $ c) .0 :.; ", '2 6 )0
; ,_ .S' `? 6 ,c , q ci \3 . .. (.. )
_.2. C '? : C5) (j '-. ! 4‘I (Cli '
7 / d j -s .J ‘C II C.-- )
JS
. ' ) -1, ; 3- AS c,'. .. -3/ , .c . .,_ ) ,'-it
_.. 0 (_-_,‘ d (_, 0) ic __H—LD 5,-)
I-76 -"
FAX , Date 03.-19/96
INumber of pages including cover sheet
TO: EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING FROM: GILBERT H. GEHLE
COM1.JJSSION 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: ❑ Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ 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 1 NOW MOST PEOPLE IN THE STARING LAKT 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
UPCOMING HEARINGS ON THIS DEVELOPMENT SO A FAIR ASSESSMENT OF THE AREA
RESIDENTS CAN BE MADE!
"7,)
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 impactthis 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
R. H. WILLIAMS SALES, INC:
9061 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344
(6121 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 twnhomes 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,
v kb l h143
Robert K.Williams
N'W
yy q;. e'� �s }x•kfi• om .4 .• � VA• `�
u ' d • .• •� �O \ h; 4 4 .,n... t 1 {A,'� N, ^YY
t" .. � .M
'&t
A
d
4
ti+
CITY RESPONSE ,
C' `
TO,..'• 4 t
y' NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS
. ..
2
SI •••
;:�'��1 "ACT•: 7,....,,..•*� • •;vi • '.T .. ;y ...
•R,` ,:.: a;M;r;c,;t,}++ro y I q,ir • sk:K,.:, ,..:, :.r o.k a••. `°?;'• 1 ,...9h k• a-a. s �y+.. .:, S.•z.,., S S•.
,. „,....:.0.4:x:i�C: :ka...'3 J•..c•::" y'::.:::,:k„;a:0,..4 :..,:Z''+:' .•.Y S,,,,.."N"'a.Cuie, �'�, 'a�c.'a`ha.`:\: t'+::P+?.t
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 usC would also apply,
even if the land uses in the northeast, northwest and southwest were included in the
project description.
.
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.
•
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
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.
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.
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.
M1jmUmiceVnemoskhryues.
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.
i ��
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:yen4nikemoema sw
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
ic 1
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
R'y, P
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.
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 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'h 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 eventually Staring Lake.
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.
rr 2
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 2%:%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
• 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
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
Townhome/Stuart96
•
i°A
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: July 16, 1996
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO. v.8
•
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger KOPESKY ADDITION
Scott A. Kipp
Requested Council Action:
• Continue the Public Hearing until the August 6, 1996 City Council meeting as stated in the attached
letter from the Developer.
+61-09498390 CITY EDEN F'PR I F'I E 585 F'01 JUL 09 '96 16:20
•� „ ln�.. - rHA 1 W1C) b -'r'kil%J6 P.1/1
TR Hansen Thorp Steven L Peliinen.P.E. Paul A.Thorp, L.S.
Laurie A.Johnson,P.E. Lloyd E.Pew,L.S.
"� e111 en Olson Inc. _ V Ted W.Anderson D. Daniel Thorp,L.S.
"j Jan Wager Anderson,L.A. Dennis B. Olmstead, L S.
Engineers.Surveyors Landscape Architects
'July 9, 1996
City of Eden Prairie, MN.
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
Attn: City Council do Jan Schneider
Subj: Kopesky Addition
We are hereby requesting that the public hearing for the above project be
rescheduled until August 6, 1996.
Respectfully,
HANSEN THORP PEt J INEN OLSON INC.
Paul A. Thorp, L.S.
PAThns
2
DATE: 07/16/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: v
SECTION: Public Hearing �-
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: (Published June 27, 1996)
Engineering Division Vacation 96-06: Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements in Shady Oak
David Olson Industrial Park Fifth Addition
Recommended Action:
Adopt the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements as platted in Shady Oak
Industrial Park Fifth Addition.
Overview:
The plat of Shady Oak Industrial Park Fifth Addition was approved by the City Council on
January 22, 1980. Drainage and utility easements were dedicated within this plat. On
November 20, 1984, the Council approved the MN TX Business Center which was a replat of
the Fifth Addition plat. New easements were dedicated with the MN TX plat. Underlying
easements (from the Fifth Addition) were not vacated with the replat and may conflict with
existing buildings. The property owner has therefore requested the vacation of the underlying
easements from the plat of Shady Oak Industrial Park Fifth Addition.
Supporting Information:
• Vacation drawings
• Easement Vacation Application
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
IN SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK FIFTH ADDITION
(VAC 96-06)
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain drainage and utility easements described therein
as follows:
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Shady Oak Industrial Park 5th Addition, as recorded in the
office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly of a line
165 feet west of the east line of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section
12, Township 116, Range 22.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 16, 1996 after due notice was published and
posted as required by law;
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said drainage and utility easements are not necessary
and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
1. Said drainage and utility easements as above described are hereby vacated.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of proceedings in accordance
with M.S.A. 412.851.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 16, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
VP=Jan CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
prairie SECTION: Payment of Claims 7-16-96
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.
Finance Payment of Claims VI
Checks No. 43334 thru 43847
Action/Direction:
Approve payment of claims.
1
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUL 11, 1996, 10:30 AM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
43334 $30.00 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
43335 $85.30 BURNSVILLE HEATING HEATING LICENSE FD 10 ORG
43336 $253.24 COUNTRY SUITES SCHOOLS POLICE
43337 $95.32 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43338 $415.00 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC AUDIT & FINANCIAL FINANCE DEPT
43339 $75.00 JIM DEMANN SCHOOLS POLICE
43340 $4,076.50 JOHN KLINGELHUTZ BUILDING PERMIT FD 10 ORG
43341 $75.00 LYNN GARRY SCHOOLS POLICE
43342 $25.00 MARILYN STRAND LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43343 $203.47 MARVIN TOUFEN DEPOSITS DRUG FORFEITURE
43344 $32,081.36 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC SEWER LIFTSTATION
43347 $31.35 PREFERRED MECH MECHANICAL PERMIT FD 10 ORG
43348 $13.15 RCI MECHANICAL MECHANICAL PERMIT FD 10 ORG
43349 $511.00 SOUTHWEST HENNEPIN DRUG DEPOSITS DRUG FORFEITURE
43350 $718.36 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE POLICE
43351 $1,029.90 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE SEWER UTILITY-GEN
43352 $400.00 BRENDA UTING OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SUMMER THEATRE
43353 $90.00 DENISE HAAGE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY
43354 $100.00 EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY BANK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STARING LAKE CONCERT
43355 $40.00 EMMETT J STARK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STARING LAKE CONCERT
43356 $26.50 ERIC M LEBLANC SCHOOLS POLICE
43357 $50.00 FIRST MINNETONKA CITY BANK CITY BUILDING RENTAL SPECIAL EVENTS
43358 $2,826.27 G & K SERVICES DIRECT PURCHASE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS PARK MAINT
43359 $55.00 H W ELECTRONICS INC FALSE ALARM FEES FD 10 ORG
43360 $20,824.00 J CRAFT INC OTHER EQUIPMENT STREET MAINT
43361 $48.75 KNOTTS CAMP SNOOPY SPECIAL EVENTS FEES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43362 $50.00 MARVIN WEEGMAN CITY BUILDING RENTAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
43363 $5.00 MTA US&C OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FINANCE DEPT
43364 $494.45 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIBUTING MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS
43365 $22,500.00 NORTHSTAR RESTAURANTS INC DEPOSITS ESCROW
43366 $44.10 PARAGON CABLE CABLE TV FIRE
43367 $450.00 PAULINE KACHER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SUMMER THEATRE
43368 $75.00 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH FD 10 ORG
43369 $166.44 SHERI L MOONEN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND
43370 $749.54 SISINNI FOOD SERVICE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION
43372 $300.00 SUZANNE HOARN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SUMMER THEATRE
43373 $905.25 THE W GORDAN SMITH COMPANY LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES EQUIPMENT MAINT
43374 $2,763.00 TIE COMMUNICATIONS INC DEPOSITS ESCROW
43375 $450.00 TRACEY LARSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SUMMER THEATRE
43376 $19.77 WENDY M SCHNEIDER USE OF PERSONAL AUTO TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43392 $7.18 AARON ROLFSRUD OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43393 $18.22 ADAM JUSTIC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43394 $28.12 ALICIA A KUIPERS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43395 $20.62 ALISSA WONG OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43396 $15.62 AMIE FOXWORTH OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43397 $20.93 ANDREW R MATTHEWS •
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43398 $13.12 BEN DENKINGER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43399 $10.00 BLAKE CARLSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43400 $12.18 CHRISTINE LUSIAN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43401 $16.87 COLIN HARER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43402 $26.87 COREY YEAROUS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43403 $18.90 DAN LENNON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43404 $2.50 DREW PETERSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43405 $28.12 ELISE LIEBO OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43406 $23.12 EMILY WILSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
4)
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUL 11, 1996, 10:30 AM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
43407 $5.62 ERIC MORAN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43408 $13.75 ERIC SMITH OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43409 $13.75 ERIC STRATHY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43410 $16.87 ERIC TAGGATZ OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43411 $16.25 ERICA FAURE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43412 $19.06 GAVIN LINDAHL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43413 $17.50 GEOFF HOLTGREWE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43414 $17.18 JENNY HANSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43415 $10.00 JESSICA JOHNSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43416 $18.75 JIMMY WELLS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43417 $20.00 JODY RUDNITSKY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43418 $11.47 KATIE AHMANN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43419 $21.56 KATIE LAVIGNE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43420 $21.87 KELLY STRATHY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43421 $2.50 LARISSA MARTINEZ OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43422 $15.62 LUCAS BEYER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43423 $8.12 MARK KIMITCH OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43424 $33.75 MATTHEW FRANK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43425 $17.50 MAX RIVKIN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43426 $6.87 MORGAN GOTTSCHALK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43427 $2.50 NICK PENNER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43428 $6.87 PAUL KRUSE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43429 $15.62 ROBERT FINNEY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43430 $16.87 SEAN LENNON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43431 $28.75 SMITA SAHU OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43432 $28.35 STEPHANIE AGNEW OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43433 $10.00 STEPHANIE STACIONIS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43434 $35.00 TEALINA MAIRS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43435 $31.72 THOMAS CRAMPTON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
43436 $35.35 EMI CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE
43437 $2,500.00 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON DESIGN & CONST PW STORAGE FACILITY
43438 $25,551.00 HORIZONGRAPHICS PRINTING RECYCLE REBATE
43439 $2,231.26 BELLBOY CORPORATION MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43440 $2,500.16 EAGLE WINE COMPANY MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43441 $42,860.22 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43442 $49,346.91 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43444 $1,446.45 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY BEER CASES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43446 $31,402.06 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43448 $8,687.13 PRIOR WINE COMPANY MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43449 $14,350.49 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43451 $659.94 THE WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43452 $1,164.10 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43454 $2,486.54 BETH NILSSON INSTRUCTOR SERVICE ICE ARENA
43455 $311.99 CARD SERVICES-BUSINESS CARD CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
43456 $66.08 CYNTHIA LANENBERG USE OF PERSONAL AUTO FIRE
43457 $200.00 DAVID LEE KOTTKE . OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STARING LAKE CONCERT
43458 $400.00 DAVID STAHL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43459 $250.00 DAVID WALBRIDGE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43460 $750.00 EMMETT J STARK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SUMMER THEATRE
43461 $600.00 HELLO BOOKING OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STARING LAKE CONCERT
43462 $200.00 JOEL WESTACOTT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43463 $225.00 JUDITH LIEBER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43464 $60.00 KEN SHOCKMAN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43465 $375.00 LINDA FRANKENSTEIN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43466 $350.00 MARY HESS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUL 11, 1996, 10:30 AM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
43467 $189.00 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY BIKE REGISTRATIONS FD 10 ORG
43468 $88.33 PETTY CASH SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR AWARENESS N16
43469 $350.00 ROBERT E LINDAHL JR OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43470 $1,400.00 STEVEN P BILDERBACK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43471 $272.96 SUZANNE HOARN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER THEATRE
43472 $250.00 TIM SCHROEDER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43473 $70.00 UNIVERSITY OF MN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TREE DISEASE
43474 $1,200.83 US POSTMASTER POSTAGE WATER ACCTG
43475 $400.00 WHITEWATER BLUEGRASS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43476 $10,000.00 AMERICANA FIREWORKS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43477 $50.00 ANN FURE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43478 $57.51 EDEN PRAIRIE SENIORS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
43479 $40.00 EMMETT J STARK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43480 $350.00 MARY HESS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STARING LAKE CONCERT
43481 $6,500.00 SPRINGSTED PUBLIC FINANCIAL AD DEPOSITS ESCROW
43482 $307.65 TRACY SPANGRUD OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP
43483 $350.00 WHITEWATER BLUEGRASS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STARING LAKE CONCERT
43484 $128.30 ANOKA CO GOVT CTR GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
43485 $2,274.82 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY DISABILITY IN EMPLOYERS FD 10 ORG
43486 $388.21 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
43487 $350.00 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MPLS BOND DEDUCTION FD 10 ORG
43488 $8,215.50 GREAT WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
43489 $25,748.41 HEALTH PARTNERS HOSPITALIZATION INS BENEFITS
43490 $545.55 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT AND GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
43491 $4,444.22 I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT TRUCT-457 DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
43492 $121,058.40 MEDICA CHOICE COBRA COSTS/REV BENEFITS
43493 $332.00 MINN STATE RETIREMENT SYS DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
43494 $227.42 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
43495 $1,907.50 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
43496 $35.00 MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNI CREDIT UNION FD 10 ORG
43497 $3,215.28 PRUDENTIAL INS CO OF AMERICA-C LIFE INSURANCE EMPLOYERS FD 10 ORG
43498 $110.00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PERA WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
43499 $44,478.64 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS PERA WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
43500 $189.00 UNITED WAY UNITED WAY WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
43520 $45.41 ALLEN R LARSON POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE
43521 $100.00 CALHOUN COMMUNITY BAND OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STARING LAKE CONCERT
43522 $396.00 EUGEN R ELLEFSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL
43523 $378,273.25 FIRST TRUST NATL ASSOC INTEREST CITY CENTER DEBT SERVICE
43524 $250.00 GREG RUSH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUMMER SAFETY CAMP
43525 $1,817.00 J A PRICE AGENCY INC INSURANCE GENERAL
43526 $1,000.00 JON MARK YOUNG OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STARING LAKE CONCERT
43527 $289.72 MARRIOTT COLORADO SPRINGS CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
43528 $491.17 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC BEARPATH LIFT STATION
43529 $385.00 NATL REC AND PARK ASSOC CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
43530 $187.41 RANGER JOES INTERNATIONAL CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE
43531 $5,297.11 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTERPRISES INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT PRESERVE LIQUOR #2
43532 $2,574.00 TRIPLE A FARMS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STORM DRAINAGE
43533 $6,720.50 UNITED PROPERTIES INSURANCE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
43534 $314.95 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE GENERAL
43535 $5,511.53 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE WATER UTILITY-GEN
43536 $55.00 A R WEILER ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
43537 $60.50 ADELE KRANTZ SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES ADULT PROGRAM
43538 $63.00 ALICE HOUTENVILLE LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43539 $21.66 ANITA WIPPERFURTH LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
43540 $52.50 ANN LUSK LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
Lj
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUL 11, 1996, 10:30 AM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
43541 $56.00 ANNETTE KUCERA LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43542 $78.00 ALLIED BLACKTOP CO LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
43543 $7.00 BARB PALKERT LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43544 B TSY VARNERPROGSUMMER S$28.00 E ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR KILL DEVELOP
D
43545 $36.00 BROOKE FULLER LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43546 $49.00 CAROL DEAN LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43547 $28.00 CAROL TIMM LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43548 $8.00 CAROLINE SWEENEY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43549 $74.00 CHERI THOMPSON ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROD ACTIVITY CAMP
43550 $49.00 CHRIS HOWE LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43551 $16.00 CHRISTINE PETTE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43552 $14.50 CINDY MCPHERSON LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43553 $16.00 CLAIR JOING ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43554 $15.00 DAREN HAAS ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
43555 $16.00 DEAN TRUITT ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43556 $8.00 DEB SALERNO ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43557 $7.00 DEBBIE BAK LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43558 $50.00 DEBORAH TRUAY LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
43559 $54.00 DELIA GRIFFITH ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43560 $16.00 DELORES & ALVIN KRAUSE SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
43561 $31.00 DENELL HERROID ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND
43562 $24.00 DENISE PERSRAM ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG YOUTH TENNIS
43563 $8.00 DIANE BLAIR ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43564 $7.00 DIANE DAHL LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43565 $16.00 DIANE FINNEY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43566 $16.00 DIANE PHEPSEN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43567 $8.00 ELIZABETH BEER ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS TRIPS
43568 $7.00 ELLEN CRUMP LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43569 $160.00 ERICA KUCHERA LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43570 $32.00 GLADYS SIMENSON SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROD FEES ADULT PROGRAM
43571 $15.00 GREG WEISSHAAR ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
43572 $52.50 HEATHER VALITON LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43573 $8.00 HEIDI LOVING ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROD SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43574 $8.00 HELEN EMELCHENKO ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROD SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43575 $1.00 HELEN MCCARTY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43576 $8.00 JAMES MILLER SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
43577 $21.50 JAN GLENN LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43578 $26.00 JAN TOTMAN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP
43579 $24.50 JANE EDWARDSON LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43580 $7.00 JANE RANNOW LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43581 $45.00 JANE TOUMEY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG DRAMA CAMP
43582 $3.50 JANET CONNOR LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43583 $7.00 JANET HENRIKSEN LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43584 $8.00 JANICE GRADY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43585 $8.00 JANICE KUSLEIKA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43586 $42.50 JOANNA JOHNS . LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43587 $74.00 JOHN MALLOY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG DAY CAMP
43588 $16.00 JULIE TEATERS ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43589 $3.50 KAREN CORTESE ZONING CHARGES/VARIANCE FEES POOL LESSONS
43590 $8.00 KAREN LEU ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43591 $37.00 KAREN TINUCCI LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43592 $27.00 KATHLEEN MAYER ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43593 $8.00 KATHY MURNANE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROD SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43594 $24.50 KATHY UECKER LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43595 $8.00 KATHY WIRBISKY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUL 11, 1996, 10:30 AM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
43596 $24.50 KAY VAN RIPER LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43597 $225.00 KEVIN TESTER LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43598 $28.00 KIM BACKLUND LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43599 $64.80 KIM PRAY LESSONS/CLASSES FITNESS CLASSES
43600 $8.00 KIMBERLY MILLER ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43601 $7.00 KRISTI TIES LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43602 $81.00 KRISTIN NORMAN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP
43603 $85.00 LAURA LARSON ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
43604 $23.00 LENNI GRAVEN LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
43605 $15.00 LEONIE GARDNER ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND
43606 $30.00 LINDA HERRMANN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
43607 $56.00 LINDA KOSIR LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43608 $74.00 LINDA LARSEN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG DAY CAMP
43609 $10.50 LINDA SARNA ZONING CHARGES/VARIANCE FEES POOL LESSONS
43610 $3.50 LISA MCCLOUD LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43611 $49.00 LIZ DOLLIE LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43612 $48.00 LYNETTE GUST ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND
43613 $28.00 LYNN ZEVENBERGEN LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43614 $33.00 MARC BUETTNER ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG YOUTH TENNIS
43615 $8.00 MARIANNE BUSHBAUM SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
43616 $15.00 MARK H.B. WILLIAMSON ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
43617 $8.00 MARSHA EVERSON ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43618 $55.50 MARTY MUELLER LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
43619 $27.00 MARY BETH KRAUSERT ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
43620 $225.00 MARY BOUTA LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
43621 $52.00 TAKASHI OKUTANI ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND
43622 $189.95 A T & T TELEPHONE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43623 $92.75 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SOCIAL
43624 $22.31 ACTIVE RUBBER STAMP OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
43625 $126.47 ADVERTISING INCENTIVES ADVERTISING PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43626 $225.75 AMERICAN MGMT ASSOC TRAINING SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GEN
43627 $293.91 AMERICAN RED CROSS TRAINING SUPPLIES POOL OPERATIONS
43628 $202.25 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI TRAINING SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GEN
43629 $1,644.01 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
43630 $515.00 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY PRINTING SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
43631 $380.20 AQUA CITY PLUMBING AND HEATING CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER WELL #12
43632 $21.03 AQUA ENGINEERING INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINT
43633 $28.96 ARBOURS GARDEN & FLORAL CENTER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
43634 $16.24 ARLYCE LINDSOE USE OF PERSONAL AUTO COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN
43635 $343.80 AVR INC BUILDING MATERIALS RILEY LAKE
43636 $1,197.89 BAILEY NURSERIES INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SENIOR AWARENESS N16
43637 $308.94 BAKER POOLS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES POOL MAINTENANCE
43638 $269.91 BALDWIN SUPPLY CO CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43639 $1,143.35 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
43640 $824.10 BELLBOY CORPORATION MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
43642 $494.00 BERWALD ROOFING CO INC. CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43643 $385.26 BILL CLARK OIL CO INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43644 $152.88 BILL LEMPESIS USE OF PERSONAL AUTO PRESERVE LIQUOR #2
43645 $127.20 BLUE BELL ICE CREAM MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE ROUND LAKE CONCESSIONS
43646 $5,310.00 SRC - ELECTIONS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT ELECTION
43647 $283.50 BRENDA JERDE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL
43648 $812.84 BSN SPORTS REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES SPRING SKILL DEVELOP
43649 $3,059.34 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE
43650 $131.19 CATCO CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43651 $1,549.50 CITY OF ST PAUL SCHOOLS POLICE
6
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUL 11, 1996, 10:30 AM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
43652 $206.60 CO 2 SERVICES CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE
43653 $423.66 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS TRAINING SUPPLIES SAFETY
43654 $299.74 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINT
43655 $88.23 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINT
43656 $181.41 COPY EQUIPMENT INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT
43657 $36.60 CULLIGAN-METRO WATER SOFTNER OUTDOOR CTR-STARING LAKE
43658 $10,098.74 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43659 $144.98 D C HEY COMPANY RENTALS FIRE
43660 $252.00 DAN DESAULNIERS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL
43661 $800.32 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE
43662 $353.58 DELEGARD TOOL CO SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43663 $36.00 DEM CON LANDFILL INC WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINT
43664 $80.00 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONST TESTING-SOIL BORING LIME SLUDGE
43665 $850.67 DONS SOD SERVICE LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL RILEY LAKE
43666 $1,896.00 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43667 $21.00 DYNAMIC GRAPHICS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY BROCHURE
43668 $974.48 E F JOHNSON CO CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE
43669 $565.90 E H RENNER & SONS DEPOSITS ESCROW
43670 $391.86 EARL F ANDERSON OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINT
43671 $186.40 ECOLAB INC CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT FIRE STATION #2
43672 $162.00 ED BRION OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL
43673 $77.00 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER MEETING EXPENSES IN SERVICE TRAINING
43674 $482.14 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT N BLDG RENTAL SUMMER THEATRE
43675 $745.87 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES STORM DRAINAGE
43676 $95.37 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND
43677 $2,358.70 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC EQUIP TESTING & CERTIFICATION FIRE
43678 $1,368.53 EPA OTHER EQUIPMENT FIRE
43679 $295.60 ERICKSON CONSTRUCTION DEPOSITS ESCROW
43680 $1,120.00 ERIE LANDMARK CO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL RESERVE
43681 $43.93 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE UNALLOCATED PK BOND REF
43682 $5,851.99 F F JEDLICKI INC IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS ATHERTON STUDY
43683 $18,186.00 FALLS AUTOMOTIVE INC AUTOS P/S REVOLVING FD
43684 $86.32 FERRELLGAS MOTOR FUELS ICE ARENA
43685 $111.29 FILTRATION SYSTEMS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43686 $36.00 FIRE FINDINGS TRAINING SUPPLIES POLICE
43687 $139,390.00 FIRST TRUST NATL ASSOC INTEREST IMPROVEMENT DEBT 92
43688 $1,827.00 FLANAGAN SALES INC LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL CAPITAL OUTLAY PARK
43689 $545.28 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS SEWER SYSTEM MAINT
43690 $89.94 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER
43691 $18.70 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL CANINE SUPPLIES POLICE
43692 $630.00 FOCUSED TRAINING SYSTEMS INC CONFERENCE WATER UTILITY-GEN
43693 $159.00 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG IN REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
43694 $275.00 GARY DIETHELM OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES CEMETARY OPERATION
43695 $1,574.08 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPAN FURNITURE & FIXTURES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43696 $48.55 GLENROSE FLORAL AND GIFT SHOPS EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES
43697 $336.87 GLIDDEN COMPANY •
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43698 $194.90 GOLD COUNTRY INC SIGNATURE CON CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE
43699 $119.18 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SER TIRES EQUIPMENT MAINT
43700 $61.25 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER SYSTEM MAINT
43701 $824.20 GROVE NURSERY CENTER LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL RILEY LAKE
43702 $815.50 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 92 MILLER PK BOND ISSUE BO1
43703 $910.58 HAYDEN-MURPHY EQUIPMENT COMPAN EQUIPMENT RENTAL 92 MILLER PK BOND ISSUE BO1
43704 $308.57 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE
43705 $781.36 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POSTAGE ELECTION
43706 $5.00 HEPI C/O TOM KUHLMAN DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
1
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUL 11, 1996, 10:30 AM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
43707 $499.22 HIRSHFIELDS PAINT MANUFACTURIN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINT
43708 $131.18 HODGES BADGE COMPANY INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POOL SPECIAL EVENTS
43709 $1,998.00 HONEYWELL INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43710 $112.77 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43711 $393.48 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43712 $153.00 INVER HILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES
43713 $100.00 IPMA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
43714 $187.88 J J KELLER & ASSOCIATES INC DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS SEWER UTILITY-GEN
43715 $597.50 JAMES BISSONETT & ASSOC INC PRINTING HUMAN RESOURCES
43716 $875.00 JANET DUBOIS INSTRUCTOR SERVICE OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
43717 $787.75 JANEX INC CLEANING SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
43718 $150.00 JENNIFER L AXEL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SPRING SKILL DEVELOP
43719 $36.79 JERRYS NEWMARKET OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
43720 $677.84 JOEL ENTERPRISES EQUIPMENT PARTS SEWER SYSTEM MAINT
43721 $950.00 JOEL WESTACOTT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STARING LAKE CONCERT
43722 $50.40 JOHN LUNN USE OF PERSONAL AUTO PRESERVE LIQUOR #2
43723 $241.71 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT
43724 $70.72 KITTY PORTA USE OF PERSONAL AUTO CITY MANAGER
43725 $258.68 KRAUS ANDERSON DEPOSITS ESCROW
43726 $60.94 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC CLEANING SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
43727 $95.00 LAGERQUIST CORP CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43728 $1,703.11 LAKE REGION VENDING MISC TAXABLE PRESERVE LIQUOR #2
43729 $1,634.69 LAMETTRYS COLLISION CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINT
43730 $556.25 LANO EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43731 $8.49 LAURIE HELLING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL RECREATION ADMIN
43732 $950.46 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINT
43733 $198.00 LEE BRANT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL
43734 $185.00 LINDA KLOECKER ADVERTISING JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43735 $196.91 LOCATOR & MONITOR SALES CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER SYSTEM MAINT
43736 $179.73 LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
43737 $45.87 LYONS SAFETY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER SYSTEM MAINT
43738 $156.87 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43739 $549.00 MARSHALL & SWIFT OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ASSESSING-ADM
43740 $879.73 MARTIN T ANDERSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1993 REHAB 54044
43741 $306.00 MARTIN-MCALLISTER PHYSICAL & PSYCO EXAM HUMAN RESOURCES
43742 $900.00 MASON CUTTERS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT STORM DRAINAGE
43743 $1,429.70 MASYS CORPORATION CONTRACTED COMM MAINT POLICE
43744 $29.00 MATEJCEKS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINT
43745 $216.30 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING POLICE
43746 $183.51 MCGLYNN BAKERIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SENIOR AWARENESS N16
43748 $15.50 MCGUIR.E MECH PLUMBING PERMIT FD 10 ORG
43749 $567.29 MENARDS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
43751 $959.00 METRO AREA PROMOTIONS CO INC PRINTING COMMUNITY SERVICES
43752 $6,241.95 METRO CONCRETE RAISING INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT STORM DRAINAGE
1 43753 $1,119.15 METRO EROSION INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES 92 MILLER PK BOND ISSUE B01
43754 $704.62 METRO SALES INCORPORATED CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT GENERAL
43755 $415,622.00 METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL WASTEWAT WASTE DISPOSAL SEWER UTILITY-GEN
43756 $54.00 MICHAEL LYNNS TENNIS SHOP OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL YOUTH TENNIS
43757 $20.16 MICHAEL W JACQUES USE OF PERSONAL AUTO PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
43758 $3,729.17 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION PATCHING ASPHALT STREET MAINT
43759 $381.11 MINNEAPOLIS EQUIPMENT CO RENTALS WATER SYSTEM MAINT
43760 $952.38 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
43761 $92.76 MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL TRAINING SUPPLIES SAFETY
43762 $333.20 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES
43763 $370.00 MPLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE SCHOOLS POLICE
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUL 11, 1996, 10:30 AM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
43764 $266.21 MTA MARKETING INCENTIVES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER SAFETY CAMP
43765 $819.68 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43766 $348.90 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43767 $255.07 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE PHOTO SUPPLIES POLICE
43768 $215.00 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK A DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
43769 $1,217.16 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES
43770 $53.84 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIBUTING MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE ROUND LAKE CONCESSIONS
43771 $309.90 NORTHERN REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINT
43772 $218.48 OFFICE MAX FURNITURE & FIXTURES STREET MAINT
43773 $242.46 OHLIN SALES OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE
43774 $794.78 OLSON CHAIN & CABLE CO INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TRAFFIC SIGNALING
43775 $510.33 OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE EQUIPMENT HUMAN RESOURCES
43776 $61.85 PAPER DIRECT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
43777 $83.83 PAPER WAREHOUSE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND
43778 $292.60 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HEALTHSYS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SAFETY
43779 $262.50 PAUL BROWN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS
43780 $144.92 PENN RACQUET SPORTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP
43781 $180.00 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTL COMPARABLE WORTH MAINT HUMAN RESOURCES
43782 $90.00 PETER SMITH OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL
43783 $117.14 PETSMART OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT
43784 $231.89 PH WAREHOUSE SALES INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINT
43785 $865.25 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
43786 $459.37 POWERTEX SPORTSWEAR INC CLOTHING & UNIFORMS YOUTH ATHLETICS
43787 $499.64 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43788 $415.71 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINT
43789 $377.81 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
43790 $255.00 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE
43791 $2,878.72 PRECISION PAVEMENT MARKING CONTRACTED STRIPING TRAFFIC SIGNALING
43792 $945.00 PUMP & METER SERVICE INC EQUIPMENT TESTING & CERT EQUIPMENT MAINT
43793 $255.72 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43794 $381.51 R E FRITZ INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
43795 $67.51 R&R MARINE INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINT
43796 $112.00 RAINBOW FOODS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
43797 $1,828.44 RDO EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43798 $178.92 RESPOND SYSTEMS TRAINING SUPPLIES SAFETY
43799 $558.91 RHS RESOURCE CENTER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINT
43800 $626.86 RICOH CORPORATION CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT GENERAL
43801 $3,690.73 RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY W PARKWAY SAME AS IC067
43802 $9,081.12 ROLLINS OIL CO MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43803 $122.48 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
43804 $37.84 SANDY WERTS USE OF PERSONAL AUTO REC SUPERVISOR
43805 $1,529.38 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC SEAL COATING CONTRACTED STREET MAINT
43806 $88.50 SCHAFER EQUIPMENT CO SMALL TOOLS STREET MAINT
43807 $87.00 SECURITY PRODUCTS CORP POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE
43808 $3,570.00 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES
43809 $293.31 SHIELY COMPANY •
LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL FLYING CLOUD ATHL FIELDS
43810 $75.33 SHOR-LINE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT
43811 $478.10 SNELL MECHANICAL INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES POOL MAINTENANCE
43812 $265.19 SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY SMALL TOOLS STREET MAINT
43813 $10,284.21 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CO RD 18
43814 $157.50 SSPC PUBLICATIONS SALES TRAINING SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GEN
43815 $224.33 ST JOSEPH EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43816 $817.14 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43817 $14.60 STAR TRIBUNE MISC NON-TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
43818 $1,701.76 STREICHERS EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
9
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUL 11, 1996, 10:30 AM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
43819 $183.95 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
43820 $95.00 SWEDLUNDS WASTE DISPOSAL OUTDOOR CTR-STARING LAKE
43821 $274.70 THE STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINT
43822 $1,789.00 THE U S CONFERENCE OF MAYORS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
43823 $29.98 THE W GORDAN SMITH COMPANY LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES EQUIPMENT MAINT
43824 $2,024.87 THE WORK CONNECTION OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PARK MAINT
43825 $2,231.18 THERMA-STOR PRODUCTS OTHER EQUIPMENT WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43826 $2,000.00 THOMAS BUCHER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES GENERAL
43827 $90.00 TIE COMMUNICATIONS INC CABLE TV GENERAL
43828 $752.10 TNEMEC COMPANY INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINT
43829 $380.00 TODD OLNESS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL
43830 $83.76 TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY EQUIPMENT RENTAL OAK POINT SPECIAL EVENTS
43831 $306.00 TOM HOLMES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL
43832 $97.10 TRIA MANN USE OF PERSONAL AUTO ADAPTIVE RECREATION
43833 $56.13 TRIARCO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION
43834 $6,932.09 TRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO AUTOS P/R REVOLVING FD
43835 $387.88 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN MTKA CITY CENTER GROUNDS MNTC FIRE STATION #2
43836 $268.25 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43837 $34.48 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO SAFETY SUPPLIES FIRE
43838 $657.14 UNIFORMS UNILIMITED CLOTHING & UNIFORMS FIRE
43839 $249.36 UNITED LABORATORIES CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINT
43840 $766.01 VESSCO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
43841 $80.11 W W GRAINGER INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL RILEY LAKE
43842 $538.68 WATER SPECIALITY OF MN INC CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE
43843 $27,305.77 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CORPORATION EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER METER REPAIR
43844 $5.00 WEYERHAEUSER WASTE DISPOSAL EPCC MAINTENANCE
43845 $79.95 WORDPERFECT MAGAZINE TRAINING SUPPLIES POLICE
43846 $189.89 WORLD DRYER REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
43847 $127.00 YALE INCORPORATED CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER TREATMENT PLANT
$1,690,679.76*
•
I0
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY THU, JUL 11, 1996, 10:30 AM
DIVISION TOTAL
N/A $107.65
CONTINGENCY $1,120.00
GENERAL SERVICES $15,047.90
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS & TRAINING $8,958.79
MANAGER $70.72
FINANCE $420.00
HUMAN RESOURCES $3,814.80
COMMUNITY SERVICES $28,442.00
ELECTIONS $5,811.36
ENGINEERING $98.17
INSPECTIONS $54.64
FACILITIES $5,650.56
ASSESSING $554.18
CIVIL DEFENSE $61.64
POLICE DEPT $12,263.61
FIRE DEPT $6,816.82
ANIMAL CONTROL $512.08
STREET DEPT $34,152.81
PARKS $13,877.45
CAPITAL OUTLAY $1,827.00
STREET LIGHTING $325.72
EQUIP MAINT $17,456.84
ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $2,192.50
PLANNING $329.50
COMMUNITY CENTER $17,002.00
BEACHES $55.91
HISTORICAL CULT $248.13
YOUTH RECREATION $6,342.47
SPECIAL EVENTS $14,381.36
ADULT RECREATION $1,052.49
RECREATION ADMINISTRATION $8.49
ADAPTIVE RECREATION $218.40
OAK POINT POOL $561.26
ARTS $6,874.96
PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ $21,292.05
DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $518,669.25
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $209,737.34
CITY CENTER OPERATING COSTS $657.27
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $3,507.20
LIQUOR STORES $51,867.72
LS PRAIRIEVIEW #3 $81,534.39
LS PRESERVE #2 $37,893.31
WATER DEPT $69,353.65
SEWER DEPT $418,544.97
STORM DRAINAGE $13,706.16
AGENCY FUNDS $32,086.15
EQUIPMENT REVOLVING FD $25,118.09
$1,690,679.76•
/I
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 7-16-96
SECTION: ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
ITEM NO.
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Finance Development
John Frane Amendment to City Liquor Code
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Amendment of City Liquor Code relating to the issuance of
temporary liquor licenses.
Background:
The proposed amendment to the City Code is related to the issuance of temporary liquor licenses. The
amendment reflects changes in the law relating to the number of temporary liquor licenses which may be
issued. At the same time the amendment proposes changing the consecutive days from three to four, which
has been permitted by the law for some time. In addition, the amendment substitutes the word "any
municipality"for"city"with regard to liquor catering services. This is probably more in line with present
actual practice.
Supporting Reports:
1. Ordinance for Amending City Liquor Code
1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -96
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 4 RELATING TO BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR LICENSING AND
REGULATION AND ADOPTING CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 4.99 WHICH,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Section 4.31, Subd. 1 is amended to read
as follows:
"SECTION 4.31. TEMPORARY LIQUOR LICENSE.
Subd. 1. The Council may issue to a club,
charitable, religious, or other non-profit
organization in existence for at least three
(3) years, or to a political committee
registered under Minnesota Statutes Section
10A.14 ( "organization° ) , a temporary license
for the on-sale of intoxicating liquor in
connection with a social event held within the
City and sponsored by the licensee. The
license may 'authorize the on--sale of
intoxicating liquor for not more than four (4)
consecutive days and may authorize on-sales on
premises other than premises the licensee owns
or permanently occupies. No more than (a)
three (3) four--day, four •(4) three-day, or six
(6) two-day in any combination not to exceed
12 days per year temporary on-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses may be issued to
any one (1) organization or for any one
location, within a twelve (12) month period or
(b) one (1) temporary license to any one
organization for any one_ location within any
30-day period. The license may provide that
the licensee may contract for intoxicating
liquor catering services with the holder of a
full-year on-sale intoxicating liquor license
issued by any municipality. Temporary
licenses are subject to all laws and
ordinances governing the sale of intoxicating
liquor except those relating to insurance
required by State law and/or City Code and
except those which by their nature are not
applicable. Temporary licenses are not valid
unless first approved by the Minnesota
Commissioner of Public Safety. "
•
2_
-1-
TZ:ST 96. 60 in!' 200-d 82S-1 080-d NOS?l393d9 Ailtid 9Nd1 2T206Z8ZT9
ram►+
Section 2 . City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 4.99 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 .
C:\wp51\ray\ep\ord\liquor tom
3
-2--
TE:ST 96, 60 lflf 1700-d 8£S-1 080-d N0S2B3932f KTUd 9Nd1 £TL06Z8ZT9
CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP
1997 PRELIMINARY BUDGET
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Heritage Room IV
8080 Mitchell Road
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald
Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-
Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City
Manager Chris Enger, Finance Director John
Frane, Assistant Finance Director Don Uram,
Director of Assessing Steve Sinell, Director of
Public Works Gene Dietz, Director of Human
Resources & Community Services Natalie
Swaggert, Director of Inspections Kevin
Schmieg, Director of Parks, Recreation &
Facilities Bob Lambert, Chief of Police Jim
Clark, Accountant Sue Kotchevar, and
Recording Secretary Barb Anderson
ROLL CALL
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II. 1997 PRELIMINARY BUDGET
A. REVIEW OF MAY 28, 1996 MEETING
B. BUDGET MODEL
C. TAX IMPACT MATRIX
D. BUDGET ALTERNATIVES
1. 1997 Base Budget
2. 1997 Service Budget
E. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS
III. OTHER BUSINESS
IV. ADJOURNMENT